From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: BART vs. CalTrain speeds
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:04:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.233045.1834@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> On its outlying parts, like the Fremont or the Concord lines, BART
|> easily outspeeds CalTrain.

Not in practice.  Let's take a look at BART along the Fremont line:

FROM         TO             MILES  STOPS  MI/STOP  MIN  AVG MPH
~~~~~~~      ~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~~~~  ~~~~~  ~~~~~~~  ~~~  ~~~~~~~
Fremont      Oakland West   22.9    9     2.5      41   33.5
Fremont      Coliseum       16.6    6     2.8      27   36.9

Now some comparable CalTrain segments for comparison:

FROM         TO             MILES  STOPS  MI/STOP  MIN  AVG MPH
~~~~~~~~~    ~~             ~~~~~  ~~~~~  ~~~~~~~  ~~~  ~~~~~~~
San Jose     Menlo Park*    18.0    7     2.6      29   37.2
Menlo Park   San Carlos      5.7    3     1.9      10   34.2

* SJ-MP segment skips College Park & Castro (common practice)


Both services *could* be run faster so the whole speed thing is
really quite silly and academic.  What really matters is how much
transit you can buy per dollar.  More CalTrain-like standard rail
operations (diesel or electric) will always win over BART-like
systems in this department--especially when there are existing RR
rights of way.  A BART-like subway system with its attendant costs
is not needed down the Peninsula.  Perhaps the argument for BART
down the Peninsula would be somewhat stronger if there weren't
already a RR right of way--but there is.  What the Peninsula
needs (and has for quite some time) is transit-level rail service.

Some say CalTrain ridership is poor when compared to BART.  Yes,
but this is not due to technology, but rather to low commuter-style
frequency, poor promotion, and relatively poor connectivity with
other transit, and SF downtown in particular.  If every CalTrain
were somehow magically replaced with a BART train tomorrow,
ridership would not change materially until the frequencies were
increased and connections improved.

I'm arguing that the actual rolling stock/equipment used is not
anywhere near the main determinant of ridership on BART or CalTrain,
but rather non train-technology issues like operating hours,
frequency, connectivity, destinations reached, parking, fares,
timeliness, chances of getting a seat, etc.  If you more or less
accept this basic argument, then if you're like me, you're going
to advocate that technology which can be implemented in the least
amount of time and for the least amount of money.  There is no
doubt in my mind that that technology for the Peninsula and South
East Bay is standard passenger rail CalTrain-type technology.  This
is because RR rights of way already exist.  Those that disagree
with me like to point out all of the faults with today's CalTrain
service.  I don't understand this because it seems pretty self-
evident to me that these are merely due to poor management or
operating policies.  Who doubts that CalTrain can't be run as well
as BART and that BART can't be run as poorly as CalTrain? 

"We need transit-level rail service, but let's not waste our money".
That's the main driver behind my resisting BART expansion down
the Peninsula (along an excellent existing railroad right of way).

If by some miracle BART became magically cheap and quick and easy
to extend tomorrow, I'd support it's use.  But BART is none of
those things, and so, since there are better alternatives that can
deliver substantially all--or more--of BART's value, for less money,
sooner, in the corridors I mentioned, I support those instead.


Wouldn't any rational taxpayer?
Wouldn't any rational transit user/supporter?
Wouldn't any rational politician?

Time will tell.

For the Peninsula:

	Q: What is the main objective?
	A: Transit-level rail from SF to SJ along the CalTrain
	   corridor that connects well with SFO and the other bus
	   and rail transit systems in SF and SJ.

	Q: Can CalTrain-type (standard diesel/electric passenger rail)
	   technology be used to meet the objective?
	A: Yes.

	Q: Can BART-type (specialized subway-type rail system)
	   technology be used to meet the objective?
	A: Yes.

	Q: Which technology can meet the objective for the least cost?
	A: Standard rail; especially due to the existing infrastructure.

	Q: Which technology can be implemented the fastest?
	A: Standard rail; especially due to the existing infrastructure.

-- 

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