CCMIN090799 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tarver recollected that at the beginning of this program San Joaquin was to provide the capital for the trains and everyone else would provide operating funds. Now it appears the State is providing the capital for the third train, but San Joaquin is not. He thought the allocation of operating costs was based on ridership. Mr. Pico said San Joaquin was paying the majority of the operating costs, but it is requesting the rest to come from Alameda County. Mr. van Gelder said an allocation formula was never established. Several suggestions were made including number of passengers, seat miles, boardings, etc. There are many issues that need to be addressed in the long-term operation. He did a superficial survey to determine if buses would be a better solution. The rail costs were well in line with the expenses for BART, perhaps better. It is also possible the market is shifting and more people are traveling to the South Bay than to areas served by BART. Mr. Pico believed this also involves the discussions regarding Measure B reauthorization. Some of the operating costs are projected to come from Measure B. If Measure B is reauthorized, it will be two or three years before that funding is available and it is necessary to have money to cover the interim period. It might be possible to advance funds from the CMA and get reimbursement from Measure B. There are many scenarios, but we will be asked to take funds from the CMA fund to pay for some of the ACE train. Funds will have to be taken from another project, possibly from the West Dublin BART station or possibly there could be public/private partnerships for funding. It is still too early to make any definitive statements or ask for specific direction. Mr. Tarver wanted to make certain there will be a staff report setting forth the options when the time is appropriate. Ms. Michelotti asked if there was an new information on Measure B. Mr. van Gelder indicated the current bill (SCA3) proposes to enable passage of Measure B with a majority vote rather than 2/3 and to have a 20-year program rather than a 15-year program. That adds some addition funding for Area 4. Most of the other projects remain the same, but there is some increased funding for a BART to Livermore study, ACE train operations, etc. Mr. Pico indicated he has been lobbying to have preliminary studies regarding HOV studies for 580 and 680. He felt those links were critical to maximize the use of the HOV lanes and to allow use of express buses in the lanes. Mr. van Gelder believed there is a problem on 580, because it will be a few years before any work is done on it and in the interim development is happening in Dublin and Livermore which affects various interchanges on 580. CalTrans is not keeping track of all Pleasanton City Council 24 09/07/99 Meeting