When designing a transit system or line, it is imperative to minimize travel time, to be competitive with the automobile. The main criteria for the selection of travel mode in the urban transportation market is travel time, not speed. A "faster" train that takes longer due to a detour route is actually less competitive. In a flat region without water barriers, the general principle must be that transit lines need to be fairly straight, not wiggly or with 90-degree turns. Such turns waste time and add distance.
90-degree turns increase trip length by as much as 41%. They can increase travel time by even more because the train must go slowly until its entire length has passed the sharp turn. Stations cannot be put on this turn because of the gap between train and platform. Furthermore, the rails and wheels wear out many times sooner on sharp turns.
Rail transit routes that cut across the arterial road grid network (optimally, at 45 degrees) supply an advantage in travel time compared to automobiles. The automobile trip could be 41% longer. The rail line can cut across the grid road network by either following historical railroads or, if it is elevated, by cutting across the huge parking lots in industrial and commercial areas.
Another design criterion for a transit system is to minimize unnecessary transfers. Each transfer discourages a certain percentage of transit patrons. This is the reason MTS believes that BART should continue at least to Great Mall, because most of the transit patrons would transfer at Great Mall. A study has shown that most riders would transfer to light rail and buses at Great Mall to go to the Golden Triangle. Others would transfer to the Capitol line to East Valley. The Warm-Springs to Great Mall BART would be by far the cheapest segment of any BART alternative because it avoids tunneling completely, and avoids elevating in most portions. It uses an existing rail route, with many bridges at road crossings already built for the railroad.
For those who object to BART, consider at least bringing it to Great Mall, a major transfer point, to eliminate one extra transfer for most transit patrons crossing the Alameda - Santa Clara County line.
Unfortunately, the existing design criterion for route selection is
political. It is “Go to my neighborhood”, with those strongest
politically being the winners. This ends up creating a zig-zag rail line. It does not optimize the efficiency of using
that transit line nor of the whole transit system for the majority of users. The zig-zag rail line forces most
transit patrons to make side trips into other peoples neighborhoods where they would rather not be --they'd rather be on their way to
their destination. By increasing travel time for most, it reduces transit patronage. This political process also
does not consider the additional operational costs of unnecessarily longer routes.
This political method needs to end now. Instead, non-political methods of efficiency and patronage need to be used.
Only a real Alternatives Analyses study would answer that.
If BART is to continue to downtown San Jose, the shortest, fastest, and cheapest route to downtown San Jose is most likely the elevated the blue scenario (see map) to City Hall. The route is over the UP freight tracks from Great Mall then over 5th Street --which is wider-- to City Hall, where the atrium is now. Only the atrium of the City Hall is on the 5th Street right-of-way. It can be relocated. This station would also serve SJSU and the planned Alum Rock light rail line. If an elevated station next to the City Hall is deemed undesirable, cut-and-cover, not deep tunneling, can be used for this station and to cross under adjacent Santa Clara Street.
A light rail line from Great Mall-BART station to the Capitol Caltrain station is also proposed. This line would be mostly on the purchased WP freight tracks, serving Berryesa, and connecting with the Capitol LRT and the Caltrain-Capitol station (see map). More people living in the Berryesa area would, in all likelihood, want to travel to the Golden Triangle area rather than to the East Bay. Such light rail on the WP line, instead of BART, would mean fewer transfers for most of these patrons, since this light rail line would continue using the existing tracks along Tasman Road.
Diesel-electric rail cars are
commonly used in Europe. This could be an interim rail
solution between BART-Warm Springs and Great Mall or Alum Rock. However, a trade-off
calculation should be made between temporarily upgrading this freight
line --the tracks need replacement in many portions-- compared with
using the money to extend BART. Another possibility is to construct the portions with replaced track
using "dual gauge track" so BART can use it in the future.
* There was a "Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor" Alternatives Analysis, a necessary procedure for obtaining federal funds, but this entire process was a pro-forma procedure by VTA with the conclusion already decided in advance. The rail alternatives "considered" were commuter rail along WP to Alum Rock Avenue (11.5 miles), the same but with light rail, commuter rail via Alviso from Union City BART to Diridon station (24.4 miles), and only one BART alternative, the one with massive tunneling through downtown San Jose. No other BART alternatives were considered, including terminating the route at Great Mall.