BART Directors Approve Moving Livermore Project Ahead
Dateline:
02/17/2012Source:
Independent News At its meeting Feb. 9 in Oakland, the board agreed to proceed with a project-level EIR and the formation of a joint powers agreement (JPA) with Livermore and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC).
Director John McPartland, whose district includes Livermore, made the motion, which was seconded by director Tom Radulovich of San Francisco.
Radulovich added an amendment that made clear the understanding that no capital improvement money for the Livermore extension would come from BART.
Directors from the older areas of BART service were worried that the Livermore project would have to tap into BART funds sometime in the future.
Directors said that BART has $30 million in reserves, which is a small sum compared to the overall budget. Further, BART faces the need for $7.5 billion in improvements for the entire current system. Much of it is for replacement of train cars that are 40 years old.
The change doesn't conflict with Livermore's position. The city has said all along that the project could be built without BART funds.
The city is counting on voter approval of a countywide one-half cent sales tax enhancement and extension in November. That would bring $400 million to the project.
Another $114 million is available to the project from bridge toll revenue and leftover Measure B money, said Livermore city engineer Cheri Sheets.
Some $3 million of the $114 million is left over from Measure B, which was a sales tax sponsored by ACTC. The remainder is bridge toll revenue split between $95 million authorized by AB 1171, and $16 million from the later Measure 1 approved by Bay Area voters.
If the two money pots - the hoped for $400 million in November, and the set-aside $114 million - were available, their total of $514 million advances the project well down the road to its ultimate cost.
Estimates vary about how much the extension would cost, depending what is charged to the project. BART has projected that it could go as high as $1.2 billion. Livermore officials have said $800 million. Sheets told The Independent earlier this week at it could reach $750 million.
Frank Wilson, former BART general manager now working for Livermore as a consultant on the extension, told The Independent earlier this week that the exact cost can't be estimated now, because the scoping study will pin it down better.
However, it should not be too far off from the $600 million that the Warm Springs extension in Fremont cost. That project went out to bid last summer.
If you compare the Livermore extension with the Warm Springs extension, they are essentially the same. They extend five miles and involve one station. Our talks with BART will involve driving the costs closer to those associated with the Warm Springs project, taking into account today's costs.
Wilson said that BART's $1.2 billion estimate of the project costs includes spending project money on tail tracks (where BART cars are cleaned and maintained) for enough length to store 100 cars.
The only thing that could really be justified for the project is tail tracks to store 50 cars. That would take the 40 cars now stored by Pleasanton, which no longer would be at the end of the line, and add 10 cars needed for the Livermore extension.
BART wants to store 100 cars in Livermore, because it wants to shift costs away from other end-of-the-line stations in the system, and move them to Livermore, while having Livermore finance that whole shift, said Wilson. That adds significant cost to the Livermore project, he said.
LONG LIST OF STUDIES ALREADY DONE
Another factor that could add to cost is the study. At the meeting in Oakland, Livermore resident Linda Jeffrey Sailors waved some reports at the BART board, and talked about how many studies already have been completed for the Livermore project.
The first was in 1991, when Livermore was studied along with what wound up being the Dublin/Pleasanton station. Other studies followed in July 2002, December 2002, October 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008-09 (the program EIR for the extension, plus BART to Livermore and on to Tracy).
There was an additional study in 2010-11 to see if switching BART from downtown to I-580 could comply with funding requirements to be near a transit-oriented development (TOD) community.
One more huge study will just add to the cost and delay the project, said Sailors and others at the meeting microphone.
Further, some items don't need additional study, said Sailors. She cited the diesel train, which would have used existing railroad tracks, that BART proposed as a "short-term" solution. That already has been rejected by Livermore.
A portion of the track is used by ACE. There is no more track time available for them to expand service, let alone provide a DMU for BART, said Sailors.
Contra Costa director Joel Keller brought up light rail, DMU and other alternatives to BART rail as an interim measure. He said it worked for eastern Contra Costa, where Antioch is happy to have the short-term solution of light rail.
Light rail and DMU and many alternative BART track alignments will again be studied as part of the project EIR. However, much of the data from the previous studies can be the base for the coming document, said Sheets.
Sheets said that there will also be new considerations, because of changing policies by various agencies, including environmental regulators. For example, the California tiger salamander has been listed by the federal Fish & Wildlife Service. Since the last study, the state Fish and Game Department has also listed it, so that is one more update that the project EIR will have to provide.
Also a new Regional Transportation Plan is being worked on, and a county plan, too, so the project has to be reviewed in light of those, said Sheets.
"We have to follow all the rules at project level. We will be doing that," said Sheets.
In order to save money and time on the project, Livermore wants to hire a firm that can conduct both design studies and building, said Sheets.
The design plans are reviewed by the builders and the building plans by the designers. That catches errors much sooner than splitting the two functions between two separate organizations. The combined study results in more speed, and therefore less overall cost, she said.
When Livermore forms the JPA with BART and ACTC, the city would be the manager, which Sheets said is a better description than "lead agency," since the powers of all three would be equal, said Sheets.
Sheets said that if all goes well in timing with the entire project, the station at Isabel Avenue near Interstate 580 would be open in 2020 or the following year.
Other items authorized by the board's action will be conceptual engineering and creation of ridership development plans.
There will also be an analysis in the light of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which fosters equal treatment for seniors, handicapped persons, and ethnic and racial minorities.
MARCHAND LIKES BOARD'S VOTE
Livermore Mayor John Marchand told The Independent that the BART board showed caution in its action, but the vote showed "that they have confidence we can work together to bring BART to Livermore."
At the meeting, Marchand also corrected an error made by one director who said that Livermore and Pleasanton have rejected the high-speed train advocated by Gov. Jerry Brown. If it goes through the Central Valley near Tracy, the train could link to Livermore BART via the Altamont, and provide another funding source for the Livermore project.
Marchand said that there has been no formal vote on either the Livermore or Pleasanton city councils concerning high-speed rail. Only Pleasanton indicated that they would not support high-speed rail.
The board's decision was literally applauded by many Livermore residents who attended the meeting.
Many of the comments were similar to those made at several board meetings of the ACTC in pushing to be included on the November ballot for the $400 million in financing.
Many talked about paying taxes on BART for decades, without getting any service. Bob Baltzer said he has lived in Livermore since 1962, and waits for it.
"There is some agitation to amend the motion to include all kinds of bus stuff out of the Dublin/Pleasanton station. Commuters coming from the Central Valley won't stop at a transfer station to a bus, then go five miles to BART," said Baltzer.
Valerie Raymond said, "BART was sold as a regional system, and after 49 years, it's not unreasonable to say now is that time to keep that commitment." Livermore has paid the one-half cent sales tax on BART, but received very little benefit from it, she said.
Later in the meeting, director Radulovich said, "No one has paid a dollar to BART to Livermore. It has all gone to the system we have now. Any new money on extensions have to come from new sources."
Joan Seppala told the board that Livermore, with its future i-GATE center, will be a regional job magnet, attracting people from all over the Bay Area. Seppala added that it's important to have November ballot tax support for the new Measure B from all over the county including Livermore, because it will be on a ballot along with the Governor's statewide tax increase.
Former Livermore Mayor Archer Futch said that he has supported BART for 50 years. The extension is important to help clear up Valley air. He said that parking will be essential. The parking structure slated for Livermore will hold 2500 cars.
Markus Huber said that it takes him 30 minutes to make the drive from Springtown to the Dublin/Pleasanton station. Having enough parking will be crucial; without it, commuters won't stand a chance, he said.
Charles Hartwig said that he has been using BART for decades, even though he had to drive to the Bayfair station to do it, and now goes to Dublin/Pleasanton. He belongs to many Livermore organizations, and he finds great Livermore extension support among everyone he comes in contact with.
Trice Cunningham said that she has been in Livermore 35 years. "I know what it's like to wait," she said. She also said she doesn't drive a car, and needs BART.
Nancy Bankhead said that BART held out a carrot, and Pleasanton got the carrot - a BART station. There was no carrot for Livermore. Now Livermore should get the carrot, "so that we can make carrot cake, and ride BART."
LARPD board member Beth Wilson said that she and other seniors need BART. Further, the smog it would displace has an adverse effect on the health of humans, plants and animals. Also, the extension will attract more than 20,000 new riders by 2035.
TRANSFORM URGES KEEN FISCAL LOOK
Transform, which has advocated for more money for inner city transit, bicycle paths and education, and other concerns of Bayside transit users, was represented at the meeting by Manolo Gonzalez.
Transform tried to obtain more money from ACTC's allocation of the Measure B funds that will be on the ballot in November. One of their arguing points was that the BART project (with its $400 million allocation) wasn't ready for the ballot yet, because the costs were not known.
Gonzalez said that he was glad to see director McPartland moving forward with the extension, "but we don't want to move too quickly. There are issues about cost and how to pay for this." He said there should be an investment analysis, to show where the money will come from.
Gonzalez called the BART to Livermore extension "a BART project," and said that it needs to be led by BART.
A speaker from Urban Habitat said that she "echoed what Manolo just said. Our folks are more and more dependent on BART. We want to see the system reliable for the long term, and make sure it doesn't become less affordable. You need to maintain the core system, before there is an extension," she said.
Related stories:
