<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Transbay Blog &#187; Dumbarton Rail</title>
	<atom:link href="http://transbayblog.com/category/dumbarton-rail/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://transbayblog.com</link>
	<description>Transportation and urban planning in the San Francisco Bay Area</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 02:32:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='transbayblog.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://transbayblog.com/osd.xml" title="Transbay Blog" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://transbayblog.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Preliminary Injunction Against Warm Springs Denied</title>
		<link>http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/20/preliminary-injunction-against-warm-springs-denied/</link>
		<comments>http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/20/preliminary-injunction-against-warm-springs-denied/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:29:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[BART]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BART to San Jose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BART to Warm Springs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dumbarton Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[East Bay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regional Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Bay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VTA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://transbayblog.com/?p=3402</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This morning, Judge Frank Roesch (of Alameda County Superior Court) heard arguments in the Lewis v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission case we discussed two weeks ago. The petitioners (former BART directors Lewis and Nakadegawa, and TRANSDEF) sought a preliminary injunction of MTC&#8217;s and ACTIA&#8217;s total allocation of about $315 million to the BART extension to Warm &#8230; <a href="http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/20/preliminary-injunction-against-warm-springs-denied/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#187;</span></a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=transbayblog.com&#038;blog=1475665&#038;post=3402&#038;subd=transbay&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align:left;">This morning, Judge Frank Roesch (of Alameda County Superior Court) heard arguments in the <em>Lewis v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission</em> case we <a href="http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/04/lawsuit-challenges-the-warm-springs-funding-swap/" target="_blank">discussed</a> two weeks ago. The petitioners (former BART directors Lewis and Nakadegawa, and TRANSDEF) sought a preliminary injunction of MTC&#8217;s and ACTIA&#8217;s total allocation of about $315 million to the BART extension to Warm Springs, seeking to have those discretionary actions reversed as an illegal expenditure of public funds. However, Judge Roesch denied the preliminary injunction and took the case under submission, so none of the funding for BART to Warm Springs has been disturbed. In order to grant a preliminary injunction, Judge Roesch considered the irreparable harm that would be incurred by both parties by granting or not granting the injunction &#8212; and he appeared to be sympathetic to MTC&#8217;s and ACTIA&#8217;s arguments that the irreparable harm to them (by delaying and increasing the cost of the project) exceeded, or at least balanced, the irreparable harm to petitioners by proceeding with the project. Although BART was not listed as a party to the lawsuit, BART was also present and defended the project as being an important source of construction jobs. That said, if money is improperly allocated to a project, declaring the status of that project as shovel-ready is rather beside the point.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><span id="more-3402"></span>Each side also addressed its likelihood of success with respect to the underlying claim. As described in this <a href="http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/04/lawsuit-challenges-the-warm-springs-funding-swap/" target="_blank">earlier post</a>, there is a separate argument for each agency. MTC&#8217;s $91 million shift from Dumbarton Rail to Warm Springs was permitted if the shift was between projects that are &#8220;in the same corridor.&#8221; MTC justified its decision to move the funds on the ground that I mentioned at the end of this post &#8212; namely, that the legislation governing Regional Measure 2 funds could interpret the phrase &#8220;in the same corridor&#8221; quite broadly, as relieving congestion in a certain corridor, rather than being physically placed within that corridor. The legislature was interested in decreasing bridge congestion and increasing regional connectivity. Of course, it is very much the case that Dumbarton Rail &#8212; which would link numerous disconnected rail operators in the South Bay <em>and</em> is parallel to a bridge &#8212; is a superior match to this intention than the BART extension. But the more broadly you interpret the language, the easier it is to argue that MTC&#8217;s decision was legitimate.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">In the case of ACTIA, the discussion concerned allocation of 2000 Measure B money funds. ACTIA did not have the discretion to allocate money to Warm Springs until full funding was assured for a BART extension into Santa Clara County. The intention has of course been that this would be the full extension through Milpitas and Downtown San Jose, with a terminus in the City of Santa Clara. However, the ballot language indicated an extension into the <em>county</em> was what was needed &#8212; implying that only a portion of the extension, as long as it reached Santa Clara County, would satisfy the &#8220;full funding assured&#8221; requirement. A VTA staff memo  from Carolyn Gonot (<a href="http://transbay.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/svrt_milpitas_carolyn-gonot.pdf" target="_blank">PDF</a>) has surfaced indicating that VTA <a href="http://vtawatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/vta-says-it-can-afford-bart-to-milpitas.html" target="_blank">can indeed</a> fund the $1.7 billion extension to Milpitas without the $750 million of New Starts federal funding that the FTA has not yet approved. In other words, the federal grant would be applied just to the next segment of the line, from Milpitas to Berryessa. VTA must also secure the federal grant in order to trigger the flow of funds from 2008 Measure B. (Note, however, that the lawyer on the petitioner&#8217;s side conceded that the funding to Milpitas was assured, even though the VTA staff memo was merely that &#8212; a memo &#8212; but not actually approved by the VTA Board.) Although an extension to Milpitas would include merely one of the six planned stations, it still qualifies as a fully funded extension into Santa Clara County. And that suffices to bolster ACTIA&#8217;s discretionary allocation of $224 million to Warm Springs.  Weighing the discussion on both sides about these points, Judge Roesch denied the preliminary injunction.</p>
<br />Posted in BART, BART to San Jose, BART to Warm Springs, Dumbarton Rail, East Bay, Regional Rail, South Bay, VTA  <img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=transbayblog.com&#038;blog=1475665&#038;post=3402&#038;subd=transbay&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/20/preliminary-injunction-against-warm-springs-denied/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/bf241a7821920f4b8837fb6e5c799926?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">transbay</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lawsuit Challenges the Warm Springs Funding Swap</title>
		<link>http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/04/lawsuit-challenges-the-warm-springs-funding-swap/</link>
		<comments>http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/04/lawsuit-challenges-the-warm-springs-funding-swap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:11:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[BART]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BART to San Jose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BART to Warm Springs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dumbarton Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regional Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Bay]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://transbayblog.com/?p=3033</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BART announced in February 2009 that it was moving forward on a $225 million contract to construct the subway portion of its planned extension to Warm Springs, which will tunnel under Central Park in Fremont. The 5.4-mile extension south of the existing Fremont terminal station will be the first stage of BART to Silicon Valley. &#8230; <a href="http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/04/lawsuit-challenges-the-warm-springs-funding-swap/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#187;</span></a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=transbayblog.com&#038;blog=1475665&#038;post=3033&#038;subd=transbay&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align:left;">BART announced in February 2009 that it was moving forward on a $225 million contract to construct the <a href="http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2009/news20090210.aspx" target="_blank">subway portion</a> of its planned extension to Warm Springs, which will tunnel under Central Park in Fremont. The 5.4-mile extension south of the existing Fremont terminal station will be the first stage of <a href="http://transbayblog.com/category/bart-to-san-jose" target="_blank">BART to Silicon Valley</a>. Furthermore, VTA has announced that notwithstanding the passage of 2008 Measure B in Santa Clara County, BART to Silicon Valley will still be built in phases &#8212; and that the agency <a href="http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/01/the-march-to-berryessa/" target="_blank">only intends</a> to apply for federal New Starts funding to build BART as far as Berryessa Station. This proposed first phase would include only two of the six proposed stations and would completely postpone the expensive subway tunnel under Downtown San Jose. In the meantime, though, an additional wrinkle has developed. As we have mentioned before, in order to complete the funding portfolio for Warm Springs, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission diverted $91 million of Regional Measure 2 funds to Warm Springs, away from Dumbarton Rail, on the ground that the Warm Springs project was ready to go, but that Dumbarton was not yet ready. This decision has resulted in Dumbarton Rail being postponed indefinitely. Furthermore, the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority approved an over $220 million contribution to Warm Springs. These two contributions, combined, sum up to about one-third of the total project cost for Warm Springs. A lawsuit has now been <a href="http://transdef.org/BART/Warm_Springs.html" target="_blank">filed</a> against <a href="http://mtc.ca.gov/" target="_blank">MTC</a> and <a href="http://www.acta2002.com/" target="_blank">ACTIA</a>, protesting the legality of both MTC&#8217;s swap of funds and ACTIA&#8217;s contribution to the Warm Springs extension. The challenge was filed by former BART Directors Sherman Lewis and Roy Nakadegawa, along with TRANSDEF. (TRANSDEF is a local transportation, environmental, and smart growth advocacy group that has quarreled with MTC over updates to the <a href="http://transbayblog.com/rtp/" target="_blank">Regional Transportation Plan</a>. TRANSDEF has also in the past year filed a lawsuit against the California High-Speed Rail Authority <a href="http://transbayblog.com/2008/08/09/from-ab-3034-to-november-4/" target="_blank">concerning</a> the Altamont-Pacheco route alignment dispute, and again for recount of votes on 2008 Measure B, the sales tax for BART to Silicon Valley.)</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><span id="more-3033"></span>The Warm Springs challenge is based on two primary arguments. One argument centers on ACTIA&#8217;s obligation under Alameda County&#8217;s 2000 Measure B. In particular, ACTIA&#8217;s Expenditure Plan states that construction funds for Warm Springs may not be used &#8220;until full funding for the rail connection to Santa Clara County is assured.&#8221; As we reported earlier this week, VTA <a href="http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/01/the-march-to-berryessa/" target="_blank">will apply</a> this year for $750 million of New Starts money from the Federal Transit Administration, in order to build the segment from Warm Springs to Berryessa. These federal dollars account for almost one-third of the cost of the Berryessa extension, and so the complaint filed by TRANSDEF argues that this chunk of money should not be deemed to be &#8220;assured&#8221; until the federal government actually commits to providing it. Firm financial commitment from the federal government would occur only later, upon execution of a Full Funding Grant Agreement.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">The second argument concerns the level of flexibility that MTC has to shift bridge toll revenue between projects. Both Warm Springs and Dumbarton Rail are projects within the Regional Traffic Relief Plan, and thus both are eligible to receive RM2 funds. In addition, MTC is authorized to shift funding between RM2 projects if it determines that a certain project is unrealistic. However, if such funding is shifted, it must be shifted to another project &#8220;within the same corridor.&#8221; In this case, funding was shifted from Dumbarton, a legitimate transbay corridor, to Warm Springs, which does not lie along a bridge corridor. The two projects serve different purposes. Dumbarton Rail would add an additional east-west transbay rail link; along with a planned intermodal rail/bus hub in Union City, Dumbarton Rail would enhance connectivity for several regional rail services (BART, Caltrain, Amtrak, and ACE) that currently operate in a disjointed fashion in the South Bay. Warm Springs, on the other hand, is a single-station north-south stub extension that would exacerbate BART&#8217;s current difficulty with transbay capacity, but without the benefit of enhanced regional connectivity.</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-3047" title="dumbarton_alignment" src="http://transbay.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/dumbarton_alignment.gif?w=750" alt="Dumbarton Rail"   /></p>
<p style="font-size:x-small;text-align:center;">Dumbarton Rail alignment; courtesy of BayRail Alliance.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Warm Springs and Dumbarton are in the same general region within the Bay Area, but the relevant question to ask is whether they are &#8220;within the same corridor.&#8221; If they are, then MTC acted within its discretion by shifting $91 million from Dumbarton to Warm Springs. These two projects will clearly have different effects on transit effectiveness in the region. But a nuance here is that the objective of collecting RM2 bridge toll revenue in the first place was to implement projects that would relieve traffic congestion. It seems then that a reasonable interpretation of &#8220;same corridor&#8221; boils down to asking whether a certain transit project would have the effect of relieving congestion within the &#8220;same corridor&#8221; as another transit project. Seen in that light, the correct question to ask is not necessarily whether Warm Springs and Dumbarton are themselves positioned within the same corridor, but rather, whether they would both mitigate congestion in the same corridor. A strictly literal reading of the language &#8220;same corridor&#8221; seems to suggest that MTC acted in error by transferring the funds; but the latter interpretation weighs more favorably on the side of MTC.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">The relief sought in this challenge is an injunction, to withdraw the funding allocations to the Warm Springs extension.</p>
<br />Posted in BART, BART to San Jose, BART to Warm Springs, Dumbarton Rail, Regional Rail, South Bay  <img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=transbayblog.com&#038;blog=1475665&#038;post=3033&#038;subd=transbay&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/04/lawsuit-challenges-the-warm-springs-funding-swap/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/bf241a7821920f4b8837fb6e5c799926?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">transbay</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://transbay.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/dumbarton_alignment.gif" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dumbarton_alignment</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
