Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 1 x Executive Summary <br />1-18 <br />improvements, the Busway on the Rail Bridge could offer the opportunity for East Bay <br />freeway express buses to link from express lanes on I 880 to express lanes on US 101. <br />ƒƒ Rail alternatives as defined in this study do not perform as well from a ridership standpoint <br />because they are less frequent. However, the rail alternatives may provide substantially <br />more ridership potential in the future given the nature of fixed-guideway investments that <br />are independent of highway and arterial conditions and the alternatives’ ability to broaden <br />travel markets by attracting longer-distance commuters. Ridership estimates are on par <br />with existing services in similar areas such as BART in Fremont and Union City and Caltrain <br />between Redwood City and Palo Alto. Improvements, such as double-tracking across the <br />Rail Bridge, would provide added operational flexibility that would contribute to the <br />reliability of rail travel. ACE transfers are an important source of rail ridership in the travel <br />behavior forecast, signifying that the Tri-Valley/Central Valley to Peninsula market is likely <br />underserved. The potential for Dumbarton to connect to a larger regional rail network is <br />compelling as the region’s employment and housing supply continue to grow in different <br />areas of the Bay Area. <br />ƒ The most cost-effective alternatives are those that can attract enough riders and or users to <br />cover operating and maintenance costs. DTCS showed that the bus alternatives performed <br />the best in terms of a cost-effectiveness standpoint. However, the bus alternatives do not <br />perform as well from a fundability perspective. Further, DTCS suggested that the Busway <br />on Rail Bridge Alternative (Alternative 6) does well from a mobility / ridership standpoint, <br />but the cost to retrofit the Rail Bridge for less long-term capacity and the inability to <br />connect with the regional rail system is a costly tradeoff. <br />ƒ The rail alternatives, while most costly, have the greatest potential for private investment <br />and long-term ridership gains. While the bus alternatives serve the Union City / Fremont / <br />Newark market very well and do not require as many connecting complementary bus <br />services for the last mile of travel, the rail alternatives, particularly the Rail Commuter <br />Double-Track Alternative (Alternative 9), bring the most value by connecting the Peninsula <br />with travelers from farther away. By connecting to the ACE and Capitol Corridor routes, the <br />rail alternatives can safely and reliably connect travelers from cities such as Stockton and <br />Sacramento, to destinations as far north or south on the Peninsula as possible. Using the <br />Rail Bridge for rail service allows the Highway Bridge to continue accommodating <br />enhanced bus service. Further, converting the Rail Bridge to a bus-only facility would <br />preclude the possibility of serving the long-distance market that the rail alternatives can. <br />ƒ In addition to causing substantial environmental impacts, demolition and removal of the <br />Rail Bridge would eliminate a much-needed Bay crossing in the region. Therefore, the DTCS <br />concludes that rebuilding the Rail Bridge is necessary to improve mobility in the <br />Dumbarton Corridor and in the region. The DTCS also considered increasing the share of <br />transit and HOV trips in the future and found that a combined approach (bus, highway <br />improvements and rail) fared the best in terms of reducing automobile mileage. <br />ƒ After the initial screening, all alternatives were considered to have the same low level of <br />disproportionate burden and disparate impacts. The improvement projects identified in <br />6.1.D. - Page 27