SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[fflint]

Caltrain Ridership Up 12.1%
by Bay City News
April 7, 2012 6:22 AM



Total Caltrain ridership has risen 12.1 percent over the last year, according to the agency's annual ridership count.
....
Many of the agency's most popular trains have more riders than seats and ridership increased at 27 out of 29 stations.
....
The highest increased use of a station was San Jose Diridon, which saw 19 percent more riders in 2012. San Francisco remained the most popular station with 9,670 riders using the station in an average weekday.

Total riders during peak commute hours increased from 18,262 in 2011 to 20,437 this year. Evening service saw a 23 percent rise, from 2,162 to 2,658.
....
The number of bicyclists using Caltrain rose as well as Caltrain has added more bike cars, up 16 percent to 4,242 from 3,664. Beginning in June 2011, every train has been equipped with two bike cars, spurring a 31 percent increase in the number of bike spaces available.
....

[CyberEric]

I hadn't been to Oakland airport since fall and yesterday I noticed a lot of work had been done on the BART connection to the Oakland Airport.

Why hasn't this been discussed here? I think it's a great addition.

[ardecila]

Probably because most of the Bay Area forumers don't live in the East Bay (I'm guessing).

[Gordo]

We talked about it plenty when it was in planning stages, and specifically about how much of a waste of money it was because:

1. $500 million and counting for something that works just fine as a bus (I use it all the time)
2. Other upgrades or infill stations that could have been built for BART instead for a similar amount
3. Ridiculously high per-ride cost for riders - double that of the bus, for a ride that might be a few minutes shorter
4. Very shady process for designing the route and picking the contractor - every step along the way screamed corruption
5. Extremely low ridership projections, especially compared to other projects that could have been funded from the same pot of money
6. Obscenely high operating costs

I'm sure it will be shiny though, so that's something.

I don't think it has anything to do with folks not being in the East Bay. I live in SF and almost always use the Oakland airport - it's about the same length of time to get to, and OAK has far fewer weather delays. I typically only use SFO for international or transcontinental flights.

[CyberEric]

Well it's being built as we speak, despite those things. I figured people would want to know.
I for one am hoping it cuts down travel time to OAK because I too use it more often than SFO.

As well as being shiny, at least now I won't have to explain to my visiting family and friends how to use 3 types of transit to get to my house.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by CyberEric

Well it's being built as we speak, despite those things. I figured people would want to know.
I for one am hoping it cuts down travel time to OAK because I too use it more often than SFO.

As well as being shiny, at least now I won't have to explain to my visiting family and friends how to use 3 types of transit to get to my house.

Fair enough, though based on their estimates it won't cut down on your time.

As far as the 3 types of transit - it will have a separate fare ($6 each way, compared to the current $3 each way) and require a transfer, so it's really not much more a "part" of BART than the AirBART bus is. Both are separate systems operated by and branded as BART.

[fflint]

I've nearly missed my flight a couple times because the BART connector bus got stuck in traffic outside the airport proper--we were literally the last people to board, and they said they held the flight for us. That won't be as likely to happen with an elevated rail connector, but whether it's worth the cost (both in terms of construction/operation and also in terms of passenger fare) is another issue altogether.

[CyberEric]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Fair enough, though based on their estimates it won't cut down on your time.

As far as the 3 types of transit - it will have a separate fare ($6 each way, compared to the current $3 each way) and require a transfer, so it's really not much more a "part" of BART than the AirBART bus is. Both are separate systems operated by and branded as BART.

6$ each way, youch, that's a bummer.

Originally Posted by fflint

I've nearly missed my flight a couple times because the BART connector bus got stuck in traffic outside the airport proper--we were literally the last people to board, and they said they held the flight for us. That won't be as likely to happen with an elevated rail connector, but whether it's worth the cost (both in terms of construction/operation and also in terms of passenger fare) is another issue altogether.

This is why I am excited about it, I too have almost missed a flight because of Air Bart buses being slow and stuck in traffic.

Yes, I think there were better new lines to build, but this is happening no matter how hot our keyboards get. I might as well look on the bright side.

[fflint]

Expect 'trucks with dirt' as BART construction gets under way

Gary Richards
San Jose Mercury News
April 11, 2012





Let the digging begin.

Construction on the biggest public works project ever in Silicon Valley is about to take off. Groundbreaking for the BART to San Jose extension within Santa Clara County is Thursday, rain or shine, and work that began in Fremont in 2009 is steaming ahead.

Combined, the two segments will cost $3.2 billion and run nearly 16 miles from Fremont to East San Jose. Key streets carrying thousands of drivers a day -- Mission Boulevard, Warren Avenue, Kato Road, Dixon Landing Road, Sierra Road -- will be torn up and replaced to run over or under BART. Three train stations will be built.

Construction should end by 2015, with the full extension opening a year later. Until then, hundreds of workers in orange hard hats, cranes looming several stories in the sky and a multiplicity of lane-closed signs will be an everyday part of the landscape.
....
Crews are now nearing the end of work on the 50-foot-deep subway in Fremont's Central Park....
....
Gone will be those nasty, street-level crossings that Union Pacific freight trains once used. While most work will be along that old rail corridor and out of sight, there will be headaches.
....
BART will run mostly at street level, but will go underground north of Montague. A station there will serve as the transfer point for riders who want to take light rail to the many high-tech companies along Tasman Drive.

North of Berryessa Road, BART will rise 35 feet above ground level and remain elevated past Mabury Road, before the line ends near Highway 101.

[CyberEric]

Fantastic news!

[northbay]

A lot of transit construction going on in the bay right now. It's all very exciting.

From the North Bay:

SMART explains its rail construction plan
By BOB NORBERG
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 at 9:43 p.m.

The rail line from Santa Rosa to Petaluma will be a construction zone the next several months as the track is rehabilitated for commute trains.

...

Dust and noise will be inevitable, but it will be short-lived, Keith Tarkalson, project supervisor for the construction firm Stacy and Witbeck said Tuesday night in Santa Rosa at a public meeting... The firm is the major contractor for the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District on the $103 million project to bring 38.5 miles of rail line from Santa Rosa to San Rafael up to standards for trains running up to 79 mph.

...

“We've been told this has been coming for some time,” said Jeanelle Payne, whose back yard is adjacent to the tracks in Roseland. “The noise level is a concern, getting sleep. And the bike path, people next to your fence line.”

Rich Zappa, who also lives near the tracks, is a supporter and unconcerned.

“I want freight. I want passenger trains,” Zappa said. “I was in construction 42 years. I know dust and noise.”

The work will include rebuilding the rail bed, laying concrete ties, installing rail in lengths three-tenths of a mile long, putting on more ballast and aligning the track. The work will be done with tractors and graders, trucks and from the back of a train designed especially for the work.

Construction will start April 27 near Third Street in Santa Rosa and work south through Rohnert Park, Cotati to Petaluma.

Tarkalson said the work will be done from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. four or five days a week. Residents will be notified if there work hours need to be extended.

Alameda-based Stacey and Witbeck Inc. and Missouri-based Herzog Contracting Corp. have the contract for work from Santa Rosa to the Marin Civic Center in San Rafael. A separate contract will be let within the next few months for work from the Civic Center to downtown San Rafael.






(BETH SCHLANKER/ The Press Democrat)

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...news?p=1&tc=pg

[San Frangelino]

Here is the new Bart to Silicon Valley website.

http://www.vta.org/bart/

[northbay]

Originally Posted by San Frangelino

Here is the new Bart to Silicon Valley website.

http://www.vta.org/bart/

Thanks for the link. I'm a visual person, so here's some renderings from the site:

Milpitas







Berryessa Station






Construction





http://www.vta.org/bart/visuallibrary.html#

[M II A II R II K]

Proposed 10-cent gas tax derailed


April 12, 2012

By Michael Cabanatuan

Read More: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAA11O20M9.DTL

Bay Area voters won't be asked this fall to pay at the pump to fill potholes, improve transit and reduce traffic congestion after an opinion poll found scant support for a 10-cent-per-gallon gas tax. The poll, commissioned by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, concluded that just 43 percent of the 3,600 likely voters surveyed said they would vote for the tax, which would raise as much as $280 million a year to spend on transportation improvements throughout the region.

- "Support for a 10-cent-a-gallon tax falls far short of two-thirds," the supermajority required for the measure to pass, said Ruth Bernstein, who works for EMC Research of Oakland, which conducted the poll in February. "Even in San Francisco (where it won 50 percent support), it was short of a majority." The state Legislature in 1997 gave the commission, the Bay Area's transportation planning and financing agency, the authority to place a nine-county regional gas tax measure before voters in any statewide general election during even-numbered years. With transportation needs mounting, and revenues sliding, the commission decided to conduct a detailed poll before proceeding with a ballot measure.

- Not surprisingly, uncertainty about the economy and rising gas prices seemed to affect the results, Bernstein said. Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed expressed concern about the Bay Area economy, and 72 percent were worried about the cost of gasoline. Over the four weeks the survey was taken, gas prices rose 30 cents a gallon, the number of people concerned about fuel costs rose 12 percent, and gas-tax support dropped 6 percent. The margin of error is 1.6 percent overall and 4.9 percent in county results. "We had the misfortune of polling right into the headwind," said Randy Rentschler, a commission spokesman. But Bernstein, whose firm has conducted polls for other agencies proposing tax measures, said the public seems to oppose gasoline taxes even when it will support sales taxes, which end up costing them more.

.....

[pesto]

You would think that repairing pot holes would be just about the first use for transit funds. It tells a lot about our leadership that this is now a "luxury" that can only be afforded if you pay more taxes.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by pesto

You would think that repairing pot holes would be just about the first use for transit funds. It tells a lot about our leadership that this is now a "luxury" that can only be afforded if you pay more taxes.

I wholeheartedly agree. At least of road funds.

Nowhere in the Bay Area is this more of a problem than (unincorporated) Sonoma County - consistently rated the worst roads in the Bay Area by the MTC (except for last year, we were 2nd worst).

A local organization called Save Our Sonoma Roads, or SOSRoads (http://sosroads.org/) is working with county leaders to try and solve the problem. Like a heavy debt load, we have fallen so far behind with maintenance that we are forced to spend more money than usual to rehabilitate the roads, which puts us even farther behind. This viscous cycle means that more than half of the roads have only 2 years or less of serviceable life remaining. And with 1,382 miles of county roads, Sonoma County has by almost double the most road milage of any city/county in the Bay Area.

For a stunning set of maps showing 'failing' roads:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0eY...aUQ/edit?pli=1


http://sosroads.org/index.php/sos-ro...-great-success

The Roads Summit, held March 7th, featured Phil Demery, Sonoma County’s Director of Transportation and Public Works. (I am the one in a black shirt on the extreme right with half my face cut off turning to view the commenter. Yeah, I know. I look really weird in this picture ).

[CityKid]

This has probably been discussed somewhere else, and I might be opening a can of worms, but why don't ACE trains make it to San Francisco again? Did that possibility die when Dumbarton Rail was defunded for a BART project? I don't know very many specifics, but it seems like it would make much more sense than spending money to build BART out in that direction.

[fflint]

High-speed rail could free up valuable space at SFO
Will Reisman
San Francisco Examiner
04/16/12


Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
A Lufthansa Airbus A380 plane lands at San Francisco International Airport on May 10, 2011

While the state’s high-speed rail project is expected to redefine how people travel on trains, local officials are banking on the plan having an equally important impact in the skies.

Small, inefficient flights between The City and the Los Angeles area account for 15 percent of all domestic travel at the San Francisco International Airport. With the option of traveling between the two cities in just two hours and 40 minutes on high-speed rail, travelers may start eschewing the short flights, a development that would open up more gates for lucrative international and trans-continental travel at SFO.

“There is no question that international travel brings a much higher economic benefit to the region,” said Charles Shuler, a spokesman for SFO. “And with high-speed rail, we’ll be able to reduce the number of short-haul trips to the Los Angeles Basin and introduce more international flights.”

Laurie Anderson, spokeswoman for the tourism group San Francisco Travel, said international travelers stay longer and spend more money than domestic visitors. An increase in such travel could introduce San Francisco to a whole new market of future tourists.

“The more visitors we get, the healthier our city is,” said Anderson.

Along with reducing air travel to Los Angeles, high-speed rail also could reduce connecting flights to SFO from Central Valley cities such as Fresno and Modesto.

“A plane with 30 people from Fresno takes the same slot as a 400-person jumbo jet from Beijing,” said Jim Lazarus, public policy director at the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. “High-speed rail will eliminate that problem, and allow for a higher frequency of large planes to land at the airport.”

A functioning high-speed rail system also could reduce congestion and delays at the airport. Since the hub provides so many trips to the Los Angeles region, the rest of its air travel must be squeezed into a relatively tight time slot, a precarious situation that has contributed to SFO’s woeful on-time performance rate.

“Short-haul flights are inherently inefficient,” said Gillian Gillett, the transportation advisor for Mayor Ed Lee. “With high-speed rail, the airport can cater to larger flights with more people. That right there will reduce congestion and delays.”
....

[fflint]

S.F. agency OKs free Muni for low-income kids
Stephanie M. Lee
San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, April 18, 2012


Low-income students would ride Muni for free if the pilot program receives all necessary approvals. Photo: Michael Macor/The Chronicle

Low-income youths could soon ride San Francisco's Muni for free, while drivers who park in the city on Sundays might have to pay up.

Those controversial proposals were approved Tuesday by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's Board of Directors, which unanimously passed the budget for Muni, parking, traffic and taxis over the next two years.
....
The 7-0 vote to start a pilot program that lets disadvantaged youths ride Muni for free makes San Francisco one of a few major transit systems nationwide with similar policies.
....
To help pay for the program, the board approved another controversial proposal: to charge for parking at meters on Sundays. Religious leaders say it will discourage churchgoers from attending services.
....
While the idea of charging for Sunday parking has been considered for several years, Mayor Ed Lee, unlike his predecessor, backs the change.

The MTA budget also calls for implementing all-door boarding by July 1, adding more than 500 parking meters, raising the cost of parking tickets another $5 and spending more than $447 million from the capital budget to continue building the Muni's T-Third line as part of the Central Subway.

[peanut gallery]

^^ Speaking of on-time issues at SFO, wouldn't HSR also reduce or eliminate the need for expanding out into the bay to separate the runways? Fewer flights means less overall delay when things back up due to weather, which in turn makes the issue less acute.

I fly to the East Coast quite a bit and internationally on occasion, so I'd sure like to see more gates alloted to longer-haul flights.