DOCSLIB.ORG

Dumbarton Rail Corridor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dumbarton Rail Corridor DUMBARTON RAIL CORRIDOR Environmental Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis and Project Purpose and Need VOLUME I - FINAL REPORT March 3, 2006 PREPARED BY HNTB Corporation in cooperation with Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Jones & Stokes STV, Inc. Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project - Environmental Phase 1 Final Report DUMBARTON RAIL CORRIDOR DUMBARTON RAIL CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE 1 VOLUME I FINAL REPORT for Environmental Phase 1 of the DUMBARTON RAIL CORRIDOR PROJECT March 3, 2006 Version Status Initials Date 1 Issued for Internal Review P.G. 12-23-05 2 Issued for Final Review P.G. 1-13-06 3 Submitted to Client and Team P.G. 1-18-06 4 Submitted Final to Client and Team P.G. 3-10-06 March 3, 2006 Page i Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project - Environmental Phase 1 Final Report DUMBARTON RAIL CORRIDOR VOLUME I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction and Background........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project History ............................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Study Process................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2.1 Meetings .....................................................................................................................................................4 1.2.2 Technical Reports.....................................................................................................................................5 1.2.3 Screening....................................................................................................................................................5 1.2.4 Phase 2........................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.0 Purpose and Need ..............................................................................................................................................8 2.1 Project Purpose .............................................................................................................................................8 2.2 Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................................................................9 2.3 Issues................................................................................................................................................................9 2.3.1 Rail Alternative Issues and Impacts.....................................................................................................9 2.3.2 Bus Alternative Issues and Impacts.....................................................................................................11 3.0 Alternatives Development...............................................................................................................................13 3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................13 3.2 Existing Transit Service and Freight Operations..................................................................................13 3.3 No-Build Alternative ....................................................................................................................................17 3.4 Rail Alternative .............................................................................................................................................19 3.4.1 Travel Demand .........................................................................................................................................21 3.4.2 Service.......................................................................................................................................................22 3.4.3 Stations.....................................................................................................................................................22 3.4.4 Vehicle Technology................................................................................................................................23 3.4.5 Grade Crossings......................................................................................................................................23 3.4.6 Capital Improvements ...........................................................................................................................25 3.4.7 Screening Results.................................................................................................................................. 28 3.5 Bus Alternative ........................................................................................................................................... 30 3.5.1 Screening Results....................................................................................................................................31 4.0 Evaluation of Alternatives..............................................................................................................................32 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................32 4.2 Rail Alternatives ..........................................................................................................................................32 4.2.1 Alternative A: PSR without Niles Connection..................................................................................33 4.2.2 Alternative B: PSR................................................................................................................................. 34 4.2.3 Alternative C: PSR with Centerville Triple Track............................................................................35 4.2.4 Alternative D: PSR with Centerville Triple Track and Newark Grade Separation...................36 4.3 Bus Alternative ............................................................................................................................................37 4.3.1 2010 Bus Alternative .............................................................................................................................37 4.3.2 2030 Bus Alternative ........................................................................................................................... 40 4.4 Travel Demand ............................................................................................................................................ 42 4.4.1 Rail ............................................................................................................................................................ 43 4.4.2 Bus............................................................................................................................................................. 44 4.4.3 Travel Demand Summary.................................................................................................................... 45 4.5 Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. 46 4.5.1 Capital ...................................................................................................................................................... 46 4.5.2 Operating and Maintenance................................................................................................................ 49 4.6 Evaluation of Rail Alternatives................................................................................................................ 50 5.0 Conclusion and Next Steps ........................................................................................................................... 54 5.1 Summary of Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 54 5.2 Recommended Bus and Rail Alternatives ............................................................................................ 54 5.2.1 Bus Alternative ...................................................................................................................................... 55 5.2.2 Rail Alternative ...................................................................................................................................... 56 5.3 Phase 2.......................................................................................................................................................... 56 March 3, 2006 Page ii Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project - Environmental Phase 1 Final Report DUMBARTON RAIL CORRIDOR 5.3.1 CEQA Lead Agency ............................................................................................................................... 56 5.3.2 NEPA Lead Agency ............................................................................................................................... 56 5.3.3 Document Type...................................................................................................................................... 56 FIGURES Figure 1-1: DRC Study Area ...........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Altamont Corridor Vision Universal Infrastructure, Universal Corridor Altamontaltamont Corridor Corridor Vision: Vision Universal Infrastructure, Universal Corridor
    Altamont Corridor Vision Universal Infrastructure, Universal Corridor AltamontAltamont Corridor Corridor Vision: Vision Universal Infrastructure, Universal Corridor What is the Altamont Corridor Vision? The Altamont Corridor that connects the San Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area is one of the most heavily traveled, most congested, and fastest growing corridors in the Northern California megaregion. The Bay Area Council estimates that congestion will increase an additional 75% between 2016 and 2040. To achieve state and regional environmental and economic development goals, a robust alternative is needed to provide a sustainable / reliable travel choice and greater connectivity. The Altamont Corridor Vision is a long-term vision to establish a universal rail corridor connecting the San Joaquin Valley and the Tri-Valley to San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco and the Peninsula. This Vision complements other similar investments being planned for Caltrain, which is in the process of electrifying its corridor and rolling stock; Capitol Corridor, which is moving its operations to the Coast Subdivision as it improves its service frequency and separates freight from passenger service; a new Transbay Crossing, which would allow for passenger trains to flow from Oakland to San Francisco; the Dumbarton Rail Crossing, which is being studied to be brought back into service; and Valley Rail, which will connect Merced and Sacramento. The Vision also complements and connects with High- Speed Rail (HSR), and would enable a one-seat ride from the initial operating segment in the San Joaquin Valley throughout the Northern California Megaregion. One-Hour One-Seat One Shared Travel Time Ride Corridor Shared facilities, Oakland, Stockton, Express service, integrated Peninsula, Modesto modern rolling ticketing, San Jose stock timed connections • The limited stop (two intermediate stops) travel time between Stockton and San Jose is estimated to be 60 minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16
    California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16 December 2005 California Department of Transportation ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK, Secretary Business, Transportation and Housing Agency WILL KEMPTON, Director California Department of Transportation JOSEPH TAVAGLIONE, Chair STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER JEREMIAH F. HALLISEY, Vice Chair GOVERNOR BOB BALGENORTH MARIAN BERGESON JOHN CHALKER JAMES C. GHIELMETTI ALLEN M. LAWRENCE R. K. LINDSEY ESTEBAN E. TORRES SENATOR TOM TORLAKSON, Ex Officio ASSEMBLYMEMBER JENNY OROPEZA, Ex Officio JOHN BARNA, Executive Director CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1120 N STREET, MS-52 P. 0 . BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, 94273-0001 FAX(916)653-2134 (916) 654-4245 http://www.catc.ca.gov December 29, 2005 Honorable Alan Lowenthal, Chairman Senate Transportation and Housing Committee State Capitol, Room 2209 Sacramento, CA 95814 Honorable Jenny Oropeza, Chair Assembly Transportation Committee 1020 N Street, Room 112 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear: Senator Lowenthal Assembly Member Oropeza: On behalf of the California Transportation Commission, I am transmitting to the Legislature the 10-year California State Rail Plan for FY 2005-06 through FY 2015-16 by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) with the Commission's resolution (#G-05-11) giving advice and consent, as required by Section 14036 of the Government Code. The ten-year plan provides Caltrans' vision for intercity rail service. Caltrans'l0-year plan goals are to provide intercity rail as an alternative mode of transportation, promote congestion relief, improve air quality, better fuel efficiency, and improved land use practices. This year's Plan includes: standards for meeting those goals; sets priorities for increased revenues, increased capacity, reduced running times; and cost effectiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • SBC Executivesummfac
    CAPITOL CORRIDOR SOUTH BAY CONNECT AUGUST 2020 Purpose Study Area and Project Elements South Bay Connect proposes to relocate the Capitol Corridor passenger rail service between the Oakland N Coliseum and Newark from the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) Niles Subdivision to the Coast Subdivision for a faster, more direct route. It will also create new transbay connections for passengers between the East Bay and Peninsula by connecting to bus and shuttle services at the Ardenwood Station. The project is not proposing an increase in Capitol Corridor service frequency or changes to UP’s freight service, but does not preclude service growth in the future. The relocation will facilitate the separation of passenger and freight rail, resulting in improved rail operations, efficiency, and reliability while minimizing rail congestion within the corridor. Proposed New Station and Railroad Potential Station Area Proposed Capitol Corridor (CC) Service Potential Station Considered and Eliminated Existing CC Service Existing Station CC Service to be Discontinued Station where CC Service Study Area to be Discontinued UP Improvement Area BART Station Benefits Reduce passenger rail travel time between Oakland and San Jose and throughout the larger megaregion to increase ridership on transit, ease congestion on the Bay Area’s stressed roadways, and decrease auto commutes. Diversify and enhance network integration by reducing duplicative capital investments and dif- ferentiating Capitol Corridor’s intercity rail service from commuter rail and other transit services, including BART’s extension to San Jose. Support economic vitality by permitting enhanced rail movement and the preservation of freight rail capacity in the Northern California market through the reduction of existing conflicts between freight rail operations and passenger rail service.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Menlo Park TDM Existing Conditions
    City of Menlo Park TMA Options Analysis Study: Existing Conditions ___ Client: City of Menlo Park January 2020 Our ref: 23642101 Content 3 Introduction 4 Existing Travel Options 4 Rail and Transit 5 Public and Private Shuttles 6 Existing TDM Programming 8 Travel Patterns 9 Northern Menlo Park 10 Central Menlo Park 11 Downtown Menlo Park 12 Southern Menlo Park 13 Stakeholder Outreach 13 Interviews 16 Small Business Drop Ins 18 Employee Survey 22 Conclusions 23 Next Steps 2 | January 2020 City of Menlo Park: TDM Existing Conditions Introduction TMA Options Analysis for Menlo Park Menlo Park Focus Area Zones The four zones include: The City of Menlo Park has commissioned an Options This Existing Conditions Report (and subsequent 1. Northern Menlo Park (including Bohannon Dr. Analysis for establishing a Transportation reports and analyses) focuses on four areas or area) Management Association (TMA). “zones” within the City of Menlo Park. Each zone 2. Central Menlo Park faces unique challenges due to both its location and As has been seen across Silicon Valley and generally the specific land uses and industry housed within it. 3. Downtown Menlo Park the Bay Area, recent years have brought an increase 4. Southern Menlo Park (including SLAC area) in congestion in the City of Menlo Park. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) has Figure 1: Map of Menlo Park Zone Analysis been utilized for years to curb congestion by encouraging non single-occupancy vehicle travel across worksites, cities and counties in the Bay Area and beyond. As TDM is implemented in Menlo Park at a variety of levels, the City hopes that a TMA may help to better coordinate the efforts between public and private entities in the city, and potentially region-wide.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: Environmental Setting and Consequences
    CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES This chapter presents information on the environmental setting in the project area as well as the environmental consequences of the No-Electrification and Electrification Program Alternatives. Environmental issue categories are organized in alphabetical order, consistent with the CEQA checklist presented in Appendix A. The project study area encompasses the geographic area potentially most affected by the project. For most issues involving physical effects this is the project “footprint,” or the area that would be disturbed for or replaced by the new project facilities. This area focuses on the Caltrain corridor from the San Francisco Fourth and King Station in the City and County of San Francisco to the Gilroy Station in downtown Gilroy in Santa Clara County and also includes the various locations proposed for traction power facilities and power connections. Air quality effects may be felt over a wider area. 3.1 AESTHETICS 3.1.1 VISUAL OR AESTHETIC SETTING The visual or aesthetic environment in the Caltrain corridor is described to establish the baseline against which to compare changes resulting from construction of project facilities and the demolition or alteration of existing structures. This discussion focuses on representative locations along the railroad corridor, including existing stations (both modern and historic), tunnel portals, railroad overpasses, locations of the proposed traction power facilities and other areas where the Electrification Program would physically change above-ground features, affecting the visual appearance of the area and views enjoyed by area residents and users. For purposes of this analysis, sensitive visual receptors are defined as corridor residents and business occupants, recreational users of parks and preserved natural areas, and students of schools in the vicinity of the proposed project.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Clara Valley Transportation
    SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program [A Fund of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority] Independent Accountant’s Report on Compliance Examination and Budgetary Comparison Schedule For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program [A Fund of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority] For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 Table of Contents Page(s) Independent Accountant’s Report ................................................................................................................. 1 Budgetary Comparison Schedule (On a Budgetary Basis) ........................................................................... 2 Notes to Budgetary Comparison Schedule ............................................................................................ 3 - 10 Supplementary Information – Program Summaries ............................................................................. 11 - 30 Supplementary Information – 2000 Measure A Ballot ........................................................................ 31 - 33 Independent Accountant’s Report on Compliance Examination 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee 3331 North First Street San Jose, California 95134 We have examined the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) compliance with the requirements of the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program (2000 Measure A Program), a fund of VTA, for the year ended June 30, 2019. The
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Clara Station Pedestrian Crossing Study
    Final Report Santa Clara Station Pedestrian Crossing Study Prepared for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Prepared by June 8, 2007 Final Report SANTA CLARA STATION PEDESTRIAN CROSSING STUDY PURPOSE OF REPORT The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has requested an analysis of the pros and cons of a potential temporary pedestrian grade crossing of Union Pacific Railroad (UP) tracks at the Santa Clara Caltrain Station. The station is located south of Benton Road. Access to the two Caltrain tracks adjacent to the station is from the west (geographic south). The UP tracks run parallel to and to the east of the Caltrain tracks. The Santa Clara Station is one of three stations in Santa Clara County where pedestrian access to trains is only from one side of the station1. Caltrain is designing a major capital project at the station jointly funded by Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) and the Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) that will improve train operations. This project will include a pedestrian tunnel under the Caltrain tracks to a planned “island” center passenger platform. The area of the new platform appears in Figure 1. As planned and funded, the Caltrain tunnel will not extend all the way to the eastside of the UP tracks. Rather, the tunnel will serve as access for the island platform from the Santa Clara station platform only. Construction of the tunnel is scheduled for completion within two years. A potential temporary crossing of the UP tracks would provide interim access to the planned center island platform, to be located between the Caltrain and UP tracks, from the east side of the UP tracks.
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain Holiday Train Schedule Buildings Integral to the Development This Year As Part of the Train Crew for of Hundreds of Communities Across Nov
    Caltrain Fall 2013 Fall ConnectionInformation for Customers Rail Agency Celebrates 150th Birthday Festivities With A Trip To 1863 More than 1,500 well- A 150th anniversary celebration will be held wishers took a trip back Jan. 18, 2014 at the Santa Clara depot, and details to 1863 as Caltrain will be available at www.caltrain.com/150. kicked off the celebra- tion of 150 years of railroad service on the Peninsula with a birthday party in Menlo Park in October. In January 1864, the San Francisco & San Jose Rail- road completed construction of the railroad between those two cities. Three months earlier, railroad manage- ment hosted 400 guests for a ride and a picnic, and on Oct. 19 Caltrain re-enacted that event with a festive celebration at the Menlo Park station. Glittering Holiday Train Returns, San Jose Author Tracks EVENTS CALENDAR Depot Design in New Book Ride Caltrain to these special events. The station name and any additional Lots of Festive Family Fun for All More than 30 years ago, Henry transit service required are listed E. Bender Jr. began researching the below each event. Santa and his elves will be mak- history of Southern Pacific depots, ing whistle stops along the Peninsula Caltrain Holiday Train Schedule buildings integral to the development this year as part of the train crew for of hundreds of communities across Nov. 15 – 17 Harvest Festival the 2013 Caltrain Holiday Train pre- Saturday, Dec. 7 California, including along the San San Mateo Event Center sented by Silicon Valley Community Francisco Peninsula. www.harvestfestival.com Foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation and Traffic
    4.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This chapter describes the existing traffic conditions of the EA Study Area and evaluates the potential envi- ronmental consequences of future development that could occur by adopting and implementing the pro- posed Housing Element Update, General Plan Consistency Update, and associated Zoning Ordinances amendments, together referred to as the “Plan Components” on transportation and traffic. A summary of the relevant regulatory setting and existing conditions is followed by a discussion of Plan Components and cumulative impacts. The chapter is based on the traffic analysis prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants dated March 8, 2013, herein referred to as “Traffic Study.” The future baseline traffic volumes have been developed from output of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) travel demand model run by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The travel demand associated with the Plan Components have been obtained from the C/CAG Model based upon the anticipated future land uses that have been developed resulting from the land use controls under Near-Term 2014 and 2035 condi- tions. The complete Traffic Study and technical appendices are included in Appendix F of this EA. A. Regulatory Framework 1. Federal Laws and Regulations a. Federal Highway Administration The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the agency of the United States (U.S.) Department of Transportation (DOT) responsible for the federally-funded roadway system, including the interstate high- way network and portions of the primary State highway network, such as Interstate 280 (I-280). b. Americans with Disabilities Act The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 provides comprehensive rights and protections to indi- viduals with disabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Redwood City Transit Center Redesign Study
    Draft Summary Report Redwood City Transit Center Redesign Study October 2019 Redwood City Transit Center Redesign Study Summary Report Background ......................................................................... 1 Figure 1: Location and Components of the Existing Project History ................................................................ 1 Transit Center................................................................. 3 Figure 2: Existing Transit Center Site Configuration – Project Goals ................................................................... 2 Looking Northeast from El Camino Real .................... 13 Study Description............................................................ 4 Figure 3: Phase 1 – Short Term: Existing Transit Center Site Improvements ...................................................... 15 Existing Conditions ............................................................. 5 Figure 4: Phase 2 – Long Term: Existing Transit Center Existing Transit Services ................................................ 5 Site Improvements ....................................................... 17 Parking ............................................................................ 6 Figure 5: Perry Street and Caltrain Parking Lot Configuration – View from the Arguello Street Transit Center Amenities ................................................ 6 Side of the Site ............................................................. 18 Land Use and Zoning ...................................................... 6 Figure
    [Show full text]
  • 3.1: Aesthetics, Part 1
    Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Aesthetics 1 3.1 Aesthetics 2 The visual or aesthetic environment in the Caltrain corridor is described to establish the baseline 3 against which to compare changes resulting from construction of project facilities and the alteration 4 of existing structures. This discussion focuses on representative locations along the railroad 5 corridor, including existing stations, railroad overpasses, locations of the proposed traction power 6 facilities, and other areas where the Proposed Project would physically change above-ground 7 features, where the visual appearance of the area and views experienced by area residents and users 8 could be affected. 9 3.1.1 Existing Conditions 10 3.1.1.1 Regulatory Setting 11 Federal 12 There are no federal laws, regulations, or standards related to aesthetics that are applicable to the 13 Proposed Project. 14 State 15 While there are no state laws, regulations, or standards related to aesthetics that are applicable to 16 the Proposed Project, there are state requirements for electrical safety that would influence project 17 vegetation maintenance, resulting in aesthetic changes. 18 California Public Utilities Commission 19 The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has safety and security regulatory authority over 20 all transit agencies in California. 21 Rules established by the CPUC are called General Orders (GOs). The following GOs are relevant to 22 vegetation clearance along the Caltrain right-of-way (ROW). 23 GO 95: Overhead Electric Line Construction. This order concerns electrical clearances relative to 24 overhead lines, including vegetation clearances. However, this order does not provide any 25 specific guidance for 25 kVA systems proposed for use by the Proposed Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Route(S) Description 26 the Increased Frequency on the 26 Makes the Entire Southwestern Portion of the Network Vastly More Useful
    Route(s) Description 26 The increased frequency on the 26 makes the entire southwestern portion of the network vastly more useful. Please keep it. The 57, 60, and 61 came south to the area but having frequent service in two directions makes it much better, and riders from these routes can connect to the 26 and have much more areas open to them. Thank you. Green Line The increased weekend service on the Green line to every twenty minutes is a good addition of service for Campbell which is seeing markedly better service under this plan. Please keep the increased service. Multiple Please assuage public concerns about the 65 and 83 by quantifying the impact the removal of these routes would have, and possible cheaper ways to reduce this impact. The fact is that at least for the 65, the vast majority of the route is duplicative, and within walking distances of other routes. Only south of Hillsdale are there more meaningful gaps. Mapping the people who would be left more than a half mile (walkable distance) away from service as a result of the cancellation would help the public see what could be done to address the service gap, and quantifying the amount of people affected may show that service simply cannot be justified. One idea for a route would be service from winchester transit center to Princeton plaza mall along camden and blossom hill. This could be done with a single bus at a cheaper cost than the current 65. And nobody would be cut off. As far as the 83 is concerned, I am surprised the current plan does not route the 64 along Mcabee, where it would be eq..
    [Show full text]