News

Key $7 million allocated for new parking garage at Dublin-Pleasanton BART station

Construction expected to begin next spring, opening scheduled for mid-2021

The effort to construct a new parking garage at the Dublin-Pleasanton BART station took another step forward last week as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) announced the Tri-Valley project was among those to share in $9.3 million in funding from bridge toll revenue.

Based on project cost estimates, the $7 million allocated from Regional Measure 2 revenue to the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) represents the final piece of funding needed to build the new parking structure adjacent to the existing BART garage on the Dublin side of the station.

"This a great way to improve the quality of life for a lot of commuters who don't live within walking distance of a BART station or bus stop," Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, who is also MTC chair, said in a statement.

"Among the ways to reduce congestion on East Bay freeways is to make it more convenient for people to ride transit; and one of the best ways to improve convenience is to solve the chronic parking shortages at so many of our key transit stops," Haggerty said.

The proposed $34 million, 537-space parking structure aims to provide a needed addition to the parking supply at Dublin-Pleasanton, where the existing BART garage with nearly 3,000 spaces is often filled early on the morning commute. Haggerty joined state and local leaders in devising the plan after BART declined to move forward with building its own second garage at the station.

The project, which held a ceremonial groundbreaking last October, is expected to see onsite construction begin on the new garage next spring, with the opening scheduled for mid-2021.

The $7 million commitment from MTC supplements $20 million in state funds awarded to the Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority for the project through the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, plus another $7 million in vehicle registration fee money contributed by the ACTC.

The other $2.3 million in funding awarded by MTC last week will go to completing a trio of commuter parking lots served by AC Transit's transbay buses through MTC's Bay Bridge Forward initiative. The three commuter parking lots now under construction in the East Bay -- two lots beneath Interstate 880 at High Street and Fruitvale Avenue in Oakland and a third lot adjacent to Interstate 80 at Buchanan Street in Albany -- are scheduled to open by the end of this year.

Regional Measure 2 was approved by Bay Area voters in 2004 and raised tolls by $1 on each of the region's seven state-owned toll bridges to finance highway and transit improvements in the bridge corridors and along their approaches, as well as to provide operating support for transit services in the bridge corridors.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by sjd
a resident of Livermore
on Jul 29, 2019 at 3:12 pm

Park and rides in Oakland under bridges... but still no dedicated bus lane on the bridge.

$34M in a new parking structure... right as we are about to add signal priority technology to our rapid buses.


10 people like this
Posted by Map
a resident of Del Prado
on Jul 30, 2019 at 1:09 pm

What happened to almost 50 years of taxation and bonds by BART to build tracks and sufficient parking to Livermore???? BART bails, walks away from their obligations and promises and leaves the taxpayers holding the “bag” while they take our money and run!! We keep paying and they keep playing us for fools.


1 person likes this
Posted by Robert S. Allen
a resident of Livermore
on Jul 30, 2019 at 8:26 pm

Robert S. Allen is a registered user.

AB 758 sent planned BART funding to Valley Link, which plans rail from the DP BART station along I-580 to Isabel and Greenville, and on to the Central Valley.

Nobody walked away from promises. The legislative deadline for BART decision on the EIR left its Board too brief a time to challenge the project's excessive cost.

As a strong proponent of BART to Livermore, I find Valley Link an OK substitute.


10 people like this
Posted by Map
a resident of Del Prado
on Jul 31, 2019 at 4:20 pm

@ Robert S Allen. If memory serves me right I believe you were a long time former “employee” of Bart so I expect you to be happy with a second rate substitute of a transit system instead of the system we had been proctor almost 50 years!! I’m wondering why the Bart board needs so much time to make decisions, trains to Livermore should have been in the planning from the beginning- or were they???? Looks like us taxpayers have a refund coming.


1 person likes this
Posted by Robert S. Allen
a resident of Livermore
on Jul 31, 2019 at 9:21 pm

Robert S. Allen is a registered user.

Map: I was the first BART director for the Tri-Valley area, not an employee. Co-author of an initiative petition in 2011 that qualified for the ballot asking for BART on I-580 with an initial station at Isabel and an ultimate station at Greenville. When the City Council adopted that route as its preference BART halted their 2B planning. All this pre-dated the toll lanes. There was room for rail in the freeway median.

The Project EIR before the BART Board badly needed revision (e.g., provision for future extension to Greenville and ACE, new cars and costly shop/storage facility). New state legislation (AB 758) set a deadline for their vote that did not allow amendment to the EIR before it would take away their funding. They basically said "Take it or leave it". The cost was far too high for the BART Board.

Valley Link, running along I-580 to Greenville as our petition proposed for BART, can serve Livermore nearly as well. Being single track, it will cost less.










6 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of West of Foothill
on Aug 2, 2019 at 12:08 pm

Mayor John Marchand said that the other Bart Directors decided that it was a low priority to finish the Bart extension to Livermore. That they wanted the funding to pay for the San Jose extension even though San Jose was late to the table on top of everyone else pet projects. The EIR that should have been done... Bart decided to do another delay tactic study to see what it would take to bring Bart to the downtown, even though Livermore decided long before that option was close. This delay tactic should have gone into doing a proper EIR. IMHO Bart leadership gave away much of their money to employee salaries and to their super generous pensions. It is well documented that a Bart Janitor Liang Zhao Zhang on a base salary salary of $58k made over $162k in overtime pay and in 2016 he made over $270k. When you have this level of excessive abuse and mismanagement. Then the whole “terminal leave benefits” that allowed fired General Manager Dorothy Dugger to collect a little less than $1 Million severance. Bart management selling off land that should have gone to building more parking. Instead the local communities are stuck with a lack of parking where residents are competing with Bart riders for their own parking spaces. I can go on and on. In my view the money was there. But through all of the abuses it ended up going else where. The whole office of Inspector General is 40 years too late. It is going to take a very long time to undo all of the excessive if it is even possible.


1 person likes this
Posted by sjd
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 2, 2019 at 7:17 pm

Howard,

Say what you will about pensions and benefits, but you are just factually wrong about the order of operations about BART. San Jose taxed themselves a very high rate with their own tax and they are paying for their extension, so saying that BART rejected it to extend to San Jose is wrong. The BART board is not building that extension.

Additionally, the cost per additional passenger for the Livermore extension was absurdly high, $100k/ additional weekday rider. That was because of Livermore's design decisions around their station.

There was no delay tactic about downtown Livermore - there was a plan to go there initially before the referendum, then the referendum happened, and the plans changed.


Like this comment
Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Aug 3, 2019 at 7:52 am

Grumpy is a registered user.

I don't understand Valley Link at all. Doesn't it go to the same places as ACE? Is the goal merely to provide more frequent service? Why not just run a shuttle from an ACE station to a BART station?

More importantly, why didn't anyone go to the voters and ask what we wanted?


3 people like this
Posted by Map
a resident of Del Prado
on Aug 3, 2019 at 10:32 am

@Howard- thanks for stirring up a lot of really bad memories on the past history of Bart, it was always obvious that Livermore was never going to get train service that it was always the “carrot” dangled out in front of the taxpayers!! IMO BART is still the worst run transit system in this country and other countries with comparable transit systems. Losing millions of dollars a year because of fare jumpers, unreliable scheduling, overcrowded trains, filthy stations, thugs running rampant in the stations and on the trains and a terribly understaffed police force. Great job BART directors and BART management!!


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Differentiating Grief from Clinical Depression
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,522 views

Jammed BART trains demand innovative thinking moving forward
By pleasantonweekly.com | 9 comments | 1,041 views