From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: (B)ART & (C)alTrain to stay on SMCo. ballot
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:46:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.201040.22880@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:

>This just in:

>The San Mateo County Supervisors decided against removing advisory
>measures B & C from the ballot at this morning's meeting.

>Measure B says something like "shall SMCo. negotiate to join the
>BART district and extend BART throughout the county?"

	"Should we extend an already existing, highly efficient,
though expensive, transit system through the rest of SMCo?"

>Measure C says something like "shall SMCo. continue to pursue
>upgrading CalTrain to BART-level service and extending the line into
>downtown San Francisco?"

	"Should we try to create something like BART without it
actually being BART, at similar expense? Or are we willing to do
partial improvements at less expense?"

>Many transit advocates (myself included) are very nervous about B
>& C being on the ballot given current conditions.  At this point,
>the general public doesn't have any timeframes or costs and doesn't
>really know the implications of what they are being asked to vote
>on.  So what we wind up with is a touchy-feely popularity poll that
>is based more on impressions and image than substance...

	That may well be the case, but BART outperforms CalTrain very
handily. And a BART-level CalTrain will probably have BART-level
costs, such as big parking lots and garages, a _completely_ separated
right-of-way, new rolling stock, and so forth.

Based on the BART to the airport
>time-frames, BART to Menlo Park ("throughout the county") could 
>easily take another 10 years or more for a completion date of around
>2012 or later... 

	Well, it depends on when they start work on it. A BART line is
scheduled to be in SFO by 2000, not 2002; and if they start work on a
line through the Peninsula in the late 1990's, then it could all be
done in 2005 or so. Simply check on the timetables and expected for
the extensions now under construction. I suspect that the cost will be
about $50-$100 m/mi, including stations.

	A major part of extension costs is new BART stations; they are
designed for high capacity, and a similar-capacity CalTrain would have
similarly expensive stations. If you don't believe me, visit the
Tamien LR/CalTrain station, or the southern part of the SC LR lines.

	I know that $130 million for the Colma BART station may seem
excessive to some, but a similar CalTrain station would cost a similar
amount.

>Another kicker: Santa Clara County has no official interest in having
>BART.  They have slowly and quietly come to the realization that BART
>is not the answer.

	Or they are not willing to commit to BART just yet. There were
meetings on a feasibility of BART extensions into Milpitas and San
Jose last month, which _does_ indicate some official interest.

	I certainly agree that a BART tunnel in downtown San Jose
would be rather expensive, but it is either that or those slowpoke
LRV's.

Their new Measure A is careful not to make any
>mention of BART into Santa Clara County.  What it *does* say, is that
>it will fund a "rail link" to Fremont/Warm Springs BART.

	I can tell what kind of a rail link there is going to be,
since the SC LR system will be extended to Milpitas, and by the time
the line gets there, BART should be at Warm Springs. Then, it is
either BART into Milpitas or the SC LR into Warm Springs.

	Compared to SC's LRV's, BART's trains will go 2 or 3 times
faster into downtown San Jose, however. The choice is between cheap
and slow, or fast and expensive.

 How much
>sense does it make for San Mateo County to build BART at great cost,
>disruption and delay to Menlo Park when the system will merely end
>there (in a characteristically huge BART parking monstrosity)? 

	Just like Tamien :-)

	You might want to visit it sometime and cry, because Tamien
looks suspiciously BARTified.

>San Mateo County residents: I urge a NO on B, and a YES on C.

	I disagree. Yes on B, No on C. As BART comes in, CalTrain can
be phased out.

>* we need rail transit upgrades soon, not in 20 years or more!

	15 years or so more likely, but one has to start somewhere :-)

>* we already have the maximum-allowable sales tax
>* we can't afford BART without new taxes (gas? property?)

	Maybe.

>* we can incrementally upgrade CalTrain to whatever service level
>  our enthusiasm and funds permit.

	I will concede that, though a BART-level CalTrain will require
BART-level expenses. Why not swallow the bitter financial pill all at
once?

>* BART costs on the order of $100 to $200 million per mile to extend

	Only in heavily urbanized areas.

>* BART SFO is already rumoured to be $150 to $200 million over-budget

	I haven't heard that one.

>* the 75-mile CalTrain line can be electrified for the cost of one or
>  two miles of BART

	I agree that _that_ improvement is cheap, but others will not
be. For instance, _all_ the locos will have to be replaced.

>* for the $32.5 million cost of the BART airport studies, CalTrain
>  could run train every 15 minutes all day, every day for three years.

	How did you calculate _that_???

	And how much might a CalTrain upgrade study cost? I'm sure
about the amount of a BART upgrade study.

	I recall from somewhere that BART is _less_ expensive per
passenger than CalTrain is: total budget is perhaps 8 times bigger,
but the total ridership is over 10 times bigger. I'll have to hunt
down precise figures sometime.

	BART outperforms CalTrain in another way: each week, 3295
trains are dispatched, as opposed to 346 trains/week for CalTrain.
Breakdown:

	Wkdys	Sat	Sun

BART
Ri-Fr	57	39
Fr-Ri	57	40

Fr-SF	59	40
SF-Fr	59	41

Ri-Fr	74	58	50
Fr-Ri	73	57	50

Co-SF	82	58	50
SF-Co	80	57	50

Total	541	390	200

CalTrain
SJ-SF	30	13	10
SF-SJ	30	14	9
Total	60	27	19

	(counting midnight Friday SF-SJ train into Saturday)

>* etc.

>We need transit-level rail service on the Pensinsula in our lifetimes!

	I agree.

Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad