Billy Balkans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The poor location of the new station when the Cap
> Corridor switches lines kills commuter rail as the
> best option. As the map shows, Dumbarton commuter
> rail connecting to BART won't connect to Amtrak.
> But LRT will magically do both.
>
> It makes you wonder if the new Cap Corridor
> station location was picked to make sure LRT was
> the Dumbarton mode choice. A station at the wye
> would have served commuter rail best.
>
> If this were Europe, Dumbarton would be commuter
> rail extending over Altamont. Stations would be
> built at the best locations to interchange with
> the Cap Corridor and BART. But not in California.
> BART did their thing, Cap Corridor will do it's
> thing, and maybe Dumbarton LRT will weave a
> connection between them.

Stations can be moved more easily and cheaply than building or rebuilding lines. And, if the proper analysis is done, it would likely be able to determine the best connection/transfer point.

Where's the needs based planning? What are the competing travel demands and needs for the trips in this corridor (and the catchment areas beyond????)?

This study already seems deficient with regards to needs based planning principles, by laying out a limited set of mode and route choices seemingly pre-selected, without determining which might best meet actual travel needs, and traveler distribution patterns.

If this was Europe, the replacement Dumbarton tubes (the bridge needs to be replaced) would connect both commuter rail and HSR over Altamont, with direct commuter and HSR service to the north and SFO/SF, and south to Palo Alto/San Jose, "and" be looking at potential local transit needs that might be served by these other modes. In America we seem to only get a choice of "walk" or "chew gum".... Many places can still do both...