Access Key 2018 Vip Pass San Francisco Art Market Fort Mason

Planned transit project in San Francisco

Downtown Runway Extension
Overview
Other name(s)	DTX
Status	Planned
Owner	Peninsula Corridor Articulation Powers Board (PCJPB)
Locale	San Francisco, California
Stations	2
Service
Type	Railroad
Organisation	Caltrain  CHSR
Operator(south)	PCJBP; California Loftier-Speed Rail Authority
Technical
Line length	1.iii mi (2.09 km)
Number of tracks	ii-6
Character	clandestine driver / loftier-speed railway tunnel
Rail gauge	iv ftviii+ 1⁄2  in (one,435 mm) standard estimate
Electrification	Overhead lines, 25 kV Air conditioning
Route map Legend future 2d Transbay Tube to Oakland Embarcadero pedestrian tunnel Salesforce Transit Center 4th & Male monarch expanding underground to quaternary & Townsend Caltrain to San Jose & CHSR to Los Angeles This diagram: view talk edit

The Downtown Rails Extension (DTX) is a planned second stage of the San Francisco Transbay Transit Center (TTC). When complete, it will extend the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor commuter rails line from its current northern terminus at 4th and Rex via a one.3 mi (2.1 km) tunnel.^[1] The new terminus will exist near the Financial District and will provide intermodal connections to BART, Muni, Transbay Air conditioning Transit buses, and long-distance buses. In addition, the California High Speed Rail Authorization (CHSRA) plans to utilise DTX and the Caltrain-endemic Peninsula Corridor for service on the CHSRA San Francisco–San Jose segment. Because DTX uses a long tunnel, current diesel locomotives are not suitable and the Caltrain Modernization Projection (CalMod), which includes electrification of the line and acquisition of electrified rolling stock, is a prerequisite.

Estimated at $6 billion,^[2] it is projected to cost more than the entire starting time phase of the Transit Heart.^[3] Just the "train box", the structural beat out surrounding the lowest level of the TTC, has been funded as part of Phase one structure. As of 2018^[update], full funding has not been obtained for the unabridged Phase 2 projection. The Transbay Articulation Powers Authority (TJPA) is seeking funding from various federal (Federal Transit Administration New Starts grants), country (SB1, the CAHSR projection), regional, and local sources.^[4]

From about 2013 to 2018, the final route between the electric current 4th and Rex terminus and the TTC was uncertain. Former San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee had proposed an alternative road in 2015 which would bypass 4th and Male monarch, extending Caltrain and high-speed rail to the Transbay Final through a new tunnel branching from the existing line at the 22nd Street station, and then following a road more often than not under Third Street to TTC. In 2018, the San Francisco Planning section announced the preferred final route: a new tunnel under Pennsylvania Avenue that would connect to the originally designed DTX route from fourth and King to the TTC.^[2] In improver, the TTC is a candidate for the San Francisco terminus of a 2d Transbay Tube betwixt San Francisco and Alameda Island, which would add together directly BART service.

Stations and service patterns [edit]

The pattern of DTX includes, as of the 2015 environmental touch report, 2 new beneath-class stations:

• 4th and Townsend: an underground station adjacent to the electric current 4th and King Caltrain last
• Transbay Transit Center: a station on the lowest level of Transbay Transit Center that opened in August 2018.

Both stations would be fully electrified with overhead wires to adapt electrified Caltrain and high-speed track trains. An secret pedestrian tunnel is likewise planned for the Transbay Transit Centre station, connecting it to the nearby Embarcadero station for transfers to BART and Muni.^[3]

Though the service patterns to these stations is non finalized as of 2018, both Caltrain and the California High-Speed Rail projection intend to run trains to one or both of these stations.

The Transbay Transit Center station is planned to incorporate 6 tracks and three platforms for trains.^[5] The plans studied in the EIR propose allocating the ii northerly tracks to Caltrain and the iv southerly tracks to HSR.^[v] An April 2018 report on the proposed operations of the terminal concluded that three tracks are needed in the DTX tunnel leading to the Transbay station, and furthermore that Caltrain and HSR would need to share all half dozen tracks at Transbay for reliable operations.^[6]

Cost and project funding [edit]

As of April 2018, the project had an estimated total price of $half-dozen billion.^[2]

Initially, $600 1000000 of funding was allocated to the DTX only was reallocated due to price overruns on the Transbay Transit Center Project^[7] Regional Measure iii, a bridge cost increment in the Bay Surface area that passed in the June 2018 election, allocates $325 million to the project.^[8]

In October 2018, the San Francisco City Quango voted no-confidence on the TJPA and suspended funds for Phase 2 of the construction project.^[nine]

In 2019, the proposed reallocation of loftier-speed track funds could help dig the tunnel.^[10]

History [edit]

Even before information technology was completed, in 1863 the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad (SF&SJ) was urged to build rider and freight stations along Market Street.^[xi] Once complete, the SF&SJ offered train service into San Francisco with a northern terminus at a now-demolished station at 18th and Valencia streets.^[12] Before long after Southern Pacific (SP) took over the Peninsula Commute route from the SF&SJ, SP would go on to build the Bayshore Cutoff in 1907, rerouting the line between San Francisco and San Bruno to the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The relocated station in San Francisco about Third and Townsend was soon deemed "[notoriously] inadequate even for present passenger traffic" in 1910.^[thirteen] Instead of moving the station closer to Market, SP built a new passenger concluding, the Third and Townsend Depot, at the aforementioned location in San Francisco in 1914, anticipating the demand for increased capacity to handle visitors traveling to the 1915 Panama–Pacific International Exposition.^[xiv]

Southern Pacific plans [edit]

Starting in 1909, SP purchased 16 complete blocks in a direct line between the human foot of Market and the existing 3rd and Townsend depot at a cost of $5 1000000 (equivalent to $102 million in 2020),^[15] and the San Francisco Call believed this meant a station uniting SP with the Santa Atomic number 26 and Western Pacific most the San Francisco Ferry Building was imminent.^[13] In 1911, SP purchased a fundamental property which had previously housed a home for war veterans, and the San Francisco Call again speculated SP would before long build a new depot at Market and Beale.^{[16] [17]} When the new Third and Townsend Depot was announced in November 1912, Charles S. Fee, SP rider traffic manager, denied the prior rumors putting a new depot at Market and Beale, saying the Ferry Edifice would exist handling the majority of the traffic and that a Market and Beale station could not be completed in fourth dimension for Panama–Pacific service.^{[18] [xix]}

The San Francisco Chronicle speculated that Third and Townsend could accept been announced as a bargaining tactic to knock down the asking price of the few landowners remaining betwixt the existing station and Market place and Beale.^[18] Even so, other observers understood the 1914 Castilian Revival Depot at Third and Townsend was intended as a "temporary" structure since SP planned to extend service to downtown San Francisco at some point in the future,^[20] as shown past the configuration of the new Southern Pacific General Role building at 1 Market Street. That building was completed in 1917 with an "Eastward"-shaped floor programme, and Southern Pacific had retained tenancy of the showtime-flooring spaces facing the "courtyard",^[21] implying that a ground-floor courtyard station infinite may have been planned for the futurity, but plans to extend the rail into downtown San Francisco were put on concur post-obit the United states of america's entry into World State of war I and were never revived.^[22] Some of the land was later sold to the federal government and used for the Rincon Annex post office and mail distribution center.^[23]

In 1955, the California Public Utilities Committee published a report to evaluate SP'south Peninsula Commute service in the wake of a 1950 application to enhance fares. The written report noted "While the Peninsula Service furnishes a rapid track transportation, peculiarly during morning time and evening peak periods, information technology does not carry passengers within reasonable walking distance of downtown San Francisco" and "a considerable portion of the commuter's total traveling time is spent in transit between the S. P. Depot and downtown San Francisco, and at an additional expense to the commuter of thirty¢ a twenty-four hours." By counting passengers who disembarked at third and Townsend, the written report concluded that 70% of passengers disembarking in San Francisco used Muni to reach their final destination, and the time spent on Muni could equal or exceed the fourth dimension spent on SP's trains.^[24]

Planned BART takeover [edit]

During the planning phases of what would become BART, a planned Peninsula line would take over from the existing Southern Pacific commute service. Although that planned Peninsula line was proposed to be built on the existing SP right-of-way and enter a subway section at the intersection of seventh and Hooper Streets, a 1960 report noted SP still intended to extend service to downtown.^[25] A 1963 written report to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors projected the inevitable reject of the Third and Townsend Depot once the planned San Mateo line of what would get BART was built:

Preliminary plans for BART routes in San Francisco, including connections to Marin and the Peninsula (1960)

The Third and Townsend depot of the Southern Pacific Railway will continue equally long distance terminal and as a commuter concluding until such fourth dimension as rapid transit system is adult on the Peninsula. The fate of rail passenger service is difficult to predict, but it is credible that no major investment in new facilities is likely to occur and that the Third and Townsend depot, once relieved of commuter operations, will exist used by no more than 2 or three train arrivals and departures a day.

—Department of City Planning and Mario J. Ciampi, excerpt from the report Downtown San Francisco (September 1963)^[26]

Despite the plans, BART service to San Mateo Canton via the proposed Peninsula Line was dropped after that canton pulled out of the BART district in Dec 1961,^[27] and SP never extended the commuter track service from San Jose to the downtown Financial District. A 1968 Rapid Transit Service to San Francisco International Airport and to the Peninsula report for the City of San Francisco proposed an underground extension taking the SP line to Second and Market.^[28] The 1968 Rapid Transit report said "the Southern Pacific suburban railway from San Jose to San Francisco is good as far every bit information technology goes, only it does not become far enough into San Francisco. The 'Southern Pacific Depot' at Third and Townsend Streets ... is virtually 1 mile s of the destination of 80 pct of its patrons" and chosen "fast and frequent service ... a prime number demand for past-passing and hopefully reducing tiptop-hour thruway congestion," forth with improved transit service to San Francisco International Drome (SFO) (after realized in 2003 with the completion of the BART to SFO extension) and the Bayview-Hunters Indicate area of southeastern San Francisco (realized in 2007 after the new T Tertiary Muni Metro line went into revenue service).^[28] Even though upgraded service from SP would exist the "cheapest and quickest" of the options studied, SP stated they did non want to share the existing tracks (and freight service) with increased passenger rails operations, making plans to extend the track to Second and Marketplace unfeasible.^[28] The Third and Townsend Depot was demolished in the belatedly 1970s afterwards the current station at 4th and King opened ane block away in 1975.

PERSUS and PENTAP [edit]

Most commuters on SP'south Peninsula Commute, shown here passing Brisbane Lagoon, worked in the Financial District and disembarked at Third and Townsend

In 1975, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) published the Feasibility of Upgrading Peninsula Passenger Rail Service (PERSUS) report.^[29] PERSUS noted the single largest destination, San Francisco'south downtown Financial District, was not straight served by the SP Peninsula Commute and called the Townsend Street station "an obstruction to the [Central Business organization District]-destined commuter who must expend boosted time and fares, and a deterrent to the off-peak rider who must contend with less frequent transit service or pedestrian hazards on the streets."^[29] In add-on, SFO was "the largest traffic attractor located between San Francisco and San Jose" and "physical conditions for establishing a [rail] link are unusually favorable" because the SP line approaches the airport quite closely.^[29] PERSUS proposed three alternatives, which could be implemented in successive phases:^[29]

1. Minor Upgrade: retain the existing service and terminals, only amend access to stations on the Peninsula and San Francisco.
2. Major Upgrade: motion the San Francisco final, increment service frequencies, and brainstorm investment of public funds.
3. Transit Conversion: increment service frequencies so passengers would wait no more than fifteen minutes between trains, separate passenger and freight track traffic with boosted tracks, consummate grade separation, and build an airport station.

An extension to the Transbay Terminal would be function of the Major Upgrade, with an culling to cease SP service at Daly Metropolis by rerouting the SP line onto the Coast Line through Colma, which had discontinued service after the completion of the Bayshore Cutoff in 1907.^[29] The Transit Conversion would costless casual riders from having to wait up specific timetables and programme trips, obviating the demand for a Peninsula BART extension, and it was projected to more than double ridership.^[29]

PERSUS was followed by the Peninsula Transit Alternatives Projection study (PENTAP) in 1977.^[30] PENTAP recommended upgraded SP service, including more frequent opposite-pinnacle trains (southbound in the mornings, and northbound in the evenings).^[31] As an alternative to extending SP to the Financial District, PENTAP advocated for more frequent double-decker service to the SP terminal at Quaternary and Townsend.^[31]

The Caltrans CalTrain [edit]

By the belatedly 1970s, SP was faced with falling passenger counts and revenues, leading SP to petition the California Public Utilities Commission to discontinue the Peninsula Commute service entirely in May 1977,^[32] which received a preliminary affirmative ruling in July 1979.^[33] In response, Assemblymember Lou Papan introduced AB 1853 in 1977 to preserve the service by subsidizing ticket prices and SP's performance.^[34] Peninsula Commute ridership was so sensitive to gasoline shortages that passenger counts jumped past 40% in May and June 1979.^[33] California would take over financial responsibility for the Peninsula Commute in July 1980.^[35]

A draft report prepared in 1978 to judge the environmental affect of the SP petition to discontinue service echoed the conclusions reached by the PUC in 1955, stating "the downtown financial district of [San Francisco] is the principal destination for a large pct of Peninsula commuters, and most SP commuters."^[31]

After California took over the Peninsula Commute and set up upwards the CalTrain commuter track service, the downtown extension was called "critical to the survival of the service" in a 1982 public hearing.^[36] During that hearing, Mr. Fred Barton, Deputy Commune Managing director of Rail Operations for Caltrans, noted "the existing passenger service provided by SP is non utilizing its full potential in serving the travel demands of the Peninsula residents who are employed in downtown San Francisco. This inadequacy in service is mainly due to the location of the nowadays SP terminal which is remote from the high density employment centers in the city's financial commune. In fact, an boosted xx to thirty minute travel time and a transfer to Muni coach service is required by the commuters in lodge to accomplish the financial commune."^[36]

The legislature required an almanac written report detailing planned improvements to improve ridership as part of 1981's AB 1010.^[37] The subsequent 1984 Rail Passenger Development Programme called for downtown station extensions in both San Francisco and San Jose.^[38] As evidence, when Muni discontinued a dedicated shuttle service between fourth and Townsend and the Fiscal District, CalTrain ridership dropped past eighteen percentage, prompting Caltrans to declare a downtown extension should be implemented no subsequently than 1991.^[38]

Because the current San Francisco station location is acknowledged to be a major deterent [sic] to train ridership, Caltrans is arranging for increased bus shuttle service between the fourth and Townsend Streets station and primary San Francisco employment centers. During the period in which Muni formerly operated a defended service to the financial district, there was 18-percent higher weekday train ridership than at present. [...]
Across the range of the electric current Five-Year Plan, the extension of the Peninsula Commute Service to downtown intermodal terminals in San Jose and San Francisco would remedy the major deterrent to efficient utilization of the service. Ridership is now increasing again, but full potential can never be reached without improved service to downtown terminal locations. Without improved access, the service volition continue to face the historical cycle of ridership fluctuations and the potential necessity for fare increases.
Caltrans proposes the extension of the Peninsula Commute Service to new intermodal terminals in downtown San Francisco and San Jose. When completed, these extensions will provide the Peninsula rider with a single uninterrupted ride to either of the two major downtown destinations, equally well as provide the Peninsula Service with closer connections to the other major transit carriers in San Francisco and San Jose. These extension proposals can and should be implemented in the next 5 to 7 years.

—Caltrans, Rail Rider Development Plan (1984)^[38]

Caltrans went on to publish the 1984 San Francisco Terminal Relocation Report, which called for a beneath-grade alignment from I-280 and 6th to the Transbay Concluding and predicted that a downtown extension would concenter 30,000 new boardings per mean solar day. The 1987 Acting Upgrade Study chosen the downtown extension "the single most important improvement that can be made to the Peninsula commuter line at the present time." In 1989, the Federal Transit Administration authorized a typhoon environmental impact report, which was completed in 1991 but never published or reviewed as the share of local funding for the terminal relocation never materialized.^[39]

However, Caltrans was being pressured to drop funding for CalTrain. By country law, the subsidies for the track service would have been discontinued as the farebox recovery ratio failed to breach 40%,^[40] unless a waiver was granted.^[37] Once the state adamant the train service provided mainly a regional, and non a statewide benefit,^[40] command of CalTrain should more appropriately exist passed to a regional agency. Accordingly, a iii-county agency, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) was formed in 1991 and with the help of state funds, PCJPB purchased the Peninsula Corridor line and right-of-fashion from SP in 1992 for $202 million ($390 million adjusted for inflation).^[41]

Peninsula Corridor Articulation Powers Board: Showtime attempt [edit]

Alternative routes to a downtown terminal were studied in 1995.

Once PCJPB took over the stewardship of Caltrain in 1992, the downtown extension was identified every bit a high-priority project,^[42] and a report was undertaken in 1993 to evaluate 9 project alternatives.^[39] PCJPB leadership voted in March 1994 under Resolution 1994-8 to extend service to downtown past 1996.^[42] Projected weekday Caltrain ridership was predictable to double (compared to 21,700 daily passengers in 1995) with the completion of a downtown extension.^[42] Nether Resolution 1994-8, electrified trains were planned past 4th and King down either Male monarch, Townsend, or Brannan, bringing tracks underground at Fourth Street, and so to one of two alternative downtown terminal sites selected for further study: a locally preferred alignment, which terminated at Market and Beale,^[43] nearly the same alignment every bit the 1911 plans; or the Transbay Terminal.^[39] A new concluding at the Market and Beale site would have either 2 or three hugger-mugger levels and either ii or four tracks terminating at Marketplace or Mission Streets. Alternatively, if selected, a new final at Transbay would be either an aerial or surreptitious platform.^[44]

Other alternatives identified during early studies included short or long tunnel options, different locations for the tracks to plow north, and two different tunnel structure methods.^[42] An boosted east–west alignment forth Brannan was dropped from consideration in 1995 to avoid disruption to local business.^[42] Ventilation requirements would depend on the length of the tunnel selected, and some options would require new locomotives powered past natural gas or electricity to replace or supplement the existing diesel-powered fleet, increasing the costs.^[42] In 1995, estimates for the new terminal were projected to cost from US$491,000,000 (equivalent to $873,200,000 in 2021) to US$686,000,000 (equivalent to $1,219,900,000 in 2021).^[42]

Design options considered in 1995^{[a] [44]}

Tunnel nether	Eastward–westward portal locations[b]			Construction Method	Market/Beale Terminal (LPA)	Transbay Last (TB)
	Short Tunnel	Long Tunnel			Tracks turn due north at[c]
Townsend	Fifth / Townsend	S of Berry / Seventh		cut-and-cover	Townsend / The Embarcadero	Brannan / Colin P. Kelly
Male monarch	6th / King			mined	Third and Townsend

Notes

1. ^ This should exist understood every bit four independent design options: first, an east–west alignment (fixing the location of this portion of the tunnel to under Rex or Townsend); second, a tunnel length (fixing the entrance portal location); so 3rd, a downtown final location (either Market/Beale or Transbay Terminal); and finally, the structure method (which dictated route and where the tunnel turns north).
2. ^ Defines the location of the entrance portal to the downtown extension tunnel. These were divided into brusk and long tunnel alternatives.
3. ^ Defines the location where the tunnel would turn north. There were two alignments selected for further consideration, the Locally Preferred Alternative (termination at Market/Beale) and the termination at Transbay Concluding.

In Dec 1995, the Market and Beale site was dropped for consideration every bit City of San Francisco planners were considering that location for a charabanc station. Since the Transbay Terminal itself was scheduled for sabotage and redevelopment, the site of the Transbay Terminal was endorsed by PCJPB as the futurity downtown terminal.^[45]

Transbay Transit Centre development [edit]

While a typhoon environmental impact report was prepared in 1997 for the downtown extension by the Peninsula Corridor Articulation Powers Board, the report was never certified and was abased in an incomplete land.^[46] Subsequently, the voters of San Francisco reaffirmed the project in the November 1999 election by approving Proffer H, which mandated the extension of Caltrain to a newly rebuilt Transbay transit facility and the electrification of Caltrain.^{[47] [48]} At the time, the downtown extension was estimated to price $600 million.^[49] In 2000, the City and County of San Francisco and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Authority begin the ecology review process for the revived project.^[l] The Transbay Joint Powers Potency (TJPA) is established in 2001 in order to manage the project and oversee its design and implementation.^[50] The ecology review process concludes in 2004 with the publication of the final environmental bear upon report (FEIR), which is certified by the TJPA.

The TJPA's programme for the downtown extension splits the project into 2 phases. The phased plan was approved in 2006 with the adoption of the Starting time Addendum to the 2004 FEIR.^[5] The kickoff stage consists of the structure of the Transbay Transit Middle, which contains a train box on its underground levels to accommodate Caltrain and loftier-speed rail. The second phase consists of the actual downtown extension, with an alignment that will carry trains from an underground station near 4th and King Station to Second Street via Townsend Street, and then from 2nd Street into the train box in the Transbay Transit Heart. The first stage broke ground in 2010 and opened to the public on August 11, 2018.^{[51] [52] [53]}

The Railyard Alternatives and I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study [edit]

In 2013, Mayor Ed Lee pushed for a revised downtown extension program that could substantially differ from the alignment approved in the 2004 EIR.^[54] The suggested revisions included moving the alignment to the Mission Bay neighborhood in guild to conform new housing evolution and the new Warriors stadium that was in planning at the fourth dimension. With the 2015 alternative alignment, trains would potentially run hush-hush forth Third Street in Mission Bay. The trains would then miss the existing Fourth and Rex station, enabling the redevelopment of the Caltrain station and potential addition of infill housing.^[54] Another suggested revision included demolishing office of Interstate 280 to facilitate further development. Other proposed DTX routings included a loop so that trains may go out TTC as other trains are pulling in.

The written report for these revisions, coordinated past the San Francisco Planning department, was called the Railyard Alternatives and I-280 Boulevard Feasibility (RAB) Written report and was initially projected to complete in 8 months.^[54] After five years, the results of the RAB study were released in May 2018.^{[2] [55]} The RAB study considered iii possible alternatives that would extend or replace the environmentally cleared DTX tunnel alignment: a trenched extension of DTX, a tunneled extension of DTX on Pennsylvania Avenue, and an culling alignment along Tertiary Street in Mission Bay. The study ultimately recommended the second alternative in order to improve street connectivity (avoiding poor connectivity in the get-go culling) and to avoid the engineering, cost, and ecology difficulties associated with the third alternative through Mission Bay.^{[2] [55]} The new proposal has an estimated cost of $6 billion and is projected to be complete in 2027.

A portion of funds for the projection were put on concur in October 2018 due to concerns about the project's governance stemming from cracks discovered in the structure of the Transbay Transit Eye.^[56] Several San Francisco urban center departments reviewed the project's governance structure and project delivery methods with the assist of an skilful panel, culminating in a study published in October 2019.^{[57] [58]} The report concluded that the governance of the project should shift from the TJPA to a new agency and that the project should be newly pitched to the public as a project of regional importance due to its role equally a link in a future regional rail network.^[59]

References [edit]

1. ^ "Transbay Transit Heart". Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA). Nov 24, 2011. Retrieved December 6, 2014.
2. ^ ^{a b c d e} Cabanatuan, Michael; Dineen, J.K. (April 22, 2018). "New, simpler plan for SF'southward downtown rail extension". San Francisco Relate . Retrieved April 28, 2018.
3. ^ ^{a b} Brinklow, Adam. "Transbay Transit Eye: Everything you need to know well-nigh it". sf.curbed.com. Curbed. Retrieved 26 June 2017.
4. ^ Phase 2 Update Staff Report (PDF) (Report). Transbay Articulation Powers Dominance. July 12, 2018. Retrieved July xiii, 2018.
5. ^ ^{a b c} Transbay Transit Center Plan Draft Supplemental Ecology Impact Statement/Report (PDF) (Written report). December 2015. Retrieved 2018-05-15 .
6. ^ Flint, John; Elliot, Les; Nelson, David; Skoropowski, Eugene (2018-04-02). Review of Three Operations Studies for the Blueprint of the Caltrain Downtown Extension (DTX) (PDF) (Report). Retrieved 2018-05-16 .
7. ^ Rauber, Chris (2016-05-13). "Can San Francisco'due south aggressive but troubled Transbay Transit center become back on rails?". San Francisco Business Times . Retrieved 2018-05-xvi .
8. ^ Metropolitan Transportation Committee (2018). Regional Measure 3 Expenditure Programme (PDF) (Written report). Retrieved 2018-05-xvi .
9. ^ Brant, John (2019-10-25). "It Was Supposed to Be the Safest Building in the Earth. Then It Cracked". Popular Mechanics . Retrieved 2020-xi-26 .
10. ^ Vartabedian, Ralph (2019-07-30). "In a blow to the bullet train, California might shift billions to L.A. and Bay Area projects". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved 2019-08-01 .
11. ^ Alert. (11 July 1863). "How the San Jose Railroad is to come into the city (letter)". Daily Alta California . Retrieved xix Apr 2017.
12. ^ McGovern, Janet (2012). Caltrain and the Peninsula Commute Service. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. p. 7. ISBN978-0-7385-7622-0 . Retrieved 25 Feb 2017.
13. ^ ^{a b} "Dumbarton Span Inaugurates New Era for San Francisco". San Francisco Call. Vol. 108, no. 4. iv June 1910. Retrieved 12 March 2016.
14. ^ Barlow, J.Q. (26 January 1916). "Southern Pacific Company's Improvement of Coast Line Concluding". Building and Engineering News. sixteen (1): six. Retrieved 25 Feb 2017.
15. ^ Johnston, Louis; Williamson, Samuel H. (2022). "What Was the U.S. GDP So?". MeasuringWorth . Retrieved Feb 12, 2022. United States Gross domestic product deflator figures follow the Measuring Worth serial.
16. ^ "$100,000 is borrowed on a downtown lot". San Francisco Call. Vol. 107, no. xiii. xiii Dec 1909. Retrieved 26 February 2017.
17. ^ "San Francisco to take passenger terminal". Printing Democrat. Vol. XXXVIII, no. 196. Santa Rosa. xx August 1911. Retrieved 26 February 2017.
18. ^ ^{a b} "Southern Pacific Announces Plans for Depot". San Francisco Chronicle. 25 November 1912. Retrieved 26 February 2017.
19. ^ "New Southern Pacific Depot Structure to Cost $500,000". San Francisco Call. Vol. 112, no. 178. 25 November 1912. Retrieved 26 February 2017.
20. ^ "Southern Pacific In San Francisco: Third & Townsend Depot". WX4'due south Dome of Foam. October 2003. Retrieved 25 February 2017.
21. ^ Jennings, Frederick (November 1917). "The Southern Pacific Full general Role Edifice". The Architect & Engineer of California. LI (2): lx–70. Retrieved 26 February 2017.
22. ^ Lloyd, Arthur L. (nineteen January 2000). "PANEL OF CONTRIBUTORS: Caltrain notwithstanding trying to reach Downtown SF". The Almanac-News. Menlo Park. Retrieved 26 February 2017.
23. ^ "National Register Information Arrangement – Rincon Addendum (#79000537)". National Register of Celebrated Places. National Park Service. Nov 2, 2013.
24. ^ Gibson, James Chiliad.; Peters, Due west. R.; Getchel, M. E. (xx January 1955). Southern Pacific Transportation Company: Investigation of Rider Service, Peninsula Commute operations between San Francisco and San Jose (Report). California Public Utilities Committee; Transportation Division; Engineering science Section; Construction, Maintenance and Service. Retrieved xx July 2017.
25. ^ San Francisco Transportation Technical Committee (May 1960). Study on a plan for rapid transit in San Francisco consonant with the Bay Expanse Rapid Transit System (Written report). City of San Francisco. pp. 6, 27–28. Retrieved 26 Feb 2017. It was an assumption common to these plans that service to the Peninsula would go on to be furnished by the Southern Pacific Company, from the existing last at Third and Townsend Streets, with provision for ultimate extension to the Market Street Subway.
    [...]
    Peninsula Route
    The shortest and most straight transit road into San Francisco from the southward Peninsula communities is over the existing main line correct-of-mode of the Southern Pacific Visitor, shown on Plates 12, 13, xiv, and 15.
    The practicability of adding an additional track, widening or constructing additional tunnels, providing necessary switches and cross overs, effecting grade separation, and equipping this line with a modern railroad train control system has been studied and found to be both feasible and economic. [...]
    Under this plan the commuter service of the railway would be absorbed by the proposed Bay Area rapid transit system. [...]
    Due north of the San Francisco canton line the route would occupy a function of the Southern Pacific Right of Manner to the vicinity of Seventh and Hooper Streets, where the two tracks allocated to rapid transit would enter a subway section and follow under Seventh and Leavenworth Streets to Mail service Street. Here the Peninsula line would joint that of the proposed Marin-Richmond route and continue e under Post Street to Market place and nether Market Street to the transbay tube.
26. ^ Department of City Planning; Ciampi, Mario J. (September 1963). Downtown San Francisco general program proposals (Report). City of San Francisco. p. nineteen. Retrieved 25 Feb 2017.
27. ^ "A History of BART: The Concept is Born". Bay Area Rapid Transit. 2001. Retrieved xviii April 2017.
28. ^ ^{a b c} Jacobs, Allen B. (September 1968). Rapid Transit Service to San Francisco International Airport and to the Peninsula (Study). City and County of San Francisco, Department of Metropolis Planning. Retrieved ane July 2017.
29. ^ ^{a b c d e f} The Feasibility of Upgrading Peninsula Passenger Rail Service (Report). Metropolitan Transportation Committee. 1975. Retrieved 27 Apr 2017.
30. ^ Daniel; Isle of mann; Johnson; Mendenhall (1977). Peninsula transit alternatives project (PENTAP): Last Report (Written report). Metropolitan Transportation Committee. Retrieved 18 April 2017.
31. ^ ^{a b c} Department of Energy and Environs, Role of Proceedings, Interstate Commerce Committee (fourteen July 1978). Draft Environmental Affect Argument, Finance Docket 28611: Southern Pacific Transportation Visitor To Discontinue the Operation of Passenger Trains Betwixt San Francisco and San Jose and Intermediate Points (Report). Interstate Commerce Commission. Retrieved fifteen July 2016. {{cite report}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
32. ^ Assembly Committee on Transportation (2 Dec 1977). "Future Public Transportation Plans in the San Francisco/San Jose Corridor Including Implementation of AB 1853". California Assembly . Retrieved 18 April 2017.
33. ^ ^{a b} California Land Assembly. "Senate Joint Resolution No. 25—Relative to Southern Pacific Transportation Company's San Francisco Peninsula commuter service". 1979–1980 Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California (Resolution). State of California. Ch. 101 p. 4916.
34. ^ California State Assembly. "An deed to add and repeal Section 26002.5 of the Government Code, to amend Section 483 of the Penal Code, and to amend Sections 522 and 99260.five of, to add Sections 707 and 99234.vii to, and to add and repeal Department 99151 of, the Public Utilities Code, relating to transportation, and making an cribbing therefor". 1977–1978 Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 1216 p. 4093.
35. ^ California State Assembly. "An act to amend Sections 14035 and 14035.5 of, and to add Sections 14035.half-dozen and 14035.65 to, the Government Code, relating to intermodal terminal facilities". 1979–1980 Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. Land of California. Ch. 568 p. 1556.
36. ^ ^{a b} Hearing on Review of the Peninsula Commute Service (Report). Joint Committee on Mass Transit, Assembly of the Country of California. vi Baronial 1982. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
37. ^ ^{a b} California State Assembly. "An act to amend Sections 14000.5 and 14038 of, to better and renumber Department 14036 of, to add Sections 14031.6, 14031.7, 14031.viii, 14031.9, 14031.10, 14034, 14035.3, 14036, 14038.5, and 14538 to, and to repeal and add Section 14035 of, the Government Lawmaking, and to amend Sections 707, 99313, and 99316.5 of, to add Sections 708, 730.7, and 763.one to, and to repeal Section 99318.v of, the Public Utilities Code, relating to transportation". 1981–1982 Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. Country of California. Ch. 1183 p. 4769. 14031.ix. (b) Whatever existing commuter service funded under Section 14031.6 shall be eligible for those funds, commencing with the 1984–85 fiscal twelvemonth, only if it maintains a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs of at least 40 per centum during the previous year of operation.
38. ^ ^{a b c} Division of Mass Transportation (March 1984). "Vii: Driver Services". Rails Passenger Development Plan: 1984 through 1989 Fiscal Years (Report). Country of California, Department of Transportation. pp. 57–68. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
39. ^ ^{a b c} ICF Kaiser Engineers; DeLeuw Cather (15 April 1996). CalTrain San Francisco downtown extension project conceptual design and typhoon EIS/EIR: alternatives considered working paper (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Retrieved iv September 2017.
40. ^ ^{a b} Intercity and Driver Rail Services in California (PDF) (Report). California Transportation Commission. January 1985. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
41. ^ M Jury (2005). San Mateo County Transit District Contribution to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PDF) (Report). Superior Courtroom of San Mateo County. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 Nov 2010. Retrieved 6 July 2016. In December 1991, San Mateo County Transit District, the City and Canton of San Francisco, and the Santa Clara County Transit District (the fellow member agencies) established the Peninsula Corridor Articulation Powers Board (Joint Powers Board) to operate driver trains using the Southern Pacific Right of Fashion in the three counties. The purchase price of the Right of Fashion was $202 1000000. Through a bond result, the State of California contributed $120 1000000. Payment of the residue was allocated by the Articulation Powers Board amidst the three member agencies based on a mileage formula. San Mateo's share was $39.1 million (47.7 %), Santa Clara'southward share was $34.6 million (42.ii%), and San Francisco'southward share was $8.iii million (10.1%).
    Due to the lack of funds from San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties at the time the agreement was signed, San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) agreed to contribute Santa Clara's and San Francisco's shares in order to insure [sic] acquisition of the Right of Way. All parties to the understanding understood that neither San Francisco nor Santa Clara had any legally enforceable obligation to repay the contribution. Santa Clara and San Francisco Counties may at their election undertake skilful faith efforts to repay the contribution in a lump sum or through a repayment schedule.
42. ^ ^{a b c d e f chiliad} Mitchell, Eve (4 August 1995). "CalTrain moves a step closer to Financial District". San Francisco Examiner . Retrieved 26 February 2017.
43. ^ Fan, Maureen (ten September 1995). "Why CalTrain'due south behind schedule". San Francisco Examiner . Retrieved 26 February 2017.
44. ^ ^{a b} ICF Kaiser Engineers (26 September 1995). Caltrain San Francisco downtown extension DEIS/DEIR: Design Options Screening Report (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Retrieved 4 September 2017.
45. ^ "Downtown S.F. endorsed as future CalTrain depot". San Francisco Examiner. eight December 1995. Retrieved 6 April 2017.
46. ^ Transbay Final / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project Final Environmental Impact Report Volume ane (Report). 2004. Retrieved 2018-05-xiv .
47. ^ "Metropolis and County of San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot" (PDF). 1999. Retrieved May 14, 2018.
48. ^ "Caltrain extension wins big; so do benefits for retired cops". San Francisco Examiner. 1999-xi-03. Retrieved 2018-05-14 .
49. ^ Wilson, Marshall (1999-11-22). "Caltrain Is Dusted Off As S.F. Transit Priority". San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved 2018-05-15 .
50. ^ ^{a b}
51. ^ "Ambitious Transit Project Takes Off". San Francisco Examiner. 2010-08-12. Retrieved 2018-05-xiv .
52. ^ Matier; Ross (2018-03-20). "Missing the buses: Transbay Transit Center'south opening delayed until at least August". San Francisco Relate . Retrieved 2018-05-14 .
53. ^ Hernández, Lauren (11 August 2018). "Thousands jam new Transbay Transit Center for its open firm". San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved 22 August 2018.
54. ^ ^{a b c} Erwert, Anna Marie (2013-09-13). "280 Freeway Competition winners re-envision San Francisco". San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved 2018-05-xv .
55. ^ ^{a b} San Francisco Planning Department (May 2018). Rail Alignment and Benefits Report Typhoon Executive Summary Report (PDF) (Study). Retrieved 2018-06-03 .
56. ^ Swan, Rachel (October 23, 2018). "More trouble for Transbay as city halts funds, steel testing results delayed". San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved December 19, 2018.
57. ^ Cordoba, Eric (December eleven, 2018). Update on the Transbay Transit Center Girder Fractures and the Study of Governance, Management, Oversight and Delivery of the Downtown Extension (PDF) (Report). San Francisco County Transportation Authority. Retrieved December 19, 2018.
58. ^ Rodriguez, Joe Fitzgerald (October 9, 2019). "Written report: New leadership needed to finally bring trains to Salesforce Transit Center". San Francisco Examiner . Retrieved October 29, 2019.
59. ^ Report of Skillful Panel:Downtown Rail Extension (DTX) Program Review (PDF) (Report). San Francisco Canton Transportation Authority. October 2019.

External links [edit]

cortessersee.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Rail_Extension

Share this post