From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Alan Hirsch)
Subject: Should CalTrain be Saved?
Keywords: BART CalTrain
Organization: Peninsula Rail 2000
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:31:43 GMT


Op-Ed Piece "Battling BART" from the Peninsula Times Tribune,
Sunday, August 23, 1992.


Should CalTrain be Saved?
by Alan Hirsh

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors hoped to end of the 
debate about Peninsula transit by putting BART on the Ballot this 
November.  But with the polls indicating 70% of the voters will 
approve of negotiating for BART, maybe we need to think ahead to 
what a "Yes for BART" means for CalTrain. 

Do we hold back on CalTrain upgrades and improved service until we 
can get the "real" solution which the general public seems to want--
BART.

Riders Vote with their seats

Ultimately CalTrain needs to justify its existence based on its 
ridership--and ridership is based on such things as station location, 
schedule, speed, comfort, and cost.  Maybe we need to take a fresh 
look at the train as it is now--or could be--to see how it compares
to the BART "ideal". 

- Station Location

The current CalTrain routing goes through 13 downtown districts of 
Peninsula cities and by 3 regional shopping centers.  As proven by 
Santa Clara County light rail, this sort of alignment can attract
enough ridership to support every-15-minute all day train service.
Ridership will be further boosted by a light rail "people mover"
connecting SF Airport to the San Bruno CalTrain station in 1996.
Certainly, CalTrain's Terminal in San Francisco--an inconvenient
half mile from the Financial district--is far from desirable.
However partial solutions are in the works: Muni Metro Light Rail
will be extended to the San Francisco CalTrain Station by 1996.

- Schedule

Outside rush hour, BART runs every 15 minutes, light rail in San 
Francisco and Santa Clara County runs every 10 minutes, but CalTrain
now only operates every hour--every two hours in the evening and on
weekends.  Yet, CalTrain's switching/signaling system can handle
trains up to every three minutes today, and there are currently
enough rail cars and engines here, or on order, to run it every 30
minutes.  The obstacles preventing even more frequent trains are
financial, not technological.

- Speed

BART's average speed is 33 mph while CalTrain averages 32.  But, 
CalTrain can operate express trains at average speeds of 45-50 mph, 
something BART can't do with its current computer control system.  
Routing is another consideration for speed: the planned BART routing 
from the Peninsula to San Francisco swings west through Colma, 
Daly City and the San Francisco Mission District before reaching 
downtown San Francisco.  CalTrain's routing to downtown is 5 miles 
and 5 stops shorter--meaning a 15 minute shorter trip.

- Comfort

People want to sit down when they use transit.  CalTrain's double 
deck cars have 148 seats per car--compared to 68 for BART.  This is 
because BART's design was optimized for peak hour crush loads and 
San Francisco and East Bay transit trip lengths that average half
that of the Peninsula (12 miles vs. 23 miles). 

- Quiet

No one wants a loud neighbor.  BART uses quiet electric power.  
CalTrain's diesel engines are noisy and should be replaced with 
readily available electric locomotives to preserve our quiet Peninsula 
neighborhoods--and increase speeds by 10%.  SamTrans estimates the 
conversion of all 80 miles of CalTrain from Gilroy to San Francisco 
will cost about $140 million dollars--about the same as constructing 
the BART station at Colma.

- Construction Costs

The BART extensions to "near" San Francisco Airport will cost about 
$150 million a mile--$960 million for 6.4 miles.  If you exclude the 
additional $400 million to extend BART "into the airport" the 
estimated the cost of BART to Menlo Park will come to an additional 
$2.6 billion.  For comparison--$2.6 billion is the equivalent of
raising San Mateo County's current gas taxes by 20 cents a gallon--
for around 50 years. 

The cost of extending BART from Palo Alto south to San Jose--and 
back north to Fremont is put at $5 billion.  

Upgrading CalTrain to high-speed electric locomotives will cost $140 
million.  The other major expense--the extension of CalTrain to 
Downtown San Francisco--now is estimated at $847 million.  This 
number is inflated--it includes an extra half mile of tunneling whose 
only beneficiary is the San Francisco developer of Mission Bay.  But
even given this high cost, it would already be 90% funded with 
existing local taxes if CalTrain and BART were treated the same.  
Whereas only 25% of the BART extension to SFO airport is being 
funded locally, regional planners expect local taxes to fund 70% of 
the CalTrain San Francisco Extension.  That is the main reason the 
CalTrain extension is being delayed from a potential completion date 
of 2000--lack of sufficient federal and state matching funds.

- When will it be ready?

A BART extension on the Peninsula is not currently in the region's 
plans, but, if we work forward from BART's completion dates for 
planned extensions, we can come up with an estimated completion 
date.  The San Francisco Airport BART extension is due for 
completion in 10 years--around 2002.  The current San Mateo County 
sales tax that is paying for the construction of BART to SFO will 
probably have to be used to subsidize BART operations as all other 
BART counties have done.  This means additional taxes--requiring a 
2/3 vote--will be needed for future BART extensions.  If we assume 
we can obtain this super majority for a $0.20 gas tax, divert all
county CalTrain funds to BART, and obtain 30% state and federal
matching funds as we have for CalTrain, we can look forward to
BART reaching Menlo Park by the year 2035.

However, the only part of the problem is: recent census figures
indicate 40% of San Mateo County residents who commute "out of
county" go south--this mean we need to get BART to San Jose.  Santa
Clara County has done extensive cost/benefit analysis on putting
transit in different corridors, and conversion of CalTrain to BART
ranks at the bottom based on cost/benefit--but the upgrade of
CalTrain is given top priority.  If Santa Clara County voters are
willing approve a further extension of the sales tax after the
November measure A expires-and dedicates it 100% to BART--we might
have funds for BART around the South Bay by the year 2030. 

CalTrain can be upgraded to high speed electric trains by 1996 
without raising taxes.  The San Francisco extension could be complete 
by the year 2000 with existing taxes if sufficient federal and state 
funds were applied for--and if the City of San Francisco required the 
developer to pay for tunneling in the Mission Bay development--just 
as San Mateo County cities are required to raise taxes to pay the
additional cost of BART tunneling.

This November San Mateo County voters will likely approve in theory
bringing BART down the Peninsula.  However, theory and practice are
a long way apart when it comes to raising taxes.  When one looks at
the fiscal hurtles and the time frame of Peninsula BART, we clearly
need to keep the CalTrain upgrade "on track" and get the missing
federal and state funds for San Francisco Extension. 

TABLE

Different Alternatives for Peninsula Transit

		BART		CalTrain
		~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed		33 mph		31 mph local
				39 mph express

Comfort		68 seats/car  	148 seats/car

Frequency	3 min/15 min	Could be same 

Cost to upgrade	$3.5 billion	$1 billion
or build	($150M/mile)	(with Extension
				to Downtown SF

Additional tax	$0.20 gas tax	None-assumes same
needed to fund	for 20 years	Fed, state & local
				matching as BART

Completion	2030		2000-2005

Travel Time	1:15		60 min
Menlo Park-SF	no express	42 min express
		

Calculation/Assumptions

Current half cent sales tax in SMCo generates $40M/yr in 1992
(per Richard Silver, Clerk of County Board)--this is comparable to
19-cent gas tax, if you assume (per R. Silver) 20% drop in gasoline
sales as people buy out-of county if SMCo. tax goes up, so so 20
cent gas tax=$42M/yr.

Projected Measure A 1/2 cent revenue from 1987 to 2002= ~$50M/yr
assuming inflation, so revenue 20 cent gas creates ~$52M/yr revenue.

$960M for BART extension is over same 10 year period, so matching
$52M with $150M/mile BART to Menlo Park cost ($960M/6.4miles x 17miles
to Menlo) is fair comparison of cost against revenues.

CalTrain Downtown Extension has 25% fed share (MTC1876)+ $27M Prop 108,
so non-local share=about 30% non-local.  Now, about $200M committed
from San Mateo County in Measure A to CalTrain now--$200M/$847= 23%+
CaTellus share (land developer) pays for this tunneling-$50M) = 30%
funded locally. BART to SFO local share 25% per MTC 1876.  SCCo 1/2
cent sales tax averages $95mil/year for next 20 years.

Why continue to promote the CalTrain SF Extension as it is obviously
too expensive and not fundable?

Comparing-and rejected CalTrain for BART due to lack of funding is
like comparing Apples and Oranges.  If CalTrain and BART were getting
the same percentage of State and federal support, the San Francisco
CalTrain extension would be 90% funded today.  This is even with the
extra half mile of tunneling that will only benefit the Southern
Pacific Railroad land developer (CaTellus) in Mission Bay.  The
problem is not cost--it's unwillingness to ask for CalTrain the same
support that the county and region is getting for BART and Santa Clara
County Light Rail Projects.

We can save millions if, like BART does, we have the local developers
and land owners & cities pay (via redevelopment districts) for the
tunneling CalTrain where it now is on the surface.  The cities of South
SF, San Bruno and Colma are paying $140 million to BART to tunnel or
build overhead structures--there is no reason the developer who owns
the air rights over Caltrain in SF/Mission Bay development can't help
contribute to cost of tunneling CalTrain.  After all, the developer
will be the main beneficiary of the tunneling and the developer is
the one imposing the tunneling requirement.