CCMIN080503 - Laserfiche WebLink

There is a huge transportation problem that well extend beyond our lifetimes. Concerns about cost today will have far greater impact on future generations, quality of life and the environment. Ms. Ayala said options are already being limited since the Policy Advisory Committee only presented four options for review. Mayor Pico said those were the most realistic options for transit. Mr. Sullivan felt Council was further limiting those options. He understood the concept of politically infeasible options, but did not want to take that so far to limit the options to a very nan'ow window where an oppommity may be lost. Mr. Brozosky felt Council should present more options than those in the report. Ms. Ayala pointed out the Committee has been meeting for two years already. Vaughn Wolffe, 1798 Peru Court, wanted an analysis of what the same amount of money would accomplish if applied entirely to the ACE train service. He believed it would do more to relieve traffic congestion than BART. The BART Board believes that no option will relieve traffic congestion, but he felt that was because BART could not compete with cars because of the speed at which it runs. Real trains can mn at 110 mph. With fewer stops and express service it can compete with the automobile. BART costs about $100-200 million per mile. A previous speaker said $170 million is cheap for his proposal. He noted the ACE train carries 3,500 for less than $100 million. If one applied $170 million to ACE, it could have another ten to twelve thousand riders. The CalTrain service from Gilroy to San Francisco will spend $1.5 to $2 billion to create four-track, electrified, 90 mph service with express service for an 80 mile route and with trains all day long. It is 85 miles from Stockton to San Jose. The real estate along that route is much cheaper than on the Penninsula and there are far fewer stations along the route. For $1.2 billion there could be a really decent rail system. If it were extended across the Dumbarton Bridge, one could get from Livermore/Pleasanton to SFO or San Francisco faster than on BART. These things could be done incrementally, but that consideration is not being considered in this EIR. He felt EIRs get stuck with what comes from political committees. The Federal government accepts that an alternative is not feasible because there was no political support. If Council wants to add an option it should drive the effort. One of those options should be the improvement of ACE service. That, combined with bus rapid transit, would provide all the benefits this plan proposes and remove much of the cut-through traffic in Pleasanton. He said there is no place where DMU is mn at high frequency. All light rail systems are electrified because the costs are so prohibitive. The only place to run DMU at high frequency would be in high density areas and that is not a good thing. BART was good when it started, but he felt it was a mistake in using technology suited for subways and short routes and applied it to the countryside. He believed the options presented are unnecessary, should be done another way, and exclude entirely any consideration of the ACE system. ACE is far less expensive and he felt projects could be done incrementally. He felt once funds are commited to a BART project, it will stay there no matter what happens to ridership, and those Federal funds will not be available for anything else. He urged Council to direct its representative to the Committee to include funding for ACE service improvements. He noted in Chicago, Union Pleasanton City Council 12 08/05/03 Minutes