daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 11th, 2013, 03:29 AM   #621
FDW
Registered User
 
FDW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by quashlo View Post
Perhaps... I wanted to at least make it mostly similar to the current naming conventions, so this is the end result. Everything should look fairly familiar to current passengers, other than entirely new lines, or a few lines where I went with an old MSRy number that wasn't carried over.
That's where I saw the worst of the anachronisms, since the 38 used to be the B and the 47 used to be the H. For the most part, the the remaining lettered lines could've been renamed: the J (which was almost converted to Trolleybus) had the 46, the N could've become the 6 or 16, the K could've been the 12, the L might've been the 48 (MUNI had plans in the 1950's to dieselize the K and L as the 48 Ingleside-Taraval), and the M would've been folded into another route. The T is your scenario could've been the 91. Your Q was probably the biggest mistake, as that Quintara segment should've been hooked up to 11 as a Crosstown line.

Quote:
I assumed most of my network is in exclusive median ROW, which should help address reliability issues.
There are several areas in the Eastern area of the city that wouldn't be able to have median ROW, and would probably be grade-separated because of capacity issues.

Quote:
As for your Geneva / Ocean / Taraval and J / N / 22 ideas, I agree they have merit... I think some less-frequent service would be warranted on them, but I still think the primary design of the network will remain single corridor (Market) with trunks peeling off, supplemented by crosstown arcs (22, 24, 43, 44, 28 / 28L, 29), as into and out of Downtown is the fundamental travel pattern.
There was a reason why MUNI made those 1979-83 changes, it was enable the creation of those Crosstown lines. By splitting the 22 and routing the J and N around downtown, you enable more capacity on other lines that need it. And besides, the 22 has been on the shortlist for Rapid Transit improvements for some time now. (Though it's generally sat behind Geary and Stockton-3rd in importance)

Quote:
A city loop eliminates the 28 / 30 transfer at Laguna / Chestnut by providing a direct connection between GGB and Fisherman's Wharf, Chinatown, and Union Square...
Actually, the reason why I oppose the city loop regardless is because I'm looking beyond San Francisco here: I see that the 3rd st Corridor could be extended down Bayshore Blvd to South San Francisco, I also see that the 19th Ave corridor hooks in really nicely to the Hwy 101 corridor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ode of bund View Post
The grade on Noe Street between 26 Street and Cesar Chavez on 24-Divisadero line is 22.8%, it is the steepest grade travelled by trolley-bus in the world. It would be really interesting to see what repeated verticle bending can do to the articulation joint.
Oh, I know that. I spent several years during my middle and high school years riding the 24 to and from school. The way a 24 artic shift would occur would be like that of the first draft of the TEP (which I believe was specifically written to enable this), where the 24 would avoid that grade via 24th st, Potrero, and Bayshore to Oakdale (and then Palou). The 33 would then be altered to take over the segment of the 24 that was no longer served. Obviously, MUNI balked at the NIMBY's and cost of new trolley wire, and so created 58 while altering the 48, giving much of the same benefits (the proposed 24 reroute would've created a one-seat ride between the Bayview and General Hospital, the proposed 48 reroute also does that on somewhat different route, and the 58 also provides the same increased service along 24th st), though without dealing with the 24's chronic overcrowding during the weekdays.
FDW no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 11th, 2013, 06:08 AM   #622
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,804
Likes (Received): 11243

Quote:
Originally Posted by FDW
You've been here for 6.5 years? Then you probably don't know about massive cuts the regional agencies made between 2002-04. Service outside of SF used to be a whole better than it is now. For example, GGT pre-2002 had 7 buses per hour (per direction) operating between DTSF and San Rafael. (compared to 3 per hour now)
Hmmm... Perhaps that reminds me of stories from GGT drivers about Routes 20, 50, 80, and 90 that provided extensive services between Sonoma, Marin, and San Francisco Counties, with the last trip of the 80 being as late as, what, 1am and it arrived in Santa Rosa around 4am. Some of the elder drivers even shared their stories about a particularly long Marin County-only route that operated every half-hour, and it used most of the back roads along the way between Novato and Kentfield, with the San Rafael Transit Center acting only as a transfer point, not a final destination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FDW
Pretty much all of the lines you mention suffer from nasty reliability issues, and I've got my own preferences for what to do with some of them. (For one, I'd split the 29 once Samtrans gets folded into MUNI, and I'd prefer hooking the Geneva corridor into Ocean and Taraval, establishing a major crosstown route there.)
Sure, you can split the 29, but how would you do it if it already provides great service between the Sunset and Bayview-Hunters Point, connecting two of the city's largest colleges, SF State University and City College (at Ocean & Phelan)? I mean, the 29-Sunset is already a well-traveled bus line, traversing also through some of the back streets of Ocean View, and it provides multiple connections along the way (much more than the 28/28L can) that it acts as a "hidden" backbone for the south and southwest portions of the City.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FDW
The 28L is going to become an all-day service, AND it's going to terminate at Van Ness and North Point (The 28's Marina terminus is one of the maddening things about MUNI routing as is).
Hmmm... If that's the case, then how can the service fit with already at least two bus lines (that use articulated trolley buses) fight for an already-limited bus stop space on Van Ness Avenue to begin with, especially when the articulated buses turnaround at the foot of Van Ness? It's like, how will the 28L fit in with the 49-Van Ness/Mission that use articulated buses all the time? As for the line extension, would it mean that the 28L will continue on to Lombard and head north on Van Ness to its "future" terminal? I mean, Chestnut Street, one block north of Lombard, is already well-served with the 30-Stockton and 30x-Marina Express... If the 28L is to be extended to Van Ness and N Point, I believe that the 28 should relocate its terminal too. The big question is, how will Fort Mason be served without the 28 and 28L?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FDW
No, The M will terminate at Parkmerced, and the J will be extended through Ocean View to Parkmerced and SF State under the TEP.
Hmmm, that's something I would be watching since if the J is to be extended via Ocean View (e.g. Randolph Avenue), then I don't know if it will be renamed to the J-Church or Ocean View or something... And if the M will end at Parkmerced, then I think that it could be renamed M-Parkmerced instead of Ocean View since that line will be truncated at SF State. Perhaps, if the J and the M run as a complete loop service (e.g. Downtown - West Portal - Stonestown - SF State - Randolph - Balboa Park - 30th Avenue - Church - Downtown), then it would mean a one-seat ride for many passengers -- and more choices too to get around -- that would benefit more residents and travelers around town. The big problem would be at Balboa Park: how will the current station on San Jose Avenue (near the Curtis Green light rail barn) be redesigned so that trains will not need to enter Balboa Park Station?

Quote:
Originally Posted by quashlo
A city loop eliminates the 28 / 30 transfer at Laguna / Chestnut by providing a direct connection between GGB and Fisherman's Wharf, Chinatown, and Union Square...
That would be fine. But, I suspect that, for that to happen, the 28 will need to stay on Lombard, add additional stops on Lombard, and use existing stops on Van Ness to complete the trip.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FDW
Oh, I know that. I spent several years during my middle and high school years riding the 24 to and from school. The way a 24 artic shift would occur would be like that of the first draft of the TEP (which I believe was specifically written to enable this), where the 24 would avoid that grade via 24th st, Potrero, and Bayshore to Oakdale (and then Palou). The 33 would then be altered to take over the segment of the 24 that was no longer served. Obviously, MUNI balked at the NIMBY's and cost of new trolley wire, and so created 58 while altering the 48, giving much of the same benefits (the proposed 24 reroute would've created a one-seat ride between the Bayview and General Hospital, the proposed 48 reroute also does that on somewhat different route, and the 58 also provides the same increased service along 24th st), though without dealing with the 24's chronic overcrowding during the weekdays.
Question: what is line 58? I haven't heard of that line number before with Muni...
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine Forums • SF Bay Area Forums • Bay Area Transit • NEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: Flickr • Photobucket • Instagram

San Carlos • San Bruno • San Mateo • Saint Helena • Ross
fieldsofdreams no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 08:09 AM   #623
FDW
Registered User
 
FDW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
Hmmm... Perhaps that reminds me of stories from GGT drivers about Routes 20, 50, 80, and 90 that provided extensive services between Sonoma, Marin, and San Francisco Counties, with the last trip of the 80 being as late as, what, 1am and it arrived in Santa Rosa around 4am. Some of the elder drivers even shared their stories about a particularly long Marin County-only route that operated every half-hour, and it used most of the back roads along the way between Novato and Kentfield, with the San Rafael Transit Center acting only as a transfer point, not a final destination.
Yeah, the 20, 50, and 80 each ran half-hourly 7 days a week. The 20 Operated on a route similar to of the current 22 (though with a segment in Canal, and without the Sausalito segment). The 50 operated between San Francisco and Novato, deviating from the freeway to serve Sausalito and areas off the 101 north of San Rafael. The 80 was mostly as you knew it, but with more Santa Rosa service. Then there was also 30, which provided additional weekday midday service between San Francisco and the Canal district via San Rafael. The 10 operated as a intra-Marin route on weekdays similar to the current 19 (but also with service in Mill Valley), and continued into San Francisco on weekends. The long route that you're talking about was the 1.

Quote:
Sure, you can split the 29, but how would you do it if it already provides great service between the Sunset and Bayview-Hunters Point, connecting two of the city's largest colleges, SF State University and City College (at Ocean & Phelan)? I mean, the 29-Sunset is already a well-traveled bus line, traversing also through some of the back streets of Ocean View, and it provides multiple connections along the way (much more than the 28/28L can) that it acts as a "hidden" backbone for the south and southwest portions of the City.
My idea is to hook the 29 onto the northern part of Samtrans Route 122 (specifically the parts north of Colma BART). The rest of the route would be split off into a single separate service. A single-seat ride between the Bayview and Sunset would preserved by merging the 18 and 23 in my plan.

Quote:
Hmmm... If that's the case, then how can the service fit with already at least two bus lines (that use articulated trolley buses) fight for an already-limited bus stop space on Van Ness Avenue to begin with, especially when the articulated buses turnaround at the foot of Van Ness? It's like, how will the 28L fit in with the 49-Van Ness/Mission that use articulated buses all the time? As for the line extension, would it mean that the 28L will continue on to Lombard and head north on Van Ness to its "future" terminal? I mean, Chestnut Street, one block north of Lombard, is already well-served with the 30-Stockton and 30x-Marina Express... If the 28L is to be extended to Van Ness and N Point, I believe that the 28 should relocate its terminal too. The big question is, how will Fort Mason be served without the 28 and 28L?
The layover spot is actually quite large. Under the TEP, MUNI plans to terminate the 43 at the Ft Mason layover space the 28 currently uses, and the 28 itself would terminate at the GGB when the 28L is running, and at VN/NP when the 28L is not. The 28L would not serve the GGB.

Quote:
Hmmm, that's something I would be watching since if the J is to be extended via Ocean View (e.g. Randolph Avenue), then I don't know if it will be renamed to the J-Church or Ocean View or something... And if the M will end at Parkmerced, then I think that it could be renamed M-Parkmerced instead of Ocean View since that line will be truncated at SF State. Perhaps, if the J and the M run as a complete loop service (e.g. Downtown - West Portal - Stonestown - SF State - Randolph - Balboa Park - 30th Avenue - Church - Downtown), then it would mean a one-seat ride for many passengers -- and more choices too to get around -- that would benefit more residents and travelers around town. The big problem would be at Balboa Park: how will the current station on San Jose Avenue (near the Curtis Green light rail barn) be redesigned so that trains will not need to enter Balboa Park Station?
Actually, MUNI wants to terminate the M at Parkmerced to ensure there's enough capacity for those closer to the downtown. And the J and M won't be merged because the M doesn't carry heavy passenger loads in Ocean View and J isn't able to operate 2 car trains in regular service. (Because of several short stops, when 2-car trains are seen on the J, the back car is almost always out of service.) SF's been planning on rebuilding the area around Balboa Park for a long time now, but there hasn't been much movement.

Quote:
Question: what is line 58? I haven't heard of that line number before with Muni...
The 58 is a new line that will start operating once MUNI finds funds for it. It's going to operate on the 48 current route between Diamond/24th and 3rd/20th, with 48's eastern end being moved onto the 19's current route through the Bayview.
FDW no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2013, 12:52 AM   #624
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,633
Likes (Received): 5731

BART news
http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/20...s20130308.aspx

Quote:

BART, Caltrans to close Northbound I-880 at Hegenberger Road
Closure scheduled 1AM to 6AM March 17 and March 24

BART and Caltrans will need to close all lanes of northbound Interstate 880 (I-880) at Hegenberger Road, on Sunday, March 17 and Sunday, March 24, 2013 between the hours of 1AM and 6AM. These early morning closures are necessary to allow crews to construct the Oakland Airport Connector system’s guideways above I-880, between Hegenberger and 98th Avenue, in Oakland. Drivers who need to pass through that area will need to follow the detour signs requiring vehicles to exit at Hegenberger, then detour via Edes Avenue, Coliseum Way and 66th Avenue, back onto I-880.

Details of the Closure
During the construction, crews will follow the approximate schedule of activities (weather permitting):

Saturday, March 16 & Saturday March 23
11:00 AM Two lanes adjacent to the median on northbound Interstate 880 to close
11:30 PM Crews to move crane into closed northbound lanes of traffic

Sunday, March 17 & Sunday March 24
1:00 AM Northbound I-880 to close at Hegenberger Road
1:30 AM to 2:30 AM Crews to transport assembled truss to pick-up area
2:30 AM to 4:00 AM Guideway lifted overhead, adjusted and attached to concrete columns
4:00 AM Demobilize crane
6:00 AM Northbound I-880 re-opened to traffic

The guideway installation signifies a major milestone for the Oakland Airport Connector project. Once constructed, the more than 300-foot long span—comprised of more than 150 tons of steel supported by concrete columns over the highway’s northbound and southbound lanes—will allow the cable-propelled system to travel above highway traffic to and from the Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station and Oakland International Airport.

About the Oakland Airport Connector
The Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) is a 3.2-mile extension of BART from the Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station to Oakland International Airport (OAK), via an “Automated Guideway Transit (AGT)” system. OAC will replace the AirBART buses, and will provide a seamless connection between BART and OAK with driverless trains that travel the alignment in eight minutes and depart every four minutes.

The AGT system, designed by Doppelmayr Cable Car, rests on a mostly elevated guideway that spans the length of the Hegenberger Road business corridor. The system also includes two new stations at each end of the line, an operations power and maintenance facility, and a subway underneath Doolittle Drive.

Construction is underway at OAK along Airport Drive and at the site of the system's Airport Station (in the parking area adjacent to Terminal 1), as well as other locations along Doolittle Drive, 98th Avenue, Hegenberger Road and San Leandro Street in Oakland. Once the guideway is installed across Interstate 880 the project will be more than 60 percent complete. Construction is scheduled to be complete in late 2013, and, after several months of systems testing, OAC will open for service in late 2014.

For more details about the OAC, call (510) 464-6463, email [email protected], or visit www.bart.gov/oac.
__________________

n20 liked this post
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2013, 07:15 AM   #625
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,633
Likes (Received): 5731

San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...or-4344912.php

Quote:
BART elevator crushes man in shaft
Will Kane
Updated 8:41 pm, Monday, March 11, 2013


A file photograph of the BART elevator for the Montgomery street station. A man on the top of an elevator car was crushed last night when a patron tried to take the car to the top level.
Photo: Jonathan Curiel, The Chronicle


A man who had his bedding on the top of an elevator car at the Montgomery Station in San Francisco was crushed when a patron tried to take the car to the top level, BART police said Monday.

The subway patron was riding the elevator at Sansome and Sutter streets from the Muni Metro platform to the concourse level at 9:26 p.m. Sunday when he heard a crunching sound and a scream, said BART police Lt. Michael Hayes.

The elevator became stuck, and the patron called police. When rescuers arrived, they found the man in the elevator shaft dead and surrounded by bedding.

"We don't know why he sought refuge in our elevator shaft," said Luna Salaver, a BART spokeswoman. "We don't know how long he was in there, and we don't know how he accessed our shaft."

No one at BART has ever heard of a homeless person sleeping on top of an elevator car, Salaver said. Crews were examining all elevator shafts in downtown San Francisco stations Monday to make sure they were empty, she said.

Regulators with the Cal/OSHA Elevator Ride and Tramway Unit will also investigate the incident, Salaver said. BART hopes to reopen the elevator by March 20.

Will Kane is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: [email protected] Twitter: @WillKane
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2013, 04:41 AM   #626
bayviews
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,535
Likes (Received): 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woonsocket54 View Post
This isn't the first homeless person who's been killed in similar circumstances.

All that would've have taken to prevent this poor man's death in an elevator shaft was some periodic inspection by the well-paid city buracracts & their contracters....beneath all the pomp, glitter, & hype, such a sad city.
bayviews no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2013, 09:24 PM   #627
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,633
Likes (Received): 5731

OAKLAND | Oakland Airport Connector

Source: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/news/current_topics/3-13/oac.htm (larger images here)

Quote:
Nighttime Aerial Acrobatics for Oakland Airport Connector Project






Photos: Noah Berger

March 19, 2013

BART and Caltrans closed all lanes of northbound Interstate 880 (I-880) at Hegenberger Road in Oakland on Sunday, March 17 between the hours of 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. to allow crews to construct the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) system’s guideways above I-880. The aerial work to install this segment of guideway signifies a major milestone for the Oakland Airport Connector project. The more than 300-foot long span — comprised of more than 150 tons of steel supported by concrete columns over the highway’s northbound and southbound lanes — will allow the cable-propelled system to travel above highway traffic to and from the Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station and Oakland International Airport. A second freeway closure is planned for Sunday, March 24.

About the Oakland Airport Connector
The Oakland Airport Connector is a 3.2-mile extension of BART from the Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station to Oakland International Airport (OAK), via an “Automated Guideway Transit (AGT)” system. The OAC will replace the AirBART buses, and will provide a seamless connection between BART and OAK with driverless trains that travel the alignment in eight minutes and depart every four minutes.

The AGT system, designed by Doppelmayr Cable Car, rests on a mostly elevated guideway that spans the length of the Hegenberger Road business corridor. The system also includes two new stations at each end of the line, an operations power and maintenance facility, and a subway underneath Doolittle Drive.

Construction is underway at OAK along Airport Drive and at the site of the system's Airport Station (in the parking area adjacent to Terminal 1), as well as other locations along Doolittle Drive, 98th Avenue, Hegenberger Road and San Leandro Street in Oakland. Once the guideway is installed across Interstate 880, the project will be more than 60 percent complete. Construction is scheduled to be complete in late 2013, and, after several months of systems testing, the OAC will open for service in late 2014. MTC is contributing $179 million ($146.2 million in bridge toll funds plus $32.8 million in state bond funds) to the $484 million project.

For more details about the OAC, call 510-464-6463, email [email protected] or visit www.bart.gov/oac.
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2013, 10:04 PM   #628
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,804
Likes (Received): 11243

I recall going to Oakland International Airport lately when I saw the foundations for the new Airport Connector are already taking shape along Hegenberger Road and 73rd Avenue. And, as I looked at the station layout, it looks like the train lengths would only be up to three short-car lengths (similar to Muni Metro, if not the SFO Airport Mover). I suspect that it would be a driverless system, similar to many modern airport movers, and I hope that the charge for using the system would be similar, if not less expensive, than the AirBART that operates between Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART station and the Airport ($3 one-way).

I can sense, though, that this would compete directly with AC Transit's Line 73 service, which provides a cheaper, but a bit slower, alternative to AirBART which runs nonstop to the Airport (and AC Transit accepts the Clipper Card while AirBART currently doesn't). Should the new Oakland Airport Connector accept Clipper Card as form of payment, then definitely, it will be a source of competition for passengers taking either the slow, stopping bus to the Airport (around 8 stops) or the faster connector (with only one stop).
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine Forums • SF Bay Area Forums • Bay Area Transit • NEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: Flickr • Photobucket • Instagram

San Carlos • San Bruno • San Mateo • Saint Helena • Ross
fieldsofdreams no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2013, 08:35 AM   #629
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,633
Likes (Received): 5731

Transbay Blog
http://transbayblog.com/2013/03/25/t...church-street/

Quote:
Transit lanes for Church Street
Posted by Eric ⋅ 25 March 2013

On Church Street in San Francisco near the intersection of Market Street — a nexus of light rail, streetcar, and bus lines — a simple but potentially transformative street improvement was put in place over the weekend. The center lanes of Church Street between Duboce Avenue and 16th Street were painted a bright, fierce red, signaling that these lanes are prioritized for transit and taxis.

image hosted on flickr

Church Street Painted Transit Lane by transbay, on Flickr

The painted lanes are a preview of the commonsense flavor of improvements that the SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) proposes to implement as a means of improving travel time and reliability on the “Rapid” network. This network includes Muni’s most heavily used routes, including the J-Church and 22-Fillmore, both of which use Church Street and experience among their most crowded loads on this particular segment where the two routes overlap. If the center lanes are kept clear of cars with a combination of visual cues, signage, and enforcement, transit vehicles can access boarding platforms more promptly while motorists use the outer lanes. The transit-taxi lanes are coupled with restrictions on left turns between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

image hosted on flickr

Church Street Painted Transit Lane by transbay, on Flickr

The Church Street project does not address any number of other pinch points and constraints that impact the quality of J-Church and 22-Fillmore service, but it is characterized as a “pilot” because it gives the SFMTA, even before environmental review for the TEP is completed, an opportunity to monitor how this type of street treatment performs in a confined area — a microcosm with different transit vehicles, as well as a mixture of commercial activity and residential driveways. The bright color literally gives more visibility to the SFMTA’s efforts, and with over 15,000 riders passing through this short stretch of Church Street each weekday on the J-Church, 22-Fillmore, or 37-Corbett [1], a substantial number of people stand to benefit from the pilot, while also getting a small taste of what is in store.

This part of town has become something of a TEP preview showcase, first with the more spacious boarding areas built for the N-Judah, and now with painted transit lanes joining the mix. Each one of these improvements taken unto itself may be small in scope, but when implemented incrementally at key locations throughout the city, collectively, they can make a tangible difference at relatively low cost.

image hosted on flickr

Church Street Painted Transit Lane by transbay, on Flickr
__________________

pudgym29, n20 liked this post
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2013, 12:07 AM   #630
612bv3
Registered User
 
612bv3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,712
Likes (Received): 101

Quote:
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/cont...s-bikes-trains
__________________
My BART Fantasy Maps: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4.1 | Circle | Other Maps
612bv3 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2013, 12:12 AM   #631
612bv3
Registered User
 
612bv3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,712
Likes (Received): 101

Quote:
SMART seeks funding for San Rafael to Larkspur train segment

By Mark Prado
Marin Independent Journal

Posted: 05/20/2013 05:47:32 PM PDT

An extension of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit commuter train service from San Rafael to Larkspur is slowly moving to the fore as officials open the door to seek federal funding for the work.

The rail agency will submit a letter to the Federal Transportation Administration requesting entry into its "Small Starts" program. The program funds new projects as well as extensions to commuter rail, light rail, heavy rail, bus rapid transit, street cars and ferries.

The process is competitive, so SMART wants to have its paperwork ready to go and is embarking on plans to get it "shovel ready."
Read more: http://www.marinij.com/larkspurcorte...-train-segment
__________________
My BART Fantasy Maps: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4.1 | Circle | Other Maps
612bv3 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2013, 12:20 AM   #632
612bv3
Registered User
 
612bv3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,712
Likes (Received): 101

Quote:
Central Subway report details lack of time, money contingencies
By: Joe Eskenazi | 05/20/13 8:32 PM
SF Weekly

A recent report by a federally placed overseer monitoring the $1.6 billion Central Subway project laments that the controversial line is at risk of falling significantly below Federal Transportation Administration minimums for both time and money contingencies.

The subway’s current project schedule “reflects 4.7 months of buffer float,” according to the project oversight management contractor’s most recent monthly report to the FTA. That’s down precipitously from a 14.8-month contingency as of August 2012.

Since the minimum buffer allowed by federal officials is 10 months, Central Subway officials, per the report, “should submit justification to decrease the minimum schedule contingency and/or develop a recovery plan.”
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/tran...#ixzz2Ucmnm11g
__________________
My BART Fantasy Maps: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4.1 | Circle | Other Maps
612bv3 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 30th, 2013, 06:05 PM   #633
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Bikes allowed "all times" come July...curious, did BART ever drop its policy that each and every rush-hour commuter be able to ride seated on its trains? If so, when did they shirk it?
__________________
.
hee hee
.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 30th, 2013, 08:50 PM   #634
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,804
Likes (Received): 11243

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainrover View Post
Bikes allowed "all times" come July...curious, did BART ever drop its policy that each and every rush-hour commuter be able to ride seated on its trains? If so, when did they shirk it?
It has been quite a "twisted" and long story... since so many bikers commute between San Francisco and the East Bay, AC Transit, BART, and the ferries that serve the East Bay have to figure out strategies that would help cyclists get their bikes on transit vehicles. The problem, though, remains with supply versus demand: with relatively high gas prices, ridership for BART has soared to over 370,000 on a weekday (with estimates reaching 400,000 per day in a few years). Part of that ridership can be attributed to cyclists, in which they contribute to a certain extent an essentially car-free commute in the process, something BART, AC Transit, and others want to attract... and with a relaxed rule coming July due to fewer complaints on riders seeing cyclists boarding bikes on trains, it will mean better commutes for even more people. All BART has to do is to enforce the rules governing bikes on trains, most especially bikes cannot be loaded on densely crowded cars (yes, even 10-car trains can be packed), and bikes are never permitted on the first car of each train for safety reasons (perhaps first two or three would work on longer than 8-car trains).
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine Forums • SF Bay Area Forums • Bay Area Transit • NEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: Flickr • Photobucket • Instagram

San Carlos • San Bruno • San Mateo • Saint Helena • Ross
fieldsofdreams no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2013, 06:42 AM   #635
bayviews
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,535
Likes (Received): 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by 612bv3 View Post
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/tran...#ixzz2Ucmnm11g

Clearly the ever soaring costs of this billion plus boondoogle are taking a very heavy toll on the every day functioning of MUNI's transit system.
bayviews no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2013, 05:23 PM   #636
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,633
Likes (Received): 5731

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
and bikes are never permitted on the first car of each train for safety reasons (perhaps first two or three would work on longer than 8-car trains).
why?
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2013, 07:25 PM   #637
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,633
Likes (Received): 5731

Buses in East Bay (AC Transit and Emery Go-Round)

image hosted on flickr

AC Transit #2017 by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

AC Transit #1067 rear by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

AC Transit #1067 by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

AC Transit #1342 side by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

AC Transit by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

AC Transit #1358 side by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

Emery Go-around by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr
__________________

geometarkv liked this post
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2013, 05:49 AM   #638
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,804
Likes (Received): 11243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woonsocket54 View Post
why?
The first car is where the driver sits (and controls) are, and that cyclists are not permitted to board their bikes on the first car because bikes could run straight into the driver's door, causing problems for both passengers and the crew. However, a bike trial is currently underway on BART during the commute periods... more details and rules here.

And by the way, I'm exploring into adding my own photos into here soon since I have my own personal showcase entirely dedicated to Bay Area Transit: more details on "Bay Area Transit" on my signature below.
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine Forums • SF Bay Area Forums • Bay Area Transit • NEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: Flickr • Photobucket • Instagram

San Carlos • San Bruno • San Mateo • Saint Helena • Ross
fieldsofdreams no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2013, 01:31 PM   #639
city_thing
Put it in your mouth
 
city_thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne.
Posts: 7,128
Likes (Received): 883

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
It has been quite a "twisted" and long story... since so many bikers commute between San Francisco and the East Bay, AC Transit, BART, and the ferries that serve the East Bay have to figure out strategies that would help cyclists get their bikes on transit vehicles. The problem, though, remains with supply versus demand: with relatively high gas prices, ridership for BART has soared to over 370,000 on a weekday (with estimates reaching 400,000 per day in a few years). Part of that ridership can be attributed to cyclists, in which they contribute to a certain extent an essentially car-free commute in the process, something BART, AC Transit, and others want to attract... and with a relaxed rule coming July due to fewer complaints on riders seeing cyclists boarding bikes on trains, it will mean better commutes for even more people. All BART has to do is to enforce the rules governing bikes on trains, most especially bikes cannot be loaded on densely crowded cars (yes, even 10-car trains can be packed), and bikes are never permitted on the first car of each train for safety reasons (perhaps first two or three would work on longer than 8-car trains).
I would've thought that the BART carried more. Especially considering what a massive population that bay area has. Even my city (Melbourne) has 800,000+ train trips a day, but roughly half the size of SF.
__________________
Calling occupants of interplanetary craft...
city_thing no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2013, 09:09 PM   #640
rawocd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by city_thing View Post
I would've thought that the BART carried more. Especially considering what a massive population that bay area has. Even my city (Melbourne) has 800,000+ train trips a day, but roughly half the size of SF.
BART is glorified commuter rail though - it only has 8 Stations along one corridor in San Francisco City & County limits. While BART has solid coverage across downtown SF and the mission street corridor, it isn't all that useful for moving within SF. Had BART expanded in more of a WMATA style through the city proper, or completely replaced the N, L, K, M and J like originally intended in the 1950s, we would likely see much higher ridership.

When you combine BART's nearly 400k with Caltrain's 50k, VTA LRT's 30k and MUNI Metros roughly 175K (ACE and Capitol Corridor are negligible given the rough numbers I've given), you get a higher number of 645K. Even still, the Bay Area is undeserved by adequate rail, especially when compared to a place like Melbourne...
__________________

fieldsofdreams liked this post

Last edited by rawocd; August 6th, 2013 at 09:15 PM.
rawocd no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
bart, muni, sacramento, san francisco, smart

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium