海灣隧道

維基百科，自由的百科全書
（重新導向自跨灣隧道）
海灣隧道
Transbay Tube
朝着跨灣隧道望去
概覽
地點加州三藩市灣
經緯度37°48′20″N 122°21′45″W / 37.80556°N 122.36250°W / 37.80556; -122.36250座標：37°48′20″N 122°21′45″W / 37.80556°N 122.36250°W / 37.80556; -122.36250
系統灣區捷運系統（BART）
鐵路線  里士滿-米爾布雷線

  費利蒙－戴利城線
  匹茲堡/灣點－三藩市/米爾布雷線

  都柏林/普萊森頓－戴利城線
起點三藩市市場街地鐵（內河碼頭站）
終點奧克蘭奧克蘭西站（英語：West Oakland station）
車站數量0
營運數據
啟用於1974年
業主三藩市灣區捷運系統委員會
營運單位三藩市灣區捷運系統委員會
性質城市軌道交通系統
技術數據
線路長度5.8 km（3.6 mi）
軌道數目2
軌距5英尺6英寸（1,676毫米）
電氣化方式1000 V
最高海拔海平面
最低海拔低於海平面41米（135英尺）

海灣隧道[1]（英語：Transbay Tube），也稱跨灣隧道[2]，是美國三藩市灣區捷運系統的一部分，位於加州三藩市灣下方，西端銜接三藩市市中心內的市場街地鐵隧道，以東則銜接至柏克萊、奧克蘭（屋崙）等東灣地區。隧道長3.6英里（5.8公里），如果從隧道邊最近的車站計算，長度共計6英里（10公里）。隧道在地表以下最深達到135英尺（41米）。

隧道的部件在地面組裝，再由船隻運至施工現場，然後沉入海底並固定（將管壁用沙礫和海床固定）。這種沉管式隧道不同於在岩層中破土前進的鑽挖式隧道。

這條隧道是灣區地鐵初期計劃的最後一部分。[3]除里奇蒙－費利蒙線外的所有地鐵線都通過這裏，所以此隧道是灣區地鐵里最繁忙的區間，在高峰期每小時會有2.8萬人次通過[4]，最短班距只有2分半。[5] 地鐵在隧道里可達到最高時速80英里每小時（130公里每小時）, 是均速36英里每小時（58公里每小時） 的兩倍多。[6]

構想與建設[編輯]

早期構想[編輯]

最早的跨三藩市灣海底隧道的概念是由三藩市的「怪人」——自稱「美利堅皇帝」的諾頓一世在1872年5月12日提出的。[7][8] 他在同年9月17日再次「下達」了這個「旨意」，還威脅要以「抗旨」為由「逮捕」奧克蘭和三藩市兩市的市長。[9]

這一概念被正式地提出是在1920年10月，由戈瑟爾斯（英語：George Washington Goethals）少將，巴拿馬運河的建造者提出。他的計劃中考慮到了抗震的方面，提及了把隧道建在在灣區海底的海泥中，與今天的隧道幾乎吻合。他預計的成本是50,000,000美元（相等於2023年的854,100,000美元）[10] 。不久後，在1921年7月，J. Vipond Davies和Ralph Modjeski（英語：Ralph Modjeski）又提出了隧道加橋樑的方案，這個方案和改良後的南部通道（英語：Southern Crossing (California)）（從三藩市的使命岩和波卓洛角（英語：Potrero Point），向東至阿拉米達）很接近。兩人同時指出了戈瑟爾斯將軍的計劃中，長距離公鐵兩用隧道潛在的通風問題，也暗示了僅通行電氣化鐵路隧道的可行性。[11]

戴維斯和莫傑斯基的計劃在1921年10月加入了其他12種跨灣通道方案，其中不少也是電氣鐵路方案。[12][13]

1947年，一個聯軍委員會提議了海底隧道方案來解決已經服務了十年的海灣大橋的擁堵情況。[14] 這個建議後來在勒伯方案（英語：Reber Plan）的可行性報告裏被提出。[15][16]

建造過程[編輯]

防震方面的研究始於1959年，包括1960年的鑽探和1964年的測試，以及在海床上安裝的地震記錄系統。由於初期研究中，受限於鑽探和探測的精度，無法探明其中一塊連續海床的信息，隧道被迫改道。[17]新的線路儘量避開了這塊海床，使隧道可以避免彎曲壓力，自由地延申。[18]

設計概念和線路調整在1960年7月完成。[19] 一份1961年的報告預估隧道的成本大概是132,720,000美元（相等於2023年的1,353,210,000美元）。[20] 施工於1965年開始，並在1969年4月3日，最後一節安放成功後完成，[21] 灣區地鐵隨後發行了鍍銅鋁製紀念幣來紀念。[22] 在設施安裝之前，一部分隧道在1969年9月11日向行人開放。[23]

1969年11月9日的宣傳冊，標題「灣區海底地鐵隧道 - 水下漫步」。彼時隧道的一部分已經完工，並開放為人行通道。

軌道和供電在1973年完成，隨後在解決了加州公共設施委員會（英語：California Public Utilities Commission）對於供電的自動調度系統的擔憂後，隧道於1974年9月16日投入服務，[24] 比計劃的時間晚了5年。[25] 首次試運行在1973年8月10日，一輛自動駕駛下的列車（編號222），載着包括灣區地鐵工作人員、記者和政府要員在內的100名乘客，以68—70英里每小時（109—113公里每小時）的速度，用時7分鐘，從奧克蘭西站（英語：west oakland station）開往蒙哥馬利站，爾後再以80英里每小時（130公里每小時）的全速，用時6分鐘返回。[26]

隧道被安放再一條寬60英尺（18米）、深2英尺（0.61米）並鋪滿砂礫的壕溝里。在開鑿壕溝和鋪礫石時，工程師從海床共鑿出了5,600,000立方碼（4,300,000立方米）的泥土，[27]並使用激光來校準方向，保證壕溝和礫石的誤差分別小於3英寸（76毫米）和1.8英寸（46毫米） 。[28]

隧道共由57段組成，由伯利恆鋼鐵在70號碼頭（英語：Pier 70, San Francisco）的船塢製造[29][30] ，再由一條雙體駁船載到海灣中間。[31] 在鋼製外殼完工後，被水封的隔板也被安上並噴上水泥，形成2.3英尺（0.70米）的內壁和道床。隨後，這些小節被「浮」在規劃路線的上方，駁船也被拴在海床上，作為臨時的牽引平台。[32] 小節都被灌入重500短噸（450公噸）的砂礫，然後再降到海床上平鋪着軟土、泥漿和砂礫的壕溝里。當小節到位後，潛水員會將其與其他已經到位的小節連接起來，再移除小節之間的隔板，改用沙子和碎石組成的保護層包起來。[33][31] 為了防止海水的侵蝕，隧道採用了陰極防蝕作為保護。[34]

計劃共耗資1.8億美元（相當於2016年的8.8億美元）,[35][36] 其中9000萬被用於隧道的建造，其餘的用於鋪軌、電氣化、通風和列車控制設施。[37]

配置[編輯]

向南方望去，海底隧道的大致路線（黃線）。金銀島在左前方，三藩市金融區在右方，而奧克蘭和阿拉米達在左後方。

隧道西端位於海灣大橋西橋腳北方，渡輪大廈附近地下，直通市區的市場街地鐵，在三藩市半島和芳草地島（英語：Yerba Buena island）之間穿過大橋的西橋，東隧道口位於奧克蘭第七街，880號州際公路西側。[38]

隧道共57小節，每節長度在273至336英尺（83至102米）之間[39]，平均長達328英尺（100米），寬48英尺（15米），高24英尺（7.3米），重10,000短噸（9,100公噸）[40] 。為了保證路線，大部分小節都是筆直的，但其中有15節有水平方向的彎曲，4節有垂直方向的彎曲，2節在兩個維度上都有彎曲。[39] 每節的造價將近1,500,000美元（相等於2023年的12,460,000美元），基於施工合同的90,000,000美元（相等於2023年的747,770,000美元） 總成本。[41] 外圍的鋼殼厚度0.625英寸（15.9毫米）[42]， 剛好能承受起自重和環的壓力。 一位顧問——拉爾夫·派克教授說服了項目的工程師Tom Kuesel採用薄殼，因為泥土能自然形成支持[43]。

隧道由兩個通道和中間的維護/行人走廊構成。每個隧道直徑17英尺（5.2米）， 兩條隧道之間有一條走廊，其中上半部分有維護和控制設備、一條加壓的消防水管、和兩條條通風管道，換氣速度為300,000立方英尺每分鐘（8,500立方米每分鐘）[44]。兩條通風管可以通過遠程操控的、長6英尺（1.8米）、高3英尺（0.91米）相互連通，而通風口則位於三藩市和奧克蘭。兩條隧道靠着走廊的兩側都有一條寬只有2.5英尺（0.76米）的步行平台[45]，兩側牆壁上也各有56扇門，通往走廊的下半部分，從三藩市一側編號依次遞增，每扇間隔330英尺（100米）。通常這些門都是被鎖住的，緊急時可以用工具打開。

隧道兩邊的出口都有一個裝置[46]，根據設計允許隧道有6°的偏移，換言之，隧道可以沿着隧道軸前後移動4.25英寸（108毫米），上下左右移動6.75英寸（171毫米）[47]。

隧道橫截面順時針方向依次是：鋼製外殼、水泥內殼、通風管道和風門、逃生門


防震[編輯]

隧道在內側和外側都有防震保護，共耗資330,000,000美元（相等於2023年的400,400,000美元）。[48]

1991年，地震發生2年後，在州政府調查委員會建議下，一份研究出台。[49]報告中指出，隧道口的防震裝置「基本完好，可以抵禦下一次地震」[50]。然而，地震卻使隧道可偏移的幅度減少到了1.5英寸（38毫米）[51]。

事故和問題[編輯]

1979年1月火災[編輯]

隧道截面，由NTSB提供 從左到右依次是 「行人進入逃生走廊」 「42號門」 「乘客逃出車廂」 「43號門」 「乘客登上救援列車」 「起火車廂」 小圖顯示了事發位置（金銀島和奧克蘭之間）

1979年1月17日約18點，一輛開往三藩市方向的7節列車（編號117）在隧道內發生電氣火災[52][53] 。一位消防員——奧克蘭消防局小隊長威廉·埃利奧特，50歲[54] ——因為吸入濃煙，在救火時不幸殉職。 車上的40名乘客和2名地鐵工作人員隨後被另一方向的列車救起[55][56] 。此次滅火行動中低效的通訊和協調，促使美國消防協會(NFPA)增加運輸行業的標準(NFPA 130, 固定線路運輸和乘客軌道交通系統標準)[52]。

當天早些時候，開往三藩市的363號列車在16：30，因為不明煙霧，在隧道內緊急停車。在排除故障時，駕駛員發現6節和8節車廂的防出軌條脫落，9節車廂啟動了制動。隨後駕駛員清理了防脫軌器的電路，解除了9節車廂的制動，並重新啟動了列車。列車最後在戴利城站退出服務，作進一步檢修。之後的列車都改為手動駕駛，不過很快便恢復了自動控制。其中有駕駛員報告看見363號列車遺留的零件，但是軌道沒有被阻擋，依然能使用。[57]

火災是由117號列車第5節和6節的集電靴引起的，他們撞到了前面列車落下的零件，發生了短路並起火。列車在18：06，剛剛進入隧道後停車，駕駛員報告稱，列車內出現濃煙，他無法看清隧道。控制中心隨後切斷第三軌供電，但不到1分鐘後又恢復，希望駕駛員能斷開起火的車廂，然而未能成功。排氣扇在08分打開，隨後第三軌在15分再次斷電。列車上有一名地鐵管理局的高層，協助了乘客離開事發車廂。

奧克蘭市消防局接到奧克蘭西站的報警後，派出了2名地鐵警察和9名消防員，乘坐900號列車前往現場。900號列車最後在事發車廂200英尺（61米）報告了起火車廂猛烈的火勢和濃煙。在接近火場時，1名警察和7名消防員進入了逃生走廊，而其他人則因為濃煙被迫回到900號列車上。

另一邊，載着千餘名乘客的111號列車被扣在了三藩市一側的內河碼頭站。在18：21，111號列車沿着東行隧道行駛，並接近起火車廂的位置。當所有117號列車的乘客都上車後，消防員搜索了起火列車，並在18：59向指揮部報了平安。雖然一些煙霧飄了過來，111號列車還是成功啟動，隨後疾馳至奧克蘭西站，送乘客前往醫院。同時更多消防員從奧克蘭一側進入隧道，趕赴火場。[58]但由於門被鎖住，加上現場濃煙滾滾，消防員沒能進入東行隧道來避難。[59]

111號列車經過的氣流帶倒了一些消防員，他們排成一列，開始在濃煙中，向東尋找出路。過程中，他們的防毒面具漸漸失靈，其中小隊長威廉·埃利奧特無法再正常呼吸，並向隊員求救。消防員再撤離火場時，又有一輛列車開來接應他們，並立即送他們會奧克蘭西站，前往最近的醫院。埃利奧特由於吸入過量濃煙和氰化物，不幸殉職。[60]

火雖然沒有被完全撲滅，但是還是在22：45得到了控制。次日18點，奧克蘭的消防員又再次前往地鐵的車輛段，阻止已經面目全非的車廂里火勢的擴大。[61] 灣區地鐵在因隧道停運造成的1,000,000美元（相等於2023年的4,200,000美元）虧損基礎上，還花費了1,100,000美元（相等於2023年的4,620,000美元）維修隧道和加強安全措施。[62]

隨後，在同年的二月，灣區地鐵管理局向三藩市和奧克蘭消防局的局長提交了新的疏散方案，[63] 但是由於公共設施委員會主任理查德·葛拉威爾認為，「海底隧道的乘客應該意識到，地鐵方面現在重開隧道，是不能提供有保障的服務的」，隧道在4月才恢復通行。[64] 兩市消防局也批評灣區地鐵方面沒有讓消防隊充分掌握緊急情況的進展。[65]

地震[編輯]

作為一項預防措施，地鐵的應急預案里要求，地鐵在遭遇地震時應及時停車，而在海底隧道和伯克利丘隧道里的列車則應儘快前往最近的車站。隨後線路會被檢查，在確認安全後再恢復運營。[66]迄今最大的1989年洛馬普里塔地震發生時，一輛正在隧道內的列車被下令停車，雖然駕駛員沒有感受到震動。[67]地震使許多地區的公路被損壞，海灣大橋因為東橋的上橋面垮塌，也停用了一個月。相反，跨灣隧道被認為是安全的，僅6個小時後重開，12小時後地鐵也恢復正常運營，[68][69]使跨灣隧道成為當時三藩市和奧克蘭之間僅有的幾個交通方式。[70]

行人闖入[編輯]

在2012年10月[71]和2013年8月[72]，都發生過行人從內河碼頭站闖入隧道，逼停地鐵服務的事故。在2016年12月底，又有一位行人以相同的方式闖入，並在隧道內逗留了一個小時。為了保障地鐵的服務，警方一邊搜尋他的下落，一邊要求地鐵以手動模式，低速通過隧道。[73]

設備故障[編輯]

由於設備開始老化，列車曾幾次被滯留在隧道內。[74]

  • 2010年3月，一輛列車的車廂突然脫鈎，導致列車被迫停下。[75]
  • 2014年9月，兩輛維護車輛在隧道內相撞，並損壞了部分軌道，導致地鐵只能使用另一側的軌道。[76]
  • 2015年1月，一輛列車的制動意外啟動，使列車在隧道內停下。[77]
  • 2016年12月，一輛列車出現故障，在隧道內拋錨。之後列車只能以手動模式，減速通行[78]
  • 2017年4月，又有一輛列車的制動意外啟動，使列車停下。

噪音[編輯]

三藩市紀事報在2010年做了一份調查，指出海底隧道是全地鐵系統裏噪音最大的部分，達到了100分貝，和一台電鑽不相上下。[79] 噪音又因為四周的水泥牆壁，和隧道內彎曲的軌道，而非常尖銳，被形容為「女鬼的聲音、尖叫的貓頭鷹和《異世奇人》中失控的時光機」。[79] 2015年，地鐵方面更換了6,500英尺（2,000米）、潤滑了3英里（4.8公里）的軌道，有效減少了噪音，也得到了乘客的好評。[80]

海運影響[編輯]

穿行在灣區的船隻，在下錨的時候，可能會損壞陰極保護層的陽離子。由於陽極是從圍繞着隧道的壕溝中突出來的，他們更容易受到損壞。雖然海運部門要求了船隻在經過隧道附近時不能下錨，但地鐵方面還是會定期檢查陽離子層的情況。[81]

2014年1月31日，由於一艘貨船在早上8：45在隧道附近下錨。基於船隻的位置，海岸警衛隊在11：55通知了地鐵管理局，認為錨離隧道非常近，隧道隨後被關閉20分鐘，以檢查潛在的損壞。在檢查過程中，兩列隧道內的列車也被迫停駛，列車服務也晚點了15-20分鐘。由於沒有問題，隧道在12：15重新開放，並於13：00恢復正常運營。[82]碼頭的引航員隨後記錄了錨的準確位置，在隧道西南方向1,200英尺（370米）處。[83]

2017年4月，一艘為地鐵方面做保護層維護的起重機船復仇者遭在夜間遇了一場冬季風暴，隨後反轉並沉沒，船體最後停在了隧道的外壁上，萬幸沒有影響隧道的通行，潛水員也在次日止住了船上泄露的柴油。[84]

未來發展[編輯]

為慶祝創建50周年，灣區捷運在2007年宣佈了未來50年的計劃。由於隧道的運力在2030年將達到飽和，管理局構想了在三藩市灣下方建造4個隧道，於現有的隧道平行，並在南部建造跨灣換乘樞紐（已初步完工），連接加州火車和計劃中的加州高鐵系統。計劃新建的四個隧道中，兩個將提供給地鐵，另外兩個提供給常規/高速鐵路使用，最終將有六個隧道。[85]

流行文化[編輯]

隧道當時的施工現場曾被用作喬治·盧卡斯的《五百年後（英語：THX 1138）》的拍攝現場，其中片尾的垂直攀爬是在尚未完工的（水平）隧道內，將鏡頭旋轉90°拍攝的。拍攝時，隧道還沒有鋪設軌道，羅伯特·杜瓦爾的角色使用裸露的鋼筋當作梯子。[來源請求]

由泰瑞·布魯克斯的作品《沙納拉（英語：shannara）》改編的電視劇《沙娜拉傳奇（英語：The Shannara Chronicles）》，部分鏡頭在灣區取景，其中主人公被要求穿過海底隧道。[86]

遊戲《死亡空間》早期也有穿過海底隧道的劇情。[87][88]

參見[編輯]

參考文獻[編輯]

  1. ^ BART 須知指南 (PDF). [2023-10-31]. （原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2023-10-31）. 
  2. ^ 乘客公告板 (PDF). [2023-10-31]. （原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2023-10-31）. 
  3. ^ Strand, Robert. San Francisco gets its space age underwater trains. The Dispatch. UPI. 14 September 1974 [20 August 2016]. 
  4. ^ The Case for a Second Transbay Transit Crossing (PDF). Bay Area Council Economic Institute: 7. February 2016 [2016-03-18]. （原始內容 (PDF)存檔於2016-03-19）. 
  5. ^ Mallett, Zakhary. 2nd Transbay Tube needed to help keep BART on track. San Francisco Chronicle. September 7, 2014 [2018-06-19]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-12）. 
  6. ^ Minton, Torri. BART: It's not the system it set out to be. Spokane Chronicle. AP. 17 September 1984 [20 August 2016]. Hitting speeds close to 80 mph only in the 3.6-mile tube under the bay, the trains average 36 mph for safety reasons, [BART spokesman Sy] Mouber said. 
  7. ^ Norton I. Proclamation. The Pacific Appeal. June 15, 1872: 1 [2018-06-19]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-19） –透過California Digital Newspaper Collection. Believing Oakland Point to be the proper and only point of communication from this side of the Bay to San Francisco, we, Norton I, Dei gratia Emperor of the United State and Protector of Mexico, do hereby command the cities of Oakland and San Francisco to make an appropriation for paying the expense of a survey to determine the practicability of a tunnel under water; and if found practicable, that said tunnel be forthwith built for a railroad communication. Norton I. Given at Brooklyn the 12th day of May, 1812. 
  8. ^ Lumea, John. Bridge Proclamations. The Emperor's Bridge Campaign. 2016 [23 July 2017]. （原始內容存檔於2017年7月23日）. 
  9. ^ Norton I. Proclamation. The Pacific Appeal. September 21, 1872: 1 [2018-06-19]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-19） –透過California Digital Newspaper Collection. Whereas, we issued our decree, ordering the citizens of San Francisco and Oakland to appropriate funds for the survey of a suspension bridge from Oakland Point via Goat Island; also for a tunnel; and to ascertain which is the best project; and whereas, the said citizens have hitherto neglected to notice our said decree; and whereas, we are determined our authority shall be fully respected; now, therefore, we do hereby command the arrest, by the army, of both the Boards of City Fathers, if they persist in neglecting our decrees. Given under our royal hand and seal, at San Francisco, this 17th day of September, 1872. NORTON 1. 
  10. ^ San Francisco Bay Bridge Project Revived by New Plans. Engineering News-Record. 7 July 1921, 87 (1): 16–17 [8 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2019-08-16）. Howe & Peters, consulting engineers of San Francisco, have been working for nearly two years as Pacific Coast representatives of George W. Goethals, in getting together data on the construction of a subway for both vehicular and rail traffic, which would connect the foot of Market St. with Oakland Mole. Tentative plans on this project, made public some months ago, call for a shield-driven concrete tube, similar to the type General Goethals recommended for the New York-New Jersey tube under the Hudson River.
    Provision would be made for two decks, the upper for use of motor vehicles and the lower for electric trains. [...] The gradient would be kept below 3 per cent so freight could be handled easily. The depth of water along the route the tube would follow does not exceed 65 ft. and soundings taken at various points indicate that its entire length would be in blue mud. Not only would mud facilitate driving by the shield method, it is pointed out, but it would constitute a cushion to safeguard the tube from possible disalignment due to earthquake shocks.
    [...]If the results of such a survey confirm the rough estimates, it is suggested that the construction of the entire 3.5-mi. concrete tube would be between $40,000,000 and $50,000,000.     
  11. ^ Features of San Francisco Bay Bridge Report. Engineering News-Record. 18 August 1921, 87 (7): 268–269 [8 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2019-08-18）. Any high bridge between Yerba Buena Island and San Francisco would naturally land on Telegragh Hill [sic]. It would not only involve very long and costly spans, even if piers were permitted in the channel, but would land the traffic in a section of the city already quite congested, and from which a proper distribution would be impracticable. Any tunnel on this location would have to be constructed at great depth in an unknown rock formation, as the water depth is too great for tunneling under air pressure, and the length would consequently be so great as to involve an extremely difficult problem in ventilation for vehicular traffic. We there fore consider this plan as impracticable. Any continuous tunnel across the bay, on any location, while practicable for purely electrically operated railroad traffic, would involve most serious ventilation problems for vehicular traffic, and enormous expense if constructed for all classes of traffic. 
  12. ^ Thirteen Projects Submitted for San Francisco Bay Bridge. Engineering News-Record. 3 November 1921, 87 (18): 739 [8 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2019-08-13）. 
  13. ^ Scott, Mel. ELEVEN: Seeds of Metropolitan Regionalism. The San Francisco Bay Area: A Metropolis in Perspective Second. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 1985: 178 [8 September 2016]. ISBN 0-520-05510-1. （原始內容存檔於2019-08-15）. 
  14. ^ Bay Area Rapid Transit District. History of the Tube. Bay Area Rapid Transit District. n.d. （原始內容存檔於March 29, 2013）. 
  15. ^ H.Res. 529
  16. ^ Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay (報告). Presidio of San Francisco, California. 1947. 
  17. ^ Aisiks, E. G.; Tarshansky, I. W. Soil Studies for Seismic Design of San Francisco Transbay Tube. Vibration Effects of Earthquakes on Soils and Foundations (ASTM STP 450). Seventy-first Annual Meeting of the American Society for Testing and Materials. San Francisco, California: American Society for Testing and Materials: 138–166. 23–28 June 1968 [7 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2019-08-16）. 
  18. ^ Rogers, J. David; Peck, Ralph B. Engineering Geology of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) System, 1964-75. Geolith. 2000 [17 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-11-17）. 
  19. ^ Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel. Trans-bay tube: engineering report (報告). San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. 1960 [7 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-20）. 
  20. ^ Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel. Engineering Report to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (PDF) (報告). San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District: 21. June 1961 [7 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2019-10-15）. Use of a precast concrete tube with metal shell for the underwater crossing between shore points is recommended. 
  21. ^ Final Section Of Transit Tube Lowered Into San Francisco Bay. Lodi News-Sentinel. UPI. 4 April 1969 [18 August 2016]. 
  22. ^ BART Tunnel Completion Moves Near. Lodi News-Sentinel. UPI. 31 March 1969 [20 August 2016]. 
  23. ^ BART Tube Is Opened For Sunday Visitors. Lodi News-Sentinel. UPI. 10 November 1969 [20 August 2016]. 
  24. ^ Leavitt, Carrick. After three year wait BART goes down the tube. Ellensburg Daily Record. UPI. 16 September 1974 [20 August 2016]. 
  25. ^ Bay Area Rapid Transit System to Open Last Link. The Times-News. AP. 27 August 1974 [20 August 2016]. 
  26. ^ Bay tube run made by BART. Lodi News-Sentinel. UPI. 11 August 1973 [20 August 2016]. 
  27. ^ Bay Tube is quake proof. Lodi News-Sentinel. UPI. 12 January 1978 [18 August 2016]. 
  28. ^ Frobenius, P.K.; Robinson, W.S. 3: Tunnel Surveys and Alignment Control. Bickel, John O.; Kuesel, Thomas R.; King, Elwyn H. (編). Tunnel Engineering Handbook Second. Norwell, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1996: 35 [20 August 2016]. ISBN 978-1-4613-8053-5. （原始內容存檔於2019-08-12）. 
  29. ^ Wilson, Ralph. History of Potrero Point Shipyards and Industry. Pier 70 San Francisco. 2016 [20 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-04）. 
  30. ^ Bethlehem built section of the BART Tubes at Pier 70. Bethlehem Shipyard Museum. 2016 [20 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-20）. 
  31. ^ 31.0 31.1 Walker, Mark. BART—The Way to Go for the '70s. Popular Science (New York, New York: Popular Science Publishing Company). May 1971, 198 (5): 50–53; 134–135 [20 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2019-08-16）. 
  32. ^ Gerwick Jr, Ben C. 5: Marine and Offshore Construction Equipment. Construction of Marine and Offshore Structures Third. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 2007: 139–140 [20 August 2016]. ISBN 978-0-8493-3052-0. （原始內容存檔於2019-08-12）. 
  33. ^ BART Tunnel Completion Moves Near. Lodi News-Sentinel. UPI. 31 March 1969 [20 August 2016]. 
  34. ^ Bay Tube is quake proof. Lodi News-Sentinel. UPI. 12 January 1978 [18 August 2016]. 
  35. ^ Godfrey Jr., Kneeland A. Rapid Transit Renaissance. Civil Engineering (American Society of Civil Engineers). December 1966, 36 (12): 28–33. 
  36. ^ Transit system safety studied. Lawrence Journal-World. AP. 23 January 1975 [17 August 2016]. 
  37. ^ Mayors open Transbay Tube. Lawrence Journal-World. AP. 20 September 1969 [17 August 2016]. 
  38. ^ Bay Tube Gets Longer. Reading Eagle. UPI. 16 December 1968 [17 August 2016]. 
  39. ^ 39.0 39.1 Frobenius, P.K.; Robinson, W.S. 3: Tunnel Surveys and Alignment Control. Bickel, John O.; Kuesel, Thomas R.; King, Elwyn H. (編). Tunnel Engineering Handbook Second. Norwell, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1996: 35 [20 August 2016]. ISBN 978-1-4613-8053-5. （原始內容存檔於2019-08-12）. 
  40. ^ Final Section Of Transit Tube Lowered Into San Francisco Bay. Lodi News-Sentinel. UPI. 4 April 1969 [18 August 2016]. 
  41. ^ Exclusive Club 120 Feet Deep Offshore In San Francisco Bay. Ellensburg Daily Record. UPI. 12 March 1969 [20 August 2016]. 
  42. ^ Bender, Kristin J.; Alund, Natalie Neysa. BART: No damage after container ship's anchor drops near Transbay Tube. The Mercury News (San Jose, California). 31 January 2014 [9 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-20）. 
  43. ^ Rogers, J. David; Peck, Ralph B. Engineering Geology of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) System, 1964-75. Geolith. 2000 [17 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-11-17）. 
  44. ^ Bay Area Rapid Transit System. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 24 July 1997 [17 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-20）. 
  45. ^ Railroad Accident Report: Bay Area Rapid Transit District fire on train No. 117 and evacuation of passengers while in the Transbay Tube (PDF) (報告). National Transportation Safety Board. 19 July 1979 [17 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2017-04-30）.  |number=被忽略 (幫助)
  46. ^ US granted 3517515,Warshaw, Robert,「Tunnel construction sliding assembly」,發表於30 June 1970,發行於17 July 1968,指定於Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. 
  47. ^ Seismic retrofit for BART's Transbay tube. TunnelTalk. March 2004 [19 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-20）. 
  48. ^ Transbay Tube Earthquake retrofit keeps farmers market in place. Bay Area Rapid Transit (新聞稿). 16 October 2006 [6 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-21）. 
  49. ^ Housner, George W. Competing Against Time: The Governor's Board of Inquiry on the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (報告). State of California, Office of Planning and Research: 19; 25; 36–37; 39. May 1990 [7 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2019-08-12）. The impacts of the earthquake were much more than the loss of life and direct damage. The Bay Bridge is the principal transportation link between San Francisco and the East Bay. It was out of service for a [sic] over a month and caused substantial hardship as individuals and businesses accommodated themselves to its loss. [...] The most tragic impact of the earthquake was the life loss caused by the collapse of the Cypress Viaduct, while the most disruption was caused by the closure of the Bay Bridge for a month while it was repaired, leading to costly commute alternatives and probable economic losses. [...] On the other hand, the Board received reports of only very minor damage to the Golden Gate Bridge, which is founded on rock, and the BART Trans-bay Tube, which was specially engineered in the early 1960s to withstand earthquakes. [...] Two facts stand out: the importance of the Oakland–San Francisco link, and the volume of traffic borne by the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge—approximately double that of the Golden Gate Bridge, and almost equal to the combined traffic carried by all four other bridges. For automobile traffic, the Golden Gate and Bay bridges are essentially nonredundant systems, with alternative routes via the other bridges being time consuming to a level that seriously impacts commercial and institutional productivity. [...] The critical role played by the BART Trans-bay Tube in cross-bay transportation is clear, as is the fact that the South Bay bridges (San Mateo and Dumbarton) accommodated most of the redistribution of vehicular traffic. [...] Engineering studies should be instigated of the Golden Gate and San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridges, of the BART system, and of other important transportation structures throughout the State that are sufficiently detailed to reveal any possible weak links in their seimic resisting systems that could result in collapse or prolonged closure. 
  50. ^ Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Transbay Tube Seismic Joints Post-Earthquake Evaluation (報告). San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. November 1991. 
  51. ^ Seismic retrofit for BART's Transbay tube. TunnelTalk. March 2004 [19 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-20）. 
  52. ^ 52.0 52.1 3: Case Studies. Making Transportation Tunnels Safe and Secure. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. 2006: 42–44 [17 August 2016]. ISBN 978-0-309-09871-7. （原始內容存檔於2022-04-07）. 
  53. ^ Chisholm, Daniel. 5—The Fruits of Informal Coordination. Coordination Without Hierarchy: Informal Structures in Multiorganizational Systems. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 1992 [17 August 2016]. ISBN 9780520080379. （原始內容存檔於2018-03-27）. 
  54. ^ BART train burns in tunnel; one killed. Eugene Register-Guard. AP. 18 January 1979 [17 August 2016]. 
  55. ^ Railroad Accident Report: Bay Area Rapid Transit District fire on train No. 117 and evacuation of passengers while in the Transbay Tube (PDF) (報告). National Transportation Safety Board. 19 July 1979 [17 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2017-04-30）.  |number=被忽略 (幫助)
  56. ^ Fire shuts down BART 'tube'. Lodi News-Sentinel. UPI. 19 January 1979 [17 August 2016]. 
  57. ^ Railroad Accident Report: Bay Area Rapid Transit District fire on train No. 117 and evacuation of passengers while in the Transbay Tube (PDF) (報告). National Transportation Safety Board. 19 July 1979 [17 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2017-04-30）.  |number=被忽略 (幫助)
  58. ^ Railroad Accident Report: Bay Area Rapid Transit District fire on train No. 117 and evacuation of passengers while in the Transbay Tube (PDF) (報告). National Transportation Safety Board. 19 July 1979 [17 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2017-04-30）.  |number=被忽略 (幫助)
  59. ^ 3: Case Studies. Making Transportation Tunnels Safe and Secure. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. 2006: 42–44 [17 August 2016]. ISBN 978-0-309-09871-7. （原始內容存檔於2022-04-07）. 
  60. ^ Railroad Accident Report: Bay Area Rapid Transit District fire on train No. 117 and evacuation of passengers while in the Transbay Tube (PDF) (報告). National Transportation Safety Board. 19 July 1979 [17 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2017-04-30）.  |number=被忽略 (幫助)
  61. ^ 3: Case Studies. Making Transportation Tunnels Safe and Secure. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. 2006: 42–44 [17 August 2016]. ISBN 978-0-309-09871-7. （原始內容存檔於2022-04-07）. 
  62. ^ BART cancels request to reopen bay tube. Lodi News-Sentinel. UPI. 12 February 1979 [20 August 2016]. 
  63. ^ BART cancels request to reopen bay tube. Lodi News-Sentinel. UPI. 12 February 1979 [20 August 2016]. 
  64. ^ BART resumes tube service for first time since fatal fire. Eugene Register-Guard. AP. 5 April 1979 [17 August 2016]. 
  65. ^ 3: Case Studies. Making Transportation Tunnels Safe and Secure. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. 2006: 42–44 [17 August 2016]. ISBN 978-0-309-09871-7. （原始內容存檔於2022-04-07）. 
  66. ^ BART to participate in statewide earthquake drill Thursday (新聞稿). San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. 14 October 2015 [7 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-21）. 
  67. ^ Jordan, Melissa. Behind the Scenes of BART's Role as Lifeline for the Bay Area. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. 2014 [7 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-12）. Donna "Lulu" Wilkinson, an experienced train operator, was barreling through the Transbay Tube at 80 miles per hour in the cab of a 10-car train when the quake hit.
    "I didn't even feel it," she recalled. She was about halfway through to San Francisco when she got the order to stop and hold her position.
    It was routine procedure (and remains so) to do a short hold after any earthquake, even smaller ones, and passengers were familiar with that routine. "They didn't panic," she said. "I got on the intercom and told them we were holding for a quake and would be moving shortly."
    The design and strength of the tube, an engineering marvel sunk into mud on the bottom of the bay, had insulated the train and its passengers from feeling the earth's movements.     
  68. ^ Jordan, Melissa. Behind the Scenes of BART's Role as Lifeline for the Bay Area. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. 2014 [7 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-12）. Donna "Lulu" Wilkinson, an experienced train operator, was barreling through the Transbay Tube at 80 miles per hour in the cab of a 10-car train when the quake hit.
    "I didn't even feel it," she recalled. She was about halfway through to San Francisco when she got the order to stop and hold her position.
    It was routine procedure (and remains so) to do a short hold after any earthquake, even smaller ones, and passengers were familiar with that routine. "They didn't panic," she said. "I got on the intercom and told them we were holding for a quake and would be moving shortly."
    The design and strength of the tube, an engineering marvel sunk into mud on the bottom of the bay, had insulated the train and its passengers from feeling the earth's movements.     
  69. ^ Annex to 2010 Association of Bay Area Governments Local Hazard Mitigation Plan "Taming Natural Disasters" (PDF) (報告). Association of Bay Area Governments: 8. 2010 [7 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2018-11-30）. BART's success in maintaining continuous service directly after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake reconfirmed the system's importance as a transportation "lifeline." While the earthquake caused transient movements in the Tube there was no significant permanent movement and BART service was uninterrupted except for a short inspection period immediately following the quake. With the closure of the Bay Bridge and the Cypress Street Viaduct along the Nimitz Freeway, BART became the primary passenger transportation link between San Francisco and East Bay communities. Its average daily transport of 218,000 passengers before the earthquake increased to an average of 308,000 passengers per day during the first full business week following the earthquake. 
  70. ^ Housner, George W. Competing Against Time: The Governor's Board of Inquiry on the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (報告). State of California, Office of Planning and Research: 19; 25; 36–37; 39. May 1990 [7 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2019-08-12）. The impacts of the earthquake were much more than the loss of life and direct damage. The Bay Bridge is the principal transportation link between San Francisco and the East Bay. It was out of service for a [sic] over a month and caused substantial hardship as individuals and businesses accommodated themselves to its loss. [...] The most tragic impact of the earthquake was the life loss caused by the collapse of the Cypress Viaduct, while the most disruption was caused by the closure of the Bay Bridge for a month while it was repaired, leading to costly commute alternatives and probable economic losses. [...] On the other hand, the Board received reports of only very minor damage to the Golden Gate Bridge, which is founded on rock, and the BART Trans-bay Tube, which was specially engineered in the early 1960s to withstand earthquakes. [...] Two facts stand out: the importance of the Oakland–San Francisco link, and the volume of traffic borne by the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge—approximately double that of the Golden Gate Bridge, and almost equal to the combined traffic carried by all four other bridges. For automobile traffic, the Golden Gate and Bay bridges are essentially nonredundant systems, with alternative routes via the other bridges being time consuming to a level that seriously impacts commercial and institutional productivity. [...] The critical role played by the BART Trans-bay Tube in cross-bay transportation is clear, as is the fact that the South Bay bridges (San Mateo and Dumbarton) accommodated most of the redistribution of vehicular traffic. [...] Engineering studies should be instigated of the Golden Gate and San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridges, of the BART system, and of other important transportation structures throughout the State that are sufficiently detailed to reveal any possible weak links in their seimic resisting systems that could result in collapse or prolonged closure. 
  71. ^ Man Walking In Transbay Tube Prompts Temporary BART Shutdown. CBS SFBayArea. 15 October 2012 [17 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-20）. 
  72. ^ Alund, Natalie Neysa. BART trains back on track after man found walking in Transbay Tube. Oakland Tribune. 11 August 2013 [18 August 2016]. 
  73. ^ Bodley, Michael. Man who sparked BART delays by running into Transbay Tube IDd. San Francisco Chronicle. 30 December 2016 [13 April 2017]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-20）. 
  74. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael; Veklerov, Kimberly; Ravani, Sarah. BART systemwide meltdown after train gets stuck in West Oakland. San Francisco Chronicle. 6 January 2017 [13 April 2017]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-12）. 
  75. ^ Lee, Henry K. BART train splits in two in Transbay Tube. San Francisco Chronicle. 17 March 2010 [13 April 2017]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-20）. 
  76. ^ Kane, Will; Huet, Ellen; Lee, Henry K. BART reopens Transbay Tube track. San Francisco Chronicle. 3 September 2014 [13 April 2017]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-20）. 
  77. ^ Williams, Kale. BART delays again after train gets stuck in Transbay Tube. San Francisco Chronicle. 7 January 2015 [13 April 2017]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-20）. 
  78. ^ Veklerov, Kimberly. Train stuck in Transbay Tube causes major BART delays. San Francisco Chronicle. 20 December 2016 [13 April 2017]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-20）. 
  79. ^ 79.0 79.1 Cabanatuan, Michael. Noise on BART: How bad is it and is it harmful?. SFGate. 2010-09-07 [2016-04-22]. （原始內容存檔於2016-05-01）. 
  80. ^ Riders notice a quieter ride following first of two tube shutdowns. www.bart.gov. 2015-08-13 [2016-04-22]. （原始內容存檔於2016-05-07）. 
  81. ^ Reisman, Will. BART working to protect Transbay Tube from elements, ships. San Francisco Examiner. 12 May 2013 [9 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-21）. 
  82. ^ Bender, Kristin J.; Alund, Natalie Neysa. BART: No damage after container ship's anchor drops near Transbay Tube. The Mercury News (San Jose, California). 31 January 2014 [9 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-20）. 
  83. ^ Williams, Kale; Ho, Vivian. BART tube reopened after anchor scare. San Francisco Chronicle. 1 February 2014 [9 September 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-21）. 
  84. ^ Close eye being kept on sunken barge atop BART's Transbay Tube. San Francisco Examiner. Bay City News. 11 April 2017 [13 April 2017]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-21）. 
  85. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael. BART's New Vision: More, Bigger, Faster. San Francisco Chronicle. 2007-06-22: A–1 [2008-04-17]. （原始內容存檔於2007-10-10）. 
  86. ^ Dowd, Katie. MTV show uses BART's Transbay Tube as the key to saving the world. San Francisco Chronicle. 10 March 2016 [17 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-21）. 
  87. ^ Veca, Don (audio director); Napolitano, Jayson (interviewer). Dead Space sound design: In space no one can hear interns scream. They are dead. (訪談). Original Sound Version. 7 October 2008 [18 August 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2018-06-21）. 
  88. ^ YouTube上的Dead Space Dev Diary #3 -- Audio (starts at 4:30)
服務線路
捷運線路
輕軌線路
AGT（英語：Automated guideway transit）線路
Logo for the Bay Area Rapid Transit system
車站
奧克蘭
阿拉梅達縣
（不包括奧克蘭）
康特拉科斯塔縣
三藩市
聖馬特奧縣
聖克拉拉縣
相關系統
可轉乘的軌道系統
可轉乘的巴士系統
相關條目
取自 "https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=海湾隧道&oldid=81174396"