From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: (B)ART & (C)alTrain to stay on SMCo. ballot
Keywords: bart caltrain performance cost rehash
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:35:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.171242.9170@kpc.com>, emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
|> 	I thought the big cost to BART-ifying CalTrain is purchasing
|> the real estate to get it from 4th and Townsend To Market street.
|> Wasn't this around a half a billion dollars?

Regardless of which of the downtown extension alternatives you look at,
the cost figures are very much in dispute for all of them.  Depending
on who you talk to, the CalTrain-to-Montgomery-Street-BART/Muni-Station
alternative is anywhere from just under $400 million to just over
$800 million.  Part of the dispute involves whether or not to count
electrification or acquisition of dual-mode locomotives as part of the
downtown extension.  Another disputed part has to do with whether the
cost of the additional tunneling that the private developer of the
Mission Bay project should be counted as part of the extension costs.
There are those who say that JPB/SamTrans/MTC are colluding to do all
that they can to stall and/or inflate the cost of the downtown extension.

Many feel that electrification should be done whether or not the down-
town extension happens or not.  If the JPB should decide to do it, it
would be done well in advance of the downtown extension (it's a fairly
quick and straightforward item).  Since this is a $150 to $200 million
item, it's non-inclusion in the downtown extension cost would suddenly
make the extension seem a lot cheaper.  (As for the dual-mode diesel +
electric locomotive idea, I don't know anyone in the transit or rail
community that takes it seriously.  I've heard these locos are ornery,
expensive, and high-maintenance/low-reliability and that the dual-mode
idea will cost so much, you might as well just electrify the whole
system.)

The higher downtown extension costs in the range of $500M+ also include
the cost of additional tunneling to accommodate the Mission Bay
developer.  Many feel that this additional cost should be borne by--or
at least shared with--the developer.  Such developer "mitigation"
requirements and/or agreements are not uncommon.  As part of the
right of way purchase agreement with SP, the JPB has acquired some
sort of right or easement to deliver trains to the 4th & Townsend
terminal along the existing tracks in perpetuity.  This is thought
to be somewhat of a legal "trump" card that the JPB could "play" to
"help" the Mission Bay developer "to come to terms" regarding the
additional tunneling cost.

CalTrain advocate/watchdog groups and observers feel that the JPB
and SamTrans and MTC staff been somewhat less than aggressive in making
a good faith effort to make the CalTrain downtown extension happen.
There is a great deal of circumstantial (and real) evidence to
support that view.  In fact, I've recently seen a letter from a
Washington D.C. transit official that substantiates the oft-heard
claim that the locals are just sandbagging the downtown extension
by sitting on it.  The local official party line is not clear, but
it suggests that officials in Washington are sitting on it.  The
best explanation so far seems to be that it appears the local 
agencies have been so busy "fast tracking" BART to the airport, that
they've just "forgotten" about the downtown SF CalTrain extension.

On top of all this, there is a CalTrain downtown extension "lite"
proposal that SamTrans/JPB have refused to study.  Briefly, it would
use the TransBay Terminal as the new CalTrain terminus.  It would
be a loop station with trains pulling in from one side and leaving
by the other.  This would require re-laying two of the original six
rails in the terminal and re-shuffling a few of the buses.  (Remember
most--if not all--of the SamTrans buses serving the TransBay Terminal
would be replaced by the train.)  I have a fairly detailed copy of
this proposal and it seems very "doable".  A good reason for why
this alternative was not included in the current official group
has never been given (and not for lack of asking why either!).

Finally, BARTifying CalTrain primarily means increasing frequency
and electrifying it.  Even without the downtown extension, BART
will have a cross-platform connection with CalTrain at the airport
by around 2002.  Muni metro will connect with CalTrain at 4th &
Townsend within the next 5 or 6 years whether the downtown extension
happens or not (because of Mission Bay).  Santa Clara County light
already connects with CalTrain at Tamien, and will also connect
in Mountain View by 1996/97.  CalTrain already has direct Amtrak
connections in San Jose and an Amtrak thru-way bus connector
service in San Francisco.  While it will undoubtably increase
convenience and ridership, the downtown extension is not absolutely
necessary for "BARTification" of CalTrain.  But... it sure would
be nice!

-- 

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