HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 BART Extension Study Final Report CITY OF DUBLIN lo & Q _ JO
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE : October 24 , 1983
SUBJECT BART Extension Study Final Report
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Draft letter to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Staff
RECOMMENDATION II Discuss BART Extension Study and comment on proposed
'r draft letter
r_;•
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION At its meeting of October 10 , 1983 , the City Council
received a report from the City Traffic Engineer highlighting the
transportation issues which the City is presently faced with. As part of
that presentation, the City Traffic Engineer briefly reviewed the draft
final report for the Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension Study .
The City Council directed Staff to formulate a position for the City and
return this item to the City Council at its meeting of October 24 , 1983 for
further consideration.
Since the last meeting, Staff has received some clarification from the BART
Staff with respect to its request for the City ' s comments . The BART Staff
has indicated that there will be a public hearing period after the Technical
Advisory Committee meeting on October 27 , 1983 in order to receive
additional input from the public .
The City Traffic Engineer has prepared a draft letter on behalf of City
Staff which discusses the major issues and concerns of the City of Dublin
with respect to the BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study.
It is Staff ' s recommendation that the City Council review the concerns
raised in the attached draft letter and direct Staff to make any necessary
modifications and forward those comments thru its Technical Advisory
Committee representative to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO. 7, ,/
October 26, 1983
Richard C. Wenzel
Project Manager
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
800 Madison Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Dear Mr. Wenzel :
In your September 29 , 1983, letter you asked for written comments from
the City of Dublin on the draft final report for the
Livermore-Pleasanton BART extension study. The City Council at its
October 24, 1983, meeting discussed the report and developed a number of
comments about the issue . Obviously, in the time alloted, the City
Council and the staff have had an opportunity for only a preliminary
review of the report and expect to have comments based on more detailed
review during the public review period of the final report itself. The
City of Dublin's comments are as follows:
1 . The City is in support of .the two station concept for the
Dublin-Pleasanton area . Two stations , each having access and
parking on both the Dublin and Pleasanton sides of the freeway
appears to be an appropriate way of spreading the traffic and the
impacts of the station itself and to serve the future BART patrons.
2. The City also supports the concept of construction and the operation
of the two stations simultaneously in one phase rather than building
the Dublin station first and the Hacienda station in a later phase.
3. The City of Dublin strongly supports the adoption of the 1-580
alignment to Livermore. It appears that the analysis in the report,
in. which year 2000 costs, revenues and patronage form a key input
for the final recommendation is shortsighted . Based on the
tentative time table established for the Livermore portion of the
line , is possible that the line itself may not even be operational
by the year 2000 . In this case, a longer analysis would be
indicated. A look into the valley of the future would certainly
swing the patronage and revenue projections in support of the 1-580
alignment in view of the likely development of major projects along
the 1-580 corridor itself.
4. The proposed downtown Dublin station area occupies valuable
potential commercial area within the City. While we are supportive
of having an adequately sized parking area we are also concerned
about the loss of both developable and partially developed land.
For this reason it is our position that BART should consider
stations involving double-decking parking lots or underground
parking or other means to maintain adequate capacity but reduced
Richard C. Wenzel -2- October 19, 1983
land requirements . This potential combination of parking overflow
in the downtown area and the reduction of commercial developable
area is the reason that the City had earlier expressed concern with
the station in this location . We now urge that these points be
carefully considered by BART in its final adoption and future
planning.
5. It appears that circulation at both stations would be enhanced by a
cross connection between the Dublin and Pleasanton sides of the
parking areas . This would allow the stations to have proper
circulation similar to most other BART facilities without the use of
extensive circuitous routes on city streets . Such overpass
connections would need to be well designed so as to not encourage
through local traffic.
6. It is expected that there would be significant impacts on the
streets near the BART stations themselves . This should be the
subject of further study so that necessary improvements to the
streets can be made and that planning for these improvements can
commence at this time.
7. Related to the access issue is the City of Dublin's need for direct
access to the 1-680 freeway near Dublin Boulevard. A major purpose
of this access would be to provide access to the downtown BART
station from areas to the north, such as San Ramon. The interchange
would preclude the need for "through" BART traffic for San Ramon or
elsewhere to use our local street system. It is our desire that the
BART planning include this additional interchange. The City
currently feels that the final approval of a downtown BART station
itself is, in fact, conditioned upon the additional interchange.
The City of Dublin is also discussing this concern with Caltrans at
the present time.
8. As you know, the City of Dublin is currently conducting studies
which will lead to the adoption of its first General Plan in the
near future . Many of the BART related details such as access,
circulation and land use near the proposed stations are of vital
importance in our General Plan process . For this reason , it is
important to the City that we maintain continuous communication
between our mutual planning efforts.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft final report.
Please contact me if there are questions.
Very truly yours,
Richard C. Ambrose
City Manager
Id