HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.2 BART Extension Supplemental Analysis (2) O
CITY OF DUBLIN lo � 0 3 o
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 10, 1986
SUBJECT Bay Area Rapid Transit District Livermore-Pleasanton
Extension Study Supplemental Analysis - Draft Final
Report
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letter from Richard Wenzel , BART Project Manager dated
January 23 , 1986; Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study
Supplemental Analysis Draft Final Report
RECOMMENDATION Review Report and identify any concerns with respect
to the Supplemental Analysis so that those concerns
may be conveyed at the Technical Advisory Committee
level .
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION As you may recall , on October 14, 1985 , the City
Council reviewed the Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Supplemental
Analysis Interim Report . At that meeting, the City Council expressed
concerns as to when BART would be allocating money for the Dublin station
site and instructed Staff to express those concerns at the Technical
Advisory Committee level .
The primary differences between the October Interim Report and the Draft
Final Report are as follows :
1 . Ridership - The Final Report identifies the anticipated ridership for
the five alternative routes that were reviewed. As shown on Page 17 of the
Summary Report , the freeway route would have slightly less ridership than
the railroad/quarry or Isabel Avenue routes . These revised ridership
projections for the LPX alternatives are based on new ABAG projections .
2 . Construction & Operating Costs - On Page 17 of the Summary Report , the
capital and operating costs are also identified for the various LPX
alternative routes . As indicated in the Summary Table , the freeway route
and the quarry route are the least expensive to construct . The freeway
route and the railroad route are the least expensive to operate . The Table
also indicates that the farebox recovery ratio would be the highest for the
freeway route .
3 . Interim Storage & Maintenance Yard - The Final Report also proposes to
include the development of an interim maintenance and storage yard in
addition to the Pleasanton and Dublin stations for the first stage of
development .
BART has requested that the City forward its comments to the Technical
Advisory Committee prior to February 13 , 1986. A Final Report will be
distributed by BART on February 20, 1986. BART also anticipates holding a
community meeting on March 19 , 1986 with a report to go to the BART Board on
April 10, 1986.
It is Staff' s recommendation that the City Council review the report and
make any comments that they feel need to be communicated to the BART
Technical Representative Committee representative .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO :
ITEM N0.
B A R T BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
` 800 Madison Street
P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
Telephone(415)464-6000
January 23, 1986
NELLO BIANCO Mr. Paul Rankin
PRESIDENT Planning Department
EUGENE GARFINKLE City of Dublin
VICE-PRESIDENT P.O. Box 2340
KEITH BERNARD Dublin, CA 94568
GENERAL MANAGER
Dear Mr. Rankin:
DIRECTORS Enclosed are ten copies of the Livermore-Pleasanton Extension
(LPX) Study Supplemental Analysis Final Draft Report. The
BARCLAYSIMPSON System Conceptual Design Interim Report for this study was
1ST DISTRICT transmitted for your review in October, 1985. The Final Draft
NELLO BIANCO Report includes i nformat i on contained in this previous report
2ND DISTRICT
as well as new information on patronage, costs and revenues
ARTHUR J.SHARTSIS for the LPX alternatives.
3RD DISTRICT
MARGARET K.PRYOR Attached is a list of
4TH DISTRICT public libraries to which copies of the
Final Draft Report have been distributed. Also attached is a
ROBERT S.ALLEN list of individuals to whom we have sent copies of the Summary
5TH-DISTRICT
Report for this document and notified of upcoming meetings. A
JOHN GLENN news release regarding the completion and availability of the
6TH DISTRICT
Final Draft Report has also been distributed to the news media
WILFRED T.USSERY in the LPX Study area.
7TH DISTRICT
EUGENE GARFINKLE A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting will be held on
8TH DISTRICT
February 13, 1986 at 10:00 AM at the City of Livermore Admin-
JOHN H.KIRKWOOD istration Building, onference Room A 1052 South Livermore
9TH DISTRICT g >
Avenue to review this document. Your technical comments on
this document are requested no later than this meeting. Input
received from your agency at this meeting will be used to
complete the Final Report which will be distributed for your
review on February 20, 1986.
A community meeting is scheduled for March 19, 1986 at 7:00 PM
at the Livermore-Pleasanton Municipal Court Building in Liver-
more to solicit comments from agencies and the public on the
proposed LPX route alternatives. BART staff will subsequently
develop recommendations based on input received at this com-
munity meeting and seek the BART Board's adoption of a pre-
ferred LPX alignment. It is anticipated that this action will
occur at the April 8, 1986 meeting of the BART Board Engineer-
ing and Operations Committee and the April 10, 1986 meeting of
the full Board.
f
Page Two
Letter to Paul Rankin
Dated 1/23/86
Please contact Marianne Payne, Project Coordinator, at (415) 464-6173 if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Richard C. Wenzel
Project Manager
Attachments/Enclosures
cc: Barbara A. Neustadter, Manager of Planning
Marianne A. Payne, Project Coordinator
Richard Ambrose, Dublin City Manager
B A R T
Bay Area Rapid Transit District,
LIVER MO REllllllllllllllPLEASANTON
XT N
E E SIGN STUDY
Supplemental Analysis
Final Report
Draft
January, 1986
De Leuw, Cather & Company
Engineers and Planners• San Francisco
in association with
DKS Associates, Oakland
SUMMARY
SUMMIARX
This Supplemental Analysis report reviews conceptual design features,
costs, and revenue service characteristics of proposed BART alignments ex-
tending from the eastern city limits of Pleasanton to downtown Livermore.
These proposed alignments are evaluated as alternatives to portions of the
I-580 Freeway Route and Railroad Route alternative identified in the BART
Livermore-Pleasanton Extension (LPX) Update Analysis (December 1983),.
This report also provides an update on the status of land use plans and
policy decisions that have occurred in the LPX study area since the
completion of the 1983 LPX Update Analysis which may affect the viability
of the proposed station and yard site alternatives. These station and
yard site alternatives are considered for the new alignment alternatives
as well as for the I-580 Freeway Route and Railroad Route.
BACKGROUND
1976 LPX Study and Recomended Route
The Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension Study was initiated in 1972, and
investigated several alternative alignments. In 1974, the Study' s Board
of Control selected a 25.9 mile route from the existing Bay Fair Station
through the Dublin Canyon to downtown Pleasanton and Livermore. This
route is shown in Figure S-1. The Final Report published in 1976 provided
extensive detail relating to this recommended alignment.
Five stations were proposed for the LPX, occupying sites of 11-24 acres
each: Castro Valley, Dublin/Northwest Pleasanton, Pleasanton, West
Livermore, and East Livermore. A yard for train storage and routine main-
tenance was proposed for a site east of the East Livermore station.
Since 1976 a number of changes had occurred in the parameters upon which
the 1976 Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension Study Final Report was
based. Issues necessitating restudy included:
o Curtailment of plans by Caltrans to widen Route 238 near
Hayward, necessitating reevaluation of the recommended BART P
alignment within the Route 238 median.
o Reconsideration of alternative track configurations to permit
direct service between the LPX and existing BART lines, rather
than shuttle-service previously recommended.
o Potential availability of existing railroad right-of-way within
Livermore by virtue of a 1980 joint trackage agreement between
Southern Pacific and Western Pacific (now Union Pacific) .
- 1 -
a.1. ,rrrr•roe rp, �.. �...• '
.gin • �. �: sr
1.AM P
•w.n
.�1 M: .t w.w. ••�•.•wq �o•.r-•r, r� \ r•rA
' I
7 wl• �� ••r•rr • S.e
t>f
I ,
.1... .. t ?0 w•7, urs• af �i• �
�1JID ,•~ O 1 � __gym_ �
•,.�...•. a w..•i:rwf San �' •, 1 •3 I
, i • k' ... ��»
..r'.. n r
1• .. • •�• .rp fs:i� L'.t.•wr
i • .ire •.f•.wr. 4/1 ,! 1� `�E •w_ .1._ !. i i.•wlu- r e i
11t►w ,I r..r... -ADOPTED ROUTE =,�—�.� 1•°�_ M_ '�, ,.•„r.r�: — :1�_ _ .I ,. \ ''_L
EXISTING .''
4 "••,
- ``'!",b r�. -•.��i' �•,dy c `',,\:�. �c r;...., ,r.••, FREEWAY ROUTE—%.
BAYW BART ....;.- Cask r. I _
011, 1983 P U DATE.ANALYSIS ROUTES
t DUBLIN/NORTHWEST E I. �� -___ .__.__ .\„�•., �. . ♦ RAILROAD ROUT
• ' CASTRO VALLEY STATION EAST LIVERMO{
* PLEASANTON $ , '... '
• `�� - ' Derr;- -- �— -:.
IL
% 36 ••� r 111 WEST LIVERMORE
r+w•a.•r
.. _i 'n. '.ham:....•• I .) ;i \ �,►•r �w~4 }i•.• r �•
sl SS. •
. Y�c I
�r.,,:��: 1 . • .tlllln
..,.. - ' _ j , .s: :.,::.°-•.. . ( 2f I PLEASANTON
I, ..y wr•
• 1.7 �. , � i ,'f I • 7 • rw•w• i
1
, ......:Ara ��' \l:n• f•
Ali ft••�. _ � � !r� ��I: ��'.Nr•wr M•r. •
. •..r I 4 ,.� .• ...v KEY I
.:�/' � .\�� `. �* .'� �a • I......•. •, • I • 1983 PROPOSED•.
/� •►
STATIONS
s 1!� is � •'.� . .,..,...r• � �.
” ' ♦ '•"r-" 1976 PROPOSED
thm dh a >, J1, •` '"'•` I STATIONS
A.
I s •f F` r. w •I '•�• •^w •rr A ,MrMfil• w `
Iu;~ �ww 4.,.. ~..,���.• I `• s � �sr•nf O' PROPOSED YARD .
Souroe:BART t ;,.:1..'••� `a••';; �: �c" 1976 PROPOSED 1111111
ROUTE
DeLEUW�m�� PREVIOUSLY STUDIED FIGURE
GATHER •ffoC.•Itf LPX ALIGNMENTS AND STATIONS S--1
o Opposition by the City of Pleasanton to the downtown Pleasanton
BART alignment previously recommended.
o Intensification of development along the I-580 freeway
corridor.
o Plans by Contra Costa. County to study the feasibility of im-
proved transit corridor service in the San Ramon Valley.
o Continuing planning activity for the proposed Las Positas new
town north of Livermore.
o Significant changes in population and employment projections for
the Livermore Valley relative to those utilized in the 1976 LPX
Final Report.
o Higher than previously anticipated employment growth at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory.
o Recent preparation of an industrial development plan for the
proposed BART yard site in East Livermore.
1983 LPX Update Analysis
The overall purpose of the 1983 LPX Update Analysis was to reevaluate the
alignment recommended by the Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Final
Report, 1916, to reflect the various issues discussed above.
Consideration of these issues led to development of new alternatives for
extending BART from the Bay Fair Station through Dublin Canyon to Dublin,
Pleasanton and Livermore. Within each segment, various possible BART de-
sign treatments were identified. These route and station alternatives are
depicted in Figure S-1 and are described below.
Route Alternatives:
Bay Fair to Dublin: Between Bay Fair and Dublin the proposed LP_X__. _.
alignment generalTy follows the previously recommended route without
change (see Figure S-1 ) . However, it was necessary to reevaluate the
connection at Bay Fair Station as well as to consider alternative
treatments to accommodate BART within the Route 238 median.
Selection of an appropriate station configuration and approach trackage at
Bay Fair is dependent on whether LPX service operates as a shuttle, as
previously proposed, or as a direct line to Oakland or beyond. Some of
the considerations that led BART operations staff to oppose through
- 3 -
service at the time of the 1976 Final Report no longer prevail . Alterna-
tive approach track/platform configurations at Bay Fair to accommodate the
LPX were therefore identified. Any of these configurations can be adapted
to either shuttle or direct service options.
Key issues in the connection to Route 238 are how to connect the Fremont
Line corridor to Route 238 (subway vs. aerial ) and how to extend the BART
alignment along Route 238 to the east. Widening of Route 238 westerly of
Mission Boulevard (East 14th Street) is no longer included in Caltrans'
current 10-year highway improvement schedule. Therefore, a possible BART
alignment and profile through this area is proposed that is compatible
with Route 238's existing narrow configuration as well as with its future
widening, and involves an aerial connection to avoid the formidable de-
tours and freeway traffic-handling problems which would be encountered in
attempting to construct a subway, as previously proposed, across the
existing narrow freeway cross-section.
In the segment from Route 238 in Hayward to Foothill Road in Dublin, no
changes from the 1976 alignment through Dublin Canyon are proposed. This
entire segment would be located at-grade in the median of the I-580 Free-
way.
Livermore Valley: In the Livermore Valley area, a key factor affecting
the alignment for a BART extension is the City of Pleasanton' s stated
opposition in 1981 to a downtown route. Two distinctly different route
alternatives were developed for the Valley segment in the 1983 study,
reflecting this factor plus right-of-way availability and proposed
development locations. (See Figure S-1).
o Freeway Al-ignment: The first route follows I-580 freeway all
the way east to Livermore, leaving the freeway corridor to reach
the previously selected yard site in East Livermore. Within the
I-580 corridor, various possible alternative treatments
incorporating BART tracks within the freeway median (at-grade or
aerial ) and adjacent to the freeway (south side, west of SP
crossing; north side east of SP crossing) were -considered.
o Railroad�Ali2nment: The second general route uses the I-580
corri or as east as Hopyard Road, follows the existing SP
railroad right-of-way southeasterly to the Radum Wye and then
continues easterly along the railroad alignment to the East
Livermore yard. Although this general route does not conform to
the Pleasanton General Plan, it would still avoid traversing
downtown Pleasanton. The easterly segment is a part of the
recommended 1976 LPX route and is also in accord with
Livermore' s intentions for a BART alignment and stations,
including the Murrieta Boulevard site that has been set aside
for a future public transit facility.
- 4 -
Along the Radum Branch, BART would run at-grade on the southwest
side of the SP tracks. Within the segment to the east, two
alternative treatments were evaluated considering BART tracks
north and south of the railroad tracks through Livermore. A key
factor influencing these treatments is the joint trackage
agreement between SP and WP (UP) , which creates opportunities
for acquisition of abandoned railroad right-of-way.
Planned widening of portions of I-580 to 10 lanes and related freeway
interchange improvements to address traffic needs of the area upon
build-out were also considered during development of the alternatives. In
particular, one of the I-580 BART alignment treatments considered (median,
at-grade) would involve construction of an additional freeway lane on
I-580 to replace a lane taken by the BART trackway.
Possible Extension to Las Positas: Both alternative Valley routes included
provisions for a possible extension to the then-proposed Las Positas
development north of Livermore. Given the uncertainty at that time over
approval and timing of this major development, these segments were treated
at a more conceptual level as variations upon the alternatives.
Stations and Yard:
Concept plans have been developed for proposed stations on the LPX route
alignments currently being considered. Below is a summary of each
station.
Castro Valley Station: After lengthy study and public input, BART
selected an 11.9 site on the northwest quadrant of Redwood Road and
Norbridge Avenue as the preferred site for a Castro Valley Station.. The
BART platform .would be in the median of I-580 immediately south of the
site. It would serve primarily residents within the Castro Valley and
Crow Canyon area, but is also only a quarter mile from the downtown area.
Of the proposed 11.9 acres, BART has purchased 9.7 acres. This appears
. adequate in size to meet on-site parking needs to year 2000. Two roadway
extensions are proposed to improve east-west access to the BART station
and to reduce station traffic on over-used Castro Valley.Boulevard:
Forest Avenue and Lake Chabot Road.
Dublin Station: The proposed site for a Dublin/Northwest Pleasanton
station is adjacent to the freeway, midway between Foothill Boulevard and
I-680. The station parking areas would be split, with 14 acres on the
north side and 11 acres on the south side of I-580. This would improve
local accessibility to the station and also better disperse station
traffic than would a station limited to only one side of the freeway.
Pleasanton Station: Two different sites were considered, depending on
whether the BART alignment follows I-580 or the SP Radum Branch railroad
right-of-way east of Hacienda Business Park.
_ 5 _
For the I-580 alignment, a site is proposed west of Santa 'Rita Road. This
would better serve Pleasanton than the more easterly site depicted in its
General Plan. A split station is proposed, with 15 acres on the north
side of I-680 and 9 acres on the south side. The north portion is vacant
County land planned for future redevelopment.
The south portion is vacant land within Hacienda Business Park, and could
be incorporated into future development plans. Potential auto, bus, bike
and walking access to this site is excellent.
For the railroad alignment, the proposed station site is on proposed
Hacienda Drive between the railroad and proposed Owens Drive extension.
It comprises 18 acres, and is wholly within and more central to Hacienda
Business Park. Due to the restricted site size,- it would be necessary to
construct a second level of parking to meet projected parking needs. This
site has good vehicular access but would not disperse traffic as well as
the freeway site.
Both station sites have been designed to accommodate a future San Ramon
Branchline transitway station, thereby providing convenient transfer
opportunities between BART and San Ramon Valley corridor service. The
railroad site would be more flexible in combining with San Ramon
Branchline service.
West Livermore Station: Two alternative sites were investigated for a
station in West Livermore, reflecting the two BART alignments considered
(railroad vs. I-580).
The Murrieta Boulevard site is at the same location proposed in the 1976
Final Report. It is compatible with a BART alignment along the WP (UP)
right-of-way through Livermore. The City of Livermore has acquired
10 acres of vacant property at this site and reserved it for a future
public transit facility.
The Isabel Avenue Station is proposed to occupy 25 acres in the north-
eastern quadrant of the proposed Isabel Avenue/I-580 interchange just east
of Collier Canyon Road.
East Livermore Station: Two sites were also considered for an East
evermore Station, one for the railroad corridor route and the other for
the I-580 corridor route.
The railroad corridor site is located near North Mines Road, as proposed
in the 1976 Final Report. (An alternative site near Vasco Road was also
reviewed, but does not appear to justify the additional mile of BART
operation) . Two conceptual layouts for the site were developed, differing
due to the LPX route variations (north vs. south placement) . In both
cases parking would be split, and the total site would comprise
26-27 acres. As a terminal station, provisions would be made for train
crossovers west and east of the station. Vehicular access would be
designed to minimize impacts on East First Street.
- 6 -
The I-580 corridor site is on the south side of East First Street, just
south of I-580. Its service market and overall accessibility would be
similar to the first site, being only 1,500 feet away. As with the North
Mines site, parking would be split, and the total site would be about
25 acres in area. The station is located on a site currently planned for
development.
Transit Vehicle Maintenance/Storage Yard: The 1976 Final Report proposed
a yard site west of Vasco Road in the gore between the WP and SP main
lines. Although now partially developed, a sufficient area within the
site is still available. It is conveniently situated with regard to the
proposed East Livermore Station site alternatives. Therefore, it is
included in all LPX alternatives being considered in this study.
Adopted Portion of Alignment
On March 22, 1984, following extensive public and agency review of the LPX
Update Analysis, the BART Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 3098,
"A Preferred Route Alignment for a Livermore-Pleasanton Extension" . In
response to adopted resolutions by the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and
Livermore in support of LPX along "the I-580 alignment at least to the
eastern city limits of Pleasanton" and in support of a downtown Livermore
alignment, the BART resolution adopted a portion of a preferred LPX
alignment and directed staff to proceed with a supplemental analysis for
the purpose of completing the adoption of a preferred alignment.
The 12.8 mile adopted portion of the preferred LPX alignment extends from
the existing BART Bay Fair Station in San Leandro to near the I-580/I-680
interchange. The general route alignment traverses SR-238 and I-580
rights-of-way, with a Castro Valley Station near Redwood Road and a Dublin
Station at the I-580 interchange near Stoneridge Mall .
- 7 -
SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS
Route Alternatives
The Supplemental Analysis investigated alignments from the eastern City
limits of Pleasanton to downtown Livermore, focusing on alignments within
two general corridors:
o Quarry Area
o Kitty Hawk - Isabel Avenue
Primary- considerations in the identification and evaluation of new
alternatives included the availability of right-of-way and the possible
geotechnical problems and environmental consequences associated with
traversing the gravel pit area.
Quarry Area Corridor:
This route remains within the I-580 corridor to the vicinity of the
E1 Charro Road interchange, then turns southeasterly through the gravel
pit area east of Pleasanton and southerly to the Southern Pacific/Union
Pacific railroad corridor into West Livermore. It then follows the SP/UP
railroad corridor to East Livermore.
Altogether, six potential routes through the quarry area were evaluated,
as shown on Figure S-2 and described below.
Segment F-R: This segment is actually an envelope of potential routes
starting on the north side or in the median of I-580 west of El Charro
Road. BART would ascend on aerial structure and cross over I-580.
Proceeding in a southeasterly direction, the elevated structure would
cross property owned by Alameda County, traverse the southwesterly corner
of the R. C. Johnson property and then decend to grade past the Kaiser
haul road and Los Positas Boulevard in the vicinity of the Jamieson Ranch.
Segment I-A: This alternative extends along I-580 to a point east of El
arro oa , cutting diagonally to the southeast westerly of Livermore
Airport, then along the southerly boundary of the Airport and on the north
shore of the "Chain of Lakes" within the Jamieson Company lands. From
here it runs southerly along the eastern shore of the lakes to the Union
Pacific Railroad.
- 8 -
Segment R-L: Extending from segment F-R, this alternative follows along
the nort'fi�rly shore of the chain of lakes south of the airport, turns
southeasterly to intersect Kitty Hawk Road, proceeds southerly to the
Union Pacific-Southern Pacific right-of-way, and then turns easterly
following the railroad corridor to downtown Livermore.
Segment R-N: Paralleling E1 Charro Road, this alternative extends east.
rom t ieson Ranch along the southerly shore of the "chain of lakes"
supported on the east-west dividing dike of the Jamieson Company northerly
tier of quarry cells, to Kitty Hawk Road and the Union Pacific Railroad.
Segment R-C: This alternative extends from the Jamieson Ranch south-
easter y a ong E1 Charro Road to the Jamieson Company east-west dividing
dike "core" between the northerly and southerly quarry cells, then
southerly to the Union Pacific Railroad.
Segment R-S: This alternative extends from the Jamieson Ranch south-
easterly a ong E1 Charro Road to the Arroyo Mocho, then easterly parallel
to and on the north side of the Union Pacific mainline to Kitty Hawk Road,
north of its intersection with Stanley Boulevard. All segments along
E1 Charro Road could optionally be located on either the east or west side
of the road, depending on whether the Arroyo Mocho is relocated or not.
Kitty Hawk-Isabel Avenue Corridor:
One primary route alignment alternative was identified within this
corridor. It remains within the I-580 freeway corridor to the proposed
Isabel Avenue-Kitty Hawk Road crossing, turns southerly to follow Kitty
Hawk Road along its east side to Stanley Boulevard at Isabel Avenue, and
then turns easterly to follow the Union Pacific Railroad corridor into
downtown Livermore.
Stations and Yard
Alternatives for the West Livermore Station, the East Livermore Station
and the East Livermore Storage/Maintenance Yard were reviewed in terms of
land use plans, policy decisions and other issues that have occurred since
the 1983 LPX Update Analysis.
West Livermore Station at Murrieta Boulevard: This station site, described
in the 1983 LPX Update Analysis , could be used by the Railroad Route, the
Quarry Route and the Isabel Route. However, the size of the proposed site
may not be adequate to meet the future demand for parking (up to
1,600 spaces) . Some of the proposed parking would need to be located on
the west side of Murrieta Avenue, requiring a long walk to the station.
For this reason, an alternative location for the West Livermore Station
was considered in the Supplemental Analysis as noted below:
- 9 -
aN
1✓ � 4.1
G �
lb
Y•w• C.r•A .00 � L �.S �•
:1 t rora•Y • • w.• �� c••'� at : . ..
•w• a•ua
WC
,� YIa f • �•• ra• Ia.ryt
• � Y IOr�r /. 1.7
lNli•
—..
a i _ .•w,. w _ 7
r j
�S y ail y ...a/. / � •,,.,. �..� +
i f •a• V oer C.lr•P e• Q i i
r°.o.•a rr Y �.2 °
' W C•1.ra..r. •.
aw 1•) ,•Arr� a.
P IV,
_ r
E f 1 �• r.• n , .' •++ ` i. Vii. 7.e
).s Hayward
so
Ta
il At
en
i
.S ....•, • _ eaY
` -` �'� Mt: •.••. .....,...' a �r ' —� .f�. i.! �. ``I
•. 1, '.•.•-•� k+ Existing Fremont • ..
BART Line 414. �t
` 1
\ _ BrKMSrOe
a , Union City •�
\ l i�.r1 1 a' c• •.
STUDY SEGMENTS FIGURE
CATH R � W"C•= BAYFAIR TO DUBLIN
- 10A -
i
lJ ,•���1 P098 LE FUTUFIE- } ;`_ 1 ( I .•� 1� 1 ' Q : • �' I i:�� 1•
)�� �� n SAN R MON TRAN3I,T, r,,�� �_�'�',�}^i ;' - .i - . ''. I. I -- ---- ►- "
CORM dp F y 1 7. ' ..I''�1'.4 r,` ;• ' I j.
I .i
',Y.if! '� �� 'J ti ���IL t�� i 1. 1. •1 l..'i t.)l' �e�,,' ',.,,1►, I � � - ----r I 1`•• � ,�
Aft
VVV f 1 I y..
/....e i e • 1 1f11E.gr i �.1 ; .�••r"i�._-
O . DUBLN ' ' �< `: I '•JA E N 'P' 1. •.3.. LIVERMORE FEAST
OD
TA TION ` ,' .` �•r Q>:Rd` CH
�� .. r (� y8TAT10N . .� e ' �) f w A N \ -_-- - - -------r
` �•
R-L
�o;.a►°�N�.:� I R ► = WE 8 T
.,• w_ Y 1
t LEGEND
J.
IT. � � _ .-. ®1110►0990 STATION
01 t I\� _ A-�1is' .Y a -.!°. i '�,1 , ~� •0.~' r d e Al T[IINATIYt
.,(y T 1` y e ` ' 1 .6- O• ❑ •TATION OITIE
ZZbii :� y.� �e •
•. - 3=>•... 0, 1'� • ----' +• ` � •Y _ e i • - oompROUTE9 9TUDNID in
�i I I'-" •t�� .1' Va s '� i --.-. i 1 1987 UPDATE I
y `l `^y'• ( 1 .._. -r----- j' _910YENT9 9TUDN:O
° , rr� rl�� - .y �: r} ,J\� IN 1889 ANAItII•
er
.,t �/ �•',mil•� + � 't.�l'• }-� t C• /
FIGURE
DOLEUw nNa STUDY SEGMENTS - DUBLIN TO LIVERMORE
CATHER/ ....w.e Showing Sub-Segments Thru Caravel Pit Area S 2b
Ae°lo°t/ 9eo1. 86
West Livermore Station at Isabel Avenue: The 1983 LPX Update Analysis
identified an alternative to the Murrieta Boulevard site at Isabel Avenue
and Stanley Boulevard to the west. This station site, which encompasses an
area of 25 acres and could accommodate 2,500 parking spaces; is located in
the northeast quadrant of the proposed Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard
Interchange. Factors which warrant consideration of this site include:
o Planned development of the Collier Canyon Road-Kitty Hawk Road-Isabel
Avenue corridor as a major north-south transport route, with direct
interchange connections with I-580.
o Availability of surplus state-owned right-of-way, primarily south of
Stanley Boulevard, originally acquired for the proposed Route 84
Freeway.
o Availability of still undeveloped private property north of Stanley
Boulevard.
In comparing this site with the Murrieta Boulevard site, however, it
should be noted that it is not within close walking distance to downtown.
West Livermore Station at I-580/Collier Canyon: The Isabel Avenue Route
passes in the vicinity of e west Livermore Station at I-580/Collier
Canyon Road, which was proposed for the I-580 alignment in the 1983 LPX
Update Analysis. With this alignment, it would be possible to add this
station as a third Livermore station if the station were moved to the west
side of Kitty Hawk Road. This station would attract LPX trips from the
residential area of Livermore north of I-580 as well as employment
concentrations in the immediate vicinity of I-580/Isabel Avenue. However,
general patronage analysis indicates that insufficient-additional LPX
trips would be generated to justify the third station.
Central Downtown Livermore Station: In the Environmental Impact Report for
the City of ivermore Redevelopme nt and Urban Design Plan (UDP) , a BART
station alternative located within an 11.7 acre block between Railroad
Avenue and First Street was considered for central downtown Livermore.
This site, referred to as the "superbl-ock," had not been analyzed
previously by BART. Prior to the City of Livermore's adoption of the UDP,
however, the status of ownership of this parcel changed, and the City
discontinued its further consideration as a future BART station.
East Livermore Station Alternatives: Three potential station sites in East
Livermore were analyzed in the 1983 Update Analysis: two alternatives at
North Mines Road, and a third at Vasco Road. The Vasco Road site was
removed from further consideration, based upon factors described in the
earlier document. The northerly Mines Road site could be used by the
Freeway Route, while the southerly site could be used by the other three
LPX alternatives. Selection and design of the Mines Road station depend
upon a number of closely-related planning issues, as follows:
- 11 -
o The opportunity for the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroads
to effect general improvements in railroad operations through the
area by consolidating train movements along one of the two mainline
*tracks, leaving the other available for possible acquisition and use
by BART.
o City of Livermore resolution of the design options for the future
Mines Road grade separation, depending upon which railroad line
remains after track consolidation.
o The need for larger culverts to alleviate existing drainage
deficiencies under the two railroads.
Discussions of these issues continued throughout the Spring and Summer of
1985, but no decision had been reached as of mid-November, 1985. The
station layouts would differ depending upon whether the UP or SP
right-of-way becomes available to BART. The 'alternative layouts are
described in the 1983 Update Analysis Report, and conditions remain
substantially as shown in that document. Part of the area for the
northern alignment has been subdivided and street improvements have been
made, but there are no new structures.
East Livermore Storage/Maintenance Yard: The 1983 Update Analysis proposed
an easterly terminal yard located on a triangular-shaped parcel fronting
on the west side of Vasco Road in the gore between the SP and UP tracks.
During the summer of 1985 this parcel was partially developed for light
industrial uses. It appears, however, that sufficient area would be
available to BART for the storage/maintenance yard. Nevertheless, two new
sites were identified in the Supplemental Analysis. One of these is north
of the UP railroad and east of Vasco Road. The other is between the UP
and SP rights-of-way extending from East First Street to Arroyo Seco.
Either of these sites may be alternatives to the proeviously proposed
site.
Interim Storage/Maintenance Yard: The LPX is proposed for construction fn
two stages. The first stage, as currently called for, extends to the
proposed Dublin Station site. This situation dictates the need for an
interim storage/maintenance yard in this vicinity.
If a route through the quarry area is adopted, a possible site for the
interim storage tracks is located along Segment F-R after the alignment
returns to grade and extends along the northerly end of E1 Charro Road
while traversing diagonally through the quarry area.
However, i.f Segment I-G along the Kitty Hawk Road-Isabel Avenue corridor
is adopted, a site along I-580 would be necessary. A possible location is
on the north side of the I-580 somewhere within Camp Parks. This location
would also suffice for any of the quarry ai ternati.ves.
- 12 -
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
The evaluation of alternative LPX routes focuses on four alignments: the
Railroad Route and freeway Route described in the 1983 LPX Update Analysis
and the quarry area and Kitty Hawk-Isabel Avenue routes described in the
1985 Supplemental Analysis. For the quarry area route, the R-S alignment
is used for the comparative analysis since this appears to be the most
viable of the various quarry area alignments considered.
Key criteria used in comparing the alternatives are right-of-way needs
(including displacement effects) , station access, ridership potential , and
costs and revenues.
Right-of-Way/Displacement Effects
A primary objective in development of the LPX alternatives was to minimize
right-of-way needs and displacement of existing or planned uses.
Nevertheless, these impacts cannot be avoided entirely, and there are some
differences among alternative routes as well as alternative design
treatments.
In the .adopted portion of the LPX (between Bay Fair and Dublin) , all four
LPX alternatives follow a common alignment; hence right-of-way and
displacement effects do not differ among the routing alternatives.
However, there are differences according to the design variations in this
section. At the Bay Fair Station three of the four alternative track
connections between the existing Fremont line and the LPX require
significant right-of-way acquisition and building displacement; the fourth
minimizes these impacts. Along the Route 238 segment and the transition
into the I-580 median, a southerly alignment would not require any
right-of-way beyond what is needed by CalTrans for planned Route 238
widening. BART can be accommodated within the existing or planned I-580
median from Castro Valley to the proposed Dublin station site west of
I-680. The Dublin Station site would not displace existing buildings but
would potentially impact proposed developments in Dublin and Pleasanton.
From the adopted Dublin Station site east through Dublin and Pleasanton to
the proposed Pleasanton Station site, none of the alternative alignments
would displace existing buildings or conflict with current site
development proposals. However, three of the LPX alternatives which stay
within the I-580 corridor through this segment (the I-580 Freeway Route,
the Quarry Route and the Isabel Avenue Route) could interfere with
widening of I-580 in the future. The fourth alternative (the Railroad
Route) would leave the I-580 corridor just west of the Pleasanton
Station. In general , the median aerial design option would minimize
right-of-way needs along I-580 but at a much higher construction cost than
for the at-grade option.
- 13 -
From West Pleasanton through Livermore, the I-580 Freeway route
alternative would avoid displacement of existing buildings, although some
right-of-way would be needed along the side of the freeway except for the
median aerial design. The Railroad Route, the Quarry Route (R-S
alignment) and the Isabel Avenue Route leave the I-580 freeway corridor at
varying locations, and all follow the SP/UP railroad right-of-way through
downtown Livermore. These three alignments would displace some residences
and businesses in the Livermore area. In general , the freeway route would
minimize displacement impacts by avoiding currently built-up areas and, in
some cases, would minimize right-of-way impacts by utilizing freeway
rights-of-way.
Station Access
Another important factor in comparing the LPX alternatives relates to how
easily patrons can reach the stations. In general , all alternative
stations have been sited and configured so as to provide adequate
bus, bike and pedestrian access, circulation and parking.
For the Freeway Route alternative, the Dublin, Pleasanton and West
Livermore stations would straddle the freeway, and a higher proportion of
auto access is anticipated than for non-freeway sites. The East Livermore
Station would be south of the freeway. Altogether, up to 6,500 parking
spaces could be required to serve year 2005 ridership at the four Valley
stations. The Pleasanton station could be combined with a San Ramon
Branchline transit station in the event that a transitway were constructed
in the SP right-of-way. This would provide excellent transfer
opportunities between the two modes.
The Railroad Route would utilize the same Dublin Station, but the
Pleasanton, West Livermore and East Livermore stations would all be
located within the railroad corridor. Of the two alternative sites
considered for the West Livermore station, the Murrieta site is within
reasonable walking distance of downtown Livermore and is also closer to
residences than is the Isabel site or the freeway site, and is therefore
likely to have a higher proportion of access by walking or by bus. Total
parking requirements among the four Valley stations are estimated to be up
to 7,500 spaces, or 1,000 spaces more than for the Freeway Route. As with
the Freeway Route, the Pleasanton station could be combined with a San
Ramon Branchline transit station in the event that a transitway were
constructed in the SP right-of-way. This station site would be more
compatible with a Branchline extension to the south than would be the
freeway site.
For both the Quarry Route and the Isabel Route, the Pleasanton station
would be in the freeway while the Livermore stations would be in the
railroad corridor. Hence, station access would combine aspects of the
Freeway and Railroad Routes. Up to 7,000 parking spaces would be needed
in the four Valley stations for either the Quarry or Isabel Route
alternative.
- 14 -
Ridership Potential
New projections of LPX ridership were developed for all four alternative
alignments to reflect revised Tri-Valley population and- employment
projections to year 2005, and to utilize forecasting procedures developed
in MTC's I-680/I-580 Corridors Study.
All four LPX route alternatives serve the entire Livermore-Pleasanton
Valley service area, and total travel times along 'the LPX do not differ by
more than a couple of minutes. Consequently, ridership is not projected
to vary greatly among alternatives. Highest ridership, on the order of
33,000 daily passengers in year 2005, is projected for the Railroad
Route. The Railroad route would be in closest proximity to projected year
2005 concentrations of population and employment and its travel time would
be only slightly longer than that of the Freeway Route. Lowest ridership,
approximately 30,000 daily passengers, is projected on the Freeway Route,
with much of the difference being attributable to less intra-Valley
ridership for the Freeway Route. The ridership projections for the Quarry
and Isabel Routes fall between these extremes. The difference between the
lowest and highest estimates amounts to only 8 percent.
These new projections are somewhat greater than the year- 2000 projections
developed in the 1983 LPX Update Analysis, and reflect the more current
forecasts of regional growth by ABAG as well as improved estimating
procedures. However, they are significantly less than ridership
projections reported in the 1976 Final Report. This could be due to less
out-commuting from the Tri-Valley area (the primary BART ridership market)
and more intra-Valley trips (more oriented toward local transit services)
now being projected, as well as more reliable forecasting procedures that
reflect operating experience of BART. The current ridership projections
for the LPX are, nevertheless, comparable to existing BART ridership on
the Richmond BART line to all points on the BART system. It should also
be noted that the Valley has potential for substantial growth beyond year
2005, particularly near and north of I-580.
Capital Costs
Capital costs for fixed facilities, in 1985 dollars, were estimated for
the four LPX alternatives. The lowest cost alternative is the Freeway
Route utilizing median at=grade design as much as possible, for which a
total construction cost, including contingencies , of $364 Million is
estimated. The longer Isabel Avenue Route alternative would cost an
additional $22 Million, or 6 percent more. Costs for the other two
alternatives fall within these extremes. For comparison, the 1976 Final
Report estimated a total capital cost of $333 Million in 1974 dollars for
fixed facilities for the selected LPX alignment. Adjusting or in ation
in construction costs since then, this is. equivalent to about $701 Million
in 1985 dollars. Hence, a significantly lower cost, in adjusted dollars,
may now be possible due to elimination of the costly downtown Pleasanton
segment , shortening of the route, less expensive stations, and other
factors.
- 15 -
It should be noted that these costs represent minimum cost design options
in all cases. To minimize right-of-way taking and/or displacement, higher
costs may be entailed. It should be further noted that the LPX costs do
not include allowances for payments that may have to be negotiated with
Cal Trans for I-580 right-of-way that has been provided for possible
transit uses. Further, for the Quarry Route alternative, potential costs
of relocating the Arroyo Mocho are excluded.
Estimated costs of rolling stock for year 2005 LPX operations would add
$91 Million to the total capital cost of the extension.
Operating Costs and Revenues
Operating costs and revenues for the four LPX route alternatives would not
differ greatly. System-wide annual operating costs for the LPX, in 1985
dollars, are estimated to be $21-24 Million, with the lower figure
associated with the Freeway Route and the higher figure associated with
the Isabel alignment. A farebox recovery ratio (percent of operating cost
recovered by fares) of 44 percent is projected for the Freeway Route and
is the highest among the four alternatives. The Isabel Route alternative
results in the lowest projected farebox recovery ratio, at 40 percent.
Summary Comparison of LPX Routes
Table S-1 summarizes the key characteristics of the four LPX
alternatives. For each alternative, the minimum cost variation is shown.
Attributes of the LPX route recommended in the 1976 Final Report are also
shown for comparison.
CONSULTANT FINDINGS
The information contained in this supplemental report is intended to help
BART, with input from the affected local communities, select a preferred
alignment and station locations for unadopted portions of the LPX. A
number of conclusions are apparent from the analyses and community inputs
to date that should be considered in the decision-making process. These
are briefly discussed below.
Comparison with Route Alternatives Previously Studied
The basic decision that BART and the affected communities must make
relates to which Valley route alternative is preferable. It is clear that
the decision will involve trade-offs. A summary of some of these
trade-offs is given previously in Table S-1. Essentially, the freeway
route would be cheapest to construct and operate, and would experience
fewer right-of-way/displacement impacts. However, it would not generate
as much ridership in the horizon year (2005) and construction along this
route would have a greater adverse impact upon I-580 traffic and may
conflict with Caltrans' widening plans for I-580. The railroad route best
- 16 -
Table S-I
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF LPX ALTERNATIVES
1976 Freeway Railroad (quarry Isabel
t. Route Characteristics
Study Route Route Route (R-S) Route Route
_
a. Length mi es 25.9 24.2 25.2 25.1 25.6
b. Travel Time, Bay Fair N/A 27.0 28.0 27.7 29.3
to E. Livermore (min)
2. Displacement Effects
a. Existing Dwelling
Units Displaced 124 20-41 23-50 23-50 30-57
b. Existing Business
Displaced 28 11 21 21 24
3. Ridership
Total Weekday
Riders 42,000 30,100 32,600 31,600 31,300
4. Ca ital Costs3
Millions)
a. Fixed
Facilities $700.8 $364.1 $379.1 $368.8 $386.6
b. Cars 117.5 91.1 91.1 91.1 91.1
c. Total 5818.3 $455.2 $470.2 $459.9 $477.7
d. Fixed facility
cost per mile 27.1 14.7 15.0 14.7 15.1
5. O eratin Costs
(1985 5 Millions)'
a. System-Wide Increase
in Annual Operating
Cost (Millions) N/A5 $21.4 $23.4 $23.3 $23.7
b. Operating Cost
per rider N/A5 $2.63 $2.63 $2.71 $2.78
6. Farebox Recovery Ratio N/A5 44% 42% 41% 40%
I For comparison purposes, assumes shuttle service on LPX extending from Bay Fair Station
2 to East Livermore yard.
. Year 2005 weekday riders, except 1976 Final Report projection which is 1990. Includes
existing BART riders.
3 These represent the minimum cost as opposed to the minimum ROW alternatives.
4 System-wide costs attributable to LPX.
5 N/A = Not available.
17
e °
serves existing development and projected growth to year 2005,
particularly in the City of Livermore. Beyond year 2005, ridership
differences between the two routes are likely to be smaller as further
growth occurs along and north of I-580. Also, the railroad route
traverses a residential area in Pleasanton, and previous public feedback
has indicated strong opposition to that alignment within Pleasanton.
The quarry area and Kitty Hawk-Isabel Avenue alignments are alternative
routes that would place the Pleasanton station in the freeway corridor
while still utilizing the railroad corridor through downtown Livermore.
Technically feasible alignments are available for both of these new
routes.
In terms of ridership potential , costs and revenues , the quarry area and
Kitty Hawk-Isabel Avenue alternatives do not significantly differ from the
railroad and freeway alternatives previously studied.
Comparison of New LPX Alignments
Review of the right-of-way, design and geotechnical considerations
affecting the alignment alternatives substantiates the feasibility and
preferability of a quarry alignment over the Kitty Hawk-Isabel Avenue
alternative. This routing avoids location problems that might otherwise
be encountered in attempting to fit BART within the constrained Kitty Hawk
Road-Isabel Avenue corridor.
Of the several alternative and technically feasible alignments described
through the gravel pit area, the most promising appears to be Segment R-S,
which parallels El Charro Road and could utilize the existing dry channel
bed of the relocated Arroyo Mocho. The essential prerequisite to this
design is assurance that the Arroyo Mocho channel will in fact be
relocated to skirt around the northerly and easterly shores of the "chain
of- lakes." Alternatively, Segment R-S could be located on the east side
of E1 Charro Road.
LPX Construction Phasing -
According to BART policy, it appears that the LPX would be constructed in
two stages. The first stage should extend BART from the Bay Fair station
to stations in Castro Valley, Dublin and Pleasanton with an interim
storage yard in the Dublin-Pleasanton area. The second stage should
extend BART to East Livermore and include the two Livermore stations and
permanent yard. This differs from BART's current policy which calls for
only the Castro Valley and Dublin stations to be constructed within the
first stage.
18 -
DeLEUW
CATHER
De Leuw,Cather&Company Our Ref.: 3497-10
Engineers and Planners
120 Howard Street
P.O. Box 3821
San Francisco,Califomia 94119
415/495-6060
December 30, 1985
Mr. Richard C. Wenzel, Project Manager
Livermore-Pleasanton Extension
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, California 94606-2688
Attention: Ms. Marianne Payne, Project Coordinator
Subject: BART LPX Study - Supplemental Analysis
Dear Mr. Wenzel:
De Leuw, Cather & Company, DKS Associates, and Taber Consultants, are
pleased to present our final report. This Supplemental Analysis Report
revises the conceptual design features of the alternate BART alignments
extending from the eastern city limits of Pleasanton to downtown Liver-
more. These proposed alignments are alternatives to portions of the
routes identified in the BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension (LPX) Update
Analysis (December 1983) . The report also documents revised patronage
projections for all LPX alternatives based on newly available ABAG
projections in 1985 forecasting and travel procedures from the I-680/
I-580 corridors model. Also enclosed are cost and revenues for the new
LPX alternatives.
This report is intended to provide the BART Board with a sound basis
for adopting a preferred alignment. We have met on a continuing basis
with BART staff and representatives of the local communities to elicit
and address their respective concerns in pursuit of a working consensus .
We would like to take this opportunity to thank those individuals and
organizations who have provided information and assistance during the
performance of this assignment. It has been a pleasure to serve BART
in taking this decisive step toward expanding the Bay Area Rapid
Transit System.
Very truly yours,
DE LEUW, THER & COMPANY
Leslie Fossen, P.E.
DCCO Project Manager
Enclosures
I
PROJECT STAFF
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Richard C. Wenzel , Project Manager
Marianne A. Payne, Project Coordinator
DeLeuw, Cather b Company
Leslie J. Fossen
Robert M. Barton
Chris Clarke
Guillaume Shearin
Pat M. Gelb
DKS Associates
Michael A. Kennedy
Tsu Imada
Michael N. Aronson
Susan Pultz
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
City of Dublin
Paul Rankin
City of Pleasanton
Gail Gilpin
City of Livermore
Barbara Shaw
County of Alameda
Betty Croly
California Department of Transportation
John Vostrez
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY
Background 1
Supplemental Analysis g
Evaluation of Alternative Routes 13
Consultant Findings 16
I. INTRODUCTION I-1
Previous Alignment Studies I-1
Adopted Position of Alignment I-3
Scope of Supplemental Analyses 1-5
Content and Organization of This Report 1-7
II . ROUTE ALTERNATIVES II-1
Overview II-1
Quarry Area Corridor 11-3
Isabel Avenue Corridor 11-22
III . STATIONS AND YARD III-1
West Livermore Station III-1
East Livermore Station III-4
East Livermore Storage/Maintenance Yard III-6
Interim Storage/Maintenance Yard III-9
IV. RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS IV-1
Methodology IV-2
Area Growth Projections IV-14
Changes in Commute Travel Patterns IV-22
BART Ridership Forecasts IV-25
Potential Effects of San Ramon Corridor Transit on
BART LPX Ridership IV-32
Potential Effects of Dublin Terminus on LPX Ridership IV-33
V. LPX OPERATIONS V-1
BART Travel Times Y-1
Passenger Capacity V-4
Service Levels V-6
Fleet Requirements V-g
Table of Contents (Continued)
VI . COST/REVENUE ANALYSIS VI-1
Capital Costs - Fixed Facilities VI-1
Capital Costs - Rolling Stock VI-6
Annual Operating Costs Y1-9
Annual Fare Revenues VI-10
VII. SUMMARY EVALUATION AND FINDINGS VII-1
Right-of-way/Displacement Impacts VII-2
Patron Access VII-3
Ridership Potential V11-3
Capital Costs VII-6
Operating Costs and Revenues VII-8
Summary LPX Route Comparison VII-8
Consultant Findings VII-11
APPENDIX A - SOURCES OF DATA - ROUTE ALTERNATIVES A-1
APPENDIX B - GEOLOGICAL - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION B-1
APPENDIX C - COST ESTIMATES C-1
LIST OF FIGURES
S-1 RECOMMENDED LPX ALIGNMENT AND STATIONS: Page
LPX FINAL REPORT, 1976 2
S-2A STUDY SEGMENTS - BAY FAIR TO DUBLIN 10A
S-2B STUDY SEGMENTS - DUBLIN TO LIVERMORE 10B
I-1 RECOMMENDED LPX ALIGNMENT AND STATIONS:
LPX FINAL REPORT, 1976 1-2
1-2 BART BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION NO. 3098 I-4
II-1 GRAVEL PIT MINING PLANS II-6
I1-2 LOCATION OF PRINCIPAL CORRIDORS II-9
11-3 EL CHARRO ROAD CROSS-SECTION II-13
II-4A STUDY SEGMENTS - BAY FAIR TO DUBLIN II-16A
II-4B STUDY SEGMENTS - DUBLIN TO LIVERMORE II-16B
II-5 ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS IN EAST PLEASANTON
GRAVEL PIT AREA 11-17
II-6 BART IN KITTY HAWK-ISABEL CORRIDOR, LIVERMORE II-25
II-7 BART AT-GRADE ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF PROPOSED
ISABEL AVENUE/KITTY HAWK ROAD II-28
IV-1 1-680/1-580 CORRIDORS MODEL CONCEPTUAL FLOW DIAGRAMS IV-3
IV-2 I-680/I-580 CORRIDORS MODEL PRIMARY STUDY AREA IV-8
IV-3 MTC 34 SUPERDISTRICT SYSTEM IV-9
IV-4 MAJOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS - VALLEY AREA IV-19
LIST OF TABLES
S-1 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF LPX ALTERNATIVES 17
IV-1 COMPARISON OF ABAG POPULATION PROJECTIONS IV-16
IV-2 COMPARISON OF ABAG EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS IV-17
IV-3 SUMMARY OF APPROVED AND ANNOUNCED DEVELOPMENTS IV-20
IV-4 PROJECTED CHANGES IN COMMUTE PATTERNS IV-23
IV-5 PROJECTED BART LPX RIDERSHIP IV-27
IV-6 PROJECTED BART LPX STATION ACTIVITY 1V-29
IV-7 ACCESS MODE SPLIT PERCENTAGES IV-31
IV-8 PROJECTED STATION PARKING NEEDS IV-32
IV-9 SAN RAMON CORRIDOR TRANSIT IMPACTS ON LPX RIDERSHIP IV-34
IV-10 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF DUBLIN TERMINUS ON LPX RIDERSHIP IV-36
V-1 BART IN-VEHICLE TRAVEL TIMES V-3
V-2 DOOR-TO-DOOR TRAVEL TIMES V-4
VI-1 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES BY 1985 SEGMENT VI-4
VI-2 UPDATED CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES FOR 1983 STUDY SEGMENTS VI-7
VI-3 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS VI-8
VI-4 ANNUAL LPX OPERATING COSTS VI-9
VI-5 PROJECTED LPX ANNUAL REVENUES VI-11
VII-1 PATRON ACCESS VII-4
VII-2 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS VII-7
., VII-3 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
AND REVENUES (1985 Dollars) VII-9
VII-4 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF LPX ALTERNATIVES VII-10
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
This Supplemental Analysis report reviews conceptual design features,
costs, and revenue service characteristics of proposed BART alignments ex-
tending from the eastern city limits of Pleasanton to downtown Livermore.
These proposed alignments are evaluated as alternatives to portions of the
I-580 Freeway Route and Railroad Route alternative identified in the BART
Livermore-Pleasanton Extension (LPX) Update Analysis (December 1983) .
This report also provides an update on the status of land use plans and
policy decisions that have occurred in the LPX study area since the
completion of the 1983 LPX Update Analysis which may affect the viability
of the proposed station and yard site alternatives. These station and
yard site alternatives are considered for the new alignment alternatives
as well as for the 1-580 Freeway Route and Railroad Route.
BACKGROUND
1976 LPX Study and Recomended Route
The Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension Study was initiated in 1972, and
investigated several alternative alignments. In 1974, the Study' s Board
of Control selected a 25.9 mile route from the existing Bay Fair Station
through the Dublin Canyon to downtown Pleasanton and Livermore. This
route is shown in Figure S-1: The Final Report published in 1976 provided
extensive detail relating to this recommended alignment.
Five stations were proposed for the LPX, occupying sites of 11-24 acres
each: Castro Valley, Dublin/Northwest Pleasanton, Pleasanton, West
Livermore, and East Livermore. A yard for train storage and routine main-
tenance was proposed for a site east of the East Livermore station.
Since 1976 a number of changes had occurred in the parameters upon which
the 1976 Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension Study Final Report was
based. Issues necessitating restudy included:
o Curtailment of plans by Caltrans to widen Route 238 near
Hayward, necessitating reevaluation of the recommended BART
alignment within the Route 238 median.
` o Reconsideration of alternative track configurations to permit
direct service between the LPX and existing BART lines, rather
than shuttle-service previously recommended.
o Potential availability of existing railroad right-of-way within
Livermore by virtue of a 1980 joint trackage agreement between
Southern Pacific and Western Pacific (now Union Pacific) .
- 1 -
T: � I
.• ,v�� ^•�•r/. �In-ry�1 1ttl (.� t.,N� I
2.v •
� c
e s t. • f
" •.a• r�,�• `A \ � 111 �
J4 7.3
to i"-••1 ,,.•.t 4.',r��° w • s---•-`—�. 0 v
\S� 1.7 1 •t�.l, :�^ ria�... I'n � `,• S.e
all 1.. 6. 10.4 I f/
t •Il.•• .*'. C.ur Plr"T ter' I2
_ n..,','r•e•r rr,r LRart:o/ i I •'•� 4 N� _ ._•,w 1
"��� II .� tf. of • �� r�� � ,•r � i ,:1 a:� E ._......
... •.F 1\a F ��J •,t.0..•iw ___—1' i j.i1%_ ;t \ w..�'•i 1
^y,dN-- -- I -ADOPTED ROUTE �,�—.• 1.. nr <.: — ;. -_6 ;-
EXISTING- :..` t. . ' ', — .,
a FREEWAY ROU
BAYFA'1 t BART r:•,, - , Castro"
l \IT. 1 •'i• V•II \ i `•''�M � t �.� ..,..� �� I 1—r I �t _ .
1983 UPDATE ANALYSIS ROUTES
' �= 1 DUBLINAORTHWEST e,
Santorelua;" •; • ♦ �` Ir RAILROAD ROUT
•� •�` CASTRO VALLEY STATION PLEASANTON I o:.` ' 1- nerEAST LIVERM01
`
7.6" A ,I( 111 11111 W LIVERMORE•�r.`.�1��r';7.. .•\\ °'. .,Ha
pw�rd•.�,9 u.�� L tw •r. o ' EST •-,
• I.3 :� fwd,• f
• •'�t�••�':.•.•r.t 1 .7 �`�'!'.� ♦u.. f,att� f �s Il.Af " �• 7.1 2.3 Y•��
.;�,�.,r �.... 1 j'r , ~-•r -�/� ? hllll
PLEASANT I; _� e
_ �• °
, 2,'• •�.., '� 1 a 1.2 f t�-y• ° ,rurwt .uv_�--- —_ _
, I ',i. .111•�� 0 \\ ;o•r° 1 ` ( I I•4, C °�tj` � � �O
•r° sl.\kn• \ •torn 7 � Y r �.�I: :r•t„ •+yr•.o... °
�\- KEY
,
...;ra 2.7-, '^.,RI• t ` g1 1983 PROPOSED �" f
26 STATIONS
.wr..t.•,7 "M. .�•,�.�^.. 1976 PROPOSED J
I ' . tM
STATIONS
.3 rr w sl '.�• � , • •rr ti Rrilhltie, � ` I�
•°""' PROPOSED YARD
1 ,.s .'^°� ±;; 32
l. /y. �rn; 1976 PROPOSED _
Souroe,BART '.
' •�'� ROUTE 1111111
oeLEUw����y PREVIOUSLY STUDIED
FIGURE
CATHER ,SSOC ales LPX ALIGNMENTS AND STATIONS S-1
o Opposition by the City of Pleasanton to the downtown Pleasanton
BART alignment previously recommended.
o Intensification of development along the I-580 freeway
corridor.
o Plans by Contra Costa County to study- the feasibility of im-
proved transit corridor service in the San Ramon Valley.
o Continuing planning activity for the proposed Las Positas new
town north of Livermore.
o Significant changes in population and employment projections for
the Livermore Valley relative to those utilized in the 1976 LPX
Final Report.
o Higher than previously anticipated employment growth at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory.
o Recent preparation of an industrial development plan for the
proposed BART yard site in East Livermore.
1983 LPX Update Analysis
The overall purpose of the 1983 LPX Update Analysis was to reevaluate the
alignment recommended by the Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Final
Report, 1976, to reflect the various issues discussed above.
Consideration of these issues led to development of new alternatives for
extending BART from the Bay Fair Station through Dublin Canyon to Dublin,
Pleasanton and Livermore. Within each segment, various possible BART de-
sign treatments were identified. These route and station alternatives are
depicted in Figure S-1 and are described below.
Route Alternatives:
Bay Fair to Dublin: Between Bay Fair and Dublin the proposed LPX
alignment generaTTy follows the previously recommended route without
change ( see Figure S-1 ) . However, it was necessary to reevaluate the
connection at Bay Fair Station as well as to consider alternative
treatments to accommodate BART within the Route 238 median.
Selection of an appropriate station configuration and approach trackage at
Bay Fair is dependent on whether LPX service operates as a shuttle, as
previously proposed, or as a direct line to Oakland or beyond. Some of
the considerations that led BART operations staff to oppose through
- 3 -
service at the time of the 1976 Final Report no longer prevail . Alterna-
tive approach track/platform configurations at Bay Fair to accommodate the
LPX were therefore identified. Any of these configurations can be adapted
to either shuttle or direct service options.
Key issues in the connection to Route 238 are how to connect the Fremont
Line corridor to Route 238 (subway vs. aerial ) and how to extend the BART,
alignment along Route 238 to the east. Widening of Route 238 westerly of
Mission Boulevard (East 14th Street) is no longer included in Caltrans' /
current 10-year highway improvement schedule. Therefore, a possible BART
alignment and profile through this area is proposed that is compatible
with Route 238's existing narrow configuration as well as with its future
widening, and involves an aerial connection to avoid the formidable de-
tours and freeway traffic-handling problems which would be encountered in
attempting to construct a subway, as previously proposed, across the
existing narrow freeway cross-section.
In the segment from Route 238 in Hayward to Foothill Road in Dublin, no
changes from the 1976 alignment through Dublin Canyon are proposed. This
entire segment would be located at-grade in the median of the I-580 Free-
way.
Livermore Valley: In the Livermore Valley area, a key factor affecting
the alignment for a BART extension is the City of Pleasanton' s stated
opposition in 1981 to a downtown route. Two distinctly different route
alternatives were developed for the Valley segment in the 1983 study,
reflecting this factor plus right-of-way availability and proposed
development locations. (See Figure S-1 ) .
o Freeway Alignment: The first route follows I-580 freeway all
the way east to Livermore, leaving the freeway corridor to reach
the previously selected yard site in East Livermore. Within the
I-580 corridor, various possible alternative treatments
incorporating BART tracks within the freeway median (at-grade or
aerial ) and adjacent to the freeway ( south side, west of SP
crossing; north side east of SP crossing) were considered.
o Railroad Ali nment: The second general route uses the I-580
corridor as tar east as Hopyard Road, follows the existing SP
railroad right-of-way southeasterly to the Radum Wye and then
continues easterly along the railroad alignment to the East
Livermore yard. Although this general route does not conform to
the Pleasanton General Plan, it would still avoid traversing
downtown Pleasanton. The easterly segment is a part of the
recommended 1976 LPX route and is also in accord with
Livermore' s intentions for a BART alignment and stations,
including the Murrieta Boulevard site that has been set aside
for a future public transit facility.
- 4 -
Along the Radum Branch, BART would run at-grade on the southwest
side of the SP tracks. within the segment to the east, two
alternative treatments were evaluated considering BART tracks
north and south of the railroad tracks through Livermore. A key
factor influencing these treatments is the joint trackage
agreement between SP and WP (UP) , which creates opportunities
for acquisition of abandoned railroad right-of-way.
Planned widening of portions of I-580 to 10 lanes and related freeway
interchange improvements to address traffic needs of the area upon
build-out were also considered during development of the alternatives. In
particular, one of the I-580 BART alignment treatments considered (median,
at-grade) would involve construction of an additional freeway lane on
I-580 to replace a lane taken by the BART trackway.
Possible Extension to Las Positas: Both alternative Valley routes included
provisions for a possible extension to the then-proposed Las Positas
development north of Livermore. Given the uncertainty at that time over
approval and timing of this major development, these segments were treated
at a more conceptual level as variations upon the alternatives.
Stations and Yard:
Concept plans have been developed for proposed stations on the LPX route
alignments currently being considered. Below is a summary of each
station.
Castro Valley Station: After lengthy study and public input, BART
selected an 11.9 site on the northwest quadrant of Redwood Road and
Norbridge Avenue as the preferred site for a Castro Valley Station. The
BART platform .would be in the median of I-580 immediately south of the
site. It would serve primarily residents within the Castro Valley and
Crow Canyon area, but is also only a quarter mile from the downtown area.
Of the proposed 11.9 acres, BART has purchased 9.7 acres. This appears
adequate in size to meet on-site parking needs to year 2000. Two roadway
extensions are proposed to improve east-west access to the BART station
and to reduce station traffic on over-used Castro Valley Boulevard:
Forest Avenue and Lake Chabot Road.
Dublin Station: The proposed site for a Dublin/Northwest Pleasanton
station is a rjacent to the freeway, midway between Foothill Boulevard and
I-680. The station parking areas would be split, with 14 acres on the
north side and 11 acres on the south side of I-580. This would improve
local accessibility to the station and also better disperse station
traffic than would a station limited to only one side of the freeway.
Pleasanton Station: Two different sites were considered, depending on
whether the BARr alignment follows 1-580- or the SP Radum Branch railroad
right-of-way east of Hacienda Business Park.
- 5 - _
For the I-580 alignment, a site is proposed west of Santa Rita Road. This
would better serve Pleasanton than the more easterly site depicted in its
General Plan. A split station is proposed, with 15 acres on the north
side of I-680 and 9 acres on the south side. The north portion is vacant
County land planned for future redevelopment.
The south portion is vacant land within Hacienda Business Park, and could
be incorporated into future development plans. Potential auto, bus, bike
and walking access to this site is excellent.
For the railroad alignment, the proposed station site is on proposed
Hacienda Drive between the railroad and proposed Owens Drive extension.
It comprises 18 acres, and is wholly within and more central to Hacienda _
Business Park. Due to the restricted site size, it would be necessary to
construct a second level of parking to meet projected parking needs. This
site has good vehicular access but would not disperse traffic as well as
the freeway site.
Both station sites have been designed to accommodate a future San Ramon
Branchline transitway station, thereby providing convenient transfer
opportunities between BART and San Ramon Valley corridor service. The
railroad site would be more flexible in combining with San Ramon
Branchl i ne service.
West Livermore Station: Two alternative sites were investigated for a
station in West Livermore, reflecting the two BART alignments considered
(railroad vs. I-580) .
The Murrieta Boulevard site is at the same location proposed in the 1976
Final Report. It is compatible with a BART alignment along the WP (UP)
right-of-way through Livermore. The City of Livermore has acquired
10 acres of vacant property at this site and reserved it for a future
public transit facility.
The Isabel Avenue Station is proposed to occupy 25 acres in the north-
eastern quadrant of the proposed Isabel Avenue/I-580 interchange just east
of Collier Canyon Road.
East Livermore Station: Two sites were also considered for an East
Livermore Station, one for the railroad corridor route and the other for
the I-580 corridor route.
The railroad corridor site is located near North Mines Road, as proposed
in the 1976 Final Report. (An alternative site near Vasco Road was also
reviewed, but does not appear to justify the additional mile of BART
operation) . Two conceptual layouts for the site were developed, differing
due to the LPX route variations (north vs. south placement) . In both
cases parking would be split, and the total site would comprise
26-27 acres . As a terminal station, provisions would be made for train
crossovers west and east of the station. Vehicular access would be
designed to minimize impacts on East First Street.
- 6 -
The I-580 corridor site is on the south side of East First Street, just
south of I-580. Its service market and overall accessibility would be
similar to the first site, being only 1,500 feet away. As with the North
Mines site, parking would be split, and the total site would be about
25 acres in area. The station is located on a site currently planned for
development.
Transit Vehicle Maintenance/Storage Yard: The 1976 Final Report proposed
a yard site west of asco Road in the gore between the WP and SP main
lines. Although now partially developed, a sufficient area within the
site is still available. It is conveniently situated with regard to the
proposed East Livermore Station site alternatives. Therefore, it is
included in all LPX alternatives being considered in this study.
Adopted Portion of Alignment
On March 22, 1984, following extensive public and agency review of the LPX
Update Analysis, the BART Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 3098,
"A Preferred Route Alignment for a Livermore-Pleasanton Extension" . In
response to adopted resolutions by the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and
Livermore in support of LPX along "the I-580 alignment at least to the
eastern city limits of Pleasanton" and in support of a downtown Livermore
alignment, the BART resolution adopted a portion of a preferred LPX
alignment and directed staff to proceed with a supplemental analysis for
the purpose of completing the adoption of a preferred alignment.
The 12.8 mile adopted portion of the preferred LPX alignment extends from
the existing BART Bay Fair Station in San Leandro to near the I-580/I-680
interchange. The general route alignment traverses SR-238 and I-580
rights-of-way, with a Castro Valley Station near Redwood Road and a Dublin
Station at the I-580 interchange near Stoneridge Mall .
7 -
SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS
Route Alternatives
The Supplemental Analysis investigated alignments from the eastern City
limits of Pleasanton to downtown Livermore, focusing on alignments within
two general corridors:
o Quarry Area
-
0 Kitty Hawk - Isabel Avenue
Primary considerations in the identification and evaluation of new
alternatives included the availability of right-of-way and the possible
geotechnical problems and environmental consequences associated with
traversing the gravel pit area.
Quarry Area Corridor:
This route remains within the I-580 corridor to the vicinity of the
E1 Charro Road interchange, then turns southeasterly through the gravel
pit area east of Pleasanton and southerly to the Southern Pacific/Union
Pacific railroad corridor into West Livermore. It then follows the SP/UP
railroad corridor to East Livermore.
Altogether, six potential routes through the quarry area were evaluated,
as shown on Figure S-2 and described below.
Segment F-R: This segment is actually an envelope of potential routes
starting on the north side or in the median of I-580 west of El Charro
Road. BART would ascend on aerial structure and cross over I-580.
Proceeding in a southeasterly direction, the elevated structure would
cross property owned by Alameda County, traverse the southwesterly corner
of the R. C. Johnson property and then decend to grade past the Kaiser
haul road and Los Positas Boulevard in the vicinity of the Jamieson Ranch.
Segment I-A: This alternative extends along I-580 to a point east of El
Gh arro oa , cutting diagonally to the southeast westerly of Livermore
Airport, then along the southerly boundary of the Airport and on the north
shore of the "Chain of Lakes" within the Jamieson Company lands. From
here it runs southerly along the eastern shore of the lakes to the Union
Pacific Railroad.
- 8 -
Segment R-L: Extending from segment F-R, this alternative follows along
the nort erly shore of the chain of lakes south of the airport, turns
southeasterly to intersect Kitty Hawk Road, proceeds southerly to the
Union Pacific-Southern Pacific right-of-way, and then turns easterly
following the railroad corridor to downtown Livermore.
Segment R-N: Paralleling E1 Charro Road, this alternative extends east.
from t e amieson Ranch along the southerly shore of the "chain of lakes"
supported on the east-west dividing dike of the Jamieson Company northerly
tier of quarry cells, to Kitty Hawk Road and the Union Pacific Railroad.
Segment R-C: This alternative extends from the Jamieson Ranch south-
easterly along E1 Charro Road to the Jamieson Company east-west dividing
dike "core" between the northerly and southerly quarry cells, then
southerly to the Union Pacific Railroad.
Segment R-S: This alternative extends from the Jamieson Ranch south-
easterly along E1 Charro Road to the Arroyo Mocho, then easterly parallel
to and on the north side of the Union Pacific mainline to Kitty Hawk Road,
north of its intersection with Stanley Boulevard. All segments along
El Charro Road could optionally be located on either the east or west side
of the road, depending on whether the Arroyo Mocho is relocated or not.
Kitty Hawk-Isabel Avenue Corridor:
One primary route alignment alternative was identified within this
corridor. It remains within the I-580 freeway corridor to the proposed
Isabel Avenue-Kitty Hawk Road crossing, turns southerly to follow Kitty
Hawk Road along its east side to Stanley Boulevard at Isabel Avenue, and
then turns easterly to follow the Union Pacific Railroad corridor into
downtown Livermore.
Stations and Yard
Alternatives for the West Livermore Station, the East Livermore Station
and the East Livermore Storage/Maintenance Yard were reviewed in terms of
land use plans, policy decisions and other issues that have occurred since
the 1983 LPX Update Analysis.
West Livermore Station at Murrieta Boulevard: This station site, described
in the 1983 LPX Update Analysis , could be used by the Railroad Route, the
Quarry Route and the Isabel Route. However, the size of the proposed site
may not be adequate to meet the future demand for parking (up to
1 ,600 spaces) . Some of the proposed parking would need to be located on
the west side of Murrieta Avenue, requiring a long walk to the station.
For this reason , an alternative location for the West Livermore Station
was considered in the Supplemental -Analysis as noted below.
- 9 -
�fi • e• / i�•r
Mut /� r^ • 3I
L I e.7 '
fa.>i• oaf• � q.' \ c
T c0i 1! ` `�' ` 1.e •e
•• Y• Cava /
:1 � MOao.•a p ,•�.n � �...r 7: � ....
••w• a�if .fC W t e
it.so
Owbra
t=
•�• � � 2.s / W
j
�S p 2 Ile • •Y,if• . / '^ ' �� ..,' •
r
* <` v oo.casr•fl a7►I.t 7.2 3 e
s M(/yIaw.W• � � _
IN
.� ♦ 1.8 n to;° 2.e
§�, , Hayward
\ 10 6
6 641-
p v `•� 1 • 2.0 ti ,
• s rrM e� / 1 e
Eden ° 1 ° i \ L :�•. .� e
Existing Fremont E`
'�. BART Line
�` .....�. T t .o
_ Union City t
DeLEUW STUDY SEGMENTS FIGURE
CATHER BAYFAIR TO DUBLIN S — Z a
- 10A -
P09S LE FUTUFf�i' Sty' ' :• t f "'1 1 _! '� , t.. r i :•
9ANIR MON-TRAN3IT, r",1� ` I 'y- ':;++ 1 _•L ' 1• ��-- -- 4 =�` "�/ I r• t
CORTM 00
�:�\`C 1 1 ; : r. f. . • . . . �r' 'i'• C,r41. 1:.�t,.�� �.1�. L-- -----
Vii' • , - -.�� _ �� f.IL;� 1 �'� !-• 1` ,/, 1+t �• ��; frll ',Ir~^ `Vp ..1 r'---;�� / ---
AN _: N 1-580 1 ti
1
(Fp E W Y ijiOUTE)_ 1
OUBLH `ice' ('•
JA E N °p` I. _I IwIVEERMORE , 1 'EAST
STATION ` ' .. O4Rb-- CN T N --- -- ---------
% A r
/ _ \y• I `3 NO , I i i \
wE.T_ '1 ��' I
LIVE
TA ff F UP 11
� � 1 � �. `90 •t ' j ,fi"� LEGEND
RAT G - . • ■/110pOAlO STATION
A11101HATIVII
. . , .'' "' -___1 1 ''.�...:(` r�ll'.. ..:�'. •<- ❑ STATION 8119
j'1••. 1° I • .. '• ` •. i +•e _ i�
—ROUTES STUDIED IN
G�� i 7=-w .i1 - .I' + '.:'it!I:,': r ( • i ff -1 ` 1 I900 UPDATE I
�..:. F.SEGMENTS STUDIED
' '\J. fitrJ•i ,�' \ � rl� ! •. L..jl: J\ DI 1604 ANALYSIS
T
DOLEW aas
STUDY SEGMENTS - DUBLIN TO LIVERMORE FIGURE
S-2b
CATFIER Showing Sub-Segments Thru Caravel Pit Area
11o.lo.d Sops. 64
West Livermore Station at Isabel Avenue: The 1983 LPX Update Analysis
identified an alternative to the urrieta Boulevard site at Isabel Avenue
and Stanley Boulevard to the west. This station site, which encompasses an
area of 25 acres and could accommodate 2,500 parking spaces, is located in
the northeast quadrant of the proposed Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard
Interchange. Factors which warrant consideration of this site include:
o Planned development of the Collier Canyon Road-Kitty Hawk Road-Isabel
Avenue corridor as a major north-south transport route, with direct
interchange connections with I-580.
o Availability of surplus state-owned right-of-way, primarily south of
Stanley Boulevard, originally acquired for the proposed Route 84
Freeway.
o Availability of still undeveloped private property north of Stanley
Boulevard.
In comparing this site with the Murrieta Boulevard site, however, it
should be noted that it is not within close walking distance to downtown.
West Livermore Station at I-580/Collier Canyon: The Isabel Avenue Route
passes in the vicinity of the West Livermore Station at I-580/Collier
Canyon Road, which was proposed for the I-580 alignment in the 1983 LPX
Update Analysis. With this alignment, it would be possible to add this
station as a third Livermore station if the station were moved to the west
side of Kitty Hawk Road. This station.would attract LPX trips from the
residential area of Livermore north of I-580 as well as employment
concentrations in the immediate vicinity of I-580/Isabel Avenue. However,
general patronage analysis indicates that insufficient additional LPX
trips would be generated to justify the third station.
Central Downtown Livermore Station: In the Environmental Impact Report for
the City of ivermore Redevelopment and Urban Design Plan (UDP) , a BART
station alternative located within an 11.7 acre block between Railroad
Avenue and First Street was considered for central downtown Livermore.
This site, referred to as the "superblock," had not been analyzed
previously by BART. Prior to the City of Livermore' s adoption of the UDP,
however, the status of ownership of this parcel changed, and the City
discontinued its further consideration as a future BART station.
East Livermore Station Alternatives: Three potential station sites in East
Livermore were analyzed in the 1983 Update Analysis: two alternatives at
North Mines Road, and a third at Vasco Road. The Vasco Road site was
removed from further consideration, based upon factors described in the
earlier document. The northerly Mines Road site could be used by the
Freeway Route, while the southerly site could be used by the other three
LPX alternatives. Selection and design of the Mines Road station depend
upon a number of closely-related planning issues, as follows:
- 11 -
o
o The opportunity for the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroads
to effect general improvements in railroad operations through the
area by consolidating train movements along one of the two mainline
'tracks, leaving the other available for possible acquisition and use
by BART.
o City of Livermore resolution of the design options for the future
Mines Road grade separation, depending upon which railroad line
remains after track consolidation.
o The need for larger culverts to alleviate existing drainage
deficiencies under the two railroads.
Discussions of these issues continued throughout the Spring and Summer of
1985, but no decision had been reached as of mid-November, 1985. The
station layouts would differ depending upon whether the UP or SP
right-of-way becomes available to BART. The alternative layouts are
described in the 1983 Update Analysis Report, and conditions remain
substantially as shown in that document. Part of the area for the
northern alignment has been subdivided and street improvements have been
made, but there are no new structures.
East Livermore Storage/Maintenance Yard: The 1983 Update Analysis proposed
an easterly terminal yard located on a triangular-shaped parcel fronting
on the west side of Vasco Road in the gore between the SP and UP tracks.
During the summer of 1985 this- parcel was partially developed for light
industrial uses. It appears, however, that sufficient area would be
available to BART for the storage/maintenance yard. Nevertheless, two new
sites were identified in the Supplemental Analysis. One of these is north
of the UP railroad and east of Vasco Road. The other is between the UP
and SP rights-of-way extending from East First Street to Arroyo Seco.
Either of these sites may be alternatives to the proeviously proposed
site.
Interim Storage/Maintenance Yard: The LPX is proposed for construction in
two stages. The first stage, as currently called for, extends to the
proposed Dublin Station site. This situation dictates the need for an
interim storage/maintenance yard in this vicinity.
If a route through the quarry area is adopted, a possible site for the
interim storage tracks is located along Segment F-R after the alignment
returns to grade and extends along the northerly end of El Charro Road
while traversing diagonally through the quarry area.
However, i.f Segment I-G along the Kitty Hawk Road-Isabel Avenue corridor
is adopted, a site along I-580 would be necessary. A possible location is
on the north side of the I-580 somewhere within Camp Parks. This location
would also suffice for any of the quarry al ternati.ves.
- 12 -
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
The evaluation of alternative LPX routes focuses on .four alignments: the
Railroad Route and freeway Route described in the 1983 LPX Update Analysis
and the quarry area and Kitty Hawk-Isabel Avenue routes described in the
1985 Supplemental Analysis. For the quarry area route, the R-S alignment
is used for the comparative analysis since this appears to be the most
viable of the various quarry area alignments considered.
Key criteria used in comparing the alternatives are right-of-way needs
(including displacement effects) , station access, ridership potential , and
costs and revenues.
Right-of-way/Displacement Effects
A primary objective in development of the LPX alternatives was to minimize
right-of-way needs and displacement of existing or planned uses.
Nevertheless, these impacts cannot be avoided entirely, and there are some
differences among alternative routes as well as alternative design
treatments .
In the adopted portion of the LPX (between Bay Fair and Dublin) , all four
LPX alternatives follow a common alignment; hence right-of-way and
displacement effects do not differ among the routing- alternatives.
However, there are differences according to the design variations in this
section. At the Bay Fair Station three of the four alternative track
connections between the existing Fremont line and the LPX require
significant right-of-way acquisition and building displacement; the fourth
minimizes these impacts. Along the Route 238 segment and the transition
into the I-580 median, a southerly alignment would not require any
right-of-way beyond what is needed by Cal Trans for planned Route 238
widening. BART can be accommodated within the existing or planned I-580
median from Castro Valley to the proposed Dublin station site west of
I-680. The Dublin Station site would not displace existing buildings but
would potentially impact proposed devel.opments in Dublin and Pleasanton.
From the adopted Dublin Station site east through Dublin and Pleasanton to
the proposed Pleasanton Station site, none of the alternative alignments
would displace existing buildings or conflict with current site
development proposals. However, three of the LPX alternatives which stay
within the I-580 corridor through this segment (the I-580 Freeway Route,
the Quarry Route and the Isabel Avenue Route) could interfere with
widening of I-580 in the future. The fourth alternative (the Railroad
Route) would leave the I-580 corridor just west of the Pleasanton
Station. In general , the median aerial design option would minimize
right-of-way needs along I-580 but at a much higher construction cost than
for the at-grade option.
- 13 -
From West Pleasanton through Livermore, the I-580 Freeway route
alternative would avoid displacement of existing buildings, although some
right-of-way would be needed along the side of the freeway except for the
median aerial design. The Railroad Route, the Quarry Route (R-S
alignment) and the Isabel Avenue Route leave the I-580 freeway corridor at
varying locations, and all follow the SP/UP railroad right-of-way through
downtown Livermore. These three alignments would displace some residences
and businesses in the Livermore area. In general , the freeway route would
minimize displacement impacts by avoiding currently built-up areas and, in
same cases., would minimize right-of-way impacts by utilizing freeway
rights-of-way.
Station Access
Another important factor in comparing the LPX alternatives relates to how
easily patrons can reach the stations. In general , all alternative
stations have been sited and configured so as to provide adequate auto,
bus, bike and pedestrian access, circulation and parking.
For the Freeway Route alternative, the Dublin, Pleasanton and West
Livermore stations would straddle the freeway, and a higher proportion of
auto access is anticipated than for non-freeway sites. The East Livermore
Station would be south of the freeway. Altogether, up to 6,500 parking
spaces could be required to serve year 2005 ridership at the four Valley
stations. The Pleasanton station could be combined with a San Ramon
Branchline transit station in the event that a transitway were constructed
in the SP right-of-way. This would provide excellent transfer
opportunities between the two modes.
The Railroad Route would utilize the same Dublin Station, but the
Pleasanton, West Livermore and East Livermore stations would all be
located within the railroad corridor. Of the two alternative sites
considered for the West Livermore station, the Murrieta site is within
reasonable walking distance of downtown Livermore and is also closer to
residences than is the Isabel site or the freeway site, and is therefore
likely to have a higher proportion of access by walking or by bus. Total
parking requirements among the four Valley stations are estimated to be up
to 7,500 spaces, or 1,000 spaces more than for the Freeway Route. As with
the Freeway Route, the Pleasanton station could be combined with a San
Ramon Branchline transit station in the event that a transitway were
constructed in the SP right-of-way. This station site would be more
compatible with a Branchline extension to the south than would be the
freeway site.
For both the Quarry Route and the Isabel Route, the Pleasanton station
would be in the freeway while the Livermore stations would be in the
railroad corridor. Hence, station access would combine aspects of the
Freeway and Railroad Routes. Up to 7,000 parking spaces would be needed
in the four Valley stations for either the Quarry or Isabel Route
alternative.
- 14 -
Ridership Potential
New projections of LPX ridership were developed for all four alternative
alignments to reflect revised Tri-Valley population and employment
projections to year 2005, and to utilize forecasting procedures developed
in MTC's I-680/I-580 Corridors Study.
All four LPX route alternatives serve the entire Livermore-Pleasanton
Valley service area, and total travel times along the LPX do not differ by
more than a couple of minutes. Consequently, ridership is not projected
to vary greatly among alternatives. Highest ridership, on the order of
33,000 daily passengers in year 2005, is projected for the Railroad
Route. The Railroad route would be in closest proximity to projected year
2005 concentrations of population and employment and its travel time would
be only slightly longer than that of the Freeway Route. Lowest ridership,
approximately 30,000 daily passengers, is projected on the Freeway Route,
with much of the difference being attributable to less intra-Valley
ridership for the Freeway Route. The ridership projections for the Quarry
and Isabel Routes fall between these extremes. The difference between the
lowest and highest estimates amounts to only 8 percent.
These new projections are somewhat greater than the year 2000 projections
developed in the 1983 LPX Update Analysis, and reflect the more current
forecasts of regional growth by ABAG as well as improved estimating
procedures. However, they are significantly less than ridership
projections reported in the 1976 Final Report. This could be due to less
out-commuting from the Tri=Valley area (the primary BART ridership market)
and more intra-Valley trips (more oriented toward local transit services)
now being projected, as well as more reliable forecasting procedures that
reflect operating experience of BART. The current ridership projections
for the LPX are, nevertheless, comparable to existing BART ridership on
the Richmond BART line to all points on the BART system. It should also
be noted that the Valley has potential for substantial growth beyond year
2005, particularly near and north of I-580.
Capital Costs
Capital costs for fixed facilities, in 1985 dollars, were estimated for
the four LPX alternatives. The lowest cost alternative is the Freeway
Route utilizing median at-grade design as much as possible, for which a
total construction cost, including contingencies, of $364 Million is
estimated. The longer Isabel Avenue Route alternative would cost an
additional $22 Million, or 6 percent more. Costs for the other two
alternatives fall within these extremes. For comparison, the 1976 Final
Report estimated a total capital cost of $333 Million in 1974 dollars for
fixed facilities for the selected LPX alignment. Adjusting for in ation
in construction costs since then, this is equivalent to about $701 Million
in 1985 dollars. Hence, a significantly lower cost, in adjusted dollars,
may now be possible due to elimination of the costly downtown Pleasanton
segment , shortening of the route, less expensive stations, and other
factors.
- 15 -
It should be noted that these costs represent minimum cost design options
in all cases. To minimize right-of-way taking and/or displacement, higher
costs may be entailed. It should be further noted that the LPX costs do
not include allowances for payments that may have to be negotiated with
Cal Trans for I-580 right-of-way that has been provided for possible
transit uses. Further, for the Quarry Route alternative, potential costs
of relocating the Arroyo Mocho are excluded.
Estimated costs of rolling stock for year 2005 LPX operations would add
$91 Million to the total capital cost of the extension.
Operating Costs and Revenues
Operating costs and revenues for the four LPX route alternatives would not
differ greatly. System-wide annual operating costs for the LPX, in 1985
dollars, are estimated to be $21-24 Million, with the lower figure
associated with the Freeway Route and the higher figure associated with
the Isabel alignment. A farebox recovery ratio (percent of operating cost
recovered by fares) of 44 percent is projected for the Freeway Route and
is the highest among the four alternatives. The Isabel Route alternative
results in the lowest projected farebox recovery ratio, at 40 percent.
Sumary Comparison of LPX Routes
Table S-1 summarizes the key characteristics of the four LPX
alternatives. For each alternative, the minimum cost variation is shown.
Attributes of the LPX route recommended in the 1976 Final Report are also
shown for comparison.
CONSULTANT FINDINGS
The information contained in this supplemental report is intended to help
BART, with input from the affected local communities, select a preferred
alignment and station locations for unadopted portions of the LPX. A
number of conclusions are apparent from the analyses and community inputs
to date that should be considered in the decision-making process. These
are briefly discussed below.
Comparison with Route Alternatives Previously Studied
The basic decision that BART and the affected communities must make
relates to which Valley route alternative is preferable. It is clear that
the decision will involve trade-offs. A summary of some of these
trade-offs is given previously in Table S-1. Essentially, the freeway
route would be cheapest to construct and operate , and would experience
fewer right-of-way/displacement impacts. However, it would not generate
as much ridership in the horizon year (2005) and construction along this
route would have a greater adverse impact upon I-580 traffic and may
conflict with Caltrans' widening plans for I-580. The railroad route best
- 16 -
Table S-I
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF LPX ALTERNATIVES 1
1976 Freeway Railroad Quarry Isobel
I. Route Characteristics Study Route Route Route (R-S) Route Route
a. Length (Ri-le-7- 25.9 24.2 25.2 25.1 25.6
b. Travel Time, Bay Fair N/A 27.0 28.0 27.7 29.3
to E. Livermore (min)
2. Displacement Effects
a. Lxisting Dwelling
Units Displaced 124 20-41 23-50 23-50 30-57
b. Existing Business
Displaced 28 11 21 21 24
3. Ridership
Rider 42,000 30,100 32,600 31,600 31,300
4. Ca ital Costs3
Millions)
a. Fixed
Facilities $700.8 $364.1 $379.1 $368.8 $386.6
b. Cars 117.5 91.1 91.1 91.1 91.1
c. Total 5818.3 5455.2 5470.2 5459.9 5477.7
d. Fixed facility
cost per mile 27.1 14.7 15.0 14.7 15.1
5. 0 eratin Costs
(1985 5 Millions)`
a. System-Wide Increase
in Annual Operating
Cost (Millions) N/A5 $21.4 $23.4 $23.3 $23.7
b. Operating Cost
per rider N/A5 $2.63 $2.63 $2.71 $2.78
6. Farebox Recovery Ratio N/A5 44% 42% 41% 40%
I For comparison purposes, assumes shuttle service on LPX extending from Bay Fair Station
to East Livermore yard.
2 Year 2005 weekday riders, except 1976 Final Report projection which is 1990. Includes
existing BART riders.
3 These represent the minimum cost as opposed to the minimum ROW alternatives.
4 System-wide costs attributable to LPX.
5 N/A Not available.
17
s
serves existing development and projected growth to year 2005,
particularly in the City of Livermore. Beyond year 2005, ridership
differences between the two routes are likely to be smaller as further
growth occurs along and north of I-580. Also, the railroad route
traverses a residential area in Pleasanton, and previous public feedback
has indicated strong opposition to that alignment within Pleasanton.
The quarry area and Kitty Hawk-Isabel Avenue alignments are alternative
routes that would place the Pleasanton station in the freeway corridor
while still utilizing the railroad corridor through downtown Livermore.
Technically feasible alignments are available for both of these new
routes.
In terms of ridership potential , costs and revenues , the quarry area and
Kitty Hawk-Isabel Avenue alternatives do not significantly differ from the
railroad and freeway alternatives previously studied.
Comparison of New LPX Alignoents
Review of the right-of-way, design and geotechnical considerations
affecting the alignment alternatives substantiates the feasibility and
preferability of a quarry alignment over the Kitty Hawk-Isabel Avenue
alternative. This routing avoids location problems that might otherwise
be encountered in attempting to fit BART within the constrained Kitty Hawk
Road-Isabel Avenue corridor.
Of the several alternative and technically feasible alignments described
through the gravel pit area, the most promising appears to be Segment R-S,
which parallels E1 Charro Road and could utilize the existing dry channel
bed of the relocated Arroyo Mocho. The essential prerequisite to this
design is assurance that the Arroyo Mocho channel will in fact be
relocated to skirt around the northerly and easterly shores of the "chain
of lakes." Alternatively, Segment R-S could be located on the east side
of El Charro Road.
LPX Construction Phasing
According to BART policy, it appears that the LPX would be constructed in
two stages. The first stage should extend BART from the Bay Fair station
to stations in Castro Valley, Dublin and Pleasanton with an interim
storage yard in the Dublin-Pleasanton area. The second stage should
extend BART to East Livermore and include the two Livermore stations and
permanent yard. This differs from BART's current policy which calls for
only the Castro Valley and Dublin stations to be constructed within the
first stage.
- 18 -
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This Supplemental Analysis Report reviews conceptual design features of
alternative BART alignments extending from the eastern city limits of
Pleasanton to downtown Livermore. These proposed alignments are alterna-
tives to portions of the routes identified in the BART Livermore-
Pleasanton Extension (LPX) Update Analysis (December 1983) . The report
also documents revised patronage projections for all LPX alternatives
based on newly available ABAG Projections '85 growth forecasts and travel
forecasting procedures from the I-680/I-580 Corridors Model . Finally,
costs and revenues for the new LPX alternatives are reported.
PREVIOUS ALIGNMENT STUDIES
The overall purpose of the 1983 LPX Update Analysis was to reevaluate the
alignment recommended by the 1976 Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study
Final Report to reflect policy decisions, land use, and other changes that
had occurred since 1976. The LPX Update Analysis identified new align-
ments and station locations between the Bay Fair BART station and East
Livermore, and presented the conceptual design features, patronage projec-
tions and cost estimates for these new alternatives. These alignments are
depicted in Figure I-1.
.r _-°.'�y�. :1./. ' .Inq•rat• 4.,� 4 4 a'. r.o..aW
1
� � •._ acw Ae• a. 7 9 �� i •
..� • W E 7\
o
�°I• lam•; , w 4.3 ,
% I = •,
1')an . .. t' 10.1 � � ?h •o i cAlv v 1.f _ I
am
I. `ly0'• O :.'�J ' sn nom, l ° /M/ ^
Pe,
t:s.Aam] 14WUr M° fT 1 IY~ 1
•t ° � .•`�' U.•Yi IIYIIYrM Y-L�� yI
•y .r•✓rr •wI L••Ir 4� C •< ��•0~ t \•° r.l/_ 7. 1 ' - .irilor
• 7 ..rrm .T .{r L .� •O/ C > r.r•I a.....I 1 c 1
-;• —�. �-ADOPTED ROUTE �-- ''i,.. /.�. ,f..lwTl WIMVY>�bPM 3 .1 - '6 ��.+>"11•,��.f --1
EXISTING; —M',- -' 4 FREEWAY ROU
I Va r
BAY �t BART "'�,Casho
la
�AI , ,
4 ' d E 1983 UPDATE ANALYSIS ROUTES r
ISanlareat` ��.f ,�,, °�-� >' • ' DUBLINAORTHWEST II RAILROAD ROUT
CASTRO VALLEY STATION PLEASANTON nertEAST LIVERMORE.
� > }
�..�����•`;,
l..
.� l�'�T r 7.e 111 11111 WEST LIVERMORE
— -,
7w:,.•" ';\ .Hayward .•��1 Y•00.6.11' _ I
• w • \ 1.) •l,• N'- 'r1. 3.6 .7 ` ` r,rt M• nu M,t M• 7I If
-..:_!� ..�r,•�':.• ..., 1 .7 "; .i'd� rw 1.r..�
7.1
.I • r @I 7.5
1.7
�'v. �'�;•,..— - ' � 'b °°°.. �,2f ; PLEASANTON °a, • o�.�>:
2. 611
t• r--- � • .. , I
._�_1__ 1.1 _ -� .� ` 1. .orti-_:.ti-- '•. a � --o�Ta� _ �I�1�� w' ._ ° rMro.: .__.__ _—
ir.--,• Std•" o \ M+a 1 Q I `,1• b`i e�rsl l „ 4+9 I
..r. :ra l41••• e > Z 'i (G 117 n•,.°r Y°.1: °
.. 1 7 ° 'vorro°A •!+ e � "1 �•1 nl•.> 4 •, r –I. �. iy rASU• 7.1
KEY
�. �• �� \s ` "„earl•, v I s 1983 PROPOSED.. . .i
I 7,e 71 2.2-41. %.. � ` STATIONS
r...,3 •7.< 1 d !,i .rc.I..u:1. 1 1976 PROPOSED •
LV
unianary;, I•,.na.1 tia , i °” STATIONS
.3 i n w 71t .., •r1>A ,R(MAlfillf
I :MIII° ° 4.• i li . •11 r � � �III�`•� o• {• ACO •.
�De�;; v ' 3 • PROPOSED YARD
1.3 10
Souroe.BAirr ° �.:' 1976 PROPOSED
ROUTE
DeLEU1M/Dife
PREVIOUSLY STUDIED FIGURE
LATHER assoc,ates LPX ALIGNMENTS AND.STATIONS "1
The two primary route alignments 'identified in the 1983 report were the
I-580 Freeway Route Alignment and the Railroad Corridor Route. The LPX Up-
date Analysis also identified statiu,i alternatives for each of these two
route alternatives. These included a Pleasanton Station, a West Livermore
Station, and an East Livermore Station. Both route alternatives use a
common alignment between the Bay Fair BART station and Dublin. In
addition, a yard site alternative common to both of the route alternatives
was identified in East Livermore.
ADOPTED PORTION OF ALIGNMENT
On March 22, 1984, following extensive public and agency review of the LPX
Update Analysis, the BART Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 3098,
"A Preferred Route Alignment for a Livermore-Pleasanton Extension" (see
Figure I-2) . This resolution adopted a portion of a preferred LPX align-
ment and directed staff to proceed with a supplemental analysis for the
purpose of completing the adoption of a preferred alignment. The
resolution is consistent with adopted resolutions by the Cities of Dublin,
Pleasanton, and Livermore in support of LPX along "the I-580 alignment at
least to the eastern city limits of Pleasanton". and in support of a down-
town Livermore alignment.
- I-3 -
Figure- 1-2
MARCH, 1984 RESOLUTION
BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
In the flatter of Adopting
A Preferred Route Alignment
For a Livermore-Pleasanton Extension / Resolution No. 3098
WHEREAS, in order to continue the orderly planning process necessary
for a possible Livermore-Pleasanton Extension, the Board of Directors
of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District wishes to adopt
a preferred route alignment based upon the BART Livermore-Pleasanton
Study Update Analysis (December 1983) ; and
WHEREAS, realignment of the proposed BART extension from downtown'
Pleasanton to an alignment along I-580 north of the Pleasanton
central business district will significantly reduce capital
expenditures of the *extension and serve existing/planned transit-
related development; and
WHEREAS, on January 23 and 24, 1984, the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton
and Livermore adopted resolutions supportinq the Liverr�;ore-Pleasanton
Extensionalong "the I-580 alignment at least to the eastern limits
of the City of Pleasanton"; and
WHEREAS, the City of Livermore re mmim�ended on January 17, 1934, a
do:•rntor-rn Li vertu-cre alignment and the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton
adopted resolutions on January, 23 and 24, 1984, supporting the City
of Livermore's BART rail alignr;:ent; and
WHEREAS, BART staff will proceed with a suppler,.rental analysis
which will investigate alignments from the eastern city liinits
of Pleasanton to do::nto:•rn Livermore as alternatives to routes
identified in the Update analysis for the purpose of completing
the BART Board adoption of a preferred Livermore-Pleasanton
Extension alignin:ent from Dublin to Livermore;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the BART BoarO of Directors
adopts a preferred alignment for the portion of the BART Liver:.,ore-
Pleasanton Extension from the existing Bayfair Station to a Dublin
Station with the following characteristics :
1. A two station 12.8 mile extension r;ith selected station
- sites at Redwood Roz-,d (C�stro Valley) and the I-Si80/I-G%130
interchange (Dublin) near Stoneridg;: Nall .
2. The general rcute align:^cnt traverses SP,-23° r•iuf.t-of-way
and I-580 right-of-way %•with this portion of the Liverrorc-
Pleasantc:n E>: Ejnsion ter::iinating nei.r the into,-chanoe
of 1-580/!-630.
Adopted March 22, 1984
I-4
The 12.8-mile adopted portion of the preferred LPX alignment extends from
the existing BART Bay Fair Station in San Leandro to near the I-580/I-680
interchange. The general route alignment traverses SR-238 right-of-way
and I=580 right-of-way, with a Castro Valley Station near Redwood Road and
a Dublin Station west of the I-580/I-680 interchange near Stoneridge Mall .
SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS
As directed by the BART Board, the purpose of this Supplemental Analysis
is to investigate alignments from the eastern city limits of Pleasanton to
downtown Livermore as alternatives to routes identified in the 1983 re-
port. The overall objective is to complete BART Board adoption of a pre-
ferred LPX alignment from Dublin to Livermore. This analysis therefore
focuses upon new alignment alternatives within two general corridors
between I-580 and downtown Livermore:
o Quarry Area Corridor: I-580 to the vicinity of the E1 Charro Road
interchange, then southeasterly through the gravel quarry areas east
of Pleasanton to the Southern Pacific/Union Pacific railroad corridor
west of Livermore, and then easterly along the railroad corridor.
o Isabel Avenue Corridor: I-580 to the proposed Isabel Avenue=Kitty
Hawk Road corridor, then southerly to the SP/UP railroad corridor,
and then easterly along the railroad corridor.
- I-5 -
Primary considerations in the evaluation of new alternatives include the
availability of right-of-way and possible geotechnical problems and envi-
ronmental consequences associated with traversing the gravel pit area.
Another key set of issues concerns the status of land use plans and policy
decisions affecting proposed commercial , residential , and industrial devel-
opment projects in the LPX study area since 1983 and their potential
effects on the viability of proposed alignment, station and yard alterna-
tives.
Public and staff input were solicited throughout the extension analyses.
A community meeting was held on August 1, 1985, prior to the initiation of
this study, to obtain input from members of the community on possible
alignment alternatives and related issues for consideration in this
study. Another community meeting will be held upon completion of the
study to solicit input on the study results. Additionally, a Technical
• Advisory Committee comprised of staff representatives from the Cities of
Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, Caltrans and the County of Alameda has
been formed to provide technical guidance and review and to serve as a
focal point for community and agency involvement.
- I-6 -
CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
This Supplemental Analysis Report documents material presented in the
Interim Report (System Conceptual Design) as well as results of the other
study tasks. The report is organized into seven chapters. Following this
Introduction, Chapter II identifies the conceptual design features of the
new alignment alternatives. The third chapter provides an update on sta-
tion and yard site alternatives which may be affected by the new align-
ments or by development plans and policy decisions that have occurred
since 1983. These station and yard site alternatives are considered for
the new alignments as well as for the previous 1-580 Freeway- Route and
Railroad Route. (Chapters II and III are taken from the Interim Report,
modified to incorporate any public and staff review comments and further
analysis subsequent to the Interim Report.) Chapter IV presents the up-
dated BART ridership projections, and describes the methodology utilized.
LPX operations are described in Chapter V, including operating speeds,
passenger capacity, fleet requirements, and vehicle maintenance/storage.
Chapter VI describes revised cost and revenue estimates for constructing
and operating the LPX. Finally, Chapter VII presents comparative informa-
tion on the route and station alternatives to assist BART in selecting a
preferred alternative. Appendices are also included to provide more
detailed information on data sources , geotechnical considerations, and
cost estimation.
- 1-7 -
CHAPTER I
ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
CHAPTER II
ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
OVERVIEW
This chapter presents the conceptual design features of route alignment
alternatives extending from the eastern city limits of Pleasanton to
downtown Livermore. The study area under consideration is generally
bounded by Interstate 580 to the north, the Southern Pacific Radum Branch
and railroad to the west and south, and Kitty Hawk Road to the east.
Within this study area, alternatives are identified within two general
corridors between I-580 and downtown Livermore:
o Quarry Area Corridor: I-580 to the vicinity of the E1 Charro Road
interchange, then southeasterly through the gravel quarry areas east
of Pleasanton to the SP/UP railroad corridor west of Livermore, and
then easterly along the railroad corridor.
o Isabel Avenue Corridor: I-580 to the proposed Isabel Avenue-Kitty
Hawk Road corridor, then southerly to the SP/UP railroad corridor,
and then easterly along the railroad corridor.
In order to appreciate the various factors affecting the viability of the
proposed alignment alternatives, it is necessary to consider the physical
features and development plans for these corridor areas. Therefore, these
features are discussed in some detail in the following paragraphs, prior
to the description of the route alternatives themselves. Key issues in-
clude the availability of right-of-way and potential geotechnical problems
involved in traversing the quarry areas. The rapidly continuing residen-
tial , commercial and office expansion in the San Ramon/Livermore Valley is
depicted in Figure IV-4 and Table IV-3 in Chapter IV.
Because of the intensive residential and commercial subdivision activity
which has taken place, special attention was given to exploring joint use
of or paralleling existing or proposed public and railroad rights-of-way.
These include:
o Existing right-of-way of Arroyo Nbcho skirting the westerly and
southerly boundary of the Jamieson gravel pits, in part paralleling
El Charro Road, and the proposed relocation of Arroyo Mocho skirting
the northerly and easterly shores of the Alameda County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District (ACFC&WCD) groundwater recharge pro-
ject.
- II-2 -
o Right-of-way for the Arroyo bbcho-Las Positas Flood Control Channel ,
between E1 Charro Road and Santa Rita Road.
o The parallel Southern Pacific and Union Pacific (formerly Western
Pacific) rights-of-way from Radum Junction easterly through
Livermore, along Stanley Boulevard, Railroad Avenue, and East First
Street.
QUARRY AREA CORRIDOR
Six potential routes through the quarry area were evaluated. These are
described following a discussion of the physical features and proposed
development in the corridor.
Phycical Features and Proposed Development
Almost half of the corridor area is composed primarily- of areas from which
sand and gravel have been extracted in the past or where aggregate produc-
tion is now underway or planned for the future. Smaller acreages are occu-
pied by existing or planned facilities of the Alameda County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District (ACFC&WCO) and by the Livermore Municipal
Airport, including its approach zones.
- II-3 -
Quarry Operations: The nature of the gravel quarry operations and the con-
dition of the properties following depletion of the mineral aggregates
makes some of the quarry pit area unsuitable for future industrial or
residential development. Certain portions of the quarry area will consist
of earthfill which, during placement, would become compacted creating
structurally sound land capable of supporting urban development. The
current reclamation plans for the gravel pit operations, however, indicate
that operators will leave the quarry area in the "after condition" with
narrow corridors of undisturbed earth or backfill materials which would be
suitable for the support of a BART line.
Substantial portions of the study area are owned by two major sand and
gravel extraction and processing firms: Kaiser Sand and Gravel and the
Jamieson Company. To identify potential BART alignment alternatives
through the quarry area corridor, the operation and reclamation plans of
these firms have been thoroughly reviewed. The results of this review are
summarized below.
o Kaiser Sand and Gravel is the largest operator in the study area and
owns most of the property bounded by the Southern Pacific Radum
Branch line and E1 .Charro Road. Reclamation plans for this. firm indi-
cate that mining operations will cease around the year 2005, when
most of the present reserves are expected to be depleted. It is
assumed that the aggregate processing plant at Radum Junction would
be dismantled at that time.
- II-4 -
Existing mining extends to a depth of 135 feet or more for sections
within the Kaiser property. Although these deep areas are or will be
backfilled, the prevailing ground level in the "after condition" will
be substantially lower than existing ground levels. Some of the
Kaiser property has or will be backfilled with sound overburden.
Other areas, however, have been used for the disposal of fines. These
silty materials, of extremely low bearing capacity, are commonly
referred to as "slickens." It is not geotechnically feasible to
extend a BART alignment through these slickens areas.
The present reclamation plan calls for sections along the northerly
perimeter of the Kaiser property and west of El Charro Road to become
portions of the "chain of lakes," a series of groundwater recharge
basins approved by the ACFC&WCD and described in greater detail
below. A large pond to the south would be devoted to storage of
slickens. Some relatively solid east-west dikes of undisturbed
material or high-quality backfill , however, will remain.
o The Jamieson Company, the second largest operator, controls most of
the property extending from E1 Charro Road to a north-south line
about one-half mile west of Kitty Hawk Road. Ownership is vested in
the name of the Pleasanton Gravel Company. Mining operations of this
firm are tentatively visualized to extend to the year 2020. Over the
next three to four decades, the mining plan details the sequential
excavation of a series of "cells;" as shown in Figure II-1 .
Livermore Airport
JAMIESON RANCH
�^T �
... CITY OF LIVERMORE
9 '.Relocated Arroyo Mocho
p _.
Deb... .nfytafc 1'
� „abate
i La
i
N: IT I a
Future
I ' Isabel Ave-
'" JA ON COMPA I TRIAD I Kitty Hawk Rd.
►�
Ol W V W
CORE
KAISER SAND & GRAVEL
w -, PLEASANTON
V I J J I
i� ` GRAVEL 1
At royof - 1
o
- BLVD• �.
.r U P.R.R. STANLE Y
000• r 10 PLEASANTON
� �1W � FIGURE
CATHER/�l.1 ,.fef GRAVEL PIT MINING PLANS '�-
The northerly group of cells, numbers 1 through 4, identified in
order from west to east, will be excavated and partially backfilled
over the next two decades or less. These cells extend northerly to
property recently acquired by the City of Livermore and along the
southerly boundary of the Livermore-Municipal Airport. The southerly
tier of cells, numbers 5 through 8, identified in order from east to
west, will be excavated over the following two decades. For planning
purposes it appears feasible to coordinate BART extension plans with
the excavation and subsequent backfilling of the northerly cells,
numbers 1 through 4.
Each cell , roughly rectangular in shape , will be divided by an
east-west longitudinal dike constructed of suitable earth materials.
The north-south dikes will be built along the boundary of each cell .
The several east-west and north-south longitudinal dikes will each
have a base or bottom width of 110 to 200 feet, and a top width of 50
feet or more.
Separating the northerly and southerly tiers of cells will be an
east-west internal core dike about one mile long, which will carry
Jamieson Company' s conveyor belt system and internal access roads.
The northerly side of this core could be made available, however, for
a BART alignment, as could the east-west dividing dikes extending
across the midpoint of the four northerly cells.
- II-7 -
The Jamieson Company also owns several parcels, some of which are
partially depleted, south of Stanley Boulevard and extending for
about 3,500 feet west of Isabel Avenue.
Jamieson Ranch. As previously indicated on Figure II-1, a portion of the
Jamieson property north of the quarry area is used as a working ranch. The
ranch is bounded by E1 Charro Road to the west and southwest, the gravel
pits to the south, the Triad parcel to the east, and the R. C. Johnson
parcel and Livermore Airport approach and expansion areas to the north.
The "Chain of Lakes" : The northerly halves of cells number 1, 2, 3 and
all of cell number 4 are planned to be used for a series of water percola-
tion and groundwater recharge basins or reservoirs. This project, spon-
sored by Zone 7, ACFC&WCD, is referred to as the "chain of lakes." The
series of lakes, (Figure II-2 ) will extend in a sidewise "L" shape, with
the base of the "L" paralleling Kitty Hawk Road, and the stem along the
northerly edge of the gravel pit area extending westerly to a line about
half way between the Kaiser haul road and-Santa Rita Road. Ownership of
the land areas within the "chain of lakes" is understood to be subject to
ultimate conveyance to Zone 7, Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District. Because of water quality considerations, inflow
into the "chain of lakes" will be restricted to relatively high quality
waters from Arroyo Del Valle; runoff from Arroyo Mocho,. which serves urban
areas, will be excluded. Inflow into the chain will begin in the Lone Star
- II-8 -
To Trooya.
I- aeo
'To Hayward
r
•
Realigned Arroyo Mocho s
Las Poeltas Blvd.
Jamieson Ranch
�.o� �— ' "" ••,,h Livermore Municipal
C E� •.,�� Airport porl
o Livermore Saws e
/
• Qqe. �••••,
09 000000000000 Treatment Pla
' LIVERMORE
a ; a ., ;
�o`ro/ t"haln Lakes'
a Jamieson
• Gravel
Q �"rr••
r
0 Sand and Gravel
valley Ave. N a
= uPaa
Radum ypTC� i
PLEASANTON gra"ley Blvd, Lone Star i
Gravel °
uPaP •
FIGURE
F ER�JDwz, LOCATION OF PRINCIPAL CORRIDORS i1-2
ER _,,,,,,
Gravel Company pit area, which is located outside of the study area near
Arroyo Del Valle, south of Stanley Boulevard. The waters will then flow
downstream northerly and westerly through the "chain of lakes," to the low-
est lake in the .Kaiser Sand and Gravel area west of El Charro Road. It is
anticipated that the "chain of lakes" will eventually be landscaped, and
that their ultimate development may be similar to that at Shadow Cliffs
Regional Park, which also occupies an abandoned gravel extraction site. A
BART line following the shoreline of the "chain of lakes" would offer
pleasant scenic views to rail passengers.
The Arroyo Mocho Flood Control Channel . In identifying possible BART route
alignment alternatives through the quarry area c ���! i i�r, consideration was
given to the existing alignment and the proposed relocation of the Arroyo
Mocho Flood Control Channel .
The Arroyo Mocho originates in the hills southeast of Livermore, near the
San Joaquin County Line. It flows along the valley floor collecting run-
off from the urbanised portion of south Livermore, and then passes under
Stanley Boulevard and the two railroads adjacent to Murrieta Boulevard.
Continuing westerly, it parallels the two railroads about 500 feet to the
north to its intersection with E1 Charro Road, where it turns north-
westerly, joining the Arroyo Las Positas at a point about one-half mile
south of I-580, near E1 Charro Road. This channel runs diagonally from
- II-10 -
the southeast to the northwest through the gravel quarry area. This reach
would be subjected to maximum discharge of 5,400 cfs for the 100 year
storm following ultimate development of the watershed.
The reach where the Arroyo Mocho parallels E1 Charro Road follows an
elevated, tangent alignment with levees on either side, all supported on a
long, relatively narrow embankment of undisturbed original ground. The
embankment between the Kaiser Sand and Gravel and Jamieson Company Mining
areas is bordered by deep gravel pit excavations on either side.
The cross section of the channel paralleling E1 Charro Road, and between
the Kaiser and Jamieson mining pits does not have sufficient hydraulic
capacity to handle design floods. Widening of the channel is considered
impractical because of the restricted width of the supporting embankment.
Realignment of the Arroyo Mbcho around the "Chain of Lakes". Since the
present flood control channel through the gravel pit area does not have
adequate capacity to carry anticipated flood flows, studies have been con-
ducted to explore relocation of the channel around the easterly and
northerly sides of the "chain of lakes," beginning at a point near the
intersection of Isabel Avenue and Stanley Boulevard. ,
No specific date has been established for the channel relocation. It is
dependent in part on when the proposed West Livermore Annexation and local
Assessment District now under consideration by the City of Livermore is
- II-11 -
approved or when other sources of funds become available. However, reloca-
tion could reasonably be expected within the next 15 years. Once the
channel is relocated, as seems probable, the present stream bed parallel-
ing El Charro Road could be regraded and become available as a trackbed
for BART (see Figure II-3) .
Arroyo Mocho Right-of-Way: Historically, the streambeds of the several
creeks and arroyos in California have been owned by the holders of the
large parcels traversed by these channels.
However, as channels are relocated and/or enlarged, broad fenced rights-
of-way are being conveyed to Zone 7, ACFC&WCD to accommodate the enlarged
channels and for adjacent maintenance roadways. The underlying fee to the
area now occupied by the reach of Arroyo Mocho paralleling E1 Charro Road
is owned by the Jamieson Company and by Kaiser Sand and Gravel . Assuming
the Arroyo is relocated, this right-of-way could be acquired from the
gravel companies fur the BART extension. /
In summary, the relocation of the Arroyo Mocho would create a. ready made
alignment which, with relatively simple regrading, could be converted into
a two-mile long roadbed for BART tracks.
- II-12 -
Future Widening
Alternative BART Location
Elev. Existing Arroyo Mocho El Charro Rd.
-400 Alternative BART 400
Location
:Gravel Truck•^Haul Road- :��: •:�;:-,a
iii-• :T.
0_
•ti
y.
5
..:-. 3
'is f:J
'...iii •:�;.,-.,...
t 7 •'
1 1 . ✓ -�.J 4r 1 :"�'::i:N. 'h i" -r ti ( Y 61 r ti --y • s ,,h, '��''<• -1 t'r v11:,
q', - .L,.Ta 1, {
�.:. J. ..ir ,r y 7t ! V .J,.r .•:�...l rr, J ' t 3 i -.J s..,!�, �Tr:l tJl'j ri .f lj.y_
W ti �'' ♦ Ia .S% ,vl�.:�•�••a 4 t .�:.:'� � ,! "_' � -? ,•„ 4 ..t ..e.,f/S.v:.z„r.;:`° F ::3):��lF�.
•l? a•
5'
Via:'•
n• -
G• -
— •L
'�" 1. iii �:`:::i�:. •.!�'!x.:`:
30 -J.
r
+.
,i
•t :�1
.i
f.
s' :: .• 't:' J•l... - 300
Mg
Y.:
:9
'=h'' _ :.{�:',t�.•i:.a ':fit^�....,:
}.t
1. .,,•:
a.
_ate
ar ice::�: i?i;S?�i:':•,,.-.4::_}:.. i l:�i:`ar":....,
17
v4.
a ser
Gravel Pi - r
:4
J• m
a �• on•
v
- a eIP!
r
S.W. �., . :�,�::::..: . ,•_ ;,,;
� ....... _. . . ...... .. N.E.=�►
300 ft. 200 ft. 100 ft. 0 100 ft. 200'f t.
Approx. Distance from El Charro Rd.
Looking Northwest
EL CHARRO ROAD CROSS - SECTION c�
1
1
W
E1 Charro Road: A substantial portion of El Charro Road follows a
diagonal alignment supported on a long embankment with stepped terraces on
either side. Immediately paralleling E1 Charro Road on the southwest is
the excavated and retained Arroyo Mocho Flood Control Channel , which is
retained by levees.
Although the full existing paved roadway width of El Charro Road will
continue to be required for gravel truck traffic, the lower terrace on the
northeasterly slope is at an elevation and is composed of virgin and back-
filled earth materials suitable for support of a BART alignment.
Las Positas Boulevard: Long-term plans for both the City of Pleasanton
and the City of Livermore had included the extension of Las Positas
Boulevard across the northern limit of the quarry area, with the easterly
extension from Pleasanton meeting the westerly extension from Livermore at
El Charro Road.
This extension is currently expected to be deleted from the Pleasanton
Master Plan. New long-range plans in the City of Pleasanton suggest the
extension of Stoneridge Drive easterly to skirt the northerly edge of the
quarry area, thence intersecting with E1 Charro road. Continuing
easterly, this six-lane thoroughfare would follow the alignment identified
by the City of Livermore as "Las Positas Boulevard." Construction of
Stoneridge Drive leaving Pleasanton remains undetermined.
- II-14 -
Extending easterly of E1 Charro Road between El Charro Road and Murrieta
Boulevard, Las Positas Boulevard will consist of two 46-foot-wide roadways
separated' by an 18-foot-wide median within a 130-foot right-of-way.
Provision for BART at grade along this corridor would require an
additional 40 feet of right-of-way width.
Livermore Municipal Airport: The City of Livermore is embarking on a
b9.million expansion program for the Municipal Airport. The primary
features of this expansion program include plans for a new 2,700 foot
second runway and hangars for about 258 private aircraft. Under a subse-
quent phase, not currently funded, the City of Livermore Municipal Golf
Course will be remodeled to permit a westerly extension of the existing
main runway to a total length of 5,250 feet.
Route Alternatives
A total of six alignment segments have been identified within the general
quarry area corridor (see Figures II-4 and II-5) . The alternatives are
described below, followed by a discussion of relevant design
considerations.
Segment F-R: Beginning from the west to east alignment parallel and on
the northside or in the median of Route I-580, BART would ascend on an
aerial structure, and using the long radius reverse curve, cross over
- II-15 -
x-12 ': , !a i•r
's I •.S �
i3 � � r• s
.ae • .• `
,,,m
•b e 1 j •• v.w�• Curfw. •a t�P 2-S is
r •'w• .411 ac.M.! f r
Q C n.arE i � � i.>t4ie
;�;� _ •ro
2.s�N
5
2 alley • ...::. ! �r� � .,,. • �
�i Y .`• , ob oo.t.sl.f1
re°w.a J
.ecal.m..W. i
1 7 7
lzo
`! Z
7.5 Hayward L i
Oft .5
Am
O �
S
1 � '' armQ• �.\ � 1r !i•,.�• •`�S•~ ~
t 1 4 �\.. � ♦ � •M •rte' I �
° so
Eden ° ° e
ya n » 103 • '. '�
�'`� •� '...� `. Existing Fremont • �.
BART Line
. S wMrRe 2 a no.
7
. � �
Union City
DeLEUW STUDY SEGMENTS FIGURE
CATHER ���les BAYFAIR TO DUBLIN -11 — 4a
II-16A -
I r1'. I .�' I`!'.^: t _�' - 'I L •I .- ,
%L
P0813 LE FUTUAfz;
SANIR MON TRANSLT,
�:• • '1.� CORT41 Op j k
,E i- I�{ C �f Jj• i 1.. Ir! 1, 1f[ /'I,! 1` ll' ' -��/ , - I _
r f� i \ `` `I ' •
\ t�t`1\� ��:�'•T. i.1y'I� � , i„• +: II l,^ ,. I'`•.�, I ! i I � ( � - _ I r -
1 r tiZeki N
AO
(F E WAY ROUTE)_ I• �'' i
STATION\ 1 ' i JA L N C' LIVENMOft� !� -EAST --
1 ,...%� l — ; _ �, r. "'VI O.LAQ_._ ANCH ..• i �! eSTATION . ,°,�.±_.'•$TA N �'� - - - -------r
- . ..: � �. fir° � ; ►. - WEST_. •.I �•., _ `; \I; �-
i
4 Ill i 1 �0 1_? J. N $ •:'�' r. p LEGEND '
•L
-,'• .PIT ' '• G ��� 't .,1,, '._r - a (. ■PROPOSED STATION
p ` i� .� 1 1._ �a ..< TI: •.. - • J� ❑ALTERNATIVE
iS �,.. 1 ,u \ '� _ _ c:: ,, • ..�� ; .�" ` STATION SITE
'•• 1 I '-- .�� •y ',' �L'(:..:a`v r ._+ — __ —ROUTES STUDIED IN r
iA .• ,A .. y . •, i 0 F... 1050 UPDATE
- _ ,J~ Ls.._` �_4 1.1•.`, ! '^.I -.-.SEONENTS STUDIED (I
• •\� _T 'C ' ,C .... ._ o: ^ IN 1006 ANALYSIS ,
T
MILEM/aas STUDY SEGMENTS - DUBLIN TO LIVERMORE FIGURE
CATHEI# Showing Sub-Segments Thru Gravel Pit Area • 11-4b
Revised 8rrp1. 00
Livermore Airport
JAMIESON RANCH
` CITY OF LIVERMORE _
��,�,• may, -- -_ __ --
--
O ��nnn��u�neuamumnmunuunnueanun�on�nSegmen�nR���u��n�mm����nu��n��un���m�. '..-Relocated Arroyo Mocho
9O •
�db
+` 1 Future
l Isabel Ave-
NE Berm Alternative JA ON COMPAI, TRIAD
I I Kitty Hawk Rd.
r `
J
v Arroyo Mocho Alternative w W a Ji .I i
CORE,,
KAISER SAND & GRAVEL
` cwi i J P4kEASANTON
I w 'GFVVEL 1 °'•
segment iwww�
Mocho
o ..
Arro
V,P.R•R• g1 AN
ooSoo, __-, �
.f ?p PLEASAaTOp
'v
FIGURE
CA
THER � $,,,, ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS IN EAST PLEASANTON GRAVEL PIT AREA II-5
I-580 on a skew bridge about 1/4 mile west of the E1 Charro Road
exchange. Proceeding in a southeasterly direction, the elevated structure
would descend to grade through property owned by Alameda County, crossing
the Kaiser haul road in the vicinity of the Jamieson Ranch. The alignment
would traverse the southwesterly corner of the R. C. Johnson property
before reaching the Jamieson Ranch. Note that Segment F-R is shown on
Figure II-4 as an envelope of routes, of which this description
corresponds to a midpoint route.
Segment I-A: This alternative extends along I-580 to a point east of the
E1 Charro Road interchange, cutting diagonally to the southeast westerly
of the Livermore Airport, then along the southerly boundary of the Airport
and on the north shore. of the "chain of lakes." From the northeast corner
of the "chain of lakes," Segment I-A runs southerly along the eastern
shore of the the lakes to the Union Pacific Railroad.
An alternative routing from the northeast corner of the lakes would be
along Segment R-L east to Kitty Hawk Road, then southerly to the Union
Pacific Railroad. This alternative would avoid the sharp curves around
the corner of the lakes but would traverse more property intended for
commercial development.
- II-18 -
Beginning at the Jamieson Ranch, the remaining four alternatives continue
from Segment F-R on diverging routes through the quarry area. They are
described in sequence below from the most northerly to the most southerly.
Segment R-L : From east of E1 Charro Road, this alternative extends from
Jamieson Ranch along the northerly shore of the "chain of lakes" south of
the airport, then turns southeasterly to intersect Kitty Hawk Road,
proceeds southerly to the Union Pacific-Southern Pacific Corridor, and
then turns easterly following the railroad corridor to downtown Livermore.
Segment R-N: Paralleling E1 Charro Road, this alternative extends east
from the Jamieson Ranch along the southerly shore of the "chain of lakes"
supported on the east-west dividing dike of the Jamieson Company northerly
tier of quarry cells, to Kitty Hawk Road and the Union Pacific Railroad.
Segment R-C: This alternative extends from the Jamieson Ranch south-
easterly along El Charro Road to the Jamieson Company east-west dividing
dike "core" between the northerly and southerly quarry cells, then
southerly to the Union Pacific Railroad.
Segment R-S: This alternative extends from the Jamieson Ranch south-
easterly along El Charro Road to the Arroyo Mocho, then easterly parallel
to and on the north side of the Union Pacific (formerly Western Pacific)
mainline to Kitty Hawk Road, north of its intersection with Stanley
Boulevard.
- II-19 -
Segment R-S assumes that the Arroyo Mocho channel will be relocated
northerly to skirt around the northerly and easterly shores of the "chain
of lakes." The alignment parallels El Charro Road and would utilize a
regraded Arroyo Mocho channel bed. The entire length of the route would
be situated on original , undisturbed ground. Although the route parallels
El Charro Road and the heavily used truck haul pavement, there would be no
conflict between truck and BART movements. The profile elevation along
the proposed regraded Arroyo Mocho channel is well above any potential
flood water levels in the "chain of lakes."
A grade separation would carry E1 Charro Road over the BART line and
possibly over the Union Pacific-Southern Pacific tracks. Continuing
easterly on Segment R-S, BART would be built at grade parallel to and on
the north side of Union Pacific, passing underneath the elevated
approaches to the proposed Kitty Hawk Road-Isabel Avenue railroad grade
separation adjacent to Stanley Boulevard and continuing easterly through
downtown Livermore as described for the Railroad Corridor Route in the ,
1983 BART LPX Update Analysis Report.
Design Considerations: It will be noted that Segments R-L, R-N, R-C,
and R-S all utilize portions of the E1 Charro Road-Arroyo Mocho embank-
ment, which is the ridge of undisturbed natural ground which generally
divides the Kaiser and Jamieson mining areas, as previously shown in
Figures II-3 and II-5.
- II-20 -
BART alignment Segments R-N and R-C would be built substantially at top-
of-dike elevation along one of the east-west dike corridors. Segment R-N
would traverse the midpoint of Cells 1, 2, 3, and 4. Segment R-C would tra-
verse along the northerly side of the "core" along the southern boundary
of Cells 1, 2, 3, and 4. Both alignments would be supported entirely on
solid material rather than partially on slickens and partially on solid
backfill . In fact, through coordinating with the Jamieson Company' s
mining plan, Segment R-C could be built on the undisturbed central dike
across the entire width of. the cells. In contrast, Segment R-N would rest
on a dike of backfill . Both alignments could cross the easterly leg of
the "chain of lakes" at grade on dikes with no need for aerial structures.
Some additional design considerations for the quarry segments include:
o As will be discussed in Chapter III , all route alternatives have
adequate room for an interim storage and maintenance track.
o Of all the segments through the quarry area , only Segment R-N could
not be constructed on undisturbed earth.
o No speed restrictions due to alignment curvature would likely be
necessary for any quarry segments except the alternative of R-L that
follows the easterly shore of the lakes.
- II-21 -
o All of the gravel pit segments would be at grade through the quarry
area. * Segments utilizing the embankment of E1 Charro Road could pass
easterly over a depressed haul road.
ISABEL AVENUE CORRIDOR
Physical Features and Proposed Development
Kitty Hawk Road-Isabel Avenue has long been planned as a major north-south
traffic arterial traversing the westerly outskirts of the City of
Livermore. Kitty Hawk Road will occupy a corridor bounded generally by
the Livermore Airport and gravel pits on the west, and by single-family
residential neighborhoods on the east, all of which constitute physical
controls and which rule out consideration of alternative parallel
north-south corridors within close proximity. The Isabel Avenue corridor
has been included in the Master Plans of both the City of Livermore and
Alameda County for many years.
State Highway 84 Plans: Plans for a north-south freeway route through
this corridor were officially adopted by the California State Highway
Commission in the late 1950's. These plans identified a route extending
from Brentwood in Contra Costa County, via Kitty Hawk Road and Isabel
Avenue, to an existing Interstate 680 interchange near
-
11-22 -
Sunol . Preliminary designs were undertaken and the areas of required
right-of-way were identified and portions of right-of-way were acquired.
The designation as a freeway route was rescinded during the 1970's, but
Caltrans has recently reopened the proposal for reconnaissance studies.
Caltrans' planning is in very preliminary stages, however, and the even-
tual use of the corridor is uncertain. A few parcels of right-of-way
still remain available in public ownership for a lesser type of highway
development. These portions of right-of-way primarily extend from Stanley
Boulevard southerly along the easterly boundary of the gravel pits and for
about one half mile northerly of the Arroyo Mocho.
City of Livermore and Alameda County Mast�r Plans: The current Master
Plans of the City of Livermore and Alameda County designate the Isabel
Avenue corridor to be developed as a divided limited access boulevard
rather than as a freeway. The Master Plan of the City of Livermore
specifies the following cross-section for this divided boulevard:
Total width of right-of-way: 130 feet
Width of median between 18 feet
curb faces:
Curb-to-curb width, 46 feet
northbound roadway:
Curb-to-curb width , 46 feet
southbound roadway:
Outer planning strip and 10 feet
sidewalk, each side:
- II-23 -
Short segments of the above-described street improvements have already
been completed opposite the Livermore Sewage Treatment Plant, and other
portions have been built in part extending northerly from Las Positas
Boulevard. Completion of all of the improvements is proposed under the
1985 West Assessment District, which may finance portions of the proposed
realignment of Arroyo Mocho around the north and east sides of the "chain
of lakes," as well as the new boulevard improvements, including the rail-
road grade separation at Stanley Boulevard. The Assessment District is
presently "on hold," however, pending determination of the particular
parcels to be included in the District, the cost of the improvements to be
financed, and other procedural matters relating to the formal establish-
ment and approval of the District.
Route Alternatives
One primary route alignment alternative has been identified within the
Isabel Ave%je corridor (Figure II-6) . This alternative is described
below.
Segment I-G: This alternative would extend east along I-580, turn south
at Kitty Hawk Road, parallel Kitty Hawk Road on the east side to Stanley
Boulevard at Isabel Avenue, and extend east along the northern side of the
Union Pacific Railroad corridor into downtown Livermore.
-
11-24 -
I
g. ALiMAf BLVD.
1
I
CHAIN 00 LARtt I I
• a I
O
rauD Bf.ta.Cole.
o
o
4 si i1 a
1
tN.ew.w w......aee. ttR.D B..neA.1
it
-'1 -ft:9 CNN •••N l __-_
•i - s.o►o.io wu ..9nrtfye�y-- -- - ---_` �-�-n
rytaatfaN.BBL
'BART AI-O.BOe
8 DYlel.F..if
tt011tNt -.Y...t�.N•.IN
1 CM 11—
... .....ffNM1M n...
100 O 100 am �• Y
.� al ....„........... +
WJ�
It
1
EW FIGURE
cn /0"I�.t BART IN KITTY HAWK-ISABEL CORRIDOR, LIVERMORE 0-GD 11-6
A variation of this alignment is a route which parallels Kitty Hawk Road
on the west -rather than east side. This alignment requires substantially
the same design considerations as an alignment along the east side of the
roadway and is therefore not detailed.
Design Considerations. Major physical constraints along the Isabel Avenue
corridor require the following design considerations:
o The alignment should be at-grade or on aerial structure at the
crossing of the Las Positas Flood Control Channel .
o Because of glidepath restrictions at the easterly approach to the
Livermore Municipal Airport, the alignment should be at-grade or
depressed opposite the runways.
o The alignment should be either at-grade or on aerial structure at the
channel crossing of the Arroyo Mocho.
As the Isabel Avenue corridor would be a combined vehicular-BART corridor,
it has been assumed that the BART alignment would cross over to the east
side of Kitty Hawk Road and become parallel to an upgraded, limited-access
or freeway-type facility about one-.fourth mile south of I-580. The
alignment would enter the corridor, in a long, sweeping, and curved aerial
structure from the west and would leave the corridor on another sweeping
- II-26 -
curve to the east about one-fourth mile north of Stanley Boulevard. The
1000-foot radii curves shown previously in Figure II-6 would restrict BART
to 36 MPH in the vicinity of the curves.
A route alignment in the median of Kitty Hawk Road does not appear to be
appropriate since vehicular access must be provided to several commercial
developments, primarily fronting the east side of Kitty Hawk Road.
Additionally, between north of Airway Boulevard and south of Las Positas
Boulevard, the existing right-of-way in public ownership is too narrow to
accommodate both a divided boulevard and a BART alignment.
To provide adequate corridor width for a BART alignment, the City' s
currently proposed 130-foot wide right-of-way north of Las Positas
Boulevard should be widened to about 170 feet. Additional areas would be
required at interchanges where separations would carry local streets over
the BART alignment and over Kitty Hawk Road, in lieu of signalized
intersections at-grade with left-turn pockets. A typical cross-section
showing an integrated expressway-BART alignment is presented in
Figure II-7.
To provide the basic alignment width described above would require the
removal of seven residences and three commercial buildings along the east
side of the street.
- II-27 -
Proposed Isabel Ave./
Kitty Hawk Rd.
West R/w East R/W
130' 40'
BART (AT—GRADE)
N 10' _ 4 6' 9' 9' 46' 10'
_�4 F 00 L
S/W - - - --- 3/W
Fence
Looking North
BART AT-GRADE ALONG THE EAST SIDE
OF PROPOSED ISABEL AVEJKITTY HAWK RD.
so'
c
c�
i
v
To avoid at-grade street crossings of the BART alignment, overpasses would
carry Airway Boulevard and Las Positas Boulevard over BART and over Kitty
Hawk Road. The loop ramp connections to city streets would be located on
the west side of Kitty Hawk Road.
II-29 -
CHAPTER III
STATIONS AND YARD
CHAPTER III
STATIONS AND YARDS
The 1983 LPX Upd'ate Analysis identified station alternatives for two pri-
mary route alternatives: the I-580 Freeway Route and the Railroad Route.
Station site alternatives were identified for a Pleasanton Station, a West
Livermore Station, and an East Livermore Station. A yard site alternative
was also identified which is common to both route alternatives. All of
these alternatives are still considered viable for the new alignments iden-
tified in Chapter II of this report. This chapter provides an update on
land use plans, policy decisions and issues that have occurred since 1983
which may affect the viability of these and alternate proposed station
alternatives and yard site.
WEST LIVERMORE STATION
West Livermore Station at Murrieta Boulevard
This station site, as identified in t-he 1983 LPX Update Analysis for the
Railroad Route, encompasses an area of 13 acres. Ten acres of this site
east of Murrieta Boulevard between Stanley Boulevard and the railroads
have been acquir2d by the City of Livermore and reserved for a future
public transit facility. This site is within walking distance to downtown
and offers reasonably good vehicular access to residential areas in the
southerly and westerly portions of the community. However, the size of
the proposed site may not be adequate to meet the future demand for
parking (up to 1,600 spaces) . Some of the proposed parking would need tD
be located on the opposite side of Murrieta Avenue, requiring a long walk
to the station.
West Livermore Station at Isabel Avenue
The 1983 LPX Update Analysis identified an alternative to the Murrieta
Boulevard site at Isabel Avenue and Stanley Boulevard to the west. This
station site, which encompasses an area of 25 acres and could accommodate
2,500 parking spaces, is located in the northeast quadrant of the proposed
Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard Interchange. Factors which warrant
consideration of this site include:
o Planned development of the Collier Canyon Road-Kitty Hawk Road-Isabel
Avenue corridor as a major north-south transport route with direct
interchange connections with I-580.
o Availability of surplus state-owned right-of-way primarily south of
Stanley Boulevard, originally acquired for the proposed Route 84
Freeway.
III-2 -
o Availability of still undeveloped -private property north of Stanley
Boulevard.
In comparing this site with the Murrieta Boulevard site, however, it
should be noted that it is not within close walking distance to downtown.
West Livermore Station at I-580/Collier Canyon
The Segment I-G alignment alternative identified in Chapter II traverses
to downtown Livermore through the Isabel Avenue Corridor. This alterna-
tive passes the West Livermore Station at I-580/Collier Canyon Road, which
was proposed for the I-580 alignment in the 1983 LPX Update Analysis.
With the I-G alignment, it would be possible to add this station as a
third Livermore station. This station would attract LPX trips from the
residential area of Livermore north of I-580 as well as employment
concentrations in the immediate vicinity of I-580/Isabel . However,
general patronage analysis indicates that only about 500 net additional
LPX trips would be generated as a result of the third station. More
significant impacts of the third station would be to shift ridership from
the East Livermore Station, thereby spreading station loadings out more.
III-3 -
Central Downtown Livermore Station
In the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Livermore Redevelopment
and Urban Design Plan (UDP) , a BART station alternative located within an
11.7 acre block between Railroad Avenue and First Street was considered
for central downtown Livermore. This site, referred to as the "super-
block," had not been analyzed previously by BART. Prior to the City of
Livermore' s adoption of the UDP, however, the status of ownership of this
parcel changed, and the City discontinued its further consideration as a
future BART station.
EAST LIVERMORE STATION
Three potential station sitings in East Livermore were analyzed in the
1983 Update Analysis report: two alternatives at Mines Road, and a third
at Vasco Road. The Vasco Road site was removed from further considera-
tion, based upon factors described in the earlier document. Selection and
design of the Mines Road station depend upon a number of closely-related
planning issues, as follows:
o The opportunity for the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroads
to effect general improvements in railroad operations through the
area by consolidating train movements along one of the two mainline
- II1-4 -
tracks, leaving the other available for possible acquisition and use
by BART. These track rearrangements would provide for an improved
profile and horizontal alignment, and removal of approach embankments
and speed restrictions.
o City of Livermore resolution of the design options for the future
Mines Road grade separation, depending upon which line will remain
after track consolidation.
o The need for new culverts to alleviate existing drainage deficiencies
under the two railroads.
The choice of mainline railroad alignment and the related issues in this
area have been under active study by the two railroads, by developers in
the East Livermore area, by ACFC&WCD, Zone 7 , and by the City of
Livermore. Debate continued throughout the Spring and Summer of 1985, but
no decision had been reached as of mid-September, 1985. The plan to im-
prove main line rail alignment, profile, structural , and drainage condi-
tions in East Livermore essentially calls for retaining the existing
Southern Pacific right-of-way and track for joint use by the two rail-
roads, from a point east of the East First Street overhead to the Arroyo
Seco flood control chann�:l , a distance of about 1-1/2 miles, and for re-
moving the elevated UPRR mainline. A UPRR industrial track serving two or
three shippers, and extending from North Mines Road for about 1-1/2 miles
to the east, would remain.
- III-5 -
If this plan is implemented, the right-of-way of the Union Pacific
Railroad to be abandoned could become available for use by BART.
Either track alignment would provide for an East Livermore Station at
Mines Road, but the station layouts would differ, depending upon whether
the UP or SP right-of-way is available. The alternative layouts are de-
scribed in the 1983 Update Analysis Report, and conditions remain substan-
tially as shown in that document. Part of the area for the northern align-
ment has been subdivided and street improvements have been made, but there
are no new structures.
EAST LIVERMORE STORAGE/MAINTENANCE YARD
1983 LPX Update Analysis Site - West of Vasco Road
The original 1976 LPX Final Report and the- 1983 LPX Update Analysis both 4
identified an easterly terminal yard, located on a triangular-shaped
parcel fronting on the west side of Vasco Road. This site is in the gore
between the Southern Pacific (SP) track on the north and the Union Pacific
(UP) track on the south.
During the summer of 1985, this parcel was partially developed for light
industrial uses under City of Livermore Tract No. 3757. Street pavements ,
- III-6 -
drainage facilities , and utilities have now been installed, and buildings
are nearing completion near the Vasco Road frontage. It is uncertain how
much of the parcel will be developed in the future. BART would need
approximately 28 acres of the total 67+ acre parcel for the storage/
maintenance yard. It would be located at the extreme easterly end of the
ultimate track extension.
Identification of New Alternatives
It is possible that development may occur in the East Livermore area in
the near future, which would greatly increase costs for an East Livermore
storage/maintenance yard on the site identified in the 1983 LPX Update
Analysis. To help identify new alternative sites, the following minimum
space requirements have been established , based upon preliminary analysis:
Storage Capacity 110 cars
Total Length of Operating
and Storage Tracks 27,500 track feet
Length of Storage Tracks 8,600 track feet
Gross Area 28 acres
The following two subsections discuss alternative yard sites.
- III-7 -
Alternative Site - East of Vasco Road: This potential alternative site
lies north of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and east of Vasco Road. A
yard here would be similar to that west of Vasco Road as identified in the
1976 LPX Study and 1983 LPX Update Analysis but would require additional
trackage beyond that for the original yard site. Current plans by the
City of Livermore call for the construction of the Vasco Road overhead
across the UPRR tracks to begin in the spring of 1986. The addition of a
retaining wall along the front of the north abutment of this bridge would
allow a BART line to cross under Vasco Road to reach this yard site.
Alternative Site - Between Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Rights-of-
Way, Extending from East First Street to Arroyo Seco: The Union Pacific
(UP) and Southern Pacific (SP) tracks parallel each other, sharing the
same right-of-way through downtown Livemore and to a point about
1 ,200 feet east of the East First Street overhead. The alignments then
diverge as the UP climbs on its long approach embankment to cross over the
SP track at milepost 49.88. Within the gore between the two railroads, a
5,000-foot long sliver of property is in private ownership. This property
is accessible only from Trevarno Road. It has a maximum width of
250 feet. This property, together with the UP right-of-way which may be
abandoned, could be consolidated and regraded. Assuming the need for
direct rail access by one or two existing but inactive shippers would no
longer exist, an additional paralleling strip of right-of-way occupied by
the UP drill track on the north could also be acquired.
- III-8 -
INTERIM STORAGE/MAINTENANCE YARD
The Livermore-Pleasanton Extension is proposed for construction in two
stages. The first stage extends to the proposed Dublin Station site.
This situation dictates the need for an interim-storage/maintenance yard
in this vicinity. The interim storage/maintenance yard would serve 'the
following functions:
o Turning back trains; storage of trains during off-peak hours and
overnight.
o Maintenance and cleaning of stored trains, to avoid the heavy cost of
deadheading equipment to and from the Hayward Maintenance Yard.
Heavy repairs would continue to be performed at the existing Hayward
repair shop.
o Storage of disabled trains, pending their return to the Hayward,
Richmond, or Concord maintenance shops.
BART operational criteria require that the interim storage/maintenance
yard include not less than 2,500 track feet of storage. This track would
be preferably arranged in a three-track layout so that a malfunctioning
train does not immobilize other trains which might otherwise be stored
III-9 -
behind it. Crossovers would be provided beyond the platform to facilitate
turnback movements. Additionally, the track arrangement should permit two
of the three tracks to be used as the main line track when the second
phase is completed through to Livermore.
If a route through the quarry area is adopted, a possible site for the
interim storage tracks is located along Segment F-R after the alignment
returns to grade and extends along the northerly end of E1 Charro Road
while traversing diagonally through the quarry area. The embankment
supporting E1 Charro Road and the existing Arroyo Mocho has adequate width
for the three-track facility.
However, if Segment I-G along the Kitty Hawk Road-Isabel Avenue corridor
is adopted, a site along I-580 would be necessary. A possible location is
on the north side of the I-580 somewhere within Camp Parks. This location
would also suffice for any of the quarry alternatives.
- III-10 -
CHAPTER IV
RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS
CHAPTER IV
RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS
Projections of ridership on the LPX were updated in this study to reflect
revised Tri-Valley growth projections, newly available transit forecasting
procedures from the I-680/I-580 Corridors Study, and the new alignments
being considered for the LPX. These projections were also prepared for
the previously identified railroad and freeway routes so as to provide a
consistent basis for comparison among all study alternatives. Separate
projections were also prepared to test the effects on LPX ridership of
adding a rail transit line in the San Ramon corridor. Finally, LPX
ridership forecasts were prepared for the adopted Phase I LPX route from
Bay Fair to Dublin.
Year 2005 was used as the planning year for the updated LPX ridership
projections. This corresponds to the horizon year for the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections '85 forecasts of population,
employment and housing for the San Francisco Bay Area. They do not
include shifts in corridor development potentially induced by the BART
extension, nor the potential for further growth of the area beyond the
year 2005 horizon.
IV-1 -
METHODOLOGY
The LPX ridership forecasts were developed utilizing a multi-modal
rapid-response model prepared by DKS Associates for Phase II of the
I-680/I-580 Corridors Study under the direction of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) . This computer-based model forecasts
future person-travel as a function of population and employment growth,
allocates person-travel among transit and non-transit modes based on
transit and highway network characteristics, and assigns the resulting
transit and highway trips to specific transit lines and highway
facilities in each corridor.. The procedures and model parameters are
consistent where possible with those being used in both the I-680/I-580
Corridors Study and in the San Ramon Branchline Study (1) and hence
ensures that results are compatible with those of the other studies.
Model Description
Like most travel forecast models, the I-680/I-580 Corridors Model consists
of four sequential steps: trip generation, trip distribution, mode split
and trip assignment. Figure IV-1 shows the general process involved in
(1) San Ramon Branchline Study, by Daniel , Mann, Johnson, Mendenhall
(ongoing) .
IV-2 -
Figure IV-1
1-680/1-580 Corridors Model
CONCEPTUAL FLOW DIAGRAM
Journey to Work
Commuters Table
FITrip Generation/Distribution Module
e
Daily Home Based Work
Person Trip Table
ro7de Split Module
1--7Drive Alone
Shared Ride
Transit Rider
Daily HBW Trip
Tables
Expansion and Peaking Module
Daily Daily Daily
AM Peak AM Peak AM Peak
External Vehicle Trip Transit Rider
Vehicles Tables Tables
Traffic and Transit Assignment Module
Daily and AM Peak
. Transit Volumes
. Highway Volumes
SOURCE: 1-680/1-580 Corridors Model Users Guide.
DKS Associates, October. 1985 .
-IV-3-
applying the model . This process as well as the various inputs are
described in detail in the User' s Guide (1) for the model . Below is a
brief summary of its four main modules.
Trip Generation/Distribution Module: The trip generation and distribution
steps are combined into one step in the corridors model . The input to
this step is a 1980 or forecast year "commuter matrix" which indicates the
number of commuters living in each zone and working in each other zone in
the region. The 1980 commuter matrix was prepared by MTC from the 1980
U.S. Census Journey-to-Work data, and consists of all workers who commute
to work by autos or on transit. The forecast year ( in this case
year 2005) commuter matrix was pr:;)ared by MTC by expanding the 1980
commuter matrix using a "Fratar" process. The Fratar process utilizes
zonal growth factors derived from ABAG projections of population .and
employment growth by census tract to project future zone-to-zone commuter
movements.
To estimate daily home-based work trips ( all modes) , trip rates developed
by MTC are applied to the commuter matrix. These trip rates vary by zone
of residence (production zone) , and were derived by MTC from the 1981 MTC
(1 ) I-580/I-680 Corridors Model User' s Guide, prepared by DKS Associates
for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October, 1985.
-
IV-4 -
Travel Survey. These home-based work trips are the basis for mode split
anaylsis. In a later step, the home-based work trips are expanded to
incorporate other trip purposes for each mode of travel .
Mode Split Module: The mode split module allocates daily home-based work
trips to drive alone, shared ride and transit modes based on highway and
transit network characteristics and other factors. MTC' s n-logit mode
split model (a component of the MTCFCAST model ) was adapted to the
1-680/1-580 Corridors Model and re-calibrated using 1980 data, as
documented in the User' s Guide for that project. Essentially, the model
allocates person trips to each of the three modes based on the following
types of factors:
o Zone-to-zone peak period highway travel time and trip cost,
including auto operating cost and parking cost
o Zone-to-zone peak period transit travel time ( including walk
and/or drive access times, wait times, in-vehicle time, transfer
time) and transit fare
o Zonal factors such as average household income, autos per
worker, household size, presence of CBD, etc.
Trip Factoring Module: For each mode, this module expands daily home-based
work trips to total , all purpose daily trips and also factors daily trips
to AM peak period trips for subsequent trip assignment steps. The
- IV-5 -
expansion of daily home-based work to total daily transit trips uses a set
of factors derived from observed relationships from the 1981 MTC Travel
Survey and the 1980 Census, stratified to MTC' s 34-Superdistrict level .
In the case of transit trips, expansion factors vary from 1.0 ( for long
trips where virtually all travel is for work purposes) to more than 4.0
( for example where most trips may be for school or other non-work purposes
by largely captive riders) . These factors were assumed to be generally
applicable in the future, although to some extent the provision of
improved corridor transit service could alter the ratio of work to total
transit trip-making.
Similarly, the factoring of daily to AM peak period (two-hour) trips was
accomplished using region-wide peaking factors derived from the 1981 MTC
Travel Survey. Application of these factors yields estimates of direc-
tional trips ( from origin to destination) for work and non-work trips by
mode which are summed to give total peak period trips.
Trip Assignment Module: As a final step, the zone-to-zone transit trips
are assigned to transit lines and vehicle trips are assigned to highway
facilities based on minimum time paths between the zones. For determin-
ation of minimum transit paths, transit networks were coded for each
distinct LPX alternative. The various transit network alternatives are
described in a section below. Each alternative transit network includes
most local bus routes and all corridor transit services in the
-
IV-6 -
study area, as well as major transit connections to other parts of the
region ( including the entire BART system) . Minimum paths determined from
the networks reflect access times, transfer times and in-vehicle times.
The transit networks were also used for determining interzonal travel
times and fares for the mode split module described above.
For the mode split module it was also necessary to determine minimum time
highway paths for the forecast year. In this case a capacity-constrained
assignment was performed for the forecast year AM peak period so as to
adjust peak period highway travel speeds in accord with projected future
traffic volumes. The resulting speeds were then used to determine
zone-to-zone highway travel times for input to the mode split module. The
base case future highway network from the I-680/I-580 Corridors Study was
used for all LPX alternatives , as described in a later section.
Adaptation of the I-680/I-580 Corridors Model for the LPX Study
The I-680/I-580 Corridors Model covers the entire 9-county Bay Area. In
the primary study area depicted in Figure IV-2 ( areas of Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties east of the Oakland/Berkeley Hills) a detailed zone
system and networks are represented in the model . Zones are generally
subdivisions of MTC zones to the census tract level and in some cases
further subdivided, and virtually all transit lines and arterial/highway
routes are included in the networks. In the remainder of the Bay Area,
however, the zones and networks are much less detailed, with zones
generally corresponding to the 34 MTC superdistricts ( see Figure IV-3 ) .
- IV-7 -
Figure IV-2
,��� • PITTSUURG
Corridors Mdel
PRIMARY
SAN
RAFAEL O oNCORO STUDY AREA
RICHMO D BRENTWOOD (For precise
boundary locations
see equivalence table
• in Appendix A and
0� o WALNUT
o� •, CREEK • Standard MTC 550
-• ., " Zone Map)
111 ! •i•
o �i•
••o. OA D � _
w ,
•�� °,1. SOURCE:
I ds°� ••• c° 1-680/1-580 Corridors
sd •+ ►""~ Model Users Guide.
I SAN t , DKS Associates.
October. 1985
FRANCISCO; •
• s.t
o �
Stt U d
�•j LIVERMORE 3 R
I�
r
SAN MATEO •�
FREMONT •i•
•
•
REDWOOD
WI�
(ITY LUIWiw AlwmsA.fll.uuuLV�l�jijULV
Si1n1A 1.1.1.1/:tl.
Figure IV-3
31 "ales"
JtlffeM
se %to" 28
srn Nff
30 top, 110
y.a.wl
.4".1119
29 �... ttftt 26
27 ..Lew.
•Nellt�
Mttt ttll•'•5
32
33 "V oc-
20 21
NCf el N '\J
will valley 19 Not C
34 f• 22
1 eftlow 11110.11t• 23
Z 2 t8 so
co r•+�y.�t#ec '�s 4 3 us......
c11 17 a.a�tt
t1 „t„ 15
4 � 4 3 aee�l
16
6
� a womot CI t,
Ts" to 9 "yet
dy^•" 12
34 Superdistrict "'1'" 11
System 1 Loo Go 13
.1rer
Based on 1980 Census Tracts
and 550 Travel Analysts Zones 14
SOURCE: MTC a1...
Mowmoestfrf Grwrw�Y�rf
IV-9 -
For the LPX update study, it was deemed necessary to further detail the
zone system and highway and transit networks in the East Bay areas west of
the hills so as to more accurately portray BART access opportunities.
Therefore, the I-680/I-580 model was expanded to include an additional 24
East Bay zones. These were defined so as to distinguish between walk and
auto/transit access to each BART station in the East Bay. Additional
transit and highway links and lines were coded within the expanded area.
Zonal highway terminal data and socio-economic data was also modified for
the refined East Bay zones.
To test the revised model , the 1980 calibration of the I-680/I-580 .model
was re-run with the modified data. It was found that the transit mode
split parameters developed for the I-680/1-580 model were adequate for the
revised LPX model , with only network fine-tuning necessary to reasonably
replicate 1980 Census mode split within the Bay Area. Final results
indicate that the revised model underestimates 1980 home-based work
transit trips by about 3 percent overall .
Screenline checks were made of total daily and total AM peak transit trips
(after expansion of the home-based work trips to all purposes) at three
locations, as follows:
- IV-10 -
------Daily-------- -----AM Peak-------
Count Model Ratio Count Model Ratio
Oakland Hills 31,700 32,855 1.04 10,075 8,938 0.89
(BART Concord Line)
Hayward Hills 2,537 1,984 0.78 890 698 0.78
(BART U/L Lines)
Walnut Creek 450 1,487 3.30 157 415 2.64
(BART D Line)
The model appears to adequately predict BART daily and AM peak transit
patronage at the Concord line screenline, an indication that BART LPX
patronage projections should be reasonable. The model does not predict
the express bus patronage as well , however, particularly for the D Line
which is greatly overestimated. This involves a relatively small number of
trips, however, so that no attempt was made to improve the estimation in
this case.
Future Highway Network
The base future highway network is identical to that used in the
I-680/1-580 Corridors Study. It includes all major highway improvements
made between 1980 (the base year) and 1985 plus currently programmed
improvements listed in the 1985 preliminary State Transportation
Improvement Program. In addition, MTC staff identified improvements to
arterials in the primary study area that are likely to be implemented.
Major improvements affecting the LPX corridor include:
- IV-11 -
o Route 238 Interchange -- WB to SB ramp
o Interstate 80, Bay Bridge to Carquinez Bridge -- Add auxiliary
lane and HOV lanes
o Interstate 580, Collier Canyon Rd -- New interchange
o Interstate 580, I-680 to Santa Rita Rd -- Add auxiliary lanes
o Interstate 580, Route 238 to Eden Canyon Rd -- Widen to 8 lanes
o Interstate 580, Route 24 to Bay Bridge -- Add HOV lane
A complete list of assumed highway network improvements is provided in the
Users' Manual for the I-680/I-580 Corridors Study.
Assumed Background Transit Improvements
The assumed background transit improvements are consistent with the
I-680/I-580 Corridors study.. In addition to the LPX, each transit network
alternative includes all transit system improvements called for in the
current five year plans for each transit system as summarized below:
o BART Rail Service -- Peak period headways reduced on all lines
to 9 minutes. Concord line extended to Pittsburg and Antioch.
- IV-12 -
o BART Express Bus Service -- D Express bus service in I-680
corridor changed to freeeway flyer type service. All local
service discontinued on express bus routes.
o CCCTA -- New local service in San Ramon corridor, taking place
of current local D Express line service, and connecting Walnut
Creek Station to Stoneridge Mall .
o LAVTA -- New service in Pleasanton and Dublin areas. Four new
lines assumed at 20 minute peak headways, following currently
proposed routes except for revisions to feed BART stations.
Rideo service retained and incorporated into LAVTA system. New
route along Stanley Boulevard to provide inter-city connection
to Pleasanton.
o AC Transit, Westcat -- No major service changes
o ECCCTA -- Four new lines at 30 minute peak headways
In addition to the above background transit system improvements, four
alternative LPX alignments between Bay Fair and East Livermore were tested
using the model :
o Railroad Alignment, as defined in the 1983 BART LPX Update
Analysis
- IV-13 -
o I-680 Freeway Route Alignment, as defined in the 1983 BART LPX
Update Analysis
o Gravel Pit Alignment (Alternative R-S) , as defined in the
current study.
o Kitty Hawk Alignment, as defined in the current study
Two other alternatives were also tested for patronage effects. The first
considered a truncated line extending from Bay Fair to Dublin only ( as
currently adopted for Stage I construction) . The second added a Light
Rail Transit line in the San Ramon Corridor to the LPX Railroad Corridor
Route alternative.
AREA GROWTH PROJECTIONS
The 2005 commuter matrix on which the new LPX ridership projections are
based reflects ABAG Projections '85 population and employment growth
between 1980 and 2005. This provides a longer range outlook and is likely
to be more consistent with recent growth trends than the Projections '83
forecasts used in the previous (1983) LPX Update Study. For this reason,
new ridership projections have been made in the current study for all LPX
alternatives , including the railroad and freeway alignments previously
- IV-14 -
studied, using this more current population/employment growth forecast.
Below is a summaary of the growth forecasts within the general LPX market
area as well as a comparison to the previous forecasts.
Population Growth
Table IV-1 compares ABAG Projections '83 and Projections '85 population
growth for the area of the LPX, including Castro. Valley and the Tri-Valley
cities. In almost all cases, significantly greater population growth is
projected to year 2005 than had been previously projected to year 2000.
Overall , population in the LPX area is currently expected to grow by
135,000 during the 1980-2005 period, as compared to the Projections '83
forecast of just 76,000 during the 1980-2000 period. The increased growth
forecasts would tend to reinforce the need for transit service
improvements in the LPX corridor over the period.
Employment Growth
As shown in Table IV-2, ABAG projects an increase of 117,000 jobs in the
LPX area between 1980 and 2005, with the largest portion of this in
Pleasanton and slightly smaller amounts in Livermore and the San Ramon
area. Overall , a tripling of employment over 1980 levels is now
forecasted, refl ecting recent trends for accelerated commercial/office
- IV-15 -
Table IV-1
COMPARISON OF ABAG POPULATION PROJECTIONS
TRI-VALLEY CITIES
POPULATION
1980 1985 2000 2005
CASTRO VALLEY PROJS '83 43,474 46,200 56,200 ---
GROWTH --- 2,726 12,726 ---
PROJS '85 43,474 45,500 50,500 52,400
GROWTH --- 2,026 7,026 8,926
DUBLIN PROJS '83 13,496 16,500 20,100 ---
GROWTH --- 3,004 6,604 ---
PROJS '85 15,299 17,600 40,500 46,300
GROWTH --- 2,301 25,201 31,001
PLEASANTON PROJS '83 35,319 39,100 57,400 ---
GROWTH --- 3,781 22,081 ---
PROJS '85 35,319 41,600 62,800 72,700
GROWTH --- 6,281 27,481 37,381
LIVERMORE PROJS '83 49,612 54,700 69,200 ---
GROWTH --- 5,088 19,588 ---
PROJS '85 49,612 53,900 68,200 78,000
GROWTH --- 4,288 18,588 28,388
SAN RAMON/ALAMO/ PROJS '83 33,902 37,800 49,200 ---
BLKHWK GROWTH --- . 3,898 15,298 ---
PRODS '85 30,658 38,700 56,400 59,800
GROWTH --- 8,042 25,742 29,142
TOTAL PROJS '83 175,803 194,300 252,100 ---
GROWTH --- 18,497 76,297 ---
PROJS '85 174,362 197,300 278,400 309,200
GROWTH --- 22,938 104,038 134,838
***************************************************************
Sources: ABAG Projections'85 Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area
to the Year 2005, July 1985.
ABAG Projections'83 Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area
to the Year 2000, June 1983.
- IV-16 -
Table IV-2
COMPARISON OF ABAG EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
TRI-VALLEY CITIES
EMPLOYMENT
1980 1985 2000 2005
irk k
CASTRO VALLEY PROJS '83 8,097 8,400 9,000 ---
GROWTH --- 303 903 ---
PROJS '85 8,246 8,600 9,600 10,100
GROWTH --- 354 1,354 1,854
DUBLIN PROJS '83 8,207 8,600 10,600 ---
GROWTH --- 393 2,393 ---
PROJS '85 8,168 9,500 12,800 16,700
GROWTH --- 1 ,332 4,632 8,532
PLEASANTON PROJS '83 9,224 12,200 37,400 ---
GROWTH --- 2,976 28,176 ---
PROJS '85 9,090 13,900 42,000 51,100
GROWTH --- 4,810 32,910 42,010
LIVERMORE PROJS '83 18,517 20,200 33,900 ---
GROWTH --- 1,683 15,383 ---
PROJS '85 16,726 19,800 38,200 44,900
GROWTH --- 3,074 21,474 28,174
SAN RAMON/ALAMO/ PROJS '83 8,482 11,800 28,400 ---
BLKNWK GROWTH --- 3,318 19,918 ---
PROJS '85 7,950 13,100 38,800 44,100
GROWTH --- 5,150 30,850 36,150
TOTAL PROJS '83 52,527 61,200 119,300 ---
GROWTH --- 8,673 66,773 ---
PROJS '85 50,180 64,900 141,400 166,900
GROWTH --- 14,720 91,220 116,720
***************************************************************
Note: Growth represents change in employment from 1980.
Sources: ABAG Projections'85 Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area
to the Year 2005, July 1985.
ABAG Projections'83 Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area
to the Year 2000, June 1983.
IV-17
development in the area. The extent to which this can be effectively
served by the LPX will depend in large part on the specific sites for
development and their proximity and access to BART stations.
Future Development Patterns
The ABAG Projections '85 population and employment forecasts, stratified
by I-680/I-580 Corridors Model zones, were used to identify year 2005
ridership markets for the LPX. To help judge where within each zone this
growth would occur and how it would be served by the specific LPX
stations, as well as to identify possible right-of-way availability and
impacts, agency contacts and field observations were conducted.
Figure IV-4 and Table IV-3 summarize known development proposals within
the Tri-Valley area and their status as of September, 1985. The pattern
of growth in each Tri-Valley area is summarized below.
Castro Valley -- Most of the low-density residential growth will occur
east of Castro Valley, both north and south of I-580. High-density infill
growth should add an equal number of dwelling units in the area between
Lake Chabot Road and Redwood Road, north of Castro Valley. Commercial
development in Castro Valley is primarily located along or near Castro
Valley Boulevard. Only minor increases in employment are expected by
year 2000.
- IV-18 -
R.nc°0 ml : o,:.V�.•:i�' ; _ v. i ' i i - t % •�..
fee
w .\ .tt'! <<��' Cµr• .L` I I % f \ t I �I ( L j NweRr�r 26 ' ` 12
M.
,
y
4trwrr cool"F
w 32 �. �..✓': I' .I i
Ane•n 14
� t�+� •1.'°I� 30 vr..untmvu■ ]Mr,.'��
so r
♦ I 41 B..r,•.8.*.. ... ,' 4 t °eo,.. Y 16 I .•�o. vro ' '
rlp ^. r.o 24 10 Du 1B ..
ooT•:.. 40 37 -- r 2B f 13 Hayn• is 17 Y.nmon
33 31 39 ;' 34 t
38 .Bu: .i6.,. Ln..r :. c�: •,:,._.dd I. � .w�..K....
r u,w•mu '°I°y .' O vu■ ' ,I �• •��iY. �. �� C •,:.1 I �I
cl t
•v I \ 's.. 1 ' �__,._.�t I I �_1 -' ( I - H
•' I' '� '�lfl �! .6B•,nn• .� -L.s�°-tar- ! II \ A^ '.l1VER4ORE I 28
` 1
' ,.••. � ..�.' _ ___ �: 1 111 1 y }�`
j �' .. I i 3,•y r ®R•.rO.nDai ` •_� ---�___
_ �PLE118.Ni d1
r - .. i � `°o .ry��A' J�7' I 'r r ', �..l r" l �-'? � 1 ;m°u•m•VCowwoN•r _-_-�� I .
✓ 36 LEGEND ... !� �;,:,.•r'' l
FIGURE
CTM �/aad°SOCs.BIBS MAJOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS - VALLEY AREA IV-4
Revised Sept 66
Table IV-3
SUMMARY OF APPROVED AND ANNOUNCED DEVELOPMENTS
Tri-Valley Area Commercial Projects, September, 1985
Gross Sq Ft Employees at
Project (000' s) Buildout Acres Status
DUBLIN
1. Automation Elec 60 231 Announced
2. Automation Elec 40 154 Approved
3. Bedford Prop 187 519 Announced
4. Enea Brothers 287 703 Announced
5. Festival 52 102 Approved
6. Great Western 67 258 Approved
7. Shamrock Ford 4 8 Approved
8. Valley Datsun 30 59 Approved
LIVERMORE
9. Airport Ind Park 1,185 2,008 80 Approved
10. Airway Bus Park 1,184 2,320 Approved
11. Brittania 870 20 Future
12. Crain 180 15 Future
13. Diablo Ventures 654 1,817 Announced
14. Dividend 2,019 3,422 Approved
15. Dublin Properties 741 1 ,255 50 Approved
16. Foley 4,554 7,719 300 Announced
17. Greenville 3,536 3,963 175 Announced
18. HDK 620 1,051 132 Approved
19. Hivest 683 1,158 43 Approved
20. Intel 380 644 24 Approved
21. Kacor 341 577 23 Approved
22. Las Positas 4,417 Denied
23. Livermore Ind Pk 281 492 18 Approved
24. RC Johnson 2,338 5,993 Announced
25. Rinker 216 285 22 Approved
26. Shaheen Ind Park 352 598 25 Approved
27. Southern Pacific 1,485 2,517 155 Approved
28. Terry Rose 415 68 Approved
28A.Triad II 3,635 10,097 393 Approved
- IV-20 -
Table IV-3 (Cont'd)
PLEASANTON
29. Auf der Maur Approved
(Stanley Bus Park)
30. AVAC Hilton 181 171 Approved
31. Clorox 96 267 Approved
32. DoubleTree Inn 89 84 Approved
33. Farmers Insurance Approved
34. Ferreri 80 208 Approved
35. Fromm Ind Park 1,160 2,017 Approved
36. Hacienda Phase I 7,325 23,456 Approved
37. Hacienda Phase II 4,330 16,151 Announced
38. Holiday Inn 133 125 Approved
39. Meyer/Rinker 1,084 2,851 Approved
40. Mozart 988 3,365 Approved
41. Pleasanton Park 778 2,335 Approved
42. Santa Rita Ind 213 431 Approved
43. Valley Bus Park 846 1,827 Approved
Summary of Residential Developments
LIVERMORE
A. Anden Chateau
B. Anden Springtown
C. Citation
D. Damian
E. Ferrell
F. Hivest
G. Homestate Savings & Loan
H. K & B Charlotte
I. K & B Dalton
J. Lounsbury
K. Northwood Portola
L. Northwood Springtown
M. Spruiell J & W
N. Hoffman
- IV-21 -
Dublin -- Most commercial development is located along or near Dublin
Boulevard. Residential development extends to the north on both sides of
I-680. Growth in Dublin is focused on the western and eastern fringes of
the City where large undeveloped parcels are located. The greatest future
potential for development, .both residential and employment, lies along
I-580 to the east of the existing city limits, as the hills to the west
create a natural limit to expansion. The Stoneridge area west of I-680
represents the major employment site near the Dublin station.
Pleasanton -- Employment in Pleasanton will grow very rapidly as the
Hacienda Business Park reaches build-out over the next 10 or 20 years.
Most new residential development near the Pleasanton station will take
place south of the business park.
Livermore -- Residential growth in Livermore is occurring predominantly
south of I-580, at the west end around the airport and at the east end in
the vicinity of Vasco Road. The proposal to build Las Positas, a new town
in Alameda County north of I-580, is no longer under consideration.
Nevertheless, a sizeable population base is projected in the areas of
Livermore north of I-580, including Springtown.
CHANGES IN COMMUTE TRAVEL PATTERNS
Table IV-4 summarizes projected changes in commute travel patterns within
the Livermore/Pleasanton/Dublin area (MTC Superdistrict 15) between 1980
and 2005. Also shown is the previously used 2000 projections derived from
- IV-22 -
Table IV-4
PROJECTED CHANGES IN COMMUTE TRAVEL PATTERNS
Home-Based Work Trips
1980 Census Proj '83 2000 Proj '85 2005
Zone Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Produced at Residences in District 15
-------------------------------------
San Francisco (1-4 2,559 3.6% 2,168 1.8% 4,236 2.4%
(Di st.1-4)
East Bay (16-20) 23,895 33.7% 21,736 17.8% 36,251 20.9%
(Dist.16-20)
Central Contra Cos 5,034 7.1% 12,217 10.0% 19,781 11.4%
(Dist.21-24)
Santa Clara 4,319 6.1% 5,694 4.7% 11,289 6.5%
(Dist.8-14)
Other 1,721 2.4% 1,629 1.3% 3,044 1.8%
(Dist.5-7,25-34)
Total Outcommute 37,528 52.9% 43,444 35.7% 74,601 42.9%
Intra-Area 33,433 47.1% 78,374 64.3% 99,222 57.1%
(Dist.15)
TOTAL TRIPS PRODUC 70,961 100.0% 121 ,818 100.0% 173,823 100.0%
Attracted to Employment Sites in District 15
-------------------------------------------
San Francisco (1-4 287 0.6% 757 0.6% 449 0.3%
(Dist.1-4)
East Bay (16-20) 6,915 13.8% 23,968 17.8% 20,812 13.9%
(Dist.16-20)
Central Contra Cos 7,696 15.4% 25,314 18.8% 24,203 16.1%
(Dist-21-24)
Santa Clara 1 ,002 2.0% 3,450 2.6% 3,406 2.3%
(Dist.8-14)
Other 620 1.2% 3,006 2.2% 2,124 1.4%
(Dist.5-7,25-34)
Total Outcommute 16,520 33.1% 56,495 41.9% 50,994 33.9%
Intra-Area 33,433 66.9% 78,374 58.1% 99,222 66.1%
(Dist.15)
TOTAL TRIPS ATTRAC 49,953 100.0% 134,869 100.0% 150,216 100.0%
Source: MTC Commuter Matrices, factored up to home-based work trips
Note: See Figure IV-3 for district boundaries
IV-23 -
ABAG Projections '83. During the 1980-2005 period dramatic increases are
projected for both the home-based work trip productions (i .e. , trips by
area residents) and home-based work trip attractions (trips by area
employees) . A 2.45 increase is projected for trips produced at residences
in the area, while a 3.0 increase is projected for trips attracted to
employment sites in the area. In 1980, 59 percent of all work trip ends
were trips produced at residences in the area, meaning that the area was a
net exporter of labor. By 2005, this is expected to decline to less than
54 percent. (Interestingly, the Projections'83 forecast indicated that
the area would become a net importer of labor by 2000) . For peak
direction BART LPX corridor trips ( i .e., those produced in the Valley and
attracted to employment sites in the East Bay and San Francisco) , the
growth factor is about 1.5, or only half that of the growth of the area as
a whole. By 2005, out-commute trips to the East Bay and San Francisco
area expected to decline to only 25 percent of all trips, as compared to
over 37 percent in 1980. Large increases are projected in intra-district
trips (trips staying within the Valley) as well as to and from Central
Contra Costa County. In other words, while commute travel in the LPX
corridor is expected to increase significantly over the 25 year planning
period, the more dramatic increases are currently projected for travel in
non-LPX corridors, including shorter intra-Valley trips. This refl ects
recent trends toward developing a local employment base in the Valley, a
trend that is anticipated to continue according to the ABAG forecasts.
- IV-24 -
BART RIDERSHIP FORECASTS
As noted earlier, ridership forecasts were developed for four alternative
LPX alignments between Bay Fair and East Livermore. These include the
railroad and freeway alignments studied in 1983, as well as two new
alignments between east Pleasanton and west Livermore. Patronage for
other alignments between east Pleasanton and west Livermore can be readily
deduced from the four alternatives tested. (A subsequent section
discusses impacts on LPX ridership of truncating the line in Dublin and of
adding a Light Rail Transit system in the San Ramon Corridor.)
In all cases, the LPX ridership projections assume a 9-minute peak
headway, consistent with future headways assumed on other BART lines, and
that the LPX would provide through service beyond Bay Fair, rather than
operating as a shuttle. Based on work done in the 1983 Update Study, a
reduction on the order of 5 percent can be expected if the LPX were to
operate as a shuttle between Bay Fair and East Livermore. The greatest
impact would be on Castro Valley station boardings.
An estimate was made of potential for external commute trips from San
Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties to be attracted to the LPX. Due to the
length of highway travel required to reach the East Livermore station,
only longer distance commuters (e.g. , to Hayward, Oakland or beyond) would
be likely to be attracted to BART. Based on projections by MTC of _
- IV-25 -
external commuting into the Bay Area, it appears that up to about 8,000
such daily home-based work trips would pass through and beyond the LPX
corridor by year 2005. Judging from existing and projected mode split in
other corridors, such as from Pittsburg/Antioch and Solano County to
-Oakland and other East Bay points, it would appear possible for BART to
capture up to about 6 percent (500) of these trips. Accordingly, 500
passenger trips were assigned to the LPX from Livermore to Bay Fair, and
these were added to the LPX trips forecasted by the corridors model .
LPX Line Patronage
Table IV-5 presents projected year 2005 daily ridership on the LPX. Among
the four alternatives shown, daily ridership ( i .e. , total LPX trips)
varies from a low of 30,100 to a high of 32,600, a difference of. slightly
more than 8 percent. This includes all riders boarding or alighting at
any of the five LPX stations, with intra-LPX riders ( those who both board
and alight at LPX stations) being counted only once. Most of the
variation is in intra-LPX trips; LPX trips continuing or originating
beyond Bay Fair do not vary significantly between alternative routes.
This is not unexpected since these are relatively long trips but differ in
travel time by less than two minutes. Intra-LPX trips vary because of the
differing local access opportunities of the stations under the various
alternatives -- the freeway station sites are generally not as accessible
for shorter trips and hence attract fewer intra-LPX trips.
- IV-26 -
Table IV-5
PROJECTED BART LPX RIDERSHIP
Daily Two-Way Riders, Year 2005
Number of LPX Riders*
Quarry
Freeway Railroad (R-S) Isabel
Line Loadings
E.Livermore to W.Livermore 3,446 9,630 9,802 9,744
W. Livermore to Pleasanton 13,191 13,789 13,361 13,057
Pleasanton to Dublin 16,118 16,397 16,345 16,087
Dublin to Castro Valley 20,992 21,050 21,134 20,903
Castro Valley to Bay Fair 25,602 25,600 25,570 25,353
Peak Load Point Volume
----------------------
Castro Valley to Bay Fair 25,602 25,600 25,570 25,353
LPX Passengers
---------------
Trips to/from LPX 25,602 25,600 25,570 25,353
Intra-LPX Trips 4,455 6,971 6,039 5,953
Total LPX Trips 30,057 32,571 31,609 31 ,306
Net Additional Ridership
-----------------------
Total LPX Trips 30,057 32,571 31,609 31 ,306
Corridor Trips Without LPX** 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700
Net New Trips Due to LPX 27,357 29,871 28,909 28,606
* Assumes LPX operates through-service past Bay Fair Station
** From 1983 BART LPX Update Study
IV-27
The peak load point on the LPX is between the Bay Fair and Castro Valley
stations, at which point almost 26,000 passengers would be carried over
the day. Volumes through the Dublin Canyon would be on the order of
21,000 daily riders. This is up to 10 percent lower than Dublin Canyon
volumes projected in the 1983 BART LPX Update Study. However, overall LPX
ridership is projected to be about 10 percent higher than previously
reported. This is largely attributable to a greater number of intra-LPX
trips in the newer projections. These differences reflect the use of a
refined forecasting process in the current study as well as the use of
revised population/employment forecasts.
LPX Station Patronage
Table IV-6 summarizes projected AM peak and total daily station activity
at each BART LPX station in the horizon year. Altogether, some 35,000 to
40,000 passengers are projected to board or alight at LPX stations over
the day, representing up to 15 percent variation among alternatives.
Slightly more than 25 percent of the total daily activity is projected to
occur during the AM peak two-hour period.
Activity at each station varies depending on the alternative, in some
cases quite dramatically. This is a result of discreet assumptions in the
modeling process about station access opportunities and localized
development. For example, in the freeway alternative , riders from areas
north of I-580 in Livermore were assigned to the freeway BART station near
- IV-28 -
Table IV-6
PROJECTED BART LPX STATION ACTIVITY
'AM Peak Two Hour Period and Total Daily Passengers, Year 2005
Quarry
Station Freeway Railroad (R-S) Isabel
Castro Valley
AM peak ons 1,398 1,417 1,460 1,457
AM peak offs 269 268 274 274
AM peak total 1,667 1,685 1,734 1,731
Total Daily Ons/Offs 6,602 6,662 6,776 6,762
Dublin
AM peak ons 1,768 1,845 1,807 1,801
AM peak offs 633 618 648 645
AM peak total 2,401 2,463 2,455 2,446
Total Daily Ons/Offs 8,008 8,227 8,177 8,150
Pleasanton
AM peak: ons 1,167 1,264 1,188 1,186
AM peak offs 682 1,156 795 785
AM peak total 1 ,849 2,420 1,983 1,971
Total Daily Ons/Offs 6,489 8,530 6,962 6,918
West Livermore
AM peak ons 2,422 1,179 1,021 985
AM peak offs 221 578 594 584
AM peak total 2,643 1,757 1,615 1,569
Total Daily Ons/Offs 9,967 6,493 5,931 5,685
East Livermore
--------------
AM peak ons 573 2,227 2,272 2,314
AM peak offs 430 396 390 383
AM peak total 1,004 2,622 2,662 2,696
Total Daily Ons/Offs 3,446 9,630 9,802 9,744
Total All Stations
------------------
AM peak ons 7 ,328 7,932 7,748 7,743
AM peak offs 2,235 3,016 2,701 2,671
AM peak total 9,564 10,947 10,449 10,413
Total Daily Ons/Offs 34,512 39,542 37,648 37,259
* Assumes LPX operates through-service past Bay Fair Station
IV-29 -
Kitty Hawk, whereas with the railroad alignment alternatives , these
patrons were assigned to the East Livermore station. This is further
complicated by lack of certainty as to specific locations and intensities
of development in the long-range future, which could impact activity at
specific station sites. Hence while the overall station activity is a
reasonable estimate for the projection year, individual station activity
should be viewed with some caution.
For the freeway route alternative, the highest station activity is
projected at the West Livermore Station, with close 10,000 daily ons and
offs. In the case of the railroad alternative ( including the new
alternatives analysed in the current study, the East Livermore station has
highest activity among all LPX stations. This reflects a sizable
population base in the ABAG Projections for the area of Livermore north of
I-580, including Springtown, with a relatively high propensity to use
BART. Dublin and Pleasanton Station activity levels are projected to be
next highest, with Castro Valley having the lowest patronage.
Station Access
Access mode split estimates for the LPX stations were taken from the 1983
LPX Update Study. They are based on existing access mode splits at
similar suburban BART stations .
- IV-30 -
The LPX stations should have a slightly higher proportion of auto access
trips than most existing stations, at least in the year 2000. This
assumes that the stations are designed with sufficient parking to
accommodate the demand for park-and-ride access. Table IV-7 displays
projected access mode percentages for the LPX stations.
Table IV-7
ACCESS MODE SPLIT PERCENTAGES
Park4
Station Ride Drop-Off Transit Walk/Bicycle
Castro Valley 58 12 18 12
Dublin 60 12 16 12
Pleasanton 70 11 11 8
West Livermore (Freeway) 70 11 11 8
West Livermore (Railroad) 64 8 16 12
East Livermore 70 14 6 10
Including drivers and passengers.
Projected parking needs at each station are premised on these auto
percentages and assume an average auto occupancy of 1.2 persons per auto
and average parking space turnover rate of 1.2 vehicles per space.
Projected parking needs for each of the LPX stations are summarized in
Table IV-8 and range up to 2,400 spaces.
- IV-31 -
Table IV-8
PROJECTED STATION PARKING NEEDS, YEAR 2005
Daily
Passengers Number of
(Maximum) Parking Spaces
Dublin 8,200 1,700
Pleasanton 8,500 2,100
West Livermore (Freeway) 10,000 2,400
West Livermore (Railroad) 6,500 1,600
East Livermore (Freeway) 3,500 800
East Livermore (Railroad) 9,800 2,400
Note: Parking needs are approximately only, and may vary greatly due
to parking supply at adjacent station( s) and other factors.
Does not include kiss-ride parking.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF SAN RAMON CORRIDOR TRANSIT ON BART LPX RIDERSHIP
Contra Costa County is currently studying a number of potential transit
options in the SP corridor through San Ramon. Among these are busway,
Light Rail Transit (LRT) and BART lines between Pleasanton and Walnut
Creek. To test the potential effects of developing a high quality transit
service in this corridor, the LPX railroad route alternative was modelled
with an LRT system added to the transit network.
IV-32 -
Table IV=9 presents the resulting year 2005 LPX transit ridership
projections, and compares them to the same LPX alternative without the San
Ramon Corridor service. (Note, however, that for the latter alternative
BART Express bus service is assumed to operate in that general corridor,
providing a limited stop freeway flyer type service and supplemented by
local CCCTA bus routes. As indicated on the table, very small differences
are projected due to the San Ramon corridor service. About a 2 percent
reduction in total LPX trips and a 4 percent drop in total LPX station
boarding/alighting are projected. These small differences would appear to
indicate that the two systems operate largely `independently of each other
and that benefits associated with each system feeding the other ar- .�
by some potential overlap of service for more localizes trips.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF DUBLIN TERMINUS ON LPX RIDERSHIP
BART' s current adopted extension policy calls for construction of the LPX
in two phases. The first phase would extend BART from Bay Fair past
Castro Valley to the proposed Dublin Station. The Dublin Station would
serve as a terminus station until such time that the second phase were
constructed to East Livermore. The 1983 BART LPX Update Analysis
concurred with the two-phase construction approach, but raised the issue
of whether the Dublin Station would be appropriate as a terminus station
given the limited land available for the station site and the rather
- IV-33 -
Table IV-9
SAN RAMON CORRIDOR TRANSIT IMPACTS ON LPX RIDERSHIP
Year 2005 Daily LPX Riders
LPX Railroad Route Alternative
No LRT in With LRT in
San Ramon San Ramon
Corridor Corridor
Daily Station Ons and Offs
---------------------------
Castro Valley 6,662 7,049
Dublin 8,227 7,031
Pleasanton 8,530 8,812
West Livermore 6,493 6,001
East Livermore 9,630 9,230
Total All Stations 39,542 38,123
Line Loadings
E.Livermore to W.Livermore 9,630 9,230
W. Livermore to Pleasanton 13,789 12,997
Pleasanton to Dublin 16,397 16,823
Dublin to Castro Valley 21,050 21,492
Castro Valley to Bay Fair 25,600 25,637
Peak Load Point Volume
----------------------
Castro Valley to Bay Fair 25,600 25,637
LPX Passengers
---------------
Trips to/from LPX 25,600 25,637
Intra-LPX Trips 6,971 6,243
Total LPX Trips 32,571 31,880
* Assumes LPX operates through-service past Bay Fair Station
- iv-34
difficult traffic access . To help provide further insight into this
issue, a model run was made with the truncated LPX using the same year
2005 base as was used for the various full LPX alternatives.
For study purposes the truncated LPX alternative replaced the rail service
east of the Dublin Station with freeway flyer type Express Bus service
beween Dublin and Livermore. It was also assumed that zones previously
given auto access to the Pleasanton and Livermore stations would instead
use the Dublin Station for access to BART.
Table IV-10 presents results of this analysis, including a comparison to
ridership levels with the full LPX in place. The railroad route was
chosen for comparison, although the comparison could be made with any of
the other full LPX alternatives. One significant finding of the analysis
is that the truncation at Dublin would reduce total LPX trips by 'almost 30
percent and total station activity by almost 40 percent. Another key
consideration is that the Dublin Station would have a potential demand for
on the order of 18,100 daily passengers, assuming station capacaity were
available. This represents over a doubling over the Dublin Station
activity levels with the LPX extended further east. More critically, AM
peak period boardings are projected to increase by almost 2.5 (from 1 ,850
boardings to 4,500 boardings) for the truncated line.
- IV-35 -
Table IV-10
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON LPX RIDERSHIP OF DUBLIN TERMINUS
Year 2005 Daily Riders*
Full LPX Truncated
(Railroad LPX to
Route Alt.) Dublin
Daily Station Ons/Offs
----------------------
Castro Valley:
AM peak ons 1,417 1,325
AM peak offs 268 247
AM peak total 1,685 1,572
Total Daily 6,662 6,324
Dublin:
AM peak ons 1,845 4,513
AM peak offs 618 599
AM peak total 2,463 5,112
Total Daily 8,227 18,090
Total All LPX Stations:
AM peak ons 7,932 5,838
AM peak offs 3,016 846
AM peak total 10,947 6,684
Total Daily 39,542 24,414
Peak Load Point Volume
----------------------
Castro Valley to Bay Fair 25,600 22,978
LPX Passengers
---------------
Trips to/from LPX 25,600 22,978
Intra-LPX Trips 6,971 718
Total LPX Trips 32,571 23,696
* Assumes LPX operates through-service past Bay Fair Station
Note: AM peak is two-hour period; daily is total of ons and offs
IV-36 -
CHAPTER V
LPX OPERATIONS
CHAPTER V
LPX OPERATIONS
This chapter evaluates LPX operational characteristics and requirements.
The first section presents travel times for BART trips on the LPX. Ser-
vice levels and capacity requirements are analyzed based on the patronage
projections from Chapter IV. The service requirements in turn determine
the requirements for BART vehicles and storage and maintenance facili-
ties.
BART TRAVEL TIMES
The total travel time for a trip on BART is made up of several compo-
nents:
o Access time (walk, ride transit or drive to station, including
parking and walking to platform) .
o Wait time.
o Vehicle travel time.
o Transfer time, if necessary.
- V-1 -
o Egress time, from BART to final destination.
The vehicle travel time is usually the largest component of total travel
time. Vehicle travel times on the LPX were calculated for each alignment
alternative. Four components of vehicle travel were considered:
o Acceleration
o Cruise between stations
o Braking
o Dwell time at stations
Acceleration and braking rates are based on known performance characteris-
tics of BART vehicles. Maximum cruise speeds were assumed to range from
70 miles per hour on level track to 55 miles per hour on the maximum
(3 percent) uphill grade. Typical dwell time at a station is
30 seconds.
The analysis showed very little time variation between alignment alterna-
tives. The times to traverse the entire LPX track from Bayfair to East
Livermore ranged from 27.0 minutes for the freeway alignment to 29.3 min-
utes for the Isabel Avenue alternative. The longer travel time for the
latter route includes effects of a speed reduction to 36 MPH on the two
1,000 foot radius curves traversed. For the R-S alignment, LPX travel
time is estimated at 27.7 minutes . These travel times result in an
average speed of approximately 48 miles per hour.
- V-2 -
Average BART travel times from each of the LPX stations to Embarcadero
Station in downtown San Francisco are shown in Table V-1. The difference
between through service times and transfer service ( shuttle) times
assumes a projected peak-period headway of 9.0 minutes on the Fremont-
Daly City line.
Table V-1
BART IN-VEHICLE TRAVEL TIMES (Minutes)
To Embarcadero Station
Through Servicel Transfer Service2
From R - S Isabel R - S.
East Livermore 58.7 60.3 63.7 65.3
West Livermore 55.2 56.8 60.2 61.8
Pleasanton 47.0 47.0 52.0 52.0
Dublin 44.0 44.0 49.0 49.0
Castro Valley 35.0 35.0 40.0 40.0
1 Livermore to San Francisco/Daly City.
2 LPX shuttle service to Bay Fair, or LPX through-service to Richmond
or Concord all of which would require one transfer to reach
Embarcadero station.
Morning peak-period door-to-door travel times from Pleasanton to San
Francisco and Hayward by BART and highway travel were calculated
(Table V-2 ) . The BART times include access time, wait time, vehicle time,
- V-3 -
Tabl a V-2
DOOR-TO-DOOR TRAVEL TIMES
AM Peak Period
BART BART .
Through Service Transfer Service Highway
Pleasanton to San Francisco
(Financial District) 68 73 70
Pleasanton to Hayward 44 44 38
Walnut Creek to San Francisco
(Financial District) 63 - 53
and egress time. The highway times include vehicle time and egress time
(park-and-walk) and assume that current maximum congestion conditions on
freeways will extend through most of the peak period by year 2000.
Current (1983) Walnut Creek to San Francisco travel times by BART and
highway are included for comparison. These travel times are the same for
all LPX alignment alternatives .
PASSENGER CAPACITY
The fleet requirements for the LPX are determined by the peak passenger
load at the maximum load point. This maximum load point occurs between
Castro Valley and Bay Fair, where a peak direction ridership 5,900 to
6,000 persons during the two-hour peak period is projected.
- V-4 -
BART "A" and "B" cars have 72 seats per car, while the new "C" cars will
have 68 seats per car. The design load factors ( ratio of passengers to
seats) are 1.0 during the peak two-hours, and for off-peak (mid-day and
evening) service. Based on the BART car 72 seat capacity, 60 BART cars
would be required during the peak two-hours in the peak direction. During
the weekday off-peak and on weekends, 20 cars would be needed.
Shuttle Service
If the LPX were operated as a shuttle service with 9 minute peak-period
headways, 10 trains with 6 cars each ( for a total of 60 cars) would pro-
vide sufficient capacity. Cars are assumed to have 72 seats and the load
factor is assumed to be 1.0 for both two-hour peak periods, though at the
peak of the peak, the load factor will be higher. The 20-minute service
provided on weekdays off-peak and on weekends would require five trains
with four cars each.
Timed transfer service could be provided by scheduling the LPX shuttle
trains at the same frequency as the Fremont line trains. This would allow
for immediate across-the-platform transfers to occur at the Bay Fair
Station .
- V-5 -
SERVICE LEVELS
Trains on the Fremont-Daly City and Fremont-Richmond lines currently oper-
ate every 15 minutes during the day and every 20 minutes on the Fremont-
Richmond line during evenings and weekends (Fremont-Daly City line does
not operate during evening and weekend periods) . Eventual completion of
all programmed improvements including the Daly City turnback could allow
2.5 minute spacings on Transbay lines , corresponding to 7.5 to 10 minute
peak-hour headways on the Fremont-Daly City line. For this analysis ,
9 minute headways are assumed for year 2000 peak-period operation on each
of the Fremont lines. Mid-day headways of 20 minutes are assumed.
Peak-hour ridership on the LPX is likely to increase past the year 2005.
The projected year 2005 peak two-hour peak-direction ridership is 5,900 to
6,000, depending on the alignment alternative and assuming 9 minute
headways. If a maximum peak-hour load factor of 1.4 is assumed, the
peak-period capacity would be 8,300. Considering the potential for
significant build-out in the Livermore-Pleasanton area, it is likely that
this capacity would eventually be filled and frequency would have to be
increased.
The LPX shuttle trains would add passengers to the Fremont trains . About
3,100 to 4,100 passengers from the LPX, which represents about 50 percent
to 70 percent of the LPX passengers, 'would be expected to transfer to the
- V-6 -
Fremont-Daly City line during the morning peak hour. Additional vehicles
or trains may be needed on the Fremont line to accommodate the increased
loadings. -The amount of additional service required would depend on the
projected capacities and passenger loadings on the Fremont-Daly City and
Fremont-Richmond lines.
Through Service
Two options are considered for through service. One would add Livermore-
to-Daly City or Livermore-to-Richmond" service to the existing services.
Frequencies would be constrained by the Transbay Tube and the Daly City
turnback ( for Daly City service) , the Oakland Wye and conflicts with the
existing Fremont Line between Bay Fair and Lake Merritt.
The other option for providing through service would reroute either Daly
City-Fremont or Richmond-Fremont trains to Livermore instead of Fremont.
Headways would remain the same as on the Fremont routing (assumed to be
9 minutes during peak periods) . Livermore-to-Daly City through service
would require some passengers from the Fremont line to transfer at Bay
Fair to reach San Francisco. Similarly, Livermore-to-Richmond through
service would require some Fremont line passengers to transfer at Bay Fair
to reach Richmond. To accommodate these transfers, the peak-hour
Livermore trains may have to be longer and more frequent than necessary to
serve LPX passengers alone.
- V-7 -
Non-Peak Service
BART patronage during non-peak hours would be much lower than peak-hour
ridership (about one-third) . Four- or five-car trains every 20 minutes
could probably- accommodate the LPX non-peak ridership, based on current
non-peak station activity on the Concord line. The actual headway would
be determined by policy and requirements on other BART segments if the LPX
were operated as a through service.
FLEET REQUIREMENTS
The number of BART vehicles required to provide LPX service is determined
by operation strategy, round-trip travel times, and peak-period train
length requirements.
Shuttle service would require 69 new BART cars. Ten trains of six cars
each would be assigned to the line to provide trains every nine minutes in
the peak direction during peak periods. The 69 car requirement includes
15 percent additional cars (9) for spares. It does not include any addi-
tional trains or cars that may have to be added to Fremont service to
accommodate. transfers from the Livermore line at Bay Fair.
- V-8 -
Through-service fleet requirements would vary according to the operations
strategy chosen. Train lengths would depend on the extent of overlap
between Livermore passengers and projected Fremont line passengers at peak
load points. Service frequencies would be controlled at critical points
such as the Daly City turnback and the Oakland Wye. A detailed analysis
of system capacities and loadings is beyond the scope of this LPX study.
An order-of-magnitude estimate of LPX through-service improvements may be
made by assuming a Livermore-Richmond service is added to the current
services. Fourteen trains would be assigned to the Livermore-Richmond
line. Total vehicle requirements would be 110 cars, including 15 percent
for spares.
- V-9 -
This page intentionally left blank
- V-10 -
CHAPTER VI
COST/ REVENUE
ANALYSIS
CHAPTER VI
COSWREVENUE ANALYSIS
Preliminary estimates of capital and operating costs and revenues of the
1985 LPX alternatives were prepared for evaluation purposes.
CAPITAL COSTS - FIXED FACILITIES
Capital costs of constructing fixed facilites for the LPX vary signifi-
cantly depending on both the alignment followed and the design types
utilized (e.g . , at-grade vs. aerial ) .
Estimation of construction costs by" segment was accomplished by applying
unit costs (1985 dollars) for each type of construction or facility to the
quantity involved in the segment. Right-of-way costs are arbitrary allow-
ances, and include both purchase and relocation costs. Appropriate con-
tingency allowances were applied to the resulting base construction costs
to allow for contractor and agency costs.
- VI-1 -
Unit Costs of Construction
Unit costs of construction used in the 1983 BART LPX Update Analysis are
given in the Apppendix. These unit costs were updated from the unit costs
used in the 1983 Update Analysis via the construction price index from the
Engineering News Record and information from BART on electrification
costs. Unit costs were developed for the following construction
elements.
o Trackwork
o Structures and civil work ( including earth work, BART struc-
tures , other structures, ci..I i F i c ati oils , retaining walls,
and street and railroad relocation) .
o Utilities relocation
o Track electrification
o Train Control
o Communications
o Stations
- VI-2 -
o Parking facilities
o Fencing , landscaping, detours, etc.
Right-of-Way Costs
Right-of-way costs were estimated assuming land values of about $200,000/
acre ($4.59 per square foot) for land outside existing freeway rights-of-
way. No cost was assigned to land within freeway rights-of-way. It is
recognized, however, that this would be subject to negotiation with
Caltrans since a market value is difficult to place on such land. Where
I-580 right-of-way was known to be unavailable or restricted because of
future freeway widening plans , allowance was made for purchase of adjacent
land for replacement of right-of-way that might be utilized for BART. The
median/aerial design does not appear, however, to require any right-of-way
that would be needed for Caltrans freeway expansion.
Construction Costs by Segment
Table VI-1 summarizes the estimated total and per mile construction costs
for each alternative studied in the 1985 update. Because the 1985 alter-
natives are limited to the general area between east Pleasanton and west
Livermore, the beginning and ending portions of 1983 segments "I" and
"G-North" , respectively, are included in the cost summary of the current
VI-3 -
Table VI-1
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES BY 1985 SEGMENT
Fixed Facilities Only
1985 COSTS ($ MILLIONS)*
Cost
Length Base Right- Contin- per
Segment (Miles) Constr. of-Way gency** Total Mile
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R - S Median/At-Grade 10.85 $120.6 $18. 1 $38.9 $ 177.6 $16.4
R - S Median/Aerial 10.85 147.0 17.4 47.5 211 .9 19.5
R - C Median/At-Grade, 10.64 122.3 20.6 39.4 182.3 17. 1
R - C Median/Aerial 10.64 148.5 19.9 47.9 216.3 20.3
I - A Median/At-Grade 11.21 121.3 18.2 39.1 178..6 159
I - A Median/Aerial 11.21 156.3 17.2 50.4 223.9 20.0
I - G Median/At-Grade 11.53 129.1 24.3 41 .7 195.4 16.9
I - G Median/Aerial 11.53 186.2 22.8 60.0 269.5 23.4
* Includes all fixed facilities including stations and right-of-way.
Does not include rolling stock. 1985 segments include portions of
1983 segment " I" and "G-North" to create 1985 segments beginning at
the beginning of " I" and ending at the end of "G-North" .
** Includes design contingency of 15 percent of base construction cost
plus 15 percent agency contingency fee on total construction cost
(base plus design contingency) .
See Appendix for details.
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
- VI-4 -
alternatives . This is done to ensure compara5ility of costs for LPX
route alternatives between Bay Fair and east Livermore. Otherwise the
1985 routes would have no common beginning and ending points.
To limit the total number of alternatives, the adjacent/at-grade version
of "I" and the "G-South" version of "G" were not included in combinations
with the new alternatives. There is little difference between the cost of
the adjacent and median at-grade versions of "I" . Because of railroad
track abandonment , "G-North" is somewhat cheaper to construct than
"G-South".
The lowest cost alternatives utilize the median at-grade option rather
than the median aerial option . Per mile costs for the connection with
BART at-,grade in the I-580 median are estimated to be around $17 million
per mile compared with $20 to $24 million per mile for aerial option.
Route segments traversing the gravel pit area (RS or RC) or passing
adjacent to it (I -A) are less expensive than the route segments (I-G)
following Kitty Hawk Road from I-580 to the railroad, partly because of
more expensive relocation and structural costs along Kitty Hawk and
partly because the gravel pits present a more direct route to downtown
Livermore. The cost of Segment R-S does not include the cost of
relocating the Arroyo Mocho, estimated by others to be $6.4 Million more
than the funds available from Zone 7 of the ACFC&WCD.
VI-5 -
Table VI-2 presents total and per mile construction costs ( in 1985
+.)Ilars) for the route segments studied in 1983. Segments H and K to the
now ..1afunct Las Positas development were not included from the original
1983 table.
Overall routes from Bay Fair to East Livermore using the 1985 segments are
compared in Table VI-3. A minimum cost case is compared with a minimum
right-of-way case for each of three 1985 alignments. Although minimum
cost routes would appear to be more attractive, further development in the
corridor may make minimum right-of-way more attractive because they reduce
potential relocation impacts .
The costs of the gravel pit routes are less than the costs of the Kitty
Hawk routes for both the minimum cost case and the minimum ROW case.
CAPITAL COSTS - ROLLING STOCK
Rolling stock costs are based on the analysis of fleet requirements in
Chapter V. It was determined that 69 BART vehicles would be needed by
year 2005 to provide acceptable load factors and service levels during
peak periods, including 15 percent spare cars. New BART "C" cars would
cost S1 .32 million each , in 1985 dollars. The total cost of LPX rolling
stock would therefore be $91.1 million for all alignment alternatives .
VI-6 -
Table VI-2
UPDATED (1985) CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES FOR 1983 STUDY SEGMENTS
Fixed Facilities Only
1985 COSTS ($ MILLIONS)*
Cost
Length Base Right- Contin- per
1983 Study Segment** (Miles) Constr. of-Way gency*** Total Mile
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A - 1 (1976 Plan) 1.74 $29.4 $14.9 $9.5 $53.8 $30.9
- 2 (Single Platform) 1.33 11.5 14.9 3.7 30.1 22.6
- 3 (Two Platform) 1.34 30.4 14.9 9.9 55.2 41 .2
- 4- (Three Platform) 1.74 38.5 14.9 12.4 65.8 37.8
B - Interim Construction .95 16.1 .0 5.2 21.3 22.4
- Concurrent Construction .95 10.5 .0 3.4 13.9 14.6
C - Median/At-Grade 8.90 62.2 6.7 20.0 88.9 10.0
D - Median/At-Grade .80 16.9 4.4 5.4 26.7 33.4
- Median/Aerial .80 23.9 4.4 7.7 36.0 45.0
- South Side/At-Grade .80 32.3 6.0 10.4 48.7 60.9
- South Side/Underground .80 67 .6 6.0 21 .8 95.4 119.3
E - Median/At-Grade 1.29 8.4 .4 2.8 11.6 9.0
- Median/Aerial 1.29 23.6 .0 7.6 31.2 24.2
- South Side/At-Grade 1.29 8.8 1.2 2.8 12.8 9.9
- South Side/Aerial 1.29 14.6 .9 4.7 20.2 15.7
F - At-Grade 3.03 47.7 3.6 15.4 66.7 22.0
G - North Side/At-Grade 7.86 81 .8 13.0 26.4 121 .2 15.4
- South Side/At-Grade 7.86 91.9 12.9 29.7 134.5 17.1
I - Median/At-Grade 5.68 63.0 11.5 20.4 94.9 16.7
- Median/Aerial 5.68 125.1 9.9 40.4 175.4 30.9
- Adjacent/At-Grade 5.68 62.2 13.4 20.0 95.6 16.8
J - Median/At-Grade 4.26 54.2 6.4 17.4 78.0 18.3
- Median/Aerial 4.26 93.4 5.7 30.1 129.2 30.3
- Adi.acent/At-Grade 4.26 53.8 7.4 17.4 78.6 18.5
* Includes all fixed facilities including stations and right-of-way. Does not
include rolling stock. See Appendix for details.
** See Figures II4A and II-4B.
*** Includes design contingency of 15 percent of base construction cost plus
15 percent agency contingency fee on total construction cost ( base plus design
contingency) .
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
VI-7 -
Table VI-3
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS
Minimum Cost Alternative Minimum ROW Alternative
--------------------------- ---------------------------
1985 1985
Segment* Variation Cost ($M) Variation Cost ($M)
--------------------------------------- ---------------------------
THROUGH GRAVEL PIT:
A Single Platform $30.1 Single Platform $30.1
B South Side 13.9 South Side 13.9
C Median/At-Grade 88.9 Median/At-Grade 88.9
D Median/At-Grade 26.7 Median/Aerial 36.0
E ** Median/At-Grade 11 .6 Median/Aerial 31.2
R-S Median/At-Grade 177.6 Median/Aerial 211.9
Yard 20.0 20.0
TOTAL $368.3 $432.0
ADJACENT TO GRAVEL PIT:
A Single Platform 30.1 Single Platform 30. 1
B South Side 13.9 South Side 13.9
C Median/At-Grade 88.9 Median/At-Grade 88.9
D Median/At-Grade 26.7 Median/Aerial 36.0
E ** Median/At-Grade 11.6 Median/Aerial 31 .2
I-A Median/At-Grade 178.6 Median/Aerial 223.9
Yard 20.0 20.0
TOTAL $369.8 $444.0
ALONG KITTY HAWK ROAD:
A Single Platform 30.1 Single Platform 30 . 1
B South Side 13.9 South Side 13.9
C Median/At-Grade 88.9 Median/At-Grade 88.9
D Median/At-Grade 26.7 Median/Aerial 36.0
E ** Median/At-Grade 11.6 Median/Aerial 31.2
I-G Median/At-Grade 195.4 Median/Aerial 269.5
Yard 20.0 20.0
TOTAL $386.6 $489.6
* See Figures II-4A and II-46.
Includes beginning and ending portions of segments "I" and "G-North ,"
respectively.
VI-8 -
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Annual operating costs for BART are comprised of labor, power, maintenance
and overhead. The total costs for each alignment are shown in Table VI-4.
The estimated increases in operating costs on the remaining BART system
attributable to the LPX are also shown.
Table VI-4
ANNUAL LPX OPERATING COSTS (1985 Dollars)
Annual Cost
s ab e
Unit Cost Alignment Alignment
Operating Cost on LPX
Labor $ 3,515,000 $ 3,515,000
Train Operators $39,400
Station Agents $39,400
Supervisors $50,600
Power $0.67/veh-mi . $ 3,231 ,000 S 3,304,000
Maintenance $0.73/veh.mi . 3,496,000 3,574,000
Overhead 15% of above 1 ,536,000 1 ,559,000
Subtotal , LPX only $11,778,000 $11,952,99U
Increased BART operating cost
on remaining system 11 ,531 ,000 11 ,701 ,000
Total system-wide increase
in operating cost $23,309,000 $23,653,000
* These figures were provided by BART staff in December 1983 and were
adjusted to reflect greater service frequency than previously assumed
and 1982-85 cost inflation.
- VI-9 -
All cost estimates are in 1985 dollars. Labor costs for the LPX operation
include all wages , benefits and other costs associated with employees
working on the LPX itself. Three shifts per day are assumed for train
operators and station agents. The LPX would require eight supervisors
each weekday and seven supervisors each weekend. Comparable factors were
used by BART staff to estimate incremental operating costs on other parts
of the system attributable to the LPX. These represent costs of providing
additional peak- and off-peak equipment to accommodate LPX riders con-
tinuing beyond the Bay Fair Station.
Operating costs for the Isabel alignment are slightly higher than for the
R-S alignment due to a longer route length.
ANNUAL FARE REVENUES
Projected fare revenues are based on ridership and estimates of average
fare per trip. The total revenue from LPX trips is divided between
revenue which is directly attributable to the LOX an.l chat which would be
captured by BART regardless of the LPX.
BART fares are calculated under the 1986 fare structure using a base fare
plus a charge per mile, plus charges for Transbay service. Average fares
were estimated for each major destination area: Intra-Valley, Daly City,
San Francisco , Oakland,
- VI-10 -
Berkeley, Richmond, Fremont, Hayward and Castro Valley. Revenues were
calculated by multiplying the average fare by the corresponding weekday
patronage, then factored by 88 percent to account for discounted fares
(youth, elderly) . The weekday revenue estimate was multiplied by 297.4 to
obtain the total annual revenue from LPX passengers (Table VI-5) .
Table VI-5
PROJECTED LPX ANNUAL REYENUESI
Railroad Freeway R - S Isabel
Route Route Route Route
Total Annual Revenue
All LPX riders $11 ,002,000 $10,608,000 $10,844,000 $10,747 ,000
Revenue from Trips made
regardless of LPX - 1 ,264,000 - 1 ,264,000 - 1 ,264,000 - 1,264,000
Net additional BART
revenue generated
by LPX $ 9,738,000 $ 9,344,000 $ 9,580,000 $ 9,482,000
Additional BART operating
cost due to LPX 23,384,000 21 ,411 ,000 23,309,000 23,653,000 .
Farebox Recovery Rati02 42% 44% 41% 40%
1 Assumes shuttle service on LPX.
2 Ratio of system-wide increase in fare revenues to system-wide increase in
operating costs due to LPX, as a percentage.
These figures represent system-wide fare revenues from all riders entering
and exiting stations on the LPX. The revenues attributable to service on
only the LPX portions of these trips (based on average fares for the LPX
- VI-11 -
trip segments) are approximately 30 percent of total revenues generated by
LPX passengers. The remaining revenues correspond to service on the rest
of the BART system.
A portion of the total system-wide revenues shown would be collected by
BART regardless of the LPX. They come from passengers who would use
Express Buses or private automobiles to access the existing BART lines.
These trips to and from the LPX service area which would be on BART
regardless of the LPX is estimated at $1 ,264,000.
The farebox recovery ratio is used as an indication of the amount of the
LPX operating costs which are covered by passenger fares. It is calcu-
lated oy dividing the total system-wide revenue increase generated by the
LPX by the system-wide increase in operating costs due to the LPX. Fare-
oox recovery ratios are included in Table VI-5. These are slightly lower
than the current BART farebox recovery ratio which is about 50 percent.
- VI-12 -
CHAPTER Vil
SUMMARY EVALUATION
AND FINDINGS
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY EVALUATION AND FINDINGS
This chapter summarizes the comparison and evaluation of LPX alternatives
based on information in previous chapters. The evaluation focuses on the
LPX route segments between East Pleasanton and West Livermore, but the
full LPX route alternatives are also compared where appropriate.
These analyses are intended to provide input to the local community and
to BART in selecting a preferred alternative. Subsequent analysis will
be needed beyond this effort in order to satisfy requirements for
environmental assessment.
In comparing the alternatives, the following key criteria were used:
o Right-of-way/displacement impacts
o Patron access
o Ridership potential
o Capital Costs
o Operating Costs and Revenues
- VII-1 -
RIGHT-OF-WAY/DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS
A primary objective in development of the LPX alternatives was to
minimize right-of-way needs and displacement of existing or planned
uses . Nevertheless , these impacts cannot be avoided entirely, and the
differences among the alternative alignments are described here.
The alignments R-S, R-C, R-N, and R-L would all impact on the gravel pit
haul road and El Charro Road. They would necessitate agreements with the
gravel company about access to their land. The alignments would also cross
through the Jamieson Ranch. Undeveloped land that has been proposed for
industrial development would be used for most of these alignments. The R-S
would affect the Arroyo Mocho streambed under one of the two alternatives
proposed for this alignment.
The I-A alignment passes through undeveloped land only, some of which has
been proposed for industrial development.
For the I-G alignment to be constructed, three commercial buildings and
seven residences would have to be relocated or removed.
- YII-2 -
PATRON ACCESS
Another important factor in comparing the LPX alternatives relates to how
easily patrons can reach the stations. Table VII-1 summarizes the
differences between the various alternative station sites in terms of
patron access. In general , all alternatives have been sited and
configured so as to provide adequate access , circulation and parking for .
-pedestrians , bikes , automobiles and buses. The freeway sites tend to
favor auto. access over the non-freeway sites that are typically closer to
residences and bus services.
RIDERSHIP POTENTIAL
The railroad , I-580 freeway, R-S, and Isabel routes all serve the entire
Livermore-Pleasanton Valley area. The railroad route would be in closer
proximity than the other alignments to projected year 2005 concentrations
of population and enploy.n,-�nt. As a result, the railroad route would
attract higher BART ridership. The freeway route stations are farther
from the population and employment concentrations and therefore attract
the lowest patronage level . The R-S and Isabel alignments' patronage
estimates fall between those of the railroad and the freeway because they
use the Pleasanton station from the freeway alignment and the West
Livermore station from the railroad alignment.
- VII-3 -
Table VII-I
PATRON ACCESS TO LPX STATIONS -PLEASANTON TO LIVERMORE
Station Freeway Route Railroad Route
Pleasanton (North - used by Freeway, Quarry (South - used by railroad align,
Area, and Isabel alignments) ment only)
Auto Access: Excellent access from 1-580 and Excellent freeway access assum.
local arterials, assuming new ing new Hacienda Drive inter.
Hacienda Drive interchange, change, but traffic concentratea
Dublin Boulevard extension. Traf- onto fewer local routes; traffic
fic dispersed over several routes. from north must cross freeway
site farther from interchange.
Transit Access: No existing bus service but could No existing bus service but coulc
easi ly be served in future. easily be served in future. Ex-
Excellent transfer capability with cellent transfer capability witF
San Ramon Valley corridor transit San Ramon Valley corridor transit
terminating at 1-580. regardless of whether it termi-
nates near 1-580 or continues to
south.
Pedestrian Access: Potentially good access to em- Potentially good access to em-
ployment north and south of 1-580 ployment south of 1-580.
but longer distance to employ-
ment sites south of SP railroad.
Parking/Layout: Split station will constrain on-site Good on-site circulation. Parking
auto, bus travel. Parking capacity capacity adequate for year 2000
adequate for year 2000 needs with needs with small reserve for
small reserve for further growth. further growth. But two-level
parking is more costly, and con-
strains further expansion.
West Livermore (North - used by freeway align- (South - used by railroad Isabel,
ment only) and R-S alignments)
Auto Access: Good access from immediate area Good access from immediate
.and from freeway. area, but not close to freeway.
Transit Access: Could be served by one RIDEO Excellent RIDEO access; site is
line with rerouting off Collier near present transfer point.
Canyon Road.
VII-4
Table VII-I (Continued)
PATRON ACCESS TO LPX STATIONS - PLEASANTON TO LIVERMORE
Station Freeway Route Railroad Route
West Livermore (North - used by freeway align- (South - used by railroad Isabel,
Continued ment only) and R-S alignments)
Pedestrian Access: Little pedestrian access antici- Good pedestrian access. Close to
pated; too for from most existing, residents and commercial devel-
foreseeable activity centers. opment; 1/2 - I mile from down-
town.
Parking/Layout: Efficient layout and internal Awkward site configuration with
circulation for buses, autos. lengthy distance to some parking;
traversed by Arroyo Mocha;
hemmed in on three sides.
East Livermore (North - used by freeway align- (South - used by railroad Isabel,
ment) and R-S alignments)
Auto Access: Good access assuming N. Mines Good access assuming N. Mines
Extension southward. Close to Extension southward. Not quite
freeway, Springtown, future as close to 1-580, but better
housing. access to the south.
Transit Access: Could be served with only minor Potentially served by some RIDEO
rerouting by two RIDEO lines lines as freeway alternative but
from Springtown to Central slightly greater route diversion
Livermore and East Avenue/ needed.
LLNL.
Pedestrian Access: Accessible to some future hous- Some
ing, but otherwise little pedes-
trian access anticipated. Too for
from Lawrence Lab.
Parking/Layout: Split station, but on-site travel is Split station will constrain on-site
not impaired. Parking capacity travel. Parking capacity adequate
adequate beyond year 2000. beyond year 2000.
VII-5
The projected patronage levels vary from about 8.1 million/year for the
freeway alignment to about 8.9 million/year for the railroad, a differ-
ence of 9 percent. This difference may diminish considerably beyond the
year 2005, however, due to the great potential for further growth along
the I-580 corridor.
CAPITAL COSTS
Table VII-2 summarizes capital costs from lowest to highest, in 1985
dollars, of the overall routes from Bay Fair to East Livermore using both
the 1985 study alternatives and the 1983 railroad and freeway route alter-
natives. A wide variety of costs are possible depending on the combina-
tion of design treatments utilized. The table considers two combina-
tions: one that uses the minimum cost treatment in each segment, and the
other that minimizes right-of-way taking in each segment. The lowest
cost alternative is along the freeway corridor utilizing median at-grade
design as much as possible, for which a total construction cost, in-
cluding contingencies, of about $364 million is estimated. The longer
railroad route alternative would cost an additional $15 million. The
1985 routes that include the gravel pit segments are close to the 1983
freeway route cost and less than the 1983 Railroad Route cost. The Kitty
Hawk - Isabel route is $22 Million higher in cost than the Freeway
Route. The relative costs for the minimum ROW alternatives, which
involve aerial structures, are the same for the routes including the 1985
segments and are reversed for the 1983 routes .
- VII-6 -
Table VII-2
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS
(1985 $M)
Minimum Cost Alternative
1983 Route, I-580 $364.1
Through Gravel Pit (R-S) 368.8
Adjacent to Gravel Pit (I-A) 369.8
1983 Route, Railroad 379.1
Along Kitty Hawk Road (I-G) 386.6
Minimum ROW Alternative
1983 Route, Railroad $408.0
Through Gravel Pit (R-S) 432.0
Adjacent to Gravel Pit (I-A) 444.0
Along Kitty Hawk Road (I-G) 489.6
1983 Route, I-580 524.7
For comparison, the 1976 Study Final Report estimated a total capital
cost of $332.5 million in 1974 dollars for fixed facilities for the
recommended LPX alignment. The e.stimated cost in 1985 dollars is
$670.8 million. Hence, a significantly lower cost, in adjusted dollars,
may now be possible due to elimination of the costly downtown Pleasanton
segment, shortening of the route, less expensive stations, and other
factors. It should be noted, however, that the LPX costs in the table do
VII-7 -
not include allowance for payments that may have to be negotiated with
Caltrans for I-580 right-of-way that has been provided for possible tran-
sit uses.
Estimated costs of rolling stock for year 2000 LPX operations would add
$91 million to the total capital cost of the extension.
OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES
Operating costs and revenues for the four general LPX route alternatives
are shown in Table VII-3. Annual operating costs for the Railroad Route
alternative and Isabel alignment are highest due to greater route
lengths. Projected year 2000 passenger revenues on the railroad
alignment do not compensate for the higher operating costs as compared to
the other alignment. The Isabel Avenue alignment has the highest cost
per trip and lowest farebox recovery ratio of the four alternatives. It
should be noted, however, that the difference between the lowest and
highest farebox recovery ratio is only 10 percent.
SUMMARY LPX ROUTE COMPARISON
Table VII-4 summarizes the key characteristics of the four general LPX
route alternatives. Also shown for comparison are attributes of the LPX
route previously recommended in the 1976 Final Report.
- VII-8 -
Table VII-3
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES (1985)
1983 1983 1985 1985
Railroad Freeway R-S Isabel
Systemwide Increase in
Annual Operating Cost*
($ Million) $23.4 $21.4 $23.3 $23.7
Systemwide Increase in
Annual Revenues
($ Million) $ 9.7 $ 9.3 $ 9.6 $ 9.5
Operating Cost per Trip $2.63 $2.63 $2.71 $2.78
Farebox Recovery Ratio 42% 44% 41% 40%
* Includes BART operating cost on LPX and on remaining system.
VII-9
Table VII-4
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF LPX ALTERNATIVES'
1976 Freeway Railroad Quarry Isabel =
Study Route Route Route (R-S) Route Route
1. Route Characteristics
a. Length miles 25.9 24.2 25.2 25.1 25.6
b. Travel Time, Bay Fair N/A 27.0 28.0 27.7 29.3
to E. Livermore (min)
2. Dis lacement Effects
a. Existing elling
Units Displaced 124 20-41 23-50 23-50 30-57
b. Existing Business
Displaced 28 II 21 21 24
3. Ridership
otl all�eekday
Riders 42,000 30,100 32,600 319600 31,300
4. Capital Costs3
98 Millions)
a. Fixed
Facilities $700.8 $364.1 $379.1 $368.8 $386.6
b. Cars 117.5 91.1 91.1 91.1 91.1
c. Total 5818.3 5455.2 5470.2 $459.9 $477.7
d. Fixed facility
cost per mile 27.1 14.7 15.0 14.7 15.1
5. 0 eratin Costs
(1985 5 Millions)'
a. System-Wide Increase
in Annual Operating
Cost (Millions) N/A 5 $21.4 $23.4 $23.3 $23.7
b. Operating Cost
per rider N/A 5 $2.63 $2.63 $2.71 $2.78
6. Farebox Recovery Ratio N/A5 44% 42% 41% 40%
1 For comparison purposes, assumes shuttle service on LPX extending from Bay Fair Station
to East Livermore yard.
2 Year 2005 weekday riders, except 1976 Final Report projection which is 1990. Includes
existing BART riders.
3 These represent the minimum cost as opposed to the minimum ROW alternatives.
4 System-wide costs attributable to LPX.
5 N/A = Not available.
VII-10
CONSULTANT FINDINGS
The information contained in this report is intended to help BART, with
input from the affected local communities, select a preferred alignment
and station locations for unadopted portions of the LPX. A number of
conclusions are apparent from the analyses and community inputs 'to date
that should be considered in the decision-making process. These are
briefly discussed below.
Comparison with Route Alternatives Previously Studied
The basic decision that BART and the affected communities must make
relates to which Valley route alternative is preferable. It is clear
that the decision will involve trade offs . A summary of some of these
trade-offs is given previously in Table VII-4. Essentially, the freeway
route would be cheapest to construct and operate, and would experience
fewer right-of-way/displacement impacts. However, it would not generate
as much ridership in the horizon year (2005) and construction along this
route would have a greater adverse impact upon I-580 traffic and may
conflict with Caltrans' widening plans for I-580. The railroad route
best serves existing development and projected growth to year 2005,
particularly in the City of Livermore. Beyond year 2005, ridership
differences between the two routes are likely to be smaller as further
- VI4-11 -
growth occurs along and north of I-580. Also , the railroad route
traverses a residential area in Pleasanton, and previous public feedback
has indicated strong opposition to that alignment within Pleasanton.
The quarry area and Kitty Hawk-Isabel Avenue alignments are possible
alternative routes that would place the Pleasanton station in the freeway
corridor while still utilizing the railroad corridor through downtown
Livermore. There appear to be technically feasible alignments for both
of these new routes .
In terms of ridership potential , costs and revenues, the quarry area and
Kitty Hawk-Isabel Avenue alternatives do not significantly differ from
the railroad and freeway alternatives previously studied.
Comparison of New LPX Alignments
Review of the right-of-way, design and geotechnical considerations
affecting the alignment alternatives substantiates the feasibility and
preferability of a quarry alignment over the Kitty Hawk-Isabel Avenue
alternative. This routing avoids location problems that might otherwise
be encountered in attempting to fit BART within the constrained Kitty
Hawk Road-Isabel Avenue corridor.
- VII-12 -
Of the several alternative and technically feasible alignments described
through the gravel pit area, the most promising appears to be Segment
R-S, which parallels E1 Charro Road utilizing the existing dry channel
bed of the relocated Arroyo Mocho. This route offers the following
advantages:
o The entire length of the route would be situated on original ,
undisturbed ground, not subject to subsidence from backfill areas
within the gravel pit area.
o Although the route parallels E1 Charro Road and the heavily utilized
truck haul pavement, there would be no conflict between gravel truck
and BART movements.
o Segment R-S offers the most direct and shortest connection cutting
diagonally across the gravel pit area, but would not sever potential
industrial subdivisions, as could be the case with Segments I-A,
R-L, R-N, or R-C.
o The alignment has minimum central angle of curvature and can be
designed with long radius curves, thus avoiding any speed
restrictions caused by alignment.
- VII-13 -
o The route can be adopted without requiring the negotiation of a
complex agreement with the Jamieson Company to coordinate mining and
backfill activities with construction of the BART line.
o The profile elevation along the proposed regraded Arroyo Mocho
Channel is well above any potential flood water levels in the "chain
of lakes ."
The essential prerequisite to selecting Segment R-S, the El Charro Road-
Arroyo Mocho alignment , over other possible alignments is assurance that
the Arroyo %cho channel will in fact be relocated to skirt around the
northerly and easterly shores of the "chain of lakes." Alternatively,
Segment R-S could be located on the east side of E1 Charro Road.
LPX Construction Phasing
According to BART policy, it appears that the LPX would be constructed in
two stages . The first stage should extend BART from the Bay Fair station
to stations in Castro Valley, Dublin and Pleasanton with an interim
storage yard in the Dublin-Pleasanton area. The second stage should
extend BART to East Livermore and include the two Livermore stations and
permanent yard. This differs from BART' s current policy which calls for
only the Castro Valley and Dublin stations to be constructed within the
first stage.
- VII-14 -
Initial provision of two stations in the Dublin/Pleasanton- area will
avoid potential station overloading and/or constraints on ridership
associated with a single terminal station at Dublin serving both the San
Ramon Valley and Livermore/Pleasanton corridors. Also , it would be
easier to construct an interim storage/maintenance yard beyond the
Pleasanton station than beyond the Dublin station. The additional
construction cost beyond the Dublin station would not be great.
- VII-15 -
This page intentionally left blank
- VII-16 -
APPENDIX A
SOURCES OF DATA-
ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
APPENDIX A
SOURCES OF DATA ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
The primary sources of data used in development of route alternatives of
this Supplemental Study are:
o The Long-Range Mining Plan as prepared for the Jamieson Company, and
discussions with the quarry operators.
o Land Reclamation Plan as prepared for Kaiser Sand and Gravel , a
division of the Koppers Company.
o "City of Livermore, 1985 West Assessment District, Project Report,"
dated April 1985, by Greiner Engineering of California, Inc. This
report describes various improvements planned within the proposed
West Assessment District, particularly involving areas extending
westerly to E1 Charro Road, in the general vicinity of the Livermore
Municipal Airport, extending southerly along Kitty Hawk Road-Isabel
Avenue to Stanley Boulevard.
o Discussions with engineers of the Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District (ACFC&WCD) , which in cooperation with the
gravel companies has developed plans to operate a series of ground
- A-1 -
water recharge reservoirs, referred to as the "chain of lakes ," and
for the enlargement of the Arroyo Mocho Flood Control Channel .
o A Preliminary Report, submitted on the date of April 11 , 1983, for
the City of Livermore for the proposed development of Isabel Avenue
as a major boulevard-expressway.
o County of Alameda Planning Department.
o Planning Departments, Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore.
o Caltrans, District 4.
o Information from consulting engineering firms representing several
developers.
- A-2 -
APPENDIX B
GEOLOGICAL -
GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION
536 Galvestor Street • West Sacramento. California 95691
West Sacramer-o(916) 371.1690 • Santa Rosa(707) 575-1568
—F+S&�
CONSULTANTS October 1, 1985
Eng!r,eers d Geologists
R. M. Barton
DeLeuw, Cather & Company
P.O. Box 3821
San Francisco, CA 94119
1P2/385/54
GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS-ARROYO MOCHO CORRIDOR
BART Extension Study--Dublin to Livermore
The following is in summary of geotechnical review and dis-
cussion of alternative segments of a proposed alignment of BART
extension between Dublin and Livermore. This review included
geotechnical information from our files and published sources ;
field review of the site and discussions with Pleasanton Gravel
Company personnel and discussions with your office.
SITE-PROJECT
The alignment segment under consideration extends from a
point on El Charro Road +5000 ft south of I-580, east-southeasterly
+10, 000 ft to WP/SP railroad right-of-way near Isabel Avenue/Stanley
Blvd intersection. Alternatively it may be southerly and westerly
of, northerly and easterly of or across an intervening area from
which Pleasanton Gravel Company is, or will be, extracting gravel.
Arroyo Mocho channel is the westerly limit of segment alter-
natives considered. It is paralleled on the east by E1 Charro Road .
Gravel extraction is in progress immediately east of E1 Charro; the
ground underlying both Arroyo Mocho channel and E1 Charro has not
beer., and is not expected to be, quarried. The existing and proposed
gravel quarrying operation is proceeding generally from the north-
west to southeast of the Pleasanton Gravel Company property, which
is bounded on the north by the Livermore Airport property and on
the south by WP/SP railroads .
The extraction operation is proceeding and is planned to
proceed as a series of cells, the longer-dimension of which is
oriented roughly east-west, and which will be separated by dikes
constructed of overburden materials and by a centrally-located
east-west oriented "ridge" or "spine" of existing material left
intact and used to transport quarried materials to centrally-
located processing.
B-1
CONSULTANTS
R. M. Barton
DeLeuw, Cather & Company
October 1, 1985
Page 2 1P2/385/54
The quarrying process proceeds by stripping a relatively uniform
thickness of overburden to gravel-bearing horizons and removal of
gravel for processing to a lower, relatively-uniform non-productive
.horizon. Overburden stripping materials are used to construct cell-
dike-embankments founded on the lower, unworked horizon. The gravel
processing reject-materials are discharged as a slurry to a previously
quarried, diked cell; a high percentage of this material is fines
(i .e. smaller than #200 sieve) and is referred to as "slickens" .
When the cells are filled, they are topped with a layer of strippings
materials . The surface at the completion of this operation will be
lower than original ground, and as internal drainage of the "slickens"
occurs , settlement of disposal-cell surface areas is projected.
It is our understanding that it is currently planned to create
a "chain of lakes" of the most northerly and easterly gravel-extrac-
tion cells ; i.e. they will be only partly backfilled with waste, the
sides will be processed sufficiently to retain water and a series
of ponds will be formed. It is also understood that the existing
Arroyo Mocho charnel is an inadequate flood flow waterway and that
plans are being considered for its improvement, which may include
shifting away from its present alignment in this area. It is also
understood that there may be some flexibility in the pattern of
planning for gravel extraction on the Pleasanton Gravel Company
property, with some possible option for rail-alignment accommodation.
At this time no specific rail-line improvements. other than
roadbed have been identified for this segment of the extension.
Comments following regarding geotechnical conditions are generally
referenced to roadbed at or below existing ground-level, but are
applicable to other conditions and facilities .
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The quarry-area will ultimately be typified by three general
subsurface soil conditions. 1) Natural, intact ground profile
around the periphery, under the existing E1 Charro Road-Arroyo
Mocho channel strip and along the central "spine" of the quarry-
operation. 2) Dikes between disposal-cells will be trapezoidal
prisms of overburden materials placed as compacted embarkment
based upon intact soils below the level of quarrying. 3) Disposal
cells with slurried processing-waste deposited on the base of
previous extraction, and topped with a cover of overburden
materials .
B-2
CONSULTANTS
R. M. Barton
DeLeuw, Cather & Company
October 1, 1985
Page 3 1P2/385/54
The natural intact soil profile is of alluvial origin, con-
sisting of on order of 20 ft of a silt/clay/sand mixture overlying
layers more predominantly gravel to the depth of exploitation
(60-70+ ft) . No major inherent soils defects for the proposed
construction are apparent in or typical to such materials. Hori-
zontal clearances to very steep quarry cut-slopes are a consideration
with respect to slope stability, but these materials are not highly
sensitive in this aspect. Obtaining appropriate clearances on the
site periphery does not appear difficult, and the "spine" area is
likely to be dimensionally of more than adequate width--disposal-
cell backfill will be a major beneficial factor for quarry side-
slope stability.
Inter-cell dikes will be processed overburden materials
supported on intact ground. Homogeneity of the materials and a
high degree of internal strength can be anticipated. Typical
construction is expected to result in embankment side-slopes on
order of 1: 1, with top width on order of 100 ft. Compression
and residual compression characteristics of these materials
should be good.
The side-slopes as noted are over-steep for extended service
if unsupported; effective side-slopes steeper than, say, 1. 5 : 1
would rely to some extent upon the buttressing of cell backfill
for appropriate service. The effectiveness of this restraint will
rely upon the realized depth of "slickens" in the adjacent disposal
area and upon the thickness and degree of processing of the adjacent
cell overburden-topping. Alignment and grade modifications of road-
bed can be used to ameliorate- slope clearance deficiencies should
they be emergently important.
The filled disposal-cells will be occupied by substantial
depths 25-35+ ft of "slickens" deposited on the intact soil
quarry floor covered by, say, 10-15 ft of overburden "strippings" .
The "slickens" are deposited hydraulically and the grain-size
distribution of the deposit will vary with composition of the
reject and with distance from discharge point. The resultant
soil profile at a specific location may be randomly distributed
in grain size, may be composed primarily of the coarsest part of
the discharge, or of the finest. Typically, it has a very high
initial water content and very low initial strength; as it drains,
it compresses and gains strength.
B-3
V]L;PL_N
CONSULTANTS
R. M. Barton
DeLeuw, Cather & Company
October 1, 1985
Page 4 1P2/385/54
The time for internal drainage of "slickens" and of compression
may extend over a period of many years for the fine-grained materials,
with continuing and ultimately large (in feet) settlement of the
surface. Total compression is related to thickness of "slickens"
and of overburden cover placed; incremental fills placed on the
typical cover can be expected to renew and increase settlement.
Rapidity of internal drainage can be significantly enhanced during
reject-placement, but such measures require prior determination of
economic feasibility.
Depending upon the degree of processing that can and is applied
to placement of the disposal cell cover, it may have the local
bearing and stability characteristics of the placed dikes as above.
Its over-all use, reaction to seismic stresses and gross load-carrying
characteristics are, however, largely controlled by the state of
weakness and compressibility of the underlying "slickens" . Typically,
road-bed on the surface of filled/capped disposal cells would be
expected to experience large, irregular and continuing deflections
unless major ground-improvement procedures were undertaken.
Owing to the very great contrast in stability and compression
characteristics between the filled disposal cells and either the
intercell-dike fills and/or natural ground, alignments crossing
these two types of subsurface conditions could be expected to have
large and continuing differential settlement conditions occur at
the transitions and markedly dissimilar reaction to seismic loads .
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the foregoing, it appears that any route traversing
the backfilled disposal cells, in whole or in part, is not likely
to be found feasible--in terms of economics or service. It does
appear desirable and feasible, and without major soils deficiences ,
to utilize the existing Arroyo Mocho channel corridor for the
alignment to the extent that other planning and design criteria
will allow.
An alignment departing from Arroyo Mocho and traversing existing
natural ground north of the "chain of lakes" and to the east of the
ultimate quarry development ( "R-L" ) is considered feasible and amen-
able to readily avoiding quarry-site defects. An alignment essen-
tially utilizing the Arroyo Mocho corridor across the entire quarry
B-4
CONSULTANTS
R. M. Barton
DeLeuw, Cather & Company
October 1, 1985
Page 5 1P2/385/54
area ( "R-S" ) to the tracks on the south is similarly considered
feasible and desirable with respect to quarry-site geotechnical
defects.
An alignment departing from the Arroyo Mocho corridor at
the operational "spine". and proceeding across the site easterly
thereon ( "R-C" ) is also considered appropriately feasible; the
width of the stable, intact soils corridor available along this
"spine" indicates that there would be substantial latitude to
accommodate the trafficway without enroachment onto (or without
unacceptable lateral clearance to) "slickens' disposal-cells.
An alignment departing from the Arroyo Mocho corridor at the most
northerly of the "east-west" inter-cell dikes may be feasible
( "R-N" ) ; the major constraints appear to be related to the re-
latively narrow dimension of dike, limiting alignment/alignment
transitions to avoid encroachments onto, or being unacceptably
near, the "slickens" deposits and/or locally having "slickens"
remedial-work imposed upon the project in order to accommodate
needed alignment and maintain acceptable standards of service/
safety.
Clearly,' detailed .geotechnical evaluation should be performed
for the route selected to provide adequate assurance of appropriate
consideration of the above-discussed and other conditions . Amount
and level of such work needed is expected to ascend in the order of
above discussion (i.e. , "R-L" , least to "R-N" , most) .
I trust the foregoing meets your current needs; please call on
us as we can be of further assistance in this project.
Very truly yours,
TABER CONSULTANTS
4, .T.4 L.L.
H. R. Taber
R.C.E. 9165
C. E.G. 12
HRT/ns
Distribution: DeLeuw, Cather & Company (6)
B-5
APPENDIX C
COST ESTIMATES
UNIT COSTS UTILIZED IN LPX COST ESTIMATES*
Unit 1985 $
TRACKWORK
1. At-Grade Track Trackfoot 151
2. Track on Aerial Structure Trackfoot 110
3. Yard Track Trackfoot 80
4. Turnout *20 Each 33,000
5. Turnout *15 Each 28,000
6. Turnout *10 Each 20,000
7. Turnout *8 (Yard) Each 17,000
STRUCTURES AND CIVIL WORK
1. Earthwork
(a) Major Cuts (in excess of 3 feet) Cubic Yard 7.20
(b) Rock Excavation Cubic Yard 80.20
(c) Major Fills (in excess of 3 feet) Cubic Yard 5.20
2. Cut and Cover Structure Trackfoot 3,700
3. Tunnel Trackfoot 8,800
4. BART Aerial Structure (single track) Linear Foot 1,780
5. BART Aerial Structure (double track) Linear Foot 2,380
6. Major Culvert Square Foot 46
7. Highway Concrete Box Girder Bridges
(a) Span: L < 130' Square Foot 61
(b) Span: 130' < L < 160' Square Foot 81
(c) Span: 160' < L < 200' Square Foot 101
------------------
* SOURCE: BART WEST CONTRA COSTA EXTENSION STUDY, Wilbur Smith and
Associates and De Leuw, Cather & Company, 1983.
C-1
UNIT COSTS UTILIZED IN LPX COST ESTIMATES (Continued)
Unit 1985 $
STRUCTURES AND CIVIL WORK (Continued)
8. Pedestrian Overcrossing Square Foot 60
9. Pumping Plant Each 305,000
10. Retaining Walls
(a) Height 6' to 10' Linear Foot 320
(b) Height 12' to 20' Linear Foot 970
11. 40-Feet Wide City Street Relocation Linear Foot 250
12. Railroad Relocation Trackmile 396,000
UTILITY RELOCATION
I. Site-specific Requirements Lump Sum -
TRACK ELECTRIFICATION
1. Traction Power (substations Double 470
@ 8,500 feet)** Trackfoot
TRAIN CONTROL
1. Train Control (Complete) Double 230
Trackfoot
COMMUNICATIONS
1. Train Communications (Complete) Double 53
Trackfoot
STATIONS (Fully Equipped)
1. At-Grade Station 3,300,000
2. Aerial Station 3,300,000
3. Cut and Cover Subway Station 30,980,000
------------------
** SOURCE: De Leuw, Cather & Company, September 1983.. Reflects result
of electrification studies by BART.
C-2
UNIT COSTS UTILIZED IN LPX COST ESTIMATES (Continued)
Unit 1986 $
PARKING FACILITES
1. Parking Lot Space Each 2,610
2. Two-level Parking Structure Space Each 4,840
3. 50-Foot Wide Access Road (2 Lanes) Linear Foot 310
STORAGE FACILITIES
1. Yard Track (10,000 T.F. ) Lump Sum 6,269,000
and Appurtenances
ADDITIONAL ITEMS,
1. Fencing, concrete barriers, Lump Sum 3% of
landscaping, temporary detours Allowance above items
C-3
RS?TMA?FD CAPT?AL COST
SEGMENT: R- S C"ot-1985 Dollars (000"a)*
___________________________________________
7 M,dimn/At-Orndr (7 North l Mrdiao/Arrie]-G North
Item ' (l.=57,300`=iO.85 mi . ) ([=57,300`=10.85 mi. )
—'
-------------------- --------------------
1. ?rm,kwnrli 17,200 16,200
2. S| rv,Lur,s and Civil Work 29,700 56,300
]. Utility Relocation 100 100
4. Track Electrification 26,900 26,900
5. Train Control 13,200 13,300
C-) '6 Communications
" 3,000 3,000
/. Stations 9,000 0,900
R. Parking Fmciliheo 17, 100 17,100
9.
Additional Items 3,500 4,300
Ban* Total 120,600 1.47,000
+15% Contingencies l8, 100 22,100
Constructions Costs 138,700 160,100
+15% Agency Coot** 20,800 25,400
Subtotal 159,560 184,500
Right-of-Way Cost 18, 100 17,400
Estimated Grand Total 177,600 21I,900
--------------r6---
*[xr/u�,s yn anJ |oi] track requirements.
Mnr|u'|ra engineering and construction management . .
`
R37TMATRU CAPTTAl COST
SEGMENT: D-C Cost-1.985 Dollars (000`a)*
-------------------------------------------
J Median/At-Grade-G North I Mediah/Aerial-G 0vrL6
Item (L=56,200`=10.64 mi . ) (L=56,200,=l0'64 mi. )
]. ?rarkwork 17,000 16,000
2. Structures and Civil Rork 32,380 58,800
' 2. Utility Relocation 100 100
,1. Track Electrification 26,400 26,400
5. Train Control 12,900 12,900
,n 6' Communications 3,000 3,000
7. Stations 8,300 9,800
8. Parking Facilities 17,100 17,100
0. Additional Items 3,600 4,300
800e Total 122,300 140,500
+15% Contingencies 18,300 22,300
Constructions Costs 140,600 170,800
+iS% Agency Cost** 21, 100 25,600
Subtotal 181 ,700 196,400
Right-of-Way Cost 20,600 18,800
Estimated Grmo'f Total 182,300 216,300
_------_---_-_---
*Excludes yard and Lui] track reqnirrmeuta'
**]nrluJ*a engineering and construction management .
/
ESTIMATED CAPITAL C0D7
SEGMENT: IT-A Cnot-1985 Dollars (000,o)*
-------------------------------------------
T M( dino/AL-Qrx6r-Q North I Medloo/Aerial'`Q North
|Lru/ (L=59,200^ =11'21 mi . ) (1,=59,200`=11'21 mi. )
_--_ __---_-__'-'--_-_--_ ---------__---__--_-
]. Trechwnrk 18,000 16,800 '
Z. S| rvcturen and Civil Work 28,200 63,500
3. Utility Relocation lOO 100
' 4' Track Electrification 27.800 27,800
5. Train Control 13,600 13,600
r`
6o G. Communications 3, 100 3, 1.00
7. Stations 8,000 9,900
R. Parking Facilities 17, 100 ' 17,100
y. Additional Items 3,500 4,600
Base Total 121,300 156,300
+15% Contingencies 10,200 28,400
Constructions Costs 139,500 179,700
+15% Agency Coot*4 20,900 27,000
Subtotal 1,60,400 206,700
Right-of-Way Cost 18,200 17,200
Estimated Grand Total 278,G80 223,900
-----------------
*T'v,ludps yard and tail track mequirement s.
**In,l"'|es engineering and construction management .
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST
SEGMENT: T--G Cost-1985 Dollars (000's)*
T Median/At-Grade-G North I Median/Aerial-G North
Item (L=60,900'=11.53 mi. ) (L=60,900'=11.53 mi. )
1 . Trackwork 18,600 16,300
2. Structures and Civil Work 33,300 91,100
3. Utility Relocation 900 900
C'') 4. Track Electrification 28,600 28,600
v
5. Train Control 14,000 14,000
6. Communications 3,200 3,200
7. Stations 9,900 9,900
8. Parking Facilities 17, 100 17,100
9. Additional Items 3,800 5,400
Base Total 129,400 186,500
+15% Contingencies 19,400. 28,000
Constructions Costs 148,800 214,500
+15% Agency Cost** 22,300 32,200
Subtotal 171, 100 246,700
Right-of-Way Cost 24,300 22,800
Estimated Grand Total 195,400 269,500
*Excludes ,yard and tail track requirements.
**[ucludes engineering and construction management.
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST
SEGMENT: A Cost-1985 Dollars (000's)*
-------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
ALT. A-1 (1976 Study) ALTERNATIVE A-2 ALTERNATIVE A-3 ALTERNATIVE A-4
Item (L=9,200'=1.74 mi. ) (L=7,000'=1.33 mi. ) (L=9,200'=1.76 mi. ) (09,200' 0.74 mi.
r
-------------------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------------
l . Trackwork 2,800 900 3,000 2,900
2. Structures and Civil Work 16,400 8,700 16,400 22,100
3. Utility Relocation 300 200 300 300
4. Track Electrification 4,300 900 4,700 4,800
5. Train Control 2,100 400 2,300 2,300
6. Communications 400 100 600 600
n 7. Stations 2,200 0 2,200 4,400
i
8. Parking Facilities 0 0 0 0
9. Additional items 900 300 900 1,100
Base Total 29,400 11,500 30,400 38,500
+ 15% Contingencies 4,400 1,700 4,600 5,800
Constructions Costs 33,800 13,200 35,000 44,300
X15% Agency Cost** 5, 100 2,000 5,300 6,600
Subtotal 38,900 15,200 40,300 50,900
Right-of-Way Cost 14,900 14,900 14,900 14,900
Estimated Grand Total 53,800 30, 100 55,200 65,800
-
*Excludes yard and tail track requirements.
**Includes engineering and construction management.
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST
SEGMENT: B Cost-1985 Dollars (000's)*
Interim Construction Concurrent Constr.
Item (1.=5,000'=0.95 mi. ) (L=5,000'=0.95 mi. )
-------------------- --------------------
1 . Trackwork 1,300 1 ,400
2. Structures and Civil Work 10,600 5,100
3. Utility Relocation 100 100
4. Track Electrification 2,300 2,300
5. Train Control 1, 100 1, 100
6. Communications 200 200
n
7. Stations 0 0
8. Parking Facilities 0 0
9. Additional Items 500 300
Base Total 16, 100 10,500
+15% Contingencies 2,400 1,600
Constructions Costs 18,500 12,100
+15% Agency Cost** 2,800 1,800
Subtotal 21,300 13,900
Right-of-Way Cost 0 0
Estimated Grand Total 21,300 13,900
*Excludes yard and tail. track requirements.
**Incluoes engineering and construction management..
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST
SEGMENT: C Cost--1985 Dollars (000's)*
An-1:580-Median)(in I-580 Median)
(At-Grade)
Item (L=47,000'=8.90 mi. )
1. Trackwork 14,200
2. Structures and Civil Work 4,000
3. Utility Relocation 100
4. Track Electrification 22,100
5. Trait Control 10,800
n 6. Communications 2,500
i
0 7. Stations 3,300
8. Parking Facilities 3,400
9. Additional items 1,800
Base Total 62,200
+15% Contingencies 9,300
Constructions Costs 71,500
+15% Agency Cost** 10,700
Subtotal 82,200
Right-of-Way Cost 6,700
Estimated Grand Total 88,900
-----------------
*Excludes yard and tail track requirements.
**Includes engineering and construction management.
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST
SEGMENT: D Cost-1985 Dollars (000's)*
Median At-Grade Median Aerial South Side At-Grade South Side Subway
Item (L=4,200'=0.80 mi. ) (L=4,200'=0.80 -mi. ) (L=4,200'=0.80 mi. ) (L=4,200'=0.80 mi.
---- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------------
1 . Trac:kwork 1,300 1,000 3,000 2,900
2. Structures and Civil Work 2,100 9,200 16,400 22, 100
3. Utility Relocation 0 0 0 0
4. Track Electrification 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
5. Train Control 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
6. Communications 200 200 200 200
n
7. Stations 3,300 3,300 3,300 30,900
8. Parking Facilities 6,600 6,600 5,600 6,600
9. Additional Items 500 700 900 2,000
Base Total 16,900 23,900 32,300 67,600
+15e Contingencies 2,500 3,600 4,800 10,100
Constructions Costs 19,400 27,500 37,100 77,700
-{ 15% Agency Cost** 2,900 4,100 5,600 11,700
Subtotal 22,300 31,600 42,700 89,400
Right-of-Way Cost 4,400 4,400 6,000 6,000
Estimated Grand Total 26,700 36,000 48,700 95,400
*Excludes yard and tail track requirements.
**Includes engineering and construction management.
ESTIMATED CAPITAI. COST
SEGMENT: E Cost-1.985 Dollars (000's)*
Median At-Grade Median Aerial South Side At-Grade South Side Aerial
Ttem (L=6,800'=1..29 mi. ) (L=6,800'=1.29 mi. ) (L=6,800'=1.29 mi. ) (L=6,800'=1.29 mi.
---- --------------------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------------
1. Trackwork 2,1.00 1,500 2,100 1,800
2. Structures and Civil Work 1,1.00 16,400 1,400 7,400
3. Utility Relocation 0 0 0 0
4. Track Electrification 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200
5. Train Control 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
6. Communications 300 300 300 300
n
7. Stations 0 0 0 0
N
8. Parking Facilities 0 0 0 0
9. Additional Items 200 700 300 400
r
Base Total 8,400 23,600 8,800 14,600
41.5% Contingencies 1,300 3,500 1,300 2,200
Constructions Costs 9,700 27,100 10,100 16,800
+15% Agency Cost** 1,500 4,100 1,500 2,500
Subtotal 11,200 31,200 11,600 19,300
Right--of-Way Cost 400 0 1,200 900
Estimated Grand Total 11,600 31,200 12,800 20,200
*Fxcludes yard and frail track requirements.
**Includes engineering and construction management.
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST ESTIMATED CAPITAI, COST
SEGMENT: F Cost-1985 Dollars (000's)*
AT-GRADE
Item (L=16,000'=3.03 mi. )
1. Trackwork 4,700
2. Structures and Civil Work 12,100
3. Utility Relocation 2,100
4. Track Electrification 7,500
5. Train Control 3,600
6. Communications 900
C�
7. Stations 3,300
w
8. Parking Facilities 12,100
9. Addi.ti.onal. Items 1,400
Base Total 47,700
+15% Contingencies 7,200
Constructions Costs 54,900
+15% Agency Cost** 8,200
Subtotal 63,100
Right-of-Way Cost 3,600
Estimated Grand Total 66,700
*Excludes ,yard and tail track requirements.
**Includes engineering and construction management.
EsTIMATED CAPITAL COST
SEGMENT: G Cost-1985 Dollars (000's)*
------------------------------------------------
NORTH SOUTH
I l ctm (L=-41,500'=7.Fib in i. (L=41 ,500'-7.86 mi. )
1 . Trackwork 12,100 12,800
2. Structures and Civil Work 1.8,800 27,900
3. 11l i l i t Re]ocat.ion 100 100
i� 4. Track Electrification 19,500 19,500
.A
5. Train Control 9,500 9,500
6. Communications 2,200 2,200
7. Stations 6,600 6,600
8. Parking Facilities 10,600 10,600
9. Additional Items 2,400 2,700
Base Total 81,800 91,900
+15% Contingencies 12,300 1.3,800
Constructions Costs 94, 100 1.05,700
-1-15% Agency Cost:** 1.4, 100 15,900
Subtotal 108,200 121,600
Right. -of-Way Cost 13,000 12,900
Estimated Grand Total 121,200 134,500
r ,
*i?xr:l odes yard and tail track requirements.
**Includes engineering and construction management.
8X?TM&T8D CAPITAL COST
/
SEGMENT: J Coot-1985 Dollars (OOO,$)*
------'------------------------------------------------------------
North Side
Median/Aerial Adjacent/&t.--Grade Median/At-Grade
7Lrm (L=30.000`=5.68 mi. ) (L=30,000`=5'68 mi. ) (L=30,000`=5'68 mi. )
-- - ------------------- '-'----------------- -----------------'--
l . Treokwork 6,700 8,080 9,100
2.
Structures and Civil Work 72,600 9,200 9,900
3' Utility Relocation 0 O 0
r, 4. ?rack Glec<rificutioo 14, 100 14, 108 14,100
,
6' Train Control 6,900 6,900 ' 6,900
h' Communications 1,F.,00 1,500 1,500
7. Stations 6,600 6,600 6,600
'
R. Parking Facilities l3,108 13, 100 I3, 100
0. Additional [tema 3,600 1-,800 1,800
Base Total 125,100 62,208 63,000
+15% Contingencies ' 18,800 9,300 9,500
Constructions Costs 143,800 71,500 72,500
+15% Agency Cost** 21,600 10,700 10,980
Subtotal 165,500 82,300 88,400
Right-of-Way Coat 9,900 13,400 11,500
Estimated Grand Total 175,400 95,600 94,900
___________
*Excludes yard and toil track reqnirrment.o.
**In,luJea engineering and construct-ion management .
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST
. SEGMENT: J Cost-1985 Dollars (.000's)*
Median/At-Grade Median/Aerial
Item (1,-.22,500'=4.26 mi. .) (L=22,500'-4.26 mi. )
---- -------------------- --------------------
1. Trackwork 6,500 5,100
2. Structures and Civil Work 19,300 58,800
3. Utility Relocation 0 0
4. Track Electrification 10,600 10,600
5. Train Control 5,200 5,200
t7 6. Communications 1,200 1,200
i
~'
01, 7. Stations 3,300 3,300
8. Parking Facilities 6,500 6,500
9. Additional Items 1,600 2,700
Base Total 54,200 93,400
115% Contingencies 8,1.00 14,000
Constructions Costs 62,300 107,400
115% Agency Cost** 9,300 16,100
Subtotal 71,600 123,500
Right--of--way Cost 6,400 5,700
Estimated Grand Total 78,000 129,200
*Excludes yard and tail track requirements.
**Includes engineering and construction management.