SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[fflint]

I can see the argument for consolidating certain transit agencies, like the commuter railroads and maybe the bus systems in the East Bay and also in the South Bay/Penninsula, but merging all Bay Area agencies into just one superagency would poorly serve people on the local level, especially the most urban areas.

The city of San Francisco has totally different (and often, very expensive) transit needs compared with the more suburban regions. Suburban control of San Francisco city's public transportation system would likely result in a less tailored approach and a misguided, politicized effort to spread resources throughout the suburbs--in essence, to spend more in areas where transit is used least while bypassing new projects where transit is used most, but is most costly to build. We see this with the most "regional" of Bay Area transit systems, BART. Ultra-expensive third-rail metro service gets extended farther and farther into suburbia while the city of San Francisco's Geary Street corridor--where buses carry 60,000+ daily riders through several miles of dense, congested cityscape--still waits for the line initially envisioned some 45 years ago.

[Reminiscence]

Not sure if anyone has been keeping track of the Eastern Span's progress, but it seems the costly permanent fix to their bolt issue has finally been completed:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Bridge-fix-in-place-25-million-later-5076643.php

Maybe its just me but $25 million seems like a bargain after the billions taken by the bridge itself, even if it is more than twice its original estimate

[theskythelimit]

The Geary corridor BRT got a mention in today's SF Examiner.


http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/g...munity-input-process/Content?oid=2653499

[202_Cyclist]

Without knowing any details about this project, it doesn't seem like this money is being spent well. In 2012, there were 103,500 enplanments at Charles Shultz-Sonoma County airport, or about 283 per day. Assuming that ten percent (a very generous assumption) of these passengers will take rail to the airport, this is less than thirty passengers per day. I support a strong commitment to transit but it is difficult to justify spending $30M for less than thirty daily passengers.

SMART train to connect Marin to Santa Rosa airport

By Mark Prado
Marin Independent Journal
12/18/2013

"Marin residents taking flights out of the Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport in Santa Rosa will have a new way to get there in a few years.

On Wednesday the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved $16.7 million in funding for the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit train project to build a rail station at Airport Boulevard, about a three-minute shuttle ride away from the airport. The dollars complete funding for the $29 million extension.

A station near the airport would serve regional travelers, especially once a project to expand the runway to accommodate larger jets at the facility is completed next year..."

http://www.marinij.com/novato/ci_24753338/smart-train-connect-marin-santa-rosa-airport

[northbay]

Originally Posted by dennis1

Next Question: Why doesn't Caltrain run SMART? Why seperate agencies?

Originally Posted by fflint

I can see the argument for consolidating certain transit agencies, like the commuter railroads and maybe the bus systems in the East Bay and also in the South Bay/Penninsula, but merging all Bay Area agencies into just one superagency would poorly serve people on the local level, especially the most urban areas.

Caltrain shouldn't run SMART because the dense South Bay is completely different from the relatively rural North Bay. These people are 70-80+ miles away, they would have no idea how to effectively address our needs, nor would anyone take them seriously. Sonoma County is its own MSA because much of the commuting stays within our region. It makes little sense to have people from technically a DIFFERENT metropolitan region make decisions for us. It would be putting the apples in with the oranges.

The current arrangement is like our federal/state model. The federal government has ultimate control but leaves most decisions to the states. This model works to control large areas with differing politics/viewpoints. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has ultimate control but leaves most decisions to local transit agencies. It can certainly use refinement, but we need to keep local control.

Speaking of SMART (and the SMART-MTA relationship):

SMART station at Airport Boulevard gets final OK
By MATT BROWN
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
December 18, 2013, 6:22 PM

The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit board approved a commuter train station at Airport Boulevard on Wednesday as a regional transportation body allocated $16.7 million to fund the project.

The board's move pushes work on the rail network north of Santa Rosa for the first time and will deliver passengers to a major employment hub near the expanding Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, SMART officials said.

“The companies and employees in this area will prosper with added rail service, and the expanded airport will attract new jobs and increase tourism,” said Debora Fudge, SMART director and Windsor councilmember."

....

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20131218/articles/131219521

EDIT: Ahh, 202, you beat me by 2 minutes!

[northbay]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Without knowing any details about this project, it doesn't seem like this money is being spent well. In 2012, there were 103,500 enplanments at Charles Shultz-Sonoma County airport, or about 283 per day. Assuming that ten percent (a very generous assumption) of these passengers will take rail to the airport, this is less than thirty passengers per day. I support a strong commitment to transit but it is difficult to justify spending $30M for less than thirty daily passengers.

There are thousands of employees that work in surrounding business parks, my wife being one of them. This isn't JUST about the airport, it's more for the workers. Plus, their maintenance facility will be at the airport, and that puts them closer to Windsor, which is supposed to be the busiest station. And of course Sonoma County being the wine/food/beer destination that it is (7+ million tourists a year), getting more on the train instead of (driving drunk on) the road is a consideration. That also explains the airport expansion, and its desire to increase on its four commercial destinations.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by northbay

There are thousands of employees that work in surrounding business parks, my wife being one of them. This isn't JUST about the airport, it's more for the workers. Plus, their maintenance facility will be at the airport, and that puts them closer to Windsor, which is supposed to be the busiest station. And of course Sonoma County being the wine/food/beer destination that it is (7+ million tourists a year), getting more on the train instead of (driving drunk on) the road is a consideration. That also explains the airport expansion, and its desire to increase on its four commercial destinations.

Again, I strongly support public transit but it is difficult to see how this is a good investment and a good use of limited transit capital funds.

There are an average of 283 daily enplanements at Charles Shultz-Sonoma Co. Transit mode share to this airport is more likely to be 3-5% (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_rpt_004.pdf) (http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/656553.pdf).

Airports are big employment centers and perhaps Charles Shultz - Sonoma Co. might have 200-300 employees. As a rough estimate, perhaps 10% of these employees will take rail transit. This is about 30 daily passengers.

I don't know the local geography but it looks like agricultural land is to the west of the airport and low/medium-density office parks and warehouses surrounding the airport on the other side.

With the airport itself, this will probably be less than fifty daily passengers. The concern about intoxicated drivers is a valid concern but I would like very frew passengers are intoxicated on their way to/from the airport.

It is good to invest in rail but there are many other projects that should be prioritized before spending $30M to serve maybe fifty daily passengers.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Again, I strongly support public transit but it is difficult to see how this is a good investment and a good use of limited transit capital funds.

There are an average of 283 daily enplanements at Charles Shultz-Sonoma Co. Transit mode share to this airport is more likely to be 3-5% (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_rpt_004.pdf) (http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/656553.pdf).

Airports are big employment centers and perhaps Charles Shultz - Sonoma Co. might have 200-300 employees. As a rough estimate, perhaps 10% of these employees will take rail transit. This is about 30 daily passengers.

I don't know the local geography but it looks like agricultural land is to the west of the airport and low/medium-density office parks and warehouses surrounding the airport on the other side.

With the airport itself, this will probably be less than fifty daily passengers. The concern about intoxicated drivers is a valid concern but I would like very frew passengers are intoxicated on their way to/from the airport.

It is good to invest in rail but there are many other projects that should be prioritized before spending $30M to serve maybe fifty daily passengers.

Did you actually READ my response? There are 1000s of workers in the area, not just a couple hundred. Plus, there are more commercial flights/passengers even from 2012. And this puts them just a few miles from the projected busiest station. I usually respect your input but you clearly are not familiar with the area, so you may want to refrain from making judgements. It is reflecting poorly on you. Here, the 101 corridor is THE mess. Investing in an alternative is THE way to go. Buses would be stuck in the same mess. This is a SMART investment!

[northbay]

Btw, Sonoma County "looks" agricultural but half a million live here. Google earth isn't the same as being "on the ground." The airport is considered a major employment center of the county.

[northbay]

It sometimes takes my wife an hour to get home, a distance of less than 15 miles, almost all "freeway" driving. Rush hour here is a mess, people WILL take the train.

[202_Cyclist]

northbay:

Plus, there are more commercial flights/passengers even from 2012. And this puts them just a few miles from the projected busiest station.

2012 enplanements were 103,500. If you assume 5% annual growth (pretty robust growth for commercial aviation) annual enplanements would be 108,675, or 297 per day. At 5% transit ground-access share, this might be one or two more daily passengers taking SMART to the airport. This hardly justifies spending $30M on an airport connection.

Admittedly, I am not famililar with the geography around the airport but as I said above, it looks like agriculture land west of the airport and medium-density warehouses and office parks (usually with free parking) to the east of the airport. Based on Google maps, it looks like there is some more density 1/2 to 2/3 of a mile east of the airport, closer to Hwy 101, but again, it also looks like there is abundant surface parking. If these employees have to walk a half mile to the airport rail station, ridership will fall off accordingly.

[northbay]

Sure there's surface parking, but you forgot about the rush hour mess to get home. 101 is a disaster. Many of the employers, along with SMART, plan to run shuttles. There's also going to be a multi-use pathway parallel to the tracks. There's 1000s of employees in these office parks.

[202_Cyclist]

Northbay:

Originally Posted by northbay

Btw, Sonoma County "looks" agricultural but half a million live here. Google earth isn't the same as being "on the ground."

I don't doubt this but that is why it is more important to build transit where the residential and employment density is located, not an airport where there are less than three hundred daily passengers and perhaps 15 transit-riders out of those passengers.

The airport is considered a major employment center of the county.

An airport this size probably has 200-300 employees employed by the airport directly and by related businesses. Assuming a 15% transit mode-share by thees employees, at most this is still less than 50 daily riders for SMART.

[northbay]

With only four destinations, adding even one after the expansion will make a big difference at the airport. The SMART connection is also to entice carriers to the airport.

[northbay]

The surrounding business parks have 1000s of employees and have nothing to do with the airport. My wife works for a financial institution!

[northbay]

You're making incorrect assumptions because you don't know the area!

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by northbay

The surrounding business parks have 1000s of employees and have nothing to do with the airport. My wife works for a financial institution!

This is where the station should be built, then, not in a location that might have two dozen daily riders to/from the airport.

Read the GAO report I posted the link to if you want to see how many people take rail to the airport--- and this is for some of the largest airports in the US that have a significantly higher transit mode-share than Sonoma Co airport will have.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Northbay:



I don't doubt this but that is why it is more important to build transit where the residential and employment density is located...

In Sonoma County, nearly 80% of development is along the 101 corridor, which is the route SMART will parallel. SMART does EXACTLY what you say.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

This is where the station should be built, then, not in a location that might have two dozen daily riders to/from the airport.

Read the GAO report I posted the link to if you want to see how many people take rail to the airport--- and this is for some of the largest airports in the US that have a significantly higher transit mode-share than Sonoma Co airport will have.

That IS where the station will be, at Airport Blvd. There will be a shuttle to the airport itself!

[northbay]

Look, I'm sorry this turned into an 'argument'. Like I said, you CLEARLY don't know the area, so can't make a good judgement. I usually agree with what you have to say, I just want you to know this IS A GOOD INVESTMENT. I was born up here, and have lived here all my life except when I went to school (I have traveled however, to most states, central America and Japan many times, and came back because I love this place so much). I do know what good transit looks like. Sure Sonoma Co. isn't the densest place but a rail line along the county's clogged artery just makes sense. Rail will help also make this place denser. Transit-oriented developments are being built/planned as we speak thanks to SMART.

I am thankful that local AND regional authorities are working tirelessly to making this rail line a reality and the best it can be.