Related Links

The Regular Meeting of the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor BART Extension to Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara Policy Advisory Board (PAB) was called to order at 9:12 a.m. by Chairperson Gonzales, at the City Council Chambers, Milpitas City Hall, 455 East Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas, California.

ROLL CALL

Member Present
Jim Beall
Tom Blalock
Cindy Chavez
Patricia Dixon
Ron Gonzales
Scott Haggerty
John McLemore

Members Absent
Jose Esteves
James Fang
Joel Keller
Gus Morrison
Peter Snyder

A quorum was present.

Minutes of May 28, 2003

M/S/C (Beall/Blalock) to approve the Minutes of May 28, 2003, as corrected, to reflect Peter W. Snyder as present and Jose Esteves and Joel Keller absent at the May 28, 2003 meeting.

Lisa Ives, Project Manager for BART Extension, presented the status report highlighting on the key milestones in project activities.  Ms. Ives noted that the Federal Transportation Administrations (FTAs) main comment in the draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) is to include a Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) alternative in the EIS/EIR and New Starts Process.    With regard to Conceptual Design, Ms. Ives informed the PAB that the Direct Dublin/Pleasanton BART Service Analysis is completed and will be discussed later in the meeting.

Ms. Ives stated that as directed by the VTA Board of Directors, a Request for Proposal (RFP) for preliminary engineering of the tunnel section was issued last week.  She added that there would be more RFPs in the following months to organize a consultant team.  Ms. Ives stated that staff would come back in October to report to the PAB regarding scope of work, project schedule and to introduce the project team.

Ms. Ives noted that there would be Community Working Group (CWG) meetings within the next two weeks to discuss the MOS scenarios and present the Lessons Learned Report.  In addition, Ms. Ives encouraged the members to attend the BART Land Use Tour organized by VTA and Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group on October 17, 2003.

Ms. Ives stated that BART staff has completed Phase I of the BART Core Impact Study.  Ms. Ives noted that VTA and BART staff are currently in the process of determining Phase II work scope.  Ms. Ives stated that a comprehensive presentation regarding the BART Core Impact Study would be provided sometime in the future. 

Ms. Ives informed the PAB about the Union Pacific Railroads (UPRs) intention to sell the Newhall Yard.  She added that VTA is evaluating the option of purchasing the property for future use.

Ms. Ives noted that the annual update of FTAs New Starts Report submitted last week had two key elements: Telling the Story brochure and the Land Use Report.  Ms. Ives explained that Telling the Story is a new FTA requirement that summarized the importance of the project.  The Land Use Report, on the other hand, emphasized the proactive efforts of cities regarding transit support, land use policies, and plans around the proposed BART stations.

Ms. Ives provided a brief report on project funding highlighting that the recently approved $45 million Traffic Congestion Relief Plan (TCRP) allocation only includes costs for environmental and conceptual engineering.  Ms. Ives mentioned that there is no new TCRP funding for right-of-way or preliminary engineering.  Ms. Ives added that FTA has approved a grant of $250,000 for preliminary engineering work.  Lastly, Ms. Ives mentioned that VTA Board of Directors allocated $170 million to bond against 2000 Measure A  for the preliminary engineering.

Member Dixon complimented staff for their excellent work on the Land Use Report.  Member Dixon queried how often the report is updated and expressed concern that the report must be updated as much as possible.  Ms. Ives replied that at the minimum, the report must be updated annually but also mentioned that cities can submit significant changes regarding their respective land use at any time.

Selection of a Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) for further analysis in the environmental document

Chairperson Gonzales requested the PAB to defer this action in the next PAB meeting scheduled on September 24, 2003.  Chairperson Gonzales suggested that in addition to the CWG meetings, VTA staff should schedule public meetings along the corridor to give the public an opportunity to understand the issues and to gather their views.

Chairperson Gonzales complimented staff for responding quickly to FTAs request and emphasized that the MOS is a request of FTA.  Chairperson Gonzales noted the intention to fulfill the voters choice by building the entire project and providing  accessibility and service to East Side of San Jose.

Ms. Ives mentioned that FTA requests every transit operator in the country to do a MOS.  Ms. Ives stated that the MOS purpose is to reduce overall project cost and federal funding share, make the project more competitive in New Starts process, and include the MOS in the environmental document as an alternative.  Ms. Ives emphasized VTAs commitment to the full project and that the EIS/EIR and New Starts Process will recognize that.   Ms. Ives further added that the MOS is an alternative for analysis purposes only.

Ms. Ives discussed the strategy and goals highlighting on the pyramid approach which means building the entire line but deferring other project elements such as stations, vehicles and maintenance systems capacity.  Ms. Ives added that VTAs  MOS goals are: reduce project cost, preserve ridership, avoid wasted project elements and money, extend BART to Downtown San Jose with some scenarios that continue on to Santa Clara, and include storage and maintenance facilities for the extension.

Ms. Ives stated that the Locally Preferred Alternative for BART Extension was the base for the MOS scenarios.  She also reviewed the ranking of the stations based on ridership, noting the top three stations: Market Street, Montague/Capitol and Santa Clara.

Ms. Ives enumerated the common characteristics of the MOS Scenarios, namely: six minute headways, serve Montague/Capitol & Market Street Stations due to ridership, include maintenance facility in San Jose/Santa Clara, build shell & platform for deferred subway stations to minimize disruption, and purchase property for stations and construction staging areas.

Chairperson Gonzales left his seat at 9:33 a.m.

Chairperson Gonzales returned to his seat at 9:34 a.m.

Ms. Ives presented the four alternatives of the MOS and discussed in detail the features, advantages, and disadvantages of each alternative.  Ms. Ives stated that of the four alternatives, staff recommends the PAB select the MOS-1D for further analysis because it preserves 86 percent of ridership, defers $470 million capital costs, saves $7.5 million annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and accommodates key intermodal connections at all four stations (Montague/Capitol, Market Street, Diridon, and Santa Clara).   Ms. Ives advised the PAB that federal funding for Phase II can be pursued at a later date.  She added the possibility of building stations through joint development or other state or local funding.

Ms. Ives reviewed the next steps in the project, highlighting that the selected MOS will be included in the environmental document for further analysis.  The updated EIS/EIR will then be submitted to FTA for review and subsequently be circulated for public review.

Member Dixon thanked Chairperson Gonzales for deferring the selection of MOS so that discussions can be made.  She stated that the City of Milpitas long-term strategy is to support the full system, but expressed concern regarding potential traffic congestion problems in the City of Milpitas should Phase II be delayed further.

Member Chavez thanked staff for their quick and good work.  Member Chavez stated that the public must be informed of the different construction activities.  She called attention to the Downtown East Valley (DTEV) Study and stated the importance of looking at the DTEV light rail alignment to ensure that there is no conflict.

Ms. Ives stated that there will be no disruption because the construction will be underground.  She added that the parking structures and other elements will be built at a later date. 

Member Beall queried regarding FTAs share of the project costs and the reason why FTA is requiring the MOS.   Peter M. Cipolla, General Manager, responded that part of the authorization process to get the intended 22 percent share of FTA is to adhere to FTA project instructions.  Mr. Cipolla added that the amount of dollars will be determined only after negotiations with the FTA.

Member Beall expressed concern regarding FTAs intentions and stated that the MOS alternative be given more thought.  Mr. Cipolla explained that FTA is pushing that all transit projects around the country, whether in final design or not, to include a MOS in the environmental document which can delay the project for a year to 18 months.  Mr. Cipolla noted that it is best for the project to include the MOS now to be more effective in the funding queue.

Member Beall queried if there is a different strategy other than eliminating stations.  Member Beall noted that taking out the stations will affect Santa Clara County tremendously and stated the need to get additional resources such as joint development.  Member Beall added that the Bay Area will support the project because it is a regional plan and, therefore, should get federal funding.

Member Blalock commented that the Montague/Capitol Station of the MOS-1D scenario serves the entire east side of San Jose.  Member Blalock queried if there is a study conducted that explores a modal bus service.  Member Gonzales emphasized the importance of the intermodal connection in the Montague/Capitol Station.  Ms. Ives replied that time constraints limited VTA staff from exploring the modal bus service,  but would be doing so in the future.

Member Haggerty queried about the effects of the MOS-1D in the Warm Springs Station. Ms. Ives responded that there could be a potential increase of demand in the Warm Springs Station in any of the presented scenarios.  She added that the impacts and issues that may arise from the MOS scenario would be discussed in detail in the environmental document.

Member Haggerty left his seat at 10:01 a.m.

Member Haggerty took his seat at 10:02 a.m.

Member McLemore expressed his support in deferring the action for the selection of the MOS.  Member McLemore expressed his support in MOS-1D scenario because of the inclusion of the Santa Clara Station. Member McLemore stated the Santa Clara station is critical because it does only serve the City of Santa Clara but also half of the other cities.

Mr. Robert Allen, interested citizen, suggested minimizing the tunnel portion of the BART Extension to save costs.  Mr. Allen further suggested exploring the possibility of building BART at grade to prevent elimination of stations along the corridor.

Ms. Sarah Muller, Working Partnership of Southbay Labor Council, expressed concern regarding the effects of bypassing the East San Jose station.  Ms. Muller urged the PAB to give the public 30 days to review and make comments on staff recommendation regarding the elimination of stations.

Member Chavez stated that staff should conduct public meetings regarding the issue both on the East and West Valley.  Member Beall recommended that staff develop other options that do not involve eliminating stations and explore new revenue opportunities.

Member Dixon invited the City of Fremont to the City of Milpitas City Council public hearing on September 16, 2003.

M/S/C (Chavez/Beall) to defer the selection of the MOS scenario to the September 24, 2003 meeting.

Direct Dublin/Pleasanton BART Service Analysis

Ms. Ives provided a brief presentation on the Direct Dublin/Pleasaton Service Analysis.  Ms. Ives explained that under this option, the BART Extension direct Richmond line would be replaced with a direct line from Dublin/Pleasanton.  In effect, the current Dublin/Pleasanton direct line to San Francisco would be replaced with a direct line to Richmond.  Ms. Ives further explained that the option would entail modification of the bus feeder service and construction of a wye.  She noted that the direct service would still mean passenger transfers. 

Member Haggerty queried if there will be less transfers if the connections are configured differently.  Ms. Ives responded that VTA staff studied four different scenarios for the Direct Dublin/Pleasanton Service and added that the option currently being discussed generates the highest ridership.

Ms. Ives noted the wye has physical constraints due to the I-580 and 238 interchange and indicated that the wye should be elevated to connect it to the Fremont line.   Ms. Ives also pointed out that the construction of the wye would mean acquiring or relocating a minimum of 25 homes in Alameda County.  She added that the remaining homes would have significant visual and noise impacts due to the elevated BART line.

Ms. Ives illustrated the comparison between BART Extension and Direct Dublin/Pleasanton Service.  She pointed out that the Direct Dublin/Pleasanton Service increases ridership, reduces travel time from Dublin/Pleasanton to Santa Clara County, but increases travel time from Dublin/Pleasanton to San Francisco and Oakland.  Moreover, the Direct Dublin/Pleasanton option increases the number of vehicles, adds capital costs of about $200 million and increases operating costs of about $3 million.   Ms. Ives indicated that staffs recommendation is to not pursue the direct service but also noted that BART could re-examine the option in the future. 

Member Blalock expressed concern that there will be a huge impact to the Bay Fair Station when the BART Extension is already operational.  Ms. Ives responded that BART staff may want to pursue evaluating the wye option versus the Bay Fair improvements in the Core Impact Study. 

Member Blalock queried what would be the issue of clearing Direct Dublin/Pleasanton Service in the EIS/EIR. Ms. Ives responded that it is a question whether it will be in the best interest of the project to add $200 million to project costs at this time.  Ms. Ives also pointed out that if the option is included in the EIS/EIR, VTA would have to take the lead in relocating the 25 homes in Hayward which will be impacted in the construction of the wye.

Member Haggerty complimented staff for their work.  Referring to Page 4 of the report, he queried if there is a possibility of making the turn at Kendell Way.  Ms. Ives replied that the wye presently shown meets the minimum BART operating standards and further explained that a curve should be maintained to operate the trains at 50 mph. 

Member McLemore complimented staff for clear presentation of outstanding data.  Member McLemore queried if or when the wye becomes a responsibility of VTA, if BART decides to construct it. Ms. Ives responded that the cooperative agreement between BART and VTA states that it is VTAs responsibility to address capacity constraints such as station, system, and parking improvements.  Ms. Ives added that if BART pursues the construction of the wye as a BART Core Impact Improvement, VTA will need to pay the fair share of the cost to construct the wye.

Member Blalock referred to Page 7 of staff report and commented that the selection of the Dublin/Pleasanton Alignment would result in having a BART line that will connect the San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose airports in the Bay Area.

M/S/C (Blalock/Chavez) not to pursue the Direct Dublin/Pleasanton Service as part of the BART Extension to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara.  However, BART may re-examine in the future, possibly as part of the BART Core Impact Study.

Public Presentations

Rob Means, Sunnyhills Neighborhood Association, addressed the PAB regarding the Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) which costs  one-third of the Light Rail.

Announcements

There were no announcements.

Adjournment

On order of Chairperson Gonzales, there being no objection, the meeting adjourned at 10:28 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Elaine F. Baltao, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors

NOTE:  M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNAMINOUSLY.