Recommendation of Preferred Technology Alternatives

1
Recommendation of Preferred Technology
Alternatives

• Northwest Rail Corridor
• North Metro Corridor

FasTracks Monitoring Committee
2
Recommendation of Preferred Technology
Alternatives

• Results of Analysis of Impacts and Costs related
  to Technology
• Summary of public and local government input on
  DMU/EMU Alternatives
• Recommendation

3
Methodology for Cost Comparisons Northwest Rail
and North Metro Corridors

• Used same methodology as previous analyses for
  East and Gold Line Corridors
• Differential Capital costs include
• Electrification of the corridor (EMU)
• Vehicles (EMU and DMU)
• Share of Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility
  fueling facility (DMU) and electrification (EMU)
• OM costs include
• Energy/fuel
• Labor
• Maintenance administration

4
Methodology for Cost Comparisons Northwest Rail
and North Metro Corridors

• OM Cost Estimates vary by corridor depending on
  a number of factors, including
• Number of stations
• Distance between stations
• Ridership and length of train
• Frequency of service performance characteristics
  of vehicles (accel/decel)
• OM cost saving for EMU on East/Gold Line
  Corridors is significantly greater than on North
  Metro and NW Rail Corridors, due to combination
  of factors listed above.

5
Summary of Environmental Impacts
Northwest Rail Corridor
6
Annual Fuel Consumption and CostsNorthwest Rail
Corridor
Assumes (diesel at 2.52 gal, electric at .085
kwH, inflated at 3.4 per year)
7
Average Annual OM Costs for Northwest Rail
Corridor (Millions Inflated ) Over 30 Years
1EMU maintenance costs include vehicle
maintenance and maintenance of the
electrification systems. DMU maintenance costs
include only the cost of vehicle maintenance.
Note Operations and Maintenance Savings 2
million/year
8
Cost Northwest Rail Corridor

• Average Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs
  (2006 )
• DMU 21 million
• EMU 19 million
• Differential Capital Costs (2006 )
• (includes vehicles, electrification and share of
  maintenance facilities)
• DMU 69 million
• EMU 140 million

Source FasTracks Annual Program Evaluation/LTK
Payback Analysis, August 8, 2007
9
Comparison of Avg. Annual Costs Northwest Rail
Corridor
OM Debt Service

• Assuming financing of incremental capital costs
  with 30-year level debt service
• EMU 676.3m
• DMU 336.3m
• OM cost saving for EMU on the East/Gold Line
  Corridors was significantly greater than on the
  NW Rail Corridor, due to number of stations
  distance between stations ridership and length
  of train frequency of service.

• Notes
• This financial analysis does not include the
  impacts of the BNSF requirements for the higher
  catenary or their requirement for special
  maintenance equipment.
• Note Debt service includes principal and
  interest payments. Incremental capital costs
  include fleet procurement cost, civil
  construction cost differential, electrification
  cost, signaling cost differential, and
  maintenance facility cost differential.

10
Summary of Savings Northwest Rail Corridor
Gross Savings 237.2 PV Savings 145.7
Note Assumes PV discount rate of 5 and debt
interest rate of 7.
11
Other Evaluation Factors
Northwest Rail Corridor

• Compatible DMU technologies in the Northwest
  Rail and North Metro Corridors provide for
  efficiencies in vehicle spares and interlining
  service.

12
Summary of Stakeholder Input Northwest Rail
Corridor

• Three Technology Workshops held in September in
  corridor with over 200 attendees total.
• Approximately half of the attendees submitted
  comments on technology
• Approximately 60 expressed preference for EMU
• Approximately 30 expressed preference for DMU
• Remaining technology comments did not express a
  preference

13
Recommendation Northwest Rail Corridor

• Adopt DMU vehicle technology as the preferred
  alternative based upon
• Coordination with North Metro Corridor
• Spare Vehicle Ratio
• Ability to interline service
• Lower upfront capital costs, when financial plan
  is most constrained
• Most cost effective over 30 year planning horizon
• More cost effective for future service expansion
  to North Front Range
• Consistency with original FasTracks Plan
• No visual impact from catenary system (wires and
  poles)
• Ability to use alternative fuel in the future

14
Summary of Environmental Impacts North Metro
Corridor
15
Cost North Metro Corridor

• Average Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs
  (2006 )
• DMU 19 million
• EMU 17 million
• Differential Capital Costs (2006 )
• (includes vehicles, electrification, share of
  facilities)
• DMU 68 million
• EMU 126.7 million

Source FasTracks Annual Program Evaluation/LTK
Payback Analysis, August 8, 2007
16
Annual Fuel Consumption and CostsNorth Metro
Assumes (diesel at 2.52 gal, electric at .085
kwH, inflated at 3.4 per year)
17
Average Annual OM Costs for North Metro Corridor
(Millions Inflated ) Over 30 Years
1EMU maintenance costs include vehicle
maintenance and maintenance of the
electrification systems. DMU maintenance costs
include only the cost of vehicle maintenance.
Note Operations and Maintenance Savings 2
million/year
18
Comparison of Avg. Annual Costs North Metro
Corridor
OM Debt Service

• Assuming financing of incremental capital costs
  with 30-year level debt service
• EMU 404.8m
• DMU 228.2m
• OM cost saving for EMU on the East/Gold Line
  Corridors was significantly greater than on the
  NW Rail Corridor, due to number of stations
  distance between stations ridership and length
  of train frequency of service.

Note Debt service includes principal and
interest payments. Incremental capital costs
include fleet procurement cost, civil
construction cost differential, electrification
cost, signaling cost differential, and
maintenance facility cost differential. Does not
include construction costs, special equipment,
etc.
19
Summary of Savings North Metro Corridor
Gross Savings 79.9 PV Savings 48.2
Note Assumes PV discount rate of 5 and debt
interest rate of 7.
20
Other Evaluation Factors North Metro Corridor

• Compatible DMU technologies in the Northwest
  Rail and North Metro Corridors provide for
  efficiencies in vehicle spares and interlining
  service.

21
Summary of Stakeholder Input North Metro Corridor

• 200 public comments received on vehicle
  technology
• Both technologies supported more for EMU
• Cities, counties and agencies have not expressed
  an official preference for either technology.

22
Recommendation North Metro Corridor

• Adopt DMU vehicle technology as the preferred
  alternative based upon
• Coordination with Northwest Rail Corridor
• Spare Vehicle Ratio
• Ability to interline service
• Lower upfront capital costs when financial plan
  is most constrained
• Most cost effective over 30 year planning horizon
• More cost effective for future service expansion
  to North Front Range
• Consistency with original FasTracks Plan
• No visual impact from catenary system (wires and
  poles)
• Ability to use alternative fuel in the future

23
Recommendation Northwest Rail North Metro
Corridors

• Timely technology decision is critical in order
  to maintain schedule.
• Needed to complete railroad negotiations
• Needed to determine impacts and mitigation for
  NEPA studies
• Needed to adhere to vehicle specifications and
  procurement schedule
• Delayed conclusion of NEPA studies will impact
  construction start-ups.
• Delayed construction will impact opening dates.