HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension (2) Gag Of Du13a%
•
AGENDA STATEMENT
Meeting Date: November 8, 1982
SUBJECT : Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension Study
EXHIBITS ATTACHED : Request for Proposal received October 29, 1982
RECOMMENDATION : Consider Extension Study RFP and comment
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION : The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) is presently requesting
proposals for an updated study of the 1976 Livermore - Pleasanton
Bart Extension Study. On November 3, 1982, Staff attended a meeting
held by BART staff for the purpose of receiving comments from all
interested parties on the content of the Request for Proposal and
route alignment. At that meeting, two alternative route alignments
were discussed; one which provided a BART Station in the vicinity
of Stoneridge, the other would provide a Station near Tassajara
Road. At that meeting, Staff requested additional time to comment.
BART representatives indicated that because their present timetable
has already been established, they would only accept comments from
Dublin until November 9, 1982.
If the City Council has any comments with respect to the extension
` study, those comments should be communicated to BART at this time.
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO. 6' az)
0
RECEIVED
BART BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
800 Madison Street (�C r 2 982
Oakland,California 94607 •
Telephone (415) 465-4100 CITY OF DUBLIN
Dear Interested Party: .
EUGENE GARFINKLE
PRESIDENT
Significant increases in demand for transit services continue
M . • ARTHUR J. SHARTSIS • t0 be experienced in the Livermore-Amador Valley of Eastern
;,;.. VICE-PRESIDENT f1l ameda County. BART completed a preliminary study entitled
{1 - KEITH BERNARD - !"Livermore-°l easantcn BART Extension Study" (1976) which -
• GENERAL MANAGER analyzed the extension of BART to this area. At this time an
ii4i • . update of this extension study needs to be undertaken. The
. . analysis would reevaluate such issues as alignments, station/
DIRECTORS yard locations, service characteristics, and cost/revenues of
the Livermore-Pleasanton Extension.
BARCLAY SIMPSON
1STDISTRICT Enclosed is a tentative and preliminary "Request For Proposal"
NELLOBIANCO' which BART intends to circulate to consultants for the performance
2ND DISTRICT of this update study. Your review of and comments on the outlined
. ARTHUR J. SHARTSIS• scope of work for this program are requested.
.3RD DISTRICT
• MARGARET K. PRYOR BART has scheduled a review meeting on Wednesday, November 3,
4THDISTRICT 1982 at 9:00 a.m. to discuss with-all interested parties the
ROBERT S. ALLEN proposed Livermore-Pleasanton Extension and this preliminary
5TH DISTRICT Request For Proposal . The meeting location will be the
JOHN GLENN Community Room (near Penny's and the Mall Office) at Stoneridge
• 6TH DISTRICT Mall in Pleasanton. If you have any questions regarding this
WILFRED T. USSERY . matter, please call me at telephone number 465-4100 extension
• 7TH DISTRICT 587.
EUGENE GARFINKLE • •
8TH DISTRICT Sincerely, .
JOHN H. KIRKWOOD \\
,` ,�` t
9TH DISTRICT ` ) �"vp� L..3`
t ,,`
$ J r/
• Richard C. Wenzel
• Extension Planner
•
•
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
UPDATE ANALYSIS OF THE LIVERMORE-PLEASANTON BART EXTENSION STUDY
General '
The Bay Area Rapid Transit District wishes to undertake an update of the
1976 Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension (LPX) Study which analyzed the
extension of BART 24.2 miles from the existing Bayfair Station to Castro
Valley and the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore.
A map of the extension area with the currently adopted extension
alignment is provided in Attachment One.
The proposed workscope for the study is outlined in Attachment Two.
• BART Staff will provide overall project management. The consultant will
be responsible for all day-to-day work tasks. These responsibilities will
be identified in the consulting service agreement. The general structure
of the project is as follows:
Budget.:
($45,000)
Project Management (BART) :
Richard .C. Wenzel , Project Manager, BART
Work Tasks:
I. System Conceptual Design _
a. Route Alignment Alternatives
. b. Station/Storage Yard Locations
c. Patron Access
-
Products:
a. Written Interim Report I: System Conceptual Design
b. Aerial and Base Maps (with topographical detail ) reflecting routes
and station/yard sites.
•
1 . .
II. Revenue Service Characteristics
a. Service Schedule
b. Travel Time
c. Line Haul Capacities
d. Patronage
Product: Written Interim Report II : Revenue Service Characteristics
III.Cost/Revenue Analysis
a. Capital Costs
b. Operating Costs/Revenues
Product: Written Interim Report III : Cost/Revenue Analysis
IV. Product: Written Final Report Incorporating Summary Reports I, II,
and III above.
Schedule (Tentative) :
November 12, 1982 Circulate RFP.
November 23, 1982 • Proposals due.
Nov. 23 - Dec. 3, 1982 Review proposals and recommend contract
award.
December 3 - 17 *Review scope of work for consultant's
contract, set review schedule, and sign
consultant agreement.
January 19, 1982 *Written Interim Report I : Conceptual
Design due with meeting to discuss
report's conclusions.
February 9, 1983 *Written Interim Report II : Revenue
} Service Characteristics due with meeting
to discuss report's conclusions.
February 23, 1983 *Written Interim Report III:
Cost/Revenue Analysis due with meeting to
discuss report's conclusions.
March 2, 1983 *Written Final Report due with meeting to
discuss report's conclusions.
March 16, 1983 *Review of Final Report by BART Board of
Directors.
*Indicates consultant's attendance required.
2
Consultant's Qualifications
The services of a transportation planning and engineering team are
required to conduct technical and feasibility analyses for the Update
Analysis of the Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension Study. The
individuals named in the proposal must:
1. Have experience in the role of principal manager responsible for rapid
rail transit system planning & engineering design, including final
plan and system design stages;
2. Possess experience in the preparation of rapid rail transit operations
plans; and,
3. Exhibit the ability to present clearly, in verbal and written formats,
the work being conducted;
In addition, the proposed consultant team should conform to BART's
Minority Business Enterprise Policy (see Attachment Three).
Previous Related Work:
I . Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension Study, Final Report; July 1976;
prepared for the Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension Board; prepared
by Livingston Blayney, DeLeuw Cather & Company and Associates.
II. Castro Valley Bay Area Rapid Transit Station Site Selection Study;
March 24, 1982; prepared by BARTD, Alameda County Planning Department
and Alameda County Roads Department.
III Stoneridge Business Center, A P.U.D. in the City of Pleasanton,
California; September 1981; prepared by Daon and Stoneson Development
Corporation.
IV. Hacienda Business Park
A. Development Plan; December 1981; prepared for CPS & Associates and
The Prudential Insurance Company of America; prepared by Fee and
Munson, Architects; P.O.D. Inc. , Landscape Architects; and Bissell
and Karn, Inc.
B. An Appraisal of the Labor Supply for the Proposed Hacienda
Business Park; 1982; prepared for CPS and Prudential ; prepared by
Ochi C. Achinivu, III , Urban Economist/Development Planner.
C. Development Assessment for the North Pleasanton Commercial/
Industrial Area, Pleasanton, California; January 16, 1981;
prepared for CPS and Prudential ; prepared by Earth Metrics
Incorporated.
3
D. The Jobs/Housing Balance in the City of Pleasanton; December 29,
1981; prepared for CPS and Prudential ; prepared by Gruen Gruen &
Associates.
E. Environmental Impact Report, Hacienda Business Park P.U.D. -
81-30; March 1982; prepared for the City of Pleasanton; prepared
by Brian W. Swift.
F. Maps of Pleasanton, prepared for CPS and Prudential ; prepared by
Bissel and Karn, Inc. •
1. Aerial Topographical Maps (1" = 100' scale) of I-580 from
Foothill Boulevard to Southern Pacific Railroad Overpass.
2. Aerial Topographical Maps (1" = 100' scale) of Southern
Pacific Railroad from Arroyo Mocho to Stanley Boulevard.
3. Aerial Photograph of Pleasanton (1" = 2400' scale),
V. North Pleasanton Traffic Study, Volume III; March 31, 1982; prepared
for the City of Pleasanton; prepared by TJKM.
VI. Environmental Impact Report on Tentative Parcel Maps 3756 and 3757;
Subdivision for industrial development between Mines Road and Vasco
Road near the Southern Pacific and Western Pacific Railroads in
Livermore; July 1982; prepared by the City of Livermore.
VII Status Report: Southern Pacific - Western Pacific Track Consolidation,
Grade Crossing Elimination, and Grade Separation in Alameda County,
Niles through Pleasanton, Livermore, and Altamont Pass to the San
Joaquin County Line; September 21, 1982; prepared for the County of
Alameda and City of Livermore; prepared by DeLeuw Cather & Company.
VIII Las Positas General Plan Amendment Consideration, Environmental
Impact Report; June 1982, prepared by Alameda County Planning
Department.
•
4
F al
c%L.
Zvi+ - - '' I S M/ '
• NM
Z £ S
W r , .4.6.0'Y' N I 1 i` Z �Y LIJ H' , }f] i �:10.". 3,W 3 i ., 1 �9 � O ® ,y
cc
W CO I l 1. 3A• y 31.:.:tl]F,�`.. N' '' S,. au � OA°UY/ - ' .. .. i- < O%t- - _ �I.r y N >
o a ° i N r ,P1: o 0 0
Z S I N LJ LL N (w
o a
W ¢ n -„� V. s #c`'o Q O i
C..) J + •„t� i— -_.•_•••••-•;•;,•s, - -As YM,P AVIV MO.;n- .113y, I Y1 d a i CZ
cZ et
cr
cc
ce I '� / it - , ZI
1•G - -i a/ "" - 1/O
-.I 0%.l 1 ( ' I ' Q i ' 1
Cll< J ''. , I aJ
W
CI I R `` - •1
1 i'.'' %)n W '- l,ii
F•
1 A Na- Q. `F\
O 1, ),•i -'!' -s P0. ,..- / f.IS v S'T! / `la A :.A„, J�L1,,:L
0 oNnyv° A� nYl:.:i'aas %(/V/_
-•••
i `G L!3:•�i.-:•[.. .4)y i M°•YiPO 1.9 •••1 4•••Wr' V 1/f
•i!: J .p F'1 L.+,� ‘g•'----77;;''' Yp°tMI' F', .4- t,V! F 5•a. 1
! Eat �� —a ':- ..rte H r0 ,
(� .i,=. �Y ]. N PS i .
i w GI i sue,.\''"x a W vie ti'"�. -
. Off' i { /dZ\, < �' =Q ,e :�
•'– - * ♦d 3.!• ':
•
ATTACHMENT TWO
WORKSCOPE FOR BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
UPDATE ANALYSIS OF THE LIVERMORE-PLEASANTON BART EXTENSION STUDY
The following tasks will be performed by the Consultant:
I . System Conceptual Design - This task requires the reevaluation of
conceptual design features of the BART extension to Livermore as
defined in the Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension (LPX) Study (1976) :
A. Route Alignment Alternatives: A reevaluation of the LPX Study
alignment is required with particular consideration to be given to
the following:
1. Original alignment between the existing Bay Fair Station and
I-580 should be reanalyzed taking into consideration that SR
238 may not be widened to accommodate BART within its median.
2. General Plan Amendment (1981) of the City of Pleasanton which
realigned BART from downtown Pleasanton to a north Pleasanton
alignment along I-580 east of I-680.
3. Proposed Commercial/Industrial/Residential development for the
Livermore-Amador Valley (i .e. Hacienda Business Park, Bishop
Ranch, North Bluff, Las Positas, East Livermore/Vasco Road
Industrial Park, et.al .)
4. Southern Pacific/Western Pacific Railroad consolidation in the
Pleasanton/Livermore area.
5. City of Livermore ownership of a proposed BART station site at
the intersection of Stanley Boulevard and Murietta Boulevard
in West Livermore.
B. Station/Storage Yard Locations: A reevaluation of the LPX Study
station and transit vehicle storage yard sites is required for
each alternative route with particular consideration to be given
to the following:
1. Castro Valley Station site analysis requires incorporation of
the Castro Valley BART Station Site Selection Report (March
1982) prepared by the Alameda County Planning Department, the
BART Planning & Analysis Department and the Alameda County
Roads Department.
2. Dublin-Northwest Pleasanton Station site analysis requires
consideration of proposed local developments and BART route
realignment possibilities.
3. Pleasanton Station site analysis requires reevaluation of a
downtown location versus a north Pleasanton site.
6
4. West Livermore Station site analysis requires consideration of
the City of Livermore's ownership of a proposed BART station
site at the intersection of Stanley Boulevard and Murietta
Boulevard. Additionally, the proposed construction of an
underpass at Murietta Boulevard and overpass at Isabelle
• Avenue (both of which are to be coordinated with the local
• railroad consolidation) must also be considered.
5. East Livermore Station and Transit Vehicle Storage Yard site
analysis require consideration of a proposed overpass at North
Mines Road, proposed industrial development between North
Mines Road and Vasco Road, and the Southern Pacific/Western
Pacific Railroad consolidation.
6. Additional station site analyses require consideration of all
proposed/anticipated development within the LPX Study Area.
C. Patron Access: An analysis of passenger accessibility to the BART
extension is required. Consideration must be given to
coordination with and transferability between transportation modes
(BART rail , bus, auto, bicycle, pedestrian).
D. Right-of-way availability should be considered a critical issue in
items IA, IB, and IC above as well as potential conflicts between
the extension of BART and existing rail , street, highway, utility
& pipeline facilities and all proposed/anticipated industrial ,
commercial and residential developments.
E. Products: A written report will be completed on the System
Conceptual Design analysis (Interim Report I) and will be orally
presented by the Consultant. Additionally, aerial photographic
maps and base maps with topographical details will be prepared
delineating each analyzed route with associated stations and
transit vehicle storage yard.
II. Revenue Service Characteristics: A reevaluation of the extension's
revenue service is required to determine whether a mainline extension
is desirable at the existing Bay Fair Station, or whether the LPX
Study concept of a shuttle operation between the Bay Fair Station and
Livermore is more appropriate. For each extension alternative, an
analysis of BART rail service schedules, travel time, line haul
`` capacity and patronage is required. A written report will be
completed on these Revenue Service Characteristics (Interim Report II)
and will be orally presented by the Consultant.
III Cost/Revenue Analysis: For each extension alternative, an analysis of
capital costs and operating costs and revenues is required. A written
report will be completed on the Cost/Revenue Analysis (Interim Report
III) and will be orally presented by the Consultant.
IV A written Final Report will be prepared incorporating Interim Reports
I , II , and III. This Final Report will be presented orally by the
Consultant.
7
0
ATTACHMENT THREE
STATEMENT OF MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE POLICY
It is the policy of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to
take affirmative action to assure that minority business enterprises
(MBE's) be afforded the maximum practical opportunity to participate in
performance of all District contracts and agreements, including but not
limited to construction, procurement and proposal contracts, professional
and technical services agreements and purchase orders.
Equality of opportunity will be assured through the affirmative action
policies of the District. Affirmative Action means taking specific steps
to eliminate discrimination in its effects, to insure nondiscriminatory
results and practices in the future, and to involve minority business
enterprises fully in District contracts and programs. Affirmative Action
shall include but not be limited to seeking out MBEs that are potential
contract bidders and actively soliciting their interest.
The District shall ensure that good faith efforts are extended by all
contracting parties to allow MBEs the maximum practical opportunity to
participate in performance of all District contracts and agreements.
The Director of Affirmative Action shall be responsible for monitoring and
administration of the MBE Program. The Department of Materials Management
and Procurement, the District Secretary and the Department of Design and
Construction and District Engineering Groups shall be directly responsible
for implementation of the program in coordination with the Director of
Affirmative Action.
No departure from the policies and procedures described herein shall be
made in the absence of express authorization of the General Manager.
8