There is lots of political momentum right now in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose for much-needed BART expansions, so I feel it's time the Bay got its own transit thread.

 

In time for Thanksgiving last year, the Oakland Airport Connector train opened, which is already leading to increased traffic at OAK. The Bay now has two major airports with direct rail access on BART. SFO's BART connection opened in 2003.

 

The Central Subway Muni extension is currently under construction in San Francisco. It will likely make the T-Third Muni Metro line the busiest light rail line in the city when it opens.

 

BART is currently connecting San Jose to the system, and it's moving along well. There is still debate about how many stations San Jose will get, but it seems that political willpower will push for at least four or five with a subway under Santa Clara Street downtown. San Jose will have direct rail access to Oakland, and from there, San Francisco.

 

And perhaps best of all is the talk of a second transbay tube! This will allow 24-hour BART service between San Francisco-Oakland and could also finally lead to the construction of a subway under Geary. Geary is currently served by one of North America's busiest and most over-crowded bus lines, Muni's 38 Geary. SFer's jokingly refer to it as the "Dirty Eight."

 

*I used to ride that 38 Geary to work, and it was usually terrible. Rush hour crush loads were unreal. Many residents of the dense neighborhoods along Geary learned to take alternative routes like the 5 Fulton or 1 California.

 

**Both the 38 Geary and 5 Fulton are 24-hour busses due to how much traffic there is along those lines. I rode some 38 Geary busses after 2am, and it was still jampacked. An east-west heavy rail subway through some of the densest neighborhoods in San Francisco is long overdue. The Geary subway was part of the original BART design until Marin County pulled out. BART to the Beach would be an instant success (similar to the Wilshire Subway under construction right now in Los Angeles). Well over 50,000 daily riders take the 38 Geary bus to downtown SF. This is busier than any light rail lines in San Francisco, and roughly the same ridership as the entire Caltrain commuter rail system between San Francisco and San Jose. Caltrain has 77 miles of track versus Geary's 7-mile length across SF. The 38 Geary also has higher ridership than San Jose's entire light rail system. This ensures high ridership for a heavy rail subway. Geary historically had a light rail streetcar called the B-Geary Muni Metro. This is the biggest east-west spine in San Francisco, and the existing bus ridership proves modern light rail is not adequate in a city with SF's population density. San Francisco should be all heavy rail subway at this point given its population density, geography, public transit ridership, and lack of parking infrastructure. By the 2020 census, it will likely be over 1 million people at over 20,000 people per square mile.  Oakland is better for mixed heavy and light rail since it's half the population density of SF and its densest neighborhoods don't come close to the density of San Francisco areas like the Tenderloin, Nob Hill, or Chinatown. Oakland is growing faster than San Francisco now, but it should only reach 500,000 people by 2020 with a density of 10,000 people per square mile. Both cities are extremely underbuilt in terms of transit and housing. TOD is not anywhere near where it should be with the exceptions of Downtown San Francisco BART stations (Embarcadero, Montgomery, Powell, and Civic Center). Downtown Oakland still has empty lots within blocks of its 3-track subway under Broadway. Both the San Francisco and Oakland residential stations are extremely underbuilt by heavy rail standards. When you compare San Francisco and Oakland BART stations with what exists in New York City, Toronto, Montreal, and Chicago, the difference is glaring.

 

The problem in the Bay is that the densest and most vibrant urban neighborhoods have no heavy rail service. This is what has led to intense overcrowding on Muni Metro light rail and Muni bus lines. The upshot of this is a major political shift underway in the Bay with support for greatly improved BART service. The Bay's infrastructure has reached its breaking point, and the majority of people see the value in supporting BART improvements. I do believe that in ten years, BART will be a very different animal. I think residents in San Francisco and Oakland are going to vote in support for most of these projects. The Bay could end up with a first class transit system on par with Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, and DC.

 

***San Jose has also shown a dramatic political shift in support of transit expansions with dense urban infill. The transformation of that city is well underway and it now has the Bay's most progressive politics. It's going through the political shift that Los Angeles went through in the 90's.

 

****It should also be noted that Google buses and other tech shuttles are no longer viewed as a viable alternative to real mass transit. Silicon Valley tech companies are buying up more office space directly in San Francisco and Oakland to start to reduce their reliance on private shuttles. Some of the private start-up luxury buses have also imploded recently:

 

Leap, the luxury San Francisco commuter bus, is bankrupt and selling its buses for $5 each

Biz Carson

Sep. 15, 2015, 4:06 PM

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/leap-declares-bankruptcy-2015-9

 

While Uber and Lyft remain extremely popular, traffic has gotten so bad in the Bay, people are coming around to supporting mass transit again. Private luxury buses are proving to not be sustainable and are inadequate to deal with the Bay's commuting levels.

2nd Transbay Tube Being Studied

December 3, 2014 3:46 PM

 

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — BART has released a comprehensive plan for the next decade that could include a second transbay tunnel in its effort to increase Bay Area service.

 

The agency unveiled the outline to the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board committee recently. BART’s acting manager for strategic planning and development told the committee that regional transportation agencies plan to fund a study of the tube, according to SF Street Blog.

 

The new tube could stretch from San Francisco’s Richmond District in the west, crossing underneath existing transit lines on Market Street before carrying passengers to various location in the East Bay.

 

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/12/03/bart-studying-plan-for-2nd-transbay-tube/

Alameda and Oakland Officials Contemplate the Possibility of a Second Transbay Tube

Early proposal for a second BART Transbay Tube contemplates a new station in Jack London Square, or Alameda, or both.

By Sarah Phelan

 

Will there be political consensus for an Alameda BART station? Would a Jack London Square BART station with elevators popping out in Alameda and in Oakland be feasible? And who would pay the multibillion-dollar cost of a second Transbay Tube?

 

These questions are beginning to fly as Bay Area Rapid Transit, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, and other regional transportation agencies study proposals to build a second Transbay Tube in the face of warnings that the current tube will hit absolute capacity within 50 years.

 

A second Transbay Tube is currently only a concept, not a BART-supported idea, agency spokeswoman Alicia Trost said. “But at some point, BART will need to build a second Transbay Tube, and one idea is a line going through Alameda,” she added.

 

In 2013, BART director Robert Raburn said Alameda could be well positioned for its own BART station, given its high transit ridership. Raburn’s comments came in response to a July 2013 letter from then-Alameda Mayor Marie Gilmore, who requested that BART consider building an Alameda BART station and an additional Transbay Tube. This extension, wrote Gilmore, “would provide a convenient and efficient transportation option for transit riders throughout the region and allow the city to create a truly transit-oriented development at Alameda Point.”

 

CONTINUED

http://www.oaklandmagazine.com/Alameda-and-Oakland-Officials-Contemplate-the-Possibility-of-a-Second-Transbay-Tube/

S.F. leaders tour completed Central Subway tunnel

By Michael Cabanatuan Updated 7:42 am, Tuesday, May 19, 2015

 

The future of transit in San Francisco was exposed Monday, and though it was dim, gray and dusty, city leaders and transportation officials said it portends a bright future with less traffic congestion.

 

Mayor Ed Lee took a brief walk into one of the two Central Subway tunnels, which were officially completed last week. The mayor and other city officials strolled a couple of blocks beneath Fourth Street to where crews are excavating the Yerba Buena/Moscone Station, where construction crews have yet to break into the subway itself.

 

Standing where northbound trains are scheduled to run starting in 2019, the mayor said the 1.7-mile subway would not only speed transit travel but relieve congestion. Traffic South of Market, especially near the Bay Bridge, is slowed by multiple construction projects, including the Central Subway. He also brought up the possibility of an extension to Fisherman’s Wharf.

 

The $1.6 billion subway project, which will become part of the T-Third Muni Metro line, extends from Fourth and King streets, near the Caltrain terminal, above ground to a station at Fourth and Brannan streets before heading underground near Harrison Street. It passes beneath Fourth and Stockton streets to the end-of-the-line station at Washington Street. Trains will stop at subterranean stations at Moscone Center, Union Square and Chinatown.

 

FULL ARTICLE

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-leaders-tour-completed-Central-Subway-tunnel-6271655.php

New BART service to Oakland International Airport now open

 

It’s fast, it’s frequent, and it’s convenient.  BART’s new train to plane service, “BART to OAK,” which provides an easy connection to Oakland International Airport, opened for passenger service on Saturday, November 22, 2014.

 

Clean, Easy, and Quick Service

 

Riders can now board one of four three-car automated people movers at either the Coliseum Station or the Oakland International Airport Station and take the eight-minute ride at 30 mph. 

 

“The ride and the experience alone are memorable,” said BART General Manager Grace Crunican.  “Riders get a 360 degree view from the windows surrounding the entire car as you travel over the traffic below.  It’s a cable propelled system with light-weight and quiet trains, so it’s like gliding through the air.” 

 

Trains arrive every 5 minutes during peak commute hours (8am-8pm) and drop off and pick up riders just steps away from both terminals at OAK.  BART riders have a quick and easy train to train transfer at the Coliseum station.  Riders can use a BART ticket or a Clipper Card. The complete schedule can be found below.

 

Sample one-way adult fares between the new Oakland International Airport Station and various stations throughout the system include: from Downtown Oakland stations: $7.85; from Downtown San Francisco stations: $10.05; from Downtown Berkeley station $8.50; from Walnut Creek station $9.70; from Fremont $9.85; from Dublin Pleasanton station: $9.80.  Fare listings can be found here: http://www.bart.gov/tickets/calculator

 

The project team has already won awards for the systems' innovative engineering and forward use of technology.  The project broke ground in 2010 and construction cost $484 million.

 

https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2014/news20141121-0

Streetcars Could Return to Oakland as a Broadway Shuttle Upgrade

Far from settled, the play would cost 10 times more than improved buses, but its permanence might spur business development.

By Brad Kava

 

City planners are considering adding a new jewel to booming downtown Oakland–a streetcar that would string together the thriving districts along the Broadway corridor like pearls on a necklace.

 

The city is in the middle of a $300,000 study about beefing up the urban transit system, either with streetcars or an enhanced bus system. At an estimated $205 million, laying streetcar tracks is 10 times more expensive than an improved bus line, but some cities have seen significant economic development because they can bank on the permanence of tracks.

 

The East Bay, of course, is no stranger to streetcars, being the longtime home to the successful and intricate web of transit known as the Key System. The privately owned commuter rail system linked streetcars and bus lines from San Leandro to Richmond and on to San Francisco, first by ferry, then via the lower deck of the old Bay Bridge. Ultimately, General Motors, Firestone, and Standard Oil of California bought up the nation’s electric railway systems, including the Key System, to make way for cars and buses, and pulled the plug on the Key System in 1950–a crime that will live in infamy.

 

The new Oakland system would run from Jack London Square, along Broadway to the MacArthur Bart station, much of the same route covered by the free Broadway shuttle bus line, the B. It would pass near Chinatown, City Center, Uptown, Valdez Triangle, Koreatown and, ultimately, Temescal.

 

CONTINUED

http://www.oaklandmagazine.com/Oakland-Magazine/January-February-2015/Streetcars-Could-Return-to-Oakland-as-a-Broadway-Shuttle-Upgrade/

BART can’t keep pace with rising 'crush loads’

By Michael Cabanatuan Updated 7:54 am, Monday, April 13, 2015

 

With a familiar beep-beep, a Fremont-bound BART train rumbles into MacArthur Station in Oakland and an equally familiar routine begins. Hundreds of passengers exit. Most walk, some jog, across the platform and form neat lines as a San Francisco train rolls in.

 

Each of the 10 cars on the arriving train is already packed full of morning commuters, but only a few riders get out. It seems impossible, but most of the queued-up crowd squeezes on board. On one car, the guy standing nearest the entrance sucks in his gut, lets out a deep breath and puts his hands behind his back as the doors close.

 

“You could feel the heat coming out of that train just standing here,” said Edwin Charlebois, a UCSF epidemiologist and veteran BART rider who chose to wait for the next train, hoping there would be a little more space.

 

The tightly packed BART cars during commutes these days are a result of the transit agency’s success — and its failure.

 

Weekday ridership now averages about 420,000 — 100,000 more than five years ago. But BART hasn’t kept pace with that growth and is hobbled by its inadequate infrastructure.

 

CONTINUED

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-can-t-keep-pace-with-rising-crush-loads-6192950.php#photo-7761312

I'm really hoping that San Mateo county gets on board and decides to join BART - its exclusion really hurts the bay area as a whole and provides a very large gap in the system that makes it useless for commuting to silicon valley and in turn makes it more difficult for dense development where its most needed in the region - in the many ticky-tacky suburbs along the peninsula

^Development in San Mateo County is almost all focused on Caltrain, and there has been a ton of infill around those stations. It's my understanding that Calfiornia's high-speed rail will closely follow the Caltrain route, so it's worth doing a lot of development around those commuter rail stations. It is an absolute development explosion right now along the Caltrain line. San Mateo County's denser urban nodes are much closer to its Caltrain stations than its BART stations (Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, SFO, Millbrae). San Mateo County is already on BART, but I wouldn't expect any more BART stations due to booming Caltrain ridership in the county. With Millbrae's BART to Caltrain connection, I highly doubt BART will go south of there. The design is meant to push transfers to Caltrain.

 

I personally do the BART to Caltrain transfer when visiting Palo Alto, and it's pretty painless. I'd say in terms of time, it's about even with driving in average traffic, but faster when it's peak traffic on 101 or 880.

 

This is an example of some of the Caltrain infill:

 

Transit-based development steams ahead: Caltrain, Sares Regis to build apartments at San Mateo’s Hayward Park parking lot

June 10, 2015, 05:00 AM By Samantha Weigel Daily Journal

 

For a San Mateo train station that was once slated to close due to a lack of business, Caltrain’s Hayward Park locale is now serving as the catalyst for numerous developments — including one initiated by the transit agency itself.

 

With nearly 599 residences slated next door and almost 300,000 square feet of office space being built across the street, Caltrain is proceeding with its own transit-oriented housing development on nearly 2.7 acres of its surface parking lot at Concar Drive and Pacific Boulevard. The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board voted last week to work with the Sares Regis Group of Northern California to build a multi-family apartment complex hosting between 100 and 150 units on the triangle-shaped lot.

 

“We have been an infill builder for our entire existence and we believe in mass transit, transit-oriented development and all the things that allow people to get out of their cars, live more of a lifestyle that doesn’t depend on the vehicle quite as much,” said Drew Hudacek, Sares Regis’ chief investment officer.

 

Caltrain will continue to own the land while charging Sares Regis, which will own the property, a fair-market value after negotiating the specifics of a long-term lease, said Brian Fitzpatrick, Caltrain’s manager of real estate and property development.

 

CONTINUED

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2015-06-10/transit-based-development-steams-ahead-caltrain-sares-regis-to-build-apartments-at-san-mateos-hayward-park-parking-lot/1776425144831.html

The Transformation of Transbay

By Ron Nyren

September 21, 2015

 

Today, San Francisco anticipates the 2017 opening of a new Transbay Transit Center, envisioned as the “Grand Central Station of the West.” Unlike Grand Central, it will have a 1,400-foot-long (430 m) elevated linear park on its roof. The 1 million-square-foot (93,000 sq m) facility is ultimately expected to accommodate more than 100,000 passengers each weekday and up to 45 million people a year, bringing Caltrain within a block and a half of the city’s financial district, connecting the city to Los Angeles via California’s future high-speed rail line, and linking to nine other local and regional transit systems.

 

Overseen by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA), the Transbay program includes the creation of the Transit Center District. The high-density mixed-use neighborhood currently under construction will have retail space, hotels, open space, market-rate housing, and a high proportion of affordable housing.

 

“We’re building a place where people will be able to take public transit to all points of the Bay Area, the state, the region, and the United States. But it will also be a place where people can come and take a break from their daily lives through our retail, restaurants, public art, parks, gardens, amphitheater, and plazas,” says Maria Ayerdi-Kaplan, executive director of the TJPA. “We’re hoping that people will see this as more than just a transit station.”

 

FULL ARTICLE

http://urbanland.uli.org/development-business/transformation-transbay/

^Development in San Mateo County is almost all focused on Caltrain, and there has been a ton of infill around those stations. It's my understanding that Calfiornia's high-speed rail will closely follow the Caltrain route, so it's worth doing a lot of development around those commuter rail stations. It is an absolute development explosion right now along the Caltrain line. San Mateo County's denser urban nodes are much closer to its Caltrain stations than its BART stations (Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, SFO, Millbrae). San Mateo County is already on BART, but I wouldn't expect any more BART stations due to booming Caltrain ridership in the county. With Millbrae's BART to Caltrain connection, I highly doubt BART will go south of there. The design is meant to push transfers to Caltrain.

 

I personally do the BART to Caltrain transfer when visiting Palo Alto, and it's pretty painless. I'd say in terms of time, it's about even with driving in average traffic, but faster when it's peak traffic on 101 or 880.

 

This is an example of some of the Caltrain infill:

 

Still Caltrain outside of peak hours only runs a train an hour.  I know Sam Trans also runs express buses every half hour as well to fill the gaps, but these are two separate agencies with two separate fare schemes.  While the clipper card has helped some of this its still ridiculous and overly fractures bay area transit for no good reason which IMO hurts the quality of services and puts a lot of extra strain on San Francisco's housing market.  I wish the bay area would do what the MTA did a long time ago and just consolidate the 100s of transit agencies into one organization with shared fare schemes.

 

I'd rather see that corridor (which has some really great railroad commuter towns along it, especially San Mateo) be strictly high speed rail service, leave the local stuff to BART.

 

 

^I'm with you. I think BART should encircle the entire Bay at this point and triple its number of stations in urban areas like San Francisco and Oakland. Caltrain is beefing up, so I expect it to match other commuter rail systems like the GO Train in Greater Toronto (much shorter headways).

 

SamTans is not a good option due to traffic. We need all of our transit to be grade-separated in the Bay. The plethora of different transit agencies is a serious issue that no doubt hurts Bay Area transit. Other cities just aren't dealing with all these political factions. BART is also brutal on the wallet. The average Oakland or Berkeley resident who works in downtown SF is paying $200-$300 a month for BART. East Bay suburban folks? It could be upwards of $400 a month. That's insane (but still way cheaper than driving and parking). The pay-by-mile system on BART is ruthless, but expected given the libertarian nature of the Bay. Everything is designed to keep poor people out of San Francisco...

 

 

 

 

Sam Trans can at least use the hov lanes which helps a bit...

 

Bart's payment is nuts what's craziest is that monthly passes are only available for muni pass holders. Whole system in the bay area is a broken mess (though coverage is great)

 

Video of the Transbay Transit Center:

 

Video of the Transbay Transit Center:

 

 

It's shit like this that makes me REALLY want to move to San Francisco to be a transportation/transit planner. omg. plannergasm over here...

Seems San Fran is interested in densifying the western neighborhoods, predictably there is opposition: http://www.sfexaminer.com/residents-alarmed-program-encouraging-density-residential-developments/

^Politics are shifting much faster in San Francisco than in Oakland. SF recently voted "No" on the November ballot issue proposing a moratorium on all development in the Mission District. Expect a lot more transit-oriented development now in San Francisco, particularly because there are a lot of vacant and low-value lots within a mile of BART stations in western SOMA and the Mission. They're also the two most tech-dominated neighborhoods in the city. Tech overall tends to be more pro-development. The issue in the Sunset is light rail. With the population explosion out there of millennials, Muni is well past its breaking point and relief is nowhere in sight (or even remotely possible). Priorities for BART should be a Geary subway to the Richmond District before any heavy rail expansions to the Sunset District. In the case of the Sunset, I understand the development controversy since it's unlikely to ever see heavy rail transit while the existing light rail is woefully inadequate and crush-load crowded most of the day. Muni is an unreliable disaster. BART at least knows how to properly run a transit system.

 

Oakland should be where 75% of development takes place. Three of Oakland's BART stations are in low density hipster/ghetto wastelands like West Oakland, MacCarthur, and Coliseum. Each of those three BART stations could easily support 10,000 new infill housing units around them and still be woefully underutilized due to the low population densities around them. That's how bad West Oakland and deep East Oakland got...

 

A fourth Oakland BART station, Lake Merritt, is also fairly low density and could support much higher levels of development. Oakland Chinatown does not protest against development, and the city of Oakland approved vastly increased density levels around Lake Merritt BART station. High-rise housing 300+ feet tall has been approved there. Protests against housing development in Oakland have been intense, but we haven't seen a major riot since May. I think that's a record in recent years. Unlike West Oakland, there were no riots in Chinatown when the city approved its area plan. Politically-speaking, Chinatown is by far the smartest and most sane neighborhood in Oakland. Hardly any multi-millionaire investors, anarchists, or NIMBY's live in Chinatown. Demographically, it has nothing in common with West Oakland or Temescal. It also hardly has any single-family homes with owners trying to keep pushing property values up 40% a year. Don't expect any ballot issues there trying to stop housing development like the failed attempt in San Francisco's Mission District. Oakland Chinatown is poised to become the most exciting area for development in the Bay:

 

Lake Merritt Station Area Plan

http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PBN/OurServices/Plans/DOWD008198

 

*And this is all to say nothing of the low density neighborhoods around two of the three Berkeley BART stations (Ashby and North Berkeley). BART probably overall has the lowest density development of any heavy rail rapid transit system in the world outside Atlanta. Basically, there is tons of potential in Oakland and its East Bay suburbs to dramatically increase density along transit lines. Of the suburbs, Berkeley should see the most development since students can't remotely afford housing there anymore, and everything outside Downtown Berkeley/university area is low density while largely lacking in historic landmarks. While Oakland should easily be over 500,000 people by the 2020 census, the city could support up to 750,000 residents within a decade or so as long as BART is beefed up. Berkeley can easily support up to 200,000 residents without straining infrastructure to anywhere near the levels seen in San Francisco. The Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations are so dead it's sad to see. :|

 

New BART cars are coming in 2017, which should increase capacity in the short-term (but we're already way over capacity, so these don't allow expansions as much as deal with current crowding issues). We really need the second Transbay Tube to happen ASAP while also pushing office development to Downtown Oakland. With a second Transbay Tube, I have few doubts San Francisco will reach a population of 1.25 million people and Oakland a population of 750,000. This could happen as quickly as the 2020's, but the infrastructure has to be built first, or our quality of life will keep declining here...

Bay area really seems like its at a tipping point - hopefully this is the kind of enviornment that will see a radical paradigm shift in the way American's live due to these crazy constraints on our system.

 

Oakland should be where 75% of development takes place. Three of Oakland's BART stations are in low density hipster/ghetto wastelands like West Oakland, MacCarthur, and Coliseum. Each of those three BART stations could easily support 10,000 new infill housing units around them and still be woefully underutilized due to the low population densities around them. That's how bad West Oakland and deep East Oakland got...

 

Yeah its amazing how much better BART service is in the East Bay and yet its also the most challenging area to redevelop.  Economic pressure will win out hopefully and we'll start seeing Oakland densify, though it really does need to fix its crime problem first.

Here is an example of recent TOD proposals approved in Oakland since the Uber announcement. This high-rise will literally be right across the street from the Uber HQ (I saw similar development across the street from Twitter HQ when I lived in Mid-Market San Francisco). For those who don't know, BART is headquartered in Oakland, and there has been a political sea change recently creating development zones around Oakland's stations for dense TOD. BART and Oakland's planning commission are starting to work together, and it's leading to improved development proposals. Oakland's current administration has made it clear that Oakland's stations are vastly underutilized, and the city should support transit-oriented development. Anarchists and wealthy NIMBY's in Oakland have used these transit-oriented development plans as justification for riots and protests, and some very good projects have been killed. Oakland has become a bizarre mix of "Mad Max," "Girls," "Looking," "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps," and "City of God."

 

Fingers crossed protests and riots don't sink this tower like other similar high-rise proposals in Oakland. We desperately need high-rises in Oakland due to high land values, and no city on earth needs housing more than Oakland does. Developers claim the market isn't there yet for mega-skyscrapers like in San Francisco, but towers of 10-30 stories near BART are very viable (though developers are grossly underestimating demand, or more likely, just want to continue the housing shortage to keep price per square foot in the stratosphere). This project is a major win all around. The 33-story tower will be built on a surface lot and only take out one dumpy mid-century commercial building. The historic building on site will be saved and integrated into the project. A parking garage already exists behind the building with street-level retail. Within easy walking distance of this site are Uber's new HQ, Pandora's HQ, and Kaiser Permanente's HQ. The whole block will be redeveloped and it has outstanding access to 19th Street BART Station. This is a massive, three-track subway station and one of the only spots on BART with timed transfers:

 

 

 

 

33-Story Oakland Tower Approved

In total, the development would yield 345 residential units, with parking for 333 cars and 10,000 square feet of ground floor retail.

 

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/08/33-story-oakland-tower-slated-for-approval.html

This is a rendering of the transit-oriented development proposal that caused riots in West Oakland last year:

 

 

http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PBN/OurOrganization/PlanningZoning/OAK028334

There have been a lot of killings around West Oakland BART lately, but this one was just ridiculous. How come there was no working camera in the train? How come there were no security guards or cops around to stop the killer from getting away in front of 100 people?

 

Oakland has a serious lack of policing that needs to be addressed ASAP. Shootings around stations are way too common even if shootings on trains themselves are rare events:

 

BART train shooting: Heroic passengers desperately tried to save victim

By Matthias Gafni and Rick HurdBay Area News Group

POSTED:  01/10/2016 01:12:20 PM PST25 COMMENTS| UPDATED:  11 DAYS AGO

 

OAKLAND -- As the packed BART train slowed to a halt Saturday night, a series of gunshots reverberated through the six cars and the sparsely populated West Oakland station platform. Some passengers fled out the open car doors, while others crouched down, panicked, confused and scanning the scene for what they believed could be an active shooter terrorist plot unfolding, as had happened in Paris and San Bernardino.

 

But some people soon gathered their wits. Shortly after the unidentified young man who was shot as he sat near a train door fell to the floor bleeding, cars full of strangers suddenly teamed together to care for the victim and other traumatized riders, one passenger said later.

 

CONTINUED

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_29366970/

The Oakland City Council president's grandson was killed near West Oakland BART just two weeks earlier:

 

Vigil Remembers Slain Oakland City Council President’s Grandson

December 24, 2015 1:05 PM

 

OAKLAND (CBS SF) – Oakland City Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney was among several dozen people who attended a candlelight prayer vigil early Thursday evening for her grandson, a teen who was fatally shot near the West Oakland BART station last weekend.

 

17-year-old Torian Hughes briefly attended McClymonds High School in West Oakland this past fall and was in an independent study program at the time of his death. He was shot in the 900 block of Mandela Parkway at about 1:40 p.m. on Sunday and was taken by paramedics to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead a short time later.

 

CONTINUED

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/12/24/vigil-to-remember-slain-oakland-city-council-presidents-grandson/

This random shooting at the 12th Street BART station exit happened recently too. The city and BART have done nothing to secure station areas. My guess is that after the Oscar Grant killing and the movie "Fruitvale", BART is paranoid of lawsuits. BART police are incredibly hands-off in Oakland compared to San Francisco. So even though BART tries to act like violence at Oakland stations are isolated incidents, that's clearly not the case:

 

VIDEO: Woman wounded in downtown Oakland shooting, caught in crossfire

By Mario Sevilla, KRON

Published: January 5, 2016, 12:06 pm  Updated: January 5, 2016, 6:53 pm

 

OAKLAND (KRON) — Police are investigating a shooting in downtown Oakland that left a bystander wounded.

 

The incident happened just after 10:30 a.m. on the 1300 block of Broadway near the 12th St. Oakland City Center BART station.

 

Police say that an armed female officer saw two men arguing, one of the men pulled out a gun and fired the weapon. Both men fled the scene on foot. The officer chased the suspected shooter along Broadway to 14th Street but the man got away.

 

CONTINUED

http://kron4.com/2016/01/05/woman-wounded-in-downtown-oakland-shooting-caught-in-crossfire/

3rd Quarter 2015 Daily Ridership numbers for San Francisco-Bay Area

 

Heavy Rail

San Francisco-Oakland / BART - 455,600 (2015) : 1.44% +

 

Light Rail

San Francisco / Muni Metro - 180,500 (2015) : 1.67% +

San Jose / VTA LRT - N/A (2015) : N/A

 

Streetcar

San Francisco / Cable cars - 25,000 (2015) : 1.99% +

 

Trolley Bus

San Francisco / Muni - 170,800 (2015) : -11.22%

 

Bus Ridership

San Francisco / Muni - 317,200 (2015) : 4.70%+

Oakland / AC Bus - 171,300 (2015) : -1.28%

San Jose / SCV Bus - 105,600 (2015) : -2.19%

San Carlos / San Mateo County Tran Dist - 42,100 (2015) : -0.65%

Vallejo / Solano County Transit (SolTrans) - 5,300 (2015) : 7.55% +

 

Suburban/Regional/Commuter Rail

Bay Area / Caltrain - 62,700 (2015) : 5.22% +

San Jose-Stockton / ACE - 5,200 (2015) : 6.10% +

 

Ferries

San Francisco / Golden Gate Bridge, Hwy & TD - 9,600 (2015) : 6.34% +

San Francisco / Water Emergency Tr Auth - 8,700 (2015) : 23.64% +

 

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2015-q3-ridership-APTA.pdf

Wednesday, February 17, 2016 72 Comments

BART Struggles to Balance Current Needs with Vision for Future

by Roger Rudick

 

BART’s board and staff is working on a $3 billion bond that, if approved by the BART Board this summer, will appear on the November ballot. If the voters go for it, it will help fund upgrades and maintenance to existing infrastructure. Even though it’s primarily about maintenance and upgrades to existing tracks and tunnels, advocates are pushing to have $200 million of it earmarked towards more planning for a second Transbay crossing.

 

CONTINUED

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2016/02/17/bart-struggles-to-balance-current-needs-with-vision-for-future/

It's great to see BART is planning to tackle the public defecation issue around its San Francisco stations.

 

BART’s multimillion-dollar ‘big problem’ is fighting grime

By Matier & Ross Updated 3:51 pm, Wednesday, March 9, 2016

 

BART is taking steps to spiff up its image — and its stations — with a multimillion-dollar “brightening project” targeting grime that’s piling up on the aging system.

 

“It’s a big problem,” said Zakhary Mallett, a member of the BART Board of Directors. “Crowding and station cleanliness are the top two issues reported by our customers.”

 

BART has already begun erecting temporary 3½-foot-high “no trespassing” gates — at a cost of $400,000 — to keep homeless people from using the stairwells and escalators as overnight bathrooms at San Francisco’s Embarcadero, Montgomery Street, Powell Street and Civic Center stations.

 

Long term, BART is teaming up with the city to design and build permanent gated canopies at 27 BART and Muni station entrances along Market Street. Cost: $60 million.

 

BART is also talking with the city about picking up half the $100,000-a-year salary for a new city Homeless Outreach Team manager to work with the transit system on getting campers out of BART stations and into shelters with services.

 

CONTINUED

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-s-multimillion-dollar-big-problem-is-6880573.php

Next phase of BART expansion approved by Federal Transit Administration

http://www.kliv.com/2016/03/14/next-phase-of-bart-silicon-valley-extension-approved-by-federal-transit-adminstration/

^This is a really big deal and will change the whole game in San Jose. While BART seriously needs to do a better job maintaining its existing infrastructure and building a second underwater tube, San Jose connecting to Oakland will open up all sorts of development possibilities. Expect a major boom along the San Jose subway. I also expect ridership to soar on the under-utilized Richmond-Fremont line which will eventually terminate in San Jose. That's the one BART line that could handle more capacity (currently very few 10-car trains on it). Once new train cars start arriving next year, it should help with crush-load crowding through the San Francisco-Oakland bottleneck. BART's new cars also make that East Bay expansion possible.

Yeah there will now be some commuting to San Jose on what was formerly just a branch.  I looked it up and this branch will now be a little over 40 miles long from DT Oakland to DT San Jose.  That's a distance similar to the distance between Washington, DC and Baltimore.  A little shorter than DT Cincinnati to DT Dayton, which is 54 miles.  Toledo > Detroit is 58 miles.  Cleveland > Akron is 38 miles. 

BART BOARD DISCUSSES PLAN FOR ONGOING ELECTRICAL PROBLEM IN EAST BAY

Thursday, March 24, 2016 11:53AM

 

OAKLAND, Calif. (KGO) -- BART held a board meeting on Thursday after weeks of electrical problems on a couple of sections of track in the East Bay.

 

Officials are apologizing, also admitting they are still scratching their heads over what's causing the problem.

 

...The track in question is between Pittsburg Bay Point and North Concord. They are having power surges that are damaging the trains. They're able to run short shuttle trains between the two stations but riders then have to switch trains. The system gets overloaded when they run full service and they don't know why.

 

FULL ARTICLE

http://abc7news.com/traffic/bart-board-discusses-plan-for-ongoing-electrical-problem-in-east-bay/1260948/

Yeah there will now be some commuting to San Jose on what was formerly just a branch.  I looked it up and this branch will now be a little over 40 miles long from DT Oakland to DT San Jose.  That's a distance similar to the distance between Washington, DC and Baltimore.  A little shorter than DT Cincinnati to DT Dayton, which is 54 miles.  Toledo > Detroit is 58 miles.  Cleveland > Akron is 38 miles. 

 

The drive between Oakland and San Jose on 880 is just brutal. While most of the employment centers are only 40-50 miles apart, that drive can easily take 2-3 hours in traffic. Even if it takes an hour on BART to get from San Jose to Oakland, people will do it since they can avoid the nightmare of 880. It beats driving by a big margin, and there also are no parking issues to deal with in San Francisco and Oakland if you take BART. BART almost always beats driving except during what is now a small 10am-2pm window of light traffic in the Bay. That's the only time of day you'll beat it in a car. San Jose residents have plenty of motivation to take BART.

 

By contrast, the drive between Downtown Toledo and Downtown Detroit is rarely over an hour since I-75 is 6-8 lanes wide most of the way and doesn't have much traffic. Even with construction and lots of freight traffic, big slowdowns are rare. It's almost always an easy drive. Compared to the Bay and LA, living in Toledo and working in Detroit would be considered an easy commute. I imagine it's the same situation in Cincinnati-Dayton and Cleveland-Akron.

 

DC-Baltimore I believe has commuter rail, no? I think there is now potential to connect DC and Baltimore with metro rail. If Oakland and San Jose are doing it, certainly DC and Baltimore can do it.

The San Jose Mercury News recently did a great, in-depth article on BART's current meltdown, though I think the Mercury News made a mistake with its passenger numbers. I always heard BART was originally built for 200,000 passengers a day in the 70s, not 100,000 a week. Still, ridership on BART is at least on average over double its capacity (400,000-500,000 people a day on a system built for half that). What's happening right now with the electrical issues and station closures is the first time I've experienced such long, consecutive delays outside of Oakland riots. It's getting bad. A lot of 10-car trains are down to 9 crush-load cars, and the system just can't physically move as many people as needed. I think demand is for nearly 1,000,000 passengers a day, but BART struggles with just 500,000 passengers a day due to the bottleneck of the Transbay Tube and now these bizarre electrical issues limiting 10-car trains.

 

Has BART's cutting-edge 1972 technology design come back to haunt it?

By Matthias Gafni, [email protected]

POSTED:  03/25/2016 11:26:54 PM PDT | UPDATED:  7 DAYS AGO

 

In 1972, President Richard Nixon sat in a brand-new BART car and took a quick trip from San Leandro to Lake Merritt. He commented on how the train reminded him of NASA.

 

He wasn't far off. The consultants who designed the gleaming new rapid transit system did, in fact, use principles developed for the aerospace industry rather than tried-and-true rail standards.

 

Cars were lighter, more aerodynamic and controlled almost entirely by an automated computer system. As Fortune magazine put it, the move was like going straight from a DC-3 to the 747 aircraft.

 

But did BART's ingenuity decades ago doom it for shutdowns such as the ones that have crippled the system in recent weeks? Or is the agency's problem typical of a 44-year-old system with infrastructure nearing or exceeding its life expectancy?

 

Experts say it's likely a bit of both. The Space Age innovations have made it more challenging for the transit agency to maintain the BART system from the beginning. Plus, the aging system was designed to move 100,000 people per week and now carries 430,000 a day, so the loss of even a single car gets magnified with crowded commutes, delays and bus bridges.

 

On March 16, 50 cars suffered electrical shorts as they drove over a section of North Concord track because of a power surge that remains a mystery. The problem has led to a bus bridge, train shuttles between North Concord and Pittsburg, delays and crowded trains. BART uses almost 90 percent of its total fleet of cars on a daily basis, a high number in the industry, which leaves it little room for breakdowns.

 

"Back when BART was created, (the designers) were absolutely determined to establish a new product, and they intended to export it around the world," said Rod Diridon, emeritus executive director of the Mineta Transportation Institute in San Jose. "They may have gotten a little ahead of themselves using new technology. Although it worked, it was extremely complex for the time period, and they never did export the equipment because it was so difficult for other countries to install and maintain."

 

Rather than stick to the standard rail track width of 4 feet, 8.5 inches, BART engineers debuted a 5-foot, 6-inch width track, a gauge that remains to this day almost exclusive to the system. Industry experts say the unique track width necessitates custom-made wheel sets, brake assemblies and track repair vehicles. The agency also debuted a flat-edge rail, while other systems tilt slightly inward. That BART design requires more maintenance and is noisier, experts say.

 

Those one-of-a-kind systems lead to a dearth of readily available replacement parts. Maintenance crews often scavenge parts from old, out-of-service cars to avoid lengthy waits for orders to come in; sometimes mechanics are forced to manufacture the equipment themselves.

 

CONTINUED

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_29687067/has-barts-cutting-edge-1972-technology-design-come

When I was in grade school while Reagan was president my cheap-ass Catholic school used the text books that the public schools were done using.  So we still had a lot of books from the 70s.  I very distinctly remember having a text book with a picture of a BART train in it.  It was pretty impressive, but I remember not liking that the driver windows were only on one side.  That book also had segments on solar panels and geothermal power...all the stuff that Reagan was smearing. 

C-Dawg[/member] - Read this doc: http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20SCOA%20Final%20Report%20June%202013.pdf

 

Once BART has replaced their fleet with the new cars, it will be able to run 10-car consists on every line if needed, but especially transbay rush trains. Additionally, even without a second tube, BART has plans to get a train through the tube every 2.5 minutes, meaning 2.5 min frequencies in SF and 2.5-5 min frequencies at all Oakland stations.

 

Obviously, a second tube will be needed long term in order to allow ridership to continue to grow. Currently, ridership is 400k-450k. With the new/expanded fleet, BART will have capacity for up to 500K. With upgrades to communications systems and 2.5 minute headways in the tube, it can handle up to 750K. With a second tube, it can handle significantly more than 750K.

 

I'm optimistic about the direction that BART is heading in.

We should be seeing major TOD at this site, especially since Mayor Libby Schaaf has publicly backed high-rise construction around BART stations. My only beef is that this should be zoned for at least 500 feet tall, not 275 feet. San Francisco and Oakland need to stop building all these baby towers, especially at prime BART stations. Politicians here need to take a trip to Toronto to see how to build transit-oriented high-rise housing properly! :wink:

 

Exclusive: Huge Oakland development site next to BART nears sale

Mar 31, 2016, 4:16pm PDT Updated Mar 31, 2016, 4:19pm PDT

 

A block-sized development site zoned for up to 730 residential units next to Oakland's 12th Street BART station is nearing a sale, which could lead to one of the largest changes to the city's downtown core.

 

Two sources familiar with the property, at 1314 Franklin St., said that developer Carmel Partners is the leading potential buyer of what is currently the Downtown Merchants Parking Lot. No deal has been finalized. One source said the 1.38-acre property, which spans Franklin, Webster, 13th and 14th streets, is expected to sell for more than $35 million. One of the sources called it "the best development site in Oakland." No contract has yet been signed, however.

 

The parcel is part of the city's 2014 Lake Merritt Station Area Plan, which anticipates 4,900 new housing units and 1.23 million square feet of new offices in the next 25 years. The plan also streamlines the approvals process for projects that conform to the plan's vision for mixed-use development.

 

CONTINUED

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2016/03/oakland-downtown-development-bart-carmel-cbre.html

 

*Overall, this project should be a big win for downtown, though I think Oakland and San Francisco need minimum height laws, not maximum height laws.

It looks like the new BART cars are going to be mostly standing room. While reducing seats is a controversial move in the Bay, it makes sense as a way to deal with crowding before a second Transbay Tube is built (which could be decades away).

 

04.06.2016

Onsite testing begins for BART’s first new train car

 

BART is now one step closer to providing much needed capacity relief with the arrival of its first new train car now set to begin a crucial onsite testing phase.  The first train car was unveiled today at BART’s testing facility in Hayward, marking the beginning of the arrival of a new fleet of 775 train cars over the next five years.

 

“This next testing phase is critical to having safe and reliable new train cars,” said Board President Tom Radulovich. “As these new cars arrive and get approved for passenger service, we can finally start running longer trains. That’s something every line on our system needs right now.  In fact, the need is so great we’ve been able to get the manufacturer to increase the monthly delivery rate from 10 cars per month to 16 per month, putting the final car delivery 21 months earlier than the original schedule.”

 

TESTING DETAILS

 

The first car will now undergo mandated testing on a test track where dynamic qualification testing of 29 separate performance measures will occur.  The first dynamic performance tests are for propulsion and brakes. Then other important features such as wheel to axle resistance, noise, and electromagnetic compatibility testing must be verified.  These tests are performed under a variety of weight patterns to reflect an empty car weight, seated passenger weight, and other variables including very crowded conditions.

 

The next testing phase will then occur on BART’s mainline system during the overnight hours when BART isn’t open for passenger service. This includes 16 qualification tests that need to be completed before the California Public Utilities Commission can certify the trains to carry passengers.  BART is working towards a target date of December 2016 for passenger service if testing goes well and no major re-engineering is required.

 

TRAIN CAR DETAILS

 

“The car is chock full of modern amenities based on feedback from our riders,” said BART General Manager Grace Crunican.  “Whether your ride is an hour or 10 minutes, we’ve worked to include features that will help make everyone’s ride easier and more comfortable.”

 

The very first car, train car 3001, was delivered in March on a flatbed truck after a 3600 mile road trip from Plattsburgh, N.Y., where the cars are being assembled by Bombardier Transit Corporation, which was awarded the $2.5 billion contract in 2012.

 

775 new train cars are on order, but our goal is to find the funding to bring that number up to 1,081 - increasing the number of seats in the fleet by 49%.

 

To date, over 35,000 people have helped BART and Bombardier make design decisions through their input.  Riders will enjoy these new benefits:

 

Quieter:  "micro-plug" doors will help seal out noise

Cooler:  cooling systems will distribute air directly to the ceilings, making it more comfortable for standees on hot days

Comfortable:  padded seats with lumbar support will be covered with wipeable fabric for easy cleaning

Easy to use:  routes will be color-coded like the BART system map, and next-stop information will be readily available via automated announcements and digital screens.

More space and options: aisles are wider, seats are higher for space to fit luggage underneath, the ceiling is higher for tall folks, there are dedicated bike racks in each car, more reserved seating for seniors and people with disabilities, more handholds for standees of all heights, and a third door makes it easier to board and off board the train. 

 

TIMELINE

 

2016

 

First test cars arrive for safety and reliability testing

 

2017 - 2021

 

Subject to successful completion of safety and reliability tests:

 

by end of 2016: 10 new train cars in service

by end of 2017: at least 60 new cars in service

by end of 2018: at least 230 new cars in service

by end of 2019: at least 420 new cars in service

by end of 2020: at least 610 new cars in service

2021

 

Balance of cars delivered to reach total of 775 new cars in service.

 

CAR FACTS

 

70 feet long

10 feet 6 inches tall

65,500 pounds

$2 million per car

 

https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2016/news20160406

 

Streetsblog had a good article and discussed SPUR's proposal to build a second Transbay Tube at standard track gauge.

 

Thursday, April 7, 2016 25 Comments

New BART Cars Show Agency is on the Right Track

by Roger Rudick

 

BART seems to be digging itself out of a month’s worth of power problems and delays on the Pittsburgh/Bay Point Line. But, no doubt, it’s only a matter of time before BART gets slammed again, given the age of its fleet. Indeed, its rolling stock is so old, the agency is reduced to searching for spare parts on eBay.

 

That’s why a good-transit-news-starved media was abuzz with the arrival of the first of BARTs new cars. Dubbed the “Car of the Future,” they boast more doors (for faster loading and unloading), more comfortable seats, better seals to keep them quiet inside, and–one hopes and assumes–far more reliability. According to a BART release:

 

BART is now one step closer to providing much needed capacity relief with the arrival of its first new train car now set to begin a crucial onsite testing phase. The first train car was unveiled today at BART’s testing facility in Hayward, marking the beginning of the arrival of a new fleet of 775 train cars over the next five years.

 

Replacing cars isn’t going to solve all of BART’s problems. BART’s electrical infrastructure and computer control systems also date back to the 1970s and need to be replaced. But BARTs problems are about more than just wear and mileage. An exposé done by NBC spells out how well-meaning, young, and ambitious engineers back in the 1970s set out to metaphorically (and, to an extent, literally) re-invent the wheel. BART advanced rail technology such as regenerative braking–wherein energy from braking trains is recouped and used to accelerate other trains. But all of the new technologies came at a cost: nobody knew how they would hold up over the long run. The Nixon-era engineers were doing a long-term experiment and we are the Guinea pigs.

 

John Zuspan is a train-and-track specialist with over forty years of railroading experience on systems all over the world. Moving forward, he warns transit leaders to heed the lessons of the past and be wary of engineers who abandon tried-and-true practices. “Look out for engineers who think they have the best thing since sliced bread, claim something will last forever or say ‘we know what we’re doing so everybody else shut up,'” he said, referring to historic attitudes that lead to BART’s modern meltdowns.

 

But Nick Josefowitz, a BART Director representing parts of San Francisco, in his editorial supporting a complete BART upgrade, argues against bemoaning the engineering decisions of the past. “Now is not the time to point fingers at the mistakes made by previous generations, but to throw ourselves into tackling the problems they have left us to secure BART for future generations,” he wrote.

 

Maybe so, and, clearly, upgrades need to be made regardless. Some of the larger and more infamous decisions made by the original designers–going with a wider, nonstandard track gauge, for example–simply can’t be fixed. That would require changing all the rolling stock, replacing 100 miles worth of rails, and rebuilding every station platform.

 

But in the future, BART will have to consider: if it builds a second Transbay tube, should it abandon its odd-ball standards and instead adopt a platform, track, and voltage that will allow it to share tracks with an electrified Caltrain. A white paper from the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) recommended this as an option to consider for a second Transbay tube and extension. Ratna Amin, Transportation Policy Director for SPUR, said BART has to consider decoupling the “BART” brand from BART technology.

 

CONTINUED

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2016/04/07/new-bart-cars-show-agency-is-on-the-right-track/

While I'm sure these new cars are going to be smoother and quieter than the old ones, I'm going to miss the retro design of BART's current fleet. It's the best-looking heavy rail fleet in America IMO (a perfectly-preserved time capsule to a different design era). Some of BART's best subway station designs like Glen Park and Civic Center have really stood the test of time too. BART also set a good TOD standard with its elevated track Fruitvale station. The biggest win is we finally are getting a third set of doors on each car in the middle like how heavy rail cars are designed in other cities.

 

I'm happy BART is getting more efficient cars, but this design isn't as good as the old one:

 

 

BART also set the gold standard for an airport station with its SFO connection. This video has good shots of the current fleet:

 

I'll be moving to San Francisco to work at MTC at the end of May. I'm looking forward to helping move the Bay Area forward on transit issues.

This is from six months ago but some people are advocating for a second transbay tube that would possibly exclude BART:

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2016/04/20/spur-meeting-pushes-second-transbay-tube/

 

So people are under the belief that California High Speed Rail and Caltran commuter trains should share tracks not just north of San Jose but all the way *under* the bay to Oakland, and that in addition to that nonsense, some sort of heavy rail rapid transit could join that mix.  So there would be a new 5-mile subway under Gerry Ave. that would join commuter and HSR trains for a 3-mile trip under the bay, then operate on existing surface freight tracks in Oakland.  Um, okay. 

 

I fail to see much benefit to Caltran commuter rail or HSR getting across to Oakland.  As is, all of those passengers can simply get off their trains in DTSF and take BART to Oakland.  And if there is a second BART line, then there won't be a huge crush of passengers as often. 

 

My other observation is that San Francisco has oddly wide streets and is surprisingly car-oriented on the city's newer, Pacific Ocean side.  So Sunset and Richmond, where every street, including residential side streets, has at least 75 feet between property lines, which is much wider than almost any major street in Cincinnati (where I live).  All of the streets have plentiful on-street parking, even the commercial strips with streetcar tracks in the middle.  Aside from the Twin Peaks Tunnel, it appears that streetcars were permitted to remain in San Francisco mainly because their street-running sections, even down commercial streets, leave plenty of room for on-street parking in addition to a free travel lane.

 

Also, one of the silliest features of the Bay Area is duplicative neighborhood names -- there is already a BART line that terminates in Richmond in the East Bay.  So if a BART line is built under Gerry, there is the very real possibility of a Richmond-Richmond line. 

 

The new Transbay Transit Center currently under construction downtown, which will eventually host Caltrain and CHSR is 3 blocks from the Embarcadero BART Station. They will be connected via an underground passageway.

 

Currently, the transbay tube is at capacity. Projects currently under development/construction (new BART cars, upgraded traction power, and upgrade train control) will allow increased capacity via shorter headways, longer trains, and higher capacity train cars. However, this new capacity will be maxed out again in a decade or so. A new tube is the only way to truly increase capacity. There are some competing ideas for whether BART and/or Caltrain would run through the new tub. Today, BART and Caltrain use different rail gauges, which means they can't share ROW.

 

The benefit to Caltrain commuters headed to South Bay/Silicon Valley would be a one-seat ride from the Oakland area to their offices.

 

I don't think you'll see a subway under Geary that isn't BART or Muni. Muni won't cross the bay.

 

You are correct that the streets on the west side of the city are significantly wider. It's amazing to me. There are also a lot of garages with homes/apartments on the west side. The reason we have the 5 light rail lines we still do here is because of the existing subterranean sections (Twin Peaks and Sunset Tunnels) which could not accommodate motor buses. The other tunnels that are around town that were built for streetcars (ex. Stockton Tunnel) were able to accommodate buses and no longer are used by streetcars/light rail.

I am aware that plans are brewing for Caltran to be electrified (in fact those plans go back more than 15 years), and that electrification will significantly increase capacity because of the faster acceleration of electric commuter trains.  In fact there is apparently zero argument for extending BART south toward San Jose because the future Caltran service promises to be similar to rapid transit service.  But obviously the appearance of the HSR throws a big wrench into those works.  Apparently they are planning to rebuild most or all of the Caltrans stations with four tracks so that the HSR can zoom through while the commuter train idles.  They're also trying to kick all freight off of the railroad. 

 

You've probably seen the build-houses-in-the-middle-of-wide-streets plan before, but if a subway is built under Gerry, that is the place where apartments could be built in the middle, directly over the new tunnel, and add a ton of population to the area.  The rents could go directly to subsidizing BART.  http://narrowstreetssf.com/mcallister/

 

 

The Bay Area passed their transit tax (40 year property tax which will raise $3.5 billion) with 69% supporting. This will fund "Repairs and maintenance on BART transit: electrical systems, rail replacement, fixing leaking tunnels and upgrading central computer control system."

 

Meanwhile, Sacramento reject a ballot issue that would have given "70% to road projects and 30% to transit. In the first 5 years most funds are directed to maintenance and repair."

 

 

http://t4america.org/maps-tools/state-policy-funding/2016-votes/

In addition to the BART Bond (Measure RR) passing, measures in AC Transit's special district and a county-wide measures in Santa Clara County (San Jose) and Alameda County (Oakland) funding transportation (including BART extension to Silicon Valley) passed. Two transportation measures failed though: In Contra Costa County (far eastern 'burbs), a measure that would have funded a host of transportation projects, including the county's share of new BART cars, failed, along with San Francisco's measure which would have increased funding for Muni and paid for SF's share of BART cars.

Fox News goes after the BART janitor who worked 350+ days per year:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/07/cameras-reportedly-catches-bart-janitor-who-pulled-in-270000-in-year-spending-hours-in-closet.html

 

To whatever extent it can be proven that this guy slept at work, the fact is that there are people who actually do work 350-360 days per year to get out of debt or make a living for their family on low wages and Fox News doesn't want you to know about them.  In Fox's world, all government workers are lazy, period. 

Weird because as commentators pointed out there isn't anything weird about taking long breaks if he broke all his short breaks into one or two breaks.

 

10 minute break every two hours (17 / 2 = 8.5 x 10 = 85 mins.) plus 2 x 30 minute lunch = 60

 

Total 145 minute break for the day, and his total for the day: 90 + 54 minutes = 144 minutes.  Seem he gave away 1 minute to BART and Taxpayers!!!

Yeah there is more to this story but I doubt we'll hear it.  I don't blame the agency for investigating this guy and the others collecting massive overtime pay, and if they find that he's running a low-level scam, then fire him or prohibit him from taking more overtime. 

 

But the point of this article was to make everyone who thinks that they worked so hard during their working years that people who worked significantly more hours were pulling a scam.  There really are a fair number of people out there who work two or more jobs and work 7-day, 70+ hour work weeks for year after year.  I knew a guy from Bangladesh who didn't take a day off for two years.  He worked every day between his visits to his wife and family, which he usually did every other year. 

Right, exactly.

 

I know when my boss started the company he would work every single day for about 4 months then take a week "vacation".  Sounded horrible, I am lucky I don't need to do that.

The guy had a $60k salary and earned $160k worth of overtime. I think the real point there is that only in the public sector could something like that happen. Any private business would hire one or two other workers, for less money. I really doubt the guy was so skilled at his job that he was worth that much more than other janitors (though I could be wrong, maybe he's the Tom Brady of cleaning toilets). A lot of the people working nonstop seem to be doing it at 2 or even more jobs, not the same one.

 

These types of stories always play well with the white collar crowd, too, because overtime is practically nonexistent for most salaried people. They might end up pulling a busy 70 hour week without seeing an extra dime.

 

I'm a bit surprised BART actually hires their own janitors, though. Is that normal for transit agencies? Custodial services seem like a really easy thing to contract out.