Dumbarton Rail Meeting - San Mateo County Transportation Authority

Transcription

Dumbarton Rail Meeting
Friday May 29, 2015
2:30 -4:00 pm
San Mateo County East Palo Alto Government Center
2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto
Council Chamber
Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Chairperson Comments
3. Review Summary Minutes of February 27, 2015 Meeting *
4. Report of the Citizens Advisory Panel
5. Dumbarton Bus Service Update (Der) *
6. Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Advisory Committee Request for Information
a. Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Map *
b. Cost estimate and process for re-starting environmental review process (Lafebre) *
i.
NEPA/CEQA for the entire rail corridor
ii.
CEQA only for the entire rail corridor
iii.
CEQA only for the West Bay segment
c. Request to SMCTA and Alameda CTC for funding support (Chan) **
d. Alameda County Transportation Commission - Measure BB Eligible Uses (ACTC)
e. Comments sent to Mayor Dutra-Vernaci regarding Dumbarton Rail Project *
7. Menlo Park planning efforts in the vicinity of the Dumbarton Rail Corridor (Nagaya)
* Attached
** To be emailed out prior to May 29, 2015 meeting
Link to Google Map Directions
Agenda Item 3
Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Minutes
Meeting:
DRC Policy Advisory Committee
Date:
February 27, 2015
Location:
City of Union City
34009 Alvarado –Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587
Time:
Meeting Start: 2:35 pm
Meeting Adjourn: 5:05 pm
Notes Prepared By:
Shirley Rosales
Issue Date:
May 21, 2015
Attendees (sign-in sheet attached)
Policy Committee Members
Project Staff
Carol Dutra-Vernaci, ACTC (Chair) –Union
April Chan, PCJPB
City
Hilda Lafebre, PCJPB
Alan Nagy, ACTC- Newark
Howard Der, AC Transit
Rick Jones, ACTC- Fremont
Robert Del Rosario, AC Transit
Diane Howard, SMCTA- Redwood City
Shirley Rosales, PCJPB
Kirsten Keith, SMCTA- Menlo Park
Tom Blalock, CCJPA
Members of the Public
Please refer to the attached sign-in sheet.
Agenda Item No.
1. Call to Order
Mayor Carol Dutra-Vernaci, PAC Chair, called the meeting to order at 2:35 pm.
2. Roll Call
Six members were in attendance. Quorum achieved.
3. Chairperson’s Comments
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci thanked everyone present.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci commented on the importance of the meeting and the realization by those
present of the East-West Bay gap in transportation services between in the Dumbarton Corridor and
although a very challenging situation we are attempting to take gradual steps until we achieve a more
permanent solution.
4. Public Comment
No public comments.
5. Consent Calendar
Minutes of the October 24, 2014 meeting were approved unanimously:
Motion to approve by Kirsten Keith-Menlo Park
 Motion seconded by Al Nagy- Newark
 All in favor
Page 1 of 7
Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Minutes - February 27, 015
6. Report of the Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP)
Tim Pitsker (CAP Chair) reported on the CAP member’s discussions at their February 18, 2015
meeting and informed the following:
 Although there was no vote taken, the members of the CAP are generally very supportive of
doing an east-west rail project and continuing to pursue funding.
7. Information Items
A. New PAC Composition
April Chan, representing PCJPB staff support to the DR PAC, reported on the PAC members’
vote at the October 24, 2014 meeting to reconstitute its membership structure by reducing from
thirteen to seven members; as well as the need to consider next steps moving forward wherein
described in the memo to the PAC dated February 19, 2015 (Attachment #1).




In 2004 the PAC was formed to provide oversight and policy advice during the project
development and the EIR process on behalf of the funding partners.
JPB prepared a draft EIS/EIR document. However, this NEPA/CEQA process has been put
on hold and JPB is no longer working on this environmental review process. As result, JPB
cannot longer provide continued staff support and coordination for these meetings or provide
any additional technical consultant support for the above referenced process. The PAC
needs to consider an appropriate governance structure given that the cities along the DRC
project corridor are highly interested in continuing in advocating the project.,
This project was assigned to JPB as the lead agency by the San Mateo County Transit
Authority (SMCTA)--one of the four original funding partners. As the lead agency, we must
report to the SMCTA Board on the status of the project and its various committees.
At the previous meeting, the PAC requested Project staff to provide an estimate of time and
costs for supporting the DRC committee meetings and coordination. The following is the
information responding to the PAC request:
o Staff supports three different committees: PDT, CAP and PAC
o Staff averages around 60 hours per DRC Project committee work which add up to 200+
hours per year, depending on the number (2-4) of meetings per year.
o The estimated cost for this JPB support effort is $20,000 to $30,000 per year. The cost
covers support to the three committees by three JPB staff members. The support
includes: meeting coordination and logistics, preparing meeting minutes and agenda
packets, materials, electronic communication, website support, attending meetings,
assisting committee members/follow-up communication and research, etc. This cost does
not include consultant support for any technical studies to review other options, seek
advocacy and additional sources of funding, or advance the environmental review
process that is on-hold.
Discussion/comments summary:
 The environmental process that was initiated and resulted in preparing a draft EIS/EIR
document is necessary to fulfill the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
 The Menlo Park representative is interested in looking into segmenting the project to cover
the area from Menlo Park to Redwood City, which would not include the bridge. The
representative requested information on what it would take to get this segment
environmentally cleared
o Staff indicated they can provide an estimate for implementing the required environmental
review process, based on the process developed for the entire DRC project.
 Menlo Park representative thanked staff for providing the committee with the project funding
sources and the status of the funding.
 Menlo Park representative also requested staff to provide a roadmap of how we can get the
project back on track by segmenting the project based on available funds.
Page 2 of 7







The PAC would like to consider constructing the Dumbarton Rail project in phases and based
on the resulting improvements, gaining support and funding to continue towards completion
of the project.
The PAC feels that moving forward it is important to figure out the level of staff support
needed and the funding source for the staff work. One consideration is to figure out if the
cities/agencies can share the costs.
Menlo Park representative expressed the need to update the ridership projection study
performed for the Dumbarton Corridor by the project consultant in 2011 using the C/CAG
Travel Forecast and Ridership model, which has been approved by MTC.
o An estimate of the consultant cost was requested to update the necessary elements of
the analysis completed as part of the environment process for the three rail alternatives.
PAC Chair inquired if the Draft EIR/EIS document could be released, at a minimum with the
six cities connected to the project.
o A. Chan clarified that the Draft environmental document has not made available to
anybody. Project staff cannot release the environmental document until the Final Draft
EIR/EIS is released to the public.
o As requested by Menlo Park representative, project staff was only able to share elements
of the study in which she was interested.
A. Chan added that in terms of the three alternatives included in the environmental
document, we looked at rail service from Union City to Redwood City. Regardless of the
option in the project analysis, the rail goes over the bridge. There was no option that included
only rail operations at either the East or West Bay sections only. Based on which one of the
three rail alternatives, the cost of the project in 2011 was estimated between $700 and 800+
million. The estimated cost of the project and the lack of a robust funding plan was the reason
to stop the environmental review process until new and additional sources of funding were
identified. A. Chan shared that on the west side of the corridor, the San Mateo County Transit
District staff has been actively working with Menlo Park staff and Facebook on working on
short range transportation solutions to some of the issues the area is experiencing.
Fremont representative inquired if one of the short term transportation solutions involves rail
service on the west side. A. Chan shared that a Stanford Graduate student, Jillian, has been
talking with staff about a rail alternative in the west on an existing freight line and more
informally it’s our understanding she has been speaking with Facebook about possible
providing funding. However, there are a lot of logistical issues in providing a commuter rail
alternative in the west bay.
PAC Chair shared that she learned that the Federal Department of Transportation has loans
available for rail projects. Staff pointed out that in order to access Federal funding, we would
need to finalize the environmental review process; however, the environmental review
process could not be finalized because we did not have a solid funding plan. The Federal
government does not fund 100% of the project costs.
o Kirsten Keith from Menlo Park requested staff inform the committee if the draft
environmental review document currently on hold can be released to be used to proceed
with just a segment of the project, such as from Menlo Park to Redwood City. Ms. Keith
also requested to provide an estimate for the cost of just that segment since it could be
funded with public-private partnerships as it would cost much less than the entire DRC
alignment. H. Lafebre from JPB responded that the draft environmental document was
prepared for the entire DRC project and cannot be segmented. The segment from
Redwood City to Menlo Park will be a different project that does not include the bridge,
therefore requiring its own environmental review process. . The RWC to Menlo Park that
could be considered the first phase of the DRC project, will have to follow the
environmental CEQA process if no federal funding is involved. The consultant team
would have to prepare a different environmental document and implement the
environmental review process per CEQA. This effort will require additional funds to cover
the necessary consultant team efforts. Menlo Park representative showed interest in
assessing how we can phase the Dumbarton Rail Project to and begin from Redwood
City to Menlo Park as it would be easier to secure funding and then continue on to the
next phases of the rail project until completion.
Page 3 of 7
PAC members also want to make the appeal to the funding partners that no more funding
is stripped away from the project, such as for Caltrain electrification project. Although
they are supportive of this project as well.
Menlo Park representative expressed her interest in exploring how we can use the
environmental and design work that has already been done for the Dumbarton Rail project
and inquired what would be the estimated cost to complete the environmental review process
to meet NEPA and CEQA requirements.
o H. Lafebre estimated the cost at approximately $300,000-400,000
o It was proposed that the project complete the EIR/EIS process, including 15-20% Design,
and publish the environmental document so that we can then look into phasing the
project and completing it in segments. Menlo Park representative feels the project has
sufficient money to complete the environmental process.
o Menlo Park representative requested that staff provide the roadmap to completing the
project to all the members of the PAC and as well as the information that was shared with
Menlo Park representative as it is very informative and would give the PAC members a
very good understanding of the project—scope, costs, etc.
Menlo Park representative inquired as to whether the environmental document could be
completed without the NEPA process and just focusing on the CEQA requirements.
o H. Lafebre explained that the environmental process has to be performed to comply with
Federal and State environmental requirements
o The fact that the cost of the Dumbarton Rail project, around $800+ million cannot be
funded hundred percent by State and local funds, requires accessing Federal funds and
therefore complying with the environmental requirements of NEPA and CEQA. Even if
the project were to proceed with only the CEQA process, some Federal environmental
regulations must be complied with.
o The project could be phased; however that would still require the CEQA process. It’s
possible to begin with Phase 1 ( for example, rail line from Menlo Park to Redwood City)
of the project and use some of the information contained in the environmental work that
has already been completed in preparation of a new document specific to that Phase 1
project.
o Menlo Park representative inquired what it would take to complete the environmental
process for a specific Phase 1 project (Menlo Park to Redwood City). Staff indicated that
it would depend on the project elements/scope—to determine the level of the CEQA
process. Project staff could prepare an estimate as to what requirements would be
necessary and then a budget needs to be assigned for the consultant team to implement
and complete the CEQA process. The CEQA only scenario is if the construction costs for
the Phase 1 segment is hundred percent funded with State and/or local funds. Nikki
Nagaya, Menlo Park staff, informed the PAC that City of Menlo Park is currently going
through Connect Menlo as part of the city’s General Plan Update and circulation process.
There has been renewed interest and support from the community for activating the rail
corridor. The Menlo Park City Council will be reviewing the Connect Menlo program soon.
o There was general consensus that a lot of important work has been done relevant to the
Dumbarton Rail Project on both side of the corridor and it’s a matter of looking at all the
options that we have available to keep moving forward with the project.
o


Public Comments:
 David Schonbrunn, President, Transdef.org, expressed support for the project:
o Have worked for many years in terms of recognizing potential for rail service all the way
to the San Joaquin Valley, over the Dumbarton Bridge and into San Francisco, but
believes that the project has not properly conveyed the benefits and their scale. He does
not consider the DRC large enough. Transdef considers MTC to be the problem as they
have been hostile to this project and have taken every opportunity to put roadblocks and
to strip funds from the project budget.
o Transdef considers the Dumbarton Rail project as the most important project from the
standpoint of rail advocates, in terms of responding to climate change and traffic relief
congestion. Transdef is very supportive of the PAC’s efforts in advocating for this project.
Page 4 of 7






Jim Bigelow provided additional information on the San Mateo County Transportation
Authority Measure A, noting that there are enough funds to cover for the environmental
review process either for the entire project or the Phase 1 segment.
Richard Brand, Palo Alto resident, expressed support for the Dumbarton Rail project
Jillian Kilby, Australian Civil Engineer and currently Stanford Business School Graduate
student, shared her ideas of implementing the Phase 1 segment of the DRC and how the
private sector can contribute not only to support the project but also to provide funding.
Andy Chow, spoke about his support to the DRC and the benefits that the project will bring to
the residents and employers of the Dumbarton corridor in both, the East and West bay.
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, expressed her support for the DRC project for the potential
relief to the existing congestion and lack of connectivity between the Peninsula and the East
Bay.
Barry Ferrier, CAP member expressed support to the DRC project and informed how the
cities from both sides of the Bay have worked over the past years on the advancement of this
project.
B. Alameda County Tri-City Meeting Update
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci, PAC Chair, summarized the meeting she attended in preparation for the
PAC meeting to discuss the $20 million authorized for the Dumbarton Corridor in the newly
passed Measure BB.
 The general feeling was that if there is not enough funding to afford the completion of the
Dumbarton Rail project then why even have the conversation.
 Most of the members of the cities in the east and west side of the corridor want to continue
discussion no matter what form of transportation solutions result in dealing with the traffic
congestion issues.
 Fremont representative at the meeting had expressed that the group should focus on the
current bus service. However the majority of the PAC members feel the buses don’t provide
enough relief as they are stuck in the same traffic as everyone else.
 Members expressed the DBROC needs elected official oversight.
 At this meeting, Art Dao expressed that he has not received responses to his email or phone
calls from his counterpart at the SMCTA to initiate discussions.
o Project staff reported they were not aware of this contact. A. Chan reported that she and
Joe Hurley, TA Director, have had communications in the past with Art Dao, but wasn’t
aware of more recent conversations/meetings. A. Chan will follow-up with staff.
o Mayor Dutra-Vernaci requested project staff to follow-up with Art Dao to help facilitate a
meeting between Alameda CTC staff and the SMCTA staff to discuss project funding
prior to the next PAC meeting.
 Some meeting participants at this meeting presented the idea of removing “rail” from the
Dumbarton Rail Project as many of these elected officials didn’t feel the rail project is a viable
solution.
 The consensus amongst the PAC members is as follows:
o That “rail” should remain as part of the project and that some of the $20 million funding
for the Dumbarton Corridor authorized in the BB Measure should be used to further the
east-west bay connection with the Dumbarton Rail project.
o Propose that Alameda CTC and SMCTA fund the project staff support and possible
additional studies by splitting costs 50/50.
Discussion/comments:
 Capital Corridor representative shared that six of 10 of the most congested transportation
corridors are in Alameda County and San Mateo County is experiencing increasing traffic
congestion as well. All projections indicate it is not going to get any better and elected
officials need to do whatever they can to continue to further these transportation projects that
will provide sustainable solutions. He supports the option of phasing the project to make the
building of this project more financially feasible.
 PAC Chair proposed that the elected officials from the Dumbarton Corridor start attending
MTC meetings to advocate support for the Dumbarton Rail project.
Page 5 of 7



Newark representative commented that all the funding for the Dumbarton Project has been
pulled out and feels that MTC was a major factor. Mayor Nagy inquired as to what can be
done moving forward to prevent additional money being taken away from the Dumbarton
project or given to another organization that doesn’t promote the rail across the bridge in the
Dumbarton Corridor. Secondly, the largest component of the Dumbarton Rail project is the
section of the bridge, which is not a sure term solution, which makes the idea of phasing the
project more feasible.
Redwood City representative introduced herself and recalled that she formerly served on the
PAC in 2009. D. Howard expressed she found the discussion very refreshing in that there is
much more support and optimism for the project. It’s important to look at different alternatives
and solutions to solving the present issues and moving the project forward. She further
cautioned that the citizens voted for the Dumbarton Rail, at least in San Mateo County the
Regional Measure 2 specifically included the rail project and she is afraid that we are not
maintaining transparency to our voters and we are at risk of losing more funding from the
project. D. Howard also expressed she needed to take back the items discussed at the PAC
meeting to the rest of the Redwood City Council members and make sure they are in
agreement before she makes decisions/commitments to this project on behalf of Redwood
City. She also expressed the importance for members of the PAC and citizens to be present
at the SMCTA, MTC and other funding partner board meetings to express their interest and
support.
The PAC chair expressed her agreement about voter transparency and was not in agreement
with the “bait and switch” tactic often used and assured that she would not support that
method for any voted measure funding. Mayor Dutra-Vernaci also expressed her interest in
attending the SMCTA Board meeting.
Public Comments:
 Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain: Inquired if there are processes for reassign the funding
authorized under the 2004 Measure A funding--designated for the west bay station work—to
st
the Dumbarton Rail Project to begin work on 1 phase of the project (rail service between
Menlo Park and Redwood City). Perhaps that could be fixed in a 2016 Measure. She also
pointed out the importance of busing as supplementary to providing transportation
connectivity in the Dumbarton Corridor.
 Jim Bigelow—At the MTC meeting when the $90 million loan to BART was forgiven and
County Supervisor Scott Haggerty committed himself, on the record, to be very clear that
Dumbarton Rail Project was next, after the Caltrain Electrification project was underway.
Supporters of the Dumbarton Rail Project, in good will, supported the forgiveness of the loan
and in support of Fremont and now deserve the support of the East Bay elected officials in
advocating and supporting our project. Mr. Bigelow also pointed out that the PAC members
may address the SMCTA Board during public comments; the TA Board meets the first
Thursday of every month at 5 p.m.
 Roland Lebrun—fully supports phasing the project. He also mentioned the possibility of
applying for a categorical exemption for the Menlo Park-Redwood city project phase as there
is already a freight rail line. However, staff clarified the CEQA process would still need to be
followed.
C. Dumbarton Express Bus Service Update
Howard Der from AC Transit provided an update on the Dumbarton Express Service (Attachment
#2):
 In response to the PAC member’s question regarding governing structure for the Dumbarton
Express Bus service, the agreement with the DBROC, is that the lead agency has
governance and administration, in this case AC Transit is the administrator and the AC
Transit Board is the governing body.
 Dumbarton received four retired buses from SamTrans which will help with reliability. The
new 16 buses are in the procurement process.
 The 3-position bike racks are not approved by the California Highway Patrol for the particular
buses in which the bike rack will be mounted, there are issues related to positioning in
Page 6 of 7
relation to headlights. AC Transit staff is working on a “white paper” to see what it will take
for CHP to sign-off on the racks.
Discussion/comments:
 A member of the public suggested AC Transit staff look into the Golden Gate Transit which
uses similar buses and they place bikes underneath the luggage bay. Howard indicated that
AC Transit does use this method for Transbay service; however this will not work for the Palo
Alto area fleet due to trees, etc. They may be able to work on the fleet that goes out to the
Oracle industrial park area, but they need to look into it.
8. Action Items:
A motion was made by Menlo Park representative, Kirsten Keith:
The DRC PAC recommends that JPB Dumbarton Rail Project staff prepare and provide the PAC:
1. A cost estimate budget to finalize the environmental review process including the EIS/EIR
document for the Dumbarton Rail project as it has been conceived for the entire corridor. The
request includes an estimate for the on-hold NEPA/CEQA process and another estimate for the
CEQA process only under the assumption that no federal funding will be sought.
2. A cost estimate budget for the environmental review process only for the Phase 1 segment of the
corridor from Menlo Park to Redwood City.
o The Redwood City representative, Diane Howard, added for the record the need to to discuss
between the two cities involved in this segment of the project (RWC and Menlo Park), about
the environmental review process The representative things this is necessary to see if these
cities are in agreement and that this is something they want to do.

Motion Seconded by Newark representative, Al Nagy

Motion abstained by Fremont representative, Rick Jones

Motion Approved by remaining five members
9. Next Steps:





A. Chan will take the lead in contacting Art Dao from the Alameda CTC to schedule a meeting to
discuss shared funding for project staff support and additional consultant costs.
A. Chan is to work on including a Dumbarton Rail Project update to the SMCTA Board agenda in
the next few months
H. Lafebre will be preparing a cost estimate budget to finalize the EIS/EIR as the Dumbarton Rail
project has been conceived for the entire corridor
H. Lafebre will be preparing a cost estimate budget for only the segment of the corridor from
Menlo Park to Redwood City.
Some of the PAC members plan on attending the next SMCTA Board meeting on March 5, 2015.
10. Correspondence
There was no correspondence.
11. Requests from Members
There are no requests.
12. Next Meeting

Friday, May 29, 2015 at 2:30pm in City of East Palo Alto Council Chamber
13. Adjourn
Meeting adjourned 5:05 p.m.
Page 7 of 7
Attachment 1
02.27.15 minutes
Attachment 2
02.27.15 minutes
Alameda Contra Costa Transit District
MEMORANDUM
Date:
February 6, 2015
To:
Dumbarton Rail Project Development Team
Dumbarton Rail Citizens Advisory Panel
Dumbarton Rail Policy Advisory Committee
From:
Howard Der, Dumbarton Express Contract Service Administrator
Re:
3rd & 4th Quarter CY 2014 Dumbarton Express Operations Update
The following memorandum provides a current status and overview of the Dumbarton
Express bus operation for the 3rd and 4th Quarters of Calendar Year 2014 (equivalent
to first half of Fiscal Year 2014/2015), as well as an update on bus fleet enhancement
activities, bicycle racks, and the service expansion study mentioned during the October
2014 Dumbarton Rail stakeholder meetings.
OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE
The total Dumbarton Express ridership for the 3rd Quarter of CY 2014 (July-September
2014) was 81,471 compared to 85,701 for the corresponding period in CY 2013,
translating to a decrease of approximately 5.2%. For the 4th Quarter of CY 2014
(October-December 2014), total Dumbarton Express ridership was 79,225 versus
75,186 for the corresponding period in CY 2013, representing an increase of 5.4%.
For the first six months of Fiscal Year 2014/2015 (July-December 2014), total ridership
was 160,696 as compared to 160,887 for the first six months of Fiscal Year 2013/2014.
Through the first six months of current FY 2014/2015, ridership has essentially
remained unchanged over FY 2013/2014 levels. The current combined average daily
ridership through the first six months of FY 2014/2015 is approximately 1,257 with
ridership split fairly evenly between Route DB and DB1. Table 1 below compares
ridership activity between the individual months between July and December for both
2013 and 2014.
To date, the Dumbarton Express is operating on budget. As set by MTC, the farebox
recovery ratio for Route DB should be 20% or better and the farebox recovery ratio for
Route DB1 should be 30% or better. Through the first six months of FY 2014/2015, the
farebox recovery ratio for Route DB was 27.0% and the farebox recovery ratio for Route
DB1 was 26.0%. AC Transit staff is currently working with MTC staff on strategies for
meeting the 30% farebox recovery ratio for Route DB1 by the end of FY 2014/2015.

1600 Franklin Street

Oakland, California

94612
Table 1
Dumbarton Express Ridership
3rd & 4th Quarter CY 2013 vs. 3rd & 4th Quarter CY 2014
December
November
October
September
August
July
Semiannual
3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total Fiscal
Year
CY Total
CY Total
Total Monthly Ridership CY 2014
28,415
26,485
26,571
30,450
25,307
23,468
81,471
79,225
160,696
Line DB Monthly Ridership CY 2014
14,877
13,370
13,049
15,395
12,803
12,101
41,296
40,299
81,595
Line DB1 Monthly Ridership CY 2014
13,538
13,115
13,522
15,055
12,504
11,367
40,175
38,926
79,101
1,292
1,261
1,265
1,324
1,332
1,067
1,273
1,241
1,257
28,520
30,552
26,629
29,702
23,995
21,489
85,701
75,186
160,887
15,092
15,822
13,701
15,250
12,294
11,385
44,615
38,929
83,544
13,428
14,730
12,928
14,452
11,701
10,104
41,086
36,257
77,343
Avg daily ridership CY 2013
1,296
1,389
1,331
1,291
1,200
1,023
1,339
1,171
1,255
Pct Change, Total Monthly Ridership CY 2014 vs CY 2013
-0.4%
-13.3%
-0.2%
2.5%
5.5%
9.2%
-4.9%
5.4%
-0.1%
Pct Change, Line DB Monthly Ridership CY 2014 vs CY 2013
-1.4%
-15.5%
-4.8%
1.0%
4.1%
6.3%
-7.4%
3.5%
-2.3%
Pct Change, Line DB1 Monthly Ridership CY 2014 vs CY 2013
0.8%
-11.0%
4.6%
4.2%
6.9%
12.5%
-2.2%
7.4%
2.3%
-0.4%
-9.2%
-5.0%
2.5%
11.0%
4.2%
-4.9%
5.9%
0.1%
Pct Change, Avg daily ridership CY 2014 vs CY 2013
BUS FLEET
As reported in the October 2014 meetings, AC Transit is leading the procurement of 16
buses to replace the oldest vehicles in the Dumbarton Express fleet using redirected
Dumbarton Rail RM-2 capital funds. AC Transit staff met with MV Transportation staff
to develop bus specifications in October 2014. Those specifications are now being
negotiated between AC Transit staff and representatives from Gillig.
Due to production backlog, the 16 buses will not enter Gillig’s production line until
December 2015. Delivery of the new buses will begin in the first quarter of 2016.
BIKE RACKS
AC Transit is continuing to explore the feasibility of three-position bike racks on the
current Dumbarton Express fleet. We anticipate purchasing these racks for the entire
fleet shortly. However, prior to committing to this purchase, AC Transit must ensure
that there are no safety issues associated with the larger rack relevant to blocking
vehicle headlights and loading/unloading bicycles. If feasible, AC Transit will purchase
these bike racks in the next quarter.
SERVICE EXPANSION STUDY
As reported in the October 2014 meetings, AC Transit applied for a Caltrans
Sustainable Communities grant to fund a study that would examine opportunities for
expanded Dumbarton Express bus service. The grant application in the amount of
approximately $221,000 was submitted to Caltrans on October 31, 2014. Grant award
announcements are anticipated in March 2015 and funds will be available for use by
July 2015.
It should be noted that various partners submitted letters of support for the grant
application. They included all the DBROC member agencies—BART, SamTrans,
Union City, and VTA—as well as the City of East Palo Alto and Facebook.
ATTACHMENT A
BACKGROUND
Effective December 2011, the Dumbarton Express began operating as a contracted
service. Under this arrangement, AC Transit fulfills the administrative and governance
functions and MV Transportation fulfills the operations and maintenance functions. The
term of the contract between AC Transit and MV Transportation is five (5) years.
The Dumbarton Bridge Regional Operations Consortium (DBROC) provides operational
oversight. DBROC membership consists of staff from AC Transit, BART, SamTrans,
Union City Transit, and VTA.
The Dumbarton Express is funded through RM-2 operating funds originally allocated to
Dumbarton Rail operations. MTC allocated slightly over $2.4 million for the Dumbarton
Express for FY 2014-2015.
The Dumbarton Express fleet consists of 20 Gillig Phantom high floor transit buses.
The buses have a suburban commuter layout with high-back seating and WiFi
connectivity.
The Dumbarton Express consists of two routes. Route DB operates all day from 5:22
AM to 8:51 PM between Union City BART and the Stanford Oval with 30-minute peak
frequency and 45-minute off-peak frequency. Route DB1 operates during the peak
period from 5:26 AM to 9:45 AM in the morning and 1:35 PM to 8:43 PM in the
afternoon between Union City BART and the Palo Alto Industrial Park area with 20minute peak frequency. Figure A.1 below depicts the Dumbarton Express route
structure in the East Bay and Figure A.2 below depicts the Dumbarton Express route
structure in the Peninsula.
Figure A.1
Dumbarton Express Route Structure-East Bay
Figure A.2
Dumbarton Express Route Structure-Peninsula
Agenda Item 5
Alameda Contra Costa Transit District
MEMORANDUM
Date:
May 15, 2015
To:
Dumbarton Rail Project Development Team
Dumbarton Rail Citizens Advisory Panel
Dumbarton Rail Policy Advisory Committee
From:
Howard Der, Dumbarton Express Contract Service Administrator
Re:
Revised 1st Quarter CY 2015 Dumbarton Express Operations Update
The following memorandum provides a current status and overview of the Dumbarton
Express bus operation for the 1st quarter of Calendar Year 2015 (equivalent to 3rd
quarter of Fiscal Year 2014/2015), as well as an update on various service and
contract-related issues.
OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE
The total Dumbarton Express ridership for the 1st Quarter of CY 2015 (January-March
2015) was 75,411 compared to 77,745 for the corresponding period in CY 2014,
translating to a decrease of approximately 3%. Much of this decrease can be directly
attributed to the introduction of Line AE-F by Stanford University in December 2014,
which closely mimics Route DB but with fewer intervening stops.
Line AE-F operates six westbound trips in the morning and five eastbound trips in the
evening. The service is primarily designed to accommodate early shift work, with five
out the six morning departures before 7:00 a.m. and four out of the five afternoon
departures before 5:00 p.m. By the end of 1st Quarter CY 2015, Line AE-F averaged
approximately 450 passengers per day.
For the first nine months of Fiscal Year 2014/2015 (July 2014-March 2015), total
ridership was 234,776 as compared to 238,632 for the first nine months of Fiscal Year
2013/2014. Through the first nine months of current FY 2014/2015, ridership has
slightly decreased compared to FY 13/14 levels (-1.6%). The current combined
average daily ridership through the first nine months of FY 2014/2015 is approximately
1,236 with ridership split fairly evenly between Route DB and DB1. Table 1 below
compares ridership activity for January, February, and March for both 2014 and 2015.
Through the 3rd Quarter of FY 2014/2015, the Dumbarton Express continues operate
on budget. As set by MTC, the farebox recovery ratio for Route DB should be 20% or

1600 Franklin Street

Oakland, California

94612
better and the farebox recovery ratio for Route DB1 should be 30% or better. Through
the first nine months of FY 2014/2015, the farebox recovery ratio for Route DB was
29.0% and the farebox recovery ratio for Route DB1 was 27.9%. To date, AC Transit
has presented Metropolitan Transportation Commission staff its proposed strategies for
meeting the 30% farebox recovery ratio for Route DB1. In addition, the average fare
amount used to calculate farebox recovery was recently refined and has already
contributed to an improved farebox recovery ratio over the previous quarter. AC Transit
is also working with VTA to adjust the reimbursement rate for VTA Eco Pass holders
who use the Dumbarton Express, as the current rate has been effective since 2002.
Table 1
Dumbarton Express Ridership
1st Quarter CY 2014 vs. 1st Quarter CY 2015
March
February
January
4th Quarter
CY Total
Fiscal Year
YTD
(July to
March)
25,739
23,368
26,304
75,411
234,776
12,961
11,858
13,232
38,051
119,016
12,778
11,510
13,072
37,360
115,760
1,226
1,230
1,196
1,217
1,236
26,788
24,083
26,874
77,745
238,632
13,664
12,336
13,851
39,851
123,395
13,124
11,747
13,023
37,894
115,237
1,218
1,268
1,280
1,255
1,255
Pct Change, Total Monthly Ridership CY 2015 vs CY 2014
-3.9%
-3.0%
-2.1%
-3.0%
-1.6%
Pct Change, Line DB Monthly Ridership CY 2015 vs CY 2014
-5.1%
-3.9%
-4.5%
-4.5%
-3.5%
Pct Change, Line DB1 Monthly Ridership CY 2015 vs CY 2014
-2.6%
-2.0%
0.4%
-1.4%
0.5%
0.7%
-3.0%
-6.6%
-3.0%
-1.5%
Pct Change, Avg daily ridership CY 2015 vs CY 2014
BUS FLEET
As previously reported, AC Transit is leading the procurement of 16 buses to replace
the oldest vehicles in the Dumbarton Express fleet using redirected Dumbarton Rail
Regional Measure 2 capital funds.
The first pre-production meeting between
representatives of AC Transit, MV Transportation, and Gillig LLC to review vehicle
options and specifications is scheduled for May 21.
BIKE RACKS
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) will not certify the Sportworks Apex 3-position
bicycle rack for use on the Gillig Phantom buses currently in the Dumbarton Express
fleet nor the Gillig Advantage buses on order due to headlight clearance issues (see
Figures 1 and 2 below). However, Governor Brown recently signed Assembly Bill 2707
into law, which allows public transit vehicles in the state of California to be equipped
with foldable bike racks that can carry up to three bicycles. AC Transit staff will
continue to explore the feasibility of this option on current and future DB Express buses
given the new bill and despite the concerns from CHP.
Figure 1
Standard 2-position Bicycle Rack mounted on Dumbarton Express Gillig Phantom Bus
Figure 2
Sportworks Apex 3-position Bicycle Rack mounted on WestCAT Gillig BRT LF Bus
SERVICE & OPERATIONS PLANNING
One of the most congested segments encountered by the Dumbarton Express is on
eastbound Highway 84 between Ardenwood and Interstate 880 during the afternoon
commute period.
The signaled intersection at Decoto Road/Highway 84 and
southbound Interstate 880 ramps is a major choke point and contributes to
unnecessary delay for eastbound passengers, especially those attempting to make
connections at Union City BART.
As a possible solution, AC Transit staff is examining routing the Dumbarton Express off
Decoto Road/Highway 84 in both directions between Fremont Boulevard and
Ardenwood. Instead, both the DB and DB1 would operate on Paseo Padre Parkway.
In addition to reducing both travel time and unnecessary delay, the proposed re-route
provides an opportunity to tap into new ridership markets in the residential areas on
either side of Paseo Padre.
The proposed re-route would eliminate two bus stops in each direction on Decoto Road
at Ozark River Way and Cabrillo Court/Cabrillo Drive. The Ozark River bus stops are
approximately 1000 feet away to the nearest alternative stops at Fremont Boulevard
and Decoto Road. As a result, only the passengers using the Cabrillo stops would be
negatively impacted. Automatic passenger counter data suggests less than 30
boardings and alightings occur at the Cabrillo stops; in contrast, almost 400 passengers
continue eastbound beyond Fremont Boulevard to points east along Decoto.
Staff is also examining trimming excess running time on reverse direction trips. For
example, staff has observed that some westbound trips in the afternoon wait at the
Ardenwood Park & Ride lot for several minutes in order to catch up to the schedule. To
reduce this unnecessary delay and cycle the buses to their westbound start-of-line
more expeditiously, the schedules for these types of trips for both the DB and DB1 will
be adjusted as necessary. Both the re-routing and schedule changes are expected to
be implemented in December 2015, with a public hearing if needed in November 2015.
SERVICE EXPANSION STUDY
AC Transit was unsuccessful in its attempt to win a Caltrans Sustainable Communities
grant to fund a study that would examine opportunities for expanded Dumbarton
Express bus service and corridor infrastructure improvements. However, staff is
examining other ways in which such a study could be funded, including match funding
from each of the DBROC members.
ATTACHMENT A
BACKGROUND
Effective December 2011, the Dumbarton Express began operating as a contracted
service. Under this arrangement, AC Transit fulfills the administrative and governance
functions and MV Transportation fulfills the operations and maintenance functions. The
term of the contract between AC Transit and MV Transportation is five (5) years.
The Dumbarton Bridge Regional Operations Consortium (DBROC) provides operational
oversight. DBROC membership consists of staff from AC Transit, BART, SamTrans,
Union City Transit, and VTA.
The Dumbarton Express is funded through RM-2 operating funds originally allocated to
Dumbarton Rail operations. MTC allocated slightly over $2.4 million for the Dumbarton
Express for FY 2014-2015.
The Dumbarton Express fleet consists of 20 Gillig Phantom high floor transit buses.
The buses have a suburban commuter layout with high-back seating and WiFi
connectivity.
The Dumbarton Express consists of two routes. Route DB operates all day from 5:22
AM to 8:51 PM between Union City BART and the Stanford Oval with 30-minute peak
frequency and 45-minute off-peak frequency. Route DB1 operates during the peak
period from 5:26 AM to 9:45 AM in the morning and 1:35 PM to 8:43 PM in the
afternoon between Union City BART and the Palo Alto Industrial Park area with 20minute peak frequency. Figure A.1 below depicts the Dumbarton Express route
structure in the East Bay and Figure A.2 below depicts the Dumbarton Express route
structure in the Peninsula.
Figure A.1
Dumbarton Express Route Structure-East Bay
Figure A.2
Dumbarton Express Route Structure-Peninsula
Overview of DRC Project
Agenda Item 6a.
Agenda Item 6b.
Memorandum
Date: May 29, 2015
To:
Interested City Representatives and other Members of the Dumbarton Rail Project
From: Hilda Lafebre, Caltrain
Re:
DRC- Cost Estimates to Proceed with Environmental Review Processes for
Various Scenarios
At the meeting of February 27th, you requested Caltrain staff to provide cost estimates for
environmental review process under three scenarios. We have worked with our environmental
consultant, and the following are cost estimates under three scenarios:
1) Update and Finalize NEPA/CEQA (EIS/EIR) Environmental Review Process for The DRC
Project As It Stood In 2012 (Redwood City to Union City) - The following updates and
steps will be required, at a minimum:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
Ridership forecasts
Traffic impact analysis
Air quality analysis
Land development
No-Build projects
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Graphics and figures
Water resources, sea level rise
Changes and coordination with Resource Agencies
FTA review and answer to comments
Public notices, meetings and answer to comments
Preparation of Final EIS/EIR
Board Certification
Approximate duration: 10 months
Total estimated cost, including consultant work and agency support: $480,000
2) Update and Finalize CEQA (EIR) Only Environmental Review Process for DRC Project
As It Stood In 2012 (Redwood City to Union City) - Since the DRC project will be
impacting navigable waters of the US which are under the jurisdiction of the USCG, a
Federal agency, the project is subject to similar NEPA federal environmental regulations
independent of the funding source. The following updates and steps will be required:
a. Ridership forecasts
b. Traffic impact analysis
c. Air quality analysis
Interested City Representatives and other Members of the Dumbarton Rail Project
May 29, 2015
Page 2 of 2
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
Land development
No-Build projects
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Graphics and figures
Water resources, sea level rise
Changes and coordination with Resource Agencies
Public notices, meetings and answer to comments
Preparation of Final EIR
Board Certification
3) CEQA Environmental Review Process (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) for
Redwood City - Menlo Park Rail Connector – This scenario assumes that impacts of this
rail connector can be mitigated to a less than significant level to support an IS/MND
clearance path for CEQA. The following tasks would be needed for a RWC-Menlo Park
IS/MND:
a. Develop new Service Plan and Concept-level Engineering: This rail connector
presents a very different focus than the transbay-oriented service and associated
longer trip times studied under the RWC-Union City project. There may be
insufficient room for the Menlo Park station to function as a terminal station;
therefore, a new storage/layover/turnaround area may be needed further to the
east of Menlo Park Station. A dedicated shuttle track will be needed along the
Caltrain mainline to RWC to avoid impacts to existing and future blended
system operations. Concept engineering of the shuttle track and RWC station
area should attempt to minimize business displacement impacts which could
trigger the need for an EIR. No cost estimates or duration are available for this
task.
b. IS/MND Preparation and Certification
i. Develop new Purpose and Need
ii. Traffic and Air quality impact analysis for the Peninsula only
iii. Noise analysis for revised service plan, additional mitigation
development to support MND requirements
iv. No- build projects
v. Socioeconomics and EJ
vi. Public notices, meeting and answer to comments
vii. Final MND
viii. Board Certification
Agenda Item 6c.
Agenda Item 6e.
Public Comments on DRC submitted to Mayor Carol Dutra-Vernaci
Message #1
-----Original Message----From: Carol Dutra-Vernaci [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:37 AM
To: Chan, April
Subject: FW: dumbarton rail
Comment below
Carol Dutra-Vernaci
Mayor, Union City
34009 Alvarado-Niles Rd.
[email protected]
510-675-5325
________________________________________
From: Susan Lempert [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 7:09 PM
To: Carol Dutra-Vernaci; Adina Levin
Subject: dumbarton rail
hope your committee will keep this important project alive. with facebook now located in
Menlo Park within spitting distance of the proposed DR and with all the additional automobile
traffic predicted for the bridge and the areas adjacent to the bridge on both sides of the bay it
would be fool hardy to abandon this project now, once the top choice of voters endorsing the
toll increase. sue lempert former member of MTC and former member of the dumbarton policy
advisory committee
Agenda Item 6e.
Message #2
To: Chan, April
Subject: FW: Dumbarton Rail Project
comment below
Carol Dutra-Vernaci
Mayor, Union City
[email protected]
510-675-5325
________________________________________
From: John Leikauf [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 4:10 PM
To: Carol Dutra-Vernaci
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Dumbarton Rail Project
Hello,
I am currently a resident of Menlo Park. I won't be able to come to the meeting this week but
read about it on the greencaltrain blog and wanted to write in support of transit on the
Dumbarton rail corridor. This project, from what I have read, would be far more cost effective
than BART extensions and would provide a transit option that is competitive with car travel
across the bay. A 10+ billion dollar second transbay tube is being debated while a rail bridge sits
completely unused connecting the East Bay with jobs on the peninsula! It's hard to understand
how this could be. Currently, the Dumbarton is a major bottle neck and traveling across the bay
by bus is slowed significantly by car traffic during commuting hours. I am a clinical fellow
currently working at Stanford University Medical Center and feel fortunate that there are bus
options, but a protected right of way for transit could make a major difference. Ideally this
could be commuter trains compatible with Caltrain that could proceed either up or down the
peninsula or at least transfer in Redwood City; bus rapid transit along protected rights of way
would be better than nothing.
Thanks,
John Leikauf
Agenda Item 6e.
Message #3
To: Chan, April
Subject: FW: Dumbarton Rail Corridor
comment below
Carol Dutra-Vernaci
Mayor, Union City
[email protected]
510-675-5325
________________________________________
From: Andrew Tubbs [[email protected]]
Subject: Dumbarton Rail Corridor
To Whom it May Concern,
Please keep the Dumbarton project alive. The Bay Area desperately needs regional solutions to
our transportation and housing problems, and having a cross-bay rail connection would address
the latter--access to housing--by dramatically improving the former.
Andrew Tubbs
Agenda Item 6e.
Message #4
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:06 AM
To: Chan, April
Subject: FW:
Another comment
Carol Dutra-Vernaci
Mayor, Union City
[email protected]
510-675-5325
________________________________________
From: Andrew Horta [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 5:27 PM
Subject:
yes hi Carol i am a train fanatic fan im planning to be an engineer for BNSF or Amtrak ect
someday and yes please keep the plan for the Dumbarton railroad bridge to reopen again soon
i would like to also include that both Amtrak,ACE,Caltrain and Freights because the "Southern
Pacific" used to operate there to the penninsula over to the east bay pass by there to. I think
that if they can put a new station in Newark and Union City but keep the Fremont station for
Caltrain or maybe let both Amtrak,Caltrain and ACE come to the East Bay up to Union City for
ACE Amtrak and Caltrain just hope hope the dumbarton railbridge will be reactivated again
[cid:[email protected]] [cid:[email protected]] [cid:[email protected]]
[cid:[email protected]] [cid:[email protected]]

Dumbarton Rail Meeting - San Mateo County Transportation Authority

Transcription

Similar documents

November 2012 - St Augustines, Dumbarton

The River Leven - West Dunbartonshire Council

Bartop Brochure

Building what matters - SNC

Thyssen Flow 2 - Only Lifts Ltd

Hy-rail for backhoe loaders

Steel Cattle Guard

What`s down the track forum 2012

work begins on academy - West Dunbartonshire Council