Grand Jury Says Upgrade
CalTrain, Drop BART to SFO
San Mateo County panel echoes local groups' cost-benefit concerns
Article published Spring 1996
Peninsula Rail 2000 home page |
COST home page
What's new? |
Online newsletter |
Give Us Feedback!
CalTrain downtown SF extension |
Electrification of CalTrain
In its 1995 report, the San Mateo County Grand Jury recommended that
local transit agencies shift their emphasis towards upgrading CalTrain.
At the same time, the Grand Jury recommended halting efforts to extend
BART to San Francisco airport, citing limited benefits and exorbitant cost.
Thus the Grand Jury concurs with Peninsula Rail 2000 and many concerned
and potentially impacted individuals and groups of north San Mateo County
and the Peninsula. The report has drawn fire from State Senator Quentin
Kopp and county supervisors Mike Nevin and Tom Huening who also sit on
the SamTrans board of directors. (See "BART-SFO:
Wounded But Not Dead").
The Grand Jury report cited a $705 million cost estimate for a CalTrain
upgrade to provide service frequencies similar to BART's between downtown
San Francisco, SFO airport, and San Jose. They contrasted this with the
$1.27 billion pricetag for the seven-mile BART extension.
The Grand Jury made some very pointed statements. For example: "The
financial conditions under which SamTrans is planning to fund the BART-SFO
extension are nebulous." These appear in the Findings section of the report.
The report catalogs a pattern of behavior by the SamTrans management
and a majority of its Board. In addition, it identifies the Board of Supervisors
as a responsible party. The pattern of behavior by SamTrans and the Board
of Supervisors chronicled by the San Mateo County Grand Jury can be summarized
as one of:
- Providing insufficient information to voters (Measure K in 1987, Measures
B and C in 1992).
- Making momentous transportation decisions with incomplete and inadequate
information.
- Ignoring more effective and less costly alternatives, such as connecting
CalTrain to the SFO airport light rail system.
- Favoring BART expansion over CalTrain improvements--regardless of
the cost, relative merits of the projects, and service impacts.
- Failing to serve the best interests of one of the agencies it staffs
[i.e. the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), the operating agency
for CalTrain] when that agency's policy conflicts with SamTrans policy.
The report concludes with four recommendations:
- That the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, the
San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), the San Mateo County Transportation
Authority, and the San Mateo County members of the Peninsula Corridor Joint
Powers Board cooperate and concentrate on achieving a regional rail system
utilizing CalTrain as the Peninsula corridor leg of the system by upgrading
its frequency to BART-like standards, electrifying it, connecting it with
San Francisco International Airport's Light Rail System (ALRS), and extending
it into downtown San Francisco.
- That the JPB investigate the feasibility of activating
CalTrain service on the Dumbarton Bridge Rail Spur right-of-way for an
East Bay connection.
- That the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and
SamTrans withdraw immediately from the BART/SamTrans agreement to extend
BART to San Francisco International Airport or any further into San Mateo
County.
- That the 1996 Grand Jury continue the analysis of
the transportation agencies that affect San Mateo County transportation
with the purpose of reducing cost and enhancing service.
This mid-year report has four pages of background about CalTrain, BART,
and SamTrans followed by nine pages of Findings, ending with the four recommendations.
Please give us your feedback on this site!
Send e-mail to the
webmaster
Last updated: October 27, 1998
Back to Online newsletter
menu
Back to Caltrain SF extension
information
Peninsula Rail 2000 home
page