01 - Laserfiche WebLink

estimated between 30,000 and 32,000 while the single stations would be roughly 20,000. He noted that these numbers are based on new riders, 30% of which are anticipated to come from San Joaquin County and would therefore affect activity at all stations. He also noted that none of the alternatives currently meet the FTC Transit Oriented Development policy which requires a critical threshold of 3,300 housing units within a half -mile radius of the rail station. Mr. Quint reviewed preliminary construction costs, noting that it is largely dependent upon right of way, security costs and actual build date. In 2009 dollars, Alternatives 1 -3 are estimated to cost between $3 billion and $3.8 billion while the two standalone alternatives could range from $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion each. Funding strategies include Measure B funds, toll monies, HOT lane revenues, federal grants, high -speed rail compatible train service funds, state funds, Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority assistance, San Joaquin County sales tax monies, and possible traffic impact fees from the City of Livermore. Mr. Quint stated that as comments are compiled from city staff, BART will prepare a preferred alignment alternative memo separate from the CEQA process to bring back to city Councils and working groups before going to the BART board. This document is built as a tool to provide reaction and feedback from staff and Councils to facilitate the response to all comments submitted. The final program EIR will then go to the BART board for certification and adoption of a preferred alignment alternative in the early part of next summer. The next step would then be a project level EIR. Mr. Quint invited the public to attend the upcoming meeting in Council Chambers on January 6, 2010 or the final community workshop hosted by the City of Livermore on January 21, 2010. He noted that the comment period has been extended to January 21, 2010 and invited the public to submit comments at the meetings, directly to him, or online. Mayor Hosterman said that while Pleasanton has always been very supportive of extending BART to Livermore, she has concerns about some of the proposed alignments. She asked and Mr. Quint confirmed that a hybrid of the current alignments could ultimately be possible. Mr. Quint stated that an alternative which subways down Portola Avenue into downtown Livermore and then on to Vasco was suggested at the last Livermore hearing. Mayor Hosterman requested more detail on the project timeline and asked why this seems to be rushed when the project would not likely move forward for a number of years. Mr. Quint explained that the push is in part due to the HOV projects on 1 -580 which will ultimately eliminate the median. He stated that the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has been working to preserve the median for rail transit but that BART pointed out it may be wasted money if certain portions of that are not needed for this project. He said it is also due in part to funding, that CMA is discussing a sales tax measure this project could qualify for and that other state and local agencies look for local commitment before considering a project. Vice Mayor Cook- Kallio confirmed with Mr. Quint that alternatives 1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, and 5 travel through Pleasanton (with exception of the 1 -580 travel of all alternatives). Vice Mayor Cook- Kallio questioned the difference in noise and debris could be expected of an elevated versus at grade track. Mr. Quint said it has not been studied in detail, but did acknowledge that aerial structures generate slightly more noise than if at grade and debris or material from the train is uncommon and certainly not ideal for the public or the rail system itself. City Council Minutes Page 4 of 13 December 15, 2009