SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[fflint]

BART trains are wider than the train in the rendering. I think these were provided to give people some idea of what a BMW-designed train looks like.

[OhioGuy]

BART's Oakland Airport Connector project under budget

By: Will Reisman | Examiner Staff Writer | 07/13/11 1:58 PM

BART’s controversial Oakland Airport Connector project is forecast to come in a couple million dollars under budget, according to the latest updates on the undertaking.

Currently, the automated-rail project, which will connect passengers at BART’s Coliseum Station to the Oakland International Airport, is projected to cost $480.8 million. No small penny for a 3.2-mile project that will replace existing service, but its actually about $3.3 million less than the $484.1 million budgeted for the OAC when it was approved last year.

That funding update, along with the OAC’s projected start date — Spring 2014 — will be discussed at BART’s board of directors meeting on Thursday.

[ardecila]

^^ You're right, that's the design for the Warsaw Metro.

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by fflint

Both the proponents and the opponents of the Central Subway are making claims I find far too sweeping and extreme to be plausible. This isn't going to transform Chinatown or Moscone; it also isn't going to wreck Muni service on that corridor for 'centuries.' If built as planned, it will be another sluggish, overcrowded Muni Metro line. Big whoop.

Speaking of sluggish Muni Metro...do any San Franciscans here have an idea why exactly Muni persists in being sporadically unreliable? Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but I wanted to hear from a different crowd than the "Save Muni" folks (some of you might throw in with this group, but oh well), whom I don't think I trust entirely to just report basic facts. Having visited San Francisco twice recently I used the Metro extensively to explore the most beautiful city in the U.S. (I really think that, I am not just trying to earn points or something). My thoughts were that the basic infrastructure is laid out fairly well in most parts, but what the hell is with the random delays and stopped trains every so often? Why does the N Judah sit down by Ocean Beach for 25 freakin' minutes before coming back up the slope? Why does the T-line or whatever just stop in the middle of the tunnel for 10 minutes, at a not so busy time of night? As I stated, forgive my ignorance, but I couldn't help noticing these exasperating problems with an otherwise decent transportation network. I'd like to know what residents feel the issues are, and don't just tell me that it's all because the leadership is corrupt and involved in city hall cronyism, etc. There must be real mechanical/structural problems that shouldn't be that difficult to diagnose and alter. Thank you much.

[CyberEric]

Glad that you enjoy SF so much.
I ride Muni (N-Judah) every single day and I think it works. It's not great, but it's not terrible, in my opinion.
I have guesses as to what contributes to the problems and delays, but they are just personal impressions.

First, I think the fact that the trains have to stop for cars, garbage trucks, traffic lights and so forth slows them down considerably when they are above ground. I think the trains should have right of way and that lights should change when they come so cars are forced to stop.
There are also sections on the N-Judah (and others) where the train does not have it's own lane, it runs in the same lane as the cars, this causing delays too. Just this morning a garbage truck was stopped in the lane and the train had to stop and wait for a garbage man to do his job for probably 3 minutes. Very frustrating.
I think the other problem, which has been talked about in the local publications, is that the trains make too many stops. Just near my house the train stops 3 times in 3 blocks, at Stanyan, at Hillway, and again at the Hospital. It doesn't need to stop that often and it slows down the entire journey.

I have no idea why they sit at Ocean Beach for so long or why they stop in tunnels (that is usually because of a delay ahead).

I think those are the biggest issues as I see them.

[fflint]

Don't Muni operators working the N Judah line take their bathroom breaks at the end of their run at the Ocean Beach turnaround?

[drifting sun]

Yes, my impressions were that it was decent, neither all that good, nor horrible, usable. As far as the traffic-train interface problems, stop-light preemption would seem to be the logical course of action here (I am assuming that even San Francisco residents wouldn't stomach a proposal right now to bury most of the lines), does that exist right now, and is just not effective or what?

I did read the information presented by the "Save Muni" effort, but my personal opinion is that it suffers from trying to apply the shotgun approach - too many suggestions and areas of concern. I think things would be better served by focusing on one issue at a time, like the continuous flow problem (interaction with traffic streetside). Anyways, what do I know, I am not even a resident of your fine city, just a public transportation (particularly trains) freak. I can tell you that I have ridden and studied metro systems in a few different places, like Tokyo, and if they can move the volume of people (millions) that they do each day on their massive networks of above and below ground trains without numerous or significant delays, then there has to be a better way to do it than the model that American cities follow. fflint - Yes, I suppose the operators need breaks also.

[fflint]

Streetsblog San Francisco touches on what delays Muni Metro trains in this article on how to speed up the J Church line specifically: better maintenance, better deterring asshole motorists from double-parking, all-door boarding, and stop elimination.

Originally Posted by StreetsblogSF

The agency is also evaluating the stretch of Church Street between 24th and 30th Streets for opportunities to reduce the number of stops, said Haley. SFMTA staff are targeting a stop between 30th and Clipper Streets (which lies between 25th and 26th Streets) and will soon make presentations to the Accessibility Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory Council on a proposal, he said.

The biggest cause for delay on the J-Church remains vehicle failures, said Haley, which make up nearly half of all delays 10 minutes or longer. The agency is still playing catch-up on overhauling the trains after the T-Third Street line was opened in 2007, adding 40 percent to the miles they travel, he said.

Double-parked cars are still the second-biggest cause of extended delays, and Haley said the agency plans to focus parking control officers on Church Street when nearby schools begin their sessions in the fall.

[CyberEric]

Originally Posted by drifting sun

Yes, my impressions were that it was decent, neither all that good, nor horrible, usable. As far as the traffic-train interface problems, stop-light preemption would seem to be the logical course of action here (I am assuming that even San Francisco residents wouldn't stomach a proposal right now to bury most of the lines), does that exist right now, and is just not effective or what?

I did read the information presented by the "Save Muni" effort, but my personal opinion is that it suffers from trying to apply the shotgun approach - too many suggestions and areas of concern. I think things would be better served by focusing on one issue at a time, like the continuous flow problem (interaction with traffic streetside). Anyways, what do I know, I am not even a resident of your fine city, just a public transportation (particularly trains) freak. I can tell you that I have ridden and studied metro systems in a few different places, like Tokyo, and if they can move the volume of people (millions) that they do each day on their massive networks of above and below ground trains without numerous or significant delays, then there has to be a better way to do it than the model that American cities follow. fflint - Yes, I suppose the operators need breaks also.

I tend to agree with your thoughts on Save Muni.
I don't think we even need to look across the Ocean to Tokyo to see a better operating train service. I ride BART everyday as well on my commute and it is far more reliable, at least in my experience. There are far fewer service issues and it's nearly always on time. I am guessing it's because it never interacts with street traffic. The downside? Cost.

Originally Posted by fflint

Streetsblog San Francisco touches on what delays Muni Metro trains in this article on how to speed up the J Church line specifically: better maintenance, better deterring asshole motorists from double-parking, all-door boarding, and stop elimination.

Good article, thank you. What is it about Muni trains that are so fragile? And what can we do about double parking? Stiffer fines? The trains need their own lanes wherever possible, that helps with the traffic, but I think people need to stop treating the trains like other cars and more like trains that demand the right of way. I often times see jerks parking in front of trains, darting in front of them in their cars, etc.

[CyberEric]

A frustrated update. Muni was the worst it's ever been this morning. Huge delays underground caused my neighbor and I to jump on the F train, which was overloaded of course, and I got to work an hour late. Pretty frustrating and I kept thinking about this thread. I still don't know what caused the delays.

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by CyberEric

A frustrated update. Muni was the worst it's ever been this morning. Huge delays underground caused my neighbor and I to jump on the F train, which was overloaded of course, and I got to work an hour late. Pretty frustrating and I kept thinking about this thread. I still don't know what caused the delays.

The F train is the "old-style" streetcar that runs up and down Market, right? I think I rode that also but did not like the herky-jerky ride at all (inexperienced operator or just inherent because of the older, not as smooth electric propulsion?). I agree about BART and that is exactly what I thought when I took it, not only across the bay to Oakland (we flew out of Oakland), but also a little ways past Embarcadero. The downside to current BART cars are the nasty upholstered seats, but they are due for new rolling stock I believe.

Burying transit is not popular at the moment because of the financial strain municipalities are under (didn't mean that to sound like a conservative talking point), but has anyone floated the idea of elevated tracks? I'm not sure if that would really be any cheaper and residents might think at first it would be an aesthetic nightmare, but a two-three track wide elevated rail viaduct doesn't seem to create such an ugly barrier as a 4-8 (or 8-20) lane wide freeway overpass. I am going to Vancouver, B.C. in September; I will make it a point to spend copious amounts of time on, around, and underneath the Skytrain, and hopefully gain a better sense for how elevated can work (or not) in American cities.

FFlint - good article; so it seems that among other issues the train cars are overused/possibly bad designs? Muni uses Breda rolling stock, I wonder if Siemens or Bombardier stock are more robust. I think it is a frustrating situation for a metro service to always be playing catch-up on maintenance.

[gtbassett]

I think the best way to describe my experiences with Muni Metro are "meh"

It's not great, but it's not terrible either. I can usually get to where I need to get on time, only occasionally running late, but I too sometimes get frustrated with the random stops that sporadically happen (recently it's always been between Forest Hill and Castro stations). My major complaint with Muni Metro is the lack of bicycle racks and more importantly, the prohibition of bicycles on the Metro.

[Gordo]

I don't really have the desire to get into the problems with Muni (or the positives) at the moment, but I will say that the idea of elevated rail in SF proper is a complete non-starter, except for maybe small portions of the far south/southeast. You would have the biggest backlash that you have ever seen simply by suggesting it.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by drifting sun

a two-three track wide elevated rail viaduct doesn't seem to create such an ugly barrier as a 4-8 (or 8-20) lane wide freeway overpass.

San Francisco is the birthplace of the freeway revolt movement, so comparing an elevated rail line to a freeway is a really bad idea.

I agree with you to some extent. The problem is that transit projects usually have huge budget constraints, which forces the transit agency to value-engineer the architecture severely. An ugly, bare-bones subway station is okay, since the station is hidden underground, but an ugly elevated station is a terrible blight.

Chicago's most recent project, the rebuilding of the Brown Line, went through several rounds of value-engineering on the elevated stations. The result was that platform canopies were drastically shortened, exposing waiting passengers to the rain/snow/sun. Also, platform railings and other metal fixtures were switched from stainless steel to galvanized. As a result, they are already starting to show early signs of rust, and they're only ~4 years old.

Fortunately, these stations are mostly hidden away, since most of the Brown Line runs above alleys instead of streets.

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by ardecila

San Francisco is the birthplace of the freeway revolt movement, so comparing an elevated rail line to a freeway is a really bad idea.

I agree with you to some extent. The problem is that transit projects usually have huge budget constraints, which forces the transit agency to value-engineer the architecture severely. An ugly, bare-bones subway station is okay, since the station is hidden underground, but an ugly elevated station is a terrible blight.

Chicago's most recent project, the rebuilding of the Brown Line, went through several rounds of value-engineering on the elevated stations. The result was that platform canopies were drastically shortened, exposing waiting passengers to the rain/snow/sun. Also, platform railings and other metal fixtures were switched from stainless steel to galvanized. As a result, they are already starting to show early signs of rust, and they're only ~4 years old.

Fortunately, these stations are mostly hidden away, since most of the Brown Line runs above alleys instead of streets.

Oh I'm totally with the freeway revolt movement, tear 'em all down! I thoroughly enjoyed the Hayes Valley area on one of my visits; discovering later that those surroundings used to be very different pre-1989. I guess my plea that an elevated rail route would not desecrate the environment like a freeway wouldn't take....not with bad examples like Chicago being one of the few in the US to "model" after. Well, we'll all just have to wait until the economy rebounds, and taxpayers are in a giving enough mood to fund super sleek subway tunnels everywhere! (nothing wrong with a little delusional optimism).

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by gtbassett

I think the best way to describe my experiences with Muni Metro are "meh"

It's not great, but it's not terrible either. I can usually get to where I need to get on time, only occasionally running late, but I too sometimes get frustrated with the random stops that sporadically happen (recently it's always been between Forest Hill and Castro stations). My major complaint with Muni Metro is the lack of bicycle racks and more importantly, the prohibition of bicycles on the Metro.

No bicycles at all? I am assuming that in Muni's case it is because they figure capacity and then some on the cars, so no extra space for bikes. That's unfortunate.

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by drifting sun

No bicycles at all? I am assuming that in Muni's case it is because they figure capacity and then some on the cars, so no extra space for bikes. That's unfortunate.

BART also bans bikes during commute hours. And if you've ever been in one during those times, you can understand how there's absolutely no space for them.

[fflint]

I suppose you're suggesting elevated tracks because you found the Municipal Railway's surface-subway system disappointing enough to be scrapped and replaced with something drastically different. Even though I'll gladly compete in the civic sport of Muni-bashing, and I'll readily acknowledge the railway's delays and crowding, I also know these don't constitute a transit disaster requiring the radical transformation of San Francisco's cityscape. The Muni Metro, despite its problems, remains well used and won't be replaced.

As noted in the article about the J Church line, Muni has repair issues. Boston uses the same Breda cars, so perhaps our repair guys are underfunded--I don't know. I do know some delays are systemic: there's only one track in each direction in the downtown subway, and street-running trains in the neighborhoods are delayed by double-parking, signals, and traffic congestion. The trunk line in the Market Street Subway is like a slow conveyor belt during the rush hours. Evening rush is marked by trains that cannot depart the stations because so many among the huge crowds are holding the doors open, trying to be the very last person to squeeze through. All in all, Muni Metro trip times average 9.6 mph, according to Wikipedia, although that looks suspiciously like the number for the entire system, including buses. In any case, I average 12 mph on my bike, even on Market Street in the Financial District at rush hour.

Despite all the issues and all the complaining, Muni Metro remains popular--as in, it has more riders than every light rail system in America except Boston, and ranks third in terms of daily boardings per mile. We can't really say the system isn't working, but we can certainly complain it isn't working as well as we'd like and support reasonable efforts to speed up the trains.

As to building an elevated system to replace the surface-subway sytem--not a chance in hell. You could float no balloon more certain to be shot down quickly by the entire citizenry than an El. With the exception of soaring bridges over the Bay, San Francisco hates elevated transportation. With a passion. We tore down not one, but two double-decker freeways and replaced them with boulevards. Anything new that might cast a shadow onto, or block the view from, a home or office or hotel room brings swift, crippling legal action--and garners public sympathy by default. Imagine the lawsuits and poisonous recriminations if the City tried to build an elevated Metro system through the neighborhoods.

In any case, more San Franciscans who use public transit ride the bus. Muni should focus time and money improving service for its 495,000 daily bus riders, first and foremost.

Originally Posted by drifting sun

The F train is the "old-style" streetcar that runs up and down Market, right? I think I rode that also but did not like the herky-jerky ride at all (inexperienced operator or just inherent because of the older, not as smooth electric propulsion?). I agree about BART and that is exactly what I thought when I took it, not only across the bay to Oakland (we flew out of Oakland), but also a little ways past Embarcadero. The downside to current BART cars are the nasty upholstered seats, but they are due for new rolling stock I believe.

Burying transit is not popular at the moment because of the financial strain municipalities are under (didn't mean that to sound like a conservative talking point), but has anyone floated the idea of elevated tracks? I'm not sure if that would really be any cheaper and residents might think at first it would be an aesthetic nightmare, but a two-three track wide elevated rail viaduct doesn't seem to create such an ugly barrier as a 4-8 (or 8-20) lane wide freeway overpass. I am going to Vancouver, B.C. in September; I will make it a point to spend copious amounts of time on, around, and underneath the Skytrain, and hopefully gain a better sense for how elevated can work (or not) in American cities.

FFlint - good article; so it seems that among other issues the train cars are overused/possibly bad designs? Muni uses Breda rolling stock, I wonder if Siemens or Bombardier stock are more robust. I think it is a frustrating situation for a metro service to always be playing catch-up on maintenance.

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by fflint

I suppose you're suggesting elevated tracks because you found the Municipal Railway's surface-subway system disappointing enough to be scrapped and replaced with something drastically different. Even though I'll gladly compete in the civic sport of Muni-bashing, and I'll readily acknowledge the railway's delays and crowding, I also know these don't constitute a transit disaster requiring the radical transformation of San Francisco's cityscape. The Muni Metro, despite its problems, remains well used and won't be replaced.

As noted in the article about the J Church line, Muni has repair issues. Boston uses the same Breda cars, so perhaps our repair guys are underfunded--I don't know. I do know some delays are systemic: there's only one track in each direction in the downtown subway, and street-running trains in the neighborhoods are delayed by double-parking, signals, and traffic congestion. The trunk line in the Market Street Subway is like a slow conveyor belt during the rush hours. Evening rush is marked by trains that cannot depart the stations because so many among the huge crowds are holding the doors open, trying to be the very last person to squeeze through. All in all, Muni Metro trip times average 9.6 mph, according to Wikipedia, although that looks suspiciously like the number for the entire system, including buses. In any case, I average 12 mph on my bike, even on Market Street in the Financial District at rush hour.

Despite all the issues and all the complaining, Muni Metro remains popular--as in, it has more riders than every light rail system in America except Boston, and ranks third in terms of daily boardings per mile. We can't really say the system isn't working, but we can certainly complain it isn't working as well as we'd like and support reasonable efforts to speed up the trains.

As to building an elevated system to replace the surface-subway sytem--not a chance in hell. You could float no balloon more certain to be shot down quickly by the entire citizenry than an El. With the exception of soaring bridges over the Bay, San Francisco hates elevated transportation. With a passion. We tore down not one, but two double-decker freeways and replaced them with boulevards. Anything new that might cast a shadow onto, or block the view from, a home or office or hotel room brings swift, crippling legal action--and garners public sympathy by default. Imagine the lawsuits and poisonous recriminations if the City tried to build an elevated Metro system through the neighborhoods.

In any case, more San Franciscans who use public transit ride the bus. Muni should focus time and money improving service for its 495,000 daily bus riders, first and foremost.

I actually found the Muni system decent overall, with better usability than our own light rail in Denver (Muni goes more places). My disappointment was restricted to the random 10-20 min. dead stops, whether on the surface somewhere, or in the middle of a tunnel. If this kind of backup happens because of people holding up the train by squeezing in the doors, well, I guess you have to add platform attendants to help with controlling the crush, make it a small fine to obstruct a train from getting underway, taser people that don't comply (joking), I don't know. I can understand a conveyor belt pace, as long as it is continuously moving. It just seemed like when there was a delay, they took more time than should be required to clear things out.
My question about the El was not a call to "scrap the entire thing" and replace it with miles and miles of overhead viaducts. I was thinking more along the lines of elevating over some of the more troublesome intersections (assuming that it is cheaper than tunneling under) if they can't somehow bring themselves to just control the vehicle traffic better (which it seems they can't, or they haven't put forth a decent effort). But don't worry, I get it, residents will laugh (chase with pitchforks and torches) anyone out of the room that even suggest one viaduct somewhere over the busiest intersection. I was just wondering if that was ever brought up, past, present, or future as a possibility, not trying to insert myself as "Urban Planner Savior".

[northbay]

elevated rail just doesn't work in san francisco - it would scar the urban fabric too much.
if you have experienced sf's streets you would understand
it's either at-grade or underground (underground at certain intersections sounds like an interesting possibility)

makes me think of the new presidio parkway (us 101 coming off the GGB). http://www.presidioparkway.org/ it will take a former elevated freeway to a one that is mostly at-grade with not one but TWO new freeway tunnels. in short, we don't like elevated structures.