Why BART should not go into San Francisco is primarily a planning
issue. However, it has architectrual overtones. This article is
somewhat long, but informative of the politics.
- - The original note follows - -
Newsgroups: rec.travel.air
Path:
psuvm!news.ysu.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!uunet!portal!ntmtv!adr
ian
From: adrian@xxxxxxxxxx (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Why BART shouldn't go into SFO
Message-ID: <1992Dec18.223128.6238@ntmtv>
Followup-To: ba.transportation
Sender: news@ntmtv
Nntp-Posting-Host: zephyr
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:31:28 GMT
Lines: 390
What follows is a briefing paper on "BART to SFO". That's what its
authors call it anyway. What it really is, is a defense of the
airport's currently approved plan to build an automated people mover
system to connect key airport destinations (terminals and other
facilities) with a joint CalTrain/BART/SamTrans inter-modal transit
center on some currently-vacant airport-owned land on the west side
of Highway 101 (directly across from the airport and adjacent to the
CalTrain line).
What is the airport defending its plan against? Senator Quentin
Kopp and his currently ongoing attempt to gather signatures to put
a law on the ballot that will force BART *into* SFO and kill the
people-mover connection to the inter-modal BART/CalTrain/SamTrans
station on the west side of Highway 101.
The document was scanned in (thanks to Bill Michel) and doesn't
include the illustrations and maps.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Airports Commission City & County of San Francisco
Patrick A. Murphy, President
J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President
L. Andrew Jeanpierre
James K. Ho
Marie K. Brooks
Louis A. Turpen, Director of Airports
December 12, 1991
Rev. August 6, 1992
Rev. November 17, 1992
INTRODUCTION
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Commission has always encouraged the use of mass transit to the
Airport. Since 1983, the Commission has supported extending BART
to San Francisco International Airport.
During the past two years, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) evaluated several mass transit alternatives serving SFO. In
June 1992, MTC, BART, and SamTrans agreed to extend BART to a
transportation center on Airport property adjacent to the CalTrain
tracks. The Commission supports this decision. This transportation
center will be operational by 1997 serving CalTrain, SamTrans, and
all areas of the Airport via an extension from the Airport Light Rail
System. Ultimately, the center will also serve BART sometime after
the year 2003.
The early link with CalTrain and SamTrans is possible because, as a
part of its current Master Planning effort, the Airport will construct
the Light Rail System to connect the terminal buildings with all
Airport facilities. In order to make all areas of the Airport
accessible to mass transit users as soon as possible, the Airport
intends to extend this on-Airport rail system across Highway 101 to
the transportation center at no cost to the tax payer.
Subsequent to MTC/BART/SamTrans' approval of the BART extension to SFO,
a voters' initiative has been proposed to provide a BART loop tunneling
underground from the transportation center to a station five stories
under the existing parking garage (Figure 3, page 11). This loop
would replace the Airport's light rail service to the transportation
center. Although MTC/BART/SamTrans' engineers have not prepared a
cost estimate for this initiative, the suggested costs range from
$300 to $400 million, vs. $20 million for the approved plan.
Furthermore, the underground loop will not be operational until at
least six years later than the light rail alternative proposed by
the Airport.
Almost as dramatic as the difference in cost and time is the difference
in convenience. The Airport's light rail proposal would enable
passengers and employees to travel from the transportation center and
be dropped off at the departure level of the terminals, or be picked up
outside of the baggage claim area and return to the transportation
center. The alternative plan, on the other hand, would drop off riders
two and a half blocks from the terminal buildings at a point five
stories beneath the entrance to the parking garage.
Aside from the cost, time, and convenience, several other issues should
also be considered:
o The projected BART ridership to San Francisco Airport, whether
connecting to the Airport light rail system or to an underground
loop, is virtually the same: approximately 13,000 riders daily.
o The initiative proposes a passenger tax of $3.00 for each and every
person who flies from SFO. San Francisco residents would pay more
than $73 million of the cost of the underground loop--a $3.00 charge
each and every time they use their own Airport.
o The $3.00 charge must be approved by the Federal government. San
Francisco has succeeded in its 1O-year fight to keep noisy airplanes
out of SFO. The initiative's proposal to tax airport users can only
be implemented if SFO surrenders its strict rules prohibiting noisy
airplanes in exchange for Federal permission to levy the tax.
o The potential disruption to SFO's operations from the underground loop
is significant. This plan would require that the Airport remove its
supporting structure of 220 reinforced concrete piles, which extend
100 feet to bedrock and support the central parking garage and
passenger terminals.
o The underground loop would not serve the needs of transit travelers.
Although it connects the transportation center with the garage, fully
two-thirds of the Airport's 31,000 employees do not work in the
terminal complex. Airport employees make 44,000 private vehicle
trips daily to and from the Airport. If this captive market can be
encouraged to use mass transit it will make a significant impact upon
reducing roadway congestion.
AIRPORT LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Light Rail System will provide free shuttle service connecting all
passenger terminals, the rental car garages, hotel, remote parking lots,
aircraft maintenance facilities, cargo areas, ferry service terminal,
and the transportation center located west of Highway 101. A map of its
route and stations is shown on Figure 1, page 9.
The trains will be electric powered and run on a guide rail (Fig. 2,
page 10). They will travel at a top speed of 25 m.p.h. and are quiet,
non-polluting, and energy efficient. They can be fully automated or
driver operated. The number of cars per train will be commensurate with
the load demand. Typically, each train will have three cars with a total
capacity of 75 passengers.
The trains will operate in two directions to minimize travel time
between destinations. They will run on both the departure and arrival
levels in front of the domestic terminals to eliminate floor changes.
Typical waiting time for a train will be 90 seconds. Maximum time
between trains will be three minutes during 16 hours of the day. The
system will operate 24 hours every day.
The Airport plans to construct, maintain, and operate the system at its
sole expense. No financial support is expected from BART, SamTrans,
CalTrain, or any other mass transit agencies. No tax dollars will be
spent on this system.
When fully operational, the Airport Light Rail System will reduce
Airport vehicular traffic by 23%. It will eliminate 40% of the
commercial vehicle trips from the terminal roadways, or 1.9 million
trips annually. For other Airport roads, the reduction will be 19%, or
727,000 annual commercial vehicle trips. It will also eliminate 5
million rental car trips from the terminal loop roads annually, as well
as 2 million employee vehicle trips.
APPROVED PLAN vs. PROPOSED INITIATIVE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Airports Commission supports the most convenient, efficient, cost-
effective, and timely mass transit alternative. Therefore, by 1997, the
Commission intends to provide a highly attractive alternative to private
cars for transportation to the Airport. This plan, approved by MTC, BART,
and SamTrans, is six years sooner and $380 million less expensive than
the proposed initiative as shown in the following comparison:
APPROVED PROPOSED
PLAN INITIATIVE
Total walking distance from 350 ft. 950 ft.
BART to terminal lobby
Number of floor changes required 1 4
(see Fig. 4, page 12)
Number of times the passenger is 3 10
required to read directional signs
Travel time from downtown S.F. 41 min. 45 min.
to Airport terminal
From the south, maximum connection time 3 min. 20 min.
between CalTrain/SamTrans & ride to terminal
Total daily BART ridership 13,000 12,300
to SFO in the year 2010
Capital cost to connect SFO to $20 million $400 million
mass transit station (1991 $'s)
Tax revenue required 0 $400 million
Operational date 1997 2003
COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The discussion of "BART to the Airport" has raised several questions.
Listed below are some of those most frequently asked.
1. What is the Airports Commission's position regarding "BART to the
Airport"?
The Airports Commission has a long standing policy of encouraging
the use of mass transit, and has supported the concept of BART to
the Airport since 1983. The Commission is pleased that the Metro-
politan Transportation Commission, BART, and SamTrans have decided
to extend BART to a mass transit center at the Airport property
west of Highway 101.
2. Isn't there already a BART "trace" under the North Terminal?
During the construction of the North Terminal in 1972, the Airports
Commission made a decision to preserve a right-of-way under the
terminal to provide access for BART in the future. However, by the
time the decision was communicated to the field, the contractor had
already driven 36 piles in the space which had been intended for
BART access.
These reinforced concrete piles, 80 to 120 ft. long, were abandoned
in place under the terminal rather than being removed. In addition,
interlocking steel sheet piling was also left in place blocking the
intended BART access. Since no excavation took place, the original
bay mud and soil still exist under the North Terminal and garage.
3. What about the "shell" for a BART station under the parking garage?
There is no "shell" for BART under the parking garage. In fact, no
construction took place in the 1970's to create space (i.e., empty
room) for BART on or under the Airport.
4. Are there any other major obstructions for the station under the
garage?
Yes. BART tracks would extend beyond the garage and beneath the
existing South Terminal. More than 180 load bearing piles which
support the South Terminal and the garage would have to be removed
and a new subterranean supporting structure for the South Terminal
and the main Airport garage would have to be erected in order to
accommodate the BART station.
5. What are some of the construction concerns for a BART station under
the garage?
Airport engineers and independent consultants have identified
several major construction concerns in connection with the under-
ground loop concept:
A. Construction of underground tunnels and station will cause
major disruption to the Airport, including closure of road-
ways, sections of terminal buildings, portions of the garage,
aircraft parking positions, baggage conveyors, baggage
carrousels, and elevators.
B. Tunneling through the Airport will cause differential ground
settlement, which will affect existing roads, aircraft
pavements, utility lines, and aviation fuel lines.
C. The area beneath the Airport contains a number of underground
streams which are continually shifting. These underground
streams will impact BART both during construction and during
operation.
D. The existing 6,000 vehicle Airport Central Parking Garage is
supported on piles and buoyed by ground water. The required
excavation beneath the garage will affect the structural
integrity of the garage.
6. Can we impose a Passengers' Facilities Charge (PFC) to pay the
extra costs of bringing BART underground to the garage?
Under current Federal regulations, PFC funds must be used for
facilities owned by the Airport Since the Airport does not own
BART facilities, money collected cannot be transferred to BART
for its construction projects. Assuming a resolution of this
issue with the Department of Transportation, of greater concern
is the fact that imposing a PFC will require the Airports
Commission to comply with lenient Federal Noise Regulations and
abandon SFO's much more stringent noise regulations. Finally, a
PFC is really a user tax. It is estimated that such a tax would
cost San Francisco residents and businesses $73 million over a
ten year period to finance an underground BART station.
7. Where do Airport employees and passengers come from?
County Resident Psgrs* Non-Resident Psgrs** Employees*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
San Francisco 36.3% 43.6% 12.8%
Marin 7.3 5.4 1.7
San Mateo 16.0 18.4 44.4
Santa Clara 10.7 11.3 9.0
Alameda 13.4 8.8 13.9
Other counties 16.3 12.5 18.2
source: * 1992 SFO Passenger Survey & Ground Transportation Survey
** 1990 MTC data
8. Is BART going to be extended south beyond SFO?
No. Currently, the Airport BART station would be a terminus
station. Neither the Metropolitan Transportation Commission nor
BART has any plan to extend BART beyond SFO at this time. This
will make CalTrain an important transportation mode for employees
and passengers coming to the Airport from the south.
9. Does the proposed initiative appreciably change ridership, cost,
or time?
With respect to ridership, MTC predicts 13,000 BART riders daily to
SFO in 2010 if BART is extended to the transportation center (west
of Hwy. 101) and served by an Airport Light Rail System. The
initiative's plan would attract only 12,300 BART riders daily
because it is less convenient for the majority of Airport employees
who work outside the terminal area.
With respect to cost, MTC, BART, or SamTrans have not developed
an engineer's estimate for the proposed initiative. However, the
Airport staff estimates that the initiative would cost an
additional $400 million, plus interest expenses and operational
costs.
With respect to travel time, BART riders from San Francisco's
financial district would spend 41 minutes to reach SFO under the
approved plan, vs. 45 minutes for the initiative's plan.
Compared to other cities like Philadelphia and Chicago where
their mass transit systems to the airports are at least as fast
as the automobile, BART will take twice as long as the automobile
no matter which alternative is chosen.
10. Can the SFO's Light Rail System be replaced by BART as suggested
by the proposed initiative?
No. Two thirds of the 31,000 employees at the Airport do not work
in the terminal buildings. Under the proposed initiative, these
employees, if they were to ride BART, CalTrain, or SamTrans to
work, would have to walk two blocks after disembarking from the
underground BART station, connect with SFO's Light Rail System,
and backtrack through the Airport to their place of employment.
The transit riders from the south would experience a nightmare:
First, they would have to ride CalTrain to the mass transit
center, then walk down, across, and up to switch platforms,
purchase a BART ticket, wait 4.5 to 20 minutes for a BART train,
ride BART for 1.5 miles to a station five floors below the garage,
walk two blocks and up five floors to catch the Airport's Light
Rail System, and finally, arrive at their place of employment.
As a comparison, under the MTC/BART/SamTrans approved plan, the
same CalTrain patron would get off at the mass transit station,
go up one floor to the Airport Light Rail platform, wait a
maximum of three minutes (average wait is 90 seconds) for the
free Airport shuttle, and ride directly to his place of
employment.
11. Could passengers check their baggage at the approved BART station?
Yes. The design of the Airport Light Rail System will provide the
capability of adding a remote baggage check-in station.
<--- end of briefing paper --->
I make no secret about it, I strongly oppose Senator Kopp's proposal.
If you do too, I suggest that you 1) call or write his office, and/or
2) write letters to the editors of newspapers (especially in his
district: San Mateo to San Francisco), and/or 3) spread the word,
and/or 4) don't sign his petition (he needs almost 10,000 signatures
to qualify his dumb plan for the ballot), and/or 5) call him on his
talk show on KGO AM 810 on most Sunday nights between 7 and 10 pm,
and/or 6) spread the word to others.
Senator Quentin Kopp's distict office is at:
363 El Camino Real, #205
South San Francisco, CA 94080
(415) 952-5666
--
Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
issue. However, it has architectrual overtones. This article is
somewhat long, but informative of the politics.
- - The original note follows - -
Newsgroups: rec.travel.air
Path:
psuvm!news.ysu.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!uunet!portal!ntmtv!adr
ian
From: adrian@xxxxxxxxxx (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Why BART shouldn't go into SFO
Message-ID: <1992Dec18.223128.6238@ntmtv>
Followup-To: ba.transportation
Sender: news@ntmtv
Nntp-Posting-Host: zephyr
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:31:28 GMT
Lines: 390
What follows is a briefing paper on "BART to SFO". That's what its
authors call it anyway. What it really is, is a defense of the
airport's currently approved plan to build an automated people mover
system to connect key airport destinations (terminals and other
facilities) with a joint CalTrain/BART/SamTrans inter-modal transit
center on some currently-vacant airport-owned land on the west side
of Highway 101 (directly across from the airport and adjacent to the
CalTrain line).
What is the airport defending its plan against? Senator Quentin
Kopp and his currently ongoing attempt to gather signatures to put
a law on the ballot that will force BART *into* SFO and kill the
people-mover connection to the inter-modal BART/CalTrain/SamTrans
station on the west side of Highway 101.
The document was scanned in (thanks to Bill Michel) and doesn't
include the illustrations and maps.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Airports Commission City & County of San Francisco
Patrick A. Murphy, President
J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President
L. Andrew Jeanpierre
James K. Ho
Marie K. Brooks
Louis A. Turpen, Director of Airports
December 12, 1991
Rev. August 6, 1992
Rev. November 17, 1992
INTRODUCTION
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Commission has always encouraged the use of mass transit to the
Airport. Since 1983, the Commission has supported extending BART
to San Francisco International Airport.
During the past two years, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) evaluated several mass transit alternatives serving SFO. In
June 1992, MTC, BART, and SamTrans agreed to extend BART to a
transportation center on Airport property adjacent to the CalTrain
tracks. The Commission supports this decision. This transportation
center will be operational by 1997 serving CalTrain, SamTrans, and
all areas of the Airport via an extension from the Airport Light Rail
System. Ultimately, the center will also serve BART sometime after
the year 2003.
The early link with CalTrain and SamTrans is possible because, as a
part of its current Master Planning effort, the Airport will construct
the Light Rail System to connect the terminal buildings with all
Airport facilities. In order to make all areas of the Airport
accessible to mass transit users as soon as possible, the Airport
intends to extend this on-Airport rail system across Highway 101 to
the transportation center at no cost to the tax payer.
Subsequent to MTC/BART/SamTrans' approval of the BART extension to SFO,
a voters' initiative has been proposed to provide a BART loop tunneling
underground from the transportation center to a station five stories
under the existing parking garage (Figure 3, page 11). This loop
would replace the Airport's light rail service to the transportation
center. Although MTC/BART/SamTrans' engineers have not prepared a
cost estimate for this initiative, the suggested costs range from
$300 to $400 million, vs. $20 million for the approved plan.
Furthermore, the underground loop will not be operational until at
least six years later than the light rail alternative proposed by
the Airport.
Almost as dramatic as the difference in cost and time is the difference
in convenience. The Airport's light rail proposal would enable
passengers and employees to travel from the transportation center and
be dropped off at the departure level of the terminals, or be picked up
outside of the baggage claim area and return to the transportation
center. The alternative plan, on the other hand, would drop off riders
two and a half blocks from the terminal buildings at a point five
stories beneath the entrance to the parking garage.
Aside from the cost, time, and convenience, several other issues should
also be considered:
o The projected BART ridership to San Francisco Airport, whether
connecting to the Airport light rail system or to an underground
loop, is virtually the same: approximately 13,000 riders daily.
o The initiative proposes a passenger tax of $3.00 for each and every
person who flies from SFO. San Francisco residents would pay more
than $73 million of the cost of the underground loop--a $3.00 charge
each and every time they use their own Airport.
o The $3.00 charge must be approved by the Federal government. San
Francisco has succeeded in its 1O-year fight to keep noisy airplanes
out of SFO. The initiative's proposal to tax airport users can only
be implemented if SFO surrenders its strict rules prohibiting noisy
airplanes in exchange for Federal permission to levy the tax.
o The potential disruption to SFO's operations from the underground loop
is significant. This plan would require that the Airport remove its
supporting structure of 220 reinforced concrete piles, which extend
100 feet to bedrock and support the central parking garage and
passenger terminals.
o The underground loop would not serve the needs of transit travelers.
Although it connects the transportation center with the garage, fully
two-thirds of the Airport's 31,000 employees do not work in the
terminal complex. Airport employees make 44,000 private vehicle
trips daily to and from the Airport. If this captive market can be
encouraged to use mass transit it will make a significant impact upon
reducing roadway congestion.
AIRPORT LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Light Rail System will provide free shuttle service connecting all
passenger terminals, the rental car garages, hotel, remote parking lots,
aircraft maintenance facilities, cargo areas, ferry service terminal,
and the transportation center located west of Highway 101. A map of its
route and stations is shown on Figure 1, page 9.
The trains will be electric powered and run on a guide rail (Fig. 2,
page 10). They will travel at a top speed of 25 m.p.h. and are quiet,
non-polluting, and energy efficient. They can be fully automated or
driver operated. The number of cars per train will be commensurate with
the load demand. Typically, each train will have three cars with a total
capacity of 75 passengers.
The trains will operate in two directions to minimize travel time
between destinations. They will run on both the departure and arrival
levels in front of the domestic terminals to eliminate floor changes.
Typical waiting time for a train will be 90 seconds. Maximum time
between trains will be three minutes during 16 hours of the day. The
system will operate 24 hours every day.
The Airport plans to construct, maintain, and operate the system at its
sole expense. No financial support is expected from BART, SamTrans,
CalTrain, or any other mass transit agencies. No tax dollars will be
spent on this system.
When fully operational, the Airport Light Rail System will reduce
Airport vehicular traffic by 23%. It will eliminate 40% of the
commercial vehicle trips from the terminal roadways, or 1.9 million
trips annually. For other Airport roads, the reduction will be 19%, or
727,000 annual commercial vehicle trips. It will also eliminate 5
million rental car trips from the terminal loop roads annually, as well
as 2 million employee vehicle trips.
APPROVED PLAN vs. PROPOSED INITIATIVE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Airports Commission supports the most convenient, efficient, cost-
effective, and timely mass transit alternative. Therefore, by 1997, the
Commission intends to provide a highly attractive alternative to private
cars for transportation to the Airport. This plan, approved by MTC, BART,
and SamTrans, is six years sooner and $380 million less expensive than
the proposed initiative as shown in the following comparison:
APPROVED PROPOSED
PLAN INITIATIVE
Total walking distance from 350 ft. 950 ft.
BART to terminal lobby
Number of floor changes required 1 4
(see Fig. 4, page 12)
Number of times the passenger is 3 10
required to read directional signs
Travel time from downtown S.F. 41 min. 45 min.
to Airport terminal
From the south, maximum connection time 3 min. 20 min.
between CalTrain/SamTrans & ride to terminal
Total daily BART ridership 13,000 12,300
to SFO in the year 2010
Capital cost to connect SFO to $20 million $400 million
mass transit station (1991 $'s)
Tax revenue required 0 $400 million
Operational date 1997 2003
COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The discussion of "BART to the Airport" has raised several questions.
Listed below are some of those most frequently asked.
1. What is the Airports Commission's position regarding "BART to the
Airport"?
The Airports Commission has a long standing policy of encouraging
the use of mass transit, and has supported the concept of BART to
the Airport since 1983. The Commission is pleased that the Metro-
politan Transportation Commission, BART, and SamTrans have decided
to extend BART to a mass transit center at the Airport property
west of Highway 101.
2. Isn't there already a BART "trace" under the North Terminal?
During the construction of the North Terminal in 1972, the Airports
Commission made a decision to preserve a right-of-way under the
terminal to provide access for BART in the future. However, by the
time the decision was communicated to the field, the contractor had
already driven 36 piles in the space which had been intended for
BART access.
These reinforced concrete piles, 80 to 120 ft. long, were abandoned
in place under the terminal rather than being removed. In addition,
interlocking steel sheet piling was also left in place blocking the
intended BART access. Since no excavation took place, the original
bay mud and soil still exist under the North Terminal and garage.
3. What about the "shell" for a BART station under the parking garage?
There is no "shell" for BART under the parking garage. In fact, no
construction took place in the 1970's to create space (i.e., empty
room) for BART on or under the Airport.
4. Are there any other major obstructions for the station under the
garage?
Yes. BART tracks would extend beyond the garage and beneath the
existing South Terminal. More than 180 load bearing piles which
support the South Terminal and the garage would have to be removed
and a new subterranean supporting structure for the South Terminal
and the main Airport garage would have to be erected in order to
accommodate the BART station.
5. What are some of the construction concerns for a BART station under
the garage?
Airport engineers and independent consultants have identified
several major construction concerns in connection with the under-
ground loop concept:
A. Construction of underground tunnels and station will cause
major disruption to the Airport, including closure of road-
ways, sections of terminal buildings, portions of the garage,
aircraft parking positions, baggage conveyors, baggage
carrousels, and elevators.
B. Tunneling through the Airport will cause differential ground
settlement, which will affect existing roads, aircraft
pavements, utility lines, and aviation fuel lines.
C. The area beneath the Airport contains a number of underground
streams which are continually shifting. These underground
streams will impact BART both during construction and during
operation.
D. The existing 6,000 vehicle Airport Central Parking Garage is
supported on piles and buoyed by ground water. The required
excavation beneath the garage will affect the structural
integrity of the garage.
6. Can we impose a Passengers' Facilities Charge (PFC) to pay the
extra costs of bringing BART underground to the garage?
Under current Federal regulations, PFC funds must be used for
facilities owned by the Airport Since the Airport does not own
BART facilities, money collected cannot be transferred to BART
for its construction projects. Assuming a resolution of this
issue with the Department of Transportation, of greater concern
is the fact that imposing a PFC will require the Airports
Commission to comply with lenient Federal Noise Regulations and
abandon SFO's much more stringent noise regulations. Finally, a
PFC is really a user tax. It is estimated that such a tax would
cost San Francisco residents and businesses $73 million over a
ten year period to finance an underground BART station.
7. Where do Airport employees and passengers come from?
County Resident Psgrs* Non-Resident Psgrs** Employees*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
San Francisco 36.3% 43.6% 12.8%
Marin 7.3 5.4 1.7
San Mateo 16.0 18.4 44.4
Santa Clara 10.7 11.3 9.0
Alameda 13.4 8.8 13.9
Other counties 16.3 12.5 18.2
source: * 1992 SFO Passenger Survey & Ground Transportation Survey
** 1990 MTC data
8. Is BART going to be extended south beyond SFO?
No. Currently, the Airport BART station would be a terminus
station. Neither the Metropolitan Transportation Commission nor
BART has any plan to extend BART beyond SFO at this time. This
will make CalTrain an important transportation mode for employees
and passengers coming to the Airport from the south.
9. Does the proposed initiative appreciably change ridership, cost,
or time?
With respect to ridership, MTC predicts 13,000 BART riders daily to
SFO in 2010 if BART is extended to the transportation center (west
of Hwy. 101) and served by an Airport Light Rail System. The
initiative's plan would attract only 12,300 BART riders daily
because it is less convenient for the majority of Airport employees
who work outside the terminal area.
With respect to cost, MTC, BART, or SamTrans have not developed
an engineer's estimate for the proposed initiative. However, the
Airport staff estimates that the initiative would cost an
additional $400 million, plus interest expenses and operational
costs.
With respect to travel time, BART riders from San Francisco's
financial district would spend 41 minutes to reach SFO under the
approved plan, vs. 45 minutes for the initiative's plan.
Compared to other cities like Philadelphia and Chicago where
their mass transit systems to the airports are at least as fast
as the automobile, BART will take twice as long as the automobile
no matter which alternative is chosen.
10. Can the SFO's Light Rail System be replaced by BART as suggested
by the proposed initiative?
No. Two thirds of the 31,000 employees at the Airport do not work
in the terminal buildings. Under the proposed initiative, these
employees, if they were to ride BART, CalTrain, or SamTrans to
work, would have to walk two blocks after disembarking from the
underground BART station, connect with SFO's Light Rail System,
and backtrack through the Airport to their place of employment.
The transit riders from the south would experience a nightmare:
First, they would have to ride CalTrain to the mass transit
center, then walk down, across, and up to switch platforms,
purchase a BART ticket, wait 4.5 to 20 minutes for a BART train,
ride BART for 1.5 miles to a station five floors below the garage,
walk two blocks and up five floors to catch the Airport's Light
Rail System, and finally, arrive at their place of employment.
As a comparison, under the MTC/BART/SamTrans approved plan, the
same CalTrain patron would get off at the mass transit station,
go up one floor to the Airport Light Rail platform, wait a
maximum of three minutes (average wait is 90 seconds) for the
free Airport shuttle, and ride directly to his place of
employment.
11. Could passengers check their baggage at the approved BART station?
Yes. The design of the Airport Light Rail System will provide the
capability of adding a remote baggage check-in station.
<--- end of briefing paper --->
I make no secret about it, I strongly oppose Senator Kopp's proposal.
If you do too, I suggest that you 1) call or write his office, and/or
2) write letters to the editors of newspapers (especially in his
district: San Mateo to San Francisco), and/or 3) spread the word,
and/or 4) don't sign his petition (he needs almost 10,000 signatures
to qualify his dumb plan for the ballot), and/or 5) call him on his
talk show on KGO AM 810 on most Sunday nights between 7 and 10 pm,
and/or 6) spread the word to others.
Senator Quentin Kopp's distict office is at:
363 El Camino Real, #205
South San Francisco, CA 94080
(415) 952-5666
--
Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx