Responses to questions from September 30, 2004 PAB Meeting
Ms. Render stated staff will respond to the PAB’s questions posed at the September 20, 2004 PAB Meeting regarding potential for an early phase as a part of the Single Car Light Rail Alternative from Alum Rock Station to 28th Street Station (Five Wounds), cost and timeline for either a supplemental or re-circulated draft environmental document to accommodate an early phase for the light rail alternative, a timeline and cost for what may need to be done in terms of conceptual design and environmental for an underground segment Downtown San Jose, and bus rapid transit allocation for funding in VTP 2030 and whether it that can be used for Downtown East Valley.
Steven Fisher, Senior Transportation Planner, stated that VTA does have experience in phasing light rail projects. He reviewed pitfalls of phasing, and benefits of phasing from VTA’s perspective. Mr. Fisher noted that the Guadalupe Light Rail Project was opened in four phases and Tasman East was opened in two phases. Staff considered phasing the Vasona Project when problems occurred at Hamilton Avenue but having the experience from the other projects, staff decided against it. Some of those issues have also carried forward in looking at an early opening at the Five Wounds area.
Mr. Fisher referenced a handout entitled Response to PAB Inquiry Single Car LRT Alternative Potential Early Phase (Alum Rock to Five Wounds) Challenges and issues stated that the challenges and issues are: 1) the 1.9 mile light rail extension from Alum Rock to Five Wounds will be inefficient to operate, 2) will force 54 percent of the light rail riders to transfer at 28th Street to continue their trip to Downtown San Jose, 3) will create a major traffic operations issues at 28th Street as all buses and light rail vehicles will be forced to turn into a transit center which will cause delays for traffic movements on Santa Clara Street, 4) construction will require a temporary transit center and light rail layover facility at Five Wounds until the project is completed, and 5) the construction period will be extended in the Five Wounds area until both the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Santa Clara/Alum Rock projects are completed.
Member Alvarado queried if construction to the Eastside would be underway at this time if it has been included as part of the Vasona line going all the way down to Eastridge and whether it is too late to consider that option.
Vice Chairperson Campos requested staff present a scenario which would include the Vasona Line extending to the Eastside, how to move forward with the scenario, and how to be complete a project that should have been created over ten-years ago.
Ms. Render referenced a handout entitled “Downtown East Valley Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor: Alternative EIS/EIR Processes and Schedules (for illustrative purposes in response to questions by DTEV PAB on September 30)”.
Ms. Render reported that with current process, single car light rail and enhanced bus alternatives – draft EIS/EIR, there would be no additional budget required.
Ms. Render noted that the single cart light rail alternative with a potential early phase Alum Rock to Five would require physical changes that would need to be made to the project to allow the trains to turn-around. This option would require a supplemental document or re-circulation of the draft EIS/EIR due to these changes.
Ms. Render stated that the light rail potential underground segment in Downtown San Jose would also require a re-circulated draft EIS/EIR moving the project four years out before getting to environmental approval because it would be almost like starting all over again with the planning in that area. Staff did not include any real analysis of an underground alternative in the draft EIS, therefore, none of the environmental studies include that option and would have to start from scratch. This option would cause impacts to the BART project, there would be significant cost increases and project costs for an underground segment.
Chairperson Chavez queried if construction of the project could start further up on Alum Rock. Ms. Render responded that staff would need to take a closer look at that alternative before providing a definite answer. Mr. Fisher stated that there is no advantage to build further up on Alum Rock.
Member McHugh queried if using the enhanced bus as an interim to avoid some of the complexities of building BART and the light rail simultaneously has been considered. Ms. Render responded that option had been considered at a previous meeting and staff concluded that it would be more than the $290 million estimated for the light rail project. Ms. Render stated that the service element could be there in advance and queried if the PAB would want to spend the dollars on the improvements at the various stations for the enhanced bus that would ultimately need to be demolished and rebuilt.
Member Alvarado queried that since BART and the light rail project will be linked, has BART taken into consideration the light rail project and considered combining planning efforts with the DTEV PAB. Ms. Render stated that the environmental document takes both projects into account.
Chairperson Chavez requested staff provide an update on the Alum Rock section of the BART EIR to the PAB at their December 2004 meeting.
Ms. Render stated that the PAB had queried as to what portion of the $50 million allocation for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) fits into VTP 2030 and what portion of that could be used for DTEV. Ms. Render advised that the $50 million was the overall project allocation for BRT and $33 million in 2000 Measure A funds was allocated out of the tax measure. Ms. Render further stated that neither the $33 million nor the $50 million are defined in a very detailed way; but Line 22, Monterey Highway BRT, which is a part of DTEV and the Stevens Creek Corridor. However, it is uncertain exactly how many dollars would be required for future BRT lines. The $50 million may not be enough to fund all three projects, the Monterey portion was estimated at $30 million during the Major Investment Study (MIS) for physical improvements and purchases of buses. Typically when staff did the planning for Monterey Highway BRT staff identified the cost of what it would take to build and operate that service, including facilities and buses.
| 
Rider's Links 
