CCMIN080503 - Laserfiche WebLink

Pacific runs 158 fi.eight trains and 60 passenger trains on the same track. If they can do it, we can do it. Chris Scarborough, 3644 Kamp Drive, expressed his opposition to a diesel train through his neighborhood. He wanted Option 1 eliminated fi.om the study. Anne Fox, 2866 Garden Creek Circle, said she watched the Dublin Council meeting. It was given two options: the Iron Horse Trail and Dougherty Road routes. It supported the four areas being studied further because Supervisor Haggerty had said that if all four options are not included in the EIR, there could be a lawsuit filed. The Dublin Council specifically opposed any route through Dublin that would impact the Iron Horse Trail. It would support the Dougherty Road option. She hoped the Pleasanton City Council would go on record opposing the Iron Horse Trail as a viable option. Dublin also discussed the E1 Charro option. They were concerned about the route north of 1-580 and wanted part of it underground so it is not close to East Dublin residents and the Hacienda Crossing shopping center. She urged the Pleasanton Council to support that as an option. If the E1 Charro option is considered the best, would Council consider making sure it is connected to the ACE train by putting in a station at E1 Charro. For residents at the end of Stoneridge Drive and West Las Positas, it would be good to have a buffer of trees to block noise in the event the train does go along that route. Mike Picone, 3827 Phoebe Court, indicated his property is adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail and he opposed a diesel train on that route. He urged Council to shelve Option 1. Val Menotti, 212 -9th Street, representing BART, indicated in December, the BART Board adopted a new system expansion policy. One criteria was for a transit system to be cost effective. Another key factor was partnerships with local communities. BART would not build something that is not accepted by the communities. He noted that one of the key designers of this concept study was a former general manager of Sacramento's regional transit system and was part of Seattle's transit system. Sacramento's system is primarily a single track light rail. It has fifteen minute headways and single track systems are viable. There were comments about San Joaquin and other counties. The BART District includes the three core counties of San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. There have been discussions with San Joaquin County and if service were extended, it would be expected to contribute to the environmental study and any capital costs in the future. Current BART users would not be expected to bear that burden. He said BART ridership was relatively low. There are four travel markets. One was primarily to Oakland and San Francisco, but that is a small portion of the overall travel market fi.om the Tri-Valley. Two separate consultants on two separate occasions have done analyses of ridership. BART does not feel ridership is as high as it would like. The BART Board is asking the Committee to look at other technologies, not just BART vehicles. He said there are projects already approved and mentioned the Oakland Airport connector project which will connect fi.om the Coliseum BART station to the airport. That should be open by 2008. That is non-BART technology and will be something like a people mover. They are also looking at a DMU vehicle for use in Contra Costa County in the Highway 4 corridor. Finally, he thought there may be a ballot measure in March 2004 regarding bridge tolls, which would include a regional rail plan such as Mr. Wolfe had suggested. Pleasanton City Council 13 08/05/03 Minutes