SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[ardecila]

Do all of the BART extensions within SF require a second Transbay Tube? I don't see why they can't redirect some trains from Daly City.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Do all of the BART extensions within SF require a second Transbay Tube? I don't see why they can't redirect some trains from Daly City.

No, the Geary, Presidio and West Loop proposals wouldn't--and remember, this is just brainstorming without final alignments set or any commitment to build from BART. That said, we've known for a long time that we'll eventually need a second set of underwater tunnels--and there has been some on-and-off commitment to that end over the years--so it would make sense to route any new SF extensions toward them rather than the current set.

[XtremeDave]

Originally Posted by fflint

No, the Geary, Presidio and West Loop proposals wouldn't--and remember, this is just brainstorming without final alignments set or any commitment to build from BART. That said, we've known for a long time that we'll eventually need a second set of underwater tunnels--and there has been some on-and-off commitment to that end over the years--so it would make sense to route any new SF extensions toward them rather than the current set.

If FRA regulation reforms and negotiations to use UPRR tracks in the East Bay (from Hercules to the Coliseum) can be accomplished, then the Geary, Presidio, West Loop lines and New Transbay Tube should be a separate network from current BART (though still owned/operated under the BART brand) and use standard gauge EMUs instead of the expensive BART broad-gauge rolling stock.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by XtremeDave

If FRA regulation reforms and negotiations to use UPRR tracks in the East Bay (from Hercules to the Coliseum) can be accomplished, then the Geary, Presidio, West Loop lines and New Transbay Tube should be a separate network from current BART (though still owned/operated under the BART brand) and use standard gauge EMUs instead of the expensive BART broad-gauge rolling stock.

Why?

[Gordo]

They'd be cheaper for one, or at least have the possibility of being cheaper (combining orders with other agencies, etc). I've never heard of an advantage of the BART broad gauge - we extend it simply because it's there. So if we're building lines that don't have to share trackage with other lines, why continue it? Is there an advantage that you've heard of?

[CharlesCO]

The only reason the broad gauge was chosen was so that the trains would be more stable in crosswinds over the Golden Gate Bridge. Otherwise, there's no real advantage over standard gauge. Considering that it makes almost everything BART builds 60% more expensive, it probably would be a good idea to consider standard gauge for future projects (as they have for eBART).

[fflint]

I recall reading the Indian guage was chosen because the trains would be traveling a maximum 80mph--far faster than any existing metro at the time--and would allow for better stability at high speed, especially in turns.

Anyway, we are all simply assuming EMUs on standard-guage track would be cheaper than current standards, and if that is true, I can see the argument for lower costs. The eBART line in the far East Bay will be using DMUs, and since that is the very edge of the system it makes sense--but it might not make sense in the core. I can see an argument for keeping the existing standards.

Extensions utilizing existing standards and fleets would allow for flexibile route configurations (e.g. a line that runs from Ocean Beach to Bay Point) that would not be possible with an entirely separate system. Also, with two incompatible railroads, riders who start their journey on one system but wish to exit on the other will necessarily be forced to make unnecessary and time-wasting transfers.

Retaining existing standards would also allow BART to continue sending any of the reserve consists (about 40 on any given weekday) to any route when and where needed--that flexibility would be lost with two incompatible fleets.

Failing to retain existing standards would also require BART to build entirely new and very expensive storage yards and garages, and staff them with their own separate (but equally well-paid) crews. Is there land available for entirely new yards and garages in the pricy Bay Area? How much would such construction and land acquisitions cost? Would these costs eliminate the assumed savings of running a separate EMU railroad?

Also, does anyone have data on how many passengers EMUs can carry? Currently, a crush-load ten-car BART consist can carry 2,000 riders. Can EMUs match that capacity?

[Gordo]

It'd be nice if a BART with standard gauge could share some of the facilities/staff/etc with a standard gauge Caltrain with EMUs (and potentially Capitol Corridor and/or other commuter lines at some point in the distant future). Probably not feasible politically though.

Just a quick search and it looks like there are many EMUs out there with 200+ capacity per car, though I'm not sure of the length compared to BART, etc. With BART having almost entirely 2+2 seating though, I can't imagine that it has higher capacity than most EMUs with more center-facing seating (assuming similar length of cars), even with the slightly wider build of the cars.

I certainly don't think that switching to standard gauge is any kind of slam dunk, but I would think that it should be considered. I don't understand the statement about transfers though - we're talking about entirely new lines. No additional transfers than would already be the case, unless your note is just that there wouldn't be the possibility of interlining the two systems. As far as storage yards and garages, I'd assume that we'd need most of that anyway for the additional lines. Every extension recently built has required a new yard and garages...

[Nouvellecosse]

But BART trains are EMUs. An EMU (electric multiple unit) car is any car that has electric motors in each car either on one or both axels (as opposed to unpowered coaches pulled by locomotive).

[BrennanW]

While I think converting new lines to standard gauge is a good idea, I don't think BART should switch to freight-rail sharing FRA-compliant EMUs like Denver is doing. BART should preserve its status as a heavy-rail hybrid rail line. If it uses existing rail right of ways, it should be grade-separated.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by fflint

SPUR put together this handy map showing potential expansions and upgrades under BART's "Metro Vision," including five infill stations in Oakland and two in San Francisco, station capacity expansions in downtown San Francisco and center city Oakland, and mid-route turnbacks that would allow for a more traditional "metro" service within the Bay Area's urban core. And a second transbay tube! We can dream... *le sigh*


source

awesome map and I'm glad to see they are thinking about the 680 corridor and I thought that Wbart was officially dead?

[Eightball]

why is there no north bay service on that expansion map? link up with smart?

[northbay]

Because Marin County doesn't want a train bringing in "undesirables"

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Eightball

why is there no north bay service on that expansion map? link up with smart?

I was told that it was because they would have had to tunnel too deeply to cross the Bay directly from the Embarcadero and that the route through Richmond and San Rafael was thought to be too out-of-the-way. I also read that although the Golden Gate Bridge was built to have a lower deck if necessary, they didn't go for that option for aesthetic reasons.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by northbay

Because Marin County doesn't want a train bringing in "undesirables"

[rawocd]

Honestly, I think BART's indian gauge was in its best interest. While the golden gate bridge idea was likely smart then, and irrelivant now, I still don't think the indian gauge is a bad thing.

It's easy to forget that despite the Broadway and Market St. Subways, BART looks and acts like commuter rail. While it might be the most european commuter rail in the US, its station spacing and far flung extensions mean its commuter rail. BART also has the only active rail crossing on the SF bay, and one of two active in the whole Bay Area(the other is the carquinez crossing for amtrak/UP.) This makes the transbay tube extremely valuable, and in most other commuter rail systems, at some point in its history, another agency would probably have tried to leverage it for its own uses. By running indian gauge, bart doesn't have to get into the Amtrak/NJ Transit/Metro North/LIRR fight for tunnel slots, because no one else will ever run anything that gauge for the tunnel.

Likewise, had BART been standard gauge I think we would have seen more attempts to reutilize old tracks. While that saves money, you end up with an inferior product with grade crossings, possibly hours of use restrictions ala NJ River Line, etc.

Support for BART has waned and waxed, and I'm convinced if it had been build as standard gauge commute rail, we would see others(Amtrak, UP) trying to get access to the only rail link into SF from across the bay. What the gauge increases in cost(and honestly, at this point it would be more expensive to change to standard or run a mixed fleet than continuing to build BART at indian) it more than makes up for in ensuring that BART is always run to the high standard of completely isolated, grade separated track.

Now, would it be great is SMART and BART linked up? Or if Caltrain and BART could share the tracks down the peninsula to make it easy to take the bayshore cutoff or the mission corridor into SF? Yes, and BART's technology choice makes those things impossible as it stands. But good connections and fare structures can cause things like that to become nonissues. Any NEW construction should be built to the BART tech.

[peanut gallery]

Originally Posted by northbay

Because Marin County doesn't want a train bringing in "undesirables"

For people interested in the actual history, here's the real reason BART never came to Marin.

Yes, a 1956 poll found 87.7 percent of Marin residents wanted BART in the county. BART leadership asked Marin to stay out because without San Mateo there wasn't enough tax base to justify the expense of running trains up north.

Similarly, people like to make the same disparaging claims about San Mateo's motivations for not joining BART, but my understanding is that their real concern was losing shoppers to SF. They were afraid of the trains taking people out of the county, not bringing others in.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by rawocd

BART looks and acts like commuter rail.

Even by this definition, it's the only commuter rail system in the US to use broad gauge.

By running indian gauge, bart doesn't have to get into the Amtrak/NJ Transit/Metro North/LIRR fight for tunnel slots, because no one else will ever run anything that gauge for the tunnel.

The only reason there's a fight is because the North River Tunnels are at the limits of capacity (and LIRR doesn't need to fight, since they only use the 4-track East River Tunnels).

On the other hand, you've just indicated the real problem here... it's not the BART gauge itself, but the fact that Bay Area rail systems are operated by so many different squabbling parties. New York obviously faces the same problem. That's really the thing I would change if I could go back in time, but it's not like San Franciscans can't change it in the present.

Likewise, had BART been standard gauge I think we would have seen more attempts to reutilize old tracks. While that saves money, you end up with an inferior product with grade crossings, possibly hours of use restrictions ala NJ River Line, etc.

I don't really see why this is a bad thing. The grade crossings issue exists separately from the track gauge issue... if BART wanted to avoid grade crossings, they could grade-separate existing corridors just as easily as constructing new viaducts. On the other hand, extensions out to low-density suburbs don't need grade separation. It's a waste of money. Arguably, the BART extension to San Jose doesn't even need it, but planners are forced into it by the decision to use BART technology.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

For people interested in the actual history, here's the real reason BART never came to Marin.

Yes, a 1956 poll found 87.7 percent of Marin residents wanted BART in the county. BART leadership asked Marin to stay out because without San Mateo there wasn't enough tax base to justify the expense of running trains up north.

Similarly, people like to make the same disparaging claims about San Mateo's motivations for not joining BART, but my understanding is that their real concern was losing shoppers to SF. They were afraid of the trains taking people out of the county, not bringing others in.

Interesting article, thanks for posting. I was just being facetious. I apologize PG if I was offensive with the negative stereotype. We laid-back "country bumpkins" up here in Sonoma can't help but poke some fun, speaking of which,

Funny pic fflint.

Back to BART, I had no idea that San Mateo's withdrawal forced Marin's hand. Very unfortunate the system didn't reach its potential. I wonder if the idea of a floating tunnel has been studied. Seems like this would be a good place for one.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by ardecila

On the other hand, extensions out to low-density suburbs don't need grade separation. It's a waste of money.

How many third-rail systems in America have miles and miles of at-grade intersections? I'm sure there must be some, probably legacy commuter rail in suburban New York and/or Chicago, but in any case that seems like a dicey proposition when planning an extension in the Bay Area in 2013.

Arguably, the BART extension to San Jose doesn't even need it, but planners are forced into it by the decision to use BART technology.

I very much disagree with you. BART to San Jose will run in a dense and very congested corridor, not unlike Caltrain on the other side of the Bay. Caltrain service is constantly being shut down, sometimes for hours and in both directions, because people just can't keep off the mostly at-grade tracks. BART's grade-separation from cars and pedestrians is literally *the* reason it is so reliable. And again, running third rail at grade through congested and built-up areas like the inner East Bay and South Bay seems like a recipe for service disruptions, deaths and lawsuits.