SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[Urban_logic]

Hey guys, I'm a little new to the Bay Area threads. I was wondering if there are any for the Bay Bridge east segment and the Transbay Terminal around here. Can you guys help me out?

I'm dying to follow these projects

[Gordo]

Transbay Terminal is here (we're up to 100 pages on it):

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=136300&page=100

I don't think that there is a separate thread for the Bay Bridge, since action on it is so sparse. The updates for it would just be posted to this thread.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Transbay Terminal is here (we're up to 100 pages on it):

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=136300&page=100

I don't think that there is a separate thread for the Bay Bridge, since action on it is so sparse. The updates for it would just be posted to this thread.

Oh, thanks! Do you know when the bridge will be complete? I heard somewhere around 2012-2013.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's possible a move in that direction is underway at the FRA.

Austin's CapMetro Stadler GTW DMUs recently received a FRA "Alternate" certification. With Congress recently mandating "positive train control" on all railroad lines by 2015, maybe they'll be more willing to lessen the crash worthiness standards some.
FRA compliant heavier trains did not do much to help Southern California Metrolink riders survive that accident last fall. Postive train control would have prevented that accident.......

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by electricron

It's possible a move in that direction is underway at the FRA.

Austin's CapMetro Stadler GTW DMUs recently received a FRA "Alternate" certification. With Congress recently mandating "positive train control" on all railroad lines by 2015, maybe they'll be more willing to lessen the crash worthiness standards some.
FRA compliant heavier trains did not do much to help Southern California Metrolink riders survive that accident last fall. Postive train control would have prevented that accident.......

Hmmm, that's interesting about Austin. I know that Caltrain here in the Bay Area has off and on had talks with members of Congress about changing some FRA certifications, but I haven't heard much lately.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

Oh, thanks! Do you know when the bridge will be complete? I heard somewhere around 2012-2013.

That sounds about right, based on what I've seen and heard.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Transbay Terminal is here (we're up to 100 pages on it):

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=136300&page=100

I don't think that there is a separate thread for the Bay Bridge, since action on it is so sparse. The updates for it would just be posted to this thread.

Things sure are slow around here! The SLC Development Thread is at page 433 now with 350k views. Just the City Creek Center Thread alone is 189 pages.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=40

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

Things sure are slow around here! The SLC Development Thread is at page 433 now with 350k views. Just the City Creek Center Thread alone is 189 pages.

I've been spending time in the Chicago threads for weeks now--where the buildings are so much bigger and generally far more exciting. Sure looks cold there though!

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

Hey guys, I'm a little new to the Bay Area threads. I was wondering if there are any for the Bay Bridge east segment and the Transbay Terminal around here. Can you guys help me out?

I'm dying to follow these projects

There is now: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=164502

[peanut gallery]

From today's Marin Independent Journal:

SMART hears rail car makers' pitch
Mark Prado
Posted: 02/11/2009 06:40:41 PM PST

A half-dozen international rail car manufacturers turned out Wednesday to woo Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit officials in hopes they will spend $88 million to buy their product.

The manufacturers promised the possibilities of wheelchair access, food service, wireless Internet, meeting tables and bike racks.

One, Sumitomo/Nippon Sharyo of Japan, said it could even build a karaoke car if so desired.

"That would be for all the party animals," joked Jake Mackenzie, a SMART board member from Rohnert Park.

The decision on what type of train SMART wants when it begins to operate in 2014 is still up in the air, but board members wanted to hear from builders as they formulate their ideas. At its April 8 meeting, SMART's operation committee will present a proposed design.

Initially, SMART was looking exclusively at heavy diesel-powered cars for its system, but an updated SMART plan allows for use of lighter diesel-powered cars, which are produced by several manufacturers.

But in order to use the lighter cars, SMART must obtain a waiver from the Federal Railroad Administration because freight will also run on sections of the SMART track. The lighter diesel-powered cars are considered not as safe by the Federal Railroad Administration when running with freight.

Beyond the decision between light and heavy, there will be design considerations. Some manufacturers said there would be both seats as well as areas for standing - in some cases about a 50-50 split. That didn't sit well with some who attended the forum at the Marin Civic Center.

"I don't want to see open space for standees," said Lionel Gambel, of Novato. "There should be a seat for every passenger."

Other members of the public wanted more space for bicycles on the trains; some pressed for restrooms, given the ride from Cloverdale to Larkspur could take up to two hours.

SMART has set aside $88 million for the design, construction and delivery of the 14 self-propelled cars for the system.

Companies that gave presentations Wednesday included:


- Stadler, a Swiss company that makes lighter trains in use in New Jersey and is scheduled to begin operations this year in Texas.


- Bombardier, a Canadian company that builds lighter trains used in Canada and throughout Europe, and is interested in entering the market as a builder of heavier trains.


- Breda, an Italian manufacturer of lighter trains which manufactured the Muni Metro vehicles in San Francisco.

- CAF, a Spanish company that has built 16, six-car metro trains in Belgium, among other projects.

- Sumitomo/Nippon Sharyo, a Japanese company developing a train to operate on corridors in conjunction with freight service; it built CalTrain cars that operate on the Peninsula.


-Siemens, a German company that makes lighter trains, but has expressed interest in developing heavier trains at its Sacramento manufacturing facility.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

From today's Marin Independent Journal:

DMUs are very popular choices, and should make a great choice for SMART. Lightweight DMUs should get better fuel milage than conventional diesel locomotive trains, but will make it difficult to run freight trains on the same tracks. I don't think SMART can afford to refurbish the old tracks, build parallel new tracks, and the bike path all at once, nor there may not be enough room in the ROW to do all three the entire length of the line.

So refurbishing the old tracks and building the bike path is within their budget. Either two things will occur if they choose lightweight DMUs. (a) Pushing freight service exclusively to nights, (b) Running passenger trains only during the morning and evening rush hours. Although Trimet chose heavy DMUs, and they're only supplying service druing the morning and evening rush hours; they could during the day but they aren't initially.

I hope someone posts a video or audio of these presentations, but the PowerPoint files would be almost as nice.

[jamesinclair]

""I don't want to see open space for standees," said Lionel Gambel, of Novato. "There should be a seat for every passenger.""

Idiot.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by jamesinclair

""I don't want to see open space for standees," said Lionel Gambel, of Novato. "There should be a seat for every passenger.""

Idiot.

Well, to be fair, for this project I probably agree with him. We're talking about pretty long rides and ridership projections that don't come even close to suggesting a need for standing room. Make the units easy to convert though, just in case ridership shoots through the roof.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Well, to be fair, for this project I probably agree with him. We're talking about pretty long rides and ridership projections that don't come even close to suggesting a need for standing room. Make the units easy to convert though, just in case ridership shoots through the roof.

The original concept for BART anticipated having no standees.

[peanut gallery]

Originally Posted by electricron

DMUs are very popular choices, and should make a great choice for SMART. Lightweight DMUs should get better fuel milage than conventional diesel locomotive trains, but will make it difficult to run freight trains on the same tracks. I don't think SMART can afford to refurbish the old tracks, build parallel new tracks, and the bike path all at once, nor there may not be enough room in the ROW to do all three the entire length of the line.

So refurbishing the old tracks and building the bike path is within their budget. Either two things will occur if they choose lightweight DMUs. (a) Pushing freight service exclusively to nights, (b) Running passenger trains only during the morning and evening rush hours. Although Trimet chose heavy DMUs, and they're only supplying service druing the morning and evening rush hours; they could during the day but they aren't initially.

I hope someone posts a video or audio of these presentations, but the PowerPoint files would be almost as nice.

Since they're not using it at all for freight today, I would think they could get by limiting the freight trains to night. It would be cheaper to buy and operate the lightweight DMUs, which sounds good to me. Don't know what all the people who live close to the tracks would think about freight trains at night. If it was me, I'd prefer that because I'd never hear it if it was late enough. But I'm a pretty sound sleeper.

BTW, why did they stop freight on those rails?

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

The original concept for BART anticipated having no standees.

True, but BART from the very beginning was part interurban and part intra-urban. Anyone should have been able to tell that there were likely going to be standees around the Oakland/SF/Berkeley parts of the lines as people could use it for relatively short rides and especially as people used it for rides other than commuting to work. BART from the very beginning was planned for every 15-20 minute service.

SMART is more like Caltrain, ACE, or Capital Corridor (none of which have standee space) in that the timing of the trains will be heavier at commute times and certainly not every 15-20 minutes at any time. And...the train is not serving ANY areas that could be considered urban (aside from some small downtowns), so intra-urban trips are something that is well down the road after significant infill development, if ever.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Well, to be fair, for this project I probably agree with him. We're talking about pretty long rides and ridership projections that don't come even close to suggesting a need for standing room. Make the units easy to convert though, just in case ridership shoots through the roof.

Some lightweight DMUs can have 4 articulated cars coupled together, most can have 3. Just add another car.

But, just about all of them can have "C" sections added. Look at these photos, as photos explain better than I can write.

Articulate car


Double articulated car


Multi cars


There are several ways to add capacity. Adding C sections requires taking the car out of service.
There's is a catch, the station platforms have to be long enough for whatever combination you choose.

I agree with some, for a two hour ride, restrooms should be aboard the train. They should be serviced twice a day. Providing restrooms at train stations can be a problem, as they are often trashed by those not riding the trains. Adding a restroom will cause fewer seats to be aboard the train.

I disagree having more bike racks aboard the trains. In Dallas, Dart's bike racks are often unusable because there aren't enough seats, so passengers sit in the fold down seats under the bike racks. Few will get up so someone can store a bicycle on the rack. Maybe this will not be a problem in California, but it is in Texas.

[peanut gallery]

I think you're going to need space for bikes. They are very popular both for commuting and pleasure trips on weekends.

[Gordo]

Yeah, space for bikes is a must in this area (I would use the bike space for weekend trips, and wouldn't have any problem asking someone to move if they're in front of a rack ).

I don't know if anyone else here is on the Bay Area Transportation News Yahoo mailing list, but there have probably been 50 articles over the past few weeks about additional bike space being added to Caltrain. I'm curious to see how much room per train they're talking about for bikes on SMART (can't seem to find any numbers).

[peanut gallery]

There is some good news out there. The MTC, who will decide who gets what when the stimulus money comes to town, has laid out their priorities for said funding. Included at the top are: Transbay Terminal and Oakland Airport/BART tram, and possibly Doyle Drive and electrification for CalTrain.

Curbed also mentions funding for the Central Subway, though it's not mentioned in the SF Business Times article below:

Stimulus: Who’s in the money
Up to $1.3B coming
Friday, February 13, 2009
San Francisco Business Times - by Eric Young

A new underground train station at San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal and a tram connecting the Oakland Airport to BART have moved to the head of the class of local infrastructure projects for quick funding under the federal stimulus package.

They’ve been identified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the local transportation planning body that will dole out some of the stimulus money as it becomes available. U.S. legislators agreed on a $790 billion stimulus bill this week and sent it to President Barack Obama for his signature.

MTC’s report, the first public estimates of how much infrastructure cash could come to the region, says the Bay Area can count on receiving between $460 million and $700 million for transit infrastructure. The agency suggests giving top priority to projects that preserve existing infrastructure, then expansion of new infrastructure, safety projects and finally getting maximum efficiency out of highways.

An additional $629 million for roads and highways could also come to the Bay Area, money that might fund high-profile projects like the rebuilding of creaking Doyle Drive and the electrification of Caltrain’s line — but that cash is considered less certain, according to the MTC. The Bay Area will have to compete for this bucket of money with other regions around California. That money, should the Bay Area get all of it, could also pay for a range of local initiatives, such as diesel truck retrofits at the Port of Oakland.

The MTC report was drafted in anticipation of President Obama signing the package of spending and tax cuts as early as this week. The final stimulus package is being crafted in conference committee after being passed by both the U.S. House and Senate. The MTC report could also undergo changes once it is voted on by the full commission Feb. 25.

Federal stimulus money designated for infrastructure work is to be spent on projects that are “shovel ready” — short hand for ready to start — which will help spur new jobs. “The rules say, ‘use it or lose it’ and the Bay Area’s strong track record of project delivery will be critical to helping the ailing economy, keeping the federal money in the region and potentially capturing additional dollars,” the MTC report reads.

Bay Area officials said they estimate the region will see between 12,500 and 19,000 new construction jobs created if it gets the money anticipated.

Local construction companies said the federal stimulus package could lead to a burst of work. Executives at CH2M Hill, an engineering, consulting and construction firm with three offices in the Bay Area, anticipate additional jobs helping clients manage construction projects as well as helping them follow any accountability or progress guidelines that may come with the federal dollars, said William Knapp, a vice president at the firm.

Job-creation is just one benefit once the region captures federal stimulus money. Improved infrastructure in the region “makes us more competitive in the long term,” said Sean Randolph, CEO of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, a business-backed research group. “When you invest in times like these, it will yield benefits” many years into the future.

Like regions across the country, the Bay Area has short-changed investment in infrastructure for decades. A lack of money tied with aging facilities and poor original design means the area’s underpinnings are imperiled at a time when the Bay Area population is expected to grow by one-third over the next 25 years. The region’s infrastructure is an increasingly worrisome topic to executives who fear a breakdown in the underpinnings of everyday activity will undercut the Bay Area’s $300 billion economy.

While some of the stimulus money likely will be used to refurbish existing infrastructure, it also will be directed toward new projects. The Oakland airport connector, for example, has been derailed several times due to disputes over money, labor and design. But airport and BART officials would like the tram in order to speed more travelers between their respective facilities.