Difference between revisions of "BART to Livermore at Isabel"

From Citizens For Balanced Growth Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 33: Line 33:
  
 
===Operation===
 
===Operation===
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year{https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].
+
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].
  
 
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==
 
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==

Revision as of 21:15, 8 September 2016

The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.

Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming Isabel Residential Rezoning process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.

MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.

580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts

Automobile Congestion Increase

It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.

The Isabel Residential Rezoning will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.

System Throughput

Increasing the ridership throughput can only be achieved by increasing the frequency of trains. There has been no way to engineer shorter intervals since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals. BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains rune more frequently and is looking at solutions but so far has not found any that work[1].

Greater train frequency would also require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 10 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased.

BART's position on congestion

There have been conflicting statements. Although they declare the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580"[2], BART offers no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They have also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [3] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. Whether this is an admission that BART to Livermore will fail to relieve traffic problems is unclear.

Parking

The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[4]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.

Items not track related

9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length)

Financial

Capital Expenditures

The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion[5]. This budget leaves out the 99 additional trains, which will cost $218 million[6], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[7].

Revenue Sources

$551 Million of the 1.45 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $870 million.

Operation

The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[8][9].

Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives

Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[10].

Other Externalities

Benefits of Extension

The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:

  • Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours
  • 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass
  • Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots
  • More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination
  • Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".

Drawbacks of Extension

  • Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.
  • High capital costs