Comments on: Celebrating a Milestone and Biding Time

By: BART to San Jose (Volume 4): All’s Well As Ends Better « Transbay Blog

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:11:46 +0000

[...] transit and light rail extensions, foremost among the projects at risk is Caltrain electrification. Electrifying Caltrain is an overdue upgrade that is crucial to increasing ridership, establishing independence from [...]

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 20:41:13 +0000

a word or several about “commuter” rail and rapid (mass) transit. (and heavy v light rail an even fuzzier distinction) The argument over which sysems are which regularly erupts on SubChat.com which is a New York centric message board. Some very fuzzy definitions emerge ALL of which can be shown to have exceptions. For instance, PATH, the train system connecting Newark, Jersey City to lower Manhattan and Hoboken to midtown, was built to the same basic dimensions as NY’s IRT (first subway line). Stations have “barrier” fare control, high level platforms, destination signs on the cars, a flat fare, third rail, ; its a subway right? Wrong, because at one time it had active connections to a mainline RR it is a RAILROAD subject to FRA jurisdiction/safety rules which for instance do not apply ro BART or Muni as “isolated systems”. Conversely, the Chicago L system which also was once connected to the national railroad network, and even operated a freight service, while considered a ‘heavy rail’ subway system, is 1 non FRA, and 2, operated cars physically lighter than Muni’s Breda LRVs.
While I think of the Metra Electric in Chicago as mainline RR, because it was once part of the Illinois Central, it was built as if a stand alone system–which it became when bought by the State of Illinois. Since 1926, it too featured, high level platforms, barrier fare control, overhead catenary, discount monthly tickets, destinaton signage. etc. BUT, like unto some NYC subway routes featured 4 and in places SIX tracks thus offering express and “special” (baby bullet like) service.
The point of all this is that if Caltrain were four tracks, electrified MUs and had the budget, they could easily do 20 minute headway locals and 30 minute expresses all day. Thus NOT ONE FOOT of BART extension need be built at their platinum/vanadium plated prices. Superior service can be provided by trains which are not limited to a deliberately incompatible guage. .

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:11:46 +0000

BART fare integration mostly is a political issue. If MTC who distributes funds cared, the recent BART TVM/Faregate hardware could have been tweaked to work w/ Caltrain AND gasp! dispense Muni fare instruments at the SF stations. Thanks MTC.
Note that Capitol Corridor has a joint ticketing deal.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 04:15:12 +0000

johnnyO, spot on A 24th/Castro local to Valencia , nonstop to Cesar Chavez Stop Mission, maybe one or two al Chavez east ofPotyrero/Bayshore direct toCaltrain then up to 3rd/18th loop and retrace. For all practical purposes no EIR should be needed as akmost all the route is currently in use. three coaches should be able to cover meeting scheduled trains in base day 4 in rush.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 04:06:05 +0000

Caltrain boosters might look at Metra Electric and the South Shore in Chicago. The main line from downtown to 115th street is four tracks w/bi-directional signalling so that three tracks can be direction of rush. This system, electrified in 1926 has been both a suburban commuter line and within the city rapid transit. In the 50s the branch in my South Chicago ‘hood featured 20 min headways during midday.

About the T, Muni needs to aggressively increase both speed and frequency of service. Every time I have idden, the trains seemed to crawl–they should be doing at least 30 mph. as for the tunnel issues,another post.

By: johnny0

johnny0 — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:35:57 +0000

My humble suggestion for a Noe – Cesar Chavez – 22nd St Caltrain BRT. Also a Mission-Dolores/16th St BART/22nd St loop.

http://oram.com/22nd_Caltrain_CC_Noe_BRT.png

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:29:17 +0000

That reminds me, I really ought to do some sort of post soon on the TEP update.

By: johnny0

johnny0 — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:19:39 +0000

And imagine what ridership would be at the 22nd street station if there were reliable bus service or safe/secure parking…

The 48 is unreliable, late, slow.

http://www.yelp.com/biz/muni—48-quintara-24th-st-san-francisco

Muni, could you at least coordinate bus departures with the Caltrain arrivals?

I understand why the 48 has a crazy loopy route, but it shouldn’t be the ONLY bus at that station. If you are serious about it, give me a BRT that connects through Cesar Chavez to Noe (half of whom work in Silicon Valley and would do the train a couple of days a week), and another that handles 16th or 18th.

But it looks like the plan is replace the 48 stop with a new bus, the 58.

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mtep/documents/rte_048.pdf
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mtep/documents/rte_058.pdf

Still just one bus serving the station though.

It takes three times longer for me to take the bus than drive. Secure parking would be helpful. Put up a fence, decent lighting and have security guys on bikes. I’d gladly pay a couple of bucks for parking rather than have a $200 deductible for a new window or tire a couple of times a year.

The tamale ladies are the most organized part of the 22nd St station! Maybe they can organize a shuttle.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:39:52 +0000

The T is slow, it often runs in traffic.

Actually, the T only runs in mixed traffic with vehicles for those few blocks in the Bayview. The rest of the time, it runs in dedicated lanes or in the subway. Not that the subway is necessarily fast — but there it is.

You’re right that the T is slow. That’s more a function of the high number of stops. There is no bus running on 3rd that could fill in large gaps with local service, so trains are stopping more often than they really ought to. Once again, even when we build a new light rail line from scratch, SF light rail continues to be a sort of rail-bus hybrid. And so, we do not have a demonstrated big boost in service over the old 15.

But then, there’s the T as a vehicle for development, which is another can of worms.

By: zig

zig — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:26:30 +0000

And to the point about the T vs Caltain: what was the point of the T?

If it was to give the poor southeast access to jobs downtown then electified commuter service would be best

Access on lightrail at this distance is pushing what is reasonable. The T is slow, it often runs in traffic. Local service could have easily been provided on 3rd with buses and signal priority or BRT

Check out the S bahn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_Bahn

I understand the electrifed Caltrain as to distant so the T had to be built but this just points out the weakness of our transit planning process