SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[Eightball]

why is there no north bay service on that expansion map? link up with smart?

[northbay]

Because Marin County doesn't want a train bringing in "undesirables"

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Eightball

why is there no north bay service on that expansion map? link up with smart?

I was told that it was because they would have had to tunnel too deeply to cross the Bay directly from the Embarcadero and that the route through Richmond and San Rafael was thought to be too out-of-the-way. I also read that although the Golden Gate Bridge was built to have a lower deck if necessary, they didn't go for that option for aesthetic reasons.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by northbay

Because Marin County doesn't want a train bringing in "undesirables"

[rawocd]

Honestly, I think BART's indian gauge was in its best interest. While the golden gate bridge idea was likely smart then, and irrelivant now, I still don't think the indian gauge is a bad thing.

It's easy to forget that despite the Broadway and Market St. Subways, BART looks and acts like commuter rail. While it might be the most european commuter rail in the US, its station spacing and far flung extensions mean its commuter rail. BART also has the only active rail crossing on the SF bay, and one of two active in the whole Bay Area(the other is the carquinez crossing for amtrak/UP.) This makes the transbay tube extremely valuable, and in most other commuter rail systems, at some point in its history, another agency would probably have tried to leverage it for its own uses. By running indian gauge, bart doesn't have to get into the Amtrak/NJ Transit/Metro North/LIRR fight for tunnel slots, because no one else will ever run anything that gauge for the tunnel.

Likewise, had BART been standard gauge I think we would have seen more attempts to reutilize old tracks. While that saves money, you end up with an inferior product with grade crossings, possibly hours of use restrictions ala NJ River Line, etc.

Support for BART has waned and waxed, and I'm convinced if it had been build as standard gauge commute rail, we would see others(Amtrak, UP) trying to get access to the only rail link into SF from across the bay. What the gauge increases in cost(and honestly, at this point it would be more expensive to change to standard or run a mixed fleet than continuing to build BART at indian) it more than makes up for in ensuring that BART is always run to the high standard of completely isolated, grade separated track.

Now, would it be great is SMART and BART linked up? Or if Caltrain and BART could share the tracks down the peninsula to make it easy to take the bayshore cutoff or the mission corridor into SF? Yes, and BART's technology choice makes those things impossible as it stands. But good connections and fare structures can cause things like that to become nonissues. Any NEW construction should be built to the BART tech.

[peanut gallery]

Originally Posted by northbay

Because Marin County doesn't want a train bringing in "undesirables"

For people interested in the actual history, here's the real reason BART never came to Marin.

Yes, a 1956 poll found 87.7 percent of Marin residents wanted BART in the county. BART leadership asked Marin to stay out because without San Mateo there wasn't enough tax base to justify the expense of running trains up north.

Similarly, people like to make the same disparaging claims about San Mateo's motivations for not joining BART, but my understanding is that their real concern was losing shoppers to SF. They were afraid of the trains taking people out of the county, not bringing others in.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by rawocd

BART looks and acts like commuter rail.

Even by this definition, it's the only commuter rail system in the US to use broad gauge.

By running indian gauge, bart doesn't have to get into the Amtrak/NJ Transit/Metro North/LIRR fight for tunnel slots, because no one else will ever run anything that gauge for the tunnel.

The only reason there's a fight is because the North River Tunnels are at the limits of capacity (and LIRR doesn't need to fight, since they only use the 4-track East River Tunnels).

On the other hand, you've just indicated the real problem here... it's not the BART gauge itself, but the fact that Bay Area rail systems are operated by so many different squabbling parties. New York obviously faces the same problem. That's really the thing I would change if I could go back in time, but it's not like San Franciscans can't change it in the present.

Likewise, had BART been standard gauge I think we would have seen more attempts to reutilize old tracks. While that saves money, you end up with an inferior product with grade crossings, possibly hours of use restrictions ala NJ River Line, etc.

I don't really see why this is a bad thing. The grade crossings issue exists separately from the track gauge issue... if BART wanted to avoid grade crossings, they could grade-separate existing corridors just as easily as constructing new viaducts. On the other hand, extensions out to low-density suburbs don't need grade separation. It's a waste of money. Arguably, the BART extension to San Jose doesn't even need it, but planners are forced into it by the decision to use BART technology.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

For people interested in the actual history, here's the real reason BART never came to Marin.

Yes, a 1956 poll found 87.7 percent of Marin residents wanted BART in the county. BART leadership asked Marin to stay out because without San Mateo there wasn't enough tax base to justify the expense of running trains up north.

Similarly, people like to make the same disparaging claims about San Mateo's motivations for not joining BART, but my understanding is that their real concern was losing shoppers to SF. They were afraid of the trains taking people out of the county, not bringing others in.

Interesting article, thanks for posting. I was just being facetious. I apologize PG if I was offensive with the negative stereotype. We laid-back "country bumpkins" up here in Sonoma can't help but poke some fun, speaking of which,

Funny pic fflint.

Back to BART, I had no idea that San Mateo's withdrawal forced Marin's hand. Very unfortunate the system didn't reach its potential. I wonder if the idea of a floating tunnel has been studied. Seems like this would be a good place for one.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by ardecila

On the other hand, extensions out to low-density suburbs don't need grade separation. It's a waste of money.

How many third-rail systems in America have miles and miles of at-grade intersections? I'm sure there must be some, probably legacy commuter rail in suburban New York and/or Chicago, but in any case that seems like a dicey proposition when planning an extension in the Bay Area in 2013.

Arguably, the BART extension to San Jose doesn't even need it, but planners are forced into it by the decision to use BART technology.

I very much disagree with you. BART to San Jose will run in a dense and very congested corridor, not unlike Caltrain on the other side of the Bay. Caltrain service is constantly being shut down, sometimes for hours and in both directions, because people just can't keep off the mostly at-grade tracks. BART's grade-separation from cars and pedestrians is literally *the* reason it is so reliable. And again, running third rail at grade through congested and built-up areas like the inner East Bay and South Bay seems like a recipe for service disruptions, deaths and lawsuits.

[Eightball]

Yes, the constant suicides on Caltrain are a huge hinderance. The ongoing removal of at grade crossings should help some. Also excited about electrification.

I think East Bay to SJ will be a hit - those interstates are insanely crowded.

[peanut gallery]

Originally Posted by northbay

Interesting article, thanks for posting. I was just being facetious. I apologize PG if I was offensive with the negative stereotype. We laid-back "country bumpkins" up here in Sonoma can't help but poke some fun, speaking of which,

Funny pic fflint.

Back to BART, I had no idea that San Mateo's withdrawal forced Marin's hand. Very unfortunate the system didn't reach its potential. I wonder if the idea of a floating tunnel has been studied. Seems like this would be a good place for one.

No worries, northbay. I should have prefaced my comment with a "ha ha" or something. It's a little depressing to realize what might have been. Not just for us North Bay folks, but imagine a BART subway running under most of Geary. That would have been huge for the Richmond, Western Addition, etc.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

No worries, northbay. I should have prefaced my comment with a "ha ha" or something. It's a little depressing to realize what might have been. Not just for us North Bay folks, but imagine a BART subway running under most of Geary. That would have been huge for the Richmond, Western Addition, etc.

It IS depressing! Couldn't agree more, and not just Geary, but 19th Ave and Van Ness also. All those streets are shown in that map. If Geary and 19th had BART, I think the Richmond District would look a lot different.

[MetroRailRoad]

I remember using the BART train when I was in San Francisco a few years ago,. I used the transbay tube multiple time to get to Berkley. I think considering the $4 toll on the Bay Bridge, I think it's worth it to pay the surcharge and take the BART to East Bay. It's European influence seems to work in the downtown San Francisco area. Easy transfer to the MUNI light Rail. Overall, the Bay Area has the best transit system out of all the cities I have been to.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by MetroRailRoad

I remember using the BART train when I was in San Francisco a few years ago,. I used the transbay tube multiple time to get to Berkley. I think considering the $4 toll on the Bay Bridge, I think it's worth it to pay the surcharge and take the BART to East Bay. It's European influence seems to work in the downtown San Francisco area. Easy transfer to the MUNI light Rail. Overall, the Bay Area has the best transit system out of all the cities I have been to.

The Bay Bridge toll is now up to $6 per car during busy times, a little less in off-hours. BART between San Francisco and the East Bay costs about the same (round trip), and is often faster than driving.

[northbay]

SMART cars:

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbi...ser=1491972949

SMART bridge:

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbi...ser=1491972949

[CityKid]

The 5L Fulton Pilot Project launched today. You can learn more about it at the TEP Pilot Project page.


Image courtesy of SFMTA

[TWAK]

The rail spur that SMART owns between 101/37 and American Canyon, what are the plans for it? I also been keeping an eye on the wine train in Napa, It's been recently worked on to upgrade the tracks for the wine tours. This line is the same rail spur that runs down and connects with the SMART section i mentioned above. I wonder if that is in any long term plans

[fflint]

An incredible analysis of job and population densities along the Caltrain corridor:



Chart and fascinating analysis courtesy of Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog

[Eightball]

^That is interesting, but Palo Alto is still standing strong with the second highest ridership (station wise).

Edit: I know he has been hammering the Transbay numbers for a while, but I agree that the South San Jose (large untapped residential market) and Silicon Valley (never skip any stops in Santa Clara county) portions were quite interesting.

[fflint]

Yes, Palo Alto is second in the system after the terminal in SF. The value of the charted data is in future planning--how many people and jobs can be served if we reconfigure and/or add stations and service.

Anyway, here's Caltrain's ten busiest stations by weekday riders, as of Jan/Feb of this year:

San Francisco - 10,786
Palo Alto - 5,469
Mountain View - 3,876
San Jose Diridon - 3,489
Millbrae - 3,255
Redwood City - 2,619
Hillsdale - 2,317
Sunnyvale - 2,274
San Mateo - 1,571
Menlo Park - 1,526