"Gravely concerned:" BART Directors join chorus of leaders questioning the course of San Jose BART extension
Image by Wikimedia Commons
On the heels of widening public apprehension about the now-$12.8bn extension of BART through downtown SJ from former mayors, the Mercury News, and nationally recognized transit experts, BART Directors Ames and Allen are asking the hard questions of project leaders across a spectrum of issues ranging from the costs of tunneling designs to ridership projections. Full text of Directors' memo below.
Date: April 11, 2024
From: BART Board Directors Elizabeth Ames and Debora Allen
Subject: BART to Silicon Valley II Requests for Information
We, BART Board Directors Allen and Ames, are gravely concerned about the course of the BART to Silicon Valley extension, including the constructability, risks, and cost-efficiency of the project. Accordingly, we respectfully request BART executive management and “subject matter expert” staff to provide to the BART Board of Directors within 30 days of today a written detailed and comprehensive report, followed by a public board meeting session, that answers the following questions and provides the herein requested information regarding the BART to Silicon Valley II Project:
1. In late March 2024, Tom Maguire, VTA’s chief megaproject officer, told The Mercury News that VTA is moving forward on analyzing the cost of the twin-bore design. Please update the BART board on the timing and depth and scope of that planned analysis and describe what role BART staff anticipates playing in the development or review of the VTA’s so-called "apples to apples" comparison of the current Single Bore vs original Twin Bore designs. If BART staff are not planning to play a role in that process, please explain why not.
2. As part of the analysis in item 1 above, please brief the board on the details of the scope and specifically if the following will be included in the VTA’s most recent planned analysis: • A constructability analysis and comparison ensuring the twin and single bore construction projects are both feasible and can be built cost-efficiently, • Updates on quantitative cost (capital and operating) and schedule risk analyses for the twin and single bore projects, • Updates to Risk and Contingency Management Plans and risk reports for the twin and single bore projects, If the above criteria are not planned to be part of the analysis by VTA, we hope you will request of VTA that the above is included.
3. On September 19, 2017, BART’s now General Manager (GM) Powers, issued a memo on behalf of then GM Crunican, to Nuria Fernandez (GM of SCVTA), regarding the proposed single-bore tunnel alternative for SVX phase II. The letter indicated BART staff believed the single-bore alternative “would not be advisable” and would create “serious risks to safety, customer/ADA access, operations and maintenance. sustainability. and accommodating future growth”. The letter went on to compare the two designs and detail further the risks and concluded that “the twin-bore design is the superior alignment for Phase 2 or the Silicon Valley Extension.” April 11, 2024 – Memo from Allen and Ames – re: BART to Silicon Valley II Requests for Information Page 2 of 3 Using similar lines of analysis as the 9-19-2017 memo, please explain how each of the concerns raised in the memo have been satisfactorily resolved or mitigated by VTA in the single bore design? Please give specific details of each concern.
4. On March 26, 2018, in her letter to GM Grace Crunican, VTA GM Nuria Fernandez acknowledges "that BART requests refinements with respect to fire/life safety, track alignment, station configuration, ventilation, and horizontal and vertical circulation." Please list and briefly describe the refinements BART had requested, whether each was intended "to ensure that BART can operate in accordance with established practices used on the BART Core System", and the current disposition of each.
5. In her letter, GM Fernandez goes on to recognize that BART has "approval authority over the final design on items affecting operations, maintenance, and fire/life safety of the BART operations, and that this authority would apply to, among other things, the optimal track layout, platform design configuration, ventilation system design, and horizontal and vertical circulation...". Has this proven since to be true? Or have disputes of a technical nature between VTA and BART project staff in these areas had to be resolved by following Section X (Dispute Resolution) of the 2001 Comprehensive Agreement? Please provide examples and outcomes of the most significant of any such instances.
6. On April 26, 2018, the BART Board of Directors approved moving forward the BART to Silicon Valley phase II (BSVII) project. Has the BART Board of Directors ever voted to approve the changes that have been made to the project since that vote almost 5 years ago? Please provide dates and subject matter of votes.
7. What potentially significant changes to the project's scope and/or design approach have been made since 4/26/18 that could bear upon the project's compliance with "BART Design and Construction Standards" and "BART Operational Standards and Practices" as defined in the 2001 VTA/BART Comprehensive Agreement? What is the status of the CEQA review of such changes?
8. Has the BART Board of Directors ever had an opportunity to consider for approval the CEQA review of such changes made since 2018?
9. After the BART Board approval on 4/26/18, what has been the practical effect on the project of the Design Criteria Manual ("DCM"), which was created after the BART Board's approval of the project on 4/26/18?
10. What potentially significant aspects of the current project are considered “in compliance” with the DCM, but are not in clear compliance with BART Standards as defined in the Comprehensive Agreement?
11. Please provide a comprehensive list of each "exception", "variance" or "addendum" to the DCM as requested by VTA and which has been approved (or rejected) by BART. Please also include any exceptions, variances or addenda to the DCM which are either pending or can be reasonably anticipated to ultimately certify the current project. April 11, 2024 – Memo from Allen and Ames – re: BART to Silicon Valley II Requests for Information Page 3 of 3
12. When were the most recent ridership projections for the project developed? Please include all known ridership data from all sources both within and outside the District.
Related:
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.