measure's failure may have been due in part to the lack of a "sunset" clause for the expiration of the sales tax increase. Two years later, Alameda County voters passed Measure BB, which was nearly identical in language to the 2012 Measure B1, with a few exceptions. Measure B1 now included a sunset clause and the money set aside for Dumbarton Rail was now directed towards improving bus service over the Dumbarton Bridge. 2008–2016: Suspended The loan (and eventual grant) of the majority of RM2 funds from DRC to WSX meant that construction would not start on DRC as scheduled. Although an administrative draft of the project draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was completed in late 2009, the detailed engineering studies kept forecasting increased cost and decreased projected ridership. By 2010, the estimated cost of DRC had increased again to . Besides the increased cost estimates, other issues had emerged, including negotiations with Union Pacific to reroute freight traffic onto the Niles subdivision and purchase of the Oakland subdivision for DRC service. In addition, the alignment of the proposed California High-Speed Rail service was still wavering between the Altamont Pass (which would route HSR over the Dumbarton Cut-off) and the Pacheco Pass (which would route HSR through San Jose up the Peninsula Corridor to San Francisco). Recognizing these issues, the March 2011 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Alternatives Study (Wilbur Smith Associates) set out to redefine the project to increase cost-effectiveness and boost ridership. Several alternative service proposals were studied, including modified rail service and bus rapid transit schemes. One alternate rail service would have created a rail shuttle between Union City and the existing Redwood City Caltrain station, dropping the limited stop service to San Francisco or San Jose. The rail shuttle would run four departures per hour during the three peak hours in the morning and the three peak afternoon hours, increasing the number of trips from six to forty-eight. Capital costs would also increase, as more rolling stock was required. An updated methodology for projecting ridership was also used in the 2011 Alternatives Study. Under the original methodology and routing, there were approximately 5,900 daily passengers anticipated to use DRC service by 2035. With the revised methodology, there were approximately 8,600 projected daily passengers in 2035 instead with the original route. The rail shuttle alternative would have increased this to 15,500 daily passengers in 2035. In comparison, the most