HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.2 I-680 Transportation Study 10 � � -� �
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 8, 1987
Written Communication:
SUBJECT San Ramon Branchline/I-680 Corridor
Transportation Study
EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1 - Excerpts from San Ramon Branchline/I-680
Corridor Transportation Study: Summary
Report
2 - City Council Resolution No. 62-83 re:
Southern Pacific Right-of-Way
RECOMMENDATION 1) Hear Mr. Murphy's presentation.
2) Consider providing input.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT None.
DESCRIPTION
In the Fall of 1984, Mr. Bud Murphy and the Contra Costa County Public
Works Department began the San Ramon Branchline/I-680 Corridor Transportation
Study. The purpose of the study was to develop and evaluate alternative
transportation uses of the Southern Pacific right-of-way. The study was to
serve as a starting point for a detailed Alternative Analysis/Draft
Environmental Impact Statement in the future. The City Staff participated in
the initial Technical Advisory Committee meetings during the Fall of 1984 and
the Spring of 1985.
The Study, completed in February, 1987, identifies and evaluates possible
transit alternatives for the San Ramon Branchline/I-680 corridor. The
alternatives were narrowed down to four (4) technologies and two (2)
alignments. The findings and recommendations were then prepared for
consideration by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.
The recommendations include: 1) future detailed studies on Light Rail
Transit (LRT) and Busway technology alternatives, and 2) focusing future
detailed alignment analyses on the Southern Pacific right-of-way, as well as
retaining the potential alignment along I-680 right-of-way between Rudgear
Road, Walnut Creek, and Sycamore Valley Road, Danville.
In considering this study, the City Council should note 1) the Resolution
adopted in November, 1983, regarding potential future use of the Southern
Pacific right-of-way as a transportation corridor (Attachment 2) , and
2) General Plan Policies 5.3 Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way
Transportation Corridor:
"A. Support preservation of the Southern Pacific right-of-way as a
potential transportation corridor. "
"B. Consider potential recreational use in conjunction with
transportation use. "
Since the Study was prepared for consideration by the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors, Mr. Murphy has indicated that they would like some input
from -the City Council, but such input is not required. Mr. Murphy will be at
the City Council meeting to make a brief presentation and answer questions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Bud Murphy
ITEM 1 -s Planning Department
Stirt�"'I•r'+I .,.•p,�'rj,..arl-+' rRt">r•-•t. �+. ',•c t ""fT 7r"7"tC"'""�',/r�N►•v�c7""'S-n, ra�S inr�- �'�
+ri•. 1 dl��tf�It� Ifrlr `, ;^' �,,�''"y'l . I�,I �,�r�"1�' 7 i nS 7� ( rr lr , ff 1,s r �A'' "9 •.,y
II i i tp,'rlr,.�„ h 'i'+ r,y,;T'".', ,.f 1 Ir1.Itw'k"'U:i,J'�r�A�. ,I,,M IJI r,��.,Fr t! I'.f,•�; '}wti .m,.J I z: -.i t:,ry �! IJ'r*: 1 rr:t {r
wJwl,
r,'r" �A7Jt"r { P'r 'nppI' i';a
� �I M �� :>F; F 91 , I a U' y •' I r. n t Y dlp n'11.xAr '� a '„
AAA PP7 � I I
•�t'..f.yr+�;�r r, dal/!.y�r.�:I � rf{plF.�f �(r�p',I��+r1'. r ryr t lr y.,.�r TJ .>/'3✓It r <'n `11. A,� �, ,:T J Fr! �,r /it^a ��J I fv'i^}rr't 5 .'�
.Gt1A1.0111 rlkhnA..,.. -�d �rqq .I �. , J`. .{�r 1 A y r�.r�y r l.l, ♦{:r rv( N.. r
4Y� 4, 441 1• k Ir 1(! {�lnr .r�l t-tN1[r.�SF
I F!i�f w I.;itlli..(!.y �� b. ..,!y/ '' •M�rr j4' t rt.j .4fy 4r�r�,{t ,;rj t! Mrrt.,t{x ., ,r ,h u �!r!' " £A+I °.yti t,r,«.0^i: 1 f 'Y �.i r t
t�'Yr, JI' !{IAt;ltiNilt� 1 y Qi4t<r. •.Y"� I, ? r ti _ { r , tY( y �'�L a.l�'.. 1. ? r7 _
yy 5, (`(��4IY kf, J 'CI's r- i.lJ •F ,,� , 'ti r a n r f s✓ d 4.r. I y,J r cJ`
u• � t'I� / �� � �.X, 1f�17 } r 1 r Y f. , t� �.. F , JI >. f s � y�1`7•nr f
�r:�. 1�,'r!`uu���., Y 'T)� !h,' , !71 i.1 ,�, y''T (� t � •'t rt � } r!. t}1y.Jj"� .7 � .+'}3'1f . � 1,
, # X s. .+ r ! :Il X r 1 di h^rf-.> � r }.,,, • f/ i r<� i fYr
It�lt l✓i!I (11�� w. ?' r��T Yt!`ti, ���'.t�S[1 ,Sk � I x! tr' t .,SS( A.� {. r. } r {. t 1 't rt I I.h�j�, i 1 ft7
,.•,,.... NM,�I'*' A`f ,r.:" .r'�M'S R, 'XtIM1"!�?'' 15�•!3;F.+r ;z. rj( ti ni ,"kr i Li p. �.,T�; :>p•/ ',.yr,., r it `/,i '.f, �.,.}r {l!?;�' h
tt r ri�r®rAfL �k�u41 N y ,F, A yr, a' Y
.Y 1''w } i�nl>w L 'tin �'�+btrT�"�d '+ ut�s�i�st�yyt�iJ�'Ittfl � it �a f•{, ` � ,IJi °/r, `..f'M'�.rrS�{� r.t.v�� 1 K ,' {{r A 7
;•r, �"�.�yr G'i (� r(f � i' '{4d ta• I r ,�z,r.".''+ ,::J.t t' �'r�! •4r t��•�,.Yn;'t'i.rF '.>�i Yf F.ip .r.
h L 'A�
zp
1 w�I,.A� 1*���t�,j'y,'y�r� ��i��f� {ly 'tI'+..I t;t� L(�I t ;j '�•� t t a':°� r a i .i..r:if i tti, E:„r I 4� }'�[ °t ��p.r✓,,c• -y:. '
i �� ' ! i51 fi�hr«�/s}�. � ��, �J�..S.N:{'r�!^YI,ri�n4 a '11, '. .I .. Ira ' r , •y r• p.f. �•r a '
al 11�4�'",r ! lsly-_ T J, ► .I ,;r•._. _ ..._ _ �r
}f iA[�kal � fy
.� 4,45 SAN fA ON BRANCHLIN�/=1-680
2 sl; eJ,t,7��Y �,•t'n { r " ,� ,` / r -' 1 ) ,v14
CORRIDOR/
r {
SPORTATIONi STUDY
t `
a
T-
1AMARY R EPOR
y r tNl �f.. ;•rllb ��,.T�.t�rF j :t n :�') ,' � i i t is f ^ �. i
,. 1 (, ' tY`s'��c• I'"", 4Yt [ !r t i `t t `, r ( Y -�
- t L✓•Ik ',��Z r^,,K�"��."ia�P'� �{. ''�lT r,(fu r.ta� '#" `.. r -/, ._5 �. � ' _ I F�.
-
&}n Preparred for ,- -
t f'"41 rr az.'}'lr�."',♦1 Y ��� ,.. -. - 1," ` �r_ I j
he BOARD OF SUPERVISORS r
F
iYt'li '
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
;'E �? L ! t 1 r R E C FI.
i'
` 1y^(A�7- -
IS VVr
lVDUN PlANNfNG�
_3 t . `��.���`'� �t(,Syy�-Y.:7 r_ , - ' t Y. Y"C.`��.S' F �!•iie'4�
-January 1987 r.
'a •<. . tyr�ni u�•y� Ft""C'+` TAY;f`tln x
aL ,t ,�i....'ei_,d'ti•71�•{� 1,�'. t - ` i [ q•._ r r! r':c •{<�yF r-
t R. 3 G" v,r t t n � +� !
_�`s -
r - 1 7t n �r .x r -a •� ry c �'1 i
,' P/`�j„,Citl:W��'��r' � rc'd'+',Ax�-f'.i 'w,a: r t r [ L ,ty5 Y. � r �• �' 4� x rt
„'1a` ,A ; � ,e �' 1! r F i v , t l - t "Y 'a i -ti,1 /, aX.-- a�l �••�.
F. `71,`�•+j
•R� ,h
,C•Ay �:±�,11,�,. t..... t .e�:tt.:' ! x « , XS' r 1. `� �S`1•q t t (fit
' i �f�"'+, s - '. •;rte' - t L � t. I: .� a >,.�= L fa 4} '.2t�r i6 �• 'xi
�, b y ,per.. _ t �•vrr -ta*?}ta+ •nK � -1�1* F
r Ys'��'`� y�32 4b � r n ; _'fa�c3 i d�A w� --::a t ate r y i, 'r .. } 'L z ,.'�� �1��7a''n i. ,��4�•�'
-'Y�r"'ik v Y ti �i F. J7 `. ti r * v+� rY�"" �L �f' �•,>>•r.F tt�i�,r,;. `\1
c
y� 21 '� � r Fwy".!.'.yglf `, 3, { ,�Y � p ��- �t ,. 4, l,J.. ;,8^*7 1 �,a• hx S`•i �la L
��.,�,00y- ' x. .. t�" i°Y' ��i k7 ij iY 1.1 �, it v Y r .1 / � e x�-.•. t: t,yA,yFs 'Y!� a«�1,!,
•a:.: T,�tx4� �. �+. • > h,y vT'•r 1 ' � r W ♦` ct,{ F' -t i �. y-tt'• Y ti 4 } "^
:yta!� +� �i'"1°� "' y)x't rar. !'tc.t`,t;'..y-a .rY �,st -�., .t +- 4 t a-yl,�`• aLu''"y`i 1 '�•A� ,,s�
ATTACHMENT
.• �`S1,.N'� yy���tyyy???yyyy-� �i` w;,v1 t� '7a" +` t.t 1 .a 7� ^i''?.t"'t Se v, t t 1r�"er c F,-r«��a �• i v s T�r'•��J�. t� � t ti,
<;��t ^.. '..} , 5�r �.:CrF,�r^r7�'y{,, ;r ee t: i tZ. ''' tir .fit..� t'� p n ,`Y� t�_+•T�t'R nF��'• ill kT Gt1,�
�;•t}, '�{?` rle 'f "tla'` rr;;a •v t '+r {w°Yw 1,. s.,w ..�avr,•r_'.�:: M�_..�...:`ry "'L..:,r`Y �t� 'l �S. !1`;a a�.
9:� .• *�.R.DS N?• �?i fi:r"ti?' �.\�,`:`p,_ 4+.�.•.V�lrl^tt.::1.+1.,�,--� .ia vs7l�•3.d.c...'��i.:W.L.k�.:..�^7`ui�.r','.rN.'•h'r`-
nk
',r } >`lj� > r� r � +xkt'. ,�q1� '# ,,'l�r.<�l�S"tZ,"^sln 'TU zo 4•r• 1'
"�,�.a '�
, _1;'�' a.. .. r'.. L..,_ .d,u'fi. � __.�:-c.a_.h'.4_4.:11_.i' •..�..�ai"��_A` Xf liz....ild.��»�.2F'h.�s..a!'>ia,�xb'xt.`t°ji•�i�.i`T�!t�''^2t,'x t.. .:..
tt:`'Lr :;► � J c(t^r -�r ,,j-� w ryrf`}i� �:,I.y, ,�� �`yS� <,A,,,Z�•• .K
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
a.`�"� " n. �CYI �:�i;�+a."!'�, s��>y'�f,',:r��%:_ cf'f:+' Jr�e�oErSu�!-n.. •sf`.�+%Sx;.i�.�`".' N'L r'��,"�+Sf{e.
3er � ; f h� ,l, f
s ✓kff}�nZt$ t�•i+:> }:� ,_�yyy�P u fin" r+
t •�•y`"i. ''i7`at,Y.G t3 p. t"'V"•M,Skf1 �v �rf 3r A .rf� ' �•�,, �
�. � acv r1 y� w�*�,, �'�s;�y���,c'�t 1�+F`'..��T"'"4 }� t ,j��`+ y +r��''�`� ,t•�r'it,�rC/�� {xr�JtL' � r 'f'+`.r�,sS
•�' ���' � .I•'. .' 3 r 1 "'TT��`r 1•.Y fit! + j .4s...Y ,X it�' 'C J�
��, yT,r � \ca•.EVb� -,,'��3�r x,�a t f+' r.tic y., f}�,k t�r1�>� i«.) '"�a2}.r�i t r rt{"^��.
{rL � "The•San•Ramone ranchline I-680 Corridor ,Trans ortation Stud- was conducted _for, the r
1 •,� -+.{�.sa ..aa+4S't•:1I �"°.av+*s• '�KS�kV'+Y!: ,•f.'1,.�.r yu _' tlq. P Yy. ..
,Contra ,Cosa County Board�of;�,Snpervisors �, Mr-.,Joseph P ,(Bud) Murphy,'`Project
z�.,l, �Manager,r.*Southep r'rnn aPacific�:Railroad Right-of-Way.,Study; Contra` Costa .County Public.
•atl:llN,M.Rw•a, Kl,.?urc ti mar'-a•• ..w- ,._. v
��'_14 orks;Department,provided'the overall supervisory'direction for the study.'," Policy and 0
(f + a 'Y:.a+s.a'r w �vt•;p,. :.�+�, Vkvh�✓afed+:+.t. .. t i-. ... .. -
` technircal tguidance wereprodedx,by Ya Policy Steering Committee and ;Technical.`. ;
t '
-Advisory.-, o prised of representatives from numerous jurisdictions agencies'
1 !a ��p:fa•'v ar.3r t k?+uaas.-`«rasr�x;�a;c,cc�'fi:�-a >s. '.ra - _ 1 > >
and private•businesses with�ki�nterest in the study area
POLICY'STEERING COMMITTEE - v
�r y X
i
�it`7� �l:�17S 1•{R raa ' `� �� Y} j F s` = _ '•s ,.'- fy >
K,y•'. st.6'}�'K t t'�`' tK�. vi r�{r V`�•�Gt �".�-� �1 � � ~'_ r... �v ".4'
Robe t Schroder, Supervisor,`�Contra Costa County f L �-
t a Sunne McPeak Supervisor Contra Costa Count t w`
A�tiY Joseph Borten Supervisor; ameda County
s :.:. k-"` ....0 .�•aa;sc-o w,: •', '�Ar^s•-l+,pr'v... ._�. ,
t ;Fred Cooper�: Supervisory Alameda-County
_ r .•+r.r r rytGr.Ky s1
t Beverly Lane`' Mayor; City of Danville
t 4: n:..FM ..�rt•tiYfi ..�.,•, t - -T Lt•_'._ f S •i > 1.
, Pete Snyder �YMayor, City of Dublin' -' - x -
' Burch Bechtold °� Director t -
' r , Caltrans', District 4 a
Peter•Oswald �Sunset D'evelopment'Company (chairperson) s ,
` Joe Callahan `CPS `Associates'°�°a
TECHNICAL-ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Joseph"(Bud) Murphy ' `Project Manager, Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way S_ `tudy,
Con tra_Costa County Public Works Department
Harry Hecht = Alameda County Public Works Agency
Bob Warnick_= City of Pleasanton Public Works Department
Larry.Tong City of Dublin
Rich Bottarini - City of San Ramon
s.Roy Parker`= City of..Concord Public Works Department
t ,
Gary Binger: .Cityof.Walnut Creek' -
' Carol'Jansen City of Danville
Paul4 Watt r,City of Pleasant Hill ;; f
_ i t
i ;.Yvonne San-Jule, Association'of Bay Area Governments -
John.MTa lump Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Marl?anne yne Bay Area- Rapid Transit District
�.. _<
_. John Sindi nski Central Contra Costa Transit Authority _
t Cecil, Smith Caltr, n Transportation Planning Branch r
Roy.Bloss (ez officio member): `San Ramon'Valley, Southern Pacific Right-of-Way,`-
`fit}� ' L+ t� i -• Committee (citizen's group) -
Wade Green (ex officio member) Caltrans, Public Transit Branch k
XrCaltrans, ,Contra ° Cost Count Trailsrt Authority,' and BART are, also; gratefully
acknowledged for:pro ding data and other support througho` -'the study. . Particular ,
,y 'recognition is;, made` t�s the'; Metropolitan•:Transportation Commission 'planning staff y
tv members under the direction; of-J-ohn McCallum f or their assistance in refining the.I-
__
t x 680/ -580�corrido`r model used in this study to; forecast_ transit patronage and,highway ;
a
traffic volumes ?�`c ��
` tS+`JUst f;y y7�'f ���],,,r,,�,�'� ,",`,{'3� ,,,�, 4•.� �, rte. ' , .:,+_- k=�ti. 1,��l� 3 '�r�,{' :�7 't _ i, 4Y
_ t ry,Y ,r�� '�.Y a sy5�� ��e��k^�w'r i� if�Y�:.� i. Y i ,.. a t l.h.••" .Y t' C , t '{' ..
y�` ,'�� 't1s}='Sr !gat sJ� y,y�yy.+""'' +r v,, a•. 'S, �� - J...; , it � � _.Y"t�l....
t -.j �s+•'11�4 +`�- • �r..f'� `,s,��.,'.eJ�r�.�_���3�Y.�•�•�4�a_�, let�3.'.`,-, �u;r`r'�, /,,'va }�F{ +r r t}d{ -�4 -r''''� r '" 1r -vj.#f�<�k;
7 _ �. •ti 1 CS'mcr��}�-�r9..:n1,y{•,` ! ��:ft,� ��ta3 ,'-. �i -!'+•.PS "t'.-i,�!°'f•� � t� t k ' =..e'S r.ti r.�"S
Comittee,membeis'listed,tit th
are ose:representati•• vcs involved in the developme.nt of'this
r
.1 ftW i .i r�,>- .rocs .r��ti-rw�? y." t '•�,;t < �2 r• i E .` �
study betwecntScptember 1984 and September 1985
•'-� +�•�'-'d�� cICsS ?� �-• 7 .:'t *,�R,. a i t t '•� �.., wr �.+..2 t • 1 Y ft
MT,,,; - ���r."_x�e�iXAi ��\'A.c�r�. .'!'ex,: '§ r��Z..'f.,Kr ,..r..:,.:•,eF i:� �' i�"
,} ti' "� '1 •`dx .•+^• --ip.rc t >K.4 7 ,,a p}�^t r.Y'�i �'M>_ -^ 1+ y T t .rr,r t�{.. q ,a r { iw a. r V`�
�'� � � �" �• �` h>T`�,���.�r .r� �z�^".s ' i r X14,.%'�1f�(y,� .�) .� ���R''l'� N`f��y, F�'._.�,rirE`''�` +
,' �'''�,�; _ �� n'4:,�a } r �.,r y"` t '„`f�t 3:�•..i,..� 'vtd;�>,g' y.� '�,�'''t:iA �w.� i, -,t +•
,,:���: � "" :t"3a+"i�? �s� '��'�{�'o'"0'-"I�,r,y"y"1`�;� t'".i�tY`�`. '��- jy A��a?�. �'�i-"`�.•� r �.
��;; Y �' �I.rwf• .�..v�'.ot7r,�7.{�lr°w�'1 a .."r � yf��„r
:a`::a,�'t a rii���� �������,s�e. ��4���,1��'�••rr`.y't 1 `�a •�y'.� �1� ��•F4t .� �,, �. L�t �
..<. '>.. :_..fir.... <'..�-•+,�,-_:,,n.vir ��r�r'+'Wru��'—.-° ,r�.c'.?'AIIdCCii7!t'�RbfiV.rin,,;�
.I a
PREFACE
Study of the San Ramon'Branchline/I-680 corridor began in late 1984 with completion
expected in early 1985. Several factors effected changes,to both the study procedures
u•,'
;: • and the study schedule after program commencement in 1984: the decision for both
this study and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's evaluation of I-580/I-680
corridors to use a consistent data base as well as a new travel forecasting model
developed by DKS Associates. ;
3
? - Both studies, therefore, made use of the most recent detnographlc projections for the
area: Projections '85 by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). While Pro-
;`'.
jections '85 resolved concerns of local jurisdictions about;earlier-proposed data sources,
it also introduced an element of delay in analytical tasks such as'estimating travel de-
i �.. mand and patronage for the study alternatives. •Other aspects `of the study such as
identification of existing conditions, and alternatives definition, continued on schedule
and were completed by early 1985, and were based'on data available during that time.
.` The new traffic model was applied to the San Ramon Branchline/ -680.corrid r in late l
'= 1985 and anaoyses contingent upon patronage values were finalized in January 1986.
Technical and summary reports were then prepared in draft for eview by members of
the Contra Costa County staff. -
`Y...
During the protracted course of this study, events occurred that.may date some state-
�-
ments and existing conditions descriptions in the technical and summary reports. For
example,-reference is made to short-range transit plans or transportation improvement
programs. These refer to plans available in 1985. Likewise, existing traffic counts,
BART parking expansion programs, transit services, and various transportation plan-
L` ning reports are those that were available in early 1985. Both capital and operating
. ::..
costs are also representative of.prevailing costs in 1985. General background data were
not updated to reflect the currently available statistics as they are not critical to a
decision process. It should be noted, however, that those data items critical to deci-
sions are in fact the most recent and are in current use in other ongoing studies.
While significant decisions have occurred that are not fully recognized or reported in
the analysis, none of them conflicts with or would alter the findings and recommenda-
tions of this study. Rather, individually and collectively, they tend to support and .
reinforce the viability of a significant transit improvement in this area. These deci
sions include:
1. Critical phases of the MTC I-580/I-680 corridor study were completed using the
same data base and forecasting model used in this study. Although the planning
year for the MTC study differs (2005 versus 2000) and the tested transportation
networks are more extensive, the overall results of the first stage of.Phase II are
ge nerally.consistent with the findings of this study. For example,'both studies .
indicate the same general congestion levels at the same general locations on State
Routes 4 and 242, I-680, and I-580:
In the San Ramon/I-680 corridor LRT transit (Super System 2) outperforms BART
>'..: (Super System 1), largely due to improved service and use within the corridor.
r LRT daily patronage is similar to that projected in this study (26,800 on MTC ver
E „t .,.•' sus 24,300 on LRT Alternative 2) even though the overall highway and_ transit
networks are more extensive in the MTC study. With restricted highway and max-
imum transit networks (MTC Alternative 5), the MTC study indicates a potential
�� ,; for over 40,000 trips per day in this corridor on an LRT system. Thus the findings
and recommendations in this study are supported and, if anything, are conservative
with respect to transit potential in this corridor.
2• Additional railroad abandonments have occurred in Alameda.County and several
right-of-ways have been• acquired by the County. These include a route through
Altamont Pass and another in Niles Canyon. These potential transit corridors
could effectively extend a San Ramon/I-680 corridor system. .
3. BART has initiated a detailed alternatives. analysis/Draft Environmental Impact
Statement study of-the Pittsburgh/Antioch extension proposals. One of the alterna-
tives to be studied includes LRT in' Pittsburgh/Antioch corridor. If found practi-
cal, a logical extension'of a San Ramon Branchline/I-680 corridor system could be
developed connecting . major new residential developments to the burgeoning
employment base in the San Ramon/I-680 corridor.
4. BART has conducted further alignment studies in the Livermore/Pleasanton corri-
dor and it seems that adoption of a route in I-580 between Dublin and Livermore
will be recommended. I-580 had previously been adopted as a route alignment
between the Bay Fair BART Station in Hayward and the Dublin Station in the Tri-
Valley area.
i
1
u ; FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS
The stud 'area has undergone dramatic Based on the analysis and these findin s
Y g Y g .
y° change in land use intensity -and .charac- the following recommendations are pre-
;: . ter. Once semirural, the corridor is now sented for consideration.
urbanized with several major employment
centers. Recent ABAG projections show 1. Proceed •with more'detailed analysis
_
that this trend will continue and: even and evaluation of corridor-lever al-
3 . accelerate, particularly with respect to ternatives in4ding detailed analysis
employment. The corridor will have more -of hoVzontal gnd vertical alignment,
jobs than employed residents by the year . 'station locations, environmental im-
2000 with employment growth focused on pacts, funding;options including joint
existing centers. Virtually all of these use and development opportunities,
centers are adjacent to the San Ramon ;and other steps leading to implemen-
Branchline/I-680 corridor. ► tation,of a high-quality transit system
tin this corridor.
A The existing transportation system, domi-
nated by the pr vate auto, is already expe- '2. Future detailed studies ould con-
3 riencing serious congestion that will con- centrate on Light Rail Tr nsit (LRT)
tinue to worsep. Existing highway" and' . and Busway altternatives.'
arterial capacity is inadequate even with ! ,
the improvements currently programmed, ! 3. : Busway:alternatives may include con-
and further expansion to provide suffi- sideration of electric or dual-mode
cient capacity to meet projected demand is propulsion systems to reduce noise and
not practical or possible. exhaust
problems associated with
diesel buses on the busway.
A high-quality, relatively fast transit sys-
tem in the study corridor could provide an 4. TSM measures should be included in
important element in an integrated, bal- any alternative examined as a sup-
anced transportation system with focus on plement and/or interim service rather
the development patterns and travel than as a discrete alternative.
demands in the corridor. Such a system
could attract more than 24,000 additional S. Efforts should be made to maintain a
riders daily. Of the alternatives exam- reasonable corridor within the South-
ined, those for LRT-or Exclusive Busway ern Pacific right-6f-way- free of util-
would produce the highest patronage ities and other features that would in-
while the BART alternative would not be crease the cost and implementation
cost effective because of its high capital difficultie_s of any future .transit sys-
cost. Transportation system' management tem. `
(TSM) alternatives do not appear to pro-
vide a solution, but could be very effec- 6. Future detailed analyses should focus
tive supplements to a comprehensive on the exclusive use of the abandoned
transportation system. Southern Pacific right-of-way .because
it provides 'the maximum ,.service
The San ,Ramon Branchline right-of-way . potential and least costly alignment.
produces the least costly transit corridor, However, the option to use the outside
has the most service and access potential, edge of the freeway .,•right-of-way
and is the most cost-effective alignment between Rudgear Road and Sycamore
option., Use of the right-of-way through Valley Road should also be retained
several narrow segments between Rudgear pending detailed cost and environ-
a�, Road :and Sycamoe• Valley Road in-
re mental analyses.
_
troduces potential for adverse community
impacts. =These impacts could be mitigated
x :. by a more costly alignment at the outside -
edge but within the right-of-way of I-680. -
•'''.a.,L:•a:.\20s.:.:- '.\:ua 4'r:::-e,�ew.;�.,C..c.+tt .T.rC...t. .ce cir.o{h.<u•. :l .. -....t.. 1.• c :. .. '
,s^cr a�^'•:.!,.xr..YSrEY'+.r."Y�.Z,u+t•G11eM.a.,r:.:
INTRODUCTION
In 1890 the San Ramon Branchline right- alternatives. A long Mist of `possible
of-way was secured through .acquisition, technologies and alignment options was
donations, . and local subscription and developed then screened against the goals
conveyed to the Southern Pacific Rail- and objectives to produce a reasonable
road Company. . Initial rail operations number of viable alternatives for 'more
within the right-of-way began in 1891, detailed analysis. The final list included
jwhen agricultural produce and passengers fou_our te, linologio-and t: o alignments,
I were carried to nearby cities. As the which were then' defined in 'more detail.
area surrounding the right-of-way Analysis,, included estimating' capital and .
3 became urbanized and paved highways operating ;costs, 'assessing environmental
dirt roads, the demand for rail impacts,, developing physical and 'fight-
replaced s service diminished although freight ser- of-way +requirements, operational *plan-
vice remained in operation as late as ning, estimating,t'and ridersh1p.'-The data
i 1975. developed for each alternati"e were then .•
j compared with the goals a d .objectives
The Interstate Commerce Commission, and a t set of findings-', Hd recom-
i acting on a request by the Southern Pa- mendations was ,prepared for iconsidera- .
j cific Transportation Company, approved j lion by 'the Contra Gosta Coun_y^Board
abandonment, of rail service over the of upervisors.
19.5-mile portion of the right-of-way
within Contra Costa County in * 1978. The decision to'be made by the Contra '
Through various actions and interim or- Costa County Board of Supervisors.is not
dinances, Contra Costa County has main- the selection of .a preferred system or
tained the right-of-way virtually intact alternative, but rather a selection ofd
and has acquired significant portions of short list of the most promising al-
the right-of-way. Various proposals for ternatives to be analyzed and evaluated
' alternative uses of this right-of-way have in more dcsailin subsequent stu ies..
aroused a great deal of public and pri-
vate interest and opinion. This summary report reviews the San
i Ramon Branchline/1-680 Transportation
i In 1982, state matching funds were pro- Study and the resultant conclusions and
vided to assist acquisition of the right-of- recommendations. Detailed analytical
way. Consequently, under a Joint Exer- and evaluative discussions and data are
cise of Powers Agreement the counties of contained in the Technical Report that
3 Alameda and Contra Costa defined a supports this document.
R study area including portions of Contra
Costa '- County and . extending into
Alameda County to the Radum Wye near
r Stanley Boulevard (see Figure 1). There-
after, Contra Costa County commissioned
this study' to identify and evaluate pos-
sible transit alter t ves for the San Ra
coon ranc ine/I- 80 corridor.
�. � This study was conducted in a series~of
..... .. -
analytical phases. Initial steps included a '
thorough review 'of all relevant, ' prior
studies and proposals for transit improve-
;,
ments in the corridor
..and establishment
of 'goals and. objectives ;to .serve as a
standard for evaluating possible corridor y p
.t �x\.�.PSY,Ii'.�F1CLd1i.CG�pNM3101G'Ai�A:itllbl!7�tn►Ydi tr4...A.. .. ).,;Zf K"J."/M�4SL'C3f1.\M14 3PI1S.l' _fit+7-�+'M'A`3M1./t +C1PT.fi��JR4SAV'h.r�WM•)YP?I..•i}M.YiiY'l7}L l�.`.Y�1� • -
i i,.fktl;�h/kfl{1i7 yv a'Mvo,si►.•.t+y,.w1�IV�i.,:.rs �
FIGURE 2
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
UCHA
DEVELOPMENT BEFORE 1980
DEVELOPMENT TO 1984
CLAYTON
KV4 ,
BAR
T CREEK
• Mr.DIAaLo
l Q
ALA •
S TKAMPAS PEAK ■D
D NORTH
o 1 2 7 4 S
' MILES
`4
DANVI
.CONTRA COSTA p4yrM
'ALAMlDA COUN7~•''•OOMY Dttµ f TAE4AJAAA ,
T p!4• 1
t 1'
%•• , - x i ,P BISHOP s
` ♦`.r p� ,, AMCN
tJ
„o,s • � Comet%
CONtP►...-••COON
SAN RAMO �.• ..••..•...PLAyEDA
BRANCHLINE --°f
L
TRANSPORTATION `
STUDY
U •
. . L
LIVE ORE MUNICIPAL
E
• • ' S+ S Al OAT
LIVERMOR
DMJM..._..-. ., ..D
4t AMEE+
MI A*t IATMMI MITN
DAB ASSOCIATES AND
EARTN METRICS N
e
0
4
MW
v,-
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF In summary, the LRT alternative is pro
jected to attract the largest ridership,
ALTERNATIVES
closely followed by the Busway alterna-
tive. : The lo
Table 7 presents a summary comparison wer patronage on the BART
of the various measures used to evaluate alternative appears to result from two
the alternatives. All comparisons are factors: 1) the wider station spacing re-
I paiticularly
based on the ABAG Projections '85 popu duces system accessibility,
lation and employment forecasts: for shorter ;trips, and also' 'produces
3
TABLE 7
SYST'
.�M COMPARISONS.
Heasgre BART LR Buswa TSM At mutt Coments
J
1. Daily Patronage (1000s) 13.2 24.3 22.2 10.7 24.3 2.3
Annual Patronage (Millions) 3.95 7.29 6.66 2.74 7.29 0.71
2. Transit Speed Iwo) 50.7 31.6 28.6 20.7 30.0 27.5 Average speed in
corridor
3. Iciproved Highway Service N/A W/A N/A NIA NIA X/A See text
4. Total Capital Cost 498.3 202.9 111.5 20.3 709.7 0.6 No cost assigned
IS Millions)
to to to to TSM for HOV
303.4 204.0 729.3 Lanes in 1-680
Capital Cost/HiLe 25.7 7.5 5.0 0.9 26.1 0.03
IS Millions) I
to to to
11.2 9.1 26.8
5. Annual Cost IS Millions)
Capital .51.1 20.4 12.1 2.8 72.6 0.1
to to to
30.6 21.6 74.6
Operating 3.7 6.6. 10.5 2.6 3.8 0.9
Total .54.8 27.0 22.6 5.4 76.4 1.0
to to to
37.2 32.1 78.4
6. Totat/Added Passenger (S) 15.4� 5.50 5.23 2.17 11.91 (Biise)
T. Totat/Passenger Mite (S) 1.21 0.68 0.60 0.26 1." 0.14
8. Regional & Local Connections 0 (Base)
9. Staged Devetopwnt K/A 7%
10. UP"Ion Potential + K/A
11. Safety�and Traffic
N/A
12. Conpatibilit f a" W/A
y
13. Envirorvrentat 0 0 0 N/A
Note: str"ty negative
a
rwitrat
neg tive
+ positive
strong Ly positive
25
longer access times via bus or auto feed : streets at 12 to 15 mph reduces the over-
ers; and 2) the shuttle concept introduces all speed to about 21 mph.
a" forced transfer •for riders` using the
Pittsburgh/Antioch ..extension..`," If an The LRT and Busway systems are compa-
operational : connections:. at the Pleasant rable because off-system speed is not re-
Hill station were included to provide di- fleeted in the corridor averages shown.
rect service .between -the extension and Even though the LRT system is somewhat
the San Ramon corridor, then some in- faster, some portion of the busway users
crease could be expected. However, the would not have to transfer and would
most significant deterrent appears to be thereby save some time. The net result
the longer station spacing in this corridor should be approximately equal door-to-
and reduced spacing is not consistent door times in these systems, consistent
with the BART mode. with the comparable patronage of these
_......_. . two alternatives. f
Due to the "express" nature of the TSM
alternative and the fact that the service In terms of highway service levels, none
would only be available during peak pe- of the transit alternatives produces dra- ,
riods, the TSM system does not signifi- matic improvements when analyzed at
cantly increase overall corridor transit the level of detail of this study. That is
use. For those riders on or near a partic- not surprising since transit use, even un-
ular route that serves their desired desti- der the highest patronage systems, repre-
nation, this alternative would probably sents,only about 8% to 14% of the total
provide the "best" commute service. commute travel. Using southbound I-680
However, it is not practical to provide as an indicator, highway traffic volumes
such service between all origin and desti- compared to the Null alternative are g
nation combinations and, in effect, serve reduced by 4% to 5% north of State I
only a small percentage of commuters. In Route 4, show increases of 5% to 7% be-
the TSM alternative, the majority of pas- tween State Routes 4 and 242, are about
sengers would be required to transfer equal between State Routes 242 and 24, ; :4
from other bus routes or from autos near and then are reduced by 7 to 10% be- =m
the start of their journey. tween State Route 24 and I-580. Other
major highways in the study generally
However, TSM could improve traffic con- show modest reductions in traffic vol-
ditions associated with specific major at- ume. The reductions associated with the
traction centers such is the'Bishop Ranch !LRT alternative are slightly greater than {
I =0
and Hacienda•, business parks. Even the other alternatives' redu�+ytions, and
tho}igh generat transit use may not in- . =therefore produce the greatest improve-
crease signific ntly, the commute traffic :ment in highway service. Overall, the
to specific fac ities could be reduced by Busway and BART alternatives are about
focusing transit service and by encg"urag- ; equal with one or the other showing bet-
ing car pool/van pool operations. `ter traffic reductions depending on the
+ location of the specific link. In all cases,
Travel time (Table 7) reflects the'average - the TSM alternative produces more
speed of the corridor system - not!aver- congestion (i.e., volume in excess of ca-
age door-to-door time. The longer access pacity) on I-680 and therefore provides
time because of fewer stations, theAfore, _poorer highway service levels than even
tends to reduce the. average total trip the Null alternative. That condition re- p
speed of the. BART alternative even suits from the conversion of one lane
though the on-system speed!is the•highest. each way on I-680 from general traffic to
Similarly, the,off-freeway portions of the HOV use.
TSM routes reduce the overall corridor
li speed. Actual on-freeway speeds in HOV In terms of capital investment, any alter-
lanes should exceed 50 mph but the native other than the Null alternative
weaving necessary to enter the center requires a major commitment "of
lanes coupled with - distance on 'local resources. It should be noted that none
26
,�
1 T IgT,t,r>>nFr .r
F�yrn
^lk
of the cost for the new lanes on I-680 has, alternative As considered r'lneutral," or,
been charged against the TSM alternative roughly equivalent to the existing system:"'
since at all times except peak hours, the
new lanes are available for general traf- Both the TSM and Busway alternatives
fic. Thus, the capital cost for the TSM provide a higher potential for staged de--'
alternative is somewhat understated. velopment 'than the BART,' LRT,'oi_ AT
However, even charging some or :all of systems. In the TSM alternative,-added
I that cost, the TSM alternative would still routes can be implemented at any time 'a
be the least costly improvement, followed need or)demand; is identified. ,. In .the
by the Busway, LRT, BART, and AT al- Busway system, buses may be routed over
ternatives, respectively. It should also be even short segments as they are com-
noted that a potential cost variation of p1ged to improve corridor speed. In ad-
about $100 million exists in the LRT and dition, the busway could be converted to
Busway alternatives, depending on the i a'rail system in the future, as demand
final choice of alignment in Segments C builds. =(However, any such conversion
and D. It should be noted that total costs would produce substantial seJvice disrup-
` for the system alternatives also reflect tion during construction.) he rail sys-
differences i length. The capital cost tems, however, require some minimum
per mile provides a second base for com- length to produce an- "operable" system.
parison. While the rank order is the j Thus, they are less adaptable,than bus al-
same, the differences between the LRT ternatives:to staged development.
and Busway ; alternatives are smaller;
however, between these and BART, the The TSM, Busway, and LRT systems pro-
difference is much reater. vide a higher expansion g g p potential than
the BART or AT systems.
In terms of total annualized cost, the
i rank order still remains.the same, but the With respect to safety and traffic, only
i higher operating cost further reduces the the grade-separated BART and AT sys-
difference between the LRT and Busway ' tems would actually improve conditions.
alternatives. The at-grade intersections with the LRT
and Busway alternatives introduce both
In terms of increased total annual cost accident potential and potential' adverse
per added annual passenger (compared to traffic impacts. The increased congestion
the �Null alternative), the TSM is again on I-680 coupled with the weaving
lowest, at $2.17 - per new passenger, movements to enter and exit the HOV
's followed by Busway and LRT at $5.23 lanes introduce increased accident poten-
and $5.50, respectively. The AT and tial on I-680. In terms of safety and
$ BART alternatives produce marginal traffic, therefore, the -LRT, Busway, *and
costs of $11.91 and $15.46, respectively, TSM alternatives are considered slightly
for the highest cost systems. It should be negative . compared to the Null al-
noted ."-that these costs-per-passenger ternativc.
statistics represent the highest cost op- = ^
tions in each alternative. Using the low- In terms of.compatibility_with local and
est cost options would reduce the cost per , regional plans, the general scale of the
new passenger to $3.63 for the Busway BART alternative coupled with the .ele- .
and $3.95 for the LRT alternative. Cor- vated structure could produce a negative .
responding -reductions would also occur impact while at the same time reinforce _
in the cost-per-passenger mile statistic for existing and developing activity centers.'
the Busway and LRT alternatives. The smaller scale and quiet operation of
the AT systems are 'considered as offset- ..
All '•alternatives' except the TSM would ting� the elevated ::configuration• there-
; ,
k. the--local and regional transit fore, .the AT alternative .is essentially .
�z
improve g Y
connection: ^Because of the express na- neutral since it also reinforces existing
tur:e 'of the TSM bus system through the and :-developing activity':'centers. :r -The
'control `area `of the 'corridor;' the „TSM l TSM alternative is slightly negative com
' 27
pared to the Null alternative since it does. Oakland, Berkeley,and San .Francisco to
nothing to improve overall transportation a ..largely urban area including major.
service, : neither in reducing highway employment concentrations ' by , the late
s congestion- nor increasing transit use. 1970s. Every indication is that this
Both� the LRT and Busway alternatives transformation and growth will continue
are considered - superior to the Null and .even accelerate over the next 20
alternative in •that ° they: are at-grade years.
7 systems,.: could'. serve : all existing and
developing activity centers,.,-. promote The most recent. regional forecasts, pre- -
increased .transit use, and, at least to pared by the Association of Bay Area
some extent, reduce highway traffic vol- Governments (ABAG) in' 1985 project an
umes.? • ;: :..:.;.;. increase of about 33% in total population '
- - and 121%. in total employment in the
From an overall environmental perspec- study area by the year 2000. In terms of
tive, the BART alternative is considered gross numbers, there could. be over 94,000
to have a higher potential for adverse more residents and over 133,000 more
impacts because of its elevated structure, jobs in the study area by the year 2000
large stations and related disruption, and than existed in 1980. These projections
noise generated by high-speed operation. also indicate that by the year 2000 there
The Busway alternative is considered will be some 23,000 more jobs in the
slightly negative because of the wider study area than total employed residents.
roadway required (compared to other al- That means that even if every employed
r ternatives) and the greater noise associ-' resident also worked in the area, 23,000
x ated with diesel buses. (Electric or dual- additional workers would have to enter
propulsion buses could alleviate the noise the area in the morning and leave every
problems but with substantial cost in- evening.
creases.) Other alternatives are consid-
ered essentially neutral compared to the Much of this employment growth will re-
Null alternative. inforce existing centers in Concord and
a Walnut Creek, but the greatest percentage
increase is occurring in new office park
developments such as the .Bishop Ranch
and Hacienda business parks at the
southern end of the corridor. The City
j of Dublin projects over 15x000 jobs in a
CONCLUSIONS new development adjacent, to the Camp
Parks facility, which would further in-
j The follow ng conclusipns are derived crease both employment in the southern
from the atalysis of historic data and corridor and the necessary Iabor import.
projections focused on during the study.
Detailed an lytical and evaluative discus- Virtually all of these existing and pro-
sions-and data are found in thei Techhi- jected employment centers are adjacent to
cal Report supporting this summary. the San Ramon Branchline right-of-way.
LAND USE,POPULATION,& WhOYIMENT� TRANSPORTATION
1
The area covered. by - the San. Ramon Transportation demands in the study area
Branchline/I-680 - Transportation Study are meet by four highways: State Route 4
has undergone a majon change in both running east/west at the northerrt end,
character and intensity of land use. In State Route 24 extending from Walnut
the decades leading to the 1980s;the area Creek to Oakland, I-580 . running
changed from predominantly rural agri- east/west at the southern end of the cor-
cultural uses supporting small towns ridor, and I-680 running north/south
through the 1960s to suburban bedroom through the Valley. In addition, there is
communities supporting major centers in a developed arterial street system in the-
28 41.
+
Concord, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek capital cost and . therefore -are not
area and an existing and expanding arte- cost effective in this corridor.
rial system in the San Ramon, Dublin,
i• Pleasanton areas. However, Danville 4. The TSM alternative does not make a
Boulevard/San Ramon Valley Boulevard significant impact on the overall
is the only continuous north/south ante- travel demands in. the_ corridor•and
rial between Walnut Creek and Dublin would 'produee increased peak-period
and there is little chance of major new congestion of I-680. Theref ore,'it is
arterials through the relatively narrow not a solution to corridorwide prob- .
Valley. lems} and should be considered:as a
supplement to a more comprehensive
Although BART provides regional transit system:
service between the Concord/Walnut e
Creek area and Oakland/San Francisco to 5.• The:'effectiveness of a transit system
the west, north/south transit service t in this corridor is no dependent
through the study area is limited to the = upon BART extensions n the Pitts-
BART Express Bus routes, currently op- - burgh/Antioch or Livermore/
' erating on Danville Boulevard/San Ra- i Pleasanton cdrridors.
mon Valley Boulevard. Other bus transit r
services focu on the local community 6. Useof the Southern Pacific San Ra-
i
and act as feeders to BART. mon 'Branchline i right-of-way pro-
! duces° the least costly. alternative,
This condition of limited north/south maximum service and access poten-
transportation capacity coupled with the tial, and is, therefore, the most cost-
major employment growth in the south- effective alignment option.
ern end of the corridor presents a serious
problem. Previous independent studies 7. Use of the Southern Pacific right-of-
by Caltrans, Contra Costa County, and way through the narrow (50-foot-
MTC have identified this problem and wide) segments between Rudgear
concluded that is was not possible or Road and Sycamore Valley Road also
practical..to provide highway capacity to introduces potential for adverse im-
meet projected demand. Using the latest pacts on land use compatibility, nu-
estimates of.population and employment merous at-grade street crossings, and
and including the proposed improvements potential for. neighborhood " disrup-
to •I-680, this study confirms those earlier tion. -- Use of the 'outside edge
;findings. : freeway alignment through this 'seg-
went would increase LRT or Busway
TRANSIT EFFECTIVENESS cost by $50 million to $60 million.':,
The analysis of various transit alterna-
tives in` the study area produces the fol-
lowing conclusions:
I. A high-quality, '' reasonably fast
transit system can attract over 24,000
' RECOMMENDATIONS s; :;..•.
daily passengers in the corridor.
2. •.The LRT and Exclusive Busway al- Based on the analysis and these fmdmgs,
ternatives produce the highest pa- the following recommendations are pre
`�. tronage potential of all alternatives sented for consideration.
..tested.
1. Proceed with more detailed 'analysis
` 3 The -BART and Advanced Tech- and evaluation of corridor-level al r
;no logy t alternatives"do- not generate tcrnatives including Aetailed,analys s �
{ enough patrona ge,t,6 et their high of horizontal and vertical alignmen_t,
29 r z t i a ,�c�y ,F•�y`�*xk4-(�- .`�_g(t ,i-+? '�y;
,ti, C
y .,+"' Ott' '��s.a ,,r,bF•
.at�t (r. " T4° +r L - _ f �_' yf tr.,�.417r'►'4rC• 9•€�S�fY;, �*'-.'/i
1 r ,�y � �' y,+t i -j 1t S w -. * k... r I 1 � K A�� � !�_ �, ,�y., •' r.C"r.'J
.A r+�• l�–:.�.r31'....L�...(��.......� ; -u-__ -.._.. _ ... .. .. e �._ T•1_r..1}..�t..-1..\�,�4� TT� - ..
•
L'
i
i
j station locations, environmental im- - :w`'
j pacts, funding options including joint
use and development opportunities, T
j and other steps leading to implemen-
tation 'of a high-quality transit sys-
tem in this corridor. '• • - --, , . ,- ,� .
2. Future detailed studies' should con-
centrate on Light Rail Transit and
Busway alternatives.
3. Busway alternatives may include
consideration of electric or dual- 4
mode propulsion systems to reduce
noise and exhaust problems associ-
ated with diesel buses on the busway.
4. TSM measures should be included in
" any alternative examined as a sup-
! plement and/or interim service
rather than as a discrete alternative.
5. Efforts should be made to maintain a
i reasonable corridor within the South-
ern Pacific right-of-way free of util-
ities and other features that would
increase the cost and implementation
difficulties of any future transit sys-
tem.
1 ,
1
6. Future detailed analyses should focus
on the exclusive use of the aban-
doned Southern Pacific right-of-way
because it provides the maximum ser-
vice potential and least costly align-
ment. However, use of thg outside
edge oJ. the .freeway right-of-way
betwee Rudgear Road and Sycamore :. .
Valley Road should be ;retained
pendingi detailed cost and -enviroln- i
mental analyses. ! ;
,
i
�r
's
30
s
' RESOLUTION NO. 62 - 83
'.t
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
---------------------
' ESTABLISHING PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE INTERIM USE AND
{ THE ACQUISITION OF THE ABANDONED
ti SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
WHEREAS, the City, of . Dublin recognizes the trememdous growth
that is occurring not only within ' the City, but also in neighboring
communities; : and .
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin recognizes that such growth will
have an impact on the transportation systems and facilities.throughout
the Valley; , and
� 7
WHEREAS, the Southern Pacific Rail Line ha$ beeniidentified for
a potential light rail line in the future; and ;
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin wished to preserve the 'City' s
options with respect to maintaining the Southern 'Pacific Rail Line as
:x a future transportation corridor.
NOW, THEREFORE, .BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council f the
City of Dublin hdreby adopts the following principles. governi .g the
r interim use and the acquisition of the abandoned Southern Pacific
Railroad right-of`ay:
,h �
d} 1) EnsureAhe right-of-way is transferred into public
n ownership
2 ) Maintain the right-of-way as a continuous unit
3 ) Protect the integrity of the right-of-way by coordinating
the land use policies of the Counties and Cities through
which it passes
4 ) Near term uses to which the right-of-way may be put should
not foreclose its development as a transportation facility
:1- in the future
5 ) Develop a coordinated policy .to consolidate . existing
crossing points and to restrict new crosses across the
right-of-way, with the exception that the City reserves its
;F .'right in . the future to cross the right-of-way with a major
arterial street from central .Dublin to the lands to the
east of the City
6) Develop a coordinated plan among the potential public and
private utilities intending to lase the right-of-way
7 ) Maximize all available public and private sources or
iz - revenue which .may be used to acquire the right- of-way
8) Establish acquisition priorities for segments of the
right-of-way-
PASSED, . APPROVED AND. ADOPTED this 14th. day of November, 1983 .
;. AYES : Councilmembers Drena, Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt and
Mayor Snyder
NOES : ' ,' None
ABSENT: None
Mayor
ATTEST
ity .Clerk
A1 1A
+ F 1
l-��� .`\.`'i+"N V'6+M.'� '4�i M a,.`-4 I�. ♦•t * 'a7`'\11,71 1 Y. t �`r y'S Js t {1i \'�.�y"f ,
`a�a ��^y `C�'• R);l J3.,' 1• �yliy+\ \Y. J - `` T$fI •,4 �L•`.• .�y '. !t.ry t, h�N ` ,
! `�' 1r�`:rS���t\ �'�'t�.�.; f`h•Gy{.,1Z• t y�"b,�.y�,�a?,i�,,:t�` tti r,•:'r\,. ar;� �\4".';�j� S=�r �t�.�',z�+rit�'.i}��,.'�n�;'w�
;7V*
`�._ �`7tA R�1."`,.i:a•'�.�6'�' '-a"m"t`-i ,."9PAt�i' '3` . . '.�'^ti .�5`a�'3Yk`�,.r•..`t;�3:�'l�i..�l nc�`? _�i�.te�.'�4.f?��c��17u` `��±g�$'�R�7.,TMt;+ l�.` ;::at�E-i7. si"�"_..'�'�s.�s$'s� € �a' t'�.a'€'ii'�i