Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.4 BART ExtensionProgress (2) f' . e - CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting Date: February 28, 1994 SUBJECT: Update of BART Extension Progress Report by: Public Works Director Lee Thompson 1) /' Layout of East DublinlPleasanton BART Station parking lot and architectural renderings 2) ./ Copy of draft paper by BART Director Sherman Lewis 3) Representatives of BART will be available at the meeting for presentation. They will bring large scale dra~ing exhibits. RECOMMENDATION~\ ~ Receive presentation information 2) Ask any questions pertinent to the station. EXHIBITS ATTACHED: FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No impact as a result of this presentation. DESCRIPTION: The Bay Area Rapid Transit District staff and consultants have been working for several years to make the DublinlPleasanton BART Extension a reality. BART's time frame for bringing rail service has been and still appears to be by the end of 1995. All of the various contracts are now out for construction except for the East DublinlPleasanton Station and parking lots. The station contract is scheduled to go to bid in early March. The latest parking lot configuration (Exhibit 1) calls for 2,641 parking spaces. The BART environmental document had estimated the need for 3,000 parking spaces at the East DublinlPleasanton Station in the Year 2010 if there was a second DublinlPleasanton station and 3,500 spaces if the East Station was a single end-of-the-line station. It appears that BART is utilizing the maximum land area available to them at this time for parking and is designing for the estimated parking needs for the Year 2000. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a draft chronology of the events leading to and the progress of the DublinlPleasanton BART Extension, as written and distributed by BART Director Sherman Lewis. In this paper, Mr. Lewis sets forth his desire to fund the West DublinlPleasanton BART Station as his highest priority. The BART staff will be available at the meeting to present details of the station and associated parking lots and to answer any questions, a:(9394) lfebrnary lagstbart ::~:8:"r--------;~;:~:-=::~-::~:~:~~-------~-~~-~~~-R K Marv Dalander, BART FilEt I tol~bH3to' ""- ',")".~""""~',g V _~':fI"1:"'i~-'-~' ,01 \,\: " ~ ~ ~;~~::?:;:~.~ '\ ?'~''''''1'''''i~1 ' + ~:/"',(,:~(',;:;; , (<:J I!C",'"",.".!1a ' ~ ",,":'''. ,'. Ilf" ';,;.~~ 'iU',',,:i;t,', ,;!'ii,"_ ;tl ':~'~~~" f{'~';'d r<,'''"'' ,- "'j J ~~~"~~~ 1:- .....,,-.,.,. ,/~ ~ ,---~i Q) (, -' ~ SOUTH PARKING LOT STATION PARKING 1239 TEMPORARY PARKING 41 Hie PARKING 18 Hie VAN PARKING 2 TOTAL 1300 DUBUN BLVD. NORTH PARKING LOT STATION PARKING - NE STATION PARKING - Ne STATION PARKING - NW Hie PARKING Hie VAN PARKING MID-DAY PARKING KISS & RIDE EMPLOYEE PARKING TOTAL 545 562 58 20 3 75 37 41 1341 aI.IC. IUlWlJrllO TItACI'lOJl PO'IfIR SUBnATlON NORTH ENTRANCE PLAZA --- tttnltS'i'AfI &eo _m 1I0U"0 c::r::o Irn'lltlTAfI 680 lAST BOU"B E, DUBLIN / PLEASANTON STATION t OQHS DRrvI ~ t SOUTH PARKING LOT SOUTH ENTRANCE PLAZA 1, ~, ruT\11tI UGHT WI. IXTIHSION RIGHT or WAY nNPOIWtT ,.umNG SITE PLAN BAY AREA TRANSIT CONSULTANTS BECHTEL-PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF-TODD-WARREN SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT DUBLIN/ PLEASANTON EXTENSION E, DUBLIN / PLEASANTON STATION nw:nON rowu e e @ 110' r I'" .... ~...J I I STONE MARRACCINI PATTERSON ARCHITECTS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA ~~~, ,-,~",=::=-- =,~, ;..~ :" TI ern---;; ~ ' " , , u In.., , ""TL' 'ir'n='I~<==F' '" ' :' , T ",', ': """ I""" I" '(;t ~L__u..B:I:l :j ~ il ~ il ..,J_~~~GE 'i~f-I ii Q! . .1. L . --.!.. f~ _LL .:...,-:-:. '--===-_____-"--__ STATION SOUTH ELEVATION ~' .....:Z LONGITUDINAL SECTION BAY AHEA THANSIT CONSULTANTS m:CIITt:L-I'AHSONS Ill!! NCK EHlIOFV-TOIlIl- W AHREN SAN FHANCISCO nAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT D1STHlCT DUnLlN/ PLEASANTON EXTENSION Eo DUJJLlN / PLEASANTON STATION t.. e l5' O' 1'" ~. ~....J____ ~~ e e":;' 0' 1'5' ~. t...r."..;.-....J . ~ _ _ 4 STONE MARRACCINI PATTERSON ARCHITECTS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA e PLATFORM PLAN ~ ,,' . li;;t.~,...J ,. CONCOURSE PLAN ~ 2~' Q' n' "'. l...r-_.......L_....._. ___._..__1 IlA Y AHEA THANSIT CONSULTANTS nECIIT~:L-I'AHSONS nHlNCKEHIIOFF-TOIlIl-WAIHlEN SAN FHANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT DUBLIN/ PLEASANTON EXTENSION E. DUBLIN / PLEASANTON STATION STONE MARRACCINI PATTERSON ARCHITECTS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA ~"o~,.,~o, ~~, ~'\~'~,%1~~~]cl ,>~ /7///')/'/ ,(/ ,?, ,1/ ~ //:,:<'(, ".. {/'x\' " (;~ , /r" y, /( )'<( " \.: (// ,j(.. " " ()'~>"? .'" ,\ ;/" """ ", (': .'~" 1/ ,', /~ ,"..) ,,/) " ,,- ..-..-'" ./ ---- ,/ , /// ?':..; ~O' -----~~ \:;/ "" '. '~ '- , '-, .------- \ , '\ '\ , , ) \OHTII Jo:\TIt\\n: I'L,\ZA I'LA\ " \ \ \ I / // SOl'Tl1 Jo:\TIt\\('Jo: I'LAZA I'LA\ /' . / " ,/ / '~ II i j r------ , I HOOF J.1NR--~,1 ADon: ' , : , , , : : I I I , I , , ST^INU:SS"-~-' I'> sTt:n ! (;Oll.I~c; I SIltJTn:1C ) nOOK t. - ..,.., STAIN1.ES~ STEEL COUNUR " 1. _:...::' tit '1- l[ Ii II :! '/ / / / / ,/ \ ~ \~~ G' :~. !.'O' ~ . , . -- e . , . --... IL\ Y ,\IU:,\ 'I'lL\\SIT (,O\SI:L'L\\'rs IlEClITEL-I',IHSO\S 1lI11\CKEHIIOFF-TOIJIJ- WAHHE\ KIOSK ELEVA'I'lOl\S , -- ----,1 l' II KIOSK FLOOI{ & IWOF I'LAl\S 1,;j\Tl~ANCE JlLAZM'; SAN FHANCISCO BAY AHEA HAPID THAl'iSIT DISTHlCT DUBLIN/ PLEASANTON EXTENSION E, DUBLIN / I'LEASANTON STATION I" STONE MARRACCINI PATTERSON ARCIIITECTS -- SAN FIlANCISCO. CALIFORNIA " e e I circulated a draft dated April 27, 1993 to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council, BART staff, and a few individuals. I received no written comments, but I have received additional information from LA VT A. Supervisor Campbell, and BART staff. This draft was mostly fmished Aug 151993 when I ran out of time to fmish it. This lan 1994 edition just a cleaned up version for a few people with enough interest to peruse a partial analysis. At some time I hope to fInish the research, so please consider this a work in progress, and maybe even give me some more info. and correct mistakes - Sherman Lewis, August 15, 1993. Send comments to me at 2787 Hillcrest Ave., Hayward CA 94542. Part n summarizes crucial project costing and funding decisions. Part ill discusses how to get West Dublin funded. SECOND DRAFT PART I A HISTORY OF POLICY MAKING REGARDING THE DUBLIN/PLEASANTON EXTENSION Note: My purpose is to present all sides with a few judgments of my own here and there. 1976 Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension Study completed.1 1982 Castro Valley BART Station Site Selection Study completed? 1983 BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Update Analysis completed.3 1986 BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Supplemental Analysis completed.4 1986 July 14. The Bay Area County Traffic and Transportation Funding Act (SB 878, Boat- wright) became law. It authorized the development of transportation plans, bonding, a half cent sales tax, and an election to approve these. Section 131100 (c)(1) applied to BART: "In order to receive funds from the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco, BART shall agree to match from federal, state, or other funds available to the district, at least as much as it receives from the additional funds provided by this chapter from those counties." 1986 November. Alameda County voters approved Measure B, including Dublin Canyon rail and . Warm Springs BART extensions. The combined projects would cost of $ 565 million, of which the sales tax would provide $ 170 million, with priority for Dublin Canyon. "No sales tax revenue v.ill be allocated to the Warm Springs extension until the Dublin Canyon extension is fully funded and ready for implementation." Measure B reported that one million dollars in STIP (California state) funds would be spent on an analysis of three rail alternatives--light rail, high speed light rail, and BART --for Dublin extensIon. MTC estimated $ 220 million for the cost of heavy rail to West Dublin and $ 345 million for the 1. Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension Study, Final Report. by Livingston and Blayney for BART, July 1976 2. Castro Valley BART Station Site Selection Study.March 24, 1982, prepared by BART, Alameda County Planning and Roads Departments 3. BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Update Analysis, Final Report. December 1983, performed by De Leuw, Cather &. Company for BART 4. BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Supplemental Analysis, Final Report. Febmary 1986, performed by De Leuw, Cather &. Company for BART t ?j""~.11 Z/ ;1 .:;>.;: ?!. ~:! ~;c;, ';,.:" ;.,,~"'_~ ;;; ~ _~_, ' ~ ';Dr"aft ~e..r b", Mr. ~~s ~~ . Draft, p. 2 e e extension to Warm Springs, for the total of $ 565 million. The Dublin Pleasanton Extension (DPX) would have two stations, Castro Valley and West Dublin. "BART's Financial Plan has tentatively indicated a commitment of $ 40 million to the Dublin corridor, $ 20 million of which has been identified." The figures implied that DPX was only $ 10 million short: sales tax $ 170 plus BART $ 40 = $ 210 with $ 220 needed.s The location map and discussions of the time contemplated stopping at West Dublin. Two stations are implied but not explicit: " . . . from BART's Bay Fair Station to Dublin, with an additional station in Castro Valley; and another extension from BART's Fremont Station to Warm Springs, with an additional station in Irvington." Also, "Pleasanton" is listed as a separate extension. The project actually being built goes beyond what is shown on the Measure B location map, which stops the dotted line at Wet Dublin. 1987 May. "BART staff estimates construction costs at $220 million. (Second [third] station: $3 - $6 million)."6 Note: Valley leaders usually call the third station the second station, ignoring the Castro V alley station, which is not in the valley. BART staff, looking at my request in spring 1993, found no record for this $220 million estimate. There is a BART Board resolu- tion of 7/88 referring to an undefined project at $ 232 million. Measure B says "MTC has provided . . . funding estimates for the next 15 years." Measure B then shows the cost of Dublin at $ 220 m and Pleasanton at $ 80 m with MTC as the source. I suspect BART and MTC worked together on this but current BART staff has not yet found these old fIles. 1987 May. "LA VTA (Wheels) and BART undertake $43,500 study to determine the cost of light rail to the Amador Valley."7 Draft versions of the Livermore Amador Valley Rail Alterna- tives Study were used until the fmal came out in December. 1987 October 1, 1987. LAVTA and BART held a community meeting in the Pleasanton Council Chambers to report on the study and listen to comments. Vic Sood of LA VTA and Dick Wenzel of BART prepared an eight page guide for the meeting. It showed a study corridor to West DublinIPleasanton and a future extension to Livermore. It discussed two forms of light rail ("conventional" at 65 mph and "high performance" at 80 mph) and BART. The consultant, DKS, recommended BART over both types of light rail, but the differences were not great. BART had the disadvantage of higher cost but the advantages of more riders due to higher speed, lower operating costs, service onto the e_~sting BART system with no transfer, a minimal need for new mamtenance and other facilities, and "the availability of BART cars to reduce start-up costs." I put this in quotes because it is ambiguous. BART was anticipating new cars, which could be used on the line, and some representing BART said they would be "given" by BART, but this was never confirmed in writing. The language could also mean that BART would loan cars from its regular fleet at start up pending delivery of cars needed for the line. How many cars BART really needs is somewhat variable, depending on assumptions about cars out of service for repair and good cars held in reserve for breakdowns. 5. Measure B, Nov. 1986 6. PIeasanton Chamber of Commerce, letter of April 5, 1993 to BART Director Sherman Lewis, enclosure .Chronological summary of the history of BART in the Valley,. Source of information not cited, 7. Pleasanton Chamber, op, cit i . --------- } e e Draft, p. 3 In 1987 dollars, the capital costs for BART were $ 231.6 million, consisting of $ 164.1 for construction, $ 17.3 for right-of-way and $ 50.2 million for rolling stock (33 cars). I put this in bold to show that from the start planners assumed that rolling stock was part of the cost of the extension. Only $ 186,8 of funding was identified, however: $ 170 from Measure B, $ 2.8 from CTC for right of way, and $ 14 million from BART which had already been spent on right of way. "BART has projected that the estimated $ 44.8 million required balance could be funded through currently existing sources. These sources include the potential availability of up to 26 BART cars from BART's fleet now on order, with a value of $ 39 million. .,. The allocation of either BART vehicles or BART reserve funds to this project, however, would require BART Board approval before they can be considered committed funding sources." (p. 7) The next page showed that "projected sources" of $ 44.8 million from "BART cars and capital reserves" would close the funding gap: $ 186.8 + 44.8 = 231.6 to West Dublin. Going to East Dublin was also analyzed. The cost of ~xtension to East Dublin was $ 36.6 million with parking for 2,600. The total to East Dublin was, then, $ 268.2.8 1987 October 20. The Policy Liaison Committee of three Directors from LA VTA (Ann Wies- kamp, Chair and Livermore Council~ Linda Jeffrey, Dublin Council~ Ken Mercer, Pleasan- ton)~ and three from BART (Margaret Pryor, Bob Allen" John Glenn) met in the Dublin Library Conference Room. Vic Sood and Sue Bruestle also attended for LA VTA~ Dick Wenzel and Marianne Payne for BART, and Mike Kennedy for DKS. Part way into the meeting, Ms. Jeffrey handed out a 21 point "principles in agree- ment" by LA VTA staff including 1. extension to a third station at Hacienda; "2. Commit- ment from BART to use the twenty-six already ordered new cars for the DPX." 3. BART to fund the balance needed over $ 170 million~ 7. BART to mitigate traffic impacts~ "21. Clarify/amend BART policy stating only two stations per extension." The handout was discussed for the rest of the meeting. There was a desire to have the EIR look at the third station and traffic problems, but a recognition of a lack of funding. Ms. Pryor said that BART wouldn't know car requirements for sure until the engineering was completed, but BART was committed to funding 50% or more of the of the extension from non-county sources as required by SB 878 (see above). "Mr. Mercer asked if No. 2 could be changed to say that BART would provide the necessary cars and Mr. Glenn replied, yes." This change allowed BART flexibility in providing cars~ it would not have to provide the 26 specifically on order. However, this is the last reference in the documents to a specific BART car commitment.9 1987 November 4. The Policy Liaison Committee met at BART headquarters. The three LAVTA Directors and the three BART Directors signed a resolution summarizing some of history, quoting SB 878, and a few points..made at the previous meeting. The Committee recom- mended the BART alternative to "'the- BART and LA VT A Boards. The resolution, however, was silent on the issue of cars and the cost of the extension, indicating no agreement that 8, LA VT A and BART, "Community Mceting Guide, Livermore/Amador Valley Rail Altematives Swdy," Oct. I, 1987 9, LA VT A, "Bayfairto Dublin/Pleasanton Extension (DPX) Project, Principles in Agreement. " Policy Liaison Committee Meeting, LA VT A/BART; Dublin Public Library, "Minutes," October 20, 1987 I , ~ - e e Draft, p. 4 BART would specifically pay for cars.IO The above summarizes relevant information from documents about the community meeting and the two meetings of the liaison committee. This information does not confirm the version reported by the Pleasanton Chamber: "November, 1987, LA VTA and BART conclude that it will now cost $237 million to bring BART to the Valley. BART Board members Glenn and Pryor meet with representatives of LAVTA and agree to provide 55 BART cars at no cost to this line if we agree to build BART instead of a light rail system. The joint committee elects to move ahead with a BART system.11 The November resolution has no cost number in it, but the number may be in some other document I don't have, such as the final DKS report. The documents use $ 231.6 million, BART Director Robert Allen signed the resolution in November so I assume he was there as well as Glenn and Pryor. The documents reveal many different reasons for the decision, not just the cars. The documents refer to 26 cars on order and potentially available, value $ 39 million. The Community meeting guide indicates a fleet size need of only 33 cars. There is no reference to 55 cars. The documents never refer to BART providing the cars "at no cost to this line;" the only issue was whether BART would supply them as a specific part of its contribution. Mr. Sood remembers with convincing clarity that at one point Ms. Pryor promised that BART would supply the cars. Mr. Glenn is in the minutes agreeing to a revision of LA VTA point 2 giving BART flexibility about what cars are supplied, but all references to cars were dropped from the resolution signed by three LA VTA representatives. BART staff has found no record of a BART commitment specifically to supply cars. In sum, the comment of Mr. Glenn and some of the statements in the community meeting guide indicated that BART could supply the cars, while others qualified the commitment or backed off from any specific commitment at all. Even these statements were in the context of cars as part of the project, and as what BART might provide to make it happen. BART and BART representative made no commitment to fimd cars outside the context of general DPX funding. There is, in fact, no document showing BART agreed specifically to fimd the cars as part of DPX funding. Instead, BART committed itself and was committed by statute to raise half or more of funds from non- county so urces. If need be, it could be constmed that fimding for cars would come from this half of the fimding. In any event, individual Board members cannot commit the Board; verbal statements by Board members are not official BART policy. The LAVTA Directors themselves signed a resolution omitting any reference to fimding cars. .. 1987 December. The Livennore Amador Valley Rail Alternatives Study was completed.12 The study included preliminary planning level cost estimates developed only for relative comparison among the alternatives. Costs were obtained by escalating previous unit costs for primary capital items necessary for light rail and BART. These costs included rolling stock, fixed facilities and some gross estimates for right of way. The planning level capital cost estimated for the BART alternative was $231.6 (1987 dollars); costs were also escalated to the projected midpoint of construction (1992) at $281.8 million. Estimates of fleet size indicated the need for an addition3.l 61-72 cars. Such planning estimates are 10, "Before the Policy Liaison Committee of the Livermore/Amador Valley Rail Alternatives Study," November 4, 1987 11. Pleasanton Chamber, op, cit. 12. Livermore Amador Valley Rail Alternatives Study Final Report, December 1987, prepared by DKS .~ociates for Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority and BART e e Draft,p.5 rougher than preliminary engineering estimates and, including optimism and inflation, planning estimates are usually lower than preliminary engineering estimates. 1988 Supervisor Ed Campbell and East Bay Regional Park District Director Harlan Kessel pushed for a three way land swap by which Camp Parks would give 35 acres to Alameda County and 12 acres to Dublin for Dublin BI, Alameda County would give 118 acres at Arroyo del Valle to the park district, and the park district would give 445 acres to Camp Parks. AprilS. The U.S. House of Representatives approved "the transfer of approximately 35 acres" at Camp Parks "to the County of Alameda, California, for the purpose of providing that land to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District for use as a station and parking area, . . ,,13 July 7. The Conference Report on the above bill, which actually became law, changed the wording to remove BART: National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989, Section 2821. " . . . the Secretary of the Army may convey to the County of Alameda, California, . . .the real properties referred to in paragraph (2) in exchange for. . .445 acres. . . (2) . . .(A) Approximately 35 acres of real property, together with improvements thereon, at the Reserve Forces Training Center, County of Alameda, California, to the County of Alameda, California." Alameda County has committed itself to giving BART 15 acres for parking, but this is not required by federal law. 1988 March. The Pleasanton Chamber states "BART receives $6.8 million to be used for a land swap in East Dublin. At this time, the only station is to be at Stoneridge."14 BART staff says that BART received no money for this land swap. No funds were involved. I have seen no evidence any funds were involved. 1988 July. The BART Board of Directors approved the division of the San Mateo funds between Alameda and Contra Costa County projects with $126 million for Alameda County with the Dublin extension remaining the top-priority transit project in Alameda county provided BART receives the 170 million from Alameda County Measure B funds earmarked for the Dublin extension. 15 1988 September 23. SB 1715 (Boatwright) is approved by ,the Governor.16 It specifies conditions for funding and construction of the DublinlPleasanton Extension: "29034.7. (a) Not later than December 31, 1991, the district [BART] shall proceed to commence construction of an extension of its facilities to Dublin if an agreement is then existing between the district and the Alameda County Transportation Authority to provide funding for that extension in accordance with the Alameda County Transportation Expendi- ture Plan adopted pursuant to Section 131055. "(b) Not later than December 31, 1991, the district shall proceed to commence 13, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1989 Report of the Committee on Armed Services, House of RepresenUlrives, April 5, 1988, Report 100-563, Section 2813 14, PIeasanton Chamber, op. crt. 15, minutes, BART Board of Directors Meeting, July 28, 1988. 16, Senate Bill No. 1715, Chapter 1259, An act to add Sections 29034.6 and 29034.7 to the Public Utilities Code. relating to transit". Approved by the Governor September 23, 1988. r ' e e Draft, p. 6 construction of an extension of its facilities to Warm Springs, subject to each of the following conditions: "(1) The Dublin extension is fully funded and ready for implementation." "(2) Appropriate federal and environmental approvals are obtained in a timely manner. "(3) Adequate funding is available from the sources described in subdivision (c). "(c) In order to meet the objective of completing construction of the Dublin and Warm Springs extensions of the district's facilities, as contemplated by the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan, the board of directors of the district shall take the following actions: "(1) Set aside, for expenditure on those projects, not less than fifty-eight million dollars ($58,000,000) from the district's reserve funds. "(2) Commit for expenditure on those projects, an additional amount of not less than one hundred twenty-six million dollars ($126,000,000) if, pursuant to an agreement between the district and the San Mateo Transit District, the district is to receive two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) as a capital contribution from the San Mateo Transit District. "(3) Seek additional funding as may be available from an increase in San Francisco Bay area bridge tolls pursuant to Chapter 406 of the Statutes of 1988, together with funding from state and other sources, to provide not less than six hundred two million dollars ($602,000,000) to fund the Dublin and Warm Springs extensions as provided for in the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan. ' "(d) It is the intent of the Legislature, if funding, as provided for in the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan and pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivi;, sion (c), do not become available'to the district for the full extension of service and facilities described in subdivisions (a) and (b); that the district nevertheless undertake to provide the described extensions to the extent that available funding permits.,,\1 I think this legislation needs revision as it ties BART's hands against providing cost- effective service on standard gauge rail. Sections "b 2" and "b 3" were never met, thus preventing start on Warm Springs, but" d" requires BART to keep trying.. 1988-9 BART staff has ongoing contact with potential private land owners regarding station sites in Pleasanton, including initial discussions with Prudential Development regarding potential transfer of property to BART title for parking facilities adjacent to Hacienda Business Park.1S 1989. May. "Pleasanton Mayor Ken Mercer recognizes two stations are needed in the Livermore- Amador Valley and formally suggests to BART that local money can paYlor the Hacienda Station."19 BART staff found no reco~d of Mercer's request. 17, SB 1715 (BoatWright), Sept. 23,1988, 18, Notes and Draft agreements from BART-DPX Project Files, 1988 19, Pleasanton Chamber op, en. .~ e e Draft,p,7 1989 June. One source claims "BART's new estimate rises to $383 million and BART admits a cash short-fall."20 I could not find corroborating evidence. Thera is a BART letter to the Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA, set up by Measure B) in July 1989 which still estimated project cost at $ 232 million for extension to West Dublin. The letter refers to ACTA telling BART that ACTA had a shortfall due to a reduction in estimated sales tax revenues. 1989 August. The Castro V alley Station Site Re-examination was prepared as part of the work for the DublinlPleasanton EIR The study provided infonnation from the 1982 Station Site Selection Study and information about sites identified after that time?1 1989 September. Draft Environmental Impact Report on DublinJPleasanton Extension Project completed. The EIR analyzed three project alternatives. As part of the EIR preliminary capital costs were developed in 1989 dollars. These costs were based on preliminary engineering costs which were being developed concurrently with the environmental work.22 -Proposed Project (2 stations, Castro Valley and West DIP) $361.4 million -Alternative 2 (3 stations in Castro Valley, West and East DIP) $450.0 million -Alternative 3 (2 stations in Castro Valley and East DIP) $437.8 million For the first time, reasonably useful cost estimates became available. 1989 December. Final Environmental Impact Report on DublinlPleasanton Extension Project completed and circulated through January 1990. This report included updated costs, which increased due to additional information on the project, such as preliminary engineering information and the cost of mitigation measures?3 1990 January. According to one source, "BART admits not enough money to build line. Erlene DeMarcus gives ultimatum to local officials to pick one station only. If second [third] station is to be built, local officials must find the money. Local officials choose the Stoneridge station site?4 BART: There was no ultimatum. See following entry for quote from notes of the meeting. 1990 January. The Rail Advisory Committee discussed DPX and provided input to BART Board of Directors prior to project adoption. Director DeMarcus stated "BART has money for two stations and which two stations get built needs to be determined. . . BART is working with Alameda County to find a way to fund the third station." Supervisor Ed Campbell stated that the whole project did not have sufficient funds to be built without funding assistance and that Measure B allows for two stations and funds for a third station would have to come from local funds. He stated at that time that BART was working with Hacienda 20. Pleasanton Chamber. op, cit. 21. Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project, Castro Valley Station Site Re-Examination, August 31. 1989, prepared by BART and Alameda County Planning Department 22, Draft Environmentallmpact Report. DublinlPleasanton Extension Project, September 1989, prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants for BART. Dollar amounts provided by BART, They also appear in .Chronological summary of the history of BART in the Valley". 23. BART 24, Pleasanton Chamber, op. cit. . e e Draft,p.8 Business Park for 15 acres on the south side of 1-580 and Alameda County was working with Prudential on commitments from them toward a 3-station alternative. His recommenda- tion was to select Alternative 2 as defined in the Environmental Impact Report with the idea of deferring the West Dublin Station and constructing with local funding. During the meeting staff reported that the 3-station alternative would cost an extra $22.8 million dollars (in 1995 dollars or $27 million in 2000 dollars) above the proposed 2-station project, -not including right-of-way acquisition.25 1990 February 8. The BART Board of Directors held a Public Hearing regarding the Dublin Pleasanton Extension and its Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). As part of the public hearing, resolutions from local representatives (such as Alameda County Board of Directors and the Dublin City Council) were submitted to the Board in support of a three station extension with alternative financing to be applied to the third station. The Board took the following actions: . Certification of FEIR . Adoption of findings and statement of overriding considerations . Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan . "Adoption of Alternative 2 . . .: a three-station extension with stations in Castro Valley . . . , West DublinJPleasanton (west of the 1-580-/680 interchange) and East DublinlPleasan- ton (near the future 1-580/680 interchange) and with construction staged so that: a. Two stations, one of which is the Castro Valley Station at Norbridge, are advanced with BART and/or other public and private fmancing; and b. A third station in DublinlPleasanton can be constructed only upon the commitment of funding that is unrelated to the funding levels by source in the MTC New Rail Starts and Extension Program Resolution #1876."26 - The staff report in the BART Board Executive Decision Document defined alternative 2 as having the East Dublin station as the "third station," so the Board's decision changed this to be undecided. The staff costs estimates were as shown below for 1990 March. 1990 February. "BART advises Amador Valley elected officials it will cost $18 million dollars for the second [third) station at Hacienda"27 BART staff cannot verify; the amount seems to be more. See above; also, another estimate is $ 28.1 million, of which 20.9 for station and 7.2 for parking. See also Mitch Stogner letter of Sept 4 92 to Joseph Elliot, attachment on West Dublin Station, estimated cost S 20-25 million. 25. Rail Advisory Committee Meeting Summary, January 12, 1990, distributed March 6,1990 26, BART, Executive Decision Document and other submissions regarding Dublin/Pleasanton ElCleI1Sion Project FEIR ~ted to the BART Board of Directors during Public Hearing on Febroary 8. 1990, . I can't fInd original document I used for: "contingent upon: a) Execution of an agreement between Hacienda Business Pari< and/or Alameda County and BART to assure the initial constrUction of a Castro Valley Station and East Dublin/Pleasanton Station; b) An agreement between local jurisdictions possible private sector entities and BART for purposes of constrUcting the West DubIinlPleasanton Station as soon as economically feasible; c) Execution of agreements between BART and Caltrans for design, right-of-way acquisition and constrUction of the 1-238 "Joint Project" Design Option subject to BART funding constraints; and d) Caltrans certification of federal environmental clearance." 27, Pleasanton Chamber, op, cit. r ' e It Draft,p.9 1990 March. Preliminary Engineering for DPX was completed by the BART consultants, allowing for more refinement in cost estimates. The capital cost estimates for the alternatives were estimated as: -Proposed Project (2 stations, Castro Valley and West DIP) $514.1 million -Alternative 2 (3 stations, Castro Valley, West and East DIP) $560.0 million -Alternative 3 (2 stations, Castro Valley and East DIP) $532.9'million These costs included inflation at 4% for 3 years to the mid-point of construction (1992- 1993), escalation for right of way, refined mitigation and relocation costs. These cost estimates do not include the following project costs: prior right-of way owned by the District ($13.4 million) and Caltrans share for the 1-238 joint project ($56.4 million).28 These estimates are the basis for most BART estimates until final engineering estimates became available for individual contracts. 1990 March. City of Dublin files suit against BART regarding the FEIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Dublin charged that there were inadequacies to the FEIR and inadequate mitigation for DPX, thus violating CEQA. An agreement was reached in the form of a Settlement Agreement between BART and Dublin. The agreement stated that BART will build the required parking for the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and will advance funds on a long-term basis in the amount of $2.285 million for the purpose of building a two-lane Dublin Boulevard extension. The agreement included terms for parking on north and south sides of 1-580 and terms for repayment of the loan. Dublin agreed to drop its suit and never sue BART again.29 1990 June. Three state transit propositions passed: Propositions 108, 111, 116.30 _ Prop 108 provided S 98 m for DPX. -Prop III provided $ 80 million for BART projects in the 1988 STIP, created a Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) fund for which BART can compete, created a State-Local Partnership Program providing about 24 % in state funds for locally funded projects receiving no other state funds, created a Transit Capital Impr<>vement fFeI) program based on the sales tax on the gasoline tax, and created a State Transit Assistance (STA) Program also from this source. At first, MTC thought TCI would provide $ 75.5 m for DPX, but by April 1993 ACTA scheduled only 38. [Why? ] _z- -Prop 116 provided $ 98 m for BART, of which $ 61 m went to Alameda County. Accord- ing to ACTA, 59 went to DPX; the CTC Aug agenda shows 59.4 m. 1990 November. According to one version, BART officials commented they weren't getting their share of proposition money. Local officials said they wanted to give $59.4 million for 28, Draft Preliminary Engineering Report, DublinlPleasanton Extension Project, March 1990, Table 3-1, Capital Cost Estimate Swnmary, Bechtel Civil, Inc, 29, Settlement Agreement and Release. March 27, 1990, City of Dublin and San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Also .Chronological swnmary of the history of BART in the Valley," Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce to Shennan Lewis, BART director. April 5, 1993, 30, Tri-Valley Herald, 12/22/91. " e e Draft, p. 10 Proposition 116 to BART but only if BART would build a third station. The third BART station was expected to cost between $18 and $60 million.31 Another version: Pleasanton Mayor Ken Mercer, Newark Mayor Dave Smith, and Alameda County Supervisor Ed Campbell appropriated $59.4 million of Prop. 116 monies to BART to fund the $18 million third station as requested by BART in January 1990.32 BART staff cannot verify either version. 1990 December. Measure B (Alameda County Transportation Authority) supported Prop. 116 proposal for $59.4 million to be appropriated from Measure B account to the BART line, but only for a third station at Hacienda33 BART: The ACTA vote was in February, 1991. ' See next item. 1991 February. Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA) voted to program $59.4 million in Proposition 116 funds to BART DPX as part of county transportation funding plan for extending easterly terminus to the east DIP station. East DIP parking lots were removed from project budget and handled as separate project34 1991 February. MTC revises Resolution No. 1876, which discusses funding policy for Dublin Extension. Resolution No. 1876 reads, in part: "MTC is committed to a two station extension (Castro Valley and West Dublin). The next Alameda County priority is the Warm Springs extension. Ultimately, the Dublin line is expected to be extended further east, which would eliminate the need for a $49 million parking structures at West Dublin. BART and Alameda County are encouraged to seek private funding, impact fees, or other funds not available to the Warm Springs project in order to fund the additional cost of the East Dublin Station. In this event, the $49 million parking structure should not be built and the revenues freed up to assist in the easterly extension. Alternatively, MTC could cap its regional funding commitment to $531.3 million as shown in the attached table."35 See next section for funding details. "Alternatively" is ambiguous. Alternatively to what? It could be read to mean it would be o.k. to build three stations if under the cap. The meaning is also unclear because the "regional" funds are not programmed by amount but by project, so if the contracts for a project come in under the programmed total, the surplus reverts back to the funding source. It is not controlled by the applicant-agency. Use of the surplus requires its own programming, following the rules of the specific source. 1991 May. ACTA clarifies that authority voted to apply $59.4 million in Prop 116 funds toward DPX with the understanding that the easterly terminus be at East Dublin,36 1991 August BART issues Notice to Proceed on construction contracts for DPX.37 31. Tn-Valley Herald, 12/22/91. 32, Pleasanton Chamber. op, cit. 33, Pleasanton Chamber, op. cit. 34, Minutes of February 28, 1991 meeting. Alameda County Transportation Authority, 35, MTC Resolution 1876. March 24, 1988, revised February 27,1991, Anachment A, Page 5 36, File memo by Al Gallardo. ACTA Executive Director, reporting on meeting 5/2819110 discuss BART Proposition 116 application. 37. DPX Project Manager, BART Development Department, It e Draft, p. 11 1991 October. One source: BART holds official ground breaking ceremony for DPX at Hacienda Business Park.38 Another source: BART breaks ground for a third station at the Hacienda Business Park. Governor Wilson proclaims this is great planning and cooperation between government agencies. No site has been purchased and BART insists there is no money for third station.39 BART staff cannot verify statement attributed to BART. 1991 November. BART implemented a modified Alternative 3 (extending to East DIP station and constructing a shell at West DIP station) to meet ACTA's requirement that BART advance beyond 1-680 to qualify for Proposition 116 funds. Also, the East DIP station parking was removed from the project to be handled as a separate project Therefore the project cost to BART (still based on preliminary engineering costs) was calculated as follows:40 $533 m +6m =-22 m $517 m -Alternative 3 (2 stations in Castro Valley and East DIP) -cost of adding West DPX shell -right-of-way costs for East DPX parking area -revised project cost 1991 November. One source: BART states that they will build station at East Dublin, but only if the land on the south side, Hacienda Business Park, is donated, and the station is accessible from the north side of 1_580.41 BART staff cannot verify this. BART has a way to get land on the north side, i.e., the three way land swap approved several years earlier. But it needed Dublin Bl. extended on the north to reach this land. On the south side, BART had no money to buy land from Hacienda 1991 December. One version: BART received $12.6 million in ISTEA federal money, which allowed officials to begin negotiation for a Pleasanton Station in Hacienda Business Park.42 BART: Cannot verify start of negotiation. 1991 December. Another version: BART received $12.6 million from ISTEA Mayor David Karp of San Leandro, Alameda County Supervisor Ed Campbell, and Mayor Ken Mercer of Pleasanton secured funding "for construction of a parking area for the planned East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station."43 BART match from its own funds was $ 3.15 million. These combine to $ 15.75 million and constituted a "federal project" whIch was adminis- tratively separate from the "state project" evaluated in the EIR. If the projects had been combined, an EIS on the whole project would have been required. Because of this separa- tion, this "project" was not included in the funding shown by MTC for the "state project" Also, the separation allowed the federal government to claim that it was not funding the DPX, whicfl'it thought too expensive in cost per new rider. .-..... , 1991 ~er. -Frank Wifson announced new BART construction estimates to the Valley at 38, BART 39, Pleasanton Chamber, op, cit, 40. BART. Also DPX Project Budget Chronology entry is substantially the same. 41. Pleasanton Chamber, op. cit. 42, Tri- Valley Herald, 12/22/91. 43. Pleasanton Chamber, op. cit. IS TEA Amendments of 1,991, section 3035 (mm), p, 220 e e Draft, p. 12 $536 million, with only one station, at East Dublin. He also committed to building a shell for a future station at Stoneridge.44 BART: Amount seems to be incorrect. The state project cost was $ 514.05, Adding in the federal project made 529.8 total as of 11/91. 1992 April. BART applied for federal grant to fund East DIP parking area Federal government to pay $12.6 million with a local BART match of $3.15 million. Removing the local match from the "state project" budget reduced the BART project cost to $514 million.45 1992 June. According to Legislative Counsel of California, the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan contains language intended to "specify that relative priority between the two projects; that is, until the Dublin extension is fully funded and ready for implementa- tion, construction may not begin on the Warm Springs extension."46 However, counsel fmds that BART's interpretation of Section 29034.7 is "not unreasonable"47 and concludes that "it is our opinion that the construction of Warm Springs Extension may commence concurrently with the commencement of the Dublin Extension."48 1992 September. BART corresponds with City of Pleasanton:49 . "The DublinJPleasanton extension is programmed to receive approximately $517 million in funding from a variety of state and local sources" "Although BART has programmed $517 million. . . the actual amount received may vary from year to year because some sources, like state fqnds, are dependent on state tax revenues." In addition, BART does not yet have a cooperative agreement with Alameda County. The contribution to the project from ACTA, therefore, is still subj ect to changes through negotiation." "Despite these fluctuations, the project is considered fully funded. According to Senate Bill 1715, commonly referred to as the Boatwright Bill, whichpassed the state legislature in 1988, the DublinlPleasanton extension must be fully funded before construction on the Warm Springs extension can commence. ,,50 . . 1992 One source: "During 1992 disagreement ensued between BART and the Measure B committee over $170 million in funding. It is also announced the 55 new cars which were to be given by BART to this line, were now going to be charged againstthis line at approximately $1.2 million per car. "All the elected officials in the Amador Valley who participated in this process, plus .....:.,.. 44. Pleasanton Chamber, op. eit. 45. Project Manager, DublinlPleasanton Extension 46. Legislative Counsel of California, Bion M, Gregory, by Martin L Anderson, Deputy Legislative Counsel. to Honorable Delaine Eastin. "BART Extensions: Priorities - #19663," June 4, 1992, Page 4, 47, Legislative Counsel of California, Bien M, Gregory, by Martin L. Anderson, Deputy Legislative Counsel, to Honorable Delaine Eastin. "BART Extensions: Priorities - #19663." June 4, 1992. Page 5. 48, Legislative Counsel of California, Bion M, Gregory, by Martin L Anderson, Deputy Legislative Counsel, to Honorable Delaine Eastin. "BART Extensions: Priorities - #19663," June 4, 1992. Page 6, 49, BART, Mitch Stogner, Department Manager, Government & Community Relations to City of Pleasanton, Joseph Elliot, Director of Public Works and Utilities. September 4, 1992, 50, Legislative Counsel of California, Bion M, Gregory, by Martin L Anderson, Deputy Legislative Counsel, to Honorable Delaine Eastin, "BART Extensions: Priorities - #19663," June 4. 1992. Page 6. r ! e e Draft, p. 13 the members of the Alameda County Transportation Authority, agree that the second [third] station should be built and BART has committed to the second [third] station. Local officials were requested to come up with $18 million, and to date they have found and appropriated $59.4 million of Prop. 116, $12.6 of ISTEA and the possibility of $38 million from the CMA. ,,51 Another view: The BART cars have always been part of the project funded through Res 1876, and were paid for by funding other than Measure B.BART did not committed to a third station because it had no money to do so. There was no CMA money proposed for the approved project, which is two stations plus shell for a third. The CMA had no programming authority. The CMA was, rather, proposing that MTC program money for a new project, the West Dublin station. Prop 116 and the ISTEA money were already used for the state project and federal project respectively. The $ 18 m was needed beyond those sources, and $ 18 m was probably not enough anyway. 1993 February 16. City of Pleasanton requests BART to assure that the DublinIPleasanton stations are submitted for funding in the current regional transportation programs. 52 1993 February 24. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Resolution. "1. The Tri-Valley Transportation Council requests BART to update its cost estimates and capital programming for the DublinIPleasanton Extension and Stations in light of current favorable bidding climates to insure they are fully funded. If not fully funded, BART should provide the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency the most accurate cost estimate of shortfall to update the East Dublin!Pleasanton Stations RTIP prospectus. "2. The Tri-Valley Transportation Council endorses the prospectus submitted by Alameda County cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore staff to the Alameda CMA for inclusion of funding for the West DublinlPleasanton station in the RTIP. "3. The Tri-Valley Transportation Council requests MTC in their upcoming review of 'Resolution 1876' regarding 'new rail transit starts and extension programs' to adopt language favoring completion of both DublinJPleasanton stations in a timely manner and not preclude the use of prorata share or discretionary federal funds for the completion of necessary public transit improvements serving Tri-Valley cities in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties."53 1993 February 26. BART says: "We determined that Section E.2.0f-the Metropolitan Transporta- tion Commission's New Rail Starts and Extensions program (Resolution No. 1876) explicitly precludes the public funding of a third section on the Dublin/Pleasanton Extension until the Warm Springs Extension is fully funded." (Warm Springs has a shortfall greater than $150 m). BART points to Attachment A of Resolution No. 1876. Page 5 of 5, Related Under- standings as the source of this decision.54 (See above, 1991 February. ..;...',.- 1993 March 22. City of Pleasanton to BART. Pleasanton notes inaccuracies or-discrepancies in 51, Pleasanton Chamber, op, cit. 52, City of Pleasanton, Joseph Elliot, Director of Public Works and Utilities, to BART, Mr. Frank Wilson, General Manager. February 16, 1993, 53. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Resolution: Support of Funding for Completion of Dub\inlPleasanton BART Extension and Stations. Millie Greenberg, Chair. February 24. 1993, 54, BART, Dorothy Dugger to City of Pleasanton, Joseph Elliot, Director of Public Works and Utilities. February 26, 1993."RE: Request for Funding of West Dublin BART Sution. e e Draft, p. 14 BART's Short Range Transportation Plan and CIP for Fiscal years 1993 through 2002. . Graphic in Short Range Plan shows BART extension running only as far as west Dub- linIPleasanton. . Most recent MTC Resolution 1876, that of February, 1992, was not used. . "It would appear that with the funding listed in Resolution 1876 and the additional $12.6 million from ISTEA, that a total of $543.9 million would be the appropriate cap, and. this amount is less than the current estimate of $517 million for the BART Extension to the East DublinlPleasanton plus $20 million for the West DublinlPleasanton completion." . BART's Capital Improvement Document shows different totals for the extensions: $519.2 million under 'Extensions Expenditure Summaries' and $517.2 million in a table labelled 'Fund Transfer Agreement Amounts.' . "Tnere seems to be very little correlation between MTC Resolution 1876 and the funding sources in the BART's CIP document. . . (T)he biggest difference appears to be under the heading of Alameda where your CIP lists $150 million as compared with an MTC of $55.6 million. " · Pleasanton requests BART to estimate any shortfall. . "Weare also attempting to clarify the MTC policy in relation to use of discretionary federal monies. If Area 4 of Alameda County is precluded from using its discretionary money for BART, then we must look at other transit highway options to meet our needs."55 1993 April 2. City of Pleasanton asks Contra Costa Supervisor Sunne McPeak and others to help Pleasanton at MTC "in resolving the MTC policy issue surrounding the BART Dub- linIPleasanton Extension" and in assuring "that the development of this BART station [West Dublin} is a priority." _ Res. 1876 has option to "Set a funding cap of $ 531.3 million and build all three stations . . . if additional money is available." _ "BART says that all three stations can be built for a project total of $ 537 million. [Not documented, but consistent with BART Preliminary Engineering alternative 2 total of $ 560 m.] BART's estimates are $517 million for Bay Fair to East DublinJPleasanton, plus $ 20 million for the West DublinlPleasanton Station. [source?] This $ 537 million combined cost as estimated by BART, is less than the sum of the funds shown in [1876], $ 531.3 plus the ISTEA money of $ 12.6 million, or a total of $ 543.9 million." ' '. - ISTEA money should not be included in the MTC 1876 funding cap of $ 531.3 million. "The MTC Resolution 1876 did not reference any ISTEA funds obtained through efforts by Tri- Valley legislators." - "Pleasanton is concerned that the current BART proposal for the DublinIPleasanton Extension, with reduced parking, is inadequate to mitigate the impacts discussed in the environmental reports." , _ 'Pleasanton is concerned that the current BART proposal is unclear as to "whether the cost savings on the DublinIPleasanton Line will be earmarked for the West DuhlinIPleasanton Station. BART shows quite different numbers in their CIP document than those indicated in Resolution 1876 . , . and we understand still different numbers are being negotiated with the Alameda County Transportation Authority." "-C\"_ 55. City of Pleasanton, W, G, van Gelder, Traffic Engineer, 19 BART, Mr, Dale Fouse!, Supervisor of C~p~ Planning, March 22. 1993, , -1 } e e Draft, p. 15 _ "Previous correspondence with BART ensured the DublinIPleasanton Extension, including all three stations, was fully funded and need not be considered as a funding need in the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan."s6 [BART source?] 1993 May 13. After a series of meetings between staff of BART and of ACTA, and approval by ACTA, BART approves an agreement enabling BART to receive the $ 170 million from Measure B. Transit vehicles were "not included as an eligible project cost." President Bianco and Director Richard were upset by this restriction. Bianco at later meeting moved that Contra Costa be allowed similarly to restrict its sales tax funding of BART extensions, and the Board approved. Richard believed that such restrictions were bad public policy, allowing a crazy quilt of ad hoc, parochially motivated restrictions on a regional agency. He proposed that restricted funds would mean restricted service, i.e., restricting Dublin service to Bay Fair, only to provoke a vigorous response from Supervisor Campbell, who presented documentation on the cars issue which is discussed above. There is ample funding for cars available from other sources, that is, from the half or more match required of BART for county sales tax funds. Prop 116 (ACTA authorized $ 59, of which $ 17.4 for cars) and other sources win "support $ 79.3 million for rail cars. Much more important was the conflict between BART's need for a lot of money soon and ACTA's dependency on sales taxes coming in more slowly. ACTA also had the problem of making sure money is available at the right time for all the Measure B projects, and was therefor reluctant to promise too much to BART. BART, however, was rapidly reaching the point where it would run out of money to pay contractors for work performed under contracts let in anticipation of Measure B funding. BART agreed to get the money over seven years, while ACTA agreed to allow BART to borrow money (commercial paper) on the strength of ACT A's commitment, and spend it over four years. 1995 December. Service begins? Left hanging, January 13, 1994: Is there any way to use the money saved on bids below programmed estimates for the third station? Why did MTC remove it from track 1 after area 4 and ACCMA endorsement in tier I? What is track 1 Alameda County "BART capital" being used for and how does it relate to BART's SRTP? What is TOS being -used for andwhy-~couldn't it be reallocated if Alameda County wants to? Will BART ever answer the questions raised by Pleasan- ton? Would Fremont - San Jose rail service allow MTC to revise 1876 to allow a third station? Can we revise the Boatwright bill? Will cost-effectiveness ever matter in transportation funding? 56, Pleasanton's new mayor, Ben Tarver, to McPeak, April ~, 1993 --.----------- e e Draft. p. 16 PART II PROJECT DEFINITIONS, COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE BART DUBLINjPLEASANTON EXTENSION (DPX) millions of dollars The first solid cost estimates were the preliminary engineering estimates completed in March 1990, although preliminary figures were used earlier in the EDD and by the Board on February 8, 1990. Two estimates are of interest: Three stations Two stations, East Dublin, no West Dublin shell $ 560 million $ 533 million In February 1990 BART decided to build a two station project without deciding which of the valley stations would be built. In Res. 1876 of 2/27/91 MTC used the two station, East Dublin, no shell estimate, adjusted slightly downward to $ 5313 (see table). The next cost estimates came out of Board action November 1991 which defined the project to include the East Dublin Station and a shell at West Dublin. The West Dublin cost of $ 6 million was added to the cost and $ 22 million was subtracted for East Dublin station, which became a federal project. This federal project, however, required $ 3.15 million from BART's reserves, which was subtracted from BART reserves available for the Res, 1876 funded part of the project. These additions and subtraction resulted in a total Res. 1876 cost of $ 514 million and federal project cost of 15.75 million. This project cost was finally funded by ACfA's decision of Aptil 1993 (see table). _\' Questions to be pursued: Why did the amounts for each source go up or down between the two funding lists? Was the West Dublin parking structure money included in Res. 1876 or not? What were the savings on contracts due to lower bids as compared to preliminary engineering estimates? For each source, is the funding committed at a given level or is it lowered if project costs are lower? ' 1 ' e e Draft. p. 17 ~~Bi,~~t~f~Q~~~:~~~fi~~f;~~!~~??Js~~tl~~~f~t~; State: Tel 75.5 38 Prop. 116 61.0 59 Prop. 108 (98 + 29 = 127 ) 98 98 Prop. 156 (failed) 29 TOTAL STATE 263.5 195 Local: Bridge Tolls 50.4 50 Alameda C. Transportation 55.6 - 26.9 inflation 170 Authority, Measure B adjustment. = 28.7 San Mateo buy III 138.1 56 BART 50.6 43 TOTAL LOCAL 267.8 319 TOTAL 1876 FUNDING 531.3 514 , Federal project, Federal share 12.6 BART share - . ,. 3.15L - . PROJECf COST 531.3 529.75 Project definition Two stations, West Two Dublin, but money IS stations, enough for two East Dublin, stations, East Dublin, shell at West no shell, issue of $ Dubin- 48.9 m parking structure at West Dublin unresolved. <' ' , e e Draft. p. 18 PART III FUNDING THE STONERIDGE STATION Unanimous support by area 4 and the ACCMA for tier 1 should mean something for MTC's track 1. But for reasons as yet unclear, MTC staff with Work Program Committee approval has put the money elsewhere. Since MTC does not follow the ACCMA in terms of county-wide set-asides nor in terms of area equity, it is not easy to figure out what was funded instead of Stoneridge. If MTC's concern is to get transit into Santa Clara County before building a third station, this can be done using the WSX funds for suburban rail, with a fairly high level of service, certainly enough to meet probable demand. If MTC's concern is to fully fund projects which are programmed, partially funded, and sales tax supported, then it is clear that the weakest of these projects, actually undesirable according to a large minority, is the $ 70 million for the Hayward Bisect Freeway. If MTC is trying to fund BART capital needs, MTC should explain in more detail what needs it is meeting: rehab? which functions? to which priority level? enhance- ments? AATC? SMERS? How does MTC get from the figures in the SRTP to track 1? I assume there is enough money for BARTs capital needs and the Stoneridge Station. It does not make sense to reopen 1876 as far as WSX is concerned and not reopen the two station issue. If MTC is putting the money into TOS, and a fair share of that money is corning into area 4, why couldn't the area 4 governments choose to put it instead into the Stoneridge station? -:,,-- The Stoneridge station is my highest priority, not only for the valley but also for transit-oriented development at the Castro Valley station. The ACCMA frames issues one way and MTC another. The ACCMA after a few set-asides allocates choices to areas. Using this approach, funding the station is no problem. MTC, however, deals with Alameda County as a whole. In this'"friune, it is clear to me that the $ 70 million for the Bisect is such a complete waste thafiFshould be used for the station. Further, the Bisect funding sources--Hayward, Measure B, Holmdahl bill, partnership-are adequate for the alternative projects what will be rieeaed if there is no Bisect. Reallocating these funds is feasible once there is consensus to "ao-';:so. ACCMA defeat of money for the Bisect would, then, defund a project which directly competes with transit for capital and riders and, at the MTC level, provide funds for Stoneridge Station. If conversations with MTC staff .cmHirm this speculation, Pleasanton may want to reconsider its position on the Bisect. ~ ' e e Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that the Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) is seeking comments related to proposed revisions to the Bylaws of the paratransit Advisory Committee which stem from requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The paratransit Advisory Committee is currently composed of 7 members; 4 from Livermore and 3 from Dublin. The new Bylaws would change the committee to include 2 members each from Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin, and 1 member from Alameda County. Each City and the County would have 1 alternate. Mr. Rankin indicated that this change in the Bylaws would not change the level of service provided to Dublin residents. Mayor Snyder stated the biggest thing is that paratransit is changing rapidly under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Unfortunately, the ADA doesn't come with any money. Both he and Cm. Moffatt are very cognizant about the attempt to erode the fixed route system. We need to be alert and need good representation in this regard. We don't want to deny anyone any level of service. There is a strong desire to go beyond what is required and to provide a level of service that might not be appropriate. Cm. Moffatt stated they will need representation from the handicapped and senior citizens community. Pleasanton is coming in basically to the paratransit group so we have to make room for them and modify the advisory committee accordingly. Mayor Snyder advised that appointments would be people out in the community who utilize the service. Regional service will be coming in the future. You won't be able to tell when you are in one territory or another and you won't be able to tell a difference in the service level. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the adoption of the amended Bylaws. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS Upcoming Meetinq Reminder (610-05) Mr. Ambrose reported that the Livermore Valley Leadership Group will be meeting on February 16th from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., at the Pleasanton Fairgrounds in the Board of Director's room. The meet1.ng is "come one come all". Ms. Silver stated if 3 of the Councilmembers plan to attend, Staff should notice the meeting as a special meeting. * * * * , .~ _ - .f - *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@~~@*@~@*@~~*@*~*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 44 Regular Meeting February 14, 1994 e e Liaison Committee Meeting with School District (610-05) Mr. Ambrose stated a letter had been received from the Dublin Unified School District Board President regarding their interest in having the liaison committee meet again. Mr. Anaclerio indicated that crossing guards is not at the top of the list, but there are a number of issues they want to discuss. They prefer to meet late in the afternoon. Cm.'s Houston and Howard indicated they would be available on any afternoon, March 8th, 9th, 10th or 11th. * * * * Restructurinq Government (610-05) Cm. Moffatt passed around a paper from the East Bay Division League of California cities on how to streamline government. like to get copies to everyone and have comments back before meeting. They are looking for input from cities. Mayor Snyder stated ABAG is doing a program on reorganization of government at their next General Assembly. This should help us to start looking at all these things. of the He would the next * * * * Fireworks (650-60) Cm. Burton stated he had recently had a discussion with Col. Nelson, Camp Parks, who said if the City wanted to put on its own fireworks display, we could use their property. Cm. Burton felt if we had a program to let people set off their fireworks out there, this would take the pressure off Dublin and Pleasanton and provide an outlet and would be fun. 'It could be part of their community service. Mr. Ambrose stated he also spoke to Col. Nelson who said he was excited about the celebration, but concerned about people shooting off fireworks. If the city did it, that's another thing. Cm. Burton felt we could put in as part of the fee for selling fireworks to include the clean up for a community event. Mayor Snyder stated he was upset that after every 4th of July he gets lots of calls from Pleasanton people saying they can buy them here in DUblin, so why can't they use them here. * * * * , _.- -.. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@~@*@~@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 45 '..--.., Regular Meeting February 14, 1994 e e CLOSED SESSION At 9:40 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed session to discuss Pending Litigation (640-30) in accordance with Government Code section 54956.9(a): 1) Dublin vs. Pleasanton, Case No. VL-007073-9i and 2) Butler vs. City of DUblin, San Mateo County Case No. 385533. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. * * * * Mayor ATTEST: city Clerk * * * * -_:.: *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*~*@~~*@*@*@*@*@~@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 46'.. , .,. -', ! Reqular Meeting February 14, 1994