tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post2028845523283042236..comments2024-03-17T12:42:36.234-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Peninsula Rail Corridor CensusClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-45949379933672583872012-01-15T20:19:57.477-08:002012-01-15T20:19:57.477-08:00Note re a few of Clem's underserved stations:
...Note re a few of Clem's underserved stations:<br /><br />* Oakdale<br /><br />First, SF has recently "invested" (in the loosest sense of the term, a more accurate descriptions being "wasted" and "thrown money at corrupt construction interests") $650 million on building a high-floor "light" rail line along Third Street in SF, paralleling Caltrain in the MIssion Bay-22nd-Bayshore corridor.<br /><br />Assuming the Muni T-Third were to operated remotely non-incompetently, it's hard to see how the outrageous capital cost of an Oakdale Caltrain stop could gain enough riders beyond those gathered by the Muni line to justify its existence.<br /><br />Second, note that without an Oakdale stop, it is possible to operate Bayshore-Mission Bay with two tracks, with few timetabling compromises. Add that station, and one gets substantial train capacity loss in the Bayshore-Mission Bay-TTT section of the line, and generally ends up with the need to quadruple track <i>precisely where it is most expensive to do so</i>: urban area, tunnels. Run away!<br /><br />Third, nearly all the population in the corridor is to the east of the Caltrain line, more or less precisely bisected by Third Street and hence the T-Third line, and to the south of the Oakdale location. It's possible to make the argument that a north-south transit collector line along Third <b>connecting</b> at Bayshore might even be a superior solution. <br /><br />So while in some abstract ideal world a new Oakdale stop would make sense, the massive practical downsides -- either in line capacity or in the capital cost to preserve line capacity --, together with a semi-plausible story about extant local parallel local transit service, make me extremely dubious about the desirability of adding this stop.<br /><br />* Tamien-Capitol-Blossom Hill.<br /><br />The 800lb gorilla is that All Your Tracks Are Belong to UP starting a mile or so north of Capitol (Control Point Lick, in the midst of a TOD-tastic piles of gravel.) Running more Caltrain service south of Tamien by necessity involves UP (non-)co-operation, and by necessity involves either FRA regulation or acquisition of new and non-FRA separate right of way.<br /><br />Doing anything as ambitious than operating a limited number of FRA "commuter rail" type shuttle trains Capitol-Tamien-SJ-(Santa Clara?)-(Great America?) seems wildly fiscally improbable, and doing more than that -- ie integrating with mainline, by-the-grace-of-god non-FRA mainline Caltrain traffic -- is as good as impossible.<br /><br />Of course given (a) non-UIC HSR SJ-Tamien-Capitol-Gilroy-Los Banos (highly undesirable) and (b) <b>integrated</b> HSR/Caltrain operations (highly desirable, but <b>actively opposed</b> by both Caltrain and HSR!!), the difficulties and costs shrink to "only" those of building the stations and associated stopping-train tracks and turnback-train tracks near the stations.<br /><br />Such capital costs are still in the several hundreds of millions of dollars range: again it's hard to make any economic or social justification for this level of spending. Nice to have, maybe, but one can't afford everything, and some markets are just too expensive to serve.<br /><br />Regardless of stations, the rail line itself is hardly ideally placed: hemmed in by light industrial and highways, access seems like it's always going to be a challenge and limitation.<br /><br />Lastly, there's no shortage of parallel highways and arterial roads -- 280, 101, 87, 85, 82, etc. Better-than-rail bus service isn't inconceivable.<br /><br />I don't see Caltrain ever pencilling out, at least not in the less than 30 year timeframe.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-78331749796524353642012-01-15T17:13:16.706-08:002012-01-15T17:13:16.706-08:00"As the weekend timetable has barely changed ..."<i>As the weekend timetable has barely changed over the past decade</i>"<br /><br />Sunday used to have <b>two hour headways</b> before the 2004 "Baby Bullet" revamp.<br /><br />Incredible, antediluvian, but true.<br /><br />So, yeah, something changed for the better. (Doty finally got it that they weren't even saving much money by not running trains.)<br /><br />"<i>it's interesting to see what stations deserve more than 1tph on the weekends. </i>"<br /><br />The answer is "<b>all of them</b> (except those that should be closed at all times: Hayward Park, Atherton, College Park, all south of Tamien)".<br /><br />Service at less than 1tph means "no service", for all <i>practical</i> purposes.<br /><br />Caltrain's big problem for providing service remains overstaffing (thank you FRA, BLE, UTU) and dismal performance (thank you FRA, and non-level boarding that is 100% the fault of Caltrain staff) that means that half-hour headway service requires eight trains+crew (240 min round trip for an all-stops local) and a bunch of "conductor" and "assistant sub-auxiliary co-conductor" deadweight,, not six (150 min round trip) trains and train drivers.<br /><br />And naturally Caltrain/PTG's genius electrification "plan" -- featuring FRA regulation, no level boarding, continued over-staffing, low-acceleration and technical obsolete non-competitivelty-procured trains and <b>higher</b> operating and maintenance costs -- does not rectify this overriding issue, which is <b>the</b> improvement that a multi hundred million dollar "investment" would be required to provide anywhere else in the world ... anywhere that gave even lip service to the concepts of "value for money" or "investment", that is.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-25738177623895042242012-01-15T13:39:01.433-08:002012-01-15T13:39:01.433-08:00As the weekend timetable has barely changed over t...As the weekend timetable has barely changed over the past decade, it's interesting to see what stations deserve more than 1tph on the weekends. There should be additional service to the following Tier 1 and 2 stops.<br /><br />Tier 1 Stops: SJ, Mtn View, Palo Alto, RWC, Millbrae, SF<br /><br />Tier 2 Stops: SC, Sunnyvale, San Antonio, California Ave, Menlo Park, Hillsdale, San Mateo, Burlingame<br /><br />Tier 3 Stops: All other stations w/ <300 riders in one direction<br /><br />Should be closed: AthertonCaelestorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729598292698829083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-77109387422830471912012-01-15T09:01:54.685-08:002012-01-15T09:01:54.685-08:00Alon, Caltrain publishes pretty good ridership sta...Alon, Caltrain publishes pretty good ridership statistics on their website. I don't know if they break out off-peak from peak, but they definitely have weekend ridership, and that does make for an interesting comparison.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-1496054872980361352012-01-15T00:57:47.938-08:002012-01-15T00:57:47.938-08:00Given the convenience, usually speed, and affordab...Given the convenience, usually speed, and affordability of driving (For the $104K median income of the Caltrain user) Clem’s inverse square relationship for probable rail transit use seems plausible. <br />“To assign to each station location a single weighting factor that quantifies that station's accessibility for nearby residents, regardless of distance, one can sum up each person divided by the square of how far away they live. This inverse-square relationship is empirical, but captures the fact that people who live far away from a station are less likely to use it; its use in ridership modeling is not unprecedented.” <br />Making the best use of the inverse-square-distance-relationship in order to induce the maximum increase in ridership from ‘transit-oriented-development’ the following scheme would minimize the walking distance between many Silicon Valley Offices and an open train door: <br />A 1987 Peninsula Rail Transit Study, available at the Mountain View Library during 1999, suggested “rerouting peninsula rail transit through Sunnyvale and Santa Clara on the Central Expressway right-of-way”. Diverting parallel automobile traffic to the 101 Freeway and a vacated Southern Pacific right-of-way would leave a largely-car-free-corridor bisected by a CHSR-Caltrain open cut. Caltrain could offer frequent stops along this dense professional employment corridor in exchange for a low cost four-track peninsula rail right-of-way organized by a Silicon Valley Development District. (The current Brown Administration’s effort to discontinue state funding for development districts would not necessarily prevent their formation in the future.)<br />Below-grade, short spans between rail attachment points (In order to increase the resonant frequency of the rail-wheel couple thus reducing the susceptibility to rail corrugation.), supported by ground structures different from those supporting adjacent buildings would be required in order to minimize noise and vibration transmission to nearby structures and at least not discourage commercial real-estate entrepreneurs from constructing high-density neighborhoods close to Caltrain stations. An ideal transit oriented development would be to build two equal-height tall buildings on opposite sides of a center platform train station. Using air-rights over the station aerial walkways connecting both buildings to an elevator bank centered over the station platform would encourage their inhabitants to use transit. <br />If the SF to SJ rail right-of-way was completely grade separated with four tracks through stations and noting that train throughput along non-stop sections is several times local stop sections frequent driverless trains, mostly expresses, whose length was carefully tailored to demand could be run with little mutual interference and be affordable. For little added expense spare driverless rolling stock could be distributed between stations along the center of a FSSF topology set-up to fill service gaps and meet demand surges the second their movement appears useful. <br />When approaching expensive to construct subways through high ridership areas combining en-route trains can become a cost-effective railway system design. For example doubling train lengths will increase rail-car throughput at a station by 87% if the dwell time is nearly equal to the close-up period. This is true if current transit industry safety margin norms constrain a train separation system that is continuously aware of all train positions. The considerable savings possible for increasing the capacity of large heavily used systems plus the rapidly improving effectiveness of electronic controls suggests moving block high capacity systems may become the lowest cost train separation system available for any rail transit system. One estimate for The New York Subway is a moving block system capital cost would be 2% of the capital cost per additional rider capacity of building parallel subways.John Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487111497340132298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-17801613180079970212012-01-14T23:20:15.041-08:002012-01-14T23:20:15.041-08:00Clem, do you (or does anyone else here) have off-p...Clem, do you (or does anyone else here) have off-peak and weekend ridership numbers? Those could provide some check on your numbers.<br /><br />That said, off-peak and weekend ridership tends to be more intercity and less commuter. I don't know how it plays in the Bay Area, but over here, Providence seems to account for one third of the people on the weekend trains to Boston, even though its actual proportion of Providence Line ridership is closer to one tenth.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-21316354447274231012012-01-14T21:28:09.516-08:002012-01-14T21:28:09.516-08:00Nice analysis Clem…
@ Clem: “A stop like Broadway...Nice analysis Clem…<br /><br />@ Clem: “A stop like Broadway (Burlingame) with zero weekday rail service has more people living near it than Millbrae, site of the all-important BART intermodal station.”<br /><br />I worked with my (Burlingame) city council (I now despise them) on the Broadway issue. Broadway was a station with decent ridership (567 in 2001), and good service including some express service. However, Caltrain instigated what I call systematic destruction of ridership at Broadway. First, they changed the zones, making Broadway the same zone as Millbrae. This took away the cost savings for southbound riders that may have chosen to use Broadway instead of Millbrae. Second, Caltrain reduced service to just once per hour, which really killed off the ridership, giving Caltrain the perfect excuse to suspend weekday service at Broadway.<br /><br />Burlingame City Council also presented a study of census data (similar to Clem’s) showing that more people live near Broadway than some other Caltrain stations to Caltrain back in 2005, but to no avail. <br /><br />Also notable is that Broadway (and Burlingame) had the highest percentage of customers walking to the station to access Caltrain.<br /><br />Caltrains answer to the suspension of service at Broadway was to provide “robust” shuttle service between Broadway and Millbrae. Problem is that this “robust” shuttle service only ran during peak hours and of course, there are additional operating costs associated with running the shuttle.Jeff Carternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-62045638717582013502012-01-14T17:03:23.287-08:002012-01-14T17:03:23.287-08:00Too confusing and the TVMs wouldn't be able to...Too confusing and the TVMs wouldn't be able to do it? I'm sure someone somewhere, in some exotic far off location, has a complex fare structure<br /><br />http://www.bart.gov/docs/BART010106.pdf<br /><br />Page 3 of the brochure or page 5 of the PDF.Adirondacker12800https://www.blogger.com/profile/17108712932656586797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-35851397655750735432012-01-14T16:47:35.033-08:002012-01-14T16:47:35.033-08:00@ Arcady: “Back in the "olden days" of ...@ Arcady: “Back in the "olden days" of conductors selling tickets on board, there were 10 fare zones.”<br /><br />It used to be nine zones which did make the system finer grained but there were still glaring disparities to some short distances. <br /><br />Prior to implementation of POP, in 2003, Caltrain conducted a “study” to revamp the zone fare system. The *only* reason for this so-called “study” was to determine how to make the Caltrain fare from Millbrae (to SF) to be comparable to the (soon to be open) overpriced BART fare from Millbrae to SF, so they came up with 13 mile zones. Caltrain claimed the changers were to “simplify” the fare system because customers were “confused” by far too many zones and ticket options. The result is a person(s) travelling 25 miles pays the same fare as a person(s) travelling just 2 miles… Stupid, Stupid, Stupid……<br /><br />Some suggested point to point pricing, I suggested shorter 5 mile zones, but Caltrain claimed that these options would confuse riders and TVM’s could not handle such a system. Can you believe that?Jeff Carternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-9651342752489364732012-01-13T22:51:36.391-08:002012-01-13T22:51:36.391-08:00Richard,
as for "enviro-martyrs" [sic]:...Richard,<br /><br />as for "enviro-martyrs" [sic]: most of the time I rode SamTrans was when I'd broken a wrist, bicycling (on Pasteur Drive!) when I was a reserch assistant on soft funding. At that time, most of the other cyclists I knew were in similar straits.<br /> At that time, the other bus passengers I saw appeared to be retirees.<br /><br /><br />Have you considered being less caustic to those who mostly agree with you? Or are you afflicted with the syndrome that anyone who disagrees with you is "dumb"?<br /> Or, to coin your own phrase, "should have their hands cut off"?kiwi.jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18215458981556481196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-17279143348293005952012-01-13T22:31:25.113-08:002012-01-13T22:31:25.113-08:00Back in the "olden days" of conductors s...Back in the "olden days" of conductors selling tickets on board, there were 10 fare zones. At least, that's what I infer from the old Translink validators that had buttons for zones 1-9 and "SF" on them. So fares were actually finer grained, and the problem at fare zone boundaries not as big. Also, Gilroy was still 2 zones away from San Jose, but they were smaller zones, with a proportionately much smaller fare increment. Changing the fare structure to almost double fares at the same time as a competing freeway expansion opened pretty much killed any hope of Gilroy ridership. At this point, it's both slower and more expensive than the VTA express service.crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-47458493974236189982012-01-13T17:28:58.804-08:002012-01-13T17:28:58.804-08:00The Caltrain fare zone system is terrible: riding ...The Caltrain fare zone system is terrible: riding one stop south from Redwood City costs the same as riding Redwood City to SF.<br /><br />Caltrain needs to go to distance-based fares, which, given their TVM/Clipper-based ticketing, is easy to implement.<br /><br />Back when conductors sold/punched tickets on board, the zone-based fare table was more arguably a practical -- if not necessary -- simplification/approximation of a distance-based fare system.<br /><br />Caltrain has no (good) reason not to do it now. Reprogram the TVMs to issue station-to-station (instead of zone-to-zone) tickets, print up a BART-style fare matrix and be done with it. No more bizarre short-trip-discouraging/penalizing fare cliffs/steps.Reality Checknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-29992148376798750332012-01-13T12:41:12.664-08:002012-01-13T12:41:12.664-08:00One interesting thing I've noticed about the c...One interesting thing I've noticed about the conversation is how the complaints are mainly coming from reverse peak riders. That's where Caltrain should first improve.<br /><br />Also, Lawrence's ridership will continued to be depressed, as it lies too close to Sunnyvale in another zone (i.e. $4 cheaper roundtrip).Caelestorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729598292698829083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-91591750248374911182012-01-12T22:54:28.112-08:002012-01-12T22:54:28.112-08:00Dear Jonathan,
A few of the final years of my (th...Dear Jonathan,<br /><br />A few of the final years of my (thankfully past) SF-"Silicon Valley" commute were as a paying-but-not-driving part of a carpool.<br /><br />The fact that driving was over <b>twice as fast</b> as transit (or even bike+transit+bike) is pathetic.<br /><br /><b>TWICE AS FAST</b>, even when 101 was constipated!<br /><br />Even if I valued my time at $0/hour (which I do, or I wouldn't be writing blog comments!), it was also much cheaper.<br /><br />So perhaps we're working toward agreement that transit on the peninsula isn't practical, except for martyrs and the (large and increasing) economic underclass? I'd like nothing more than for this to not be true, believe me!Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-8414335282821412402012-01-12T18:49:11.087-08:002012-01-12T18:49:11.087-08:00Richard,
I have several former co-workers who com...Richard,<br /><br />I have several former co-workers who commuted from the Peninsula to Mountain View by Caltrain. Some even took VTA south from Mtn View.<br /><br />They've all given it up. Caltrain has gotten more and more expensive, compared to driving; and more and more often, unacceptably behind schedule.kiwi.jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18215458981556481196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-82069593127931083662012-01-10T21:46:28.416-08:002012-01-10T21:46:28.416-08:00Dear Caelestor,
So pleased that somebody is getti...Dear Caelestor,<br /><br />So pleased that somebody is getting some mileage out of the ultra-professional quality web timetable tool!<br /><br />And thanks for sharing your ideas, "Thinking" and "ideas" tend to be in short supply, so all contributions are appreciated and welcomed, by me at least.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-68480026525676259372012-01-10T21:42:35.318-08:002012-01-10T21:42:35.318-08:00Dear Mr Kiwi,
Congratulations on being an enviro-...Dear Mr Kiwi,<br /><br />Congratulations on being an enviro-martyr. That makes two of us. Between us we'll save the planet, somehow.<br /><br />Now look around you, look at the other people on the public agency bus (do they look like your fellow tech employees or like the dishwashers at the places you eat lunch?), count the number of cars, and try to say with a straight face that transit is a credible or attractive alternative in the sprawlburbs of the peninsula.<br /><br />You don't have to convince me. You have to convince the two million other peninsula residents that transit is an alternative in anything but name.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-87052394380395457802012-01-10T21:16:19.402-08:002012-01-10T21:16:19.402-08:00@Richard:
you're raplidly losing credibiltiy,...@Richard:<br /><br />you're raplidly losing credibiltiy, to me at least.<br /><br />The first 2 was in the Bay Area, I surived without a car. I even survived 2 months without even using a bicycle, after breaking an arm. (On Pasteur Drive, of all places. Drivers, meh.) Conceded, that was over a decade ago; but SamTrans still has a bus-route there.<br /><br />Try a little less invective and outrageous hyberbole, and a bit more fact.kiwi.jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18215458981556481196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-33512555892633245502012-01-10T18:47:44.365-08:002012-01-10T18:47:44.365-08:00San Antonio isn't really a destination stop, b...San Antonio isn't really a destination stop, but rather an origin station for people headed north. The thing about scheduling is that I had to make so many tradeoffs. Basically, the reverse peak schedule sacrifices trip times to allow more people in San Mateo County to access Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Lawrence, and Santa Clara. San Antonio is tiny compared to the four stops after it, so skipping it saves a tiny bit of time (2 minutes).<br /><br />I also made some reasonable assumptions (7% padding, 30 min second boarding times), but Caltrain may think otherwise.<br /><br />The point is, the traditional peak schedule isn't too bad. The reverse peak needs to be substantially reworked.Caelestorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729598292698829083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-552822476369656312012-01-10T17:04:33.496-08:002012-01-10T17:04:33.496-08:00Caelestor, out of curiosity, why do trains skip Sa...Caelestor, out of curiosity, why do trains skip San Antonio in your schedule?Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-76655841796997259082012-01-10T14:46:05.876-08:002012-01-10T14:46:05.876-08:00So, I crafted a reasonable 6tph takt that makes sc...So, I crafted a <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=750&height=750&period=90&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+6tph+takt&t1t=F40-79MPH&t1h=30&t1s=0&t1n=0&t1c=FF0000&t1p=7&t1d=s&t1l=SM-SC+Local%2FLocal&t1=.111.30..30.30.30.30..30.30..30.30.30.30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.111&t2t=F40-79MPH&t2h=30&t2s=15&t2n=0&t2c=0000FF&t2p=7&t2d=s&t2l=SM-SC+Ltd%2FLocal&t2=.111.30..30.30.30.30...30.....30..30.30.30..30.30.30.30..30.111&t3t=F40-79MPH&t3h=30&t3s=0&t3n=25&t3c=00FF00&t3p=7&t3d=n&t3l=SC-SM+Local%2FExp&t3=.111.30.....30...30...30.30.30...30.30..30.30.30.30..30.111&t4t=F40-79MPH&t4h=30&t4s=0&t4n=0&t4c=FF0000&t4p=7&t4d=n&t4l=SC-SM+Local%2FLocal&t4=.111.30..30.30.30.30..30.30..30.30.30.30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.111&t5t=F40-79MPH&t5h=30&t5s=5&t5n=15&t5c=0000FF&t5p=7&t5d=n&t5l=SC-SM+Local%2FLtd&t5=.111.30...30....30...30...30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.111&t6t=F40-79MPH&t6h=30&t6s=25&t6n=10&t6c=00FF00&t6p=7&t6d=s&t6l=SM-SC+Exp%2FLocal&t6=.111.30.....30..30.30..30.30.30.30..30.30.30..30.30.30.30..30.111&t7t=NONE&t7h=30&t7s=5&t7n=10&t7c=000000&t7p=10&t7d=&t7l=&t7=&t8t=NONE&t8h=30&t8s=5&t8n=10&t8c=000000&t8p=10&t8d=&t8l=&t8=" rel="nofollow">reasonable 6tph takt</a> that makes schedule reading easier.<br /><br />Observations: <br />- A stop is about a 2-minute penalty right now.<br />- North of RWC, SF and 22nd Street dwarf all other job employment centers; hence there needs to be fast service there. <br />- OTOH, nearly all stations south of RWC are job centers, so reverse peak needs to run local in Santa Clara County. <br />- Some stations are better suited in one direction, so they only need 2 tph in one direction for now. Otherwise, every stop has 4 tph.<br /><br />Thus, here's a <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=750&height=750&period=90&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+6tph+takt+%28Timed+Transfer%29&t1t=F40-79MPH&t1h=30&t1s=0&t1n=0&t1c=FF0000&t1p=7&t1d=s&t1l=SM-SC+Ltd+A%2FLocal&t1=.111.30..30.30.30.30........30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.111&t2t=F40-79MPH&t2h=30&t2s=10&t2n=0&t2c=0000FF&t2p=7&t2d=s&t2l=SM-SC+Ltd+B%2FLocal&t2=.111.30.....30..30.30..30.30.30.30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.111&t3t=F40-79MPH&t3h=30&t3s=0&t3n=17&t3c=00FF00&t3p=7&t3d=n&t3l=SC-SM+Local%2FLtd&t3=.111.30.......30.30..30.30.30.30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.111&t4t=F40-79MPH&t4h=30&t4s=0&t4n=0&t4c=FF0000&t4p=7&t4d=n&t4l=SC-SM+Local%2FExp&t4=.111.30.....30........60..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.111&t5t=F40-79MPH&t5h=30&t5s=5&t5n=7&t5c=0000FF&t5p=7&t5d=n&t5l=SC-SM+Ltd%2FLocal&t5=.111.30..30.30.30.30..30.30..30.30.30.60...30.30..30.30.30.30..30.111&t6t=F40-79MPH&t6h=30&t6s=20&t6n=10&t6c=00FF00&t6p=7&t6d=s&t6l=SM-SC+Ltd+C%2FLtd&t6=.111.30..30.30.30.30..30.30..30...30...30.30..30.30.30.30..30.111&t7t=NONE&t7h=30&t7s=5&t7n=10&t7c=000000&t7p=10&t7d=&t7l=&t7=&t8t=NONE&t8h=30&t8s=5&t8n=10&t8c=000000&t8p=10&t8d=&t8l=&t8=" rel="nofollow">timed transfer takt</a>. Caltrain probably made the right decision to put a timed transfer at RWC during the peak, but RWC is not a good timed transfer for the reverse peak. That job is better served by Millbrae, which has a fair amount of commuters coming in from BART. This schedule also avoids skip-stop in San Mateo to make everyone's life easier.<br /><br />It's easy to see who benefits, so who loses? San Jose riders obviously (but they probably want Palo Alto and RWC based on distance considerations, so it's not too bad).Caelestorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729598292698829083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-66313240973425350132012-01-10T11:57:32.087-08:002012-01-10T11:57:32.087-08:00Marc, I don't think you're managing to pok...Marc, I don't think you're managing to poke any holes here.<br /><br />Exclude Transbay from the mix -- as MTC, BART, Caltrain, former "Rail Transportation Chief" Bob "CBOSS" Doty, Quentin Kopp and PBQD seek to do, with all of their effort -- and much of the hugely overwhelming SF job market is positioned out of reach.<br /><br />I live in SF, I commuted on Caltrain to jobs down in sprawl hell for decades, I know full well that the trains heading south aren't empty, but if you think that Stanford Hospital expansion (I've "commuted" there, also!) is a market within three orders of the SF CBD, well, you're just not thinking straight and you're letting anecdotal personal experience trump objective reality.<br /><br />PS To be *really* cheesy with the numbers, Clem's "6.96" and "3.12" MissionBay/22nd numbers together are 12% of a cheesy hypothetical total of 81.13 (exclude Transbay's 18.87). By this cheesy figuring, the numbers vastly *overstate* non-SF ridership, contra your claims.<br /><br />PPS A reminder re density that PBQD "predicts" as many transit riders at its Milpitas shopping mall parking lot stop on their highly lucrative public-funded extension to nowhere as use the BART SF CBD stations. The level of outright systematic naked fraud committed by the parties involved is simply breathtaking.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-75653062959058578692012-01-09T21:04:43.895-08:002012-01-09T21:04:43.895-08:00Looking at the ridership counts makes for a slight...Looking at the ridership counts makes for a slightly different analysis. For instance the "February 2011 AM Peak Passenger Activity" shows that only 58% of the passengers who get on northbound trains, get off in San Francisco (22nd or 4th). Totaling the AM peak northbound and southbound riders, 34% get off in SF, so 66% of the AM Peak commute riders are going someplace else. Broken down a bit, 15% are commuting to Palo Alto, 10% to Mountain View, and about 5% to each of Millbrae, Redwood City, Menlo Park. Also of interest, 732 people get on trains in Palo Alto during AM peak, but 2364 get off.<br /><br />As a Stanford University employee I receive $300/yr for not buying a parking permit, plus free Go and VTA Passes. I assume various company incentives are also skewing the Mountain View numbers, though not quite as dramatically.<br /><br />Caltrain is NOT simply commuter transit taking people from their suburban bedroom communities to SF...Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13554637052654741365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-88290433259810535742012-01-09T20:36:50.889-08:002012-01-09T20:36:50.889-08:00"Hey, outside of SF, for all practical purpos..."<i>Hey, outside of SF, for all practical purposes, there is no transit.</i>"<br /><br />As somebody who has always relied on public transportation and my own power to get around the SF Peninsula and has done so for a couple decades, I can confirm that that statement is perfectly accurate.<br /><br />Try it, for real, then report back. You have to be a complete masochist to even try, let alone persist with it.<br /><br />People in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties use (crap-quality) transit if their are either (a) one of a handful of enviro-martyrs or (b) poor (and hence, by contemporary reasoning, deserving of nothing but the worst.)Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-56915482629267899382012-01-09T18:45:42.400-08:002012-01-09T18:45:42.400-08:00Hey, outside of SF, for all practical purposes, th...Hey, outside of SF, for all practical purposes, there is no transit.<br /><\quote><br /><br />That's just nonsense. One gripe I have with Clem's model is that ignoring job-end local transit is skewing his numbers. For example, Stanford runs the free Marguerite shuttle from the Palo Alto station, to around campus. The shuttle gets packed morning and evening rush-hour by Stanford employees (mostly not faculty). The buses for that service just keep getting bigger and bigger. Plus, that segment is going to grow hugely with Stanford Hospital's expansion.<br /><br />Similarly, the free shuttles to and from various hi-tech office parks -- Oracle; EA/Redwood Shores - are very well patronized, though at lower volumes.kiwi.jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18215458981556481196noreply@blogger.com