A 2035 Rail Plan for Oakland

The Bay Bridge and the Transbay Tube connect two places: San Francisco and Oakland. Too often the Oakland side is either ignored or made as a footnote in the Bay Area. With the booming local economy and corresponding traffic congestion (highway and rail), there has been recent talk of building a Second Transbay Tube (#2ndTransbay). Much of the talk, (Urban Life Signs included) has centered on where a 2^nd Tube’s rail lines would go in San Francisco (SoMa? Mission Bay? Market St?). Now it’s high time to talk about where and what kind of rail should go to Oakland and the East Bay.

Why a new Tube?

A new tube, whether for BART, or commuter rail and high-speed rail, is needed for multiple reasons:

1. More capacity
2. Redundancy to ensure a resilient city after a major quake
3. Reduce dependency on automobile – more transit options
4. Upgrade the First Transbay Tube
5. Create more housing and jobs in existing city centers, and other neighborhoods

We are at a critical moment when BART is beginning studies for a new 2nd Transbay Tube, mayors of San Francisco and Oakland have publicly supported a new tube, and city staff in Alameda have voiced support. We cannot plan and fiddle around to build a 2nd Tube for 30 years. We need to develop a host of funding sources, plan the project and start building within seven years so a tube can be operational by 2026. I'll discuss funding, which is critical, later.

Most folks will want to see the rail options and maps now. I have outlined the reasons for a new Transbay Tube and rail lines after the maps.

Factors in deciding where a new Transbay Tube should go

Four-Bore or Two Bore

Many have suggested that a 4-bore tunnel (2 BART tracks + 2 conventional tracks) be built to allow a BART gauge rail line + a standard rail line for Caltrain, CapCorridor and future High Speed Rail. Building a 4-bore tunnel would be more expensive that one 2-bore tunnel, but presumably cheaper than building two separate 2-bore tunnels.

The challenge is that a 4-bore tunnel only makes sense if the two rail lines (BART & HSR) are near each other at each end of the new 2^nd Transbay Tube. If it’s deemed that BART really needs to arrive in Mission Bay in San Francisco, but HSR arrives at Howard St, these are not near each other. Likewise, if an Oakland BART tunnel arrives via Alameda but an HSR train arrives in Oakland near Emeryville, a 4-bore tunnel doesn’t make sense.

BART gauge vs. Conventional gauge

BART trains run on a unique gauge (track width) of 5 feet 6 inches. All other trains, including Caltrain, Amtrak, CapCorridor, future HSR, and ACE all run on conventional gauge, which is 4 feet 8 ½ inches. Due to the uniqueness of BART’s gauge, its capital and operational costs are higher than a standard gauge subway/metro system. A new BART rail line could have standard gauge, however, it could not interoperate with the original BART lines. A cost-benefit analysis should be made to determine whether a new BART line in a new Tube should be made to BART gauge or Conventional gauge.

Rail Service

Whatever gets built, transit rail service between San Francisco and Oakland should be planned for all modes. A comprehensive look at Transbay crossings is necessary (and is happening). Any new Transbay Tube should be part of a plan that includes not just BART, but also Caltrain, CapCorridor, future High-Speed Rail and a future Eastshore Rail service. All of these services could use a new Second Transbay Tube.

The Proposals

I've put together four rail alignment proposals. One is based on alignments presented by BART. Others incorporate ideas that I have heard from other folks or I have considered myself. All of the proposals have the following:

1. A High Speed Rail station in Oakland (in or near downtown)
2. Rail lines that could interlink with BART's existing rail lines.
3. Lines that pass through Downtown Oakland, Alameda, and sometimes Emeryville

Finally, note that many of the ideas and alignment pieces presented below can be mixed and matched. Rail on I-980 could be BART or conventional rail or both. Likewise the MacArthur Eastmont line could be conventional rail or BART rail. If it were conventional rail, in most instances it would be served by commuter rail/metro rail with an overhead catenary wire. But the technology is less important. For this reason, the rail lines are not distiguished between BART gauge and conventional gauge. 

The Basic: Oakland Alameda - Jack London Plan

This plan is based on vague alignments being considered by BART in its BART Metro Vision. The proposal has two transbay tubes: a BART tube connecting at Jack London Square and near Fruitvale, and a High Speed Rail tube entering Oakland just south of Emeryville. The existing Broadway Tunnel would be upgraded from a 3-bore tunnel to a 4-bore tunnel, adding capacity. An intermodal station in West Oakland is unnecessary as the same functions are served by the new Jack London Oakland HSR station.

The idea for a Third Transbay Tube comes from Roland Lebrun, who suggests that conventional rail should arrive in the former Oakland Army Base because rail from the San Francisco Transbay Center should leave via Howard Street in SF. To keep things simple, let's call this the Key Route alignment since this is where Key Route rail passed before the Bay Bridge was built.

Pros: 

• Two BART rail approaches from north (yellow and red lines), and south (blue and green lines). 
• Phase-able: Alameda Atlantic Tunnel can be built with new Transbay Tube before the Broadway Estuary Tunnel is built and relieve the First Transbay Tube. 
• HSR Maintenance Facility at Port of Oakland would be within 10 miles of San Francisco's Transbay Center. 
• Jack London HSR station close to Downtown, although not in Downtown. The Jack London BART Station offers easy access to Downtown Oakland, San Francisco, and points north.
• 40th Street Emeryville station creates new access to Emeryville's growing work and residential markets. Service would probably come from Caltrain and new Eastshore Rail but probably not CapCorridor, Amtrak or HSR.
• Affordable: This is the least expensive option, but also the most limited in scope and benefits.
• Infill Stations: will increase access to BART and other rail throughout the region. San Antonio and 55th Ave stations should be high on the list due to their existing high neighborhood densities.

Cons: 

• Oakland Embarcadero Rail not grade separated, freight and passenger trains still run along the surface on Embarcadero - continuing the existing hazard and separating Jack London from points north. 
• Key Route approach far from HSR Station - commuter trains from San Francisco must wind their way from near Emeryville around West Oakland to Jack London. The route also makes a future Eastshore rail from Hercules and Berkeley bypass Downtown Oakland if it went on to San Francisco.
• No new Downtown Oakland stations so no new access or development opportunities.
• No new Oakland neighborhood line so no new access to existing dense neighborhoods or opportunity for new dense developments.
• Oakland gets a bad deal while San Francisco develops extensive reach into its western neighborhoods. Oakland should be asking for its own phased in new rail alignments to serve its dense and future dense neighborhoods that are poorly served by BART and are not near the existing CapCorridor rail alignment. 

Oakland Central Station - MacArthur Plan

The Central Station MacArthur Plan calls for using the underutilized Grove Shafter Freeway (I-980) right-of-way to connect high-speed rail, BART and commuter rail to a new transbay tube, but also continue on under San Pablo to Emeryville to access existing rail to the north. The new MacArthur Eastmont Line reaches many high density neighborhoods east of Downtown Oakland.

Eliminating or decking over I-980 makes sense both for building a rail line in the current trench, but also because it would relink West Oakland to Downtown. I-980 was only completed south of West Grand in 1985. We here at Urban Life Signs proposed a rail line in I-980 back in 2011, when we suggested using half of the trench of rail and keeping the other half for freeway traffic. Others such as ConnectOakland have suggested filling in the entire freeway and replacing it with a boulevard.

Image: Urban Life Signs

I-980 also provides the greatest opportunity for building a new rail line or rail lines because it is so underutilized and has such a wide right-of-way due to being designed for a Second Bay Bridge. Currently I-980 only has 73,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT) at 14th Street. North of I-580, where the Grove Shafter Freeway is renumbered to Highway 24, the AADT is 145,000 average daily traffic. That means that between I-580 and I-880, traffic on Highway 24 drops by 50%. Compare this I-880's 121,000 AADT west of I-980, and I-580's 227,000 AADT west of I-980. Likewise, east of 980, these two freeways carry much more traffic that I-980 (I-880: 201,000 AADT   I-580: 194,000 AADT). (all AADT date comes from Caltrans 2013 Traffic Volumes.)

In addition, BART could easily connect to an adapted I-980 freeway. The tracks run in the median between I-580 Nimitz Freeway until 27th Street. They could easily have new tracks connecting to an I-980 alignment south of 27th St and West Grand. Building this connection, along with a 2nd Transbay Tube, would allow much more flexibility and shorten construction time in building the Broadway Estuary Tunnel from the Oakland Wye (at Broadway and 9th St) to Alameda.

Pros: 

• Four-Bore Transbay Tube reduces costs compared to two 2-bore tubes. 
• New Downtown Stations at 14th & Castro, 19th & Telegraph (transfers to BART's 19th St Station) and Jack London Square.
• I-980 allows for a new Oakland Central Station for HSR, Amtrak, Cap Corridor, Eastshore and possible BART service from the yellow or red lines. 
• Third Street and Second Street Tunnels take rail off the surface of Embarcadero. The two tunnels also separate freight and passenger rail through central Oakland. 
• MacArthur Eastmont Stations would be built long term, serving high density neighborhoods in Oakland. Alameda receives one new station in its denser Alameda Point area.

Cons: 

• Higher Costs, to build the San Pablo Tunnel, but less expensive due to the I-980 alignment already being dug out.
• Oakland Central Station is a moderate walk to Broadway (0.4 miles or a 7-minute walk). However to points between like Ask.com or the Dellums Federal Building, it is only a short walk (0.2 miles or a 4-minute walk).
• Reduces or eliminates I-980 freeway traffic capacity. One option is to place rail on one side of I-980, while the freeway vehicle lanes are reduced from 6 to 4 lanes and places on the west side of the current freeway. Or the freeway could be removed all together and replaced with boulevard or by redirecting traffic to Brush and Castro streets.

The Estuary Plan

The Estuary Plan focuses a new BART line in Alameda, and also connects to the BART Broadway tunnel. Commuter rail and HSR would follow a new elevated line along 5th Street between Oak St and Adeline St. The MacArthur-Eastmont line enters the BART Broadway Tunnel just north of Grand.

Pros: 

• Four-Bore Transbay Tube reduces costs compared to two 2-bore tubes. 
• New Downtown Station at Jack London Square.
• Fifth Street passenger rail viaduct and Second Street freight rail tunnel take rail off the surface of Embarcadero. The two alignments also separate freight and passenger rail through central Oakland. 
• MacArthur Eastmont Stations would be built long term, serving high density neighborhoods in Oakland. Alameda receives three new station.

Cons: 

• Higher Costs, to build the Second St Tunnel, but less so for the 5th Street Viaduct. 
• Jack London Station is a moderate walk to 11th St (0.3 miles or a 7-minute walk). However it requires going under the very wide I-880 which is not very pedestrian inviting.
• Requires a BART gauge system for all new alignments apart from the West Estuary Tunnel connecting the 2nd Transbay Tube to Union Pacific tracks in the Port of Oakland.

The Diagonal San Pablo - East Lake Plan

The San Pablo - East Lake Plan calls for an ambitious rail line down San Pablo into Downtown Oakland, and continue along the axis until connecting to a new San Pablo axis that re-connects to rail southeast of Laney College. A grand high speed rail and commuter rail station would be located underground at 14th St. 

Pros: 

• Two- Two-Bore Transbay Tubes allows for costs to be spread out over time even though it is more expensive than building a single four-bore tube.
• New Downtown Stations at 12th & Broadway, Jack London Square.
• A new 12th St Oakland HSR Station for HSR, Amtrak, Cap Corridor, Eastshore and BART connections. 
• A new 40th St Emeryville Station with direct access to San Francisco, Downtown Oakland and points north because it is along a new transbay tube.
• San Pablo and Second Street Tunnels take rail off the surface of Embarcadero. The two tunnels also separate freight and passenger rail through central Oakland. 
• San Pablo Tunnel further north continues the separation between freight and passenger rail, allowing for more passenger service that is not disrupted by freight traffic.
• MacArthur Eastmont Stations would be built long term, serving high density neighborhoods in Oakland, including East Lake and the Park Blvd corridor. Alameda receives one new station in its denser Alameda Point area.

Cons: 

• Much Higher Costs, to build the San Pablo Tunnel, especially north of MacArthur. 
• Only adds one new station near Downtown: Although a new 12th St station is created it is located exactly where the existing BART station is situated. This does not increase access to new areas of downtown; it only increases access in an area that already has access.. 

Reasons to build a Second Transbay Tube

Capacity

Although many of BART’s current crowding challenges stem from issues unrelated to the tube (2-door cars, crowded stations, old train control system), it will eventually need a second tube to increase capacity. Note that if stations from a new tube are placed near existing BART stations, crowding will decrease due to a new tube offering an alternate way to the same office district.

Redundancy

We live in a seismically active area. San Francisco, Oakland and the Bay Area will only thrive after a major quake if its buildings, roads and rail can reopen soon after. Having a second tube and new rail lines will offer a better chance that at least one of the lines can stay open.

Expanded Transit Options

Having more options to take transit will encourage transit use and reduce congestion on regional highways, especially that number one congested Bay Bridge. Rail lines that go into new areas of already dense San Francisco and Oakland will allow folks living and working there to consider taking transit instead of driving. Having more transit usage and less driving reduces our regions carbon emissions. Every little step to reduce global warming helps.

First Transbay Tube and All Night Service

Once a second Transbay Tube is built, the First Transbay Tube can have work to repair and upgrade it. This could mean that the First Tube is shut down evenings and weekends, or for a few months. Having a Second Transbay Tube allows this to happen. In addition, having two Transbay Tubes allows for an all-night train service. Maintaining the long tubes is critical, but having more than one set allows for rail service all night in one, while the other tube is offline from the late evening (e.g. 9pm) to the following morning (e.g. 6am).

More Transit allows More Housing

When we build new rail lines and stations, we must increase the density of housing a jobs near train stations. I’m not calling for creating new downtowns or 40-story buildings, but rather two to four 20-story towers, plus a series of dense apartment buildings be built within a 2-block radius of new stations. The Bay Area is growing, and we cannot continue to force new housing into the Central Valley and making newer middle class residents commute over one hour to get to job centers. We need to densify in existing cities around transit hubs.