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 July 5th, 2015, 12:51 AM   #1061
will101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: silicon valley or Salem
Posts: 4,841
Likes (Received): 1580

Quote:
Originally Posted by calibusguy View Post
Wow, that would be revolutionary, getting from SJ to SF in 15-ish minutes.
I think he meant that they would shave 5-15 minutes off of the current 90-95 minute trip.
will101 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 5th, 2015, 03:40 AM   #1062
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17033

Is there any reason why SMART went with High level instead of Low Level?
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2015, 07:46 AM   #1063
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis View Post
Is there any reason why SMART went with High level instead of Low Level?
They wanted to be high class.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2015, 08:07 AM   #1064
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 Nexis View Post
Is there any reason why SMART went with High level instead of Low Level?
Good question. I prefer level boarding, yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean high or low level. A low-level train would enable quick loading and unloading, but given the hilly profile Marin and Sonoma Counties have, I think high-level would be more suitable.
__________________
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 July 5th, 2015, 08:14 AM   #1065
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 calibusguy View Post
Wow, that would be revolutionary, getting from SJ to SF in 15-ish minutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by will101 View Post
I think he meant that they would shave 5-15 minutes off of the current 90-95 minute trip.
Will's right. I was thinking of shaving around 5 to 15 minutes from today's schedules once electrification is done. And by the way, the Baby Bullet, if fully electrified, can make the SJ to SF service in around 45 to 50 minutes...
__________________
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 July 5th, 2015, 10:04 AM   #1066
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17033

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
Good question. I prefer level boarding, yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean high or low level. A low-level train would enable quick loading and unloading, but given the hilly profile Marin and Sonoma Counties have, I think high-level would be more suitable.
Hmmm , but low level wouldn't require building a gauntlet track for freight...thus saving money.
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2015, 10:13 AM   #1067
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,804
Likes (Received): 11243

The freight service goes east from Novato from the north (e.g. Sonoma County), in which those will be coordinated with SMART so that those can operate with less interference from passenger operations. And, if problems occur, Golden Gate and Sonoma County Transit will come to the rescue.
__________________
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 July 5th, 2015, 10:16 AM   #1068
FDW
Registered User
 
FDW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
Good question. I prefer level boarding, yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean high or low level. A low-level train would enable quick loading and unloading, but given the hilly profile Marin and Sonoma Counties have, I think high-level would be more suitable.
That has nothing to with anything. SMART pointlessly went High Floor when decided that they didn't want to go around (the very stupid and archaic) FRA regulations.
FDW no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2015, 12:30 PM   #1069
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17033

Theres only one other west agency that went with high level for commuter rail and that was trimet...they should have went with low floor like just about every agency West of the Rockies. As long as you have PTC , the FRA seems to be flexible about allowing UIC compliant trains... Which are cheaper , and you wouldn't need to build extra tracks or switches for freight separation.
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2015, 08:21 PM   #1070
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

If you are building independent platforms (not on sidewalks or immediately adjacent to them), low of high floor is a less of a drastic option. High platforms dissuade pedestrians more from crossing outside designated places as well.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!

jchernin liked this post
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2015, 08:27 PM   #1071
jchernin
Registered User
 
jchernin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Santa Rosa/North Bay
Posts: 508
Likes (Received): 536

From Wikipedia:

Quote:
...for a newly constructed route, a route primarily located in tunnels, or a route with a dedicated right of way and enough space, high platforms are usually preferred, since high-floor vehicles are cheaper to manufacture, and have better operating characteristics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-floor
jchernin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2015, 09:00 PM   #1072
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 Suburbanist View Post
If you are building independent platforms (not on sidewalks or immediately adjacent to them), low of high floor is a less of a drastic option. High platforms dissuade pedestrians more from crossing outside designated places as well.
Those are correct. And by the way, many of the stations do not have immediate access to sidewalks to begin with, which require new construction and station development. Classic examples include:

- Civic Center (San Rafael)
- Hamilton (South Novato)
- Atherton (North Novato)
- Petaluma
- Sonoma County Airport

Quote:
Originally Posted by jchernin View Post
Exactly. SMART is essentially a revival of an old train line, which was long abandoned decades ago. It was originally owned by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District, but its rights have been sold off to the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit years ago prior to the two counties voting on its full implementation.
__________________
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 July 11th, 2015, 06:40 PM   #1073
lkstrknb
Chicago Luke
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 445
Likes (Received): 804



I just uploaded a video of the (relatively) new BART Oakland International Airport line, made by DCC Doppelmayr Cable Car. I enjoyed the ride more than I thought I would.
__________________
lkstrknb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2015, 07:23 PM   #1074
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Is there a surcharge to ride this line, or just normal BART fares?
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2015, 07:43 PM   #1075
jay stew
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 403
Likes (Received): 293

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Is there a surcharge to ride this line, or just normal BART fares?
$6 in addition to the regular BART fare.
jay stew no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2015, 09:50 PM   #1076
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,804
Likes (Received): 11243

And you pay that $6 surcharge when you go through the turnstiles at Coliseum BART. No BART ticket machine exists at Oakland Airport BART (except if you're handicapped where you need assistance).
__________________
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 July 11th, 2015, 09:57 PM   #1077
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17033

Why did they go with a cable train instead of a monorail or tram ?
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2015, 10:03 PM   #1078
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,804
Likes (Received): 11243

More like a compromise. I initially thought BART would use its existing train stock to serve OAK directly, much like SFO, which would mean less hassles for passengers traveling between the two airports. However, I believe that along the way, it was decided on a system similar to a cable car (overhead) since the traffic between Coliseum BART and Oakland Airport BART would not warrant a 3-car BART service to begin with.

Not to mention, Hegenberger Blvd, the roadway running below it, already has a frequent bus service to begin with (AC Transit Line 73, running every 15 minutes most of the day, every day), doing the exact same thing between Coliseum BART and the Airport for a much cheaper fare ($2.10).
__________________
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 July 11th, 2015, 11:08 PM   #1079
MrAronymous
Registered User
 
MrAronymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,959
Likes (Received): 6070

I imagine it was the most cost-effective option. Cable cars are really realiable.
MrAronymous no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2015, 11:43 PM   #1080
FDW
Registered User
 
FDW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAronymous View Post
I imagine it was the most cost-effective option. Cable cars are really realiable.
The most cost effective option would've been BRT.
FDW 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 04:06 AM.


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