SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News - Page 14

Gordo · #**261** Posted **May 21, 2011, 6:25 AM**

^It would be better to take SMART across the Richmond-San Rafael bridge to connect with BART in Richmond, IMO.

Trains across the Golden Gate Bridge are just never going to happen - the approach from the Marin side to accommodate the grades needed for commuter rail would mean ridiculous amounts of tunneling.

fieldsofdreams · #**262** Posted **May 24, 2011, 3:29 PM**

Quote:

It would be better to take SMART across the Richmond-San Rafael bridge to connect with BART in Richmond, IMO.

Trains across the Golden Gate Bridge are just never going to happen - the approach from the Marin side to accommodate the grades needed for commuter rail would mean ridiculous amounts of tunneling.

That would be a good idea to continue on to Richmond, but, here are several problems:

- Routing SMART to Richmond would mean a brand new rail extension will be built between San Rafael through the Richmond Bridge to Point Richmond, the nearest possible rail line, meaning it will cost a lot of money to tear down structures blocking its path, reconfiguring the Richmond Bridge to accommodate rail, and making a brand new rail line possibly through Point Molate and the rail tracks just east of the Chevron refinery.

- The structural integrity of the Richmond Bridge may be questioned as well because it was designed to be of Interstate freeway standards, not to allow a lower deck for rail. It will involve more than just the state government in reconfiguring and redesigning the bridge; it will involve federal money as well because it was built with federal standards and it will also mean more costly building of tunnels and passageways just to let the train run through.

- I think if you can recall, Marin opposed BART from Richmond due to the social situation out there (i.e. high crime rate, drug sales) that may move on to the county had BART been built through Point Richmond. And now, building SMART to extend to Richmond? Probably not the best idea we can do -- it might end up being like BART, with poorly-maintained trains and seats.

- Most importantly, routing the SMART train to Richmond would bring in mixed results: a quicker way to travel to the East Bay, but a more circuitous route to San Francisco because passengers need to cross the Bay twice: once in Richmond (San Pablo Bay), the other in Oakland (San Francisco Bay). It will also mean a more expensive commute due to that fact as well (longer commute = more money to spend)

I think extending the line to at least Marin City or Sausalito would be a fine option for now until there will be a time that the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District reopens discussions on a possible rail line below the Golden Gate Bridge (which may put into question the overall integrity of the bridge).

Gordo · #**263** Posted **May 24, 2011, 3:45 PM**

Oh, I don't think that a SMART line to Richmond is likely and/or a good use of money (there are literally thousands of better transit uses for that money in the Bay Area alone), but it has a .002% chance of ever happening, as opposed to the .000000000000000000000000000000000000007% chance of BART ever crossing the Golden Gate strait.

The GGB can't handle a train attached to the underside, not because of weight, but because of wind stress. There were studies done on the bridge way back in the 50's that determined that, which is the reason that BART plans from the 60's had BART crossing the bridge by taking two lanes from automobiles. This last round of earthquake retrofitting for the bridge increased in cost several times because various issues had to be re-engineered mid-retrofit to insure that the bridge's wind integrity wasn't compromised.

Unless Marin and Sonoma embark on a campaign of massive infill development (talking 1-2 million more folks - several times the current total), I can't imagine it ever being worth it to connect Marin to SF by rail, because the cost would be well into eight digits. You could buy and operate hundreds of ferries and buses for hundreds of years for the same cost.

fieldsofdreams · #**264** Posted **May 24, 2011, 5:42 PM**

Quote:

Unless Marin and Sonoma embark on a campaign of massive infill development (talking 1-2 million more folks - several times the current total), I can't imagine it ever being worth it to connect Marin to SF by rail, because the cost would be well into eight digits. You could buy and operate hundreds of ferries and buses for hundreds of years for the same cost.

I think we hit a stalemate here: infill development versus more transit vehicles. Infill development would work if both counties pass an initiative to allow rezoning in targeted areas that would allow even more people to live in (for example, San Rafael, Novato, Rohnert Park, and Santa Rosa). However, with the zoning laws, especially dealing with open spaces, chances are the opportunity for such infill developments to happen can be significantly limited, if not no project at all, not only because of the current policy of preserving open spaces, but also a lot of people would oppose such new developments that would further increase the population. That's basically my frustration now because I see a lot of open land near US 101 that can be used (if zoned properly) to become new infill developments that will allow more people to live close to the future railway stations and current bus stops that will encourage more people to take transit instead of driving, but, a lot of people who are not along the freeway (like San Anselmo, Fairfax, Lucas Valley) seem to have mixed opinions on that issue because they seem that they want to keep their neighborhoods as they are today, and it is something that needs to be addressed soon.

The other frustration I have is with less frequency of transit plying through many city streets. It seems like the transit-rich areas are areas wherein a lot of people seem to be wealthy, like Corte Madera, Larkspur, Ross, and San Anselmo, in which an abundant number of buses operate through those areas even beyond 9pm. However, as one goes further north of San Rafael, like Novato, Petaluma, and Santa Rosa, the transit choices have become more limited to just the freeway buses... that really seems unfair because Golden Gate has a lot of transit vehicles, and it seems that the passenger loads tend to be dispersed along the freeway routes (Routes 70 and 80) rather than providing adequate local services (needs better promotion too!). And while many areas receive abundant services, other areas seem lacking nighttime options, forcing people to walk up to 30 minutes just to get home. That only means that if infill development is to be established, even more people need to walk home because of the limited transit options, and it means that such developments will not be fully utilized until an effective transit network that runs late is established.

CyberEric · #**265** Posted **May 24, 2011, 9:26 PM**

If they can run the SMART trains at least to Sausalito, that would be a start. Marin commuters could take the train to the ferry and cross there.

ardecila · #**266** Posted **May 24, 2011, 9:48 PM**

I thought the plan was to run high speed ferries from Larkspur-SF?

peanut gallery · #**267** Posted **May 24, 2011, 9:58 PM**

^It's not just the plan, it's the reality today and for years now. And Larkspur has far more commuter passengers than Sausalito, so running SMART to Larkspur is all that is needed for commuters. Running SMART all the way to Sausalito -- something that hasn't even been discussed, by the way -- would be good for tourist trips though.

ElDuderino · #**268** Posted **May 24, 2011, 11:27 PM**

Yeah. The plan is to have a train station at Larkspur Landing which is a short walk over to the ferry. The high speed ferry service at Larkpur is pretty efficient and cheap, so that is all we need for now. I doubt we will see SMART continue on to Sausalito for a very long time, if at all.

electricron · #**269** Posted **May 25, 2011, 1:01 AM**

I completely agree, which is why I wrote,"It might be decades far into the future", earler.

ardecila · #**270** Posted **May 25, 2011, 3:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

^It's not just the plan, it's the reality today and for years now. And Larkspur has far more commuter passengers than Sausalito, so running SMART to Larkspur is all that is needed for commuters. Running SMART all the way to Sausalito -- something that hasn't even been discussed, by the way -- would be good for tourist trips though.

I know about the ferries at Larkspur. Why would SMART need to be extended to Sausalito at all?

As a side note, the SMART terminal at Larkspur is pretty poorly integrated with the ferry terminal. People making the transfer will have to walk through an office park, cross a busy street, and walk across a parking lot. :wtf:

The platform needs to be brought right up to the dock like they have on Staten Island, or at Waterfront in Vancouver.

peanut gallery · #**271** Posted **May 25, 2011, 8:21 PM**

^It doesn't, which is why it hasn't been part of the SMART plan in any form.

I'm with you on the station location not being ideal. But apparently there is an issue with ROW to get the tracks across Sir Francis Drake and down to the ferry terminal. Not enough room to make the turn on the southern side of SFD if I recall correctly (there's a big hill sitting right in the way). It's not that long a walk though. I've had to park over there before on spare-the-air days when the ferries were free and the ferry parking lot full. There's a pedestrian bridge from Larkspur Landing to the terminal that helps. Who knows, maybe with the delay in bringing the line all the way to Larkspur they'll be able to work out a deal to bring it through one of those office parks? That whole area is built on hillsides, so I'm not sure what's even possible in terms of grading the tracks to bring SMART down to water level.

Gordo · #**272** Posted **May 25, 2011, 9:37 PM**

The connection certainly isn't ideal, and if I remember correctly there were some talks to buy out some of the office buildings, but that fell apart for one reason or another.

More than anything, I just think there needs to be some kind of agreement made between SMART and the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District (the agency that runs the GGT buses and GGF ferries). Right now they're set to compete against each other in many ways, without any kind of formal arrangement or plan to coordinate and share.

We won't be seeing SMART extended to Sausalito in any of our lifetimes, I would guess, unless there's some kind of major change in infrastructure spending and/or development in Marin itself. There are so many upgrades and extensions to SMART that would make sense long before that, and as pg mentioned, it would mostly be useful only as a tourist line (I'd totally ride it though, as would thousands of tourists, but I'm not convinced that that would be worth subsidizing the line). There's just not enough population near that potential line to outweigh what would be substantial costs to build a railroad across wetlands, inlets, built-up areas, and even a pretty substantial hill that would likely have to be tunneled between Corte Madera and Strawberry Village.

ardecila · #**273** Posted **May 26, 2011, 4:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

^It doesn't, which is why it hasn't been part of the SMART plan in any form.

I'm with you on the station location not being ideal. But apparently there is an issue with ROW to get the tracks across Sir Francis Drake and down to the ferry terminal. Not enough room to make the turn on the southern side of SFD if I recall correctly (there's a big hill sitting right in the way). It's not that long a walk though. I've had to park over there before on spare-the-air days when the ferries were free and the ferry parking lot full. There's a pedestrian bridge from Larkspur Landing to the terminal that helps. Who knows, maybe with the delay in bringing the line all the way to Larkspur they'll be able to work out a deal to bring it through one of those office parks? That whole area is built on hillsides, so I'm not sure what's even possible in terms of grading the tracks to bring SMART down to water level.

The area looks pretty flat in terrain maps and bird's-eye views... or at least flat by California standards. I've never actually been there, so I can't say for sure. But if the SMART right-of-way is higher in elevation than the ferry-terminal parking lot, then SMART can be extended across Sir Francis Drake on a short viaduct to a new platform right on the waterfront.

The viaduct could also be tied into a one-story parking deck... if the parking deck is used to reduce the amount of impermeable surface, I'm sure the Marin County liberals will eat it up.

The other option would be to build a new alignment on pilings in the river, going around the office parks.

fieldsofdreams · #**274** Posted **May 28, 2011, 5:08 AM**

I hate to say this, but the current layout for the proposed Larkspur station does involve about a 1/2 mile gap between the station and the Ferry Terminal, in which SMART proposes to operate a shuttle service between them. For me, it's a good start, but, I think there must be adjustments that need to be made to make it fully happen: they need to relocate some of the existing structures located close to the future station, including the Marin Airporter terminal and its nearby parking lot, and overhaul the Larkspur Landing area to become more transit- and pedestrian-friendly by limiting automobile traffic to just carpool and commuter parking instead of going through the entire loop. It may cost a lot of money, but, it can improve the overall circulation of the station area. (Probably redesigning the shopping center would also work in this process since it will be a major commercial draw for commuters later on)

As for SMART to Sausalito, why not have one constructed up to at least Marin City where there is an abundance of bus routes going through the area? It will definitely work as a transfer center for southern Marin County that will attract even more passengers from Mill Valley and Strawberry.

northbay · #**275** Posted **May 28, 2011, 3:44 PM**

^ its 1/4 mile, not 1/2 mile. its the same distance from the san francisco ferry building to the embarcadero bart station. everyone im sure agrees that the current plan for the larkspur station is not ideal, but it all comes down to money (as you mentioned yourself). there simply isn't enough for the current plan let alone what you are proposing. so unless smart finds a big pile of money somewhere its not gonna happen. besides, smart doesnt 'own' the shopping center or the ferry terminal so they cant just rip it up and rebuild it. it would be cheaper to just build a bunch of moving sidewalks, but that comes with a bunch of headaches too.

as for future extensions: i think extensions to sonoma or north to ukiah are much more likely as tracks and ROW already exist. an extension to richmond as gordo suggested would be much less complicated and cheaper than a rail line over the golden gate, but still is very unlikely. any extension south of larkspur will run into mountains, and a lot of rich NIMBYs who won't be riding the train anyways. the ridership wont justify the enormous cost.

ardecila · #**276** Posted **May 29, 2011, 4:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by northbay

^ its 1/4 mile, not 1/2 mile. its the same distance from the san francisco ferry building to the embarcadero bart station. everyone im sure agrees that the current plan for the larkspur station is not ideal, but it all comes down to money (as you mentioned yourself). there simply isn't enough for the current plan let alone what you are proposing. so unless smart finds a big pile of money somewhere its not gonna happen. besides, smart doesnt 'own' the shopping center or the ferry terminal so they cant just rip it up and rebuild it. it would be cheaper to just build a bunch of moving sidewalks, but that comes with a bunch of headaches too.

Then cut off the project in Petaluma if there's not enough money. Making the connection at Larkspur seamless is a make-or-break proposition for the entire railroad. No commuter to SF will walk 1/2 mile through various shopping center and office complex parking lots, then across a long windswept pedestrian bridge, then across another parking lot to reach the dock. That commuter will gladly just drive down the 101 into the city, or continue to drive to Larkspur.

BART planners understood this when they designed eBART... the transfer at Pittsburg will be completely seamless and instant... just walk across the platform from the DMU to the BART train that is already waiting there. (The platform needs a roof in case of rain, but it's perfect otherwise)

northbay · #**277** Posted **May 29, 2011, 5:07 AM**

^ actually only a few are projected to commute to san francisco. the vast majority are expected to be commuting within their respective counties.

im hoping that the phasing of the project allows them the chance to rethink the ferry connection, but i have a feeling that's wishful thinking. the ebart transfer is just from ebart to bart, but here we're talking different agencies - plus private owners and a difficult site. this is just a little more complicated.

(the ebart transfer has its flaws too - its not at the pittsburg bart station but at a second isolated transfer-only station.)

also ardecila, smart MUST include santa rosa, leaving out the largest city on the line would be silly. santa rosa is roughly the size of san rafael, novato and petaluma combined.

Gordo · #**278** Posted **May 29, 2011, 6:33 AM**

As northbay mentioned, SMART is not really intended to connect Sonoma and Marin commuters to SF, it's more for Sonoma commuters to connect to Marin (Marin is now a net exporter of jobs) and to a lesser degree to provide a trunk line for commuting intra-either county or Marin to Sonoma.

The connection to the ferry is a logical endpoint, but it's not expected to be a primary driver of ridership. A good comparison of SMART's goal is something along the lines of how Caltrain ridership now falls, with the Larkspur endpoint analogous to 4th & King in SF. Ridership is heavy at commute times, but in both directions with several stations having substantial boardings/alightings. Larkspur will likely be the busiest station (as 4th & King is with Caltrain), but probably won't be as big of a draw as 4th & King, which is the busiest station for boardings AND alightings at all times of the day (a lot of reverse commuting and leisure trips originate in SF).

I can't seem to find the most recent ridership projections by station, but if I remember correctly Santa Rosa was projected to have the highest ridership of the initial line, with a couple other stations coming before Larkspur as well (can't remember which ones though - downtown San Rafael maybe? I think even Windsor was up there pretty high.)

eBART, on the other hand, is expected to really only be for folks connecting to the BART system, so it makes sense that that connection should be its largest concern. eBART's only real goal is to get people to and from that station.

fieldsofdreams · #**279** Posted **May 29, 2011, 7:16 AM**

Quote:

The connection to the ferry is a logical endpoint, but it's not expected to be a primary driver of ridership. A good comparison of SMART's goal is something along the lines of how Caltrain ridership now falls, with the Larkspur endpoint analogous to 4th & King in SF. Ridership is heavy at commute times, but in both directions with several stations having substantial boardings/alightings. Larkspur will likely be the busiest station (as 4th & King is with Caltrain), but probably won't be as big of a draw as 4th & King, which is the busiest station for boardings AND alightings at all times of the day (a lot of reverse commuting and leisure trips originate in SF).

I believe that Larkspur will not actually be the busiest station. In my opinion, the two busiest stations when SMART finally opens will be:

- Downtown San Rafael (thanks to the San Rafael Transit Center close by, a major transit hub for buses)
- Santa Rosa/Jennings Square (thanks to nearby Santa Rosa Transit Mall, with adequate connections to Santa Rosa CityBus)

However, I think that the Larkspur terminal station can be improved by putting the station closer to the ferry terminal rather than located close to the Marin Airporter terminal because it will reduce the walk time for commuters to connect between the ferry and the rail significantly, plus it's right next to a large park-and-ride area. And yes, Marin has a lot more jobs that it has become a job center, presenting another sign that the Bay Area has shifted its job base significantly away from the traditional centers of San Francisco and Oakland, which means when the train opens, it will ultimately remind me of the failed Golden Gate Transit Route 75 that used to provide service between Santa Rosa and San Rafael which was cut due to low ridership.

northbay · #**280** Posted **May 30, 2011, 4:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

I believe that Larkspur will not actually be the busiest station. In my opinion, the two busiest stations when SMART finally opens will be:

- Downtown San Rafael (thanks to the San Rafael Transit Center close by, a major transit hub for buses)
- Santa Rosa/Jennings Square (thanks to nearby Santa Rosa Transit Mall, with adequate connections to Santa Rosa CityBus)

....

i think you mean RAILROAD square. jennings avenue was where the north santa rosa station was originally going to be located, but it is instead going to be closer to coddingtown mall on guerneville rd.

i agree that san rafael will be at least one of the busiest. i'll try finding the ridership projections when i have time.