September 10, 2025
Andrew B Fremier, Executive Director
Bay Area Metro/MTC
Bay Area Metro Center- 375 Beale Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105-2066
RE: City of Union City - RM3 Allocation Request Revision for Quarry Lake Parkway Project, City Project No. 18-04
Dear Andy,
The purpose of this letter is to submit a revised RM3 Allocation Request for the $25.0 million of RM3, Dumbarton Corridor Funds. City staff recently met with Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) staff on August 12, 2025 to provide the design status of Quarry Lakes Parkway (QLP), Phases (Segments) 1 and 2, an update on the environmental mitigation permitting requirements, and to discuss an appropriate RM3 funding plan that would be supported by their Commission. QLP, Phases (Segments) 1 and 2 have completed the 65% PS&E Phases with Alameda CTC funds. Recently, Union City received additional Alameda CTC funds to complete the Final PS&E of QLP, Phase (Segment) 2, ready for advertising. For the Environmental Mitigation (offsite), the City is pleased to report that Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) staff concurred on a reduced offsite mitigation plan now at $13.0 million (not $30.0 million as initially required). QLP, Phase 2 continues to be the City’s priority project because this segment advances the proposed housing development of the former Caltrans Route 84 property and expedites the deposit of the Route 84 LATIP (Local Agency Transportation Improvement Program) funds estimated at $86.0 million.
The MTC resolution approved by the City Council on July 8, 2025 delegates authority to the City Manager to make non-substantive changes or minor amendments to the allocation request or IPR as she deems appropriate. The City is submitting a revised RM3 allocation request with minor amendments to account for the reduced cost to construct the project’s off site mitigation requirements, and that the City will be requesting that the cost savings be redistributed to assist in the Final Design and Construction of the project.
Andrew Fremier
September 10, 2025
The table below summarizes the proposed revisions to the initially submitted allocation request:
QLP Project Component July Proposal September
Proposal
Environmental Mitigation (Off Site) $20,000,000 $ 13,000,000 Phase (Segment) 1 PS&E (Complete Final PS&E) 0 $ 2,578,000 Phase (Segment 1A) Construction Phase $ 1,500,000 $ 1,000,000 Phase (Segment) 2 Construction Phase $ 3,500,000 $ 8,422,000 TOTALs $25,000,000 $25,000,000
The revised RM3 allocation request forms are now consistent with the proposed funding shown above.
Please contact Marilou Ayupan, Director of Public Works, at 510-675-5306 or [email protected] if you have any questions about this RM3 allocation request or any other questions about the Project.
Sincerely,
Joan Malloy
City Manager
Attachments:
1) Revised RM3 Allocation Request
2) MTC Complete Streets Package
3) Alameda CTC Funding Resolution No. 20-013
cc: Julieth Ortiz/Craig Bosman, MTC
Tony Tavares, Executive Director, Alameda CTC
Vivek Bhat, Deputy Director of Programming, Alameda CTC Jennifer Phan, Deputy City Manager
Marilou R. Ayupan, Public Works Director
Regional Measure 3
Initial Project Report
Project/Subproject Details
Basic Project Information
Project Number 17
Project Title Dumbarton Corridor Improvements
RM3 Funding Amount $130,000,000
Subproject Information
Subproject Number 17.4
Subproject Title Union City Quarry Lakes Parkway Project, (City Project No. 18-04) RM3 Funding Amount $25,000,000
I. Overall Subproject Information
a. Project Sponsor / Co-sponsor(s) / Implementing Agency Project Sponsor
City of Union City
Project Co-Sponsor
Fremont, AC Transit and UC Transit
Implementing Agency
City of Union City
b. Detailed Project Description (include definition of deliverable segment if different from overall project/subproject)
Quarry Lakes Parkway project will construct a new four (4) lane multimodal, local street with a landscape median, buffer Class II bike lanes and a separated Class I continuous multi-use trail creating a gateway to Quarry Lakes Regional Park in Fremont and improving safe access for all modes to the Union City BART Station for both Union City and Fremont residents The project has been redesigned to meet current multimodal goals and Complete Streets guidelines. The proposed Quarry Lakes will provide a provide a critical secondary route & safe access to the Union City BART Station, as the project will parallel Decoto Road (from Mission Blvd (SR 238) in Union City to Paseo Padre in Fremont) and when completed is expected to significantly improve transit operations and travel time for Dumbarton Express, AC Transit and UC Transit service (Dumbarton Forward) along the Decoto Road/Dumbarton Corridor.
Regional Measure 3 Initial Project Report
Decoto Road, a known High Injury Network (HIN) in the vicinity of the Union City BART Station between Alvarado-Niles Road and 7th Street includes two (2) existing active at-grade railroad crossings. This corridor carries multiple transit services (AC Transit, Dumbarton Express and UC Transit) and delays occur due to the requirements for buses to stop before proceeding across the tracks, in addition to the delays due to the railroad safety gates going down on the Niles Subdivision because of the frequent daily Amtrak/Capitol Corridor rail service and daily freight trains. Quarry Lakes Parkway requires three (3) new grade-separated structures (underpass) under the two (2) active railroad tracks and the BART trackway. When the grade separated roadway segment is completed, UC Transit and Dumbarton Express will have a new transit route (avoiding the two atgrade railroad crossings) to Union City BART Station from the City’s Maintenance Facility located on Quarry Lakes Parkway/7th Street where these transit providers are housed and maintained.
The proposed buffered bikeway in the corridor has been designed to be converted to a transit priority (or shared with bikes) lane in the future if needed.
Phase 1, 7th Street Extension will construct Quarry Lakes Parkway from 7th Street to Mission Boulevard and will support the planned 1,000 housing units currently in construction on 7th/Decoto Road. This phase will move the existing 7th street roadway to align with the final corridor, with the new alignment impacting the existing Line M Flood Control Channel and requiring the channel to be realigned as well as the relocation of existing utilities. The QLP corridor alignment also impacts the City’s Corp Yard that fronts 7
th Street. The City Corp yard will be reconfigured under a separate locally funded project. There are two (2) wetland areas (the “2c” and “New” basins) that are part of the Line M Flood Control system and the realignment modifications to that system impact the two (2) basins and result in the requirement of the construction of mitigation measures.
Phase 2, the Gateway Site will construct Quarry Lakes Parkway from Old Alameda Creek to Alvarado-Niles Road and realign existing Quarry Lakes Drive, moving the road closer to Old Alameda Creek for maximizing the development site on the former Caltrans property. Phase 2 will treat all the new storm water runoff from the new roadway and requires the re-evaluation and redesign of the water quality treatment basin, the hydromodification basin and the new outfall structure(s) into Old Alameda Creek. The city/consultant has been working with RWQCB to identify onsite wetland mitigation measures opportunities within Old Alameda Creek, but after the extensive research and discussion with partner agencies, it has been agreed that an offsite option be pursued. This segment when completed, could also support the new housing on the Gateway site (Caltrans LATIP site). The City scheduling assumptions include this as the first phase that is constructed.
Phase 3, the Niles Sub Grade Separation and 11th Street extension will construct Quarry Lakes Parkway from 7th Street to 11th Street providing a new secondary access to the 100-acre Station District Area site along 11th Street and the main access to the future intercity rail station and layover facility. Phase 3 also includes the proposed Niles Sub Grade Separation Structure (underpass) along with the required railroad shoofly during construction of the bridge structure.
Regional Measure 3 Initial Project Report
The extension of 11th Street from Decoto Road to new Quarry Lakes Parkway is critical for completing the required local circulation serving existing and planned development around the Union City BART station Priority Development Area that will support 2,000 new housing units.
Phase 4, the BART and Oakland Subdivision Grade Separations (not included in this IPR) is proposed to be designed to accommodate the future intercity rail service (ACE Station) along the Oakland Subdivision railroad trackway next to the BART Station, as proposed by Southern Alameda County Integrated Rail Project. Phase 4 will construct Quarry Lakes Parkway from Alvarado-Niles Road to 11th Street, completing the Quarry Lakes Parkway multimodal corridor within Union City.
The right of way for the entire Quarry Lakes Parkway multimodal corridor is publicly owned by Union City, Fremont and Alameda County Water District and when this roadway is completed, it will connect the various levels of affordability and market-rate housing that is being developed in the area with attractive alternative modes of travel (walk, bike or transit) for future residents. Union City is also working with SJRRC for how this QLP project and future intercity rail project will be coordinated..
The future Phase 5, the Paseo Padre Connection will construct Quarry Lakes Parkway from Paseo Padre Parkway in Fremont to Old Alameda Creek in Union City. Phase 5 when completed, will provide an alternative transportation corridor parallel to Decoto Road/Dumbarton Corridor for local residents and businesses and will significantly improve travel time and transit operations along the Dumbarton / Decoto Corridor for AC Transit, Dumbarton Express, Tech Shuttles and UC Transit. c. Impediments to Project Completion
The 2009 East West Connector (renamed Decoto Complete Streets/Quarry Lakes Parkway) EIR identified environmental mitigation measures including regulatory agency permits (for water quality treatment, roadway drainage (hydromod), the Line M channel relocation, new outfall structure(s) in Alameda Creek and wetland mitigation). To maximize land-use opportunities and as part of the Complete Streets design features added to the project, these mitigation measures needed to be reviewed, updated and have been recently evaluated as part of consultation with regulatory and resource agencies with their initial concurrence. The city also continues coordination with Union Pacific Railroad and BART on the grade separation structures and shoofly design updates before the preparation of Construction and Maintenance Agreements (required for Construction). Another known risk is hazardous material within the railroad right of ways and City will continue to coordinate with DTSC (Department of Toxic Waste and Substance). d. Risk Management (describe risk management process for project budget and schedule, levels of contingency and how they were determined, and risk assessment tools used) Project risks include known engineering design complexities, construction challenges, required permits from regulatory agencies, Union Pacific Railroad and BART and continued coordination with other cities, transit agencies, funding agencies, public, etc. A Project Risk Register has been prepared Regional Measure 3 Initial Project Report
to identify High, Medium and Low risk items and related potential project impacts to design, schedule, costs and construction. With the limited project funding, the City will continue to evaluate project phasing implementation construction packages to support the adjacent residential development projects. The RM3 funds are proposed to be utilized so that the Phase 1 and 2 components of the project can be constructed, priority phases to support new housing in the area. e. Operability (describe entities responsible for operating and maintaining project once completed/implemented)
City of Union City
f. Project Graphic(s) (include below or attach)
Regional Measure 3 Initial Project Report
Regional Measure 3 Initial Project Report
II. Project Phase Description and Status
a. Environmental/Planning Does NEPA apply? Yes ☐ No☒
The project has secured CEQA clearance.
b. Design
Phase 1 and 2 of the project are at 65% design. The City continues to work with regulatory agency review and preliminary engineering work for Phases 3-4 is ongoing. The City has used Alameda CTC Measure B funds to complete the current design work. Ongoing design and permitting coordination meetings continue with regulatory agencies, RWQCB, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Alameda County Water District, City Ventures (developer) and other utilities including pipeline sizing and right of way delineation discussions. Ongoing design coordination meetings with other regional transportation and transit projects including MTC’s Southern Alameda County Rail Regional Measure 3 Initial Project Report
(SoCo Rail) Study Team and SJRRC, as well as Fremont, AC Transit, Caltrans and other resource agencies will continue. Coordination with utility companies regarding the permitting process will continue. The City has also updated the project cost estimates (latest update 4/2025). c. Right-of-Way Activities / Acquisition
No ROW parcels are required to be purchased. The ROW phase cost estimate includes utility and mitigation project costs.
d. Construction / Vehicle Acquisition / Operating
Construction for Phases 1 and 2 is scheduled to be the first phases ready for construction in 2027.
Project cost estimates include required environmental mitigation that will occur in 2026.
Regional Measure 3 Initial Project Report
III. Project Schedule
Phase-Milestone (Mitigation)
Planned
Start Date Completion Date
Environmental Studies, Preliminary Eng. (ENV / PE / PA&ED) 2009 Final Design - Plans, Specs. & Estimates (PS&E) 1/22 12/25 Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition (R/W) 1/22 12/25
Construction (Begin – Open for Use) / Acquisition (CON) 6/26 2/27 Phase-Milestone (Phases 2)
Planned
Start Date Completion Date
Environmental Studies, Preliminary Eng. (ENV / PE / PA&ED) 2009 Final Design - Plans, Specs. & Estimates (PS&E) 1/22 6/26 Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition (R/W) 7/22 6/26
Construction (Begin – Open for Use) / Acquisition (CON) 4/27 3/29 Phase-Milestone (Phases 1)
Planned
Start Date Completion Date
Environmental Studies, Preliminary Eng. (ENV / PE / PA&ED) 2009 Final Design - Plans, Specs. & Estimates (PS&E) 1/22 12/26 Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition (R/W) 7/22 12/26
Construction (Begin – Open for Use) / Acquisition (CON) – Initial Phase – Corp yard component – precedes roadway construction contract)
1/26 7/26
Construction (Begin – Open for Use) / Acquisition (CON) – 2 nd
Phase – Roadway construction contract 8/27 3/30
Regional Measure 3 Initial Project Report
Phase-Milestone (Phases 3)
Planned
Start Date Completion Date
Environmental Studies, Preliminary Eng. (ENV / PE / PA&ED) 2009 Final Design - Plans, Specs. & Estimates (PS&E) 1/22 12/29 Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition (R/W) 7/28 12/29
Construction (Begin – Open for Use) / Acquisition (CON) 8/30 8/32
Regional Measure 3 Initial Project Report
IV. Project Budget
Capital
Project Budget (QLP Parkway Phases 1-3 (including mitigation)) Total Amount
- Escalated to
Year of Expenditure (YOE)-
(Thousands)
Environmental Studies & Preliminary Eng (ENV / PE / PA&ED) Design - Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) $24,788 Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition (R/W) $4,150
Construction / Rolling Stock Acquisition (CON) $184,741 Total Project Budget (in thousands) $213,678
Deliverable Segment Budget (if different from Project budget) (QLP Parkway Mitigation Phase)
Total Amount
- Escalated to
Year of Expenditure (YOE)-
(Thousands)
Environmental Studies & Preliminary Eng (ENV / PE / PA&ED) Design - Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) $75 Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition (R/W)
Construction / Rolling Stock Acquisition (CON) $13,000
Total Project Budget (in thousands) $13,075
QLP PARKWAY MITIGATION PHASE NOTES - As previously noted the city/consultant has been working with RWQCB to identify onsite wetland mitigation measures opportunities within Old Alameda Creek, but after extensive research and discussion with partner agencies, it has been agreed that an offsite option be pursued. The procurement of offsite mitigation includes payment to the offsite mitigation agency. The sum of the fees will cover the design, construction and ongoing maintenance of the offsite mitigation site.
Regional Measure 3 Initial Project Report
Deliverable Segment Budget (if different from Project budget) (QLP Parkway Phases 1)
Total Amount
- Escalated to
Year of Expenditure (YOE)-
(Thousands)
Environmental Studies & Preliminary Eng (ENV / PE / PA&ED) Design - Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) $4,951 Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition (R/W)
Construction / Rolling Stock Acquisition (CON) $40,873
Total Project Budget (in thousands) $45,824
Deliverable Segment Budget (if different from Project budget) (QLP Parkway Phases 2)
Total Amount
- Escalated to
Year of Expenditure (YOE)-
(Thousands)
Environmental Studies & Preliminary Eng (ENV / PE / PA&ED) Design - Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) $6,622 Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition (R/W) $4,150
Construction / Rolling Stock Acquisition (CON) $42,126
Total Project Budget (in thousands) $52,898
Operating
Total Amount
- Escalated to
Year of Expenditure (YOE)-
(Thousands)
Annual Operating Budget
Regional Measure 3 Initial Project Report
V. Project Funding
Please provide a detailed funding plan in the Excel portion of the IPR. Use this section for additional detail or narrative as needed and to describe plans for any “To Be Determined” funding sources, including phase and year needed.
VI. Contact/Preparation Information
Contact for Project Sponsor
Name: Marilou Ayupan, P.E.
Title: Public Works Director
Phone: 510-675-5306
Email: [email protected]
Mailing Address: 34009 Alvarado Niles Rd
Union City, CA 94587
Person Preparing Initial Project Report (if different from above) Name: Matt Todd, P.E.
Title: Project Manager
Phone: 510-206-3920
Email: [email protected]
Mailing Address: 1320 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Suite 206 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Regional Measure 3
Intitial Project Report - Subproject Report
Funding Plan
Project Title:
Subproject Title
Project/Subproject Number: 17.X
Total RM3 Funding: $ 25,000
(add rows as necessary)
CAPITAL FUNDING
Funding Source Committed? (Yes/No)
Total Amount
($ thousands)
Amount Expended
($ thousands)
Amount Remaining
($ thousands)
ENV
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
ENV Subtotal $ - $ - $ -
PSE
RM3 Yes $ 2,578 $ 2,578
ACTC Meas. B (allocated) Yes $ 8,995 $ 4,672 $ 4,323
ACTC Meas. B (programmed, not allocated) Yes $ - $ -
LATIP (programmed, not allocated) Yes $ 13,140 $ 13,140 Local Yes $ 75 $ 75 $ -
$ -
PSE Subtotal $ 24,788 $ 4,747 $ 20,041
ROW
RM3 (Phase 2 component) $ 150 $ - $ 150
ACTC Meas. B (programmed, not allocated) Yes $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
ROW Subtotal $ 4,150 $ - $ 4,150
CON
RM3 (Mitigation Comp) Yes $ 13,000 $ 13,000
RM3 (Phase 2) Yes $ 8,272 $ 8,272
RM3 (Phase 1) Yes $ 1,000 $ 1,000
ACTC Funds (programmed, not allocated) Yes $ 32,446 $ 32,446 ACTC Funds (programmed, not allocated) Yes $ 39,873 $ 39,873 LATIP (programmed, not allocated) Yes $ 28,674 $ 28,674 Other Local Yes $ 1,408 $ 1,408
ACTC Funds(programmed, not allocated) No $ 33,708 $ 33,708 TBD No $ 26,360 $ 26,360
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
CON Subtotal $ 184,741 $ - $ 184,741
Capital Funding Total $ 213,678 $ 4,747 $ 208,932
OPERATING FUNDING (Annual)
Funding Source Phase Committed? (Yes/No)
Total Amount
($ thousands)
Operating
Operating Funding Total $ -
Dumbarton Corridor Improvements
UNION CITY QUARRY LAKES PARKWAY PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 18-04 Regional Measure 3
Allocation Request
RM3 Project Information
Project Number 17
Project Title Dumbarton Corridor Improvements
Project Funding Amount $130,000,000
Subproject Information (if different from overall RM3 project) Subproject Number 17.4
Subproject Title Union City Quarry Lakes Parkway Project, (City Project No. 18-04) Subproject Funding
Amount
$25,000,000
RM3 Allocation History (Add lines as necessary)
MTC Approval
Date
Amount Phase
#1:
#2
#3
Total: $
Current Allocation Request:
Request submittal date Amount Phase
August 26, 2025 $25,000,000 CON
I. RM3 Allocation Request Information
a. Describe the current status of the project, including any progress since the last allocation request or IPR update, if applicable.
The Phase 1 and 2 subprojects are at the 65% design level and the corridor mitigation requirements are being discussed with the resource agencies with a permit application submitted to the RWQCB in February 2025. The final mitigation requirements have been defined. The overall project funding plan has been updated since the last IPR submittal (in February 2024) with adjustments to the funding plan included to reflect the need to fund off site mitigation improvements, design work and initial Corp yard work for Phase 1, and Phase 2 construction work. Initial Phase 1 Corp yard work is scheduled to begin in early 2026. All phases have secured CEQA clearance and the Corp yard work NEPA document is being reviewed. The corridor mitigation agreement is scheduled to be finalized in late 2025, and Phase 2 construction phase to begin in July 2026.
b. Describe the scope of the allocation request. Provide background and other details as necessary. The scope must be consistent with the RM3 statute. If the scope differs from the most recent IPR for this project, please describe the reason for any changes here; a revised IPR may be necessary.
The RM3 funds are requested to be used for three components in the corridor, as detailed in the revised IPR submitted with this allocation request.
Corridor Mitigation Component– The City is requesting the allocation of $13 M of the RM3 funds for the corridor mitigation requirements. The city has been working with RWQCB to identify onsite wetland mitigation measures opportunities within Old Alameda Creek, but after extensive research and discussion with partner agencies, it has been agreed that an offsite option be pursued. The procurement of offsite mitigation includes payment to the offsite mitigation agency. The sum of the fees will cover the design, construction and ongoing maintenance of the offsite mitigation site. The Quarry Lakes Parkway project will have effects on waters, wetlands, riparian habitat, and habitat for several threatened species (including the California tiger salamander and the California red-legged frog). The project is required to mitigate temporary and permanent effects on these habitats.
Phase 1 Corp Yard Component - The City is requesting the allocation of $1 M of the RM3 funds for the Phase 1 Corp Yard component. Phase 1 is at a 65% design level and the City is requesting the allocation of final design funds as part of this RM3 allocation request ($2.578 M).
Improvements to transit bus storage area are required to occur in advance of the Phase 1 roadway construction in order for transit operations to not be impacted.
Phase 2 Construction Component – The City is requesting the allocation of $8.422 M ($.150M + $8.272M) of the RM3 funds for the Phase 2 ROW and construction components. The ROW component will allow for work to prepare the site for the construction contractor (utilities and existing structures). Phase 2 is at a 65% design level and ACTC has allocated the funds to complete the design. The Phase 2 project is scheduled to complete design phase in mid 2026. c. Deliverable segment budget – please fill out attached Excel file. If the budget differs from the most recent IPR for this project, please describe the reason for any changes here; a revised IPR may be necessary.
The budget has been revised based on the latest work completed (65% Design of Phase 1 and 2) and discussions with ACTC on funding strategy (ACTC is also a funding partner). A revised IPR is included.
d. Schedule – what is the expected completion date of the phase for this allocation? Describe any significant milestones.
Corridor Mitigation Component ($13 M of RM3)
2/2025 Submit permit application to the RWQCB
8/2025 Corridor off site mitigation requirements with RWQCB defined / agreement reached
11/2025 MTC consideration of RM3 Allocation request
2/2026 Complete Habitat Management and Mitigation Plan
6/2026 Receive all permits
7/2026 Start Construction
2/2027 Complete Construction
Phase 1 - Corp Yard Component ($1 M of RM3)
9/2025 NEPA Clearance
10/2025 Advertise contract for Corp Yard improvement contract 12/2025 Award contract
1/2026 Contract work Begins
8/2026 Contract completed
Phase 1 – Final Design ($2.578 M)
4/2025 65% Design Complete
11/2025 MTC RM3 Allocation
12/2026 Complete design
1/2027 Request Allocation of ACTC Funds
3/2027 ACTC allocation of funds
4/2027 Advertise contract
5/2027 Bids Due
Evaluate Bids (including ACTC review for LBCE policy)
8/2027 Award Contract
9/2027 City Issue NTP
10/2027 Begin Construction
3/2030 Contract completed
Phase 2 ROW / Construction Component ($8.422 M of RM3)
6/2026 Complete design
7/2026 Request Allocation of ACTC Funds
9/2026 ACTC allocation of funds
10/2026 Advertise contract
11/2026 Bids Due
Evaluate Bids (including ACTC review for LBCE policy)
2/2027 Award Contract
3/2027 City Issue NTP
4/2027 Begin Construction
3/2029 Contract completed
e. If the project received an RM3 Letter of No Prejudice, how much has been spent against the approved RM3 LONP amount? (Note: the scope and RM3 amount for this allocation request should match the approved LONP)
NA
f. Request Details
Amount being requested $25,000,000
Project phase being requested CON
Are there other fund sources involved in this phase? ☒ Yes ☐ No Date of anticipated Implementing Agency Board approval of RM3 Allocation Request resolution for the allocation being requested 10/25 Month/year being requested for MTC commission approval of allocation 11/25
Note: Allocation requests are recommended to be submitted to MTC staff for review sixty (60) days prior to action by the Implementing Agency Board
g. List any other planned bridge toll allocation requests in the next 12 months NA
Regional Measure 3
Allocation Request
Estimated Budget Plan
Project Title:
Subproject Title
Project/Subproject Number: 17.X
Total RM3 Funding: $ 13,000
1. Direct Labor of Implementing Agency (specify by name and job function) Estimated Hours Rate/Hour Total Estimated cost $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Direct Labor Subtotal $ -
2. Overhead and direct benefits (specify) Rate x Base
Overhead $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Overhead and Benefit Subtotal $ -
3. Direct Capital Costs (include engineer's estiamte on construction, right-of-way, or vehicle acquisition Unit (if applicable) Cost per unit Total Estimated cost CON (Mitigation Component)
Seasonal Wetland (acres) 3.4 1750 $ 5,950
Channel Restoration (Linear feet) 1800 1.8 $ 3,240
Riparian (acres) 1 900 $ 900
Habitat Preservation (acres) 18 45 $ 810
Contingency (20%) $ 2,100
Direct Capital Costs Stubtotal $ 13,000
4. Consultants (Identify purpose and/or consultant) Total Estimated cost Preliminary Engineering $ 75
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Constultants Subtotal $ 75
5. Other direct costs Total Estimated cost
Other Direct Costs Subtotal $ -
Total Estimated Costs $ 13,075
Dumbarton Corridor Improvements
UNION CITY QUARRY LAKES PARKWAY PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 18-04 - Mitigation Phase Comments:
RM3 Deliverable Segment Funding Plan - Funding by planned year of allocation Funding Source Phase Prior 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 Future
committed
Total Amount
($ thousands)
Amount Expended
($ thousands)
Amount Remaining
($ thousands)
RM3 ENV - $ - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
ENV Subtotal - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ RM3 (Project Ph. 1 component) PSE 2,578 $ 2,578 $ 2,578 $ ACTC Funds (allocated) (Project Ph. 1 component) 2,373 $ 2,373 $ 2,373 $ - $ ACTC Funds (programmed, not allocated) - $ - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
PSE Subtotal 2,373 $ - $ 2,578 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,951 $ 2,373 $ 2,578 $ RM3 ROW - $ - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
ROW Subtotal - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ RM3 (Phase 1) CON 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $
ACTC Funds (programmed, not allocated) (Project Ph. 1 component) 39,873 $ 39,873 $ 39,873 $ $ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
CON Subtotal - $ - $ 1,000 $ 39,873 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 40,873 $ - $ 40,873 $ RM 3 Funding Subtotal $ - - $ 3,578 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,578 $ - $ 3,578 $ Capital Funding Total $ - 2,373 $ 3,578 $ 39,873 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 45,824 $ 2,373 $ 43,451 $ Allocation Request
Cash Flow Plan
Project Title: Dumbarton Corridor Improvements
Subproject Title UNION CITY QUARRY LAKES PARKWAY PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 18-04 - Ph. 2 Project/Subproject Number: 17.X
Total RM3 Funding: $ 8,422
(please include all planned funding, add rows as necessary) Please update the columns below based on your allocation month. The first six months of cash flow are monthly, followed by quarterly, then annually as long as you can reasonably estimate projected expenditures RM3 Cash Flow Plan for Deliverable Segment - Funding by requested expenditure period Funding Source(s)
List all funding sources besides RM3 Phase Prior Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 2026 Q1
(July- Sept 2025)
2026 Q2
(Oct - Dec 2025)
2026 Q3
(Jan - March 2026)
2026 Q4
(April - June 2026)
2027 Q1
(July- Sept 2026)
2027 Q2
(Oct - Dec 2026)
2027 Q3
(Jan - March 2027)
2027 Q4
(April - June 2027)
2028 Q1
(July- Sept 2027)
2028 Q2
(Oct - Dec 2027)
2028 Q3
(Jan - Mar 2028)
2028 Q4
(Apr - Jun 2028)
Future committed
(if applicable)
Total Amount
($ millions)
Amount Expended
($ millions)
Amount Remaining
($ millions)
RM 3 ENV - $ - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
ENV Subtotal - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ RM3 PSE - $ - $
ACTC Funds(allocated) (Project Ph. 2 component) 2,300 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,022 $ 6,622 $ 2,300 $ 4,322 $ $ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
PSE Subtotal 2,300 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,022 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,622 $ 2,300 $ 4,322 $ RM3 (Phase 2 Component) ROW 150 $ 150 $ 150 $
ACTC Funds (programmed, not allocated) (Project Ph. 2 component) 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ $ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
ROW Subtotal - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150 $ - $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ 4,150 $ - $ 4,150 $ RM3 (Phase 2 component) CON 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 3,102 $ 8,272 $ 8,272 $ ACTC Funds (programmed, not allocated) (Project Ph. 2 component) 4,056 $ 4,056 $ 4,056 $ 4,056 $ 4,056 $ 12,167 $ 32,446 $ 32,446 $ City Funds (Project Ph. 2 component) 176 $ 176 $ 176 $ 176 $ 176 $ 528 $ 1,408 $ 1,408 $ $ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
CON Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,266 $ 5,266 $ 5,266 $ 5,266 $ 5,266 $ 15,797 $ 42,126 $ - $ 42,126 RM 3 Funding Subtotal $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150 $ - $ 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 3,102 $ 8,422 $ - $ 8,422 $ Capital Funding Total $ - 2,300 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,022 $ - $ 150 $ - $ 6,266 $ 6,266 $ 6,266 $ 6,266 $ 5,266 $ 15,797 $ 52,898 $ 2,300 $ 50,598 $ Notes: RM3 funds should be drawn down approximately propotionately with other funding sources in the same phase. The allocation expiration date will be the end of the final fiscal year in which RM3 funds are planned to be expended for the requested phase.
Regional Measure 3
Allocation Request
Cash Flow Plan
Project Title: Dumbarton Corridor Improvements
Subproject Title UNION CITY QUARRY LAKES PARKWAY PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 18-04 - ROLLED UP CASH FLOW Project/Subproject Number: 17.X
Total RM3 Funding: $ 25,000
(please include all planned funding, add rows as necessary) Please update the columns below based on your allocation month. The first six months of cash flow are monthly, followed by quarterly, then annually as long as you can reasonably estimate projected expenditures RM3 Cash Flow Plan for Deliverable Segment - Funding by requested expenditure period Funding Source(s)
List all funding sources besides RM3 Phase Prior Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 2026 Q1
(July- Sept 2025)
2026 Q2
(Oct - Dec 2025)
2026 Q3
(Jan - March 2026)
2026 Q4
(April - June 2026)
2027 Q1
(July- Sept 2026)
2027 Q2
(Oct - Dec 2026)
2027 Q3
(Jan - March 2027)
2027 Q4
(April - June 2027)
2028 Q1
(July- Sept 2027)
2028 Q2
(Oct - Dec 2027)
2028 Q3
(Jan - Mar 2028)
2028 Q4
(Apr - Jun 2028)
Future committed
(if applicable)
Total Amount
($ millions)
Amount Expended
($ millions)
Amount Remaining
($ millions)
RM 3 ENV - $ - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
ENV Subtotal - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ RM 3 PSE - $ - $ MITIGATION PHASE WORK $ - - $
Local Funds 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
PHASE 1 WORK $ - - $
RM 3 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ 378 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 2,578 $ 2,578 $ ACTC Funds (allocated by ACTC 11/2020; amendment approved 12/2024) $ 2,373 $ 2,373 $ 2,373 $ - $ - - $
$ - - $
PHASE 2 WORK $ - - $
ACTC Funds(allocated by ACTC 11/2020; amendedment approved 12/2024; amendment approved 5/2025) $ 2,300 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,022 $ 6,622 $ 2,300 $ 4,322 $ - - $
$ - - $
PSE Subtotal 4,673 $ - $ - $ - $ 75 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,400 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,648 $ 4,748 $ 6,900 $ RM 3 ROW - $ - $ MITIGATION PHASE WORK $ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
PHASE 1 WORK $ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
PHASE 2 WORK $ - - $
RM3 150 $ 150 $ 150 $
ACTC Funds (programmed, will submit allocation request in 7/2026) $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ - - $
$ - - $
ROW Subtotal - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150 $ - $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ 4,150 $ - $ 4,150 $ RM3 CON - $ - $ MITIGATION PHASE WORK $ - - $
RM3 2,975 $ 2,700 $ 7,326 $ 13,000 $ 13,000 $
$ - - $
$ - - $
PHASE 1 WORK $ - - $
RM3 (Phase 1 - initial work - Corpyard component) 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ ACTC Meas. B/ BB / CMA TIP (programmed, will submit allocation request in 1/2027) $ 4,985 $ 4,985 $ 4,985 $ 24,918 $ 39,873 $ 39,873 $ - - $
$ - - $
PHASE 2 WORK $ - - $
RM3 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 3,102 $ 8,272 $ 8,272 $ ACTC Funds (programmed, will request submit allocation request in 7/2026) $ 4,056 $ 4,056 $ 4,056 $ 4,056 $ 4,056 $ 12,167 $ 32,446 $ 32,446 City Funds 176 $ 176 $ 176 $ 176 $ 176 $ 528 $ 1,408 $ 1,408 $ $ - - $
$ - - $
$ - - $
CON Subtotal - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,975 $ 2,700 $ 7,326 $ - $ - $ 5,266 $ 5,266 $ 10,251 $ 10,251 $ 10,251 $ 40,715 $ 95,999 $ - $ 95,999 $ RM 3 Funding Subtotal $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ 400 $ 400 $ 4,375 $ 3,078 $ 7,576 $ 400 $ 250 $ 1,284 $ 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 1,034 $ 3,102 $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ Capital Funding Total $ - 4,673 $ - $ - $ 75 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 5,475 $ 4,100 $ 7,576 $ 400 $ 250 $ 6,516 $ 6,266 $ 11,251 $ 11,251 $ 10,251 $ 40,715 $ 111,796 $ 4,748 $ 107,049 $ Notes: RM3 funds should be drawn down approximately propotionately with other funding sources in the same phase. The allocation expiration date will be the end of the final fiscal year in which RM3 funds are planned to be expended for the requested phase.
Quarry Lakes Parkway Project, City Project No. 18-04
Funding Update and
MTC Complete Streets Checklist
Wednesday, April 16, 2025 - Special BPAC Meeting
Item 6c.
Marilou R. Ayupan, Public Works Director
2 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC), a Regional Planning Agency has been
designated as the federal Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) and the state Regional
Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the San
Francisco Bay Area for the San Francisco Bay Area
Nine (9) Counties.
3 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
4 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
All Major Regional Transportation
Projects that meet the goals of
MTC’s Plan Bay Area 2050
(PBA50) are candidates for
future federal, station and regional
transportation funds.
Major Transit and Rail Projects
- BART, ACE and Intercity Rail
Major Multimodal Projects
-Quarry Lakes Parkway
5 MTC’s Toll Bridges Measure Program
Bay Area Toll Authority
(BATA) is a public
instrumentality governed by
MTC. BATA oversees the
revenues for the seven (7) Bay
Area Toll Bridges: Dumbarton,
San Mateo-Hayward, San
Francisco-Oakland, Richmond- San Rafael, Carquinez, Benicia- Martinez, and Antioch. 6 MTC’s Past Toll Measure Programs (RM 1 and RM 2)
Voters approved Toll
Measures include
Regional Measure 1 (RM
1) in 1988 and Regional
Measure 2 (RM 2) in 2004.
Projects & Programs
• BART Warm Springs
• Dumbarton Express
“No Projects in Union
City or along the
Dumbarton/Decoto
Corridor”
7 MTC’s Regional Measure 3 (RM 3) Program ($4.45 Billion) (Approved by Voters in 2018)
RM 3 Expenditure Plan (Projects and Programs)
(17) Dumbarton Corridor Improvements. ($130,000,000).
Funds planning, environmental review, design, and construction of capital improvements within the Dumbarton Bridge and rail corridor in the Counties of Alameda and San Mateo to relieve congestion, increase person throughput, and offer reliable travel times. Eligible projects recommended in the Dumbarton Corridor Transportation Study and improvements to facilitate rail and transit connectivity among ACE, Capitol Corridor, and BART, including rail connection at the Shinn Station. The project sponsors are BATA, Alameda CTC, San Mateo Transit District and San Mateo County Transportation Authority.
8 Quarry Lakes Parkway Update
2 9
RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program Funds
MTC Approved RM 3 List of Projects ($130,000,000)
10 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
New $3.0 Million RM3 Allocation
11 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
New $25 Million RM3 Allocation
12 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
MTC Complete Street Checklist Requirement
Contact Name Marilou Ayupan, Public Works Director, City of Union City Email Address [email protected]
Contact Phone Number 510-675-5306
City/Jurisdiction/Agency
(If your option is not
listed, select "Other")
Union City
County Alameda
Is your project seeking
regional discretionary
funds or an
endorsement?
Regional discretionary funding
Please include the name
of the regional
discretionary funding
program that this
project is seeking.
MTC RM3, Dumbarton Corridor Funds (MTC)
Project Name/Title Quarry Lakes Parkway (QLP) Phases 1-4 Project Area/ Location
The PROJECT limits are from Mission Boulevard (State Route 238) near the existing intersection with Appian Way to the top of the bank (Union City side) of Old Alameda Creek. The PROJECT limits include the conforms along existing roadways that intersect the new roadway.
Project Description
(2000 character limit).
You may also attach
additional project
documents, cross
sections, plan views or
other supporting
materials.
New four-lane local street with buffered bike lanes, separated Class I multi-use trail with signalized intersections, streetlights, landscape medians, and street trees between Mission
Boulevard (SR 238) in Union City and Paseo Padre Pkwy in Fremont. Design features address comments to enhance
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit safety from Union City’s BPAC.
EXPANDED DESCRIPTION IN ATTACHED MATERIALS
Phase 1: Mission Boulevard to 7th Street
Located between 7th Street and Mission Boulevard and will realign 7th Street to intersect directly with the new Parkway. The project accommodates Union City Transit’s planned EV Fueling Station, 900-units of housing development at Decoto Road, and completes the 7th Street bikeway system. The
project includes Class II bike lanes, Class I multi-use paths, sidewalks on opposite side of street, bike boxes, and green intersection striping, and bus stop.
Phase 2: Alvarado-Niles Road to Alameda Creek
Provide access to previously owned Caltrans land for housing.
Realign the existing Quarry Lakes Drive and construct new intersection of QLP with Quarry Lakes Drive; roadway
drainage, conforms along Alvarado-Niles Road, and modify the existing traffic signal. The project includes Class II bike lanes, Class I multi-use paths, sidewalks, bus stops, green
intersection striping, and protected intersection islands.
Phase 3: 7th Street to 11th Street
Construct a railway structure to grade separate QLP under the UP Railroad and connect to 11th Street (and new traffic at 11th Street) The project includes Class II bike lanes, Class I multiuse paths, sidewalks, bus stops, green intersection striping.
Phase 4: 11th Street to Alvarado-Niles Road
Construct railway structures to grade separate QLP under the BART tracks and UP Railroad to connect to Alvarado-Niles Road. The project includes Class II bike lanes, Class I multiuse paths, sidewalks, bus stops.
Please choose the
project phase(s).
PE
ROW
CON
Do you think your
project qualifies for a
Statement of Exception?
Yes
Compliance and Exemption
Please check below if
Yes. If no, complete the
Statement of Exception.
If Yes, this Checklist is
complete and the rest of
the form can be
skipped. If No, please fill
out the Statement of
Exception section.
Yes
Has a local (city or
county) Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory
Commission (BPAC)
reviewed this Checklist?
The CS Checklist will
begin review once the
BPAC meeting notes are
included in this form.
No
This PDF is generated with the Google Forms Notification add-on.
To generate customized PDFs from Google Forms, download Document Studio (video demo).
These messages are not added in the premium version.
City of Union City
Bicycle And Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Meeting on Wednesday, April 16, 2025, at 7:00 P.M.
Hybrid Meeting
DRAFT MINUTES
1. PLEDGE OF THE ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL
Chair Swenson called the meeting to order at 7:02pm.
Members Present: Chairperson Tim Swenson, Vice Chair Glenn Kirby, Jo Ann Lew, Steve Nichols, and Vanessa McDonnell (Remote from Ireland) Union City Staff: Erika Cramer, Marilou Ayupan, Trieu Tran, Tommy Cho, Steve Adams
BPAC Consultants: Christina Guarino (Winter Consulting) Project Presenters and Staff: Laurence Lewis (Kittelson & Associates, Inc.), Trieu Tran (Union City), Pete Ruscitti and Jimmy Jessup (Parametrix) Members of the Public: Andreas Kadavanich (Bike Fremont), Derrick Thomas (Alameda County Fire Department), Elizabeth Ames (Union City Resident) Elected Officials: Councilmember Lance Nishihira
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. August 20th, 2024 BPAC Meeting Minutes
Chair Tim Swenson moved to approve the August 2024 meeting minutes, and all members unanimously approved the minutes.
DRAFT
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
a. Members of the public have an opportunity to bring up topics not on the agenda.
b. Beginning at the April 16th, 2024 BPAC meeting, the City of Union City will allow virtual public comments for BPAC meetings going forward. i. Members of the public participating by Zoom wishing to speak should use the "raise hand" feature or dial *9. When called upon, unmute yourself or dial *6.
c. When making a public comment, please state your name and address; if possible, please have your video on; chat will be disabled. d. Members of the public can email [email protected] if they have any questions or comments related to the Quarry Lakes Parkway project. Please visit here for more information on Quarry Lakes Parkway.
There were no public comments.
5. COMMISSION MATTERS
a. Committee members have an opportunity to bring up topics not on the agenda.
Chair Swenson shared an update regarding submitting video evidence to the Union City Police Department (PD). Chair Swenson relayed a message from Chief Jared Rinetti: Union City PD will not accept video evidence for minor infractions, but they will accept video evidence for a misdemeanor or felony.
6. PROJECT PRESENTATIONS & DISCUSSION
a. ANR Part-Time Transit Lanes Study Pilot - Traffic Analysis Results Marilou Ayupan introduced Laurence Lewis from Kittelson & Associates, Inc. He previously presented to BPAC on the Part-Time Bus Lane project which aims to reduce transit times along Alvarado-Niles Road during peak hours. This will benefit students who ride buses to school and address congestion issues for commuters.
Mr. Lewis presented findings from their analysis conducted in October. The study recommends implementing part-time bus lanes in both directions on Alvarado-Niles Road during weekday peak periods from 7-9 a.m. and 2-6 p.m. Community engagement and design concepts are expected to be completed around Summer 2026. Further details will be presented in a future meeting.
BPAC Comments:
• Member Vanessa McDonnell: One of the goals of the project is to increase the speed of the buses to 19 mph along the route. But if bikes go 10-15 mph, will the buses be constrained by the speed of bikes?
DRAFT
o Mr. Lewis: Buses can choose to stay behind the bicyclists, or they are able to navigate around and pass bicyclists. With the number of bicyclists we are counting, sometimes during the day there are more buses than bicyclists in the lane. We also have Arizona Street as a bike boulevard, and we hope to encourage bicyclists to use that as well. o Member Jo Ann Lew: Arizona Street is parallel and doesn’t start or finish at the same spot, it only goes from Hop Ranch Road to Royal Ann Drive.
You mentioned possibly using the Alameda Creek Trail, which is significantly longer to Decoto Road.
o Mr. Lewis: Alameda Creek Trail is another option. There are a couple factors; one is how far people are traveling. We didn’t collect data on how far bicyclists are traveling through the corridor, but we know that there are others, such as students, who are using it, and those trips may not be the entire length. Another factor is the comfort of the facility. Alameda Creek Trail and Arizona Street have less traffic. The approach is to have options for people. People can still bike on Alvarado-Niles Road if they wish. But there are other options that may have other trade-offs and benefits like the length of trail, comfort, and traffic stress.
• Member Lew: Can you confirm that the temporary bus lanes will run in the morning and afternoon on both sides of Alvarado-Niles Road, and only between Almaden Boulevard and Decoto Road? Were the data collection dates in October selected because they were typical work and school days without holidays? o Mr. Lewis: Yes. We selected those dates because we wanted to start with a period between Labor Day and Veterans Day, and the dates did not include holidays or school days off. We collected across the full week because Wednesdays can have a different school schedule. • Member Lew: Does New Haven School District not have Columbus Day? o Mr. Lewis: Testing did not fall on this day.
• Member Lew: When recording the bus times, did you count stops for people boarding and deboarding the bus?
o Mr. Lewis: We recorded how long the bus stopped, how long it took people to board, and how long it took the bus to re-enter traffic. • Member Lew: Did people get on at every stop? The number of stops would impact the speed of the bus. Drivers need to be careful that riders are seated before the bus starts driving, especially seniors.
o Mr. Lewis: Each stop was used over the course of the day, but I’m not sure if they were used each time. When we looked at sources of delay, boarding was included, but the biggest delay was buses waiting at traffic signals and at queues leading up to the red lights.
• Member Lew: Do buses get signal priority?
o Mr. Lewis: They get shorter queues than cars.
• Member Lew: Do the times that you are recommending for the part-time bus lanes coincide with school start times? Why does the afternoon bus priority lane start at 2 p.m.?
o Mr. Lewis: Yes. The afternoon lane starts at 2 p.m. because local employment generates traffic between 2-3 p.m. that affects the bus.
DRAFT
• Member Lew: Vehicles wouldn’t be using the bus lanes, even outside of the time that the buses are running in those lanes, right?
o Mr. Lewis: If the bus is not in the lane, it would not be open to vehicles. It would go back to being a bike lane. If it’s an area with parking, then it would go back to parking. There is never a condition where there would be general drivers in it. It's either buses with bikes, or it's bikes and parking. • Member Glenn Kirby: Buses going 19 mph is an average. We are looking to increase bus and bike ridership. It’s important to ensure there is proper signage of the alternative bicycle lanes. Your analysis shows bike, bus, and parking data.
I hope you will not have to work around parked cars if they are there during “no parking” times in the morning and afternoon. In Hayward, it is helpful that the shared lanes are marked with green paint. Buffered bike lanes typically have painted buffers. How will this be designated during the bus priority hours? o Mr. Lewis: We are looking at striping options. Some lanes have striping and no paint, and others are painted the entire lane. We are creating an intuitive approach that will make it clear for drivers and bicyclists. • Member Steve Nichols: Is there a Plan B in place if the residents at assisted living and residents at the new condominiums fight against parking limitations? Or if church goers have events?
o Mr. Lewis: We are still in the planning phase. This is a pilot program, so we will collect and evaluate data again. We are targeting these areas for community outreach before the pilot is implemented. We are also looking into other streets where people can park.
• Member Swenson: I am concerned about enforcement and about cars using the bike lane as a right-turn lane.
Public Comments:
• Andreas Kadavanich: I support this project. With 15,000 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) in each direction, we do not need two vehicle lanes. This project is precluding a Class IV separated bike lane. Once we get past a quick build, we need to go back to the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) with a Class IV in it. You have ample margin to remove a vehicle lane and make a Class IV happen. Arizona Street was called a parallel bike route – it’s a big detour. Is there anything stopping us from turning Arizona Street into a bike boulevard sooner so people can get used to it before the bus lane pilot begins? Is there data showing how the bus lane will affect pedestrian yielding? I prefer we don’t revert to parking in off-hours due to enforcement. I recommend implementing a permanent red curb and not allowing parking at any time.
o Chair Swenson: Can the bike boulevard be implemented early? o Mr. Trieu Tran: We had an RFP (request for proposal) for the Arizona Bike Boulevard project, and we are in the selection phase for that now. We intend to have a bike boulevard implemented before the pilot begins. • Member Lew: Where will the Arizona Street bike lane start and end? DRAFT
o Mr. Tran: It begins on Hop Ranch Road, goes all the way to Royal Ann Road, and then you can take a left to get back onto Alvarado-Niles Road or take a right to get to Decoto Road.
o Ms. Lew: It is a nice bikeable and walkable trail. Can you go through Cesar Chavez Middle School to get to Arizona Street?
o Mr. Tran: That property belongs to the school district. It would require a use agreement. They would have to open and close the gates. o Member Swenson: On weekdays it’s usually closed, and sometimes on weekends one gate is open.
o Member McDonnell: It's a hit or miss whether the gates are open. It’s not ideal for commuting on your bike.
o Member Kirby: You can get around the school closer to the park under the freeway, which is a nice alternative. The trail connections could be more accessible in the future.
b. Complete Streets Update for Public Transit Corridors: NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) & Caltrans DIB (Design Information Bulletin)
Pete Ruscitti of Parametrix gave an update on Union City’s Complete Streets project, focusing on how the City is working to improve walking, biking, transit, and overall safety along major public transit corridors. He acknowledged how this presentation ties in nicely with the discussion on the Alvarado-Niles Road project, which is an opportunity to advance multimodal goals today. Ruscitti talked about the challenge of balancing all these needs, especially on busy streets used by cars, buses, bikes, and pedestrians. He also shared new guidance from Caltrans and NACTO with ideas for tackling these conflicts in tight urban spaces. Union City is aiming for phased improvements that support all travel modes while keeping the city’s suburban character and future growth in mind.
BPAC Comments:
• Member McDonnell: Great presentation. I have no questions. • Member Lew: Great presentation. Is Parametrix contracted and paid by Union City? How much is the contract?
o Mr. Ruscitti: Yes, our task is to help the City work through some of this guidance, and to help them understand how to apply the latest state of the practice to the City's existing plans. The next phase will be to develop the interim guidance that you saw in the last bullet on the last slide. o Ms. Ayupan: Their contract is $74,000. Parametrix is evaluating the latest bicycle guidelines from the Caltrans DIB and NACTO. They are also evaluating our recent projects. They are experts at bicycle, pedestrian, design, and transit guidelines. This is an opportunity to implement Class IV bike lanes and build the first part-time bus lane in the whole Bay Area. o Ms. Lew: How long is the contract for?
DRAFT
o Ms. Ayupan: A few months. The City does not have a full-time bicycle or multimodal engineer, so we asked somebody to look at this from a different standpoint. They collected data, did evaluations, and put together this presentation in the past two months.
o Ms. Lew: Are they paid by measure B or BB funds? Or the General Fund? o Ms. Ayupan: We use transportation funds; we never use General Funds for our projects.
• Member Lew: How did you develop standards for the third edition of the NACTO published booklet?
o Mr. Ruscitti: NACTO creates the modern bikeway design guidelines in urban streets. All of their guidelines are free and accessible online. The guidelines include feedback from transportation officials throughout the country. The third edition includes a compilation of input from city transportation officials around the country about what's working and what's not working. This third edition is the most helpful and balanced, especially with real compromise-based solutions for constrained urban corridors. o Ms. Lew: How are they standards? Standards mean it’s a proven solution. o Mr. Ruscitti: These are best practices in the state of the industry. They are not legally binding standards, but they are widely accepted best practices. o Ms. Ayupan: If a design element is included in the Caltrans standard plans or the California MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices), we follow those standards because they offer legal protection for the City.
NACTO is a policy–we use it as a guideline. It provides Complete Streets goals and has been widely adopted by major urban cities. While Union City isn’t a dense urban core, we can still use both NACTO and Caltrans to guide our efforts in designing streets for all modes. o Ms. Lew: It’s a good thing. I am just cautious calling it a “standard.” Best practices and standards are different.
o Mr. Ruscitti: Yes, it is a best practice and not an engineering design standard–though people colloquially refer to it as the NACTO standard. • Member Kirby: I like your recommendation to look at guidance for multimodal implementation. The evolution of complete streets has been a bumpy road. We must find compromises with the various modes of transit. I'd rather go through a more deliberate process that you're suggesting than to put things on the ground that don't work and then have to redesign later. I’m pleased with this approach.
Public Comments:
• Mr. Kadavanich: This area is considered mostly suburban. I would add “still” mostly suburban. The population density of 3,600 per square mile is high and would have qualified as urban 10 years ago. The Station District—with 1,700 housing units and a million square feet of office space—is evidence that we are not going to be suburban majority for much longer. We should plan to be a more urban city. According to Caltrans’ DIB-94 guidance, even in suburban settings, roadways like Alvarado-Niles Road should include Class 1 or Class IV bike facilities. We should look at how to make this happen. We don’t have a street grid DRAFT
with parallel roads; there are only a few streets to cross. Those corridors have to be multimodal for everybody. We should focus on transitioning to urban settings. • Ms. Liz Ames: I like the idea of alternative routes, maybe bicycle boulevards. I want safer routes for slower traffic like pedestrians and bicyclists. I am happy the City is pursuing this and trying to de-conflict traffic. I’ve always looked at Quarry Lakes Parkway as an alternative route for slower traffic because Decoto Road is very congested, and going through the BART Station is going through an urban core. I appreciate Union City and Parametrix for working on ideas and alternative routes throughout the city. I applaud this effort. Thank you. c. Quarry Lakes Parkway – Funding Update & MTC Complete Streets Checklist Ms. Ayupan shared on update on the funding of Quarry Lakes Parkway (QLP) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Complete Streets Checklist.
Union City secured $25 million in regional funding for QLP and $3 million for a new BART East Entrance and At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing, both aimed at improving transportation and safety in the Dumbarton Bridge and rail corridor. These projects were included in the MTC’s Regional Plan, which requires a Complete Streets Checklist to ensure streets serve all users, whether they walk, bike, drive, or use public transit. The funding comes from Regional Measure 3, a Bay Area toll measure that sets aside money for major transportation improvements. This marks the first time Union City has received significant funding from a regional toll measure. The BART crossing project is fully funded and ready to go out to bid.
BPAC Comments:
• Member Lew: Does this mean Union City received the money? Congratulations! o Ms. Ayupan: Yes, MTC approved it in June, and now it just needs to be allocated.
Public Comments:
• Mr. Kadavanich: QLP will be expensive and require a lot of digging. If you want to save money and make it better, everything I said about Alvarado-Niles Road applies to QLP. You do not need 2 vehicle lanes. There is a lot of space and concrete, and right now, during the early stages, is the time to look at the design.
When will we see an update on the design?
• Ms. Liz Ames: I think the $211 million for this project is underestimated. One grade crossing is $300 million on the peninsula. Regarding the Dumbarton Corridor, I met with the City of Fremont and asked them to look at creating a safe bike crossing, and they received funding for it. I want a trail from Ardenwood to the BART Station, to Niles Canyon. The Dumbarton Corridor is a Highway 84 connection, and it’s at capacity. Let’s look at QLP with a focus on pedestrians and bicyclists. I applaud the City for funding the BART pedestrian crossing.
DRAFT
d. Block 5 Mobility Hub – New Project Information & MTC Complete Streets Checklist
Ms. Ayupan presented on the Block 5 Mobility Hub. Union City was awarded $2.2 million from MTC to develop a Mobility Hub on the Union City side (the east side) of the BART station, known as Block 5. A Mobility Hub is a public space that connects various transportation options, like transit, bike share, and car share, and improves access and signage for users. This project will include upgrades such as new regional-standard signs for wayfinding and transit information, lighting improvements, and bike lockers. Block 5 complements the nearby at-grade BART crossing project and aims to make the east side of the station more accessible, informative, and transit-friendly. Construction funds will be available in 2027, and planning is underway. The City is required to complete the MTC Complete Streets Checklist and share the information about the project with the public.
BPAC Comments:
• Member Lew: This is a great idea, I hope you get the money quickly. • Member Kirby: Block 5 was originally slated for private development, but now it will be used for public benefit?
o Ms. Ayupan: Correct. Many years ago, it was going to be an office, but we kept it for city use as combined parking. There was a little parking area to support housing around it, and it was available for public use. o Member Kirby: Public use is a great idea.
e. Report on Pedestrian Collisions
Trieu Tran of Union City reported on four vehicle collisions that involved pedestrians over the past few months—three of which resulted in fatalities. The collisions happened at four locations across the city and primarily involved elderly pedestrians.
Three incidents occurred during the day and one at night. Distracted driving was identified as a contributing factor in at least three cases, while jaywalking was a factor in the other. The City is working closely with PD to analyze the causes and identify potential safety improvements and prevention measures, including enhanced public outreach and infrastructure changes. Regional agencies are also prioritizing pedestrian safety in response to similar unfortunate incidents in nearby cities.
BPAC Comments:
• Member McDonnell: This is disturbing news. There are way too many distracted drivers. I have almost been hit many times in recent years. • Member Lew: What is the period when these occurred?
o Mr. Tran: These accidents happened within the last four months. o Member Swenson: I see the dates when some of the accidents happened, but where is the information on the second one?
DRAFT
o Ms. Ayupan: I believe the accident at Royal Ann Drive and Perry Drive happened on a Monday around school time. An elderly man was hit in the crosswalk by a distracted driver in late January or early February. o Member Lew: Was the driver hurried to get to work? I am bothered as an elderly pedestrian. I only cross if I don’t see cars when I walk around the west side of Union City. Pedestrians of all ages should be very careful.
Drivers often do not face consequences.
• Member Kirby: I am near 80 years old and am noticing that there are more distracted drivers and elderly residents with mobility challenges who take longer to cross the street. They could benefit from more information and programs. • Member Swenson: The TIMS (Transportation Injury Mapping System) database has information up to 2022. This is the highest numbers we have had in years. I assume that “pedestrian in crosswalk” under the “Cause of accident” column is a note rather than cause. Could we receive updates on these incidents to know if drivers were prosecuted?
o Mr. Tran: We can follow up with results once information is released publicly. Some information takes years to be released due to lawsuits. You are correct that “pedestrian in crosswalk” under the “Cause of accident” column is a note to put more weight on the distraction factor. • Member Swenson: We should focus on incidents that result in fatalities. • Member Kirby: There is usually little consequence for drivers hitting a cyclist or pedestrian.
• Member Swenson: The City could put out a press release about the end result of drivers who cause these accidents. If people understand that there are steep consequences, it might influence more people.
• Member Lew: Do you look at pedestrian accident data in Union City compared to other cities? Are we considered low, medium, or high?
o Mr. Tran: I don’t know. Three fatalities in the last few years sounds low. o Member Lew: Our numbers are low, but it is still unacceptable. f. Union City Decoto Road Rehab Project, Phase 1
Mr. Tran provided an update on Phase 1 of this project. Union City recently completed a $2.9 million improvement project on Decoto Road, aimed at enhancing bicycle and pedestrian safety. Funded primarily through local and regional sources, the project upgraded the corridor’s bike lanes with buffered bike lanes, vertical delineators at intersections, and high-visibility crosswalks. These changes were designed to reduce vehicle speeds and protect bicyclists and pedestrians, particularly at conflict zones like intersections. Lighting improvements were not included in this project but are being studied for future implementation. Additional safety markings were also added to improve visibility and safety for all road users.
BPAC Comments:
• Member Lew: I want to see this. It looks great. I would feel safe riding it. Will this prevent drivers and bicyclists from hitting each other? DRAFT
o Mr. Tran: Yes, as cyclists approach intersections, there should be vertical delineators unless there is a bus stop or another conflict. • Member Lew: Are cars making right turns required to yield? o Mr. Tran: Yes, they should slow down and let you cross. They also have to make a wider turn, so they can’t go as quickly.
• Member Kirby: I like that the bike lane continues straight through the intersection, whereas some designs push the bike lane closer to the pedestrian crossing, making the bike lane less visible to cars. I’m glad to see more improvements made for all ages and abilities. Though it's not part of our ultimate goal in the BPMP, I feel very comfortable riding this section. I hope there will be more safety improvements along that corridor in the long term.
• Member Swenson: In the slide showing a dashed line turning into a solid line, what is the significance of the dashed line versus the solid line? o Mr. Tran: Two solid parallel lines means you should not cross. The dashed line means drivers can cross, usually at driveways.
o Member Kirby: Lines are also dashed lines before intersections to indicate shared facilities.
• Mr. Tran: Last time we presented on this project, there was a public comment about not taking this up to the full Class IV bicycle facility mentioned in the BPMP. We had to strike a balance between the transit priority corridor, businesses, and buses. We focused on where accidents may occur the most, which is near intersections. Wherever possible, we put up vertical delineators at intersections to provide safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. • Member Swenson: I concur about the straight-through intersections because why would you want a chicane on a bike path to slow down bikes? In Fremont at Washington Boulevard, a bike lane shoots off to the right and I have to brake. It is a conflict zone when I have to make a left turn to go straight, but another bicyclist has to turn right. I hope QLP can avoid this design conflict. Cars should be slowed down, not bikes. Straight through is the best way to do it. Lanes should be designed for bicyclists’ speed limit.
o Member Kirby: Yes, thank you for saying this. It provides conflicting messages to bicyclists and drivers turning right.
o Mr. Tran: We don’t have designs that include chicanes.
Public Comments:
• Mr. Kadavanich: When you reviewed this project about a year ago, the project had Class IV vertical delineators along the entire length of Decoto Road. There was no mention that there were not going to be vertical delineators along the entire length. This is a breach of MTC conditions for TDA 3 (Transportation Development Act Article 3) funding and breach of trust to the public. Staff didn’t bring it back to these conditions. I know of two instances in the last six years where drivers fell asleep at the wheel, drove into a bike lane, and killed somebody. You need vertical delineators if you want traffic calming and to keep people from driving in the buffer. Paint does not work to slow down drivers.
DRAFT
o Mr. Tran: When the project was presented last time, we went through the MTC Complete Streets Checklist. There was confusion about what was shown and what was interpreted. In the RFP and in the plans, there were dots which could have been interpreted as vertical delineators. The notes in the detail sheet described reflectors in between two stripes. o Member Swenson: In the last response, there were multiple classes shown. I couldn’t define from that presentation which bike lane it was going to be. Can we go back to the public to offer clarity? o Mr. Ayupan: We have answered this question clearly with the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Let’s talk about this further offline. We focused on pedestrians and balanced multiple transportation modes.
Buffered bike lanes meet our current public safety needs, which we coordinate with the police and fire departments.
g. Union City Blvd Bike Lanes Construction Status
Ms. Ayupan shared an update on the Union City Boulevard (UCB) Bike Lanes construction. Construction on the UCB bike lane project is well underway, with recent work focused on heavy construction, enhanced lighting, and median reconstruction to improve safety and drainage. A new multi-use Class I trail has been completed between Eastin Drive and Rocklin Drive, designed primarily for students walking or biking to school. Final work on the bike lanes, including striping, signage, and traffic signal upgrades, is scheduled for completion this summer. A community ribbon cutting ceremony is planned for this fall. The project incorporates Complete Streets elements such as buffered bike lanes, improved pedestrian lighting, and safety features at intersections.
BPAC Comments:
• Member McDonnell: I grew up going down UCB, and I was looking forward to the end of construction. The City has done a really good job at managing traffic. • Member Lew: I drove on the south end of UCB, and it was very smooth. It is very smooth around manhole covers. It is beautiful, I am very happy with it, and I am looking forward to the ribbon cutting. Good job!
• Member Kirby: I drove through the area once and the progress looked great. I am looking forward to riding it on my bike.
• Member Swenson: I rode the whole length today, and it was great.
7. GOOD OF THE ORDER
a. Bike to Anywhere Day on May 15, 2025 – Energy Stations Mr. Tran shared that with the construction on UCB, there will be one Energizer Station instead of two. Energy Stations are hosted in the morning.
DRAFT
8. UPCOMING BPAC MEETINGS
Please visit here to find past BPAC meeting information. a. May 20, 2025 – CANCEL
b. June 17, 2025
c. July 15, 2025
d. August 19, 2025
e. September 16, 2025 – CANCEL
f. September/October – UCB Bike Lanes Ribbon Cutting Celebration Event g. Oct. 21, 2025
h. Nov. 18, 2025
i. Dec. 16, 2025 – CANCEL
Ms. Ayupan shared that there will not be a meeting in May. The next meeting will be in June or July depending on project updates. Ms. Ayupan requested BPAC members to share any date conflicts.
Member Kirby confirmed that the September meeting will be cancelled.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:38pm. DRAFT