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 3:09 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Snyder, at the City Council Chambers, Milpitas City Hall, 455 East Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present
Jim Beall
Tom Blalock
Cindy Chavez
Patricia Dixon
Gus Morrison
Scott Haggerty
John McLemore
Peter Snyder

Members Absent
Jose Esteves
James Fang
Ron Gonzales
Joel Keller

Public Presentations

Rob Means, interested citizen, offered the Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) as an alternative to BART.   He noted that PRT provides better service, costs less, can be built in less than ten years without outside funding, and the Farebox will pay for the Overhead and Maintenance costs (O&M).  He expressed concern that the PAB does not ask questions about the PRT.

Robert Allen, interested citizen, briefly discussed his plan, the Allen Plan.   He highlighted that the plan keeps the BART at-grade and delays the tunneling until funding is available.  He noted that his proposal is cheaper, can operate sooner, and provides better rail access to the different cities in the Bay Area.   

Ed Connor, interested citizen, discussed the progress of LEV-X in the State of Washington where LEV-X is currently being discussed by the Washington State Senate. He noted that he will provide a copy of Washington House Bill that approved LEV-X.

Minutes of October 6, 2003

Mr. Allen noted correction on Page 4 of 6, paragraph 8 of the minutes and stated that Pacific Lines should be replaced with Amtrak.

M/S/C ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­(McLemore/Blalock) to approve the Minutes of October 6, 2003, as amended.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report

Tom Fitzwater, Environmental Planning Manager, provided a brief overview of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR).  He noted that the DEIS/EIR evaluates three primary alternatives:  No-Action, New Starts Baseline, and BART Extension.  The Bart Extension alternative includes two Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) Scenarios required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the full BART Extension.

Mr. Fitzwater stated that the DEIS/EIR contains the environmental analysis of short-term impacts of construction and long-term impacts of operating the facility in 17 subject areas, namely: Transportation & Transit, Air Quality, Biological Resources & Wetlands, Community Services & Facilities, Cultural & Historic Resources, Electromagnetic Fields, Energy, Environmental Justice, Geology, Soils & Seismicity, Hazardous Materials, Land Use, Noise & Vibration, Security & System Safety, Socio-economics, Utilities, Visual Quality & Aesthetics, and Water Resources, Water Quality & Flood Plains.  The DEIS/EIR also lists the design requirements and best management practices and mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts in these areas.

Mr. Fitzwater compared the benefits of the Baseline versus the BART Extension.   He noted that the BART Extension provides greater average weekday trips, more new transit trips, higher daily travel timesavings in hours, and more peak period trips removed.  The BART Extension gives a major benefit in the air quality because of the removal of the private vehicles on the road.  He added that it provides alternative transit modes so it provides environmental justice and community advantage. 

Mr. Fitzwater briefly discussed the impacts of BART Extension.   He noted that there will be low to medium impact on Transportation & Transit, Noise & Vibration, and Displacement & Relocation.  He noted concern on the intersections that will be affected, the vibration in the Milpitas area, and the commercial structures that will be impacted in the construction of stations and park & ride locations.  For Special Status Species & Wetlands, he noted that there is low impact since the BART Extension is primarily in the right-of-way or under tunnel.  There is medium impact on the Historic & Archaeological category, particularly in Downtown San Jose and Santa Clara Depot.  The major impact will be construction traffic, which will happen for a number of years.

Mr. Fitzwater discussed the environmental schedule and noted that the FTA raised a couple of issues at the last minute.   Although staff is addressing those issues, the release of the DEIS/EIR will be delayed and the public hearings will be deferred to mid-April 2004.  Selection of Alignment and Station Options will happen in May 2004.   The VTA Board of Directors is scheduled to approve the final environmental document by November 2004 and subsequently be approved by the FTA in December 2004.

Member Blalock inquired when the timesavings are projected to take effect.  Mr. Fitzwater replied that the figures estimate the timesavings in the year 2025. 

On order of Vice Chairperson Snyder, the Status Report on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report was received and filed.

Alignment and Station Options

Anne Jamison, Deputy Project Manager, provided a brief background and stated that the Joint VTA and BART Board adopted the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in June 2002 for the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor.  The project description at that time includes several locations where there are options that would be carried through in the environmental process.  As a result of that process, a few more options came up and currently, there are 15 Alignment and Station Design Options for refinement of the Locally Preferred Alternative.  She noted that the presentation is only for information and that the PAB will make a formal recommendation on the Alignment and Station Design Options in the future. 

Ms. Jamison started with the South of Warm Springs Alignment, the northernmost part of the corridor.   She noted that it has two options:  the Rail Right-of-Way and the East of Rail Right-of-Way. The Rail Right-of-Way is the Base Case and it is included in the LPA in 2002.  It is a lower cost option but requires relocation of railroad storage tracks and pipeline.  The East of Rail Right-of-Way option costs $10.8 million more and impacts three industrial buildings.  Staff recommends this option because it meets the BART Warm Springs Selected Alignment, requires less relocation of tracks and pipelines, and avoids rehabilitation of storage tracks. 

Ms. Jamison noted that the Warren Avenue Alignment has the Underpass (BART At-grade) and At-grade (BART Aerial) options.   The Underpass (BART At-grade) is the less expensive and desired option by the City of Fremont because the grade separates BART and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks.  However, this option is dependent on others for funding and requires construction of a new bridge.  Ms. Jamison stated that there is no identified funding source as of the moment.  It is for this reason that staff recommends the At-grade option (BART Aerial) because it is not dependent on grade separation funding from others.  This option costs $5.9 million more but also provides grade separation of BART. 

Member Morrison commented that the City of Fremont has secured about $18 million out of the $32 million required to build the overcrossing. He noted that the project is achievable and that the City of Fremont can assure funding over time.   He urged not to foreclose the option.  Ms. Jamison replied that staff does not intend to foreclose that option. 

Ms. Jamison stated that there is no staff recommendation on the Locomotive Wye Station location as of this time.   The first option is the Fremont location (Base Case).  It has the lower cost, utilizes undeveloped land, but impacts railroad operations.  The Milpitas location on the other hand, utilizes industrial area with existing railroad access and the preferred option of UPRR.  However, this option requires an additional $1.7 million, lengthens the BART trench, and impacts the GreatMall/Milpitas Parkland.  Upon query of Member Dixon, Ms. Jamison noted that the impacted land in Milpitas will be about 20 feet wide and 1,000 feet long.

Ms. Jamison discussed the three options for the Dixon Landing Alignment:   Bart Aerial (Base Case), BART Retained Cut, and BART At-grade.  She noted that staff recommends the BART Aerial option because it has lower cost, maintains existing Dixon Landing Road configuration, and it achieves the grade separation of BART without any significant environmental effects.  On the down side, it maintains UPRR track at-grade and might have some noise and visual impacts.

Ms. Jamison stated that there is no funding and decision is not necessary at this time for the South Calaveras Future Station.   Staff recommends carrying forward the Parking Structure North, Parking Structure South, and Parking Structure North with Parallel Bus Transit Center options.

Ms. Jamison discussed the four options for Montague/Capitol Station (Roadway Transit Center with At-grade Concourse, Roadway Transit with Elevated Concourse, South Bus Transit Center with At-grade Concourse, and South Bus Transit Center with Elevated Concourse) and noted that this station has high bus, rail, and park and ride transfers.  The key decision in this station is to select a preferred station concourse that is either elevated or at-grade, and select a preferred location for the bus transit center either as dedicated stand-alone facility or along the new roadway.  She stated that staff recommends the South Bus Transit Center with At-grade Concourse because it allows better and safe access to passengers and reduces the elevation changes.   

Ms. Jamison moved on to the two Berryessa Station Options.   The Parking Structure Southwest is the Base Case and the recommended option because it is a lower cost option and has no significant impacts on property owners.  The Parking Structure Northeast, although provides better integration between the parking area and station, was not recommended because it costs an additional $49.7 million. 

Member Blalock noted that Berryessa station is long.   He inquired about having an option to have the entrance and exit on the northeast side and another at southwest side.  Ms. Jamison replied that staff could study additional information regarding the master planning in the site during preliminary engineering.  At that time, staff can look for alternatives to move the station and parking structures and do additional environmental work, if necessary.

The Alum Rock Alignment Station has two underground options:   Railroad/28th Street and the US 101 Diagonal.  Ms. Jamison stated that although the US 101 Diagonal option is a costlier option ($23.8 million), staff recommends it because it has a moderate curve and does not require tunneling under private residences, unlike the Railroad/28th Street option.  She added that the potential risks in tunneling are more manageable in U.S. 101 than in residential areas.

Ms. Jamison noted that all seven station entrance options for the Civic Plaza/ San Jose State University Station would be carried forward to the preliminary engineering because none of the options have significant environmental impacts.

The two options for the Downtown Crossover Location are the West of Civic Plaza/SJSU Station and the West of Market Street Station.   Ms. Jamison stated that the recommended station is the West of Civic Plaza/SJSU Station because it is the best operational location (allows crossovers to occur within six-minute headway configuration) and has fewer utility impacts in the cut and cover construction compared to the West of Market Street Option.

Ms. Jamison stated that there are 11 entrance options for the Market Street Station.   Based on the environmental assessment, staff recommends to eliminate the M1-A (South side of East Santa Clara between First and Second Streets) because it has a significant historic and culture impacts.  She also noted that there are stakeholders who feel that this entrance should be carried forward to the preliminary engineering. 

Ms. Jamison stated the track alignment, station locations, and entrance station locations should be considered for the Diridon/Arena Area. The North Option is the Base Case with lower costs but has greater construction impacts to Caltrain tracks, longer distance to existing Diridon Station, and may impact the timing of potential development on surface parking.   Although more expensive, staff recommends the South Option because it provides better connectivity to Diridon, LRT, Buses and future high speed rail, improved joint development/value-capture with Caltrain, better integration, more flexibility in managing construction impacts to Caltrain, and better dispersal of traffic at the HP Pavilion.  Staff also recommends carrying forward all six station entrance options to the preliminary engineering.  Ms. Jamison added that the increased cost of about $22.2 million is for the longer tunnel and additional right-of-way purchase. 

The two options for the Santa Clara Station are the Parking Structure North and Parking Structure South Options.   The Parking Structure North Option is recommended because it has the least cost, supports development opportunities consistent with the City of Santa Claras transit area concept plan, and provides the most safe and efficient station layout.  Ms. Jamison noted that if Parking Structure South Option was taken, the project would have higher cost and might incur more hazardous materials during construction. 

Ms. Jamison added that the Santa Clara Station also considers three walkway options from the BART to Caltrain Station:   Aerial Walkway North Option, Aerial Walkway South Option and Underground Walkway.  She noted that the key considerations in this station are the historic tower and historic Caltrain Depot. She noted that the stakeholders are interested in maintaining the relationship between the two structures.  Among the three options, staff recommends the Aerial Walkway South because it best meets the needs of transferring passengers and it has the lowest cost.  This option lands between the historic tower and the depot so staff will work with historic preservation stakeholders to come up with the design that keeps the heritage even if the new aerial structure is constructed.

Ms. Jamison discussed the Airport Connection options.   She noted staff recommends the At-grade alignment, the Base Case option, because it has lower costs, fewer construction and environmental impacts, and connects to airport through people mover transfer.  The Location Profile for Potential Future Airport Connection is an alternative but it has higher cost and brings greater construction and environmental impacts.

Ms. Jamison stated that the options will be discussed with the Community Working Groups through the public hearing process.   She noted that a Citizens Guide will accompany the environmental document.

Members Beall and Haggerty left the meeting at 4:01 p.m.

Member Chavez inquired about the strategy to inform and obtain feedback from people.   Ms. Jamison replied that the project is taken to the city staff through the project development team meetings.  She noted that staff will present the options and the environmental document to Community Working Groups.  There will be public hearings and a 30-page Citizens Guide that will simplify the environmental document and the alignment options.

Member Chavez made a recommendation for staff to use e-mail or any other simpler and cleaner method to gather feedback from the community regarding the BART Extension project. 

Erik Schoennauer, San Jose Flea Market, expressed concern on staffs recommendation for the Berryessa Station.   He noted that the Parking Structure Southwest Option location is not convenient for transit riders, will significantly diminish transit oriented development potential of surrounding properties, and will negatively affect the viability of the San Jose Flea Market business.  He requested support of the PAB to keep both the Southwest and Northeast Options in the EIR/EIS document.  He noted that the San Jose Flea Market looks forward to working with VTA Staff to arrive at options that has more flexibility.

Mr. Allen directed to attention to the map he provided to the PAB. He briefly discussed his proposal and noted to include another station, extend Caltrain beyond Tamien and defer tunneling until funding is available.

On order of Vice Chairperson Snyder, the Status Report on Alignment and Station Options for Refinement of the Locally Preferred Alternative was received and filed.  

Preliminary Engineering

Jack Collins, Chief Construction Officer, provided a brief preliminary engineering progress report.  He noted that staff started to put together seven Request for Proposals (RFP) packages since August 2003. 

Mr. Collins noted that the Value Engineering Consultant (Value Management Strategies, Inc.) has completed the studies on tunnel segments, completed the station concepts, and provided value-engineering suggestions.  He added that the firm is currently finalizing report on the line segment from Warm Springs Station to the East Side corridor in San Jose.  This consultant will also be responsible for completing the Yard Shop layout study in Santa Clara.

Mr. Collins stated that VTA Board Directors awarded the Tunnel Segment & Project Controls contract to Hatch Mott MacDonald/Bechtel Infrastructure, a Joint Venture last February 2004.  This consultant will be the responsible for project controls, project schedule, progress reports, and estimating. 

Mr. Collins noted that for Systems Engineering, staff selected PGH Wong Engineering and Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., a Joint Venture.   He noted that VTA Board is scheduled to approve the $14.2 million contract on March 4, 2004.  Mr. Collins added Vinod Chopra, BART Systems Group Manager will lead an integrated VTA and BART team in managing the Systems Engineering Consultants.

Mr. Collins stated that staff selected the HNTB Corporation for the Line Segment contract and added that staff is currently negotiating a contract for $20 million for preliminary engineering from Warm Springs to the East side corridor.   He noted that staff received one proposal from Earth Tech for Passenger Station Engineering and stated that staff is currently negotiating a contract with Earth Tech for the preliminary engineering of Station locations.  He noted that VTA has received proposals from STV, Inc. and Arup for Yard & Shops and stated that interviews will be held next week.   He stated that VTA has not received proposals for Design Integration but they are due next week. 

Mr. Collins noted that staff expects to award all the preliminary engineering contracts by June to August 2004.  He stated that most of the contracts has the duration of 18 to 24 months. 

Member McLemore inquired why contracts are awarded every 30 days and not simultaneously.   Mr. Collins responded that contracts are awarded in a staggered basis because of the staff resources and also to provide the contractors the opportunity to put in another bid if in case they were not chosen.  He noted that it is expected for the preliminary engineering to be finished in Fall 2005.

Member Morrison referred to the February 5, 2004 VTA Board Meeting and complimented the VTA Board of Directors. He stated that he was impressed with the comments and the way that the meeting was conducted. 

Mr. Collins stated that as requested by VTA Board, staff will give a brief presentation regarding the timing of the preliminary engineering on February 27, 2004.  He assured the PAB Members that staff will provide them a copy of the presentation as well.

Vice Chairperson Snyder expressed his full support to the BART Extension project.  He noted that he has addressed the BART Board regarding the need to acquire new fleet of vehicles.  He stated that in the future, BART would need to make capital improvements and suggested that it should be done in consort with the BART Extension project. He also expressed concern on the costs of updating the core system and the Control Center of BART.

Mr. Collins responded that VTA and BART staff met to look at the Operations Control Center facility.  He noted that VTA understands the need for upgrades and noted that issues will be addressed in coordination with BART.  Mr. Collins explained that the environmental document also addresses how many cars the BART Extension project would require.   He noted that VTA will coordinate with BART on the procurement of the vehicles for the project because it will significantly lower the unit cost of the vehicles.

Announcements

Staff advised the PAB that the next meeting will be on April 2, 2004.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Vice Chairperson Snyder, there being no objections, the meeting adjourned at 4:17 p.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.