SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[BTinSF]

More streetcars rolling out means new line possible
By: WILL REISMAN
Examiner Staff Writer
06/14/09 10:18 PM PDT

Muni’s streetcar fleet includes historic trolleys made in San Francisco and Philadelphia that are painted to look like they were made in cities around the nation. (Cindy Chew/The Examiner)

There should soon be more streetcars hitting tracks in The City — and also carrying passengers to a new
destination.

As a way to help adapt to the growing number of passengers on its historic streetcars, Muni is expected to add 16 newly rehabilitated vehicles to its fleet.

The number of passengers on the F-Market/Wharves line has doubled since 2000, from 10,000 to 20,000 daily boardings. And with plans to add a second streetcar line, the Municipal Transportation Agency is likely to receive approval Tuesday from its board of directors for an $18 million project to rehabilitate some of the streetcars that have already been purchased.

The addition to the F line will increase Muni’s historic streetcar fleet from 24 to 40 that are regularly used for service, according to transit agency documents. The $18 million project is expected to be awarded to Pennsylvania-based Brookville Equipment Corp., which will fix up the streetcars during a five-year period.

With the additional streetcars, Muni would have enough vehicles to run the E-Embarcadero line, a proposed route that would take passengers from the Caltrain station at Fourth and King streets to Fisherman’s Wharf, according to transit agency spokeswoman Kristen Holland.

Of the streetcars set to be restored, 11 were purchased in 2004 from a New Jersey transit organization. The work includes exterior and interior painting, accessibility improvements and electrical advances that will allow for the use of Translink cards, according to the transit agency.

Funding for the project has already been secured from local and federal sources, transit agency documents said.

Source: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/48038137.html

[electricron]

From http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/200...rd-weighs-American-vs-European-rail-cars
Excerpts:
Rail car manufacturers made pitches to the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District on Wednesday, June 24, 2009, hoping to sell directors on their technology as the deadline to choose a rail car nears.
“You had several presentations, you had several sales pitches,” said SMART executive director Lillian Hames, who promised the board a staff recommendation at its July 15 meeting.

The board is choosing between heavy-weight, American-style rail cars that meet federal safety and pollution standards that take effect in 2012 and European-style cars that would require a waiver from federal railroad regulators. The European-designed cars could not run at the same time as freight trains.

Board members were disappointed with the ride quality of the only American-style train they tested, which is being operated in Portland, Ore.

Three companies made presentations arguing for the heavier American-style cars.

Hoping to allay fears about the cars’ ride quality, Siemens vice president Robin Stimson told the board the Portland car was made by now-defunct Colorado Railcar, was poorly crafted and that the car built by his company is a better alternative.

Representatives from Brookville Equipment Corp. of Brookville, Pa., and Nippon Sharyo USA of Arlington Heights, Ill., also made presentations of their American-style trains.

The only company at the meeting that said it would produce the lighter cars was Stadler of Switzerland, which makes the cars for the European market and recently branched into the United States.

It has made cars for a rail system in Austin, Texas, which is waiting for federal rail regulators to approve it for operation. It also has the contract to provide cars for a new system in Denton, Texas.

Marius Schmidt of Stadler said the lighter cars will meet all U.S. regulations except for crash and safety, which he said is addressed with an energy-absorbing crash system.

The board has set a meeting for 12:30 p.m. on July 15 in the Sonoma County supervisors’s chambers to make a final decision.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by Gordo

...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.

i think you're wrong. i almost never fly from oakland anymore because the bart -> airbart experience is miserable. it adds enough time to the trip to make it ineffective for myself, my wife, and all of my colleagues that routinely fly during the business day.

i take bart to sfo perhaps 20 times a year. when i fly out of oakland, if i absolutely have to, i usually end up driving. airport shuttles are also a major PITA with their multiple stops, absurdly early arrivals, and traffic hassles.

the problem with this proposal is the price, imo - but unless it's absolutely horribly designed and run, it should increase ridership to coliseum station and get some cars off the road... alternately, it may just move southwest/jetblue/virgin passengers from sfo to oak.

[CHapp]

There's an article by John Kenyon on Oakland's new Cathedral in the Berkeley Daily Planet:

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue...d-s-New-Cathedral-Transforms-Lake-s-Edge

Makes for quite enjoyable reading.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by mthd

i think you're wrong. i almost never fly from oakland anymore because the bart -> airbart experience is miserable. it adds enough time to the trip to make it ineffective for myself, my wife, and all of my colleagues that routinely fly during the business day.

What have been your problems? I just used it on Friday for probably the 15th time this year - never had any problems, bus is almost always close to full (at least 15 passengers), never takes more than 15 minutes, usually less than 10. I'm just curious what problems you've run into, because I've seriously never had a severe problem and I use it all the time.

i take bart to sfo perhaps 20 times a year. when i fly out of oakland, if i absolutely have to, i usually end up driving. airport shuttles are also a major PITA with their multiple stops, absurdly early arrivals, and traffic hassles.

Yeah, airport shuttles suck. BART to SFO works ok, but SFO is so much more inconvenient to me. I almost never get delayed coming into or going out of Oakland, but I do at least 20% of the time for SFO. There are also a lot more Southwest flights to the cities I go to the most (Seattle, Portland, Vegas, all over Southern California, Phoenix, Denver, Austin) from Oakland, so that's a biggie for me - if I can catch an earlier flight home, I usually have a flight every hour into Oakland, where maybe only one every 90 minutes or two hours into SFO.

Also, getting from where BART drops off at SFO (International Terminal) to the Southwest gates takes me nearly as long as AirBART takes to get from the Coliseum to OAK (either by walking or by waiting for and then taking the Airtrain thing), and the security check-in for the Southwest gates is literally right inside the door from the AirBART dropoff at OAK. This advantage applies to all passengers at OAK, since the security counters for both terminals are right inside the door from the dropoff point. The only time that you're close to security at SFO is if you're flying out of the G gates. There really isn't any way that a people mover into OAK could get you closer to the gates than the bus does now, which can be a huge part of the total travel time.

the problem with this proposal is the price, imo - but unless it's absolutely horribly designed and run, it should increase ridership to coliseum station and get some cars off the road... alternately, it may just move southwest/jetblue/virgin passengers from sfo to oak.

Yeah, price is the biggie. It's high by about 10 times it's worth, IMO. A lot more passengers could be gained for the price doing many other things.

[electricron]

SMART decides to use FRA compliant trains.
RFP for the FRA compliant DMUs to be released later this year.

Looks like SMART might receive three responses.
(1) Nippon Sharyo
(2) Siemens
(3) Brookline Manufacturing

The Stadler GTW non FRA compliant DMUs aren't going to be selected.
Good luck SMART!

[mthd]

Originally Posted by Gordo

What have been your problems? I just used it on Friday for probably the 15th time this year - never had any problems, bus is almost always close to full (at least 15 passengers), never takes more than 15 minutes, usually less than 10...

Yeah, airport shuttles suck. BART to SFO works ok, but SFO is so much more inconvenient to me. I almost never get delayed coming into or going out of Oakland, but I do at least 20% of the time for SFO...

Also, getting from where BART drops off at SFO (International Terminal) to the Southwest gates takes me nearly as long as AirBART takes to get from the Coliseum to OAK (either by walking or by waiting for and then taking the Airtrain thing), and the security check-in for the Southwest gates is literally right inside the door from the AirBART dropoff at OAK...

hmmm. i'm perplexed by your experience of airbart. every single time my wife, myself, my colleagues, friends, family, etc, have a choice of sfo vs oak nearly the first thing anyone says about oak is how much airbart sucks. when my family comes into town from socal if they fly into oakland, i pick them up or get them a cab whereas i never have any reservations suggesting they take bart from sfo. it has been about a year or two since i took airbart because i missed too many flights waiting for that stupid crowded bus, waiting for the driver to take off, and then waiting while they loop around from coliseum station to the airport in the most circuitous possible route. i've sat there and waited while potential passengers argued with the driver about how to pay and then waited while the passenger went back into the station to figure out how to buy a proper value bart ticket. i've had the bus arrive but there not be enough room on it for everyone and their luggage. i simply don't trust it, don't enjoy using it, and it takes longer.

i'm not sure how fast (slow?) you walk, but it's impossible that it takes as long as half an hour to get from the sfo bart station to any gate in the entire airport. i used to allow that long for the airbart experience and even doing so i missed a few flights. i almost always fly united, so that helps, but even so the distances aren't that different. the absolute worst gate on united domestic is 3,200 feet from the first car in the bart station. the most remote gate in terminal 1 is only 3,400 feet. taking into account peoplemovers (there are several on either of these routes) an average adult can make this walk in less than 10 minutes. the worst case at oaklnd is a bit over half this distance (1500 feet at the airport, a couple hundred feet in the station) for a difference of maybe 5 minutes. i don't see how it matters where the security gates are, unless they force you to backtrack. the big walk is to the gate itself, and your southwest gates at sfo (21, 23, 25) aren't the worst case at SFO - 2,800 feet from bart-sfo vs 1,800 feet + airbart trip for coliseum-OAK. that difference is maybe a four minute walk.

add to this that airbart is unpredictable. if you've gotta make the flight, you have to allow at least half an hour more for coliseum station to the gate than you would from the sfo bart station to the gate : that half mile walk within SFO is entirely predictable and there's no need to allow extra time. walking is walking.

[viewguysf]

I can't stand Airbart either and have definitely had some bad experiences with it. I will always avoid the Oakland Airport whenever possible. Having Southwest back at SFO has been great!

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by mthd

...2,800 feet from bart-sfo vs 1,800 feet + airbart trip for coliseum-OAK. that difference is maybe a four minute walk.

You're comparing the worst case scenario at Oakland to the only scenario at SFO. I would say that 50% of the time I'm in one of the Oakland gates that is right at the top of the escalator (meaning less than 200 feet from the door). There's also the fact that there are moving escalators in OAK and not at SFO. I honestly think that most people just assume that AirBART sucks because it's a bus (and an ugly one at that). I've got friends who drive to OAK and park in remote lots and wait for the remote lot shuttles for FAR longer than they would ever wait for AirBART, but their perception is still ironclad that somehow they're getting to the airport faster.

Regardless, even if I thought that AirBART was the disaster that you think it is, I would still believe that it's about the worst way possible for BART to spend $500 million. That much money gets you an infill station at San Antonio (with gobs to spare) that would generate many, many more riders. Airports are pretty lousy trip generators. The money that's being applied to the OAC does NOT have to be used for this purpose, so there isn't even the typical argument of "free money" that we'll lose if we don't use it on this.

Transbay Blog had a pretty good write up on the OAC:

http://transbayblog.com/2009/07/21/disconnect-the-connector/

[rs913]

What have been your problems? I just used it on Friday for probably the 15th time this year - never had any problems, bus is almost always close to full (at least 15 passengers), never takes more than 15 minutes, usually less than 10. I'm just curious what problems you've run into, because I've seriously never had a severe problem and I use it all the time.

I'm a little suspicious of your assessment too. I'll agree I can't remember the ride itself taking longer than 15 minutes (though usually closer to that than 10). But there are so many things that add on to the trip time, such as...

- Finding $3 in cash (which I sometimes don't have) or a $3 BART ticket (which I never have)
- Standing there until the bus arrives
- The time it takes everyone to board through one door and stow their luggage
- Waiting for the bus to get full and leave
- Weird delays, like if someone doesn't have change - the driver should just say "tough, wait for the next" but it doesn't happen
- And finally, getting off the bus, which is like getting out of a plane as everyone unstows their luggage

You're right that OAC is not the answer (the "RapidBART" idea in your link is much cheaper and would help with the above) but AirBART as it is, seems like a mess to me.

[Gordo]

I can definitely see your point with the cash thing - that can be annoying. On the other points, I guess I don't notice them that much because I've had equally annoying problems with BART at SFO. The frequency of AirBART is greater (every 10 min vs every 15 min), so waiting time should be less (though you do get to sit down on BART, since it's a terminal station).

I've missed the BART train at SFO currently leaving too many times to count waiting behind foreign tourists who can't figure out BART's ticket machines (which is not their fault - the machines are incredibly user-unfriendly and confusing), and it seems like at least one or two machines is always broken. Because of these problems, I guess that I would put the other problems that you've had somewhat on par with what I've had at SFO. Why are there more machines at the Coliseum station than SFO (where nearly every passenger is likely to need a ticket)? These are the problems that I'll never understand with BART, and some of the reasons I don't trust them to build a fancy half-billion dollar line to the airport that will actually be better (and cost me only twice as much) than the current bus. My guess is that it will end up costing $750 million, frequency on it will be cut to every 20 minutes, and fares will end up being $8 each way (and there will be one ticket machine at the airport).

[rs913]

Originally Posted by Gordo

I can definitely see your point with the cash thing - that can be annoying. On the other points, I guess I don't notice them that much because I've had equally annoying problems with BART at SFO. The frequency of AirBART is greater (every 10 min vs every 15 min), so waiting time should be less (though you do get to sit down on BART, since it's a terminal station).

I've missed the BART train at SFO currently leaving too many times to count waiting behind foreign tourists who can't figure out BART's ticket machines (which is not their fault - the machines are incredibly user-unfriendly and confusing), and it seems like at least one or two machines is always broken. Because of these problems, I guess that I would put the other problems that you've had somewhat on par with what I've had at SFO.

Ahhh...interesting. I guess I don't notice hassles at SFO since I have an "EZ Rider" card. If I didn't, it would be tougher. And you're right about BART running less frequently than AirBART.

How does AirBART work anyway? Are they supposed to leave the terminal every 10 minutes? Sometimes it seems like the bus sits there for ages before leaving for the BART station.

If the bus in the picture has more doors and is more luggage-friendly, it would be a big improvement.

[Gordo]

I think AirBART is supposed to leave the Coliseum station every ten minutes, just because I've never seen multiple buses waiting at the airport, but I have at the BART station. I'm not really sure though.

Agreed on the bus. Even just having a wider door would help considerably.

I've thought about getting an EZ rider card, but I pretty much only use BART to go to the airport (occasionally to Berkeley and Oakland, but not all that often). I've bought the high value tickets before, but twice they've become demagnetized in my wallet after a few weeks, which has meant dealing with an actual person at one of the stations (an adventure in itself), so I usually end up at the airport without a card and need to buy one.

[rs913]

I've bought the high value tickets before, but twice they've become demagnetized in my wallet after a few weeks, which has meant dealing with an actual person at one of the stations (an adventure in itself), so I usually end up at the airport without a card and need to buy one.

EZ Rider = totally worth it. As long as you don't mind having an extra card in your wallet. And especially worth it if you're losing high value tickets to demagnetization! I carry one in my wallet even though, like you, I'm just an occasional BART rider. You can just jump on and off the system with no hassles.

[BTinSF]

Friday, July 31, 2009
Funding approved for BART-airport connector
San Francisco Business Times - by Eric Young

After being derailed repeatedly, BART’s proposed elevated tram to Oakland International Airport is back on track.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a regional planning and funding organization, allocated $140 million to the project this week. In recent months the project got $70 million in federal stimulus money as well.

BART will apply for a $150 million low-interest loan from the U.S. Department of Transportation — the last chunk of money for the deal — but “the funding is essentially in place” for the approximately $520 million project to move ahead, said BART spokesman Linton Johnson.

BART is inviting companies to bid on contracts to design, build and operate the elevated tram that would run 3.2 miles between the airport and BART’s Coliseum/Airport station. Four groups, which BART declined to name, are mulling proposals, which are due Sept. 10.

Currently, BART operates a shuttle bus between the airport and the Coliseum/Airport station, which can take from 15 minutes to an hour depending on traffic. A tram would take only a few minutes, BART said.

BART’s plans for an Oakland airport connector, first envisioned in the 1970s, have been upended several times by design changes, labor concerns and funding gaps. The most recent problems flared up last year. BART was in talks with a consortium led by Merrill Lynch & Co. to provide financing for the deal. Those talks fell apart after the 2008 stock market crash.

Construction on the connector project could begin as soon as 2010 and be completed by 2013. Other funding for the project is coming from local sales tax, the Port of Oakland, the state and Bay Area bridge tolls.

Tram funding

BART has lined up money from the following sources to move ahead with its Oakland airport connector project.
$150 million: low interest federal loan.
$140 million: from Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
$89 million: from Alameda County sales tax.
$70 million: from federal stimulus act.
$44 million: from Port of Oakland.
$25 million: from Federal Transit Administration.
$21 million: state.
Source: BART.

[email protected] / (415) 288-4969

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/08/03/story16.html

[Gordo]

Good post from the Transbay Blog regarding the Oakland Airport Connector:

http://transbayblog.com/2009/08/13/is-th...od-tiger-tifia-project-part-1/#more-4687

I can't believe that we're seriously going to spend $550 million on this thing. That's more than Geary BRT and Van Ness BRT combined, for those of you keeping score (and will serve less than 10% as many daily riders, if you believe the wildly inflated estimates - my guess is that it will be more like 2-3%).

[Reminiscence]

I agree with Gordo. The BART connector, in my opinion, was not priority. I don't see this making itself a worthwhile investment for a good while. I would much have rather seen that money been spent on something that benefits many more people. $550 million is no small amount after all.

[northbay]

bart just sucks. (bart has about the same route miles as the washington metro, yet only half the ridership.) the airport connector is needed, but perhaps not the biggest priority. since funding is already secured, i say just go for it. but bart needs a change of vision. enough pointless expansions that'll attract few additional riders - lets build a geary and/or van ness subway - now THAT's talkin.

i know im preachin to the choir. bart just gets me goin i guess sometimes.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by northbay420

bart has about the same route miles as the washington metro, yet only half the ridership . . . . lets build a geary and/or van ness subway - now THAT's talkin.

I'd rather Muni built a Geary subway than BART. And remember that Washington has nothing like the equivalent of Muni. Combine the ridership of Muni's LRV system and BART, and I imagine it would exceed the Washington Metro. Besides, Washington is the national capital. It's inevitable the Congress is going to be willing to spend more money on the system they ride themselves.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I'd rather Muni built a Geary subway than BART. And remember that Washington has nothing like the equivalent of Muni. Combine the ridership of Muni's LRV system and BART, and I imagine it would exceed the Washington Metro.

Not so much. If you include the F line, total Muni rail ridership is 151,000. If you toss in the cable cars, that's another 22,000. BART ridership is 363,000.

WMATA Metrorail ridership is 987,000.

WMATA has 106.3 miles of track. BART has 104 miles of track. Muni has 71.5 miles of track (not including the cable cars).

And if we start talking about tossing in Muni bus stats to compare WMATA to BART, you'd need to toss in Metrobus stats too.

Besides, Washington is the national capital. It's inevitable the Congress is going to be willing to spend more money on the system they ride themselves.

Regarding costs, I don't have time to research the total costs right now, but I'd wager a guess that more has been spent on BART for capital expenses overall (converting everything to 2009 dollars) - some of that is to be expected - BART is in a seismic zone and required an extremely costly underwater tube, but much of it is because of poor planning. BART has spent less on operations over the years, but significantly more on operations costs per rider. Metro is just leaps and bounds more efficient than BART, in large part because the system has greater core coverage (meaning ridership peaks less) and suburban areas covered have (mostly) been upzoned around stations (significantly - we're talking 20 story towers or more in many places). In addition, the system has congestion pricing, which BART lacks.

Some of the inefficiencies of the BART system are really amazing when you think about it - we have a train leaving the Dublin/Pleasanton station every 15-20 minutes, 19 hours a day, every day of the week (total of 133 hours) even though more than 90% of the ridership falls in 20 (!!!) of those hours. An equivalent area like this in the DC area would likely be covered by MARC or VRE commuter rail only serving the station heavily during those 20 hours and having minimal service (if any) during the other times.

Had we followed the original BART plan sold to the populace with the tax, many of these problems wouldn't be nearly as bad. The original plan had a four track tube, with the "future extension" being Geary in SF. Instead, we got a two track tube with future extensions to Bay Point, Dublin/Pleasanton, and into San Mateo County, with the Santa Clara County extension coming soon. Comparing current extension plans of the two systems is even more depressing - the Silver Line for Metro will add 12 new stations and 23 miles of track for less than $2 billion. BART to SJ? More than $6 billion right now, but costs continue to rise (and that's for only eight stations at the moment, probably fewer by the time of actual construction).