Appendix C

Coast Corridor Service Development Plan
MAY 2013

Coast Corridor 

SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the 

data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of 

California or the Federal Railroad Administration. This publication does not constitute a standard, 

specification or regulation. 
FINAL SUBMITTAL 

May 2013 

SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 

Coast Corridor 

Prepared for Prepared by 

California Department of Transportation AECOM 

1120 N Street 2101 Webster Street #1900 

P.O. Box 942874 Oakland, CA 94612 

Sacramento, CA 95814 with Cambridge Systematics 

 & Arellano Associates 

 
[This page intentionally blank] 

 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page i 

Contents 

1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1.1 Organization of the Coast Corridor SDP ................................................................................ 1-3

1.2 Relationship of the Coast Corridor SDP to Other Documents ................................................... 1-4

1.2.1 SDP Support for State Rail Plan ............................................................................................ 1-4

1.2.2 Integration with other SDPs ................................................................................................... 1-4

1.2.3 Relationship to Corridor Environmental Analyses .................................................................. 1-4

2.0 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2 Need ........................................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.2.1 Corridor Transportation Market Challenges ........................................................................... 2-5

2.2.2 Source: Moody’s Economy.com, 2011. Corridor Transportation Market Opportunities ........ 2-6

2.2.3 Current and Forecasted Demand ........................................................................................... 2-7

2.2.4 Corridor Capacity Constraints ................................................................................................ 2-9

2.3 Scope and Objective of the Plan .............................................................................................. 2-10

2.3.1 Scope ................................................................................................................................... 2-10

2.3.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 2-11

3.0 Rationale ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Capacity Benefits ....................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Multi-Modal System Benefits ...................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Operational Benefits ................................................................................................................... 3-2

4.0 Identification of Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Previous Corridor Planning Studies ........................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Corridor Rail Service Plans .................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Corridor Rail Service Improvements ...................................................................................... 4-2

4.2 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.3 Build Alternative ......................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.3.1 Long-Term (2020–2040) Improvements ................................................................................ 4-6

5.0 Evaluation of Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Purpose and Need Criteria ......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Technical Feasibility ................................................................................................................... 5-5

5.3 Economic Feasibility .................................................................................................................. 5-6

5.4 Environmental Resources and Quality ....................................................................................... 5-7

5.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 5-8

6.0 Planning Methodologies ................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Planning Horizons ...................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Year 2020 (Near-Term) .......................................................................................................... 6-1
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page ii 

6.1.2 Year 2040 (Long-Term) .......................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Major Overall Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2.1 Socioeconomic Data .............................................................................................................. 6-2

6.2.2 Forecasting Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 6-2

6.2.3 Freight Rail Forecasting Methodology ................................................................................... 6-4

6.2.4 Market Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 6-6

6.2.5 GIS Methodology ................................................................................................................... 6-7

6.2.6 Alternatives Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................ 6-8

7.0 Outreach Efforts ............................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Stakeholder Meetings ................................................................................................................ 7-1

7.1.1 California State Rail Plan Advisory Committee ...................................................................... 7-1

7.1.2 State Agencies/Regional Agencies ........................................................................................ 7-2

7.1.3 SDP Rail Corridor Committees and Railroads ....................................................................... 7-3

7.2 Public Meetings .......................................................................................................................... 7-4

8.0 Ridership Demand and Revenue Forecast .................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Passenger Rail Forecast ............................................................................................................ 8-1

8.1.1 Methodology and Approach ................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1.2 Study Area Definition ............................................................................................................. 8-1

8.1.3 Data Sources and Assumptions ............................................................................................. 8-2

8.1.4 Travel Demand Model ............................................................................................................ 8-3

8.1.5 Baseline and Future Scenarios Forecasted Ridership .......................................................... 8-4

8.2 Revenue Forecast ...................................................................................................................... 8-4

8.2.1 Ticket Revenue Forecast ....................................................................................................... 8-4

8.2.2 Auxiliary Revenue Forecast ................................................................................................... 8-5

9.0 Operations Modeling ...................................................................................................................... 9-1

9.1 Modeling Methodology ............................................................................................................... 9-2

9.1.1 Service Network Analysis ....................................................................................................... 9-3

9.1.2 Operational, Equipment and Infrastructure Reliability............................................................ 9-4

9.2 Integrated Operating Timetables ................................................................................................ 9-8

9.2.1 Existing Year Schedules ........................................................................................................ 9-8

9.2.2 Year 2020 Schedules ............................................................................................................. 9-9

9.2.3 Year 2040 Schedules ........................................................................................................... 9-10

9.3 Equipment Consists ................................................................................................................. 9-11

9.3.1 Intercity Passenger Rail Services ........................................................................................ 9-11

9.3.2 Freight Rail Services ............................................................................................................ 9-11

9.4 Rail Infrastructure Characteristics ............................................................................................ 9-11

9.4.1 Rail Infrastructure Network Background .............................................................................. 9-11

9.4.2 Infrastructure-related Assumptions ...................................................................................... 9-11
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page iii 

9.5 Model Outputs .......................................................................................................................... 9-12

9.5.1 Existing Year ........................................................................................................................ 9-12

9.5.2 Year 2020 Base Case .......................................................................................................... 9-19

9.5.3 Year 2040 Base Case .......................................................................................................... 9-26

9.6 Equipment and Train Crew Scheduling ................................................................................... 9-34

9.7 Terminal, Yard and Support Operations .................................................................................. 9-35

10.0 Station and Access Analysis ........................................................................................................ 10-1

10.1 Station Location Analysis ......................................................................................................... 10-1

10.1.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 10-1

10.1.2 Potential Station Locations ............................................................................................... 10-1

10.1.3 Transit-Oriented Development, Joint Use and Joint Development Opportunities ........... 10-2

10.2 Station Operations Analysis ..................................................................................................... 10-5

10.3 Intermodal Connectivity ............................................................................................................ 10-8

10.3.1 Integration of Non-Program Operations and Services ..................................................... 10-8

10.3.2 Intermodal Integration Measures ..................................................................................... 10-9

10.4 Station Access ........................................................................................................................ 10-16

11.0 Conceptual Engineering and Capital Programming ..................................................................... 11-1

11.1 Rail Equipment and Infrastructure Improvements Identification .............................................. 11-1

11.2 Project Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................. 11-1

11.2.1 Methodology and Assumptions ........................................................................................ 11-1

11.2.2 Cost Estimates and Documentation ................................................................................. 11-1

11.3 Project Schedule and Prioritization .......................................................................................... 11-4

11.4 Conceptual Engineering Design Documentation ..................................................................... 11-5

12.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 12-1

12.1 Costing Methodologies and Assumptions ................................................................................ 12-1

12.2 Summary of Operating Costs ................................................................................................... 12-2

12.3 Route Profit and Loss Statement ............................................................................................. 12-2

12.4 Capital Replacement Costs ...................................................................................................... 12-3

13.0 Public Benefits and Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 13-1

13.1 Operational and Transportation Output Benefits ..................................................................... 13-1

13.1.1 Travel Mode Changes ...................................................................................................... 13-1

13.1.2 Personal Vehicle Travel ................................................................................................... 13-1

13.1.3 Air Travel .......................................................................................................................... 13-1

13.2 User and Non-User Economic Benefits ................................................................................... 13-2

13.2.1 User Benefits Analysis and Results ................................................................................. 13-2

13.2.2 Non-User Benefits Analysis and Results ......................................................................... 13-2

13.2.3 Summary of User and Non-User Benefits ........................................................................ 13-3

13.3 Environmental Effects .............................................................................................................. 13-4

13.3.1 Air Quality Emissions ....................................................................................................... 13-4
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page iv 

13.3.2 Climate Change Assessment ........................................................................................... 13-7

13.3.3 Land Use and Community Benefits ................................................................................ 13-10

14.0 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................. 14-1

14.1 Operational Initiative Priority .................................................................................................... 14-2

14.2 Capital Funding Project Priority ................................................................................................ 14-2
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page v 

List of Tables 

Table 2.1: Corridor Population and Employment Forecast for 2011–2040 ........................................ 2-6

Table 2.2: Percent Change in Annual Two-Way Person Trips between 2000 and 2030 ................... 2-7

Table 2.3: Amtrak California Ridership ............................................................................................... 2-8

Table 4.1: Proposed Near-Term (2012–2014) and Mid-Term (2015–2020) Rail Improvement Projects 

 ............................................................................................................................................ 4-5

Table 4.2: Proposed Long-Term (2020–2040) Rail Improvement Project .......................................... 4-6

Table 6.1: The Six Good Movement Analysis Zones ......................................................................... 6-5

Table 7.1: Stakeholder Meetings Involving Coast Corridor ............................................................... 7-4

Table 8.1: Summary of Train Frequencies by Scenario ..................................................................... 8-4

Table 8.2: 2020 and 2040 Annual Forecasts for Coast Daylight Service Options ............................. 8-5

Table 9.1: Delay Code Definitions ...................................................................................................... 9-5

Table 9.2: Coast Starlight Service Delay Minutes by Segment within the Coast Corridor ................ 9-6

Table 9.3: Existing Year Coast Starlight Service Schedule within the Coast Corridor ...................... 9-8

Table 9.4: Existing Year UPRR Freight Trains per Day ..................................................................... 9-8

Table 9.5: Year 2020 Coast Starlight Service Schedule within the Coast Corridor .......................... 9-9

Table 9.6: Year 2020 Coast Daylight Service Schedule within the Coast Corridor ........................... 9-9

Table 9.7: Year 2020 UPRR Freight Trains per Day .......................................................................... 9-9

Table 9.8: Year 2040 Coast Starlight Service Schedule within the Coast Corridor ........................ 9-10

Table 9.9: Year 2040 Coast Daylight Service Schedule within the Coast Corridor ......................... 9-10

Table 9.10: Year 2040 UPRR Freight Trains per Day ...................................................................... 9-10

Table 9.11: Average Delay Comparison – Coast Starlight Service, Northbound ............................. 9-12

Table 9.12: Average Delay Comparison – Coast Starlight Service, Southbound ............................ 9-12

Table 9.13: Year 2020 Base Case Model Intercity Passenger Service OTP ................................... 9-19

Table 9.14: Year 2020 Coast Corridor RailOPS Outputs ................................................................. 9-26

Table 9.15: Year 2040 Base Case Model Intercity Passenger Service OTP ................................... 9-27

Table 9.16: Year 2040 Coast Corridor RailOPS Outputs ................................................................. 9-34

Table 10.1: Station Joint Development and TOD Potential .............................................................. 10-4

Table 10.2: Station Prototypes ......................................................................................................... 10-6

Table 10.3: Key Capital Projects for Intermodal Integration ........................................................... 10-11

Table 10.4: Station Access Summary ............................................................................................. 10-13

Table 11.1: Typical Unit Cost Ranges for Improvement Projects ..................................................... 11-2

Table 11.2: Total Cost for Improvement Projects ............................................................................. 11-2

Table 12.1: Operational Expenses – Pacific Surfliner Route............................................................ 12-1

Table 12.2: Operating Costs by Service Year .................................................................................. 12-2

Table 12.4: Intercity Railcar Overhaul Program (Millions of dollars) ................................................ 12-4
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page vi 

Table 13.1: Year 2020 Non-User Benefits by Subregion ................................................................ 13-3

Table 13.2: Year 2040 Non-User Benefits by Subregion ................................................................ 13-3

Table 13.3: Summary of Annual User and Non-User Benefits ........................................................ 13-4

Table 13.4: Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction ............................................................................ 13-5

Table 13.5: Reactive Organic Gas Emission Reduction .................................................................. 13-5

Table 13.6. Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Reduction ........................................................................ 13-6

Table 13.7: Carbon Monoxide Emission Reduction ........................................................................ 13-6

Table 13.8: Large Particle (PM10) Emission Reduction .................................................................. 13-7

Table 13.9. Small Particle (PM2.5) Emission Reduction .................................................................. 13-7

Table 13.10: Sea-Level Rise Projections .......................................................................................... 13-9

Table 14.1: Proposed Rail Improvement Projects ............................................................................ 14-3
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page vii 

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit 1.1: Coast Corridor ......................................................................................................................... 1-2

Exhibit 2.1: Coast Corridor ......................................................................................................................... 2-2

Exhibit 4.1: Coast Corridor Improvements, San Francisco to Gilroy ......................................................... 4-7

Exhibit 4.2: Coast Corridor Improvements, Gilroy to King City .................................................................. 4-8

Exhibit 4.3: Coast Corridor Improvements, King City to San Luis Obispo ................................................. 4-9

Exhibit 5.1: Coast Daylight Stations ........................................................................................................... 5-2

Exhibit 8.1: Study Area Map....................................................................................................................... 8-2

Exhibit 9.1: RailOPS Schematic View of San Luis Obispo Station ............................................................ 9-3

Exhibit 9.2: Existing Year 12:00am – 6:00am Coast Stringline Diagram ................................................. 9-13

Exhibit 9.3: Existing Year 6:00am – 12:00pm Coast Stringline Diagram ................................................. 9-14

Exhibit 9.4: Existing Year 12:00pm – 6:00pm Coast Stringline Diagram ................................................. 9-15

Exhibit 9.5: Existing Year 6:00pm – 12:00am Coast Stringline Diagram ................................................. 9-16

Exhibit 9.6: Existing Year 24-Hour Coast Corridor Track Occupancy Heatmap ...................................... 9-17

Exhibit 9.7: Existing Year 7:00am – 9:00am Coast Corridor Track Occupancy Heatmap ...................... 9-18

Exhibit 9.8: Year 2020 Base Case 12:00am – 6:00am Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram .................... 9-20

Exhibit 9.9: Year 2020 Base Case 6:00am – 12:00pm Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram .................... 9-21

Exhibit 9.10: Year 2020 Base Case 12:00pm – 6:00pm Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram .................. 9-22

Exhibit 9.11: Year 2020 Base Case 6:00pm – 12:00am Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram .................. 9-23

Exhibit 9.12: Year 2020 Base Case 24-Hour Coast Corridor Track Occupancy Heatmap ..................... 9-24

Exhibit 9.13: Year 2020 Base Case 7:00am – 9:00am Coast Corridor Track Occupancy Heatmap ...... 9-25

Exhibit 9.14: Year 2040 Base Case 12:00am – 6:00am Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram .................. 9-28

Exhibit 9.15: Year 2040 Base Case 6:00am – 12:00pm Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram .................. 9-29

Exhibit 9.16: Year 2040 Base Case 12:00pm – 6:00pm Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram .................. 9-30

Exhibit 9.17: Year 2040 Base Case 6:00pm – 12:00am Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram .................. 9-31

Exhibit 9.18: Year 2040 Base Case 24-Hour Coast Corridor Track Occupancy Heatmap ..................... 9-32

Exhibit 9.19: Year 2040 Base Case 7:00am – 9:00am Coast Corridor Track Occupancy Heatmap ...... 9-33

Exhibit 11.1: Conceptual Siding Extension .............................................................................................. 11-6

Exhibit 11.2: Conceptual Curve Realignment .......................................................................................... 11-7

 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page viii 

List of Acronyms

AB – Assembly Bill 

ABS – Automatic Block System 

ACE – Altamont Corridor Express 

AMBAG – Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments 

ARB – Air Resources Board 

ATLC – Active Transportation and Livable Communities 

Authority – California High-Speed Rail Authority 

BART – Bay Area Rapid Transit 

BATA – Bay Area Toll Authority 

BRT – Bus Rapid Transit 

Build Alternative – Build/Improved Passenger Services Alternative 

CAA – Clean Air Act 

CAD – computer aided design 

CALCOG – California Association of Councils of Governments 

Caltrain – Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 

Caltrans – California Department of Transportation 

CBD – Central Business District 

CEC – California Energy Commission 

CFMP – California Freight Mobility Plan 

CIB – California Interregional Blueprint 

COFC – container-on-flat-car 

COG – Council of Governments 

Corridor – Coast Corridor 

CP – Control Point 

CRCC – Coast Rail Coordinating Council 

CSLRA – California Shortline Railroad Association 

CSRP – California State Rail Plan 

CTC – Centralized Traffic Control 

CTI – Commuter Train Interference 

CWR – continuous welded rail 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page ix 

D.C. – District of Columbia 

DOR – Division of Rail 

DOTP – Division of Transportation Planning 

EIR/EIS – Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 

ENR Index – Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index 

FAA – Federal Aviation Administration 

FAF – Freight Analysis Framework 

FEIR – Final Environmental Impact Report 

FRA – Federal Railroad Administration 

FTA – Federal Transit Administration 

FTI – Freight Train Interference 

GHG – greenhouse gas 

GIS – Geographic Information Systems 

HSIPR – High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program 

HSR – High-Speed Rail 

HSR R&R Model – HSR Ridership and Revenue Model 

I-5 – Interstate 5 

IOS – Initial Operating Segment 

JPA – Joint Powers Authority 

LA Metro – Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

LAUS – Los Angeles Union Station 

LAX – Los Angeles International Airport 

LOSSAN – Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo 

LOSSAN North – San Luis Obispo—Los Angeles 

LOSSAN South – Los Angeles—San Diego – San Luis Obispo 

LRTPs – Long Range Transportation Plans 

MAS – maximum allowable speed 

MP – mile post 

MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization 

MTC – Metropolitan Transportation Commission 

MUNI – San Francisco Municipal Railway 

NAAC – Native American Advisory Committee 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page x 

NAAC – Native American Advisory Committee (NAAC) 

NAICS – North American Industry Classification System 

NCTD – North County Transit District 

NCURS – Northern California Unified Rail Service 

NGEC – Next-Generation Equipment Committee 

NO2 – Nitrogen Dioxide 

No-Build Alternative – No-Build/No-Action Alternative 

O&M – Operating and maintenance 

OCTA – Orange County Transportation Authority 

OTP – on-time performance 

PISOP – Public Involvement and Stakeholder Outreach Plan 

PM10 – Respirable Particulate Matter 

PM2.5 – Fine Particulate Matter 

PSDP – Preliminary Service Development Plan 

PTC – Positive Train Control 

PTI – Passenger Train Interference 

RCTF – Rural Counties Task Force 

ROW – right-of-way 

RTC – Rail Traffic Controller 

RTE – Routing 

RTIPs – Regional Transportation Improvement Plans 

RTPA – Regional Transportation Planning Agency 

RTPs – Regional Transportation Plans 

SamTrans – San Mateo County Transit District 

SBCAG – Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 

SBMTD – Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District 

SCAG – Southern California Association of Governments 

SCCRTC – Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission 

SCRRA – Southern California Regional Rail Authority 

SCS – Sustainable Communities Strategies 

SCTG – Standard Classification of Transported Goods 

SCVTA – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page xi 

SDMTS – San Diego Metropolitan Transit System 

SDP – Service Development Plan 

SED – socioeconomic data 

SFO – San Francisco International Airport 

SGC – Strategic Growth Council 

SIP – State Implementation Plan 

SJCOG – San Joaquin Council of governments 

SJRRC – San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission 

SLOCOG – San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 

SLORTA – San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority 

SR – State Route 

STB – Surface Transportation Board 

STIP – State Transportation Improvement Program 

STIPs – Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs 

TAC – Technical Advisory Committee 

TAMC – Transportation Agency for Monterey County 

TAZ – transportation analysis zones 

TOD – Transit Oriented Development 

TOFC – trailer-on-flat-car 

TWC – Track Warrant Control 

U.S. – United States 

U.S. 101 – U.S. Highway 101 

UPRR – Union Pacific Railroad 

USDOT – U.S. Department of Transportation 

VCTC – Ventura County Transportation Commission 

VISTA – Ventura Intercity Service Transit Authority 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 1-1 

1.0 Introduction 

The Service Development Plan (SDP) for improved intercity passenger rail service in the Coast Corridor 

(Corridor) describes the Corridor, identifies proposed service expansion, and operational improvements. 

Additionally, the SDP presents the rationale for improved and expanded services, identifies candidate rail 

infrastructure investments needed to support growth and deliver improved operations, and screens the 

proposed improvements for further study. A summary of the findings and recommendations can be found 

in Chapter 14. 

Preparation of the SDP required coordination and review from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 

Division of Rail (DOR), the Coast Rail Coordinating Council (CRCC), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), the 

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro), the Southern California Regional 

Rail Authority (SCRRA) (more commonly referred to as Metrolink), Ventura County Transportation 

Commission (VCTC), the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), the San Luis 

Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), 

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA), the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 

(Caltrain) which owns and operates Caltrain, and the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority). 

1.1 Background 

The 474-mile Coast Corridor, which runs from San Francisco to Los Angeles, currently serves a mix of 

regional commuters and intercity leisure travelers. Portions of the Corridor are also the future sites of 

proposed segments of the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) program. 

Current passenger rail services are operated by Caltrain, Amtrak, and Metrolink. Current services 

include: 

 Caltrain commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy. 

 The Coast Starlight, operated by Amtrak between Seattle and Los Angeles. 

 The Pacific Surfliner, operated by Amtrak between San Luis Obispo and San Diego, with 

financial support from Caltrans. 

 Metrolink’s Ventura County Line, a commuter rail line operated between Montalvo in Ventura 

County and Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) in Los Angeles County. 

 Metrolink’s Antelope Valley Line, a commuter rail line between Lancaster and LAUS. 

Longer term plans include the introduction of HSR services in the segment of the corridor between 

Burbank Junction and LAUS, and in the segment between San Francisco and Gilroy. There are also 

plans for peak period conventional commuter service between the cities of Santa Barbara and Ventura in 

order to mitigate constrained vehicular peak period travel. 

Freight rail services are operated by UPRR, providing service that roughly parallels the United States 

(U.S.) 101 corridor between San Francisco Bay Area in the north, and the Los Angeles region in the 

south. The corridor carries low levels of freight traffic – ranging from about two to six trains per day north 

of Oxnard and eight to 16 trains per day in the San Fernando Valley – and is mostly considered as a 

“secondary” or “relief” line to the much busier Central Valley line to the east. The line does not see any 

containerized cargo – instead it carries bulk commodities such as fertilizer, lumber, aggregate, and coal, 

and is also used to reposition empty rail cars and containers. Despite its low traffic density, this line offers 

important redundancy to the Central Valley line. 

 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 1-2 

Exhibit 1.1: Coast Corridor 

 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 1-3 

The Coast Daylight service is a proposed new intercity rail route to supplement the Coast Starlight, and fill 

a gap in rail services between the cities of San Francisco, San José, Salinas, San Luis Obispo, Santa 

Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles. The existing Amtrak long-haul Coast Starlight train operating through 

the coast corridor is not scheduled to serve the needs of intra-state travelers between the San Francisco 

Bay Area and Los Angeles and Starlight trains are subject to delays especially in the southbound 

direction because they originate in Seattle. The proposed Coast Daylight service, on the other hand, 

would originate and terminate in San Francisco and would be scheduled to complement the Coast

Starlight schedule with a reliable intercity service to address the needs of communities between the San 

Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. In addition, the Coast Starlight only makes a limited number of 

stops between Oakland and Los Angeles, as is appropriate for a long-distance, multi-state train. The 

Coast Daylight would have more than twice as many stops which provide better access to local markets. 

The initial one round-trip daily Coast Daylight service would be provided by extending the operation of an 

existing Pacific Surfliner train from the current northern terminus at San Luis Obispo to San Francisco. As 

a result, no additional rail infrastructure improvements within the Surfliner North territory between San 

Luis Obispo and Los Angeles would be required. Expansion of the Coast Daylight service to an ultimate 

two round-trips per day would be accomplished by scheduling an overnight train which would operate 

when traffic levels are generally lower than daytime traffic levels at most locations along the corridor; it is 

not anticipated that the added service would generate significant requirements for additional 

infrastructure. 

In the corridor, the tracks are owned by the Caltrain, UPRR, VCTC, and LA Metro, and service is 

operated by Caltrain, UPRR, Amtrak, and Metrolink. The following segments make up the track that is 

defined as the Coast Corridor: 

 Caltrain trackage between San Francisco and San José. 

 UPRR “Coast Subdivision” between San José and San Luis Obispo. 

 UPRR “Santa Barbara Subdivision” between San Luis Obispo and Las Posas just west of 

Moorpark. 

 SCRRA “Ventura Subdivision” between Las Posas and Burbank Junction. 

 SCRRA “Valley Subdivision” between Burbank Junction and Control Point Taylor. 

 SCRRA “River Subdivision” between Control Point Taylor and LAUS. 

Outside the urbanized commuter rail territory, most of the corridor is single-track. Double-track exists 

between San Francisco and San José and between Moorpark and LAUS. Single-track is the norm from 

San José to Moorpark. Sidings are limited in number and length, and significant sections still use 

Automatic Block System (ABS) signal control and manual switches, requiring dispatcher approval to 

proceed. 

Passenger rail services through the Coast Corridor are an integral element of plans to provide 

alternatives to reliance on private automobiles, to provide faster commuter service to key employment 

destinations, and to maintain linkages to other destinations in Northern and Southern California. 

1.1.1 Organization of the Coast Corridor SDP 

As shown below, the SDP includes the following chapters: 

1. Introduction 

2. Purpose and Need 

3. Rationale 

4. Identification of Alternatives 

5. Evaluation of Alternatives 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 1-4 

6. Planning Methodologies 

7. Outreach Efforts 

8. Ridership Demand and Revenue Forecast 

9. Operations Modeling 

10. Stations and Access Analysis 

11. Conceptual Engineering and Capital Programming 

12. Operating and Maintenance and Capital Replacement Forecast 

13. Public Benefits and Impacts Analysis 

14. Key Findings 

1.2 Relationship of the Coast Corridor SDP to Other 

Documents 

1.2.1 SDP Support for State Rail Plan 

This SDP includes planning analyses which form the basis for the service concepts and improvements 

included in the California State Rail Plan (CSRP). This SDP is prepared in coordination with, and is a 

subset of the CSRP. The Coast Corridor SDP will be consistent with the SDPs for other State-supported 

rail services and will be consistent with planning by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) as 

documented in the California High-Speed Rail Program Revised 2012 Business Plan (2012 Business 

Plan).

1.2.2 Integration with other SDPs 

The Coast Corridor overlaps the Pacific Surfliner North Corridor from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The 

SDP for the Coast Corridor analyzes the segment of the corridor north of San Luis Obispo. The SDP for 

the Pacific Surfliner North Corridor analyzes the segment of the corridor south of San Luis Obispo. The 

Coast Corridor SDP has been coordinated with the SDPs for connecting corridors and services, including 

Pacific Surfliner North, Pacific Surfliner South, Capitol Corridor, and HSR. 

1.2.3 Relationship to Corridor Environmental Analyses 

This SDP describes proposed additional intercity rail service between San Francisco and Los Angeles. 

The southern portion of the corridor, from San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles (LOSSAN North) overlaps with 

the Pacific Surfliner North Corridor and the proposed Coast Daylight train would be an extension of an 

existing Pacific Surfliner round-trip between San Luis Obispo and Los Angeles. Therefore this SDP only 

addresses infrastructure improvements north of San Luis Obispo. Infrastructure improvements south of 

San Luis Obispo are addressed in the Pacific Surfliner North SDP. Improvements in the segment 

between San Luis Obispo and Burbank Junction will be considered in an environmental assessment 

currently being prepared by Caltrans District 5 in San Luis Obispo. Improvements in the segment 

between Burbank Junction and Los Angeles are currently being studied as part of the planning for HSR. 

At the north end of the Coast Corridor, no infrastructure improvements are proposed between San 

Francisco and San José to specifically support the Coast Daylight. However, Caltrain is pursuing adding 

a fourth track between the Santa Clara and San José station to provide more capacity and improve 

reliability, and is currently studying the need for additional improvements beyond the fourth track. It 

should be noted that Caltrain has not approved operation of the Coast Daylight over their property. 

Between San José and Gilroy, the only improvement project is SCVTA’s double-tracking, which already 

has been environmentally cleared by SCVTA. Environmental evaluation of additional service between 

Gilroy and Salinas will be addressed in an ongoing Environmental Assessment prepared by TAMC in 

coordination with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Improvements in the remaining 134 miles 

between Salinas and San Luis Obispo will be addressed in an ongoing tiered Environmental Impact 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 1-5 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) managed by SLOCOG in coordination with Caltrans 

and the Federal Railroad Administration. 

The Salinas to San Luis Obispo environmental study will evaluate Corridor information, including 

identification and assessment of a future program of rail corridor service scenarios and system 

improvements based on existing intercity travel demand and future growth, along with existing and future 

goods movement needs. The environmental document will identify and assess the following components 

that are reflected in the SDP: 

 Alternative technology and service scenarios. 

 System improvements, including stations, tracks, sidings, signal systems, and related rail system 

components. 

 Capital and operating costs. 

 Funding needs and available resources. 

 Phasing options prioritizing proposed improvements. 

 Interface with regional and local transit systems. 

In addition, the environmental process will provide an updated perspective on agency, stakeholder, and 

public plans, needs, and perceptions that will be invaluable to the development of a viable SDP. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 2-1 

2.0 Purpose and Need 

This Purpose and Need Statement is intended to provide the basis for Coast Corridor planning efforts, 

including the identification and evaluation of service development alternatives through the SDP process. 

The SDP study effort identifies and evaluates the need for conventional rail improvements to help relieve 

the growing capacity and congestion constraints on intercity travel using existing air, highway and 

passenger rail infrastructure in the Coast Corridor between the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. 

It also will assess how incremental improvements would serve the purpose of improving the existing rail 

infrastructure, helping to relieve congestion and capacity constraints, while offering reliable, safe and 

time-efficient travel. The overall goal of the proposed improvements identified and evaluated in the SDP 

effort is to improve mobility and reliability in this part of the state’s rail system by expanding service, 

decreasing trip times and improving rail infrastructure in a cost-effective and environmentally sensitive 

manner. 

The 470-mile-long Corridor consists of three segments: the northern segment (77 miles) from San 

Francisco to Gilroy (known as the Caltrain Corridor), the middle segment (171 miles) from Gilroy to San 

Luis Obispo, and the southern segment (222 miles) from San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles (which 

corresponds to the northern half of the Pacific Surfliner Corridor, also known as the Los Angeles—San 

Diego—San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Corridor, as shown in Exhibit 2.1. Caltrain is the seventh-busiest 

commuter rail system in the U.S., and the only one in the top ten that operates only a single line. The 

Pacific Surfliner Corridor is the second-busiest intercity passenger rail corridor in the U.S., second only to 

the Boston—Washington, District of Columbia (D.C.) Northeast Corridor. 

The Corridor spans ten counties: San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, 

Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles. The southern segment of the 

Corridor shared with the Pacific Surfliner typically operates in a coastal plain bordered by mountains to 

the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west. In Los Angeles County, the alignment between Los Angeles 

Union Station and Burbank Junction facilitates a significant amount of passenger and freight rail activity, 

including the Pacific Surfliner, the Coast Starlight, the Metrolink Ventura County and Antelope Valley 

lines, as well as UPRR freight activity. At Burbank Junction, the Corridor turns northwest to run through 

the heavily urbanized San Fernando Valley and through the communities, agricultural areas, and 

commercial development of Ventura County. At this point, the Corridor enters a narrow coastal plain 

bordered by steep hillsides and mountains on one side and the ocean on the other. In central Santa 

Barbara County, the alignment turns inland to run through hilly terrain that is undeveloped or used for 

livestock and other agricultural purposes. The alignment travels through the Santa Maria Valley plain and 

then reenters hilly terrain to connect into San Luis Obispo County. 

With regard to passenger operations, the middle segment of the Corridor between Gilroy and San Luis 

Obispo is currently served only by Coast Starlight trains. North of San Luis Obispo, the alignment crosses 

a pass through the Santa Lucia Mountains to reach the agriculturally-rich Salinas Valley. Most of the 

valley lies in Monterey County and is the least populous section of the Corridor. At the north end of the 

county, the alignment again nears the ocean for a short distance, then turns east to cross a pass through 

the Santa Cruz Mountains to reach Santa Clara County. Monterey and Santa Clara Counties do not share 

a border; between the two counties, the alignment travels along the short Santa Cruz/San Benito County 

line. At the south end of the Santa Clara Valley, the alignment reaches the Caltrain Corridor at Gilroy. 

The northern segment of the Corridor between San Francisco and Gilroy is served by Caltrain commuter 

trains. From Gilroy, the alignment turns northwest to reach the urbanized Silicon Valley, centered on San 

José. Between San Francisco and San José the Corridor passes through San Mateo County, following a 

coastal plain with hills and mountains on one side and the San Francisco Bay on the other. 

 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 2-2 

Exhibit 2.1: Coast Corridor 

Corridor tracks from the Los Angeles County Line to Moorpark are jointly owned by the UPRR and the 

VCTC, and are operated by SCRRA, more commonly known as Metrolink. Corridor tracks from the Los 

Angeles County Line to the Burbank Junction are jointly owned by the UPRR and LA Metro. From the 

Burbank Junction to LAUS the tracks are owned entirely by LA Metro. North from Moorpark to the vicinity 

of the Capitol Caltrain Station in San José, the tracks are owned and operated by UPRR (formerly by the 

Southern Pacific Railroad). Similar to the arrangement at the south end of the Corridor, the tracks north 

from the vicinity of the San José/Diridon Station to San Francisco are owned by the Peninsula Corridors 

Joint Powers Board, which includes SCVTA, the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), and the 

City and County of San Francisco. 

The Coast Corridor is served by a transportation system that includes air, highway, and rail services. In 

terms of seat capacity, the top air route in the U.S. connects Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and 

San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and additional routes spanning the Corridor serve the 

Oakland, San José, Burbank and Long Beach airports. All of these airports provide nationwide 

connections. In addition, the Santa Barbara Airport provides access to major west coast cities, as well as 

Phoenix and Denver; the Santa Maria Airport offers three flights a day to/from Los Angeles; and two 

regional airlines provide connections from the San Luis Obispo Airport to Los Angeles, San Francisco, 

and Phoenix. 

Interstate 5 (I-5) in the Central Valley – east of the Corridor – serves as the backbone of the state 

highway network, connecting the two dominant metropolitan regions at either end of the Corridor. Within 

the Corridor, a single major highway connects northern Santa Clara County and Los Angeles County – 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 2-3 

the primarily four-lane U.S.101. State Route 46 (SR-46) provides an important link between the Central 

Valley and San Luis Obispo County – with some older two-lane highways providing connections through 

surrounding areas. 

2.1 Purpose 

In the Corridor, travel demand will continue to increase as population and employment are forecasted to 

rise through 2050. As a response to limited highway capacity along the congested Corridor, travelers will 

continue to seek more reliable and attractive alternate modes of transportation. Intercity rail ridership is 

expected to grow as it has in previous decades, but will require improvements that address significant rail 

system capacity constraints. As highway congestion intensifies, travel delays increase and travel reliability 

declines, rail becomes an increasingly attractive option for personal, business, and goods-movement 

travel. In addition, rising fuel costs contribute to a demand for a less expensive means of intercity travel. 

And as regions face increasing air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts, more 

sustainable means of moving people and goods are sought. As a result, there are new opportunities to 

expand rail service in the Corridor, which will require improvements to increase rail capacity to serve the 

growing need. 

The purpose of the proposed rail improvements to the Corridor is to enhance safety and develop a faster 

and more reliable passenger and freight rail system that provides added capacity in response to 

increased travel demand between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and the intermediate cities. The 

existing capacity of the Corridor’s transportation system is insufficient to meet existing and future 

demand, and the current and projected future system congestion will continue to result in reduced 

reliability, slower travel speeds, increased travel times, and deteriorated air quality. In summary, rail 

system improvements are required to address the following Corridor challenges: 

 Future growth in county populations and travel demand for passenger trips between Los 

Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San 

Francisco Counties as documented in the growth in person trips in Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO) Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs), the adopted California State Rail 

Plan for 2007-08 to 2017-18 (California State Rail Plan) (2008), the LOSSAN North Corridor 

Strategic Plan (2007), and LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan (April 2012).

 Unreliability of Corridor travel due to congestion and delays, weather conditions (e.g. closure of I5 at the Grapevine grade redirects auto to coastal routes), periodic fires, and accidents, with 

adverse impacts on the quality of life and economic well-being of residents, businesses, and 

tourism throughout the Corridor. 

 Poor and deteriorating air quality and pressure on natural resources as a result of expanded 

highway construction, motor vehicle use, and congestion. 

 The interstate highway system, commercial airports, and conventional passenger rail system 

serving the intercity travel market are currently operating at or near capacity and will require large 

public investments for expansion and maintenance in order to accommodate future growth over 

the next 20 years and beyond. 

 Expansion of the intercity rail system has not kept pace with the significant increase in 

population, employment, travel, and tourism in the Corridor during recent years. 

 Growing Corridor rail capacity constraints will result in rail congestion and travel delays due to 

single-track operations, inadequate and infrequent passing sidings, and antiquated signaling, 

resulting in, for example, a current operational speed of 40 miles per hour in the southern 

segment of the Corridor between Oxnard and LAUS. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 2-4 

 Aging rail infrastructure, such as tracks, switches, and bridges, that in some cases has not been 

upgraded or improved in over 100 years. 

 Increasing frequency of accidents on intercity highways and rail lines in congested travel 

chokepoints, as well as the potential for more accidents at at-grade railroad crossings. 

Travel Time 

Among the critical factors that impact the public’s choice of transportation are travel time and reliability. 

Travel time is critical for all travelers but particularly for work and business-related trips, which require a 

more time-certain arrival. Based on future projections of increasing highway congestion and resulting 

travel delays, rail travel has the potential to be relatively faster. Point-to-point travel times, especially 

during daily commute periods is currently shorter for automobile travel than by rail; however, rail has the 

potential to be relatively faster in the future as automobile travel slows with increasing congestion. Total 

travel time for rail includes time required to reach a station, waiting for the next scheduled train, reaching 

the boarding area, checking and retrieving luggage, securing a rental car or taxi or boarding transit, and 

onward travel to reach the final destination. If rail is to be a viable alternative to the automobile, it must 

provide point-to-point times significantly faster than the automobile, since rail cannot provide door-to-door 

service. The lack of door-to-door service is partially offset by the advantage that rail destinations are 

usually located in the heart of a community, and close cooperation with local transit agencies can improve 

connecting travel to the final destination. 

Similarly, accessibility of trip destinations from rail stations supports rail’s competitiveness with respect to 

air travel, which also cannot provide door-to-door service. Downtown rail stations are generally more 

convenient to travelers’ ultimate destinations than airports, which are typically located in peripheral 

locations outside of city centers. Air travelers must build in several hours to their trips to access airports 

(often via chronically congested freeways), process through security checks, and account for unforeseen 

delays. 

Some of the proposed Corridor improvements listed in Chapter 4 would reduce travel time by expanding 

Corridor capacity through increased operating speeds and efficiency. These improvements would benefit 

both freight and passenger rail services and their customers, motorists using U.S. 101, and the 

communities in which the improvements are located. As travel times are decreased and reliability is 

increased in the Corridor, rail stands to attract substantial ridership from weary auto or air travelers.

Safety 

Projected growth in the movement of people and goods by auto and rail over the next two decades 

underscores the need for improved safety. With more and more vehicles on highways and more frequent 

and faster trains, the potential for automobile/rail collisions increase. To help ensure that future increases 

in rail traffic occur without a corresponding increase in hazard, the State of California supports Operation 

Lifesaver, an extensive rail safety information and education program. In the past, Congress has also 

recognized the need to improve rail crossings and has provided necessary funding. The proposed rail 

improvements will reduce or eliminate the hazards of highway/rail crossings, as well as provide new or 

upgraded pedestrian crossings along the Corridor. 

Environmental Benefits and Impacts 

Increasing Corridor population and travel demand will require transportation system capacity 

improvements, which can have negative impacts on regional and local air quality and natural resources. 

The Corridor is particularly sensitive to both of these impact areas. The Central Coast portion of the 

Corridor is environmentally sensitive, and expansion of the highway system beyond current plans would 

have significant air quality, community, and environmental impacts. Conversely, rail system improvements 

would be made primarily within existing right-of-way (ROW), minimizing impacts to natural resources. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 2-5 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) makes “transportation conformity” the responsibility of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) and MPOs. Transportation conformity addresses air quality attainment and 

maintenance strategies contained in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which are used to evaluate 

transportation alternatives, including no-project/no-action alternatives. With respect to federal air quality 

conformity requirements, the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles Basin and are currently 

designated as Non-Attainment for Ozone, Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10), and Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM2.5) based on state and federal air quality standards. Los Angeles County is also identified as 

Non-Attainment for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and lead state standards. Throughout the State, greenhouse 

gas emissions must also be reduced in response to Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Schwarzenegger 2006), the 

Global Warming Solutions Act. 

Meeting federal and state air quality standards over the next 20 to 40 years will likely require reductions in 

the total distance traveled by vehicles. This can be accomplished by integrating land use development 

and transportation planning; implementing operational improvements; developing transportation demand 

strategies; using new technologies that improve transportation efficiencies; and providing alternatives to 

single-occupant automobile travel. The proposed Coast Daylight rail improvements would help implement 

these strategies. Moving passengers by rail produces significantly less pollution per passenger mile 

traveled as compared to typical automobile use, and rail expansion would aid in reducing emissions 

throughout the Corridor. 

2.2 Need 

The need for rail improvements to the Corridor was established through an analysis of the Corridor’s 

existing and future population and employment information, travel markets and demand, and Corridor rail 

system trip purpose. 

2.2.1 Corridor Transportation Market Challenges 

Currently home to over 15 million people, the Corridor’s population is forecast to grow by approximately 

32 percent – or by 5 million new residents – by 2040, as shown in Table 2.1. While the population 

increase will occur primarily in Los Angeles and Santa Clara Counties, which are projected to grow by 33 

and 35 percent, respectively, Ventura and San Luis Obispo Counties are expected to grow at even higher 

rates – 37 and 50 percent, respectively. 

Employment growth Corridor-wide is expected to keep pace with population growth, though at a 

somewhat slower rate of 31 percent. Over 1.9 million new jobs are expected in Corridor counties by 2040. 

As with population increase, Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties are projected to lead in employment 

growth – followed by San Francisco, which is expected to attract jobs at a rate ten percentage points (37 

percent) greater than population. However, the highest rates of employment growth are projected for 

Santa Barbara and Ventura counties – at rates of 45 and 59 percent, respectively. 

Isolating the mid-Corridor population by removing the counties of the dominant metropolitan areas at the 

ends of the Corridor (San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Los Angeles) from the totals still 

reveals a considerable population of nearly 2 million, which is expected to grow by 36 percent by 2040. In 

the Corridor’s four Central Coast counties (Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura), job 

growth is expected to outpace population growth – increasing by 42 percent. Expanded passenger rail 

service has the potential to meet the travel needs of the intermediate counties as they continue to grow in 

population and employment. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 2-6 

Table 2.1: Corridor Population and Employment Forecast for 2011–2040 

 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Change 

2011–40 

Percent 

Change 

Total 

Population

(Thousands) 

15,364 15,967 16,827 17,705 18,561 19,462 20,355 +4,990 +32% 

Population 

Density 

(Pop. / Sq. 

Mi.) 

901 936 987 1,038 1,088 1,141 1,193 +292 +32% 

Total 

Households 

(Thousands) 

5,205 5,481 5,757 5,970 6,154 6,324 6,483 +1,278 +25% 

Total 

Employment

(Thousands)

6,167 6,712 6,961 7,211 7,487 7,800 8,108 +1,941 +31% 

2.2.2 Source: Moody’s Economy.com, 2011. Corridor Transportation 

Market Opportunities 

While the portions of the Corridor in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Mateo counties and much of 

Santa Clara County are densely developed, the remainder of the Corridor is characterized by a variety of 

urbanized, agricultural, and undeveloped areas. Key land uses in the Corridor include employment and 

commercial centers, civic centers, public and private colleges, cultural and entertainment venues, 

industrial and warehousing, agriculture, and open space. Larger cities along the corridor include Los 

Angeles, Burbank, Oxnard, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, San Luis Obispo, Salinas, Gilroy, San José, 

Palo Alto, San Mateo, and San Francisco. 

The Corridor’s destinations and activity centers result in a diverse set of local and regional travel markets: 

 Commuters accessing employment centers located in downtown Los Angeles, the San Fernando 

Valley, Oxnard, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Salinas, Silicon Valley, and San Francisco. 

 Agricultural workers traveling to jobs and delivery trucks taking products to shipping locations. 

 Students, teachers, and employees traveling to and from public and private educational 

institutions, including the California State University at Northridge, California State University at 

Channel Islands, the University of California at Santa Barbara, California Polytechnic State 

University at San Luis Obispo, California State University at Monterey Bay, San José State 

University, Santa Clara University, Stanford University, University of California at San Francisco, 

and multiple community colleges. 

 Visitors accessing the area’s many tourist destinations including main street shopping and 

entertainment areas such as downtown Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and 

Monterey; beaches, museums, theaters and special event generators; historic missions; and 

numerous wineries. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 2-7 

 Residents and visitors traveling to the many state, regional, and local recreational facilities in the 

Corridor, some of which attract out-of-state visitors, such as Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, Montana 

del Oro State Park, Pinnacles National Park, and Golden Gate National Recreational Area. 

 Travelers from Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los 

Angeles counties connecting to the future HSR system at Los Angeles and Gilroy. 

2.2.3 Current and Forecasted Demand 

Although the primary focus of this study is the improvement of the intercity passenger rail system, total rail 

travel demand along the Corridor includes commuter services. The demand for each service is described 

below, followed by a summary of the overall existing and proposed capacity of the Corridor. 

From 2000 to 2030, the Corridor’s travel market is forecast to grow by approximately 12 percent – from 

784 to 876 million annual trips, as shown in Table 2.2. While the greatest county-to-county flows are 

projected to occur within the dominant metropolitan regions at the ends of the Corridor (between San 

Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, and between Los Angeles and Ventura Counties), 

some of the highest rates of travel growth are expected between county pairs that include the Central 

Coast: Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties (29 percent), Monterey and Santa Clara Counties (30 

percent), and Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties (40 percent). 

The trip calculation data is developed from the Authority ridership and revenue model which uses 2000 as 

the base data, therefore 2000 is the most recent data available. 

Table 2.2: Percent Change in Annual Two-Way Person Trips between 2000 and 2030 

County 

San 

Francisco 

San 

Mateo 

Santa 

Clara 

Monterey 

San 

Luis 

Obispo

Santa 

Barbara Ventura 

Los 

Angeles

(North)

Total 

San Francisco – – – – – – – 0% 17% 

San Mateo 3% – – – – – – 0% 3% 

Santa Clara 32% 12% – – – – – 0% 16% 

Monterey 20% 13% 30% – – – – 0% 0% 

San Luis Obispo 20% 25% 27% 40% – – – 0% 40% 

Santa Barbara 0% 0% 22% -9% – – – 83% 8% 

Ventura 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 29% – 35% 32% 

Los Angeles (South 

County) 9% 0% 23% 20% 17% 18% -6% 35% 12% 

Total 6% 12% 13% 28% 23% 24% -6% 35% 12% 

Source: The Authority Model. Trips between San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties are included in the same 

region under the Authority Model and are therefore not captured in this analysis. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 2-8 

Intercity Rail Trips 

Intercity rail trips in California have experienced significant growth in the past decade, as shown in Table 

2.3. During the period from 1998 to 2010, Pacific Surfliner and Amtrak California ridership rose 69 percent 

and 94 percent, respectively. With projected increases in population and freeway congestion, it is 

anticipated that intercity rail ridership in the Corridor and throughout the state will continue to increase. 

With the investment of additional improvements in the rail system, rail travel will become more attractive 

to intercity travelers and result in further ridership increases in the Corridor. The Coast Daylight 

Implementation Plan (2000) projected 216,000 riders during its first year of operation, growing at a rate of 

seven percent a year during the first three years of service. 

Table 2.3: Amtrak California Ridership 

Route 

(Period) 

Pacific Surfliner(1) 

(Calendar Year) 

Total Amtrak California Ridership 

(Calendar Year) 

1998 1,559,997 2,694,179

1999 1,547,049 2,805,133

2000 1,594,189 3,157,038

2001 1,737,532 3,514,613

2002 1,796,442 3,642,213

2003 2,228,042 4,151,699

2004 2,431,085 4,370,811

2005 2,543,156 4,584,540

2006 2,667,969 4,773,813

2007 2,736,016 5,045,643

2008 2,876,167 5,580,773

2009 2,568,218 5,058,320

2010 2,640,225 5,231,126

1998-2010 (% Change) 69.2% 94.2% 

Source: Caltrans. 

Notes: 

(1) Pacific Surfliner ridership includes entire Corridor from San Luis Obispo to San Diego. 

Commuter Rail Trips 

Commuter services within the Corridor are operated by two transportation agencies. Metrolink operates 

commuter rail services within Los Angeles and Ventura County, while Caltrain operates commuter service 

within Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco Counties. In 2011, as many as 61 Metrolink trains 

operated along various segments of the southern segment of the Corridor on a given weekday. Daily 

commuter train volume is expected to increase to 90 trains by 2030, as identified in the LOSSAN 

Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan (April 2012). However, this document did not address the 

increase in travel demand for commuter and intercity service in the segment between Burbank Junction 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 2-9 

and LAUS expected when the HSR Initial Operating Section becomes operational between Merced and 

the San Fernando Valley. In the northern segment of the Corridor 86 Caltrain trains are operated daily. 

This figure is expected to increase to 114 trains following electrification and introduction of new rolling 

stock, which the Caltrain Short Range Transit Plan 2008-2017 (2008). Currently, electrification is planned 

for implementation in 2019. 

2.2.4 Corridor Capacity Constraints 

The Corridor’s existing patterns of population and employment location and visitor destinations have 

resulted in weekday and weekend congestion along U.S. 101, particularly in the major metropolitan areas 

at either end of the Corridor. Continued growth in population and employment in the future is expected to 

generate increased travel demand in the Corridor. Since a majority of the travel demand is anticipated to 

be met by automobile travel, increased highway congestion is expected. Some of this new demand will 

be met by non-automobile modes due to increased transit availability, as well as land use development 

patterns that encourage non-automobile modes of travel. 

In addition, several locations in the Corridor exhibit an imbalance of jobs to housing. In the southern 

portion of Santa Barbara County, less affluent employees travel to and from more affordable housing that 

can be found in surrounding jurisdictions, particularly to the north in the Santa Maria Valley in the northern 

portion of Santa Barbara County, and to the south in the cities of Ventura and Oxnard in Ventura County. 

Many residents of Ventura County with limited professional employment opportunities must travel to work 

in other areas, including Los Angeles, Santa Clarita, and Santa Barbara. This imbalance of homes to jobs 

causes heavy commute travel along U.S. 101 during the morning and evening peak hours from Santa 

Barbara County south through Los Angeles County. A similar pattern is evident in the northern segment 

of the Corridor, where workers are priced out of jobs-rich Silicon Valley and seek more affordable housing 

in southern Santa Clara County and other peripheral locations of the Bay Area. 

Aside from the major international airports at the ends of the Corridor, airport access is limited, flights are 

expensive, and total travel time is similar to driving, unless the destination is outside the state. Between 

Los Angeles and Santa Clara Counties, the Corridor is served by a single major highway, U.S. 101, which 

experiences frequent congestion and travel delays. The Corridor’s four passenger rail services are 

frequently at-capacity during peak periods. 

Significant Highway Congestion 

With expected population and employment growth, travel demand will increase; a majority of this growth 

is anticipated to be met by automobile travel, leading to increased congestion and delays on U.S. 101, 

particularly at urban chokepoints. Motorists entering or leaving the two major metropolitan regions during 

peak commute periods encounter significant congestion on capacity-constrained freeways, extending a 

trip that under optimal conditions may take seven hours by several additional hours. Planning a trip to 

avoid peak periods requires either early departures or late arrivals, which for many drivers is an 

unattractive trade-off. Weekend travel does not spare motorists delay either, as some of the worst 

congestion takes place outside of the workweek. 

Highway congestion has a negative impact on the region’s economy and efficiency, results in 

environmental impacts, and reduces quality of life for residents. Due to the physical setting and existing 

development along the Central Coast, there is limited physical space available for expansion of the 

existing highway system or the construction of new highway alternatives. 

Inadequate Rail System Capacity 

Corridor rail service, which provides an alternative means of travel, could accommodate an increasing 

portion of the projected growth in travel demand. However, service is constrained by infrastructure that is 

significantly undersized for current rail volumes, much less future service, without significant system 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 2-10 

improvements. The segment of the Corridor south of Santa Barbara shared with Pacific Surfliner service 

operates at or beyond design capacity, as does the segment north of San José shared with Caltrain 

service. Pacific Surfliner and Metrolink services are heavily utilized and are frequently overcrowded at 

peak times on weekdays and weekends. About 75 percent of the 470-mile Corridor has only single-track 

operations, and communications systems are outdated. Considering a future of population increases, 

higher fuel prices, more congestion on parallel highways, and longer commutes, the demand for the 

Corridor’s rail service is projected to grow. 

Capacity of the Intercity Transportation System 

The capacity of the interstate highway and passenger rail systems serving the intercity travel market has 

not kept pace with the increase in population and tourism in the state. In fact, in recent years, Caltrans 

and Amtrak have documented more than 50,000 standees on Pacific Surfliner trains during peak hour 

and seasonal peak periods. These passengers have paid full price but often cannot find an available seat 

during peak travel demand periods. This has impacted the quality of service, with many first time riders 

indicating they are unlikely to return for a future train trip. Similarly, the reservation-only Coast Starlight is 

often fully booked during the peak summer and holiday travel periods, and must turn away passengers. 

Additional need for improvements in the Corridor relate to track capacity constraints and shared-track 

conflicts between passenger and freight trains. Various segments of the Corridor are currently 

constrained by the lack of adequate passing or second main tracks. Trains stack at either end of singletrack sections, resulting in delays and reducing the attractiveness of rail as a travel mode choice. More 

than 80 percent of the southern segment has only single-track operations, and sidings are limited in 

number and length. More than 90 percent of the middle segment between San Luis Obispo and Gilroy 

has only single-track operations; however, capacity is available due to its lower levels of traffic. The 

northern segment of the Corridor between Gilroy and San Francisco is single-tracked for less than 25 

percent of its length, but the relatively high frequency of Caltrain service challenges capacity constraints. 

In addition to track capacity limitations, there are deficiencies in the current signal systems. Throughout 

the Corridor, communication systems are outdated with many sections of single-track operations still 

using Automatic Block System (ABS) signal control and manual switches, with dispatcher approval 

required to proceed. Further, the coastal topography with its river crossings and curves results in less 

than optimal train speeds, and in some locations there is space for only one track. Thus, emphasis should 

be placed on improving track capacity and signal systems where tangent track and less restrictive 

locations permit. 

2.3 Scope and Objective of the Plan 

2.3.1 Scope 

The Corridor faces significant mobility challenges today and in the future. Continued growth in 

population, employment, and tourism activity is expected to generate increased travel demand in the 

Corridor. By 2040, the Corridor’s population will grow by approximately 20 percent from 16 million to 19 

million residents, straining the existing transportation network. As discussed in previous sections, 

increasing travel demand, system constraints and capacity limitations highlight the need for 

improvements in the Corridor. Development of an effective rail system is necessary to meet the future 

mobility needs of residents, businesses, and visitors. The Coast Corridor faces continuing transportation 

challenges as evidenced by the following: 

 Increasing population and travel demand. By 2040, Corridor population is forecast to grow by 

approximately 32 percent to a total of 20 million residents, with a corresponding increase in travel 

demand. While nearly 90 percent of the population growth will occur in the major metropolitan 

areas at the ends of the Corridor (Los Angeles, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 2-11 

Counties), the forecast increase of 688,000 new residents represents a significant increase for 

the four less populated counties in the Corridor. 

 Constrained travel options. While the Corridor is served by a transportation system that includes 

air, highway, and rail modes, system access and capacity is insufficient to meet future travel 

demand. Air access is limited, with major airline service available at only two Corridor airports 

outside of the major metropolitan areas at the ends of the Corridor. Between Los Angeles County 

and northern Santa Clara County, the Corridor is served by a single major highway – the 

primarily four-lane U.S. 101 – which experiences frequent congestion and travel delays. While 

four passenger rail services operate in the Corridor, trains are often delayed due to the primarily 

single-track rail system. 

 Significant highway congestion. A majority of the future travel demand is anticipated to be met by 

automobile travel, leading to increased congestion. The Corridor’s highway system experiences 

frequent congestion and travel delays, particularly at urban chokepoints, making travel times 

unreliable. There is limited space available for expansion of the highway system or the 

construction of new highway alternatives. 

 Constrained rail system capacity. Corridor rail service could accommodate an increasing portion 

of projected travel demand growth by providing an alternative mode, but service is constrained 

by infrastructure that is significantly undersized for the volumes it currently accommodates, much 

less future service, without significant system improvements. Existing train services are often 

fully booked during peak travel periods. 

 Aging rail infrastructure. Investment in Corridor rail service has not kept pace with population and 

travel demand growth, and many tracks, signals and bridges have not been upgraded or 

improved in decades. Improvements would allow shorter travel times and greater reliability, 

making rail a more attractive and competitive choice. 

 Safety concerns. Increasing potential for accidents in congested rail chokepoints underscores the 

need for upgraded signaling and improved maintenance. Growing frequency of rail-related 

collisions call for improved highway/rail crossings and new or upgraded pedestrian crossings. 

 Need for increased travel capacity without impacting air quality and natural resources. Increasing 

Corridor travel demand requires transportation system capacity improvements, which can have 

negative impacts on regional and local air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as 

natural resources. Meeting federal and state air quality standards over the next 20 to 40 years 

will likely require reductions in total vehicle miles traveled. Rail system improvements would 

achieve air quality benefits with minimal impact on natural resources. 

Corridor improvement projects will be identified and evaluated in order to improve mobility and reliability in 

this congested part of the state’s rail system. The proposed improvements would allow for a more reliable, 

safe, competitive, and attractive intercity travel option. These improvements would provide additional 

capacity to relieve some of the projected near- and long-term demand on the highway system, potentially 

slowing the need to further expand highways and airports, or reduce the scale of those expansions, 

including their associated cost and impacts on communities and the environment. Rail improvements 

would augment the highway system, creating an interconnected, multimodal solution, allowing for better 

mobility throughout the Corridor. Improved rail infrastructure would contribute to the viability of the 

Corridor, provide connectivity with local transit systems, and allow future integration with the planned 

California HSR system. 

2.3.2 Objectives 

As stated above, preparation of an updated CSRP has been initiated. In the current California State Rail 

Plan (2008), Caltrans has described the overall objectives and policies for intercity rail improvements as: 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 2-12 

 Increase the cost-effectiveness of State-supported intercity passenger rail systems. 

 Increase capacity on existing routes. 

 Reduce running times to attract additional riders and to provide a more attractive service. 

 Enhance the safety of State-supported intercity rail service. 

The Corridor-specific objectives include: 

 Develop a plan for the continued improvement of the Corridor that complements and 

incorporates the recommendations of the SDP developed for the northern segment of the Pacific 

Surfliner Corridor.(i)

 Clearly demonstrate the purpose and need for new or improved passenger rail service. 

 Analyze alternatives for providing the new or improved service, and identify the alternative that 

best addresses the purpose and need. 

 Demonstrate the financial and operational feasibility of the selected alternative, including 

identification of operational improvements required to support new or improved service. 

 Describe how implementation of the selected alternative may be divided into discrete phases. 

Within a multi-modal strategy, improving rail service in this Corridor would provide the following benefits: 

 Address increasing travel needs. 

 Provide a direct connection between Los Angeles and San Francisco, the largest unserved 

intercity rail market in the State. 

 Provide an alternative for those who cannot or choose not to drive or fly. 

 Alleviate demand on constrained highway system in urban areas. 

 Reduce travel times. 

 Increase reliability and safety. 

 Increase travel capacity with minimal impacts to the Corridor’s natural resources and potential 

benefits to air quality. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 3-1 

3.0 Rationale 

The Coast Corridor would serve a vital function in providing intercity rail services between the cities of 

San Francisco, San José, Salinas, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles. Intercity 

rail service in the Corridor would provide capacity benefits, multi-modal system benefits, operational 

benefits, and environmental benefits. 

Additionally, Corridor rail system improvements would benefit other transportation systems that would 

interface with the Corridor rail service: 

 Support Corridor operations. Many trips span the service areas of both the Coast and Pacific 

Surfliner Corridors, and improvements in the northern portion of the Corridor will ensure the 

successful utilization of both segments. Improvements in the Coast Corridor would complement 

and support the improvements identified for the Pacific Surfliner Corridor, which is experiencing 

similar travel demand growth and congestion and capacity constraints. 

 Support Capitol Corridor operations. As is the case at the southern end of the corridor, many 

trips span the service areas of both the Coast and Capitol Corridors, and improvements in the 

Coast Corridor would complement and support the improvements identified for the Capitol 

Corridor. 

 Support San Joaquin Corridor operations. Connecting bus service between the Coast Corridor at 

Paso Robles and the San Joaquin Corridor at Hanford will allow faster rail-to-bus-to-rail trips 

between the stations on the Central Coast and stations in the San Joaquin Valley. These trips 

will become even faster once the new Northern California Unified Rail Service(ii) outlined in the 

2012 Business Plan begins operating over the first construction section between Fresno and 

Bakersfield. Travel time will be reduced even further on initiation of electrified high-speed rail 

service in the Central Valley. 

 Support operations of the future HSR system. The Corridor will connect with the HSR system at 

Los Angeles and Gilroy. As a result, the Coast Corridor will provide important rail feeder services 

to the HSR system, providing rail connections for passengers from Santa Cruz, Monterey, San 

Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties. 

 Provide rail access to communities not currently served along the Coast route. Between San 

José and San Luis Obispo, the Coast Daylight would stop at the following existing and new 

stations not currently served by the Coast Starlight: Gilroy, Pajaro, Castroville, Soledad, and King 

City. 

 Provide network connectivity and integration. Improvements would increase connectivity and 

provide integration with Capitol Corridor and Pacific Surfliner routes. For example, riders 

originating on the Coast Corridor would be able to transfer and continue on a trip to Orange 

County, San Diego County, or to the East Bay. 

 Provide connectivity with local transit systems. Corridor improvements would provide for a 

stronger interface with transit services operating to and from the Corridor’s passenger rail 

stations. Corridor stations include the following: San Francisco, Millbrae, Palo Alto, Mountain 

View, San José, Gilroy, Pajaro, Castroville, Salinas, Soledad, King City, Paso Robles, San Luis 

Obispo, Grover Beach, Guadalupe-Santa Maria, Lompoc-Surf, Goleta, Santa Barbara, 

Carpinteria, Ventura, Oxnard, Camarillo, Moorpark, Simi Valley, Chatsworth, Van Nuys, BurbankBob Hope Airport, Glendale, and Los Angeles Union Station. 

It should be noted that investments needed to expand passenger service and improve passenger service 

performance objectives will also benefit goods movement in the State by enhancing the capacity and 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 3-2 

reliability of the route as an alternative to the principal north-south corridors located in the Central Valley. 

Intercity passenger rail improvements in the Corridor would return direct intercity rail service to San 

Francisco for the first time in over 40 years. 

3.1 Capacity Benefits 

Corridor improvements, if needed, would provide additional capacity to serve Coast Corridor growth in a 

cost-effective manner with minimal impacts to local communities, natural resources, and air quality. The 

improvements have independent utility, are not dependent on the completion of other Corridor programs 

to be successful, and provide measurable benefits to intercity rail service. 

Providing additional highway system capacity could have negative impacts on regional and local air 

quality, local communities, and natural resources. With respect to air quality in the Coast Corridor, the 

San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles Basin are currently designated as Non-Attainment for 

Ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 based on state and federal air quality standards. Los Angeles County is also 

identified as Non-Attainment for NO2 and lead state standards. Meeting federal and state air quality 

standards over the next 20 to 40 years will likely require reductions in the total distance traveled by 

vehicles. The Corridor passes through residential neighborhoods and the commercial centers of many 

communities, and operates through environmentally sensitive settings. Rail system capacity could be 

increased within existing ROW with air quality benefits and minimal impacts to local communities and 

natural resources. 

3.2 Multi-Modal System Benefits 

Increased intercity passenger rail service is a key component of multi-modal strategies identified in the 

Corridor’s regional and county goals and plans. While the Corridor is served by a transportation system 

that includes air, highway, and rail services, existing system capacity is insufficient to meet the future 

travel demands. Between Monterey and Ventura Counties the Corridor is served by a single major 

highway – the primarily four-lane U.S. 101. Regional and county multi-modal transportation plans have 

been developed in recognition of future growth and have adopted the rail mode as a key element.(iii)

Provision of improved intercity rail service plans in the Coast Corridor would support regional and county 

goals and plans related to growth, smart growth, economic development, air quality and greenhouse gas 

emissions, sustainability, and provision of a balanced transportation system.(iv) Improving passenger rail 

service would enhance rail travel as an increasingly viable and attractive option for personal and business 

trips, and would provide an alternative mode of travel, particularly for those residents who do not or 

cannot drive. 

3.3 Operational Benefits 

Improvements to the Coast Corridor’s rail system infrastructure, such as improved signaling, would 

improve operational reliability for both passenger and freight trains. Attracting more customers to intercity 

rail through improved performance will offer a key mobility choice. 

As presented in Chapter 8, the operations simulation modeling shows that the proposed capital program 

would produce capacity and operational benefits, including improved on-time performance (OTP), 

increased average train speed over portions of the route, and the additional capacity required to increase 

train frequencies. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 4-1 

4.0 Identification of Alternatives 

This chapter describes the alternatives evaluated in this study effort: 1) the No-Build/No-Action Alternative 

(No-Build Alternative), which is a baseline discussion of the continued operation of the current Corridor 

system with no improvements (other than those already funded), and 2) the Build/Improved Passenger 

Service Alternative (Build Alternative), which is a list of potential improvement projects for the Coast 

Corridor to support the proposed Coast Daylight intercity passenger rail service. It should be noted that 

the improvements identified as part of the No-Build Alternative include projects that are partially funded 

(for completion of environmental and engineering studies) and projects that are fully funded through 

construction. The identified projects were anticipated to receive future priority funding and/or 

implementation. Due to the corridor-level planning and analysis of an SDP, which is intended to define 

the broad differences between the No-Build and Build Alternatives, the level of detail for any of the 

proposed improvement projects is conceptual in nature. Subsequent project-specific engineering and 

environmental analysis would be performed to provide more detailed information on implementation costs 

and environmental impacts for individual projects included in the Build Alternative. 

4.1 Previous Corridor Planning Studies 

Several planning and feasibility studies have identified and proposed improvements for the Coast 

Corridor. Amtrak completed the California Passenger Rail System: 20-Year Improvement Plan Technical 

Report (Amtrak 20-Year Plan) in March 2001. In terms of recent studies, UPRR has recommended a 

series of improvements to accommodate the new Coast Daylight service.(v) Environmental documents 

have also been completed or are currently underway to meet federal- and state-required environmental 

review for improvements in the Coast Corridor. The segment north of Salinas was studied in the Caltrain 

Extension to Monterey County Passenger Rail Stations Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (2006)

prepared for the TAMC. SLOCOG is conducting an environmental review for the segment between 

Salinas and San Luis Obispo. As part of their review, SLOCOG compiled a list of proposed improvements 

from the Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001) and the UPRR recommendations. Various studies have also 

examined the potential for new stations, including the Caltrain Extension to Monterey County Passenger 

Rail Stations FEIR (2006) and the Coast Daylight Implementation Plan (2000). 

Together, these previous studies have proposed the following type of Corridor infrastructure 

improvements: 

 Track upgrades including second main tracks, curve realignments, and cross-tie replacement. 

 Siding improvements including lengthening and rehabilitation. 

 Signal and communication system upgrades such as implementation of continuous Centralized 

Traffic Control (CTC),(vi) upgrading the signal and wayside detector systems, and adding fiber 

and microwave systems. 

 New intercity rolling stock, both tilting and non-tilting. 

 Station projects, including the platform expansion/extension and reconstruction, pedestrian 

crossings, parking, and associated facilities for connecting modes (bus/shuttle stations, bicycle 

facilities, sidewalks, and access roads). 

4.1.1 Corridor Rail Service Plans 

The current proposed service plan for the Coast Corridor calls for adding one round-trip daily train 

operating between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The existing long-haul Amtrak Coast Starlight train 

would continue to operate in the Corridor. The initial single daily round-trip service would be provided by 

extending the operation of an existing Pacific Surfliner train from the current northern terminus at San 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 4-2 

Luis Obispo to San Francisco. As a result, no additional rail infrastructure improvements within the Pacific 

Surfliner territory between San Luis Obispo and Los Angeles would be required. Expansion of the Coast 

Daylight service to the ultimate two round-trips per day would be accomplished by scheduling an 

additional round-trip train which would operate overnight when rail traffic levels are generally lower than 

daytime traffic levels at most locations along the corridor; it is not anticipated that the added service would 

generate significant requirements for additional infrastructure. The improvements between San Luis 

Obispo and Los Angeles identified in the Pacific Surfliner North SDP will benefit the Coast Daylight trains. 

Current freight operations average approximately six trains or fewer north of Oxnard, eight to 16 trains to 

San Fernando Valley points and 18 daily trains in the Corridor between the Burbank Junction and Los 

Angeles Union Station. Future Corridor local freight service is not expected to increase significantly, 

however two additional through trains are projected over the longer term. Future freight trains may 

increase in length, and when coupled with the passenger rail service increases, inadequate sidings and 

other rail capacity constraints will negatively impact freight and intercity rail performance. 

4.1.2 Corridor Rail Service Improvements 

A list of Coast Corridor improvements to support the new Coast Daylight service have been identified 

from previous studies. These projects were evaluated, with consideration given to implementation in a 

cost-effective and environmentally sensitive manner. The improvement projects fall into eight categories: 

 Track Upgrades. The key to operating at maximum authorized speeds in mixed use (passenger 

and freight) operations is the condition of the infrastructure (rail, ties, and sidings), track 

geometry, signal system and level of maintenance. Improvements such as additional and 

extended sidings, double-tracking, and curve realignments are necessary in order to maintain the 

Corridor as a FRA Class IV railroad.(vii) In addition to system infrastructure improvements, there 

are ongoing rail and tie replacement needs. While the UPRR has made and continues to make 

infrastructure upgrades, the Corridor, while maintained to FRA standards, is characterized by 

single-track operations, short sidings or lack of sidings, manually-thrown switches, and an 

outdated signaling system. Much of the track is older, which requires a much greater level of 

maintenance to operate at maximum allowable speeds (MAS). The track geometry requires 

trains to operate at slower than maximum FRA allowable speed (79 mph), and siding lengths and 

conditions make train meets both difficult and time consuming. 

 Signal Upgrades. The signal system north of San Luis Obispo is a conjunction of state-of-the-art 

CTC, operated by a dispatcher who controls train movements from a remote location, and ABS, 

which requires the dispatcher to communicate directly with each train crew before the train can 

obtain authority to proceed through “blocks” to their destination. It should be noted that 

installation of Positive Train Control (PTC) may be a required UPRR investment. 

 Siding and Siding Extensions. A siding is a short section of track adjacent to a main track, used 

for meeting or passing trains. Sections of the Corridor have sidings needing extension, or 

provision of new sidings to maximize the utility of the existing track configuration. Extending and 

upgrading existing sidings where possible would provide additional capacity, reduce trip times, 

and improve operational reliability for both passenger and freight traffic. Constrained siding 

availability and length would impact the ability of passenger trains and freight trains to pass each 

other, affecting travel times, reliability, and the potential attractiveness of a new passenger 

service in the Coast Corridor. Meanwhile, market factors (labor costs, locomotive fleet utilization, 

etc.) are leading to longer freight trains. The operational result is that passenger trains, rather 

than freight trains, are frequently forced into a siding when two trains meet because the siding is 

not long enough to accommodate the freight trains. Where siding lengths of 5,000 feet were once 

sufficient, freight trains now operate at lengths approaching 9,000 feet. Corridor sidings where 

meets are expected to occur, whether new or extensions of existing facilities, thus need to have 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 4-3 

a minimum length of 10,000 feet. As sidings are lengthened, they should also be upgraded to 

permit higher speeds. 

 Construction of Second Main Tracks. Providing additional segments of mainline tracks in areas 

of heavy rail traffic would allow for increased train frequencies, improved operational reliability, 

increased capacity, and decreased train delays. 

 Curve Realignments. Curve realignments allow for reduced trip times by increasing train speeds 

on curved tracks and prolonging track life, reducing the frequency of repair or maintenance 

needs. 

 Station Improvements. Station improvements include providing new or improved station 

platforms, improved transit connectivity, and customer amenities such as additional parking, 

electronic signage with real-time arrival and departure information, and automated ticket vending 

machines. Benefits of station improvements include increased platform capacity and safety, and 

improved customer service and information. 

 Rolling Stock Upgrades. Rolling stock upgrades include purchasing new railcars and locomotives 

to operate the proposed passenger services. In addition to improving the passenger experience 

(e.g., amenities, ride comfort), new rolling stock can offer tangible travel time benefits—trains 

with tilting capabilities, for example, can reduce or eliminate the need for trains to reduce speed 

on low-radius curves, allowing trains to maintain higher average speeds. 

4.2 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative provides a baseline discussion of the continuation of the current Corridor system 

with no improvements beyond those rail improvement projects that have approved local, county, state, 

and federal funding. These are documented in county Long-Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs), 

Regional Transportation Improvement Plans (RTIPs), Caltrans’ California Intercity Rail Capital Program, 

and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), along with federally-funded projects 

under the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (HSIPR). As of July 2012, no specific approved 

and funded improvement projects have been identified for the Coast Corridor north of San Luis Obispo. 

The No-Build Alternative between San Luis Obispo and Los Angeles (identified in the Pacific Surfliner 

North Corridor SDP) will benefit the Coast Daylight trains. 

Portions of the second main track between Tamien and Gilroy have already been designed and/or 

completed and Caltrain is pursing adding a fourth track between the San José and Santa Clara station to 

provide more capacity and improve reliability. Caltrain is planning to electrify their route between San 

Francisco and San José; this is currently scheduled for completion in 2019. Eventually, HSR trains would 

share the electrified Caltrain tracks to reach San Francisco. The electrification project includes purchase 

of new commuter train equipment for Caltrain that can take advantage the electrified railroads higher 

acceleration and deceleration rates, thereby providing faster running times. It should be noted that 

analysis has not been conducted to examine the impacts of the operation of one or two Coast Daylight

trains in the electrified Caltrain Corridor. A longer-term project is extension of Caltrain and HSR service to 

the new Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco. This extension involves construction of a 1.5-mile 

tunnel north of the existing terminal station at 4th and King. The tunnel will be designed for operation of 

electric high-speed and commuter equipment. Therefore, Coast Daylight trains would need to terminate 

at the 4th and King Station, or be equipped with dual-mode (diesel and pantograph) locomotives to allow 

travel through the tunnel to the Transbay Transit Center. 

4.3 Build Alternative 

Major infrastructure improvements are required to provide a reliable, safe, competitive, and attractive 

intercity travel option. The Build Alternative provides a set of county-wide and site-specific improvement 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 4-4 

projects for the Coast Corridor to address infrastructure constraints. Projects are identified based on the 

previous studies and plans presented. The proposed capital investments are grouped by timeframe into 

near-term (2012–2014), mid-term (2015–2020), and long-term (2020–2040). In order to be classified as a 

near-term project, the funding status must be “Allocated” or “Programmed.” Mid-term projects are either 

“Partially Programmed” or “Unfunded”. Long-term projects are “Unfunded” and have costs that are 

unlikely to be covered by existing funding streams within the next 20 years. These three timeframe 

categories are meant as rough planning guides, and not to limit the time-period when a project may be 

initiated. Planning-level project cost estimates for many of the identified improvement projects have 

already been developed in the sources consulted in developing the list of proposed improvements. A 

systematic review of the projects indicated that these cost estimates were generally reasonable and 

acceptable for planning purposes, and contained sufficient detail to permit their use in this SDP. 

However, many of the cost estimates were developed in previous years and are no longer current. As a 

result, a cost escalation factor was applied to bring these specific estimates to Year 2012 dollars. See 

Section 11.2. 

This chapter lists the near-term, mid-term, and long-term improvements that have been identified and 

validated through prior planning studies. These projects are graphically identified in Exhibit 4.1. It should 

be noted that these projects are not required to be implemented for the addition of one or two new Coast 

Daylight trains. Rail capacity modeling, ridership, and subsequent operational analyses were conducted 

as part of the service development planning process and the improvements were further stratified into: 1) 

high-priority near-term and mid-term improvements which would have a reasonable likelihood of being 

funded and implemented by 2020; and 2) other improvements which would remain in the long-term 

corridor development plan and which would be implemented subject to funding. The resulting stratified 

list is discussed in Chapter 14.Near-Term (2012–2014) and Mid-Term (2015–2020) Improvements 

Table 4.1 presents the near-term and mid-term improvements that have been identified in previous 

studies and plans as noted. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 4-5 

Table 4.1: Proposed Near-Term (2012–2014) and Mid-Term (2015–2020) Rail Improvement Projects 

ID No. Project Description 

Cost 

(Millions, 

Year 

2012 

dollars) 

Source(s)

Near-Term (2012–2014) 

NA 

Coast Daylight Track and Signal Project (new 

track, siding extensions for extension of Pacific 

Surfliner)

(1)

$25.90 STIP, Proposition 1B (Intercity 

Rail Improvement)

Mid-Term (2015–2020) 

CD-1 

Gilroy to San Luis Obispo track upgrades: 

continuous welded rail (CWR), tie replacement, 

ballasting, track surfacing, track structure 

realignment, rehabilitation of Salinas and 

Soledad sidings, turnout replacement.

$115.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

CD-2 

Gilroy to San Luis Obispo signal upgrades: CTC 

extension (Gilroy to Soledad) and island CTC 

(San Lucas to Bradley)

$100.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

CD-3 Sargent to Aromas curve realignments $175.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

M-1 Watsonville Wye curve realignments $16.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

M-2 New station at King City NA Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

M-3 New Soledad Multi-Modal Station $4.00 AMBAG RTP (financiallyconstrained)

M-4 New San Lucas siding (Mile Post (MP) 168.2) $11.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

M-5 Extension of Bradley siding $12.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

SLO-6 Cuesta second main track $165.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

NA Rolling stock (two modern, tilt-capable trainsets) $40.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

NA Rolling stock (two modern trainsets with 

locomotives) $40.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

NA Grade crossing safety and mobility 

enhancements $20.00 NA

Notes: 

(1) Some elements of the project scope may be duplicated by other projects listed here. 

- “NA” indicates that an identification number or estimated cost is not available. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 4-6 

4.3.1 Long-Term (2020–2040) Improvements 

Table 4.2 presents the long-term improvements that have been identified in previous studies and plans as 

noted. 

Table 4.2: Proposed Long-Term (2020–2040) Rail Improvement Project 

ID No. Project Description 

Cost 

(Millions, 

Year 

2012 

dollars)

Source(s) 

CD-4

Install powered switches at existing sidings 

(Corporal, Logan, Watsonville Junction, 

Castroville, North Salinas, Salinas, Gonzales, 

Soledad, San Ardo, McKay, and Santa Margarita)

NA Union Pacific Railroad

M-6 Moss Landing curve realignments $3.70 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

M-7 Extension of Castroville siding $9.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

M-8 New Spence siding (MP 122.4) $22.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

M-9 Harlem to Metz track realignment $40.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

M-10 New Chalone Creek siding (MP 148.0) $23.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

M-11 Coburn curve realignment $1.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

M-12 Extension of King City siding NA Union Pacific Railroad

M-13 MP 165 track realignment $28.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

M-14 MP 172 track realignment $2.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

M-15 Getty to Bradley curve realignments $36.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

SLO-1 McKay to Wellsona curve realignments $15.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

SLO-2 New Wellsona siding (MP 206.6) $21.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

SLO-3 Wellsona to Paso Robles curve realignments $94.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

SLO-4 Templeton to Henry curve realignments $107.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

SLO-5 Henry to Santa Margarita curve realignments $45.00 Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)

Notes: 

(1) Some elements of the project scope may be duplicated by other projects listed here. 

- “NA” indicates that an identification number or estimated cost is not available. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 4-7 

Exhibit 4.1: Coast Corridor Improvements, San Francisco to Gilroy 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 4-8 

Exhibit 4.2: Coast Corridor Improvements, Gilroy to King City 

 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 4-9 

Exhibit 4.3: Coast Corridor Improvements, King City to San Luis Obispo 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 5-1 

5.0 Evaluation of Alternatives 

The No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative were evaluated to determine the reasonableness and 

feasibility of the alternatives, in order to identify those alternatives that will be carried forward into further 

analysis. The criteria assess how well each alternative meets the following: 

 The purpose and need for the action. 

 Technical feasibility (ROW and engineering constraints). 

 Economic feasibility (market potential and/or ridership, capital and operating costs). 

 Environmental concerns. 

5.1 Purpose and Need Criteria 

The following criteria assess how each alternative meets the Corridor purpose and need, considering 

factors relating to the passenger’s experience in using rail services, such as travel times, station locations 

and availability of connections, and service reliability and frequency. 

Travel Time 

The No-Build Alternative is represented by the Coast Starlight, which is currently scheduled to take 10 

hours, 53 minutes running southbound between San José and Los Angeles. For the Build Alternative, the 

Coast Daylight would have a southbound scheduled running time of 11 hours, 42 minutes between the 

same two points. A similar comparison can be made of northbound running times, where the Coast 

Starlight takes 10 hours, 2 minutes and the Coast Daylight would take 11 hours, 30 minutes. 

The Coast Daylight takes longer than the Coast Starlight because the Coast Daylight will make 23 

intermediate stops between San José and Los Angeles compared to the Coast Starlight’s eight 

intermediate stops, as shown in Exhibit 5.1. On average over both directions, each additional stop takes 

about 4.5 minutes. The time for each stop would include dwell time at the platform to unload and load 

passengers plus time required for the train to decelerate and accelerate. 

Though faster running times for both services would be desirable, the capital costs of the improvements 

necessary to achieve this objective exceed foreseeable funding levels. Previous studies have identified a 

number of speed improvement projects, which could be incrementally pursued as funding permits, once 

the basic Coast Daylight service is operating. 

Station Location 

Compared to the No-Build Alternative, the Build Alternative would provide new stations at Soledad and 

King City. New stations at Pajaro and Castroville would be constructed as part of the proposed Capitol 

Corridor extension. Existing stations at Gilroy, Salinas and Paso Robles would see increased train 

frequencies. These station locations were evaluated with respect to their ability to serve existing jobs and 

residential neighborhoods, convenience for accessing important destinations, and potential to enhance 

the building fabric in the station area. All of the stations are located within existing communities, and 

most are near the center of town and the Central Business District (CBD). This part of California was 

primarily settled as the railroad was extended south from San José and the towns usually grew up around 

the train stations. Stations located adjacent the CBD are also located near the densest concentrations of 

jobs and housing, and are convenient to major destinations. However, in several towns topography or 

other circumstances have placed the stations on the outskirts, to greater or lesser degree. The situation 

at each station is summarized below: 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 5-2 

Exhibit 5.1: Coast Daylight Stations 

 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 5-3 

 Gilroy. The existing station is located adjacent to the CBD and already fits within the building 

fabric of the historic downtown area. 

 Pajaro. This new station would be located next to the UPRR Watsonville Yard. Pajaro is a small 

community located approximately 1.5 miles from the Watsonville CBD. The land adjacent to the 

Pajaro station is primarily agricultural, with some industrial (railroad) and commercial uses. 

Though it is not an ideal site from an urban design perspective, it is in the best location to serve 

the surrounding area, and is located within the closest possible proximity of the Watsonville CBD. 

This station would be constructed as part of the proposed Capitol Corridor extension. 

 Castroville. This new station would be located on the site of the historic train station, which has 

been demolished. Castroville is the junction point between the San José–Salinas mainline and 

the Monterey Branch line. There are local plans to reintroduce rail service on the Monterey 

branch, and the Castroville station is intended primarily to serve as a connecting point between 

the proposed Monterey service and proposed intercity/commuter service between San José and 

Salinas. It is one mile from the CBD. This station would be constructed as part of the proposed 

Capitol Corridor extension. 

 Salinas. The existing station is located adjacent to the CBD and is part of a larger area targeted 

for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) by the City of Salinas. 

 Soledad. This new station would be located adjacent to the CBD and is in an area targeted by 

the City for more intensive mixed use development. 

 King City. This new station would be located adjacent to the CBD. The immediate surrounding 

area is industrial, limiting the potential for urban design improvements. 

 Paso Robles. The existing station is located adjacent to the CBD and generally fits into the 

character of its neighborhood. 

Connections 

Compared to the No-Build Alternative, the Build Alternative would provide improved intermodal 

connections and accessibility due to increased train frequency north of San Luis Obispo and the addition 

of several new stations. Potential bus connections between the Coast Corridor and the San Joaquin 

Corridor would allow passengers to make faster rail/bus trips between the Salinas Valley and the San 

Joaquin Valley. These connections could include additional service on the bus route between Paso 

Robles and Hanford via SR-46 and SR-41, and a bus new route between Gilroy and Merced via SR-152 

and SR-59. 

Under the Build Alternative, new stations would be located at Soledad and King City. Existing stations at 

Gilroy, Salinas and Paso Robles would see increased train frequencies. Stations at Pajaro and Castroville 

would be built as part of the proposed Capitol Corridor extension to Salinas. The Pajaro station serves 

Watsonville and Santa Cruz County, while the Castroville station provides a connection to the Monterey 

Peninsula, including potential local rail service. The Soledad and King City stations would serve the 

southern Salinas Valley. 

At San José, connections to Stockton could be made with Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) trains and 

San Joaquin Thruway buses. San José also provides a connection to the Capitol Corridor, providing rail 

service between the Central Coast, the East Bay and the Sacramento Valley, and the Millbrae Station has 

a BART connection to SFO. By bringing intercity rail service directly into San Francisco, the Build 

Alternative would provide connections to local San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) rail and bus 

services. Connections at LAUS to Metrolink and Pacific Surfliner service to San Diego provide a second 

train frequency for trips between the Salinas Valley and Southern California. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 5-4 

The 2012 Business Plan outlines the plan for integration of high-speed trains with existing intercity and 

commuter/regional rail systems via coordinated infrastructure (the system) and scheduling, ticketing and 

other means (operations). This blended system will allow rail operators to take advantage of new and 

improved infrastructure to enhance existing service. Early investments include first construction section 

of the Initial Operating Segment (IOS), new Northern California Unified Rail Service (NCURS), and an 

accelerated closure of the rail service gap between Northern and Southern California. The IOS, which is 

scheduled to be completed in 2022, will connect the Central Valley to the Los Angeles Basin via the San 

Fernando Valley. This segment will bring initial high-speed, electric passenger rail operations to 

California. The 2012 Business Plan provides for the integration, or blending, of the HSR project by 

upgrading existing rail systems to provide near-term benefits to passengers, while connecting to, and 

laying the foundation for, the future HSR system. In addition to securing funding for statewide rail 

infrastructure investments, the Authority is participating in the development and implementation of 

NCURS as outlined in the 2012 Business Plan. The Northern California Unified Rail Service seeks to 

enhance passenger rail service from Northern to Southern California through collaboration by the 

participating agencies and sharing of equipment, interlining trains, sharing track capacity, common 

ticketing and public information services, and leveraging of funding resources. NCURS would use the 

first construction section of the IOS in the interim period until the initiation of full high-speed service and 

will provide a link between Amtrak and other systems, such as ACE, and Caltrain, to create a new, 

improved network. Expanded Northern California Unified Rail Service is expected to be operational in 

2022. The connections described above at San Jose, and via bus at Gilroy and Paso Robles would 

become more attractive as NCURS service was expanded and high-speed service began in the Central 

Valley. 

Reliability

With the Build Alternative, rail operations will improve, including freight trains and the Coast Starlight. 

Extensions of selected sidings and the installation of power switches and island CTC(viii) at these locations 

will reduce the time required for some train meets. 

Frequency 

Under the Build Alternative, intercity passenger train frequencies would double in the segment between 

San Luis Obispo and San José. This segment is currently served by one daily round-trip Coast Starlight

train which is assumed to continue in operation in the future. Between Gilroy and San José, the Coast 

Daylight would be an additional round-trip to the three northbound morning commuter trains and two 

southbound evening commuter trains operated by Caltrain. Relative to this Caltrain service, the Coast 

Daylight would operate in the off-peak direction, allowing more flexibility for travelers between San José 

and Gilroy. North of San José, the Coast Daylight service would add two one-way trips to Caltrain’s 

current schedule of 86 one-way trains, while south of San Luis Obispo, the Coast Daylight service would 

replace an existing Pacific Surfliner train, so there would be the current level of train frequencies in this 

segment. 

Expansion of the Coast Daylight service to two round-trips per day would be accomplished by scheduling 

a new pair of daily overnight trains between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The new trains would 

supplement existing Pacific Surfliner and Caltrain service at their respective ends of the Corridor by 

providing additional late evening departures and early morning arrivals at San Francisco and Los 

Angeles. Evening rail traffic is generally lower than daytime traffic levels at most locations along the 

Corridor; it is not anticipated that the expanded service would generate significant requirements for 

additional infrastructure. It should be noted that Caltrain has not reviewed/approved a new long distance 

train in the current Caltrain Corridor or in the potential future electrified Caltrain/HSR Corridor. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 5-5 

Ridership 

The ridership forecast for the Coast Daylight service described in Chapter 8 forecast 124,000 passengers 

in 2020, growing to 274,000 passengers in 2040. The ridership forecast did not account for the significant 

passenger rail improvements now envisioned in the 2012 Business Plan. The 2012 Business Plan calls 

for Northern California Unified Rail Service providing higher frequencies and faster running times between 

the San Joaquin Valley and San José markets via the San Joaquin Valley, as early as 2018. Beyond that 

date, the San Joaquin Valley service will be upgraded to electrified high-speed rail providing even higher 

frequencies and faster running times. As a result, it is likely that some diversion of riders from the Coast 

Daylight to the San Joaquin Valley service would occur. It is expected that some riders traveling between 

San Francisco and Los Angeles will opt for the upgraded San Joaquin Valley service once it becomes 

available, due to shorter travel times. 

This potential decrease in end-to-end Coast Daylight riders could be offset by increased Coast Daylight

ridership in some of the regional markets, because new routes and faster service will make the rail mode 

more attractive. For example, the Northern California Unified Rail Service will reduce rail running times in 

the Valley, which will make rail/bus/rail trips between the Central Coast and San Joaquin Valley 

communities faster and more attractive via the Coast Daylight and the connecting Paso Robles–Hanford 

bus (e.g., a trip from Grover Beach to Fresno). Similarly, additional rail service between San José and 

Stockton would make rail trips between the Salinas/Monterey area and the northern San Joaquin Valley 

more attractive (e.g., a trip from Salinas to Tracy). 

5.2 Technical Feasibility 

The following criteria assess the technical feasibility of each alternative, identifying ROW requirements 

and possible disruptions to railroad operations, state highways, or adjacent property for each alternative. 

ROW Requirements 

It appears feasible to construct the siding improvements identified in UPRR’s most recent list of 

recommended improvements (January 2011) within the existing UPRR ROW. In Soledad, there already is 

a park-and-ride lot at the proposed station site which could serve rail passengers. Therefore, no 

additional ROW would be required. ROW may need to be acquired in King City for parking and transit 

facilities at the station site. Suitable vacant properties are available. In both cities, station platforms would 

be located within the UPRR ROW. 

Conceptual engineering work for the TAMC Gilroy to Salinas rail extension project includes layouts for 

new stations at Pajaro and Castroville. The Pajaro station would be located on vacant UPRR property 

that is outside the operating railroad ROW. The Castroville station would be located partially within the 

UPRR ROW and partially on vacant privately-owned property. 

In summary, ROW requirements for the Build Alternative are minimal relative to the length of the corridor 

and will not displace residential uses.

Disruption to Railroads, Highways or Adjacent Property 

Review of the improvements identified in UPRR’s most recent listing and in documents related to the 

Gilroy to Salinas rail service extension identified the following potential disruptions to railroads, state 

highways, and adjacent property that could result from implementation of the Build Alternative: 

 The parking area for the Castroville station is proposed for property that is part of a warehouse 

facility. All loading and unloading activities have been moved to the opposite side of the 

warehouse building. As a result, acquisition of this property for parking would not disrupt the 

current business. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 5-6 

 The Pajaro station is located adjacent to the UPRR Watsonville Yard. Some track and roadway 

relocations would be required to construct the station. The yard can remain operational while 

these relocations are accomplished, and its function would not be affected by the relocations. 

 An existing stub-end house track at the Gilroy station would need to be extended southward 

across Tenth Street (SR-152) in order to create a double-ended siding. This would require some 

alteration to the Tenth Street/Monterey Road intersection. 

5.3 Economic Feasibility 

The following criteria assess the economic feasibility of each alternative, identifying capital and operating 

costs, as well as independent utility and the potential for phasing. 

Capital Cost 

The capital cost estimates from prior studies had limited utility for evaluating the alternatives either 

because the estimates are more than ten years old (e.g. the Coast Daylight Implementation Plan (2000)

and the Amtrak 20-Year Plan (2001)) or because they are based on station designs that provide much 

more capacity than necessary to support one daily round-trip Coast Daylight train (e.g. the Gilroy to 

Salinas rail service extension reports). However, it is possible to make some general order of magnitude 

observations about the relative cost of different types of improvement projects: 

 Siding extensions and island CTC: $10-20 million per mile, plus $2-3 million per new switch. 

 New stations: $5-10 million each. 

 Curve realignments: $20-150 million for each 5-10 mile segment. 

 Second main track: $10-$20 million per mile, depending on topography. 

These cost ranges indicate that adding one northbound and one southbound train, without increasing 

travel speeds, may be possible for a total cost of $25-70 million, not including new equipment or track and 

signal upgrades. Reducing running times by realigning curves is a more costly proposition as is adding 

significant capacity through double-tracking. This suggests that initial efforts should focus on 

improvements necessary to begin operating a second daily passenger round-trip at current operating 

speeds. Travel time reductions and/or additional trains can be achieved as funding becomes available. 

Operating Cost 

Based on an operating and maintenance cost rate of $67.30 per revenue-mile,(ix) the incremental 

additional daily operating and maintenance (O&M) costs of running one daily northbound train and one 

daily southbound train for 248 miles between San Francisco and San Luis Obispo would be $34,000.

Independent Utility 

The Build Alternative is a usable and reasonable expenditure, even if no additional transportation 

improvements are made in the area. Siding extensions and island CTC would benefit all trains operating 

in the corridor, both freight and passenger, improving their reliability and decreasing running time. (Island 

CTC refers to installation of CTC only at sidings to allow dispatcher operation of switches, thereby 

reducing the time required for a train to move into and out of a siding.) New stations in Soledad and King 

City will act as transit centers for their communities, providing a central location where residents can 

access other transportation services besides rail.
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 5-7 

Phasing Potential 

Phasing can be viewed in two ways, either as incremental implementation of improvement projects or as 

incremental expansion of rail service. The existing condition of infrastructure in the corridor provides many 

opportunities for phasing-in improvements. Improvement projects could be grouped by type into packages 

and prioritized for implementation. For example, if the policy objective was to start service without 

improving running time, a daily pair of Coast Daylight trains could be accomplished with minimum track 

capacity upgrades and station investments. As funding became available, more track capacity projects 

could be implemented, such as new or extended sidings, thereby improving reliability for all trains in the 

corridor. Another package of improvements could include track and signal upgrades to provide higher 

speeds and more efficient operations. Station expansion and enhancement projects are another group 

that could be implemented independently from the other project packages. 

Due to the limited scope of the proposed service improvement in the Build Alternative (initially one daily 

round-trip train, eventually expanding to two round-trips), opportunities for incremental expansion of rail 

service are limited; i.e., this is not a situation where four daily round-trips are currently running and there 

could be a choice of expanding to six, eight or ten round-trips. One potential phasing scenario would be to 

gradually extend existing service that is currently operating in the corridor. For example, Pacific Surfliner

trains that currently terminate in San Luis Obispo could be extended to serve Paso Robles. However, this 

particular option is problematic because slow rail speeds over Cuesta Grade cause a significant 

differential between rail and highway travel time between Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo. A more 

viable phasing opportunity may exist at the north end of the corridor, where Caltrain or Capitol Corridor

service could be extended to Salinas. 

5.4 Environmental Resources and Quality 

The following criteria assess major environmental concerns with respect to the improvements identified in 

UPRR’s most recent listing and in documents related to the Gilroy to Salinas rail service extension. 

Geologic Constraints 

None of the improvements defined above appear to have geologic constraints, such as fault crossings, 

coastal areas, or known areas of high landslide susceptibility.

Wetlands / Nature Preserves / Environmentally Sensitive Areas 

The preliminary environmental assessment included in the Coast Daylight Implementation Plan (2000)

recommended site specific studies of biological resources at the King City station. Though this 

assessment did not address the Soledad station, a site specific study would be appropriate at that 

location as well. Review of the other improvements indicates no other concerns in this category.

Cultural / Parks / Section 4(f) / Farmland or Agricultural Zones 

The Coast Daylight Implementation Plan (2000) also recommended site specific studies of historic 

structures and archeological resources at the King City station. Once again, these studies would also be 

appropriate at the Soledad station. The remaining improvements are within the existing railroad ROW 

where this criterion is generally not applicable. 

Sensitive Receivers 

The Coast Daylight Implementation Plan (2000) environmental assessment noted that adding one train in 

each direction would add a cumulative noise source, but this would not be a significant impact. High-level 

review indicates that the improvements defined above would not change visual/scenic resources, or affect 

built-up areas with institutional, medical, school and/or residential properties adjacent to the ROW. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 5-8 

5.5 Conclusions 

The alternatives evaluation indicates that the Build Alternative of adding one (and eventually two) daily 

trains in each direction, operating at current speeds, is consistent with expected funding resources. 

Besides increasing the frequency of trains in the corridor between San Francisco and San Luis Obispo, 

the new service will allow faster trips between the Central Coast and the San Joaquin Valley via Thruway 

bus connections and the new Northern California Unified Rail Service outlined in the 2012 Business Plan. 

However, further examination is needed of the HSR program’s potential impact on the number of San 

Francisco–Los Angeles riders forecast for the Coast Daylight. 

The alternatives evaluation also indicates that ROW requirements for the Build Alternative are minimal, as 

are the expected impacts on railroads, state highways and adjacent properties. No significant 

environmental impacts are expected. Finally, there is good potential for phasing the Build Alternative by 

incrementally making improvements to the corridor. However, there is low potential for phased additions 

of service since there is only one (eventually two) round-trip per day. Opportunities for phasing new 

services are limited to incremental extensions of existing service, such as extending the Capitol Corridor 

from San Jose to Salinas, or the Pacific Surfliner from San Luis Obispo to Paso Robles. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 6-1 

6.0 Planning Methodologies 

This chapter describes the basic elements of the methodology used in developing the SDP. The chapter 

also addresses the planning horizons utilized and the major overall assumptions employed throughout the 

SDP. 

Beginning early in the study process, methodologies were developed for use when conducting various 

analyses necessary to preparing the SDP. The SDP contains summary discussions of these 

methodologies. The methodologies for some of the more substantial disciplines (such as ridership and 

operations simulation) are summarized in the particular chapter that describes the results of that 

discipline’s analysis. The other methodologies are summarized in this chapter. 

6.1 Planning Horizons 

Two planning horizons are employed in the development of the SDP: a near-term horizon with service 

levels and improvements to be realized by 2020, and a long-term horizon with service levels and 

improvements to be realized by 2040. 

6.1.1 Year 2020 (Near-Term) 

The near-term horizon reflects an initial level of operation to increase corridor service between the San 

Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles beyond that provided by the existing Coast Starlight, meeting 

ridership demand in the corridor through 2020. Improvements needed to accommodate one new daily 

northbound train and one new daily southbound train per day, with forecast 2020 freight traffic levels, are 

considered within this planning horizon. 

It should be noted that a “Blended Service” plan is being prepared to address use of the California HSR 

first construction section of the IOS and that the target date for revenue operations on the IOS is 2018. 

However, ridership forecasting for the initiation of blended service is being prepared for the 2020 horizon 

year. Accordingly, the 2020 ridership estimates for all intercity corridors statewide will reflect the impact of 

blended service to the extent that such impacts are discernible. 

6.1.2 Year 2040 (Long-Term) 

The long-term horizon reflects a vision of expanded corridor service between the San Francisco Bay Area 

and Los Angeles, meeting ridership demand in the corridor expected by 2040. Improvements needed to 

accommodate one additional pair of daily Coast Daylight trains beyond the start-up service of one pair of 

daily trains, considering freight traffic levels projected to 2040, are considered in this planning horizon. 

The Year 2040 Long Term ridership forecasts include the effects of the completion of the Phase 1 HST 

system statewide. The Phase 1 high-speed rail network includes HSR service from San Francisco to 

Anaheim, utilizing blended operations on the Caltrain segment between San Francisco and San Jose as 

well as on the Los Angeles to Anaheim segment, and dedicated HSR tracks between San Jose and Los 

Angeles. 

6.2 Major Overall Assumptions 

The major overall assumptions used in the SDP with regard to socioeconomic data, freight rail 

forecasting, market analysis, GIS, and screening of alternatives are presented in this section. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 6-2 

6.2.1 Socioeconomic Data 

Passenger and freight demand forecasting, market analysis, and subsequent planning analysis rely upon 

a future year statewide socioeconomic forecast encompassing households, population, jobs, workers, 

household incomes, and other variables. Moody’s 2011 Economy.Com socioeconomic data (SED) was 

selected for use in all planning and forecasting efforts on this SDP. These forecasts have a number of 

advantages, including: 

 Economy.com SED forecasts are currently being used for both the Amtrak/California Intercity 

Passenger Rail Forecasting Model (Amtrak/Caltrans Model) and the HSR Ridership and Revenue 

Model (HSR R&R Model).(x)

 Economy.com SED forecasts were developed in 2011 and represent the most up-to-date 

forecasts that best reflect the continued economic slowdown (prior SED forecasts anticipated a 

shorter recession and more robust upturn in the California economy). 

 Economy.com also produces a consistent set of economic output data used in the freight rail 

forecasts. 

6.2.2 Forecasting Assumptions 

Base values or methodologies are presented for the following planning assumption categories: 

 Cost Assumptions, including automobile operating costs, bridge tolls, airfares, intercity 

conventional rail fares, high-speed rail fares, and station parking costs. 

 Travel Times for automobile and air. 

 Headways for air. 

 Wait Times for airports and rail stations. 

 Terminal Processing Times for airports and rail stations. 

These values are derived in large part from assumptions supporting modeling activities for the Authority, 

however, some assumptions such as conventional rail fares and parking costs are based on assumptions 

in the Amtrak/Caltrans Model. Travel times and headways for high-speed rail and conventional rail routes 

are not reported here as planning assumptions, since they were defined through the scenario 

development process. 

Cost Assumptions 

Relevant cost assumptions include automobile operating costs; fares for conventional rail, high-speed rail, 

and air travel; and access/egress costs such as parking charges at airports and stations. All costs, except 

conventional rail fares, are reported in 2005 dollars. Costs were inflated to a common dollar year for the 

purposes of modeling. 

Automobile Operating Costs – Automobile operating costs are comprised of actual fuel and nonfuel 

operating costs. Automobile ownership costs, including purchase costs and insurance, are not included in 

operating costs since under standard demand forecasting procedures they do not factor into the day-today decisions of whether to use the vehicle for a particular trip. As of June 2011, the high-speed rail 

analysis assumes fuel operating costs of 15.625 cents per vehicle per mile.(xi) Nonfuel operating costs 

include maintenance and repair, motor oil, parts, and accessories. Nonfuel costs are assumed fixed at 60 

percent of gas operating costs, or 9.375 cents per mile. Estimated total automobile operating costs are 

therefore equivalent to 25 cents per mile, and are assumed constant in real dollars for all analysis years. 

These automobile operating cost base assumptions are consistent with those specified by the 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission for use in the HSR R&R Model. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 6-3 

Bridge Tolls – Bay Area bridge tolls are assumed at current levels set by the Bay Area Toll Authority 

(BATA): $6 for peak travel; $5 for off-peak travel. 

Airfares – Market-to-market airfare assumptions are based on year 2000 and 2005 Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) surveys of air market prices for use in high-speed rail modeling. 

Conventional Rail Fares – Conventional rail market-to-market base fare assumptions were developed for 

the Pacific Surfliner based on the existing fare structures in the corridor. The Coast Daylight will share the 

same route and stations of the Pacific Surfliner between Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo. Conventional 

rail fares are assumed constant in real dollars for all analysis years. 

HSR Fares – For high-speed rail analysis, HSR fares are assumed set at 83 percent of airfares with a 

maximum market-to-market fare of $72. Fares are assumed constant in real dollars for all analysis years. 

Station Parking Costs – Parking costs are identified by mode: 

 Air – Airport parking cost assumptions (in 2005 dollars, per trip) range from $25.50 at Oakland to 

$18.50 at Burbank, while costs at minor airports range from $12.00 at Santa Barbara to $6.00 at 

Oxnard and Monterey. 

Base airport parking cost assumptions were derived from data collections performed by MTC 

staff for San Francisco and Oakland Airports and by Cambridge Systematics staff for Los 

Angeles Airport. These values reflect current airport parking costs used in high-speed rail 

modeling as of August 2011. Costs are assumed constant in real dollars for all analysis years. 

 Conventional Rail – Conventional rail station parking cost assumptions (per trip) are as follows: 

o $12 – Goleta, San Diego. 

o $6 – LA Union Station, Sacramento. 

o $3 – Anaheim, Bakersfield, Burbank, Commerce, Fresno, Fullerton, Irvine, Livermore, 

Merced, Modesto, Pleasanton, San Jose, Santa Clara, Stockton, Tracy, Tustin. 

o $0 – All other stations. 

This pricing mechanism was adopted based on market cost assumptions developed by the 

program management team for high-speed rail analysis, and used for scenario runs conducted 

after 2007. 

 High-Speed Rail – High-speed rail station parking cost assumptions currently assumed for 

modeling purposes range from $36 at San Francisco to $32 at Los Angeles, while costs at minor 

stations range from $21 at Burbank to $6 at Gilroy. Parking costs (in 2005 dollars) are assumed 

constant in real dollars for all analysis years. In the case of joint conventional rail and high-speed 

rail stations, the high-speed rail prices will be used. 

Travel Times 

Base travel time assumptions for auto and air travel between market pairs are fixed variables. 

Conventional and high-speed rail travel times are subject to level of service scenario assumptions. The 

following proposed levels are consistent with the most recent model run assumptions used by the 

Authority. 

Automobile – Peak-period region-to-region automobile travel time assumptions for year 2030 are based 

on the average auto speed and travel time assumptions used by the HSR R&R Model, which assumes a 

maximum annual decrease in automobile speeds of 0.5 miles per hour. 

Air – Air travel times are based on existing HSR R&R Model assumptions, which utilize FAA data samples 

from years 2000 and 2005. Market-to-market air travel time assumptions are assumed constant for all 

analysis years. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 6-4 

Headways 

Air travel service headways are assumed constant for all analysis years. Service headways for 

conventional and high-speed passenger rail are established during scenario development. 

Wait Times 

Wait time refers to the average time spent between arriving at the airline gate or train platform and the 

closing of the airplane or train door after passengers have boarded. Air wait times are assumed to be held 

constant at 55 minutes based on a review of surveys conducted in support of the HSR R&R Model. 

Rail travel wait times are lower than air travel wait times for a variety of reasons, including multiple train 

boarding points, proof-of-purchase ticketing, baggage-related delays, etc. The HSR R&R Model assumes 

wait times of 15 minutes on both high-speed and conventional rail modes. 

Terminal Processing Times 

Both airports and rail terminals are subject to terminal processing times, or the amount of time 

passengers must endure from the time they arrive at the terminal via their access mode to the point they 

reach the gate. This includes time spent walking between access points and the terminal, time spent 

receiving a ticket and checking baggage, security, and other factors. In the HSR R&R Model, terminal 

processing times are determined from a combination of peer review recommendations and subsequent 

refinements, and vary based on the characteristics of the airport or terminal. 

Airports: 

 At LAX and SFO – 24 minutes for non-business/commute trips and 22 minutes for business/ 

commute trips. 

 At other airports – 20 minutes for non-business/commute trips and 18 minutes for business/ 

commute trips. 

High-Speed Rail: 

 At downtown or terminal high-speed rail stations (e.g., Los Angeles and San Francisco) – 12 

minutes. 

 At other high-speed rail stations – 8 minutes. 

Conventional Rail: 

 At stations that serve only conventional rail – 3 minutes. 

 At stations that serve high-speed rail and conventional rail – 10 minutes. 

6.2.3 Freight Rail Forecasting Methodology 

A key element in the SDP is an examination of the impact of future train volume changes on the rail 

system. Changes from present train traffic volumes will affect the performance of the system, its capital 

needs, and potential shifts in mode share between rail and other competing modes. Since train volume 

changes are not uniform across the entire network, some sections may be subject to substantial volume 

gains, others could face stable demand, while yet others could face declines. 

Economists classify the movement of goods (i.e., transportation) as a “derived” demand, by providing the 

necessary linkage between locations where goods are produced and where they are consumed. The act 

of transporting a good between two locations has no value per se; it creates value when there is an 

economic need for that good at the destination, and the combined cost of production at origin and its 

transportation to the destination is less than that for any other geographic source or material substitute. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 6-5 

These linkages between production and consumption are indicated through an examination of freight 

flows moving between geographic origins and destinations. 

Data Sources 

Two different data sources were used for this effort: 

1. The Federal Highway Administration’s Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3) database – which 

contains aggregated annual volume summaries by origin-destination geography, mode, and 

commodity – provides this information on a historical basis, using a combination of actual data 

and modeled behavior. 

2. The Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) Confidential Carload Waybill Sample also provides 

freight flow data for the rail mode only and is used as an input to the FAF. 

These two data sources, used in combination, provide most of the information needed to produce a base 

year commodity flow database and forecast. The commodity flow database is then used to estimate daily 

train flows at the line level for base year and forecast years in addition to identifying flows by other modes 

that may represent potential markets for diversion to rail. 

Approach 

The freight forecasting process was structured in a series of five tasks discussed below, following an 

accepted and commonly used approach. While the first four steps are fixed, the last step entails some 

adjustment, depending on the availability of actual train counts. 

Step 1 – Aggregate STB Waybill data by commodity, shipment type (carload rail and mixed mode, e.g., 

intermodal), and FAF3 geographic zones, which consist of six goods movement analysis zones, shown in 

Table 6.1. Four of these zones represent the metropolitan regions designated in the FAF3 commodity 

flow dataset. The fifth FAF3 zone (called “the remainder of California” in FAF3) is divided into two zonesthe San Joaquin Valley and the remainder of California. 

Table 6.1: The Six Good Movement Analysis Zones 

Goods Movement Analysis Zone Counties Included 

Los Angeles/Long Beach Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura

San Diego San Diego

Sacramento El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba

San Jose/ San Francisco, Oakland Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, 

San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma

San Joaquin Valley Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 

Tulare

Remainder of California All counties not designated in the other five regions

Step 2 – Using FAF3, calculate multiplier (growth rate) for change in rail traffic volumes (tonnage and 

value) between 2007 and 2035 by commodity, shipment type, and FAF3 zones. 

Step 3 – For the container traffic associated with the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland, 

acquire current long-range forecasts and use them to create growth rate tonnage multipliers for 2007 to 

2035. Port-related traffic is segregated in the waybill by examining the container initials, equipment type, 

and service lanes in which it appears. A base year adjustment is made for transshipped traffic (i.e., 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 6-6 

containers that are unloaded in the port region and then reloaded into domestic containers and trailers for 

movement inland) by using available data. 

Step 4 – Apply tonnage multiplier calculated in previous step against each row in the STB waybill data, 

using crosswalk between FAF3 zone and Standard Point Location Code (SPLC) used in the waybill data, 

FAF commodity (Standard Classification of Transported Goods (SCTG), and Waybill commodity 

(Standard Transportation Commodity Code (STCC). The net result is an STB waybill with a forecast 

showing tonnage, number of carloads, and value for each extant origin, destination, carrier (route), and 

commodity combination. As needed, the regional tonnage and carload totals are adjusted to avoid 

introducing distortions in volume growth. 

Step 5 – Generate trains. Using the base case and forecast waybills from Step 3, estimate train volumes 

using the methodology that was developed in the Association of American Railroads’ 2007 National Rail 

Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study. This methodology entailed the estimation of the 

number of carloads moving over the network on a representative day, with volumes allocated among four 

types of train service based on the commodity being carried and the type of operation: 

 Auto – For assembled motor vehicles moving in multilevel cars. 

 Unit Train – For grain, coal, and other bulk commodities usually moving as a single train between 

origin and destination. 

 Intermodal – For commodities moving in containers or truck trailers. 

 General Merchandise – All other carload rail shipments, including commodities moved in box and 

tank cars. 

The number of trains of each type needed to move the cars are estimated using information on the typical 

number of cars hauled by train service type, obtained from available industry and STB reports. The 

number of intermodal trains needed is based on the number of intermodal units (e.g., container-on-flat-car 

(COFC) units and trailer-on-flat-car (TOFC) units). Train counts are calibrated against existing train count 

data wherever possible. 

The base year train count data developed from the freight forecasting methodology was compared 

against current train count data assembled based on meetings with the Class 1 railroads and other 

sources such as the LOSSAN service restructuring study underway in Southern California as well as prior 

data on existing conditions. Adjustments were made to minimize disparities. 

6.2.4 Market Analysis 

This section outlines the methodology used to estimate current and future travel market trends in the 

passenger sector. Market analysis defines the magnitude and nature of travel (the number of people that 

travel; their income and travel needs; origins and destinations, etc.), as well as the underlying drivers of 

this travel (population, employment, income growth, etc.). Market analysis is critical since these 

assumptions affect other aspects of SDP development such as the number and timing of trains, pricing 

strategies, infrastructure location (tracks, sidings, terminals, stations), and resulting ridership, revenue 

and public/private benefits. 

The market analysis was primarily developed using the Authority’s Ridership and Revenue Model (R&R 

Model) which consists of separate, yet integrated, components for forecasting long-distance interregional 

travel and intraregional travel within urban areas. Interregional travel is forecast using a new set of 

models derived from survey data collected for the HSR project combined with other relevant survey data 

sources. The model forecasts all interregional trips by purpose and length (trip frequency), identifies 

which region the interregional trips will be going to (destination choice), and then estimates which access, 

egress, and line-haul mode the interregional trip will use (mode choice). Intraregional models are based 

on trip tables generated from the MPO models, with customized mode choice models for the Bay Area 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 6-7 

and Los Angeles metropolitan regions. Trips by mode from the interregional and intraregional models are 

aggregated prior to the assignment step. The interregional trip frequency models allow forecasting of 

induced travel based on improved accessibilities due to new modes and faster options. 

For the SRP effort, the socioeconomic assumptions in the R&R Model were updated. Population and 

Employment figures were derived from the Moody’s 2011 Economy.com dataset. Figures were obtained 

and aggregated at the county level for both statewide and corridor analysis. Employment North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes were grouped into four categories: wholesale, retail, 

professional services, and other employment. Population and Employment Density was estimated using 

land area information obtained via the 2000 U.S. Census. 

Underlying trip tables for travel within the LA Basin were provided by the Southern California Association 

of Governments (SCAG), while travel within San Francisco Bay Area zones was provided by MTC. These 

tables were adjusted based on Moody’s Economy.com (2011) data. All trip tables reflect “No-Build” 

conditions, without high-speed rail service. The interregional model is based on trip frequency and 

destination choice models that utilize socioeconomic data directly and are influenced by accessibility 

between zones through logsums(xii) reported under the R&R Model’s mode choice model. 

Origin/destination information contained in R&R Model transportation analysis zones (TAZs) was 

aggregated to the county (and subcounty) level. 

As the last step of the market analysis process, County-To-County Travel Market Trip Tables (all modes) 

for years 2000 and 2030 were derived from the HSR R&R Model.(xiii) Three large counties were 

separated into subcounty zones to provide more detail: 

 Los Angeles is divided into Los Angeles (North County) and Los Angeles (South County). 

 Riverside is divided into Riverside (West County) and Riverside (Coachella Valley). 

 San Diego is divided into San Diego (City), San Diego (North Coast), San Diego (Interstate 15 (I15) Corridor), and San Diego (East County).

6.2.5 GIS Methodology 

This section summarizes the methodology and approach taken to develop the GIS information used in 

developing the SDP. As a starting basis, Caltrans and the Authority provided existing relevant data from 

CT Earth, the Caltrans Statewide Travel Demand Model, the Statewide Freight Model, and Caltrans and 

the Authority GIS geospatial data and files for the statewide rail system. Building upon existing GIS 

information, a geospatial library for the existing and future rail system and rail services and facilities was 

developed in ArcGIS 9.3+. 

A comparative analysis of the best available source of rail line data was conducted to determine which 

base layer provided the most efficient starting point for the GIS network update. To develop the data 

layers and attributes, an existing conditions inventory was constructed and built on the California State 

Rail Plan (2008). Features of the passenger rail inventory include intercity passenger rail lines (Amtrak 

California state and national lines), connecting bus service lines and station locations, intercity passenger 

rail station locations, proposed high-speed rail corridors and station locations, commuter rail systems and 

station locations, location of at-grade crossings, and passenger rail maintenance facilities. 

A GIS database design was developed to store the data layers deemed feasible for data development. 

Data layers were reviewed against current ortho imagery such as that available in Google Earth. 

Attributes and features were populated and verified, route-by-route, to ensure the physical characteristics 

of the existing passenger rail system were accurate and could be used for GIS-spatial and other analysis. 

This included characteristics such as shared corridor rail owner, rail operator, service frequency, 

condition, and station-level statistics. Corridors that are currently out of service were also noted. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 6-8 

6.2.6 Alternatives Analysis Methodology 

This section presents the methodology developed for the PSDP component of the SDP. The PSDP 

approach presented below includes the identification of PSDP criteria and the methodology for 

preliminary service development planning. 

The PSDP evaluation was based on prior studies of the Coast and related corridors, including: 

 Coast Daylight Implementation Plan (2000). 

 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001). 

 UPRR Presentations to the Coast Rail Coordinating Committee (January 2011 and March 2012). 

 Caltrain Extension to Monterey County Passenger Rail Stations Final Environmental Impact 

Report (2006), or FEIR. 

 LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan (2012). 

 Current service planning for Blended Service in Northern and Southern California. 

 Current environmental planning work. 

These studies identified a wide range of improvement projects including siding extensions, signaling 

upgrades, curve realignments, new stations, and enhancements to existing stations. The efficacy of 

many of these improvements will be tested in the operations simulation analysis, which is a subsequent 

phase of the SDP. At this point in the development of the SDP, it was appropriate to provide an 

evaluation of candidate Corridor-level improvements to focus further work and refine the concepts. 

Therefore, the PSDP methodology was designed to assemble and evaluate service plans and 

improvement lists that have been under development and/or implementation for some time, in order to 

create a foundation for further refinement. 

The PSDP criteria address how alternatives are determined to be reasonable and feasible, in order to be 

carried forward into further analysis. The criteria assess how well each alternative meets the following: 

 The Purpose and Need for the action. Considering factors relating to the passenger’s experience 

in using corridor rail services, such as travel time, station locations and availability of 

connections, and service reliability and frequency. 

o The travel time of corridor services as identified under each alternative was estimated in 

minutes based on present timetables and prior studies. 

o Intermodal connections and accessibility at the stations defined in the project description 

of each alternative were identified by working with local service providers and planning 

agencies. Factors considered included the extent to which the station serves existing 

jobs and neighborhoods, proximity to important destinations, and ability to complement 

or enhance the building fabric of the station area. 

o Reliability of the services identified under each alternative, with its proposed 

improvements, were determined based on current operating conditions. 

o The frequency of corridor services that each alternative would support was identified 

based on the market potential, corridor capacity and the schedule of existing corridor 

services. 

o Generalized levels of corridor ridership expected under each alternative were developed 

from new market analyses. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 6-9 

 Technical feasibility. Identifying ROW requirements, engineering constraints, physical route 

characteristics, capacity-constrained existing facilities or infrastructure, safety impacts and 

possible disruptions to railroad operations, highways, or adjacent property for each alternative. 

o Based on information in prior studies, ROW requirements to accommodate required 

improvements for the alternatives, such as new track outside of the ROW of the existing 

corridor services were identified. 

o Using information in prior studies disruptions to railroads, state highways, or adjacent 

property that would result from implementation of each alternative were identified. In 

general, such disruptions were not expected to occur where the service proposed in the 

alternative operates on tracks used by existing passenger services. 

 Economic feasibility. Identifying capital and operating costs, as well as the independent utility and 

potential for phasing. 

o If conceptual engineering cost estimates were available from prior studies, capital costs 

(not including ROW) for each alternative were identified. 

o Historical train mile / hour operating and maintenance cost data were used to estimate 

operating and maintenance (O&M) costs of each alternative. 

o Based on the project description, the independent utility of each alternative with respect 

to the corridor Purpose and Need was assessed (i.e. a description was provided of how 

the alternative would be a usable and reasonable expenditure, even if no additional 

transportation improvements are made in the area). 

o Potential phased implementation scenarios for the alternatives that can result in service 

improvements that have independent utility and reflect constructability considerations 

were described. 

 Major environmental concerns. Considering natural resources, cultural resources, and 

sustainability metrics. 

o Prior studies and high-level field review were used to identify fault crossings, AlquistPriolo fault zones, coastal areas, and known areas of high landslide susceptibility 

adjacent to the ROW for each alternative. 

o Prior studies and/or high-level field review were used to identify wetlands and streams 

crossed by or adjacent to the ROW of each alternative. Known threatened and 

endangered species habitat, or other known environmentally sensitive areas adjacent to 

the ROW of each alternative were also identified. 

o Based on prior studies and/or high-level field review, parklands, notable historic 

structures, known archeological sites, and/or farmlands or known lands in Williamson Act 

contract within the ultimate ROW of each alternative were identified. This criterion was 

generally not applicable where the service proposed in the alternative operates on tracks 

used by existing passenger services. 

o To assess noise and vibration impacts, and potential changes to visual/scenic resources, 

built-up areas with institutional, medical, school and/or residential properties adjacent to 

the ROW of each alternative were identified based on prior studies and/or high-level field 

review. This criterion was generally not applicable where the service proposed in the 

alternative operates on tracks used by existing passenger services. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 7-1 

7.0 Outreach Efforts 

This section describes the public/agency involvement in developing the Coast Corridor SDP as well as 

the CSRP statewide outreach effort as described in Chapter 4 of the State Rail Plan. 

At the time of developing the Coast Corridor SDP, separate environmental studies were ongoing or 

completed along the Coast Corridor including the legally required outreach providing information on the 

project alternatives, potential impacts and proposed mitigation. These include the Pacific Surfliner North 

Tier 1 EIR/EIS (led by Caltrans District 5), Salinas to San Luis Obispo Tier 1 EIR/EIS (managed by 

SLOCOG), and Caltrain Extension to Monterey County Passenger Rail Stations Final EIR (2006) 

(managed by the TAMC). Outreach efforts for the CSRP and Coast Corridor were coordinated with these 

various ongoing environmental studies. Scoping meetings were held to collect public input for the 

environmental review, these meetings were held on August 28, 2012 in Salinas and on August 29, 2012 

in San Luis Obispo. 

General outreach for the CSRP included the project website, advisory committee meetings, collateral 

materials and stakeholder outreach briefings. These outreach efforts also involved Coast Corridor 

specific information as it relates to the overall SDP development process. The following outlines the 

specific outreach efforts and coordination for the Coast Corridor SDP. The final Coast Corridor SDP 

report was vetted through the appropriate Caltrans agencies and other committees in early 2013. 

7.1 Stakeholder Meetings 

Presentations summarizing the goals, process, and schedule for the Coast Corridor SDP were provided 

to various Caltrans agencies, stakeholders, rail corridor committees and railroads during 2012 to ensure 

that key decision makers and executive staff were well informed and updated on the status of the SDP 

process and findings prior to submittal of the administrative draft. 

7.1.1 California State Rail Plan Advisory Committee 

A CSRP Advisory Committee was formed by Caltrans Division of Rail to provide input and expertise in the 

development of the CSRP and service development plans throughout the state including the Coast 

Corridor. Representatives from federal, state, and regional agencies and freight and passenger rail 

agencies comprised the committee to ensure a broad and diverse group of interests were represented. 

Participant groups included: 

 Amtrak 

 BNSF 

 The Authority 

 California Transportation Commission 

 Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) 

 CRCC 

 FRA 

 Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency—North Corridor (LOSSAN 

North) 

 Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency—South Corridor (LOSSAN 

South) 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 7-2 

 San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee (SJVRC) 

 State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (BT&H) 

 Union Pacific Railroad 

 Caltrans Internal Coordination 

Coast Corridor information, as part of the overall SDP development effort was presented to Caltrans 

Management and related agency groups including: BT&H, CTC and others. Specific SDP information was 

also part of the five public CSRP meetings held throughout the state in early 2013. 

A collaborative effort was also established with Caltrans District 5 and 7 Public Information Officers (PIOs) 

and Planning Deputies to assist with reaching out to corridor district stakeholders. PIOs were provided an 

information packet (fact sheet, frequently asked questions (FAQ), and website links and other CSRP 

materials) including a “Meeting-in-a-Box” PowerPoint presentation containing information on the Coast 

Corridor. They were also asked to help in getting the CSRP/SDP message out to stakeholders. 

Administrative Draft chapters for the Coast Corridor were also sent to PIO’s and Planning Deputies for 

their review and comments. The packet of information was used to educate the Districts on the CSRP 

and SDP process and to provide adequate reference materials should stakeholders inquire about the 

Coast Corridor study and outreach process. 

7.1.2 State Agencies/Regional Agencies 

Status and updates were provided to the SB 391 related state agencies and regional agencies (MPOs, 

RTPAs and COGs) related to the Coast Corridor including distribution of the same CSRP information 

packets discussed above. The agencies listed below were encouraged to review the materials and 

participate in the five public meetings held throughout the state in early 2013. The following agencies 

were provided a presentation on the status and process of developing the SDP’s including Coast 

Corridor: 

 State Agencies. The following SB 391 agencies received overview CSRP briefings including 

general SDP information only. 

o Strategic Growth Council (SGC) 

o Native American Advisory Committee (NAAC) 

o California Association of Councils of Governments (CALCOG) 

o Active Transportation and Livable Communities (ATLC) 

o Rural Counties Task Force (RCTF) 

The Air Resources Board (ARB) and California Energy Commission (CEC) received an 

information packet but did not receive a briefing. 

 Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) and 

Councils of Governments (COGs). 

 Representatives from the following agencies participated on the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency 

or CRCC rail committees where they received draft Coast Corridor documents: 

o SLOCOG 

o SBCAG 

o VCTC 

o SCAG 

o LA Metro 

o SCVTA 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 7-3 

o Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC) 

o TAMC 

o Caltrain 

7.1.3 SDP Rail Corridor Committees and Railroads 

As part of the CSRP Advisory Committee the LOSSAN, CRCC, freight, passenger and passenger rail 

representatives received the draft Coast Corridor SDP to review and provide comments. In addition, 

each member was tasked with coordinating the input needed to inform the SDP development process 

prior to the submittal of the Administrative Draft. Status reports and updates on the SDP and interim 

deliverables were also provided through specific presentations to the Advisory Committee. However, 

briefings were not scheduled to individual passenger and commuter rail owners and operators. Each of 

the agencies below received the CSRP chapters and draft Coast Corridor SDP for review and comment: 

 Rail Corridor Board and Committees: 

o Federal Railroad Administration 

o LOSSAN Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Board of Directors 

o LOSSAN Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) 

o San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee 

 Freight Railroads, Class 1/Shortline Railroads: 

o Union Pacific Railroad 

o BNSF Railway 

o California Shortline Railroad Association 

 Passenger Railroads (Owners and Operators): 

o Caltrain 

o Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

o Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) 

o Southern California Regional Rail Authority 

o Amtrak 

o Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 

o San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) 

o Altamont Corridor Express 

o San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) 

o San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (SDMTS) – Coaster 

o North County Transit District (NCTD) – Coaster 

o Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) – Metrolink 

o Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Commission 

o Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA) 

o Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) 

 Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

o San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) 

o Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) 

o San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 7-4 

o Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 

7.2 Public Meetings 

One round of five public meetings was held throughout the state in early 2013 to discuss the CSRP and 

SDP areas including the Coast Corridor. These public meetings garnered stakeholder input and 

supported the Coast Corridor environmental outreach efforts. Meetings were held in the following 

cities/locations: 

 Fresno (February 21, 2013) 

 Los Angeles (February 20, 2013) 

 Sacramento (February 12, 2013) 

 San Diego (February 19, 2013) 

 San Francisco Bay Area (February 14, 2013) 

Table 7.1: Stakeholder Meetings Involving Coast Corridor 

Date Meeting Location 

February 15, 2012 CSRP Advisory Committee Caltrans Headquarters, Sacramento 

June 6, 2012 CSRP Advisory Committee Caltrans Headquarters, Sacramento 

September 19, 2012 CSRP Advisory Committee Caltrans Headquarters, Sacramento 

November 14, 2012 CSRP Advisory Committee Caltrans Headquarters, Sacramento 

December 19, 2013 CSRP Advisory Committee Caltrans Headquarters, Sacramento 

September 14, 2012 BT&H Caltrans Headquarters, Sacramento 

September 14, 2012 CTC Staff Caltrans Headquarters, Sacramento

November 2012 BT&H Caltrans Headquarters, Sacramento 

January 2013 BT&H Caltrans Headquarters, Sacramento 

December 2012 SGC Sierra Hearing Room, Sacramento

November 14, 2012 NAAC Sacramento

October 30, 2012 CALCOG SACOG Board Room, Sacramento

May 2012 ATLF Sacramento

November 15, 2012 ATLF Sacramento

November 16, 2012 RCTF Caltrans Headquarters, Sacramento

April 20, 2012 CRCC SBCAG, Santa Barbara

May 10, 2012 LOSSAN TAC LA Metro, Los Angeles

June 29, 2012 LOSSAN TAC San Diego
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 7-5 

Date Meeting Location 

July 13, 2012 CRCC Amtrak Office, Oakland

August 9, 2012 LOSSAN TAC LA Metro, Los Angeles

August 30, 2012 LOSSAN/CRCC Joint Meeting San Luis Obispo

September 6, 2012 LOSSAN TAC San Diego

October 4, 2012 LOSSAN TAC LA Metro, Los Angeles

November 8, 2012 LOSSAN TAC San Diego

December 6, 2012 LOSSAN TAC San Diego

January 2013 LOSSAN Board San Diego

 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 8-1 

8.0 Ridership Demand and Revenue Forecast 

This section of the SDP addresses the methods, assumptions and outputs for travel demand forecasts, 

and the expected revenue from the proposed services. 

8.1 Passenger Rail Forecast 

Passenger Rail Ridership (and revenue) forecasts were prepared for baseline and future conditions along 

the Coast Corridor, using a 2020 and 2040 forecast year. An overview of the methodology and approach, 

study area, data sources and assumptions, travel demand model, and resulting ridership forecasts is 

provided below. 

8.1.1 Methodology and Approach 

The 2020 and 2040 ridership forecasts were prepared using the Amtrak/California Intercity Passenger 

Rail Forecasting Model (Amtrak/Caltrans Model), a forecasting model developed by AECOM for the 

California Department of Transportation and Amtrak to provide consistent ridership and ticket revenue 

forecasts in support of short- and long-term rail passenger service planning in California. The 

Amtrak/Caltrans Model is based on extensive market and traveler behavior research throughout 

California (and nationwide), historical rail ridership and revenue data and trends, and demographic data. 

It provides coverage across the three existing California state-supported passenger rail corridors 

(including major thruway bus connections to/from rail) and addresses travel by intercity passenger rail, 

auto, and air (for trips between Northern and Southern California). 

8.1.2 Study Area Definition 

The overall study area addressed by the Amtrak/Caltrans model is illustrated by Exhibit 8.1. The Pacific 

Surfliner North, Pacific Surfliner South, Amtrak’s Coast Starlight and the proposed Coast Daylight, are 

also shown in this figure, since these services and their markets have important interactions with respect 

to the Coast Daylight. Specifically, the proposed Coast Daylight train service will operate as an extension 

of Pacific Surfliner trains, providing a one-seat ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles. 

Ridership/revenue on these shared trains will be accounted for as follows: 

 Travel north of San Luis Obispo (which is the northern end of the Pacific Surfliner service area), 

such as a trip from San Luis Obispo to San Francisco, is assigned to the Coast Daylight. 

 Travel between points north of San Luis Obispo and points south of San Luis Obispo, such as a 

trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles, is also assigned to the Coast Daylight. 

 Travel entirely south of San Luis Obispo, such as a trip from San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles, is 

assigned to the Pacific Surfliner. 

In addition, the Coast Daylight serves many markets in common with Amtrak’s Coast Starlight, which 

would continue to operate between Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland and points north of Oakland. 

Regions of particular importance to these SDP forecasts are San Francisco and San Jose at the northern 

end; Monterey Bay and the Central Coast; and Los Angeles at the southern end. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 8-2 

Exhibit 8.1: Study Area Map 

8.1.3 Data Sources and Assumptions 

The Amtrak/Caltrans Model is based on extensive travel survey data collected between 2005 and 2008 

from existing automobile and rail users at key locations within California. 

Modal service characteristics represent the key independent variables in forecasting the shares of travel 

captured by each mode of travel. These characteristics, often referred to as impedances, include: 

 Travel time (minutes). 

 Travel cost (dollars). 

 Frequency of service (departures per day). 

Future growth estimates are based on socio-economic data and forecasts developed by Moody’s 

Economy.com. Key measures include forecasts of population, employment, and income. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 8-3 

8.1.4 Travel Demand Model 

Structure

The Amtrak/Caltrans Model utilizes a two-stage model system. The first stage forecasts the growth in the 

total number of person trips in each market and the second stage predicts the market share captured by 

each available mode in each market. Both stages are dependent on the service characteristics of each 

mode and the characteristics of the corridor population. The key market segments addressed in the 

forecasting model system are defined and evaluated by origin-destination market pair and trip purpose 

(commute, business, recreation, and other). 

The first stage of the Amtrak/Caltrans Model addresses the growth in the total intercity person travel 

volumes and includes “natural” growth and “induced” demand. The second stage of the Amtrak/Caltrans 

Model is the mode share component, which estimates the percentage of the total person travel by the 

following three different modes of intercity travel (auto, intercity rail, and air). The key variables in the 

mode share model include: 

 Line-haul travel time for all modes. 

 Access/egress time for intercity rail and air. 

 Travel cost or fare.

Network and Service Characteristics

Detailed rail service inputs were developed for baseline conditions and four future service scenarios. The 

“Baseline” is defined by the current service levels, which do not include any state-supported train service, 

like the Coast Daylight between San Francisco and Los Angeles, but does include: 

 Five daily round-trips on Pacific Surfliner trains between Goleta and Los Angeles, two of which 

extend all the way to San Luis Obispo, with connecting bus service at Santa Barbara (three) or 

San Luis Obispo (one of two) to/from the Bay Area. 

 Amtrak’s Coast Starlight, which provides one daily round-trip between points north of the Bay 

Area, Emeryville, Oakland, San Jose, San Luis Obispo, and Los Angeles. 

The future “Build” scenarios differ for forecast years 2020 and 2040, and include new Coast Daylight train 

service as follows: 

 In 2020, a new daily round-trip between San Francisco and Los Angeles, operated as an 

extension of an existing Pacific Surfliner round-trip that now terminates at San Luis Obispo. 

 In 2040, a second daily round-trip between San Francisco and Los Angeles, operating on an 

overnight schedule. 

In addition, other changes would be implemented in 2020 and 2040 within the Pacific Surfliner service 

area south of San Luis Obispo.xiv Table 8.1 summarizes the train frequencies provided in the Baseline 

and 2020 and 2040 Build scenarios. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 8-4 

Table 8.1: Summary of Train Frequencies by Scenario 

Daily Train Frequencies 

(round-trips) 

Baseline Build 2020 Build 2040 

Pacific Surfliner 

San Luis Obispo—Los Angeles 2 daily 2 daily(1) 4 daily(1)

Goleta—Los Angeles (including above) 5 daily 6 daily(1) 7 daily(1)

Coast Daylight 

San Francisco—Los Angeles - 1 daily 2 daily

Amtrak’s Coast Starlight

Seattle—Emeryville—SLO—Los Angeles 1 daily 1 daily 1 daily

Notes: 

(1) Includes trains providing Coast Daylight service north of San Luis Obispo 

8.1.5 Baseline and Future Scenarios Forecasted Ridership 

Using the Amtrak/Caltrans Model, ridership and ticket revenue forecasts were prepared for 2020 and 

2040 baseline and future service scenarios. Table 8.2 summarizes these results by type of service for 

the Coast Daylight and parallel Coast Starlight market segments only. Forecast results associated with 

Pacific Surfliner markets, which are south of San Luis Obispo, are addressed in the Pacific Surfliner North 

SDP. 

The results show generally expected growth in ridership/revenue as new Coast Daylight frequencies are 

implemented in 2020 and in 2040. The relative contribution of the second Coast Daylight round-trip is 

lower because it provides an overnight schedule that is not as convenient to some intermediate markets 

plus there is generally diminishing impact of adding new frequencies, particularly when one also 

considers the availability of Pacific Surfliner connecting bus service to/from many of the same markets. 

The small increases in Coast Starlight ridership and revenue result from small improvements in travel 

time as well as adding a stop at the new King City station served by the Coast Daylight. 

8.2 Revenue Forecast 

Revenue includes ticket revenue associated with fares paid by train rides and auxiliary revenue 

associated with on-board food and beverage service. 

8.2.1 Ticket Revenue Forecast 

Ticket revenue forecasts are simply the product of the ridership forecasts, described above, and the 

average fares by station pair market. The table below also summarizes the forecasted ticket revenue. All 

ticket revenue forecasts are expressed in 2012 dollars and are consistent with the latest near-term 

forecasts developed by Amtrak and Caltrans for current state-supported intercity passenger rail services 

within California. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 8-5 

Table 8.2: 2020 and 2040 Annual Forecasts for Coast Daylight Service Options 

Forecast Year 2020 Forecast Year 2040 

Baseline Build Baseline Build

Annual Ridership 

Coast Daylight 

Markets North of San Luis Obispo 0 87,000 0 217,000

Markets Thru San Luis Obispo 0 37,000 0 57,000

Subtotal 0 124,000 0 274,000

Coast Starlight

Markets North of San Luis Obispo 74,000 73,000 103,000 107,000

Markets Thru San Luis Obispo 28,000 32,000 37,000 43,000

Subtotal 102,000 105,000 140,000 150,000

Ticket Revenue (2012 dollars)

Coast Daylight 

Markets North of San Luis Obispo $0 $5,000,000 $0 $12,500,000

Markets Thru San Luis Obispo $0 $1,200,000 $0 $1,900,000

Subtotal $0 $6,200,000 $0 $14,400,000

Coast Starlight

Markets North of San Luis Obispo $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,900,000 $7,300,000

Markets Thru San Luis Obispo $1,000,000 $800,000 $1,300,000 $1,100,000

Subtotal $6,000,000 $5,800,000 $8,200,000 $8,400,000

8.2.2 Auxiliary Revenue Forecast 

Typically, where detailed revenue sources are unavailable, the forecasting of auxiliary revenue is 

represented as a percentage of the total operation revenue. Auxiliary revenue is not substantial for the 

current network. Since there currently are no programs in place to increase auxiliary revenue sources in 

the future year scenarios, auxiliary revenue forecasts are not expected to be considerable. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 9-1 

9.0 Operations Modeling 

This section of the SDP describes the rail operation simulations for the Coast Corridor. For the purposes 

of this study, the Coast Corridor is defined as operating between San Luis Obispo and San Jose in the 

existing year (2012) and between San Luis Obispo and San Francisco in future years. Railroad 

operations dynamic simulations were undertaken to provide a thorough review of the capacity issues 

affecting the corridor, using RailOPS simulation software. 

The modeling includes all rail activity in the corridor, including freight, intercity passenger rail and 

commuter rail. Though the discussion focuses on operations modeling of this specific corridor, the 

methodology itself encompasses a statewide system approach. The simulation model includes the rail 

network for all of the SDP corridors and the rail activity loaded onto the model reflects movements from all 

potential sources that would be using a particular section of track. 

The service network analysis models and methodologies used are described in detail, including the 

method through which potential infrastructure improvements were identified and incorporated into the 

modeling effort. This section specifically describes how stochastic operations were incorporated into the 

modeling effort, in terms of operational reliability of scheduled rail service, operational variability of nonscheduled rail service and equipment and infrastructure reliability. Base case and alternative specific 

schedules for existing and new services, and operating windows and schedules are provided. Equipment 

compositions (consists) for all services included in the operations modeling are described. 

The origin of the rail infrastructure network employed in the operations modeling is described in this 

chapter as well as any major infrastructure-related assumptions employed in the operations modeling is 

also provided. The outputs from operations modeling of all base case and alternative scenarios are 

provided, specifically: stringline diagrams, heatmaps, and delay matrices. Stringline diagrams are graphs 

which show the time on the horizontal axis, and train stations on the vertical axis in order to show train 

positions over time. The background color on the stringline diagram indicates the number of main tracks 

available for each track segment. Heatmaps show a schematic representation of the corridor with 

different colors used to indicate the level of track occupation, i.e. the percent of time a train is physically 

occupying each section of track. Delay matrices list the average minutes of delay per train operated for 

each train service by location. 

The following scenarios were modeled for three planning horizon years: 

 Existing Year (2012). includes the existing network, passenger schedules currently in operation, 

and existing freight volumes. 

 Year 2020 Base Case: includes the Existing Year network, plus any network improvements 

expected to be completed by 2020. Passenger schedules include any schedule refinements plus 

additional services to be implemented by 2020. Freight volumes include projected increases for 

the 2020 horizon.(xv) 

 Year 2020 Alternative Case: includes the Year 2020 Base Case schedules and network, plus any 

additional improvements identified through the modeling effort recommended for the 2020 

horizon. 

 Year 2040 Base Case: includes the 2020 Alternative Case network along with any network 

improvements expected to be completed by 2040, along with schedules refinements planned for 

the 2040 horizon and any project increases freight volume for 2040. 

 Year 2040 Alternative Case: includes the Year 2040 Base Case schedules and network, plus any 

additional improvements identified through the modeling effort recommended for the 2040 

horizon. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 9-2 

9.1 Modeling Methodology 

The dynamic simulation model was developed using RailOPS,(xvi) which provides large area network 

dispatching and conflict resolution. RailOPS is a software simulation engine supported by a suite of preand post-processing support tools that allows explicit and realistic representation of the details of rail 

operations and provides the flexibility and extensibility to construct an analogue of almost any rail 

operation. The model can run continuously for any amount of simulated time, as appropriate. The 

RailOPS simulation model is the equivalent of the Rail Traffic Controller (RTC)(xvii) simulation model. 

The Existing Year network was setup using scale GIS drawings of the California rail system for an 

accurate representation of the current infrastructure. Passenger timetables are defined in the model, 

while freight services are generated throughout the day as needed based on future volume projections, 

scheduled so as to not interfere with passenger traffic. Priority is given to scheduling freight trains during 

the day if capacity exists so as to avoid having trains in populated areas during late night / early morning 

hours. In addition, each track segment has at least a three hour block overnight during which no trains are 

scheduled to allow for general rolling maintenance. The average length of freight trains for the Existing 

Year is 7,000 feet based on current operating data from UPRR. For Year 2020 and Year 2040 scenarios, 

the average freight train length was increased to 10,000 feet to represent the effect of increasing freight 

train lengths over time. However; the simulation was not used to determine optimal future siding lengths 

to accommodate freight trains, which will be based on engineering judgment. The 10,000 feet future train 

length is nominal and used to represent increasing train lengths over time, but is not a specific prediction 

about the expected average length of freight trains in Year 2020 or Year 2040. The simulation was used 

to determine major infrastructure upgrades such as siding extension locations, additional main track, 

additional station platforms, etc, but was not used to address engineering issues such as grade 

separations, pedestrian access, or bridge rehabilitation. 

Railway network details for input include: 

 Scale computer-aided design (CAD) drawings based on detailed GIS information. 

 A schematic drawing. 

 Railway details such as switches, signals, stations, and transfer locations can also be included 

as required. 

 Priority logic. 

Operational details for input include: 

 Service dispatch frequency. 

 Service timetables and dwell times. 

 Rolling stock information such as lengths, running speeds, and accelerations. 

Outputs for the Coast Corridor simulation include: 

 Detailed animation to scale or as a schematic showing block occupation. 

 Delay measures by location and service. 

 Stringline diagrams. 

 Heatmaps showing utilization by area.

Exhibit 9.1 shows a RailOPS screenshot of a small segment of the Coast Corridor network in the 

schematic layout, centered at San Luis Obispo.
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 9-3 

Exhibit 9.1: RailOPS Schematic View of San Luis Obispo Station 

9.1.1 Service Network Analysis 

The RailOPS modeling process consists of the following steps: 

1. Model Validation: The Existing Year scenario is validated by comparing actual operating data on 

average minutes of delay per train service from passenger rail operators (Amtrak) to RailOPS 

delays outputs (see Section 9.1.2 for validation results). 

2. Year 2020 Base Case: 

o First, any infrastructure improvements expected to be complete before 2020 are added to 

the Existing Year rail network to create a Year 2020 Base Case network. 

o The model is then run on the Year 2020 Base Case network with the Existing Year 

passenger services and freight volumes projected for 2020 to determine if the Year 2020 

Base Case network can accommodate increases in freight train volume without any 

passenger volume increases. 

o If the Existing Year passenger train volumes can meet an OTP goal of 87 percent with 

Year 2020 freight volumes, the freight increases are considered feasible. If not, 

necessary schedule refinements to reduce freight conflicts with passenger trains are 

identified. If schedule refinements are insufficient, network infrastructure improvements 

are identified and implemented until the passenger OTP goal is met. 

o Next, complete passenger schedules including any expected new passenger services for 

the Year 2020 horizon are implemented on the Year 2020 Base Case network along with 

the previously added Year 2020 freight train volumes. Model outputs are then analyzed to 

see if passenger trains are able to meet the OTP goal of 87 percent. 

o If any passenger services have an OTP of lower than 87 percent, first schedule 

refinements to reduce passenger train conflicts are identified. If schedule refinements are 

insufficient, network infrastructure improvements are identified and implemented until the 

passenger OTP goal is met. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 9-4 

3. Year 2020 Alternative Case: 

o The Year 2020 Alternative Case is the end product of the Year 2020 Base Case 

modeling process outlined in Step 2. It includes projected passenger and freight volumes 

for 2020 and any improvements to the Year 2020 Base Case network necessary to reach 

the OTP goal of 87 percent for all passenger train services operating in 2020. 

4. Year 2040 Base Case: 

o First, the Year 2040 Base Case network is developed by adding any network 

improvements expected to be completed by 2040 to the Year 2020 Alternative Case 

network, which includes previously identified necessary improvements for the Year 2020 

horizon. 

o The model is then run on the Year 2040 Base Case network with the Year 2020 

passenger services and freight volumes projected for 2040 to determine if the Year 2040 

Base Case network can accommodate increases in freight train volume without any 

passenger volume increases. 

o If the Year 2020 passenger train volumes can meet an on-time performance (OTP) goal 

of 87 percent with Year 2040 freight volumes, the freight increases are considered 

feasible. If not, schedule refinements to reduce freight conflicts with passenger trains are 

identified. If schedule refinements are insufficient, network infrastructure improvements 

are identified and implemented until the passenger OTP goal is met. 

o Next, complete passenger schedules including any expected new passenger services for 

the Year 2040 horizon are implemented on the Year 2040 Base Case network along with 

the previously added Year 2040 freight train volumes. Model outputs are then analyzed to 

see if passenger trains are able to meet the OTP goal of 87 percent. 

o If any passenger services have an OTP of lower than 87 percent, first schedule 

refinements to reduce passenger train conflicts are identified. If schedule refinements are 

insufficient, network infrastructure improvements are identified and implemented until the 

passenger OTP goal is met. 

5. Year 2040 Alternative Case: 

o The Year 2040 Alternative Case is the end product of the Year 2040 Base Case 

modeling process outlined in Step 4. It includes projected passenger and freight volumes 

for 2040 and any improvements to the Year 2040 Base Case network necessary to reach 

the OTP goal of 87 percent for all passenger train services operating in 2040. 

The modeling methodology is intended to determine overall needs on the Coast Corridor only and does 

not determine the responsibility or allocation of costs to address these needs. 

9.1.2 Operational, Equipment and Infrastructure Reliability 

Train reliability is crucial to operators in meeting OTP goals. On the Coast network, there are several 

elements of infrastructure which may impede reliability. Elevation changes between San Luis Obispo and 

San Francisco (which Amtrak will provide service to in future years) contribute to limited speeds in the 

region, reducing the ability of trains to recover from delays by accelerating to a maximum speed between 

stations. There is also a segment of track between Santa Margarita and Salinas which is operated under 

Track Warrant Control (TWC), rather than CTC. Under TWC, train operators are given permission to 

move from block to block through radio communication with UPRR dispatchers. At the end of each block, 

the train must wait for permission to go forward once again. With CTC, all of this is managed more 

efficiently centrally via remotely controlled signals and switches, reducing the amount of time trains spend 

waiting for dispatching instructions and improving reliability. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 9-5 

Amtrak currently operates one passenger train service on the Coast network: the Coast Starlight. One 

additional service, the Coast Daylight, has also been proposed for future years. The types of delays 

tracked by Amtrak for its Coast Corridor service are summarized in Table 9.1. 

Table 9.1: Delay Code Definitions 

Code Code Description Explanation 

Host Railroad Responsible Delays 

FTI Freight Train 

Interference Delays from freight trains 

PTI Passenger Train 

Interference Delays for meeting or following All Other passenger trains 

CTI Commuter Train 

Interference Delays for meeting or following commuter trains 

DSR Slow Order Delays Temporary slow orders, except heat or cold orders 

DCS Signal Delays Signal failure or All Other signal delays, wayside defect-detector false-alarms, 

defective road crossing protection, efficiency tests, drawbridge stuck open 

DBS Debris Debris strikes 

RTE Routing Routing-dispatching delays including diversions, late track bulletins, etc. 

DMW Maintenance of Way Maintenance of Way delays including holds for track repairs or MW foreman to 

clear 

DTR Detour Delays from detours 

Amtrak Responsible Delays 

ADA Passenger Related All delays related to disabled passengers, wheel chair lifts, guide dogs, etc 

HLD Passenger Related All delays related to passengers, checked-baggage, large groups, etc 

SYS Crew & System Delays related to crews including lateness, lone-engineer delays 

ENG Locomotive Failure Mechanical failure on engines. 

CCR Cab Car Failure Mechanical failure on Cab Cars 

CAR Car Failure Mechanical failure on all types of cars 

SVS Servicing All switching and servicing delays 

CON Hold for Connection Holding for connections from All Other trains or buses. 

ITI Initial Terminal Delay Delay at initial terminal due to late arriving inbound trains causing late release 

of equipment 

INJ Injury Delay Delay due to injured passengers or employees. 

OTH Miscellaneous Delays Lost-on-run, heavy trains, unable to make normal speed, etc 

Third Party Delays 

NOD Unused Recovery Time Waiting for scheduled departure time at a station 

CUI Customs U.S. and Canadian customs delays; Immigration-related delays 

POL Police-Related Police/fire department holds on ROW or on-board trains 

TRS Trespassers Trespasser incidents including road crossing accidents, trespasser / animal 

strikes, vehicle stuck on track ahead, bridge strikes 

MBO Drawbridge Openings Movable bridge openings for marine traffic where no bridge failure is involved 

WTR Weather-Related All severe-weather delays, landslides or washouts, earthquake-related delays, 

heat or cold orders 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-6 

Table 9.2: Coast Starlight Service Delay Minutes by Segment within the Coast Corridor (1 2) Segment ADA CAR CTI DBS DCS DMW DSR ENG FTI HLD INJ NOD OTH POL PTI RTE SVS San Luis Obispo – Paso Robles 37 7 2 29 58 456 110 33 238 23 181 6 217 13 Paso Robles – Salinas 34 10 112 14 256 46 4 283 42 26 17 9 5 53 Salinas – San Jose 15 6 7 3453 73 497 33 169 179 7 38 41 20 

Grand Total 86 23 7 2 3594 145 1209 189 37 690 42 228 205 44 226 59 73 

Notes: (1) Delays recorded by Amtrak between May 1, 2012 and July 31, 2012 (2) CTI, FTI, PTI, and RTE in bold are the four categories against which the Existing Year model is validated 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 9-7 

Table 9.2 summarizes the delays experienced by Coast Starlight train services operating between May 1, 

2012 and July 31, 2012, the time period used for validation of the Existing Year network, using the delay 

types found in Table 9.1. The Coast Starlight is currently the only Amtrak service operating within the 

Coast Corridor, although a second future service, the Coast Daylight, has also been proposed. 

Four types of train interference delay are highlighted in Table 9.2: commuter train interference (CTI), 

freight train interference (FTI), passenger train interference (PTI), and routing (RTE). To validate the 

Existing Year network with existing schedules, RailOPS outputs for average delay minutes per train were 

compared to these four delay types. The other types of delays are from random events not related to 

potential scheduling issues, such as weather, mechanical failures, or passenger issues. If model results 

without any of these random events have the same amount of delay as indicated by Amtrak from train 

interference alone, then the schedule and network are validated. If average model delay is within 25 

percent of the average delays per train from Table 9.2, the Existing Year scenario is considered validated. 

A 25 percent threshold is considered sufficient for validating the Coast Starlight service on the Coast 

Corridor as there is little train interaction delay overall, so model interaction delays within 25 percent of 

Amtrak’s reported delays also indicates the same low level of delays. 

The data in Table 9.2 correspond to 184 total trains operated on segments between San Luis Obispo and 

San Jose. 

Train interaction delays amount to only 4 percent of the total delays listed during this period by Amtrak for 

the Coast Starlight service. This is because the service primarily runs over a region with a low volume of 

other rail activity. The service also does not extend into the local Caltrain passenger service network. 

The other types of delays reported by Amtrak on the Coast Starlight service within the Coast Corridor 

primarily consist of: 

 Passenger related issues (10 percent): Assisting disabled passengers (ADA), injuries (INJ), and 

large groups or baggage issues (HLD). 

 Mechanical issues on the train (3 percent): Either locomotives (ENG), or railcars (CAR). 

 Coordination or local track and signal issues (79 percent): Waiting for a scheduled departure time 

at a station (NOD), slow orders (DSR), debris on the tracks (DBS), signal failures (DCS) or 

switch/signal serving (SVS), crew-related delays (SYS), and track maintenance holds (DMW). 

 Miscellaneous rare events (4 percent): E.g. police holds (POL), bad weather (WTR), trespassers 

(TRS), etc. 

Most delays to the Coast Starlight service within the Coast Corridor are due to signaling issues due to 

multiple segments of track operating under Automatic Block Signaling, which is not centrally 

controlled. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 9-8 

9.2 Integrated Operating Timetables 

9.2.1 Existing Year Schedules 

Schedules developed by Amtrak (effective May 7, 2012) and used for the Existing Year model validation 

are shown in Table 9.3. These schedules include only stations within the Coast Corridor. The Coast 

Starlight service currently runs between Los Angeles Union Station and Seattle. San Luis Obispo is the 

first station within the Coast Corridor to the south, so the Coast Starlight operation considered for analysis 

in this chapter is between San Luis Obispo (the southernmost station within the Coast Corridor) and San 

Jose (the northernmost station served by the Coast Starlight within the Coast Corridor).

Table 9.3: Existing Year Coast Starlight Service Schedule within the Coast Corridor (1) 

Coast Starlight 11 (South) 14 (North) 

Daily Daily 

San Luis Obispo 3:20 pm 3:43 pm

Paso Robles 1:38 pm 4:45 pm 

Salinas 11:48 am 6:36 pm 

San Jose 10:07 am 8:27 pm 

Notes: 

(1) From Amtrak Schedule Effective November 7, 2011 

In addition to the passenger train service operating on the Coast Corridor, there are also daily freight 

trains operated by UPRR. Table 9.4 summarizes the number of freight trains included in the Existing Year 

simulation on each segment of Coast Corridor. The table includes two types of freight trains, both 

operated by UPRR. The first type is long-haul freight trains, those travelling across the entire Corridor or a 

significant portion of it. The second type is local freight trains which operate over short segments of the 

corridor, generally travelling no more than 50 miles in any direction. The average length of freight trains in 

this analysis is 7,000 feet in the Existing Year based on current operating data, with the average length in 

Year 2020 and Year 2040 set nominally at 10,000 feet to represent the trend of increasing train lengths 

over time. Note that while local freight train volumes were included in analysis for each Corridor, none of 

these were reported to be operating within the Coast Corridor by UPRR. There also is no freight traffic 

within the Coast corridor in the Existing Year north of San Jose; this is assumed to remain the case for 

Year 2020 and Year 2040. 

Table 9.4: Existing Year UPRR Freight Trains per Day 

From To Long-Haul Local 

 San Luis Obispo Paso Robles 2 NA 

 Paso Robles Salinas 2 NA

 Salinas Gilroy 2 NA 

 Gilroy San Jose 2 NA 

Notes:

- “NA” indicates that an identification number or estimated cost is not available.

Freight trains are usually not operated according to a particular schedule. For modeling purposes, freight 

trains are slotted-in between scheduled passenger trains where capacity exists so as to not impede 

passenger train movements with a minimum of three hours of track downtime available overnight on each 

track segment to allow for ongoing maintenance. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 9-9 

9.2.2 Year 2020 Schedules 

Amtrak schedules for Year 2020 are given in Tables 9.5 and 9.6 from the April 2012 Revised Long-Term 

(2030) Timetable in LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan (2012), with modifications 

where necessary to allow for adequate transit times or train passing. 

One daily southbound and one daily northbound Coast Daylight train are proposed by 2020. 

Table 9.5: Year 2020 Coast Starlight Service Schedule within the Coast Corridor (1)

Coast Starlight 11 (South) 14 (North) 

Daily Daily 

San Luis Obispo 3:20 pm 3:43 pm 

Paso Robles 1:38 pm 4:45 pm 

Salinas 11:48 am 6:47 pm 

San Jose 10:07 am 8:38 pm 

Notes: 

(1) From Revised Long-Term (2030) Timetable in LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan (2012) 

Table 9.6: Year 2020 Coast Daylight Service Schedule within the Coast Corridor (1)

Coast Daylight South North 

Daily Daily 

San Luis Obispo 1:49 pm 12:07 pm 

Paso Robles 12:12 pm 1:20 pm 

King City 11:17 am 2:40 pm 

Soledad 10:52 am 3:05 pm 

Salinas 10:11 am 3:31 pm 

San Jose 8:06 am 5:27 pm 

San Francisco 7:07 am 6:32 pm 

Notes: 

(1) From Revised Long-Term (2030) Timetable in LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan (2012) (2) Sunday – Saturday 

Table 9.7 lists Year 2020 UPRR freight trains. No freight traffic currently operates within the Coast 

Corridor north of San Jose or into San Francisco. This remained the case in future year operational 

assumptions as freight growth projections were based on current operational data. 

Table 9.7: Year 2020 UPRR Freight Trains per Day 

From To Long-Haul Local 

 San Luis Obispo Paso Robles 4 NA

 Paso Robles Salinas 4 NA

 Salinas Gilroy 4 NA

 Gilroy San Jose 4 NA

Notes: 

- “NA” indicates that an identification number or estimated cost is not available. 

It should be noted that electrification of Caltrain will not occur until after the year 2020. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 9-10 

9.2.3 Year 2040 Schedules 

Amtrak schedules for Year 2040 are given in Tables 9.8 and 9.9 from the April 2012 Revised Long-Term 

(2030) Timetable in LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan (2012), with modifications 

where necessary to allow for adequate transit times or train passing. 

Table 9.8: Year 2040 Coast Starlight Service Schedule within the Coast Corridor (1)

Coast Starlight 11 (South) 14 (North) 

Daily Daily 

San Luis Obispo 3:20 pm 3:13 pm

Paso Robles 1:50 pm 4:15 pm

Salinas 11:48 am 6:17 pm

San Jose 10:07 am 8:08 pm

Notes: 

(1) From Revised Long-Term (2030) Timetable in LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan, (2012) 

Table 9.9: Year 2040 Coast Daylight Service Schedule within the Coast Corridor (1)

Coast Daylight South South North North 

Daily Daily Daily Daily 

San Luis Obispo 1:49 pm 3:43 am 12:07 pm 12:30 am

Paso Robles 12:12 pm 2:06 am 1:20 pm 1:35 am

King City 11:17 am 1:11 am 2:40 pm 2:39 am

Soledad 10:52 am 12:51 am 3:05 pm 3:00 am

Salinas 10:11 am 12:10 am 3:31 pm 3:26 am

San Jose 8:06 am 10:20 pm 5:27 pm 5:30 am

San Francisco 7:07 am 9:20 pm 6:32 pm 6:30 am

Notes: 

(1) From Revised Long-Term (2030) Timetable in LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan, (2012)

Table 9.10 lists Year 2040 UPRR freight trains. No freight traffic currently operates within the Coast 

Corridor north of San Jose or into San Francisco. This remained the case in future year operational 

assumptions as freight growth projections were based on current operational data. 

Table 9.10: Year 2040 UPRR Freight Trains per Day 

From To Long-Haul Local 

 San Luis Obispo Paso Robles 4 NA

 Paso Robles Salinas 4 NA

 Salinas Gilroy 4 NA

 Gilroy San Jose 4 NA

Notes: 

- “NA” indicates that an identification number or estimated cost is not available. 

It should be noted that the HSR service will be in place by the year 2040 after the completion of the Bay 

to Basin segment in the year 2026 and Phase 1 Blended Service in the year 2029. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 9-11 

9.3 Equipment Consists 

This section summarizes the type of equipment used for train services operating on the Coast Corridor, 

including locomotives and car types, where available. 

9.3.1 Intercity Passenger Rail Services 

Amtrak Coast Starlight

The Coast Starlight primarily operates using the General Electric Genesis P42DC locomotive, the 

primarily locomotive type employed by the Amtrak fleet. The Coast Starlight service operates Superliner 

double-decked passenger cars. A typical Coast Starlight train consist includes: four coaches, one firstclass Pacific Parlour car, one Sightseer Lounge car, one dining car, three sleeper cars, one Transition 

Sleeper, and one baggage car.

9.3.2 Freight Rail Services 

Unlike passenger service, freight train consists across the network are not uniform. Train length, railcar 

type, and number of locomotives will vary depending on the type of cargo and distance to be traveled. 

Average train length for modeling purposes in 7,000 feet for the Existing Year based on 2012 operating 

data, and 10,000 feet in Year 2020 and Year 2040 to represent the trend of increasing average train 

lengths over time. The model was not used to make specific predictions about future freight train lengths 

or optimal siding lengths. 

9.4 Rail Infrastructure Characteristics 

This section describes the significant characteristics of the Coast Corridor network, including: locations 

where CTC has been implemented, locations with potentially insufficient sidings, and the number of main 

tracks available across the network. 

9.4.1 Rail Infrastructure Network Background 

For the purposes of this modeling effort, the Coast Corridor is defined as operating between San Luis 

Obispo and San Jose in the Existing Year and between San Luis Obispo and San Francisco in Year 2020 

and Year 2040. 

The region of track over which Caltrain operates between San Francisco and San Jose has CTC 

implemented. Caltrain has plans for electrification of service in a common corridor into San Francisco. 

The number of main tracks varies from two to four across most of the network. 

South of San Jose, many sections of track use Automatic Block Signaling rather than CTC. TWC is also 

used between Santa Margarita and Salinas. With TWC, train operators are given permission to move 

from block to block through radio communication with UPRR dispatchers. At the end of each block, the 

train must wait for permission to go forward once again. With CTC, all of this is managed centrally via 

remotely controlled signals and switches, reducing the amount of time trains spend waiting for dispatching 

instructions. Most of the Santa Margarita to Salinas region has a single main track, although there are two 

main tracks between San Jose and Coyote, about 13 miles south of San Jose. 

9.4.2 Infrastructure-related Assumptions 

For the Existing Year modeling effort, the rail infrastructure was based on existing conditions as given in 

schematic track charts or shown in scaled network drawings. For the Year 2020 and Year 2040 Base 

Case modeling efforts, no immediate improvements were identified for inclusion. The Base Case network 

for these scenarios is the same as the Existing Year network. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 9-12 

9.5 Model Outputs 

This section summarizes the RailOPS modeling results for the Existing Year model validation as well as 

Year 2020 and Year 2040 modeling efforts. Improvements identified through the modeling effort are 

included in the Year 2020 and Year 2040 Alternative Case sections. 

9.5.1 Existing Year 

This section summarizes RailOPS outputs for the Existing Year schedule validation. Service schedules 

are considered validated if the overall delay per service matches the Amtrak reference delay values to 

within 25 percent when compared across each segment and the entire service overall. 

Tables 9.11 through 9.12 compare average minutes of delay per train operated from RailOPS outputs to 

the same values reported by Amtrak for the Coast Starlight service. 

Table 9.11: Average Delay Comparison – Coast Starlight Service, Northbound 

From To 

Average Delay per Train Departure (Minutes)

RailOPS 

Average 

Amtrak 

Reported Difference 

San Luis Obispo Paso Robles 1.4 1.4 0.0

Paso Robles Salinas 0.1 0.1 0.0

Salinas San Jose 0.8 0.3 0.5

Total 2.3 1.8 0.5 

Overall Difference (%) 21.7% 

Table 9.12: Average Delay Comparison – Coast Starlight Service, Southbound 

From To 

Average Delay per Train Departure (Minutes)

RailOPS 

Average 

Amtrak 

Reported Difference 

Salinas San Jose 0.0 0.2 -0.2

Paso Robles Salinas 0.0 01 -0.1

San Luis Obispo Paso Robles 1.4 1.4 0.0

 Total 1.4 1.8 -0.3 

 Overall Difference (%) -21.4% 

Exhibit 9.2 through 9.5 show stringline diagrams of each train operated on the Coast Corridor network in 

RailOPS. Exhibit 9.6 shows a track occupancy heatmap for a 24-hour period, while Exhibit 9.7 shows a 

track occupancy heatmap for the peak commute period between 7:00am and 9:00am. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-13 

Exhibit 9.2: Existing Year 12:00am – 6:00am Coast Stringline Diagram 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-14 

Exhibit 9.3: Existing Year 6:00am – 12:00pm Coast Stringline Diagram
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-15 

Exhibit 9.4: Existing Year 12:00pm – 6:00pm Coast Stringline Diagram 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-16 

Exhibit 9.5: Existing Year 6:00pm – 12:00am Coast Stringline Diagram 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-17 

Exhibit 9.6: Existing Year 24-Hour Coast Corridor Track Occupancy Heatmap 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-18 

Exhibit 9.7: Existing Year 7:00am – 9:00am Coast Corridor Track Occupancy Heatmap 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 9-19 

On a 24-hour basis, overall track occupancy levels are low, with most segments being occupied by a train 

under five percent of the day. The peak commute hour heatmap from 7:00 am to 9:00 am in Exhibit 9.7 

shows track occupancy levels during hours with the highest level of passenger and commuter train traffic. 

During these hours, there are some instances of track occupancy levels up to 40 percent within the 

Caltrain operating region. 

9.5.2 Year 2020 Base Case 

The Year 2020 Base Case model is used to determine the expected OTP of train services on the Coast 

Corridor. If any intercity passenger service (Amtrak’s Coast Starlight and Coast Daylight services in Year 

2020) have an OTP of lower than 87 percent, improvements are identified as required to improve OTP. 

RailOPS considers a train on-time to a station if it arrives within five minutes of its scheduled arrival time. 

OTP values in actual operations are likely to be lower than model results due to random real-world delays 

such as passenger loading, medical emergencies, severe weather, etc. OTP values of less than 100 

percent in model results are typically due to train interference effects only. 

One immediate infrastructure improvement was identified for inclusion in the Year 2020 Base Case model 

within the Coast Corridor: implementation of CTC beginning at the Santa Margarita siding (milepost 

229.6) until the McKay siding (milepost 202.3). Most of the delays within the Coast Corridor in the Existing 

Year are a result of outdating signaling infrastructure, including the use of track warrant control (TWC) 

rather than CTC in the approximately 120 miles of track between Santa Margarita and Salinas. 

Implementing CTC between Santa Margarita and McKay, a single tracked region with four siding 

locations, may significantly improve OTP in this region. 

The model was run with Year 2020 freight traffic as given in Table 9.7 while maintaining Existing Year 

passenger traffic levels. Additional freight traffic had no impact on passenger OTP levels, so the 

passenger trains listed in Tables 9.5 and 9.6 for Year 2020 were implemented along with Year 2020 

freight levels. 

Table 9.13 lists the resulting OTP of each intercity service at each station on the Coast Corridor from the 

Year 2020 Base Case model with complete Year 2020 freight and passenger traffic levels. Note that 

blank entries in the Coast Starlight column indicate that the service is not planned to stop at that location.

Table 9.13: Year 2020 Base Case Model Intercity Passenger Service OTP 

Stations Coast Starlight Coast Daylight

San Luis Obispo 100% 100%

Paso Robles 100% 100%

Salinas 100% 100%

San Jose 100% 100%

San Francisco 100%

Model results yielded 100 percent OTP for both Amtrak services at each station on the Coast Corridor. 

This is because Year 2020 traffic levels are still low, with only four passenger trains and four freight trains 

operating each day in either direction between San Luis Obispo and San Jose; this is a total of only four 

northbound trains and four southbound trains every 24 hours outside of the Caltrain region. This leaves 

sufficient network capacity to schedule trains such that there are no interference effects, resulting in 100 

percent OTP levels. In real-world operations, OTP levels will be somewhat lower due to random and 

unforeseeable events such as severe weather, passenger emergencies, police holds, etc. 

Exhibit 9.8 through 9.11 show stringline diagrams of each train operated on the Coast Corridor network in 

RailOPS in the Year 2020 Base Case model. Exhibit 9.12 shows a track occupancy heatmap for a 24-

hour period, while Exhibit 9.13 shows a track occupancy heatmap for the peak commute period between 

7:00 am and 9:00 am.
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-20 

Exhibit 9.8: Year 2020 Base Case 12:00am – 6:00am Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-21 

Exhibit 9.9: Year 2020 Base Case 6:00am – 12:00pm Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-22 

Exhibit 9.10: Year 2020 Base Case 12:00pm – 6:00pm Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-23 

Exhibit 9.11: Year 2020 Base Case 6:00pm – 12:00am Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-24 

Exhibit 9.12: Year 2020 Base Case 24-Hour Coast Corridor Track Occupancy Heatmap 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-25 

Exhibit 9.13: Year 2020 Base Case 7:00am – 9:00am Coast Corridor Track Occupancy Heatmap 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 9-26 

Based on the results from Table 9.13, no necessary improvements were identified. With the relatively light 

levels of train traffic in the Year 2020 Base Case (four daily Amtrak trains and four daily freight trains), 

minimum performance goals can be reached without additional improvements beyond the recommended 

implementation of CTC between Santa Margarita and McKay. With adequate dispatching such that freight 

trains do not interfere with scheduled passenger trains, there is sufficient capacity within the Coast 

Corridor to accommodate ten trains in a 24-hour time span. It is important to note however that if higher 

levels of future rail traffic are desired than the modest levels assumed for this analysis, additional 

improvements may be required to accommodate them. 

Because the Year 2020 Base Case results did not yield any required improvements to accommodate rail 

traffic growth, there is no Alternative Case for Year 2020. Table 9.14 summarizes the minutes of delay 

per train departure results for Year 2020 within the Coast Corridor for the two intercity passenger services 

expected to be operating in 2020: the Coast Starlight and the proposed Coast Daylight. 

Table 9.14: Year 2020 Coast Corridor RailOPS Outputs 

Stations Average Delay per Train Departure (min) 

Coast Starlight Coast Daylight 

 From To Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound 

 San Luis Obispo Paso Robles 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.6

 Paso Robles Salinas 0.0 21.7 0.0 0.0

 Salinas San Jose 6.3 0.0 0.0 2.7

 San Jose San Francisco NA NA 22.7 0.0

 Total 7.7 21.7 22.7 7.3

Notes: 

- “NA” Indicates not applicable 

The delays in this region are primarily as a result of scheduled waits to avoid interference between the 

Coast Daylight and Coast Starlight, or to avoid interference with Caltrain traffic in the case of the Coast 

Daylight which has to traverse this region to serve San Francisco. 

9.5.3 Year 2040 Base Case 

The Year 2040 Base Case model is used to determine the expected OTP of train services on the Coast 

Corridor. If any intercity passenger service (Amtrak’s Coast Starlight and Coast Daylight services in Year 

2040) have an OTP of lower than 87 percent, improvements are identified as required to improve OTP. 

RailOPS considers a train on-time to a station if it arrives within five minutes of its scheduled arrival time. 

OTP values in actual operations are likely to be lower than model results due to random real-world delays 

such as passenger loading, medical emergencies, severe weather, etc. OTP values of less than 100 

percent in model results are typically due to train interference effects only. 

The Year 2040 Base Case model infrastructure is identical to the Year 2020 Base Case model as no 

necessary improvements were identified for Year 2020 aside from the implementation of CTC starting at 

Santa Margarita in a region using TWC in the Existing Year. This was also included in the Year 2020 

Base Case. 

The model was run with Year 2040 freight traffic as given in Table 9.10 while maintaining Year 2020 

passenger train traffic levels. Since no freight traffic growth was projected between Year 2020 and Year 

2040, there was no impact on passenger OTP levels. Next, the passenger train levels in Tables 9.8 and 

9.9 for Year 2040 were implemented along with Year 2040 freight. 

Table 9.15 lists the resulting OTP of each intercity service at each station on the Coast Corridor from the 

Year 2040 Base Case model with complete Year 2040 freight and passenger train schedules. Note that 

blank entry in the Coast Starlight column indicates that the service will continue to exit the Coast Corridor 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 9-27 

at San Jose on its way to Seattle, rather than continue into San Francisco as the Coast Daylight is 

proposed to do.

Table 9.15: Year 2040 Base Case Model Intercity Passenger Service OTP 

Stations Coast Starlight Coast Daylight 

San Luis Obispo 100% 100% 

Paso Robles 100% 100% 

Salinas 100% 100% 

San Jose 100% 96% 

San Francisco 100% 

Model results yielded 100 percent OTP for the Coast Starlight at each station on the Coast Corridor. The 

Coast Daylight had 100 percent OTP at each station except San Jose, which had a 96 percent OTP. OTP 

levels remain high in Year 2040 because Year 2040 traffic levels for freight are identical to Year 2020 

(four trains per day), while Year 2040 passenger traffic added just two trains per day (one additional 

Coast Daylight train in each direction). This is a total of six passenger trains and four freight trains 

operating each day in either direction, or a total of five northbound trains and five southbound trains every 

24 hours outside of the Caltrain region. As in Year 2020, in Year 2040 this level of traffic results in 

sufficient network capacity to schedule trains such that there is little to no impact from train interference 

effects, resulting in high OTP levels. In real-world operations, OTP levels will be somewhat lower due to 

random and unforeseeable events such as severe weather, passenger emergencies, police holds, etc. 

Exhibit 9.14 through 9.17 show stringline diagrams of each train operated on the Coast Corridor network 

in RailOPS in the Year 2040 Base Case model. Exhibit 9.18 shows a track occupancy heatmap for a 24-

hour period, while Exhibit 9.19 shows a track occupancy heatmap for the peak commute period between 

7:00 am and 9:00 am.
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-28 

Exhibit 9.14: Year 2040 Base Case 12:00am – 6:00am Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-29 

Exhibit 9.15: Year 2040 Base Case 6:00am – 12:00pm Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-30 

Exhibit 9.16: Year 2040 Base Case 12:00pm – 6:00pm Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-31 

Exhibit 9.17: Year 2040 Base Case 6:00pm – 12:00am Coast Corridor Stringline Diagram 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-32 

Exhibit 9.18: Year 2040 Base Case 24-Hour Coast Corridor Track Occupancy Heatmap 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 9-33 

Exhibit 9.19: Year 2040 Base Case 7:00am – 9:00am Coast Corridor Track Occupancy Heatmap 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 9-34 

Based on the results from Table 9.15, no necessary infrastructure improvements were identified. As in 

Year 2020, the relatively light levels of train traffic in the Year 2040 Base Case (six daily Amtrak trains 

and four daily freight trains), minimum performance goals can be reached without additional 

improvements beyond the recommended implementation of CTC between Santa Margarita and McKay 

included in the Year 2020 and Year 2040 Base Cases. With adequate dispatching such that freight trains 

do not interfere with scheduled passenger trains, there is sufficient capacity within the Coast Corridor to 

accommodate 10 trains in a 24-hour time span. It is important to note however that if higher levels of 

future rail traffic are desired than the modest levels assumed for this analysis, additional improvements 

may be required to accommodate them. 

Because the Year 2040 Base Case results did not yield any required improvements to accommodate rail 

traffic growth, there is no Alternative Case for Year 2040. Table 9.16 summarizes the minutes of delay 

per train departure results for Year 2040 within the Coast Corridor for the two intercity passenger services 

expected to be operating in Year 2040: the Coast Starlight and the proposed Coast Daylight. 

Table 9.16: Year 2040 Coast Corridor RailOPS Outputs 

Stations Average Delay per Train Departure (Minutes) 

Coast Starlight Coast Daylight 

 From To Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound 

 San Luis Obispo Paso Robles 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.9

 Paso Robles Salinas 0.0 21.7 0.0 0.9

 Salinas San Jose 16.5 3.7 0.3 1.5

 San Jose San Francisco NA NA 20.1 5.4

 Total 16.5 25.3 20.4 10.8 

Notes: 

- “NA” indicates that an identification number or estimated cost is not available. 

As with Year 2020 delay results, the delays on the Coast Corridor in Year 2040 are primarily as a result of 

scheduled waits to avoid interference between the Coast Daylight and Coast Starlight, or to avoid 

interference with Caltrain traffic in the case of the Coast Daylight which has to traverse this region to 

serve San Francisco. 

9.6 Equipment and Train Crew Scheduling 

According to Amtrak, Coast Starlight service train staffing depends on the number of passengers and 

location within the corridor, but they generally consist of 15 to 17 people: two engineers, a conductor, an 

assistant conductor, three sleeping car attendants, two Coach Car attendants, a Lounge Car attendant, a 

Parlour Car attendant, and four to six Dining Car attendants. The proposed Coast Daylight staffing levels 

would likely be similar to the current Pacific Surfliner service, which typically includes five people: an 

engineer, a conductor, an assistant conductor, a Café-Car attendant, and a Business Class attendant. 

Employee shift scheduling is dependent on a number of factors, including employee seniority, length of 

the train’s route, and type of employee (i.e., whether they are an operating employee or train attendant). 

Operating employees (engineers, conductors, and assistant conductors) have shift lengths determined by 

crew base locations and Federal Hours of Service requirements, such as a maximum of 12 work hours 

per day. For the Coast Starlight, operating crews are exchanged at San Luis Obispo within the Coast 

Corridor; other crew change locations for the Coast Starlight service are outside the Corridor, such as at 

Sacramento. On-board employees (primarily train attendants) typically remain with a train for the entire 

run. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 9-35 

9.7 Terminal, Yard and Support Operations 

Amtrak owns a yard facility in Los Angeles to provide support for Amtrak trains and equipment systemwide, including the Coast Starlight service. This yard would also be used to support the proposed Coast 

Daylight service. Amtrak switching locomotives are also located at the Los Angeles facility, which is also 

used for system-wide fleet repairs and overhauls. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-1 

10.0 Station and Access Analysis 

This chapter addresses the location of the stations to be served by the proposed new Coast Daylight

services, how stations will accommodate the proposed services, how passengers will access stations, 

and how intermodal connections will be integrated at the stations. 

The chapter identifies existing stations and considers new or expanded stations along the Coast Daylight

corridor, characterizing existing and planned service integration and coordination. Current intermodal 

connectivity is analyzed, and key capital projects that would improve multimodal connectivity are 

presented. A typology of station types is developed, reflecting that stations sharing certain key 

characteristics would ideally be developed with common features. 

For proposed service expansion which utilizes existing stations, the analysis is focused on identifying 

necessary safety, capacity and operational improvements in the stations themselves or in connecting bus 

and rail transit service. In the few cases where new rail stations are considered, potential sites and 

facilities are addressed, along with considerations to address safety, capacity and operational 

functionality. New station analysis will include potential alternatives for station locations, adequacy of 

station capacity, intermodal connectivity, and access options. For both existing as well as new stations, 

key land use considerations such as Transit-Oriented Development potential, Complete Streets and 

Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) are evaluated. 

10.1 Station Location Analysis 

10.1.1 Methodology 

The methodology employed to evaluate the station locations includes a review of the existing stations 

along the Amtrak and Caltrain corridors to determine potential locations for station improvements or the 

addition of new stations. Available station services (i.e., staffing and ticketing machines) and multimodal 

access (i.e., transit connections, parking, taxi service, rental car services, bicycle facilities) were studied 

to identify which stations require improvements and where new stations would be required under the 

proposed expanded service in the corridor. 

Criteria addressing station location include: 

 The extent to which the station location capitalizes on and serves existing jobs and residential 

neighborhoods. 

 The level of convenience provided to the passenger in accessing important destinations in the 

station area or nearby. 

 The potential for the station to complement and enhance the building fabric and streetscape in 

the station area. 

Recent policy has been adopted to ensure that federally-planned facilities, such as corridor rail stations, 

include consideration of sites that are pedestrian friendly, near existing employment centers, accessible 

to public transit, and emphasize existing central cities.(xviii) Such policy aligns with California state law SB 

375 (Steinberg 2008), which requires the linking of transportation and land use in SCSs. 

10.1.2 Potential Station Locations 

Potential Coast Daylight station locations are proposed along the length of the existing Amtrak Coast 

Starlight and Caltrain routes, roughly following U.S. 101, as shown in Exhibit 1.1. The proposed terminal 

stations are the existing San Francisco Fourth and King Caltrain Station in the north, and Los Angeles 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-2 

Union Station in the south, with 27 intermediate stops. Of the 29 proposed stations, 25 are existing 

Amtrak or Caltrain stations, and four are proposed new stations. Caltrain has not approved use of the 

stations along their portion of the Corridor. 

The extension of corridor service along the coastal route currently served only by the long-distance Coast 

Starlight introduces the potential for additional stations. Amtrak’s long-distance services cater to longer 

trips, with greater intervals between stations, while state-supported services make stops as frequently as 

every five to ten miles in some segments of a corridor. For the latter, the best travel times are not as 

important as providing convenient access. This service will add approximately one hour to the Coast 

Starlight schedule which is already slow. The Coast Daylight schedule may affect rider choice particularly 

for longer distance trips, such as travelling from Santa Barbara to San Francisco. On the other hand, 

each new station opens up an entire community from which to draw ridership, potentially attracting 

dozens of additional riders. 

The following new stations are proposed with initiation of Coast Daylight service: 

 Soledad 

 King City 

As the Coast Daylight will be an extension of the existing Pacific Surfliner service, a similar service regime 

would be implemented along the balance of the corridor; consequently communities such as King City 

and Soledad are of sufficient size to justify a station. Government Code Section 14035.9. states in part 

that The department shall give reasonable priority to stations, stops, and routes which serve visitors to 

prisons, particularly when alternative public transportation is minimal or nonexistent. The Soledad station 

fulfills the intent of this section. In addition, stations at Pajaro/Watsonville and Castroville would provide 

access to communities along Monterey Bay 

Stations are already established at regular intervals along the commuter-oriented Caltrain corridor. The 

Coast Daylight would stop at select stations at 10- to 20-mile intervals, where key intermodal connections 

can be made and major activity centers can be served, reflecting the Caltrain “Baby Bullet” stops. Gilroy 

and Morgan Hill are potential stops, and San Jose is a station serving multiple modes and a major central 

business district. San Jose would provide a connection the planned Northern California Unified Rail 

Service, and Gilroy will be a high-speed rail connection. Mountain View and Palo Alto feature downtowns 

of appreciable size, nearby employment concentrations and major institutions, such as Stanford 

University. Mountain View provides a connection to the VTA Light Rail system. Millbrae is also selected 

as an intermediate station on the way to the San Francisco terminus, due to its intermodality and 

connectivity to SFO. 

The location of station facilities in communities identified for new stations is dependent on many factors. 

These include population, surrounding land uses and links to other transportation modes. In order to 

function properly as multimodal hubs, transfers must be easily made between modes at the station, 

whether public transit or private auto. Sufficient parking at the stations also is a requirement, while 

ensuring that auto access does not compromise other modes. 

New stations may take advantage of a historic station or its site to further historic preservation and 

revitalization goals. As railroads typically anchored the early development of California cities and towns, 

stations have historically occupied prime locations in downtown districts. 

10.1.3 Transit-Oriented Development, Joint Use and Joint 

Development Opportunities 

Ideally, stations are located in proximity of complementary land uses. Locations near existing commercial 

and residential areas maximize ridership potential and function as a gateway to a city’s major activity 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-3 

centers. Appropriate to the scale of the community, TOD and SCS initiatives also factor into station area 

planning. Smaller communities may not support the density typically associated with TOD, nor may the 

ridership at their stations justify such investment. However, the existing stations in larger communities 

such as Salinas, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and along the Caltrain and Metrolink corridors, are 

potential candidates for station-oriented infill development. 

Table 10.1 provides a preliminary assessment of TOD potential at corridor stations. Stations in the core 

urban areas of the Bay Area and Los Angeles have the highest potential, as these stations host multiple 

transit services and have a greater market for higher-density, mixed-use development. An exception is 

Burbank-Bob Hope Airport station, which focuses on intermodal connections and is not surrounded by 

developable parcels. Stations on the periphery of the two major metropolitan regions and in the larger 

communities of the intermediate corridor offer medium potential, with moderate levels of transit service 

and a more limited market for TOD-style residences, offices and retail. Smaller communities in the 

intermediate corridor exhibit low TOD potential, lacking both frequent connecting services and a demand 

for compact, mixed-use development at scale. 

TOD at stations furthers Caltrans policy to promote integrated land use and transportation. Such policy 

depends on, as well as supports, the efforts of local jurisdictions to maintain and redevelop their stationarea districts and increase housing and employment opportunities for their residents. Caltrans and 

corridor committees can build upon initiatives such as the transit village plan for Simi Valley station, as 

they engage local planners in TOD-related efforts. 

While TOD brings development to station environs, joint use and joint development add value to stations 

by placing additional uses and activity in station buildings and properties themselves. Businesses and 

offices can profit from close proximity to rail service, and passengers can benefit from convenient access 

to these uses. Typical examples appropriate to the corridor include cafés, newsstands, car wash/detailing 

services, and other vendors that cater to rail passengers. Complementary retail uses can draw upon the 

non-passenger market of the surrounding area, enlivening the station and addressing security issues. 

Retailers can also fill the role of providing basic information about train services and local transportation 

options at unstaffed stations or outside of staffed hours. 

Due to lack of available property surrounding corridor stations, joint development may not be possible. 

Potential for joint use around stations in the San Francisco Bay Area and in the Los Angeles metropolitan 

area is greater, but may be constrained by existing development adjacent to the station and limited room 

for expansion. Other more frequent services in these areas, such as Metrolink or Caltrain, would drive 

joint development rather than Coast Daylight service. 

At intermediate stations along the corridor, sufficient property may be available for joint development, but 

the relatively small number of daily trains may not be sufficient to spur joint use and joint development 

alone. However, provided the location would support the business with or without the presence of rail 

service, joint development may still be viable. Neighboring parcels may provide better opportunities for 

integrating complementary businesses, as is the case for a car rental agency at Emeryville station in the 

San Francisco Bay Area. 

Table 10.1 presents the existing amenities and staffing at corridor stations, as well as an assessment of 

their joint use / joint development potential. Opportunities for joint use and joint development are on par 

with TOD potential at most stations, but are lower in cases where the station’s function as an origin or 

destination is less important than the station’s location in the surrounding region. So while the area 

around Millbrae station is a prime infill site, the station’s primary role is in facilitating intermodal 

connections. Intermediate stations along the Caltrain or Metrolink segments of the corridor, such as 

Morgan Hill or Camarillo, have lower joint development potential than neighboring “end-of-line” stations 

such as Gilroy and Oxnard, respectively, even though TOD potential is comparable in both of the 

adjacent communities. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-4 

Table 10.1: Station Joint Development and TOD Potential 

Station Existing Amenities / 

Staffing 

Joint Use / 

Development 

Potential 

TOD Potential 

San Francisco 

(Fourth and King) 

Staffed, ticket office, 

ticket machines, 

restrooms, phones, 

restaurants 

High High 

Millbrae 

Unstaffed, ticket 

machines, restrooms, 

phones 

Medium High 

Palo Alto 

Unstaffed, ticket 

machines, restrooms, 

phones, coffee shop 

High High 

Mountain View 

Unstaffed, ticket 

machines, phone, 

refreshment cart 

High High 

San Jose 

Staffed, ticket office, 

ticket machines, 

restrooms, phones 

High High 

Morgan Hill 

Unstaffed, ticket 

machines, restrooms, 

phones 

Low Medium 

Gilroy 

Unstaffed, ticket 

machines, restrooms, 

phones 

Medium Medium 

Pajaro/Watsonville N/A Low Low 

Castroville N/A Low Low 

Salinas 

Staffed, ticket counter, 

baggage check, 

restrooms, phones 

Medium Medium 

Soledad N/A Low Low 

King City N/A Low Low 

Paso Robles Staffed, restrooms, 

phones Medium Medium 

San Luis Obispo 

Staffed, ticket office, 

ticket machines, 

restrooms, phones, 

baggage check 

High High 

Grover Beach Unstaffed, platform only Low Low 

Guadalupe Unstaffed, platform only Low Low 

Surf Unstaffed, platform only Low Low 

Goleta Unstaffed, platform only Low Low 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-5 

Station Existing Amenities / 

Staffing 

Joint Use / 

Development 

Potential 

TOD Potential 

Santa Barbara 

Staffed, ticket office, 

restrooms, phones, 

baggage check 

High High 

Carpinteria Unstaffed, platform only Low Medium 

Ventura Unstaffed, phones Low Medium 

Oxnard 

Staffed, ticket office, 

ticket machines, 

restrooms, phones, 

baggage check 

Medium Medium 

Camarillo Unstaffed, platform only Low Medium 

Moorpark Unstaffed, platform only Low Medium 

Simi Valley Unstaffed, platform only Low Medium 

Chatsworth Unstaffed, platform only Medium High 

Van Nuys 

Staffed, ticket office, 

ticket machines, 

restrooms, phones, 

baggage check 

High High 

Burbank-Bob Hope 

Airport Unstaffed, platform only Low Low 

Glendale Unstaffed, platform only Low High 

Los Angeles (Union 

Station) 

Staffed, ticket office, 

ticket machines, 

restrooms, phones, 

baggage check, ATMs 

High High 

10.2 Station Operations Analysis 

Station operations include a number of considerations related to the needs of corridor passengers 

(ticketing, baggage handling, information provision) and other supporting functions. Station operations 

also facilitate access by various modes and promote intermodal connections. Operational analysis of 

corridor stations includes the identification of existing services and amenities provided at the stations, 

their track and platform configuration, and surrounding land uses. Stations are classified based on their 

relative importance: statewide, regional or local. 

Table 10.2 differentiates stations still further, defining five station categories based on the physical 

characteristics of stations: the density and type of urban form of the station area; auto access, as 

indicated by parking cost; and intermodal access, as represented by connecting rail and passenger 

services. These five station prototypes capture the wide range of station contexts and connectivity 

functions found throughout the state in an easily-applied framework. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-6 

Table 10.2: Station Prototypes 

Station Category Density and 

Urban Form Auto Access Typical Intermodal Access 

Modes 

Statewide Significance 

“Urban Activity Center” 

 San Francisco (Fourth 

and King) 

 San Jose 

 Los Angeles (Union 

Station) 

High density; 

mixed-use, gridbased primary 

downtown in major 

metropolitan area

 High parking 

cost

 Taxi 

 Future HSR service 

 Amtrak long-distance service 

 Amtrak corridor service 

 Amtrak Thruway bus 

 Commuter rail 

 Rail transit 

 Local transit 

 Shuttles (e.g., hotels) 

Regional Significance 

“Developed Urban Area” 

 Millbrae 

 Palo Alto 

 Mountain View 

 Burbank – Bob Hope 

Airport 

Middle density; 

mixed-use, gridbased secondary 

downtown in major 

metropolitan area

 Moderate 

parking cost 

 Taxi

 Amtrak long-distance service 

 Amtrak corridor service 

 Amtrak Thruway bus 

 Commuter rail 

 Rail transit 

 Local transit 

 Shuttles

“Minor Downtown or 

Activity Center”

 Gilroy 

 San Luis Obispo 

 Santa Barbara 

 Oxnard 

 Chatsworth 

 Glendale

Middle to low 

density; gridbased downtown 

in low-density 

suburban area or 

outside major 

metropolitan area

 Moderate to 

low parking 

cost 

 Taxi 

 Amtrak long-distance service 

 Amtrak corridor service 

 Amtrak Thruway bus 

 Commuter rail 

 Local transit 

 Shuttles 

 Future HSR at Gilroy 

Local Significance 

“Outlying or Suburban 

Area with Moderate 

Transit Connectivity” 

 

 Pajaro (1)

 Castroville(1)

 Salinas 

 Paso Robles 

 Grover Beach 

 Guadalupe 

 Ventura 

 Moorpark 

 Van Nuys 

Low density; 

exurban or 

outlying

 Low parking 

cost / free 

parking 

 Amtrak long-distance service 

 Amtrak corridor service 

 Amtrak Thruway bus 

 Commuter rail terminus 

 Local transit 

 Shuttles 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-7 

Station Category Density and 

Urban Form Auto Access Typical Intermodal Access 

Modes 

“Outlying or Suburban 

Area with Limited Transit 

Connectivity”

 Morgan Hill 

 Soledad(2)

 King City(2)

 Surf/Lompoc 

 Goleta 

 Carpinteria 

 Camarillo 

 Simi Valley 

Low density; 

exurban or 

outlying

 Free parking  Amtrak corridor service 

 Commuter rail 

 Local transit 

 Shuttles 

Notes: 

(2) Proposed new stations for the Capitol Corridor extension to Salinas 

(3) Proposed new stations for Coast Daylight 

 Statewide Significance. The “Urban Activity Center” station prototype has statewide significance. 

These stations are located in the high-density, mixed-use primary downtowns of major 

metropolitan areas. Auto access, while important, is not dominant and parking costs are high. All 

types of connecting passenger services are typically represented at these stations. Longdistance as well as corridor services stop at these stations, and by virtue of the fact that these 

stations are located in major cities, a broad range of regional and local transit services are also 

represented. Trains serve the station throughout the day, often at regular intervals. The number 

of daily passengers and trains warrants a broad spectrum of amenities, including staffed ticketing 

offices, restrooms, phones, and vendors. “Urban Activity Center” stations in the corridor include 

San Francisco (Fourth and King), San Jose, and Los Angeles Union Station. 

 Regional Significance. Stations with regional significance may be “Developed Urban Area” 

prototypes if in an area of middle density in a major metropolitan area; or “Minor Downtown or 

Activity Center” prototypes if in a lower-density suburban area, or outside of a major metropolitan 

area. The areas around these stations feature middle to lower-density development in grid-based 

downtowns, with moderate to low parking costs. Stations with regional importance typically host 

both long-distance as well as corridor trains; within metropolitan regions they may have 

commuter rail or rail transit options. Several trains may serve the station throughout the day, but 

not necessarily at regular intervals. Regionally-significant stations may feature amenities such as 

staffed ticketing offices, restrooms, phones, and vendors, especially if outside the major 

metropolitan areas. 

 “Developed Urban Area” stations in the corridor include Millbrae, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and 

Burbank-Bob Hope Airport. “Minor Downtown or Activity Center” stations in the corridor include 

Gilroy, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Oxnard, Chatsworth, and Glendale. 

 Local significance. Stations with local significance are “Outlying or Suburban Area” prototypes, 

with moderate or limited transit connectivity. A station with moderate transit connectivity is a 

connection point for Amtrak Thruway buses or a commuter rail terminus. A station with limited 

transit connectivity is served primarily by local buses; if also served by commuter rail, such 

stations are intermediate stops and are not primary transfer points. The areas around these 

stations are outlying or exurban in character, with a dominant focus on auto access and low cost 

or free parking. Stations with local significance typically will not serve long-distance trains, only 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-8 

corridor trains. Locally-important stations within metropolitan regions may in some cases have 

commuter rail or rail transit options, but most will have only local bus service. Trains may be 

limited to only a few services in each direction throughout the day. Amenities are typically limited 

at locally-significant stations, and most are unstaffed. 

“Outlying or Suburban Area” stations with moderate transit connectivity include Pajaro, Castroville, 

Salinas, Paso Robles, Grover Beach, Guadalupe, Ventura, Moorpark and Van Nuys. “ Outlying or 

Suburban Area” stations with limited transit connectivity include Morgan Hill, Surf/Lompoc, Goleta, 

Carpinteria, Camarillo, and Simi Valley. The new station facilities planned for Soledad and King City 

are expected to be of this prototype. 

10.3 Intermodal Connectivity 

10.3.1 Integration of Non-Program Operations and Services 

Introducing new passenger rail service between Los Angeles and San Francisco would open up new 

travel markets in the intermediate regions, requiring integration with existing and future transportation 

modes. These other modes are crucial to the effectiveness of corridor rail service, and include Amtrak 

long-distance services, future HSR service, Amtrak Thruway buses, commuter rail (Metrolink and 

Caltrain), scheduled airline service (at San Francisco International Airport, San Jose International Airport, 

Santa Barbara Municipal Airport, and Burbank-Bob Hope Airport), and taxi/car rental services. 

The particular mode or modes that would be used in combination with a corridor rail trip depends on trip 

purpose and length, among other factors. The available intermodal connections available at each station 

are presented in Table 10.3 at the end of the chapter. 

The Coast Starlight, Amtrak’s long-distance service in the corridor, provides service to northern California, 

Oregon and Washington. Passengers originating at or destined to locally-significant stations not served 

by the Coast Starlight would transfer at common stations such as Salinas or San Jose. 

Commuter rail, on the other hand, would provide a similar “feeder” role for the proposed corridor service. 

Passengers originating at or destined to stations where proposed corridor service would not stop, such as 

Redwood City Caltrain station or Northridge Metrolink station, would transfer at a common station such as 

Palo Alto or Simi Valley. 

Similarly, Amtrak Thruway buses would extend origin and destinations to off-corridor points such as 

Monterey, Kettleman City, Solvang, and Santa Paula, and connect to the San Joaquin rail service in the 

Central Valley. Transfers would be made at intermodal rail/Thruway bus stations such as Salinas, Paso 

Robles, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. 

Future HSR service would connect at Gilroy and Los Angeles, providing a fast alternative for trips to offcorridor points in the Central Valley. The Gilroy transfer point would also provide the opportunity for faster 

trips between the Salinas Valley and Southern California via HSR. 

Implementation of corridor service will also create connections to origins and destinations outside of the 

state, by virtue of airport connections at Burbank, Santa Barbara, San Jose and Millbrae. The terminal of 

Burbank Bob Hope Airport is a short walk or shuttle ride from the corridor station of the same name, and 

offers flights to major cities of the Intermountain West and along the West Coast. San Francisco 

International Airport is a short ride via BART service from Millbrae station, and offers flights to dozens of 

national and international destinations. Santa Barbara station can also be reached by a taxi ride from 

Goleta station, and Caltrain and a shuttle connect between San Jose’s station and its airport. 

To facilitate access between other off-corridor points, taxi service is available at most stations and many 

are also in proximity of rental car agencies, as indicated in Table 10.3. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-9 

Local rail transit, as operated by BART and San Francisco Municipal Railway, Valley Transportation 

Authority (SCVTA) in San Jose, and LA Metro, also provides intermodal connections in the major 

metropolitan areas of the corridor. In these areas and throughout the corridor, local bus systems, vans 

and shuttles round out local transit options. The particular services available at each station are 

presented in Table 10.3. 

10.3.2 Intermodal Integration Measures 

Intermodal integration consists of measures and improvements to coordinate the modes outlined in the 

previous section with corridor service and with each other. Intermodal connections are facilitated by two 

major types of considerations: operational characteristics and physical characteristics. 

Operational Characteristics 

Operational characteristics of stations contribute to their function and value as intermodal connections. 

Passenger connections are preferably “cross platform”, or at a minimum a common concourse 

connection, for direct rail to rail connections. Equally important as the physical layout of the station and 

platforms is the scheduling for the necessary connectivity, which is discussed as follows. 

Schedule Coordination

Schedule coordination refers to efforts to minimize delay for passengers transferring between modes. 

Each service operates according to a schedule reflecting travel speed, stops and service frequency, 

which differ from service to service. In general, schedule coordination is organized by hierarchy of 

service; for example, faster trains serving intercity and regional destinations arrive last at a connectivity 

station and are the first to leave. Slower trains serving local destinations arrive first and wait for 

passengers to transfer from all of the faster/intercity trains that they are scheduled to meet. 

The same principle applies for the local transportation system, whether consisting of light rail, buses, 

shuttles or vans. Local transit services would arrive early enough to transfer their passengers to the 

corridor rail service, and wait for the arriving passengers from these higher-speed systems to continue to 

their local destination. 

Schedule coordination requires a high level of reliability and on-time performance. Existing rail services 

often do not operate at their full potential of speed and reliability, largely due to the shared infrastructure 

of the passenger/freight network. The improvements described in Chapter 14 are designed to address 

these issues, and will contribute to the opportunity to implement schedule coordination among services in 

the corridor. 

Schedule coordination is most important when a connection is being made to a less frequent service, 

during off-peak periods, or to the last trip offered during the service day. Conversely, schedule 

coordination is relatively unimportant for major origin and destination stations that have very frequent 

service. 

Three schedule coordination strategies can be implemented, depending on the services involved: pulse 

schedules, directional schedule coordination, and dependent linked schedules. 

 Pulse Schedules. At a station with a pulse schedule, services converge at regular intervals at a 

hub and depart after a short interval during which transfers can be made. Pulse schedules would 

be implemented at rail stations that serve as hubs of Amtrak Thruway buses or local transit 

services. Lines would either terminate at these stations, or observe a period of several minutes to 

allow transfers to be completed. 

 Directional Schedule Coordination. In this variation of a pulsed schedule, Thruway or local transit 

services operating forward in the peak direction of travel would “pulse” directly following train 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-10 

arrivals. This type of schedule coordination has the advantage of not requiring the services 

involved to be held for each other, as in the case of pulse schedules. However, it affords 

convenient transfers only in one direction of travel – transferring passengers in the opposite 

direction of the coordinated schedule would face longer waits. 

 Dependent Linked Schedules. Transfer times can be reduced to an absolute minimum with 

dependent linked schedules. When a train arrives, a Thruway bus or vehicle of another feeder 

service can be scheduled to be having a layover and can immediately receive transferring 

passengers. However, this requires high reliability on the part of both services, as delays on one 

line would affect service along the other line in the forward direction of travel. 

Fare integration 

Fare integration addresses the cost and inconvenience of paying a second fare when transferring 

between services Caltrans has implemented fare integration with its “Free Transit Transfer Program” and 

its cross ticketing “Rail 2 Rail Program”. The Free Transit Transfer Program offers passengers of corridor 

services free transfer passes to the services of local transit authorities. The “Rail 2 Rail Program” allows 

Metrolink and Amtrak monthly ticket holders to have access to both systems’ trains within the 

geographical extents of their tickets. Also, fares between Burbank-Bob Hope Airport and Los Angeles 

Union Station have been equalized, and tickets issued by the two operators are interchangeable along 

this segment of the corridor. These successful programs can be enhanced and improved in the Metrolink 

segment of the corridor, and have obvious transferability to the portion of the corridor shared with 

Caltrain. 

Physical Characteristics 

Just as operational characteristics contribute to a station’s function and value as an intermodal 

connection, so do physical characteristics. They involve the station’s location within the urban fabric of the 

communities it serves, as well as the functional layout of station facilities. 

Station Configurations 

Depending on their size and importance in the statewide network, as well as particular site characteristics 

and constraints, stations may have a broad range of configurations, with implications for intermodal 

connectivity. 

The simplest station configuration is an at-grade platform alongside a single track. With a second 

passenger track, two side platforms or a central platform may be used. With additional tracks, 

combinations of center and side platforms may be employed. As long as tracks are at ground level, 

passengers may typically cross tracks at grade to reach the outer platform. Various design considerations 

can improve the safety of such crossings. With more than two platforms and/or greater levels of train 

traffic, underground or overhead concourses may be implemented to convey passengers to platforms, 

avoiding at-grade crossings. As space allows, ramps can be used to facilitate movement from ground 

level to the concourses and avoid the cost of escalators and elevators. 

The simplest stations have only a shelter next to the platform, but many have a station building offering 

an indoor waiting environment and amenities as warranted by the level of station activity. The station 

building itself will typically be located on one side of the tracks, with intermodal connections facilitated 

within or through the facility. 

Locally-significant stations, as defined in Section 10.2, will typically have a single platform serving both 

directions, while regionally-significant stations may have a second platform, one for each direction. 

Multiple-track stations with additional platforms, and above- or below-grade track crossings, are typically 

limited to stations of statewide importance. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-11 

Particularly where the services of different operators converge, the infrastructure may not have been 

designed with transferring passengers in mind. Thus, transfers may range from a cross-platform situation 

to those that require changes in level and a substantial walk between platforms and stops. The elderly 

and passengers with disabilities in particular may face considerable obstacles in transferring from one 

mode to another. 

Regardless of station size or configuration, safety concerns must be addressed as intermodal integration 

measures are considered. At new stations, UPRR now requires “station tracks” (sidings for passenger 

trains at stations) along with outside platforms connected by pedestrian bridges. This avoids the situation 

of pedestrians crossing tracks, but at considerable cost. Where pedestrians are permitted to cross tracks, 

safety can be improved by a number of measures, such as gates that restrict pedestrian flows, devices 

that provide visual and acoustic warnings of approaching trains, and barriers arranged to slow 

pedestrians down and face them in the direction of oncoming trains. These measures are especially 

warranted where passengers may be rushing to make connections between trains and buses. 

Key capital projects to improve the safety and capacity of corridor stations are presented in Table 10.3. 

Table 10.3: Key Capital Projects for Intermodal Integration 

Station Project Source 

Pajaro/Watsonville New station 

“Commuter Rail Extension to Monterey County Project 

Update Memorandum”, Monterey County Planning 

Commission, June 27, 2011 

Castroville New station 

“Commuter Rail Extension to Monterey County Project 

Update Memorandum”, Monterey County Planning 

Commission, June 27, 2011 

Salinas Station upgrade Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Soledad New station Coast Daylight Implementation Plan, June 2000, Coast 

Rail Coordinating Council 

King City New station Coast Daylight Implementation Plan, June 2000, Coast 

Rail Coordinating Council 

Oxnard New northbound 

platform 

LOSSAN North Draft Programmatic EIR/EIS 

(Programmatic EIR/EIS) (2011)

Los Angeles 

(Union Station) 

Union Station RunThrough Tracks Programmatic EIR/EIS (2011) 

Station Access and Wayfinding 

Connections between a station and the surrounding land uses are typically provided by the local street 

system. The grid-based street system of the original settlement area of many California cities and towns 

often coincides with station locations, and fosters a fine grain of connectivity and multiple routes of 

access. Stations in more suburban contexts that developed after widespread adoption of automobile 

travel may offer fewer routes and points of access. In either case, the railroad itself may act as a barrier, 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-12 

resulting in circuitous routes of access that may be particularly discouraging to pedestrian and bicycle 

access. 

Pedestrian and bicycle access may be enhanced with new grade crossings or overcrossings and 

undercrossings, as appropriate to the surrounding context. Table 10.4 presents the “Bicycle Facilities” 

currently available at each station. Three classes of bicycle facilities are defined; Class I (bike path or bike 

trail separate from motorized traffic), Class II (designated bike lane on a roadway), and Class III (roadway 

signed or marked for bicycle travel but shared with motor vehicles). Some stations may warrant bicycle 

lockers, bike share services and other amenities for cyclists. 

Consistent and clear signage and wayfinding systems should be integrated into the station property and 

buildings, orienting transferring passengers. While stations themselves may integrate multiple modes, 

and facilitate intermodal connections within a single building or property, some connections may depend 

on the local street system. In such cases, it is important that high standards of sidewalk and streetscape 

conditions are maintained, and that appropriate wayfinding elements guide passengers to and from the 

station as they transfer between modes. 

As considerations are made for accommodating various modes of access, the following hierarchy should 

be observed, in order of increasing distance from the immediate station entrance or platform access: 

 Passenger pick-up / drop-off and taxi stands and bicycle parking. 

 Shuttle bus stops and car share parking. 

 Fixed route bus stops and rental auto parking and facilities. 

 Auto parking. 

Amtrak Thruway bus or local transit access may be provided with a simple stop along the street outside a 

station, or facilitated with an off-street terminal with multiple bays for different buses, shuttle and van 

services. Such facilities provide an opportunity for vehicles to lay over at the end of their routes and to 

organize services for passenger convenience. This is particularly useful for Amtrak Thruway coaches, 

which require staging areas for luggage loading and unloading. 

Auto access is facilitated with designated areas for passenger pick-up and drop-off and taxi stands, as 

well as parking and rental car facilities. Table 10.4 presents the “Taxi/Rental Car” opportunities currently 

available at each station. Appropriate signage along major routes, such as interstate and state highways, 

is important in guiding motorists to stations and to the various functional components of the station. In 

addition, the local road system may need to be reviewed to determine if station-area streets are adequate 

for station-related traffic, particularly in association with new service and service expansion. 

Parking facilities serving a station may be publicly or privately operated; provided free or subject to hourly 

or daily fees; dedicated or shared with adjacent uses; and provided on surface lots or in structures. 

Parking availability may have a major influence in ridership, while parking provisions may limit the land 

use potential of the station area. Table 10.4 indicates the amount and distribution of parking at corridor 

stations. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 10-13 

Table 10.4: Station Access Summary 

Station Parking Taxi/Rental Car 

Transit Connections 

Local & Regional Rail Local & Regional Bus Amtrak Services Airports 

San Francisco (4th and King) 

None on-site; nearby public lots available 

Taxi zone on Townsend Street, car rental within 1 mile 

Commuter Rail (Caltrain), Light Rail (MUNI Metro) 

Bus (MUNI) Amtrak Thruway bus Route 99 (Emeryville 

‒ San Francisco) N/A 

Millbrae 2,900 spaces Taxi zone within parking lot, car rental via airport Heavy Rail (BART), Commuter Rail (Caltrain) Bus (SamTrans), Shuttles (Caltrain, Genentech) N/A BART to Sa

Francisco InternationaAirport 

Palo Alto 389 spaces Taxi within parking lot, car rental adjacent to station Commuter Rail (Caltrain) Bus (SamTrans, SCVTA), Shuttles (Caltrain) N/A N/A Mountain View 340 spaces 

Taxis along west side of West Evelyn Ave btw Hope St and View St, additional taxis park along View St; car rental approx. 1 mi away along El Camino Real 

Commuter Rail (Caltrain) 

Bus (SCVTA), Shuttles (Caltrain) N/A N/A 

San Jose 581 spaces Taxi zone on Crandall Street, car rental within 0.5 miles Commuter Rail (Caltrain, ACE), Light Rail (SCVTA) Bus (SCVTA, MST), Shuttles(Caltrain, DASH) 

Coast Starlight, Capitol Corridor; Amtrak Thruway bus Route 6 (Stockton 

‒ San 

Jose), Route 17 (Oakland 

‒

San Francisco 

‒ San Jose 

‒

Santa Barbara), Route 21 (Santa Barbara 

‒ San Jose) 

Caltrain to SClara Statioand SCVTA Airport Flyer San Jose InternationaAirport 

Morgan Hill 486 spaces Taxi on call, car rental over 1 mile away Commuter Rail (Caltrain) Bus (SCVTA, MST) N/A N/A Gilroy 471 spaces Taxi on-call, car rental within 0.5 miles Commuter Rail (Caltrain) Bus (SCVTA, MST, San Benito County Express, Greyhound) At Bus Station: Amtrak Thruway bus Route 21 (Santa Barbara 

‒ San Jose) 

N/A 

Pajaro/Watsonville N/A N/A N/A 

Bus (MST); Bus at Watsonville Transit Center (SCMTD, Greyhound) 

N/A N/A 

Castroville 236 spaces to be provided N/A N/A Bus (MST) N/A N/A Salinas 

31 short-term spaces, 13 longterm spaces Taxi on-call, car rental 1 mile away N/A Bus (MST, Greyhound) 

Coast Starlight; Amtrak Thruway bus Route 17 (Oakland 

‒ San Francisco 

‒

San Jose 

‒ Santa Barbara), 

Route 21 (Santa Barbara 

‒

San Jose), Route 36, Route 68 (Salinas 

‒ Carmel) 

N/A 

Soledad 43 spaces N/A N/A Bus (MST) N/A N/A King City N/A Car rental 1 mile away N/A Bus (MST, Greyhound) 

At Bus Station: Amtrak Thruway bus Route 17 (Oakland 

‒ San Francisco 

‒

San Jose 

‒ Santa Barbara), 

Route 21 (Santa Barbara 

‒

San Jose), Route 36 

N/A 

Paso Robles 10 short-term spaces, 10 long- Taxi on-call, car rental within 0.5 miles N/A Bus (Paso Express, SLORTA, MST, At Bus Station: Amtrak Thruway bus Route 17 N/A 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 10-14 

Station Parking Taxi/Rental Car 

Transit Connections 

Local & Regional Rail Local & Regional Bus Amtrak Services Airports 

term spaces Greyhound) (Oakland 

‒ San Francisco 

‒

San Jose 

‒ Santa Barbara), 

Route 21 (Santa Barbara 

‒

San Jose), Route 36 

San Luis Obispo 

20 short-term spaces, 30 longterm spaces Taxi on-call, car rental 1 mile away N/A Bus (SLO Transit, Greyhound) 

Coast Starlight, Pacific Surfliner; Amtrak Thruway bus Route 17 (Oakland 

‒ San 

Francisco 

‒ San Jose 

‒ Santa 

Barbara), Route 18a (Santa Maria 

‒ Hanford), Route 21 

(Santa Barbara 

‒ San Jose), 

Route 36 

N/A 

Grover Beach 

71 short-term spaces, 71 longterm spaces Car rental within 0.5 miles N/A Bus (SCAT) 

Pacific Surfliner; Amtrak Thruway bus Route 17 (Oakland 

‒ San Francisco 

‒

San Jose 

‒ Santa Barbara), 

Route 18a (Santa Maria 

‒

Hanford), Route 21 (Santa Barbara 

‒ San Jose), Route 

36 

N/A 

Guadalupe 28 spaces N/A N/A On-Demand Bus Service (SMOOTH Inc.) Pacific Surfliner, bus stops at Santa Maria N/A Surf 5 spaces N/A N/A N/A Pacific Surfliner, bus stops at Lompoc N/A Goleta 27 spaces Taxi on-call, car rental 1 mile away N/A Bus (SBMTD) Pacific Surfliner, bus from Los Angeles to Goleta. Taxi to Sant

Barbara Municipal A

Santa Barbara 

100 short-term spaces, 50 longterm spaces Taxi within parking lot, car rental adjacent to station N/A Bus (SBMTD, Greyhound) 

Coast Starlight, Pacific Surfliner; Amtrak Thruway bus Route 4 (Los Angeles 

‒ Santa 

Barbara), Route 17 (Oakland 

‒

San Francisco 

‒ San Jose 

‒

Santa Barbara), Route 21 (Santa Barbara 

‒ San Jose) 

N/A 

Carpinteria 120 spaces Taxi on-call, car rental 1 mile away N/A Bus (SBMTD) 

Pacific Surfliner; Amtrak 

Thruway bus Route 10 (Bakersfield 

‒ Oxnard 

‒ Santa 

Barbara) 

N/A 

Ventura 20 spaces Taxi on-call, car rental within 0.5 miles N/A N/A 

Pacific Surfliner; Amtrak Thruway bus Route 4 (Los Angeles 

‒ Santa Barbara), 

Route 17 (Oakland 

‒ San 

Francisco 

‒ San Jose 

‒ Santa 

Barbara) 

N/A 

Oxnard 

125 short-term spaces, 450 longterm spaces Taxi within parking lot, car rental at airport (1.5 mi away) Commuter Rail (Metrolink) Bus (Gold Coast Transit, VISTA) 

Coast Starlight, Pacific Surfliner; Amtrak Thruway bus Route 4 (Los Angeles 

‒ Santa 

Barbara), Route 10 (Bakersfield 

‒ Oxnard 

‒ Santa 

Barbara) 

Amadeus Shuttle, Roadrunner Shuttle, VenCounty Airp(to LAX) 

Camarillo 10 spaces Car rental 1 mile away Commuter Rail (Metrolink) N/A Pacific Surfliner, bus from Los Angeles to Goleta. Roadrunner Shuttle (to LMoorpark 200 spaces Taxi on-call Commuter Rail (Metrolink) Bus (VISTA) Pacific Surfliner, bus from Los Angeles to Goleta. N/A 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 10-15 

Station Parking Taxi/Rental Car 

Transit Connections 

Local & Regional Rail Local & Regional Bus Amtrak Services Airports 

Simi Valley 80 spaces Taxi on-call, car rental 1 mile away Commuter Rail (Metrolink) Bus (Simi Valley Transit) 

Coast Starlight, Pacific Surfliner; Amtrak Thruway bus Route 4 (Los Angeles 

‒ Santa 

Barbara) 

N/A 

Chatsworth 68 spaces Car rental adjacent to station Commuter Rail (Metrolink) BRT (LA Metro), Bus (LA Metro) Pacific Surfliner; Amtrak Thruway bus Route 4 (Los Angeles 

‒ Santa Barbara) 

N/A 

Van Nuys 240 spaces Car rental 2 miles away Commuter Rail (Metrolink) Bus (LA Metro, LADOT) 

Coast Starlight, Pacific Surfliner; Amtrak Thruway bus Route 1c (Bakersfield 

‒ Van 

Nuys 

‒ Torrance), Route 4 

(Los Angeles 

‒ Santa 

Barbara) 

N/A 

Burbank-Bob Hope Airport 50 spaces Taxi within parking lot, car rental at airport adjacent to station Commuter Rail (Metrolink) Bus (LA Metro) 

Coast Starlight, Pacific Surfliner; Amtrak Thruway bus Route 1c (Bakersfield 

‒ Van 

Nuys 

‒ Torrance) 

Direct connection tAirport 

Glendale 

242 short-term spaces, 100 longterm spaces Car rental within 0.5 miles Commuter Rail (Metrolink) Bus (LA Metro, Glendale Beeline) Pacific Surfliner; Amtrak Thruway bus Route 4 (Los Angeles 

‒ Santa Barbara) 

N/A 

Los Angeles (Union Station) 

600 short-term spaces, 1,000 long-term spaces 

Taxi within parking lot, car rental adjacent to station 

Heavy Rail (LA Metro Red Line, Purple Line), Commuter Rail (Metrolink), Light Rail (LA Metro Gold Line, future Regional Connector) 

BRT (LA Metro Silver Line, Silver Streak), Bus (LADOT, Foothill Transit, Santa Clarita Transit, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, LA Metro, etc.) 

Coast Starlight, Pacific Surfliner, Southwest Chief, Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle; Amtrak Thruway bus Route 1a (Bakersfield 

‒ San Diego), 

Route 1b (Bakersfield 

‒ Los 

Angeles 

‒ San Pedro), Route 

4 (Los Angeles 

‒ Santa 

Barbara) 

LAX Flyawa(LAWA) 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-16 

10.4 Station Access 

This section provides a detailed summary of station access at each station along the corridor. While all 

stations have pedestrian access and are accessible for disabled passengers, other modes of access to 

the existing and proposed stations are described, as presented in Table 10.4. For the proposed new 

stations, which will also be ADA-accessible, the description reflects the most recent planning activities. 

San Francisco (Fourth and King) 

The San Francisco Fourth and King Station is a staffed multimodal transit station that serves as the 

northern terminus for Caltrain’s commuter line, with numerous amenities including a ticket office, ticket 

machines, restrooms, phones, and vendors. It provides connections to the MUNI bus and light rail 

systems in addition to Amtrak Thruway bus Route 99. There is no on-site parking available; however, 

there are numerous public lots available nearby as well as car rental options within one mile of the 

station. A taxi zone is located on Townsend Street adjacent to the station. Bicycle routes on Second 

Street, Third Street, Fourth Street, Fifth Street, Townsend Street, and the Embarcadero also serve the 

station, and the adjacent Warm Planet Bikes provides ample bicycle parking that includes 180 bike 

lockers and 22 bike racks. 

Millbrae 

This station is the main transit hub for transfers to and from San Francisco International Airport, 

accessible via a short BART ride. The station is served by Caltrain, and San Mateo County Transit District 

(SamTrans) provides local bus service. 

Station parking offers 2,900 spaces, and a taxi zone is located on-site. Bikeways are located within one 

mile, and 28 bicycle lockers and 28 bicycle racks are offered at the station. 

Palo Alto 

This station provides multimodal access with transit connections between Caltrain, SamTrans and 

SCVTA buses, and Caltrain shuttles. Numerous bikeways are located within the station vicinity and a 

shared access bicycle storage facility is available on-site. A parking lot with 389 spaces and taxi zone 

facilitates auto access, as does a car rental area adjacent to the station. 

Mountain View 

This station provides multimodal connections with Caltrain service and SCVTA light rail and bus service. 

Bikeways are provided on several key streets surrounding the station, and bike racks and lockers are 

provided at the station. Vehicular access to the station is facilitated by an on-site surface parking lot with 

340 spaces, complemented by a taxi and shuttle bus zone along West Evelyn Avenue adjacent to the 

station. 

San Jose 

San Jose Diridon Station provides 581 parking spaces, complimented by a taxi zone outside the station 

on San Fernando Street and car rental within one-half mile of the station. The Guadalupe River Trail as 

well as other smaller bikeways near the station facilitate bicycle access, and 48 lockers and 18 bike racks 

are provided at the station. 

This station is a commuter rail hub, served by Caltrain and the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE), as well 

as Capitol Corridor service with connections to numerous Bay Area and northern California destinations 

and the Coast Starlight with connections to Oregon and Washington. Both light rail and bus transit is 

operated by SCVTA, and additional bus service is provided by Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST). Caltrain 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-17 

operates shuttles to the station, which is also served by the free Downtown Area Shuttle (DASH). SCVTA 

operates a free Airport Flyer shuttle between San Jose International Airport and Santa Clara Caltrain 

station, the next station in the northbound direction. 

Morgan Hill 

This station is served by Caltrain (limited to commute periods) and bus routes. Parking provisions amount 

to 486 spaces and taxi service is available on-call. The nearest car rental providers are located over one 

mile from the station. A limited number of Class II bikeways are within the immediate station vicinity. 

Gilroy 

This station includes a bus terminal that facilitates transit connections between Caltrain and a number of 

bus-based services, which are operated by SCVTA, MST, San Benito County Express, and Greyhound. 

Parking provisions amount to 471 spaces and taxi service is available on-call. Car rental services are 

available within one-half mile of the station. Class III bikeways in the immediate vicinity of the station 

provide additional multi-modal access. 

Pajaro 

This is a new station facility at the UPRR Watsonville Junction, near the intersection of Salinas Road and 

Railroad Avenue, for the proposed Capitol Corridor extension to Salinas. Plans for the station include a 

bus and shuttle shelter to facilitate connections with services provided by MST, the Santa Cruz 

Metropolitan Transit District (SCMTD), Greyhound, and Amtrak Thruway buses. A parking lot with a total 

of 416 spaces is proposed in conjunction with the new station. No bicycle facilities are provided in the 

immediate vicinity of the proposed station site. 

Castroville 

This is also a new station for the proposed Capitol Corridor extension to Salinas. The location of the 

proposed Castroville Station is still under consideration and intermodal connections have yet to be 

determined. A very limited sidewalk and bicycle network is currently available in the surrounding area of 

both potential site locations, but additional bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and circulation roadways are 

proposed in conjunction with the station. At both potential sites, approximately 236 parking spaces would 

be provided and bus connections with MST Routes 27 and 28 would be facilitated. 

Salinas 

The current station is served only by the Coast Starlight, but would be upgraded with the inception of the 

Capitol Corridor extension from San Jose. Five MST routes serve the station and the Salinas Transit 

Center, which is located two blocks south of the station. The Salinas Transit Center is served by an 

additional six MST routes, as well as Greyhound. 

Four Amtrak Thruway buses, Route 55, 17, 68, and 21, provide connections to the Capitol Corridor and 

Pacific Surfliner routes, as well as intermediate destinations. The surrounding residential neighborhoods 

and central business district within one mile of the station feature an extensive system of sidewalks and 

bikeways. 

Soledad 

The City of Soledad has worked with the Coast Rail Coordinating Council to develop a plan for a new 

station in Soledad along Front Street at Main Street. An existing park-and-ride lot at this location provides 

43 spaces. Additional access to this future station would be provided by MST bus routes and Class II 

bikeways within the immediate vicinity of the station. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-18 

King City 

A new station in King City is proposed in conjunction with the initiation of the Coast Daylight, consisting of 

a platform with limited amenities. MST, Greyhound, and Amtrak Thruway buses, Route 68, 17, and 18 

currently operate in the city and would be expected to adjust their routes to serve the new station. There 

is limited pedestrian access to the proposed site, with sidewalks generally provided along First Street but 

not along Railroad Avenue. Currently, no bicycle facilities are provided within the immediate vicinity of the 

proposed station site. 

Paso Robles 

Paso Robles is served by the Coast Starlight. Five transit providers offer bus service to this station: Paso 

Express, San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA), MST, Greyhound, and Amtrak Thruway 

bus Route 17,18A, 21, 36. Auto access is facilitated by 10 short-term and 10 long-term parking spaces, 

as well on-call taxi service and car rental opportunities within one-half mile of the station. Bicycle facilities 

are minimal in the area surrounding the station. 

San Luis Obispo 

The San Luis Obispo Station is served by the Coast Starlight and the Pacific Surfliner. The station 

provides a total of 50 parking spaces (20 short-term and 30 long-term) adjacent to the station, and on-call 

taxi service is offered. Car rental service is available approximately one mile from the station. Bus service 

is provided by San Luis Obispo Transit, Greyhound, and Amtrak Thruway bus Routes 17, 18A, 21, and 

36. An extensive bicycle network consisting of Class I, II, and III facilities lies within the immediate vicinity 

of the station. 

Grover Beach 

The Grover Beach Station is served by the Pacific Surfliner. It is an unstaffed, platform-only station but 

provides 71 short-term and 71 long-term parking spaces, and car rental provider is located nearby. 

Access to Class II bicycle facilities is available from the station as well as transfers to South County Area 

Transit and Amtrak Thruway bus Routes 17, 18A, 21, and 36. 

Guadalupe 

Served by the Pacific Surfliner, access provisions to this station are limited to a 28-space parking lot and 

on-demand bus service provided by SMOOTH, Inc. 

Lompoc Surf 

Served by the Pacific Surfliner, access provisions to this station are limited to a five-space parking lot. 

Goleta 

Served by the Pacific Surfliner, this unstaffed, platform-only station is accessed by bus service provided 

by Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (SBMTD) and a parking lot with 27 spaces. Taxi service is 

available on-call, and a car rental provider is located within one mile. Class II bikeways lead up to within 

one-mile of the station for bicycle access. The station is a short taxi ride from Santa Barbara Municipal 

Airport. 

Santa Barbara 

This station is served by the Pacific Surfliner and the Coast Starlight. Auto access at Santa Barbara 

Station is facilitated by a parking lot with 100 short-term parking spaces, 50 long-term parking spaces, as 

well as a taxi loading zone. Car rental services are located adjacent to the station. Transit connections 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-19 

are provided by SBMTD, Greyhound, and three Amtrak Thruway bus Route 4, 10, 17, 21. Additionally, 

the station has direct access to Class II bikeways. 

Carpinteria 

Served by the Pacific Surfliner, this platform-only station features a parking lot with 120 spaces. On-call 

taxi service is provided and car rental services are available approximately one mile from the station. Bus 

connections are provided by SBMTD and Amtrak Thruway Route 10. Class II bicycle facilities are located 

adjacent to the station. 

Ventura 

The Ventura Station is served by Pacific Surfliner and can be accessed by two Amtrak Thruway bus 

Route 10, as well as a Class I bicycle facility adjacent to the station. Auto access is facilitated by a 20-

space parking lot, on-call taxis, and car rental services within one-half mile of the station. 

Oxnard 

This station is served by The Oxnard Station is served by the Pacific Surfliner, the Coast Starlight, 

Metrolink commuter rail, Gold Coast Transit, Ventura Intercity Service Transit Authority (VISTA), and 

Amtrak Thruway buses Route 4, 10, , as well as a shuttle to LAX. A taxi zone is located at the station, 

and rental cars are available approximately one and one-half miles away. Station parking with 125 shortterm spaces and 450 long-term spaces is provided. 

Camarillo 

This station is served by the Pacific Surfliner, Metrolink and bus lines operated by VISTA, as well as a 

Roadrunner Shuttle providing direct service to LAX. Parking provisions are limited to a ten-space lot, and 

car rentals are available approximately one mile from the station. 

Moorpark 

The Moorpark Station is served by the Pacific Surfliner, Metrolink and a VISTA route, and offers a 200-

space park-and-ride lot. No bicycle network is provided within the immediate vicinity. 

Simi Valley 

This station is served by the Pacific Surfliner and the Coast Starlight. The Simi Valley Station is served 

by Metrolink and bus access is provided by Simi Valley Transit as well as Amtrak Thruway bus Route 4. 

Parking for 80 vehicles is provided, with taxi service available on-call and car rentals within one mile of 

the station. Bikeways are also located within a one-mile radius of the station. 

Chatsworth 

This station is served by the Pacific Surfliner and Metrolink and can be accessed via LA Metro buses, 

including the LA Metro Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), as well as Amtrak Thruway bus Route 4. A 

68-space parking lot is provided at the station, along with adjacent car rental services. Bicycle access is 

facilitated by bikeways within one mile of the station. 

Van Nuys 

This station is served by the Pacific Surfliner and the Coast Starlight. The Van Nuys Station offers a 

staffed ticket office and baggage check and is also served by Metrolink. Auto access to the station is 

facilitated by a park-and-ride lot with 240 spaces, and car rentals are available approximately two miles 

away. Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and LA Metro both operate bus service to the 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 10-20 

station, which includes frequent LA Metro Rapid service. Amtrak Thruway bus Routes 1C and 4 also 

connect to the station. 

Burbank-Bob Hope Airport 

This station is served by the Pacific Surfliner and the Coast Starlight. The Burbank-Bob Hope Airport 

Station facilitates multimodal connections to various modes of transportation, and is also served by 

Metrolink. The station and the airport terminal are within walking distance and shuttles are also provided. 

A 50-space lot provides dedicated parking for the station, and car rentals are available at the airport. The 

station is also served by LA Metro and Amtrak Thruway Route 1C buses. Bikeways are located within one 

mile of the station. 

Glendale 

The Glendale Station is served by the Pacific Surfliner and Metrolink. This station offers 242 short-term 

and 100 long-term parking spaces, and car rentals are also available within close proximity of the station. 

LA Metro, Glendale Beeline, and Amtrak Thruway buses also serve the station. There are no bicycle 

facilities within the immediate vicinity of the station. 

Los Angeles Union Station 

Union Station functions as Los Angeles’ main intermodal hub and provides connections between auto, 

several rail lines, buses, shuttles, and Class II bikeways. Amtrak services include the Pacific Surfliner, 

Southwest Chief, Coast Starlight, Texas Eagle, and Sunset Limited. Metrolink operates a network of 

commuter rail lines centered on Union Station. The LA Metro Red and Purple (heavy rail subway) and 

Gold (light rail) Lines converge at this station, and will be augmented by the future Regional Connector, 

allowing through light rail service on the Blue and Expo Lines. A large bus terminal hosts Amtrak Thruway 

buses and services operated by LA Metro, LA, Foothill Transit, Santa Clarita Transit, Santa Monica Big 

Blue Bus, as well as a LAX Flyaway shuttle service providing direct service to LAX. Long- and short-term 

parking for 1,600 vehicles is also provided at the station. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 11-1 

11.0 Conceptual Engineering and Capital Programming 

11.1 Rail Equipment and Infrastructure Improvements 

Identification 

Improvements for the Coast Corridor were primarily identified based on projects described in the Amtrak 

20-year Plan (2001). Additional sources of proposed improvements were also consulted, including, but 

not limited to, the following: 

 State and federal grant programs such as California’s STIP or the federal HSIPR. 

 Financially-constrained and unconstrained project lists contained in the RTP’s of the respective 

MPOs, in this case the MTC, AMBAG and the SLOCOG 

 Caltrain Extension to Monterey County: Alternatives Analysis (2007). 

 Input from local host and tenant railroads. 

The majority of the improvements identified for the Coast Corridor include the following types of projects: 

 Extension of existing sidings (or construction of new sidings). 

 Realignment of tracks / curves. 

In addition to these projects, other identified improvements include new stations (Soledad and King City); 

track and signal upgrades; construction of new main tracks (e.g., in the Cuesta Pass); and acquisition of 

new rolling stock. 

11.2 Project Cost Estimates 

11.2.1 Methodology and Assumptions 

Planning-level project cost estimates for many of the identified improvement projects have already been 

developed in the Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001) and the other sources consulted in developing the list of 

proposed improvements. A systematic review of the projects indicated that these cost estimates were 

generally reasonable and acceptable for planning purposes, and contained sufficient detail to permit their 

use in the SDP. However, many of the cost estimates were developed in previous years and are no 

longer current. As a result, a cost escalation factor was applied to bring these specific estimates to Year 

2012 dollars. The escalation factor was based upon the increase in the Engineering News Record 

Construction Cost Index (ENR Index) evaluated between the time of the prior estimate compared to 

current year (2012) values. The ENR Index reflects the cumulative effect of bumps and dips in the 

economy relative to engineered construction projects and as such is a reasonable basis to adjust cost. 

This methodology reflects actual cost experience for similar projects over the intervening period of time. 

New cost estimates were developed for project cost estimates that did not appear reasonable based on 

the information available regarding project scope. As additional project development activities are 

accomplished, and/or new information regarding project scope becomes available cost figures should be 

updated. 

11.2.2 Cost Estimates and Documentation 

As part of validating the cost estimates from the various sources, typical Year 2012 unit cost ranges were 

developed for common improvement projects. These unit cost ranges are summarized in Table 11.1. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 11-2 

Table 11.1: Typical Unit Cost Ranges for Improvement Projects 

Project Type 

Unit Costs (Year 2012 dollars)

Unit Low Medium High 

Siding extension and island CTC track-foot $1,300 $1,900 $2,500 

Curve realignments track-foot $1,000 $2,500 $4,000 

The planning level unit prices and project cost estimates for improvements included in this SDP are 

consistent with recent cost estimates received from BNSF and/or UPRR reflecting more advanced 

engineering and/or more current base price information. (The cost factors for the most typical 

improvement category – siding extensions/island CTC and double-tracking have been validated against 

current cost estimates reflecting higher levels of engineering (either preliminary engineering or final 

design) received from the railroads for work on California lines and the evaluation has determined that 

these factors will provide a substantial contingency to address current and/or near-term implementation.) 

The development of “low”, “medium”, and “high” estimates of typical project costs allows for flexibility in 

the cost estimation process to account for project- or location-specific features which may suggest actual 

costs that are lower or higher than the medium (i.e., “average”) cost for that type of project. For example, 

construction of retaining walls, bridges, or other civil/structural elements may result in higher total costs 

for some curve realignment projects such as Sargent–Aromas, Watsonville Wye, and Harlem–Metz. In 

these situations, the “high” estimate was used. 

The resulting total costs for each of the identified improvements are summarized in Table 11.2. 

Table 11.2: Total Cost for Improvement Projects 

Project 

Cost 

(Millions, 

Year 2012 

dollars) 

Source(s) 

Near-Term (2012 to 2014) 

Coast Daylight Track and Signal Project (new 

track, siding extensions for extension of Pacific 

Surfliner)

(1)

$25.90 STIP, Proposition 1B (Intercity Rail 

Improvement)

Mid-Term (2015 to 2020) 

Gilroy to San Luis Obispo track upgrades: CWR, 

tie replacement, ballasting, track surfacing, track 

structure realignment, rehabilitation of Salinas 

and Soledad sidings, turnout replacement. 

$115.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Gilroy to San Luis Obispo signal upgrades: CTC 

extension (Gilroy to Soledad) and island CTC 

(San Lucas to Bradley) 

$100.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Sargent to Aromas curve realignments $175.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Watsonville Wye curve realignments $16.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

New Soledad Multi-modal Station $4.00 AMBAG RTP (financially-constrained)
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 11-3 

Project 

Cost 

(Millions, 

Year 2012 

dollars) 

Source(s) 

New King City Station NA Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001) 

New San Lucas siding (mile post (MP) 168.2) $11.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Extension of Bradley siding $12.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Cuesta second main track $165.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Rolling stock (two modern, tilt-capable trainsets) $40.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Rolling stock (two modern trainsets with 

locomotives) $40.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Grade crossing safety and mobility enhancements $20.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Long-Term (2020 to 2040)

Install powered switches at existing sidings 

(Corporal, Logan, Watsonville Junction, 

Castroville, North Salinas, Salinas, Gonzales, 

Soledad, San Ardo, McKay, and Santa Margarita) 

NA UPRR

Moss Landing curve realignments $3.70 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Extension of Castroville siding $9.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

New Spence siding (MP 122.4) $22.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Harlem to Metz track realignment $40.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

New Chalone Creek siding (MP 148.0) $23.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Coburn curve realignment $1.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Extension of King City siding NA Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

MP 165 track realignment $28.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

MP 172 track realignment $2.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Getty to Bradley Curve Realignments $36.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

McKay to Wellsona curve realignments $15.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

New Wellsona siding (MP 206.6) $21.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Wellsona to Paso Robles curve realignments $94.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Extension of Templeton siding $15.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Templeton to Henry curve realignments $107.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 11-4 

Project 

Cost 

(Millions, 

Year 2012 

dollars) 

Source(s) 

Henry to Santa Margarita curve realignments $45.00 Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001)

Notes: 

(1) Some elements of the project scope may be duplicated by other projects listed here. 

(2) Part of the Capital Corridor Extension to Salinas. 

- “NA” indicates that the estimated cost information is not available. 

In terms of capital costs related to rolling stock, Metrolink’s recent order of 20 Tier 4-compliant EMD F125 

locomotives for $129.4 million suggests a unit cost of approximately $6.5 million per locomotive, while the 

recent $352 million joint order between Caltrans and the Illinois Department of Transportation 

(representing the states of Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri) for 130 new bi-level passenger cars, built to 

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) 305 Next-Generation Equipment 

Committee (NGEC) specifications, suggests a unit cost of approximately $2.7 million per passenger 

car.(xix,xx)

For Year 2020, the Coast Daylight schedule would comprise one round-trip, effectively operating as an 

extended Pacific Surfliner service north of San Luis Obispo. Currently, both of the Pacific Surfliner roundtrips serving stations north of Goleta turn back at San Luis Obispo. As a result, to operate the Coast 

Daylight according to the proposed schedule, at least one additional trainset would be required. As the 

Coast Daylight would operate as an extended Pacific Surfliner, it is assumed that the consists would be 

identical to existing Pacific Surfliner trains, comprising one locomotive, one business class car, one café 

car, two to three coach cars, and one cab control car. 

Based on the previously-discussed unit costs, the new trainset required to operate the proposed Year 

2020 Coast Daylight schedule is expected to cost approximately $22.7 million. 

For Year 2040, the proposed Coast Daylight schedule would comprise the one round-trip in the Year 

2020 schedule, plus an additional overnight round-trip. As this additional round-trip would not coincide 

with any corresponding Pacific Surfliner trips arriving at or departing from San Luis Obispo, two additional 

trainsets would need to be purchased to operate the proposed Year 2040 Coast Daylight schedule. 

In addition, the second Coast Daylight round-trip would be operated as an overnight service, and it is 

assumed that train consists would comprise one locomotive, three sleeper cars, one café car, one coach 

car, and one cab control car. Sleeper cars typically cost slightly more than other passenger cars, due to 

the need for additional interior furnishings including ventilation and plumbing. Assuming a 15 percent 

cost premium above typical passenger cars, the proposed Year 2040 Coast Daylight schedule is 

expected to require an additional $47.8 million for equipment beyond the proposed Year 2020 schedule. 

11.3 Project Schedule and Prioritization 

The Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001) provides some detail on the prioritization and recommended timeline of 

improvements to the Coast Corridor, classifying improvements into “immediate”, “near-term”, and “vision” 

projects. This prioritization scheme and timeline are partially reflected in the grouping of proposed 

improvements into the near-term (2012–2014), mid-term (2015–2020), and long-term (2020–2040) 

timeframes in Table 11.2, supplemented by information regarding the funding status (e.g., programmed or 

allocated, part of a financially-constrained or unconstrained RTP, etc.). 

The only near term project identified is the Coast Daylight Track and Signal Project, which has been 

programmed to receive funding under STIP and Proposition 1B’s Intercity Rail Improvement program. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 11-5 

The remaining improvements are in either the mid-term or long term timeframes, with most in the 

conceptual stage and lacking any identified funding. 

11.4 Conceptual Engineering Design Documentation 

The Amtrak 20-year Plan (2001) and other sources provide details on most of the proposed 

improvements at a conceptual planning level. Those details are summarized below for common 

improvement types. 

 Siding extension. Siding extensions generally involve increasing siding length to 10,000 feet to 

better accommodate passing movements (either between freight and passenger trains or 

between trains in opposing directions). Switches would be powered and the extended siding 

designed with Number 24 turnouts (40 miles per hour (mph) through switch) to streamline 

passing movements. All track and ties on the siding would be replaced as needed to maintain 

Class IV or V standards. A conceptual siding extension is illustrated in Exhibit 11.1. 

 Curve realignment. Curve realignments would involve redesigning and reconstructing track 

curves to eliminate slowdowns and reduce travel times by permitting higher speeds. Track 

curves would either be removed completely or reduced to a two- or three-degree maximum 

curvature, increasing maximum train speeds to 79 mph (and possibly 90 mph in the future). 

Auxiliary measures such as ROW acquisition and construction of retaining walls or new structures 

may be required to facilitate the realignment. A conceptual curve realignment is illustrated in 

Exhibit 11.2.
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 11-6 

Exhibit 11.1: Conceptual Siding Extension 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan 

Page 11-7 

Exhibit 11.2: Conceptual Curve Realignment 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 12-1 

12.0 Introduction 

This chapter of the SDP presents operating and financial projections for each forecast year of the planned 

intercity passenger rail service in the Coast Corridor. The methods, assumptions and outputs for 

operating expenses for the train services are addressed. Documentation of key assumptions is included, 

along with a description of how unit costs and quantities are derived. 

An estimate of the Profit and Loss Statement for the route is also presented, as well as details of capital 

replacement costs. 

12.1 Costing Methodologies and Assumptions 

The Operating and Maintenance cost estimates are developed by deriving the cost per train mile and 

applying this unit cost to the number of train miles operated by forecast year. The unit cost per train mile 

is calculated based on recent operating experience of the Pacific Surfliner, the route of which is common 

to approximately half of the planned Coast Corridor service. 

The total operating expenses for the proposed train services include rail operations – maintenance of 

way, maintenance of equipment, transportation (train movement), station and on-board services – as well 

as administration and marketing costs. Expenses covering heavy overhaul of equipment are considered 

capital costs and are not included. The unit cost per train mile is the quotient of the total annual O&M 

expenses divided by the annual train miles. The expenses, which are presented in Table 12.1, are 

averaged over the past two state fiscal years (FY 2010-11 and 2011-12) to determine the unit cost of 

$67.30. 

Table 12.1: Operational Expenses – Pacific Surfliner Route 

State Fiscal Year 

2010-11 

State Fiscal Year 

2011-12 

Rail Operations 

 Maintenance of Way 

 Maintenance of Equipment 

 Transportation (Train Movement) 

 Station 

 On-board Services 

$98,826,221 $106,401,372 

Administration $1,500,000 $1,500,000 

Marketing $2,300,000 $2,300,000 

Total Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs $102,626,221 $110,201,372 

Annual Train Miles 1,600,001 1,563,915 

Unit Cost per Train Mile $64.14 $70.47 

Average Unit Cost per Train Mile $67.30 

Source: “Statistical History 2004-2011 – Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, Capitol Corridor”, Caltrans, 2012

The factors (or driving variables) influencing the operating cost are based on the physical characteristics 

of the lines supporting the service and the operating plan, which in turn is based on operational and 

capacity analysis and significant operations decisions. Such decisions include the location of crew bases 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 12-2 

and maintenance facilities, as well as basic schedule concepts, which are developed in a manner 

consistent with achieving efficient operations and favorable O&M costs. 

12.2 Summary of Operating Costs 

The total operating costs are developed for the forecast years in base year dollars, based on a unit cost 

per train mile of $67.30. Because Coast Corridor service is a proposed, and not an existing service, base 

year operating costs are not applicable. Daily roundtrips in the forecast years are the same for both 

weekdays and weekend days. 

Total annual O&M costs for one daily Coast Corridor roundtrip in 2020 are estimated at about $12.2 

million (base year dollars), which does not include the costs associated with the existing Pacific Surfliner

North Corridor roundtrip between LAUS and San Luis Obispo that would be extended to San Francisco, 

converting it to a Coast Corridor roundtrip. With the addition of a second Coast Corridor roundtrip to San 

Francisco by 2040, annual O&M costs in the corridor would amount to nearly $24.4 million (base year 

dollars). 

Table 12.2: Operating Costs by Service Year 

Coast Corridor Base Year 

(Existing) 

Forecast Year 

2020 

Forecast Year 

2040 

Route Miles (one way) NA 248 248 

Daily Roundtrips NA 1 2 

Annual Train Miles NA 181,040 362,080 

Annual Operating and Maintenance 

Costs (Base Year Dollars) NA $12,184,000 $24,368,000 

Source: Coast Daylight Operating Plans, AECOM, 2012 

Notes: 

- “NA” indicates not applicable 

- Rout miles are from San Francisco to San Luis Obispo 

12.3 Route Profit and Loss Statement 

An estimate of the Profit and Loss Statement for the route is provided, based on revenue and operating 

cost forecasts. 

Table 12.3: Estimated Profit and Loss

Forecast Year 2020 Forecast Year 2040 

Annual Ridership 124,000 274,000 

Route Profit / Loss 

Ticket revenue (2012$) $6,200,000 $14,400,000 

O&M Costs $12,184,000 $24,368,000 

Subsidy Required ($5,984,000) ($9,968,000) 

Subsidy per Rider ($48.26) ($36.38) 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 12-3 

12.4 Capital Replacement Costs 

Capital replacement or economic depreciation is the portion of the value of physical plant and equipment 

that is used up in the production of passenger train service. These additional capital costs beyond those 

incurred in the initial implementation of the Service Development Program are anticipated to be required 

due to economic depreciation, obsolescence and lifecycle replacement and other factors. This would 

include track renewal, bridge replacement or rehabilitation, station renovation or replacement, signal 

system upgrades and rolling stock rehabilitation and replacement. Capital replacement costs exceed 

routine maintenance and ordinary repairs, which are included in O&M costs categorized in Section 12.2 

above. 

Capital replacement is usually treated as a discretionary expense in any particular year. It may be 

deferred when funds are unavailable but ultimately must be allocated to maintain the infrastructure, plant 

and rolling stock so the operation remains safe and reliable over the long term. Many of these capital 

replacement expenditures are incurred and paid for by the host railroads or local communities. 

Track renewal and bridge maintenance and replacement is paid for and scheduled by the host railroads. 

Trackage rights fees paid by Amtrak and Caltrans includes an apportioned cost allocated for capital 

replacement in addition to routine and ordinary maintenance of infrastructure. Station renovation and/or 

replacement costs are usually paid for by local communities often with funding support from Caltrans. 

However, rolling stock is a critical capital replacement cost item and a major annual budget consideration. 

Funding for the rolling stock overhaul program varies by budget year based on the specific overhauls 

planned for that particular budget year. There are no longer funds available for the overhaul program 

which were appropriated each year by the Budget Act. Article XIX of the State Constitution. Thus, SHA 

funds cannot be used for the overhaul program, nor is there any dedicated funding source for the 

overhaul work needed in the future as the equipment ages. 

As the Coast Daylight is a proposed service, new locomotives and passenger cars would need to be 

purchased to operate the service. Despite the fact that one of the daily round-trips in Year 2040 would be 

operated as an overnight service and require sleeper cars exclusively for the service, however, the Coast 

Daylight is generally expected to share rolling stock with the other State-supported Amtrak California 

routes. Both the shared fleet, as well as any new cars or locomotives purchased with implementation of 

the Coast Daylight, would require major overhaul and replacement. Some benchmark cost estimates 

based on railcar and locomotive overhaul and replacement programs for the existing Amtrak California 

fleet are included in the following subsections. 

Railcar Overhaul and Replacement 

California owns its own fleet of 88 railcars and 17 locomotives and has spent over $300 million on the 

design and acquisition of railcars and locomotives since the early 1990’s. The Northern California fleet, 

which is used on both the San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor, is entirely State-owned. It includes 78 cars –

66 California Cars and 12 new Pacific Surfliner fleet cars, and 17 locomotives – 15 Electro Motive Division 

F59PHI and two General Electric Dash-8 units. 

California acquired the original 66 bi-level “California Cars” between 1995 and 1997. The “California Car” 

fleet is comprised of four distinctive car types –- cab, trailer, coach and food service cars. In 2001, 

California purchased and placed into service an additional 22 cars. The cars were acquired as an option 

to Amtrak’s 40 car Pacific Surfliner fleet order for Southern California. Twelve of the State-owned cars 

were assigned to Northern California operations, and ten cars were assigned to Pacific Surfliner

operations. In 2012, 14 Comet I coaches were purchased from New Jersey Transit to be rebuilt for use on 

the San Joaquin Corridor. Passenger railcars have an economic useful life of approximately 30 years. 

On-going routine maintenance keeps the railcars reliable and attractive to customers. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 12-4 

Caltrans received $245 million in ARRA funds for equipment acquisition to replace some of the existing 

railcars and locomotives and to add capacity to the existing fleet. Caltrans and several Midwest states 

initiated a joint procurement of new railcars that will be compatible with existing equipment and recently 

awarded a contract to Sumitomo for railcars produced by Nippon Sharyo in Rochelle, Illinois. The 

equipment to be purchased will be designed and built using specifications approved by the Passenger 

Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) Section 305 Next-Generation Equipment 

Committee (NGEC). California will receive a total of 42 NGEC railcars. The railcars will include 29 

allocated for capacity increases while the remaining 13 will be used to replace older or damaged 

equipment. 

In 2003-04, Caltrans contracted for the midlife (eight-year) overhaul of the original 66 “California Cars.” 

Design, engineering and the completion of the overhaul and testing of the four pilot (prototype) cars (cab, 

coach, foodservice and baggage) was completed in 2004-05, and midlife overhauls of the remainder of 

the fleet were completed in 2008. 

However, additional work was still required to bring the cars up to current industry standards. Caltrans 

awarded a $13.1 million contract to Alstom for the complete replacement of the door systems and 

upgrade of the wheelchair lifts, as well as heavy cleaning of vehicle interior including upholstery and 

carpets; rebuilding and new flooring in toilet rooms; 110 volt convenience outlets at every seat; as well as 

other additions and improvements to the cars. In future years, the newer 22 cars (12 in the Northern 

California fleet and ten in the Southern California fleet) will need their midlife overhaul. Table 12.4 

provides information on the overhaul program. 

Table 12.4: Intercity Railcar Overhaul Program (Millions of dollars) 

State Fiscal Year Projected Overhaul Funding Needs 

(Million Dollars)

2011-12 $ 16.1 

2012-13 $ 18.4 

2013-14 $ 14.4 

2014-15 $ 11.9 

2015-16 $ 11.9 

2016-17 $ 21.0 

2017-18 $ 25.5 

2018-19 $ 24.5 

2019-20 $ 23.5 

Source: Caltrans, Division of Rail 

Locomotive Overhaul and Replacement 

Caltrans purchased nine Electro Motive Division F59PHI locomotives that were delivered in 1994 and 

1995. The locomotives have a maximum operating speed of 110 mph; include emission reduction 

technology and other features to improve operational and functional safety. Two additional General 

Electric Dash-8 locomotives were purchased from Amtrak in 1994. In 2001, Caltrans acquired an 

additional six model F59PHI locomotives. A locomotive has a projected economic life of approximately 

20 years. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 12-5 

The current locomotive replacement schedule is being changed as a result of a major program currently 

underway to re-power the locomotives with new Tier 4 EPA standard head-end power (HEP) units, which 

supply electrical power to the train. Three locomotives have already had this upgrade. Caltrans currently 

has a contract to re-power five more locomotives beginning in February 2013. These repowering 

processes typically take approximately 6 weeks to complete at a cost of $260,000 per HEP unit. The 

schedule of specific locomotives to be retrofitted is still to be determined. This program is anticipated to 

give two more overhaul cycles to the equipment. Repowered locomotives will be overhauled again in 

eight years and then at year 16 will be replaced. 

The joint procurement of locomotives with the Midwest states is proceeding. ARRA funds have been 

allocated to purchase six new NGEC locomotives capable of speeds up to 125 mph MAS. Procurement 

documents are being prepared and will likely be advertised in 2013. 

 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 13-1 

13.0 Public Benefits and Impact Analysis 

This chapter describes the public benefits and impacts associated with passenger and freight rail 

improvements for the Coast Daylight route. This analysis encompasses potential transportation, 

environmental, and economic effects for rail system users and non-users. 

13.1 Operational and Transportation Output Benefits 

The ridership and revenue forecasting process described in Chapter 8 provides a mechanism for 

calculating vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and travel mode changes as 

passenger rail service is expanded. 

13.1.1 Travel Mode Changes 

Passenger rail ridership increases arise from travelers diverting from air or personal vehicles or from 

taking entirely new trips (“induced travel”). These travel mode changes occur due to improved passenger 

rail travel times, reliability, and service frequencies that can be obtained with capital projects and service 

expansion. The ridership forecasting tools project that expanded service for the Coast Daylight route will 

reduce statewide personal vehicle travel by about 100,000 annual person trips in 2020 and 200,000 

annual person trips in 2040. Statewide air trips are projected to decrease by 50,000 annual person trips 

in 2040. 

13.1.2 Personal Vehicle Travel 

The ridership forecasting tools were also used to project 2020 VMT and VHT changes by region, 

reflecting the illustrative service plan assumptions for the Coast Daylight route. The regions were defined 

as follows: Sacramento, Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, Central Coast, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Rest 

of California. 

The forecasts show a small daily VMT reduction in most regions, with the largest reductions occurring in 

the Central Coast region, followed by the Bay Area and Los Angeles regions. For the Central Coast, daily 

VMT is projected to fall by about 11,000 miles in 2020 and 26,000 miles in 2040. At the statewide level, 

daily VMT is projected to drop by about 23,000 miles in 2020 and 55,000 miles in 2040. (Both these 

decreases are a zero percent reduction at the statewide level.) The forecast shows a slight reduction in 

daily VHT (or hours spent driving) in several subregions with daily statewide VHT falling about 550 hours 

in 2020 and 1,300 hours in 2040. (Both these statewide decreases are a zero percent reduction at the 

statewide level.) Once again, the Central Coast has the largest reduction of the regions, dropping by 310 

hours in 2020 and 710 hours in 2040. 

13.1.3 Air Travel 

Diversion of air trips to conventional and high-speed intercity passenger rail may lead to reduced aircraft 

operations for intra-California air travel. The most recent analysis, which was conducted for the 2008 Bay 

Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train (HST) Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) estimated that the full statewide high-speed rail (HSR) system (Phases I and 

II) could result in approximately 280,000 fewer annual commercial aircraft operations at California airports 

(a five percent reduction). This magnitude of aircraft operation reduction was projected to reduce air 

travel delay each year by about 13.9 million passenger hours. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 13-2 

13.2 User and Non-User Economic Benefits 

Passenger and freight rail improvements will benefit the State in a number of ways, and many of these 

benefits are quantifiable. For example, improved passenger rail service directly benefits travelers who 

shift from autos to trains for travel within the State. As more people use rail, those who remain on 

California’s highways enjoy the benefits of reduced congestion levels, saving themselves time on their 

trips. Finally, more passenger rail trips will also translate to lower air pollution emissions. These benefits 

are measurable by monetizing values generated from the ridership and revenue forecasting tools 

described in Chapter 8. 

The benefits quantified in this analysis divide into “user benefit” and “non-user benefit” categories. 

13.2.1 User Benefits Analysis and Results 

User benefits accrue to individuals as they shift from airplanes or personal vehicle to passenger rail. 

These travelers place a monetary value on riding comfortable, reliable, and safe trains. Passengers also 

value the dependability provided by rail in almost all weather conditions, allowing travel even as flights are 

canceled and driving is treacherous. The user benefits for rail passengers are a reflection of these 

advantages. 

User benefits in this analysis include intercity rail passengers who shift to rail for their trips, plus induced 

travel (i.e., new trips that would not have taken place otherwise if the rail improvements had not been 

made). The passenger rail user benefits reflect these advantages and are measured by consumer 

surplus, which is the difference between how much passengers are willing to pay and the actual train fare 

that is paid. User benefits were estimated through a process known as log-sum calculation,(xxi) which is 

derived from “values of time” and other mathematical equations in the ridership forecasting models. 

Annual user benefits are projected to total $4.2 million (2012 dollars) for the illustrative year 2020 service 

plan assumptions, and $14.1 million for the year 2040 service plan assumptions. The 2020 user benefit 

total includes an $4.1 million benefit for intercity travelers and a $100,000 benefit for urban area travelers. 

The 2040 user benefit total includes a $13.9 million benefit for intercity travelers and a $200,000 benefit 

for urban area travelers. 

13.2.2 Non-User Benefits Analysis and Results 

Non-user benefits include highway delay reductions, safety improvements, and lower pollution emissions 

that result from a less intensive use of motor vehicles on California’s roadways. These benefits are 

measured by monetizing the VMT and VHT changes shown in Table 13.1. 

Vehicle Crash and Air Pollution Reduction Benefits 

Expanded passenger rail service will reduce VMT and, by extension air pollution and crashes. For this 

analysis, VMT reductions were converted to monetary benefits using rates of 14.7 cents per mile for crash 

reduction(xxii) and 2.1 cents per mile for air pollution reduction(xxiii) (both are in 2012 dollars). The 

monetized accident and pollution reduction benefits are shown by region in Tables 13.3 and 13.4 for 

years 2020 and 2040, respectively. 

Highway Delay Benefits 

Traffic congestion is a perennial problem in California and it imposes costs on the State’s people in the 

form of lost time. Hours not spent at work, with family, or other activities such as exercising or 

entertainment translate to economic and social losses for the State. Improved rail service will reduce 

traffic delays by diverting personal vehicle travel to intercity passenger rail. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 13-3 

For this analysis, VHT reductions were monetized using values of time (in 2012 dollars per hour) for 

intercity business and non-work trips of $72.36 and $20.97, respectively.(xxiv) Tables 13.3 and 13.4 

summarize these results by subregion. 

Table 13.1: Year 2020 Non-User Benefits by Subregion 

Region

Annual Benefits (in millions in 2012 dollars) 

Highway Crash 

Reduction 

Air Pollution 

Reduction 

Highway Delay 

Reduction

Sacramento Region $- $- $-

Bay Area $0.2 $0.0 $1.3

San Joaquin Valley $0.2 $0.0 $0.9

Central Coast & Monterey Bay $0.6 $0.1 $4.6

Greater Los Angeles Region $0.2 $0.0 $1.2

San Diego $0.1 $0.0 $0.2

Rest of California $- $- $-

Statewide Total $1.2 $0.2 $8.1 

Table 13.2: Year 2040 Non-User Benefits by Subregion 

Region

Annual Benefits (in millions in 2012 dollars) 

Highway Crash 

Reduction 

Air Pollution 

Reduction 

Highway Delay 

Reduction

Sacramento Region $- $- $-

Bay Area $0.5 $0.1 $3.3

San Joaquin Valley $0.4 $0.1 $2.5

Central Coast & Monterey Bay $1.4 $0.2 $12.7

Greater Los Angeles Region $0.6 $0.1 $4.1

San Diego $0.1 $0.0 $0.3

Rest of California $- $- $-

Statewide Total $2.9 $0.4 $22.9 

13.2.3 Summary of User and Non-User Benefits 

Table 13.5 summarizes the total benefits of the expanded passenger rail service levels. The benefits are 

closely divided between the intercity passenger rail travelers and the personal vehicle operators who 

continue to use California’s roadways. 

While this analysis forecast major benefit components for California’s economy, data and analysis 

methods were not readily available to capture all potential benefits. Some examples are as follows: 

 Increased rail usage may reduce highway maintenance. 

 Potential direct and indirect economic impacts of increased spending for rail capital investments, 

train operations, and maintenance. 

 Reduced in-state air travel may lead to fewer in-state flights at California’s congested airports. 

This situation might reduce delays for remaining flights or free up capacity for transcontinental 

and international flights. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 13-4 

 New highway-rail grade separations might reduce the projected number of train-vehicle crashes, 

further increasing the benefits shown in Tables 13.3 and 13.4. 

 Improved rail operations might reduce fuel-related costs for freight and passenger rail operators. 

 Potential economic development benefits from HSR that are expected to strengthen the 

competitiveness of California’s industries, major metropolitan areas, and intermediate cities by 

more effectively connecting markets and encouraging business interactions that further stimulate 

growth. 

Table 13.3: Summary of Annual User and Non-User Benefits 

Benefits Summary 2020 2040 

User Benefits 

Intercity Passenger $4.1 $13.9

Urban Passenger $0.1 $0.2

Non-User Benefits 

Accident Reduction $1.2 $2.9

Pollution Reduction $0.2 $0.4

Highway Delay Reduction $8.1 $22.9

Total Benefits $13.7 $40.3 

Note: 

Table values are in millions in year 2012 dollars. 

13.3 Environmental Effects 

This section describes the potential environmental effects of the proposed capital and service 

improvements for the Coast Daylight route. 

13.3.1 Air Quality Emissions 

Table 13.1 illustrates that Coast Daylight rail services are projected to reduce automobile and truck VMT 

throughout California. VMT reductions lead directly to reduced emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and 

key mobile source pollutants.(xxv) Air quality emissions were forecast using the California Air Resources 

Board Emissions Factor (EMFAC) model(xxvi) coupled with the VMT forecasts.(xxvii). 

Tables 13.6 through 13.11 summarize the reduction in emissions due to reduced VMT for key pollutants 

by region within California. The column titled “’No Action’ EMFAC Emissions” shows the baseline total 

statewide mobile source emissions by pollutant,” assuming continuation (but no expansion) of current 

passenger rail routes and service levels. The “Emissions Reduction from Service Plan” column indicates 

each pollutant’s projected emission reduction under the illustrative service plan assumptions. The 

emission reduction projections are organized by pollutant in the following tables: 

 Table 13.6 shows the reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to quantify GHG emission 

reduction benefits. 

 Table 13.7 and 13.8 show the reduction in reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen 

(NOx) respectively; these are precursor emissions that contribute to the formation of ground level 

ozone and secondary aerosols. 

 Table 13.9 shows the reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. 

 Table 13.10 shows the reduction in particulate matter between 2.5 and 10 microns (PM10). 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 13-5 

 Table 13.11 shows the reduction in particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). 

Table 13.4: Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction 

Region 

2020 2040 

Emission 

Reduction 

from Service 

Plan

“No Action” 

EMFAC 

Emissions

Emission 

Reduction 

from Service 

Plan

“No Action” 

EMFAC 

Emissions 

Sacramento Region - 7,286,000 - 8,274,000

Bay Area 600 30,941,000 1,200 33,194,000

San Joaquin Valley 600 25,218,000 1,500 34,123,000

Central Coast & Monterey Bay 1,800 6,069,000 3,900 6,507,000

Greater Los Angeles Region 600 81,412,000 1,600 94,233,000

San Diego 100 13,947,000 200 16,365,000

Rest of California - 11,191,000 - 13,360,000

Statewide Total 3,700 176,064,000 8,400 206,056,000

Note: 

Table values are in tons per year. 

Table 13.5: Reactive Organic Gas Emission Reduction 

Region 

2020 2040 

Emission 

Reduction 

from Service 

Plan

“No Action” 

EMFAC 

Emissions

Emission 

Reduction 

from Service 

Plan

“No Action” 

EMFAC 

Emissions 

Sacramento Region - 3,700 - 3,100

Bay Area <1 19,000 <1 15,400

San Joaquin Valley <1 11,000 <1 10,900

Central Coast & Monterey Bay 1 3,000 2 2,400

Greater Los Angeles Region <1 39,000 <1 32,000

San Diego <1 7,000 <1 6,500

Rest of California - 7,100 - 5,300

Statewide Total 2 90,800 3 75,600

Note: 

Table values are in tons per year. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 13-6 

Table 13.6. Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Reduction 

Region

2020 2040

Emission 

Reduction 

from Service 

Plan 

“No Action” 

EMFAC 

Emissions 

Emission 

Reduction 

from Service 

Plan 

“No Action” 

EMFAC 

Emissions

Sacramento Region - 7,600 - 5,300

Bay Area <1 34,800 1 23,000

San Joaquin Valley <1 36,300 2 30,400

Central Coast & Monterey Bay 3 7,900 3 4,900

Greater Los Angeles Region <1 93,100 1 69,300

San Diego <1 13,900 <1 10,300

Rest of California - 18,000 - 12,100

Statewide Total 5 211,600 7 155,300

Note: 

Table values are in tons per year. 

Table 13.7: Carbon Monoxide Emission Reduction 

Region 

2020 2040 

Emission 

Reduction 

from Service 

Plan 

“No Action” 

EMFAC 

Emissions 

Emission 

Reduction 

from Service 

Plan 

“No Action” 

EMFAC 

Emissions 

Sacramento Region - 33,800 - 26,100

Bay Area 3 151,300 4 109,800

San Joaquin Valley 2 93,300 4 84,700

Central Coast & Monterey Bay 9 31,600 13 20,800

Greater Los Angeles Region 3 347,500 4 271,500

San Diego <1 63,100 <1 53,100

Rest of California - 56,200 - 38,300

Statewide Total 18 776,800 26 604,300

Note: 

Table values are in tons per year. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 13-7 

Table 13.8: Large Particle (PM10) Emission Reduction 

Region 

2020 2040 

Emission 

Reduction 

from Service 

Plan 

“No Action” 

EMFAC 

Emissions 

Emission 

Reduction 

from Service 

Plan 

“No Action” 

EMFAC 

Emissions 

Sacramento Region - 1,100 - 1,300

Bay Area <1 4,700 <1 5,400

San Joaquin Valley <1 3,400 <1 4,800

Central Coast & Monterey Bay <1 900 <1 1,000

Greater Los Angeles Region <1 11,900 <1 14,600

San Diego <1 2,000 <1 2,600

Rest of California - 1,600 - 1,900

Statewide Total <1 25,600 1 31,700

Note: 

Table values are in tons per year 

Table 13.9. Small Particle (PM2.5) Emission Reduction 

Region

2020 2040

Emission 

Reduction 

from Service 

Plan 

“No Action” 

EMFAC 

Emissions 

Emission 

Reduction 

from Service 

Plan 

“No Action” 

EMFAC 

Emissions

Sacramento Region - 500 - 600

Bay Area <1 2,100 <1 2,500

San Joaquin Valley <1 1,700 <1 2,300

Central Coast & Monterey Bay <1 410 <1 500

Greater Los Angeles Region <1 5,500 <1 6,800

San Diego <1 900 <1 1,200

Rest of California - 700 - 900

Statewide Total <1 11,810 <1 14,800 

Note: 

Table values are in tons per year. 

13.3.2 Climate Change Assessment 

In 2008, through the Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08, Caltrans was charged with examining a 

preliminary assessment of the State’s transportation system vulnerability to sea-level rise.(xxviii) Caltrans 

also developed guidance on incorporating sea-level rise in Project Initiation Documents in May 2011.(xxix) 

In 2012, the National Research Council confirmed that tide gages show that global sea level has risen 

about 7 inches during the 20th century, and recent satellite data shows that the rate of sea-level rise is 

accelerating.(xxx) Scientists have continued to narrow predictions of climate change and scenarios that 

include sea-level rise, temperature rise, as well as the variability of precipitation. Both passenger and 

freight rail systems in California are susceptible to the impacts of a changing climate. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 13-8 

This section outlines the potential effects of changes in storm activity, sea levels, temperature, and 

precipitation patterns on the rail network, paying specific attention to coastal tracks and bridges. 

California is climactically diverse, with bioregions that span from the coastal marine to the Sonoran 

desert, and associated infrastructure are found statewide. Accordingly adaptation strategies may take on 

a very local approach. 

Projected Climate Change Consequences and Possible Rail System Effects 

Future projections of climate change for California have been synthesized by the 2009 California Climate 

Change Scenarios Assessment and the 2012 Reports on the Third Assessment from the California 

Climate Change Center, which examined changes in average temperatures, precipitation patterns, sealevel rise, and extreme events.(xxxi) In California, the physical impacts on railroads from these changes 

include inundation, landslides, flooding, high winds, intense waves, storm surge, accelerated coastal 

erosion, and change in construction material durability.(xxxii) The following sections provide a summary of 

the potential consequences of climate change and the affiliated impacts to the state rail system. 

Temperature 

Current emissions model scenarios all project hotter conditions by the end of the century, with business 

as usual projecting a 1°C increase by 2100. Temperature levels are expected to rise more quickly and be 

higher by the end of the century under higher emissions scenarios. 

Rail tracks are laid on top of and within a range of land surfaces, including cleared pavement right-of-way 

(ROW), solid earth and a network of bridges and tunnels. Expected increases in temperature and 

temperature extremes may produce a range of new effects, including the following: 

 More freeze-thaw conditions may occur, creating frost heaves and potholes on road and bridge 

surfaces and compromising rail beds. 

 Longer periods of extreme heat can cause deformation of rail lines and derailments, or at a 

minimum, speed restrictions.(xxxiii) Buckled rails and heat kinks result from overheated rails that 

expand and cannot be contained by the material supporting the track. 

 Higher heat can increase cost to cool equipment, and equipment may even have to be 

redesigned if inadequate for increased temperature. Many urban rail systems are controlled by a 

system of complex electrical train control and communications systems that are sensitive to 

overheating with substations, signal rooms, and electrical boxes designed with ventilation and air 

conditioning.(xxxiv)

 Increased extreme heat can also strain overhead catenary wires, cause overheating of vehicles, 

and lead to failed air conditioning systems within the vehicle itself. 

An overall extension of extreme heat days can cause challenges for customer service and worker safety; 

passengers waiting on platforms in hot weather, or construction and maintenance crews working in 

cramped spaces in indoor vehicle maintenance facilities.

Precipitation 

Projected changes in precipitation are less clear-cut than for temperature. The seasonal pattern of cool, 

wet winters and hot, dry summers, typical of a Mediterranean climate, is likely to continue. However, the 

amount of precipitation is likely to change; and, where and how much rain and snow fall differs with 

emission scenarios. 

Expected changes in precipitation, both for averages as well as extremes, will produce a range of new 

impacts, including: 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 13-9 

 The frequency, intensity, and duration of intense precipitation events contribute to design 

specifications for transportation infrastructure; and projected changes may necessitate design 

specification updates for rail beds and storm water drainage around rail tracks.(xxxv)

 More intense precipitation may cause flooding of coastal rail lines. Low-lying bridge and tunnel 

entrances for rail and rail transit will be more susceptible to flooding, and thousands of culverts 

could be undersized for flows. In urban rail systems, during heavy rain storms, the volume of 

water can exceed the capacity of street storm water drains and systems, leaving no capacity to 

accommodate water pumped out of subway tunnels.(xxxvi)

 Changing precipitation may result in erosion and subsidence of rail beds, causing interruption or 

disruption of rail traffic. As a result, commuter and freight trains could experience extensive 

delays due to damaged or inundated tracks.(xxxvii)

 The changing precipitation (for instance, changes from frozen to liquid precipitation) may change 

runoff patterns, increasing the risk of floods, landslides, slope failures, and consequent damage 

to rail beds, especially rural rail beds in the winter and spring months. 

Sea-Level Rise 

Sea levels have risen by about seven inches on the California coast in the past century.(xxxviii) Present 

sea-level rise projections suggest that global sea levels in the 21st century can be expected to be much 

higher. These projections are summarized in the State of California Sea-Level Rise Interim Guidance 

Document(xxxix,xl) and shown in Table 13.12. 

Higher water levels may also increase coastal bluff erosion rates; change environmental characteristics 

that affect material durability (e.g., pH and chloride concentrations); lead to increased groundwater levels; 

and change sediment movement both along the shore and at estuaries and river mouths. These issues 

for existing and planned rail ROWs at the planning and project level will need to be addressed. Caltrans 

recently developed a project screening process to plan for the impact of different potential sea levels 

based on a facility’s importance for statewide travel, community safety, and other factors.(xli)

Table 13.10: Sea-Level Rise Projections 

Mean Sea-Level 

Rise (Meters) 

Year to Reach Projected Sea-Level 

Rise in High (A2) Scenario 

Year to Reach Projected Sea-Level 

Rise in Low (B1) Scenario 

0.0 2000 2000

0.5 2054 2057

1.0 2083 2098

1.4 2100 2125

Source: OPC, 2011 

Note: 

(1) The State has agreed on two emissions scenarios (A2 and B1) from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios from the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) representing a range of possible futures.(xlii) 

Extreme Events 

Gradual changes in average temperature, precipitation and sea level have been described. However, it is 

likely that the State will face a growing number of additional climate change-related extreme events, such 

as heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods.(xliii)

Region-Specific Impacts to the State Rail Network 

The Central and South Coast will be susceptible to changes in temperature and precipitation, but the 

biggest threat will be sea-level rise on the coastal railways, including Amtrak Coast Starlight and the 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 13-10 

state-supported Pacific Surfliner. Numerous other local and regional rail lines, such as Los Angeles 

County Metro Rail, Metrolink, COASTER, and SPRINTER also span segments of the coastal areas at 

risk. 

The South Coast is a particularly dense and urbanized region, and the rail system there is a critical asset 

for both passenger and goods movement. Sea-level rise and storm surges, along with weather-related 

landslides, could disrupt parallel, roadway transportation infrastructure, such as U.S. 101 and the Pacific 

Coast Highway, leaving railroads the potential alternative mode in the area. Railroads also supported the 

tourism industry in the Central and South Coast by bringing tourists to coastal attractions. With 

passenger rail lines contributing to the high-value tourist industry for the State, the economic effects are 

substantial. 

Potential Adaptation Options for the California State Rail Network 

Of the various climate stressors, sea-level rise and inland flooding pose the biggest climate impact to the 

California state rail network. Adaptation strategies should be coordinated with a wide range of 

stakeholders, including other state agencies (e.g., California Emergency Management Agency, California 

Natural Resources Agency); federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and regional and local 

partners metropolitan planning organizations, counties, and cities), potential strategies may include: 

 Improving the drainage around rail stations and rail facilities, and increasing the capacity for 

storm water drainage. 

 Retrofitting entrances to stations to minimize volume of floodwater that might inundate the 

station, and placing water-sensitive elements above a flood elevation. 

 Elevating railroad tracks, rail beds, and/or station sites, but still maintaining adequate clearances. 

 Conducting partial or temporary closures in extreme events, and providing alternative routes for 

goods movement. 

 Constructing a permanent or temporary floodwall/barrier to manage tidal flows. 

 Building levees and strengthening coastal armoring around key high-risk locations. 

 Providing supportive hazard mitigation and emergency evacuation plans. 

 In the most extreme cases, abandoning the asset or finding alternate routes for the coastal rail 

lines and at-risk stations under consideration. 

13.3.3 Land Use and Community Benefits 

Intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, and freight rail services are important components of California’s 

transportation system, providing benefits to the State that extend beyond the mobility of people and 

goods. Safe and efficient rail systems contribute to community, land use, safety, and public health 

benefits. This section describes the community and greening benefits further by safe and efficient 

passenger and freight rail services enjoyed by rail users, as well as the greater public. 

Proposed capital and operational improvements can be broken down into the following categories: 

 Rail line improvements improve the speed, capacity, reliability, and safety of a railroad corridor. 

Rail line improvements may include double-tracking, siding improvements, curve realignments, 

and panelized turnouts to increase capacity and improve safety and travel times. Community and 

greening benefits resulting from rail line improvements include reduced braking and acceleration 

noise, reduced idling on sidings, and enhanced safety. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 13-11 

 Grade separations may be considered a subset of rail line improvements, but these 

improvements are so prevalent and such an important part of the rail improvement plan that they 

are noted separately. Grade separations improve the safety, speed, capacity, and reliability of rail 

service by eliminating dangerous at-grade crossings of rail and highway systems. More 

specifically, greening and community benefits of grade separation improvements include reduced 

braking and acceleration noise, less traffic disruption, reduced idling at crossing, enhanced 

safety, and removal of barriers and walls dividing the community. 

 Bridges are planned along some corridors. Existing bridges require widening to accommodate 

expected passenger rail and freight rail activity, and new bridge construction is planned to 

accommodate proposed track extensions. Community and greening benefits resulting from these 

improvements include providing enhanced supporting wildlife corridors/crossings, providing 

agriculture access, and may reduce barriers dividing communities. 

 New rail corridor construction and line extensions provide service to new areas. Examples 

include the Coachella Valley, and XpressWest corridors. Community and greening benefits 

resulting from rail line extensions include reduced emissions, encouraging non-motorized 

transportation modes, and land use benefits supporting vibrant transit-oriented development 

(TOD). 

 Signal and train control improvements provide integrated command, control, communications, 

and information systems for controlling train movements with safety, security, precision, and 

efficiency. Community and greening benefits resulting from these improvements include reduced 

braking and acceleration noise, reduced idling on sidings, enhanced safety, and less traffic 

disruption. 

 Rolling stock improvements include purchasing new railcars/locomotives, and upgrading existing 

railcars/locomotives. In addition to improving the passenger experience (e.g., amenities, ride 

comfort), new rolling stock can offer tangible travel time benefits – for example, trains with tilting 

capabilities can reduce or eliminate the need for trains to reduce speed on low-radius curves, 

allowing trains to maintain higher average speeds. Community and greening benefits resulting 

from these improvements include reduced braking and acceleration noise expanded system 

capacity, and emission reductions from cleaner locomotives. 

 Electrification converts a railroad corridor to be fully powered by electricity. Community and 

greening benefits resulting from electrification include reduced pollution and noise, which may 

have the further effect of encouraging TOD along the rail line. 

 Station and station access improvements may include providing new or improved station 

platforms; enhanced pedestrian and bike facilities; and customer amenities, such as additional 

parking, shuttle service to enhance access to the station, electronic signage with real-time arrival 

and departure information, and enhanced lighting. Community and greening benefits resulting 

from station improvements include enhanced safety, mitigation of issues related to noise and 

emissions from locomotives, land use benefits supporting vibrant TOD communities, and 

promotion of multimodal transportation options such as bicycling or pedestrian activity, which 

may help reduce obesity and improve broader measures of health throughout the community. 

 Freight terminal improvements include new and expanded freight rail yards and intermodal 

facilities. Greening benefits of these projects include the mitigation of noise and pollution 

concerns and diversion of trucks from the highway system, as well as improved efficiency and 

safety. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 13-12 

The way these benefits accrue to users and non-users of the rail system differs somewhat by rail service 

type. The accrued benefits are described in more detail for passenger rail (both intercity and commuter) 

and the freight rail system in the following section. 

Intercity and Commuter Passenger Rail 

Passenger rail includes a complex system of intercity and commuter rail to connect cities across the 

State. Intercity passenger rail in California serves metropolitan and rural areas, and provides service 

between regions in the State. Commuter rail service is a key component of the State’s integrated rail 

system serving local travel and providing regional connections to and from intercity Amtrak service. Safe 

and efficient intercity and commuter passenger rail services that are well-integrated with local 

transportation options can contribute to community and greening benefits to users and non-users of the 

system in regards to community livability, land use, safety, and public health. 

As with the intercity passenger rail system, community and greening benefits of commuter rail service 

improvements may be valued differently for users and non-users of the system. Benefits that result from 

improvements to California’s commuter rail system also extend beyond better transportation service 

provided to users of the system. Generally, the capital and operation improvements to the State’s 

commuter rail systems have the potential to impact local road congestion; alternate transportation options 

(i.e., non-motorized transportation, transit, etc.); land use patterns; community livability; the environment; 

and public health. 

For users, improved passenger rail service that operates more safely, comfortably, and efficiently will 

enhance personal mobility and offer travelers greater diversity of transportation options. Capital and 

operational improvements, such as grade separation projects, double-track projects, station 

improvements, and service frequency improvements, are examples of projects that will improve the 

attractiveness and viability of rail travel as the preferred mode for many intercity and commuter trips. Rail 

station improvements that enhance pedestrian and bike facilities and amenities and increase TOD around 

station areas will be important factors encouraging users to utilize active transportation modes to access 

stations. Users of passenger rail may enjoy economic benefits associated with a reduced travel cost 

compared to automobile ownership/travel. Providing more varied and affordable travel modes also 

mitigates transportation equity and environmental justice issues for users of the passenger rail system. 

Passenger rail improvements may bring about community and greening benefits for non-users in several 

ways. Shifting the rail system to a cleaner energy source through projects like electrification will reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions and diesel-generated criteria air pollutants from system operations. Increasing 

the appeal of rail travel through grade separation projects, double-track projects, station improvements, 

and service frequency improvements will encourage people to shift from driving single-occupancy 

vehicles (SOV) to comparatively cleaner and safer rail travel. Non-users will also enjoy reduced 

congestion on roadways as drivers shift to train travel. That mode shift will translate to congestion relief 

for the non-users along parallel highway corridors. TODs supported by the commuter rail services 

facilitate concentrations of homes, shops, and jobs nearby rail stations. Thus, users and non-users may 

enjoy access to vibrant TOD communities with diverse and accessible recreational and employment 

opportunities. Benefits may also be enjoyed by non-users as more compact development presents more 

opportunities to integrate walking and biking for mobility purposes. 

One of the most important roles that improved passenger rail service plays is that of supporting the 

development of livable communities. The Vision California scenario modeling project(xliv) undertaken by 

the State of California found significant economic, fiscal, health, water and environmental co-benefits from 

the State, regions, and localities choosing to grow through TOD and infill near existing and future local 

and intercity rail service. Households could save over $7,250 per year in auto costs and utility bills. Local 

governments could save more than $47 billion in infrastructure costs (water pipes, sewers, roads, and 

utility lines) while gaining over $120 billion in new revenue. Reduced health incidences would save 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 13-13 

approximately $1.9 billion a year by 2035. By 2050 water saving would total 19 million acre-feet. Over 

3,700 square miles less farmland, open space, and recreation areas would be lost to development, and 

75 million metric tons of less GHG would be created by 2050. These enormous indirect benefits from 

smarter growth and development choices would be above and beyond the direct user and non-user 

benefits discussed above. 

Freight Rail 

Freight rail operations in California help link the State to both domestic and international markets. The 

freight railroad system in California consists of an expansive network of Class I railroads, short line 

railroads, and switching yards/terminals stretching more than 5,000 miles across the State. Safe and 

efficient freight rail services that are well-integrated with the State’s transportation system can contribute 

to community and greening benefits to users and non-users of the system in the areas of safety, job 

creation, noise reduction, the environment, and public health. 

For planning analysis, benefits to users and non-users of the freight rail system will depend on the varying 

perspectives and freight knowledge of stakeholders and whether they are more focused on the impacts 

on track, the rolling stock, or the freight facilities, for example. For users of the freight rail system (i.e., 

shippers), service and infrastructure improvements that allow the system to operate more safely and 

efficiently will reduce freight transportation costs. Rail grade separation projects, double-track projects, 

and freight facility improvements are examples of projects that will improve the reliability and economic 

competitiveness of freight rail travel as a preferred mode for freight trips. 

Freight rail improvements may also bring about community and greening benefits for non-users in several 

ways. For example, the GenSet technology (short for "Generator Set" or sets of engines turning a 

generator) replaces the large diesel engine and generator found in almost all existing freight locomotives 

with two or three much smaller diesel engines and generators providing fuel consumption reduction and 

improved air quality benefits. Shifting the rail system to a cleaner energy source through projects that 

expand the use of GenSet Locomotives at switching yards, implement idling limit devices, and eventually 

facilitate electrification will reduce GHG emissions and benefit public health in communities located near 

rail lines terminals. However, for the electrification of passenger and freight rail to occur, enough 

electricity must be available in the California power grid. Enhancing freight rail movement through grade 

separation projects will improve safety and reduce congestion and the associated emissions from vehicle 

idling, reduce conflicts between trains traffic within neighboring communities, and improve community 

connectivity by removing divisive at-grade tracks. Rail line improvements may reduce noise along freight 

corridors, and new freight intermodal terminals will create jobs. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 

Page 14-1 

14.0 Key Findings 

This chapter presents the key findings of the SDP prepared for the Corridor. The purpose of the Corridor 

planning effort was to identify and evaluate possible rail improvements to relieve the growing capacity and 

congestion constraints on passenger and freight travel using the Corridor’s rail infrastructure which is 

operating near its design capacity. The Corridor faces significant mobility challenges as continued growth 

in population, employment, and tourism activity is projected to generate increased travel demand 

straining the existing rail network. The Corridor needs infrastructure improvements to improve mobility, 

reliability, and safety in this part of the state’s rail system by expanding service, decreasing trip times, and 

improving rail capacity in a cost-effective and environmentally sensitive manner. 

Two alternatives were evaluated for the SDP: 1) the No-Build Alternative, which provides a baseline 

discussion of the continued operation of the existing Corridor system with no improvements beyond those 

identified in current programming and funding plans through 2040; and, 2) the Build Alternative, which 

proposes adding 1 round trip daily train between San Francisco and Los Angeles, with eventual 

expansion to 2 daily round trips. The Build Alternative included a list of improvement projects to support 

increased passenger service levels, as identified in previous planning studies. These projects were 

evaluated to determine their reasonableness and feasibility in addressing the identified Corridor purpose 

and need for action. As part of the evaluation process, operational system modeling was conducted as 

documented in Chapter 9. The operational analysis concluded that the Corridor’s existing rail network, as 

represented by the No-Build Alternative, was not capable of accommodating the Corridor’s future travel 

needs, and that some of the service and capital improvements identified in the Build Alternative were 

necessary to serve future travel needs. 

The Build Alternative, and the improvement projects it provides, best meets the project goals and purpose 

and need. Implementation of this alternative would result in a faster, safer, and more reliable passenger 

and freight rail system. It would remove existing operational constraints and provide additional capacity in 

response to increased travel demand between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The viability of the 

proposed projects included in the Build Alternative was assessed based on the following criterion: 

 Environmental impacts. 

 Technical feasibility based on ROW and engineering constraints. 

 Economic feasibility based on a comparison of capital and operating costs to anticipated levels of 

capital funding and the revenue generated by market potential and/or ridership. 

The SDP analytical efforts identified that the proposed improvement projects listed in the Build Alternative 

would have minimal environmental impacts to local communities and natural resources while resulting in 

air quality benefits. The Build alternative is technically and economically feasible. 

The Build Alternative would provide additional capacity to serve improved intercity rail service plans in the 

Corridor that would support regional and county goals and plans related to growth, smart growth, 

economic development, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, sustainability, and provision of a 

balanced transportation system. 

The Corridor improvements would provide additional capacity to serve forecast growth in a cost-effective 

manner. The improvements would have independent utility, are not dependent on the completion of other 

Corridor programs to be successful, and provide measurable benefits to intercity rail service. The projects 

planned to be completed by 2020 are consistent with expected funding resources, and would provide 

more frequent and reliable service that would be more attractive to potential riders, thereby increasing the 

service revenue potential. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 14-2 

14.1 Operational Initiative Priority 

Future Coast Corridor service plans have been developed by the Coast Rail Coordinating Council 

building upon the prior Coast Daylight Implementation Plan (June 2000) and verified by the analysis 

included in this SDP. The resulting service increases are designed to address the forecasted rail system 

demand by adding daily trains operating between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The existing longhaul Amtrak Coast Starlight train would continue to operate in the Corridor. By 2020, an initial single daily 

round trip service would be provided by extending the operation of an existing Pacific Surfliner train from 

the current northern terminus at San Luis Obispo to San Francisco. 

The new Coast Daylight train’s terminal stations would be the existing San Francisco Fourth and King 

Caltrain Station in the north, and LAUS in the south, with 27 intermediate stops. Of the 29 proposed 

stations, 25 are existing Amtrak or Caltrain stations, and four are proposed new stations: Pajaro and 

Castroville which would be implemented as part of the Capitol Corridor extension to Salinas, and, 

Soledad and King City, which are part of the Coast Daylight project. 

By 2040, an additional daily Coast Daylight round trip train would operate overnight between San 

Francisco and Los Angeles. 

Operational priorities to support the planned increase in rail activity would include implementation of 

infrastructure improvements to improve rail system capacity and reliability that currently negatively impact 

intercity passenger and freight rail performance. These improvements are provided by the Build 

Alternative and are discussed below. 

14.2 Capital Funding Project Priority 

The Corridor’s rail system infrastructure is currently operating near its design capacity, and the Build 

Alternative provides improvement projects that are required to accommodate the forecasted rail activity 

and improve mobility and reliability in this part of the state’s rail system. Projects were identified from prior 

studies, including the Amtrak 20-Year Improvement Plan (2001), the Programmatic EIR/EIS under 

preparation, UPRR recommendations, and studies prepared by Corridor MPOs. Reflecting system 

operational needs and projected funding availability, the identified Corridor improvement projects are 

organized into two phasing categories: 1) Near-Term and Mid-Term (2012 to 2020) and 2) Long-Term 

(2020 to 2040). Priority would be given to Corridor capital projects providing equipment, new stations, 

and increased capacity and reliability such as signal upgrades. Implementing CTC between Santa 

Margarita and McKay, a single tracked region with four siding locations, would significantly improve on 

time performance for both passenger and freight trains. As increased funding became available, travel 

time could be improved through more costly curve realignment projects. 

Table 14.1 presents the near-term and long-term improvements that have been identified in previous 

studies and plans, and through the operational system modeling done for this SDP. The operation 

modeling results indicate that both the near-term and long-term Coast Daylight service plans could be 

operated upon implementation of this relatively small set of capital improvements. Consistent with the 

corridor-level planning and SDP analysis, the level of detail for any of the proposed improvement projects 

is conceptual in nature. Subsequent project-specific engineering and environmental analysis would be 

performed to provide more detailed information on implementation costs and environmental impacts for 

the individual projects presented. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 14-3 

Table 14.1: Proposed Rail Improvement Projects 

Project Description Source County Improvement 

Type 

Estimated 

Project Cost 

(Millions, 

Year 2000 

Dollars)

Funding 

and 

Status 

Near-Term (2012 - 2014) & Mid-Term (2015 - 2020) 

Implement CTC between McKay and 

Santa Margarita (MP 202.3 to 229.6)

(2), (3) San Luis 

Obispo Signal n/a Unfunded

Purchase one intercity trainset (1) n/a Rolling 

stock n/a Unfunded

Construct new station in Soledad 

(MP 140) 

(3), (4) Monterey Station $4.0(5) Unfunded

Construct new station in King City 

(MP 161)

(1), (3) Monterey Station -- (6) Unfunded

Long-Term (2020 - 2040) 

Purchase two intercity trainsets (1) n/a Rolling 

stock n/a Unfunded

Sources: California Passenger Rail System – 20-Year Improvement Plan: A Summary Report, Amtrak, March 2001; Coast Daylight 

Service: Add Daily LA-San Francisco Train Pair (Replaces pair of LA-San Luis Obispo Surfliners), UPRR, January 2011 

(presentation); Potential Coast Corridor Improvements for Environmental Review 07172012, Circlepoint (Microsoft Word document); 

Personal communication with Pete Rodgers, SLOCOG; Monterey Bay Area Mobility 2035, AMBAG, June 2010 

Notes: 

(1) Project sourced from California Passenger Rail System – 20-Year Improvement Plan: A Summary Report. (2) Project sourced from Coast Daylight Service: Add Daily LA-San Francisco Train Pair (Replaces pair of LA-San Luis Obispo 

Surfliners). January 2011. 

(3) Project sourced from Potential Coast Corridor Improvements for Environmental Review 07172012. 

(4) Project sourced from personal communication with Peter Rodgers, SLOCOG. 

(5) AMBAG RTP (financially constrained) 

(6) Cost for three station projects (Pajaro, Salinas, and King City) is $7.3 million (2000) per California Passenger Rail System – 20-

Year Improvement Plan: A Summary Report. 

 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 14-4 

End Notes

 

(i) It should be noted that the SDP does not analyze capacity improvements between Control Point (CP) Lick (in 

San Jose) and San Francisco. These improvements are being analyzed separately by on-going Caltrain and 

UPRR operations modeling efforts.

(ii) Northern California Unified Service is the restructuring and integration of San Joaquin Corridor, ACE, and Capitol 

Corridor operations to provide connections between Sacramento, Oakland and San Jose and the HSR tracks in 

the San Joaquin Valley. 

(iii)

 e.g., SLOCOG 2010 Regional Transportation Plan – Preliminary Sustainable Communities Strategy, page 5-28. 

(iv)

 e.g., TAMC 2010 Regional Transportation Plan, page 3-131. 

(v)

 Coast Daylight Service: Add Daily LA-San Francisco Train Pair (Replaces pair of LA-San Luis Obispo Surfliners), 

UPRR, January 2011 (presentation); 

(vi)

 Centralized Traffic Control is a railroad signaling system that allows a dispatcher in a remote location to operate 

switches and otherwise control the movement of trains. 

(vii)

 Class 4 track is maintained to safely operate freight trains up to 60 mph and passenger trains up to 80 mph. This 

is the typical class for mainline track that hosts freight and passenger service. Factors influencing the 

classification of track include the condition of rail and rail joints, proper distance between rails (gauge), rail 

alignment, and the condition of crossties. 

(viii)

 Island CTC is a short, isolated section of CTC in the vicinity of a siding. Island CTC is usually installed where 

there are long stretches of single-track between sidings. The intervening single-track does not have CTC. 

(ix) Revenue-mile is the number of miles traveled by paying passengers. Revenue miles are calculated by 

multiplying the number of paying passengers by the distance traveled.

(x) See Chapter 8 for a description of the two models. 

(xi) The two models assume very similar auto fuel operating costs. Amtrak/Caltrans model assumes a 16 cents per 

mile average derived from 2011 AAA auto operating cost estimates. 

(xii) In travel demand modeling, logsum is a composite measure of utility – or benefit – that is derived by making a 

specific trip. Logsum is used in choice-based models to predict the likelihood of a traveler selecting a particular 

option (such as destination, mode or route) given a set of socioeconomic and accessibility conditions. 

(xiii) The HSR R&R Model was chosen for this purpose over the Caltrans/Amtrak Model because the latter did not 

produce all-mode trip tables for future years. The HSR R&R Model was developed for the Authority purposes 

and was only calibrated to produce trip tables for years 2000 and 2030. 

(xiv) Since future HSR service was not included in the service assumptions, the forecasts do not include induced 

ridership generated from potential HSR connections at San Jose or at Los Angeles. 

(xv) Freight volumes for Year 2020 and Year 2040 were developed by Cambridge Systematics using current UPRR 

 operating data projected based on economic indicators 

(xvi) RailOPS is a rail simulation program developed by AECOM 

(xvii) RTC is a rail simulation program developed by Berkeley Simulation Software, LLC 

(xviii) Executive Order 13514 – Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance 

(xix) “Metrolink to buy newest, cleanest locomotives” (December 18, 2012) 

http://www.metrlinktrains.com/news/news_items/news_id/836.html. Accessed February 14, 2013. 

(xx) “Multi-state partnership announces intent to award contract for next generation of American trains” (September 

27, 2012), http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/news/pressrel/12pr121.htm. Accessed February 14, 2013. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 14-5 

 

(xxi) An explanation of the log-sum process and its application to this analysis is available in “Economic Growth 

Effects Analysis for the Bay Area to Central Valley Program-Level Environmental Impact Report and Tier 1 

Environmental Impact Statement”, Appendix A, California High-Speed Rail Authority, July 2007. 

(xxii) Federal Highway Administration, Highway Economic Requirements System.

(xxiii) National Research Council, Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use, 

Committee on Health, Environmental, and Other External Costs and Benefits of Energy Production and 

Consumption, 2009. 

(xxiv) The values of time were adjusted to 2012 dollars and sourced from, “Information Requested in ―Section 3.2 

Validation and Documentation of the Independent Peer Review of the California High Speed Rail Ridership and 

Revenue Forecasting Process, 2005-10, Draft Report for Internal Review,” Cambridge Systematics, February 7, 

2011, available on California High Speed Rail Authority website. 

(xxv) This analysis addressed reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), large 

particles (PM10), and small particles (PM2.5). 

(xxvi) The analysis used the EMFAC 2011 model. 

(xxvii) This emissions analysis reflects vehicle travel reduction due to mode shifts from personal vehicles to passenger 

rail and residual congestion reduction from this mode shift. Additional emission reduction might arise from: 

a) improved rail system efficiency through reduced locomotive idling and improved locomotive fuel economy; 

b) reduced aircraft operations from air to rail modal shifts; c) reduced vehicle acceleration and deceleration from 

highway bottleneck elimination; and d) shifting of freight from trucks to rail .Emission increases might arise from: 

a) additional locomotive operation due to expanded service levels; and b) passenger travel to/from intercity 

passenger rail stations. 

(xxviii) Caltrans, Vulnerability of Transportation Systems to Sea Level Rise: Preliminary Assessment, submitted by 

Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, February 2009. 

(xxix)Caltrans, Guidance on Incorporating Sea Level Rise for Use in the Planning and Development of Project Initiation 

Documents, May 16, 2011. 

(xxx) National Research Council. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon and Washington: Past, Present, 

and Future. National Academies Press, 2012. 

(xxxi) Cayan, D., M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, H. Hidalgo, T. Das, E. Maurer, P. Peter Bromirski, N. Graham, and R. Flick, 

Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for the California 2008 Climate Change Scenarios 

Assessment, PIER Research Report, CEC-500-2009-014, Sacramento, California: California Energy 

Commission. 2009 and Reports on the Third Assessment from the California Climate Change Center, 

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/third_assessment/. 

(xxxii) Kahrl, F., and D. Roland-Holst, Climate Change in California: Risk and Response, University of California 

Press, 2012. 

(xxxii) National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC), Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. 

Transportation, Transportation Research Board Special Report 290, Washington, D.C., 2008. 

(xxxiii) National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC), Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. 

Transportation, Transportation Research Board Special Report 290, Washington, D.C., 2008 

(xxxiv) Federal Transit Administration Office of Budget and Policy, Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rails: Public 

Transportation and Climate Change Adaptation, FTA Report No. 0001, August 2011.

(xxxv) National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC), Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. 

Transportation, Transportation Research Board Special Report 290, Washington, D.C., 2008. 

(xxxvi) Federal Transit Administration Office of Budget and Policy, Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rails: Public 

Transportation and Climate Change Adaptation, FTA Report No. 0001, August 2011. 
Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013

Page 14-6 

 (xxxvii) National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC), Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. 

Transportation, Transportation Research Board Special Report 290, Washington, D.C., 2008. 

(xxxviii) National Research Council. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon and Washington: Past, 

Present, and Future. National Academies Press, 2012. 

(xxxix) Ocean Protection Council (OPC), State of California Sea-Level Rise Interim Guidance Document, Ocean 

Protection Council. 2011. 

(xl) The recent sea-level rise publication from the NRC titled Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and 

Washington: Past, Present, and Future (NRC 2012) revises some of the projections included in the OPC report 

and Caltrans guidance. Caltrans is working with other State agencies to determine specific sea-level rise values 

to incorporate into future planning and design documents. As new state guidance becomes available it will be 

important to incorporate that information into future planning assessments and update Caltrans guidance, as 

appropriate. 

(xli) California Department of Transportation, Climate Change Working Group, Guidance on Incorporating Sea Level 

Rise, May 19, 2011. 

(xlii) These are both scenarios evaluated by California for statewide climate assessments. Each scenario leads to a 

projection of possible emissions levels based on population growth rate, economic development, and other 

factors. Ultimately, the effect on climate change depends on the amount and the rate of accumulation of heattrapping gases in the atmosphere that these scenarios suggest. Of the two options provided, the A2 scenario is 

the more realistic choice for decision-makers to use for climate adaptation planning. Generally, the B1 scenario 

might be most appropriately viewed as a version of a “best case” or “policy” scenario for emissions, while A2 is 

more of a status quo scenario incorporating incremental improvements. These two scenarios are represented 

above. 

(xliii) Mastrandrea, M. D., C. Tebaldi, C. P. Snyder, S. H. Schneider, Current and Future Impacts of Extreme Events in 

California, PIER Research Report, CEC-500-2009-026-D, Sacramento, California: California Energy 

Commission, 2009. 

(xliv) California High Speed Rail Authority and Strategic Growth Council funded project. http://www.visioncalifornia.org/ 
PREPARED FOR:

California Department of Transportation

1120 N Street

P.O. Box 942874

Sacramento, CA 95814

PREPARED BY:

AECOM

2101 Webster Street #1900

Oakland, CA 94612

with Cambridge Systematics

& Arellano Associates