HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Livermore Amador Vly Alternative Rail Study /060 -so
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 28, 1987
SUBJECT Livermore/Amador Valley Rail Alternatives Study
Draft Final Report.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1 - September 21, 1987; Memo from Chris Kinzel,
TJKM
2 - Dublin Rail Study Schedule
3 - Summary Excerpt from Livermore/Amador Valley
Rail Alternatives Study - Draft Final Report
- Dublin General Plan Policies re. BART
RECOMMENDATION kvvsee below.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT None.
DESCRIPTION
The Draft Final Report of the Livermore/Amador Valley Rail Alternatives
Study has been released for public comment. The report was prepared by DKS
Associates and several other consultants working for the Livermore Amador
Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District
(BART) . The purpose of the study is to evaluate various light rail transit
(LRT) and BART alternatives to provide transit service to the Tri-Valley area
from the Bay Fair BART Station. The study is a requirement of Alameda County
Measure B.
The study concludes that any of three alternatives (high speed
conventional LRT, high performance LRT, and BART) appear feasible, and the
differences among them are not great. The study goes on to indicate that the
BART alternative is recommended over both of the light rail alternatives.
The reasons given for recommending the BART alternatives are:
- faster trains, with shorter travel times
- more riders
- system availability, with reduced risk, start-up costs and uncertainty
- more flexibility, with potential for through service
- lower annual operating costs
A major drawback of the BART alternative is its costs, estimated at
approximately $25 million (about 12%) more than the high speed conventional
LRT ($226 million vs. $201 million) . The cost is significant because Measure
B allocates only $170 million to assist in rail transit service to the Tri-
Valley area. The $226 million estimate is for a two station (Castro Valley
and West Dublin/Pleasanton) BART extension.
Two meetings have been scheduled to receive public comments:
1) October 1, 1987, 7 p.m. , Community Meeting at Pleasanton City
Council Chambers.
2) October 20, 1987, 4 p.m. , Policy Liaison Committee, Dublin Library
The Final Report is scheduled for distribution between October 21-30,
1987. The BART Engineering & Operations/Board and the LAVTA Board may take
action on the study some time in November, 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. a COPIES TO: Planning Department
Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to send the following
comments, either as drafted or with revisions, to both BART and LAVTA (see
Attachment 1 Memo._from_Kinzel for.further elaboration) :
1. Preferred Alternative: Endorse BART type equipment and operation on the '
Dublin/Pleasanton extension as consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
2. Number of Stations: Strongly recommend two stations initially in the
Dublin/Pleasanton area as consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
3. EIR EIS: Urge preparation of a full and comprehensive environmental
investigation.
4. Funding: Urge preparation of accurate cost estimates as soon as
possible, including
a) Commitment from BART to use already ordered cars in the
Dublin/Pleasanton extension.
b) Commitment from BART for a major share of the $70 million in the
BART Capital Improvement Program for construction of extensions.
c) Consideration of private sector/joint development, and State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding.
5. Direct Through Service: Urge BART to design a Dublin/Pleasanton
extension which includes potential for direct non-transfer service to San
Francisco.
6. I-580/1-680 Interchange Improvements: Work toward STIP funding of post-
Measure B improvements.
7. General Plan Amendment Study and Specific Plan Study: Consider East
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station in the Dublin Ranch General Plan Amendment
Study and Specific Plan Study.
8. Schedule: Urge BART and Measure B officials to accelerate the schedule
to produce the earliest feasible service start.
9. Ridership Estimates: Comment that the study under estimates year 2005
Dublin/Pleasanton ridership in the "off-peak" direction. .
-2-
4637 Chabot Drive,Suite 214
Pleasanton Ca. 94566
(415)463.0611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 21, 1987
TO: Lawrence L. Tong, Planning Director R E Q E 1 V ED
P
FROM. Chris D. Kinzel
SUBJECT: Livermore/Amador Valley Rail Alternatives Study
Draft Final Report
As requested, I have reviewed this report on behalf of the City of Dublin.
The report fulfills the conditions of Measure B by evaluating various rail
alternatives to provide transit service to the Tri-Valley area from the Bay Fair
BART station. The following modes were analyzed: conventional light rail transit
(LRT), high speed conventional LRT, high performance LRT and BART.
The study concludes that the BART alternative is superior for the following
reasons:
1. Speeds of the BART trains are faster resulting in lower travel times.
2. Because of increased speeds, BART will attract more riders.
3. Traditional LRT advantages such as reduced costs and flexible routing
over City streets are not significant in the 1-580 median corridor
between San Leandro and Dublin.
4. Use of the BART system to Dublin would simplify fare collection by
allowing Tri-Valley riders to enter the BART system and not transfer to
a different fare system in San Leandro.
(Technically, the LRT alternatives could also use an integrated BART
fare system, but this type of fare collection is not standard in LRT
operations.)
In addition, a key point for Tri-Valley riders would be the ability to travel
directly to Richmond or San Francisco without system transfers in San Leandro or
train transfers in Oakland. Direct, or at least coordinated same-system operation is
useful in reducing travel times and increasing convenience and ridership.
The major drawback of the BART alternate is its costs, estimated at $25 million
(approximately 14 percent) more than the high speed conventional LRT. This is
important because Measure B only allocates $170 million while the report indicates
rough cost estimates of some $225 million for the two-station extension (Castro
Valley and West Dublin/Pleasanton).
Based on my review of the report and discussion with BART and LAVTA staff
members, I recommend that the City Council endorse the position of favoring
BART type equipment and operation on the Dublin/Pleasanton extension.
LYM 01 0
PLEASANTON-SACRAMENTO,FRESNO•C c li ""HMENT
r
Mr. Lawrence L. Tong -2- September 21, 1987
In addition, there are several key issues of importance to Dublin:
1. Number of Stations in Dublin - The report quantified some of the
concerns that have been raised if the extension only has one Tri-Valley
station (in west Dublin/Pleasanton). By the year 2005, a single station
would not come close to serving the ridership demand, not only from
the standpoint of station capacity but also parking and access facilities.
As we know, the potential for congestion in downtown Dublin is great
if there is only a single station. (The Pleasanton side of a single station
operation would also suffer traffic and parking congestion, at least by
2005.) The report does not indicate what the ridership would be for
1995, a possible start-up period, and whether a single station alternate
would "work" for a while.
It is recommended that the City press for two stations initially in the
Dublin/Pleasanton area. After the initial construction, it would not be
likely that an additional extension ;would be constructed in the
Tri-Valley area soon. Thus, a single Tri-Valley option would probably
result in the downtown Dublin station being the end of the line for a
considerable length of time, attracting traffic from Livermore, Tracy
and elsewhere into downtown Dublin.
2. Need for Comorehensive EIR/EIS - To follow-up the previous point,
there needs to be detailed an conducted of the specific impacts
upon Dublin by a single valley station versus a two-valley station
scheme. In addition, appropriate mitigation measures and funding
schemes for the station(s) access must be developed. The City should
urge a full and comprehensive environmental investigation.
3. Funding Issues - As stated, preliminary cost estimates indicate that
capital costs of a BART extension would exceed funds available from
Measure B. The City should urge the preparation of accurate cost
estimates as soon as possible. In addition, there are at least three
additional avenue sources:
A. BART has 26 cars ordered, valued at some $40 million. BART
board members have indicated a willingness to commit these for
use in the Dublin/Pleasanton extension. Such action would be
very desirable.
B. The BART capital improvement program includes $70 million for
construction of extensions. Four such extensions, including
Dublin/Pleasanton, will compete for these funds. Considering the
Dublin/Pleasanton extension is the only one funded, the Board
should be urged to commit a major share of the $70 million for
this effort.
C. The extension to east Dublin/Pleasanton is estimated to cost at
least $36.6 million. Funding for a portion of this cost could
conceivably come from the private sector (for lease-back private
station construction in exchange for development considerations)
or from the California Transportation Commission through STIP
funding.
'. Mr. Lawrence L. Tong -3- September 21, 1987
4. Direct Through Service-BART has a number of options in designing
and operating its facilities with regard 'to direct non-transfer service to
San Francisco from Dublin. The City should urge BART to plan and
design the Dublin/Pleasanton extension so as to not preclude direct
service to San Francisco.
5. BART Relationship to I-680 Interchange Improvements - Measure B
includes funding for initial improvements to the I-580/I-680
interchange. More improvements will be needed in the near future.
Dublin, and other Tri-Valley agencies, should work toward obtaining
STIP funding of the post-Measure B improvements required. Significant
improvements to the interchange may be necessary to allow for the
passage of BART trains in the I-580 median. In addition, the freeway
median needs to be widened to accommodate the BART tracks and both
Dublin/Pleasanton stations. This interchange funding will be competing
with other deserving Alameda County projects, most notably the
portions of the Nimitz Freeway improvements not funded by Measure B.
(Likewise, STIP funding for I-238 between I-580 and I-880 may be
necessary to provide room for the west section of the Dublin/Pleasanton
BART extension in the I-238 corridor.)
6. Maintenance Yard - The report suggests a need for a 10 to 20 acre
maintenance/storage facility and also indicates the northeast corner of
the I-580/Santa Rita Road (actually Tassajara Road) interchange as a
possible location while such a facility is desirable, the particular
location mentioned is a prime future location in the extended Dublin
planning area, especially when considering the lost tax revenues
associated with a BART storage/maintenance facility. Perhaps such a
facility should be considered by the City of Dublin in its upcoming
specific plan of the east area.
7. Schedule - The report includes a tentative implementation schedule
which calls for service commencement in June of 1995. It is suggested
that the City urge BART and Measure B officials to accelerate this
schedule to produce an earlier service start.
In my opinion, the report under estimates year 2005 Dublin/Pleasanton ridership.
It indicates that comparatively few Tri-Valley employees will use BART for access
to their jobs. This is probably because the traffic forecasts are based on 2005
employment forecasts for the Tri-Valley as contained in Projections 85, which have
since been revised upward. This issue is not highly serious since these additional
riders would be in the "off-peak" direction which tends to contribute revenues
while not requiring additional facilities.
Please contact me if there are any questions.
rhm
157-001 M.1 CK
•'°r++�+!tww.a.:.--'-` -. 'rrr... .urwnawsw,r+au.. iw,w+awa'=ssw'iarm r :x 3filtt]Ld�-----
DUBLIN RAIL STUDY SCHEDULE
October 1, 1987 Community Meeting
(Thursday) 7:00 PM at the Pleasanton
City Council Chambers
October 20, 1987 Policy Liaison Committee
(Tuesday) Meeting at 4:00 PM at the
Dublin Library
October 21-30, 1987 Final Report Distributed
November, 1987 BART E&O/Board
November, 1987 LAVTA Board
0 �TA"kHMENT
Al
M,
kfS'
RE`C !jE'
�244'A U G
DUBLIN PLANNING
)U:A
. .........
..............
M . ... .
C71 m
Liv ermore/Ath6dor.,,-,,.:Valle
na e :�
h 4
RaiVAftr
ms Stu
Li
L
LJ . r _j
Li
trz�
Draft
Final Report
Prepared for
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority
and
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
August 1987
-ffA E
• .y:. .. ' ` ' ; t f. -;� tr. 3��; r•yr,7 �,--,:3t���i�� ��r �, ryY` -
_ ;. ! t r f 1 [ � Y t t✓ ? r t r llt � 4{ v'
3`
4i5 !�)7 if
• '. r.. "-". " ;. ...'? :: nr `fi y ' Sf+'+'� 1 � i]�ir �..1 t'"k r.
z`t YK i 5S dr �'F r f h�a tJ Y eC"I, f
� C
si
". !• 5 r , t l r iMl Y f ��f �j a'L rid � t K1 i .
... 1 f a ` 1 11J P11�5 Y / - I i y{ (•.. H
Pn f r 5 °u� t r lt31"y 7 f4
5 1 r , VSS t Ct
SUMMARY Ti L
• 4 y1t ^4_A t f 1 r/MvY y
The Livermore-Amador 'Valley Rail Alternatives Study presents a ,conceptual
design for a light rail transit line •extending from the 'existing:.Bay..Fair ` -
BART station to the Dublin/Pleasanton area. :,'The. report the ' 'compares thee:;. ...
light rail alternative with previously proposed extensions ,"of .BART= n.the''-; '_
same corridor. :.The study is being conducted by'a:consultant;team under=: ;r;
y..
the joint direction of.BART and LAVTA.- ~The- objective' of ;the Astudy n,
accordance with .the conditions of.:Alameda 'Co unty•Measure :"B" ;-is Ao'help'
local decision makers .select the °mode of.transit `service',(BART or,.aight
rail ) to be constructed for •the Dublin/Pleasanton Ex tens ion''(DPX). >
Recent planning studies by_BART .1ed to adoption by the Board of Dl rectors
of the rail alignment shown .in Figure :1:. ;.It starts -at .,.the:`existing :Bay:::;;:.:,;,°.:,:.
Fair BART station;` travels south to :Interstate 238 -follows `I=238 .to;-.its
junction with Interstate 580, and then .travels .in' the median-, f_=I-580;;;
DKS Associates
_ S_AN
LEA
N DRO•
• •• • EY
9 Stud•y• •• •. - r htt 4. t i.i Y n�'c r S.r R`Future
Corridor Exten,5 s,8
a
i 0 o n
BAYFAIR CASTRO DUBLIN':
STATION VALL WEST DUBLIN/
1-238 PLEA NTON
O
HAYWARD PLEASANTON
97.
Vol!
UNION
CITY FREMONT �•
'rS
r,!�`• l.N i�L i� tvr,£r i_� +
r„;4,t.E"c�•F
p iMg<�f�
OI
u�`R\q
E e�
r
:�l
MENT
�
:ADOPTED EXTENSION ALIGN
't
`�.
'-�
Light rail is typically.less costly and easier to implement than heavy
rail in situations which take advantage of light rail 's ability to run on
streets and cross streets at grade. This is not necessarily the case on
the DPX alignment, where the proposed alignment is completely grade
separated and primarily uses an existing freeway median. Light rail can
provide faster travel times than buses in situations where a separate rail
corridor is used to bypass congested roads. Also , light rail can carry
more passengers per operator than buses, resulting in cost .savings on
heavily patronized transit corridors.
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM DESIGN
The first step in this study was to .define a preferred light rail
alternative for comparison to BART. What resulted from the first phase of
work was a decision to carry forward several variations of a light rail
alternative. These variations included the following:
o Two light rail vehicle options: High speed conventional and high
performance.
o Two alignment options for approach to Bay Fair Station:
West side and shared alignment with BART.
o Two fare system options: Barrier-free fare system at DPX
stations and BART fare system at all stations.
Comparison of Light Rail Vehicle Options
Below is a summary of the key differences between high speed conventional
and high performance LRV' s for use on the extension.
HSC HP
Travel time , West Dublin/Pleasanton to Bay Fair (mins.) 18.8 13.5
I_ Daily Riders , Year 2005 Unconstrained Demand 18,800 22,550
Fleet size , including spares 39 44
I� Capital Cost of Fleet ($Millions, 1987 dollars) $50.3 $81.4-90.2
Annual Operating Cost ($Millions, 1987 dollars) $6.7 $6.2
The high speed conventional LRV's would be less expensive to purchase than
high performance LRV's , and perhaps easier to procure. The main drawback
to the high speed conventional LRV' s is a projected 16 percent loss in
I ridership as a result of the slower travel time through the Dublin
Canyon. The trade-off between ridership and fleet cost is the main issue
in terms of selecting a vehicle type for the light rail alternative. For
i this reason , both vehicle alternatives were retained for comparison to the
BART alternative.
S-3
r
Comparison of Fare Systems
Two types of fare collection systems were considered for the
Dublin/Pleasanton Extension:
o An independent self-service system similar.to those used in
almost all newer light rail operations
o BART-type system involving use of fare gates ...
Some trade-offs are involved due to the nature of the DPX and its
connection with BART. Self-service fares would reduce 'equipment costs and
improve operations at the DPX stations, but would require entire
trainloads of passengers to enter the BART faregates.all at once at the..
Bay Fair station and would increase operating costs on the .DPX. " The fare
concourse at Bay Fair would contain considerable equipment and would be
congested.'•.:This, together with the dual fare ,transaction, would cause. :
delays and add substantially to the inconvenience of-the...transfer. --.' ' ' . .
A BART-type fare system would improve the transfer to BART at Bay Fair and
would reduce operating costs on the DPX, but would add to equipment
requirements. These cost: increases would be largely offset by the reduced .
requirements for new equipment at the Bay Fair station.
The BART fare system would cost about $300,000 more than the self-service
fare system (0.2 percent of total system cost) . Station operating costs
of the self-service system would be lower, but this would be largely
offset by the costs of roving inspectors on the trains. Passenger
convenience would be better with the BART fare system being extended to
both DPX stations. Considering all these factors, use of the BART fare
system is recommended for the DPX.
Comparison of Bay Fair Alignments
For the segment approaching Bay Fair Station, four alignment variations
were considered during the first phase of this study:
o On-Street Alignment: This uses existing streets to reach the
median of I-238 immediately east of Mission Street. This
alignment would result in slow operation on congested'streets ,
need for residential property taking , loss of parking and other
problems.
o Eastside Alignment: This alignment would bring the light rail
tracks into the east side of the Bay Fair Station. This
alignment has a number of drawbacks, including design problems
at the BART station, loss of existing parking and bus loading
areas , environmental impacts and construction costs.
S-4
1
:^arrxwL t r ♦/ ° ter! k ,�) F �a Sn b i
+r / Tfi .°irk �ldyr! sA�F<s �� � ) •
r Y+f a
r
t-. . '.l :• s t( �',_ }Rxl ��1� ak f:r� tlr�a �,`fr�$)�I l���?*�tl��JFr off )ii �l ri" 1 ,),,! ;y�.n� '!,i .s
5
wn
L�Iti a f d !t'Ke s✓�it e.X✓ Y51 J•'y ..y , ,1 i J. i r ,
#, 5µr t f'_� FJvV
1 •4, - „,:.. F. �,i=f!1 �a ... .: I f�l�e. • 5I4; 1 C N,,.�`ia I r,r i
:,o Westside Ali nment This-'alignment-would -use Union=Pacific
Ra7 road right-of way,,,-connecting ao`';the'west fside' of=the' Bay
Fair..station. 'A ;new light=:rail 'platform would be 'onstructed'on
the west side of ,the <station.
' a K — 4..
o Shared Alignment: Light rail 'tracks%would *share -the existing
BART alignment..between 1-238 and the,Bay Fair,,,Station.
The on-street and eas'tside 'options do not-appear to merit=further ;;,. .
consideration. . The'westside al'ignment.,and.,joint trackage scheme ;were
.retained for furth_er.consideration.
• S L i. S I j
The choice of alignment at -the 'Bay Fair station approach_'primarily affects
right-of-way requirements and capital 'costs of>the::system .(although the ::.:
shared alignment option would preclude use of.;a ;separate fare .'system •for,
the DPX) . Right-of-way requirements .
-would begreater.;with 'the west side;:,'.:..: :.
option, due to the use of UPRR right-OT-way .,Tor,part::of;;theraIignment:'
However, capital costs are•projected 'to 'be about ''$16 .Mill ion'.less”-for. the
west side alignment than?for the shared .alignmenf-;�iv.en with an allowance
for increased right-of-way cost.-- This :is'due to .reduced -structural costs
as well as .less elaborate train control :for.'the-west side al ignment,`•J.�''
Accordingly, use of the west -side alignment is recommended for the light
rail alternative.
Track Gauge
-_ The key issue here is whether to use one of the several gauges commonly
used in light rail applications or the wider BART gauge. Two
manufacturers claim that standard LRV' s could be adapted to .BART gauge
without cost penalty and without loss of reliability. - Turning radius
would be restricted but this is not an issue with the DPX route
alignment. Selection of BART gauge might increase overall capital costs
slightly but would simplify a potential shared alignment at Bay Fair as
well as any future conversion to BART.
Power Supply
The most economical voltage for the DPX appears to be 1,500 volts. The
BART system operates on a 1 ,000 volt power supply, however, and there may
be some advantage in using this lower voltage on the DPX to facilitate
joint operation and to simplify any future conversion to BART. Light rail
vehicles can be built for this voltage at the same cost as for 1,500 volts
but more sub-stations would be required at the lower voltage.
S-5
Communications and Train Control '
Requirements for train control will vary depending on the operating speeds
of. the vehicles and whether trackage at the Bay Fair Station approach is
shared by BART vehicles and LRV' s. It appears likely that both Automatic
Train Protection (ATP) and Automatic -Train Stop (ATS) would be required
for the light rail operation. -A shared alignment .at Bay Fair would
additionally require light -rail vehicles and .a portion of the light rail
alignment to be equipped for BART-compatible Automatic .Train Operation
(ATO) .
DPX ALIGNMENT AND STATIONS
Conceptual design features of the DPX alignment and stations are described
below from west to east ,' reflecting the options and requirements discussed
above.
Bay Fair Station to ' I-238
Two alignment alternatives were considered during the evaluation process:
o West side alignment
o Shared alignment with BART
The west side option would start at an at-grade platform adjacent to the
west side of the Bay Fair BART station. It would then travel at-grade
parallel to and west of the BART tracks. North of I-238, the light-rail
tracks would rise up on an aerial structure, turn to the east and cross
over the BART tracks to an aerial structure on the north side of I-238.
With the shared alignment, the light rail would share the BART structure
(and some or all of the track) at Bay Fair station. At a point north of
I-238 , the light rail tracks would diverge to each side of the BART
structure and rise up on independent aerial structures. The southbound
light rail track would cross over the BART tracks and join the northbound
light rail track on an aerial structure north of I-238.
I-238 to Castro Valley
In this segment, the light rail would travel on aerial structure between
the BART tracks and the I-580 interchange, then at-grade in the median of
I-580 to the first station at Castro Valley. The conceptual rail
alignment would start out on the north side of I-238, cross over to the
south side of I-238 to cross Mission Boulevard , and then cross back into
the median of I-238 just west of the I-580 interchhnge. This alignment
was used to develop cost estimates for both the light rail and BART
alternatives , and represents a slight refinement of BART alignments shown
in previous studies.
S-6
' •t
To reduce costs,' a single track section was considered for this segment , " :`
utilizing the existing I-238 median. . However, a preliminary examination
of the 1-238 median indicates that the existing median is too narrow and
cannot be easily widened. : This, combined with the inherent operating
disadvantages of single track, suggests that this option be eliminated
from further consideration.
Castro Valley To Dublin/Pleasanton
The DPX light rail alignment would follow the 1-580 freeway median from
west of the 1-580/I-238. interchange through the Dublin Canyon to-the
Dublin/Pleasanton
'area , -utilizing double tracks .all .the way. :.;This section
of 1-580 has been reconstructed with a median width that can accommodate
either heavy or -light rail .
DPX Stations and Yard ,
The Dublin/Pleasanton Extension would involve modifications to the Bay
Fair BART station and construction of new stations at Castro Valley and
West Dublin/Pleasanton; with the possibility of a third station to serve
East Dublin/Pleasanton. Locations of the stations have been established .
in the earlier BART planning studies.
o Bay Fair Station: The shared alignment option would require no
major changes to Bay Fair station. The aerial structure north
of the station would be rebuilt to accommodate light rail
storage tracks. The westside light rail option would require a
new single platform at grade level . If the DPX uses the BART
fare system, then the DPX platform would provide a direct open
transfer. If the DPX has an independent fare system, an
additional set of fare gates, ticket machines , change machines
and addfare machines would be installed adjacent to the westside
platform.
o Castro Valley Station: The Castro Valley station would be
located in the median of 1-580, immediately west of Redwood
Road. Parking would be on the north side of the freeway, on
property which has mostly been already purchased by BART.
Access to the station would be by a pedestrian underpass.
o Dublin/Pleasanton Stations: The West Dublin/Pleasanton station
would be located in the median of 1-580 between the Foothill
Road and 1-680. The East Dublin/Pleasanton station, if and when
it is built , would be located in the median of 1-580 immediately
west of the planned Hacienda Drive interchange. Both stations
would feature parking lots both north and south of the freeway,
with access provided by pedestrian overpasses over the freeway.
o Storage/Maintenance Yard: A full-service storage/maintenance
yard would be needed to service the light rail vehicles used on
the line. A site has not been established for the yard,
although it would preferably be located near the east end of the
line. A location in the freeway median would be feasible,
although a location adjacent to the freeway would be preferable.
S-7
COMPARISON OF LIGHT RAIL AND BART ALTERNATIVES
Evaluation of the two light rail alternatives and the BART alternative has
considered a variety of factors including right-of-way impacts, patron
access , ridership potential , capital costs, operating costs and revenues,
and implementation issues. Below is a comparison of these criteria based . . .
on the analyses presented in the report. .Table S-1 -summarizes and
compares key factors that 'differ•among the -three alternatives. -..Since the
alignments and station locations are similar for.all alternatives.- 'the
differences are essentially in performance characteristics and in costs . :: .
and revenues.
Right-of Way/Displacement Impacts
Differences in right-of-way needs are relatively minor among the .
alternatives. All alternatives involve some use of UPRR right-'of-way`
alongside the Bay Fair BART station; however the west side alignment for
both light rail alternatives would involve more extensive use of this
alignment. Also , the two light rail alternatives would require land
acquisition for a full service maintenance/storage yard,
Patron Access
Since station locations are common to all alternatives, there are no
differences among them in terms of how easily patrons can reach the
stations. In general , both station sites have been located and configured
so as to provide adequate access , circulation and parking for pedestrians ,
bikes, automobiles and buses. As discussed later, however, the West
Dublin/Pleasanton station may not be appropriate as an interim terminal
station due to traffic access and parking constraints.
Ridership Potential
Projected year 2005 ridership is shown in the summary table. These
figures are for comparative purposes only; they assume no capacity
constraints on the lines or at the stations. The BART alternative has the
greatest ridership potential among the three alternatives, although
ridership potential for the high performance LRT alternative is almost as
high. A 20 percent ridership loss is projected for the high speed
conventional LRT alternative due to slower running speeds as well as the
need for a transfer at Bay Fair. It should be noted, however, that LRT
ridership levels would be higher should frequency of service be increased
over the 9 minute service assumed.
Fleet Requirements
Fleet requirements are greatest for the high speed conventional LRT
alternative and lowest for the high speed conventional LRT alternative.
In all cases , additional BART cars would be needed on the Fremont line to
accommodate DPX passengers travelling beyond Bay Fair.
S-8
Table S-1
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF DPX ALTERNATIVES
High Speed High
Conventional* Performance BART**
1. ' Travel Times (Station-to-Station)
a. West Dub/Plstn to Bay Fair (mins.) 19 14 14
b. West Dub/Plstn to Montgomery (mins.) 58 53 48
Increase over BART time (sins.) 5-10 0-5 --
2. Ridership Potential
a. Total Daily Riders, year 2005 18,800 22,550 23,700
Percent of BART Volume 79% 95% --
3. Fleet Size
a. Extension Portion Only 39 .44 33
b. Total Cars*** 100 112 97
4. Capital Costs ($Millions)
a. Construction b Contingencies $133.1 $133.1 $164.1
b. Right-of-Way Allowance 17.2 17.2 11.3
c. Total Fixed Facility $150.3 $150.3 $175.4
Savings over BART $ 25.1 $ 25.1 --
d. Rolling Stock (Extension Only) $50.3 $81.4 $54.2
Savings over BART -50.1 -$31.2
Net Savings over BART $25.0 46.1 --
5. Annual Costs and Revenues ($Millions)
a. Additional Costs $11.7 $12.2 $12.8
b. Less Additional Revenues -5.9 -7.3 -7.7
c. Net Additional Costs $T-T $T-T $3.1
Farebox Recovery Ratio 50% 60% 61%
Assumes stand-alone system with barrier-free fare system; use of BART
fare system would add $0.3 Million to capital cost but would improve
passenger convenience and safety.
** Assumes through-service operated to Daly City. Shuttle service times
would be identical to those of high performance LRT alternative..
•** Includes additional BART cars for service increase on Fremont lines
to accommodate DPX passengers travelling beyond Bay Fair.
S-9
•
r .,.,. ''v. '::T:,•..r�1 a ,� ..`•4..y•C. ,rr .�• tir, nI..1.w.ac.'•u:. � a -.•+, \ w',. t
Y
Capital Costs
Capital costs vary significantly between the light rail and BART
alternatives. Based on planning level cost estimates, fixed facilities
and rolling stock for the BART alternative would total $226 Million, in
1987 dollars. The high speed conventional LRT alternative would save
about $25 Million, or 11 percent , over BART. The high performance LRT
alternative would cost $6 Million, or 3 percent, more than BART. .: .:,:
Assuming 4 percent annual inflation to 1992 (projected midpoint of
construction) , the capital costs are estimated to range from $244 Million :,;
for the high speed conventional LRT alternative to $275 Million for the
BART alternative , in 1992 dollars.
These capital costs do not consider the number of BART vehicles needed to
increase capacity on the Fremont line to accommodate DPX passengers
travelling beyond Bay Fair. Nor is the availability of 26 BART cars for
.the extension included since these cars could alternatively be used .to
meet other BART service expansion needs.
Annual Costs and Revenues
Differences among alternatives in net annual operating costs are less
than 15 percent, with the high speed conventional LRT being highest and
the high performance LRT being lowest. Projected farebox recovery ratios
are highest for the high performance LRT and BART alternatives. In all
cases the farebox recovery ratios are likely to be somewhat overstated as
they are substantially higher than BART's current system-wide
performance. To some extent this may reflect the inherent operating
efficiency of the corridor.
Other Considerations
Other factors to be considered in the evaluation include implementation
requirements , flexibility to adapt to future conditions and passenger
convenience. These factors generally favor the BART alternative. As a
system that is already operating at one end of the corridor, and with
vehicles and maintenance facilities already in use , there would be fewer
inherent implementation risks with BART. Also, the BART alternative is
more adaptable to longer range plans for extending the line to east
Livermore , when .vehicle speeds and passenger capacities would be more
important. Finally, the BART alternative would offer the convenience of
one integrated system to passengers, particularly in comparison to a
separate barrier-free fare system o'n the DPX.
S-10
• , _ 7
EXTENSION TO EAST DUBLIN/PLEASANTON
Previously established BART policy calls for the rail 'extension to extend
I east from Bay Fair BART station to the proposed West Dublin/Pleasanton
station. This initial phase would include two new stations and an
interim storage yard in the Dublin-Pleasanton area* .Based on analysis in
this study as well as in the previous BART LPX studies :in 1983 and 1986,
a third station is potentially needed before 2005 to avoid potential .,West .
Dublin/Pleasanton station overloading and eventual constraints
ridership growth on the line. '.::'This third station should be considered
for construction in the initial stage. :
For the BART alternative, the additional construction cost to extend the
line from the West Dublin/Pleasanton station to the East Dublin/
Pleasanton station would be $37 Million, -in .1987:dollars._ For_the light . .::: :
rail alternatives, the incremental cost is estimated to be $29 Million.'
This assumes the minimum cost design o.ption (at=grade construction in the'.`
freeway median) and no major reconstruction of .1-580 Freeway or its -, V` -
_. interchange with I-680 Freeway.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE EXTENSION
A tentative implementation schedule for the Dublin/Pleasanton Extension,
based on input from BART staff, is as follows:
Adoption of Conceptual Alternative: October,1987
Preliminary engineering and
environmental assessment: January,1988 - August,1989
Environmental Clearance: August,1989
ROW & Final Design, including
plans , specifications and costs: September,1989 - March,1991
Procurement and Construction: September,1990 - January,1995
Testing and Start-up: January,1995 - June ,1995
Commence Service: June,1995
Major steps in the implementation process include preliminary engineering
and environmental assessment (18 months) , final design and specifications
(18 months) and procurement and construction (4+ years) . This schedule
is not dependent upon which alternative is selected for the DPX.
S-11
CONCLUSIONS
Any of the three alternatives considered appear feasible for
implementation in the corridor, and the differences among them are not .
great. Based on the various factors discussed earlier, the BART
alternative is recommended over both of the light rail alternatives.
The differences between the high"performance LRT alternative and the BART
alternative are generally quite small in terms of level of performance
and costs. On the other hand , the BART alternative is operationally more
flexible, potentially permitting through service to other parts of the ."
system. BART also poses less uncertainty in implementation since some of
the needed vehicles are already potentially available for service and
minimal new maintenance or other facilities are needed for start-up. :.
Between BART and the high speed conventional .light rail alternative; a
more difficult trade-off is involved. The high speed conventional light
rail alternative would save up to $25 Million, or 11 percent, in capital
costs over BART. In our judgment, this is outweighed by the better
travel times and resulting higher patronage potential of BART in the
corridor, the availability of BART cars to reduce start-up costs and
risks, and the reduced annual operating costs with BART.
S-12
r
Attachment to Staff Report
DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN POLICIES REGARDING
The Dublin General Plan contains the following policies regarding BART:
- A BART facility is shown on the Dublin General Plan Map at the end of
Golden Gate Drive (see attachment) .
- Policy 2.2.1B "Provide a downtown BART station that will serve
customers and workers with and without cars. Add offices and apartments
within walking distance - and eventually over BART parking. "
- Policy 5.1F "Connect existing cul-de-sac streets near proposed BART
station south of Dublin Boulevard. "
- Policy 5.2A "Support a compact multi-story downtown BART station and
a second station to the east along I-580, provided the BART rail line is
extended at least to the eastern limits of the City of Pleasanton. "
- Policy 5.2C "Urge BART cooperation in maintaining availability of
station sites and develop standards for review of public and private
improvements in the vicinity of BART stations that take into account of
both future traffic needs and development opportunities. "
eta
ATTACHME11112T
General an
�,,,.. .
. . ... . .. . .
inning Area . .. ... . .. .
'::' ''... . . .::
•' rr.
•� � y� ,
:y CouncU
31, 1984 �•. I ` a 1
so
amv •• .�• yy �,��
w.r � ^'• � .ff+t"mot \�i, �:'.•.•.•.•. . . . .
nom'-.•..•.•.•.�.�.•.•
Murry .`,- �• dn.raa. ' y' a fir' -• °'�. .
school
. C^' �< : <` 1 .�,• 'n; •�' y Dublin High School
Ic-
'
\r.011
S'• N O P
O
.• � •• � ... � aPanr `'rte u11I a. ♦['fT. ,�V-1—r/„ �f✓-�. •• 'po';
�s2G�••:;: �s� .(,�� � •. ` t � I J S Frederiksen �`
Y�ran �: LL C:''`� >',�q1^q!°q 'r.-„..y� � 'Tl�.'.'!•. Setwd ay����'�� PJP�`•
�"•. �3� ' � �.” •.�- L Dublin School
e_ ?.! G° k}�Ee�O `fy-yam:." V� d`.0\��� s..- t` ���'C7l` ✓ Oq �`-
�T i A
_ ,.: �- �f'11..I 1-t:.� ;: -^• �. ;:t'. ? � �r�,� .< I�ute nralau
zz
BAAT
• -'�l'•' - _ �' '^ (yi \� � 9 •i Part:•.. !
: � -� :=,;;T�.;;. �.� > i", �l •�i `sue, •=,�°��.\ `�
�.•.. rcYfRCar �'/ Faa-•'.:r R.•nre> / ��� � �/' K6 !!!���.55���
' � � _ fORrvEr� •.� SV � ' V j� �� �� � L •
_ 1 � � °ire•"+'
O
INTERSTATE SHo