SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[fflint]

I don't think we have been shown BART is "so slow" relative to other systems, so the question "why" is a bit premature.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by fflint

I don't think we have been shown BART is "so slow" relative to other systems, so the question "why" is a bit premature.

No need to be so defensive. The question was a completely valid one even if it could have been worded a bit better. Simply put why is BART slower than Skytrain when you account for station spacing? The answer is most likely a combination of Skytrains moving-block signaling, Automation, and the acceleration of it's LIM.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by bardak

No need to be so defensive. The question was a completely valid one even if it could have been worded a bit better. Simply put why is BART slower than Skytrain when you account for station spacing? The answer is most likely a combination of Skytrains moving-block signaling, Automation, and the acceleration of it's LIM.

The question "Why is BART so slow?" simply assumes what it tries to show--that BART is slow. That is a logical fallacy called 'begging the question.'

Is BART really 'so slow' compared to similar systems? Maybe it is, maybe not--just going on what's been posted here, we cannot say.

BART's average speed is *faster* than Skytrain, by the way, not slower.

[logan5]

Looking at other commuter systems with similar station spacing, there is an average speed of 60 Km/h, which still seems kinda slow to me. So BART is slower than most systems, but not a lot slower. The top speed of these other commuter lines is 160 km/h, so that's probably the difference.

It would be interesting to see how Skytrain would perform given 4 km station spacing. I wonder if linear induction motors and automation would make a lot of difference.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by logan5

Looking at other commuter systems with similar station spacing, there is an average speed of 60 Km/h

What is your source for this figure? To what systems are you comparing BART?

which still seems kinda slow to me. So BART is slower than most systems, but not a lot slower. The top speed of these other commuter lines is 160 km/h, so that's probably the difference.

BART is a third-rail metro limited by the Feds to a max speed of 80mph.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by fflint

BART's average speed is *faster* than Skytrain, by the way, not slower.

Yes it is on average but if you actually take into account the station spacing as I said it is obvious that Skytrian would be faster if they had the same spacing. Is the Skytrain better than BART? no. They are both different systems that have different designs and goals.

Originally Posted by logan5

It would be interesting to see how Skytrain would perform given 4 km station spacing. I wonder if would make a lot of difference.

You would gain the most from linear induction motors and automation in the stations so the only gains that you would get is n any corners that you would need to slow done on. Larger the spacing the less you gain. That being said anymore talk about Skytrian specifics should probably be in the Vancouver section.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by bardak

Yes it is on average but if you actually take into account the station spacing as I said it is obvious that Skytrian would be faster if they had the same spacing.

Would be faster than BART or would be faster than Skytrain currently runs? I'm not sure what you're saying, let alone if it is obviously true.

BART moves its passengers an average of 33 miles in one hour. Skytrain moves its passengers an average of 28 miles in one hour. Skytrain has closer stations. As the two systems are currently configured and operated, it may well be Skytrain accelerates and decelerates more rapidly to and from its maximum operating speed (58mph) than BART does to its own max (80mph). It is not obviously true Skytrain could or would run as fast or faster than BART on the Bay Area's system, with trains hitting 79mph in stretches like the 3.6-mile Transbay Tube, nor is it obviously true that BART couldn't or wouldn't cover the Skytrain system as fast or faster than Skytrain.

It seems to me both agencies are likely running their trains in a way that attains a certain average trip speed, and tuning everything to that metric.

It sure would be fun to have some urban version of NASCAR--heavy rail drag racing!

[fflint]

Just found a BART legal document stating "[T]he typical operating speed for BART trains is 70 miles per hour."

BART says its average trip speed of 33 mph includes 20-second station dwell times. That is apparently long for third-rail systems. I know the next generation BART trains are being planned with an additional pair of doorways to facilitate faster boarding/exiting, but never realized people considered a train that runs typically at 70 mph "so slow"!

[CyberEric]

This is completely anecdotal, but I'll share that in my experience, BART spends a lot of time sitting at stations with the doors open, which goes along with what was mentioned about long dwell times.

I ride BART everyday for nearly an hour and I am consistently amazed/frustrated at how long we sit at stations, doors open, with no one getting on or off. I think this could be the main reason it's "slower."

[fflint]

I calculated in another thread that 11.3% of the entire Bay Area population makes a round-trip by bus, train or ferry boat on an average day. The whole post is here.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by fflint

I calculated in another thread that 11.3% of the entire Bay Area population makes a round-trip by bus, train or ferry boat on an average day. The whole post is here.

that's excellent! i'm curious how much the percentage goes up if you include commutes by foot and bicycle.

[CyberEric]

Cool! Is that high or low when compared to the rest of the nation?
Edit: Read the other thread seems to be about where you'd expect it to be, behind a few but ahead of most.

Random Note: I got to thinking about commuting patterns in and found this: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/...table7coco.htm

It's from 2010, but it seems like SF's total job number is really low at only 322k total workers, what's going on there? Is unemployment that high in SF?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by CyberEric

Cool! Is that high or low when compared to the rest of the nation?
Edit: Read the other thread seems to be about where you'd expect it to be, behind a few but ahead of most.

Random Note: I got to thinking about commuting patterns in and found this: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/...table7coco.htm

It's from 2010, but it seems like SF's total job number is really low at only 322k total workers, what's going on there? Is unemployment that high in SF?

That figure is from 2000, not 2010, and it breaks down by county where "commuters" live and where they work. If you wanted to add up all SF jobs to which workers commuted back in 2000, you'd have to add up all the "to San Francisco" lines from the other counties in addition to that 322k figure.

[CyberEric]

Originally Posted by fflint

That figure is from 2000, not 2010, and it breaks down by county where "commuters" live and where they work. If you wanted to add up all SF jobs to which workers commuted back in 2000, you'd have to add up all the "to San Francisco" lines from the other counties in addition to that 322k figure.

Does anyone have 2010 numbers? I added up all the numbers and got roughly 574,000 commuters to SF county.

I guess that seems reasonable, (though it's much lower than Santa Clara County, at 913,000 combined).
But what seems odd is this, if you add up all the workers that live in SF, it's only 429,000. That seems really low for a city that, at that time had nearly 800,000 people in it.

[fflint]

I don't know, and I'm just going to be patient for the release of the new numbers rather than delving into stats from over a decade ago.

In other news...on average, Caltrain now carries more passengers daily on its sole commuter rail corridor than many US cities carry on their entire light rail networks:

Ridership Climbs at Caltrain
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articl...0at%20Caltrain
Bill Silverfarb
San Mateo Daily Journal
July 6, 2011

....
For 11 of the past 12 months, average weekday ridership has exceeded the numbers from the previous year, a sign that perhaps the overall economy is improving, said Caltrain spokeswoman Christine Dunn
....
An average of 42,550 people boarded the train daily in May, up more than 2,500 riders daily compared to last year.
....

[CyberEric]

Originally Posted by fflint

I don't know, and I'm just going to be patient for the release of the new numbers rather than delving into stats from over a decade ago.

In other news...on average, Caltrain now carries more passengers daily on its sole commuter rail corridor than many US cities carry on their entire light rail networks:

Ridership Climbs at Caltrain
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articl...0at%20Caltrain
Bill Silverfarb
San Mateo Daily Journal
July 6, 2011

....
For 11 of the past 12 months, average weekday ridership has exceeded the numbers from the previous year, a sign that perhaps the overall economy is improving, said Caltrain spokeswoman Christine Dunn
....
An average of 42,550 people boarded the train daily in May, up more than 2,500 riders daily compared to last year.
....

Ok, something about it just seems off to me and wondered if anyone had any insight. Please let me know if you hear of any new commuter numbers.

Good news about Caltrain. Hopefully they can continue to trim that deficit.

[ElDuderino]

Panel wants to derail subway to Chinatown

Rachel Gordon
Friday, July 8, 2011

Muni's current plans for the Central Subway project should be scrapped, concludes a San Francisco civil grand jury report released Thursday.

The rail extension into Chinatown would add to Muni's existing operating deficit and "could stretch the existing maintenance environment to the breaking point," the court-appointed civil grand jury, a citizens' investigative panel, found after a seven-month investigation.

In addition, the 1.7-mile rail line's projected costs have escalated over the years - starting at $648 million in 2003 and rising to almost $1.6 billion today - and could continue to increase before its estimated opening in 2019.

Criticism of the Central Subway is not new. A group of transit activists has been trying to derail the project for years, saying that the riding public would benefit more with expanded and more efficient - and less costly - bus service serving Chinatown.

But city officials, including Mayor Ed Lee and his predecessors, the Board of Supervisors and Municipal Transportation Agency officials, have made the Central Subway a top priority.

They say it will fill a big need in Chinatown, among the densest urban neighborhoods in the United States whose residents and businesses rely heavily on public transit.

- Rachel Gordon

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1RXlWZKOF

[CyberEric]

I really hope this project doesn't get derailed (no pun intended). Between this and a Geary line, we need transit improvements in SF, and I don't mean buses.

[ardecila]

Nobody's suggesting that SF doesn't need new transit lines. It just doesn't need this transit line.

Take the money and put in LRT on Geary instead of BRT. (It should really be BART, but that ship sailed long ago.)

[fflint]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Take the money and put in LRT on Geary instead of BRT.

Not one dollar of the federal money can go to any other use, so while I also would prefer rail on Geary the choice is ultimately between this subway or nothing.