HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1841  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2013, 1:09 PM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is offline
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: all over
Posts: 2,301
Yes, the constant suicides on Caltrain are a huge hinderance. The ongoing removal of at grade crossings should help some. Also excited about electrification.

I think East Bay to SJ will be a hit - those interstates are insanely crowded.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1842  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2013, 4:49 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by northbay View Post
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.
No worries, northbay. I should have prefaced my comment with a "ha ha" or something. It's a little depressing to realize what might have been. Not just for us North Bay folks, but imagine a BART subway running under most of Geary. That would have been huge for the Richmond, Western Addition, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1843  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2013, 10:39 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
No worries, northbay. I should have prefaced my comment with a "ha ha" or something. It's a little depressing to realize what might have been. Not just for us North Bay folks, but imagine a BART subway running under most of Geary. That would have been huge for the Richmond, Western Addition, etc.
It IS depressing! Couldn't agree more, and not just Geary, but 19th Ave and Van Ness also. All those streets are shown in that map. If Geary and 19th had BART, I think the Richmond District would look a lot different.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1844  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2013, 12:27 AM
MetroRailRoad MetroRailRoad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 49
I remember using the BART train when I was in San Francisco a few years ago,. I used the transbay tube multiple time to get to Berkley. I think considering the $4 toll on the Bay Bridge, I think it's worth it to pay the surcharge and take the BART to East Bay. It's European influence seems to work in the downtown San Francisco area. Easy transfer to the MUNI light Rail. Overall, the Bay Area has the best transit system out of all the cities I have been to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1845  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2013, 12:30 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroRailRoad View Post
I remember using the BART train when I was in San Francisco a few years ago,. I used the transbay tube multiple time to get to Berkley. I think considering the $4 toll on the Bay Bridge, I think it's worth it to pay the surcharge and take the BART to East Bay. It's European influence seems to work in the downtown San Francisco area. Easy transfer to the MUNI light Rail. Overall, the Bay Area has the best transit system out of all the cities I have been to.
The Bay Bridge toll is now up to $6 per car during busy times, a little less in off-hours. BART between San Francisco and the East Bay costs about the same (round trip), and is often faster than driving.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1846  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2013, 8:09 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,881
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1847  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2013, 5:58 AM
CityKid CityKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: BK,NY/SF,CA/LB,CA
Posts: 480
The 5L Fulton Pilot Project launched today. You can learn more about it at the TEP Pilot Project page.


Image courtesy of SFMTA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1848  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2013, 6:44 AM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is offline
Resu Deretsiger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Clearlake, CA Micropolitan Statistical Area
Posts: 17,172
The rail spur that SMART owns between 101/37 and American Canyon, what are the plans for it? I also been keeping an eye on the wine train in Napa, It's been recently worked on to upgrade the tracks for the wine tours. This line is the same rail spur that runs down and connects with the SMART section i mentioned above. I wonder if that is in any long term plans
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1849  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2013, 10:07 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,150
An incredible analysis of job and population densities along the Caltrain corridor:



Chart and fascinating analysis courtesy of Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1850  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2013, 12:20 PM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is offline
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: all over
Posts: 2,301
^That is interesting, but Palo Alto is still standing strong with the second highest ridership (station wise).

Edit: I know he has been hammering the Transbay numbers for a while, but I agree that the South San Jose (large untapped residential market) and Silicon Valley (never skip any stops in Santa Clara county) portions were quite interesting.

Last edited by Eightball; Nov 2, 2013 at 12:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1851  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2013, 7:46 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,150
Yes, Palo Alto is second in the system after the terminal in SF. The value of the charted data is in future planning--how many people and jobs can be served if we reconfigure and/or add stations and service.

Anyway, here's Caltrain's ten busiest stations by weekday riders, as of Jan/Feb of this year:

San Francisco - 10,786
Palo Alto - 5,469
Mountain View - 3,876
San Jose Diridon - 3,489
Millbrae - 3,255
Redwood City - 2,619
Hillsdale - 2,317
Sunnyvale - 2,274
San Mateo - 1,571
Menlo Park - 1,526
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1852  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2013, 5:01 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 873
fascinating data and chart. i think it also points to the incredible gains in ridership that would be seen with the DTX extension. 150,000 jobs within a half mile and only 10,000 riders a day at the 4th & King station. there will be far more jobs within half a mile of transbay, and the people walking a half mile now will only have to walk a quarter mile from one station or the other. i don't recall what the TJPA/Caltrain projections are for ridership at the transbay terminal on caltrain dtx, but 20,000 wouldn't be unreasonable with another 5,000 still at 4th and king! 15,000 less cars on 101..............

Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Yes, Palo Alto is second in the system after the terminal in SF. The value of the charted data is in future planning--how many people and jobs can be served if we reconfigure and/or add stations and service.

Anyway, here's Caltrain's ten busiest stations by weekday riders, as of Jan/Feb of this year:

San Francisco - 10,786
Palo Alto - 5,469
Mountain View - 3,876
San Jose Diridon - 3,489
Millbrae - 3,255
Redwood City - 2,619
Hillsdale - 2,317
Sunnyvale - 2,274
San Mateo - 1,571
Menlo Park - 1,526
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1853  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2013, 10:40 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,150
The Examiner reports Caltrain is now carrying an average of 54,989 riders per weekday!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1854  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2013, 7:11 AM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
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
According to this SPUR study from 2009, a second transbay tube wouldn't be necessary for any new SOMA lines either. It also gives more detail on some possible BART lines in SOMA, as well as mentioning that commuter rail such as Caltrain or Capitol Corridor, or even high speed rail, could run through a new transbay tube:

http://www.spur.org/files/spur-reports/SPUR_The_Future_of_Downtown_SF.pdf (pg. 58-61)



Quote:
Originally Posted by SPUR
Recommendation 3.1: Plan and build a new subway line through SOMA.

SPUR recommends that we begin planning for a second subway line through the South of Market Area in
San Francisco as the highest long-term priority. It is probable that such a new subway line could be
designed and built by BART, and could be implemented incrementally and coordinated with the
extension of the downtown office district along its route.

This line would eventually link up with a second Transbay Tube to the East Bay. However, it should be
designed in a way that doesn’t preclude extension west to serve other neighborhoods of San Francisco,
much as the current BART alignment serves the Mission District. This new subway line is needed
because the existing tube, the Market Street Subway and stations, cannot carry the expected ridership
growth into downtown San Francisco. In addition, the existing Market Street office core will be
effectively built out, and the most likely new development areas lack direct regional transit access.

Using the criteria enumerated here, a key objective is to design a system that can be implemented
incrementally. We should first build off of our existing system and improve existing transit services first
and then build new transit capacity. This will enable the maximization of existing resources and allow
sufficient time to plan and incrementally build new transit resources.

We do not need to build the new tube first. Instead, we need to deliver a new downtown San Francisco
subway as a first step.
SPUR recommends that we build the new line through SOMA, under either
Folsom Street or Townsend Street. The new line will extend from a three-track turnback between the
Civic Center and 16th Street stations, identified as a midterm reliability project and extend through
SOMA toward the Bay. SPUR | March 2009
The Future of Downtown San Francisco 60
SPUR believes that either Folsom Street or Townsend Street would be appropriate for the new alignment.
Each has strengths and weaknesses, and we believe a more detailed transportation and land use study
would best identify the superior option. Therefore, SPUR has not chosen a recommendation between
these two options. However, a new regional subway line under at least one of these two corridors.

A Folsom Street alignment would have several advantages:

• It would relieve BART’s station crowding by placing new stations within walking distance of the
current Market Street facility.
• It would provide redundancy in case one line is temporarily taken out of service by accident or
repair. Then passengers can shift to other line with little trouble.
• It could support the contiguous growth of downtown, as the Mid-Market Street area is one of the
logical extensions of downtown that is close to the current downtown than West SOMA It would
allow the creation of new office markets near Fourth Street north of the freeway, and the
neighborhoods of western SOMA and near the Transbay Terminal. It would provide a connection
to the proposed Caltrain downtown extension and High Speed Rail at a Transbay Transit Center
Station, and to the T-Third and Central Subway lines at a Moscone Center/4th/Fourth Street
Station.

The Townsend alignment would have several benefits:

• It would reinforce an emerging neighborhood that has seen significant new growth in recent years
— in both housing and jobs.
• It would allow the creation of new office markets in areas of large parcels along Townsend Street
adjacent to the railyards, and provide access within walking distance of Mission Bay biotech
developments.
• It would serve areas farther west with fewer residential uses than Folsom Street, thus making
them more appropriate for redevelopment to accommodate new employment uses.
• It would serve significant regional cultural and recreational areas such as AT&T Park and
Seawall Lot 337.
• It would make a connection to Caltrain and the T-Third/Central Subway lines at the station at
Fourth and King streets.
• It would accommodate a wider turnback from Market Street than the one to Folsom Street, and
thus would be easier to operate at normal BART speeds. Regardless of whether Folsom Street or
Townsend Street is chosen, the facilities should be designed for immediate integration into the
Market Street subway and the eventual extension serving the Van Ness and Geary corridors.

As part of the initial phase of this project, a BART terminal should be considered at a rebuilt Pier 36/38
facility, or elsewhere near the Embarcadero, which could later become a construction tie-in for the new
tube.5

Recommendation 3.2 Extend SOMA line across the Bay as second Transbay Tube.

SPUR recommends extending the proposed SOMA subway line to the East Bay as part of a second
transbay tube. If the new tube accommodated a BART train, it would allow BART to reorient many of its
services based on travel demands. It could also provide access to areas currently unserved by regional rail.

MTC has developed two Bay Crossing Studies in the last 20 years. In addition, it has also produced a
Regional Rail Study in 2008. These studies explore a variety of options for new BART and standard-gauge tubes connecting San Francisco and the East Bay. SPUR believes it is a high regional priority to
carry these studies forward.

The most appealing option is a new 4-track tube that would include BART and commuter rail. The
addition of tracks for a commuter rail system increases the utility of the facility by allowing extension of
Caltrain service to the East Bay or Capitol Corridor service to San Francisco and the Peninsula. These
tracks would also facilitate the extension of High Speed Rail to the East Bay and elsewhere in California.
The San Francisco connection to the tube must, by law, be designed with track connections to the
Caltrain/High Speed level of the Transbay Transit Center’s rail level. This would allow Bay Area
commuters to not only travel to and from San Francisco, but also from San Francisco to Sacramento, San
Francisco Airport to Martinez, and Palo Alto to Berkeley. This is a critical project that enhances San
Francisco’s attractiveness as the center of the region and leaves the City with all the benefits of being on a
peninsula and none of the disadvantages.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1855  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2013, 6:43 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,150
BART OKs $638.9 million for 'Fleet of the Future'

On Thursday, BART signed off on a $638.9 million contract with Canadian railway giant Bombardier Transportation for 365 new railcars, to add to 410 already bought for the transit agency’s Fleet of the Future project. BART also secured five cars free of cost from the manufacturer.

By agreeing to buy the extra cars up front, BART saves $125 million in the $1.789 billion contract, $596 million of which must come from the agency’s funds. The rest of the tab will be covered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1856  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2013, 2:25 AM
CharlesCO's Avatar
CharlesCO CharlesCO is offline
Aspiring Amateur
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 415
So I was reading the always-fascinating and impartial articles on the BART website, and I found this interesting explanation for why BART doesn't run 24 hours:

Quote:
Here at BART we are frequently asked why the trains don’t run all night, or at least late enough to get partiers from the clubs of San Francisco back home around the Bay Area after last call. We thought we’d take a minute to explain some of the history and background behind that question.

Right now there's a gap of about four hours between when the last trains of the day leave, usually around midnight, and when the first trains of the day start up, around 4 a.m. on weekdays. (Those are end-of-the-line times; last-train times from individual stations may be later. For example, the latest SFO to Pittsburg/Bay Point train on a Saturday night leaves Embarcadero Station at 25 minutes past midnight, actually Sunday morning. Check the schedule for details.)

That short window of time without service is used for essential nightly track maintenance. Unlike some public transit systems with multiple sets of tracks on the same routes, BART doesn't have the duplication that would allow us to run trains on one set while performing maintenance on another. Third-rail power has to be shut down for maintenance crews to be able to operate safely and do the work that keeps the system safe and reliable. And the trains can’t run when the power is down.
http://www.bart.gov/guide/latenight

Is this really true? Is there a technical flaw in an electric third rail design that prevents it from running 24 hours? Even if the current fleet and technology is stretched thinly, I would think technical improvements and a new fleet would be able to provide 24 hour service, and I always thought that the reason why it doesn't currently run 24 hours was merely due to political reasons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1857  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2013, 3:30 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesCO View Post
Is this really true? Is there a technical flaw in an electric third rail design that prevents it from running 24 hours? Even if the current fleet and technology is stretched thinly, I would think technical improvements and a new fleet would be able to provide 24 hour service, and I always thought that the reason why it doesn't currently run 24 hours was merely due to political reasons.
I think you misread the blog entry--there's no flaw. Whereas NYC has four parallel tracks in most subway segments, meaning they can cut the power to one set for maintenance and keep the other juiced and open for service, BART only has two parallel tracks under the Bay. In order to maintain the tracks overnight, they turn off the electricity and can't run any trains during maintenance hours.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1858  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2013, 4:00 AM
CharlesCO's Avatar
CharlesCO CharlesCO is offline
Aspiring Amateur
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 415
Ah, okay, that makes sense. So would it ever be technically possible to run 24 hour service on BART, even if it were once-an-hour trains like on some of those special event nights? Or perhaps run it 24 hours on Thursday/Friday/Saturday nights, but shut it down earlier for the rest of the week?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1859  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2013, 6:09 PM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is offline
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: all over
Posts: 2,301
What's effect on Caltrain electrification with the lawsuit possibly effecting the CAHSR funding?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1860  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2013, 11:09 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,150
Plans to electrify Caltrain long precede CAHSR. Electrification will allow the railroad to run faster trains (electric trains accelerate/decelerate in less time), and thus conductors can make more runs on their regular shifts, for less money (electricity is much cheaper than diesel fuel). It will happen, and most likely on schedule (2019).

BART is capable of running 24-hours a day for short periods of time, and indeed BART has run trains all day and night for a few days at a time on the several occasions when the Bay Bridge was closed. That said, it's not the same as regularly scheduling overnight service, which as already noted isn't feasible due to maintenance issues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:09 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.