SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[OhioGuy]

I was just watching a video news brief on the KGO website and they said that BART is considering reducing evening & weekend service levels in order to cut costs. During the periods in which trains currently run every 15 minutes, the wait times will now be 20 minutes.

[rs913]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

I was just watching a video news brief on the KGO website and they said that BART is considering reducing evening & weekend service levels in order to cut costs. During the periods in which trains currently run every 15 minutes, the wait times will now be 20 minutes.

Didn't they just expand service a year or two ago, reducing the 20-minute intervals to 15 minutes during those times? If so, they'd basically rolling back that change.

I personally didn't think it was a huge deal when they reduced the waits to 15 - even at that interval, most people would try to time their station arrival to the train rather than just showing up and waiting for one (as people do with the NYC subway).

It's only when you're doing something like coming from one of the airports or from somewhere far from a station that you can't "time" it and risk getting stuck with the 20-minute wait.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by rs913

Didn't they just expand service a year or two ago, reducing the 20-minute intervals to 15 minutes during those times? If so, they'd basically rolling back that change.

Yup, KGO had mentioned during the video report that BART had just expanded the service to the 15 minute intervals a year ago.

[quashlo]

I remember when they first announced those "improvements" and thinking to myself, "They'll just be rolling them back in a year or two." I must be psychic or something... The way they advertised it was ridiculous, too... They said they were doubling the frequency to/from the Peninsula stations by bringing another line down there, but if you pay any attention to the service patterns, the two trains come one after another, so the benefit is minimal.

Personally, I prefer the 15-minute headways over the 20-minute headways... Even though I still have to "time" when I should leave work to make it before my train, it gives me more options.

Seriously though, I think they need to get creative over there at BART... Every time they're in the red, they seem to immediately think service cut. They run 9- and 10-car Pittsburg trains well into the night when they're mostly empty... Huge waste of money in powering the cars and the extra wear/tear and maintenance. I wouldn't be surprised if they could use shorter trains and keep (or improve) the frequency as is, without increasing O+M costs.

[OhioGuy]

I posted a link to this video a couple years ago, but I thought some of the newer people might not have seen it yet. It's a 12+ minute video from 1968 regarding the progress of the BART construction. I think it's interesting.

Along the Way

[OhioGuy]

And here's another video from 1967 that's 13+ minutes in length. Again interesting to watch.

Three to Get Ready: A Progress Report from BART

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by quashlo

Seriously though, I think they need to get creative over there at BART... Every time they're in the red, they seem to immediately think service cut. They run 9- and 10-car Pittsburg trains well into the night when they're mostly empty... Huge waste of money in powering the cars and the extra wear/tear and maintenance. I wouldn't be surprised if they could use shorter trains and keep (or improve) the frequency as is, without increasing O+M costs.

I know that it seems like it must be costing a bunch extra to run those extra emtpy cars, but the logistics and extra manpower involved in getting those trains off the tracks, shortening the train, and putting it back into service probably cost more than they would save by just running that train through the end of the shift.

I can't seem to find a good pdf of the BART budget, but from what I remember, labor constitutes the overwhelming majority of operational costs, with power costs being almost inconsequential. Now, perhaps they could save some on maintenance labor costs and a little bit on wear and tear, but probably not enough to make a real difference. Real wear and tear costs (replacement vehicles) really isn't factor in BART budgets, because the money for those is likely to come from a different place than the typical annual budget (some type of supplemental).

[jamesinclair]

Originally Posted by Gordo

I know that it seems like it must be costing a bunch extra to run those extra emtpy cars, but the logistics and extra manpower involved in getting those trains off the tracks, shortening the train, and putting it back into service probably cost more than they would save by just running that train through the end of the shift.

I can't seem to find a good pdf of the BART budget, but from what I remember, labor constitutes the overwhelming majority of operational costs, with power costs being almost inconsequential. Now, perhaps they could save some on maintenance labor costs and a little bit on wear and tear, but probably not enough to make a real difference. Real wear and tear costs (replacement vehicles) really isn't factor in BART budgets, because the money for those is likely to come from a different place than the typical annual budget (some type of supplemental).

Thats exactly right. The labor and time to separate and then join trains every day would cost more than any savings.

[quashlo]

I'm not entirely convinced of that... It's been done on other systems and has been proposed for BART before, so it's nothing new, but of course I don't work there, so I don't know. All I know is that at some point in the evening they switch the train length on Pittsburg/Bay Point trains from 9- and 10-car trains to 5-car trains... I am suggesting just rescheduling those 5-car trains to enter service earlier.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by quashlo

I'm not entirely convinced of that... It's been done on other systems and has been proposed for BART before, so it's nothing new, but of course I don't work there, so I don't know. All I know is that at some point in the evening they switch the train length on Pittsburg/Bay Point trains from 9- and 10-car trains to 5-car trains... I am suggesting just rescheduling those 5-car trains to enter service earlier.

If it could mesh with scheduled shift changes, it could work, but if you have to mess with labor at all it probably would cost more than it would save.

It sure would be nice to convert BART to automated trains like Vancouver's Skytrain...

[peanut gallery]

It could be worse than a 5-minute increase between trains. From today's Chronicle:

BART may raise fares, reduce service
Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, January 9, 2009

BART may be forced to raise fares and parking fees, close some stations on weekends, reduce the frequency of service and lay off employees to help close a projected $37 million budget deficit this year, agency officials said Thursday.

"Everything's on the table," said BART spokesman Linton Johnson.

The dramatic cost-cutting measures come as the regional transit agency is faced with lower-than-expected revenue from fares and taxes and anticipated state funding cuts.

The BART Board of Directors was to be presented with various budget-balancing options by the staff on Thursday, but delayed the review to hold a public hearing on the New Year's Day fatal shooting of an unarmed man by a BART police officer. The budget issue will be addressed at a future meeting, when more details will be provided.

The projected shortfall for the next fiscal year, which starts July 1, also is grim. Officials forecast a deficit from $45 million to $55 million in the next budget cycle.

Comments at sfgate mention the high wages at BART. If they are indeed the highest transit wages in the country, I think it's reasonable to discuss cuts there as well.

[rs913]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

It could be worse than a 5-minute increase between trains. From today's Chronicle:



Comments at sfgate mention the high wages at BART. If they are indeed the highest transit wages in the country, I think it's reasonable to discuss cuts there as well.

This is one of those rare times I wonder if the commenters are right: could BART's union-mandated high wages force it into a death spiral? They'll have to make cuts elsewhere, which will force more people into their cars, reduce ridership and revenues, and continue the cycle even further until BART goes bankrupt.

Is this realistic?

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Comments at sfgate mention the high wages at BART. If they are indeed the highest transit wages in the country, I think it's reasonable to discuss cuts there as well.

They won't be able to discuss cuts to the union contract unless the agency goes into bankruptcy or brings in the governor or something. The current contract mandates that BART wages be no lower than the 2nd highest in the country. (but I believe that they are currently the highest) Regardless, the contract can't be renegotiated without outside involvement (governor or Feds intervening or bankruptcy by BART).

[Reminiscence]

What do they mean "may" increase fares? Isn't it only a matter of time before they do it anyways? This whole budget crisis just gives them another excuse, sigh.

[CHapp]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

What do they mean "may" increase fares?

Why be so vague about it? Everyone knows it'll happen.

Disgusting doubletalk.

[CHapp]

Yes! And once we quit worrying about those empty trains around Pittsburg we might as well expand that vision to the next segment and include Antioch.

It'll be a while before the funding for that BART extension comes through, but we might as well start getting used to it.

[Smiley Person]

Originally Posted by Gordo

They won't be able to discuss cuts to the union contract unless the agency goes into bankruptcy or brings in the governor or something. The current contract mandates that BART wages be no lower than the 2nd highest in the country. (but I believe that they are currently the highest) Regardless, the contract can't be renegotiated without outside involvement (governor or Feds intervening or bankruptcy by BART).

If a couple other unions add a similar clause, things could really get out of hand...

[electricron]

SMART recently updated their web site, including a timeline of what must be accomplished to build and start their commuter rail project.

http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/index.php/plan/
http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/BoardPresentation012109.pdf

This year, amongst the priority items they will be selecting this year is which DMU train to use.

http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/SMART-14JAN09_Revised.pdf

They also must decide whether to buy and use non-FRA compliant (light) or compliant (heavy) DMUs. They have found five different manufactures for both light and heavy DMUs. It'll be interesting to see what they choose.

[Gordo]

I really hope they choose non-FRA compliant vehicles. Much more fuel-efficient and modern. Actually, what I'd rather see is a complete redo of FRA regs, but whatever.

[northbay]

ive been going to the smart operations committee meetings regularly, and they are as of now leaning that way. since colorado railcar went under, it would actually be easier and cheaper to go with non-compliant vehicles. feb 11 in san rafael they will be hearing from the manufacturers