HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08061991 - H.1 H.1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DATE: August 6, 1991
MATTER OF RECORD
-------------------------
SUBJECT: Contra Costa County Rail. Opportunities Study
This is the time for a presentation to the Board on the Contra
Costa County Rail Oppertunities Study.
Karl Schiermeyer, Schiermeyer Consulting Services, reviewed the
attached report and advised that the Report had been presented to the
Transportation Committee where it was discussed in detail. He
responded to the Board members' questions.
Supervisor Schroder commented that it is most encouraging that
Contra Costa County is talking about working with adjacent
jurisdictions and with other agencies.
The Chair thanked Mr. Schiermeyer for the presentation, and
requested staff to come back to the Transportation Committee and then
to the Board with suggestions on the next phase.
cc: GMEDA
DRAF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
RAIL OPPORTUNITIES STUDY
r'
RECEIVED
C
AUG 61991
CLERK BOARD OF SUPE Rs
CONTRA COSTA CO,
PREPARED FOR:
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PREPARED BY:
SCHIERMEYER CONSULTING SERVICES
AUGUST 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
LIST OF TABLES ii
LIST OF FIGURES ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
I. - INTRODUCTION I
II. REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANS 4
III. POTENTIAL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
TRANSIT CORRIDORS 10
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
TABLE 1. ACR STUDY TABLE 6 :- 6 18
TABLE 2 . ORIGIN DESTINATION PAIRS, POTENTIAL
. FAIRFIELD TO SAN JOSE COMMUTER RAIL ROUTE 19
TABLE 3 . ORIGIN DESTINATION PAIRS, POTENTIAL
SAN JOSE TO FAIRFIELD COMMUTER RAIL ROUTE 21
TABLE 4 . ORIGIN DESTINATION PAIRS, POTENTIAL
SAN RAMON VALLEY LIGHT RAIL ROUTE 23
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
FIGURE 1. EXISTING AND NEAR-TERM PROPOSED RAIL ROUTES 5
FIGURE 2. MAP OF RAIL TRANSIT OPPORTUNITIES IN
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In addition to planned extensions of BART and the initiation of new
intercity rail services between the Bay Area and Sacramento, there
appear to be at least two additional travel corridors which may
have sufficient trip demand to warrant the development of rail
service. These two corridors are presented on Figure 2 .
The first travel corridor builds upon the Bay Area-Sacramento
intercity corridor and is premised upon the fact that the majority
of required capital improvements will be provided by that service.
An assessment of current and projected work trips between Bay Area
travel zones suggests that there is the potential for a commuter
rail service which would operate between Fairfield in Solano
County, through Martinez and Richmond in Contra Costa County,
through Alameda County using railroad tracks adjacent to existing
BART stations, across the Dumbarton bridge to a connection with the
existing Caltrain service, thence south to a terminus at the San
Jose/Tamien Caltrain-light rail station. While this service would
provide peak capacity during rush hour it would function
essentially as a regional rail service with multiple points of
access to other local rail systems.
The second rail corridor identified in this review is a proposed I-
680 corridor which would extend from Benecia in Solano County,
through Martinez with a connection to the intercity and proposed
regional rail service, to the Pleasant Hill BART station, with
frequent stations along I-680 to a connection with an East Dublin
BART station, thence southerly to a terminus in Pleasanton adjacent
to the abandoned Southern Pacific right of way which is under study
for use as a regional rail line from San Joaquin County into the
Bay Area.
Both corridors appear to have sufficient trip-making potential to
justify additional investigation.
iii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
With the passage of Contra Costa County's Measure C in 1988 and the
two statewide rail bond measures of 1990, significant additional
rail transit resources have potentially been made available to
address important transit needs within the county. The
availability of these resources presents an opportunity to re-
evaluate the transit future of Contra Costa County.
Transit is already'playing a measurable role in the county. BART's
Concord line provides high speed, long distance commuter service
from several cities in central Contra Costa County to East Bay
cities and downtown San Francisco. BART's Richmond line provides
a similar service for western Contra Costa County.
On anintercity level, AMTRAK provides a modest level of rail
service to county residents. With stations in Richmond, Martinez
and Antioch, western and eastern county residents can access San
Joaquin Valley cities. Additional long distance, limited stop
trains also service Richmond and Martinez. Even with this
infrequent service, an effort has been made to coordinate the
intercity services with BART through a combined rail station in
Richmond.
On a comparative scale, there are many urban counties throughout
the State which could rightly be envious of the existing level of
rail service within and through the county. Nevertheless, the
general perception of area officials is that rail development and
rail planning is disjointed, without a comprehensive scope. The
corollary fear is that the planned rail investments may focus
scarce resources in ways which do not optimize scarce dollars and
may neglect other needs which have not been yet identified in any
of the ongoing studies prepared by mode-specific agencies.
For example, there are planning efforts underway to expand BART, an
urban commuter system. There are also planning efforts underway to
develop a new intercity rail corridor while expanding an existing
intercity rail corridor. And while all three systems pass through
parts of Contra Costa County, there has been no effort to
coordinate one study with the other or even to make an effort to
interconnect the intercity with the urban commuter system, beyond
the existing connection in western Contra Costa County.
And another question must be asked. Should area officials assume
that all valid Contra Costa County transit needs have been
addressed by these ongoing mode-specific studies? Do the intercity
1
studies and planned urban rail extensions take into account local
transit needs or do those services primarily relate to much larger
scale systems?
Phrased in a different way, will the existing and planned rail
services provide what the county needs? Are there . transit
opportunities "falling through the cracks"? The objective of this
report is to conduct an examination of these questions.
Methodological Approach
In order to better evaluate the transit needs and opportunities of
Contra Costa County it is vital that the total context of the
county be clearly :understood. This sense of context includes not
only a clear understanding of trip demand data developed by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, but also the needs and
plans of adjacent counties, as understood by those counties. In
short, what is happening around Contra Costa County that may
influence travel .within and through the county?
Thus, one of the major tasks associated with this study involved
direct interviews with key staff and officials involved with
transportation planning, not only within Contra Costa County, but
without as well. Relevant studies were inventoried and reviewed
for applicability to the county. One of the principal objectives
of these efforts was to identify whether there were any
opportunities resulting from actions of others which Contra Costa
County could build upon to enhance local transit benefit.
Supplementing the interviews and document search was a focused
assessment of MTC trip data. This data was reviewed not only to
identify large trip volumes among and between zones, but also
smaller volume movements which, when packaged with an ongoing
transit project, might generate sufficient trip demand to warrant
consideration for a rail transit project which might not be
otherwise considered on its own merits. This trip demand
assessment was supplemented with extended discussions with staff at
the MTC and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
In parallel with these activities, discussions were held with staff
at BART and Caltrans to update near term project implementation
activities and schedules.
The result of these efforts is an identification of possible
transit projects not currently planned. Future additional review
may well yield conclusions not supportive of pursuing a potential
project, for any variety of reasons. At this stage of the
assessment, however, the data suggests that the projects identified
in this study merit at least a more intensive review than is
possible in this limited effort.
2
One of the identified projects will likely generate considerable
discussion in central Contra Costa County cities. It is important
to note at this time that any discussion of a project is without
regard to specific technology or alignment. These are matters more
properly left to the traditional alternatives analyses commonly
prepared for major transit projects. The significance of noting a
potential project is that a potential transportation deficit has
been identified and placed before policy makers. The ultimate
decision to advancea project is then a function of local policies
and financing.
3
CHAPTER II:
REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANS
Existing Rail Transit Network
The Bay Area has a relatively extensive rail network. This network
consists not only of intra-urban services provided by the Bay Area
Rapid Transit District (BART) , but also includes a new light rail
service in Santa Clara County as well as the historic commute
service between San Jose and San Francisco currently operated under
the direction of Caltrans. In addition to these urban rail
services the State of California currently funds a modest level of
intercity service between Oakland and Bakersfield via Contra Costa
County.
Figure 1 displays the existing and near-term proposed urban and
intercity rail services.
BART Services
The BART network consists of a large "X" pattern with one leg of
the pattern extending from Concord in central Contra Costa County
to downtown and western San Francisco, while the other leg extends
from Richmond in western Contra Costa County southward to Fremont
in Alameda County.
BART has proven to be quite popular with the long distance
commuters form central Contra Costa County destined for San
Francisco. An extensive network of feeder buses complements the
rail network and extends its reach substantially into nearby
suburbs.
Caltrain Commuter Services
The Caltrain commuter service operates between terminals in San
Jose and San Francisco. Both terminal stations have proven to
present significant liabilities to optimum utilization. Thus in
San Jose, Caltrans is currently constructing a new terminal for
commuter rail which will provide a direct connection with the
county's light rail line. At the San Francisco terminal, an
improved terminal location is acknowledged to be needed by all but
as yet no final plan of action has been adopted and funded.
Notwithstanding the current structural route deficiencies of this
service, the commuter service has seen some growth in recent years.
4
FIGURE 1
EXISTING AND NEAR-TERM PROPOSED URBAN AND INTERCITY RAIL SERVICES
(TO BE SUPPLIED BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY)
Intercity Rail Services
In addition to long distance intercity train routes which extend
from Oakland through Richmond and Martinez to Sacramento and
beyond, Amtrak operates three daily roundtrips between Oakland,
Richmond, Berkeley, Martinez, Antioch, Stockton and other San
Joaquin Valley cities. Service is expected to grow on this route.
The intercity services have a combined station facility with BART
at Richmond.
Near-Term Proposed Extensions to Rail Services
Intra-Urban Rail Services
Planning for rail service expansion is ongoing with all the
agencies charged with these services. Each year the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) releases its Rail Extension Program
which prioritizes and updates financial and scheduling information
regarding the projects within the region. Those projects which
appear to be reasonably achievable and substantially or fully
funded are labeled "Tier I" projects. "Tier II" projects are those
projects which are in various stages of development but are either
lacking a funded financial plan or other required approvals.
The 1991 MTC update lists 6 projects in the Tier I category:
1. Caltrain San Francisco extension
2 . BART extension from Daly City to San Francisco Airport
3 . BART extension from Concord to West Pittsburg
4 . BART extension to Dublin
5. BART extension to Warm Springs
6. Tasman extension to Santa Clara County light rail
Despite being labeled Tier I projects, some aspects of the projects
noted above yet remain unresolved. For example, the Caltrain
extension project as currently proposed appears more uncertain than
its Tier I status would suggest. There has been no final agreement
on project scope or expenditure. Likewise the BART extension to
Dublin has yet to be resolved in terms of whether the project will
terminate at West Dublin or East Dublin.
Nevertheless, in broad terms the funding appears to be in place to
move forward on most if not all of these projects. Thus in terms
of Contra Costa County, two near-term projects which will likely be
completed prior to the year 2000 include the extensions to West
Pittsburg in the north and Dublin to the south (in Alameda County) .
The expenditure plans show the Dublin extension completed in 1995
and the West Pittsburg extension completed in 1997.
6
Intercity Rail Services
The California Department of Transportation Division of Rail
Services has an ambitious expansion program underway. As a result
of studies undertaken pursuant to ACR 132 and because of funding
provided under two recent statewide rail bond measures, Caltrans is
proceeding to implement service both on the corridor between San
Jose, Oakland, Martinez and Sacramento (and beyond) as well as on
the corridor between Sacramento and Stockton, connecting to the San
Joaquin trains which currently operate between Bakersfield, Fresno,
Stockton, Martinez and Oakland. These two corridors may, in fact,
operate as a single corridor as the connecting Stockton trains will
likely operate San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Stockton and return.
Thus the city of Martinez and western and central Contra Costa
County is likely :'to benefit from a greatly increased level of
intercity rail service.
While actual implementation of this new and expanded service
depends upon successful negotiations with the owning railroad,
Caltrans has clearly indicated that it is prepared to fund required
capital improvements and acquire equipment as soon as possible.
Thus this study assumes that the proposed new intercity services
are also "near-term" .
Additional Potential Services
Neighboring San Joaquin County has expressed public interest in a
new interregional service between Stockton, Tracy, Livermore and
the Bay Area via a rail route over the Altamont Pass. Some funding
has been provided in Proposition 116 to study this corridor and San
Joaquin County has some funds set aside which could also be used to
fund such a service. As yet no feasibility study has been
conducted and for this reason it is assumed that such a service
would not be in place prior to the year 2000, if at all.
Nevertheless, since the probable route of such a service would be
in the I-580 corridor, potential points of interconnection between
that service and a central Contra Costa County-Alameda County
service are shown on Figure 2 .
In the Bay Area itself interest has also been expressed in a cross-
bay extension to Caltrain which would connect east bay and west bay
over the Dumbarton bridge. The service pattern proposed for this
service is limited to a few stations in southern Alameda County
with a direct connection to the core Caltrain line on the Peninsula
and service southward to San Jose. No decision has yet been made
on this proposed service.
7
a a�4�11s
cr.F— s 0 Cl)
cn
� c U
1 O 1 J J G
l j x
w
r.,
03 Ninoaor
Wv03wvlyLLI
03
W a' 0 M O
OD
W ;Jz a.
u U0
LLI
LU
w`fJ.1
g tr ❑ Cr N LL. 4
el
ui
o Z
O
C J l
r A (� m .
� � �O � 04'4p�'p z ♦ti d '`..�
5
F
,. E
An intriguing feature of this service is the use of the existing
Dumbarton rail bridge which connects both sides of the San
Francisco Bay in a location where there are no other proposed rail
improvements on the drawing boards. This aspect of that service
has provided some input to the proposed commuter rail proposal
outlined later in this report.
Another significant service expansion under study relates both to
the proposed widening of I-80, the proposed expansion of bridge
capacity over the Carquinez Strait, and the interest in extending
BART either from its terminal at Richmond or E1 Cerrito Del Norte
towards Hercules or Crockett or even towards Carquinez and Solano
County. This BART extension is a Tier II project whose precise
definition and funding 'have yet to be determined. For these
reasons it is assumed that this is not a near-term project.
Coordination Between the Proposed Projects
While planners within the MTC region have clearly adopted strong
policies on the coordination of the various proposed rail projects
(i.e. , the new San Jose Caltrain terminal is linked to the Santa
Clara light rail system; the downtown San Francisco Caltrain
extension is linked to interconnections between that system and
BART and the San Francisco Municipal Railway) , the same cannot be
said about coordination between the intercity rail program and
BART's urban rail program.
The proposed intercity rail program is linked well to its own
network of routes, via connections both at Sacramento, Martinez,
Oakland and San Jose. The intercity rail service also makes an
excellent interconnection with Caltrain at San Jose. And while the
existing interconnection between intercity rail and BART at
Richmond will likely receive very intensive use as intercity
frequencies become more substantial, the lack of a convenient
connection between BART and the intercity services in central
Contra Costa County will likely result in less than full use of the
potential of either service within the central part of the County.
BART's West Pittsburg extension is clearly oriented to further the
principal focus of BART in that part of the county: long distance
commuting, primarily to San Francisco and east bay points. BART is
of limited usefulness for travel within central Contra Costa County
and cannot be used efficiently to connect with the proposed
intercity services at either Martinez or Antioch.
Thus, while there will be a considerable amount of public funds
expended both on BART and on intercity rail within Contra Costa
County, there has been no overt effort to link the two planning
programs in any systematic way.
9
CHAPTER III
POTENTIAL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TRANSIT CORRIDORS
Review of Travel Forecast Data
The primary data resource for this study has been the various
travel forecasts prepared by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) . Other travel data prepared by Contra Costa
County has also been reviewed, although it should be pointed out
that even the Contra Costa County data originated with the MTC
studies but has been modified for local application.
The MTC has subdivided the region into 34 superdistricts. Current
and projected travel data are shown for each superdistrict pair.
Thus trips originating in superdistrict 1 and terminating in
superdistricts . 1 through 34 are compiled. The process is repeated
for all 34 superdistricts.
Of interest to Contra Costa County officials are those trips which
either pass through, terminate or originate in the county. Thus
the primary focus of the review has been on these trips. As will
be seen however, trips between zones outside the county's sphere
have in some instances been examined in order to test the
feasibility of a regionwide commuter rail concept.
Relationship of Trips to Available Rail Resources
This study is being conducted in the context of a perception that
there are existing rail assets available to meet transit needs.
Thus the focus of this review has been on those travel links which
conceivably could make use of a rail asset. Conversely, there has
been no great effort to search out totally new travel corridors for
which there are no apparently available right-of-ways. While this
approach is different from the more typical transit needs
assessment approach, it has the distinct benefit of focusing
efforts on potential corridors of public interest and establishing
whether there is a problem which could be remedied to some extent
by the available right-of-way.
10
The five major rail assets focused on in this review were the
following:
1. The Southern Pacific mainline from Solano County
across the Carquinez Strait at Benecia to Martinez,
Richmond, Oakland and San Jose;
2 . The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe line between
Martinez . and Richmond; . .
3 . The abandoned Southern Pacific and active Union
Pacific rail lines between Tracy, Livermore,
Pleasanton and Fremont;
4 . TheSouthern Pacific rail line between Martinez,
:Antioch, Brentwood and Tracy;
5. The publicly owned former Southern Pacific San
Ramon branch line between San Ramon and Highway 4
generally paralleling I-680.
The first two rail routes have generally been discussed in terms of
commuter service from northern and eastern Contra Costa County into
the east Bay Area. The third line, through Altamont Pass and Niles
Canyon, has been discussed primarily by San Joaquin County as a
means of mitigating traffic on I-580. The fourth line could be an
extension of either the first or second line noted above and would
travel east from Martinez.
The fifth line is owned by Contra Costa County and has been the
subject of considerable discussion for several years.
Thus the availability of these right-of-ways formed the backdrop
for the review of MTC travel data. It could be said that with the
solution in hand the effort was now to determine if there was a
problem in that corridor requiring a solution.
As part of this review, officials of the Southern Pacific Railroad
were interviewed. The Southern Pacific Railroad is willing, under
terms and conditions yet to be negotiated, to make available all of
the most useful segments of its system and most of its currently
active lines, with the exception of a portion of its 1
(i
ford line cJ
between east Oakland and west of the Dumbarton bridge. In that
sole instance, the Southern Pacific railroad is offering a parallel
line which, in some respects, is even superior to the other line.
11
Approach to the Review of Travel Forecasts
The purpose of this review of regional trip data has been to
identify potential corridors of unmet needs. Thus corridors of
travel which are now being served by BART or can reasonably be
expected to be served by BART in the future were eliminated from
consideration. Consequently travel between the superdistrict
comprising Concord and the superdistrict comprising Berkeley was
not included in any calculations as this As an existing corridor of
travel served by BART. Also travel to destinations such as San
Jose, which will likely eventually receive BART service via a Warm
Springs extension, was examined closely to eliminate those travel
paths from certain superdistricts for which the BART option would
offer attractive service.
In addition to insuring that any proposed service would not overlap
with BART services, the analysis focused only on Home-Based Work
trips, those trips in other words which might be amenable to a
commuter rail 'service. Using this conservative approach it was
hoped that some ambiguities would be removed from the assessment.
In actual fact, of course, this approach would also clearly
eliminate some trips which would probably utilize a commuter rail
route. Nevertheless this conservative approach was clearly
mandated by the need to distinguish potential new routes from the
existing and proposed BART system. In the consideration of a
proposed intracounty transit system, local trips within the county,
even adjacent to the BART network, were considered. The premise in
this instance is that the orientation of BART service is primarily
to the long distance trip and that shorter distance trips should
not be viewed as exclusively the domain of BART if other factors
suggested the viability of a locally oriented rail system.
Rail Corridor Suitability
One additional criterion came to the fore early in the review. And
that related to the quality of the rail asset itself. Two routes
in particular, the Santa Fe between Martinez and Richmond and the
Union Pacific/Southern Pacific alignments between Fremont and
Tracy, are corridors which would require substantial capital
investment to make suitable for a reasonably high speed commuter
service. Thus, as the analysis proceeded it became apparent that
there was an implicit link between potential patronage and the
level of investment required to handle the patronage. As it turned
out, even if the capital investment requirements had been modest on
the two routes mentioned above, the trip making potential on those
routes was not of a magnitude at this time to warrant additional
technical analysis.
12
RESULTS OF DATA ASSESSMENT
A review of trip data prepared by the MTC and other reports
prepared by various Bay Area governments indicate that there may be
potential for viable new rail services serving Contra Costa County
in the following locations:
1. A commuter rail servi=ce from Fairfield in Solano County,
operating on the Southern Pacific mainline, via Martinez, Richmond,
Oakland, Dumbarton Bridge and the Caltrain Peninsula line to San
Jose/Tamien;
2 . A light rail or similar technology serving central Contra Costa
County, beginning" at Martinez with connections to intercity and
commuter rail at that station (with a possible extension over the
Benecia bridge to. a Solano County station) , paralleling the I-680
corridor south to a connection with the BART system near the
Pleasant Hill station, continuing south through San Ramon to a
connection to the proposed BART extension at East Dublin in Alameda
County, thence easterly to the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore.
These two corridors include all or portions of the following rail
lines noted earlier:
o The Southern Pacific mainline between Fairfield
and San Jose/Tamien;
o The publicly owned San Ramon branch line between
Highway 4 in Contra Costa County and I-580 in
Alameda County.
As noted earlier, other potential rail right-of-ways were examined
but determined to have little or no transit value at this time.
These lines are noted below with a summary description of the
results of the assessment.
Santa Fe Line between Martinez (Port Chicago) and Richmond
This corridor is aligned generally through a sparsely inhabited
area of the region, with limited opportunities for access and
egress. The line also traverses hilly terrain and would require
substantial upgrading to permit continued freight operation while
insuring sufficient capacity and speed for passenger services. In
addition, this route would not apparently provide opportunities for
a direct interconnection with any commuter or intercity service
using the Southern Pacific line through Martinez towards Fairfield
and Sacramento. Thus the Santa Fe route would have to be
considered as a stand-alone route. Lacking a direct connection to
13
any future service into Solano County and lacking sufficient on-
line travel demand between Martinez and Richmond, this line is seen
as having at best only limited value for passenger purposes. It
may have value for the diversion of some freight traffic which
currently uses the Southern Pacific mainline, thus freeing up
additional capacity for passenger services on that line.
Union Pacific/Southern Pacific lines: Tracy to Fremont
Alameda County owns the abandoned right-of-way of the Southern
Pacific between Fremont and the San Joaquin county line near Tracy.
The Union Pacific owns an active line between these same two points
and generally parallels the former Southern Pacific line. These
two lines traverse Niles Canyon and Altamont Pass in a curving
alignment which severely restricts operating speeds. While these
lines do offer. the long-range potential for a more direct (and thus
faster) San Jose-Stockton-Sacramento intercity or regional rail
service than is possible via the currently planned route from San
Jose-Oakland-Martinez-Stockton/Sacramento, the transit benefits to
Contra Costa County from the use of this line appear limited for
the following reasons.
With a satisfactory connection to the planned Sacramento intercity
service at Martinez, central Contra Costa County will have very
good rail access to the east and north, while western Contra Costa
County would clearly benefit more from the planned route to
Sacramento rather than the use of the Altamont Pass route.
Secondly, trips oriented to Hayward or Fremont will be able to use
the East Dublin BART station. Finally, there do not appear to be
the absolute volume of trips that would generate the need for a
local transit service on this corridor.
Notwithstanding the relative low priority that this corridor may
have for Contra Costa County trips, this may be a significant
corridor for San Joaquin County, as indicated in several recent
studies. That county has many trips ends in central Contra Costa
County, as well as in the Silicon Valley region, both of which
could be served by a regional rail link on this corridor. From the
perspective of Contra Costa County, trips originating on rail from
San Joaquin County on this line could be served by an
interconnecting station facility at both Pleasanton and Livermore
on a new central Contra Costa/Alameda County rail service.
While this line may not be a high priority for Contra Costa County,
the county should be alert to future opportunities to tie in its
local service in order to maximize travel opportunities.
14
SouthernPacificLine Between Martinez, Brentwood and Tracy
This line is in active use by both Amtrak (for a short segment) and
by the Southern Pacific Railroad, which has indicated a willingness
to make it available for joint use freight/passenger service. This
line could provide commuter service from eastern Contra Costa
County to the east bay. Such a service, originating in Tracy,
could potentially provide an alternate route for those destined to
northern east bay points.
Notwithstanding the potential value of such a service, current trip
data along Highway 4 do not suggest that this is a strong travel
route from San Joaquin County, although it is recognized that the
limited capacity of route 4 in certain segments might limit its use
from that county. 1-
In terms of eastern Contra Costa County residents, there is only a
modest number of trips destined to either the Crockett area or
Richmond from either Antioch, Pittsburg or Brentwood. By far the
greater number of trips are destined to areas reasonably served by
BART, which can be accessed from the proposed West Pittsburg
station. Examining other west bay destinations which could be
served by a commuter service, there are also only a relatively
small number of workers making that journey.
Even with the relatively small number of trips originating in
eastern Contra Costa County and destined to jobs along a commuter
rail route- there would still be some marginal value in extending
the base commuter line eastward from Martinez except for the fact
that there do appear to be far stronger directional trips
originating in Solana County which could strengthen a commuter line
to east bay and southerly west bay points. Given that the Solano
County leg of such a system would appear to be the principal
service link, any extension eastward from Martinez to the Brentwood
area would no longer necessarily be a "marginal" extension but
might require dedicated sets of equipment beyond equipment required
for the base service, it may be that such an extension might not be
financially cost effective.
Thus, for the purposes of this study, the use of this route for
commuter service is considered questionable. If additional
analysis is conducted on the concept of a regional commuter rail
line on the Southern Pacific, it would be appropriate to review
this opportunity once again.
15
POTENTIAL TRANSIT CORRIDORS
Commuter Rail Service: Fairfield - San Jose
Under the direction of the State Legislature, the Metropo litan
Transportation Commission has recently concluded an intercity rail
study which examined frequent corridor service between San Jose,
Oakland, Martinez, Fairfield and Sacramento (Auburn) using the
Southern Pacific mainline. ' The Caltrans Division of Rail is
currently taking steps to implement the findings of this study
which will include initially several roundtrips daily between San
Jose and Sacramento-.
Some of the actions that Caltrans will take relate to capital
improvements on this line to facilitate the timely operation of
passenger trains as well as to the purchase of operating rights
from the Southern - Pacific railroad. The combination of these two
actions by another agency raise the possibility of whether a
locally funded commuter service might be able to build upon the
investments of others to provide a service which, without the
significant investment of others, might not be ordinarily
justified.
In order to test this possibility, a hypothetical commuter line was
created using various segments of the Southern Pacific railroad.
(Parenthetically it should be noted that the mere feasibility of
such a service is no guarantee that such a service is possible
since the host railroad must agree to such services. )
The "route" of the new commuter service commences at Fairfield
using the tracks of the Southern Pacific and continues through
Martinez (with a connection to a new Contra Costa light rail
distributor) , Richmond (to a connection with BART) , continuing on
the Southern Pacific to Oakland; south of Oakland, the line would
switch to the Union Pacific alignment with commuter stations at all
BART stations which have the distribution infrastructure in place
for train users; near Fremont, the commuter line would re-connect
with the Southern Pacific line to Dumbarton bridge and from that
point to the Caltrain line and San Jose/Tamien.
The above alignment represents a theoretical "Optimum" alignment
since it builds upon the existing transit infrastructure. If the
"BART alignment" south of Oakland turns out not to be feasible, the
commuter rail route could use other existing Southern Pacific lines
to reach the Dumbarton bridge. It should be pointed out also that
the commuter rail route south of Oakland would diverge from the
intercity route currently desired by Caltrans. This would, of
course, result in somewhat increased capital improvement costs
which would be solely the responsibility of the commuter rail
agency; these costs are potentially offset by the much greater
access to population centers afforded by the "BART alignment".
16
The ACR 132 Intercity Rail Corridor Upgrade Study (MTC, November,
1990) forecasts a significant number of intra-MTC-regional trips
based upon 20 roundtrips daily. Table. 6-6 of that report, which is
reproduced in this report as Table 1, forecasts a range of daily
trips in the year 2010 of 3 ,850 - 6,750. These are not considered
to be commuter trips, or as generally described, home-based work
trips. These intraregional trips could just as well be carried by
a "regional rail" service as by an intercity service operating the
entire distance between San Jose and Sacramento.
In other countries with a well developed intercity network it is
common to have regional rail systems which provide the type of
intraregional rail trip addressed in the MTC forecast.
The ACR 132 report did not prepare a commuter rail forecast for the
home-based work trip. In order to develop an estimate of the total
pool of commuters which might be attracted to commuter rail, the
zone-to-zone travel for the years 1990 and 2005 were aggregated.
These totals are listed in Table 2 .
The origin and destination codes used were prepared by the Contra
Costa County Planning Department and correspond to zones developed
by the MTC. These zones and their familiar place names are listed
below.
Zone 'Place Name Zone Place Name
01 Richmond, Berkeley 11 Eastern Alameda Co
02 Crockett, Hilltop 12 Hayward, Fremont
03 Martinez, Concord 13 Oakland
04 Walnut Creek 14 Vallejo
06 Antioch, Pittsburg 15 Fairfield
07 Brentwood 16 Sonoma County
09 San Mateo & Santa Clara Cos. 17 Marin County
10 Santa Clara Co; San Jose 05 San Ramon, Danville
12 Fremont, Hayward
As shown in Table 2, only certain trips from specific zones were
shown as commuter rail eligible. In general, no "backtracking" was
permitted. If BART could provide a service even remotely similar
to a proposed commuter service, the trip was not included in the
total. On the other hand, in those corridors for which BART is not
proposed to provide service (most notably the cross-bay trips in
the vicinity of the Dumbarton Bridge) some apparently unlikely
trips were included; this category contains trips from Marin and
Sonoma counties, as well as trips from other zones served by BART.
In these instances it would be assumed that the commuter rail trip
would commence, not at the beginning of the route but rather at the
station representing the closest straight line distance between the
origin and destination.
17
L
TABLE 1
Table 6-6
YEAR 2010 INTERCITY RAIL PATRONAGE POTENTIALS
(One-Way Trips Per Day)
Auburn-Sacramento-Oakland-Sart Jose
AGR-132 Intercity Rail Corridor Upgrade Study
A. Intercity Trips Generated by MTC Region at 20 Trains/Day
Lowe Mid-Point High
1. Intra-Regional 3,850 5,300 6,750'
2. Inter-Regional 2,500 2,750 3,000
{ >
€> :
- S>350:><<'»<»= >...:.
B. Intercity Trips Generated by SACOG Region at 4 Trains/Day2
Low Mid-Point High
1. Intra-Regional 650 725 800
2. Auburn-Roseville Inter-Regional 500 550 600
3. Other Sacramento Area
Inter-Regional 1,200 1,300 1,400
. . . h' i;
::.,.,.:.
.y: ya.+:3'•;::�'":':-mak:x;•:..;..5�".i.{a:'.,;i:i.:.r;�.::-::vr,:,i�}:`.�i:'•:,:
i:
a
Total Daily Patronage 8,700 10,625
=—�:.'.•:o-:.:'.i.:.}:.>i.:.::�:::.•.i::.{.{.•.::i.i.:.'-.:.;:.;.•.i::.;{.{.:...: :ti.::. s�.:.:'.:-.:::•::.!:;{.•A. nnuel,:�:F3#r..o..r.tg. .{.{:..•:,:.3: 7SOt30•i•:X:;i:wx i{i<-ii:::.{:.{>i:{..:.3{'378
i<~1528,155n0
>v {
::':-:::'c: t.t::
;0a
MTC Estimate.
2 Excludes Commuter Trips.
Wilbur Smith Associates; September 1990.
d} TS
� O
O
ri b U')
O
P4 N O
H H N
I4E-4Wl Nd' NOOM %DMN \ONWWOOLf WW 0
EUO LO M0wHr ' %00LO M LONw < tDwwm C44 � � O
0 d' ar- mNr10MNmmrl -gH0rlmw O '� Q 4.1
\ i i i h i +� h .. i i h h i i i ♦
La 4-J
OH r-itD riNrlN �-1 �7 �-I � tONMO� r-IN 41
0 H
IQ z
a �
to HO +-4vNMI� MOhN grmm001OCf 0m qv '� O 00
� E 0%� .. +.rl v C14 W m 0 00 to ON m %0 O M00 (3) rq co to r1 p k
a Dot Mod' ONON00r- 0OD00r-1MONIt') !flO1Hr, N R r. w
.. .. h \ h \ \ \ \ h +. ,
O A z 0 ri lt3 ri N til N � 00 r-1 N Cl) T4 r.O N U1
EE.t H p4 a 0 04 w P .Q
Q)
04
H A H r
ae
MaCMW 1 a ONMMOMOMOMOMOMOMMM cao•ri 10
r-iHHaHo ?-1oHoHoHOr-10oa ,a +: > 4)
HP
4 H00 o ani
E WW W NNNll:ry OwHr-iht- MMd' d' Nt11r-1 E
N O41
H AE OA 000wriririoorirlriwoor♦ or-i Aa
rd
as 00 ' m
4) :1
Q rn
H to to 4
�
E HAh 1 -�
t# Hw
ttS
00E 7 Aw >
m pq aEutO -1d
Nrir ' r- Mr M 'qV 0L000ri ,t OD 7 4J v
W P49
0 r-it{) t- LnOd' O1MtDHMMr-iMriODr-i0otD b 0 9
W H Ix E-1 OE N NcrLOri rid' Nr-1MMririNN rico O
W or 4 )
W O ro
O •O
toHO Nhd` NdtnONOOhtOtt� MtDOONOMOri ri H
4E4O► N00 ' NMMN0Tir-IM -;r M %rr- N0 � (J ri
ODUot o� mot` � �rNaDr-i �rOM �' 0r-r Norrl > 0 O
p r-) h h h h h i 0 (d W
O p, N d' N r-i N Hr-4h i<
O 41
H O N
H •ri •rl
1 ENr-iMN00riN00HNm0 r-IN0r-4M t�
4 }
0)
z aar-ir-lor'l000H000ri00000 .• "� 4J
0H w004 0
0 W 0mIn0MLOMMMMw0wwr- ht\ NN 0ria� l<OA HHHr4H0000000000000
Using this approach, MTC and Contra Costa County data indicate that
there were 116, 214 home-based work trips on this corridor in 1990.
Projections for the year 2005 show this number increasing to
145, 029.
Overall, MTC projects that 36.9% of these home-based work trips
will take place in the morning peak travel period. Thus the
corresponding number of AM peak period trips for the years 1990 and
2005 respectively are 42,882 and 53,515..
No mode split analyses have been performed on this pool of
potential commuter riders. If a 5% mode split were assumed, then
the corresponding trips would be 2144 and 2675. Given the uniquely
constrained destinations of some of the trips, particularly the
west bay destinatibns, there could be somewhat higher mode splits
on particular zone-to-zone combinations.
Assuming a commuter rail base ridership during the peak period of
2675 and layering that with the low-end estimate of 3850
intraregional trips forecast in the ACR 132 report for the year
2010, ..the total number of intraregional rail trips would be
approximately 6525. Using the high-end MTC estimate of 6750 non-
commuter trips, the total number of intraregional rail trips would
be approximately 9425.
A similar analysis was performed on interzonal travel forecasts for
commute service in the reverse direction: i.e. , from San
Jose/Tamien to Fairfield. The results are shown in Table 3 . This
tabulation likewise excludes trips which could be entirely served
by BART. It also excludes work trips destined for Sonoma and Marin
counties since transit connections to those destinations are poor;
in the opposite travel direction it has been assumed that commuters
would drive to the origin station.
This conservative analysis indicates that there were 57, 128 home-
based work trips in this corridor in 1990. Year 2005 projections
show an increase to 72, 579 trips. Applying the same factors used
above, the corresponding number of possible rail commuters is 1050
and 2503 respectively.
Thus if there were a two-way rail service between San Jose/Tamien
and Fairfield in the year 2005, it is reasonable to assume that
there could be a total of approximately 12, 000 weekday riders.
20
TABLE 3
HOME-BASED WORK TRIP PRODUCTION/ATTRACTION
ORIGIN/DESTINATION PAIRS
SAN JOSE TO FAIRFIELD COMMUTER RAIL CORRIDOR
HOME BASED WORK TRIP
ORIGIN- PRODUCTION/ATTRACTION
DESTINATION 1990 2005
09 12 24,443 35, 103
09 13 17,950 16,873*
09 01 1,747 2 , 356
09 02 .' 105 311
09 03 775 1, 146
12 02 189 583
13 02 1, 042 2, 359
01 ' 02 1,581 3,292
01 03 4,916 5,613
02 03 4, 380 4,943
GRAND TOTALS 57,128 72,579
Notes: The above data are based on home-based work person-trip
matrices in the "production/attraction" format. Each entry must be
divided by 2 in order to yield round trips.
An asterisk (*) following an entry highlights a projected decrease
from 1990 to 2005.
21
Assessment of Commuter Rail Potential
There appears to be a reasonable basis to proceed with further
investigations into the potential for commuter rail. Other
corridor rail studies, most notably the ACR 132 study, have
independently forecast a moderate number of intraregional trips
that were not commuter trips. The available MTC data suggest that
there is a solid core of trips occurring along the corridor to be
served by commuter rail.
Coupled with the base potential for ridership is the persuasive
fact that a substantial amount of capital investment will be made
by the State in order to develop the San Jose-Sacramento corridor.
It does appear that the- amount of intraregional ridership, both
commuter and non commuter, is more than sufficient to warrant
additional investigation.
Light Rail Service: Martinez (Benecia) - East Dublin
The second major potential unserved transit corridor identified in
this review is one generally paralleling the I-680 corridor in
central Contra Costa County. This corridor is also one which has
been discussed in previous studies, most notably the 1987 report
prepared for the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for the
San Ramon Branchline.
The procedure used to identify this corridor of travel is similar
to that utilized in the identification of the potential commuter
rail corridor. The assumptions used to isolate unique travel links
which could support such a service are also similar to those
employed in the commuter rail assessment.
In general terms, near-term BART extensions were assumed to be in
place. Trips which could reasonably be accommodated by BART were
not included in the trip-making base. Thus transit trips from
Concord to Oakland are assumed to occur solely on BART and would
not utilize the light rail line for even a portion of the trip.
Trip ends at least one zone away from a zone in which a BART
station is located are included, however.
While the commuter rail assessment did not include trips within a
zone as eligible trips, the light rail assessment did assume that
such trips would be possible and are thus included in the base.
Table 4 indicates that there is a "pool" of 292, 169 home-based work
trips which took place in the zones which could reasonably be
served by such a system. Projections for the year 2005 indicate
that this number will increase to 307,421.
22
O �
� O
4-) :
O
O �
to
z 0
a0 0
H H N •.� N
9E0 OOMNMHhNhMMgg01 'N0 rl
E00 tDt- H -t Ot00 r- 0NvHNr-IH N U O
N 1
M,Hi M O W 0 01 N h 01 O N M 0 M iM 'rq 0 d•f
94 E-1 MM
OE H� U1N O1Srr HNrN O 001
10 z
W 0 .At
GDH0 �rcoh0 ,-irtMMNMhNOd' N 01 1 0 O
E4 as mO0qzrc0hInM0) rir•I0hd' tD %0 m p
fx m0 at0H coNNmHcl) LOLOr- tt1NU) NmH rl 4J 44
0 pq In pi0 NOd' � LOH cnrf Nr-I N ON Q)
N
a to
xw N � A
0z a U
v 0 b cu
H x NEm E-4 'LS
to H 1 a' I-tmmm .44m -IMd' I.nHmIct H to 0b Tf
0toca zH OOOOOOHOOOri000H H 3 > U
�,
H
To
aa' EH 9 W r -1riM �r �rd' d' MtoM0WtOtOtD H 4) 0} -n
zE ►a O0 rIrarIr♦ rI +-I +� ririHHHHHH to 0
a0H
N a
zOl
$
,a HAH p N
a 0
E m Awa o )
0oa ami U
Ix
O a z � w
O 94Ein VMCO) camN "zrtOr-IWMMW0NM O4 �
E� V O e-iCOriNOMNMtDNN01tOtOhtO
MO
O hM co N0 (1) Ln0ONNLnLOd .01 In 00
14PGN • \ \ . . . . .
Pt EE d' MwNNd' hN010MNMNN O
0 � tO N N Cl) H M r-444 O
a z 'O Z
toH0 O1tt) d' tt7rn0100ots1aorlrioOtON Oq r-I-I
a' [- M NcrOMOtOMh SrMU1hh00N0 y43 r-{
QUO+ VV 00Nhln0) VONT-ih00r{ M00OD O U O
\ . . . . \ . . \ \ \ \ \ \
W A 0) tO ;r H N O In ri ON ,-I to r-1 r-4 H 'Q m Va
z0 %D Nd' rlMH � 4-) .�
004
W P4 N b
0 E-4O w
H •rf •rl
i a tf) Md' tL"lrlMd' tf) riMd' Inrllnr-IM U N
zz 0000r-I000rl000H0rA0 .1.7
H 4) O W rt
0
H m +i M-4
OA 000000000000o00H zW4
Assuming that 36.9% of these trips occur in the morning peak
period, the respective number of home based work trips respectively
for 1990 and 2005 are 107,810 and 113,438.
The 1987 study projected ridership for a variety of alternatives on
the 1-680 corridor. A direct comparison between BART and several
Light rail alternatives (LRT) in the same corridor indicated a
significant improvement in transit ridership using LRT. The
corresponding patronage estimates were .1-0, 100 for BART and a range
of 18, 600-24, 300 for LRT depending upon different land use
assumptions (Table 6-2 of the 1987 report) .
The 1987 study concluded that "the most significant difference in
the performance of the alternatives examined is in the use of the
study corridor system (i.e. , 1-680 corridor) . While all
alternatives perform significantly better than the Null
alternative, the L i RT system performs the best, closely followed by
the Busway, BART significantly lower, and TSM essentially
attracting local bus riders to new express routes (page 6-13) . 11
The study corridor system referenced in the 1987 study extended
from Route 4 near Concord to Stanley Boulevard in Pleasanton.
Another study conducted by Contra Costa County suggests that there
is sufficient trip-making potential on Treat Boulevard and Ygnacio
Valley Road to justify some form of light rail treatment as well.
This report indicated that 70% of all vehicle trips have an origin
or destination in the Walnut Creek area. 12% of all trips are
destined for Danville or San Ramon. In the words of the report,
"This may indicate an opportunity for transit. "
Thus, in addition to the base corridor along 1-680 between Route 4
and Stanley Boulevard, a light rail system incorporating some
service in the Treat/Ygnacio Valley corridor would also appear to
merit further evaluation.
A significant number of work trips enter Contra Costa County at the
Benecia bridge at Martinez. Additionally, the proposed intercity
rail service and possible commuter rail service will have a major
station facility in Martinez near the base of the bridge. it
appears reasonable to connect the potential LRT system both with
the intercity and commuter rail network at Martinez as well as to
provide an intercept facility for Solano County residents traveling
to central Contra Costa County.
Thus it is recommended that the base system be extended from Route
4 to a station facility in Martinez and across the bridge to a
terminal location in Benecia.
24
This potential LRT facility would then extend from Solano County at
Benecia, to a connection with intercity rail service at Martinez,
to an interchange station with BART at the Pleasant Hill BART
station, south to another connection with BART at a possible East
Dublin BART station in Alameda County, and continue to a terminus
on the San Ramon branchline in Pleasanton, adjacent to a future
service which may be provided by San Joaquin county on either the
Union Pacific or Southern Pacific lines, thus providing a
distribution facility for trips originating either in Pleasanton or
points east in San Joaquin County.
Assessment of Light Rail Potential
Earlier studies conducted by the county have indicated the strong
potential for light rail within the 1-680 corridor. Work conducted
in this effort has- identified at least two additional factors which
may strengthen the case for such a corridor:
1. The planned expansion of intercity services at Martinez,
coupled with the possibility for commuter rail service from that
. station; and
2. The possibility of intercepting traffic from Solano County as
it is funneled through the Benecia bridge.
The total volume of trip-making potential in this corridor remains
quite high and appears more than sufficient to justify additional
detailed evaluation.
25