SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[dimondpark]

BART getting closer to San Jose...

Luke Stangle Reporting
[email protected]

SAN JOSE - The effort to bring BART to San Jose took another step forward Wednesday as the State Transportation Commission voted to release the next $50-million dollars for the Warm Springs extension.

The money would be spent to stretch BART another 5-and-a-half miles from it's current end-point in Fremont out to the Warm Springs District, even closer to the Santa Clara County line.

A big part of this latest round of funding will be spent to tunnel under Fremont's Lake Elizabeth.

The Warm Springs extension will be the next leg of an extension that will eventually lead to Milpitas, Berryessa and on into downtown San Jose.

http://kliv.com/BART-getting-closer-to-San-Jose---/6119529

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Im gonna have to side with Pleasanton on this one. Keep BART along 580 just like it is along 24. Its probably cheaper, will cause far less of a construction headache for residents and you wont have to chop up neighborhoods-plus many of Pleasanton's ritziest neighborhoods would fight tooth and nail and this would delay or even nix the project altogether.

Especially if BART is going to go thru Ruby Hill, which is fast becoming NorCal's version of Westlake Village.

The question is really whether downtown Livermore should be a destination. If so, leaving the 580 median will be necessary, and there could potentially be some good traffic heading out to Livermore, from Pleasanton/Dublin especially. If not, I question the need to extend the line any further. Just build a bigger parking garage in Dublin. It's not like any of the capacity problems on 580 are between Livermore and Pleasanton - they're all east of Livermore or west of Pleasanton. I'm not big on spending billions just to give a few thousand people in Livermore a ten minute drive to the parking garage rather than a 20 minute drive. Without a station in a walkable area of some type (meaning that station is a destination), the extension is merely adding a couple more park and rides.

I have many problems with the San Jose extension, but at least it is adding some actual destinations.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Gordo

The question is really whether downtown Livermore should be a destination. If so, leaving the 580 median will be necessary, and there could potentially be some good traffic heading out to Livermore, from Pleasanton/Dublin especially. If not, I question the need to extend the line any further. Just build a bigger parking garage in Dublin. It's not like any of the capacity problems on 580 are between Livermore and Pleasanton - they're all east of Livermore or west of Pleasanton.

I've never been to or seen "beautiful downtown Livermore". Anybody got any pictures so we can understand this issue? What do the neighborhoods to be served look like? Are they just typical suburbia or is there any density (or possibility of transit-related development) to them?

I do disagree that there are no congestion problems on 580 between Livermore and Pleasanton. When I travel that stretch, usually early on a Saturday evening, it's darned heavy traffic though not heavy enough to go bumper to bumper. I can only imagine during rush hour on weekdays though.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I've never been to or seen "beautiful downtown Livermore". Anybody got any pictures so we can understand this issue? What do the neighborhoods to be served look like? Are they just typical suburbia or is there any density (or possibility of transit-related development) to them?

I can see the lawsuits now. The proposed path if BART were to actually go into Livermore crosses near several very expensive housing developments. Think faux tuscany complete with vineyards. Not to mention Lawrence Livermore Labs is right there too.

As for Downtown Livermore,
its actually become a bit trendy.




They really are trying.

I do disagree that there are no congestion problems on 580 between Livermore and Pleasanton. When I travel that stretch, usually early on a Saturday evening, it's darned heavy traffic though not heavy enough to go bumper to bumper. I can only imagine during rush hour on weekdays though.

Its really bad. 580 congestion has been written about in the NYT its so bad.

I personally would rather see BART ring the bay and go out to surrounding counties than an HSR from NorCal and SoCal.

[CityKid]

Has anyone looked into the amount of money wasted, the inefficiency, and the logistical problems associated with having so many separate transit agencies in the Bay Area? I can't imagine that they communicate much with each other leading to scheduling conflicts. Further, they probably duplicate resources unnecessarily such as routes, equipment, down to administrative personnel. Then there's the problems of branding and the public's familiarity with the varying systems (Muni, BART, AC Transit, SamTrans, Golden Gate Transit, etc...) Not everyone is as enthusiastic or comfortable figuring out how to use these systems as many people on this forum. I'd really be curious to see how much could be saved and how much more comfortable people would feel if at least all of the light rail and buses were operated under one company?

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I do disagree that there are no congestion problems on 580 between Livermore and Pleasanton. When I travel that stretch, usually early on a Saturday evening, it's darned heavy traffic though not heavy enough to go bumper to bumper. I can only imagine during rush hour on weekdays though.

Oh, I didn't mean that it was free-flowing. However, there are no bottlenecks between Livermore and Pleasanton. Unless you're taking people off from going over Altamont Pass (which this doesn't do) or from going between Dublin and Oakland (which this does not do, since anyone can currently jump off the freeway in Dublin and park there) or going north/south on 680 (which this does not do), you're not really doing much to quell congestion.

If there is a valid destination station being built, the argument can be that you're linking places that need to be linked. If you're simply building another park and ride station, I think you need either A. an argument that it will decrease congestion at a current bottleneck or B. an argument that current stations/parking structures are at or near capacity, or will be soon. Neither is even remotely the case, and I find it hard to believe that there is any amount of ridership looking to go between a freeway median station in Pleasanton or Dublin and a freeway median station in Livermore OR that there is a large amount of potential ridership from people in Livermore who WON'T use BART now with the drive to the parking structure in Pleasanton/Dublin, but WILL with a parking structure in Livermore.

[sf_eddo]

Originally Posted by CityKid

Has anyone looked into the amount of money wasted, the inefficiency, and the logistical problems associated with having so many separate transit agencies in the Bay Area? I can't imagine that they communicate much with each other leading to scheduling conflicts. Further, they probably duplicate resources unnecessarily such as routes, equipment, down to administrative personnel. Then there's the problems of branding and the public's familiarity with the varying systems (Muni, BART, AC Transit, SamTrans, Golden Gate Transit, etc...) Not everyone is as enthusiastic or comfortable figuring out how to use these systems as many people on this forum. I'd really be curious to see how much could be saved and how much more comfortable people would feel if at least all of the light rail and buses were operated under one company?

There's always the question of "what if" we had a real regional agency. We probably had the most chance when BART was formed in the 50s but even as a region, we couldn't agree on BART. The MTC serves as our regional planning and funding agency but operates no service.

And the public transportation that we have is exactly the public transportation that we as the 9-county have voted for - fractured and not willing to give up one area's independence for fear of favor over another. Even AC Transit is not Alameda County specific - it represents a special district which includes both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. And for the life of me, I have NO idea why Tri Delta and County Connection and WestCAT don't merge into one agency.

Did you also know the Santa Rosa, Hayward, Vacaville, and other random cities in the Bay Area also operate their own transit systems. Even Rio Vista operates the Rio Vista Delta Breeze, which carries a massive average of 4 riders a day.

[sf_eddo]

from http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/01/15/mta-proposes-cuts-to-every-muni-line-to-close-16-9-budget-gap/

MTA Proposes Cuts to Every Muni Line to Close $16.9 Budget Gap

by Michael Rhodes on January 15, 2010
4254526368_18462e94ef.jpgFlickr photo: Justin.Beck

The MTA is proposing broad-ranging service cuts to Muni in order to close a $16.9 projected budget gap through the end of the fiscal year. The cuts - far greater in scope than the service changes implemented in December - will reduce frequencies on every Muni line and, if they're approved by the agency's Board, will be coupled with fare increases on services including the F-line, express routes, and cable cars. Numerous additional changes are proposed, including charging MTA employees for parking.

After alluding to possible further service changes on several occasions, the MTA made the proposal for cuts official with the release of a budget document (PDF) that will be presented at Tuesday's MTA Board meeting. Under the proposal, peak service headways would increase by somewhere in the range of one to two minutes on rapid and express bus lines, one to five minutes on local bus lines, and five to ten minutes on community bus lines, with rapid rail frequencies unchanged. Midday and late evening headways would increase by anywhere from one to five minutes on rapid and express bus lines, one to five minutes on rapid rail lines, two to ten minutes on local bus lines, and five to ten minutes on community bus lines.

MTA spokesperson Judson True said the cuts would go in place as soon as May 1 if the agency's Board approves them at their March 2 meeting. All told, the cuts would save the agency $4.8 million in the current fiscal year, and $28.5 million annually, by eliminating 313,000 service hours each year.

The rest of the $16.9 million gap would be made up with a package of changes that includes a $3 increase to F-Line historic streetcar cash fares, new requirements for express bus and cable car riders to use a premium $70 monthly pass instead of the cheaper $60 pass, increases in discount pass prices to $30, and an increase in the residential parking permit fee from $96 from $76. The agency is also hoping for labor concessions that could save $10 million annually and $700,000 this budget year, which would also include changes to work rules.

MTA employees would start paying for parking at work, bringing in $200,000 for the agency this fiscal year, and Muni customers would pay an credit card fee for online transactions, while customers visiting the MTA's customer service center would pay transaction fees for services that are also available online. Citation costs would also increase by $1.50 across the board, and the MTA will seek $7 million in Prop K sales tax funds from the SFCTA "maintenance and state of good repair to ensure FTA compliance and system performance," according to the budget presentation.

The glaring omission from the proposals was an extension of parking meter hours, something MTA staff presented on last year, and which a staff study said could bring in millions to the agency while improving the city's parking management. "It's not part of the staff recommendation for Tuesday," said MTA spokesperson Judson True.

Many of the proposed changes require Board of Supervisor approval, and none are a done deal, so there should be a significant amount of debate in the coming months on how the Board will proceed. Some further details of how each line will be affected should be available on Tuesday, said True.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Oh, I didn't mean that it was free-flowing. However, there are no bottlenecks between Livermore and Pleasanton. Unless you're taking people off from going over Altamont Pass (which this doesn't do) or from going between Dublin and Oakland (which this does not do, since anyone can currently jump off the freeway in Dublin and park there) or going north/south on 680 (which this does not do), you're not really doing much to quell congestion.

Seems to me that taking BART over the Altamont Pass and into Tracy would be a much better part of their plan for expansion. The number one destination of drivers on 580 is the Tri Valley anyway and most large office parks have free shuttles to and from BART stations.

[fflint]

Rush-hour Muni service cuts; no extension of parking meter hours. Another brilliant expression of MTA's "Transit Last" policy.

I'll say it again: get a bicycle and save the $70 monthly cost of rapidly declining transit 'service.'

[BTinSF]

If they just eliminate Muni entirely, they'll save a lot more money . . . and San Francisco will become unlivable.

This is idiocy. Raise the sales tax 1/4 cent or something. Or as I've repeatedly said, find a way to make everybody who rides pay.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by sf_eddo

There's always the question of "what if" we had a real regional agency. We probably had the most chance when BART was formed in the 50s but even as a region, we couldn't agree on BART. The MTC serves as our regional planning and funding agency but operates no service.

And the public transportation that we have is exactly the public transportation that we as the 9-county have voted for - fractured and not willing to give up one area's independence for fear of favor over another. Even AC Transit is not Alameda County specific - it represents a special district which includes both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. And for the life of me, I have NO idea why Tri Delta and County Connection and WestCAT don't merge into one agency.

Did you also know the Santa Rosa, Hayward, Vacaville, and other random cities in the Bay Area also operate their own transit systems. Even Rio Vista operates the Rio Vista Delta Breeze, which carries a massive average of 4 riders a day.

even petaluma has a transit agency, and im pretty sure theres one in sonoma too.

anyway, the mtc should become the regional transit authority (like tri-met in portland, which covers three counties) with members from each county represented and funds released based on population.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by fflint

I'll say it again: get a bicycle and save the $70 monthly cost of rapidly declining transit 'service.'

Unfortunately, that doesn't work for everyone. Some people are disabled or just old.

I'm in the latter category but, alas, not yet old enough for a senior fare.

For some time now, my solution has been a 2-wheeled vehicle but a motorized one.

[fflint]

When I address forumers I'm assuming they aren't senior citizens, because forum demographics skew young. Obviously old people aren't going to bike. If younger people do, however, there will be more room on the bus and train for those who have no alternatives. As frequency declines and lines are cut, believe me--you're going to need all the space you can get on Muni.

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Unfortunately, that doesn't work for everyone. Some people are disabled or just old.

I'm in the latter category but, alas, not yet old enough for a senior fare.

For some time now, my solution has been a 2-wheeled vehicle but a motorized one.

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by fflint

When I address forumers I'm assuming they aren't senior citizens, because forum demographics skew young. Obviously old people aren't going to bike. If younger people do, however, there will be more room on the bus and train for those who have no alternatives. As frequency declines and lines are cut, believe me--you're going to need all the space you can get on Muni.

Of course more room on the bus and train means fewer people paying fares means less revenue means service gets even worse.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by mwadswor

Of course more room on the bus and train means fewer people paying fares means less revenue means service gets even worse.

We get service cuts even when Muni ridership increases--ours was one of the only agencies to actually gain victims, er, riders this past year. Yet lines are shut and even rush-hour service is being culled.

If you want to encourage everyone to continue to suffer Muni's degraded system and spiraling costs, be my guest. I will continue to point out a viable alternative for many current Muni victims who have had enough.

[dimondpark]

Design ideas begin to form for SMART trains
By Mark Prado
Posted: 01/13/2010 06:13:04 PM PST

Decisions, decisions.

Officials with Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit are trying to figure out just how the inside of their trains will look, and they held a workshop in San Rafael Wednesday to hear from the public.

Among the design issues pondered: Cloth seats or leather-like seats? A permanent snack bar or rolling cart? Face-to-face or row seating? Are work tables needed? Where to put bike racks - should they be hanging or at floor level? Should rows of seats be two-by-two or two-by-three?

"This is the fun part, we get to go shopping," said Debora Fudge, who headed SMART's Operation Committee that met at the San Rafael Corporate Center.

The agency will have little say on the design of the exterior, although it will request a sleek "aerodynamic" front end, versus a box shape.

What the agency will have a say on is the interior of the trains, and it wanted to get the public's thoughts. Committee members made no final decisions at Wednesday's meeting.

Steve Birdlebough, of the group Friends of SMART, wants to see the trains with rows of seats two-by-two, instead of two-by-three, to allow for more aisle space.

"Otherwise it's just too cramped a feeling, like an airplane," he said. "We need to have sufficient space for bicycles, too. There are going to be a lot of people riding to the train and then riding from the train to their work."

Mill Valley resident Walter Strakosch wondered if it was better not to have restrooms on the trains and instead have them at stations in order to create more seating on board.

"It will take up at least six seats on board and perhaps more to have a restroom," he said. "That is a lot of seats to lose, especially when the service becomes more popular."

SMART has set aside $88 million for the design, construction and delivery of the cars for the system. Unlike traditional trains with huge locomotives pulling long lines of passenger cars, the SMART vehicles will be self-propelled units with the engines placed underneath passenger compartments.

That allows for compact trains, generally two cars operating together in a "married pair" that seats about 150 passengers and is about 150 to 170 feet long. SMART's specifications likely will require manufacturers to provide a third car that can be added, increasing the seating capacity to 225. The agency will order a maximum of 22 cars.

Development of vehicle specifications, which will include public comment, is expected to be complete by the end of March. Bids will be due around Oct. 1, 2010. The first vehicles should arrive in the North Bay for testing on the SMART corridor in fall 2013.

SMART is expecting to start rail service in 2014 on a 70-mile route between Cloverdale and Larkspur. Voters in Sonoma and Marin counties approved a quarter-cent sales tax to fund the project in November 2008.

To submit ideas on train design, send e-mail to [email protected] or write to SMART, 750 Lindaro St., Suite 200, San Rafael 94901.

http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_14183455

Their logo:


Map from tunneltalk.com


An old rendering from the North Bay Council.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Seems to me that taking BART over the Altamont Pass and into Tracy would be a much better part of their plan for expansion. The number one destination of drivers on 580 is the Tri Valley anyway and most large office parks have free shuttles to and from BART stations.

That idea has some merit, though I think that the best solution would be to have conventional rail of some type (DMU's perhaps, like those for SMART) run from Tracy to Dublin. BART tech is just too expensive (billions and billions and billions) to run all the way to Tracy for the amount of riders that it would generate - especially since the ridership would likely be overwhelmingly at commute times. Also, a conventional rail upgrade would have the option of running service from Tracy to Dublin, as well as Tracy to SJ (current ACE service). A BART connection from Tracy to San Jose would be too long and basically useless, unless top speeds could be increased or trains made more comfortable (like the ACE trains) with tables, electrical outlets, restrooms, etc (unless a BART 680 line was built connecting the Tri-Valley area with SJ, but you're talking $15 billion+ for that).

It would probably be cheaper to just build an additional lane in each direction over Altamont, make it HOV, and run buses every 5 minutes to Dublin BART than to build full-fledged BART.

[peanut gallery]

Hold on there, BART...

Oakland airport connector could lose $70 million
Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 20, 2010

BART and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission could lose $70 million in federal stimulus funds to build the Oakland Airport Connector unless the agencies quickly complete an analysis of whether the project adversely affects minority communities.

Transit advocates and social justice groups have argued for the past year that BART needs to do such an analysis, and consider less-costly alternatives to the 3.2-mile automated rail link between the Oakland Coliseum BART Station and Oakland International Airport. But BART and the commission said it was not necessary to do an analysis, and that similar studies had been done as part of the environmental review for the project.

...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/20/BAQH1BKTTM.DTL

I assume the study they want to perform is on the economic impact (higher fares) this new extension would have on minority communities? Because I don't believe this would run through any residential areas.

[202_Cyclist]

BART's Oakland Airport Connector Plan Risks $70 Million in Stimulus Funds

Cutler, Joyce
BNA's Transportation Watch

SAN FRANCISCO An estimated $70 million in federal stimulus funds is at risk because the Bay Area Rapid Transit District failed to respond to federal concerns about the effect on low-income riders of extending the rapid transit system to Oakland International Airport.

Results from a Title VI environmental justice compliance review showed the transit agency failed to conduct an equity analysis for service and fare changes to the project, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Director Peter Rogoff said in a Jan. 15 letter to BART and MTC.

BART staff admitted the agency failed to integrate environmental justice requirements considering whether the project and service reductions would have a discriminatory impact, Rogoff said.

MTC and BART must now face a choice between continuing to pursue federal funds for the Project (which will require immediate corrective action of the Title VI non-compliance) or committing [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] funds to alternative projects in the Bay Area, Rogoff said.

Up Next
If BART and MTC want the funds for the airport project, the agencies have until March 5 to conduct an analysis about the impacts of route and span of service changes, alternative modes of transit available for those affected by the changes, including travel time and cost, and documented evidence of steps taken to seek out and consider viewpoints of minority and low-income residents in developing the policy.

BART in a Jan. 20 statement said it looks forward to the FTA quickly clarifying exactly what information it needs the agency can promptly take the additional required action.

And the March 5 deadline is a firm one set by Congress, Richard Marcantonio, managing attorney for the nonprofit Public Advocates that filed a complaint which prompted the review, said Jan. 21.

BART for years has considered extending the trains 3.2 miles to the airport from the Oakland Coliseum station instead of using bus shuttles. Low-income advocates argue funds should be spent to better provide service for daily users who depend on the service rather than for those destined for the airport.

MTC Perspective
The goal is to keep the money in the Bay area, MTC spokesman Randy Rentschler said Jan. 21. We have a Plan B for everything so it never leaves the Bay Area.

We're hopeful that BART can meet these new measures that FTA is seeking and BART claims they're confident they can do so, and we're going to have that decision Wednesday next week, he told BNA.

The commission meets Jan. 27, and commissioners will take an action almost certainly, Rentschler said.

BART Perspectives
BART said it over the past decade has diligently worked with the FTA to meet all its requirements and as a result, the FTA has consistently signed off on every aspect of the Oakland Airport Connector.

BART authorized awarding contracts based on the FTA's consistent support, the agency said. However, the FTA's 11th hour requirement for further Title VI analysis places additional hurdles prior the award of Stimulus funds.

The agency said it held 25 dozen public outreach meetings and provided FTA with overwhelming documentation that clearly shows BART has always been and will continue to be committed to providing non-discriminatory, equitable, accessible and safe public transportation to all the Bay Area residents we serve.

Jobs
The airport project is expected to employ up to 5,200 workers, including jobs in the construction, electrical, steel fabrication, and other building trades that are experiencing unemployment rates in excess of 30 percent, BART said.

But Marcantonio said that it's not a question of transit jobs versus construction jobs. It's a question of transit jobs or no jobs for the Bay Area because if that money doesn't go to the transit jobs, it's going to be lost. It's going to go to another region.

The MTC last February, over objections from nonprofit groups, approved allocating $70 million of the $340 in federal stimulus act funds to the Oakland airport project. Public Advocates, Urban Habitat, Transform, and the interfaith group Genesis in September filed a complaint with the FTA.

As far as we know this is the first time that civil rights issues have resulted in stimulus funds being withheld, so the message that the Obama administration is open for civil rights goes beyond the Bay. It goes beyond the Department of Transportation, Marcantonio told BNA.