Edwards additionally mentioned he was “formally notifying VTA” that BART rejected the yard redesign that was floated on the oversight assembly.
In an emailed assertion, VTA mentioned it “stays dedicated to a powerful partnership with BART and to delivering the BART Silicon Valley Section II mission to the best requirements of security, effectivity, and financial duty.”
The assertion mentioned VTA takes communication considerations significantly, and highlighted common updates made to its oversight committee and detailed month-to-month stories on the progress and funds of the mission.
“We’re addressing the considerations raised in BART’s August 15 letter and are guaranteeing the Newhall yard design absolutely helps BART’s protected and environment friendly operations,” the assertion mentioned.
Barney Smits, a retired engineer who labored for BART for 25 years, mentioned “it’s about time that BART administration stepped up” to boost considerations about communication, transparency and the apparently pressured partnership between the 2 companies.
“They all the time, for both political causes or no matter, paint it as they’re getting alongside,” Smits advised KQED. “However VTA has not adopted the BART requirements, and doesn’t adjust to the excellent settlement” between the 2 companies centered on security, comfort and customer support requirements.
“Assistant Basic Supervisor Edwards slammed them, however sadly, it’s too little too late, should you ask me,” he mentioned, including that BART’s rejection of the Newhall Yard redesign is important.
“That’s a reasonably robust stand from this companion that supposedly you all the time work with hand in hand,” Smits mentioned.
VTA, in its assertion, mentioned the 2 companies “proceed to work carefully, with BART workers embedded within the mission workplace and BART has been actively concerned within the design course of.”
