Today’s Headlines

  • Chron Prints Motorheads’ Call for Free Parking (SFGate) and a More Realistic Approach (SFGate)
  • Muni Union Cancels Contract Meeting (SFGate); Sickout Not Expected (SFGate); Reiskin’s Take (CBS)
  • According to ABC 7, CA’s 3-Ft Bike Passing Law is Unenforceable. (Drivers Can’t Change Lanes?)
  • SF Weekly‘s San FranCycle: Data Shows Most Cyclist Deaths Are Preventable, Fault of Drivers
  • Why SFPD Can Rarely Bust Bike “Chop Shops” (SF Examiner); “Prolific” Bike Thief Arrested Again (ABC)
  • Stolen Car Thief Fleeing SFPD Crashes, Dies; Passenger Hospitalized in Bayview (KTVU)
  • New Details, Renderings From SPUR‘s Ocean Beach Master Plan, Including Road Diet (Curbed)
  • Oakland’s Mayor Quan, Recently Caught Driving on Phone, Crashes While Allegedly on Phone (SFGate)
  • Man on Bike, 53, Critically Injured by Hit-and-Run Driver on Broadway in Oakland Hills (CBS)
  • Greenbelt Alliance Calls on San Jose City Council to Adopt Smart Growth Plan for Diridon Station (Merc)
  • Caltrain Adopts Balanced Budget, For Now (SM Daily)
  • Does Bringing BART’s San Jose Extension to Santa Clara Make Sense? (Green Caltrain)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Josh Handel

    No, I don’t think BART going to Santa Clara makes sense. The SJC connection should be made from Diridon, and BART should continue its ring around the bay by going straight down Stevens Creek Boulevard to Apple and De Anza college. There’s tremendous infill potential all along Stevens Creek Blvd. Eventually, I could see it extending down Foothill Expressway to serve the businesses surrounding Page Mill Road, and then connect with Caltrain in Palo Alto. Here’s a crude sketch.

    (I’ll add the caveat, of course a 2nd transbay tube is more important than this exercise in imaginaiton.)

  • murphstahoe

    If we are going to acquire that ROW and it’s so relevant, why not run the CAHSR tracks down it and stay away from the NIMBYS. Oh wait, it’s going through Los Altos. Good luck with that!

  • Josh Handel

    So, tell me what alignment you think makes more sense and why, Murph. I suppose the other options are:

    1) Running down the Caltrain ROW
    2) Tunneling under El Camino.
    3) Going down 101.

    and like I said, there are many things more important (2nd TB tube, wBart to Hercules/Pinole), but if we were to continue with BART expansion in the South bay, this is how I’d imagine it.

  • jonobate

    That’s not a bad idea, but it’s going to be a long time before Stevens Creek Blvd is dense enough to justify a BART line. It would have to be elevated down the median rather than in a subway to make it even remotely cost effective.

    Also, the section marked blue will always be much less viable than the section marked in orange.

  • jonobate

    None of those make sense. There is no need to replace Caltrain with BART, or duplicate it’s service within the same corridor.

    If you must extend BART past Diridon, serve a corridor that doesn’t yet have any rail service, such as the one you suggested.

  • Amanda Clark

    Ironically your proposed route duplicates the old Los Altos branch of the Vasona line that was pulled up
    in 1964. The Perm still runs out to Cupertino every once in a while.

  • Richard Mlynarik

    If San José, the sélf-styled “Capital of Silicon Valléy”, really needs an underground train line (which it does not in any way except for dick-wagging purposes), the way to have done it was to have run Caltrain underground on their alignment from Santa Clara, under SJ Cahill Street (aka “Rod not technically yet dead Diridon Memorial Intergalactic”) Station, under Santa Clara Street, to the Flea Market and then along the existing surface rail ROW to Fremont to connect up with BART.

    But that didn’t happen. Because, despite the immense and unjustifiable cost of such tunnelling. it pales beside that of building BART extensions using BART technology and BART-controlling vendors and BART-controlling consultants and guaranteed BART-awarded contractors; this being the very most guaranteed profitable scam of our local transit-industrial complex. PBQD, Bechtel, Tutor and friends wouldn’t have it any other way, and haven’t allowed it to be any other way for the last four decades.

  • Andy Chow

    There’s no reason to extend any rail line using legacy BART technology. If the idea is to have rail on Stevens Creek, LRT technology will do. The street is wide enough to have exclusive lanes for LRT, and can be elevated or tunneled in places where it is appropriate. Station spacing every 1/2 miles or so is consistent with BART and other rapid transit in high density environment and provides more opportunities for TOD than a rail line that stops every 2 miles.

    If the idea of having separate transit brands is troubling, there’s no reason that all the rail lines in the Bay Area be merged under the BART brand, like the NYCMTA, SEPTA, MBTA that run different trains with different technologies under the same brand.

    The reason that light rail hasn’t worked in the Silicon Valley is mostly because the companies prefer to locate in suburban office parks instead of Downtown San Jose and that transit generally do not work well for suburb to suburb commute (Caltrain is doing well because of the urban to suburb commutes). The BART supporters think that light rail hasn’t been working well because the fact that it runs at grade and slower than BART, and that somehow BART would change that picture, but I strongly disagree, especially considering that the BART alignment is far from the office areas. It may have a market for urban to suburb commutes in areas that is far from Caltrain, but it perform no differently from LRT for suburb to suburb market.

    If the idea is to change the transit planning paradigm and place TOD as a priority, then other rail modes should be given the same consideration.