Progress Report on the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor
Julie Render, Deputy Director Transit Planning & Development, stated that as a result of the August 2004’s PAB Meeting and staff’s preliminary recommendation to the PAB, concerns were raised such as the PAB’s strong desire not to delay the project any further. Ms. Render stated that the PAB Members also recommended light rail as the preferred alternative and made several queries and comments from the PAB regarding the project moving forward.
Ms. Render advised that with regard to the PAB Member’s concerns and recommendations, staff immediately halted the outreach scheduled for August and September 2004, took a step back, reconsidered the process as well as questions and concerns raised by the PAB, tried to determine how staff could best handle the concerns and still keep the process moving forward, and keep the PAB Members comfortable as staff moves forward.
Ms. Render stated there are various ways to move forward beyond the environmental process and presented a proposed modified process to the PAB that would move the project forward without lengthy delays and make sure that staff does not prematurely halt anything or throw additional things into the study that may be wanted in a few months from now but now is not the time to do so.
Ms. Render outlined the five steps in the handout entitled Downtown East Valley Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Proposed Decision-Making Process: Step 1 as outlined in the handout is to circulate the Draft EIS/EIR when released by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) with a no “preferred alternative”, side-by-side comparison, expanded Citizen’s Guide, and two public hearings between October and November 2004. Step 2 as outlined in the handout would be after the public hearings are held and close of the public comment period, the PABs’ recommendation would be reaffirmed. This would likely occur December 2004 or January 2005. Step 3 as outlined in the handout states the Final EIS/EIR with a no “preferred alternative” would be circulated April 2005. Step 4 as outlined in the handout states the PAB’s recommendation and staff’s recommendation will be presented to the Transit Operations & Planning Committee (TP&O) May of 2005. Step 5 states that the PAB’s recommendation would be identified, as well as staff’s recommendation and presented to the Board of Directors at their meeting on June 2005.
Ms. Render noted that there is a possibility that the PAB’s recommendation and staff’s recommendation will differ and if that is the case, the final EIS will not identify a preferred alternative but rather both alternatives will be laid out side-by-side with no “preferred alternative identified” according to Tom Fitzwater, Environmental Planning Manager.
Ms. Render reiterated that the schedule is not set in stone and if at any point in the process there might be a decision made to change the alternatives, which would require re-circulation of a draft EIS or it is at Step 2. If the PAB is not comfortable making a recommendation on the two alternatives currently on the table, this would be the time to put a halt to the ongoing studies and determine what additional studies would be needed, what outreach would be needed, what is it that the PAB and staff would need to come to a decision.
Member Chavez recommended the Citizen’s Guide be elevated to a workbook so the public will have access to maps and other information that clearly shows the differences in the alternatives.
Chairperson Chavez recommended the Citizen’s Guide be made available to the public on the VTA Website.
Vice Chairperson Campos queried about the possibility of doing another EIR subject to staff’s presentation because of the possibility of considering other options such as building the line only to Five Wounds Church. Ms. Render stated that if the PAB was going to decide on another alternative it would happen in Step 2. Staff would prepare a re-circulated draft EIS/EIR, which would then go through the environmental review process for final decision. Vice Chairperson Campos queried whether re-circulating an EIR/EIS would affect the current timeline. Ms. Render responded that it would add a year to a year and one-half to the current schedule because it would include a new alternative. Vice Chairperson Campos queried as to the timeline for the light rail project on Alum Rock to Downtown San Jose. Steven Fisher, Senior Transportation Planner stated that the timeline would be integrated with the BART Project at this point.
Vice Chairperson Campos requested staff provide information regarding the cost for a
Supplemental EIR from US 101 to Downtown San Jose for undergrounding of light rail.
Mr. Fisher stated that the BART PE work currently underway may need to be redone if a decision were made to underground light rail in the same corridor. Ms. Render stated that there would also be a significant funding shortfall for the Downtown East Valley plan.
Chairperson Chavez stated that it is important that everyone is mindful that BART has a full series of challenges does not want to go out into the community and misinterpret work that we want to do on Downtown East Valley.
Vice Chairperson Campos requested staff provide information regarding how the Alum Rock Corridor will impact BART if following the same timeline.
M/S/C (Campos/Chavez) to accept moving forward with the EIS/EIR to be released into the Community with no preferred alternative recommendation, for public comment and for the PAB’s comment.
Chairperson Chavez requested staff provide a timeline for a supplemental or re-circulated EIS/EIR for both alternatives with description of staff’s preference for one alternative versus the other, providing cost implications for alternatives, and timeline implications.
Chairperson Chavez requested staff provide a previously distributed memorandum regarding undergrounding of light rail.
Mr. Fisher provided a brief presentation regarding a side-by-side comparison of service, vehicles and stations, sample trip time, Conceptual Engineering Findings, and Measure A Transit Program.
Mr. Fisher stated that with regard to service, the Enhanced Bus proposes articulated buses and circulator buses, which will run every 10 minutes and every 5 to 10 minutes respectively, with 11 new stations.
Mr. Fisher stated that the Single Car Light Rail will run from Diridon Station to Eastridge, with 10-minute frequency, and will have 11 new stations.
Mr. Fisher stated that the articulated bus will be 60 feet in length, 8.5 feet in width, 57 seats, platforms that are 100-130 feet in length and the platform height will be 6 inches. Single Car Light Rail will be 90 feet in length, 8.7 feet in width, will have 65 seats, the station length will be 150 feet, and platform height will be 14 inches for 90 feet and 6 inches for 60 feet.
Mr. Fisher stated that sample trip times, Enhanced Bus, peak time from Civic Center to Diridon Station will be 7 minutes, off peak will be 7 minutes and Single Car Light Rail would be 9 minutes for both peak and off peak. From King Road to Transit Mall peak time will be 10 minutes and off peak will be 10 minutes, from Eastridge to Transit Mall peak time for Enhanced Bus will be 31 minutes and off peak will be 24 minutes, and for light rail it will be 23 minutes for both peak and off-peak because light rail is in a separate right-of-way. From Eastridge to Diridon Station peak time will be 36 minutes, and off peak will be 29 minutes for Enhanced Bus and 29 minutes for peak and off-peak for light rail.
Mr. Fisher noted that Conceptual Engineering Findings, Enhanced Bus construction time would be between 12 months and 18 months with earliest operation commencing in 2008. Daily ridership is expected to be 7,300 and capital costs $85 million in 2003 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be approximately $4.0 million.
Mr. Fisher also noted that Single Car Light Rail construction time would be between 30 months and 36 months with earliest operation commencing in 2016. Daily ridership is expected to be 8,000 and capital costs $290 million in 2003 dollars. The annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be approximately $6.2 million.
Ms. Render stated that Attachment A, Measure A Transit Program, identifies the $550 million allocated to the DTEV when the VTA Board of Directors set the Transit Program allocations as a part of the Countywide Transportation Plan in April 2004. Ms. Render noted that the $550 for DTEV has been submitted to MTC for the fiscally constrained regional plan.
Chairperson Chavez requested staff provide information regarding the cost estimate of $50 million for BRT and what portion would be used on the project.
Ms. Chavez expressed concern with regard to the Capitol Expressway light rail vehicle storage facility being assigned to just one project and not allocated to the overall system.
Ms. Render advised that the figures on Measure A have been forwarded to MTC for the Regional Transportation Plan and when the Plan comes out DTEV will reflect $97 million on the Fiscally Constrained Plan because MTC does have requirements as to the ability to operate the system. The $97 million includes PE and right-of-way for light rail in the Capitol Expressway and Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridors.
On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the Progress Report on the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor was received and filed.
| 
Rider's Links 
