Change Service to Improve Service?
The most common service improvement BART has made over the past few years is to change which trains terminate where, and to adjust how many cars a particular run has. I've been riding BART only for about five years now, but I've worked at other transit companies, and have seen the advantage to more radical service changes. BART themselves posted a demand management study recently that acknowledges the need to add more cars to trains, especially during peak times. The issue they acknowledge is that there are no more cars available to add. New cars are many years away, but with increased gas prices and demand for alternatives other than driving, those years may be too far out. Even if BART had more trains available, under the current service plan, the frequency of runs can't radically improve because of the limited capacity of the Transbay Tube. A new tube is decades away.
If their two ideas for improving service are so far out and not even feasible financially at this time, why not then consider some more radical changes with the existing equipment and lines? Currently, four lines traverse the Bay using the Transbay Tube. Under this current structure, Pittsburg/Bay Point-SFO train frequency could perhaps be improved to every 10-12 minutes versus 15-20 minutes currently. This would of course be at the expense of increased frequency of other lines. Also, as many riders see every day, a small delay in a downtown SF station, or on the approach to the Transbay Tube from the East Bay, can have catastrophic reprocussions throughout the system.
What would happen if BART ended the Richmond-Millbrae and Fremont-Daly City lines. Trains removed from service along these lines could be put into service on the three remaining lines. This would result in increased service frequency for all three lines. With only two lines vying for the Transbay Tube, it would radically improve the ability to service all destinations. For example, Pittsburg/Bay Point-SFO trains could run every 5 minutes with the added trains, with 9-10 cars on each run. Similarly, Dublin/Pleasanton-Millbrae trains could run with similar frequency and train lengths.
With the increased service on both the Yellow and Blue lines, passengers currently traveling to San Francisco destinations could easily transfer to a Yellow or Blue line train at either Macarthur or Lake Merritt Stations, and could do so rather quickly if service on those two lines was that frequent. Though Richmond/Fremont passengers would lose direct San Francisco service, they would also benefit from vastly improved frequency and capacity, not to mention reliability of service.
With only two lines using the Transbay Tube, any delays could be recovered from very quickly, and the effects of such a delay would not necessarily affect the entire system as badly as delays can now.
An additional benefit to BART would be increased revenue from increased ridership. Higher frequency trains with more capacity would boost the ability of BART to carry more passengers, which might be a reality sooner than later, if fuel costs rise or inflation becomes a more serious concern. At this time, if you miss the train by just a minute,you have at least a 15 minute wait ahead of you for the next train. Even during peak times, waits can be up to 10 minutes. Compare this with the frequency of other transit systems, like the MTR/KCR in Hong Kong, which runs trains every 1-2 minutes even during non-peak hours. Seems like something radical needs to change in order to make BART a more viable option to the Bay Area.
Thoughts?
Yes.....
Yes.....
This is what BART already
This is what BART already does on evenings and Sundays, with trains every 15 minutes on three lines.
You still have to move the same number of people between the same start and end points. If you ran those three lines every 5-10 minutes, instead of five lines every 15 minutes, would you have equivalent rush-hour capacity between all the stations? Can the transfer stations handle the crowds?
With the current single-track segments in Dublin, you might need to have Dublin trains go to Richmond and Fremont trains go to Millbrae. Or wait for the West Dublin station to open.
clearly you do not live on
clearly you do not live on the Richmond-Fremont line
as for 5 minute trains, the problem is that he controlling system is can capable of running them that close.
If all cars are full reallocating them will not make them any less full.
By reallocating Richmond-Millbrae and Fremont-Daly City line cars will not help with capacity. If all the available care are in service and are full, reallocating them they way you suggest will not change anything other then perhaps guaranteeing riders from Pittsburg/Bay Point get seats and Richmond/Fremont riders heading to SF will have to stand after waiting to transfer.
You're right, I don't live on
You're right, I don't live on the Richmond-Fremont line, and I might be suggesting something totally ridiculous to riders. And yes, there would be less chance for people to get a seat with the plan I laid out, which is a significant issue for comfort, especially for a long ride. Though, if you were to transfer at the last possible station, you could theoretically keep your seat for the majority of your journey, standing only through the Transbay Tube and a few downtown SF stations. Having an increased frequency of trains at first would allow for more chances to grab a seat, as the load currently experienced might be spread over many different trains, rather than concentrated on a few.
As for the control systems, the ATCS system, I would hope, has been upgraded since initially installed. It could be upgraded again with some effort. There are other transit agencies in other locales that run more frequent service with the same degree of automation or more. Why not upgrade them in the interim? I'm sure they'll need to be upgraded anyway to accommodate the new cars they are going to acquire.
The key is that not all cars
The key is that not all cars are full all the time. Trains are full in downtown San Francisco and close by, and much closer to empty out at the fringes, near Pittsburg, Dublin, Richmond, Millbrae, and Fremont.
What would make sure the cars are used to their best ability would be to turn around some trains at intermediate points. (In theory you could actually break up trains at intermediate points but coupling and decoupling in service is fraught with potential problems.) BART does this a little teeny tiny bit, with a few trains turning around at Montgomery, 24th St., and Concord, but it would maximize car usage to turn around a lot more trains at these points, and at other points -- Berkeley would be a good location, for example, since trains are a lot emptier north of Berkeley than south of it. I'm not sure where else fits this criterion, but Civic Center is one that comes to mind.
The problem is that BART can't do that without leaving a nice big hole in the schedule, since it takes minutes to turn around a train, and while it's turning it has to stay on the tracks blocking traffic. And there are only a few three-track stations in the system that would allow the turning of a train without blocking traffic: I think the only ones are MacArthur, 19th St., 12th St., Daly City, and Colma (am I missing one?).
Sadly, adding turnaround tracks is probably prohibitively expensive anywhere you'd want them. (Imagine digging another tunnel north of Berkeley station.) It's a flaw in the system, though.
yes, BART's lack of bypass
yes, BART's lack of bypass tracks is a major flaw in the entire system
Switching tracks is usually
Switching tracks is usually done at stations with interlockings. Those stations are spread across the system, and could do what you're talking about, in theory. That's also a good plan.
I hear what you are saying
I hear what you are saying and I think you are on to some good ideas.
The Richmond to Millbrae trains could be turned back at Del Norte. There are a lot of commuters who board at Del Norte. BART might do well to build some parking lots about half a mile north of Del Norte and shuttle riders to the station. There's a lot of vacant land right where BART crosses I-80. That would free up 19 cars.
Fremont to Daly City trains could turn back at 24th street. That's a long term plan anyway. That would free up another 19 cars. The track circuits could be fine tuned, so that the delay (when a track direction is reversed) is less. It would probably require more, and smaller, track circuits.
The trackwork at the new West Dublin station is almost complete. Construction crews still need to cross one track, especially with big items like escalators, but, during the three commute hours in the morning and the three commute hours in the afternoon, double tracking could be used. That frees up another nine cars. Voila! 47 new cars are available!
There is a plan to add a crossover between Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill. Having 12 minute trains may fit in the schedule, but having trains every 7.5 minutes, between Pleasant Hill and 24th street might fit better. And run them from 6 AM to 9 PM, or so.
Right now, there is a shortage of cars, since the shops are overloaded, and Hayward is still inaccessable (due to the fire). Cars get preventive maintenance (PM) every so many hours, but there isn't enough shop time and space, so they don't get done. Hayward shops is now being used to upgrade cars, but not do PM. And Daly City shop ended the third shift. We need the third shift at DC, and Hayward needs to do some of the PM's.
Even when the cars do get out, lots of stuff doesn't get fixed. Windows (in the cab) won't close, air conditioning doesn't work, etc. Other, less noticeable stuff gets triaged, and fails on mainline. Trains with two dead cars never used to get sent mainline, especially in commute times, but now they do.
The electronics in all the San Francisco stations - Embarcadero to Daly City - is unreliable, so trains often run through, or don't get automatic doors. That makes for delays, which also delay the dozen trains behind, too. The electronics at those nine stations need to be rehabilitated.
Enforcing the bicycle rules would end about half the delays. Bikers break doors - the whole Critical Mass mentality by the bike community needs to be addressed by citations. Other "stupid stuff" needs to be cited - like a pit bull on a rope (not exactly a "service dog") - or other disruptive behavior. At least, get them quickly off the trains.
changing the routes and
changing the routes and trainlengths is a serious political as well as operational issue. In general Yellow line ridership is very heavy rush hour otherwise not much east of Rockridge. If off peak Yellow line was a shuttle Mac to PBP w/ short trains, it would "waste" fewer car miles, BUT the howls would be loud. Conversely the Richmond line is busy ALL DAY both to/from SF and locally to Fremont. IMO evening service from SF should be to Richmond because when I ride trains nearly empty @ 12th.
As to short turns, a very common practice in other transit operations--BART threw out the experience and designed badly from the get go. Trouble is, since the Millbrae stub exists SOMETHING has to go there. Might be better to run Dublin as a shuttle from Bayfair and keep Fremont to SF trains evenings--need to see entry/exit pair data to see if this works. The "exits only" stats BART quotes in SRTP/LRTP docs aren't sufficient to sort this out.
"Bikers break doors..."
"Bikers break doors..."
Really?!
We cyclists take alot of heat (escalator riding, space hogs, general rudeness) but this is a new one.
I think that person meant in
I think that person meant in an indirect way, like many bicyclists block the doors with their bikes and that damages the door.
BTW, I'm a frequent biker on Bart and I observe all the rules. I never use stairs unless the elevator is out of service, and never ride during no-bike hours.
> A door that is obstructed
> A door that is obstructed when it is halfway closed, and if the obstruction is halfway up the door (in the middle), the door is unlikely to jam and break. The leverage on the door mechanism is even, and the door is well-supported inside the door pocket. Also, most large objects (like backpacks and butts) are flexible, and this cushioning slows the door somewhat, minimizing jams.
A small, hard object, like a bike tire, at the bottom, is more likely to jam the door. This puts unbalanced force on the door, and the leverage is much greater, since the door is 90 percent closed. Add the two together, and that's most of the broken doors.
The doors aren't permanently broken, the train just gets emptied, and a technician works on the door. The techs are usually successful, but some jams take longer than others. The train might be back in service in two station, or maybe eight.
So Mr. Business Suit that
So Mr. Business Suit that sticks his newspaper in the door (which I see way more than bikes stuck in doors) does not break anything? Or Miss Can't Be Late sticking an umbrella in is equally off the hook?
Just sayin'
> So Mr. Business Suit ... >
> So Mr. Business Suit ...
> Miss Can't Be Late ...
All of them can break a door. And, I would observe that papers, umbrellas, canes/walking sticks and bikes all wind up blocking doors - and there is no one majority, it's a mix.