CCMIN091807 - Laserfiche WebLink

through the downtown. In terms of the City's approval process for high speed rail versus regional rail, the City has the same ability to comment before, but it is how those comments will be received by the constructing agency. Unlike the triangle study, the City does not have control over the actual building of it. City Manager Fialho felt that the primary focus is BART and how to expand service into East County and leveraging this project to accomplish that. He felt the city was not unique; Fremont took a position in opposition to high speed rail about two weeks ago and Union City took a position in support of it, so there is conflict in that region. He felt what Pleasanton needs to register its opposition, but there might be a hybrid of the hybrid that ultimately works for everybody. If high speed rail comes into Livermore and terminates but allows for the extension of BART into Livermore, this works for Pleasanton and Livermore, and possibly beyond into Tracy eventually in the future, while also maintaining the Pacheco Pass alignment and the service from Sacramento to Los Angeles. So, he felt these were the things the Council needs to weigh in on so the opportunity is not lost. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed with Ms. Nelson that there were significant objections on the I-580 corridor by both Pleasanton and Dublin who were very concerned about impacts on the 1- 580/1-680 interchange and on the very tall structures, so the PAC did not support that alternative. Councilmember Sullivan felt it would be better to have big aerial structures on top of the freeway. Mayor Hosterman noted the third choice is for Pacheco, and Councilmember Sullivan felt the City was not supporting any continued study of that option, whereas he felt if we are evaluating the options, we should continue in studying that option. Councilmember Cook-Kallio felt this should be studied with reservation in terms of the high speed. She felt the purpose of the high speed is not for commuter rail for short distance, but she confirmed with Ms. Nelson that it is meant to be regional service in the corridor between Sacramento, the San Joaquin Valley including Manteca and Tracy right into the Tri-Valley, and also as far south as Fresno. It would stop in Manteca and Livermore and Pleasanton and Fremont just like the ACE train does. Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked if the study talks about how many people would use the Pacheco Pass alignment as opposed to using either the hybrid or the Altamont Pass alignment. Ms. Nelson said there have been some estimates done and there have not been detailed estimates of the hybrid alternative, which emerged late. It was found it would not double the cost to provide some service in Pacheco and some in the Altamont. However, she said two of the biggest markets for high speed are Sacramento/Bay Area and San Joaquin County/Bay Area and those markets are better served by going through the Altamont rather than going south to San Jose and into the Bay Area up the Caltrain line. So, this is the reason why those markets would generate higher ridership. Councilmember Cook-Kallio confirmed with Ms. Nelson that the difference between going with the Pacheco Pass versus the Altamont Pass is in the tens of millions of dollars. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she did not have any problem studying this, but she wanted a strong statement concerning high speed through downtown Pleasanton or anywhere. She said she could see why Fremont said no and Union City said yes because of their tracks' location, and she felt a high speed train go through downtown Pleasanton is contrary to the city's vision of what Bernal will look like, given the traffic and three schools in the area. Councilmember City Council Minutes 11 September 18, 2007