Today’s Headlines

  • BART Service Finally Resumes between Pittsburg/Bay Point and North Concord (Kron4)
  • BART Critics Pile On (EastBayTimes)
  • BART Uniqueness Amplifies Problems (NBCBayArea)
  • TOD Developments Straining BART Capacity (CBSLocal)
  • DC Metro Suffering Similar Breakdowns to BART (SFist)
  • SFMTA Parking Citation Overcharges May Go to City General Fund (SFExaminer)
  • Caltrain Adds Bike Cars (KQED)
  • State Senators Question HSR Board (KQED)
  • West Contra Costa Discusses Transit Needs (EastBayTimes)
  • Comment Deadline on Menlo Park Infill Mixed Use Near Caltrain (AlmanacNews)
  • ACE Train Hits Cow (EastBayTimes)

Get national headlines at Streetsblog USA
Get state headlines at Streetsblog CA

  • Andy Chow

    That’s why the transit advocacy community generally does not support expanding BART, or more specifically, expanding BART with its legacy technology.

    Besides the uniqueness of the trains, the core of the system was built in a way that it is too difficult to expand. Let’s say that if we were to replace Caltrain by extending BART beyond Millbrae, will there be room on the existing tracks through SF to handle the additional ridership. That line only has two crossovers and no pocket track. The Caltrain line is key for additional capacity, especially if it were to go to the East Bay via a new tube.

    Denver will be opening a new commuter rail line later this month between downtown and airport. The trains are FRA compliant, standard gauge, powered by industry standard 25kv AC (same as Caltrain is proposing), and will run every 15 minutes. The trains are EMUs that have an appearance similar to BART. If BART and VTA use this technology instead, and put a BART logo in front, people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference except for not having direct service to the old system, and able to build more of it for less money.

    Not having direct service may be a disadvantage, but BART is running out of capacity through its core anyway. A parallel core line should be an expansion of our underused standard gauge system, given that it would be far more expensive and less desirable to build another BART core in San Francisco.

  • Joe Brant

    Is TOD near BART stations really contributing to capacity crunches? Especially if it’s mixed-use or office developments outside of San Francisco, I don’t see what the big deal is. BART is only over capacity in SF and the Transbay Tube and only at rush hour. If people are traveling in the reverse-peak direction or making “diagonal” trips within the East Bay, that doesn’t create more demand for rush hour service. In fact, generating all-day demand in all directions (more like a subway, less like commuter rail) would be great for BART since that raises revenue without increasing the cost of rush hour service

  • Jeffrey Baker

    I thought the example of Hive in Oakland was a peculiar one, too. For one thing it isn’t terribly large. For another, it is on the BART corridor but it’s wouldn’t have made my list of BART TOD projects. How much of Oakland is more than 1 mile from a BART station? It seems like a broad definition.