Posted by All talk and NO action?, a resident of Livermore, on Sep 6, 2012 at 10:12 am
Glad to see they are talking again,
but what for?
All of this has been discussed, voted on.
When they originally built the BARTD they told the voters and the federal gov't the electric train would go to Livermore, where the "Transit" station parking lot is near Greenville Rd. They took our taxes, and all the federal money they cold get, based on building the whole system- then they pocketed the cost for the Livermore track and station. They let the Lexus lane be built in the former right of way on 580.
Yet they failed to provide adequate parking at Pleasanton/Dublin because they claimed it was not the end of the line. Much of the existing current surface area parking at Dublin has been sold to a developer, to be yet more apartments full of people who will need to park somewhere, even if they ride the train to work.
Since then they have started construction to Antioch, Santa Clara, even the Oakland Airport, yet nothing to Livermore.
Posted by Gianna, a resident of the Stoneridge neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 4:18 pm
There have been EIR after EIR. What sort of intense EIR does one need to make to build a metro line on a freeway or otherwise urban land? What environment is being impacted?? It is funny that in most other countries laying down 5 miles of new rail could be done in a couple of years. Here, BART to Isabelle probably won't be operational until 2020, if that. To actually get into Livermore proper, like Greenville? Wow, what, 2040, if ever? At the same time BART is doing pretty well to build towards San Jose, who never payed into the BART system. On top of everything you have activist/selfish directors like Tom Radulovich who are trying to block any expansion of BART into the suburbs he detests... Seriously, don't expect BART to move past Dublin/Pleasanton in decades...
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 12:05 pm
People like Tom Radulovich are snake oil salesmen. On one hand they yell and scream the environmentalist's mantra that automobiles are evil and must be banned. On the other hand they willingly accept the taxes and fees paid by automobile owners to help fund alternative transportation projects. Without the automobile there would be no BART, MUNI, bike lanes, pedestrian trails, or numerous other things that have nothing to do with automobile travel.
How about the people that use these alternative modes of transportation actually pay the full cost for building and maintaining these systems? Then people like Tom would say it would be prohibitively expensive. Which begs the question, if alternative modes of transportation cannot be funded without the fees and taxes from the automobile, why are you complaining about the automobile?