Dumbarton Rail Corridor (DRC)
News & Views & Facts
|
Purpose:
The Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project (DRCP) is a Bay area regional initiative whose purpose is to offer a transit alternative for East Bay commuters to travel to their workplaces on the Peninsula.
Scheme:
The DRCP scheme is to rebuild a trans-Bay rail service from the East Bay to the Peninsula utilizing the currently abandoned rail line which parallels the Dumbarton Bridge at the South end of the Bay. The DRCP is structured as seven segments (A-G) which can be approached from a phased standpoint or as a whole.
Status:
The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Dumbarton Rail has been drafted but not yet released for public comment. As of March 2010 the date for publication & release for public comment is still under discussion by the Dumbarton Policy Advisory Committee. When the Draft is published the public and others will have only 30 days to review what will likley be a very complex document.
Associated Projects
There are other rail related projects to which the Dumbarton Rail project is linked. They are: Bay area Regional Rail Plan; Altamont Corridor Project; Capitol Corridor Project ( Please see the separate page on this project on Unity) and High Speed Rail. It is sufficient to say that overall the City of Fremont and Niles in particular are potentially impact by large scale, complex set of rail related initiatives.
Points of Contact in Fremont:
Two Fremont Citizens (Mike Dubinsky & Tim Pitsker) serve as advisors to Mayor Wasserman and have been appointed to the Citizen's Advisory Panel for the DRCP. Council person Anu Natajaran is the liaison to the Dumbarton Policy Advisory Committee.
|
|
|
Links
|
The official site
|
The San Mateo County Transportation Authority WEB page |
|
| |
|
Metropolitan Transportation Commissions Regional Rail Plan
|
| -- mentions Dumbarton Rail in some detail |
|
| |
|
Union City Intermodal Station
|
| The DRC is integral to the long term success of the Union City Intermodal Station. In reviewing the material associated with the UC Intermodal Station it is necessary to click on Archives and drill down to the Documents associated with the Final Environmental Inpact Report from February 2006. Contained in the Archived materials are the letters and comments from Fremont City & Citizens raising their concerns about the impacts of the project as well as the responses. Please note that there is a separate Topic established for the Intermodal Station since it was processed under a separate entity and has its own Environmental Impact Report. |
|
|
|
Background Materials
|
7 May 2010 Policy Advisory Committee Mtg Notes
Some important points which I took away from this meeting:
- The initiative by Capitol Corridor to obtain financing, independent of Dumbarton Rail, to build “Segment G” of the overall Dumbarton Rail plan continues to move forward. If it is successful whatever money is spent on it reduces the overall cost of the DRC Project. I have posted the Dec 2009 CC plan for Capitol Corridor's negotiating with the UPRR for the Segment G right of way (ROW) on the Capitol Corridor Development page . That alone is projected to cost over $800,000.
- Capitol Corridor could have their money for Segment G before 2010 is over if all the pieces fall into place.
- The DRC project team will be attempting to design an alternate approach which will increase projected ridership and make the DRC desirable as a transit project. It appears however that the only people championing the project are the two people who started doing so circa 1990 and have yet to convince the traveling public that it will resolve travel problems. The few public representatives who speak at the meetings ask for expanded bus service.
- Anu Natarajan of Fremont asked about additional public input at this time. The project team said none is planned. That question was very pertinent because if the plan is modified to somehow make DRC essential to High speed rail or the Altamont corridor program then the DRC plan may need to be re scoped with the public.
|
|
|
7 May DRC PP Presentaion Slides
To be used in conjunction with Mtg Notes posted in this section
|
|
|
|
Citizen's Advisory Panel Meeting Notes (unofficial) 29 Apr 10
Please read these notes in conjunction with the PP Slide presentation that is also posted as a Background document.
|
|
|
|
Dumbarton Rail PAC Handouts 18 Dec 2009
These are the background materials provided to members of the Dumbarton Rail Policy Advisory Committee for the 18 Dec 2009 Meeting. They include a 18 Dec 2009 Technical Analysis Memo from the Dumbarton Progect staff to the PAC explaining what they need to do to modify the EIR/EIS to build in changes which account for how Dumbarton Rail needs to fit with Regional rail, Altamont Corridor Rail and the High Speed Rail projects. . This will take them 6-9 months.
|
|
|
|
Dumbarton Rail Status Report - February 2010
In this Project Status report from the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority two points are notable:
1. The EIR/EIS has been delayed and no publication date is set
2. The ridership projections have declined for the project.
|
|
|
|
Federal Register Notice
The November 2006 Federal Government announcement of the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the DRCP.
|
|
|
|
Presentation Slides from 18 Dec 09 PAC Meeting
These slides were used in a presentation to the Dumbarton Rail Policy Advisory Committee. A slide depicting the timing of completion of the EIR/EIS for Dumbarton Rail near the end is important because it shows how the process will be extended in time based on the nature and scope of possible changes to the plan.
|
|
|
|
Reference Points for the DRC
A Whitepaper describing facts / points and observations about the DRCP with emphasis on Fremont related aspects.
|
|
|
|
Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report
|
|
|
|
Committees - The Dumbarton Policy Committee – Provides direction and some governance for the project. Is composed of representatives from each of the funding entities and the jurisdictions through which the DRC passes. The names and affiliations for the members is found on the Dumbarton Rail WEB page listed above. For Fremont the representative is Mayor Bob Wasserman.
The Citizen’s Advisory Panel (CAP) – Provide community input and information, identifies public issues, makes recommendations for Panel review of public issues. The Cap is also supposed to act as a community liaison for the PAC. For Fremont the members of the CAP are:1) Tim Pitsker, Montecito Drive and 2) Mike Dubinsky, Posada Way. Fremont is looking for a third person to serve as an alternate CAP member. Project Management Team – Composed of staff from SamTrans, MTC and consultants hired to develop the documentation necessary to move the project forward. Technical Advisory Committee - Composed of expert technical staff from the cities and organizations which are involved with the DRC project. Fremont has a representative from its Transportation Department.
The Policy Committee meets every two-three months on the last Tuesday Meetings usually last 2-3 hours and are open to the public CAP Meetings are scheduled to occur the Wednesday before the Policy Committee meets. CAP meetings last 2 hours and are open to the public.
|
Discussion
 View All by Date
|
|
General
|
| |
Civil Grand Jury Makes Inquiry Into DRCP
|
|
|
June 14, 2008 - The following link takes you to the Fremont Bulletin Article commenting on the Grand Jury inquiry into funding of Dumbarton Rail http://www.fremontbulletin.com/local/ci_9566277May 2008 In May 2008 A Civil Grand Jury in Santa Clara County issued a report on their inquiry into the Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project. In part their objective was to determine if the project was necessary, feasible, and worthy of funding by the County authority - The VTA. In sum the Grand Jury felt that there were serious questions that needed to be answered before full funding by the County was authorized. The Report has been posted on this page for information.
|
|
Posted - 06/05/08 5:23pm
by Mike Dubinsky,
updated or replied 06/14/08 1:24pm
|
| |
Lawsuit Filed to Prevent Funds from Being transferred to BART from Dumbarton Rail
|
|
|
From the Transbay Blog 05 march 09 Lawsuit Challenges the Warm Springs Funding SwapBART announced in February 2009 that it was moving forward on a $225 million contract to construct the subway portion of its planned extension to Warm Springs, which will tunnel under Central Park in Fremont. The 5.4-mile extension south of the existing Fremont terminal station will be the first stage of BART to Silicon Valley. Furthermore, VTA has announced that notwithstanding the passage of 2008 Measure B in Santa Clara County, BART to Silicon Valley will still be built in phases — and that the agency only intends to apply for federal New Starts funding to build BART as far as Berryessa Station. This proposed first phase would include only two of the six proposed stations and would completely postpone the expensive subway tunnel under Downtown San Jose. In the meantime, though, an additional wrinkle has developed. As we have mentioned before, in order to complete the funding portfolio for Warm Springs, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission diverted $91 million of Regional Measure 2 funds to Warm Springs, away from Dumbarton Rail, on the ground that the Warm Springs project was ready to go, but that Dumbarton was not yet ready. This decision has resulted in Dumbarton Rail being postponed indefinitely. Furthermore, the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority approved an over $220 million contribution to Warm Springs. These two contributions, combined, sum up to about one-third of the total project cost for Warm Springs. A lawsuit has now been filed against MTC and ACTIA, protesting the legality of both MTC’s swap of funds and ACTIA’s contribution to the Warm Springs extension. The challenge was filed by former BART Directors Sherman Lewis and Roy Nakadegawa, along with TRANSDEF. (TRANSDEF is a local transportation, environmental, and smart growth advocacy group that has quarreled with MTC over updates to the Regional Transportation Plan. TRANSDEF has also in the past year filed a lawsuit against the California High-Speed Rail Authority concerning the Altamont-Pacheco route alignment dispute, and again for recount of votes on 2008 Measure B, the sales tax for BART to Silicon Valley.)The Warm Springs challenge is based on two primary arguments. One argument centers on ACTIA’s obligation under Alameda County’s 2000 Measure B. In particular, ACTIA’s Expenditure Plan states that construction funds for Warm Springs may not be used “until full funding for the rail connection to Santa Clara County is assured.” As we reported earlier this week, VTA will apply this year for $750 million of New Starts money from the Federal Transit Administration, in order to build the segment from Warm Springs to Berryessa. These federal dollars account for almost one-third of the cost of the Berryessa extension, and so the complaint filed by TRANSDEF argues that this chunk of money should not be deemed to be “assured” until the federal government actually commits to providing it. Firm financial commitment from the federal government would occur only later, upon execution of a Full Funding Grant Agreement.The second argument concerns the level of flexibility that MTC has to shift bridge toll revenue between projects. Both Warm Springs and Dumbarton Rail are projects within the Regional Traffic Relief Plan, and thus both are eligible to receive RM2 funds. In addition, MTC is authorized to shift funding between RM2 projects if it determines that a certain project is unrealistic. However, if such funding is shifted, it must be shifted to another project “within the same corridor.” In this case, funding was shifted from Dumbarton, a legitimate transbay corridor, to Warm Springs, which does not lie along a bridge corridor. The two projects serve different purposes. Dumbarton Rail would add an additional east-west transbay rail link; along with a planned intermodal rail/bus hub in Union City, Dumbarton Rail would enhance connectivity for several regional rail services (BART, Caltrain, Amtrak, and ACE) that currently operate in a disjointed fashion in the South Bay. Warm Springs, on the other hand, is a single-station north-south stub extension that would exacerbate BART’s current difficulty with transbay capacity, but without the benefit of enhanced regional connectivity.Dumbarton Rail alignment; courtesy of BayRail Alliance.Warm Springs and Dumbarton are in the same general region within the Bay Area, but the relevant question to ask is whether they are “within the same corridor.” If they are, then MTC acted within its discretion by shifting $91 million from Dumbarton to Warm Springs. These two projects will clearly have different effects on transit effectiveness in the region. But a nuance here is that the objective of collecting RM2 bridge toll revenue in the first place was to implement projects that would relieve traffic congestion. It seems then that a reasonable interpretation of “same corridor” boils down to asking whether a certain transit project would have the effect of relieving congestion within the “same corridor” as another transit project. Seen in that light, the correct question to ask is not necessarily whether Warm Springs and Dumbarton are themselves positioned within the same corridor, but rather, whether they would both mitigate congestion in the same corridor. A strictly literal reading of the language “same corridor” seems to suggest that MTC acted in error by transferring the funds; but the latter interpretation weighs more favorably on the side of MTC.The relief sought in this challenge is an injunction, to withdraw the funding allocations to the Warm Springs extension.
|
|
Posted - 03/12/09 12:55pm
by Mike Dubinsky |
| |
Dumbarton Rail - A project looking for a reason
|
|
|
I have been attending meetings on the Dumbarton Rail since late 2006. The project itself has been on the books since the early 1990's. A small number of rail aficionados have been promoting the project as a fix all for getting east bay and central valley employees to their workplaces in the more expensive peninsula communities. After the 29 April Citizen's Advisory Panel meeting several thought came to mind:
|
|
Continued »
|
|
Posted - 04/30/10 2:22pm
by Mike Dubinsky |
| |
|
|
Impact on Niles
|
| |
Impacts on the Niles Neighborhoods
|
|
|
The impacts on Niles include increased train traffic, significant change in the alignment of train traffic, noise, vibration, air pollution, traffic impacts at at-grade crossings to name a few. For example according to the Project Study Report the number of trains that use the Oakland Subdivision trackage which runs behind the Hacienda Gardens and Rancho Arroyo neighborhoods would increase from approx 6 to 250 trains / week. These would all be passenger trains. For the Niles Subdivision trackage which runs close to Mission Blvd. and across Nursery Ave. the number of trains would decrease from 92 to 61 trains / week however they would all be freight. While not specifically in Niles the Centerville trackage through central Fremont would increase from 118 to 257 trains / week.
|
|
Continued »
|
|
Posted - 02/08/08 11:38am
by Mike Dubinsky,
updated or replied 01/22/10 8:35am
|
| |
|
|
Impact on Fremont
|
| |
City Of Fremont's Review to Date
|
|
|
The Staff of the City of Fremont have been following the DRCP and the Union City Intermodal Station since at least 2003. On six occasions they have written letters commenting on environmental concerns and direct impacts they see occurring based on the plans that have been proposed. They have taken positions in opposition to elements of the plan which were not in conformance with Fremont's General plan and have successfully lobbied for elimination of certain aspects which adversely impact Fremont Residents or for mitigations to minimize adverse impacts on residents. The six letters are published as Background Materials on this page. Fremont continues to monitor the evolution of the DRCP. The neighborhoods which appear to have been most involved to date have been Riverwalk, Hacienda Gardens, Rancho Arroyo, however a larger segment of the City will be impacted.
|
|
Posted - 02/08/08 11:26am
by Mike Dubinsky,
updated or replied 02/08/08 3:28pm
|
| |
|
|
|
