20 July 2013

2013 Q2 Corridor Roundup

original photo by afagen
There's been no shortage of developments in recent months on the peninsula rail corridor.

The Caltrain/HSR Blended Service Plan/Operations Considerations Analysis was published on the Caltrain website.  This document aims to flesh out the 2012 Caltrain/HSR Blended Operations Analysis with more detail requested by stakeholders.  While the comment period for this document is now closed, it has a number of weaknesses that should be addressed.
  1. Strange assumptions about service to San Francisco's Transbay Transit Center.  For some obscure reason (agency turf?) all of Caltrain's simulations (see string charts in appendix, starting at page 29) send just two out of six trains per hour into Transbay, where essentially all the ridership will be.  Most Caltrain traffic is assumed to terminate outside the financial district, at 4th and King.  The string charts do not show any conflicts that would prevent sending at least four (if not all six) trains per hour to Transbay, making full use of the triple tracks in the downtown extension tunnels.

    If you accept that Caltrain isn't trying to spite its customers or diminish its own fare revenue, it's hard to imagine why any train would still terminate at 4th and King when it doesn't absolutely have to.
     
  2. Strange assumptions about Caltrain station dwell times.  While the station dwell times of today's Caltrain service have been studied in excruciating detail, the way the dwell time statistics were incorporated into the simulation model may leave something to be desired.  Dwell times are the only randomized input to the model, and the specific random distribution used to calculate them can have enormous impact on the results.

    Because of Caltrain's 8-inch platforms and inefficient passenger flows, dwell times can occasionally exceed two minutes, for example if a wheelchair user needs to board a train.  The resulting dwell time random distribution has a long tail that reflects the "Russian Roulette" nature of today's operations.  These occasional outliers can easily ruin a tight timetable by setting off a domino effect of delays to other trains, resulting in poor on-time performance.  This is especially important because on-time performance (measured in minutes of delay), the figure of merit used to evaluate different operating scenarios, becomes sensitively dependent on the choice of dwell time random distribution.

    Consider level boarding, an improvement that Caltrain hasn't yet discovered how badly it needs.  The lack of steps and abundance of doors makes dwell times shorter and, more importantly, far more predictable.  The dwell time random distribution for level boarding does not have the long tail used in Caltrain's simulations, and we can finally stop playing Russian Roulette.  Look no further than BART to get representative dwell time data.

    What is the effect of the long tail in the dwell time random distribution?  Would level boarding be a better investment than building more passing tracks?  We'll never know, unless the model is re-run with a different dwell distribution that simulates level boarding.
     
  3. Strange assumptions about the "hold out" rule.  This operational rule mandates that when a train stops at an old, narrow center-boarding platform, no other train may enter the station until the first train has departed (otherwise bad things can happen).  The practical effect of this rule is that trains operating on separate tracks can delay each other.  The hold-out rule is slowly turning into an exception as stations are modernized, and today applies at only three stations: South San Francisco, Broadway in Burlingame, and Atherton.

    In a cute computational flourish, the hold-out rule was accounted for in all operational simulations in the Caltrain report, but nobody bothered to ask if it would make any sense to invest billions (with a 'B') in the peninsula corridor to build HSR passing tracks, all the while not spending a few million (with an 'M') to rebuild the three remaining platforms to retire the hold-out rule forever.  Worse, Caltrain's analysis made no attempt to tease out the effect of the hold-out rule on minutes of delay, to quantify its effect relative to other sources of delay.

    This shortcoming could easily be remedied by re-running the model with and without the hold-out rule.
Finally, the document reveals a stunning discovery in its analysis of Dumbarton service:
It is important to note that the feasibility of operating Dumbarton Rail Corridor service on the Caltrain corridor in addition to the Caltrain and HSR blended system does not equate to having the capacity to add another Caltrain or HSR train during the peak hour. DRC service fits because it uses only portions of the corridor and does not require an end-to-end corridor operating slot.
This is the exact same reason why all HSR service should enter the corridor at Redwood City from Altamont Pass, rather than gumming up the entire length of the peninsula corridor.  The blended system would be easier to plan, cheaper to build, and provide far better service to passengers.
The Caltrain/HSR Blended Grade Crossing Traffic Analysis was published on the Caltrain website and concluded the following:
Additional analysis is necessary. However, before doing so, speculation should be minimized. A better understanding of the schedule and decision on passing tracks should be advanced before further traffic analysis is conducted.
That's a fancy way of saying that grade crossing conditions will depend heavily on what the eventual timetable will be, so that a timetable needs to be developed first.  Perhaps Caltrain will some day see that everything revolves around timetable planning.  The timetable is where it starts from, to determine infrastructure needs and grade crossing impacts, and also where it all ends up, to quantify service quality improvements for each community along the peninsula corridor.  Timetable planning is precisely where Caltrain is not spending a lot of effort, because they think they already know the answer, in the form of a general class of "peak period skip stop zone express" timetables described in the 2012 Caltrain/HSR Blended Operations Analysis (see page 34).  There's a lot of work left to be done in this area, starting with undoing Caltrain's mistaken fixation on "peak period skip stop zone express" timetables.  As far as this grade crossing traffic analysis is concerned, Caltrain put the cart before the horse.

The CBOSS train control project chugged along, with a couple of recent puff pieces in the local newspapers. This project is where the lion's share of Caltrain's capital budget is going these days:
Design work is about 50 percent complete, said Karen Antion, who is essentially the boss of CBOSS and a highly-experienced and highly-paid consultant. [...] The design of CBOSS should be complete by September, Antion said.
Is this the same design work that leads up to the Critical Design Reviews that were supposed to have been completed last March?  If so, CBOSS is now a year behind the original plan, and that's before the really hard task of integrating and testing a system that is so proudly proclaimed to be "unique to Caltrain."  It sure is comforting to hear that we've got such a wide spectrum of on-call consultants to get us out of any trouble.

Meanwhile, staff has already softened up the board for the impending Option 2 (Phase 3) contract, to be rubber-stamped at the August board meeting.  The status of key milestones in the scope of Option 1 (Phase 2) is artfully avoided.  This $86.5 million contract is the "final" increment of funding for CBOSS, before the need for an Option 3 (Phase 4) makes itself known, most likely in late 2014.

Remember SuperVia, of Rio de Janeiro?  They are already well into testing.  Their consultants must be absolutely stellar.

The San Carlos Transit Village project is inexorably nearing approval later this month despite strong (and legitimate) NIMBY opposition.  Apparently piqued by claims that SamTrans is sabotaging the modernization of the peninsula rail corridor by selling off land that will be needed for new passing tracks, both SamTrans and Caltrain have issued letters disavowing any ill effect to the rail corridor or to the adjacent Old County Road, essentially by claiming that nothing has been decided yet:
The blended system is undefined at this time and we cannot predict its impact
This is a strange claim to make, given that all the analysis reports commissioned by Caltrain in the last couple of years point towards additional passing tracks (the "midline overtake") being built right through San Carlos and the new Transit Village.

The San Bruno grade separation opened to train traffic, even if the project is far from complete.  Trains now use the tracks built atop a mechanically stabilized earth embankment (basically walls held together by the weight of the dirt fill in between) that could be representative of future grade separations elsewhere on the corridor.

39 comments:

  1. Center platforms- they still have them? Ugh... They belong on some 1950's small town Midwestern station where only 4 trains/day stop, not on a "modern" commuter line. Agree about Altamont and the HSR line entering the peninsula at R.C. Solves so many problems, and Caltrain can run more local "shuttles" between R.C. and Diridon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Center platforms are actually ideal for a number of reasons. Belmont is a fine example of how things should be everywhere along the corridor. It's just the crappy narrow little strips of asphalt that need to be done away with.

      Delete
    2. Yes, the track level center asphalt platforms wedged between standard double track spacing- I believe Ca. Ave used to have them. Of course island platforms are great solutions, especially high level ones- they are all over the place where I live now.

      Delete
  2. An ideal station design should be narrow enough to be placed nearly anywhere along the right-of-way’s center yet designed to be compatible with safe driverless train operation enabled by using platform-edge-screens. Such narrow center stations would allow straight express tracks, future platform extensions, and infill stations to be constructed without track realignment or additional property takings. By measuring and interpreting air suspension pressures a station departure-control-system could inform waiting passengers with flat-screens distributed along the platform-edge the location of the least crowded next-train sections.
    Potential driverless gap-trains stored along center track locations between stations would be in a position to instantly cover service disruptions and demand surges.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I read the Blended Operation Analysis and was dismayed that travel time between SF and Mountain View goes up to 52-54 mins from 42-47 practiced today. I know that we get HSR out of it, but part of me is dismayed that after spending $1.5 billion on electrification and EMUs, my commute is going to get 10 mins longer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are a potential victim of the Peak Period Skip Stop Zone Express.

      Delete
    2. Yes, hugely dissappointing isn't it?. I suspect that part of the explanation is the disavowal of the need for Caltrain-Caltrain overtakes. Something needs to happen well before HSR arrives (2029 is it?)to IMPROVE the service quality (radical concept in San Carlos, apparently). Indeed, the preparations ought to begin BEFORE electrification (2019?).
      Please let's kill the Skip-Stop schedule NOW.

      Delete
  4. What about getting rid of Atherton and Broadway?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Atherton maybe, but certainly not Broadway. While these stops receive no weekday service today, Broadway in Burlingame is not bad from the standpoint of ridership potential. That stop needs a lot better service than it gets today, and it's definitely worth building a new platform.

      Delete
    2. Hayward Park, Atherton and College Park are the stations to permanently close.
      Broadway shouldn't be on the list.

      Re Atherton, the housing/jobs data Clem assembled for objective ridership potential modelling suggested something interesting, that a South Redwood City (let's say around First Avenue) station ought to be something that shouldn't be excluded in the long term. Atherton can never be useful, but something a mile further north might have future potential.

      Delete
    3. Why Hayward Park? It's pretty close to Hillsdale but it has at least as much ridership draw near it, according to Clem's data (and direct access to SR92, for what that's worth). Plus, if you're overtaking at Hillsdale, doesn't it make sense to have a local stop between there and San Mateo?

      Delete
    4. My weighting didn't account for one station competing for the same ridership catchment area with another station... in other words, two stations spaced inches apart would receive the same scores. I tried slicing and dicing the census data to account for this, but never got it to turn out to my satisfaction, so I kept it nice and simple at 1/r squared. In the end, it doesn't make a huge difference.

      That being said, Hillsdale will be moved north a few blocks when it is rebuilt along with the new San Mateo grade separations at 25th, 28th and 31st, so it will end up even closer to Hayward Park.

      As you point out, if you're going to have commuter trains dawdling along while they are overtaken by faster trains on the short section of passing tracks, it's better to kill the time to build the necessary headway by making more stops such as Hayward Park than to kill the time by slowing the train.

      Delete
  5. Does Caltrain official try to obtain waiver for CPUC platfrom clearance regulation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are referring to General Order 26-D, the answer is: not to my knowledge.

      Delete
    2. It should have been the single very highest priority of everybody at Caltrain through the entire 26 years that the public agency has existed. Public service. Public servants. Public interest.

      But no, nobody has asked. (I don't know for a fact about the last year. Anything is possible ... but I don't think I would lose money in a bet.)

      $1500 million for electrification ... to make the trains run slower. $250 million for CBOSS ... to make everything worse forever. But not a single letter or phone call to make the every train safer and faster and cheaper to run always. Wow.

      Delete
    3. CPUC proceedings are easy to look up. Click Here and then type in "peninsula" in the Filer Search box. This will pick up all the CPUC proceedings associated with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, as Caltrain is known in the legal realm.

      Note they have no qualms asking for waivers of GO 26-D for bridge overhead clearances as recently as this year.

      Also, an interesting historical footnote: look at proceeding A0906009, where Caltrain attempted to get permission to electrify and promptly got shot down by UPRR. Maybe that's why they're rolling over and playing dead while the HSR people make another attempt.

      Delete
    4. Is Gauntlet tracks a feasible, and maybe a quicker choice as it would remove the dependency on CPUC decisions, for Caltrain?

      Delete
    5. Given the additional maintenance it would require, I don't think so. The real issue here is that there's no real reason to believe that the CPUC wouldn't grant an exception (if not removing the rule entirely). Freight trains pass high platforms all over the world every day, even in the United States. But no one in charge has even considered trying to get this fixed.

      Delete
    6. Is this because some freight car does not comply with its clearance? (To reduce maintenance cost) There is one evidence. If you see platfrom 1 of San Jose Diridon station from platfrom 2, you will see scratch on the side of concrete. It seems scratched by fright car, although such low level platform should not be hit by fright car.

      Delete
    7. If freight cars are larger than the allowed loading gauge, then they should not be allowed to operate period.

      Seriously. This isn't a freight mainline we're talking about. The peninsula only sees and will only ever see a couple of (short) freight trains per day, whose only purpose is to serve freight spurs along the line. Accommodating this should be simple, and we shouldn't be jumping through hoops to do so.

      Delete
    8. I suspect it's UPRR they're afraid of. Not so much because UPRR cares about peninsula freight service (they don't), but because UPRR cares a great deal about legal precedents.

      Delete
  6. If I read this right, the model makes strange assumptions about HSR service. Even with 4 HSR trains per hour, there would not be any LA-SF express offered. All HSR trains stop at Millbrae, San Jose, and maybe RWC (with 2 minute dwell time at each).

    Note that this was not due to limitations. It was an assumption baked into the model.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Millbrae stop is an assumption baked into the Caltrain model, but a good one. To maximize line capacity when you "blend" the two services, you need to minimize the difference in (average) speeds between Caltrain and HSR. If/when they build four tracks everywhere, they can run non-stop SF - LA express trains without laying waste to Caltrain's rush hour timetable, but until then they will have to refrain during the peak hours.

      Meanwhile, the HSR people still think they can do SF - SJ in 30 minutes flat. I've already pointed out how wrong they are about this.

      Delete
    2. Yes, but all HSR trains would stop at Millbrae at all times, not just rush-hour.

      Note also the document states (page 18) this requirement is one reason why the North 4-track option is not feasible.

      Delete
    3. Not sure I understand why all trains stopping at Millbrae is a bad idea. Admittedly my experience is not exhaustive, but it seems pretty common for high speed and express trains to stop at both the CBD terminus of the line as well as the nearest suburban station - at Millbrae you'd pick up transfers from BART, Samtrans, suburban residents who don't want to drive to downtown SF and park, and whatever small amount of traffic from SFO.

      Delete
    4. Not just Millbrae, but also SJ and possibly RWC.

      It seems pretty common for high speed and express trains to stop at both the CBD terminus of the line as well as the nearest suburban station

      Every express train? Sure, some TGV's stop at the airport, but every single one.

      Delete
    5. ...but NOT every single one.

      Delete
    6. Every single train on the Tokaido Shinkansen stops at Shin Yokohama (And Shinagawa.)

      Delete
    7. As I understand it, that is a fairly recent change.

      The point is that the consultants should be studying the range of HSR services possible, not just the milk-run.

      Delete
  7. Reality Check23 July, 2013 01:34

    Wabtec Signs $9 Million Contract To Provide PTC Equipment/Services For San Diego Rail Line

    Wabtec Corporation has signed a $9 million contract with Herzog Technologies Inc., to provide Positive Train Control (PTC) equipment and services for Oceanside, Calif.'s North County Transit District (NCTD). The contract includes an option worth an additional $5 million.

    Under the initial contract, Wabtec will provide its Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS®) equipment and installation for seven locomotives and 10 passenger transit cab cars on NCTD's COASTER train. Wabtec will also provide back office engineering and systems integration support. Herzog Technologies was previously awarded a contract to implement PTC for NCTD, a regional transportation network that provides more than 12 million passenger trips annually and has about 60 miles of track. The NCTD system will be fully interoperable with PTC systems being implemented by Class I railroads. PTC was mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 and requires fully functional PTC systems to be in place on trains, such as NCTD's COASTER, by Dec. 31, 2015.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder how much difference are there between I-ETMS and ITCS, as both claimed be interoperable with class 1 railroad PTC systems. Caltrain's CBOSS is ITCS based, BTW.

      Delete
  8. Dear Mr. Clem,

    Have you ever addressed these issues with Caltrain directly?

    They do have a board of director that meets each month and they do respond to concerns from members of the public.

    A neighbor of mine used to live near the Caltrain tracks and she along with many others hated the blaring train horns. They voiced their displeasures to the Caltrain directors and Caltrain eventually made changes to the horns to make them less annoying. Caltrain has also listened quite a bit to the bicycling community to accommodate more bicycles on trains.

    Terminating most trains at 4rt and King, What the hell?

    Level boarding should be a no brainier.

    Judging from what I read in your forums here, CBOSS sounds like a huge waste of taxpayer money.

    Now if Caltrain doesn’t pay any attention to your concerns, then you should take the next step and bring the issues up to something like the investigative unit at NBC channel 11 or some government watchdog group that will address this out in the open. Channel 11 has done some exposé’s on city councils and even VTA. These public agencies don’t like bad TV publicity so Caltrain will have to address these issues.

    What’s the good in keeping important taxpayer misrepresentations such as you point out hidden here in the internet surreptitiousness?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey Clem what are your thoughts on CAHSR and Amtrak procuring trainsets together? Will that mean that CAHSR and Acela will run the exact same trains and will that provide a template for boarding height, platform sharing, etc.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's highly premature and unlikely to yield a good outcome for California. The needs of the NEC, at least in a 20-year horizon, are very different than California's. We're dumb to be hitching our cart to the front of their horse.

      Delete
    2. Considering that nobody is buying anything at this point, the joint request is a Request for Information, not a Request for Proposals, it's neither here nor there. The vendors are going to point out that California hasn't specified things like platform heights, loading gauges etc That will affect what they offer when someone gets around to issuing a Request for Proposals.

      Delete
    3. You must be misinformed. It's very much an RFP (Request for Proposals, see link) with contract Notice to Proceed planned for 3Q 2014.

      Delete
    4. Then why is it titled?

      "Approval to Issue a Joint Request for Proposals (RFP) for Trainsets with Amtrak"

      Some of the choicer quotes:

      An outline of the proposed procurement approach is provided below

      If the parties deem it beneficial, their respective roles and responsibilities in the joint procurement would be memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

      it is anticipated that Amtrak will take the first trainset order.

      Subject to Board approval of this action,

      Recommendations
      It is recommended that the Board authorize the CEO to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Amtrak consistent with this action and direct staff to issue a Request for Proposal jointly with Amtrak for the procurement of trainsets for the Phase 1 of the high-speed rail system.

      They ain't buying anything. It's formal notification to manufacturers that they might be in the market for something sometime. So that the manufacturers can then formally say "when you friggin' decide on specifications we might have something to say, in the meantime we'll get on with discussing things for the NEC"

      Delete
    5. I was responding to the other Adirondacker, who said: the joint request is a Request for Information, not a Request for Proposals

      Delete
  10. Must be the other Amtrak that signed an MOU agreeing to the proposed RFP.

    ReplyDelete