SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[BTinSF]

SMART: Buy American/Buy Green

http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/#hybr/introduction

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

SMART: Buy American/Buy Green

http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/#hybr/introduction

These GE engines were featured on the news several times recently; the Port of Oakland is looking at them to reduce diesel emissions in order to comply with toughened air quality standards.

[OhioGuy]

The articles I'm reading online from last summer regarding the aerial tram between the Coliseum BART station and the Oakland Airport reported that the project had hit a "dead end" because it was still $130 million short. With the stimulus money, the project will receive an additional $70 million. Where will the final $60 million come from to build the tram? Were there ever any renderings or maps released to show what kind of aerial tram was being planned? Is it something like the People Mover in downtown Detroit?

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

the project will receive an additional $70 million. Where will the final $60 million come from to build the tram?

Where are those numbers coming from? I don't think the exact amount going to various projects has yet been decided--at any governmental level from the Dept. of Transportation to the MTC. In any case, I think besides the money the MTC may get to dole out, the state will get some it can allocate and they might give the BART tram enough to get built. Or the MTC could come up with additional funds.

I haven't seen a rendering but here the RFP: http://www.bart.gov/docs/oac/060215_RFQ.pdf

It was/is to be an automated, elevated tramway.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Where are those numbers coming from? I don't think the exact amount going to various projects has yet been decided--at any governmental level from the Dept. of Transportation to the MTC.

It was posted on Curbed San Francisco:

The federal stimulus is nigh, and the Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission has released a report estimating who's going to get how much. (They're the ones who will actually dole out transpo money here when it becomes available.) Top of the list: the Transbay Terminal's underground train station ($125 million), the Doyle Drive makeover ($90 mil), a tram connecting Oakland Airport to BART ($70 mil), and the Chinatown Central Subway ($20 mil). Lots of plans: the agency's estimating a total of $460 to $700 million for transit, and another $629 mil for roads and highways.

[BTinSF]

OK, that was an "estimate" (I'd call it a "wish list").

[BTinSF]

How much longer, oh Lord?

The Future of Van Ness Avenue is a Full-Feature BRT Route
by Matthew Roth on February 17, 2009



Van Ness BRT at City Hall, Alternative 5: center-center median option.
With overwhelming approval for the Proposition K half-cent transportation sales tax in 2003, San Franciscans signaled they not only wanted to maintain a state of good repair and operational solvency for their transit system, they were willing to dedicate more than 25 percent of the tax to expansion, including a network of transit preferential streets and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). The first two BRT corridors will be on Geary Boulevard and Van Ness Avenue, the latter with a target opening date by Muni's centennial at the end of 2012.
The two routes already carry one tenth of Muni's total ridership and proponents of the BRT treatments expect the improvements in reliability and convenience will attract many more riders. Though Van Ness BRT still has significant hurdles to surmount, including environmental review and securing funding, the planned route has seen scant public resistance, unlike the Geary corridor, where business and community interests in the Richmond have made a bunch of noise about the fear of lost parking and construction impacts. Forty-six percent of people living on the two-mile Van Ness corridor don't own cars, though with transit travel times currently double auto travel times, current mode split only shows around 25 percent of those same people using transit (PDF).

The full-feature Van Ness BRT line is proposed to have physically separated bus lanes that run two miles, from Lombard Street to Mission Street, where the 47 and 49 lines will then re-enter mixed traffic and continue their routes. Buses will be low-floor, with doors for entry on both sides in one proposed option, and signals will be prioritized similarly to light rail vehicles on the Townsend-3rd, and riders will buy tickets before boarding to prevent the significant delays associated with queueing and paying onboard. Station stops would be spaced more than double current stop spacing, or an average of 900 feet, and the TA said its Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) asked for even greater spacing in several locations at its last meeting.

As part of the MTA's Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP), the 47 and 49 buses have been targeted for improvements beyond the 2-mile segregated corridor so that buses avoid delays traveling in mixed traffic for the remainder of their routes. TEP project manager Julie Kirschbaum said the 49 is proposed to make limited stops southbound from Mission Street to City College, while the 14 will run limited and local on Mission Street to make up for fewer stops on the 49. Additionally, the agency expects to place pre-pay ticket boxes along the length of the 49 route, lengthen bus stops to allow the 49 and 14 buses to fit two-deep, and implement signal priority measures to prevent further delay.

Of the estimated $120 million needed to complete the project, the TA estimates that one quarter of the cost will be covered by Proposition K funds, while the rest is expected from the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts program. Tilly Chang, the TA's deputy director of planning, pointed out that Van Ness BRT was the only New Starts project in the nation to receive a high rating for cost-effectiveness. Neither the MTA nor the TA were concerned the FTA would provide the requested funding when the EIR is certified in 2010.

Because full BRT treatments are innovative to San Francisco, and would be a first statewide, the TA, MTA, and Caltrans have had to rewrite many of the standards and rules for how streets are used and how buses would travel through them (Caltrans BRT PDF). Because Van Ness is a state highway, Caltrans had to change the standards for things as simple as the width and height of BRT station platforms and bulbout crosswalks, which under state standards would otherwise be considered a hazard to motor vehicles.

Advocates have voiced concern that the MTA might not support a dedicated bus lane closed to vehicle traffic, preferring instead to tinker with tools that don't work as well, and cite the underwhelming results of bus-signal prioritization experiments on Geary Blvd downtown. MTA communications director Judson True vowed that the agency is fully-committed to the BRT process, including lane separation for the two miles of the corridor, though acknowledged that they were studying all options as part of due diligence.

As the debate on this blog indicates, light rail has a cache in the public eye that BRT doesn't, and the TA acknowledged that it is studying the possibility of a long-term light-rail project built over the existing BRT lanes.

The next TA CAC meeting is Tuesday, March 3rd, from 5-7 pm at the TA offices, 100 Van Ness, 26th floor. CAC meetings are open to the public and all interested parties are encouraged to attend.

• Video Link

Source: http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/02/17/the-future-of-van-ness-avenue-is-a-full-feature-brt-route/

[Gordo]

That article mentions doors on both sides of the vehicles - what in the world would be the point of that? None of the proposals have both inside and outside platforms and I haven't seen anything indicating contra-flow.

[BTinSF]

Well, if the BRT on Van Ness (and perhaps also Geary) is but a part of a longer route--the 47 and 49 in the case of Van Ness--and if they go with the "stations" in the median as shown in the rendering, then people will be boarding on the left side of the vehicle on the BRT segment but on the right side on the rest of the route which isn't BRT. Hence the need for doors on both sides--or at least that would be my guess.

[Gordo]

Hmmm, yeah that should have been obvious to me Feeling a little stupid now...

[electricron]

SomonaMarinAreaRapidTransit(SMART) posted links to the 6 DMU vendor presentations made last week to them. They include both FRA and non-FRA compliant trains.
Surf to SMART's web site at
http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/

I've downloaded the presentations, and posted them on my server at
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.P...ldoBredaDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.P...mbardierDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/CAFDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.P...onSharyoDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/SiemensDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/StadlerDMU.pdf

These are large files, so please give them a few minutes to open.

Briefly, Ansaldo Breda, Bombardier, Siemens, and Stadler presented non-FRA compliant DMUs. CAF, Nippon Sharyo, and Siemens presented FRA compliant DMUs.

The SMART project provides passenger rail service along 70 miles of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad alignment but will be sharing the line with North Coast Railroad Authority, which will be operating freight trains on SMART’s tracks north of Highway 37 in Novato.

If SMART purchases non-FRA compliant DMUs, they must be temporal separated from the NCRA freights trains. If SMART purchases FRA compliant DMUs, both passenger and freight trains can share the rail line at the same time. A FRA compliant DMU could allow passenger train operations 24 hours a day. A non-FRA compliant DMU will place restrictions upon when passenger train service can operate.

Take a look at the DMU possibilities. Which DMU train do you like best?

[Gordo]

Those are huge files

I like the Bombardier trains the best, and still like the idea of non-FRA compliant DMUs. The Siemens DMUs look pretty decent too. I don't care for the Breda stuff too much, though Muni's LRVs have been relatively decent in holding up over time.

Nippon Sharyo loses a couple "cool" points for incorrectly labeling Caltrain as Caltrans several times in their presentation.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Those are huge files

I like the Bombardier trains the best, and still like the idea of non-FRA compliant DMUs. The Siemens DMUs look pretty decent too. I don't care for the Breda stuff too much, though Muni's LRVs have been relatively decent in holding up over time.

Nippon Sharyo loses a couple "cool" points for incorrectly labeling Caltrain as Caltrans several times in their presentation.

I did warn about the file sizes.

What do you think about the Stadler DMU? I think they have more modern technology, using diesel electric drives. Diesel electric drives can use some dynamic braking, causing less braking noise at stations. Of course, their price may be slightly higher now. But 20 to 30 years from now, if SMART decides to switch to electric power drives, all they would have to do is change the power modules and keep using the same cars after refurbishing them. It could be significant savings later........

[BTinSF]

The Chronicle reports from a poll of city residents by David Binder that "61 percent opposed a fee for driving downtown during commute hours".
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/19/BAVQ161BLU.DTL&type=politics

So much for "congestion pricing".

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by electricron

A FRA compliant DMU could allow passenger train operations 24 hours a day. A non-FRA compliant DMU will place restrictions upon when passenger train service can operate.

Take a look at the DMU possibilities. Which DMU train do you like best?

My tolerance for a range of train cosmetics is greater than my tolerance for limitations on operation capability. So I'd find any of the FRA compliant equipment just fine.

[northbay]

i like the siemens - since it looks pretty good and is fra compliant. it does look like a penis tho (and so does nippon sharyo's).

stadlers is too slow. def no on caf and breda.
bombardier has the best portfolio.

all in all, either bombardier or siemens.

[Gordo]

I see the points of those looking for FRA compliance, but I guess that I'm still convinced that we're going to see some major changes to FRA regs over the next decade. Who knows? If Obama is all talk, then maybe that won't be the case, but if we really are looking at a new age of passenger rail transport in this country there are going to have to be major revisions in FRA regs just to get certain heavily-used passsenger lines in the country up to 90-110 mph service.

On top of that, any of the talk about SMART loaning trainsets or leasing trainsets to other agencies at times is a pipe dream, IMO. Bay Area transit agencies working together? That'll be the day.

electricon - interesting notes about Stadler. I've heard good things about the company, and I certainly am not one to doubt Swiss technology in general, but price would be my concern. You're right that it may turn into something that saves money down the road, but I'm not sure it's worth the gamble.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by northbay420

i like the siemens - since it looks pretty good and is fra compliant. it does look like a penis tho (and so does nippon sharyo's).

stadlers is too slow. def no on caf and breda.
bombardier has the best portfolio.

all in all, either bombardier or siemens.

Stadlers are capable of going a max speed of 75 mph, 60 mph in service, if they put in a more powerful diesel-generator set. The 55 mph speed quoted is what Austin's CapMetro chose.

http://www.stadlerrail.com/images/content/datenblaetter/01_gtw/CapMetro_e.pdf
Note the 470 kW motor rating for CapMetro trains.
http://www.stadlerrail.com/images/content/datenblaetter/01_gtw/Arriva_DMU_0506_e.pdf
Note the 600 kW rating for Arriva Netherlands trains.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

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?

they stopped running freight after one of those floods in the nineties washed away a lot of the track in petaluma. the track was never in good shape and the storm made it impossible to use without millions in repairs along the whole length of the line (that someone couldnt afford).

theres def advantages and disadvantages to choosing between fra and non fra-compliant. with fra, we pretty much have to start from scratch since no such train actually exists. that means more time for testing and construction, and more money. but once we get thru the initial pain, we can run the trains whenever we damn please. with non-fra we get the cooler trains with proven reliability, faster delivery and cheaper initial cost, but we are limited by freight service.

btw, freight service will resume this spring - i believe the usage rights as of now allow for one train per week. there is already talk tho of upping that to 3 trains.

expecting the fra to loosen its restrictions (ie to european standards) is really counting chickens before they hatch. also, it just makes more sense to create the most flexible system possible, instead of being limited to only daytime service.

thanks for pointing out the true max speed electricon

[electricron]

Originally Posted by northbay420

they stopped running freight after one of those floods in the nineties washed away a lot of the track in petaluma. the track was never in good shape and the storm made it impossible to use without millions in repairs along the whole length of the line (that someone couldnt afford).

theres def advantages and disadvantages to choosing between fra and non fra-compliant. with fra, we pretty much have to start from scratch since no such train actually exists. that means more time for testing and construction, and more money. but once we get thru the initial pain, we can run the trains whenever we damn please. with non-fra we get the cooler trains with proven reliability, faster delivery and cheaper initial cost, but we are limited by freight service.

btw, freight service will resume this spring - i believe the usage rights as of now allow for one train per week. there is already talk tho of upping that to 3 trains.

expecting the fra to loosen its restrictions (ie to european standards) is really counting chickens before they hatch. also, it just makes more sense to create the most flexible system possible, instead of being limited to only daytime service.

thanks for pointing out the true max speed electricon

You're welcome!
I thought the CAF FRA compliant DMU design exists.
I assume it was FRA compliant. Looked like a diesel powered single level passenger car (like NJT Comets).

http://www.caf.net/ingles/productos/proyecto.php?cod=5&id=603&sec=desc

I also liked their S/599 design, but being made from aluminum, I don't think this train is FRA compliant.

http://www.caf.net/ingles/productos/proyecto.php?id=612&cod=5&sec=desc

Why can't train manufactures make FRA compliant trains this pretty?

The FRA compliant Nippon Sharyo DMU wasn't that bad. Just don't want to be the first transit agency to buy it.
I like the more blunt nose on the last page better.

I agree, the Siemens FRA compliant choices were either too squared off or too round in appearance.