SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Gordo

I can see a Geary line done multiple different ways, some using BART and some not, however I'm not really following your statement here?

24th/Mission and Balboa Park are the 5th and 6th busiest stations in the system (after the four Market St stations), with Daly City usually 8th or 9th. They perhaps don't need the same level of service as the Market St stations, but I think it would be a mistake to remove service. Besides, any Geary extension would NOT merge into the current Market St tunnel. That would be an operational nightmare that would undoubtedly lower capacity through the tube.

Ridership by station can be found here: http://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership

I mean that it makes more sense for these stations to be on a branch than on the core segment. A Geary subway would not lower capacity through the tube if the Dublin/Pleasanton and Fremont trains currently ending at Daly City were redirected down Geary...

If Geary trains are not sent into the existing Transbay tube, then I would pair it up with another branch within SF rather than building a second tube. Is there really a pressing need for people to travel between the Richmond and the East Bay that couldn't be served with a well-designed transfer at Montgomery St or Civic Center?

[Gordo]

There's no reason that the design has to match the design/tech/trains of other BART lines. Different technologies are common with other agencies.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by fflint

The impossible is never more "appropriate" than the possible.

You, like Wizened Variations, are merely spouting one-size-fits-all theoreticals from afar. Tell me, just which magical transit entity will suddenly reveal itself and construct and operate this more "appropriate" theoretical metro?

There is zero chance Muni will build heavy rail metro on Geary. Zero. It cannot even build LRT or true BRT on the corridor. About 20 years ago the MTA proposed median-running LRT for the Geary corridor, and thanks to NIMBYs it went nowhere until about a decade later, when that plan was downgraded to median-running BRT. But this being San Francisco, a couple years ago the BRT plan was downgraded to only partially-separated BRT-lite to appease the same NIMBYs. And it will take years and years before they finally decide that can't be done, either. We're stuck with buses running in mixed traffic. That's Muni.

There is also zero chance Caltrain--which is a true commuter railroad--will build heavy rail metro on Geary. Caltrain doesn't have a dedicated source of revenue for its current operation, let alone for constructing and operating an underground metro under Geary.

Geary BART is by no means certain, and despite being the subject of recent conversation among planners, even likely at this time. But I'm not going to reject the possible simply because the impossible is deemed academically more "appropriate" by someone so distant in more ways than one.

As gordo suggested earlier, there's no reason that BART couldn't operate the new route as a separate line in the same BART system. Just because it wouldn't use the same rolling stock doesn't mean it can't be branded as BART. The London Underground, NY Subway, Paris Metro, and many other systems have lines with different characteristics encompassed within a common agency. Paris Metro even has both steel and rubber tyred services. Not sure why anything outside the current paradigm would be so quickly deemed "impossible". Impossible is a much more extreme condition that many seem to realise.

[Nouvellecosse]

Also, I'm not sure why you're writing off some of the suggestions we've made as being "theoretical". None of the things we've stated are relegated to mere theory; they're well documented characteristics of urban railway construction that have been observed and demonstrated over a century and a half of metro system construction world wide and labelling them as such casts unwarranted doubt on their feasibility.

That very long underground platforms are much more expensive to build than shorter ones or that two shorter trains can carry as many people as one twice as long is in no way theoretical.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I mean that it makes more sense for these stations to be on a branch than on the core segment. A Geary subway would not lower capacity through the tube if the Dublin/Pleasanton and Fremont trains currently ending at Daly City were redirected down Geary...

If Geary trains are not sent into the existing Transbay tube, then I would pair it up with another branch within SF rather than building a second tube. Is there really a pressing need for people to travel between the Richmond and the East Bay that couldn't be served with a well-designed transfer at Montgomery St or Civic Center?

I'm still not quite sure what you mean by "ending at Daly City were redirected down Geary" - A Geary line would intersect the Market St subway somewhere in the midst of the four stations there, or something along those lines. You couldn't really "redirect" without merging unless you had all now go down Geary or all continue to go through the Mission.

For your second paragraph, I definitely agree. If I were BART czar, I'd build a Geary line to a completely different design than current lines and only have transfers at Powell or Montgomery, and possibly again at Daly City depending on the design of the line (I'm partial to the idea of a "L" that connects downtown to Daly City via the Geary and 19th Ave corridors).

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by rawocd

Actually, the squealing is because BART trains don't have differentials on them. This causes the wheels to slip, hammering the track on turns, making the problem worse.

The new cars will have differentials, which will fix this, and presumably once the track is smoothed again, will drastically reduce the noise.

This question of 'differentials' may be due, in part to the earliest BART cards running directly via DC power. This later was changed to induction motors

****************

I wonder what the economics would be to strip a BART car to it's bare bones and upgrade to current standards. I wonder also whether the electronics in the new cars could not be backfilled into the older cars to make all electronic parts interchangeable?

(I think that BART should have required competing international passenger EMD cars to include updating the older cars with the same parts set as would exist in the new cars).

I am surprised that the bogies do (or did not have) "differentials" (perhaps as slips as the range of difference in lengths between half-shafts?) as inner and outer rail wheel flanges have different radii when passing through a turn. This is particularly true when power is supplied to the wheels as power provides an acceleration vector in addition to the kinetic energy from the rail car. I know that freight cars have rigid axels but diesel electric and electric locomotives do not. From what I If this is the case for the older BART cars, I am surprised that the engineers did not catch that, as the original 2 axel bogies had one 140 electric motor per axel, likely as hub motor drives (can't find pictures of the original bogie).

There is an interesting publication that was put out by PG&E in 2007 about how to improve energy efficiencies.

http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/fi...ergyreport.pdf

[fflint]

Caltrain releases environmental report for electrification project



Caltrain is one step closer to modernizing its rail system on the Peninsula.

Today, the agency released the draft environmental impact report for the planned electrification of the 51-mile Caltrain stretch between San Francisco and San Jose, including the design of roughly 35 percent of the project.

By 2019, Caltrain will run on an overhead electrification system as part of its modernization program...

The electrification of Caltrain will improve trains’ performance, reduce pollution and allow for a projected increase in ridership in future years, according to the environmental impact report.

....The third component to the modernization effort is an advanced signal system, which the transit agency has begun installing and is slated to be complete by 2015.

Electrification includes implementing an overhead system to provide power to electric trains, as well as purchasing the vehicles, known as electric multiple units, said Marian Lee, executive officer of the Caltrain modernization program.

Poles will be needed to support the overhead wires that provide electricity to the trains, but it’s unclear whether poles will be mounted on either side of the two tracks, or in the center.

Two traction power facilities will be constructed along the Peninsula to provide electricity for the trains, likely in commercial areas along the tracks in South San Francisco and San Jose, according to Lee.

Electric trains will continue to run up to 79 mph, the current speed for Caltrain vehicles, according to the report.

Under the new electric system, six trains will run per hour in each direction during peak times, whereas the system can currently accommodate five trains per hour per direction.

“That’s critical for us because we are sort of exploding at the peak hours,” Lee said.
....

Caltrain releases draft report on rail electrification project

A draft report Caltrain expects to release today acknowledges that its long-planned rail electrification project will require installation of 30-foot-high poles with overhead wires and possible removal of more than 2,000 trees.

But the benefits of a modernized train system will outweigh any negatives, said Jayme Ackemann, a spokeswoman for the San Mateo County Transit District, which oversees and manages Caltrain.

"We believe that for the future of Caltrain, that electrification is the only path forward that's sustainable," Ackemann told The Daily News on Thursday.

A modern electrified rail system would enable Caltrain to add trains and increase ridership, which should result in fewer cars on the road and better air quality. Plus, she added, an electrified system would be cheaper to operate than one that runs on diesel fuel.

Ackemann said daily ridership is expected to climb from the current 55,000 to 69,000 the first year the system is electrified, hopefully in 2019.
....

[Perklol]

Originally Posted by fflint

Caltrain releases environmental report for electrification project




....

[fflint]

Study identifies design options for light-rail relocation along 19th Avenue


There are plans in the works to rework the Muni lines on 19th Avenue near San Francisco State, where the M-Ocean View stop can be crowded.

A proposal to relocate the Muni M-Ocean View light-rail line along 19th Avenue in southwest San Francisco has reached a planning milestone with the release of a feasibility study.

The project aims to reduce travel times along the avenue, also known as state Highway 1, by relocating the rail line from the median to the west side of the corridor through grade-separated crossings.

The draft final report for the 19th Avenue Transit Study, released Friday, identifies the San Francisco County Transportation Authority's "highest performing option," which would involve double subway tracks from south of St. Francis Circle to south of Buckingham Way, and a bridge from Font Boulevard to Randolph Street. Alternative options include a shorter subway and tunnel. Two years in the making, the study incorporated public-outreach findings from the fall.

Predating the feasibility study were a 2010 corridor study, where the idea for the west side realignment was born, as well as the Parkmerced Vision plan adopted in 2011, which called for 5,679 new housing units.

"Completing the feasibility study is the first milestone for this being a transit project instead of an idea coming out of a land-use plan," said project manager Liz Brisson.
....
"We'll be launching the next phase of work pretty seamlessly," Brisson said.
....
The 19th Avenue project is a "classic example" of what the grant was designed to fund, according to commission spokesman John Goodwin.

"You've got a high-density residential development with access to transit and that is really what the priority development area is all about," he said.
....
Following an aggressive schedule, the reformed Muni M-Ocean View line could operate as early as 2022. "But that would require us to move at a faster pace that has been typical of other projects of this scale," Brisson said. "It's ambitious, but potentially achievable."

[peanut gallery]

Interesting proposal. It would improve access from Parkmerced, and as the article suggests, enable the potential for running trains into the center of it.

I wonder if it's just not feasible to start the subway north of St. Francis Circle. That's such a mess of an intersection, it seems like avoiding that would help travel times as much as anything.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Interesting proposal. It would improve access from Parkmerced, and as the article suggests, enable the potential for running trains into the center of it.

I wonder if it's just not feasible to start the subway north of St. Francis Circle. That's such a mess of an intersection, it seems like avoiding that would help travel times as much as anything.

Interesting point, but the reasons why they aren't going underground nearer the western portal are the same reasons why they are further south, to make room for 5,000 more apartments (housing units being just a more hip way of saying the same thing). It's really not about saving transit time, nor about providing alternate transportation services because the muni train and tracks are already there in the center median of 19th Street.
This proposal is really about real estate developments, any talk about improving transit times is steering us away from the truth. Transit time might improve as a result some, but the real goal is to build more apartments so somebody can get rich on rents. More apartments should mean more people taking the Muni, and the Muni stops are already overcrowded in this area. By building a subway along this stretch of the highway, all those passengers waiting to take the Muni are now out of sight in what would more than likely be an overcrowded subway station. At least it would get waiting passengers away from heavy traffic at this specific station, but not anywhere else on the Muni system.

[Wizened Variations]

I took this from skyscrapercity due to it's importance. Japan|urban transport compilation 02/27/14, entry #6707.

(quashlo has given me, via his blog entries, an understanding of how Tokyo's commuter system has evolved since I lived there.)

Originally Posted by quashlo

For sure, BART has a lot it could improve upon... One thing the Japanese do really well that few other systems do is express / skip-stop service, making it possible to provide relatively high station density (good for making transit accessible to passengers) while minimizing travel time impacts. Given how spread out the BART network is (and will be, once more of the suburban extensions are built), hopefully they can start looking into this, coupled together with re-focusing expansion into the urban core of the system with infill stations and urban alignments.

BART actually has quite a few stations that are performing visibly poorer than their counterparts in terms of ridership, and with the relatively low train traffic densities, it should be quite easy to implement a rudimentary express service without any major infrastructure improvements like passing tracks, just some simple scheduling creativity and willpower.

Daily ridership at stations:



Potential candidates for skipped stations:

Richmond line:
Richmond
El Cerrito Plaza
North Berkeley
Ashby

Pittsburg / Bay Point line:
North Concord / Martinez
Lafayette
Orinda

Fremont line:
Lake Merritt
San Leandro
Bay Fair
South Hayward
Union City

Dublin / Pleasanton line:
Castro Valley
West Dublin / Pleasanton

San Francisco / SFO / Millbrae line:
West Oakland
Glen Park
Daly City
Colma
South San Francisco
San Bruno

I think his write up is brilliant.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

I took this from skyscrapercity due to it's importance. J
I think his write up is brilliant.

I don't. Why do people from New Zealand quote people from Japan about a transit system in San Francisco Bay area that they have never seen or ridden? From what I can reason, the guy from Japan recommends skipping stations because they had less than 10,000 daily riders, to provide express services. That's being exclusively a bean counter, there's no consideration at all about the politics why those stations were included into the system at all. It's entirely possible everyone getting on at those smaller ridership stations are heading for San Francisco, and everyone getting on at the higher ridership stations aren't, although I'll admit that probability is very small. But I strongly suggest some sort of ridership study should be finished discovering what the ridership history and patterns are for every station before committing to bypassing it for express services - something better than some bean point based on daily ridership boardings and a lightings.

In other words, how about studying the commuting patterns of the Bay Area before making recommendations on how to improve the service? Something that can't be found from afar after solely reading daily ridership data. The grand idea, providing express services, might be a grand idea, but try to provide some data supporting it first. Local administrators and politicians would certainly look at such recommendations more seriously if the proposals were more seriously based on facts.

Additionally, every change the administrators might suggest have to go through a public process, and I guarantee every rider and politician associated with any bypass station would certainly voice their disapproval; on the streets, in the media, and in their ballot boxes. Blood might flow in the streets over such radical changes - you better have the facts well documented to justify these proposed changes.

Skipping three stations is only going to save 90 seconds (30 seconds per station) over a train ride an hour long. Even 5 minutes savings, 10 stations skipped, isn't worth the political upheaval to establish express services.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by electricron

I don't. Why do people from New Zealand quote people from Japan about a transit system in San Francisco Bay area that they have never seen or ridden? From what I can reason, the guy from Japan recommends skipping stations because they had less than 10,000 daily riders, to provide express services. That's being exclusively a bean counter, there's no consideration at all about the politics why those stations were included into the system at all. It's entirely possible everyone getting on at those smaller ridership stations are heading for San Francisco, and everyone getting on at the higher ridership stations aren't, although I'll admit that probability is very small. But I strongly suggest some sort of ridership study should be finished discovering what the ridership history and patterns are for every station before committing to bypassing it for express services - something better than some bean point based on daily ridership boardings and a lightings.

In other words, how about studying the commuting patterns of the Bay Area before making recommendations on how to improve the service? Something that can't be found from afar after solely reading daily ridership data. The grand idea, providing express services, might be a grand idea, but try to provide some data supporting it first. Local administrators and politicians would certainly look at such recommendations more seriously if the proposals were more seriously based on facts.

Additionally, every change the administrators might suggest have to go through a public process, and I guarantee every rider and politician associated with any bypass station would certainly voice their disapproval; on the streets, in the media, and in their ballot boxes. Blood might flow in the streets over such radical changes - you better have the facts well documented to justify these proposed changes.

Skipping three stations is only going to save 90 seconds (30 seconds per station) over a train ride an hour long. Even 5 minutes savings, 10 stations skipped, isn't worth the political upheaval to establish express services.

The time saved is actually higher, because if one were to employ platform edge gates and/or walls, trains do not have to slow down to go through the station to be bypassed.

I suspect that from normal speed to stop to back to normal speeds takes between 90 and 100 seconds per station (20 second doors open). 3 stations at 100 seconds (upper end) is 5 minutes. 10 stations (upper end) is 16 minutes.

Put in 3 passing station out of those 10 run through stations, prevents bunching. At a 10 minute headway, a given train would pass 2 trains going in the same direction. At a 5 minute headway, a given train would pass 3.

Per scheduled time, a Richmond to Fremont express would shave the trip from 1:00 hours to 0:46 hours.

This even gets better: let's say the train skipped the Fruitvale, and Lake Merritt stations. Per the same schedule, the interval between Colliseum and 12 St Oakland City Center is 8 minutes. From Coliseum/Oakland > Fruitvale takes 3 minutes; from Fruitvale > Lake Merrit takes 4 minutes; from Lake Merrit to 12th St, Oakland City Center, takes three minutes. Using the 100 seconds figure, that's 200 seconds or almost 3.5 minutes shaved off via express running. But that's not quite accurate, as the maximum speeds between these stations are lower, possibly 5 or so mph slower than would be for an express. This might save another 15 to 20 seconds.

(http://www.bart.gov/schedules/byline...ate=03/04/2014)

Short station to station times abound on this route, where out of 18 stations on the route 7 stations are separated by 4 minutes, 3 by 3 minutes, 4 by 2 minutes and 2 by 5 minutes, and 1 by six minutes. Let's assume that instead of 100 seconds per stop including acceleration and deceleration, that as the stops are closer together that we consider 70 seconds for 2 minute intervals, 90 for 3 minutes, and, 100 for 4 or more minutes. Here the maximum speed increases as the stations are skipped so we gain at least 20 seconds between each station in addition to the stop and go times. Per rough calculation you save about 17.5 to 20 minutes per run, making the Richmond to Freemont run in 43.5 to 40 minutes instead of 1 hour.

To put this in perspective, the time required to travel end to end would be equal to what it now takes to travel from Freemont to a bit past the 19th Street Station.

*************

It's the principle. And, this would truly stimulate East Bayside traffic. Of course, this also could be done on the SF side. From the Embarcadero to Daly City takes 25 minutes. No stop is separated by more than 4 minutes, with most between 2 and 3 minutes. Here again the 90 or 100 second per stop rule applies and the maximum speed increase rule too. I would think that 8 or more minutes, perhaps as many as 10 could be shaved off here.

*************

Oh yes, you can increase train schedule density by both better equipment utilization and frequency tweaking. There is a semi-express system where every train skips every other station, where during rush hour for example, every station gets an express train every 30 minutes on a straight 15 minute scheduling. There is a whole gamut of different schedule types.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Interesting proposal. It would improve access from Parkmerced, and as the article suggests, enable the potential for running trains into the center of it.

Yes, that's the idea. Currently, the M-Ocean View's Holloway surface station is the only point of access to Muni Metro for both SF State's 27,000 students and Parkmerced's 9,000 residents. That's why it's so overcrowded. Putting a subway station under SF State's campus and another subway station under Parkmerced proper will split up that ridership and reduce overcrowding, and thus, delays. Eliminating the clusterfuck at-grade crossings at 19th Avenue and Junipero Serra will also speed up the trains.

I wonder if it's just not feasible to start the subway north of St. Francis Circle. That's such a mess of an intersection, it seems like avoiding that would help travel times as much as anything.

Alas, tunneling couldn't begin north of Sloat because the M-Ocean View shares the same tracks with the K-Ingleside, which will remain a surface line. Fortunately for the city, the tunnels would begin at its exclusive ROW just south of Sloat--no businesses or homes front that ROW so it while we'll get the usual NIMBY complaints about noise and dust nobody can complain cut-and-cover will ruin their business.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by electricron

Interesting point, but the reasons why they aren't going underground nearer the western portal are the same reasons why they are further south, to make room for 5,000 more apartments (housing units being just a more hip way of saying the same thing). It's really not about saving transit time, nor about providing alternate transportation services because the muni train and tracks are already there in the center median of 19th Street.

This proposal is really about real estate developments, any talk about improving transit times is steering us away from the truth. Transit time might improve as a result some, but the real goal is to build more apartments so somebody can get rich on rents. More apartments should mean more people taking the Muni, and the Muni stops are already overcrowded in this area. By building a subway along this stretch of the highway, all those passengers waiting to take the Muni are now out of sight in what would more than likely be an overcrowded subway station. At least it would get waiting passengers away from heavy traffic at this specific station, but not anywhere else on the Muni system.

1. You clearly don't understand the situation on the ground here. Read my response to Peanut Gallery regarding why it's not feasible to take the M-Ocean View underground north of Sloat.

2. Your conspiracy theorizing is not compelling. It is no secret rental housing in San Francisco is a goldmine for property owners, nor is it a secret this city needs as many new units as we can possibly get. It is no secret the Board of Supervisors approved Parkmerced's expansion plans back in May of 2011. It is no secret, either, that since early 2012 the SFCTA has been looking into ways to speed up the M-Ocean View line and expand service into Parkmerced proper. All of this has been public knowledge, out in the open, proceeding at San Francisco's customarily glacial pace.

3. I applied to work on this project in February 2012. I met the project leader, and am personally acquainted with several staffers (which is how I got the interview in the first place). You have no special knowledge about this proposal--indeed, you apparently don't understand even the most basic aspects what is involved here. It's irresponsible for you to come onto this forum and make wild and unfounded accusations about some government conspiracy to defraud the people for the benefit of crony capitalists.

4. Nobody calls it "The Muni." It's either "the M" or just "Muni."

[electricron]

Originally Posted by fflint

1. You clearly don't understand the situation on the ground here. Read my response to Peanut Gallery regarding why it's not feasible to take the M-Ocean View underground north of Sloat.

2. Your conspiracy theorizing is not compelling. It is no secret rental housing in San Francisco is a goldmine for property owners, nor is it a secret this city needs as many new units as we can possibly get. It is no secret the Board of Supervisors approved Parkmerced's expansion plans back in May of 2011. It is no secret, either, that since early 2012 the SFCTA has been looking into ways to speed up the M-Ocean View line and expand service into Parkmerced proper. All of this has been public knowledge, out in the open, proceeding at San Francisco's customarily glacial pace.

3. I applied to work on this project in February 2012. I met the project leader, and am personally acquainted with several staffers (which is how I got the interview in the first place). You have no special knowledge about this proposal--indeed, you apparently don't understand even the most basic aspects what is involved here. It's irresponsible for you to come onto this forum and make wild and unfounded accusations about some government conspiracy to defraud the people for the benefit of crony capitalists.

4. Nobody calls it "The Muni." It's either "the M" or just "Muni."

Wow! I'll reply simply by stating that if overcrowding was the primary concern, the cheapest solution would be to add another at grade station at either of those locations. They'll be adding at least two subway stations anyways with all the additional costs building them below grade.
Therefore, pleasing the real state developers is the primary concern.

[quashlo]

I have to sort of echo fflint here… I'm not sure you really understand the situation. I'm actually "familiar" with this project and have worked with many private developers on many similar large-scale redevelopments in the city and elsewhere, including some of SF’s most high-profile projects. I can guarantee you that developers do not want to be spending any of their money on improvements to transit infrastructure... In fact, I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion, because it's the polar opposite of what typically happens in land use development.

Developers want to build as much as they can while minimizing their contributions to the public infrastructure that will support their project... They want the government and taxpayers to bear those costs. Usually, you have things like impact fees or other structures that allow the local government to recoup some of the externalized impacts of developments (such as overcrowding on transit), which can then be directed toward social programs or infrastructure improvements. In this case, the developer of Parkmerced will probably be asked to make a (substantial) contribution towards construction of the realigned and redesigned M, when in reality, he probably couldn't care less since bringing the train into his site will, most likely, have a negligible impact on his ability to market and sell units.

In addition, the travel time concerns are quite legitimate... I used to take the M almost daily to and from school, and the intersections at 19th / Junipero Serra and at St. Francis Circle (Junipero Serra / Sloat / West Portal / Portola / St. Francis) are major sources of delay for the line. The additional crossing of 19th Avenue north of Winston is not a only a source of delay but also a huge safety issue... When they laid the tracks many decades ago, they didn't conceive that 19th Avenue would be serving all the traffic it now does. Not saying that I totally agree with the subway concept, but the concerns motivating the project are real.

[quashlo]

Originally Posted by electricron

I don't. Why do people from New Zealand quote people from Japan about a transit system in San Francisco Bay area that they have never seen or ridden? From what I can reason, the guy from Japan recommends skipping stations because they had less than 10,000 daily riders, to provide express services. That's being exclusively a bean counter, there's no consideration at all about the politics why those stations were included into the system at all. It's entirely possible everyone getting on at those smaller ridership stations are heading for San Francisco, and everyone getting on at the higher ridership stations aren't, although I'll admit that probability is very small. But I strongly suggest some sort of ridership study should be finished discovering what the ridership history and patterns are for every station before committing to bypassing it for express services - something better than some bean point based on daily ridership boardings and a lightings.

I ride BART everyday of the week, so I'm fairly familiar with the travel patterns, thank you. The dominant travel pattern is commute traffic between the minor stations and Downtown Oakland / Downtown SF, although there are "blips" in the network, like Downtown Berkeley, Walnut Creek, Balboa Park, etc. that exhibit reverse commute or other patterns. I'm not from Japan... I'm actually born and raised SF, and I do transportation planning as a profession.

Anyways, your argument about "politics" is probably one of the reasons BART hasn't capitalized on its full potential... Concerns about "equity" to people in farflung communities who have been paying taxes into the BART district for decades but have not yet seen BART service have helped drive the continued expansion of the system into the suburbs, all in the name of a utopian vision for a regionwide transit system that was developed ages ago and is no longer in touch with the reality of today. SF, the ridership core of the system, is still vastly underserved, and any line built in the city would virtually guarantee far better returns than further extensions into the boondocks (Livermore, Antioch, et al.).

Anyways, I do agree that a full analysis would need to be done for express or skip-stop service... My post was never meant to be a comprehensive study on the merits of express service and a potential implementation plan, only to introduce simple, low-cost ideas that can make transit work better.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by quashlo

I ride BART everyday of the week, so I'm fairly familiar with the travel patterns, thank you. The dominant travel pattern is commute traffic between the minor stations and Downtown Oakland / Downtown SF, although there are "blips" in the network, like Downtown Berkeley, Walnut Creek, Balboa Park, etc. that exhibit reverse commute or other patterns. I'm not from Japan... I'm actually born and raised SF, and I do transportation planning as a profession.

Anyways, your argument about "politics" is probably one of the reasons BART hasn't capitalized on its full potential... Concerns about "equity" to people in farflung communities who have been paying taxes into the BART district for decades but have not yet seen BART service have helped drive the continued expansion of the system into the suburbs, all in the name of a utopian vision for a regionwide transit system that was developed ages ago and is no longer in touch with the reality of today. SF, the ridership core of the system, is still vastly underserved, and any line built in the city would virtually guarantee far better returns than further extensions into the boondocks (Livermore, Antioch, et al.).

Anyways, I do agree that a full analysis would need to be done for express or skip-stop service... My post was never meant to be a comprehensive study on the merits of express service and a potential implementation plan, only to introduce simple, low-cost ideas that can make transit work better.

If BART never intends to service far flung suburbs without services today after 40 years, how about returning the revenues collected from those cities the last 40 years so they can invest those funds into something that does service them, like a local bus system?
Political pressure for services will always arise once you start collecting taxes. That should be the normal expectation in a democracy.