SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[ardecila]

Yeah, the Bay Area needs less money spent on BART and more on Muni. Also, more on Caltrain, which is a better model for providing suburban service than BART.

I keep hoping that the various commuter lines around the Bay will be united under a single brand. Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, and ACE are really the same service type. It's stupid to keep them separate.

[CyberEric]

VERY excited to hear that the Central line is looking like it will be extended, that's great news.
As for a Geary line, wake me up in 2025 when that's a reality. I just rode the 38L for the first time in months today and it was unbelievably crowded and uncomfortable compared to a rail option.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yeah, the Bay Area needs less money spent on BART and more on Muni. Also, more on Caltrain, which is a better model for providing suburban service than BART.

I keep hoping that the various commuter lines around the Bay will be united under a single brand. Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, and ACE are really the same service type. It's stupid to keep them separate.

They are separate because they are funded from different revenue sources with different taxes and rates.

Did you forget SMART?

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by tech12

But the central subway needs to be routed under the market street tunnel, right? So it seems there would be no need on that stretch of Geary for the tracks to swoop, or dive, as it would be a straight shot with no tunnel obstructing it, and it could pass right above the central subway. So the tracks would be straight and level...there could even be a separate Geary subway station at the opposite corner of union square (at powell), connected by an underground pathway to the central subway station (at stockton). At last that's how it seems it might be able to work to me. Too bad this stuff is so expensive, I'd love to see MUNI turn into a proper subway system. The central subway is a step in that direction at least, despite it's short length.

It's because while a shallow tunnel just crossing Market (at a 90 degree angle) would work, there aren't any ways that a Geary tunnel could merge or cross Market St at that angle, so it would have to be above the Central Subway at Stockton, then dive down a hundred feet to get below the Market St tunnel (or do something else like that). It might be possible to terminate a Geary subway before it reaches Market (last station at Powell or Stockton, short tail tracks after?), but that would really be crappy.

The idea was to make the shallow crossing of Market with the Central Subway, then have the Geary Subway be the one that takes the deep dive under Market, since it would already be diving below the CS (so there wouldn't be nearly as much rollercoastering for either).

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Gordo

It's because while a shallow tunnel just crossing Market (at a 90 degree angle) would work, there aren't any ways that a Geary tunnel could merge or cross Market St at that angle, so it would have to be above the Central Subway at Stockton, then dive down a hundred feet to get below the Market St tunnel (or do something else like that). It might be possible to terminate a Geary subway before it reaches Market (last station at Powell or Stockton, short tail tracks after?), but that would really be crappy.

The idea was to make the shallow crossing of Market with the Central Subway, then have the Geary Subway be the one that takes the deep dive under Market, since it would already be diving below the CS (so there wouldn't be nearly as much rollercoastering for either).

I see what you mean, but I was thinking that in my hypothetical Geary subway scenario that the Geary subway would merge with the market street subway, at Geary and market streets, not pass over/under it...so if that were the case, it seems a Geary street subway that passes above the central subway at Union Square might work? Or am I still missing something important that would get in the way?

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yeah, the Bay Area needs less money spent on BART and more on Muni. Also, more on Caltrain, which is a better model for providing suburban service than BART.

I keep hoping that the various commuter lines around the Bay will be united under a single brand. Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, and ACE are really the same service type. It's stupid to keep them separate.

Agreed on all counts, though i am very supportive of the BART extension to San Jose too.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by electricron

They are separate because they are funded from different revenue sources with different taxes and rates.

Did you forget SMART?

This doesn't mean they can't use a common brand with integrated ticketing (Clipper).

I did forget SMART, although it's kind of an outlier... the three systems I mentioned all meet up at San Jose Diridon, so that might create some confusion with three separate sets of logos, three separate ticket offices, three separate timetables, etc.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by tech12

I see what you mean, but I was thinking that in my hypothetical Geary subway scenario that the Geary subway would merge with the market street subway, at Geary and market streets, not pass over/under it...so if that were the case, it seems a Geary street subway that passes above the central subway at Union Square might work? Or am I still missing something important that would get in the way?

It simply isn't possible to merge another line with the Market Street subway (unless we were creating another tunnel level), that's the problem. Any connection at Market is going to include a subway going above or below the current train tunnels - I'm sure you've seen what a gigantic cluster!@#$ merging the N and J into the tunnel between Church and Van Ness causes. Adding another merge would make the tunnel unworkable from an operations standpoint, especially at a place like somewhere around Montgomery station.

[ardecila]

It's in this image, in the profile at the bottom. Looks like the Geary tunnel would pass between the Central Subway and the Stockton/Geary mezzanine, probably on its way to a flat junction with the Market St Subway or a stub-end platform.

[M II A II R II K]

Muni and other agencies consider basing fares on income

Read More: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/tran...g-fares-income

.....

With debate swirling in recent months over a proposal to provide free Muni service for The City’s low-income youths, a larger regional conversation has begun about the possibility of basing some transit fares on a customer’s ability to pay.

- “It makes all the sense in the world to provide discounts based on need, instead of age,” said Ed Reiskin, director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which operates Muni. “Right now, we’d give almost a 70 percent fare discount to Warren Buffet. There is not a whole lot of logic in that.” Spurred on by the debate surrounding the free Muni youth proposal, Reiskin said, the agency will issue a report on potential new fare policies in time for the early 2013 budget season.

- The agency could get some guidance from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the region’s lead transit planning body. The MTC is currently conducting its own $1 million study of the issue. “We have transit agencies that give volume discounts for passengers — basically, if a rider can afford to buy a bunch of trips, they get a deal,” commission spokesman Randy Rentschler said. “We need to ask ourselves, if we’re giving discounts, what kind should they be? Should it be for volume, or should it be based on economic need?”

.....

[Smiley Person]

Originally Posted by fflint

Wow, that's original--is that yours?

Yes, I made it with help from several friends.

[fflint]

BART Metro: Bridging BART’s Two Identities



SPUR.org
Thursday, December 13, 2012
By Molly Schremmer

In November, BART released conceptual plans for a multi-billion dollar rejuvenation that would introduce a new wave of service called BART Metro. BART expects vast ridership expansion in the next several years, and these changes would allow 50 percent growth — bringing the number of daily riders to an average of 560,000 — by 2025. The plans hinge on the idea that BART is not only a commuter rail that connects the suburbs to the cities, where most rides happen during rush hour, but also an urban-style metro, where large numbers of people are traveling throughout the day. The project seeks to balance improved service effectiveness (especially during mid-day and evening hours) with the need to enhance capacity on a two-track railroad.
....
Longer-term concepts focus on shortening some train lines by adding turnbacks, often created by adding a side track that allows the train to reverse directions. For example, turnbacks could be built adjacent to downtown San Francisco stops and the Bayfair station in the East Bay, in order to shuttle more trains back and forth under the bay. During peak commute hours it could work as follows: Destinations like Richmond would have 10 trains an hour with a gap of six minutes between trains, while West Oakland — the jumping-off point for all trains entering the Transbay Tube — would have as many as 27 trains an hour, with a gap of about 2.2 minutes between trains. In the future, on evenings and weekends, the northern part of the Richmond line would see eight trains an hour, with the urban core dropping down to 16. Downtown Oakland and Berkeley stops would also see an increase in trains; for example MacArthur station in north Oakland would receive 21 trains an hour during peak times and 12 during off-peak times. In this way, BART would be molded to more efficiently serve the urban core while not losing its other identity as a commuter rail.
....

[fflint]

Transbay Transit Center work progressing

John King
The San Francisco Chronicle
Monday, December 24, 2012


The biggest hole San Francisco has ever seen is being carved into an area between Second and Fourth streets, as round-the-clock work progresses to build San Francisco's new train terminal. Photo: Lacy Atkins, The Chronicle

....
For now, the brunt of the physical task is borne by the 150 or so workers toiling weekdays in around-the-clock shifts on the methodical excavation of the three-block-long space that will contain the rail platforms, concourse and train tracks for the terminal set to open in 2017. And even though work began in earnest more than a year ago, nothing structural will appear above ground before the spring of 2014.

The new center will be roughly a quarter mile long and 70 feet high, with a spidery glass form extending above First and Fremont streets. The aboveground portion will serve bus passengers as well as provide shops, circulation areas and a rooftop park.
....
"What you see is pretty standard around the world, this kind of deep horizontal bracing," Beck says before he and Adams lead a reporter down 82 steps within rickety scaffolding to the bottom of the artificial short-term canyon.

The scale is what makes things complex.

Both First and Fremont streets, for instance, now are bridges as they pass above the deepening hole. They rest on trestles that were installed over holiday weekends, a time when little traffic was heading through the Financial District.
....
"A year from now, on the street, you won't see much," Beck says. "With projects like this, you spend half the entire time below ground. Then the steel seems to go up overnight."

[northbay]

Cool video:

• Video Link

[ardecila]

That's awesome. The new Bay Bridge span is easily the most beautiful new bridge in the US in several decades.

[fflint]

Caltrain set a new record high for ridership in October--51,716 riders on an average weekday. That's more than most US regional light rail systems.

[northbay]

SMART update:

SMART gets $12.5 million to extend rail service to Airport Boulevard
By BOB NORBERG
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 4:51 p.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 4:51 p.m.

A key regional transportation committee on Wednesday approved $12.5 million for Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit to rebuild the line as far north as Airport Boulevard and possibly add a new station there.

The funds were approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's programming and allocations committee.

On Jan. 23, the committee's action will go to the full MTC board, which usually follows those recommendations...

SMART is now rebuilding track, building stations and buying rail cars, at a cost of about $360 million, to start service between Guerneville Road in Santa Rosa and downtown San Rafael in late 2015 or early 2016.

The additional funds approved Wednesday will allow SMART to rebuild the line from Guerneville Road to Airport Boulevard, where SMART is planning a $20 million operations and maintenance facility.

The track work could be completed by the time service is scheduled to start, said Farhad Mansourian, SMART general manager.

If the tracks are not rebuilt to passenger train standards, which allows speeds of 79 mph, SMART would be running trains to the maintenance facility over the existing freight line at 25 mph.

The SMART board has not approved a train station at Airport Boulevard, but the additional funds raise that possibility.

An Airport Boulevard station could serve the Charles M. Schultz-Sonoma County Airport and 6,000 workers in business parks near the airport....

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...1350?p=2&tc=pg

My wife works at one of the business parks. If they build the station there, she could take the train to work!

[electricron]

Originally Posted by northbay

My wife works at one of the business parks. If they build the station there, she could take the train to work!

Refurbishing an additional few miles of mainline tracks is relatively inexpensive as compared to building a brand new train station. To be effective, they will need a bus circulator to the airport which is several miles away, meaning they will need a bus loop at the new train station. More is needed than just building a platform.
SMART's original environmental paperwork did not include a train station or maintenance depot at this location. They have already revised the original paperwork for the maintenance depot, they would have to revise it again for a train station.

I'm not suggesting it can't be done, but the process needed to do so will take time. I don't expect a train station will be built here upon the initial startup of SMART services. Never-the-less, this additional money for additional track refurbishment along with the additional money for the additional train set will quicken the eventual building of a train station at this location.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by electricron

Refurbishing an additional few miles of mainline tracks is relatively inexpensive as compared to building a brand new train station. To be effective, they will need a bus circulator to the airport which is several miles away, meaning they will need a bus loop at the new train station. More is needed than just building a platform.
SMART's original environmental paperwork did not include a train station or maintenance depot at this location. They have already revised the original paperwork for the maintenance depot, they would have to revise it again for a train station.

I'm not suggesting it can't be done, but the process needed to do so will take time. I don't expect a train station will be built here upon the initial startup of SMART services. Never-the-less, this additional money for additional track refurbishment along with the additional money for the additional train set will quicken the eventual building of a train station at this location.

My wife doesn't work at the airport, but at one of the business parks - which is at most a half mile from where the station would be (at Airport Blvd). I know SMART will have shuttles at some stations, and this one will certainly need one, but if they don't run one I'm sure many employers will run shuttles. As noted in the article over 6000 people work in the business park. The local bank she works for alone has two buildings.

Your right getting money for the station is the hard part. Heck, if you read the whole article it states they are still short some money for the track work. But given the political will (the business community by the airport and the airport itself which is undergoing a major expansion this year allowing larger aircraft and longer flights), I have faith a station will be built sooner rather than later. Expanding North to Windsor is SMART's priority since it is projected to be the busiest station.

A station at the airport wasn't included in the original plans since the area is unincorporated and there is strong pressure to keep development away from the vineyards/farmland and countryside. Every city in the county has an urban growth boundary, and only two cities touch each other. However, I imagine the strong desire by county and economic leaders to greater use the airport as an economic engine, especially since the downturn, will eventually lead to a station. Besides, if you have a rail line going by an airport, common sense says build a station there. As you point out, we'll see when.

Edit: I just looked at Google Maps and the airport is MAYBE a mile from the station location, not several.

[fflint]

I attended a panel discussion last night that included, among other transportation leaders, BART's General Manager. She says BART is now carrying an average of 420,000 weekday riders and they expect even more growth in the coming year.

[easy as pie]

/drift you were at the spur event too? neat.