Infrastructure Weak
LightNews LightNews
banner
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
Infrastructure Weak
@infrastructureweak.bsky.social
1.8K followers 750 following 1.2K posts
Renter; bike and transit rider
Construction project manager
Posts about safe street design and transit projects
Berkeley, CA
Posts Replies Media Videos
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
Footage going around Reddit shows a September incident in which a Muni LRV went over speed at Duboce Park. This section is currently driven in manual.

Muni is working on CBTC for all of its light rail lines, which would provide an engineering control to prevent this.

www.sfmta.com/projects/tra...
November 12, 2025 at 5:47 PM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
Tonight's golden hour view of the Bay down Bancroft Way
Cell phone snapshot from the center lane of a one-way road (parking, traffic, bus lane). I'm the distance, the hills of Marin and a bit of the San Francisco Bay are glowing orange with the setting sun. In the foreground the sidewalks are packed with students and a delivery truck is parked in the bus lane. Off the right side of the road, toward the university campus, are dense trees. The left side is lined with low-rise mixed-use retail and housing.
October 29, 2025 at 1:22 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
The site could be outdated, but VTA doesn't mark any of its 28 projects as complete. The previous two projects, Almaden Phase 1 (at the defunct station) and Ohlone/Chynoweth Phase 1 were done in the '90s.

www.vta.org/programs/toc...
Mobile screenshot of the VTA website, with partial views of a map and list of TOD sites. The 12 sites visible on the list are: A. Almaden Phase I (Completed) B. Ohlone/Chynoweth Phase I (Completed) 1. Alder Station (Opportunity Site) 2. Almaden Station (Opportunity Site) 3. Alum Rock Transit Center (Opportunity Site) 4. Berryessa/North San Jose Transit Center (Active Development) 5. Blossom Hill Station (Active Development) 6. Branham Station (Active Development) 7. Capitol Station (Active Development) 8. Capitol Caltrain Station (Opportunity Site) 9. Cerone Division (Opportunity Site) 10. Cottle Station (Opportunity Site)
August 14, 2025 at 12:27 PM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
This transit center also has a strict 10mph speed limit throughout, which makes for an excruciating multi-block crawl to one's bus bay. I think our liability emphasis and low value on "will the transit be good" produces this sort of purpose-ruining treatment for anything novel or "facility"-like.
Photo through the front of a bus within the Salesforce Transit Center, showing one of several overhead speed check digital displays. This one displays "YOUR SPEED: 10" next to a static sign reading "SPEED LIMIT: 10." The transit center's white, architecturally exposed steel facade and ceiling paneling can also be seen.
August 13, 2025 at 6:03 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
I'm interested in the legal & design culture differences that enable that yield crossing operation in Stockholm, while the same movement in San Francisco requires a gated & staffed full stop.
August 13, 2025 at 5:55 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
Improving the ACE ROW and service would be far more ideal than a one-seat ride on BART from Dublin/Pleasanton to San Jose.
Crude rail line drawing on a satellite map of the Tri-Valley and South Bay areas of the San Francisco Bay. Two lines have been drawn in. One is the ACE right of way, with ~5 stops and a relatively direct route from Livermore in the east to San Jose in the south. The other is the BART right of way, with ~12 stops and a jog to the west on its route from Dublin/Pleasanton in the east to San Jose in the south.
August 13, 2025 at 4:39 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
As I understand your proposal, it is 30tph transbay and none from 12th to Lake Merritt.

In the future where we're building again, that's less capacity than BART's Metro 2030 study for post-CBTC service (below). East Bay passengers would take up room on SF trains & get less local frequency.
BART study map of "Enhanced East Bay (6-line) Service." It shows the addition of a sixth line in the East Bay: instead of one route from San Jose to Richmond under the 5-line pattern, there would be one from San Jose to Antioch and another from Dublin Pleasanton to Richmond. The map notes that this would provide more direct intra-East Bay travel and improve the experience for non-Transbay commute patterns. The six lines could reach run every 12 or 8 minutes (Concept 3 vs Concept 4), with 8-minute service representing the "system's theoretical maximum throughput," targeting the (pre-pandemic) Plan Bay Area "growth scenario." Source: https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/2023%20Sys%20Metro%202030%20Briefing%20Book.pdf
August 13, 2025 at 3:19 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
Here's a 2023 crayon for a Jack London infill BART station that would also fix the wye. Lake Merritt losing SF trains may be unacceptable. I've never seen this bypass concept studied, and it'll be far future before it's useful - CBTC will improve the wye to 30 tphpd in the transbay tube.
Map of the Downtown Oakland and Jack London Square area, around the BART Oakland wye. The wye sends trains between the north, east, and west directions. In the marked up lines on this map, the east-west leg of the wye, which currently is a double S curve, has been replaced by a bypass line farther south. The new segment of line is shown with a station at Broadway and 4th in Jack London Square. Source: https://medium.com/@infrastructureweak/late-opinions-on-link21-a8b8aed383b3
August 13, 2025 at 2:24 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
BART maintains that a station at Brush St would have unacceptable operational impacts - see the 2003 Jack London study.

I agree: the wye is the system constraint, and too tight - one train in it blocks two paths. A two-track Brush St station would allow station incidents to deadlock the wye.
Map of Downtown Oakland and Jack London Square, showing options considered for BART infill stations on the west leg of the Oakland wye near Jack London Square. Option 1 is furthest east, right at the bend out of the wye tunnel. Option 2a is five blocks farther west, in line with Interstate 980. Option 2b is two blocks farther west than that, out of the Jack London Square area proper. Source: https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/JLSFeasibility1.pdf Long text excerpt, same source. OPTION 1: INFILL STATION AT WASHINGTON STREET PORTAL The installation of a station at the exit of the Washington Street BART Portal would provide the greatest proximity to Jack London Square. The track in the vicinity of the Portal has a 3.75% grade, while BART’s station design criteria require an overall grade of 1% or less.1 Consequently, to allow for the necessary grade at an infill station, some tracks that converge under- ground in the Oakland Wye would have to be re- configured. Moreover, the three switches located in this area of track would need to be maintained. The addition of a station would thus entail the relocation of the existing switches westward towards the West Oakland Station. In so doing, the aerial structure would need to be reconfigured to carry the three tracks and associated switches. These factors would make the location of a sta- tion here an enormously costly endeavor with sig- nificant operational impacts in the densest por- tion of the BART system where routes merge and diverge. Since revenue service would have to be maintained during construction, this would add greatly to the complexity and cost of the project. While the precise cost of such an endeavor is unknown, it is many more times greater than other options considered in this study. A thorough analysis of this option would require substantial funds for an engineering review. Another text excerpt. OPTION 2A: INFILL STATION BETWEEN CASTRO AND MARKET STREETS Another option is to locate the station closer to the existing West Oakland BART Station, utilizing the existing track configuration and conforming to design criteria. One such location for such a station exists between Castro Street and Market Street. To utilize this site and maintain opera- tional flexibility, a third track would need to adjoin one of the two platforms. Unfortunately, the vertical curve in the existing trackwork lead- ing out of the Portal compresses the available space for a turnout and crossover to be installed, and precludes this track from fitting between the Portal and this particular site. However, locating the station slightly further towards the West Oakland Station to make room for the turnouts and crossover only pushes the station past the available straight section of track. As a result the station cannot be constructed at this location to meet BART’s criteria and is therefore not a viable option.
August 13, 2025 at 2:24 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
The existing BART tracks aren't level at Jefferson Street where you've shown this Jack London infill station, however that doesn't mean a station is impossible. First, the tracks are level to the west at Brush St, so could accommodate side platforms. However...
Screenshot of the Google MyMap linked by the poster above. It shows a BART station at Jefferson and 4th, a few blocks west of Broadway in Jack London Square, Oakland. 3d satellite view from Google Earth of the area from the map. The elevated BART tracks are visible in front of elevated Interstate 880. On the right/east side of the image, where the infill station was marked, the tracks are still sloping out of the ground. They level out on the left/west side of the image.
August 13, 2025 at 2:24 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
A Vallejo bridge is one of the two alternatives being carried forward in Capitol Corridor's Carquinez Crossing Study.

However, the Vallejo alternative has been sandbagged by refusing the logical Sonoma Blvd alignment.
A more detailed map of the Vallejo crossing, showing the rail line deviating west to run just offshore after crossing the Carquinez Strait. Descriptive text: As with the south side of the Strait, on the north side of the Strait route options are also limited by the location of the bridge. The Vallejo representative route option assumes construction of a long, curving bridge over the water to the west of the bluff at Carquinez Heights. This bridge would descend at an approximate 1.5% grade from the Strait crossing down to the ground elevation at Vallejo. This concept is shown in Figure 5. Note that the bridge would pass in front of developed areas at the California Maritime Academy. While not directly over structures, the bridge would be above the Academy’s shoreline infrastructure. Figure 5: Magenta alignment illustrates concept for the Vallejo representative route option from Rodeo (top left), climbing through Crockett, crossing the Strait on a new bridge, passing in front of the California Maritime Academy, descending past Carquinez Heights on a bridge, reaching existing ground elevation at Highway 29 / Sonoma Boulevard (top right). Source: https://www.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/CCJPA-Carquinez-Phase-2-Report_compressed.pdf Next paragraph, explaining the reason options on land were dismissed: Several other options at the north side of the Strait have been considered. An option navigating around Carquinez Heights (rather than under it) has been considered for the Interstate 80 representative route option, described in the next Section. In the prior phase of this study, additional route options paralleling Interstate 80 and entering Vallejo via Sonoma Boulevard or Curtola Parkway were considered. However, each of these would have involved significant impacts to residential and commercial areas and were not pursued further.
August 13, 2025 at 1:50 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
Instead: Capitol Corridor needs a new bridge and dedicated passenger tracks. Putting that bridge at Vallejo and running passenger trains on the little-used Vallejo & Lombard subdivisions would give Vallejo and Napa fast trains to SF at little or no additional cost.
Map of Western Contra Costa County and Solano County, which are divided by the east-west Carquinez Strait at the northeast end of the San Francisco Bay. Existing highway bridges cross the strait in two places: Vallejo in the west and Benicia in the east. There is an existing rail bridge at the Benicia crossing. This map of the "Vallejo representative route option" depicts a pink rail line hugging the Contra Costa coast from the southwest, then crossing the strait at a new bridge just west of the existing highway bridge at Vallejo, and continuing northeast on existing tracks to rejoin the current rail corridor to Sacramento. Source: https://www.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/CCJPA-Carquinez-Phase-2-Report_compressed.pdf
August 13, 2025 at 1:50 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
Lots of Bay places want BART extensions, because that's our local reference for a frequent train that goes downtown. But BART's costly dedicated infrastructure, low-voltage power, and stop spacing are not ideal at that distance.

See the history of "wBART" for rejected extensions in this direction.
Markup of a "wBART possible future study corridor" on a satellite view of western Contra Costa County, where the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, and Hercules follow the flats along a northwest line between the San Francisco Bay and the hills of El Sobrante. The line shown would continue north to Hercules from the existing terminal at Richmond. Source: https://www.westcontracostatc.gov/files/managed/Document/485/TM-5_Existing-and-Planned-Network_20160113.pdf
August 13, 2025 at 1:50 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
Jumpscared by new AC Transit routes
Photo of the back of a bus, with digital sign displaying route number 27. It's night. The bus is on a combination bus lane/right turn lane passing through a green light. This is next to the UC Berkeley campus; there is a Bear Transit cutaway bus beyond the AC Transit one. Photo of the back of an AC Transit 22 bus, taken just after the previous one.
August 12, 2025 at 4:57 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
If any more confirmation is required, here's the emergency vehicle exemption from the text of California's vetoed law, which would have required a ping upon crossing 10mph above the speed limit.
Short excerpt from a bill. "(c) A passive intelligent speed assistance system shall be capable of being fully disabled by the manufacturer or a franchisee, for the purpose described in Section 28172. 28172. Section 28171 does not apply to any vehicle purchased, sold, or used as an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165." Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB961
August 10, 2025 at 11:28 PM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
The tech to end speeding deaths already exists, has existed, and has been studied for decades. It is only prevented from rolling out to the vehicle fleet because we don't want to bother drivers when they speed.

www.nhtsa.gov/book/counter...
Long text excerpt from the linked webpage. "While ISA has received limited trials in the United States, several vehicles with optional ISA advisory capabilities (open ISA level) are currently available (NTSB, 2017), and ISA systems that limit gas flow to engines are also available on a limited number of newer models (IIHS, 2021a). Internationally, the European Union is further along, having passed legislation in 2019 that will require all new vehicles sold starting 2024 to be fitted with ISA (European Commission, 2021). According to a summary on the SAE International (Visnic, 2019) website, European ISA will work much like cruise control to prevent the vehicle from traveling in excess of the posted speed limit by limiting engine power (and not through automatic braking). The systems will, however, be equipped with on/off switches to encourage public acceptance, but the default status will be “on” each time the vehicle is started. The systems can also be overridden by the driver, who remains in control of the vehicle speed. The EU also updated other vehicle safety measures, including a requirement for event data recorders to show whether the system was being over-ridden at the time of the crash." Another excerpt. "Based on relationships between speed and safety, substantial crash savings are expected (van der Pas et al., 2014). Assuming that the risk of speeding, and speeding-related fatalities and injuries could be virtually eliminated among those using the systems, Vaa et al. (2014) estimated that ISA was the most effective driver support system for saving lives and reducing injuries compared to speed governors, adaptive cruise control, electronic stability control, and other non-speed-related driver systems such as alcohol interlock technologies. The European Transport Safety Council estimated that the upcoming fitting of ISA on all cars, vans, buses, and heavy goods vehicles will eventually cut road deaths by 20% across the European Union countries." Another excerpt "Estimates of speed and safety relationships suggest widespread or universal deployment of ISA could lead to significant crash, fatality, and injury reductions. The largest safety benefits for various types of potential ISA roll-outs, would likely be for systems requiring mandatory speed limit compliance that cannot be over-ridden by the driver or turned off (Carsten & Tate, 2001). In addition, dynamic systems that could react to variable conditions such as surface friction and traffic, as well as fixed and variable speed limits, could yield maximum crash savings – up to 15 times the cost to implement and run the system per some estimates (Carsten & Tate, 2001). Requiring ISA for higher risk groups (younger drivers, professional drivers, drivers convicted of serious speeding offenses) was deemed most cost-effective among partial ISA roll-outs (Vaa et al., 2014)." "Need for political action: The main roadblock to implementation may be political, rather than safety or technological reasons (Carsten, 2012). Policymakers are ever attuned to public perception and pushback. More State and national-level discussion and communication about the dangers of speed, and the most effective strategies for controlling speeding may be needed."
August 9, 2025 at 5:40 PM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
Ok but I definitely prefer the specific stop flag service change notices they *were* putting up to this terrifying ambiguity...
Photo of a laminated AC Transit sign zip tied to a poll. "Realign Service Changes impact 40% of all AC Transit stops* Changes begin August 10 *Updated signs may not be present at all stops by August 10" Below that is a Spanish translation. In the background there are small houses, a white SUV, blue sky, and a large deciduous tree, overhanging the road.
August 7, 2025 at 3:30 PM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
Any idea why this skip stop plan to maintain 30-minute headways was dropped?
Excerpt from a Marin Independent Journal article published in 2016. "When the entire structure is completed, SMART will take ownership and provide maintenance, but trains will not stop at the station all the time. Rail officials say the station will not get full train service because adding another stop along the line would slow the system beyond its planned schedule, which calls for 30-minute headways. Instead a train trip would alternate between stopping downtown and at the Atherton Avenue/San Marin Drive station. The downtown station has not been without controversy. In January the Novato City Council dismissed a city staff recommendation to forgo building the station and voted 3-2 to pursue the first phase of station construction. In June, a motion to ax the project was rejected when the council deadlocked 2-2." Source: https://www.marinij.com/2016/08/17/downtown-novato-train-station-comes-to-life/
August 5, 2025 at 1:55 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
I agree, and unfortunately I think that push would need to come externally & quite soon. SMART's current expenditure plan for the 2026 renewal does mention fleet expansion, but for rail it's all in on Cloverdale and Solano.
Two slides from an April 2025 SMART presentation on a 2026 tax renewal ballot measure, both entitled "Expenditure Plan." "Ridership: In order to achieve the 5-year goal of increasing ridership to 5,000 riders per day, the revenues generated from this measure will fund the following: ▪ Safe, clean, reliable and accessible passenger rail service that meets the needs of the community ▪ Affordable and user-friendly fare program ▪ Improved first/last mile transit connections ▪ Improved auto and bike parking options ▪ Service levels adjusted to meet demand (frequency, span of service, etc.) ▪ An enriched customer experience ▪ Enhanced marketing, outreach and communications ▪ System maintained in a state of good repair ▪ Fleet expansion and replacement needed to expand service ▪ Climate-friendly practices within SMART’s standard operating procedures, including acquiring low and zero-emission fleet technology ▪ System resilience by planning for sea level rise and weather events ▪ Workforce development. Pathways: To meet SMART’s goal of designing and constructing planned pathways, maintaining existing pathways, and enhancing the user experience, the revenues generated from this measure will support funding the following: ▪ Construction of gap closure segments of the SMART Pathway/Great Redwood Trail ▪ Construction of pathway with rail extensions ▪ Adequate wayfinding on the Pathway ▪ Improved pathway website with enhanced information ▪ A safe and user-friendly pathway ▪ Maintaining existing pathway in a state of good repair ▪ Developing plan for future pathway segments/enhancements." Source: https://www.sonomamarintrain.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Agenda%20Item%208%20-%20Draft%20Sales%20Tax%20Extension%20Full%20Text%20Measure%20.pdf Two more expenditure plan slides from the same presentation. "Extensions: To meet SMART’s goal of completing the passenger rail and pathway system from Larkspur to Cloverdale, the revenues generated from this measure will support funding the following: ▪ Completion of funded passenger rail and pathways extensions ▪ Pursuit of grant funding for the construction of unfunded rail and pathway segments ▪ Continued development of east/west passenger rail project ▪ Increased rail car fleet, yard and facilities as needed to support service Freight: To ensure that SMART’s mainline accommodates the movement of freight, as required in SMART’s authorizing legislation, while working toward corridor preservation and project development of East/West rail alignment for future passenger rail service, the revenues generated from this measure will fund the strategies below. ▪ Ensuring that new extensions of the rail system accommodate freight movement ▪ Preserving East/West Corridor for future passenger rail service ▪ Continuing project development for future passenger rail service on East/West rail alignment"
August 5, 2025 at 12:53 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
Wish granted: they're proposing to discontinue 150
MASCOTS slide entitled "RECOMMENDATIONS : Optimize Southern Marin Bus Service." "• Improve service south of San Rafael by simplifying and reducing redundancy • GGT Regional Service to/from San Francisco – Increase Route 101 frequency between San Rafael and San Francisco – Operate Route 130 between Marin City, Sausalito, and SF with increased frequency – Discontinue Route 150 to reflect low ridership, and reinvest resources in service with better ridership potential – Former Route 130 and 150 riders would use Routes 101, 114, or 132 instead, or take Marin Transit and transfer to Route 130 in Marin City • Consolidate Marin Transit routes along Highway 101 between San Rafael and Marin City to simplify and improve legibility for customers – One route every 15 minutes serving all bus pad stops" Source: https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-07/mascots_ggbhtd_board_presentation.pdf
August 4, 2025 at 10:42 PM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
The key change in MASCOTS is improving SMART frequency and terminating most 101 buses at the SMART station in San Rafael, avoiding redundancy and enabling the improved frequency. SMART frequency is still limited to 32 minutes, however, by its longest single-track segment - and operations funding.
Service diagram from the website linked in the parent post. It shows transit service changes in Sonoma County: discontinued on routes 172X, 172, and 164, and on route 101 north of Novato, in favor of simplified and more frequent service on Route 172 to Santa Rosa, more frequent SMART service north of San Rafael, and more frequent 101 service south of San Rafael. Similar transit service diagram from the same source, this one for Marin County. Here, Marin Transit route 36 is discontinued, as is Golden Gate Transit route 150. Most local Marin Transit routes connect to regional buses: 101 at San Rafael; 130 at Marin City Hub.
August 4, 2025 at 10:16 PM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
IFC Appendix D deserves significant blame for this sort of outcome:
Mobile screenshot excerpting a section of the "2021 International Fire Code (IFC) Appendix D, Fire Apparatus Access Roads." "MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS: D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders (see Figure D103.1)." The figure shows five simple line plans of roads. The one referenced by this section, "MINIMUM CLEARANCE AROUND A FIRE HYDRANT," shows the fire road as 20 feet wide minimum, except for 20 feet on either side of a fire hydrant, where it must be 26 feet wide. The other four diagrams show turnaround options: a 96-foot diameter cul-de-sac, a "Y" with 60-foot arms, a 120-foot-wide hammerhead, or a similar hammerhead tilted on one side. Source: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IFC2021P1/appendix-d-fire-apparatus-access-roads Another Appendix D excerpt, "SECTION D105 AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS." "D105.1 Where required. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet (9144 mm), approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. Exception: Where approved by the fire code official, buildings of Type IA, Type IB or Type construction equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system fighter access through an enclosed stairway with a Class I standpipe from the lowest level of fire department vehicle access to all roof surfaces. D105.2 Width. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof." Last excerpt. "D106.2 Projects having more than 200 dwelling units. Multiple-family residential projects having more than 200 dwelling units shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads regardless of whether they are equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system. D106.3 Remoteness. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one- half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses."
August 3, 2025 at 3:57 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
(2/2) Rather than being seen as a disqualifying cost add for Oakland-SF HSR alignments in the 2007 DEIR, the transbay tunnel would be seen as a foregone necessity and win/win.
Figure from the 2007 CAHSR Draft EIR summary report. This shows "Bay Area to Central Valley - High-Speed Train Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options Carried Forward for Further Consideration." The alternatives are drawn in thick blue lines. There are many suboptions within the broader alternatives. The broader alternatives are: - Whether to cross the hills to the south of the Bay (Pacheco Pass) or near the middle of the Bay (Altamont Pass) - Whether to run up the east or west side of the Bay, or both - Whether to cross the Bay between San Francisco and Oakland, Redwood City and Union City (Dumbarton), or neither The chosen alignment in reality, after publication of this graphic, is crossing the hills at Pacheco Pass and running up the west side of the Bay only, with no Bay crossing. Source: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/258/figS_4-1.pdf Excerpt from a table of alternatives in the 2007 CAHSR draft EIR summary report. "San Francisco Bay Crossings" to either Transbay Transit Center or 4th & King. "This alignment alternative would connect the Oakland (West Oakland or 12th Street City Center) and San Francisco (Transbay Transit Center or 4th & King) HST stations via a new transbay tube. This alignment could serve either Altamont Pass or Pacheco Pass alignment alternatives." Source: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/256/cahst_bayarea_peir-eis_summary.pdf Longer excerpt from the same report, on the subject of "Capital Costs." I have highlighted two sentences: "The highest costs per mile are for the network alternatives that include a new San Francisco Bay crossing in a tube or a bridge." and "Inclusion of a new transbay tube is estimated to cost from $3.8 to $4.0 billion." Full excerpt: "Capital Costs Capital costs for the HST Network Alternatives range from $6.0 billion for Altamont Pass Union City terminus—the shortest network alternative—to $20.4 billion for a combination of the Altamont and Pacheco Network options with service to all three urban centers—the longest network alternative. The average cost per mile ranges from $37.5 million for a Pacheco Pass alternative terminating at San Jose to $74.3 million for a Pacheco Pass alignment serving San Francisco and Oakland with a new transbay tube. The highest costs per mile are for the network alternatives that include a new San Francisco Bay crossing in a tube or a bridge. Network alternatives that include a new transbay tube between Oakland and San Francisco exhibit costs per mile of between $61.4 and $74.3 million. Network alternatives that include a new bridge crossing of the Bay near Dumbarton exhibit costs between $54.0 and $62.6 million per mile. Inclusion of a new transbay tube is estimated to cost from $3.8 to $4.0 billion. A new Dumbarton Bridge is estimated to cost $1.3 to $1.7 billion. Crossing the Bay in a tube in the Dumbarton Corridor would cost an additional $362 million compared to the high bridge option."
August 1, 2025 at 5:53 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
Alternatively, and less well-known: In 1985, Caltrans provides the option for state operation of CalTrain with local contribution, similar to the San Joaquins or "San Diegan" (today's Surfliner), rather than devolving it to the JPB. Caltrans continues work on DTX, and it is completed by 1995.
Excerpt from a 1985 Caltrans report: "On the other hand, there appears to be no analytical reason why the state should continue to manage the contract for the Peninsula Commuter Service between San Francisco and San Jose. Currently, the state pays one-half of the subsidy for this service, up to approximately $8.2 million in 1984-85, even though the benefits from the service are almost entirely regional in nature. Moreover, local management of this service is feasible." Source: https://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/1985/01_85_intercity_and_commuter_rail_services_in_california.pdf
August 1, 2025 at 4:58 AM
infrastructureweak.bsky.social
The technical and regulatory infeasibility of a through-running BART station next to the SFO terminals is recognized in 1993, not 1996. State Sen. Quentin Kopp does not flip his support from Caltrain DTX to BART SFO, or put Measure I on the 1994 SF primary ballot. Caltrain DTX opens in 2003.
Excerpt from a digital copy of a historical op-ed called "Extending Caltrain Is Top Priority," published in the San Francisco Chronicle on October 10, 1987 by Quentin Kopp. "Finally, opposition to the CalTrain extension usually manifests itself in the support of the rather fanciful, seductive notion of extending BART "to the San Francisco Airport." Therein lies the genesis of attacks on the terminal relocation. But the proposed extension of BART in San Mateo County is not to the airport; rather, it would be to a wasteland west of the Bayshore and approximately a mile and one half from the airline terminals. I unequivocally predict that should such a venture eve r be effectuated, it will be a debilitating money loser and a system which produces little usage by airline passengers or airport employees. It has been proven time and again that people will not utilize public transit to an airport if it requires transferring to another mode of transportation." Source: https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=NewsBank&pedirect=true&docref=news/0EB4EFB04B10E733 (Requires library log in)
August 1, 2025 at 4:07 AM