Solving the Bay Area's Fragmented Transit Dilemma (Los Angeles, San Jose: 2015, transfer)

[HockeyMac18]

A couple of good articles discussing this.

First is the NYTimes article on this that I read a few days ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us...r-harmony.html

And second is an interesting blog post about this: Solving the Bay Area's Fragmented Transit Dilemma

I agree with a lot of the ideas. If we could at least begin to bring some of the disjointed agencies into closer communication, we'd all be better off. They don't necesarilly have to all be part of the same agency, but just having them on the same page with each other would be huge.

I know others have been annoyed by the provincial nature of the Bay Area transit makeup, what do you all think?

[jade408]

There are some good ideas here. I wish we could consolidate. Would leave more money for operations!

[ketch89]

I expect BART and CalTrain to merge once there's a direct transfer point between the two systems at Diridon in San Jose, which (assuming the coming 2016 bond measure passes) will occur somewhere between 2023 and 2025. Certainly it will happen once BART and CalTrain meet at the Transbay Transit Center (not until 2029, right?...) The traveling public would not accept two different fare systems in the TBTC. The merging of BART and CalTrain will start the regional discussion about our bus systems.

[silverkris]

The only thing integrated about Bay Area transit is the Clipper Card - if you have to transfer between different transit systems it's fast and easy. But it's only one step in a long way towards better integration of systems.

[roadwarrior101]

Maybe more companies will start embracing full time telecommuting to help alleviate traffic. It is such an antiquated thought that you need to be in the office every day/most days, given the technology we all have available to help us with our jobs and the fact that we are always on the clock. My guess is that this will change once the baby boomers retire in larger numbers.

I also heard that there will be a 2016 ballot measure which will require California to reduce vehicle emissions by 50% within the next 10 years. Sure, there are growing uses of Hybrid/Electric vehicles. However, without some serious public transportation improvements and better acceptance of a telecommuting lifestyle, this goal has no chance of being met.

[Chuck5000]

I'm optimistic that the Bay Area will solve its transportation problems eventually - but nothing serious will happen for many years. The projects that will come on line in the next few years will have a small impact - the biggest one is Caltrain electrification, but that's only helping the Peninsula, so it's ironic that the first big bonus happens to the wealthiest suburban area. And the first-mile, last-mile problems throughout the region remain.

The East Bay needs the most help, and a couple of infill BART stations won't make much of a difference. A second BART tunnel under the Bay has to be expedited, it's the best solution for capacity. 2nd best solution is a vastly expanded BART fleet so it can run longer trains. This needs to be paid for, the agency wants it. A vastly expanded bus system to feed an expanded BART would also help.

Hyper-growth has outpaced the ability of the region to plan, pay and build with any speed, and it's hurting everyone's quality of life. I worry that we're headed for Los Angeles-like levels of immobility.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

A couple of good articles discussing this.

First is the NYTimes article on this that I read a few days ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us...r-harmony.html

And second is an interesting blog post about this: Solving the Bay Area's Fragmented Transit Dilemma

I agree with a lot of the ideas. If we could at least begin to bring some of the disjointed agencies into closer communication, we'd all be better off. They don't necesarilly have to all be part of the same agency, but just having them on the same page with each other would be huge.

I know others have been annoyed by the provincial nature of the Bay Area transit makeup, what do you all think?

The provincial nature of the transit network simply reflects the provincial nature of the Bay Area itself. A few semi humorous things read and heard over the years:

- Back in the 80s, when "the 415" encompassed the current 415, 650, 510 and 925, T.J. Rodgers overruled Cypress Semiconductor's event planners who'd selected a site in Southern Alameda County for the company's holiday party. The reason? As Rodgers stated himself, he does not "do 415."

- I have traveled a lot especially for business. In various foreign settings I observe Americans and a goodly number of them are sometimes pretty foolish. Ironically, some of the biggest fools (aka "Ugly Americans") are a subset of Bay Areans. Bay Areans are by far more likely to name their unknown suburb or edge city when asked where they are from. Most people from other parts of the US name the nearest center city - for example when asked where from, a person from Westlake Village or even the more prominent Santa Monica would be likely to say "LA" or "Los Angeles." Someone from White Plains would say "New York." But the Bay Arean will blurt out "Fremont ... a city near San Francisco" or if even dumber will simply say "Fremont!"

- Not to spare people who live in "The City." There is a whole subset of (typically carless) San Franciscans who have absolutely no clue about anything beyond the city limit. At best, they may know of a fragment of Western Alameda and Southern Marin Counties. A goodly number of them have never even been into the Santa Cruz Mountains and think the Redwood grove at Muir Woods is the be all and end all.

It goes on but I have no more time to write these up ...

[BayAreaHillbilly]

BTW - RE: "there is a bay in the middle." Crummy excuse. Again, thinking of NYC here. There are multiple water barriers in play there, way worse than what we have here.

I think the Bay Area mentality is just a bit messed up and that is an huge contributor to this issue.

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

BTW - RE: "there is a bay in the middle." Crummy excuse. Again, thinking of NYC here. There are multiple water barriers in play there, way worse than what we have here.

I think the Bay Area mentality is just a bit messed up and that is an huge contributor to this issue.

I was just in NYC and rode the subway from JFK to Manhattan (under the East River) and from Manhattan to Jersey City (under the Hudson). I agree that its an excuse, but let's look at the differences:

1. Age - Most of NYC's subway construction has occurred about 100 years ago. I read somewhere that the 2nd avenue subway construction was the first major expansion in 50 years. Point being that back then, there was more priority to construct subways.
2. Setup - NYC is much, much more urbanized than most of the Bay Area. If you exclude downtown SF and Oakland, SF isn't nearly as densely populated as Manhattan or even Brooklyn. Yes, SF is still dense and you can definitely expand the system here, but its not on par.
3. Topography - The Bay is 5-10 miles wide on average. The rivers in NYC are maybe 1 mile wide. Big difference. Also, in parts of the Bay Area and the city itself, you have much larger barriers.
4. Cost Overruns - With all of the union shops and regulation, getting any major infrastructure project done here is ridiculously expensive and bureaucratic. Just look at the new Bay Bridge debacle. Billions spent and we're still having issues with the bolts and such.
5. Government Funding - Just doesn't exist. Look at the HSR project. CA voters approved $10B in funding in 2008 and if this is actually built from SF-LA in my lifetime (I'm only 38), I'll be surprised.

My point is that while these improvements are greatly needed, there are some major, major obstacles here, which simply didn't exist when NYC put most of their infrastructure in place.

I'd love to have a much improved transportation system myself. God knows it'll help my commute from the tri-valley to the peninsula. I just am not holding my breath here.

[andyadhi01]

Having a fragmented set of transit agencies creates lots of redundancy and lots of jobs and I guess there will be a lot of resistance to merging these as that would mean loss of jobs! The govt bureaucrats have no interest in improving infrastructure.. they only care about their well being and that is to be expected.

Ironically CA is planning to spend so much on that worthless HSR project that no one needs but can't spend anything to improve public transit in major urban areas. Caltrans is on overdrive ruining some freeway interchanges and causing massive traffic backups! They installed metering lights on 380 to 101 north connector for no reason and it's causing massive traffic chaos. They eliminated a lane from 280 to 101 south and it's causing mile long traffic backups! Caltrans engineers apparently have no observation skills and don't seem to care that their worthless projects are actually making traffic worse!

When the recession hit all public transit services were cut and fares increased with the excuse of budget deficit. Now the bay area local govts are swimming in money and state has seen tremendous growth in tax revenue, but not one penny is spent on improving anything... All the money will be wasted and stolen to perpetuate the jobs of worthless local govt employees. I am increasingly starting to think that the only system that will work is a TX style low tax small govt. approach.