HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #661  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2008, 5:50 PM
Cory Cory is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
Maybe I'm crazy, but I though we were suppose to encourage people to take public transportation by making it more accesible to them?
No you are not crazy. BART is becoming too proud and I hate the fact that they do not offer any type of incentive for individuals who take local buses to BART stations. I agree with everything you said really. If it were not for the high gas prices and the bridge toll, driving from Oakland, depending where you are at, into the city could sometimes be cheaper than BART.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #662  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2008, 10:49 PM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
Bart

Quote:
Originally Posted by quashlo View Post
BART doesn't seem that crowded to me... There's always plenty of seats and standing space at the ends of the train because everybody likes to congregate in the middle of the train.

The peak fare surcharge seems like a disaster in the making... It may break even, or perhaps it could even increase revenue, but the system as a whole would end up carrying less people, which is the antithesis of BART's goal. They need to be increasing capacity, not decreasing demand. They should already be moving on getting three-door cars and redesigning the interiors to allow for more standees and less seats. Beyond just removing two seats near the door, they should just convert the whole middle of the car to longitudinal seating. The cars are so wide, there'd be plenty of room to carry more people... They just won't be sitting.
The issue BART has is it "peaks" worse than any other system I am aware of. This isn't just BART planners coming up with something because they are bored. They have real issues with platform capacity downtown for about an hour and the tube is close to capacity

Most trains at most times are almost empty

The problem with BART is they have been investing in extensions that make this problem worse not better. Billions spent to gain a a few thousand park and riders all trying to get to downtown San Francisco at the same time

Unless the region is ready to spend massively on new capital investments this is the only way they can manage demand (and TOD might help)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #663  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2008, 10:54 PM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
The issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternGulf View Post
No you are not crazy. BART is becoming too proud and I hate the fact that they do not offer any type of incentive for individuals who take local buses to BART stations. I agree with everything you said really. If it were not for the high gas prices and the bridge toll, driving from Oakland, depending where you are at, into the city could sometimes be cheaper than BART.
High gas prices and bridge tolls and parking is SF are the reality

BART not being independent isn't able to really offer incentives for local buses. This is the problem with having a dozen independent agencies.

the fact that people can't use BART in the East Bay to chain trips with a pass is another problem

The fact that BART runs to the middle of knowwhere another problem

Lots of issues in the Bay Area with transit and politically how it is arranged

Most places run their subways were the density is not to places like Concord. Here we have BART stations with 6000 riders per day and 70K riding buses crushloaded on Geary Blvd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #664  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 3:58 PM
Cory Cory is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,353
I did not know if it would be more appropriate to post this in the development thread or the transportation, but here it goes:

Small Band Fights Big Development
By : Amy Sylvestri : 9/18/08



A group of San Leandro residents who don’t support the construction of hundreds of new housing units as part of the Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) has banded together to fight the project.

Estudillo Estates resident Frank Lynn started a group called “Save San Leandro” to protest the San Leandro Crossings project that is part of the TOD plan. They say city officials don’t listen to the public’s opinion.



On Tuesday night, the group met following an Estudillo Estates Homeowner’s Association meeting at the Main Library. Most of the people at the homeowner’s meeting stuck around.

San Leandro Crossings is a 800 to 1,000-unit apartment project that the City Council approved to be built near the San Leandro BART station by Westlake Development and managed by Bridge Housing. The project could blossom into 3,000 apartments over the next 20 years, according to city documents.

Save San Leandro says that throughout the approval process, the public has been mislead as to the nature of the project, that the “housing units” are actually apartments to rent, not condos to buy, that the low-income housing factor was not properly disclosed, and that the public hasn’t been properly consulted about the project in general.

The group said that a series of informational meetings about the project have been one-sided and that supporters have been “bused in” to make it look like more San Leandro residents support the project.

“Basically, you have low-income housing advocates gather people up to tell emotional anecdotes, and then you have homeowners and taxpayers that Lynn. “People have major concerns about this project and at these meetings, frankly, the developers have been dismissive.” Feeling ignored by the city, Lynn and his group have decided to take action.

“At first, I worked at this as a protest, but now it has become a public education campaign,” said Lynn. “Ideally, we are hoping that enough people get in contact with Bridge Housing and their local government, that they understand we won’t tolerate this.”

Lynn added that one of the things that he is most upset about it is an invitation-only meeting that took place on Sept. 10. The meeting was open to a limited amount of “stakeholders,” and not the public at large.

Several members of the group said that the closed-door meeting made them feel that they were being purposely excluded.

“I felt we weren’t represented,” said Joann Dictor, who attended the meeting using an invitation that was originally given to a friend.

“Apparently, they don’t think homeowners and taxpayers are stakeholders,” said Lynn. “They don’t understand representative democracy.”

The group stressed that they aren’t against low-income housing, they just feel that this particular project is ill-conceived, citing for example a parking plan that averages just over one parking space per unit, regardless of how many bedrooms the apartment has.

“Oh don’t worry, everyone is going to ride their bike, so it won’t be a problem,” said one man, drawing laughs from the rest of the group.

At the Sept. 22 City Council meeting, Bridge Housing is scheduled to speak to the council and several Save San Leandro members plan to be there to speak also.

“We need to let council members know that we are displeased, we know the truth, and we’re not going to put up with this,” said Lynn.

The group’s web site is www.sanleandrocrossings.com.


Source: http://www.sanleandrotimes.com/*ws4d-db-...ctory)***.ws4d?sltimes/a_slt/column.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #665  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 6:56 PM
AndrewK AndrewK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 459
ugh. they are building this right next to the bart station and people are concerned that they are only allotting one parking space per unit? its called a "transit-oriented development" for a reason.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #666  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 10:33 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,256
My favorite quote of the piece:

"They don’t understand representative democracy.”

Uh, no, you sir do not understand representative democracy. In representative democracy, someone else represents your interests - it doesn't mean that anyone can come to "represent" their ideas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #667  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 11:03 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
Ha! I didn't catch that in my disbelief in the rest of the nonsense.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #668  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2008, 1:42 AM
CHapp CHapp is offline
mumble
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Enviable
Posts: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco_Zig View Post
The problem with BART is they have been investing in extensions that make this problem worse not better. Billions spent to gain a a few thousand park and riders all trying to get to downtown San Francisco at the same time
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco_Zig View Post
The fact that BART runs to the middle of nowhere another problem

Most places run their subways where the density is not to places like Concord. Here we have BART stations with 6000 riders per day and 70K riding buses crushloaded on Geary Blvd.
BART is at it again: they herald the issuance of a DEIR on a further East Contra Costa BART extension dubbed eBART (East Contra Costa BART Extension), lengthening the Pittsburg/Bay Point route "to a terminus station in the vicinity of Hillcrest Avenue in Antioch."

Two public hearings, one in Antioch and one in Pittsburg, are scheduled for mid-October.

A paper copy of the document is available at three locations in the East Bay.

http://www.ebartproject.org/
http://www.ebartproject.org/news.php?display=1&oid=1000000509
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #669  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2008, 5:07 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 530
What are people's thoughts on the proposed use of non-classic BART trains for these extensions? I don't really know enough about it, but my gut reaction is that I want to see a single technology used throughout.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #670  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2008, 5:34 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCowboy View Post
What are people's thoughts on the proposed use of non-classic BART trains for these extensions? I don't really know enough about it, but my gut reaction is that I want to see a single technology used throughout.
My gut reaction is "why the hell are we expanding BART out into the hinterlands even more when so much more is needed in the central core?"

I might be fine with a single technology if BART wasn't using the ridiculously expensive proprietary technology that it uses. However, BART had better not be building a third rail subway grade system to Antioch (using a different track guage no less). As it stands now, the potential ridership in Antioch is so low that not even the proposed system makes sense, let alone a full BART extension. A local agency should be investigating service from Antioch to Pittsburg, not BART.

The typical excuse of "Antioch has been paying for BART service and doesn't have it" won't fly for me. More than half the residents of San Francisco have never had BART service either and have paid into the system for 50 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #671  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2008, 8:43 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
I agree with Gordo. The idea for an expansion into Antioch or other cities farther out is a nice concept, but it only makes sense if what we have already is stable enough financially, which in my opinion is not. Its clear that we cant even manage what we have now, so expanding will only add to the headache. Increasing fares only seems to add fuel to the fire.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #672  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2008, 9:27 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
I agree with Gordo. The idea for an expansion into Antioch or other cities farther out is a nice concept, but it only makes sense if what we have already is stable enough financially, which in my opinion is not. Its clear that we cant even manage what we have now, so expanding will only add to the headache. Increasing fares only seems to add fuel to the fire.
And the problems that we're approaching now are core-capacity problems in the Transbay Tube. Extensions to Antioch and similar places (which are generally only going to create more peak-time commuters) only worsen those problems.

I actually don't see a problem at all with peak-time fares, though I think that it would be a nice gesture to perhaps lower some off-peak fares at the same time as raising peak-time fares. Of course, it would also be REALLY nice if BART could coordinate with the bridges in introducing peak-time fares on the bridges as well - but I know that coordination between agencies is WAAAAAAAAY too much to ask for. Peak fares are a proven way to manage capacity and actually increase ridership (if done right - see Washington Metro for a US example).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #673  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2008, 9:30 PM
CHapp CHapp is offline
mumble
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Enviable
Posts: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
My gut reaction is "why the hell are we expanding BART out into the hinterlands even more when so much more is needed in the central core?"
Precisely the response I hoped to elicit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #674  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2008, 6:24 AM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 7,772
Is there any type of pass that's good on transit in San Francisco and Alameda county? (though I understand BART is seperate from everything) Or does one have to carry around multiple transit cards to cover transit in the various counties? (San Fran, Alameda, Marin, Contra Costa, etc)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #675  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2008, 7:38 AM
CHapp CHapp is offline
mumble
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Enviable
Posts: 578
No, there isn't, OhioGuy. All those transit agencies are multiple fiefdoms. It seems our Metropolitan Transportation Agency likes it that way. Keep 'em all fighting separately for those coveted transportation $$$$$!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #676  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2008, 8:16 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
Most of the local agencies are involved in deploying a system called TransLink. It's running on Golden Gate Transit and AC Transit (Alameda) today. I'm not sure exactly where each agency is in terms of testing and deploying, but it will eventually work on BART, CalTrain, SAMtrans (San Mateo), VTA (Santa Clara) etc.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park

Last edited by peanut gallery; Oct 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #677  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2008, 8:28 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
Most of the local agencies are involved in deploying a system called TransLink. It's running on Golden Gate Transit and AC Transit (Alameda) today. I'm not sure exactly where each agency is in terms of testing and deploying, but it will eventually work on BART, CalTrain, SAMtrans (San Mateo), VTA Santa Clara) etc.
I'm not sure anyone knows (including the Translink folks themselves) how far along we are, though it's at least in the years away range, not the months away range.

Ohioguy, there is at least some level of coordination between BART and Muni, and BART and the ferries (you can get a discount going from one to the other), but that's it. No shared farecards or anything fancy like that. (you know, that fancy stuff that has existed elsewhere since the 70's and 80's - but hey, what the hell does the Bay Area know about technology? Oh...wait.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #678  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 3:33 AM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
Umm

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCowboy View Post
What are people's thoughts on the proposed use of non-classic BART trains for these extensions? I don't really know enough about it, but my gut reaction is that I want to see a single technology used throughout.
they should be running buses in dedicated lanes
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #679  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 3:35 AM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
Bart

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
And the problems that we're approaching now are core-capacity problems in the Transbay Tube. .
they are also close to capacity on the platforms at Embarcadero and Montgomery at the peak

To your coordination point, coordination with transbay buses would be nice as well
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #680  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 3:40 AM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
Translink

Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
Most of the local agencies are involved in deploying a system called TransLink. It's running on Golden Gate Transit and AC Transit (Alameda) today. I'm not sure exactly where each agency is in terms of testing and deploying, but it will eventually work on BART, CalTrain, SAMtrans (San Mateo), VTA Santa Clara) etc.
Translink increases convenience but not the transfer penalties with our transit systems

Who the hell is going to pay $75 per month for their feeder AC transit bus to then pay for BART, translink or not? Answer is those who are to poor to own a car

The FastPass in SF allows for unlimited riders within SF on BART

A similar product in the East Bay could go a long way to facilitating true carfree life styles over there. Without it it is way to expensive

this product could allow for free trips within the East Bay. transbay riders would still have to pay full fares
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:20 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.