Dumbarton Rail Corridor

Dumbarton Rail Corridor

Dumbarton Rail logo (2014)

DRC would reuse the right-of-way initially constructed in 1910, although the vintage Dumbarton Rail Bridge would likely be demolished and replaced.
Overview
Owner samTrans
Locale San Francisco Bay Area
Counties: Alameda and San Mateo
Transit type Commuter rail
Number of lines 1
Number of stations 4
Daily ridership 5,900 (anticipated, 2035)
Operation
Number of vehicles 6 trains (proposed)[1]
Train length 500 feet (150 m) (proposed)[1]
Technical
System length 20.5 mi (33.0 km)
Track gauge 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm)
(standard gauge)
Top speed 79 mph (127 km/h)
System map

The Dumbarton Rail Corridor is a proposed transbay passenger rail line which would reuse the right-of-way that was initially constructed from 1907–1910 as the Dumbarton Cut-off.[2] The Dumbarton Cut-off includes the first structure to span San Francisco Bay, the 1910 Dumbarton Rail Bridge, although the vintage Cut-off bridges would likely be replaced prior to activating new passenger service. Dumbarton Rail Corridor would provide service between Union City in the East Bay (where passengers could connect with BART, ACE and Capitol Corridor trains) and Menlo Park on the Peninsula, with train service continuing to both San Francisco and San José along the existing Caltrain tracks. It has been in the planning stages since 1988, and would be the first above-ground transbay rail line since Key System electric trains stopped running on the lower deck of the Bay Bridge in 1958.

Route description

Central California Railway route (1910)

The Dumbarton Rail Corridor service, as proposed in 2006, would provide six westbound trains originating from the Union City BART station, rebuilt as an intermodal station; after crossing the rebuilt Dumbarton Cut-off bridges, the trains would join the existing Peninsula Corridor (Caltrain) line south of the existing Redwood City station. Three trains would proceed north to San Francisco and three trains would proceed south to San Jose. In the afternoon, the six trains would return from San Francisco and San Jose to Union City. The initial service offering would not include reverse commute (west-to-east in the mornings and east-to-west in the afternoons), mid-day, evening, or weekend trains.[3]

Hayward to Centerville (Segments G/F)

Part of the Dumbarton Rail Corridor plans include a new connection between the Oakland subdivision (running generally north-south) and the Centerville line (running generally east-west) near Shinn Street, east of the Fremont Centerville station. Trains originating in Union City would enter the Shinn connection, turning right from southbound to westbound, and pass under the BART tracks before joining the Centerville line. Freight traffic would be rerouted from the Oakland subdivision to the parallel Niles subdivision, slightly to the east. Other proposed improvements included a proposed fourteen-span bridge over Alameda Creek to separate freight and passenger traffic. Use of this segment would require acquisition of the right-of-way from Union Pacific.[4] Capitol Corridor trains would be rerouted to the Oakland subdivision to share service at the Union City intermodal station.

A new layover yard would be required for overnight storage of trains. The layover yard was proposed to be north of Whipple Road in Hayward, and would provide overnight storage for trains entering the Union City station, rebuilt for intermodal service. Heavy maintenance activities (including refueling) would be performed at Caltrain yards on the Peninsula. A new segment, the Industrial Parkway connection, would be constructed to connect the Oakland subdivision and the Niles subdivision north of the layover yard.[1]

Centerville to Newark (Segments E/D/C)

This segment would reuse the existing Dumbarton Cut-off line west of Newark Junction. Between Newark Junction and Fremont Centerville station, the segment would run on the Union Pacific Centerville line.[1]

Newark to Menlo Park/East Palo Alto (Segment B)

This segment would reuse the existing line established for the Dumbarton Cut-off in 1910. It would be a single-track line with two sidings, one industrial siding to serve the Cargill Salt Plant and one future siding just east of the Dumbarton Rail Bridge. The industrial siding would be the existing line, with a new main line constructed around the salt loading facility.[1]

The two swing bridges and their timber trestle approaches were known to be in poor shape since 1996,[5] and a subsequent 2008 engineering investigation found the concrete foundations were also degraded, possibly since they were constructed in 1910.[6] The 2003 Project Study Report proposed replacement of the Dumbarton Rail Bridge swing span with a bascule, replacement of the Newark Slough Bridge with a steel girder swing span, and new concrete trestles.[1]

Menlo Park/East Palo Alto to Redwood City (Segment A)

Dumbarton Rail Cut-off bridge over US 101 in Menlo Park. Note the bridge is built for a single track, but the concrete piers are sized to accommodate double-track service.

The existing two-track Dumbarton Cut-off line would be converted to a single track system with centralized traffic control; the second track would be retained as a siding in certain portions. This segment would include the proposed Willow Road and Redwood City (Second Avenue) stations. The Dumbarton Rail Corridor merges with the Peninsula Corridor in Redwood City at the Redwood Junction, which is a large wye roughly bounded by Middlefield Road, Woodside Road, El Camino Real, and Dumbarton Avenue.[1]

Redwood City to San Francisco

Once on the Peninsula corridor, northbound morning trains would provide limited stop service at existing Caltrain stations in Redwood City, Hillsdale, San Mateo, Millbrae, South San Francisco, and San Francisco, with afternoon trains returning to Union City making the same stops, in reverse order.[1]

Menlo Park to San Jose

Once on the Peninsula Corridor, southbound morning trains would stop at Menlo Park, Palo Alto, California Avenue, Mountain View, and San Jose, with afternoon trains returning to Union City making the same stops, in reverse order.[1]

Stations

Hayward
↑
Newark
↑
Willow Road
2nd Ave
  • Dumbarton Rail Corridor proposed stations
  •  Existing stations rebuilt to add service
  •  New stations to be built
  •  Potential stations (expanded ridership)

From Union City, trains would stop at stations in Fremont (Fremont Centerville Station), Newark and Menlo Park/East Palo Alto before joining the main Caltrain line at Redwood City (northbound) or Menlo Park (southbound), with limited service to San Francisco or San Jose, respectively. Two more stations could be added in Redwood City (2nd Avenue) and Hayward (Hayward BART) if rider participation would justify the cost.[1][3]

Hayward

The existing Hayward BART station could be rebuilt as an intermodal station and serve as the terminus for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor at a future date if ridership projections warrant.[1] If Capitol Corridor trains are rerouted onto the Oakland subdivision, the existing Hayward stop would likely be moved to the new intermodal station.[7]

Separately, Capitol Corridor has been considering moving trains on to the Mulford/Coast subdivision, the westernmost railroad in Alameda County, partially sharing the route for the Coast Starlight, which would discontinue service to Hayward and Fremont Centerville, and bypass Union City entirely.[8]

Union City

West side of Union City BART station

The existing Union City station was rebuilt as an intermodal station serving BART and AC Transit. Phase III of the intermodal station project would create a commuter rail station for Dumbarton Rail, ACE, and Capitol Corridor trains, linked to the BART station with a passenger bridge. The commuter rail station would be adjacent to the east side of the existing BART station.

Phase I of the Intermodal Station project was completed between 2007 and 2010,[9] focusing on bus transit connections and west-side BART station improvements. Phase II focused on improving the east side of the BART station and preparing it for intermodal service with commuter rail.[10] [11]

Fremont Centerville

The existing Fremont Centerville station would add service for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor trains. The south platform would be rebuilt for Dumbarton Rail Corridor service, and new parking spaces would be added.[1]

Newark

A new station would be constructed in Newark just west of Willow Street, south of Thornton Avenue. The Newark Station would feature a side platform south of the tracks, with space left for a future second main track.[1]

Willow Road

A new station would be constructed in the Belle Haven neighborhood of Menlo Park, just west of Willow Road and south of SR 84 (the Bayfront Expressway). Willow Road Station would feature one side platform south of the tracks.[1]

Redwood City (2nd Ave)

A new station could be constructed just east of the Redwood Junction, again presuming ridership projections warrant another station.[1]

History

1910–1982: Dumbarton Cut-off

Main article: Dumbarton Rail Bridge
Current state of the Dumbarton Rail Bridge. View facing east; concrete trestle and burned timber trestle in the foreground. Hetch Hetchy Project water pipelines 1&2 on the left.

The Central California Railway Company, a subsidiary of Southern Pacific, completed the Dumbarton Cut-off in 1910, reducing the rail route distance between Oakland and San Francisco by 26.1 miles (42.0 km).[12] Prior to the completion of the Cut-off, transcontinental freight destined for San Francisco was unloaded in Oakland and ferried across the Bay, or trains detoured through San Jose and Santa Clara, using the Peninsula Corridor to San Francisco. The Dumbarton Rail Bridge, a swing through-truss span, was the first structure built across San Francisco Bay. The Dumbarton Cut-off includes a second, smaller swing through-truss to the east of the Dumbarton Rail Bridge.

Some portions of the timber trestles had been replaced with concrete structures in the 1960s and 1970s.[6] However, San Francisco gradually became a less important hub for rail transportation, and the Port of Oakland was better-suited to handle containerized shipping.[13] The last freight train used the Dumbarton Cut-off in 1982.

1988–2001: Initial studies

Proposed initial routing for DRC, including rerouted Capitol Corridor service

The San Mateo County Transit Authority (SMCTA) was created following the passage of 1988's Measure A, a half-cent sales tax increase in San Mateo County which set aside US$14,000,000 (equivalent to $28,100,000 in 2015) for the purchase of the "Dumbarton S.P. Spur from Redwood City to Fremont."[14] A 1991 study sponsored by SMCTA, the Dumbarton Commuter Service Feasibility Study (Parsons Brinckerhoff) recommended a rail option along the former Dumbarton Cut-off as a long-term strategy.[3] Pursuing this strategy, SamTrans purchased the entire right-of-way for US$6,900,000 (equivalent to $11,000,000 in 2015) in early 1994,[15] with the help of a loan from Caltrans. More studies followed in 1996 (Dumbarton Rail Corridor Rehabilitation, Morrison Knudsen), 1997 (Dumbarton Corridor Study, Parsons Brinckerhoff), and 1998 (Dumbarton Corridor Transit Concept Plan), which concluded that trans-Bay rail was viable as a long-term strategy and expanded bus service could serve as a short-term strategy.

A suspected arson fire destroyed part of the western timber trestle approach to the Dumbarton Rail Bridge in January 1998,[15] although the 1996 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Rehabilitation report (confirmed in a later 1999 study)[5] had already concluded the timber trestles would need to be replaced. In 1998, the estimated cost for reactivating Dumbarton passenger rail service was US$50,000,000 (equivalent to $72,700,000 in 2015).[16]

That 1999 study (the Dumbarton Rail Corridor Study, Parsons Transportation Group)[5] put the Dumbarton rail project into the 2000 report Blueprint for the 21st Century, sponsored by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).[3] The 1999 report evaluated the cost estimates for rehabilitating the line from the 1996 report and concurred that the timber trestles should be replaced,[17] the lower portion of the steel through-trusses should be replaced,[18] and the two swing spans were severely corroded but operable in 1996.[19] The 1999 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Study estimated the necessary improvements would cost a total of US$130,000,000 (equivalent to $185,000,000 in 2015).[5][20]

In 2000, Santa Clara County voters approved Measure A, which set aside a portion of the funds generated from a half-cent sales tax increase for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor.[21][22] A 2000 San Mateo County grand jury found that though the county of San Mateo would contribute the highest amount among the three funding counties (Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara), the Dumbarton Rail service was projected to mainly aid Alameda County residents in reaching Santa Clara county destinations.[20]

By being included in the Blueprint for the 21st Century, MTC programmed funds for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor (DRC). DRC was identified as one of the nineteen high-priority rail and bus projects for transit expansion in the Bay Area as part of MTC's adoption of Resolution 3434 in December 2001.[23][24] In 2001, MTC estimated the total capital cost for DRC was US$129,000,000 (equivalent to $172,700,000 in 2015); of that, 91% had been secured or was pending via local sales taxes in San Mateo, Alameda, and Santa Clara Counties.[25]

2003–2007: Scope and cost growth

In November 2004, MTC released a draft plan for spending over the next twenty-five years, entitled Transportation 2030, which included full funding to rehabilitate and reactivate the Dumbarton Rail Corridor.[26] In 2004, the total capital cost had increased to an estimated US$277,600,000 (equivalent to $348,400,000 in 2015).[27] However, Regional Measure 2, which had been passed by voters earlier in March 2004, set aside an additional US$135,000,000 (equivalent to $169,400,000 in 2015) for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor project from increased toll bridge revenues.[28]

Much of the cost increase was driven by the 2003 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Study Report,[1] which identified several deficiencies in the existing infrastructure. The 2003 Project Study Report proposed replacing the Dumbarton Rail Bridge swing span with a new bascule span, with the option for remote control from the Caltrain operations center or local control; the report also proposed replacing the Newark Slough Bridge swing span with a simpler steel girder swing span under local control, normally left closed to prioritize rail traffic over marine traffic. In addition, the Oakland subdivision would have to be purchased from Union Pacific, and UP indicated they were unwilling to sell only a portion, preferring to sell the entire right-of-way from Oakland to Fremont.[29] The 2003 Project Study Report proposed constructing a new rail bridge across Alameda Creek for freight service over the Niles subdivision when Capitol Corridor passenger traffic was moved to the Oakland subdivision. However, this was seen as an illegal gift to Union Pacific from some citizens.[29]

A May 2005 community meeting attracted overwhelming opposition from Fremont residents living near the proposed new routing of Capitol Corridor and Dumbarton Rail trains.[30] Public meetings were held in November 2006, attracting mild support and residents echoing the same noise concerns from the May 2005 meeting.[31] Menlo Park residents who had bought houses near the 1910 tracks (which had not seen rail service since 1982) were concerned about the possibility of train noise and potential freight use, despite Dumbarton Rail Corridor plans for the use of only passenger trains.[32]

Dumbarton Rail Corridor logo (2006)

By March 2006, the estimated cost had increased again to US$313,000,000 (equivalent to $368,000,000 in 2015).[33] The 2006 Environmental Phase 1 report studied four alternative rail alignments and two alternative bus services to determine the most feasible options.[3] Costs nearly doubled to US$600,000,000 (equivalent to $705,500,000 in 2015) by October 2006, driven partly by inflation and partly by the increased cost of construction.[34] Other sources cited the delayed environmental review process.[35]

With the increase in costs, the Dumbarton Rail Corridor now faced a significant funding shortfall, since no new funds had been identified since the passage of Regional Measure 2 in 2004.[36] In 2007, two more alternatives were studied for the DRC. Both called for the separation of freight and passenger traffic. Alternative 1 looked at a rehabilitated low-level single-track Dumbarton Rail Bridge, while Alternative 2 proposed a new high-level (fixed) double-track rail bridge. Based on projected ridership, a blend of both alternatives was proposed, retaining the low-level single-track drawbridge as marine traffic was expected to remain light.[37]

2004–2014: Regional Measure 2 funding

Regional Measure 2 (RM2) was approved by a majority of Bay Area voters in March 2004, raising toll rates by US$1 on the region's toll bridges. US$135,000,000 (equivalent to $169,400,000 in 2015) was allotted to the Dumbarton Rail Corridor project from the increased tolls as one of the headline projects cited by supporters of RM2.[28] Construction on DRC was scheduled to start in 2006 with the passage of RM2.[38][39]

MTC encountered cash flow issues for the BART Warm Springs Extension Project (WSX) in 2008; the expected US$145,000,000 (equivalent to $159,600,000 in 2015) surplus in fare revenue from the BART SFO extension was not available for the start of construction on the Warm Springs extension, and the funding shortfall was made up in part by proposing a shift of US$91,000,000 (equivalent to $100,200,000 in 2015) in RM2 funds from DRC to WSX.[40] The draft Strategic Plan amending Resolution 3434[41] was presented in June 2008, placing projects in four tiers, depending on their state of readiness. WSX was deemed to be a "Tier 2" project, meaning it required more scope or cost refinement. DRC was a "Tier 4" project, meaning that its capital shortfall was greater than 50% of its total cost. The 2008 estimate for DRC capital costs was US$596,000,000 (equivalent to $656,200,000 in 2015), compared to the nearly US$300,000,000 (equivalent to $376,500,000 in 2015) in available funding that had been committed with the passage of RM2 in 2004.[42] Since the recommended strategy going forward was to focus on delivering Tier 2 projects, MTC Staff recommended shifting the money from DRC to WSX.[41][43] The proposal was met with considerable antipathy.[44] DRC would be repaid in Alameda County Regional Transportation Improvement Program funds over eight years, from FY 2019–20 to 2026–27, without accounting for inflation.[40] The majority of public speakers in a July 2008 argued against the funding transfer, saying that funds dedicated for transbay travel should remain dedicated to transbay projects.[45]

In September 2008, MTC Vice Chair Scott Haggerty defended the shift, arguing that "The bottom line is that the Warm Springs BART extension is ready to go and the Dumbarton Rail project is not."[46] Others questioned the need for DRC, as the expected growth in road traffic over the Dumbarton Bridge had failed to materialize. MTC was required to hold a public hearing to approve reassignment of funds, which occurred on 14 January 2009.[40][47] The DRC to WSX funding shift was met with more public opposition, who questioned both the legal authority of MTC to reassign these funds and the strength of MTC's commitment to DRC.[47] California Streets and Highways Code Section 30914(f) gives MTC the authority to reallocate funds "to another project within the same bridge corridor,"[47] and the WSX does not provide the same transbay service as DRC. Regardless, MTC unanimously approved the funding shift after the public hearing[48] and withstood a subsequent legal challenge. A suit was filed seeking an injunction to block the transfer of funds,[49] but the suit was rejected.[50] MTC went on the offensive after the suit was rejected, threatening the plaintiffs with "any and all available remedies,"[51] and the plaintiffs dropped their lawsuit.[52]

With the loan of $91 million to WSX, Dumbarton Rail retained $44 million in RM2 funds. Alameda County Measure B1, which would have restored US$120,000,000 (equivalent to $123,900,000 in 2015) via a half-cent sales tax increase, failed to pass in 2012. In February 2014, MTC's Programming and Allocations Committee advanced a recommendation to redirect the remaining money from Dumbarton Rail to other projects; $9 million had already been spent on environmental studies for DRC, leaving $35 million, which would be redistributed with $20 million going to Caltrain Electrification and $15 million going to replace Dumbarton Express buses.[53] The February presentation also redefined the $91 million loan as an "investment in BART to Warm Springs" with "No future repayment from Alameda County" necessary. The $20 million for Caltrain electrification was predicated on Caltrain receiving local matching funds,[54] which had not been previously requested of other RM2 reallocation projects.[55]

A public hearing was held in April 2014,[29] with the majority of comments directed towards the Dumbarton Rail proposals.[56] In the response to public comments, the MTC staff response stated "the Dumbarton Rail Bridge connects north-south corridors on both sides of the San Francisco Bay [...] Therefore, staff considers the investment in the Warm Springs Extension (and the Caltrain Electrification Program) to be appropriate investments of these bridge toll funds."[56] The staff response went on to mention Alameda County Transportation Commission and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority had already either reprogrammed DRC funds or failed to provide funds for DRC.

After 2014, RM2 funds (aside from the $9 million already spent on environmental studies) were completely deprogrammed from DRC, leaving it with an even larger funding gap than before the passage of RM2 in 2004.

2012–2014: Alameda County Measures B1 and BB

The 2012 Alameda County ballot Measure B1 would have restored US$120,000,000 (equivalent to $123,900,000 in 2015) to the Dumbarton Rail Corridor project through a sales tax increase in Alameda County.[57] Measure B1 failed to pass by a small margin,[58] and a later study showed the measure's failure may have been due in part to the lack of a "sunset" clause for the expiration of the sales tax increase.[59]

Two years later, Alameda County voters passed Measure BB,[60] which was nearly identical in language to the 2012 Measure B1, with a few exceptions. Measure B1 now included a sunset clause and the money set aside for Dumbarton Rail was now directed towards improving bus service over the Dumbarton Bridge.[61]

2008–present: Suspended

The loan (and eventual grant) of the majority of RM2 funds from DRC to WSX meant that construction would not start on DRC as scheduled. Although an administrative draft of the project draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was completed in late 2009,[62] the detailed engineering studies kept forecasting increased cost and decreased projected ridership. By 2010, the estimated cost of DRC had increased again to US$700,000,000 (equivalent to $760,900,000 in 2015).[63] Besides the increased cost estimates, other issues had emerged, including negotiations with Union Pacific to reroute freight traffic onto the Niles subdivision and purchase of the Oakland subdivision for DRC service.[56] In addition, the alignment of the proposed California High-Speed Rail service was still wavering between the Altamont Pass (which would route HSR over the Dumbarton Cut-off) and the Pacheco Pass (which would route HSR through San Jose up the Peninsula Corridor to San Francisco).

Recognizing these issues, the March 2011 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Alternatives Study (Wilbur Smith Associates)[62] set out to redefine the project to increase cost-effectiveness and boost ridership. Several alternative service proposals were studied, including modified rail service and bus rapid transit schemes. One alternate rail service would have created a rail shuttle between Union City and the existing Redwood City Caltrain station, dropping the limited stop service to San Francisco or San Jose. The rail shuttle would run four departures per hour during the three peak hours in the morning and the three peak afternoon hours, increasing the number of trips from six to forty-eight. Capital costs would also increase, as more rolling stock was required.[62]

An updated methodology for projecting ridership was also used in the 2011 Alternatives Study. Under the original methodology and routing, there were approximately 5,900 daily passengers anticipated to use DRC service by 2035. With the revised methodology, there were approximately 8,600 projected daily passengers in 2035 instead with the original route. The rail shuttle alternative would have increased this to 15,500 daily passengers in 2035. In comparison, the most optimistic bus rapid transit scheme projected 6,000 daily passengers in 2035 with the updated methodology.[62]

The draft environmental impact report was completed in 2013.[64] The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) declined to review it, since "reasonable funding sources" were not available, and the project was placed on indefinite hold.[65] The DEIR was never released for public review and comment.

A proposal was advanced to create a "Phase I" service between the Redwood City Caltrain station and a new Willow Road Dumbarton Rail station. In the same meeting, the Alameda County Transportation Commission announced (in a letter from Scott Haggerty) that "For the new Measure BB funds identified for the Dumbarton Corridor Area Transportation Improvements, a rail project and/or activities to support a rail project cannot be funded with these funds," effectively ending Alameda County's participation in DRC.[66]

In 2016, Facebook announced they were providing SMCTA with $1 million to study different methods to improve traffic over the Dumbarton corridor, both short and long-term, including traffic light timing, HOV lanes, and possible bus rapid transit over the old Dumbarton Rail Bridge.[67] Facebook headquarters are within walking distance of the proposed Willow Road station and could be a potential source of new ridership that was not accounted in the prior studies.[68]

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 "Summary of the Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Study Report" (PDF). San Mateo County Transit Authority. May 2004. Archived (PDF) from the original on 18 March 2016. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  2. ↑ "Dumbarton Rail Corridor". San Mateo County Transit Authority. 30 May 2012. Archived from the original on 2 November 2012. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 HNTB Corporation (3 March 2006). Dumbarton Rail Corridor Environmental Phase 1 Report: Alternatives Analysis and Project Purpose and Need (PDF) (Report). San Mateo County Transit Authority. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 March 2016. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  4. ↑ Jones & Stokes (October 2005). Union City Intermodal Station Passenger Rail Project: Partial Revision of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Report). City of Union City. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Parsons Transportation Group (13 July 1999). Dumbarton Rail Corridor Study (PDF). Bay Rail Alliance (Report). San Mateo County Transportation Authority. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 August 2011. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  6. 1 2 Go, Kuan S.; Treyger, Semyon; Jones, Michael; Hill, Stephen J.; Susanto, Bernard; Yang, Wenlin (2009). Retrofit and Replacement of Dumbarton Railroad Bridges (PDF) (Report). AREMA. Retrieved 17 March 2016.
  7. ↑ Regional Rail with NO High-Speed Rail - Corridor Level Synopsis and Phasing (Report). Metropolitan Transit Commission. 2 July 2007. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
  8. ↑ "Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Send a Letter to the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers to Expand the Scope of Work on the Oakland to San Jose Double Track - Phase II Project" (Letter). Letter to City Council of Union City. City of Union City. 12 November 2013. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
  9. ↑ "Intermodal Station Phase I & II Projects". City of Union City. 2016. Archived from the original on 7 July 2015. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
  10. ↑ Union City Transit-Oriented Development: Blocks 2, 3 and 4 Design Guidelines. City of Union City (Report). 23 May 2007. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
  11. ↑ Appendix C: Intermodal Station District and Transit Facility Plan. City of Union City (Report). February 2002. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
  12. ↑ Schneider, E. J. (January 1913). "Construction Problems, Dumbarton Bridge, Central California Railway". Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. 39 (1): 117–128. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  13. ↑ "Famed San Francisco's Port Obsolete". Reading Eagle. 19 September 1974. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  14. ↑ "Voter's Information Pamphlet: Measure A - San Mateo County Transportation Expenditure Plan" (PDF). San Mateo County Transportation Authority. 7 June 1988. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  15. 1 2 Stein, Loren (9 December 1998). "TRANSPORTATION: Dumbarton rail service chugs forward". Palo Alto Online. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  16. ↑ McCabe, Michael (12 January 1998). "Trestle Torched, But Railway Plan Lives On / Commuter line for South Bay still viable". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 15 March 2016.
  17. ↑ Parsons, Dumbarton Rail Corridor Study, (July 1999).
    "Section 4.1.3: Based on the inspection report and field data collected, it is clear that the remaining timber trestle spans (bridge items 1, 6, 7 and 9), built in 1908, are in the [sic] imminent danger of collapse and need to be replaced."
  18. ↑ Parsons, Dumbarton Rail Corridor Study, (July 1999).
    "Section 4.1.5: According to the MKC [1996] assessment report, the entire lower portion of the trusses, which is close to the water, is severely corroded and should be replaced."
  19. ↑ Parsons, Dumbarton Rail Corridor Study, (July 1999).
    "Section 4.1.6.1: According to the MKC report, these two swing spans are severely corroded. The truss members required extensive rehabilitiation. The Dumbarton bridge fenders need to be replaced. Section 4.1.6.2: Mechanical systems were inspected while observing a bridge operation. Therefore it can be concluded that the equipment is operable."
  20. 1 2 2000 Final Report: San Mateo County Participation in the Dumbarton Rail Project (Report). County of San Mateo. 2000. Retrieved 15 March 2016.
  21. ↑ "Measure A". Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 7 November 2000. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  22. ↑ "Dumbarton Rail Corridor" (PDF). Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. June 2015. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  23. ↑ MTC (19 December 2001). "Regional Transit Expansion Program of Projects: Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution No. 3434, Revised" (PDF). Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Archived (PDF) from the original on 18 March 2016. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  24. ↑ California State Assembly. "An act to add Section 29035.5 to the Public Utilities Code, relating to transportation.". Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 280 p. 1140.
  25. ↑ Regional Transit Expansion Policy: Initial Assessment (PDF) (Report). Metropolitan Transportation Commission. August 2001. pp. 61–62. Archived (PDF) from the original on 18 March 2016. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  26. ↑ Department of Rail (October 2005). "IX – Commuter Rail Services". California State Rail Plan, 2005-06 to 2015-16 [DRAFT] (PDF) (Report). California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). p. 115. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  27. ↑ Transportation 2030 Project Evaluation Summary (PDF) (Report). Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 9 April 2004. Retrieved 18 March 2016. San Mateo County ID 528: Dumbarton Rail Corridor / Submitted by San Mateo County Transportation Authority — Capital Cost $277.6 (millions, 2004$; total cost)
  28. 1 2 Cabanatuan, Michael (22 February 2004). "ELECTION 2004: Transportation Measure 2 / The Bay Area's Big Decision / Bridge toll boost would fund mass transit". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  29. 1 2 3 RM2 Public Hearing (PDF) (Report). Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Programming and Allocations Committee. 9 April 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 April 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  30. ↑ Wong, Scott (20 May 2005). "Residents rail against plan". Fremont Argus. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  31. ↑ Woodall, Angela (17 November 2006). "Public skeptical of Dumbarton plans". Hayward Daily Review. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  32. ↑ Gonzales, Neil (13 June 2007). "Dumbarton Rail on track for derailment?". Fremont Argus. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  33. ↑ McMillan, Therese; Bockelman, Alix (3 March 2006). "Regional Transit Expansion Program - Resolution 3434" (PDF). Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 September 2006. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  34. ↑ Woodall, Angela (30 October 2006). "Dumbarton rail project delayed". Hayward Daily Review. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  35. ↑ Molina, Joshua (12 November 2006). "Dumbarton Bridge project hits roadblock". Inside Bay Area. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  36. ↑ Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (8 May 2008). Dumbarton Rail Bridge Project - Do We Need It? (PDF) (Report). The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. Retrieved 2 April 2016. Finding 1: Projected project costs for the DRC project have doubled since receiving voter approval in 2000 on Measure A and RM2 in 2004. Currently, there are no additional funds committed or available to fund the increased project consts nor any plans to obtain them.
  37. ↑ "7: Alternatives Definition & Evaluation — Step-by-Step". san francisco bay area Regional Rail Plan (PDF) (Report). Metropolitan Transportation Commission. September 2007. p. 72. Archived (PDF) from the original on 18 March 2016. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  38. ↑ Cabanatuan, Michael (3 March 2004). "Regional transit measure passes / Toll will rise to $3 on state-owned bridges in Bay Area". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  39. ↑ Cabanatuan, Michael (4 March 2004). "Regional Measure 2 traffic relief projects". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  40. 1 2 3 "Resolution No. 3434, Revised - 2008 Strategic Plan Update" (PDF). Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 24 September 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 May 2009. Retrieved 18 March 2016. To address the cash flow challenges wherein the $145 million surplus fare revenue on the BART SFO Extension are not expected to be available during the BART to Warm Springs construction period, $91 million of Regional Measure 2 (RM2) and $54 million, shared equally, in funding advanced from MTC and BART/ACTIA are proposed. This proposal is conditioned on the following: 1) the Commission holding a public hearing and approving reassignment of $91 million in RM2 funds from the Dumbarton Rail project and the BART to Warm Springs project; and 2) first priority and equivalent repayment of $27 million each to MTC and ACTIA/BART from the surplus BART SFO Extension revenues
  41. 1 2 "Resolution 3434 Draft Strategic Plan" (PDF). Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 11 June 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 May 2009. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  42. ↑ "Amendments to Regional Measure 2 Capital Projects" (PDF). Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 14 May 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 March 2016. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  43. ↑ Oremus, Will (15 June 2008). "Dumbarton rail bridge project faces long haul". Fremont Argus. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  44. ↑ "Programming and Allocations Committee Minutes" (PDF). Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 11 June 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 May 2009. Retrieved 18 March 2016. Speaker Mark Green, Mayor of Union City, voiced his strong opposition of the proposed shift of $91 million from Dumbarton Rail to the BART to Warm Springs project. Speaker Jim Bigelow, Redwood City, San Mateo County and Menlo Park Chambers, expressed his support for the Dumbarton Rail and opposition of the shift of $91 million from Dumbarton Rail to the BART to Warm Springs project. Speaker Rich Hedges, MTC Advisory Council and EDAC, spoke on his support of the Dumbarton Rail and his frustration with local transportation funds going to BART. Speaker Paul Shepherd, Cargill Salt, listed his reasons of opposition, including his disappointment at how these funds were being reallocated.
  45. ↑ Brown, Rory (29 July 2008). "BART vs. Dumbarton rail debate gets testy". Menlo Park Almanac. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  46. ↑ "BART's Warm Springs Extension Gets Boost from Regional Measure 2 Cash" (Press release). Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 25 September 2008. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  47. 1 2 3 McMillan, Therese W. (28 January 2009). Public Hearing Comments Related to the Proposed Reassignment of RM2 Funds (PDF) (Report). Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 May 2009. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  48. ↑ Cabanatuan, Michael (15 January 2009). "BART Warm Springs extension gets funding". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  49. ↑ Rosenberg, Mike (14 March 2009). "Judge's ruling could revive Dumbarton Rail". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  50. ↑ Gordon, Rachel (21 March 2009). "Court rejects BART-extension funding injunction". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  51. ↑ Rosenberg, Mike (20 April 2009). "MTC drops hammer on group suing over Dumbarton Rail, BART extension". Oakland Tribune. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  52. ↑ Rosenberg, Mike (10 June 2009). "Lawsuit to save Dumbarton Rail dropped". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  53. ↑ Regional Measure 2: Capital Program Update (PDF) (Report). Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Programming and Allocations Committee. 12 February 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 April 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  54. ↑ Request for Regional Measure 2 Public Hearing Authorization (PDF) (Report). Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Programming and Allocations Committee. 5 March 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 April 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2016. Caltrain Electrification: Staff recommends that the $20 million for the Caltrain Electrification project (from the Dumbarton Rail project) be matched by the Joint Powers Authority partners through new funding for the project ($20 million total local match). A commitment to that match is still forthcoming.
  55. ↑ Agenda Item 3a – Public Hearing Comment (PDF) (Report). Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Programming and Allocations Committee. 9 April 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 April 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2016. Nuria I. Fernandez, General Manager, VTA: While I certainly appreciate the efforts of MTC to provide more funding in support of Caltrain's Electrification Project, a review of all other projects that are benefitting [sic] from MTC's redistribution of the Regional Measure 2 program funds has not shown a required local match by any of the recipients. This begs the question as to why this particular project is being singled out for such a match.
  56. 1 2 3 RM2 Public Hearing (PDF) (Report). Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Programming and Allocations Committee. 9 April 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 March 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
  57. ↑ "Measure B1" (PDF). Alameda County. 6 November 2012. Retrieved 31 March 2016.
  58. ↑ "Measure B1 Results". smartvoter.org. 6 November 2012. Retrieved 31 March 2016.
  59. ↑ "Case Study: Alameda County, California Transportation Funding Initiative November 2012" (PDF). American Road & Transportation Builders Association. January 2014. Retrieved 31 March 2016.
  60. ↑ "Measure BB Results". smartvoter.org. 4 November 2014. Retrieved 31 March 2016.
  61. ↑ "Measure BB" (PDF). Alameda County. 4 November 2014. Retrieved 31 March 2016.
  62. 1 2 3 4 Wilbur Smith Associates (March 2011). Dumbarton Rail Corridor Alternatives Study (PDF) (Report). San Mateo County Transit Authority. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  63. ↑ Bishop, Shaun (21 November 2010). "Dumbarton rail plan seeks funding". San Francisco Examiner. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  64. ↑ "Dumbarton Rail Corridor". City of Menlo Park. April 2014. Retrieved 3 April 2016.
  65. ↑ Hirsch, Paula (16 October 2013). Meeting Minutes (PDF) (Report). Dumbarton Rail Corridor Citizens Advisory Panel. Retrieved 3 April 2016. Since the CAP last met on October, 10th 2012, staff has completed the Administrative Draft EIS/EIR. While all elements of the environmental document are complete, the funding plan for the project is deficient. [...] FTA has indicated that if reasonable funding sources cannot be included in the Administrative Draft EIS/EIR to fully fund the rail alternatives, it is unlikely the conclusion of the environmental review process would result in a Record of Decision (ROD) by the FTA. We do not feel it is prudent to expend any additional resources to release the document at this time and continue with the environmental process. In light of the substantial shortfall in the project budget, staff recommends the project be placed on hold indefinitely unitl such time the project partners can secure a funding plan that can advance the project further.
  66. ↑ Minutes from the Dumbarton Rail Meeting (PDF) (Report). San Mateo County Transportation Authority. 29 May 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 April 2016. Retrieved 5 April 2016.
  67. ↑ Kelly, Kevin (3 March 2016). "Facebook pours $1 million into study of ways to relieve Dumbarton traffic". Hayward Daily News. Retrieved 3 April 2016.
  68. ↑ Boone, Andrew (20 March 2015). "Facebook Expansions Could Spur Dumbarton Rail in Menlo Park". StreetsBlog SF. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Dumbarton Rail Corridor.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 10/10/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.