DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 2: Project Description

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 2: Project Description CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is the electrification of the entire Caltrain line from the current northern terminus at Fourth and King streets in the City of San Francisco to the southern terminus at the Gilroy station in downtown Gilroy, a distance of approximately 80 miles. The project location is shown in Figure 2-1; a project vicinity map showing each of the stations on the line is provided in Figure 1.2-1. 2.1 LOCATION AND LIMITS The Peninsula Joint Powers Board (JPB) owns and operates approximately 50 miles of primarily two-track mainline railroad right-of-way between the Fourth and King Station in San Francisco and the Tamien Station just south of San Jose in Santa Clara County. JPB purchased this right-of-way from the Southern Pacific Transportation Company in 1992. Between Tamien Station and the Gilroy Station in downtown Gilroy, the mainly single-track right-of-way is owned by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). Caltrain has trackage rights under agreement with the UPRR to provide commuter service in this approximately 30-mile segment of UPRR’s right-of-way. Caltrain trains consist of diesel-hauled, bi-level “gallery” cars and currently provide approximately 15- to 30-minute peak period service in both northbound and southbound directions between San Jose and San Francisco, and 30-minute service during the middle of the day. A total of 76 daily trains currently operate over the JPB-owned, northern portion of the route between San Jose and San Francisco. Caltrain adjusted its peak-hour service and reduced the number of trains from 80 daily trains in August 2002 in response to declining ridership and a tightly constrained budget, due to declining Bay Area economic conditions beginning in 2001 and continuing through this writing. Included in the current 76-train total, Caltrain presently operates four trains for the northbound morning commute, and four trains for the southbound evening commute over the southern portion owned by UPRR and operated by Caltrain through a “commuter rail Trackage Rights Agreement.” These trains travel northward from Gilroy to San Francisco at roughly 30-minute intervals between 5:18 and 7:01 a.m. and southward from San Francisco to Gilroy at roughly 50-minute intervals between 3:07 and 5:25 p.m. In addition, between Santa Clara and San Francisco, UPRR operates approximately six daily freight trains through a “freight Trackage Rights Agreement” with Caltrain. From Santa Clara to San Jose, on a joint use corridor, UPRR operates approximately 12 to 20 daily freight trains. Passenger trains also operate in the joint use corridor from Santa Clara to San Jose, including the Capitol Corridor (12 daily trains), the Altamont Commuter Express (six daily trains) and the Amtrak Inter-city (two daily trains). Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-1 SAN FRANCISCO San Mateo County PROJECT LOCATION Alameda County Santa Cruz County SAN JOSE Santa Clara County GILROY Figure 2-1 PROJECT LOCATION CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Substantial service increases to 98 daily trains in the San Francisco to San Jose segment and eight daily trains in the San Jose to Gilroy segment are planned to be implemented within the next six years, and daily operations of 132 trains in the San Francisco to San Jose segment and 20 daily trains in the San Jose to Gilroy segment are planned by 2020. Additional track, signal, station and terminal capacity improvements will be necessary to provide for the increased levels of service. These facilities are not included in the scope of the environmental review within the present document. They are being addressed in separate environmental documents in accordance with the requirements of applicable environmental regulations and guidance and as such, are included within the No-Project Alternative in this environmental document. The facilities included in the Electrification Program Alternative will be designed and located to take into consideration future track, signal, station, bridge and other improvements and to preclude or minimize to the extent possible future modification or relocation of constructed electrification facilities. Modifications and relocations of constructed electrification facilities are, however, very likely to occur, given the extent of programmed changes to the infrastructure within Caltrain’s rail corridor over the next 20 years. 2.2 BACKGROUND In 1999, the JPB adopted the Caltrain Rapid Rail Plan. This plan envisioned a program of facility rehabilitation and enhancement and systemwide electrification improvements to enable increased frequency, capacity and reliability of Caltrain service and to reduce travel times. The Rapid Rail Plan also called for completion of the environmental studies to extend Caltrain from its current San Francisco terminus at Fourth and King streets into downtown San Francisco. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) for the Caltrain Downtown Extension, including electrification of the line from downtown San Francisco to Gilroy, was circulated for public review and comment in March of 1997, but the Final EIS/EIR was never completed. This project reinitiated environmental studies in February 2001, and an EIS/EIR for the Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Downtown Extension/Redevelopment Area is being prepared by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), JPB, the City and County of San Francisco, and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (see Section 1.3, Related Projects). Many of the other facility rehabilitation and enhancement improvements envisioned in the Rapid Rail Plan are already in place or underway, and they are included here in the No-Project Alternative. The present environmental document focuses on the facilities and improvements required to achieve electrification of the entire Caltrain line from the San Francisco Fourth and King Station to the Gilroy Station in downtown Gilroy. Electrification of the portion of the line from Fourth and King streets northward into downtown San Francisco is being addressed in the environmental document for the Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Downtown Extension/ Redevelopment Area project. Previous studies include the October 1992 Feasibility Study: Electrifying the Caltrain/PCS Railroad; the March 1997 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-3 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Environmental Impact Report for the Caltrain Downtown San Francisco Extension; and the October 1998 Caltrain Rapid Rail Study. 2.3 ALTERNATIVES A range of different propulsion options was considered to meet the project purpose and need. Four alternatives were ultimately withdrawn from further consideration based on low cost- effectiveness, environmental effects, potential project delays, or other factors. These alternatives and the reasons why they were withdrawn are presented in Section 2.4, Alternatives Considered and Withdrawn. Alternatives evaluated in this EA/EIR consist of a No-Electrification (or No-Project) Alternative and the Electrification Program Alternative. The Electrification Program Alternative includes alternative rolling stock types. 2.3.1 THE NO-ELECTRIFICATION (NO-PROJECT) ALTERNATIVE The No-Electrification Alternative constitutes the No-Project Alternative for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The No-Electrification (or No-Project) Alternative incorporates a series of rehabilitation improvements, enhancements and additions to the existing system, not including electrification, that would provide an improved level of service. These improvements will generally be carried out within the existing JPB or UPRR owned railroad rights-of-way and environmental and other issues will be addressed separately in accordance with applicable environmental requirements. The No-Electrification Alternative assumes that the following Caltrain facilities will exist at the completion of the Caltrain Express (CTX) project (formerly known as the “Bonanza” and “Baby Bullet” projects), consistent with the Rapid Rail Program adopted by the JPB in 1999: • Rehabilitation of the Existing System – long-term repairs, reconstruction and modernization of the existing tracks, signals, bridges, stations, rolling stock and other systems. • Enhancements and Capacity Improvements – additions and betterments to the rail system including additional main and passing tracks to facilitate train meets and passes; enhanced signal and communications systems (centralized train control [CTC] that can accommodate an up-grade to automatic train control [ATC], and fiber optics); modernized stations; a new centralized equipment maintenance and operations facility (CEMOF) comprising shop, buildings and support facilities at the Lenzen site in San Jose; vehicular and pedestrian grade separations; and additional rolling stock. Also included in this category are grade crossing and station closures and consolidations. • New CTX service consisting of 10 express trains per day with projected 57-minute travel times between San Francisco and San Jose by early 2004. • A variety of passenger station improvements to permit simpler ticketing arrangements and create improved station amenities. 2-4 Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Additional proposed increases in Caltrain's service level to provide 98 daily trains in the San Francisco to San Jose segment (including eight daily trains in the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SFO to San Francisco in 45 Minutes for Only $6.55!* in 30 Minutes for Only $5.35!*
    Fold in to the middle; outside right Back Panel Front Panel Fold in to the middle; outside left OAK to San Francisco SFO to San Francisco in 45 minutes for only $6.55!* in 30 minutes for only $5.35!* BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) from OAK is fast, easy and BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) provides one of the world’s inexpensive too! Just take the convenient AirBART shuttle Visitors Guide best airport-to-downtown train services. BART takes you bus from OAK to BART to catch the train to downtown San downtown in 30 minutes for only $5.35 one-way or $10.70 Francisco. The entire trip takes about 45 minutes and costs round trip. It’s the fast, easy, inexpensive way to get to only $6.55 one-way or $13.10 round trip. to BART San Francisco. The AirBART shuttle departs every 15 minutes from the The BART station is located in the SFO International Terminal. 3rd curb across from the terminals. When you get off the It’s only a five minute walk from Terminal Three and a shuttle at the Coliseum BART station, buy a round trip BART 10 minute walk from Terminal One. Both terminals have ticket from the ticket machine. Take the escalator up to the Powell Street-Plaza Entrance connecting walkways to the International Terminal. You can westbound platform and board a San Francisco or Daly City also take the free SFO Airtrain to the BART station. bound train. The BART trip to San Francisco takes about 20 minutes. Terminal 2 (under renovation) Gates 40 - 48 Gates 60 - 67 Terminal 3 Terminal 1 Gates 68 - 90 Gates 20 - 36 P Domestic Want to learn about great deals on concerts, plays, Parking museums and other activities during your visit? Go to www.mybart.org to learn about fantastic special offers for BART customers.
    [Show full text]
  • 10. Millbrae Intermodal Station
    ASSET VULNERABILITY PROFILE | SAN MATEO COUNTY SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 10. MILLBRAE INTERMODAL STATION Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) VULNERABILITY SUMMARY The Millbrae Intermodal Station (Station) is moderately vulnerable to sea level rise. The Caltrain and BART tracks are at grade, and exposure to flooding is moderate, with on-going groundwater intrusion into the BART tunnels. Roughly 24 inches of water level increase is needed for water to reach the Station. The Station is extremely sensitive, and trains would not function if power systems or the tracks were flooded. Adaptive capacity is moderate as the asset is an end-of-line stop for BART, and Caltrain could run "bridge" bus service around the Station during repairs to maintain service. Impacts would be high with costly damages, and flooding could affect over 58,000 riders/day. SENSITIVITY EXPOSURE ADAPTIVE CAPACITY CONSEQUENCES High Moderate Moderate High ASSET CHARACTERISTICS 200 Rollins Rd | Millbrae Asset Description and Function: The Station is a passenger train station for BART and Caltrain, and is served by SamTrans buses as well. It is jointly owned by a Joint Powers Board and BART. All trains on the Caltrain system (Gilroy to San Francisco) must pass through this Station on their way through the peninsula, and it is an end- of-line stop for BART, though an important node for access to San Francisco International Airport. Roughly 11,000 total riders use the station daily. There is also a Historical Train Depot on the property. Asset Type Public Transportation Infrastructure Asset Risk Class 3 Size 20.7 acres Year of Construction 2003 Elevation 12 feet, BART datum Level of Use 11,000 daily riders Annual O&M cost Unknown Special Flood Hazard Area Asset is in SFHA Physical Condition Good Landowner County of San Mateo Transit District Underground Facilities BART tracks and third-rail power supply are below grade.
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain Governance
    Caltrain Governance JPB Special Meeting #3 on Governance June 25, 2021 Welcome to Special Meeting #3 2 • Review Meeting #3 Objectives and Special Meeting Governance Process Roadmap • Staff Presentations #3 Agenda • Approach to Regional and Non-Self Directed Relationships • Active and Emerging Discussions • Strategic Issues ~ Break ~ • Discussion • Next Steps 3 Special Meeting #3 Objectives and Process Roadmap 4 JPB Governance 2021 Roadmap Goals: Goals: - Exploration and education about the JPB’s range of structural - Discussion of selected option(s) and financial and legal analysis towards developing governance paths. the 2021 governance recommendation. - Selection of governance options and key issues to focus on in Phase 2. - Adoption of governance recommendation at December 2021 JPB meeting. 2021 January February March April May June July August September October November December Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Hoc #1 Hoc #2 Hoc #3 Hoc #4 Hoc #5 Hoc #6 Hoc #7 Hoc #8 Hoc #9 Hoc #10 Hoc #11 Board Adoption Special Special Special Special Special of 2021 Meeting #1 Meeting #2 Meeting #3 Meeting #4 Meeting #5 Governance Recommendation We Are Here 5 JPB Governance 2021 Roadmap Goals: Goals: - Exploration and education about the JPB’s range of structural - Discussion of selected option(s) and financial and legal analysis towards developing governance paths. the 2021 governance recommendation. - Selection of governance options and key issues to focus on
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Transportation Guide
    Conference Transportation Guide February 12–15 San Francisco Think Venues Walking, shuttles, BART (Bay The best way to get around Connector Shuttle: Area Rapid Transit) — San Think venues is on foot. Check Moscone/Hilton Hours Francisco has it all. Think 2019 on distances between Think The Connector Shuttle will run Tuesday 7:30am–5:30pm is in a new city. To maximize your venues, suggested walking paths, between Moscone West and the Wednesday 7:30am–6:30pm time, ensure you know how to and wear comfortable shoes. Hilton San Francisco Union Square Thursday 7:30am–6:30pm get around. during the following times: Friday 7:30am–12:30pm Post St 2nd St Think Site Map 14 Market St Kearny St Kearny Grand St Grand Stockton St Stockton 1 Moscone West 6 Press Club Geary St New Montgomery St Registration & Information Desk (Sun–Tue am only) 7 Yerba Buena Forum Chairman’s Address General Session: Research 8 Yerba Buena Theater Science Slam Featured Sessions O’Farrell St 15 3rd St 2 Moscone North 9 AMC Metreon 13 Registration & Information Desk Breakout Sessions Code Yerba Buena Ln Minna St Think Theater (Featured Sessions) Powell St Powell Ellis St 6 Executive Meeting Center Business Partner Café 10 City View 7 Natoma St InnerCircle Lounge Market St 16 Mission St 3 Moscone South Mason St Registration & Information Desk 11 Tabletop Tap House Eddy St St Magnin Cyril Howard St Think Academy Code Café 5 8 9 Think Campus InterContinental Bookstore & Think Store 12 10 Registration 2 4 Think Park (Howard St.) Breakout Sessions Mason St Transportation Think Park Theater 11 (Featured Sessions) 13 Hilton Union Square Walking Path Mission St Be Equal Lounge Registration 4 1 3 Breakout Sessions Market St BART 5 Yerba Buena Gardens 5th St Westin St.
    [Show full text]
  • San Jose to Merced Project Section State's
    SUMMER 2019 SAN JOSE TO MERCED PROJECT SECTION STATE’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE OVERVIEW High-speed rail offers an unprecedented opportunity to modernize California’s transportation system and tie together the state’s economies. The San Jose to Merced Project Section will be the crucial connection between the Bay Area and the Central Valley. This fact sheet discusses the staff recommendation for the State’s Preferred Alternative to be considered by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) Board of Directors. WHAT IS A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE? Since 2008, numerous alternatives have been considered Alternative. Authority staff is seeking feedback on this for the high-speed rail alignment traveling within and recommendation before it is presented to the Authority outside of the Bay Area. Ultimately, four alternatives Board of Directors in September 2019. are being analyzed for the Draft Environmental Impact Alternative 4 will be referred to as the staff-recommended Report/Statement (EIR/EIS). The alternative determined State’s Preferred Alternative until the Authority Board to best balance tradeoffs between environmental; of Directors concurs with the staff recommendation or community; and performance, operations, and cost factors requests that a different alternative be identified as the will be identified as the State’s Preferred Alternative. State’s Preferred Alternative. The identification of the Planning, design, and analysis of the four alternatives, State’s Preferred Alternative for the Draft EIR/EIS does collaboration with landowners and agencies, and input not express or imply approval or adoption of a preferred from the public and stakeholders has led Authority staff alternative for final design or construction.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Station Profiles
    2015 BART Station Profile Study Station Profiles – Non-Home Origins STATION PROFILES – NON-HOME ORIGINS This section contains a summary sheet for selected BART stations, based on data from customers who travel to the station from non-home origins, like work, school, etc. The selected stations listed below have a sample size of at least 200 non-home origin trips: • 12th St. / Oakland City Center • Glen Park • 16th St. Mission • Hayward • 19th St. / Oakland • Lake Merritt • 24th St. Mission • MacArthur • Ashby • Millbrae • Balboa Park • Montgomery St. • Civic Center / UN Plaza • North Berkeley • Coliseum • Oakland International Airport (OAK) • Concord • Powell St. • Daly City • Rockridge • Downtown Berkeley • San Bruno • Dublin / Pleasanton • San Francisco International Airport (SFO) • Embarcadero • San Leandro • Fremont • Walnut Creek • Fruitvale • West Dublin / Pleasanton Maps for these stations are contained in separate PDF files at www.bart.gov/stationprofile. The maps depict non-home origin points of customers who use each station, and the points are color coded by mode of access. The points are weighted to reflect average weekday ridership at the station. For example, an origin point with a weight of seven will appear on the map as seven points, scattered around the actual point of origin. Note that the number of trips may appear underrepresented in cases where multiple trips originate at the same location. The following summary sheets contain basic information about each station’s weekday non-home origin trips, such as: • absolute number of entries and estimated non-home origin entries • access mode share • trip origin types • customer demographics. Additionally, the total number of car and bicycle parking spaces at each station are included for context.
    [Show full text]
  • Millbrae Station Area Specific Plan (Specific Plan) Summary Memo of Amendments to June 2015 Public Review Draft Specific Plan
    December 8, 2015 Millbrae Station Area Specific Plan (Specific Plan) Summary Memo of Amendments to June 2015 Public Review Draft Specific Plan The following table summarizes the list of recommended amendments to the 2015 draft Specific Plan that was publically distributed in June 2015 based on comments received from the community, other agencies and organizations, and further analysis and review by City Staff. • New Text is Shown Bold, Underlined • Deleted Text is Shown Strikethrough • Revised Graphics are included throughout Summary Memo. • Page numbers in table refer to page numbers in Public Review Draft Specific Plan. • Includes additional changes from Planning Commission Resolution 15-04, shown in red text. Chapter 1 – Introduction pp# Amendment Source 1.7 General Plan In the Housing Element, the MSASP area is identified as a “Housing Opportunity Area” having potential for housing sites. As such, future development within the Plan Area will be required and incentivized to provide affordable housing. 1.7 Zoning Code This update will require an amendment to the Zoning Code to substitute the 2015 update for the 1998 Specific Plan.. As before, some portions of the Zoning Code will continue to apply to the Plan Area, but most of the zoning requirements for new development are included in later chapters of this document. this Specific Plan includes standards and guidelines for new development. Requirements not specifically addressed in this plan will continue to be regulated by the Millbrae zoning code. 1 December 8, 2015 1.7 San Francisco Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan This document provides land use requirements and recommendations and other information relevant to development near SFO.
    [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]
  • Caltrain Business Plan
    Caltrain Business Plan JULY 2019 LPMG 6/27/2019 What Addresses the future potential of the railroad over the next 20-30 years. It will assess the benefits, impacts, and costs of different What is service visions, building the case for investment and a plan for the Caltrain implementation. Business Plan? Why Allows the community and stakeholders to engage in developing a more certain, achievable, financially feasible future for the railroad based on local, regional, and statewide needs. 2 What Will the Business Plan Cover? Technical Tracks Service Business Case Community Interface Organization • Number of trains • Value from • Benefits and impacts to • Organizational structure • Frequency of service investments (past, surrounding communities of Caltrain including • Number of people present, and future) • Corridor management governance and delivery riding the trains • Infrastructure and strategies and approaches • Infrastructure needs operating costs consensus building • Funding mechanisms to to support different • Potential sources of • Equity considerations support future service service levels revenue 3 Where Are We in the Process? Board Adoption Stanford Partnership and Board Adoption of Board Adoption of of Scope Technical Team Contracting 2040 Service Vision Final Business Plan Initial Scoping Technical Approach Part 1: Service Vision Development Part 2: Business Implementation and Stakeholder Refinement, Partnering, Plan Completion Outreach and Contracting We Are Here 4 Flexibility and Integration 5 What Service planning work to date has been focused on the development of detailed, Understanding illustrative growth scenarios for the Caltrain corridor. The following analysis generalizes the 2040 these detailed scenarios, emphasizing opportunities for both variation and larger “Growth regional integration within the service Scenarios” as frameworks that have been developed.
    [Show full text]
  • High Speed Rail! R ING
    High Speed Rail! Fast Facts At peak, about 100 trains per day through Gilroy About 25% would stop at new Gilroy station, remaining will pass through Gilroy at high speed Required Gilroy station parking structure would house 6,600-8,000 cars. The California High-Speed Rail project is a planned high-speed rail system in the state of 2010 California and headed byyg California High-Sppy()pjeed Rail Authority (CHSRA). The project was approved by California voters on November 4, 2008 with the passage of Proposition 1A authorizing US$9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for the project. The CHSRA is currently tasked with completing final planning, design, and environmental efforts. When built, high-speed trains capable of 220 mph (350 km/h) are anticipated to link San Francisco and Los Angeles in as little as two and a half hours. The planned system would also serve other major California cities, ING such as Sacramento, San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield, and San Diego. The City of Gilroy is located R on the Merced to San Jose segment of the system . Plans are to have a station located in Gilroy , with approximately 25 percent of the trains stopping at the Gilroy station, and the other 75 percent going through the Gilroy area at high speed. Construction efforts are anticipated to begin by 2011. An implementation plan approved in August 2005 estimates that it would take eight to eleven SP years to "develop and begin operation of an initial segment of the California high-speed train.” Currently, intercity rail service does not directly serve the city of San Francisco (other than Caltrain, which connects San Francisco to various cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, such as San Jose, Gilroy, Palo Alto, and Belmont).
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, Chapter 7
    7.0 ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION & Fig. 7 Resolution 3434 EVALUATION — STEP-BY-STEP Step One: Base Network Healdsburg Sonoma Recognizing that Resolution 3434 represents County 8 MTC’s regional rail investment over the next 25 Santa years as adopted first in the 2001 Regional Trans- Rosa Napa portation Plan and reaffirmed in the subsequent County Vacaville 9 plan update, Resolution 3434 is included as part Napa of the “base case” network. Therefore, the study Petaluma Solano effort focuses on defining options for rail improve- County ments and expansions beyond Resolution 3434. Vallejo Resolution 3434 rail projects include: Marin County 8 9 Pittsburg 1. BART/East Contra Costa Rail (eBART) San Antioch 1 Rafael Concord Richmond 2. ACE/Increased Services Walnut Berkeley Creek MTC Resolution 3434 Contra Costa 3. BART/I-580 Rail Right-of-Way Preservation County Rail Projects Oakland 4. Dumbarton Bridge Rail Service San 1 BART: East Contra Costa Extension Francisco 10 6 3 2 ACE: Increased Service 5. BART/Fremont-Warm Springs to San Jose Daly City 2 Pleasanton Livermore 3 South Extension BART: Rail Right-of-Way Preservation San Francisco Hayward Union City 4 Dumbarton Rail Alameda 6. Caltrain/Rapid Rail/Electrification & Extension San Mateo Fremont County 5 BART: Fremont/Warm Springs 4 to Downtown San Francisco/Transbay Transit to San Jose Extension 7 Redwood City 5 Center 6 & Extension to Downtown SF/ Mountain Milpitas Transbay Transit Center View Palo Alto 7. Caltrain/Express Service 7 Caltrain: Express Service Sunnyvale Santa Clara San San Santa Clara 8 Jose 8. SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) Mateo Cupertino County 9 County 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 OVERVIEW of TRANSIT SYSTEM
    1 Chapter 1 which SP operated the service, but state and local OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT SYSTEM government agencies subsidized and adminis- tered it. Besides contract administration, Caltrans’ 1.1 BRIEF HISTORY responsibilities included planning, marketing, customer service, engineering and design, fare and Railroad service along the San Francisco Peninsula schedule setting, and performance monitoring. The has a long and storied history and has existed, in commuter service was renamed Caltrain. some form, since 1863. The railroad line, one of the oldest in California, was fi rst proposed in 1851 to connect the booming trade center of San Francis- co and the fi rst state capital of California, San Jose. Ground for the railroad was not broken until May 1861, when construction of the line began at San Francisquito Creek, on the Santa Clara-San Mateo county line. By October 1863, regular service be- gan between San Francisco and Mayfi eld (now the California Avenue station in Palo Alto). The con- struction of the line to San Jose was completed in January 1864, and two trains began operating daily between San Francisco and San Jose. Prior to Caltrain’s current ownership, passenger rail ridership on the Peninsula was at its peak in the In 1987, representatives of the City and County mid-1940s, when more than 9.54 million patrons of San Francisco, the San Mateo County Transit rode the train annually. However, as the cost of District (“District”) and the Santa Clara County operating the Peninsula commuter rail service in- Transit District, now the Santa Clara County Valley creased, and the number of riders began to decline, Transportation Authority (VTA), began the effort to the former Southern Pacifi c Railroad (SP) began to create the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board phase out its less patronized trains, and by the mid- (JPB) to transfer administrative responsibility for 1970s sought to discontinue passenger rail service.
    [Show full text]