Bay Area Transportation Tidbits [Archive]

J Church

Aug 29, 2006, 9:07 PM

Oh, sure--sorry. I'd have just posted except it's not exactly "Bay Area" (with the focus on the Sacto depot and all).

Editorial: Tracks of jeers
Sacramento needs a depot fit for a capital
Published 12:01 am PDT Monday, August 28, 2006

Starting today, there will be as many Amtrak commuter trains between Sacramento and Oakland as there are between New York and Boston.

The Capitol Corridor service is launching a dramatic expansion to 32 trains every weekday between the two regions, and 14 trains (seven each way) that will travel as far south as San Jose. Ours is one of the most successful urban train systems going in the country.

One wonders how much more popular the service would be if Sacramento didn't have a station that exudes all the warmth and welcome of a war zone.

It is an embarrassment. The city that has one of the best railroad museums on the planet has one of the most uninviting railroad stations. Go figure.

The Capitol Corridor service, meanwhile, is one of the great success stories of government in Northern California. In its eight years of operation, its trains' travel times have decreased. Fare box recovery (how much passengers pay to run the trains) has increased. And the on-board service is trying to keep up with the times. Plans are afoot to offer wireless Internet access on all the trains. And with 16 trains running each way every weekday between Sacramento and Oakland, the frequency is high enough to allow commuters to stop fretting about the schedule. If they miss one train, another isn't far behind. (To take a peak at the schedule, see www.capitolcorridor.org)

While everything on board is humming right along, the scene changes once the train stops in Sacramento. The parking lot is among the most expensive and maddening in town, requiring a Ph.D. in computer science to decipher how to exchange one bar-coded parking ticket for another to finally open the gate. The walk from the depot to the train is now a gantlet of fences and jackhammers, where crews are extending the light-rail line. And the once stately depot is in a state of arrested decay as local leaders and the Union Pacific Railroad mull, ever so slowly, its future.

The plan is to lift the depot from its foundation and move it north, along with the tracks, to open the land for development and to create a new multimodal station for buses, trains and light rail. But that has been the plan for years. The train service improves, while the train station does not.

The train service, however, is now an indispensable part of Northern California's transportation system. Pressure will only increase to improve the service, particularly into Roseville and Placer County to capture a largely untapped source of passengers. (Please, UP, cooperate.) Sacramento needs a transportation hub worthy of this region to rise from the wreckage of the depot's current home.

pdxstreetcar

Aug 29, 2006, 9:26 PM

The plan is to lift the depot from its foundation and move it north, along with the tracks, to open the land for development and to create a new multimodal station for buses, trains and light rail. But that has been the plan for years. The train service improves, while the train station does not.

Am I reading this correctly, they are literally going to move the existing historic station?

J Church

Aug 29, 2006, 9:29 PM

Believe so, yeah. Are any of the Sac peeps reading this thread?

fflint

Aug 29, 2006, 9:32 PM

Despite the furvent denials of many of our out-of-state compatriots, I don't see a need to draw an artificial metro "boundary" when discussing the transporation infrastructure we share with nearby metros, in terms of Capitol Corridor, ACE, the San Joaquins, etc. ;)

J Church

Aug 29, 2006, 9:43 PM

Then the name of this thread should be changed to MEGALONORCAL Transportation Tidbits. In all caps, please. Thank you, and good night.

EastBayHardCore

Aug 29, 2006, 10:01 PM

Thought this could be relevant.

Published Sunday, August 27, 2006, by the San Jose Mercury News

Ex-industrial town seeks transformation

By Anna Tong
Mercury News

Longtime home of the Ford plant, Milpitas still looks the part. Rows
of adjacent railroad tracks that were once used to ship auto parts
in and out of the city still exist, though passing rail cars no
longer cause hourlong traffic gridlock as they did in the 1950s.
Heavy and light manufacturing plants dominate parts of the city.

Now, Milpitas is looking to radically change its look and image, by
intensely developing the area surrounding a proposed BART station,
in southern Milpitas between Interstates 680 and 880.

"We're trying to rebuild the city with a sense of destiny," said
Diana Whitecar, economic development manager for Milpitas.

The city has already approved preliminary plans in its "Milpitas
Transit Area Concept Plan," which would add 7,200 housing units,
800,000 to 1.2 million square feet of retail space, 500,000 to 1
million square feet of office, and 500 hotel rooms to Milpitas in
the next 20 to 30 years. The plan is part of the "Midtown Specific
Plan," which seeks to develop the parts of the city to keep up with
high population growth.

The future "Milpitas Transit Area" is currently as far from an urban
area as it gets -- it looks like a partly vacated blue-collar town.
One part consists of old company buildings that were almost
completely vacated when companies began outsourcing to other
countries, Whitecar said. Another section is devoted to various
types of heavy industry. The future BART station would be located
in a current truck parking lot. Almost all these areas would be
developed either into high-density apartments and condominiums or
mixed-use housing and retail.

Milpitas has no money budgeted for the development project. The
land is owned privately, and will be developed privately. But city
officials are confident that private developers will be eager to
start construction.

"Based on the level of interest we're seeing from the private
sector, I feel that it's feasible over an extended period of time,"
Whitecar said.

Much of the plan hinges on BART being extended. Then, residents
could take easily accessible public transportation to work, instead
of driving. There is currently a VTA light-rail station in the area,
but the BART extension would provide an essential connection between
the East Bay and the South Bay. For now, the plan is to gradually
develop the area as plans for the BART station are finalized.

Milpitas officials say the plan will go forward with or without the
BART station, and it looks as if the BART extension's future could
be in jeopardy: In June voters vetoed a half-cent sales-tax increase
that would have partly gone toward funding the BART extension.

Assuming the BART plans do follow through, preliminary traffic
modeling commissioned by the city showed that the traffic in the
area would increase 64 percent during morning rush hours and almost
100 percent during the evening rush hours. If the BART plans do not
follow through, the traffic in the area would increase by 13
percent, said Tom Williams, Milpitas' planning director.

"This plan is not wholly dependent on BART, but we're betting that
at some point BART will occur," Whitecar said.

jamison

Aug 29, 2006, 10:06 PM

Am I reading this correctly, they are literally going to move the existing historic station?

This isn't as rare as you might think. I was just flipping channels a few weeks ago and caught a bit of documentary about relocating a train depot and another historic building. In San Jose, Kelly Park park has a collection of historic building (and a few trolleys) relocated from their original foundations.

BTinSF

Aug 29, 2006, 11:11 PM

The Capitol Corridor service, meanwhile, is one of the great success stories of government in Northern California.

I'm really happy about this. It seems a couple years ago I thought I read that the trains weren't doing so well, but apparently all that is history. With I-80 being the parking lot it is and Sacto being really too close to fly, rail service is the perfect way to get there and it's great that people are using it.

BTinSF

Aug 29, 2006, 11:14 PM

Progress on the Bay Bridge:

Crews start work on new Bay Bridge span
- Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 29, 2006

(08-29) 11:54 PDT OAKLAND -- Construction crews working on the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge early today began the long and slow process of lifting into place a 1,750-ton piece of steel that will eventually connect the long concrete skyway to the single-tower suspension span.

At 1 a.m., workers for contractors KFM and Bigge Crane and Rigging began raising the steel transition span for the westbound skyway. Using strand jacks mounted on the skyway and on two 175-foot temporary lifting towers, the piece will be raised 150 feet into the air over 15 hours.

Crews will then slide temporary support towers and connect the span to the towers and the skyway.

From start to finish, the work is expected to take 40 hours.

The lift is the biggest in Caltrans history, according to spokesman Bart Ney.

When it is completed, the skyway section of the bridge will be 94 percent finished. The whole section is expected to be ready by the end of 2007, but the single-tower suspension span it will eventually connect to won't be done until 2013.

E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/29/BAGDLKRBFR4.DTL

sugit

Aug 29, 2006, 11:42 PM

Am I reading this correctly, they are literally going to move the existing historic station?

You are reading it correctly. They are going to be picking up and moving the entire station...allegedly

I say allegedly because as the article says, its been in the plans for years now.

Here is a good article from the Sac Business Journal about the process.

Plans call for old Southern Pacific depot to be shifted to accommodate transportation hub
Sometime in 2006, if all goes as expected, a work crew will pick up the Amtrak passenger depot at 5th and I streets, roll it a few hundred feet north, and drop it onto a new foundation.
All 6,750 tons of it.

To read more...
http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2004/11/22/focus1.html

dimondpark

Aug 30, 2006, 12:11 AM

good. the current location is too restrictive as far as access.

Smiley Person

Aug 30, 2006, 3:53 AM

Huzzah, more trains!

Now if they would only be on time... took one down to San Jose last weekend and we were stopped for half an hour waiting for a northbound freight.

tuy

Aug 30, 2006, 4:38 AM

Good Idea for a thread. We could change the name to Northern California Transportation Tidbits. The Central Valley and Sacramento both could be included.

August 26, 2006

Altamont Commuter Express train adds 4th daily run to weekday trips
Workers, families, shoppers to benefit, official says

By Sam Richards
Contra Costa Times

On Monday, Altamont Commuter Express will begin a fourth daily
weekday round-trip run between Stockton and San Jose.

It will give the Tri-Valley a late-morning westbound run and a
midday return to the east.

The new train will take the place of the daily Amtrak bus now
operating between Stockton and San Jose, just as a major widening
project on Interstate 205 in San Joaquin County gets under way. The
train, Caltrans officials say, should be substantially faster than
a bus negotiating construction delays on the freeway.

The new fourth train will leave Stockton on weekdays at 9:30 a.m.,
arriving in San Jose at 11:40 a.m.

The return trip would turn around only 25 minutes after arrival in
San Jose, ending up back in Stockton at 2:15 p.m., according to the
new schedule.

Some of the envisioned riders are day shoppers bound for Pleasanton
or San Jose; families bound for a day at the Great America amusement
park in Santa Clara; and workers at Tri-Valley or Silicon Valley
destinations.

David Bouchard, president and CEO of the Pleasanton Chamber of
Commerce, said he expects a number of people will take advantage
of the midday train to shop at Stoneridge Mall or in the downtown,
attend events at the Alameda County Fairgrounds and make connections
to shop in Dublin.

"Anytime you can provide transportation to a destination -- and I
consider Pleasanton a destination with everything we have here --
it should be a great opportunity," Bouchard said.

It is anticipated other riders will be those with Amtrak tickets,
using the midday ACE train as a link between the San Joaquin trains
in Stockton and Amtrak trains in San Jose.

Bill Bronte, Caltrans' Rail Division chief, said the 9:30 departure
can accommodate riders of a morning San Joaquin train from
Bakersfield.

The Amtrak bus, which has stops in the Tri-Valley, made its last
weekday run on Friday. Weekend runs will continue.

"With the construction coming up on I-205, and the bus having to
contend with that traffic, that could get real iffy," Bronte said.

Caltrans is providing money for this fourth train, said Brian
Schmidt, ACE's capital projects manager.

ACE now moves from 1,400 to 1,500 riders each way daily, Schmidt
said. There are no ridership projections for the new midday service,
he said. But if the experience of Los Angeles' Metrolink commuter
trains is any indication, the addition of a midday train will boost
rider numbers on the commute-time runs.

"More people rode the (Metrolink) train knowing they could go the
other way in the middle of the day if they had to," Schmidt
said. "There was a 'safety-valve' option."

Though ACE has had problems with freight trains of track owner Union
Pacific creating delays, Schmidt said the San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission has been working with UP for several months on track-use
issues. He anticipates few delay problems with the new midday
service.

An adult round-trip ticket from Stockton to San Jose is $19.75,
a 20-ride ticket costs $153.75. An adult round-trip tickets from
Stockton to Pleasanton costs $12, a 20-ride pass is $96.

fflint

Aug 30, 2006, 5:26 AM

Okay, I'll change it to Northern California if nobody objects. Understand, though, that it will likely be dominated by Bay Area stuff.

plinko

Aug 30, 2006, 5:56 AM

You are reading it correctly. They are going to be picking up and moving the entire station...allegedly

I say allegedly because as the article says, its been in the plans for years now.

A couple of bad pics of the current station:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/SAC/SAC174.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/SAC/sac121.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/SAC/sac122.jpg

Is the plan to also move the adjacent historic office building? The one that was supposedly being renovated by LPA?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/SAC/SAC176.jpg

fflint

Aug 30, 2006, 6:06 AM

^That renovation is complete, as far as I know, and from outside at least it looks pretty good.

J_Taylor

Aug 30, 2006, 7:16 AM

Any plans in the distent works for a Express Cap like the baby bullet?
BTW way to go Caps!

J Church

Aug 30, 2006, 4:26 PM

pdxstreetcar

Aug 30, 2006, 4:47 PM

Dont get me wrong I love the idea of moving the station.

The only reason I'm surprised is because that isn't some tiny rural wooden depot but a decent sized brick terminal.

ltsmotorsport

Aug 30, 2006, 5:47 PM

Yeah, and the terminal has been around for quite a while. Some really nice cieling details and a huge mural on the inside too. Maybe it will be on an episode of "Mega Movers" in a couple years.

That historic office building (REA) will stay put. Here's some site plans from the city's website.
http://cityofsacramento.org/generalservices/sitf/documents/TR11_Sec3-12.pdf

urban_encounter

Aug 30, 2006, 6:09 PM

Is the plan to also move the adjacent historic office building? The one that was supposedly being renovated by LPA?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/SAC/SAC176.jpg

Actually i believe the plan is to move the station only and to connect it to a new facility so that the historic section serves as a gateway. The additional REA Building would remain where it is.

The railroad wants the tracks straightened so that longer trains (such as the Zephyr) aren't wrapped around that bend just east of the station.

Here is an early rendering of the Historic and new Intermodal facility. In the rendering you can see the station moved (I think they want to move it 400 feet north). In the rendering the REA building remians.

The REA building is complete and though I'm not sure how many tenants occupy the building now, Starbuck's was the first to open in the renovated building.

http://downtownsac.org/uploads/projects/intermodal.jpg
(photo rendering courtesy of Sugit)...

BTW the train turing in the rendering will be the new 7th street alingment of the RT trains.

fflint

Aug 30, 2006, 7:56 PM

^Interesting setup for the new intermodal station. Why so much open space on the station's present location?

urban_encounter

Aug 30, 2006, 8:14 PM

^Interesting setup for the new intermodal station. Why so much open space on the station's present location?

I'm not sure how they came up with that much space or why they chose to show a rendering of a new building in what is now the parking lot of the station. I know that the City was trying to think of creative ways to help pay for the relocation and renovation and it's possible that they are considering selling the land (which is now the parking lot that fronts I street) in order to raise funds. But that's just specualtion on my part.

I think the Railyards master plan actually call for open space (or a public plaza of some sort) in the current parking lot and in the new space created by moving the station North.

The Parking Lot though to my recollection isn't that big.

I just hope they can find a way to make it a reality because that station, with it's history and rising passenger totals can make a huge impact for DT Sacramento and rail.

Richard Mlynarik

Aug 31, 2006, 4:52 AM

^ That would probably require nine figures' worth of track work. And it wouldn't solve the problem of having to wind along the shoreline between Martinez and Richmond. If you want to make the Caps fast, you're going to need a tunnel--a long one.

Not much tunnelling is necessary to get commerically-useful (ie I-80-slaying)
speeds from much of the Bay Area to Sacramento:
http://www.arch21.org/BARegRail.dir/regrailindex.html
http://www.arch21.org/BARegRail.dir/BayRailDetailMaps.dir/mapindex.html
http://www.arch21.org/GEprojects/GEindex.html

The shorter-distance trains can continue to use the slower route:
that's how this sort of things is done everywhere else in the world,
after all.

J Church

Aug 31, 2006, 5:12 AM

Via Altamont, sure.

tuy

Aug 31, 2006, 5:58 AM

http://tracypress.com/content/view/3634/2/

Slow start for new train

Written by John Upton/Tracy Press

The new late-morning ACE train is leaving Tracy mostly empty, but officials hope that ridership picks up with a little more time.

Not very many people took advantage of the new middle-of-the-day train between Stockton, Tracy and San Jose, but Altamont Commuter Express employees are convinced it’s a good start.

“Midday trains are usually a very slow burn,” said ACE chief executive Stacey Mortensen, who said she hoped up to 250 people would eventually catch the service that began Monday.

Mortensen said existing services were expected to fill as customers gained more options for leaving Tracy and returning home.

The new westbound train, which leaves Tracy for San Jose at 10 a.m., and the new eastbound train, which leaves Tracy for Stockton at 1:45 p.m., opens up the Bay Area to seniors and students Monday through Friday, Mortensen said.

The midday trains are using three cars with up to 380 seats — but she said one might move to another service to relieve crowding there.

The new trains connect with the Bakersfield Amtrak line in Stockton, and all services connect with the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit system in Pleasanton.

Aboard Tuesday’s new morning service, ACE operations manager Hubert Hanrahan said commuter numbers were slightly stronger than they were Monday, when about 30 passengers hitched a ride on the inaugural run. He said he expected the number to grow by Friday as word and advertising spreads.

Cisco Systems compliance engineer and frequent ACE traveler Keith Han, who was one of four people to catch the 10 a.m. service from Tracy on Tuesday, said the new timetable would make it easier to bring his wife and three kids to San Jose for day-trips.

He said three existing services, which leave Tracy between 4:52 a.m. and 6:58 a.m., are too early for his family.

“Now it’s more convenient because we don’t have to rush,” he said.

A round-trip between Tracy and San Jose costs an adult $15.

The new train is part of an overall effort to improve ACE service. More than 20 ACE trains on the existing morning and evening runs were delayed by between 15 and 45 minutes this month, and Mortensen said she hoped dedicated ACE rails would cut back on delays within three years.

“The economy out here is booming and (Union Pacific is) pushing a lot of freight containers through this area … So the capacity that we have is just slowly ebbing away.

“My full-time effort is to try to get our own track. We’re going to buy it where we can, lease it where we can, and build it where we can.”

Copper wire thieves also caused delays by stealing overhead wires that allow ACE trains to communicate with one another. Mortensen said ACE was trying to work around this by switching to radio communications.

fflint

Sep 1, 2006, 1:20 AM

Another small step toward Megalonorcal:

Monterey-Salinas Transit Launches Line to San Jose
Round-trip buses to run every day

By Kevin Howe
Monterey Herald Staff Writer
August 26, 2006

Monterey-Salinas Transit unveiled its new Monterey-San Jose Express service Friday at the Monterey Transit Plaza.

MST's Line 55 will provide three round-trip bus runs between downtown Monterey and downtown San Jose starting Monday.

On hand for the inaugural at Jules Simoneau Plaza in Monterey were Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel; Assemblyman Simón Salinas, D-Salinas; and Supervisor Fernando Armenta.

The Line 55 Monterey-San Jose Express will originate in downtown Monterey and stop at the Monterey Parking Garage, Monterey Transit Plaza, Edgewater Transit Exchange, Prunedale Park & Ride, Gilroy Caltrain Station, Morgan Hill Caltrain Station, San Jose State University, downtown San Jose and the San Jose Diridon Train Station.

The line will serve as the Monterey-to-San Jose Amtrak Thruway bus that was eliminated in 2005. The line will operate every day of the year, offering a transportation alternative for commuters and travelers. It will also offer transfers to and from Capitol Corridor trains that operate between San Jose, Oakland and Sacramento, Caltrains that operate between San Jose and San Francisco, and Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority bus and light rail services.

Fares will be $6 from Monterey to Gilroy or Morgan Hill, and $8 for the full Monterey-to-San Jose trip. MST customers who use day passes or monthly all-zone passes will be allowed free transfers to VTA local buses and light rail lines.

Line 55 Monterey-San Jose Express is funded by a federal grant from Jobs Access Reverse Commute, VTA and Caltrans through the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority.

urban_encounter

Sep 1, 2006, 5:09 PM

Amtrak adds service between Sacramento and Bay Area
Sacramento Business Journal - 2:58 PM PDT Thursday by Melanie Turner Staff writer

Amtrak's commuter service has launched its largest-ever expansion, running 32 trains, up from 24 trains, each weekday between Sacramento and Oakland. The expansion includes six additional trains, for a total of 14 trains (seven each way) that travel as far south as San Jose.

With the expansion, the frequency of commuter trains between Sacramento and Oakland now equals the frequency of trains on Amtrak's commuter route between New York and Boston.

The new trains also run at more convenient times, including a new 7 a.m. weekday departure out of Sacramento, and a 3:35 p.m. departure, which closes a two-and-a-half hour gap between 2:10 p.m. and 4:40 p.m. trains. "If someone was coming up for a lunch meeting they had to hang around for a while," said Priscilla Kalugdan, marketing manager for the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority.

The expansion took effect Aug. 28. No additional funds were used in the expansion, Kalugdan said. Equipment is being used more efficiently to increase the frequency of trains, she said.

slock

Sep 1, 2006, 8:13 PM

I had a question about TJPA and the property acquisition for DTX.

Is all the property they acquire going to be demolished or is it some legal requirement that they own property that they tunnel under? They discussed about 20 individual properties at their meeting yesterday. That would be a lot of demolition.

ltsmotorsport

Sep 1, 2006, 9:54 PM

^Interesting setup for the new intermodal station. Why so much open space on the station's present location?
It's Sacramento; we just LOVE our open space, even when it won't be used. :rolleyes:

urban_encounter

Sep 2, 2006, 7:25 PM

It's Sacramento; we just LOVE our open space, even when it won't be used. :rolleyes:

You'll thank city leaders for all of that open space in 20 years....

Thre's not much the local politicians do right in Sacramento. But along with the vision of light rail, the establishment of open and public spaces downtown, is to be applauded.

TowerDistrict

Sep 2, 2006, 7:56 PM

I do like the landuse plans for the depot district and the railyards in general. i've been happy with the city so far, in that "open space" has not been abused, but rather thoughfully included.

in the depot case, i think it will be a great buffer between the intermodal station and many acres of office and residential mixed used development. see the small snapshot below:

http://www.sacfrg.org/images/depot-snapshot.gif

J_Taylor

Sep 2, 2006, 9:44 PM

Its good to see them bringing Light Rail to the station.

BTinSF

Sep 3, 2006, 3:34 AM

I figured we just had to have these pics of the Bay Bridge work and its consequences being done this weekend (for out of towners, they are rebuilding the ramps to be more earthquake resistant and the Bridge is shut to eastbound traffic all Labor Day weekend while they tear down the old ramps):

No traffic:
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_007_pc.jpg

The barricade:
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_012_pc.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_067_pc.jpg

Some people never "get it"
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_083_pc.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_103_pc.jpg

And there are exceptions--a bus transporting the baltimore orioles to their game in Oakland (one wonders why they didn't land and stay there):
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_141_pc.jpg

Surveyor:
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_042_pc.jpg

The work:
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_213_pc.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_225_pc.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_277_pc.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_295_pc.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_299_pc.jpg

Traffic on the other bridges:

Richmond-San Rafael:
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_eal_001.jpg

Westbound (how they plan to get home is a ??)
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_eal_004.jpg

Golden Gate:
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_eal_007.jpg

Lombard St. to the Golden Gate:
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_eal_005.jpg

The Golden Gate ramps:
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/03/ba_baybridge03_eal_006.jpg

EastBayHardCore

Sep 3, 2006, 6:35 AM

Caltrain f'ing rocks.

-------------------------------

Published Wednesday, August 30, 2006, by Caltrain

Caltrain Releases Sneak Peak at Peninsula Rail Travel in 2025

Caltrain released a preview of its system-wide capital improvement
project, known as Project 2025, which looks down the road to where
rail service on the Peninsula will be in 20 years. The plan explores
enhanced scenarios that outline various increased service level
options and necessary capital requirements for each.

The overall goal of Project 2025 provides a capital investment
strategy that will improve system safety and reliability, and
supports future expansion of the system. The multi-billion dollar
undertaking first seeks to bring the railroad up to the highest
level of good repair, which is necessary to accommodate improvement
and expansion. "Think of it like someone getting into good shape
before they go in for elective surgery," said Caltrain Director of
Rail Operations, Engineering and Construction, Robert Doty. "We
can't make the system better until it's healthy enough to go under
the knife."

Some of the major projects are:

* Electrifying Caltrain's corridor and replacing diesel locomotives
with electric trains by 2012

* Improving technology and signaling equipment so that trains will
be allowed to travel faster, and to allow for increased service

* Opening the Dumbarton Rail Corridor, which will cross the bay
between Menlo Park and Union City by 2012

* Adding track and crossovers to accommodate more frequent trains
Building grade separations in key areas to assist with rail safety
and local traffic flow

* Improving the North Terminal in San Francisco to allow for
increased service and access to the downtown extension through the
Transbay Terminal

* Improving the South Terminal in San Jose, to allow for additional
service, including access to ACE, Capitol Corridor and Amtrak trains

"We could be looking at 10 trains an hour," said Doty. "But, right
now we're running a system that is little better than was operating
in the 1950s. The U.S. is a third-world country when it comes to
rail travel, but this will make Caltrain a world-class rapid rail
transit system."

Staff will deliver the final plan to the board at the October
JPB meeting. To view the slide-show preview for this plan, visit
<http://www.caltrain.com/Project2025>.

Contact: Jonah Weinberg, 650.508.6238

FourOneFive

Sep 3, 2006, 7:30 AM

^ why doesn't their vision mention anything about an extension to Monterey, Santa Cruz, or Salinas?

does anyone know if there was ever passenger rail service on the peninsula on the other side of the coastal ranges (i.e. pacifica, half moon bay)? i've heard there was freight service of some kind at one time.

J_Taylor

Sep 3, 2006, 5:09 PM

Richard Mlynarik

Sep 3, 2006, 10:48 PM

^ why doesn't their vision mention anything about an extension to Monterey, Santa Cruz, or Salinas?

Perhaps because it's hopeless to even think about it.

^ does anyone know if there was ever passenger rail service on the peninsula on the other side of the coastal ranges (i.e. pacifica, half moon bay)? i've heard there was freight service of some kind at one time.

"Ocean Shore Railroad" (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ocean+Shore+Railroad%22)

FourOneFive

Sep 3, 2006, 11:02 PM

thanks richard. there were some great sites that pulled up through google. here's an image of the old route:

http://pacifica.ca.us/HISTORY/rrmap.gif

here's an interesting tidbit:

The railroad line had several stops in Pacifica-Edgemar, Salada, Brighton, Vallemar, Rockaway, Tobin-before plunging into a 354-foot tunnel through San Pedro Mountain. It resurfaced at the edge of the high cliffs, 700 feet above the crashing surf. This dramatic ride caused a great deal of trouble for the rail line, because the roadbed was built on an unstable piece of shifting mountainside known, appropriately, as Devil's Slide.

whatever happened to this tunnel?

EastBayHardCore

Sep 4, 2006, 1:23 AM

^ Sweet map. There are a ton of stops out there, each 100 person community must have had a station back then.

J_Taylor

Sep 5, 2006, 4:56 AM

whatever happened to this tunnel?
From what I've been told, during WW2 they were blown shut to keep them from beeing a safe haven for japanese...if they chose to invade..

tuy

Sep 7, 2006, 2:55 PM

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_4293580?source=rss

Agencies release I-580 documents

Environmental report to support eastbound lane addition project

By Rebecca F. Johnson, STAFF WRITER

Three transportation agencies released an environmental document that will enable the proposed Interstate 580 eastbound high occupancy vehicle lane project to proceed as planned if approved after a public review period.

The Federal Highway Administration, California Department of Transportation and Alameda County Congestion Management Agency are collaborating on the project, which will extend from Hacienda Drive in Pleasanton toeast of the Greenville Road exit in Livermore and be built in the median.

The addition of the lanes is aimed at reducing congestion and delays that occur during commute hours. I-580 through the Livermore Valley is part of a goods movement corridor that extends from the Port of Oakland to the Central Valley.

"This is the second most congested freeway segment in the entire Bay region," said Dennis Fay, executive director of the county agency. "The (HOV lanes) are just phase one of a series of improvements we expect to make on this segment of freeway."

The eastbound project was selected first because it could be built relatively more easily than lanes in the westbound direction, Fay said.

The environmental assessment and initial study reveals that some mitigation measures must be completed, such as replacement of shrubs and reconstruction of existing drainage facilities.

However, because the project will be constructed on the existing highway and no significant environmental impacts are anticipated, the transportation agencies will gauge whether there is a need for a public hearing before proceeding with the project.

"We are waiting to see what the interests are out there," said Brigetta Smith, Caltrans public information officer.

The first phase of the project, which will include ramp meters, traffic monitoring equipment and other preliminary work, is expected to begin later this year. The county agency is currently soliciting bids for the work. The construction of the lanes is poised to begin late next year.

EastBayHardCore

Sep 8, 2006, 5:42 AM

Published Wednesday, September 6, 2006, by Marin Independent Journal

Novato rail stop won't be at Los Robles mobile home park

By Rob Rogers

A controversial train station near a Novato mobile home park
could be relocated to the former Hamilton air base under a plan
recommended by city staff.

But residents of the Los Robles Mobile Home Park, who have
vigorously campaigned against a proposed Sonoma Marin Area Rail
Transit (SMART) station near the gates of their neighborhood on
Nave Drive, say they'd be less than thrilled with the substitution.

"This is just as disastrous," said Gail Atkinson, a steering
committee member for the Los Robles Mobile Home Community
Homeowners' League. "This would be devastating to any residential
community."

Plans for the SMART project, which would establish a light rail
corridor between the two counties, currently call for Novato
stations near some of the city's largest employers.

One station, on Redwood Boulevard between San Marin Drive and Rush
Landing Road, would be a short distance from the Fireman's Fund
insurance company. Another, located on Nave Drive south of Bel
Marin Keys Boulevard, would provide access to the Bel Marin Keys
industrial park.

The Novato City Council previously recommended both stations to the
SMART board. Following an outcry by Los Robles residents, however,
who argued that a station so close to their neighborhood could
cause health and safety problems, the council agreed on July 18
to recommend new sites for those stations.

After working with SMART staff members, city officials have
recommended moving the Nave Drive station to Hamilton's Main Gate
Road. The City Council will consider that recommendation at its
Sept. 12 meeting.

While council members had not yet reviewed or discussed those
recommendations as of Tuesday, most said they supported moving the
station away from the mobile home park.

"There is no question that the Bel Marin Keys site had to be
changed," said Councilwoman Pat Eklund. "The impacts to the
residents of Los Robles far exceeds any rationale for keeping it
there."

In addition, many council members advocated moving the Redwood
Boulevard station to a location closer to downtown Novato.

"I haven't studied the recommendation, but I'd like to see a station
where people shop," said Councilwoman Judy Arnold. "I'd like to see
it in one of two downtown locations, either at the intersection of
Redwood and Olive or near the (planned) Whole Foods development. And
rather than having a station at Hamilton or Los Robles, I'd like to
look at the area by Highway 37."

But Eklund, who is opposing Arnold in a race for county supervisor,
said station locations should take into consideration where Novato
residents live, as well as where they work and shop.

"I think we need to explore a downtown site," Eklund said. "But I
don't think we should base all of our rail stations on employment
centers. That's making the assumption that people who ride the train
will live in Sonoma County and work in Marin. We need some
discussion about placing stations near where people live."

Los Robles resident Atkinson disagrees.

"It needs to be near a commercial area, like the downtown," she
said. "I'd hoped it would be somewhere like Rowland Boulevard, and
not near people's residences."

Jeff Johnston, president of the Hamilton Homeowners Association,
said he hoped any potential station on Main Gate Road would be
located far from any homes. [BATN: Yes, be sure to keep it far from
anyone who may be tempted not have to drive everywhere all the time.]

"There's a new moderate-income housing development that could be
affected by this," said Johnston, who has fought to limit fumes from
diesel trucks along Hamilton's Todd Road. "It would be unfortunate
if this was to impact anybody."

Councilwoman Jeanne Mac Leamy said she planned to keep an open mind
in evaluating all possible station locations.

"We're going to look at every possible site, with the information
that the SMART and city staff used to determine what locations are
available," Mac Leamy said. "We need a station for the northern part
of town and one for the southern part, and we have to look at what's
best for all residents. It can't be about politics."

Whatever decision the council makes regarding the proposed stations,
it needs to make it soon, said Mayor Carole Dillon-Knutson, who
represents Novato on the SMART advisory board.

"We're always open to public input," Dillon-Knutson said. "But we
need to have those stations well settled before SMART goes on the
ballot in November."

MEETING

The Novato City Council will discuss the matter at a 6:30 p.m.
meeting on Sept. 12 at the Novato Unified School District
headquarters at 1015 Seventh St. For information, call 415-899-8903.

Contact Rob Rogers via e-mail at rrogers@...

BTinSF

Sep 8, 2006, 8:28 AM

said Johnston . . . "It would be unfortunate
if this was to impact anybody."

That's one way to look at it, I suppose. :koko:

dimondpark

Sep 8, 2006, 1:20 PM

I guess this belongs here since NorCal is a major gateway to Hawaii

Fall passenger capacity: 2.4 million seats(to Hawaii)
Pacific Business News (Honolulu) - 8:35 PM HAST Wednesdayby Howard Dicus

The next three months could bring Hawaii a lot more Canadian visitors while fewer people will fly here on Delta, based on flight schedules.

The newest state study of scheduled passenger seats to Hawaii, covering September, October and November, shows 2,449,969 seats flying to the islands, up 7.3 percent from the same three months last year. More seats doesn't guarantee more visitors but one can't have the latter without enough of the former.

There will be fully 10 percent more seats here from the U.S. Mainland, including 42 percent more capacity to Kauai and 21 percent more capacity to Kahului. Capacity is double what it was a year ago from Phoenix, and triple from Oakland -- ATA moved its San Francisco operations across the bay -- but down 55 percent from Cincinnati and down 16 percent from Atlanta -- both Delta Air Lines hubs, and bankrupt Delta has been downsizing.

International capacity will be up 0.7 percent, as 52 percent more Canadian seats offset 4.1 percent fewer seats from Japan. JAL has halved its airlift to Kona. Capacity from Taiwan is down 17 percent.

Where our passenger seats come from, September-October-November 2006, according to the Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism:

Los Angeles: 550,478, up 1.2 from last year at this time. For every seat to Maui or Kona there are two to Maui and six to Honolulu. To LAX capacity, add almost 34,000 Aloha Airlines seats from Orange County and almost 16,000 ATA seats from Ontario, east of L.A., so there are really more than 600,000 seats from the Los Angeles area.

Tokyo: 293,626, down 1.7 percent, but still the second biggest single source of passenger capacity to Hawaii, including 19,110 seats to Kona. Serving the Tokyo-Hawaii corridor are Japan Airlines, All Nippon Airways, their discount affiliates, United Airlines and Northwest Airlines.

San Francisco: 274,015, down 6.8 percent, mainly because ATA moved its operations from SFO to Oakland, which now originates 91,352 seats, up 215 percent from last year. There are also 24,000 seats from San Jose, Calif., for a total of almost 390,000 seats from the San Francisco Bay Area.

Phoenix: 111,674, up 106 percent, representing service from Hawaiian Airlines, the America West division of US Airways, and ATA Airlines.

Seattle: 106,032, up 29 percent. Sea-Tac airport is served by Northwest Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines. Sea-Tac flights are to Honolulu and Kahului.

Osaka: 86,517, down 7.1 percent. JAL, United and Northwest serve this corridor, while ANA sells code share tickets on United.

Las Vegas: 74,396, up 26 percent. Hawaiian Airlines, Aloha Airlines and ATA Airlines connect Las Vegas with Hawaii and there are charter options as well, but this corridor is mainly for Hawaii outbound tourists rather than visitors to the islands. This capacity includes 10,000 new seats to Maui.

Vancouver: 73,330, up 42.4 percent. This includes Air Canada service and Harmony Airways. Total capacity from Canada is 78,289, up 52 percent, because of service from Calgary, Alberta, and from the British Columbia ski resort of Kelowna. Roughly a third of Canadian airlift is to Maui.

Chicago: 63,477, down 27 percent. Even after cutbacks, O'Hare International remains a transshipment point for U.S. East visitors to the islands over United Airlines and American Airlines.

Portland: 62,096, up 17 percent. Northwest Airlines has joined Hawaiian Airlines in serving this corridor. About a quarter of Portland capacity flies to
Maui rather than Honolulu including most of the new airlift.

San Diego: 60,788, up 71.5 percent. Aloha Airlines has joined Hawaiian Airlines in serving San Diego. Aloha's service is to Maui.

Nagoya: 58,331, up 0.1 percent. It is worth noting that even Nagoya sends more passenger seats to Hawaii than several key U.S. Mainland hubs, as seen below.

Capacity from about 25,000 to about 50,000 is offered from Sydney (Qantas, Air Canada and Hawaiian Airlines), Salt Lake City (Delta Air Lines), Dallas-Ft. Worth (American Airlines), Houston (Continental Airlines), Atlanta (Delta) and Sacramento (Hawaiian Airlines and Aloha Airlines).

Capacity below 25,000 is offered from Denver (United Airlines), Minneapolis (Northwest Airlines), Newark (Continental Airlines), Cincinnati (Delta Air Lines), Guam (Continental Micronesia), Manila (Philippine Airlines), Seoul (Korean Air Lines), Taipei (China Airlines and EVA Air), Auckland (Air New Zealand), and several other Pacific airports.

Reach Howard Dicus at hdicus@bizjournals.com

dimondpark

Sep 8, 2006, 1:30 PM

Oasis Hong Kong Airlines coming to OAK

Pictures: Long-haul low-cost start-up Oasis Hong Kong Airlines unveils livery, sets launch date for October 25
By Justin Wastnage

Start-up long-haul low-fares carrier Oasis Hong Kong Airlines has unveiled the livery for its two Boeing 747-400s that will operate from 25 October on its route to London Gatwick airport from its Hong Kong base.

Tickets for the route went on sale yesterday, with 10% of the aircraft available at the headline fare level of HK$1,000 ($129) one way plus tax, the company pledged. The airline will offer business class fares from HK$7,000 with a maximum of HK$20,000, says chief executive Stephen Miller.

The livery (pictured below) was created by a Japanese design agency to include the colours of the Chinese city-state's flag combined with rays of sunshine signifying the nighttime schedule of the carrier that delivers passengers at dawn at their destination, says Oasis creative consultant Priscilla Hwang Lee.
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=14585
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=14584
Flights will initially be operated four times per week, rising to daily in November, with two ex-Singapore Airlines 747-400s that were acquired earlier this year.

Route licences were secured late last year allowing Oasis to operate scheduled services to Berlin, Cologne/Bonn and Milan Malpensa in Europe, as well as to Chicago and Oakland near San Francisco in the USA. Miller says the new routes will be opened as the fleet grows, adding that Oasis plans to have five 747-400s by the end of 2007. Oakland is expected to be its second destination.

Oasis’s main shareholders are real estate magnate Raymond Lee and telecommunications equipment mogul Allan Wong.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/09/07/Navigation/177/208891/Pictures+Long-haul+low-cost+start-up+Oasis+Hong+Kong+Airlines+unveils+livery,+sets+launch+date+for.html

tuy

Sep 8, 2006, 6:06 PM

Stockton to Mexico air plans go from no to maybe

REED FUJII
Record Staff Writer
Published Friday, Sep 8, 2006

In May, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials said no to Stockton Metropolitan Airport’s plans for a $2 million inspection station at the terminal, effectively killing plans for Stockton to Guadalajara service this fall. Officials have now reversed course, raising optimism among county officials.

STOCKTON - Hopes to bring international flight service to Stockton Metropolitan Airport were revived this week as U.S. customs officials reversed an earlier rejection of plans for an inspection station at the airport terminal.

San Joaquin County officials, who oversee airport operations, hailed the news.

"Where the door was locked and shut with duct tape around it, but now the duct tape is off. The door is not open, but I see some light shining through," county Supervisor Steve Gutierrez said Thursday.

The county had drafted plans for a $2 million inspection station to accommodate Aeromexico Airlines service to Guadalajara this fall but was stymied in May, when U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials in San Francisco declined to authorize the facility.

Reps. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, and Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, weighed in, however, and customs officials in Washington, D.C., recently said the project, with certain revisions, can go forward.

"The Stockton airport is part of our regional transportation system. By offering more flights out of Stockton, folks in the Valley will no longer have to fight traffic by driving all the way to Oakland or Sacramento," Pombo said Thursday in an e-mail. "I welcome CBP's recognition of Stockton airport's potential and its vital role in the region's transportation system."

Gutierrez, who said he's long encouraged establishment of Stockton-to-Mexico air service while not advocating for any specific commercial carrier, hopes the full Board of Supervisors decides to invest in the customs facility. Federal grants are expected to cover up to 95 percent of the facility's costs, but the county needs to collect airport fees to offset its share.

It might take three to four years for the county to get into the black on the deal, he said.

"It's going to take awhile, but there's so much benefit that we gain just in providing a service to the traveler that wants to travel to Mexico," he said.

He sees planned Aeromexico service as an important complement to Allegiant Air, currently the airport's only scheduled carrier, which provides leisure-travel flights to Las Vegas.

"The real question is, What is the vision of our leadership and our policy-makers?" Gutierrez asked. "What is the vision for our airport?

He answered: "This one county supervisor wants an airport with a level of service that attracts consumers."

Stockton is still attractive to Aeromexico, which had hoped to begin at least three flights a week in November, said Airport Director Barry Rondinella.

"I have been in contact with Aeromexico just to verify they are still interested," he said Thursday. "They are very interested."

However, Rondinella admitted, there remains a lot of work for a customs inspection station to be built at the airport.

A call to the airline Thursday was not returned.

An Aug. 25 letter from the Customs and Border Protection's Office of Congressional Affairs to local legislators said the inspection station's design failed to meet certain size and space standards.

"We look forward to working with the Stockton Metropolitan Airport to further define our facility requirements in order to meet their service needs," wrote Thaddeus Bingel, a Customs and Border Protection assistant commissioner.

"What was a 'no' is now a 'Hey, we want to work with you anyway we can,' " Rondinella said. "We've got to work, pick up the pieces and figure out where we go from where."

He is working through the legislators' offices to get more specifics on the customs agency's design requirements and turn them into revised construction plans and new cost estimates.

"Until we find out from CBP specifically what their concerns with our designs are then we won't know how it's going to affect the cost," he said.

Richard Mlynarik

Sep 8, 2006, 11:45 PM

From what I've been told, during WW2 they were blown shut to keep them from beeing a safe haven for japanese...if they chose to invade..

Please! There's really no need to ever relate third-hearsay (except in a military tribunal, of course. Those Geneva Conventions are so darned quaint!)

First, there was only ever one tunnel, a "400-foot double-track bore" (according to the book on the subject, the hard-to-find-but-available-in-libraries "The Last Whistle [Ocean Shore Railroad]" by Jack R Wagner ISBN 0-8310-7107-9).

Anyway: page 127 of "The Ocean Shore Railroad (ISBN 0738529389) (http://www.arcadiapublishing.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=arcadia&Product_Code=0738529389) says, in a section titled "The Mystery of the San Pedro Tunnel":

When the Ocean Shore ceased functioning in 1920, the tracks were torn up and the engines sold. But the tunnel itself continued to exist [...]

Unfortunately, or understandably, an abandoned tunnel on the San mateo County coast, especially during the prohibition years of the 1920s, became a perfect hiding place for bootleg alcohol. With relatively safe mooring areas near San Pedro Point, it was fairly easy for pirates and rumrunners to stash cases of illegal alcohol in the abandoned tunnel. It became so commonplace and such a well-known hiding place that that eventually federal agents, weary of battling bootleggers over the tunnel, simply blew up its two entrances, sealing forever the hiding place.

Incidentally the Devil's Slide cut itself was formed by digging a tunnel,
filling it with nine tons of gunpowder, and blowing it up.

"Granada, A Synonym for Paradise: The Ocean Shore Railroad Years" (ISBN 0-9632922-0-X) (http://www.coastside.net/gumtreebooks/books.html) is also supposed to be a good source, but inexplicably I do not yet own a copy.

http://www.medium.images.californiacoastline.org/images/2002/medium/5931.JPG

(see the above image from the California Coastal Records Project in its full glorious context at http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=5931&mode=sequential)

See also the SF Comical article
"The Road Not Taken / Design work to begin soon on tunnel behind Devil's Slide" (31 December 2000) (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/sfgate/object.cgi?object=/chronicle/pictures/2000/12/31/mn_devilslidetun.jpg&paper=chronicle&file=MNL141467.DTL&directory=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/31):

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2000/12/31/mn_devilslidetun.jpg

FourOneFive

Sep 9, 2006, 2:41 AM

^ that's amazing. i've actually walked along the old ocean shore railroad right of way and didn't even know it. it truly is ashame that rail was removed along the coast. i'm sure commuter rail would be extremely successful if it was still around.

dimondpark

Sep 11, 2006, 3:58 PM

SFO was battered by so many things at once-right around the time all the new construction was winding down-but it seems things are getting back on track!

9/11: FIVE YEARS LATER
SFO's business still turbulent
Although ridership has been gradually bouncing back, passenger load remains down about 10 percent from 2000
David Armstrong, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, September 10, 2006

The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks took place 3,000 miles away, but the effect is still being felt at a decidedly changed San Francisco International Airport.

Like all airports in North America, SFO was closed to commercial aviation for several days after Sept. 11. When the planes started flying again, it reopened to a very different aviation environment.

Five years after the attacks, SFO -- Northern California's busiest airport and one of the nation's major gateways to Asia -- is home to fewer airlines, fewer passengers and fewer flights than before Sept. 11. Forced to operate with suddenly reduced revenue, SFO put several major construction projects on hold and cut its staff by a third.

And SFO, like other American airports, bristles with stricter security than it did before the attacks. All told, SFO spent $150 million to beef up security, with the federal government reimbursing about $50 million.

Over the past two years, SFO has gradually been recovering, according to spokesman Michael McCarron, although the initial shock was severe.

"Our business was down dramatically,'' McCarron recalled, saying the falloff began before Sept. 11. "Six months prior to that, the dot-com boom collapsed, and that summer of 2001, business was down. Then came Sept. 11.''

From handling 41 million passengers in 2000, when it was one of the world's 10 busiest airports, SFO plummeted to 29 million passengers in 2001.

Shortly afterward, the SARS outbreak in Asia and Toronto, the Iraq war and avian flu further hampered business. But, buoyed by a surprisingly strong global economy and pent-up demand for travel, civil aviation gradually began to recover.

This year, driven by surging demand for international travel, SFO officials expect nearly 37 million passengers. International traffic is growing by about 4 percent a year, according to McCarron, though domestic demand is still flat. Free-spending international fliers account for 25 percent of SFO passengers and generate 42 percent of its passenger revenue.

SFO, like most U.S. airports, has not fully recaptured the lucrative business traveler, who typically books flights at the last minute and pays a high fare. Such travelers now often drive to their destinations or use e-mail or videoconferencing instead of flying, said Kevin Mitchell, head of the Business Travel Coalition, a trade organization for corporate travel planners.

Nationwide, "the high-yield business traveler traffic is approximately 50 percent of what it was prior to 9/11,'' according to a coalition report released Sept. 1.

Still, travelers are learning to live with a certain amount of risk, and many people have to fly, especially if they are going overseas for business or leisure. Even the high oil prices of the past few years -- which drive up airlines' operating expenses and raise air fares -- have not stopped the recovery, though they may be slowing the pace.

The devastating confluence of Sept. 11 and the dot-com bust came just after SFO had taken on substantial bond debt to finance a just-completed $1 billion international terminal -- the biggest terminal in the United States at 2.5 million square feet -- and was ramping up to build a new airport hotel, renovate the former international terminal for domestic use and reconfigure runways to handle traffic that had mushroomed in the late 1990s.

The sky was the limit -- or so it seemed. The dot-com collapse and the terrorist attacks changed all that.

Like other U.S. airports, SFO's post-Sept. 11 credit rating suffered. Standard & Poor's, for example, dropped SFO's credit rating from A+ with a stable outlook to A with a negative outlook in September 2001, according to S&P analyst Kurt Forsgren.

The weak Bay Area economy, SFO's paucity of thriving low-cost carriers that provide consumer choice and its reliance on ailing United Airlines, which handles about half of all passengers and flights at the airport, drove the S&P downgrade, Forsgren said.

"We had a large mortgage on a home no one was coming to live in, basically,'' McCarron said of the dark days right after Sept. 11.

SFO, accordingly, put the terminal renovation -- expected to cost $150 million to $160 million -- on hold. It also set aside plans for the hotel, and reduced staff from 1,800 employees to below 1,200.

Additionally, SFO lowered landing fees for airlines and reduced rents for airport retailers and restaurateurs struggling during the downturn. "It would do us no good to have them go out of business,'' McCarron said, adding that their rents have returned to normal in the past year.

But SFO's efforts to lure low-fare airlines, which have grabbed increasing market share from traditional carriers such as United in recent years, have been spotty.

United rolled out its own low-fare unit Ted at SFO in 2004, but discount leader Southwest Airlines pulled out of SFO, fledgling discount carrier Independence Air stayed aloft for less than a year and discounter ATA decamped from SFO to Oakland -- a growing rival ruled chiefly by such low-cost carriers as Southwest and JetBlue Airways.

Meanwhile, Virgin America, a planned low-fare airline that announced SFO will be its headquarters back in June 2004, has yet to win the Federal Aviation Administration's certification to fly.

While SFO struggled in a radically changed business environment, it scrambled to keep up with the post-Sept. 11 need for intensified security.

The National Guard, patrolling the airport immediately after Sept. 11, is remembered for an incident in which a guardsman shot himself in the buttocks while holstering his weapon.

When the new Department of Homeland Security put its Transportation Security Administration in charge, SFO had to let go of most of its baggage screeners. Many were Philippine citizens who lacked newly required U.S. citizenship, and some couldn't pass tests for English proficiency, said the TSA's Edward Gomez, federal security director at SFO.

About 150 of the 1,000 baggage screeners at SFO are holdovers, Gomez said, and are employed under TSA guidelines by private contractor Covenant Aviation. SFO is "by far the largest'' of the seven U.S. airports using private screeners, he said. Others use TSA employees.

McCarron said lines to pass through security checkpoints take on average seven or eight minutes -- much less time than at many other U.S. and foreign airports. He also said that private contractors give SFO flexibility in scheduling, which shortens customers' wait times. Gomez agreed, saying the airlines give the TSA daily estimates of how many passengers have booked flights, which allows security officials to schedule baggage screeners accordingly.

On a recent weekday afternoon, United passenger William Hill said he found the wait acceptable at SFO's international terminal, where he planned to board a flight to Beijing. "It's not too bad,'' he said. "At least it's moving, which is more than I can say for Newark (N.J.), where I must have waited for an hour and a half. The people here (screeners) are pretty nice, too. They're usually polite.''

The TSA uses plainclothes air marshals to observe passengers before they board planes, looking for unusual behavior that could betray potential troublemakers, Gomez said. SFO also employs 1,400 closed circuit video cameras, the most of any airport in the country, to monitor people in the terminals, and boasts this country's first explosive detection system for X-raying every checked bag, not just a sampling.

"We have layered security levels,'' Gomez said. "A lot of what we do, the public doesn't see. We need to be unpredictable in what we do.''

New regulations restricting the type of liquids and gels in carry-on luggage -- prompted by the Aug. 10 plot in Britain to blow up U.S.-bound jetliners -- are the latest security wrinkle.

McCarron says the public has largely been cooperative and seems well-informed about the use of liquids in carry-ons, but acknowledged that tighter rules have hurt some SFO retailers who sell liquid products. He cited terminal 3's Body Shop and a wine store as businesses whose trade has been hurt in recent weeks.

But the worst seems to be over for SFO, McCarron said, pointing out that SFO's credit ratings have recently edged upward. Standard & Poor's and Moody's give A ratings with stable outlooks to SFO. Fitch Ratings gives SFO a slightly better A1 with a stable outlook.

When the largest tenant, United, slid into bankruptcy in December 2002, "there were some nail-biting days,'' McCarron said. But United "never fell behind in their payments'' on any rented facilities at SFO, a United creditor that had observer status in Bankruptcy Court. The Chicago airline emerged from Chapter 11 on Feb. 1 and posted its first profit in six years in the second quarter.

Even during its three-year journey through Chapter 11, United began service between SFO and Beijing and between SFO and Ho Chi Minh City via Hong Kong. Next year, it plans to resume service between SFO and Seoul.

All this is in line with broad trends at SFO, where about 45 percent of the airport's 8.2 million international fliers come from or go to Asia -- led by booming China and India and prosperous Japan.

Indeed, international travel is strong worldwide, according to the trade organization Airports Council International, which reported a 5 percent rise in international travel for July 2006 from July 2005. Domestic traffic was flat, the council reported.

With its strong position as an international gateway to Asia and Europe, SFO is well-situated, McCarron said.

And while passenger confidence ebbs and flows with reported security threats such as last month's alleged United Kingdom bombing plot, the slow economic recovery appears to still be on track, McCarron said.

"The latest hiccup didn't have much effect on us after the first 48 hours,'' McCarron said of the bombing plot, which caused chaos at London's Heathrow airport. "Traffic remained strong throughout the rest of the summer. We're seeing the usual post-Labor Day slump, but nothing big. People want to keep moving on with their lives. They don't want to be scared.''

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The impact on SFO
The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, along with the dot-com bust, caused a drop in passenger traffic from 41 million passengers in 2000 to 29 million passengers a year later.

The airport has had to shelve such projects as a new airport hotel and renovated terminal. Combined with political opposition, unstable finances also stayed a reconfiguration of its runways.

It cut its staff by a third.

It has had to spend $150 million to beef up security; a third of the cost was reimbursed by the federal government.

E-mail David Armstrong at davidarmstrong@sfchronicle.com.

dimondpark

Sep 11, 2006, 4:47 PM

Looking back, looking ahead
Is San Joaquin County ready for Bay Area disaster?

Alex Breitler
Record Staff Writer
Published Monday, Sep 11, 2006

STOCKTON - Stockton-area emergency workers have enough to worry about: Levees could crumble, dams could burst, and everyone knows how hot it got this summer.

But could they handle someone else's disaster?

For nearly a decade, county Office of Emergency Services leaders have pushed for a regional plan in case of a mass evacuation from, perhaps, the Bay Area. Such a scenario, prompted by a natural disaster or Sept. 11-style terrorist attack, could see 100,000 or more people pouring over the hills into the San Joaquin Valley.

Even after the fall of the World Trade Center five years ago today, progress on this plan has been slow. As many as eight counties and the state have been involved; bureaucratic battles ensued over the roles each should play.

"We hadn't seen as much advance planning as we wanted," said Ron Baldwin of the San Joaquin OES. "It was a little frustrating."

The Valley isn't alone. Just last year, Bay Area leaders from 10 counties announced the formation of their first regional disaster plan, a plan they admitted should have been made a quarter century earlier.

It's long past due, warns the Rev. Roger Rickman, a Tracy pastor trained in homeland security. He has lobbied for emergency training in every city down to individual neighborhoods. He fears that the south county, in particular, must be prepared for crowds surging over the Interstate 580 corridor.

If it happened today, Rickman said, "I think we'd be in bad shape."

There is no designated sanctuary for refugees of a Bay Area disaster.

But Hurricane Katrina illustrated an important principle: Many evacuees will travel only as far as they must. They'll stick as close to home as they can, and for Bay Area dwellers, that could mean San Joaquin County.

Katrina's huge evacuation - and the lessons learned from it - kick-started Baldwin's regional plan, and today, some progress has been made.

Roughly $70,000 has been spent in San Joaquin County on equipment needed for mass evacuations - radio transmitters mounted on trailers, gadgets allowing stranded motorists to refuel from gas trucks and safety vests for traffic officers.

The plan, still awaiting state approval, includes checkpoints along major routes. Vans and buses would wait for those whose cars have conked out; ambulances would assist the sick and injured; and tow trucks and fuel tenders would be at the ready. Law enforcement officers would maintain order and, above all, keep traffic moving.

Citizens should be part of these large-scale plans, argues Rickman, the pastor. He wants thousands of citizens and neighbors, many of whom have valuable skills, trained to assist not only in San Joaquin but across the nation.

"They can be called to come and help the first responders and police redirect the surge - minimize the death, minimize the destruction of property, minimize the panic as much as you can," Rickman said.

All these refugees will need somewhere to stay.

Large facilities such as the San Joaquin County Fairgrounds could be used as shelters, accommodating up to 10,000 people, Baldwin said. An estimated 20 percent of Bay Area refugees would require shelter.

Baldwin also is working with real estate agents in search of vacant commercial buildings that could, in a pinch, serve as shelters. American Red Cross officials, meanwhile, are seeking partnerships with churches, such as Crossroads Grace Community Church in Manteca, which has agreed to take in evacuees.

"We're looking at doing business a little better than we have before," said Lee Veselak, director of emergency services for the Red Cross in San Joaquin County.

Disaster drills have become more frequent at Sutter Tracy Community Hospital, a spokeswoman said, adding that area hospitals would work together to make best use of a limited number of beds.

The Delta Blood Bank would be busy as well. Donated blood is generally used within days or weeks, meaning frequent donations are needed to keep the bank prepared for a disaster at any given time.

Not to be forgotten are the long-term effects of a Bay Area catastrophe. After an earthquake, for instance, crumbled highways and railways would require many San Francisco-based businesses to relocate to the East Bay.

"It's very easy to see that there could be, over the long term, more demand for housing" in the Valley, said Jeanne Perkins, an earthquake expert for the Association of Bay Area Governments.

Stockton schools could provide temporary shelter for a few evacuees, but there's not much room for more children in the classroom on a long-term basis, said Stockton Unified School District spokeswoman Dianne Barth.

From crisis to aftermath, officials agree there's much to talk about. Some of these conversations began five years ago today inside Stockton City Hall, said Mayor Ed Chavez; the discussions are ongoing.

"I think there has been a considerable amount of thought and planning that has gone into the what-ifs," Chavez said. "People should feel comfortable that those issues have been addressed."

Rickman, though, is not comfortable. His church, Fresh Anointing Faith International, is planning a new building along Interstate 5 designed in part to host 3,000 evacuees.

The Altamont Pass already is a bottleneck on weekday afternoons. But in a disaster?

"We'd have five times the number of people, with their eyes wide open and pure fear driving them," Rickman said. "We're in the surge path, and I don't think anyone's got an answer for it right now."

Contact reporter Alex Breitler at (209) 239-6606 or abreitler@recordnet.com

FourOneFive

Sep 11, 2006, 9:59 PM

i'm still waiting for SFO to renovate Terminal 2. Does anyone have a timeline for construction?

dimondpark

Sep 12, 2006, 1:02 AM

yeah, and who would the tenant be?

FourOneFive

Sep 12, 2006, 1:24 AM

yeah, and who would the tenant be?

Virgin America

rs913

Sep 13, 2006, 5:38 PM

Anyone know if there's going to be (or already has been) construction at the Powell BART station to accomodate the new entrances for the Westfield mall expansion?

BTinSF

Sep 13, 2006, 5:59 PM

Anyone know if there's going to be (or already has been) construction at the Powell BART station to accomodate the new entrances for the Westfield mall expansion?

"Shoppers will be able to enter the megamall on Market, Fifth and Mission streets. There will be an additional entrance into the expanded space for BART and Muni riders. "

Source: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/06/BLOOMIES.TMP

I admit I haven't gone down into Powell St. Station to see if they have yet built a new entrance but the new and old sections of the mall are open to one another on every floor--it'll be one big mall now--and, as I'm sure you know, there's already a station-level entrance to the existing section.

J Church

Sep 13, 2006, 8:18 PM

it's under construction.

urban_encounter

Sep 15, 2006, 1:58 PM

West Sac takes control of port
By Jim Downing - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, September 15, 2006

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday signed a bill to transfer authority over the Port of Sacramento to its home city of West Sacramento.

Local control has been seen as key to the revitalization of the long-struggling port. It was also a prerequisite to a management deal struck in January that puts the much larger Port of Oakland in charge of business recruitment and certain other operations.

Assembly Bill 2939, sponsored by Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, puts into state law a pact already approved by local governments that transfers port authority to West Sacramento from a commission with members from Yolo County, West Sacramento, and the city and county of Sacramento.

Because port governance falls under the state Harbors and Navigation Code, the change required approval at the state level.

munkyman

Sep 16, 2006, 6:46 AM

Was just perusing Bay Area online newspapers, found this info. I pasted the article below, but here's the link to the original article:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_4345540

Building to begin on new East Bay BART station
Sept. 29 is set for groundbreaking at West Dublin-Pleasanton
By Erik N. Nelson

Builders will break ground Sept. 29 for BART's first new rail station, called West Dublin-Pleasanton, since the opening of the San Francisco International Airport extension in 2003.
The new station will allow passengers to board BART trains in the middle of the current 10-mile gap between the Dublin/Pleasanton and Castro Valley stations, said BART spokesman Linton Johnson.

"It's exciting to get it going," said Pleasanton City Councilman Steve Brozosky, who said the public-private partnership probably meant the difference between getting or not getting a new station.

About $50 million of the station's $80 million cost will be paid out of BART revenues. Another $15 million will come from federal, state and local grants and another $15 million will come from advance payment of leases on BART property from private developers.

In a deal recently worked out between the developers and BART officials, developers, led by Oakland-based Ampelon Development Group, will lease 17 acres of BART right-of-way land to build a mixed-use "transit village." The transit-oriented development is to include residential and commercial development, including a hotel, offices parking garages for more than 1,000 vehicles. Office space plans are being scaled back, Brozosky said, because the market is much stronger for high-density residential units. The development could include as many as 350 apartments, he said.

The new station, between the eastbound and westbound lanes of Interstate 580, will also provide a way for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the BART tracks and freeway lanes separating Dublin from Pleasanton, Brozosky added.

This sort of development, in which residents and workers will, in theory, be more likely to use transit and not contribute as much to highway congestion, is highly favored by adherents of so-called smart growth. The movement seeks to curtail suburban sprawl by developing homes and businesses closer together and clustered around transportation hubs, like the planned BART station.

Plan calls for BART to sell revenue bonds to pay for its share of the station costs. The bonds will be repaid by commuters as they pay parking fees in the two garages.

The public-private partnership also involves loans from the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton of $2.5 million and $1 million, respectively, and $4.5 million from Alameda County.

Contact transportation reporter Erik Nelson at enelson@angnewspapers.com and read his Capricious Commuter blog at www.ibabuzz.com/transportation.

EastBayHardCore

Sep 16, 2006, 7:48 AM

OK so I'm a bit confused as to the exact location of this station. Is it going in around Stoneridge? Or will it be even further west in that no-mans land between D/P and Castro Valley?

Here's a link to a Google Map of the area.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=BART,+Dublin,+CA&ie=UTF8&cid=37702222,-121934722,6884603262387565687&li=lmd&z=13&ll=37.703924,-121.950645&spn=0.096021,0.161018&t=h&om=1

tuy

Sep 16, 2006, 11:44 AM

It is going in around Stonebridge. It is the vacant ground shown in the satellite picture that is North and South of the Freeway between Foothill and 680. It is interesting that they say in the article that it is in the middle of the 10 mile gap. It is right at about 2 miles for the Dublin/Pleasanton station.

I took BART to the airport last Friday night. I am currently in Sydney. When we went past the site, you could see construction equipment in the vacant area North of the freeway. It is good to see this finally get started. The date for the start had been slipping for a long time.

BTinSF

Sep 16, 2006, 3:46 PM

As the week progressed and there was news of one Muni snafu after another, I too began to wonder if we are entering another of those periods when Muni seemed to fall apart (remember back in the 90's when Willie Brown ran for mayor on a pledge to "fix Muni"?). Any thoughts? If it's true, what's the reason this time?

SAN FRANCISCO
Out-of-service cable cars top off rough Muni week
- Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, September 16, 2006

The shutdown of two cable car lines for most of Friday ended a long week for San Francisco's Muni and its passengers.

In addition to the closing of the Mason Street and California Street cable car lines, Muni stopped service on the F streetcar line down Market Street during the Friday morning commute because of a traffic accident.

On Tuesday morning, service on heavily used Metro lines was delayed because of a problem with electrical power in one of the Muni light-rail yards that prevented trains from leaving the yard. And Wednesday morning, troubles with the computer system that controls Metro trains underground stalled service for about an hour.

"While it was a rough week for Muni, it was even more difficult for our passengers,'' said spokeswoman Maggie Lynch. "And we apologize for that.''

Muni's problems this week, Lynch said, had nothing in common except for inconveniencing riders.

"Be assured, they were not related. It was not the same thing re-occurring," she said.

Both cable car lines were expected to be back in service this morning. Service on the Mason line, which carries riders to Fisherman's Wharf, was stopped at 9:28 a.m., and the California line shut down 20 minutes later. Muni crews removed frayed sections of the cables, which sit in a covered trench beneath the street and pull the cable cars up and down hills. The entire Mason line's cable had to be replaced, Lynch said; a new stretch of cable was spliced in to repair a damaged section of the California line's cable.

Some riders said the hectic week was further proof of an increasingly undependable transit system.

"You can't rely on it,'' said Daniel Dougan, 49, who lives off Market Street near Octavia Boulevard. "Some days it's right there -- other days it would be faster to walk.''

Padric McCaig, 31, was stuck in the Market Street tunnel Wednesday for about 45 minutes just after his Metro train left Castro Station toward downtown. A Muni rider for several years, McCaig said service seems to be worsening.

"It's a pattern," he said. "The last couple of months I've experienced more frustration with it than ever before."

An apology from Muni for recent service problems would go a long way, as would providing more information to passengers during a shutdown, he said.

"Information alone makes a big difference,'' he said.

E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com.

Page B - 2
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/16/BAG4CL6QFS1.DTL

rs913

Sep 16, 2006, 5:30 PM

It is going in around Stonebridge. It is the vacant ground shown in the satellite picture that is North and South of the Freeway between Foothill and 680. It is interesting that they say in the article that it is in the middle of the 10 mile gap. It is right at about 2 miles for the Dublin/Pleasanton station.

Apparently Stoneridge mall is expanding as well, and the completions of both of these projects will probably coincide. Stoneridge isn't really that close to the current BART station, so direct BART access would be a big deal for that mall (as well as for BART riders...it'd probably the biggest mall that's directly on BART, right?)

FourOneFive

Sep 16, 2006, 5:59 PM

Apparently Stoneridge mall is expanding as well, and the completions of both of these projects will probably coincide. Stoneridge isn't really that close to the current BART station, so direct BART access would be a big deal for that mall (as well as for BART riders...it'd probably the biggest mall that's directly on BART, right?)

don't forget the westfield san francisco shopping centre over powell station.

EastBayHardCore

Sep 18, 2006, 2:09 AM

From Today's Tribune...

Flat fares for BART attractive to some
Critics say it would hurt low-income families and short-distance riders

By Erik N. Nelson, STAFF WRITER

If it's good enough for the Big Apple, why can't the Bay Area Rapid Transit system adopt a flat fare, so that every rider pays the same one-way fare, asks a BART board member who represents outlying areas of Contra Costa County.

Controversial because it would likely involve major hikes for short rides, the idea was suggested Thursday by BART director Joel Keller, who directed BART staff to study it. He estimates that the fare would have to be between $2.40 and $2.50 to equal BART's current fare revenue, or 100 million trips now yielding $240 million to $250 million a year.

"Certainly a simple, uncomplicated fare for each person would attract additional riders," Keller said. New Yorkers seem accustomed to the idea of plunking $2 every time they ride city subways, be it 10 blocks or 10 miles, and the Bay Area "is no less urbanized than the New York Area."

The idea is just one of several that BART staffers are exploring in order to improve on a decades-old fare scheme loaded with surchargesthat are a mystery to most riders.

One surcharge for 79 cents pays for passage through the Transbay Tube. Getting on or off at stations in San Mateo County costs $1.14 beyond the normal mileage-based formula. Airport passengers pay an extra $1.50. In January, BART directors approved a 10-cent surcharge to cover capital costs.

"It's just not very transparent," said Randy Rentschler, spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which generally doesn't get involved in individual transit agencies' fare debates. "People just don't know any of this, and to the uninitiated, to those who don't study it, it just doesn't make any sense."

That being said, BART may be ready for a hard look at how it calculates fares,

Advertisement

Rentschler said.

But flat fares are certain to upset supporters of affordable transit for disadvantaged riders in the area's urban core.

"A flat fare would be extremely regressive and would directly hurt the urban riders who have come to rely on BART for local trips," said Stuart Cohen, executive director of the Oakland-based Transportation and Land Use Coalition. "Working families feel that bite when its a 10 percent increase, and you're talking about a 70 percent increase."

Another fare-change proposal that surfaced Thursday, likely to be much more palatable to Cohen and other advocates for urban riders, was proposed by BART Director Bob Franklin, who represents northwestern Alameda county areas.

Franklin proposed using smart cards, which are now used by BART employees in a Stanford University-run pilot program, to keep track of how many rides a passenger has used and give free rides to anyone who has paid for 40 rides or so.

"If you're going to commit yourself to transit, once you reach the threshold, we'll give you a break," Franklin said.

Franklin also decried Allen's idea, saying it would "really disadvantage shorter-distance riders, because they would be subsidizing (someone else's) longer trip."

Contact transportation reporter Erik Nelson at enelson@angnewspapers.com and read his Capricious Commuter blog at http://www.ibabuzz.com/transportation.

BTinSF

Sep 18, 2006, 2:14 AM

What BART needs is not a flat fare for single trips but a monthly transit pass for commuters. I think this could fly even if it involves a fare increase for some commuters because in many cases the boss pays for it anyway.

jamesinclair

Sep 18, 2006, 2:42 AM

I hate distance based fares. If a single flat fare would cause too much of an increase, they could try having two zones.

rs913

Sep 18, 2006, 2:53 AM

It seems like the problem identified in this article isn't so much distance-based fares as it is the irregularities in those fares, i.e. the fare jumps for rides across the Bay or into San Mateo County. That's what's confusing people. Why can't BART just "iron" those out? Lower fares a little for those trips and raise them for all other rides, so it all balances out and you're left with a distance-based fare structure where the fares are more proportional to distance traveled.

The comparison with NYC's subway doesn't seem too valid, since BART isn't really the equivalent of that...its NY equivalent is more like Long Island Railroad (which has distance-based fares). You can't travel 40 miles on the NYC subway...

EastBayHardCore

Sep 18, 2006, 4:52 AM

^ I agree, the comparison isn't fair. Maybe a zone based fair would be more reasonable?

Also, I was thinking about some sort of system that allows you to exit at stations between your starting point and final destination in order to run errands that are along the way. I can't count how many time I've wanted to stop off at a place between my starting point and final destination, but decide not to because it would add significantly to my total fare. Does that make sense?

jamison

Sep 19, 2006, 1:04 AM

I hate distance based fares. If a single flat fare would cause too much of an increase, they could try having two zones.

I like the zone idea, but more than just two. Caltain is divided into (I think it's 6) zone with pricing based on how many, not which, zones you cross. All zones have the same fair. Something similar could be done with BART. If you have a Muni Fast Pass, you pretty much have a zone card for SF.

A lot of people take other forms of transit or get a lift to Balboa Park (the first station in SF) so they can use a Fast Pass. The Greater SF area could be a zone, the greater Oakland area as another, East Bay (coliseum through Freamont?), Richmond, East Contra Costa could be one possible arrangement if it's only going to be a few zones.

Someone just getting around the local area only has to pay a 1 zone fee, but those commuting from Dublin/Pleasanton to SF has to pay for travel through 3 (or 4, or 5, etc.) zones.

It is perfectly fair to change more for those who travels further and zones seem a very good and easy to understand balance.

EastBayHardCore

Sep 24, 2006, 6:30 AM

Local
Poll finds S.F. voters back rapid-transit bus lanes
1 day ago Poll finds S.F. voters back rapid-transit bus lanes

Bonnie Eslinger, The Examiner
Sep 22, 2006 2:00 AM (1 day ago)
Current rank: # 162 of 5,698 articles

SAN FRANCISCO - Foes concerned traffic will worsen, shops will suffer in the Richmond; supporters expect speedier Muni

A new survey of San Francisco voters shows support for the idea of rapid-transit bus-only lanes on two of The City’s busiest corridors.

Supporters of the proposed bus lines, along Van Ness Avenue and Geary Boulevard, say the transit-only lanes would speed Muni along since the buses wouldn’t get stalled behind other vehicles or stopped at traffic lights.

Some merchants in the Richmond district have protested the plan, concerned that removing an auto lane from both sides of Geary would create more auto congestion and harm local businesses.

San Francisco voters, however, seem to be ready to give the idea — called Bus Rapid Transit — a try.

The survey, conducted by David Binder Research on behalf of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, a public policy organization, revealed that 78 percent of local voters polled supported the creation of a BRT network in The City.

Even when asked specifically if there was interest in a BRT line on Geary that would “use center lanes for a dedicated bus-way instead of for car traffic,” 46 percent of those surveyed “strongly” supported the public transportation proposal, with another 19 percent indicating they “somewhat” support plan. Less than one-fourth, or 22 percent, opposed the plan, and another 13 percent said they “didn’t know.”

Beauty shop owner David Heller, president of the Geary Boulevard Merchant and Property Owner’s Association, expressed concern that many of the 55,000 cars that travel on Geary daily would begin traveling on neighborhood streets to avoid increased traffic congestion created by the elimination of one lane in each direction. He said his organization has proposed an alternate plan that would only dedicate “transit-only” lanes during peak commute hours.

Cities around the country are starting to use BRT lines to increase transit use on busy traffic corridors, American Public Transportation Association official David Hull said. Although initially traffic congestion could increase, he said, eventually it would decrease as more people opted for the convenience of a faster bus line, he said.

Some of the funding for the speedier bus lines would come from Proposition K, a city sales tax passed by voters in 2003, to increase investment in The City’s transit infrastructure, including the creation of BRT lines. The rest would come from state and federal grants, San Francisco County Transportation Authority Director Jose Luis Moscovich said. The authority is the lead agency on the Bus Rapid Transit project.

Moscovich said Van Ness would likely get the first line, with an Environmental Impact Review process expected to begin as early as this winter. That project is expected to cost about $77 million.

Because Geary is a longer route, it would cost about $200 million. That project is still in the study stages, “so there’s plenty of opportunity for people to weigh in and express their concerns,” he said.
beslinger@examiner.com

dimondpark

Sep 24, 2006, 12:23 PM

About Distance-Based Pricing, isnt it cheaper to catch BART from the Coliseum station(Oakland Airport) to DT SF then it is from SFO to DT SF?

tuy

Sep 25, 2006, 6:04 AM

Anybody who has been on BART between Castro Valley and Dublin/Pleasanton recently, will have noticed major construction in the hills North of 580. They are slowly starting to fill in the gap.

The new station however, is very close to the 580/680 interchange. You will be able to walk from the Pleasanton side to Stoneridge Mall. The Dublin side will have a good sized TOD, including a Hotel, Apartments and Restaurants.

EastBayHardCore

Sep 25, 2006, 6:05 AM

^ Yea, that development on the hill is pretty gross :(

danvillain

Sep 26, 2006, 7:31 AM

About Distance-Based Pricing, isnt it cheaper to catch BART from the Coliseum station(Oakland Airport) to DT SF then it is from SFO to DT SF?
that has to do with a couple fare factors: surcharges for entering entering san mateo county, as well as a premium (i think it's an extra $1 on top of the regular fare) for going to SFO as part of the SFOX "deal".

fflint

Sep 26, 2006, 8:44 PM

SAN FRANCISCO
Mayor Newsom to tell how he'd shape up Muni
Transit directors will hear his plans for beleaguered agency

Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 26, 2006

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/26/ba_muni_149_mac.jpg
Muni riders are plagued by overcrowding -- one said her bus or streetcar is so packed "there is no room to breathe."

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom plans today to outline his vision for the Municipal Railway, the city's struggling public transit agency that has been plagued by late arrivals and overcrowding.

The mayor is scheduled to address the Municipal Transportation Agency board of directors, which oversees Muni and the city's parking and traffic operation, at a special meeting intended to make the board appointed by the mayor more effective.

His comments will come at an important time in his political career. How well Muni performs -- or doesn't perform -- can have significant political consequences for Newsom, who will face voters again in November 2007.

"Muni is one of those things that's a litmus test for managing the city,'' said San Francisco pollster David Binder. "People feel that if Muni is failing, then the government is failing.''

He said the Municipal Railway is even more of a benchmark than homelessness or potholes -- other bread-and-butter issues that can help or hurt local politicians -- because it is used by poor, rich and middle-class people and cuts across all neighborhoods, races, political stripes and ages.

With about 618,000 boardings each weekday, Muni is the busiest public transit system in the Bay Area. By Muni's own accounts, service is slower, runs are regularly missed and vehicles are overcrowded.

Willie Brown, Newsom's predecessor at City Hall, felt the wrath of Muni. He initially said that Muni could be fixed within 100 days of taking office. That statement came back to haunt him when the promise couldn't be fulfilled.

"He had a reputation as a can-do guy, but he couldn't get Muni fixed,'' Binder said.

In 1998, during Brown's tenure, Muni suffered the infamous "meltdown,'' a series of computer and mechanical malfunctions that eroded service. A year later, San Francisco voters rebelled and passed Proposition E, a measure that assured a steady funding stream for Muni and set a series of performance measures, including on-time standards.

Prop. E set an on-time performance goal of 85 percent -- a mark that has yet to be realized. Instead, on-time performance has hovered around 70 percent for the past four years.

Muni chief Nathaniel Ford said that riders shouldn't expect to hit that 85 percent point anytime soon. Last week, he told the agency's board of directors that a target of 75 percent on-time performance by July 1, the start of the new fiscal year, would be more realistic for the time being.

He said improvements will come incrementally, given the problems Muni faces, including an aging fleet, a chronic staffing shortage and congested streets. He expects to meet the 85 percent on-time performance eventually.

"We must be candid about the fundamental causes and recognize that they cannot be solved overnight,'' he said.

For Linda Rothfield, a legal secretary who lives near the Castro neighborhood, the improvements can't come soon enough. She relies on Muni and finds it unreliable.

"I have to allow over an hour to go anywhere in the city,'' she said. And when her bus or streetcar finally does arrive, she added, it's usually jampacked "so there is no room to breathe.''

San Frangelino

Sep 29, 2006, 5:50 PM

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/29/BAGUULF7D41.DTL
DUBLIN
Groundbreaking ceremonies for BART station
Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, September 29, 2006

The longest uninterrupted ride on BART -- the 10-mile stretch between the Castro Valley and Dublin/Pleasanton stations -- will be broken by a new station that starts construction next month.

A pair of ceremonies this morning, one in Dublin and then a second in Pleasanton, celebrates the groundbreaking on the stop known informally as the West Dublin/Pleasanton station.

It's the first BART station to be built with some private funding, the first new station to be built on an existing BART line, and the first to be designed with a surrounding transit village that includes two parking garages, housing, shops, a restaurant and a hotel.

It is scheduled to open in 2009.

The yet-unnamed station will straddle Interstate 580 at Golden Gate Drive in Dublin's main business district. The station platform, within walking distance of Stoneridge Mall, will sit in the I-580 median and include pedestrian bridges.

"It straddles the line into two different cities, and it took the efforts of both to make it happen,'' said BART spokesman Linton Johnson. "It's a project that's going to benefit both cities.''

The $87.5 million station will be paid for with a combination $15 million in state and local grants, $15 million in private funds from the developers and $57.5 million raised from bonds that will be repaid with fares and parking charges from the station.

Developer Jones Lang LaSalle/Ampelon Development is building and financing the $100 million transit village.

BART's original plan for the $543 million Dublin/Pleasanton extension, opened in 1997, called for stations in Castro Valley and at the end of the line in Dublin with a third station planned near Stoneridge Mall when money allowed.

In 1999, BART signed an exclusive negotiating agreement with Jones Lang LaSalle to build the station and transit village. Environmental studies for the project were completed in 2001.

BART officials estimate that by 2013, about 8,560 riders a day will use the station. It's not clear how many of those riders now use nearby stations.

The transit village will have 210 homes, a 150-room hotel and a 7,500-square-foot restaurant in Dublin, and a 170,000-square-foot office building in Pleasanton. The developer has petitioned Pleasanton for approval to build 350 units of rental housing instead of the office space. A 419-space parking garage is planned for Pleasanton; a 713-space garage is planned in Dublin.

Construction of the station should not interrupt train service, Johnson said. Riders traveling between Castro Valley and Dublin/Pleasanton will have their trips extended by about a minute due to the new stop.

J_Taylor

Sep 29, 2006, 6:43 PM

Has anyone seen what this station will looklike?
hopefully they will build passing tracks into the station for feature express service...I guess I can only hope.

tuy

Sep 29, 2006, 7:46 PM

I used to have a link to a picture of what it is supposed to look like. However, I can't find it. I do know that it has pedestrian bridges going over 580, and that they will allow bikers and walkers to cross over.

There will not be any passing tracks for future Express service.

tuy

Sep 29, 2006, 8:56 PM

The following is from an ACE e-mail:

ACE to Hold Public Forum in Tracy

The Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) will be holding a public forum on October 2, 2006, in order to seek input on proposed expansion projects in the Tracy area. From 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm at the Tracy Civic Center, 300 East 10th Street, members of the ACE staff will join their consulting team of HDR and provide information to the public on issues of importance related to possible new routes, new stations in the Tracy area, and better BART connections. The public is invited and encouraged to attend this open house-style forum as ACE paints a picture of several ideas for the future of commuter rail.

As the ACE service approaches the end of its first decade of commuter rail service to the San Joaquin Valley, Tri-Valley and Silicon Valley, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) is keenly aware of the need to expand the existing ACE service and to improve the quality of the service to ACE’s passengers, specifically in the Tracy area.

The input provided from the public at this crucial forum will be valuable in relating the interests of the community to the Commission. Future meetings will also be held in Stockton, Lathrop, and Pleasanton.

tuy

Sep 30, 2006, 6:15 AM

Here is a little bit more information on the new BART Station:

Pleasanton Mayor Jennifer Hosterman said the new station will encourage pedestrian activity to Stoneridge Mall and other locales as well as enhance connectivity between the two cities.

"I think it's going to be neat we'll have the opportunity to have pedestrian traffic between Pleasanton and Dublin and back again," she said.

The station, which is expected to cost about $80 million, is slated to open in 2009. Preliminary ridership estimates range from 6,000 entries and exits daily in 2009 to 8,600 trips in 2013.

Smiley Person

Sep 30, 2006, 2:59 PM

Here's an idea for distance based pricing that keeps it cheap for those in the urban core: charge a flat fare of $1.40, and make up the difference for the far stations with station parking charges.

dimondpark

Sep 30, 2006, 8:20 PM

that has to do with a couple fare factors: surcharges for entering entering san mateo county, as well as a premium (i think it's an extra $1 on top of the regular fare) for going to SFO as part of the SFOX "deal".
oh, I see:)

danvillain

Sep 30, 2006, 8:52 PM

Has anyone seen what this station will looklike?

i think i saved a b/w newspaper clipping with a fairly good-sized rendering. unfortunately, it's the same "widely" viewed rendering as before; i.e., nothing new. looks like they'll incorporate some glass block along the median barrier mid-platform. nevertheless, i imagine the noise and pollution will be horrendous, as there is even less of a highway shoulder here than at either dublin/pleasanton or castro valley stations (which are pretty much the two noisiest highway median stations in the system). otoh, it might not be *too* bad considering traffic in both directions (e/b especially) slows to a crawl during the PM commute.

i've had difficulty, however, finding a site plan for the "transit village" (the hotel, situated nearest I-580, appears to be surrounded by surface parking) on the internet. i've only seen quick flashes on local newscasts. if anyone happens to have decent-sized image of the site plan, posting it would be much appreciated.

hopefully they will build passing tracks into the station for feature express service...I guess I can only hope.
no dice. that was a foregone conclusion when they laid the track and built the foundation in the mid-90s. alas, it will be a "typical" island platform station flanked by the existing tracks. i suppose we can hope that the day will come when we take away adjacent lanes of I-580 for use as ROW for rail.

:slob:

anyway, what are you doing, thinking of express service on BART?!? that's the reason they built stations so far apart, silly, so that everyone could drive to the station and take trains that would be fast like a car without a lot of station stops. besides, BART would have an identity crisis if it started express service. :sly:

I do know that it has pedestrian bridges going over 580, and that they will allow bikers and walkers to cross over.
yeah, that was a contentious issue between the cities and BART. BART wanted staggered bridges (in the event of an emergency was the reason given, iirc), while the cities wanted a single, uninterrupted crossing that did not involve passing through faregates.

Pleasanton Mayor Jennifer Hosterman said the new station will encourage pedestrian activity to Stoneridge Mall and other locales as well as enhance connectivity between the two cities.

"I think it's going to be neat we'll have the opportunity to have pedestrian traffic between Pleasanton and Dublin and back again," she said.

hah, walking between BART and stoneridge? right. actually, that's the same attitude the owners of stoneridge mall had(still have?) when BART was getting serious about finally building the west dublin station; they doubted anyone would ride BART to go shopping and were concerned commuters would park in their *vast* parking lot. i think it would be great, though, if the mall would extend an olive branch to BART by building a walkway through the parking lot--hell, even reorient/redevelop the mall--to BART (it's also incumbent on the city to remake the area into something more than an automobile paradise).

Here's an idea for distance based pricing that keeps it cheap for those in the urban core: charge a flat fare of $1.40, and make up the difference for the far stations with station parking charges.
i've thought similarly. i'd keep varied fares (yet apply a zone structure, perhaps w/ peak and off-peak rates--hello, WMATA!--but we all know how well people responded to the idea of congestion charges for bay area bridges...), but shift most of the burden onto parking fees at all BART stations. of course, it seems like people would be more hostile to paying for a place to store their car than paying more in fares. people will pay over $5 each way to ride from the ends of the earth into the fidi, but when you start talking about a comparatively small parking fee they get indignant.

still, of the 46,000+ parking spaces at BART stations, $1/day per stall would net little in the way of meeting BART's day-to-day operating expenses. $3/day? in combination w/ a maximum one-way fare of $3-4?

oh, I see:)
so, looking at the FY06 SRTP/CIP (p. 2-9), the SFIA premium fare is $1.50, the san mateo county surcharge is $1.14 (daly city is $.91), and the transbay surcharge is $.79. minimum fare up to six miles is $1.30+$.10 capital surcharge (for $1.40 base); between six and 14 miles is $1.61+11.8 cents/mile; over 14 miles is $2.55+7.1 cents/miles.

munkyman

Sep 30, 2006, 10:47 PM

Say goodbye to funding for mass transit in our country, at least from the federal government. Bush and his oil cronnies must LOVE that they got the opportunity to appoint a highway loving Transportation Secretary.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-30-dot-secretary_x.htm

Here is the article in all its (non) glory.

Senate confirms new transportation chief

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate early Saturday confirmed President Bush's nomination of Mary Peters as the new secretary of transportation. Peters, a former federal highway administrator, succeeds Norman Mineta, a Democrat who resigned in July after six years in office.
In a statement issued by the White House, Bush said Peters is "an innovative thinker who will work with state and local leaders to confront challenges and solve problems."

Peters, 57, who spent most of her career in government highway jobs, is a strong advocate of privatizing roads. But highways are only a part of the Transportation Department's portfolio. The 60,000-person department also regulates aviation, railroads, pipelines, transit and motor carriers.

Her biggest challenges will be reducing highway, airport and seaport congestion. The administration in May announced a strategy to reduce highway congestion. It calls for selecting up to five interstate corridors for long-term investment.

Peters spent three years as head of the Arizona Department of Transportation and 3 1/2 years as head of the Federal Highway Administration. Since November, she has been national director for transportation policy and consulting in the Phoenix office of HDR, an architectural and engineering firm.

She explored a candidacy for governor of Arizona last November but dropped her bid after questions were raised about her residency status.

munkyman

Oct 3, 2006, 4:46 AM

I found this article in the examiner today - how exactly is a train loop better than a stub end with tail tracks? And if they are studying a plan to reduce the number of tracks from 6 to 4, how is that better for efficiency? Just curious. Or maybe I'm not understanding.

I'm hoping someone other than Richard Mlynarik can come up with an explanation - I don't need him to tell me again how dysfunctional and decrepit he thinks California and American transportation planning is.

New train tunnel part of multimillion-dollar study
Melanie Carroll, The Examiner
Oct 2, 2006 4:00 AM (19 hrs ago)

SAN FRANCISCO - Agency OKs $3.27 million for Transbay Terminal

Trains departing from the future Transbay Terminal may travel on an underground route below the Embarcadero as they make their way to the Peninsula under a new proposal that’s being studied.

Last week, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority unanimously voted to allocate $3.27 million to study an update to the original design that would include a loop-shaped train tunnel. The configuration would allow trains to travel continuously in one direction without having to reverse before heading out to a destination.

The authority is charged with allocating funds from Proposition K, which voters passed in November of 2003. The half-cent sales tax pays for transportation programs.

The long-awaited Transbay Terminal project calls for transforming the dilapidated bus hub at Mission and First streets into a world-class transportation center for Caltrain, several bus lines, BART and high-speed rail originating from Los Angeles.

The cash-strapped $3.4 billion project, slated to begin in 2008 and be completed by 2021, includes electrifying Caltrain and bringing the Peninsula commuter line underground to downtown from its current terminus at Townsend and 4th Street, near AT&T Park.

Plans call for a 1.3-mile tunnel from 4th and Townsend streets ending in a tail or spur-shaped configuration east of the Transbay Terminal under Main Street.

That configuration would mean trains couldn’t turn around except by reversing on the same track.

“Logically, trains run in a loop,” said Richard Silver, executive director of Rail Passenger Association of California. “As a practical matter the train is going to dwell there for a while (before it can change direction and start moving again). So a loop is a good idea.”

Members of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority Board, San Mateo Supervisor Jerry Hill and Michael Cohen from Mayor Gavin Newsom's office, said the study of the loop track is a good idea since it could reduce costs and make the design more efficient.

Initial reports presented to the transit authority show that the train loop configuration could save $200 million, in part because it provides room for four tracks, instead of the six proposed under the stub or spur configuration.

A panel of experts convened this Spring to discuss plans for the terminal, when the idea of closing the loop emerged, said Rodney Pimentel, the authority's deputy director for capital projects.

Still, the new plan calls for increasing the length of the tunnel by a mile to 2.3 miles, and the route — from Transbay Terminal, south along the Embarcadero, west along Townsend Street and back to Second Street — and then down Fourth and Townsend streets, has yet to be studied.

The study, which includes everything from geotechnical engineering to boring holes below the Embarcadero — could be complete in March.Construction of the tunnel would likely begin around 2012 if the plans are approved.

munkyman

Oct 3, 2006, 4:57 AM

I'm an idiot, I think I just figured it out. The train just continues on past the tracks in the Transbay Terminal, "loops" back around and joins the tunnel by which it originally came into the station. But at first thought that seems inefficient, because not only are you reducing the number of tracks from 6 to 4, but you would also be removing the tail tracks (which can be good to temporarily store trains while they are serviced). Maybe I'm missing something. I guess that's what their report is for.

danvillain

Oct 3, 2006, 5:03 AM

ah, finally some detail to this "expanded" tunnel idea we've read about.

Initial reports presented to the transit authority show that the train loop configuration could save $200 million, in part because it provides room for four tracks, instead of the six proposed under the stub or spur configuration.
so, instead of three island platforms, they're proposing two?

I found this article in the examiner today - how exactly is a train loop better than a stub end with tail tracks? And if they are studying a plan to reduce the number of tracks from 6 to 4, how is that better for efficiency?
i'm thinking it's not so much as "better for efficiency" as it is they've gone into cost-cutting mode and are scrambling to find ways to make the project cheaper.

i can see how providing a loop eliminates the need for the "extra" two tracks, since trains will not have to wait to turnback and can instead continue along through the tunnel. yet i wonder if the planners have given full consideration to future capacity needs beyond the projected opening date. i also wonder how a loop impacts any possible future transbay rail crossing (i had envisioned the TBT's tailtracks linking up with a new transbay tube south of the bridge).

J_Taylor

Oct 3, 2006, 5:07 AM

all HSR that I know of is like bart, with a cab at both ends.
How is a loop better than say, parking a train, walking to the other end and drive it out..

Guess its just me.

munkyman

Oct 3, 2006, 5:15 AM

J Taylor, that's exactly what I was thinking. Even Caltrain has a diesel engine power car at both ends. So it is bi-directional.

Danvillian - I agree with what you've said. Although, I think that if they want to make an eventual Transbay crossing...it's probably going to be pretty deep underground, probably deeper than BART on Market (because they will bore underneath the Bay, so it'll be even deeper than the current transbay tube that rests on the bottom of the Bay). In that case, the trains would be coming into Transbay Terminal at a depth of at least 80-90 feet (I would imagine), which would be much deeper than the Caltrain extension into the TBT. I would bet that they would have to make a 2nd level for trains, sort of like a 2 story underground train box, one for Caltrain and one for East Bay service. But that would be extremely expensive, and money is something the terminal is in short supply of. I agree with you on the capacity issue as well - doesn't 4 tracks just seem so...small?? I mean 4th & King already has at least 6 stub end tracks on it, and that's without expanded Caltrain service or eventual high speed rail. Sounds like it's going to be severely constrianed, unless they can provide for increased capacity somehow.

tuy

Oct 3, 2006, 5:55 AM

http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/ci_4429451

BART airport link on tenuous track

By Erik N. Nelson, STAFF WRITER

A long-planned rail connection between BART's Coliseum Station and Oakland International Airport is once again on the table for the transit agency, but that table is cluttered with issues that might derail the project.

The blue dotted line on BART maps would become a solid line, moving more than 1 million passengers a year to the airport, if BART directors and a private partner can agree on a deal that would construct a driverless "people mover" for an estimated $377 million.

Before that happens, BART must navigate its way through thorny issues such as union opposition to privatization of the project, high fares that could scare riders away and concerns about competition from future airport parking expansions.

"It's been an ongoing saga for many years," said Carole Ward Allen, president of the BART board, whose district includes the connector's right of way. She also headed thePort of Oakland's governing board when the project had a "groundbreaking" in 1992.

The connector is now expected to open by 2011.

On Thursday, Allen met with fellow board members behind closed doors to discuss the project's latest step forward. BART staff have chosen a "short list" of business groups interested in forming a partnership to build the rail link and run it for a profit.

The three selected groups include Bay Bridge retrofit contractor Tutor-Saliba, with Japanese automotive corporation Mitsubishi; British railway builder Balfour-Beatty; and financial giant Merrill Lynch. The groups will be asked to submit more specific proposals, each of which could cost as much as $2 million to assemble.

The winning group would have to contribute about $170million to the project, while the Port of Oakland has put in $25 million and BART would be paying for the balance, mostly with money from Alameda County transportation sales tax measures.

"We're at a point right now where things are coming to a head," said BART board member Bob Franklin, whose district includes Berkeley and parts of Oakland. On the other hand, "there's a risk associated with it, so our organization wants to be comfortable with the risk before we commit to it."

The risk could be similar to that assumed by BART when its extension to San Francisco International Airport, which opened in 2003, turned out to be somewhat more expensive than anticipated and attracted less riders than predicted.

BART continues to struggle with debts incurred by that project, particularly a $60 million loan from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission that was recently extended, and with complaints from San Mateo County about insufficient fire-box revenues to cover operating costs.

"We've been through this all before," said BART board member Tom Radulovich, who represents a San Francisco district. "Until we can come clean about the SFO extension, there will always be doubts in people's minds about BART claims about other extensions."

If lots of riders balk at an estimated $5 or $6 fare, BART could end up having to cover a shortfall in revenues out of the pockets of other BART riders, Radulovich said. The high fares could also lead to competition from AC Transit, which has its own Coliseum-to-airport bus lines.

Another concern is organized labor's desire to represent workers on the project and resulting rail service.

The Service Employees International Union, Local 790, which represents other BART employees, has also argued that the project could be unsuccessful.

"It's a staggering amount of money," said Larry Hendel, East Bay Director for Local 790. "It's about a $300 million project, so that's about $100 million a mile."

And the current AirBART shuttle buses, which charge only $2 each way, are quite successful, critics have argued, so why invest the money in an uncertain replacement?

"Our concern is that the way they want to do it, is even though it is a BART ticket and it will be a ride on BART, their proposal is to have everything built, owned and operated by a private company. We think that's a terrible precedent," Hendel said. "Are they going to turn around and privatize (the Contra Costa County rail extension) E-BART? Why not just sell off and privatize the Fremont line?"

Contact transportation reporter Erik Nelson at enelson@angnewspapers.com and read his Capricious Commuter blog at http://www.ibabuzz.com/transportation.

----------------------------
Not sure what fire-box revenue is :-)

J_Taylor

Oct 3, 2006, 1:33 PM

anyway, what are you doing, thinking of express service on BART?!? that's the reason they built stations so far apart, silly, so that everyone could drive to the station and take trains that would be fast like a car without a lot of station stops. besides, BART would have an identity crisis if it started express service. :sly:

Well I guess its the fact that I just got back from Japan.I got really use to public rail system that worked;)

J Church

Oct 3, 2006, 4:06 PM

^ Sucks, don't it?

Stay tuned on the Transbay tunnel. The approach might be realigned as well.

The flat fare-plus-parking idea for BART is not a bad one, by the way, but would be politically impossible. You'd need to charge $7 or $8 a day at outlying stations for it to be revenue-neutral.

J_Taylor

Oct 4, 2006, 12:25 AM

^ Sucks, don't it?
you know it;)

Stay tuned on the Transbay tunnel. The approach might be realigned as well.
How so?

The flat fare-plus-parking idea for BART is not a bad one, by the way, but would be politically impossible. You'd need to charge $7 or $8 a day at outlying stations for it to be revenue-neutral.
Or why not just give the evil developers tax brakes and higher hight limits and less parking limits around rail transit stations, and allow for heavy mixed uses.I know there working on it in some areas but somone needs to tell people to STFU, this is for your own good.
In about 10-15 years if it all gets built out the ridership would skyrocket.

tuy

Oct 4, 2006, 2:08 AM

Published Sunday, September 17, 2006, by the Manteca Bulletin

Transit center in downtown could proceed

By Dennis Wyatt
Managing Editor

A bit of Manteca's history is being revived to help improve future
transit access.

The old Manteca Southern Pacific Railroad depot -- torn down 40
years ago -- is the inspiration for the 2,600-square-foot transit
station proposed on Moffat Boulevard just east of Main Street.

There has been partial Measure K funding set aside for the project.
The project has been put on indefinite hold because there isn't
enough funds to proceed.

That could change Monday night.

The San Joaquin County Council of Governments is asking the Manteca
City Council if they'd like to take advantage of unused Measure K
sales tax commitment to the transit center that could make it
possible to proceed with what was pegged as a $3.5 million project
in 2004.

The transit center is just three blocks from Manteca's geographic
center at Main Street and Yosemite Avenue. It will initially serve
as a transfer point for SMART buses, a stop for Greyhound and the
new Manteca bus service expected to become operational in November.
Long-range plans are to attract an Amtrak bus stop as well as a stop
on the Altamont Commuter Express line when service is extended into
Modesto.

The project just has environmental studies and final drawings to
complete.

The new transit station will have Tidewater-style fixtures and
landscaping. It will have a lobby, restrooms, ticket offices,
vending machines and will have space for the city's transit offices.

It is a single-story building but will have sight lines making it
look like a two-story building to reflect the architecture of the
SP depot that once stood on the east side of the tracks in downtown
on West Yosemite Avenue.

There will also be a clock tower incorporated into a pseudo water
tower.

sf_eddo

Oct 18, 2006, 11:13 PM

Deteriorating Bay Area roads need fixing quick
- Chuck Squatriglia, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 18, 2006

(10-18) 12:25 PDT OAKLAND -- The Bay Area has more than 19,000 miles of roads, and although most of them are in pretty good shape, nearly one in five is deteriorating so quickly that money is needed to fix them now before the cost grows exponentially, the Metropolitan Transit Commission said today.

The agency's annual "pavement quality report card," surveyed every city and county road in the region and found the quality of Bay Area roads climbed slightly last year. Each road was assigned a score of zero to 100. The average was 64, meaning the road was in generally good condition but showing increasing signs of deterioration, such as cracks.

However, nearly 18 percent of roads earned a score of 44 or less, meaning they are in such poor condition they require major repairs that will only grow costlier over time, the agency reported.

"The improvement in the regional average certainly is good news," said John McLemore, commission vice-chair. "But our streets and roads are still at a critical state . . . we need to invest in both preventative maintenance to keep the good roads above 60 and in rehabilitation to bring poorer roads out of the danger zone."

The MTC did not rank individual roads, but found that the best roads were in the Contra Costa County city of Oakley, where the average score was 86 -- up two points from last year. The rural roads maintained by Sonoma County were the worst with an average score of 44.

A large repaving project in Colma helped San Mateo County log the biggest improvement: Its average score jumped from 31 last year to 78 this year.

It's no secret that the region's overworked roads are increasingly riddled with potholes and cracks. A survey released earlier this month by the nonprofit research organization TRIP found that San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose are home to some of the worst road conditions in the nation, and the bumpy rides cost motorists as much as $700 a year in car maintenance.

MTC says major repairs cost about five times more than regular maintenance.

Road conditions are a victim of the Bay Area's growth -- more cars increases the wear and tear on pavement -- and tight budgets that have scrimped on repaving projects. The MTC's report is meant to rally support for Proposition 1B, which would provide $20 billion for transportation projects statewide. If passed by voters in November, roughly $375 million of that would be spent in the Bay Area over the next decade.

Without an immediate infusion of cash, the region will face a shortfall of $6 billion for road maintenance by 2030, the MTC reported.

"The November statewide ballot will give voters an opportunity to close some of the funding gap," said Jim Beall, an MTC commissioner.

A Field Poll released Sept. 29 showed 52 percent of likely voters support Prop. 1B, down from 57 percent in late May.

The MTC's survey examines only those streets and roads maintained by the region's 101 cities and 9 counties, from cul-de-sacs like Walnut Creek's Palomino Court to major thoroughfares like San Pablo Avenue, which runs the length of the East Bay. However, it does not include major freeways, like Interstate 880 or Highway 4, which are maintained by Caltrans.

The average score -- which the MTC calls a "pavement condition index" -- rose two points last year to 64, reversing a downward slide that saw the average fall from 66 in 2001 to 62 last year. The increase can be attributed to various repair projects, such as the city of Colma repaving about one-quarter of its roads last year.

Just 25 percent of the region's roads earned a score of 75 or higher, meaning they are "excellent" or "very good" and either recently-resurfaced roads in pristine condition or streets with only the slightest wear.

One-third of the roads were deemed "fair" or "good," earning scores between 45 and 74. Although roads in this category offer an acceptable ride for motorists, they are becoming worn enough to require preventative maintenance like patching.

The remaining roads earned scores below 45 and were deemed "poor" or "very poor," meaning are in such rough shape they require major reconstruction that could include tearing up the pavement and repairing the road bed.

The full report can be viewed at www.mtc.ca.gov/news/press_releases/rel376.htm.

E-mail Chuck Squatriglia at csquatriglia@sfchronicle.com.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/18/BAGBJLRKBR18.DTL