From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:21:59 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <9207281507.AA04072@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>
>
>In article <9207161436.AA02022@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
::How about a CalTrain ride from Livermore across the Dumbarton rail
::bridge either directly to the airport or transfer at Redwood City
::in 1996. For less than $30 million and in time for the airport
::peoplemover you could have a direct connection. Talk to your
::county supervisor Ed Campbell.

::From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
::	Less than $30 million? 

: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.

	What do the costs include? BART could use the existing
Dumbarton Bridge, though with new tracks. If this solution is adoped,
the BART line would replace the SP line between the Peninsula and the
western East Bay north-south lines.

::	And what quality of service will come out of this?

:Infinitely better than exists there now. Infinitely better than 
:BART is planning for that corridor.

	Dumbarton Bridge?

:More to the point. Starting from 2 trains a day each way to whatever 
:is needed. 

	It will require a lot of double-tracking to get anywhere
close to BART-quality service.

::First off, the rail line that runs through Livermore is a UP
::line, while the Dunbarton bridge is a SP bridge. A UP-SP connection
::wil be required, probably in Fremont. 

:Already exists. For $500,000 it could be improved.

	I concede the error.

::Furthermore, I don't know if the Dunbarton rail bridge is
::single- or double-tracked. I'm not even sure if it is still in use by

:Double.

	Enough room for two BART tracks.

::And to serve Livermore and other areas effectively will
::require a LOT of new rolling stock. And would a commute-time service
::be good for trips to the airport?

:Kind of depends when you need to be at the airport compared to when
:you would have to leave home by car and the expense of driving and 
:parking. Even hourly rail service would be quite beneficial.

	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.

::However, BART delivers frequent, fast, reliable service to

:For the last couple of weeks BART's reliability is being questioned.

	If worst comes to worst, they will probably backtrack a bit on
their train speeds. But otherwise, BART has been very reliable.

::wherever it goes. 

:It does not go to SFO or Livermore in this decade.

	The extension to Dublin/Pleasanton is scheduled to open in
1995; if funding arrives soon enough, the extension to Livermore could
open in 1997 or 1998. The Hacienda Business Park may not be in the
middle of Livermore, but it is close enough :-).

	The SFO extension is scheduled to open in 2000.

::arrive well in advance of one's plane's departure. Is CalTrain's
::service good enough for _that_?

:It is good enough for bus and short taxi connections to SFO.

	Even once-an-hour service may mean a lot of waiting at the
airport. I prefer BART-frequency service -- at least once every 20
minutes.

::As to the projection that there will be only 7500 BART users
::of the proposed SFO station by 2010 as opposed to over 100,000 airport
::users, I think that there are two critical questions:

::	How many CalTrain users will there be?

:They serve different corridors so what is your point. Besides the 
:study conveniently ingores CalTrain service levels past the year 2000. 
:With enough brain washed voters they will wait until 2020 to extend
:a 60 year old BART.

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

	As one poster pointed out, it's just a matter of what the SFO
management wants to do about controlling car access.

::And I've yet to see how a CalTrain upgraded to BART-quality
::service will avoid BART-level costs.

:Except for frequency and disabled access CalTrain already has superior
:service. Disabled access will come with the new cars and frequency is
:mostly a matter of more rolling stock.

	Superior in what way?

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