This is the existing system:

http://www.bart.gov/images/global/system-map29.gif
http://www.bart.gov

And extension to Warm Springs is under construction:

http://sfist.com/assets_c/2009/12/fremont-bart-warm-springs-thumb-800x695-466373.jpg
http://sfist.com/2009/12/15/construction_beginning_on_barts_war.php

An extension of the service, using smaller/cheaper diesel vehicles and called eBART is also under construction in the North Bay:

http://www.bart.gov/docs/ecc/ProjectAreaMap.jpg
http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/ecc/

Further development of eBART has been proposed:

http://matchbin-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/sites/529/assets/9MTO_RP_eBART_expand_1_20.jpg
http://www.thepress.net/pages/full_story/push?article-Officials+explore+eBART+extension%20&id=17229399

Expansion in the South Bay, bringing BART to San Jose and providing a connection with that city's growing LRV system, recently received funding.

The project will be delivered in phases, with construction on the first phase, the ten-mile Berryessa Extension project, due to begin in 2012.
This extension of the regional BART rail system was designed and is being built by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) . . . . The joint venture of Skanska-Shimmick-Herzog was awarded a $772m design-build contract in December 2011. The scope of work includes construction of the line, track, systems and stations for the ten-mile Berryessa Extension.
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/bart-silicon-valley-berryessa-extension-project/

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/6807/images/138334/large/1-bart-silicon.jpg
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/bart-silicon-valley-berryessa-extension-project/bart-silicon-valley-berryessa-extension-project1.html

Finally, BART is moving farther east in the Trivalleys area as well:

On Febrary 9, 2012 the BART Board gave approval for staff to initiate work on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the potential extension of BART service to the City of Livermore. This is a legally mandated process that will examine the alternatives, costs and impacts of a possible extension to Livermore.
http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/

Stations (From this point on, all photos http://world.nycsubway.org/us/sf/index.html )

Platform MacArthur Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i51000/img_51798.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19630.jpg

Platform 19th St., Oakland
http://images.nycsubway.org/i50000/img_50869.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19684.jpg

Platform 12th St., Oakland
http://images.nycsubway.org/i50000/img_50911.jpg

Platform Lake Merritt Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19756.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19758.jpg

Platform Fruitvale Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i50000/img_50948.jpg

Platform Coliseum Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i50000/img_50919.jpg

Platform San Leandro Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19787.jpg

Platform BayFair Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i50000/img_50882.jpg

Platform Hayward Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i57000/img_57436.jpg

Platform South Hayward Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i50000/img_50922.jpg

Platform Union City Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19795.jpg

Platform Fremont Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19734.jpg

Platform Ashby Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19690.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19689.jpg

Platform North Berkeley Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19763.jpg

Platform Berkeley Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i50000/img_50883.jpg

Platform El Cerrito Plaza Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i50000/img_50895.jpg

Platform El Cerrito del Norte Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19705.jpg

Platform Richmond Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19781.jpg

Platform Rockridge Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19783.jpg

Platform Orinda Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19648.jpg

Platform Lafayette Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19746.jpg

Platform Walnut Creek Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i51000/img_51817.jpg

Platform Pleasant Hill Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i50000/img_50928.jpg

Platform Concord Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19724.jpg

Platform North Concord Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19646.jpg

Platform Pittsburg-Bay Point Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i51000/img_51800.jpg

Platform West Oakland Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i50000/img_50890.jpg

Platform Embarcadero Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i49000/img_49594.jpg

Platform Montgomery St. Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19582.jpg

Platform Powell St. Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19655.jpg

Platform Civic Center Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19714.jpg

Mezzanine 16th St. Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19682.jpg

Platform 16th St. (Mission) Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i51000/img_51790.jpg

Mezzanine 24th St Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19685.jpg

Platform 24th St. Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19686.jpg

Platform Balboa Park Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19692.jpg

Platform Daly City Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19727.jpg

Platform Colma Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i50000/img_50886.jpg

Platform South San Francisco Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i25000/img_25775.jpg

Platform San Bruno Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i25000/img_25774.jpg

Platform Millbrae Station
http://images.nycsubway.org/i25000/img_25767.jpg

Platform San Francisco International Airport
http://images.nycsubway.org/i41000/img_41574.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i47000/img_47138.jpg


Trains
http://images.nycsubway.org/i67000/img_67591.jpg
http://images.nycsubway.org/i50000/img_50897.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19626.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19755.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19741.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i49000/img_49981.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19699.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i50000/img_50953.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i57000/img_57445.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19760.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19786.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19785.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i19000/img_19768.jpghttp://images.nycsubway.org/i50000/img_50899.jpg

Expect 'trucks with dirt' as BART construction gets under way
By Gary Richards
grichards@mercurynews.com
Posted: 04/10/2012 10:00:00 PM PDT
Updated: 04/11/2012 05:36:36 AM PDT

Let the digging begin.

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

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

Construction should end by 2015, with the full extension opening a year later. Until then, hundreds of workers in orange hard hats, cranes looming several stories in the sky and a multiplicity of lane-closed signs will be an everyday part of the landscape . . . .

Someday, BART boosters hope, the line will tunnel under downtown San Jose, ending at the Caltrain depot in Santa Clara. But that final extension would cost $4 billion, and the VTA is $2 billion short. No timetable has been set for that work . . . .

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site568/2012/0411/20120411_063611_littlebart.jpg


Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/bart/ci_20365718/expect-trucks-dirt-bart-construction-gets-under-way

At long last -- a BART groundbreaking

By Gary Richards grichards@mercurynews.com
Posted: 04/12/2012 07:51:09 PM PDT
Updated: 04/12/2012 09:29:39 PM PDT

Twelve years ago, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein got a call from a South Bay business leader she barely knew who wanted her to endorse a Santa Clara County transit tax to bring BART to San Jose.

Why, she asked Carl Guardino, head of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, should she as a San Francisco resident bother to get involved in a Santa Clara County issue? But Guardino wouldn't take no for an answer.

"He twisted my arm so hard," said Feinstein, who eventually came out in favor of the tax.

"The fact that Santa Clara County was willing to ante up is what made this move ahead."
Those efforts came to fruition Thursday as a bevy of political and transportation leaders came together for the formal groundbreaking of the BART-to-San Jose extension.

Nearly 500 people attended a related luncheon in Santa Clara, and 450 were at the groundbreaking in East San Jose, near the future Berryessa station.

The $3.2 billion extension from Fremont to San Jose is the biggest public works project ever in Silicon Valley.

Guardino received plaudits from nearly every speaker for his work in getting the 2000 measure and a second tax in 2008 to pass by more than a two-thirds margin.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_20385721/at-long-last-bart-groundbreaking

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_20385721/at-long-last-bart-groundbreaking

This is great news, it is abuot time :banana::banana::banana:

Source: SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/)
BART looks at adding service, extending tracks

Michael Cabanatuan

Friday, May 25, 2012

BART's growing crowd of riders could soon catch later trains between Richmond and San Francisco or early morning buses to the East Bay. And, in decades to come, there may be new stations on existing lines, an extension to Ocean Beach, trains running more frequently in urban areas and express service.

The transit agency's Board of Directors eyed separate plans Thursday for immediate and long-range service improvements. The short-term improvements would be paid for with part of a $30 million operating surplus for the budget year that begins July 1. BART is proposing a $670.2 million operating budget. Higher-than-expected sales tax revenue and an increase in the number of riders left the agency with more than enough revenue to cover expenses and pump an extra $20.7 million into its rail car replacement fund.

So the agency is considering a plan to use $200,000 of that money to run buses from downtown San Francisco along the Pittsburg/Bay Point and Fremont lines, dropping off passengers between midnight and 2 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. AC Transit already runs a daily all-night bus that serves the Richmond line. The proposal is the result of riders' many requests for late- or all-night BART service, especially on weekends. But BART must shut off its electricity for maintenance. The compromise, bus service, could begin in September.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/24/BAFJ1ONADK.DTL#ixzz1w17GYYr2

Source: SFGate (www.sfgate.com)
BART station names growing unwieldy

Michael Cabanatuan

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Unlike naming children, where the goal is typically to come up with something fairly simple, memorable and easy to yell when you want their attention, naming BART stations seems to have gone in the other direction. Station names are getting longer and more complicated.

BART directors continued that trend on Thursday, naming the station at the end of the under-construction Warm Springs extension through Fremont the "Warm Springs/South Fremont" Station, as suggested by community leaders. While the vote was unanimous - nobody wanted to offend Warm Springs/South Fremontonians - at least one director decried the trend toward verbosity.

"The long-term trend is that our station names get longer and longer and longer," said Tom Radulovich, a director from San Francisco. "A decade from now they'll be a paragraph."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/25/BAFJ1ONQPT.DTL

I found curious and interesting photos of BART:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3191/2618334241_e7925ec20d_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5292/5433013828_030528dba6_b.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2787/4394125080_8e77b52acb_b.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2615/4110417928_9c4f4ac2fe_b.jpg

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4014/4397173501_1051bbe899_z.jpg

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4032/4370706807_f4fe033f6c_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5220/5451003744_0fc7e32526_b.jpg

The project to extend BART from the Pts/Bay Point station its much need it..the traffic in the rush hours could be reduced up to 40% I think.. but the problem lies more in the reduced lines of the freeway by RailRoad Ave.,,everytieme I go visit some friends in Pittsburg its a pain if youre caught in this bottleneck at the rush hour..

The area Pittsburg-Antioch-Brentwood and the Delta should have a wider road acces to and from Hwy5 and the Central Valley instead of just the Hwy580 in Livermore and Pleasenton.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/

BART bike experiment - riders are split
Transit
Neal J. Riley
Updated 12:32 p.m., Monday, October 1, 2012

(10-01) 12:27 PDT Oakland -- Riders have spoken on allowing bikes on BART during rush hour, and the results show that commuters are divided about the road ahead.

More than 7,500 passengers responded to online and telephone surveys conducted in August, when bikes were allowed every Friday all day on all trains, instead of the usual bike ban from 7 to 9 a.m. and 5 to 7 p.m. Thirty-seven percent of those surveyed support keeping the bike-free periods, and an equal percentage are in favor of ending them. Another 25 percent thought BART should reduce the blackout from two hours to one.

"I'm not going to dispute that (the results) are mixed," said Steve Beroldo, BART bike program manager. "It's a little tricky to interpret, frankly."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-bike-experiment-riders-are-split-3904211.php#ixzz287oDXCFl

Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/

BART installs system to give warning seconds before major quakes, slowing trains

By Paul Rogers
progers@mercurynews.com
Posted: 09/28/2012 09:33:27 AM PDT
Updated: 09/28/2012 09:33:33 AM PDT

In a marriage of technology and earthquake safety, BART has become the first U.S. transit system to install an early-warning system that can detect major earthquakes seconds before the ground begins shaking and then slow trains to reduce the risk of derailments, injuries and deaths.

The system, developed with the help of scientists at UC Berkeley, can give a warning that ranges from a few seconds to up to a minute before a quake hits, depending on how large and how far away an earthquake is. A similar network is already in use in Japan, where it has saved lives in major quakes.

"We think of earthquake prediction as being the Holy Grail, but given that we cannot predict earthquakes and may never be able to, this is the next best thing," said Richard Allen, director of the UC Berkeley Seismological Laboratory. "It allows people to react and put themselves in a safe place before the shaking starts."

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_21648103/duck-and-cover-bart-installs-system-give-warning

"In a marriage of technology and earthquake safety, BART has become the first U.S. transit system to install an early-warning system that can detect major earthquakes seconds before the ground begins shaking and then slow trains to reduce the risk of derailments, injuries and deaths.

The system, developed with the help of scientists at UC Berkeley, can give a warning that ranges from a few seconds to up to a minute before a quake hits, depending on how large and how far away an earthquake is. A similar network is already in use in Japan, where it has saved lives in major quakes".

Really this is very important, congratulations to BART by deploy this system. I believe that all countries should install similar programs in their subways.

Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_21648103/duck-and-cover-bart-installs-system-give-warning

I find this to be an important step to make sure BART is safe. No wonder I see seismic improvements at all BART stations nowadays... I love it when transit agencies like BART uses its funding to keep its equipment and rail lines safe.

^^Now if only they could keep the escalators working at San Francisco stations.

^^Now if only they could keep the escalators working at San Francisco stations.

And don't forget the elevators too. Many elevators are notoriously bad either because those are littered with graffiti or those are running really slow. I actually helped someone to get from Stonestown to 7th & Market when something bad happened to the lady at the station escalator: she lost her balance and tripped down on the escalator which also cause two people behind her to fall down too. The full story:

http://www.anthonynachor.com/8/post/2012/09/one-false-move.html

Source: http://www.sfgate.com

Squabbles block Clipper card for AirBART
Will Kane
Updated 10:33 p.m., Wednesday, October 3, 2012

The 787,000 people who ride the AirBART bus from the Oakland Coliseum BART Station to the nearby Oakland International Airport each year can't pay with the convenient Clipper card.

Instead, they have to remember to carry $3 to give the driver or take an extra few minutes to buy a fresh paper ticket for the bus.

"Oh, it's annoying," Thai Pham, of San Francisco, told Chronicle Watch as he tucked his Clipper card away while waiting for the bus. "It is supposed to be a regional card and it isn't."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Squabbles-block-Clipper-card-for-AirBART-3917347.php#ixzz28Nkrkjhr

Source: http://www.sfgate.com

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Squabbles-block-Clipper-card-for-AirBART-3917347.php#ixzz28Nkrkjhr

I think they forgot that AC Transit also operates a service between Oakland Coliseum BART and Oakland Airport (Route 73) that accepts the Clipper Card... And it's cheaper too by $0.90 (AirBART for $3 vs AC Transit for $2.10) although a little less frequent (every 10 minutes for AirBART, 15 minutes for Route 73).

I think they forgot that AC Transit also operates a service between Oakland Coliseum BART and Oakland Airport (Route 73) that accepts the Clipper Card... And it's cheaper too by $0.90 (AirBART for $3 vs AC Transit for $2.10) although a little less frequent (every 10 minutes for AirBART, 15 minutes for Route 73).

The problem with the 73 is that AC Transit buses are not designed for a large amount of luggage and it makes a few stops before getting to the airport. That's why AirBART fare is $0.90 more than the 73. :lol:

The problem with the 73 is that AC Transit buses are not designed for a large amount of luggage and it makes a few stops before getting to the airport. That's why AirBART fare is $0.90 more than the 73. :lol:

Sounds true to me. It's like comparing SamTrans' KX and the airport vans that serve between SFO and the City.

Source: http://www.bart.gov/

BART releases bike pilot survey results; any proposed changes need to go to Board

A rider survey about BART’s commute period bike pilot, when blackout restrictions were lifted on five Fridays in August, found varied results.

Currently, there are bike blackout periods of about two hours during peak weekday commute times in which bikes are not allowed on some trains. Any proposed changes would need to go to the Board of Directors for consideration.

Riders responding to the survey were equally split on what to do: 37% wanted to keep the blackouts; 37% wanted to end them; and 25% favored reducing the blackout periods to one hour from two. Other data from the survey suggest similarly divided feelings.

Findings tending to support eliminating the blackouts included:

90% of respondents aware of the pilot who rode during the commute reported they did not personally experience any problems related to it. (Of the 10% who did experience problems, the most commonly cited problems were bikes blocking aisles, doorways and seats; bikes entering crowded trains; and bikes running into or brushing up against people.)

When asked if lifting the blackout would impact their likelihood to ride BART, 25% said they would be more likely to ride. (10% would be less likely to ride and 66% would be equally as likely to ride.) “Interestingly, almost half the respondents skipped this question, which could mean that they were not sure of the answer (unable to anticipate if they would change their behavior or simply thought allowing bikes would have no impact on their likelihood to ride BART)” the survey states.

Findings tending to support retaining the blackouts included:

Asked how lifting the blackout affected their BART trip, 17% said it made their trip worse. (9% said it made their trip better, and 74% said it had little or no effect.).

Almost a quarter of respondents who rode during the pilot indicate that, even with the current rules, there is poor compliance. Significant percentages said rules are “rarely” or “never” followed with regard to: bikes blocking aisles or doors (24%); bikes entering crowded trains (22%); bikes yielding priority space to seniors and people with disabilities (17%); bikes on escalators (18%).

“The survey results provide valuable insights into the experience of BART riders, both cyclists and non-cyclists, during the pilot. This information will guide the discussion as we move forward” said BART Bike Program Manager Steve Beroldo. The results were discussed in a debriefing session with BART staff, the BART Accessibility Task Force, BART Bicycle Task Force, and the SF and East Bay Bike Coalitions on Sept. 26.

For information on methodology of the survey and to review the complete results, download the BART Marketing and Research Survey (.pdf) presented on Sept. 26.

The public will have an opportunity to discuss the results when the BART Bicycle Task Force has a meeting on Monday, Oct. 1, at 6 pm. You can download the agenda (.pdf) for the meeting.

The pilot program also provided valuable lessons on how BART can better accommodate bikes during the busy commute periods. Some areas under consideration include:

Reconfiguring car interiors to create more space for items with wheels (i.e. bikes, wheelchairs, strollers). This project is ongoing but may be accelerated.
Embarcadero Station, because of its narrower platform and limited vertical circulation, may present a challenging situation for bikes during the commute period and it might be better to encourage bikes to use nearby Montgomery Station.

Allowing bikes on the narrow lower platforms at 12th and 19th in Oakland may require some direction on how passengers queue to assure good circulation.

Relaxing restrictions would require additional communication on bike etiquette—(e.g. don’t board crowded train, what to do if train becomes crowded, use stairs and elevators not escalators, yield to elderly/disabled, etc.). This could take the shape of an ongoing informational campaign.
Making train specific load factor data available in a user friendly format (e.g. as part of the bart.gov trip planner). This will have dual benefits: (1) help bicyclists find the least crowded trains and (2) spread the load overall creating additional “capacity” for all passengers.

Source: http://www.bart.gov/

Next phase of eBART/State Route 4 Widening Project celebrated with groundbreaking

State, regional and local officials joined BART, Caltrans, and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Friday, Oct. 5, to celebrate the next phase of the State Route 4 Widening Project and “eBART,” BART’s new rail service to eastern Contra Costa County.

The ceremonial event marked the ground-breaking for the eBART Antioch Station Facilities, which includes station parking and project maintenance facilities. Diesel multiple-unit (DMU) trains are high-speed, high-capacity trains that will transport passengers from the Antioch Station at Hillcrest Avenue and State Route 4 to the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station, where passengers can transfer to a BART train.

“I am so pleased to see the many years of cooperative work on this highway and transit project coming together for this event,” said BART Director Joel Keller. “A groundbreaking in Antioch fulfils some of my dreams as mayor, and will bring satisfaction to East County residents who have been paying BART taxes for so many years. Also, BART's 25 percent local hire goal for this contract will create opportunities for the East County folks to work locally."

eBART is in construction now at the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station, where work on the transfer platform is underway. At the same time, state crews are widening SR-4. In total, five construction projects will widen SR-4, its interchanges, and local roadways from west of Loveridge Road to the State Route 160 interchange. The SR-4 project will also provide the widened median and the structures for the eBART project. The total cost to widen SR-4 is estimated at $554 million, including $72.2 million from voter approved Proposition 1B.

“Every investment in infrastructure is an investment in California’s future,” said Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty. “Thanks to the people of California for their desire towards reducing congestion and improving safety, Proposition 1B is providing a real boost to transportation.”

"This project serves as a strong validation for Contra Costa County voters, who passed Measure J to pay for transportation improvements along the SR- 4 corridor, as well as other key transportation projects in the county,” stated Don Tatzin, CCTA Chair. “This local revenue source has made all the difference in our ability to move this project along on schedule and put Contra Costa residents back to work.”

The SR-4 widening and BART project represent a combined investment of more than $1 billion to address one of the most congested corridors in the Bay Area. eBART, which will start service after completion of the highway widening, is funded from Contra Costa’s 2004 transportation sales tax Measure J, Proposition 1B, and other local and regional sources.

“Not only will the eBART project create hundreds of construction jobs, we expect this extension will add around 50 permanent positions as well,” BART General Manager Grace Crunican said. “eBART will be a triple win for East Contra Costa County residents. This project will boost the economy, relieve congestion and help make the air cleaner by taking thousands of cars off the road each day."

Source: http://www.bart.gov/

BART shatters Saturday ridership record, adds capacity for Sunday

BART is gearing up for what promises to be a spectacular Sunday in the Bay Area by significantly increasing carrying capacity with more train cars and extra trains timed to meet special event crowds. The plan worked so well yesterday that BART didn't just set a new ridership record, it shattered it.

319,484 people rode BART Saturday, October 6, 2012, breaking the previous Saturday/Sunday record of 278, 586 set September 1, 2007 when the Bay Bridge was closed and there were three major sporting events. To put the 319,484 number in perspective, consider that the average for Saturdays in 2012 is about 202,000.

Finally a long-awaited project that would bring relief along the Highway 4 corridor indeed. Here's my thought though: will the e-BART be extended further east from Brentwood once it's completed? I think it could become an alternative rail service to Stockton because Highway 4 actually heads east to San Joaquin County.

Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/

Fremont VTA, BART break ground on Warm Springs traffic improvement

by Wes Bowers
Posted: 10/04/2012 04:00:37 PM PDT

Another milestone in making Bay Area Rapid Transit travel to San Jose was reached last week.

BART representatives were joined by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and California Department of Transportation officials and Fremont City Council members Friday to break ground on the Mission/Warren Area Improve-ments Project.

Officials say the latest phase in the BART Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension will feature key safety and mobility enhancements in Fremont, as well as infrastructure upgrades.

The Mission/Warren project will widen Mission Boulevard to six lanes between Interstate 880 and Warm Springs Boulevard and depress Warren Avenue to separate it from BART and Union Pacific Railroad tracks. The project will also include installation of two new railroad tracks and two new BART bridges and a maintenance bridge over both Mission Boulevard and Warren Avenue.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/fremont/ci_21700896/fremont-vta-bart-break-ground-warm-springs-traffic

Source: http://www.contracostatimes.com

East Contra Costa transportation projects keep moving east

By Paul Burgarino Contra Costa Times
Posted: 10/05/2012 09:16:44 PM PDT
Updated: 10/05/2012 09:16:44 PM PDT

ANTIOCH -- Two major transportation projects aimed at reducing gridlocked traffic and commuter headaches in the region continue to head east.

Work will start in Antioch later this month on the easternmost portion of a 10-mile, $462 million extension of BART service. First up is the building of a maintenance station and parking lot, which will set the stage for the new Antioch-Hillcrest Station.

Meanwhile, construction is under way on the latest leg of the half-billion dollar Highway 4 widening project, which will add four lanes from Lone Tree Way to Hillcrest and a new interchange at Lone Tree.

Local, state and federal elected leaders joined transportation officials and workers Friday morning for a groundbreaking for both projects near the site of the future Antioch-Hillcrest eBART station.

Read more: http://www.contracostatimes.com/traffic/ci_21711640/east-contra-costa-transportation-projects-keep-moving-east

oE2Riac4rkU&list

Source: http://www.insidebayarea.com

BART transports nearly a million passengers for busy Bay Area weekend

By Daniel M. Jimenez Bay Area News Group
Posted: 10/09/2012 07:02:06 AM PDT
Updated: 10/09/2012 07:02:39 AM PDT

OAKLAND -- A record-setting Saturday helped push BART ridership for a busy Bay Area weekend to nearly 1 million, officials said Monday.

With popular events like Fleet Week, Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, the America's Cup World Series, a home game for the 49ers and two playoff games for the Giants, Bay Area drivers were told last week that the roads could get crowded heading from the East Bay to San Francisco, and that public transit might be their best option.

It seems that most people got the message -- and BART got the business, with three days last week moving into the transit agency's all-time busiest days.

"This is huge for us," said BART spokesman Jim Allison. "More than any transit agency in the Bay Area ... we rely on our ticket-paying passengers to pay for our operating costs."
Ticket sales fund about 70 percent of the system's annual operating budget, which is about $670 million this fiscal year, Allison said.

Saturday's rider numbers smashed the old record, with 319,484 fares far exceeding the old mark of 278,586, set on a weekend when the Bay Bridge was closed for retrofitting in September 2007, Allison said. The average Saturday ridership this year was 204,000, he added.

Friday was the sixth-highest weekday on record, with 424,483 riders. Sunday ridership totaled 219,920, still well short of the record set in June of this year, when 259,681 riders flooded into San Francisco for inter-league baseball between the A's and Giants, and the San Francisco Pride festival.

Read more: http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_21728414/bart-transports-nearly-million-passengers-busy-bay-area

Source: http://www.bart.gov

October BART ridership soaring
Six of all-time top ten days bookend record-setting weekend

The number of people riding BART is soaring in October with yesterday’s ridership passing the 430,000 mark for the first time since the Giants’ 2010 World Series Victory Parade. 431,771 people took BART Thursday, October 11, the fifth busiest day in BART’s 40-year history. 41,897 traveled to and from the Coliseum/Oakland Airport Station, many of them to see the A’s host the Tigers and the Warriors play a preseason game.

“BART is once again proving to be the backbone of the Bay Area public transportation system,” said BART Board President John McPartland. “Not only are hundreds of thousands of people relying on BART to get them to work or school safely and reliably, but more people are choosing BART as a convenient and cost effective way to travel to recreational activities."

This past weekend was BART’s busiest ever. 319, 484 people took BART Saturday, October 6, surpassing the previous Saturday/Sunday record of 278,586 set in 2007 when the Bay Bridge was closed.

Bay Bridge closures and the Giants’ parade are the only days in BART’s top ten busiest days that did not occur in October or September 2012. Because 70.5% of BART’s operating funds come from fare-paying passengers, higher ridership means a healthier bottom line.

“The increased revenue from our increasing ridership allows BART to expand our service to help meet the demand, within the constraints posed by our aging fleet and train control system,” said BART Board President Vice President Tom Radulovich. “For example, this past weekend we ran 54 extra train trips on Saturday. On Sunday, which is typically our lightest service day, our service was much more robust, more like a typical Saturday. Last month we extended direct Richmond - San Francisco-Millbrae service into the weekday evening hours. We are also reinvesting the fare dollars we earn from growing ridership into customer improvements like the new, easier-to-clean seats and floors, better maintenance, and other projects which improve safety, cleanliness, reliability, and comfort.”

On weekdays, BART is using about 86% percent of its fleet of rail cars, among the highest percentage of use of any transit agency in the nation. The remaining 14% are undergoing repairs or improvements, such as the interior modifications which create more space, cleaner flooring and better air circulation. BART is working to replace the existing rail cars with the Fleet of the Future. The first 410 of the new 775 car fleet are on order. For more information, visit www.bart.gov/cars.



BART Top Ten Ridership Days

Rank - Date Day Riders Events

1 - 11/3/2010 Wed 522,198 Giants' Victory Parade

2 - 10/29/2009 Thur 442,067 Emergency Bay Bridge Closure

3 - 10/30/2009 Fri 437,693 Emergency Bay Bridge Closure

4 - 10/28/2009 Wed 437,180 Emergency Bay Bridge Closure

5 - 10/11/2012 Thur 431,771 A's vs. Detroit; Warriors pre-season

6 - 10/9/2012 Tue 428,484 A's vs. Detroit

7 - 10/3/2012 Wed 426,948 Oracle Conference; A's vs. Texas; America's Cup

8 - 10/10/2012 Wed 426,431 A's vs. Detroit

9 - 10/5/2012 Fri 424,483 Bluegrass Festival; Fleet Week; America's Cup

10 - 10/2/2012 Tue 419,755 Oracle Conference; A's vs. Texas

Article: http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20121012a.aspx

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

BART achieves rare benchmark in train station cleanliness
By: Will Reisman | 10/23/12 7:07 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

For years, BART’s train interiors have been bywords for dirt, grease and other filthy things most people would prefer not to know about.

However, the agency is finally starting to make strides in its never-ending battle against grime. During the most recent quarter of this fiscal year, BART actually met its goals for train interior cleanliness — the first time in the 15-plus years of its reporting that the agency has achieved that mark.

Every reporting period, BART collects passenger survey reports in which customers are asked to rate the vehicles on a scale of one to four, with one representing poor conditions and four indicating excellence. BART passengers gave the trains a cumulative score of 2.72 between July and September, the first time the agency had ever surpassed its goal of 2.70.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/10/bart-achieves-rare-benchmark-train-station-cleanliness#ixzz2APkx4Ucb

Source: www.contracostatimes.com

eBART construction will limit park at Antioch Park & Ride

By Paul Burgarino Contra Costa Times
Posted: 10/23/2012 10:52:11 AM PDT
Updated: 10/23/2012 10:52:11 AM PDT

ANTIOCH -- The number of parking spaces at the Hillcrest Park & Ride will be limited over the next month because of planned construction for eBART, Tri Delta Transit officials said this week.

Starting Wednesday, buses will start circling the parking lot to pick up passengers, which means the number of available parking spaces will be reduced, according to a Tri Delta news release.

Drop-off and pick-up location for the buses will also change.

Read more: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_21836478/ebart-construction-will-limit-park-at-antioch-park

Source: http://www.mercurynews.com

BART celebrates completion of tunnel underneath Fremont's Central Park

By Chris De Benedetti,
The Argus
Posted: 10/27/2012 07:45:53 PM PDT
Updated: 10/27/2012 07:45:59 PM PDT

FREMONT -- To the naked eye, the BART tunnel underneath Lake Elizabeth is a claustrophobic mixture of dust, concrete and darkness, but regional leaders say they see something far more significant: a pathway to the future prosperity of Fremont, Silicon Valley and the entire Bay Area.

That vision was the focus of the ceremony Friday that celebrated the subway's completion in Central Park, where hundreds of people toured the tunnel.

Union City Mayor Mark Green noted that completing the project brought BART one step closer to Silicon Valley, where officials hope a station is built by the end of the decade.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_21864798/bart-celebrates-completion-tunnel-underneath-fremonts-central-park

Speaking of BART, here's my educated guess for Wednesday: ridership will soar once again to record passenger numbers served that could be comparable to the 2010 Giants Championship Parade because the Giants will have another World Series Championship Parade down Market Street towards Civic Center. I then wonder how many people will actually use BART this time... (Same story for Muni, especially the buses and Metro)

^^They'd be smart to use BART. The parking garage in my building near Civic Center has posted a rip-off flat fee of $30 for valet parking on Wednesday (no hourly rates apply--it's $30 or park somewhere else and somewhere else is probably doing the same).

Assuming BART is completed and eventually does go to Santa Clara. Should a spur line be constructed to go to the West Valley. Of course! And where/how? Well of course along Stevens Creek where it hits major retail centers (Santana Row and Valley Fair) and then perhaps veer a little Southwest? Your thoughts guys? I seriously doubt having VTA BRT would be a good solution for the Stevens Creek corridor. It's got to be something separate. And I don't trust VTA light rail to come that way anytime soon.

Assuming BART is completed and eventually does go to Santa Clara. Should a spur line be constructed to go to the West Valley. Of course! And where/how? Well of course along Stevens Creek where it hits major retail centers (Santana Row and Valley Fair) and then perhaps veer a little Southwest? Your thoughts guys? I seriously doubt having VTA BRT would be a good solution for the Stevens Creek corridor. It's got to be something separate. And I don't trust VTA light rail to come that way anytime soon.

Those are very good ideas... but a short-term solution has been to create a limited-stop version of VTA Line 23 to alleviate the growing ridership along Stevens Creek Boulevard, called Line 323... also in the pipeline is to make the same corridor a BRT line that would complement Line 23 and replace Line 323, which will be called 523 Rapid (similar to 522 Rapid). I am thinking, though, if a LR line for Stevens Creek would be a best solution.

Protection sought for filthy BART escalators
By: Will Reisman | 10/31/12 9:22 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

BART’s street-level escalators, exposed to the elements and the peculiar bathroom habits of some San Francisco citizens, could finally benefit from a little protection.

The transit agency is developing a canopy prototype for its escalators, a device that would shield the moving stairs from the wind and rain while also keeping people away from the structures during 
off-service hours.

BART’s escalators have been notoriously unreliable in recent months, falling well below their availability standards. In May, the availability rate of street-level escalators dipped to 76.5 percent, a historically low mark that paled in comparison to the 95 percent rate the agency had established for itself. Following the dismal marks in 
May, BART dedicated more maintenance staff to repairing the escalators, but the agency still hasn’t reached its goal.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/10/protection-sought-filthy-bart-escalators#ixzz2B0q9CDzd

^^ maybe the escalator problems can also be mended by removing graffiti and trash left on the escalator grills so that those can run more efficiently. A best solution, though, could be putting a canopy or cover under the escalators.

Source: http://www.bart.gov

BART marks all-time highest ridership day in 40 years of service

BART's all-time ridership record was broken Wednesday with 568,061 exits reported, among them fans attending the San Francisco Giants World Series victory parade, Halloween revelers, and people relying on BART for their everyday trips to work, school and other activities.

It was the highest ridership in BART's 40 years of service, easily passing the old record of 522,198 exits, which was set on Nov. 3, 2010, the day of the Giants victory parade after they won the World Series that year. (This year's parade day had 45,863 more exits in all.)

Compared to a typical October Wednesday, the Oct. 31, 2012, ridership represents a whopping 40% increase."This was a tremendous and exciting day for BART and the Bay Area," Board President John McPartland said. "We can't thank our passengers enough for being patient and helping make the day a success."

BART beefed up staffing and deployed every train available to accommodate crowds. Rush hour service was used the entire day with extra event trains travelling the entire system to help carry passengers into the city and then home.

Ticket sale tables were set up at high volume stations to help speed up ticket purchasing. About 100 extra BART employees in yellow vests were stationed throughout the system to help with crowd control and to assist passengers. BART Police had extra patrol and extra train technicians were also on hand just in case.

"Safety and crowd control was our top priority," McPartland said. "BART staff diligently managed passenger flow especially at our downtown San Francisco stations to avoid overcrowded platforms. So far, today was a great example of the power and efficiency of public transportation. That is something worth celebrating," McPartland said.

Article: http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20121031.aspx

S4h0MhD8i_w&feature=plcp

e9EgLqHfPo0&list=UUXJOE7

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

More trains needed to meet BART’s growing passenger needs
By: Will Reisman | 11/15/12 9:19 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

In the coming years, BART is going to have a lot more riders than it can handle, which means the transit agency is going to need a lot more money to buy a lot more trains.

To meet that demand — even off-peak ridership is growing — BART will need a fleet of 880 train cars. That total far exceeds the 775 train cars the agency recently purchased. The 880 train cars will only meet the needs of the 500,000 daily passengers BART expects in the near future. But by 2025, the system could be carrying 560,000 a day — 40 percent more than the current 400,000 mark. Such ridership would require a fleet of 980 train cars.

BART did not cite a specific price tag for the service increases, but the recent purchase of the 775 train cars cost $2.5 billion.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/11/more-trains-needed-meet-bart-s-growing-passenger-needs#ixzz2CYfoQlIe

^^ I think BART could also explore into either adding more short-line trips, especially on the Pittsburg/Bay Point - SFO Airport and Richmond - Millbrae lines because both are heavily used by commuters and students alike on a regular basis. The big problem, though: with an increase of service, and the limited infrastructure of the network, it could not establish limited-stop or express trains, similar to what's done in NYC or Chicago. I think a better train signaling and traffic management system can be deployed to allow more trains running through most lines at most times of the day, as well as expanding weekend services. All while keeping BART's commitments to keeping its tracks safe.

^^a maximum frequency of 4½ trains per hour per line (18 total trains per hour through the Tube) can be achieved after headways and dwell times are accounted for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit

I think that's about what they are doing now.

^^ in that case, there is one train operating every 3-1/3 minutes... What would be the probability of adding at least two more trains to make the Tube see trains running every 3 minutes (20 tph)? If possible, what improvements can be made to allow more trains to run through the Tube? It's like, is it possible for the Tube to have around 24 trains per hour (one train every 2.5 minutes)?

Source: www.sfgate.com

BART station no place for wheelchairs
Vivian Ho
Updated 10:24 p.m., Wednesday, November 28, 2012

For the past few months, the South San Francisco BART Station has been an obstacle course of inconveniences for disabled riders.
The station's single elevator has been out of service since Aug. 20, BART officials acknowledged. Shortly after that, they switched directions on the station's two escalators - up now going down, down now going up.
"There are a lot of disabled people at the station who complain all the time about the escalators," said Jason Nery, who has difficulty walking. "I know a few patrons in wheelchairs who depend on that station, and I haven't seen them because the elevators have been out so long."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-station-no-place-for-wheelchairs-4075124.php#ixzz2DfrfWQjn

^^ I've read about that, and it's sad to see that passengers in South City have to endure such inconveniences, especially Kaiser Hospital is close to the station... :(

^^I can't recall a time in 30 years when all the elevators and escalators at downtown SF BART stations were working. It was faulty design from the beginning but BART should have replaced them or come up with a fix long before now.

^^ How come the designs were faulty for both escalators and elevators at Downtown SF BART stations? Plus I recall that day when I was trying to help a handicapped woman who just got out from surgery in South City when we were close to the Golden Gate bus stop on 7th & Market (Civic Center) to catch a bus for Petaluma... And when we got onto the escalator that would bring us up to Market Street, she suddenly lost her balance and fell down the escalator with two people right behind her.

Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/

BART's bird problem a $5 million nuisance

By Mike Rosenberg
mrosenberg@mercurynews.com
Posted: 12/04/2012 06:22:19 PM PST
Updated: 12/05/2012 08:44:34 AM PST

FREMONT -- For nearly two years, BART has been involved in an exhaustive effort to shoo away hundreds of pesky birds laying eggs along the rail extension under construction toward Silicon Valley -- even installing those inflatable dancers popular outside used-car lots.

The cost to taxpayers: $5 million -- or more than $17,000 per nest.

But BART says it's money well spent. Agency officials say the bird-related problems would have delayed BART's extensions to Warm Springs and San Jose, costing much more public money in the long run if its contractors hadn't spent millions of dollars in overtime to stay on schedule.

Strict state and federal wildlife protection laws forced BART to cordon off sections of a construction site for a new subway being built under Lake Elizabeth in Fremont whenever a nesting bird was discovered.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/traffic/ci_22125608/barts-bird-problem-5-million-nuisance?source=rss

Source: http://www.sfexaminer.com/

Parking at BART stations could rise with high demand
By: Will Reisman | 12/06/12 4:00 AM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

BART passengers who park at a station could soon have to shell out a little more cash.

Lots at BART stations frequently fill up during the early-morning commute, a situation that has the agency considering an increase in its parking rates. Daily fees at the 32 stations with parking range from free to $5, but most cost just $1.

As part of a proposal under review, prices could increase by 50 cents twice a year wherever demand is high. For now, the agency is considering capping prices at $3, except for West Oakland, where parking is $5.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/12/parking-bart-stations-could-rise-high-demand#ixzz2EKjS6B00

^^ Seems like BART will be looking into higher parking charges for all-day parking, if not including carpool parking as well. And it seems like the system should be the further a station is from, say, Oakland or San Francisco, the charge should be a bit cheaper so that passengers may not need to shell out a lot more money. I think the big exceptions could be at El Cerrito del Norte, Concord, Pittsburg/Bay Point, Fremont, and East and West Dublin/Pleasanton stations where parking tends to be full nearly often.

Looks like this BART car needs some serious cleaning... what do you think?

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j117/wishfulanthony/Mobile%20Uploads/Mobile%20Uploads%202/DSC09787_zpse5235831.jpg

Looks like this BART car needs some serious cleaning... what do you think?


That cleaning won't do it. It needs refurbishment including a paint job.

^^ Ah ok. I've seen some cars with that amount of dirt accumulated over time, and I had the impression that a little soap and water would do the trick... Yet it reminded me of the new trains coming soon from Bombardier that would hopefully replace a lot of the oldest trains operating in the fleet. I wonder if the Bombardier cars will operate similarly to the Alstom trains: detachable, can be operated as either a cab car or lead car, and can be arranged in any way possible...?

Source: www.sfgate.com

BART labors to keep escalators running
TRANSIT BART redoubles its efforts to keep escalators running, but the challenges are huge
Michael Cabanatuan
Updated 7:44 pm, Monday, December 24, 2012

News outlets and websites the world over picked up on the Chronicle story this summer about a BART escalator that was so full of feces that it stopped running. The use of escalators as toilets is indeed a problem, but it's just one of many challenges for BART and other transit agencies that rely on escalators.

Escalators may appear to be simple devices to those standing atop the moving staircases, but the difficulties of keeping them running are so numerous and so persistent that transit agencies have banded together to brainstorm and share information on escalators and even to train technicians to repair them.

The American Public Transportation Association has a committee, the Elevator/Escalator Technical Forum, and six of the nation's largest and most escalator-dependent transit agencies - including BART - have established a training consortium.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-labors-to-keep-escalators-running-4144347.php#ixzz2GCGJEnrC

^^ I didn't know that BART is among the most escalator-dependent transit agencies in the entire country... and with a simple passenger movement tool as an escalator, it can bring hundreds of people up and down the platforms, concourses, and streets quickly and efficiently. No wonder that every time I use an escalator, it helps me realize how much work is needed to keep them running as those should. I even recalled what happened at the Civic Center, on the south exit at Market & 7th Streets, where I was helping a lady who just got out from surgery get to a Golden Gate bus to Petaluma when she lost her balance and fell down on the escalator... it was quite a horror to see it happen right before my eyes.

When we can expect to see Bart station on Diridon? And on which side will be that? near VTA or on other side (Caltrain)?

So on Diridon station we will have?
- California high speed rail?
- VTA?
- San Jose subway?
- Caltrain?
- Bart?
- Amtrak?

looks like big station to me

When we can expect to see Bart station on Diridon? And on which side will be that? near VTA or on other side (Caltrain)?

So on Diridon station we will have?
- California high speed rail?
- VTA?
- San Jose subway?
- Caltrain?
- Bart?

looks like big station to me

Possibly along E Santa Clara Street next to the HP Pavilion to align it with downtown San Jose, and it will eventually continue further west to serve Santa Clara Caltrain via El Camino Real. As for San Jose subway, hmmm... I don't think there will be one. But yes, Diridon will be an interesting transit hub development indeed because it will not only have BART, but it will also have:

- Amtrak
- Caltrain
- Highway 17 Express
- Monterey & Salinas Transit
- VTA Buses and Shuttles (plus DASH)
- VTA light rail

all rolled into one massive station. The big problem: how will BART be connected to the Amtrak and Caltrain underground walkway, as well as to and from the VTA light rail station?

Possibly along E Santa Clara Street
You mean W Santa Clara street?

I don't know but looks too much of everything over there It will be so confusing for many new comers or tourists :) And I am not sure if everything will fit there. Bart will be Under Caltrain (because it will go under downtown) but what I don't know about this high-speed rail then?

Whoops, sorry! I've been to Diridon at least five times, yet I still can't remember if it was W or E Santa Clara Sreet! Geeze, I must have known where the boundary line is for the E-W streets... I'll remember this:

For N-S streets: Santa Clara Street acts as the boundary
For E-W streets: First Street acts as the boundary

Tell me if I'm correct on that designation.

As for the HSR, it could share with the Caltrain tracks (thus the electrification of Caltrain coming soon), and it might end up sharing platforms with Amtrak and even ACE to start with!

Yes now is clear.

You might be right as well for this part for HSR and Caltrain :)
That would make sense to me :)

^^ Awesome. I'm looking into how will Amtrak (especially the Capitol Corridor) coordinate its services with the HSR to provide quick transfers, as well as between the HSR and BART with underground walkways. Perhaps it would mean busier service on the El Camino Real and E and W Santa Clara Street corridors too, with more Line 22 and 522 buses to help ease the commuter crunch.

I found this document
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1006

and this

http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/636

^^ I will read those when I get a chance. Very detailed plans, though, indeed.

Source: www.sfgate.com

BART to airport connector is on track
OAKLAND
Michael Cabanatuan
Published 8:50 pm, Sunday, December 30, 2012

The long line of asymmetrical concrete columns in the median of Hegenberger Road, some topped with a half-mile of white steel trestle, are a sure reminder that there will soon be a new way to get to the Oakland International Airport.

After years of hoping, planning and fighting, BART's long-awaited and controversial Oakland Airport Connector is taking shape. Construction crews have been working on the 3.2-mile link between the Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station and the airport since late 2010. It will replace AirBART, a shuttle bus operated by the Port of Oakland.

"We're making a lot of progress," said Luna Salaver, a BART spokeswoman. "By this time in 2014, people will be able to take the connector to Oakland airport."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-to-airport-connector-is-on-track-4156219.php#ixzz2GfbyqeSi

^^ I'm hoping that I can take pics of the AirBART bus before it goes away for good. The big problem with the AirBART bus is while it's better to ride because it runs express between Coliseum BART and the Airport (and good value for $3), it does not accept Clipper cards at all, which is a hassle.

I found how future Bart station on Diridon will looks like.
http://www.basepic.com/upload/images/GJ1X.jpg


this is interesting too
http://www.vta.org/2000_measure_a/pdf/projects/san_jose_mineta_airport_people_mover.pdf
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Directors/Presentations/2011/10-6-11+Diridon+Station+Area+Plan.pdf

Source: http://www.contracostatimes.com/

Tri-Valley voters helped sink tax hike despite millions for BART

By Denis Cuff Contra Costa Times
Posted: 01/07/2013 10:57:42 AM PST
Updated: 01/07/2013 05:39:16 PM PST

Even the lure of millions for BART wasn't enough to convince Livermore-area voters to approve an Alameda County transportation sales tax in November.

It narrowly lost the election in part because it failed by large margins in Livermore and Pleasanton despite $400 million set aside for an extension of BART to Livermore.

Although the measure won big votes in Berkeley, Oakland and Emeryville, some 52 percent of Livermore and Pleasanton voters rejected Measure B1, leaving the tax hike just shy of reaching the countywide threshold of 66.67 percent needed to pass.

Read more: http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_22326017/tri-valley-voters-help-sink-tax-hike-despite

^^ Looks like the beneficiary of the tax measure defeat would be Wheels (LAVTA) since it would use their resources instead to expand its Tri-Valley Rapid service, as well as its local lines... But I think that BART deserves a second chance in this since the I-580 corridor in the Livermore Valley (also Altamont Pass) is horrendously crowded, especially during rush hours and Friday getaways.

BART Ridership Way Up; BART Discussing Turning Riders Away?

People commuting to work from the East Bay may have noticed that BART has been ridiculously crowded lately, with some cars so packed as they roll into Oakland stations in the morning that no one can fit on them. This is due to an unexpected 6% rise in BART ridership over last year, and BART officials don't know quite how to handle it. One of them, astoundingly, said something to the Chronicle about how they're debating whether to "put ourselves in the position of driving [new riders] away because we can't provide the service we do today."

What the what? Yes, apparently BART management is so freaked right now that one of the options on the table besides scheduling more trains is deterring ridership so that the system doesn't melt down under the pressure . . . .

Right. Well, we already heard that there is a possible plan to start express train service, which sounds like a smart idea that they should probably hurry up with. And they were talking about speeding up the frequency of each train line at rush hour, with that 15-minute gap between consecutive Richmond line trains, for instance, becoming 12 minutes.

. . . in the meantime, look out for BART employees standing out in front of stations asking people if they really need to take the train today.
http://sfist.com/2013/01/14/bart_ridership_way_up_bart_discussi.php

http://sfist.com/2013/01/14/bart_ridership_way_up_bart_discussi.php

I find it disappointing because management doesn't fully realize the gravity of turning away passengers until it is too late that their trains become so awful that passengers will really run away from it to begin with. It is a matter of strategizing priorities: with higher passenger ridership, BART needs to figure out how best to deal with a passenger surge: either to increase services, increase fares (slightly) to keep up with demand, or improve the trains that form the backbone of the system. In this case, I still wonder when the new Bombardier trains will be rolled out to augment the older trains so that the agency can retire its oldest trains (some over 40 years old) and replace them with the next generation of trains that will not only make BART a more pleasant riding experience, but also lift up spirits of its riders, staff, and maintenance personnel.

Another suggestion to keep up with increasing BART ridership: improve and expand transit connections that complement BART services. AC Transit, County Connection, Golden Gate, LAVTA (Wheels), Tri-Delta Transit, Union City Transit, and VTA should consider increasing its frequencies and enhancing its connections to BART so that more passengers can be inclined to take transit to wherever they want to go.

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

BART passengers continue to review the agency favorably
By: Will Reisman | 01/14/13 7:07 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

Encouraged by strong on-time performance rates and a new commitment to train cleanliness, BART passengers indicated robust support for the regional transit system in the latest customer satisfaction survey.

Of the riders surveyed by BART, 84 percent said they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the agency, an increase of 2 percent from when the last poll was conducted in 2010. Just 1 percent of the riders said they were very dissatisfied with BART.

The 84 percent rate marked the highest level of approval from BART passengers since 2006.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2013/01/bart-passengers-continue-review-agency-favorably#ixzz2IB0oigSc

Another suggestion to keep up with increasing BART ridership: improve and expand transit connections that complement BART services. AC Transit, County Connection, Golden Gate, LAVTA (Wheels), Tri-Delta Transit, Union City Transit, and VTA should consider increasing its frequencies and enhancing its connections to BART so that more passengers can be inclined to take transit to wherever they want to go.

THIS. The quality and quantity of bus service in the Bay Area has taken a major turn for the worse on recent years, and improvements to such services really ought to be the first thing on planners minds. (That's not to say I don't approve of new rail projects, but there certainly needs to be more integration. And BTW, you forgot Samtrans, Soltrans, VINE, Emery-go-round, and the most important of them all: MUNI.)

THIS. The quality and quantity of bus service in the Bay Area has taken a major turn for the worse on recent years, and improvements to such services really ought to be the first thing on planners minds. (That's not to say I don't approve of new rail projects, but there certainly needs to be more integration. And BTW, you forgot Samtrans, Soltrans, VINE, Emery-go-round, and the most important of them all: MUNI.)

I know those. But the agencies I've mentioned deserve better connections. I'll tell you for the rest of the agencies:

- SamTrans and Muni just need minor improvements in terms of connections because their services are already plentiful (except if you talk about weekend and holiday services, as well as additional peak trips). SamTrans, however, could add more services from South SF, San Bruno, and Millbrae stations to cope with growing demand.
- Soltrans already does extensive trips to Del Norte, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek BART, but it's sad to see its Sunday and holiday service reallocated to Walnut Creek instead of keeping it in Del Norte
- VINE certainly has improved its connections, but also consider its initial (to Napa) and final (from Napa) passenger loads once it starts/ends at Del Norte
- Emery-Go-Round already does a wonderful job providing free trips for all its patrons, and their weekend service seems to be sufficient.

I know those. But the agencies I've mentioned deserve better connections. I'll tell you for the rest of the agencies:

- SamTrans and Muni just need minor improvements in terms of connections because their services are already plentiful (except if you talk about weekend and holiday services, as well as additional peak trips). SamTrans, however, could add more services from South SF, San Bruno, and Millbrae stations to cope with growing demand.

SamTrans needs merged into MUNI and VTA. MUNI gets the chunks north of Millbrae Station and VTA the chunks south of it.

MUNI needs much more than Minor improvements, they needed additional capacity years ago. Kudos to the idiots in planning who seriously still think buying more standard 40-footers is a sane policy with all the overcrowding MUNI deals with.

- Soltrans already does extensive trips to Del Norte, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek BART, but it's sad to see its Sunday and holiday service reallocated to Walnut Creek instead of keeping it in Del Norte
- VINE certainly has improved its connections, but also consider its initial (to Napa) and final (from Napa) passenger loads once it starts/ends at Del Norte
- Emery-Go-Round already does a wonderful job providing free trips for all its patrons, and their weekend service seems to be sufficient.

Personally, I would prefer to see SolTrans merging with the various Solano/Napa transit providers, to streamline service. I would also like ACTransit to merge with all the other East Bay transit agencies. Or at the very least, we can try and herd this group of wet, horny cats and convince to agree on a single set of route numbers. (Having four different 22's, five different 14's, and more 1's than you can shake a stick at, it's just stupid)

Personally, I would prefer to see SolTrans merging with the various Solano/Napa transit providers, to streamline service. I would also like ACTransit to merge with all the other East Bay transit agencies. Or at the very least, we can try and herd this group of wet, horny cats and convince to agree on a single set of route numbers. (Having four different 22's, five different 14's, and more 1's than you can shake a stick at, it's just stupid)

We can do that. Internal conflicts, though, could cause such integration to run into problems. For example:

- Sonoma County has Sonoma County Transit. Along with that, it also has Santa Rosa CityBus, Petaluma Transit, Healdsburg In-City Transit, and Cloverdale Transit, all of which are city-owned. How can you make a deal with smaller agencies and feed them into a large agency that already does tons of work to begin with, and that the latter two have very small coverage areas to manage?

- Solano County has SolTrans, sure. But it also has FAST, Vacaville CityCoach, Dixon Readi-Ride, and Rio Vista Transit. You can combine the first three because all of them are on the I-80 corridor, but Rio Vista Transit operates at a unique area of Solano County where it operates to Stockton to the east, Antioch to the south, and Fairfield to the west, and that area is lightly populated, which may not require full bus service.

- Integrating routes are fine, but with a nine-county Bay Area, it is pretty tough to integrate all of them into one massive service. If that is to happen, then we will need to establish prefix letters to represent what route it is and where it goes, similar to New York City Transit. Plus, how will you manage a huge fleet of buses when the depots seem to be dispersed in every county?

We can do that. Internal conflicts, though, could cause such integration to run into problems. For example:

- Sonoma County has Sonoma County Transit. Along with that, it also has Santa Rosa CityBus, Petaluma Transit, Healdsburg In-City Transit, and Cloverdale Transit, all of which are city-owned. How can you make a deal with smaller agencies and feed them into a large agency that already does tons of work to begin with, and that the latter two have very small coverage areas to manage?

- Solano County has SolTrans, sure. But it also has FAST, Vacaville CityCoach, Dixon Readi-Ride, and Rio Vista Transit. You can combine the first three because all of them are on the I-80 corridor, but Rio Vista Transit operates at a unique area of Solano County where it operates to Stockton to the east, Antioch to the south, and Fairfield to the west, and that area is lightly populated, which may not require full bus service.

With these two cases, I'd recommend what I call a "federal setup" where there's common branding, scheduling and fares, but local areas can decide how much service they want.

-Integrating routes are fine, but with a nine-county Bay Area, it is pretty tough to integrate all of them into one massive service. If that is to happen, then we will need to establish prefix letters to represent what route it is and where it goes, similar to New York City Transit. Plus, how will you manage a huge fleet of buses when the depots seem to be dispersed in every county?

Actually, there's few enough routes that a simpler 0-999 system would be perfect for the region. Here's how it would work:

0-99: MUNI Routes (Obvious, but would include SamTrans routes north of Millbrae.)

100-199: ACTransit Routes (Would include some WestCAT Routes, but not anything south of Hayward)

200-299: VTA Routes (Includes SamTrans Routes south of Millbrae)

300-399: "Outer ACTransit Routes" (Includes ACTransit Routes south of Hayward, Union City Transit, Tri-Delta, WHEELS, and County Connection)

400-499: "Transbay Express" (All Express Bus Routes that serve DT San Francisco)

500-599: "Regional Express" (All Express Bus Routes that don't serve DT San Francisco)

600-699: Sonoma/Marin Routes: (All Routes in Sonoma and Marin counties)

700-799: Rapid Bus Routes (All Limited Stop routes)

800-899: Solano-Napa Routes (All routes within Solano and Napa Counties)

900-999: "special routes"

- Emery-Go-Round already does a wonderful job providing free trips for all its patrons, and their weekend service seems to be sufficient.
It's part of a larger debate, but I was never a big fan of "too cheap" or "free".

I personally believe that public transportation in the Bay Area is not expensive (unless we need to take BART outside SF every day, in which case the lack of a monthly pass does make it unjustifiably expensive for commuters). If there's a problem with public transportation in the Bay Area is that it's really slow, unreliable, and at points infrequent and full of vandalism or disturbing non-civic behaviors.

I for one would be gladly ready to pay much more for the Muni monthly pass if all of the above-mentioned were to improve.

Whatever is free tends not to be appreciated. I believe it is good that whoever uses it pays their share, and that way citizens get to see that good public transportation has its price.

With these two cases, I'd recommend what I call a "federal setup" where there's common branding, scheduling and fares, but local areas can decide how much service they want.

Actually, there's few enough routes that a simpler 0-999 system would be perfect for the region. Here's how it would work:

0-99: MUNI Routes (Obvious, but would include SamTrans routes north of Millbrae.)

100-199: ACTransit Routes (Would include some WestCAT Routes, but not anything south of Hayward)

200-299: VTA Routes (Includes SamTrans Routes south of Millbrae)

300-399: "Outer ACTransit Routes" (Includes ACTransit Routes south of Hayward, Union City Transit, Tri-Delta, WHEELS, and County Connection)

400-499: "Transbay Express" (All Express Bus Routes that serve DT San Francisco)

500-599: "Regional Express" (All Express Bus Routes that don't serve DT San Francisco)

600-699: Sonoma/Marin Routes: (All Routes in Sonoma and Marin counties)

700-799: Rapid Bus Routes (All Limited Stop routes)

800-899: Solano-Napa Routes (All routes within Solano and Napa Counties)

900-999: "special routes"

You missed out SamTrans within the Peninsula (e.g. between Millbrae and Palo Alto, Pacifica, Montara, Half Moon Bay, and Escondido). How will you group it as?

Transbay routes operated by AC Transit can keep their lettering system since it was originally handed down from the Key System which used the Bay Bridge to get between San Francisco and the East Bay.

Plus how will you reorganize the shuttle systems where they may (in Marin County) or may not (in Sonoma and Solano Counties) be numbered? And how far north will you reorganize the whole system to begin with since you're dealing with far-flung communities as Calistoga, Cloverdale, and other northerly, more isolated communities?

And note: non-AC Transit routes may not necessarily mean those are located south of Hayward: that would make a big disjoint in services since you're clumping in WestCAT, County Connection, and Tri-Delta Transit in Contra Costa County with those south of I-238 and I-580 (Wheels, Union City Transit)... Unless you tell me that you will re-number Routes 70X and 70XV by Wheels into something else.

The biggest concern is, if we are to make a huge monthly pass system that would allow commuting throughout the Bay Area, isn't that what Clipper is supposed to do? I mean, the fare matrices are so complex that you would need to manually tag-on and tag-off with a handful of agencies while permitting tag-on only with others... And with a monthly pass, that would only promote tag-on only without considering how many zones you want to travel (e.g. BART, Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit).

You missed out SamTrans within the Peninsula (e.g. between Millbrae and Palo Alto, Pacifica, Montara, Half Moon Bay, and Escondido). How will you group it as?

I already stated that they would be grouped under VTA's numbering.

Transbay routes operated by AC Transit can keep their lettering system since it was originally handed down from the Key System which used the Bay Bridge to get between San Francisco and the East Bay.

I know about where the lettering came from, and I want to get rid of it for the sake of consistency and simplicity. (Several of ACTransit's Transbay routes already overlap with MUNI Metro numbers: E,F,J,L,M,N)

Plus how will you reorganize the shuttle systems where they may (in Marin County) or may not (in Sonoma and Solano Counties) be numbered? And how far north will you reorganize the whole system to begin with since you're dealing with far-flung communities as Calistoga, Cloverdale, and other northerly, more isolated communities?

The 900-999 series is meant to be used for these types of routes, but I didn't have the time to state that when I was typing up the post.

And note: non-AC Transit routes may not necessarily mean those are located south of Hayward: that would make a big disjoint in services since you're clumping in WestCAT, County Connection, and Tri-Delta Transit in Contra Costa County with those south of I-238 and I-580 (Wheels, Union City Transit)... Unless you tell me that you will re-number Routes 70X and 70XV by Wheels into something else.

WestCAT would be (mostly) a part of the 100-199 series of routes. The 300-399 series was an effort to expand Tri-Delta's numbering system over all of Eastern Alameda/Contra Costa County. While it does seem kind of awkward, you already see a transition in route numbering south of Hayward as is, with ACTransit's 0-99 series, transitioning to UCT's single digit numbers and then to the special 200's series that ACTransit uses for Fremont and Newark. I also felt that there weren't going to be enough numbers available for the 100-199 series if I tried to cram every route between Rodeo and Warm Springs into it.

As for the 70X/70XV, it would placed in the "regional express" category, and hence would be renumbered to something like: 570/571. The Numbering system itself is inspired by Seattle and Los Angeles, which both use numbering systems to categorize routes.

The biggest concern is, if we are to make a huge monthly pass system that would allow commuting throughout the Bay Area, isn't that what Clipper is supposed to do? I mean, the fare matrices are so complex that you would need to manually tag-on and tag-off with a handful of agencies while permitting tag-on only with others... And with a monthly pass, that would only promote tag-on only without considering how many zones you want to travel (e.g. BART, Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit).

I want a single system of charging for fares, both single ride and monthly passes and everything in between. What we'd do is break up the nine-county region into a series of fare zones and charge for travel based on those zones. Tap on/Tap off would be necessary, but wouldn't be that hard to implement since several agencies already do that. Fare revenue for trips would be split by a equitable (if complex system that I wouldn't be to explain) fare-sharing system.

^^ I think we're going a bit off-topic here... We need to move that discussion to the proper thread, called Bay Area Transportation (air, water, and land). This is the BART thread, and we don't want to get caught by someone going off-topic here, all right? Back to topic.

Anyways, next question: if you are to extend BART even further to a point where it extends beyond the confines of the counties it currently serves, where would you want to see it go, why, and how would you do it?

^^ I think we're going a bit off-topic here... We need to move that discussion to the proper thread, called Bay Area Transportation (air, water, and land). This is the BART thread, and we don't want to get caught by someone going off-topic here, all right? Back to topic.

Anyways, next question: if you are to extend BART even further to a point where it extends beyond the confines of the counties it currently serves, where would you want to see it go, why, and how would you do it?

As for BART, it doesn't really need any more exurban expansion when it so badly needs a second Bay crossing (My preferred crossing would use a Lombard/Van Ness/Folsom route in SF, and would connect to the existing BART system in both DT Oakland and Macarthur, with the junctions there completely reworked.) and a number of Infill stations (DT San Bruno, 87th st/DC, 30th Mission, Van Ness, MLK/Jack London, Pill Hill/Northgate, 55th St/North Oakland, Albany, Oak Grove, 98th Ave/East Oakland, Seminary, Oakland Chinatown, and especially SAN AN-FUCKING-TONIO).

As for BART, it doesn't really need any more exurban expansion when it so badly needs a second Bay crossing (My preferred crossing would use a Lombard/Van Ness/Folsom route in SF, and would connect to the existing BART system in both DT Oakland and Macarthur, with the junctions there completely reworked.) and a number of Infill stations (DT San Bruno, 87th st/DC, 30th Mission, Van Ness, MLK/Jack London, Pill Hill/Northgate, 55th St/North Oakland, Albany, Oak Grove, 98th Ave/East Oakland, Seminary, Oakland Chinatown, and especially SAN AN-***-TONIO).

Wait, what? San Antonio? In what city is that? And why build one there?

Wait, what? San Antonio? In what city is that? And why build one there?

It's a neighborhood in Oakland about a mile East of of Lake Merritt BART that happens to be the densest neighborhood in the East Bay. It also has comparatively low BART ridership rates compared to other areas nearby. Because of the density, the station would be capable of adding 10-12,000 new riders a day from the day it opened, and even more once Oak to 9th finally comes out of hibernation. And there's more. The Station (Which would be located probably just east of E 12th St and 14th Ave) would be relatively simple and cheap to construct because the BART tracks are on the surface there and not on a curve, meaning that there would be no ridiculously complicated diversion works needed to maintain service. And there's even MOAR! The Capitol Corridor runs immediately parallel to the station site, so there's the potential for an intermodal station at the site. Why MTC hasn't moved on this COMPLETELY FUCKING SENSIBLE project DECADES AGO is news to me.

^^ Shhh, stop swearing, my friend! You don't want to get an infraction, do you? ;)

I would say that a San Antonio infill station would be a great idea, contingent on several factors:

- a multi-modal hub between Capitol Corridor and BART would be feasible, but the distance between San Antonio and the next Capitol Corridor stations, Jack London Square and Oakland Airport/Coliseum can be too short that it may not be feasible to build an infill station with such a very short distance.
- a better alternative would be a typical BART station with several connecting AC Transit services. That way, it can help relieve potential overcrowding at Fruitvale, while at the same time, AC Transit can expand services in an underserved area.

^^ Shhh, stop swearing, my friend! You don't want to get an infraction, do you? ;)

Popping veins over BART's inability to build San Antonio Station is proof that you're a true transit advocate in the Bay Area. (However, I lack the traditional inclination of advocates to bash VTA at every turn)

I would say that a San Antonio infill station would be a great idea, contingent on several factors:

- a multi-modal hub between Capitol Corridor and BART would be feasible, but the distance between San Antonio and the next Capitol Corridor stations, Jack London Square and Oakland Airport/Coliseum can be too short that it may not be feasible to build an infill station with such a very short distance.

It would be perfectly feasible, Caltrain as is has several station pairs about the same distance apart from each other as Jack London and San Antonio (Which are about 1.3 miles apart).

- a better alternative would be a typical BART station with several connecting AC Transit services. That way, it can help relieve potential overcrowding at Fruitvale, while at the same time, AC Transit can expand services in an underserved area.

The area where the station would go is rather limited in size, so it would more likely be a station like that of Glen Park, where there's several lines that stop by the station, but no organized transit center where a bunch of line terminate and/or deviate to.

Popping veins over BART's inability to build San Antonio Station is proof that you're a true transit advocate in the Bay Area. (However, I lack the traditional inclination of advocates to bash VTA at every turn)

It would be perfectly feasible, Caltrain as is has several station pairs about the same distance apart from each other as Jack London and San Antonio (Which are about 1.3 miles apart).

The area where the station would go is rather limited in size, so it would more likely be a station like that of Glen Park, where there's several lines that stop by the station, but no organized transit center where a bunch of line terminate and/or deviate to.

You don't need to swear though when you want to address a point! Just express your thoughts clearly, and I will understand it. First of all, where do you live in the Bay Area?

I would say that the Capitol Corridor is a great service, but I think that it is more of a regional train service than a localized one, so I think the only people who would want to build a station in San Antonio would be those local residents who might not want to go to either Jack London Square or Oakland Coliseum stations. I highly thought though of a BART station instead so that more riders can get to and from points around the Bay Area quickly and easily, and that your suggestion is wise about AC Transit operating at San Antonio station as a "through" stop rather than a destination.

BART should be connecting to the end of this SMART project in Marin. Although decades later than originally planned, mass rail transportation should reach Marin.

^^ That could be possible, but you will need to tackle one major issue: which part of the Bay would you like to see BART cross through: the Golden Gate Bridge (which may be questionable due to weight issues, as well as where the Marin portal will be located), or through Richmond Bridge (it will be much longer, thus much more expensive. Don't forget that it will go near the Chevron refinery plant near Point Molate, and it will need rail adjustments near Richmond station)?

You don't need to swear though when you want to address a point! Just express your thoughts clearly, and I will understand it. First of all, where do you live in the Bay Area?

I live in San Francisco, and have lived here for more than a decade now.

I would say that the Capitol Corridor is a great service, but I think that it is more of a regional train service than a localized one, so I think the only people who would want to build a station in San Antonio would be those local residents who might not want to go to either Jack London Square or Oakland Coliseum stations. I highly thought though of a BART station instead so that more riders can get to and from points around the Bay Area quickly and easily, and that your suggestion is wise about AC Transit operating at San Antonio station as a "through" stop rather than a destination.

The problem here is that you're looking at a Capitol Corridor station there solely on the merits of the Capitol Corridor and not also considering the multi-modal connections that it could be added there. The Capitol Corridor as it currently is has really shitty connections to BART, with connections only Coliseum and Richmond, and Coliseum only sees a few trains daily. A San Antonio Capitol Corridor station could potentially serve the majority of Capitol Corridor trains while also serving as a terminus for the San Joaquins. In a sense, it's an even better location for a major train depot than Jack London currently is, as it would have more capacity (potentially 4-6 non-BART tracks, compared to only 2 at Jack London).

BART should be connecting to the end of this SMART project in Marin. Although decades later than originally planned, mass rail transportation should reach Marin.

No, BART Should be focusing on San Francisco and the Inner East Bay (where all the ridership is), but I'm willing to accept eBART, Livermore BART (As long as it doesn't use 580), and San Jose BART as the political "price" of enabling those inner city expansions that I crave. Marin BART should only occur once the inner segments of BART have been properly expanded and SMART reaches it's potential.

^^ That could be possible, but you will need to tackle one major issue: which part of the Bay would you like to see BART cross through: the Golden Gate Bridge (which may be questionable due to weight issues, as well as where the Marin portal will be located), or through Richmond Bridge (it will be much longer, thus much more expensive. Don't forget that it will go near the Chevron refinery plant near Point Molate, and it will need rail adjustments near Richmond station)?

We most certainly won't see BART going over the Golden Gate, that's going to piss off way too many people. The other possible alignment directly from San Francisco (From the foot of Van Ness over to Tiburon and then to the 101 corridor) would also be too iffy (and would be better served by an extension of SMART to South Marin and an enhancement of Ferry service). So we're probably going with the Richmond-Pt Richmond-San Quentin-Canal-San Rafael-San Anselmo-Fairfax-Woodacre corridor (AKA the "580 North corridor" in my lingo, with the North distinguishing it from another BART extension along MacArthur Blvd).

The Options for the extension depend on whether or not you want to keep Richmond station as is. If you want to keep Richmond Station intact, then it would be probably be cheaper to have the water crossing at the San Pablo Strait (which is about 2 Miles wide, less than half the width of a crossing parallel to the San Rafael Bridge, which would be 4.6 Miles wide). The extension could quite literally extend right off the end of the tracks in the Richmond yard, though serving the Canal neighborhood (which would be huge users of it) would be more difficult. The Route would also be somewhat more circuitous and less direct, serving fewer people

If you want to change around Richmond Station, then you could move the split off point to El Cerrito Del Norte (Which would enable a straighter and faster extension to Vallejo once the inner city projects are done), and build an alignment right under MacDonald which would emerge to the surface in Point Richmond to a separate bridge over the Bay. (Like I said, you're building a new water crossing here no matter what) This version would cost a whole lot more, and possibly require abandonment of the Richmond yard for a new facility, but would be direct and fast, and serving a number of areas with good ridership potential while also being relatively future proof (Since it could be hived off into it's own line if future ridership north of ECN demands it.).

No, BART Should be focusing on San Francisco and the Inner East Bay (where all the ridership is), but I'm willing to accept eBART, Livermore BART (As long as it doesn't use 580), and San Jose BART as the political "price" of enabling those inner city expansions that I crave. Marin BART should only occur once the inner segments of BART have been properly expanded and SMART reaches it's potential.

The BART system has traits of both an urban subway and of a commuter rail system. Because most inner cities already have some means of local public transportation in place, I think it's better for more localized agencies to handle inner city expansion of public transportation while BART focuses on connecting parts of the Bay Area together; connecting to SMART would be the most natural continuation of keeping the region linked together.

Now, at the same time, I don't live in the inner city (I live in the suburbs), so I have a very different view than you do as far as what kind of expansions would be more important for BART.

The BART system has traits of both an urban subway and of a commuter rail system. Because most inner cities already have some means of local public transportation in place, I think it's better for more localized agencies to handle inner city expansion of public transportation while BART focuses on connecting parts of the Bay Area together; connecting to SMART would be the most natural continuation of keeping the region linked together.

Now, at the same time, I don't live in the inner city (I live in the suburbs), so I have a very different view than you do as far as what kind of expansions would be more important for BART.

I'll be happy to tell you that your views -- and FDW's -- are the same views I share: yes, I live in the suburbs too, but, I'm happy to see progress that SMART will work its way to become a great transportation option for the North Bay, similar, if not smaller, to BART, and that BART is already doing a magnificent job carrying thousands of commuters and visitors everyday, not just within San Francisco, but also all throughout the East Bay and Peninsula too. Our train networks are doing great; there are always, though, areas of improvement, and I believe that with greater spending in better infrastructure and more time learning about the travel patterns of Bay Area residents, we can continually improve and expand our current networks to a point that someday, the entire region can be connected by a robust rail network, reducing traffic on our already-crowded freeways and lessening air pollution much further than we can imagine today. We will need a lot of money, lobbying, and effort from our part to pass needed transportation tax measures (including BART extensions), create sensible policies that favor public transportation, and letting our litigators understand the importance of public transit to the entire growth of the region so that we can tip the balance between effective mobility, connectivity choices, and having a network that is not only robust, but also works for the greater good of the people.

The BART system has traits of both an urban subway and of a commuter rail system. Because most inner cities already have some means of local public transportation in place, I think it's better for more localized agencies to handle inner city expansion of public transportation while BART focuses on connecting parts of the Bay Area together; connecting to SMART would be the most natural continuation of keeping the region linked together.

Now, at the same time, I don't live in the inner city (I live in the suburbs), so I have a very different view than you do as far as what kind of expansions would be more important for BART.

Keep in mind, every single one of BART's expansions since expansion started up again in the early 90's has been suburban in nature, and ridership has grown to the point where Trains are generally jam packed in SF and the Inner East Bay, necessitating a second Transbay Tube. Now don't think that inner city expansion of BART wouldn't benefit the Suburbs, a second Transbay Tube (with the appropriate feeder tunnels on both sides of the bay) would allow BART to increase frequency on every line. And in general, the Inner cities of the Bay Area have it just as bad as the suburbs as far as transportation is concerned.

^^ A second Transbay tube would be a marvelous -- but very expensive -- proposition, such that we might construct it, not only to accommodate BART, but also future Transbay rail traffic that could eventually end up at the new Transbay Terminal. If such a tube is to be realized, not only will Amtrak finally be able to end their train journeys in the City, but it will also open up a wealth of transit-oriented projects and job opportunities for the rest of the region since rail travel will become a faster and cheaper alternative to driving. I will tell you: I think we need more than just one Transbay tube... Perhaps three would be really good to connect all the Bay Area's regions.

Keep in mind, every single one of BART's expansions since expansion started up again in the early 90's has been suburban in nature, and ridership has grown to the point where Trains are generally jam packed in SF and the Inner East Bay, necessitating a second Transbay Tube. Now don't think that inner city expansion of BART wouldn't benefit the Suburbs, a second Transbay Tube (with the appropriate feeder tunnels on both sides of the bay) would allow BART to increase frequency on every line. And in general, the Inner cities of the Bay Area have it just as bad as the suburbs as far as transportation is concerned.

Of course inner city expansion would benefit suburbs, but I think that coordinating with other transit agencies will help with that. Surely we all know how long it takes for things to get done (and to actually happen). The best way to make sure that, during the next 30 years, the system can operate more efficiently is by having everyone work together so that, for instance, transfer timings between various bus, metro, and lightrail routes can be better coordinated so that passengers could switch to another mode of transportation at the soonest most convenient time most easily (because, let's be honest, staying on BART the whole way through isn't always going to be the most effective route, even if it is the easiest option).

^^ A second Transbay tube would be a marvelous -- but very expensive -- proposition, such that we might construct it, not only to accommodate BART, but also future Transbay rail traffic that could eventually end up at the new Transbay Terminal. If such a tube is to be realized, not only will Amtrak finally be able to end their train journeys in the City, but it will also open up a wealth of transit-oriented projects and job opportunities for the rest of the region since rail travel will become a faster and cheaper alternative to driving. I will tell you: I think we need more than just one Transbay tube... Perhaps three would be really good to connect all the Bay Area's regions.

I've generally thought that a second Transbay tube between SF and Oakland would have Amtrak/CHSRA/Caltrain on the lower level and BART on the Upper Level of such a tube. The Tube would touchdown on Alameda Point in the East Bay and between Howard and Mission in San Francisco.

Of course inner city expansion would benefit suburbs, but I think that coordinating with other transit agencies will help with that. Surely we all know how long it takes for things to get done (and to actually happen). The best way to make sure that, during the next 30 years, the system can operate more efficiently is by having everyone work together so that, for instance, transfer timings between various bus, metro, and lightrail routes can be better coordinated so that passengers could switch to another mode of transportation at the soonest most convenient time most easily (because, let's be honest, staying on BART the whole way through isn't always going to be the most effective route, even if it is the easiest option).

Not just transfer timings, vastly improve service by restoring the deep cuts made over the past decade, and not allowing any new competing road expansions to be built. We also really need to throttle our point into the pols, something that most local transit advocates have failed to do.

No, BART Should be focusing on San Francisco and the Inner East Bay (where all the ridership is), but I'm willing to accept eBART, Livermore BART (As long as it doesn't use 580), and San Jose BART as the political "price" of enabling those inner city expansions that I crave. Marin BART should only occur once the inner segments of BART have been properly expanded and SMART reaches it's potential.

I don't agree. SMART is going to be, in my opinion, a big waste of money unless it gets you to where most drivers go every day: San Francisco.

I understand your desire to see BART expand within San Francisco and the Inner East Bay. I assume this is because BART is faster and more reliable than Muni for instance. However, the answer to this issue would be to make Muni faster and more reliable too. BART already has enough issues going on serving as a regional mass transportation system. The way to go is to improve Muni (and other local transit agencies) by building new real, high-capacity Metro lines that will allow fast transfers from/to BART stations enabling commuters and other travelers to get from any point in San Francisco to any other place in the Bay Area within competitive travel times.


We most certainly won't see BART going over the Golden Gate, that's going to piss off way too many people.
This thing about pissing off too many people does piss me off. Too many people were also pissed off at the thought of dismantling that hideous monster that the Embarcadero Freeway was. And yet 10 years later hardly anyone wouldn't agree that it was not one of the best decisions of urban developing of the last 20 years.

I don't think BART should go over the Golden Gate Bridge; a new (expensive indeed) tunnel would be the real answer. But what I'm trying to say is that some projects will always "piss off" someone, but it's about time some people in San Francisco think big, decide to stand up for what they truly believe is a good project that will positively affect the population's life for decades, no matter what the political cost is. Because not doing so has only brought 50 years of do-nothing policy.


The other possible alignment directly from San Francisco (From the foot of Van Ness over to Tiburon and then to the 101 corridor) would also be too iffy (and would be better served by an extension of SMART to South Marin and an enhancement of Ferry service).
Too complicated and slow. I have friends commuting every day from Petaluma and Santa Rosa and they all agree that their biggest desire would be to be able to reduce their commuting time. I can hardly believe that this SMART + ferry + Muni could end up providing competitive travel times.


The BART system has traits of both an urban subway and of a commuter rail system. Because most inner cities already have some means of local public transportation in place, I think it's better for more localized agencies to handle inner city expansion of public transportation while BART focuses on connecting parts of the Bay Area together; connecting to SMART would be the most natural continuation of keeping the region linked together.

I totally agree with you.

I understand your desire to see BART expand within San Francisco and the Inner East Bay. I assume this is because BART is faster and more reliable than Muni for instance

No, I just think think that the second Transbay Tube, and the segments within San Francisco and the East Bay that will connect to it, along with new infill stations (not all of which are urban) and upgrades to existing stations are better pursuit of BART's Money and Effort than the current batch of Exurban expansion BART is shooting for. I've said earlier that I'm willing to accept the current batch of expansions if that's the political price needed to build the urban expansions I want.

However, the answer to this issue would be to make Muni faster and more reliable too. BART already has enough issues going on serving as a regional mass transportation system. The way to go is to improve Muni (and other local transit agencies) by building new real, high-capacity Metro lines that will allow fast transfers from/to BART stations enabling commuters and other travelers to get from any point in San Francisco to any other place in the Bay Area within competitive travel times.

Actually, I want that too, I want MUNI to massively expand and upgrade it's LRT system within city limits and for the ACTransit to construct it's own LRT system. I'm actually rather tepid in regards to urban expansion of BART, other than the Folsom/Van Ness/Lombard corridor in San Francisco, and the feeder segments to the East Bay Landing of the Tube and a Line in the I-580 corridor in the East Bay to Hayward, there's very little in the new urban segments that I want.



Too complicated and slow. I have friends commuting every day from Petaluma and Santa Rosa and they all agree that their biggest desire would be to be able to reduce their commuting time. I can hardly believe that this SMART + ferry + Muni could end up providing competitive travel times.

Actually, the route via Tiburon and Angel Island would be shorter than one over the Golden Gate Bridge, and probably somewhat simpler to construct because the line wouldn't need a ridiculously deep tunnel. Check out this (http://arcims.csumb.edu/DATA_DOWNLOAD/Map_Gallery_Images/SanFranciscoBay_blueGE.jpg) map to see my point.

Transport is about more than commuting at the same speed as cars, there's a 24/7 access factor that people forget. And Besides, in the scenario I'm planning, I would prefer to expand SMART out to it's maximum potential, with 3 car trains operating at about 15 min fequencies during rush hour, with timed AND free connections to the Larkspur Ferry. (The Larkspur Ferry would see a rough doubling in the amount of service it has, with larger ferries too.


I totally agree with you.

BART may have elements of both right now, but it would really be better off in evolving into more of a metro system than as the hybrid it is now.

I don't agree. SMART is going to be, in my opinion, a big waste of money unless it gets you to where most drivers go every day: San Francisco.

I understand your desire to see BART expand within San Francisco and the Inner East Bay. I assume this is because BART is faster and more reliable than Muni for instance. However, the answer to this issue would be to make Muni faster and more reliable too. BART already has enough issues going on serving as a regional mass transportation system. The way to go is to improve Muni (and other local transit agencies) by building new real, high-capacity Metro lines that will allow fast transfers from/to BART stations enabling commuters and other travelers to get from any point in San Francisco to any other place in the Bay Area within competitive travel times.

This thing about pissing off too many people does piss me off. Too many people were also pissed off at the thought of dismantling that hideous monster that the Embarcadero Freeway was. And yet 10 years later hardly anyone wouldn't agree that it was not one of the best decisions of urban developing of the last 20 years.

I don't think BART should go over the Golden Gate Bridge; a new (expensive indeed) tunnel would be the real answer. But what I'm trying to say is that some projects will always "piss off" someone, but it's about time some people in San Francisco think big, decide to stand up for what they truly believe is a good project that will positively affect the population's life for decades, no matter what the political cost is. Because not doing so has only brought 50 years of do-nothing policy.

Too complicated and slow. I have friends commuting every day from Petaluma and Santa Rosa and they all agree that their biggest desire would be to be able to reduce their commuting time. I can hardly believe that this SMART + ferry + Muni could end up providing competitive travel times.


I suspect that you live in the North Bay since you have mentioned Petaluma and Santa Rosa together. I live in Novato, close to Hwy 37 and the (ah, so awful) Narrows that causes bottlenecks, especially during the PM commute where a trip to Petaluma could pile up pretty quickly, especially if one travels all the way from San Francisco. I think, though, that SMART is just a good size chunk of a larger puzzle that would help decongest the US-101 corridor.

The big challenge is how to extend SMART further south to, at least, Marin City or Strawberry, if not to Sausalito, since I don't know if an old tunnel was built that connected Corte Madera and Strawberry together... And if they can't find that bore, then SMART would need to create a brand new tunnel to extend it even further. The big challengers, though, could come from residents of Mill Valley and Tiburon, as well as nearby unincorporated areas of Marin County.

If BART is to ever come to Marin County, the most logical way would be to operate via Richmond (through a split-off near Del Norte) and a long tunnel connecting Richmond and San Rafael that would land close to the Canal District where immense passenger opportunities abound. It can then complement the SMART service along Hwy 101 en route to Novato to end its service close to the north Novato SMART station.

The greatest thing that could happen with SMART is that with each station, brand new small transit centers can be built, allowing commuters and travelers to use public transit and shuttles to get to anywhere they want to go. For workers heading to San Francisco, such transit centers can also double as park-and-ride lots, and it will really cut down congestion along US-101. Hopefully, once the train reaches San Rafael, Larkspur, Petaluma, or Santa Rosa, ample connection times will be provided to switch between trains, shuttles, and public transit.

The big challenge is how to extend SMART further south to, at least, Marin City or Strawberry, if not to Sausalito, since I don't know if an old tunnel was built that connected Corte Madera and Strawberry together... And if they can't find that bore, then SMART would need to create a brand new tunnel to extend it even further. The big challengers, though, could come from residents of Mill Valley and Tiburon, as well as nearby unincorporated areas of Marin County.

There were a couple of ROW's that connected Central and South Marin (Both of which are visible if you zoom in really close on Google Maps), but residents would probably go ape if they were used. Thus, a South Marin expansion of SMART would probably use 101 to Marin City. Sauslito might doable, but would require street running.

If BART is to ever come to Marin County, the most logical way would be to operate via Richmond (through a split-off near Del Norte) and a long tunnel connecting Richmond and San Rafael that would land close to the Canal District where immense passenger opportunities abound. It can then complement the SMART service along Hwy 101 en route to Novato to end its service close to the north Novato SMART station.

If you read my posts further up, I said that a BART alignment to Marin would either touchdown at San Quentin or Point San Pedro (Though both of those alignments would serve Canal), and would go west from San Rafael to serve San Anselmo and Fairfax.

Source: www.sfgate.com

Bay Fair BART Station shut after slaying
Matthai Kuruvila
Updated 7:17 pm, Saturday, January 19, 2013

The Bay Fair BART Station in San Leandro was shut down for more than five hours Saturday after a midday shooting killed a man and wounded a woman, authorities said.

The deceased victim, described only as a 40-year-old black man, died at the scene of the 12:20 p.m. shooting at the bus stop outside the station, BART officials said. The station was shut down at 12:50 p.m. while authorities collected evidence and searched for suspects. The station partially reopened after 6 p.m. The second shooting victim was rushed to a nearby hospital. Her injuries are not believed to be life-threatening.

One suspect has been detained and three others are being sought, said BART police Lt. Steve Coontz.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bay-Fair-BART-Station-shut-after-slaying-4208338.php#ixzz2IU0jlsRn

I suspect that you live in the North Bay since you have mentioned Petaluma and Santa Rosa together.
No, I live 3 mins away from the Duboce Av & Church St N-Judah line stop in SF. ;)


If BART is to ever come to Marin County, the most logical way would be to operate via Richmond (through a split-off near Del Norte) and a long tunnel connecting Richmond and San Rafael that would land close to the Canal District where immense passenger opportunities abound. It can then complement the SMART service along Hwy 101 en route to Novato to end its service close to the north Novato SMART station.
True, but yet in that case again traveling between Marin & San Francisco (which I suspect is the destination of the majority of commuters crossing the Golden Gate Bridge every day) would be highly penalized. And the entire Sausalito, Marin City, Almonte, etc area coudn't be deserved.


The greatest thing that could happen with SMART is that with each station, brand new small transit centers can be built, allowing commuters and travelers to use public transit and shuttles to get to anywhere they want to go.
Of course!

No, I just think think that the second Transbay Tube, and the segments within San Francisco and the East Bay that will connect to it, along with new infill stations (not all of which are urban) and upgrades to existing stations are better pursuit of BART's Money and Effort than the current batch of Exurban expansion BART is shooting for. I've said earlier that I'm willing to accept the current batch of expansions if that's the political price needed to build the urban expansions I want.
I agree with you here. Endless expansion at the current ends of BART's network is useless (I like the expansion to San José on the East Bay though). Mostly because travel times are far too great to be competitive, and because of the cost of running high-frequency trains to low-density areas.

I am however not in favour of new in-fill stations. The great strength of BART is, in my opinion, its acceptable average speed. Too many stations and stops could be a hindrance.


Actually, I want that too, I want MUNI to massively expand and upgrade it's LRT system within city limits and for the ACTransit to construct it's own LRT system. I'm actually rather tepid in regards to urban expansion of BART, other than the Folsom/Van Ness/Lombard corridor in San Francisco, and the feeder segments to the East Bay Landing of the Tube and a Line in the I-580 corridor in the East Bay to Hayward, there's very little in the new urban segments that I want.
A new underground line Lombard -> Van Ness -> Folsom St -> Bayshore would be an excellent Muni Metro line. Why would you make that a BART line? Such a line would not leave the San Francisco city/county (I doubt the BART board would accept to take care of it), and the usually larger distance between BART stops make the BART concept inadvisable for such a high-density area. Regardless of the name or operator, the above mentioned line would be perfect with stops every 700 m (2296ft).



Actually, the route via Tiburon and Angel Island would be shorter than one over the Golden Gate Bridge, and probably somewhat simpler to construct because the line wouldn't need a ridiculously deep tunnel. Check out this (http://arcims.csumb.edu/DATA_DOWNLOAD/Map_Gallery_Images/SanFranciscoBay_blueGE.jpg) map to see my point.
Beautiful image, thanks for sharing. I am well aware of the depth under the Golden Gate Bridge. That's why I would think that the best option would be a tunnel between Sausalito and the Western end of the Marina, avoiding the deepest areas. The tunnel might seem long, but the current Transbay tunnel would still be longer.

Alternatively, new technology could be used for a new underwater tube under the Golden Gate Bridge; something similar to this ;):

http://4add.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/tube2btrain2btransportation.jpg

Sooner or later this is gonna be a reality ;)


Transport is about more than commuting at the same speed as cars, there's a 24/7 access factor that people forget.
I don't see what you mean here. If you are implying that public transportation is less competitive because it doesn't give you the freedom of riding whenever you want, I would just like to point out that some systems (including the New York subway) operate 24/7 services to some degree. In fact, I know few people living in the East Bay but working and/or partying in San Francisco that wouldn't agree that some all-night BART service would make their lifes much, much better.

Besides, I would like to know what 24/7 access factor a car gives me when every time I come back to my neighborhood I spend an average of 15 mins looking for a parking spot and every time I ride the Bay Bridge is somewhere between congested or totally collapsed. :lol:


And Besides, in the scenario I'm planning, I would prefer to expand SMART out to it's maximum potential, with 3 car trains operating at about 15 min fequencies during rush hour, with timed AND free connections to the Larkspur Ferry. (The Larkspur Ferry would see a rough doubling in the amount of service it has, with larger ferries too.

That would be an amazingly good frequency. I truly hope demand justifies and requires it.


BART may have elements of both right now, but it would really be better off in evolving into more of a metro system than as the hybrid it is now.
I find this a bit contradicting your previous statements: if you think Muni and ACTransit should be developing their Metro networks, why turn BART into a Metro network too?

I am however not in favour of new in-fill stations. The great strength of BART is, in my opinion, its acceptable average speed. Too many stations and stops could be a hindrance.

With the Infill stations, there's very little in the way of a time penalty and a whole lot to gain in the form of increased ridership, as several of the stations I've mentioned are in really dense neighborhoods. (Not just San Antonio, but Albany and 30th St/Mission too. 30th St/Mission was a part of the San Jose extension at one point.)

A new underground line Lombard -> Van Ness -> Folsom St -> Bayshore would be an excellent Muni Metro line. Why would you make that a BART line? Such a line would not leave the San Francisco city/county (I doubt the BART board would accept to take care of it), and the usually larger distance between BART stops make the BART concept inadvisable for such a high-density area. Regardless of the name or operator, the above mentioned line would be perfect with stops every 700 m (2296ft).

The Second Transbay Tube would need somewhere to go on the San Francisco side. And just because BART has has ridiculously long station spacing in the present doesn't it has to be that way in the future. Needless to say, the ideal station locations on the on the line actually match with your stop spacing number.

Beautiful image, thanks for sharing. I am well aware of the depth under the Golden Gate Bridge. That's why I would think that the best option would be a tunnel between Sausalito and the Western end of the Marina, avoiding the deepest areas. The tunnel might seem long, but the current Transbay tunnel would still be longer.

It depends on whether SMART gets upgraded like I want it to. In that case BART could use the Tiburon alignment and go west and terminate in Mill Valley rather than going north on 101. And I brought up the alignment because Caltrans proposed building a second Marin crossing along the same corridor in the 1960's.

Alternatively, new technology could be used for a new underwater tube under the Golden Gate Bridge; something similar to this ;):

http://4add.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/tube2btrain2btransportation.jpg

Sooner or later this is gonna be a reality ;)

I was just going to mention that. But given how things turned the last we tried to go hog wild on new transport technologies, I'd prefer to wait and see another place try an underwater suspended tube.

That would be an amazingly good frequency. I truly hope demand justifies and requires it.

At those frequencies, you could cut most of the express bus service to SF and reallocate to local bus service.

I find this a bit contradicting your previous statements: if you think Muni and ACTransit should be developing their Metro networks, why turn BART into a Metro network too?

Actually no, I'm not contradicting myself at all. I want MUNI and ACTransit to build up their Light Rail systems, which will inevitably have some underground and aerial segments, and I want BART to have higher frequencies and more urban stations. Outside the US, there isn't the same strong distinction between different transit modes, and I don't see the reason why the two systems need to be so strongly pigeonholed into different niches.

With the Infill stations, there's very little in the way of a time penalty and a whole lot to gain in the form of increased ridership, as several of the stations I've mentioned are in really dense neighborhoods. (Not just San Antonio, but Albany and 30th St/Mission too. 30th St/Mission was a part of the San Jose extension at one point.)
Do you mean that a new 30th St/Mission station was part of the San José extension project? That seems kind of funny.

Honestly, I think that station is a big waste of money and time. 24th St/Mission and Glenn Park stations are 20 minutes away walking from each other. Worst case scenario, your destination is located right in the middle and you got to walk 10 minutes. Plus on that axis there are buses 14 and 49 running a very high-frequency service.

It is usually assumed that each new stop entails a 2 min travel time increase. Assuming that you take a line with a new stop on the its way twice every weekday, that'd mean 20 extra travel minutes per week, 85 extra minutes per month, and 1028 extra mins (17 hours) per year. :lol:

Finally... as sad as it is, I think it's pretty pointless to attract new BART riders when trains already can't absorb the existing demand. A new Transbay Tube is decisive before thinking of infill stations in my opinion.

If we want to increase demand, there would be one very simple way to do it: create a (very logical) monthly and/or yearly pass, the same way all other Bay transportation agencies do... I am starting to think that, if this hasn't been done before is rather because of capacity issues more than because of operating financial issues...


The Second Transbay Tube would need somewhere to go on the San Francisco side. And just because BART has has ridiculously long station spacing in the present doesn't it has to be that way in the future. Lol, that long station spacing is probably BART's best asset, granting it a good average speed, which is unknown for any other means of public transportation in the Bay Area. Please don't kill it!



It depends on whether SMART gets upgraded like I want it to. In that case BART could use the Tiburon alignment and go west and terminate in Mill Valley rather than going north on 101. And I brought up the alignment because Caltrans proposed building a second Marin crossing along the same corridor in the 1960's.
So, if I am understanding you properly, the connection between Mill Valley and San Francisco would take quite a big detour first going eastwards to Richmond, then southwards to Oakland, and finally westwards to San Francisco. Is that right? I guess it depends where most people from Marin commute to every day, but definitely all those taking the Golden Gate Bridge (far too many) are not going to the East Bay, and such a huge detour on BART to San Francisco wouldn't be very competitive.


Actually no, I'm not contradicting myself at all. I want MUNI and ACTransit to build up their Light Rail systems, which will inevitably have some underground and aerial segments, and I want BART to have higher frequencies and more urban stations.
I believe that a good transportation system needs both a good local mass transportation system (with stops every few blocks) and a comprehensive metropolitan service (with stops no more than every few kilometers), with transfer points between those. The cherry on the top would be a comprehensive intercity and/or high-speed rail service which is unknown in the US outside of the Acela Northeast corridor (which is some "timid" try at it).

To set a few European examples (the ones I am more familiar with), I would say London got first-class local transportation thanks to its amazing Tube underground network. But the lack of a metropolitan regional transportation is notorious, and any medium-distance journey takes forever, especially if the origin and destination are not in the center. However, it can be argued that (unlike the Bay Area) London is quite a monocenter area, and hence this metropolitan access is less necessary, and emphasis should be put in connecting all neighborhoods and suburbs the the center. However, the UK has also lacked far too many investments in the last years to improve its intercity network (with the notorious exception of HS1 connecting London to northern France).

On the other side, I am thinking of Zurich, Switzerland. Much smaller than London indeed, but good for my example. Here there is a magnificent ever-improving intercity network, enabling service to anywhere else in Switzerland every 30 mins anytime between 4am and 12.30am. Regional rail transportation is also impressive, with a huge S-bahn (metropolitan) mass rail service joining many areas outside the centers to the airport, the industrial areas and Zurich city center. Commuting distances of over 60 km (38 miles) can be done in a breeze. However, they lack a Metro system in the central, high-density area, and instead use a tram that's (as most overground light rail systems) far too slow.

And maybe the place that has it all concerning transportation is Paris, with an amazing high-frequency Métro system in the central part (with an average distance between station of 600 m), but a very comprehensible RER (metropolitan trains) network sprawling in all directions. And together with that, one of Europe's most developed high-speed networks which allow reaching London, Brussels, Strasbourg, Lyons in around 2 hours and Frankfurt, Geneva, Lyons, Bordeaux, etc in a time range of around 3 hours. All 3 systems (local Métro, metropolitan RER and intercity+high-speed) well connected to each other.

42% of commuters in the greater Paris metropolitan region use public transportation. Together with people biking and walking (mostly in the city of Paris proper), this goes over 50%. What's the figure for the Bay Area as a whole? I love San Francisco, but anyone visiting this place can realize quite fast that transportation in general is a big mess, making the city and its citizens lose efficiency and large amounts of time because of extremely poor transportation systems.


Outside the US, there isn't the same strong distinction between different transit modes, and I don't see the reason why the two systems need to be so strongly pigeonholed into different niches.
Well, I am not sure about that, I am European and have lived most of my life in Western Europe, and however this issue about agencies is in my experience, really, really common. For several reasons
On one side, the biggest issue: money. While Muni is exclusively paid by San Francisco City & County, BART is a consortium financed by multiple counties. I have seen this very same issue in (far too) many Western European cities. Hence, for the time being, it does matter who runs the line.
For the time being, BART and other agencies like Muni have different operating patterns. The biggest discrepancy is, as we have been talking of the last days, the distance between stations and (the resulting) operating speed.
We are well aware of the technical differences of BART (Indian gauge, third rail, etc) that make it very different from Muni and even Caltrain.
All agencies (as far as I am aware) in the Bay Area offer commuters monthly passes, while BART does not. I think it's totally mad and crazy that someone coming to San Francisco for a weekend visit and using BART once in their entire life should pay exactly as much as someone using BART twice a day (I am aware of the existence of the high-value tickets on Clipper, but they just offer a 6% bonus, which is a bad-taste joke). For as long as this divergence exists, it does matter for users too whether a line is operated by BART or Muni. The notable exception are the lucky users within San Francisco, who are able to buy the Fast Track ticket.


If you ask me, I wouldn't sacrifice BART's role as a regional/metropolitan transportation mean (and turn in into something "local" stopping every few blocks everywhere) unless someone or something else takes this role. Probably the most coherent thing would be to build a 4-track second Transbay Tunnel. Then you could either build a new heavy-rail fast network efficiently joining the numerous cities around the Bay Area, and allow the current BART network to have more urban stations everywhere; or else you could simply duplicate the existing BART network (that is, duplicating tracks from the current 2 to 3 or 4 on most lines) and run non-stop services like some lines of the New York subway do.

I would say that the Capitol Corridor is a great service, but I think that it is more of a regional train service than a localized one, so I think the only people who would want to build a station in San Antonio would be those local residents who might not want to go to either Jack London Square or Oakland Coliseum stations. I highly thought though of a BART station instead so that more riders can get to and from points around the Bay Area quickly and easily, and that your suggestion is wise about AC Transit operating at San Antonio station as a "through" stop rather than a destination.

You used to be able to cross-platform between BART and AMTRAK trains in Richmond Station. For some bizarre reason AMTRAK long distance trains no longer stop in Richmond. Don't know about the regional service like Capital Corridor and San Joaquin. Anyway, they could easily make it possible to do that gain so anybody with access to BART would have easy access to AMTRAK.

PS: I agree that if BART is to do another Bay crossing it should be in the North Bay and Richmond-San Rafael seems the most logical place. Engineering-wise, a crossing of the Golden Gate is probably too hard and too expensive. Crossing the northern Bay is the only way to bring BART to Marin and Sonoma and, as someone who used to commute to Concord, it's not as bad a trip through the East Bay as 101 at rush hour.

Trouble is, it puts even more traffic through the existing tube so, in that sense, it makes a problem worse, not better. Maybe we also need a southern crossing that need not be a tunnel but could be on a trestle. That could feed passengers from the southern portion of the East Bay as well as the South Bay into SF from the South (Milbrae line).

Do you mean that a new 30th St/Mission station was part of the San José extension project? That seems kind of funny.UOTE]

It was to enable another turnback, closer to the downtown. I believe the Fremont and maybe the Pittsburg line were going to terminate there.

Honestly, I think that station is a big waste of money and time. 24th St/Mission and Glenn Park stations are 20 minutes away walking from each other. Worst case scenario, your destination is located right in the middle and you got to walk 10 minutes. Plus on that axis there are buses 14 and 49 running a very high-frequency service.

The station would allow for much simpler access to BART for Bernal Heights, Noe Valley and Bayview and sits in really dense neighborhood.

It is usually assumed that each new stop entails a 2 min travel time increase. Assuming that you take a line with a new stop on the its way twice every weekday, that'd mean 20 extra travel minutes per week, 85 extra minutes per month, and 1028 extra mins (17 hours) per year. :lol:

Which really doesn't matter that much.

Finally... as sad as it is, I think it's pretty pointless to attract new BART riders when trains already can't absorb the existing demand. A new Transbay Tube is decisive before thinking of infill stations in my opinion.

Public Transit shoudn't be so picky about new riders. And the new tube and infill stations should be side by side.

Lol, that long station spacing is probably BART's best asset, granting it a good average speed, which is unknown for any other means of public transportation in the Bay Area. Please don't kill it!

Frankly, it's not speed that BART's advantage, it's reliability.

So, if I am understanding you properly, the connection between Mill Valley and San Francisco would take quite a big detour first going eastwards to Richmond, then southwards to Oakland, and finally westwards to San Francisco. Is that right? I guess it depends where most people from Marin commute to every day, but definitely all those taking the Golden Gate Bridge (far too many) are not going to the East Bay, and such a huge detour on BART to San Francisco wouldn't be very competitive.

No, it would go: Mill Valley-Strawberry-Tiburon-Angel Island-San Francisco Bay-Aquatic Park/Van Ness-"Second Mainline"-Transbay. Only those in Central Marin would have to go through the East Bay first.

I believe that a good transportation system needs both a good local mass transportation system (with stops every few blocks) and a comprehensive metropolitan service (with stops no more than every few kilometers), with transfer points between those. The cherry on the top would be a comprehensive intercity and/or high-speed rail service which is unknown in the US outside of the Acela Northeast corridor (which is some "timid" try at it).

The problem is that our regions urban geometry is considerably different from most regions, which blurs the "local" and the "regional" elements. And personally, that approach as our region as pursued as been horrible.

snip

The problem here is that all those cities have an organized body co-ordinating services across modes, something that we don't have at all.

If you ask me, I wouldn't sacrifice BART's role as a regional/metropolitan transportation mean (and turn in into something "local" stopping every few blocks everywhere) unless someone or something else takes this role. Probably the most coherent thing would be to build a 4-track second Transbay Tunnel. Then you could either build a new heavy-rail fast network efficiently joining the numerous cities around the Bay Area, and allow the current BART network to have more urban stations everywhere; or else you could simply duplicate the existing BART network (that is, duplicating tracks from the current 2 to 3 or 4 on most lines) and run non-stop services like some lines of the New York subway do.

I'm not asking for that level of local, just maybe about a dozen or so new stops where they're really justified. (If look through my earlier posts in the thread, I mentioned the stops I wanted)

PS: I agree that if BART is to do another Bay crossing it should be in the North Bay and Richmond-San Rafael seems the most logical place. Engineering-wise, a crossing of the Golden Gate is probably too hard and too expensive. Crossing the northern Bay is the only way to bring BART to Marin and Sonoma and, as someone who used to commute to Concord, it's not as bad a trip through the East Bay as 101 at rush hour.

A second SF-Oakland crossing should be the number #1 priority, with the Richmond-San Rafael crossing somewhat after that.

Trouble is, it puts even more traffic through the existing tube so, in that sense, it makes a problem worse, not better. Maybe we also need a southern crossing that need not be a tunnel but could be on a trestle. That could feed passengers from the southern portion of the East Bay as well as the South Bay into SF from the South (Milbrae line).

A Southern Crossing would be much farther down the road, and probably contingent on whether or not a new Bay Crossing for Cars is going to be built in that corridor.

^^A second SF-Oakland crossing isn't going to happen. The other options could. Simple as that. I don't do fantasy.

^^A second SF-Oakland crossing isn't going to happen. The other options could. Simple as that. I don't do fantasy.

What makes you think that? Both MTC and BART have made it clear that the second SF-Oakland connection is going to happen at some point, and pretty everyone thinks it's necessary with BART being as crush loaded as it is.

You've got some interesting -- and valid -- comments indeed, nevie and FDW! You must have studied Urban Planning or Public Transportation so extensively that you know a lot more stuff! I will list my observations as you mention them:


An infill station at 30th & Mission would be worth the extra revenue and passengers as it will lure in even more riders from Cesar Chavez Avenue (a highly-traveled periphery) and Bernal Heights to use the already-popular commuter rail network. Sure, we have Glen Park and 24th Street--Mission, but, I sense that 30th will act similarly to the four Market Street stations, such that it will make traveling by BART more convenient for more San Francisco residents. However, I don't know if Muni's 14, 14L, and 49 bus lines will be impacted a lot when the new 30th Street station is fully materialized since it will mean Muni and BART will compete for riders along Mission Street, already a high-frequency corridor to begin with.
A second Transbay Tube will not only increase frequencies on the BART network significantly, but it can also be used as an alternate or bypass route for BART should the original Transbay Tube be shut down for repairs, maintenance, or from an incident, effectively allowing BART to have a continuous flow of service all throughout its operation hours. On top of that, the second Tube will provide opportunities for the transit agency to create express or faster versions of popular lines that will allow faster trips for commuters.
Nevie said...

I believe that a good transportation system needs both a good local mass transportation system (with stops every few blocks) and a comprehensive metropolitan service (with stops no more than every few kilometers), with transfer points between those. The cherry on the top would be a comprehensive intercity and/or high-speed rail service which is unknown in the US outside of the Acela Northeast corridor (which is some "timid" try at it).

[...]

What's the figure for the Bay Area as a whole? I love San Francisco, but anyone visiting this place can realize quite fast that transportation in general is a big mess, making the city and its citizens lose efficiency and large amounts of time because of extremely poor transportation systems.

Those are excellent points indeed, and you've asked a very important question that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in Oakland should address because I certainly believe that public transportation in the Bay Area right now is a huge mess, with multiple agencies running their own network niches (e.g. Several in the North Bay, six in the East Bay, at least two each in San Francisco, the Peninsula, and the South Bay)... It is indeed a massive network that if we pursue a transit integration program, then it would mean a large chunk of the buses, rail, and ferry services will be rebranded, re-numbered, re-identified, and the biggest thing, overhaul the zone networks already established by their respective agencies. For example: the only transit agencies that use zone fares would be BART, Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit, and Sonoma County Transit; the rest have just a few, unified types of fares (local, Transbay, and expresses).
You have mentioned the most important issues and differences between Muni and BART: while Muni enjoys having stops around 2 blocks from each other, BART has a unique rail gauge that allows wider trains. Muni's biggest problems are money and vehicle speed; BART's biggest problems include not having an established monthly pass for its riders and service enhancements. Indeed, I have heard of those issues a long time ago, and I have been in favor of a monthly pass for BART: the big problem with that is, while it may be one fixed price, fares between stations vary according to distance (even to a difference of just $0.10 for getting off at one station versus another), and that commuters will not be happy seeing that their monthly pass value stays the same while traveling the entire network. BART isn't Muni for one thing, and it isn't like Caltrain either where it has determined a fixed set of zones; rather, it is a hybrid commuter rail-subway network that operates with a unique set of circumstances, and that different fares stem from the fact that commuting patterns in the Bay Area is more San Francisco-centric than others when you take BART.
BART is reliable, sure, but you will need to remember that many of its trains have been in use for over forty years. And it is undergoing an interior overhaul program for its trains to have non-slip flooring, bike parking areas on board, better vinyl seating, and hand straps. On top of that, while BART is significantly quieter than New York City subway trains, its age already shows that some of its oldest trains need to be replaced, not anymore overhauled, so that passengers can enjoy better amenities on board while commuting to and from the city, and it seems like Bombardier is working its way to making the next-generation BART trains that will, hopefully, survive for a long time like the Alstom trains (that looked futuristic in the 70s).
Perhaps a Richmond-San Rafael tube would be a great idea, but I don't know if the ridership will be justified west of San Rafael since the populations of San Anselmo, Fairfax, and the Lagunitas Valley are smaller than the areas served by existing BART services. I think swinging it over to US 101 will allow a decent competition between Golden Gate and SMART to provide extensive services along the proposed BART line, and, it would mean Golden Gate will need to buy even more vehicles to cope up with the BART fleet, as well as some reserve vehicles in case a BART bridge may be needed in the process.
FDW said:

The problem here is that those (European) cities have an organized body co-ordinating services across modes, something that we don't have at all.

So true. I sense that the Bay Area could model after the European system, but it would need a lot of consensus from its millions of residents living in the region to make it possible. On top of that, differing issues need to be addressed across the nine-county region, which may be no easy task since the concerns of Marin and Sonoma Counties may not necessarily reflect the views of, say. Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore in southeastern Alameda County. Transit network integration is possible; we will need to tackle quite a lot of opposition first, and I think BART will remain as it is.


Wonderful comments! Keep them coming.

You used to be able to cross-platform between BART and AMTRAK trains in Richmond Station. For some bizarre reason AMTRAK long distance trains no longer stop in Richmond. Don't know about the regional service like Capital Corridor and San Joaquin. Anyway, they could easily make it possible to do that gain so anybody with access to BART would have easy access to AMTRAK.

PS: I agree that if BART is to do another Bay crossing it should be in the North Bay and Richmond-San Rafael seems the most logical place. Engineering-wise, a crossing of the Golden Gate is probably too hard and too expensive. Crossing the northern Bay is the only way to bring BART to Marin and Sonoma and, as someone who used to commute to Concord, it's not as bad a trip through the East Bay as 101 at rush hour.

Trouble is, it puts even more traffic through the existing tube so, in that sense, it makes a problem worse, not better. Maybe we also need a southern crossing that need not be a tunnel but could be on a trestle. That could feed passengers from the southern portion of the East Bay as well as the South Bay into SF from the South (Milbrae line).

Actually, Richmond Station offers plentiful of Amtrak services since its next station to the south, Berkeley, cannot due to platform length. Richmond Amtrak receives Capitol Corridor, San Joaquins, Coast Starlight, and California Zephyr trains everyday, and it is indeed possible to cross-transfer between BART and Amtrak there (with an automated QuikTrip ticket machine at concourse level). I've gone through Richmond Station multiple times to travel between Novato and Berkeley (eastbound only), and indeed, it receives both regional and cross-country trains as it is a hub for commuters traveling from Marin County.

However, I don't know if Muni's 14, 14L, and 49 bus lines will be impacted a lot when the new 30th Street station is fully materialized since it will mean Muni and BART will compete for riders along Mission Street, already a high-frequency corridor to begin with.

That's really not much of an issue in my eyes. The Mission corridor buses are providing a completely different type of service than BART.

That's really not much of an issue in my eyes. The Mission corridor buses are providing a completely different type of service than BART.

Sure. We could call the Mission Street corridor buses (14, 14L, and 49) an important complement to BART service between Embarcadero all the way down to Daly City BART (yes, did you know that the 14L-Mission Limited now serves Daly City BART weekday peak periods?). I actually would like to see more BART-Muni free transfers for even more Muni services... Daly City provides Clipper riders two free transfers from the station to four Muni bus lines, 14L, 28, 28L, and 54.

(yes, did you know that the 14L-Mission Limited now serves Daly City BART weekday peak periods?).

I go by there often, so yes, I know. And it only took forty years to make that 1/4 mile connection.

I go by there often, so yes, I know. And it only took forty years to make that 1/4 mile connection.

Forty years? :eek2: Seriously, that long for just a 1/4-mile extension? How could that be?

So tell me: since when did Muni operate the 14L? It was only like last year or two that it has been made into a daily service... And I wonder when the 14 will finally make it to Daly City BART, completing a crucial loop? Plus, I can sense that once the 14 finally reaches Daly City, hopefully, the 91-Owl line will also serve Daly City too, effectively completing a big loop in San Francisco.

^^A second SF-Oakland crossing isn't going to happen. The other options could. Simple as that. I don't do fantasy.
As other users are saying, a second SF-Oakland tunnel is a medium-term project of many agencies. Pretty inevitable. BART has acknowledged it. The San Francisco County Transportation Agency also included it on its list of projects that might get funding from them in the next years. I think that even High-Speed California was advocating for it, since two tracks of the new tunnel could be used for heavy-rail traffic.


The station would allow for much simpler access to BART for Bernal Heights, Noe Valley and Bayview and sits in really dense neighborhood.

It is usually assumed that each new stop entails a 2 min travel time increase. Assuming that you take a line with a new stop on the its way twice every weekday, that'd mean 20 extra travel minutes per week, 85 extra minutes per month, and 1028 extra mins (17 hours) per year.

Which really doesn't matter that much.

(...)

I'm not asking for that level of local, just maybe about a dozen or so new stops where they're really justified. (If look through my earlier posts in the thread, I mentioned the stops I wanted)

I disagree. A dozen more urban stops is HUGE. I will look through your earlier posts, but assuming that the average rider encounters half of those new stops (6), that means 12 mins of extra travel time per way, or 24 mins per day. It's massive, and I'd say it's also unacceptable that travel times increase over the years instead of decreasing.



Public Transit shoudn't be so picky about new riders.
This could be a very interesting thread, for I have heard from far too many people (and it also was mentioned here) that public transit in the Bay Area increasingly seems to be taken only by the worst-off, the weirdos and the ill-mannered. That's not the way any comprehensive transit agency should go if they aim at targeting a meaningful amount of the total commuting numbers.


And the new tube and infill stations should be side by side.

True.


Frankly, it's not speed that BART's advantage, it's reliability.
That's your opinion, very respectable. I like BART because it's fast, and it gets you from downtown SF to downtown Berkeley faster than any other mean of transportation. And I've heard this from others too.


No, it would go: Mill Valley-Strawberry-Tiburon-Angel Island-San Francisco Bay-Aquatic Park/Van Ness-"Second Mainline"-Transbay. Only those in Central Marin would have to go through the East Bay first.
That'd be very interesting, although still misses Sausalito. I guess Sausalito's 8000 inhabitants and its many tourists could be sacrificed only if this route that you are proposing offered significant savings. However, I am not that sure that a railroad through Angel Island would be that cheap anyway compared to the route I mentioned earlier from Southern Sausalito to the Western Marina (avoiding the deeper waters under the Golden Gate Bridge). Hopefully they would study all options between taking decisions.


The problem is that our regions urban geometry is considerably different from most regions, which blurs the "local" and the "regional" elements. And personally, that approach as our region as pursued as been horrible.
All cities differ from each other in a way or another. Anyway, the Bay Area has in my opinion enough demand to sustain both systems: local and metropolitan, well-coordinated and combined with each other.



The problem here is that all those cities have an organized body co-ordinating services across modes, something that we don't have at all.
Well, there is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Transportation_Commission_(San_Francisco_Bay_Area)

I can assure you that this multi-agency issue applies to all the European cities I mentioned in my previous post. There are ways to overcome any problems: where there's a will, there's a way.


A second SF-Oakland crossing should be the number #1 priority, with the Richmond-San Rafael crossing somewhat after that.

Very true. Although I am fearing the political cost might be high.

^^ With all those said, would you be interested to have me create a dedicated thread concerning the future of Bay Area Transit?

Forty years? :eek2: Seriously, that long for just a 1/4-mile extension? How could that be?

Bureaucratic ridiculousness.

So tell me: since when did Muni operate the 14L? It was only like last year or two that it has been made into a daily service...

MUNI started operating some Limited service on Mission in the 1970's, and by the early 80's it had all day service in two different service patterns (one peak via Guerrero, one off via Mission). Then sometime ca. 1990 the Peak service got cut, leaving Mission Limited service during Weekday Middays until a few years ago, when the peak service was restored and weekend service added.

And I wonder when the 14 will finally make it to Daly City BART, completing a crucial loop?

MUNI needs a spare few hundred thou to extend the trolleywires down the hill, along with agreement from Daly City.

Plus, I can sense that once the 14 finally reaches Daly City, hopefully, the 91-Owl line will also serve Daly City too, effectively completing a big loop in San Francisco.

The 91 really ought to be chopped into multiple services, as that line is way too long.

I disagree. A dozen more urban stops is HUGE. I will look through your earlier posts, but assuming that the average rider encounters half of those new stops (6), that means 12 mins of extra travel time per way, or 24 mins per day. It's massive, and I'd say it's also unacceptable that travel times increase over the years instead of decreasing.

It's only huge if they're all on one line, in one area. The Dozen infill stations (Which are: Albany, 55th st/North Oakland, Oak Grove, Pill Hill, Jack London/MLK, Broadway/Chinatown*, San Antonio, Seminary, 98th Ave, DT San Bruno, 87th St/Daly City, 30th St Mission, and Van Ness/Market*) that I want are all spread out over the system. (The Stations with the stars are stations that would be constructed as a part of the second transbay tube, on the Oakland side, this would involve rebuilding the wye) And most of BART's passengers aren't using to travel from extreme end of the nextwork to another.



That'd be very interesting, although still misses Sausalito. I guess Sausalito's 8000 inhabitants and its many tourists could be sacrificed only if this route that you are proposing offered significant savings. However, I am not that sure that a railroad through Angel Island would be that cheap anyway compared to the route I mentioned earlier from Southern Sausalito to the Western Marina (avoiding the deeper waters under the Golden Gate Bridge). Hopefully they would study all options between taking decisions.

My route goes through even shallowers areas, and areas where the bedrock is relatively close to the surface, meaning that bored tunnel could be used on most of the route. As for Angel Island, there would be no station there, though there might be some works on the island.

All cities differ from each other in a way or another. Anyway, the Bay Area has in my opinion enough demand to sustain both systems: local and metropolitan, well-coordinated and combined with each other.

For me, there is no difference between local and metropolitan, and frankly that's a difference that needs to be thrown out.

I can assure you that this multi-agency issue applies to all the European cities I mentioned in my previous post. There are ways to overcome any problems: where there's a will, there's a way.

Oh there's a way alright, but no one can agree which way it is.

Very true. Although I am fearing the political cost might be high.

Not as much as you might think, the political tides can change rapidly without warning, look at how transit advocates went from a spent force to completely and utterly victorious over the period of a few years in the 2000's down in Los Angeles.

And frankly, I find you that focus far too much on the commute aspect of public transportation, something that I find very myopic.

All right... I have opened up a thread dedicated to future plans for Bay Area transit, which includes BART. Check out my introduction here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1583857) and we can discuss everything that you want to see in the future for Bay Area's public transportation. It will cover more than just BART, though; it will cover everything public transit in the region, and we can discuss even the more intricate details of Bay Area transit, like connectivity, fare integration, and the like. See you there!

My route goes through even shallowers areas, and areas where the bedrock is relatively close to the surface, meaning that bored tunnel could be used on most of the route. As for Angel Island, there would be no station there, though there might be some works on the island.
Well, obviously no station on Angel Island. Yet, it is a State Park and it is lawmakers' obligation to protect it.


For me, there is no difference between local and metropolitan, and frankly that's a difference that needs to be thrown out.
I think you might be being a bit intransigent. There is a neat difference. Which is the very reason why Caltrain started to operate Bullet trains between San Francisco and San José. Because some people are interested in joining major stations in the high-density areas without stopping every 4 minutes, while others want to use the immediate stations.

Similarly, BART has stated its intention to run express services not calling at all stations, in order to be able to cover longer distances while remaining competitive. That is the regional/metropolitan scope.


And frankly, I find you that focus far too much on the commute aspect of public transportation, something that I find very myopic.
Hey, easy there. I might disagree with your views but I am not going to call them/you myopic.

You might have to explain how you think I am/we are focusing too much on the commute aspect of public transportation. Because its importance and relevance seems honestly far too obvious to neglect it the smallest bit. Who is (or should be) using the current services provided by the Bay Area transit agencies then? Tourists; or people traveling to UC Berkeley every 3 months? No, I think you are wrong. Any transit agency has reduced service during the weekend, when most people don't go to work and/or to school (and hence do not commute), even though those are the days when there are most people traveling for leisure.

To continue with Caltrain and its bullet trains: weekends have 2 services per direction, while weekdays have 11. I might be very wrong, but I had assumed those services were clearly designed for commuters.

Local and regional transit should focus on commuting, for they constitute the biggest chunk of moves within the area. Long-distance and high-speed are the ones that should take care of occasional travelers.

I think you might be being a bit intransigent. There is a neat difference. Which is the very reason why Caltrain started to operate Bullet trains between San Francisco and San José. Because some people are interested in joining major stations in the high-density areas without stopping every 4 minutes, while others want to use the immediate stations.

Actually, the Baby Bullet service has really concentrated ridership a select few stations at the expense of rest, leading to very significant losses in ridership at those stations. Check out this article:

http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2011/12/baby-bullet-effect.html

In fact, you should read a lot of his stuff.

Hey, easy there. I might disagree with your views but I am not going to call them/you myopic.

You might have to explain how you think I am/we are focusing too much on the commute aspect of public transportation. Because its importance and relevance seems honestly far too obvious to neglect it the smallest bit. Who is (or should be) using the current services provided by the Bay Area transit agencies then? Tourists; or people traveling to UC Berkeley every 3 months? No, I think you are wrong. Any transit agency has reduced service during the weekend, when most people don't go to work and/or to school (and hence do not commute), even though those are the days when there are most people traveling for leisure.

To continue with Caltrain and its bullet trains: weekends have 2 services per direction, while weekdays have 11. I might be very wrong, but I had assumed those services were clearly designed for commuters.

Local and regional transit should focus on commuting, for they constitute the biggest chunk of moves within the area. Long-distance and high-speed are the ones that should take care of occasional travelers.


I apologize for descending to insults, but I'm really not going to take what I said. You are myopic because Public Transit agencies in the region have spent half a century constantly chasing premium riders (commuters) while letting basic bus service die on the vine again and again and again. Remember what I was saying about how I wanted to access to public transit earlier? I never properly elaborated on that. What I meant for that was more service that goes more places more often more reliably, even it means lengthening some trips by a full minutes for the sake of building some badly needed infill stations in neighborhoods that could really use it, or sacrificing some service in/to marginal areas and one seat rides for service that is frequent all-day, every day, and I would continue to pursue this ideal no matter how many satisfied incumbents I run into (such as yourself).

Needless to say, I actually would throw a bone to you in my transit plan that I've been drawing up. Since I envision a two-deck transbay tube extending HSR and Caltrain to the East Bay. It would enable Capitol Corridor services to be vastly ramped up, and along with LRT service on University I would imagine that you would still have fairly fast service between SF and Berkley, just not a one-seat ride (which due to improved frequency and integrated fares, won't be nearly as bad as you think it is, though the teething period will see much bitching).

I apologize for descending to insults, but I'm really not going to take what I said. You are myopic because Public Transit agencies in the region have spent half a century constantly chasing premium riders (commuters) while letting basic bus service die on the vine again and again and again. Remember what I was saying about how I wanted to access to public transit earlier? I never properly elaborated on that. What I meant for that was more service that goes more places more often more reliably, even it means lengthening some trips by a full minutes for the sake of building some badly needed infill stations in neighborhoods that could really use it, or sacrificing some service in/to marginal areas and one seat rides for service that is frequent all-day, every day, and I would continue to pursue this ideal no matter how many satisfied incumbents I run into (such as yourself).

Your tone and discourteous wording creates unnecessary tensions indeed. Don't expect me to follow there.

You have expressed your convictions very clearly. Yet I will point out one last time at the risk of being called words again that one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) and most common complaints I hear from citizens about public transportation in the Bay Area is its ever-decreasing average speed. At least and especially for Muni. Which might be one of the reasons why anyone who could use BART instead uses BART.

Muni service has an average speed of 13 km/h (8.1mph) and going down, making it the slowest major transit system in America (wikipedia dixit, citing the San Francisco Weekly). Get as heated as you please, but those figures are intolerable. I can hardly see how making heavy-rail in the region and other transit agencies slower too could help.

Have a great evening

^^ Nevie, I understand that you are very passionate about public transportation, and from a European point-of-view, I understand your thoughts and concerns about Bay Area public transportation very deeply. I understand that you have encountered a problem with FDW, but, I'm here to let you vent your concerns. I mean, the Bay Area public transit scene may be complicated with dozens of agencies and hundreds of routes, but I can say that it is a very efficient system. BART, for one, is in my opinion one of the best, if not the best and quickest way to get around the Bay Area. Muni, on the other, serves the City of San Francisco so well that it covers 90% of its residents. I am proud that both are doing excellent in transporting people around, but of course, there is always room for improvements and modifications. No network is perfect; not even Muni nor BART are. There will always be ways to tweak and improve the system; all what's needed is funding, which is seriously the biggest question mark for any transit agency, not just those here in the Bay Area.

And by the way, I invite you to join my newest discussion, The Future of Bay Area Transit, wherein you can share your Muni and BART ideas, as well as other public transit line modifications, consolidations, and the like. To get there, under my signature, that thread is listed under Trending Threads and click on Future of Bay Area Transit. I'm looking forward to you participating in there! :D

Muni service has an average speed of 13 km/h (8.1mph) and going down, making it the slowest major transit system in America (wikipedia dixit, citing the San Francisco Weekly). Get as heated as you please, but those figures are intolerable. I can hardly see how making heavy-rail in the region and other transit agencies slower too could help.

MUNI's an entirely different can of worms, I completely acknowledge that it needs to be sped up dramatically (In fact, I think my ideas for subways under Geary and for the N would speed up service a lot, as would consolidating stops, having more off-board payment and signal priority elsewhere). BART, though it has a lot of speed, sorely needs more service and more coverage more than it needs all that speed.

^^ Nevie, I understand that you are very passionate about public transportation, and from a European point-of-view, I understand your thoughts and concerns about Bay Area public transportation very deeply. I understand that you have encountered a problem with FDW, but, I'm here to let you vent your concerns. I mean, the Bay Area public transit scene may be complicated with dozens of agencies and hundreds of routes, but I can say that it is a very efficient system. BART, for one, is in my opinion one of the best, if not the best and quickest way to get around the Bay Area. Muni, on the other, serves the City of San Francisco so well that it covers 90% of its residents. I am proud that both are doing excellent in transporting people around, but of course, there is always room for improvements and modifications. No network is perfect; not even Muni nor BART are. There will always be ways to tweak and improve the system; all what's needed is funding, which is seriously the biggest question mark for any transit agency, not just those here in the Bay Area.

Transit in the region is not efficient, it is downright poor, with awful integration between and rail services.

Transit in the region is not efficient, it is downright poor, with awful integration between and rail services.

I understand that. That's why I've opened up the new thread to address your ideas, and so far, so good! :D

Because of how the BART ticket prices vary depending on how far you go, what if there were several options of monthly passes that instead act as a ticket discount? There could be 2,4, and 6 dollar discount passes applied to a clipper card account, and when someone takes a trip that is cheaper than their discount amount, they are not charged. Alternately, if for some reason you need to take a more expensive trip, you would only be charged the difference between your ticket cost and your discount amount. I hope I explained this well enough to understand, and didn't just repeat an idea someone else already had (i didnt read through this whole thread just a bit of it).

Because of how the BART ticket prices vary depending on how far you go, what if there were several options of monthly passes that instead act as a ticket discount? There could be 2,4, and 6 dollar discount passes applied to a clipper card account, and when someone takes a trip that is cheaper than their discount amount, they are not charged. Alternately, if for some reason you need to take a more expensive trip, you would only be charged the difference between your ticket cost and your discount amount. I hope I explained this well enough to understand, and didn't just repeat an idea someone else already had (i didnt read through this whole thread just a bit of it).

That is something that can be explored by BART, Clipper, and the MTC since such a system can work... It's just the complex fare system that creates headaches to have that system fully up and running sooner.

That is something that can be explored by BART, Clipper, and the MTC since such a system can work... It's just the complex fare system that creates headaches to have that system fully up and running sooner.

Yeah I suppose that's true. Even though the idea seems pretty simple there's always complications when it comes to execution and publicizing. However I don't really think the fare system is wrong in how it's setup. Lots of people complain how Bart tickets are expensive and complex but given how long many trips are the fares prices are actually pretty fair.

Yeah I suppose that's true. Even though the idea seems pretty simple there's always complications when it comes to execution and publicizing. However I don't really think the fare system is wrong in how it's setup. Lots of people complain how Bart tickets are expensive and complex but given how long many trips are the fares prices are actually pretty fair.

I want to see a regional fare system, with the MTC collecting all the fares and redistributing them back to the agencies in proportion to ridership, with multi-agency trips handled by making tap-on/tap-off universal, so it's clear who gets what.

I want to see a regional fare system, with the MTC collecting all the fares and redistributing them back to the agencies in proportion to ridership, with multi-agency trips handled by making tap-on/tap-off universal, so it's clear who gets what.

I definitely agree that integration of the transit agencies would be a good idea. How do you think passes should be handled in that situation, because integration does kind of complicate the fare system. Unless all rides will cost the same price.

I definitely agree that integration of the transit agencies would be a good idea. How do you think passes should be handled in that situation, because integration does kind of complicate the fare system. Unless all rides will cost the same price.

I'm generally saying that the MTC would function as a German style Verkehrsverbund, collecting the fares and making the schedules work (while also renumbering the routes). Integration would simplify the system by making inter-modal and inter-agency easier to understand by consolidating everything into one system.

^^ Integration is a fine and splendid idea. The main issue is this: with a huge variety of fleet used in the current 20+ transit agencies, how will you consolidate and simplify the entire fleet of vehicles, which are dependent on a community's needs and how much demand there is for transit? Also, how many express lines will be created out of the system, as well as how many All-Nighter routes will be crafted if the transit systems are consolidated into a mega-transit agency (a la NYCMTA)?

^^ Integration is a fine and splendid idea. The main issue is this: with a huge variety of fleet used in the current 20+ transit agencies, how will you consolidate and simplify the entire fleet of vehicles, which are dependent on a community's needs and how much demand there is for transit? Also, how many express lines will be created out of the system, as well as how many All-Nighter routes will be crafted if the transit systems are consolidated into a mega-transit agency (a la NYCMTA)?

In regards to fleet consolidation, I would centralize all future purchases. Future Purchases would lean towards more 60-footers and the introduction of Double-Deckers and 85-foot Bi-Artics where needed. Long distance express service would be both enhanced and consolidated, meant to be aimed toward "prepping" for future Rapid Transit expansion. More All-night service would be added everywhere, but especially in areas where it once was (The Hwy 24 and 101 corridors, and along VTA's LRT Lines), and existing all-night service would be enhanced.

While not pertaining EXACTLY to this thread, I'd like to make a few comments.

1. I don't live in the Bay Area currently. I lived there in the early 70's and late 80's. I still have family there and visit them from time to time. I live in Phoenix currently and have attempted to rely on public trans here at one time or another. Having said that ....

2. After recent exposure to the Greater Bay Area transit system(s) for a family reunion (Flew into San Jose, took a shuttle bus to the Caltrain, Caltrain to South City, BART into the city for a day, reverse order leaving) and based upon my memory of the system(s) in the late 80's, the transit systems there are VASTLY superior to what we have here in Phoenix. We have Phoenix/Valley Metro bus service (~ 70 routes) and a single Light Rail line of about 20 miles or so. Also, there are areas of the Valley that are not accessible by public trans. There was nowhere in the Bay Area I couldn't go using pub trans in the '80's.

3. Having ridden the LR here, it takes about an hour and 10 minutes to go from end to end. I'm not sure how that rates for time/efficiency. There is an extension at the eastern end of the line of 3 miles in the groundbreaking phase right now. Approximate construction time - 3 years. Cost - Close to $1 billion USD. Another planned extension of the western end of line of 3 miles (same construction/costs expected) isn't slated to even begin until 2015.

4. The last 4 years has seen a significant contraction of bus lines and service times. Approximately 15 lines have been eliminated, and over 60% of routes have had service times reduced. Fares have increased ~60% over that span. ($1.50 all day fare in 2009 is now $3.50 all day fare, IF you purchase at a station. Cost to purchase all day on board ANY bus - $5.50). Sunday service is ~30 routes, with no less than 1 hour wait time between buses. I live approximately 22 miles from University of Phoenix Stadium, and it can take close to 3 hrs to get from home to there on a WEEKDAY. (Either 2 buses or Bus/LR/Bus)

I say these things simply as a comparison to the systems in the Bay Area. Please feel free to let me know your thoughts on my ramblings. I don't have a degree in Urban Planning, simply a user's experience of pub trans. I can't offer any real or legitimate thoughts on improving the Bay Area systems, other than upgraded equipment and improved travel times.

Thanks for letting a noob and neophyte take a moment of your time.

I'm generally saying that the MTC would function as a German style Verkehrsverbund, collecting the fares and making the schedules work (while also renumbering the routes). Integration would simplify the system by making inter-modal and inter-agency easier to understand by consolidating everything into one system.

I understand what you we're getting at but you didn't answer my question about how that would affect fares and month passes. I understand very well how much a proponent of agency integration you are, you have said it many times before.

All right, I think we have gone way off topic now. We can move all your stories to my brand new "The Future of Bay Area Transit" thread because it seems like we are moving away from BART to Bay Area Transit in general. Visit the thread by clicking here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1583857).

So, back to BART, question:

Do you believe that a fare zone system, similar to Caltrain, can be deployed at BART? If so, how will you divide the zone map, and what would be your fare system be like? Why?

Weinstein Co., known for making big bets on Sundance films, spent around $2 million for "Fruitvale," from first-time director Ryan Coogler, 26. The film, which Mr. Weinstein said reminded him of the neorealist drama "The Bicycle Thief," is based on the story of Oscar Grant, a young black man who was gunned down by the police in 2009 at an Oakland train station. The company has committed to a 500-screen minimum release, scheduled for late this year. Michael B. Jordan ("Chronicle") stars.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324039504578260323367162616.html?mod=ITP_arena_2

I guess the myth of this thug who was harassing passengers on BART will never die and his family must, by now, have become rich as Croesus on his death (after suing everyone is sight and selling the story to Hollywood).

I understand what you we're getting at but you didn't answer my question about how that would affect fares and month passes. I understand very well how much a proponent of agency integration you are, you have said it many times before.

I would probably lower base fares as a part of the zone fare system, but that would depend on the size of the fare-zones were talking about. Buying passes would be slightly more complicated, as you would probably have to specify which zones you want to be valid for use on your Monthly pass.

So, back to BART, question:

Do you believe that a fare zone system, similar to Caltrain, can be deployed at BART? If so, how will you divide the zone map, and what would be your fare system be like? Why?

Yes, Clipper means that Changing fare systems is easier than before, and a zone fare system would make things more transparent to riders (by making the fare charts easier to understand). I would probably go on a system where the fare zones would be: DTSF, The Rest of SF, San Mateo, North Inner East Bay, Central Inner East Bay, South Inner East Bay, Santa Clara, Eastern Alameda County, West Central Contra Costa, East Central Contra Costa, Northern Contra Costa and Far Eastern Contra Costa, with Transbay, Airport and possibly Peak surcharges.

And BTW, I don't really mind the topic drifting, it keeps threads more lively. (I think it's too late to really argue over it, but your splitter tendencies might've harmed discussion more than helping it, though that's just my opinion)

Free WiFi on Bart?? :) That would be nice. Just in case.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/bart-will-offer-free-wifi_n_2600861.html

^^ I actually have been using the free WiFi service on BART myself with WiFi Rail... and that's actually one of the places I sometimes send messages from here on SSC! I even send text messages and receive calls from under the Transbay Tube as well, but free WiFi on all trains would be the best thing ever that BART could give for its thousands of weekday riders.

So, back to BART, question:

Do you believe that a fare zone system, similar to Caltrain, can be deployed at BART? If so, how will you divide the zone map, and what would be your fare system be like? Why?

I personally think that flat rate is way more comfortable to use. You can barely name major cities (in case someone can :)) with fare system like we have. Though i'm ready to agree that 2-zone system (SF city limits/Rest of Bay Area) would work too, since SF residents are probably not gonna be happy to pay embarcadero- concord price for the trip of embarcadero- mission. But living in Oakland, i'm ready to pay a little bit more for absence of that long price list. I really had wtf reaction the first time i saw it :lol:
p.s.
Gotta love Miami's $2- ride all day long
p.p.s.
Does anyone know if they have any plans on extending hours of operation. These buses annoy the crap out of me.

^^

I haven't ridden BART in quite a while so this post leaves me wondering: You used to be able ride between any 2 San Francisco stops for the same price as a Muni bus/LRV fare. And the old FastPasses were valid. Has all this now changed with the Clipper Cards? It meant that, for San Franciscans, the entire city was a "zone".

As for the $2 all day ride, you can do that on BART. As long as you get off one station away from where you got on and never leave any other station (pass through the exit gate) you can ride BART as long as you want for the fare between the 2 adjacent stations. When I used to sometimes feel like getting out of the city, I'd do that: Get on at Powell and ride out to Pleasanton or Concord, then back and get off at Civic Center, all for the price of the Powell to Civic Center ride.

I personally think that flat rate is way more comfortable to use. You can barely name major cities (in case someone can :)) with fare system like we have. Though i'm ready to agree that 2-zone system (SF city limits/Rest of Bay Area) would work too, since SF residents are probably not gonna be happy to pay embarcadero- concord price for the trip of embarcadero- mission. But living in Oakland, i'm ready to pay a little bit more for absence of that long price list. I really had wtf reaction the first time i saw it :lol:
p.s.
Gotta love Miami's $2- ride all day long
p.p.s.
Does anyone know if they have any plans on extending hours of operation. These buses annoy the crap out of me.

Let me explain in brief before elaborating more when I get home...

- BART needs that shutdown overnight to maintain its tracks in working condition, especially on the Transbay Tube where hundreds of trains operate through it every single day. If BART had a second Transbay Tube, not only it will increase capacity significantly, but it may also open an option to run round-the-clock to get passengers around the Bay Area quickly and efficiently at anytime.

- a unified fare system is fine; however, it will mean premium fares for in-city or intra-county travel when it should only be in line with a typlcal bus fare. How about a multi-zone fare, like Caltrain or Golden Gate? That can work for as long as the four counties (five if we include Santa Clara) coordinate on a consistent fare structure that works for residents and commuters alike... the big problem would be the added fees to use SFO and OAK airports.

- MUNI vs BART in San Francisco provides a healthy competition in terms of providing extensive transit connections around the city. While MUNI provides the coverage, BART gives its speed to bring its travelers throughout the City and County, and their fares are reasonable. I'd say though that BART might want to explore a weekly or monthly pass... it already has an excursion pass for $4.65 IIRC that allows a rider to explore the BART system, provided that he or she enters and exits at the same station.

More later.

^^

I haven't ridden BART in quite a while so this post leaves me wondering: You used to be able ride between any 2 San Francisco stops for the same price as a Muni bus/LRV fare. And the old FastPasses were valid. Has all this now changed with the Clipper Cards? It meant that, for San Franciscans, the entire city was a "zone".

As for the $2 all day ride, you can do that on BART. As long as you get off one station away from where you got on and never leave any other station (pass through the exit gate) you can ride BART as long as you want for the fare between the 2 adjacent stations. When I used to sometimes feel like getting out of the city, I'd do that: Get on at Powell and ride out to Pleasanton or Concord, then back and get off at Civic Center, all for the price of the Powell to Civic Center ride.

There's still a Fast pass you can buy for Clipper that works for BART and MUNI in the City. (And there also the option to buy a Fast Pass without BART, which is $10 cheaper)

I used to do that "2 Station Excursion myself when I was younger. Don't really need to now because I have the fare needed.

Let me explain in brief before elaborating more when I get home...

- BART needs that shutdown overnight to maintain its tracks in working condition, especially on the Transbay Tube where hundreds of trains operate through it every single day. If BART had a second Transbay Tube, not only it will increase capacity significantly, but it may also open an option to run round-the-clock to get passengers around the Bay Area quickly and efficiently at anytime.

- a unified fare system is fine; however, it will mean premium fares for in-city or intra-county travel when it should only be in line with a typlcal bus fare. How about a multi-zone fare, like Caltrain or Golden Gate? That can work for as long as the four counties (five if we include Santa Clara) coordinate on a consistent fare structure that works for residents and commuters alike... the big problem would be the added fees to use SFO and OAK airports.

Even with a second Transbay Tube, BART probably wouldn't be able to operate 24/7 service (24/2 service is another matter). And fare zone probably wouldn't be based on county boundaries, but cut up based on sub-regions within the counties. (For one, I could certainly see Alameda country being cut into 3-5 fare zones, with Contra Contra being cut into a similar number) Though to be honest, I starting to like pure distance based fares even more.

BART delays data reveals many causes
Michael Cabanatuan
Updated 8:47 am, Monday, March 11, 2013

BART delays are relatively uncommon. The transit agency boasts a 94 to 95 percent on-time rate, which has remained fairly consistent over at least the past decade. But even if BART hits that mark, it means 42 late trains per day - and if your train is among them, you're not pleased.

Train operators don't always tell passengers the reasons for delays, but the most common problem stalling trains is the trains themselves. BART's rail cars, many of them more than 40 years old, are responsible for 25 percent of longer delays, according to an analysis by The Chronicle.

The Chronicle requested data on delays lasting 15 minutes or longer from Nov. 1, 2011, to Oct. 31, 2012, and found that problems with train brakes, propulsion systems, automatic train-control systems, doors and electrical systems accounted for the bulk of the 573 lengthier delays.

Troubles with the rail transit system's equipment on and along the rails - everything from the devices that detect trains as part of the computerized control system to protective cover boards on the third rail to track maintenance - accounted for 20 percent of delays. Most of the wayside delays resulted from glitches in the computerized train-control system known as "false occupancies" - indications that a train is occupying a section of track when nothing's there - and routing errors that send a train in the wrong direction.

What those systems have in common is age, and the costly proposition of replacing them . . . .

But the physical woes of mechanical middle age are not the transit system's only challenge. Growing numbers of passengers - and the disruptions they cause, sometimes intentionally - also lead to delays.

. . . many delays are caused by things over which BART has little control: people who get sick on trains, police holds to break up fights or arrest iPhone thieves, or track inspections after earthquakes.

Police held trains for 15 minutes or longer 95 times during the year studied. There were 66 longer delays caused by medical emergencies. An additional 49 delays were caused by incidents of vandalism, mostly by people who damaged doors as they held them open or jammed them open as they rushed to make a train . . . .

While BART can't prevent some of the delays, it does try to minimize them. During the morning commute, teams of paramedics are stationed at the busy West Oakland and Embarcadero stations to quickly tend to passengers who fall ill on the trains. Teams of technicians are also stationed at various points on the system to tend to troubles on trains.

According to The Chronicle's analysis, delays occurred systemwide, but the worst spots were West Oakland, which had 27 ; MacArthur, which had 23; Embarcadero with 18; Bay Fair with 17; and Pittsburg/Bay Point with 16. Delays were also spread throughout the day, with 25 percent during the morning commute, 22 percent during the evening rush and 27 percent between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. . . . .
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-delays-data-reveals-many-causes-4343993.php

BART under San Jose
http://www.mercurynews.com/mr-roadshow/ci_22916973/bart-extension-san-jose-will-be-mostly-at

BART To Start Banning Problem Passengers Next Week
ATU 1555 BART BART POLICE by Bay City News | April 30, 2013 7:24 am

BART officials said Monday that next week they will begin enforcing a new law that allows the transit agency to temporarily ban people who attack station agents or passengers or commit other offenses.

California Assembly Bill 716, which took effect last year, allows BART to issue a “prohibition order” against anyone who commits certain offenses on the transit district’s property, such as violence against employees or passengers, defacing property or urinating in public.

Offenders can be banned for 30 days to a year, depending on the offense.

For minor infractions a person must be cited on at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 days to receive a prohibition order but for more serious crimes, such as violence against passengers or employees, the ban can take effect after the first offense.

BART police Chief Kenton Rainey said BART has waited until now to start enforcing the law because it wanted to go through “a deliberate and thoughtful process in which it received comments from community members and mental health groups at a series of public meetings.

Rainey said the transit agency also wanted to take time to make sure that their police officers received training on applying the law, including ways to work with special-needs population such as people who are homeless or are mentally ill.

BART Board President Tom Radulovich said the new law is “an important safety initiative to keep our employees and riders safe.” (may be the first time ever I've agreed with Tom Radulovich)

He said, “We’re very concerned that for the past few years folks have been assaulting our station agents.” (but they could care less that they've been assaulting passengers)

. . . people who receive prohibition orders can request an administrative hearing at which the hearing officer can overturn the order if the people didn’t understand the nature and extent of their actions or didn’t have the ability to control their actions . . . .

All station agents will receive information in their computers about active orders. That information will include the names and photographs of prohibited individuals.
http://sfappeal.com/2013/04/bart-to-start-banning-problem-passengers-next-week/

interesting video about Bart extension! http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=9065291

BART to decide on relaxed rules for bikes on trains

By Denis Cuff Contra Costa Times
Posted: 05/21/2013 02:54:38 PM PDT
Updated: 05/22/2013 06:45:54 AM PDT

The BART board appears ready to drop its ban on bringing bicycles on trains during rush hour after a survey found few rider complaints during a one-week test of relaxed rules in March.

The board is expected to vote on the issue Thursday. However, two BART directors said they want to lift the ban only conditionally and decide in five months whether to make the change permanent.

The concern is potential conflicts and collisions between cyclists and other riders on crowded train cars and station platforms.

Read more: http://www.contracostatimes.com/contra-costa-times/ci_23292708/bart-decide-relaxed-rules-bikes-trains