CCMIN061703 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tumlin said that would be explored during the environmental study. The disadvantage of that is that it does not serve Livermore well and ridership would be lower. It serves San Joaquin County, but not Alameda County. Mayor Pico felt bus rapid transit was more flexible in regards to routes and schedules. Ms. Ayala inquired about the proposed outreach. Mr. Tumlin said this is the technical analysis to see if the concepts are worth pursuing with an environmental study. During the environmental analysis, there will be a great deal more outreach to stakeholders and members of the public. Mr. Menotti indicated each City Council should give input to their representatives to the Policy Committee member. The major public outreach will be part of the environmental process. Mr. Brozosky did not think there was much support for Option 1 and hoped BART did not spend too much money reviewing it. Supervisor Scott Haggerty indicated a BART project would not be completed for fifty years. A DMU project could occur within 17 years. He was very excited about the ideas coming from the Policy Committee. He assured Council that no one envisions the train running along the Iron Horse Trail. An environmental impact study must consider everything or it would be considered flawed. He urged Council and the community to keep open minds. The Policy Committee is doing everything it can to make certain there is a good program. He described various potential funding sources and indicated he would present a list to Council later. There is funding available, but he urged Council to make a decision authorizing proceeding with this project and moving to the environmental study phase. He noted that if this were a BART only project, it would cost $6 billion. A DMU project would cost $1.4 billion. He believed a solution must be found for those people who commute from the San Joaquin Valley. He noted San Joaqu'm and Contra Costa Counties are getting ready to reauthorize their half cent sales tax. Ms. Ayala asked if there was an option all cities could agree upon? Mr. Haggerty replied there was not one yet and further study is necessary. Mayor Pico indicated this is a group of political leaders who are trying to see a vision for the future. The freeway will soon be at gfidlock and there are benefits to the City of Pleasanton to get people out of cars and to stop neighborhood cut-through traffic. Council will schedule a meeting to get further information. He thanked Mr. Haggerty for coming to the meeting. Vaughn Wolffe, 1798 Peru Court, indicated the program does not include a study of improved ACE service. He believed a major problem for Pleasanton is traffic passing through the City on the way to Silicon Valley or beyond. He did not want Pleasanton to support the BART proposal until there are at least eight ACE trains running and a full analysis of what the funding for the BART project could do if it were dedicated to the ACE service should be included. There is a study from Santa Clara County that indicated at least 10,000 riders would Pleasanton City Council 5 06/17/03 Minutes