BART Managers Suss Out Long Term Plans at Annual Workshop

Second Transbay Tube and Automated Trains Among Topics Discussed

The new BART train leaving Lake Merritt station. Photo: Streetsblog/SF
The new BART train leaving Lake Merritt station. Photo: Streetsblog/SF

A second Transbay tube or tunnel crossing, the extension to Silicon Valley, and Communications-Based Train Control were some of the topics discussed today and yesterday at BART’s annual board workshop. The workshop, held at the Renaissance Club Sport Hotel in Walnut Creek, is a chance for board directors and staff to discuss a panoply of issues and formulate a general direction for the agency.

“Could we use a tube or a tunnel? Would it be BART gauge and mainline gauge in the same facility?” asked Ellen Smith, BART’s manager for strategic and policy planning, about initial planning for a second BART tube. She also talked about the big question: where will the money come from? “Similar projects nationwide are costing between $12 and $15 billion.”

Image: BART
Image: BART

Smith’s presentation was part of a larger section about major projects and resulted from the passage of the $3.5 billion BART Bond, Measure RR. That bond included $200 million for studies. “We’re looking at standard-gauge partners… could be the Capitol Corridor and some combination of High-speed Rail and Caltrain,” she said.

This follows previous studies, both by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and SPUR, that assume a second crossing would also carry (or maybe only carry) standard-gauge trains. As such, Smith pointed out that, on this project, BART needs to consider the “mega-region” (from San Jose to Sacramento and even into the Central Valley) because the second tube could allow one-seat rides to downtown San Francisco on almost all the region’s different rail services. “This is only going to succeed if everyone sees their community benefiting,” said BART Director Nick Josefowitz. “It’s too big a project to only be a San Francisco-Oakland type of project.”

A look at all the regional rail lines that could use the second Transbay crossing, depending how it's built. Image: BART
A look at all the regional rail lines that could use the second Transbay crossing, depending on how it’s built. Image: BART

The second BART crossing wouldn’t even finish conceptual engineering until 2021, with 2040 being the earliest anyone envisioned it opening for service (and many on the board seemed highly skeptical about that date).

But the meeting also dealt with the more hum-drum details of BART operations, such as where to store and service trains at night.

“You never want to be using more than 80 percent of your overall yard capacity,” explained BART’s General Manager for Operations, Paul Oversier. He explained that as BART expands into Silicon Valley and adds capacity in the Transbay tubes, the agency is having to cram more and more trains into its storage and maintenance yards. At some point, it becomes incredibly difficult to break up trains and get good cars into service and bad cars, known as ‘bad orders’ in BART jargon, into the shop. In other words, you need extra tracks so trains can move around one another in the yards, or, “you get gridlocked with bad orders, and then nothing moves.”

Over-strained yards make it difficult for BART to get bad trains to shops and good trains back on the line quickly (note the end-of-line yards can be used at 100% capacity as they aren't used for maintenance). Image: BART
Over-strained yards make it difficult for BART to get bad trains to shops and good trains back on the line quickly (note the end-of-line yards can be used at 100% capacity as they aren’t used for maintenance). Image: BART

As they increase the fleet size, the agency hopes to have more train cars in reserve so that when a train does break down, it can be pulled from the main lines and replaced quickly, to avoid cascading delays. Right now, 89 percent of BART’s fleet is required for weekday peak service (with the rest undergoing repairs and maintenance at any given time, and a few held in reserve). The industry norm is 78 to 83 percent. Oversier said they also want to have a “Ready-Reserve” train.

“They’re also called ‘hot spares’ and they’re really important, especially for BART with its inflexible network. If we want to get to 90 percent on time, we need a fully staffed spare train ready to go to fill a gap, so if a train is delayed in an early afternoon, there’s a replacement train ready to dispatch,” he said.

The plan is also to lengthen all Transbay trains to ten cars, and some of the six-car trains on the Richmond-Fremont/Orange Line to eight cars as the agency grows its fleet size from 776 cars to over 1,000.

Tom Dunscombe, BART’s Group Manager of Train Control Modernization, talked about the agency’s negotiations to fulfill another key goal of Measure RR, modernizing BART’s train-control system. The current computers and signaling systems are around 40 years old, and over the past few months, the transit agency has been reviewing bids to replace them. But it won’t be easy, since it involves the whole system which, obviously, can’t be shut down for the installation.

“It needs to be integrated with the existing computer system, a homegrown system,” he explained. They will need to set up new controls and counsels in all the trains, along all the tracks, and at their control centers. Then staff has to be trained on it. All of this will have to happen while the existing system continues to function as reliably as it can until they’re ready to switch over.

Image: BART
Image: BART

“There will be new procedures, new tools, new skills, new trainers,” he said of the $1.15 billion investment. “There will be a significant cultural challenge… a big agency challenge.” But when it’s operational, possibly around 2025, it will enable trains to run closer together and the agency will be able to run an additional six trains during rush hour through the Transbay tube (the tube currently carries a maximum of 24).

But Director Debora Allen wanted to know why such a modern system should require operators at all. “We’re being told that in five years driverless cars will deliver us to the train station,” she said, adding that BART was originally designed not to have operators. So why is this new system still going to have operators? Josefowitz wanted to know if anything about the new system precludes BART from going driverless at some point in the future.

BART General Manager Grace Crunican said she has seen driverless trains in Barcelona and other BART staffers mentioned Vancouver. They both saw complications in going driverless on BART, but Crunican said if the board wants staff to design BART to be driverless in the future, it has to be clear about it. “If the board says that’s the future, we need direction from the board, not just a couple of questions,” she added.

All in all, the meeting covered an enormous amount of ground (Streetsblog was only able to attend about half of it). Much of it was about the nuts and bolts of keeping the system running. But with RR passed and so much money and energy now going towards repairing and modernizing the core system, Crunican said, “We do need to keep looking at the future.”

Talking about the future brings the topic back to the $200 million from RR to “Relieve crowding/System Redundancy,” i.e. designing a second Transbay crossing. Projections put the demand for Transbay travel rising to 152 percent of current capacity by 2040, even under modest regional growth projections. Currently, during peak commute hours, over 60,000 people ride through the Transbay Tube in each direction on BART.

Possible Transbay crossings. Image: BART
Possible Transbay crossings. Image: BART

And as Smith pointed out in her presentation, only a rail crossing can provide that kind of capacity. “75 percent of Transbay travel is on transit, 66 percent is on BART,” she said, pointing out that those calling for a second car bridge simply don’t understand the problem. It has to be rail–it’s just a question of where the crossing should be built and exactly what kind of trains should run through it.

“It would be the biggest thing BART has done since the original system. It will require enormous stamina, a regional vision, and work with partners–but the next steps are ours.”

IMG_20180209_100755
The board meeting in Walnut Creek. Photo Streetsblog/Rudick
  • Jeffrey Baker

    Why does BART believe they could have CBTC in 2025? They’ve been working on this since 1990 with nothing to show. To be honest I’m not even sure why BART believes they have the expertise to select a bid. How do they know what they are doing? The first time they selected a bidder resulted only in a lawsuit and 15 years of delay.

  • Kieran

    As long as the red option in their transbay crossing image above for dual BART/standard gauge(high speed rail, Caltrain and Amtrak with ideally 4 tracks, while BART could actually be on the upper level and have 4 tracks as well(2 for local trains and 2 for express trains). After serving a stop in downtown Alameda, it should turn north to serve Jack London Square/downtown Oakland at the very least.

  • crazyvag

    Oakland needs to build itself a Transbay Terminal to serve as a destination for Caltrain/HSR. Preferable in downtown under 12th St BART station.

  • Negin

    They should’ve kept the Key System.

  • jonobate

    The recent MTC Core Capacity transit study noted that a 4-track tube would cost almost double the cost of a 2-track tube; there are essentially no savings from combining BART and standard gauge rail into the same tube. Given that, and the huge cost of building even just a 2-track tube, it’s pretty clear that we’re either going to get a BART tube or a standard gauge tube, not both.

    A standard gauge tube makes much more sense because it solves capacity issues independent of the Transbay crossing. Specifically, the fact that Caltrain and future HSR have nowhere to store all the trains arriving in downtown SF, crippling the potential capacity of the line; and the fact that Capitol Corridor ridership is currently depressed by forcing passengers onto a BART or bus transfer to get to SF. It also opens up possibilities for a downtown Oakland HSR station, express rail service from Oakland to San Jose on the east side of the bay, and frequent metro rail service north of Richmond (much better than a BART extension.) Most of the ROW is already available for this, so cost would be minimal compared to building out a new network of BART tunnels.

    So the question is, why is BART leading this study, when the optimal outcome may be to build something that doesn’t involve them at all? Surely there’s a danger of the outcome being biased towards a BART solution rather than objectively assessing the alternatives?

  • ride_it_like_you_stole_it

    That’s a valid point. Some agencies simply do not have the expertise to handle some of these large planning or capital projects. Each agency should take an honest look at their resources, experience, and expertise, and determine if they have the staff in-house to handle it or if they should find a suitable alternative. Let go of any pride and make sure the best process is in place to ensure success.

  • ride_it_like_you_stole_it

    Is a dual-gauge option possible to have a 2-track tube that could handle BART and standard trains? Adds operational complexity but could be a compromise to keep costs down and the use of the tube flexible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_gauge

  • jonobate

    Probably not. The issue is not just the track gauge, it’s that *everything* about BART is non-standard – height and width clearances, power supply, train control system, etc. It would be extremely difficult to build a 2-track tube that could accommodate the differing requirements of both systems.

  • Jeffrey Baker

    In what way would a new tube enable high-speed rail service between Oakland and San Jose through the East Bay? I’m genuinely interested, but these two things seem orthogonal.

    Capitol Corridor has a long term plan for their service and it’s basically diesel on single tracks shared with freight, forever. It’s the last place I would expect innovation, or even best practices.

  • jonobate

    I didn’t say “high-speed”, I said “express”. I’m envisioning a Baby Bullet style electrified service starting from a new Oakland station in the vacated I-980 ROW at 14th St, running south through Jack London Square then following the coastal UP line down through Hayward, Newark, Santa Clara, and into Diridon – all on electrified, passenger-only tracks. An alternative route could start at Hercules and run though Richmond and Emeryville to Jack London Square and then south as before, again on electrified, passenger-only tracks.

    Additional Transbay routes could run Oakland 14th St – SF – Bayshore; Hercules – Richmond – Emeryville – SF – Bayshore; and Coliseum – Jack London Square – SF – Bayshore. (I’m using Bayshore as the turnaround point simply because it’s the first place where there’s space for a yard; you could go further south if you wanted, even looping the Bay.)

    In addition to the above, which are all regional services similar in stop spacing to Caltrain Baby Bullet, you’d have inter-regional services from Sacramento – SF and Sacramento – San Jose, similar to today’s Capitol Corridor service but using the electrified passenger-only tracks in the Bay Area, and serving SF directly rather than forcing a bus transfer.

    The Capitol Corridor Vision Plan is indeed very short sighted, but that doesn’t change the fact that the corridor has great potential. A standard gauge transbay tube would be a game changer for regional rail. It would require upgrade of all the tracks leading to it in order to maximize its usefulness, and new regional service patterns that would complement the BART system and relieve some of the load from the existing tube.

  • Jeffrey Baker

    OK fine, whenever I am on any ordinary S-Bahn in Europe I think “this is high-speed” so you’ll have to excuse me.

    I guess I just don’t see why changing the game would necessarily bring about these east bay rail improvements. Even under the current rules of the game it would be easy and dirt-cheap to, just as an example, double-track the UPRR Coast subdivision between Fremont and San Jose, relieving a major source of delays. But nobody wants to do that even though it’s trivial.

    Perhaps the idea is that a new Transbay tunnel would be so tremendously expensive that nobody would notice if you spent $50 million elsewhere?

  • jonobate

    The point is that building a new tube is useless without lines that feed into it. You can either build the tube as BART, and build new new BART lines that feed into it at a cost somewhere between $100m and $1bn per mile; or you can build the tube as standard gauge and upgrade the existing track at a cost somewhere between $10m and $100m per mile. The case for doing the latter seems pretty compelling to me.

    It seems like you’re saying that from a political point of view it would be unlikely for this money to be spent on standard gauge rail. I completely agree; right now there is no-one advocating the sort of regional rail vision I described above, and without that vision it’s hard for decision makers to justify spending any money on a rail system that’s currently sub-par. Unless someone advocates for a regional rail vision there’s the danger of this becoming a choice between building a hugely expensive BART project and doing nothing,

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

BART Struggles to Balance Current Needs with Vision for Future

|
BART’s board and staff is working on a $3 billion bond that, if approved by the BART Board this summer, will appear on the November ballot. If the voters go for it, it will help fund upgrades and maintenance to existing infrastructure. Even though it’s primarily about maintenance and upgrades to existing tracks and tunnels, […]

BART Will Study Second Transbay Tube, West Side Extension

|
Updated 11:06 p.m. with comments from BART Board-elect Nick Josefowitz. BART says it will formally study the decades-old ideas of building a second Transbay tube and extending service to SF’s western neighborhoods. Ellen Smith, BART’s acting manager for strategic and policy planning, recently told a SF County Transportation Authority Board committee (comprised of SF supervisors) […]

BART Bond Will Be on November Ballot

|
It’s been one of the most talked about bond measures ever. And now it’s official. Thursday morning, the BART board voted nine to zero to place the “BART Safety, Reliability, and Traffic Relief Program” bond on the November 8 ballot. Voters will be asked to authorize $3.5 billion in general obligation bonds. From the BART […]