From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:32:31 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <9207311537.AA00363@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:

>>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
>>And could even an electric CalTrain start and stop as fast as
>>BART can?

>Stop, yes. Start almost. It is not necessary to match BART since
>stations are farther apart and express service is available.


	Would that be true with separate locomotives?

	I will concede that a electric MU CalTrain can easily compete
with BART on that account.


>>I'm sure that the BART tunnels would be cheaper, since the

>For the second time:
>Additional BART tube  $3.5 billion
>Amtrak/CalTrain tunnel $1.9 billion   MTC SCR20 cross bay study.


	I did look on a map and I discovered that the most likely
location for a BART tunnel that did not precisely parallel the
existing one is from Emeryville to SF somewhere between the
Embarcadero station and Fisherman's Wharf. From Emeryville, the line
would connect to the existing line near Macarthur station, whie in SF,
some extra tunneling would have to be built.

	A CalTrain/Amtrak tunnel, on the other hand, could parallel
the BART tunnel, going from 4th & Townsend to the westmost part of
Oakland and joining the existing SP/Amtrak line there. One difficulty
might be in maintaining low grades; having experienced Amtrak trains'
slow accelerations, I'm not sure that a typical Amtrak train could
climb out of a duplicate of the BART tunnel (and a broader one at
that!) without a helper. Furthermore, I don't think that tunnels are
good places for diesel locomotives.


>>But BART's expensive tunneling makes it more accessible in the
>>urban areas it serves. It's a very clear trade-off.

>Nonsense. "In the urban areas it serves" CalTrain is more accessible.
>Under that consideration anything that already exists is more
>accessible than whatever alternative.

	CalTrain more accessible than BART???

	This is a strange claim, considering that CalTrain does not
even stop near San Francisco's central business district, while BART
travels right undernearth it.

	What kind of place is 4th and Townsend?

:::The BART train would all have to be replaced because they would not
:::pass FRA buffing standards. Which means they could not sustain a hit
:::with another train or car or shopping cart.
:
::Why is it necessary to have BART run on existing lines? If
::worst comes to worst, one may simply build extra tracks near an
::existing right-of-way for BART. 
:
:
:Wake up and read a little. Building the "extra tracks" is what costs
:$100 million a mile.

	BART costs are due to a LOT more than building extra track.
They include getting a lot of things that CalTrain is lacking in,
like:

	Complete grade separation
	Station structures with passengers away from the track level
and with passenger over/underpasses
	Parking space
	Right-of-way to be bought...

	Furthermore, that $100m/mi is for the SFO extension, which is
in urban and suburban areas.

	The Dublin/Pleasanton extension is slated to cost only
$50m/mi, and it goes through the middle of I-238 and I-580.

/Loren