HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #921  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2013, 3:03 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
The contract will be awarded in 2014, so I suppose that's 'gearing up.'

So far, Kawasaki, Siemens, and CAF will all be allowed to bid. AnsaldoBreda failed to make the cut, but is appealing the decision. Breda manufactured Muni's current Metro fleet, and there have been a lot of problems.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #922  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2013, 6:18 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
If Siemens were to win, would they be built in the Sacramento factory? Would be a huge win for the area.
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #923  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2013, 6:31 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 ltsmotorsport View Post
If Siemens were to win, would they be built in the Sacramento factory? Would be a huge win for the area.
Well, it would stand to reason Siemens would use their Sacramento factory to build LRVs for San Francisco if it wins the bid--as long as the Sac facility is big enough to fill an order this big. They could certainly save a lot on delivery costs!
__________________
"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
     
     
  #924  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2013, 1:42 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
In the meantime, Muni is looking to reconfigure the seats in the existing Breda LRVs to increase capacity. Muni expects the reconfiguration will remove 8 seats per car, but make room for between 8 and 16 additional passengers (standing). According to streetsblog, Muni will reconfigure all seats to face sideways on at least one LRV and roll it into service as a test this coming January.


source
__________________
"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
     
     
  #925  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2013, 3:15 PM
theskythelimit theskythelimit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
In the meantime, Muni is looking to reconfigure the seats in the existing Breda LRVs to increase capacity. Muni expects the reconfiguration will remove 8 seats per car, but make room for between 8 and 16 additional passengers (standing). According to streetsblog, Muni will reconfigure all seats to face sideways on at least one LRV and roll it into service as a test this coming January.


source
I believe if they, muni, goes for a reconfigured facing sideways seat, it will allow more space in the middle to pass people. Plus, no more squeezing out by people who do not want to rise when you want to get out from the inner seat
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #926  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2013, 3:14 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 theskythelimit View Post
I believe if they, muni, goes for a reconfigured facing sideways seat, it will allow more space in the middle to pass people. Plus, no more squeezing out by people who do not want to rise when you want to get out from the inner seat
Totally--this will open up two feet of extra space not only for standing but also for getting on and off the train. Going on my experience with Boston's Red Line trains, this setup makes it infinitely easier to move around when trains are crowded.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #927  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2013, 3:39 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
The new American Community Survey estimates are out for 2012!

Percentage of work commutes that does not involve a car, van or truck:

*60% of Berkeleyans

*56% of San Franciscans

*36% of Palo Alto residents

*34% of Oaklanders

*23% of San Mateo residents

*18% of Concord residents

*17% of Hayward residents

*16% of Fremont residents

*13% of Vallejo residents

*11% of San Jose residents

*11% of Santa Rosa residents

These stats include every means to work that don't include a car, van or truck--motorcycles, taxi cabs, ferry boats, bikes, walking, etc.
__________________
"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; Sep 27, 2013 at 7:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #928  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2013, 5:57 PM
combusean's Avatar
combusean combusean is online now
Skyriser
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Newark, California
Posts: 7,181
The SFMTA is considering the construction of two subway alternatives for the M from St Francis Circle to points south.

Quote:
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency officials at a community meeting Tuesday night introduced two conceptual alternatives to the original plan to reroute the M-line through the Parkmerced housing complex. Both would include a subway from south of St. Francis Circle through Stonestown Galleria, but emerge from underground at different spots farther south.

The Longer Subway and Bridge alternative would follow Font Boulevard in Parkmerced to a light-rail bridge over Junipero Serra Boulevard and continue on Randolph Street, while the Shorter Subway and Tunnel scheme would tunnel under the intersection of 19th Avenue and Junipero Serra Boulevard and continue on 19th Avenue and Randolph Street.

Officials said the changes in the Longer plan would better reach the 19th Avenue Transit Study's objectives of faster light-rail travel time and pedestrian improvements. They called it the "high-performing alternative."
Read more: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancis...nt?oid=2589623
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #929  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2013, 2:29 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
SPUR put together this handy map showing potential expansions and upgrades under BART's "Metro Vision," including five infill stations in Oakland and two in San Francisco, station capacity expansions in downtown San Francisco and center city Oakland, and mid-route turnbacks that would allow for a more traditional "metro" service within the Bay Area's urban core. And a second transbay tube! We can dream... *le sigh*


source
__________________
"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
     
     
  #930  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2013, 4:18 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
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.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #931  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2013, 2:34 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 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--and remember, this is just brainstorming without final alignments set or any commitment to build from BART. That said, we've known for a long time that we'll eventually need a second set of underwater tunnels--and there has been some on-and-off commitment to that end over the years--so it would make sense to route any new SF extensions toward them rather than the current set.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #932  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2013, 5:10 AM
XtremeDave XtremeDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
No, the Geary, Presidio and West Loop proposals wouldn't--and remember, this is just brainstorming without final alignments set or any commitment to build from BART. That said, we've known for a long time that we'll eventually need a second set of underwater tunnels--and there has been some on-and-off commitment to that end over the years--so it would make sense to route any new SF extensions toward them rather than the current set.
If FRA regulation reforms and negotiations to use UPRR tracks in the East Bay (from Hercules to the Coliseum) can be accomplished, then the Geary, Presidio, West Loop lines and New Transbay Tube should be a separate network from current BART (though still owned/operated under the BART brand) and use standard gauge EMUs instead of the expensive BART broad-gauge rolling stock.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #933  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2013, 12:03 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 XtremeDave View Post
If FRA regulation reforms and negotiations to use UPRR tracks in the East Bay (from Hercules to the Coliseum) can be accomplished, then the Geary, Presidio, West Loop lines and New Transbay Tube should be a separate network from current BART (though still owned/operated under the BART brand) and use standard gauge EMUs instead of the expensive BART broad-gauge rolling stock.
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
     
     
  #934  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2013, 12:07 AM
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
They'd be cheaper for one, or at least have the possibility of being cheaper (combining orders with other agencies, etc). I've never heard of an advantage of the BART broad gauge - we extend it simply because it's there. So if we're building lines that don't have to share trackage with other lines, why continue it? Is there an advantage that you've heard of?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #935  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2013, 12:15 AM
CharlesCO's Avatar
CharlesCO CharlesCO is offline
Aspiring Amateur
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 415
The only reason the broad gauge was chosen was so that the trains would be more stable in crosswinds over the Golden Gate Bridge. Otherwise, there's no real advantage over standard gauge. Considering that it makes almost everything BART builds 60% more expensive, it probably would be a good idea to consider standard gauge for future projects (as they have for eBART).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #936  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2013, 1:02 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
I recall reading the Indian guage was chosen because the trains would be traveling a maximum 80mph--far faster than any existing metro at the time--and would allow for better stability at high speed, especially in turns.

Anyway, we are all simply assuming EMUs on standard-guage track would be cheaper than current standards, and if that is true, I can see the argument for lower costs. The eBART line in the far East Bay will be using DMUs, and since that is the very edge of the system it makes sense--but it might not make sense in the core. I can see an argument for keeping the existing standards.

Extensions utilizing existing standards and fleets would allow for flexibile route configurations (e.g. a line that runs from Ocean Beach to Bay Point) that would not be possible with an entirely separate system. Also, with two incompatible railroads, riders who start their journey on one system but wish to exit on the other will necessarily be forced to make unnecessary and time-wasting transfers.

Retaining existing standards would also allow BART to continue sending any of the reserve consists (about 40 on any given weekday) to any route when and where needed--that flexibility would be lost with two incompatible fleets.

Failing to retain existing standards would also require BART to build entirely new and very expensive storage yards and garages, and staff them with their own separate (but equally well-paid) crews. Is there land available for entirely new yards and garages in the pricy Bay Area? How much would such construction and land acquisitions cost? Would these costs eliminate the assumed savings of running a separate EMU railroad?

Also, does anyone have data on how many passengers EMUs can carry? Currently, a crush-load ten-car BART consist can carry 2,000 riders. Can EMUs match that capacity?
__________________
"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
     
     
  #937  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2013, 1:23 AM
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
It'd be nice if a BART with standard gauge could share some of the facilities/staff/etc with a standard gauge Caltrain with EMUs (and potentially Capitol Corridor and/or other commuter lines at some point in the distant future). Probably not feasible politically though.

Just a quick search and it looks like there are many EMUs out there with 200+ capacity per car, though I'm not sure of the length compared to BART, etc. With BART having almost entirely 2+2 seating though, I can't imagine that it has higher capacity than most EMUs with more center-facing seating (assuming similar length of cars), even with the slightly wider build of the cars.

I certainly don't think that switching to standard gauge is any kind of slam dunk, but I would think that it should be considered. I don't understand the statement about transfers though - we're talking about entirely new lines. No additional transfers than would already be the case, unless your note is just that there wouldn't be the possibility of interlining the two systems. As far as storage yards and garages, I'd assume that we'd need most of that anyway for the additional lines. Every extension recently built has required a new yard and garages...

Last edited by Gordo; Sep 30, 2013 at 1:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #938  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2013, 1:41 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
But BART trains are EMUs. An EMU (electric multiple unit) car is any car that has electric motors in each car either on one or both axels (as opposed to unpowered coaches pulled by locomotive).
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #939  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2013, 2:26 AM
BrennanW's Avatar
BrennanW BrennanW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manhattan, Kansas USA.
Posts: 198
While I think converting new lines to standard gauge is a good idea, I don't think BART should switch to freight-rail sharing FRA-compliant EMUs like Denver is doing. BART should preserve its status as a heavy-rail hybrid rail line. If it uses existing rail right of ways, it should be grade-separated.
__________________
Proud Kansan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #940  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2013, 2:43 AM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is offline
Resu Deretsiger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 14,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
SPUR put together this handy map showing potential expansions and upgrades under BART's "Metro Vision," including five infill stations in Oakland and two in San Francisco, station capacity expansions in downtown San Francisco and center city Oakland, and mid-route turnbacks that would allow for a more traditional "metro" service within the Bay Area's urban core. And a second transbay tube! We can dream... *le sigh*


source
awesome map and I'm glad to see they are thinking about the 680 corridor and I thought that Wbart was officially dead?
__________________
nobody cares about your city
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 5:09 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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