SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[craigs]

A one-seat ride into downtown San Francisco via SMART would be ideal, but the terrain is just not going to make that practicable. The ferries are a better option, given there's none of the cost of constructing and maintaining rails, bridges, tunnels, etc., and service can be expanded and/or tailored as necessary. And ferry ridership is up in the Bay Area: acording to APTA's newest ridership report, some 21,900 trips are made on Bay Area ferry boats each workday. That is more trips than are made on entire regional light rail systems like Baltimore and Buffalo. It is a real transit option for people in Bay-focused communities.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by craigs

A one-seat ride into downtown San Francisco via SMART would be ideal...

A one-seat ride into downtown San Francisco via BART would be ideal. Period. Full stop.

And it could be done by prioritizing and starting the planning for it right now. It may take a couple more decades before the stars align and the pieces fall together along with funding, but it's worth it. If all SF area agencies are acknowledging a second tube is necessary, then a Geary BART line would likely be part of that and if you are going to build Geary BART you might as well send it over the GG to Marin OR alternatively as I stated extend one Richmond terminating line over a new I-580 bridge (bridge will be 80 years old in another 20, and likely will be eventually replaced with a modern structure).

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

SMART is sort of exactly what you would imagine Marin and Sonoma would have being two counties that have spent decades opposing anything that would drive growth, in particular connectivity with the rest of the Bay Area with a real heavy rail rapid link. And though it wasn't entirely their fault they backed out of BART 50 years ago since San Mateo started the ball rolling and they didn't want to get caught holding the bag, it's that decision that has sort of passed into lore as a good decision for the counties as they believe it would have exploded "unwanted" growth. So, what they have is an isolated "system" of limited utility and performance suited more for rural Bavaria than a segment of the Bay Area metro with hundreds of thousands of residents, many of whom commute into SF or the East Bay which are served by rapid transit. Short of following through with the original plans of linking Marin over the GGB with BART, I can see an alternative possibility of getting BART to Marin and southern Sonoma in the next few decades over a new Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.

Marin doesn't have the density to support a BART-like service. That's the problem.

I'm not from San Francisco but when I went to Muir Woods last August, I took the bus along the 101 and I was surprised at how low density cities right across the bay from SF were. Building that link in the 70's might have helped shape these cities but as you said, they refused it back then.

[Busy Bee]

^The problem with that observation is the fact that BART already serves plenty of East Bay communities of similar if not identical levels of density.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^The problem with that observation is the fact that BART already serves plenty of East Bay communities of similar if not identical levels of density.

Maybe, but when you add the sprawly nature of Marin county cities, it makes it very difficult to implement successful rapid transit compared to, say, Alameda County, where there are tightly packed cities and a normal street grid.

[Busy Bee]

I really have to disagree with you. If BART ever reaches Marin Co it likely would terminate in San Rafael and SMART or whatever they will be calling it then (electrification, grade sep's) will serve points north. I can see maybe 3-4 stations: A large park/ride station around the 101/131 interchange that serves Mill Valley to the west and points south ---> Larkspur (shared station with SMART) ---> Downtown San Rafael ---> and maybe a terminal as far north as Marin Civic Center (shared station with SMART). Depending on demand I could also eventually see an infill station in Marin City/Waldo. Alternatively a I-580 bridge routing would serve DT San Rafael and Marin Civic Center.

And again, the example to prove my point is not Alameda County. We all know Alameda has densities much higher than outer communities that are served by BART. The example I would use is central Contra Costa which I think is pretty comparable to Marin, and either a Golden Gate BART connection or one originating in Richmond that funneled Marin and Sonoma riders to SF and the East Bay would likely see similar ridership.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

And again, the example to prove my point is not Alameda County. We all know Alameda has densities much higher than outer communities that are served by BART. The example I would use is central Contra Costa which I think is pretty comparable to Marin, and either a Golden Gate BART connection or one originating in Richmond that funneled Marin and Sonoma riders to SF and the East Bay would likely see similar ridership.

Oh sorry, I thought you included Alameda when you said East Bay. From what I can see, Contra Costa seems less dense than Alameda but not as sprawly as Marin (assuming you’re talking about Concord/Walnut Creek).

A BART link in Marin doesn’t seem like a great idea from an urban planning/smart transit perspective (relying heavily on park-and-ride) but I guess it gets people off the GGB

I’m sure the money spent on a hypothetical BART link into Marin would be better served elsewhere in the Bay Area, the North Bay being the largest and least populated area.

[Busy Bee]

Thanks Cirrus

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

From what I can see, Contra Costa seems less dense than Alameda but not as sprawly as Marin (assuming you’re talking about Concord/Walnut Creek)..

Thinly populated is not the same as "sprawly". The question of Marin County's suitability for public transit aside, it is anything but "sprawly"; some might say it's the antithesis of "sprawly" since the portions open to development are severely restricted:

In the early 1970s, Marin policy makers began working to protect one of the most precious, and possibly overlooked, parts of the county. The open space of West Marin, according to the Marin County Parks Website, accounts for approximately 249 miles of road and trails, nearly 16,000 acres of lands and many thousands of additional acres, totaling 83 percent of land in Marin.

https://redwoodbark.org/53048/cultur...affordability/

The developed/built up part of Marin, with the exception of a few small communities, lies along Highway 101. The rest of the county is parkland or agricultural land whose development rights have been sold to preservationist non-profits. It cannot and will not be developed:


http://calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/?article=ca.v056n01p6

So if you are looking at population density as a criterion for the practicability of transit, perhaps you shouldn't look at the whole county but only at the actually developed strip along 101.

[pdxstreetcar]

I don't think its really about serving Marin as much as its about a key regional connection between BART and SMART that happens to be in Marin. Its looking like the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge is going to have to be replaced in the near future. Given BART currently terminates in Richmond and a new Richmond-San Rafael Bridge could theorically include a rail right of way that gets you to Marin and also gets you much of the distance. San Rafael is also a natural terminus (traditional downtown and local transit hub) and is not too far from the bridge. San Rafael could also be the only BART station in Marin (or there could also be a more park-n-ride focused one near 580 and San Quentin).

Sure there is the complexity of bringing Marin into the BART district and the fact that Marin is a world-famous hotbed for hypocritical eco-NIMBYs.

The other option is getting SMART to Richmond but thats probably harder with its terminal now in Larkspur. Personally I think BART makes more sense to cross the bridge given its the main regional transit system for the Bay Area so its the more logical one to span between close-in counties. SMART is a great system but in my opinion better suited to the NWP corridor with good but somewhat infrequent service linking more distant towns.

Maybe SMART could be extended further south to Corte Madera, Mill Valley and North Sausalito and then San Rafael could be the big regional hub transfer point for BART?

[mthd]

Originally Posted by pdxstreetcar

I don't think its really about serving Marin as much as its about a key regional connection between BART and SMART that happens to be in Marin. Its looking like the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge is going to have to be replaced in the near future. Given BART currently terminates in Richmond and a new Richmond-San Rafael Bridge could theorically include a rail right of way that gets you to Marin and also gets you much of the distance. San Rafael is also a natural terminus (traditional downtown and local transit hub) and is not too far from the bridge. San Rafael could also be the only BART station in Marin (or there could also be a more park-n-ride focused one near 580 and San Quentin).....

i think it's an interesting question. deep tunnels with TBMs have become pretty commonplace elsewhere in the world, so i'd phrase the question like this:

if a new bart line in 2030 crosses the bay into the south of market/mission bay and ends up going west under geary, how many riders are served and what are the capital costs and operating costs of the following two scenarios:

a) turn right under park presidio, put a station at california street, a station somewhere in the presidio, a station in sausalito, corta madera, near 101 and francisco (blow up all that big box stuff for a massive TOD), and then in downtown san rafael. 15.4 miles of tunnel, 6 stations, a new regional rail connection, and a one seat ride from san rafael to downtown san francisco to oakland and beyond.

b) keep going down geary to lands end, possible turning left and creating a small spur that links up with the N judah. do some medium scale TOD out there where the safeway is, the underutilized strip between the great highway and la playa, etc. 3.5 miles, 5ish stations.

i'm guessing the latter actually gets more riders, although a HUGE percentage of them would be already riding muni light rail and electric buses, which are powered by the PUC and totally carbon neutral. the riders being removed from the golden gate bridge are driving those 15 miles...

[Busy Bee]

Just to nitpick a bit but a Geary BART that turned north at Park Presidio and roughly tunneled under Veterans Drive through the Presidio and over the Golden Gate would only have about a 3 mile tunnel from when it comes off the GG coming up in Marin City. From there it could roughly parallel 101 above ground within the r.o.w. all the way to San Rafael.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Just to nitpick a bit but a Geary BART that turned north at Park Presidio and roughly tunneled under Veterans Drive through the Presidio and over the Golden Gate would only have about a 3 mile tunnel from when it comes off the GG coming up in Marin City. From there it could roughly parallel 101 above ground within the r.o.w. all the way to San Rafael.

cool as it might be to see that, there is virtually no way that above ground grade separated heavy rail will be built over the golden gate and into marin county. the impact on the bridge and the freeway along with the aesthetic impacts would be insurmountable. better to suck it up like they have in most of asia and europe and just go deep with TBMs. there's no infrastructure down there to avoid. the biggest issue besides ventilation would be the depth of the bay - it would have to go down around 300 feet. not that much deeper than tunnels in europe, japan, turkey...

once the TBM is down there, construction is pretty much site unseen until you get to the stations. if we could get the cost down to say $250m per mile (more than the rest of the world and what elon says it'll cost, but much less than what the US often pays) a project like this might pencil for around $5B total.

[Busy Bee]

___


But that isn't necessary. It's not rocket science. After some back and forth way back in the 1950s, it was finally determined in the 60's that the Golden Gate could easily accomodate a BART lower deck after some minor alterations that wouldn't affect the aesthetics of the bridge. You can't tell me this would be more expensive than a mega-deep bored tunnel. Not to mention the obvious appeal and preferrence riders would have with a routing over the bridge with the views that would afford and not being 300 hundred feet under the bay. I can't imagine how hard on the ears that would be.


There's a good Gate article about the ideas over the years here. A couple of images:


___

[SFBruin]

From one of the linked articles:

On BART, it was promised, you'd be able to get from Powell Street in San Francisco to either Santa Rosa, Napa or San Jose in just over an hour, or Palo Alto in 43 minutes.

...

Engineers, the reporter continued, had "been working for two years to make it faster, cheaper and probably more convenient than your own private automobile."

Boy, did they oversell this project (BART) at the beginning. Although, it is more convenient than driving if you have to cross the bridge or the Caldecott.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

But that isn't necessary. It's not rocket science. After some back and forth way back in the 1950s, it was finally determined in the 60's that the Golden Gate could easily accomodate a BART lower deck after some minor alterations that wouldn't affect the aesthetics of the bridge. You can't tell me this would be more expensive than a mega-deep bored tunnel....

yes, yes i believe it would. it cost $600 million to retrofit the golden gate, and it's not done yet. it cost $6.4 billion to build the new east span of the bay bridge. hanging a bunch of NETS from the bridge is going to cost $198 million, and counting. tunnels would have to emerge from underneath the current approach ramps after being bored UNDER the freeway and adjacent structures, pass through the very dense southern arch structure, all above/in a national historic site. at the other end they have to somehow get through the north buttress and then back underground or through the freeway (?) to an above grade alignment.

this is exactly the kind of thinking and project that causes infrastructure costs in the US to be 10x what they are in the rest of the world. the rest of the world would just dig a big tunnel, avoid all the hairy iconic historic world-famous engineering marvels in between, and connect point A to point B.

i bet a 2 mile bart alignment attached to the golden gate bridge would cost $10 billion just by itself.

[Busy Bee]

I think it's safe to say neither of us really know what the costs would be, though I would presume they wouldn;t be as high as you are proclaiming nor the engineering as challlenging.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I think it's safe to say neither of us really know what the costs would be, though I would presume they wouldn;t be as high as you are proclaiming nor the engineering as challlenging.

Whatever the costs of building a railroad over or under the Golden Gate, you will hit a political obstacle - the Golden Gate Bridge Authority.
https://www.goldengate.org/
They are also the authority running those very efficient ferries and buses crossing the Golden Gate as well. But there is a key limitation placed upon them providing the transit services (bus and ferry) by the law establishing it; they can only provide inter county services, not local intra county or intra city services. That's why their bus services are more akin to Greyhound that Muni.

So if they ran a train track over the Golden Gate Bridge, and the authority owned it, they would be allowed just just one train station per county at the worse, or one train station per city at the best. Even SMART has more than one train station per city, and could build more if they wished. Of course to get around that pesky law, the Golden Gate Bridge Authority could allow other operators to run trains over their bridge. But why would they allow others to undercut and lay waste to their honey pot, money making bridge.

When the Golden Gate Transit was established in the 1970s, it cost them $20 million to buy all the buses and build all the bus transit centers. Building the ferry ports probably cost more, but no where near as much as it would be to tunnel under the Golden Gate or all tracks to the bridge itself. They don't even have to buy the ferries or buses, they could just lease them.
There are economic reasons why they chose to run buses and ferries instead of trains 40+ years ago.

[Busy Bee]

Something tells me their bridge tolls are their bread and butter, not bus and ferry fares.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Something tells me their bridge tolls are their bread and butter, not bus and ferry fares.

And to add, nor would trains either.

But the buses and ferries have allowed them to continue to charge tolls, the transit and ferry operations were initiated near the same time the original bonds to build the bridge were paid off. Without the money losing, subsidy requiring, bus and ferry operations, the bridge would have long paid off all its' bonds.

Come on and get real, greedy politicians can't afford having millions of dollars collecting in a trust fund they can never tap for other purposes. They always find a way, come hook or crook, to get their hands on that money