SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[peanut gallery]

Check out these renderings of the two termini of the Oakland Airport/BART tram.

BART Station:


Airport:


I got these off the BART website.

[AndrewK]

pretty sweet looking, and man would that be an improvement over the current system (haven't actually taken airBART but all ive heard is that its awful).

ps nice job on correctly pluralizing terminus.

[Gordo]

Dunno, seems a little porkish to me. The project was sidelined because it was determined by the MTC that ridership was not high enough to justify it, then brought back from the dead when stimulus money was potentially on the table. Sure, it will create some jobs in construction, but there are plenty of other shovel-ready projects available - and if it really did fail at ridership projections, isn't this just going to hamper things later on with operations cost overruns? This thing will be finished just a few years before HSR to LA is completed - how many flights into and out of OAK are to LA area airports? How much of an effect is that going to have on ridership for this? Aren't likely riders of BART to Oakland airport possible likely riders of BART to an HSR station to an HSR train to LA? I have a really bad feeling that this is a tremendous waste of money

The AirBART bus gets a bad rap. It's never taken me longer than 15 minutes and the corridor that it goes on is just not that congested outside of ballgame hours. I've never understood the complaining about it (I've used it at least 15 times in the past year).

The renderings look nice though. If it has to happen, at least it looks cool.

[rs913]

Maybe instead of spending piles of money on a BART spur, they could improve AirBART? A ticket dispenser that makes change for large bills (which grocery checkouts have), a couple new buses with two entrance doors, more frequent service that's timed to meet BART trains, and some BRT wizardry at a couple of the Hegenberger lights...wouldn't all that together still add up to less expense than the BART connector?

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by rs913

Maybe instead of spending piles of money on a BART spur, they could improve AirBART? A ticket dispenser that makes change for large bills (which grocery checkouts have), a couple new buses with two entrance doors, more frequent service that's timed to meet BART trains, and some BRT wizardry at a couple of the Hegenberger lights...wouldn't all that together still add up to less expense than the BART connector?

By a factor of 10 at least, I would imagine. Just the flipping change machines, better signage, and timing to meet BART trains would make AirBART perfect for me and would cost almost nothing. You could even keep the same buses, they're not great but do the job. Put the money towards better projects.

[peanut gallery]

Originally Posted by Gordo

The AirBART bus gets a bad rap. It's never taken me longer than 15 minutes and the corridor that it goes on is just not that congested outside of ballgame hours. I've never understood the complaining about it (I've used it at least 15 times in the past year).

That's been my experience as well. Never had a problem.

[Reminiscence]

Hmm, it could just me be, but the BART station looks like something out of the Jetsons. I wouldn't mind seeing this built, but I think that what we have now suffices.

[CHapp]

According to one not necessarily reliable source it seems like the MTA did allot a large portion of the Bay Area's transportation Stimulus funds to the Oakland Airport project:

http://www.dailycal.org/article/104569/transit_agencies_split_stimulus_funding

[rs913]

Speaking of BART, is there any word on the West Dublin station? I believe the BART website vaguely promises an opening "later this year", but does anyone know whether that's actually likely to happen?

I remember seeing a clip on the local news that the projects immediately surrounding the new station have been put on hold because of the economy...

[peanut gallery]

I drove by it on the way to the snow a couple of weeks ago and it looked like it was moving along, but not anywhere close to opening. That's only based on a couple of quick drive-by's though.

Speaking of nearby projects, I was surprised to see the amount of building happening around the Pleasanton station. Oracle appears to be finishing up a couple of large buildings in the area. I didn't realize that was happening. I thought they would reduce their footprint in that area after assimilating PeopleSoft.

[peanut gallery]

I am very much looking forward to this. From the Chronicle:

BART plans to introduce TransLink in June
Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, March 23, 2009

BART riders should be able to start using the TransLink regional fare card in early June, officials announced.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which runs the TransLink program, reported that the system should be fully installed and tested by May 5. TransLink should be ready for BART riders about 30 days after that, BART spokesman Linton Johnson said Friday.

Once up and running, BART will join the San Francisco Municipal Railway, AC Transit and the Golden Gate bus and ferry agency in allowing people to pay for their rides with the universal card.

Hampered by years of delay, due largely to software problems, TransLink is expected to one day allow transit riders to use the single prepaid card on more than two dozen transit systems in the Bay Area.

The prepaid cards can be automatically reloaded. Every time they're used, the appropriate fare is deducted from the value of the card. A digital chip embedded in the card tracks usage.

Currently, there are more than 23,000 daily boardings by TransLink users. The number is expected to increase substantially once Muni, the Bay Area's largest transit operation, moves out of a controlled test phase. More than 4,000 Muni riders have started using TransLink since it became available last year.

Muni allows users to load a monthly Fast Pass, which at $45 is good for unlimited rides, onto TransLink. But unlike regular Fast Passes, they can't be used on BART trains within San Francisco. That will change once BART is hooked into TransLink.

BART plans a slow rollout of TransLink, starting with a small group of about 1,000 of its regular passengers who use the EZ Rider fare card, Johnson said.

More information on TransLink can be found at www.translink.org.

[BTinSF]

Is the absence of transportation, i.e. a street closure, "transportation"?? Who knows but:

Curbed SFEater SFMore cities...
AdvertiseSubmit a tip
A Little Street Closure to Whet the Castro's Appetite
Wednesday, March 25, 2009, by Andy J. Wang


[Planning Department rendering via Streetsblog]

Streetsblog reports on a pedestrian-power street closure that looks like it's actually going to happen: a small portion of 17th, where it meets Market Street at the Chevron station. Sounds like just a bit of toe dipping at the moment, but a multi-agency effort involving the Department of Public Works, the Castro Street Community Benefit District, and others may bear fruit by May. "The approach we’re taking here is to try it. If it’s great, it will be great," says the Department of Public Works director. "If not, we’ll take it out." And by take it out, they perhaps mean send all the new street furniture back to the salvage yard, because that's where they'll be reclaiming all the planters and other goodies from. A point or two of note: the Chevron agreed to lose a driveway for the project, but the only skeptics so far seem to be locals who worry that vagrants will ruin all the fun.

Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/03/25/a_little_street_closure_to_whet_the_castros_appetite.php

IMHO this is probably the perfect location for this. A lot more people cross that bit of street on foot than use it on wheels. Usually, I don't like to see cars forced off of the scarce and crowded SF streets, but this spot makes sense.

[Gordo]

I like it too - especially if those tables are for the restaurants already there or for a new outdoor restaurant. That will help keep it clean and nice.

[BTinSF]

BART board moves ahead on Oakland airport link
Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, May 15, 2009

Despite a projected shrink in ridership and escalating costs, the BART board on Thursday approved a funding plan to build a people mover connecting the Coliseum Station and the Oakland airport.

The project was billed as a chance to create thousands of new jobs and the 3.2 mile airport connector would transport passengers on an elevated track that bypasses street traffic and would cost as much as much as $552 million, according to current estimates. At the start of the decade the project's price tag was just $130 million.

Although the airport connector has been discussed for about 30 years and has had numerous starts and stops, the flailing economy may have given it the financial lift it needs to move forward with the infusion of $70 million in federal stimulus funds.

"Are we taking a chance? Yes. But it does provide jobs," said BART Director Carole Ward Allen, who represents the economically depressed East Oakland district where the project would be built.

"We can move forward on a project that will serve the city, the region and the nation," she added later.

The automated Oakland airport connector would replace the shuttle bus service, known as AirBART, which runs on surface streets and can be slowed by congestion. The goal is to have the airport link running by 2013.

It would be the second Bay Area airport, after San Francisco, to be linked to BART. The round-trip fare would cost $12 under the current plan. The price doesn't include the BART fare to and from the Coliseum Station.

Federal loans

The elected BART board voted 7-1 to move forward with the final piece of its financing plan: applying for up to $150 million in federal transportation loans. Director Tom Radulovich cast the dissenting vote. Director Gail Murray was absent.

The decision came after a five-hour public hearing at BART headquarters in which more than 70 people - split almost evenly for and against the project - testified.

Those opposed included an organized coalition of transit activists and unions representing BART employees who say the money could be better spent maintaining and improving existing transit operations serving the East Bay. And, they said, the project ultimately could force BART to cut service, raise fares and lay off workers if the construction costs spiral and strain the capital projects budget, shifting money away from operations at a time when the agency already faces major funding problems.

"It will dig your fiscal hole even deeper," warned Jesse Hunt, president of the union that represents BART train operators and station agents.

Opponents of the airport connector long have proposed improved bus service as a less costly and comparable alternative, but BART officials have shot down the idea.

The number of riders projected to use the people mover has dropped significantly in recent years. That's due, in part, to fewer people using the Oakland airport and because earlier plans to add one or two stations along the route have been put on hold.

4,350 people a day

Now, officials are anticipating that 4,350 people a day would use the connector by 2020 instead of the 13,540 once predicted.

BART brass offered assurances that the project would pencil out.

Their determination to move forward with the long-stalled project was buoyed by an alliance of Oakland business groups and unions representing the building trades. Jerry Oaks, a laborer with Local 304, put a human face on their lobbying efforts.

"I've been out of work since 10-10-2008. I've never been out of work this long," he said. "This project will bring in jobs." BART officials say the project would generate 13,000 direct and indirect jobs.

The board's action does not guarantee the airport connector would be built.

The Port of Oakland, which runs the airport, would be on the hook for $44 million and needs to sign off on the plan. The idea is to tack an extra charge on plane tickets to pay for the airport connector.

In addition, BART still has to see whether the bids come in within the projected budget and whether the interest rate on the federal loan, which fluctuates, would be affordable.

E-mail Rachel Gordon at [email protected].

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/15/BAQF17KNQM.DTL

[202_Cyclist]

BART board moves ahead on Oakland airport link

I read this article this morning. Although still competitive with the cost for one day of parking at the airport, it seems that the round-trip fare of $12 would significantly decrease potential ridership.

Los Angeles was looking at raising the fees for parking and the tax on rental cars at the airport to pay for the extension of Green Line to LAX (http://www.argonautnewspaper.com/articles/2008/04/10/news_-_features/lax/l1.txt ). I think that BART needs to look at similar financing other than charging riders $12 for each round-trip if it wants to have many passengers.

[BTinSF]

Castro Ped Plaza Launches Amid Much Sitting, Strolling



Look at these people, sitting and standing impudently in middle of the street. The city launched its newly pedestrianized stretch of 17th Street today in the Castro, and Streetsblog has words and pics from the scene. [Streetsblog, previously]

Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/05/13...ch_sitting_strolling.php#reader_comments

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

BART board moves ahead on Oakland airport link

I read this article this morning. Although still competitive with the cost for one day of parking at the airport, it seems that the round-trip fare of $12 would significantly decrease potential ridership.

Los Angeles was looking at raising the fees for parking and the tax on rental cars at the airport to pay for the extension of Green Line to LAX (http://www.argonautnewspaper.com/articles/2008/04/10/news_-_features/lax/l1.txt ). I think that BART needs to look at similar financing other than charging riders $12 for each round-trip if it wants to have many passengers.

Doubling the current price does seem absurd. My personal opinion is that the airport should be made to pay for more of this project if they want it so bad. They can then find ways of paying for their share through increased parking prices, etc. This really isn't going to benefit the BART system all that much. How many people are really turned off by the current $3 AirBART bus, but would be willing to pay $6 each way for a fancy train? Not many, I would guess - if they're not riding BART to the airport now, they probably aren't going to at any point, especially as the price increases. At $6 each way, I would consider using a shuttle instead, as the total price for BART wouldn't be that much less - and I wouldn't have to walk to the BART station from my apartment (and I use AirBART at least 15 times a year, I would guess).

[BTinSF]

Making sense out of Market Street
C.W. Nevius
Saturday, May 23, 2009

Those who want to change Market Street say they hope to make the San Francisco's main thoroughfare less convenient for drivers.

Less convenient? Is that even possible?

Anyone who has lived in the city for 20 minutes knows that it is our version of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. It is jammed with traffic, cut up with trolley tracks, and leads drivers on a slalom run through delivery trucks and taxis. Market Street is the last place anyone wants to drive.

"We have data that shows that most people who are driving on Market now are on it accidentally," said Andy Thornley, program director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. "You have tourists who picked up their rental car, turned onto Market, and are yelling, How do I get off this damned street?' "

That's why the whole argument about banning cars on Market is a red herring. The real concern isn't deciding if we should allow people to drive on Market. There are bigger issues.

For starters, forget worrying about driving on Market. The key is to preserve a way to cross Market, to get from one side of the city to the other.

"That's Union Square merchants' real concern," said Carolyn Diamond, executive director of the Market Street Association. "How is this going to affect the north-south access?"

Mayor Gavin Newsom has some ideas about pilot projects, but he is taking it slow and easy, especially after the same objections were raised to "congestive pricing," where drivers would have been required to pay tolls to travel through certain parts of the city.

"That idea is on hold," Newsom said. "And I mean firmly on hold."

However, proponents of a Market Street remake think everyone, even business leaders, can be won over with some test projects. After all, they say, there was fierce opposition to closing the Embarcadero for the "Sunday Streets" project. But after the event has been staged a few times, the complaints have died down.

"I don't think anybody is considering corking Market Street," Thornley said. "To forbid cross traffic would really screw things up."

So once we get over the idea that groups are attempting to create a no-driving zone, we can settle into an area of agreement. Nearly everyone agrees Market isn't working now.

"I would definitely say Market Street does need some retuning," said Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of San Francisco's Planning and Urban Research Association. "It does not work well for cars, but it also doesn't work well for Muni or bikes, even though it is a primary model for both of them. I would say it works well for pedestrians. So we've got one out of four."

The important point is that some kind of a makeover of Market is coming no matter what. Ed Reiskin, director of the city Department of Public Works, said the street will definitely be repaved around "2013-ish," and he sees that as an opportunity for substantial change.

"I am hoping we get away from the 'close Market or don't close Market' arguments," Reiskin said. "I don't want it to turn into a fight over banning cars. That becomes polarizing."

Instead, say proponents, we should concentrate on public transit. Jose Luis Moscovich, executive director of the Transportation Authority, said he watches in frustration as cars block the islands where passengers board trolleys and buses. The cars, of course, are not supposed to be in the bus lanes.

"You need a line of demarcation that is beyond question," he said. "Even if it is a 2-inch curb, you should know that you should not be in there."

That leaves bikes. Militant bike activists can alienate local residents, but there's nothing wrong with trying to make Market more bike-friendly. I'd have no problem with a clearly defined, cordoned-off bike lane. A surprising number of bicyclists are braving Market's potholes, trolley tracks and maniac cabbies as it is. More would surely try it if it wasn't so chancy.

"We have to make people feel that bikes are not just for the maniacal or the very fit," said Moscovich.

So to review: Make sure cars can cross Market, give Muni a smoother run, and carve out a specific bike lane. Who's going to argue with that?

"I really think we are finding a consensus now," Reiskin said. "Now I just need to find some wood to knock on."

C.W. Nevius' column appears on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail him at [email protected].

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/23/BAPA17PFKR.DTL

[peanut gallery]

Pretty good article. I had to laugh at the point about being on Market accidentally. As someone who did that a couple of times as a young driver, I can definitely relate.

[OhioGuy]

On Monday, June 8th, the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit agrency (SMART) held a Constractor Symposium outlining information regarding the new commuter rail line approved by voters in those two counties. A Powerpoint slide presentation (PDF) is available on the agency's website. I've posted some of the information that I found interesting.

Train Schedule:
- 28 train runs per day, north & south
- frequency: every 30 minutes during peak times
- weekend service: 4 round-trips every Saturday & Sunday (I guess weekend getaways from the city will require being slaves to a minimal schedule... the commuter rail line between South Bend & Chicago increases its schedule substantially on weekends)

Project Timeline:
- Vehicle Selection: 2008-2009 (6-9 months)
- Strategic Plan: July, 2009
- Design and Engineering: 2009-2011 (24 months)
- Vehicle Procurement/Delivery: 2009-2013
- Construction: 2011-2014
- Revenue Service: Fall 2014

Vehicle options:
- Colorado Railcar compliant DMU (photo included in slides)
- Siemens non-compliant DMU (photo included in slides)

Other project activites:
- Working on fare structure/fare reciprocity agreements/service plan/transit integration issues

Funding:
• Decline in sales tax revenues has been greater than originally projected
• Debt capacity has declined
• Bond structuring requirements and interest rate levels are more difficult to predict
• Preparation of Strategic Plan required updated revenue and construction cost estimates
• Total construction cost estimate increased from $541 million to $590 million; a 9% increase
• Revised Strategic Plan assumptions:
• Sales tax revenues projected at $845 million, or $46 million less than estimated in 2008
• Bonding capacity estimated at $215 million, or $100 million less than estimated in 2008
• Construction costs estimate now $590 million, or $49 million greater than estimated in 2008
• Plan now requires $155 million in additional local, state and federal funds (eeek!)

• For now, the funding gap does not cause changes to project scope or schedule
• Over the next two years, SMART will:
o Complete final design and bid documents
o Identify funding to fully implement project
o Monitor credit markets to identify optimal time for bonding
o Prepare a Strategic Plan Update to document changing economic conditions