SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[northbay]

Sure there's surface parking, but you forgot about the rush hour mess to get home. 101 is a disaster. Many of the employers, along with SMART, plan to run shuttles. There's also going to be a multi-use pathway parallel to the tracks. There's 1000s of employees in these office parks.

[202_Cyclist]

Northbay:

Originally Posted by northbay

Btw, Sonoma County "looks" agricultural but half a million live here. Google earth isn't the same as being "on the ground."

I don't doubt this but that is why it is more important to build transit where the residential and employment density is located, not an airport where there are less than three hundred daily passengers and perhaps 15 transit-riders out of those passengers.

The airport is considered a major employment center of the county.

An airport this size probably has 200-300 employees employed by the airport directly and by related businesses. Assuming a 15% transit mode-share by thees employees, at most this is still less than 50 daily riders for SMART.

[northbay]

With only four destinations, adding even one after the expansion will make a big difference at the airport. The SMART connection is also to entice carriers to the airport.

[northbay]

The surrounding business parks have 1000s of employees and have nothing to do with the airport. My wife works for a financial institution!

[northbay]

You're making incorrect assumptions because you don't know the area!

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by northbay

The surrounding business parks have 1000s of employees and have nothing to do with the airport. My wife works for a financial institution!

This is where the station should be built, then, not in a location that might have two dozen daily riders to/from the airport.

Read the GAO report I posted the link to if you want to see how many people take rail to the airport--- and this is for some of the largest airports in the US that have a significantly higher transit mode-share than Sonoma Co airport will have.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Northbay:



I don't doubt this but that is why it is more important to build transit where the residential and employment density is located...

In Sonoma County, nearly 80% of development is along the 101 corridor, which is the route SMART will parallel. SMART does EXACTLY what you say.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

This is where the station should be built, then, not in a location that might have two dozen daily riders to/from the airport.

Read the GAO report I posted the link to if you want to see how many people take rail to the airport--- and this is for some of the largest airports in the US that have a significantly higher transit mode-share than Sonoma Co airport will have.

That IS where the station will be, at Airport Blvd. There will be a shuttle to the airport itself!

[northbay]

Look, I'm sorry this turned into an 'argument'. Like I said, you CLEARLY don't know the area, so can't make a good judgement. I usually agree with what you have to say, I just want you to know this IS A GOOD INVESTMENT. I was born up here, and have lived here all my life except when I went to school (I have traveled however, to most states, central America and Japan many times, and came back because I love this place so much). I do know what good transit looks like. Sure Sonoma Co. isn't the densest place but a rail line along the county's clogged artery just makes sense. Rail will help also make this place denser. Transit-oriented developments are being built/planned as we speak thanks to SMART.

I am thankful that local AND regional authorities are working tirelessly to making this rail line a reality and the best it can be.

[fflint]

My partner and I took a hot air balloon ride one time, and we met up with the operators on Airport Boulevard near 101. We missed the turn at first and ended up driving for maybe half a mile toward the airport. I was surprised at how many office buildings there were--it's definitely a major employment center.

101 north of San Francisco is an absolute, unmitigated commuter disaster with no alternatives. Of the last 20 times I've taken it (to Guerneville, Gualala, etc.) it has been congested every single time except our pre-dawn trip to the balloon ride. SMART will absolutely attract a good number of commuters.

As for the airport itself, 202 apparently didn't even read what he initially posted. His quote of the article notes the "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." The North Bay is growing rapidly, and in the coming years both the airport and SMART ridership will grow accordingly.

[fflint]

Never mind

[ardecila]

The building is impressive but the platform area is pretty damn spartan. No canopies, benches, trashcans, and only a platform on one side.

Edit: Google Maps shows a more favorable picture, with nice brick plazas and turnarounds on the city side of the station and another canopy just out of the photo's frame to the left. Blame the weird vantage point of the photo...

[WCArch]

Here is a brand new blog with a recent article about the new Air Traffic Control Tower at SFO. I thought it was interesting. Lots of renderings. Also has a neat video.

http://westcoastarch.blogspot.com/20...er-at-sfo.html

[OhioGuy]

Second tunnel boring machine begins drilling work on Central Subway

Following the lead of the first Central Subway tunnel-boring machine that drilled beneath Union Square late last year, the machine nicknamed Big Alma on Tuesday began making its way through the same undercrossing.

To build about 425 feet of new tunnel under the existing Muni and BART infrastructure, Big Alma will turn slightly left beneath Fourth Street, just south of Market Street, and veer right to go north under Market and Stockton streets.

When completed, the new subway tunnels about 10 feet below the existing BART tracks will allow trains on Muni’s T-Third Street line to travel rapidly beneath Stockton and Fourth streets.

“This is another key milestone that puts us a step closer to providing a major transit improvement that will cut travel times by more than half along this very dense and busy corridor,” said San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency spokesman Paul Rose.

Is there any active planning work and/or funding being sought for a future extension of this new line further north via Columbus to North Beach/Fisherman's Wharf?

[fflint]

Never mind

[northbay]

"Watch this time lapse video of the Herzog Contracting Corp/Stacy and Witbeck joint venture working on the SMART project in California. It was a 10-day operation to demo and re-construct the Cinnabar Bridge. Lots of hard work with a great end result!"

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...type=2&theater

[ltsmotorsport]

Is anyone able to post more from this article/op-ed in today's Chron? Can't really get much of the substance just in the first paragraph.

2nd BART tube under the bay would serve region well

Jeffrey Heller

February 14, 2014 | Updated: February 15, 2014

We have an opportunity to greatly improve public transit for both Oakland and San Francisco: build a new, second bay crossing for BART. A second tube under the bay will serve some of our emerging neighborhoods as well as the classically underserved areas of both cities. Any scenario without a second crossing cannot solve BART's current and future capacity problems.....

Not sure I agree totally with the alignment so close to the existing Caltrain service and not even connecting to the new Transbay Terminal, but maybe it would be needed in the future with that side of town continuing to redevelop. IMO, a new BART line should first stop at the new Transbay, then Union Square and on up Geary, then turn south and head down 19th/Hwy 1.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

Is anyone able to post more from this article/op-ed in today's Chron? Can't really get much of the substance just in the first paragraph.

Not sure I agree totally with the alignment so close to the existing Caltrain service and not even connecting to the new Transbay Terminal, but maybe it would be needed in the future with that side of town continuing to redevelop. IMO, a new BART line should first stop at the new Transbay, then Union Square and on up Geary, then turn south and head down 19th/Hwy 1.

I read somewhere that the original BART tunnels reach capacity during rush hour. Any truth to that?

Looking at the picture, the 2nd tunnel proposal also looks like a new 4 station SF subway with (hopefully) better connections to SFO, integrated around the Caltrain station, which also, from what I understand, might be the terminal for HSR entering SF on Caltrain tracks.

Any thoughts?

[mthd]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

..Not sure I agree totally with the alignment so close to the existing Caltrain service and not even connecting to the new Transbay Terminal, but maybe it would be needed in the future with that side of town continuing to redevelop. IMO, a new BART line should first stop at the new Transbay, then Union Square and on up Geary, then turn south and head down 19th/Hwy 1.

agreed. although a more "direct" route to the airport would be nice, and shave perhaps 10 minutes off the 30 minute current trip from downtown, it shouldn't be a priority, and a new line should not duplicate so much of the T-third. Geary is the big prize, with it's 60k plus daily riders, and a stop at van ness and geary would pick up other very high density areas in the tenderloin, cathedral hill, lower pacific heights, lower nob hill, etc. 2nd and brannan, 2nd and mission (transbay connection, market street line connection), geary or post and powell or mason, geary and van ness, geary and divisadero, and then an aerial structure to the west with stops picking up CPMC laurel village, USF, the de young and academy of sciences (a bit of a hike), etc.

you'd get 100,000 riders on day 1.

it would probably also cost $20 billion and never happen.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

I read somewhere that the original BART tunnels reach capacity during rush hour. Any truth to that?

Looking at the picture, the 2nd tunnel proposal also looks like a new 4 station SF subway with (hopefully) better connections to SFO, integrated around the Caltrain station, which also, from what I understand, might be the terminal for HSR entering SF on Caltrain tracks.

Any thoughts?

the original tunnels are close to or at capacity depending on the headways, which depend on the train control system. there are plans to upgrade the control system to marginally increase capacity in the tube.

however, three of the four downtown stations - embarcadero, montgomery, and powell are capacity limited by escalator capacity and platform size. the medium-term plans for these stations include extra platforms on both sides of the trains, which sounds crazy but actually isn't that bad. however.... i'd rather they put the money towards a second line.