BART Geary Line, 2nd Transbay Tube (Alameda, San Ramon: county, community, desirable)

[GalacticDragonfly]

Originally Posted by calicoastal

If they are going to invest in another tunnel, I think they should make it for HSR to Oakland or Berkeley. That track could also be used by Caltrain to link the East Bay with the Peninsula and South Bay.

BART isn't Amtrak, it's a subway system. It's unique, it's not a Caltrain/Capitol Corridor type solution. The Bay Area is dense and urban, it is no longer a collection of mostly isolated far-flung suburbs. Plus, I hear all these proposals for HSR to go to all these different places along the Bay Area, and I can't help but wonder why.

HSR is to be used for long distances. It's High Speed, because it's going above 200mph. This is accomplished via long stretches, if it has a bunch of stop around the Bay Area, it's just glorified CalTrain, it can't reach those speeds. So how exactly is having a bunch of inner-city stops useful? There's no need for HSR to cross the bay; passengers could simply off-board the train and catch virtually any train going towards the East Bay (that's all of them) in a few seconds.

[GalacticDragonfly]

Originally Posted by calicoastal

The whole point of BART is to be a commuter rail system for the Bay Area, not a local subway system for SF or Oakland. Why should people in Contra Costa County and Santa Clara County be paying tax to fund a local subway system in Oakland?

Because they use that subway system to get to work.

[ohhwanderlust]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

The issue with Alamed(ans) approving BART has more to do with the potential riff raff it may bring. Alameda is a low crime, quiet community, bringing BART may bring less desirable people.

The riff raff I'd be concerned about generally don't take BART:


http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...61/whtevan.jpg


http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5uWX9EurCJA/hqdefault.jpg

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Interesting point. I guess one question would be: where do they want to encourage higher-rise construction, and where don't they?

Realistically, if we're being efficient about how we're developing our precious land (which we should be, as a society), there should be a lot more high(er)-rise construction in SF. Especially along these main corridors.

I know there's a lot of character in these 2-3 story neighborhoods...but we also need to get real about the future of development here. We have to build up (a lot more) in the densest areas of our region. Otherwise we're going to still get runaway sprawl in the hinterlands (and also those precious preserved lands we all love could be threatened by pressures to develop them).

Originally Posted by calicoastal

BART could introduce passing tracks and have "baby bullet" trains with limited stops, like Caltrain. I'm not sure how feasible that is, but it would help the problem of having too many stations. Millbrae to downtown SF is slower on BART (34 min to Civic Center) than the Caltrain bullet train (18 min to downtown) because of all of the stops. BART is capable of being much faster because it is electric and can start and stop faster.

Not really...Caltrain's top speed is the same as BART's (~80 MPH). And Caltrain can, theoretically, operate at a much higher speed if the tracks are upgraded properly. For a much lower cost than any BART construction (which is obscenely and ridiculously expensive). Caltrain will be electrified in the fairly soon (which will be required for the tunnel to the Transbay Terminal).

[TomJ900]

Why is the "transit brings crime" argument a better one than "we are cheap bastards" argument? The crime one is a way to say, we don't want minorities because they bring crime. Any criminal regardless of physical characteristics can get access to a car. Besides, if transit brought crime, Alameda wouldn't have AC Transit bus service. They would have voted themselves out of AC Transit like the suburbs have and wouldn't have bus service.

[MrJester]

Originally Posted by TomJ900

Why is the "transit brings crime" argument a better one than "we are cheap bastards" argument? The crime one is a way to say, we don't want minorities because they bring crime. Any criminal regardless of physical characteristics can get access to a car. Besides, if transit brought crime, Alameda wouldn't have AC Transit bus service. They would have voted themselves out of AC Transit like the suburbs have and wouldn't have bus service.

Transit may or may not actually bring crime, but when you have a system like BART that has seen violent crime at least double in four years, with a violent crime rate four times higher than the DC Metro and about twice as high as the NYC Subway, it's understandable why people might think the BART brings crime to their neighborhoods. Cracking down tough on crime in BART could hugely change people's perceptions about BART. Single women and kids would feel safe and ride the BART again. That would hugely boost ridership. The reputation of the BART would go up, and then people wouldn't think of the BART as a apparatus of bringing crime.

[MrJester]

For those who say that BART shouldn't be run on the second transbay crossing, just think about the next time you're waiting 15 minutes for a Downtown bound BART train on the Antioch-SFO or Dublin/Pleasanton-Daly City Lines. The reason why you're waiting so long is because train headways on the BART system are limited by the fact that there is only one transbay crossing through which all four lines to downtown have to squeeze through. With a second transbay tube, you would increase the total number of trains going from East Bay to Downtown, thus increasing in the same amount of time, meaning more frequent trains.

[MrJester]

As for Geary Street, I believe they should build a fully grade separated BART branch line that would start at Montgomery or Powell BART and then travel down the Geary corridor. Passengers would take the BART to Montgomery or Powell and transfer tl.the Geary Street BART line. A Muni Metro above running streetcar won't cut it, Muni Metro streetcars are the slowest light rail system in America, averaging 9-10 mph. Maybe a fully grade separated, fixed stop, Muni Line under Geary would be fine. None of the at grade streetcar crap, though, which is hardly faster than a bus. Also consider that the bus down Geary has 155,000 daily ridership, over one third the ridership of the entire BART system. Streetcars won't provide that capacity.

Branch lines exist in subway systems like those in Taipei and Hong Kong. A branch BART line for Geary could work if branch lines worked in Taipei and Hong Kong.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by MrJester

As for Geary Street, I believe they should build a fully grade separated BART branch line that would start at Montgomery or Powell BART and then travel down the Geary corridor. Passengers would take the BART to Montgomery or Powell and transfer tl.the Geary Street BART line. A Muni Metro above running streetcar won't cut it, Muni Metro streetcars are the slowest light rail system in America, averaging 9-10 mph. Maybe a fully grade separated, fixed stop, Muni Line under Geary would be fine. None of the at grade streetcar crap, though, which is hardly faster than a bus. Also consider that the bus down Geary has 155,000 daily ridership, over one third the ridership of the entire BART system. Streetcars won't provide that capacity.

Branch lines exist in subway systems like those in Taipei and Hong Kong. A branch BART line for Geary could work if branch lines worked in Taipei and Hong Kong.

This. Now, this is a good idea! One wonders why it hasn't been floated before.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

This. Now, this is a good idea! One wonders why it hasn't been floated before.

It's been floated for decades and was actually part of the original BART plan to Marin County.