HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #981  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2013, 2:03 AM
twinpeaks twinpeaks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennis1 View Post
Would that not help management?
It will make our transportation system better and more efficient if transportaton planning is done at a regional level. It will help everyone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #982  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2013, 2:27 AM
dennis1 dennis1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinpeaks View Post
It will make our transportation system better and more efficient if transportaton planning is done at a regional level. It will help everyone.
Agreed. At least closer cooperation with all the transit agencies and BART.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #983  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2013, 5:49 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by twinpeaks View Post
It will make our transportation system better and more efficient if transportaton planning is done at a regional level. It will help everyone.
I understand that transportation planning will be more efficient if planned at the regional level, but the regional level doesn't generate revenues. Funding is always generated from local sources. That's why there are so many local transit agencies.

Usually transit projects advocated by regional planners die as soon as they are planned because they have no funding. It's better for the locals to propose, plan, fund, and operate transit if you wish them to actually get built. It's easier for grass roots projects to get the political support and resulting funding needed. Let the regional planners coordinate projects and find out of area matching funds for local projects.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #984  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2013, 9:32 PM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
I understand that transportation planning will be more efficient if planned at the regional level, but the regional level doesn't generate revenues. Funding is always generated from local sources. That's why there are so many local transit agencies.

Usually transit projects advocated by regional planners die as soon as they are planned because they have no funding. It's better for the locals to propose, plan, fund, and operate transit if you wish them to actually get built. It's easier for grass roots projects to get the political support and resulting funding needed. Let the regional planners coordinate projects and find out of area matching funds for local projects.....
??? Seriously?

Counterpoints: BART, Trimet, Metro, MTA, WMATA, RTD, LACMTA.

It may be simpler to avoid the difficult job of creating & managing regional transportation projects, but then noone says that tackling challenging jobs are easy, now do they?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #985  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2013, 8:47 AM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is offline
Resu Deretsiger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 15,003
would be tight if all the tracks could merge (impossible?) i think that could work to bring about a regional agency.
__________________
#RuralUrbanist
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #986  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2013, 5:04 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by zilfondel View Post
??? Seriously?

Counterpoints: BART, Trimet, Metro, MTA, WMATA, RTD, LACMTA.

It may be simpler to avoid the difficult job of creating & managing regional transportation projects, but then noone says that tackling challenging jobs are easy, now do they?
Trimet has been somewhat successful building new lines near Porland, Oregon. But they haven't been successful extending any line, bus or rail, across the Columbia River. So, it doesn't quite meet your standards for a Regional transit agency. MTA runs well in New York, but it too doesn't cross the Hudson into New Jersey. RTD has been unsuccessful at getting rail to Boulder. LACMTA doesn't impact areas outside LA County. Southern California is much larger than LA County. Even BART doesn't cross the Bay north into in Marion County or south into San Mateo County. BART and San Francisco's world famous trolleys and light rail lines are different transit agencies.


One by one your "Regional" transit agencies are NOT as all encompassing as you claim they are. You should really rethink your what you consider a true "Regional" transit system is. All your examples have "Local" transit systems.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #987  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2013, 5:28 PM
CharlesCO's Avatar
CharlesCO CharlesCO is offline
Aspiring Amateur
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 415
^^^

I think a lot of that is quite dismissive. To digress somewhat, yes, RTD has had problems getting the Northwest Rail Line completed, but that's not at all due to the regional nature of transit planning on the Front Range. The reason why the Northwest rail hasn't been built yet and probably never will is because its cost was projected way too low and right before the cost of a lot of materials and construction shot up. RTD has actually been very creative and successful in getting every other line funded through some rather unique and unusual public/private partnerships. With the Northwest corridor, much of the rail line's ROW is also already duplicated by bus service (which is more or less also being upgraded to BRT in FasTracks) that goes closer to where people actually need to go, so the projected ridership for that line is staggeringly low. It has pissed Boulder taxpayers off, but it was the only corridor that couldn't decide between bus or rail and felt that it needed both, and considering that RTD has pulled miracles getting all the other far more important lines built in a budget crunch, I actually think RTD has done a tremendous job. I don't think their perceived success or failure is due to the fact that it's a regional agency, and it doesn't really matter at this point if that line never gets built.

But to relate this bay to Back Area transit, I'm always conflicted when this topic comes up. On one hand, it's fun to think of all the great projects that could be built if all the resources of every transit agency were pooled together. On the other, I don't know if it would really benefit people on a local level, which is equally, if not more important. I don't think a one-size-fits-all approach from Brentwood to Gilroy would really work that well, but I could also imagine that greater cooperation between BART, Muni, Caltrain, and ACTransit could produce something great, as well as better coordination between the aforementioned big four and local bus transfers from all the smaller agencies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #988  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2013, 6:44 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesCO View Post
^^^

I think a lot of that is quite dismissive. To digress somewhat, yes, RTD has had problems getting the Northwest Rail Line completed, but that's not at all due to the regional nature of transit planning on the Front Range. The reason why the Northwest rail hasn't been built yet and probably never will is because its cost was projected way too low and right before the cost of a lot of materials and construction shot up. RTD has actually been very creative and successful in getting every other line funded through some rather unique and unusual public/private partnerships. With the Northwest corridor, much of the rail line's ROW is also already duplicated by bus service (which is more or less also being upgraded to BRT in FasTracks) that goes closer to where people actually need to go, so the projected ridership for that line is staggeringly low. It has pissed Boulder taxpayers off, but it was the only corridor that couldn't decide between bus or rail and felt that it needed both, and considering that RTD has pulled miracles getting all the other far more important lines built in a budget crunch, I actually think RTD has done a tremendous job. I don't think their perceived success or failure is due to the fact that it's a regional agency, and it doesn't really matter at this point if that line never gets built.

But to relate this bay to Back Area transit, I'm always conflicted when this topic comes up. On one hand, it's fun to think of all the great projects that could be built if all the resources of every transit agency were pooled together. On the other, I don't know if it would really benefit people on a local level, which is equally, if not more important. I don't think a one-size-fits-all approach from Brentwood to Gilroy would really work that well, but I could also imagine that greater cooperation between BART, Muni, Caltrain, and ACTransit could produce something great, as well as better coordination between the aforementioned big four and local bus transfers from all the smaller agencies.
Boulder already had its own bus lines from local city funding. It joined RTD especially for a rail line to Denver. While it is true rail costs skyrocketed in Colorado, it didn't rise as much everywhere else. DART experienced some costs rises, but DART was able to build what it promised with just undertaking a few project cuts. DART cut some stations instead of cutting entire lines. The bus lines to Boulder and Longmont aren't even true BRT lines, they're more akin to Express Bus services seen in Dallas and Houston, sharing of HOV lanes. At least Houston has dedicated flyovers to get the buses out of the HOV lanes to the bus stops, Boulder buses will have to merge over several lanes of traffic like they do in Dallas to reach the stops (park & ride lots). Express bus services is not the same as rapid bus transit. So Boulder isn't even getting true bus rapid transit.

RTD will never be able to promise taxpayers in the future that it can build what it promises to get future referendums for new taxes passed as long as Boulder and Longmont have no rail transit. The over promising will be remembered for a long, long time.

As long as the different transit agencies coordinate their plans, there is no need for an all encompassing "Regional" transit agency. NJT, SEPTA, MARC, VRE, MTA, CDOT, and MBTA all share access to Amtrak's NEC successfully. Sometimes I think those who advocate "Regional" government entities wish to rule local politics from above, instead of locals ruling local politics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #989  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2013, 7:52 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,201
BART does cross into San Mateo County. San Mateo County isn't a part of the BART tax district, so they paid (and continue to pay) a separate fee to BART to build and manage the line.

LACMTA works quite well because LA County is so large (10 million people). The "local" government is the regional government for the most part. It would be similar to the Bay Area merging Marin, SF, Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties. Sure, there would still be folks in the Bay Area not within the central county, but balkanization would be drastically reduced.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #990  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2013, 6:00 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
I can see the argument for consolidating certain transit agencies, like the commuter railroads and maybe the bus systems in the East Bay and also in the South Bay/Penninsula, but merging all Bay Area agencies into just one superagency would poorly serve people on the local level, especially the most urban areas.

The city of San Francisco has totally different (and often, very expensive) transit needs compared with the more suburban regions. Suburban control of San Francisco city's public transportation system would likely result in a less tailored approach and a misguided, politicized effort to spread resources throughout the suburbs--in essence, to spend more in areas where transit is used least while bypassing new projects where transit is used most, but is most costly to build. We see this with the most "regional" of Bay Area transit systems, BART. Ultra-expensive third-rail metro service gets extended farther and farther into suburbia while the city of San Francisco's Geary Street corridor--where buses carry 60,000+ daily riders through several miles of dense, congested cityscape--still waits for the line initially envisioned some 45 years ago.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013

Last edited by fflint; Dec 18, 2013 at 6:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #991  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2013, 4:50 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Not sure if anyone has been keeping track of the Eastern Span's progress, but it seems the costly permanent fix to their bolt issue has finally been completed:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...er-5076643.php

Maybe its just me but $25 million seems like a bargain after the billions taken by the bridge itself, even if it is more than twice its original estimate
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #992  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2013, 2:37 PM
theskythelimit theskythelimit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 84
The Geary corridor BRT got a mention in today's SF Examiner.


http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancis...nt?oid=2653499
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #993  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2013, 5:03 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,934
SMART train to connect Marin to Santa Rosa airport

Without knowing any details about this project, it doesn't seem like this money is being spent well. In 2012, there were 103,500 enplanments at Charles Shultz-Sonoma County airport, or about 283 per day. Assuming that ten percent (a very generous assumption) of these passengers will take rail to the airport, this is less than thirty passengers per day. I support a strong commitment to transit but it is difficult to justify spending $30M for less than thirty daily passengers.

SMART train to connect Marin to Santa Rosa airport

By Mark Prado
Marin Independent Journal
12/18/2013

"Marin residents taking flights out of the Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport in Santa Rosa will have a new way to get there in a few years.

On Wednesday the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved $16.7 million in funding for the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit train project to build a rail station at Airport Boulevard, about a three-minute shuttle ride away from the airport. The dollars complete funding for the $29 million extension.

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

http://www.marinij.com/novato/ci_247...a-rosa-airport
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #994  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2013, 5:05 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennis1 View Post
Next Question: Why doesn't Caltrain run SMART? Why seperate agencies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
I can see the argument for consolidating certain transit agencies, like the commuter railroads and maybe the bus systems in the East Bay and also in the South Bay/Penninsula, but merging all Bay Area agencies into just one superagency would poorly serve people on the local level, especially the most urban areas.
Caltrain shouldn't run SMART because the dense South Bay is completely different from the relatively rural North Bay. These people are 70-80+ miles away, they would have no idea how to effectively address our needs, nor would anyone take them seriously. Sonoma County is its own MSA because much of the commuting stays within our region. It makes little sense to have people from technically a DIFFERENT metropolitan region make decisions for us. It would be putting the apples in with the oranges.

The current arrangement is like our federal/state model. The federal government has ultimate control but leaves most decisions to the states. This model works to control large areas with differing politics/viewpoints. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has ultimate control but leaves most decisions to local transit agencies. It can certainly use refinement, but we need to keep local control.

Speaking of SMART (and the SMART-MTA relationship):

Quote:
SMART station at Airport Boulevard gets final OK
By MATT BROWN
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
December 18, 2013, 6:22 PM

The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit board approved a commuter train station at Airport Boulevard on Wednesday as a regional transportation body allocated $16.7 million to fund the project.

The board's move pushes work on the rail network north of Santa Rosa for the first time and will deliver passengers to a major employment hub near the expanding Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, SMART officials said.

“The companies and employees in this area will prosper with added rail service, and the expanded airport will attract new jobs and increase tourism,” said Debora Fudge, SMART director and Windsor councilmember."

....
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...cles/131219521

EDIT: Ahh, 202, you beat me by 2 minutes!
__________________
"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
     
     
  #995  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2013, 5:17 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
Without knowing any details about this project, it doesn't seem like this money is being spent well. In 2012, there were 103,500 enplanments at Charles Shultz-Sonoma County airport, or about 283 per day. Assuming that ten percent (a very generous assumption) of these passengers will take rail to the airport, this is less than thirty passengers per day. I support a strong commitment to transit but it is difficult to justify spending $30M for less than thirty daily passengers.
There are thousands of employees that work in surrounding business parks, my wife being one of them. This isn't JUST about the airport, it's more for the workers. Plus, their maintenance facility will be at the airport, and that puts them closer to Windsor, which is supposed to be the busiest station. And of course Sonoma County being the wine/food/beer destination that it is (7+ million tourists a year), getting more on the train instead of (driving drunk on) the road is a consideration. That also explains the airport expansion, and its desire to increase on its four commercial destinations.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #996  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2013, 6:27 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by northbay View Post
There are thousands of employees that work in surrounding business parks, my wife being one of them. This isn't JUST about the airport, it's more for the workers. Plus, their maintenance facility will be at the airport, and that puts them closer to Windsor, which is supposed to be the busiest station. And of course Sonoma County being the wine/food/beer destination that it is (7+ million tourists a year), getting more on the train instead of (driving drunk on) the road is a consideration. That also explains the airport expansion, and its desire to increase on its four commercial destinations.
Again, I strongly support public transit but it is difficult to see how this is a good investment and a good use of limited transit capital funds.

There are an average of 283 daily enplanements at Charles Shultz-Sonoma Co. Transit mode share to this airport is more likely to be 3-5% (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs...rp_rpt_004.pdf) (http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/656553.pdf).

Airports are big employment centers and perhaps Charles Shultz - Sonoma Co. might have 200-300 employees. As a rough estimate, perhaps 10% of these employees will take rail transit. This is about 30 daily passengers.

I don't know the local geography but it looks like agricultural land is to the west of the airport and low/medium-density office parks and warehouses surrounding the airport on the other side.

With the airport itself, this will probably be less than fifty daily passengers. The concern about intoxicated drivers is a valid concern but I would like very frew passengers are intoxicated on their way to/from the airport.

It is good to invest in rail but there are many other projects that should be prioritized before spending $30M to serve maybe fifty daily passengers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #997  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2013, 6:52 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
Again, I strongly support public transit but it is difficult to see how this is a good investment and a good use of limited transit capital funds.

There are an average of 283 daily enplanements at Charles Shultz-Sonoma Co. Transit mode share to this airport is more likely to be 3-5% (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs...rp_rpt_004.pdf) (http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/656553.pdf).

Airports are big employment centers and perhaps Charles Shultz - Sonoma Co. might have 200-300 employees. As a rough estimate, perhaps 10% of these employees will take rail transit. This is about 30 daily passengers.

I don't know the local geography but it looks like agricultural land is to the west of the airport and low/medium-density office parks and warehouses surrounding the airport on the other side.

With the airport itself, this will probably be less than fifty daily passengers. The concern about intoxicated drivers is a valid concern but I would like very frew passengers are intoxicated on their way to/from the airport.

It is good to invest in rail but there are many other projects that should be prioritized before spending $30M to serve maybe fifty daily passengers.
Did you actually READ my response? There are 1000s of workers in the area, not just a couple hundred. Plus, there are more commercial flights/passengers even from 2012. And this puts them just a few miles from the projected busiest station. I usually respect your input but you clearly are not familiar with the area, so you may want to refrain from making judgements. It is reflecting poorly on you. Here, the 101 corridor is THE mess. Investing in an alternative is THE way to go. Buses would be stuck in the same mess. This is a SMART investment!
__________________
"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.

Last edited by northbay; Dec 19, 2013 at 7:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #998  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2013, 6:55 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
Btw, Sonoma County "looks" agricultural but half a million live here. Google earth isn't the same as being "on the ground." The airport is considered a major employment center of the county.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #999  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2013, 7:03 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
It sometimes takes my wife an hour to get home, a distance of less than 15 miles, almost all "freeway" driving. Rush hour here is a mess, people WILL take the train.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #1000  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2013, 7:04 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,934
northbay:
Quote:
Plus, there are more commercial flights/passengers even from 2012. And this puts them just a few miles from the projected busiest station.
2012 enplanements were 103,500. If you assume 5% annual growth (pretty robust growth for commercial aviation) annual enplanements would be 108,675, or 297 per day. At 5% transit ground-access share, this might be one or two more daily passengers taking SMART to the airport. This hardly justifies spending $30M on an airport connection.

Admittedly, I am not famililar with the geography around the airport but as I said above, it looks like agriculture land west of the airport and medium-density warehouses and office parks (usually with free parking) to the east of the airport. Based on Google maps, it looks like there is some more density 1/2 to 2/3 of a mile east of the airport, closer to Hwy 101, but again, it also looks like there is abundant surface parking. If these employees have to walk a half mile to the airport rail station, ridership will fall off accordingly.
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 10:27 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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