VTA plans to spend $200Million or more, to build a duplicate station in Santa Clara in order to get additional service frequency only for the short and un-crowded section between San Jose and Diridon. One reason given for VTA to build a duplicate rail station in Santa Clara next to Caltrain is that BART provides more frequent service.  VTA is concerned that even with more cost-effective electric service, Caltrain won’t increase service frequency.
Analysis shows that VTA could get more value for the money if they refrained from building the extra BART station, and used the money instead to increase Caltrain service frequency to match BART frequency in Santa Clara County from Palo Alto to San Jose.
For BART to run extra service from Diridon to Santa Clara, it would cost about $7.4 million in operating cost per year, or about $220 million over 30 years. Â If VTA/BART decide to run two lines to San Jose/Santa Clara, it would cost about $12 million per year, or about $370 million over 30 years.
Caltrain’s rough draft electric service plan calls for modestly increasing peak service to 6 trains per hour, and off-peak to every 30 minutes, costing an extra $5.7 million, not counting any savings from more efficient electric service. If Caltrain increased frequency to match BART, it would cost an extra ~$9Â million above that per year, which would be $276 Million over 30 years.
So VTA could get extra frequency from Palo Alto to San Jose, for $56 million (or a savings of $93 million, if BART chose to run two lines).
The Santa Clara extension, including the tracks, a railyard storage area, and a station, is expected to be in the $800 Million to $1Billion range. Â Leaving out the station would save ~$200 Million.
So, if VTA refrained from building the duplicate station, and used some of the money to increase Caltrain frequency, they would save $140 – $230 million, and would provide more frequent backbone rail service in more of the county.
The savings could be used to benefit the City of Santa Clara, by overhauling the Great America light/heavy rail station which could do a much better job reducing traffic at the largest development ever in Silicon Valley, which is currently proposed to be car-dominant.
What do you think? Â Should VTA build a duplicate station in order to get more frequent service, or use a fraction of the money to increase Caltrain frequency, and use the savings for non-redundant transit improvements?
Increase Caltrain frequency!
BART to Santa Clara gets you BART from Santa Clara to the East Bay.
Increased Caltrain frequency serves everyone on the corridor: San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto … on towards San Francisco.
I would like to Commute via Caltrain from Sunnyvale to Menlo Park (I can walk from PA or MP ..) but the scheduling infrequency is inconvenient: I look forward to a day when I can just head on down to the station, wait 0-20 minutes, and be on my way …
You can take the ACE train to the east bay and connect with Bart at some point…
ACE and Caltrain can’t work out times, why would we think Caltrain and Bart would?
Increase Caltrain reliability, capacity, and schedule and from Gilroy to San Fran and all the spokes like ace and will benefit.
In the long term, it seems to me that BART should go all the way around the bay. This could be bad news for some in Caltrain’s management, but I think transit in the area is just too fragmented now. Meanwhile, increased frequency is important.
are you saying that the regions should spend billions of dollars in redundant infrastructure because we can’t figure out how to coordinate what we have? or that there should be consolidation over time?
If we look at any major city that has significant coverage of underground system, none of them provides the users with point to point option, almost in all cases one should change lines to reach the required destination. So having a hybrid of transportation systems is very effective and cost conscious solution. VTA on the other hand wants to own all the transportation options and does not work with the other major system serving San Jose, i.e. CalTrain. Trying to extend BART to Santa Clara is a waste of tax payers money since the funds planned for this segment can be used to increase the frequency of CalTrain to match BART frequency. Besides VTA is focusing only on San Jose and is telling the other cities in Santa Clara County “just give us the money and we will give you the crumbs”. Best solution is to vote NO on the VTA tax measure this November to send loud and clear message to VTA that they need to work with other cities in the county and with CalTrain.
If we want more frequent Caltrain service, we should request shorter EMU consist (coupling two short consist like BART do). I heard Caltrain gave-up this idea because we are strongly asking about more seat and bike space for peak period. We need compromise as there requirement will conflict to operating cost outside peak period.
The key is that VTA to get their priorities straight so that whatever the outcome is cost effective and timely, and give what commuters expect.
If VTA is going to spend a billion on Caltrain, in addition to the $2 billion commitment to electrify, VTA might as well make a commitment to run Caltrain at LRT/BART frequency. We know VTA can afford this. While it will take additional funding commitment from other counties to have the entire corridor running at LRT/BART frequency, someone needs to take leadership and this is an opportunity.
The Santa Clara station for BART should be deferred. While some could argue that the capital cost saving would be small compared to the while project (I think there could be more saving if more aggressive value engineering is done, including finding an alternate location for the yard), it would save VTA from having to pay for running most empty trains, and VTA can instead redirect that expense to run more Caltrain service. Also by deferring the station VTA can save more by not having the borrow as much money upfront for construction.
VTA has a history of bad/incomplete transit investments that it should avoid repeating:
– After passage of Measure A in 2000, VTA bought 100 new LRT cars, twice as many as it had at that time. VTA exercised the option it had while expecting a much larger LRT network be built (beyond what was being built at that time). With frequency reduction and cancellation of LRT expansions, half of its LRT fleet is unused. VTA might have gotten a great deal with the price of the LRT at that time, but VTA is also paying for the bonds needed to buy these under-used rail cars.
– VTA paid Union Pacific to add tracks on the Caltrain line south of San Jose so it can have 5 round trips to and from Gilroy. Instead the slots went unused all these times because VTA wasn’t able to fund additional Gilroy service.
– Even though Caltrain electrification is voter approved like BART, VTA has deferred funding for electrification because other projects like BART and LRT fleet expansions took most of the early money, and Caltrain is left with the leftovers (while cost has increased). The Santa Clara station deferral, along with the vision for high frequency Caltrain service, basically tells VTA to keep some of the early money for Caltrain (rather than spending on things that would be under-used) and that it would be something that will be well utilized.
Apple vs. Santa Clara BART?
Quoting from: http://www.mercurynews.com/…/mercury-news-editorial…
“A surprise glitch with the site planned for Santa Clara’s BART station has surfaced, but it is surmountable.
Two weeks ago, Nathan Donato-Weinstein reported in the Silicon Valley Business Journal that Apple had signed a 10-year lease for land where the Santa Clara BART station is planned. VTA didn’t know. And while Apple had pulled $20 million in permits from the Santa Clara planning department, nobody told Mayor Lisa Gillmor or the council.
Conspiracy theories erupted, on the assumption that Santa Clara was being cut from the BART plan. But nobody in their right mind would want that. The considerable space needed for a train yard and parking is in Santa Clara, not downtown San Jose.
VTA can’t buy the station site because the owner doesn’t want to sell, and the agency can’t use eminent domain until federal officials sign off on the final leg of BART — after the fall measure passes. It’s a mess.
But talks are underway with Apple. Given the support for BART by companies in the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which includes Apple, we’re confident this can be resolved.”
Oops, here’s the shamelessly link to the shamelessly BART “über alles” SJ Mercury editorial that mentions the Apple “glitch” with Santa Clara BART: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_29967101/mercury-news-editorial-bart-measure-needs-go-ballot
‘Conspiracy theories erupted, on the assumption that Santa Clara was being cut from the BART plan. But nobody in their right mind would want that.’
I want that, because building a redundant rail line is not the luxury that we have. We have already asked FTA to contribute many millions to upgrade and electrify Caltrain, and we think that FTA is going give millions again to build a rail line that completely duplicates existing service, station for station, when there are many more transportation projects worthy of funding throughout the Bay Area and the country? Give me a break. This article may make sense as long as the fact that it duplicates Caltrain is not mentioned at all.
Actually no one with the right mind would expect that somehow this portion would not be dropped. VTA already has a history of cutting transit projects. If FTA tells them to drop it, would VTA say no? Would Mercury say no?
The current estimate of the BART extension beyond Diridon is $1.5B: http://vta-sprinter.org/santa-clara-ebart/
With regards to the $500M Bewhall yard being “required for BART operations and storage”, here is what the BART Board had to say about it: last year: http://bart.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2amp;clip_id=891amp;meta_id=11056 (fast-forward 03:08:45)
Q: “Is Hayward Phase II needed only if we have 100 more rail cars?”
A: “Hayward Phase II is not needed provided Phase II of the San Jose extension is built”
03:09:45 “What happens if the San Jose 2016 Measure does not pass?”
03:10:50 “We do have other options for storage. BART does not store trains at end of line stations overnight” (HMC stands for “Hayward Maintenance Complex”). We won’t need Hayward Phase II until we get the additional 300 cars.
The BART Board approved Hayward Phase II the next morning for $180M “because it is such a low-hanging fruit”.
Case closed?
Reposting the link to the BART workshop video: http://bart.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=891&meta_id=11056
@Andy, I was under the impression that the FTA had already approved the project, according to this http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/Newsroom/Phase-II-of-VTAs-BART-Silicon-Valley-Project-Gets-FTA-Green-Light
Is it too late to nix the Santa Clara portion of the project?
VTA has gotten approval from FTA to start planning for the extension, but will take years before FTA would pay to build it.
So if they won’t store cars at the end of the line anyway, then what benefit would Newhall have over Hayward Phase 2 which is going forward?