CCMIN080503 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Brozosky asked if the EIR included an assumption the West Dublin BART station is in existence? Mr. Knowles said that was correct. Ms. Ayala said she thought none of these options would matter because build out projections for the Tri-Valley area indicate 1-580 will be congested no matter what is done. Mr. Knowles said recent measures taken, including on-ramp metering, have done more to reduce delays than this project will do in its lifetime. That is not the goal of the project. He felt there was competition between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties for additional BART funding for extensions. The goal is transit expansion, not congestion relief. Ms. Hosterman asked if the proposals would add a route of public transit between the Tri- Valley area and Walnut Creek. Mr. Knowles said one of the options handles that with express bus service using existing BART and $1.3 billion would not have to be spent. There is also a proposal for a new HOV service on 1-680 which would also enhance express bus service in the 680 corridor. Mayor Pico did not feel this was all doom and gloom. This is a transit project being considered, not a highway project. There are moneys earmarked for transit and we need to remember that the Tri-Valley decided to allocate $10 million to the Highway 84 corridor too. He cautioned that Prop. 42 funding is a long way in the future. This whole thing started as a concept of BART to Livermore and how to do it. The committee looked at buses using HOV lanes in 580; alternative routes through Livermore out to Greenville Road; etc. It considered BART in the median which required acquiring right of way, expanding the median, adding HOV lanes, all of which would have been very expensive and required moving all lanes on the freeway and rebuilding most of the overpasses between Pleasanton and Greenville Road, which would cost a significant amount of money. Studies indicated there would not be enough ridership to justify that. Subsequently, BART changed its policies on extensions based on population, density around stations, etc. That precluded any extension to Livermore within the foreseeable future. With that in mind, BART and others on the committee started looking at other alternatives. One of which was the Deisel Multiple Unit, which is a transit vehicle that can mn on heavy railroad tracks. That could extend BART service to Greenville Road and potentially to Tracy to provide another transit alternative to get people out of cars and to employment centers like Hacienda Business Park. There was also a study of a light rail system to be built parallel to the heavy rail tracks. There was consideration of building a BART extension to Greenville Road with an express bus connecting from San Joaquin County. The reality is that will not happen for a long time. Subsequent studies indicate light rail would not be effective because of ridership issues. The only way it would work economically was if it were extended from San Ramon Valley to Walnut Creek to capture a substantial base of ridership. There are many pitfalls and issues in any analysis. He described the routes being considered for each option and the possibilities for undergrounding portions of routes. Pleasanton residents will not want diesel trains through residential areas or a runnel through the groundwater basin. There are similar problems with the light rail system. If it were along the Iron Horse Trail, there would be less noise and pollution, Pleasanton City Council 8 08/05/03 Minutes