Do You Know The Way To San Jose, BART?

[bennyp81]

Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 May 9th 11:35 PM

Oakland Tribune: Wednesday, April 23, 2003

Question mark over extension of transit system

By Sean R. Cabibi
Staff Writer

Talks of possible fare hikes and pulling funds away from BART's San Jose extension, along with rumors of an extension to San Joaquin County have some locals wondering if the transit system will ever find the way to San Jose.

"There has been a huge commitment by the people to get the extension (to San Jose)," Fremont resident Mike Fowler said. "Officials need to
deliver this project. They owe it to everyone in this region."

County funding
The $3.7 billion, 21-mile extension to San Jose is being funded mostly by Santa Clara County, Alameda County and the state, to the tune of $3 billion.

The balance is expected to come from the federal government.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority officials, however, are considering moving away from building expensive new projects in favor
of restoring local transportation services being eliminated because of the current budget crisis.

One way to do that, Santa Clara Supervisor Don Gage said, is to use money from Santa Clara County's Measure A -- a 30-year, half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements approved in November 2000 -- to restore trolley and bus services that were cut on April 14.

Measure A was passed on a platform that included funding the BART extension.

"For us to go forward with new projects and still cut service doesn't make sense to me," Gage said.

The transportation authority faces annual shortages of $160 million and is expected to run out of money in two years, officials said.

Delay of two years
How long that might delay the BART extension is unclear. The project--which officials hoped would be completed by 2012 -- already is expected to be delayed at least two years due to the economy, transportation authority officials said.

"I realize this (economic) downturn is huge and there are serious issues locally (in San Jose), but if extension money is pulled for local buses, I'll personally feel cheated," Fowler said.

It remains unclear if the language in Measure A even allows money to be used to restore services like buses and trolleys, said Suzanne Gifford, general counsel for the transportation authority.

If Measure A funds cannot be used, the matter would have to be taken to the voters, she said.

"I think people can still get where they need to go (on the bus in San Jose), even with the cuts," said Donny Kendell, a Fremont resident who works in San Jose. "We still can't get to San Jose. I
just think (the extension) is a priority."

Fremont resident Denice Van Zant, who also works in San Jose, believes the extension is a priority,
but admits she's biased because she doesn't live in San Jose.

"It's a shame this wasn't done earlier when times were better," she said. "I think we have to accept
that it's going to be a long time before we see anything."

Layoff proposal
Adding to the debate was a proposal by BART managers last week to eliminate 126 jobs -- which would result in layoffs for about 28 people -- and
raise fares 10 percent.

BART's board of directors will consider the proposal in May when they adopt a spending plan for the coming year.

BART's deficit could reach $27 million by 2005 and more than $409 million over the next decade, said Robert Umbreit, budget analyst for BART.

"They just raised fares," said Fremont resident Mark Schoenstein, who works in San Jose. "Now they want to do it again while eliminating any
chance of a BART extension in my lifetime."

It's appalling that officials would suggest a fare hike and defunding of the extension within days of each other, Schoenstein said.

He says BART has managed its money poorly and is taking it out on riders.

He criticized BART for spending more than $479.4 million to renovate 439 cars from 1998 to 2002, saying that paying an average of more than $1 million to renovate a BART car is too much.

"If they were more aware, we may not be in this situation," he said.

BART officials defend the renovation costs, saying the cars were stripped to their frames and completely rebuilt at half the cost of a new car.

"They are basically brand new," BART spokesman Mike Healy said. "It's at least twice that much to purchase a new car."

The Washington D.C. Metro, which operates a sim-ilar system, spent $2 million to buy new cars,
officials said. BART and the D.C. Metro both have cars built by Rohr Industries, metro officials said.

San Joaquin County
Recent rumors of an extension to San Joaquin County also have raised some concerns about prior-ities, but BART officials say it's a nonissue.

"(A San Joaquin extension) and a San Jose exten-sion have nothing to do with each other," Healy said. "If there were ever to be an extension fur-ther east, San Joaquin County would have to pay for it and it would have no affect on funds or resources to San Jose."

The rumor surfaced after BART planners met with Tracy City Manager Fred Diaz in March to discuss the possibility, Healy said.

"I'm not sure if (San Joaquin) county would be willing to pay for it, so I'm not even sure this will ever happen. At least not anytime soon."

Þ-®-Þ-®-Þ

Bart Reed
User ID: 1523284 Aug 15th 3:14 PM

San Jose Mercury News: Friday, August 08, 2003

BART to S.J. plan gets OK
By Gary Richards
Staff Writer

The Valley Transportation Authority on Thursday night approved a controversial $550 million plan to extend BART to San Jose and possibly keep buses
and trains running during the agency's current
financial crisis.

By a 7-5 vote over objections of the county supervisors and numerous transit advocates, the VTA endorsed issuing bonds and tapping into the
transportation sales tax that takes effect in three years.

The strategy will allow the agency to begin preliminary engineering studies for BART and, if the courts give the go-ahead, avoid deep cuts in transit service that are scheduled for January.

The split vote is the most significant in the agency's eight-year history, for it sets a course of action that keeps BART on track at the risk of
eating up money that may be needed for existing transit service.

At best, the vote is a delaying action. Even with a fresh infusion of cash, huge bus and trolley operating deficits will occur within two years unless a new source of revenue is found.

The VTA estimates it needs an additional $100 million annually to sustain service at existing levels.

To make things worse, a county analysis indicates that future sales tax revenue will be nearly $2 billion less over the 30-year life of the tax than
the VTA projected three years ago, unless the economy takes a sudden upward swing.

The vote was a victory for San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales and BART proponents. They say advancing cash is necessary to meet the expectations of voters, who approved what is known as the BART
tax three years ago by a 71 percent majority, and enabled the VTA to qualify for hundreds of millions of dollars in possible federal aid for the extension from Fremont to downtown San Jose.

``Let's stay the course,'' Gonzales said. ``Let's stay united through these difficult times, and we'll come out with a long-term vision of a
transportation system approved by voters.''

Gonzales was joined in supporting the motion by San Jose City Council members Cindy Chavez, David Cortese, Pat Dando and Forrest Williams along with
Manny Valerio of Sunnyvale and Jane Kennedy of Campbell.

Opposing the vote were Dena Mossar of Palo Alto, John McLemore of Santa Clara, Tom Springer of Gilroy and supervisors Blanca Alvarado and Don Gage.

But what rankles others is the decision to forge ahead on the expensive, $4 billion BART project when funds are also needed to sustain the number of buses and trains now crisscrossing valley roads
each day.

``This approach threatens to decimate the bus and light-rail systems desperately needed by county residents,'' Alvarado said Tuesday when the
supervisors approved a resolution asking the VTA to restrict its use of tax funds to prevent further reductions in transit service.

``If we're wrong with the risk that we are taking,'' Gage said Thursday, ``we will shut down this agency with no means of getting money to keep this thing going.

``You can have all the BARTs you want in the world, but we are not going to solve this problem in this way in this economy. We are only going to
make it worse.''

The supervisors have no direct say in how the VTA allocates its funds. However, their resolution does apply political pressure on the transit
district to maintain focus on existing passengers.

County voters can expect a sales tax proposal on the ballot in November 2004 to rescue transit, but the measure may be a tough sell if it is
entirely earmarked for sustaining service and not building new projects.

But Gage and Supervisor Jim Beall are recommending a different approach. Instead of seeking to increase the sales tax, they want to ask voters to
extend the 2000 Measure A by 10 to 15 years. Its
current life is 30 years.

The bond plan earmarks more than $310 million for BART and other new projects, while an additional $80 million would be spent on operational
expenses for buses and trains.

Bonds would also cover the $65 million cost for low-floor light-rail cars and the $92.5 million in interest on the bonds and other bond-related costs.

But before the VTA gets money to defray current operational expenses, a court will have to rule on whether a tax passed to pay for construction
projects years down the road can be used to keep buses and trolleys running on the street now.

The VTA's attorney has ruled that diverting the $80 million to cover existing transit operations is not legal according to language in the ballot measure.

The VTA could go to Santa Clara County Superior Court as early as today for a ruling, which it hopes will be made within three months.
_____________________

VTA Board Approves Bond Issuance Secured by 2000
Measure A Sales Tax

Release Number: NR08-09
Release Date: August 8, 2003

(San Jose, Calif.) At its August 7, 2003 meeting, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors authorized the issuing of
bonds secured by and payable from the 2000 Measure A sales tax.

Up to $550 million in funding would be available through the approved Auction Rates Security (ARS) program. The VTA Board action also authorizes staff to file a validation action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court with respect to the use of some 2000 Measure A bond funds to support existing bus and light rail service.

Ballot language in the Measure specified funding for new projects and increased services. If the court validation is successful, a portion of these funds could be used to defer for two years a sign-
ificant reduction in current bus and light rail service poised for January 2004 implementation.

The VTA FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05 Adopted Budget assumes the issuance of $147 million to reimburse the organization for the previously approved procurements of low-floor light rail vehicles and right of way for the BART Extension to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara included in 2000 Measure A.

The $550 million total ARS program includes net capitalized interest expense, cost of issuance and potential debt service ($92 million).

The program also provides the flexibility to issue a series of bonds for other projects over time as determined by the VTA Board of Directors.

The 2000 Measure A package of transit improvements was approved by Santa Clara County voters by a 70.3% majority.

Voter approval authorized a 30-year, ½-cent sales tax to begin in 2006. Projects identified in 2000
Measure A are: extend BART from Fremont to Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara; provide rail connections from Norman Y. Mineta San Jose
International Airport to BART, Caltrain, and VTA Light Rail; extend light rail from Downtown San Jose to East Valley; purchase low-floor light rail
vehicles and zero-emissions buses; improve Caltrain (double track to Gilroy, electrify from Palo Alto to Gilroy, and purchase train sets) and connect Caltrain with Dumbarton Rail Corridor; construct a new Palo Alto Intermodal Transit
Center; improve bus service in major bus corridors; upgrade Altamont Commuter Express (ACE); improve Highway 17 Express Bus service; develop new rail corridors; and fund operating and maintenance costs through approximately 2014 for increased bus, rail, and paratransit service.

VTAs ratings on outstanding bonds are AA (Fitch), Aa3 (Moodys), and AA (Standard & Poors).

Þ-®-Þ-®-Þ

[bennyp81]

Ken T.
User ID: 0178794 May 10th 1:21 PM

San Jose Mercury News

BART-to-S.J. advantages in doubt

NEW FORECASTS SHOW $4.1 BILLION PROJECT WOULD HAVE MINIMAL EFFECT ON COMMUTE

By Barry Witt

Silicon Valley politicians and business leaders sold voters on a BART extension to Santa Clara County four years ago by claiming it would be a panacea for traffic congestion.

But new ridership projections from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority suggest BART's impact on the commute would be small -- so small that most people would hardly notice a difference in their daily travels.

In 2025, according to the agency's data, two of three seats on weekday trains would be empty. Traffic on interstates 680 and 880 would remain jammed. And a trip from southern Alameda County to most of Silicon Valley would remain much faster by car than by mass transit.

All told, the benefits from a Bay Area Rapid Transit extension would be so limited -- and its $4.1 billion cost so high -- that it would earn the lowest of five cost-effectiveness ratings the federal government assigns to transit projects seeking funding.

The findings raise fresh questions about whether Silicon Valley ought to scale back or abandon its BART plans, which already are proving costlier than it may be able to afford.

"It really is time to re-examine what we're trying to accomplish,'' said David Casas, a Los Altos city councilman who recently joined the VTA board and is part of a minority bloc searching for cheaper alternatives. As it is, the downturn in sales tax revenue has left the valley agency without enough to pay for building and operating the extension, and supporters are considering asking for a second BART tax.

"If you weigh the options, a question needs to be raised: Is this still a viable investment, given other priorities that would affect a much broader part of our community?'' Casas said.

But San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales, the extension's most important supporter, said BART remains the best transportation investment Silicon Valley can make.

"Most people in the Bay Area understand that BART brings people out of their cars and off the freeways. I don't see why it will be any different in the South Bay,'' said Gonzales, who appoints five of the VTA board's 12 members.

Before detailed study

Gonzales shepherded the November 2000 campaign to pass a half-cent sales tax for transit. BART was the most heavily promoted of several transit projects included in the Measure A tax plan; in campaign mailers, proponents said the extension would mean "78,000 fewer car trips on our roads every day -- the equivalent of adding three new freeway lanes.'' The measure passed with 71 percent of the vote.

But the campaign pitch was made before transportation planners attempted the detailed analysis needed to apply for federal mass transit funding. Washington is being asked to pay 20 percent of the project's cost.

The transit agency published such a study this spring as part of an environmental assessment and now predicts the benefits will be far smaller than advertised. The Mercury News examined additional unpublished material and conducted its own analysis.

The study -- which uses 2025 for its forecast -- shows that 47 percent of trips on the BART extension would involve new transit commuters. The rest of the riders would be shifting from existing bus or rail service.

As recently as November 2001, the agency had pegged new transit trips at nearly 70 percent of the total.

Two-thirds of the predicted 83,585 daily trips on the extension would straddle the Santa Clara County line. Even so, traffic reduction at the Fremont/Milpitas border would be ``equivalent to slightly more than one-half of the capacity provided by a freeway lane,'' the new study says. Twelve freeway lanes and several surface streets now cross the border.

Nullifying factors

There are many reasons for the limited benefit.

• The rail line would run through downtown San Jose, where growth is restricted by height limits imposed by the San Jose airport's flight paths and by the low-density neighborhoods on its borders. No matter how hard San Jose tries, it will never have a downtown as tightly packed as San Francisco's.

• Riders headed for Silicon Valley's largest employment zone -- North San Jose's Golden Triangle area bounded by highways 101 and 237 and I-880 -- would face one or more transfers, an ordeal that may curb BART's appeal.

• Parking at most job sites, including in downtown San Jose, is plentiful; transit demand increases when commuters can't find parking or have to pay extreme prices to do so.

• And while the BART alternative is reasonably direct for residents on the Interstate 880 corridor, it doesn't work as well for people who live along Interstate 680. Riders from Pleasanton would first have to travel north before transferring in San Leandro to head south or they'd need to take a bus to Warm Springs and transfer. The Altamont Commuter Express train uses more direct rail lines.

For commuters who live and work very close to the BART line, there's no question the system would save time. The VTA estimates a 43-minute trip from a home within a block of the Union City BART station to an office at First and Santa Clara streets in San Jose, compared with 53 minutes by car or 67 minutes on existing transit.

Getting to BART

But in the sprawling South Bay, most people don't live or work near the BART route.

A commute from Newark Boulevard and Thornton Avenue in Newark to Great America Parkway and Tasman Boulevard in Santa Clara, for instance, would remain faster by car.

The transit trip -- requiring a bus to get to BART in Fremont and a transfer to light rail in Milpitas -- would take 58 minutes in 2025; an auto trip would take 45 minutes.

The BART extension also provides scant payoff for those who remain in their cars.

During the busiest hour of the morning commute, southbound traffic through the Fremont-Milpitas corridor -- the main choke point the extension is supposed to relieve -- would decrease by 753 vehicles. That's 3.9 percent of the total traffic volume.

And while BART's proponents say the extension would save commuters 66,911 hours daily, the numbers are less impressive when considered from the standpoint of an individual commuter.

The Newark-to-Santa Clara car commute, for example, would grow only to 47 minutes if BART weren't built. That means the billions spent to reduce traffic would save just two minutes, a result typical of all routes examined in the study. The average savings is one minute, and the highest is four minutes -- on two-hour commutes from Tracy.

BART riders should have plenty of room to stretch their legs.

Along the busiest part of the BART line -- the Transbay Tube -- each 67-seat car is standing-room-only at rush hour. But as the trains roll into Santa Clara County, one of every three seats would be empty during the busiest part of the morning commute. Over the course of the day, an average of 22.8 people would fill each car.

Supporting the plan

VTA officials say that although the numbers aren't as favorable as once thought, the extension remains a wise investment and that ridership will continue to grow. They say the extra room on BART cars headed into the county is caused by a system in which train lengths are determined by heavier demand elsewhere and can't be changed en route.

"If you look at the station areas, there are tremendous opportunities for redevelopment,'' said Ann Jamison, VTA's project manager for the BART extension, predicting ridership growth beyond 2025. "As congestion worsens, people are more willing to take transit and live in a more dense environment. If you try to make the investment in transit after that's all built, the costs go right through the roof.''

Jamison said the main reason automobile trips along the BART corridor probably won't change much after BART pulls some people from their cars is that other drivers will fill in behind them.

"People learn the commute is not that bad, so they come back on the roadway,'' she said. "You don't get a one-for-one ratio of vehicles taken off the road for each person getting on BART.''

Carl Guardino, president of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group and a leading BART proponent, found the ridership projections to be encouraging.

"Nearly 84,000 trips a day placed onto BART with nearly half of them getting out of their cars is phenomenal ridership,'' Guardino said. "This is going to make a lot of people's lives a lot better.''

Job questions

Whether the extension would perform to even the lowered projections remains a question. The agency's model used job-growth data produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments in 2000, before Santa Clara County lost more than 200,000 jobs and the total fell below 900,000. County job totals would have to grow by more than 60 percent -- to 1.4 million -- to hit the projections. And even the government association's analysts say that figure no longer is likely. Economy.com predicts the county will have just fewer than 1.1 million jobs by 2025.

"The job numbers for Santa Clara County and the Bay Area are likely to come down, because if you look at the numbers we published, it was before you really saw the Bay Area get in the job crater that we're in now,'' said Paul Fassinger, the association's research director.

VTA staff members say they remain satisfied with the projections, which are used by regional, state and federal agencies.

"I don't have a better crystal ball than they do, and I don't know who does,'' Jamison said.

Critics say the project doesn't make sense even if the numbers are right, and argue that the transit agency's board should change course. Measure A lists BART and several other transit projects as being eligible for the sales tax money but does not require that any particular project be built.

"VTA doesn't have a good record of coming up with accurate estimates of riders on their rail lines, and for that matter, neither does BART,'' said Mountain View Councilman Greg Perry, who fears BART will eat up available transit funds and leave nothing for projects that serve other parts of the county. "It's a lot of money to get 750 cars off the road. For $4 billion, you could find a company with 1,000 employees and bribe them to move to Fremont.''

Mike Olivier
User ID: 8750183 May 15th 8:27 AM

Why isn't a commuter line between SFO and San Jose being considered. It'll be considerably more cost effective.

Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 2609274 May 15th 12:23 PM

Mike: They already have Caltrain for that.

Jerard
User ID: 0283314 May 30th 6:10 PM

Speaking of CalTrain...from the CalTrain Website.

Caltrain to Roll Out Baby Bullet, Weekend Service in June
Caltrain will introduce its much-anticipated Baby Bullet express service in June and celebrate the end of weekend track construction with free rides on two weekends.

Caltrain's new schedule (PDF, 91 KB), which is effective June 5, will offer the highest level of service in the railroad's 141-year history. Passengers can chose from 86 weekday trains, including 10 Baby Bullets, and hourly frequency both Saturdays and Sundays.

Weekend train service will return Saturday, June 5, for the first time since it was suspended in July 2002 to allow a $110 million construction project to go forward.

To thank passengers for their patience and to attract new riders, Caltrain service will be free the first two weekends - June 5 and 6, and June 12 and 13. Regular fares will be in effect on the following weekend, as well as for all weekday trains, including the Baby Bullets.

That premier commute-hour service will make its debut Monday, June 7, with five morning trains and five in the evening commute hour, serving six Baby Bullet stations: San Francisco, Millbrae, Hillsdale, Palo Alto, Mountain View and San Jose Diridon.

Two southbound morning trains and two northbound evening trains will stop at the 22nd Street station in San Francisco, part of Caltrain's accommodation for the growing "reverse commute" market.

The entire Caltrain schedule has been revamped to provide streamlined limited-stop and local weekday service, with half-hourly midday service available at most stations.

While time waits for no one, the new Caltrain schedule gives commuters a chance to make some back. For example, from the San Francisco to the San Jose terminals, travel time will be cut from an hour and 36 minutes on a local train to just 57 minutes on a Baby Bullet train.

The trip from San Francisco to Palo Alto will take just 37 minutes instead of 62 on a local train.

Although the Baby Bullet stops at just seven of Caltrain's 34 stations, Caltrain revamped its entire schedule to provide a more efficient and timely mix of local, limited-stop and express train services during the week.

Baby Bullet trains will operate no faster than the current top speed of 79 miles per hour on Caltrain, and will save time by making fewer stops.

Upgrades during the two-year CTX construction project have raised the maximum operating speed on more areas of the Caltrain line to 79 miles an hour, and new passing tracks in Brisbane and Sunnyvale will allow the Bullets to overtake local trains.

Track upgrades, together with a modernized signaling and switching system, will enable higher reliability for Caltrain passengers, as trains can cross from one track to another and travel in either direction on either track.

Caltrain is working hard to impress on passengers and the general public that trains will be faster, quieter and more frequent and that it's imperative that people use caution around railroad tracks and trains. Passengers should stand well back from the edge of the platform, and people should only cross tracks when it is safe and legal to do so.

Weekend passengers will also benefit from hourly service to nearly all Caltrain stations between San Francisco's Fourth and King streets station and the San Jose Diridon station during most of the day on Saturdays and Sundays. A weekend shuttle bus will make the link between the Tamien station in San Jose and Caltrain's Diridon station.

Caltrain will welcome riders back with a festival at the San Francisco station from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the first day of service, June 5.

Before the weekend construction shutdown in 2002, Caltrain had operated hourly service on Saturdays and service every two hours on Sundays. The new schedule offers 50 percent more service to Sunday riders.

Baby Bullet Equipment

To operate the new Baby Bullet express service Caltrain purchased 17 bi-level passenger cars and six sleek locomotives at a cost of $53 million, which have been in use for well over a year.

Time savings were a consideration in selecting even the style of trains purchased. Low floors and lots of doors will expedite passenger boarding and help speed the trains along the Peninsula, further reducing travel time.

The cars can comfortably accommodate 130 to 142 passengers, and Caltrain permits 16 bicycles per Baby Bullet train. There is also one fully accessible restroom per car.

Physical Upgrades The improved service and stations for Caltrain passengers and quieter trains for residents along the corridor would not have been possible without two years of construction to upgrade the rail system. While it was inconvenient for passengers, residents and neighboring businesses, the CTX construction project provided bypass tracks, station upgrades and the signal system infrastructure that is making Caltrain service even safer and more reliable.

In 2000, State Senator Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco/San Mateo), who had been looking for a project that could provide early congestion relief, secured funding through the state's Traffic Congestion Relief Program for the construction and rolling stock.

To complete preparation for the Baby Bullet express service, the Bayshore and Lawrence stations in Brisbane and Sunnyvale, respectively, were also upgraded and made fully accessible, with enhanced lighting, visual messaging systems and other amenities.

At the Bayshore station, a new 100-ton steel-and-glass overpass equipped with stairs, as well as elevators, allows patrons to cross safely over four sets of tracks.

The Lawrence station now has a wide, lighted tunnel to traverse the station.

Access for shuttle buses and "kiss-and-ride" drop-offs is also more convenient at the Lawrence station.

For more information please call 1.800.660.4287.

Daniel
User ID: 9189423 Jul 29th 3:21 PM

BAY AREA - State Budget enables BART's southward expansion

Michael Cabanatuan, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer, Thursday, July 29, 2004

Plans to extend BART south from its Fremont terminus, stalled by the economy and the state's financial crisis, will lurch forward with passage of the state budget.

BART will receive $25 million for the Warm Springs extension while the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, which is building the San Jose extension, will get $17 million.

Both allocations were promised last year as part of a traffic relief program funded by state gasoline taxes and approved by voters in 2002. But transportation officials halted all spending from that fund when the state's budget crisis worsened.

The budget, if approved, would restore already-approved allocations. It would also set aside $290 million for new allocations to projects already in the congestion relief program.

But that new money is not a sure thing. It would come from $1.2 billion in bonds that would be paid off using revenue from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Indian gaming deal, which could be invalidated by a pair of propositions on the November ballot.

Still, Bay Area transportation officials considered the tentative budget deal good news.

"It's a relief,'' said BART spokesman Linton Johnson. "We still need a lot more money, but it feels like we're making progress.''

Anne-Catherine Vinickas, transportation authority spokeswoman, said the $17 million would help pay for environmental and preliminary engineering work.

BART plans to extend its Fremont line south 5.4 miles to the Warm Springs district sometime between 2007 and 2010. The $633 million project is fully funded in theory but in reality is tens of millions short because of funding uncertainties.

The 16.3-mile extension through San Jose to Santa Clara, estimated to cost $4 billion, still needs about $800 million in federal money. Transportation authority officials say the project can be built by 2014.

E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at [e-mail].

[joequality]

So Measure B.... I know it was extremely close to 2/3s majority. if it does officially fail, what funding options does BART have? It seems this would be a logical extension since I assume CAHSR would run through the Diridon station.

[Justin Walker]

Nov 6, 2008 11:05:40 GMT -8 joequality said:

It seems this would be a logical extension since I assume CAHSR would run through the Diridon station.

It will.