Comments on: the next big thing in transportation

By: Guy Span

Guy Span — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:10:42 +0000

Erik said,”And there are… railroad lines so shabby that Amtrak trains have to go over them slow enough to spot washouts in time to stop.”

Oops. This is not true. There are times in severe weather where an embankment might have washed away, leaving the rails intact and providing a clear (green) signal. So for the safety of the passengers and crew, trains proceed at restricted speed (not greater than 15 MPH) to be able to stop short of an obstruction. This is standard for every railroad in America. But it is not, as implied, a daily event.

By: South Bay Resident

South Bay Resident — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:50:42 +0000

The $3 billion cost excludes the development included with the Transbay Terminal. It does include the downtown extension of Caltrain and the underground concourse to BART plus the cost to replace the current bus terminal. I’m not including the cost of the (privately funded) skyscrapers that will be included. I really do try to give transit agencies the benefit of the doubt and to present numbers in the way that is most favorable to them when I post about transit issues.

By: Capricious Commuter

Capricious Commuter — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:22:09 +0000

And, on the two-thirds question, I spoke to Randy Rentschler at the MTC, and he not only confirmed the proportion of transit to roadway spending, but had a logical explanation of the disconnect between the 63 percent MTC plans to spend on transit vs the 10 percent of commuters who ride transit. I started to put all of that here, but I think it would be better to put that in today’s new post.

By: Capricious Commuter

Capricious Commuter — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:53:30 +0000

SBR, I generally get what you’re saying, but I’ll quibble with one point: The Transbay Terminal cost isn’t so much supporting transit as it is adding the the SF skyline, office space, etc. It’s like saying the World Trade Center towers in New York were part of that city’s transit network because they were built by the Port Authority.

By: South Bay Resident

South Bay Resident — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:14:00 +0000

Murph,

The answer is: operating subsidies and building new rail lines. Here are some recent and ongoing projects to give you an idea of how much is spent on transit around here. This isn’t an exhaustive list but rather a small sampling. The Central Subway in SF will cost $1.4 billion in addition to the $780 million already spent on the third street light rail. BART to SFO was $1.5 billion, you’re also looking at $3.4 billion for the new Transbay terminal including the Caltrain downtown extension. These capital projects (I picked ones in and around SF since you mentioned the Bay Bridge), BART requires $250 million per year in operating subsidies plus about $50 million per year in new capital investment to keep the system running. In addition, Muni requires $135 million each year in operating subsidies, AC Transit about $230 million each year, and so on. Remember that when you buy a transit ticket, you’re only paying about half of the cost of operating the service.

Suddenly, the horribly inflated, grossly mismanaged and poorly designed Bay Bridge retrofit project with its $6.2 billion cost (of which only about $1 billion was necessary) doesn’t seem so bad.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:18:16 +0000

Murph: That’s because there is more BART than there is Bay Bridge. Taking BART out of service would be more comparable to taking all of 101 from Gilroy to Napa out of service…

By: murphstahoe

murphstahoe — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:50:36 +0000

I’m not buying SBR’s assertion. I’m trying to figure out how the Bay Area spends as much on transit as we are spending on the Bay Bridge alone…

And I would guess that taking BART out of commission would have a bigger impact than taking any freeway – including the Bay Bridge – out of commission.

By: Bruce De Benedictis

Bruce De Benedictis — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:10:27 +0000

“Bruce, isn’t reliability important in any transportation system?”

Perhaps, but if your car fails to start, is that because we have not built enough roads? Reliability and capacity are not necessarily related.

By: South Bay Resident

South Bay Resident — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:00:03 +0000

Miked,

The number varies year to year and plan to plan, but 2/3 is about average. The current MTC plan for transit spending calls for 62% of transportation spending to be dedicated to transit, and in their latest poll, the mtc refers to transit as consuming 2/3 of transportation funding. The MTC 2030 plan is here.

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2030_plan/downloads/final_2030_plan/4-Finances_T2030Plan.pdf

By: Dick Patterson

Dick Patterson — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:41:08 +0000

Your Jan 18 column used the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis as an example of the need for more maintenance. That example doesn’t support your assertion about crumbling infrastructure. Politicians are always whining about crumbling infrastructure, so we vote for more money for highways and then the money doesn’t seem to go there. The Minneapolis bridge failed because the gussets were not designed correctly, not from inadequate maintenance. If we want to get serious about improving our highway system, the first step would be to greatly reduce the role of government. Perhaps a system like the national parks, where management of the parks is contracted to private contractors, who then could be monitored and provided incentives for good management. Leaving management of our entire highway system to one congressional committee is just plain stupid. Set up ten management companies around the country, provide a board of directors composed of industry experts (no politicians, please) to oversee the operations and collect revenue from fuel taxes or tolls. And then decrease our federal taxes so the politicians can’t squander it their pet projects, special interests, and unnecessary wars.