SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[fflint]

Originally Posted by mthd

I rode metrolink last week from union station and was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the car. very clean and lots of AC outlets! other than livery I wonder what they need to do.

metrolink has a pretty extensive network and relatively good schedules. I don't understand why the ridership isn't higher.

I was wondering about the rehab as well. It's going to take a year, so it's clearly more than just painting the cars.

[rawocd]

I know when Metrolink decided to ditch the bombardiers they had a wide range on them in varying degrees of age and condition. Depending on which ones LA is selling them, I can see a significant amount of rehab needed.

The other thing (and perhaps more exciting and permanent) is that Caltrain has said that some platforms will not be long enough for the new trains and therefore they will be extended. While some (Menlo Park, Burlingame, possibly DT San Mateo at least to the south) don't have room to be extended, its great to see that they are biting the bullet and doing this. Waiting for electrification just isn't viable with surging ridership.

[M II A II R II K]

2nd Transbay Tube needed to help keep BART on track

Read More: http://www.sfgate.com/default/articl...on-5737004.php

.....

The system can barely meet existing travel demand, let alone serve future transbay demand. That’s why the Bay Area must invest in a second Transbay Tube and why BART, in partnership with other agencies, is expected to commission in the coming several months a study that looks at increasing transbay transit capacity.

- A fundamental purpose of a second Transbay Tube is to increase the number of trains that can cross the bay. Trains already are crossing the bay just 2.5 minutes behind each other during commute hours, and very limited potential exists to reduce that spacing with just one set of tracks. Only a second Transbay Tube would allow BART to as much as double the number of trains it pushes across the bay.

- This would require constructing a new set of tracks to separate some BART routes from the existing tracks before the Oakland Wye (the junction point between the downtown Oakland and Lake Merritt stations and the West Oakland station, where all routes converge into one main line). It would also require a second BART alignment through San Francisco so that trains using the new Transbay Tube could remain separated from the existing tracks.

- The most frequently referenced alignment option for a second tube is one that would serve Alameda, San Francisco’s South of Market area via Mission or Third streets, and the western districts via Geary Boulevard.

I have reservations about this concept:

- While San Francisco has prioritized development in its SoMa and South Beach neighborhoods, and some interests would like to use a second BART alignment to further spur that development, that’s not what BART is for. Furthermore, regardless of whether economic activity increases to the degree envisioned, for the foreseeable future, transbay travel demand will continue to be primarily concentrated near the Market Street corridor.

- Today, two-thirds of all BART trips begin or end in downtown San Francisco, and there aren’t frequent-enough trains to comfortably accommodate these riders now. Why serve a new area when BART doesn’t have the capacity and flexibility to meet existing demand?

- The reservation I have with a SoMa alignment is that it skews BART service south of the Market Street corridor, San Francisco’s center of economic activity. While a SoMa alignment would serve new neighborhoods, it would do little to alleviate the crushing passenger loads at the existing BART stations along Market Street.

- Proponents of the SoMa alignments point out that other subway systems have multiple service lines to the metropolitan center; not just one. This is true. --- But that’s because in most cities, the multiple subway routes collectively circle around the metropolitan center. Riders can take a variety of routes to get to their destination without transferring because the destinations are concentrated between the various routes.

- BART, on the other hand, has several routes that converge into one line that spurs through the metropolitan center. Any alignment north or south of Market Street would take service away from San Francisco’s center of economic activity and encourage or even require riders to transfer to get to their final destinations.

- An alternative is to duplicate existing downtown San Francisco service with a second bore of tracks. A second level of tracks would be constructed from points near the Oakland Wye and follow BART’s existing service to a point south of the Powell Street Station. Here, this second set of tracks would diverge — perhaps following Fulton Street, with stations at Van Ness Avenue, the University of San Francisco and Golden Gate Park, then following 19th Avenue out to the Sunset District, San Francisco State University and a remodeled, four-platform, Daly City Station.

- Between the West Oakland and Powell Street stations, traffic on the upper- and lower-level platforms would be organized by destination. For example, northern East Bay and Mission District routes could use the upper-level platform, while southern East Bay and western loop routes could use the lower-level platform. Junctions would be constructed so that trains could be rerouted to other tracks as needed.

- This alternative protects the need to serve existing travel demand by providing additional throughput capacity along the Market Street corridor and not due-south of Market Street. Also, by serving regional points of interest along the western extension, it better maintains BART as a regional service rather than a local service alternative, as a Geary Boulevard alignment would.

.....

[fflint]

The Chronicle reports: "In August alone, BART averaged 418,000 riders per weekday - 27,000 more than a year earlier. Last week, there were three days when ridership topped 430,000." That's not a bad average for a month when schools are still out and so many people take their summer vacations--and those three big days last week would have been unimaginably high even just a few years ago.

Meanwhile, the LA Times reports ridership on the Southland's Metrolink commuter rail system continues to tank.

[ardecila]

I like the idea that the new BART line would include a southern leg down to Daly City, but the rest of this proposal is awful. Market Street is the spine of the city, but why should does it need to be the spine forever and ever?

A north-south orientation is probably a good idea, but why not run it under Mission or Howard and get a direct connection to Transbay in the process?

That's setting aside the practical considerations of adding two more tracks below Market - already a three-level subway. The new subway would have to deep, even deeper than the Central Subway. Unless you kicked Muni out of the middle level and allowed BART to run there...

[mthd]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I like the idea that the new BART line would include a southern leg down to Daly City, but the rest of this proposal is awful. Market Street is the spine of the city, but why should does it need to be the spine forever and ever?

A north-south orientation is probably a good idea, but why not run it under Mission or Howard and get a direct connection to Transbay in the process?

That's setting aside the practical considerations of adding two more tracks below Market - already a three-level subway. The new subway would have to deep, even deeper than the Central Subway. Unless you kicked Muni out of the middle level and allowed BART to run there...

I feel the other way - adding a Bart line through the sunset and to Daly City adds more rail service to an area which already has it. Geary has none and needs it. it should definitely connect to Transbay and connecting to or close to mission bay might make more sense than running entirely parallel to market street, unless it was as far south as Folsom.

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by mthd

I feel the other way - adding a Bart line through the sunset and to Daly City adds more rail service to an area which already has it. Geary has none and needs it. it should definitely connect to Transbay and connecting to or close to mission bay might make more sense than running entirely parallel to market street, unless it was as far south as Folsom.

I agree with this. I was also under the impression that the Transbay Tube still isn't at its theoretical capacity and that even more trains could run with a new mass control computer system and Spanish solution platforms in the downtown stations. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it seemed like it was a pretty profound increase from today's frequencies.

Pretty troubling if a BART board member sounds the way he did in this op-ed. Their meeting is tomorrow at 9 following a press conference at 11.

EDIT: This essay is an old one but a good one:
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...ily-with-bart/

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by fflint

Meanwhile, the LA Times reports ridership on the Southland's Metrolink commuter rail system continues to tank.

Brutal, though the article ends on a positive note with:

Michael DePallo, Metrolink's chief executive, says the effort is paying off. Preliminary figures for July and August show an uptick in riders of about 1.7% compared with the same period last year.

Railroad officials expect more boardings as the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority expands light rail and subway service to the Westside, which will provide commuters better access to job centers and popular destinations there.

To enhance regional travel, work is underway to build run-through tracks at Los Angeles' Union Station that will allow Metrolink trains to either make shorter stops or pass through the terminal without stopping....

Super excited to see BART continue to have big ridership increases.

[alchemist redux]

Instead of a second BART tunnel, would it make sense to extend a heavy rail HSR/Caltrain tunnel across the Bay instead? This would turn Transbay into a through station. At the east portal, it could effectively become a wye, where the current Capitol Corridor - in both directions - could be electrified.

I don't know the logistics or cost differential of this, but some of the things this would allow would be more direct SF-Sacramento HSR service, and an alternative one seat route from the East Bay through Silicon Valley to San Jose.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

2nd Transbay Tube needed to help keep BART on track

Read More: http://www.sfgate.com/default/articl...on-5737004.php

Isn't it likely many of the people riding BART to the Market Street stations are walking a few blocks over to their jobs in SOMA? If a new subway is built there, those people could switch to that line, thereby freeing up space on the original BART line under Market Street for new riders with destinations along and to the north of Market.

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

EDIT: This essay is an old one but a good one:
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...ily-with-bart/

Yup, I like that idea. I think I've posted it here before as well. Opens up new service to not only areas under served by rail transit in SF, but also under served by frequent rail transit in the East Bay.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by mthd

I feel the other way - adding a Bart line through the sunset and to Daly City adds more rail service to an area which already has it. Geary has none and needs it. it should definitely connect to Transbay and connecting to or close to mission bay might make more sense than running entirely parallel to market street, unless it was as far south as Folsom.

Extending a south branch to Daly City provides an express alternative to Muni and also allows BART to link the Richmond and Sunset with Millbrae where there is an easy Caltrain transfer. Great for the many, many reverse commuters.

The east-west leg through SF could be on Geary or Fulton - Geary is probably better since half of the land around Fulton is park space, and Geary is more commercial.

[OhioGuy]

BTW, has there ever been any consideration for a BART infill station in Oakland at 27th Street? The gap seems somewhat large between 19th Street and MacArthur stations. It would serve the very northern periphery of downtown Oakland, as well as the residential areas to the north and to the west. Or would it be too difficult/expensive to squeeze in a new station due to the interstate there?

[fflint]

There has been talk of building an infill BART station in Oakland's San Antonio district (between Lake Merritt Station and Fruitvale Station), but nothing north of downtown.

[OhioGuy]

^ Thanks for the response! Seems like 27th Street would be an ideal spot for an infill station that could support further redevelopment from northern downtown to the MacArthur Freeway (as well as areas to the west as well), but I don't live there, so I'm probably mistaken simply judging from Google satellite images and Google streetview.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

^ Thanks for the response! Seems like 27th Street would be an ideal spot for an infill station that could support further redevelopment from northern downtown to the MacArthur Freeway (as well as areas to the west as well), but I don't live there, so I'm probably mistaken simply judging from Google satellite images and Google streetview.

Yeah, you're mistaken. A station at 27th Street is impracticable, and that neighborhood is already built out anyway.

At 27th Street, there are four parallel elevated aerial tracks, serving three different lines, sandwiched in the middle of an elevated freeway. That stretch includes critical switching tracks that cannot be replicated at any other point. Even if the switching problem could somehow be fixed, there isn't sufficient width there to build three elevated platforms. There is also insufficient distance from the portal through which outbound trains exit the tunnels at 23rd Street. The tracks there are banked at a pretty sharp grade up to Sycamore, which means that, as the lead car on an outbound train began to slow to enter the station, people in the tenth car of a ten-car consist would nearly fall over. And, as noted earlier, that area is already built out--redevelopment would mean tearing down historic homes.

[CharlesCO]

While we're talkingn about infill stations, BART has, however, studied an infill station at 30th and Mission where the Safeway is. The tracks are at a 3% grade, which would probably mean a complete rebuild and/or disruption of service if they were to go forward with it. Infill stations are part of the 40-year future plan though.

[TWAK]

they could twist the fremont/daily city line a little bit so they can hook up Jack London and Alameda with the west oakland station. That can be new/not new tube option.
Should have an Airport to Airport tube for the next one for awesomeness. Keep in mind there is the abandoned rail bridge @ dumbarton that could be useful

[fflint]

Caltrain has dibs on the Dumbarton rail bridge.

[fflint]

According to an analysis by Bike Portland, the 2013 ACS shows the city of San Francisco has the third-highest bike mode share in the nation at 3.8%.

[fflint]

A very long, but fascinating, report from CityLab on the design process of BART's next generation of trains:

How San Francisco Is Designing Its Metro Train of the Future

BART cars are about to get their first real overhaul since the system launched in 1972.

Nate Berg
CityLab.com
Sep 16, 2014



...
Nearly half a century after the system's launch, BART will get its own long-awaited makeover. The so-called "Fleet of the Future" plan will put between 775 and 1,000 new BART cars on the tracks between 2017 and 2023, at a cost between $2.5 billion and $3.3 billion. But the overhaul is more of a full reimagining than a cosmetic touchup—from the big-picture look of the car itself to the minutiae of floor patterning and handrail grips. BART used the chance to rethink how the trains look on the outside and feel on the inside, how they accommodate the crowds of today and the near future, and how they subtly control rush-hour crowds and all those bicycles. The designers behind this project are focusing on the many minor details that together make a train ride either smooth or crowded or terrible or great.

In other words, BART asked what the redesign can do not only for its train cars but for the system as a whole. It's industrial design mixed with interior design, plus a splash of social engineering. And with the right touch, BART might even be able to hold on to that futuristic feel for another 40 years.

...
BART looked at demographics, too, says Weinstein. The agency considered how population growth rates would affect the demand for trains, and how the aging Baby Boomer population would affect the need for seats designed for seniors and people with disabilities. It also considered BART's scattered geography. The system serves as both an urban metro system and a regional commuter system, which can result in a dramatic difference between its weekday riders and its largely leisure- or tourism-based weekend riders. Meeting the needs of these various groups requires a good understanding of how each group uses the system.

So when BART contracted BMW Group DesignworksUSA in March 2011 to create the conceptual design for the new train cars, the agency first handed over all its ridership data, surveys, and observations. Weinstein says the data-rich approach is critical to making sure the new designs will actually benefit the people who use BART.

"We're planning on ordering up to a thousand of these cars," he says. "We can't really afford to be wrong."
...


I strongly recommend reading the entire article at CityLab