From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: BART Expansion News
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:55:58 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: LLNL


	In a local paper not too long ago, it was reported that two
bridges along the planned BART extension to Dublin/Pleasanton were
finished. These two bridges are right in the middle of the I-580
segment between D/P and Hayward; the new BART line will follow I-238
and I-580 from the existing line out to D/P, and (if the money becomes
available) out to Livermore. Completion date for D/P: 1995.

	Part of the reason these bridges were done early was
political, to demonstrate a commitment to building the extensions. The
next sections to to be built are the turnoff from the existing line
and a part near the I-238/I-580 interchange. According to the news
report, the construction industry is a bit depressed, and "the
contractors are hungry, giving us a good bidding environment". This
suggests a pork-barrel reason to build the BART extensions. This
argument, that it will create jobs, is also advertised for the LA
public-transit (re)building.

	Funding? The BART Board and Alameda County officials are still
locked in a dispute over whether BART will get more than the $170 m
originally allocated, so BART is using reserve funds and funds for its
San Mateo extensions. Another dispute is whether or not Alameda County
funds will be used to build new cars, which will spend part of their
time outside of Alameda County.

	Another dispute is with the union of BART-Express bus drivers.
When the Dublin/Pleasanton and North Concord/West Pittsburg extensions
are completed, there will be less route for them to drive, and some of
the drivers are concerned about losing their jobs. This sounds rather
crybaby to me; they could simply drive on lines going even further out
than they do now. Apparently, this dispute has gotten in the way of
funding for a parking garage at the planned Hacienda Business Park
station in East Dublin/Pleasanton.

	And the BART Board is serious enough to go ahead with planning
for the Warm Springs extension. There is some controversy about how
the route will go through Fremont Central Park. Fremont officials want
it underground, but they want BART to pay for it. BART officials
insist that their deal for paying for BART route construction is that
any community which wants a section underground will have to pay for
it being underground. The alternative is to run the BART line on an
elevated trackway.

	San Mateo County's officialdom's commitment to having a BART
line through SMC is ambitious, to say the least. Since most of the
line south of SFO is to be built along Rte. 101, the Bayshore Freeway,
land should not be too expensive for the line itself, although that
might not be true of parking-lot space.

	Even if a line is not built along Rte. 101, BART can still
connect with CalTrain at San Bruno and CalTrain passengers will have
easier access to San Francisco and the East Bay.

	Apparently, there is talk of an extension across the Bay near
the Dumbarton Bridge, which will connect to the existing BART line at
Fremont. I've seen estimates like $3.5 billion for a new bridge, but
BART could use the abandoned SP bridge there, almost certainly at a
great savings. BART could take over all the SP line between Rte. 101
and the western East Bay SP line (with new tracks, of course!), and
have a line parallel to the SP line that connects the western and the
eastern East Bay SP lines, meeting the existing BART line along the
way. There would almost certainly be a station in Newark. I'm not sure
how much justification there would be for this line, but it would
achieve the goal of "BART around the Bay" without going into Santa
Clara County. It might even be a way of provoking SCC officials into
action on BART.