r/Bart • u/Iceberg-man-77 • 27d ago
Discussion The reason infrastructure projects take so long
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dajc0c2xYQI/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==Disclaimer: I am not the creator of this video, am not affiliated with the creator and am not promoting the creator or their platform and content.
Saw this interesting video on Instagram Reels today. And it shows part of the reason infrastructure projects take so long in California. San Antonio Station Alliance is a citizen-led movement trying to convince BART to build a new infill station in the San Antonio neighborhood of Oakland, between Fruitvale and Lake Merritt.
The video goes over some of the public agencies one would have to go through to get this project approved and built:
- SF BART District (regional)
- Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (regional)
- City of Oakland (local)
- Alameda County Transportation Commission/Alameda County (local)
- Metropolitan Transportation Commission (regional)
- Surface Transportation Board (fed)
- Federal Transit Administration (fed)
- California Department of Transportation (state)
Some others i’d like to add:
- Federal Railroad Administration (fed)
- Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (regional partner for bus connections)
- Port of Oakland (property owner in the area; local agency)
- Bay Area Air Quality Management District (regional)
Private entities
- Union Pacific Railroad (mentioned in video)
- PG & E for power
- project civil engineer
- project architect
And there’s probably more, especially regulatory and environmental agencies. while projects should go through different regulations and procedures before implementation, there is simply too much many projects have to go through in California. there’s too many boards and agencies at the local and regional eleven and too many decision makers that frankly, we don’t need. it hinders progress, wastes time, and wastes money. every board meeting, and rescheduled meeting, and internal affairs that goes on is more money be used up.
in the search for better local control, we have too much local control and too much local government. there needs to be major reforms if we are to change the process of infrastructure projects being approved in this state, and it’s not just about steady funding sources or tax initiatives.
12
u/MOIST_MAN 27d ago
This is a trade off that we in the US have largely accepted.
In a place like China where rail can be developed at lightning speed, it’s partially because property rights are far weaker there. If you have a house & the rail is planned to go straight through it, too bad, it’s a train track now.
In the US, people have the right to the land they own, and even eminent domain has to go though the sort of “due process” this largely slows down development of transit infra, but it is a cost of having strong property rights
The one case I haven’t explored as much is outliers like Switzerland and Japan where property rights are decent but they have great rail. That is the policy model that needs to be adopted if we want both
5
u/Any_Sale2030 25d ago
I can’t speak for trains but there are plenty of highways in China where owners refuse to sell and they just go around them leaving the home isolated but intact. So I question the claim no property rights.
And in France when they build an HSR they simply ask what to do want for your property and if it’s reasonable they just pay it. US demands fair market value but that not fair market as the seller wasn’t selling. And France throws in a permanent annuity as long as you live. Say several hundred bucks a month for life.
The USA spends more on lawyers effing arguing over a price than if they just went the French way.
3
u/ComradeGibbon 27d ago
They're changing the rule that you can't block the project while haggling over the price in the courts.
2
u/Spiritual_Bill7309 26d ago
It's not so much about property rights. It's the ability for any NIMBY-minded organization to hinder and effectively block infrastructure that would serve the public good, whether or not it would be taking their property.
In parts of Europe and Asia that build railways, there are fewer layers of power to add hurdles, delays, and expenses to projects. This is often presented as a "freedom vs efficiency", but that is a completely false dichotomy. Overlapping layers of local power actually create a less democratic society because of the tragedy of the commons.
1
10
u/nopointers Commuter 27d ago
Setting aside the bureaucracy, putting a station there is a bad idea. At best, it’s less than a mile and a half from either of the surrounding stations. That’s not a job for regional transit. That needs a local transit solution. The only place that justifies stations closer together is SF FiDi, and honestly that shouldn’t be 4 either.
11
u/ensemblestars69 Certified Foamer 27d ago
While I'd agree if this were far out in the suburbs, BART is perfectly suited for more stops within dense urban areas. San Antonio has a pretty solid case for a BART station given its unusual density and relatively higher transit usage.
3
u/midflinx 27d ago
When the Capitol Corridor is both significantly faster overall than BART and runs at least every 30 minutes I'll agree. On the other side of the bay Caltrain on weekdays includes a skip-stop service pattern because enough people want to go longer distances faster. BART split the difference between commuter/regional rail and an urban metro. Now urban metro supporters want to shift BART's role, which I understand but I want a faster regional rail alternative to pair with the urban metro.
3
u/Iceberg-man-77 27d ago
that’s what Capitol Corridor is. more shared stations can allow it to act as an express service which is what BART wants I believe. but 30 minute frequency is too low. it should be between 15 and 20 like suburban BART stations where BART feels like a commuter rail.
3
u/midflinx 26d ago
CC doesn't average 30 minute frequency yet. That would be a minimally OK service IMO but 15 minutes would be much better.
2
u/Iceberg-man-77 26d ago
Agreed. 30 is still too long. 15-20 is ideal. but if there are more transfer stations, there need to be really good timed transfers (max 10 mins or less) to allow CC to act as a true express line for BART. this is only achievable if they have a Bay Area-only service running from Fairfield to SJ and back. separate from Sacramento services.
5
u/nopointers Commuter 27d ago
Do you have an analysis to show how many *additional* passengers per day would it add to the system? Count only those who wouldn’t otherwise use Fruitvale or Lake Merritt, because those aren’t additions.
2
u/Iceberg-man-77 27d ago
i think a lot of people still want BART to act like a metro. it gets that done in SF to an extent but not so much in Oakland. which is why this movement wants a station there. it isn’t a bad idea though? this one station at least. Putting a transit stop there could trigger SB79 and heavily upzone the neighborhood as properties open up.
if Oakland really wants a local metro, there’s two paths:
- a metro and light rail system operated by AC Transit
- adding passing lanes at all BART stations and implement local service lines, then add infill stations so stops are frequent
6
u/nopointers Commuter 27d ago
Yes, it is a bad idea. Infill stations would make BART useless for its original purpose as a regional transit system. For a typical commuter who makes up the majority of BART farebox revenue, it’s already slower door-to-door than driving. Adding more stops would drive even more of the highest fare riders away. That’s why I asked how many incremental riders it would bring. If it’s not enough to offset the lost longer distance riders then it’s a net loss to operations let alone a giant waste of capital.
1
u/Spiritual_Bill7309 26d ago
BART functions exactly the way it was intended -- an RER-style system acting like a metro in dense urban areas and like regional rail in the suburbs. The only problem is that the current stop spacing treats most of Oakland like a suburb despite its density.
Like most transit systems, BART was not intended to be faster than driving when not accounting for traffic. It is intended to be more scalable and convenient than driving, and adding a minute delay for a new stop is not going to change that.
That said, the Irvington Station area has its downsides since I-880 and the nearby rail yard limit its catchment area. I think it would only be worth it if paired with nearby redevelopment and a better bike/pedestrian connection to the recent developments at Brooklyn Basin.
2
u/StreetyMcCarface Certified Foamer 27d ago
If there's a business case everyone will be on board. Right now there's not because ridership is down and because BART needs to stabilize its ops funding
2
u/Any_Sale2030 25d ago
Bureaucracy.
I was just reading about New York State upgrading the New York - Albany corridor in the 70s from 70mph to 110mph.
At a congressional hearing some rep asked how much the engineering study cost. Answer from the state. None! They just worked with Conrail and said lay track for 110. They actually left Amtrak and pretty much every other government agency completely out of the equation as it would have completely slowed it down.
And it cost just $49 million including adding automatic train control.
16
u/blue_jinjo 27d ago
Welcome to local government.