From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:30:45 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <9208201405.AA02544@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:

>:The Dumbarton Bridge Feasibility study said $29 million. Five of
>:that is for locomotives. If we were to electrify CalTrain we could
>:use some of the existing ones instead pay that additional cost.
>:A BART bridge would cost $3.5 billion according to the SCR20
>:study.

@From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
@What do the costs include? 

>Since you are unable or unwilling to believe or understand what I
>tell you, then ask BART and/or the MTC. 

	Since you seem to have access to all this info, then why can't
you share it with us?

	Why this snotty remark???

@BART could use the existing
@Dumbarton Bridge, though with new tracks. 

>Do your own homework, then maybe you would say such nonsense.

	Any reason why that is _not_ the case?

	How is replacing 4'8.5" tracks with 5'6" ones with third rails
added supposed to be such a bear?

@If this solution is adoped,
@the BART line would replace the SP line between the Peninsula and the
@western East Bay north-south lines.

>Prove it!  Do some study and ask somebody that knows. 

	Didn't I? :-)

@Hourly rail service? That would require a heck of a lot of
@locos and passenger cars. As well as a heck of a lot of
@double-tracking. To get sufficient ridership, land will have to be
@bought for parking. Underpasses or overpasses will have to be built.  
@The expenses mount. BART-level service -> BART-level costs.

>Prove it! Do some study. You obviously haven't got a clue and you
>do not believe or understand what I have given, with references.

	Same to you :-)

>	>The SFO extension is scheduled to open in 2000.

>2003.

	Or 2002.

@My point is: Would CalTrain to Market St. carry more people to
@SFO than the planned BART extension?

>Yes, according to the DEIR .

	The only way that is going to happen is if CalTrain gets BART
frequency and BART convenience.

@	Superior in what way?

>Cost to upgrade, expandability, speed, ease of implementation.

	The only thing I will concede is that BART is not exactly
standard intercity railroading.

	Speed? BART is about as fast as CalTrain is now, and that is
due to the slow spots in Oakland and San Francisco. CalTrain does not
have any closely spaced stations or any complicated junctions. On its
outlying parts, like the Fremont or the Concord lines, BART easily
outspeeds CalTrain.

	Vaughn Wolffe, why don't you yourself do some studies instead
of being arrogant and snotty?

@If it is cost you are concerned about, then consider the
@operating cost/passenger, not the total cost.

>CalTrain per passenger mile  19 cents   BART  23 cents.

	CalTrain in its present form, yes. But an upgraded CalTrain
may not have the same cost/passenger mile.

>So much of what you post is absolute nonsense, which you have yet to 
>substantiate with any references.. 
>All of the questions
>you ask could easily be answered by calling BART or MTC.

	Since many of these questions involve looking at maps, I'd
prefer reading some documents.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation