The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.2 BART Extension Supplemental Analysis 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.