3 ms·

The people who live on the peninsula chose to pull out of the BART system. I'm sorry, but you kinda lose the ability to complain about how well it serves you a

The people who live on the peninsula chose to pull out of the BART system. I'm sorry, but you kinda lose the ability to complain about how well it serves you and demand extra service frequency to serve a gap to another transit system from your communities when y'all explicitly chose not to be part of it. For the counties that are part of BART, the SFO connection is great.

jrockway 10y ago
For someone that isn't from San Francisco, I feel like I have an excessively intimate understanding of the interior details of the San Bruno station. Timed transfers? What are those?
- djcapelis 10y ago
  Timed transfers are when the trains are timed to arrive at the station at the same time so no additional waiting is required to do a transfer. This allows transferring passengers to simply walk off one train and onto a different one located across the platform. They are common on BART where many transfers are timed transfers, but are relatively uncommon on other systems, since timed transfers comes with a large decrease in timetable flexibility which ultimately results in less system responsiveness to loading, since if a busy line has a timed transfer to a less busy line, you have to run trains at the same frequency down both lines. (BART varies the number of cars in response to passenger loading, but has less flexibility to vary the train timing.) It also requires a high on time arrival rate, since the trains need to arrive within about 1-2 minutes most times so neither train has to wait for the other. BART's OTA rate is actually pretty good and most timed transfers have both trains show up within 30-60 seconds of each other. BART only has five different lines though, which helps make this work, and also increases the need somewhat, since transfers aren't otherwise as common.
  - jrockway 10y ago
    Right, BART is somewhat famous for the timed-transfers on other parts of the network, but they don't do it for the direction-changing transfer at San Bruno, if I understand correctly. You wait 20 minutes at SFO, then wait 20 minutes at San Bruno, and then you're in Millbrae where you get to wait an hour for Caltrain ;)
    - djcapelis 10y ago
      Those are the maximum waits you'll experience, but yes it is possible to have to wait that long during certain times. If you consider the timetable mechanics carefully, you'll realize why timed-transfers for trains going different directions right at the end of a line are much worse than creating a time table to allow timed transfers elsewhere. You have to completely change turnaround time at the end of the line, idling staff for longer or messing with people's mandated break times, or etc etc etc. OR massively increase service frequency, with the corresponding increase of frequencies on the other lines with timed transfer to the line you've changed frequencies on. SamTrans used to run a more frequent shuttle like BART service between SFO and Millbrae when they were more directly involved in operations cost and setting the BART timetable, but then they reduced their involvement. If San Mateo county reduces its involvement, it isn't incumbent on BART to turn its timetable upside down to try and make the transfers faster to serve people in their county and other counties that don't pay in to BART at a loss to the district and the counties that do pay for an effective transit system. It's not like they can just make a small adjustment to better serve those passengers. And it's not like the passenger volume between SFO<->Millbrae justifies the change. The passenger volume between every single other BART station (other than Millbrae) and SFO is served fine by the current timetable. Making a change here literally only helps people coming from Millbrae.
      - amluto 10y ago
        > And it's not like the passenger volume between SFO<->Millbrae justifies the change. Huh? I've taken Caltrain to Millbrae and Uber to SFO many times. The transfer right now is so bad as to be unusable. Why would you use the current ridership to decide whether making the transfer not suck is reasonable? It's like Sonic.net saying they'll bring me fiber if 50% of my community signs up for 3Mbps DSL first.
        djcapelis 10y ago
        That connection used to have a much higher service frequency and the traffic didn't support the costs of operating it. I'm not judging by what the traffic is now, I'm judging by what the traffic was when there was a dedicated BART shuttle to serve that exact segment at high frequency. Further, the timetable changes to increase service between that single station and the airport are large, therefore a massive amount of traffic would be needed from one station whereas improvements to existing service benefit people coming from the other 43 stations. So no, it's nothing like your analogy. And, even if the traffic would be similar to have an operating loss ratio similar to the other lines, that still doesn't address the fact that fundamentally it would be to provide service for transit users who live in counties that voted to reduce their BART service and opt out of that transit system. So in your analogy it would be like a Comcast customer complaining that when they use their friend's sonic.net line, the speeds aren't to their liking.
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
When every tiny suburb decides on its own whether it will allow public transport or not, then public transport will be sketchy and useless. Blaming this on individual counties is a waste of time, since counties are abstract entities that cannot feel guilt or remorse.
- techsupporter 10y ago
  But isn't that the point of local government? Or, at least, isn't that the reason that voters (who vote against public transit in these areas) will give? That large transit agencies covering big swaths of territory are unwieldy? Why is blaming it on individual counties a waste of time? There had to be a political push to withdraw from the larger system, or at least to have the vote, so shouldn't county leaders be "on the hook" for that push? One of the things the Puget Sound region got right with its transit is to have a super-regional, standalone agency with its own tax and bonding authority that has the express mission of "connect the discrete local agencies together with express service." How it does that (see also: Spine Destiny in relation to Link) is a matter of some debate but it factually does accomplish the goal with almost all parts of the region being equally accessible through their major transit hubs. If, for example, Snohomish County up and said "pfft, screw that Sound Transit business," why should a) the county leaders not have responsibility for, if nothing else, not being effective at showing the benefit of connectivity to the regional system; and b) SnoCo be able to complain about not having the benefits of the system that it voluntarily left? Political systems are only "abstract" if one doesn't place stock in the influence of that level of government.
DrScump 10y ago
<The people who live on the peninsula chose to pull out of the BART system.> No, the people never had a choice, but they would have likely never participated by choice. They would have been paying full share while waiting many years after SF and Alameda County for service, plus most passenger traffic would have been through-traffic between SF and Santa Clara County (which itself opted out because BART would not extend more than a couple of miles into the county until over a decade later).
- Animats 10y ago
  Santa Clara County voted yes on the original BART system. San Mateo County voted no. That's why BART doesn't go to San Jose. Consideration was given to running BART through San Mateo County with no stations, but that option was too expensive.
  - DrScump 10y ago
    No, Santa Clara County was out four years before San Mateo County was[0]. The original BART plan wouldn't have reached San Jose in the first place. [0] http://www.bart.gov/about/history http://www.bart.gov/about/history

jrockway 10y ago

For someone that isn't from San Francisco, I feel like I have an excessively intimate understanding of the interior details of the San Bruno station. Timed transfers? What are those?

djcapelis 10y ago
Timed transfers are when the trains are timed to arrive at the station at the same time so no additional waiting is required to do a transfer. This allows transferring passengers to simply walk off one train and onto a different one located across the platform. They are common on BART where many transfers are timed transfers, but are relatively uncommon on other systems, since timed transfers comes with a large decrease in timetable flexibility which ultimately results in less system responsiveness to loading, since if a busy line has a timed transfer to a less busy line, you have to run trains at the same frequency down both lines. (BART varies the number of cars in response to passenger loading, but has less flexibility to vary the train timing.) It also requires a high on time arrival rate, since the trains need to arrive within about 1-2 minutes most times so neither train has to wait for the other. BART's OTA rate is actually pretty good and most timed transfers have both trains show up within 30-60 seconds of each other. BART only has five different lines though, which helps make this work, and also increases the need somewhat, since transfers aren't otherwise as common.
- jrockway 10y ago
  Right, BART is somewhat famous for the timed-transfers on other parts of the network, but they don't do it for the direction-changing transfer at San Bruno, if I understand correctly. You wait 20 minutes at SFO, then wait 20 minutes at San Bruno, and then you're in Millbrae where you get to wait an hour for Caltrain ;)
  - djcapelis 10y ago
    Those are the maximum waits you'll experience, but yes it is possible to have to wait that long during certain times. If you consider the timetable mechanics carefully, you'll realize why timed-transfers for trains going different directions right at the end of a line are much worse than creating a time table to allow timed transfers elsewhere. You have to completely change turnaround time at the end of the line, idling staff for longer or messing with people's mandated break times, or etc etc etc. OR massively increase service frequency, with the corresponding increase of frequencies on the other lines with timed transfer to the line you've changed frequencies on. SamTrans used to run a more frequent shuttle like BART service between SFO and Millbrae when they were more directly involved in operations cost and setting the BART timetable, but then they reduced their involvement. If San Mateo county reduces its involvement, it isn't incumbent on BART to turn its timetable upside down to try and make the transfers faster to serve people in their county and other counties that don't pay in to BART at a loss to the district and the counties that do pay for an effective transit system. It's not like they can just make a small adjustment to better serve those passengers. And it's not like the passenger volume between SFO<->Millbrae justifies the change. The passenger volume between every single other BART station (other than Millbrae) and SFO is served fine by the current timetable. Making a change here literally only helps people coming from Millbrae.
    - amluto 10y ago
      > And it's not like the passenger volume between SFO<->Millbrae justifies the change. Huh? I've taken Caltrain to Millbrae and Uber to SFO many times. The transfer right now is so bad as to be unusable. Why would you use the current ridership to decide whether making the transfer not suck is reasonable? It's like Sonic.net saying they'll bring me fiber if 50% of my community signs up for 3Mbps DSL first.
      - djcapelis 10y ago
        That connection used to have a much higher service frequency and the traffic didn't support the costs of operating it. I'm not judging by what the traffic is now, I'm judging by what the traffic was when there was a dedicated BART shuttle to serve that exact segment at high frequency. Further, the timetable changes to increase service between that single station and the airport are large, therefore a massive amount of traffic would be needed from one station whereas improvements to existing service benefit people coming from the other 43 stations. So no, it's nothing like your analogy. And, even if the traffic would be similar to have an operating loss ratio similar to the other lines, that still doesn't address the fact that fundamentally it would be to provide service for transit users who live in counties that voted to reduce their BART service and opt out of that transit system. So in your analogy it would be like a Comcast customer complaining that when they use their friend's sonic.net line, the speeds aren't to their liking.

KKKKkkkk1 10y ago

When every tiny suburb decides on its own whether it will allow public transport or not, then public transport will be sketchy and useless. Blaming this on individual counties is a waste of time, since counties are abstract entities that cannot feel guilt or remorse.

techsupporter 10y ago
But isn't that the point of local government? Or, at least, isn't that the reason that voters (who vote against public transit in these areas) will give? That large transit agencies covering big swaths of territory are unwieldy? Why is blaming it on individual counties a waste of time? There had to be a political push to withdraw from the larger system, or at least to have the vote, so shouldn't county leaders be "on the hook" for that push? One of the things the Puget Sound region got right with its transit is to have a super-regional, standalone agency with its own tax and bonding authority that has the express mission of "connect the discrete local agencies together with express service." How it does that (see also: Spine Destiny in relation to Link) is a matter of some debate but it factually does accomplish the goal with almost all parts of the region being equally accessible through their major transit hubs. If, for example, Snohomish County up and said "pfft, screw that Sound Transit business," why should a) the county leaders not have responsibility for, if nothing else, not being effective at showing the benefit of connectivity to the regional system; and b) SnoCo be able to complain about not having the benefits of the system that it voluntarily left? Political systems are only "abstract" if one doesn't place stock in the influence of that level of government.

DrScump 10y ago

<The people who live on the peninsula chose to pull out of the BART system.> No, the people never had a choice, but they would have likely never participated by choice. They would have been paying full share while waiting many years after SF and Alameda County for service, plus most passenger traffic would have been through-traffic between SF and Santa Clara County (which itself opted out because BART would not extend more than a couple of miles into the county until over a decade later).

Animats 10y ago
Santa Clara County voted yes on the original BART system. San Mateo County voted no. That's why BART doesn't go to San Jose. Consideration was given to running BART through San Mateo County with no stations, but that option was too expensive.
- DrScump 10y ago
  No, Santa Clara County was out four years before San Mateo County was[0]. The original BART plan wouldn't have reached San Jose in the first place. [0] http://www.bart.gov/about/history http://www.bart.gov/about/history