From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: BART Extension Routes
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:21:28 GMT

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.


|> 	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.


|> 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.


|> 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.


|> [BART running LRVs on the CalTrain ROW] would get BART down the
|> Peninsula without a full-scale BART line.

If all you're after is having BART management run something down the
Peninsula, you could just have BART run/manage CalTrain.



|> I may add that SMCo Supervisor Tom Nolan has gone on record as
|> stating that one can vote for _both_ measures B and C.  Both BART and
|> CalTrain can coexist, he says.

Yeah, that's what he says alright.  Do you think it makes sense from
a practical/political/financial standpoint?  Tom has been real funny
when it comes to this issue.  It's like some BART lobbyists have
gotten to him, but haven't told him how to answer the tough questions
yet.  When pressed on the "BART and CalTrain can coexist" thing, he
doesn't make a lot of sense.  For instance, when pushed to say if
Measure B means BART to Menlo Park he gets all hard to pin down.  Lots
of hemming and hawing.  How do you do "BART around the Bay", or "through-
out" San Mateo County without going through Menlo Park, Tom?  What
route do you see BART taking?  He has suggested that maybe BART could
follow 280 or 101 to avoid admitting that Measure B's BART "throughout"
the county means "BART down the CalTrain right of way".  (a 280 route
is patently absurd due to grades and other reasons, 101 is going to
be even *more* expensive than using the CalTrain right of way--so that's
pretty much of a joke too)  It's reassuring to see that nobody is really
buying Tom Nolan's line when they put hard questions to him on this.



|> 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.



|> 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.


|> 	75% ($93 m): Federal Transit Administration
|> 	12.5% ($16 m): Caltrans
|> 	12.5% ($16 m): SamTrans
|> 
|> 	So only $16 m is local money. Isn't it wonderful to get to
|> stiff others with the bill? :-):-)
|> 	So if much of the extension money can come from outside
|> sources, then local taxpayers will certainly have less to complain
|> about ;-)

Yes, but before you smile too much, think of the "opportunity cost" of
that money.  Whether it comes from the FTA (taxpayers) or not, it could
be used to do so much more if spent on more cost-effective transit.
This is the Washington "PORK" philosophy at its worst.  



|> 	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?
Unless there's been some kind of quiet change, Santa Clara County is
not even close to getting BART any time soon.  I remember a meeting
I was at where the supes were talking about dragging the public hearings
on BART to SJ out until well after the Novemeber elections.  They didn't
want to upset any voters in their districts by being discouraging about
BART's prospects for reaching San Jose.  Take what you hear from
politicians on BART with a bigger grain of salt than usual until after
November, because BART is a very political thing.


|> 	Well, I'm afraid I like my blue-streaked silver glasses :-):-):-)

Yeah, well if you'd only let the rest of us get on with things, I wouldn't
mind so much.  As long as fairly rail-knowledgeable folks like you are
under BART's spell, it impedes real progress.  San Mateo is a prime example
of this.  The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Richard Silver, is a
fairly rail-knowledgeable guy--just enough to be dangerous.  To a lay
person (or to a supervisor) he *sounds* very knowledgeable, and he, like
you, has BART-colored glasses on.  He has direct access to the supervisors
and uses it to peddle his vision of BART.  He says supports CalTrain too,
but I don't think he's doing it much good right now.  It's people like you
and him that are impeding real progress (CalTrain improvements) on the
Peninsula.  Until the BART vs CalTrain "question" is resolved, there will
be "analysis paralysis" and a let's "wait for BART" attitude on the
Peninsula. 

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation