SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News - Page 36

BTinSF · #**701** Posted **Nov 5, 2008, 7:06 PM**

I'm tragically disappointed the hookers on Geary will still be illegal, though.

alexjon · #**702** Posted **Nov 5, 2008, 7:14 PM**

The way to San Jose is apparently not BART...

ETA: Oops, nevermind. BART getting extended. Dionne Warwick, please call me, I have some good news...

TWAK · #**703** Posted **Nov 5, 2008, 11:27 PM**

stupid Solano county should get on this bart extension tax as well. At least let bart go to vallejo....please?
What do you guys think about Bart extensions up to Solano county? I love capitol corridor but that is not going to save I-80.

krudmonk · #**704** Posted **Nov 6, 2008, 1:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexjon

The way to San Jose is apparently not BART...

ETA: Oops, nevermind. BART getting extended. Dionne Warwick, please call me, I have some good news...

No, BART failed here. It need two thirds but got only 66.27%. That's actually much higher than I expected, given the suspicions of incompetence and corruption within VTA. The costs of BART-specific technology and the fact that our 2000 measure never gave us anything also did not help with voters. Still, I think many people were hopeful that progress would still come. The money will have to go elsewhere in VTA's budget.

BTinSF · #**705** Posted **Nov 6, 2008, 7:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWAK

stupid Solano county should get on this bart extension tax as well. At least let bart go to vallejo....please?
What do you guys think about Bart extensions up to Solano county? I love capitol corridor but that is not going to save I-80.

I think Solano County in general and Vallejo in particular are on the ropes right now. I can't imagine them voting to add a 1/2 cent BART sales tax in this economy. And given the attitudes about the more urban parts of the Bay Area I recall from when I used to work up there, it's really pretty hard to imagine them ever voting for it.

northbay · #**706** Posted **Nov 6, 2008, 5:06 PM**

^ i agree with bt. even tho technically part of the bay area, it always seemed that solano was more part of the central valley. sprawl everywhere, a lack of definable urbanity and poor transit make (not to offend anyone) the area not very desirable. its basically just caught between sf and sac and the heavy traffic that travels between the two regions.

in this economic climate, one can forget about expanding bart period. just too expensive for the return.

krudmonk · #**707** Posted **Nov 6, 2008, 8:06 PM**

The part of Solano County just across the bridges is definitely Bay Area. Dixon, however, is most certainly not.

Gordo · #**708** Posted **Nov 6, 2008, 8:39 PM**

Agreed. Vallejo is very much Bay Area, and even Fairfield and Napa are pretty Bay Area.

I'd like to at least see some good transit up to Vacaville connecting into BART in Richmond. It 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 right now.

peanut gallery · #**709** Posted **Nov 6, 2008, 8:55 PM**

^ That would do wonders for I80, which is a complete nightmare.

krudmonk · #**710** Posted **Nov 6, 2008, 9:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordo

Agreed. Vallejo is very much Bay Area, and even Fairfield and Napa are pretty Bay Area.

I'd like to at least see some good transit up to Vacaville connecting into BART in Richmond. It 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 right now.

Maybe a commuter line could go hand-in-hand with future HSR development along that corridor.

northbay · #**711** Posted **Nov 6, 2008, 10:20 PM**

a high speed rail line connecting sf and sac would be a panacea for i80. u could get from one downtown to the other in like 45 minutes. i dont understand y they dont include such a line in the current hsr proposal, seems like ridership would be very high

Gordo · #**712** Posted **Nov 6, 2008, 10:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by northbay420

a high speed rail line connecting sf and sac would be a panacea for i80. u could get from one downtown to the other in like 45 minutes. i dont understand y they dont include such a line in the current hsr proposal, seems like ridership would be very high

Cost. Two very expensive water crossings (one absurdly expensive one and one just very expensive one) and no good existing right of way (that would be easily convertible to HSR specs - the Capitol Corridor ROW is extremely tight, has lots of HSR-unfriendly twists and turns, and is heavily used for freight).

Even if you leave out a Bay Crossing and just run a line up the East Bay from San Jose, you're talking about some really expensive tunneling in Oakland or a lot of eminent domain, since that is a very heavily-used freight line. Not saying it couldn't be done, but I think it's right to focus on getting SD and Sac linked up in other ways that cost less first. SF to Sac over the Altamont would still only be an hour (maybe slightly more, but not much).

It would be awesome to get some dedicated ROW for some kind of commuter rail up to Fairfield/Vacaville, but I'm not sure how or where that could be done. The Caps works fairly well right now, but completely bogs down at times around Martinez waiting for freight trains. I'm not sure how much more frequency can be added to that portion.

TWAK · #**713** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 8:28 AM**

It would be nice to get something going, because I-80 is not going to get any better. There is a portion of 80 through fairfield that is getting a HOV lane but how much of that is going to really help? I think Solano just flat out 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 for any kind of transit planning.

BTinSF · #**714** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 1:30 PM**

Quote:

Friday, November 7, 2008
Deal dead on BART link to Oakland airport
San Francisco Business Times - by Eric Young

BART’s plans for a high-speed tram connecting the transit system to Oakland International Airport have been derailed yet again.

The transit agency said a consortium of construction and finance firms has pulled out of negotiations that had been under way for at least eight months. The downturn in the economy and escalating construction costs prompted the group to bow out, BART said.

BART had been in talks with Merrill Lynch & Co., which would have helped finance the deal; construction company Flatiron Construction Corp. of Longmont, Colo., and light rail vehicle maker Bombardier Transportation, a Berlin-based unit of the Canadian aerospace and rail giant.

BART said in a statement that “linking Oakland International Airport with BART is still an important project.” But the latest setback — coupled with an economy that might be a long way from hitting bottom — could prompt a drastic reassessment of how to proceed.

Tom Radulovich, a BART board member, said he would consider a less costly way of linking BART to Oakland’s airport. For example the city could designate bus-only lanes for the airport shuttle, shortening the time it takes to drive between BART’s Coliseum/Airport station and airport terminals.

“Too often in the Bay Area we say why do a $5 million project when there is a $1 billion solution available?” Radulovich said.

BART’s board is expected to take up the issue in coming months.

The transit agency had lined up $256 million for the project from various sources, including the state, Alameda County, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Port of Oakland and the Bay Area bridge toll. But $130 million more was needed, thus the talks with the consortium to set up a financing and revenue-sharing deal.

The talks had been a positive sign for a project bogged down for years by design changes, labor concerns and funding gaps. BART executives said a speedy elevated tram to the airport might boost ridership. More than 1 million people each year take the shuttle bus, which can take from 15 minutes to an hour as it covers the 3.2 miles between the BART station and the airport.

[email protected] / (415) 288-4969

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/11/10/story6.html?t=printable

peanut gallery · #**715** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

For example the city could designate bus-only lanes for the airport shuttle, shortening the time it takes to drive between BART’s Coliseum/Airport station and airport terminals.

This is an excellent solution. I've taken the shuttles (AirBART) many times and they work just fine. Dedicated lanes would make them that much better. Quite frankly, there just aren't enough people using AirBART to justify the expense of a new dedicated rail line of some kind. I've never had more than a few other people on a shuttle bus with me.

Gordo · #**716** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 5:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

This is an excellent solution. I've taken the shuttles (AirBART) many times and they work just fine. Dedicated lanes would make them that much better. Quite frankly, there just aren't enough people using AirBART to justify the expense of a new dedicated rail line of some kind. I've never had more than a few other people on a shuttle bus with me.

I've been on it when it's completely full, but I've certainly never seen the driver turn people away. If the line could serve some other purpose on the way to the airport, I might support it, but otherwise it seems like money that could be better spent elsewhere. The buses work fine - I've never had it take more than the 15 minutes - the article says that it takes 15 minutes to an hour? Huh? How could it possibly take an hour? Traffic along its path is never that bad.

northbay · #**717** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 5:48 PM**

if i had a choice, id take a rail connection. bus ridership (as pg kinda points out) is always going to be lower - theres something romantic about the rails that just draws people. i bet a lot of people dont take the shuttle because they just dont like the idea. of course, sfo on the other side of the bay has a direct connection with bart. many flyers planning their trips might be more inclined to choose to fly sfo because of the easy connection. oakland needs to be competitive. airlines are already leaving oak in droves, it needs something to look attractive to passengers and airlines.

we all understand theres no money. buses temporarily yes, certainly. but for the long-run, no half-assing please.

Gordo · #**718** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 5:59 PM**

For the long run, let's have a CAHSR line going to Oakland. I'd much rather see half a billion bucks spent on a streetcar line in Oakland rather than an airport connector. Now, if the airport wants to pony up the cash, sure, but don't take money away from other projects that could make the entire city of Oakland more competitive, instead of just the airport.

peanut gallery · #**719** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordo

The buses work fine - I've never had it take more than the 15 minutes - the article says that it takes 15 minutes to an hour? Huh? How could it possibly take an hour? Traffic along its path is never that bad.

Whoa, I skipped over that little note. My experience has been like yours -- 15 minutes give or take a few. I don't see how it could ever take an hour.

northbay · #**720** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 6:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordo

For the long run, let's have a CAHSR line going to Oakland. I'd much rather see half a billion bucks spent on a streetcar line in Oakland rather than an airport connector. Now, if the airport wants to pony up the cash, sure, but don't take money away from other projects that could make the entire city of Oakland more competitive, instead of just the airport.

ur def right that downtown oakland needs rail other than bart. i cant believe theres still no streetcar to jack london square! now if we could only find a half a billion bucks allocated for rail transit in oakland somewhere...