Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.2 BART Extension Study Final Report CITY OF DUBLIN lo & Q _ JO AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE : October 24 , 1983 SUBJECT BART Extension Study Final Report EXHIBITS ATTACHED Draft letter to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District Staff RECOMMENDATION II Discuss BART Extension Study and comment on proposed 'r draft letter r_;• FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION At its meeting of October 10 , 1983 , the City Council received a report from the City Traffic Engineer highlighting the transportation issues which the City is presently faced with. As part of that presentation, the City Traffic Engineer briefly reviewed the draft final report for the Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension Study . The City Council directed Staff to formulate a position for the City and return this item to the City Council at its meeting of October 24 , 1983 for further consideration. Since the last meeting, Staff has received some clarification from the BART Staff with respect to its request for the City ' s comments . The BART Staff has indicated that there will be a public hearing period after the Technical Advisory Committee meeting on October 27 , 1983 in order to receive additional input from the public . The City Traffic Engineer has prepared a draft letter on behalf of City Staff which discusses the major issues and concerns of the City of Dublin with respect to the BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study. It is Staff ' s recommendation that the City Council review the concerns raised in the attached draft letter and direct Staff to make any necessary modifications and forward those comments thru its Technical Advisory Committee representative to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. 7, ,/ October 26, 1983 Richard C. Wenzel Project Manager Bay Area Rapid Transit District 800 Madison Street Oakland, CA 94607 Dear Mr. Wenzel : In your September 29 , 1983, letter you asked for written comments from the City of Dublin on the draft final report for the Livermore-Pleasanton BART extension study. The City Council at its October 24, 1983, meeting discussed the report and developed a number of comments about the issue . Obviously, in the time alloted, the City Council and the staff have had an opportunity for only a preliminary review of the report and expect to have comments based on more detailed review during the public review period of the final report itself. The City of Dublin's comments are as follows: 1 . The City is in support of .the two station concept for the Dublin-Pleasanton area . Two stations , each having access and parking on both the Dublin and Pleasanton sides of the freeway appears to be an appropriate way of spreading the traffic and the impacts of the station itself and to serve the future BART patrons. 2. The City also supports the concept of construction and the operation of the two stations simultaneously in one phase rather than building the Dublin station first and the Hacienda station in a later phase. 3. The City of Dublin strongly supports the adoption of the 1-580 alignment to Livermore. It appears that the analysis in the report, in. which year 2000 costs, revenues and patronage form a key input for the final recommendation is shortsighted . Based on the tentative time table established for the Livermore portion of the line , is possible that the line itself may not even be operational by the year 2000 . In this case, a longer analysis would be indicated. A look into the valley of the future would certainly swing the patronage and revenue projections in support of the 1-580 alignment in view of the likely development of major projects along the 1-580 corridor itself. 4. The proposed downtown Dublin station area occupies valuable potential commercial area within the City. While we are supportive of having an adequately sized parking area we are also concerned about the loss of both developable and partially developed land. For this reason it is our position that BART should consider stations involving double-decking parking lots or underground parking or other means to maintain adequate capacity but reduced Richard C. Wenzel -2- October 19, 1983 land requirements . This potential combination of parking overflow in the downtown area and the reduction of commercial developable area is the reason that the City had earlier expressed concern with the station in this location . We now urge that these points be carefully considered by BART in its final adoption and future planning. 5. It appears that circulation at both stations would be enhanced by a cross connection between the Dublin and Pleasanton sides of the parking areas . This would allow the stations to have proper circulation similar to most other BART facilities without the use of extensive circuitous routes on city streets . Such overpass connections would need to be well designed so as to not encourage through local traffic. 6. It is expected that there would be significant impacts on the streets near the BART stations themselves . This should be the subject of further study so that necessary improvements to the streets can be made and that planning for these improvements can commence at this time. 7. Related to the access issue is the City of Dublin's need for direct access to the 1-680 freeway near Dublin Boulevard. A major purpose of this access would be to provide access to the downtown BART station from areas to the north, such as San Ramon. The interchange would preclude the need for "through" BART traffic for San Ramon or elsewhere to use our local street system. It is our desire that the BART planning include this additional interchange. The City currently feels that the final approval of a downtown BART station itself is, in fact, conditioned upon the additional interchange. The City of Dublin is also discussing this concern with Caltrans at the present time. 8. As you know, the City of Dublin is currently conducting studies which will lead to the adoption of its first General Plan in the near future . Many of the BART related details such as access, circulation and land use near the proposed stations are of vital importance in our General Plan process . For this reason , it is important to the City that we maintain continuous communication between our mutual planning efforts. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft final report. Please contact me if there are questions. Very truly yours, Richard C. Ambrose City Manager Id