BART is planning changes for platform assignments at Daly City that will balance headways and enable more cross platform transfers at Bay Fair and MacArthur.
bart.legistar.com/LegislationD...
I worry that SCT's connecting service will be more poorly used than the late night 101 today - a one seat ride matters a lot more when it's one run that'll strand you at midnight if the connection fails.
I hope the continued provision of late-night service will get a fair hearing.
"I'm supposed to get off work at 7, but rarely my replacement doesn't arrive so I have to stay late. I still have to get home on those days." - we don't know how many people are one stranding away from their regular transit commute becoming unviable for this reason.
I'm sympathetic to the desire to efficiently allocate resources, but I think the ridership analysis is missing that this is a lifeline service that enables people who take transit at more regular hours to rely on it. Also 3-4 people per run is pretty good for an owl service!
Excerpt from the same Golden Gate Transit staff report. "The MASCOTS agencies explored a variety of possible options and subsequently agreed that Sonoma County Transit will provide late-night service from Novato to Santa Rosa for a three- month transitional period beginning with the institution of the MASCOTS service changes from April through June 2026. Sonoma County Transit will meet the Route 101 trip leaving Novato at approximately 11:45 p.m., arriving in Santa Rosa roughly 45 minutes later. Additionally, late-night riders travelling from Marin to Sonoma will be surveyed before MASCOTS implementation and during the three-month period about their travel patterns. Prior to the conclusion of the three-months, MASCOTS agencies will convene to review late-night service performance and rider surveys to see if the continued provision of transitional service is warranted and whether any alternative, less costly solutions may be provided on an on-going basis. The Sonoma County Transit late-night service will be funded by the MASCOTS agencies, and Bridge tolls will not be used to subsidize this service." Source: https://www.goldengate.org/assets/1/25/2025-1120-transcomm-no4-continuedoctitemggbhtdmascots.pdf?13401=
There is a commitment to survey late-night riders (supposed to be ongoing now) and to "convene" (not clear if this will be public) to discuss whether continued service is warranted.
Excerpt from a Golden Gate Transit staff report "The expanded SMART service, coupled with the discontinuation of Route 101 north of Novato, would still impact a small number of late-night riders from San Francisco to Sonoma County on two trips that depart San Francisco at 10:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. and arrive in Santa Rosa approximately two hours later. It is important to note that the vast majority of the passengers on these trips exit in Marin County, and the adjusted routes would continue to operate between San Francisco and Novato. However, the two trips combined average six riders per night traveling from San Francisco to Sonoma County, and these passengers would not have alternate fixed-route bus service from Novato to Santa Rosa. Staff reviewed ridership across the two evening trips proposed for discontinuation for a sample period in August 2025 and found that there were approximately four passengers who rode the late-night trips twice or more during the week. All other passengers were riders who used the late-night service only once. Infrequent riders, and perhaps some of the regular riders, may be able to shift their travel to the Route 101 trip departing San Francisco at 9:00 p.m. and connecting in San Rafael to the last northbound SMART train at approximately 10:10 p.m. It is not an efficient nor cost-effective use of Bridge toll funds to offer service for a very small number of riders travelling north from Novato to Santa Rosa. Nonetheless, for those late-night riders who could not use the expanded SMART service, District staff has requested its MASCOTS partners, especially TAM and SCTCA, to consider offering a program that would be an alternative to fixed-route bus service. Any such program would not be administered nor financed by Bridge tolls." Source: https://www.goldengate.org/assets/1/25/2025-1120-transcomm-no4-continuedoctitemggbhtdmascots.pdf?13401=
The late night bus is a concession to this feedback, but planners (at least at GGT) really don't like spending the resources on single digit ridership, and so it is only one run instead of two, it's run by SCT instead of a 101 late night extension, and it's temporary only.
Excerpt from the linked letter. "1. Options should be considered to preserve late-night service in Sonoma County. The extension of nighttime SMART service under MASCOTS will not fully replace current late-night Golden Gate Transit 101 service in Sonoma County. Northbound, the last SMART train is proposed to leave San Rafael at around 10pm, much earlier than the current last 101 bus, which leaves at 12:25am. The MASCOTS website notes that, for passengers going north after this last SMART train departs, “There are no public transportation options. Passengers would need to use a ride-share service or a private taxi service.” Although late-night ridership is low, preserving late-night service is essential for Sonoma County residents who work late shifts, are returning from entertainment in SF or the East Bay, or experience unexpected delays, and a rideshare, costing $50 or more, would not be an accessible replacement. Before implementing the pilot, planners should consider adding two runs of late night “owl” bus service to major & highway-accessible SMART stations to preserve this safety net."
@seamlessbayareaca.bsky.social, North Bay Transit Riders, and @transbaycoalition.bsky.social sent a letter with feedback on MASCOTS that included this concern, and I understand others raised it as well.
marintransit.gov/sites/defaul...
I firmly believe that we are in an overblown moral panic over AI and data centers and that much of the left is making themselves useful idiots by letting themselves be distracted from freeway expansions, defunding of transit/climate science, and attacks on renewable energy
Come yell at me
I hope that she will support accessibility of the system for routine use, and avoid airport security-like barriers at stations. A HSR train should be just like Capitol Corridor or Caltrain to board, as they are in other countries.
best example of this in Australia is still Kelmscott www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbMb...
Table from the CAHSR 2026 draft business plan basis of estimate, where I have stitched together excerpted relevant lines. The table discusses the level of infrastructure for various segments of the route at various stages of completion. The two areas that I have included are the Tehachapi Mountain Crossing, which upon completion of the interim SF to Palmdale stage will get "PEPD (Preliminary Engineering for Project Definition) with optimized vertical alignment; one tunnel + escape tunnel," and the short Antelope Valley Line cutoff tunnel called "PEPD Soledad to CP Sheldon/VP McGinley," which upon extension to Los Angeles/Anaheim will get "Optimized track in single long tunnel escape tunnel parallel to it. New connection to Metrolink Valley Line."
Text paragraph excerpted from the same document. "The HSR line to the Central Valley from Gilroy station includes a 10-mile passing loop to the Diablo Mountains, and a single tunnel through the Diablo Mountains. A maintenance of way facility would be built next to the right-of-way to the southeast of Gilroy. Caltrain layover tracks would be added adjacent to the line in Gilroy."
Table 26 from the same document, of "Key Quantities and Variance" for the San Francisco to Bakersfield section. The Bored Tunnels mileage has reduced from 7 in the 2025 Supplemental Project Update Report to 4 in the 2026 business plan.
Similar table 28 of quantities for SF to LA/Anaheim. Bored Tunnels have reduced from 53 miles in the 2024 business plan to only 23 miles in the 2026 business plan.
Yes, in the new business plan CAHSR is planning single-track single tunnels only.
In addition to their maps that clearly show single track in the tunnel areas, CAHSR is also explicit about this in the infrastructure descriptions and substantially reduced mileage of tunneling:
My observation is that since they are only apparently planning to bore a tunnel for one track, it is surprising that they are also boring a pedestrian escape tunnel and mining cross passages, rather than simply using available space within the larger single track bore for escape.
I'm curious why they're contemplating a main tunnel and an escape tunnel, rather than using a slightly larger bore and dividing wall. Perhaps the intent is to be able to do the tunnel for the second track later, and to tie it into the escape tunnel without impacting operations.
Though it's notable that the pass tunnels are shown as single-track in these plans. Pacheco will be frequency-limiting long term.
Text excerpt from the CA High Speed Rail "2026 DRAFT BUSINESS PLAN: BASIS OF ESTIMATE," page 63. "The existing Metrolink station at Burbank Airport would be expanded into an interim HSR station at the along San Fernando Road. It would have two tracks with one center high platform for HSR, two side platforms for Metrolink, pedestrian bridges with vertical circulation, and site improvements. The Burbank junction would be reconfigured for increased volume and speeds."
I'm torn between loving the plucky one-off solutions and wanting us to just have nice things like a consistent state platform height standard
Excerpt from a table describing infrastructure in various buildout scenarios for CAHSR. This line is for Bakersfield Downtown Station. In early scenarios the station is deferred. Once HSR goes further south, the proposal is to have two platforms and no express tracks. "Consider platform screen doors."
It's the only location and the only mention in the doc, but platform screen doors at Bakersfield to allow high-speed bypasses with two tracks would be awesome
2026 Legislative package Streets For All
We are proud to announce our 2026 bill package to make our communities more walkable, bikeable, and transit-oriented. Here’s what we’ve got going on in Sacramento this year:
We're at risk of losing a LOT of our AC Transit service. Learn more at
oaklandside.org/2026/03/30/a...
And help save it by collecting signatures with us to put a transit funding measure on the ballot. Events are here: luma.com/connectbayar...
I got totally punked by an SFMTA traffic officer today:
"You want a hat? I've got a hat for you." (Hell, yeah!)
*reaches into trunk of buggy* "Ok, you promise to wear it?" (Of course!)
Then he pulled out a traffic cone.
Photo of three persons behind a stack of supplies and signs around the base of a flag pole in a brick plaza in Downtown Oakland. Three handmade marker signs are on PVC stands, and read "SAVE BART - SIGN HERE." Supplies include clipboards, water bottles, and backpacks. In the background there are a Bay Wheels bike share station, a Walgreens in the base of a glass office tower, and parked cars.
Volunteers for the @connectbayarea.bsky.social regional transit measure campaign are ready for today's big signature gathering push at #nokings Oakland! Get involved with signature gathering here: luma.com/connectbayarea
Imagine if our costs to deliver transit projects weren't 5X peer jurisdictions? If we could apply Calif excellence in highway building to rail? Let's make sure Calif builds real state capacity, esp at Caltrans, so we can build the infrastructure we need
3/3
Imagine if we planned and funded projects based upon measurable outcomes and the public good? As a coordinated system? This is service-led planning. It's how much of Europe, Canada and East Asia do it. Let's make sure the next Gov and legislature adopt best practices
2/
Yes, and even in the case of major construction projects, you can in-house more by scaling up the level of government until there are enough projects to justify cheaper permanent employees. And those folks save more by acting in the interest of the state, rather than e.g. overdesigning.
Riding BART mid weekday is charming because sometimes you are just suddenly part of an elementary school class on a field trip
Thanks, Mayor Lurie.
sfstandard.com/newsletters/...
BART's undergrounding in Berkeley is an instructive (but imperfect) model. What gave BART the power to run elevated in the 1960s unless local money was raised otherwise, that is now causing a dozen alignments to be rejected for a 100ft-deep tunnel?
Take public input on a state map. Then offer a concept to a locality that it can take, leave, or raise additional money to upgrade. Move implementation resources onto the next best project in the state if the locality doesn't want it. Once it's approved it's approved; no endless veto chances.
Longer term, we need a plan for high-priority transit capital projects that is state-led, locally-informed, and population-equitable. The state should know how much it wants to spend and build over the next xx years and should be able to determine the highest-benefit alignments and technology.
Nick discusses in this video that the project has already been delayed 18 months by technically-baseless local objections.
There is a state interest in building transit with high benefit/cost and quickly. This is another project where poor local decisionmaking makes clear that reform is needed.
"To deliver public goods, you have to first deliver public excellence."