So as to be able to quantitatively compare various systems, this analysis assigns a numerical value for each criterion/system combination. The point values assigned are:

$6.9B for 4 BART stations or $1.5B for 100 stations?

The $6900M (million) price tag of a BART tunnel under San Jose (BART Burrow) costs so much that other transportation options promised to be funded by voter-approved taxes have been short-changed. The projected 55,000 passengers/day demand in 2045 is too low to justify a 55,000 passengers/hour technology. And the construction schedule ensures that global climate disruption will overwhelm us before trains start running. In short, the risk is too high and the return on investment (ROI) is too low to justify BART technology for this link.

Instead, please consider another technology to connect the BART Berryessa station with the Caltrain stations. Consider Automated Transit Network (ATN) at $15M/mile which includes elevated guideway, off-line stations, cabs, and computer control. A one-for-one replacement by ATN for the 4-station, 12-mile round-trip BART Burrow would only cost $180M and still provide the needed capacity. A better option is to invest $1500M for a 100-station, 100-mile ATN that serves far more people with non-stop service between all stations.

In 2001, during the public comment period on a 16-mile BART extension, an ATN alternative was proposed. As shown in the diagram above and at http://sunnyhillsneighborhood.org/area.html#network, it outlined 91 miles of ATN guideway with 117 stations. That proposed network covers the Golden Triangle and downtown San Jose. Now, 15 years later, we can plan a network to match our current transit needs.

As shown below, quiet, non-stop 24/7 travel at 30+ mph between 100 networked stations would benefit our sprawling area far more than a 4-station BART corridor extension. The two options are compared using the Project Purpose list created by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).

Omitted from this VTA-generated list of purposes is any reference to ROI. Also missing is any reference to the present and growing danger of our global climate crisis, and the need to act quickly and boldly to avoid costly consequences. If Zero-Based Budgeting rather than political inertia were applied to this BART extension, would it survive another budget cycle?

In 2001, BART promoters rejected the concept of bridging the gap between an eastside BART station and Caltrain using ATN. They claimed that the need for a transfer “would result in longer travel times and inconveniences to the rider that would not be consistent with the project's purpose to 'maximize transit usage and ridership' nor would it facilitate regional connectivity.” Longer travel times and inconveniences are not a problem for San Francisco transit users who enjoy frequently scheduled and networked transit. ATN provides that frequent service. And a 100-station, 24/7 network would, in fact, “maximize transit usage and ridership” and “facilitate regional connectivity” far better than a 4-station BART corridor system.

Unlike “big box” transit like BART, ATN cabs are waiting for you 90% of the time - and available within 5 minutes the other 10%. This service level is accomplished with computer control, and by adding enough cabs and stations to satisfy demand. If congestion occurs, more infrastructure can be easily added because 1) ATN hardware costs are relatively low, and 2) routing and construction relatively easy.

Such scalability and flexibility of ATN dramatically reduces the risk of using the technology. In just 5 years we could be operating a starter network that connects BART to Caltrain. If we like that system, then we could grow the network as appropriate.

Rapidly accelerating global climate disruption requires major responses quickly. Waiting a decade or more to use 50-year old technology to serve a small fraction of our population is like responding to an oncoming train by freezing in its path. Reversing global warming requires new thinking and bold action. As one of the wealthiest, most technologically-advanced areas in the world, Silicon Valley can lead the effort to create transit that works for our sprawling suburban cities, promotes transportation equity, and reduces our high per-capita carbon emissions that result from our transportation infrastructure.