HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2009, 5:53 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

Creation of a regional or city transit thread here seems to be what others are doing and there are some transit developments in the Bay Area that people may want to know about and discuss but aren't worthy of a separate thread so I hope this will be useful.

To begin:

Quote:
Friday, December 18, 2009
Ferry authority to start building S.S.F. terminal
San Francisco Business Times - by Eric Young

A plan to triple ferry ridership on the San Francisco Bay is taking a major step forward with the construction of a new terminal in South San Francisco.

With the $26 million South San Francisco project getting underway, the region’s ferry agency finally is able to foresee the first of seven new ferry routes expected to crisscross the bay in coming years . . . .

The authority has been in planning mode since its creation in 1999. Over the years the agency has had planning slowed or stopped because of its high dependency on volatile state funding. If it can complete the buildout of seven new ferry terminals around the bay, the authority estimates about 10 million commuters a year will use the new routes, up from about 3.3 million now . . . .

The authority gets the bulk of its $18.3 million budget from bridge tolls. Another major source that has been promised but not consistently delivered is $25 million annually from Proposition 1B, the 2006 California infrastructure bond . . . .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Ferry route moving forward with terminal construction:
Route: South San Francisco to Oakland.
What: Terminal construction, 2010-2011.
When: Initial ferry service projected for 2011.

Other planned ferry routes:
Antioch/Pittsburg to Martinez to San Francisco.
Berkeley to San Francisco.
Hercules to San Francisco.
Redwood City to San Francisco.
Richmond to San Francisco.
Treasure Island to San Francisco.
Source: Water Emergency Transportation Authority.
Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...21/story6.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2009, 12:01 AM
Okstate's Avatar
Okstate Okstate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE PDX
Posts: 1,371
Look out Seattle!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2009, 4:48 PM
sammyg sammyg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 311
Why Redwood City to San Francisco and not Oakland?

Caltrain does a good job getting up the Peninsula, but it's a pain to get from Redwood City/Palo Alto to Oakland and Berkeley.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2009, 3:25 AM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is online now
Another day in Paradise
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,742
great. we needed this thread in the main transportation forum. thanks bt.
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Dec 25, 2009, 9:05 AM
Smiley Person's Avatar
Smiley Person Smiley Person is offline
of the bay area
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Berkeley
Posts: 1,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammyg View Post
Why Redwood City to San Francisco and not Oakland?
Caltrain does a good job getting up the Peninsula, but it's a pain to get from Redwood City/Palo Alto to Oakland and Berkeley.
Being able to get off at the Ferry Building downtown instead of at 4th and King would be advantageous for those coming or going from points downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2009, 3:32 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 20,426
I guess new ridership statistics count as news...

Note: No data given for Alameda County Transit, which would vie with VTA for third, IMO.

All data from APTA:
http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...rship_APTA.pdf

Agency - Average Weekday Ridership

San Francisco Muni - 805,600
Bay Area Rapid Transit - 354,800
Santa Clara VTA - 143,600
SamTrans - 48,200
Caltrain - 40,300
Golden Gate Transit - 29,600
Eastern Contra Costa TA- 8,700
Livermore/Amador Valley TA - 6,200
Capitol Corridor (shared with Sacramento) - 5,000
__________________
Under construction right now in San Francisco: over 6,700 housing units and 5,400,000 square feet of commercial space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2009, 5:59 AM
bmfarley's Avatar
bmfarley bmfarley is offline
Long-Time Californian
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California; All Over
Posts: 1,284
I see you're including all modes together.

Central Contra Costa TA: 14,800... I believe that is bus only.
__________________
- Think Big, Go Big. Think small, stay small.
- Don't get sucked into a rabbit's hole.
- Freeways build sprawl. Transit builds cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2009, 7:42 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 20,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmfarley View Post
I see you're including all modes together.

Central Contra Costa TA: 14,800... I believe that is bus only.
APTA does not give numbers for average weekday ridership for Central Contra Costa TA, which is why I left it out. Your figure is for something else--looks like total ridership for the month of July--which does not correspond with the rest of the figures I listed.
__________________
Under construction right now in San Francisco: over 6,700 housing units and 5,400,000 square feet of commercial space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2010, 2:33 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 20,426
KRON 4 reporter Mark Jones reported on the 6pm show this evening that BART moved 88,000 passengers out of downtown San Francisco within one hour after the New Year's Eve fireworks show. That's twice as fast as moving a slightly smaller crowd last year. They did it by splitting passengers up, according to final destination, between Embarcadero and Montgomery stations. BART officials intend to do this next NYE, as well as other big event nights including the 4th of July. They also beefed up the police presence 50%, and there was not a single arrest.

I'd say BART deserves some credit for keeping it together this time.
__________________
Under construction right now in San Francisco: over 6,700 housing units and 5,400,000 square feet of commercial space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2010, 3:49 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 4,871
Splitting those stations is a great idea. Boarding must have been much faster without people standing around waiting for a different train, not to mention one less stop for Richmond/Bay Point trains.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2010, 6:47 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 20,426
AC Transit reports its weekday ridership for 2Q 2009 is 236,000, so I'll update the list:

Agency - Average Weekday Ridership

San Francisco Muni - 805,600
Bay Area Rapid Transit - 354,800
Alameda Contra Costa Transit - 236,000
Santa Clara VTA - 143,600
SamTrans - 48,200
Caltrain - 40,300
Golden Gate Transit - 29,600
Eastern Contra Costa TA- 8,700
Livermore/Amador Valley TA - 6,200
Capitol Corridor (shared with Sacramento) - 5,000

Not bad!
__________________
Under construction right now in San Francisco: over 6,700 housing units and 5,400,000 square feet of commercial space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2010, 10:40 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is online now
Another day in Paradise
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,742
heres a interesting article regarding the soon to be built transbay terminal

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...sbay-terminal/
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2010, 11:46 PM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Couch-surfing provider
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Saudi Houstonia :(
Posts: 18,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
KRON 4 reporter Mark Jones reported on the 6pm show this evening that BART moved 88,000 passengers out of downtown San Francisco within one hour after the New Year's Eve fireworks show. That's twice as fast as moving a slightly smaller crowd last year. They did it by splitting passengers up, according to final destination, between Embarcadero and Montgomery stations. BART officials intend to do this next NYE, as well as other big event nights including the 4th of July. They also beefed up the police presence 50%, and there was not a single arrest.

I'd say BART deserves some credit for keeping it together this time.
BART worked MUCH better getting people out of San Francisco than it did in getting people INTO San Francisco on NYE. The signs/warnings of service changes were not readily available in Oakland or Berkeley heading into the city, but were much better marked when heading back out of the city.

One thing beyond BART's control was a major outage of the ATM/Debit/Credit systems on NYE, which made paying for tickets very difficult, if not impossible for those of us who didn't have enough cash for our tickets and intended to use plastic to pay for fares...

For the record, I had gotten to Emeryville on NYE, took BART to San Francisco from the Ashby Station in Berkeley... Only found out later that it would have probably been easier to just travel to and from the Macarthur Station, but oh well...

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"The three most beautiful cities in the world are Paris, St. Petersburg & Pittsburgh. If Pittsburgh were situated somewhere in the heart of Europe tourists would eagerly journey hundreds of miles out of their way to visit it." The New Yorker Jan. 9, 1989
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 12:25 AM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the Pascack Valley
Posts: 1,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
AC Transit reports its weekday ridership for 2Q 2009 is 236,000, so I'll update the list:

Agency - Average Weekday Ridership

San Francisco Muni - 805,600
Bay Area Rapid Transit - 354,800
Alameda Contra Costa Transit - 236,000
Santa Clara VTA - 143,600
SamTrans - 48,200
Caltrain - 40,300
Golden Gate Transit - 29,600
Eastern Contra Costa TA- 8,700
Livermore/Amador Valley TA - 6,200
Capitol Corridor (shared with Sacramento) - 5,000

Not bad!
WOW , this really shows how much people in California are not always Car Commuters. How much of that is Rail?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 2:51 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 20,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
WOW , this really shows how much people in California are not always Car Commuters. How much of that is Rail?
Well, let's tally it up.

Agency - Average Weeday Unlinked Rail Trips

BART - 354,800
Muni - 186,200
Caltrain - 40,300
VTA - 33,200
Capitol Corridor - 5,000
ACE - 3,700
San Joaquins- 2,600

Let's give only half the ridership to the Bay Area for intercity railroads--it's just easier that way. Capitol Corridor is a Bay Area/Sacramento intercity railroad, and the San Joaqins are the Bay Area/Stockton intercity.

I would award all the ACE ridership to the Bay Area since it leaves the Bay Area but doesn't really hit any sizeable urbanized area. My only issue here is the lack of any verifiable ridership info--this stat comes from Wikipedia, but I can't verify it independently. The broken link was to an APTA Q3 2008 document. Since ridership on the nearby San Joaquins fell 20.56% in one recessionary year, it seems only reasonable to chop 20% off the top of this older ACE stat as well.

All told, that yields roughly 621,260 by rail on a regular workday in the Bay Area.
__________________
Under construction right now in San Francisco: over 6,700 housing units and 5,400,000 square feet of commercial space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 8:18 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 20,426
I should note I was unable to find any statistics on SFO's Airtrain. It's a six-mile long system with two lines operating 24-7, but no ridership data anywhere I can find.
__________________
Under construction right now in San Francisco: over 6,700 housing units and 5,400,000 square feet of commercial space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 10:13 PM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 6,603
So how's SMART coming along? When will construction finally begin? Any plans for transit oriented development in the vicinity of stations?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 10:56 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is online now
Another day in Paradise
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,742
Smart

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post
So how's SMART coming along? When will construction finally begin? Any plans for transit oriented development in the vicinity of stations?
most construction will get started in a year or so. heres recent news re: a tod at railroad square. the sonoma county taxpayers association pisses me off so much - they oppose any tax no matter what - money for schools even!! selfish bastards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the press democrat
Builder, taxpayer groups protest SMART deal

By BLEYS W. ROSE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 6:45 p.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 6:45 p.m.

Leaders of the North Coast Builders Exchange and the Sonoma County Taxpayers Association demanded Wednesday that SMART directors put a stop to negotiations between their Railroad Square project developer and a group representing labor and environmental interests.

Debate over the housing and retail project mirrors complaints the same groups have raised about the influence of the Accountable Development Coalition, composed of unions, housing advocates and environmental groups, in the Sonoma Mountain Village development in Rohnert Park.

There, the coalition has agreed to support a large-scale development of homes, businesses and industrial sites in what critics complain is a blatant attempt to buy off union and environmental opposition.

Keith Woods, executive director for the North Coast Builders Exchange, and others said Wednesday that the negotiations endorsed by SMART will result in a “project labor agreement” that will prevent non-union firms from bidding on aspects of the housing and retail project attached to the Railroad Square train station.

“There should be no discrimination in the bidding process when you use taxpayer money,” Woods said.

Jack Atkin, president of the Taxpayers Association, criticized the negotiations, contending they would limit public scrutiny over how the quarter-cent sales tax is spent on the project planned for Santa Rosa’s largest rail stop.

“It is not in the light of day. It is a back room deal,” Atkin said.

Woods and Aktin were among about a dozen people representing non-union contractors, construction companies and taxpayer groups. The contigent walked out of the SMART board’s public comment session after delivering their complaints and failing to get a response from board members.

Contacted after the four-hour board meeting, board vice-chair Debora Fudge denied the group’s allegations and said the complaints had misrepresented the nature of discussions between developer John Stewart and groups interested in different aspects of the development.

She said the agreement would not preclude non-union contractors from proposing low-cost bids on aspects of the Railroad Square project. So far, the developer has been in negotiations with the coalition, but has not begun similar talks with neighborhood and area business groups that have said they want to weigh in.

“We were surprised that the speakers were so upset because these are issues that were approved a year ago in open sessions,” Fudge said. “They are seeking inflammatory news coverage and saying things that are not true.”


Fudge said SMART had requested that the developer come to a “community benefits agreement” with the Accountable Development Coalition, along with other groups that include the West End Neighborhood Association, the Historic Railroad Square Association, the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition. Such an agreement establishes guidelines such as affordable housing units, worker wages, green building standards and bike-friendly features, she said.

Most of those elements already are required in SMART’s request for project proposals and the agreement ensures that the desires of interested community groups are taken into consideration by the developer, she said. She said the SMART board has the right to reject the agreement.

SMART, short for the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit system, is developing a 71-mile line from Cloverdale to Larkspur with rail stations in Railroad Square, Coddingtown, Petaluma and Cloverdale that are attracting attention from an array of groups interested in transit-oriented projects.
and theyre having another public meeting on the rail vehicles:

Quote:
Originally Posted by the press democrat
Public input sought for SMART trains' setup

By BOB NORBERG
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Sunday, January 3, 2010 at 2:27 p.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, January 3, 2010 at 2:27 p.m.

The public will get a second chance to tell Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit planners what they would like the rail cars to look like at a hearing in San Rafael.

Rail system directors already have chosen self-propelled, American-style, heavy railroad cars for the 71-mile line, which is scheduled to begin running in 2014 from Cloverdale to Larkspur.

Some extras for riders already are planned, such as wireless Internet access, power strips to plug in laptops, reading lights and overhead luggage racks.

What’s left are decisions on how many and the types of seats and whether there are bathrooms, food and drink concessions and bicycle racks.

The first hearing was held in Santa Rosa. Attendees representing the disabled asked for 32-inch-wide aisles to accommodate wheelchairs and bicycling advocates suggested using some fold-up seats to provide for 15 to 20 percent space for bicycles.

SMART is ordering 22 cars, which will run in dual pairs, at a cost of $80 million to $90 million.

The board of directors will make a final decision in March.

LTK Engineering Services of Ambler, Pa., is developing the specifications, which will include such performance criteria as ride, vibration, side sway, acceleration and braking.

The hearing will be at 1:30 p.m. Jan. 13 at the San Rafael Corporate Center’s Tamalpais Meeting Room, 750 Lindaro St.

You can reach Staff Writer Bob Norberg at 521-5206 or bob.norberg@pressdemocrat.com.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...-SMART-trains-
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.

Last edited by northbay; Jan 7, 2010 at 12:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 11:09 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is online now
Another day in Paradise
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by the transport politic
Crossing the Bay Again — But Not Necessarily with BART

A Geary Boulevard heavy rail line could dramatically improve transportation in San Francisco. Yet connecting it to the regional network wouldn’t require using — and perhaps shouldn’t use — BART technology.

The dream for a Geary Boulevard rail line connecting downtown San Francisco to the Richmond neighborhood to its west has been around for decades — at least since 1961 when a proposal for a line to Marin County was being considered. In the early 1970s, it appeared that the project could be complete by 1980 and serve as the first extension of what was then the new BART rapid transit system; another study in 1974 indicated the possibility of extending the light rail Muni Metro along the street. Yet it was not to be.

As the Bay Area plans for its future growth, the project may well be worth reconsidering. Building it in coordination with a new Transbay Tube for California High-Speed trains could save costs and make the proposal a reality.

As costs rose over the years, the possibility for a full-scale Bay Area rapid transit system, especially one focusing on serving San Francisco’s urban core, fell apart. In recent years, the city has invested considerable sums in the creation of the new light rail Muni Metro line along Third Street to underserved Bayview and will soon begin building an extension into Chinatown called the Central Subway; Marin and Somona Counties are planning a new DMU commuter line that will connect to a ferry, having abandoned expensive plans for a direct rail connection into the region’s core; meanwhile, the South Bay is planning to spent billions of dollars on an expansion of BART to San Jose.

In the meantime, San Francisco’s Richmond community has been generally ignored, despite the fact that buses running along Geary Boulevard through the center of the neighborhood carry more than 100,000 daily commuters, making them some of the heaviest-used in North America. Development along the corridor is pretty dense, and there are plenty of land plots ready for redevelopment. The city is planning a relatively cheap bus rapid transit program on the street, but that line won’t do much to speed up the travel of the area’s hundreds of thousands of commuters nor will it connect them directly with other destinations in the greater Bay Area. To put it simply, Geary Boulevard demands a subway rapid transit line linked to the regional network.

In fact, planners have been bringing up the plans for years, usually as an extension of a new BART line running in a second Transbay Tube. The existing BART line between San Francisco and Oakland is operating at capacity, meaning that the Geary corridor simply couldn’t act as a spur from the Market Street main line. But the need to build a new downtown San Francisco line provides a new opportunity to connect the planned Transbay Transit Center to the Bay Area’s transit system and it opens the possibility of running high-speed and commuter trains from San Francisco to Oakland in a shared tunnel. Coordinating the Transbay Center, a Geary Subway, and the new Transbay Tube would produce a program of regional interest and save costs in the long term by merging several construction projects in one.

Using BART technology along the line would require building a four-track tube under the San Francisco Bay: BART trains run on track with a wider gauge than that planned for California High-Speed Rail and used by Caltrain; they also use a third rail power source, versus the overhead catenary planned for the other trains.

Though any new Transbay Tube — which would have to be more than three miles long — would cost billions of dollars, requiring that it be four-tracked would raise the price exponentially, making it all the more unlikely to be built. But there’s a solution: the new Geary line doesn’t have to use existing BART technology and instead could use off-the-rack traditional trains compatible with the high-speed trains. This would allow transit planners to build just two new tracks under the Bay and improve cost efficiencies by ensuring a full-capacity use of the new line. Rapid transit trains using the same tracks as high-speed and Caltrain trainsets could provide just as high of a frequency, reliability, and speed as BART.

A 5.85-mile route under Geary Boulevard, running to 33rd Avenue in Outer Richmond, might include 8 stations, including one at Transbay. Though some previous proposals had indicated the possibility of running the line partially along an elevated structure, the line would have to be built in a subway for the sake of satisfying neighborhood concerns. Fortunately, modern automated boring machines have cheapened the cost and reduced the environmental side-effects of tunneling.

Integrated into the Downtown Extension project, which will bring Caltrain (and high-speed rail) from its existing terminus and 4th and King Streets to the new Transbay Center, the new Geary Line would have a direct link to regional connections. At a new station near Union Square, the corridor could offer connections to BART’s Powell or Montgomery Stations; similarly, it would have a direct link there with the Central Subway and T-Third Street Muni Metro Service.

Once the new Geary Line crosses the Bay, a new station at Alameda Point would connect with a huge redevelopment zone on the site of a former naval base. Then, running north in a new 4.45-mile tunnel under Oakland’s Cypress Street, the line could connect directly to BART at West Oakland, where massive neighborhood reconstruction is a possibility. Though West Oakland is relatively low density, the surrounding industrial zones are likely to be replaced by housing during the next few decades, requiring better public transportation.

Caltrain trains would be diverted 1.6 miles east along the existing rail line to Oakland’s Jack London Station, where they would terminate and offer connections to Amtrak trains. High-speed trains could continue running north and south along the East Bay, using the existing Amtrak corridor.

To save costs, the new Geary line, existing the new Oakland tunnel, would connect to the existing Capitol Corridor rail line used by Amtrak and run 4.75 miles along the west side of Emeryville and Berkeley, finally reconnecting to BART at El Cerrito Plaza via a 0.8-mile tunnel under Albany Hill Park. The service could also be continued north for 3.75 miles to Richmond, again along the existing Capitol Corridor, where another BART link-up is possible. The areas reached by this line are about a mile and a half from existing BART stations and are of moderate, though increasing, density. The new line would open up a large new area of the region to direct access to the San Francisco core, increasing transit ridership and encouraging development.

There are several drawbacks to this expensive proposal: one of the purposes of a new Transbay Tube would be to reinforce the existing one and serve as a temporary replacement in case of failure or maintenance. By eliminating BART trains from the tunnel, that possibility is limited, though an easy transfer at West Oakland could work almost as well. Meanwhile, the lack of interconnectivity with BART means a required switch of lines for travelers trying to use the new Geary line.

One could also make the argument that the most suitable areas in Oakland for new transit are further inland — but building there, versus along an existing rail line ringing the Bay, would cost much more. It would be possible to extend the Geary Line in phases, however, with future connections throughout Oakland, serving as something as a parallel network to BART. Similarly, if the new Transbay Tube proves too expensive in the medium-term, the Geary Line could simply terminate at the Transbay Center along with high-speed and Caltrain services (though that would require a much larger structure than currently planned).

The overall benefits of running the Geary line as a catenary-based conventional rail system would save the region billions of dollars over a BART-based alternative: The new Transbay Tunnel could be two-tracked, rather than have four tracks; Geary line trains could use the existing rail corridors in the East Bay without requiring the complete reconstruction of the corridor; and the expense of the Transbay Center would be reduced as high-speed, regional, and local trains could share tracks.

An exciting possibility. Now where are the funds?



source: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...ily-with-bart/

i have to say i like the ideas yonah (the author) brings up. what do u guys think? can we build something like this within our lifetimes? or is this a pipe dream?
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 11:42 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 20,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by northbay420 View Post
i have to say i like the ideas yonah (the author) brings up. what do u guys think? can we build something like this within our lifetimes? or is this a pipe dream?
Agreed.

His two best ideas:

*Conventional, off-the-shelf heavy rail for the Geary corridor through downtown and over to Transbay, with downtown transfers to Muni and BART subways. Cheaper than BART's proprietary stuff, more capacity than light rail for Muni's busiest (non-downtown) transit corridor.

*A second transbay tunnel with standard-gauge rail to Alameda/Oakland. It would not only help redevelop the old naval base, but it might also allow for regular Amtrak service into the City via Oakland. Perhaps even HSR could roll through that tunnel on dedicated tracks if necessary--Penninsula NIMBYs seem determined, as usual, to keep all change from touching their little garden suburbs.
__________________
Under construction right now in San Francisco: over 6,700 housing units and 5,400,000 square feet of commercial space.
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:45 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.