Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06201995 - 1.77 .I ,t ,r :r 1.75 through 1. 79 THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on _June 20, 1995 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Bishop NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Correspondence 1.75 LETTER from Raymond P. Laviolette, Commander, Pleasant Hill Post 331, The American Legion, P. O. BOX 23613, Pleasant Hill 94523, requesting the County to assume the responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the Veterans' Monument in Pleasant Hill. ***REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 1.76 NOTICE from the Legal Strategies Group, 5905 Christie Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-1925, of intent to file counterclaims and/or cross-claims relative to litigation, Acme Fill Corp. v. Althin CD Medical, Inc. et al. , No. C91 4268 SBA, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California. ***REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL 1.77 LETTER from Roy Nakadegawa, Director, District 3, Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) , P. 0. Box 12688, Oakland, CA 94604-2688, providing documentation on his position on the decision made by the BART Board of Directors regarding the SFO Extension, Alternative VI. ***REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 1.78 LETTER from Richard L. Gorman, President, Bryan & Murphy, Gorman & Associates, Inc. , 5000 Executive Parkway, Suite 125, San Ramon, CA 94583, request the Board to reconsider its denial for a General Plan Amendment and a minor adjustment to the Urban Limit Line on behalf of Corrie Development. ***REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR REPORT 1.79 LETTER from the Law Offices of Charles J. Williams, 1320 Arnold Drive, Suite 160, Martinez, CA 94553, transmitting the proposed Conflict of Interest Code for the Lamorinda School Bus Transportation Agency. ***REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations as noted (***) are APPROVED. cc: Correspondents County Administrator County Counsel i hereby certify thLt this is a true and correct copy of Transportation Committee an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Community Development Board of Supervi ors on the date shown. ATTESTED: - / o a, /9��r- PHIL lATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By < 1• �7� ,Deputy 77 • B A R T BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 800 Madison Street-Lake Merritt Station R ECEIVED P.O.Box 12688 V Oakland,CA 94604-2688 Telephone(510)464-6000 7 1995 OF SUPERVISORSCOSTA Co. June 5, 1995 MICHAEL BERNICK PRESIDENT DAN RICHARD VICE-PRESIDENT RICHARD A.WHITE GENERAL MANAGER The Honorable Supervisors County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street, Room 106 DIRECTORS Martinez, CA 94553 DAN RICHARD 1ST DISTRICT Dear Supervisors: JOEL KELLER 2ND DSTRIGT I am enclosing a paper outlining some of the reasons that I have not fully ROY GAWA 3RD DISTRICTSTRICT supported the decision that the BART Board of Directors made regarding the SFO Extension, Alternative VI. MARGARET K.PRYOR 4TH DISTRICT SHERMAN LEWIS Also enclosed are Letters to the Editor of the San Francisco Examiner and a copy STH DISTRICT of a paper entitled "Observation on Congestion and Transit". THOMAS M.BLALOCK 8TH DISTRICT Please feel free to call me if you have any comments or questions. WILFRED T.USSERY 7TH DISTRICT Sincerely, JAMES FANG 8TH DISTRICT MICHAEL BERNICK 9TH DISTRICT g Roy 4Lde awa Y Director, District 3 Encl. COMMENTS ON THE BART/SFO SUP EIR/S By ROY NAKADEGAWA PE • ' BART BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ON BART's ALT. 6 -DIRECT TO THE AIRPORT- PUBLIC HEARINGS: I attended all three BART/SFO public hearings and was surprised that overall there wasn't great support for BART. I estimated that around 1/3 of the commentors favored upgrading Caltrain, whereas only a third favored Alt, 6, BART Direct to the Airport, BUT, roughly 1/3-1/2 of those favoring Alt. 6 did so based on expensive conditions ie. Boring versus going underground by Cut and Cover [Boring could cost twice as much as Cut and Cover) . The remainder were mixed and many said they were in favor of the Transportation System Management Alternative (No BART) . FINANCES: The EIR/S states nearly $800 Million of the $1.3 Billion total is still uncommitted. With a Republican Congress that is cutting the budget drastically and a large part of the uncommitted funding hoped for being federal, I wonder how likely this funding will come about for such a costly and ineffective project. There are other sources listed as potential or uncommitted that also may be in doubt, such as the Airport Tax which use is to be solely for airport services. CONTRACT: BART hopes to award this project on a design/build ora Turnkey Contract using a single prime contractor. If this is the case the total finding, including those listed as uncommitted, needs to be assured before a contract is awarded. If not, it- could be an unfinished project or no contract! CONVENIENCE AND TIME SAVING: Many say that we should not look at cost but look to the benefits of convenience, and time savings. The DEIR/S report did mention these points but the conveniences and time savings were minor. -What it didn't say about Alt. 6 was that when people get to the airport, a far greater number will have to walk further with their luggage than when using the Airport Light Rail Transit (ALRT) with the External station Alts. Only minor time saving would be gained. The report also assumed that the trip with the ALRT will stop at every station and not operate as an elevator that stops only at requested stops, which it will. RIDERSHIP AND COST: Many say BART will attract thousands of new riders but the DEIR/S made RIDERSHIP projections to year 2010 and with this number, determined the cost per new rider. It is shown as the cost-effectiveness index (CEI) which evaluates the public cost per new rider. It annualized the cost of design and construction, as well as operation and maintenance and took into account the growth of ridership and inflation up to year 2010. It even accounted for the time saving cost, which I don't think should be included. It then divides the sum by the number of new riders. The CEI for Alt. 6 is $28.76 per ride. The incremental fare will be around $0.72-1.50 for Colma to the Airport depending on how far a rider used BART, so the NET PUBLIC SUBSIDY TO PROVIDE ONE BART TRIP DIRECT TO THE AIRPORT WILL BE AROUND $27.50 PER RIDE! This subsidy will be about equivalent to what we currently provide 2 welfare families of 3, yes 2 families, for bare day to day survival as compared. to providing one daily BART trip to go directly to the airport with a little more convenience and save a little time! Another point. The difference of Alt. 6 (direct to the airport) over most other Alts. ranges from 1/3-1/2 billion dollars yet it attracts only 400 more daily trips! Is the gain in ridership worth it? COMMUTER RAIL VS. METRO To provide cost effective and efficient transit using public monies, we need to examine the appropriate application, construction and operational cost differences of metro vs. commuter rail. The capital cost differences of a Metro system ranges 3-15 times more than Commuter rail. 1 Last year I visited Wien (Vienna), Austria and Stockholm,. Swederl.�ransit who operate all the public transit including the Metro, and Commuter ra-r. Wien has 5 subway lines and the total length is 50 Km (31.1 Mi) or less than 1/2 of the current 71 mi BART system! Both have excellent commuter rail services as well serving the outlying towns. As a matter of fact, most maj-or cities of the world operate both a metro and commuter rail system and universally the metro systems operate only in HIGH DENSITY AREAS, whereas commuter rail serves the outlying areas. Metro systems have very limited parking and operate at 2-10 minute intervals. Well utilized Commuter Rail operates at 15-20 minute intervals at peak periods and at off-peak 1/2 hr and longer. Many commuter, systems only operate the peaks. Metro's larger carrying capacity is primarily from operating at closer intervals from better controlled grade separated right of way using a better control system. BART IS A HYBRID, because it is a Metro in design but a Commuter rail in operation. It serves suburbs with lots of parking and many areas with little development. BART provides 15 minute service the major part of the day and 20 to 30 minute offpeak which is excellent for Commuter service but provides second-rate Metro service for built up areas! The operating costs per passenger mile varies as to the passenger load. Some of BART's extensions' loads will be quite low especially during off-peak periods, so they should not operate even at 15 minute intervals. Metro needs a great number of riders to be cost effective and ridership is dependent on station area densities and the degree of congestion! CALTRAIN UPGRADE: Gradually upgrading transit, invariably, is the most cost effective way to proceed and the projected SFO/BART ridership can easily be accommodated for a long time in the future by Commuter rail or Caltrain. Upgrading Caltrain with the Airport providing its ALRT could save the public hundreds of millions of dollars! Reliable estimates show at less than 1/2 the cost of Alt. 6 to build 8 miles; we can electrify and extend Caltrain all the way from downtown SF to beyond San Jose for over 60 miles. It will increase public transit usage far more than Alt. 6. With additional monies and still at less the cost of Alt. 6, Caltrain can serve the airport direct with a subway station. Upgrading Caltrain in stages would not require a major EIR and would not require expensive structured parking at existing stations being they are located near the old town centers where current bus service is provided. This would add to the revitaliz- ation of these areas where some cities are currently redeveloping. Besides, a commuter rail system can always be upgraded to a metro system when the communities have higher densities along the route and warrant such an upgrade! Vienna, Austria did this for two of their rail lines. BUS/BART SERVICE COSTS: Current station designs generally favor auto parkers at the expense of efficient transit operation. At most stations, buses are required to travel very circuitously out of their routing to serve BART. If one examines the Millbrae Station bus routing, it will be very time consuming for buses. It would take about 3+ minutes extra including an extra 1.5-2 minute signal cycle for each bus to go in and out the station and continue service. A major bus terminal such as Millbrae could easily have 200-250 through trips a day and this could cost $250,000/yr extra in bus operating cost. At 250 trips X 3+ minutes = around 840 minutes or 14 hrs/day service; bus hour service costs @ $60+/hr = $840/day X 300 (250 wk days + 100 1/2 weekend days) days/yr = $252,000/yr! SFO DEPARTURE TAX The use of airport departure tax is limited to airport use and its funded projects are to be operated and maintained by the airport. The airport subway station is reputed to cost over $50 million and if funded by the airport tax, can it be maintained and operated by BART? There is also a question of equity of the airport station users in that about 40-50% of the users will be employees or visitors and will not pay the tax. 2 4 Y FUTURE POLICIES; , We have for years differentiated highway improvements by providinesigns to fit the needs and demand in terms of number of lanes for arterials, parkways or freeways using partial or limited access, and established parameters when to build grade separated crossing, etc. We need to begin this more rational approach with exclusive way transit including Metro, Commuter rail and Transit- ways. If we do not, I see there will be many cost ineffective transit projects promoted and built purely on politics which can become large public burdens and could curtail future appropriate transit applications. We need to constantly remind ourselves that "Transit is only a Means to and End" not think in terms of "Transit as an End in itself"! We need to plan land use, integrate and coordinate developments more comprehensively on a regional basis! The recent Bank of America report clearly pointed out this need. 5-12-95 3 1 OBSERVA77ON ON CONGESTION AND TRANSIT by ROY NAKADEGAWA P.E. BART Director Let me relate what I've observed and sensed regarding transportationfrom numerous overseas trips I've taken. I have been impressed by how other developed countries have developed transit through excellent comprehensive and coordinated planning. But despite their well planned and well used transit, they have all experienced greater AUTO CONGES770N. They have even imposed auto disincentives such as: very high fuel taxes, very high auto registration fees with high annual renewal fees, limitedparking with high parking fees, and congestion zone entryfees to discourage auto use, but still AUTO CONGESTION increased. From 1973-1991, which includes the fuel crisis years, auto use has increased at afar greater rate in European Countries and Japan than it has in the US. This indicates the universal and overwhelming love of the auto. People use it despite all the congestion and disincentives indicating it is the most convenient conveyance developed by mankind. Yet, despite greater congestion, they have a better quality of life and have choice in mobility because they have planned for transit. There is good evidence that the US will have congestion no matter how much roads we build because we cater so much to the auto. Meanwhile, we are overlooking many problems, both direct and indirect of livability and costs, that auto-orientated thinking has created. Some problems are. Uncontrolled sprawl - which creates the need for redundant and inefficient use of public futiding for publicfacilities and infrastructures(roads,schools,parks, community centers, transit,public services, etc.); The disregard and blight of central cities-which has increased segregation and generated social problems of crime mut drugs on which we spend billions for more police and prisons, and which does nothing for the cure but only treats the symptoms; Air pollution - despite the substantial improvement of auto emission, air pollution has increased due to.even greater use of the car; mai, Focusing primarily on relieving congestion due to the fear of Gridlock. Also, we use 2-2.5 times more energy per capita than the other developed countries and most of this energy we import is for the auto which is a major factor of our trade unbalance. In the US, congestion is occurring at a greater rate in the suburbs where most of our population now live. Sadly, whatever kind of suburban transit we provide it is so poorly used and requires such high public subsidies, it will never be viable. Relieving congestion only compounds our problems. Other countries have more congestion despite imposing auto disincentives and building integrated developments, which we currently advocate that it will minimize or relieve it. Still,other countries have livability and good mobility by choice, whereas, we are losing both! We should reconsider what we are doing. We should focus on quality of life and mobility as other developed countries do rather than on congestion. Comprehensive planning and its implementation is the correct and appropriate way to provide beneficial and cost effective public infrastructure (public wbrks, roads, transit, etc,). Rather than continuing our narrow focused approach, we should pursue a, comprehensive,fundamental, and coordinated regional approach. 10194 �,\ rCi_5C0 E\=.!.1INER SAN FRANCfSCOE Gc!r,}C 21, 1992 %. X"��i t f�E R -I4 SAN FRANCISCO EXAMI-ER \L'cc csd_r. A-20'_;Tbursday. October 29, 1992 Huge BART subsidy * — . _ A-13 W t:jnesday,Nov'66er 11. 1992 x f.Pushing into - BART The public should be a•�°:a_re of the Ro}Nakade�awar airport costs for direct BART sen; to San vntes a stran�e- International Airport and .ly uninformed letter(Oct.21)attack- Francisco �aying for`Kdpp loop' ing the long-promised extension of State Sen. Quentin Kopp (letter, its"cam-eriences."I a_rn a professional - t D �'service into San Francisco In- Oct. 29)claims I��-rote a "strangely,• en,ineer runninz for a seat on the uninformed.letter(Oct.21),but the BART board of directors to increase ��fernational Airport. Ile claims the public awareness of ineffective and rcost ofdoingso somehow relates to de- senator strangely twisted my point. costly transit projects. ;privingwlfare fa, and AC Tran- He infers that I claim the Kopp loop OP •l „ 'sit passengers of subsidies. f to extend DART into San Francisco Direct DART se:-ti�ice will attract _ International Airport) affects t e t only"00 more riders each Cav corn- ` .-Na.kadegawa is obviously unaware pared to ser.�ce to the pia=nod enter that-the single-track-loop plan into funding we provide for other public nal station near the ail or accordi_nu 'the airport will be funded from the services--MY point,was that if we are to a study by the 31e rapoli an Trans }-�rPort's swollen treasury and depar- to expend great amounts of public portation Commission.The latest al- `ttu e fee,authorized by federal taw.No ' money we should spend it most post `mane from the eneral fund of San effectively,rationally and equitabl ternate pian into the airror,which I y g As comparisons I cited what we cur'- call the the Kona U-op,"cast;an ad- Francisco or any !goal tax will be i rently provide for other public and ditional S300(unverified)r^ on(the needed.;The financing of D.ART sta- �tion within the air ory has nothing to weLfare services. initial plan would cost S`30 million). In general,Ifavor taxing ourselves ado with city services paid from the The arcual capital subsid•,for the r to provide for the public cod ifa large I� c _ general fund of local govern nent. s- ` P g Kopp Loon equal_ 8750,000, or S1_anumber of people benefit.&-i-rig aper a-s-ssenmin,which excludes op 1 �De1}f?6iting[al-* 4} pro- passengers 3t fev� p p - ;a San Druno station 1.1 mhos from - ional transports.-on engineer, I t eras onai subsidies' itziow that the Kopp loop an be fund I I've used rail to airports in C:ica- Ythe airport and compelling them to rp ed from an airport depai tui e tae.But ! moo,At ansa,Philade hia, Washing :tiarisferfoaroiherty4eofcanreyance should the-tens ofihousands of air 1 1 1p Q_ ton DC, and NY,as well as::wry for- ito reach their.airport destinations travOef�-departing the a Conti be I eig airports.I find very fen:passen .would be a mistake that history will tas!ed,o that 400 deoa-eees VI-ill gain not treat kindly That's the reason I've gars rr;ih luggage use rail because one •• • aliCt�e more convenience?Also,the needs to carry bags some distance,upconizmenced an initiative campaign to greatest users=airport and airline and down stairs, escalators, and e a DART station within the air- employees—=-would not pay this tax.. thrau�i tu_*astiles. :r .:;n; t r - .- . , - If DART is extended farther south `' ` ' r"��' down to San Jose, the sing Wiihanintegratedinternoda!ex- f., QUENTI t L. KpPP le-track ternal station,an automated shuttle t,_ .*.11 ...- Stc!e senator loop would be relegated to less fre- from the station would be ccmpatible 1-a_ ; I San F.�crciscolSan.ttareo quant sen vice.and_Transferring would to both the airport and extensions. be required- However, �� _ .. How ever,we should review all our 45�95 —L P--fie-�- transportation comprehensively as ._LD" � 5Fp� The ea-ternal station is a much new federal legislation suggests, to 1-ki A l4crna-e, V("''`A,61" A more cost-effective and appropriate determine where to usese our public way to provide transit to the airport, funds in the mosher effective way. �C.a0 4•Itrs w'/l COO- yke'x 001 It requires a minute or more of time The 5300 million provides mostly ,i but the saving iri public monies is at re- imagined Conveniences to 400 travel- '`-I�'1) W l, b-1 14,11 will o� least$300 million and it would not re- ers for access to the airport. If S300 ta-ue the discriminatory departure a-�rtic-j a6o�� �-�D u�Y�o�-} tax. � -t minion were banked,it would produce $21 million at 7 percent.This is one. ass'"�e'r 4V-IP4 �4, j �` Roy NAKADECAWA sigh of AC Il ann"tis annual bud,et.A Sar Francisco sixth of AC's daily ridership is 34,000 �)�r a1� Cat j-�min rW rs �az_Ji, M4 b� rides!This amount would also provide for 3,200 families of three on welfare! 4c 4e, 4 i r f r} wa4 s�r 'fin ! t ruj It is perverse to spend so much for alatti 4k—� Gt•r- 6-Wice. 4-o direct BART sen-ice when we have such dire educational, urban:and so- is +ivhwblr� vitn�: flu-vr $er.ce:ey R