From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: BART Extension Routes
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:43:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.202128.19808@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.143809.22147@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
$ He might find the answer by following the routes. Here they are:
>
>[route descriptions deleted]
>
>Lots of highway/freeway right-of-way use, as I suspected.  I'm also told
>that much of the highway/freeway right-of-way being used was designed
>with future BART extensions in mind.  This, along with comments made in
>other postings regarding low-construction bids due to the current economic
>slump, and along with the more rural/country-like areas these extensions
>go through, goes a long way to explaining their atypically low cost.

	"Atypically low"?

	But the full planned length of the two East Bay extensions is
over 30 miles (complete to Livermore and Antioch), which is about half
the length of the existing system.

	So "atypical" is a relative question.

$ 	As for a Peninsula BART extension, I agree that an extension
$ south of SFO will probably be rather tough, but I think it beneficial
$ in the long run, for the existing SP tracks can be freed for express
$ service if a BART line takes over local-train duties.

>Perhaps.  I wouldn't be fighting BART south of SFO so hard if it didn't
>mean we'd have to wait forever and spend tons of money we don't really
>have.

	But if one has TGV-type trains going along the Peninsula, then
one will need separated tracks for _those_.

	And a bare-bones BART, without Colma-clone garage-stations,
would probably be relatively cheap. I think that the BART folks may
have to consider that option if their planned Colma clones prove
financially unpalatable.

$ In the meantime, if one wants to get headways down very cheaply, a
$ simple way to do that would be to run LRV's along the line during
$ off-peak hours.

>I find this sort of foolish.  Once you've bought and paid for an LRV
>fleet and electrification of the line, you will have spent enough to
>simply electrify CalTrain.  An electrified CalTrain can quite reasonably
>run 2 or 3 (or whatever) car trains efficiently every 20 minutes or so.

	I see your point about getting electric locos. But would there
be enough off-peak traffic?

	One will not have to have a particularly big LRV fleet, since
about 20 or 25 should be necessary to fill up the Peninsula.

	Adding a couple for spares, we might have 30 or 40 total. The
cost, at $2 m each, would be about $60-$80 m.

$ Unfortunately, CalTrain's management does not seem to have the vision
$ to try to acquire such LRV's.                                  ^^^^^^

>Thank god.  Vision??  LRV's typically don't offer the same ride quality
>and experience that CalTrain does and will.  They're usually a lot more
>cramped, and as far as I know, don't have restrooms or other amenities
>like cell phones and fax machines like the new California Cars will.  I
>suspect that people would rather ride in a train car for longer trips.

	What??

	I'm talking about LRV's for _off-peak_ service, when the
volume is less. They would be the equivalent of 1-car trains.

	And which LRV's have you ridden lately? The Muni Metro lemons?
I think the Santa Clara and the Sacramento LRV's are at least OK, and
might do for Peninsula service.

$ Since extension into SFO will probably  be technically difficult, I
$ think that they should push for opening a segment to San Bruno (say)
$ by 1997 or 1998, just to show results, if  nothing else.

>BART *into* SFO is more or less dead for now.  The LPA (Locally Preferred
>Alternative) has been chosen, and it's BART to *near* SFO on the west
>side of 101.  The airport people mover will serve BART and CalTrain at
>a new joint station across from the airport.  To appease Senator Quentin
>Kopp, they have sort of left some avenues open to "study" eventually
>running BART into the airport.

	That's actually a relief, for they have settled for something
simpler than going into the airport terminal. Having been there, I've
noticed the roadway shaking as various vehicles pass over it, so I
think it would be dangerous to put a BART line into it. Given this
alternative, they might just possibly get the extension to there going
a year or two early, since they won't have the tricky SFO-terminal
construction.

$ I was told by one BART planner that the Colma station is intended to
$ be the model for the whole Peninsula.  That means similar
$ park-and-ride garages all the way.  Given the Colma station's cost, the
$ planned Colma clones will probably make up the bulk of the expenses.

>It'll never happen.  There is no way in hell you're gonna put a Colma-like
>$130 million dollar (only in *today's* dollars) auto-throne station from
>hell in every San Mateo County downtown.  These BART folks are nuts.  They
>ought to go work for CalTrans; they're spending more on garages than rail
>lines.  Sheesh.

	If that's the CalTrans idea of priority, then we might see
lots of CalTrain Colma clones planned for the Peninsula.

	I haven't heard anything about the Peninsula 2000 folks about
station upgrades. I presume they want the existing CalTrain stations
unchanged.

	Of course, the BART folks could dump their Colma-clone plans...

	This would save a lot of money, since the basic BART stations
occupy only a small amount of land, and the amount of construction is
similar to that for (say) the Tamien station.

$ 	About Santa Clara County, the Sept. 11 Oakland Tribune BART
$ article reported that SCCo's supervisor has announced that he has some
$ cause for optimism after 5 years of negotiations; he clearly wants
>
>Which supervisor are you talking about?  Rod Diridon or Ron Gonzales?

	Rod Diridon, if memory serves me correctly.