HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #961  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2013, 5:01 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 873
fascinating data and chart. i think it also points to the incredible gains in ridership that would be seen with the DTX extension. 150,000 jobs within a half mile and only 10,000 riders a day at the 4th & King station. there will be far more jobs within half a mile of transbay, and the people walking a half mile now will only have to walk a quarter mile from one station or the other. i don't recall what the TJPA/Caltrain projections are for ridership at the transbay terminal on caltrain dtx, but 20,000 wouldn't be unreasonable with another 5,000 still at 4th and king! 15,000 less cars on 101..............

Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #962  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2013, 10:40 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
The Examiner reports Caltrain is now carrying an average of 54,989 riders per weekday!
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #963  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2013, 7:11 AM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Do all of the BART extensions within SF require a second Transbay Tube? I don't see why they can't redirect some trains from Daly City.
No, the Geary, Presidio and West Loop proposals wouldn't
According to this SPUR study from 2009, a second transbay tube wouldn't be necessary for any new SOMA lines either. It also gives more detail on some possible BART lines in SOMA, as well as mentioning that commuter rail such as Caltrain or Capitol Corridor, or even high speed rail, could run through a new transbay tube:

http://www.spur.org/files/spur-repor...owntown_SF.pdf (pg. 58-61)



Quote:
Originally Posted by SPUR
Recommendation 3.1: Plan and build a new subway line through SOMA.

SPUR recommends that we begin planning for a second subway line through the South of Market Area in
San Francisco as the highest long-term priority. It is probable that such a new subway line could be
designed and built by BART, and could be implemented incrementally and coordinated with the
extension of the downtown office district along its route.

This line would eventually link up with a second Transbay Tube to the East Bay. However, it should be
designed in a way that doesn’t preclude extension west to serve other neighborhoods of San Francisco,
much as the current BART alignment serves the Mission District. This new subway line is needed
because the existing tube, the Market Street Subway and stations, cannot carry the expected ridership
growth into downtown San Francisco. In addition, the existing Market Street office core will be
effectively built out, and the most likely new development areas lack direct regional transit access.

Using the criteria enumerated here, a key objective is to design a system that can be implemented
incrementally. We should first build off of our existing system and improve existing transit services first
and then build new transit capacity. This will enable the maximization of existing resources and allow
sufficient time to plan and incrementally build new transit resources.

We do not need to build the new tube first. Instead, we need to deliver a new downtown San Francisco
subway as a first step.
SPUR recommends that we build the new line through SOMA, under either
Folsom Street or Townsend Street. The new line will extend from a three-track turnback between the
Civic Center and 16th Street stations, identified as a midterm reliability project and extend through
SOMA toward the Bay. SPUR | March 2009
The Future of Downtown San Francisco 60
SPUR believes that either Folsom Street or Townsend Street would be appropriate for the new alignment.
Each has strengths and weaknesses, and we believe a more detailed transportation and land use study
would best identify the superior option. Therefore, SPUR has not chosen a recommendation between
these two options. However, a new regional subway line under at least one of these two corridors.

A Folsom Street alignment would have several advantages:

• It would relieve BART’s station crowding by placing new stations within walking distance of the
current Market Street facility.
• It would provide redundancy in case one line is temporarily taken out of service by accident or
repair. Then passengers can shift to other line with little trouble.
• It could support the contiguous growth of downtown, as the Mid-Market Street area is one of the
logical extensions of downtown that is close to the current downtown than West SOMA It would
allow the creation of new office markets near Fourth Street north of the freeway, and the
neighborhoods of western SOMA and near the Transbay Terminal. It would provide a connection
to the proposed Caltrain downtown extension and High Speed Rail at a Transbay Transit Center
Station, and to the T-Third and Central Subway lines at a Moscone Center/4th/Fourth Street
Station.

The Townsend alignment would have several benefits:

• It would reinforce an emerging neighborhood that has seen significant new growth in recent years
— in both housing and jobs.
• It would allow the creation of new office markets in areas of large parcels along Townsend Street
adjacent to the railyards, and provide access within walking distance of Mission Bay biotech
developments.
• It would serve areas farther west with fewer residential uses than Folsom Street, thus making
them more appropriate for redevelopment to accommodate new employment uses.
• It would serve significant regional cultural and recreational areas such as AT&T Park and
Seawall Lot 337.
• It would make a connection to Caltrain and the T-Third/Central Subway lines at the station at
Fourth and King streets.
• It would accommodate a wider turnback from Market Street than the one to Folsom Street, and
thus would be easier to operate at normal BART speeds. Regardless of whether Folsom Street or
Townsend Street is chosen, the facilities should be designed for immediate integration into the
Market Street subway and the eventual extension serving the Van Ness and Geary corridors.

As part of the initial phase of this project, a BART terminal should be considered at a rebuilt Pier 36/38
facility, or elsewhere near the Embarcadero, which could later become a construction tie-in for the new
tube.5

Recommendation 3.2 Extend SOMA line across the Bay as second Transbay Tube.

SPUR recommends extending the proposed SOMA subway line to the East Bay as part of a second
transbay tube. If the new tube accommodated a BART train, it would allow BART to reorient many of its
services based on travel demands. It could also provide access to areas currently unserved by regional rail.

MTC has developed two Bay Crossing Studies in the last 20 years. In addition, it has also produced a
Regional Rail Study in 2008. These studies explore a variety of options for new BART and standard-gauge tubes connecting San Francisco and the East Bay. SPUR believes it is a high regional priority to
carry these studies forward.

The most appealing option is a new 4-track tube that would include BART and commuter rail. The
addition of tracks for a commuter rail system increases the utility of the facility by allowing extension of
Caltrain service to the East Bay or Capitol Corridor service to San Francisco and the Peninsula. These
tracks would also facilitate the extension of High Speed Rail to the East Bay and elsewhere in California.
The San Francisco connection to the tube must, by law, be designed with track connections to the
Caltrain/High Speed level of the Transbay Transit Center’s rail level. This would allow Bay Area
commuters to not only travel to and from San Francisco, but also from San Francisco to Sacramento, San
Francisco Airport to Martinez, and Palo Alto to Berkeley. This is a critical project that enhances San
Francisco’s attractiveness as the center of the region and leaves the City with all the benefits of being on a
peninsula and none of the disadvantages.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #964  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2013, 6:43 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
BART OKs $638.9 million for 'Fleet of the Future'

On Thursday, BART signed off on a $638.9 million contract with Canadian railway giant Bombardier Transportation for 365 new railcars, to add to 410 already bought for the transit agency’s Fleet of the Future project. BART also secured five cars free of cost from the manufacturer.

By agreeing to buy the extra cars up front, BART saves $125 million in the $1.789 billion contract, $596 million of which must come from the agency’s funds. The rest of the tab will be covered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
...
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #965  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2013, 2:25 AM
CharlesCO's Avatar
CharlesCO CharlesCO is offline
Aspiring Amateur
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 415
So I was reading the always-fascinating and impartial articles on the BART website, and I found this interesting explanation for why BART doesn't run 24 hours:

Quote:
Here at BART we are frequently asked why the trains don’t run all night, or at least late enough to get partiers from the clubs of San Francisco back home around the Bay Area after last call. We thought we’d take a minute to explain some of the history and background behind that question.

Right now there's a gap of about four hours between when the last trains of the day leave, usually around midnight, and when the first trains of the day start up, around 4 a.m. on weekdays. (Those are end-of-the-line times; last-train times from individual stations may be later. For example, the latest SFO to Pittsburg/Bay Point train on a Saturday night leaves Embarcadero Station at 25 minutes past midnight, actually Sunday morning. Check the schedule for details.)

That short window of time without service is used for essential nightly track maintenance. Unlike some public transit systems with multiple sets of tracks on the same routes, BART doesn't have the duplication that would allow us to run trains on one set while performing maintenance on another. Third-rail power has to be shut down for maintenance crews to be able to operate safely and do the work that keeps the system safe and reliable. And the trains can’t run when the power is down.
http://www.bart.gov/guide/latenight

Is this really true? Is there a technical flaw in an electric third rail design that prevents it from running 24 hours? Even if the current fleet and technology is stretched thinly, I would think technical improvements and a new fleet would be able to provide 24 hour service, and I always thought that the reason why it doesn't currently run 24 hours was merely due to political reasons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #966  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2013, 3:30 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesCO View Post
Is this really true? Is there a technical flaw in an electric third rail design that prevents it from running 24 hours? Even if the current fleet and technology is stretched thinly, I would think technical improvements and a new fleet would be able to provide 24 hour service, and I always thought that the reason why it doesn't currently run 24 hours was merely due to political reasons.
I think you misread the blog entry--there's no flaw. Whereas NYC has four parallel tracks in most subway segments, meaning they can cut the power to one set for maintenance and keep the other juiced and open for service, BART only has two parallel tracks under the Bay. In order to maintain the tracks overnight, they turn off the electricity and can't run any trains during maintenance hours.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #967  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2013, 4:00 AM
CharlesCO's Avatar
CharlesCO CharlesCO is offline
Aspiring Amateur
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 415
Ah, okay, that makes sense. So would it ever be technically possible to run 24 hour service on BART, even if it were once-an-hour trains like on some of those special event nights? Or perhaps run it 24 hours on Thursday/Friday/Saturday nights, but shut it down earlier for the rest of the week?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #968  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2013, 6:09 PM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is offline
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: all over
Posts: 2,301
What's effect on Caltrain electrification with the lawsuit possibly effecting the CAHSR funding?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #969  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2013, 11:09 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Plans to electrify Caltrain long precede CAHSR. Electrification will allow the railroad to run faster trains (electric trains accelerate/decelerate in less time), and thus conductors can make more runs on their regular shifts, for less money (electricity is much cheaper than diesel fuel). It will happen, and most likely on schedule (2019).

BART is capable of running 24-hours a day for short periods of time, and indeed BART has run trains all day and night for a few days at a time on the several occasions when the Bay Bridge was closed. That said, it's not the same as regularly scheduling overnight service, which as already noted isn't feasible due to maintenance issues.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #970  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2013, 5:32 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
Maybe SMART will go from the Ferry to the Airport!!

Quote:
Funding OK could extend SMART to airport

A commuter rail station could be built near the Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport if a regional transportation panel allocates the funding today.

A Metropolitan Transportation Commission committee will decide on the $16.7 million request from Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit board.

On Monday, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority allocated $4.3 million for the project, which would extend the commuter rail service four miles north to Airport Boulevard when it opens in two years.

“Our board is interested in the last segment to Airport Boulevard,” said James Cameron, SCTA deputy director.

If the MTC Programming and Allocations Committee recommends funding the project, the full commission would have to vote on it next week, said John Goodwin, MTC spokesman. It is “highly unusual” for the commission to vote against a committee recommendation, he said.

“Once it passes the committee, it's first and goal at the one,” he said.

The MTC approved $11.7 million for the project in January, and its action today would allocate that money plus an additional $5 million. MTC funds come from bridge tolls.

“There are a lot of moving parts to this,” said Carolyn Glendening, SMART spokeswoman. “We're hopeful the committee will approve the request.”

With the funding in place, the SMART board could approve an airport station at its meeting next week, officials said.

A station near the airport would serve Sonoma County travelers, especially once a project to expand the runway to accommodate larger jets is completed next year.

Officials hope that project will attract more commercial airlines with flights to eastern destinations. The airport currently serves Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles and San Diego.

SMART trains are scheduled to run in 2016 between Guerneville Road in Santa Rosa and San Rafael. The rail authority has some of the funding in place to extend the track south to the Larkspur ferry. Eventually, the line is planned to run north to Cloverdale, although the funding for that segment and its timing is uncertain....

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...cles/131219960
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #971  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2013, 4:26 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eightball View Post
What's effect on Caltrain electrification with the lawsuit possibly effecting the CAHSR funding?
And a more authoritative answer to the question you asked earlier: yesterday's San Mateo Daily Journal reported "Caltrain electrification still on track: Officials say modernization project isn’t affected by high-speed rail lawsuit."
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #972  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2013, 5:25 PM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is offline
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: all over
Posts: 2,301
Thank you, that's exactly what I was getting at. Glad it's going forward, Caltrain needs more frequencies and lower operating costs asap! Many of those trains are hugely overcrowded.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #973  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2013, 5:30 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
Anyone have the inside scoop on the final rendering of the new Bart cars? The website shows the prototype image that has been available for over a year. I suspect the mock up that will be coming next year will not look exactly like that rendering.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #974  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2013, 5:59 PM
CharlesCO's Avatar
CharlesCO CharlesCO is offline
Aspiring Amateur
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 415
According to the timeline page, if I'm reading this correctly, the final design won't come until 2014:

http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/delivery-plan

With each mockup we've seen, the design gets more and more conventional, though from all the new features that are included (third door, video announcements, more standing room without much of a reduction in seating, etc.), these new trains can't come soon enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #975  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2013, 6:27 PM
dennis1 dennis1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,253
Why don't they build a bridge or use and existing bridge to bring smart to the new Transbay Terminal?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #976  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2013, 7:11 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennis1 View Post
Why don't they build a bridge or use and existing bridge to bring smart to the new Transbay Terminal?
Who would want to pony up the billions that would cost for a low intensity service while BART/Muni/Caltrian struggle financially to manage their growing riderships?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #977  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2013, 12:54 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Running SMART on a new rail bridge over the Bay and then through a new tunnel into the Transbay Terminal would cost trillions of dollars and take decades to complete, only to move a few thousand people a day. That's why.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #978  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2013, 1:22 AM
dennis1 dennis1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,253
Thanks.


Next Question: Why doesn't Caltrain run SMART? Why seperate agencies?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #979  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2013, 1:46 AM
twinpeaks twinpeaks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennis1 View Post
Thanks.


Next Question: Why doesn't Caltrain run SMART? Why seperate agencies?
we should put all Bay Area transportation under a single agency?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #980  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2013, 1:49 AM
dennis1 dennis1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinpeaks View Post
we should put all Bay Area transportation under a single agency?
Would that not help management?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:47 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.