Bay Area Public Transportation (land, air, and water)

[Lordpenguinton]

So I'm thinking with this Central Subway, after a Washington Square stop, instead of going to Fishermen's Wharf, Have it follow Columbus to Bay, then go out to the Marina. Eff all the we need more busses (like we don't already have enough of them) crowd, take it to the people who can afford to live here crowd. Sort of mass transit to the Marina would be really good at getting a lot of cars out of downtown garages and off streets, plus it would lessen the chances of a pedestrian being struck by an Audi. Seriously to the folks that hate on the Central Subway, do you regularly use the 30 Stockton or the 45? It's so bad that I've created a cocktail in honor of the "Dirty 30". It's pretty tasty, definitely tastier, and cleaner, than the bus.

[Animo]

It's a can of sardines for sure.

[Animo]

The approval for super large airplanes to fly into San Francisco International Airport has been delayed because Congress failed to pass legislation to keep the Federal Aviation Administration operating.

The FAA’s operating authority expired at midnight Friday. Dozens of stop-work orders were issued over the weekend for projects to build and modernize airport control towers, as well as other improvement projects, officials said. Many of the airport projects are designed to improve the efficiency of air travel and reduce congestion.

“Because Congress didn’t do its work, FAA programs and thousands of public and private sector jobs are in jeopardy,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told reporters in a conference call.

About $2.5 billion in federal airport construction grants cannot be processed because workers who handle those grants have been furloughed, officials said. That, in turn, has halted construction projects, putting hundreds of other people employed by those jobs out of work.

“This is simply going to slow down our ability to expand to keep up with growing traffic demands,” FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said.

For example, work was scheduled to begin Saturday on a $6 million project to demolish a control tower at New York’s LaGuardia Airport. But 40 construction workers hired for the project were told to stay home, Babbitt said.

Work also has stopped for new control towers at airports in Las Vegas; Palm Springs, Calif.; Oakland, Calif.; Wilkes-Barre, Pa.; Kalamazoo, Mich., and Gulfport, Miss., among other projects, officials said.

Approval also is on hold for airports to receive a new generation of super large airliners, including permission for Boeing 747-800s to begin servicing San Francisco, Chicago, Houston, Newark, N.J., and Huntsville, Ala., according to the FAA.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/peni...#ixzz1TJd3VUbi

[Animo]

image hosted on flickr


The J-Church has emerged as the top candidate for Muni to test all-door boarding as a way to speed up service on its busiest and least reliable lines. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Transit Director John Haley said today that it is being evaluated for a pilot program that could lead to a system-wide change in boarding policy.

“The single biggest delay in moving our service along is the fare transaction,” Haley said in a report to the SF Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee today. ”Going to all-door boarding would dramatically speed that up, so we’re taking a look at that.”

SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said the agency is evaluating the details of what the pilot would look like. He explained that although passengers holding proof of payment or a Clipper card can already board trains by any door, those paying by cash at street-level stops are still required to board at the front, leading to time-consuming queues.

Allowing passengers to board at any door, as well as providing ticket vending machines at street-level stops, could help speed up lines like the J, which has received extra attention since Supervisor Scott Wiener called for regular reports from the SFMTA on efforts to improve its reliability.


As a more immediate measure to improve service, Muni will adjust the J’s schedule next month from a variable 5 to 13-minute headway to a more consistent 9 minutes, said Haley.

“That will not just make it easier from an ‘understanding when the train is coming’ perspective, but also to balance the loads on the train,” he said.

The agency is also evaluating the stretch of Church Street between 24th and 30th Streets for opportunities to reduce the number of stops, said Haley. SFMTA staff are targeting a stop between 30th and Clipper Streets (which lies between 25th and 26th Streets) and will soon make presentations to the Accessibility Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory Council on a proposal, he said.

The biggest cause for delay on the J-Church remains vehicle failures, said Haley, which make up nearly half of all delays 10 minutes or longer. The agency is still playing catch-up on overhauling the trains after the T-Third Street line was opened in 2007, adding 40 percent to the miles they travel, he said.

Double-parked cars are still the second-biggest cause of extended delays, and Haley said the agency plans to focus parking control officers on Church Street when nearby schools begin their sessions in the fall.

Rose said it isn’t known when riders could see see all-door boarding or stop optimization, but both are in the works.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/07/25...door-boarding/

[612bv3]

This is the first time I've ever read about this and this is more than a week old.

Proposal To Merge BART, AC Transit Gains Steam

Posted: 7:56 pm PDT July 17, 2011
Updated: 2:30 pm PDT July 18, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO -- There is a new move afoot to consolidate two of the Bay Area's biggest transit districts that may help improve traffic flow and save millions of taxpayer dollars.

A renewed attempt to consolidate BART and AC transit to make them more efficient is quietly taking place in the Bay Area.

A new set of studies are underway, which involves polling of Bay Area voters to see if they would vote for it will take place as early as this summer.

Greg Harper a lawyer and an engineer is one the elected members of the AC Transit board of directors.

"I would really like to see a full-blown discussion of this because even if it doesn't happen it would bring up a lot of good stuff," Harper said.

That board, in fact, is one of the four elected transit boards in the entire United States.

"It is highly unusual, and I would like to see it change."

BART is another one.

Now, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is looking into consolidating them.

"Obviously, people travel across city and county boundaries and they want the system to function that way as well," said MTC executive Randy Rentschler. "The question before us and the commission is going to tackle in the next six months is do we have the system right now that can meet the future, not the system that can meet the past."

There is some serious political muscle behind this effort.

“"It's not to say they're not doing a fine job. It's just that we don't need as many people doing fine jobs,” said Don Perata, former president of the state senate.

Perata said he is actively helping top transportation officials find a way to start consolidating, not only AC Transit and BART, but also the 28 or so separate transit districts scattered around the Bay Area.

"Why do you need 28 HR departments to hire people to do transportation, transit?” Perata asked. “Why do you need 28 different legal departments?"

Bay Area business leaders such as Jim Wunderman of the Bay Area Council support the move.

"Depending on the system, you're looking at a potential savings of tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars if you do it the right way," Wunderman said.

Instead of AC Transit competing with BART for money from the MTC,it might work hand-in-hand with BART to reduce crowding in parking lots with more suburban buses to BART stations.

Some of the savings could be used to buy more BART trains, or even put up simple signs that could help commuters.

The merger has some opposition.

"I think that if we did the study and the analysis and everything showed it was the only thing to do I'm not going to die over it."

Tom Blalock is a 17-year veteran of the elected BART board and widely considered one of its more moderate directors.

Blalock said her felt that his colleagues would probably not be willing to give up their seats.

MTC's Rentschler says the inertia is deep.

"Look, there's a whole lot of institutional resistance to make change in California." It's as though we like to think we're progressive but really we're just afraid of change."

If the self-styled progressive Bay Area gets a chance to vote on transit consolidation and that's part of the working plan right now – that premise that may be tested.

Copyright 2011 by KTVU.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/28579681/detail.html

[Animo]

I am neutral to this one because I also rarely ride a taxi and if I was riding one I do give a good tip. For example, I took a cab from Polk St. to Union Sq. and it was like $7 but then I just give the cab driver $10. I guess this would just mean less tips in the future...

Taxi passengers in San Francisco could soon have an easier time hailing a cab — but it will come at a cost.

Today, the board of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency will consider a proposal to add 87 more cabs to The City’s current 1,500-vehicle fleet during busy travel times. But the increase could coincide with a trio of meter rate hikes that would raise the cost of a 3-mile trip by more than $2.

Finding a cab can be notoriously difficult in San Francisco, particularly on weekends and at night. To address this shortcoming, the agency’s staff has proposed adding 35 “peak-time” cabs, which would only run between 4:30 p.m. Fridays and 3:30 a.m. Sundays.

The staff also wants to add 50 more “part-time” permits, which would only be in service between 40 and 60 hours a week, most likely during the busiest times, noted SFMTA spokesman Paul Rose. Lastly, the agency proposed adding two more permits for clean-energy cabs, bringing the total number of new taxis to 87.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011...#ixzz1TrIKeboy

[FDW]

Originally Posted by 612bv3

This is the first time I've ever read about this and this is more than a week old.


http://www.ktvu.com/news/28579681/detail.html

I think the idea is in the right place, but I would rather Have AC Transit and BART be separate "brands" though run under a single, region-wide agency. AC Transit should also consider merging with the other minor Bay Area transit agencies.

[krnboy1009]

As long as all Bay Area transit agencies have one fare system, it shouldnt matter.

[FDW]

Originally Posted by krnboy1009

As long as all Bay Area transit agencies have one fare system, it shouldnt matter.

And that's exactly what they lack right now.

[Animo]

OAKLAND -- BART has the oldest fleet of transit cars in the nation and asked for the public's input and feedback as it rolled out three designs for seat configurations Thursday night.

Design concepts, created by BMW Group DesignworksUSA, make the aisles wider, but don't change the number of seats in the transit cars.
The public will have the chance to weigh in on materials for seat coverings and flooring and the design and placement of the handheld poles as the project chugs along between now and 2018, when BART will begin the seat replacement project.

An exterior design concept is also being displayed for public input.
BART officials said the new car designs have three doors rather than two, side panels where community art could be featured and a color-coded digital display system on the front of the train. It would show the name of the endpoint destination, such as Pittsburg-Bay Point, and also have a big band of yellow, showing it's the yellow line, for instance, BART officials said.

The designs, which came from public input, are on display at 14 BART stations and at www.bart.gov, where people can share their feedback in a survey.
The first of nine open house events was held Thursday in Richmond. Public meetings will also be held in Dublin, Walnut Creek, Pittsburg, San Leandro, San Francisco, Union City and South San Francisco through Aug. 27.
"The public has made somereally good suggestions, and we want to continue to hear from them," said BART board President Bob Franklin. "It's the public's vehicles, and we want to continue to hear their input."

BART is also looking at three color palettes for seats: "natural," which includes browns, greens and neutral colors; "bay and sky," which would be blue, gray and sandy colors; and "diversity," which would make the seats vibrant rainbow colors. BART will also have a manufacturer build from 700 to 1,000 new cars to replace the current fleet, some of which were rolled out when BART opened in 1972.

Interior Concept A

Cab cars with 56 seats, and 68 seats on other cars, same as most BART cars today; easier to clean, wipeable seats; contoured seat design with center armrest; headrests on window seats; clean, durable, nonslip floors -- no musty carpets; digital destination, next stop and transfer information in the window areas; handholds and poles mounted on seat backs; multi-branch floor-to-ceiling poles near the doors; bike racks on some train cars.

Interior Concept B

Informal, open-style lounge seating in the middle of each cab car; traditional commuter seating at the ends of most cars; no headrests; digital information is larger and located above some seat backs; seat quantity
and all other features are the same as Concept A.

Interior Concept C

More artistic, wave-top seat style; no headrests; artistic S-shaped design for floor-to-ceiling poles; digital information located above doors; portals at the end of some cars for kids to see track and tunnel walls whiz by the front of the train as it speeds down the track; seat quantity and all other features are the same as Concept A.

http://www.mercurynews.com/local-new/ci_18663323

[Animo]

The VTA's Brandi Childress explains the California Transportation Authority's decision this week to allocate $50 million for the Silicon Valley BART extension.

Earlier this week, the California Transportation Commission agreed to set aside $40 million for BART Silicon Valley and another $10 million for a related project in Fremont. If you’re wondering about what’s going on with the much-discussed BART extension, keep reading. Patch caught up with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) spokesperson Brandi Childress and asked her to break it all down for us.

Patch: How does the VTA feel about the BART Funding that has been given to Silicon Valley?

Childress: The BART funding is significant. It shows great support form the state of California, and it has been supported by the state for many years. The $40 million that we received…is basically a third of six payments that we have received and will receive in the future. California through the Traffic Congestion Relief Program committed $240 million to the BART project since September 2008. We have an agreement with them that we will receive $40 million six times over to reach $240 million to help construct BART Silicon Valley. That is also in addition to almost $400 million dollars that we have already received from the state that helped us purchase the corridor that the BART project is going to be operated in. Basically, we had to own the right of way, so that meant we had to purchase the Union Pacific Railroad part of that corridor that the BART project will be operating alongside of. That state money helped us buy the right of way to bring BART into San Jose.

http://gilroy.patch.com/articles/how...-local-economy

[Animo]

BART is the largest regional transit system in the undisputed center of the technology universe, but good luck getting online if you're a commuter.

Nearly 2 1/2 years after BART struck a deal with an Internet provider - and at least seven months after the service was supposed to be available systemwide - it's still difficult to secure a Wi-Fi signal long enough to log on.

When the deal was first announced, WiFi Rail of Sacramento said the high-speed service would be available throughout the system by the end of 2010. So we decided it was high time to check in.

As it stands, there is Wi-Fi coverage from the Civic Center Station in San Francisco to Lake Merritt and 19th Street stations in Oakland. But the signal comes and goes so quickly on a moving train that there's rarely time to key in the log-in and password before it's lost. And maddeningly, you must enter that information each and every time you start a new session.

Cooper Lee, chief executive of the company, said in an e-mail that the rollout has been delayed due to several modifications of the plan over the past 18 months.

"Instead of deploying a network which is solely dedicated to Wi-Fi Internet access for consumers, WiFi Rail and BART jointly decided to increase the scope and capacity of the network installation to include features for security, operations and maintenance," he wrote.

Here's a helpful hint if you desperately need to connect: Look for the cars with a gray fin-shaped antenna on the roof, usually near the front or rear. You need to be in one of those to nab a quality signal underground, Lee said. There are about 20 of these cars in the system, but that number should leap to 50 before fall.

If all goes well, by September WiFi Rail hopes to be done with Phase 2 - full implementation from San Francisco to Oakland, including through the Transbay Tube.

The unreliable quality of the service today is clearly reflected in the usage numbers: Of the roughly 350,000 average weekday BART riders, only about 1,500 are using the network.

The good news is that, for now, the service remains free. Once the system is complete, the company originally said it would charge $6 for two hours of use, $9 per day, $30 a month or $300 a year. That's awfully steep for a service most people will use less than an hour a workday, but there will also be a free option for those willing to sit through some 30-second ads.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-08-0...nternet-access

[arturo]

Originally Posted by Animo

I am neutral to this one because I also rarely ride a taxi and if I was riding one I do give a good tip. For example, I took a cab from Polk St. to Union Sq. and it was like $7 but then I just give the cab driver $10. I guess this would just mean less tips in the future...



Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011...#ixzz1TrIKeboy

Silly city...why artificially limit the number of cabs? Now theyre adding 87 part-time as if theyre doing everyone a favor. If there is such a shortage of cabs Im certain some private company could add hundreds more.

[JoshuaSantos]

For the same reason rent controls exist. Politics and Economics 101 don't always go hand in hand.

Originally Posted by arturo

Silly city...why artificially limit the number of cabs? Now theyre adding 87 part-time as if theyre doing everyone a favor. If there is such a shortage of cabs Im certain some private company could add hundreds more.

[ElDudarinodotcom]

Sonoma County airport hopes runway expansion will draw more airlines

By STEVE HART
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Monday, August 15, 2011 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, August 15, 2011 at 9:32 p.m.

Longer runways could help double the number of flights at Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport by 2016, county officials said Monday at a meeting on airport expansion.

The Santa Rosa airport is in talks with several carriers about new flights, airport manager Jon Stout said. But new service depends on extending the airport's two runways, which are too short for regional jets.

Longer runways are part of a proposed $84 million airport expansion expected to reach county leaders by the end of the year. It also calls for a new passenger terminal, relocated air traffic control tower, air cargo facility and dozens of smaller projects.

Most of the cost would be paid by the Federal Aviation Administration.

On Monday, the public saw the plans and had a chance to comment at Wells Fargo Center for the Arts. An environmental report on the project is now posted on the airport's website.

While some said they're worried about traffic and noise, others said the airport improvements are needed to boost the local economy.

“It's extremely important for our efforts to create jobs,” said Jonathan Coe, who heads the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce. A larger airport and more flights will bring more visitors and attract new companies, he said.

But several neighbors said they're already dealing with traffic problems on rural roads leading to the airport. “Any increased traffic is going to impact it that much more,” said Gary Mumm, who lives on Laughlin Road south of the airport.

Neighbors are afraid of losing their homes to airport expansion, said Beverly Schenck, another Laughlin Road resident.

The airport is in talks with Alaska, Frontier and U.S. Air about additional flights, Stout said Monday. Alaska, the airport's only scheduled carrier, now operates five flights a day to Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland and Las Vegas.

It doesn't need longer runways because it uses turboprop aircraft. But Frontier and U.S. Air use regional jets that require more room to take off and land, Stout said.

Future destinations include Denver, San Diego, Salt Lake City and Orange County. The airport could see 12 flights a day by 2016 if the longer runways are completed in two years, he said.

So far, however, none of the carriers has made a firm commitment to add flights.

Under the expansion plan, the airport's main runway would grow by 885 feet to 6,000 feet. The second runway would be extended to 5,202 feet.

Runway buffer and safety zones also would be expanded.

The current runways don't meet federal safety standards because they end at a common point on the airport's northern approach. That configuration could result in a pilot choosing the wrong runway in bad weather, according to airport officials.

As part of the expansion, the runways would be “decoupled” to meet federal standards.

The airport's long-range plan calls for 21 flights a day by 2030. The number of passengers boarding commercial flights would grow from about 88,000 a year to nearly 300,000.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...-more-airlines



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[ElDudarinodotcom]

Caltrain could share tracks with high-speed rail

Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, August 18, 2011

A beefed-up Caltrain service and a slimmed-down high-speed rail system could run between San Francisco and San Jose by sharing the existing rails, plus just a few miles of new passing tracks, Caltrain officials said Wednesday.

The preliminary findings of Caltrain's long-awaited capacity study, released to a group of San Mateo County city officials, lend support to what is being called a blended system, proposed by a group of Peninsula lawmakers. Containing the high-speed trains largely within the Caltrain right of way and avoiding extensive new construction, the plan has the potential to blunt much of the opposition to high-speed rail on the Peninsula, reduce costs, and modernize the Caltrain system.

"There's a lot of potential benefits here," said Seamus Murphy, government affairs manager for Caltrain. "This gives us a good path forward to work with the (California High-Speed Rail) authority and move forward with this approach."

Roelof van Ark, chief executive officer of the rail authority, said that while the results are preliminary, they show that it could be possible to build a lower-cost, lower-impact route up the Peninsula as the first phase of the ultimate system. He said he will meet soon with officials from Caltrain and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which is trying to get high-speed rail back on track in the Bay Area. Last month, the authority halted its studies of the San Francisco-San Jose segment, citing uncertainty of what the region wanted.

"This is a good step toward getting high-speed rail going in the Peninsula," he said.

The biggest potential obstacle to sharing the Caltrain tracks has been uncertainty about whether the system has the capacity to support the commuter railroad, which hopes to run more frequent service, and the high-speed rail system, which had plans to run as many as 12 trains an hour.

Preliminary results of the Caltrain analysis, conducted by LTK Engineering, show that the system, with the addition of a four-track segment roughly 8 miles long to allow high-speed trains to pass slower commuter trains making more frequent stops, could handle up to 10 trains per hour. That would allow Caltrain to run six commuter trains per hour during peak times, and accommodate as many as four high-speed rail trains.

The computer model used in the capacity analysis assumed that Caltrain - which would be electrified and use lighter, faster rail cars and an advanced signal system - would run at 79 mph while high-speed trains could travel at speeds up to 110 mph. That would allow every Caltrain, making 13 or 14 stops, to travel between San Francisco and San Jose in an hour or less - times now achieved only by the limited-stop Baby Bullet express trains. High-speed trains would make the trip in 30 to 35 minutes, with one stop in San Bruno.

Marian Lee, acting director of the Caltrain modernization program, said consultants will conduct a second run of the model before completing the analysis. The railroad presented its early findings to the San Mateo County Rail Corridor Partnership because of the intense interest, and equally intense criticism of high-speed rail planning on the Peninsula. Lee acknowledged that major elements of the plan are sure to be controversial, including the design and location of the passing track sections, and how to deal with the 50 grade crossings along the Caltrain right of way.

Van Ark said the shared-track plan would still be expensive and require substantial construction. It is still unclear whether it will meet the requirements of Proposition 1A, the state high-speed rail bond, and state environmental laws, he said.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1VOgGFXpO

[ElDudarinodotcom]

SMART approves $171 milllion bond sale despite delays

By SAM SCOTT
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 9:52 p.m.

The first SMART commuter train probably won't make the 37-mile trip between Santa Rosa and San Rafael until at least 2015, a journey far shorter and later than originally planned.

But Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit appears to be gathering momentum despite the delay and despite continuing criticism the train is a boondoggle in the making.

On Wednesday, SMART's board of director's unanimously approved a $400 million financial plan that should allow the district to receive $23 million in funding from the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission in September.

That money in turn sets the stage for SMART to go to the financial market in October to sell up to $171 million in bonds approved by Marin and Sonoma county voters in 2008.

Together, the revenue puts SMART in a position to start moving more quickly, said Valerie Brown, chairwoman of the SMART board and a Sonoma County Supervisor.

“Today was pretty momentous,” she said.

SMART had been set to get similar funding from the MTC in July, but the commission held off in light of questions about new cost and revenue estimates developed this summer by rail agency staff.

SMART originally was planned to open in 2014 with service from Larkspur to Cloverdale, a distance of 70 miles. But declining sales tax revenues and a weak bond financing market prompted the agency to announce it would open the line in stages, starting with the 37-mile stretch from San Rafael to Santa Rosa.

That first phase is now expected to cost $360 million, an increase of $25 million.

Such tinkerings to the cost and scope of the project have ignited opposition to the train system. Detractors showed up in force Wednesday to raise concerns about what they see as a wasteful, ill-conceived rail pan.

The board's support is based on overly rosy numbers, incomplete accounting and false election promises, they said.

“We've being forced to ask these questions because they just keep going forward,” said John Parnell, founder of Repeal SMART. The group is trying to qualify a ballot initiative that would repeal the quarter-percent sales tax increase approved by voters in the two counties to fund the commute rail.

Opponents, however, appeared outnumbered Wednesday by supporters who celebrated SMART's promise of an environmental alternative to Highway 101 that would provide hundreds of jobs to the area and prepare the North Bay for life beyond cars.

“It is a bargain and it is a necessity,” said Shirlee Zane, SMART board member and Sonoma County Supervisor, who was echoing the day's proponents.

However, fans of the train will have to wait for the system to start rolling, said Farhad Mansourian, SMART's interim executive director.

He repeated Wednesday that a gauntlet of government review agencies need to approve environmentally sensitive wetlands construction, which could mean up to a two-year delay in operation.

Brown said the board was forming an ad hoc committee to explore using shuttles to fill in the gaps of the train line until the full Larkspur-Cloverdale route can be finished.

The board later convened in closed session to discuss hiring a new general manager.

The district has been negotiating a contract with the board's top choice, who has not been identified. Brown said the board would continue the discussion Monday at a meeting in Santa Rosa, which would largely be behind closed doors.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...despite-delays

[612bv3]

I was bored a few days ago and made this. Any comments?

image hosted on flickr

BART fantasy map by TPZ3, on Flickr

[FDW]

Originally Posted by 612bv3

snip

I don't like it.

[612bv3]

Anything specific you don't like FDW?