In light of Caltrain’s fiscal emergency and VTA’s recent decision to build Bart-to-San Jose in segments with the entire line expected to be completed by 2025 at the earliest, I think it’s a good time to unveil another research paper I completed December of last year entitled Bart to San Jose: How Public Transportation can Increase our Energy Consumption.
The Bart-to-San Jose project is a facinating story of San Jose’s quest to become a “real city” rather than a agglomeration of suburbs. But, this story quickly loses it’s luster when you sit down and examine the details of the project:
– 7+ billion dollars for a 7 stop line which completely misses the job center of Silicon Valley: the Golden Triangle of North San Jose/Sunnyvale/Mountain View
– An alleged 104,500 new daily riders, which includes Montague Station at 31,000 riders (a figure higher than all but two Bart stations systemwide–Embarcadero and Montgomery–for a station currently in the middle of suburbia)
–Projected to generate a surplus to cover operation cost (I can’t think of one American mass transit line that has generated a surplus)
Bart/VTA’s claims and figures become even more concerning when you look back to the Bart-to-SFO extension of 2003, which was a year late and 33% over budget. Even though this line was also projected to generate a surplus from its 68,600 new riders by 2010, these projections could not be further from reality. As of 2008, the new line has produced only 17,000 riders, or less than half of Bart’s original projections (the ridership of Millbrae station, one of the Bay Area’s greatest monuments to wasteful spending, is only 4,900, or less than 1/6 of its initial projection of 33,000 riders). In fact, the ridership levels were so low that SamTrans (who was responsible for maintaining the line) had to slash service and lost 22,000 riders. The 1.5 billion dollar Bart-to-SFO extension in fact worsened public transit in San Mateo county.
Will Bart-to-San Jose cost $10 billion? Will it only generate 50,000 daily riders?
If Bart-to-San Jose doesn’t generate a surplus, let alone loses money, VTA (like SamTrans) would have to put 25% of its budget toward maintaining the Bart line. It’s no coincidence that Bart-to-San Jose’s biggest opposition comes from transit advocates such as the VTA Riders Union, who fear that the line will ultimately lead to service cuts and increased automobile dependence in the South Bay.
What does this have to do with Caltrain? Well, rather than constructing a $7 billion Bart line, Bay Rail Alliance has proposed extending an electrified Caltrain line to Fremont and across the Dumbarton by using existing rights of way in its Caltrain Metro East proposal. This concept has numerous advantages, such as a greater service area, faster travel times, service to the Golden Triangle, and the potential to be extended along ACE and Capitol Corridor allignments.
The best part: Caltrain Metro East would cost 1.5-2 billion dollars, with the Fremont-San Jose segment alone most likely under 750 million. That means 5+ billion dollars in savings that could be spent to improve South Bay transit by expanding light rail, creating new bus rapid transit lines, and improving service.
The point is, rather than constructing a flashy new Bart line, we could work with what we’ve got and dramatically improve Caltrain service to mimic Bart in every way (frequency, fare, speed, etc.). Bart is an inner-city subway technology that has been stretched out into the suburbs at the expense of other forms of public transit throughout the East Bay. Rather than flushing money away for a new Bart line in 15+ years that will ultimately increase driving due to VTA service cuts, South Bay leaders should act now to increase funding for Caltrain and build Metro East.
Check out my paper here.
-
12 responses so far ↓
Streetsblog » Today’s Headlines // May 14, 2009 at 6:48 am |
[...] 21st Century Urban Solutions: Caltrain Metro East Would Be Better Than BART to San Jose [...]
ian leighton // May 15, 2009 at 6:49 pm |
something in the BART model is flawed. first the SJ extension, and the Oakland airport connector… all their capital projects have a much better (and less expensive) alternative.
it’s ridiculous waste.
Daniel // May 15, 2009 at 8:26 pm |
Very true. Compared with other rapid transit systems, Bart is one of the most expensive systems to build per mile, but has one of the lowest ridership averages per mile. Washington D.C.’s system came out at the same time as Bart and has the same mileage, but has almost triple the ridership because it focused on lines through the urban core surrounded by infill development instead of lines into the far-reaching suburbs surrounded by parking lots (D.C. also has a system like this, but it uses cheaper heavy commuter rail technology with existing infrastructure). Too bad for the Bay Area.
adefpivapse // May 20, 2009 at 10:53 am |
Neat website! will visit again.
William H. Oldendorf » Blog Archive » Illawarra bus routes, New South Wales // May 21, 2009 at 3:33 pm |
[...] Bart to San Jose: How Public Transportation Can Increase Our … [...]
Abolish the Bart Board « 21st Century Urban Solutions // June 1, 2009 at 2:13 am |
[...] About ← Bart to San Jose: How Public Transportation Can Increase Our Energy Consumption [...]
Pulsar // July 15, 2009 at 10:26 pm |
One reason BART has not hit its full potential is due to people not supporting it. That goes for the two people suing recently to stop BART construction even after multiple 70% mandate landslide victories votes for BART to raise taxes in a recession. That goes back to the few council members in the 60’s that rejected BART going to Santa Clara (imagine the gas, reduced traffic, poorer terrorists, pollution saved, today if BART circled the bay). That includes the lack of leaders supporting good backfill I agree with that. Rapid transit in NYC and DC are successful due to high density destinations namely downtowns. We need higher density around our stations (and maybe more of them).
Bay Area has a major hurdle for mass transit compared to cities like DC because we have a bay that sits in the middle of the metro area western suburban cities. DC is successful because 90% of the people commute to downtown DC, in a centralized spoke and wheel model. Not true for bay area, many commute to Oakland, SJ, SF, Concord etc.
This blog often twists reality in its cherry picked stats. The estimates sited for the Montague are for the year 2030, Eric is comparing them to today’s ridership in other stations. Montague is expected be a major hub where people will transfer to light rail to Silicon Valley etc. Its valid to be suspect of the exact accuracy but come-on it’s the future, sheesh! I believe the 2025 numbers estimated (given that 500,000 people today commute from the east bay to Santa Clara county, SJ is the bays largest city) were 80,000 not the 100,000 Eric sited for 2030. If BART is extended on its current planned alignment beyond the last station it would go directly through the SLValley “golden triangle”. Most experts Norman Mineta, CalTrans secretaries, MTC, etc. support BART because it works not some pure bias.
As far as the SFO extension, the original estimates were hurt by recessions, and a counterproductive contract with SamTrans.
Since SamTrans is no longer in the picture, BART ridership has rapidly grown. CalTrain gets roughly 30,000 riders for 70 miles of track (it kills people every other month around 20-30 a year, pollutes the air, creates traffic problems due to its lack of grade separation, and many other drawbacks). This year BART daily ridership on that short 30 mile segment has had many days surpassed the entire Caltrain line.
One huge fact often neglected in this blog BART has the fourth largest ridership in the nation for rapid transit and classified as commuter rail its number one! If you have to transfer to from BART nobody will ride the extension. BART has 100million riders a year!
Alternatives have been studied (BRT bus, trains, light rail) and they all had by factors of 3-4 had far fewer riders. Cal train today gets 1/10th the ridership of BART.
The trains follow industrial routes primarily not going to downtown Berkeley, missing Walnut Creek, Concord etc.
I do agree that there is a lack of honesty about cost and how we will pay for BART is true. I think we can run and build BART more cheaply then the past; the VTA has squandered its money to date that was meant for BART.
Bay area isn’t NYC but it isn’t as bad as some cities like Bakersfield or most Texan cities with no effective transit. Eric usually deletes my posts because he is affraid of any opinon but his own.
Daniel // July 17, 2009 at 12:17 pm |
“The estimates sited for the Montague are for the year 2030, Eric is comparing them to today’s ridership in other stations. Montague is expected be a major hub where people will transfer to light rail to Silicon Valley etc. Its valid to be suspect of the exact accuracy but come-on it’s the future, sheesh!”
Just because these estimates are taken for 20 years from now doesn’t make them any better–do you honestly believe that a station in the middle of suburbia will have as many riders as Downtown SF does now?
“SJ is the bays largest city”
San Jose is the Bay’s largest suburb. It’s population density is 1/3 that of San Francisco, barely half that of Berkeley, and even less than its own suburbs Mountain View and Sunnyvale.
“If BART is extended on its current planned alignment beyond the last station it would go directly through the SLValley “golden triangle.”
That’s the thing: it wouldn’t (see map above). Bart would go through East San Jose and completely bypass the Golden Triangle. To get to the Golden Triangle, it would require a transfer (and new fare) to extremely slow VTA Light Rail, which only serves a limited corridor in the Golden Triangle. There will be no more extensions after the SJ Airport, either.
“As far as the SFO extension, the original estimates were hurt by recessions, and a counterproductive contract with SamTrans.”
The SFO extension was hurt by the unfounded assumption that Caltrain riders will transfer to Bart at Millbrae and pay another fare for slower service. Like Montague/Capitol, they predicted 30,000 riders. Coincidence?
“CalTrain gets roughly 30,000 riders for 70 miles of track (it kills people every other month around 20-30 a year, pollutes the air, creates traffic problems due to its lack of grade separation, and many other drawbacks)”
Caltrain reduces driving and thus reduces emissions and oil consumption. The lack of grade separations and recent suicides is not Caltrains fault–Caltrain has been trying to get grade-separations for years, but time and time again Bay Area transit funding has gone to Bart instead.
“This blog often twists reality in its cherry picked stats” “it kills people every other month around 20-30 a year”
There is no accuracy to your “statistics” whatsoever.
“This year BART daily ridership on that short 30 mile segment has had many days surpassed the entire Caltrain line.”
If Caltrain had 1.2 billion invested into it (as will occur with HSR), it’s ridership would be a lot higher. After electrification and grade separations, as well as the Downtown SF extension, Caltrain’s Downtown station is projected to have something like 25,000 daily riders (triple the existing amount).
“One huge fact often neglected in this blog BART has the fourth largest ridership in the nation for rapid transit and classified as commuter rail its number one!”
It’s actually fifth, and it’s not like it has the greatest competition. Also, in terms of ridership per mile, it is 10th out of 16, meaning Bart is one of the sixth-worst system in the nation in terms of cost-effectiveness. By the way, the Long Island Rail Road currently has more riders for commuter rail.
“If you have to transfer to from BART nobody will ride the extension.”
Which is exactly why Millbrae failed and why Montague/Capitol will fail! Your logic is not making sense. People transfer throughout the Bart system all the time as long as it requires no fare and would have direct timed transfers, just as Metro East would.
“Alternatives have been studied (BRT bus, trains, light rail) and they all had by factors of 3-4 had far fewer riders.”
Caltrain Metro East was not studied.
“I think we can run and build BART more cheaply then the past; the VTA has squandered its money to date that was meant for BART.”
7+ billion (including the Warm Springs extension) is not cheap. The San Jose extension costs at least 330 million per mile, whereas Caltrain Metro East would cost only about 50 million per mile for faster and more direct service. VTA hasn’t squandered anything–in fact, they’ve already taken money away from other much-needed improvements to put into Bart, yet they still can’t pay for the extension even after two tax increases.
The point is, Bart to San Jose costs way too much for what’s needed to fit Silicon Valley: a decentralized approach to transportation in the form of BRT, light rail, and commuter rail. Bart, VTA, and MTC assume that by extending Bart, all of Silicon Valley’s transportation problems will be solved, when in reality it will not positively affect the vast majority of the areas residents. Most of all, there is no indication that VTA can pay for the San Jose extension just as much as SamTrans could pay for the SFO extension–there will be no SF-esque ridership, no transformative effects, and no surplus. We must not flush public transit funds down the drain for an inner-city rail technology when a commuter rail line could accomplish the same goals equally as good if not better.
Pulsar // July 20, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
I appreciate the debate but you are repeating the arguments that 70% of the voters of San Jose rejected several times.
[Pulsar] “The estimates sited for the Montague are for the year 2030, Eric is comparing them to today’s ridership in other stations. Montague is expected be a major hub where people will transfer to light rail to Silicon Valley.
[Daniel] “Just because these estimates are taken for 20 years from now doesn’t make them any better.”
You must compare apples to apples you can’t compare 20-30 years from now to another station in today’s numbers. If there are the expected millions of new people in bay area, souring gas prices, pollution, global warming, etc. cooperation with the VTA, more jobs in SLV and all things being equal that should be a major hub. If 500,000 commute to Santa Clara today and many go to SLV then yes the Montague future estimate is reasonable .
[Pulsar] SJ is the bays largest city”
[Daniel] “San Jose is the Bay’s largest suburb. It’s population density is 1/3 that of San Francisco..”
Another, red herring, density is most important around the BART station. BART will not go to every community in SJ, instead BART will go downtown, to San Jose state, HP Pavilion Sharks stadium, Oakland Coliseum, etc. So given that thousands will go to sporting, events, SJ downtown, air ports etc. The fact that Saratoga has low density is really not as important when you remember that downtown SF has the highest ridership and very few people live downtown, but many do work. Bay area BART stations are often not back filled as I mentioned but SJ alignment of BART will go to higher density spots.
[Pulsar] “If BART is extended beyond the planned alignment … it would go directly through SLV “golden triangle.”
[Daniel] That’s the thing: it wouldn’t (see map above). Bart would go through East San Jose..”
I think you need to look at the map again, BART directly north of the last station will go through “The land, bounded by highways 101, 880 and 237”, that is the SLV golden triangle, and it will go to SJ airport (although I am with you on that it should go more directly).
[Pulsar] “As far as the SFO extension, the original estimates were hurt by recessions, and a counterproductive contract with SamTrans.”
[Daniel] The SFO extension was hurt by the unfounded assumption …”
What? The estimate of potential ridership doesn’t affect anything. It was SamTrans actually sabotaging BART ridership, a recession, not to mention affluent peninsula people rather drive their SUVs then take public transit or a counter-productive competing CalTrain line siphoning funds and riders from BART, and making the transfer more painful not less.
Since that time the small 9 mile BART extension has come back and is a huge success with more riders then the much larger 70 mile more subsidized entire Cal Train line (BART has 60-70% fare box recovery, Cal Train farebox recovery as low as 40%, like Amtrak its hugely subsidized). If you want Cal Train to have billions for grade separations, tunnels, subways, electrification, you just made a redundant system roughly as costly as BART. You can’t have it both ways, either Cal Train is cheap or you make the equivalent of BART. The only people that are killed by Cal Train are NOT suicides; the trains constantly hit cars, trucks, in addition to people. BART doesn’t have this supposed suicide issue. I believe so far this year roughly 20 people were killed by Cal Train and that doesn’t include Amtrak, ACE etc.
[Daniel] “If Caltrain had 1.2 billion invested into it (as will occur with HSR), it’s ridership would be a lot higher….”
Well BART currently is a reality and gets today gets higher ridership (110 million riders) then the entire $100billion HSR is projected to get in 30 years. Like I said earlier you can’t claim CalTrain is cheap then later make trains expensive by spending billions for a redundant system with grade separations and subways to high density stops, just like BART already has. Such a system will reduce ridership with mandatory transfers to-from BART.
[Pulsar] “One huge fact often neglected in this blog BART has the fourth largest ridership in the nation for rapid transit and classified as commuter rail its number one!”
[Daniel] It’s actually fifth,
More pointless red herring quibbling, whether you make it first or fifth today is not the point, the point is its high near the top (110 million a year) and given our western suburban city with a bay in the center that’s very very good. It could be much better for sure but its better then every Texan City.
A redundant transit system based on trains that mostly go through warehouses and industrial zoned areas would a be pure waste (not to mention completely misses cities). BART is a success because it goes downtown Oakland, Berkeley, Walnut Creek, SF, SFO, Oakland Coliseum etc. The BART extension to Millbrae is rapidly on its way to reaching the original projections, given that it has greater ridership then the entire 70 mile Cal Train. If BART didn’t have the redundant competition of the train and people supported it with a route that circled bay it would be 10 times its current ridership.
BART to Warm Spring is 890 million for 5.4 miles or 160 million per mile not bad for subways under Fremont etc. I don’t understand your calculations especially since nobody knows event the estimated cost yet in today’s dollars.
[Daniel] “Caltrain Metro East was not studied.”
You are wrong several train solutions were studied and found to get small fractions of the BART ridership. Major investment study MIS for SLV Corridor. http://www.vta.org/bart/documents/other/final_mis_report_1.pdf
I do think BART costs are too high to build and maintain however, we are in agreement. Its not that they inherently are that way, it’s due to other factors like overly aggressive unions, poor management, lack of focus on balancing cost, lack of back filling and building density around stations, leveraging trains from places like India that have the same gauge, dual tracking, etc.. The VTA has completely squandered many of its funds, somebody there should be fired.
Daniel // July 21, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
I want to start off with this comment, because I think it pretty much sums up your last comment:
“The BART extension to Millbrae is rapidly on its way to reaching the original projections, given that it has greater ridership then the entire 70 mile Cal Train.”
I went back and checked Bart ridership and I’ll admit, I messed up: Bart ridership was LOWER than I first reported: 14,500 Bart riders<39,000 Caltrain riders in 2009! It is RIDICULOUS to say that Bart is on its way to reaching the initial projections–it hasn't even reached 1/4 of the projected ridership! Worst of all, Millbrae has only 15% of its projected ridership. There is no possible way to rationalize a projection that was almost SEVEN TIMES HIGHER than the actual ridership numbers. Check for yourself: http://www.bart.gov/docs/Quarterly%20Daily%20Station%20Exits
http://www.caltrain.com/pdf/annual_ridership_counts/2009_Caltrain_Ridership_Counts.pdf.pdf
Don't blame Caltrain for being "a counter-productive competing CalTrain line siphoning funds and riders from BART"–it was there long before Bart decided to build a 1.2 billion dollar extension. Caltrain's biggest issue is that it never received nearly as much of an initial investment as Bart, so it was left with many flaws (no direct downtown extension, few grade separations, no electrification, poor stations, etc.). Nevertheless, it is naive to say that "If you want Cal Train to have billions for grade separations, tunnels, subways, electrification, you just made a redundant system roughly as costly as BART." The total cost shared with HSR to electrify Caltrain, extend it 1.2 miles to Downtown SF, and completely grade-separate it is around 2.5 billion–less than HALF the cost of Bart to San Jose. For Bart to duplicate Caltrain would cost at least 10 billion dollars for slower service and no HSR compatibility. Once Caltrain finally receives the appropriate investment that it deserves, its ridership is projected to triple.
"If BART is extended beyond the planned alignment … it would go directly through SLV “golden triangle.”"
I apoligize, I misunderstood. You're proposing another billion dollar extension to the Golden Triangle on top of the 6-8+ billion dollar extension. But hey, what's another billion for Bart to SJ, right?
" [Daniel] “Caltrain Metro East was not studied.”
You are wrong several train solutions were studied and found to get small fractions of the BART ridership."
Caltrain Metro East was still not studied because the proposal was not even around at the time of the study. All of the rail alternatives studied are inherently disadvantaged because of 1. poor allignment, 2. dramatically less frequency. If you read that study, you can tell that no viable alternative was put up against Bart.
"I appreciate the debate but you are repeating the arguments that 70% of the voters of San Jose rejected several times."
That's the thing–typical voters are not transportation planners, and place a lot of faith in Bart, VTA, SamTrans, etc. that their proposals are practical and cost-effective solutions that will reduce driving and improve mobility. The problem is, this is not the case. When the average person hears about Bart to SJ, or Bart to SFO, or the OAC, he/she will probably be inclined to support it because it sounds like a good idea. But when you crunch the numbers and see the multitude of flaws in each of these proposals, and the simpler, equally productive alternatives that exist, it is clear that Bart, VTA, SamTrans, and MTC are not doing their jobs correctly and not being honest to voters. If you asked voters: "Which would you rather have: a 6+ billion dollar Bart line that mises the Golden Triangle and wont be completed until at least 2025, or a 1 billion dollar Caltrain line that provides equally frequent and faster service, dramatically improves ACE and Capitol Corridor service, would free up an additional 5 billion for additional transportation improvements in Silicon Valley, and would be ready by 2015?" then the response would have been a lot different.
Like many Bay Area residents, your argument rests on the flawed assumption that Bart is the only type of public transit that will work in the Bay Area. Any future Bart extension outside of a SF/Oakland extension is inherently flawed because inner-city subways are not meant for suburbia–New York, Boston, Paris, London, etc. all have two systems: subways and commuter rail. Bart is by far the costliest commuter rail system in the world, and Caltrain could provide faster and better service with WiFi and a greater capacity for bicyclists at a fraction of the cost. Public transportation funds are precious, and we simply cannot afford to Bart to San Jose, the Oakland Airport Connector, Bart to SFO, etc. when more cost-effective options are available.
Pulsar // July 21, 2009 at 11:27 pm |
The reason why trains are cheap is because they are trains and bridges to nowhere; they pollute, add to traffic congestion as they cross major streets w/o grade seperations and kill people daily. You get what you pay for. HSR will go to Visalia (where is that?)! It will mean building $100 billion train system that is most ardently supported by SUV Truck driving central valley people to the smallest most polluted cities in the California central valley. This is so eventually people can commute more cheaply travel over 200 miles to LA, how wasteful is that! Meanwhile the 10million people in the bay sit in some of the worst traffic daily. Then there are the Amtrak-Cal train alignments that go through warehouse industrial zoned areas, nowhere near downtown San Jose, SF, Berkeley, Oakland, Fremont or even close to Walnut Creek for that matter. The trains were built to go to factories and warehouses and avoid downtowns. That’s one reason CalTrain has such low ridership, cause it misses the universities, downtowns (most of them), sporting stadiums, etc. That is a recipe for low ridership as CalTrain has despite its excessive funding a much higher subsidies then BART. Promoting greater commuting to the SUV-Truck driving XBurbs is a very bad thing for traffic, global warming and the economy. If you build 10 cities instead of one that’s 10 times the wasted energy. Really I good with HSR but it should take a far lower priority then getting 10 million people in the bay area and 20 million in LA out of the stop and go traffic. Transit should discourage people commuting 100s of miles between cities not promote the worst xburb sprawl (like ACE, HSR do).
You are so wrong about alternatives studied by the transit experts who all disagree with you (and agree with the voters). The transit experts like Norman Mineta (transpiration secretary), Cal Trans head, MTC in addition to most bay area leaders the Leaders- Mayors, and major Corporations (SVLG) all support BART to San Jose not a train that guarantees transfers and would get a tiny 1/10TH fraction of the ridership. BART gets 110 million+ riders a year 10 times ACE, CalTrain, Amtrak, and the buses combined. BART works! It’s at or near the top of the list in the entire nation for ridership, Nebraska or Texas or Florida has nothing close. The MIS report done studied 11 alternatives (7 in-depth) and none of them were close to BART. http://www.vta.org/bart/documents/other/final_mis_report_1.pdf
The only thing green about CalTrain with its pollution, tiny fractional ridership and millions of dollars wasted and promotion of new alignments to the 100mile away xburbs sprawl is the green bodies rotting from the people it’s killed.
Killed:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Fatal-accident-causing-delays-on-Caltrain-this-morning-44984087.html
http://www.kron.com/News/ArticleView/tabid/298/smid/1126/ArticleID/2047/reftab/36/t/Amtrak-Train-Involved-in-Two-Separate-Fatal-Accidents-Investigators-Say/Default.aspx
As far as the BART extension to Millbrae its currently to quote BART; “…ridership is up 51%. In May, a total of 37,200 people each weekday used the new line…”. http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2008/news20080626.aspx
If you “only” count the 5 station exits only you get up to 23885 or so. However, any expert with even the tiniest bit of knowledge (like Norman Mineta, MTC, VTA, BART which all campaigned for and supported BART to SJ cause it makes CalTrain look like a meaningless speck in ridership) http://www.bart.gov/docs/station_exits_quarterly.pdf With stations like SFO you must consider the many people that get on at SFO and get off in Orinda, Fremont, etc., yet utilize that segment. if you look at the entire system exits are more helpful, but if you don’t you once again are twisting the facts. These numbers are roughly equivalent to CalTrain system that is 10 times larger, 20 year older, 32 station, more subsidized system then that 5 station BART segment to Millbrae. I do blame SamTrans and CalTrain for competing with BART and hurting our fight against traffic, gas, and pollution.
As far as electrification and grade separation of CalTrain and its cost, not sure where you pulled that bit, but one obvious issue is grade separation and electrification will not add any new riders. In other words CalTrain is rougly maxed out today at less than 1/10th the ridership of BART, even with the biggest bay cites San Jose-SF. One reason, is of course that the trains miss downtowns, they don’t have subways, don’t go to Giants stadium, or high density areas (albeit close but it always requires a verrry long walk or several transfers, why bother!). The real cost of BART is the subway. If you don’t tunnel BART equal to HSR. BART is not the most expensive system, as I proved the stated cost (unlike your number which is completely unofficial) to Warm Springs is 800million for 5.4 miles or 160mill/mile which does go underground. LA subway, Asian subways, or European subways are the same or worse:
http://antonovich.co.la.ca.us/newsroom/opeds/Wilshire%20Subway%20Extension.htm
And if you don’t give BART a subway to downtown high density SJ, stadiums and San Jose state then you get the lower ridership of the train. You can’t have it both ways.
The transit experts, 70% of the voters, leaders, and silicon valley corporations and I agree BART is a winning solution that towers 10times above all other solutions combined. BART promotes the right high density local growth first. We can make BART as expensive or cheap as we want. It doesn’t have to have subways (the real cost) etc. As you said most cities have two systems and I think BART in our bay area is proven great. We just need to support BART and circle the bay, and the trains are great for future intra state or inter-state travel later.
Daniel // July 22, 2009 at 1:15 am |
I am beginning to question whether or not you have ever even been on Caltrain, since your claims that Caltrain “misses the universities, downtowns (most of them), sporting stadiums” are just plain FALSE. Unlike Bart, Caltrain stations are not surrounded by parking lots. Caltrain hits 11 of the 12 downtowns/major business districts on the Peninsula, runs within walking distance of AT&T Park, HP Pavilion, and Stanford Stadium (and a short shuttle ride from Monster Park), and has stations specifically oriented toward San Mateo City College, Santa Clara University, and Stanford University (it’s largest source of ridership). Maybe you should actually ride Caltrain and get your “facts” straight.
Your use of the suicides on Caltrain’s tracks only speaks to the unsafe conditions which exist on Caltrains tracks as a result of decades of disinvestment in favor of Bart. Your own article pointed to the fact that of the last 16 deaths, at least 13 were suicides, so you cannot blame Caltrain just as you cannot blame the Golden Gate Bridge, you can only remedy the situation with appropriate investment.
I am not going to debate HSR here, but your claims are narrow minded and to some extent demeaning of residents of the Central Valley. I will say that HSR will serve as a catalyst for much needed transit improvements (i.e. Caltrain), and your arguments contradict not only state leaders and voters, but president Obama himself.
“one obvious issue is grade separation and electrification will not add any new riders”
One obvious issue is that this claim is completely without basis, and not only goes against common sense (twice the trains and faster service plus station improvements and TOD means waaay more riders) but also every single Caltrain, HSR, Sam Mateo County, Santa Clara County, and San Francisco County document (I’d start with the Caltrain 2025 document).
Lastly, your claim that Caltrain is “much more subsidized” is just plain wrong. Bart has had billions of dollars poured into it over the last 40 years, while Caltrain has had hardly anything. Farebox recovery only tells you how much a system is being subsidized at that given moment for operating expenses, and completely ignores larger subsidies in capital projects. Bart would be nothing without the heavy subsidization that occurred for the initial system expense and the decades of moderate ridership after its creation.
Out of all the leaders and agencies you’ve cited, not one is in support of Bart ringing the Bay. As I said in my paper, Bart to San Jose is just as much about San Jose’s image as it is about improving public transportation. The irony is that by the time Bart actually gets to the only high density areas in San Jose that you speak of (Downtown and East San Jose), by then Bart will be overshadowed by an electrified Caltrain system and high speed rail that will have already been open at least five years. Meanwhile, VTA’s light rail and bus systems will be the ones starved for cash, and public transit in the South Bay will be in worse shape with all of its funds still paying off the Bart extension it cannot afford.
(And in case you’re curious, Caltrain runs through downtown San Bruno, downtown Millbrae, Broadway in Burlingame, downtown Burlingame, downtown San Mateo, Hillsdale shopping center, downtown Belmont, downtown San Carlos, downtown Redwood City, downtown Menlo Park, downtown Palo Alto, and California Avenue (Palo Alto). The only downtown it slightly misses is South San Francisco, which should be remedied by station improvements once HSR comes.)