Time to Resurrect the Southern Crossing(s) of the Bay

[sms]

Every day, in Cupertino, Apple's fleet of luxury buses deliver Apple
employees from all over the greater bay area to Apple's Cupertino
headquarters. Facebook, Genentech , Google, Yahoo, and other large
employers have similar private bus systems. This model was copied from
Asian companies like Samsung, LG, and Acer, and removes a large number
of single occupancy vehicles from the roads while providing a convenient
point to point commute that is not possible with public transit.

These private bus systems depend on reliable highway systems.
Unfortunately, even when BART isn't on strike, the choke point of the
San Francisco Bay prevents similar bus systems from being established to
serve employers in San Francisco. and the East Bay.

Solving the problem of cross-bay transportation will require
resurrecting the "southern crossings." Two southern crossings have been
proposed in the past. One would connect I-380 in San Bruno with CA 238
in Hayward. The other would connect Hunters Point in San Francisco with
Alameda. At least one should be built immediately and the second one
should follow shortly afterward. A new BART line could connect the San
Bruno station with the Bayfair station or a BART bus bridge could be
used. Presently, it's a ridiculously long ride on BART from the East Bay
to the Peninsula and a second bay crossing is necessary.

Of course the question is how to pay for all this. It should be paid for
largely through increased tolls. Bridges and tunnels into New York City
presently charge $11 peak, $9 off peak, if paid electronically, and $13
if paid in cash. The George Washington Bridge is 4,757' long. The Bay
Bridge is about five times as long (23,556'). The San Mateo Bridge is
about eight times as long (36,960'). The Dumbarton Bridge is about
twice as long (8600'). While determining tolls based on the length of a
bridge isn't necessarily the best system, it is true that longer bridges
cost more to build and maintain. Clearly, tolls on the bridges crossing
the bay are far too low. Tolls need to be increased over time to more
reasonable levels that pay a larger percentage of the costs of building
and operating the bridges.

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-07-03, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Of course the question is how to pay for all this. It should be paid for
> largely through increased tolls.

The real question is how do you convince voters to approve paying for
all this? (Especially when "all this" is liable to approach $100
billion.)

--keith



--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[Patrick Scheible]

Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> writes:

> On 2013-07-03, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Of course the question is how to pay for all this. It should be paid for
>> largely through increased tolls.
>
> The real question is how do you convince voters to approve paying for
> all this? (Especially when "all this" is liable to approach $100
> billion.)

They shouldn't be anything like that much. Even the new east span of
the Bay Bridge, as insanely late and overbudget as it is, is only going
to cost $6.3 billion. Either southern crossing should be cheaper, as
they cross the Bay where it's shallower, will not need to be 10 lanes
wide, and won't need to be a Special Signature Span with a Special
Signature Budget.

-- Patrick

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-07-03, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:

> Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> writes:
>>
>> The real question is how do you convince voters to approve paying for
>> all this? (Especially when "all this" is liable to approach $100
>> billion.)
>
> They shouldn't be anything like that much. Even the new east span of
> the Bay Bridge, as insanely late and overbudget as it is, is only going
> to cost $6.3 billion.

Wow, I really misremembered the cost of the new span! I thought it was
running $30 billion. My apologies for the uninformed numbers.

> Either southern crossing should be cheaper, as
> they cross the Bay where it's shallower, will not need to be 10 lanes
> wide, and won't need to be a Special Signature Span with a Special
> Signature Budget.

I am skeptical here. Either span would be much longer than the new east
span. Plus with the extras sms proposed, it's bound to be more than we
think. So let's call it ~$30 billion for all of it--a far cry from my
original WAG, but still enormous.

And if we're going to drop that much money on new infrastructure, I
think it's a far wiser investment (current troubles notwithstanding) to
build another transbay tube for BART. BART strikes are (knock on wood)
few and far between, but tube meltdowns are all too frequent, and two
additional tracks under the Bay would help BART maintain bearable service
levels when problems in one tube occur.

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-07-03, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>

> Solving the problem of cross-bay transportation will require
> resurrecting the "southern crossings." Two southern crossings have been
> proposed in the past. One would connect I-380 in San Bruno with CA 238
> in Hayward. The other would connect Hunters Point in San Francisco with
> Alameda. At least one should be built immediately and the second one
> should follow shortly afterward. A new BART line could connect the San
> Bruno station with the Bayfair station or a BART bus bridge could be
> used. Presently, it's a ridiculously long ride on BART from the East Bay
> to the Peninsula and a second bay crossing is necessary.

There are many other problems with these proposed crossings. One is
that Alameda is too developed now to support a Hunters Point-Alameda
freeway. This crossing would either have to go between Alameda Island
and Bay Farm Island, or would have to go between Bay Farm Island and
Oakland Airport. The Airport routing seems much more likely, probably
up Harbor Bay Parkway, around the airport, then a connector up either
Hegenberger or 98th Avenue.

I hope you can see where this leaves a second crossing. Sending the
second crossing from SFO to CA-238 is pointless, because it's too close
to where the San Mateo Bridge already touches down. A more likely
routing would be from SFO to OAK, but then it's pointless to have both
new crossings go to Oakland Airport. So it seems like one southern
crossing is the most that is feasible.

As for BART, if you accept my above assumptions, then the only possible
routing for a combined BART-southern crossing is OAK-SFO. Engineering a
connection to San Bruno BART would be extremely difficult (I think the
northern approach between San Bruno BART and SFO BART was studied and
rejected when the extension was being planned), but seems easier than
sending more tracks into SFO. Either way, this option would also be
very expensive. And for what? Will people really want to take BART
from (say) Hayward to San Bruno just to have to catch a shuttle to Santa
Clara County? Sure, people from southern Alameda County would have a
much easier time getting to SFO, but is it worth the money that would
have to be spent for that purpose?

As the BART strike shows us, a huge percentage of people work in
downtown San Francisco. It seems much wiser to prioritize
infrastructure to more easily transport people there than to sprawling
south bay. And even if you want to help south bay employers, it seems
smarter to prioritize BART through San Jose and into Santa Clara County
over any sort of southern crossing. BART will likely never "circle the
bay", but even if it made it into Sunnyvale or Mountain View it would be
a more useful improvement than any new southern crossing.

[John Clear]

In article <cs5eaax...@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>,

Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
>
>As the BART strike shows us, a huge percentage of people work in
>downtown San Francisco. It seems much wiser to prioritize
>infrastructure to more easily transport people there than to sprawling
>south bay. And even if you want to help south bay employers, it seems
>smarter to prioritize BART through San Jose and into Santa Clara County
>over any sort of southern crossing. BART will likely never "circle the
>bay", but even if it made it into Sunnyvale or Mountain View it would be
>a more useful improvement than any new southern crossing.

BART could circle the bay right now just by painting a blue stripe
on Caltrain and slapping on a few 'BART to San Jose' logos.

The traffic on both sides of the bay is already bad enough that a
new southern crossing would just be another place to be stuck in
traffic. Some carpool-carpool ramps and other cleanup of the
existing interchanges would help with over all traffic flows, but
the volume will still be at capacity with or without another bridge.

John
--
John Clear - j...@panix.com http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-07-03, John Clear <use...@jac.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
> BART could circle the bay right now just by painting a blue stripe
> on Caltrain and slapping on a few 'BART to San Jose' logos.

That is of course not what was originally meant by "BART circling the
bay". If it were, we could just modify the saying to "train service
circling the bay" and not care who operates the commuter rail on the
SP track. (Technically it still wouldn't circle the bay, since BART
and CalTrain don't yet meet in Santa Clara County. But that's a
minor point.)

> The traffic on both sides of the bay is already bad enough that a
> new southern crossing would just be another place to be stuck in
> traffic. Some carpool-carpool ramps and other cleanup of the
> existing interchanges would help with over all traffic flows, but
> the volume will still be at capacity with or without another bridge.

Agreed. According to MTC, the Bay Bridge carries around 130,000
vehicles (see
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/library/state_of_the_system/2008/toll_bridge_traffic.pdf
; their data is a bit old). Even assuming three people per vehicle (an
extremely generous assumption) that still just matches current daily BART
ridership. So adding a new tube, doubling BART's volume, is more
rider-efficient per person than a new bridge over the Bay. (That's a
gross simplification; BART would need more platform space through
downtown San Francisco, and probably more track between the tube and
downtown Oakland, in order to actually double volume.)

[David Kaye]

"John Clear" <use...@jac.users.panix.com> wrote

> BART could circle the bay right now just by painting a blue stripe
> on Caltrain and slapping on a few 'BART to San Jose' logos.

EXACTLY. Call it a "BART Express Car", repaint it, and people will flock to
it.

[David Kaye]

"Keith Keller" <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote

> That is of course not what was originally meant by "BART circling the
> bay". If it were, we could just modify the saying to "train service
> circling the bay" and not care who operates the commuter rail on the
> SP track. (Technically it still wouldn't circle the bay, since BART
> and CalTrain don't yet meet in Santa Clara County. But that's a
> minor point.)

In the early days, BARTD management did everything they could to avoid using
the word "train" to refer to BART because here the term "train" referred to
the ancient passenger train stock the SP had been running for generations.
They were old, dark (brown or black exterior as I remember) and looked
really clunky. And when BARTD was holding look-sees for the press, they
always referred to the "airline seats" and the acceleration "like taking off
on a jet flight", etc.

Of course, in those days, airline travel was primo, not the cattle car
cramping it is today. When you flew, it was luxury.

So, call it "BART Express" or the "BART Flyer" or something. The Caltrain
stock is excellent, and if BART could buy some of those and get the rights
to use the UP corridors (eminent domain, anyone?) they could ring the bay
with transit for less than it would cost to build 1 BART station.

[John Clear]

In article <80ieaax...@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>,

Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
>On 2013-07-03, John Clear <use...@jac.users.panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> BART could circle the bay right now just by painting a blue stripe
>> on Caltrain and slapping on a few 'BART to San Jose' logos.
>
>That is of course not what was originally meant by "BART circling the
>bay". If it were, we could just modify the saying to "train service
>circling the bay" and not care who operates the commuter rail on the
>SP track. (Technically it still wouldn't circle the bay, since BART
>and CalTrain don't yet meet in Santa Clara County. But that's a
>minor point.)

BART is just a type of train service. Slap a BART logo on Caltrain
and it would be BART, but better since it would be on standard
gauge track with standard off the shelf equipment able to handle
more passengers per car. BART runs the Capital Corridor trains,
so BART managed service already goes to San Jose.

>Agreed. According to MTC, the Bay Bridge carries around 130,000
>vehicles (see
>http://www.mtc.ca.gov/library/state_of_the_system/2008/toll_bridge_traffic.pdf
>; their data is a bit old). Even assuming three people per vehicle (an
>extremely generous assumption) that still just matches current daily BART
>ridership. So adding a new tube, doubling BART's volume, is more
>rider-efficient per person than a new bridge over the Bay. (That's a
>gross simplification; BART would need more platform space through
>downtown San Francisco, and probably more track between the tube and
>downtown Oakland, in order to actually double volume.)

Agreed, a new transbay tube would be useless without more tracks/platorms
on either end.

[Andy Valencia]

Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> writes:
> And if we're going to drop that much money on new infrastructure, I
> think it's a far wiser investment (current troubles notwithstanding) to
> build another transbay tube for BART.

Rebooting the Dumbarton rail bridge and establishing Caltrain service across
it should come in at a fraction of that cost. Heck, you could probably
electrify Caltrain too and still come in below $2 billion (hmmm, last
estimated price for the Dumbarton extension was $600M, and electrification
looks like $150M, so I feel pretty good saying "below $2G"). Seems like
a reasonable candidate in the search for better bay crossings.

Andy Valencia
Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

[Andy Valencia]

use...@jac.users.panix.com (John Clear) writes:
> BART is just a type of train service. Slap a BART logo on Caltrain
> and it would be BART, but better since it would be on standard
> gauge track with standard off the shelf equipment able to handle
> more passengers per car.

BART runs transit frequency, so part of BART's value is you don't carefully
craft your whole schedule around those rare points in time when you can get a
train going your way. You just walk into the station and take the next
train. In this important area, Caltrain is a pale shadow of BART. I agree
that on many technical points (including speed and cost effectiveness)
Caltrain is superior. Even moreso if it was also electrified.

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-07-03, Andy Valencia <van...@vsta.org> wrote:
>
> Rebooting the Dumbarton rail bridge and establishing Caltrain service across
> it should come in at a fraction of that cost.

And unfortunately probably at a fraction of the use. There are already
BART stations in and around the eastern end of the Dumbarton. Why would
people commuting to San Francisco want to take CalTrain further south,
then up to the city and face a 20 minute walk or another bus to downtown?
(If you work in SoMa this might be preferable, of course.)

I'm not saying it's a bad idea--it could be a good way to serve northern
Santa Clara County from the East Bay. I'm saying that it's not a solution
to the Bay Bridge/BART congestion problem.

[Patrick Scheible]

Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> writes:

> On 2013-07-03, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>> Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> writes:
>>>
>>> The real question is how do you convince voters to approve paying for
>>> all this? (Especially when "all this" is liable to approach $100
>>> billion.)
>>
>> They shouldn't be anything like that much. Even the new east span of
>> the Bay Bridge, as insanely late and overbudget as it is, is only going
>> to cost $6.3 billion.
>
> Wow, I really misremembered the cost of the new span! I thought it was
> running $30 billion. My apologies for the uninformed numbers.
>
>> Either southern crossing should be cheaper, as
>> they cross the Bay where it's shallower, will not need to be 10 lanes
>> wide, and won't need to be a Special Signature Span with a Special
>> Signature Budget.
>
> I am skeptical here. Either span would be much longer than the new east
> span. Plus with the extras sms proposed, it's bound to be more than we
> think. So let's call it ~$30 billion for all of it--a far cry from my
> original WAG, but still enormous.

Still a severe overstatement. Length isn't the main thing that makes a
bridge expensive. Especially on the 380-238 crossing, the water is
shallow almost the whole way across and not navicable by large boats
except in a narrow channel in the middle. That means the bridge can be
supported by short, closely-spaced piers, instead of long spans
supported by big piers and a big structure to distribute the weight.
And there's no good reason for the Bay Bridge to cost as much as it
did. Remember the first estimates for a replacement were in the $400
million range. If they hadn't built a signature span and argued about
whether to route it north or south of the existing span it could
probably have been done for $1 to 2 billion. They couldn't decide to
make a southern crossing a signature span, because aircraft from SFO and
OAK will need the entire structure to be fairly low to the water, not
soaring hundreds of feet into the air for no special reason. It's also
cheaper and easier to build a new bridge than build a replacement while
keeping the old one in service.

My guestimate would be under $3 billion for the 380-238 span for motor
vehicles only. More for the Hunter's Point-Alemeda span because of
longer approach routes that would need to be acquired.

> And if we're going to drop that much money on new infrastructure, I
> think it's a far wiser investment (current troubles notwithstanding) to
> build another transbay tube for BART. BART strikes are (knock on wood)
> few and far between, but tube meltdowns are all too frequent, and two
> additional tracks under the Bay would help BART maintain bearable service
> levels when problems in one tube occur.

I don't think we need both new bridges at this point. A 380-238 span
would be a natural to have tracks added to it, either for BART or other
passenger rail. California high speed rail, with local services in
between expresses?

-- Patrick

[Patrick Scheible]

They'd need more platforms through downtown S.F. for sure, and at West
Oakland station. The tracks diverge east of the West Oakland Station,
so they might get away without additional tracks and platforms there.

S.F. Market Street would be a big challenge though.

Plan A: dig a new tunnel for Muni elsewhere, maybe under Mission Street
with connections at the Transbay Terminal for the extended Caltrain
line. Make both levels of track under Market Street for BART. Some
trains from Oakland would reverse at the end of Market Street and not
continue into the Mission.

Plan B: new BART tracks heading toward S.F. take a whole new subway,
starting just north of the Embarcadero Station tracks, and allowing
transfers by walking across the mezzanine level of the Embarcadero
Station. Then west along, say, California St. with a new station at
Sansome St. or Kearny St., another at Powell St., and continuing as a
subway as far out California Street as the budget allows, at least to
Van Ness.

-- Patrick

[Patrick Scheible]

Andy Valencia <van...@vsta.org> writes:

> use...@jac.users.panix.com (John Clear) writes:
>> BART is just a type of train service. Slap a BART logo on Caltrain
>> and it would be BART, but better since it would be on standard
>> gauge track with standard off the shelf equipment able to handle
>> more passengers per car.
>
> BART runs transit frequency, so part of BART's value is you don't carefully
> craft your whole schedule around those rare points in time when you can get a
> train going your way. You just walk into the station and take the next
> train. In this important area, Caltrain is a pale shadow of BART. I agree
> that on many technical points (including speed and cost effectiveness)
> Caltrain is superior. Even moreso if it was also electrified.

Exactly so. Run Caltrain at 15 minute intervals and it would be much
more popular, even more so if it went to downtown S.F.

-- Patrick

[Brad Allen]

In article <kqvtu3$j8c$1...@dont-email.me>,

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

" Of course the question is how to pay for all this. It should be paid
" for largely through increased tolls. Bridges and tunnels into New
" York City presently charge $11 peak, $9 off peak, if paid
" electronically, and $13 if paid in cash. The George Washington
" Bridge is 4,757' long. The Bay Bridge is about five times as long
" (23,556'). The San Mateo Bridge is about eight times as long
" (36,960'). The Dumbarton Bridge is about twice as long
" (8600'). While determining tolls based on the length of a bridge
" isn't necessarily the best system, it is true that longer bridges
" cost more to build and maintain. Clearly, tolls on the bridges
" crossing the bay are far too low. Tolls need to be increased over
" time to more reasonable levels that pay a larger percentage of the
" costs of building and operating the bridges.

From what I recall living in NYC, many road & bridge tolls were
inflated to pay for other subsidized projects. It also went the other
way, with taxes subsidizing some toll roads. I'd be more careful when
declaring the east coast tolls as correct.

However, in general, I'm in favor of toll roads and bridges, and say
go for it. Perhaps let some private company build, own, operate and
receive the revenue for the bridge(s). If we determine it is a social
benefit to put general taxation to subsidise, then I guess that's an
option, but I personally loathe that option and would rather tolls pay
for their own stretches 100%.

Having said all that, has anybody looked into the long term benefit of
such structures as people move about in different manners? Just
asking. It could be studied. It probably already has been, but by
people who won't give you the results. Also, people generally don't
follow the rules and desires of bureaucrats; one should look at the
economic and social reasons for transport before making determinations
about where to put resources. Many policy-driven transport projects
fail to work because people don't follow policy not made to benefit
them.

[Brad Allen]

In article <2013070322353...@andy-pandora.vsta.org>,

Andy Valencia <van...@vsta.org> wrote:
" use...@jac.users.panix.com (John Clear) writes:
" > BART is just a type of train service. Slap a BART logo on
" > Caltrain and it would be BART, but better since it would be on
" > standard gauge track with standard off the shelf equipment able to
" > handle more passengers per car.
"
" BART runs transit frequency, so part of BART's value is you don't
" carefully craft your whole schedule around those rare points in time
" when you can get a train going your way. You just walk into the
" station and take the next train. In this important area, Caltrain
" is a pale shadow of BART.

Which as you alluded to later in your post, that's largely because
BART has lobbied to not allow Caltrain to electrify, causing the
economics of Caltrain to require longer trains to cover their costs,
and therefore less frequent trains. Caltrain can do an end-run around
this by automating the driving of the trains and not refilling driver
positions, saving on the cost of employees, but that would also
require some political clout to deal with anti-automation unions and
the continual claims that Caltrain kills stupid idiots who get in
front of trains as trains roll down train tracks. And finally, once
all that is done, the path to electrifying Caltrain would be easier.

Yes, BART could also automate, and save money, and run more trains
where bottlenecks don't exist; shorter more frequent trains could
drive up to the bottlenecks, and transfer passengers to longer
as-frequent trains for the bottlenecks since they seem to be combined
routes in the bottleneck areas that can have frequent long-train
service with more passengers than the "spokes".

We should slap "Caltrain" stickers on all the BART trains and call
them "train service" (erasing "BART") and then watch all the BART
branding people just shut up.