Tunneling Below Second Avenue (for New Subway)(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Tunneling Below Second Avenue (for New Subway)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/magazine/tunneling-below-second-avenue.html
68 comments
> The story highlights something I think anti-rail proponents always miss: the lifetime of this infrastructure is far beyond what ordinary businesses deal with. Parts of the NYC subway are a century old, and parts of the London subway are pushing 150 years old.
The part that rail proponents miss is that very little of the world is NYC/London/Japan.
Rail, like freeways, can be a "tipping point" if other things are close. However, that isn't always true.
Also, you basically have to decide between freight rail and passenger rail, and freight rail makes a lot more sense for much of the US. (Yes, I know that you folks insist that one can have both, but how about some examples....)
High-speed rail is going to break CA financially.
The part that rail proponents miss is that very little of the world is NYC/London/Japan.
Rail, like freeways, can be a "tipping point" if other things are close. However, that isn't always true.
Also, you basically have to decide between freight rail and passenger rail, and freight rail makes a lot more sense for much of the US. (Yes, I know that you folks insist that one can have both, but how about some examples....)
High-speed rail is going to break CA financially.
"High-speed rail is going to break CA financially." When I hear this, I wonder what the west would be like if people had said the same of all the infrastructure we rely on in the west today. The rail, the roads, the bridges, the dams. Everything.
You say "very little of the world is NYC/London/Japan."
Well you know what? The western US would have nearly no one living in it if it weren't for big infrastructure projects. It's naturally a very inhospitable place, too little water half the year, too spread out, etc. But we've turned it into a place millions can thrive in. High speed rail may not be as critical as water, but it's ridiculous to think we can't build a modern railroad today.
If we can't build a modern railroad today then we're already broken. And if we're already broken, what do we have to lose?
You say "very little of the world is NYC/London/Japan."
Well you know what? The western US would have nearly no one living in it if it weren't for big infrastructure projects. It's naturally a very inhospitable place, too little water half the year, too spread out, etc. But we've turned it into a place millions can thrive in. High speed rail may not be as critical as water, but it's ridiculous to think we can't build a modern railroad today.
If we can't build a modern railroad today then we're already broken. And if we're already broken, what do we have to lose?
This is absolutely right. Chicago exploded from a settlement of a few thousand people in 1840 to one of the five largest cities in the world, with over a million people, in 1890. This growth was contemporaneous with the expansion of the railroads out west and Chicago's status as the major U.S. rail hub.
And it's also absolutely right that it's ridiculous for people out west to complain about the intractability of big infrastructure projects. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, etc, wouldn't even exist without massive U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects in the 19th century that made the harsh desert habitable.
And it's also absolutely right that it's ridiculous for people out west to complain about the intractability of big infrastructure projects. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, etc, wouldn't even exist without massive U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects in the 19th century that made the harsh desert habitable.
> "High-speed rail is going to break CA financially." When I hear this, I wonder what the west would be like if people had said the same of all the infrastructure we rely on in the west today.
There are several huge differences between then and now.
The big one is that that infrastructure exists. High speed rail can't make a 10x difference on any factor. That infrastructure did, usually on multiple factors.
Another is that that infrastructure was relatively cheap. We didn't "bet the economy" on it. CA's high-speed rail is betting CA's economy. (Govt then was roughly 3% of GDP. If it had failed, no big deal. That's not true now.)
A related factor is that we didn't have as much govt debt then as now.
> High speed rail may not be as critical as water, but it's ridiculous to think we can't build a modern railroad today.
High speed rail isn't at all critical in CA or across the US.
> If we can't build a modern railroad today then we're already broken.
HSR is technically possible, but that doesn't imply that it's a good idea.
> And if we're already broken, what do we have to lose?
That's insane.
I note that you didn't address freight....
There are several huge differences between then and now.
The big one is that that infrastructure exists. High speed rail can't make a 10x difference on any factor. That infrastructure did, usually on multiple factors.
Another is that that infrastructure was relatively cheap. We didn't "bet the economy" on it. CA's high-speed rail is betting CA's economy. (Govt then was roughly 3% of GDP. If it had failed, no big deal. That's not true now.)
A related factor is that we didn't have as much govt debt then as now.
> High speed rail may not be as critical as water, but it's ridiculous to think we can't build a modern railroad today.
High speed rail isn't at all critical in CA or across the US.
> If we can't build a modern railroad today then we're already broken.
HSR is technically possible, but that doesn't imply that it's a good idea.
> And if we're already broken, what do we have to lose?
That's insane.
I note that you didn't address freight....
That's all true, but at this point we're not even spending money in NYC anymore. The north east corridor could be turned into full blown high speed rail - the demand is absolutely there as shown by how many people ride the current (broken) system. I think we have heavily tipped in favor of 'anti-rail'.
I agree, in South Africa we have a new rail system called the Gautrain linking Pretoria and Johannesburg. Initially I, and many others viewed it as an elitist boondogle aimed at the middle class who wouldn't abandon the cars, particularly because of the poorly controlled urban sprawl in the province (there's already an old rail system that is unreliable and neglected). However, surprisingly, Gautrain has reached capacity at peak times, and longer trains and different schedules are being introduced to deal with the demand. The ridership is also far more diverse than I expected. People are already demanding access from their workplaces, and in the next 10-15 years, I can forsee densities around the stations increasing.
I completely agree with this. Last time I was in New York, I was kind of dismayed that there is not tons of new construction going on. I would not be shocked if the subways are still in use in 500 years. They are a tremendous investment, but they pay back over very long periods, and people absolutely adjust their way of life around this kind of infrastructure. Bonds can be issued to pay for the construction, and then repaid with the revenue from fares over many years. I think it would be difficult to argue that they don't add value, but it is not necessarily easy to estimate exactly what it is.
The TBM's finished digging tunnels for all three NY projects in July, now beings the cleanout and cut & cover work so they can start laying tracks and prepping the stations: http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120725/long-island-city/mt...
I worked briefly on the environmental side of this project at my last job in 2002 and something I don't hear that often is that there are completed cut-and-cover tunnel segments for the 2nd Avenue subway right now - the project initial began in the 1970's and some work was completed before the project ran out of money and it was shut down. I've been in the completed tunnel sections under 2nd Ave in the around 95th Street and under the Bowery. I think there is another section further north in Harlem but I haven't been in that one
Tunnel section under 95th street: http://twitpic.com/afuoxv
Tunnel section under the Bowery: http://twitpic.com/afupg0
The initial plan was to tie the new tunnels with the existing section, but last I heard (and this was admittedly 8 or 8 years ago) they abandoned the plan to tie into the Bowery section (they want to go under it) since the route has changed somewhat to tie in with other lines.
The scale of the project still amazes me, I'm glad to see that it's proceeding.
I worked briefly on the environmental side of this project at my last job in 2002 and something I don't hear that often is that there are completed cut-and-cover tunnel segments for the 2nd Avenue subway right now - the project initial began in the 1970's and some work was completed before the project ran out of money and it was shut down. I've been in the completed tunnel sections under 2nd Ave in the around 95th Street and under the Bowery. I think there is another section further north in Harlem but I haven't been in that one
Tunnel section under 95th street: http://twitpic.com/afuoxv
Tunnel section under the Bowery: http://twitpic.com/afupg0
The initial plan was to tie the new tunnels with the existing section, but last I heard (and this was admittedly 8 or 8 years ago) they abandoned the plan to tie into the Bowery section (they want to go under it) since the route has changed somewhat to tie in with other lines.
The scale of the project still amazes me, I'm glad to see that it's proceeding.
The East Side needs another subway badly - this will be a great benefit to a great city. Thanks for this link!
New York Magazine has an article that fills in some more of the historical and political context: http://nymag.com/print/?/nymetro/news/features/n_10109/
Slightly related: As a transport geek, I'm a fan of subways everywhere. I recommend London's excellent Transport Museum in Covent Garden for a great historical perspective on how tunnels and public transportation gets built.
http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/
New York Magazine has an article that fills in some more of the historical and political context: http://nymag.com/print/?/nymetro/news/features/n_10109/
Slightly related: As a transport geek, I'm a fan of subways everywhere. I recommend London's excellent Transport Museum in Covent Garden for a great historical perspective on how tunnels and public transportation gets built.
http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/
I'll second the London Transport Museum suggestion - I was there with my children yesterday and had a great time. A ticket also lasts for one year, so you can revisit as many times as you wish, which makes it a great value day out.
NJ<->NYC needs another "subway" tunnel pretty badly too. Ferrying people in and out with buses has reached its limit.
Thanks to Gov. Chris Christie it's not gonna happen anytime soon: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/nyregion/08tunnel.html
If you don't have the money, then you cannot go forward with this type of thing. Maybe after some years of getting back to balance on their budget, NJ can start big things again.
People are lending money to governments at extremely low rates, and construction costs are extremely low. New Jersey's finances would've been fine if the project had proceeded. Paying down government debt during a recession is contrary to every economics textbook I've seen.
Research the Harding & Coolidge vs Hoover approach. Betting that interest rates can be kept low is not a good policy. It is very much like betting on a high rate of return like many public pension funds.
You can lock in rates through issuing bonds which is how these things are typically financed. Variable rate debt is fairly rare here.
In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of people pay every day for the inefficient mass transportation system. There are good ways to spend money in bad times. See: Great Depression.
And there are millions of children in NJ that need the government to not burden them with debt. NJ spends more than it takes in and needs to fix that first.
Even if a family has another kid on the way, they still need to make sure they have budgeted properly before building an expansion on the house.
Even if a family has another kid on the way, they still need to make sure they have budgeted properly before building an expansion on the house.
A government with a rising tax base can spend more than its revenue in perpetuity. That doesn't mean it's always a good idea, but thinking about government spending the way a household manages its spending leads to incorrect conclusions.
There are millions of children in New Jersey that need their parents to be employed. Counter-cyclical spending helps to accomplish that, and if done wisely, it also acts as an investment from which those children will reap the benefits.
Discourse about government spending these days is sadly devoid of numbers that indicate the right choice one way or the other. We don't run our businesses this way.
There are millions of children in New Jersey that need their parents to be employed. Counter-cyclical spending helps to accomplish that, and if done wisely, it also acts as an investment from which those children will reap the benefits.
Discourse about government spending these days is sadly devoid of numbers that indicate the right choice one way or the other. We don't run our businesses this way.
I look at history and see how different administrations react to economic crisis. I see Harding & Coolidge vs Hoover's approach and the 1946 tax cuts as being pretty good guides. I don't see the stimulus spending by a R and a D as doing as much good.
Governments take on debt all the time. The US Govt, for example, has balanced the budget only a handful of times in its history. Building better infrastructure that makes NJ more livable is money well spent. Appealing for the future of all the little children isn't a convincing way to make an argument. Btw, the US debt is now at 100% of GDP. I'd say every American kid already has a problem.
> There are good ways to spend money in bad times. See: Great Depression.
Maybe, but that's not how "the great stimulus" money was spent. (And, as Obama learned, there are no shovel-ready projects.)
At this point, your argument is basically "yes, we pissed away the last $1-2T, but this time, we'll get it right."
Maybe, but that's not how "the great stimulus" money was spent. (And, as Obama learned, there are no shovel-ready projects.)
At this point, your argument is basically "yes, we pissed away the last $1-2T, but this time, we'll get it right."
That's the problem that financing addresses.
Assuming that the activity you're financing will return future positive captureable value (farebox revenues, increased taxable business activity), then borrowing money now to pay for current activities ensuring ability to pay back the loan makes perfect sense.
Note that that assumption of future benefit may not hold out, but if it does, failing to undertake the financing is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Assuming that the activity you're financing will return future positive captureable value (farebox revenues, increased taxable business activity), then borrowing money now to pay for current activities ensuring ability to pay back the loan makes perfect sense.
Note that that assumption of future benefit may not hold out, but if it does, failing to undertake the financing is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If you're getting free money from the feds, you absolutely should do it. Christie is alright in general but in that instance he's just burnishing his republican creds by the flashy turndown of federal money.
There's a project currently in planning stages that is supposed to upgrade the 11-mile section of century-old infrastructure between Newark and NYC, improving both Amtrak and NJ Transit service. It'd add a new Hudson River tunnel, a faster modern routing through the Meadowlands, and expand Penn Station into the old James Farley Post Office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_Project
The gateway tunnel has been postponed indefinitely. But no worries, apparently the only reason the Gateway Tunnel was necessary was because the MTA previously refused to run things efficiently.
http://transportationnation.org/2012/06/14/ny-mta-chief-says...
Also interesting: "The Regional Plan Association, which held the conference at which Lhota spoke, and other advocacy groups have expressed support for through-running—at least until Gateway Tunnel gets built."
I.e., they want to be more efficient, but only as a stopgap measure until the tunnel is built.
(Also check out Market Urbanism's blog post on the topic: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ycccmpt... )
http://transportationnation.org/2012/06/14/ny-mta-chief-says...
Also interesting: "The Regional Plan Association, which held the conference at which Lhota spoke, and other advocacy groups have expressed support for through-running—at least until Gateway Tunnel gets built."
I.e., they want to be more efficient, but only as a stopgap measure until the tunnel is built.
(Also check out Market Urbanism's blog post on the topic: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ycccmpt... )
As some comments say on that page, there are numerous technical details as to why it isn't nearly as simple as proposed. AFAIK you can't easily run LIRR trains to NJ because only a few engines support catenary operation, everything else requires a third rail to be built.
So while this might get us a few percent increase in the number of trains for now, at the cost of a few hundred million to build out third rails in NJ (or catenaries in LIRR areas where NJ transit trains might be routed), it doesn't change the fundamental infrastructure issue given the growth of mass transit in the NYC metro area.
So while this might get us a few percent increase in the number of trains for now, at the cost of a few hundred million to build out third rails in NJ (or catenaries in LIRR areas where NJ transit trains might be routed), it doesn't change the fundamental infrastructure issue given the growth of mass transit in the NYC metro area.
Interesting. I suppose there are not high odds that these multiple systems will ever get integrated into one regional agency, the way the various NYC subways were eventually merged into the MTA and interconnected?
None of that will move people off of buses to a subway or train. The proposal of extending the 7 line to NJ, for example, would certainly help.
If I understand correctly, the NJ Transit trans-Hudson services have been at maximum capacity for years, so they could carry more riders if they were able to add more trains at peak times, but without a new tunnel (and probably more platforms) it's just not possible to run more trains.
I live and work in Manhattan. The blasting on the second avenue subway project is so regular that I recently caught myself unconsciously timing my work day by the shaking of the building.
More mass transit is great and this will be a big upgrade for the east side. I would love to see some kind of modern link from NYC to JFK. The subway + airtrain thing is not up to par for a global capital. The Heathrow Express in London is a good example of what a decent link looks like. Before Heathrow Express it was possible to take the tube to Heathrow but it was an hour-long journey with stops every couple of minutes, not unlike the current NYC-JFK option. The Heathrow Express is leave every 15 minutes and takes 15 minutes. Getting to Heathrow used to be a real headache. Now it's simple and predictable and has cut the best part of an hour out of a door-to-door journey. NYC needs something similar or better.
I agree but going from JFK to Penn Station via the LIRR/Airtrain isn't too bad. From the Jamaica station I think its 1-2 stops?
Ideally there would just be a train every hour from Penn Station and Grand Central directly to JFK and LaGuardia but I don't see that happening in the next 20-50 years.
Ideally there would just be a train every hour from Penn Station and Grand Central directly to JFK and LaGuardia but I don't see that happening in the next 20-50 years.
The Penn Station option is not bad but it's not good. For me the difference is that in NYC I always take a cab or car vs in London I always take the Express. There are bunch of factors including price (cab from Heathrow is a lot more expensive than the Express; tube is cheaper). The train from Penn would need to be a non-stop every 15 mins from the same 2 platforms so you can just head to Penn, know exactly where to go and know that you'll be at the airport within 30 mins (assuming 15 min travel time) no matter what.
My understanding is that a new link to the airport was in play when they chose the 2nd Av. line. The 2nd Av. will obviously benefit many more people and is a good choise. I hope it won't take decades to sort out the airport connection. The cab ride to and from JFK is one of the most disheartening parts of living in NYC.
My understanding is that a new link to the airport was in play when they chose the 2nd Av. line. The 2nd Av. will obviously benefit many more people and is a good choise. I hope it won't take decades to sort out the airport connection. The cab ride to and from JFK is one of the most disheartening parts of living in NYC.
It's about 40mins from Penn to JFK via the LIRR/Airtrain (to go maybe 20 miles). There's about 6 trains/hour. I really don't see how you'd get this journey down to 15 minutes without having to build a new tunnel all the way, it's never going to happen.
The real annoyance is how hard it is to get to LGA and that you're reliant on buses. It's a shame that they ran out of money building the N/R and it stops at Ditmars instead of continuing on to the airport.
I fly out of NYC biweekly, I generally fly out of JFK so I can take the E/Airtrain there (about 50 mins) and then fly back to LGA and take a towncar home, due to landing later and avoiding traffic. I'd never take a cab to JFK, it can be nearly 2 hours from midtown in traffic.
The real annoyance is how hard it is to get to LGA and that you're reliant on buses. It's a shame that they ran out of money building the N/R and it stops at Ditmars instead of continuing on to the airport.
I fly out of NYC biweekly, I generally fly out of JFK so I can take the E/Airtrain there (about 50 mins) and then fly back to LGA and take a towncar home, due to landing later and avoiding traffic. I'd never take a cab to JFK, it can be nearly 2 hours from midtown in traffic.
Airtrain is less than a decade old. You're in for a long wait. :(
East Side Access is another amazing project in NYC. going to bring LIRR to Grand Central in 2019 ish.
i've been somewhat documenting its progress at http://eastsideaccess.tumblr.com
i've been somewhat documenting its progress at http://eastsideaccess.tumblr.com
This was suppose to be done in 2014. For people who say that developers should be able to predict software development timelines like construction projects, just look at how long it takes to get construction projects done in the NYC area.
Build it Bigger on the science / discovery channel had an episode about how they build the subways in NY. It was a cool episode. http://science.discovery.com/videos/build-it-bigger-season5-...
Two things I wanted to know but couldn't find in the article (I thought they would be important):
1. How many metres down are they digging?
2. How many metres long will the tunnel be when it's complete?
Depth: 15-30 m
Length: 13.7 km
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway
Length: 13.7 km
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway
And one day, there will be 24 hour BART looping around the entire bay. Nope. :(
BART running 24 hours is not an option. It would be epically expensive for what -- 6-7 additional hours of sparsely-used trains?
I'm not going to argue on how expensive it is, but consider this: a 24 hour subway means many fewer people would have to drive. If you don't have to drive, you don't have the choice between not drinking that night or leaving before midnight. If drunk driving is reduced by eliminating cars, then 'last call' can be extended to, say, 4am. Less traffic, less drunk driving accidents, more booze, more late-night coffee shops.
I hear ya, but it would require laying a second track along the entirety of the BART system.
This is a woulda/shouda thing going back 60 years to the original construction of the system. Even if we gave BART billions in funding, there are certainly better uses for that money (Build a rail line into OAK, extend service on all the currently-approved-but-unfunded routes, extend to San Mateo, and deal with some expensive, lingering issues with the transbay tunnel.)
This is a woulda/shouda thing going back 60 years to the original construction of the system. Even if we gave BART billions in funding, there are certainly better uses for that money (Build a rail line into OAK, extend service on all the currently-approved-but-unfunded routes, extend to San Mateo, and deal with some expensive, lingering issues with the transbay tunnel.)
Did you mean a third track? BART is already double-tracked or more along its entire length. The reason they close the system at night is because they can barely keep up with car and track maintenance.
I think late-night CalTrain (or late-night BART on the peninsula) would be more useful than 24-hour BART.
First, the city has buses running at night and there are 8xx buses that run along BART lines after BART is closed. While one's experience on BART is much better than on a bus, current options don't require that much more time.
Second, the last north-bound CalTrain leaves Palo Alto a little before 11 pm making it really difficult for people living in the city/East Bay without a car to do evening activities there. If one wants to get back, the best options are spending two hours on a SamTrans bus into the city or taking an expensive cab.
First, the city has buses running at night and there are 8xx buses that run along BART lines after BART is closed. While one's experience on BART is much better than on a bus, current options don't require that much more time.
Second, the last north-bound CalTrain leaves Palo Alto a little before 11 pm making it really difficult for people living in the city/East Bay without a car to do evening activities there. If one wants to get back, the best options are spending two hours on a SamTrans bus into the city or taking an expensive cab.
If the trains were automated, the cost of running some short trains in the middle of the night would be (at least more) reasonable. The Copenhagen Metro runs 24/7, for example. I believe BART trains are actually capable of fully automatic operation, but haven't gotten regulatory permission to run without an operator.
See below -- BART has a single track. It wasn't laid as a dual-track like many are -- including Copenhagen if they're running all night.
In a single-track system 24/7 operation is not possible: they need to be able to power-down the track for maintenance.
In a single-track system 24/7 operation is not possible: they need to be able to power-down the track for maintenance.
I don't think that's true, unless I'm missing something about the definition of dual-tracking. Here's a map of the system's tracks, which seems to show that it's dual-tracked throughout: http://transbay.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/bart-track-map_2...
That's consistent with my recollection riding BART. Shutting down one of the two tracks for unexpected daytime maintenance ("single-tracking") is a common source of delays, since in single-track mode the system can't run nearly as many trains per hour due to the need to pass at specific points. But it can still run some trains, probably enough for a night service.
That's consistent with my recollection riding BART. Shutting down one of the two tracks for unexpected daytime maintenance ("single-tracking") is a common source of delays, since in single-track mode the system can't run nearly as many trains per hour due to the need to pass at specific points. But it can still run some trains, probably enough for a night service.
It's definitely true. BART has one track in each direction. Systems that run 24 hours have dual-tracks in each direction or segmentation that allows them to individually power-down segments of track, though that isn't really 24/7 operation anymore.
You can research this but I'm not going to do that for you. I'm comfortable that I'm correct, if you're not, well, meh. It's not personal, I'm sure you can understand.
And to your original point -- the engineer driving the train is a fraction of the cost of keeping the system running. Even if BART was dual-tracked, the salary of the engineer doesn't hardly move the needle on their costs, which include: Salaries of station agents and security, additional maintenance and wear-and-tear, janitorial (including dealing with higher janitorial costs between 2AM and 6AM than other 4-hour periods due to the nature of overnight passenger traffic), baseline power costs to keep the power rail hot at 1000+ volts over 100+ miles of track, etc.
You can research this but I'm not going to do that for you. I'm comfortable that I'm correct, if you're not, well, meh. It's not personal, I'm sure you can understand.
And to your original point -- the engineer driving the train is a fraction of the cost of keeping the system running. Even if BART was dual-tracked, the salary of the engineer doesn't hardly move the needle on their costs, which include: Salaries of station agents and security, additional maintenance and wear-and-tear, janitorial (including dealing with higher janitorial costs between 2AM and 6AM than other 4-hour periods due to the nature of overnight passenger traffic), baseline power costs to keep the power rail hot at 1000+ volts over 100+ miles of track, etc.
Oh, yes, it has one track in each direction. I thought you were arguing it was actually single-tracked in portions, the way some commuter-rail lines are, and which was the original proposal for the SFO extension. The Copenhagen Metro is also one track in each direction, and runs 24/7. At night it will sometimes (if maintenance is needed) run in single-track mode, with one of the two tracks powered down in a segment, the same way BART operates during emergency daytime single-tracking. Perhaps that's not "really" 24/7 operation, but it does produce the effect of uninterrupted 24/7 service from the passenger's perspective, since it's able to maintain its scheduled nighttime headway of 20 minutes even when single-tracked through a segment, barring exceptional circumstances.
You are misusing the term - in rail systems, double-tracked means that the system (or line) has two tracks, typically one for each direction. Their are systems (MTA/NYCT most notably in the USA) that have more than two tracks, although in NY's case, it's to allow local trains and express trains to run on different tracks.
In a single-track system 24/7 operation is not possible:
In double-tracked systems, there are crossovers (typically located near stations, but they can be anywhere) or switches to storage tracks that allow traffic to be routed along single tracks as necessary to allow track segments to be taken out of service.
In a single-track system 24/7 operation is not possible:
In double-tracked systems, there are crossovers (typically located near stations, but they can be anywhere) or switches to storage tracks that allow traffic to be routed along single tracks as necessary to allow track segments to be taken out of service.
The primary argument against 24 hour operation is that it allows for track maintenance, and is required because BART lacks redundancy throughout its system. The system is shut down for 4 hours, from midnight through 4am, nightly (counting end-point departures, service actually runs slightly later from some intermediate stations).
That said, it's double-tracked in many (though possibly not all) sections, which might allow for running periodic service along one set of tracks, assuming switching and train control systems would allow for this. With a full circumnavigation of the Bay, it might also be possible to phase system downtime such that service might run on either eastern (Contra Costa) or western (Penninsula) lines, with service between SF and SJ. By phasing which specific track segments are down for maintenance at any one time, effective coverage of much of the system might be possible (at the cost of greater scheduling and maintenance complexity).
Triple-tracking the system could also provide for this, though at much greater infrastructure and land costs.
As it is, the 4 hour shutdown doesn't affect too many patrons, and service during operating hours is very reliable (much more so than other regional transit sywtems, or driving).
http://www.bart.gov/guide/latenight.aspx
That said, it's double-tracked in many (though possibly not all) sections, which might allow for running periodic service along one set of tracks, assuming switching and train control systems would allow for this. With a full circumnavigation of the Bay, it might also be possible to phase system downtime such that service might run on either eastern (Contra Costa) or western (Penninsula) lines, with service between SF and SJ. By phasing which specific track segments are down for maintenance at any one time, effective coverage of much of the system might be possible (at the cost of greater scheduling and maintenance complexity).
Triple-tracking the system could also provide for this, though at much greater infrastructure and land costs.
As it is, the 4 hour shutdown doesn't affect too many patrons, and service during operating hours is very reliable (much more so than other regional transit sywtems, or driving).
http://www.bart.gov/guide/latenight.aspx
It should be feasible to run it 24hrs during weekends only. Stockholm's subway does this and is closed normally at night weekdays. The headways are long enough (30+ minutes out on the branches) that repairs can be carried out if need be by switching to the other track (not sure if they actually do this regularly).
The bay is sufficiently less population dense, making lots of projects "bang for the buck" seem off.
Population density is certainly part of it. Manhattan has about 4x the population density of San Francisco. But 24 hour subway service can be practical with lower population density. E.g. Chicago has a lower population density than San Francisco, but has 24 hour service on the red line (along the lake shore) and a very robust commuter rail service. The key difference is commuting patterns. In the Bay area, people commute haphazardly between suburbs. In NYC and Chicago, everyone from the suburbs commutes downtown in the morning and back out to the suburbs in the evening. It's much easier to have an effective transportation system when everyone is going in the same direction.
The problem here is that BART is not a metro service - MUNI is supposed to be, but doesn't do a particularly good job of it, so BART has been co-opted over the years by residents in some neighborhoods to pick up the pieces.
San Francisco first needs to figure out what BART is - if its future is as a rapid transit municipal system (that's tied together with other municipalities), or if it should be strictly a commuter and inter-city transport system.
The current operating model is not a bad one assuming what you want is a regional commuter rail system, it fails utterly at being municipal transport.
I'd suggest that the "failures" of BART are really the extension of the massive, completely unmitigated clusterfuck that is MUNI. Looking at the recent history of MUNI is like watching a really bad slapstick act - it'd be funny if it weren't so damned sad. MUNI is broken, its system of governance is broken, and the propensity for California/Bay Area to engage in hyper-democracy is keeping it broken (ballot measure ALL the things!)
San Francisco holds 800K people in 47 square miles of land - the argument that this is insufficient density for a proper rapid transit and municipal transport system is IMO complete bunk.
San Francisco first needs to figure out what BART is - if its future is as a rapid transit municipal system (that's tied together with other municipalities), or if it should be strictly a commuter and inter-city transport system.
The current operating model is not a bad one assuming what you want is a regional commuter rail system, it fails utterly at being municipal transport.
I'd suggest that the "failures" of BART are really the extension of the massive, completely unmitigated clusterfuck that is MUNI. Looking at the recent history of MUNI is like watching a really bad slapstick act - it'd be funny if it weren't so damned sad. MUNI is broken, its system of governance is broken, and the propensity for California/Bay Area to engage in hyper-democracy is keeping it broken (ballot measure ALL the things!)
San Francisco holds 800K people in 47 square miles of land - the argument that this is insufficient density for a proper rapid transit and municipal transport system is IMO complete bunk.
Most suburban Chicago commute lines have much lower service frequency than BART. More comparable to CalTrain along the Penninsula, with some 1-2 hour midday gaps in service.
Yes, Metra is to the "L" as Caltrain is to BART. But Metra has 488 miles of track versus Caltrain's 78 miles of track. It carries 300,000 riders per weekday versus Caltrain's 42,000 riders per weekday. Chicagoland is bigger than the SF Bay, but not dramatically so. 10 million people versus 7 million people, at roughly the same density.
Caltrain map: http://www.caltrain.com/stations/systemmap.html
Metra map: http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/~yopopov/rrt/us/chicago/rr_chicago_m...
Caltrain map: http://www.caltrain.com/stations/systemmap.html
Metra map: http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/~yopopov/rrt/us/chicago/rr_chicago_m...
To be fair, when you include BART's ridership (379,000), the Bay Area beats Chicago. You might also want to include the Capitol Corridor and ACE lines, which have minuscule ridership (5300 and 3700 daily, respectively), but add considerable trackage (168 and 84 miles). San Francisco's Muni Metro is a hair under 37 miles, but transports 162,000 riders daily. There's also San Jose's LRT, but let's leave that out for now.
A comparable rail map for the San Francisco Bay Area: http://www.urbanrail.net/am/snfr/sf-bay-area-map.htm
That puts the Bay Area commuter rail at 472 track miles and 598,000 passengers daily. Rather closer to your Chicago numbers.
But we've got to add in Chicago's CTA 'L line (709,000 daily riders, 108 miles). Tips lead to Chicago again.
Chicago benefits greatly from having grown up around (and not torn down much of its) commuter rail lines, including significant urban and suburban growth from 1860 - 1910, pre-automobile. It's occasionally noted in both areas that commute times a century ago were comparable to, or faster than, today (dedicated rights of way, less traffic, arguably fewer safety restrictions). The Bay Area notably tore down its old Key System commute rail, and several counties (San Mateo, Marin) have fought BART extensions for a half century, and saw much of its growth in the car-friendly post-WWII era.
The Bay Area's layout is actually fairly rail-friendly, with a few major transportation corridors (Peninsula, East Bayshore, CA-24, I-580, I-80, US 101 north of SF), though overall densities are low. Chicago has experienced a great deal of sprawl in the past 30 years, as well as employer flight to the suburbs, greatly increasing suburb-to-suburb commuting, though both SF and Chicago have also seen an increased appeal of the inner urban core especially for younger professionals.
A comparable rail map for the San Francisco Bay Area: http://www.urbanrail.net/am/snfr/sf-bay-area-map.htm
That puts the Bay Area commuter rail at 472 track miles and 598,000 passengers daily. Rather closer to your Chicago numbers.
But we've got to add in Chicago's CTA 'L line (709,000 daily riders, 108 miles). Tips lead to Chicago again.
Chicago benefits greatly from having grown up around (and not torn down much of its) commuter rail lines, including significant urban and suburban growth from 1860 - 1910, pre-automobile. It's occasionally noted in both areas that commute times a century ago were comparable to, or faster than, today (dedicated rights of way, less traffic, arguably fewer safety restrictions). The Bay Area notably tore down its old Key System commute rail, and several counties (San Mateo, Marin) have fought BART extensions for a half century, and saw much of its growth in the car-friendly post-WWII era.
The Bay Area's layout is actually fairly rail-friendly, with a few major transportation corridors (Peninsula, East Bayshore, CA-24, I-580, I-80, US 101 north of SF), though overall densities are low. Chicago has experienced a great deal of sprawl in the past 30 years, as well as employer flight to the suburbs, greatly increasing suburb-to-suburb commuting, though both SF and Chicago have also seen an increased appeal of the inner urban core especially for younger professionals.
Hella less traffic on 101 though.
Aren't there major geologic fault lines near this project?
http://nymag.com/news/articles/08/06/GeographyofDisaster/map...
http://nymag.com/news/articles/08/06/GeographyofDisaster/map...
Not to be a wet blanket, but let's not forget how far behind schedule this line is - it was originally supposed to be opened just a few years after World War II(!): http://secondavenuesagas.com/second-ave-subway-history/
The most ironic part is that the bulk of the line is already complete (or mostly there) - they just don't have enough to stretch below 42nd street, IIRC, which is the tipping point for when they can open it as a useable line.
Also, last I heard, it was to be a single-track line (like the L). So after all those years, we'll still be stuck in the case of any breakdowns or delays - picture the L at rush hour, except worse, because of the passenger volume. And no chance of any express train.
That is, if it ever even opens. A good rule of thumb for the MTA's estimates seems to be 'Time.now() + 5.years'.
All that said, I love NYC's transit system - it couldn't be the city is without it. I just wish we had more than one single line on the east side!
The most ironic part is that the bulk of the line is already complete (or mostly there) - they just don't have enough to stretch below 42nd street, IIRC, which is the tipping point for when they can open it as a useable line.
Also, last I heard, it was to be a single-track line (like the L). So after all those years, we'll still be stuck in the case of any breakdowns or delays - picture the L at rush hour, except worse, because of the passenger volume. And no chance of any express train.
That is, if it ever even opens. A good rule of thumb for the MTA's estimates seems to be 'Time.now() + 5.years'.
All that said, I love NYC's transit system - it couldn't be the city is without it. I just wish we had more than one single line on the east side!
For those who loves explosives and don't have time to watch it all: fast forward to 3:35 :)
Not only do these time scales lengthen the amortization period of these projects, but they dramatically influence peoples' choices. You can't just base your decision to build a subway line on present commuting patterns. People will adjust their lifestyle to take advantage of the new infrastructure, especially over the century-long timescales involved.