Never 3 tracks!!! You want two way express services for proper utilisation of train fleet - you'd need a big depot down near Daly City and at the eastern termini to store essentially single service AM and PM peak service
Interesting video! Yeah I’ve also wondered about making Bay Fair into a real transfer station with a second platform that could allow northbound orange line trains to arrive at the same time as northbound blue line trains (and likewise for southbound). Cause as of now the system can sometimes leave blue line riders who need to transfer with pretty long wait times. Especially once the Valley Link project is complete and a lot more people are riding the blue line, a convenient transfer here could become even more valuable.
@@tomo-tawa-linja Oh that’d be cool to hear from you about Valley Link if you do make a video about it. I don’t know much about it other than the mayor of Livermore seems really anti-BART. And BART was planning to extend to Livermore and many residents wanted it, but the BART board rejected the expansion in 2018 to instead focus on improving the core of the system. It’s too bad both couldn’t be done at once, but if you have to choose between the two I guess upgrading the core of the system is the more sustainable approach.
Interestingly Newmarket station in Auckland kinda works like what you are talking about when the CRL is completed. But currently in peak hour direct Southern trains to CBD use platform 3, and reversing western line trains use platform 2, so they can connect with North and South bound Southern line trains, if needed
I live in San Francisco and my most common BART trips are to Ashby and Berkeley stations. And tbh I don't mind crossing over at 19th (on the way there) or MacArthur (on the way back) when the direct line is closed - as long as it's timed properly, which in my experience it has usually been. Though of course it's better not to have to transfer at all - and given how many trips seem to be like mine, it makes sense that they'd provide for that.
Once the SJ segment of BART is done; I wonder how service will change, as now the orange and green lines will go into downtown san jose; which could become another heavy route.
Orange will still be useful for folks riding from Oakland. Green less so, since there's also the factor of Caltrain electrification that will make that corridor a lot more reliable. But then you have to think about what services will be run in the second Transbay Tube (some of the Link21 proposals call for "regional rail" whether that's Caltrain or Amtrak). So many variables.
Yes, the Orange line, Blue line and Yellow line. In fact the blue could even extend to Millbrae whilst the yellow goes to SFO. Commuters from Fremont and richmond wouldn't be happy though
I wish there was a second tube, but that connected SFO to OAK. Junk the people mover in the process. Pleasanton trains could run west along current routes, but then keep going West and hit both airports before turning north into SF.
I've always wondered what a 6th BART line (with new tracks and stations) would be and what the most likely routing would look to encourage TOD and offer metro like service rather than regional rail (meaning stop spacing .3 - .5 miles apart). Most people would recommend Geary Blvd in SF - but the NIMBYs there won't let that happen. With a second transbay tube, perhaps Alameda > SF routing might offer more opportunities for TOD since Alameda has a lot more undeveloped space and SOMA/Mission Bay/Design District/Dogpatch have grown a lot with a lot more development in the pipeline.
Given that the commission has already decided that the new Transbay tunnel will be standard gauge, BART is either out of the project or they would have to come up with a standard gauge line to fit through the tube. I think that if anything does happen on this front it will be a restarted wBART. This was supposed to be the western Contra Costa counterpart of the eBART and was supposed to run on the Capitol Corridor alignment. It would require a lot of trackwork on the existing right of way, but even with minimal upgrades they could probably scrounge up enough train slots to run at 15-20 minute frequencies with battery+catenary Stadler FLIRTs or KISSes that are fully compatible with Caltrain's new fleet. That line could go into the new standard gauge Transbay tunnel via Alameda as planned and then continue north and south via freight track alongside the Capitol Corridor. Expensive and a hard lift, but fully in line with BART's previous plans.
Bart use to run 3 lines on Sundays. Before covid it was Orange 6 Cars with some 8 Cars in the mix. Yellow Line would get the 10 Cars, Blue Line it would be 9-10 Cars. After Covid. Orange line went from 6 to full 8 Cars, Yellow stayed the same. Blue stayed the same. Saturday use to a little different than now. Green Line ran with ending at Fremont on the weekends and weekdays ending at Warm Springs. Running 5-10 Car trains. But then later extended both Orange and Green to terminate at Warm Springs. Orange would run 6-8 Cars. And during mid day would drop to 4 car train. Red line would end at Daly city on weekends instead of Millbrae. And head back to Richmond. It would run 5 Car trains. Blue and Yellow stayed the same.
Yeah I'm hoping BART bring back mid-day car resizing, especially now that we're seeing shorter ones. They absolutely have enough cars to run 10 cars on the red and yellow lines in the peak, which desperately need it
The green line should be discontinued, and the orange line could turn back at Macarthur, or Downtown Berkley during peak hours. For folks from Berryesa and Hayward, who need to go to the bay, they could transfer between Bay Fair and Lake Merritt. Idk i don't live in the bay area but seeing what you laid down in the video, that gives the least traumatic transfers to people lol. Also that the Richmond branch serves a lot of people going to SF.
Definitely, but they should make sure schedules coordinate extremely well! But, if we make those changes we might have the same issue with the transbay tube's capacity. Meaning we should would still need the second transbay tube for future capacity increases and redundancy.
Never mind the immense, epic scale surface parking lots, not to mention the useless, empty “plazas” and surface parking in downtown Oakland the are such a liability to any comeback Oakland might attempt. What is the delay in building up those parking lots, with multi story parking below or above mixed use development? Bad planning. Bad governance
You have a very American way of thinking. You cannot have a good public transport system with one seat rides as you end up wasting resources just for a maybe a bit of inconvenience for the few that have luggage or just don't want to make a small effort and change. Instead of thinking that way the system should offer high frequencies and easier changes where they are essential (major changing hubs with larch amounts of people changing). Bard is not a metro system, it is closer to the S-Bahn but not on the same level as most of it shares lines, frequency is not great and for the length of the system it has very few stops (131mi with 50 stations vs, for example the Berlin S-Bahn with 211 mi and 171 stations). But this also means that there are very few potential changing points for a 3 lines operation and those can be modified to allow easy and fast changes, preferably cross platform changes but stacked platform is also a great option. The Bay area has a decent transport system but it is wasteful with heavily served corridors with multiple lines for ling distances and many other sections with no, or very bad, service. That's why other places around the world build many separate lines with changing points rather than a handful of corridors with a few "services" running on them.
If I were to completely redesign the system I absolutely would consider having multiple disjoint corridors, but this is what we have now. Also with the geography, it's tricky to send that many crossings down the Bay, and trips to San Francisco are still absolutely vital. The second TBT would help with this.
@@tomo-tawa-linja I know that changing the current system is not possible but it is important as it is part of the problem and the question about leaving the system with 3 lines, like it has during the night. As I said, I think that in the current system it is a good idea as one of it's problems is the low frequency outside the main corridor where all lines converge. Higher frequency is mandatory for a change based system, which is more efficient than a one seat one and I think you can do it on the current system by improving the main changing stations to make it fast and easy. Apart from that, when I talked about the corridors problem I was referring for the system as a whole, which is another rather basic thing that it lacks (like most systems in the US). Bart goes along Market street with good frequency and instead of counting on it and spreading Muni Metro most of the it's lines are on the same corridor using the same stations. I'll go back to the comparison to the S-Bahn, those (and similar that exist in many places outside Germany) bring people from the suburbs but also serve for local city transit and the local metro (trams and U-Bahn) connect to it but does not follow the same rout as it's a waste of resources. I understand that this is the way it works now but what you need is central planing of all transport means all over the Bay area, which currently is problematic. Maybe you can start by providing one map that included all transport means (I couldn't find one) and than create a single integrated tariff system for all transport means. That way you'll be able to better plan the future of the system.
This is a bunch of nonsense. You very clearly do not understand BART. BART is indeed a 80 mph (130 km/h) S-bahn with exceptionally good, subway like infrastructure. It's a fast system meant for speed and efficiency. The whole point of the system is to have comparable commute times to car commuting because the auto infrastructure in the area is exceptional. It's hard to design a transit system that would outcompete car commuting without hobbling cars in some severe way like you do in Europe. Hence, BART needs the single seat rides to be competitive with driving. This is not a random "American" choice. It's an operational necessity given the competitive landscape in our local transportation system. As an aside, you should at least look at the BART map to get an idea for how it actually works. S-bahns are only interlined in the city center. BART is interlined throughout. None of the lines have track that is solely dedicated. All the lines share almost all of their track with other lines. As a byproduct of this, the most used stations in the system get an even 4 minute train frequency (in the process of upgrading to 2 minutes). Almost all the stations have at least 10 minute frequencies with transfers making all the trips to any point in the system possible regardless of which train you board. This makes the effective frequency for almost all the stations 10 minutes. Only four stations out of fifty in the system get frequencies lower than 10 minutes. All four are in the boonies.
As a person from Britain but also spent time in Berlin. I totally agree with you. Most large urban systems require transfers. It’s the way they operate and they run frequent services on those lines. Instead of trying to be all things to all people with just one train you end up having a hobbled system.
No. BART needs to compete with driving. This means that BART needs to provide as many single seat rides as possible and be as fast and as frequent as possible. Americans are terrible at navigating transfers so throwing more wrenches into their commutes can only depress ridership. Even now BART requires a transfer for every other train at most stations. Making that a transfer for every train for most destinations is a degradation of service that needs to be avoided at all costs.
And here I was thinking: “Ay, caramba!”, “Don’t have a cow, man!”, and “I didn’t do it!”.
Watching BART videos always makes me wish we had a third track for express trains.
The thing I really want in particular is a fourth track in the MacArthur-Oakland City Center stretch.
Never 3 tracks!!!
You want two way express services for proper utilisation of train fleet - you'd need a big depot down near Daly City and at the eastern termini to store essentially single service AM and PM peak service
@@tomo-tawa-linja Yeah the scheduled delay on the orange line at MacArthur always feels so long
@@rogue265 Welp, there's colma station
Interesting video! Yeah I’ve also wondered about making Bay Fair into a real transfer station with a second platform that could allow northbound orange line trains to arrive at the same time as northbound blue line trains (and likewise for southbound). Cause as of now the system can sometimes leave blue line riders who need to transfer with pretty long wait times. Especially once the Valley Link project is complete and a lot more people are riding the blue line, a convenient transfer here could become even more valuable.
I have *opinions* about Valley Link, maybe that's a future video.
@@tomo-tawa-linja Oh that’d be cool to hear from you about Valley Link if you do make a video about it. I don’t know much about it other than the mayor of Livermore seems really anti-BART. And BART was planning to extend to Livermore and many residents wanted it, but the BART board rejected the expansion in 2018 to instead focus on improving the core of the system. It’s too bad both couldn’t be done at once, but if you have to choose between the two I guess upgrading the core of the system is the more sustainable approach.
Interestingly Newmarket station in Auckland kinda works like what you are talking about when the CRL is completed.
But currently in peak hour direct Southern trains to CBD use platform 3, and reversing western line trains use platform 2, so they can connect with North and South bound Southern line trains, if needed
I live in San Francisco and my most common BART trips are to Ashby and Berkeley stations. And tbh I don't mind crossing over at 19th (on the way there) or MacArthur (on the way back) when the direct line is closed - as long as it's timed properly, which in my experience it has usually been. Though of course it's better not to have to transfer at all - and given how many trips seem to be like mine, it makes sense that they'd provide for that.
Once the SJ segment of BART is done; I wonder how service will change, as now the orange and green lines will go into downtown san jose; which could become another heavy route.
Orange will still be useful for folks riding from Oakland. Green less so, since there's also the factor of Caltrain electrification that will make that corridor a lot more reliable. But then you have to think about what services will be run in the second Transbay Tube (some of the Link21 proposals call for "regional rail" whether that's Caltrain or Amtrak). So many variables.
Yes, the Orange line, Blue line and Yellow line. In fact the blue could even extend to Millbrae whilst the yellow goes to SFO. Commuters from Fremont and richmond wouldn't be happy though
I wish there was a second tube, but that connected SFO to OAK. Junk the people mover in the process. Pleasanton trains could run west along current routes, but then keep going West and hit both airports before turning north into SF.
I've always wondered what a 6th BART line (with new tracks and stations) would be and what the most likely routing would look to encourage TOD and offer metro like service rather than regional rail (meaning stop spacing .3 - .5 miles apart). Most people would recommend Geary Blvd in SF - but the NIMBYs there won't let that happen. With a second transbay tube, perhaps Alameda > SF routing might offer more opportunities for TOD since Alameda has a lot more undeveloped space and SOMA/Mission Bay/Design District/Dogpatch have grown a lot with a lot more development in the pipeline.
Given that the commission has already decided that the new Transbay tunnel will be standard gauge, BART is either out of the project or they would have to come up with a standard gauge line to fit through the tube. I think that if anything does happen on this front it will be a restarted wBART. This was supposed to be the western Contra Costa counterpart of the eBART and was supposed to run on the Capitol Corridor alignment.
It would require a lot of trackwork on the existing right of way, but even with minimal upgrades they could probably scrounge up enough train slots to run at 15-20 minute frequencies with battery+catenary Stadler FLIRTs or KISSes that are fully compatible with Caltrain's new fleet. That line could go into the new standard gauge Transbay tunnel via Alameda as planned and then continue north and south via freight track alongside the Capitol Corridor. Expensive and a hard lift, but fully in line with BART's previous plans.
It would be nice to see a "test" of this. After whatever time when the two other lines aren't active, move the cars over to the 3 remaining lines.
They already run this pattern at night. It sucks.
Bart use to run 3 lines on Sundays. Before covid it was Orange 6 Cars with some 8 Cars in the mix. Yellow Line would get the 10 Cars, Blue Line it would be 9-10 Cars. After Covid. Orange line went from 6 to full 8 Cars, Yellow stayed the same. Blue stayed the same. Saturday use to a little different than now. Green Line ran with ending at Fremont on the weekends and weekdays ending at Warm Springs. Running 5-10 Car trains. But then later extended both Orange and Green to terminate at Warm Springs. Orange would run 6-8 Cars. And during mid day would drop to 4 car train. Red line would end at Daly city on weekends instead of Millbrae. And head back to Richmond. It would run 5 Car trains. Blue and Yellow stayed the same.
Yeah I'm hoping BART bring back mid-day car resizing, especially now that we're seeing shorter ones. They absolutely have enough cars to run 10 cars on the red and yellow lines in the peak, which desperately need it
The green line should be discontinued, and the orange line could turn back at Macarthur, or Downtown Berkley during peak hours.
For folks from Berryesa and Hayward, who need to go to the bay, they could transfer between Bay Fair and Lake Merritt.
Idk i don't live in the bay area but seeing what you laid down in the video, that gives the least traumatic transfers to people lol. Also that the Richmond branch serves a lot of people going to SF.
Boy orange, yellow, and blue
Yes
Definitely, but they should make sure schedules coordinate extremely well! But, if we make those changes we might have the same issue with the transbay tube's capacity. Meaning we should would still need the second transbay tube for future capacity increases and redundancy.
Never mind the immense, epic scale surface parking lots, not to mention the useless, empty “plazas” and surface parking in downtown Oakland the are such a liability to any comeback Oakland might attempt.
What is the delay in building up those parking lots, with multi story parking below or above mixed use development?
Bad planning. Bad governance
my inner romance girly is screaming that Jinshi is in love with Maomao and nothing can change that.
Nuh uh, I could never. To be honest I kinda hate transferring, having direct lines that eliminate transfers are game changers
Normally I'm fine with it, but an obsessive railfan and the average commuter are two very different people!
It’s a cross platform not so serious. Upgraded orange line can easily replace the green line and red lines.
You have a very American way of thinking.
You cannot have a good public transport system with one seat rides as you end up wasting resources just for a maybe a bit of inconvenience for the few that have luggage or just don't want to make a small effort and change.
Instead of thinking that way the system should offer high frequencies and easier changes where they are essential (major changing hubs with larch amounts of people changing). Bard is not a metro system, it is closer to the S-Bahn but not on the same level as most of it shares lines, frequency is not great and for the length of the system it has very few stops (131mi with 50 stations vs, for example the Berlin S-Bahn with 211 mi and 171 stations). But this also means that there are very few potential changing points for a 3 lines operation and those can be modified to allow easy and fast changes, preferably cross platform changes but stacked platform is also a great option.
The Bay area has a decent transport system but it is wasteful with heavily served corridors with multiple lines for ling distances and many other sections with no, or very bad, service. That's why other places around the world build many separate lines with changing points rather than a handful of corridors with a few "services" running on them.
If I were to completely redesign the system I absolutely would consider having multiple disjoint corridors, but this is what we have now. Also with the geography, it's tricky to send that many crossings down the Bay, and trips to San Francisco are still absolutely vital. The second TBT would help with this.
@@tomo-tawa-linja I know that changing the current system is not possible but it is important as it is part of the problem and the question about leaving the system with 3 lines, like it has during the night. As I said, I think that in the current system it is a good idea as one of it's problems is the low frequency outside the main corridor where all lines converge. Higher frequency is mandatory for a change based system, which is more efficient than a one seat one and I think you can do it on the current system by improving the main changing stations to make it fast and easy.
Apart from that, when I talked about the corridors problem I was referring for the system as a whole, which is another rather basic thing that it lacks (like most systems in the US). Bart goes along Market street with good frequency and instead of counting on it and spreading Muni Metro most of the it's lines are on the same corridor using the same stations. I'll go back to the comparison to the S-Bahn, those (and similar that exist in many places outside Germany) bring people from the suburbs but also serve for local city transit and the local metro (trams and U-Bahn) connect to it but does not follow the same rout as it's a waste of resources. I understand that this is the way it works now but what you need is central planing of all transport means all over the Bay area, which currently is problematic. Maybe you can start by providing one map that included all transport means (I couldn't find one) and than create a single integrated tariff system for all transport means. That way you'll be able to better plan the future of the system.
This is a bunch of nonsense. You very clearly do not understand BART. BART is indeed a 80 mph (130 km/h) S-bahn with exceptionally good, subway like infrastructure. It's a fast system meant for speed and efficiency. The whole point of the system is to have comparable commute times to car commuting because the auto infrastructure in the area is exceptional. It's hard to design a transit system that would outcompete car commuting without hobbling cars in some severe way like you do in Europe.
Hence, BART needs the single seat rides to be competitive with driving. This is not a random "American" choice. It's an operational necessity given the competitive landscape in our local transportation system.
As an aside, you should at least look at the BART map to get an idea for how it actually works. S-bahns are only interlined in the city center. BART is interlined throughout. None of the lines have track that is solely dedicated. All the lines share almost all of their track with other lines. As a byproduct of this, the most used stations in the system get an even 4 minute train frequency (in the process of upgrading to 2 minutes). Almost all the stations have at least 10 minute frequencies with transfers making all the trips to any point in the system possible regardless of which train you board. This makes the effective frequency for almost all the stations 10 minutes. Only four stations out of fifty in the system get frequencies lower than 10 minutes. All four are in the boonies.
As a person from Britain but also spent time in Berlin. I totally agree with you. Most large urban systems require transfers. It’s the way they operate and they run frequent services on those lines. Instead of trying to be all things to all people with just one train you end up having a hobbled system.
I'd love to see that fantasy BART map!
No. BART needs to compete with driving. This means that BART needs to provide as many single seat rides as possible and be as fast and as frequent as possible. Americans are terrible at navigating transfers so throwing more wrenches into their commutes can only depress ridership.
Even now BART requires a transfer for every other train at most stations. Making that a transfer for every train for most destinations is a degradation of service that needs to be avoided at all costs.