Tram-a-lam-a

For those who haven’t yet dismissed out-of-hand the idea of an aerial tram linking Downtown Oakland (12tb Street BART) to Jack London Square/Howard Terminal, I’ve put together the following chart comparing the proposed transit option with other existing trams and other non-bus, non-subway modes.

Chew on that over the weekend.

And if you want further related info, check out a study done for the City of Hercules for its own circulator, which could have included its own aerial tram. It’s worth a read.

With that, have a good weekend everyone.

14 thoughts on “Tram-a-lam-a

  1. This is silly. Can’t they just cone off a bus lane on Broadway on game days and run ballpark expresses to BART?

  2. See attached. max capacity of tram is 200 persons. 2,000/hour. 10 min ride plus loading and unloading. Forgetaboutit

  3. OK, sitting the “who’s gonna pay for it” discussion aside (not that it’s NOT important, but one thing at a time) it seems that the A’s are pitching a combination of things: gondola, tram, ferry, water taxi, driving, et al.

    It seems that most are discounting the gondola as the only option that the A’s are pitching. A combination of transport offerings makes HT at least a viable option.

    • None of what you wrote right there makes much of a dent in the transportation puzzle. That’s what folks are saying… Ferries move less than a thousand in an hour, water taxis even less, driving will actually be compounded by the gondola limitations because the majority of the parking spots are on the other side of 880 and Dave Kaval has already noted the gondolas as a solution for both BART riders and drivers…

      It’s all this stuff, plus so much more that make HT a long shot. If they go this way, ti could be a monumental mistake and it’s not like the A’s themselves haven’t made that clear for a decade or more.

      I don’t want to see the A’s build at the Coliseum really. But it may be all they can actually get done to make 2023 a realistic opening day.

      If I was betting, I’d put to over under on a HT stadium open to be 2026. That’s taking into account not only transportation issues, it also is taking into account the multiple state agencies involved in approving an as of yet undefined plan, an EIR for a larger development AND the building out of necessary infrastructure beyond a gondola. I don’t see how any private funding source is secured without all of these things figured out first.

      More power to them.

      • Why isn’t the City considering a Diwntown ballpark on the air rights of I-980 between 14th and 17th. It is a tight site but could work. Near 2 BART stations, plenty of parking assets, easy freeway access.

      • Bryan Grunwald, is that you? You of all people know full well why no one’s considering 980 Park. No one from the City of Oakland wants to navigate the politics of trying to get air rights for a perhaps-decommissioned freeway, at least not in California. Look how well the 280 decommissioning concept is progressing! Why you glossed over that fact from the beginning until now always puzzled me. Perhaps you could write a letter to DOT Sec Elaine Chao to convince her.

      • First of all the concept will work with or without the decommissioning 980. I propose a underpass for through traffic. Second, 280 and 980 are completely different. 280 is a stub end of a freeway while 980 is a freeway to freeway connection. You can make the southbound move from 580 to 880 and vice versa without 980. The stubborn Mayor is the only one standing in the way of this concept with her proposal for a surface boulevard. My concept will work with or without a transit line below. Nobody in the transit agencies have opposed my idea. They only want it studied to see if there is no adverse traffic impact. If there is no traffic impact, Caltrans likes the idea because it reduces there maintenance of landscaping and redundant ramps. They have a special task force studying decking over freeways, like SR 93 in San Diego.

      • @BG – How does your proposal work? Describe how it gets through the City’s approval process, Caltrans, etc.

      • Just for your information, the Federal Highway Administration owns the freeway, Caltrans maintains it and is essentially FHWA local representative. The City owns the air rights. The Mayor must approach Caltrans and enter into some agreement. Clearly, the first step is for the City to prove the development of the air-rights and elimination of intermediate ramps does not impact the operation of the freeway. The freeway would have ramps at 11th and 18th Streets, utilizing Brush and Castro to distribute traffic. Traffic lights would have to be upgraded to operate more effectively than today. The underpass only needs to be two lanes each way as there would be no side friction. The freeway could operate during construction, as there is sufficient right of way to build the underpass without disrupting traffic.

      • BG – Sounds like a piece of cake. Good luck getting through to that stubborn mayor.

      • BTW. The cost of underpass from 17th to 12th Streets is estimated at $100M using SR93 cost data. 17 acres of developable area. Doesn’t have to include a ballpark. Net value of land is $500M to$1B based on recent sales.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.