Comments on: BART to San Jose (Volume 3): Wicked, Tricksy, False

By: Gearing Up for Livermore and Altamont (Part 1) « Transbay Blog

Gearing Up for Livermore and Altamont (Part 1) « Transbay Blog — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:54:49 +0000

[...] projections are, per usual, high. On an average per-station basis, they resemble San Jose’s overstated figures, although Livermore’s projections are for the year 2035. The cost estimates (also [...]

By: The March to Berryessa « Transbay Blog

The March to Berryessa « Transbay Blog — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:38:38 +0000

[...] Clara Street. The Berryessa site is currently home to the San Jose Flea Market; it is hemmed in by low-density, auto-oriented residential development, and it features no major transit connection point. It is, [...]

By: Oakland transit totally screwed, as usual « FutureOakland

Oakland transit totally screwed, as usual « FutureOakland — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:12:22 +0000

[...] and the region will be on the hook for billions of dollars for a BART expansion justified by ridership projections so fantastic as to constitute lying. Combined with Governor Schwarzenegger’s push to build capital improvements while further cutting [...]

By: November 2008 Election: No, No, No on Measures B, C, and D (Santa Clara County) « Transbay Blog

Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:08:30 +0000

[...] should be carefully considered: building BART will attract new riders (though not nearly as many as projected), but cutting VTA service will mean losing current riders; it is no coincidence that that transit [...]

By: BART to Silicon Valley | San Jose Metblogs

BART to Silicon Valley | San Jose Metblogs — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:01:21 +0000

[...] to read: Transbay Blog (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4), BayRail Alliance, and VTA. Related posts:To BART or not to BARTDowntown Light Rail [...]

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:05:18 +0000

Yes, Clarence, it’s true that the light rail transfer to the Golden Triangle is a primary factor driving the high ridership projection for the Montague stop. We’ll recall that BART also had a similarly high projection for Millbrae, for a similar reason. There, Millbrae ridership was largely undercut by Caltrain Baby Bullet service, which wouldn’t pose a problem here. So Montague might indeed fare better (esp. if that full TOD plan were built out), but I think we’re right to question the optimism of the models.

Alexandra, yes the Montague stop in Milpitas would likely have more riders than Berryessa because of its close connection to the Golden Triangle that Clarence mentioned.

PG: after the initial model I referred to, with skyscrapers all over downtown, the model was adjusted, so that by 2030 even higher ridership was achieved, but with more growth spread to other stations, and not just downtown.

By: Alexandra V.

Alexandra V. — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:36:57 +0000

Great post. I hope people are paying attention to this!!!

The Milpitas station certainly seems more plausible than Berryessa! ;p

By: PG

PG — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 21:49:43 +0000

Where exactly in SJ are these skyscrapers supposed to go? Not in downtown. The airport sees to that. Unless a 250 foot building is now considered a skyscraper.

By: Clarence

Clarence — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:46:43 +0000

The main rationale behind the higher ridership numbers for Montague/Capitol is the light rail connection — Montague/Capitol lies just outside of the Golden Triangle. The tract office parks begin right after the 880 overpass, which is a long walk away or a short light rail ride away. (Cisco’s campus is essentially at Tasman and Zanker, a couple stops away from the Great Mall. The campus is a 4 million square foot class-a office campus.)

The BART planners are probably much too optimistic in their time/ridership model in their prediction for ridership, but it’s not entirely ridiculous to compare it with the downtown San Francisco stations. Essentially, that station serves as the gateway to Silicon Valley’s largest employment area.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:27:12 +0000

The numbers cited are in the very forms released in public documents: BART counts are as reported exits, and VTA’s numbers are reported as boardings. Those are the numbers that have been made available. The VTA numbers cited in this post do not represent two-way station volumes, i.e. both entries and exits, since obviously those counts would be higher and incongruent with BART’s ridership reports.

The density numbers here suggest that in terms of land use intensity adjacent to stations, VTA’s ridership projections are out-of-step with how BART ridership matches land use at currently existing stations. VTA has not yet demonstrated why BART stations in Santa Clara County should prove to be so much more successful, relatively speaking, than the stations in the rest of the system.