SAMCEDA 1999 proposal for BART via 101
to Menlo Park

Proponents were Tom Huening, now San Mateo County Controller, former County Supervisor, and Denise de Ville, CEO of SAMCEDA, the San Mateo County Economic Development Association. (Note: SAMCEDA's web site offered no information on the proposal while SAMCEDA was advocating it.)

On Wednesday, July 14, local newspapers reported that the campaign had been called off to qualify two ballot measures advocating the proposed BART extension. The news followed a meeting held between campaign committee members and critics of the BART extension proposal, county Supervisors Mike Nevin and Jerry Hill.

The campaign had just begun circulating petitions to collect signatures to place two initiatives on the county's March 2000 ballot. One initiative would have increased the sales tax 1/2 cent to 8.75%, making it the highest in California. The other initiative would have advised the county to spend the revenue from this 1/2-cent tax on extending BART through San Mateo County. The language of the intiative was not specific about where a future BART extension should go.

Cost estimates for the extension ranged from $1.5 billion to well over $2 billion. (SamTrans officials contend that a $2.5 billion figure is more likely to be accurate. This is well over twice the cost of upgrading Caltrain all the way from San Francisco to San Jose to capacity and frequency comparable to BART.)

Extension proponents envisioned an elevated BART line along the median of the Bayshore Freeway with four stations south of Millbrae at the following locations along the freeway: San Mateo, Belmont/San Carlos, Redwood City, and Menlo Park near Willow Road or Marsh Road.

From Millbrae the 15-mile BART extension would have followed the Caltrain tracks to near Broadway in Burlingame. South of there the line would have followed the freeway. Proponents envisioned a connection to Caltrain just south of Marsh Road in Menlo Park, via a branch line off the Caltrain's line. No service is yet provided on this branch line which connects to the Dumbarton rail bridge to Fremont, as the map below shows. A Caltrain extension via this line to the East Bay was not included in the SAMCEDA proposal. Two alternative station sites in Menlo Park are shown on this map.

Opponents/critics of the proposal:
This BART extension proposal was opposed by BART directors James Fang and Dan Richard. The City of Menlo Park at the end of June passed a resolution against the proposal. San Mateo County Supervisors Mike Nevin and Jerry Hill were two leading critics of the proposal.

Recent newspaper articles on SAMCEDA's BART-to-Menlo proposal:
If you prefer to read one article only, "Plan dumped to extend BART," near the bottom of this list is recommended.

• Half-Baked Menlo Park BART Plan ...column by Mark Simon, SF Chronicle, June 8 edition

• BART Says No to Plan For Extension ...column by Mark Simon, SF Chronicle, June 29 edition

• Extending BART to Menlo Park: Sides prepare for battle ...The Almanac (Menlo Park), 6/30/99 edition

• Half-Baked BART Plan Still Cooking ...column by Mark Simon, SF Chronicle, July 2 edition

• Further Sins By Authors of BART Fantasy; Partners so annoyed, they're leaving office ...column by Mark Simon, SF Chronicle, July 3 edition

• Drive to bring BART into Menlo revs up ...The Almanac (Menlo Park), 7/7/99 edition

• Menlo council just says 'no' to BART ...The Almanac (Menlo Park), 7/7/99 edition

• BART to Menlo Park sounds good, but will voters approve the tax? ...op-ed article from The Almanac (Menlo Park), 7/14/99 edition

• BART initiatives pulled by sponsors ...column by Mark Simon, SF Chronicle, July 14 edition

• Traffic Woes Need Urgent Attention; Government partnership plan unlikely to solve problem soon ...column by Mark Simon, SF Chronicle, July 15 edition (Editor's note: Simon makes a few good points in this article. Unfortunately, the need to upgrade Caltrain is not among them.)

  This article gives the best overall summary of those listed here:

• Plan dumped to extend BART down Bayshore Freeway to Menlo Park ...The Almanac (Menlo Park), 7/21/99 edition

• BART initiative is off the table ...editorial in The Almanac (Menlo Park), 7/21/99 edition 7/21

This proposal may have many flaws, and little chance of being funded or built. But there is a much cheaper, workable solution:
Upgrade Caltrain.

• Peninsula Transit: Unlocking Gridlock ...Peninsula Rail 2000's 1998 proposal for upgrading Caltrain to a rapid transit system. Includes an explanation about some problems with extending BART to the Peninsula and South Bay.

• In 1996 Huening proposed building a bicycle/pedestrian path along the Caltrain tracks. Like the 1999 BART extension proposal, this "Rail Trail" proposal met with opposition, had many flaws, and had implications for rail transit along the Peninsula corridor. Huening withdrew the rail trail proposal in January 1998.

• COST challenges BART-to-Menlo proposal

Detailed critique of the BART-to-Menlo proposal:

• Caltrain has been neglected and is nowhere near its potential carrying capacity. Upgrading it to capacity comparable to BART would cost less than BART's 8.7-mile extension to SFO/Millbrae. (See Peninsula Transit: Unlocking Gridlock.) Until Caltrain is upgraded, it is silly and premature to claim San Mateo County needs a parallel BART line less than a mile to the east.

• Unlike SAMCEDA's BART-to-Menlo proposal, Caltrain runs through service to the rest of Silicon Valley, San Jose, and Gilroy. Under SAMCEDA's proposal, Santa Clara County also would have to commit to the alignment down the median of 101 in order for BART to continue southward. Without this, there would be only a very circuitous rail connection (backtracking via Redwood City) from the proposed Menlo Park BART terminus to most of Silicon Valley to the south.

• Caltrain's stations in the downtowns of Peninsula cities are already where much more people need to go than along the freeway. And unlike the proposed BART stations along 101, Caltrain's stations serve more diverse ridership markets--not just commuters. Ridership potential at the four proposed station sites along the freeway--away from the higher density housing along Caltrain, or the latter's superior bike, pedestrian, and bus access--may be insufficient to justify BART's service levels.

• Most people will have to drive to the BART stations along the freeway to ride it, further clogging 101, 92, and east-west arteries. What is the point if more traffic has to clog up the freeway to reach the stations? What small fraction of the potential riders would be arriving by alternative transportation? If such a large proportion of the riders are coming by car, where is the land to build the necessary mega-parking structures?

• The massive construction project of BART previously proposed to run along the Caltrain line and to replace it would have required shutting down Caltrain. Likewise this scheme for BART along 101 simply shifts the massive disruption to the freeway, impacting even more travelers, especially at station sites.

• Business located close to 101 would be the greatest beneficiaries of BART along 101. This BART proposal would pit tax increase critics against the interests of a few big companies.

Last updated: June 27, 2004