HomeMy WebLinkAbout0575.000\' (I)
I, November 15, 1990 11 !
HONORABLE CITY COL~CIL
Palo ~tO, California
DUHBARTON COMMUTE (RAIL) SERYICE FEMl.llLITX STUpY
Kembers of the Council:
'REPORT IN DIEF
The purpose of this staff report is to forward information
ooncerninq a recently completed feasibility study for instituting
rail commuter service over the Dumbarton Rail Bridge. A
representative from SAMT'IlANS will be present at the Council meeting
to serve as a resource.
Staff recommends tb.at Council:
1. Express its lonq-£tanding and continuing support for all forms
of ~a8S transit, in general;
2. Express its strong support :for the purchase and preservation
of the existing Dumbarton Rail Bridge and related riqhts-of
w~y for future transportation needs:
3. Express its support for further study ot a broader range of
alternatives as an essential prerequisite for developing the
understandinq and support that is needed to decide on an
apprc-priate course of action regarding rail service in the
Dumbarton Corridor; and
4~ Express its 5Upport tor the existinq Dumbarton BUs Service as
well as its concern reqarding the rail operational plan that
proposes to eliminate all peak period Dumbarton Bus service.
BACKGRoUND
The transportation consultant firm of Par50ns Brinckerhoff Quade ,
Douqlas, Inc. has recently completed a study of the feasibility of
a Cal'Train-type rail collUllute service over the OUmharton Rail
Bridge. A draft stUdy report, DUMBARTON COMMUTE SERVICE
FUSIBILITY STODY (dated October 3, 1990). has beer. prepared and i.
currently under review by transportation officials in San Mateo
om:575.0
. -
. , '>" \ , .
..
•
:.
o
county. A copy ot Chapters 1, 6, an~ 8 from the ~raft feasibility
.tud.y i. included: a. Attachment 1. A copy of the tea.lbility
~tudy i. available for review 1n the City of Palo Alto,
iTansportaUon Division. A public aeeting concerning the
te.alb11ity .tudy vas held in Menlo Park on November It 1990.
A three person (MTC) Policy Co .. ittee va. established to oversee
and ... vi .. " the feasibility atudy proce.. and findings. The
co..lttee iii c01Ilprised of one supervisor from each of three
counties: Alameda Cou.nty (Ed Campbell) ~ San Mateo County (Tom.
Nolan), and santa clara county (Dianne McXenna). During the next
aeveral weeka, the COa:!l.ittee 115 scheduled to review recolllllel'ldations
based upo~ ~~. feasibility study report prepared by the consultants
an~ comments from public meetings.
STUDY BIGt:LIGHT$
Chapter 8 -Conclusiens, of the draft study report, provides oS
brief description of several important conclusions from the study.
other aajor highlights that moy be belpful to a basic urnierstanding
of the .tudy include the following,
Study rpc;yI
• The prilaary focus of the .tudy 'Wag to evaluate the
feasibility of operating a Cal Train-type rail commute
service over the existinq DuDbarton Rail Bridge" fIS a
precursor to a decision on whether or not to purchase and
preserve the existing rail bridge and related rights-of-way.
service DescrIption
• The proposed service alternative 1. to operate rev~nue rail
service from Washington Boulevard in 7"reMont, through
Newark, then over the Oumbarton Rail Bridge, through Menlo
Park, and then south to San Jos. (Alaa Station). Rather
than provide rever •• comDute trips" trains would operate
along three sides of a triangle that would start in San
Jose.--ope.ratinq countercloclcwilJe in the llornill9 and
clockwise in the afternoon around the Bay. Exhibit 1
(Report Figure 2-2) illustrates the proposed aliqnment.
This operational strategy has been chosen because it
Dinimizea capital improvement. necessary to allow passinq of
trains, increases safety, and .iniaizea certain
environmental impacts (such as nol.e) associated ~ith train
»ove.ents.
• Four new stations would be established in the East Bay, and
one new station (Chilco) would be established In the West
Bay near the Bohannon Industrial Park.
QIR.575,O 11/15/90
Page 2
•
I
l
. ,
..
~ -:
EXHIBIT 1 .'-"
DUMBARTON COMMUTE SERVICE
PAOPOSED CORRIDORS
---RAil SERVICE ALIGNMENT
o NEW STATIONS
• EXISTING CAlTRAIN STATIONS
• o The total 41stano. of each round trip
round trip 'Would take approximately 1
coapl.teo
"',
i1(' 55 ailes. Each
hour 48 ainutes to
• Two trains, oomprl.e~ of one locomotive and three passenger
cars with a total capacity ot 435 seats per train, would be
used. The trains would be similar to those presently in
operation by Cal Train. Esch tra.in would aake two round
trips (total of tour) durinq both the morning and evening
commute peak periods.
• Fares would be &imilar to existing Cal Train fares, with a
trip across the bay beinq equivalent to two zone crossings
by Cal Train.
• The Dumbarton Commuter Service (DCS) is proposed to replace
the exiatinq Dumbarton Express (DB) bus service, except for
three eastbound and two westbound DB trips that would be
retained to provide midday service in the corridor. Feeder
bus aervice lIould be used to enhance and. broaden the
attraction area tor the proposed rail service.
Ridership
• Ridership crossitlCj the bay is estimated to be. 870 passengers
per day in 1990 1 increasing to 1,450 passengers per day by
2005. EssentiallYI one-half of the ridership esti~ates is
fIIttributable to ridership drawn from the Dumbarton Bus
Service. The asswnption is that all current pea.k period bus
riders would use the proposed rail service.
• Fectors that would likely result in higher ridership inolude
ill future di~e.ct connection to BAR1' in the East say,
increased t.raffic congestion in the Route 237 corri~r,
further new development In both the East Bay and west Bay
areas, and increasingly stri~ent air quality req-olirelllents~
finanei,l
• The cost.-effec.tJ.venes5 measures developed tor the [)CS shown
in Exhibit 2 (Report Table 6-1) indicate high operatinq
costs per ride~ ancl subsidy pek:' ri.der 1 compared to the
existing Calrrain service and Dumbarton Bus service~
• Tbe cost of the proposed project is $ 29.3 .illion in
capital cost and $ l.8 million in annual operating costs.
Possible funding scenarios for the DCS are shown in Exhibit
3 (Report Table 7-1).
CKR: 575:0 11/15/90
Page 3
EXHIBIT 2
COST-ZFFEeTrvENEss OF DeS SERVICE
un DOLU.lIs
PerformOnce Measure
Operating Cost/Rider
Net Operating COEt/
New Rider (1)
SubsidY/Rider
N.t SubsidY/New
Rider (1)
Farebox Recovery
Ar~uali.ed capital
Cost/Rider (2)
DeS
Servisa
$17.34
$28.06
$15.72
$25.11
S.H
$ 8.48
Dumbarton
ColTrain Bus Service
$4.87 $5.09
NA NA
$3.11 $3.64
NA N",
35.0' 28.5t
NA NA
(1)
(2)
NA
Net of savinqs ~rom cancellation of the existing DB
Express Sus service
Based on AD 2005 OCS ridership
Not Applicable
EXHIBIT 3
PO~IXBL! PVNDXNa SCENARIO
DUKllAATOlf COIOlt7rE 8E!1VICIi
TOTAL CAPITAL NEEDS.
CAPITAL
JCENUIO 1
$l9,29',79S
SCEl!hRIQ :a
$29.295,"5 --
SOURCES OF CAPITAL FllNOS:
-Federal section 3 $14.647.897
',323,9·t9
',323,'.9
-0 -
.14,647,897
14.647.851e
-Stat.
-Local
Total Funding $29,295,795 $29,295,795
=-=
OPERATING
AIiNl1AL OPERATING NEEllS, $ 3,833,000
==-
SOURCES OF OPERATING FUNDS.
-Fare Revenues $ 357,000
-Reallocation or DB Bus 353,000
Fund!n9
-Federal Section 9 173,000
-stat. TDA Drawn Fro. Other
Local Uses and Local
Contributions 2.'5Q,000
$ 3,83'),00::1
_==-:.e =
-"" V
. -
III~ZP coyNCIL poLICIES
<2.-•
..... .
Palo Alto has a lonq-litandinq record ot Itrong and viqoroua support
of all for.s of mass transit.
The Comprehensive Plan .pea~. directly to a variety of Eeasures:
(al to improve existing .ervice (relhMHty, frequency), Cb) to
facilitate passenger usage (acce&sibl11ty, transfers, tares,
.ohedule, and route information), (e) to expar.d service (exclusive
lanes/quidewilYs, service areas, express services, shuttles, special
services), and {d} to create and improve reqion31 and 5ubreqlonal
tr~nsit linkages among .ervice provl~er8 (BART, Cal trans, SCCTD,
SAXTKANS and others I .
council, through its actions and IUpport ot legislat.ion and ballot
me&5ures, a. vell as various reqional and co'U.nty level
tranaportation plans, haa consistently deaonstrated a position of
strong support toward measures and plana that emphasize transit
related solutions over automobile related approaches.
Crxmcil has long-standing' policies, and a notable record of actions
and achievements, that encourage and faeilitate the use of
alternative modes to the automobile (walking, biking, car/vanpools,
transit). Some of these actions include TOK requirem.ents that long
preceded the recent Gold.en Triangle re.lated efforts: a consistently
strong advocate of the Golden Triangle 'i."ask Force and commuter
Metwork as veIl 8811 t:.be santa Clara County Cor.qest:ion tlanaqeJl!ent
Agencyt bicycle facilities and promotions that consistently place
Palo Alto in the top ranks of bicycle usage and fr ieneile55.J
.ustained BUpport for the creation and continuation of the
Dumbarton Bus service with current ridership exc~edin9 600
passengers per day; the palo Alto calTraln station that ranks third
(behind San Francisco and San Jose) in the number of riders, as
well as the california Avenue cal Train 5tati~n which ranks sixth.
In summary, the council's policies and actions h~ve consistently
and aggressively ~pha~ized transit and other alternative zades of
tran~portation durlnq the past decades.
~,<;. ANP CONCERNS
FrOD. a preliminary review of the available information from the
Dumbarton Commute Servi;s Feasibility Study, tbere appear to be
three primary issues that varrant consideration:
1. Preservation of existing Ouabarton CorrL~or ~ail facility.
• The Dumbarton corridor ia an important eross-bay linkaqe,
particularly betveen ~vailabl. housing in the East Bay and
employ.ent opportunities in the West say.
CMR:575:0 11/15/90
Page 4
•
o 0
• Travel <58l1AnlS In the ou.barton CorrilSor is likely to
continue to increase as ~rafflc on alternative routes to the
north (San Xateo Brid'le) and the south (Route '37) continues
to 9row.
• The exiati"9 lNabarton Rail Brid>J ... nlS related ri9hts-of-way
repre.aent an irr.plac .. abl .... continuous, linear .. unobstructed
alignment that could be uaeful tor .. va.riet:y of possible
tranaportation system .lternatives~
• The purchase of the rl'lht-of-way and facilities as an
adjunct to the current neqotiations for the parchaa6 cf the
... inline peninsula rail ri'lht-of-way would be both timely
and cost efficient.
• The Feaaibility Study identifi •• a c".t of about $40,000 per
year In eMua} maintenance coat to preserve the proposed
al1gnaent and bridqe without the initiation ot any .. erviee.
This 15 a relatively aodest coat to assure the preservation
ot an irreplaceable linear rig-h1:-of-way that could a.erve any
one of a broad ranqe of possible future t:ransportatlon
service ••
In sum.ary, the Duml:larton rail bridq. and related rigtlt.-o.f-vay
represent an irreplaceable ~r8n&portatlon asset, in II corridor
of continui"9 travel qrowtb, Wbich can be purcbased and
.aintained at a relativ.ly moderate cost and could be used tor an:r one of a nUllber of possible transportation •• rvice .options.
Pre.ervation of such rlqbts-of-vay ia essential for no other
reason than to maintain iJaport"nt options tor the futUre-
options that would otherwise be totally and irrevocably lost.
2. Future rail 8ervice in tbe Du.abiilrton corridor ..
• '!'be study considered only the feasibility ot operati"9 a
calTraln-type rail commute service over the DUmb&rton Rail
Bridq. and: presents intor.ation for only a sil191e
operational .,lan. -
• The ridership projections for the Oumbarton rail se.rvice, as.
presented, are J10dest at best and rather .inhull if the
patro:nage from. t.~e exiatil19 Wabarton Bus service is not
includ.ed~ The cost-effectiveness of tha proposed rail
service, as shown in Table 6-1, is of 8~h a .agnitu4e that
it warrants serious additional evaluation and consideration
of .. ana to in5ure more favorable performanc.~
• A wore comprehen8ive 8tydy of various typea of rail transit
and alternative operational plans would provide a .ore firm
basis for developinq a consenaus regarding how beat to
provide rail transit within the OUmbarton Corridor, and how
best to utilize the available, linear rail rigbt-of-way.
QIR,575,0 11/1S/90
Page 5
".
\ < ....
, .
•
""" "...... I,..., ,,-,/
In aummary, the proposed sy.tea type and operational plan, as
pr ••• ntad in the feasibility study, has served to generate an
interest and understanding reqarding the iasua. related t~ rail
service in the Dwibarton Corridor. Further study of a broader
range of alterr.atives is an essential prerequisIte for
developll1CJ thll understandif\9 and support that is needed to sake
• tinsl decision on an appropriate course of actlon~
3.. Exll1t-inq bus service in the Dwt.barton Corridor.
• The Dumbarton Bus Service runs between the Union city BART
Station and the Stanford Research Park, with several
intermediate stops in the We&t Bay area. The current.
schedule provides l' westbound and 18 eastbound daily trips
between the hours of S: 00 am and 8: 00 pm.. Exhibi t "
provides route and schedule information for the existinq
Dumbarton Bus Service.
• The existinq l)umbarton Bua Service, atter the noraal
a.truqqle during its start-up years, has enjoyed steady
ridership growth and currently ~xce&d& 600 passenqer trips
per day. Ridership survey data indicates that at least 65
to 70 percent of the bus riders travel from origins in the
East Bay to destinations in the Palo Alto/Stanford areas.
• The proposed Dumbarton Rail Service, as presented in the
feasibility study, proposes to eliminate the bus service
during the peak hours.. In fact, abo'Ut one-half of the
prDjected rail patronaqe is attributable to passengers
presently riding the existing bus.
• While feeder bus service to and from the rail stations coul~
conceivably provide a similar quality of service that would
ettract and aerve the needs of the existing bus passengers,
it 18 not at all evident that such an eventuality is a
certainty. ne feasibility study does not adequately
demonstrate the manner in which an equal or better level of
service can be provided to current bus riders.
• Ho steps toward the elillination or severe cutback of
Dumbarton Bus Service should be considered: without. first
demonstrating an achievable Hans to provide similar or
i.proved service to current bus riders.
In BWDBIary, the existing Cumbarton Bus Service is performing'
reasonably well and i. providinq an important transportation
service that continues to attract ste5dy ridership qrowth.
SUbstitute services should not be considered unlesa they clearly
provide equal or better service to current bus riders.
CIIR!575,O
: .
ll/lS/gO
Page f5
•
•
I . I J
. .1 Ii I :-5J i I
•
-._-.. m It!
..
UCQlIMENPUIQNS
Staff r~"M" that the Couneil:
1. Expre .. its lOl19-atandil19 ond continuilI9 support for all forms
of .ass transit, in qeneral;
2'. Expre •• its stronq Sl£pport for the purchase and presenration of
the existinq Dumbarton Rail Bridqe and related riqhts-of-way
for future transportation n.e~s; .
,.. Expre... its IUPPOrt. :tor further Btudy ot a broader range of
.lte~tive ••• an essential prerequisite for developing the
understandin9 and support that is needed to make a final
decision on lin appropriate courae of action reg\!lrding rail
service in the Dumbarton Corridor: and
4. Express its support tor the exlstinq Dumbarton Bus Service as
well as its conc~rn regarding the rail oper&tional plan that
proposes to eli.lnate all peak period Dumbarton BUs Service.
Respectfully submitted,
~-
MARVIN L. OVERWAY
Chief Transportation Officiol
Assistant City xanager
1::??,:dA" f xlJitd;".?
KENNETlI R. S CJlRErBER
Director of Planninq and
Community £nviron3ent
AttachmErnts: l~ OUmbartcn commute Service Feasibility
Study -Draft, dated October 3, 1990.
cc: Supervisor Dianne McKenna
SAMTItANS (Gerald Ilauqh, Larry Stueck)
Santa Clara county Transportation Agency (James Readingl
Kenlo Park (City Manager)
Stanford University (Andy Doty, Julia Fremon)
CKR:575:0 11/15/9D
Page 7
-tiTACHMENT 1
...",
~hapters I, 6 , B ~nlJ
OCTOBER 3, 1990
Prepared by'
Par.on. Irinck.rhotf QuaGe • Dougl •• , %DC
In Association Witb,
PUblic Affairs K&nag ... at
I . I
~ABLE OJ' COJITEII'I'I
1.0 %VTaODUCTION
:t.0 aERnCE !)Z8CRIl'"UON
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ALIGNMENT AND
CAPITAL ASSETS
2.2 CONCEPTUAL OPEP.ATIIIG PIAN
RAIL OPERATING PLAN
BUS S ER\iICE
2.3 ALIGNMENT AND STATIONS
3.0 .JDER8EIP J'ORECaBT
1 ,
5
7
8
1B
20
30
3.1 EXISTING CORRIOOR TRAVEL VOLUMES 30
3.2 iXlMBARTON COI'OOJTE SERVICE RIDERSHIP 3i
PROJECTIONS
DeS PATRONAGE 31
STATION RIDEKSHIP 32
EFFECT OF INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION JJ
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 34
37
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES AND PERMITS 31
4.2 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL 40
ISSUES
4.3 CONCLUSIONS 50
5.0 CAPI~AL AND OPERATING COST BSTIMATES
S.l CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES
5.2 OPERATING COST ESTIMATES
6.0 BVALUAUON OJ' DCa IIAIL ALTElINA'l'IV!:
51
51
S3
56
6.1 TRANSIT IMPACTS 56
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 56
RIDERSHIP 57
IJIPACTS ON OTHER TRANSIT OPERATORS 58
TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY 56
GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE 59
HOURS OF SERVICE 59
RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL/REGIONAL TRANS-60
P01'TATION PLANS AND POLICIES
6. 2 ENVIRONllEllTAL IMPACTS 61
'ntAn"IC IMPACTS 61
SAFETY IMPACTS 62
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS 62
NEIGHBORHOOD/LAND USE IMPACTS 62
o
~L. OF COHTEWT. (oont'dl
7.0 FXEANCXAL ~T.I.
7. 1 FI1lIDING FOR CAPITAL NEEDS
7.2 FUNDING FOR OPERATINC NEEDS
7.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR OPERATION OF THE
DtJM]IARTOII COMKU'l'E SERVICE
•• 0 CONCLUSIONS
64
64
66
68
70
8. 1 OVERALL PROJEC: FEASI BILITY 7 C
8.2 CAPITAL AIID OPERATING COSTS 70
•. 3 RIDERSHIP ; 1
8 • 4 ENVIRONMEllTAL IKI'ACTS 71
8.5 TRAFFIC AIID SAFETY 72
8.6 RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL PLANS AND POLICIES 72
8.7 OPTtONS FOR THE Fll'l'tlRE 7J
APPZllDICU
APPENDIX A CORRESPOIIllENCE FRO!! PllBLIC 76
AGENCIES
APPENDIX B Sl!KKARY OF PllBLI C COMM!:II'1'S AIID SO
PI1BLI c: AGENCY INPllT
APPENDIX C NOISE EVALUATION AND CONSIDERA-e4
TIONS
APPENDIX D RIDERSHIP FORECASTING )!ETIIOD-89
OLOGY
APPENDIX E DeS DPERATING COST HODEL 97
'-' ,
.-
, :.
/
1.0 rwTaOOUCTIOH
rho purpose of Dumbarton Commute Feasibility Study i. to
evaluate the feasibility of operating a CalTrain-type rail
commute service ever the Dumbarto~ Rail Bri4ge. The pro
posad line would serve growing commute volumes trom the East
BaY1 priDarily the cities of Union City, Fremont, and
Newark, to West Say work locations. The corridor under
study 1& shown in Fiqure 1-1.
Tbis study vas initiated becau&~ of e perception by trans
portation policy .akers that an effective, low-cost r&il
aervice across the Dumberton Rail Bridge was possible. They
noted that required rail facilities (the brid;e and connect
inq trac~ between the East and West Bays) ara already in
place (although the condition of the bridge was uncertain)
end the corridor exhibits a high traval volume with steady
qrowth 1n commuters traveling to West say work locations~
Several other faetors also added impetus to studying whether
such a rail service ahould be i.plemented~ roe West Bay
communities of East Palo Alto~ Menlo Park, and Atherton have
aeen traffic congestion on local streets increase aiqnifi
eantly because of the increased Dumbarton corridor commute
volumes and they would like to ~ee this problem mitigated.
Also, the OCtober 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake dramatically
demonstrated the vulnerability of the region's highway ne~
work and the val'iJ.e of parallel rail transit services, 'When a
portion of the Bay Bridge collapsed and the Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BARr) service vas there to maintain mobility across
the bay. Finally, a number of other studies were beinq
completed which evaluated various rail improvements in the
area (including & BART extension to Warm sprin~s~ CalTrain
upgrades, and light rail extensions In Santa Clara County).
It was anticipated a Dumbarton corridor rail link CQuld be a
valuable addition to the larger rail nRtwork being proposed~
The combinatio~ of all these factors made review of a Dum
barton Commute Service (oeS) rail operation appropriate at
this time~
Because of the existence ot Dumbarton corridor rail facili
ties, this atudy is designed to determine how these facili
ties can best be utiliZed without .ajor ne~ capital invest
sents~ Therefore, the scope at the study yes essentially to
define how to serve the maximum number of people in the
corridor at the least cost. In order to arrive at a least
cost aolution l it was specifle~ that the operational design
of the DeS would make use of existing CalTrain rail vehicles
and utilize existing rail faciliti .. to the .aximum extent
possible.
The study area vas selected to be those areas whi~ generate
significant levels of travel in the Dumbarton corridor. It
1
o
include. ~he East Bay between the San Mateo Bri~ge in the
north, Bi9hway 237 in the .outh, and out to Livermore in the
east. Xn the West Bay, the study area includes the devel
ope~ areas betveen the San Mateo Bridge in the north and the
City or Sunnyvale to the oouth. Figure 1-1 displays this
Rudy area.
Dumbarton (highway) Br1dqe travel voluaes bave increased
81qnificantly over the y.ars. Zn 1982, 19,OO~ vehicles
crossed the bridge daily; by 1989, ~1,500 vehicle eroseings
were counted~ a 118 percent increase. During the recent Bay
Bridge closure, a result of the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta
Earthquake, about ",200 dally crossings occurred. This
level of travel has caused significant traffic problems,
particularly on the West Bay approaches 1n Atherton, East
Palo Alto, and Menlo park.
Much of th~ increas. in Dumbarton Bri~e traffic i~ due to
the gTowinq residential populations in Alameda, Contra
Costa, and northeast santa Clara Counties, where housing
prices traditionally have been more affordable, vhile much
of the job market rem~ins in the West Bay, particularly in
~ilicgn Valley and other .ajor employment centers a10n9 the
Route 101 corridor. As the ~.rton Bridqe is the only
cross-Bay link between the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge and
Route 237, an~ as the trend towards increased residential
populations in the East Bay continue.~ additional Bay
crossinq capacity viII he of great benet it to commuters and
cities in the project area.
This report is the cul.ination o~ • number of research steps
undertaken to evaluate the feasibility and practicality of
lnitiatin9 the OUmbarton Commute Service (DCS). In the
first study phas., •• veral alternative DeS aliqnments and
options were evaluated which represented various potential
rail service ext~nsions in both the East Bay and West Bay,
as vell as conv~rsion of the rail bridge to Hiqh-OCcupancy
Vehicle (HOVj lane uses~ The conclusion ef this phase was
that the most effective alternative would be to operate rail
revenue .ervice on Soytbern Pacific trackaqe between a sta
tion in the vicinity of Washi~ton Boulevard (Irvington
District) in Fremont, through Newark and over the
Dulllbarton to Henlo Park, and then south en the
Peninsula to San Jose. Four westbound trips
1n eastDound trips in the afternoon
recommended DeS
z
•
I
. '-. __ ._--"" ...... ,
"
\
fbi. raport is ~ade up of .everal aections as follows:
seetion 2.0 provides a summary description of the selected
alternative.
Section 3.0 pre •• nta patronage forecaat. for the .~l.ct.d
DeS alternative and compare. the~. forecaata with corxidor
travel volumes without DeS implementation.
S.ction 4.0 discusses findings related to environmental,
social, and economic impacta that could potentially result
from implementation and operation of the DeS.
Section 5.0 presents capital and operating cost estimates
tor the DeS.
sectlon 6.0 evaluates the findings ~rom sections 2.0 -5.0
and makes comparisons of DeS cost-effectiveness as compared
to other transit oparations In the area.
section 7.0 discusses funding implications of the DeS.
section B.O pr.s~t& the consulting team'. conclusions
reqsrding factors wbich affect the feasibility and practi
cality of operating the DeS, and recommends certain actions
to be taken.
Finally, the app.ndie~s present background material and
study •• thodologie. concern in; Correspondence From Public
Agencies (Appendix A). Su,,",.ry of Public Comment. and Public
Agency Input (Appendix B), Noise Evaluation and Consider.
tiona (Appendix C), Ridership Fo~ecastin9 Methodology
(Appendix 0), and the DeS Operating Cost Hodel (Appendix E).
•
'.0 BVALIl1TIOll OP DCB VoIL ALTEltJD.TXVl!:
This section presents en evaluation of the coats and bene
fits associated with initiation of rail .ervi~ across the
Duabarton Rail Bridge. Where appropriate, comparisons are
made with other transIt oper_tlcns, specIfically existing
Cal Train operations and the DB bus service ..
~e area. evaluated era as follows:
o Transit Impects
Capital and operating Costs
Ridenhlp
Impacts on Other Transit operators
Transit Conne~tivity
Geographic CCverage
Hours of Servica
Relationship to Local/Regional Transportation
Plans and Policies
o Environmental Impacts
Traffic Impacts
safety Impacts
Biological Impacts
Neighborhood/Land Use Impacts
Other Environmental Impacts
CAPItAL 1np OPEBATXHG coStS
Capital and operatinq costs are evaluat~d and compared using
.everal ratios indicativ~ of the cost-effectiveness of ser
vic!!; cost-e,ffectiveness beinq a measure of" hoW' much benefit
is received per unit of costa
Several performance ratios were calculated for this purpose
as shown in Table 6-1. These inclUde Operating Cost Per
Rider, Met Operating Cost Per New Rider, Subsidy Per Rider,
Net SUbsidy Per Rev Rider, Farebox Recovery Percent, and
Annualized Capital cost Per Rider. Results show the DeS
5£rvica, .s defined in thi. study, would be less productive
than existing CalTrain or OB Express bus services. However,
th&r9 are tactors, as &entioned in Section 3aO (Pat-ronage
Forecasting). Which could boost ridership and improve the
cat ratios lIhown for the DeS. There are also capital
1.provement •••• urea that could be iaple_ented which would
decrease operating cost. tor the DCS; .easures 5ueh as
construction of a atoraqe facility at the Shinn Street sta-
51
o
ticn efte to avoid the lengthy deadhead to/trom san Jose
.. ch trip.
capital ~osts were .hown in Section 5.0. Total estImated
costs for all necesaary capital improvements, assuming the
single track rail bricSge upqrade, are $29,295, 7JS. Rail
facilities have an .stimated useful life of 30 years and tor
rail vehicles, t:.~e life span i. 25 years (per guidelines
used by UHTA). ~i. r~ault8 in an annualized capital cost
fer the DeS 1.provementa of $3,129,'34. The annualized
capital cost per rider can thus be calculated and is shown
in Table 6-1.
COST-I:PFECTIVENZSS OJ' IICS BERVIC&
19' C DOLLAIUI
Operating Cost/Rider
Net Operating cost/
New Rider (1)
Subsilly/JUder
Net SUbsidy/New
JUder I~l
Farebox Recovery
Annualized Capital
cost/Rider {21
DeS
Service
$17.34
$28.06
$15.12
$25.18
9.n
$ S.48
Dum:barton
ka1Train Bus Serv~
$4.87 $5.09
HI. HI.
$3.11 $3.64
NA NA
'5.C' 29.5'
III. NA
(1) Net of savings trom cancellation of the existing DB
Express Bus eervlce
(2) Based on AD 2005 DeS ridership
NA Not Applicable
Irpn'll'
Duabarto~ corridor tranalt ridership would iner& ••• substan
tially if the DeS is initiated. Table $-2 provides a sum
aery of the difference between reten~1on cf the exiating DB
Express Bus eervlce ver.us the DeS alternative.
51
G
run 1-2
DIlKlIAII'I'Olf BUDGE COlUtlDOII !'RAliSU IIIDEIIBBIP
DB DeS
XAK Express Ius Rli1 Serviee Ditference
1990
-llaUy 382 870 + 48B
-Annually 5:7,000 221,000 + 124,000
2005
-Ddly 662 lJ450 + 788
-Ar-.nually 168,000 3'9,,000 + 201,000
IXPACTB ON OTHER fRNlS IT OlDlt'OJ'
Mo Significant negative impacts have been identified should
the DeS be implemented. Samrrans and AC Transit are pro
posed to ofter service to the new DeS stations but this Cbn
be achieved by minor devi.t!on~ to existing routes and with
out addinq service. santa Clara County Transit's CalTrain
fee6er bus network would not be affected by the DeS. ":'here
do not appear to ~ any capacity proble=s on any connecting
transit 5ervices~
Plans are underway to redssiqn the bus loading area at the
Fremont BART station in order to accoamodate more buses.
The DCS shuttle !>us between the Sbin.., station and BART woul<l
add two !>uses per hour to this facility. The shuttle ~JS
would require some dwell time at BART to aaximize ~he con
venience of transferring passengers r 50 arrange=ents will be
necessary to provIde space tor this purpose.
There vill be some aarqinal benefie!.l effects in tha~ th~
various bus operators J BART, and cal Train will experience
additiDnal ridership <lue to DeS transfers. This vill
increase fare r.van~e ~or these operators.
There vill be • travel ti.e savinqs benefit a •• ociated with
1.pleaentation of the DeS since the transit cDnnection be
tween the East and W .... t Bay via the Dumbarton Rail Bri<lge
will involve less tr.vel tiae than tor the DB bus .ervice.
Thi. travel ti.e benefit becomes .ore pronounced the further
south along the peninsula one travela.
There vo~ld also be a rail connection between the San Jose
caltTain station and Fremont BART (involvlnq a ahort shuttle
bus trip in Fruont) if this linlt in the DeS is developed
..
/
o o
into a revenue service. It is interesting to note that
l.pleaentation of DeS operations as described here would, in
effect, rln9 the south bay with ra~l, a concept that has
long been considered for the region.
On the negative aIde, west to east oriented travel via
transit would no longer be posaible in the Dorning (and east
to west In the afternoon) with cancellation of the DB bus
service. Thi. disbenefit can be aitlqated with additional
Dumharton Bridge corridor bus services if sufficient demand
warrants. Such -an option vas: not proposed aa part of the
DCS service dasiqn because of demonstrsted low ridership on
the DB bus .ervice in thi. direction.
~'Hrc COVDAGI
There would be a aignlficant improvement 1n qeographic cov
erage by a .inqle transit service with the DeS in-operation.
Transit rider. would be able, without transf.r, to access B
.uch larqer portion ot the Peninsula by virtue of the DeS's
service south from Palo Alto. Direct rail transit service
would also be available to the Bohannon Industrial Park in
Menlo Park. With cancellation of the DB bu ••• rvice c the
direct transit link between BART and the Stanford Industrial
Park YDuld no lonqer exi.t.
In the East Bay. there would be a redistribution of transit
cover&qe. The existing DB bus service operates along Deooto
Road to the Union City BART station, 'While the DeS would be
aliqned south of this area through Fr~~nt and Newark. AC
Transit, however, operates service along Decoto Road between
the Union City BART station and the DeS syca~cr. station
site 80 the Decoto corridor would still be 5erved by •
transbay transit connection.
~00R8 07 .ERVICE
Transit service hour. 1n the ~arton Bridge corridor would
be reduced about ene hour in the 11.1:1.. with the DeS as pro
posed. The first morning DeS train leaves the Shinn street
station at 6:06 a.m. While the first DB Bus service trip
l •• ve. Union City BART at 5:11 ••••
Service in the p.m. would remain about the same.
Hours of service ara ~l~xlble and .ay be adjusted fer the
DCS prior to initiation of aervice.
•
"
RELATIQKSBII TO LQCALIBEqIONAL TRANSPORTATiON 'LAN~
PQLlerCS
Impl~entat1on of the DCS would potentIally impact a number
of rail operation. currently being 5tudied in the region.
The possibility of dramatically increasing CalTrain 8ervic.
on the peninsula bas been, and 1. currently be1n9 studied.
Alternatives hav. been proposed which vo~ld increase Cal
!Tain frequancies to as often .a. one train every five .in
uees. It would be difficult to .erg. the proposed DeS
trains with CalTra1n .ervice operating at five .1n~t. haaa
ways so .chedule adjultments to CelTrain say be neQessary~
In the .hort-t.r.m~ CalTrain service to Gilroy i. proposed
Which would required additional passenqer cars. Since the
DCS service would utilize all six spare passenger cars now
in the fleet, operation of both services would require pur
chase of additional vehicles.
Tbe BART War. Springs Extension study is evaluaeing the
possibili"ty of extendinq BART south of Fremont to the
vicinity of Warm springs. This extension would occu~ within
the same right-ot-yay as proposed tor the DeS on the le9
~tve.n San Jose and Fremont (the SPTCO Milpitas Line).
The BART allqnment~ as currently envi.1one~, would be situ
atea between the SPTCO and UPRRCO tracks in the Vicinity of
the proposed DeS Washington station .ite, and then cross
ever to the east aide of both tracks, continuing south to a
terminus just north of the Santa Clara County line. Three
.tations are proposed; a depressed station (Irvinqton sta
tion) at the DeS Washlnqton station site, and elevated sta
tions near South Grimmer Blvd (Warm Sprinqs st.tion) and
near Xato Road (south w .... Springs station). The BART
extension concept provides for continued SPTCO and UPRRCO
operations or. existing traeks.
This BART extension would provide an opportunity for direct
DCS/BART transfers at on~ of the three proposed BART sta
tions. The Irvl~ton station appears best for ~is purpos~
.s BART is directly adjacent to tbe DeS ali;nment at tb.t
point. Further south, passengers yould. n ... ec1 to cross the
<lPQCO traek~ 'to access BART ..
A Higb Speed Rail study (AS 971) is naarinq completior. wbich
1. evaluating a rail link between Los Angeles and San Fran
cisco. This potential .ervlce Would access the Bay Area via
the Altamonte Pass and Dumbarton Bridge gr, alternately. via
Panoehe Pass (south ct Cilroy) and then through San Jose .
.Both alignments have the potential to connect vith the DeS
service at eome point, either In San Jose or the
Fremont/Newark area.
to
"
, .
o
rna Hannigan Rail Corridor study (ACP. 132) Is evaluating the
po.sibility of implGmentinq rail service between San Jose
and Auburn via Oaklanda This proposed line would operate as
an intercity service (3-10 round trips per day) on the SPTCO
Mulford Line where it crosses the DeS 8lignment in Newark.
Although the two rail allqnmenta 60 cross, the nearest
Hannigan Rail Study .tation .ite i. located about 1-1/2
.11es north of the DeS Sycamore station. Thi. aervice con
cept could be changed, boyever, if a DCS/Hanniqan rail
transfer Is deemed an effective transit optIon a
Another study just being initiated ia the East Bay Rail
Study. Rail options in, primarily, Contra Costa County with
connections to the I-lao corri~or and the Central Valley are
being reviewed. One possible alignment to be evaluated is
rail aervice from Stockton to ~adwoo4 City via Livermore,
Fremont and the Dumharton Bridqe~ This alignment is 5imilar
in Kany respects to BODe options reviewed in earlier phases
of this DeS stu1y. The re.ults of the East Bay Rail Study,
vhen available, will be valuable in defining some of the
larger, regional implicatIons of operating the DeS.
Several more studies are proposed or underway, the results
of wbicb could influence decisions regarding the DeS. These
include. the Freight Consoli~ation Study (AD 3436) whiCh is
looking at the consolIdation of rail freight traffic between
Sacram~nto, stockton, and San Jose, and hov this aiqht
iDpact intercity passenger rail service; the Rail Corridor
Consolidation Study (SB 1307) which Is consolidating five
intercity rail evaluations into one co~prehensive hiqh speed
rail st~dy; end a PropositIon 116 qenerated .tudy looking at
rail eervice from Stockton, via Tra~, to the Alameda County
line. Each of these ~ay produce findings relevant to DeS
related rail operation 1.su~ ••
1.2 ENVIRONKENTAL IXPACTS
fRNFrc XMPACTB
Traffic congestion across the Dumbarton Bridge, especially
on the approaches to the bridqe. would be positively impact
ed by the DeS. Based on ridership and bridqe auto traffic
estiaates for AD 2005, the DeS would reduce transbay auto
traffic in the corridor by about two percent. This i.
considered a &iqnlflcant benefit.
Negative traffic ispacts would occur at grade crossings an~
at the DeS station ait... Grade crossing impacts will gen
erally be minor .inca DeS trains vill only dolay traffic for
about 20 seconds one~ each hour, but on certain heavily
travelled street. with major intersections near the cross
ing. there .ay be iapacts which could be considered Signif
icant durinq the peak commute periods. This atudy proposes
Iii
o
that those .tr-eets, 'Which are li&tl!~ .i.n Section 4.0, be
further evaluated in later environmental reviev should the
DeS conee.pt be carried torward.
with proper design of rail improv.ments proposed tor the
DCS; continuation or existinq CalTraln operating poll;les,
rules, and procedures; and California PUC General Orders
r*9&rdlnq train .peeds, sight distances, ROWand grade
crossing protection, etc. being followed; there does net
appear to be any un~ue safety concerns that vould result
from operation of the DeS.
BIOLOGICAL IMlACTS
The most sensitive bioloqieal resource along the pr~sed
DeS aliqnment is the San Francisco Say wetlands whieh hosts
a diverse list of plants and wildlife inclUding a nunber of
endangered species. Thesa wetlands a~e protected by a num
ber of reqional, state and faderal laws.
Initiation cf the DCS would required substantial rehabili~
tlon ot the O\mbarton Rail B.ridqa and its approaches 'Which
lie in these ve~l.nds. The potential for biological lmpact~
la,-therefore, significant. Further environmental review of
this sltuation would be required to det~rmine the extent of
those impacts.
As the remaining portions of the DeS aliqnme..nt occurs on an
existing (albeit unused over certain segments) rail line,
other biological impacts ere not expected to ~ of major
consequence.
lIUIi!!1!0RHOQ!) (Ll\NI) III1E IKPllCT8
Property acquisitions for DeS stations as vell as increased
traffic, noise, vibration, and air pollution in localized
areas of the aliqnaent and station sites COQ1~ have an
i.pact on resi~ential ne1qhbor~~s and other land uses.
The .oat siqnificant impaeta would be associatad Yith traf
fic, noise, and property aoquisltlon around the various
.tat ion .itel, and noise/vibration etfects in residential
areas in close proximity to the rail line. While such
lapact. do not appaar to be of .ajor aignificance at this
tl •• , further review should occur during later environmental
assessment. to determine their 5everity and What mitigation
aeasures alght be called tor.
I.
O'l'IEJI IIIVIROI!lW!1AL I1\EM:n
No other .lgnlficant potential for environmental 1mpacts
bave been identified at tbia time. However, it i. possible
additional resources or conditions viii be di.covere~ during
lat.r phases of tne DeS 1.pl~mentation proceas which would
need to be a~esae~. These might include hB~ardous waste
.ltea, Native American cultural artifacts, relocation of
PQblic utilities. Q~ ether 'octor ••
/
o
•• D COHCLlIUON8
•• 1 OVERALL l'JlOJBCr 7unBILl:TT
8&s.~ on the tindingA pres~nted in ~is report, there appear
to be no overriding physical, operational, or financial
factors or issuas that would prevent the implementation of
commuter rail service over the Du:barton Bridge er, .ore
.5pecifically, prohibit operation ot the :OCS alternat.ive de
fined in this report.
Znitiation of the DCS would increase transit ridarship in
the Duzharton corridor by an estimated 120 per.:ent. Cost
effectiveness of the .ervice 1 •• arqinal, however, because
this 5tudy'a empbasis on a lov capital ~ost solution causes
op.rating ccats to be hiqhcr than would otherwiae be the
case~ Even with this low ~pital cost solution, there are &
number of significant capital costs associated with imple
.entation of the service that can not be avoided~ The most
significant of these are rehabilitation of the western ap
proach to the rail bridge. construction ot five new sta
tions~ and the need to purchase tvo additional locomotives~
1.2 CAPXYAL AND OPEJlATIHG COSTS
Total current capital project costs (1990 $J include bridge
improvements, localized track rehabilitation and 5wltchinq
upgrades, stations, parkinq 'lots, and vehiclRs am~ntinq to
approximately $29~3 million. This amount excludes purchase
of right-of-way except for station needs (operatinq costs do
include an amount for lease of the track) and environm~ntal
impact mitiqation costs.
The most significant capital eost item involves the complete
reconstruction of the trestle on the vest approach to the
bridqe at a cost of about $11.5 million (including contin
gency provisions). The bridqe itself. as well as the east
ern trestle approach are. in fairly qood condition and will
not require major expenditures to be placed back in opera
tlon~ Also of significance is construction of five new
stations at about $l.S aillion each and the required pur
chase of two additional locoaotives at a cost of about $3.1
.111ion •• ch~ These three capital iJDprovUlent ItUis repre
sent 8S percent of the total capital costs required to
implement the DeS. Most of the remaining capital costs are
.~sociated with tr.ck rL~abilitation.
Annual oper.tlng costs for the DCS are estimated at approx
imately $3.83 .illion per year in 1990. With fare revenues
projected at $0.35 Billion per year, a net operatinq subsidy
of $3.48 .i11ion per year would be required. Operatinq
70
I. ,.
<. .
;;, ... -";.;,;._-----.
costs per passenqer voul~ amount to $17.34 tor the DeS,
compared to $4.87 tor existing CalTrain service.
It SaaTrans, the Joint Powers Board (JPB), or some other
aqency were to purchase the SP right-ot-way on the Tracy
Line (ineludinq the bri~qe and approaches). about $40.000
per y.ar w~ld be required to maintain the facility suffi
cient to prevent further deterioration until BUch time as it
could to upgraded to operable condition.
_.3 RXDBRSBll'
Caily ridership on the DeS, with an operating plan as de
fined in this report, is projected ~o be about 1,4S~ by AD
2005. This equate. to an annual ridership of 369,0~O. For
19'0, the daily volume would be about 870, or 221,000 annual
riders. This compares to ~xistin9 calTrain rider.hip of
17,500 daily and about 5,700,000 per year (pre-earthquake).
The projected volu.~ of riders on the DeS appears consistent
w1t-~ the existing CalTrain syste2 based on demographics ana
established travel .arkets. Much of CalTraln's ridership is
qenerated in the San Francisco-bound aarket where traf~ic
congestion is much more severe than in the Dumbarton Bridge
corridor. The Dumbarton Hiqhway Bridge operates at under
capacity today, and except for vest bound a~ •• toll plaza
congestion and reoccurring b~ckups on western approach roads
to the bridge, no major traffic problems exist. This limits
the number of persons likely to transfer to transit for
their trip.
A number ot factors could increase ri~ership potential, how
ever. Traffic increases on the high side of the .xpect~
ranqe in growth, potential connections with SART and other
rail options being studied around the region (as discussed
in Section 6.1), addition Of revenue service in the San
Jose-Fremont corridor, l'imitations on highway improvements
~cause of air quality regulations, and other factors could
all play & role in increased rail passenger demand on the
DCS.
The p~opo&ed DeS operatinq plan would provld~ ror 3,4BO
daily seats which i8 .ore than double prcjeeted AD 2005
rid~sh1p ot ~,4S0. Plenty of eap~clty would, theretor~,
exist, even if ridership were to increase substantially.
1.4 BNVIROHKBNTAL IKPACTB
No major environmental impacts bave been identified at this
.tage that can not be Bitiqated in final desiqn. There are
sensitive areas that should be reviewed for impacts if the
DeS concept proqresses further. These are 1) the bay wet-
".;.
lands where diverse b101oqieal resocrces includinq a number
of endangered .pecies exist, 2) noise impacts on neiqh~~r
hoods, and 3} land. use impacts.. The bay wetlands are con
.idered laportant because of the aajor bridqe approach
reconstruction that would be required. Noise impact. on
n.lq~rhoods also nee~. to be .tu~ied furth~r. It is
e~cted, however, that the noise impacts would pr~bably ~e
l.s$ .iqni~icant than thoae Cal Train currently impose. alonq
its ali;nDent becau~e DeS traina would oper~te much less
frequently and at _lower speeds than CalTrain in neiqhbor
hOod areas. Lastly, general land use and neiqhborhood
impacts need to be addressed, particularly naar atation
sites .
•• 5 !'RlU'PIC lUIIJ .DEn
Traffic impacts at qrade crossinqs will ~e minor in most
instances. DeS trains would only delay traffie at these
intersections tor about 20 seconds once per hour.. The new
DeS station .ites, as well, are not e~~ected to create sig
nificant traffic problems.
Dumbarton Highway Bridge vehicle ~ratfic ~ould be reduced on
the order of tw~ percent with initiation of the DeS.
Safety impacts also do not appear to be significant. Opera
ting speeds through neighborhoods and at grade crossings
would be at existing speed li.its which were originally
designee to assure safe operation. All grade crossings are
protected and controlla4 by signals. The DeS would operate
under modern rules~ policies, procedures, and standards
~ich have prove~ effective tor operation of Cal~rain
.ervice •
•• ~ .ELATIONSB~P ~O LOCAL pLANS AND POLICIES
The DeS rail operation evaluated in this study represents
just. ainqle corridor and service area4 However, transit
services in the Oumbarton corridor have larger implications
.for the regional trensit network that should be considered.
Specifically, the relationship of the DeS to travel ne~ds
ncrth and south in the 1-180 corridor, as w~ll a. travel
east to Livermore, or even the central valley, needs to be
considered further, as does connections to the proposed Warm
Springs BART extension and other possible rail serviees as
diacussed 1n Section 6.C.. In q~eral, additional atudy .ay
be warranted to establish the .oat effective reilonal tran
.it interactions and linkages, demand, cost-effectivene.s
and other .l~ents ot • long-range transit proqr .. tor the ......
72
, ,.1
•• 7 OPTIONS 1'011 ft!: I'UTIlItI!
This stUdy has clarified and provided additional direction
%or the future of rail transit in the ~~rtcn and adjacent
tr~v81 corridors. These tindin9s are briefly d1scusse~
below in the context of ahart-term and long-term plar..ninq.
IRORt-TIRM XMlL~eATIONF
It Is clear that the Dumbarton Rail Bridge and related rail
facilIties in the Dumbarton corridor can be a ycry yaJu&blt
asset for future transit needs. There is every indication
that tr«vel volumes in the corridor will continue to in
crease at a substantial rate, which implies an additional
bay crossing facility, such as the Dumbarton Rail Bridge J
vill eventually be re~ired. With this in .1nd¥ it i.
recommended that the rlqht-of-way and bridge be purchased
and maintained in order to preserve their availability in
the future reqardless whether the OCS is instituted in the
near tuture. The purchase p~ic. would probably be reason
able because of the poor state ot repair of the rail briGge
.trQctur~, and it this transporta~ion link is lost, it would
be difficult, if not impossi~le, to replace
Although operation of 'the DeS, in comparison to existin9
calTrain, does not appear very cost-effective today (in
terms of opera~ing cost per rider), additiDnal reviev ot
expanded service options, ridership potential, relationship
to other rail options under st~dy, and envir~nment.l impacts
(in the tor.m of a formal ~~vironmental Impact Report] should
be undertaken prier to .aking a decision regardinq implem~n
tation. Specifically, the potential for revenue service,
including new stations, along ~~~ Fremont-san Jose corridor
should be reviewed further. potential demand in the south
to north direction (a... commute period} is es~isated to be
approximately 300-500 per day over and above the prOjected
DeS ridership of 1,450 per day, and eould be much higher it
• cross-pl&tform BART transfer were to be provided as part
of thQ: Wana Springs BART extension. These riders could be
captured with virtually no increase in DCS operatinq costs.
1990 Census journey-to-work information shou16 be acquired
when available and DeS patronaqe demand reassessed to verify
the total demand levels found In this study.
If it is determined that the DeS is not a cost-effective
transit option tor the aoment, an interim programmatic
option could he considered. This involves expansion or
restructuring of the ex16ting DB Express Bus 8ervice to
provide service to larqer portions of the east and west bay,
especially zajor employment area ••
'.
LORO-flRM XKPLXCATxCHS
For the lon9-tel~, the DeS ahould be revieved in the context
Of an inteqrated regional rail network, including tuture
BART extension. to Wal"'1ll. Spring" or San Jose, and to the
Pleasanton/Livermore area; BART/DeS service connectivity
(the possibility of a duel .tation &ervinq both lines); LRT
and other rail improv~mentl 1n santa Clara County; and
C&lrrain service t.prov •• L~t.. Fotential DeS exten.lons
frcm rr_ont north, and to the east towards LIvermore and
the central Valley, •• well as DeS reverse commute opera
tions. between Freaont and SaJ'I Jose, sboule! also :be eval"uated
in thia context.
Specific reqional factors that should be tracked by policy
aak~r. include the follow!nq:
San Jose to fremont Corridor
BART, light rail, and heavy rail service are being consid
ere4 In this corridor. some of whIch are discussed in this
report. The primary commute movement is north to south
'Which is opposite to the. aervice proposed here. Future.
developments in the corridor aay .isnificantly expand
C •• sible DeS opticns by increasing patronage potential and
ereatinq new opportunities for regional rail connections.
Several imminent or ongoing rail studies are evaluating
options with siqnificance to a DeS operation. The most
iloportant of these are the:
o Warm Springs BART Extension Study
o Hanniqan Rail study (San Jose to Auburn intercity
rail aervice)
o East Bay Rail Study (stockton to Redwood City rail
service)
o Biqh Speed Rail Study (Los Anqeles to San
Francisco high .peed rail service)
The.e studies are belpinq define the lonq-term rail network
in the Bay Area. The findinq of each study will necd to be
considerc4 in liqht ot the others, with an aim to develop a
broad, regional based concept for rail aervices.
Population Growth in outlying Arels
A trend towards increased population to the east, mainly in
eastern Alameda l San Joaqu1n~ and Stanislaus Counties~ may
have significant implicat1on~ towards ruture extension of
74
o
'the DeS to Livermore, and beyond to the Central Valley. Ali
this qrowth continue., further evaluation of ridership
potential .hould be sad •.
Air OUality
If air quallt~ requlations reduce the number of new hi~hway
improvements beln9 made, political acceptance of rail .olu
tions to regional _ability needs co~ld grow, and ridership
potential on the DeS could increase .igr.ificantly. As air
quality i.sues are resolved, a review of the implicatigns
for a DeS operation would be appropriate.
office Development in EAst fAl0 Alto an~ Menlo park
Another lo~-term ~owth pattern which may improve DCS rid
ership potential is office develop~ent along the ba~ front
in East Palo Alt~ and Kenlo Park. This .r~. 1s directly
served by the proposed DeS Chilco station and a hiqh rate of
qrovth could boc!lt dOland for transit service in the
DuDDarton corridor.
Highway 2,7 Corridor Dev@lopment
Bi~h"a~ 237 is the primary transportation link comp"Un<]
with ~~e Dumbarton c~rridor tor east/west travel. Siqniti
cant development along this highway has created Bevere
traffic congestion. Future developaent, includinq a poss
ible professional league baseball 5tadium, would tu--ther
impact congestion levels. As this trend continues, a.~d
especially if proposed Bi~h".y 237 improvements are not
forthcoming because of air quality regulations, increased
demand for travel in the Dumbarton corridor would he
expected. Thi~ turn of events would enhance ridership on
the DCS.
7S