Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 1 x Executive Summary <br />1-10 <br />Most arterial improvements were only included in the alternatives that propose enhanced bus <br />service on the Highway Bridge (Alternatives 2, 4 and 5). However, several approach <br />improvements were considered to be essential in reducing congestion in the Menlo Park area and <br />are therefore included in the Rail Bridge alternatives as well. These approach improvements <br />include Willow Road Express Lanes and grade separations at Willow Road/Bayfront Expressway <br />and University Avenue/Bayfront Expressway. Approach improvements included in each <br />alternative are described in more detail in the following sections. <br />To the extent possible, rail alternatives were defined as they were previously studied in the <br />Dumbarton Rail Corridor Environmental Impact Report, including alignments, station locations, <br />and operations. Key changes to the alternatives for the DTCS include the addition of intermediate <br />stops at Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale in the Rail Commuter Alternatives (Alternatives <br />8 and 9) to better serve major employment destinations in the South Bay. Another change from <br />the previous analysis was the investigation of a double-track alternative on the Rail Bridge <br />(Alternative 9). This option was applied to the “highest capacity” rail option—the Rail Commuter <br />(Alternative 8)—but could potentially be applied to the Rail Shuttle Alternative (Alternative 7) as <br />well. <br />Additionally, there is a bicycle and pedestrian multiuse path option on the Dumbarton Rail ROW <br />from Redwood City to East Palo Alto. This option could be paired with any of the alternatives <br />described above. The bicycle and pedestrian multiuse path is not evaluated with the other <br />alternatives as it is difficult to estimate ridership for the facility (see Appendix K) and many of <br />the metrics used to analyze various high-capacity transit modes are not applicable to a bicycle <br />and pedestrian multiuse path. Rather, it is assumed that the bicycle and pedestrian multiuse path <br />would be pursued if there is sufficient ROW within the Rail Corridor. Generally, the ROW can only <br />accommodate two modes in its typical 100-foot width. Appendix D describes this in more detail. <br />ƒ An eleventh alternative (Alternative 11), which assumed a higher employment land use <br />scenario, was also analyzed and included the same rail service in Alternative 9. The <br />purpose of this alternative and associated travel demand model run was to assess what the <br />relative difference might be for each alternative should higher employment projections be <br />realized in the study area. This alternative is primarily included for exploratory purposes <br />and is not included in the scoring and ranking of alternatives in the comparative analysis. <br />ƒ See Chapter 7 and Chapter 10 for further details about the various components included <br />in each alternative. These alternatives were further defined from an operations and design <br />standpoint, costed, and analyzed using a travel demand model. Using this information, the <br />alternatives were evaluated in a more rigorous comparative analysis described in <br />Chapter 11. <br />6.1.D. - Page 19