# SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | Public Transport



## sky10

*san francisco transit*

in sfo how is the bart rapid transit train system differs from the muni metro train system in terms of trains,fare control,formality and etc
bye


----------



## sequoias

sky10 said:


> in sfo how is the bart rapid transit train system differs from the muni metro train system in terms of trains,fare control,formality and etc
> bye


BART is 3rd rail heavy rail train 

MUNI is light rail with overhead power line that collects power to the train via pantograph

that's all I know


----------



## greg_christine

sequoias said:


> BART is 3rd rail heavy rail train
> 
> MUNI is light rail with overhead power line that collects power to the train via pantograph


The above is a very accurate and concise description of the two systems. They actually share four underground stations in downtown San Francisco (Embarcadero, Montgomery Street, Powell Street, and Civic Center). Muni Metro is on the upper level and BART is on the lower level. Muni Metro has five lines (J, K, L, M, and N) and operates entirely within the city limits of San Francisco. BART has four or five lines depending on how you count and stretches across the bay area region with terminal points in the cities of Freemont, Dublin, Pittsburgh, Richmond, and the SF airport area. The following map from www.urbanrail.net overlays the two systems:










Muni is a full transit provider that includes bus lines (diesel buses and electric trolley buses), the San Francisco cable car lines, and the F-Line (heritage streetcars). For more information, see the following websites:

http://www.urbanrail.net/am/snfr/san-francisco.htm
http://world.nycsubway.org/us/sf/
http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/SanFrancisco/MuniMetro/
http://www.streetcar.org/

It should be noted that San Jose also has a light rail system that my someday meet BART (or vice versa). There actually was a voter referendum that approved funding to extend BART to San Jose; however, more money is still needed. For more information on the San Jose light rail system, see the following website:

http://world.nycsubway.org/us/sanjose/


----------



## samsonyuen

I was really impressed with the MUNI and BART when I was there. I think it's neat that they use $1 coins (the Sacagawea one) for tokens. Do they still do that?


----------



## reluminate

BART was the first automated system in the US. It was also built to withstand earthquakes. Only 6 hours after the Loma Prieta in 1989, BART was running.


----------



## hkskyline

*San Francisco BART 1st Transit System in US to Offer Wireless Underground*

*BART has become the first transit system in the nation to offer wireless communication underground*
19 November 2005

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - BART has become the first transit system in the nation to offer wireless communication to its passengers underground. 

"The goal we have is to completely wire 100 percent of the underground so a passenger wouldn't know if they were above ground or underground," said Chuck Rae, BART's manager of telecommunications revenue. "It would be seamless." 

Contractors recently wired the subways in downtown San Francisco. Downtown Oakland is probably next, followed by Berkeley. The wireless companies will determine the timetable. 

Five of the Bay Area's six wireless companies have signed up to use the system and the sixth is in negotiations, Rae said. The arrangement will generate hundreds of thousands of dollars, and eventually millions, for Bay Area Rapid Transit. 

Wireless access could help stave off fare increases. BART's deal with the phone companies for downtown San Francisco will bring in at least $408,000 a year. As additional stations, tubes and tunnels are wired, that amount could rise to more than $2 million a year. 

Rae said BART pays nothing to install the antennas. Nextel serves as the coordinator, planning, paying for and overseeing the work. Other carriers have the right to buy in and make agreements to reimburse Nextel and pay annual fees to BART. 

While other transit agencies have deals with specific cell-phone services, BART is the first in the nation to make a deal allowing underground access to all wireless companies and their customers, Rae said.


----------



## mr_storms

Ive heard about this, but i didnt know the carriers were playing bart money, seems like a very good idea. Its free revenue for them and gives additional services to passengers. Next they should install wifi everywhere with google like they are trying to do in san francisco


----------



## sfgadv02

I heard they were going to do something similar in NY....


----------



## Sher

*San Francisco Historic Streetcars*

The F-Market & Wharves historic streetcar line runs six miles each way between Fisherman’s Wharf and the Castro District. Along the way, you’ll see sights both historic and modern. 

The streetcars most often seen on Muni’s historic routes are the *streamlined PCCs*, designed in 1935 by the Presidents’ Conference Committee of US electric railway leaders to bring modern looks and technology to streetcars. The most successful streetcar ever built, 4,500 PCCs ran in 33 cities, including San Francisco. Muni currently operates seventeen PCCs on the F-line. Three double-end cars were bought new by Muni in 1948. Fourteen 1946 single-end cars came second-hand from Philadelphia in 1994. Now restored, all are painted in authentic liveries of cities that once operated this great streetcar. 























































*Inside a PCC streetcar:*




















This *older type* of streetcar was designed by Cleveland transit leader Peter Witt and ran in many US cities, though never in San Francisco. Milan, Italy built hundreds of Peter Witts in 1928 and are still running some today. Muni got one car, No. 1834, as a Trolley Festival gift in 1984 and liked it so much they obtained ten more in 1998 to meet the huge F-line rider demand.



















source/more info: http://www.streetcar.org/mim/streetcars/fleet/index.html


----------



## reluminate

San Francisco currently has a PCC car from the Newark City Subway donated by NJTransit after they bought new cars:










New Cars:









Does anyone have a picture of the Newark cars in SF?


----------



## [email protected]

I just love the San Francisco Historic streetcars. I had an opportunity to try them out a few months ago while I was there visiting a friend and man! There is just some really awesome nostalgic feeling that you get when you ride them. The view outside their windows is, of course, a major contributor to the experience as well. I wish Portland would run these things in our existing streetcar lines from time to time, even if its just for some festivity.


----------



## mr_storms

SF Streetcars are cool, but cable cars are much better imo. Too bad cable cars have like 1 hour wait comes to ride on them


----------



## Sher

Are those new ones also Muni owned and serve as Muni Metro? I don't often ride underground while I was there..


----------



## mr_storms

the historic cable cars are also run by muni, but theyre basically only for tourists as directly below them run muni metro and below them bart


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

>


^^
It remembers me Line 1 (Green) of the Underground of Boston



> Milan, Italy built hundreds of Peter Witts in 1928 and are still running some today.


I think in Milan about a coupple of hundreds of Peter Witts are still running, of more than 700 initially built...


----------



## greg_christine

I find this picture particularly impressive:










Note that a trolley pole equipped streetcar is operating on the same wires as an electric trolley bus. The streetcar uses one leg of the two-wire trolley bus power supply. You can't do that with a modern pantograph equipped streetcar without resorting to some exotic wire arrangement.


----------



## MelbourneCity

Some of those are quite nice. The red and cream one I find particuarly attractive.
Not sure I like that NJ Transit one. Its pretty ugly.

They're not as nice as my home town's W class trams


----------



## invincible

I believe that San Francisco has two W-class trams as part of its fleet. They don't look as nice as the Melbourne ones that have been painted in the more suitable brown City Circle or restaurant colours, they're probably green and yellow as per the colour scheme they were in when they were retired.


----------



## brugghen

*San Francisco Trolleybuses*

San Francisco has a big trolleybus system. Most trolleybuses are build by ETI/Skoda 

Still some old Flyer trolleybuses build in the 70s are still running




























Regards wouter


----------



## Falubaz

have you got a map of the SF trolley system??


----------



## HKT

Just wondering if you have any pictures of an ex-AC Transit Gillig Phantom in Muni's livery?


----------



## ode of bund




----------



## bayviews

Good pictures and great map of SF’s Trolleybus system. Yea, the mid-1970s Flyers have proven very durable as some remained in operation nearly 30 years! To clarify, there are also nearly 60 articulated New Flyers from the mid-1990s.


----------



## mr_storms

SF trolley buses are quite unique in the US, certainly cool. I never really have the need to use them when im in SF though, its almost always bart and Muni Metro


----------



## Jayayess1190

Septa here in Philly had New Flyer Trolley Buses, until around 2003. In 2007-08 we will be getting New Flyer trackless trollies.


----------



## bayviews

Really glad to hear that SEPTA has finally decided to order new trolleybuses. The low-floor New Flyers look much better than SF's 1990s New Flyers. Or for that matter the new ETI-Skoda's! Is SEPTA going to repoen the South Philly TB lines? Or just the North/Northeast TB lines?


----------



## greg_christine

The cities in the United States with electric trolley bus lines are:

Cambridge, MA
Dayton, OH
Philadelphia, PA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA

Electric trolley buses are an option that has been overlooked by many cities that are anxious to build streetcar lines. Electric trolley buses bring many of the same advantages as streetcars (quiet operation and low pollution levels) at much lower cost.


----------



## Jayayess1190

bayviews said:


> Really glad to hear that SEPTA has finally decided to order new trolleybuses. The low-floor New Flyers look much better than SF's 1990s New Flyers. Or for that matter the new ETI-Skoda's! Is SEPTA going to repoen the South Philly TB lines? Or just the North/Northeast TB lines?


Only three of the five routes will return to trackless trollies. Routes 59, 66, and 75.


----------



## jamesinclair

greg_christine said:


> The cities in the United States with electric trolley bus lines are:
> 
> Cambridge, MA
> Dayton, OH
> Philadelphia, PA
> San Francisco, CA
> Seattle, WA
> 
> Electric trolley buses are an option that has been overlooked by many cities that are anxious to build streetcar lines. Electric trolley buses bring many of the same advantages as streetcars (quiet operation and low pollution levels) at much lower cost.


Because they go voer the road, people think its ugly.

I like them though, heres a bit from mexico city:


----------



## [email protected]_Coast

Vancouver, Canada also has electric trolley buses.


----------



## elkram

The fact that the SF trollies were able to maintain their zippy speeds when negotiating intersections whereabove there were mazes of wires was quite impressive. In Vancouver, plus Toronto when it used to have some, they always slowed quite a bit to negotiate their intersections.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## elkram

Although in a different country, Montreal's short section has been around a few years -- at the east end of the advertized five-station downtown segment, which captures an interchange serving two other lines, the signal appears to fully deteriorate after the following station. They were wanting to apply it to the entirely underground network here once they start renovating the stations.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## TRZ

I remember hearing friends talk about how they wish this would happen and how much money could be generated by the company that would do it.

However, is this really an additional service to passengers?

I can tell you right now this would never happen in Tokyo. It's nothing that they can't afford, but it is promoting inconsiderence. Cell-phone use on surface-line trains are a problem, not an "additional service". Tokyo's subway system is fully wired in the stations, but there are lots of reminders for not using your cell-phone on the train. The also applies to GO Transit in Greater Toronto - people are too inconsiderate to the other passengers around them when screaming into their cell phones on a crowded train. These U.S. operators are seriously asking for trouble. I guarantee lots of passenger complaints in the future.


----------



## jose_kwan

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!


----------



## greg_christine

*San Jose, California Light Rail Excursion*

During a business trip last week, I found myself with a free evening in San Jose. I boarded a light rail train in the downtown area at Gish Station and took a round trip on the line between Winchester and Mountain View. The southern segment of the line is the relatively recent Vasona extension. The following are some pictures from that excursion:









Train at Gish Station.









Looking down corridor.









The high-floor section.









Looking back from the high-floor section.









Bike racks in the middle section.









Bike rack in use.









Train at Tasman Station waiting for transfers from Alum Rock Line.









Train at Mountain View Station.









Window reflection self-portrait.









Light rail ticket.

The following are some observations from the ride:

Trains
The trains were very clean and free of graffiti. All the trains on the light rail system are now the Kinkisharyo 70% low-floor trains that went into service during the past few years.

The trains ride very smoothly and do not exhibit the "hunting" motion that I have heard is a problem with low-floor trains from other manufacturers.

The driver's station is in a cab that is isolated from the passenger compartment by a bulkhead with a door. Driver's stations exist at both ends of each car.

Stations
Most of the stations have been rebuilt so that the platforms provide an Americans with Disabilities Act compliant gap with the low-floor trains. A couple of the stations in the downtown area are still in the process of being rebuilt. All the stations that I saw were open air and most were at street level.

Tickets are purchased at the stations at vending machines. I purchased an "Excursion Pass" for $3.50 that was good for eight hours on the light rail system. I did not encounter any ticket inspectors during my ride..

Track Arrangement
The line runs predominantly on the medians of surface streets. I did not notice any areas where the light rail tracks shared lanes with motor vehicles.

The area around the municipal buildings in downtown San Jose has been turned into sort of a transit mall with the northbound and southbound tracks following separate routes that form a loop. The narrow streets in this area lose one lane at the side of the street to the light rail tracks.

Part of the Winchester end of the line is single-track with some segments on viaducts.

Operations
The trains reverse direction by switching ends at the terminal stations.. I believe the trains were operating at fifteen minute headways, which gave plenty of time for the driver to switch cabs and reverse the train.

The train that I rode started out as a two-car train. During the return pass through the downtown area, the passengers in the second car were asked to move to the first car so that the second car could be uncoupled and taken out of service.

The trains feature "Stop Request" strips on the walls next to the doors. The driver skips stations at which he does not see people waiting on the platforms unless the "Stop Request" strip has been pressed. This results in a faster ride but requires that the passengers be more alert.

I did not observe the trains having to make stops for traffic lights. I suspect that traffic signal preemption is used.

Bikes
The central segment of each car has seats on one side and bike racks on the other side. The bike racks require that the bikes be lifted on end. This makes for a very compact stowage arrangement; however, some bike riders chose to simply stand with their bikes next to the door near the middle section, which certainly was easier than lifting the bike and was not a major problem due to the light passenger load on the train.

Speed
If there is one aspect of the system that I would criticize it is the speed of the trains. An 18-mile end-to-end ride on the Winchester-Mountain View line took about 1 hour and 15 minutes.

With the line running predominantly on surface streets, maximum speeds are generally limited to 35 mph. The speeds are probably higher on the viaduct sections of the Vasona extension but are much lower in the area around the municipal buildings in downtown San Jose. City buses operating in parallel traffic lanes had no trouble keeping pace with the trains.

I had dinner the next evening with friends who live in Saratoga. The husband works at a building that is near the River Oaks light rail station in San Jose. The Winchester, Campbell, and Hamilton light rail stations are all an easy drive on surface streets from their home; however, the husband does not use the light rail system because it is just too slow.

A referendum to increase taxes to fund an extension of BART from Fremont to San Jose was recently rejected by the voters. A cheaper alternative would be to extend the light rail system to Fremont; however, this is probably not viable due to the low speed of the light rail trains.


----------



## Dr.VitO

GOOD news i miss my old city


----------



## mr_storms

I cant beleive I missed this thread. Nice pictures 
let me guess, the pictures with no one on them were taken on the mountain view line? That certain section gets just horrible ridership and makes lots of stops in the middle of nowhere *cough*nasa/bayshore*cough*. Vasona is better designed though, goes so much faster and gets better ridership


----------



## Alargule

What is it with the US and building new light rail systems? Whatever happened to the good ol' car?


----------



## spongeg

nice

the trains look so empty is it normally like that?


----------



## samsonyuen

Nice thread. I've wondered what the light rail in SJ looked like. Why was it so empty? It looks a bit dated (the trains), but quite clean.


----------



## mr_storms

samsonyuen said:


> Nice thread. I've wondered what the light rail in SJ looked like. Why was it so empty? It looks a bit dated (the trains), but quite clean.


most likely because it was taken near mountain view  Actually, ridership is up a lot thanks to gas prices (as well as weather recently)

It's as if the dot-com bubble never burst: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ridership is back and booming.

More people rode light rail and buses in June than a year ago, bringing the first bit of good news in a long time for the VTA, which has suffered debt and cutbacks after the dramatic decline in riders since 2001. Average weekday system ridership is the highest it's been since June 2002, and has grown each month since September.

More jobs, gas prices topping $3 and new VTA services have fueled the increase, said VTA spokeswoman Jayme Kunz.

The trend is apparent elsewhere. BART, Caltrain and the Altamont Commuter Express are all reporting significant ridership increases since last year, officials said.

Collette McNeil, 35, of Los Gatos hasn't purchased a tank of gas since February, when it became too expensive to keep her car running. She now relies on public transportation and walking.

``Now I have no more road rage and I've lost 10 pounds,'' McNeil said.

In Silicon Valley, the VTA has been criticized for being among the most costly, most heavily subsidized and least-efficient transit in the nation.

But the surge in light rail ridership would belie that. In June, 836,465 people boarded light rail cars -- about a 44 percent increase from June of last year.

Two light rail extensions to Milpitas and Campbell -- opened in June 2004 and October 2005, respectively -- have helped draw shoppers and commuters to public transit, especially during summer, Kunz said.

The VTA estimates that by 2015, the Campbell line will attract 10,000 riders a day. But those projections include two stops at the end of the line that were not built because of budget constraints. And by 2015, the Tasman East/Capitol line, which runs to Milpitas and East San Jose, will have 6,530 riders a day.

Special promotions, such as the Summer Blast Pass and the Excursion Pass, also have lured youth and adults to use light rail and buses this summer, Kunz said.

``It gets really crowded at 5 p.m.,'' said Andrew Hospodor, 17, who takes the light rail from Campbell to his software engineering internship in Mountain View. ``With all the people coming back from Great America, it's like a zoo. People are hanging off the bars and jumping all over the place.''

Justin Davis of San Jose, 31, was riding the light rail Wednesday morning and working on his laptop.

``It's nice to sit on the train, work, listen to my iPod, read if I'm tired of working,'' said Davis, a Web developer for Yahoo, who rides his bike to the station, and then to work when he gets off the light rail at the Sunnyvale station. He especially likes that light rail cars, unlike BART, have racks to store his bicycle.

Bus usage is seeing a rise, too. Average weekday boardings increased about 18 percent since a year ago. But bus ridership isn't quite at its height, like light rail. Average weekday ridership was 103,021 last month. In 2001 it peaked at 183,100 riders.

Bus and light rail ridership is measured by automatic passenger counters in doorways, which tally passengers as they board.

The slow recovery of the Silicon Valley job market is also helping, Kunz said. In May, the U.S. Department of Labor reported the unemployment rate in the South Bay had fallen to 4.4 percent -- the lowest since 2001. At the same time, Santa Clara and San Benito counties added 5,900 jobs since a year ago, according to the California Employment Development Department.

More jobs mean more cars on the road, which means more people are looking to public transportation for traffic relief, said Laura Stuchinsky, director of transportation and land use for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.

``You talk to employers and there's more confidence in the economy and more hiring going on,'' she said. ``That's all great to see.''

Plus it's environmentally friendly.

``I'm doing something for the environment,'' said Cheryl Elliott, 44, a San Jose hairstylist who was riding the light rail to work last week. ``I'm not using my gas. Even though it's not much cheaper, it makes be feel better.''


----------



## allen.zimmermann

*SF Skoda trolley buses*

Dayton Ohio is argueably the smallest city in the western hemisphere to use trolley buses. (maybe some of the locations in argentina or chile are smaller). Dayton operates the same kind of Skoda trolley pictured on this thread in SF. Dayton had problems with theirs--the frames had to be reinforced because they were showing hairline cracks. The problems were resolved before the SF order was delivered. I'd post a few pictures of Dayton but for some reason the system won't let me attach files.


----------



## Electric_City

allen.zimmermann said:


> Dayton Ohio is argueably the smallest city in the western hemisphere to use trolley buses. (maybe some of the locations in argentina or chile are smaller). Dayton operates the same kind of Skoda trolley pictured on this thread in SF. Dayton had problems with theirs--the frames had to be reinforced because they were showing hairline cracks. The problems were resolved before the SF order was delivered. I'd post a few pictures of Dayton but for some reason the system won't let me attach files.


Hello, Allen. I can't make attachments either, so what I usually do is, in the 'Advanced' editing page, click on the picture icon (2 little mountains with a yellow background) and enter the url for the image that I want to include on the page. Of course this means that the picture will have to be located somewhere on the web.

I'd like to see your pictures, if you can put them up for us. Thanks in advance.

Leeds Tbus campaign: http://www.tbusleeds.org.uk

Leeds Tbus thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=374570


----------



## allen.zimmermann

*dayton ohio has trolleybuses*

i sent the pictures in jpeg format to: [email protected] <[email protected]>, but i'm not sure you got them because my email server noted a problem with the transmission


----------



## kub86

You guys are making the picture thing too complicated.

Upload your pictures onto photobucket.com. And then under the pix that you uploaded, you'll see 3 codes with "URL", "Tag", and "IMG" next to them. Copy whatever is in IMG and paste it into your posting here. Hope that works.


----------



## Hybrid 87

The thing that I like is how the Škoda trolleys differ to the european type

look here

Škoda 14Tr in Sanfrancisco








Škoda 14Tr in Riga









Škoda 15Tr in Sanfrancisco








Škoda 15Tr in Riga


----------



## TeKnO_Lx

i love them.. can they work without cables in case of emergency?


----------



## Hybrid 87

I think that running without cables is possible for any normal trolleybus ... but how long is depending on the model


----------



## ♣628.finst

Awesome... I love those Flyer trolleybuses from San Francisco! Proudly Canadian made. 

Skoda? European don't make good trolleybuses... they always make dull design.


----------



## allen.zimmermann

kub86 said:


> You guys are making the picture thing too complicated.
> 
> Upload your pictures onto photobucket.com. And then under the pix that you uploaded, you'll see 3 codes with "URL", "Tag", and "IMG" next to them. Copy whatever is in IMG and paste it into your posting here. Hope that works.





















like this?


----------



## hkskyline

*San Francisco Mulls Free Buses & Streetcars*

*San Francisco mayor mulls making bus, streetcar rides free *
6 March 2007

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is considering whether it would be more cost-effective to provide free bus and streetcar service in the city instead of collecting fares. 

The mayor said he has asked the Municipal Transportation Agency to do the math, comparing the cost of maintaining fare boxes, counting money and paying people to catch fare beaters to the $138 million in fares the city expects to take in next year. 

"When you add everything up, this idea certainly deserves consideration," Newsom told the San Francisco Chronicle. 

One factor arguing against a free system is the extra riders who might be motivated to take public transit, which would create a need for more buses, street cars and drivers, he said.


----------



## gladisimo

only in SF ...


----------



## Falubaz

can u put the link to this massage (i mean the source)


----------



## UD2

never gonna happen in Toronto, 80 percent of or transit funding come from the that box


----------



## hkskyline

Falubaz said:


> can u put the link to this massage (i mean the source)


AP = Associated Press (from the newswires, not an internet website)


----------



## milwaukee-københavn

Don't they cover most of their expenses through fares?


----------



## dewback

As far as I know they cover most of their expenses through subsidies, the fares only cover 22% of the budget. 

I have read some commentaries on people arguing against or in favor of the possible policy, but something is obvious: it already feels like its free judging by all the people who cheat all the time.


----------



## alex3000

It actually makes sense, if you think about it.

We just need "them" to, as the major said, do the math.


----------



## milwaukee-københavn

dewback said:


> As far as I know they cover most of their expenses through subsidies, the fares only cover 22% of the budget.
> 
> I have read some commentaries on people arguing against or in favor of the possible policy, but something is obvious: it already feels like its free judging by all the people who cheat all the time.


Wow. San Francisco has very high ridership, so I just assumed that the farebox would play a bigger role. Here in Milwaukee, fares cover almost 35% of funding, almost as much as state aid.


----------



## spongeg

interesting idea


----------



## Tcmetro

The Bay Area should have a zoned fare/transfer system that is good on all bus lines and rail lines. Seattle has interagency transfers, and fares are generally cheap, unlike SF. Some BART trips will cost $8.


For night service there is the All-Nighter Network, which covers most of the Bay Area with a good network.


----------



## gladisimo

jose_kwan said:


> i do hope that there are more transfer stations between bart and caltrain. like 4th and king, is not connected directly to the bart, but only muni. transferring thru so many different rails is $$$$ ... and bart should offer express trains in rush hour. the furthest i have lived from the bart is berkeley or daly city. i cant imagine how long for those coming from dublin or pittsburg.


That's true, millbrae was planned to be a major transfer station, but passenger turn out is not that high

Mind you, I used to commute (and sometimes still do) from Millbrae to berkeley, and the trip takes ~70 minutes with no delay, I usually wind up going to Daly City and taking BART from there, and the trip is only ~40 minutes, depending on whether there's a train waiting


----------



## Songoten2554

cal Train is similar to the Miami Tri Rail only differences is that

most of Tri Rail is two tracks now because of the completion of the double track project

and also CSX and Amtrak uses the Route that Tri Rail goes but only before the Metrorail 79th st Station is where Amtrak ends but will contiune when the MIC is completed

Cal Train is similar but different in a way in that it has express and local routes not something that Tri rail has and it could easily convert itself to Electric Trains and such like the NEC and well since it will do that with the California High Speed Railway


----------



## busdriver

Tcmetro said:


> When will the extension to San Jose open?


*BART San Jose/Santa Clara Extension*








The extension is being built in two stages. Expansion of the line from Fremont to Warm Springs is underway and will be complete in 2013. The section from Warm Springs to San Jose/Santa Clara is currently under planning review, with a completion target beyond year 2015 at the moment.



Tcmetro said:


> Does anyone ever see the BART ever creating a loop around the bay?


There are no plans to expand the BART network in the south bay beyond the planned extension to San Jose/Santa Clara, as Caltrain is already providing an adequate service for the peninsular corridor. Both BART and Caltrain will co-exist for the foreseeable future and remain the backbone of their respective transit corridors. Upgrades to Caltrain will soon bring its capabilities above and beyond what BART can provide in terms of speed, service, and cost effectiveness. 

*BART network expansion*








These planned extensions to San Jose/Santa Clara, Livermore, and East Contra Costa County shown will be the final outward expansion of the BART network. Additional outward extensions will utilize a different network of high speed express trains to better match the demands of long distance travel. BART's focus will then shift to expansion of its network within the urban core of San Francisco, expanding service along its existing lines with additional staions and express trackage, and limited extensions to better connect its existing network to transit terminals around the bay. 




Tcmetro said:


> Does anyone ever see extensions to Marin County, or Vallejo County ever happening?


*Sonoma-Marin Rail Transit (SMaRT)*
















In Marin County, the new Sonoma-Marin Rail Transit (SMaRT) project is now being finalized. It will provide passenger service between Sonoma and Marin Counties along the Northwestern Pacific rail corridor that lies next to Highway 101, bringing commuters to the existing ferry terminal at Larkspur Landing for a transfer to ferries onwards to San Francisco. 

*Capitol Corridor*
















Solono county (Vallejo) is currently served by the Capitol Corridor commuter service. Currently service is limited by the high amount of freight traffic that share the trackage. The construction of a thrid and forth track along the corridor is planned and should be complete before 2015 and allow passenger service to bypass the slower freight trains. A new station on the line at Vacaville is also in the works.



jose_kwan said:


> i do hope that there are more transfer stations between bart and caltrain. like 4th and king, is not connected directly to the bart, but only muni. transferring thru so many different rails is $$$$ ...


*Caltrain Downtown Extension*
















The Caltrain Downtown Extension will extend Caltrain 1.3 miles through an underground tunnel to the new Transbay Terminal in the heart of the San Francisco. The Terminal would connect Caltrain together with BART, AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans, and SF Muni. It will also house the future San Francisco terminal of the California High Speed Rail network.



Tcmetro said:


> The Bay Area should have a zoned fare/transfer system that is good on all bus lines and rail lines. Seattle has interagency transfers, and fares are generally cheap, unlike SF. Some BART trips will cost $8.


The current system offers some discounts for transferring passengers with a ticket or transfer from one service being accepted on another service, along with payment of a discounted fare. However retaining ticket stubs or remembering to request transfer slips is inconvenient, inconsistent and confusing.

Smart cards systems are now being introduced to automatically apply discounts when used for a trip involving transfers, and could easily be adapted for a inter-agency zone-based fare system in the future as well. 

There are currently two smart card systems in use - the inter-agency Translink, and BART's EZ-Rider. Translink is currently in use on AC transit buses in the East Bay and MUNI light rail in San Francisco, and will soon be adopted for use by Caltrain. BART's own in-house EZ-rider smart card works similarly, but does not interchange with any system outside BART at the moment. It is currently undergoing limited trials.










*Translink smart card reader at Caltrain station*


----------



## Tcmetro

I know that the Tracy extention will probably be DMU, but it seems like a way smarter decision to go to Stockton rather than Tracy. Why not Stockton?


----------



## chromebowler

I love the BART.


----------



## sequoias

That extension from antioch would make better sense going to Stockton and Livermore going to Tracy, that looks rather weird on that future extension map.


----------



## LtBk

How come BART ridership hasn't increased a lot in last few years as traffic in Bay Area gotten worse?


----------



## busdriver

The proposed Tracy extension is an example of building along the path of least resistance - The terrain and distance from Byron to Tracy are more favorable in comparison to transversing the Altamont Pass from Livermore.


----------



## sequoias

busdriver said:


> The proposed Tracy extension is an example of building along the path of least resistance - The terrain and distance from Byron to Tracy are more favorable in comparison to transversing the Altamont Pass from Livermore.


Oh that's right, I forgot about Altamont Pass. Maybe they could build a tunnel, but that would be too long and too expensive.


----------



## Parte del mundo

Well imo BART is very effective in terms of frequency service, is well known in the bay area and ridership is in the top 10 in the US. what i like about BART is its unique system. although some stations need more improve improvements, especially those outside san francisco stops and 16th and 24th Mission stations, and the cost of some tickets go far up to $8 one ride which is very expensive fare cost. if you use the bart plus ticket it may be used as transfer tickets in muni, including light rail, samtram wheels and other buses but not for caltrain. 
The only thing i wish is to see more BART stops in san francisco like chinatown, castro, and other inward san francisco places. 

i can't wait to have the new terminal done with its innovative building, and functionality with all modes transportation serving there. i guess it would the largest terminal in california more than Union Station in Los Angeles.


----------



## sequoias

Parte del mundo said:


> Well imo BART is very effective in terms of frequency service, is well known in the bay area and ridership is in the top 10 in the US. what i like about BART is its unique system. although some stations need more improve improvements, especially those outside san francisco stops and 16th and 24th Mission stations, and the cost of some tickets go far up to $8 one ride which is very expensive fare cost. if you use the bart plus ticket it may be used as transfer tickets in muni, including light rail, samtram wheels and other buses but not for caltrain.
> The only thing i wish is to see more BART stops in san francisco like chinatown, castro, and other inward san francisco places.
> 
> i can't wait to have the new terminal done with its innovative building, and functionality with all modes transportation serving there. i guess it would the largest terminal in california more than Union Station in Los Angeles.


I have heard of people complaining that BART is too expensive to ride. They say it's often cheaper to commute by car or bus to work than riding BART.


----------



## Parte del mundo

Does anyone know future BART expansion in other areas in San Francisco?


----------



## jchernin

Parte del mundo said:


> Does anyone know future BART expansion in other areas in San Francisco?


transit enthusiasts (like me) dream of a bart line down geary blvd

but bart has no expansion plans for sf, just san jose :bash:


----------



## hkskyline

*Frayed strand halts cable car route 
Mason line service expected to resume today after repair *
15 April 2008
The San Francisco Chronicle

A frayed cable strand brought a portion of the Powell/Mason cable car line in San Francisco to a halt all day Monday, highlighting the fragile nature of running a moving national historic monument.

It was the third time in a week that service stopped while workers replaced a fraying cable.

Such cable troubles happen about 50 times a year and are all part of operating the city's cable cars, which have been part of the San Francisco landscape for 135 years.

"If anyone's going to lose sleep over it, it's going to be me, and I sleep pretty comfortably," said Christopher Hill, cable car maintenance manager for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.

Hill, who has been working in the cable car shop for 31 years, said he knows of only three times during his tenure that one of the cables snapped outright.

When the cable breaks or frays, the power is shut off automatically and the cars stop.

More common than a snapping of an entire cable, Hill said, is for one of the six strands that make up the cable to break. The weakest points are in the spliced sections, which is where problems occurred Monday and twice last week.

Four steel cables run San Francisco's cable car system, the only operation of its kind still in use on public streets.

The city monitors the cables "24/7," with about 80 high-tech sensors embedded underground every few blocks along the routes, Hill said. The cables also are observed firsthand by maintenance workers for 2 out of every 8 hours the cable cars are in service. They get a more thorough going-over before they pick up their first riders of the day at 5 a.m.

The sensors help pinpoint the problem location for the maintenance crews back at the cable car barn on Nob Hill. Workers can either splice the cable, a job that entails entwining about 100 feet of new cable with old - "no welding, no glue," Hill said - for a quick fix, or replacing the entire cable.

The cable isn't cheap. Manufactured by WireCo WorldGroup's Broderick & Bascom Rope Division in Sedalia, Mo., the cable costs $3.30 a foot. The Powell cable car line, the shortest in the system, is 9,300 feet; the California cable car line, the longest, is 21,700 feet, or more than 4 miles.

On Monday, the decision was made to replace the cable, which was due for replacement anyway. The projected life of a cable runs from 100 days to 250 days; busier lines with more cars mean more wear and tear on the cables.

Replacing a cable takes about five hours and is usually done in the middle of the night when the system isn't carrying passengers.

The Mason line, which runs on a cable 10,700 feet long, is expected to be back in service today, Municipal Transportation Agency spokesman Judson True said.

The line carries 7,574 passengers on an average weekday. The route runs from Market and Powell streets to Fisherman's Wharf.

On Monday, Muni replaced the Mason line cable cars with motor coaches. A portion of the route also is served by the Powell/Hyde line.

Combined, the cable cars generate about $24,000 in fare revenue a day.


----------



## DJZG

wow... 4 miles of cable... and that is in only one piece :O

i'm curious how do they change cables... i suppose they have some special truck with cable and then just spread it along the route...


----------



## hkskyline

I remember seeing exhibits about that in the cable car museum. Not too good with remembering the contents now as it has been a while since my visit. It's quite a fascinating piece of infrastructure!


----------



## quashlo

Blijdorp said:


> Do they still use trams and/or cable cars as public transport to or is it just touristic?


The Powell-Hyde and Powell-Mason cable cars are used primarily by tourists, although in a car holding 40-50 people, it is typical to have about 10 locals per car who are headed to and from the Nob Hill and Russian Hill areas. These areas don't have great alternative service to and from Union Square, so the cable car does fill in a valuable (albeit small) niche in the transport network. The monthly pass for Muni is accepted on the cable cars without an extra charge, so the high fares are not a problem for residents.

The California cable car is used more often by locals than the Powell lines and offers an alternative to the often-crowded 1-California trolley bus line one block away. It also doesn't carry as many tourists because it doesn't go where tourists want to go.

The F-line historic streetcars on Market Street are used extensively by both tourists and locals alike. Daily ridership is about 20,000 or so, higher during the summer tourist season.



DJZG said:


> i'm curious how do they change cables... i suppose they have some special truck with cable and then just spread it along the route...


If I remember correctly, they somehow attach it to the existing cable and just "thread" it through the system.


----------



## trainrover

hkskyline said:


>


Shame, one of the world's prime communities clumsily takin' to grimy, stark utility poles...any chance that custom's
gonna be overcome _there_?


----------



## hkskyline

*Wi-Fi pilot called a success - talks on systemwide rollout *
11 April 2008
The San Francisco Chronicle

More than 8,000 BART riders have been quietly surfing the Internet on trains and stations in downtown San Francisco and along a stretch of track in Hayward as part of a pilot project that could be expanded systemwide.

BART is negotiating with Wi-Fi Rail Inc. to install a high-speed wireless network throughout the 104-mile rail operation, including the Transbay Tube. Once a deal is struck, it could take another year to outfit the entire system.

"The testing has been successful," said Michael Cromar, chief financial officer of Wi-Fi Rail, a startup company from Gold River near Sacramento. The company developed the technology for use on trains.

The program was tested above and below ground, on moving trains and in a handful of subway stations and the tunnels. Anyone who has a laptop or handheld device outfitted for wireless access can tap into the nascent system.

Logging in is easy. All you have to do is launch a Web browser in one of San Francisco's downtown BART stations or when riding through south Hayward, and Wi-Fi Rail's system will find you - if all goes according to plan. Riders also have been allowed to video conference with the system.

Users don't have to pay anything during the test period.

The company has picked up the entire $1 million-plus tab for the demonstration project, which has been in the making for more than a year, Cromar said.

BART has not given the company permission to go systemwide but is negotiating a proposed deal, said agency spokesman Linton Johnson. Among the areas to be worked out are terms of access for other wireless Internet providers that would want to piggyback on Wi-Fi Rail's system.

BART is looking to use as a model the mobile phone service on trains and in stations. Sprint Nextel was awarded the right to install equipment on BART property, but is required to let other companies pay for the right to use it.

As for how much riders will pay for wireless Internet access, Cromar envisions a subscription service where people would pay a set monthly or yearly fee. Such user-based fees usually cost $20 to $30 a month, or around $300 a year, Cromar said, but ultimately the price would be set by market demand.

He said BART patrons who subscribe to another wireless service could be charged roaming fees. Another option is to allow people to sign on for free - at least in the short-term - if they're willing to be subjected to advertisements.

The endeavor may be a moneymaker for BART, if the agency can negotiate a revenue-sharing plan with the company, Johnson said.


----------



## manrush

It would be interesting to see a 3rd rail version of the Alstom X'trapolis as the future BART rolling stock.

Metro Trains Melbourne 1600mm gauge








http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...300px-Metro-liveried-XTrapolis-train-863M.jpg

Valparaiso Metro 1676mm gauge








http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2379/2369457628_772cf80972.jpg?v=0

An off-the-shelf design that would need 3rd rail modification seems less expensive than custom-made rolling stock.


----------



## FDW

manrush said:


> snip


While an off the shelf model might be nice, a nasty Federal provision known as "Buy America" will probably nip that in the bud. and from the latest renderings I've seen BART throw around, Siemens is probably in high contention for the contract, given how similar the proposed cars look to the rendering for the Siemens design for Warsaw's new metro trains, and also the fact that Siemens is one of the biggest players in the North American rolling stock market for trains.


----------



## manrush

I thought Alstom had a factory in the US.


----------



## FDW

manrush said:


> I thought Alstom had a factory in the US.


Yeah, they do. If I remember properly Alstom was responsible for the C1/C2 series of BART trains, so they would certainly be in the running. But again, I don't those off the shelf models would meet the Federal governments bizarre regulations, so some level of customization would be needed to satisfy that.


----------



## trainrover

Falubaz said:


>


Might there be a story to insertion of gangway doors into this fleet? If so, why were the cab ends remodelled so clumsily?






Axelferis said:


> Is it moscow?


Yes, but only in calibre.


----------



## FDW

trainrover said:


> Might there be a story to insertion of gangway doors into this fleet? If so, why were the cab ends remodelled so clumsily?


That BART cab car dates to the 1980's, separate from the original train order. The 1980's cabs (known as the C cars) had those Gangway doors put in so that BART could more easily run shorter trains. BART still runs the original cab cars with the tapered ends (known as the A cars), you just don't see them as often.


----------



## bayviews

S.F. finds funds for Central Subway 
San Francisco Chronicle (CA) - Saturday, November 20, 2010 
Author: Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and transportation officials say they have found the $137 million the Municipal Transportation Agency needs to secure $942 million in federal funds for the Central Subway project. 

Newsom met Thursday with Steve Heminger, executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area's transportation planning and financing agency, and developed a plan to use about $106 million in state bond money along with about $31 million in savings on Muni projects already completed or under way. 

The money will be used to plug a funding gap in the financial plan for the $1.6 billion subway from the Caltrain terminal to Chinatown that must be submitted to the Federal Transportation Administration by February. 

With the deadline near, and Muni 's financial condition strained, some San Francisco officials feared the agency would be unable to satisfy federal administrators, delaying or endangering the funding of the project itself. On Tuesday, San Francisco County Transportation Authority officials blasted a much sketchier funding plan presented by Muni , expressed doubt the agency could meet the federal deadline, and demanded a more detailed proposal. 

Nathaniel Ford, chief executive officer of the Municipal Transportation Agency, said the agency had been searching for ways to fill the funding gap, looking specifically at available state bond funding and savings on projects that have come in under budget or with lower than anticipated bids. 

"We feel this is a strong plan that will be a key point in bringing the project through the (federal funding) process," he said. "This project enjoys strong support from the community as well as elected leaders at all levels. We will continue to work closely with our partners at the FTA to ensure the success of the project." 

The plan calls for the agency to use $21 million in funds from the state high-speed rail bond, which included money for transit agencies that would provide connecting service to the fast rail line. Another $85.3 million will come from a different state transportation bond. The final $30.7 million comes from savings or unused funds from five smaller Muni improvement projects, including a radio system replacement, an operators' restroom, construction of a canopy over part of the Muni Metro Geneva yard and construction of the Islais Creek bus maintenance facility. 

Randy Rentschler, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, said the bond money was already set aside for Muni but had not yet been dedicated to a specific project. Neither of the allotments need to be approved by the regional commission, he said, but the high-speed rail funding will require approval by the California Transportation Commission. 

"The project has the full support of this commission," Rentschler said. 

Jason Elliott, a mayoral aide, said it is important to note that because the $106.3 million in state bond money was not committed, it will not delay any Muni projects. Nor, he said, will the use of the $30.7 million in savings from other projects. 

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who had been critical of the agency's earlier plans, said he was relieved to see the fleshed-out plan, which was presented to the authority Friday. 

"An all-hands-on-deck meeting was imperative if they were going to solve this," he said, adding that funding problems would have emboldened opponents to push for the project to be abandoned and the federal money spent elsewhere. 

"It would be real fumble, worse than a fumble," he said, "if we were not able to get the wherewithal to bring this important project home."


----------



## bayviews

A Transbay Terminal Update: 

Looking beyond the rubble
Will Kane. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Jan 10, 2011. pg. C.1

Once the hub of transit for downtown San Francisco, the Transbay Terminal building is now a fresh pile of rubble that many hope will eventually become the face of the city's skyline.

Announced in May 2008, the much heralded plan would shift the city's high-density heart from the Financial District to an area south of Market Street. Construction was once scheduled to be under way by 2010.

But construction has idled while planners continue to study the development's impact on traffic on the Bay Bridge, air and water pollution and the shadows that the handful of skyscrapers would cast on the Embarcadero and other public spaces.

Under the most aggressive timeline, the city won't begin debating the details until spring and construction won't begin until late this year or early 2012, said Joshua Switzky, project manager with the city's planning department. And that's assuming the economy picks up and opponents of tall buildings don't further stall the plan.

The delay is understandable, given the scale of the proposed plan, Switzky said.
Besides the marquee 1,200-foot Transbay Tower, the plan also sets the framework for at least six other high-rise buildings in the 600- to 800- foot range that many hope will redefine that area of the city. The Transamerica building - currently the city's tallest - is 853 feet tall.

"The power of the concept of the Transbay comes from bringing such a major transit investment with such a major land-use change," said Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, a pro-development think tank.
The new $1.2 billion Transbay Terminal near First and Mission streets will be the hub of transit for much of downtown San Francisco.

If everything goes according to plan, the terminal will be the site of San Francisco's high-speed rail station, linking regional transportation with local buses. Planners hope that having the transit center as a hub of the new development will allow higher concentrations of housing and offices without a commensurate increase in the number of cars on the road.

The terminal is expected to be finished in six to seven years, Switzky said.
"By then there could be a couple of these buildings on the ground or being built," he said.
But those high-density high rises will redefine the southern cityscape, a concern of many who appreciate the city's low-density character. The current limit for building height in that area is 550 feet.

Sue Hestor, a development attorney who has questioned the impacts of skyscrapers for decades, said she is watching the bureaucratic process.

The market for office space in San Francisco is already oversaturated, she said. Even if a developer finds the funds to construct the 1,200-foot tower, it could end up being vacant for years, she said.

"The market for that tower is no different than anything else going up in this city," she said.

Metcalf, an ardent supporter of the project, said the new towers would center thousands of workers near a transit hub, a practical way to combat the suburban sprawl that breeds gridlock and air pollution.

"It is a powerful idea," he said. "In the renaissance, the tallest building would always be the church steeple; the center of the city. For San Francisco to say our tallest building is going to be our transit center is a more wonderful idea."

"The power of the concept of the Transbay comes from bringing such a major transit investment with such a major land-use change." - Gabriel Metcalf, executive director, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, Gabriel Metcalf, executive director, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association


----------



## bayviews

Good News! 

Funding fix for Caltrain in the works
Michael Cabanatuan. 
San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Mar 10, 2011. pg. C.6

Caltrain won't have to make the unthinkable service cuts it has proposed, a key regional transportation official said Wednesday.

Steve Heminger, executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, told a committee that a short-term solution to Caltrain's devastating budget problem is in the works, and should eliminate the need to slash all but morning and evening commute service, as the commuter railroad's officials have suggested.

"There's no reason for the Caltrain board to be working on a draconian service change when we are working on a solution that will eliminate the need for, not all of it, but most of it," he said.

Caltrain officials have said they need to cut $30 million from its $102 million operating budget. To do that, they said they will have to cut to the bone, eliminating weekend, evening, midday and special-event trains, ending service south of downtown San Jose, raising fares by 25 cents and bypassing seven stations.

The commuter railroad's woes stem from its uncommon structure as a transit agency controlled and funded by three other transit systems: the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority, San Mateo County Transit District and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

Caltrain lacks a dedicated funding source, and has to make do with whatever Muni, SamTrans and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority can afford to pay. With all three agencies struggling to balance their budgets, they're expected to cut back their contributions.

Word of Caltrain's financial troubles have spurred business and community leaders to come up with a long-term funding strategy for the agency, perhaps a tax measure that would need voter approval. But that's not likely to happen until November 2012, said Heminger, so the commission, the Bay Area's transportation planning and financing agency, is working on a two-year remedy that would maintain Caltrain service.

That plan could involve the San Francisco and Santa Clara County agencies paying some of what they still owe SamTrans for buying the Caltrain right-of-way 20 years ago, shifting money set aside for future electrification or Dumbarton Bridge rail service, or using some maintenance funds for operations. Details are still under negotiation, with the commission trying to broker a deal, Heminger said.

But that doesn't mean Caltrain riders would be off the hook. Heminger said he expects riders and employees to come up with about $10 million through modest fare or parking fee increases service cuts, and savings from renegotiating the contract to operate the railroad, now held by Amtrak.


----------



## FDW

bayviews said:


> snip


Good news indeed. All Caltrain needs to do is survive long enough to reap the benefits of electrification and it should be fine.


----------



## filos-ippos

something knows if tram carrello (italian tram) are update in chicago with air conditioning or similar?


----------



## FDW

filos-ippos said:


> something knows if tram carrello (italian tram) are update in chicago with air conditioning or similar?


I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask. Could you restate your question please?


----------



## bayviews

Efficient public transit seen as crucial

Will Kane. San Francisco Chronicle. 
San Francisco, Calif.: Apr 17, 2011. 

(C) San Francisco Chronicle 2011

In 15 years, 19,000 people could be living on Treasure Island, and a good portion of them will be leaving the island each morning for jobs in San Francisco and the East Bay.

They'll be less than a 10-minute drive from San Francisco - a dream commute. But if all 5,300 commuters expected to leave the island every morning get in their cars, they'll jam the already-gridlocked Bay Bridge. The line of cars trying to creep onto the span could stretch across the island.

City planners and the island's developers are convinced that a robust transit network can quickly get people off the island without them ever setting foot in their cars. But others are more skeptical, noting that each apartment or condominium on the island will have its own parking spot - meaning everyone will be tempted to get in their car every morning.

"We think about an island as removed from the rest of the city," said Peter Albert, a transit planner with the city. "But this is actually closer to downtown than the Richmond District."

Express bus planned

The city hopes an efficient, subsidized transit network - along with charges for driving off the island in the morning - will encourage commuters to ditch their cars and ride public transit.

Muni will have an express bus to San Francisco that takes 10 minutes to reach the Transbay Terminal. AC Transit will have a bus to the East Bay that stops at two BART stations. And the marquee way off the island will be a brand-new ferry that will take 10 minutes to get from the western shore of the island to the Ferry Building.

Because the development is a built-from-scratch neighborhood, transit planners say the system is designed to be more efficient and integrated than any other transit network in the Bay Area.

Developers acknowledge that the success of the proposed neighborhood, which goes before the Planning Commission for approval Thursday, depends in large part on its residents' willingness to get out of their cars.

If everyone decides to drive, Treasure Island could become a boondoggle of snarled traffic and angry commuters. But if enough use public transportation, the development could be a model for transit-oriented development in California.

"The innovations that we're piloting here are already starting to be replicated," Albert said.

The key, planners said, is to make public transit the easiest and most efficient way off the island. The first step in that direction will be providing each resident with a subsidized transit pass.

Buses, ferries and shuttles will converge at a transit hub on the southwest corner of the island where riders can move on, off or around the island.

Having all the transit options near the island's lone exit will make the plaza the thriving center of the island, planners said. The hope is that a commuter returning home will get off the ferry, stop at a nearby restaurant for dinner, and then unlock his or her bike for a quick ride home.

Even the most distant home on the island won't be more than a 20-minute walk from the transit terminal, and more than 60 percent of the units will be less than 10 minutes away, Albert said.

Buses will arrive at seven-minute intervals during the morning commute and five-minute intervals in the afternoon. A ferry will arrive every 15 minutes.

Transit service will grow as more and more people move onto the island over the proposed 15- to 20- year development period. The goal is to always have more transit service available than residents need.

"We don't want people to despair that there isn't enough service and turn to their cars," said Rich Hillis, with the Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

$5 toll to drive off island

But the iron fist beneath that velvet glove will be a proposed $5 charge to drive off the island every weekday morning.

The toll would be set by a new transit board and could be changed regularly - increased if too many people are driving or decreased if no one is. The revenue from the fee would help pay for the island's transit subsidies.

The goal of the toll is not to prevent people from using their cars, but to always make transit a more attractive opportunity, Hillis said.

"We don't want anyone to feel like they can't drive off the island. We just want them to know the cost," he said.

But some are still worried about the impacts of the traffic.

No matter the cost, many residents of the island will always prefer to drive, said Ruth Gravanis, a member of the city's Commission on the Environment.

Instead of providing 8,000 parking spots, the city would be better off limiting the amount of parking for residents, she added.

But if residents need a car, Hillis said, the hope is just that they don't use it every day.

"We think we have enough carrots and sticks to get people out of their cars," he said. "But this is still an island, so we need to stay realistic."


----------



## FDW

bayviews said:


> snip


The "Express bus to San Francisco" will most likely be a beefed up version of the 108 Treasure Island (which is already an express between the Island and D.T. SF, but not quite as frequent. I'm not sure what two BART stations the East Bay express bus will serve, but these are the most likely candidates: West Oakland, 12th St/Oakland, 19th St/Oakland, Macarthur, and Lake Merritt. Oddly enough Treasure Island had a direct express bus connection until the late 90's, around the time when the base was closed.


----------



## trainrover

bayviews said:


> Efficient public transit seen as crucial
> 
> San Francisco, Calif.: Apr 17, 2011.
> 
> (C) San Francisco Chronicle 2011
> 
> *19,000 people* ... ... ... *a robust transit network*



Wow! do folks there draw from Montreal-speak --in English-- or is the whereabouts of the source of that sort of language yet to be revealed?


----------



## bayviews

Not really sure what your point is. 

If you do happen to be from Montreal, Treasure Island is to SF what the Expos 67 site was for Montreal! 


Anyway, change of topic, there's stepped up transit security over the past few days. 

Big transit authorities increase vigilance
Michael Cabanatuan. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: May 3, 2011. pg. A.2
Abstract (Summary)

Passengers on the Bay Area's busiest transit systems and at San Francisco International Airport may notice more police officers as the agencies take precautions against potential terrorist responses to the killing of Osama bin Laden. 

(C) San Francisco Chronicle 2011

Passengers on the Bay Area's busiest transit systems and at San Francisco International Airport may notice more police officers as the agencies take precautions against potential terrorist responses to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

But neither air travelers nor transit riders should encounter any new security procedures, officials said.

Muni and BART, the region's largest transit systems, are putting more officers on trains and in stations, and have been in contact with the Transportation Security Administration. No threats have been made against either agency, nor against U.S. transit systems in general, but many of the nation's large transit operators, including those in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, are taking precautions.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Monday that the agency would not issue an alert at this time. Abroad, U.S. embassies and other foreign facilities were placed on high alert, and strong admonitions were issued against U.S. citizens to be careful if traveling or living overseas.

BART canceled a training session for its Critical Asset Patrol Team of seven officers specially trained in counterterrorism Monday, and brought in extra officers to bolster its forces. The officers are walking trains and stations to provide a visible deterrent. The transit agency has also deployed its transportation supervisors, wearing neon green vests, to assist customers and provide extra eyes and ears.

"If you seen anything suspicious, please let us know," said spokesman Linton Johnson.

Sgt. Edgardo Alvarez, who oversees the special patrol team, said passengers should be on the lookout for abandoned luggage or packages and "people acting differently than the average commuter." That could include someone wearing overly bulky clothing in warm weather or with a tangle of wires under their jacket, he said.

Muni is also deploying extra officers throughout its system, spokesman Paul Rose said.

Both BART and Muni said the stepped-up patrols would continue indefinitely.

Other transit agencies, including Caltrain, the Capitol Corridor, the Altamont Commuter Express and AC Transit either declined to discuss security efforts or said they had not made any changes. All said they've been in contact with the TSA.

At San Francisco International Airport, spokesman Mike McCarron said air travelers won't notice any different procedures at security checkpoints, but will likely see additional police officers inside the terminals.


----------



## bayviews

Caltrain line option is rejected; Preferred route is to Transbay

Michael Cabanatuan. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: May 6, 2011. pg. C.1

(C) San Francisco Chronicle 2011

The California High-Speed Rail Authority has put the brakes on a plan that could stop high-speed trains short of San Francisco's new Transbay Terminal.

The authority board told engineers and planners Thursday not to study a phased-implementation plan, which would electrify the Caltrain tracks and use them as a quicker, lower-cost way to bring high-speed rail up the Peninsula to the Caltrain station at Fourth and King streets in San Francisco.

"It's not that we don't want to go" to the Transbay Terminal, said Roelof van Ark, the authority's chief executive officer. "It's a question of how many billions will we have? We have to get to Fourth and King before we can go to the Transbay Terminal."

The phased plan would not only stop short of the Transbay Terminal, it would also lengthen the time it takes to get from San Jose to San Francisco. Instead of running at speeds up to 125 mph on the Peninsula, high-speed trains would travel at Caltrain speeds, which top out at 80 mph.

The first stretch of the $43 billion San Francisco-to-Los Angeles high-speed rail system will be built in the San Joaquin Valley. There is no funding for the Peninsula stretch and the authority is struggling to contain costs and to calm opposition from critics along the Caltrain corridor who want the new trains to either travel underground or be rerouted.

The phased plan would be a stopgap, said Tim Cobb, a project manager. The authority would continue to plan a system with separate rails for high-speed trains and Caltrain, as well as for extending the system the final 1.3 miles from Fourth and King streets to the Transbay Transit Center under construction at First and Mission streets.

The phased plan, which could cost $2 billion to $4 billion versus the $6.1 billion projected for the true high-speed system between San Francisco and San Jose, shares similarities with a recent proposal released by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, and Assemblyman Rich Gordon, D-Menlo Park. That proposal would use the Caltrain tracks, but also ban construction of elevated tracks and not allow future construction of separate tracks for the high-speed trains.

Both of the cheaper plans would end high-speed service at Fourth and King streets.

Jim Hartnett, a former Redwood City mayor just appointed to the authority, questioned whether buying land around the Caltrain station and enlarging the depot to accommodate high-speed rail would cost much less than going to the Transbay Terminal. Leroy Saage, a deputy director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, agreed, saying the land alone could cost $400 million.

"San Francisco service that stops short of the Transbay Transit Center would require construction of an unnecessary and inadequate station at Fourth and King," he said.

Ending the tracks at Fourth and King streets also could violate state law. Voter-approved Proposition 1A, which permitted the sale of $10 billion in bonds for high-speed rail, requires the first phase of the 800-mile statewide system to connect the Transbay Terminal and Union Station in Los Angeles. Board member Lynn Schenk asked whether the authority can legally ignore that requirement. The state attorney general's office will investigate the issue.

Schenk, a former congresswoman from San Diego, called the Simitian-Eshoo-Gordon proposal to confine construction to the existing tracks "a bailout of Caltrain. I don't want to see our precious high-speed rail funds, which were so hard to come by, to be used to bail out any existing commuter railroads."


----------



## bayviews

Looks like BART to San Jose is back on the burner! 

BART San Jose link OKd
Michael Cabanatuan. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: 
Apr 15, 2011. pg. C.7
(C) San Francisco Chronicle 2011


It won't be ready to ride until 2018, but BART directors approved on Thursday the first phase of the long-awaited extension to San Jose, which will end short of downtown. A second phase will eventually take trains 6 miles farther to Santa Clara.

"I never thought we'd see this in our lifetime," said director Tom Blalock of Fremont, "but here we are."

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority will build and pay for the extension, which will cost $5.9 billion for the full 16.1 miles to Santa Clara. The first phase, to the Berryessa neighborhood in east San Jose, is 10 miles from Warm Springs in Fremont. Construction is under way on the 5.4-mile extension from the current end of the line in central Fremont to Warm Springs. It is scheduled to open in late 2014.

Because the Santa Clara County extension will become part of the BART system, it needs the board's approval at several junctures. The board voted to accept required environmental studies and approved construction of the first phase, which will include stations in Milpitas and Berryessa.

The authority has started buying land for the extension and working on relocating a stretch of the Union Pacific Railroad. Construction is expected to begin this year.

BART's extension agreement calls for the authority to buy 60 new BART rail cars and pay for improvements to the core of the existing BART system, including expansion of the Hayward maintenance yard.


----------



## FDW

bayviews said:


> snip


This is good news.


----------



## trainrover

bayviews said:


> Not really sure what your point is.


The point was never mine; multiplied, the points appear to actually be your (local?) reporter's over there. Repeat:



bayviews said:


> *19,000 people* ... ... ... *a robust transit network*







bayviews said:


> Treasure Island is to SF what the Expos 67 site was for Montreal!


However, now by your additional info, I do have a point: Our own treasure-island Expo Express was --err-- "*robust*", and not just because it linked three 'treasured' islands with the world's first-ever fully automatic trains hno:





Beyond rush hours, it would appear that SF's Treasure-Island service will be next to nought


----------



## trainrover

bayviews said:


> the regular $5 fare


----------



## FDW

trainrover said:


> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/01/MNDB1JOAPS.DTL


It's only for the Cable Cars, the regular fare for MUNI is $2. (And people with monthly bus passes can board for free.)


----------



## diablo234

Do any San Francisco residents actually use the cable cars? It seems that it is mostly tourists that utilize them and everyone else either uses the Bus or Muni Metro to get around.


----------



## quashlo

Locals use it, but it depends on the time and where you are getting on. General rules are to never wait at the turnaround (just wait at any of the corner stops) and avoid midday, when the tourists are all out. This only applies to the two Powell lines, though... California line is always easy to get on any time of the day.


----------



## FDW

quashlo said:


> Locals use it, but it depends on the time and where you are getting on. General rules are to never wait at the turnaround (just wait at any of the corner stops) and avoid midday, when the tourists are all out. This only applies to the two Powell lines, though... California line is always easy to get on any time of the day.


Seconded. But despite being mostly tourist lines, the three Cable car lines still combine for more than 20,000 riders daily (Higher than most North American Light Rail systems when Ridership per mile is taken into account.).


----------



## trainrover

Is any part of the cable car network either covered by or excluded from monthly transit passes?


----------



## FDW

trainrover said:


> Is any part of the cable car network either covered by or excluded from monthly transit passes?


All of the Cable Car network is covered under monthly passes.


----------



## spongeg

you can buy multi-day passes - when me and my friends visited we bought 5 day muni passes and they included use of the cable cars


----------



## bayviews

Next stop

San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Jun 18, 2011. pg. A.9
(C) San Francisco Chronicle 2011

With quiet finality and a generous severance, San Francisco's transit agency is parting ways with director Nathaniel Ford. The departure sets the stage for what Muni needs next: a nimble expert and manager who can take heaps of plans and warring interest groups and give the city reliable transit choices.

Ford served dutifully, but it was clearly time for a change. He acknowledged as much by his own job-hunting efforts over the last year, notably a failed attempt to win an airport transportation job in Washington, D.C.

His exit here came after rough and angry negotiations with the Muni drivers union that resulted in an arbitration win on Monday for the city that should vastly improve work rules and save money.

Muni may be City Hall's biggest daily headache. It handles 700,000 riders a day, its cash-starved maintenance system leaves it prone to breakdowns, and it's an automatic conversation starter right up there with the Giants and restaurant tips. The executive director of the Municipal Transportation Agency is also in charge of traffic flow, pedestrian safety, bike routes and quick-to-rile cabbies.

The next director will be under the gun from several directions. Muni needs major work. Soothing the angry drivers will be one major assignment. So is finishing the job of remapping the city's bus routes, drawn in another era, while not upsetting riders.

Muni needs a new leader who can take an unruly, cash-starved urban necessity and turn it into a reliable part of city life. It's a big challenge, and one that eluded Ford.


----------



## FDW

bayviews said:


> Next stop
> 
> San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Jun 18, 2011. pg. A.9
> (C) San Francisco Chronicle 2011
> 
> With quiet finality and a generous severance, San Francisco's transit agency is parting ways with director Nathaniel Ford. The departure sets the stage for what Muni needs next: a nimble expert and manager who can take heaps of plans and warring interest groups and give the city reliable transit choices.
> 
> Ford served dutifully, but it was clearly time for a change. He acknowledged as much by his own job-hunting efforts over the last year, notably a failed attempt to win an airport transportation job in Washington, D.C.
> 
> His exit here came after rough and angry negotiations with the Muni drivers union that resulted in an arbitration win on Monday for the city that should vastly improve work rules and save money.
> 
> Muni may be City Hall's biggest daily headache. It handles 700,000 riders a day, its cash-starved maintenance system leaves it prone to breakdowns, and it's an automatic conversation starter right up there with the Giants and restaurant tips. The executive director of the Municipal Transportation Agency is also in charge of traffic flow, pedestrian safety, bike routes and quick-to-rile cabbies.
> 
> The next director will be under the gun from several directions. Muni needs major work. Soothing the angry drivers will be one major assignment. So is finishing the job of remapping the city's bus routes, drawn in another era, while not upsetting riders.
> 
> Muni needs a new leader who can take an unruly, cash-starved urban necessity and turn it into a reliable part of city life. It's a big challenge, and one that eluded Ford.


I don't think that we should hire a local for the SFMTA director. Hell, I don't even think we should even consider hiring an American for the job, we should look abroad for someone who really knows how to run a transit system.


----------



## bayviews

FDW said:


> I don't think that we should hire a local for the SFMTA director. Hell, I don't even think we should even consider hiring an American for the job, we should look abroad for someone who really knows how to run a transit system.


Yeah that might be nice in terms of bringing some fresh ideas. However, looks like Debra Johnson is next general manager, at least for interim, looks like she comes with approval of Muni union, which wasn't a big fan of Nate Ford.


----------



## trainrover

Frisco's beautiful 



FDW said:


> Southern portal of the D.T Oakland subway. (The Steam train is not a regular occurrence.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Orinda station.


Love the first picture.

The second one literally made me jump outta my skin, since it hit a childhood nerve of riding the Expo Express. Anyhow, that train
was mighty long and it puzzles me how modern that picture appears :shocked:

MUNI's acquisition of other operator's trams is impressive (and thoughtful too ).


----------



## FDW

trainrover said:


> Frisco's beautiful
> 
> 
> Love the first picture.
> 
> The second one literally made me jump outta my skin, since it hit a childhood nerve of riding the Expo Express. Anyhow, that train
> was mighty long and it puzzles me how modern that picture appears :shocked:
> 
> MUNI's acquisition of other operator's trams is impressive (and thoughtful too ).


Yeah, though the bulk of the Trams operating on the F-Line right now are either the Philadelphia PCC's or the Milan Peter witt's, as the Newark PCC's are currently having their electrical systems replaced and most of the other historical trams still need some refurbishing before they can enter regular service themselves.


----------



## trainrover

Oh, I thought the acquisitions were merely for novel purpose/s as opposed to regular service :uh:


----------



## jchernin

trainrover said:


> Oh, I thought the acquisitions were merely for novel purpose/s as opposed to regular service :uh:





> ...the famed historic streetcars of the F-line, and the national landmark cable cars... carry more than 40,000 riders per day.


source: http://www.streetcar.org/about/


----------



## FDW

trainrover said:


> Oh, I thought the acquisitions were merely for novel purpose/s as opposed to regular service :uh:


It's kinda both really, given the novelty of having such a variety of vehicles operating, while at the same time having the service function like a regular line.


----------



## bayviews

trainrover said:


> MUNI's acquisition of other operator's trams is impressive (and thoughtful too ).



Yeah, but as usual with MUNI, owes less to thoughtfulness than need. 

SF's PCCs were truly timeless & great. But as with most of the modes, they weren't very well maintained by MUNI. 

Indeed, toward the end of their service, MUNI was forced to borrow PCCs from other cities, I think Toronto & maybe Philly. 

I'd be surprised if many, if any, of the current PCCs on Market Street are from MUNI's original stocks. 

The paint jobs on the vintage PCCs are really spectacular though & the maintenance is good.


----------



## khoojyh

well done


----------



## FDW

bayviews said:


> Yeah, but as usual with MUNI, owes less to thoughtfulness than need.
> 
> SF's PCCs were truly timeless & great. But as with most of the modes, they weren't very well maintained by MUNI.
> 
> Indeed, toward the end of their service, MUNI was forced to borrow PCCs from other cities, I think Toronto & maybe Philly.
> 
> I'd be surprised if many, if any, of the current PCCs on Market Street are from MUNI's original stocks.
> 
> The paint jobs on the vintage PCCs are really spectacular though & the maintenance is good.


Well, the Philly trams weren't purchased until the 1990's, for the opening of the F-Line. Currently MUNI operates 3 of it's pre 1970's PCC's and and is in the process of refurbishing 4 more for regular service. It also has another two dozen or so PCC's on it's property that it's planning to refurbish at one point or another.


----------



## lolstebbo

BART released the concepts for their new trains and is seeking people's input. http://bart.gov/cars


----------



## sterlinglush

bayviews said:


> Retail lags at Pleasant Hill-Contra Costa Centre BART transit village
> Lisa P White. Oakland Tribune. Oakland, Calif.: Oct 8, 2011.
> 
> Developers recently jump-started a long-delayed plan to build a $100 million transit village at the Walnut Creek BART station. The project includes *up to 600 luxury apartments* and 22,000 square feet of retail and commercial space.
> 
> 
> Jose Carlos Fajardo/Staff


I think these plans fall short -- especially under present economic conditions -- with their emphasis on luxury apartments. People in the market for this type of housing will also have the means of choosing more desirable locations in less far-flung parts of the Bay Area. Transit villages don't have to be little oases of upscale goodness to be attractive and financially viable.


----------



## bayviews

sterlinglush said:


> I think these plans fall short -- especially under present economic conditions -- with their emphasis on luxury apartments. People in the market for this type of housing will also have the means of choosing more desirable locations in less far-flung parts of the Bay Area. Transit villages don't have to be little oases of upscale goodness to be attractive and financially viable.


True, the economy & housing market has taken a beating since the original plans, which tend to take about a decade from initial plan to implementation. 

However, as for Walnut Creek, you won't find many places in the BA that can match it when it comes to desirability!


----------



## bayviews

CITIES HOPING AIR, WATER CAN MIX EAST BAY LOOKS TO HOVERCRAFT FOR FERRY SERVICE; Transit agency looking at hovercraft as option to carry passengers to S.F.
Contra Costa Times. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Nov 2, 2011. 

Copyright Bay Area News Nov 2, 2011

By Tom Lochner and Paul Burgarino

Staff writers

Air-cushioned hovercraft vessels, long popular in Europe but little used in the United States, could be the answer for a trio of East Bay cities that long have sought ferry service to San Francisco.

Although a number of bureaucratic, political and physical hurdles remain, the Bay Area's water transit agency is exploring whether hovercraft are a viable option for ferrying passengers from Hercules, Martinez and Antioch, among other cities.

The vessels are appealing for several reasons: They are touted as more fuel-efficient than traditional catamaran ferries and as fast as the most advanced catamarans. Hovercraft also can navigate in shallow waters, even onto beaches and landing platforms, allowing them to reach areas that catamarans can't and respond to emergencies and provide service to cities saddled with shallow shorelines. Hovercraft travel on a cushion of air created by downward-thrusting air jets, while propellers mounted above deck provide forward propulsion.

Technological advances also have reduced concerns about noise and comfort that plagued hovercraft when they were introduced in Europe decades ago.

But to establish themselves in the Bay Area, hovercraft need to overcome a fundamental presumption shared by mariners and watercraft builders alike -- including a leading hovercraft manufacturer.

"As a general rule, if you can make all the connections you need using a (conventional) boat, without going around extended areas of shallow water -- use a boat," said Richard Box, a former hovercraft pilot and hovercraft operations consultant for Griffon Hoverwork Ltd. of Southampton, U.K.

Hercules sees hovercraft as the panacea for a shoreline of mud flats -- extending more than a half-mile into San Pablo Bay -- that would require costly dredging for traditional ferry service. Martinez also could require dredging, and Antioch looks to the speed of hovercraft to get passengers quickly to San Francisco, although experts, including some hovercraft specialists, say newer models of ferry catamarans match hovercraft's speed.

Antioch's and Martinez's interest in an idea fueled primarily by Hercules' lack of docking facilities addresses one crucial concern of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority -- that a "radical change" to hovercraft be justified over multiple routes.

It would require incorporating San Francisco into a baywide hovercraft system -- a daunting prospect at an Embarcadero terminal already busy with surrounding heavy marine traffic, and where space would need to be set aside for a hovercraft landing ramp.

Michael Bernick, a lawyer who has worked on the idea as a consultant for the East Bay cities, says a recent feasibility study completed by the water transportation authority shows the potential of hovercraft in the Bay Area.

"My own view is that it's doable," said Bernick, a former BART board member. "There are legitimate questions, but I think they can be addressed."

Questions include creating a separate or hybrid maintenance facility for hovercraft and conventional ferries and a docking facility in San Francisco. A memo written earlier this year by transportation authority officials acknowledged that hovercraft "would require wholly different operations practices and materials, as well as different docking facilities and maintenance berths."

But state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, agrees that those challenges could be overcome.

"After seeing the study, hovercraft seems like a very feasible option," said DeSaulnier, who heads the Senate's transportation committee.

Bernick says the cost of operating hovercraft would be similar to traditional ferry vessels, and he noted that they would offer advantages in responding to emergency situations, an integral part of the transportation authority's mandate.

"The (transportation authority) board has been very open to the idea of a system with both (types of) vehicles," Bernick said.

The hovercraft's emergency capabilities, along with ecological advantages, make it an attractive prospect for the Bay Area, agreed Keith Whittemore, president of Seattle-based Kvichak Marine Industries, which built a hovercraft used in Alaska and the newest catamaran ferries in the Bay Area.

"From an emergency standpoint, you can pick people up from a downed bridge or a downed airplane and drive them onto a beach," he said.

Whittemore also noted that hovercraft are more fuel-efficient than catamarans at high speed but generally come with higher maintenance costs.

Unlike other existing or planned Bay Area ferry stops under the jurisdiction of the transportation authority, Hercules has no deep-water dock, nor any deep water where it could build one, that could accommodate conventional, deeper-draft boats -- a predicament apparently largely overlooked when the agency's predecessor, the Water Transit Authority, put together its expansion list starting in the early 2000s.

Dredging a deep-water harbor in Hercules for conventional ferries would cost "upwards of $17 million" initially and about $3 million in maintenance dredging every two to three years thereafter, according to the June 2 transportation authority memo.

"For Hercules, that makes a hovercraft financially more viable," Whittemore said.

Nevertheless, he says landing hovercraft at the San Francisco Embarcadero is fraught with challenges.

"You've got winds, tides, traffic -- that would not be a simple thing. That needs to be very carefully studied."

Hovercraft also could save Martinez dredging costs, Mayor Rob Schroder said.

The city's shoreline requires dredging on a regular basis, he said. Consultants from the transportation authority are studying the depth of the waters along the Martinez shoreline to locate a possible ferry terminal site. One of the potential locations is an old fishing pier, which likely would not require dredging.

The April feasibility study commissioned by the transportation authority estimated that travel time between Antioch and San Francisco could be cut to a little more an hour -- or about 30 minutes faster than traditional ferries used in the bay.

"That time reduction makes (the hovercraft) pretty competitive and a lot more appealing," Antioch Councilman Gary Agopian said.

But experts say technological advances in conventional watercraft have largely nullified hovercraft's erstwhile speed advantage.

The newest high-speed ferry from Vallejo to San Francisco, put in service in 2004, has a service speed of 34 knots fully loaded and a maximum speed of 38 knots, according to the website of Baylink, the route operator. By comparison, hovercraft envisioned for that crossing would travel at 40 to 45 knots, according to the feasibility study.

Hovercraft's greater susceptibility to headwinds could reduce any speed advantage, said John Sindzinski, the transportation authority's planning and development manager.

One possible obstacle to popular acceptance of hovercraft in the Bay Area, Sindzinski said, is the notion that they are noisy.

Paul Edwards, Griffon's director of business development, traces that perception to a previous generation of hovercraft that used noisy turbines for propulsion. Those craft have been largely phased out, he said.

Advancements have also allowed for a smoother ride. A Kvichak-built hovercraft ferry based on a Griffon design connects King Cove on the Alaska Peninsula to an airport eight miles across a bay, weather permitting.

"I was on it when the wind was 35 knots, and I stood the whole time," King Cove Mayor Henry Mack said. "You can walk around."

For local leaders, the choice is simple. They want whatever vessel will at last make ferry service a reality for their cities.

"We're going to favor which ever option gets service to Martinez faster," Schroder said. "At the same time, Martinez will work together with Hercules and Antioch to find the best option for the region."


----------



## trainrover

Flying cats more consumptive than hovercrafts? :sly: Then what about hydrofoils? Moreover, the Bay area's really hilly, I can't see much shallow water, plus it's not like dredging would be problematic ...


----------



## FDW

trainrover said:


> Flying cats more consumptive than hovercrafts? :sly: Then what about hydrofoils? Moreover, the Bay area's really hilly, I can't see much shallow water, plus it's not like dredging would be problematic ...


Despite the fact that the Bay Area's really hilly, The Bay itself isn't all that deep. Though you some really deep areas near the Golden Gate, the average depth of the bay is just 4 feet. So a hovercraft would be ideal for the large sections of shallows we have out here.


----------



## Nexis

FDW said:


> Despite the fact that the Bay Area's really hilly, The Bay itself isn't all that deep. Though you some really deep areas near the Golden Gate, the average depth of the bay is just 4 feet. So a hovercraft would be ideal for the large sections of shallows we have out here.


So I can walk from one side of the Bay to the other?


----------



## FDW

Nexis said:


> So I can walk from one side of the Bay to the other?


No, there's shipping channels that've been dredged out in the past to better connect communities around the bay in the days before the bridges crossed the bay. Wading and swimming across in a shallow south bay segment would be plausible, though because the bay is really cold, I wouldn't recommend it.


----------



## trainrover

FDW said:


> a hovercraft would be ideal


Not only would the machine consume more fuel but the tranquility'd be screwed for *miles* around ... that article's merely babbling.


----------



## FDW

trainrover said:


> Not only would the machine consume more fuel but the tranquility'd be screwed for *miles* around ... that article's merely babbling.


Did I mention that the Bay itself is actually quite wide for a good chunk of it's length?


----------



## bayviews

Nexis said:


> So I can walk from one side of the Bay to the other?



I suppose so long as your at least five foot tall. I think you'd want to have a least a foot above the water line. 

But I wouldn't recommended it. You never know. Your legs might become a tasty meal for one of those hungry seal lions, if not a shark!


----------



## Nexis

bayviews said:


> I suppose so long as your at least five foot tall. I think you'd want to have a least a foot above the water line.
> 
> But I wouldn't recommended it. You never know. Your legs might become a tasty meal for one of those hungry seal lions, if not a shark!


I'm 6'2 ....hmmm I wasn't aware that Sea lions attack ppl or that there were sharks in the bay...


----------



## bayviews

Nexis said:


> I'm 6'2 ....hmmm I wasn't aware that Sea lions attack ppl or that there were sharks in the bay...


You probably right. 

But why take any chances?

I'd rather just take the Hovercraft!


----------



## trainrover

FDW said:


> Did I mention that the Bay itself is actually quite wide for a good chunk of it's length?


Maybe just to those who needn't be uprighted.


----------



## bayviews

Muni quickly scraps 25-cent transfer fee

Rachel Gordon, John Cote. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Nov 15, 2011. 
(C) San Francisco Chronicle 2011

Faced with projected deficits of $34 million next year and nearly $46 million the year after that, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency commissioners said Monday that all revenue options must be explored.

"Everything now has to be on the table," said Bruce Oka, who serves on the governing board.

Well, almost everything. Commissioners moved quickly to scrap the idea to charge Muni riders 25 cents for transfers, saying it would run counter to the setup of the city's transit system that takes into account the need for some people to ride two or more lines to reach their destination.

Other than that, the agency's governing board gave the executive team approval to explore a host of other revenue options, including extending parking meter operations to Sundays and into the night in commercial districts where street parking is scarce; raising parking citations by $3; charging Muni riders 25 cents to pay a cash fare instead of using the Clipper fare card; and making more money off of taxi medallions.

Other ideas call for charging businesses an annual $1,000 fee for each parking space in courtesy lots; raising the cost of monthly Muni Fast Passes to keep pace with inflation; imposing a $200-a-year parcel tax on local property owners; and making drivers who use disabled placards pay for metered parking. Some proposals would require voter approval or an OK from the state Legislature to proceed.

Agency staff will spend the next few months analyzing the potential benefits and shortcomings of the various moneymaking options and whittle the list for consideration by the board of directors early next year. The board is set to vote on a new two-year budget in April.

Board member Joel Ramos said the budget going forward needs to better reflect the city's Transit First policy, which discourages the use of the private automobile and promotes transit, walking, biking, car sharing and taxis. "It's time we let go of subsidizing parking and driving," he said.

He and others said San Francisco has to get serious about finding sustainable revenue sources to make Muni more reliable. What the board isn't eager to do, said member Leona Bridges, is to "nickel and dime" people to death. Instead, she and several colleagues said they would prefer higher-impact solutions, if feasible.

Their comments came during a special session Monday that included extended briefings on the upcoming budget cycle and the agency's draft strategic plan.

Transportation chief Ed Reiskin also revealed a proposed "vision" for the agency, in effect, a new motto. "San Francisco: great city, excellent transportation choices." Maybe Muni should stencil that on T-shirts to sell around town for extra income.

- Rachel Gordon


----------



## bayviews

Regional Update: 

Transportation projects to be judged on benefits vs. costs; IN BROADER MEASURE OF PROJECT BENEFITS, MTC GIVES HIGH RATINGS TO BART, SOUTH BAY SMART HIGHWAYS

Gary Richards. San Jose Mercury News. San Jose, Calif.: Nov 21, 2011. pg. B.1
Copyright Bay Area News Nov 21, 2011

No longer is a speedier commute the primary way to assess the benefits of 90 of the most expensive transportation projects being considered in the Bay Area over the next 25 years.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is looking at factors often ignored when assessing whether it is financially worthwhile to pay millions to widen highways and expand trains. Road fatalities and injuries, emissions reductions, the cost of owning and operating a car and even the health effects of physical inactivity are being considered in the Project Performance Assessment study now under way.

The MTC allocates state and federal funds to the nine Bay Area counties, and without that money some projects rated highly by local agencies could be scrapped -- among them light-rail extensions in Santa Clara County, more Caltrain service to San Francisco, and a BART link to Livermore.

Money will be scarce. More than $180 billion worth of projects is on the wish list in the Bay Area through 2035, while $70 billion may be available.

"Talk to any business person about not having a benefits-vs.-cost discussion and they'll say, 'Duh, you mean you don't do that?'" said the commission's executive director, Steve Heminger. "They insist on it, but in the transportation profession it is not all that common. ... This levels the playing field."

Transit and toll lanes rise to the top of the financial benefits for every $1 it will cost to build, operate and maintain a project.

"This is groundbreaking analysis that could call into question some of the biggest transportation projects," said Stuart Cohen of TransForm, an Oakland-based public transportation advocacy group. "For projects that have a score under 1, or lead to greenhouse gas increases, it will -- and should -- bring on intense scrutiny."

BART's plan to run express trains and more frequent trains is the highest rated project, with a $60 to $1 benefit/cost ratio.

Next is a project many may have never heard about -- Treasure Island congestion pricing, at $59 in benefits per $1 in costs.

This would impose a toll of around $5 per trip on all private vehicles registered to Treasure Island residents that enter or exit the island during morning or afternoon commute times. Revenues from the toll, along with the required purchase of transit passes by new residents, would be used to fund Treasure Island transit improvements, including bus service and new ferry service connecting the island to the Ferry Building in San Francisco.

Running express buses through Oakland on the Grand-MacArthur street corridor came in next at $18 to $1. Maximizing the efficiency of the existing freeway network in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties through ramp metering, traffic signal improvements along adjacent roads and transit signal priority upgrades had benefits of $16 to $1.

Anything over $7 to $1 in benefits is considered a high-performing project, while those with a $1 to $1 ratio or less are rated poorly.

The BART-to-San Jose extension through the downtown area had $5 in benefits to $1 in costs.

"We've recognized that as a region, we don't have the resources to build every transportation project that we'd like to build, and scarcity requires us to adopt a more principled approach to prioritizing projects based on needs and objectives, rather than on logrolling and backroom politicking," said Sam Liccardo, a San Jose council member and MTC commissioner. "I wasn't terribly surprised by the results.

"The cost-benefit analysis confirmed what the voters of Santa Clara County have long believed: The benefits of BART to Silicon Valley heavily outweigh its considerable costs, and it performs extremely well on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transportation costs."

But at risk are light rail and express buses through the South Bay, the Dumbarton commuter train from the East Bay to the Peninsula, and extending BART to Livermore. All had a benefit/cost ratio of $1 or less.

"One of the clear losers in the assessment was light rail in Santa Clara County," Cohen said. "Most of the potential extensions would go through low-density areas and would have low ridership.

"But the most hideous loser is BART to Livermore. This $4.2 million boondoggle shows almost no benefit," said Cohen, "and it would suck up billions needed to keep BART from falling to pieces."

The report will be presented to the MTC board next month and voted on early next year.


----------



## phugiay

bayviews said:


> I suppose so long as your at least five foot tall. I think you'd want to have a least a foot above the water line.
> 
> *But I wouldn't recommended it. You never know. Your legs might become a tasty meal for one of those hungry seal lions, if not a shark!*


Hahahhah Good one:rofl::rofl::hahaha:


----------



## phugiay

Nexis said:


> I'm 6'2 ....hmmm I wasn't aware that Sea lions attack ppl or that there were sharks in the bay...


There are plenty of them and you never know if they are interesting on you or not.


----------



## trainrover

Well, I wonder if it be a matter of west-coast ones, coz that sort always ducked (along this coastline):


^^ clickable...


----------



## bayviews

Falubaz said:


> The museum of SF-cablecars:




Getting back on track, lets review some of the transit pics!


----------



## trainrover

Impressive and charming


----------



## goten2255

yes yes yes yes baby yeah finally thank the lord and praise the celebration.

finally about time BART is going to San Jose wasn't this project long long overdue????

also which this means that BART is going to connect with the California HSR project as well which is awesome along the the San jose light rail and maybe street cars can be reintroduced to other cities as well.

i hear that CHSR project that they will upgrade the caltrain system to run on electric and upgrade Metrolink in Los Angeles which is cool its much cheaper doing that its what the TGV where it uses existing networks in the cities and towns and then uses its own high speed rail networks in the country side.

am i supposed to be talking about the CHSR network in here???

anyways i wanted to know something i hear BART is going to have four tracks as well like the NYC subway system and Chicago L as well but where there going to put the four tracks or three track network i heard of it somewhere?

and Congralations that SMART is building its railway line about time already good stuffs in california please keep this up i think alot of people are tired of traffic jams already.


----------



## diablo234

> *Galveston's Used Rail Bridge Moving to California*
> _New draw bridge being installed_
> http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/120214-galvestons-used-rail-bridge-moving-to-california
> Updated: Tuesday, 14 Feb 2012, 12:29 PM CST
> Published : Tuesday, 14 Feb 2012, 12:22 PM CST
> 
> GALVESTON, Texas - Who would have thought an old bridge in Galveston would find a new home about 50 miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge?
> 
> The rail bridge that runs parallel to Galveston's causeway is moving west as a new rail draw bridge is installed.
> 
> SkyFox was over the scene as workers put the new draw bridge in place around noon Tuesday.
> 
> According to the Galveston County Daily News , the new bridge is part of an $80 million project to replace the old, narrow bridge. The new 1,580-ton bridge is being installed by a team of more than 100 people.
> 
> The old bridge was purchased by the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit just north of San Fransisco. According to PressDemocrat.com , officials there are planning to replace the district's swing bridge over the Petaluma River.


....


----------



## jchernin

I think it's so cool how they're going to move the bridge from Texas!

Here's the PD article referred to:



> *SMART buys a (draw)bridge*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit officials are planning to buy a used draw bridge in Galveston, Texas, to replace the district's 100-year-old swing bridge over the Petaluma River that, while historic and repairable, is badly in need of replacement.
> SMART handout
> 
> By BOB NORBERG
> THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
> Published: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 7:30 a.m.
> Last Modified: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 7:30 a.m.
> 
> Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit officials intend to buy a used draw bridge in Galveston, Texas, to replace the 99-year-old swing bridge over the Petaluma River.
> 
> Rather than launch a $20 million rehab of the aging structure at Haystack Landing, and then perhaps spending $30 million to replace it in 20 years, SMART says that for $20 million it can buy and install the used bridge and have it last 75 to 80 years.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Texas bridge is on the BSFN Railway line linking the Texas mainland to Galveston Island. It was built in 1985 and is being replaced by a new vertical lift bridge to increase the channel width.
> 
> “It is a really solid bridge,” said Bill Gamlen, SMART chief engineer. “We will have to do some mechanical upgrades, but it is a very stout bridge. The BNSF doesn't want to get rid of it, but the Coast Guard is driving the replacement.”
> 
> It is called a bascule draw bridge, meaning it uses a counterweight to lift the “leaf,” or rail bed, into an almost vertical position. It is on the historic vehicle causeway that was converted to a rail line.
> 
> Gamlen said the new bridge would open or close in about *90 seconds, instead of the 2½ to 3 minutes* needed for the swing bridge.
> 
> It also is long enough to* allow the Petaluma River channel to be widened from 56 feet to 87 feet, and allow SMART trains to cross at higher speeds.*
> 
> The bridge over the Petaluma River was built in 1903. It uses a 5-horsepower electric motor, fabric belts and bevel gears to pivot slowly on a turntable that is 10 feet in diameter.
> 
> “One of the problems with the swing bridge is the reliability,” Gamlen said. “I have been out there and have seen it take three or four tries to get it closed.”
> 
> ...
> 
> Parts of old swing could be used in other areas on the SMART line, primarily at creek crossings and to replace existing wooden trestles.
> 
> ....
> 
> You can reach Staff Writer Bob Norberg at 521-5206 or [email protected].


http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120214/COMMUNITY/120219800?p=2&tc=pg


----------



## bayviews

goten2255 said:


> yes yes yes yes baby yeah finally thank the lord and praise the celebration.
> 
> finally about time BART is going to San Jose wasn't this project long long overdue????
> 
> also which this means that BART is going to connect with the California HSR project as well which is awesome along the the San jose light rail and maybe street cars can be reintroduced to other cities as well.


Yeah, your right, the BART To San Jose extension was on the drawing boards back in the 1990s & was planned to be up & running by now. However, a couple of big snafus got in the way: 

The dot-com boom that was generating all the extra bucks went bust after 1999. The Santa Clara County Transit District that was supposed to come up with a big share of the local funding match it the skids owing mostly to poor management. So this project is coming about a dozen years behind schedule. 

As for Cal HSR, there's still lots of hurdles ahead.


----------



## bayviews

Catching up with some sad news from Sacramento: 

Three Killed After Light Rail Train Hits Vehicle
Kathy Paez, Eric Rucker. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Jan 28, 2012.

(c)2012 KTXL-TV (Sacramento, Calif.) Visit KTXL-TV (Sacramento, Calif.) at www.fox40.com Distributed by MCT Information Services

Jan. 28--SACRAMENTO -- Three people have been killed, including an 18-month-old boy, and many more injured after a light rail train hit an SUV with four people inside.

The accident happened just after 4 p.m. Saturday at the railroad crossing at 25th Street and 26th Avenue in South Sacramento.

The details are unclear as to how the accident happened, but Sacramento City Fire Department Assistant Chief Niko King says three people in the Nissan Pathfinder were killed after it was struck by the light rail train heading south.

"It looks like it was a really hard impact," said King. He said the SUV appeared to have rolled a few times and landed on its roof.

Two of the people inside the SUV were dead when emergency crews arrived. The two other people inside the SUV were taken to the hospital, one of those people later died. One of the three who died is identified as an 18-month-old boy. Officials are not releasing any identifying information about the other victims.

The fire department says 17 light rail passengers reported minor pain and bruising after the accident and were taken to the hospital to be checked out.

Witnesses say the SUV tried to beat the train, but that has not been confirmed.

Sacramento Police are looking at video from Regional Transit, both on the train and on a nearby pole, and other evidence to figure out what happened. The driver of the train stayed onscene and talked with investigators.

Regional Transit representatives think the car was going eastbound and may have gone around the arm when it was in the down position.

The train tracks and surrounding area was shut down for several hours Saturday night.


----------



## bayviews

Here's an update on the much needed but long-delayed East Bay BRT thru Oakland to suburban San Leandro: 

BUS PLAN RECEIVING A MIXED REVIEWAC TRANSIT FAST BUS PROJECT TO BOOST RIDERSHIP, BUT TAKE AWAY PARKING SPACES; 
Contra Costa Times. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Feb 19, 2012. 

Copyright Bay Area News Feb 19, 2012

By Denis Cuff

AC Transit's $205 million plan for a bus rapid transit line for speedier service through Oakland and San Leandro would boost system ridership 4 percent but take away hundreds of curbside parking spaces and worsen traffic congestion at six intersections, according to an environmental report.

Release of the report opens a public comment period in advance of the AC Transit board's final decision in the spring whether to develop the 14.4-mile-long line touted as "rail on wheels."

Seven public hearings on the environmental report are planned in Oakland and San Leandro between Thursday and March 12.

Buses would arrive every five minutes. Bus-only lanes with elevated platforms for quick loading would be developed on much of the route along Telegraph Avenue, International Boulevard and East 14th Street.

Many public transit advocates tout the project as a way to lure drivers out of their cars, but some critics say it will be harder for motorists to drive and find parking.

"We think there is a benefit to us in attracting more riders and a benefit to the cities in attracting investments for transit-oriented developments" said Jim Cunradi, AC Transit's bus rapid transit project director.

The report estimates that the project would boost AC Transit's overall bus ridership by 4 percent or by 13,700 passengers between 2015 and 2035.

About 9,000 of those extra passengers would be new transit riders lured out of their cars. Others would be passengers lured away from other bus lanes or BART.

The overall time saving for bus riders will exceed the time lost by motorists who couldn't drive as fast, Cunradi said.

Motorists will find more congestion at six intersections -- mostly in north Oakland along Telegraph Avenue where there is little room to modify the intersections, according to the report.

"It's not going to cause gridlock, but it will cause impacts that are significant," Cunradi said. "We examined more than 100 intersections and found only six where impacts could be not be mitigated."

Those car traffic delays could be avoided if AC Transit scaled back the bus project to omit about four miles of route north of downtown Oakland, he added.

Switching to that $152 million alternative would reduce bus ridership, but it would solve another problem -- a money shortage.

AC transit is about $33 million short of having enough money commitments to build the full-size $205 million project, the report writers say.

Parking is another issue. The bus rapid transit would displace 1,000 curbside parking spaces in Oakland and San Leandro -- but about half of them are in areas where there is not a parking shortage, the report says.

In other areas, AC Transit would consider whether to offset parking shortages by acquiring nearby land for new parking lots or working with cities to set time limits on some curbside parking areas.

"We are trying to work with the cities to come up with a proposal that fits each neighborhood," Cunradi said.

A small portion of the 14.4 mile route is in Berkeley, but buses won't speed up in that city because the Berkeley City Council last year withdrew from the project by refusing to convert auto lanes to bus-only lanes.

For more information on the planned public hearings, view www.actransit.org. and click on news.


----------



## bayviews

San Francisco Launches Innovative Muni History Exhibit to Celebrate 100 Years
Targeted News Service. Washington, D.C.: Feb 21, 2012. 

Copyright © Targeted News Service. All Rights Reserved.

The office of the San Francisco Mayor issued the following news release:

Today Mayor Edwin M. Lee, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and partners Market Street Railway (MSR) and Historypin announced the launch of "Treasures from the Muni Archive," a new exhibit of photographs from Muni's extensive archive celebrating the last 100 years. The exhibit is installed on Muni transit shelters along Market Street, at the MSR Museum and on Historypin, a project of the London-based non-profit We Are What We Do.

"San Francisco is excited to launch the 'Treasures from the Muni Archive' exhibit to engage the City about Muni's rich past and begin the celebration of Muni's centennial," said Mayor Lee. "The high-tech features of this exhibit make history come alive and represent San Francisco's commitment to innovation."

"With nearly 30,000 photos in the SFMTA archive, we are pleased to have such a unique way to share them with residents and visitors," said SFMTA Director of Transportation Edward D. Reiskin. "We are grateful to our long-standing partner, MSR, and one of our newest partners, Historypin, for making this exciting exhibit possible."

"Our City has one of the richest transportation histories in America," said MSR President Rick Laubscher. "We salute Muni for the work it is doing in preserving its own precious archives and sharing them with San Franciscans and visitors alike through this project. We're proud to help on this and other activities marking Muni's centennial."

The SFMTA's civic art project takes visitors from a traditional exhibit of approximately 20 archive images at the MSR Museum that were featured in the book, "San Francisco's Municipal Railway: Muni," to the city's streets where semi-transparent, site-specific images have been mounted on the backs of Muni wave shelters along Market Street between the Museum and the Powell Cable Car turnaround. The physical exhibit is supported by an extensive online collection from Muni's archives at Historypin.com.

"The SFMTA Photographic Archive's innovative displays have turned bus shelters into free history museums," said Historypin CEO Nick Stanhope. "While San Francisco may be the first city doing it, I fully expect this trend to catch on around the world."

With the help of Historypin, the SFMTA can now share a tour of site-specific images. Shelter displays have a QR code that allow viewers to access a summary of the exhibit and a link to the free Historypin.com app. The app allows the viewer mobile access to Historypin's site where they can explore numerous photos of their current location, explore the full Historypin collection or post their own photograph from that location. The SFMTA Archive's page on Historypin will also be available on interactive monitors at the MSR Museum.

The Municipal Railway was founded on December 28, 1912. During Muni's centennial year there will be several events to provide people with information about Muni's world-renown transit history, including additional photography exhibits from Muni's archive that dates back to the 19th century, vintage vehicles in City events and, in collaboration with MSR, a revival of the popular trolley festivals. Centennial events officially kick off in the Spring.

About Market Street Railway

Market Street Railway is the nonprofit preservation partner of the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni), the city agency that owns and operates San Francisco's transit system, including its historic streetcars and cable cars. The 1200-member organization's leaders were a driving force in making vintage streetcars a permanent part of the San Francisco scene. Today, besides supporting Muni's historic streetcar and cable car service, Market Street Railway operates the San Francisco Railway Museum across from the Ferry Building at 77 Steuart Street as part of its mission of preserving historic transit in San Francisco.


----------



## lezgotolondon

I didn't know anything about muni.

Seems strange a mix of light metro, tram and even cable car!


----------



## jchernin

> *Hundreds attend SMART groundbreaking ceremony in Petaluma*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supervisor Valerie Brown and others at the Petaluma ceremony on Friday, Feb. 24, 2012.
> KENT PORTER/ PD
> 
> By BOB NORBERG
> THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
> Published: Friday, February 24, 2012 at 1:27 p.m.
> Last Modified: Friday, February 24, 2012 at 1:27 p.m.
> 
> North Coast politicians and transit supporters gathered in Petaluma on Friday for a ceremonial groundbreaking for the SMART commute train that will run between Sonoma and Marin counties.
> 
> “This is a historic moment, it has been a long time coming,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma. “We simply can't meet our transportation needs by building roads. It's not cost-effective. It is not smart.”
> 
> The ceremony was held at the historic Petaluma depot and attracted a crowd of 400, a large number of whom took turns with the 49 golden shovels to turn over a mound of dirt crossing the tracks.
> 
> The gathering came 30 years after politicians in both counties began working to preserve the Northwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way as a future transit corridor, a decade after the rail transit district was formed and four years after voters passed a quarter-cent sales tax to fund the train.
> 
> “It's been a long road,” said Cloverdale Councilwoman Carol Russell, a director of the rail agency, Sonoma-Marin Area Regional Transit...
> 
> The agency has faced multiple challenges over the past four years, with a recession forcing SMART to scale back the initial line and delay the beginning of service...
> 
> SMART Chairwoman Valerie Brown, a Sonoma County supervisor, said the effort to repeal the sales tax, passed by 70 percent of Sonoma and Marin voters in November 2008, was the most troubling.
> 
> “That was absolutely a worry, that we had to be back on the ballot and fight it out again,” Brown said.The event also was attended by Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena; state senators Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, and Mark Leno, D-San Francisco; and state assembly members Mike Allen, D-San Rafael; Wes Chesbro, D-Arcata; and Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael.
> 
> In the past two months, SMART has sold construction bonds and awarded a $103 million contract for the initial work to build the line and stations from Gureneville Road in Santa Rosa to the Marin Civic Center in San Rafael.
> 
> It is preparing to award another construction contract within the next few months to build between the Civic Center and downtown San Rafael.
> 
> Trains are scheduled to begin running on the initial line, 38.5 miles, in late 2014 or early 2015....


http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120224/ARTICLES/120229730/1350?p=1&tc=pg


----------



## bayviews

lezgotolondon said:


> I didn't know anything about muni.
> 
> Seems strange a mix of light metro, tram and even cable car!


In addition MUNI also runs large bus, & trolleybus fleets plus some hybrid diessel/electric vehicles. If one adds in all the 25 plus transit agencies around the Bay Area, the region probably boasts one of the largest assortment of different modes of transit worldwide. 

And yet, there's plenty of room for improvements! Not so much huge, costly, waistful, multi-billion dollar budget-breaking boondogles. Rather more in the way of basic service, mainteance, cleaning, & management improvements. Plus more coordination & ultimately some administative consolidation.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> Hundreds attend SMART groundbreaking ceremony in Petaluma


Good to see a groundbreaking on a rail line in America- I had thought common wisdom was that projects other than roadbuilding were dubbed "boondoggles" and "experiments in socialism" that had to be killed outright(sarcasm).


----------



## jchernin

k.k.jetcar said:


> Good to see a groundbreaking on a rail line in America- I had thought common wisdom was that projects other than roadbuilding were dubbed "boondoggles" and "experiments in socialism" that had to be killed outright(sarcasm).


There in fact WAS a repeal effort - which failed to get enough signatures to get on the ballot.


----------



## bayviews

k.k.jetcar said:


> Good to see a groundbreaking on a rail line in America- I had thought common wisdom was that projects other than roadbuilding were dubbed "boondoggles" and "experiments in socialism" that had to be killed outright(sarcasm).


SMART seems like a good, cost-effective rail project that lives up to its name, will provide long-overdue connections in the North Bay, an area that hasn't had rail. Hopefully eventually we'll have rail connections between SF & the North Bay. 

On the other hand, now & then we do see some boondoogles in the making that have more to do with political pork & less to do with transit. Those of us who are pro-transit also have professional a duty to make sure that projects are well-designed, cost-effective, & don't detract from existing & future service needs.


----------



## jchernin

Here is the latest rendering of the SMART train interior:









http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...80150.14739.116321028397555&type=1&permPage=1


----------



## trainrover

I trust that climbing into and off of that N American stock won't be necessary. Is the stock going to be that narrow?


^^ clickable...


^^ clickable...

Anyhow, SMART's far away from SF Bay, it probably deserves its own thread


----------



## jchernin

trainrover said:


> I trust that climbing into and off of that N American stock won't be necessary. Is the stock going to be that narrow?
> 
> ...
> 
> Anyhow, SMART's far away from SF Bay, it probably deserves its own thread


Both Sonoma and Marin are part of the San Francisco Bay Area, defined as the nine counties that touch and ring the San Francisco Bay: 



> The Bay Area's nine counties are Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area

I think this thread is the proper place for discussion of this rail line, especially since this thread also technically includes Sacramento.


----------



## bayviews

jchernin said:


> I think this thread is the proper place for discussion of this rail line, especially since this thread also technically includes Sacramento.


Indeed it is. 

Please do keep updating us on the project status!


----------



## trainrover

Isn't there still much wilderness alongside the 101 corridor twixt the north shore and Santa Rosa?


----------



## diablo234

So what are the planned frequencies of the SMART line?


----------



## Cal_Escapee

bayviews said:


> SMART seems like a good, cost-effective rail project that lives up to its name, will provide long-overdue connections in the North Bay, an area that hasn't had rail. Hopefully eventually we'll have rail connections between SF & the North Bay.
> 
> On the other hand, now & then we do see some boondoogles in the making that have more to do with political pork & less to do with transit. Those of us who are pro-transit also have professional a duty to make sure that projects are well-designed, cost-effective, & don't detract from existing & future service needs.


I'd say it's a great "second best". I'd rather see the BART Richmond Line extended through a second tunnel (parallel to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge) into Marin County and on up to Santa Rosa (and that's assuming a Golden Gate crossing is just too hard). But that's probably not going to happen, so I'm a fan of SMART, assuming they do something to permit efficient transfer to a ferry to SF at the southern terminus.


----------



## Anderson Reis

No, not here in Sao Paulo.


----------



## goten2255

sao paulo metro indeed looks similar to BART in the train design it does heck i am happy alot of great things is happening to BART.

also i heard BART will be going to the Transbay terminal and then to west San Francisco as well to Gaery i believe or something and will have four tracks in oakland that they announced the 50th anniversary for BART.

i know Metrorail systems are expensive now but i think Metrorail systems work the best in dense areas why is it that this was possible back then and now no city wants metrorails anymore?


----------



## trainrover

I suspect the answer lies in your question: working best, let alone better, meddles with lucrativeness


----------



## Anderson Reis

goten2255 said:


> sao paulo metro indeed looks similar to BART in the train design...


It is true, are very similar in design:


----------



## Anderson Reis

I would like to clarify a doubt. In San Francisco it is necessary to ask for any authorization to photograph the BART trains and stations?

Look at that beautiful image I found in the Pacific Southwest Railway Museum:


----------



## Cal_Escapee

> bids to build the Chinatown Station for San Francisco’s Central Subway due May 8th, and construction scheduled to be completed by the end of 2017 . . . .
> 
> (Chinatown Station Entrance)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The solicitation for bids to build a $189 million Union Square/Market Street Subway Station is expected to be advertised next month.
> 
> (Union Square Station Entrance)


Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/...station_site_under_wraps_and_the_renderi.html


----------



## bayviews

Anderson Reis said:


> This comparison is good therefore indicates that the BART system is very effective. Here in Sao Paulo for example the subway system was modelled on BART and Metro de São Paulo is very effective.



Yeah, Glad that Sao Paulo has one of the best & certainly most comprehensive rapid transit systems in Latin America!


----------



## bayviews

Anderson Reis said:


> I would like to clarify a doubt. In San Francisco it is necessary to ask for any authorization to photograph the BART trains and stations?



In cities NYC or Washington DC there are more restrictions. But while I can't be sure, I doubt you'd run into significant problems re: photographing BART.


----------



## bayviews

Back in December yours truly like many others had expressed our concerns with MTC's foolish & waistful scheme to relocate from Oakland to plusher digs in San Francisco at taxpayer expense. And so we're glad to see that the State Senate has taken up this matter. Let's hope that the MTC stays where it belongs, in the East Bay. 

Bill approved by state Senate committee would halt Metropolitan Transportation Commission move until audit is complete

BYLINE: By Rick Hurd Contra Costa Times

SECTION: NEWS

A state Senate committee on Tuesday unanimously approved a bill that would stop a regional transit agency from spending any more public money on its plans to renovate its new headquarters in San Francisco until a state audit is completed.

Senate Bill 1545, authored by Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, was approved 8-0 by a bipartisan committee. If approved by the full Senate and Assembly and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, the law would table the planned move by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission until the audit is complete.

The MTC wants to move its headquarters from Oakland to San Francisco and paid $93 million to purchase an old postal facility at 390 Main St. in San Francisco to serve as its regional headquarters.

DeSaulnier introduced the bill in December. The bill, if approved, would apply to the MTC, the Bay Area Toll Authority and to the Bay Area Headquarters Authority. The BAHA was created by MTC to make all decisions related to the move and voted in December to spend $1 million for "architectural and engineering services" for the new building.

In a news release, DeSaulnier said the BAHA "knew the potential move was being audited" and "decided to ignore the audit and to spend the money anyway."

"That decision need not be made worse by spending additional public funds without oversight provided by the audit," DeSaulnier said. "There is no risk in awaiting (the audit's) completion. ... It is the responsible thing to do."

The audit will determine whether it is legal to use bridge tolls to buy and renovate the building. The renovations are expected to cost $74 million.

MTC has said the headquarters will serve as regional headquarters for multi-governmental agencies, including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.


----------



## Anderson Reis

bayviews said:


> In cities NYC or Washington DC there are more restrictions. But while I can't be sure, I doubt you'd run into significant problems re: photographing BART.


Thank you very much

Unfortunately here in certain areas, such as: patio of parking lots, still need authorization.


----------



## trainrover

What's a patio of parking lot, a café terrasse set in a car park?


----------



## bayviews

Anderson Reis said:


> Thank you very much
> 
> Unfortunately here in certain areas, such as: patio of parking lots, still need authorization.


Hope you'll be able to make it up here to photo BART!


----------



## bayviews

BAY AREA TRANSIT CHIEFS OK DEAL TO SPLIT PROJECT'S COSTSBAY AREA INKS $1.5 BILLION DEAL TO ELECTRIFY CALTRAIN FOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL; State, local leaders will split $1.5 billion cost of electrifying Caltrain line
Contra Costa Times. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Mar 30, 2012. pg. B.12

Copyright Bay Area News Mar 30, 2012

By Mike Rosenberg

Bay Area transportation leaders on Wednesday approved the region's deal with the state to split the $1.5 billion cost to electrify the Caltrain line that would ultimately be shared with statewide bullet trains.

"It will be much-improved train service in the corridor and it allows us to get some relatively early benefits of the spending of the high-speed rail funds without having to wait 10 to 20 years," San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, whose administration helped draft the deal, said in an interview after the vote.

However, lingering questions remain over whether the new plan to run both Caltrain and state high-speed trains on an electric version of the existing two-track system is legal because voters in 2008 approved a high-speed rail line that assumed four tracks.

By sharing a pair of tracks with Caltrain, it could take California high-speed trains 45 minutes to travel between San Francisco and San Jose on their way to Los Angeles, instead of 30 minutes with four tracks. The slowdown also calls into question whether the state can meet its legal mandate to whisk bullet trains between San Francisco and Los Angeles in 2 hours, 40 minutes -- a requirement that relied on lightning-quick speeds in the Bay Area.

Engineers also were banking on up to 10 high-speed trains per hour in each direction with an expanded railroad.

But with fewer tracks, officials say, six Caltrains would run each hour, leaving room for just two to four high-speed trains in the Bay Area. With slower trip times and a reduction in service, the rail line's ability to attract riders could be hindered, leading to a possible violation of the law that requires the rail line to break even and avoid a tax subsidy.

Lastly, the measure voters approved requires the new system to reach the new Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco, and critics have questioned whether sharing the existing Caltrain corridor is enough to meet that criteria.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority refused to say whether the railroad will ultimately be expanded to four tracks, saying specifics will be unveiled in a final business plan due next week, though its attorneys maintain using two tracks would be legal. Peninsula officials aren't buying the two-track plan as permanent, however.

"They're playing a very devious game here, telling people who want to hear that it's going to meet the time requirements that it's going to be a four-track system, and telling people on the Peninsula it's going to be a two-track system," said attorney Stuart Flashman, who represents Peninsula cities that have sued over the bullet train project. "And obviously it can't be both."

Still, officials around the Bay Area touted the smaller, two-track project as a compromise meant to lower the total cost of the $100 billion high-speed railroad and diminish the damages to Peninsula communities along the corridor.

For cash-strapped Caltrain, it means lower operating costs and more frequent service.

Wednesday's "action represents the first step in what will eventually be a great leap forward for transit on the Peninsula," Caltrain CEO Mike Scanlon said in a statement.

The unanimous vote by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission represents one half of the political deal released last week. The Bay Area will contribute $750"0/00million, mostly from federal grants earmarked for transit construction and tax revenue from San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

On April 5, the rail authority board is set to approve its half of the deal to kick in $706"0/00million in state bond funds, subject to approval by a divided Legislature as early as this June. Electric Caltrain service could open some six years after lawmakers approve the funds, with state bullet trains coming a decade or so later if funds can be secured to extend the tracks to San Jose from the starting point in the Central Valley.


----------



## Anderson Reis

Yes, when I go to San Francisco I will photograph the BART and I will show you here. These other information are very interesting as well. kay:


----------



## krnboy1009

God I hope Caltrain gets electrified.

There is no other rail corridor outside of Northeast thats electrified. With the exception of Metra Electric route and South Shore line route.


----------



## LtBk

And the Marc Penn Line.


----------



## bayviews

krnboy1009 said:


> God I hope Caltrain gets electrified.
> 
> There is no other rail corridor outside of Northeast thats electrified. With the exception of Metra Electric route and South Shore line route.


Glad to hear that the Jack Kevorkian Memorial Express may be juiced up. 

Hopefully with overhead catenary? 

Whatever, please NO third rails! Now that would extract a truly gruesome toll. 

Seriously though, I love CT. It’s the best & most comfortable rail system here. 

Electrification can only make it even better!


----------



## Nouvellecosse

Why don't you like 3rd rail? It works on many commuter services in places like southern England and Metro NY doesn't it?


----------



## krnboy1009

LtBk said:


> And the Marc Penn Line.


MARC Penn Line is in the Northeast


----------



## bayviews

Nouvellecosse said:


> Why don't you like 3rd rail? It works on many commuter services in places like southern England and Metro NY doesn't it?


Third Rail would be fine in most circumstances. However, consider the particular problem, a very sad one, that Caltrain has faced: 

For the Engineer, a Death on the Tracks Means Horrifying Memories; [National Desk]
Zusha Elinson. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: 

Copyright New York Times Company Dec 11, 2011

The number of deaths is spiking this year on the tracks of the 77-mile Caltrain commuter line between San Francisco and Gilroy. With the 15th and 16th fatalities taking place within an hour of each other on Dec. 3, the total is nearing the 1995 high of 20 fatalities.

Many of the deaths are suicides, as 11 have been determined to be so far this year.

The engineers are the last people to see the victims alive. There is no way to stop a speeding 400-ton train in time. There is also no way to forget the sight or sound of death on the tracks.

One of those killed on Dec. 3, Donald Larson, 48, of San Jose, was hit by a northbound Baby Bullet in Palo Alto. A week earlier, Gregory Brown, 54, of Redwood City, died in the same spot in front of the same train. The same engineer hit them both, said Alex Cano, chairman of the local train engineers' union. No further details have been released about their deaths.

Less than an hour after Mr. Larson died, Jayne Cox, 27, of Folsom, was killed by a southbound train north of the Menlo Park station. The incident is being investigated as a suicide.

Christine Dunn, a Caltrain spokeswoman, said the deaths had an affect on everyone at the agency, from the engineers to the people who answer calls from passengers. "This is why the agency is heavily involved in community suicide prevention efforts that make a proactive effort to deal with the underlying causes of this complex problem," she said.

According to papers published in psychiatry journals, engineers who witness death on the tracks -- suicide or not -- are susceptible to post-traumatic stress disorder and the conditions that come with it: anxiety, insomnia and depression.

"The issue here is the profound amount of helplessness at the moment of impact," said Elana Newman, a psychology professor at the University of Tulsa specializing in responses to traumatic life events. "The core aspect of trauma is you see it and there's nothing you can do, and that's the part that's the most problematic."

It was a sunny Easter Sunday five years ago when Sean Morgan, driving a train into a San Francisco tunnel, saw something lying on the tracks. At first he thought it was debris. "But then," he said, "the person looked up, and it felt like he looked right at me -- just eyes as big as dinner plates."

Mr. Morgan pulled the emergency brake, but the train continued 800 feet before it stopped. Mr. Morgan had experienced a suicide on the tracks before, but this death of a homeless man stuck with him. It was the eyes, he said, and the sound.

"I'd hear the sound when I'd try to go sleep," Mr. Morgan said.

Although Caltrain has spent millions of dollars in suicide prevention, reaching out to local communities, and erecting fences and signs along the tracks, Mr. Morgan's experience is not unusual. Mr. Morgan, who has been a Caltrain engineer since 1996, said that of all the other old-timers he knows, only one had not hit and killed someone on the tracks. New hires to the line, which is operated by Amtrak, are told that it is a matter of when, not if.

Amtrak has a system for dealing with the incidents. Engineers get three days off and can take more time if needed. They receive calls from a professional counselor and a volunteer peer counselor.

Bruce Shelton, a Caltrain conductor for 15 years, became a volunteer counselor after he experienced two fatalities in 10 days. It is the conductor's grim duty to find the body or what is left of it. "My second one was a suicide," Mr. Shelton said. "When I went out to determine what the status was, I found a landscape quite literally of body parts."

"You feel sadness," he added. "Any loss of life is tragic, especially as the result of a suicide. Somewhere along the line, someone just missed a cry for help."

Not every engineer gets over the sadness. Mr. Cano, the union chairman, said that one engineer had a teardrop tattooed under his eye after his train hit and killed a toddler who had wandered onto the tracks.

"It was so traumatizing to him; it totally changed him," Mr. Cano said.


----------



## bayviews

Woonsocket54 said:


> I always thought it was 1918.


How right you are! 

Correction 1918


----------



## AVassilios

bayviews said:


> Good questions:
> 
> The old streetcar tunnel under Twin Peaks dates from circa 1912. Also there were some accidents in the downhill turn segment, thus the very slow speeds for the light rail trains entering under Market.
> 
> Plus, the Muni Metro signal "system" was done by inept political hacks without engineering backgrounds.
> 
> The F Line includes both the vintage streetcars on market as well as the segment on the NE Embarcadero.
> 
> F line extension to Ft Mason and Marina have been planned for many years, but its not a big priority.
> 
> Perhaps much like Greece, yes Muni has been living far above its means!


Thanks a lot! Still it's such an important commuting corridor they could at least do some not-so expensive update to the tunnel given the fact that they obviously have the money. They just burn it by building the central subway. I get the fact that there is a need for more capacity in the north-south direction (Fisherman's wharf - Chinatown - SOMA), but a BRT for the 30/45 Stockton busses would be much more suitable than for 38 Geary. They REALLY should have spent their money on a new B Geary Light Rail line. 

I was astonished how many new refurbished PCCs went into service this year, I'm impressed.


----------



## bayviews

AVassilios said:


> I've recently been to San Francisco and since I know the city and the Muni system quite well i've been taking advantage of the weekpass to get around the city.
> 
> But I'm curious and have some questions, I hope someone local can help.
> 
> - why do Muni Metro trains ride at such a low speed in the old streetcar tunnel under the twin peaks (Castro <-> West Portal)?
> - why isn't the E Embarcadero line not running yet? I usually saw some backup oldtimer streetcars in this section and since the platforms at Folsom also have a lowfloor section I imagine the infrastructure would be read right? Is it because of the tight Muni budget?
> - What about the extension of the F Market line from the Fishermans Wharf further to Fort Mason and Marina, any news there?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


FYI, here's some more details & links re: the proposed F line extension to FT Mason: 

Extension of F-Line Streetcar Service to Fort Mason Center
Golden Gate National Recreation Area » Extension of F-Line Streetcar Service to Fort Mason Center » Document List

February 17, 2012: The National Park Service (NPS) is pleased to announce the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the Extension of F-Line Streetcar Service to Fort Mason Center. The project would lengthen the historic streetcar F-line from Fisherman's Wharf to the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park (SF Maritime NHP) and on to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), ending at the Fort Mason Center.

The Final EIS evaluates the same alternatives as those in the Draft EIS, including the No-Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. The Final EIS also addresses all substantive comments received on the Draft EIS. The intended effect of this project is to provide park visitors and transit-dependent residents with high-quality rail transit that improves transportation access and mobility between existing streetcar service at Fisherman's Wharf to San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park and Fort Mason Center.

Preferred Alternative:
The Preferred Alternative would extend the existing F-Line from Fisherman's Wharf to Fort Mason Center. The track extension would include a street-running segment along Beach Street, a transition zone between the street-running segment and the Fort Mason Tunnel, a tunnel segment and a turnaround segment with two options for locations, Alternative 2A: North Loop (Fort Mason parking lot) and 2B: South Loop (Great Meadow). Project elements would include the construction of streetcar track for approximately 0.85 miles, construction of 8-9 station platforms, upgrades to the existing Fort Mason Tunnel, and installation of signals, crossings, wires and poles.

The Final EIS is available as follows:
> ** Here on this website (click on tab marked "Document List" )
> at GGNRA Headquarters (Bldg. 201 Fort Mason, San Francisco, CA)
> at San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park's Maritime Library
(Building E, Third Floor, Fort Mason Center)
> at local public libraries (San Francisco Public Libraries: Main Branch,
Golden Gate Valley Branch, North Beach Branch, Eureka Valley
Harvey Milk Library, Presidio Branch Library)

**Because of the large size of the document it has been split into separate sections to make downloading quicker and easier.

Questions can be sent to [email protected]

Written inquiries can also be sent to:

Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Attention: F-Line FEIS
Fort Mason, Building 201
San Francisco, CA 94123-0022

Next Step:
Consistent with National Environmental Policy Act, the National Park Service will execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days following publication of the Notice of Availability of the Final EIS in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency. The ROD will also be published in the Federal Register and available on the park's public PEPC site.

The cooperating agencies will engage the public with timely information and opportunities to comment on any future planning or design activities that may result from this decision.

Contact Information
[email protected]


----------



## bayviews

AVassilios said:


> Thanks a lot! Still it's such an important commuting corridor they could at least do some not-so expensive update to the tunnel given the fact that they obviously have the money. They just burn it by building the central subway. I get the fact that there is a need for more capacity in the north-south direction (Fisherman's wharf - Chinatown - SOMA), but a BRT for the 30/45 Stockton busses would be much more suitable than for 38 Geary. They REALLY should have spent their money on a new B Geary Light Rail line.
> 
> I was astonished how many new refurbished PCCs went into service this year, I'm impressed.


Yeah, with a push from the Market St Railway San Francisco must have one of the largest--if not the largest--collection of those truly timeless PCCs streetcars collected from all across North America. 

Albeit few PCCs from San Francisco itself, owing to the poor mainteance of the original MUNI PCC fleet!


----------



## quashlo

AVassilios said:


> I was astonished how many new refurbished PCCs went into service this year, I'm impressed.


It only seems like a lot are re-entering service because they've only just gotten around to completely rewiring many of the ex-Newark / ex-Minneapolis cars... These were purchased way, way back in 2004, and several of them already debuted on Muni as early as 2007, but all were afterwards removed from service because of ridiculous wiring / door motor problems. For several years, they were just sitting useless at Geneva Yard.


----------



## bayviews

Well, yet again, Muni's taken another hit on its poor performance. 

Most riders understand the need for occasional switchbacks. What they don't understand is why Muni can't put out enough vehicles to maintain scheduled service. 

Contra Costa Times [Walnut Creek, Calif] 11 Aug 2012: B.6.

SAN FRANCISCO

Grand jury: Riders dumped too soon

A San Francisco grand jury says Bay Area train and bus riders are too often dumped before reaching their destinations.

The civil grand jury report says the Municipal Transportation Agency shows a callous disregard for commuters when it uses the so-called switchbacks.

The practice involves unexpectedly unloading passengers before destinations are reached so trains and buses can turn around.

Muni officials tell the San Francisco Chronicle that the grand jury based its conclusions on flawed assumptions.

Grand jury committee chair Sharon Gadberry says she stands by the panel's report.

Transit chief John Haley says Muni uses switchbacks when normal runs are thrown off schedule for such problems as accidents, operator shortages, equipment malfunctions and blocked tracks.


----------



## bayviews

Here's a quick update: 

Its very dissapointing to hear that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is apparently still hell bent on completly foolish & waistful plans to desert its HQ in Oakland, a struggling city with plenty of vacant office space, a city that needs to keep all the agencies it can, for a much plusher place with a big atrium in San Francisco, a wealthier & costlier city already flush with HQs. This despite widespead opposition from the public as well as many public officials across the Bay Area. 

The cost to Bay Area taxpayers? Over $180 million. What an outrage!


----------



## Silly_Walks

bayviews said:


> Here's a quick update:
> 
> Its very dissapointing to hear that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is apparently still hell bent on completly foolish & waistful plans to desert its HQ in Oakland, a struggling city with plenty of vacant office space, a city that needs to keep all the agencies it can, for a much plusher place with a big atrium in San Francisco, a wealthier & costlier city already flush with HQs. This despite widespead opposition from the public as well as many public officials across the Bay Area.
> 
> The cost to Bay Area taxpayers? Over $180 million. What an outrage!


I expect this kind of behavior to go mostly unchallenged in just about every country in the world, but surely not in a country that has a complete 2nd amendement devoted to the citizens' rights to shut down such despotic behavior.


----------



## bayviews

Silly_Walks said:


> I expect this kind of behavior to go mostly unchallenged in just about every country in the world, but surely not in a country that has a complete 2nd amendement devoted to the citizens' rights to shut down such despotic behavior.


Americans are probably more apathetic about government performance than those in most other developed countries. Poor Oakland's stuck with a very nice & kind but helpless mayor who makes sleepy Ron Dellums, the ex-mayor look like a some kind of a genious. Meanwhile San Francisco's become very adept in trying to poach agencies and firms from other smaller cities & suburbs around the Bay Area in hopes avoiding bankruptcy.


----------



## Sunfuns

bayviews said:


> Well, yet again, Muni's taken another hit on its poor performance.
> 
> Most riders understand the need for occasional switchbacks. What they don't understand is why Muni can't put out enough vehicles to maintain scheduled service.
> 
> Contra Costa Times [Walnut Creek, Calif] 11 Aug 2012: B.6.
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO
> 
> Grand jury: Riders dumped too soon
> 
> *A San Francisco grand jury says Bay Area train and bus riders are too often dumped before reaching their destinations.
> 
> The civil grand jury report says the Municipal Transportation Agency shows a callous disregard for commuters when it uses the so-called switchbacks.*
> *The practice involves unexpectedly unloading passengers before destinations are reached so trains and buses can turn around.*
> 
> Muni officials tell the San Francisco Chronicle that the grand jury based its conclusions on flawed assumptions.
> 
> Grand jury committee chair Sharon Gadberry says she stands by the panel's report.
> 
> Transit chief John Haley says Muni uses switchbacks when normal runs are thrown off schedule for such problems as accidents, operator shortages, equipment malfunctions and blocked tracks.


Please tell me this is some elaborate joke... I've used public transport extensively in many cities around the world (in Europe mostly, but also NYC and Washington DC) and have never encountered stunts like that.

Is bus driving really such a poorly paid and miserable job in San Francisco? In most places it's quite cushy middle income position folks are very keen on keeping...


----------



## quashlo

You must be misunderstanding the statement... It's fairly common practice in many cities. Once you get so far behind schedule, at some point you have to start turning buses and trains back early to get them back on schedule, just like Mr. Haley says. It's part of the reason you build switchbacks / crossovers in strategic locations along transit lines in the first place. The problem is that this practice is _too common_ in San Francisco.



Sunfuns said:


> Is bus driving really such a poorly paid and miserable job in San Francisco? In most places it's quite cushy middle income position folks are very keen on keeping...


Regarding transit jobs, the problem is not that the operators are poorly paid but that they are paid too much for doing too little... BART and Muni operators are some of the highest paid transit workers in the United States. The rest of your statement is correct.


----------



## bayviews

Sunfuns said:


> Please tell me this is some elaborate joke... I've used public transport extensively in many cities around the world (in Europe mostly, but also NYC and Washington DC) and have never encountered stunts like that.
> 
> Is bus driving really such a poorly paid and miserable job in San Francisco? In most places it's quite cushy middle income position folks are very keen on keeping...



It's only a slight exageration to say that the MUNI is really run by the TWU. 

That being said, being a transit driver in a place like San Francisco isn't a cushy job given all the anoyances drivers have to put up with, especially on the surface lines. 

Whatever, I think MUNI would be wise to come up with a better way of recruitment so that it gets more employees who are truly interested if not excited about their jobs. 

Rather than just employees who are looking for a lifelong job & a fat retirement.


----------



## bayviews

Here's an update on MUNI's much overdue fleet replacement program: 

The San Francisco Chronicle (California)
September 10, 2012 Monday
45 diesel hybrids to replace Muni's 13-year-old buses;
CITY INSIDER

BYLINE: Michael Cabanatuan, John Wildermuth

Somehow the expression and experience of the new-car smell doesn't translate well to buses. Maybe it's just that the idea of inhaling deeply on Muni doesn't seem very pleasant.

Still, the idea of new buses for Muni, which has some of the oldest in the nation, is pleasing, and new buses are indeed on the way. The Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors recently approved the purchase of 45 low-floor, 40-foot, diesel-hybrid buses. They'll replace tired and worn 13-year-old buses.

The new buses, which will be purchased in a cooperative arrangement with Minnesota, will cost the transit agency $36.9 million, which includes the buses, applicable taxes, training, tools and spare parts. And, no, those tools and spare parts do not include duct tape, which has been known to make an appearance on some of Muni's older buses.

Each bus costs about $752,000, more than your average new car, though your average car doesn't carry up to 70 passengers. A prototype is expected to be on the streets this winter. All 45 are expected to be in service by the end of summer 2013.

The buses are being purchased from New Flyer of Winnipeg, Manitoba. Hayward bus manufacturer Gillig declined an invitation to bid on the Muni buses.

The agency is working to replace or rehabilitate it fleets of buses, light-rail vehicles and historic streetcars. The board also approved an overhaul of about 80 Neoplan diesel buses for $19 million. In the next two years, the Municipal Transportation Agency plans to buy 60 articulated trolley buses to replace vehicles that are now 20 years old.


----------



## trainrover




----------



## bayviews

Don't miss this once in every 40 years opportunity! 

BART to mark 40th anniversary with free tickets, ice cream
Look for this sticker on Friday and Saturday.
There won’t be any cake, but BART will be dishing out some pretty sweet party favors for its 40th anniversary party.

Riders can pick up a sticker Friday or Saturday at any station, where BART employees will be looking to give away 1,000 $40 BART tickets to customers wearing the sticker.

BART is also giving away free field trips to 40,000 K-12 students, teachers and chaperones on a first-come, first-served basis.

The freebies were made possible by corporate donations, according to BART.

“We’ve carried 2.7 billion passengers since the day we opened for service four decades ago,” said BART General Manager Grace Crunican in a statement. “This is all part of our expression of gratitude to the Bay Area for helping BART achieve 40 years of reliable service.”

Don’t worry, we didn’t forget the ice cream. Dreyer’s ice cream will be offered at the following times and stations:

September 29, 1 pm – 4 pm
Rockridge
Powell Street

October 13, 1 pm – 4 pm
Castro Valley
Fremont

October 27, 1 pm – 4 pm
El Cerrito Plaza
Pittsburg/Bay Point


----------



## mopc

trainrover said:


>


Fantastic find!!!:cheers:


----------



## bayviews

mopc said:


> Fantastic find!!!:cheers:



Makes one wonder if the speeds of our present transit systems may actually declined since WW II!


----------



## trainrover

What makes you think that, are you joking?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

I'll be joining this bandwagon as a frequent commuter on Bay Area public transit, with extensive commentary and dedicated knowledge on transit developments.

I've actually seen the BART at 40 banners, bayviews, and it seems like I'll see what I can do to participate in that event. And oh, today is the exact day of the 40th anniversary of BART, which makes me think of doing a special blog entry or a revised photo album for the commuter train connecting the Peninsula and the East Bay. I just hope the older trains will be replaced soon because some of them are already close to worn out from decades of use.

And on the Muni Fleet Renewal Program, it's really time to do so because it seems like each time I've ridden Muni buses, it looks like tired, overworked, and already deserving to be retired from use. Those buses have already exceeded their lifespan, and when those buses run even longer, it strains the already old bus even further by breaking down even more easily sometimes. I've already Muni bus breakdowns quite a bit, so I think those buses deserve a good change.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

*SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | Photo Thread*

*Warning:*_ Once you see these immense collections of photos, you might indeed get hooked._

I've seen a thread on this sub-forum that discusses about Bay Area transportation, but as far as I observe it, it focuses mainly on news updates. Now, with me settling in, I am ready to share my over *3,500* transit pictures (and yes, it's still growing!) from around the Bay Area that focuses on things like buses, light rail vehicles, trains, and highway views. I might even sneak in some extras like school buses and shuttle vans for a good measure!

So, to begin, here's my philosophy on commuting:

_I may know how to drive, but I prefer commuting by transit because it saves me money from tolls and parking, and I help in cutting down carbon emissions which, in turn, can save the environment._

So, to begin, here are some of the photos from my home agency, Golden Gate Transit, with an evolution of liveries over time:

A RTS-TMC bus, in the oldest livery I've seen:









A MCI 102DL3 commuter coach, also in the oldest livery:









An Orion V bus, in the second (most common) livery:









A MCI D4500 commuter coach, also in the second livery:









A New Flyer D60LF articulated bus, again, in the second livery:









An Orion V bus, in the third (latest) livery:









A MCI D4500CT commuter coach, also in the third livery:









A MCI D4500CT commuter coach in the third livery, with a slight modification:









While Golden Gate Transit owns this particular bus type, it has an entirely different livery: it has the full decals of Marin Transit in it that shows that it only operates within Marin County only.

A New Flyer DE35LF bus, in Marin Transit livery:









I am more than happy to answer any questions on any of the pictures or articles I discuss in this thread, including fleet, features, where I've taken such photos, and the like.


----------



## Falubaz

The Golden Gate Transit buses have just one door, which makes the trip longer, because of longer stops, first ppl have to get off then to get in. Why do they use this type of vehicles? It seems inadequate.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Falubaz said:


> The Golden Gate Transit buses have just one door, which makes the trip longer, because of longer stops, first ppl have to get off then to get in. Why do they use this type of vehicles? It seems inadequate.


Good question, but let me clarify something: the Orion V, RTS-TMC, and New Flyer buses have two to three doors each.

The nature of Golden Gate Transit is more of a Transbay commuter service, meaning that indeed, trips would be much longer than a normal city bus. Plus, the coverage area is pretty large that you would really imagine how long some routes actually are in hours rather than miles. What do I mean? Just look at the map below:

http://goldengatetransit.org/fareprograms/farezonemap.html

The longest regular trip operates between San Francisco and Santa Rosa, in which three types of buses operate: 

- the regular, stopping route (Route 80) could take up to three (you heard this right) hours one-way (uses Orion V). Operates one weekday morning trip and weeknights after 5pm, plus all-day weekends and holidays
- the limited stop express route (Route 101) takes up to around 2-1/2 hours one-way (uses Orion V, RTS-TMC, or MCI). Operates everyday
- the express routes (Routes 72, 72X, 101X) take around two to 2-1/2 hours one-way (with way fewer stops, only in Sonoma County, and uses Orion V or MCI). Operates weekday peak periods only (AM to San Francisco, PM to Santa Rosa)

Total distance: about 80km (55 miles)

While both trips have the same fare, the key difference is the stopping pattern, and that passengers don't mind about queuing in line just to get on and off the bus. Plus, consider this: while there are multiple trips a day to and from San Francisco, given the travel length between San Francisco and Santa Rosa, the first express bus (Route 72) out of Santa Rosa in the AM leaves before 4:00am (at 3:51am in the current schedule), while the only Route 80 leaves around 10 minutes after the express bus to San Francisco also (but, to Civic Center). 

In addition, many of the commuter trips also have bicycles on board (given that a lot of commuters are bicyclists as well); in fact, all of Golden Gate Transit's nearly 200-bus fleet have either front-mounted bike racks (up to 3 bikes, all bus types except the MCIs) or under-storage bike racks (up to 2 bikes, all MCIs). (Note: on all East Bay-bound trips between San Rafael and El Cerrito, bike riders could carry their bikes into the bus if the front-mounted bike rack is full, and that the riders are responsible for strapping their bikes inside the bus). 

Plus, what makes Golden Gate Transit unique to all other Bay Area operators include the following:

- Overhead reading lights (except New Flyers)
- Reclining seats (except New Flyers)
- WiFi on board (progressively introduced on all buses)
- Foldable tables (only on MCI D4500s)
- Overhead baggage racks (except New Flyers)

And the coolest part: even though these buses are used mainly on commuter routes, many of them are used on local routes within Marin County as well. It's the flexibility with the fleet that really allows Golden Gate Transit (and Marin Transit, for that matter) to choose which bus types operate on which routes or trips for a particular day. Let me summarize it this way:

- Orion V (41 seats): basic, commuter, local, school runs
- MCIs (57 seats): basic (Routes 80 and 101), commuter, school runs (tied to commuter)
- RTS-TMC (39 seats): basic, commuter, local, school runs
- New Flyers (29 or 58 seats): local, school runs

As an aside: a Golden Gate Transit policy states that while standees are allowed on all trips, a maximum of ten (10) standees are permitted when crossing over the Golden Gate Bridge and all Transbay services. This is to ensure passenger safety. Also, more than likely, the commuter trips have more Clipper card riders on board versus cash-paying customers (Clipper is similar to the Oyster Card in London or the Octopus in Hong Kong).


----------



## Woonsocket54

fieldsofdreams said:


> Clipper is similar to the Oyster Card in London or the Octopus in Hong Kong.


It is worth noting that while Clipper Card does have a marine them, it does not start with an "O" like the big three marine-themed transit smart cards (Orca, Oyster, Octopus).

What is the other marine-themed transit smart card that does not start with an O? That would be the Walrus Card in Liverpool, England.


----------



## trainrover

Montreal's is Opus although it shirks its port burg legacy.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Woonsocket: oh yeah? I wonder why the marine theme is used for naming such commuter card services. Interesting trend...

Trainrover: hmmm, Montreal must integrate its marine theme with the city being on an island in the middle of a river. By the way, is there any hope that the Metro will expand even further in the city?


----------



## trainrover

State of affairs there appear to even astonish (butch) French Canadians​


----------



## trainrover

Further? as in blathering about it? :yes: Farther? :dunno:


----------



## fieldsofdreams

trainrover said:


> Further? as in blathering about it? :yes: Farther? :dunno:


Yeah, that's the case with government officials. Transportation planners create the new ideas, while the government may or may not fund it, and then the splinter neighborhood groups could block it because it could cause "blight" in their community. What's going on here is this:

More roads: absolutely
More highway lanes: definitely
More public transit: no to maybe
More trains: maybe to yes
More bike lanes: no to maybe

Where are the priorities then? Stuck in the car culture?


----------



## trainrover

Although their ideas aren't new, at least the ones around here aren't...big business is succeeding at quashing responsible governance.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

trainrover said:


> Although their ideas aren't new, at least the ones around here aren't...big business is succeeding at quashing responsible governance.


Yeah, sounds like many of the RepubliCONs in the US. Big business and billionaires first rather than social welfare and progressive development. No wonder I won't vote for Mitt and Paul... Or any RepubliCONs for that matter.


----------



## bayviews

fieldsofdreams said:


> I'll be joining this bandwagon as a frequent commuter on Bay Area public transit, with extensive commentary and dedicated knowledge on transit developments.
> 
> I've actually seen the BART at 40 banners, bayviews, and it seems like I'll see what I can do to participate in that event. And oh, today is the exact day of the 40th anniversary of BART, which makes me think of doing a special blog entry or a revised photo album for the commuter train connecting the Peninsula and the East Bay. I just hope the older trains will be replaced soon because some of them are already close to worn out from decades of use.
> 
> And on the Muni Fleet Renewal Program, it's really time to do so because it seems like each time I've ridden Muni buses, it looks like tired, overworked, and already deserving to be retired from use. Those buses have already exceeded their lifespan, and when those buses run even longer, it strains the already old bus even further by breaking down even more easily sometimes. I've already Muni bus breakdowns quite a bit, so I think those buses deserve a good change.


Welcome Aboard! 

I coudn't agree with you more. 

No doubt you probably saw the front page article re: MUNI's transit "Going Nowhere" in this Sunday's Examiner? Good article. However they somehow missed the "giant elephant in the tunnel", AKA the Central Subway or the $1.6 Billion Boondoogle that's devouring a large share of the attention & worse yet, funding that might otherwise benefit MUNI.


----------



## bayviews

trainrover said:


> What makes you think that, are you joking?


Good joke!


----------



## bayviews

trainrover said:


> State of affairs there appear to even astonish (butch) French Canadians​



Its well known that these "New" Flyers (circa mid-1990s) are the oldest & by far the least capable of MUNI's TB fleet. 

BTW, their made up in your Canada!


----------



## fieldsofdreams

bayviews said:


> Welcome Aboard!
> 
> I coudn't agree with you more.
> 
> No doubt you probably saw the front page article re: MUNI's transit "Going Nowhere" in this Sunday's Examiner? Good article. However they somehow missed the "giant elephant in the tunnel", AKA the Central Subway or the $1.6 Billion Boondoogle that's devouring a large share of the attention & worse yet, funding that might otherwise benefit MUNI.


I haven't seen it... But I can download the Examiner today on my iPad (smart thinking ) and read it up. And oh yeah, THAT Central Subway scuffofle indeed: I've seen Stockton Street between Market and Sutter closed to traffic to give way to the tunnel. When will Muni close the Stockton Tunnel to continue the route to Chinatown? And let me guess: massive rerouting for the 8x series, 30, and 45... Where will Muni send those buses to?

I just hope that Muni will bring those new buses in sooner. The NABI buses to me seem to be worn out, overused, and deserve to be retired immediately.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

bayviews said:


> Its well known that these "New" Flyers (circa mid-1990s) are the oldest & by far the least capable of MUNI's TB fleet.
> 
> BTW, their made up in your Canada!


Heck yeah, those New Flyers... Muni opted to get the Neoplan buses instead probably because of the high-floored requirement before the Orion VII low-floor variants entered the fleet. But, no offense, the New Flyers for Golden Gate Transit are working really well, especially with air conditioning.


----------



## quashlo

fieldsofdreams said:


> I haven't seen it... But I can download the Examiner today on my iPad (smart thinking ) and read it up. And oh yeah, THAT Central Subway scuffofle indeed: I've seen Stockton Street between Market and Sutter closed to traffic to give way to the tunnel. When will Muni close the Stockton Tunnel to continue the route to Chinatown? And let me guess: massive rerouting for the 8x series, 30, and 45... Where will Muni send those buses to?


They shouldn't need to close the Stockton Tunnel... That's the whole point of using TBMs. The only reason the other section of Stockton is closed is because they're constructing that segment using cut-and-cover.



trainrover said:


> State of affairs there appear to even astonish (butch) French Canadians[/CENTER]


Nothing to be too "astonished" by... This isn't exactly a rare occurrence on TB systems, and can be caused by any number of factors from driver error to equipment malfunction... Can't really draw much from this one video.

Personally, I prefer the New Flyer TBs to the Skodas, which have a piss-poor interior layout.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

quashlo said:


> They shouldn't need to close the Stockton Tunnel... That's the whole point of using TBMs. The only reason the other section of Stockton is closed is because they're constructing that segment using cut-and-cover.


True, but the problem would be how would the TBM run under an already existing tunnel... plus, will the soil in the area remain stable in the process because that area has a steep hill on top of the existing tunnel? I mean, it could really cause problems in terms of noise and earth movement in the area... probably by careful construction and restricting work to nighttime could help ease the burdens.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

So another day, another set of new pics indeed...

To continue my suburban tales on transit, here are more Golden Gate Transit pics. However, these buses have something special applied to them:

Bus number 1501, an Orion V bus. In 2004, this was painted as the "Whale Bus" by a renowned Marin County artist, Jon Sumner, as a replacement to another, earlier Whale Bus on a RTS-TMC bus. It covers the entire exterior of the bus, and its environmental message is "To Live on the Land, We Must Learn from the Sea."




































Bus number 901, a MCI D4500CT bus. Arrived in 2010, this bus was painted by Jon Sumner in 2012 to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the opening of the Golden Gate Bridge held in May. It was painted all through the exterior of the bus, similar to the Whale Bus.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Just had a very bad commute again tonight: my Golden Gate Transit commuter bus (Route 58 ) never showed up at the Golden Gate Bridge earlier when I was heading home. I even had to turn down two commuter buses because knowing the system, when the two routes pass by ahead of my bus (Routes 27 and 38 ), then I know that my bus would be behind them. But I waited for 30 minutes just to get a bus heading back home with no success... So I took the last Route 44 bus, got off in San Rafael... Missed the last Route 49 home.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Didn't commute anywhere today, but I've accomplished a large album that is essential for this thread... And it's up for discussion:

I've got more than half of my transportation galleries open, with Muni bus being the latest gallery set opened. The links:

http://www.anthonynachor.com/galleries.html
http://www.anthonynachor.com/muni-bus.html (latest)


----------



## bayviews

fieldsofdreams said:


> Didn't commute anywhere today, but I've accomplished a large album that is essential for this thread... And it's up for discussion:
> 
> I've got more than half of my transportation galleries open, with Muni bus being the latest gallery set opened. The links:
> 
> http://www.anthonynachor.com/galleries.html
> http://www.anthonynachor.com/muni-bus.html (latest)


Great Dreams! What an OUTSTANDING photo gallery! 

Just What We Need! 

Now if only we could see MUNI with some newer, up-to-date models! 

Rather than the same old clunkies built to MUNI only specs.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

bayviews said:


> Great Dreams! What an OUTSTANDING photo gallery!
> 
> Just What We Need!
> 
> Now if only we could see MUNI with some newer, up-to-date models!
> 
> Rather than the same old clunkies built to MUNI only specs.


Hahaha I know, right? I prefer sharing my albums on my own site because I travel so much that I would use my own site to spark discussions in here. So which among the galleries I have you like the most? And anything that needs expansion or improvements?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Another gallery set just finished, and I'm already planning on making a new gallery dedicated to current and future Bus Rapid Transit services. The latest gallery:

http://www.anthonynachor.com/vta-bus.html


----------



## Falubaz

^^ BRT in SF? Cool, where would that be?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Falubaz said:


> ^^ BRT in SF? Cool, where would that be?


There are already three operating BRT lines, two by AC Transit in the East Bay, the other by VTA in Santa Clara County. I'm still debating though if the BRT in the North Bay can be considered a true BRT, if not a limited-stop express bus, since it has similar elements to the BRT, but it runs mostly on the highway.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Finally launched a brand new gallery showcasing Bus Rapid Transit in the San Francisco Bay Area! Details and images at

http://www.anthonynachor.com/bus-rapid-transit.html


----------



## bayviews

fieldsofdreams said:


> Finally launched a brand new gallery showcasing Bus Rapid Transit in the San Francisco Bay Area! Details and images at
> 
> http://www.anthonynachor.com/bus-rapid-transit.html



Speaking of SF State University, what's your take on the quality of transit access to/from SFSU?

When it comes to the MUNI Metro, the M Oceanview, the line serving SFSU, seems to suffer the worst service of any of of the MUNI metro lines. 

Then in the afternoon, during the weekdays there's usually a huge lineup of hundreds of students waiting for the backlog of buses.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## fieldsofdreams

bayviews said:


> Speaking of SF State University, what's your take on the quality of transit access to/from SFSU?
> 
> When it comes to the MUNI Metro, the M Oceanview, the line serving SFSU, seems to suffer the worst service of any of of the MUNI metro lines.
> 
> Then in the afternoon, during the weekdays there's usually a huge lineup of hundreds of students waiting for the backlog of buses.


I find the quality of transit access to and from SF State to be all right, except that most of the mainline buses serving the university (Lines 28 and 29) tend to be overcrowded and standing room only often, especially during the PM commute. It also happens on the AM commute, but I usually avoid the 28 in the AM because many times, the overcrowded buses result in funky smells, especially when a homeless person who may not have taken a shower for days hops in and sits along with dozens of standees. I even had bad experiences of bus breakdowns on the AM commute for Line 28, resulting in delays.

As a matter of fact, Line 28-Nineteenth Avenue has been reported as having the worst on-time performance of any Muni bus line, with only around 44% of its trips being on-time. Reasons include overcrowding, poor traffic signal coordination, and inconsistent scheduling. Even though the 28 runs every 10 to 20 minutes, line 28L (19th Avenue Limited) is underutilized, as it usually bunches up with line 28 buses (usually, the line 28L will run ahead of the 28 by just a matter of 2 to 3 minutes), making it quite inefficient.

And for the Muni Metro M, it suffers from overcrowding as well... But not as severe as on the 28 and 29. Same story goes for the 17: many people do not realize though that the 17 can bring riders between Parkmerced and West Portal Station, making it an alternative to the M.

SF State also provides a free shuttle service between 7am and 10:30pm Mondays to Thursdays, 7am to 7pm Fridays. With it being free, long queues form, with around 50 to 75 people forming a long line especially during the afternoon. Standees are allowed in them too.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Another improvement made from my galleries: this time, new bus pictures and interiors from Muni.

http://www.anthonynachor.com/muni-bus.html

Currently in the works: the shuttle bus section, and I'm about to expand the Bay Area taxi collection.


----------



## trainrover

Nice score, Nexis


----------



## bulabog jalaur

I prefer metro rather than brt in SF.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

bulabog jalaur said:


> I prefer metro rather than brt in SF.


Why metro over BRT? Or are you referring to BART?


----------



## theskythelimit

The central subway project is expected to receive full funding today/tomorrow from the DOT.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/tra...ni-expects-942-million-central-subway-funding

On a side note, Save Muni, filed a lawsuit to stop/delay the project. They are focusing on the Union Square station and their argument is the station does not fall within the description that it be public entertainment. expect more lawsuits to follow.

The worst case scenario is a judge puts a stop order on the project.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

theskythelimit said:


> The central subway project is expected to receive full funding today/tomorrow from the DOT.
> 
> http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/10/muni-expects-942-million-central-subway-funding
> 
> On a side note, Save Muni, filed a lawsuit to stop/delay the project. They are focusing on the Union Square station and their argument is the station does not fall within the description that it be public entertainment. expect more lawsuits to follow.
> 
> The worst case scenario is a judge puts a stop order on the project.


I hope the funding will be released without any problems. I may be for Save MUNI too, but I think that the Union Square station can always be reconsidered to begin with.


----------



## trainrover

What's this business about the central subway there and its opponents, I don't recall reading anything about the matter here?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

trainrover said:


> What's this business about the central subway there and its opponents, I don't recall reading anything about the matter here?


Well, the issue is this: the Federal Transportation Authority recently gave the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority a $942,000,000 grant to continue construction of the Central Subway that will connect South of Market and Mission Hill with Union Square and Chinatown via Fourth Street and Stockton Street. However, a protest letter from Save Muni claims that "the Central Subway project will not help -- and instead harm -- shops near Union Square and Chinatown, and that the projected ridership may seem to be 'dubious'". It seems like they are against the will of the low-income riders, especially Chinese commuters from Chinatown, who frequently use transit to get around the City, and they are initiating a ballot measure that would advocate for the lawsuit that could potentially stop construction of the subway.


----------



## BJC450Chicago

As a former San Francisco resident, I oppose the Central Subway because it will not address the major transit need of the city. The Geary corridor is woefully overcrowded and served by only buses. For the money, a Geary solution would make more sense than the Central Subway. The northern half of the City is poorly served by rapid transit and the Central Subway won't do much to solve that.


----------



## trainrover

Frisco city proper is itself so tiny compared to its urban neighbours, so surely the system would eventually be linking up most of its municipality, no? Is the term 'central subway' cursed to be some euphimism, is the plan to have the subway amount to just a single route? :dunno:


----------



## fieldsofdreams

BJC450Chicago said:


> As a former San Francisco resident, I oppose the Central Subway because it will not address the major transit need of the city. The Geary corridor is woefully overcrowded and served by only buses. For the money, a Geary solution would make more sense than the Central Subway. The northern half of the City is poorly served by rapid transit and the Central Subway won't do much to solve that.


It is only step one of a multi-step process:

- Geary will get a Bus Rapid Transit line to complement the existing bus lines operating along the corridor, with a potential upgrade to become a Muni Metro line. Also the case for Van Ness Avenue between Lombard and Market.

- Certain buses will be replaced with new buses, hopefully to replace the woefully "old and tired-looking" NABI buses that tend to break down more easily now than before.

In fact, San Francisco County Transportation Authority has recently released this ad that allows you to decide how to spend about $64,000,000,000 worth of grants, awards, and loans for San Francisco transportation development, as part of the City's 2040 vision. Check out the ad below:










In fact, I might integrate this ad with one of my poll threads so that you can take a look and actually discuss what you can do to help spend the money wisely.


----------



## bayviews

fieldsofdreams said:


> Well, Kearny is one way from Market through Columbus, sure. But Stockton is a two-way from Sutter through the tunnel all the way up to Fisherman's Wharf. And Stockton Street is a major thoroughfare through Chinatown, which is why Muni chose to send the trolley lines through Stockton Street instead of Kearny so that the 30 and 45 lines run through Stockton Street where the main commercial area is located.


Were Stockton a wider artery, MUNI could've installed double overhead wiring for better service, as on Market. However, there's obviously no extra room on Stocktown, thus the Keary option.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

bayviews said:


> Were Stockton a wider artery, MUNI could've installed double overhead wiring for better service, as on Market. However, there's obviously no extra room on Stocktown, thus the Keary option.


If you send the trolley buses through Kearny that would mean like a two-block difference for people to walk between inbound and outbound buses. Plus, Stockton Street has already been used for a long time as a bus route (thus the 30-Stockton and 45-Union/Stockton lines). Plus, it has been determined as a major bus corridor for MUNI. So why change the inbound routing when you can just enhance services along Stockton? The 8x already runs through Kearny Street inbound, and it's stuffed most of the time, so why send 30 and 45 there?


----------



## bayviews

fieldsofdreams said:


> If you send the trolley buses through Kearny that would mean like a two-block difference for people to walk between inbound and outbound buses. Plus, Stockton Street has already been used for a long time as a bus route (thus the 30-Stockton and 45-Union/Stockton lines). Plus, it has been determined as a major bus corridor for MUNI. So why change the inbound routing when you can just enhance services along Stockton? The 8x already runs through Kearny Street inbound, and it's stuffed most of the time, so why send 30 and 45 there?


Why not just have two-way service on Kearny? Northbound just continues straight from Third. Southbound turns at Sutter & then back to Stockton, & from their the regular route down to SOMA. 

Not that stupid bypass going down Mason (albeit it can used for emerg-bypass) with that dumb sharp jack knife turn into Market & then into Fourth. 

Also there's PLENTY of room for additional MUNI service along Columbus to serve the northern tail of Chinatown, plus North Beach.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

bayviews said:


> Why not just have two-way service on Kearny? Northbound just continues straight from Third. Southbound turns at Sutter & then back to Stockton, & from their the regular route down to SOMA.
> 
> Not that stupid bypass going down Mason (albeit it can used for emerg-bypass) with that dumb sharp jack knife turn into Market & then into Fourth.
> 
> Also there's PLENTY of room for additional MUNI service along Columbus to serve the northern tail of Chinatown, plus North Beach.


Look: Third Street northeast of King Street (near AT&T Park) has been specifically designed as a one-way street heading Northwest, and its parallel street, Fourth Street, runs in the opposite direction. And the street layout continues north of Market Street that the one-way pattern continues smoothly to Kearny and from Stockton Street.

City bus lines aren't really meant to run in "diversions" or "detours" to serve a particular business or feature. Those are built using mostly straight lines (although, of course, one-way street patterns force bus routes to move with the flow), and the ideal bus line is a two-way line on just one street (or for a maximum of three to four streets) like the 14-Mission or 38-Geary. Such system promotes high-frequency services and more commuter choices. For the case of Stockton, it runs through an interesting set of streets: the 30 and 45 share the areas south of Columbus Avenue, while in the north, the 30 operates through North Point Street via Van Ness to and from Chestnut, while the 45 heads west on Union Street from Washington Square. If you were to design a bus line, you'd make sure that it covers a lot of areas with high concentrations of residences, commercial areas, and industry.


----------



## 612bv3

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Central Subway was deal made by SF politicians so they could demolish the Embarcadero Freeway or something along that line.


----------



## bayviews

fieldsofdreams said:


> Look: Third Street northeast of King Street (near AT&T Park) has been specifically designed as a one-way street heading Northwest, and its parallel street, Fourth Street, runs in the opposite direction. And the street layout continues north of Market Street that the one-way pattern continues smoothly to Kearny and from Stockton Street.


Oh, correction. Third & Fourth are just fine one-ways & 
Third also transitions right into Kearny, which could continue right up onto Columbus, etc. 

What's difficult (for the drivers) is that sharp Jacknife Mason-Market-Fifth Street turn. Which is just a bypass around the proposed boondoogle. 

Should it happen.


----------



## bayviews

612bv3 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Central Subway was deal made by SF politicians so they could demolish the Embarcadero Freeway or something along that line.


Correct, a deal was cut with the then mayor after the 1989 Earthquake for the subway. 

The problem was the subway costs continued to escalate. 

It went up to $800 million & now its like $1.6 Billion. 

And who knows how much it could go up from there.


----------



## quashlo

I generally avoid making statements about the Central Subway, as it's always a very polarizing issue, but I feel compelled to post today. I have to say that I find this bickering over the Central Subway quite amusing... The only legitimate concerns to have against the project are that it's too expensive or that we should be prioritizing daily operations over major capital investments. For the latter folk, I give you the TEP.

The problem is that a lot of opponents are clouding the issue with concerns that are not legitimate, one of the worst being that the money "should have gone towards a Geary subway", which is just more of the provincialism and local interests that they accuse of the Central Subway project. As someone who has been riding Muni his entire life, I support the Central Subway. It just so happens that the Central Subway is moving forward now, but I would also support a major capital investment along Geary. Just remember, though, that it was NIMBYs that killed the possibility of both BART and LRT along Geary, which is why you guys are getting a "rail-ready" BRT corridor instead. I can understand why you might be frustrated if you were a regular 38 / 38L rider, but don't throw compassion and logic to the winds and make the Central Subway your personal scapegoat for your Muni gripes.

Opponents are also way too-focused on the "Central Subway" as a singular project, attacking it as some sort of "gift" to Chinatown while completely ignoring the fact that it's actually just the second phase of the Third Street LRT project, which is creating a modern light rail corridor along the eastern spine of San Francisco and expanding the Muni Metro network into an actual grid network, as opposed to the single trunk line we have right now under Market Street.

Most people won't realize this because I think the most vocal opponents to the Central Subway project don't even live anywhere near the corridor and have no appreciation for the current transit context or the vision behind the project, but the majority of the remaining chunks of redevelopable land within city limits (outside of Treasure Island) are in the eastern and southeastern areas of San Francisco, and these developments aren't small peanuts either:

Visitacion Valley: 1,600 DUs
Executive Park: 1,600 DUs
Candlestick Point / Hunters Point Shipyard: 10,500 DUs; 2.5 MM SF green / tech R&D; 885,000 SF retail
Pier 70: 3 MM SF commercial
These are just the active plans that haven't broke ground yet... There's also the ongoing build-out of Mission Bay (huge!), the Central Corridor project (specifically designed to take advantage of the alignment along Fourth Street), gradual redevelopment along the Third Street corridor and in SOMA (e.g., Moscone Center redevelopment), and, in the long term, potential redevelopment of the massive Brisbane Baylands and Cow Palace sites.

These developments will need a quick and efficient transit solution to get to and from Downtown, and the Third Street LRT (together with the Central Subway) is a great way to do that... The Chinatown aspect is only one part of the project... The alignment on Fourth Street will save time for everyone heading into Downtown by avoiding the circuitous route via The Embarcadero. Not to mention the potential to expand it at the north end into North Beach, Fisherman's Wharf, and the Marina in the future (just imagine surface light rail along Lombard! ) and at the south end to Balboa Park BART via Geneva. But it's virtually impossible to build this all at once... It needs to be done in phases, and the Central Subway is just that—one phase of a much larger project. If you can't support this type of capital investment, then you're basically saying that we should never have built any of the existing Muni Metro lines. Ask yourself: Would the current combined ridership on the K / L / M from the southwestern districts of the city justify a Twin Peaks Tunnel if we were building it new today?

But for anyone who still insists on pushing a Muni Metro line along Geary "over" the Central Subway, just remember that the most likely solution for such a project on Geary would be virtually identical to the Third Street LRT + Central Subway... Surface light rail in the outer parts of the corridor, with a tunnel in Downtown. Just pray nobody comes trying to stall your tunnel through the Tenderloin with some absurd claim like these Save MUNI idiots have done with the Central Subway.

Do I think the Central Subway is overpriced?
Yes. But I think the merits are there, and I can definitely see the greater vision of the project. If Central Subway opponents are that concerned about pork spending in transit, they should be focusing their time and effort on trying to stop eBART ($500 million) or BART to Livermore ($800 million), not the Central Subway.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

quashlo said:


> I generally avoid making statements about the Central Subway, as it's always a very polarizing issue, but I feel compelled to post today. I have to say that I find this bickering over the Central Subway quite amusing... The only legitimate concerns to have against the project are that it's too expensive or that we should be prioritizing daily operations over major capital investments. For the latter folk, I give you the TEP.
> 
> The problem is that a lot of opponents are clouding the issue with concerns that are not legitimate, one of the worst being that the money "should have gone towards a Geary subway", which is just more of the provincialism and local interests that they accuse of the Central Subway project. As someone who has been riding Muni his entire life, I support the Central Subway. It just so happens that the Central Subway is moving forward now, but I would also support a major capital investment along Geary. Just remember, though, that it was NIMBYs that killed the possibility of both BART and LRT along Geary, which is why you guys are getting a "rail-ready" BRT corridor instead. I can understand why you might be frustrated if you were a regular 38 / 38L rider, but don't throw compassion and logic to the winds and make the Central Subway your personal scapegoat for your Muni gripes.
> 
> Opponents are also way too-focused on the "Central Subway" as a singular project, attacking it as some sort of "gift" to Chinatown while completely ignoring the fact that it's actually just the second phase of the Third Street LRT project, which is creating a modern light rail corridor along the eastern spine of San Francisco and expanding the Muni Metro network into an actual grid network, as opposed to the single trunk line we have right now under Market Street.
> 
> Most people won't realize this because I think the most vocal opponents to the Central Subway project don't even live anywhere near the corridor and have no appreciation for the current transit context or the vision behind the project, but the majority of the remaining chunks of redevelopable land within city limits (outside of Treasure Island) are in the eastern and southeastern areas of San Francisco, and these developments aren't small peanuts either:
> 
> [*]Visitacion Valley: 1,600 DUs
> [*]Executive Park: 1,600 DUs
> [*]Candlestick Point / Hunters Point Shipyard: 10,500 DUs; 2.5 MM SF green / tech R&D; 885,000 SF retail
> [*]Pier 70: 3 MM SF commercial
> 
> These are just the active plans that haven't broke ground yet... There's also the ongoing build-out of Mission Bay (huge!), the Central Corridor project (specifically designed to take advantage of the alignment along Fourth Street), gradual redevelopment along the Third Street corridor and in SOMA (e.g., Moscone Center redevelopment), and, in the long term, potential redevelopment of the massive Brisbane Baylands and Cow Palace sites.
> 
> These developments will need a quick and efficient transit solution to get to and from Downtown, and the Third Street LRT (together with the Central Subway) is a great way to do that... The Chinatown aspect is only one part of the project... The alignment on Fourth Street will save time for everyone heading into Downtown by avoiding the circuitous route via The Embarcadero. Not to mention the potential to expand it at the north end into North Beach, Fisherman's Wharf, and the Marina in the future (just imagine surface light rail along Lombard! ) and at the south end to Balboa Park BART via Geneva. But it's virtually impossible to build this all at once... It needs to be done in phases, and the Central Subway is just that‒one phase of a much larger project. If you can't support this type of capital investment, then you're basically saying that we should never have built any of the existing Muni Metro lines. Ask yourself: Would the current combined ridership on the K / L / M from the southwestern districts of the city justify a Twin Peaks Tunnel if we were building it new today?
> 
> But for anyone who still insists on pushing a Muni Metro line along Geary "over" the Central Subway, just remember that the most likely solution for such a project on Geary would be virtually identical to the Third Street LRT + Central Subway... Surface light rail in the outer parts of the corridor, with a tunnel in Downtown. Just pray nobody comes trying to stall your tunnel through the Tenderloin with some absurd claim like these Save MUNI idiots have done with the Central Subway.
> 
> Do I think the Central Subway is overpriced?
> Yes. But I think the merits are there, and I can definitely see the greater vision of the project. If Central Subway opponents are that concerned about pork spending in transit, they should be focusing their time and effort on trying to stop eBART ($500 million) or BART to Livermore ($800 million), not the Central Subway.


^^ Well said. Well done. 

I, too, use Muni frequently, and I nearly always walk through downtown to check out the progress on the Central Subway and observe bus after bus full of passengers on the 8x, 30, and 45 lines along Stockton Street. It's one of my daily rituals to pass by the Financial District and Union Square to people watch, and I'm very hopeful that once the Central Subway is finished, the pressure of overcrowded buses will be lessened, and hopefully will allow even more people to take the Muni Metro. I even have Muni's 10-ride pass integrated with my Clipper Card as a matter of fact.


----------



## goten2255

True these projects should be built in phases and thats what i believe as well.

the problem with this society is that they want to fix things fast and right away but the fact is that all of these projects takes time to finish.

the central subway is a second phase of the third street line, also people don't understand that tunneling takes alot of work to be done, its not just building a tunnel and thats it.

It takes alot of ulitlity relocation, also alot of construction which means services of roads and such will be affected its not something that can be done overnight, also people have to be aware of the construction noises that could happen so the residents of the areas affected will know, so alot of things have to be done.

also on BART i do support its expansion because it means people will have more of an access to BART then ever before, the EBART will be cheaper to run and will allow expansions easier to happen, also to Livermore as well to expand to more areas to serve those areas that way people can access Mass transit.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

goten2255 said:


> True these projects should be built in phases and thats what i believe as well.
> 
> the problem with this society is that they want to fix things fast and right away but the fact is that all of these projects takes time to finish.
> 
> the central subway is a second phase of the third street line, also people don't understand that tunneling takes alot of work to be done, its not just building a tunnel and thats it.
> 
> It takes alot of ulitlity relocation, also alot of construction which means services of roads and such will be affected its not something that can be done overnight, also people have to be aware of the construction noises that could happen so the residents of the areas affected will know, so alot of things have to be done.
> 
> also on BART i do support its expansion because it means people will have more of an access to BART then ever before, the EBART will be cheaper to run and will allow expansions easier to happen, also to Livermore as well to expand to more areas to serve those areas that way people can access Mass transit.


^^ Looks like we share similar thoughts and comments on mass transit projects. Indeed, such projects take a lot of time, manpower, and equipment to make things possible. And with careful consideration for noise, dirt, and the like, these projects are done safely and smoothly. Hopefully, though, these projects will be done according to budget and schedule.


----------



## bayviews

quashlo said:


> Opponents are also way too-focused on the "Central Subway" as a singular project, attacking it as some sort of "gift" to Chinatown while completely ignoring the fact that it's actually just the second phase of the Third Street LRT project, which is creating a modern light rail corridor along the eastern spine of San Francisco and expanding the Muni Metro network into an actual grid network, as opposed to the single trunk line we have right now under Market Street.


Actually from what I've heard, much of the critics re: that scheme seems to be focused on all the disruptions & inconveniences that its creating for Chinatown now & further down the road. 

As for it being a "gift", the critics are re: the WilliePaks, etc, not to Chinatown.


----------



## quashlo

^^ I've heard the construction issues with regards to the Union Square merchants and the North Beach folk / Telegraph Hill Dwellers clique, but not from Chinatown merchants. I don't see why Chinatown merchants would be worried about construction though, most of the traffic closures and detours are in the former two areas, not in Chinatown.

Anyways, yes, there is some criticism of Pak et al., but it should be painfully obvious that a significant and vocal portion of the opposition against the Central Subway is specifically framing the project as a Chinatown vs. Richmond issue, which should be a _non-issue_ for all the reasons I enumerated, and more.

See the third most popular comment here:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-Central-Subway-subject-of-suit-3937837.php



> Hang a left turn at Union Square and run the subway out to the Richmond District and maybe you have something. A subway to Chinatown is a waste of time and money. Unless you happen to own property along Stockton Street, of course.


A completely irrational comment since the portion of the project cost you'd be saving by not going north from Union Square wouldn't get you very far west along Geary either. I'm not sure you'd even be able to make it to the likely portal location for a Geary LRT (Laguna). :lol:

Third comment here:
http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/10/11/giant-day-for-central-subway/



> First of all, the N and the T already go from Caltrain to Union Square so that first section is totally redundant. The next leg from Union Square to Chinatown is just useless. 90% of the residents in Chinatown never leave Chinatown. 100% of the tourists walk from Union Sq to Chinatown. How many miles of a "G" line under Geary to the Richmond would we have gotten for $1.6 billion? The subway to no where!


No basis behind the figures, and looking at the project strictly as a Union Square to Chinatown deal when it really isn't at all. And just like the first comment, you wouldn't get far under Geary for only $1.6 billion, since it will need to tie into the existing Metro network somehow, unless they want to bother with land acquisition for a new railyard and maintenance facility out in the Richmond. Good luck with that, by the way... If you thought it was difficult trying to sell a surface LRT to Geary merchants, try selling Richmond residents on a new railyard generating all that noise at 2:00 AM and 5:00 AM. :lol:

First most popular comment here:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Central-Subway-work-starts-amid-problems-3714932.php



> Or, they could save $1.6B and make Stockton a dedicated busway.
> 
> I know I know, thousands of drivers use Stockton every day, but if 10,000 drivers a day use Stockton, are those drivers willing to pay $160,000 each to keep it open?
> 
> I think Geary St needs a train much more than Chinatown.


Again, focusing on the project strictly as a Chinatown deal. You'd never be able to do an entire project along Geary for only $1.6 billion, as you'd need to start at the Downtown end and wouldn't get very far... In the words of one of the Central Subway opponents above, precisely a "subway to no where". Any solution for the full length of the Geary Corridor would cost much more than just $1.6 billion and may need to be phased, just like the Third Street LRT + Central Subway.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Dang, those opponents really have little clue on how the $1,600,000,000 price tag of the Central Subway project can be equated to. It's like comparing some "measly" distance of a subway versus constructing (or actually reconfiguring) Geary Boulevard to become a Muni Metro line. Yes, reconfiguring Geary as a Muni Metro line is way more expensive, especially if you redo the line between Gough Street to La Playa Boulevard... Worse would be how to create a tunnel between Gough all the way to Market.


----------



## bayviews

fieldsofdreams said:


> Dang, those opponents really have little clue on how the $1,600,000,000 price tag of the Central Subway project can be equated to. It's like comparing some "measly" distance of a subway versus constructing (or actually reconfiguring) Geary Boulevard to become a Muni Metro line. Yes, reconfiguring Geary as a Muni Metro line is way more expensive, especially if you redo the line between Gough Street to La Playa Boulevard... Worse would be how to create a tunnel between Gough all the way to Market.


Maybe....but many of the those labeled as having little clue as regards the doubling of the price tag of the Willie-Pak boondoogle speak from thirty or more years of experience getting things right, while the having to cope with the mistakes of clueless politicos, albeit they come & go, who keep getting it wrong. 

One of the jokers who came up with Willie-Pak boondoogle at $800 million was a younger relative of the Burton brothers who got fired from being the MUNI general manager for running over the budget.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

bayviews said:


> Maybe....but many of the those labeled as having little clue as regards the doubling of the price tag of the Willie-Pak boondoogle speak from thirty or more years of experience getting things right, while the having to cope with the mistakes of clueless politicos, albeit they come & go, who keep getting it wrong.
> 
> One of the jokers who came up with Willie-Pak boondoogle at $800 million was a younger relative of the Burton brothers who got fired from being the MUNI general manager for running over the budget.


Hmmm... Interesting angle. I wonder then who would be the most likely opponents of the Central Subway because the main beneficiary here are the residents of Chinatown and some from North Beach.


----------



## bayviews

fieldsofdreams said:


> Hmmm... Interesting angle. I wonder then who would be the most likely opponents of the Central Subway because the main beneficiary here are the residents of Chinatown and some from North Beach.


What makes you think that?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

bayviews said:


> What makes you think that?


Reading your commentary, along with what others are commenting from the Chronicle and the Examiner, it seems like the boondoggle provides a lot of benefits rather than issues, and I think that the opponents of the measure would be those who have little idea on how much Chinatown has become overcrowded over time, coupled with the fact that a lot of people from that neighborhood rely on Muni to get to wherever they want to go. I mean, investing $1,600,000,000 now to build a subway is a first step towards meeting the long-term needs of Chinatown's residents, and that land values will rise significantly once it is finished because the area will become more accessible for thousands of commuters every single day. Add to that the relief from overcrowded bus lines (8x, 30, and 45). It's good that Muni is investing in the Central Subway because it brings more commuters to and from Mission Bay, Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, Chinatown, and Union Square: at least three of those areas have significant ridership bases that warrant a light rail line indeed. Plus, many commuters will get the benefit of a shorter route between Union Square (at Powell Street) and Caltrain that would save them minutes from their commute, making it a worthwhile project. Its function as a bypass will contribute to a bigger light rail traffic and patronage for commuters and visitors alike.


----------



## Woonsocket54

*BART Top Ten Ridership Days*

http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20121023.aspx


 11/3/2010	Wed	522,198	Giants' Victory Parade
 10/29/2009	Thur	442,067	Emergency Bay Bridge Closure
 10/30/2009	Fri	437,693	Emergency Bay Bridge Closure
 10/28/2009	Wed	437,180	Emergency Bay Bridge Closure
 10/11/2012	Thur	431,771	A's vs. Detroit; Warriors pre-season
 10/9/2012	Tue	428,484	A's vs. Detroit
 10/3/2012	Wed	426,948	Oracle Conference; A's vs. Texas; America's Cup
 10/10/2012	Wed	426,431	A's vs. Detroit
 10/5/2012	Fri	424,483	Bluegrass Festival; Fleet Week; America's Cup
 10/18/2012	Thur	420,277	49ers vs. Seattle


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Woonsocket54 said:


> http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20121023.aspx
> 
> 
> [*] 11/3/2010	Wed	522,198	Giants' Victory Parade
> [*] 10/29/2009	Thur	442,067	Emergency Bay Bridge Closure
> [*] 10/30/2009	Fri	437,693	Emergency Bay Bridge Closure
> [*] 10/28/2009	Wed	437,180	Emergency Bay Bridge Closure
> [*] 10/11/2012	Thur	431,771	A's vs. Detroit; Warriors pre-season
> [*] 10/9/2012	Tue	428,484	A's vs. Detroit
> [*] 10/3/2012	Wed	426,948	Oracle Conference; A's vs. Texas; America's Cup
> [*] 10/10/2012	Wed	426,431	A's vs. Detroit
> [*] 10/5/2012	Fri	424,483	Bluegrass Festival; Fleet Week; America's Cup
> [*] 10/18/2012	Thur	420,277	49ers vs. Seattle


Well, if the Giants win another World Series, I will be there, and I will take BART from school.  that just shows how BART is crucial to the Bay Area's transportation network.


----------



## bayviews

As thrilled as we were with the Giants, their victory was marred by incidents of bus burnings by some of the local thuglife. Lets salute those like this Muni bus driver who stayed with his bus & saved the lives of passengers. 

Lets hope MUNI gives him a well-deserved promotion! 

Muni bus driver honored as hero; 
S.F. TRANSIT

BYLINE: Will Kane


Alan Yam didn't want to go down with the bus. But he was the last one off.

Yam, 35, was driving his articulated Muni bus in downtown San Francisco after the Giants World Series win on Oct. 28 when he was blocked by a giant crowd of exuberant fans at Third and Market streets.

Yam, a resident of the Mission District, stopped his bus, told his eight passengers to hold tight and radioed dispatch for help. Police were on the way, the dispatcher said.

That's when the revelers focused on the bus.

"Then one of the guys said, 'Get the bus,' " Yam recalled Tuesday, while accepting honors from the city Municipal Transportation Agency board. "They started smashing the bus, smashing the windows, smashing the doors."

Yam radioed dispatch again. Help was on the way, the voice said. Stay in the bus, stay calm. 

Outside, Simon Timony, 28, of San Francisco didn't like what he was seeing. He said he ran into the crowd, trying to pull people away from the bus. 

For his trouble, someone in the crowd broke Timony's nose and threw him to ground, where he banged his head and suffered a concussion. Police are investigating the assault but don't have many leads, said Timony, whose actions were also recognized by the transit board.

Yam was still hunkering down in his bus.

Then things took a turn. The crowd seemed angrier. Some were picking up pieces of burning trash, toying with the idea of lighting something - anything - on fire. 

"I thought the outside might be safer than the inside," Yam said. He turned off his bus, got all the passengers off and ran back on board to radio dispatch for help. 

Then someone in the crowd, police are trying to figure who, took a piece of burning trash and threw it into the bus. The bus caught fire.

Yam picked up his personal cell phone and called dispatch one last time. His thumbs were shaking so much he could hardly key the numbers.

"The bus is on fire," he told the dispatcher. "They just told me, 'Stay calm, stay calm, stay calm.' "

Police eventually arrived and cleared the crowd. Firefighters put out the blaze, which destroyed the $700,000 bus.

On Tuesday, the head of Muni said Yam was a hero who saved the lives of his eight passengers, none of whom has contacted Yam.

Yam, a two-year veteran of Muni, had to leave right after Tuesday's 1 p.m. ceremony. He had a bus to drive.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ Alan definitely deserves such recognition and promotion indeed. He did a heroic deed to save his bus and passengers from thugs. I believe he was driving an 8x-Bayshore Express bus to Fisherman's Wharf when it was caught by the crowds. I think Muni should have detoured its buses away from Market Street when the victory happened at the time because it was not worth the risk to drive a bus through the area when the Giants won the World Series. That was definitely one risky scenario he will not forget for the rest of his driving career -- and his life.


----------



## theskythelimit

Discussions continue on the Central Subway and where to bring up the underground digger. North Beach residents are opposed to the digging up of streets in their district especially when there will be no station in N. beach but may be extended to N. beach/Fisherman's Warf. Options that are being discussed.

1) leave it underground saving up to 23 million and saving the streets in N. beach. It was stated that this option would hinder the extention in the future but I do not understand why?

2) bring it up on Powell street in an abandoned building. This would cost up to 6 million but would allow for the extention.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/tra...erent-options-central-subway-work-north-beach


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ I'd like to see all the possible options first before making a decision because not only North Beach will be significantly be affected by the project; residents near Washington Square will also be affected because with the railway's tail end at Columbus Avenue, then it will be a more likely option to extend it further to Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 47 if there is little to no opposition from the Washington Square neighbors.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Yarn seats on BART










http://www.kqed.org/arts/visualarts/article.jsp?essid=110699


----------



## Woonsocket54

http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_22059912


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ That setup would be extremely difficult to time up correctly, especially if there are delays along the Hayward-to-San Jose (future) segment of the service because it would mean one train needs to wait for as long as like, what, five to ten minutes to couple up two BART trains at Bay Fair, with one train (probably a 4- or 5-car) coming in from East Dublin/Pleasanton while the other (potentially more crowded) coming in from Fremont and San Jose. It is a good idea to be discussed, but the timing at Bay Fair would be really difficult, especially it is an island platform that could hold only two trains at a time (unless one holds close to the flying junction to merge the two trains together), similar to the setup with Narita Express in Tokyo where one 12-car train splits into two at Tokyo Station (thus a dwell time is created in the process), with one heading to Shinjuku, Shibuya, and as far west as Takao; the other heads south to Shinagawa, Yokohama, and Ofuna.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

@fieldsofdreams

Just jumped over to see what is happening at other places beside Japan.

One question, what is BART doing as feeders to promote their commuter transit?
I know there is park and ride but here in Japan there is a bus terminal at each and every suburban station which has a loop like route around the station to pick up commuters along the way to feed to the transit system. This way they do not need to drive at all.
The bus operating companies are usually subsidiaries of the private transit companies like Tokyu Dentetsu operates Tokyu Bus.

For example here is a link to Tsunashima station along the Toyoko line.
Each and every station has a similar bus feeder route to ensure people along the station will use the transit and there is basically no competition between the bus and transit company meaning there are no bus heading straight towards urban central.

http://kanabusmap.yu-nagi.com/tsunashima-mp.html


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ There are several bus companies and shuttles that directly feed into BART stations to further boost commuter transit. For example, all of the Bay Area's big five bus agencies, namely:

- AC Transit (western Alameda and Contra Costa Counties)
- Golden Gate Transit (North Bay)
- Muni (City and County of San Francisco)
- SamTrans (San Francisco, San Mateo, and northern Santa Clara Counties)
- Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA, Santa Clara County)

have several bus routes that operate to and from most BART stations, with several more operating limited, mostly-local and some intercity services. In fact, most of AC Transit's local services, as well as some of its Transbay (San Francisco-East Bay via the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge) services, operate to at least one out of twenty-one BART stations within its service area, while the Santa Clara VTA operates five bus routes out of Fremont BART, the current southern terminus of BART, to destinations in Milpitas, San Jose, and during peak periods, Mountain View, Cupertino, and Santa Clara (to be replaced soon with a full-time BART service).

I am more than happy to discuss with you all those aspects since I know most, if not all, the myriad of transit agencies here in the Bay Area and I have covered most of the transit networks here. Keep your questions coming.


----------



## jchernin

SMART construction updates: November 2012 Field Welding






















































http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...48.97155891.116321028397555&type=1&permPage=1


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ Aww, those look really nice! What portion of the SMART rail line is it? I can't wait to see it fully built in its initial phase.


----------



## theskythelimit

It is being reported that Muni will announce tomorrow their preference for bringing up the underground digger for the Central Subway project. As this subject was a "hot" issue for the residents and business in North Beach, they will propose the machine be brought up at the abandoned pagoda theater. This will entail a possible purchase of the site and all expenses involved. It is also good to hear they are thinking about the future and bring the subway into North beach all the way to Fisherman's ward. They will soon be discussing their future pans for the central Subway.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matie...ubway-plan-to-appease-North-Beach-4085866.php


----------



## LAmarODom420

theskythelimit said:


> It is being reported that Muni will announce tomorrow their preference for bringing up the underground digger for the Central Subway project. As this subject was a "hot" issue for the residents and business in North Beach, they will propose the machine be brought up at the abandoned pagoda theater. This will entail a possible purchase of the site and all expenses involved. It is also good to hear they are thinking about the future and bring the subway into North beach all the way to Fisherman's ward. They will soon be discussing their future pans for the central Subway.
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matie...ubway-plan-to-appease-North-Beach-4085866.php


Good idea...just to clarify, this plan would not include a North Beach station in it?


----------



## theskythelimit

LAmarODom420 said:


> Good idea...just to clarify, this plan would not include a North Beach station in it?


This is true. The last stop for now will be at Stockton and Washington Streets.
They have future plans to extend it into N. Beach and Fisherman's Wharf. This is dependent on funding, EOIR and local discussions. In other words, ten years out.


----------



## bayviews

theskythelimit said:


> It is being reported that Muni will announce tomorrow their preference for bringing up the underground digger for the Central Subway project.


The very best that MUNI could announce today was that finally were able to restore subway operations after MUNI subway service crashed yesterday evening stranding thousands of riders owing to flooding at Church station & the collapase of their transformer. 

And this agency is dreaming about a $1.6 billion subway. 

They've got to be kidding!


----------



## bayviews

Here's an update re: MUNI's delays re the transfomer, etc. 

The San Francisco Chronicle (California)

December 4, 2012 Tuesday 
FINAL Edition

Blown transformer shuts down subway; 
S.F. MUNI

BYLINE: Vivian Ho and Joe Garofoli

A blown transformer at the Van Ness Muni Station in San Francisco caused the shutdown of the Metro subway system Monday evening.

Muni officials said the transformer blew at about 6 p.m. as a result of rain damage from Sunday's storm. Subway service had not reopened late Monday, but light-rail vehicles were running on surface lines in the western part of the city.

Also, cars on the F-Market line, which runs above ground, had been turned around at 11th Street for a time because of an earlier accident at Market and Dolores streets. The line was reopened at 8:35 p.m.

The subway shutdown affected 40,000 to 50,000 rush-hour commuters. 

"We're looking at why it happened and why it held up for much of the day," John Haley, director of transit operations for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, said of the transformer failure.

On top of the shutdown, a crash involving a woman in a wheelchair and an F-Market car near Market and Dolores streets at about 5:30 p.m. added to the evening commute snarl.

The woman was on the street when she was hit by the car and dragged 570 feet, Haley said. Passengers alerted the driver. She was taken to San Francisco General Hospital with what police spokesman Officer Carlos Manfredi described as life-threatening injuries. He said the wheelchair was pulled from beneath the light-rail vehicle and urged anyone with cell phone images of the incident to contact police.

Supervisor Scott Wiener, who was observing the shutdown, said, "Muni's infrastructure is aging and deteriorating, and we have not been taking care of it as well as we should have been."

Timothy Simpson, 28, who lives in the Duboce Triangle, was on his way from Third and Evans to the Castro when the trains stopped. He got off at the Embarcadero Station and caught a shuttle to Market and Church. 

"I'm a little frustrated," he said.


----------



## quashlo

San Francisco Municipal Railway, the local transit service operated by the City and County of San Francisco, was established in 1912 as the first publicly-operated big-city public transit system in the U.S. The official 100th birthday is on December 28, but the festivities were held in November of this year. The centerpiece of the events was the Centennial Streetcar Festival, showcasing some of the more unusual pieces in the historic streetcar fleet used on the F Market & Wharves service. I took plenty of pictures… Enjoy. 

Milan “Peter Witt” Car 1856, ex Azienda Trasporti Milanesi (ATM) 1556, built 1928
These ex-Milan cars are pretty much regulars in everyday service on the F.



Blackpool “Boat” Car 228 (ex Blackpool Tramways), built 1934
One of my favorites for riding… Got a great “tooting” whistle like a boat, and they light it up at night. 





Car 1 (San Francisco Municipal Railway), built 1912
The rooftop box sign is for the A Geary, the first streetcar line in the Muni network, opened on the system’s first day in 1912.



Muni Torpedo Car 1008, built 1948, “Wings” livery. This was part of Muni’s first order of “true” Presidents’ Conference Committee (PCC) streetcars.


----------



## quashlo

I had ridden all of these cars multiple times on previous occasions, so I wasn’t especially interested in them. A good railfan always plans his itinerary out, and despite Muni’s erratic scheduling, my eyes were set on this gem… Car 578S (ex Market Street Railway (MSRy) 578), built 1896 for the original MSRy and eventually finding its way into Muni’s hands after passing into the ownership of the United Railroads and, later, the second Market Street Railway before the latter went out of business. As perhaps one of the oldest trams still in active service anywhere in the world, this car is virtually never out in regular revenue service… The only realistic chance to ride it is on charters—and during the Streetcar Festival. 



The overall design is reminiscent of the fleet of the other major element of Muni’s historic transit operations—the more famous cable cars—right down to the running boards. This car was originally built by Hammond Car Company, which would also go on to build the cable cars on the California Street line.



Even the painted destination signs on the car are windows into the past… The grand Southern Pacific Railway (SP)—perhaps most famous for its intercity passenger services in the _Sunset Limited_ (still survives as a named service today operated by Amtrak) and the _Coast Daylight_, locomotives in a striking black, burnt orange, and fire red “Daylight” paint scheme—is no more, having been acquired by the Union Pacific... SP’s San Francisco depot was located at what is now Caltrain’s San Francisco terminus at 4th and King Streets after the SP’s Peninsula commute service was taken under public ownership and operation. SP’s original headquarters are located less than 100 m from where this photo was taken, at One Market at the foot of Market Street. Also interesting to note is the old spelling of Devisadero Street (now universally Divisadero).



The interior is also reminiscent of the better-known cable cars, down to the window handlebars, clerestory roof, and screw-in bulb lighting.


----------



## quashlo

The other main catch for me at the festival was Muni “Iron Monster” Car 162, built 1914. Originally stored after retirement at the Orange Empire Railway Museum down south in Riverside, Muni acquired this car in 2003 and restored it for revenue service with 1950s “Wings” livery. I’d ridden its sister car, Car 130, many, many times, but this is the first time I got a chance to see Car 162 in service and ride it.



Next to PCC Car 1075, ex Twin City Rapid Transit Co. (Minneapolis–St. Paul), ex Public Service Coordinated Transport / New Jersey Transit (NJT) (Newark), built 1946, painted in honor of Cleveland Transit System. 







These were originally manufactured by Jewett Car Co. in Newark, Ohio.


----------



## quashlo

In addition to streetcars, several buses in Muni’s historic fleet were also on display, including this GMC Fishbowl.













Muni operates one of the largest electric trolleybus fleets in North America, the inheritance of the once-dense network of publicly-operated Municipal Railway and privately-operated Market Street Railway streetcar lines that criss-crossed the city. There are several ETBs in Muni’s historic fleet including this one, #776, a Marmon-Herrington (built 1950) in the green and cream “Wings” livery. The rollsign is set to the now-defunct 12 Ocean Avenue, a former branch of the 14 Mission now partially replaced by the 49 Van Ness–Mission.







Another historic ETB on display was #506, a St. Louis Car Co. model (built 1941) in blue and gold:



The old rollsign charts are always fun to look at… Lots of old routes that have disappeared or been absorbed (9 Richland, 47 Potrero) and others that have been through name changes (5 McAllister, 6 Masonic).



The last one was one of the old Flyer ETBs, the last generation of Muni’s standard 40-foot ETBs before the arrival of the ETI / Skodas… Used to ride these all the time when I was a kid. Rollsign is for the recently-axed (i.e., in 2009) 4 Sutter, a peak-period only service originally designed to take some of the short-distance commuter load off the other Sutter / Post lines (2 Clement and 3 Jackson).


----------



## FDW

quashlo said:


> Perhaps... I wanted to at least make it mostly similar to the current naming conventions, so this is the end result. Everything should look fairly familiar to current passengers, other than entirely new lines, or a few lines where I went with an old MSRy number that wasn't carried over.


That's where I saw the worst of the anachronisms, since the 38 used to be the B and the 47 used to be the H. For the most part, the the remaining lettered lines could've been renamed: the J (which was almost converted to Trolleybus) had the 46, the N could've become the 6 or 16, the K could've been the 12, the L might've been the 48 (MUNI had plans in the 1950's to dieselize the K and L as the 48 Ingleside-Taraval), and the M would've been folded into another route. The T is your scenario could've been the 91. Your Q was probably the biggest mistake, as that Quintara segment should've been hooked up to 11 as a Crosstown line. 



> I assumed most of my network is in exclusive median ROW, which should help address reliability issues.


There are several areas in the Eastern area of the city that wouldn't be able to have median ROW, and would probably be grade-separated because of capacity issues. 



> As for your Geneva / Ocean / Taraval and J / N / 22 ideas, I agree they have merit... I think some less-frequent service would be warranted on them, but I still think the primary design of the network will remain single corridor (Market) with trunks peeling off, supplemented by crosstown arcs (22, 24, 43, 44, 28 / 28L, 29), as into and out of Downtown is the fundamental travel pattern.


There was a reason why MUNI made those 1979-83 changes, it was enable the creation of those Crosstown lines. By splitting the 22 and routing the J and N around downtown, you enable more capacity on other lines that need it. And besides, the 22 has been on the shortlist for Rapid Transit improvements for some time now. (Though it's generally sat behind Geary and Stockton-3rd in importance)



> A city loop eliminates the 28 / 30 transfer at Laguna / Chestnut by providing a direct connection between GGB and Fisherman's Wharf, Chinatown, and Union Square...


Actually, the reason why I oppose the city loop regardless is because I'm looking beyond San Francisco here: I see that the 3rd st Corridor could be extended down Bayshore Blvd to South San Francisco, I also see that the 19th Ave corridor hooks in really nicely to the Hwy 101 corridor.



ode of bund said:


> The grade on Noe Street between 26 Street and Cesar Chavez on 24-Divisadero line is 22.8%, it is the steepest grade travelled by trolley-bus in the world. It would be really interesting to see what repeated verticle bending can do to the articulation joint.:lol:


Oh, I know that. I spent several years during my middle and high school years riding the 24 to and from school. The way a 24 artic shift would occur would be like that of the first draft of the TEP (which I believe was specifically written to enable this), where the 24 would avoid that grade via 24th st, Potrero, and Bayshore to Oakdale (and then Palou). The 33 would then be altered to take over the segment of the 24 that was no longer served. Obviously, MUNI balked at the NIMBY's and cost of new trolley wire, and so created 58 while altering the 48, giving much of the same benefits (the proposed 24 reroute would've created a one-seat ride between the Bayview and General Hospital, the proposed 48 reroute also does that on somewhat different route, and the 58 also provides the same increased service along 24th st), though without dealing with the 24's chronic overcrowding during the weekdays.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

FDW said:


> You've been here for 6.5 years? Then you probably don't know about massive cuts the regional agencies made between 2002-04. Service outside of SF used to be a whole better than it is now. For example, GGT pre-2002 had 7 buses per hour (per direction) operating between DTSF and San Rafael. (compared to 3 per hour now)


Hmmm... Perhaps that reminds me of stories from GGT drivers about Routes 20, 50, 80, and 90 that provided extensive services between Sonoma, Marin, and San Francisco Counties, with the last trip of the 80 being as late as, what, 1am and it arrived in Santa Rosa around 4am. Some of the elder drivers even shared their stories about a particularly long Marin County-only route that operated every half-hour, and it used most of the back roads along the way between Novato and Kentfield, with the San Rafael Transit Center acting only as a transfer point, not a final destination.



FDW said:


> Pretty much all of the lines you mention suffer from nasty reliability issues, and I've got my own preferences for what to do with some of them. (For one, I'd split the 29 once Samtrans gets folded into MUNI, and I'd prefer hooking the Geneva corridor into Ocean and Taraval, establishing a major crosstown route there.)


Sure, you can split the 29, but how would you do it if it already provides great service between the Sunset and Bayview-Hunters Point, connecting two of the city's largest colleges, SF State University and City College (at Ocean & Phelan)? I mean, the 29-Sunset is already a well-traveled bus line, traversing also through some of the back streets of Ocean View, and it provides multiple connections along the way (much more than the 28/28L can) that it acts as a "hidden" backbone for the south and southwest portions of the City.



FDW said:


> The 28L is going to become an all-day service, AND it's going to terminate at Van Ness and North Point (The 28's Marina terminus is one of the maddening things about MUNI routing as is).


Hmmm... If that's the case, then how can the service fit with already at least two bus lines (that use articulated trolley buses) fight for an already-limited bus stop space on Van Ness Avenue to begin with, especially when the articulated buses turnaround at the foot of Van Ness? It's like, how will the 28L fit in with the 49-Van Ness/Mission that use articulated buses all the time? As for the line extension, would it mean that the 28L will continue on to Lombard and head north on Van Ness to its "future" terminal? I mean, Chestnut Street, one block north of Lombard, is already well-served with the 30-Stockton and 30x-Marina Express... If the 28L is to be extended to Van Ness and N Point, I believe that the 28 should relocate its terminal too. The big question is, how will Fort Mason be served without the 28 and 28L?



FDW said:


> No, The M will terminate at Parkmerced, and the J will be extended through Ocean View to Parkmerced and SF State under the TEP.


Hmmm, that's something I would be watching since if the J is to be extended via Ocean View (e.g. Randolph Avenue), then I don't know if it will be renamed to the J-Church or Ocean View or something... And if the M will end at Parkmerced, then I think that it could be renamed M-Parkmerced instead of Ocean View since that line will be truncated at SF State. Perhaps, if the J and the M run as a complete loop service (e.g. Downtown - West Portal - Stonestown - SF State - Randolph - Balboa Park - 30th Avenue - Church - Downtown), then it would mean a one-seat ride for many passengers -- and more choices too to get around -- that would benefit more residents and travelers around town. The big problem would be at Balboa Park: how will the current station on San Jose Avenue (near the Curtis Green light rail barn) be redesigned so that trains will not need to enter Balboa Park Station?



quashlo said:


> A city loop eliminates the 28 / 30 transfer at Laguna / Chestnut by providing a direct connection between GGB and Fisherman's Wharf, Chinatown, and Union Square...


That would be fine. But, I suspect that, for that to happen, the 28 will need to stay on Lombard, add additional stops on Lombard, and use existing stops on Van Ness to complete the trip.



FDW said:


> Oh, I know that. I spent several years during my middle and high school years riding the 24 to and from school. The way a 24 artic shift would occur would be like that of the first draft of the TEP (which I believe was specifically written to enable this), where the 24 would avoid that grade via 24th st, Potrero, and Bayshore to Oakdale (and then Palou). The 33 would then be altered to take over the segment of the 24 that was no longer served. Obviously, MUNI balked at the NIMBY's and cost of new trolley wire, and so created 58 while altering the 48, giving much of the same benefits (the proposed 24 reroute would've created a one-seat ride between the Bayview and General Hospital, the proposed 48 reroute also does that on somewhat different route, and the 58 also provides the same increased service along 24th st), though without dealing with the 24's chronic overcrowding during the weekdays.


Question: what is line 58? I haven't heard of that line number before with Muni...


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> Hmmm... Perhaps that reminds me of stories from GGT drivers about Routes 20, 50, 80, and 90 that provided extensive services between Sonoma, Marin, and San Francisco Counties, with the last trip of the 80 being as late as, what, 1am and it arrived in Santa Rosa around 4am. Some of the elder drivers even shared their stories about a particularly long Marin County-only route that operated every half-hour, and it used most of the back roads along the way between Novato and Kentfield, with the San Rafael Transit Center acting only as a transfer point, not a final destination.


Yeah, the 20, 50, and 80 each ran half-hourly 7 days a week. The 20 Operated on a route similar to of the current 22 (though with a segment in Canal, and without the Sausalito segment). The 50 operated between San Francisco and Novato, deviating from the freeway to serve Sausalito and areas off the 101 north of San Rafael. The 80 was mostly as you knew it, but with more Santa Rosa service. Then there was also 30, which provided additional weekday midday service between San Francisco and the Canal district via San Rafael. The 10 operated as a intra-Marin route on weekdays similar to the current 19 (but also with service in Mill Valley), and continued into San Francisco on weekends. The long route that you're talking about was the 1.



> Sure, you can split the 29, but how would you do it if it already provides great service between the Sunset and Bayview-Hunters Point, connecting two of the city's largest colleges, SF State University and City College (at Ocean & Phelan)? I mean, the 29-Sunset is already a well-traveled bus line, traversing also through some of the back streets of Ocean View, and it provides multiple connections along the way (much more than the 28/28L can) that it acts as a "hidden" backbone for the south and southwest portions of the City.


My idea is to hook the 29 onto the northern part of Samtrans Route 122 (specifically the parts north of Colma BART). The rest of the route would be split off into a single separate service. A single-seat ride between the Bayview and Sunset would preserved by merging the 18 and 23 in my plan. 



> Hmmm... If that's the case, then how can the service fit with already at least two bus lines (that use articulated trolley buses) fight for an already-limited bus stop space on Van Ness Avenue to begin with, especially when the articulated buses turnaround at the foot of Van Ness? It's like, how will the 28L fit in with the 49-Van Ness/Mission that use articulated buses all the time? As for the line extension, would it mean that the 28L will continue on to Lombard and head north on Van Ness to its "future" terminal? I mean, Chestnut Street, one block north of Lombard, is already well-served with the 30-Stockton and 30x-Marina Express... If the 28L is to be extended to Van Ness and N Point, I believe that the 28 should relocate its terminal too. The big question is, how will Fort Mason be served without the 28 and 28L?


The layover spot is actually quite large. Under the TEP, MUNI plans to terminate the 43 at the Ft Mason layover space the 28 currently uses, and the 28 itself would terminate at the GGB when the 28L is running, and at VN/NP when the 28L is not. The 28L would not serve the GGB.



> Hmmm, that's something I would be watching since if the J is to be extended via Ocean View (e.g. Randolph Avenue), then I don't know if it will be renamed to the J-Church or Ocean View or something... And if the M will end at Parkmerced, then I think that it could be renamed M-Parkmerced instead of Ocean View since that line will be truncated at SF State. Perhaps, if the J and the M run as a complete loop service (e.g. Downtown - West Portal - Stonestown - SF State - Randolph - Balboa Park - 30th Avenue - Church - Downtown), then it would mean a one-seat ride for many passengers -- and more choices too to get around -- that would benefit more residents and travelers around town. The big problem would be at Balboa Park: how will the current station on San Jose Avenue (near the Curtis Green light rail barn) be redesigned so that trains will not need to enter Balboa Park Station?


Actually, MUNI wants to terminate the M at Parkmerced to ensure there's enough capacity for those closer to the downtown. And the J and M won't be merged because the M doesn't carry heavy passenger loads in Ocean View and J isn't able to operate 2 car trains in regular service. (Because of several short stops, when 2-car trains are seen on the J, the back car is almost always out of service.) SF's been planning on rebuilding the area around Balboa Park for a long time now, but there hasn't been much movement.



> Question: what is line 58? I haven't heard of that line number before with Muni...


The 58 is a new line that will start operating once MUNI finds funds for it. It's going to operate on the 48 current route between Diamond/24th and 3rd/20th, with 48's eastern end being moved onto the 19's current route through the Bayview.


----------



## Woonsocket54

BART news
http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2013/news20130308.aspx



> *BART, Caltrans to close Northbound I-880 at Hegenberger Road*
> Closure scheduled 1AM to 6AM March 17 and March 24
> 
> BART and Caltrans will need to close all lanes of northbound Interstate 880 (I-880) at Hegenberger Road, on Sunday, March 17 and Sunday, March 24, 2013 between the hours of 1AM and 6AM. These early morning closures are necessary to allow crews to construct the Oakland Airport Connector system’s guideways above I-880, between Hegenberger and 98th Avenue, in Oakland. Drivers who need to pass through that area will need to follow the detour signs requiring vehicles to exit at Hegenberger, then detour via Edes Avenue, Coliseum Way and 66th Avenue, back onto I-880.
> 
> *Details of the Closure*
> During the construction, crews will follow the approximate schedule of activities (weather permitting):
> 
> *Saturday, March 16 & Saturday March 23*
> 11:00 AM Two lanes adjacent to the median on northbound Interstate 880 to close
> 11:30 PM Crews to move crane into closed northbound lanes of traffic
> 
> *Sunday, March 17 & Sunday March 24*
> 1:00 AM Northbound I-880 to close at Hegenberger Road
> 1:30 AM to 2:30 AM Crews to transport assembled truss to pick-up area
> 2:30 AM to 4:00 AM Guideway lifted overhead, adjusted and attached to concrete columns
> 4:00 AM Demobilize crane
> 6:00 AM Northbound I-880 re-opened to traffic
> 
> The guideway installation signifies a major milestone for the Oakland Airport Connector project. Once constructed, the more than 300-foot long span—comprised of more than 150 tons of steel supported by concrete columns over the highway’s northbound and southbound lanes—will allow the cable-propelled system to travel above highway traffic to and from the Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station and Oakland International Airport.
> 
> *About the Oakland Airport Connector*
> The Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) is a 3.2-mile extension of BART from the Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station to Oakland International Airport (OAK), via an “Automated Guideway Transit (AGT)” system. OAC will replace the AirBART buses, and will provide a seamless connection between BART and OAK with driverless trains that travel the alignment in eight minutes and depart every four minutes.
> 
> The AGT system, designed by Doppelmayr Cable Car, rests on a mostly elevated guideway that spans the length of the Hegenberger Road business corridor. The system also includes two new stations at each end of the line, an operations power and maintenance facility, and a subway underneath Doolittle Drive.
> 
> Construction is underway at OAK along Airport Drive and at the site of the system's Airport Station (in the parking area adjacent to Terminal 1), as well as other locations along Doolittle Drive, 98th Avenue, Hegenberger Road and San Leandro Street in Oakland. Once the guideway is installed across Interstate 880 the project will be more than 60 percent complete. Construction is scheduled to be complete in late 2013, and, after several months of systems testing, OAC will open for service in late 2014.
> 
> For more details about the OAC, call (510) 464-6463, email [email protected], or visit www.bart.gov/oac.


----------



## Woonsocket54

San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Man-crushed-dead-by-BART-elevator-4344912.php



> *BART elevator crushes man in shaft*
> Will Kane
> Updated 8:41 pm, Monday, March 11, 2013
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _A file photograph of the BART elevator for the Montgomery street station. A man on the top of an elevator car was crushed last night when a patron tried to take the car to the top level.
> Photo: Jonathan Curiel, The Chronicle_
> 
> A man who had his bedding on the top of an elevator car at the Montgomery Station in San Francisco was crushed when a patron tried to take the car to the top level, BART police said Monday.
> 
> The subway patron was riding the elevator at Sansome and Sutter streets from the Muni Metro platform to the concourse level at 9:26 p.m. Sunday when he heard a crunching sound and a scream, said BART police Lt. Michael Hayes.
> 
> The elevator became stuck, and the patron called police. When rescuers arrived, they found the man in the elevator shaft dead and surrounded by bedding.
> 
> "We don't know why he sought refuge in our elevator shaft," said Luna Salaver, a BART spokeswoman. "We don't know how long he was in there, and we don't know how he accessed our shaft."
> 
> No one at BART has ever heard of a homeless person sleeping on top of an elevator car, Salaver said. Crews were examining all elevator shafts in downtown San Francisco stations Monday to make sure they were empty, she said.
> 
> Regulators with the Cal/OSHA Elevator Ride and Tramway Unit will also investigate the incident, Salaver said. BART hopes to reopen the elevator by March 20.
> 
> Will Kane is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: [email protected] Twitter: @WillKane


----------



## bayviews

Woonsocket54 said:


> San Francisco Chronicle
> http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Man-crushed-dead-by-BART-elevator-4344912.php


This isn't the first homeless person who's been killed in similar circumstances. 

All that would've have taken to prevent this poor man's death in an elevator shaft was some periodic inspection by the well-paid city buracracts & their contracters....beneath all the pomp, glitter, & hype, such a sad city.


----------



## Woonsocket54

*OAKLAND | Oakland Airport Connector*

Source: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/news/current_topics/3-13/oac.htm (larger images here)



> *Nighttime Aerial Acrobatics for Oakland Airport Connector Project*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photos: Noah Berger
> 
> March 19, 2013
> 
> BART and Caltrans closed all lanes of northbound Interstate 880 (I-880) at Hegenberger Road in Oakland on Sunday, March 17 between the hours of 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. to allow crews to construct the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) system’s guideways above I-880. The aerial work to install this segment of guideway signifies a major milestone for the Oakland Airport Connector project. The more than 300-foot long span — comprised of more than 150 tons of steel supported by concrete columns over the highway’s northbound and southbound lanes — will allow the cable-propelled system to travel above highway traffic to and from the Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station and Oakland International Airport. A second freeway closure is planned for Sunday, March 24.
> 
> About the Oakland Airport Connector
> The Oakland Airport Connector is a 3.2-mile extension of BART from the Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station to Oakland International Airport (OAK), via an “Automated Guideway Transit (AGT)” system. The OAC will replace the AirBART buses, and will provide a seamless connection between BART and OAK with driverless trains that travel the alignment in eight minutes and depart every four minutes.
> 
> The AGT system, designed by Doppelmayr Cable Car, rests on a mostly elevated guideway that spans the length of the Hegenberger Road business corridor. The system also includes two new stations at each end of the line, an operations power and maintenance facility, and a subway underneath Doolittle Drive.
> 
> Construction is underway at OAK along Airport Drive and at the site of the system's Airport Station (in the parking area adjacent to Terminal 1), as well as other locations along Doolittle Drive, 98th Avenue, Hegenberger Road and San Leandro Street in Oakland. Once the guideway is installed across Interstate 880, the project will be more than 60 percent complete. Construction is scheduled to be complete in late 2013, and, after several months of systems testing, the OAC will open for service in late 2014. MTC is contributing $179 million ($146.2 million in bridge toll funds plus $32.8 million in state bond funds) to the $484 million project.
> 
> For more details about the OAC, call 510-464-6463, email [email protected] or visit www.bart.gov/oac.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ I recall going to Oakland International Airport lately when I saw the foundations for the new Airport Connector are already taking shape along Hegenberger Road and 73rd Avenue. And, as I looked at the station layout, it looks like the train lengths would only be up to three short-car lengths (similar to Muni Metro, if not the SFO Airport Mover). I suspect that it would be a driverless system, similar to many modern airport movers, and I hope that the charge for using the system would be similar, if not less expensive, than the AirBART that operates between Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART station and the Airport ($3 one-way).

I can sense, though, that this would compete directly with AC Transit's Line 73 service, which provides a cheaper, but a bit slower, alternative to AirBART which runs nonstop to the Airport (and AC Transit accepts the Clipper Card while AirBART currently doesn't). Should the new Oakland Airport Connector accept Clipper Card as form of payment, then definitely, it will be a source of competition for passengers taking either the slow, stopping bus to the Airport (around 8 stops) or the faster connector (with only one stop).


----------



## Woonsocket54

Transbay Blog
http://transbayblog.com/2013/03/25/transit-lanes-for-church-street/



> *Transit lanes for Church Street*
> Posted by Eric ⋅ 25 March 2013
> 
> On Church Street in San Francisco near the intersection of Market Street — a nexus of light rail, streetcar, and bus lines — a simple but potentially transformative street improvement was put in place over the weekend. The center lanes of Church Street between Duboce Avenue and 16th Street were painted a bright, fierce red, signaling that these lanes are prioritized for transit and taxis.
> 
> 
> Church Street Painted Transit Lane by transbay, on Flickr
> 
> The painted lanes are a preview of the commonsense flavor of improvements that the SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) proposes to implement as a means of improving travel time and reliability on the “Rapid” network. This network includes Muni’s most heavily used routes, including the J-Church and 22-Fillmore, both of which use Church Street and experience among their most crowded loads on this particular segment where the two routes overlap. If the center lanes are kept clear of cars with a combination of visual cues, signage, and enforcement, transit vehicles can access boarding platforms more promptly while motorists use the outer lanes. The transit-taxi lanes are coupled with restrictions on left turns between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
> 
> 
> Church Street Painted Transit Lane by transbay, on Flickr
> 
> The Church Street project does not address any number of other pinch points and constraints that impact the quality of J-Church and 22-Fillmore service, but it is characterized as a “pilot” because it gives the SFMTA, even before environmental review for the TEP is completed, an opportunity to monitor how this type of street treatment performs in a confined area — a microcosm with different transit vehicles, as well as a mixture of commercial activity and residential driveways. The bright color literally gives more visibility to the SFMTA’s efforts, and with over 15,000 riders passing through this short stretch of Church Street each weekday on the J-Church, 22-Fillmore, or 37-Corbett [1], a substantial number of people stand to benefit from the pilot, while also getting a small taste of what is in store.
> 
> This part of town has become something of a TEP preview showcase, first with the more spacious boarding areas built for the N-Judah, and now with painted transit lanes joining the mix. Each one of these improvements taken unto itself may be small in scope, but when implemented incrementally at key locations throughout the city, collectively, they can make a tangible difference at relatively low cost.
> 
> 
> Church Street Painted Transit Lane by transbay, on Flickr


----------



## 612bv3

> *BART to decide on relaxed rules for bikes on trains*
> 
> By Denis Cuff Contra Costa Times
> Posted: 05/21/2013 02:54:38 PM PDT
> Updated: 05/22/2013 06:45:54 AM PDT
> 
> The BART board appears ready to drop its ban on bringing bicycles on trains during rush hour after a survey found few rider complaints during a one-week test of relaxed rules in March.
> 
> The board is expected to vote on the issue Thursday. However, two BART directors said they want to lift the ban only conditionally and decide in five months whether to make the change permanent.
> 
> The concern is potential conflicts and collisions between cyclists and other riders on crowded train cars and station platforms.


Read more: http://www.contracostatimes.com/con...292708/bart-decide-relaxed-rules-bikes-trains


----------



## 612bv3

> *SMART seeks funding for San Rafael to Larkspur train segment*
> 
> By Mark Prado
> Marin Independent Journal
> 
> Posted: 05/20/2013 05:47:32 PM PDT
> 
> An extension of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit commuter train service from San Rafael to Larkspur is slowly moving to the fore as officials open the door to seek federal funding for the work.
> 
> The rail agency will submit a letter to the Federal Transportation Administration requesting entry into its "Small Starts" program. The program funds new projects as well as extensions to commuter rail, light rail, heavy rail, bus rapid transit, street cars and ferries.
> 
> The process is competitive, so SMART wants to have its paperwork ready to go and is embarking on plans to get it "shovel ready."


Read more: http://www.marinij.com/larkspurcort...eks-funding-san-rafael-larkspur-train-segment


----------



## 612bv3

> *Central Subway report details lack of time, money contingencies*
> By: Joe Eskenazi | 05/20/13 8:32 PM
> SF Weekly
> 
> A recent report by a federally placed overseer monitoring the $1.6 billion Central Subway project laments that the controversial line is at risk of falling significantly below Federal Transportation Administration minimums for both time and money contingencies.
> 
> The subway’s current project schedule “reflects 4.7 months of buffer float,” according to the project oversight management contractor’s most recent monthly report to the FTA. That’s down precipitously from a 14.8-month contingency as of August 2012.
> 
> Since the minimum buffer allowed by federal officials is 10 months, Central Subway officials, per the report, “should submit justification to decrease the minimum schedule contingency and/or develop a recovery plan.”


Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/tra...s-lack-time-money-contingencies#ixzz2Ucmnm11g


----------



## trainrover

Bikes allowed "all times" come July...curious, did BART ever drop its policy that each and every rush-hour commuter be able to ride seated on its trains? If so, when did they shirk it?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

trainrover said:


> Bikes allowed "all times" come July...curious, did BART ever drop its policy that each and every rush-hour commuter be able to ride seated on its trains? If so, when did they shirk it?


It has been quite a "twisted" and long story... since so many bikers commute between San Francisco and the East Bay, AC Transit, BART, and the ferries that serve the East Bay have to figure out strategies that would help cyclists get their bikes on transit vehicles. The problem, though, remains with supply versus demand: with relatively high gas prices, ridership for BART has soared to over 370,000 on a weekday (with estimates reaching 400,000 per day in a few years). Part of that ridership can be attributed to cyclists, in which they contribute to a certain extent an essentially car-free commute in the process, something BART, AC Transit, and others want to attract... and with a relaxed rule coming July due to fewer complaints on riders seeing cyclists boarding bikes on trains, it will mean better commutes for even more people. All BART has to do is to enforce the rules governing bikes on trains, most especially bikes cannot be loaded on densely crowded cars (yes, even 10-car trains can be packed), and bikes are never permitted on the first car of each train for safety reasons (perhaps first two or three would work on longer than 8-car trains).


----------



## bayviews

612bv3 said:


> Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/tra...s-lack-time-money-contingencies#ixzz2Ucmnm11g



Clearly the ever soaring costs of this billion plus boondoogle are taking a very heavy toll on the every day functioning of MUNI's transit system.


----------



## Woonsocket54

fieldsofdreams said:


> and bikes are never permitted on the first car of each train for safety reasons (perhaps first two or three would work on longer than 8-car trains).


why?


----------



## Woonsocket54

*Buses in East Bay (AC Transit and Emery Go-Round)*


AC Transit #2017 by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr


AC Transit #1067 rear by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr


AC Transit #1067 by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr


AC Transit #1342 side by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr


AC Transit by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr


AC Transit #1358 side by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr


Emery Go-around by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Woonsocket54 said:


> why?


The first car is where the driver sits (and controls) are, and that cyclists are not permitted to board their bikes on the first car because bikes could run straight into the driver's door, causing problems for both passengers and the crew. However, a bike trial is currently underway on BART during the commute periods... more details and rules here.

And by the way, I'm exploring into adding my own photos into here soon since I have my own personal showcase entirely dedicated to Bay Area Transit: more details on "Bay Area Transit" on my signature below.


----------



## city_thing

fieldsofdreams said:


> It has been quite a "twisted" and long story... since so many bikers commute between San Francisco and the East Bay, AC Transit, BART, and the ferries that serve the East Bay have to figure out strategies that would help cyclists get their bikes on transit vehicles. The problem, though, remains with supply versus demand: with relatively high gas prices, *ridership for BART has soared to over 370,000 on a weekday* (with estimates reaching 400,000 per day in a few years). Part of that ridership can be attributed to cyclists, in which they contribute to a certain extent an essentially car-free commute in the process, something BART, AC Transit, and others want to attract... and with a relaxed rule coming July due to fewer complaints on riders seeing cyclists boarding bikes on trains, it will mean better commutes for even more people. All BART has to do is to enforce the rules governing bikes on trains, most especially bikes cannot be loaded on densely crowded cars (yes, even 10-car trains can be packed), and bikes are never permitted on the first car of each train for safety reasons (perhaps first two or three would work on longer than 8-car trains).


I would've thought that the BART carried more. Especially considering what a massive population that bay area has. Even my city (Melbourne) has 800,000+ train trips a day, but roughly half the size of SF.


----------



## rawocd

city_thing said:


> I would've thought that the BART carried more. Especially considering what a massive population that bay area has. Even my city (Melbourne) has 800,000+ train trips a day, but roughly half the size of SF.


BART is glorified commuter rail though - it only has 8 Stations along one corridor in San Francisco City & County limits. While BART has solid coverage across downtown SF and the mission street corridor, it isn't all that useful for moving within SF. Had BART expanded in more of a WMATA style through the city proper, or completely replaced the N, L, K, M and J like originally intended in the 1950s, we would likely see much higher ridership.

When you combine BART's nearly 400k with Caltrain's 50k, VTA LRT's 30k and MUNI Metros roughly 175K (ACE and Capitol Corridor are negligible given the rough numbers I've given), you get a higher number of 645K. Even still, the Bay Area is undeserved by adequate rail, especially when compared to a place like Melbourne...


----------



## Jim856796

^^This idea was suggested in 2007, which was the 50th anniversary of the BART transit agency's creation, probably in 1957 (even though the BART system did open in 1972). Anyway, what do you think of the second Transbay Tube idea?


----------



## Nouvellecosse

fieldsofdreams said:


> Did you mean the Indian gauge? Well, at the time when it was developed and constructed in the 1960s and 70s, BART was completely funded on its own without any Federal government help, relying instead on State and local funding to build the network, and that the Indian gauge was used to allow wider train widths to operate along the tracks. At the time when it was completed (1972), it had a futuristic train design that was an envy throughout the United States for its uniqueness, and over 40 years later, that same design can still be seen on its trains (the triangular nose layout of the "A" trains). And by the way, it may be a newer system, but the wider rail gauge has quite a lot of advantages too, including:
> 
> • wider walking gaps for passengers who may need to be evacuated when an earthquake strikes
> • the wider gap between tracks allow maintenance workers to inspect each section of its rails in detail
> • it allows train developers to create lighter train cars (in fact, BART trains are among the lightest metro cars in the world) while not compromising safety and speed performance
> • wider train tracks allow greater speed limits, especially through long, nonstop portions (e.g. Transbay Tube, portion between Castro Valley and West Dublin stations, Caldecott Tunnel).


I also read the explanation that in the early days there were plans to extend BART north through SF and across the GG bridge and the wider gauge was intended to keep the trains stable in the high winds they may encounter.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Jim856796 said:


> ^^This idea was suggested in 2007, which was the 50th anniversary of the BART transit agency's creation, probably in 1957 (even though the BART system did open in 1972). Anyway, what do you think of the second Transbay Tube idea?


I'm definitely up for the second Transbay Tube for multiple reasons:

- to lessen the burden found on the current Transbay Tube, especially when trains run on manual mode or a domino effect of delays happen
- to allow 24-hour service on the busier lines between San Francisco and the East Bay (especially the ones for Pittsburg/Bay Point and the Peninsula)
- to bolster passenger capacity on the network, especially that it has hit over 400,000 riders on a typical weekday (I use BART regularly)
- to enhance travel times for trains that travel to the southern part of the East Bay (particularly to Dublin/Pleasanton and Fremont)

The biggest concerns I have for the new Transbay Tube would be:

- the alignment itself. Remember: the San Francisco Bay Area has multiple active fault lines that could cause structural issues for the tube if the alignment is not carefully studied
- how many new stations will be built along the new Tube. If this tube ends up in Alameda (City), then new stations may have to be built on the island city, in which it could cause noise issues initially during construction, and there could be issues on its alignment beyond the Bay (especially when crossing under water twice)
- the effect of the new tube to the current Transbay Tube in terms of ridership capacity, line routing, and long-term commute development for Alameda County, San Francisco, and San Mateo County. If this new tube will be used for the upcoming Santa Clara County extension, then it will create a competition between BART, Amtrak, and Caltrain on who can get between San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose the fastest.



Nouvellecosse said:


> I also read the explanation that in the early days there were plans to extend BART north through SF and across the GG bridge and the wider gauge was intended to keep the trains stable in the high winds they may encounter.


That could be a very good explanation indeed. However, sadly, Marin County backed out of the BART plan because it had a lower population and tax base than the initial areas the trains served at the time. As a consequence, North Bay commuters endure tough commutes along US-101, CA-37, and I-580, in which Golden Gate Transit provides bus services for the region as an alternative to BART. In fact, GGT will be adding more service on at least two commute-only routes to have midday and reverse-commute services for commuters who want to get to the North Bay for work in the morning or those who want to head home early.


----------



## dimlys1994

On the 5th March, FTA announced list of 32 favorable transit projects for funding for 2015. Region's favored matched in red:


image by dimlys46, on Flickr


----------



## Suburbanist

*S.F. planners consider 19th Avenue subway*

Source



> With the Central Subway well under construction, San Francisco transportation planners are eyeing a possible 19th Avenue subway to speed travel on the sluggish M-Ocean View Muni Metro line.
> 
> A recently completed feasibility study recommends building a subway from St. Francis Circle south to San Francisco State University, with stations at Stonestown Galleria and the university. Along the university campus, one track would be below ground and one would be at street level.
> 
> The tracks would be extended at ground level through Parkmerced, crossing Junipero Serra Boulevard on a bridge and then traveling at street level to rejoin the existing M line at Randolph Street.
> 
> The project would likely cost about $520 million, but possibly as much as $780 million
> 
> The M-Ocean View, which carries about 27,000 riders a day, averages just 8 to 9 mph along 19th Avenue, where it has to contend with traffic signals. It travels from downtown to the Balboa Park Muni and BART Station via West Portal, 19th Avenue and the Ocean View neighborhood.
> 
> The MTA will continue looking into the subway with a $1 million preliminary environmental study and a Caltrans project report required for work on 19th Avenue, which is part of the state highway system.
> 
> Should the agency decide to go ahead with the subway, design and construction would follow - when funding is available. The soonest the project could be completed, the feasibility study says, is 2022.


----------



## dimlys1994

Video from BART, this video is preview of new rolling stock, which is going to be presented on the 16th April:


----------



## dimlys1994

Transbay Center construction, taken today by EarthCam. Link:


----------



## dimlys1994

March video update of Muni Metro's Central Subway:


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Suburbanist said:


> Source


If it were me, I would give a go ahead with that project because that stretch of 19th Avenue (and the M-Ocean View line) is notorious for its clogged roadway and tracks, especially during rush hours and at odd times of day when students from Mercy High School, Lincoln High School, San Francisco State University, and a few others converge onto and head out from the trains and nearby streets, causing traffic jams in the area. The upcoming subway project could also provide a short-line terminal inside Parkmerced, a fast-growing high-density residential development next to SF State, and it truly deserves congestion relief, especially that 19th Avenue and Park Presidio Blvd act as arterial roads for US-101, CA-1, and I-280, linking the North Bay with the Peninsula.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

dimlys1994 said:


> Video from BART, this video is preview of new rolling stock, which is going to be presented on the 16th April:


I already got an invite to view that train via email... Looks like I'll be one of the first to see what the new train will look and feel like.


----------



## Nexis

San Francisco Modern tram photos courtesy of Peter Enrlich


----------



## MrAronymous

What's the definition of modern though?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ in that case, the latest streetcar design in operation, which is true. However, at the moment, San Francisco Muni is going through a fleet renewal program, which will involve replacing some of its oldest buses and most of its current light rail vehicle (LRV) fleet, including the ones you see above. It will continue on till around next year, so enjoy them while they last.


----------



## dimlys1994

From KGO-TV:



> http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=resources/traffic&id=9505554
> 
> *BART unveils new train car design, seeks input from riders*
> Wednesday, April 16, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- BART riders got a peek at the next generation of train cars at San Francisco's Justin Herman Plaza on Wednesday. The new trains will be hitting the tracks for testing next year and riders can't wait for them to be on line.
> 
> The designer of the new cars has built a model and BART wants you to check out the interior and exterior.
> 
> The unveiling took place at 11 a.m. during a festival at Justin Herman Plaza, where the public got to tour the train and provide feedback.
> 
> "I really like this car. It's fantastic," one rider said.
> Another rider didn't like the color of the seats and said they should be orange.
> 
> The new trains feature more comfortable seats, improved message boards, three doors to get passengers on and off trains faster, a better cooling system, and digital screens. But disability advocates say the new cars have less space available for people in wheelchairs and new poles will make it harder for people in wheelchairs to get on and off. Some even described this as a step backwards for wheelchair access.
> 
> "So I come in here and I got no place to go without hurting her" one woman said.
> 
> "I think it's a mess. These poles will impede us from getting from one side to another especially during rush hour when there's a bunch of people trying to get in and out," disabled rider Marissa Shaw said.
> 
> BART Board President Joel Keller says he has been aware of this issue.
> 
> Wayne: "They're saying you guys aren't listening to them at all. That this is basically a fait accompli."
> 
> "We have had plenty of conversations and the dialogue will continue," Keller said.
> 
> "That's wonderful, but it doesn't help with access," disabled rider Ian Smith said.
> 
> The train will be taken on a flatbed truck to nine other events around the Bay Area between Wednesday and mid-May. More information about the other events can be found on BART's website.
> 
> There will be 1000 new trains that will go into passenger service in 2017 and the project is expected to cost $3 billion.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ Dang... I missed that one. Good thing there are several more to choose from.  I was taking so many pictures yesterday to forget that sneak peek event. Perhaps I'll swing by next Friday at Civic Center BART to see it firsthand.

As for my images... I've been touring around San Francisco and the Bay Area so much, I ended up creating a collection full of Mass Transit images I've taken over the years... view the collection here.


----------



## MrAronymous

Disabled people complained about the poles in the middle.
Even though it's pretty much standard in any LRT in the world.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ Oh yes, you get such types of people here... :lol: It's like, where else will you put those poles? Or how will you better design the interior to accommodate _everybody_?


----------



## JustinB

MrAronymous said:


> Disabled people complained about the poles in the middle. Even though it's pretty much standard in any LRT in the world.


Toronto's TR subway cars don't have poles in middle. Why would you be for middle poles that make it harder for disabled people to move around easier in vehicles?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

JustinB said:


> Toronto's TR subway cars don't have poles in middle. Why would you be for middle poles that make it harder for disabled people to move around easier in vehicles?


And by the way, it is just a mock-up, so it's still possible that the poles will be modified to accommodate riders' needs. I'll look at the full-scale model to see what you're referring to and discuss my impressions on it.


----------



## MrAronymous

JustinB said:


> Toronto's TR subway cars don't have poles in middle. Why would you be for middle poles that make it harder for disabled people to move around easier in vehicles?


Because people want to be able to hold onto it and not slip and bump into each other when its crowded and the train is moving. Also people would rather grab a pole than some overhead handgrip as being with your hand up in the air is either uncomfortable or not possible(too high up for some people). So then you have a pole. I don't see why it would be harderd for disabled people in rush hour. I mean if it's busy it's busy. A pole isn't going to change a whole lot. And of course you have to make a consideration: Provide to ~5 people who will use the pole at a time, or to the occasional person who will find the pole disruptive. I really don't see why the blind woman from my quote would be inconvenienced. I mean, hello, you have an extra place to hold on right in front of the door! How convenient!


----------



## zaphod

I keep seeing two color schemes in these renders.

The blue one above. and a red and gray one similar what exists now, if slightly more orange than red.

is MUNI changing it's look again?


----------



## MrAronymous

There's 3. PDF document with pics


----------



## 612bv3




----------



## Suburbanist

I have a question: are there any future plans for expanding VTA in a sort of arch between Campbell, Cupertino and Sunnyvalle, linking both termini of the current lines, and/or extending the line southwestward to Los Gatos?

VTA is rarely mentioned on blogs or websites that cover transportation, whereas BART, Caltrain and MUNI are always on the radar.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Suburbanist said:


> I have a question: are there any future plans for expanding VTA in a sort of arch between Campbell, Cupertino and Sunnyvalle, linking both termini of the current lines, and/or extending the line southwestward to Los Gatos?
> 
> VTA is rarely mentioned on blogs or websites that cover transportation, whereas BART, Caltrain and MUNI are always on the radar.


You referring to Light Rail or the Bus services? VTA already provides "adequate" bus services to all those cities... But, if you're referring to the light rail aspect, I recall the Vasona Junction project still being pursued by the transit agency. Perhaps I'll ask the folks over at the SF Bay Area Forums, or I'll provide a link here to direct you to the thread.

And speaking of the VTA, it is comforting to know that a real BRT (to be rebranded as the VTA Rapid instead of Line 522) will be constructed very soon along E Santa Clara Street between SAP Center (San Jose Diridon Station) and Alum Rock Transit Center, in which it will essentially shave off a few minutes in each direction for all trips compared to the local (and stopping) Line 22. That will also be deployed along Stevens Creek Boulevard for Line 523 (currently called Line 323, a limited-stop service) between San Jose and De Anza College in Cupertino.


----------



## Sterlyng65

I would love to see new fleets for the bay area. Its been quite a while for making new trains


----------



## dimlys1994

July construction update on Central Subway:


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Sterlyng65 said:


> I would love to see new fleets for the bay area. Its been quite a while for making new trains


Absolutely. For the past eight-plus years of me living here, I've seen new buses running on Bay Area roadways, but not much new trains... Refurbished streetcars, though, for the F-Market & Wharves historic streetcar line, yes. It's like, I've seen the return of at least two beloved streetcars, yet I've got to see the rest of the fleet still.


----------



## Suburbanist

Is there any plan for a rail link between San Jose Caltrain station (where, AFAIK, a BART extension will also reach in the futura) and Santa Cruz?


----------



## Knitemplar

Suburbanist said:


> Is there any plan for a rail link between San Jose Caltrain station (where, AFAIK, a BART extension will also reach in the futura) and Santa Cruz?


There won't be. There isn't that much traffic between those 2 points to justify the cost of a rail link.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Suburbanist said:


> Is there any plan for a rail link between San Jose Caltrain station (where, AFAIK, a BART extension will also reach in the futura) and Santa Cruz?


I don't think so. The alignment of such a route (via the Santa Cruz Mountains) would require tunneling and quite a few bridges that would cost billions of build, and what makes matters worse is that the route could go through sensitive wildlife areas that could cause immense opposition from residents living along the proposed route (especially Los Gatos, Campbell, Scotts Valley, Soquel, and unincorporated communities). The *Highway 17 Express*, which is jointly operated by Amtrak, Caltrain, Santa Clara VTA, and Santa Cruz Metro, operates the portion between San Jose Diridon and Santa Cruz Metro via Scotts Valley and Soquel Park-and-Ride.


----------



## Suburbanist

I was thinking that the whole peninsula suffers from high cost of housing due to the booming tech industry, so building fast rail links to Santa Cruz, and/or upgrading seriously the link to Gilroy would put these places within commuting distance of Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and San Jose.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ The major challenge of connecting San Jose (and Santa Clara County) with Santa Cruz is with geography. And it is *not that easy* to build a brand new rail line to connect those two, especially if we consider the current station layout for San Jose Diridon (which is essentially oriented north-south). And if we start building a rail line through the Santa Cruz Mountains, it will take numerous years (and lawsuits from homeowners and businesses) that will affect travel along Highway 17 and its neighboring roads. 

The Gilroy-San Jose portion, however, will be upgraded as part of the California High-Speed Rail program, which will operate via the Pacheco Pass (essentially called CA-152) that will eventually connect to the Central Valley instead of sharing tracks with Amtrak all the way down to Los Angeles via Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties.

To inquire further on your proposal to Santa Cruz, I believe it is best to ask here -- the Santa Clara VTA thread -- since it could become a major stakeholder of the service if it is implemented.


----------



## Nexis

LOL , whats with the Robotic voices?


----------



## MrAronymous

^^


> In 2009 the San Francisco and Oakland area's Bay Area Rapid Transit system announced its transition from conductor-given announcements to automated voices. But they didn't belong to humans. BART concluded that "with dozens of stations and thousands of train arrivals every day, real live human beings just couldn’t keep up with the job of voicing all those announcements." The voices were designed by Lucent Technologies, whose Bell Labs Division has been a pioneer in text-to-speech technology. "Lucent called its male voice John and its female voice Grace; at BART, they came to be called George and Gracie. The announcements alternate between the male and female voices on odd- and even-numbered platforms." As realistic as they may sound, the robotic voices lack the personality that riders of other transit systems enjoy.


motherboard.vice.com


----------



## fieldsofdreams

I did not immediately recognize that myself... I've heard of the automated voices for so long that I had no issues with it. I still love the "Civic Center... Civic Center Station" driver announcements, or, for a more original taste, for South San Francisco Station: "South City... South City".


----------



## autobussen

*BART in 2000*

Bart in the year 2000


----------



## 612bv3

> *Draft designs for SMART stations called 'ridiculous' by San Rafael officials*
> City reaction: Proposed designs called 'ridiculous,' an 'insult'
> By Megan Hansen
> 
> Draft designs for the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit train stations are circulating in Marin County and San Rafael officials are calling the plans "ridiculous."
> 
> San Rafael City Council members voted unanimously Tuesday night to send a letter to SMART stating their displeasure with the platform or station designs, which are 65 percent complete. The scant designs by Oakland-based businesses AECOM Technical Services and FMG Architects feature a canopy, bench, ticket machine, trash can and street light.
> 
> Councilman Damon Connolly said the draft designs are inappropriate, especially for the city's downtown stations.


http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_26463357/draft-designs-smart-stations-called-ridiculous-by-san


----------



## 612bv3

> *Expanded routes for Clipper card users*
> 
> By Derek Wilson
> 
> Riders will no longer have to dig into their pockets for exact change when they get on the bus, as Marin Transit officials have expanded the use of Clipper cards to include more regional routes.
> 
> “The Clipper card system is a regional effort to have one single fare card used on all transit agencies in the Bay Area,” said Barbara Duffy, director of planning and operations for Marin Transit. “We’ve been involved with the Clipper system since the beginning, since we have a contract with Golden Gate on our routes. The rural routes and community shuttle routes that didn’t exist at the time Clipper was launched will now have the Clipper system.”
> 
> The Clipper system was installed on additional Marin Transit routes as of Aug. 18.


http://www.marinscope.com/news_pointer/news/article_80582c7c-3482-11e4-82b2-001a4bcf887a.html


----------



## 612bv3

> *Supervisors committee approves $1.2B contract for new Muni light-rail vehicles*
> By Joshua Sabatini
> 
> San Francisco's political leaders have bitterly fought recently over transit-related issues from enforcement of parking meters on Sundays to an increase of the vehicle license fee. But when it comes to the proposed 15-year, $1.2 billion contract to buy hundreds of new light-rail vehicles, everyone appears to be on board.
> 
> Complaints of perennial lackluster Muni service is common discourse in San Francisco. Residents say they are routinely frustrated about the system's unreliability, employees are known to use Muni as a foolproof tardiness excuse and politicians routinely promise service will improve.
> 
> But whether the replacement and augmentation of existing light-rail vehicles will lead to a more reliable Muni service is something city politicians and Muni officials are counting on.


http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfranci...-muni-light-rail-vehicles/Content?oid=2890888


----------



## Suburbanist

So people want a "World Class station" for SMART, but then people don't want to pay more for it and say "it is up to Smart to design and pay for"?

How can that be? An enclosed station with facilities, permanent staffing and the like costs a lot of money, at least couple dozen million $$. How is that going to be paid for?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Suburbanist said:


> So people want a "World Class station" for SMART, but then people don't want to pay more for it and say "it is up to Smart to design and pay for"?
> 
> How can that be? An enclosed station with facilities, permanent staffing and the like costs a lot of money, at least couple dozen million $$. How is that going to be paid for?


That's the "mentality" found, not only in Marin and Sonoma Counties, but in many other communities in the Bay Area. To me, a simple station with benches, ticket machines, and a roof with lights are best, especially if it is just a starter station. Over time, the station facilities can be added and expanded to justify the needs of each of the communities served along the line. I would understand, though, of the need to make Downtown San Rafael station a bit grander than others because it is next to a major bus terminal (San Rafael Transit Center), and it requires more than just a simple bench and a roof to begin with... maybe improving the traffic signals around that station would also be needed, as well as demolishing some structures and expanding the Transit Center altogether to really make it into a cool transit hub. Also, if it were me, I would up the densities in areas around stations so that more people can live and work close to stations (similar to what's found in many other communities), and it will promote walking as a way of commuting between work and home.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

fieldsofdreams said:


> I did not immediately recognize that myself... I've heard of the automated voices for so long that I had no issues with it. I still love the "Civic Center... Civic Center Station" driver announcements, or, for a more original taste, for South San Francisco Station: "South City... South City".


I prefer "nächsten Station: Marienplatz".


----------



## Cal_Escapee

612bv3 said:


> San Rafael City Council members voted unanimously Tuesday night to send a letter to SMART stating their displeasure with the platform or station designs


This from the people whose starchitectural county building has a notoriously leaky roof.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

612bv3 said:


> Complaints of perennial lackluster Muni service is common discourse in San Francisco. Residents say they are routinely frustrated about the system's unreliability


The unreliability has very little to do with the transit vehicles and everything to do with the absurd personnel policies brought to us by the very same politicians who are in the pocket of the transit unions. Drivers are allowed to call in "sick" whenever they want, as much as they want, on no notice and with no doctor's note required. So they miss an absurd number of shifts to which Muni responds by just omitting the run.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...-electric-train-consultation.html?channel=542
> 
> *Caltrain launches electric train consultation*
> Tuesday, September 09, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CALIFORNIAN commuter rail operator Caltrain has launched a public consultation on its future electric train fleet as part of plans to electrify the 82km San Francisco – San Jose line.
> 
> Caltrain says the EMUs will replace around 75% of its fleet of diesel locomotives and coaches on the route under the Caltrain Modernisation Programme, which is due to be completed by 2019. The cost of the project is estimated at $US 1.2bn, including $US 440m for the new train fleet.
> 
> The board of Caltrain issued a request for information to suppliers in May for the procurement of EMUs. However, the project has not yet been approved and Caltrain says a formal request for proposals will not be issued until the scheme has been granted environmental clearance, which is expected before the end of the year.


----------



## 612bv3

> *Caltrain to buy 16 new cars to ease overcrowded trains*
> Sep 8, 2014, 5:35am PDT
> 
> Caltrain is moving to boost rider capacity during peak-hour commutes with the purchase of 16 more Metrolink rail cars, officials announced Thursday.
> 
> Rail officials said the cost of buying the Bombardier Bi-Level Generation 2 rail cars from Southern California Regional Rail Authority and renovating equipment will top out around $15 million, the majority of which will be covered using debt issued against future revenue from rider fare. Ridership numbers on Caltrain have broken records four years in a row. Officials said it could take up to a year for the cars to be functional.
> 
> The purchase enables Caltrain to provide short-term relief for trains packed beyond their 600-seat capacity during peak morning and evening commutes. Weekday ridership on the system that runs from Gilroy to San Francisco has more than doubled over the last 10 years to 53,400 people — an upswing that is predicted to reach 69,000 daily riders by 2020.


http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...n-to-buy-16-new-cars-to-ease-overcrowded.html


----------



## 612bv3

> *Open space is a key feature of future Central Subway station *
> By Jessica Kwong
> 
> There is something that the Chinatown community desires more, and has less of, than housing.
> 
> Open space.
> 
> While San Francisco stakeholders years ago debated the Central Subway extending the Muni T-Third Street line north on Fourth Street with a Chinatown station as the terminus, community activists coalesced on what would become of the area above it.
> 
> Fast-forward to today, construction crews at Washington and Stockton streets in the heart of the neighborhood are erecting walls 85 feet below surface level for the approved, multilevel Central Subway station scheduled to open by 2019. The design plans for a 5,400-square-foot rooftop plaza at the site have yet to be grounded, but are shaping up to be what the Chinatown community wants, said Norman Fong, executive director of the Chinatown Community Development Center.












http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfranci...re-central-subway-station/Content?oid=2893708


----------



## dimlys1994

Video about Caltrain EMU plans:


----------



## dimlys1994

Also latest on Transbay Center, taken from website's cameras:



















And 3D animation of new Downtown tunnel:


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Cal_Escapee said:


> The unreliability has very little to do with the transit vehicles and everything to do with the absurd personnel policies brought to us by the very same politicians who are in the pocket of the transit unions. Drivers are allowed to call in "sick" whenever they want, as much as they want, on no notice and with no doctor's note required. So they miss an absurd number of shifts to which Muni responds by just omitting the run.


Is that the reason I see huge gaps in Muni services lately? I saw last night as I was working at univ...

28 Inbound @ 19th Ave & Holloway: 5, 9, 35, 45, 80 minutes

Like that's a huge gap for a busy line?


----------



## phoenixboi08

fieldsofdreams said:


> Is that the reason I see huge gaps in Muni services lately? I saw last night as I was working at univ...
> 
> 28 Inbound @ 19th Ave & Holloway: 5, 9, 35, 45, 80 minutes
> 
> Like that's a huge gap for a busy line?


Aren't large portions of MUNI already using CBTC? Why not just move towards automation if the performance is so bad?


----------



## Suburbanist

What is this "ACE" train thing in San Jose and East Bay? A precursor to BART?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

phoenixboi08 said:


> Aren't large portions of MUNI already using CBTC? Why not just move towards automation if the performance is so bad?


The problems lie with multiple factors, including:

- Driving time limits (if a driver exceeds a certain number of hours per day of driving, it is prohibited)
- Vehicle shortages (with the 28-19th Avenue, it is only deployed from the Kirkland Yard near Pier 39 and Fisherman's Wharf, and it is rare for another division, especially Woods, to send reliever drivers and buses to keep up with the high-frequency schedules)
- Congestion (19th Avenue lately heading north from roughly 2pm to 6pm can be so heavily congested, buses end up bunching at some corners. When this happens, the wait times just get longer and worse, and that buses are not usually permitted to use alternate routes in the process. With this problem, other lines, especially the 29-Sunset, gets affected).

Yes, those buses now have automated vehicle tracking machines, but, one cannot just fight congestion by using alternate routes. I recall staying on a bus for over an hour just to cross 5 miles from my school to the Golden Gate Bridge because of a signal outage at Park Presidio & Geary, a notoriously busy intersection.



Suburbanist said:


> What is this "ACE" train thing in San Jose and East Bay? A precursor to BART?


ACE is not a precursor to BART. Instead, it is the abbreviation for the *Altamont Commuter Express*, a commute-only rail service linking San Jose with Stockton via Fremont, Pleasanton, Livermore, and Tracy. This service acts as a great (yet crowded) alternative to driving along the woefully congested I-580 and I-680 corridors.

Lately, I-580 heading westbound gets so crowded as early as 3am for workers heading to San Jose and environs for the early morning shifts. The congestion exacerbates even further when a tractor trailer breaks down (especially that it is a most direct route for truckers heading to the Bay Area from the Central Valley and SoCal) or when a nasty accident happens. The heavily congested, sometimes wall-to-wall trafficked portion of I-580 runs from the I-205 interchange near Tracy (sometimes reaching as far east as the Tracy and Lathrop exits) all the way to the I-580/I-680 interchange in Pleasanton, a distance of around 30 miles (48km). With that congestion, ACE trains provide a good alternative to commuters traveling between the Central Valley and Silicon Valley.

And, periodically, I-680 also gets very crowded along the Sunol Grade, which is a hilly pass that connects Pleasanton and Fremont, and when an accident happens there, a domino effect occurs, spilling over to I-580 and beyond.

However, there are a few, but noticeable disadvantages with the ACE train:

- Only 4 AM and 4 PM trips are provided, meaning commuters have to wait for around an hour if they miss their desired train.
--> AM trips leave Stockton at 4:20am, 5:35am, 6:40am, and 7:05am (arriving in San Jose around 2hr, 12min later)
--> PM trips leave San Jose at 3:35pm, 4:35pm, 5:35pm, and 6:38pm (run time same as above)
- South of Pleasanton, the trains get severely packed with commuters trying to get to San Jose.
- While it may have a good on-time performance, it is subject to delays, especially south of Fremont where it shares tracks with Amtrak and freight trains.

There are plans, though, to move one of its stations (in Tracy) to the upcoming intermodal transit center closer to town (rather than its current location next to the freeway), and additional trains will be mounted for Modesto to ease the overcrowding. And, it is operated by the *San Joaquin Regional Transportation District*, which also operates city routes in Stockton and regional services within and beyond San Joaquin County.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Suburbanist said:


> What is this "ACE" train thing in San Jose and East Bay? A precursor to BART?


No. BART is funded by a 0.5% sales tax in the counties that agreed to it (which were always intended to be those with shorelines on San Francisco Bay although initially San Mateo, Marin, Napa and Santa Clara declined to pass the tax and thus BART was built as it was, not as the Bay encircling system it was conceived to be).

Ace (which stands for Altamont Commuter Express because it transits Altamont Pass through the coastal hills/mountains) goes out into the Central Valley to Stockton in San Joaquin County which doesn't pay the BART tax and so won't be getting service:









http://www.acerail.com/Getting-You-There/Maps-Stations

This commuter rail does allow lower paid Silicon Valley tech workers to live out in the Valley where housing is much cheaper (and, to some extent, exports ridiculous Silicon Valley prices to the Valley).


----------



## Suburbanist

Cal_Escapee said:


> No. BART is funded by a 0.5% sales tax in the counties that agreed to it (which were always intended to be those with shorelines on San Francisco Bay although initially San Mateo, Marin, Napa and Santa Clara declined to pass the tax and thus BART was built as it was, not as the Bay encircling system it was conceived to be).
> 
> This commuter rail does allow lower paid Silicon Valley tech workers to live out in the Valley where housing is much cheaper (and, to some extent, exports ridiculous Silicon Valley prices to the Valley).


I was checking - there is no interchange between BART and ACE in Freemont. Why not build a transfer station here 

Also - will ACE become partially redundant when BART extension from Freemont to San Jose and Santa Clara is put in service?

Finally, is there any news on a possible extension of BART from Milbrae to Santa Clara, on an alignment parallel but more westward than Caltrain?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Suburbanist said:


> I was checking - there is no interchange between BART and ACE in Freemont. Why not build a transfer station here
> 
> Also - will ACE become partially redundant when BART extension from Freemont to San Jose and Santa Clara is put in service?
> 
> Finally, is there any news on a possible extension of BART from Milbrae to Santa Clara, on an alignment parallel but more westward than Caltrain?


Good idea for an interchange station, but problems abound:

- It is too far from a closest commercial district in Fremont, situated along Paseo Padre Parkway (which already has a combined ACE and Amtrak rail station there called Centerville);
- It is next to mostly residential areas, which could mean a large-scale change in zoning policies to achieve a multi-modal transfer station (and it will cause the closure of nearby Fremont/Centerville Station a few miles away);
- It is right next to a regional recreation area, which can be tricky to provide accessible station connections with minimal effects to the surrounding natural habitat and surroundings (good thing that it is a regional park, which means it is covered by Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, rather than a State or National Park, which would require so much more paperwork to address potential environmental impacts);
- The road structure around the potential station could require an extensive overhaul to address potential future (if not massive) growth around that station corridor. The closest BART stations, Union City to the north and Fremont to the south, are mostly suburban in nature, and zoning policies currently restrict TODs to nearby stations... it will require a lot of land expropriation and modification to develop the intermodal station to its full potential; and
- Noise and ownership concerns. With an intermodal station, it can bring in more train noise to a relatively peaceful community in north Fremont, and a shared station between BART, Amtrak, and ACE could bring in some sort of ownership "rivalry" on who can best manage the station in the long-run, especially if it will have commercial structures right by the station. 

If a transit hub is built in that area, it will bring in immense revenues thanks to developing it into a transit-oriented development, and it will help bring in even more commercial and residential development to the city.

As for a parallel BART line between Millbrae and Santa Clara, it may not happen because Caltrain already runs close to San Mateo County's main arterial road, El Camino Real, which is essentially the High Street (or Main Street) for many of the communities line up along it. And, the possibility of adding even more rail miles southeastward towards Santa Clara County can be an expensive proposition, especially that San Mateo County was not an original signatory to the BART deal when it was formulated in the 1960s and 70s (it came in late, in around the late 90s, as a deal with SamTrans providing rail services to SF and beyond). 

And as for ACE acting as a redundant service between Fremont and Santa Clara, not really... ACE shares tracks with Amtrak between Fremont and San Jose, and the future BART alignment will not touch Great Mall/Main Transit Center, the stop location for ACE and Amtrak (due east of Santa Clara Station, the future terminus of BART in Santa Clara County). And by the way, ACE runs close to Levi's Stadium, the new home of the San Francisco 49ers football team, in which it will start providing game day services for fans from Stockton, Central Valley, and the Tri-Valley.


----------



## 612bv3

> *SMART loses bid for money to get train to Larkspur*
> By Mark Prado
> 
> The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit project struck out in its bid for $20 million from the federal government to extend planned commuter rail service from San Rafael to Larkspur.
> 
> While a setback, a key regional agency is still backing the plan, saying service to Larkspur and ferry service to San Francisco remains a priority.
> 
> On Friday the U.S. Department of Transportation announced the winners of its TIGER — Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery — funding. SMART was not on the list.


http://www.marinij.com/novato/ci_26523973/smart-loses-money-get-train-larkspur-support-remains


----------



## 612bv3

> *Caltrain begins collecting public feedback on modernizing car interiors *
> By Emilie Mutert
> 
> As Caltrain prepares to electrify and modernize its system, the transit agency is hoping to hear from the traveling public about the preferred design of the cars that will run on the tracks.
> 
> At the first of a series of preliminary meetings on future Caltrain cars in San Carlos Monday, the public was invited to meet with SamTrans representatives to provide feedback specifically on the interior of the new cars that will be part of the electrification and modernization of Caltrain. Community members are encouraged to weigh in on various features such as the number of seats per car versus the number of bathrooms, as well as luggage racks and bike racks, said Caltrain spokeswoman Christine Dunn.
> 
> "One of the things going on right now is that many of our trains are very crowded," Dunn said. "And people are having to stand during the peak commutes. So what we're asking people right now is, 'What is your preference?' 'Is it more important to you to have a bathroom than a seat? You don't mind standing, but you'd like luggage racks?'"


http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfranci...modernizing-car-interiors/Content?oid=2896860


----------



## 612bv3

> *SFMTA board approves contract for Mission Bay loop project*
> 
> As Mission Bay gets built out, so is transportation infrastructure in the area to accommodate the greater demand.
> 
> San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency board of directors on Tuesday approved a contract not to exceed $3.5 million with Mitchell Engineering to install tracks on the block surrounded by Third, 18th, Illinois and 19th streets to create a short loop for the Muni T-Third Street line.
> 
> The Mission Bay loop will allow the southbound light-rail line to turn left onto 18th Street, travel around the block on Illinois and 19th streets and make a right onto northbound Third Street. It will be a "critical component" of the central waterfront area and provide a short turnaround for trains once the Central Subway extending the T-Third line north to Chinatown opens in 2019, SFMTA spokesman Paul Rose said.
> 
> "The Loop would allow trains to turn around for special events (e.g. baseball games, concerts, street fairs) and during peak periods to meet the projected service needs in the Central Subway Corridor, including the Chinatown, Mission Bay and SOMA neighborhoods," a staff report states.


http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfranci...-mission-bay-loop-project/Content?oid=2902522


----------



## 612bv3

> *BART plans late night bus service to carry passengers after trains stop*
> By Denis Cuff Contra Costa Times
> 
> BART expects to begin a late-night weekend bus service as early as December to carry riders from jobs, night clubs and social visits after the trains stop running at midnight.
> 
> After at least four years of talks and studies, BART officials now say the pieces are coming together to conduct a yearlong test of a limited bus service after midnight on Friday and Saturday nights.
> 
> The service would be offered until about 2 or 3 a.m. along some routes between key BART stations in San Francisco and the East Bay.
> 
> "I believe this will provide a valuable service ... that doesn't currently exist," said Robert Raburn, a BART board member from Oakland. "This looks like a great pilot we can evaluate and see how well it works."


http://www.contracostatimes.com/con...plans-late-night-bus-service-carry-passengers


----------



## dimlys1994

Progress on new Berryessa BART station:


----------



## Woonsocket54

*SMART train*

Rail cars for the Sonoma-Marin regional rail are being built in Rochelle, IL.




























Source: https://www.facebook.com/sonomamarintrain


----------



## Scizoid.Trans.Prog.

Same type like the one for Toronto Airport link, and even the colors are quite similar


----------



## krnboy1009

They are the same cars if I remember right. Toronto piggybacked on the order


----------



## fieldsofdreams

I am getting even more excited as the SMART train is being built slowly, but surely... and once it is finally built, I will have a choice between riding that train or the bus, like the ones below...


DSC04286 by anthonynachor, on Flickr


DSC04283 by anthonynachor, on Flickr​
And by the way, Downtown San Rafael station (SMART) is now under construction:


DSC03882 by anthonynachor, on Flickr​


----------



## dimlys1994

fieldsofdreams said:


> And by the way, Downtown San Rafael station (SMART) is now under construction:
> 
> 
> DSC03882 by anthonynachor, on Flickr​


Downtown San Rafael will have level crossing?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ Yes. It has been a level crossing for many, many years. In fact, it was originally designed as a level crossing since an earlier rail service (dismantled in the 1950s) originally ran through the same area way back then. And there are level crossings immediately around the San Rafael Transit Center (the location where I took that pic), including 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and Mission Streets. Downstream (going south), the next railway crossings are at Irwin Street and Andersen Blvd (to be rebuilt); upstream (going north), the next railway crossings are at North San Pedro Road and Civic Center Drive (the location of Civic Center SMART station, also under construction).

Should you wish, I will provide regular updates on SMART using the images I take over time.


----------



## Suburbanist

Will SMART be electric-powered?


----------



## Nexarc

^^ From what I understand SMART's rolling stock will be DMU sets.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Suburbanist said:


> Will SMART be electric-powered?


Nope, not at all. In fact, a major challenge to electrifying that line is that the line is mostly single-tracked, with holding points found in many parts of the line, making speeds to be quite restricted. If electrification is to be done, I think double tracking all along the line would significantly help in keeping trains running on schedule and allow addition of more trains... and then it would make more sense to do what you envision.


----------



## 612bv3

> *Golden Gate Ferry strike forces thousands to find another way to work*
> One-day walkout halts ferries; some bus drivers call in sick
> 
> By Mark Prado
> 
> Striking captains caused ferry service out of Marin to come to a halt Friday, forcing thousands of workers to find other means to get to and from their jobs.
> 
> Although not officially part of the one-day strike, several Golden Gate Transit bus trips were canceled in the morning and afternoon as drivers called in sick, possibly in support of the action.
> 
> At the Larkspur Ferry Terminal not all commuters caught wind of the strike and drove in to an empty parking lot only to be told that there was no service.


http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_26612167/golden-gate-ferry-strike-forces-thousands-find-another


----------



## 612bv3

> *Hope for late-night transit dawns; BART to roll out test project*
> By Michael Cabanatuan
> Updated 8:03 am, Tuesday, September 30, 2014
> 
> Many an East Bay resident who labors or revels into the night in San Francisco has felt the panic of having to make a dash for the last BART train before it speeds into the Transbay Tube at 12:26 a.m. — and then figuring out how to get home if he or she didn’t run fast enough.
> 
> The dearth of late-night transportation around, and especially across, the bay is a long-standing problem that’s growing worse as the Bay Area population rises and the number of people depending on public transportation booms. Once BART shuts down for the night, options for getting home are limited.
> 
> So, facing an increasing demand for late-night transit service, regional transportation officials are taking a hard look at how to change that — and testing at least one plan to help people get around in the late-night and early morning hours.


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Hope-for-late-night-transit-dawns-BART-to-roll-5789303.php


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ I could suggest late-night, 24-hour service on Fridays and Saturdays for a start since AC Transit operates the Line 800 every 30 minutes Fridays to Sundays, and I believe that service gets packed with commuters traveling from San Francisco to Oakland, Berkeley, El Cerrito, and Richmond.

With that said, however, BART may need to adjust its maintenance times to accommodate more trains running between the East Bay, San Francisco, and the Peninsula... will it run with limited stops, similar to what it has done before during the Bay Bridge closure where trains ran round-the-clock?


----------



## 612bv3

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ I could suggest late-night, 24-hour service on Fridays and Saturdays for a start since AC Transit operates the Line 800 every 30 minutes Fridays to Sundays, and I believe that service gets packed with commuters traveling from San Francisco to Oakland, Berkeley, El Cerrito, and Richmond.
> 
> With that said, however, BART may need to adjust its maintenance times to accommodate more trains running between the East Bay, San Francisco, and the Peninsula... will it run with limited stops, similar to what it has done before during the Bay Bridge closure where trains ran round-the-clock?


From what I can remember, AC Transits runs the 800 every night and that takes you to downtown Oakland. From there you can take the other 800 buses that takes you to other parts of AC Transit district. So this whole thing is weird and confusing.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ I am very aware of that... AC Transit operates the following late night lines:

* 800 (SF-Richmond via Telegraph Ave, Shattuck Ave, University Ave, San Pablo Ave, and MacDonald Ave, emulating the Richmond service of BART) - hourly weekdays, every 30 minutes weekends
* 801 (Downtown Oakland-Fremont via International Blvd, Mission Blvd, and Fremont Blvd, emulating the Fremont service of BART) - hourly weekdays, every 30 minutes weekends between Oakland and Bay Fair, hourly weekends south of Bay Fair
* 802 (Downtown Oakland-Berkeley Amtrak via San Pablo Avenue) - hourly daily
* 805 (Downtown Oakland-Oakland International Airport via MacArthur Blvd) - hourly daily
* 840 (Downtown Oakland-Eastmont TC via Foothill Blvd) - hourly daily
* 851 (Berkeley BART-Fruitvale BART via Santa Clara Ave in Alameda and UC Berkeley) - hourly daily

It can be weird and confusing at first, but, I know that through pulse points and proper transfer times, commuters will get used to this. I hope, though, that Owl service will be restored in the North Bay...


----------



## dimlys1994

Another Central Subway update:


----------



## dimlys1994

And progress of Transbay Center, taken from project's Facebook page:


----------



## Suburbanist

MUNI has a new map of its lines. Click on image for larger zoomable version


----------



## Woonsocket54

*possibility of BART ridership record - 2014.10.31*

World Series victory parades tend to set new records for BART daily ridership:

2010.11.03 - 522,198
2012.10.31 - 568,061
2014.10.31 - ???????

Source: http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20121031


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> When do you think SMART will hit 6tph at rush hours? Consider the fact that at the moment, if you wanna go through the stations along the line, you would have to deal with multiple Golden Gate, Marin Transit, Petaluma Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus, and Sonoma County Transit lines. Once the initial segment is complete, how would those affected lines be adjusted to serve SMART efficiently?


Not for at least 20 years or so. As for Buses in the North Bay, I've never really taken a hard look at what's in Sonoma, but for Marin I'd have GGT cut all direct express service to SF outside peak North of San Rafael (instead emphasizing SMART to Larkspur Ferry transfers for that crowd).


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ That's where I come in. Sonoma County Transit has the following routes on hand:

- Routes 44 and 44x (Petaluma - Santa Rosa via Penngrove, McDowell Blvd, and Cotati)
- Routes 48 and 48x (Petaluma - Santa Rosa via Petaluma Blvd and west Rohnert Park)
- Routes 60 and 60x (Santa Rosa - Cloverdale via Healdsburg and Windsor)
- Route 62 (Santa Rosa Transit Mall - Windsor via Sonoma County Airport)

All those routes have inconsistent services compared to Golden Gate Transit, and SMART could augment those lines to allow them to provide localized service along the rail line. As for its impacts to Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit, I believe SMART will help boost ridership on those lines since those act as feeders to the train.


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ That's where I come in. Sonoma County Transit has the following routes on hand:
> 
> - Routes 44 and 44x (Petaluma - Santa Rosa via Penngrove, McDowell Blvd, and Cotati)
> - Routes 48 and 48x (Petaluma - Santa Rosa via Petaluma Blvd and west Rohnert Park)
> - Routes 60 and 60x (Santa Rosa - Cloverdale via Healdsburg and Windsor)
> - Route 62 (Santa Rosa Transit Mall - Windsor via Sonoma County Airport)
> 
> All those routes have inconsistent services compared to Golden Gate Transit, and SMART could augment those lines to allow them to provide localized service along the rail line. As for its impacts to Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit, I believe SMART will help boost ridership on those lines since those act as feeders to the train.


There isn't going to be much affect on them at first because SMART's only planning on having a single midday trip to start.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Single midday trip? That means riders will still need to use Golden Gate Transit and Sonoma County Transit to get around... I would like to have at least 4 midday trips to give me mobility choices.


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> Single midday trip? That means riders will still need to use Golden Gate Transit and Sonoma County Transit to get around... I would like to have at least 4 midday trips to give me mobility choices.


Yeah, that little piece of bad news has been lurking around SMART's website for a long time now.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

FDW said:


> Yeah, that little piece of bad news has been lurking around SMART's website for a long time now.


Gosh... I will need to contact SMART and ask when more midday services will come in. I rely on midday services so that I can get to Santa Rosa and beyond without the need of sitting in traffic along Highway 101.


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> Gosh... I will need to contact SMART and ask when more midday services will come in. I rely on midday services so that I can get to Santa Rosa and beyond without the need of sitting in traffic along Highway 101.


There's also going to be no evening service, but there will be some weekend trips.

Also, I've got some new ideas for Bay Area transit that I'm going to air out in the local thread. (One involving a second transbay tube)


----------



## 00Zy99

FDW said:


> There's also going to be no evening service, but there will be some weekend trips.
> 
> Also, I've got some new ideas for Bay Area transit that I'm going to air out in the local thread. (One involving a second transbay tube)


Link to your ideas, please?


----------



## FDW

00Zy99 said:


> Link to your ideas, please?


In this thread:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1583857&page=23


----------



## fieldsofdreams

This should be more of a Bay Area highways post, but this will also affect mass transit in a big way...

Presidio Parkway to be Closed Between 9 and 13 July 2015

This is planned as the roadway leading to and from the Golden Gate Bridge is close to being completed, and it will finally open the remaining sections that have been closed off to motorists for years. Affected transit agencies include Golden Gate Transit (and Ferry) and San Francisco Muni, in which both are expected to make their transit adjustment plans in the next few days. My best guesses are as follows:

- Muni: Lines 28 and 76X will be severely impacted by this closure, especially with long detours around the construction site.
>> Board 28 or 28R at either California & 12th or Lombard & Divisadero (28 only)
>> Board 76X (if running) at either the Golden Gate Bridge Toll Plaza or Lombard & Fillmore (if not the Financial District)
- Golden Gate Transit: commute routes will be severely impacted during the Friday commute, in which significant detours will take place as the Richardson & Francisco stop will be temporarily bypassed. Lines 10, 70, and 101 will also be detoured away from the construction site, in which those will use Geary Boulevard to access Civic Center; that would mean service along Lombard and Van Ness north of Golden Gate may be temporarily discontinued until the conclusion of the project Monday morning.
- Golden Gate Ferry: additional ferry services will be mounted to help affected commuters, especially on the Larkspur service. I hope Sausalito will also see additional ferry trips to ease congestion at the Ferry Building.

More details here


----------



## dimlys1994

Cal_Escapee said:


> Oh, THANK YOU - THANK YOU - THANK YOU
> 
> The fence they've built to hide what they are doing there is nearly impenetrable and I've been wondering for over a year what it looked like (of course I knew they were building the station but not exactly what was the state of things).


Alright, here is another station view. Chinatown station:
https://www.facebook.com/CentralSubway


----------



## Cal_Escapee

^^Very nice. They put up these impenetrable walls around so many projects these days the only way you can see what's going on is if you know someone in a building overlooking the site.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...rs-40-more-lrvs-from-siemens.html?channel=535
> 
> *San Francisco orders 40 more LRVs from Siemens*
> Wednesday, June 17, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _SAN FRANCISCO Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) unveiled a full-size mock-up of its forthcoming S200 SF LRV on June 16 and confirmed that it has exercised an option with Siemens for 40 additional vehicles_
> 
> The option takes the total number of vehicles on order to 215, making it Siemens' largest-ever order for light rail vehicles in the United States.
> 
> The mock-up was publically unveiled by SFMTA director of transit Mr John Haley, San Francisco Mayor Mr Ed Lee and Siemens infrastructure and cities USA president Mr Michael Cahill and displays design features adopted following a public consultation last year. These include a new seating configuration, new interior colour scheme and new exterior styling
> 
> ...


----------



## FDW

dimlys1994 said:


> From Rail Journal:


Those new LRV's are going to be so much better with the all side seating configuration.


----------



## dimlys1994

More on Caltrain:


----------



## FDW

dimlys1994 said:


> More on Caltrain:


CBOSS was, and is, a bad idea. (Though PTC is still a good idea regardless)


----------



## phoenixboi08

FDW said:


> CBOSS was, and is, a bad idea. (Though PTC is still a good idea regardless)


What's makes CBOSS problematic?


----------



## FDW

phoenixboi08 said:


> What's makes CBOSS problematic?


The fact that it's custom system when of the existing standard signaling system would been better. (especially considering that HSR, which is going to share tracks with Caltrain, isn't going to use CBOSS)


----------



## phoenixboi08

FDW said:


> The fact that it's custom system when of the existing standard signaling system would been better. (especially considering that HSR, which is going to share tracks with Caltrain, isn't going to use CBOSS)


I see. What's the standard? (Not CBTC, is it?)


----------



## FDW

phoenixboi08 said:


> I see. What's the standard? (Not CBTC, is it?)


CAHSR is using ERMTS.


----------



## will101

calibusguy said:


> Wow, that would be revolutionary, getting from SJ to SF in 15-ish minutes.


I think he meant that they would shave 5-15 minutes off of the current 90-95 minute trip.


----------



## Nexis

Is there any reason why SMART went with High level instead of Low Level?


----------



## 00Zy99

Nexis said:


> Is there any reason why SMART went with High level instead of Low Level?


They wanted to be high class. :lol:


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Nexis said:


> Is there any reason why SMART went with High level instead of Low Level?


Good question. I prefer level boarding, yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean high or low level. A low-level train would enable quick loading and unloading, but given the hilly profile Marin and Sonoma Counties have, I think high-level would be more suitable.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

calibusguy said:


> Wow, that would be revolutionary, getting from SJ to SF in 15-ish minutes.





will101 said:


> I think he meant that they would shave 5-15 minutes off of the current 90-95 minute trip.


Will's right. I was thinking of shaving around 5 to 15 minutes from today's schedules once electrification is done. And by the way, the Baby Bullet, if fully electrified, can make the SJ to SF service in around 45 to 50 minutes...


----------



## Nexis

fieldsofdreams said:


> Good question. I prefer level boarding, yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean high or low level. A low-level train would enable quick loading and unloading, but given the hilly profile Marin and Sonoma Counties have, I think high-level would be more suitable.


Hmmm , but low level wouldn't require building a gauntlet track for freight...thus saving money.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ The freight service goes east from Novato from the north (e.g. Sonoma County), in which those will be coordinated with SMART so that those can operate with less interference from passenger operations. And, if problems occur, Golden Gate and Sonoma County Transit will come to the rescue.


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> Good question. I prefer level boarding, yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean high or low level. A low-level train would enable quick loading and unloading, but given the hilly profile Marin and Sonoma Counties have, I think high-level would be more suitable.


That has nothing to with anything. SMART pointlessly went High Floor when decided that they didn't want to go around (the very stupid and archaic) FRA regulations.


----------



## Nexis

Theres only one other west agency that went with high level for commuter rail and that was trimet...they should have went with low floor like just about every agency West of the Rockies. As long as you have PTC , the FRA seems to be flexible about allowing UIC compliant trains... Which are cheaper , and you wouldn't need to build extra tracks or switches for freight separation.


----------



## Suburbanist

If you are building independent platforms (not on sidewalks or immediately adjacent to them), low of high floor is a less of a drastic option. High platforms dissuade pedestrians more from crossing outside designated places as well.


----------



## jchernin

From Wikipedia:



> ...for a newly constructed route, a route primarily located in tunnels, or a route with a dedicated right of way and enough space, high platforms are usually preferred, since high-floor vehicles are cheaper to manufacture, and have better operating characteristics.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-floor


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Suburbanist said:


> If you are building independent platforms (not on sidewalks or immediately adjacent to them), low of high floor is a less of a drastic option. High platforms dissuade pedestrians more from crossing outside designated places as well.


Those are correct. And by the way, many of the stations do not have immediate access to sidewalks to begin with, which require new construction and station development. Classic examples include:

- Civic Center (San Rafael)
- Hamilton (South Novato)
- Atherton (North Novato)
- Petaluma
- Sonoma County Airport



jchernin said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-floor


Exactly. SMART is essentially a revival of an old train line, which was long abandoned decades ago. It was originally owned by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District, but its rights have been sold off to the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit years ago prior to the two counties voting on its full implementation.


----------



## lkstrknb

I just uploaded a video of the (relatively) new BART Oakland International Airport line, made by DCC Doppelmayr Cable Car. I enjoyed the ride more than I thought I would.


----------



## Suburbanist

Is there a surcharge to ride this line, or just normal BART fares?


----------



## jay stew

Suburbanist said:


> Is there a surcharge to ride this line, or just normal BART fares?


$6 in addition to the regular BART fare.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ And you pay that $6 surcharge when you go through the turnstiles at Coliseum BART. No BART ticket machine exists at Oakland Airport BART (except if you're handicapped where you need assistance).


----------



## Nexis

Why did they go with a cable train instead of a monorail or tram ?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ More like a compromise. I initially thought BART would use its existing train stock to serve OAK directly, much like SFO, which would mean less hassles for passengers traveling between the two airports. However, I believe that along the way, it was decided on a system similar to a cable car (overhead) since the traffic between Coliseum BART and Oakland Airport BART would not warrant a 3-car BART service to begin with.

Not to mention, Hegenberger Blvd, the roadway running below it, already has a frequent bus service to begin with (AC Transit Line 73, running every 15 minutes most of the day, every day), doing the exact same thing between Coliseum BART and the Airport for a much cheaper fare ($2.10).


----------



## MrAronymous

I imagine it was the most cost-effective option. Cable cars are really realiable.


----------



## FDW

MrAronymous said:


> I imagine it was the most cost-effective option. Cable cars are really realiable.


The most cost effective option would've been BRT.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

FDW said:


> The most cost effective option would've been BRT.


How would you run the BRT along Hegenberger and 73rd Avenue? Would you run it like the nighttime 805 that does Downtown Oakland - Oakland Airport via MacArthur Boulevard and Eastmont TC?


----------



## Suburbanist

Buses are an inferior form of transportation and should be avoided as much as possible.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ I take the opposite view: it is a great way to get around when trains don't go to your desired destination. Not to mention, those help out in feeding passengers beyond traditional transportation modes to serve local attractions like shopping centers, community centers, and denser neighborhoods. It's just how they're setup that can make or break an agency's service quality... City buses play a more utilitarian role, while suburban services offer train-like amenities (if it is funded properly).


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> How would you run the BRT along Hegenberger and 73rd Avenue? Would you run it like the nighttime 805 that does Downtown Oakland - Oakland Airport via MacArthur Boulevard and Eastmont TC?


Just take the center lanes from traffic where ever possible, with maybe a bit special viaducts at the terminals, Coliseum BART Oakland International. Then throw a few stops in along the way, and you get a far superior transportation option serving more people for way less cost.



Suburbanist said:


> Buses are an inferior form of transportation and should be avoided as much as possible.


Do what is right in terms of capacity and available ROW, and forget about specific modes.


----------



## 00Zy99

MrAronymous said:


> I imagine it was the most cost-effective option. Cable cars are really realiable.


The cable's already snapped and broken down once in the short time since opening. San Fran has issues with its cable cars. They're not THAT reliable.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

FDW said:


> Just take the center lanes from traffic where ever possible, with maybe a bit special viaducts at the terminals, Coliseum BART Oakland International. Then throw a few stops in along the way, and you get a far superior transportation option serving more people for way less cost.
> 
> Do what is right in terms of capacity and available ROW, and forget about specific modes.


You've got the big challenge called the 73rd Avenue/Hegenberger Blvd viaduct that crosses over the Amtrak tracks, and that you cannot simply design a BRT service for a corridor that is like, what, 2 miles long and will only end up serving like 5 to 10 stops (all of which garner some passenger traffic)...? Unless you tell me you want to redesign the 73 line to be extended further south (to Foothill Square) or north (towards either Downtown Oakland or Emeryville and reassign the current Line 58L to this route, in which we can then open up the issue of redesigning MacArthur Boulevard) from its current terminal at Eastmont Transit Center, the BRT line between Coliseum BART and Oakland Airport will be woefully short and not get a lot of riders.

By the way, to access Coliseum BART from Eastmont or 73rd & International, buses have to go through several side streets in the area (East Oakland, anyone?) since the viaduct does not provide westbound access to the BART/Amtrak Station.


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> You've got the big challenge called the 73rd Avenue/Hegenberger Blvd viaduct that crosses over the Amtrak tracks, and that you cannot simply design a BRT service for a corridor that is like, what, 2 miles long and will only end up serving like 5 to 10 stops (all of which garner some passenger traffic)...? Unless you tell me you want to redesign the 73 line to be extended further south (to Foothill Square) or north (towards either Downtown Oakland or Emeryville and reassign the current Line 58L to this route, in which we can then open up the issue of redesigning MacArthur Boulevard) from its current terminal at Eastmont Transit Center, the BRT line between Coliseum BART and Oakland Airport will be woefully short and not get a lot of riders.
> 
> By the way, to access Coliseum BART from Eastmont or 73rd & International, buses have to go through several side streets in the area (East Oakland, anyone?) since the viaduct does not provide westbound access to the BART/Amtrak Station.


That's why I said viaducts AT THE TERMiNALS, I was talking about having a special viaduct that would take a theoretical airport BART BRT around the 73rd St Viaduct and have it avoid the need to use those side streets (I'm assuming Coliseum to Airport here). And line length has nothing to do with the potential utility of line, though in sane environment this would've been a BRT from Eastmont to the Airport.


----------



## Nexis

some San Fran transit photos from t55z


cable car on California Street, San Francisco by t55z, on Flickr


Muni Metro on Judah Street by t55z, on Flickr


Peter Witt style streetcar - San Francisco by t55z, on Flickr


PCC streetcar - San Francisco by t55z, on Flickr


----------



## fieldsofdreams

All right... with BART opening its latest station, *Warm Springs/South Fremont*, in December this year, the agency is looking to approve the fare matrix corresponding to this station on 23 July 2015. Based on the report, the sample fares are as follows:








To read the chart:

- The current fare between Embarcadero and Fremont, for example, is $5.95
- The fare increment that will be incurred between Fremont and Warm Springs if you board from Embarcadero would be $0.40
- The fare once you hit Warm Springs would be the sum of the current fare to Fremont BART plus the fare increment. And the proposed fare in January 2016 comes in part with the agency's annual fare hike.

Source


----------



## Fan Railer

7/20/15:


----------



## Fan Railer




----------



## Fan Railer

Under full acceleration, a full length 10 car train can hit 45-48 MPH before the last car leaves the platform. Enjoy =)


----------



## Fan Railer




----------



## fieldsofdreams

And speaking of BART, it will be closing the Transbay Tube and West Oakland Station for major repair works on the following weekends:

• August 1 and 2
• September 5 to 7 (Labor Day weekend)

A Transbay bus bridge operating between the Transbay Terminal and 19th Street/Oakland BART will be in place to help displaced passengers who want to travel between San Francisco and Oakland. Based on Facebook reports (from a bus group I participate in), around 84 buses will be deployed on the Transbay service that will be offered to passengers at no extra charge, including AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, Muni, and SamTrans.

As a result, the following lines will be operational on those weekends:

• Fremont – Richmond
• Dublin/Pleasanton – Pittsburg/Bay Point
• Embarcadero – SFO Airport
• Embarcadero – Millbrae

And I believe those trains will operate on weekday commute lengths (up to 10-car consists) to accommodate passenger loads.

Source

Travel advice from me coming up in the next posts.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

How to get around during the BART closures:

Since the Transbay bus service will be frequent, yet crowded, it is recommended that you need to line up early to avoid missing your appointment or flight. Expect up to an hour's delay with this setup.

Bus lines that go directly to and from the Transbay Terminal during the closure include:

• Muni:
– 5-Fulton
– 7-Haight/Noriega
– 14-Mission
– 14R-Mission Rapid
– 25-Treasure Island
– 38-Geary
– 38R-Geary Rapid

• Golden Gate Transit (10, 70, 101)
• AC Transit (I hope the F, NL, and O run normally those days)
• SamTrans (292)

And I believe overnight bus services (Muni 5, 14, 25, 38; SamTrans 397; AC Transit 800, 822) will operate as normal those days. I only hope WestCAT will provide augmented bus service too from Hercules and Del Norte BART (with Lynx) to help even more passengers.

To travel between San Francisco and Oakland Airport:

• Take BART or Muni Metro to Embarcadero Station, or any Muni bus to the Transbay Terminal (5, 7, 14, 14R, 25, 38, 38R). If taking BART or Muni Metro, walk along either Fremont Street or Beale Street (I recommend the latter) to the Temporary Terminal.
• Board the Bus Bridge to 19th Street/Oakland BART
• Once at 19th Street/Oakland BART, take either the Dublin/Pleasanton or Fremont train (whichever comes first) at Basement Level 2 and disembark at Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART
• Upon arrival at Coliseum BART, either take the Oakland Airport Connector train ($6) or AC Transit Line 73 ($2.10) to the Airport

From Oakland Airport to San Francisco:

• Either take the Oakland Airport Connector train ($6) or AC Transit Line 73 ($2.10) to Coliseum BART
• Board either a Pittsburg/Bay Point or Richmond train (whichever comes first) and get off at 19th Street/Oakland BART
• Head towards 20th Street & Broadway (WB) and wait for the Transbay bus there to San Francisco
• Once you arrive in San Francisco, you can either take Muni (5, 7, 14, 14R, 25, 38, 38R) from the Transbay Terminal or walk to Embarcadero BART/Muni Metro to your final destination.

— For Market Street (up to 3rd Street), use the 5, 7, or 38
— For Civic Center, use the 5 (McAllister) or 7 (Market Street)
— For Golden Gate Park, use the 5 (north side) or 7 (south side)
— For Alamo Square, use the 5 (get off at McAllister & Fillmore or McAllister & Pierce)
— For Haight/Ashbury and Ocean Beach, use the 7
— For Church Street or Castro, use Muni Metro K, L, or M or take the F-Market & Wharves streetcar (board at Market & Drumm)
— For Union Square and Geary Blvd, use the 38 or 38R
— For South of Market and Mission Districts, use the 14 or 14R
— For Treasure Island, use the 25
— For Caltrain and AT&T Park, use Muni Metro N or T

Additional nearby Muni Routes from Ferry Plaza, close to the Transbay Terminal, include:

• 2-Clement (for Union Square, Pacific Heights, and the Inner Richmond)
• 6-Haight/Parnassus (for Market Street, Haight/Ashbury, UCSF, and Inner Sunset)
• 9-San Bruno (for Market Street & Van Ness, 11th Street, Potrero Ave, and Cow Palace) — board this bus from Market & 3rd since its weekend terminal is on 2nd & Market
• 21-Hayes (for Market Street & 9th Street, Alamo Square, and Stanyan Street)
• 31-Balboa (for Market Street & 5th Street, Tenderloin, University of San Francisco, Richmond District, and Ocean Beach)

Additional AC Transit routes from 19th Street/Oakland BART include:

• B-Broadway Shuttle (6pm to 1am, Saturday only) between Koreatown and Jack London Square
• 1-International Blvd to Berkeley BART (via Telegraph Avenue) or Bay Fair BART
• 11 to Piedmont (via Grand Avenue) or Lake Merritt BART
• 12 to Berkeley BART (via M.L. King, Jr.) or 10th & Broadway
• 18 to Berkeley BART and Albany (via Shattuck Avenue) or Montclair (via Park Blvd.)
• 51A to Rockridge BART (via College Ave) or Fruitvale BART (via Santa Clara Ave in Alameda)
• 72/72M-San Pablo to Hilltop Mall (72), Point Richmond (via MacDonald Ave, 72M), or Jack London Square (72 and 72M)
• 72R-San Pablo Rapid to Contra Costa College or Jack London Square
• NL to Eastmont Transit Center via Grand Ave and MacArthur Blvd

More bus services from 12th Street/Oakland BART include:

• Broadway Shuttle, 1, 11, 12, 18, 51A, 72, 72M, 72R
• 1R-International Rapid for faster service along International Boulevard to Bay Fair BART
• 14 to Fruitvale BART via High Street and E 18th Street
• 20 to Fruitvale & MacArthur via Alameda South Shore, Park Street, and Fruitvale BART
• 26 to Emeryville (Public Market) or Lakeshore & Wala Vista (board on 14th Street)
• 31 to Alameda Point
• 40 to Eastmont Transit Center via Foothill Blvd
• 88 to Berkeley BART (via Market Street) or Lake Merritt BART

Just ask for even more destinations beyond Transbay Terminal and 19th Street/Oakland BART.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

For passengers traveling to SFO Airport or Millbrae, take note:

Two separate trains will serve both destinations. Look at the overhead sign to make sure you board the correct train.

From East Bay to SFO Airport or Millbrae (for Caltrain):

• Board BART or use AC Transit to get to 19th Street/Oakland BART
• Board Transbay bus on 20th & Broadway to San Francisco
• Upon arrival at Transbay Terminal, walk along Beale Street to Embarcadero BART
• Board desired train to SFO Airport or Millbrae (note: for destinations between Montgomery and San Bruno, board either train)

*Note:* No trains will serve both SFO Airport and Millbrae during the temporary closure.

From Millbrae (Caltrain) or SFO Airport to the East Bay:

• Board BART at either terminal and disembark at Embarcadero BART (for passengers boarding between San Bruno and Montgomery, either train will work fine)
• Once out of Embarcadero BART, walk along either Fremont or Beale Street (I recommend the latter) to the Transbay Terminal
• Board a Transbay bus for 19th Street/Oakland BART
• Upon arrival at 20th & Broadway (19th Street BART), take BART or AC Transit to your desired destination

*Note:* for passengers traveling between SFO Airport and Millbrae (Caltrain), switch trains at San Bruno station. No trains will serve both SFO Airport and Millbrae during the temporary closure.

Remember, at 19th Street/Oakland and 12th Street/Oakland City Center BART:

• For Dublin/Pleasanton or Fremont, go to Basement Level 2 (side platform only)
• For Pittsburg/Bay Point and Richmond, go to Basement Level 1 (island platform) — usually, the Pittsburg/Bay Point train boards on Platform 3, while Richmond trains board on Platform 1
• Listen to the announcements for the correct platform and boarding locations


----------



## Nexis

*Caltrain - San Jose to San Francisco King St - Morning Express*


----------



## Nexis

*Air BART Westbound Run*


----------



## Fan Railer

I have mixed feelings about not being in the Bay Area for the BART closures.


----------



## Fan Railer




----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

jay stew said:


> This Muni Metro station was featured in one of my favorites films, 48 Hrs. Church Street Station was only two years old when it was filmed there.


This is the first movie with Eddie Murphy.


----------



## dimlys1994

Almost missed - from sfbay.com:



> http://sfbay.ca/2015/07/31/muni-rolls-out-new-e-embarcadero-line/
> 
> *Muni rolls out new E-Embarcadero line*
> July 31, 2015, 8:14 pm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _A new San Francisco Muni historic streetcar line will open Saturday along the waterfront, taking tourists and residents from the Caltrain station at Fourth and King streets to Fisherman’s Wharf along The Embarcadero_
> 
> The new E-Embarcadero line, which will only operate on the weekends for now, between 10 a.m. to 7 p.m, is part of a ten percent increase in Muni service approved by the Municipal Transportation Agency’s Board of Directors back in May last year in their two-year operating budget
> 
> ...


----------



## dimlys1994




----------



## Woonsocket54

Another Eddie Murphy movie that makes good use of SF streetscape is Dr Doolitle.


----------



## dimlys1994

Transbay Center construction, 3rd August:


IMG_0165 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr

Which level it is? Rail level or higher?


----------



## dimlys1994

Some other photos:


IMG_7028 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


IMG_7024 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


IMG_7017 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


IMG_7006 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

IMG_6986 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


IMG_6979 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


IMG_7070 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


----------



## fieldsofdreams

dimlys1994 said:


> Transbay Center construction, 3rd August:
> 
> 
> IMG_0165 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr
> 
> Which level it is? Rail level or higher?





dimlys1994 said:


> Some other photos:
> 
> 
> IMG_7028 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr
> 
> 
> IMG_7024 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr
> 
> 
> IMG_7017 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr
> 
> 
> IMG_7006 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


Here's what I remember:

Basement 2 or 3: Railway Platforms
Basement 1 or 2: Concourse
Basement 1 or Ground Floor: Shops
Mezzanine: Open Space
Level 2 or 3: Bus Terminal and Ramps (connect directly to and from the Bay Bridge)


----------



## dimlys1994

fieldsofdreams said:


> Here's what I remember:
> 
> Basement 2 or 3: Railway Platforms
> Basement 1 or 2: Concourse
> Basement 1 or Ground Floor: Shops
> Mezzanine: Open Space
> Level 2 or 3: Bus Terminal and Ramps (connect directly to and from the Bay Bridge)


So the underground section, which shown in first two posts, is actually for rail platforms. How nice! For the reminder:


----------



## zaphod

Neat. Is there funding to actually build a tunnel to it?

It will be a cool space for urbex people to break into and explore 50 years from now. It can be a reminder of how there was supposed to be a high speed train but it only ever ran in the Central Valley before being defunded and closing. Check out this huge underground vault built for a failed construction project back in the 2000s! Our team brought a kayak as it has gradually filled with groundwater. Check out these haunting images!

Our grandchildren can then debate whether it was politics or self driving cars that killed passenger trains. Or both.


----------



## phoenixboi08

zaphod said:


> Neat. Is there funding to actually build a tunnel to it?
> 
> It will be a cool space for urbex people to break into and explore 50 years from now. It can be a reminder of how there was supposed to be a high speed train but it only ever ran in the Central Valley before being defunded and closing. Check out this huge underground vault built for a failed construction project back in the 2000s! Our team brought a kayak as it has gradually filled with groundwater. Check out these haunting images!
> 
> Our grandchildren can then debate whether it was politics or self driving cars that killed passenger trains. Or both.


...or, just go down to the platforms and people watch as the trains come and go.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...view/view/caltrain-electrification-grant.html
> 
> *Caltrain electrification grant*
> 11 Aug 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has approved the allocation of $20m to help fund the electrification of the Caltrain corridor in northern California.
> 
> The grant is being funded through the Mobile Source Incentive Fund, which is collected from a $2 fee on motor vehicles registered in the Bay Area; $5m is to be disbursed over each of the next four years.
> 
> The project envisages the electrification at 25 kV 60 Hz AC of 82 route-km between San Francisco and San Jose. The first electric trains are due to start running by late 2020
> 
> ...


----------



## Nexis

TJ Gehling

*A (not so) distant station*



> 19th Street staion is just a stop away.
> 
> From 12th Street station in downtown Oakland.




A (not so) distant station by TJ Gehling, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

^^Video from Transbay Center:


----------



## jchernin

"Final piece of steel being placed on the Haystack Bridge in Petaluma. See if you can spot the flag and tree which are celebratory symbols for completion of steel projects such as this."


















https://www.facebook.com/sonomamari...028397555/1160033117359669/?type=1&permPage=1


----------



## Nexis

How much of the SMART line is built?


----------



## Nexis

Some cool San Fran Historical Streetcar photos from Kevin Mueller 


San Francisco - July 7, 2015 (120) by Kevin Mueller, on Flickr


San Francisco - Market and Steuart - July 7, 2015 (1) by Kevin Mueller, on Flickr


San Francisco - Embarcadero and Don Chee - July 7, 2015 (27) by Kevin Mueller, on Flickr


San Francisco - Embarcadero near Mission - July 7, 2015 (1) by Kevin Mueller, on Flickr


San Francisco - July 7, 2015 (83) by Kevin Mueller, on Flickr


----------



## jchernin

Nexis said:


> How much of the SMART line is built?


Most of phase 1 (Santa Rosa to San Rafael) track reconstruction is complete. San Rafael still has some track work finishing up and that should be done by the end of September. The Haystack Bridge and some intersection improvements in Petaluma will be done at the end of October, at which point they'll install fiber optic cables for communication systems. They haven't built the station platforms yet either. Testing has already started and will continue for much of next year. The line is scheduled to open "late" 2016 and man, can I hardly wait!


----------



## Suburbanist

What are chances of a tram (streetcar) line being built along "El Camino Real" all the way from Milbrae to Santa Clara?


----------



## FDW

Suburbanist said:


> What are chances of a tram (streetcar) line being built along "El Camino Real" all the way from Milbrae to Santa Clara?


What's on the table at the moment is BRT. Both San Mateo County (Millbrae-Palo Alto) and Santa Clara County (Palo Alto-Santa Clara) are planning BRT, but the Santa Clara half is way ahead at the moment.


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> =
> That's not possible. Park Presidio Boulevard connects with 19th Avenue at Golden Gate Park. Unless you want to shift the traffic towards 8th Ave (with the 44) or 25th Ave (with the 29), it is highly improbable that you can shift the 28 towards either Funston or any of the numbered avenues without readjusting left turns, which can cause immense backtracking and increased congestion. A much better solution would be to expand the 28R service to become all-day, as well as (and I know this will be unpopular with the ADA) increasing stop spacing from every block to every 2 blocks to improve reliability and on-time performance, and collaboration with the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation Authority to figure out a way on how the corridor can serve the bridge with articulated (especially on the 28R).


I'm talking about moving the Bus a block west to 20th Ave. You can easily connect 20th Ave with Transverse Dr. (though it means you connect to 25th Ave instead of Park Presidio, though that's fine because 25th doesn't have as much traffic.



> But 19th Avenue gets to see 24-hour service with 28/28R in the daytime and 91 during the overnight (as far as SF State). That gives us an impression that it is a better corridor to have a Muni Metro service underground, and it can easily link up with the M at Stonestown.


The 28/28R doesn't have that much more ridership than the 29 despite having better frequency than it.


----------



## jchernin

*Putting the a pedal down on SMART*

Putting the pedal down on SMART






Edit: "Nana-ju nana" is 77 in Japanese, which is how fast (mph) the train is going.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

FDW said:


> I'm talking about moving the Bus a block west to 20th Ave. You can easily connect 20th Ave with Transverse Dr. (though it means you connect to 25th Ave instead of Park Presidio, though that's fine because 25th doesn't have as much traffic.


What part of 20th Avenue are you referring to? There's no direct connection with 20th Ave at Stern Grove... Let me draw up a map of your idea and see where the sticking points are.



FDW said:


> The 28/28R doesn't have that much more ridership than the 29 despite having better frequency than it.


But remember that 28/28R is more than just a bus corridor; it runs alongside an active California State Route to boot (CA-1) which traverses the City between the Golden Gate Bridge and I-280 (close to Daly City BART). Not to mention, if you were to think about it, it is a mixed-use, medium- to high-density corridor that attracts a lot of businesses since it is on the road to San Mateo and Marin Counties, as well as a path to and from San Francisco International Airport and beyond. So the 28/28R plays a critical crosstown service to the western part of the City that connects residents from at least three counties (San Mateo, SF, and Marin) to multiple key destinations.


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> What part of 20th Avenue are you referring to? There's no direct connection with 20th Ave at Stern Grove... Let me draw up a map of your idea and see where the sticking points are.


There's no connection between 20th and Transverse right, but relatively speaking, there isn't that much that would prevent a connection from being built.



> But remember that 28/28R is more than just a bus corridor; it runs alongside an active California State Route to boot (CA-1) which traverses the City between the Golden Gate Bridge and I-280 (close to Daly City BART). Not to mention, if you were to think about it, it is a mixed-use, medium- to high-density corridor that attracts a lot of businesses since it is on the road to San Mateo and Marin Counties, as well as a path to and from San Francisco International Airport and beyond. So the 28/28R plays a critical crosstown service to the western part of the City that connects residents from at least three counties (San Mateo, SF, and Marin) to multiple key destinations.


I acknowledge that, but one of my main gripes is that BART on 19th, especially south of Sloat, gets in the way of MUNI improvements in that area. Given that I would want to turn the L and N into crosstown lines, BART on Sunset would ensure that people further west also get to come out ahead here.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ The only possible way to use 20th Avenue would be the section between Lincoln Way and Wawona Street, especially that it goes through and through with only stop signs along the way. The challenge would be modifying a no-left-turn at Wawona (from 19th Avenue NB) to become transit-only left turn... Not only it will add more time on the already crowded 19th Ave corridor, but it will also confuse riders as the bus will meander one block to the west just to avoid the jams along 19th.

As for 20th between Sloat and Winston, you know that the next possible left turn from Sloat after 19th Avenue would be 21st Avenue going west? Unless you wanna do a loop that goes Sloat > 21st > Ocean > 20th, that again would mean additional time on an already-busy line.


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ The only possible way to use 20th Avenue would be the section between Lincoln Way and Wawona Street, especially that it goes through and through with only stop signs along the way. The challenge would be modifying a no-left-turn at Wawona (from 19th Avenue NB) to become transit-only left turn... Not only it will add more time on the already crowded 19th Ave corridor, but it will also confuse riders as the bus will meander one block to the west just to avoid the jams along 19th.


You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm talking about the North end of 20th Ave near Golden Gate Park. A short, but completely level and open pedestrian path separates Transverse Drive in Golden Gate Park from the North end of 20th Ave (Look this shit up in Google Maps).

And avoiding the traffic jams on 19th is a good thing, it makes the trip faster, it saves precious service hours that could enable more badly needed frequency on the corridor.



> As for 20th between Sloat and Winston, you know that the next possible left turn from Sloat after 19th Avenue would be 21st Avenue going west? Unless you wanna do a loop that goes Sloat > 21st > Ocean > 20th, that again would mean additional time on an already-busy line.


Actually, I was just considering having the 28 stay on 19th south of Wawona, but having it cut back over to 20th at Sloat is actually a good idea, since I would want to terminate the 28 at the new Stonestown station.


----------



## Nexis

*Second Quarter 2015 Ridership numbers for San Francisco-Bay Area*

*Heavy Rail*
San Francisco / BART - 452,900 (2015) : 3.58% +

*Light Rail*
San Francisco / Muni Metro - 179,200 (2015) : 6.84% + 
San Jose / VTA LRT - 33,600 (2015) : -2.04%

*Streetcar*
San Francisco / Cable cars - 20,200 (2014) : 2.00% + 

*Trolley Bus*
San Francisco / Muni - 176,800 (2015) : 0.70% +

*Bus Ridership*
San Francisco / Muni - 300,700 (2015) : -4.98%
Oakland / AC Bus - 180,200 (2015) : -0.89%
San Jose / SCV Bus - 110,900 (2015) : 2.27% +
San Carlos / San Mateo County Tran Dist - 42,700 (2015) : 1.03% +
Vallejo / Solano County Transit (SolTrans) - 4,200 (2015) : 8.05% +

*Suburban/Regional/Commuter Rail*
Bay Area / Caltrain - 61,200 (2015) : 6.46% + 
San Jose-Stockton / ACE - 4,900 (2015) : 3.09% + 

*Ferries*
San Francisco / Golden Gate Bridge, Hwy & TD - 8,700 (2015) : 4.94% +
San Francisco / Water Emergency Tr Auth - 7,700 (2015) : 11.56% +


----------



## dimlys1994

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...the-future-cars-almost-ready.html?channel=535
> 
> *First Bart Fleet of the Future cars almost ready*
> Tuesday, November 17, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _SAN FRANCISCO Bay Area Rapid Transit (Bart) announced on November 16 that the first of 775 Fleet of the Future metro cars is nearing completion at Bombardier's Plattsburgh plant in New York state and will be dispatched by road to California next month_
> 
> By the end of this year Bombardier is due to deliver 10 pre-series vehicles, which will initially be validated on Bart's test track at Hayward, California, before undergoing an 18-month programme of trials on the Bart network. The cars are expected to enter passenger service in December 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ Saw that on my email alert yesterday.

And speaking of BART, today's morning commute has been hampered by single-tracking between Fruitvale and Coliseum/Oakland Airport Stations right now due to track issues. As a result, a very limited number of Fremont and Dublin/Pleasanton-bound trains operate through that section, with delays of up to 20 minutes, if not more.

Interestingly, that section of track was recently rehabilitated, in which miles of track and hundreds of supports have been replaced as it has been in service since BART started more than 40 years ago.

Source


----------



## dimlys1994




----------



## FDW

MUNI's ordering more new buses: 152 40-footers, 113 Artics. These will join 160 40-footer and 60 Artic Xcelsiors. I hope MUNI preferentially retires the 40-footer Neoplans, that way we can get the 224 Artic fleet sooner rather than later.


----------



## moon993

Testing has already begun for the Warm Springs Bart extension.




























More images at https://picasaweb.google.com/110799...onstructionPhotosREVMarch2014?feat=directlink


----------



## 00Zy99

Given that these two extensions combined give about 15 miles of new track, what kind of travel times are we looking at from Richmond or downtown San Francisco? It's something 38-39 miles now, right? Could it be about an hour, then? 

What does this mean when the second stage of the Silicon Valley extension is complete, that BART will compete with Caltrain?


----------



## FDW

Golden Gate just launched Route 580 between Emeryville and San Rafael. Along with this change, they've gone through with a much needed consolidation of Routes 42 and 40. the new Route 40 now 30-minute base frequency on weekdays, with 15-minute service in the peak, peak direction. While this is better than before, I think that the 580 should be consolidated into the 40 as well, to further simplify things, and allow for a broader period of 15 minute service on the new 40.


----------



## zidar fr

Hi everybody, I built a map of the Bay Area transit systems trying to show an overall picture of the region connections. It was not easy to work on such a scale, an urban area that is spread on a regional scale.

The map shows:

- Rail networks: BART, Caltrain (with baby bullet service), ACE and Amtrak (+thruway buses)

- Light rail: Muni Metro, VTA light Rail

- Ferries

- Cross bay Bus: Dumbarton Express, U and M

- Airport connections

There is an enlarged view of San Francisco in the circle bottom left.

I am not very familiar with the area and would very much like to hear your comments and suggestions for improving the map. Are there other relevant systems/routes that should be added ?











Full resolution map:
http://www.inat.fr/metro/san-francisco-bay-area/


----------



## FDW

zidar fr said:


> Hi everybody, I built a map of the Bay Area transit systems trying to show an overall picture of the region connections. It was not easy to work on such a scale, an urban area that is spread on a regional scale.
> 
> The map shows:
> 
> - Rail networks: BART, Caltrain (with baby bullet service), ACE and Amtrak (+thruway buses)
> 
> - Light rail: Muni Metro, VTA light Rail
> 
> - Ferries
> 
> - Cross bay Bus: Dumbarton Express, U and M
> 
> - Airport connections
> 
> There is an enlarged view of San Francisco in the circle bottom left.
> 
> I am not very familiar with the area and would very much like to hear your comments and suggestions for improving the map. Are there other relevant systems/routes that should be added ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full resolution map:
> http://www.inat.fr/metro/san-francisco-bay-area/


The Frequent Bus Routes of San Francisco, the East Bay, and the South Bay should be added in. So should the SMART Commuter Rail and the Warm Springs BART extension. The Express routes on Highway 101 over the Golden Gate Bridge , and on I-680 (connecting Fremont and San Jose) should also be included. And lastly, you missed the Ohlone/Chynoweth branch on VTA's Light Rail system.


----------



## Falubaz

I like this map! The only place that i would correct is the curve of yeallow line between Oakland City Center and West Oakland. If you put it next to the Red line at this place, then it would look smoother between Daly City and Colma:
http://zapodaj.net/9b23f526b4db7.jpg.html


----------



## FDW

Falubaz said:


> I like this map! The only place that i would correct is the curve of yeallow line between Oakland City Center and West Oakland. If you put it next to the Red line at this place, then it would look smoother between Daly City and Colma:
> http://zapodaj.net/9b23f526b4db7.jpg.html


The presentation of the Red and Yellow and yellow lines are fine. And the map is missing a lot of more important things at the moment.


----------



## jchernin

SMART's last two train-sets being delivered:









https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...0252630603999.331806.547458998&type=3&theater



> *Funding for SMART Larkspur extension in congressional budget*
> 
> By Mark Prado, Marin Independent Journal
> Posted: 12/16/15, 9:29 AM PST
> 
> Funding to send Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit commuter train service to Larkspur is in the congressional budget and could be formally approved later this week, rail officials announced Wednesday.
> 
> The Larkspur extension would represent the next phase of the project. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has already committed $20 million in Regional Measure 2 funds, making the project financially whole when SMART can get the federal dollars.
> 
> ...
> 
> SMART officials believed they were well-positioned to get the federal money, in large part because they had a commitment for half the money to build the extension from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission — the Bay Area’s transportation planning agency. The federal government likes to see a 20 percent local match in funding and SMART had 50 percent.
> 
> ...
> 
> The extension connects rail service to the Larkspur Ferry Terminal, where boats can take commuters into San Francisco, making it a regional project. For years the train was criticized as a “train to nowhere” because it didn’t have a connection to a regional system.
> 
> In February SMART officials announced the agency was in line to receive federal funding to extend the commuter rail service to Larkspur as part of the Federal Transit Administration’s “Small Starts” grant program.
> 
> But over the summer the Senate Appropriations Committee slashed the Small Starts program to $30 million, raising concerns SMART might miss out on the needed funding.
> 
> But the final Omnibus Appropriations bill released Tuesday shows funding for the $353 million Small Starts request, which means Congress has provided full funding for the Larkspur connection, according to the rail agency.
> 
> The next steps include Congress approving the funding, which could occur by Friday. A signature from President Barack Obama would follow, then finally a funding agreement between the Federal Transit Administration and SMART. Work on the Larkspur extension could start as soon as August 2016.
> 
> ...
> 
> Work has already been done on a key stretch to get service to Larkspur from San Rafael. In December 2010 the revamped Cal Park Hill Tunnel, a 1,100-foot tube, was opened at a cost of $28 million.
> 
> When voters in Sonoma and Marin counties approved a quarter-cent sales tax in 2008 to fund SMART, the project was for train service from Cloverdale to Larkspur, along with a path for walkers and bicyclists.
> 
> ...Now the project is being phased, and a $428 million San Rafael-to-Santa Rosa line is under construction and set to open in late 2016.


http://www.marinij.com/general-news...rt-larkspur-extension-in-congressional-budget


----------



## greg_christine

zidar fr said:


> Hi everybody, I built a map of the Bay Area transit systems trying to show an overall picture of the region connections. It was not easy to work on such a scale, an urban area that is spread on a regional scale.
> 
> The map shows:
> 
> - Rail networks: BART, Caltrain (with baby bullet service), ACE and Amtrak (+thruway buses)
> 
> - Light rail: Muni Metro, VTA light Rail
> 
> - Ferries
> 
> - Cross bay Bus: Dumbarton Express, U and M
> 
> - Airport connections
> 
> There is an enlarged view of San Francisco in the circle bottom left.
> 
> I am not very familiar with the area and would very much like to hear your comments and suggestions for improving the map. Are there other relevant systems/routes that should be added ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full resolution map:
> http://www.inat.fr/metro/san-francisco-bay-area/


Look at a map regarding the shape of the northern end of the bay. The northern end of San Francisco Bay becomes San Pablo Bay and then leads east through Carquinez Strait to become Suisun Bay. Pittsburg is actually at the eastern end of Susuin Bay. The rail line to Stockton actually runs through Pittsburg and passes within perhaps a mile of the BART terminus.


----------



## Woonsocket54

I wonder if the "thread tags" were auto-generated. In any case, I do believe 'ergo' is one word.


----------



## Woonsocket54

San Francisco Muni is improving service on 2016.04.23 on buses, trolleybuses, historic streetcars and Muni Metro.

Many urban routes will see increased service:










Also, there will be new overnight bus service as well as the addition of weekday service to the "E" Embarcadero historic streetcar, amongst other changes.










https://www.sfmta.com/news/project-updates/better-more-frequent-service-coming-april-23

The "E" Embarcadero shares trackage with the "F" streetcar north of Market Street. The "E" provides a direct link from Caltrain station to the Ferry Terminal and up to Fisherman's Wharf.









http://sfmuniverse.com/post/81499795014/e-embarcadero-opens-summer-2015

Beginning 2016.04.23, both the "E" and the "F" will run seven days per week.

Here is a map of new overnight bus routes:









https://www.sfmta.com/projects-planning/projects/new-44-and-48-owl-routes


----------



## prageethSL

https://twitter.com/MBowlYou/status/717817862564352000


----------



## Cal_Escapee

We're NUMBER TWO in the US according to an objective rater:









http://alltransit.cnt.org/rankings/


----------



## Svartmetall

^^ That's a super interesting website! Thanks for the link.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Per the East Bay Times a couple days ago, the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee has the initial results of a study to tackle congestion in the I-80 corridor north of Richmond. 










You can check out the study website here, and there's a copy of the powerpoint here, but I'll summarize the 8 basic proposals:



> 1) I-80 Express bus service: Local and express buses carry 65 percent of transit users in West County, the study found, and there is demand for express buses on I-80 to Berkeley, Emeryville and Oakland as well San Francisco.
> 
> 2) Bus Rapid Transit along San Pablo Avenue and Macdonald Avenue in Richmond.
> 
> 3) BRT along 23rd Street in Richmond and San Pablo.














> 4) Commuter rail between Richmond Amtrak/BART and Martinez along the Union Pacific right of way, with potential stops at Atlas Road in Richmond and Hercules' future Intermodal Transit Center.
> 
> 5) Commuter rail between Richmond Amtrak/BART and Martinez along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe right of way, with potential stops at Atlas Road and the current Hercules Transit Center.














> 6) BART extension from Richmond BART to the Hercules Transit Center, with potential stations at Contra Costa College in San Pablo, Richmond Hilltop, Richmond Parkway Transit Center and Appian Way in Pinole.
> 
> 7A) BART extension from El Cerrito Del Norte to the Hercules Transit Center along I-80, with stations at San Pablo Dam Road in San Pablo, Richmond Parkway Transit Center and Appian Way in Pinole.
> 
> 7B) BART extension from Del Norte using DMUS, or diesel-powered multiple-unit trains that are smaller than regular BART trains.












And here's a breakdown of the expected cost and range of dates it would take to implement each type of alternative:










If you live, work or otherwise commute in the area, take part in a survey about your preferred options here.


----------



## Nexis

The Commuter rail should extend all the way down to San Jose...


----------



## Woonsocket54

Nexis said:


> The Commuter rail should extend all the way down to San Jose...


Caltrain already goes to San Jose and even further south.


----------



## 00Zy99

Nexis said:


> The Commuter rail should extend all the way down to San Jose...


That would definitely serve the market better, but at that point you might as well just add more Capitol Corridor trips.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Nexis said:


> The Commuter rail should extend all the way down to San Jose...





00Zy99 said:


> That would definitely serve the market better, but at that point you might as well just add more Capitol Corridor trips.


Isn't at least one of the commuter rail proposals built along the Capitol Corridor route? I think they're effectively talking about running a higher frequency service (with some infill stations) along the same corridor, between Martinez and Jack London Square. And I agree that this should then be extended all the way to Diridion in San Jose for transfers to Caltrain.

Extending BART to Hercules isn't a terrible idea in the very long term, but it seems to me that a fully fleshed-out, high-frequency commuter rail option for the East Bay, to match what Caltrain does for the peninsula, is far and a way the best bang for your buck.


----------



## 00Zy99

MarshallKnight said:


> Isn't at least one of the commuter rail proposals built along the Capitol Corridor route? I think they're effectively talking about running a higher frequency service (with some infill stations) along the same corridor, between Martinez and Jack London Square. And I agree that this should then be extended all the way to Diridion in San Jose for transfers to Caltrain.
> 
> Extending BART to Hercules isn't a terrible idea in the very long term, but it seems to me that a fully fleshed-out, high-frequency commuter rail option for the East Bay, to match what Caltrain does for the peninsula, is far and a way the best bang for your buck.


This is an excellent idea. The problem is that there is relatively limited capacity on the East Bay lines. Being on a peninsula, Caltrain doesn't have to worry about through freight traffic. Just in this proposed sector, on the other hand, there is a major UPS shipping hub along the Santa Fe. that takes up a lot of track capacity. And there is less capacity to begin with.


----------



## Nexis

Electrification would be even better...


----------



## 00Zy99

Nexis said:


> Electrification would be even better...


That is in the Capitol Corridor's long-range plan.


----------



## Nexis

*4th Quarter 2015 Ridership numbers for San Francisco-Bay Area*

*Heavy Rail*
San Francisco / BART - 452,600 (2015) : 0.84% +

*Light Rail*
San Francisco / Muni Metro - 156,000 (2015) : 0.07% + 
San Jose / VTA LRT - 33,400 (2015) : -5.21%

*Streetcar*
San Francisco / Cable cars - 17,700 (2015) : 2.00% + 

*Trolley Bus*
San Francisco / Muni - 170,400 (2015) : -8.09%

*Bus Ridership*
San Francisco / Muni - 314,400 (2015) : 5.40%+
Oakland / AC Bus - 171,800 (2015) : -3.54%
San Jose / SCV Bus - 109,100 (2015) : 4.45% 
San Carlos / San Mateo County Tran Dist - 42,700 (2015) : -1.19% 
Vallejo / Solano County Transit (SolTrans) - 5,300 (2015) : 6.38% +

*Ferries*
San Francisco / Golden Gate Bridge, Hwy & TD - 7,300 (2015) : -3.09%
San Francisco / Water Emergency Tr Auth - 7,400 (2015) : 17.32% +


----------



## jchernin

A look at the patterned screen for the Transbay Terminal:









Source


----------



## Woonsocket54

Nexis said:


> *Bus Ridership*
> 
> San Jose / SCV Bus - 109,100 (2015) : 4.45%


Despite these short-term gains:

San Jose Mercury News
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_29778497



> *Staggering drop in VTA bus ridership may signal dramatic changes*
> By Gary Richards, [email protected]
> POSTED: 04/18/2016 06:09:48 AM PDT
> 
> SAN JOSE -- Despite a Santa Clara Valley population and jobs boom, ridership on buses and light-rail trains has dropped a staggering 23 percent since 2001, forcing the Valley Transportation Authority to consider its biggest shake-up ever in transit service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . .


----------



## jchernin

More pics of the panels:


















http://sf.curbed.com/2016/4/25/11505068/transbay-transit-centers-new-paneling


----------



## jchernin

*Fremont: Warm Springs BART Station Rumbles Toward Finish Line*

Julian J. Ramos
The Fremont Argus
4/19/2016










An aerial view of the Warm Springs/South Fremont BART Station taken in March. The facility is expected to go into service in late summer. Photo courtesy of BART

From Warm Springs Boulevard, the BART station that has been slowly rising and taking form over the past few years might finally look completed and ready for business.

Inside, however, there's still a frenzy of activity as workers scramble to wrap up the last tasks so the station can open by late summer.

...

The $890 million Warm Springs extension, which began in 2009, will add 5.4-miles of tracks from the Fremont BART Station south to the new station. The line includes a 1.2-mile subway tunnel under Lake Elizabeth and Fremont Central Park.

The Warm Springs station will feature an at-grade island platform with an overhead concourse and connections to Valley Transit Authority and AC Transit buses, plus taxi and passenger dropoff areas.

...

Situated to the east of the Tesla Motors plant and Thermo Fisher Scientific, the station is viewed as a catalyst for the city's 880-acre Innovation District. City leaders envision *4,000 dwelling units and more than 20,000 jobs in that district, as well as up to 11.6 million square feet of commercial and office floor space....*

Source


----------



## Suburbanist

When will Caltrain services ultimately reach the "Transbay terminal"?


----------



## 00Zy99

Suburbanist said:


> When will Caltrain services ultimately reach the "Transbay terminal"?


The funding for that is not currently on the horizon.


----------



## Suburbanist

00Zy99 said:


> The funding for that is not currently on the horizon.


Isn't the whole point of Transbay to bring Caltrain to a more central location than the current Fourth and King station?


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ It is, but the completed transit center (which serves many agencies from all over the bay) was the priority, and got funded as part of Phase 1. The Caltrain Downtown Extension is Phase 2, and the money isn't there yet. 

Here's the latest from the SFCTA on the situation:



> DOWNTOWN EXTENSION
> A team led by Parsons Transportation Group has substantially completed work on preliminary engineering of Phase 2. The DTX was originally scheduled for completion in 2019; however, *work is on hold due to a significant funding gap*. However, work continues on the Supplemental EIS/EIR and coordination with Caltrain and the California High Speed Rail Authority.
> 
> In 2012, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) identified DTX as only one of two new regional priorities for New Starts funds in Plan Bay Area, the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy that MTC adopted in July 2013. *The regional endorsement of DTX helps to position the project well to receive federal funding *in the highly competitive federal New Starts program.
> 
> *TJPA is exploring the feasibility of alternative project delivery options*, including Public Private Partnership (P3) as means to reduce cost and accelerate delivery. Authority staff will continue to work closely with TJPA, the City, and other funding partners to support delivery of Phase 1 and to advance strategies to close the funding gap for Phase 2.


----------



## dimlys1994

Central Subway update:


----------



## Woonsocket54

*Birthday wishes*

Happy 40th birthday to Embarcadero station, which opened 1976.05.27. This was the last BART station to open in San Francisco. Muni service did not begin until 1980.


----------



## Suburbanist

Which rail service has a better reputation within San Francisco (city)? BART or MUNI (excluding cable cars and obviously buses)?


----------



## Woonsocket54

BART only has eight stops in San Francisco and thus can only serve a limited area of the city. I am not sure it can be compared to Muni Metro. If traveling downtown from the Mission, Glen Park or Balboa Park, then BART is obviously a better choice than Muni since it provides faster service.


----------



## Woonsocket54

BART tweeted the Golden Gate Bridge a happy birthday - saying they would have been great together.










https://twitter.com/SFBART/status/736263744632692737


----------



## 00Zy99

Woonsocket54 said:


> BART tweeted the Golden Gate Bridge a happy birthday - saying they would have been great together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/SFBART/status/736263744632692737


Well, who knows. Maybe something SMART will happen around there.


----------



## Nexis

00Zy99 said:


> Well, who knows. Maybe something SMART will happen around there.


I think BART should at least be extended up to LakeSpur Ferry terminal using the 101 ROW.


----------



## 00Zy99

Nexis said:


> I think BART should at least be extended up to LakeSpur Ferry terminal using the 101 ROW.


I was talking about extending SMART down from Larkspur to San Francisco and interchanging with Caltrain.


----------



## sdery

How significantly would the GG bridge need to be modified to support BART or SMART trains? The rendering posted above suggested very little might to be done and I would assume major modifications would likely face a backlash given the status of the GG bridge as a defining image of the SF area.


----------



## phoenixboi08

sdery said:


> How significantly would the GG bridge need to be modified to support BART or SMART trains? The rendering posted above suggested very little might to be done and I would assume major modifications would likely face a backlash given the status of the GG bridge as a defining image of the SF area.


Given that it's a suspension bridge, I suppose it would probably be rather difficult - since it would be adding a significant amount of weight to the road deck?


----------



## 00Zy99

The original design plans for the bridge call for a pair of rail tracks to be added. Exactly how they would be added is not entirely clear-some figure show a pair of streetcar tracks in the middle of the roadway, while others show the tracks through the trusses.

There is also some confusion, since I seem to recall one of the designers saying that it wasn't strong enough when they approached him about the initial BART surveys. Then again, he was apparently being very recalcitrant about credit or something.

There is nothing that says that suspension bridges can't carry trains-the Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Williamsburg bridges do, as does the Seto-Ohashi in Japan. So long as you don't go running freight trains over it, I don't think that modifications would be too drastic.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Not much news has been discussed about this:

Since San Francisco Muni is adding more low-floored buses, at least 34 high-floored diesel articulated buses (Neoplan AN460) and all of its ETI-Škoda Tr15SF 60-footer articulated electric trolleybuses have been retired from service, with many of them being sold at auction for parts. This only means one thing: Muni is joining a lot of agencies throughout the country in embracing low-floored buses to make boarding for everyone much easier and accessible.

However, there will be times when a high-floored bus is more suitable because it performs better on the City's hilly streets.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

00Zy99 said:


> I was talking about extending SMART down from Larkspur to San Francisco and interchanging with Caltrain.





sdery said:


> How significantly would the GG bridge need to be modified to support BART or SMART trains? The rendering posted above suggested very little might to be done and I would assume major modifications would likely face a backlash given the status of the GG bridge as a defining image of the SF area.





phoenixboi08 said:


> Given that it's a suspension bridge, I suppose it would probably be rather difficult - since it would be adding a significant amount of weight to the road deck?


If it were me, the extension of SMART through southern Marin County will actually involve two bridges instead of just one:

• A Richardson Bay crossing
• A Golden Gate Strait crossing

You will also need to discuss your plans with the following communities and organizations along the way, namely:

• Marin County (in particular Strawberry, Tamalpais Valley, and Marin City)
• Larkspur and Corte Madera
• Mill Valley
• Tiburon and Belvedere
• Sausalito
• Golden Gate National Recreation Area (Federal)
• Presidio Trust (Federal)
• City and County of San Francisco

To make that happen. And, alignment-wise, would you rather have it all overground, all underground, or a mixture of the two? Heck, most of SMART's routing is single-track, making additional service contingent to purchasing even more land for right-of-way.


----------



## MarshallKnight

fieldsofdreams said:


> IAnd, alignment-wise, would you rather have it all overground, all underground, or a mixture of the two? Heck, most of SMART's routing is single-track, making additional service contingent to purchasing even more land for right-of-way.


My gut says the best thing would be to run along the 101 median from San Rafael to the incline, then tunnel under the hill (does this hill have a name, btw?) on approach to the Golden Gate, and link the tunnel to the underside of the bridge as pictured above.

Yes, freeway-running trains are kind of lame, but it's not like the SMART needs to weave into the urban fabric of Marin -- most commuters are going to be park-and-riding anyway.


----------



## Amexpat

Speaking of trains on bridges, how come train tracks weren't added to the East Bay Bridge when huge sums were used on the rebuilt? I know they used to have a street car on it years ago. Seems they could have either extended Caltrain to the East Bay or make a new BART line. The trans bay tube for BART is at capacity, so this should have been a cheaper solution than building a new tunnel for BART.


----------



## MrAronymous

fieldsofdreams said:


> However, there will be times when a high-floored bus is more suitable because it performs better on the City's hilly streets.


Why?


----------



## 00Zy99

fieldsofdreams said:


> If it were me, the extension of SMART through southern Marin County will actually involve two bridges instead of just one:
> 
> • A Richardson Bay crossing
> • A Golden Gate Strait crossing
> 
> You will also need to discuss your plans with the following communities and organizations along the way, namely:
> 
> • Marin County (in particular Strawberry, Tamalpais Valley, and Marin City)
> • Larkspur and Corte Madera
> • Mill Valley
> • Tiburon and Belvedere
> • Sausalito
> • Golden Gate National Recreation Area (Federal)
> • Presidio Trust (Federal)
> • City and County of San Francisco
> 
> To make that happen. And, alignment-wise, would you rather have it all overground, all underground, or a mixture of the two? Heck, most of SMART's routing is single-track, making additional service contingent to purchasing even more land for right-of-way.





MarshallKnight said:


> My gut says the best thing would be to run along the 101 median from San Rafael to the incline, then tunnel under the hill (does this hill have a name, btw?) on approach to the Golden Gate, and link the tunnel to the underside of the bridge as pictured above.
> 
> Yes, freeway-running trains are kind of lame, but it's not like the SMART needs to weave into the urban fabric of Marin -- most commuters are going to be park-and-riding anyway.


The old NWP right of way is still intact, and has room for two tracks most of the way, down from Larkspur via Baltimore Park and Corte Madera to the edge of Sausalito, about where you need to start turning off for a climbing tunnel to the bridge. Putting those tracks back in shouldn't be much harder than putting them into San Rafael.

I would say to re-open the Fairfax/Manor/Point Reyes line while they were at it, but that's going a bit too far, don't you think?

Also, if my quick back-of-the-napkin looks at Google Maps Terrain are accurate, then it is possible to have a fully underground route under the Presidio, which is then a straightforward reach to the Transbay.



Amexpat said:


> Speaking of trains on bridges, how come train tracks weren't added to the East Bay Bridge when huge sums were used on the rebuilt? I know they used to have a street car on it years ago. Seems they could have either extended Caltrain to the East Bay or make a new BART line. The trans bay tube for BART is at capacity, so this should have been a cheaper solution than building a new tunnel for BART.


It was considered, and I believe that provision was left in, but the ten car lanes currently present are themselves at capacity, and rail would take away two lanes on the lower deck of the twin suspension bridges. :bash:


----------



## phoenixboi08

00Zy99 said:


> There is nothing that says that suspension bridges can't carry trains-the Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Williamsburg bridges do, as does the Seto-Ohashi in Japan. So long as you don't go running freight trains over it, I don't think that modifications would be too drastic.


 Right, if they're designed to carry the extra load. My point was only that I don't think the GG was designed as such, but I'm not entirely certain. 

The Verrazano has the same issue, I think.


----------



## SSMEX

Nexis said:


> Between the SMART DMUs and the Ebart DMUs and now the Kiss EMUs , the Bay Area is getting some sexy rolling stock..


It's pretty crazy that between 2016 and 2020, the Bay Area is getting SMART DMUs, eBart DMUs, Caltrain KISS EMUs, and new Bombardier EMUs for BART, not to mention new EMUs for the MUNI Metro. After 2020, with the exception of VTA Light Rail and Capitol Corridor/ACE, every trainset will be less than 4 years old.



fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ Yeah, I figured San Carlos. That would be a stretch for me to travel all the way to San Carlos from Novato just to attend a meeting (which I hope lasts for 2 hours), and I will have to fill up my time down in San Mateo County or San Jose before I head home.


I live way closer to San Carlos and I'd never even think about going to one of these meetings. i care enough to listen to some of the audio recording but honestly the information that would be interesting to a transit enthusiast is so sparse that I can't sit through it without fast forwarding. Driving more than two hours roundtrip? Unimaginable.


----------



## lunarwhite

SSMEX said:


> For what it's worth, it looks like the Caltrain EMU project has been awarded to Stadler US, Inc, presumably for their KISS bi-level EMUs. The last Board of Directors meeting indicated that a temporary award would be announced at next month's meeting (July 7) and the minutes for that upcoming meeting show a pending resolution for awarding of the contract.
> 
> I don't have enough posts to post a link but it can be found at caltrain [dot] com /about/bod/Board_of_Directors_Meeting_Calendar.html


Congratulations on your prediction. Here is the announcement from the International Railway Journal. 

http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...rification-and-emu-contracts.html?channel=535

BTW, posts to any SSC forum counts toward your 10 posts for linking privileges.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

SSMEX said:


> It's pretty crazy that between 2016 and 2020, the Bay Area is getting SMART DMUs, eBart DMUs, Caltrain KISS EMUs, and new Bombardier EMUs for BART, not to mention new EMUs for the MUNI Metro. After 2020, with the exception of VTA Light Rail and Capitol Corridor/ACE, every trainset will be less than 4 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live way closer to San Carlos and I'd never even think about going to one of these meetings. i care enough to listen to some of the audio recording but honestly the information that would be interesting to a transit enthusiast is so sparse that I can't sit through it without fast forwarding. Driving more than two hours roundtrip? Unimaginable.



That would be really amazing, wouldn't it? We can then host to some of the youngest train fleet in the nation, thanks to the efforts of millions who want to invest in better mass transit. :applause: And yes, we might become to envy of the rest of the counry in terms of having a more superb transit fleet... Perhaps we can ask Gillig to whip up new buses too and send them out to agencies like Muni, AC, VTA, County Connection, and Golden Gate to test them out.

I don't mind commuting long trips myself. In fact, from this Fall, I will be heading down San Jose way twice weekly for classes over at SJ State, meaning I might be able to attend the monthly Caltrain meetings when I can.


----------



## dimlys1994




----------



## Woonsocket54

*Warm Springs station construction - 2016.07.20*

This station has been under construction since 2009. Its opening has been subject to so many delays that most folks have forgotten about its existence.









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warm_Springs_BART_station_front_July_2016.jpg









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warm_Springs_BART_station_rear_July_2016.jpg


----------



## 00Zy99

How do you know people have forgotten about it? Please stop making baseless statements.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ I don't forget about Warm Springs BART; it will be opened really, really soon. It's just that BART also has to construct railways and stations further south of it too, including Milpitas/Great Mall and Berryessa. And by the way, the VTA will move the northern terminal of its Express services (Lines 120, 140, 180, and 181) from Fremont BART to that station once it opens full-time.


----------



## Woonsocket54

00Zy99 said:


> How do you know people have forgotten about it? Please stop making baseless statements.


It's not baseless.

It hasn't been in the news for months; nobody at SSC has posted about it for three months; there is no mention of it on BART's homepage.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ No mention of it does not necessarily mean there is no progress made at that station. Although this is encouraging news... from San Jose Mercury News:

*Roadshow: BART may start running to San Jose in late 2017*

This is an interesting article as it is written in a Q&A format.



> Q You recently stated that BART will be going to San Jose next year. I find that hard to believe when the Warm Springs station in Fremont is not yet open. The original date for Warm Springs was supposed to be last November. Can we really expect BART to San Jose by next year?
> 
> Rudy Van Pelt
> 
> Fremont
> 
> A That's what the Valley Transportation Authority insists, even though its website lists 2018. In the next couple of months the tracks will be energized and then testing will begin. As for Warm Springs, BART says that extension will open this fall after more testing -- a message we've been hearing for far too long.
> 
> Q What's the plan for folks on Highway 101 to get to the new Berryessa BART station? From what I observe one would take the Oakland Road exit to Berryessa Road, but that's a huge mess on a normal day.
> 
> Dennis S.
> 
> San Jose
> 
> A Most likely, you'll take the McKee Road exit off 101, though most regional traffic will take I-680 to Berryessa Road. The new station will include Berryessa Station Way, which will provide access from Berryessa and Mabury roads.


If you really want to talk about the Warm Springs extension, you might want to contact the VTA directly.


----------



## Woonsocket54

So this is a VTA rail line that is interlined with BART and marketed as BART? Who exactly is in charge?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ Let's put it this way: BART will operate the tracks per usual as it will use its own trains and extend the Indian gauge tracks. However, funding for the Santa Clara County section of BART is financed by the Santa Clara VTA as the county is *not* a member of the BART Board of Supervisors. Therefore, for BART to operate to Santa Clara County, it must collaborate with the Santa Clara VTA so that both can discuss track alignments, station developments, and transit connections, not to mention potential congestion as the VTA manages nearly everything infrastructure in the county. Essentially, the trackage belongs to BART, while the transit and funding components will be provided by the VTA.


----------



## dimlys1994

Transbay Center construction, 1st August:
https://www.facebook.com/Transbay-Transit-Center-Project-211301050057/


----------



## subbotazh

*Muni to add bigger buses to 5-Fulton rapid route*

Bigger, longer, accordion-style electric trolley buses are coming to Muni’s 5-Fulton rapid line starting Aug. 15.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency said it is switching out the 40-foot electric trolleys — which currently serve the 5R-Fulton — with 60-footers to deal with overcrowding on the route. The current daily average ridership is 11,000, said SFMTA spokesman Paul Rose.

Rose said the transit agency will add six to eight 60-foot electric trolleys to the route depending on the schedule. Each bus will be able to accommodate up to 112 additional riders.

Service on the 5R-Fulton route began in late 2013. The route has reduced travel time by 9 percent and boosted ridership by 17 percent, but crowding remains an issue despite adding more buses to the route last year, the transit agency said.

Transit officials in May just recently ordered more of the 60-foot electric trolley buses from New Flyer of America Inc. John Haley, director of transit, said last month that the transit agency plans to replace the entire rubber-tire fleet by 2019.

So far, the transit agency retired 129 buses, and plans to retire another 196 buses by the end of the year, said Haley.

Other improvements rolling out later this fall on the 5R route includes traffic signals, traffic circles and pedestrian improvements on Fulton and McAllister streets between Cole and Larkin streets. The improvements are part of the 5-Fulton Rapid Project.

Another improvement arrives Aug. 13 with a new southbound contraflow lane on Sansome Street from Broadway to Washington. The section of Sansome is currently one-way in the northbound direction.

The transit agency said the change will give the 10-Townsend and 12-Folsom/Pacific a more direct route, eliminating the current need to detour around the street. Taxis, commercial and emergency vehicles will also be able to use the southbound lane.

Muni riders are expected to save up to three minutes of their trip in the southbound direction.

Both the 5R-Fulton and Sansome Street projects are both part of the transit agency’s Muni Forward project, which aims at improving Muni’s reliability citywide.

https://sfbay.ca/2016/08/02/muni-to-add-bigger-buses-to-5-fulton-rapid-route/


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ Ummm... that's not the bus type that will be used for the "expanded" 5R-Fulton Rapid. It will be these:


IMG_3941 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_3946 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​
The 65xx and 67xx buses are primarily used on the:

- 8-Bayshore (and its companions, the 8AX and 8BX)
- 14R-Mission Rapid
- 38-Geary
- 38R-Geary Rapid
- 49-Van Ness/Mission

And that would be a massive upgrade from this bus type:


IMG_3924 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​


----------



## fieldsofdreams

All right, folks... here's an exclusive from yours truly:

I went today to a press conference regarding San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener's plan to expand the *All Nighter* bus service, in which he got the support of Mayor Ed Lee, AC Transit Board of Directors President Charles Pippens, and the transit operators currently participating in the program, namely:

- San Francisco Muni
- AC Transit
- BART
- SamTrans
- Golden Gate Transit

Sorry if I started the video a bit late since I wasn't aware that the mayor started talking while I was taking a few more pics, but you get the gist of Ed Lee's enthusiasm to expand the All Nighter bus service very soon (taken using my Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge):






In the background, you get to see:

- AC Transit's newest bus type, the Gillig LF40 Hybrid (1556)
- San Francisco Muni New Flyer Xcelsior XDE40 (8742)
- Golden Gate Transit Orion V (1555)


----------



## Tågälskaren

*SF public invited to help shape future of city subways*

Everybody’s got an idea of how to improve transportation in San Francisco, and starting Thursday, they’ll get a chance to draw a picture of their vision for city planners, beginning with where they want to see future subways[...]


----------



## phoenixboi08

Stupid question here, but why couldn't BART simply be converted to standard gauge - along with any ancillary technical changes necessary - and merged with CalTrain?

I'd be satisfied if I just knew definitively if this was more a cost (and logistical) issue than something else. It's a curiosity to me.


----------



## MrAronymous

Well merging with Caltrain is a no-go becuase ground power supply doesn't mix well with level crossings. Level crossings are to be avoided with any metro-style system anyway because of reliability and safety issues.


----------



## 00Zy99

Then there's the clearances. BART is very low-slung and wide in comparison to anything else.

The tunnels are designed around that clearance. 

So you not only need to re-gauge many many miles of track without disrupting service, you also need to rebore the tunnels.

Then there's issue with BART being high-voltage DC, while Caltrain is going for AC.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

MrAronymous said:


> Well merging with Caltrain is a no-go becuase ground power supply doesn't mix well with level crossings. Level crossings are to be avoided with any metro-style system anyway because of reliability and safety issues.


If railway crossings cannot be avoided, what if we emulate those found in Japan, especially with JR on the Chuo and Tokaido Lines and Keikyu on the Main Line, for Caltrain? Those lines have everything you can think of: overpass, underpass, surface crossings, and everything in between.

As for the HSR, however, it requires no level crossings at all to achieve high speeds.



00Zy99 said:


> Then there's the clearances. BART is very low-slung and wide in comparison to anything else.
> 
> The tunnels are designed around that clearance.
> 
> So you not only need to re-gauge many many miles of track without disrupting service, you also need to rebore the tunnels.
> 
> Then there's issue with BART being high-voltage DC, while Caltrain is going for AC.


Those are so true. BART, with its unique characteristics, require special equipment and wide rail tracks to achieve its intended goals. We definitely need that second Transbay bore to finally allow round-the-clock BART service.


----------



## MrAronymous

Look, anything is possible if you throw enough money at it, but I was simply answering your question.


----------



## Tramwayman

Is there any new streetcar (or surface light rail) lines expected to be built?
As well are any bus routes converted to trolley service using overhead wiring not batteries.


----------



## 00Zy99

There are plans for the E-Embarcadero to be extended at both ends. And the Central Subway may surface beyond Chinatown and run on the surface to Fisherman's Wharf. Another branch of the Muni Metro may run out Geary Street, surfacing once beyond the worst traffic.

There may be reroutes and modifications to existing trackless trolley routes, and new routes may be created mostly using various existing lines. However, major expansion of the wires is unlikely. 

Look on the MUNI website for other proposed surface line expansions.


----------



## Tramwayman

00Zy99 said:


> There are plans for the E-Embarcadero to be extended at both ends. And the Central Subway may surface beyond Chinatown and run on the surface to Fisherman's Wharf. Another branch of the Muni Metro may run out Geary Street, surfacing once beyond the worst traffic.
> 
> There may be reroutes and modifications to existing trackless trolley routes, and new routes may be created mostly using various existing lines. However, major expansion of the wires is unlikely.
> 
> Look on the MUNI website for other proposed surface line expansions.


Thank you :cheers:


----------



## SSMEX

Does anybody know why Muni chooses to keep the traditional streetcars rather than replacing them with modern light rail or streetcar vehicles?

I was up in SF last weekend and the best way to get from 5th/Market to Fisherman's Wharf was the F line. The trip there was on a bus, interestingly, and the trip back was in one of those old streetcars.

Considering that Muni also operates a fleet of largely at-grade light rail vehicles, how come they're keeping the old "historic" streetcars?


----------



## etooley1985

The Muni is underground on Market Street, but goes south after Folsom. The vintage trolley is above ground on Market Street, but has a different route after Market street and goes to the Wharf. It's a slow but pretty ride, if you avoid the crazies. Muni should be extended to the Wharf.



SSMEX said:


> Does anybody know why Muni chooses to keep the traditional streetcars rather than replacing them with modern light rail or streetcar vehicles?
> 
> I was up in SF last weekend and the best way to get from 5th/Market to Fisherman's Wharf was the F line. The trip there was on a bus, interestingly, and the trip back was in one of those old streetcars.
> 
> Considering that Muni also operates a fleet of largely at-grade light rail vehicles, how come they're keeping the old "historic" streetcars?


----------



## Tramwayman

SSMEX said:


> Does anybody know why Muni chooses to keep the traditional streetcars rather than replacing them with modern light rail or streetcar vehicles?
> 
> I was up in SF last weekend and the best way to get from 5th/Market to Fisherman's Wharf was the F line. The trip there was on a bus, interestingly, and the trip back was in one of those old streetcars.
> 
> Considering that Muni also operates a fleet of largely at-grade light rail vehicles, how come they're keeping the old "historic" streetcars?


Historical iconic streetcars. Nostalgic lines operating vintage cars, that is why they keep them like cable car tram.


----------



## SSMEX

etooley1985 said:


> The Muni is underground on Market Street, but goes south after Folsom. The vintage trolley is above ground on Market Street, but has a different route after Market street and goes to the Wharf. It's a slow but pretty ride, if you avoid the crazies. Muni should be extended to the Wharf.


Definitely agree that the Muni Metro should go to the Wharf.



Tramwayman said:


> Historical iconic streetcars. Nostalgic lines operating vintage cars, that is why they keep them like cable car tram.


I get the nostalgic reasons, but the difference between this and the cable cars is that the cable cars can't easily be adapted to something different (track gauge, insane grade, no catenary, etc) whereas the streetcar lines can be run with modern LRVs with almost no modification. Nostalgic reminders are quaint and nice, but not when they compromise quality of transportation.

A high frequency route covering Market and the Embarcadero up to the Wharf using longer and modern LRVs would be an amazing addition to the rail transit system in SF.


----------



## phoenixboi08

SSMEX said:


> Does anybody know why Muni chooses to keep the traditional streetcars rather than replacing them with modern light rail or streetcar vehicles?
> 
> I was up in SF last weekend and the best way to get from 5th/Market to Fisherman's Wharf was the F line. The trip there was on a bus, interestingly, and the trip back was in one of those old streetcars.
> 
> Considering that Muni also operates a fleet of largely at-grade light rail vehicles, how come they're keeping the old "historic" streetcars?


My guess would be that, similarly to New Orleans', those cars/lines are registered landmarks...it'd probably be a headache or nearly impossible to replace them. Even though I agree they should.


----------



## jchernin

The heritage lines generally are used more by tourists. Locals avoid the Wharf like the plague. Many avoid the Embarcadero (including the Ferry Building) as well. The heavily used lines used by residents are equipped with modern LRVs.


----------



## lightrail

SSMEX said:


> Definitely agree that the Muni Metro should go to the Wharf.
> 
> 
> 
> I get the nostalgic reasons, but the difference between this and the cable cars is that the cable cars can't easily be adapted to something different (track gauge, insane grade, no catenary, etc) whereas the streetcar lines can be run with modern LRVs with almost no modification. Nostalgic reminders are quaint and nice, but not when they compromise quality of transportation.
> 
> A high frequency route covering Market and the Embarcadero up to the Wharf using longer and modern LRVs would be an amazing addition to the rail transit system in SF.


Part of the reason may be that on Market Street the old streetcars share the overhead wires with the trolley buses. If you look carefully, the trolley pole picks up power from the positive trolley wire (with negative ground through the rails). Modern LRVs use pantographs. If you tried to use a pantograph on the shared wire it would short out by touching the negative trolley wire as well as the positive.

There's nothing historic in regards to San Francisco about the streetcars - they're all brought in from other cities. only a few, if any, actually previously ran in San Francisco


----------



## 00Zy99

Actually, about a dozen ran in San Francisco originally.

http://sfmsr.wpengine.com/streetcars/

http://sfmsr.wpengine.com/streetcarroster/


----------



## jay stew




----------



## fieldsofdreams

SSMEX said:


> Does anybody know why Muni chooses to keep the traditional streetcars rather than replacing them with modern light rail or streetcar vehicles?
> 
> I was up in SF last weekend and the best way to get from 5th/Market to Fisherman's Wharf was the F line. The trip there was on a bus, interestingly, and the trip back was in one of those old streetcars.
> 
> Considering that Muni also operates a fleet of largely at-grade light rail vehicles, how come they're keeping the old "historic" streetcars?


I can provide a clearer answer:

There are actually multiple types of streetcars, all of which, coincidentally, use the same standard rail gauge:

- Cable cars (the only system in operation left in North America)
- Historic streetcars (many of which were "imported" from other cities during the Heritage Streetcar festival after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake)
- Modern streetcars (made in Italy, for Muni Metro)

The traditional streetcars are there because it brings the nostalgia of a bygone era when San Francisco had multiple streetcar lines (lettered A to R), and it reminds residents and visitors of a long lost past when streetcars ruled the Bay Bridge before the Interstate Highway System was adopted in 1956. The connections between San Francisco Municipal Railway and the Key System (which did Transbay crossings) are pretty deep, in that the two complemented one another in providing streetcar services on both sides of the Bay.

Actually, for a local like yours truly, I know other ways to get to Fisherman's Wharf from 5th & Market:

- 8-Bayshore from Kearny & Geary (go to the last stop)
- 30-Stockton from Kearny & Geary (best if you wanna start from Ghirardelli Square at N Point & Larkin)
- Powell/Hyde Cable Car (this may be pricey but tourists line up in droves)

Other transit options serving Fisherman's Wharf include:

- E-Embarcadero (streetcar line between Fisherman's Wharf and Caltrain Depot)
- 39-Coit (brings you to Coit Tower)
- 47-Van Ness (brings you to Caltrain Depot via Van Ness Avenue, City Hall, and Market Street)

And by the way, some of the original historic streetcars that ran around San Francisco are the ones with double-ended doors (1005, 1006, 1007, 1011)... go to www.streetcar.org to learn more about them.


----------



## SSMEX

lightrail said:


> Part of the reason may be that on Market Street the old streetcars share the overhead wires with the trolley buses. If you look carefully, the trolley pole picks up power from the positive trolley wire (with negative ground through the rails). Modern LRVs use pantographs. If you tried to use a pantograph on the shared wire it would short out by touching the negative trolley wire as well as the positive.
> 
> There's nothing historic in regards to San Francisco about the streetcars - they're all brought in from other cities. only a few, if any, actually previously ran in San Francisco





fieldsofdreams said:


> The traditional streetcars are there because it brings the nostalgia of a bygone era when San Francisco had multiple streetcar lines (lettered A to R), and it reminds residents and visitors of a long lost past when streetcars ruled the Bay Bridge before the Interstate Highway System was adopted in 1956. The connections between San Francisco Municipal Railway and the Key System (which did Transbay crossings) are pretty deep, in that the two complemented one another in providing streetcar services on both sides of the Bay.


This brings up an interesting dilemma. There should be no question that modern LRVs are smoother, quieter, more comfortable, and more reliable than historic streetcars. At what point do we forgo the nostalgic value of transportation for a more modern alternative? Why should a few key lines running on critical corridors be stuck in the 1930s when we could modernize them without huge changes (the pantograph/trolley bus issue notwithstanding)?

If it were up to me, I feel like the cable car service is already sufficient as a tourist attraction/landmark and the streetcars should be modernized. I'm sure even tourists would appreciate a better way of getting to the Wharf.


----------



## nxy

SSMEX said:


> This brings up an interesting dilemma. There should be no question that modern LRVs are smoother, quieter, more comfortable, and more reliable than historic streetcars. At what point do we forgo the nostalgic value of transportation for a more modern alternative? Why should a few key lines running on critical corridors be stuck in the 1930s when we could modernize them without huge changes (the pantograph/trolley bus issue notwithstanding)?
> 
> If it were up to me, I feel like the cable car service is already sufficient as a tourist attraction/landmark and the streetcars should be modernized. I'm sure even tourists would appreciate a better way of getting to the Wharf.


There is definitely a better option for getting to the warf:

https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default...-14 Item 15 T-Third Phase 3 Concept Study.pdf

If only the funds were limitless.

Personally, I think the historic streetcars are very important for the feel and culture of the city. I think they can also be run in parallel with more modern systems. You already see this where the N and T lines share the historic streetcar tracks and you'll see buses taking some of the load on the F line.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

SSMEX said:


> This brings up an interesting dilemma. There should be no question that modern LRVs are smoother, quieter, more comfortable, and more reliable than historic streetcars. At what point do we forgo the nostalgic value of transportation for a more modern alternative? Why should a few key lines running on critical corridors be stuck in the 1930s when we could modernize them without huge changes (the pantograph/trolley bus issue notwithstanding)?
> 
> If it were up to me, I feel like the cable car service is already sufficient as a tourist attraction/landmark and the streetcars should be modernized. I'm sure even tourists would appreciate a better way of getting to the Wharf.


The thing with Market Street is, it acts as the Main Street of San Francisco. It gives visitors their lasting impressions of the City by the Bay, so we invest so much time and energy in making it as vibrant and accessible as possible. At the same time, since that's where a high concentration of businesses and high-end shops are located, we have to accommodate everything on that corridor to give that sense of juxtaposition between the past and the present. Heck, the F-Market streetcar essentially duplicates with Muni Metro underground between Embarcadero and Castro stations for crying out loud... and the closest bus equivalent to that duplication would be the 7-Haight/Noriega.




nxy said:


> There is definitely a better option for getting to the warf:
> 
> https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default...-14 Item 15 T-Third Phase 3 Concept Study.pdf
> 
> If only the funds were limitless.
> 
> Personally, I think the historic streetcars are very important for the feel and culture of the city. I think they can also be run in parallel with more modern systems. You already see this where the N and T lines share the historic streetcar tracks and you'll see buses taking some of the load on the F line.


That's so true. We are even considering extending the historic streetcar line to Fort Mason in the Marina District in the long run using a disused tunnel. I am crossing fingers that that plan will materialize soon.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...co-muni-s200-vehicles-nearing-completion.html
> 
> *First San Francisco Muni S200 vehicles nearing completion*
> 30 Aug 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA: San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency officials visited Siemens’ plant in Sacramento on August 29 to look at the first of 215 light rail vehicles that Siemens is building for the city’s Muni network. The first vehicle is due to arrive in San Francisco for testing in December.
> 
> SFMTA signed a $648m contract in September 2014 for 175 LRVs with options for up to 85 more, and subsequently called off options for 40 in June 2015. Siemens says that this is its largest ever US LRV order
> 
> ...


----------



## 00Zy99

fieldsofdreams said:


> I can provide a clearer answer:
> 
> There are actually multiple types of streetcars, all of which, coincidentally, use the same standard rail gauge:
> 
> - Cable cars (the only system in operation left in North America)
> - Historic streetcars (many of which were "imported" from other cities during the Heritage Streetcar festival after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake)
> - Modern streetcars (made in Italy, for Muni Metro)
> 
> The traditional streetcars are there because it brings the nostalgia of a bygone era when San Francisco had multiple streetcar lines (lettered A to R), and it reminds residents and visitors of a long lost past when streetcars ruled the Bay Bridge before the Interstate Highway System was adopted in 1956. The connections between San Francisco Municipal Railway and the Key System (which did Transbay crossings) are pretty deep, in that the two complemented one another in providing streetcar services on both sides of the Bay.
> 
> Actually, for a local like yours truly, I know other ways to get to Fisherman's Wharf from 5th & Market:
> 
> - 8-Bayshore from Kearny & Geary (go to the last stop)
> - 30-Stockton from Kearny & Geary (best if you wanna start from Ghirardelli Square at N Point & Larkin)
> - Powell/Hyde Cable Car (this may be pricey but tourists line up in droves)
> 
> Other transit options serving Fisherman's Wharf include:
> 
> - E-Embarcadero (streetcar line between Fisherman's Wharf and Caltrain Depot)
> - 39-Coit (brings you to Coit Tower)
> - 47-Van Ness (brings you to Caltrain Depot via Van Ness Avenue, City Hall, and Market Street)
> 
> And by the way, some of the original historic streetcars that ran around San Francisco are the ones with double-ended doors (1005, 1006, 1007, 1011)... go to www.streetcar.org to learn more about them.


I feel I should note that the surviving cable car lines are actually 3' gauge. All of the standard gauge cable cars are long gone.

BTW-I'm looking for an old map showing the entire MUNI rail network. Does anyone have a copy?



nxy said:


> There is definitely a better option for getting to the warf:
> 
> https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default...-14 Item 15 T-Third Phase 3 Concept Study.pdf
> 
> If only the funds were limitless.
> 
> Personally, I think the historic streetcars are very important for the feel and culture of the city. I think they can also be run in parallel with more modern systems. You already see this where the N and T lines share the historic streetcar tracks and you'll see buses taking some of the load on the F line.


Hopefully, we'll see that soon.


----------



## moon993

http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/BART_Summer2016_BRO.pdf

VTA released a newsletter regarding the Bart Silicon Valley extension


----------



## Woonsocket54

Construction on a new northern entrance to the Santa Clara, California railway station (served by Caltrain, Amtrak and Altamont Commuter Express) begins 2016.11.02. Improved access will be provided to San Jose Earthquakes soccer stadium.










http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/C...a-Clara-Caltrain-Undercrossing-Breaks-Ground#

Update on San Jose, California bus rapid transit:

http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/C...Transit-16-Stations-Down-4-To-Go#.WAlK0dUrK70


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ That development is great, especially that it will give soccer fans an option to walk to Avaya Stadium some 10 minutes away by bus on VTA's Line 10 (a free service too). And it will allow potential development on the opposite side of the station where there's quite a lot of building opportunities... the area north of the station is quite a large brownfield.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Update on potential BRT on Geary Boulevard in San Francisco.

https://www.sfmta.com/about-sfmta/blog/what’s-next-geary-bus-rapid-transit


----------



## Woonsocket54

*Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley area) transit tax referendum*



> Transportation tax Measure B won by a larger margin. It has garnered 70.96 percent of the vote as of Wednesday afternoon with all precincts reporting. It will impose a half-cent sales tax to fund an estimated $6.5 billion in transit upgrades through the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which will administer the monies countywide. About $1.5 billion would be dedicated to a BART extension to San Jose; about $900 million would be spent by Caltrain for the "grade separation" of roads from the railway; $1.2 billion would go to expressway, bicycle and pedestrian improvements and local street upgrades.


http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/11/09/measure-b--winning-measure-a-just-squeaking-by


----------



## Woonsocket54

Voters in the San Francisco Bay area approved a bond that will be used to raise funds for BART maintenance

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/11/09/bart-bond-measure-rr-approved-infrastructure/



> *Voters Approve Measure RR, $3.5 Billion BART Bond*
> November 9, 2016 6:13 AM
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) – Voters in San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties voted Tuesday to pass Measure RR, a $3.5 billion regional bond measure to help improve BART’s transit infrastructure.
> 
> The measure required a two-thirds majority to pass. San Francisco voters passed it with 81.1 percent of the vote, and Alameda County voters passed it with 70.8 percent. Only 59.5 percent of Contra Costa County voters approved the measure, but voters throughout the three counties passed the measure with 70.1 percent.
> 
> Infrastructure to be improved includes 90 miles of severely worn tracks, water-damaged tunnels and 44-year-old train control systems, among other projects.
> 
> . . .


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*BART Ridership Dips For The First Time In Six Years, Budget Will Be Trimmed*"

http://sfist.com/2016/11/18/bart_ridership_down_for_the_first_t.php


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ That will not discount the fact, though, that it will invest billions of dollars in replacing all of its existing fleet while expanding its capacity at the same time to reach nearly 1,100 vehciles.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Berryessa BART Station is Taking Shape!*"

http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/C...ssa-BART-Station-is-Taking-Shape#.WDS3T9UrK70


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*BART plans to ease overcrowding by removing some seats*"

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...-by-removing-some-10689558.php#photo-11894010









Edward Evenson (right) rides in a BART car modified with single seats to ease congestion. Photo: Santiago Mejia, The Chronicle


----------



## bighomey3000

*Fremont: Warm Springs BART station now likely won’t open until next year
*










FREMONT — With only four weeks left this year, it’s beginning to look like the new Warm Springs/South Fremont BART station isn’t going to open until 2017 despite earlier predictions that the project was on track to open before November after a series of delays.

BART officials acknowledged this week they still can’t nail down an opening date for the new station.

Article: http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/12/01/fremont-warm-springs-bart-station-now-likely-wont-open-until-next-year/


Will Warm Springs delay the opening of Berryessa? What a joke


----------



## Woonsocket54

Woonsocket54 said:


> Construction on a new northern entrance to the Santa Clara, California railway station (served by Caltrain, Amtrak and Altamont Commuter Express) begins 2016.11.02. Improved access will be provided to San Jose Earthquakes soccer stadium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/C...a-Clara-Caltrain-Undercrossing-Breaks-Ground#


photos:




























http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/Connect-with-VTA/Santa-Clara-Undercrossing-Update#


----------



## dimlys1994

December update of Central Subway construction:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/municentralsubway/


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*BART's Ancient Computer Systems Are Holding Up Opening Of New Warm Springs/South Fremont Station*"

http://sfist.com/2016/12/22/barts_ancient_computer_systems_are.php


----------



## Woonsocket54

San Jose, California transit authority has a new logo.



















http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/Connect-with-VTA/This-is-VTA-Solutions-that-Move-You#

On 2017.04.10, expanded BRT service will be introduced in San Jose on bus 522.

http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/Connect-with-VTA/BRT-is-on-the-Way#.WG2mKVUrK72


----------



## Woonsocket54

San Jose, California transit authority has proposed to color-code its light rail lines.

They will be known as Green, Blue, Purple, Orange and Yellow.

Orange Line will be a new routing from Mountain View to Alum Rock, using existing tracks. It will be the sole line serving Mountain View as the Green Line is proposed to terminate at Old Ironsides station in Santa Clara.

Yellow Line is the current express routing from Santa Teresa in South San Jose to Baypointe in North San Jose. The proposal is to terminate Yellow Line at Saint James station downtown instead - no more service to the north side of town.

All lines except Yellow Line will run every 15 minutes all day seven days per week.










http://nextnetwork.vta.org/light-rail

Plan is scheduled to be implemented fall 2017.

http://nextnetwork.vta.org/


----------



## Woonsocket54

After Berryessa BART station opens near downtown San Jose, service from the station to downtown will be supplied by bus Rapid 500, which will replace the downtown "DASH" shuttle. Frequency will be every 8 minutes during weekdays peak, every 15 minutes during week-days mid-day and Saturdays, and every 20 minutes on Sundays.










http://nextnetwork.vta.org/route-dash-500


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ I've actually attended that meeting in San Jose last Thursday wherein the Valley Transportation Authority approved the Draft System Map for the agency's Next Network program. A gist of it I can describe as follows:

Right now, it operates with a 70% frequency, 30% coverage service. However, the agency has a deficit running between $20 and $25 million, and its farebox recovery ratio (2015) stands at a dismal 11%. The VTA then resolved to address those key issues by bringing in famed transportation planner and author of Human Transit, Jarrett Walker, to develop the Next Network program in an aim to improve ridership on the busiest lines while trimming down unproductive services. Before Thursday, riders and residents were given the following scenarios:

- Keep the network as is at 70% frequency, 30% coverage
- 80% frequency, 20% coverage
- 90% frequency, 10% coverage

I personally recall answering a 80%-20% combination, especially one of my goals is to maintain some community bus lines in the neighborhoods and convert them into neighborhood circulators. However, as a result of extensive surveys and studies, Walker and the VTA went for a bolder 85%-15% combination, which would mean 50% of the coverage would be cut, resulting in a potential elimination of most community bus lines. However, that would mean bolstered frequencies on the busiest lines in the Valley, including Lines 22, 23, 66, 68, and 77, among others. And it also takes into account future connections at Milpitas BART and Berryessa BART, in which the VTA looks at adding Rapid services out of the latter station (Lines 500 and 523).

You can go ask me any more questions about that proposal since I have direct contacts with the Planning Department at the VTA, and I will do my best to post any replies from them as soon as possible.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Here's something I haven't done for a while: posting my own transit photos.

A six-car BART train for Richmond at Fruitvale BART


20170105150049__MG_3729 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​


----------



## 00Zy99

Been a while since I saw an A car, let alone one so clean and shiny.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ Both ends of that train are A cars. :yes: For some reason, Richmond trains have an A car on either end of a train set... sometimes found on trains coming out of Concord, but rarely out of Hayward (where you get trains for Dublin/Pleasanton).


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Enjoy this while it lasts... the VTA has debuted a new livery, which I despise.

VTA light rail, old livery, bound for Santa Teresa at Civic Center LR


IMG_3958 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​


----------



## Woonsocket54

The whole "70% frequency, 30% coverage service" is a very abstract point that is difficult to understand. I had trouble comprehending those aspects of Jarrett's slide deck (maybe it is intended towards transit planners and not the general public).


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Okay, let me describe it in layman's terms. Let's pretend we have a total of 20 buses in your fleet (with 5 additional, spare buses on standby if anything happens)...

*70% frequency, 30% coverage*
In this setup, you will need to allocate around 12 to 14 buses for peak-hour services on the busier lines, with the remainder (6 to 8) being used for neighborhood circulation.

*85% frequency, 15% coverage*
In this setup, you will have to up the game for providing service on the busier lines -- up to 17 buses -- to keep with demand. As a consequence, fewer buses (3) will be used for neighborhood circulation.

As you can see, with fewer buses for neighborhood circulation in the 85-15 setup (versus 70-30), you will eventually have to reduce services by either shortening operating times or eliminating (sections of or full) lines altogether.

This also ties to the question of transit planners and operators: would you rather have straight line services or meandering lines through communities? Let me describe this in an illustration:








Source

Basically, the straighter a transit line, you have the following advantages:

- Better predictability from an operator's and rider's point-of-view, time-wise
- Minimizes number of turns necessary to serve nearby attractions that can also be accessed by alternative means (walking or biking)
- More opportunities for developers to develop structures close to the transit line (through incentives)

Some of the downsides include:

- Issues with accessibility, especially for seniors and persons with disabilities, who may have to walk longer to get to a bus stop
- Less opportunities for flexible service, especially if a particular attraction of importance is located slightly away from the supposed straight route
- If buses speed up along the corridor, the higher the incidence of bus bunching could occur

On the other hand, providing ample coverage is great if you have a suburban community where roads do not provide through routes parallel to one another. Aside from the downside of lower frequencies (above), the other downsides of coverage service include:

- More turns could inhibit the use of longer buses, especially if a corridor gets quite a lot of demand
- There will be areas where ridership can be so low, it may not be cost-beneficial to operate a bus through such neighborhoods
- Circuitous routing can make the ride longer than necessary, especially if the relative distance is much shorter if done in a straighter manner


----------



## dimlys1994

San Francisco MTA to unveil first Siemens railcar today:
http://www.metro-magazine.com/rail/...70104&utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Enewsletter
https://twitter.com/siemensusa/status/819635164821078016


----------



## dimlys1994

From San Francisco Examiner

http://www.sfexaminer.com/first-train-munis-new-fleet-unveiled-set-debut-summer/

*First train from Muni’s new fleet unveiled, set to debut by summer*
January 15, 2017 2:19 pm



















San Franciscans will be able to enjoy brand new light rail vehicles later this year, when the San Francisco Municipal Railway is set to debut it’s fleet of state-of-the-art trains, Muni officials announced today.

During a preview at the Muni Metro East Maintenance Facility, located at 601 25th St., Muni officials along with Board of Supervisors President London Breed unveiled a train from the new fleet

...


----------



## austrian

..before I even read that these are made by Siemens, I was totally like "oh, the color scheme reminds me very much of our Siemens subway here in Vienna, Austria (so called "V-Zug")

Looks nice


----------



## 00Zy99

The paint scheme is derived from the original MUNI paint scheme:

http://www.streetcar.org/streetcars/1-1-muni-1912/


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Extension to Warm Springs BART still months away from possible completion*"

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...n-to-warm-springs-bart-still-months-away.html


----------



## moon993

...and speaking of BART, new update for Silicon Valley extension
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gya75feW36M


----------



## fieldsofdreams

dimlys1994 said:


> From San Francisco Examiner
> 
> http://www.sfexaminer.com/first-train-munis-new-fleet-unveiled-set-debut-summer/
> 
> *First train from Muni’s new fleet unveiled, set to debut by summer*
> January 15, 2017 2:19 pm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Franciscans will be able to enjoy brand new light rail vehicles later this year, when the San Francisco Municipal Railway is set to debut it’s fleet of state-of-the-art trains, Muni officials announced today.
> 
> During a preview at the Muni Metro East Maintenance Facility, located at 601 25th St., Muni officials along with Board of Supervisors President London Breed unveiled a train from the new fleet
> 
> ...


I hope I will get a ride on it while it is being tested so that I will get a feel for that new light rail vehicle. And oh, it now features the next generation Clipper card reader too!


----------



## skyfann

It looks good


----------



## Woonsocket54

The latest chapter in the Warm Springs saga....

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...y-of-staffers-at-station-with-no-10926575.php

*BART has plenty of staffers at station with no trains or riders*


----------



## jchernin

A setback for Caltrain electrification and Peninsula HSR



> *U.S. Department of Transportation puts off OK of key $647-million grant related to California's bullet train*
> Feb 17, 2017 1pm
> By Ralph Vartabedian
> 
> 
> The U.S. Department of Transportation has deferred a decision on a $647-million grant that would help Caltrain electrify a section of track between San Jose and San Francisco, a project crucial to California’s struggling high-speed rail project.
> 
> *The decision not to approve the grant by a key Friday deadline may be an early sign of the Trump administration's view of the bullet train project.* The line is already under construction and will need significant federal funding moving forward.
> 
> ...
> 
> Caltrain requested the federal money as part of a $2-billion project to replace diesel locomotives with electric trains. The electrification is important to the high-speed rail project because its trains would eventually use the same tracks and electrical system.


http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lanow-train-grant-20170217-story.html

:down:


----------



## 00Zy99

Like I said.

What it SAYS and what it DOES are two very different things.


----------



## Woonsocket54

^^ needs to be moved to the Northern California Commuter Rail thread


----------



## 00Zy99

Its a form of public transport.

Its in the Bay Area.

Its okay here.


----------



## jchernin

Woonsocket54 said:


> ^^ needs to be moved to the Northern California Commuter Rail thread


Your obsession with keeping commuter rail out of this thread is getting old. While I appreciate your contributions, we would appreciate if you stop telling us how we should have our thread organized from the other side of the country. Feel free to repost the article in the commuter rail thread, but the fact is, this is the main transportation thread that we would like to use. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

I will have the last say...

CA HSR through the Bay Area is an integral part of the region's transportation network. In fact, it is highly encouraged to share that depressing report here since Caltrain and CA HSR will essentially share tracks along the current Caltrain corridor between Gilroy and San Francisco. So, it's my decision that the report stays here.

If you have any more concerns, please let me know.


----------



## Slartibartfas

00Zy99 said:


> The paint scheme is derived from the original MUNI paint scheme:
> 
> http://www.streetcar.org/streetcars/1-1-muni-1912/


Interesting, I have to agree with austrian however that the paint scheme reminds one of the modern Viennese PT interior colour scheme. 

See here: http://nahverkehr.wien/fahrzeuge/images/v/10.jpg


----------



## 00Zy99

fieldsofdreams said:


> I will have the last say...
> 
> CA HSR through the Bay Area is an integral part of the region's transportation network. In fact, it is highly encouraged to share that depressing report here since Caltrain and CA HSR will essentially share tracks along the current Caltrain corridor between Gilroy and San Francisco. So, it's my decision that the report stays here.
> 
> If you have any more concerns, please let me know.


I wasn't even thinking about CA HSR (and I don't think Woony was either). I was thinking about Caltrain.



Slartibartfas said:


> Interesting, I have to agree with austrian however that the paint scheme reminds one of the modern Viennese PT interior colour scheme.
> 
> See here: http://nahverkehr.wien/fahrzeuge/images/v/10.jpg


Even if its designed in Germany, why would a car made in Sacramento for service in San Francisco derive its paint from Austria (which is not Germany)?

Its also similar to the paint scheme used on the Breda cars that are being replaced.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ But then, Caltrain will eventually have to share rail trackage rights with CA HSR since the former already has the tracks. And yet, one of the key steps in electrifying and upgrading Caltrain into a high-speed rail line has been put on hold by the Trump government, hence the concern.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...-seeks-to-save-electrification-programme.html

*Deadlines extended as Caltrain seeks to save electrification programme*
28 Feb 2017










USA: San Francisco to San Jose commuter operator Caltrain announced on February 27 that it had reached agreement with contractors Balfour Beatty and Stadler to extend the contractual deadlines for start of work on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project.

Caltrain had been expected to issue ‘Notice to Proceed’ for both contracts by March 1, subject to confirmation of federal funding for the work. The delay to June 30 is designed to allow a decision to be made by the Federal Transit Administration on implementation of a $647m funding agreement. On February 17, FTA had announced that execution of the grant would be delayed until President Trump finalises his budget proposal to Congress

...


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ Speaking of Caltrain, due to major track works, including:

- Grade separation in San Mateo (25th Street)
- Rehabilitation of Los Gatos Bridge
- Rehabilitation at and around South San Francisco Station

Caltrain will significantly adjust its schedules, with weekend schedules being heavily impacted. Changes include:

*Stop adjustments:*
- Four additional trains (two AM peak, two PM peak) will now stop at California Avenue
- Two additional southbound trains will serve Santa Clara to better meet ACE, Amtrak departures
- Remove reverse peak service to and from Tamien (AM southbound, PM northbound) to provide additional time for train maintenance and fueling

*Service adjustments:*
- Separation of Baby Bullet back-to-back scheduling during the AM reverse peak to better spread out passenger loads
- Departure time adjustments up to 15 minutes later to better serve passengers while allowing maintenance workers to work on the electrification project*
- Weekend and holiday service reduction from hourly trains to trains leaving every 90 minutes**

* - I actually petitioned Caltrain to keep the final NB departure out of San Jose at 10:30pm because it meets with the last BART train out of Millbrae (arrive 11:38pm, depart 11:49pm). The original plan would have entailed Caltrain to operate the last train out of SJ at 10:45pm, arriving in Millbrae at 11:51pm -- compare that with the final BART train at 11:49pm, and it becomes a hit-or-miss situation with connecting passengers to SFO Airport, Downtown San Francisco, and the East Bay. This plan was ultimately approved and the final departure from San Jose remains at 10:30pm.

** - See proposed schedule here for details

More information here


----------



## 35thVidal

The news about Caltrain going basically from greenlit and funded to 'who the f knows' was mind blowing but at least they've still got a chance with the deadline extension... for now. :gaah::madwife:reach:

This is kind of switch up but I was wondering if anyone in the area has seen any of the new BART cars out testing yet? Or, more appropriately, _the_ new BART complete train set. I'm on the Pittsburgh/Bay Point line almost every weekday during the usual commutes so didn't really expect to see them myself for a while but was wondering if anybody else had been so fortunate. Testing is well underway according to BART's website, but that site is always seriously lacking in updates to the public, especially for the railfans. 

And I know about the open houses they did late last year but was thinking more along the line of seeing full speed, simulated service testing running through stations. 

Thanks everyone.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

35thVidal said:


> The news about Caltrain going basically from greenlit and funded to 'who the f knows' was mind blowing but at least they've still got a chance with the deadline extension... for now. :gaah::madwife:reach:
> 
> This is kind of switch up but I was wondering if anyone in the area has seen any of the new BART cars out testing yet? Or, more appropriately, _the_ new BART complete train set. I'm on the Pittsburgh/Bay Point line almost every weekday during the usual commutes so didn't really expect to see them myself for a while but was wondering if anybody else had been so fortunate. Testing is well underway according to BART's website, but that site is always seriously lacking in updates to the public, especially for the railfans.
> 
> And I know about the open houses they did late last year but was thinking more along the line of seeing full speed, simulated service testing running through stations.
> 
> Thanks everyone.


As for the Caltrain kerfuffle, yes, the deadline may have been extended. But then, I thought: could Caltrain go to the route BART did when it initially rolled out the system where it received no Federal subsidies and relied on State and Local resources instead?

As for the new BART trains, I've seen a full consist docked at the Hayward Maintenance Yard, but I seriously don't know when it will actually be used for testing. I recall being at an open house for the new train in MacArthur some time last year, in which I really love the interior layout (and actual bike spaces too!). Not to mention, it has digital signages and information screens on board trains where it tells you where you are on the system. And the seats are way, way easier to clean and maintain than the ones we have today, lowering potential maintenance costs while providing high-quality regional service. So far, I believe I have counted 15 of those trains at Hayward, in which one can do a full 10-car consist from what they have... but then, those may have to wait until the Warm Springs extension is done.

(A little hint, though: I can ask some people from inside BART when those trains will finally run, in which I can either PM you or post here for updates)


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Here's the brand new livery with the VTA... with 6203 (Gillig Advantage LF Hybrid 40-footer, suburban) and 6402 (Gillig Advantage LF Hybrid 40-footer, urban). The suburban has 1 door, while the urban has 2.


IMG_5167 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_9081 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Costly Transbay Transit Center in busload of trouble*"

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...bay-Transit-Center-in-busload-of-10978749.php









Photo: Paul Chinn, The Chronicle


----------



## 35thVidal

fieldsofdreams said:


> As for the Caltrain kerfuffle, yes, the deadline may have been extended. But then, I thought: could Caltrain go to the route BART did when it initially rolled out the system where it received no Federal subsidies and relied on State and Local resources instead?
> 
> As for the new BART trains, I've seen a full consist docked at the Hayward Maintenance Yard, but I seriously don't know when it will actually be used for testing. I recall being at an open house for the new train in MacArthur some time last year, in which I really love the interior layout (and actual bike spaces too!). Not to mention, it has digital signages and information screens on board trains where it tells you where you are on the system. And the seats are way, way easier to clean and maintain than the ones we have today, lowering potential maintenance costs while providing high-quality regional service. So far, I believe I have counted 15 of those trains at Hayward, in which one can do a full 10-car consist from what they have... but then, those may have to wait until the Warm Springs extension is done.
> 
> (A little hint, though: I can ask some people from inside BART when those trains will finally run, in which I can either PM you or post here for updates)


Thanks for the update! I agree the cars truly are the fleet of the future especially compared to what BART is currently working with - will seem like a night and day difference. I'll have to make a trip to the Hayward Yard to catch a peak too. 

It would be awesome if you could find out exactly when those trains will run, and feel free to PM me or post here. It should be soon, no? They've been here for a while now. Also, don't get yourself in trouble with your inside BART connection which I'm quite jealous of I might add. :rock:


----------



## Tower Dude

Woonsocket54 said:


> "*Costly Transbay Transit Center in busload of trouble*"
> 
> http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...bay-Transit-Center-in-busload-of-10978749.php


Well schucks looks like SF is going to have to build the DtX after all without that sweet HSR Boost  All kidding aside any ideas as to how the Bay Area is going to raise enough money to do this without federal aid?


----------



## 00Zy99

Put tolls on the highways?


----------



## 35thVidal

^^Yep, nailed it. 

Regional Measure 3 would add between 1-3 dollars on Bay Area bridge tolls to fund new transit projects. 

Regional Measure 2 (RM2) passed in 2004 raising the tolls by 1 dollar and funding the Central Subway, Transit Center (minus the DTX extension, obviously), late night bus service, 4th Caldecott tunnel, and many other projects. 

RM3 could make it to the ballot this year and go into effect 2018 assuming it passes with a simple majority.


----------



## browntown

Let's be honest, the Transbay Terminal will be overran wit homeless within a few months and will be disgusting and worn out long before trains arrive (if ever). It had boondoggle written all over it since Day 1.


----------



## Sopomon

browntown said:


> Let's be honest, the Transbay Terminal will be overran wit homeless within a few months and will be disgusting and worn out long before trains arrive (if ever). It had boondoggle written all over it since Day 1.


Anything can be a boondoggle if you dislike it enough


----------



## moon993

http://ow.ly/J4Uc309NiXD 
The Warm Springs BART station will open on March 25 2017


----------



## Scizoid.Trans.Prog.

Any photos of new BART trainsets?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ If the report is final that Warm Springs BART will open in two weeks, I will be there. As for the new BART trains, I have some pics.


IMG_6351 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6354 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6356 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6366 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6370 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6386 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6388 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6403 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6410 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6412 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​


----------



## 35thVidal

Hurrah for the Warm Springs extension! The official announcement video on the Bartable YouTube channel is epic and very well shot by drones, can't wait to check the whole area out. 

Thank you fieldsofdreams too for the heads up about the new trainset being docked at South Hayward yard. I went and saw it this weekend along with the construction of the new maintenance facility for the incoming trains as well. It was also interesting to see the LIDAR (light detection and ranging) flatbed scanner at work between Hayward and the extension.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

35thVidal said:


> Hurrah for the Warm Springs extension! The official announcement video on the Bartable YouTube channel is epic and very well shot by drones, can't wait to check the whole area out.
> 
> Thank you fieldsofdreams too for the heads up about the new trainset being docked at South Hayward yard. *I went and saw it this weekend along with the construction of the new maintenance facility for the incoming trains as well.* It was also interesting to see the LIDAR (light detection and ranging) flatbed scanner at work between Hayward and the extension.


Did you mean the expansion of the Hayward Maintenance Facility or the Santa Clara one? BART has mentioned that it will open one in Santa Clara close to SJC Airport (possibly next to the Caltrain tracks)... :dunno: As for the LIDAR, I've never noticed that, if at all.

If you want a preview of what Warm Springs BART will look like, look no further... I went there in October last year as part of a mobile workshop for a major transportation conference:


IMG_5969 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_5972 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_5977 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_5980 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_5985 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_5987 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_5991 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6005 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6034 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​
In addition, at least 4 major construction projects take shape around the station wherein multi-family apartment units and office structures are being built to accommodate transit-oriented development.


IMG_6022 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6017 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6012 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6019 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6021 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_6023 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​


----------



## fieldsofdreams

According to a former BART operator who has insider access to BART operations, service to Warm Springs BART will be as follows:

*Weekdays:* (from 27 March 2017)
*From Warm Springs*
> From 4am to 5:45pm - trains operate to Daly City via Downtown SF
> From 5:54pm to 1am - trains operate to Richmond via Downtown Oakland
> For service to Downtown SF, SFO Airport, or Millbrae after 5:45pm, transfer at either Bay Fair or 12th Street/Oakland

*To Warm Springs*
> Trains from Union City begin service to Warm Springs at 4:46am
> Trains from Daly City begin service to Warm Springs at 5:11am and end at 6:56pm
> Trains from Richmond begin service to Warm Springs at 4:47pm and end at 12:17am
> For service from Downtown SF, SFO Airport, or Millbrae after 7pm, transfer at either Balboa Park (then Bay Fair), 12th Street/Oakland, or Lake Merritt

*Weekends and Holidays:* (from 25 March 2017)
*From Warm Springs*
> All trains operate to Richmond via Downtown Oakland
> For service to Downtown SF, SFO Airport, and Millbrae, transfer at either Bay Fair or 12th Street/Oakland
> For additional service to Downtown SF and Daly City on Saturdays, transfer at Fremont

*To Warm Springs*
> All trains operate from Richmond via Downtown Oakland
> For service from Millbrae, SFO Airport, or Downtown SF, transfer at either Balboa Park (then Bay Fair), 12th Street/Oakland, or Lake Merritt

In addition, a celebratory opening event will take place on 24 March 2017 from 10am to noon wherein the public is invited. Free BART shuttles will be available between Fremont and Warm Springs stations from 8:45am to 1pm, operating with 15 to 20-minute intervals. Details here


----------



## mrsmartman

dimlys1994 said:


> From Railway Gazette
> 
> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...-seeks-to-save-electrification-programme.html
> 
> *Deadlines extended as Caltrain seeks to save electrification programme*
> 28 Feb 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA: San Francisco to San Jose commuter operator Caltrain announced on February 27 that it had reached agreement with contractors Balfour Beatty and Stadler to extend the contractual deadlines for start of work on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project.
> 
> Caltrain had been expected to issue ‘Notice to Proceed’ for both contracts by March 1, subject to confirmation of federal funding for the work. The delay to June 30 is designed to allow a decision to be made by the Federal Transit Administration on implementation of a $647m funding agreement. On February 17, FTA had announced that execution of the grant would be delayed until President Trump finalises his budget proposal to Congress
> 
> ...


Why this train has so many doors? :nuts:


----------



## fieldsofdreams

browntown said:


> No, it's most appropriate to refer to it as the Port Authority Bus Terminal of the West since that's all it really is.


Here's the thing, though, with Transbay Terminal: it will also house the HQ of one of America's leading technology companies, Salesforce, while the lower levels will have adequate space for buses, pedestrians, and trains. It won't be as busy as PABT, but it will certainly make a great impression, especially with the changing skyline in San Francisco.


----------



## Jericho-79

Is the proposed BART extension to Santa Clara County making some progress?

I just find it annoying how San Fran-based Niners fans would have to use both Caltrain and then the VTA light rail to get to Levi's Stadium. Or how SF-based Sharks fans have to ride the Caltrain all the way to Diridon to get to the SAP Center.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Jericho-79 said:


> Or how SF-based Sharks fans have to ride the Caltrain all the way to Diridon to get to the SAP Center.


This is annoying for fans who live in a city that is different than where their team plays, but is it unduly annoying? The team is called the San Jose Sharks, so they play in downtown San Jose. So it makes sense that one would need to ride a train to San Jose Diridon station.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Jericho-79 said:


> Is the proposed BART extension to Santa Clara County making some progress?
> 
> I just find it annoying how San Fran-based Niners fans would have to use both Caltrain and then the VTA light rail to get to Levi's Stadium. Or how SF-based Sharks fans have to ride the Caltrain all the way to Diridon to get to the SAP Center.


It is definitely on its way, with Milpitas and Berryessa BART stations nearing completion. The more challenging question would be funding the remainder of the line (Downtown San Jose and Santa Clara, plus the new Santa Clara Maintenance Facility).

Well, San Francisco 49ers has its stadium far away from Caltrain and BART that you are forced to ride VTA light rail from either Mountain View Caltrain or Milpitas BART (once it opens, via Montague LR). As for the San Jose Sharks, you can take Caltrain to Diridon and walk a few minutes to SAP Center. And you forgot that we have a professional soccer team too, called the San Jose Earthquakes with MLS: it plays at Avaya Stadium in Santa Clara and one can ride the free shuttle Line 10 (for now; will be replaced by Line 60) from either Santa Clara Caltrain or Metro/Airport LR station.

Personally, I don't find it unduly annoying because it's not me who owns the teams... it's all the result of monetary deals between SF and Santa Clara County, with the greatest impact found in San Mateo County wherein those from the northern side of the county (closest to Candlestick) are forced to drive much further just to get to the stadium.


----------



## mrsmartman

luacstjh98 said:


> When people think of "Grand Central", in their mind's eye they see the grand concourse of GCT.
> 
> When people think of Penn Station they think of a dingy underground rabbit warren.
> 
> It's a public perception thing...


The Grand Central Terminal was built as the best railroad terminal in the world but its capacity was permanently constrained by its terminal layout.

The Pennsylvania Station was built as the through station of the Cross Manhattan Railroad and its construction required razing several city blocks, causing some disruptions to the neighborhoods.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Here's my treat to you... the long-awaited SMART train is now running, with free rides throughout July!


3-Car SMART Train by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


3-Car SMART Train by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​
View the Preview Schedules Here


----------



## towerpower123

Will that remain single-tracked or will it eventually be upgraded to double-track? Otherwise it will be severely limited in frequency.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

towerpower123 said:


> Will that remain single-tracked or will it eventually be upgraded to double-track? Otherwise it will be severely limited in frequency.


There are certain sections that are double tracked along the line, including:

- Novato: between Hamilton and Downtown (Ignacio Wye)
- Between San Marin and Downtown Petaluma stations
- Cotati Station

Other than that, it can be really challenging to double track the rest of the line, especially with...

- Environmental concerns (some tracks are located next to environmentally sensitive areas that require multiple clearances from Marin and Sonoma Counties, regional entities, and State and Federal regulatory boards)

- Lack of available space, especially around Downtown Petaluma SMART and the San Rafael track section between Civic Center and Downtown San Rafael stations

- Noise issues. Multiple communities now impose Quiet Zones which restrict train horn use, and double tracking will significantly increase noise levels in certain communities

- Land expropriation (and possible lawsuits), especially if we want to address lack of available trackage space

As much as SMART wants to provide high-quality service to its commuters, it has to start with what it already has at the moment. A good chunk of the current alignment is single tracked, with several double tracked sections strategically located on some parts of the rail line. It will take a lot of effort from both Marin and Sonoma Counties to introduce double tracking all along the line, and it will likely have to involve removing multiple structures in some communities (especially Petaluma and San Rafael) to accommodate it.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Rail Journal

http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...trains-begin-daytime-testing.html?channel=535

*Bart Fleet of the Future trains begin daytime testing*
July 21, 2017










_SAN FRANCISCO Bay Area Rapid Transit (Bart) moved a step closer to the introduction of its Bombardier Fleet of the Future cars this week with the start of mainline testing during normal operating hours_

An initial order for 260 vehicles was placed in 2012 and the first pre-series 10-car train was delivered in 2016. At least 35 cars are due to enter passenger service before the end of this year, subject to the successful completion of safety and reliability tests. At least 166 cars will be in service by the end of 2018, and the entire fleet of 775 cars will be delivered by autumn 2022

...


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ The ultimate goal: operate over 1,000 Fleet of the Future (Bombardier) cars by around 2025, which will provide additional capacity needed to help future population and jobs growth in the region.


----------



## mrsmartman

*Typical Sections of Existing Subways for Rapid Transit in American Cities, with Proposed Subway Section (1930) *

Subway Report, City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, M. M. O'Shaughnessy, City Engineer. Initial Program - Street Car Subways, Memorandum accompanying Preliminary Report to P. J. Ost.

Source: History Room, San Francisco Public Library, "SF Transit / Rapid / BART Reports (misc)" file.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4434043348


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Here are a few IG sets of images I took with SF Muni and multiple agencies this week... so far.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Metro Report

http://www.metro-report.com/news/ne...ew/san-francisco-trolleybus-order-placed.html

*San Francisco trolleybus order placed*
02 Aug 2017










USA: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has ordered 185 trolleybuses, New Flyer of America announced on July 26. The manufacturer will supply its 12 m long Xcelsior model.

The order is an option on a contract placed by King County Metro Transit in 2013. The agency serving Seattle placed a base order for 141 18 m trolleybuses, with options also able to be exercised by SFMTA

...


----------



## jchernin

SMART begins regular service on August 25!!


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ I am sooo excited that SMART will finally start service next Friday, and it came all of a sudden too! What would your closest stop/s be? I have two choices (three soon) out of Novato: San Marin, Downtown (soon), and Hamilton. :apple:


----------



## jchernin

My profile says Santa Rosa but I actually live in Cotati, almost right next to the station. I am extremely excited as well! I loved the preview ride!


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ Awesome! I will be in talks with my planner friend again with a transit agency here to share my ideas on how best to respond with SMART opening very soon... by enhancing transit services between San Rafael and Novato.


----------



## moon993

Testing has now started for Silicon Valley BART as a BART train crossed into Santa Clara county for the first time. As a South Bay resident who is a transit-geek, this is a moment I have been waiting for years










http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/C...-to-See-Test-Trains-in-September#.WbMvHyMrL9D


----------



## Suburbanist

Is the Clipper card accepted on all rail services in Bay Area (SMART, Amtrak regional, ACE, Muni, BART, Caltrain)?


----------



## moon993

Suburbanist said:


> Is the Clipper card accepted on all rail services in Bay Area (SMART, Amtrak regional, ACE, Muni, BART, Caltrain)?


No since it doesn't work on ACE or Amtrak regional. You can read more on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_card.


----------



## Arnorian

hoosier said:


> With Caltrain getting electrified I doubt there is reason to do this.


Isn't Caltrain slow with all those at-grade intersections?


----------



## moon993

New BART trains are finally in service
https://sf.curbed.com/2018/1/19/16909532/new-bart-cars-transit-bay-area-when

...and there is even a "Twitter moment" for this
https://twitter.com/i/moments/954025017829830656


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ I wasn't able to go to MacArthur BART yesterday and ride the first ever revenue service of the new train because my head was wheezing, I wanted to stay at home all day. But I will make it up by finding a full 10-car consist of the Fleet of the Future train on the Richmond-Warm Springs line which I ride often. :yes:


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Arnorian said:


> Isn't Caltrain slow with all those at-grade intersections?


Part of the problem lies with addressing community concerns along the line, including Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and San Jose. Caltrain needs to work alongside CAHSR to eliminate all level crossings in the Peninsula and Santa Clara County to reduce accidents between trains, cars, and pedestrians.


----------



## Woonsocket54

*Antioch, CA*: eBART station (opening spring 2018)









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antioch_station_from_Hillcrest_Avenue,_February_2018.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Platform_at_Antioch_station,_February_2018.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antioch_station_from_sidewalk,_February_2018.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antioch_station_from_the_east,_February_2018.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...ing_lot_at_Antioch_station,_February_2018.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faregates_at_Antioch_station,_February_2018.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tri_Delta_Transit_bus_at_Antioch_station,_February_2018.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antioch_station_headhouse,_February_2018.jpg

*Pittsburg, CA*: eBART station (Pittsburg Center) (opening spring 2018)









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...station_from_Harbor_Street,_February_2018.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bus_loop_at_Pittsburg_Center_station,_February_2018.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...ation_from_Railroad_Avenue,_February_2018.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...o_Pittsburg_Center_station,_February_2018.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pittsburg_Center_station_and_pocket_track,_February_2018.JPG

*Pittsburg, CA*: eBART station (Pittsburg/Bay Point) (opening spring 2018)









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EBART_transfer_platform,_February_2018.JPG

eBART rolling stock









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stadler_GTW_at_eBART_maintenance_facility,_February_2018.JPG


----------



## zaphod

Why didn't they just make it an electrified extension of the existing heavy rail service considering how elaborate those stations are?


----------



## EDBTZ

zaphod said:


> Why didn't they just make it an electrified extension of the existing heavy rail service considering how elaborate those stations are?


BART track is custom and very very expensive.


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ Yep, BART Trains have a unique track gauge compared to other, similar systems in the US, and so any rolling stock has to be specially made for it. (there's a whole story behind it that I'm sure Bay Area forum members can explain :lol


----------



## dysharmonica

And it's not just the fact that BART is more complicated and expensive than necessary. BART is still basically a metro system -- and like any Metro system -- at some point its capacity is an overkill. For examples in Europe you see a more and more recognition that the burbs need cheaper system than Metro. For example. Copenhagen (I know different, animal, but still a Metro of 3M people) opted for standard light rail in the suburbs, while restricting metro to areas that will have the ridership. 

(I like using Copenhagen as an example, because the demarkation is so clear when looking at a map) 
(blue = metro (some under construction), red = commuter ail, yellow = light rail, green = regional)








The full plan (metro plus light rail, show's very similar pattern (seriously shrunk down) to what Bart is doing with e_bart -- the light rail will jut inwards to meet termini of the Metro: 
(L3 - light rail, approved, L1/L2 - light rail planned) The rest of the lines are metro - built, under construction or planned (M6)








You see similar patterns in Paris, London, Berlin, Stockholm etc. 

At some point -- one just has to stop extending the super expensive and high capacity transit and opt for a more rational choice. I would have preferred to see an EMU / Light rail service, instead of Diesel, but that can be remedied later.


----------



## luacstjh98

I'd say BART is more like an S-Bahn system.

Anyway, one simple solution would be to think more like an S-Bahn - splitting trains so that less-busy destinations don't get such an intense service, and even drastically simplifying infrastructure like having a single track in places where you get 10min frequencies in rush hour.


----------



## MrAronymous

Single tracking is ridiculously un-future-proof.


----------



## moon993

luacstjh98 said:


> I'd say BART is more like an S-Bahn system.
> 
> Anyway, one simple solution would be to think more like an S-Bahn - splitting trains so that less-busy destinations don't get such an intense service, and even drastically simplifying infrastructure like having a single track in places where you get 10min frequencies in rush hour.


Agreed and I think this is how people have been describing BART as, a hybrid between a metro and and commuter rail system


----------



## dysharmonica

But technology wise, it's a metro system with expensive third-rail electrification and unique components. S-bahns run on off-the-shelf hardware with overhead electrification and at times can go down to grade crossing roads etc. That is impossible when one's "s-bahn" is based on metro technology. 

e-bart fixes this.


----------



## FDW

This might seem like splitting hairs, but I'd think a better comparison for BART would be the RER system of Paris. Both systems were developed in the same era, for similar reasons.


----------



## dysharmonica

FDW said:


> This might seem like splitting hairs, but I'd think a better comparison for BART would be the RER system of Paris. Both systems were developed in the same era, for similar reasons.


my point is ... RER is like Caltrain -- standard trains on standard tracks at times with level road crossing ... BART cannot do that with its third rail. It's a heavy metro tech that will aways require WAY higher ROW costs .. and becomes impractical.. Heck, I would say that BART already goes way too far into the suburbs -


----------



## lightrail

dysharmonica said:


> my point is ... RER is like Caltrain -- standard trains on standard tracks at times with level road crossing ... BART cannot do that with its third rail. It's a heavy metro tech that will aways require WAY higher ROW costs .. and becomes impractical.. Heck, I would say that BART already goes way too far into the suburbs -


Why can't BART do that with third-rail? It's done all the time. They simply break the third-rail at the level crossing. All of the railway lines in south England are third-rail and there are level crossings on these lines.


----------



## rheintram

eBART is just a standard heavy rail line with Stadler GTW DMUs. It's simply absurd that they didn't decide to electrify this system.


----------



## tenderforever

Here's one that's even more under the radar than e-BART. 

SFO's people mover - called AirTrain - is approved, funded and awarded. It'll be built by Skanska on a design/build contract. I don't know why there hasn't been any reporting on it! You can look at some of the tenders on Cal bids. It will extend the system two stations north to the long term parking structure on the South City border. 

It's a great price, looks like it'll be about $80 million/mile. The enormous Genentech campus is right next door, as is the South City Caltrain station. Extending this one another mile north and a half mile east onto the Genentech campus would be give that part of South City probably the best transit in the Bay Area: Caltrain and BART links by a free people mover with 5 minute headways.


----------



## FDW

dysharmonica said:


> my point is ... RER is like Caltrain -- standard trains on standard tracks at times with level road crossing ... BART cannot do that with its third rail. It's a heavy metro tech that will aways require WAY higher ROW costs .. and becomes impractical.. Heck, I would say that BART already goes way too far into the suburbs -


Caltrain isn't RER. It won't be comparable until it's electrified, extending to Transbay across the Bay in a new Tube. And I would say that BART is closer than you might think. BART used old mainline ROWs for much of it's ROW. (though these weren't anywhere near as busy as the lines that made up RER A were)



lightrail said:


> Why can't BART do that with third-rail? It's done all the time. They simply break the third-rail at the level crossing. All of the railway lines in south England are third-rail and there are level crossings on these lines.


Cult of Safety and all that jazz. It's also why we can't have curved platforms anymore in the US.


----------



## flierfy

dysharmonica said:


> S-bahns run on off-the-shelf hardware with overhead electrification and at times can go down to grade crossing roads etc.


The (only true) S-Bahn networks of Berlin and Hamburg are in fact third-rail electrified. Furthermore is there no such thing as off-the-shelf hardware in the rail industry at all. Every series of rail vehicles is custom designed and custom built. Price are only disproportionally high when only a small number of vehicles is purchased. The BART network, however, should be big enough to order vehicle in bigger numbers anyway.


----------



## SSMEX

tenderforever said:


> Here's one that's even more under the radar than e-BART.
> 
> SFO's people mover - called AirTrain - is approved, funded and awarded. It'll be built by Skanska on a design/build contract. I don't know why there hasn't been any reporting on it! You can look at some of the tenders on Cal bids. It will extend the system two stations north to the long term parking structure on the South City border.
> 
> It's a great price, looks like it'll be about $80 million/mile. The enormous Genentech campus is right next door, as is the South City Caltrain station. Extending this one another mile north and a half mile east onto the Genentech campus would be give that part of South City probably the best transit in the Bay Area: Caltrain and BART links by a free people mover with 5 minute headways.


I don't think the extension is by two stations. The plan is to add one infill station at the new on-airport Hyatt and one new station and the long term parking garage, currently served by airport buses.

Here's the page on the airport website: https://www.flysfo.com/about-sfo/co...view/rental-car-center-and-airtrain-extension

Drawings, renders, and maps: http://sfgov.org/arts/sites/default/files/SFO AirTrain_Presentation_021317.pdf


----------



## moon993

For those looking forward to the Berryessa BART extension, I have some bad news...



> *Milpitas, Berryessa BART stations may not open until 2019*
> 
> SAN JOSE — Commuters hoping to speed past highway gridlock with the opening of the South Bay’s first BART stations at Milpitas and Berryessa will have to wait a little longer: The projected opening date is slipping into 2019, according to transit officials.
> 
> Delays in testing, breakdowns in communication and a lack of personnel are stalling the long-awaited opening of the two stations, said Dennis Ratcliffe, a deputy director overseeing BART’s extension into Silicon Valley for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency (VTA).
> 
> VTA officials boasted last year that they were ahead of schedule and planned to open the two stations in December 2017, but testing delays pushed that date back to the originally planned June 2018 opening. Then, earlier this year, VTA officials said they needed a little more time before handing off the new stations and trackway to BART for testing. They’re now saying the opening looks closer to January or even March next year.
> 
> It all depends on how long it takes BART to complete its phase of the testing and how much time the two agencies can recover by overlapping some work that had been planned in phases, Ratcliffe said. The VTA had expected to transfer its facilities to BART April 1 but is now projecting it won’t be able to hand over the reins until the end of June. And BART needs six to eight months of testing before the station doors open, he said.
> 
> “Every effort will be made by VTA and BART staff to achieve passenger service by the end of this year,” Ratcliffe said.
> 
> The delays are frustrating some, including Lam Diep, a VTA board member and San Jose city councilmember whose district includes the Berryessa station. Although he expected some delays, DIep is anxious to see the stations open as soon as possible so he and his constituents can begin taking advantage of the service.
> 
> “I want it to happen sooner rather than later,” Diep said. “However, safety is our primary concern, and it’s better to work out any issues during testing.”
> 
> When the Santa Clara County stations do open, it will mark the first time BART has crossed a new county line since 1973.
> 
> A number of factors have contributed to the delays, Ratcliffe said, not the least of which is the challenge of integrating BART’s aging infrastructure with modern technology. It look longer than expected for VTA staff to install its closed circuit television system, station security cameras and public address system at the stations, all of which need to be tied into BART’s communications network.
> 
> 
> Then, Ratcliffe said there was a breakdown in communication between a contractor and BART staff, resulting in a backlog of train control testing results with discrepancies that needed to be resolved. Efforts to work through those discrepancies are complicated by the fact that BART still is making changes to its train control system at the Warm Springs station, all of which must be incorporated into the Milpitas and Berryessa stations, he said.
> 
> At the same time, the experts at BART who are needed to resolve issues with the Milpitas and Berryessa stations are busy focusing on making changes at the Warm Springs station so it can continue to operate.
> “There’s a competition of resources there,” Ratcliffe said, adding it’s also been difficult to find outside consultants since the pool of experts nationwide is relatively small, and there are certain tasks only BART staff can perform. “We’re struggling to get the project across the finish line.”
> 
> Representatives from BART did not respond to questions about testing or scheduling the opening of the two new stations. The project is still within budget, Ratcliffe said.


----------



## Woonsocket54

No matter the year, the Berryessa BART is always a year away.


----------



## zaphod

EDBTZ said:


> BART track is custom and very very expensive.


How hard is it to bolt some rails onto a concrete sleeper a few inches further apart? 

The obvious issue with BART is it requires a completely grade separated alignment with stations designed for 6 or 8 car metro trains and high passenger volume, which is more costly than a light diesel powered shuttle that can run on a single standard-gauge track that crosses roads at ground level and serve stations that consist of a low level platform with pedestrian walkways across the tracks.

But, they just built 9 miles of metro-quality rail with metro-quality stations for the purpose of running DMU's that will force riders to transfer. Why? Why can't you get a one seat ride from Antioch? That's where the future extension of the line to Brentwood that runs at grade would start, that leg could be DMU.

I guess the same reason why the damn Berryessa station hasn't opened yet, right?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

On BART, I am looking to visit Pittsburg soon and see the progress of the e-BART train between Pittsburg/Bay Point and Hillcrest Park-and-Ride in Antioch. Hopefully, an extension to Brentwood will translate to Tri-Delta Transit (the local bus operator) eliminating one express line and streamlining other nearby services.



moon993 said:


> For those looking forward to the Berryessa BART extension, I have some bad news...





Woonsocket54 said:


> No matter the year, the Berryessa BART is always a year away.


Come to think of it: Santa Clara VTA funded the project to begin with. Once the construction portion is finished, it will hand over the train ops to BART for further testing (testing is already underway south of Warm Springs, in fact) and final station preparation. This project is tied to a much larger, more comprehensive project by the VTA called Next Network, a plan that will radically change its transit-based services, including shifting bus and light rail lines.



zaphod said:


> How hard is it to bolt some rails onto a concrete sleeper a few inches further apart?
> 
> The obvious issue with BART is it requires a completely grade separated alignment with stations designed for 6 or 8 car metro trains and high passenger volume, which is more costly than a light diesel powered shuttle that can run on a single standard-gauge track that crosses roads at ground level and serve stations that consist of a low level platform with pedestrian walkways across the tracks.
> 
> But, they just built 9 miles of metro-quality rail with metro-quality stations for the purpose of running DMU's that will force riders to transfer. Why? Why can't you get a one seat ride from Antioch? That's where the future extension of the line to Brentwood that runs at grade would start, that leg could be DMU.
> 
> I guess the same reason why the damn Berryessa station hasn't opened yet, right?


Okay, let me settle those queries once and for all:

*BART*, for all intents and purposes, mostly runs on Indian gauge (5' 6", 1676mm), with the *e-BART* extension running on Standard gauge (4' 8 1/2", 1435mm). With a broader gauge, you need passenger trains that conform to that gauge, specialized trains, signaling mechanisms, larger track separation, and more, all of which cost a lot of money. 

I've visited Milpitas BART station as part of a tour group, in which I was told Milpitas BART is underground, while Berryessa BART will be elevated, and the rest will mostly be at-grade or elevated. The track alignments and heights will determine the overall cost of constructing and maintaining that segment of trackway, which is already cheaper than the San Francisco or San Mateo County sections. 

And by the way, it is way cheaper to build Standard gauge tracks and purchase Standard gauge trains since those can be prefabricated easily; Indian gauge tracks and trains require extensive modifications and custom building, which can jack up the final cost. Not to mention, Pittsburg and Antioch are communities not yet dense enough to warrant full-size BART train service, let alone neighboring Brentwood and Oakley -- those communities are pretty much spillover suburban towns from the greater Bay Area. Hence, DMUs are preferred for that extension (with a transfer point at Pittsburg/Bay Point) to lower costs while maintaining similar levels of service.


----------



## dysharmonica

One needs to stop extending metro service into rural communities. There is no other choice. BART needs more service centrally, not run 6-8car metro trains to towns without the ridership to warrant it. 

Seattle is gearing up to solve this problem by running a new suburbs-to-suburbs line that will intersect a radial. That way they can run shorter trains among the suburbs and still serve the major routes. Then again, Seattle went with almost off-the-shelf light-rail technology and can build way cheaper than BART. 

Making BART a standard gauge metro will never happen, but ultimately, that does not matter much -- it never makes sense to try to reach every far flung exurb with a metro.. The Bay Area needs a better commuter rail/ suburban rail . that feeds bart.


----------



## FDW

dysharmonica said:


> One needs to stop extending metro service into rural communities. There is no other choice. BART needs more service centrally, not run 6-8car metro trains to towns without the ridership to warrant it.
> 
> Seattle is gearing up to solve this problem by running a new suburbs-to-suburbs line that will intersect a radial. That way they can run shorter trains among the suburbs and still serve the major routes. Then again, Seattle went with almost off-the-shelf light-rail technology and can build way cheaper than BART.
> 
> Making BART a standard gauge metro will never happen, but ultimately, that does not matter much -- it never makes sense to try to reach every far flung exurb with a metro.. The Bay Area needs a better commuter rail/ suburban rail . that feeds bart.


Pittsburgh and Antioch aren't rural communities, they're full-blown suburbs of SF. They aren't even the farthest ones from the SF, which are the Stockton-Modesto belt.

Though I totally agree about BART needing more core capacity.


----------



## Woonsocket54

*It's always a few months away from being a few months away*

"*After repeated delays, Transbay Transit Center contractor promises June completion*"

http://www.sfexaminer.com/repeated-...t-center-contractor-promises-june-completion/


----------



## Woonsocket54

Berryessa station under construction (taken 2018.03.18)









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berryessa_station_under_construction,_March_2018.JPG

Milpitas station under construction (taken 2018.03.18)









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Milpitas_station_under_construction,_March_2018.jpg


----------



## Woonsocket54

*A boring proposal for downtown San Jose*

*Can Single-Bore Tunneling Transform Urban Subway Construction?*

http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/C...nsform-Urban-Subway-Construction#.WrQuemrwa70


----------



## Stuu

Woonsocket54 said:


> *Can Single-Bore Tunneling Transform Urban Subway Construction?*
> 
> http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/C...nsform-Urban-Subway-Construction#.WrQuemrwa70
> 
> According to the article it would be the first use for heavy rail in the world - I bet Barcelona would question that!


----------



## luacstjh98

What about double-bore construction as in Hong Kong, London, Moscow, and a lot of other places?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

luacstjh98 said:


> What about double-bore construction as in Hong Kong, London, Moscow, and a lot of other places?


Double bore construction means one direction per bore, which can be cheaper, but takes up more space. And if you're space constrained, you have to look to the Japanese to squeeze the bores in between all sorts of utilities, roadways, and more. A single bore will save us a lot of trouble and money, from integrating all utilities to one connection to permitting further expansion once the demand is there by adding a second bore when needed. While the tunneling might end up being much lower, the space savings of a single bore than double will permit more buildings with basements to be developed, making densification way easier.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Construction of Yerba Buena/Moscone station in March 2018 (light rail extension to Chinatown, San Francisco)









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yerba_Buena_station_construction,_March_2018.JPG


----------



## Woonsocket54

*"Board to Approve VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project"*

http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/C...alley-Phase-II-Extension-Project#.WsLPYS7wa70



> VTA’s Board of Directors is scheduled to certify the environmental document and approve the BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project description, including the downtown San Jose station locations and the single-bore tunneling methodology, at their regularly scheduled meeting on April 5, 2018.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*eBART system gears up for May opening*"

https://www.thepress.net/news/ebart...cle_2d97f39c-3dd3-11e8-9bc4-db0acc16eaa5.html


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Frequency of BART Train Testing Intensifies*"

http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/C...in-Testing-Frequency-Intensifies#.WuPNlW4vy70


----------



## Woonsocket54

eBART service (Pittsburg Bay Point-Antioch) starts 2018.05.26

http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2018/news20180425

The map seems to show it as through-service, but a change of trains will be required at Pittsburg.










http://www.bart.gov/schedules/bystation


----------



## Amexpat

Woonsocket54 said:


> eBART service (Pittsburg Bay Point-Antioch) starts 2018.05.26
> 
> http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2018/news20180425
> The map seems to show it as through-service, but a change of trains will be required at Pittsburg.
> http://www.bart.gov/schedules/bystation


Are there any plans to extend eBart further east? Having only 10 miles for a new heavy rail system doesn't seem to make sense.


----------



## ssiguy2

The latest APTA report for 4th quarter 2017 shows a decline in ridership on BART. Even Vancouver`s SkyTrain now carries more daily passengers and yet the system is much smaller and less than half the population. Washington`s system, despite it`s recent problems, still carries twice as many people as BART and the Washington Metro & BART started at roughly the same time in the 1970s. 

Cities that are bounded by large waterways also tend to have higher ridership levels due to so much traffic having to funnel into few bridges and hence gridlock while RT can by-pass it so the time savings are often greater. So with all this, to say nothing of a booming BA economy, why has BART not achieved higher ridership in a city where public transit is not a dirty word and what`s causing the current ridership decline?


----------



## FDW

ssiguy2 said:


> The latest APTA report for 4th quarter 2017 shows a decline in ridership on BART. Even Vancouver`s SkyTrain now carries more daily passengers and yet the system is much smaller and less than half the population. Washington`s system, despite it`s recent problems, still carries twice as many people as BART and the Washington Metro & BART started at roughly the same time in the 1970s.
> 
> Cities that are bounded by large waterways also tend to have higher ridership levels due to so much traffic having to funnel into few bridges and hence gridlock while RT can by-pass it so the time savings are often greater. So with all this, to say nothing of a booming BA economy, why has BART not achieved higher ridership in a city where public transit is not a dirty word and what`s causing the current ridership decline?


BART is just about bumping up against it's original design capacity of 500,000 daily passengers, and it needs the new rail cars and signal enhancements to wring out more capacity. 

BART's ridership numbers are terrible for the amount of infrastructure it has because it's essentially a Regional Rail system operating with Metro equipment. Because of this, the system actually has very poor coverage of the areas that can best support Public Transit in the region. This is because the priorities of the system have been driven more by politics than experts.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Amexpat said:


> Are there any plans to extend eBart further east? Having only 10 miles for a new heavy rail system doesn't seem to make sense.


perhaps one day to Mokelumne Trail in Brentwood (population 60,000). But this is still a long way's away.

https://www.thepress.net/news/ebart...cle_475ae892-d342-11e4-bba6-13c2415a5c92.html

"*eBART extension to Brentwood still a distant idea*"










https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2013/0...twoods-mokelumne-trail-crossing-at-highway-4/


----------



## dysharmonica

ssiguy2 said:


> The latest APTA report for 4th quarter 2017 shows a decline in ridership on BART. Even Vancouver`s SkyTrain now carries more daily passengers and yet the system is much smaller and less than half the population. Washington`s system, despite it`s recent problems, still carries twice as many people as BART and the Washington Metro & BART started at roughly the same time in the 1970s.
> 
> Cities that are bounded by large waterways also tend to have higher ridership levels due to so much traffic having to funnel into few bridges and hence gridlock while RT can by-pass it so the time savings are often greater. So with all this, to say nothing of a booming BA economy, why has BART not achieved higher ridership in a city where public transit is not a dirty word and what`s causing the current ridership decline?


BART unlike DC Metro and Vancouver SkyTrain is a terrible subway system. It's an over-engineered commuter rail system and that shows - to-from work traffic pattern, less ridership than seems possible. 

If BART actually focused on serving SF and Oakland more, it would easily add way more ridership. But alas -- poor choices were made in the 1960s and never corrected.


----------



## FDW

dysharmonica said:


> BART unlike DC Metro and Vancouver SkyTrain is a terrible subway system. It's an over-engineered commuter rail system and that shows - to-from work traffic pattern, less ridership than seems possible.
> 
> If BART actually focused on serving SF and Oakland more, it would easily add way more ridership. But alas -- poor choices were made in the 1960s and never corrected.


If BART had just managed to get San Mateo to stay in, and thus manage to build out the entireity of the 60's plan, then BART wouldn't as bad vis a vis D.C. (Though RPM numbers would still be bad). 

Then again BART would've had even bigger issues with cost overruns and delays than it did in our world, though I still think it would end up being built out in the end.

Hell, if the projects that I think would've followed a Five County BART been built (Ring the Bay, SF northern/eastern corridor, Oakland 4th bore, infill stations), BART would have twice the ridership of today.


----------



## jay stew

In the film _Black Panther_ (2018), the cold open takes place in Oakland circa 1992 and there's a BART weekday train schedule on the table.










There's also a period-appropriate AC Transit bus and a current bus in the backgrounds, even though it was filmed in Atlanta.


----------



## dysharmonica

FDW said:


> If BART had just managed to get San Mateo to stay in, and thus manage to build out the entireity of the 60's plan, then BART wouldn't as bad vis a vis D.C. (Though RPM numbers would still be bad).
> 
> Then again BART would've had even bigger issues with cost overruns and delays than it did in our world, though I still think it would end up being built out in the end.
> 
> Hell, if the projects that I think would've followed a Five County BART been built (Ring the Bay, SF northern/eastern corridor, Oakland 4th bore, infill stations), BART would have twice the ridership of today.


BART will never go down the peninsula .. which is fine - that is not holding BART back. What is holding it back is that it is not actually serving SF and Oakland very well. THe biggest mistake in cutting back the 60s plan was that with the cut of the Marin line, they cut the subway under Van Ness -- which is still missing today. 

With MUNI picking up the slack as the city's metro system, BART will continue as an overengineered commuter train / regional train system which will mean it'll never reach the kind of ridership it could have had it served the cities better. 

All this is fine, though, if we stop pretending BART is the subway for SF and should be compared to DC Metro or SkyTrain. The Bay area has multiple transit systems which is fine as long they are coordinated, and each transit system has its own role. BART and Caltrain are the regional connectors. Metro for SF is MUNI Metro. (which has no equivalent in Vancouver or DC)


----------



## FDW

dysharmonica said:


> BART will never go down the peninsula .. which is fine - that is not holding BART back. What is holding it back is that it is not actually serving SF and Oakland very well. THe biggest mistake in cutting back the 60s plan was that with the cut of the Marin line, they cut the subway under Van Ness -- which is still missing today.


I'm not saying it should serve more of the peninsula, the opportunity for that passed decades ago, I was just speculating.

And I can only really support a line to Marin if the county scraps it's zoning.



> With MUNI picking up the slack as the city's metro system, BART will continue as an overengineered commuter train / regional train system which will mean it'll never reach the kind of ridership it could have had it served the cities better.


I wouldn't say picking up slack so much as splitting the baby. Caltrain has the Eastern corridor, BART has the Market-Mission corridor and will likely get the Geary Corridor, and MUNI itself will manage the Judah, Market-Twin Peaks, and Northern corridors .



> All this is fine, though, if we stop pretending BART is the subway for SF and should be compared to DC Metro or SkyTrain. The Bay area has multiple transit systems which is fine as long they are coordinated, and each transit system has its own role. BART and Caltrain are the regional connectors. Metro for SF is MUNI Metro. (which has no equivalent in Vancouver or DC)


I'm talking about Alternate History here. Not what Could still be, but what could've been. A world where Five-county BART happens would lead to BART being a much better (if still flawed) system in SF. Still a Five County BART wouldn't be like Skytrain, it would just be a scaled up version of the BART system we know.


----------



## geoking66

*City says Central Subway contractor laid down 3.2 miles of the wrong kind of track, prompting new delay*



> Construction contractors on the $1.6 billion Central Subway project laid down 3.2 miles of the wrong kind of steel track, The City is alleging in a letter obtained by the San Francisco Examiner.
> 
> In the April 18 letter, The City ordered contractor Tutor Perini to pull out that track and lay higher-strength steel down in its place.
> 
> San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency staff wrote to Tutor Perini alleging the contractor laid down 17,000 linear feet of “standard strength” steel, allegedly violating a contract with The City calling for “high strength” steel. The SFMTA said the higher-strength steel was selected to last longer before maintenance is required.
> 
> (@Full article)


----------



## fieldsofdreams

geoking66 said:


> *City says Central Subway contractor laid down 3.2 miles of the wrong kind of track, prompting new delay*


I saw that news first on a FB group. Now I wonder how much longer will we have to wait before the extension opens... and by the way, I have not heard anything about the circulation plans for Powell Street on the T-Third Street extension, especially it might be sandwiched between the Muni Metro and BART Market Street tubes.


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> I saw that news first on a FB group. Now I wonder how much longer will we have to wait before the extension opens... and by the way, I have not heard anything about the circulation plans for Powell Street on the T-Third Street extension, especially it might be sandwiched between the Muni Metro and BART Market Street tubes.


The connection is going to be at the north end of the station, near where the elevators and the old Apple Store entrance were. The new Station for the T-Third is going to have one new entrance for itself at the southeast corner of Union Square (Though I really think they should've made an effort to hook Macy's in).

Overall, the connection will be rather alright for Inbound MUNI passengers and BART passengers (though the latter might want make sure to be on the right end of the train), and kind of ass for Outbound MUNI passengers.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

FDW said:


> The connection is going to be at the north end of the station, near where the elevators and the old Apple Store entrance were. The new Station for the T-Third is going to have one new entrance for itself at the southeast corner of Union Square (Though I really think they should've made an effort to hook Macy's in).
> 
> Overall, the connection will be rather alright for Inbound MUNI passengers and BART passengers (though the latter might want make sure to be on the right end of the train), and kind of ass for Outbound MUNI passengers.


Right. Muni and BART should deploy signs that tell riders how many feet they need to walk to make the connections to the T line, as well as inter-agency transfers and exits, to reduce hassles of passengers wanting to make connections or needing to make meetings.


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> Right. Muni and BART should deploy signs that tell riders how many feet they need to walk to make the connections to the T line, as well as inter-agency transfers and exits, to reduce hassles of passengers wanting to make connections or needing to make meetings.


Yeah, this is the first time this region's had a perpendicular transfer like this, it's going to result in some things that riders haven't been used to.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

FDW said:


> Yeah, this is the first time this region's had a perpendicular transfer like this, it's going to result in some things that riders haven't been used to.


It also presents more opportunities for businesses to build shops on the underground sections of Powell Station to attract more riders and passersby to the already thriving shopping and hotels district.


----------



## Woonsocket54

A diagram showing the two platforms at Pittsburg/Bay Point station - the eastern platform is for transfers to the Antioch-bound train only and do not have street access.

All BART trains stop at both platforms; Antioch trains only stop at eastern platform.









https://www.transit.wiki/File:Pittsburgbaypoint.svg

The diagram is not to scale - there is considerable distance between the two platforms, and the BART tracks actually continue to the east to create two tail tracks.

Here is a photo of the eastern platform (transfer platform), BART tracks on the left; Antioch-bound tracks on the right.









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EBART_transfer_platform_facing_east,_May_2018.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EBART_train_at_transfer_platform,_May_2018.JPG

Westbound trains are signposted to SFO Airport, but of course they only go to Pittsburg/Bay Point, where a cross-platform transfer is made to the inbound BART train.









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EBART_train_approaching_Antioch_station,_May_2018.JPG


----------



## Woonsocket54

There is a proposal to extend VTA Light Rail in San Jose south from Alum Rock to Eastridge. There will be an intermediate elevated station at Story Road.










http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/C...ight-Rail-Alum-Rock-to-Eastridge#.WxcHqe4vy70


----------



## FDW

Woonsocket54 said:


> There is a proposal to extend VTA Light Rail in San Jose south from Alum Rock to Eastridge. There will be an intermediate elevated station at Story Road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/C...ight-Rail-Alum-Rock-to-Eastridge#.WxcHqe4vy70


This has been in the works for a long time now.


----------



## Woonsocket54

FDW said:


> This has been in the works for a long time now.


When was the elevated station at Story Road first proposed?


----------



## moon993

If I can recall correctly, I've seen proposals of the Eastridge LRT extension 10 years ago


----------



## FDW

Woonsocket54 said:


> When was the elevated station at Story Road first proposed?


IIRC, this line was supposed to be a three station surface extension of the Eastridge LRT, so the elevated proposal (with the Ocala station cut) is new. IMO, it's just another sign of VTA being chronically unable to do the right thing.


----------



## Woonsocket54

I guess that's bad news for folks who live in the Ocala district of San Jose.


----------



## dysharmonica

FDW said:


> IIRC, this line was supposed to be a three station surface extension of the Eastridge LRT, so the elevated proposal (with the Ocala station cut) is new. IMO, it's just another sign of VTA being chronically unable to do the right thing.


What is wrong with elevating the rail? It seems to me las if VTA is finally trying to build a decent light rail system.


----------



## mcarling

dysharmonica said:


> What is wrong with elevating the rail?


If you want a city that is livable i.e. walkable, you want urban rail to be underground.


----------



## DCUrbanist

mcarling said:


> If you want a city that is livable i.e. walkable, you want urban rail to be underground.


Sure, underground would be the best, but it's also by far the costliest. You have to decide based on ridership and capacity whether underground is really worth it. Given the horrible ridership levels of the VTA, it's safe to say that it would be best to save underground rail for places like Downtown San Jose and not suburban neighborhoods that will certainly have fewer riders.

Let's take a look at the built environment this elevated rail is going through. For starters, it's definitely suburban in nature, so I personally have a hard time calling it urban rail. It's pretty clear that there are a _lot_ more problems when it comes to walkability and livability than whether the rail is elevated/surface versus underground. That's an absolute hellhole for walkability. That's TWELVE lanes crossing NINE lanes. That's a Berlin Wall. Just...YIKES. But hey, there's an HOV lane, bike lane, trees, and a sidewalk, so that pedestrian death trap looks like it would qualify for complete streets funding! /s


----------



## Nouvellecosse

It makes me wonder why they didn't put in on the surface in a dedicated ROW and traffic signal priority. There's plenty of space there and it would have been a good opportunity to reduce the number of general traffic lanes since that road is in serious need of a diet. Could have even been a grass median reducing paved surface area and making the streetscape more attractive. And it probably would have been even cheaper than elevated.


----------



## MrAronymous

Because both American drivers and American signal priority are unreliable.


----------



## dysharmonica

mcarling said:


> If you want a city that is livable i.e. walkable, you want urban rail to be underground.


Seattle would like to kindly disagree. It's a step up from the slow surface rail they have now ... sure ... underground would be better, but that is just too costly for a weak small system like the VTA


----------



## Stuu

mcarling said:


> If you want a city that is livable i.e. walkable, you want urban rail to be underground.


Lots of places would disagree, Zurich, Amsterdam, Portland even?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

mcarling said:


> If you want a city that is livable i.e. walkable, you want urban rail to be underground.


Not necessarily. It depends on the application and overall alignment of the train lines in question. Trams (e.g. Muni Metro, historic streetcar) are suitable at the surface and shallow underground where those can be taken for short hops or intracity rides. Heavy trains (e.g. Caltrain, BART) would be better off underground in SF since those are larger and noisier, but can carry way more people.


----------



## MrAronymous

Exciting times ahead


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ Mock design or for real?


----------



## aquamaroon

Is that for the electrified Caltrain? Awesome!


----------



## MrAronymous

Real. Click on the picture to see more.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ That sure is. But I want to see the mock design first to have a feel for what the future train will feel like, especially when standing and if one has a bike to bring in.


----------



## zaphod

*source*


----------



## Slartibartfas

That supermassive front part of the double decker train is that due to some "tank on rail" regulation?



MrAronymous said:


> Because both American drivers and American signal priority are unreliable.


I don't buy that. Drivers in all places where new light rail systems or other changes are introduced need some time to adapt and that might also lead to some accidents but it usually doesn't take long until people learn to adpat and figure out that risking a collision with a train is a fairly stupid thing to do, especially as those trains don't take forever to cross like long freight trains. The gain is minimal therefore while the risk is just as high.

For the unlikely case that this isn't happening it is not the trains to blame but the drivers. Increase fines for violations or possibly even take away their driving license temporarely if that is what's needed for drivers to learn not to kill themselves. The learning curve is usually pretty steep in that case.


----------



## jchernin

Here’s security camera footage of the SMART train that crashed recently into the delivery truck that completely ignored the gates and flashing lights. The driver miraculously survived and no injuries to anyone on the train, although there was obviously significant damage to the front of the train.

SMART Train Crash


----------



## MrAronymous

Slartibartfas said:


> That supermassive front part of the double decker train is that due to some "tank on rail" regulation?


Shock absorbers and crumple zone. Standard (though perhaps slightly modified) on this model.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ I know what it is, but I was wondering if it was substantially more massive and heavier in design than in Europe or if I am mistaken here.


----------



## Nexis

Why didn't they wait till the high level platforms were completed before rolling them out?


----------



## MrAronymous

Because current stock is old and they need the extra capacity of new trains. Also they have to be in time for California High Speed Rail. The double door method provides a lot more flexibility, especially because you can't convert platform height on all stations overnight. The old train cars are incompatible with high platforms.


----------



## dysharmonica

On a different topic -- is there any source fo how many trains per hour (peak) does MUNI run in the MUNI Metro tunnel? 

Thanks


----------



## zaphod

Regarding the platforms, there will still be trains going all the way from SF to Gilroy using the older rolling stock, correct? Or will there be a forced transfer at Diridon?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Nexis said:


> Why didn't they wait till the high level platforms were completed before rolling them out?





MrAronymous said:


> Because current stock is old and they need the extra capacity of new trains. Also they have to be in time for California High Speed Rail. The double door method provides a lot more flexibility, especially because you can't convert platform height on all stations overnight. The old train cars are incompatible with high platforms.


A few reasons:

- Caltrain is already at capacity during the rush hour that there have been instances where trains are already running beyond their intended capacities.

- With the electrification project already underway phase-by-phase, Caltrain has to temporarily reduce its weekend and holiday schedules to every 90 minutes to accommodate the needed works, especially in places where there are noise restrictions and heavy congestion.

- It is very inconvenient to close stations for a set amount of time to upgrade the current platforms to match the new trains. If Caltrain wants to do that in a hurry, it needs to do it during the lowest ridership periods (e.g. between Christmas and New Year's, if not up to M.L. King Jr. Day, or on lean weekends when no events take place).

- The old trains are indeed incompatible with the proposed high platforms, such that there is a significant gap to be seen between the lowest step and the platform (for the Nippon Sharyo). The gap between the Bombardier cars and the platform, however, is not that severe. If platform closures are to be done, it needs to be done stage by stage, just like electrification...

Stage 1: upgrade South San Francisco, Hayward Park, Broadway, Atherton, and College Park Stations, if not also all stops south of Tamien

Stage 2: upgrade Belmont, San Mateo, Burlingame, and Tamien Stations 

Stations like Palo Alto, Mountain View, San Francisco, Millbrae, and San Jose Diridon have to be done much later as those high-ridership stations will be significantly impacted by such construction.



dysharmonica said:


> On a different topic -- is there any source fo how many trains per hour (peak) does MUNI run in the MUNI Metro tunnel?
> 
> Thanks


Do you mean the Market Street tunnel between Van Ness and Embarcadero Stations? There are tunnel segments you have to consider...

- Market Street between Van Ness and Embarcadero (J, K, L, M, N, S, and T)
- Twin Peaks Tunnel plus Market Street between Castro and Van Ness (K, L, M, S, and T)
- Sunset Tunnel (at Duboce Street, N)

To be honest, my estimate is that if all systems are working properly, you can let in Muni Metro trains at a rate of one train every 60 to 90 seconds, if not better, especially with the policy of allowing trains to board and disembark one after the other at Civic Center, Powell, Montgomery, and Embarcadero. However, given the repeated breakdown issues and poor maintenance regimen along the tunnel, there have been significant gaps in service on some lines, especially on the J-Church, in which train operators and their passengers suffer at the mercy of inefficient train signals, system-wide delays, and much more. There was even a time where I saw on the departure board at Montgomery, the next J-Church outbound train at around 10am would leave at an astonishing 50 (!!!) minutes. For a passenger like me in a rush, I'd ditch Muni Metro, get myself on a F-Market streetcar or bus, and get off at Church Street to meet the J there. If worse comes to worst, I'd either: 

- Continue on to Castro and take a different bus (e.g. 24-Divisadero or 35-Eureka) 
- Get off at Church, take the 22-Fillmore up to 16th Street, and walk to my destination
- Ride BART and take the corresponding bus closest to my destination (e.g. 14-Mission, 22-Fillmore, 48-Quintara/24th Street, or if needed, all the way to Balboa Park and backtrack from there) 



zaphod said:


> Regarding the platforms, there will still be trains going all the way from SF to Gilroy using the older rolling stock, correct? Or will there be a forced transfer at Diridon?


Yes, that would ideally be the case. However, since Gilroy will be upgraded to CA HSR standards, stations along the line should also be upgraded to become high platforms too since those will benefit from the CA HSR running along the same corridor as Caltrain. In this case, if HSR becomes successful, Caltrain can mount additional services south of Diridon to accommodate riders connecting further afield (e.g. San Francisco via Diridon, Los Angeles via Gilroy). There will be no forced transfer at Diridon since the HSR alignment will continue through Gilroy, which will mean significant construction and upgrades along Monterey Highway in San Jose down to Morgan Hill, San Martin, Gilroy, and beyond.


----------



## dysharmonica

^^ Thanks, yes I meant the Market street tunnel - I sometimes forget there are more tunnels in the MUNI Metro system. 

I was wondering what frequency MUNI can reliably deliver with multiple streetcar-class routes converging into a metro-class tunnel (this dovetails into a conversations about a merit of similar system (vs. proper metro) in another thread and in another city -- I could not find any data online.


----------



## Stuu

dysharmonica said:


> ^^ Thanks, yes I meant the Market street tunnel - I sometimes forget there are more tunnels in the MUNI Metro system.
> 
> I was wondering what frequency MUNI can reliably deliver with multiple streetcar-class routes converging into a metro-class tunnel (this dovetails into a conversations about a merit of similar system (vs. proper metro) in another thread and in another city -- I could not find any data online.


The schedules are here so you can count the number of planned services... but part of the tunnel is closed right now so they aren't running as many trains as normal.

The performance metrics are here so you can figure out how well it all works (in theory, I haven't checked what level of detail there is)


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*S.F.’s long-awaited Salesforce Transit Center sets opening date for Aug. 12*"

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...waited-Salesforce-Transit-Center-13061363.php


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Stuu said:


> The schedules are here so you can count the number of planned services... but part of the tunnel is closed right now so they aren't running as many trains as normal.
> 
> The performance metrics are here so you can figure out how well it all works (in theory, I haven't checked what level of detail there is)


More information on the Twin Peaks Tunnel closure can be found here. Substitute bus services are available between Church Station and...

- L-Taraval: 46th & Wawona (SF Zoo), skipping Forest Hill
- M-Ocean View: Balboa Park Station, skipping West Portal

The K-Ingleside currently interlines with the J-Church service, forming either the humorous KJ (killjoy) or JK (just kidding) light rail line. The closure started 25 June and will last until 24 August 2018. And note: many of the special buses actually continue on to Embarcadero Station to make commuting easier.


----------



## zaphod

This is sort of random, but I was watching a cartoon(I am a child trapped in an adult body) and noticed this:

Look familiar?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^  That's the BART network map! But the color representations are a bit off... :laugh:


----------



## moon993

zaphod said:


> This is sort of random, but I was watching a cartoon(I am a child trapped in an adult body) and noticed this:
> 
> Look familiar?


We Bare Bears is supposed to be set in the San Francisco Bay Area. On a side note, that show is a good show and I watch it sometimes as a 21 year old, so don't feel embarrassed


----------



## Jericho-79

Any chance that the BART will be extended all the way to Levi's Stadium and the SAP Center?

Based on my experiences while visiting the Bay Area, the Caltrain is pretty slow, and the VTA light rail is inadequate.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Jericho-79 said:


> Any chance that the BART will be extended all the way to Levi's Stadium and the SAP Center?
> 
> Based on my experiences while visiting the Bay Area, the Caltrain is pretty slow, and the VTA light rail is inadequate.


BART will be extended to Milpitas within the next year or so (the station is ready but service keeps getting delayed), but folks going to Levi's Stadium will need to transfer to light rail.

As for SAP Center, there are long-term plans to extend to Diridon station across the street; however, the San Jose Sharks have sued BART because construction of the new BART station will cause too much lost parking. So, expect BART service to downtown San Jose in about 30-40 years.









http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/C...RT-Silicon-Valley-Phase-II-Extension-Project#

*Sharks file federal suit over parking at BART station in San Jose*

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07...uit-over-parking-at-bart-station-in-san-jose/


----------



## Mad_Cow

*I was feeling creative, so I made this theoretical/hopeful future SF Muni Metro System map*

I included almost every future rail corridor proposal in the SFMTA Rail Capacity Strategy Long Term Investments, with a bit more optimism on turning more of them into subways.


*Muni Metro Subway only*




*All Muni Metro service*




*An overview map of all Muni/BART rail in SF*, which includes a Geary/19th Avenue BART line and an extended E streetcar to the Marina
Interactive map here


----------



## Woonsocket54

I wonder why there is so much crime on BART in East Bay

*Teen’s slaying was BART’s third possible homicide in five days*

https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Teen-s-slaying-may-have-been-BART-s-third-in-13097963.php


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Woonsocket54 said:


> I wonder why there is so much crime on BART in East Bay
> 
> *Teen’s slaying was BART’s third possible homicide in five days*
> 
> https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Teen-s-slaying-may-have-been-BART-s-third-in-13097963.php


The problem is that a lot of the criminals involved come from places away from BART, including Antioch, Richmond, East Oakland, and San Francisco. Some of them are just sheer troublemakers, others exacting revenge, still others just trying to "get by" through any means possible. Although such incidents are rare, those issues do cause some concern for regular and casual riders from time to time... what I'm more concerned about with BART lately has been the delayed rollout of the Fleet of the Future sets.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Mad_Cow said:


> I included almost every future rail corridor proposal in the SFMTA Rail Capacity Strategy Long Term Investments, with a bit more optimism on turning more of them into subways.
> 
> 
> *Muni Metro Subway only*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All Muni Metro service*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *An overview map of all Muni/BART rail in SF*, which includes a Geary/19th Avenue BART line and an extended E streetcar to the Marina
> Interactive map here


It looks like in your first proposal, you want to let go of the M through Ocean View; on the second, however, it will be rerouted to join with the J-Church. Surely, it is a contentious issue to work on if we are to improve Muni Metro, but what would be a suitable solution if you want to end light rail service through Randall Street and San Jose Avenue southwest of Balboa Park?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Jericho-79 said:


> Any chance that the BART will be extended all the way to Levi's Stadium and the SAP Center?
> 
> Based on my experiences while visiting the Bay Area, the Caltrain is pretty slow, and the VTA light rail is inadequate.


SAP Center, yes (with Diridon). Levis Stadium, no. Unless you talk to BART and the VTA on improving accessibility to the latter, there has to be a more comprehensive mobility solution to access Levis, which is already next to VTA Light Rail, ACE, and Amtrak services.


----------



## cardinal2007

fieldsofdreams said:


> SAP Center, yes (with Diridon). Levis Stadium, no. Unless you talk to BART and the VTA on improving accessibility to the latter, there has to be a more comprehensive mobility solution to access Levis, which is already next to VTA Light Rail, ACE, and Amtrak services.


Isn't Capitol Corridor looking to improve their service on the line and move to faster service from Oakland? Looks like one alternative bypasses Levi's though.

https://images.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CCJPAVisionPlan_Volume1.pdf


----------



## fieldsofdreams

cardinal2007 said:


> Isn't Capitol Corridor looking to improve their service on the line and move to faster service from Oakland? Looks like one alternative bypasses Levi's though.
> 
> https://images.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CCJPAVisionPlan_Volume1.pdf


Yes, Capitol Corridor is looking to boost its service through railway electrification and (possibly) realigning its route to create faster service between Sacramento and San José. The problem with the current alignment is it shares trackage with cargo trains from around Northern California and beyond, serving Port of Oakland and the nearby refineries. As a result, delays from those trains cascade to, not just Capitol Corridor services, but also to other Amtrak services as well (San Joaquin, California Zephyr, Coast Starlight). I suspect the greatest amount of delays can be found between Martinez and Emeryville, if not also Jack London Square.


----------



## dysharmonica

Mad_Cow said:


> I included almost every future rail corridor proposal in the SFMTA Rail Capacity Strategy Long Term Investments, with a bit more optimism on turning more of them into subways.
> 
> 
> *Muni Metro Subway only*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All Muni Metro service*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *An overview map of all Muni/BART rail in SF*, which includes a Geary/19th Avenue BART line and an extended E streetcar to the Marina
> Interactive map here



Aren't you missing a bunch of proposed services like the Tier 1 surface/subway MUNI Metro on Geary


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ I think what @Mad_Cow is proposing for Geary Blvd is full-on BART service, which is way more appropriate than frequent LR service. I know Geary used to have the A, B, and C streetcar lines that ran along that major corridor between Downtown and Lands End. But with heavy patronage on the 38 and 38R with Muni, BART would be a more appropriate solution to carry much more riders around the City, if not beyond.

And by the way, that idea of upgrading the 28-19th Avenue (and its companion 28R-19th Avenue Rapid) from bus to LR would be a challenging proposition, especially the current alignment along 19th Avenue, Park Presidio Boulevard, and Junipero Serra Boulevard are all managed by Caltrans, if not also the Federal Highway Authority (US-101 and I-280). Hopefully, that will be implemented within my lifetime, in which it will significantly improve mobility along that heavily-traveled corridor.


----------



## dysharmonica

^^ There is no way BART is building Geary. It's either Muni Metro, or a bus. 

A fully underground muni metro is warranted here, and can easily reach bart capacity for a fraction of the cost or hassle


----------



## Suburbanist

I wonder if there are any realistic proposals to build a monorail, or a light underground rail with frequent stops, along the El Camino Real, and densify the heck out of that corridor.


----------



## zaphod

If a line was going to be completely, operationally and physically separate and require a new train yard, then what about an light metro built to the standards of new lines in Asia? It could have features like fully automated operation and platform screen doors.

I see no good reason to construct any more streetcar light rail in tunnel beyond extensions to the existing 'legacy' network. Same goes for BART, which is weird engineering(wide-gauge tracks, etc). I am not an expert so I might be wrong, but I speculate that those individual 2 car units coupled together would take up more platform room than an equivalent walk-through articulated metro trainset with more capacity. Also to accomodate overhead wires and the boxy train profile wouldn't the tunnel diameter need to be bigger than a light metro?

Finally, light rail trains that have to go out onto the surface world of vehicular traffic and operated by humans(that have the ability to go on strike) are going to get off schedule and bunch up like buses. PSD's are going to keep homeless people and vandals off the tracks and serve as an extra layer of fire safety. A light metro that is automated will stick to a high frequency schedule and not get overcrowded.


----------



## dysharmonica

^^ I think that is true, take a medium-capacity metros like Copenhagen, Vancouver .. they have smaller loading gauge than light rail ... higher speeds, capacity are automated, etc.

I will presume that MUNI will chicken out of the ability to extend the Geary line somewhere further on the street .. that is a lost flexibility that I can see them fearing. 

But yes -- ideally, any new metro will be automated, powered with third rail, geared towards 2minute headways and 24 hour operations ... but if there is even 5% chance they want to intermix with the current fleet and setup ... that will not work and they will rightly revert back to light rail vehicles with overhead power .... which is fine

Finally, there are budding concepts that take the light rail ... then switch to fully automated operation in tunnels. The cost of the compromise is present, but not extraordinary.


----------



## FDW

Mad_Cow said:


> I included almost every future rail corridor proposal in the SFMTA Rail Capacity Strategy Long Term Investments, with a bit more optimism on turning more of them into subways.
> 
> 
> *Muni Metro Subway only*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All Muni Metro service*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *An overview map of all Muni/BART rail in SF*, which includes a Geary/19th Avenue BART line and an extended E streetcar to the Marina
> Interactive map here


Oh man, this is a bad fantasy map. 

-First, the unnecessary BART Tube through SOMA.

-Second, the Fillmore Subway has terrible stop spacing. It should have Stops at Mcallister and Haight rather than Hayes, and the Union stop should directly connect to the Northern Subway. 

-Thirdly, I am of strong opinion that the J should be interlined with the Fillmore Subway, and the N with the 16th St Subway. I see this as better use of the infrastructure.

-Fourthly, the Reverse branching on the Marina section of the Northern Subway is just terrible, it's not going to work, given the demand that line is going to have closer in. Just terminate the H at Fishermans Wharf.

-Fifthly, I think the Van Ness subway should be a little to the East (Drifting from Polk in the north to Hyde closer to Market), with Stations at Union, Sacramento, Geary, McAllister, Civic Center, 8th/Harrison.

-Sixthly, I don't think the Subway should dead-end at General. I think it should continue further south, hitting Bernal Heights and the San Bruno corridor, maybe swinging east to Candlestick at Paul. (And maybe also with the Evans branch attached here, or to the T-Third.)

-Seventhly, I think you should include an extension of the Northern Subway to the GGB, and have a Station on the N at 28th Ave.


----------



## Nexis

Is there a chance of the muni metro being extended over the Golden Gate Bridge and terminating at Larkspur?


----------



## SSMEX

Nexis said:


> Is there a chance of the muni metro being extended over the Golden Gate Bridge and terminating at Larkspur?


Not impossible, but basically is at this point. Train service on the GGB was proposed during the early BART days, but would require a massive re-engineering of the bridge. There are dozens of projects that would bring a lot more bang for the buck in the immediate vicinity.


----------



## dysharmonica

SSMEX said:


> Not impossible, but basically is at this point. Train service on the GGB was proposed during the early BART days, but would require a massive re-engineering of the bridge. There are dozens of projects that would bring a lot more bang for the buck in the immediate vicinity.


Yeah exactly. If I remember correctly, the bridge was only just able to sustain the BART train ... MUNI trains are smaller and lighter, but the overall challenge remains: trains and suspension bridges are not friends. I am sure a length-limited light-rail car (such as SMART, MUNI, ST Link, etc) could be made to work, but it would not be cheap or easy. 

Marin has made their bed in the 60s when they opted out - now they have no recourse -- as fixing that missing link is too expensive for the current funding climate. San Mateo can at least fall back on Caltrain -- and they are .. but Marin is going to pay the price for another half century at least. 

Finally, I want to make another point ---> extending a subway system to such a low-density area is also simply wasteful. The 1-2 stops in Marin would need HUGE Non-Bart feeder system and huge garages, and overall, the utility is limited ... that area does not warrant a rapid-transit solution. SMART to the ferry is the right solution for that area ... and can grow as those counties demand.


----------



## lezgotolondon

what's the point of having the metro going to the other side? 
It's not populated and turists are supposed to walk! :lol:


----------



## zaphod

Which brings up a good point, when is SMART going to get to the Larkspur ferry terminal?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Egads! Tons to respond here! Let me answer them one by one.



dysharmonica said:


> ^^ There is no way BART is building Geary. It's either Muni Metro, or a bus.
> 
> A fully underground muni metro is warranted here, and can easily reach bart capacity for a fraction of the cost or hassle


It's either that or you'll have a problem of how to route the second Transbay Tube between SF and Alameda. At the moment, you have the Third Street Subway extension underway that Powell Station will become much busier with through, transfer, and terminating riders. Not to mention Muni Metro used to run through Geary that with the ridership it gets on the 38 and 38R, either a heavy-duty Muni Metro or full on BART service is necessary to cover the ridership density. The Geary BRT proposal is a step in the right direction to intensify transit use along that (and O'Farrell Street) corridor, but I think a much faster train service is needed to keep up with ridership demand.


Suburbanist said:


> I wonder if there are any realistic proposals to build a monorail, or a light underground rail with frequent stops, along the El Camino Real, and densify the heck out of that corridor.


Monorail along El Camino Real between which cities? SamTrans has recently introduced its own Bus Rapid Transit-esque service along El Camino Real (called ECR Rapid) that makes a total of eleven stops between Daly City BART and Redwood City Transit Center, including (from north to south):

- Daly City BART
- Colma BART
- ECR & McLellan (South SF BART)
- San Bruno BART
- ECR & Victoria/Linden (Millbrae BART/Caltrain)
- ECR & Burlingame Ave.
- ECR & 4th/5th Ave. (Downtown San Mateo)
- ECR & Hillsdale (Hillsdale Caltrain/Hillsdale Shopping Center)
- ECR & Ralston (Belmont Caltrain)
- ECR & San Carlos Ave. (San Carlos Caltrain)
- Redwood City Transit Center (and Caltrain)

My wish is that the ECR Rapid can be extended down to Palo Alto Caltrain, with up to three additional stops (one more in Redwood City, then one in Atherton and then another in Menlo Park) to make a seamless bus service through to and from VTA Line 522 (Palo Alto TC - Eastridge TC via Downtown San Jose and Alum Rock TC).



zaphod said:


> If a line was going to be completely, operationally and physically separate and require a new train yard, then what about an light metro built to the standards of new lines in Asia? It could have features like fully automated operation and platform screen doors.
> 
> I see no good reason to construct any more streetcar light rail in tunnel beyond extensions to the existing 'legacy' network. Same goes for BART, which is weird engineering(wide-gauge tracks, etc). I am not an expert so I might be wrong, but I speculate that those individual 2 car units coupled together would take up more platform room than an equivalent walk-through articulated metro trainset with more capacity. Also to accomodate overhead wires and the boxy train profile wouldn't the tunnel diameter need to be bigger than a light metro?
> 
> Finally, light rail trains that have to go out onto the surface world of vehicular traffic and operated by humans(that have the ability to go on strike) are going to get off schedule and bunch up like buses. PSD's are going to keep homeless people and vandals off the tracks and serve as an extra layer of fire safety. A light metro that is automated will stick to a high frequency schedule and not get overcrowded.


The closest example I can give you for a light rail variant of a train service would be eBART through Antioch from Pittsburg/Bay Point. Sure, I can ask SMART if they can revive railway service to Sausalito, especially Marin County used to have a lot more railway trackage in the early 20th century (but have then been filled into roads)... it will have to take off multiple streets, re-lay tracks, consult with thousands of residents and businesses, and tons of money. Luckily, I live very close to SMART, but the closest station to me is still under construction.



dysharmonica said:


> ^^ I think that is true, take a medium-capacity metros like Copenhagen, Vancouver .. they have smaller loading gauge than light rail ... higher speeds, capacity are automated, etc.
> 
> I will presume that MUNI will chicken out of the ability to extend the Geary line somewhere further on the street .. that is a lost flexibility that I can see them fearing.
> 
> But yes -- ideally, any new metro will be automated, powered with third rail, geared towards 2minute headways and 24 hour operations ... but if there is even 5% chance they want to intermix with the current fleet and setup ... that will not work and they will rightly revert back to light rail vehicles with overhead power .... which is fine
> 
> Finally, there are budding concepts that take the light rail ... then switch to fully automated operation in tunnels. The cost of the compromise is present, but not extraordinary.


Muni Metro presents the perfect opportunity to upgrade its signaling systems. The Twin Peaks Tunnel right now is closed for rehabilitation, and so are the alignments for the L-Taraval and M-Ocean View for needed repairs and upgrades. VTA Light Rail, however... not so much since the service intensity is not as heavy or integrated as Muni Metro. As for automation (e.g. no more drivers), it will take another round of new vehicles and significant upgrades from on-street operations for that to happen.


Nexis said:


> Is there a chance of the muni metro being extended over the Golden Gate Bridge and terminating at Larkspur?


Muni Metro is handled by the City and County of San Francisco, in which it will have to talk to Marin County to link that service all the way to Larkspur. And by the way, SFMTA also has to talk to Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District; Transportation Authority of Marin; Marin County Transit District; Caltrans; and multiple state and federal agencies to consider having the lower deck suited for railway service.



SSMEX said:


> Not impossible, but basically is at this point. Train service on the GGB was proposed during the early BART days, but would require a massive re-engineering of the bridge. There are dozens of projects that would bring a lot more bang for the buck in the immediate vicinity.


But here's the problem: without BART via the Golden Gate Bridge, commuters from Marin and Sonoma Counties are paying a heavy price for congestion along US-101, especially when schools are in session. Golden Gate Transit, SMART, and Sonoma County Transit may provide decent alternatives to driving alone, but Marin especially should find a way to finally embrace rail service through the Golden Gate Bridge by addressing all the pretenses and complexities in a reasonable and economical manner.



dysharmonica said:


> Yeah exactly. If I remember correctly, the bridge was only just able to sustain the BART train ... MUNI trains are smaller and lighter, but the overall challenge remains: trains and suspension bridges are not friends. I am sure a length-limited light-rail car (such as SMART, MUNI, ST Link, etc) could be made to work, but it would not be cheap or easy.
> 
> Marin has made their bed in the 60s when they opted out - now they have no recourse -- as fixing that missing link is too expensive for the current funding climate. San Mateo can at least fall back on Caltrain -- and they are .. but Marin is going to pay the price for another half century at least.
> 
> Finally, I want to make another point ---> extending a subway system to such a low-density area is also simply wasteful. The 1-2 stops in Marin would need HUGE Non-Bart feeder system and huge garages, and overall, the utility is limited ... that area does not warrant a rapid-transit solution. SMART to the ferry is the right solution for that area ... and can grow as those counties demand.


As I pointed out in an earlier reply, Marin County used to have a robust railway network that has been paved up with roads, all the way down to Sausalito in fact via Mill Valley. If there's a way for me to help facilitate rebuilding the railways through the North Bay, I'll have to schedule consultations with SMART, Golden Gate, and other agencies to redevelop train services to other areas in the North Bay where ridership demand is justified... and that will have to involve multiple EIR studies, financial reviews, electoral votes, and more.


lezgotolondon said:


> what's the point of having the metro going to the other side?
> It's not populated and turists are supposed to walk!


Eh... the Bay Area is growing by leaps and bounds that Alameda and Santa Clara Counties are carrying the burden of new population growth. Sonoma County is also doing its part to address the population growth in the region by building many new homes and apartments in cities like Petaluma and Santa Rosa. It's Marin that has to find ways to address the NIMBYism issue and sustainable solutions to bring in more people while protecting its awe-inspiring landscapes and seascapes.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

zaphod said:


> Which brings up a good point, when is SMART going to get to the Larkspur ferry terminal?


Its construction is now underway and should be done by either next year or 2020. It will be coincided by the Phase 2 construction of railway service between Sonoma County Airport and Cloverdale (plus a third station in Novato).


----------



## Amexpat

Have there been any studies for extending SMART over the Richmond Bridge to the BART Richmond station? That would give a quick mass transit connection for Marin to the East Bay and a longer one to SF and San Jose when BART goes there.


----------



## dysharmonica

Amexpat said:


> Have there been any studies for extending SMART over the Richmond Bridge to the BART Richmond station? That would give a quick mass transit connection for Marin to the East Bay and a longer one to SF and San Jose when BART goes there.


Let's stop with these fantasy maps. SMART is SONOMA and MARIN county transit. They own a bunch of old ROW there and have TONS of work left to make a dent in fixing north-bay's century-neglected transit infrastructure ... All these projects are quite cheap given that SMArT owns the ROW, and is runnign single-track DMUs ... it's all pretty amazingly cost effective. Getting over the Bay is costly, and currently there is no huge demand for it. 

We're back in one of the most hostile federal transit funding climate on record (probably comparable to the 80s) -- we need to be extremely strategic and focus on the highest bang-for-the-buck work. 

SMART will connect to ferries, and gradually become entrenched as a solid suburban rail service - expand a little to the north and east on existing ROW. Increase frequency, capacity, double-track ... 

Caltrain will electrify, and maybe with Facebook's help will cross to east bay. Maybe begin removing level crossings to make everyone's lives easier 

MUNI will add some miles of much needed subway -- especially Geary. 

ACE will expand to cover Livermore better and connect to BART in Dublin/Pleasanton. Add frequency and capacity as demand grows

These are good developments .. they are all high-ROI investments ... let's keep that going ... not chase some ill-advised vanity projects. This is not the 1960s where experimentation and innovation in the public sphere was rewarded in the name of modernity and progress. I have a feeling that even just studying that connection would energize the SMART opposition in north bay ... It's not the time. Not yet.


----------



## Amexpat

dysharmonica said:


> Let's stop with these fantasy maps. .


I wasn't proposing a fantasy map or advocating anything. I was curious if Mass Transit over the Richmond Bridge had ever been considered as it has for the Golden Gate Bridge. 

I don't think asking a simple question in this forum is going to set back mass transit in the Bay Area. I doubt that policy makers look to comments on this discussion in formulating their policy.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

dysharmonica said:


> Let's stop with these fantasy maps. SMART is SONOMA and MARIN county transit. They own a bunch of old ROW there and have TONS of work left to make a dent in fixing north-bay's century-neglected transit infrastructure ... All these projects are quite cheap given that SMArT owns the ROW, and is runnign single-track DMUs ... it's all pretty amazingly cost effective. Getting over the Bay is costly, and currently there is no huge demand for it.
> 
> We're back in one of the most hostile federal transit funding climate on record (probably comparable to the 80s) -- we need to be extremely strategic and focus on the highest bang-for-the-buck work.
> 
> SMART will connect to ferries, and gradually become entrenched as a solid suburban rail service - expand a little to the north and east on existing ROW. Increase frequency, capacity, double-track ...
> 
> Caltrain will electrify, and maybe with Facebook's help will cross to east bay. Maybe begin removing level crossings to make everyone's lives easier
> 
> MUNI will add some miles of much needed subway -- especially Geary.
> 
> ACE will expand to cover Livermore better and connect to BART in Dublin/Pleasanton. Add frequency and capacity as demand grows
> 
> These are good developments .. they are all high-ROI investments ... let's keep that going ... not chase some ill-advised vanity projects. This is not the 1960s where experimentation and innovation in the public sphere was rewarded in the name of modernity and progress. I have a feeling that even just studying that connection would energize the SMART opposition in north bay ... It's not the time. Not yet.


You're very lucky I live next to SMART, so I can forward all your thoughts and ideas to its HQ in Petaluma. Although most of the current line is single-tracked, there are indeed portions of the line that are double-tracked to allow passing trains and two trains stopping at the same time (e.g. Cotati, Santa Rosa, San Rafael).

As for extensions, the Novato-Fairfield extension is seen as a medium term goal to link SMART to Solano County (and to the national railway network provided by Amtrak) via Sonoma and Vallejo. This will significantly ease congestion along CA-37 which can get very crowded weekday rush (AM westbound, PM eastbound) and on race days at Sonoma Raceway select weekends. However, as a user pointed out, that connection should not only be one of two regional connections out there linking Marin, Sonoma, and the rest of the Bay Area.

A Richmond Bridge connection is challenging at best for the time being due to the length of either a bridge or an underwater crossing. In fact, of the eight major bridges crossing the Bay (Golden Gate Bridge, however, has its own toll authority), the Richmond Bridge is the longest, which would incur slightly higher costs than the second Transbay Tube if we keep up with the single tube format. Also not included would be the possibility of a new station in San Rafael serving the Canal and Shoreline neighborhoods prior to the bridge or underground crossing. The most challenging would be navigating through the Chevron refinery facility in Richmond, with multiple pipelines and railway lines we need to deal with before finally arriving somewhere in Richmond or El Cerrito. We can also do a southern approach and land in Point Richmond, but we have to deal with San Quentin State Prison and a possible longer crossing than the Richmond Bridge.

ACE is another special case as its operations are contracted out to Herzog, and it is based in Stockton and managed by San Joaquin County, not in the Bay Area. It'd be much better for ACE to explore upgrading its fleet by downsizing from the typical 7-car Bombardier fleet and a heavy-duty engine to the Stadtler trains similar to eBART for greater passenger throughput and trip flexibility, especially with growing congestion along I-580 between Dublin and west of Tracy, if not also I-205 in Tracy as well. And by the way, the Stadtler fleet, if done right, can climb up and down the current alignment via the Altamont Pass easily while carrying hundreds of riders at once. Perhaps Union Pacific can be tasked to double track most of, if not the entire, current alignment to boost capacity significantly from the current 4 weekday round trips (4 westbound AM peak, 4 eastbound PM peak) and 2 Saturday round trips (2 westbound AM, 2 eastbound PM) it currently provides.


Amexpat said:


> I wasn't proposing a fantasy map or advocating anything. I was curious if Mass Transit over the Richmond Bridge had ever been considered as it has for the Golden Gate Bridge.
> 
> I don't think asking a simple question in this forum is going to set back mass transit in the Bay Area. I doubt that policy makers look to comments on this discussion in formulating their policy.


There is a bus service provided by Golden Gate Transit linking San Rafael with El Cerrito del Norte BART via the Richmond Bridge, which is funded using Regional Measure 2. Called Route 40, it serves Point Richmond and Cutting Boulevard in Richmond, as well as Shoreline Boulevard (Target and Home Depot) and the San Rafael Main Post Office in San Rafael. An express version of Route 40, called the 40X, skips Point Richmond and operates weekday peaks only (AM westbound, PM eastbound).

Interestingly, for nine months, Golden Gate Transit supplemented Route 40 (and at the time, Route 42 which also served Richmond BART) with yet another East Bay route called Route 580. It went further down to Emeryville via Albany and Berkeley, with select stops along San Pablo Avenue (similar to AC Transit's Route 72R, San Pablo Rapid). It garnered a measly 3 passengers per trip, way lower than a typical commuter service, that it was scrapped and rerouted to the current 40X of today.


----------



## cardinal2007

Suburbanist said:


> I wonder if there are any realistic proposals to build a monorail, or a light underground rail with frequent stops, along the El Camino Real, and densify the heck out of that corridor.


I think not, VTA was pushing for BRT and all the cities except San Jose blocked it. So that means not light rail or BRT due to losing traffic lanes. And underground will just be too big a budget for VTA, they are struggling for the final 4B for BART given the tunnel, a lower used service light underground light rail will probably be harder to justify.

Finally a big aerial will likely be stopped by all the cities as ugly, eyesore, or berlin wall of El Camino Real, etc etc.

I think realistically using technology to create smaller ROW necessary for BRT would be necessary to progress along those lines. Something like 6ft wide autonomous shuttles/buses or thinner, to try to get a lane there somehow without a huge fight. Currently the 522 is terribly slow, taking 70 minutes from Palo Alto to downtown SJ, where Caltrain goes near those places in 20 minutes.

And the frequent stops will just be a no-go, you can't have fast service that stops so frequently, physics is an issue there. 

I would say realistically coming up with a 5ft or 4ft wide autonomous shuttles, 5 minute headways, doesn't have to stop at every stop, only those with people waiting, and peak commute signal priority is about as far as we can hope for this corridor. Until we can get BRT lanes with smaller footprint, I think we are going to get cities blocking them.

BTW it might be worse, it might have to be one reversible BRT lane, and the other direction having to use the left lane on the other side.

VTA certainly doesn't have a huge capital investment for this corridor. 

I think realistically though putting service down 101 or 280 might be where they go with light rail or BART. Or new age BRT.


----------



## cardinal2007

With Diridon getting BART service, improved light rail service, improved Capitol Corridor, and improved Caltrain service, it will be the most connected transit station in the Bay Area.

I feel though that VTA is failing to plan properly for it, and the only one that has been planning correctly for this is Google? 

What do you all think, I think the BART station plans are a bit lacking for what will essentially be the biggest train station in the West, you have to surface and pass the bus depot then walk into the station and go down then up to the platforms to transfer BART -> Caltrain, Caltrain to BART, and VTA light rail to BART is worse, you have to walk to either San Fernando station, or walk through the main Diridon station to get to the light rail.

I'm hoping there could be more improvements for the cross service transfer, otherwise people might want to bypass the station all together, instead of taking light rail to BART, you will drive to Alum Rock, instead of taking BART to Caltrain, you will drive to Tamien, etc.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Van Ness BRT construction (photo from last month)









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Van_Ness_BRT_construction_at_McAllister,_August_2018.JPG

Construction of Airport Hotel station, a new station on the SFO airport airtrain (photos from last month)









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...t_Hotel_AirTrain_station_(1),_August_2018.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...t_Hotel_AirTrain_station_(2),_August_2018.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...t_Hotel_AirTrain_station_(3),_August_2018.JPG


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Direct service to/from Warm Springs now available as part of schedule chang*e"

http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2018/news20180907

All Fremont trains in the East Bay now terminate at Warm Springs. Before this latest change, some trains had to terminate at Fremont station. Also, the new map appears to show that a change of trains is required to go past Pittsburg to Antioch (see northeast corner of above map):










And here is an update on the extension to Berryessa station in San Jose (not likely to open until late 2019 due to the need to replace previously installed networking equipment)

http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/Connect-with-VTA/VTAs-BART-Berryessa-Extension-Update#.W5aQUs4zq70


----------



## KJO

Woonsocket54 said:


> And here is an update on the extension to Berryessa station in San Jose (not likely to open until late 2019 due to the need to replace previously installed networking equipment)
> 
> http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/Connect-with-VTA/VTAs-BART-Berryessa-Extension-Update#.W5aQUs4zq70


I wonder if there was a consideration to accept the already installed devices with a contract credit to avoid the negative schedule impacts. 

I mean the contractor could at that point decide whether they would be willing to pay the schedule delay damages or whatever vta would be willing to accept for the used networking equipment... 

It is not ideal, but too often it seems these large projects undervalue the on-time project performance, even though schedule is a critical part of project delivery. 

In either case, I just hope vta gets huge change order credits or LD charges from this.


----------



## Stuu

KJO said:


> I wonder if there was a consideration to accept the already installed devices with a contract credit to avoid the negative schedule impacts...


Without the detail it's hard to know for sure, but anything safety-critical would have to be replaced if it was not to the correct specification. Whoever is responsible for ensuring safety (FTA?) would not sign-off anything with substandard equipment, think of the liability issues


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Okay folks, here are some things I learned from the High Speed Rail Leadership Summit that took place at the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors over the past few days:

John Funghi, Chief Officer, Caltrain Modernization Program, and a panelist named Santiago, mentioned the following:

- Transit systems were built by politicians, not engineers
- Brightline, Texas problems highlight the strength of political power
- Caltrain electrification project: went to multiple meetings, a unanimous political endeavor that allowed it to happen (put politics in place)
- New electric train sets will be 6-car consists, up to 110mph; total of 96 cars, with first full consist to arrive Summer 2019
- Currently potholing (placing poles)
- From 10/4 and 20 consecutive weekends: bus bridges between Bayshore, 22nd Street, and Downtown SF due to tunnel construction

Takayoshi Oshima, Founder of Allied Telesis, noted "Finishing CA HSR by 2026 Los Angeles Olympics a 'major accomplishment'", and once opened, "HSR can flourish in two decades, become a backbone for the state and nation". And Andy Kunz, President of the US High Speed Rail Association, remarked "A complete transportation network should include HSR", with an estimated cost of $600b over 20 years. Can share more, but I am currently synthesizing the notes I took using my camera.


----------



## Rapidtransitman

@fieldsofdreams Do share more!


----------



## fieldsofdreams

There will be more. But I need to juggle through assignments due this week. In the meanwhile, I can share these... and check out the slides from the conference too.

The week of 8 to 13 September 2018 brought me new discoveries, adventures, and lessons that I cannot believe how much time I've spent on the road to learn so much stuff! Let me put them by day so that you'll understand what I mean:

*Saturday:* Class in San Jose (while in SF, Heritage Weekend and the Climate Action March took place around the same time)


DSC_0700 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


DSC_0711 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​
*Sunday:* Sunday Streets and Heritage Weekend


DSC_0108 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


20180909_150340 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​
For more pics from Sunday, click here.

*Monday:* Class in San Jose


DSC_0559 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​
*Tuesday:* High Speed Rail Conference (Day 1) and Night Class in San Jose - the day I met Peter Calthorpe, the father of Transit Oriented Development, for the first time


IMG_4553 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_4794 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​
*Wednesday:* High Speed Rail Conference (Day 2), the day I met the father of transportation research, Dr. Vukan Vuchic from the University of Pennsylvania, for the first time (on the image, Dr. Vuchic is on the left; Carl Guardino of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group is on the right)


IMG_5182 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


IMG_5179 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​
*Thursday:* High Speed Rail Conference (Day 3) on the field in Fresno, visiting 3 construction sites that prove California High Speed Rail is coming soon.


20180913_135439 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


DSC_0804 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


DSC_0051 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


DSC_0211 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​
For the complete photo collection from the US High Speed Rail Leadership Summit in San Jose (including lecture notes and bonus pics from the Fresno tour), click here. 

Travel count:

San Francisco - 6
San Jose - 5
Fresno - 1

Distance covered by day, round trip (miles/km)

8 September: 169 miles (270.4 km)
9 September: 72 miles (115 km)
10 September: 155 miles (248 km)
11 September: 155 miles (248 km)
12 September: 155 miles (248 km)
13 September: 476 miles (761.6 km)

Total: 1182 miles (1891 km)

_*Note:* a round trip may not necessarily mean I take the same way going to an event as the return trip. Trip distances and times may vary based on multiple factors, including transfer delays, congestion, detours, vehicular breakdowns, and other issues beyond my control._


----------



## Stuu

fieldsofdreams said:


>


A tiny cable car? That's amazing, if a bit crazy!


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Stuu said:


> A tiny cable car? That's amazing, if a bit crazy!


Yes it sure is. It will be used to transport passengers with wheelchairs and those wanting a view of Downtown SF using the clear windows on all sides between street level and the elevated gardens on the 4th floor of the new transit center.


----------



## zaphod

Inclinators or tiny funiculars aren’t that rare in transit stations.

Dallas has one the Cityplace DART station, the only underground stop in the network. I guess it was cheaper to combine the elevator and escalator shaft , plus the station itself is under a freeway while the entrances are on either side so they couldn’t go straight down.


----------



## browntown

fieldsofdreams said:


> Yes it sure is. It will be used to transport passengers with wheelchairs and those wanting a view of Downtown SF using the clear windows on all sides between street level and the elevated gardens on the 4th floor of the new transit center.


They couldn't just put a freaking elevator in the station?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

browntown said:


> They couldn't just put a freaking elevator in the station?


There are elevators within Salesforce Transit Center, as well as an elevator directly to the 4th floor from a rather discreet entrance on the southwest side of the tower. I'll check if there is an elevator linking the gardens on the 4th floor with the Muni and Golden Gate Transit bays on the area between Fremont and Beale Streets.


----------



## Stuu

zaphod said:


> Inclinators or tiny funiculars aren’t that rare in transit stations.


No, but cable cars is a new one, as far as I know.

Are there any as small as this anywhere else?


----------



## zaphod

Stuu said:


> No, but cable cars is a new one, as far as I know.
> 
> Are there any as small as this anywhere else?


There are quite a few big mansions in California which have private residential funiculars.

Suzanne Somers '(TV actress from the 1970s) house in Palm Springs has one:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...e-outdoor-bathtub-amphitheater-funicular.html

Here's one in Sausalito near SF:

https://sf.curbed.com/2017/2/14/14614470/sausalito-funicular-house-sale


----------



## Stuu

^^

Right? There's loads of those. I asked about tiny cable cars like at the Transbay Terminal, it doesn't have any tracks so is not a funicular, are there any others anywhere?


----------



## Woonsocket54

http://blog.fiftythree.studio/post/178200078507


----------



## FDW

Woonsocket54 said:


> snip


Oh joy, another butchered Bay Area fantasy transit map.


----------



## Stuu

^^

And ideas which would mean regauging the whole of BART. Not confident that is a worthwhile idea


----------



## FDW

Stuu said:


> ^^
> 
> And ideas which would mean regauging the whole of BART. Not confident that is a worthwhile idea


No, regauging (re-electrifying) BART to mainline standards is fundamentally a good idea, expensive as it would be. But I think the Transbay II in this map is meant to be a four-track tunnel with BART/Mainline rail.

I think it's bad because the creator of this map clearly bother to think how this would actually work in terms of operations (The Montgomery/Transbay/MOMA complex is an abomination of a transfer, and 4th/King is not going to work like that) . On top of that, it clearly doesn't have anything that hasn't been put on a million other fantasy maps before, and it doesn't even include everything that MUNI is thinking about, like Central Subway Phase IV, or the Parkmerced realignment.


----------



## SSMEX

Stuu said:


> ^^
> 
> And ideas which would mean regauging the whole of BART. Not confident that is a worthwhile idea


If you take a close look at the map, it looks like it could work without regauging existing BART tracks. The two purple lines are obviously existing Caltrain services extended through a new transbay tunnel, and the new blue and red lines are obviously an extension of BART on BART-gauge tracks.

The major issues here are that the new transbay tunnel is going to have to be a four track tunnel due to different track gauges and the reactivated Dumbarton corridor seems to be wasted on low frequency ACE service.


----------



## FDW

SSMEX said:


> If you take a close look at the map, it looks like it could work without regauging existing BART tracks. The two purple lines are obviously existing Caltrain services extended through a new transbay tunnel, and the new blue and red lines are obviously an extension of BART on BART-gauge tracks.
> 
> The major issues here are that the new transbay tunnel is going to have to be a four track tunnel due to different track gauges and the reactivated Dumbarton corridor seems to be wasted on low frequency ACE service.


I've said it before, and I'll say it now: BART doesn't necessarily need another crossing, A Regional rail only crossing would do wonders to offer alternatives and additional capacity, while opening up all kinds of new possibilities. So the problem is not just with Dumbarton, but with Regional Rail. Again, it's thinking in terms of Art and not in terms of how it's actually going to work.


----------



## Woonsocket54

floor23 said:


> The biggest enemy of infrastructure projects in our country is an inpatient media that blows everything out proportion and wants everything finished instantly, when in reality projects take time and often have many problems a long the way.


And this would be consistent with the official White House policy - "the media is the enemy of the people"


----------



## FDW

BREAKING NEWS:

http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Ag...October+2018+Quarterly+Board+Presentation.pdf

Caltrain finally does the obvious, and finds that giving the corridor BART like frequencies will yield BART like ridership. This is LOL HUEG. Will Caltrain actually commit to quadrupling service as layed out in the proposal, that is the 25 Billion Dollar (and counting) question.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

FDW said:


> BREAKING NEWS:
> 
> http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Ag...October+2018+Quarterly+Board+Presentation.pdf
> 
> Caltrain finally does the obvious, and finds that giving the corridor BART like frequencies will yield BART like ridership. This is LOL HUEG. Will Caltrain actually commit to quadrupling service as layed out in the proposal, that is the 25 Billion Dollar (and counting) question.


Electrifying the rail indeed holds a lot of promise for Caltrain, yet it has taken years of hard work and consultations to make it happen. With Southern Pacific managing the tracks and the Caltrain Joint Powers Authority managing the services, it took a lot of backroom negotiations and raising funs to propose its next Business Plan. What I'd like to see next for Caltrain and TJPA: build more dedicated trackage where possible for Caltrain trains to hold while HSR trains fly through. Sure, there are passing tracks now at Bayshore and Lawrence, but I'd like to see more along the way like, say, Palo Alto or Redwood City.


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> Electrifying the rail indeed holds a lot of promise for Caltrain, yet it has taken years of hard work and consultations to make it happen. With Southern Pacific managing the tracks and the Caltrain Joint Powers Authority managing the services, it took a lot of backroom negotiations and raising funs to propose its next Business Plan. What I'd like to see next for Caltrain and TJPA: build more dedicated trackage where possible for Caltrain trains to hold while HSR trains fly through. Sure, there are passing tracks now at Bayshore and Lawrence, but I'd like to see more along the way like, say, Palo Alto or Redwood City.


UP doesn't control the corridor in any fashion any more. If they did, Caltrain would have to be moving heaven and earth just to add one train (like what's happened up in Seattle).

Caltrain's already planning for a bunch more in the way of Overtakes (Like the one in San Mateo), but with the kind of frequency being proposed, we're probably going to see all of the corridor being 4-tracked. Caltrain's talking 22 tph peak, 14tph off-peak, assuming all of the HSR projects get built too. That's insane, because it completely blows past what SP managed at the peak of the peak. It also means that Transbay is going to be a ******* problem. And despite the positive direction, it still isn't enough off-peak local service.


----------



## phoenixboi08

FDW said:


> It also means that Transbay is going to be a ******* problem. And despite the positive direction, it still isn't enough off-peak local service.


Yeah, I'm wondering about this.
How exactly are they going to turn trains around?

Presumably, it won't be as much of a mess as, say, PSNY where you have an actual station with through-running services also operating as a terminus for other services...

I can kind of see where the implications of some future transbay tube allowing HSR services to not terminate in SF might constrain the current design of the station, but...such a problem.


----------



## MrAronymous

CHSR and the new Caltrain units will all be bidirectional. It will be designed as terminus station initially. If they'd want to up capacity in the future they could dig a tunnel from the other side.


----------



## FDW

phoenixboi08 said:


> Yeah, I'm wondering about this.
> How exactly are they going to turn trains around?


They're going to reverse direction. This is going to limit capacity of the station to about 18tph at most (Though given American standards, that means 14tph or less in practice).



> Presumably, it won't be as much of a mess as, say, PSNY where you have an actual station with through-running services also operating as a terminus for other services...


It's going to be worse, because current plans have Caltrain and CAHSR carving the station up like Penn, rather than having all trains use all platforms.



> I can kind of see where the implications of some future transbay tube allowing HSR services to not terminate in SF might constrain the current design of the station, but...such a problem.


The current design of station actually made accommodating future extensions harder, not easier, by getting rid of the tail tracks that were in the earlier stages of design. Assuming that these tracks are built alongside a second tube, and built into the full-loop that they were intended to be, then the capacity of the station will jump to 48tph.


----------



## phoenixboi08

FDW said:


> They're going to reverse direction. This is going to limit capacity of the station to about 18tph at most (Though given American standards, that means 14tph or less in practice).
> 
> It's going to be worse, because current plans have Caltrain and CAHSR carving the station up like Penn, rather than having all trains use all platforms.


Well yes, that's the bit I was wondering about 

I think they plan on originating some trains at San Jose, right?
I'll have to go back and revisit the business plans and schedule examples/ridership models.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*More trouble for Transbay as city halts funds, steel testing results delayed*"

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...cked-beams-delayed-again-as-city-13330783.php

Here's a question for the megaproject experts out there - is the media still "blowing this out of proportion"? Is this typical for every project?


----------



## FDW

Woonsocket54 said:


> "*More trouble for Transbay as city halts funds, steel testing results delayed*"
> 
> https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...cked-beams-delayed-again-as-city-13330783.php
> 
> Here's a question for the megaproject experts out there - is the media still "blowing this out of proportion"? Is this typical for every project?


I don't think it's being blown out of proportion, pretty much every project in the region over the last 50 years has been dealing with this same problem.


----------



## MrAronymous

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053749021569765378


----------



## CB31

*BART announces plans for second transbay tube*


















> On Wednesday, BART announced that the transit agency is “taking early steps to create a second Transbay Tube.”
> 
> Yes, really.
> 
> The possibility of a second tube—BART’s official announcement suggests that “tube” may not be the correct term for whatever the agency ends up building, instead stressing the term “second crossing”—has floated around the Bay Area for decades, but this is the first time BART appears to be planning concrete measures for it.
> 
> But commuters had better get comfortable with their current one-tube experience; actual construction will start at least a decade from now:
> 
> BART intends to use a feasibility study to narrow multiple alternatives for the second crossing to a short list of two to four options. Next steps include potentially awarding a contract for that study in mid-2019.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ Prior to that happening, there will be a series of closures with the current Transbay Tube that will cause BART to adjust its opening times weekdays to 5am instead of the current 4am. That includes the collaboration of multiple agencies to provide augmented bus services to MacArthur BART and Salesforce Transit Center, including:

- AC Transit
- County Connection
- Golden Gate Transit
- SamTrans
- San Francisco MTA
- Tri-Delta Transit
- WestCAT
- Wheels

While AC Transit will do most of the Transbay work, Golden Gate Transit and WestCAT will provide additional Transbay services (the former from Del Norte BART, the latter using existing LYNX service) from the East Bay to San Francisco. Tri-Delta will provide a bus bridge between Antioch and Pittsburg/Bay Point, while Wheels will provide a supplementary bus service between Dublin/Pleasanton and Bay Fair. And County Connection will parallel services between Concord and MacArthur BART, with no stops in Orinda or Lafayette.


----------



## Woonsocket54

fieldsofdreams said:


> augmented bus services to MacArthur BART and Salesforce Transit Center.


I think you mean "Temporary" Transbay Terminal and not Salesforce Transit Center, which will remain closed for many months and possibly years.


----------



## jchernin

They should build a bridge for interstate 280 as an alternative to the Bay Bridge that includes BART and standard gauge rail.


----------



## luacstjh98

Here I am thinking how the standard gauge BART could work. Regauging is expensive.

Perhaps it could be done on the current Pittsburgh line, and 2 of 4 tracks in Oakland? This could also provide through service to the current eBART line as well...


----------



## FDW

luacstjh98 said:


> Here I am thinking how the standard gauge BART could work. Regauging is expensive.
> 
> Perhaps it could be done on the current Pittsburgh line, and 2 of 4 tracks in Oakland? This could also provide through service to the current eBART line as well...


No, what BART is talking about is a 4-track tube here. 2 Inidan Guage tracks for BART and 2 Standard Guage tracks for Caltrain/CC/Amtrak/HSR.


----------



## aquamaroon

Regardless this looks great for Caltrain operating alongside BART in Downtown San Francisco! Especially with the planned electrification of Caltrain, hopefully commuter rail becomes an almost indistinguishable part of the region's subway/rail portfolio. Like taking NJ Transit into Manhattan and hopping onto the subway you don't really think of the two as separate, just one long transportation network. And hopefully that'll happen here too!


----------



## FDW

aquamaroon said:


> Regardless this looks great for Caltrain operating alongside BART in Downtown San Francisco! Especially with the planned electrification of Caltrain, hopefully commuter rail becomes an almost indistinguishable part of the region's subway/rail portfolio. Like taking NJ Transit into Manhattan and hopping onto the subway you don't really think of the two as separate, just one long transportation network. And hopefully that'll happen here too!


Let's not get too ahead of ourselves, the devil is still in the details.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Woonsocket54 said:


> I think you mean "Temporary" Transbay Terminal and not Salesforce Transit Center, which will remain closed for many months and possibly years.


I will ask the Transbay Joint Powers Authority for an update on this matter once I get another informational interview to them.


luacstjh98 said:


> Here I am thinking how the standard gauge BART could work. Regauging is expensive.
> 
> Perhaps it could be done on the current Pittsburgh line, and 2 of 4 tracks in Oakland? This could also provide through service to the current eBART line as well...


Regauging the original BART network would be a logistical nightmare. Not only you will have to wreck the entire network and rebuild it from scratch, but you also have to adjust most of the current infrastructure to work on a narrower gauge. That will take billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of hours of labor, redesigning the entire system... in short, it is impossible to do so. Sure, it's easier to find trains in standard gauge, but there were good reasons why BART went for the Indian gauge (e.g. speed, capacity, curvature, design). The Second Transbay Tube will almost certain to be Indian gauge too, especially if BART wants to operate 24/7. Therefore, the better questions to ask would be:

- What alignment would be the most ideal for the second tube in terms of price, noise issues, potential for new stations, and future growth opportunities?

- How should the Port of Oakland, Union Pacific, Amtrak, and other stakeholders work on developing and funding a train tunnel that will finally link the Oakland Wye with Salesforce Transit Center?


----------



## dysharmonica

jchernin said:


> They should build a bridge for interstate 280 as an alternative to the Bay Bridge that includes BART and standard gauge rail.


1. We do not need another car crossing - that is just wasted money. 

2. Bay bridge used to have rail -- before we gave it to cars - maybe we can take the lower deck back. Hey look, free second transbay rail connection!

3. Modern rail, however is not a friend of suspension bridges - because they are too flexible. So a cable stayed bridge would be required, which is pricy. There are examples of suspension bridges with metro (e.g. Ben Franklin bridge connecting Philly to NJ), but they are rare -- rail is heavy, suspension bridges are a bit too flexible. 

4. The bay is a shallow, sandy bay -- laying tunnel into the sediment can be cheaper than building a bridge. You can look at the German-Denmark Fehrman connection for an example - always was assumed to be a bridge for cars and rail (freight + high speed), but then a submerged tunnel turned out to be way cheaper. NOW ... the heaviest bit on this rail connection is the freight rail -- which transbay would not support - so the match may work out differently, but in a shallow water crossing like the Bay, the 2 modes (bridge vs submerged tunnel) are not terribly far away in cost. 

5. If the drivers wanted to pay for this ... one could pretty most likely quite easily add road tubes to the submerged tunnel as well.

6. BART is calling this "second transbay crossing" --- clearly indicating that no decision was made on whether it's tunnel, bridge, or a Chinook helicopter moving BART trains across the Bay. https://sf.curbed.com/2018/11/15/18096775/bart-second-crossing-transbay-tube-bay-sf-transit


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> I will ask the Transbay Joint Powers Authority for an update on this matter once I get another informational interview to them.
> 
> Regauging the original BART network would be a logistical nightmare. Not only you will have to wreck the entire network and rebuild it from scratch, but you also have to adjust most of the current infrastructure to work on a narrower gauge. That will take billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of hours of labor, redesigning the entire system... in short, it is impossible to do so. Sure, it's easier to find trains in standard gauge, but there were good reasons why BART went for the Indian gauge (e.g. speed, capacity, curvature, design). The Second Transbay Tube will almost certain to be Indian gauge too, especially if BART wants to operate 24/7. Therefore, the better questions to ask would be:
> 
> - What alignment would be the most ideal for the second tube in terms of price, noise issues, potential for new stations, and future growth opportunities?
> 
> - How should the Port of Oakland, Union Pacific, Amtrak, and other stakeholders work on developing and funding a train tunnel that will finally link the Oakland Wye with Salesforce Transit Center?


On the San Francisco side, there's no question about alignment. It needs to be Geary, and it needs to get there ASAP from the landing point, so no money wasting SOMA sojourn.


----------



## MarshallKnight

FDW said:


> On the San Francisco side, there's no question about alignment. It needs to be Geary, and it needs to get there ASAP from the landing point, so no money wasting SOMA sojourn.


While I agree the alignment ultimately needs to service Geary, I'm not sure pure expediency is the most important factor in choosing how it gets there. For instance, I think it would be a mistake not to have direct connections to the Caltrain/HSR network, so I'd rule out any alignment that doesn't allow for easy connections at either Transbay Terminal or 4th & King station. I also think it's wise to bring BART to the area around AT&T Park -- which would simplify many trips in and out of rapidly-growing Mission Bay, not to mention unburden the transport network on Giants and soon, Warriors, gamedays.

To your point though, you don't want to go too far out of your way in getting to the Geary corridor, which is why I'd rule out any of those long jaunts down to Van Ness. I think my preferred alignment for a new BART tunnel is 3rd Street (ideally with a pedestrian tunnel connecting to 4th/King station under Townsend street). BUT, as noted on the previous page, I think it's important to recognize that when we write about a second crossing, we're really talking about 2 crossings: one for BART and another for regional trains. So really, I hope that the JTA is considering options that would de-couple the two, so that Caltrain (and hopefully HSR) could cross into Oakland directly from Transbay Terminal, while BART can make its own best approach. Something like this:


----------



## FDW

MarshallKnight said:


> While I agree the alignment ultimately needs to service Geary, I'm not sure pure expediency is the most important factor in choosing how it gets there. For instance, I think it would be a mistake not to have direct connections to the Caltrain/HSR network, so I'd rule out any alignment that doesn't allow for easy connections at either Transbay Terminal or 4th & King station. I also think it's wise to bring BART to the area around AT&T Park -- which would simplify many trips in and out of rapidly-growing Mission Bay, not to mention unburden the transport network on Giants and soon, Warriors, gamedays.
> 
> To your point though, you don't want to go too far out of your way in getting to the Geary corridor, which is why I'd rule out any of those long jaunts down to Van Ness. I think my preferred alignment for a new BART tunnel is 3rd Street (ideally with a pedestrian tunnel connecting to 4th/King station under Townsend street). BUT, as noted on the previous page, I think it's important to recognize that when we write about a second crossing, we're really talking about 2 crossings: one for BART and another for regional trains. So really, I hope that the JTA is considering options that would de-couple the two, so that Caltrain (and hopefully HSR) could cross into Oakland directly from Transbay Terminal, while BART can make its own best approach. Something like this:


What you're proposing is EXACTLY the alignment I oppose. Though your idea adds even more wasted money by insisting on 2 separate tubes on 2 separate alignments. 3rd St is a terrible for BART. Not just because it's duplicative (something that I've brought up before), but also because the transfers are god awful. The Caltrain/NewBART transfer at Townsend on that map is going to mean a 1/4 mile (400 m) walk between the stations, and the transfer to the MSS is almost that bad.

The core alignment I want is a Mission/O'Farrell alignment. Given that any new BART into DTSF is going to be Superduper deep, it offers the best in the way of transfer opportunities, and a way to fix some of the issues Powell St is going to have once the Central Subway opens.


----------



## EDBTZ

FDW said:


> What you're proposing is EXACTLY the alignment I oppose. Though your idea adds even more wasted money by insisting on 2 separate tubes on 2 separate alignments. 3rd St is a terrible for BART. Not just because it's duplicative (something that I've brought up before), but also because the transfers are god awful. The Caltrain/NewBART transfer at Townsend on that map is going to mean a 1/4 mile (400 m) walk between the stations, and the transfer to the MSS is almost that bad.
> 
> The core alignment I want is a Mission/O'Farrell alignment. Given that any new BART into DTSF is going to be Superduper deep, it offers the best in the way of transfer opportunities, and a way to fix some of the issues Powell St is going to have once the Central Subway opens.












two tubes is cheaper than one


----------



## FDW

EDBTZ said:


> two tubes is cheaper than one


Yet they say they need to study it more. Still, I think both the Caltrain and BART tunnels would follow the same alignment, to keep drama while tunneling down.


----------



## MarshallKnight

EDBTZ said:


> two tubes is cheaper than one


Thanks for pulling that up, EDBTZ -- that's the impression I was under, but I didn't want to misquote the facts.



FDW said:


> What you're proposing is EXACTLY the alignment I oppose. [...] 3rd St is a terrible for BART. Not just because it's duplicative (something that I've brought up before), but also because the transfers are god awful. The Caltrain/NewBART transfer at Townsend on that map is going to mean a 1/4 mile (400 m) walk between the stations, and the transfer to the MSS is almost that bad.
> 
> The core alignment I want is a Mission/O'Farrell alignment. Given that any new BART into DTSF is going to be Superduper deep, it offers the best in the way of transfer opportunities, and a way to fix some of the issues Powell St is going to have once the Central Subway opens.


FDW, aside from the two-tube issue, you bring up several good points. I should start by clarifying that my _truly_ ideal alignment would have been a stacked Muni/BART tunnel under 4th, allowing for walk-down transfers just like the Market Street Subway (with, as you describe, the actual station box under O'Farrell). But that became an engineering impossibility once the Central Subway broke ground.

Duplicative service isn't a bad thing, as long as it's facilitating quick transfers, especially from regional-to-local services. So yeah, with a quarter-mile gap between 3rd St. and the Central Subway alignment/Caltrain Station on 4th, the transfer problem you point out is very real. But you can hopefully understand why I'd advocate for that alignment, under the assumption that it would be mitigated in some way (e.g. pedestrian tunnels with moving walkways).

It's obviously far from perfect -- every alignment will involve some kind of compromise. But practicalities of transfers aside, I think we have one major philosophical difference: I look at the second crossing as a hundred-year legacy project, and my chief concern is that it's done right, even if the "right" way is significantly more expensive. 

I can appreciate the simplicity and directness of your proposed alignment, but San Franciscans of 2068 aren't going to care that we saved $2 billion dollars if they're facing a nightmare of overcrowded trains and circuitous transfers en route to their jobs and homes in bustling SoMa and Mission Bay. I'm not married to any particular alignment, but with this once-in-a-generation project, I want to be sure we're delivering the best service to the most people for the foreseeable future -- to me that means bringing one-seat rides within the regional network (i.e. newBART) to the fastest growing neighborhoods in SF.


----------



## Stuu

EDBTZ said:


> two tubes is cheaper than one


How does that work? If the new crossing were built as an immersed tube again, then building tubes for 4 tracks uses a lot less material than 2 separate tubes, and needs half as many worksites. Obviously I'm missing something but not sure what


----------



## FDW

MarshallKnight said:


> FDW, aside from the two-tube issue, you bring up several good points. I should start by clarifying that my _truly_ ideal alignment would have been a stacked Muni/BART tunnel under 4th, allowing for walk-down transfers just like the Market Street Subway (with, as you describe, the actual station box under O'Farrell). But that became an engineering impossibility once the Central Subway broke ground.


Which would still be a waste of scarce transit dollars. And I was talking about an East-West station under O'Farrell here. 



> Duplicative service isn't a bad thing, as long as it's facilitating quick transfers, especially from regional-to-local services. So yeah, with a quarter-mile gap between 3rd St. and the Central Subway alignment/Caltrain Station on 4th, the transfer problem you point out is very real. But you can hopefully understand why I'd advocate for that alignment, under the assumption that it would be mitigated in some way (e.g. pedestrian tunnels with moving walkways).


Duplicative service at the Bay Areas level of transit development is a bad idea. Those several billion dollars you're insisting be spent in SOMA are better spent on getting BART farther out Geary, or building subway somewhere else in SF. 1/4 mile long transfers are a disaster of planning no matter how many moving walkways you have. Having the transfer at Transbay will mean an up-down (like the MSS) NewBART-Caltrain transfer. And the transfer to the MSS at Powell will be the same as the Central Subway transfer. I'd also add a Ped tunnel to connect 5th to the west end of the NewBART station.



> It's obviously far from perfect -- every alignment will involve some kind of compromise. But practicalities of transfers aside, I think we have one major philosophical difference: I look at the second crossing as a hundred-year legacy project, and my chief concern is that it's done right, even if the "right" way is significantly more expensive.


I'm of a similar mind, but see the map differently. SOMA and Mission already have the kind of infrastructure needed to serve them over the next 100 years, and what's really needed is for that infrastructure to be optimized, not have duplicative infrastructure built.



> I can appreciate the simplicity and directness of your proposed alignment, but San Franciscans of 2068 aren't going to care that we saved $2 billion dollars if they're facing a nightmare of overcrowded trains and circuitous transfers en route to their jobs and homes in bustling SoMa and Mission Bay. I'm not married to any particular alignment, but with this once-in-a-generation project, I want to be sure we're delivering the best service to the most people for the foreseeable future -- to me that means bringing one-seat rides within the regional network (i.e. newBART) to the fastest growing neighborhoods in SF.


Transfers are not the devil. Caltrain and MUNI have plenty of capacity to handle SOMA and Mission Bay, especially once they're optimized. And I have a very different view on how the Bay is going to develop.



Stuu said:


> How does that work? If the new crossing were built as an immersed tube again, then building tubes for 4 tracks uses a lot less material than 2 separate tubes, and needs half as many worksites. Obviously I'm missing something but not sure what


The next crossing is most likely going to be a bored tube, not an immersed one.


----------



## dysharmonica

^^ 
1) FDW -- not following your alignment

2) Where's your source for this? 



> The next crossing is most likely going to be a bored tube, not an immersed one.


Seems unlikely to me given what we know - geologically - about the bay. It seems extremely hard to justify. If we ARE talking about bored tunnels, then each track will likely have its own bore .. which actually add flexibility to route BART and HSR separately -- which would indeed be nice, but the cost of boring is crazy high when one can simply submerge it.


----------



## Stuu

FDW said:


> The next crossing is most likely going to be a bored tube, not an immersed one.


Perhaps they mean that having a single bored tunnel for 4 tracks is more expensive than two or more separate tunnels. So not that having crossings in different locations is cheaper


----------



## Suburbanist

Stuu said:


> Perhaps they mean that having a single bored tunnel for 4 tracks is more expensive than two or more separate tunnels. So not that having crossings in different locations is cheaper


A single-bore double-deck tunnel for 2 tracks on each level would still be a fairly wide tunnel.


----------



## prageethSL

Caltrain electrification updates




























https://calmod.org/electric-train-images/


----------



## Arnorian




----------



## DaeguDuke

Suburbanist said:


> A single-bore double-deck tunnel for 2 tracks on each level would still be a fairly wide tunnel.



Perhaps two tracks at the widest, with one below and above? You’d probably want a central pax tunnel for emergencies, complicated but not impossible. One you start considering 4 single bore tunnels you are probably better off sinking a prefab tunnel to the bottom of the bay, which was how the current transbay tube was built.


----------



## FDW

dysharmonica said:


> ^^
> 1) FDW -- not following your alignment
> 
> 2) Where's your source for this?
> 
> 
> 
> Seems unlikely to me given what we know - geologically - about the bay. It seems extremely hard to justify. If we ARE talking about bored tunnels, then each track will likely have its own bore .. which actually add flexibility to route BART and HSR separately -- which would indeed be nice, but the cost of boring is crazy high when one can simply submerge it.


1: I would like for BART to land its tube at the foot of Mission St, and then transition over to O'Farrell St, cutting north to Geary later on.

2: The source I have is from the 2000 MTC study on the tube, which specifically mentioned environmental concerns, along with an old munitions dump on the site of one of the better routes as reason to go for bores. I presume this stuff might come up in the next study.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*No date to fix SF transit terminal as Clipper kiosks return to temporary site*"

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/mati...terminal-as-Clipper-13443141.php?t=d75fa4400e


----------



## cardinal2007

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/12/10/diridon-station-san-jose-future-development.html



> *Public can begin to weigh in tonight on the future of San Jose's Diridon Station*
> 
> Diridon Station sits in the center of San Jose. It’s owned by one of the oldest commuter railroads in the United States and within a decade is set to receive two more railroads, BART and California’s high-speed rail line, with dozens of new trains from each.
> 
> That level of connectivity is expected to generate 140,000 daily passenger visits — eight times as many as today — but that’s been known for years.
> 
> ...


With BART, High Speed Rail, electrified Caltrain, VTA light rail, ACE and Capitol Corridor, Diridon will basically become the Grand Central Station of the west in about 8-10 years when all these services come in, and the design of the station and the transfers will be critical to facilitate this.

It seems that some people involved may still see Diridon as it is now, the 3rd most used Caltrain station, but with Google coming, and all the services it is a far short-sided view, and it is clear this could become a missed opportunity that doesn't get addressed correctly.


----------



## cardinal2007

cardinal2007 said:


> https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/12/10/diridon-station-san-jose-future-development.html
> 
> 
> 
> With BART, High Speed Rail, electrified Caltrain, VTA light rail, ACE and Capitol Corridor, Diridon will basically become the Grand Central Station of the west in about 8-10 years when all these services come in, and the design of the station and the transfers will be critical to facilitate this.
> 
> It seems that some people involved may still see Diridon as it is now, the 3rd most used Caltrain station, but with Google coming, and all the services it is a far short-sided view, and it is clear this could become a missed opportunity that doesn't get addressed correctly.


I think SPUR has a good write up of the issues:

https://www.spur.org/news/2018-12-05/what-will-diridon-station-s-legacy-be



> *What Will Diridon Station’s Legacy Be?*
> Decades from now, will San Jose’s redesigned Diridon Station be a hub of activity that teems with mobility options and plays a central role in the city and the region — or will it be a missed opportunity?
> 
> Last month, SPUR convened national and international experts in San Jose to share best practices for planning and building world-class transit stations and active neighborhoods around them. City officials, legislators, civic groups, transportation and city planning experts, and transit agency executives, directors and staff came together to help develop the vision for the future Diridon Station and to consider — at the beginning of the visioning process — the legacy that, decision by decision, leaders will create for the project.
> 
> The symposium was part of SPUR’s work supporting the build out of California’s high-speed rail system and, specifically, our multi-year initiative Next Stop: Diridon. The goal of this work is to transform San Jose’s central station into a world-class transportation hub that connects people seamlessly across the region and the state. The timing of the symposium coincided with the initiation of a partnership between the City of San Jose, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Caltrain and the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) to develop a concept plan for the integration of existing and future transit services at a new, expanded Diridon Station.
> 
> Building upon the success of our 2017 study tour, which took a delegation of South Bay leaders to four high-speed rail station cities in Europe, the Transit-Centered Cities Symposium featured speakers from the Netherlands, France, Great Britain, Denver, Los Angeles and San Francisco. The speakers provided insights about the role of transit stations in a changing mobility ecosystem, how land use and urban design decisions affect the success of the transit services, and how leadership at all levels is critical to achieving a world-class transit network.
> 
> Here’s a summary of the lessons they offered. Their presentations and videos are available at the end of this article.
> 
> *The Central Role of the Station*
> We’ve all experienced the rapid and continuous innovations happening in transportation today. While we don’t know which ones will endure, we do know that transit of the future must be flexible enough to serve the needs of users and must integrate with whatever may come next. As new technologies develop, we believe that a transit station must play a central role in a city, serve as a hub for a variety of mobility options and draw people out of their personal cars. The following principles address the planning and design of multimodal hubs — stations where many different modes of travel connect.
> 
> *Start by integrating mobility services and transit systems.*
> European countries are known for their integrated transit systems. People there are accustomed to using one transit pass to move across a region; riders don’t have to worry about how many different mobility services and operators make the system work. At multimodal hubs, decision-makers have worked to create a seamless experience for travelers.
> 
> Etienne Riot, head of innovation and research at the design lab of AREP, a subsidiary of the French National Railway, emphasized the importance of removing all barriers, starting at the earliest stages of the planning process. This includes both physical barriers, like passing through different gates for different transit services, and intangible ones, such as coordinating transit schedules, ticketing and information.
> 
> *Choose a design that balances ambition and simplicity.*
> What do we mean by “world-class” stations? Those that connect local, regional and sometimes international services, becoming landmarks for their neighborhood, their city and even their region. Finding the right balance between ambition and simplicity is critical to making stations of this scale efficient and usable.
> 
> Daniel Jongtien, architect partner at Benthem Crouwel, presented the ideas behind the complicated redevelopment of Amsterdam Centraal Station. These include opening the station so that it faces multiple sides of the city; removing car traffic from the ground level to open the space for light rail, walking and biking; elevating the bus deck to the same level as the train platforms (which was particularly bold considering how often the bus system is dismissed) and providing natural light at multiple levels of the station. Utrecht and Rotterdam’s central stations are other examples of ambitious but highly usable stations.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Land Use and Urban Design in the Station Area*
> While the definition of great urban design can certainly be argued over, several lessons from other station cities are worth considering as the visioning process for Diridon Station begins. These principles address land uses around stations and the revenues they can generate for future improvements to the public realm.
> 
> *Enforce strict pedestrian-oriented development and urban design standards*.
> A number of historic commuter rail stations and transit centers in the United States have been designed in a way that disconnects neighborhoods: Facing the city on only one side, they’re often surrounded by vacant parking lots and car-oriented infrastructure on the other three. This has disincentivized people from walking and biking and has not helped increase transit ridership. This was the case of San Francisco’s old Transbay Terminal, and it is still the case for Diridon Station.
> 
> The plan for a new Transbay Transit Center started out as a large parking lot covered by a bus terminal. But when San Francisco voters approved a proposal to bring Caltrain downtown, the vision expanded to become a multimodal hub connecting walkable neighborhoods. The City and County of San Francisco, along with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, conceived a plan to expand the financial district south of the terminal and add housing to create a 24-hour neighborhood. The city’s first move was to increase building height limits across the entire district to maximize new development, which research has shown is the only way to support or increase access to transit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Woonsocket54

Construction of East Bay BRT in Oakland/San Leandro









https://brt.actransit.org/aboutbrt/maps-and-routes/

"67th Avenue"









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...station_under_construction,_December_2018.JPG

"82nd Avenue"









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...station_under_construction,_December_2018.JPG

"90th Avenue"









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...station_under_construction,_December_2018.JPG

"Downtown San Leandro"









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...station_under_construction,_December_2018.JPG


----------



## fieldsofdreams

luacstjh98 said:


> How long does it take for a BART train to change ends anyway? Can't they position a second operator at the outbound end so he can immediately take over the train once it arrives?


It depends on the train length. Turnaround times are as follows:

Ex-SFO:
- Weekdays: 7 minutes
- Sundays: 8 minutes

Ex-Millbrae:
- Weekdays: 16 minutes
- Sundays: 4 minutes

Usually, a second operator would be on the opposite end of the train if it continues to or from Antioch. The second operator would be there to operate the train between SFO and Millbrae as it requires a few maneuvers between switches to get between the two stops. 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Purple Line operates as a 4- or 5-car consist, especially with the low demand between the two.


----------



## Mad_Cow

I got curious and started researching all of the Bay Area's existing commuter/regional rail services after Newsom's infamous High Speed Rail announcement. I hadn't found a good thorough map of all of them together, or their various planned extensions, so I made some myself! All lines are grounded in some sort of reality (though timing is always a wildcard...)
 
Capitol Corridor Vision Plan: Reroute through the East Bay, electrification, and extension to SF through a new Transbay tube
ACE Expansions: First to Merced, eventually through Midtown Sacramento
California High Speed Rail: Initial operating segment in the Central Valley still planned by 2027, hopefully full build-out by 2040
Dumbarton Rail: Rebuilding the old Dumbarton rail bridge for Transbay service to Union City
Commuter Rail to Salinas: Either Caltrain or Capitol Corridor extensions south from San Jose
Planned SMART Expansion: New stations from Larkspur to Cloverdale
Valley Link Rail: The replacement of a BART-to-Livermore project, to run to Stockton
2018 California State Rail Plan: Overall state-wide plan for rail service by 2040
And the design inspiration goes to this great map from CalUrbanist that I wanted to expand on!

Current State (2019)


2027 Service


2040 Vision


Interactive Google Map here!


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ You forgot one major thing... Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit is proposing to expand its service to operate between Novato San Marin (or Novato Hamilton) and Fairfield via the Northwestern Pacific Railroad alignment through Schelville and Napa. :yes: But yes, those maps are indeed well-depicted that I could ask you to envision the future of rail connectivity in the region.


----------



## Mad_Cow

Thank you! Had a lot of fun putting this together.



> You forgot one major thing... Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit is proposing to expand its service to operate between Novato San Marin (or Novato Hamilton) and Fairfield via the Northwestern Pacific Railroad alignment through Schelville and Napa.


Yeah, I did see this mentioned, and it was included in the 2018 State Rail Plan. But I remember reading somewhere that they don't expect to get to the Napa/Solano County spur until after 2040 (maybe it was here?), so I decided to leave it out for now :dunno:


----------



## Nexis

You forgot the California Rail plan which would add Rail links up to Eureka and Napa , further north of Sacramento area and the Monterrey Bay area.


----------



## FDW

I feel this map needs a major rework. Sure, you may have a sharp looking diagram, but from a service point of view it's a disaster. Number one here is the forced transfers at Transbay, which are completely insane to insist on. If a mainline Tube is built, Caltrain service will continue into the East Bay and SQ/CC service will continue onto the peninsula. It makes no sense to continue to have the arbitrary Caltrain/ACE/CC/SQ boxes when they're a part of the same system, as they will be in the future. Also bad are not crayoning in transfers in Sacramento and Stockton.


----------



## aquamaroon

Mad_Cow said:


> I got curious and started researching all of the Bay Area's existing commuter/regional rail services after Newsom's infamous High Speed Rail announcement. I hadn't found a good thorough map of all of them together, or their various planned extensions, so I made some myself! All lines are grounded in some sort of reality (though timing is always a wildcard...)


Fantastic work MadCow! Thank you for sharing your work with us :cheers:. To me your 2040 map looks like a very strong rail network for the region and connects SF, Silicon Valley, Sacramento and the Central Valley with a level of service comparable to the Northeast Corridor between Washington and New York. Fingers crossed! :cheers:


----------



## FDW

aquamaroon said:


> Fantastic work MadCow! Thank you for sharing your work with us :cheers:. To me your 2040 map looks like a very strong rail network for the region and connects SF, Silicon Valley, Sacramento and the Central Valley with a level of service comparable to the Northeast Corridor between Washington and New York. Fingers crossed! :cheers:


This map, as is, would considerably underperform relative to the NEC. And we shouldn't be trying to emulate the NEC (which is run by a bunch of morons), we should be emulating the Paris RER and Tokyo Metro.


----------



## phoenixboi08

FDW said:


> I feel this map needs a major rework. Sure, you may have a sharp looking diagram, but from a service point of view it's a disaster.


The map is fine for what it is, especially if they're primarily trying to communicate expansion of existing facilities.

The state is making meaningful progress in committing to a more thoughtful approach to rail planning (eg. doing it regionally & statewide). The proof will be in the pudding, as it were...I'm not sure the public is ready to tolerate the requisite funding levels to do it, but we'll see I guess.





















FDW said:


> This map, as is, would considerably underperform relative to the NEC. And we shouldn't be trying to emulate the NEC (which is run by a bunch of morons), we should be emulating the Paris RER and Tokyo Metro.


Changes to jurisdiction and administrative processes (ie. overriding hyper-devloution of services) to facilitate this is obviously going to be the determining factors. The Bay Area isn't Tokyo (or, for that matter, even Paris) because if it were, it'd be (for our intents and purposes here) one administrative unit; not dozens..._that's_ the issue.

Yelling at someone in hand cuffs for chewing their wrists is not as meaningful as arguing that the hand cuffs should just be cut off...I'm not entirely sure why you're always so caustic.


----------



## FDW

phoenixboi08 said:


> The map is fine for what it is, especially if they're primarily trying to communicate expansion of existing facilities.
> 
> The state is making meaningful progress in committing to a more thoughtful approach to rail planning (eg. doing it regionally & statewide). The proof will be in the pudding, as it were...I'm not sure the public is ready to tolerate the requisite funding levels to do it, but we'll see I guess.


I wouldn't be so sure of that. Gavin Newsom went Unlimited Stall Works on just about every transit project in SF while he was major. That was something I lived through.



> Changes to jurisdiction and administrative processes (ie. overriding hyper-devloution of services) to facilitate this is obviously going to be the determining factors. The Bay Area isn't Tokyo (or, for that matter, even Paris) because if it were, it'd be (for our intents and purposes here) one administrative unit; not dozens..._that's_ the issue.
> 
> Yelling at someone in hand cuffs for chewing their wrists is not as meaningful as arguing that the hand cuffs should just be cut off...I'm not entirely sure why you're always so caustic.


 The reason why I'm so salty is because the Bay Area has been blowing it's potential these past few decades. It's been deja vu over and over and over. Especially in Fantasy/Future mapping. Achieving something better starts with imaging something better than what's already there. The only one I see trying this RN in a Bay Area context is The Greater Marin over on Twitter.


----------



## aquamaroon

FDW said:


> The reason why I'm so salty is because the Bay Area has been blowing it's potential these past few decades. It's been deja vu over and over and over. Especially in Fantasy/Future mapping. Achieving something better starts with imaging something better than what's already there. The only one I see trying this RN in a Bay Area context is The Greater Marin over on Twitter.


I think we all feel that way, there are SO MANY obvious rail improvements that can be made in California, and the entire US for that matter, much of it not that expensive in the grand scheme of things. And having to fight tooth and nail for every single piece of infrastructure can get beyond frustrating :bash:


----------



## FDW

aquamaroon said:


> I think we all feel that way, there are SO MANY obvious rail improvements that can be made in California, and the entire US for that matter, much of it not that expensive in the grand scheme of things. And having to fight tooth and nail for every single piece of infrastructure can get beyond frustrating :bash:


Yeah. I think I'm going to make a fantasy map of my own to show the kind of stuff that I think could be possible. Unlike the past months, I have a computer now that can run Google My Maps. I even got a new idea for how to pull off a Geary Subway, one that leads to way better transfers to the Market St Subway lines.


----------



## moon993

> *Control of BART Berryessa Extension transfers from SCVTA to BART*
> 
> Next up for the project is final testing and pre-revenue operations in preparation for service to begin in late 2019.
> 
> MISCHA WANEK-LIBMAN JUNE 7, 2019
> 
> Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA) has transferred control of the trackway, systems and facilities of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension Project to BART. The first phase of the project extends BART's system 10 miles into Santa Clara County and BART now has exclusive access to begin the final phase of testing and pre-revenue operations in preparation for passenger service at both the Milpitas and Berryessa Transit Centers planned to begin before the end of 2019.
> 
> Ground was broken on the Phase 1 in 2012, which will connect the BART Warm Springs Station in Southern Fremont and follow in the former Union Pacific corridor through Milpitas to the Berryessa District of San Jose. SCVTA designed, funded and built the systems and facilities and BART will operate the service, maintain the systems and two new BART stations located within SCVTA's new transit centers in Milpitas and North San Jose. Phase 2 will further extend the line by six miles to Santa Clara.
> 
> The transfer of control wraps up nearly two decades of planning between SCVTA and BART as the two agencies worked to design and construct the system and stations to deliver regional rail service to Santa Clara County.
> 
> Before service on the extension can begin, BART will:
> 
> ​Transition all operations from a project test center to their operations control center
> Integrate the operations of the new BART service and stations with the existing BART system
> Train personnel and begin simulated service to and from the new stations - replicating the service you'll experience when the stations open for passenger service
> Make final safety checks and obtain safety certifications from the State of California
> Set the fares and service plan for the new service; BART's Board of Directors is expected to vote on fares and the service plan between Warm Springs, Milpitas and Berryessa Stations on June 13.
> “With construction and [SCVTA's] testing of the major systems completed, [SCVTA] has passed the baton so BART can bring this project over the finish line,” said SCVTA General Manager and CEO Nuria Fernandez.


https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail...ryessa-extension-transfers-from-scvta-to-bart

Also if you are wondering about fares here are some samples









Full list can be found here: https://t.co/vQ00xyd5vo
Source: https://twitter.com/bartsv/status/1139647125896085504


----------



## luacstjh98

I recall there being talk of adding additional platforms at Embarcadero and Montgomery Street BART.

Any updates on that?


----------



## FDW

luacstjh98 said:


> I recall there being talk of adding additional platforms at Embarcadero and Montgomery Street BART.
> 
> Any updates on that?


Not dead, but like just about anything important with Bay Area Transit, no real news.


----------



## phohien

I am not sure but they will build a new stations between Glen Park and 24th Street BART and the Safeway will be gone and it will be easy to get to Bernal Heights.



luacstjh98 said:


> I recall there being talk of adding additional platforms at Embarcadero and Montgomery Street BART.
> 
> Any updates on that?


----------



## urbanflight

Glad to know that BART is phasing out paper tickets :check:


----------



## luacstjh98

Perhaps they could just make Clipper card refunds a lot easier, like where you can show up at any ticket office, hand over the card, get your money back and move on. Kind of like what Japan does, where you can basically "rent" an IC card and refund it before you leave the country, if you want.

Or just start accepting Visa and Mastercard directly like they do in London.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

phohien said:


> I am not sure but they will build a new stations between Glen Park and 24th Street BART and the Safeway will be gone and it will be easy to get to Bernal Heights.


That would be 30th Street Mission in this case, which might also mean removing the gas station at Mission & 30th Streets, if not also the Walgreens and nearby businesses. Perhaps one of the subway portals should be located at Cortland Avenue, aside from just at Mission & 30th Streets.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

luacstjh98 said:


> Perhaps they could just make Clipper card refunds a lot easier, like where you can show up at any ticket office, hand over the card, get your money back and move on. Kind of like what Japan does, where you can basically "rent" an IC card and refund it before you leave the country, if you want.
> 
> Or just start accepting Visa and Mastercard directly like they do in London.


My hunch is that, since Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) up in the North Bay where I live has been using Clipper only (no paper tickets from its launch), BART has seen the value of transitioning from paper tickets to Clipper as a way to modernize fare management, reduce losses from unused paper tickets, and improve customer relations, especially with tourists who might want to explore the Bay Area by public transportation. 

Yes, renting a Clipper would be an excellent idea, in which if you happen to return the Clipper card before leaving SFO, OAK, or SJC, the $3 charge will be refunded back to the user. Remember: if you buy a new Clipper card at any BART, Muni Metro, SMART, or Golden Gate Ferry vending machine, you will be charged $3, and that is before you add value onto it. Hence, if you happen to implement that scheme with Clipper 2.0, it will make tourists very happy as they will realize, "oh, I can rent a Clipper card with a fee, and then I can return it to either a representative or a machine, and I get my deposit fee back".


----------



## mrsmartman




----------



## Woonsocket54

The new San Francisco regional bus terminal was closed 2018.09.25 after cracks were discovered in a steel beam. Now, after the structural issue was addressed, it will reopen on 2019.08.11.

http://www.actransit.org/2019/07/22...s-to-the-salesforce-transit-center-august-11/

Also, next month the new basketball arena will open in San Francisco. A nearby tram stop has been expanded in advance of the sports events.





































Source: https://www.sfmta.com/blog/opening-new-platform-mission-bay


----------



## BoulderGrad

^^One of the papers was complaining that the officials who did the ribbon cutting didn't take the train to get to the opening of the expanded stop.


----------



## MrAronymous

Why bother with those elaborate looking structures if they're not going to provide any shade? At least put dots on them so they are still transparent but also 50% less sunny. But I guess the design has already been there for a while.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

MrAronymous said:


> Why bother with those elaborate looking structures if they're not going to provide any shade? At least put dots on them so they are still transparent but also 50% less sunny. But I guess the design has already been there for a while.


The station design for UCSF/Chase Center (formerly UCSF Mission Bay) is part of the overall expansion of the T-Third Street light rail line, in which it was originally the 15-Third Street bus line. All stations between 4th Street & King and Sunnydale have that same station design, which reflects the transformation of the Third Street corridor between Mission Bay and Visitacion Valley. If Chase wants to redo UCSF/Chase Center Muni Metro station, though, it has to work with the SF Municipal Transportation Authority to put unique touches to that stop.


----------



## Woonsocket54

*"SamTrans to launch Foster City Commuter Express in San Francisco August 19"*

https://www.sfmta.com/blog/samtrans-launch-foster-city-commuter-express-san-francisco-august-19


----------



## Jericho-79

Woonsocket54 said:


> Also, next month the new basketball arena will open in San Francisco. A nearby tram stop has been expanded in advance of the sports events.


I find it tragic how SF incorporated "Chase Center" into the signage at the Muni station outside the arena, while Santa Clara hasn't bothered to incorporate "Levi's Stadium" into the signage at the VTA station outside Great America.hno:


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*BART Board approves new and improved plan for future Irvington Station*"

https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2019/news20190822









https://fremont.gov/2977/Irvington-BART-Station


----------



## cardinal2007

> *VTA confirms new BART stations still on-track for end of year opening*
> 
> As part of its Capital Program Committee meeting Thursday, VTA gave an update on the BART Silicon Valley extension. This 10-mile stretch of fresh track includes two stations, one in Milpitas and another at Berryessa, near the San Jose Flea Market.
> 
> As part of its agreement with BART, VTA will hand over the operation of these two stations to BART once they’re completed. As it currently stands, both parties are still actively involved, testing for flaws and coming up with solutions. Problems from a flaky rail intrusion detection system, busted emergency telephones, and broken locks on fire suppression system control panels have kept both agencies busy.
> 
> The high number of reported issues remains high, at 1,036 total, but that’s not the entire story. VTA Deputy Director Dennis Ratcliffe reassured those convened that this number was higher than it seemed.
> 
> “Essentially, what we’ve reported is we had identified 1,000 discrepancies in the testing program… where the teams are validating and verifying design to ensure that things are functioning as planned. There’s almost 300 of them that are blank duplicates,” Ratcliffe said.


The first phase of the Silicon Valley extension is scheduled to open by the end of the year.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Last Friday, I took a friend along and went on a tour of one of San Francisco Municipal Railway's transit yards: Muni Metro East, the largest of the light rail and streetcar yards in the city. The tour was sponsored by San Francisco Transit Riders, in which it truly fed my transportation dreams even further, and my friend enjoyed it immensely.


DSC_0317 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


DSC_0479 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


DSC_0804 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


DSC_0857 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr


DSC_0917 by Anthony Nachor, on Flickr​
Check out the full album here

And next Friday, I will be on yet another tour, this time to San Francisco's Cable Car Barn, the only one left in the Western Hemisphere.


----------



## cardinal2007

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/arti...t-San-Jose-Valley-Transportation-14396404.php



> *BART to San Jose gets a federal funding boost*
> 
> BART's much-anticipated expansion into downtown San Jose just got thrown into the fast lane Wednesday, with the announcement that the project will be receiving $125 million in federal funds.
> 
> The Federal Transit Administration announced its decision to fund Phase II of the Valley Transit Authority's plan to take BART into Silicon Valley on Wednesday. This phase will add four more BART stations to the San Jose area, on top of the Berryessa and Milpitas stations, which are set to open by the end of this year.
> 
> The $125 million will help "fast track [Phase II's] funding process by more than 14 months," according to a press release from the VTA.
> 
> ...


https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08...an-jose-extension-for-major-cash-to-come/amp/



> *Federal government readies to give BART’s San Jose extension first installment of funds*
> 
> SAN JOSE — BART’s four-station extension into downtown San Jose is slated to receive $125 million in federal funds, officials said Wednesday, the first installment of what is expected to be a much larger amount.
> 
> Before it receives the funds, however, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is designing and building the $5.6 billion extension that BART will eventually operate, must first complete a formal application with the Federal Transit Administration. That isn’t projected to happen until the summer of next year, when it plans to ask for 25 percent of the project’s costs, or about $1.4 billion, said authority spokeswoman Bernice Alaniz.
> 
> ...


BART extension to downtown San Jose is getting a boost from the federal government. But at $5.6B for 6.5 miles of track it isn't cheap. Granted the Caltrain extension to Transbay terminal, which is about 1.2 miles away from the station is supposed to be $5B, an that's only 1 more station. This is 4 new stations, 3 of them underground.:cheers:


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*World’s oldest operating cable car rolling back to life this weekend*"

It last carried paying passengers 77 years ago.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...-car-rolling-back-14421021.php#photo-18220349










here is the car at the same location 111 years apart



















source: https://www.sfmta.com/blog/cable-car-19-make-historic-debut-muni-heritage


----------



## Mad_Cow

*Central Subway to debut in 2021, nearly three years later than planned*

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/its-official-central-subway-to-debut-in-2021-nearly-three-years-later-than-planned/



> Muni officials are preparing to formally announce the $1.6 billion dollar Central Subway’s newest opening date, June 2021, after an exhaustive six-week fact-finding period by the subway’s new director, Nadeem Tahir, the San Francisco Examiner has learned.
> 
> Sources told the Examiner the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency expects to finish construction by June 2020, but will need to conduct testing for a year and will open for service by March or June 2021.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*BART service to downtown San Jose now delayed to 2030*"

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-service-San-Jose-now-delayed-2030-14467389.php


----------



## bighomey3000

Woonsocket54 said:


> "*BART service to downtown San Jose now delayed to 2030*"
> 
> https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-service-San-Jose-now-delayed-2030-14467389.php


Pathetic. We need a national conversation about fixing our infrastructure building process


----------



## Sunfuns

I'm wondering whether ultra high costs of construction in major English speaking countries (US, Canada, UK, Australia) has something to do with a different legal system. Continental Europe is neither significantly less wealthy nor significantly more crowded. There has to be another explanation...


----------



## moon993

Sunfuns said:


> I'm wondering whether ultra high costs of construction in major English speaking countries (US, Canada, UK, Australia) has something to do with a different legal system. Continental Europe is neither significantly less wealthy nor significantly more crowded. There has to be another explanation...


https://www.citylab.com/transportat...pensive-to-build-urban-rail-in-the-us/551408/

Tl;dr: Poor management, contractor issues (mostly in CA), overstaffing, and project characteristics. This article mostly discusses projects in the USA though


----------



## Tower Dude

Sunfuns said:


> I'm wondering whether ultra high costs of construction in major English speaking countries (US, Canada, UK, Australia) has something to do with a different legal system. Continental Europe is neither significantly less wealthy nor significantly more crowded. There has to be another explanation...


This seems to be the growing consensus among transportation professionals and academics.


----------



## Stuu

Sunfuns said:


> I'm wondering whether ultra high costs of construction in major English speaking countries (US, Canada, UK, Australia) has something to do with a different legal system. Continental Europe is neither significantly less wealthy nor significantly more crowded. There has to be another explanation...


This is something that I have been trying to understand (apologies, this has nothing to do with San Francisco). In the UK a road project near me is going to cost ~€50m per km. In fairly boring standard countryside, with no tunnels or any significant bridges, earthworks or anything remotely complicated. Similar roads in Spain and France cost €10m per km, if that. Meanwhile low cost, low regulation Norway can build motorways under the ****ing sea for less per km.

I just don't get it. People say it's land, but the most expensive farming land in the UK is €50000 per hectare, so the difference between free land and the most expensive is at most €300,000 per km. Answers would be good!


----------



## PeFe

Sunfuns said:


> I'm wondering whether ultra high costs of construction in major English speaking countries (US, Canada, UK, Australia) has something to do with a different legal system. Continental Europe is neither significantly less wealthy nor significantly more crowded. There has to be another explanation...


Way too simplistic explanation for the cost differential....legalities.

In my opinion US, Canada, UK and Australia all have have higher wages and costs in general (and I have travelled through all these countries) than Europe.....and what parts of Europe do you mean?

For me Scandinavia, Germany, UK, Holland and Switzerland have cost structures and wages similar to the new world, other countries in Europe lower.

France and Austria are a level down (I visited a friend of mine in Vienna in June, he works 32 hours a week for the Austrian National Health system earning 320 Euros....this is less than the Australian minimum wage of 12 Euros per hour)

Transit projects in the USA, Canada and Australia tend to be longer (in distance) than in Europe for the obvious reason that North American and Australian cities are huge suburban sprawls compared to compact European cities.

Also each project has its own complexities.....

Here is the latest figures for Australia's largest rail project :
the Sydney Metro (Stage 1 now completed)

36 kms (22.3 miles) driverless metro style train line (80% underground and 20% built as a "skytrain" above the roads and 1 story buildings)

$8 billion Australian dollars (6 billion US, 5 billion Euros)

Cost per kilometre ($A 222 million, 137 million Euros)
Cost per mile...$US 246 million

This compares very favourably compared to the large rail projects in New York and Los Angeles.

Stage 2 of the project will come in at a higher cost (tunneling under Sydney harbour and under the Sydney central business district will increase the cost of the build)


----------



## phoenixboi08

PeFe said:


> Cost per kilometre ($A 222 million, 137 million Euros)
> Cost per mile...$US 246 million
> 
> This compares very favourably compared to the large rail projects in New York and Los Angeles.


Eh, a lot of ink is written about this but I see it as a largely "New York" issue (and at that, it's a sample size of about a few handful of projects; East Side Access, 7 subway extension, 2nd Avenue Subway, maybe the PATH station as well) given that's where the bulk of "large," American metro projects have been built.

Other than it and the purple line in LA, there are relatively few domestic examples (HART in Honolulu is mostly above-ground and regardless comes in at around half the cost of any of the above projects) unless you bring in light rail projects which have slightly different cost structures to begin with.


To be honest, a greater deal of cost issues might be derived from the strange manner in which these programs receive funding (eg. levels are determined notwithstanding actual needs), which drags out timeframes and likely does more to push up costs than anything else.

I'd point out, again, that even the CAHSR project - using the likely *most* conservative $US 100 (91.4 EUR, 148 AUS) billion cost estimate - the project still comes in:

$190 (175 EUR, 284 AUS) million per mile 
$120 (109 EUR, 177 AUS) million per kilometer.

In reality, the cost estimates for the project would likely stop increasing if it was first determined what costs were and funded it fully, rather than doing a piecemeal planning process where the authority constantly has to figure out how to juggle the funds already promised to deliver something useable.

It has become a bit clear to me that it's a) far more cost effective to set a larger upfront outlay and build the entirety of a program (ie. in the typical US city vying for a mix of state/local/federal funding, the first phase of a project like the Sydney metro project would have realistically been 4 different phases of around 3-4km each. This is inefficient), and b) that we thus primarily have a funding issue that's causing/aggravating cost issues in the US.

If federal funding is ~$2 billion a year, the max commitment is not more than 50% of a project's cost, and eligibility doesn't kick in for projects less than $800 million or so, then we're talking about quite a small annual disbursement of funds which creates odd downstream impacts on planning and cost structures. 

It's like setting aside $50 a year to make a down-payment on a house....you're gonna need to save for several hundred years to make it work.

Weirdly, it's likely because of Prop 1A, an unusual level of federal funding, and continued incremental funds like the cap and trade revenues, that the hsr project's costs are largely within the international window of what one would expect. And yet, people still go on like it's prohibitively expensive, when there are actually far more expensive projects being built...


----------



## Sunfuns

phoenixboi08 said:


> $190 (175 EUR, 284 AUS) million per mile
> $120 (109 EUR, 177 AUS) million per kilometer.


That's enormous. The latest numbers I've seen for TGV construction in France are 20 million euros per km (2014). Let's be generous here and say it is now $30 million per kilometer. Indeed salaries in France are lower than in California, but nowhere near 4x lower. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/764486/cost-construction-lines-lgv-by-kilometer-la-france/

P.S. Perhaps I shouldn't have added Australia. I'm a lot more familiar with UK and US


----------



## Sunfuns

Even better example - we built the World's longest railway tunnel under a huge mountain range for about $13 billion in very high price Switzerland (salaries ca 50% higher than US average). NYC is proposing for half that money to build a paltry 2.5 km (!!!) of second avenue subway...


----------



## Aaraldi

phoenixboi08 said:


> Weirdly, it's likely because of Prop 1A, an unusual level of federal funding, and continued incremental funds like the cap and trade revenues, that the hsr project's costs are largely within the international window of what one would expect. .


That's when the international window only contains the US and Britain. In Germany, Italy, France, Spain these kind of projects get built for far far far less. 

The most recently built HSR track in Germany did cost $47 million per mile with about 40% in tunnels.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Sunfuns said:


> That's enormous. The latest numbers I've seen for TGV construction in France are 20 million euros per km (2014). Let's be generous here and say it is now $30 million per kilometer. Indeed salaries in France are lower than in California, but nowhere near 4x lower.
> 
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/764486/cost-construction-lines-lgv-by-kilometer-la-france/
> 
> P.S. Perhaps I shouldn't have added Australia. I'm a lot more familiar with UK and US


We can go down the rabbit hole of distinguishing differences in what costs are reported as part of a particular program and what costs are not (eg. land acquisition, associated public works, etc) as well as the obvious question of how to compare projects with vastly different scopes regarding tunneling. I'm not sure to be honest. 

Like, the Mediterranean line there raises a question for me of what it would look like if the cost of the entire line (eg. the Spanish side) was also included, because that's 1) certainly the full scope of that corridor and 2) included a bit of tunneling and what not.

I'll not go into it because I think this thread is already going too far beyond the topic, but I'm genuinely unsure of how to deal with this issue, as I'm not sure what costs should be (and are) included in these figures regarding the full delivery of these projects when it comes to ancillary works (legal, planning, land acquisition, utilities and other public works, associated local improvements to stations/public transit, etc). 

I'll just point out that $3.5USD (3.2EUR) billion has been let for the current 200km worth of hsr heavy works (~$20 million/km), which strikes me as something more in line with what the above figures represent and leave it at that. 

The overall point of what I originally wrote was more in the context of centering the problem as being largely a NYC one. Even considering the full scope of the CA project (and it's quite a large one), it comes in well within an acceptable range cost-wise, even if it gets lumped into a conversation about costs that is really about NYC, in my opinion.



Aaraldi said:


> That's when the international window only contains the US and Britain. In Germany, Italy, France, Spain these kind of projects get built for far far far less.


Not really...I'm talking intercity rail: The _average_ line these projects seems to lay is something like $100-200 million/km ($200-500 million/mi): Some projects are less, some are more. The point, overall, is that CAHSR's problem aren't cost-related...

Even for heavy, urban rail projects, typical projects don't deviate too far from that range - the biggest difference would appear to likely come from increased tunneling and underground stations.

Regarding urban rail, the overall point is that NYC projects are not like projects elsewhere (for reasons that appear relegated to improper project management, contracting, etc.) given that the cost factors we're talking about in NYC (x2.8-8.8 for the last decade of transit projects in the city) are quite different from even the next most expensive projects in the country (x1.1) compared to the next most expensive, comparable projects, internationally.

Obviously, the caveat is that a high proportion of heavy rail projects (albeit, interestingly, not project-miles) over this period have been in NYC; however, the next few heavy rail projects I'm aware of (eg. HART in Honolulu, Wilshire subway, etc) are nowhere near as expensive as the 2nd Ave subway, 7 extension, East-Side Access, Gateway, etc. NYC is purely an outlier, both nationally and internationally.

I'm not yet convinced its issues are even generalizable to other US cities (even if they're derived from similar issues): That is, I think all US cities have issues that stem from the points I made above, but NYC has - _*on top of that*_ - a genuine issue with having simply bad cost estimates that start out too high to begin with.


----------



## Aaraldi

phoenixboi08 said:


> Not really...I'm talking intercity rail: The _average_ line these projects seems to lay is something like $100-200 million/km ($200-500 million/mi): Some projects are less, some are more. The point, overall, is that CAHSR's problem aren't cost-related...


Yes I am talking inter-city rail the Ebensfeld-Erfurt HSR (300 kmph)was built for €3 billion for 107 kilometers of which 40 km is in tunnels. That's €30 million per km. LGV Est was built for €4 billion for 406 km. The Granada HSR branch (122 km) was built for €1.7 billion. Madrid-Galicia (about 300 km of new built track including a shitload of tunnels) is being built for €3.3 billion. Ur quite oblivious to construction projects outside the anglosphere. Some of these projects do not have additional rolling stock requirements included but everything else including planning, land acquisition, associated works is included in these cost figures.


----------



## browntown

There's a whole host of reasons that costs for infrastructure in the US are so astronomically high and it is correct to point out that NYC specifically takes it to a whole other levels. I want to mention a very important one that I rarely see mentioned but is hugely important: political divisiveness. In the US almost all infrastructure is seen as partisan. Roads, oil/gas pipelines, nuclear power planets etc and are seen as "Republican" infrastructure whereas subways, HSR, solar plants etc are seen as "Democratic" infrastructure. Any time a piece of infrastructure is proposed the other party will almost always immediately oppose it seemingly regardless of the actual merits of the project. Every project from conception until completion is in constant litigation and constant jeopardy that funding and/or approvals will be pulled the second the political winds change.


----------



## Woonsocket54

https://www.vta.org/blog/schedule-milestone-bart-silicon-valley



> *Schedule Milestone for BART Silicon Valley*
> 
> 10/28/2019 | Bernice Alaniz
> 
> On October 28, 2019, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) began pre-revenue operations on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s 10-mile BART Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension. This significant milestone represents one of the final steps prior to starting passenger service, which is on track to begin prior to the year’s end.
> 
> . . .


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*VTA and BART will Defer Operations on the Berryessa Extension*"

The extension to the Berryessa district of San Jose will definitely not open in 2019 and will almost certainly not open in 2020, leading to at least a half-decade delay. 

https://www.vta.org/blog/vta-and-bart-will-defer-operations-berryessa-extension


----------



## aquamaroon

hno: :bash: hno: :bash: Between this and the Muni Central Subway, something is SERIOUSLY wrong with the state of transit project management in the Bay Area. It's disheartening that it seems like nothing can get done without costing billions of dollars more than planned and endless delays. And it's also annoying the way these constant cost overruns and delays provide fodder for the various detractors of public transit (_and San Francisco in general for that matter._) AND lastly, it doesn't exactly leave one with confidence regarding the big capital projects to come: given the various agencies' track records as of late, how in the world can you expect them to build a second transbay tube, build a subway in San Jose or get Caltrain into the Salesforce Transit Center? To say nothing of High-Speed Rail to Los Angeles, IF that will ever happen at this point hno: :bash:.


----------



## moon993

Woonsocket54 said:


> "*VTA and BART will Defer Operations on the Berryessa Extension*"
> 
> The extension to the Berryessa district of San Jose will definitely not open in 2019 and will almost certainly not open in 2020, leading to at least a half-decade delay.
> 
> https://www.vta.org/blog/vta-and-bart-will-defer-operations-berryessa-extension


I wrote in an askreddit thread about 2019 predictions that the Berryessa Bart extension would be delayed to 2020. Sad to see this prediction come true


----------



## MrAronymous

#calmod


----------



## snot

Sunfuns said:


> That's enormous. The latest numbers I've seen for TGV construction in France are 20 million euros per km (2014). Let's be generous here and say it is now $30 million per kilometer. Indeed salaries in France are lower than in California, but nowhere near 4x lower.





Sunfuns said:


> Even better example - we built the World's longest railway tunnel under a huge mountain range for about $13 billion in very high price Switzerland (salaries ca 50% higher than US average). NYC is proposing for half that money to build a paltry 2.5 km (!!!) of second avenue subway...


I'm not an expert, but boring a tunnel through a mountain is much much less complex. A tunnel bore machine is relatively cheap and once it's working it becomes cheaper per mile. You don't have expensive stations. It's just one straight line through bedrock with 2 tunnel entrances.
Manhattan is one of the densest build up places in the world, the underground is stuffed with utility infrastructure, very expensive ground, buildings with fundaments, etc,... There are few underground works that are more complex than building a subway under Manhattan.
Same with a TGV line, no underground stations, less underground infrastructure. Even if the standard for highspeed rail is high it's not build in urban area's (mostly) and it has very few ground level stations.

So it's comparing apple's with oranges,...


----------



## MrAronymous

The construction costs still don't add up. Of course a subway in New York should be more expensive per mile than HSR. The thing is that if you compare apples to apples (HSR vs. TGV and Subway vs. Metro) the costs in the US are much much higher than anywhere else.. in the world. Even than places with strong unions and regulations.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Effective today (2019.12.28), San Jose's silly transit agency (VTA) has rejiggered its whole system, including its LRT network, which is sorely lacking in passenger numbers. Service has been discontinued on the empty trains that were running back and forth between Ohlone/Chynoweth and Almaden (1991-2019). The VTA has been unable and/or unwilling to compete with Uber/Lyft or to successfully challenge the classic California mindset that associates mass transit with poverty and human feces. Furthermore, undocumented immigrants now have driver's licenses and have no use for an unreliable infrequent transit agency. 

Here is the new map of the LRT system:










https://www.vta.org/go/maps

What's also funny is that the Milpitas stop shows a non-existent BART connection. Wishful thinking, as BART to San Jose is continuously delayed. If it opens in 2020, it will be a miracle.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ And speaking of massive service changes, a smaller transit agency in the North Bay, Napa Valley Transportation Authority (I call it by its old name, VINE), will also do a massive service overhaul for its City of Napa services. Not only will the numbers be dropped (1 to 8) and replaced with letters (A to H), but their routings will be heavily modified so that at least three city services will serve Jefferson Avenue, a principal north-south corridor (with Routes A, C, and H). Not to mention, Route 1, which currently serves the Browns Valley neighborhood in western Napa, will be adjusted as Route A. The adjusted route will operate to a new terminal at Trancas and Soscol in the northeastern quadrant of the city, and passengers from that neighborhood heading to downtown will need to switch to Route B, which has been adjusted to do Soscol Gateway Transit Center to South Napa Marketplace via the Napa Premium Outlets and Old Sonoma Road.

For more details, click here.

What I’m disappointed about VINE is that it has no plans to revive a regional service that can act as a precursor to SMART, the commuter rail service between Larkspur and Cloverdale, operating between Novato and Suisun City/Fairfield, addressing the congestion along Hwy 37. The line in question is Route 25, which operated between Soscol Gateway Transit Center in Napa and Sonoma Plaza in the city of Sonoma, which then provided timed connections to and from Sonoma County Transit Route 40 between Sonoma Plaza and Copeland Street Transit Mall in Petaluma. A glimmer of home can be sensed, however, when VINE’s chief planner told me via email that it will lobby for SMART to build a new train station near the Napa County Airport, in which VINE can then provide service to it... it will take a while, though, to complete the east-west corridor, not to mention additional time to expand one of the Novato stations to become double-tracked for timed transfers between trains.


----------



## Woonsocket54

^^ Here is the map of the newly rejiggered bus system for Napa:









https://vinetransit.com/vine-schedules-to-change-in-january-2020/

Also, the San Joaquin Regional Transit District is proposing to get rid of the only regular bus service to Mountain House, which has about 20,000 people. This is bus 99 to Tracy. There will be a legally mandated hearing on 2020.01.17, and then they can put a rubber stamp on it as soon as the hearing is done and get rid of the bus route on 2020.01.26.

http://sanjoaquinrtd.com/public-hearings/









http://sanjoaquinrtd.com/route-99/

Lastly, SamTrans, the transit operator for San Mateo County just south of San Francisco, will get rid of its "ECR Rapid" express bus service, which travels along El Camino Real between Daly City and Redwood City, effective 2020.01.19. They are blaming a bus driver shortage.









http://www.samtrans.com/schedulesandmaps/timetables/ECR/ECR_Rapid.html


----------



## Woonsocket54

East Bay BRT construction in San Leandro, California:









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...tion_at_San_Leandro_station,_January_2020.JPG

Footbridge construction at Warm Springs BART station in Hayward - connection to west side of station, including Tesla factory









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...s_South_Fremont_station_(2),_January_2020.JPG









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...s_South_Fremont_station_(1),_January_2020.JPG


----------



## Woonsocket54

Unfortunately too many of the suburban BART stations are surrounded by seas of parking lots. But that is slowly starting to change. In Millbrae, close to the San Francisco airport, they're closing down the parking lots and replacing them with transit-oriented development (TOD).









https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2020/news20200114-0


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*BART to build canopies over San Francisco Market Street entrances*"

https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2020/news20200123-0

probably should have been done decades ago


----------



## Woonsocket54

Updated Stockton, CA bus system map



















http://sanjoaquinrtd.com/system-maps/


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*BART schedule change begins February 10, 2020*"

https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2020/news20200131-0

Notably, this includes the extension of Blue Line service to San Francisco on Sundays. However, the map that was included in the press release is a bit misleading as it appears to show that the Blue Line will not include a stop at Embarcadero and that it will run non-stop from Montgomery St to Balboa Park. Obviously, that won't be the case. 










Also, BART is now calling the Oakland Airport connector the "Beige Line" in its schedules online. While Millbrae-SFO appears as a separate "Purple Line", in reality all Yellow Line trains will continue to Millbrae. BART is calling this "interlining."


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Construction for 19th Street Oakland Station modernization set to begin*"

https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2020/news20200131-1


----------



## Woonsocket54

To reduce overcrowding and increase reliability on weekdays, bus #7 (Haight/Noriega) will begin running 60-foot buses on 2020.02.22.

https://www.sfmta.com/blog/service-changes-coming-february-22


----------



## MrAronymous

Woonsocket54 said:


> "*Construction for 19th Street Oakland Station modernization set to begin*"


Light redesign is so important for these 60s/70s-era stations. Putting up more indirect lighting rather than fluerescent bars everywhere will do wonders for the ambiance and social safety.

In Amsterdam the brutalist metro stations were renovated by only getting rid of some recessed walls and visual obstructions, adding some more natural light in places, covering cinder blocks and user-heavy surfaces in metro tiles and putting up a new light plan. It's crazy by how only uplighting the bare concrete colums on the platforms turned them from dingy into art pieces.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Additional Surface Parking Areas to Close at Millbrae Station (Phase 4) Update*"

https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2020/news20200207

more and more surface parking lots at Millbrae station are closing to make way for transit-oriented development. The lot at the upper right of the picture closed on 2020.01.25.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Officials celebrate Vallejo Transit Center expansion*"

https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2020/02/24/officials-celebrate-vallejo-transit-center-expansion/


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Automated Service Alerts now Published for Canceled Trips*"

https://www.vta.org/blog/automated-service-alerts-now-published-canceled-trips


----------



## Woonsocket54

East Bay BRT under construction in Oakland









https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:East_Bay_BRT_construction_on_Broadway,_February_2020.JPG


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Muni tries to design a better train seat*"

https://sf.curbed.com/2020/3/10/21173056/sfmta-muni-new-subway-train-car-butt-grooves


----------



## Woonsocket54

Decreased ridership on BART this month due to global health crisis










https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2020/news20200225


----------



## fieldsofdreams

I forgot to post these photos from the Central Subway tour that I went to, along with members from the San Francisco Transit Riders, last March 5th. We toured the interior of the soon-to-be *Union Square Muni Metro Station* with folks from one of San Francisco MTA's contractors, and it really looks like work is in significant progress...












































































































A few stats for nerds:

It will have the longest station concourse of the Muni Metro stations (both under and overground), at 900 feet long.
The platform level will be 300 feet long, enough to handle up to 3-car trains of 100 feet each.
The platform level is located 100 feet under street level, which will be the deepest in the Powell Station complex (which also includes the existing Muni Metro and BART platforms).
The next station to the north, Chinatown, will be much deeper, at around 120 feet, which will be among the deepest in the Muni Metro system.
_Note: all images in this post are taken by yours truly._


----------



## MrAronymous

Very impressive. I hope they're not going to keep the beams white? Terrible color choice since they will be hard to reach and not cleaned every week, so you'll see dust accumulating on them. Meanwhile light and dark grey are very much in fashion right now. But I guess this design is older than that, ha.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

MrAronymous said:


> Very impressive. I hope they're not going to keep the beams white? Terrible color choice since they will be hard to reach and not cleaned every week, so you'll see dust accumulating on them. Meanwhile light and dark grey are very much in fashion right now. But I guess this design is older than that, ha.


That would be a great question to ask the contractors working on that project. I mean, the white beams and walls are prevalent, not just at that station, but also with the rest of the Downtown San Francisco Muni Metro and BART stations. Case in point: Montgomery, one stop over from Powell, wherein the shelled wall design has been white ever since its opening nearly 50 years ago. And the design is much older as it will act as an extension to the existing Powell Street station literally next door.

My biggest frustration, however, remains with the fact that passengers having to change between Muni Metro and BART have to first climb up to concourse level, exit through the ticket barrier, and walk along the concourse before switching over to the other mode. In the case between the Central Subway (on the T-Third Street), other Muni Metro lines (J, K, L, M, and N), and BART, passengers might need up to five minutes to meander through the station complex and get to their next leg. This can be especially challenging for older riders and those with physical limitations who will need to navigate through Powell station and go to an outbound Muni Metro train which boards towards the southwestern end of the station.


----------



## Woonsocket54

*"All Remaining Surface Parking Lots at Millbrae Station to Close Monday, March 23, 2020"*






All Remaining Surface Parking Lots at Millbrae Station to Close Monday, March 23, 2020 | bart.gov


On Monday, March 23, 2020, the Gateway at Millbrae Station project will close all remaining surface parking lots. (Please see the attached map). All areas will be signed at least 72 hours in advance of closures.The parking garage will remain open during all phases of construction; however, a...




www.bart.gov


----------



## Woonsocket54

LRT service in both San Francisco and San Jose has been fully suspended due to the pandemic.






VTA Service as of March 30: Here’s what you need to know | VTA


Under the County’s Shelter-in-Place order, VTA is prioritizing essential service to hospitals, health care facilities, pharmacies, grocery stores, food banks, shelters and other essential destinati




www.vta.org













Starting March 30: New Muni Service Changes


Muni Metro bus substitutions and other service changes are coming next weekStarting next week, the SFMTA will implement additional service changes during the COVID-19 shelter-in-place order. In response to changing ridership, these service adjustments will help us to focus resources on routes...




www.sfmta.com





LRT service in San Francisco (including the portion in the tunnel under Market Street) will be substituted with buses.


----------



## moon993

> *BART announces service start date for long-awaited Milpitas, San Jose Berryessa stations*
> 
> By Julian Glover
> Updated 19 minutes ago
> 
> BART and VTA officials announce the opening date of stations in Milpitas and San Jose, Calif. on Tuesday, May 19, 2020. (KGO-TV)
> 
> SAN JOSE, Calif. (KGO) -- BART and VTA announced Tuesday the long-delayed Milpitas and San Jose Berryessa BART stations are scheduled to open to passengers on June 13 pending final regulatory approval.
> 
> 
> 
> The addition of the Milpitas and Berryessa stations brings BART service into Santa Clara County for the first time in the transit agencies 55-year history.
> 
> Service will now extend south of Fremont's Warm Springs station, through Milpitas, bringing the end of the line to northern San Jose.
> 
> The announcement of BART's expansion comes at a time when the transit agency continues to temporarily slash service as the system takes daily hits to its budget with a pitfall in ridership amid the coronavirus pandemic. Both weekday and weekend ridership averages so far for the month of may hovered between 90 to 93% below typical ridership.
> 
> The California Public Utilities Commission, the regulatory agency for utilities in California, has 14 days to approve the safety verification, according to Santa Clara County.
> 
> *RELATED: BART may give out free face masks to riders*
> 
> The announced opening of the two new BART stations is a major milestone in the agency's BART to Silicon Valley extension plan, which is divided into two phases.
> 
> Phase I is refers to the 10-mile Berryessa extension. It will connect BART from the Warm Spring station in Fremont to two new stations: one in Milpitas near the Great Mall and the other is the Berryessa station in the north San Jose neighborhood of Berryessa.
> 
> According to VTA's website, $2.3 billion of funding made Phase I of the extension possible. $1.07 billion was allocated thanks to "Ballot Measure A" - a 30-year half cent sales tax approved by by Santa Clara County voters in November 2000. $363 million came from the State of California Traffic Congestion Relief Program and $900 million from the Federal Transit Administrations New Starts Program.
> 
> Santa Clara County did not want to join the BART district when it formed in 1965, leaving the county (VTA) to have to build their own tracks and BART stations. BART will come in and operate them.
> 
> Phase II of the South Bay BART extension is 6 miles long and includes four more stations, with stops in east and downtown San Jose, the Diridon intermodal transit hub and Santa Clara.
> 
> Earlier this month BART unveiled new service maps including the Milpitas and Berryessa stations.
> 
> 
> 
> ABC7 News partners the Mercury News reports Phase II of BART's expansion project is being pushed back by four years and could open in 2029 or 2030 instead of by 2026, as earlier reported.
> 
> The hold up involves VTA's plan to use one of the largest tunnel-boring machines ever built to dig through miles of earth needed to be removed to make way for the tunnel needed to house two BART trains and platforms.











BART announces service start date for long-awaited Milpitas, San Jose Berryessa stations


BART and VTA announced the long-delayed Milpitas and San Jose Berryessa BART stations are scheduled to open to passengers on June 13, pending final regulatory approval.




abc7news.com


----------



## fieldsofdreams

moon993 said:


> BART announces service start date for long-awaited Milpitas, San Jose Berryessa stations
> 
> 
> BART and VTA announced the long-delayed Milpitas and San Jose Berryessa BART stations are scheduled to open to passengers on June 13, pending final regulatory approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abc7news.com


I just saw that when one of my best friends alerted me to it. It will be on a Saturday, which will mean a potential for large crowds. However, if things don’t play in our favor (e.g. number of cases still keeps going up), maybe this event will just be streamed without a live audience.


----------



## moon993

VTA's BART Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension Opening Ceremony is now live


----------



## fieldsofdreams

moon993 said:


> VTA's BART Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension Opening Ceremony is now live


I'm literally watching it as we speak. This pandemic has me stuck in the North Bay, hence I am streaming it live on my laptop. If the pandemic was addressed much sooner, I would have traveled all the way out to Berryessa/North San Jose BART and attended the event in person.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Service on the Powell-Hyde cable-car route in San Francisco will resume by early September 2021.









Cable Cars are Returning this Summer!


Restored Cable Car 8 being readied for return to serviceNothing says “San Francisco” quite like our historic cable cars--and they’ll soon be gracing our streets once more. As the city intensifies its focus to supporting economic recovery, residents, regional visitors and tourists will see the...




www.sfmta.com


----------



## Sunfuns

Yet another sad story of US rail infrastructure project being years late and likely hundreds of millions over budget. California seems to be particularly inept.


----------



## Woonsocket54

ridership gains on the BART system


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1409599899708977155


----------



## moon993

A few days old but nonetheless very much on topic



> *Over budget and behind schedule: Why the Bay Area can’t get big transportation projects right*
> 
> By NICO SAVIDGE | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group
> PUBLISHED: June 27, 2021 at 7:00 a.m. | UPDATED: June 28, 2021 at 5:47 a.m.
> 
> When it comes to building big transportation projects on time and on budget, the Bay Area has a miserable track record.
> 
> In 1998, Caltrans estimated that a new eastern span of the Bay Bridge would cost $1.4 billion and take four years to build. The actual cost was $6.4 billion; plagued by design controversies, brittle steel rods and more, the project lasted 11 years.
> 
> The Transbay Transit Center in downtown San Francisco cost nearly twice as much as its initial budget and opened two years behind schedule — then had to close for another nine months to repair cracked steel beams that were not built to code.
> 
> Construction has not yet begun on the project extending BART service through downtown San Jose, but its price tag has risen twice over the last three years, to $6.9 billion, while its projected opening date has slipped by three to four years.
> 
> And earlier this month, Caltrain officials announced their work to electrify the railroad’s Peninsula corridor would take two years longer than expected at an extra cost of more than $300 million.
> 
> Now, with lawmakers in Washington announcing a deal for a huge increase in federal infrastructure spending, and officials in the Bay Area eyeing the next big round of “mega-projects” — including a second transbay BART tube, the extension of Caltrain service into downtown San Francisco and a long list of other plans that by one estimate could total $100 billion — there is mounting pressure to get our act together.
> 
> “We cannot afford to build $100 billion worth of new mega-projects without doing something differently,” said Laura Tolkoff, transportation policy director for the urban planning think tank SPUR.
> 
> SPUR and the Bay Area Council, a business group, have each released proposals in recent months that aim to speed up construction and present a more accurate sense of what projects will cost. Gwen Litvak, the council’s senior vice president of public policy, said reforms will be necessary if Bay Area leaders want the public to support future projects.
> 
> “Voters are smart — they remember if you said this was going to get done in five years and it’s taken 15,” Litvak said.
> 
> The high cost of transportation projects is not unique to the Bay Area. It’s a nationwide problem, with the United States frequently spending far more per mile of new subway construction, for instance, than other countries around the world.
> 
> “Not a whole lot of places anywhere are doing big things well,” said Randy Rentschler, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
> 
> “But,” Rentschler added, “the Bay Area is doing it worse.”
> 
> Take the six-mile, four-station South Bay BART extension, for instance. The design for its 4.7-mile tunnel beneath downtown San Jose is based on a construction method pioneered in Barcelona that was meant to lower costs and minimize disruptions at street level during construction.
> 
> The Spanish project cost less than $250 million per mile, according to SPUR. The BART extension is set to cost well over $1 billion per mile.
> 
> The extension also illustrates what Tolkoff and Rentschler say is a key challenge that makes building in the Bay Area especially tough: the fragmentation of a nine-county, 101-city region with more than two-dozen public transportation agencies, which means projects often face scrutiny from multiple layers of government.
> 
> The San Jose subway is being built by one transit agency, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, but will be operated by another, BART, which has led to years of wrangling between the two over project plans.
> 
> That dynamic also limits our ability to learn from experience.
> 
> “Every project is really prone to ‘first-timer’ mistakes,” Tolkoff said.
> 
> Right now, construction crews are finishing work on San Francisco’s delayed and over budget Central Subway to bring rail service from the Caltrain station south of Market to Chinatown. In the coming years, construction will start on the South Bay BART extension.
> 
> Sometime after that, crews will extend rail lines through downtown San Francisco to the basement of the Transbay Transit Center, and BART hopes to build its second transbay tube.
> 
> Each is a massive, complicated and expensive undertaking. And each is being managed by a different agency that has never built anything of such scale or difficulty before.
> 
> Rentschler noted that’s different in Chicago, for instance, where a single agency oversees a sprawling network of train and bus lines. The Chicago Transit Authority is now at work on a $2.1 billion modernization of train lines on the city’s north side, the first piece of which is set to be completed on time later this year.
> 
> Tolkoff and Litvak zeroed in on similar solutions to our building woes.
> 
> SPUR has proposed creating a new entity, called Infrastructure Bay Area, that would be responsible for planning and executing big projects all over the region. The Bay Area Council recommends launching a regional agency made up of engineers and economists who could evaluate projects and come up with independent estimates for how much they will cost — the infrastructure equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office.
> 
> A more experienced infrastructure agency would be less susceptible to “optimism bias,” Tolkoff said, describing the tendency of less-experienced planners to underestimate the costs and risks of big projects. When unexpected problems arise during construction or planning, which they invariably do, the public gets frustrated as schedules slip and the price tag rises.
> 
> “When you have an agency that has done these projects again and again, they are able to provide a reality check,” Tolkoff said, “and set more realistic expectations.”
> 
> Both groups also called for improving the process for selecting the construction firms that build big projects, which Litvak said “is the reason that a lot of these projects go off-track.”
> 
> Procurement laws require agencies to pick the lowest responsible bidder on a project. But Litvak said the criteria should be broadened to include factors like the risks in each bidder’s plans or what they would mean for future maintenance costs, rather than “just competing to the bottom.”
> 
> And to address another factor that makes building in the Bay Area difficult, SPUR wants to streamline reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act for mass-transit projects, saying the law can ironically hold up construction of bus and rail infrastructure that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> In the public transportation world, there are signs the people in charge of these projects are listening.
> 
> A task force of transit agencies formed to help the Bay Area bounce back from the pandemic and create a more seamless public transportation system is considering the creation of a region-wide “network manager” that could take on jobs like creating consistent maps, syncing schedules, simplifying fares and, perhaps, planning and delivering mega-projects. A consultant hired by the task force is set to study those ideas over the coming months.
> 
> Big infrastructure projects are incredibly difficult to pull off, Litvak and Tolkoff warned, so none of the ideas for improving them in the Bay Area are likely to be a silver bullet. But we need to get better at building them if we want to create a better transportation network than the traffic-choked one we have now.
> 
> “We’re still going to have projects that take a long time,” Litvak said. “The goal is to be a lot more efficient.”











Over budget and behind schedule: Why the Bay Area can’t get big transportation projects right


From the Bay Bridge to the San Jose BART extension, the Bay Area’s “mega-projects” suffer expanding budgets and slipping schedules.




www.mercurynews.com


----------



## Woonsocket54

near pre-pandemic BART service will resume 2021.08.02 instead of 2021.08.30 as originally planned





__





BART increases service four weeks early starting 8/2/21 | bart.gov


BART will return to near-pre pandemic service on August 2 instead of August 30 as originally planned. The August 2 change includes extending closing times to midnight Monday through Saturday.In the meantime, BART will also add late-night limited trains leaving downtown San Francisco at 11:30pm...




www.bart.gov














Also, in the second half of July there will be some late-night service serving limited stops on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Light-rail service in San Jose, which has been suspended since 2021.05.26 due to a gun massacre, may resume in late July.









Getting Light Rail Back on Track


This blog post was updated on August 25 at 12:45 p.m. to indicate that VTA has entered into Phase 4 of the reopening plan.




www.vta.org


----------



## Woonsocket54

San Jose LRT will likely restart later than late July.















Light Rail Service Restoration Date Extended | VTA


Plans for the restoration of light rail service are moving along at a steady pace, however passenger service will likely start later than the end of July, as originally e




www.vta.org


----------



## Woonsocket54

Muni’s "M" (Ocean View) rail line in San Francisco resumes service 2021.08.14









Welcoming Back the M Ocean View and 31 Balboa


The M Ocean View will return to rail service and resume its full pre-pandemic route in AugustAs August 14 approaches, the target date for the next big Muni service change, the SFMTA is pleased to announce Muni’s M Ocean View will be returning to rail service and the 31 Balboa will be returning...




www.sfmta.com


----------



## Woonsocket54

A new Rapid Bus 568 will begin service between San Jose, CA and Gilroy, CA on 2021.08.16. It will run weekdays between 5:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. with service every 30 minutes in both directions. Caltrain also covers this route, but they only run a few trains during rush hours in peak direction.

The New Service Changes are Here! The New Service Changes are Here! | VTA 

In San Francisco, Muni is now designating train directions as westbound/eastbound instead of inbound/outbound. Though, due to the fact that Market Street runs diagonally, maybe northeastbound/southwestbound makes more sense?


















Muni Metro Debuts New International Wayfinding Standards


New subway signage showing new directional wayfinding and accessible exists. When the Muni Metro subway reopened on May 15, 2021, customers noticed some changes at the Castro and Church stations: new overhead wayfinding signage more clearly identifying station exits and indicating where those...




www.sfmta.com


----------



## hkskyline

* Ding! Ding! San Francisco’s cable cars are running again *
_Excerpt_
Aug 2, 2021

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Ding! Ding! San Francisco’s iconic cable cars were chiming their bells and rolling again on the city’s hills Monday after being sidelined for 16 months by the pandemic.

At Powell and Market, one of the cable car’s stops, a line of people snaked around a cable car turntable waiting to ride a car to Ghirardelli Square or Fisherman’s Wharf.

“Our cable cars are part of what makes San Francisco a world-class destination, and their return is just the latest sign that our city is bouncing back,” said San Francisco Mayor London Breed.

More : Ding! Ding! San Francisco's cable cars are running again


----------



## prageethSL

*Central Subway Testing Anticipates 2022 Start of Service*

The Central Subway Project is moving toward our goal of “substantial completion,” paving the way for the start of critical testing and certification of project elements such as station escalators, elevators, trackwork and radio communications. 

The next project stage will include rail activation to begin testing train operations, train control and other integral systems. The project team is identifying and resolving the outstanding issues with the contractor that will lead to recognition work performed on infrastructure elements as complete. Once this step is achieved, we will begin the rail activation process that will ensure the automatic train control and other systems are ready for the start of revenue service in 2022, approximately one year from now.


----------



## Woonsocket54

LRT service in San Jose still hasn't resumed following the 2021.05.26 gun massacre. 

Now they are just running a bus shuttle (every 30 minutes during weekdays, hourly on weekends) covering part of the LRT routes.


















Replacement Bus Service Along Light Rail Line Begins August 2


Due to the ongoing light rail shutdown, VTA will once again operate a temporary replacement bus service along part of the light rail system.




www.vta.org


----------



## Woonsocket54

LRT service in San Jose might resume within the coming few days









VTA could restart partial light rail service this weekend, just in time for 49ers-Raiders game


VTA light rail services have been stopped for nearly three months following a deadly mass shooting at the Downtown San Jose railyard.




abc7news.com


----------



## Woonsocket54

LRT service in San Jose was partially restored on 2021.08.29. It only runs north of Civic Center. South of Civic Center (including downtown), LRT is still suspended. 









Light Rail Service is Back!







www.vta.org


----------



## Woonsocket54

Update on LRT service in San Jose.

















Light Rail Service Expands


We are steadily working to bring light rail back to full service.




www.vta.org


----------



## Woonsocket54

Update on LRT restoration in San Jose.


















Making More Progress with Light Rail Service


Beginning Sunday morning, September 12, VTA light rail service will expand to include the entire Blue Line, from Baypointe to Santa Teresa, including all s




www.vta.org





After Sunday the only part of the LRT that will not be restored is the Green Line in the Winchester direction past Diridon. That one is taking a longer time to get back to service due to the need to check all the crossing gates (schlagbaum).


----------



## Woonsocket54

In just a couple days the full San Jose LRT will be restored.









VTA Light Rail System Fully Operational Saturday, September 18


Starting Saturday, September 18, the entire VTA light rail system is back on track.




www.vta.org


----------



## BoulderGrad

Ooof, those frequencies... I assume that's a train every 10 minutes since the entire system is inter-lined?


----------



## Woonsocket54

The entire system is not interlined. Only the downtown section, North First Street and a few stops along Tasman Drive in Santa Clara have two lines serving them and thus 10-minute frequency (or at least two trains every 20 minutes, if not necessarily exactly 10 minutes apart). The branches are generally 20 minutes.


----------



## prageethSL

*BART Silicon Valley Phase 2 Project One Step Closer to Funding*



















*The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has notified Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) that it intends to obligate funds to advance the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Silicon Valley Phase 2 extension project.*

The six-mile extension—which includes three underground stations (28th Street/Little Portugal, Downtown San José, and Diridon), one at-grade station (Santa Clara), a maintenance facility, and five miles of subway tunnel—will extend BART service from the newly opened Berryessa Station in northeast San Jose through downtown San Jose into the city of Santa Clara (see map below). Passenger service is planned to begin in 2030. VTA is the funding agency and will manage the delivery of the Phase 2 project, while BART is system operator and maintainer. 
In its Letter of Intent to VTA, FTA formally selected the project for funding under the Expedited Project Delivery (EPD) Pilot Program and outlined “several conditions that VTA must meet within the next two years to allow the project to be considered for a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA).” If VTA fulfills those requirements, FTA will award the FFGA, FTA said during an Oct. 25 announcement. The maximum federal share of the project would be $2.287 billion or 25% of the final project cost (whichever is less), which is expected to be $9.148 billion. The remaining 75% would come from state and local sources.


----------

