Newsgroups: ba.transportation

jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:

>lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>>The most obvious solution to the Caltrain downtown problem is not only
>>free, its a money-saver and (latency) performance enhancer. Let
>>Caltrain terminate at the shared BART/Caltrain San Bruno station, and
>>make everyone transfer to BART. 
>
>   This is an absolutely atrocious idea.  Currently the worst thing
>about Caltrain is that you have to get off in the middle of nowhere
>South of Market, transfer to a Muni bus to get down town, and then often
>transfer to another bus or streetcar there.  The only thing I can
>imagine worse than this would be to have to get off the train in the
>godforsaken boondocks of San Bruno to start the whole same process.

Ah, but think about this very carefully Jon.  Consider how many times
you have to transfer to another bus, train, or streetcar by the
time you get on that last bus or streetcar in down town SF.  The way
it is now, the answer is 2 (CalTrain to 4th and Townsend, transfer 1 
to Muni to Market street down town, transfer 2 to last bus or
streetcar).  With this proposal, the answer is still 2 (CalTrain to
San Bruno, transfer 1 to BART to Market street down town, transfer 2 
to last bus or streetcar).  Considering how long it often takes Muni
to get you from 4th and Townsend to Market Street, the time loss is
minimal in spite of the extra distance travelled.  I think the
passenger capacity of this BART from San Bruno sequence will be much
higher than the current Muni from 4th and Townsend sequence.  The
timing is not that much worse, and the savings from not having to
build the extension to down town is considerable.

The only part of the idea proposed above that I consider to be of
questionable value is shutting down the CalTrain line as it now
exists from San Bruno to 4th and Townsend.  It is, after all, serving
a section of the peninsula (including a part of SF) which does not
have an easy direct access to BART.  That doesn't make the idea of
shutting it down atrocious.  There is operational costs type money
to save there too.  That seems to be something that is frequently
considered when running a transit agency.  Instead of atrocious,
I would call such a cutback questionable.  In some scenarios, it
might be the right thing to do.  (Please don't ask me which scenarios.
I don't know.  At the moment, I see no good reason to actually shut it
down to force passengers to use BART.)

I am not saying this proposal is an ideal solution.  I am only saying
the proposal is not as atrocious as you make it out to be.  Ideally, I
think CalTrain should be extended to Market Street or the Trans-Bay
Terminal, and BART should be extended to the San Bruno area near the
Airport.  The trouble is that doing both of those solutions to make
things ideal costs a LOT of money.  I am not so sure of the wisdom
of spending that much money when a workable solution can be had with
only one of those two projects.  I do not have a strong opinion about
which one should be done and which should not.  I just believe we have
other transit needs which would be much better served if we spent the
money on them right now instead of doing the second of these two
extensions.  I would never want to rule out doing the second project
at some later time.  I am just not positive we should do them both
right now simultaneously.


>
>   Damn it, when I want to go to San Francisco I want to go to San
>Francisco, not all the hell and gone over the place. 

Until we do come up with enough money to truely make mass transit go
directly from anywhere to anywhere, there will always be some amount
of going 'all the hell and gone over the place' in getting from many
points A to many points B.  In addition, the amount you go 'all the
hell and gone over the place' to get to San Francisco via BART from
San Bruno will depend quite heavily on what part of San Francisco you
are going to.  It will be more miles (and perhaps slightly longer
time) to get to down town and the Financial District via BART from San
Bruno.  But it will be fewer miles and probably a shorter time if you
happen to need to get to some place on the West side of The City,
particularly the SouthWest corner.

Which one of these projects will work best depends on whether you
think it more appropriate that only the most heavy demand area should
have somewhat direct access to the system with people from all other
parts of the City having to use Muni to get to the train (the CalTrain
to down town alternative), or whether you think it appropriate that the
service be more accessable in a few other sections of the City (the
BART from San Bruno alternative with stations already in place at
16th/Mission, 24th/Mission, Glen Park, Balboa Park, and Daly City and
the new stations such as Colma that will be built as part of the
extension).

I see a total of 10 (minimum) access points to the train on BART
North of San Bruno (through Embarcadero).  I see only 6 (maximum)
access points to the train on CalTrain North of San Bruno, including
the new down town station, the existing 4th and Townsend station,
and the existing South San Francisco station.  I think many of these
CalTrain stations are not as well placed (IMHO particularly in San
Francisco) as the BART stations are.  In fact, the only one of these 6
CalTrain stations with what I believe to be a good location would be
the new down town station.  I believe the routing of BART North of San
Bruno will provide more service in more areas.  That can be compared
to the convenience for the large number of people who need access to
the train in down town SF (the Financial District) who would rather
have it be more direct.

Maybe it is the best use of that money to go ahead and build both
extensions.  But if the money is still a little to tight to do both,
which do you think will better serve mass transit needs for everyone?

Dan Sherman
Hewlett-Packard Palo Alto ITC
dsherman@corp.hp.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation