MEMORANDUM

Document Sample
MEMORANDUM Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                            AGENDA ITEM #4




                                    MEMORANDUM

DATE:         September 30, 2011

TO:           Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Policy Advisory Board
              BART Extension to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara

FROM:         Ann Jamison, Project Manager

SUBJECT:      Alignment and Station Options for Refinement of the Locally Preferred
              Alternative (LPA) – Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor


Recommendation
There are 15 alignment and station option refinements to the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
for the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor. These refinements will be included in the LPA for
the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR). The
alignment and station option recommendations for adoption by the Policy Advisory Board (PAB)
at this meeting are summarized below. Staff recommends deferring the decision on Design
Option #7 – Berryessa Parking until the June 30 PAB meeting.

      Design Option #1: South of Warm Springs Alignment - East of Rail Right-of-Way
       Option
      Design Option #2: East Warren Avenue Alignment - Underpass (BART At-grade)
       Option
      Design Option #4: Dixon Landing Road Alignment – BART in Retained Cut Option
      Design Option #5: South Calaveras Station – Carry all options forward
      Design Option #6: Montague/Capitol Station – South Bus Transit Center with At-grade
       Concourse Option
      Design Option #8: Alum Rock Alignment and Station – U.S. 101 Diagonal Option
      Design Option #9: Civic Plaza/SJSU Station Entrance Options – Carry all options
       forward to preliminary engineering.
      Design Option #10: Crossover Location – West of Civic Plaza/SJSU Station
      Design Option #11: Market Street Station – Carry all station entrance options forward
       except M-1A.
      Design Option #12: Diridon/Arena Alignment and Station – South Diridon Station and
       Alignment Option.
      Design Option #13: Santa Clara Parking Option – North Parking Structure
Policy Advisory Board Memo
Alignment and Station Options
May 18, 2004

      Design Option #14: Santa Clara Pedestrian Crossing Option – Aerial South Option
       (moving historic tower south of the walkway)
      Design Option #15: Airport Connection – At-grade Tail Track Alignment Option

The decision on Design Option #3: Locomotive Wye location would be deferred until the Fall
pending negotiations with the UPRR.
The Policy Advisory Board may want to vote on the majority of the alignment and station
options as a group, removing controversial options for individual votes as requested by the PAB
members.

Background
In June of 2002, the Joint BART and VTA Board agreed on a LPA for the Silicon Valley Rapid
Transit Corridor BART Extension to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara. At that time several
alignment and station options were carried forward for further evaluation in the DEIS/EIR. In
addition, as the project proceeded through conceptual engineering a few additional alignment and
station options were identified and evaluated in the DEIS/EIR.

There are a total of 15 station and alignment options being considered at this time. Decisions on
the alignment and station options are required to refine the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
to be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(FEIS/EIR).

Draft recommendations on the alignment and station options were presented to the PAB at the
February 25 meeting. An update on the comments received on the alignment and stations
options through the Community Working Groups (CWGs) was presented at the April 28 PAB
meeting.

BART Alignment and Station Options
There are 15 Alignment and Station Options to be decided in the refinement of the LPA. Each is
briefly described below with a final staff recommendation for the PAB to consider. See Figure 1
for map of the Alignment and Station Option locations. A detail description of each alignment
and station option including maps, graphics and a pros and cons evaluation is included in the
attached Issue Summary Report. Summary reports of the comments received on the alignment
and station options form the CWGs and in the Public Hearings are also included (Attachments A
and B respectively).




                                           Page 2 of 12
Policy Advisory Board Memo
Alignment and Station Options
May 18, 2004

                    Figure 1: Alignment and Station Option Locations




                                1
                                         2




                                             4
                                                                     3



                                                     5


                                                           6




                                                                7
             15
                                                                             8

                                                      10
             14

                                                                         9
                       13
                                                                    11
                                    12




                                                 Page 3 of 12
Policy Advisory Board Memo
Alignment and Station Options
May 18, 2004

Summary of Design Options:

Design Option #1: South of Warm Springs Alignment
    Rail Right-of-Way Option
    East of Rail Right-of-Way Option

   Recommendation: East of Rail Right-of-Way Option

   Reasoning: The East of Rail Right-of-Way option meets the selected alignment for the
   BART Warm Springs Extension.

   Cost Impact: +$10.8 million

Design Option #2: East Warren Avenue Alignment
    Underpass (BART At-grade) Option
    At-grade (BART Aerial) Option

   Recommendation: Underpass (BART At-grade) Option.

   Reasoning: The cost of putting Warren Avenue in an underpass was to be borne by the City
   of Fremont. Portions of that previously identified funding is no longer available. Fremont
   has applied for funding for the remainder. VTA prefers the underpass option and is willing to
   work with Fremont to complete the underpass. Staff proposes to include the underpass
   option in the DEIS/EIR. VTA, the City of Fremont and the Alameda County Transportation
   Improvement Authority (ACTIA) will work together through Preliminary Engineering to
   identify funding for the remainder of the underpass project. VTA will consider contributing
   the cost of the aerial structure to the underpass (approximately $5.9 million) if the remainder
   of the needed funds can be identified. If Fremont is unable to identify additional funding for
   the project, VTA will shift to the aerial alignment in Final Design.

   Cost Impact: +$5.9 million

Design Option #3: Locomotive Wye Option
      Fremont Option
      Milpitas Option

   Recommendation: VTA staff will continue to negotiate with the UPRR and bring forward a
   recommendation prior to release of the FEIS/EIR.

   Reasoning: VTA is negotiating this and a range of other issues with the railroad at this time.
   More will be known in the Fall when the FEIS/EIR is considered. The railroad prefers the
   more costly Milpitas Option because of its location closer to the end of the active railroad.
   The Fremont location is less costly as it requires less right-of-way acquisition/business
   relocation and track relocation/reconstruction. VTA and the City of Milpitas concur that the


                                           Page 4 of 12
Policy Advisory Board Memo
Alignment and Station Options
May 18, 2004

   Milpitas Option limits the potential for Transit Oriented Development on property included
   in the Milpitas Wye Option. This property is directly across Montague Expressway from the
   Montague/Capitol Station.

   The Great Mall owners have expressed concerns for the potential impact of the Milpitas Wye
   option on their property.

   Cost Impact: Fremont Option -- None
                Milpitas Option -- +$1.7 million (plus significant other track work)

Design Option #4: Dixon Landing Road Alignment
    BART Aerial Option
    BART Retained Cut Option
    BART At-grade (Dixon Landing Road Underpass) Option

   Recommendation: BART Retained Cut Option

   Reasoning: The City of Milpitas has come out against the BART Aerial Option and in favor
   of a BART At-Grade Option (Dixon Landing Road Underpass) with a 35 mph speed. The
   City of Milpitas disagrees with the findings of the DEIS/EIR that there are no immitigable
   noise, vibration or visual impacts. The BART At-grade (Dixon Landing Road Underpass)
   option in the DEIS/EIR only accommodates a travel speed on Dixon Landing Road of 25
   mph and carries a cost increase of $8.8 million. The BART At-grade Option (Dixon Landing
   Road Underpass) with a 35 mph speed as requested by Milpitas would increase that cost to
   $15 to $16 million. Because the UPRR and BART tracks would need to be raise
   approximately 4 feet above the current grade there would need to be additional analysis of the
   resultant noise and vibration impacts of that alternative.

   In order to address the concern of Milpitas with noise, vibration and visual impacts VTA staff
   recommends the BART Retained Cut Option. It is the most cost effective alternative to
   address Milpitas stated concerns. The BART Retained Cut Option leaves Dixon Landing
   Road At-grade. This option does not include the grade separation of the UPRR tracks
   crossing Dixon Landing. The costs of that grade separation are not reasonably loaded on to
   the BART extension project.

   Should Milpitas desire to continue to pursue the BART At-grade Option (Dixon Landing
   Road Underpass Option) VTA would be willing to commit the $11.2 million from the
   retained trench option to the project with Milpitas locating funding for the remainder of the
   project. Milpitas would need to be able to demonstrate that funding during preliminary
   engineering.

   Cost Impact: +$11.2 million




                                          Page 5 of 12
Policy Advisory Board Memo
Alignment and Station Options
May 18, 2004

Design Option #5 South Calaveras Future Station
    Parking Structure North Option
    Parking Structure South Option
    Parking Structure North Option with Parallel Bus Transit Center

   Recommendation: Carry all options forward.

   Reasoning: No decision is required at this time relative to this future station.

   Cost Impact: None

Design Option #6: Montague/Capitol Station
    Roadway Transit Center Option with At-Grade Concourse
    Roadway Transit Center Option with Elevated Concourse
    South Bus Transit Center Option with At-grade Concourse
    South Bus Transit Center Option with Elevated Concourse

   Recommendation: South Bus Transit Center with At-grade Concourse

   Reasoning: South Bus Transit Center better meets bus operational needs and is safer for
   pedestrians and vehicles. The at-grade concourse reduces the elevation changes required by
   BART passengers accessing the system. Through the DEIS/EIR review process the City of
   Milpitas has proposed an alternative station layout. VTA worked the DEIS/EIR station
   layouts through the Project Development Team (PDT) and the Community Working Group
   (CWG) for the past two years. Milpitas current plan was not brought forward in that process.
   No modifications of the recommendation are proposed at this time. The new plan will be
   reviewed during Preliminary Engineering (PE). If merit is found the station plan will be
   revised and supplemental environmental evaluation completed as appropriate.

   Cost Impact: +$2.3 million

Design Option #7: Berryessa Station
    Parking Structure Southwest Option
    Parking Structure Northeast Option

   Recommendation: Recommendation to be brought forward at the June 30 PAB meeting.

   Reasoning: The Flea Market property owner representatives have expressed significant
   concerns with the recommendation. Those concerns focus on the placement of parking in a
   location that currently includes General Plan designations for light- industrial employment,
   the placement of BART parking further from the proposed station location, and the
   acquisition cost estimate for the site.




                                           Page 6 of 12
Policy Advisory Board Memo
Alignment and Station Options
May 18, 2004

   The Berryessa Station site represents significant opportunities for excellent Transit Oriented
   Development (TOD). VTA staff supports the Southwest Parking Option as it retains the
   areas immediately east and west of the station for high density TOD employment and housing
   land uses linked strongly with the station. VTA staff recommends TOD as the best use of the
   land immediately adjacent to the station, rather than BART parking. In addition, placing the
   parking on the southwest site separates the vehicles accessing the parking from the immediate
   station area, significantly enhancing the pedestrian orientation of the station area. VTA staff
   supports the densities of employment and housing as permitted under the current General
   Plan designation as minimum densities and will work with the property owner representatives
   to assure that those densities are provided for on the site as minimums. Acquisition cost
   estimates will be reconfirmed through the property acquisition process.

   VTA staff welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with the property owner
   representative and the City of San Jose over the next 30 days to resolve a common
   recommendation to be carried forward into the FEIS/EIR at this time. In the longer term
   VTA staff welcomes the opportunity to work with the City of San Jose and the land owner
   representatives to develop a Master Plan for the property that maximizes the TOD potential
   of the site. In addition, we look forward to working with the City of San Jose on the Master
   Plan process for the large station area. Should those processes result in an alternative
   location for the BART station parking VTA will pursue additional environmental clearance
   as appropriate.

   Cost Impact: Unknown at this time.

Design Option #8: Alum Rock Alignment and Station
    Railroad/28th Street Option
    U.S. 101 Diagonal Option

   Recommendation: U.S. 101 Diagonal Option

   Reasoning: The Railroad 28th Street Alignment requires approximately 3,000 feet of
   tunneling, under approximately 45 private residential structures. Risk exists for increased
   costs associated with this tunneling activity. The 101 Diagonal Option does not include this
   tunneling under private residences. While it is initially more costly to tunnel under U.S. 101
   the potential risks appear more manageable.

   Cost Impact: +$23.9 million

Design Option #9: Civic Plaza/San Jose State University Station Entrance Locations
    7 optional locations

   Recommendation: Carry all seven station entrance optional locations through to preliminary
   engineering.



                                           Page 7 of 12
Policy Advisory Board Memo
Alignment and Station Options
May 18, 2004

   Reasoning: Only station entrance locations with significant environmental impacts are to be
   eliminated at this stage. None of these have significant environmental impacts.

   Cost Impact: None

Design Option #10: Downtown Crossover Location
    West of Civic Plaza/SJSU Station
    West of Market Street Station

   Recommendation: West of Civic Plaza/SJSU Station

   Reasoning: Operationally a crossover in the Downtown line segment between the two
   tunnel portals is required. The ability to single track trains in the event of an emergency in
   the tunnel segment is essential to safety and the retention of system-wide operations.

   Operationally the crossover is required to be between Civic Plaza and Market Street Stations
   to accommodate acceptable single track timing. In addition, the West of Civic Plaza/SJSU
   station location has fewer utility impacts and works in combination with the South Diridon
   alignment option. The West of Market location is not compatible with the South Diridon
   Alignment because of the track curve.

   More detail on the purpose, locational requirements and operation of the crossover is
   included in Appendix A.

   Cost Impact: None

Design Option #11: Market Street Station Entrance Locations
    11 optional locations

   Recommendation: Eliminate M-1A, carry the other ten station entrance location options
   through to preliminary engineering.

   Reasoning: Only station entrance locations with significant environmental impacts are to be
   eliminated at this stage. M-1A would have significant historic and culture impacts.

   Cost Impact: None

Design Option #12: Diridon/Arena Alignment and Station Entrances
    North Option
    South Option
    Station Entrance Locations

   Recommendation: Select the South station alignment option and carry all station entrance
   options through to preliminary engineering.


                                          Page 8 of 12
Policy Advisory Board Memo
Alignment and Station Options
May 18, 2004


   Reasoning: Although $22.3 million more expensive the South station alignment option has
   the following advantages:
        Better connectivity to Diridon Station, LRT, Buses and future High Speed Rail (future
           grand “Union Station” concept)
        Improved joint development/value-capture for VTA and Caltrain owned property
        Better integration into high-density development proposed in the Diridon/Arena
           Strategic Development Plan.
        Greatest flexibility in managing construction impacts to the Caltrain Tracks.
        The station is further from HP Pavilion allowing better dispersal of special event
           crowds between the HP Pavilion and the BART Station.

      Cost Impact: +$22 million

Design Option #13: Santa Clara Station
    Parking Structure North Option
    Parking Structure South Option

   Recommendation: Parking Structure North Option

   Reasoning: Least cost option providing the most cohesive station layout. Fed Ex has
   expressed significant concerns with the impact on their operations. VTA will work with Fed
   Ex to address those concerns.

   Cost Impact: None

Design Option # 14: Santa Clara Pedestrian Crossing Option
    Aerial Structure North
    Aerial Structure South
    Underground Walkway

   Recommendation: Aerial Walkway South with relocation of the historic tower.

   Reasoning: The aerial walkway south option best meets the needs of the transferring
   passenger. VTA staff proposes moving the historic tower to a location south of the aerial
   walkway. VTA staff will work with the historic resource stakeholders to resolve the detail
   locational concerns and the design for the aerial walkway

   The Western Railway Association and Caltrain have expressed support for the underground
   walkway option. That option requires additional elevation changes for passengers moving
   from BART or the future Airport People Mover to the west side of the Caltrain tracks. The
   underground crossing option is also the most expensive option.

   Cost Impact: None


                                         Page 9 of 12
Policy Advisory Board Memo
Alignment and Station Options
May 18, 2004


Design Option #15: Airport Connection
    At-grade Tail Track Alignment
    Lowered Tail Track Profile for Potential Future Direct BART Airport Connection

   Recommendation: At-grade Tail Track Alignment (APM connection to the airport)

   Reasoning: The adopted project for providing a BART connection to the Norman Y. Mineta
   International Airport is an Automated People Mover (APM) connecting from the Santa Clara
   BART Station. The At-grade Tail Track Alignment accommodates that connection. A
   direct BART connection onto the airport property would not eliminate a transfer to an APM.
   In addition, the direct BART connection project costs approximately $700 million compared
   with APM costs of _____.

   Cost Impact: None

Project Costs
Total capital costs in mid-2001 dollars are estimated at $3.838 billion ($4.112 in 2003 dollars)
for the BART Extension to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara. The estimate included the least
costly design options identified in Table 1 to establish a “Base Case” estimate for the BART
Extension. The alignment and station options included in the draft recommendations above
would add $76.4 million to the project, bringing the total project costs to $3.914 billon in mid-
2001 dollars ($4.259 in 2003 dollars). Opportunities to reduce the cost of the project through
value engineering will be pursued during preliminary engineering.


                  Table 1: BART Extension Design Option Cost Summary



                                                                Base Case and
                                                                                Increase Project
                                                                 Incremental
                                                                                     Costs
 Design Option                                                  Add-on Costs
 South of Warm Springs Alignment
  Rail Right-of-Way                                          Base Case
  East of Rail Right-of-Way                                  +$10,799,000      +10,799,000
 Warren Avenue Alignment
  Underpass (BART At-Grade)                                  Base Case
  At grade (BART Aerial)                                     +$5,927,000       +5,927,000
 Locomotive Wye Location
  Fremont                                                    Base Case
  Milpitas                                                   +$1,695,000
 Dixon Landing Alignment
  BART Aerial                                                Base Case
  BART Retained Cut                                          +$11,183,000      +11,183,000
  BART At-grade                                              +$8,831,000



                                          Page 10 of 12
Policy Advisory Board Memo
Alignment and Station Options
May 18, 2004

                                                                 Base Case and
                                                                                 Increase Project
                                                                  Incremental
                                                                                      Costs
 Design Option                                                   Add-on Costs
 South Calaveras Future Station
  Parking Structure North                                      +$98,948,000
  Parking Structure South                                      +$107,682,000
  Parking Structure North with Parallel Bus Transit Center     +$103,654,000
 Montague/Capitol Station
  Roadway Transit Center with At-grade Concourse               Base Case
  Roadway Transit Center with Elevated Concourse               +$9,039,000
  South Bus Transit Center with At-grade Concourse             +$2,327,000      +$2,327,000
  South Bus Transit Center with Elevated Concourse             +$11,365,000
 Berryessa Station
  Parking Structure Southwest                                  Base Case
  Parking Structure Northeast                                  +$49,745,000
 Alum Rock Alignment and Station
  Railroad/28th Street                                         Base Case
  US 101/Diagonal                                              +$23,850,000     +23,850,000
 Civic Plaza Station Entrances
 Downtown Crossover Location
  West of Civic Plaza/SJSU Station                             Base Case
  West of Market Street Station
 Market Street Station Entrances
 Diridon/Arena Alignment and Station Entrance Locations
  North                                                        Base Case
  South                                                        +$22,315,000     +$22,315,000
 Santa Clara Station
  Parking Structure North                                      Base Case
  Parking Structure South                                      +$20,808,000
 Santa Clara Station Pedestrian Crossing
     Aerial Walkway North Option                               Medium Cost
     Aerial Walkway South Option                               Least Cost
     Underground Walkway Option                                Highest Cost
 Airport Connection
  At-grade Alignment                                           Base Case
  Lowered Profile for Potential Future Airport Connection      +$7,261,000
 TOTAL Increase                                                                  +$76,401,000
 Notes: Costs in mid-2001 dollars.

Public Outreach and Involvement
The alignment and station options are described and discussed in the DEIS/EIR. In addition,
VTA staff has compiled an issue papers summarizing the characteristics of each option and
analyzing each on the basis of key issues and criteria.

These issues have been discussed with the Cities and BART through the Project Development
Team (PDT) and the BART/VTA Coordination meetings. The External Technical Advisory
Committee reviewed them in April, 2004.



                                                Page 11 of 12
Policy Advisory Board Memo
Alignment and Station Options
May 18, 2004

During the review period for the DEIS/EIR VTA staff met with the CWGs to review and receive
comment on the alignment and station options. A summary of that input is included in
Attachment A. The public commented on the alignment and station options at four public
hearings on the DEIS/EIR. A summary of that input is included in Attachment B. A summary of
the written input on the alignment and station options received in writing through the DEIS/EIR
process will be provided verbally at the PAB meeting.

Next Steps
Staff will bring the recommendation on the Berryessa Station Parking to the PAB on June 30, 2004.
Staff will prepare a Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS/EIR)
for certification by the VTA Board in the Fall of 2004. The FEIS/EIR will include the PAB
recommendations on the alignment and station options. Prior to bringing the FEIS/EIR to the VTA
Board staff will bring the recommendation on the Locomotive Wye Option to the PAB for
consideration.




PLEASE CONTACT                  THE       BOARD          SECRETARY’S           OFFICE         FOR
ATTACHMENTS.




                                         Page 12 of 12

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:9/30/2011
language:English
pages:12