tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84194443327712132852024-03-19T01:47:45.377-07:00Caltrain HSR Compatibility BlogThe passage of California Proposition 1A (2008) set in motion a complete reconstruction of the railroad between San Jose and San Francisco. This blog exists to discuss compatibility between HSR and Caltrain, integration issues, and the impact on adjoining communities.Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger246125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-80306366776729337602024-02-03T12:57:00.000-08:002024-02-03T13:19:40.774-08:00The Cost of EMU Maintenance<p>Caltrain recently published a <a href="https://caltrain.com/media/32624/download">strategic financial plan update</a>, where we learn that maintaining each EMU in the new electric fleet in good working order is expected to cost $1.2 - 1.5 million per year, a significant increase from last year's estimate. This post seeks to answer the question: is that crazy?</p><p>This analysis revisits and updates an <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2017/06/frequent-trains-off-peak.html">older post here</a>.<br /></p><p><b>Historical vehicle maintenance costs</b> <br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_NPGCZbYIJfQfpkjO2qzmuk5TbN-ncZrJSEcMp918bMqfpv3LXolBuKvCrpfkNldJX7ACS306aId2gI2Y6voFiPNPYjmND8OoyHCyPxEqVe8_DsYSug0MYcWgJuo-YFfLtuIcJVLfvaANUNjDxPsiTX4-lrt-7wn3ewyYc9ZwGgjkI5-OP_cZQzdtUY1k/s652/vehicle_maintenance_costs_2023.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="403" data-original-width="652" height="198" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_NPGCZbYIJfQfpkjO2qzmuk5TbN-ncZrJSEcMp918bMqfpv3LXolBuKvCrpfkNldJX7ACS306aId2gI2Y6voFiPNPYjmND8OoyHCyPxEqVe8_DsYSug0MYcWgJuo-YFfLtuIcJVLfvaANUNjDxPsiTX4-lrt-7wn3ewyYc9ZwGgjkI5-OP_cZQzdtUY1k/s320/vehicle_maintenance_costs_2023.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Note these figures are in constant 2023 dollars</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table></div>The <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd" target="_blank">National Transit Database</a> is a fantastic resource provided by the federal government, charting facts and figures for every transit operator in the United States. For the period 2000 - 2022, we look up vehicle maintenance costs and vehicle revenue miles for Caltrain as well as for two regional rail operators in the New York City area (Metro-North and LIRR), who operate the largest "heavy rail" EMU fleets in the United States in a region with similarly high costs as the Bay Area. Note that New Jersey Transit is not included because teasing out their large bus fleet from the overall agency figures is complicated. Dividing vehicle maintenance expense (adjusted for inflation to 2023) by vehicle revenue miles, we get the approximate per-mile cost of vehicle maintenance. One can guess that Caltrain's increase after 2017 is related to operating the legacy fleet way past its retirement age. In constant 2023 dollars, eyeballing this chart, the cost of maintaining EMUs might be around five bucks per vehicle revenue mile -- let's charitably say four because Caltrain's fleet is brand new and won't break down as much as older fleet mixes used by the other operators.<br /><p></p><p><b>Caltrain EMU vehicle revenue miles</b></p><p>The <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2023/09/first-look-at-electric-service.html">new service plan</a> published by Caltrain makes it easy to calculate the number of annual EMU vehicle revenue miles. There are 66 trains per weekend day (33 in each direction, for 16 hours of half-hourly service, with every other train serving Tamien) and 104 trains per weekday (52 in each direction, with 18 hours of half-hourly service = 36 plus 8 hours of additional peak express service = 16). It's 46.7 miles from SF to SJ, and 48.4 miles from SF to Tamien. That adds up to 2*(16*48.4+17*46.7) = 3137 revenue train miles per weekend day, and 2*(18*48.4+18*46.7+16*46.7) = 4918 revenue train miles per weekday. Each train has seven vehicles, as defined by the FTA. Assuming each year has 6 holiday weekdays with weekend-like service, that all works up to 11.2 million vehicle revenue miles per year, which is... a lot. For context, the most service Caltrain ran pre-covid was 7.9 million vehicle revenue miles. The increase of 41% arises from running half-hourly service all day, every day, with long seven car trains. <br /></p><p><b>Caltrain projected vehicle maintenance expenses</b></p><p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy-gXECRElTjrRjQ0gWbMPdbKoynfnF0ld3s-_d5Rmxqm4YWGMlavcoQYH_KonemOwLAUP7VBpcL-vW4xP1kgMg4sOQ5jKbs_J2BfJysEegjROBFW8N4Sgjks72Ky7pEkjZP2JZSrXntXTtBXrtZaQfFe52_L-MciTfhuYKVfjWnrGFYRpfjf3pkuyRKLi/s715/emu_maintenance_cost_2024.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="438" data-original-width="715" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy-gXECRElTjrRjQ0gWbMPdbKoynfnF0ld3s-_d5Rmxqm4YWGMlavcoQYH_KonemOwLAUP7VBpcL-vW4xP1kgMg4sOQ5jKbs_J2BfJysEegjROBFW8N4Sgjks72Ky7pEkjZP2JZSrXntXTtBXrtZaQfFe52_L-MciTfhuYKVfjWnrGFYRpfjf3pkuyRKLi/s320/emu_maintenance_cost_2024.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Note these figures are in year of expenditure</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>The 2024 strategic financial plan helpfully breaks out projected annual vehicle maintenance expense by fleet, with the EMUs charted separately from the diesels. The EMU costs are shown at right (MoE = Maintenance of Equipment). These figures are in year of expenditure, not inflation adjusted, so we need to make some assumptions before we can compare apples to apples. Taking 5% inflation and deflating these figures back to 2023, the previous forecast (in red) was $12M, while the new forecast (in blue) is closer to $21M with 19 EMUs climbing to $25M when all 23 currently on order are delivered. We can guess that in the out years, Caltrain is assuming that ridership has bounced back enough that the FTA will require them to operate six trains per peak hour per direction (104 + 32 = 136 trains per weekday) as originally planned, further increasing to 13.9 million vehicle revenue miles per year.</p><p><b>Putting it all together</b></p><p>We've made some assumptions that are not completely valid -- namely that vehicle maintenance cost scales directly with the number of revenue miles operated. To first order, this is true, but vehicle maintenance cost has time-based components (such as mandated inspections, or replacement of ultraviolet-crazed window glazing) and distance-based components (such as wheel and brake wear). Not everything scales proportionally to revenue miles. With this caveat in mind, let's see what happens.<br /></p><p>If you multiply 11.2 million vehicle revenue miles by $4 of vehicle maintenance cost per vehicle revenue mile from the National Transit Database, you end up at $45M per year (again, with everything in 2023 dollars.)</p><p>Caltrain's latest figure is half that, so what looks like a large increase in their latest strategic financial plan may still be an underestimate. Their estimate of $21M divided by 11.2 million vehicle revenue miles gives just $1.90 of vehicle maintenance per vehicle revenue mile for the EMU fleet (in 2023 dollars), a value lower than Caltrain has ever achieved with its legacy fleet.<br /></p><p>Seen another way, 11.2 million vehicle revenue miles operated with 19 trains works out to 590,000 vehicle revenue miles per year (or, since each train has 7 vehicles, 84,000 miles per year on the odometer) corresponding to $2.4M of vehicle maintenance cost per EMU set per year. Their estimate of $1.2 - 1.5M seems low in comparison. This could be due to high utilization, which would dilute the time-based component of maintenance cost.<br /></p><p>Verdict: these EMU maintenance costs are not crazy -- they might even be too low.</p><p><b>Appendix: Gilroy branch</b></p><p>While we're at it, we can do a quick sanity check on the Gilroy branch, which will continue to operate with a reduced diesel fleet. There are four weekday round trips. Gilroy is 30 miles from SJ. The trains have five cars. This works out to 1200 vehicle revenue miles per weekday, or 306,000 vehicle revenue miles per year, or less than 3% of Caltrain's total. At four bucks a mile, that's $1.2M per year for the entire diesel fleet.<br /></p><p>Caltrain's figures are closer to $7M per year (again, in 2023 dollars). That seems like a lot, but consider the extremely low utilization of the dedicated diesel fleet, less than 7000 miles per year per diesel locomotive, means that time-based vehicle maintenance costs will dominate, the opposite of the EMU fleet.</p><p>If the fiscal cliff is real and not some made-up crisis, then the under-utilized rail service on the Gilroy branch should be replaced by bus service and the entire diesel fleet that is dedicated to it, maintenance costs and all, should be unceremoniously dumped off Caltrain's balance sheet.<br /></p>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com48tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-5872159879330088192024-01-07T15:35:00.000-08:002024-02-17T19:59:17.330-08:00New Year, New Risks<p>It's 2024, the year that Caltrain is supposed to go electric. All the wires are up and six trains are already on the property (see <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16VCXNAbT4wvw0DpbkdCiVHCnhZAEMbAA7xIWwftm-dE/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">delivery spreadsheet</a>), with more on the way shortly. After years of delays, will they pull it off?<br /></p><p>Seems like a good time to review five risks facing the project.</p><p><b>1. PCEP schedule slips</b> - while monthly reports of the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project continue to assert that the project is on track for "Fall 2024," a nebulous date that could well be the last day of fall or December 20th, there are worrying slips in the project schedule. The November 2023 monthly report (from the <a href="https://www.caltrain.com/media/32476/download" target="_blank">January board meeting packet</a>, PDF page 131) revealed a three-month slip in the critical path compared to the previous monthly report (from the <a href="https://www.caltrain.com/media/32238/download" target="_blank">December board meeting packet</a>, PDF page 159). Completion of live runs on segments 1 and 2 between San Francisco and Menlo Park was pushed out from 12/17/2023 to 3/16/2024. Three-month slips this close to the finish line do not bode well for finishing on time.<br /></p><p><b></b></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhzlg006iuJKuHkNlRNnlrbAm5rMjqBB0kgiJNT62tSanzruywD3dOTcVrJ4KBuXKlTkWluUdgYhYkh37exdH7oFhhyzKFqou5-joxyyaQi5G7vD-m48zLpVILH7TEbU3pF8lQxMUH3IOrMVzq3bLhW-phmGmxfaFghDaFjE1cVG-eB7iIPtlxAcbPTTwL/s1494/downed_tree.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="818" data-original-width="1494" height="109" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhzlg006iuJKuHkNlRNnlrbAm5rMjqBB0kgiJNT62tSanzruywD3dOTcVrJ4KBuXKlTkWluUdgYhYkh37exdH7oFhhyzKFqou5-joxyyaQi5G7vD-m48zLpVILH7TEbU3pF8lQxMUH3IOrMVzq3bLhW-phmGmxfaFghDaFjE1cVG-eB7iIPtlxAcbPTTwL/w200-h109/downed_tree.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Tree down on wires (KRON4)<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><b>2. Trees falling on tracks</b> - as reliably as atmospheric river storms occur in the Bay Area, large trees will continue to fall across the tracks. Previously, a few hours of chainsawing was enough to clear the blockage and resume service. No longer: trees will now damage the overhead contact system (OCS), requiring repairs to high voltage equipment before service can resume. On January 5th, 2023, a large eucalyptus tree fell across the tracks and did just that. According to a <a href="https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/caltrain-clears-fallen-tree-from-tracks-service-restored/" target="_blank">news report</a>, service was interrupted for most of the day to safely remove mangled poles and wires-- and this without any urgency to repair them before restoring diesel service. <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsYvoMdWfpCoeZtiZIVW2YGOzB9FOnk9hF7WEVDQarcaWAVngWhw2tW29jGWBf7lCjl3XcsIMYkQyGxrXbWM-2k-4O-MmUdA_mu5SYv1nl280zQhhVCQrB9IO3C2TlbFYBIl_cNOKaRo_Xtd1lv3QjF0unHjfif9JajSlKR4256oaG6Au2e2V4kfYduwFH/s3024/downed_tree_2024.JPG" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2478" data-original-width="3024" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsYvoMdWfpCoeZtiZIVW2YGOzB9FOnk9hF7WEVDQarcaWAVngWhw2tW29jGWBf7lCjl3XcsIMYkQyGxrXbWM-2k-4O-MmUdA_mu5SYv1nl280zQhhVCQrB9IO3C2TlbFYBIl_cNOKaRo_Xtd1lv3QjF0unHjfif9JajSlKR4256oaG6Au2e2V4kfYduwFH/w200-h164/downed_tree_2024.JPG" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Another one, February 2024<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p><br />The craziest part of this story: it took until September 2023, a gestation period of nine months, to complete the OCS repairs due to long lead times to procure replacement parts. While there would have been more urgency had the OCS been needed to operate the service, this episode highlights a lack of preparedness for what will become a routine occurrence. It should not take more than a few hours to get temporary OCS repairs completed, and the winter months of 2024 will provide valuable opportunities for practice.</p><p>(UPDATE 17 February 2024: it happened again and we're at two weeks and counting for the repairs)<br /></p><p></p><p>To mitigate this risk: hold negligent tree owners financially liable for damage and delays caused by their trees falling on Caltrain, and aggressively trim back vegetation. Establish a well-equipped rapid response team of "squirrels" (OCS maintainers) who can quickly deploy to an incident site to perform temporary repairs that allow service to resume quickly. Keep this crew sharp by regular practice of repair methods, and stock an ample and ready supply of spare parts.<br /></p><p><b>3. Grade crossing collisions</b> - crossing wrecks are another frequent occurrence that will continue into the electric era, even if the new trains have much more powerful brakes that can avoid some collisions. With old diesels, you could cut, bend and weld beefy steel parts, quickly returning equipment to service. With an EMU, a collision can do more damage: crumple zones will crumple, and the fiberglass front-end mask and cladding will be potentially costly and time consuming to replace.<br /></p><p>To mitigate this risk: improve crossing safety equipment and lighting, and grade separate the busiest crossings. Keep enough spare parts (including entire front-end masks) locally, so repairs don't require long lead times or a trip back to the factory in Utah.<br /></p><p><b>4. Wheel flat spots in wet weather</b> - while the new EMUs have the latest in computer-controlled braking technology, their swift acceleration and braking will put greater demands on controlling friction at the interface between wheel and rail. Throw in some moisture and crushed eucalyptus leaves, and even the best computer won't always get it right. It doesn't take much sliding of a wheel to create a flat spot, making that loud whomp-whomp-whomp sound. BART found this out the hard way, having to <a href="https://www.kqed.org/news/11853438/computer-glitches-and-flattened-wheels-prompt-bart-to-pause-new-fleet-delivery" target="_blank">pause delivery of their new fleet</a> while software changes were made. Caltrain's <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2023/09/first-look-at-electric-service.html">plans for a 75-minute local</a> require very aggressive acceleration and braking, increasing the risk of flat spots.<br /></p><p>To mitigate this risk: do lots of wet weather testing to find the limits of the software, and set limits to prevent train crews from driving too aggressively. Get lots of practice truing EMU wheels on the lathe.<br /></p><p><b>5. Copper theft</b> - there has already been a problem with thefts of impedance bonds, devices that allow traction return current (at zero volts) to cross signal block boundaries. These bonds are easily accessible on the track, but European railways have also experienced copper theft of live components energized at 25 kV by thieves who know their way around high voltage.<br /></p><p>To mitigate this risk: secure valuable inventory, use identifying markings to prevent stolen copper from being easily sold for scrap, and maintain a large supply of spares to rapidly restore service in case of theft. Another job for the "squirrel" rapid response team.<br /></p><p>In closing, it is commonly accepted that electric trains are more reliable than
diesels, as one would certainly hope given how often Caltrain's
decrepit fleet breaks down. Mechanical problems cause an average of 47
minutes of train delay every day, coming in third position after delays
due to construction and trespassers. While new electric trains
should bring this number down, electrification itself exposes service
quality to new risks that Caltrain must anticipate and mitigate. Failing to control these risks can quickly turn electric revenue service into a fiasco. 2024 is the time for robust contingency planning.<br /></p>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com63tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-50490178397994804352023-09-19T22:14:00.001-07:002023-09-19T22:14:50.476-07:00First Look at Electric Service<p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRBeLzeFMRwDSNE9LSTmvDduk0iR8en-snFRkEfCrAZ15UR4OpO-4GmXBlwprrwMBe2fx4CkVjYi9i4WYez3e2mENUHDfkopieRGe8wYLzutKxChcAs2D_0Ma71ahF3e1wMuVU41N7ns9Tf2TWV6DbKPd9qwDzsaD9h-TfKayoUPqpwb2nak_8IKV2QNjk/s1514/electric_stopping_pattern.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="584" data-original-width="1514" height="123" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRBeLzeFMRwDSNE9LSTmvDduk0iR8en-snFRkEfCrAZ15UR4OpO-4GmXBlwprrwMBe2fx4CkVjYi9i4WYez3e2mENUHDfkopieRGe8wYLzutKxChcAs2D_0Ma71ahF3e1wMuVU41N7ns9Tf2TWV6DbKPd9qwDzsaD9h-TfKayoUPqpwb2nak_8IKV2QNjk/s320/electric_stopping_pattern.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Caltrain's proposed weekday peak service</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>Caltrain has started to pull back the curtain on their <a href="https://www.caltrain.com/media/31624/download" target="_blank">fall 2024 service pattern</a>, when the electric fleet will (finally!) enter service.<p></p><p>The peak service pattern is depicted at right from a Caltrain slide, and <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=1000&height=1200&period=120&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+Electric+Service&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1=.900.30..30.30.30.30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.900&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=Local&t1s=0&t1n=0&t1c=0000FF&t1p=10&t1f=K&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=.900.30.....30...30..30...30...30...30.30....900.&t2d=&t2h=60&t2l=Express+A&t2s=25&t2n=30&t2c=FF0000&t2p=10&t2f=K&t3t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t3=.900.30.....30...30..30...30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..900.&t3d=&t3h=60&t3l=Express+B&t3s=56.5&t3n=50.5&t3c=FFA200&t3p=10&t3f=K&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&return=basic">looks like this in a string diagram</a> from our trusty <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2011/05/where-four-tracks-will-be-needed.html">taktulator</a>. The overall score for this timetable is a lukewarm <b>115 points</b> relative to the benchmark score of 100 for the 2011 timetable, and it requires just 14 trains to operate, not counting spares.<br /></p><p><b>The Good</b></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Peak frequency will remain at four trains per hour per direction until ridership recovers more. This requires a waiver from the FTA, which originally made its funding contingent on operating six trains per peak hour per direction.<br /></li><li>This enables operating with all-electric service in the portion of the corridor between San Francisco and San Jose, relegating the diesel fleet to where it belongs: not under the wire.<br /></li><li>Stops are restored throughout the corridor, increasing service frequencies especially in Silicon Valley where the 2004 arrival of the Baby Bullet <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2011/12/baby-bullet-effect.html">decimated ridership at skipped stops</a> that nevertheless have <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2013/10/census-driven-service-planning.html">healthy numbers of nearby jobs and residents</a>.</li><li>Off-peak service is a subset of peak service, making for a regular and consistent half-hour "takt" throughout the entire day. This makes the timetable easy to use and memorize.</li><li>The Gilroy branch is served by a cross-platform transfer in San Jose, reflecting the results of a recent survey of its customers that revealed that a one-seat ride was their lowest priority.<br /></li></ul><p><b>The Bad</b></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The Baby Bullet unfortunately survives as Express A, skipping perfectly worthy stops throughout Silicon Valley and tragically breaking the potential symmetry of the timetable. Express A should just be another Express B, giving evenly spaced 15-minute service from Redwood City to San Jose. This is very low hanging fruit that <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=1000&height=1200&period=120&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+Electric+Service&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1=.900.30..30.30.30.30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.900&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=Local&t1s=0&t1n=0&t1c=0000FF&t1p=10&t1f=K&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=.900.30.....30...30..30...30...30...30.30....900.&t2d=-&t2h=60&t2l=Express+A&t2s=25&t2n=30&t2c=FF0000&t2p=10&t2f=K&t3t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t3=.900.30.....30...30..30...30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..900.&t3d=&t3h=30&t3l=Express+B&t3s=56.5&t3n=50.5&t3c=FFA200&t3p=10&t3f=K&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&return=basic">improves the timetable score from 115 to 118 points</a>. The Baby Bullet pattern was a great idea for speeding up diesel runs, but in the new electric age, Caltrain should let it slip into history.</li><li>The "South County Connector" remains as diesel rail service. There is an opportunity for enormous savings (and better service quality for riders) from selling off the entire diesel fleet and operating the Gilroy branch with much more frequent luxury buses. Operating and maintaining an excessively large electric + diesel fleet and wasting capital funds on the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2023/06/bemu-obsession.html">expensive but dubious idea of a BEMU</a> distracts Caltrain from its core mission. If one believes in the idea of a <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2022/12/leaping-off-fiscal-cliff.html">fiscal cliff</a>, then it's obvious that rubber tires can help Caltrain's balance sheet until the high-speed rail project electrifies the south county corridor.<br /></li></ul><b>The Implausible</b><br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li> The proposed service pattern is built around a 75-minute
all stops local trip between SF and SJ. This 75-minute figure is very impressive
and would be a huge strength, if only it didn't border on the implausible. These are several issues with a 75-minute local run:</li><ul><li>the trains have to accelerate very aggressively, something the equipment is admittedly capable of, but ouch, that electricity bill! Operating cost will depend not just on usage but also peak load, and high acceleration makes the peaks worse.<br /></li><li>the timetable padding has to be shaved down significantly from today's comfortable margins</li><li>the
station dwell time has to come down to a crisp BART-like duration of
just 30 seconds. Without level boarding, this is unlikely to work
reliably in daily service. The boarding step arrangement, door spacing
and interior circulation of the new EMUs is identical to the Bombardier
diesel sets, so it's hard to believe they would board any faster,
before even considering the possibility of a crew interventions for
wheelchair users.</li><li>There is nothing physically preventing a
75-minute trip, but if Caltrain can pull that off, what secret sauce of
brief dwells have they been holding back from us all these years? Based
on past operating practice, a more reasonable expectation would be <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2023/09/level-boarding-still-not-getting-it.html">an 86-minute trip</a>. Let this serve as a prediction that Caltrain will find out the hard way that it really does have an urgent need for level boarding.</li></ul></ul><p>Taken together, there's a lot to like in this emerging service pattern, and a few tweaks can make it even more optimal. With freeway traffic getting steadily worse, the new service product will sell itself.<br /></p>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com205tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-65445334749563497542023-09-02T19:04:00.003-07:002023-09-02T19:04:59.286-07:00Level Boarding: Still Not Getting It<p>The good news: Caltrain has initiated a small study effort to develop a level boarding roadmap, as part of its portfolio of <a href="https://www.caltrain.com/media/31468/download?inline" target="_blank">capital projects</a>.<br /></p><p>The bad news: in the summary of this study, Caltrain shows no sign of grasping the purpose of level boarding. We might need to display it on a freeway billboard, like this:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_gD9B0fbLI3nnabnFiZ8KRRlbBXpRChHO5y15DVDtYsaqX2e8-HdEACA8Y77QW2KClcWvPNrGdGKQw_W-suJButNFTbkRqFUTaa3jc28X23NG9-BbfRXx2h_zWPF1x37thFSrOkxAD3R4bwxEH-OxVFPet_po2E1wQZ341MJo_3vP-FP3JNT70mlhU8Ks/s1200/level_boarding_billboard.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="515" data-original-width="1200" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_gD9B0fbLI3nnabnFiZ8KRRlbBXpRChHO5y15DVDtYsaqX2e8-HdEACA8Y77QW2KClcWvPNrGdGKQw_W-suJButNFTbkRqFUTaa3jc28X23NG9-BbfRXx2h_zWPF1x37thFSrOkxAD3R4bwxEH-OxVFPet_po2E1wQZ341MJo_3vP-FP3JNT70mlhU8Ks/w640-h274/level_boarding_billboard.png" width="640" /></a></div><p></p><p>Caltrain does a very nice job of explaining the benefits of electrification. Faster acceleration leads to shorter trip times, a strong message that they hammer often. On level boarding, however, the messaging is muddled. It's something-something about steps? Easier and more inclusive access?</p><p>NO!!!</p><p>It's about shorter trip times, just like electrification. While electrification saves time in motion, level boarding saves time at rest. The savings are big: cutting station dwell time from 45 seconds (typical for Caltrain today) to 30 seconds (typical for BART, which has level boarding) is worth almost as much "acceleration" as electrification. Electrifying without level boarding is half-baked, and Caltrain should be spending a lot more on level boarding than distractions like <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2023/06/bemu-obsession.html">BEMUs</a>. Please return to your core mission to quickly and efficiently get people where they are going.</p><p><i>About these numbers</i>: the diesel trip time is for an all-stops local with 45 second station dwells and 15% padding. The EMU trip time has the same dwell and padding assumptions. The level boarding time assumes that station dwells drop to 30 seconds, and padding is cut down to 10%. The lower padding is appropriate because level boarding not only makes dwells shorter, but it makes dwells much more consistent and predictable, <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2016/05/caltrain-has-dwell-time-problem.html">as discussed previously</a>. If two wheelchair users need to board, it takes the same 30 seconds, not five minutes of staff assistance. Here are the detailed <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=500&height=500&period=105&start=7&direction=&title=Effect+of+Level+Boarding&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1=.900.30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.30.30.30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..900.&t1d=&t1h=60&t1l=EMU+Level+Boarding&t1s=0&t1n=0&t1c=00D672&t1p=10&t1f=&t2t=F40-79MPH&t2=.900.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..900.&t2d=&t2h=60&t2l=Diesel+8+inch&t2s=0&t2n=0&t2c=CF0000&t2p=15&t2f=&t3t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t3=.900.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..900.&t3d=&t3h=60&t3l=EMU+8+inch&t3s=0&t3n=0&t3c=F59300&t3p=15&t3f=&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&return=basic" target="_blank">stop-by-stop stats and string diagrams</a> if you want to tinker with assumptions.<br /></p>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com41tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-19454725946508589972023-06-04T14:29:00.002-07:002023-06-04T14:29:44.929-07:00BEMU Obsession<p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCrJevHqcvmLbUbL3GYLm9PzS6Ulownq2y8F1sTJ-g5AS1OvwF59qk4OnIHB0sXK1Z3GXnjFyTvhKzUt1xnczb1yilCfNjHbSTftgtEFpeMx0SNOYL8FgS2vt04E-R4JN7F9Pcubcn4AhnD0lJHG6BP0K20FYTsJKmcqgEoAUCr2WAnvjF-DP1mhsJAA/s1024/battery_emu.png" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1024" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCrJevHqcvmLbUbL3GYLm9PzS6Ulownq2y8F1sTJ-g5AS1OvwF59qk4OnIHB0sXK1Z3GXnjFyTvhKzUt1xnczb1yilCfNjHbSTftgtEFpeMx0SNOYL8FgS2vt04E-R4JN7F9Pcubcn4AhnD0lJHG6BP0K20FYTsJKmcqgEoAUCr2WAnvjF-DP1mhsJAA/w200-h200/battery_emu.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Barry the BEMU,<br />Caltrain's new mascot<br /></i></td></tr></tbody></table><p><span><em>"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget—and I'll tell you what you value."</em></span> <br /></p><p>There's a new obsession gripping Caltrain: the Battery EMU, an electric train that can travel without overhead wires using electricity drawn from a large battery on board the train. The BEMU features prominently in Caltrain's recently approved <a href="https://www.caltrain.com/media/30418/download" target="_blank">two-year budget</a>, which offers the best way to understand the agency's values. We find allocations for:<br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>$80M for a single BEMU prototype train (at a $25M premium over a regular EMU)<br /></li><li>$3.7M for in-house BEMU research and development</li><li>$2.5M for operations planning (including BEMU operations)<br /></li><li>$1.1M to develop a 10-year capital improvement plan <br /></li><li>$1 million to develop a roadmap for level boarding</li><li>$0.5 million to study future grade separations<br /></li></ul><p>The bottom of this list combines to roughly $5M of planning for Caltrain's entire future, a critically important activity to ensure its continued viability. The top two items in this list are almost $30M to pursue a BEMU obsession that will cost much, much more to scale up to anything resembling a viable service pattern. Going by these numbers, Caltrain values BEMUs about six times more than planning for its entire future!</p><p><b>Going Green by Blowing Green<br /></b></p><p>Recently enacted <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/carb-fact-sheet-passenger-locomotive-operators" target="_blank">California air quality mandates</a> will make Caltrain's entire diesel locomotive fleet illegal to operate by 2030. This includes the nine locomotives now being refurbished at great expense and retained to operate diesel service to Gilroy (numbers 920 - 928). <br /></p><p>If you start from the premise that rail service to Gilroy must be maintained and expanded at any and all costs (regardless of the much ballyhooed <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2022/12/leaping-off-fiscal-cliff.html">fiscal cliff</a>) then a solution must be found to run trains beyond the end of the wires in San Jose, and soon.</p><p>Here is the range of available options, from cheapest and most reasonable to most risky and profligate: <br /></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Most obviously, purchase the same diesel passenger locomotive that almost every passenger rail operator now uses in California: the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Charger" target="_blank">Siemens Charger</a>, used by Amtrak, ACE and Coaster. This is a modern low-emission model that will not be outlawed, requires no R&D, and costs about $8M each.<br /> <br /></li><li>Slightly more ambitious is to purchase an upcoming version of the same Charger locomotive that will have zero emission capability to operate through densely populated areas, thanks to a bank of batteries built into a permanently coupled passenger car. This is a model known as the ALC-42E and has been ordered in large quantities by Amtrak. As a bonus, it can draw power directly from overhead wires where available. This option requires no R&D and likely costs closer to $12M each.<br /><br /></li><li>Yet another possibility, if one accepts the idea of a seamless cross-platform transfer at San Jose Diridon, is to serve the low-ridership Gilroy branch with smaller trains that do not interline onto the peninsula rail corridor. Stadler has an existing BEMU product known as the FLIRT Akku, developed for remote branch lines in Germany that have similar ridership profiles as Gilroy. This option requires little R&D (beyond overcoming American "not invented here" syndrome and shepherding the technology through FRA approval) and likely costs about $20M per train.<br /><br /></li><li>By far the most risky and expensive option is to apply the Akku technology to the Caltrain version of the Stadler KISS, turning it into a supersized BEMU to serve Gilroy and points beyond (Salinas, anyone?) with massively oversized 650+ seat trains. This requires new research and development to add very large batteries (likely in excess of 1 MWh) that will be lugged around as giant dead weights whenever the train operates under the wire. Adding massive batteries to the KISS EMU defeats the very purpose of this vehicle: to move huge numbers of people quickly even with lots of station stops. Costing $85M for the first example and likely north of $60M for each follow-on, this BEMU can rightly be described as "the wrong tool for the job."</li></ol><p>You'd need at least six trains to run anything resembling a reasonable service pattern, so multiply accordingly: Caltrain is contemplating the expenditure of about 1/3 billion dollars to keep the Gilroy branch steadfastly served by steel wheels on steel rails. We all love Gilroy, but at <i>any </i>cost?<br /></p><p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsL04WYlr3z2uNohZkwDUcHas4yvAb-YAcKl2EvV-zWb3Sn7XFsKX0K28Vsp7YjJasqg5CWxt7GKDBx7_2Qe6mi15V-ppVNKngI8HCW4oybw6XAqynvX8upb_qHBgp8A-xIcEabB2tU3ImNIRfzWZx6JsY3ToP5f_kNr2W0ujdfSFfD-4G5VGFjBdqmg/s3320/caltrain_bus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2468" data-original-width="3320" height="149" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsL04WYlr3z2uNohZkwDUcHas4yvAb-YAcKl2EvV-zWb3Sn7XFsKX0K28Vsp7YjJasqg5CWxt7GKDBx7_2Qe6mi15V-ppVNKngI8HCW4oybw6XAqynvX8upb_qHBgp8A-xIcEabB2tU3ImNIRfzWZx6JsY3ToP5f_kNr2W0ujdfSFfD-4G5VGFjBdqmg/w200-h149/caltrain_bus.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>the right tool for the job<br />(original by Grendelkhan)<br /></i></td></tr></tbody></table>Considering that the Gilroy branch generates very little ridership (about 1% of Caltrain's total ridership before the pandemic), a better interim solution, until the HSR project electrifies the tracks, is to transfer the Gilroy branch to a mature, affordable and environmentally friendly rubber wheel technology: the express bus. This would have the added benefit of allowing Caltrain to quickly rid itself of all of its polluting and failure-prone diesel equipment by 2025, with enormous savings in operating and maintenance costs just as the agency reaches its purported "fiscal cliff." Caltrain should go 100% electric now.<br /></p><p><b>Consultant Featherbedding</b></p><p>The root of this insanity is understandable: Caltrain has for many years retained the services of in-house vehicle consultant <a href="https://www.ltk.com/" target="_blank">LTK</a>, tasked with supporting the highly complex procurement and regulatory approval of a new fleet of electric vehicles. Now that the Stadler contract will be winding down as this new fleet enters service, these people's jobs will be finished. They desperately need to justify their continued existence, and an open-ended research and development project to send oversized bilevel BEMUs all the way to Gilroy, Salinas and beyond is the perfectly timed green-washing opportunity.</p>Sadly, the BEMU is an expensive solution looking for a problem.<br />Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com111tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-90127366712429817762023-03-05T21:19:00.004-08:002023-03-13T19:38:50.056-07:00The False Choice of Link21<p><a href="https://link21program.org/en" target="_blank">Link21</a>, the nascent megaproject to beef up the Bay Area's passenger rail network, features at its core a new underground transbay passenger rail crossing between Oakland and San Francisco. One of the major dilemmas facing this program is what kind of rail service to put in that new tunnel. The choice is posed between BART (understood as wide-gauge single-level rolling stock) and regional rail (understood as standard gauge FRA-compatible rolling stock). One or the other, <a href="https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2023/03/05/plans-for-second-transbay-rail-crossing-scaled-back-could-only-include-regional-rail-or-bart" target="_blank">but not both</a>. <br /></p><p><b>This is a false choice!</b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6en-R_i6DjeZYrmQB7UEef5qRuxLFr2vRy65DEC39uBz-dP4MskEjZqQl_9CuOG9J3n6RNKQKzm6CokkVdUxJUzQMB4cxeBUTA3yffjP-2ycEVNRZJE-2uXWGlTdkkS2oZkj9UeyqfkFwOpQIoFRCyF83X0MzMDM0YIldxCvPKEkD22hm25raBqyYhg/s1200/link21_xsections.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="506" data-original-width="1200" height="270" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6en-R_i6DjeZYrmQB7UEef5qRuxLFr2vRy65DEC39uBz-dP4MskEjZqQl_9CuOG9J3n6RNKQKzm6CokkVdUxJUzQMB4cxeBUTA3yffjP-2ycEVNRZJE-2uXWGlTdkkS2oZkj9UeyqfkFwOpQIoFRCyF83X0MzMDM0YIldxCvPKEkD22hm25raBqyYhg/w640-h270/link21_xsections.png" width="640" /></a></div><p></p><p></p>Yes, we can have both. They can share the same tunnels and tracks, if we can just get past the mental block of rigidly associating BART with broad gauge. It may seem mind-blowing, and require crayon colors that nobody has seen before, but BART can have a new standard gauge line. It's nothing unusual for transit systems to operate rolling stock with incompatible track gauges or structure gauges. Besides, BART already is our regional rail, despite any semantic distinctions we Americans reflexively attach to various sub-types of rail, real or imagined.<p>Where would this new standard gauge BART line go? From Oakland, it would continue south via existing and under-utilized standard gauge rail corridors to serve the (re-gauged) Dublin / Pleasanton branch, which could be further extended to serve the Altamont Pass (hello, <a href="https://www.valleylinkrail.com/" target="_blank">Valley Link</a>) and points beyond. Long-distance trains, provided they have a pantograph, could run through from the Central Valley straight into downtown San Francisco.</p><p>Link21 planners should stop promoting this specious choice between BART and regional rail. They don't need separate tunnels, and the dogmatic belief that they do will inevitably result in terrible planning decisions.<br /></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Small print regarding the graphic: the single tunnel bore (of two) is drawn rigorously to scale. The BART broad gauge version is 250 inches (almost 21 feet) in external diameter, taken from a VTA drawing. The regional rail version is 8 meters (a bit over 26 feet) to accommodate taller bi-level trains. The overhead conductor rail, of the same design used by Caltrain in its San Francisco tunnels, is 18 feet above the rail. The BART standard gauge train is a Stadler KISS with the same dimensions as Caltrain's, but a different color of paint as previously seen in <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2021/09/down-tubes-with-dtx.html">this post</a>.</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Note an alternate configuration is also possible with a 40-foot external diameter <a href="http://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/link21_xsection_single_bore.png" target="_blank">single bore tunnel</a>. </i></span><br /></p><br />Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com146tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-65897168308041921962023-01-02T17:20:00.001-08:002023-01-02T17:20:54.536-08:00Deadly Caltrain Underpasses<p>The recent storms demonstrate once again that Caltrain underpass flooding is a clear and present danger to the public. Deadly is no understatement: while only harrowing water rescues occurred in the 31 December 2022 atmospheric river, two people lost their lives in the flooded Hillcrest Boulevard underpass in Millbrae on 23 December 2021.</p><p>Poor "split" grade separation designs that only marginally lower the height of the tracks compared to fully elevated tracks are sure to kill again if Caltrain and surrounding communities continue to build more of them. (lookin' at you, <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2020/12/redwood-city-grade-seps-we-must-do.html">Redwood City</a>!)<br /></p><p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDA13RCR2Y4TOc2CCQVm8LONNuU0KuZ1WMY5xtneYhR-E8w4MWNstwxddSRXtaGpN5NhGrxU8Yb7OyBeLKvTV5x9c_17ttn3BWc4i_Xr2QMl_CBYXVB_EjGg7oQ49vrsXkY0r_GuuE_sOLzThQLRX5hwihBo5F3cIjm3yPm4LpP63Yr5aOBgWEttA6mw/s640/flood_2022_harbor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDA13RCR2Y4TOc2CCQVm8LONNuU0KuZ1WMY5xtneYhR-E8w4MWNstwxddSRXtaGpN5NhGrxU8Yb7OyBeLKvTV5x9c_17ttn3BWc4i_Xr2QMl_CBYXVB_EjGg7oQ49vrsXkY0r_GuuE_sOLzThQLRX5hwihBo5F3cIjm3yPm4LpP63Yr5aOBgWEttA6mw/s320/flood_2022_harbor.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Harbor Boulevard, Belmont<br /></td></tr></tbody></table> <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9-W58aBOWoy8PIQ0wzvzyQUxVqRbuNNHRvVyedf2B6sB4WZL1TD7w0bQOGjf5mNs2vg6zCbkcY_SSS9gAqus4M7KDdzJzgY06d-Lamm6QPKBtrW0I-CdygVxxgBjMm5vZALgbWelAYQFlWkHSAPTjbspMVGAXtzNMMp4N98g7n_zflevnyKcc16pr7A/s1024/flood_2022_ralston.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="765" data-original-width="1024" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9-W58aBOWoy8PIQ0wzvzyQUxVqRbuNNHRvVyedf2B6sB4WZL1TD7w0bQOGjf5mNs2vg6zCbkcY_SSS9gAqus4M7KDdzJzgY06d-Lamm6QPKBtrW0I-CdygVxxgBjMm5vZALgbWelAYQFlWkHSAPTjbspMVGAXtzNMMp4N98g7n_zflevnyKcc16pr7A/s320/flood_2022_ralston.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ralston Avenue, Belmont (M.M. Parden photo)<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTQ4DbRkfdhAv-gny7z5hS8K9NI9ILBYJRNattq2h88PLacQlDg7Yrc-iEIHiGU6j3XyLw-CZdpddKr8UrjqgRLuBiQrFglb9w4JT8BnJM6KpFXWhiymwzR-7y9-O1AEAcQstdpTeO0CiBej5vJIjT9HhSgG-UN-zgVjj4LF7bIqw7Ob-SnM5_AH3H1A/s1995/flood_2022_42nd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1265" data-original-width="1995" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTQ4DbRkfdhAv-gny7z5hS8K9NI9ILBYJRNattq2h88PLacQlDg7Yrc-iEIHiGU6j3XyLw-CZdpddKr8UrjqgRLuBiQrFglb9w4JT8BnJM6KpFXWhiymwzR-7y9-O1AEAcQstdpTeO0CiBej5vJIjT9HhSgG-UN-zgVjj4LF7bIqw7Ob-SnM5_AH3H1A/s320/flood_2022_42nd.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">42nd Ave, San Mateo (M. Sly photo)<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdr7EZBYckEiU9DaUad2zH2W52g9kFGo43Rh5R0jY76aK91-fER8XmI_wJnMuhGX1Q-NaBf8JaSyYhUNntwt0ivCvEWAw0M5QVSRnzQt48TYFYpmgXnk1WjmlVq6uFMQ9TMNONh3p8CTyNxxTtmndLAcOBbrg3qbfcwbQH8poP0u30VDUTSKzNX-48tA/s1440/flood_2021_hillcrest.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="736" data-original-width="1440" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdr7EZBYckEiU9DaUad2zH2W52g9kFGo43Rh5R0jY76aK91-fER8XmI_wJnMuhGX1Q-NaBf8JaSyYhUNntwt0ivCvEWAw0M5QVSRnzQt48TYFYpmgXnk1WjmlVq6uFMQ9TMNONh3p8CTyNxxTtmndLAcOBbrg3qbfcwbQH8poP0u30VDUTSKzNX-48tA/s320/flood_2021_hillcrest.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Hillcrest Boulevard, Millbrae (December 2021)<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com64tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-83275529575081554352022-12-10T18:14:00.002-08:002022-12-30T16:06:54.298-08:00Leaping Off the Fiscal Cliff<p></p><div style="text-align: right;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcnurbfRLeX1ztrQo96NtTP92R6CLFKSLnkC0syrQg8MxblgoE4SrF1j11qW-2sdtdjiJMocMY-5uYoHW7L9jWFIx5-hJ-72Hctm2HA5CNw4Uia_jg2f5XFv1HaEvO6YiltKOrqCjeI04MGUeVO4qUkxpV3JgorLmgsZxUxXE0intbqzKeDGCZCXtCNA/s1420/fiscal_cliff.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="EMU jumping off cliff" border="0" data-original-height="813" data-original-width="1420" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcnurbfRLeX1ztrQo96NtTP92R6CLFKSLnkC0syrQg8MxblgoE4SrF1j11qW-2sdtdjiJMocMY-5uYoHW7L9jWFIx5-hJ-72Hctm2HA5CNw4Uia_jg2f5XFv1HaEvO6YiltKOrqCjeI04MGUeVO4qUkxpV3JgorLmgsZxUxXE0intbqzKeDGCZCXtCNA/w320-h183/fiscal_cliff.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>One phrase we're going to hear a lot in the next couple of years is "fiscal cliff," a sudden disequilibrium between Caltrain's revenues and expenses caused by the withdrawal of the temporary federal subsidies instituted during the pandemic. The slow recovery of ridership, which until 2019 had funded ~70% of the railroad's operating expenses, is opening a $50 million/year hole in Caltrain's budget outlook through the rest of this decade, according to a draft <a href="https://www.caltrain.com/media/24725/download" target="_blank">Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)</a> recently submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).<p></p><p>The SRTP is a process that every four years requires each agency to project hypothetical near-term fiscal scenarios under a standard set of assumptions. Most interesting in Caltrain's draft is that the agency threw in a bonus scenario besides the prescribed hypothetical scenarios: the "Electrified Service scenario" a.k.a. Caltrain's actual plan.</p><p>This "Electrified Service scenario" makes zero effort to tackle operating costs, hiding behind a theory that Caltrain is inherently a high-fixed-cost operation, meaning that costs are not highly variable with the level of train service provided. All efforts are instead directed towards securing "funding opportunities," an approach that could very well succeed, as transit funding effectively grows on trees in California, no matter how inefficiently expended. Here are the scary numbers:</p><p>
</p><iframe height="400" src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTXhfJyBUtiMTlui0iIoTyPOzFmTj7o0LaO2wPqUsshFBz2zY1Nyd9XrJwIATpB_ukt_kN9SB7nzSzS/pubhtml?gid=0&single=true&widget=true&headers=false" width="100%"></iframe>
<p></p><p>What if we blew up some long-held assumptions and attacked this fiscal cliff from the cost side?<br /></p><p><b>Ditch Diesel Now and Go 100% Electric</b></p><p>Since time immemorial, the peninsula corridor electrification project has been sold as only a partial step towards electrification, anticipating that only 75% of the service would become electric with 25% remaining diesel, primarily to serve the non-electrified portion of the corridor south of San Jose. Operating a mixed fleet of diesel and electric trains blows up operating and maintenance costs, since many functions have to be duplicated (training, tools, spare parts, etc.). Revenue miles per vehicle are projected to drop by 10% when electrified service starts, which is a sure sign that your fleet is too big and isn't working hard enough. </p><p>How can Caltrain possibly operate with only the 19 EMU sets that will be delivered by 2024?<br /></p><p>One certainly can't use all 19 in revenue service. Set one aside for maintenance downtime (grade crossing collisions will continue), and keep another two in reserve for timetable protection, essentially hot spares parked at each end of the line, crewed and ready to enter service at moment's notice to plug any delays during the peaks. That leaves just 16 sets to support a peak service level of six trains per hour per direction, a firm condition of Caltrain's <a href="https://www.caltrain.com/media/587/download?inline" target="_blank">funding agreement</a> with the federal government.</p><p>That sounds downright impossible.</p><p>However, if you change the goals of a timetable to maximize equipment utilization, it turns out that it can be pulled off. Good service is just a side effect. Here is a new all-electric timetable that makes those shiny EMUs really earn their keep:</p><p><a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=800&height=800&period=60&start=7&direction=&title=All+EMU+6+tphpd&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1=.580...45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45...45...45.....580.&t1d=&t1h=20&t1l=Caltrain+Ping&t1s=0&t1n=18&t1c=C5C5C5&t1p=7&t1f=S&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=.580.45.....45.....45...45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.580&t2d=&t2h=20&t2l=Caltrain+Pong&t2s=16&t2n=19&t2c=E31837&t2p=7&t2f=S&t3t=NONE&t3=900...........................900&t3d=&t3h=30&t3l=&t3s=10&t3n=5&t3c=000000&t3p=10&t3f=&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&return=basic" target="_blank"><b>All EMU 6 tphpd</b></a><br />Score: <b>123 </b>(relative to the benchmark score of 100 for the 2011 timetable)<br />Fleet: 16 EMU (zero diesel)<br />Utilization: 87% of train-minutes in revenue service<br /></p><p>This is admittedly a slightly sporty timetable in that it requires aggressive 10-minute turns and a European level of padding of 7%, less than Caltrain is accustomed to dawdling with. The resulting risk of delay is mitigated by "protect" trains at each end of the line. There is also margin in the long station dwells (45 seconds) and the leisurely acceleration times built into the timetable, with power capped at only 2/3rds of the EMU's nominal rating.</p><p>The new EMUs would become highly productive assets by providing about 1.9 million revenue vehicle miles per year using just 133 cars, about 1.5x better utilization of these expensive depreciating capital assets than is currently contemplated.<br /></p><p>The savings from disposing of the entire diesel fleet would be significant, and their residual resale value would only help Caltrain's balance sheet. The newer Baby Bullet fleet will have reached 20 years of revenue service, <strike>the minimum required by the FTA for federal funding assistance, so no penalties will arise from their early disposal</strike>. although its disposal would incur a small penalty reimbursement to the FTA since the equipment will not have reached its 25-year minimum useful life (according to <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/regulations-and-guidance/fta-circulars/58051/5010-1e-circular-award-management-requirements-7-16-18.pdf#page=110" target="_blank">FTA Circular 5010-1E, page IV-26</a>.)<br /></p><p><b>Divest the Gilroy Branch</b></p><p>One hitch: the overhead wire doesn't extend to Gilroy. <br /></p><p>Gilroy service is a big weight on Caltrain's operational balance sheet because the ridership and revenue is minuscule compared to the high fixed cost of maintaining diesel service. Before the pandemic, ridership south of San Jose city limits (Blossom Hill) made up a negligible 0.8% of Caltrain's weekday ridership. South of Tamien was hardly better, at 1.2%. Until electrification is extended down to Blossom Hill (<a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2017/01/san-jose-done-right.html">as it should be</a>), it makes better sense to transfer this infrequent diesel service to an extended Capitol Corridor, with a direct cross-platform transfer to Caltrain in San Jose.</p><p>This can rid Caltrain of the entire diesel fleet, which is currently planned to remain at least 9 locomotives and 79 (!!) cars. It also frees Caltrain from another headache, having to comply with near-term diesel emissions mandates under consideration by the California Air Resources Board.</p><p><b>Reduce Conductor Over-staffing</b><br /></p><p>Caltrain has too many assistant conductors. <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-cost-of-conductors.html">Assistant conductors are very expensive</a>, costing about $15 million/year by FY25, about 1/3 of the operating deficit. Note this figure does not include conductors, only their assistants. The new EMUs relieve some of their duties, such as announcing station stops. The new fleet also has automatic passenger counters, giving precise real-time insights into passenger loads. While today's conductor staffing levels are determined by a formula from the number of cars, the formula should instead be revised to use recent passenger loads. This would ensure that all trains have a consistent staff/passenger ratio and that conductors have fair work loads.</p><p><b>Change the Operating Culture</b> <br /></p><p>With six electric trains per peak hour and at least 20-minute service at all stations, much
better than is provided today, the conditions could be created for a
robust recovery of ridership. Good service drives ridership, but if
Caltrain is allowed to execute their mixed-fleet "Electrified Service scenario," as
planned, we will barely achieve any service improvement as costs
continue to spiral upwards.</p><p>Applying these cost-saving measures, Caltrain could close their operating deficit and erase any "fiscal cliff" without expending any energy to capture ever more "funding opportunities" to support entrenched and inefficient operating practices. The fleet does not need to grow, nor does the headcount. The operating culture needs to change: it's not enough to buy Swiss trains; you need to actually run them like the Swiss.<br /></p>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-70495005789770622842022-10-28T16:22:00.001-07:002022-10-28T16:22:11.560-07:00News Roundup, October 2022<p><b>CBOSS Dumpster Fire Update</b>: the CBOSS case is still making its way through San Mateo County Superior Court (under case file <a href="https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/portal-external" target="_blank">17CIV00786</a>). The trial was held in April through June of this year, and closing briefs are due in December. Closing arguments are currently scheduled to be made in court on the 5th of January 2023. The latest kerfuffle is over a post-trial Caltrain/Parsons motion to seek punitive damages from Alstom for intentionally, not just negligently, lying about the status of the project based on testimony given during the trial.</p><p><b>Trains Without Wires</b>: Caltrain held a VIP invitation-only unveiling of the new EMUs in San Francisco on September 24th. Four trainsets (serial production #2 - #5) have now been delivered and will collect dust (graffiti?) for a couple of years because the electrification of the corridor is far from done. The new trains were hauled to San Francisco by diesel power.</p><p><b><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGJuIWRLJe4RoyXaq5u9a5IOH1MzZHff4Hw5prfjuXN9ILJLZID3SA3q2CM6CmjjWlHyj77qgbH0L6nLEteLOWzk7FDpxOzq2CrtggrWYk3Kuoeev9cg4gEwafTAh4YtPxsGzuNBYQpTaY5TdkALLagXH2GzK5GsEqnAra4-YNcdIH9gZGlSzfZHP0gQ/s1000/palo_alto_elevated_station.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="661" data-original-width="1000" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGJuIWRLJe4RoyXaq5u9a5IOH1MzZHff4Hw5prfjuXN9ILJLZID3SA3q2CM6CmjjWlHyj77qgbH0L6nLEteLOWzk7FDpxOzq2CrtggrWYk3Kuoeev9cg4gEwafTAh4YtPxsGzuNBYQpTaY5TdkALLagXH2GzK5GsEqnAra4-YNcdIH9gZGlSzfZHP0gQ/w200-h133/palo_alto_elevated_station.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>New Palo Alto downtown<br />grade separation</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>Stirring Things Up In Palo Alto</b>: Caltrain recently briefed the city on their plan to replace the ancient bridge over the San Francisquito Creek. This is precipitating a sudden change to the city's years-long policy of kicking the can down the road on what to do about a future grade separations at downtown Palo Alto. While everybody seems to assume the bridge and grade separation projects are necessarily linked, they are not! The solution is pretty darn obvious: replace the Palo Alto Ave crossing with a new grade separation at Everett Ave, which would connect downtown to El Camino as shown in the sketch at right.<br /></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Permanently close and demolish the Alma bridge over University Ave,
instead connecting Alma to University via the existing cloverleaf ramps
reconfigured as a signalized intersection.</li><li>Build a new downtown elevated grade separation viaduct and platforms through the existing station parking lots, along the original track alignment that existed before the University Ave grade separation was opened in 1940. This viaduct would be open underneath, providing station parking, bus platforms, pick-up/drop-off areas, and other station amenities. <i>Bonus</i>: the new straightened track alignment removes a speed-limiting double reverse curve in the tracks.</li><li>Cut over the trains to the new viaduct and elevated station. <br /></li><li>Extend Everett Ave under the elevated
tracks to the existing intersection at El Camino Real and Quarry Rd, also picking up a new connection to the convoluted and inefficient
bus loop. <i>Bonus</i>: bus service is greatly sped up to/from El Camino, Stanford and downtown by avoiding time-consuming looping routes.</li><li>Permanently close the grade crossing at Palo Alto Ave.</li><li>Demolish the old University Ave rail bridge, remove the old cloverleaf ramps, and bring the University Ave / Alma intersection back up to a grade level signalized intersection. </li></ol><p>This grade separation approach is completely decoupled from whatever happens with the San Francisquito bridge.<br /></p><p><b>More CEQA Lawsuits Flying</b>: the recent certification of the HSR San Francisco to San Jose EIR precipitated several new CEQA lawsuits. Brisbane and a private developer are upset about the sprawling HSR "light" maintenance facility planned in the city, and its impact on the planned Brisbane Baylands development. Millbrae also got in on the action due to a clash between its development plans and the planned expansion of the station footprint for HSR. Unfortunately, the Sacramento Superior Court does not allow free access to case files, so details are hard to obtain.<br /></p>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-29871532448563790572022-08-31T21:08:00.000-07:002022-08-31T21:08:43.428-07:00HSR Lays an Egg in Caltrain's Nest<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjY6lYTQ--WYqal-NID2gVOuQehb0zZoi3GWdSl8MNlp2ZwXCJ4oymm46CZnTKfwn_P6FnwH2wikaI410Dw3dUA6kJ25P0AsI7hCRXsAAjyTsyEQsmkKspBRqXVKJtBryAd6Q4jIpfKIWSICoFMKvy9W29G-WnHPyI3fpj3cwPYzD379jOK-wNHTXfLcQ/s1024/2022-08-18-SF-SJ0-1024x576.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="1024" height="151" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjY6lYTQ--WYqal-NID2gVOuQehb0zZoi3GWdSl8MNlp2ZwXCJ4oymm46CZnTKfwn_P6FnwH2wikaI410Dw3dUA6kJ25P0AsI7hCRXsAAjyTsyEQsmkKspBRqXVKJtBryAd6Q4jIpfKIWSICoFMKvy9W29G-WnHPyI3fpj3cwPYzD379jOK-wNHTXfLcQ/w232-h151/2022-08-18-SF-SJ0-1024x576.jpg" width="232" /></a></div>California's high-speed rail project has finally reached a milestone 14 years after the passage of Proposition A in 2008 with the board's certification of the <a href="https://hsr.ca.gov/programs/environmental-planning/project-section-environmental-documents-tier-2/san-francisco-to-san-jose-project-section-draft-environmental-impact-report-environmental-impact-statement/" target="_blank">Final Environmental Impact Report</a> for the San Francisco - San Jose project section.<br /><p></p><p>This voluminous document has come a long way since the early days of a four-track 125 mph rail corridor initially envisioned for our region, having been whittled down to a two-track 110 mph "blended system" project that shares tracks with Caltrain without building any new overtaking tracks. Nevertheless, the cost estimates for the project have ballooned to $5.3 billion.</p><p>How do you add four high-speed trains per hour per direction, traveling at peak times between San Francisco and San Jose in just 48 minutes (by the way, 18 minutes slower than promised in the HSR bond measure) while building no new tracks and without disrupting Caltrain service? The answer is, you can't.</p><p>Instead, the high-speed rail project plans to take over the peninsula rail corridor and become a parasite to Caltrain. Here's how.<br /></p><p>The FEIR's <a href="https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Final_EIRS_FJ_V2-05_APP_2-C_Operations_Service_Plan_Summary.pdf" target="_blank">Volume 2 Appendix 2-C Operations and Service Summary</a> contains what is described as an "Illustrative Timetable" of this blended service featuring 6 Caltrain + 4 HSR per hour per direction. The assumptions for this timetable include:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Caltrain is operated as a skip-stop service with 3 different stopping patterns.<br /></li><li>Caltrain EMUs operate at up to 110 mph, their design top speed.</li><li>Caltrain station dwells are 30 seconds, consistent with system-wide level boarding.</li><li>Caltrain operates in salvos of three closely-spaced trains every half hour, leaving large gaps for high-speed trains to travel without being delayed by Caltrain. This bunching is flatly denied on page 3.2-91 of the FEIR, inconsistent with the Illustrative Timetable.<br /></li><li>Two out of three Caltrains are held for about 5 minutes at either Bayshore or Lawrence station to allow high-speed trains to overtake them.</li></ul><p>Additionally, we can make the reasonable assumption that peninsula commuters will be priced out of high-speed rail service, meaning that HSR will not provide many trips with origin and destination between San Francisco and San Jose. Every local peninsula trip taken on a high-speed train potentially displaces a longer statewide trip with much higher fare revenue for the operator, especially at peak times. In a yield-managed fare structure, local HSR trips will therefore be priced punitively. This isn't just speculation, it's well-established practice: Amtrak's premium Acela Express can technically be used to commute from Stamford, Connecticut into New York City, but it can easily cost you over $100 per trip, compared to the $15 peak fare on Metro North. In much the same way, every local SF-SJ passenger would potentially displace a more lucrative SF-LA passenger. Punitive local ticket prices will mean zero local ridership, so we shouldn't figure any HSR services into the scoring of service quality.<br /></p><p>Let's put this in our handy taktulator and figure a score for this timetable. Remember, Caltrain's 2011 timetable is the baseline with a score of 100.<br /></p><p><b>HSR FEIR Caltrain, no DTX</b>: <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=800&height=800&period=60&start=7&direction=&title=HSR+Final+EIR+Caltrain&t1t=KISS-110MPH-4MW&t1=.900.30....30.30...30...30.30...30.30.30.30.30...30..900.&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=Skip+Stop+1&t1s=3&t1n=26&t1c=E31837&t1p=10&t1f=K&t2t=KISS-110MPH-4MW&t2=.900....30..30..30.30..30...30.30.30.30...30..300...450.900&t2d=&t2h=30&t2l=Skip+Stop+2&t2s=8&t2n=6&t2c=15BF64&t2p=10&t2f=K&t3t=KISS-110MPH-4MW&t3=.900...300...30.30...30.30..30.30...30.30..30.30....120.900&t3d=&t3h=30&t3l=Skip+Stop+3&t3s=25&t3n=25&t3c=544FDC&t3p=10&t3f=K&t4t=NONE&t4=.900......45.....45.45..45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45...900.&t4d=-&t4h=60&t4l=Caltrain+L3&t4s=32&t4n=23&t4c=DCCDA7&t4p=20&t4f=F&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&t6t=NONE&t6=900...........................900&t6d=&t6h=30&t6l=&t6s=10&t6n=5&t6c=000000&t6p=10&t6f=&return=basic" target="_blank">Score = 135 service points</a> -- compare that to 147 service points with regularly-spaced 8 train per hour service, as planned in Caltrain's service vision and enabled by a new overtaking station in Redwood City.<br /></p><p><b>HSR FEIR Caltrain, with DTX</b>: <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=800&height=800&period=60&start=7&direction=&title=HSR+Final+EIR+Caltrain+with+DTX&t1t=KISS-110MPH-4MW&t1=900.30.30....30.30...30...30.30...30.30.30.30.30...30..900.&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=Skip+Stop+1&t1s=3&t1n=26&t1c=E31837&t1p=10&t1f=K&t2t=KISS-110MPH-4MW&t2=900.30....30..30..30.30..30...30.30.30.30...30..300...450.900&t2d=&t2h=30&t2l=Skip+Stop+2&t2s=8&t2n=6&t2c=15BF64&t2p=10&t2f=K&t3t=KISS-110MPH-4MW&t3=900.30...300...30.30...30.30..30.30...30.30..30.30....120.900&t3d=&t3h=30&t3l=Skip+Stop+3&t3s=25&t3n=25&t3c=544FDC&t3p=10&t3f=K&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&return=basic" target="_blank">Score = 235 service points</a> -- compare to 250 service points with regularly-spaced 8 train per hour service as planned by Caltrain.</p><p>In both cases, the HSR timetable improves over the 2011 timetable (score = 100) by only 75 - 90% as much as the planned Caltrain timetable. Despite the higher train speeds, the bunched-up and irregular skip-stop service pattern with long overtaking dwells makes numerous Caltrain trips less convenient. On the plus side, this blended service can be operated with a fleet of 6 fewer trains than Caltrain's more frequent 8 tph service pattern. On the minus side, those trains will be more crowded. Note our taktulator tool measures service quality only from the standpoint of one typical user (weighted by origin and destination population and jobs density), without quantifying overall ridership demand or the resulting level of crowding.<br /></p><p>Confronted by numerous stakeholders with the seeming contradiction between Caltrain's plans and its own blended service planning, the HSR authority offers <a href="https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Final_EIRS_FJ_V4-02_CH_17_Standard_Responses.pdf#page=9" target="_blank">Standard Response FJ-Response-GEN-4: Consideration of 2040 CaltrainService Vision and Caltrain Business Plan</a>, with key points summarized below:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Caltrain's Service Vision is aspirational and isn't an approved or funded project.</li><li>The Service Vision is insufficiently defined to be analyzed in the EIR and is not "reasonably foreseeable" under CEQA.<br /></li><li>The impact on Caltrain service wouldn't rise up to the level of a "significant impact" anyway.<br /></li><li>The illustrative timetable is only used as a reasonable basis for analysis and there may exist better timetables.</li><li>It will be Caltrain's job to environmentally clear (and fund) future improvements associated with the Service Vision, such as additional passing tracks to support HSR service in the corridor.</li></ul><p>In the HSR project's view, Caltrain will be fully on the hook for upgrading its own facilities to continue hosting HSR even as it becomes more difficult to do so. This sets up unhealthy incentives where <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2022/05/capital-spending-for-better-service.html">capital projects that actually improve Caltrain service</a>, and might create inconvenient "facts on the ground" for HSR, are quite likely to be delayed and de-funded to ensure the corridor stays clear for the future hatching of the giant egg that HSR just laid with this EIR.<br /></p>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com47tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-47296373264695272472022-05-31T21:38:00.005-07:002022-06-01T19:03:27.934-07:00Capital Spending for Better Service<p>Wouldn't it be great if you could quantify the service benefit of capital improvements, to compare and prioritize them by how much better train service results? We can, and using our handy Taktulator, we will. This service pattern evaluation tool was formulated around <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2012/10/formulation-of-service-quality-metric.html">time-based service quality metrics</a>. We use it to explore future improvements to the peninsula rail corridor.<br /></p><p><b>Today's 2022 Timetable</b>: <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=800&height=800&period=60&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+2022+Peak&t1t=F40-79MPH&t1=.900.45..45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.300.45..45.900&t1d=&t1h=60&t1l=Caltrain+L1&t1s=39&t1n=48&t1c=C5C5C5&t1p=12&t1f=F&t2t=F40-79MPH&t2=.900.60.....60.....60...60...60...60.....900.&t2d=&t2h=60&t2l=Caltrain+B7&t2s=6&t2n=59&t2c=E31837&t2p=20&t2f=F&t3t=F40-79MPH&t3=.900.45....45.45..45.45....45.45...45...45.45..45..900.&t3d=&t3h=60&t3l=Caltrain+L4&t3s=12&t3n=44&t3c=DCCDA7&t3p=20&t3f=F&t4t=F40-79MPH&t4=.900......45.....45.45..45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45...900.&t4d=&t4h=60&t4l=Caltrain+L3&t4s=32&t4n=23&t4c=DCCDA7&t4p=20&t4f=F&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&t6t=NONE&t6=900...........................900&t6d=&t6h=30&t6l=&t6s=10&t6n=5&t6c=000000&t6p=10&t6f=&return=basic" target="_blank">94 service points</a> -- The current peak schedule with four diesel trains per hour features very generous padding and SF - SJ trip times ranging from 66 minutes (express) to 99 minutes (local). The less-than-100 score indicates that service quality has dropped since 2011 when there were five trains per peak hour. The Taktulator score is calibrated such that the 2011 Caltrain timetable scores exactly 100 points.<br /></p><p>Caltrain's 2040 service vision foresees eight trains per peak hour per direction (not counting HSR). Let's start with a service frequency of 8 trains per hour-- except for the sake of exploring and quantifying the value of capital improvements, we'll start from a hypothetical case that will never happen: eight trains per hour of today's diesel service, making all local stops.</p><p><b>Hypothetical diesel all-stops local, 8 tph</b>: <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=800&height=800&period=60&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+8tph+Diesel+Local&t1t=F40-79MPH&t1=.900.45..45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.900&t1d=&t1h=15&t1l=Caltrain+Local&t1s=0&t1n=0&t1c=C5C5C5&t1p=12&t1f=F&t2t=F40-79MPH&t2=.900.45..45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.900&t2d=&t2h=15&t2l=Caltrain+Local&t2s=7.5&t2n=7.5&t2c=C5C5C5&t2p=12&t2f=F&t3t=NONE&t3=900...........................900&t3d=&t3h=30&t3l=&t3s=10&t3n=5&t3c=000000&t3p=10&t3f=&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&return=basic" target="_blank">Score = 109 service points (+16%)</a> -- The doubling of hourly frequency improves the service score by 16%, despite each train being slower. The extra time riding an all-stops trains is more than offset by the much shorter wait time at the station. For example, maximum wait times in Belmont plummet from one hour to just 7.5 minutes. Unfortunately, this service pattern would take an unrealistic 32 trains to operate, because each train takes 94 minutes to go between SF and SJ. The hypothetical scenario still illustrates the magnitude of the effect of doubling frequency.<br /></p><p><b>Add electrification</b>: <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=800&height=800&period=60&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+8tph+EMU+Local&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1=.900.45..45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.900&t1d=&t1h=15&t1l=Caltrain+Local&t1s=0&t1n=0&t1c=C5C5C5&t1p=12&t1f=K&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=.900.45..45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.900&t2d=&t2h=15&t2l=Caltrain+Local&t2s=7.5&t2n=7.5&t2c=C5C5C5&t2p=12&t2f=K&t3t=NONE&t3=900...........................900&t3d=&t3h=30&t3l=&t3s=10&t3n=5&t3c=000000&t3p=10&t3f=&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&return=basic" target="_blank">Score = 121 service points (+11%)</a> -- Electrification is worth another +12 points relative to diesel, thanks to the shorter trip times that come from the higher acceleration capability of EMUs. Those savings accrue to a full ten minutes between SF and SJ for an all-stops local. Station dwell times are still booked at 45 seconds, a longer duration that reflects the lack of level boarding. Thanks to the faster trip times, the fleet requirement has dropped from 32 trains to 28 trains. Service speed saves money, not just on fleet size but also by increasing the hourly productivity of train crews (in terms of passenger-miles served).</p><p><b>Add Redwood City hub station</b>: <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=800&height=800&period=60&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+8tph+EMU+with+RWC+hub&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1=.900.45..45.45.45..45..45.45.45..45.330..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.900&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=Caltrain+Local+1&t1s=18.5&t1n=3.5&t1c=C5C5C5&t1p=12&t1f=K&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=.900.45..45.45.45.45..45..45.45.45..330..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.900&t2d=&t2h=30&t2l=Caltrain+Local+2&t2s=3.5&t2n=18.5&t2c=C5C5C5&t2p=12&t2f=K&t3t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t3=.900.60...60..60.....60...60...60...60.60....60.900&t3d=&t3h=15&t3l=Caltrain+Express&t3s=0&t3n=0&t3c=E31837&t3p=10&t3f=K&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&return=basic" target="_blank">Score = 131 service points (+8%)</a> -- If trains cannot pass each other, there is no room in such a frequent timetable for express service. A new four-track station at Redwood City, where express trains can overtake locals on opposite sides of the same station platform (so that passengers may transfer seamlessly between local and express) gives the best of both worlds: frequent service AND express service. For now, we'll assume this station has only two-track approaches, requiring trains to arrive and depart serially. In practice, this means every local must wait more than 5 minutes or the equivalent of two signal headways to let the express catch up before RWC and then pull ahead after RWC. The stopping patterns start to look like Caltrain's 2040 service vision.</p><p><b>Add Redwood City quadruple approach tracks</b>: <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=800&height=800&period=60&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+8tph+EMU+with+RWC4+hub&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1=.900.45..45.45.45..45..45.45.45..60.60.60.45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.900&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=Caltrain+Local+1&t1s=20.5&t1n=3.5&t1c=C5C5C5&t1p=12&t1f=K&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=.900.45..45.45.45.45..45..45.45.45.60.60.60.45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.900&t2d=&t2h=30&t2l=Caltrain+Local+2&t2s=3.5&t2n=18.5&t2c=C5C5C5&t2p=12&t2f=K&t3t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t3=.900.60...60..60.....60...60...60...60.60....60.900&t3d=&t3h=15&t3l=Caltrain+Express&t3s=0&t3n=0&t3c=E31837&t3p=10&t3f=K&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&return=basic" target="_blank">Score = 138 service points (+5%)</a>
-- If quadruple tracks are added approaching Redwood City from the
north and south, then local and express trains can make parallel moves
into and out of the hub station, removing the requirement for every
local to wait there for five wasteful minutes. To unlock this benefit,
the quadruple track overtake section needs to extend to one station on
either side of RWC, so every local train can make productive use of those five minutes. In the Taktulator, we simulate this by having every
local train stop at San Carlos and Atherton, which (despite its closure)
stands in for a new Fair Oaks infill station at 5th Avenue. This suggests a
hub station is about 1.7x more effective if it forms the center of a
three-station quadruple track section. Having fully half your trains
save five minutes is a huge service improvement!</p><p><b>Add level boarding</b>: <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=800&height=800&period=60&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+8tph+EMU+with+RWC4+hub+and+level+boarding&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1=.900.30..30.30.30..30..30.30.30..60.60.60.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.900&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=Caltrain+Local+1&t1s=21&t1n=4&t1c=C5C5C5&t1p=7&t1f=K&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=.900.30..30.30.30.30..30..30.30.30.60.60.60.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.900&t2d=&t2h=30&t2l=Caltrain+Local+2&t2s=4&t2n=19.5&t2c=C5C5C5&t2p=7&t2f=K&t3t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t3=.900.30...30..30.....30...30...30...30.30....30.900&t3d=&t3h=15&t3l=Caltrain+Express&t3s=0&t3n=0&t3c=E31837&t3p=7&t3f=K&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&return=basic" target="_blank">Score = 147 service points (+7%)</a> -- Where electrification saved time in motion, level boarding saves time at
rest by shaving 15 seconds of dwell time at each station, as
step-free access smooths passenger boarding and alighting. Level boarding gives not only short dwell times but predictable dwell times (for example, wheelchairs don't take longer to board) so we can also tighten up the padding margin in the timetable, cut in this example from 12% to 7%. Interestingly, the end-to-end corridor times fall below a threshold that allows turning a train sooner, reducing fleet requirement from 28 to 24 trains. This isn't necessarily an effect of level boarding itself, and only illustrates that a series of small improvements can result in a discontinuous benefit when a certain threshold is reached.</p><p><b>Add SF Downtown Extension</b>: <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=800&height=800&period=60&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+8tph+EMU+with+DTX%2C+RWC4+hub+and+level+boarding&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1=900.30.30..30.30.30..30..30.30.30..60.60.60.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.900&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=Caltrain+Local+1&t1s=21&t1n=4.5&t1c=C5C5C5&t1p=7&t1f=K&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=900.30.30..30.30.30.30..30..30.30.30.60.60.60.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.900&t2d=&t2h=30&t2l=Caltrain+Local+2&t2s=4.5&t2n=19.5&t2c=C5C5C5&t2p=7&t2f=K&t3t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t3=900.30.30...30..30.....30...30...30...30.30....30.900&t3d=&t3h=15&t3l=Caltrain+Express&t3s=0&t3n=0&t3c=E31837&t3p=7&t3f=K&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&return=basic" target="_blank">Score = 250 service points (+70%)</a> -- There are <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2013/10/census-driven-service-planning.html">more jobs</a> (over 100,000) located within a half mile of the Transbay Transit Center than there are jobs within a half mile of every other Caltrain station combined. This makes downtown SF a dominant node if added to the system, a fact that is reflected in our census-based weighting of available trips. No other improvement comes close.</p><p>Here is how these service improvements stack up against each other, plotted as the logarithm of the ratio of after/before scores, which gives you their relative impact. They can be constructed in a different order than imagined above, but the relative proportion of each improvement should remain approximately similar:</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo70CxqT0JYkSy8lIKvYxy94RYocknUlU0260eAOkAvP-19mSRh2heXdK6TGxOqMiqkJluQabK-zPnv0IXSuSGVI9BcWXIWgm63gBLcxm0AF2VtDgLY5Q75TY6rsdcyKD4VTSCQdukxOdFwpX2TVoqV8MTW52fkF5_yFbMUwcTUJ9DGSP3STTsEubJ6A/s800/service_quality_bar_graph.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="456" data-original-width="800" height="340" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo70CxqT0JYkSy8lIKvYxy94RYocknUlU0260eAOkAvP-19mSRh2heXdK6TGxOqMiqkJluQabK-zPnv0IXSuSGVI9BcWXIWgm63gBLcxm0AF2VtDgLY5Q75TY6rsdcyKD4VTSCQdukxOdFwpX2TVoqV8MTW52fkF5_yFbMUwcTUJ9DGSP3STTsEubJ6A/w596-h340/service_quality_bar_graph.png" width="596" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bar graph of the relative service quality improvement of Caltrain capital projects<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Here are some key takeaways:</p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Grade separation projects do not improve train service. Exceedingly rarely, they do prevent a train delay, something that is not captured in this analysis. On the basis of the time metrics of a typical trip, however, the service improvement of grade separations is ZERO. This should factor strongly into how many billions we are collectively willing to spend on them <i>relative to the other capital improvements discussed here</i>.<br /> <br /></li><li>The benefits of electrification alone (without other improvements) are mediocre at best. On the basis of our time metrics, service quality is only improved by about 11% relative to an equivalent diesel scenario. Caltrain can't just finish the electrification project and call it good enough.<br /> <br /></li><li>The Redwood City hub station now in the planning stages is surprisingly beneficial to service quality. While packaged and sold as a grade separation with a bonus of expanding the train station, it is hard to overstate the service quality benefit of the new hub station. Even as planned by Caltrain (with two-track approaches from the north and south) the new station produces nearly as much service improvement as the entire electrification project.<br /> <br /></li><li>The Redwood City hub station as planned by Caltrain with two-track approaches is operationally ineffective. It can be juiced up to 1.7x more benefit to service quality by making it the center of a four-track overtake facility spanning just three stations: San Carlos, Redwood City and a new Fair Oaks infill station at 5th Ave. The southern portion of this four-track facility already exists today. Together with 4-track approaches, the Redwood City hub improves service quality by a greater proportion than the entire electrification project! That's why it is critical that planning for the Redwood City grade separations allow for four tracks throughout.<br /> <br /></li><li>Level boarding provides over half the service quality improvement of electrification, and is likely to be a much cheaper capital investment. However, it makes sense to do it after the hub station.<br /> <br /></li><li>The downtown extension in San Francisco will be a game changer for service quality. The transportation industrial complex knows this and <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2021/09/down-tubes-with-dtx.html">will make us pay dearly</a> for the DTX project. However, the additional billions for the PAX (Pennsylvania Avenue Extension, a city-desired grade separation) add absolutely nothing to service quality, and should never be allowed to be bundled with the DTX project. Every capital dollar should improve service quality.<br /> <br /></li><li>The Redwood City hub station (with four tracks, not two!) is worth one fourth of the service benefit of the DTX. That means we should (a) not be shy about spending capital dollars to build it and (b) stop selling it as a grade separation, because that isn't the story here-- it should be about a new infill station, seamless transfers, and better service quality system-wide.<br /></li></ol><p>As always, the analysis provided here can be quibbled with and improved upon, and you are encouraged to "do your own research" by trying out your own service patterns in the Taktulator.<br /></p>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com29tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-81905797417125730112022-03-13T15:08:00.004-07:002022-03-19T19:48:36.622-07:00News Roundup, March 2022<p>It's been a while since the last post, but fear not this blog is still alive.<b><br /></b></p><p><b>Caltrain's First Major Accident</b>: on Thursday 10 March 2022, a southbound train was <a href="https://twitter.com/Texosporium/status/1501991547557974018" target="_blank">unable to stop</a> before ramming into at least two rail-going flatbed crane trucks being used by an electrification construction crew. 13 people were injured with five requiring hospital treatment; thankfully there was no loss of life. With the new positive train control (PTC) system in place, this collision should never have happened. The fact that it did has drawn scrutiny from the National Transportation Safety Board, which dispatched an investigation team to the site of the accident in San Bruno. The causes of such accidents are often multiple, subtle, and complex, and it will take more than a year to assemble the evidence, identify root causes, and draw out lessons learned. NTSB staff reported some preliminary points at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFQH5zAHSlQ">a press conference</a> on March 11th:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The impact occurred at approximately 60 mph and the train came to a stop over a distance of over 500 feet.<br /></li><li>The PTC system is designed to prevent train incursions into established work zones.<br /></li><li>The PTC system was on and active on the accident train.<br /></li></ul><p>While we should be wary of speculation, it is possible to discuss additional relevant points:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Train 506 was due to depart Millbrae at 10:34 AM. If as stated the accident occurred just before 10:40 AM, then the train was several minutes behind schedule.<br /></li><li>The head end of the train stopped at milepost 11.9, so impact occurred at about milepost 11.8.</li><li>Milepost 11.8 is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9xHCVtx_8&t=4360s" target="_blank">adjacent to a staging area</a> on the west side of the tracks that is used by the electrification contractor.<br /></li><li>The location is less than a mile south of San Bruno curve, one of the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/01/top-10-worst-curves.html">sharpest curves</a> on the entire peninsula rail corridor. The train would have traversed this curve no faster than the PTC-enforced maximum speed of 65 mph before accelerating again towards 79 mph after the curve.</li><li>The humped vertical profile of the San Bruno grade separation would have obstructed the train crew's view of the work crew's trucks until about milepost 11.1, at San Bruno Avenue.<br /></li><li>At an average of 65 mph, the 0.7 miles from the point of initial visibility to the point of impact would have gone by in just under 40 seconds.<br /></li><li>The 1.25% downhill grade towards the impact point would not have helped the train's emergency braking performance.</li></ul><p>Unanswered questions include why were the construction vehicles and the train on the same track, why did the PTC system not prevent the collision, and whether there have ever been other near misses over the past several years of electrification construction. The NTSB report will tell.<br /></p><p>May everyone hurt by this accident make a full recovery.</p><p><b>More Electrification Delays</b>: while pole foundations are done, everything else is behind and slipping even from the new delayed schedule. The monthly reports for the project have been significantly abbreviated. The long pole in the tent is the grade crossing warning system, and it just so happens that the new program manager at Caltrain previously managed Denver's electrification project and has direct and personal experience with overcoming the great <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2018/12/grade-crossing-trouble-ahead.html">Denver grade crossing fiasco</a>. From the December report to January, overhead contact system completion has slipped by 4 months. Oddly, after years of study and paying a nine-figure amount to PG&E for substation upgrades, the project is still embroiled in back-and-forth with the utility over how the large single-phase loads of accelerating and braking electric trains might throw the electric grid out of balance. One thing is clear, PG&E knows just how hard to squeeze Caltrain.<br /></p><p><b>Electric Train Modifications</b>: feature by feature, the EMUs are being downgraded to act like an old Bombardier bilevel train. The first EMU trainsets, numbers 3 and 4, are due in California <strike>sometime in April</strike> March 19th. They will sport two noteworthy changes not seen in any official photos or renderings. The upper set of doors have been sealed off (likely permanently) with window plug panels, and the automatic couplers have been downgraded to old-school AAR knuckle couplers.</p><p><b>Governance Politics</b>: the three-county custody fight over Caltrain rages unabated, sucking all the oxygen away from critical planning for what comes after electrification. Momentum for the <a href="https://caltrain2040.org/" target="_blank">business plan effort</a> seems to have stalled entirely. The two key upgrades yet to come are level boarding and a four-track elevated grade separation throughout downtown Redwood City, neither of which are being sufficiently attended to while the board's attention is fixated on questions of power and influence.</p><p><b>CBOSS Dumpster Fire Update</b>: speaking of fires and PTC, the CBOSS case is still making its way through San Mateo County Superior Court (under case file 17CIV00786). Last year, Caltrain and Parsons (the CBOSS prime contractor) agreed to stop fighting each other and ganged up against Alstom (formerly GE Transportation Systems), the supplier of the flawed CBOSS software. Ten years after contract award, six years after breach of contract, and five years after lawsuits started flying, the case is coming close enough to trial that the parties have each prepared a trial brief that very nicely summarizes the making of this fiasco from their respective viewpoints. Here are hot-off-the-press direct links to the <a href="https://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/17-CIV-00786_Trial_Brief_PCJPB_Parsons.pdf">Caltrain & Parsons Trial Brief</a> and the <a href="https://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/17-CIV-00786_Trial_Brief_Alstom.pdf">Alstom Trail Brief</a>.</p><p><b>Update 3/19 - Board Workshop on Caltrain Finances</b>: the slide deck for the upcoming board workshop to discuss what to do about the railroad's new fiscal reality (high fixed costs and only ~1/3 of the usual farebox revenue) is <a href="https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Board+Workshop+PowerPoint.pdf" target="_blank">now posted</a>. What is most remarkable is what is <i>not </i>in the slides, which are basically a giant shrug <span>¯\_(ツ)_/¯</span> in the face of the deficit forecasts shown in slide 46. If this is truly an existential fiscal emergency, one wonders why the cost of assistant conductors is not on the budget negotiating table. In 2019, the cost of assistant conductors was <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-cost-of-conductors.html">$7 million/year</a>, and has since grown proportionally with more train service and annual pay raises, likely to about $8.5 million/year for 2022. With a further service increase to 116 trains/day when electrification begins, the cost of assistant conductors will exceed $10 million/year in 2025. While Caltrain is vulnerable to its labor unions and reluctant to raise such a sensitive matter, the time has come for the second conductor to follow the fate of other redundant and obsolete train crew positions such as fireman and brakeman.<br /></p><p><b>Battery EMUs</b>: from the "are you insane?" department comes a minor bullet point on slide 59 of the same packet, where an area of focus for FY23 is to "Advance sustainability through completion of PCEP and further exploration of potential for battery EMUs." Please don't. The whole point of PCEP and EMUs is to not be seduced by world-unique technical solutions and to not haul around many tons of battery dead weight. The only area that needs focus is to further explore the provenance of this shockingly idiotic idea.<br /></p>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com37tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-45682726066883362592021-09-19T20:06:00.002-07:002021-09-19T20:06:30.315-07:00Down the Tubes with DTX!<p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHvQZft3YVE2gHm6QG6EC-80_S95MxePxQ6nTL9njfynBMag0FtSM8CbE14io5p7xH19srRPFoPftcVGHEDLweuckLDP2UGEHn8MXNOtjcqCRN0hmVG7Sd8b-qfsd4JdG0P7SGvMub8sCA/s1494/dtx_overview.JPG" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="838" data-original-width="1494" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHvQZft3YVE2gHm6QG6EC-80_S95MxePxQ6nTL9njfynBMag0FtSM8CbE14io5p7xH19srRPFoPftcVGHEDLweuckLDP2UGEHn8MXNOtjcqCRN0hmVG7Sd8b-qfsd4JdG0P7SGvMub8sCA/w320-h179/dtx_overview.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">DTX overview<br /></td></tr></tbody></table>San Francisco's Downtown Rail Extension project (DTX), officially known as the <a href="https://tjpa.org/project/downtown-rail-extension" target="_blank">Transbay Transit Center Program Phase 2</a>, is a two-mile tunneling project to extend the peninsula rail corridor from its existing terminus in the Mission Bay neighborhood to the purpose-built basement "train box" of the Salesforce Transit Center (SFC). The project is regionally important, as there are more jobs located
within a half-mile radius of the SFC than within a half-mile radius of
<a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2013/10/census-driven-service-planning.html">all Caltrain stops combined</a>, from 4th and King all the way to Gilroy. The DTX is nearly shovel-ready, in the sense that environmental clearance is in hand and engineering is being advanced to award construction contracts the moment a key ingredient becomes available: money. Gobs and gobs of money. <p></p><p><b>Too Big To Fail</b><br /></p><p></p><p>The last time the costs of the Phase 2 project were tallied in 2016, the total came to $3.9 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars assuming a 2025 opening. Due to delays, we can anticipate at least another five years of escalation at 5%, bringing us to $5 billion before any changes to the project scope. One can reasonably expect that Bay Area transit agencies' proven inability to deliver mega-projects on budget or on time is quite likely to blow up costs well beyond these figures. As a recent example, the Phase 1 project, completed in 2019, cost $2.4 billion (year-of-expenditure) or about 50% more than the <a href="https://www.tjpa.org/uploads/2010/05/Item7_Revised-Baseline-Budget-Funding-Schedule-Certifying-Funds-with-presentation.pdf" target="_blank">$1.6 billion YOE budget of May 2010</a>, adopted after the train box scope was added.<br /></p><p>The DTX project's regional, state and national significance is certainly
not lost on our Transportation Industrial Complex. To improve the chances of getting the Phase 2 project federally funded (after which any cost growth becomes easier to fund, following former SF mayor Willie Brown's "<a href="https://district5diary.blogspot.com/2013/07/willie-brown-dig-hole-and-fill-it-with.html" target="_blank">theory of holes</a>"), the TJPA is undertaking a phasing study to make the project appear more thrifty. The various approaches include <a href="https://tjpa.org/uploads/2021/09/Item11_Phase-2-Phasing-Study.pdf" target="_blank">deferring or deleting</a> components of the project, such as a pedestrian connector to BART, an intercity bus facility, and an extension of the basement train box. This nibbling around the edges amounts to $0.4 billion in 2027 dollars or about 8% of the total Phase 2 project cost, a drop in the bucket.</p><p>A <a href="https://tjpa.org/uploads/2021/09/Item12_Approval-to-Request-Entry-to-FTA-Project-Development.pdf" target="_blank">$30 million project development study</a> is now in the pipeline to get Phase 2 to the state of readiness required to apply for federal New Starts funding by August 2023.</p><p><b>PAX: The World's Most Expensive Grade Separation</b><br /></p><p>If you thought the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-exploding-cost-of-grade-separations.html">cost of grade separations is exploding</a>, you really haven't seen anything yet: meet the Pennsylvania Avenue Extension (PAX) addendum to the DTX, a grade separation project that will approach $2 billion for two crossings, reaching the stratospheric cost of $1 billion per crossing.<br /></p><p>Even after spending $5 billion (before inevitable cost overruns), the DTX project will leave two existing street crossings at grade, at Mission Bay Drive and 16th Street. Not to be outdone, the city and county of San Francisco has performed a methodical series of <a href="https://sfplanning.org/railyard-alternatives-and-benefits-study" target="_blank">planning studies</a> to conclude that a new grade separation project is needed. Rather than taking on the challenge of <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2014/01/focus-on-mission-bay-grade-separations.html">bending some design rules to keep it simple and make it fit</a>, the favored paint-by-numbers engineering solution is a bored tunnel, which averts any conflict with a planned 27-foot sewer pipe and the sacrosanct pile foundations of the I-280 viaduct, each of which are under the jurisdiction of other agencies. The combined cost of DTX + PAX is <a href="https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/2018/2018-08-02+-+RAB+study+revised.pdf" target="_blank">estimated at $6.0 billion</a>. Take away the latest (2016) $3.9 billion cost estimate of DTX and you get about $2 billion added for PAX.</p><p><b>Link21 Crashes the Party</b><br /></p><p>Meanwhile, BART is in the early planning stages for beefing up its throughput capacity between the greater East Bay and San Francisco, with a second Transbay Tube. It's worth pausing for a moment to consider what an astonishing piece of infrastructure the first Transbay Tube already is: it carries <a href="https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20Congested%20Corridors%20Application.pdf" target="_blank">almost twice as many people</a> during rush hour as the entire ten-lane freeway that is the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge, and at significantly faster speeds. Looking past the pandemic, long-term growth trends indicate that the region must plan for a second Transbay Tube.</p><p>Transbay Tube II is the centerpiece of an enormous regional rail program known as <a href="https://link21program.org/en" target="_blank">Link21</a>, the scale and ambition of which dwarf the DTX. While there are many decisions yet to be made about the implementation details of Link21, perhaps the most critical decision centers on what technology to put in the tube: wide-gauge BART, standard-gauge regional rail, or both. <br /></p><p>This question is already of great concern to TJPA, which writes in its <a href="https://tjpa.org/uploads/2021/09/Item11_Phase-2-Phasing-Study.pdf#page=14" target="_blank">August 20, 2021 Phasing Study</a>:<br /></p><blockquote><p><i>BART and Capitol Corridor’s Link21 program is currently in the early stages of development and has not yet determined a preferred alignment, technology, or rail gauge options to meet their goals and objectives for a future transbay rail crossing. As expected at this stage of development, all options remain available for consideration. For example, Link21 may determine that a second transbay crossing best meets stakeholder needs if it provides additional capacity for the BART network only and does not provide a standard gauge rail crossing of the Bay. BART’s infrastructure and trainset design, however, are incompatible with Caltrain and CHSRA standards. Most significantly, BART operates on a wider track gauge with vehicles that may not meet collision requirements, and therefore a BART-only connection would not relieve congestion and conflicts on the DTX.</i> <br /></p></blockquote><p>We can already see a problematic mindset emerging here, where "BART" is automatically conflated with "five-foot-six track gauge," setting up a false dichotomy of BART-or-standard-gauge. </p><p><b>Caltrain + BART: a Necessary Merger</b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhicCiRxBfGSqrwx1Y4cd1571AS5NUKs4xyIGDLWbOiiED-EKmytcMqzCvdYRGtqi57XJNXFT9wMaCqQ-bQ7bTqyvCrlCo08WOB49pO3nBb9Yg8zASp-FRDAij3fzdD7B-eOzCLBjwvU-g-/s1500/bart_emu_palo_alto_medium_format.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="896" data-original-width="1500" height="191" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhicCiRxBfGSqrwx1Y4cd1571AS5NUKs4xyIGDLWbOiiED-EKmytcMqzCvdYRGtqi57XJNXFT9wMaCqQ-bQ7bTqyvCrlCo08WOB49pO3nBb9Yg8zASp-FRDAij3fzdD7B-eOzCLBjwvU-g-/s320/bart_emu_palo_alto_medium_format.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>The
false dichotomy of BART-or-standard-gauge threatens to poison the
debate around Link21 alternatives. The Transportation Industrial Complex
has a vested interest in this incompatibility, as it ultimately forces
multiple mega-projects to be built. Why build it right when you can
build it twice and get paid twice? From the standpoint of scope and
profit maximization, it would then make sense to keep DTX and Link21 as
separate projects, despite their overlapping purpose and need to link
the greater Bay Area megaregion together using high-capacity passenger
rail infrastructure. Seamless integration is good for riders and
taxpayers, but not so great for consultants and civil engineering
mega-firms. That's why these firms have an interest in propagating the
myth that BART and standard gauge rail will always be mutually
exclusive.<p>Removing this false dichotomy is becoming a primary
reason for merging Caltrain with BART to form a single Bay Area Rapid
Transit system, although there are <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2020/05/pandemic-open-thread.html">many other reasons</a>.
BART does not have to be synonymous with wide gauge; indeed, BART
already operates a seamless standard-gauge extension between Pittsburg
and Antioch, and provides day-to-day management of the standard-gauge
Capitol Corridor. A new BART peninsula line, while indistinguishable
from Caltrain's service vision, would suck the air out of the emerging
pointless debate around the track gauge of the second BART transbay
crossing. The Measure RR sales tax can serve as a dowry to integrate San
Mateo and Santa Clara counties into a restructured BART district.<br /></p>Link21, to its credit, places <a href="https://link21program.org/en/program/equity" target="_blank">equity and inclusion</a>
at the forefront of its project development process. The contrast with
DTX is jarring, as TJPA's Phase 2 project can easily be viewed as just
another gold-plated white-collar rail project enabling nine-to-five
technology and finance types to more conveniently access San
Francisco's skyscrapers from the affluent suburbs to the south, without ever having to
mix with the blue-collar working class. Bringing DTX under the Link21
umbrella, and merging Caltrain into BART, immediately defuses the
classism and racism that underlies this anachronistic Mad Men commuter
rail vibe.<p> </p><p><b>Transbay Through Running</b> <br /></p><p>A stub-end terminal station suffers from fundamental throughput limits related to long turn times and the unavoidable crossing streams of inbound and outbound traffic in the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2012/12/transbay-update.html">station approach or "throat."</a> For a given number of platform tracks, a through-running station configuration where all trains that come in one end of the station can exit the other end will always provide more throughput capacity, whether measured in trains per hour or passengers per hour. Trains don't have to dwell any longer than necessary at a platform, and don't foul opposing traffic on their way in or out.<br /></p><p>With the DTX as it is, past operational analysis indicated that just 12 inbound and outbound trains per hour (8 Caltrain + 4 HSR) would push the limits of the terminus design, with near-saturated platform occupancy. If you uncork the other end of the train box (by having Caltrans clear some right of way i.e. dismantle and redevelop a couple of medium-rise buildings to the East) so that the DTX can connect directly to a new transbay crossing, everything changes. A lot of new capacity is created by virtue of not having to layover or turn trains right smack where your platforms and track real estate is the most expensive.</p><p>A recent <a href="https://tjpa.org/uploads/2021/09/Item5_Through-Running-Operations-Analysis-to-Accom.-a-Potential-Future-East-Bay-Connection.pdf" target="_blank">through running operations analysis</a> commissioned by the TJPA shows that the Salesforce Transit Center could handle up to 20 trains per hour per direction if no more than six of them turn at the station. Any more than six turning movements, and the excessively long platform re-occupancy times (as the study notes, due to the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2012/12/transbay-update.html">poor layout of the switches</a> leading to tracks 1-4) will reduce throughput capacity to less than 20 trains/hour.<br /></p><p><b>Broken Assumptions at Link21</b><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQdmSIqsPScGy3kija0JzOAvdjY9No0HEUdMOMGq95bvDYU_3U10dPresaeah2bDsDyAqiWLp0jM7YhGNa-ActA6Ti5G4djXkYxAt1wecs5B2wDgUUIRi6hc35aiyTHMjBAqUclIxmF-BL/s400/no_parking.gif" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="271" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQdmSIqsPScGy3kija0JzOAvdjY9No0HEUdMOMGq95bvDYU_3U10dPresaeah2bDsDyAqiWLp0jM7YhGNa-ActA6Ti5G4djXkYxAt1wecs5B2wDgUUIRi6hc35aiyTHMjBAqUclIxmF-BL/w136-h200/no_parking.gif" width="136" /></a></div>The TJPA phasing study reports the following direct quote attributed to Link21 project team:<p></p><blockquote><p><i>We have received briefings on the operational modeling for DTX and it would seem that even a three-bay DTX tunnel poses operational constraints. A robust service level through the transbay crossing is required to justify investment into Link21. Link21 is envisioning scenarios where not all trains that cross the Bay would continue to San Jose. At this point, there is no other location to turn trains around in the northern peninsula which makes flexibility in DTX important to the Link21 Program.</i><br /></p></blockquote><p>You read that right: the Link21 team is thinking of turning Capitol Corridor trains at the Salesforce Transit Center, a completely American idea (copied straight from Penn Station New York) that is operationally insane if you think about it for even a minute. In a through-running configuration, all trains that cross the Bay should stop in downtown San Francisco and <i>get out immediately</i>. The California High Speed Rail Authority is planning a huge yard in Brisbane, a perfect place to clean, service and layover Capitol Corridor trains. These deadhead (non-revenue) moves are much less wasteful of infrastructure capacity than treating a through-running station as a terminal.<br /></p><p> As was remarked in previous discussions regarding <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2017/01/san-jose-done-right.html">San Jose</a>, the act of parking or laying over trains at a station platform is the railroad
equivalent of parking an empty truck in the middle of a bustling loading
zone, and then concluding that the loading zone fails to function
adequately. Just stop it, don't even think of turning trains here!<br /></p><p><b>The Bottom Line</b></p><p>Here are the pros and cons of merging DTX with Link21:<b><br /></b></p>
<table border="1" bordercolor="#888" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; border-color: rgb(136, 136, 136); border-width: 1px;"><tbody><tr><td style="min-width: 60px;"><b> Pro<br /></b></td><td style="min-width: 60px;"><b> Con</b></td></tr><tr><td> Eliminates silly idea of a multi-gauge transbay tube project</td><td> Could further delay DTX, since Link21 is at an earlier stage of development<br /></td></tr><tr><td> Increases SFC throughput capacity and bang-for-buck, making the enormous cost of DTX worth it<br /></td><td> Exposes DTX to political re-prioritization<br /></td></tr><tr><td> Provides faster Peninsula - East Bay connections than existing BART, and finally "Rings the Bay with BART"<br /></td><td> Greatly reduces scope and profits for Transportation Industrial Complex<br /></td></tr><tr><td> Makes more efficient use of taxpayer dollars by building one project and building it right<br /></td><td> Requires inter-agency coordination and mergers, which agencies abhor<br /></td></tr><tr><td>Provides seamless regional rail connection from SJ and SF to Sacramento, if Capitol Corridor is electrified<br /></td><td> <br /></td></tr></tbody></table>
<p>Despite the obvious political and organizational obstacles, from the point of view of a rider and taxpayer, the pros vastly outweigh the cons. The answer is then obvious: the DTX should go down the tubes of a new standard gauge Link21 crossing, with Stadler bi-level EMUs operated by BART seamlessly connecting the peninsula corridor (a.k.a. the new BART Purple Line) directly to Oakland and points beyond. DTX should be built without delay and form the first building block of Link21.<br /></p>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com145San Francisco, CA, USA37.7749295 -122.41941559.4646956638211535 -157.5756655 66.085163336178852 -87.2631655tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-8586546135565471122021-09-05T21:12:00.001-07:002021-09-05T21:17:36.436-07:00August 2021 Timetable Review<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=750&height=500&period=120&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+202109+Peak&t1t=F40-79MPH&t1=.900.40.....40...40..40...40..40.40...40.40..40..900.&t1d=-&t1h=60&t1l=Limited+5&t1s=14&t1n=43&t1c=500050&t1p=20&t1f=A&t2t=F40-79MPH&t2=.900.40..40.40.40.40..40.40.40.40.40.40.40..40.60.40.40.40.40.40.40..90.900&t2d=-&t2h=60&t2l=Local+1+off-peak&t2s=38&t2n=48&t2c=FF0010&t2p=20&t2f=A&t3t=F40-79MPH&t3=.900.30..30.30.30.30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.30.30.30.30.30.240.30..90.900&t3d=&t3h=60&t3l=Local+1+Lawrence&t3s=39&t3n=48&t3c=FF0010&t3p=20&t3f=A&t4t=F40-79MPH&t4=.1200.45..45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..60.1200&t4d=-&t4h=60&t4l=Limited+2&t4s=0&t4n=0&t4c=2000FF&t4p=20&t4f=A&t5t=F40-79MPH&t5=.900......40.....40.40..40..40.40.40.40.40.40.40...40.900&t5d=&t5h=60&t5l=Limited+3&t5s=32&t5n=16&t5c=30FF00&t5p=20&t5f=A&t6t=F40-79MPH&t6=.600.40....40.40..40.40....40.40...40...40.40..40..60.900&t6d=&t6h=60&t6l=Limited+4&t6s=12&t6n=38&t6c=40FFFF&t6p=20&t6f=A&t7t=F40-79MPH&t7=.1200.45..45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..60.1200&t7d=-&t7h=60&t7l=Limited+6&t7s=0&t7n=0&t7c=6000FF&t7p=20&t7f=A&t8t=F40-79MPH&t8=.900.60.....60.....60...60...60...60.....900.&t8d=s&t8h=60&t8l=Limited+7+22nd&t8s=6&t8n=-1&t8c=FF77FF&t8p=20&t8f=A&t9t=F40-79MPH&t9=.900......180.....60...60...60...60.....900.&t9d=n&t9h=60&t9l=Limited+7+no+22nd&t9s=6&t9n=-0.5&t9c=FF77FF&t9p=20&t9f=A&t10t=NONE&t10=900...........................900&t10d=&t10h=30&t10l=&t10s=10&t10n=5&t10c=000000&t10p=10&t10f=&t11t=NONE&t11=900...........................900&t11d=&t11h=30&t11l=&t11s=10&t11n=5&t11c=000000&t11p=10&t11f=&return=basic" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="250" data-original-width="400" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgncYhduA43pOpYXA6zHXpxtiDJk1XI5Y7mqhOgeZHuNqhvTQBAUCmvdL4L9PHRxmrAe-Fq6Htmm7isiLO6SxK1lHHlk9lPWWZeUWpMZ6WVqEh1hWGjga4ay5besnSZaDJuvKcUw8UM5UaZ/w200-h125/string_chart_2021.png" width="200" /></a></div>Caltrain was recently returned to more or less full service, with a timetable that is supposedly simpler (with a claim of just five stopping patterns) and features 104 trains per weekday, the most ever. Let's take a closer look using our <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php" target="_blank">handy taktulator</a>, which assigns a timetable a score based on frequency and connectivity. The formulation of the service quality metrics underlying the scores is described <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2012/10/formulation-of-service-quality-metric.html">here</a>.<p></p><p>Caltrain's <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=750&height=500&period=120&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+202109+Peak&t1t=F40-79MPH&t1=.900.40.....40...40..40...40..40.40...40.40..40..900.&t1d=-&t1h=60&t1l=Limited+5&t1s=14&t1n=43&t1c=500050&t1p=20&t1f=A&t2t=F40-79MPH&t2=.900.40..40.40.40.40..40.40.40.40.40.40.40..40.60.40.40.40.40.40.40..90.900&t2d=-&t2h=60&t2l=Local+1+off-peak&t2s=38&t2n=48&t2c=FF0010&t2p=20&t2f=A&t3t=F40-79MPH&t3=.900.30..30.30.30.30..30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.30.30.30.30.30.240.30..90.900&t3d=&t3h=60&t3l=Local+1+Lawrence&t3s=39&t3n=48&t3c=FF0010&t3p=20&t3f=A&t4t=F40-79MPH&t4=.1200.45..45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..60.1200&t4d=-&t4h=60&t4l=Limited+2&t4s=0&t4n=0&t4c=2000FF&t4p=20&t4f=A&t5t=F40-79MPH&t5=.900......40.....40.40..40..40.40.40.40.40.40.40...40.900&t5d=&t5h=60&t5l=Limited+3&t5s=32&t5n=16&t5c=30FF00&t5p=20&t5f=A&t6t=F40-79MPH&t6=.600.40....40.40..40.40....40.40...40...40.40..40..60.900&t6d=&t6h=60&t6l=Limited+4&t6s=12&t6n=38&t6c=40FFFF&t6p=20&t6f=A&t7t=F40-79MPH&t7=.1200.45..45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..60.1200&t7d=-&t7h=60&t7l=Limited+6&t7s=0&t7n=0&t7c=6000FF&t7p=20&t7f=A&t8t=F40-79MPH&t8=.900.60.....60.....60...60...60...60.....900.&t8d=s&t8h=60&t8l=Limited+7+22nd&t8s=6&t8n=-1&t8c=FF77FF&t8p=20&t8f=A&t9t=F40-79MPH&t9=.900......180.....60...60...60...60.....900.&t9d=n&t9h=60&t9l=Limited+7+no+22nd&t9s=6&t9n=-0.5&t9c=FF77FF&t9p=20&t9f=A&t10t=NONE&t10=900...........................900&t10d=&t10h=30&t10l=&t10s=10&t10n=5&t10c=000000&t10p=10&t10f=&t11t=NONE&t11=900...........................900&t11d=&t11h=30&t11l=&t11s=10&t11n=5&t11c=000000&t11p=10&t11f=&return=basic" target="_blank">2021 peak hour timetable</a> achieves a score of <b>only 96</b>, meaning the service is slightly worse than the taktulator's baseline, the <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?title=Caltrain%202011%20PM&t1t=F40-79MPH&t1h=60&t1s=0&t1n=33&t1c=000000&t1p=10&t1d=n&t1f=5&t1l=PM+NB+39&t1=.900.45.....45...45....45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.300.45..45.900&t2t=F40-79MPH&t2h=60&t2s=0&t2n=25&t2c=f03580&t2p=10&t2d=n&t2f=5&t2l=PM+NB+25&t2=.900.45.....45........45..45....45.....900.&t3t=F40-79MPH&t3h=60&t3s=0&t3n=45&t3c=ff0000&t3p=10&t3d=n&t3f=5&t3l=PM+NB+45&t3=.900.45.....45.....45......45...45.....900.&t4t=F40-79MPH&t4h=60&t4s=0&t4n=31&t4c=808000&t4p=10&t4d=n&t4f=5&t4l=PM+NB+31&t4=.900.....35...35.35..35..35...35.35...35..35...900.&t5t=F40-79MPH&t5h=60&t5s=0&t5n=58&t5c=d0d000&t5p=10&t5d=n&t5f=5&t5l=PM+NB+05&t5=.900.35..300.35.35.35..35.35.35.35.35.35.55...45......45..90.900&t6t=F40-79MPH&t6h=60&t6s=33&t6n=0&t6c=f03580&t6p=10&t6d=s&t6f=5&t6l=PM+SB+33&t6=.900......150...45.....45...45....45....150.900&t7t=F40-79MPH&t7h=60&t7s=27&t7n=0&t7c=d0d000&t7p=10&t7d=s&t7f=5&t7l=PM+SB+27&t7=.900.45..300.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45....45...45..900.&t8t=F40-79MPH&t8h=60&t8s=14&t8n=0&t8c=ff0000&t8p=10&t8d=s&t8f=5&t8l=PM+SB+14&t8=.900......45.....45......45...45.....900.&t9t=F40-79MPH&t9h=60&t9s=19&t9n=0&t9c=808000&t9p=10&t9d=s&t9f=5&t9l=PM+SB+19&t9=.900.....45...45.45..45..45....45.45..45.45....900.&t10t=F40-79MPH&t10h=60&t10s=56&t10n=0&t10c=000000&t10p=10&t10d=s&t10f=5&t10l=PM+SB+56&t10=.900....45..45.....45...45..45.45.45.45.45.45.300.45..120.900&start=16&period=90" target="_blank">2011 peak hour timetable</a>, which a decade ago earned our reference score of 100.</p><p><b>Why so mediocre?</b></p><p>It's mostly in the padding. Caltrain service planners have evidently given up on trying to run a tight timetable while also dealing with the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2016/05/caltrain-has-dwell-time-problem.html">debilitating variability in station dwell times</a> inflicted by the lack of level boarding. The right way to solve this problem was and remains to plan for and implement level boarding, a system upgrade that (on a per dollar basis) has even greater service benefits than electrification. The lazy way is what we see here: about 20% of extra padding is baked into the station-to-station run times, allowing a train to easily make up time and arrive "on time" in the event of a dwell time delay along the way. In the absence of a delay, trains can dawdle along even more slowly than the ancient diesel fleet could manage, and just sit at stations until the clock says it's time to go.</p><p>Back in 2005, a baby bullet express with five intermediate stops <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050626055818/http://www.caltrain.com/pdf/timetable_effective_5_2_05.pdf" target="_blank">was timetabled at 59 minutes</a>. In 2015, it was up to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150220065518/http://www.caltrain.com/schedules/weekdaytimetable.html" target="_blank">61 minutes</a>. Today, the same express runs in <a href="https://www.caltrain.com/schedules/weekdaytimetable.html" target="_blank">66 minutes</a>. This follows a pattern noted by Alon Levy on the <a href="https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/06/20/quick-note-deterioration-of-speed/" target="_blank">deterioration of speed</a>.</p><p>Another factor that explains the lower score is one fewer train per peak hour, resulting in longer intervals between trains. This helps with fleet size, where only 16 train sets (+2 spares) are needed to operate the 2021 timetable where 18 (+2) were needed before. Two more train sets are freed up for maintenance downtime, a vital bit of breathing room as Caltrain's older diesel fleet is breaking down more often. The fleet is well past its expiration date due to the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2020/08/pcep-farce-majeure.html">multi-year delays</a> in the electrification project.<br /></p><p><b>Is it optimal?</b></p><p>Can a timetable be devised that uses no more than 16 (+2) train sets and scores better than 96? Why yes it can. Here is a <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=750&height=500&period=120&start=7&direction=&title=Silicon+Valley+Express&t1t=F40-79MPH&t1=.900.40..40.40.40.40..40.40.40.40.40.40.40..40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40..40.900&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=Local&t1s=0&t1n=-4&t1c=FF0000&t1p=15&t1f=A&t2t=F40-79MPH&t2=.900.40...40..40...40.....40..40.40.40..40.40.40.40..900.&t2d=&t2h=30&t2l=SVX&t2s=25&t2n=-4.5&t2c=0000FF&t2p=15&t2f=A&t3t=NONE&t3=900...........................900&t3d=&t3h=30&t3l=&t3s=10&t3n=5&t3c=000000&t3p=10&t3f=&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&return=basic" target="_blank">Silicon Valley Express timetable</a> that uses just 14 (+2) train sets with four trains per peak hour per direction, and<b> scores 102</b>.</p><p>Why is it better? First, it <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2013/10/census-driven-service-planning.html" target="_blank">follows census patterns</a> and puts the stops where they link the most residents and jobs, not where there is the most parking. It is more regular and has fewer gaps with long waits. While this does not figure into the service score, it makes far better utilization of the train fleet (83% of the time in revenue service, versus 70%). More efficient fleet utilization leads to fewer trains and fewer crews being needed to provide the same service, reducing labor and maintenance costs per passenger mile. All this is done without any magic: 15-minute equipment turns, comfy 40-second station dwells and a slightly less absurd padding level of 15%. There are zero overtakes, so fewer opportunities for cascading delays. Finally, this timetable is much simpler to understand for a rider, having just two service patterns.</p><p>One can only hope that despite this interim state of mediocrity, Caltrain will successfully implement its "moderate growth" service vision, which <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=800&height=800&period=60&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+Moderate+Growth+Scenario&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1=900.30.30..30.30.30..30..30.30.30..30.330..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.900&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=Caltrain+Local+1&t1s=4.5&t1n=7.5&t1c=0000FF&t1p=7&t1f=K&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=900.30.30...30..30.....30...60...30...30.30....30.900&t2d=&t2h=15&t2l=Caltrain+Express&t2s=0&t2n=3.5&t2c=FF0000&t2p=7&t2f=K&t3t=AGV-100MPH&t3=900.......120........90...........120.1&t3d=-&t3h=15&t3l=Los+Banos+HS&t3s=3&t3n=5&t3c=1EA11E&t3p=7&t3f=&t4t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t4=900.30.30..30.30.30.30..30..30.30.30..330..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=Caltrain+Local+2&t4s=18.5&t4n=22&t4c=1EA11E&t4p=10&t4f=&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&t6t=NONE&t6=900...........................900&t6d=&t6h=30&t6l=&t6s=10&t6n=5&t6c=000000&t6p=10&t6f=&return=basic" target="_blank">scores an impressive <b>240</b></a>. Getting there will require reliable 30-second dwells for which <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/search?q=level+boarding&max-results=20&by-date=false">level boarding</a> is a must.<br /></p><p><i>Credit to Richard Mlynarik who did the time-consuming part of this analysis.</i><br /></p>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-41681067568542002582021-05-09T12:11:00.005-07:002021-05-09T12:11:54.242-07:00The Exploding Cost of Grade Separations<p>Recently, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority prepared a <a href="https://www.smcta.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/TA/Board+of+Directors/Presentations/2021/$!2314a+-+Presentation+-+Grade+Separation+Program+Update+-+added+1-4-2021.pdf" target="_blank">grade separation program update</a>, discussing past and future projects. What immediately jumps out of this document, and others published by Caltrain, is the exploding cost of grade separation projects. The project budgets are shooting through the roof, vastly outpacing inflation. Typical of this cost explosion is the Broadway grade separation in Burlingame, which will grade-separate a single intersection at the eye-watering cost of $327 million.<br /></p><p><b>Cost Modeling of Historical Grade Separation Projects</b></p><p>With the SMCTA slides giving cost data for past and current projects along the Caltrain corridor, it is fairly straightforward to assemble a simple model of grade separation project component costs. All figures are inflated to 2020 dollars before fitting, and we break out unit quantities for each project of the following project components: fully elevated rail over road crossings, split (partially elevated) rail over road crossings, trenched road under rail crossings, pedestrian tunnels, stations, and the number of miles of corridor where the track elevation was changed. With all those quantities broken out for each project, we can fit <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQMh3l0Pg9S6ocOlUZoaoVSjFjO285PG85O2Zp_B8v0e-IkTtomepAttAHpouUP3OcuV7TxAbVAreIW/pubhtml" target="_blank">a simple model</a> that estimates the unit costs by (empirically, not rigorously) minimizing a least-squares fitting residual. The main result of this model is that projects from the mid-1990s through today consistently cost about $36 million per crossing, with not too much variation:</p><p> <iframe frameborder="0" height="606" scrolling="no" seamless="" src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQMh3l0Pg9S6ocOlUZoaoVSjFjO285PG85O2Zp_B8v0e-IkTtomepAttAHpouUP3OcuV7TxAbVAreIW/pubchart?oid=716996303&format=interactive" width="600"></iframe>
</p><p>That brings us back to Broadway in Burlingame, which according to this model <i>should </i>cost only a third of the price tag of $327 million. That's right, even including two pedestrian tunnels and a new station, the entire Broadway project should cost no more than $100 million. This factor-of-three discrepancy raises some serious questions about how this project is being engineered, and whether it should even proceed in its current form. One could counter that the cost model presented here is too simplistic and doesn't reflect the unique local conditions of this project, but the model does okay with predicting the cost of every past grade separation project over the last 30 years. Is this a case of over-fitting the data, or have the engineers behind this project simply lost their senses?<br /></p><p>With the most traffic of all grade crossings on the peninsula corridor and train-on-car collisions occurring on average once a year, the Broadway crossing is at the top of the state's priority list for grade separation, and we all know that you can't put a price on safety. That makes the Broadway grade separation project ripe for name-your-price taxpayer extortion.<br /></p><p><b>Insane Costs are Baked in to the Caltrain Business Plan</b></p><p>A Caltrain <a href="https://caltrain2040.org/wp-content/uploads/CBP_April_LPMG_Presentation.pdf" target="_blank">business plan presentation from 2019</a> attempted to quantify the expense of partially grade-separating the corridor for each contemplated service scenario. The cost modeling for this was even cruder than the simple spreadsheet model described above: the costs for each project were either copied and pasted directly from each city's estimates (of wildly varying quality), or a standard grade separation unit cost of $255 - $355 million per crossing was adopted. This value is up to TEN TIMES the value estimated from past and present grade separation projects, and flies directly in the face of common sense. Despite the coarseness of this spreadsheet costing exercise, the resulting grade separation costs (on the order of ten billion dollars regardless of service scenario) were passed along into the regional <a href="https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/plan-bay-area-2050" target="_blank">Plan Bay Area 2050</a> exercise.</p><p>Why have costs exploded for a project like Broadway, which has proceeded far enough into detailed design to accurately estimate construction cost?<br /></p><p><b>Cost Drivers</b></p><p><b>Utility relocation</b>. Whenever you dig, surprises happen where utilities buried underground are found elsewhere than expected. The more and deeper you dig, the more surprises you will find. Every new discovery delays or even stops construction work, running up costs. Almost every digging project undertaken by Caltrain runs into this situation. Just in the last couple of years: in South San Francisco, construction of a grade-separated pedestrian access tunnel was delayed for 17 months, at an additional cost of $10 million (and still counting!) due to utility relocation issues. In San Mateo, the 25th Avenue grade separation project, where several new crossings were dug, was delayed by over 500 days due to negotiations with Union Pacific over the relocation of fiber optic cables. Pacific Gas & Electric also had to be paid to move a high pressure gas line. The budget for utility relocation almost tripled, <a href="https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Public+Affairs/Capital_Program/25t/25thGS+JPB+Finance+Committee+25thGS+1.25.21.pdf" target="_blank">from $12 million to $32 million</a>, not counting the cost of construction delays. Meanwhile, corridor-wide, Caltrain's electrification program (while not a grade separation) is continually digging up their own brand new train control fiber optic cables, which were buried in places that don't match what the contractor said they did. This is causing <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2020/08/pcep-farce-majeure.html">many months of delay to foundation installation</a>. The matter is now tied up in court, as one of several smoldering side sagas in the big bonfire of <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2017/12/cboss-dumpster-fire-update.html">litigation over the CBOSS project</a>, still building up to a climactic jury trial in 2022.</p><p><b>Vertical curves made for freight trains</b>. Changing the vertical profile of the tracks, whether up or down, is subject to design constraints on the radius of vertical curves, or how quickly (and over what distance) the slope of the tracks is allowed to change. You might think this issue primarily affects faster passenger trains, but amazingly, the biggest culprit is <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/08/effect-of-heavy-freight.html">heavy freight</a>. Freight cars maintained to the bare-minimum standards practiced in the United States can derail at the slightest provocation, so industry track design standards are set extremely conservatively. The maximum vertical acceleration allowable for freight cars is 0.1 ft/s^2, six times less than for passenger trains. At equivalent speeds, the grade change (for example from level track to a one percent slope) must then take place over a distance six times longer than for passenger trains. If you wanted to design the vertical profile of a grade separation to the most aggressive vertical radii and shortest structure lengths allowable for passenger trains, the freight trains would have to be slowed down to 1/sqrt(6) of the passenger train speed to stay under their six times lower vertical acceleration limit. On the peninsula corridor, where we design for 110 mph passenger trains, short grade separations require that the freight trains can't go any faster than 45 mph. Unfortunately, new grade separations such as Broadway in Burlingame or downtown Redwood City are being engineered for 60 mph freight speed, which makes all the vertical curves (and bridges, embankments, trenches, etc.) almost 80% longer than they need to be for 110 mph passenger trains.<br /></p><p><b></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjABUhkVxpKAxs7WOPdD-JSrXVNncHtZOlms8fB8vTIHV6d5fEyyyiV56I_w5pBWsiuhad4WcmLwCPDe5avkGsF61_OLBgJ8xdH94HpYpebU3PZ0Udw30TE88uEeCu2x4T6f2CBM1gHQgNV/s999/crazy_bridges.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="616" data-original-width="999" height="197" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjABUhkVxpKAxs7WOPdD-JSrXVNncHtZOlms8fB8vTIHV6d5fEyyyiV56I_w5pBWsiuhad4WcmLwCPDe5avkGsF61_OLBgJ8xdH94HpYpebU3PZ0Udw30TE88uEeCu2x4T6f2CBM1gHQgNV/w320-h197/crazy_bridges.png" width="320" /></a></b></div><p><b>Vertical curves that can't overlap bridge spans</b>. Recent preliminary design drawings, such as for the Redwood City grade separations, reveal a new design constraint has been applied that does not appear in older Caltrain engineering standards. The vertical alignments are configured such that wherever the track crosses over a bridge span (as for a grade separation) there is no vertical curvature. To understand how wasteful and silly this is, ask any engineer--never mind, ask any kid: is a train bridge supposed to look like design A or design B, where this constraint has been applied so no vertical curvature exists where the tracks pass above the under-crossing? Anyone can see this design rule will blow up structure height, length, cubic yards of concrete, and of course cost. And yet, that's what we see in all the profile drawings.</p><p><b>Paint-by-Numbers Structure Depth</b>. There are well-worn preliminary engineering rules for how thick a bridge deck needs to be relative to the loads it must support and the width of a span. Blind application of these rules during preliminary engineering, when the vertical track profile is often decided, results in bridge decks that are comically deep, as measured from soffit (bottom surface of the bridge) to top-of-rail. These massive bridges result in a much higher track profile, needlessly increasing the length, height, visual impact, and cost of grade separation projects. Bridge structural forms exist that <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-u-shaped-grade-separation.html">minimize structure depth</a>, and it is often possible to shorten spans by adding support columns.<br /></p><p></p><p><b>How to build affordable grade separations</b></p><p>Here are some golden rules for designing affordable grade separations. These are rules that are clearly not being followed for Broadway, or for the Menlo Park plans, or for the downtown Redwood City plans, and directly contribute to stratospheric cost estimates for these projects.<br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>dig as little as possible. Wherever possible, go up and over.<br /></li><li>limit freight train speeds to no more than 45 mph.</li><li>allow bridge decks and vertical curves to co-mingle. <br /></li><li>from the very beginning, aggressively minimize structure depths.</li></ul><p>Another important consideration, in view of the large number of grade separation projects that will be required to advance the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2012/12/grade-separation-decadal-view.html">decadal process</a> of grade separating the peninsula rail corridor, is to standardize designs. There ought to be a small set of bridge designs that can be repeatedly adapted to each situation, using standard prefabricated structural elements. Not every project needs to be a special snowflake.<br /></p>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com89San Carlos, CA, USA37.5071591 -122.26052229.1969252638211572 -157.4167722 65.817392936178848 -87.1042722tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-82292084995312133512020-12-15T20:35:00.001-08:002020-12-15T20:35:56.543-08:00Redwood City Grade Seps: We Must Do Better<p>The first <a href="http://rwctransitplan.com/" target="_blank">preliminary engineering plans</a> for the downtown Redwood City grade separations are out. This isn't your average grade separation: it underpins the most important new piece of rail corridor infrastructure that will enable future Caltrain service to be much better than it is today. Redwood City will become the main overtaking location for Caltrain, with a cross-platform transfer between local and express trains at a new four-track station. We had previously looked at Redwood City issues and laid out the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2019/09/risk-and-opportunity-in-redwood-city.html">design values</a> that will make Redwood City a high-functioning station.<br /></p><p>There are four grade separation alternatives on offer, as described in the <a href="https://vimeo.com/484467497" target="_blank">overview video</a>:</p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Fully elevated all the way from Whipple to Highway 84</li><li>Partially elevated, in two phases, with Jefferson rebuilt in phase 1<br /></li><li>Partially elevated, in two phases, with Jefferson rebuilt in phase 2<br /></li><li>Partially elevated at Whipple, with everything else staying at grade<br /></li></ol><p>If you're going to be driving a car, the good news is that the designers have done a fantastic job with the car infrastructure, with an A+ on road and intersection design. Unfortunately, this is a grade separation first and a train station second, almost as an afterthought. It should be a train station first. To understand why, let's look 20 years ahead.</p><p><b>Better Service for Many More People</b></p><p>In 2040, which sounds futuristic but is relatively soon, rail service in Redwood City is far better than was ever imagined in the depths of the pandemic of 2020. Here's what is happening:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Frequent peninsula rail service</b>. As planned in Caltrain's <a href="https://caltrain2040.org/" target="_blank">service vision</a>, electric trains serve a vibrant downtown Redwood City with all day half-hourly service and up to eight trains per hour per direction during the morning and evening peaks, equivalent to <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2018/09/growing-caltrain-into-8-lane-freeway.html">adding 5 new lanes to Highway 101</a>. Except it's centrally located, it's quiet, it's emission-free, and it's faster than the hordes of electric autonomous cars gridlocked on 101. At the new elevated four track station, every 15 minutes, in each direction, a local and express train stop side by side on opposite edges of the same station platform. Express passengers who are going to minor destinations transfer to the local, and local passengers going to major destinations transfer to the express.<br /> <br /></li><li><b>A new station at North Fair Oaks</b>. Following the closure of Atherton station, eliminated for lack of ridership in 2020, a new Fair Oaks station has been created near Fifth Avenue and the southern end of the four-track segment through Redwood Junction. Perfectly spaced halfway between Menlo Park and downtown Redwood City, this station serves neighborhoods that are <a href="http://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/peninsula_census.pdf" target="_blank">among of the most densely populated</a> along the entire peninsula rail corridor. The 2010 census showed more than 15,000 jobs
and 35,000 historically disfavored residents within a 1-mile radius, and the area has flourished since then with new rail service. Not only is Fair Oaks a significant source of new ridership and revenue for Caltrain, but it is served with zero additional trip time and train operating cost. We will discuss below how this feat of magic is pulled off.<br /> <br /></li><li><b>New Dumbarton rail service</b>. Inaugurated in the 2030s and using a new Dumbarton rail bridge to the East Bay and beyond, fast half-hourly rail service is relieving regional congestion and making commutes more pleasant and productive. The Dumbarton rail corridor joins the peninsula rail corridor at Redwood Junction, where it merges without interference to peninsula train traffic to create an efficient transfer with Caltrain at the bustling station in downtown Redwood City.<br /> <br /></li><li><b>Statewide high speed rail service</b>. While Redwood City was not considered a viable station stop in the late 2010s when the statewide rail network was planned, in 2040 it's a no-brainer to connect to it. Redwood City's focus on growth, connectivity and equity has allowed it to outshine more ossified and backward-looking locations like Palo Alto that once embodied the dynamism and innovation of the region. For this purpose, the platforms at downtown Redwood City are 1300 feet (400 meters) long to accommodate double-length high-speed trains.<br /></li></ul><p>Focusing on the track layout, the common thread of these four improvements to rail service is the quadruple tracks through downtown Redwood City, connecting the new four track station to the four track segment at Redwood Junction / Highway 84 built at the turn of the century. These quadruple tracks enable parallel train movements into and out
of the Redwood City station, making optimal use of the <a href="http://www.tillier.net/caltrain_maps/25-TCCM-200-B.pdf" target="_blank">80-foot width</a> of the rail right of way. This four track layout brings us back to the downtown grade separation project being planned twenty years before, namely now.<br /></p><p><b>The Fatal Flaw</b> <br /></p><p>None of the Redwood City grade separation alternatives allow four tracks all the way through downtown. What's worse, the two-track layouts of all four alternatives are wasteful of the scarce and valuable downtown right of way, making no allowance for adding these critically important station approach tracks later. These tracks are required for two very important operational reasons:</p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Approach tracks allow parallel and independent train movements into and out of Redwood City from the Dumbarton rail corridor without introducing train path dependencies, and thus time keeping vulnerabilities. A train from San Jose should be able to approach the station in parallel with a train from Union City.<br /> <br /></li><li>Approach tracks allow efficient overtakes, supporting a better implementation of Caltrain's future service vision. Four tracks allow local trains to serve Fair Oaks instead of wasting six to seven minutes at Redwood City waiting for an express to overtake them. A similar operations concept is possible to the north, if San Carlos station is rebuilt with four tracks.</li></ol>We mentioned earlier that service to Fair Oaks could serve many people and generate new fare revenue in exchange for zero additional crew labor and equipment cost. How is this magic even possible? Let's compare two operating scenarios:<br /><div><p><i>Scenario A</i>. In Caltrain's <a href="https://caltrain2040.org/" target="_blank">service vision</a>, express and local trains overtake each other every 15 minutes at the downtown Redwood City station, which will have four platform tracks to allow convenient cross-platform transfers. Unfortunately, with two-track approach bottlenecks from the north and south, trains must enter and leave Redwood City sequentially. That means the local arrives first, waits three minutes for the express to catch up and arrive behind it, then waits another minute for the express dwell time, then waits another couple of minutes for the express to leave and pull far enough ahead. Only after six or seven minutes, even if everything is running perfectly on time, can the local leave Redwood City. Sitting still at a red signal is operational poison, wasting passenger time (all the
more so because the perception of delay time is magnified more than 2x by
immobility) and driving up crew labor costs ($/passenger-mile). Meanwhile, there is no rail service for Fair Oaks residents, and a long gap in Caltrain coverage between Redwood City and Menlo Park.<br /></p><p><i>Scenario B</i>. The express overtake occurs on a passing section with one or more stations served only by the local. The deceleration time, dwell time, and acceleration time associated with that extra local station stop allow the express to gain on the local while the local is being useful and providing service, instead of just sitting around for an interminable dwell at Redwood City. In the southbound direction, the local arrives in Redwood City, waits three minutes for the express to arrive, exchanges passengers, and leaves the station at the same time as the express. The two trains run side-by-side until the local stops at Fair Oaks. By the time it's ready to go again a couple of minutes later, the express is long gone and no additional waiting is required. The overtake took the same overall time (six or seven minutes) as Scenario A, but used the time productively to provide local service every 15 minutes at a new station serving 35,000 people within a 1-mile radius, at zero additional crew labor or equipment cost.<br /></p><p>Here's what the track layouts look like, with station distances roughly to scale, comparing the current condition with Scenario A (planned grade separation configuration) and Scenario B (with Fair Oaks station):</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw8eitn07h82ewJiXPNv7KEKJiweDw8LYST-gFePV_itxv4rtUg_uA6iE_iBK1kLEj6UhirFLfEByRGPoZ93hup9pkC1EJU2_zvCqGD_I6ARlpri_lRU9frKwE-jWkg2m34lLI7tdRdF19/s1047/new_redwood_city_track_layout.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1047" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw8eitn07h82ewJiXPNv7KEKJiweDw8LYST-gFePV_itxv4rtUg_uA6iE_iBK1kLEj6UhirFLfEByRGPoZ93hup9pkC1EJU2_zvCqGD_I6ARlpri_lRU9frKwE-jWkg2m34lLI7tdRdF19/w344-h400/new_redwood_city_track_layout.png" width="344" /></a></div><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>Bonus points are awarded for leaving sufficient room to run a fifth grade-separated track from the southbound tracks to the Dumbarton corridor, flying over Highway 84, as shown in the last panel. This allows seamless merging of the two corridors, without the two streams of rail traffic fouling each other on the way to and from downtown Redwood City. The right time to plan for this is now, not after we pour concrete in the wrong place, even if the funds aren't yet available and there isn't yet a viable Dumbarton project.<br /><p></p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicTWS8yrDKIAVKAdkQRfO1V0xlGDt5-T3iABXMWa1KJSMVLX62lY-K1SAbu10VXiXjE-cGijOLE4m_xuw8ZUclUKzrbYl2Z0pDHSIQCKeGZeIJoP-AhNYaO_6dQ4D7yKJ3r6dHN1SKGpfO/s1000/fair_oaks_station_layout.png" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="436" data-original-width="1000" height="175" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicTWS8yrDKIAVKAdkQRfO1V0xlGDt5-T3iABXMWa1KJSMVLX62lY-K1SAbu10VXiXjE-cGijOLE4m_xuw8ZUclUKzrbYl2Z0pDHSIQCKeGZeIJoP-AhNYaO_6dQ4D7yKJ3r6dHN1SKGpfO/w400-h175/fair_oaks_station_layout.png" title="Conceptual Fair Oaks station layout (roughly to scale)" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Layout of new Fair Oaks station, roughly to scale</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>Here's what the new Fair Oaks station might look like, near milepost 27. It's about 100 feet wide in an area where the corridor is <a href="http://www.tillier.net/caltrain_maps/27-TCCM-200-B.pdf" target="_blank">only 80 feet wide</a>, so it will require taking nine properties along William Avenue. While taking residential properties in a less advantaged neighborhood of unincorporated San Mateo County is never desirable, this must be weighed with the wider benefits to the 35,000 residents of North Fair Oaks and other neighborhoods within a one-mile radius. A narrow slice (~10 feet) of land would be required to be taken from backyards along the opposite side, to make room for the southbound platform. The site has good pedestrian and bus access via Fifth Avenue, and a new pedestrian underpass would connect Berkshire Avenue across the rail corridor, improving neighborhood connectivity. The new Fair Oaks station is very low hanging fruit that can make Caltrain serve more people more efficiently from day one of the new service vision.<p>The marginal cost of building the grade separations with the additional tracks now is small relative to doing it later, so why would we delay such an important operational improvement or waste money re-doing it twice?</p><p>Not allowing for quadruple approach tracks is the fatal flaw of the downtown Redwood City grade separation project. All the alternatives feature two-track bottlenecks that fail to
adequately support Caltrain's service vision and impair the future
Dumbarton rail corridor service, which is especially concerning because
Caltrain and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority seem to have
directly participated in the design.</p><p>Here are some other comments on the various alternatives:<br /></p><div><p><b>The Good</b><br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The roads and intersections and turn lanes and all the car stuff is perfectly designed for smooth and unimpeded car operations.<br /> </li><li>All alternatives feature the four track station, consistent with Caltrain's future service vision, which calls for Redwood City to be the location where express trains overtake local trains.<br /></li></ul><p><b>The Bad</b></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>All the bridge structures have porky structure depths, ranging up to 9 and even 17 (!!) feet. Every foot that your bridge deck is thicker is a foot that the entire edifice, including all embankments, will be taller. In this case, each extra foot of structure depth is worth about 1,500 18-wheel dump truck loads of dirt to fill the embankment one foot higher! Thicker structures also push roads to be depressed more deeply into the ground, which exponentially increases excavation and utility relocation costs. Thicker bridges at stations needlessly extend stairs and ramps. For the love of Redwood City, use <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-u-shaped-grade-separation.html">thinner structures</a>! Previous grade separations, such as the one in San Bruno, have used steel beams to keep the structure depth (from soffit to top of rail) to about 5 1/2 feet for an ~85 foot span. Through bridge designs can be even thinner. Grossly excessive concrete bridge structures as seen here are an unmistakable symptom of not caring about costs and impacts.<br /> <br /></li><li>Enormous extra costs are being incurred at the southern end of the grade separation by not allowing the vertical curve at Highway 84 to begin until north of the overpass and the existing turnout, and then limiting the grade to only 1%. This is lazy paint-by-numbers engineering that blindly applies design standards without regard to their consequences, which in this case push Chestnut Street and others much deeper underground than is necessary. If there ever was a case where an exception to Caltrain design standards was warranted, this is it. Using a 2% grade and starting the vertical curve south of Highway 84, squeezing every inch of available vertical clearance under Highway 84, will save millions. In a modified Alternative 1, Main and Maple may not even need to be sunk at all.<br /> <br /></li><li>The platforms are 900 feet long, and there may not be sufficient clearance left between the station tracks to extend them to 1300 feet (400 meters) later to support high-speed
rail service at Redwood City. While this is not in current official plans, it makes sense and it would be a shame to preclude it. There is plenty of room in the site to allow it.<br /> <br /></li><li>The station should be open underneath, not built on a filled embankment. It should allow a future Broadway light rail line to shoot straight through, right under the Caltrain platforms. As proposed, all the alternatives torpedo the city's <a href="https://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/community-development-department/planning-housing/planning-services/broadway-streetcar" target="_blank">Broadway street car</a> project.</li></ul><p><b>The Weird</b></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The vertical profiles have unusual constraints on vertical curves, seemingly not allowed over or under bridges. That is just silly and grows the embankments unnecessarily taller.<br /><br /></li><li>Hopkins Avenue should be re-connected across the tracks. It's basically a freebie to improve neighborhood connectivity.<br /> <br /></li><li>All alternatives, not just 2 and 3, should start near Howard Avenue in San Carlos, extending a four track station approach as far north of Whipple as possible. In the future, if the San Carlos station is rebuilt as a four track overtaking station, dwell times at Redwood City can be further shortened than is possible with just the Fair Oaks station, using the same overtaking principle.<br /><br /></li><li>Pennsylvania Avenue is treated as a city street,
not the encroachment on critically important railroad right of way that it actually is. It
will be needed anyway for temporary shoofly tracks during construction. The grade separation project should not give away valuable railroad right of way to automobile uses.<br /> <br /></li><li>Alternative 4, at grade, has no clear way to access the station platforms and forms an even more formidable barrier through downtown, seemingly in contradiction with project goals.<br /></li></ul>The Redwood City grade separation is about much more than just grade separating roads to make traffic flow freely. Like any project on the rail corridor, it needs to be planned and built not only such that future improvements to rail service aren't made more difficult or impractical, but to start putting in the hooks for those improvements now. The marginal costs aren't zero, but they're so much less than fixing it later. Caltrain has a deplorable track record with future-proofing grade separation designs: the San Bruno grade separation and station, just recently completed in 2014, is already officially planned to be partially demolished for the high-speed rail project to straighten out a curve that could have been built correctly in the original design (reference HSR San Francisco - San Jose project DEIR Volume 3, Alternative A, <a href="https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/san_francisco_san_jose/Draft_EIRS_FJ_V3-03_PEPD_Alternative_A_Book_A1_Composite_Plan_Profile_Typical_Sections.pdf#page=13" target="_blank">Book A1 plan and profile drawings, sheet 7</a>).</div><div> </div><div>The same kinds of silly mistakes are now starting to be made in Redwood City, with an efficient layout to facilitate express overtakes and Dumbarton service being fumbled by oblivious consultants who excel at the road details and don't seem to appreciate the rail details. When they've got a hammer, the whole world looks like a thumb.<br /></div></div>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com63Redwood City, 1 James Ave, Redwood City, CA 94063, USA37.4858239 -122.23171637.48412121603441 -122.23386176721192 37.48752658396559 -122.22957023278809tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-29516388383884234382020-09-26T16:57:00.001-07:002020-10-02T19:07:05.378-07:00Vote Yes on Measure RR<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpAPTSfevttTck_c-guDRSG-gSsytil9j2Uf5wO6M1ihDVFXrp1gsWgnmmuZdxfaNxl-5mmVkNiIRgru6RqQ9vFNtCVyw8LTuCbzfSz_v1QZU33hp547mbE581LK24m1L99N2tF0FQnYel/s484/emu_out_of_the_fog.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="484" data-original-width="452" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpAPTSfevttTck_c-guDRSG-gSsytil9j2Uf5wO6M1ihDVFXrp1gsWgnmmuZdxfaNxl-5mmVkNiIRgru6RqQ9vFNtCVyw8LTuCbzfSz_v1QZU33hp547mbE581LK24m1L99N2tF0FQnYel/w187-h200/emu_out_of_the_fog.jpg" width="187" /></a></div>
For all the criticism of Caltrain that you might have read on this blog over the last decade, you might think that my support for the upcoming Measure RR 1/8th cent sales tax measure in the three counties served by the peninsula rail corridor would be tepid at best, and that I’m no friend of Caltrain. True friends, however, aren’t measured by giving unconditional praise. True friends question things that are taken for granted and start conversations about uncomfortable subjects. I see enormous potential for the peninsula rail corridor, potential that can’t and won’t be realized without stable and predictable funding. That’s why I urge you to vote Yes on Measure RR.<br />
<br />
<b>The peninsula rail corridor is under-developed</b><br />
If a ride on Caltrain takes you back to 1985, that's no coincidence. Most of the fleet is that old, well past its sell-by date. And yet, with antiquated equipment and <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-cost-of-conductors.html">obsolete labor practices</a>, this diesel commuter railroad still manages to carry the equivalent of <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2017/08/freeway-lanes-of-caltrain.html">three freeway lanes</a>, and does so while covering a <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTa9pR8ge7hH3l1Dv3zFIzcl9lGjMbSGXtfrPrh6SgB8hSA9rYVkxx3Cv4ZFbmaphVZlTuM9RTjjn9u/pubchart?oid=802610558&format=interactive" target="_blank">greater share of its operating costs</a> (chart credit: <a href="https://twitter.com/Juan_Matute/status/1299071318327869440" target="_blank">Juan Matute</a>) than any other transit operator in California. This level of financial self-sufficiency is unheard of for any freeway, and yet billions are spent on the futile exercise of adding lanes to the Bay Area freeway network and enabling the rich to buy faster trips on express lanes at the expense of gridlock for everybody else. A dense corridor with large job centers distributed throughout is ideally suited for regional rail, and the latent capacity exists to grow Caltrain into the equivalent of more than an eight-lane freeway, except faster, quieter, less polluting, and conveniently serving city centers. This can't happen without more investment.<br />
<br />
<b>Electric regional rail is the right technology choice</b><br />
Here in Silicon Valley, we hear constantly about the next big technology leap: driverless cars, autonomous electric pods, door-to-door on-demand service hailed by an app, tunneled hyperloops, and endless promises of a clean, efficient and convenient science fiction future of seamless mobility. In that environment, it sounds positively retrograde to support what futurists often deride as 19th century technology, the same steel wheel on steel rail that first turned on the corridor in 1863. That framing misses the point: what we have here isn't a technology problem; it's a geometry problem. <a href="https://humantransit.org/2016/07/elon-musk-doesnt-understand-geometry.html" target="_blank">It takes space to move people</a>. Short of inventing teleportation, you can't solve a geometry problem with the latest Silicon Valley technology, and none of these newfangled ideas can scale to the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2017/08/freeway-lanes-of-caltrain.html">raw transportation capacity of regional rail</a>, especially on a linear corridor such as the peninsula. There is no technology on the horizon that can carry this many people, using this little space, this fast, using this little energy. Throughput capacity is measured in units of people per square meter per second per Joule, and none of the exciting new mobility tech can beat regional rail on this metric. Hyperloops and pod cars have laughable throughput, and a driverless electric car sitting in traffic or queuing for a tunnel is still just another car, consuming the same scarce resource of space. All this new mobility tech is best thought of as a capillary network that will connect to the aorta of the rail corridor, each one enhancing the other in unclogging the circulatory system of our peninsula.<br />
<br /><b>Caltrain is heading in the right direction</b><br />
This isn't the first time that Caltrain finds itself in financial distress, and the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-big-picture.html">big picture</a> remains the same as it was ten years ago. The difference now is that the agency is actively planning for a better future, with its methodical <a href="https://caltrain2040.org/" target="_blank">business planning efforts</a> showing a clarity of thought and ambition that is rare for an American transit agency. A logical plan driven by quantitative metrics is exactly the framework needed to convey and to realize the potential of the peninsula rail corridor, with a 2040 growth scenario that gradually builds on the foundation of the electrification project. A sound business plan is the seed; stable and reliable funding is the water to make it grow.<br />
<br />
<b>Much more than just a Covid bail-out</b><br />
The pandemic and the high fixed costs of operating a railroad are putting a huge financial squeeze on Caltrain right now, all the more punishing because Caltrain derives a greater share of its operating expenses from fare revenue than any other agency in California. There is little doubt that the first step if Measure RR passes will be to bond against future tax revenue to survive in the short term. But that's not the point; RR was in the works before this started, and will be needed after it ends. As the economy revitalizes and transportation demand returns, Caltrain will be packed to the rafters again. All this talk of continued work-from-home and depressed transportation demand is myopic, mistaking our current predicament for a future trend. The creativity and vitality of our region is based on co-location and face-to-face contact--if it weren't, Silicon Valley or San Francisco simply wouldn't exist. Stable funding for Caltrain will ensure that modernization and service expansion won't stall after electrification is completed, and that we won't get stuck with mediocre commuter rail, just now with pantographs on top.<br />
<br />
The reasons above come in addition to the strong arguments in support from <a href="https://www.seamlessbayarea.org/blog/vote-yes-caltrain-measure-rr" target="_blank">Seamless Bay Area</a>, <a href="https://www.greencaltrain.com/2020/09/why-vote-for-caltrain-ballot-measure-rr%ef%bb%bf/" target="_blank">Friends of Caltrain</a>, and <a href="https://sf.streetsblog.org/2020/09/22/what-caltrain-can-become-support-measure-rr/" target="_blank">Streetsblog SF</a>. Please vote Yes on Measure RR.<br />
<br />
Now back to our regularly scheduled tough love.<br />Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-69433333465176707752020-09-08T20:58:00.000-07:002020-09-08T20:58:45.933-07:00High-Speed Rail DEIR<div>The first thing to notice about the new high-speed rail <a href="https://hsr.ca.gov/programs/environmental/eis_eir/draft_san_francisco_san_jose.aspx" target="_blank">San Francisco - San Jose Draft Environmental Impact Report</a> (DEIR) is that it sets up a straw-man alternative B, which is set to be dropped in favor of alternative A because it is less effective and more expensive. So we'll focus on the preferred alternative A, and ignore alternative B entirely.<br /></div><div><b>Caltrain In The Hole</b></div><div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiavoEIZP-o2_Zd6aXyCU9Hym_ZvC_8gYeHguaRX1F9aN-H1LgrBCYkDeah3YUnxli2AbuUW_MJG7TZFrw4d4kUUBbtJseup6SkI-BRpDEY81GXarJqi4JIN1N-buvui_flzcsl5yi-dXJb/s1339/moderate_growth_scenario.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="741" data-original-width="1339" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiavoEIZP-o2_Zd6aXyCU9Hym_ZvC_8gYeHguaRX1F9aN-H1LgrBCYkDeah3YUnxli2AbuUW_MJG7TZFrw4d4kUUBbtJseup6SkI-BRpDEY81GXarJqi4JIN1N-buvui_flzcsl5yi-dXJb/s320/moderate_growth_scenario.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Caltrain's <a href="https://caltrain2040.org/wp-content/uploads/Caltrain-BP-Service-Vision-Presentation.pdf#page=38" target="_blank">Moderate Growth Scenario</a>, in direct<br />conflict with the HSR DEIR assumptions</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>The DEIR assumes, in direct contradiction with Caltrain's official board-adopted <a href="https://caltrain2040.org/long-range-service-vision/" target="_blank">service vision</a> with eight trains per peak hour per direction (tphpd), that Caltrain will only be able to operate an inadequate six tphpd during the morning and evening peaks. By sub-optimizing the Caltrain timetable to be sparse and irregular, the high-speed rail authority is able to cheap out on new infrastructure by building almost no new overtaking tracks for alternative A. Where HSR needs to overtake, Caltrain is switched into a station siding ("in the hole") to wait five minutes, at Bayshore or Lawrence.</div><div>Meanwhile, the dense, regular and fast timetable envisioned under Caltrain's service vision also requires no new passing tracks, except at a <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2019/09/risk-and-opportunity-in-redwood-city.html">new and expanded Redwood City station</a>. Only when HSR is added to the traffic mix does the need for numerous new passing tracks arise; every single Caltrain overtake will still take place at the Redwood City station and nowhere else.</div><div>The Caltrain timetable scores highlight the enormous service quality difference:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>HSR DEIR Appendix 2-C <a href="https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/san_francisco_san_jose/Draft_EIRS_FJ_V2-05_APP_2-C_Operations_Service_Plan_Summary.pdf" target="_blank">pp. 50-54</a>, 6 Caltrain + 4 HSR: <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=800&height=800&period=120&start=7&direction=&title=SF-SJ+HSR+DEIR+Appendix+2-C&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1=.900.30....30.30...30...30.30...30.30.30.30.30...30..60.1&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=Skip+Stop+1&t1s=3&t1n=21&t1c=0000DD&t1p=7&t1f=K&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=.900....30..30..30.30..30...30.30.30.30...30..240...420.900&t2d=&t2h=30&t2l=Skip+Stop+2&t2s=8&t2n=7&t2c=0000DD&t2p=7&t2f=K&t3t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t3=.900...240...30.30...30.30..30.30...30.30..30.30....120.900&t3d=&t3h=30&t3l=Skip+Stop+3&t3s=25&t3n=-4&t3c=0000DD&t3p=7&t3f=K&t4t=AGV-100MPH&t4=.900......120...................120.1&t4d=-&t4h=30&t4l=HSR+1&t4s=22&t4n=13&t4c=FF0000&t4p=33&t4f=H&t5t=AGV-100MPH&t5=.900.........................120.1&t5d=-&t5h=30&t5l=HSR+2&t5s=28&t5n=9&t5c=FF0000&t5p=36&t5f=H&t6t=NONE&t6=900...........................900&t6d=&t6h=30&t6l=&t6s=10&t6n=5&t6c=000000&t6p=10&t6f=&t7t=NONE&t7=900...........................900&t7d=&t7h=30&t7l=&t7s=10&t7n=5&t7c=000000&t7p=10&t7f=&return=basic" target="_blank"><b>Score 133</b></a></li><li>Caltrain <a href="https://caltrain2040.org/wp-content/uploads/Caltrain-BP-Service-Vision-Presentation.pdf#page=38" target="_blank">Moderate Growth Scenario</a>, 8 Caltrain + 4 HSR: <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=800&height=800&period=60&start=7&direction=&title=Caltrain+Moderate+Growth+Scenario&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1=900.30.30..30.30.30..30..30.30.30..30.330..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.900&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=Caltrain+Local+1&t1s=4.5&t1n=7.5&t1c=0000FF&t1p=7&t1f=K&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=900.30.30...30..30.....30...60...30...30.30....30.900&t2d=&t2h=15&t2l=Caltrain+Express&t2s=0&t2n=3.5&t2c=FF0000&t2p=7&t2f=K&t3t=AGV-100MPH&t3=900.......120........90...........120.1&t3d=-&t3h=15&t3l=Los+Banos+HS&t3s=3&t3n=5&t3c=1EA11E&t3p=7&t3f=&t4t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t4=900.30.30..30.30.30.30..30..30.30.30..330..30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30..30.900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=Caltrain+Local+2&t4s=18.5&t4n=22&t4c=1EA11E&t4p=10&t4f=&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&t6t=NONE&t6=900...........................900&t6d=&t6h=30&t6l=&t6s=10&t6n=5&t6c=000000&t6p=10&t6f=&return=basic" target="_blank"><b>Score 240</b></a><br /><b></b></li></ul></div><div>What scenario do we subscribe to? Do we allow HSR to displace and cripple Caltrain? Does the arrival of HSR force Caltrain to build new passing tracks to continue operating its own service efficiently? Who pays for that, and to whom does the benefit accrue? Whatever happens, it is clear that the operational plans advanced by Caltrain and HSR are in direct conflict, with each agency laying separate claim to the valuable latent capacity of the rail corridor. Whatever the DEIR might say, both operators won't fit without significant new passing track infrastructure.</div><div>Section 3.2 of the HSR DEIR incorrectly states that Impact TR#14 (Continuous Permanent Impacts on Passenger Rail Capacity) would be less than significant, with the following dubious arguments:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>A regular interval schedule could be maintained (You call Appendix 2-C regular!?)<br /></li><li>The project would not decrease the performance of passenger rail services (Wrong!)</li><li>Operation of the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit (Also wrong!)</li><li>Operation of the project would not decrease the performance of transit systems (On the contrary!)<br /></li></ul></div><div>The HSR DEIR does not adequately discuss the transportation impacts of permanently crippling future Caltrain service, and alternative A stands in direct conflict with Caltrain's officially adopted service vision. Appendix 2-J fails to address the policy consistency of the DEIR with Caltrain's business plan and service vision board resolution-- indeed it fails to even acknowledge the very existence of the Caltrain business plan, one of the most important policy documents relating to the peninsula rail corridor.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>Safety</b></div><div>Section 3.11 examines numerous safety and security implications of the HSR project, but inexplicably fails to mention the safety issues of operating trains at 110 mph past platforms crowded with waiting passengers. Many Caltrain stations have narrow (15-foot wide) side platforms that are cluttered with obstacles such as shelters, wheelchair lifts, and mini-high platform blocks, leaving little clearance from the yellow safety stripe behind which passengers are expected to wait, 9 feet from the track center line. Existing conditions are already borderline unsafe, such as when a 79-mph express blasts by the packed northbound platform at Mountain View. Increasing train speeds to 110 mph will likely require the yellow safety stripe to move <a href="https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/34608/dot_34608_DS1.pdf#page=249" target="_blank">further than 9 feet from track center</a>, potentially resulting in incompatible and unsafe station platform configurations. The DEIR should include mitigation measures to maintain an adequate level of safety for Caltrain passengers waiting on station platforms.<br /></div><div> </div><div><b>Curve Straightening</b></div><div>Remember the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/01/top-10-worst-curves.html">Top Ten Worst Curves</a>
post from a decade ago? The DEIR describes how many of them will be
flattened to enable higher speeds. Here's how they fare, in order of
impact to trip times:</div><div><br /></div><div><table border="1" bordercolor="#888" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; border-color: rgb(136, 136, 136); border-width: 1px; height: 83px; width: 617px;"><tbody><tr><td style="min-width: 60px;"><b> Rank</b></td><td style="width: 60px;"><b> Curve ID<br /></b></td><td style="min-width: 60px;"> <b>Location<span> </span></b><br /></td><td style="min-width: 60px;"><b>Current Speed </b><br /></td><td style="min-width: 60px;"><b> Future Speed</b><br /></td></tr><tr><td style="min-width: 60px;"> #1<span> </span></td><td style="width: 60px;"> C123</td><td style="min-width: 60px;"> San Bruno<br /></td><td style="min-width: 60px;"> 65 mph<span> (was 60)</span><br /></td><td style="min-width: 60px;"> 100 mph<br /></td></tr><tr><td> #2</td><td style="width: 60px;"> C111</td><td> Bayshore</td><td> 65 mph<br /></td><td> 65 mph (unchanged)<br /></td></tr><tr><td> #3</td><td> C159</td><td> Palo Alto (SB)<br /></td><td> 79 mph<br /></td><td> 110 mph<br /></td></tr><tr><td> #4</td><td> C130</td><td> Millbrae</td><td> 75 mph<br /></td><td> 105 mph<br /></td></tr><tr><td> #5</td><td> C135</td><td> Hayward Park<br /></td><td> 79 mph<br /></td><td> 110 mph<br /></td></tr><tr><td> #6</td><td> C183</td><td> Lawrence</td><td> 79 mph<br /></td><td> 110 mph<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></div><div>The
most expensive one to fix will be San Bruno, due to Caltrain's lazy and
inexcusable lack of foresight when their new grade separation design
baked in a 65 mph speed limit. San Bruno was the subject of <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/search/label/San%20Bruno">much yammering</a>
on this blog, but is now cast in concrete that will have to be
demolished at great additional taxpayer expense. In the DEIR, the rebuilt northbound platform is inexplicably shortened to an operationally inadequate length of 627 feet; this should be increased to a minimum of 750 feet per Caltrain standards. The wholesale reconstruction of the station probably also rates a discussion of impacts elsewhere than under curve straightening; as described it's sort of a stealth project.<br /></div><div>The curves
previously ranked #7 through #10 were already good for 110 mph, so they
will not be modified. However, there are some other extraneous curves
that were not in the Top Ten list that will result in speed restrictions
lower than 110 mph. These are:</div><div><br /></div><div><table border="1" bordercolor="#888" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; border-color: rgb(136, 136, 136); border-width: 1px;"><tbody><tr><td style="min-width: 60px;"><b> Curve ID<br /></b></td><td style="min-width: 60px;"><b> Location</b></td><td style="min-width: 60px;"><b> Current Speed<br /></b></td><td style="min-width: 60px;"><b> Future Speed<br /></b></td></tr><tr><td> C117</td><td> Sierra Point<br /></td><td> 79 mph<br /></td><td> 85 mph<br /></td></tr><tr><td> C118-C121</td><td> South SF<br /></td><td> 79 mph<br /></td><td> 100 mph<br /></td></tr><tr><td> C127</td><td> Near SFO<br /></td><td> 79 mph<br /></td><td> 100 mph<br /></td></tr><tr><td> C132</td><td> N. San Mateo<br /></td><td> 79 mph<br /></td><td> 100 mph<br /></td></tr><tr><td style="min-width: 60px;"> C133-C134</td><td style="min-width: 60px;"> San Mateo<br /></td><td style="min-width: 60px;"> 79 mph<br /></td><td style="min-width: 60px;"> 79 mph<br /></td></tr><tr><td> C171</td><td> San Antonio<br /></td><td> 79 mph<br /></td><td> 90 mph<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br />
</div>Curves C133/C134, at the north end of San Mateo station, are particularly odd and ill-placed.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Separate Platforms Forever<br /></b></div><div>Sadly, the DEIR enshrines the plan for separate station platforms for Caltrain and HSR, with not the slightest attempt to make the two systems operationally compatible. Neither agency seems inclined to solve the thorny technical and regulatory problems: Caltrain has gone so far as to procure dual boarding height trains, but then shrank back from the plan after metal had been cut, abandoning in-vehicle lifts that would allow boarding and alighting at different platform heights. This is not an easy problem to solve, but it is well worth the effort to create the operational flexibility that is taken for granted in other busy rail corridors around the world.</div><div><br /></div><div>Ultimately, the whole high-speed rail EIR process feels like theater: by the time the funding materializes to make it worth expanding the system to the peninsula rail corridor, the proposed project will have been overcome by events. The environment of the project is a moving target, and right out of the gate, the draft EIR is already oblivious to its changed context.<br /></div>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com37tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-60590351717426362482020-08-02T12:02:00.016-07:002021-05-31T10:08:45.450-07:00PCEP: Farce Majeure<div>This post serves as a place to track <a href="https://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/CalMod_Document_Library.html" target="_blank">monthly status updates of the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Program</a>, peeling back the rosy pronouncements put forth by the managers of this deeply troubled project. Let's start off with our handy foundation & pole progress tracker, updated monthly</div><div><br />
</div><div>
<iframe height="400" src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTeBszkc60wWO8AD-U5DXOB2gyu6uysoFS03SzqOTZoPUlLxU8aG_iEM1mT6fLgU6ZtOqqb3yhyJhVN/pubchart?oid=709190898&format=interactive" width="100%"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div>Now also, in the manner of <a href="https://xkcd.com/2014/" target="_blank">this XKCD cartoon</a> that summarizes the ongoing delays for another project, the James Webb Space Telescope, we offer a retrospective of the promised milestone date for the substantial completion of electrification, which gives a pretty good eyeball of where PCEP will end up:</div><div><br />
</div><div>
<iframe height="400" src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTeBszkc60wWO8AD-U5DXOB2gyu6uysoFS03SzqOTZoPUlLxU8aG_iEM1mT6fLgU6ZtOqqb3yhyJhVN/pubchart?oid=900282165&format=interactive" width="100%"></iframe></div><div><br /></div>
<div> Monthly updates will be added here as they occur.</div><div> </div><div><b>The FTA Perspective: </b>The <a href="http://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/PCEP%20Quarterly%20Monitoring%20Report%20May%202020_Final%20TO%20Rpt.pdf" target="_blank">May 2020 PCEP quarterly monitoring report from the FTA PMOC</a> provides some refreshing independent views of the project. The PMOC contractor evidently prepared this report as if it were their last quarterly monitoring report (it wasn't) and included a special Appendix I, a final summary of issues, hurdles, and lessons learned. This is a must-read.</div><div><br /></div><div>For a northbound cab view of the corridor construction as it stood on July 18th, 2020, see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz7COChSSQQ" target="_blank">this video</a> by YouTube user Flat Train.</div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div><div><b>Notes from the April 2021 PCEP progress report</b></div><div><b> </b></div><div>We are seeing an odd divergence of foundation and pole installation rates: only one pole was installed for the entire month, despite hundreds of foundations being ready for poles. Foundation
installation is at 77% and poles at 60%. For EMU car shells, 59% have
shipped from Switzerland.</div><div> </div><div>The big schedule and budget update / re-baseline is again delayed, at least to July. There was a three-week slip in Segment 4, and a three-month slip in completion of the CEMOF work (not anywhere near the critical path). FTA independent oversight (PMOC) reports continue to be delayed, with the December 2020 report nowhere to be seen and the March 2021 report still in draft.</div><div> </div><b>Notes from the March 2021 PCEP progress report</b></div><div><b> </b></div><div>Foundations are picking up a bit, but poles are oddly lagging since there are roughly 800 completed foundations awaiting poles. Foundation installation is at 74% and poles at 60%. For EMU car shells, 56% have shipped from Switzerland.</div><div> </div><div>The critical path has once again flip-flopped to the EMU contract, as we await a major schedule update now set for the June board meeting. Notable slips in the Appendix C program schedule include segment 1 overhead contact system (2 months), segment 4 testing (almost 3 months!), and large slips in EMU deliveries (up to 5 months). These big slips are overshadowed by signal work in segments 1 and 3, which haven't started yet and are slated for a lightning-fast installation of ~10 months each. We know from painful experience that signal work in segments 2 and 4 is taking over 30 months, so there may be a future ~20 month slip hiding under there if the work in segments 1 and 3 turns out to be similarly complex and drawn out. Also notable is the zero duration of segment testing for segments 1, 2 and 3. Overall signs still point to no sooner than 2024 for the first passenger service with EMUs.<br /></div><div><b> <br /></b></div><div><b>Notes from the February 2021 PCEP progress report</b></div><div><b> </b></div><div>New schedule slips reported this month change nothing to the overall trends for the project, which have held steady for a long time. Based on trend extrapolation in the graphs above, foundations are likely to complete in fall 2022 (a year later than reported by Caltrain) and the project will see passenger service no sooner than early 2024 (more than a year later than reported by Caltrain). The critical path has returned to the electrification contract. Notable slips in the Appendix C schedule include signal work, delayed by 2 months in every segment, and a 3-month slip to the PG&E interconnection to the traction power substation in South San Francisco, which will now be built underground.</div><div><br /></div><div>If looking at a glass half-full, foundation installation is now at 71%, pole erection at 58%, and EMU car shell manufacture at 53%.<br /></div><div><b><br /></b></div><b>Notes from the January 2021 PCEP progress report</b></div><div><b> </b></div><div>This month saw the completion of a grand total of 21 foundations and seven poles. The contractor appears to be slow-rolling the work as mediation continues. Caltrain still projects that all foundations will be completed this September, which is not remotely credible.<b><br /></b></div><div><b> </b></div><div><b>Notes from the December 2020 PCEP progress report</b></div><div><b> </b></div><div>Another month, another slip. We learn in the schedule section that Caltrain and Balfour Beatty are engaged in a mediation process, which is the last stage before lawsuits fly. The substantial completion milestone has slipped again, maintaining the trend line plotted above that predicts the substantial completion milestone will realistically occur no sooner than November 2023, with RSD following around new year 2024.</div><div> </div><div>Despite crowing about having completed all foundations in segments 3 (true) and 4 (not quite there yet: still 5 to go in 4B and 96 at CEMOF), the foundation installation rate remains pathetic with a monthly production of just 25 foundations versus 200 promised. Next month is promised at 206. Fool me once, ....<br /></div><div> </div><div>Appendix C schedule shows large slips in SCADA testing (3 months) and PG&E permanent power at the South San Francisco substation (7 months!) With permanent power available only by 4/15/22, testing of segments 1 and 2 will certainly be impacted, although you wouldn't know it because the segment testing tasks (sneakily renamed "segment completion" last October) currently have a duration of zero.<b> <br /></b></div><div><b> </b></div><div><b>Notes from the November 2020 PCEP progress report</b></div><div><b> </b></div><div>The project's revenue service date has now slipped beyond the FTA funding deadline. The critical path has shifted back to Stadler, at least in Caltrain's reporting. Here's the funny thing: when Stadler reports a schedule slip, the dates seem to get copied straight into Caltrain's program schedule; when Balfour Beatty reports a substantial completion date of June 2024, the dates are quickly swept under the carpet and replaced with made-up "forecast" dates in Caltrain's program schedule that will "likely change." Nothing on the BBII front has changed in Appendix C since last month, so maybe they are saving the big reveal for the new administration, which will presumably look upon the spilled milk with less vindictiveness than the current regime. In the meantime, a linear curve fit of the above charts strongly and steadily indicates a revenue service date in early 2024. Only three more years to go!<br /></div><div> </div><div>For fun, here's <a href="https://twitter.com/rene_anthon/status/1336658291737448448?s=20" target="_blank">a brief video</a> from December 9th of a couple of Caltrain car shells on the road in Switzerland, where they are made. They are too tall and wide to go by rail.<br /></div><div><b> <br /></b></div><div><b>Notes from the October 2020 PCEP progress report</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Exactly as predicted, all scheduling tricks having been exhausted, the electrification work is now firmly on the schedule critical path. The substantial completion milestone just slipped 3 months to 7/22/2022, right up against the FTA revenue service demonstration (RSD) deadline. Looking back, this milestone has now slipped by over a year since late 2018. It would have blown past the RSD deadline had the schedulers not deleted the pre-revenue testing task, and it almost certainly will: the contractor's schedule shows substantial completion in June 2024, that's right, twenty twenty-four. If we extrapolate the past rate of slippage of Caltrain's substantial completion milestone (~0.54 month/month) and assume the slippage will continue at the same rate (because why wouldn't it?) the milestone will slip to, surprise, 2024.</div><div> </div><div>Foundation production continues to be anemic, with a deceleration to 38/month versus 69 planned. Even at a promised rate of 200/month, the foundation completion has pushed out from March into May 2021 per Caltrain's dashboard metrics. Without this unsubstantiated acceleration to 200/month, a straight extrapolation of the recent production rate indicates foundation completion in October of 2022.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Appendix C schedule remains extremely compressed against the RSD deadline, despite the wholesale deletion of the pre-revenue testing span. Segments 1 and 2 completion dates have slipped to May 2022, leaving almost no margin for system-level testing against the deadline. Clearly, the schedulers had to apply extreme contortions this month to prevent the appearance of missing the RSD deadline: what used to be "segment testing" with a non-zero duration (43 days in segment 1; 43 days in segment 2; 34 days in segment 3) has suddenly morphed into a "segment completion" milestone with zero duration. As integrators of complex systems well know, the greatest risk to a success-oriented green-light schedule occurs during testing, so reducing the segment testing spans to zero is quite the shenanigan!</div><div> </div><div>Expect these segment testing spans to return after Caltrain finally runs out to tricks to pretend that they will meet the FTA RSD deadline. Given how compressed against the deadline the schedule already is, the reckoning should occur very soon. And what better time is there to ask for FTA forgiveness than during a <i>force majeure</i> pandemic?<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Notes from the September 2020 PCEP progress report</b></div><div><br /></div><div>The schedule slips continue, despite best efforts on the part of the schedulers to hide the difficulties being experienced by the project by holding major milestone dates. The start of phased revenue service is in a month for month slip, now 4/23/22, and the task has been compressed by a month. Had this compression not occurred, the program critical path would now run through segment 3 signals and (surprise!) the SCADA system, which just slipped by more than 3 months. Pre-revenue testing can't be delayed much more, so this is it. It will take some serious creativity to claim the full revenue service date of July 2022 can be held.</div><div><br /></div><div>Foundation production is still in the basement at 48 for September versus 168 planned. The plan is now 69 next month (under-promise, over-deliver) then rising to a never-achieved 212/month for the remainder of construction. Look for the foundation completion date to slip again soon.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Other assorted schedule slips: real estate acquisition (for miscellaneous dribs and drabs up and down the corridor, slipped by ~8 months); traction power in segments 3 and 4 (slipped by ~3 months, the former now just days from the critical path). Oddly, the testing of segment 4 is now scheduled to complete before traction power is done, which seems like a broken dependency.</div><div><br /></div><div>The top risk is still the dual speed check grade crossing warning system.<br /></div><div> </div><div><b>Notes from the August 2020 PCEP progress report</b></div><div><b> </b></div><div>Another month, another slip. Electrification substantial completion is delayed by a month to 3/26/22, for a nine-month slip over the last 18 months. That's just a milestone, and the tasks leading up to it are even more dramatically delayed, with Segment 2 OCS slipping by a whopping seven months! All the electrification tasks are now jammed up against the extremely compressed segment testing, itself slipping and pushing out integrating testing and pre-revenue service by a month. To prevent electrification from exploding onto the primary critical path, heroic schedulers have cut down phased revenue service by a month. The real story here is the secondary critical path, which runs through delayed signaling installation, testing and cut-over activities... and yet these bars are colored a soothing shade of green. Look for these to blow up very soon, with a 3-month slip having just occurred in Segment 4, the one furthest along.</div><div><br /></div><div>Foundation production continues to flounder at 49 for the month versus 161 promised. The laughable end-of-year completion milestone has slipped by 3 months, allowing the absurdly high future production rates to drop to the merely never-achieved value of 168/month. Six foundations appear to have been "unbuilt" since last month, with completed totals dropping in Segment 2 Work Areas 4 and 5. This may be a bookkeeping error, so the graph shows 1940 completed versus 1934 in the report. Overall, foundation installation is still trending towards completion in late 2021.</div><div><b> </b></div><div><b>Notes from the July 2020 PCEP progress report</b></div><div> </div><div>This month, as expected, a mere 40 foundations were installed versus a promise of 186. The promised numbers keep going up to maintain the pretense of finishing before year's end, with 299 foundations/month promised in October and November, over seven times the actual July rate. Detailed accounting is slightly complicated by the fresh inclusion this month of 86 foundations previously constructed outside PCEP scope for the South San Francisco and Hillsdale projects. Since the report doesn't state when these were completed, we spread them out over Jan-Jun 2020. Extrapolating at the current 3-month trailing average production rate, foundations will be completed in November 2021, almost a year behind the advertised schedule. The long-promised acceleration of foundation production is not reflected in monthly actual totals for 2020, which casts doubt on whether such an acceleration will ever materialize.</div><div><br /></div><div>Budget burn rates for the various contracts are also consistent with a one-year delay, and that is before any pandemic impacts. The dashboards show an overall deceleration of spending, with the past 3 month average burn rate trailing the past 12 month average. Burn rate would now have to double to finish on time, which is plain to see just won't happen.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the Appendix C schedule, there is a 7-month slip for traction power in Segment 1, and smaller slips in all the other segments. These slips remove all the slack that remained before electrification becomes the critical path. It's now a horse race (or snail race?) between Stadler and BBII.</div><div><br /></div><div>Expect your first EMU ride in mid-2023.<br /></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>Notes from the June 2020 PCEP progress report</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>
The pandemic and the words "force majeure" are starting to make a more prominent appearance in the report, providing useful cover for Balfour Beatty's woeful schedule performance. A pandemic-related day-for-day slip at Stadler continues to provide cover, under the theory that the schedule critical path still runs through EMU production-- a condition that remains true on paper only because the secondary critical path has been slashed to the bone by unreasonably compressing key testing and integration tasks at the very end of the program.</div><div><br /></div><div>
The dashboards in section 2.1 don't lie: to finish on time, Balfour would have to <i>triple </i>their burn rate from $5.7 million/month to $17.2 million/month. Overall, project spending is about $700 million behind plan, indicative of severe schedule under-performance. At current burn rates, PCEP will finish no earlier than mid-2023, close to a year behind the dates currently being promised.</div><div><br /></div><div>
Foundation production for June was promised 71 / actual 105, a rare over-performance. Now do July, when an unprecedented 186 foundations were promised. As of this report, the foundations are 56% installed, and poles are 44% installed.</div><div><br /></div><div>As of this writing in August, 2020, none of the quarterly FTA PMOC
oversight reports for 2020 have been posted by Caltrain. These usually
provide an unsparing look at the internal challenges of the program, but
with election season approaching there is surely a rising incentive to keep them out of the public eye.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>
<b>Notes from the May 2020 PCEP progress report</b></div><div><b></b>
<br />Foundation production, despite the insistent promises of past months, has crashed
back to the dismal level of 44/month. Undeterred, project managers
project ever higher and unachievable future rates (nearly 300
foundations are planned for November) in order to finish within the
current calendar year.<br /><br />For the EMUs, a new change order was
approved to defer the installation of interior wheelchair lifts, the
final nail in the coffin of the high/low boarding solution. Platform
interface-wise, the EMUs will now be configured exactly the same way as
the existing Bombardier cars. While recent photos from Salt Lake City
show the upper doors installed, these will soon be removed and replaced
by plug panels. <br /><br />In a bit of good news, the regulatory compliance
documentation for EMU crashworthiness has been approved by FRA, which
is no small feat. One hopes sufficient spares of fiberglass front
cladding have been ordered to withstand the usual grade crossing
carnage.<br /><br />The pandemic has delayed testing of the first trainset
in Salt Lake City, such that its trip to Pueblo, Colorado for dynamic
testing is delayed to November and slipping day for day.<br /><br />The
milestone schedule has slipped again, with electrification substantial
completion delayed to 2/26/2022, a slip of 8 months since late 2018.
Revenue service has slipped 2.5 months to late July 2022, all but
eliminating the margin against FTA's deadline of August 2022. The
pandemic will surely be invoked to delay the deadline.<br /><br />Stadler is
still claimed to be on the critical path, now with a convenient
day-for-day pandemic slip that provides a welcome fig leaf to the
Balfour Beatty electrification work.<br /><br />The Appendix C schedule
finally shows signal construction work. Notably, this work has pushed
out the testing of segments 1, 2 and 3 by up to 8 months, with
compressed testing tasks taking place at the end of 2021. The testing of
the entire electrification system has been compressed from ~6 months to
less than 3 months. Pre-revenue testing has been further curtailed to
six weeks. There is no discussion or justification of this extremely
sporty schedule compression, other than it maintains the illusion that
the critical path runs through Stadler.<br /><br />In the risk list, three
new risks have appeared to justify what is surely the consequence of Buy
America procurement for the EMUs: quality issues, failed factory tests, and poor
integration and control of new U.S. suppliers. These seem to be clear
and present issues, rather than risks.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Notes from the April 2020 PCEP progress report</b><br /><br />Foundation
installation recovered a bit, and an explicit (if likely unachievable)
plan was published for how many foundations would have to be completed
in each of the remaining months of 2020 in order to finish within the
year.<br /><br />Shipping the first train to Colorado (for high-speed
testing) continues to be delayed. This is an important "schedule hold
point" where contingency budgets are re-evaluated, and we are now 14
months into a 19-month gap that has opened in the sequence of schedule
hold points.<br /><br />Speaking of contingency, $32 million of it was used
this month alone, of which $25 million was shoveled over to PG&E for
interconnection work. Why was the contingency budget not replenished by
the amount not paid to the party formerly on the hook to perform the
work?<br /><br />New risks: #321 if PG&E makes trouble about the
single-phase loading of their substations, then the system cannot be
energized. #322 if substations aren't completed on time to get powered
up, then testing will be delayed. And then the kicker: #323 "FRA
concerns require redesign".... don't leave us hanging, be specific! <br /><br />Finally,
it's the beginning of June and none of the FTA PMOC reports for 2020
have yet showed up. Who is slow-walking these important oversight
documents, the FTA or Caltrain?</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Notes from the March 2020 PCEP progress report</b><br /><br />Foundation
installation continues to fall hopelessly behind. The average total for
the entire first quarter of 2020 was eight foundations per month (that's
right, you can count them on two hands!) and if that rate is sustained,
all foundations should be complete by the year 2036. Of course, the
report promises a significant acceleration, but the stated goal of
completing another 1544 foundations within nine months to support the
end-of-year foundation completion milestone has gone from ridiculous to
downright laughable. The board and public should be insulted by such a
dishonest status report, insisting that everything is on schedule. It's
okay to be late, but it's not okay to be so nakedly dishonest about it.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Notes from the February 2020 PCEP progress report</b><br /><br />1) Foundation
production for February is again ZERO, despite repeated affirmations
throughout the report that there is a schedule to finish everything by
the end of this year. The required average production rate to reach this
goal is 157/month (excluding foundations that are part of SSF and 25th
Ave projects); this is higher than the all-time record of 151 set in
November 2019. The likelihood of missing the end-of-year target is darn
near one hundred percent.<br /><br />2) The Appendix C schedule shows
continuing month-for-month slips in the OCS and traction power tasks,
with the selective exception of the segment 1 OCS task-- which if
delayed would push the BBII work onto the critical path of the project.
To avoid this, the task duration was shortened, using a well-known
scheduling trick.<br /><br />3) delivery of trainsets 2 and 3 is delayed
nine months and six months, respectively. That sure is a long time to
retrofit flip-up seats. Is there something else we aren't being told?</div><div><br /></div><b>Notes from the January 2020 PCEP progress report</b><br /><br />1) foundation
production is at ZERO for the month, with the rate required to complete
by the end of the year having increased from 131/month to 143/month. The
stated reason for zero foundations is because the contractor "did not
have the rebar cages", of which enormous stacks can plainly be observed
rusting away at Burlingame, Redwood Junction, and possibly other
locations. Something big has come up and Caltrain isn't being
transparent about it.<br /><br />2) Schedule milestones are said not to have
budged, despite the latest FTA PMOC report (December 2019) stating that
the contractor's schedule shows a substantial completion date of
January 2024. That's right, twenty-twenty-FOUR.<br /><br />3) The flip-up
seats that will be added to the bike cars are the subject of a change
order that costs $1.96 million, to buy 4 flip-up seats x 2 bike cars x
19 trainsets = $12,900 per flip-up seat. No word on what material these
are made of, but solid gold is not out of the question.<br /><br />4) The
signal modifications and grade crossing Constant Warning Time tasks that
underlie the contractor's major schedule slips still do not appear on
Caltrain's tracking schedule. It's harder to track the progress of a
task when it isn't even on your schedule.<br /><br />5) The appendix C
schedule shows a wave breaking in EMU deliveries, with early deliveries
delayed by ~3 months and later-produced trainsets being delivered before
the earlier-produced trainsets. Must be those flip up seats and door
plug retrofits.<div><br /></div><div><b>Notes from the December 2019 PCEP progress report</b><br /><br />1) foundation
production has faltered again. The goal posts stayed put this month, but
the production rate required to complete by the end of this year has
increased from 124/month to 131/month. This month: just 44.<br /><br />2)
appendix C schedule shows a large slip in SCADA (six months!) leaving
just 1 month of slack before pre-revenue testing begins. This is shaping
up to be yet another secondary critical path. Meanwhile, the completion
of traction power construction in segments 1, 2 and 3 is in a
month-for-month slip even after the large schedule slips recorded in
last month's update. The tsunami buildup continues.<br /><br />On the good
news front: production photos posted on calmod.com appear to show that
the door to the EMU cab compartment will have a railfan window affording
a view into the cab and out the front of the train. Train nerds
rejoice!</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Notes from the November 2019 PCEP progress report</b><br /><br />1) foundation
production has accelerated to a record monthly total of 151, but the
goalpost for target monthly average has moved again from 8/31/2020 out
to 12/31/2020 (four months). For the old target of 8/31/2020, the
required monthly productivity would have been 179 foundations/month.
With the newly relaxed milestone it is 124 foundations/month.<br /><br />2)
Appendix C schedule continues to show "tsunami buildup" where a wave of
delayed tasks compresses against an artificially held RSD milestone.
Most notably, electrification system testing (schedule line 41) has
compressed from 222 days to 183 days (18% shorter) and phased revenue
service (schedule line 83) has compressed from 90 days to 69 days (23%
shorter).<br /><br />3) The date when you will be able to board an EMU as a
passenger for the first time (i.e. the beginning of phased revenue
service) has slipped by a month to February 1st, 2022.<br /><br />4) While
the critical path is still stated to go through vehicle manufacturing,
ten EMUs will have been delivered by the start of phased revenue
service. Is ten enough to begin phased revenue service? If so, EMU
manufacturing isn't your critical path.<br /><br />As observed with last
month's notes, Caltrain is making increasingly desperate schedule
modifications to maintain the appearance that electrification is not on
the primary critical path. With reality biting, it is doubtful they will
be able to keep this up for more than a couple of months longer. Expect
fireworks by March or April 2020 board meeting.<br /><br />Speaking of fireworks, Happy New Year 2020 to transit nerds everywhere!</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Notes from the October 2019 PCEP progress report</b><br /><br />1) Figure
2-5 (foundation production) shows a monthly target for the production
rate required to meet the schedule. This monthly target has been stuck
at 174 since they started publishing this metric, which is an error in
whatever spreadsheet they are using to make this chart. The correctly
calculated numbers for the last 5 months (foundations-to-go divided by
months left) are: 174, 178, 191, 198, 221. In this latest report they
moved the goalpost from 6/30/2020 to 8/31/2020, which bought them an
extra two months but used up the schedule slack. By that metric, we're
back to 1766 to go divided by 10 months = 177. Hopefully this error will
be corrected in future reports.<br /><br />2) The contractor has never
reached 177 foundations/month. To date the record is November 2019,
reportedly at 151. (Interestingly, even this record would further bump
up the rate to complete from 177 to 179.) This figure of 179 would have
to be sustained without interruption until completion. Given that on
average, the more difficult foundations (where conflicts are found with
existing utilities such as Caltrain's very own PTC fiber optic cables)
are being delayed and left to be addressed later than the low hanging
fruit, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain rate 179.<br /><br />3)
In the Appendix C schedule, OCS completion has just slipped by one
month for three out of the four segments. OCS completion in segment 1
(San Francisco) is now on a secondary critical path, followed
immediately by segment testing and system testing. The only reason this
didn't become the primary critical path this month is that they
compressed system testing by one month, holding the end of system
testing at 12/31/21. Compression of testing periods is a red flag.<br /><br />4)
In the Appendix C schedule, the logic is constructed such that it is
necessary to have 14 EMUs on hand by the end of "phased revenue testing"
which means service is operated with a mix of diesels and EMUs. This is
what makes the critical path go through EMU production. In reality,
what is most important is the *beginning* of phased revenue testing,
which is when you will be able to board an EMU for the first time. Right
now this milestone is at 1/3/2022 and has zero slack (i.e. it is on the
critical path).<br /><br />5) The latest PMOC report (September 2019)
reveals that the contractor's working schedule (so far rejected by
Caltrain for various reasons) predicts substantial completion of
electrification on 7/4/2022, six months later than carried in the
Appendix C schedule or 12/31/2021.<br /><br />I expect Caltrain to make
increasingly desperate modifications to the program schedule, including
further compression of the system test period, to maintain for as long
as possible the appearance that electrification is not on the primary
critical path. Let's see how long they can obfuscate before finally
fessing up.</div>Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com40tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-13276266903330152912020-05-25T21:23:00.002-07:002020-05-25T23:03:37.277-07:00The Unbearable Cost of Conductors<i>[Programming note: while the current pandemic may appear to make the discussion below irrelevant, consider that by 1920, there were few memories of the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918. Jammed peninsula commutes will be back sooner than you think!]<br /> </i><br />
<b><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_nBAB2oHNPQBTMrRK_L4LGI_rk8dff7ijEK1AywZ5PL9rYqu5_LZWLDhKMN-PET9AQcJ_udHKwbRcXQTA_0h4fJmmHMNqcFoN3B5982pUm-6nR0I-KUVccHB2ZV7xtboH8-Xvpf8CPz7U/" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="873" data-original-width="1280" height="136" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_nBAB2oHNPQBTMrRK_L4LGI_rk8dff7ijEK1AywZ5PL9rYqu5_LZWLDhKMN-PET9AQcJ_udHKwbRcXQTA_0h4fJmmHMNqcFoN3B5982pUm-6nR0I-KUVccHB2ZV7xtboH8-Xvpf8CPz7U/w200-h136/caltrain_in_1980.jpg" title="Engineer, Fireman, Brakeman and Conductor, in 1980." width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Caltrain in 1980: crew included<br />
engineer, fireman, brakeman<br />
and conductor.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The way it was</b><br />
<br />
Back in 1980, Caltrain's predecessor, the Southern Pacific Railroad Commuter System, operated 46 trains per weekday on the peninsula rail corridor. The SP <a href="http://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/commute_costs_1980.pdf" target="_blank">used a minimum crew of four people</a>: an engineer, a fireman, a conductor, and a brakeman, assigned to all trains with 3 or more cars. A second conductor was added for 4-5 car trains, and a second brakeman for 6-7 car trains. A seven-person crew was used for 8-car trains, then the longest operated by SP: engineer, fireman, two brakemen, and three conductors. Not surprisingly, labor made up more than 60% of the cost of operating the peninsula commute.<br />
<br />
In the years since 1980, technology advanced and union agreements evolved. The previously unthinkable notion that firemen and brakemen would no longer needed to safely operate trains came to pass, and is accepted in today's agreements with unions.<br />
<br />
<b>The way it is</b><br />
<br />
In 2020, the minimum crew for 2-6 car trains consists of one engineer, one conductor, and one assistant conductor. For 7-8 car trains (not currently operated, but contemplated for the near term) an additional assistant conductor is required under the<span style="background-color: white;"> <a href="http://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/FINAL_UTU_TASI_agreement_020912.pdf" target="_blank">current union agreement</a>, </span>increasing crew size to four. Today, conductors operate doors to ensure safe boarding and alighting, assist passengers with reduced mobility, acknowledge restrictive signal indications, announce stops, ensure all equipment is in good working order, patrol the train to ensure orderly passenger conduct, regulate bicycle boarding, and perform proof-of-payment fare enforcement.<br />
<br />
<b>Modern trains reduce crew workload</b><br />
<br />
The state-of-the-art trains that will enter service in 2023, if everything goes well, will reduce crew workload. Stops will be announced automatically by a computer. Restrictive signal aspects will no longer require acknowledgement, with Positive Train Control computers constantly keeping watch over the engineer's handling of the train. One can also anticipate that the equipment will break down less frequently in brand new equipment, with the extensive computer diagnostics available to detect, report and resolve defects before they turn into a service-disrupting failure. The train's computers will count how many passengers board and alight at each stop. The operator's cab even features door controls and rear-view cameras to monitor passenger boarding and alighting as well as door status. In a near future where platforms and trains are retrofitted for level boarding, the need for conductors to assist persons of reduced mobility will also disappear. With so much of the work becoming automated, are four people still needed to operate a 7-car train, as would be required by current union agreements?<br />
<br />
<b>The cost of assistant conductors</b><br />
<br />
<i>Bottom-up calculation</i><br />
<br />
As of 2019, hourly pay for an assistant conductor was about $38, based on 3% annual escalation since 2012. At 2080 paid hours per year, an assistant conductor then makes $79k/year in straight time salary. Throw in another 10% for overtime, and it's $87k/year. Add 25% of salary for fringe benefits, and it's $109k/year. Tack on 20% payroll taxes, and it's $126k/year. Don't forget another 12% of pay for FELA (railroad liability insurance), and we're now at $136k/year. Are we done? No: on top of this we need to add contract operator general and administrative overhead of about 7%, and contract operator award fee of about 5%. So, our $38/hour assistant conductor eventually accounts for $153k/year of fully burdened Caltrain operating costs.<br />
<br />
If the typical duty is two daily round-trips, or about 200 train-miles per shift, and our assistant conductor works 250 days per year, that comes to 50,000 revenue miles per year, putting the fully burdened cost of an assistant conductor at $3 per revenue train-mile. Split shifts (with long paid breaks) and the additional vacation time that comes with seniority will lower annual revenue miles, likely making $3 a lower bound for an assistant conductor.<br />
<br />
Caltrain operates 1.28 million revenue train-miles per year, so the cost of one assistant conductor on every train is about $4 million per year (in 2019 dollars) based on today's timetable with 94 weekday trains.<br />
<br />
<i>Top-down calculation<br /> </i><br />
In 2019, Caltrain paid $99.5 million for contract services, the lion's share of which (about 88%) went to Transit America Services, Inc., to operate the railroad. This comes to $87 million including overheads and performance fees. Based on <a href="http://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/Cost_Proposal_ONLY_from_TransitAmerica_Agmt_10-PCJPB-S-025.pdf" target="_blank">TASI's estimated cost structure for 2012-2017</a>, which we will assume has not changed much in the years since, about 72% of direct costs are labor, so the fully burdened cost of labor was $63 million.<br />
<br />
Based on TASI's itemized costs, we can estimate this $63 million breaks down as follows: 2.3% direct administrative costs, 44.3% train operations (which includes conductors), 5.2% train and yard movement control, 24.6% fleet maintenance, 16.7% fixed infrastructure maintenance, 3% station, facility and parking maintenance, and 4% budgets, finance and accounting. This places the fully-burdened cost of train operations labor at $28 million. This labor category consists of operations supervisors, engineers, conductors and assistant conductors. The share of labor costs allocated to the complement of 46 assistant conductors is about 25% of this, or $7 million (fully burdened).<br />
<br />
Divide by the number of annual revenue train-miles, and we find that assistant conductors cost $5.50 per train-mile.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, $7 million divided by 46 assistant conductors gives a fully burdened annual cost of $152k/year for an assistant conductor, which agrees very well with our bottom-up estimate. So why are the per-mile estimates not the same?<br />
<br />
The discrepancy between bottom-up ($3.00) top-down ($5.50) per-mile estimates comes down to labor productivity. Some peak-hour trains are staffed with more than one assistant conductor, and the annual labor productivity of a single conductor is less than 50,000 revenue train-miles per year due to split shifts. The FTA <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd" target="_blank">National Transit Database</a> shows Caltrain operates about 216,000 vehicle revenue hours of service per year, with each train having an average of 5.6 cars (<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10.56px; left: 788.5px; top: 547.103px; transform: scalex(0.96184);"></span>7.20 million revenue vehicle-miles per year divided by 1.28 million revenue train-miles per year), so we get about 38,570 train-hours per year. TASI's workforce comprises 46 assistant conductors at 2000 hours per year = 92,000 hours (before additional on-call labor) which makes assistant conductor productivity at most 0.42 revenue-hours per hour worked, versus about 0.7 revenue-hour per hour worked if we optimistically assume 2 round-trips per 8-hour shift as in the bottom-up calculation.<br />
<br />
Bottom line: Caltrain assistant conductors cost $7 million/year today.<br />
<br />
<b>Future service increases</b><br />
<br />
Caltrain's <a href="https://caltrain2040.org/" target="_blank">business plan</a> envisions growth scenarios where the cost structure is largely left alone. More service simply means more operating cost. Revisiting union agreements is not contemplated, and represents a sort of third rail that managers dare not mention even in hypothetical planning documents.<br />
<br />
For the baseline electrification scenario, 114 weekday trains will operate with 7 cars each, triggering the second assistant conductor requirement per the union agreement. Because today's service already has two assistant conductors on some trains, putting them on all trains will not double the cost of assistant conductors, and may reduce the cost impact of split shifts. Let's assume that the number of assistant conductors will increase by 50% at the equivalent of today's service level to staff every train with two assistant conductors. If on top of that we increase service from 94 to 114 weekday trains, then the cost of assistant conductors rises from $7 million to almost $13 million (in 2019 dollars).<br />
<br />
For the enhanced growth scenario in 2023, with 168 weekday trains, the cost rises from $7 million to $19 million (still in 2019 dollars). With service expansion to 8 trains per peak hour and 204 weekday trains in 2027, the cost of assistant conductors reaches $23 million per year!<br />
<br />
These are enormous figures and it's plain to see that assistant conductors are a huge driver of current and future operating costs.<br />
<br />
<b>The way it should be: get rid of assistant conductors!</b><br />
<br />
The crew position of assistant conductor, like brakeman and fireman before it, has outlived its usefulness in the year 2020. As modern technologies automate a significant portion of the workload traditionally performed by conductors, the time has come to modify union agreements to enable the operation of eight-car trains with a single conductor, or even no conductor at all.<br />
<br />
Eliminating unproductive labor does not mean eliminating well-paying union jobs: even with a single conductor per train, the overall size of the conductor workforce may need to grow to accommodate increased service. The criteria used to determine minimum crew size should no longer include the number of cars. Automatic passenger counting equipment on the new fleet will provide all the statistical data to evaluate when off-peak trains could even go to zero-conductor (single person) operation.<br />
<br />
Conductors should be supplemented and eventually replaced by roving teams of fare inspectors, not assigned to a particular train, who spot-check proof of payment and patrol particularly crowded trains. The train operator (a.k.a. engineer in old-school parlance) can take care of all aspects of train operation, as is practiced at BART. This will require a cultural shift.<br />
<br />
Today's operating cost structure is a burden that hinders service growth. Assistant conductors must go, and the union agreements that govern train crew sizes should be revisited again, as they have been periodically in decades past.Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com74tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-60551119121874213752020-05-09T15:32:00.000-07:002020-05-10T12:02:11.303-07:00Pandemic Open ThreadThese are challenging times. We can ponder ideas that are significantly outside the mainstream, taking an existing concept and extrapolating it, Black Mirror style, to its extreme conclusion. Here are some controversial conversation starters:<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZdczCFfOICUIniYjX3lF5wICp8QlGrsYQwnMjZvBsnmujLIciQ7x9lOjtYwu5CSwDnYGnf6jo89iT2ws43onkhCdLK9sndwuL9Hse8FtigYgfQkwLJOcp24Dfhw4eFs0H88XXpxI-sI0W/s1600/bart_emu_palo_alto_medium_format.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="896" data-original-width="1500" height="191" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZdczCFfOICUIniYjX3lF5wICp8QlGrsYQwnMjZvBsnmujLIciQ7x9lOjtYwu5CSwDnYGnf6jo89iT2ws43onkhCdLK9sndwuL9Hse8FtigYgfQkwLJOcp24Dfhw4eFs0H88XXpxI-sI0W/s320/bart_emu_palo_alto_medium_format.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Southbound BART Purple Line train arrives at Palo Alto</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Merge Caltrain Into BART</b>. The long-standing push to get the operation of Caltrain a dedicated source of funding (via November ballot measure) looks shaky at best, with the economy heading down the toilet. San Mateo and Santa Clara counties see this tax measure as a way to push Caltrain off their books, but for residents it supplements one tax with another. Why not blow it all up, and merge the two counties into the BART district?<br />
<ul>
<li>Secures dedicated operating funding, via BART half-cent tax to join district.</li>
<li>Removes a warring tribe from the balkanized landscape of Bay Area transit.</li>
<li>Retires the awkward and unwieldy Joint Powers Agreement between the peninsula counties.</li>
<li>"Rings the Bay" in 2023 with a new BART Purple Line, using state of the art HSR-compatible technology.</li>
<li>Ends decades of silly talk about closing a perceived "missing link" between Millbrae and Santa Clara by using wide-gauge technology, as most recently encouraged by VTA (!)</li>
<li>Replaces the passive-aggressive operational antagonism that is routinely on display at Millbrae with coordinated, centrally-planned, seamless connections.</li>
<li>Puts in charge managers who actually understand from direct experience the value of short dwell times and level boarding.</li>
<li>Raises the bar for mega-project delivery, which has been set so low by Caltrain's <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2019/04/foundation-progress-tracker.html">spiraling trouble in managing delays</a> to the electrification project (and the large budget blow-outs that are 100% certain to follow) that we might as well just let BART take over.</li>
<li>Removes the pretext for VTA's ridiculous plan to duplicate the Purple Line with an expensive BART tunnel from San Jose to Santa Clara, with BART instead establishing coordinated, centrally-planned, seamless connections at a modernized San Jose Diridon station.</li>
<li>Frees BART and VTA to plan for a far more logical <a href="https://twitter.com/alfred_twu/status/1254634528540221442" target="_blank">extension along Stevens Creek Boulevard</a> to serve the sprawling automobile-captive transit deserts of Santa Clara County.</li>
<li>Keeps the really good people at Caltrain employed. They can work for BART.</li>
<li>Just makes categorical sense. Caltrain's trajectory of modernization, described extensively in its <a href="https://caltrain2040.org/" target="_blank">business planning effort</a>, takes it out of the old-fashioned category of "commuter rail" and into the category of "rapid transit," right here in the Bay Area. You could then describe it as Bay Area Rapid Transit, or perhaps just BART for short. If it walks like a BART and quacks like a BART, then it surely must be BART!</li>
</ul>
<b>Kill the DTX project</b>. The San Francisco Downtown Extension (DTX) is one of those projects that is so important that everyone got tunnel vision and let costs explode as we forgot why we were doing it in the first place. A quarter century of planning later and at six billion dollars and rising, the benefit is no longer worth the cost. Why not blow it all up, and merge DTX with the Second Transbay Rail Crossing?<br />
<ul>
<li>Solves the problem once, not twice, something taxpayers and riders will all appreciate. DTX and Transbay Tube II both connect a mega-region by creating high-speed, high-capacity arteries to supply the economic heart of the Bay Area. Both projects solve a <u>geometry</u> problem that no amount of additional freeway lanes or autonomous vehicle technology can possibly address. They should be one project, and the distinction between them is not only operationally counter-productive but astronomically costly for taxpayers.</li>
<li>Defuses an emerging and highly toxic competitive dynamic between two competing mega-projects, which threatens to delay both.</li>
<li>Makes the Salesforce Transit Center a through-station, which is enormously more efficient to operate and enables far higher throughput capacity (trains and passengers) within the existing station footprint. Yes, this requires dismantling a couple of medium-sized high rises whose foundations stand in the way on the northeast end of the train box; this is the cost of progress.</li>
<li>Enables seamless high-speed electric through service from the East Bay / Sacramento to the Peninsula and Silicon valley, just like the Paris RER or London Crossrail.</li>
<li>Stores the EMU fleet on the Oakland side of Transbay Tube II, presumably somewhere inside the dystopian freeway mess of the Maze, thus removing the anachronistic need for a train yard in the heart of San Francisco.</li>
<li>Allows a large-diameter tunnel boring machine (big enough to allow for 2 wide-gauge tracks stacked on top of 2 standard-gauge tracks for the Transbay segment) to start from a more accessible construction site on the Oakland side. The TBM would land in San Francisco near Howard Street, providing the start for a Geary BART subway.</li>
</ul>
Yes, crayon plans like this do not factor in important things like Environmental Impact Reports and shovel-readiness, or the entrenched politics of established bureaucracies, or the deeply carved flows of monies from various federal, state, regional and local sources into the pockets of the private Transit Industrial Complex. But sometimes, difficult times call for big changes. Changes that put riders and taxpayers, who are all suffering to various degrees through this pandemic, in a stronger position at a table of stakeholders that rarely has much room for them.Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com63tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-2078966826784411782020-01-24T00:00:00.000-08:002020-01-24T00:00:25.725-08:00Electric Timetable Contest<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIp00qpdfFhuLSUWWy5PBUUSqf-fjbBkXYxSy8Ru7b-lWahR-e6eBETYKq76qvMYA-l2_mSFvn1XdzLrdBTC-qL4WjolGWf4mMLtZ21sXVbN8s0ge3zjQ1tLguTjQ7RVFsCiT0i7r6GhQk/s1600/takt_cup.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="338" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIp00qpdfFhuLSUWWy5PBUUSqf-fjbBkXYxSy8Ru7b-lWahR-e6eBETYKq76qvMYA-l2_mSFvn1XdzLrdBTC-qL4WjolGWf4mMLtZ21sXVbN8s0ge3zjQ1tLguTjQ7RVFsCiT0i7r6GhQk/s200/takt_cup.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The coveted Takt Cup</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Timetable planning has long been a staple of this blog, with the support of rapid prototyping tools like Richard Mlynarik's excellent <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php" target="_blank">Taktulator</a>, a calculator for "Taktverkehr," the German term for clockface timetabling. While it may take a few minutes to learn how to use the tool, you can easily punch in a stopping pattern into the Taktulator to get an instant score, based on well-researched <a href="http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2012/10/formulation-of-service-quality-metric.html">quality metrics</a> and <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2011/05/calling-all-service-planners.html">train performance calculations</a> described here almost a decade ago. The service quality score is normalized so that the <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?title=Caltrain%202011%20AM&t1t=F40-79MPH&t1h=60&t1s=44&t1n=0&t1c=000000&t1p=10&t1d=s&t1f=5&t1l=AM+SB+44&t1=.900.35.....35...35....35.35..35.35.35.35.35.35.300.35..210.900&t2t=F40-79MPH&t2h=60&t2s=59&t2n=0&t2c=f03580&t2p=10&t2d=s&t2f=5&t2l=AM+SB+59&t2=.900.45.....45........45..45....45.....900.&t3t=F40-79MPH&t3h=60&t3s=14&t3n=0&t3c=ff0000&t3p=10&t3d=s&t3f=5&t3l=AM+SB+14&t3=.900.45.....45.....45......45...45.....900.&t4t=F40-79MPH&t4h=60&t4s=19&t4n=0&t4c=808000&t4p=10&t4d=s&t4f=5&t4l=AM+SB+19&t4=.900.....35...35.35..35..35...35.35...35..35...900.&t5t=F40-79MPH&t5h=60&t5s=24&t5n=0&t5c=d0d000&t5p=10&t5d=s&t5f=5&t5l=AM+SB+24&t5=.900.35..35.35.35.35..35.35.35.35.35.35.35...35......35..240.900&t6t=F40-79MPH&t6h=60&t6s=0&t6n=56&t6c=f03580&t6p=10&t6d=n&t6f=5&t6l=AM+NB+03&t6=.900......35...35.....35...35....35....150.900&t7t=F40-79MPH&t7h=60&t7s=0&t7n=22&t7c=d0d000&t7p=10&t7d=n&t7f=5&t7l=AM+NB+22&t7=.900.35..300.35.35.35..35.35.35.35.35.35.35..35....35...35..900.&t8t=F40-79MPH&t8h=60&t8s=0&t8n=45&t8c=ff0000&t8p=10&t8d=n&t8f=5&t8l=AM+NB+45&t8=.900......45.....45......45...45.....900.&t9t=F40-79MPH&t9h=60&t9s=0&t9n=50&t9c=808000&t9p=10&t9d=n&t9f=5&t9l=AM+NB+50&t9=.900.....35...35.35..35..35....35.35..35.35....900.&t10t=F40-79MPH&t10h=60&t10s=0&t10n=49&t10c=000000&t10p=10&t10d=n&t10f=5&t10l=AM+NB+57&t10=.900....35..35.....35...35..35.35.35.35.35.35.360.35..210.900&start=07&period=90" target="_blank">2011 timetable</a>, not much different from today's, earns 100 points.<br />
<br />
Working back from its long term service vision, Caltrain has <a href="http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/WPLP+Committee+Agenda+Packet.pdf" target="_blank">started planning</a> for the near term timetable change that will occur with the start of electric service. Through a process of elimination, Caltrain has settled on two candidate service patterns, each with six trains per peak hour per direction, linked below in the Taktulator. You can verify that the resulting string line diagrams match extremely closely with the last couple of slides in Caltrain's <a href="http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/WPLP+Committee+Agenda+Packet.pdf" target="_blank">presentation</a>.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=750&height=500&period=120&start=7&direction=&title=Two+Zone+With+Express&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1=.900.45..45.45.45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45...45...45.45....45.900&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=North+Local&t1s=15&t1n=24&t1c=006666&t1p=10&t1f=E&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=.900.45...45..45.45.......45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..900.&t2d=&t2h=30&t2l=South+Local&t2s=9&t2n=10&t2c=006666&t2p=10&t2f=E&t3t=F40-79MPH&t3=.900.45.....45...45..45...45...45...45.45....45.900&t3d=&t3h=30&t3l=Express&t3s=0.5&t3n=16.5&t3c=3333CC&t3p=12&t3f=D&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&return=basic" target="_blank">Two Zone with Express</a></b><br />
Score: <b>123.3</b><br />
Fleet: 13 EMU + 7 diesel <br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=750&height=500&period=120&start=7&direction=&title=Distributed+Skip+Stop&t1t=F40-79MPH&t1=.900.45...45..45...45...45..45...45...45.45....45.900&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=Pattern+3&t1s=0&t1n=18&t1c=00AA66&t1p=16&t1f=D&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=.900.45...45..45..45..45.45...45..45.45..45.45.45.45...45.900&t2d=&t2h=30&t2l=Pattern+2&t2s=19&t2n=26&t2c=00AA66&t2p=10&t2f=E&t3t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t3=.900.45..45..45.45.45..45..45..45.45...45.45..45.45..45..900.&t3d=&t3h=30&t3l=Pattern+1&t3s=8.5&t3n=11&t3c=00AA66&t3p=8&t3f=E&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&return=basic" target="_blank">Distributed Skip Stop</a></b><br />
Score: <b>124.1</b><br />
Fleet: 13 EMU + 7 diesel <br />
This timetable has a bit of a "can't get there from here" problem.<br />
<br />
Can YOU beat those scores with a better concept?<br />
<br />
Of course, scores depend on the assumptions you make. If you assume that the downtown extension is built into San Francisco Transbay, that all the diesels are replaced by EMUs, that dwell times are shortened by system-wide level boarding, that operating practices are reformed to allow better punctuality with less padding of the timetable, that terminal turn times are shortened to match foreign practice, and that a cross-platform transfer station is built in Redwood City with a short four-track section from just north of San Carlos into Redwood City (most of these contemplated in Caltrain's <a href="https://caltrain2040.org/" target="_blank">long-term planning</a>), then you can set a sky-high score. In fact, using the Taktulator, you can even quantify the service benefit of each separate improvement. If we're allowed to dream, surely this is one of the most efficient:<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=750&height=500&period=120&start=7&direction=&title=Redwood+Shuttle+2%2B4+79mph&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1=480.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20..20.20.20.480............&t1d=&t1h=30&t1l=San+Mateo+Shuttle&t1s=0&t1n=-6&t1c=FF0000&t1p=7&t1f=S&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=600.40.30...30..30...30.....60..20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20..30.600&t2d=&t2h=15&t2l=Santa+Clara+Limited&t2s=-3.5&t2n=-0.5&t2c=0000FF&t2p=7&t2f=R&t3t=NONE&t3=900...........................900&t3d=&t3h=30&t3l=&t3s=10&t3n=5&t3c=000000&t3p=10&t3f=&t4t=NONE&t4=900...........................900&t4d=&t4h=30&t4l=&t4s=10&t4n=5&t4c=000000&t4p=10&t4f=&return=basic" target="_blank">Richard's Finest</a></b><br />
Score: <b>230.2</b><br />
Fleet: 16 EMU<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, for the start of electric service in 2023, we'll have to settle for a bit less. There is no service to San Francisco Transbay, there is a fleet of 19 EMUs available of which you probably don't want to operate more than 17 at any given time, dwell times are still long (for simplicity, assume 45 seconds everywhere), timetable padding is ample (assume 10%), terminal turns are slow (assume 15 minutes), and there are no expanded stations or passing tracks. So, with those assumptions input into the Taktulator, can you beat Caltrain's score and win the coveted Takt Cup?<br />
<br />
Please post your suggested Taktulator timetables and scores (and your supporting rationale) below in the comments. In your comment, use a clickable hyperlink, in the format <a href="your-taktulator-link">your timetable title<\a>, for brevity and clarity.<br />
<br />
Here's my first entry for this contest, to kick things off:<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=750&height=500&period=120&start=7&direction=&title=Silicon+Valley+All+Stop&t1t=F40-79MPH&t1=.900.45...45..45...45.....45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.900&t1d=&t1h=60&t1l=Pattern+1&t1s=-1&t1n=15&t1c=000000&t1p=10&t1f=D&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2=.900.45...45..45..45..45.45.45..45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.900&t2d=&t2h=30&t2l=Pattern+2&t2s=19&t2n=25&t2c=00AA66&t2p=10&t2f=E&t3t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t3=.900.45..45..45.45.45..45..45..45.45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..900.&t3d=&t3h=30&t3l=Pattern+3&t3s=8&t3n=10&t3c=00AA66&t3p=10&t3f=E&t4t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t4=.900.45..45.45..45...45..45.45..45..45.45.45.45.45.45.45.45..45.900&t4d=&t4h=60&t4l=Pattern+4&t4s=30&t4n=45&t4c=00AA66&t4p=10&t4f=E&t5t=NONE&t5=900...........................900&t5d=&t5h=30&t5l=&t5s=10&t5n=5&t5c=000000&t5p=10&t5f=&t6t=NONE&t6=900...........................900&t6d=&t6h=30&t6l=&t6s=10&t6n=5&t6c=000000&t6p=10&t6f=&return=basic" target="_blank">Silicon Valley All Stop</a></b><br />
Score: <b>126.9</b><br />
Fleet: 17 EMU + 4 diesel<br />
<br />
This improves on Caltrain's concept by admitting what census data and Caltrain's presentation tells us: <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2013/10/census-driven-service-planning.html">all of Silicon Valley has enormous ridership potential</a>, and running skip-stop express service south of Menlo Park is harmful to overall service quality. In short, the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2011/12/baby-bullet-effect.html">Baby Bullet is bad</a>. This timetable also makes better use of the EMU fleet, as was intended when additional trains were ordered, by running 5 EMU + 1 diesel per hour per direction, instead of 4 EMU + 2 diesel.<br />
<br />
Can you beat my score subject to the assumptions above?Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com52tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-21833421965479176332019-12-01T16:36:00.001-08:002019-12-01T16:36:06.704-08:00Three Next StepsCaltrain's exhaustive <a href="https://caltrain2040.org/" target="_blank">business plan</a> effort has resulted in a long range service vision for how to grow the railroad to the year 2040, recently adopted by the board as official policy. This is the mountain we wish to climb. How do we climb it? One step at a time. In fact, with electrified service now <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2019/09/electrification-delayed.html">unlikely to begin before 2023</a>, there is extra time to plan and execute three next steps.<br />
<br />
<b>Step One: Extend Platforms</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPBBS3bf7m3JIkGJGRRF3BNaJ7tbutrHbx6kY4vjyzb60BcO0wQkFwj-HzWAVs4YOBAkP4SEqI4ZVOvbog-a3mnBJWAM6_4tC_dndIM-OhpCDXra-1cIkvLG_J4reIsuCfzpC3fGZyMjBy/s1600/platform_extensions_for_8cars.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1231" data-original-width="1171" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPBBS3bf7m3JIkGJGRRF3BNaJ7tbutrHbx6kY4vjyzb60BcO0wQkFwj-HzWAVs4YOBAkP4SEqI4ZVOvbog-a3mnBJWAM6_4tC_dndIM-OhpCDXra-1cIkvLG_J4reIsuCfzpC3fGZyMjBy/s200/platform_extensions_for_8cars.png" width="190" /></a></div>
The biggest short-term constraint to growing Caltrain capacity is limited platform length. The new EMUs will be 685 feet long when extended to eight cars, too long for many existing platforms. The existing platform lengths are shown in the graphic at right (<a href="http://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/201608_California_Rail_Network_Schematics.pdf" target="_blank">source</a>), with the required extensions to 700 feet highlighted in orange. The diagram shows the year of construction of each platform, proving that Caltrain is a champion of platform construction, having poured about <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-great-platform-construction.html">five linear miles of new platforms</a> over the last two decades. The amount missing is about 3500 linear feet, or a bit over two years' worth of average platform production. There are a couple of tight spots boxed in by grade crossings, most notably Burlingame (767 feet between pedestrian crossings), but most locations have plenty of space.<br />
<br />
Longer platforms enable the operation of 7-car diesel express trains, each with about 950 seats. While diesel trains don't feature prominently in future plans, they can still fill an important interim role once they become freed up by the arrival of the EMU fleet. The diesels can <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_BiLevel_Coach#/media/File:Lakeshore_West_GO_Train_Westbound.jpg" target="_blank">easily handle longer trains</a>. It may not look good to continue belching diesel fumes, but it gets the job done at far lower emissions per passenger-mile than by forcing unmet demand to drive instead.<br />
<br />
At the recent going rate of 7 to 10 thousand dollars per linear foot of platform, including all capital project overheads, the entire job should cost in the range of $25 - $35 million. For perspective, that's a percent or two of the modernization budget. This project is within reach of Caltrain's existing resources and is now official policy under section (1).E.ii of the service vision. There is no plausible excuse for not undertaking it immediately, to finish by 2023 concurrently with the start of electrified revenue service.<br />
<br />
<b>Step Two: Add 8th Car to EMU Fleet</b><br />
<br />
The EMU order currently stands at 19 seven-car trains. The seventh car was ordered in a recent exercise of an option on the original contract, at an average price of $4.7 million per car. Assuming 10% price escalation, another 19 cars to extend this fleet to 8 cars would cost about $100M. This is a large sum, but one that could be scraped together over the next year or so if some high-speed rail funding gets re-allocated to interconnected "book end" projects.<br />
<br />
The eighth car represents a significant step up in capacity: since it
has no traction equipment cabinets, bike spaces or bathrooms, it has room for a whopping
132 seats, bringing seated capacity per EMU from 667 to 799, a 20%
increase. So, for an extra 5% of the modernization budget, you buy an extra 20% capacity. This should be undertaken as soon as possible.<br />
<br />
From an emissions point of view, ordering the eighth car is far preferable to ordering additional 7-car EMU formations to displace the diesel fleet sooner. Growing the fleet before fully replacing it provides a short-term peak-hour capacity boost that will remove traffic from roads and alleviate congestion, easily offsetting the emissions of the small remaining diesel-hauled fleet. Going all-electric sooner sounds "green" if you look at Caltrain in isolation, but keeping some diesels in the short term is greener when considering the overall transportation system of which Caltrain is a part, which is what ultimately matters for the air we breathe. Seven-car diesels can be used exclusively in express service, where fewer stops and starts (which are dreadfully slow with diesel) pose less of a time penalty.<br />
<br />
There is the small wrinkle of where to park these longer trains when they are not in service. CEMOF, the maintenance facility in San Jose, currently stores two trains end-to-end <a href="http://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/CEMOF_layout.pdf" target="_blank">on four 1200-foot sidings</a> where two longer trains (EMU-8 at 685 ft, or diesel+7 at 664 ft) won't fit. This means at least four trains will need to be stored somewhere else, presumably at San Francisco or San Jose, as was the practice before CEMOF was built. In a real pinch, trains can be stored during the off-peak in the controlled sidings south of Redwood Junction, with certain shoulder-of-peak trains originating and terminating at Redwood City to avoid long deadhead moves.<br />
<br />
<b>Step Three: Accelerate Planning for Level Boarding</b><br />
<br />
Level boarding (<a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/search?q=level+boarding">discussed extensively</a> on this blog) decreases trip times, improves punctuality, increases crew productivity per hour of labor, and increases the frequency of service that can be provided by a train fleet of a given size. While Caltrain's embrace of the concept has been hesitant, it is now policy under the same section (1).E.ii of the service vision adopted by the board. The next step is to get serious about planning how to actually do it, because it is a far more complicated problem than it first appears.<br />
<br />
Caltrain staff have decided to forgo boarding using the high-level doors, and recently issued a change order to have the EMU fleet delivered with these <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2019/07/emergency-exit-fail.html">doors replaced by plug panels</a>. Level boarding will happen with European-style 550 mm platforms, which can't be a bad thing, although accessibility requirements are more difficult to meet in the United States. The trick is then how to get there, and how to end up with a level boarding solution that doesn't require crew assistance whenever a person of reduced mobility needs to board or alight, in the current inefficient fashion of Northeastern railroads.<br />
<br />
The trains will require a boarding step arrangement that deploys to serve either 8-inch legacy platforms (using a drop step mechanism) or to close the gap to newly raised 550 mm platforms, during an extended transition period where some stations may have been modified before others. Due to a lack of foresight on Caltrain's part, this capability is not available on the new EMUs as procured. The EMUs will need to be retrofitted with new three-position step modules (presumably engineered by Stadler's step supplier, <a href="https://www.schaltbau-bode.com/product/biss-standardised-sliding-step-systems/" target="_blank">Bode / Schaltbau</a>) roughly like this:<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfSc43qDl8yWhW6pVF8nntLQMsi_jm-1CXMJUzydEVLzPFSvcsjd9VUJoTGJrsiODnzgiqc9XVwndxgi6Sx3DvDptPlSo6YVSSJnI3S2fOHWG2HO6Vt3H4o2pfO_TOcSu1kCIWONBYSm-z/s1600/position1_stowed.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="853" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfSc43qDl8yWhW6pVF8nntLQMsi_jm-1CXMJUzydEVLzPFSvcsjd9VUJoTGJrsiODnzgiqc9XVwndxgi6Sx3DvDptPlSo6YVSSJnI3S2fOHWG2HO6Vt3H4o2pfO_TOcSu1kCIWONBYSm-z/s200/position1_stowed.png" width="200" /></a></td>
<td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDFG9fiT66fTKHjmYr4LmaveFmyX7Wv7irw9DJB4cmeJ6XiaSt0YTzHlz0l5-XjlL98Q0E3PmIZ6rzN8mo92boM7CbfpdIMatCjf458fsBg6gpjRic5C7bcokoKDcIIz76JI3GCEikT5Sp/s1600/position2_550mm.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="853" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDFG9fiT66fTKHjmYr4LmaveFmyX7Wv7irw9DJB4cmeJ6XiaSt0YTzHlz0l5-XjlL98Q0E3PmIZ6rzN8mo92boM7CbfpdIMatCjf458fsBg6gpjRic5C7bcokoKDcIIz76JI3GCEikT5Sp/s200/position2_550mm.png" width="200" /></a></td>
<td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnIjFRM51MlNt_Nsj7qMTQ_iyegDxNODx_XsOKEXSubfY-9QRoMSX9LYQQZUuprt9pp7GIMyyl2vUB4UyBcPtxAZB0Z14onxlpu16T312LYFdnlnMWp83hO04xY9Fuz9zmgsoODfZFlhHl/s1600/position3_8inch.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="853" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnIjFRM51MlNt_Nsj7qMTQ_iyegDxNODx_XsOKEXSubfY-9QRoMSX9LYQQZUuprt9pp7GIMyyl2vUB4UyBcPtxAZB0Z14onxlpu16T312LYFdnlnMWp83hO04xY9Fuz9zmgsoODfZFlhHl/s200/position3_8inch.png" width="200" /></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
The primary engineering challenge is to meet the ADA horizontal gap requirement in Position 2, which is 3 inches maximum (in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/38.93" target="_blank">current law</a>) and is planned to be <a href="https://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/1765/final_report.pdf" target="_blank">reduced to 2 inches</a>. The step mechanism must also deploy to the correct height without crew intervention.<br />
<br />
The platforms will need to be raised by a bit less than 14 inches, preferably without demolishing and starting over. One intriguing way to do this cheaply and with minimal service disruption would be to re-use the existing platforms as a slab foundation, with drainage, electrical grounding and bonding, and utilities staying as they are. The platforms would first be fitted with prefabricated adjustable edge modules. An adjustable platform edge that can be jacked to the correct height at initial installation and periodically adjusted during maintenance (e.g. after track tamping) is an unavoidable requirement of meeting the demanding ADA gap specifications for unassisted level boarding.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcV697WzutP5jX8XSueL-DVQcJDL2xkRgWCDC7EvBqfmblcsDhO41hAjDNCGvQuHMfnSI3W5ap0_8D0rNxR7MXL4Ug7CtbtCi0mJWhPSO1C1pRk7YJvJN4JUz4xTtzp1wEcBH-qbgKr1E7/s1600/render_550mm_platform_edge_module.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="723" data-original-width="1200" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcV697WzutP5jX8XSueL-DVQcJDL2xkRgWCDC7EvBqfmblcsDhO41hAjDNCGvQuHMfnSI3W5ap0_8D0rNxR7MXL4Ug7CtbtCi0mJWhPSO1C1pRk7YJvJN4JUz4xTtzp1wEcBH-qbgKr1E7/s400/render_550mm_platform_edge_module.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">View of a single six-foot-long 550-mm platform edge module installed on a legacy 8” platform</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
After suitable modifications to platform amenities, the remaining area of the platform would be raised using lightweight expanded polystyrene fill (Geofoam) and modular pavers. The pavers cover the temporary boarding step that is integral to each edge module, which is no longer needed. The resiliency of the resulting platform structure enables periodic adjustment of the platform edge jackscrews to maintain compliance with the ADA gap criteria.<br />
<br />
The modular construction technique with edge modules and pavers lends itself to rapid “blitz” construction schedules, since no platform concrete curing is necessary. After each night's construction, the platform can be left in a usable state for the next day's service, avoiding the logistical complications of closing entire platforms during construction.<br />
<br />
Regardless of the technical solution ultimately adopted, level boarding starts with a robust planning process to define the problem and consider all the engineering approaches. This planning process is not expensive, and it needs to be funded and staffed now that level boarding is policy.<br />
<br />
<b>State of Good Design</b><br />
<br />
Railroad operating departments work hard to achieve and maintain what is known in industry lingo as a state of good repair (SOGR). If that's all that Caltrain is going to do in the next decade, electrification will fall flat, like a sort of MBTA with pantographs on top. We have a chance to move beyond the narrow commuter-rail SOGR mindset, striving for something far bigger: a state of good design. The three next steps described here are a small way to get started right now on the way to the visionary service improvements described in Caltrain's business plan.Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com80tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-34198712062163251062019-09-25T22:08:00.001-07:002019-09-25T23:21:11.530-07:00Risk and Opportunity in Redwood CityLowe, a major real estate development firm, is preparing to <a href="https://www.redwoodcity.org/city-hall/current-projects/development-projects?id=104" target="_blank">redevelop Redwood City's Sequoia Station</a>, an outdated strip mall adjacent to the Caltrain station, into a 12-acre mixed-use project <a href="https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/redwood-city-s-sequoia-station-plans-to-include-a-/article_80dc86ea-dc23-11e9-9ad3-7b672960908f.html" target="_blank">with towers up to 17 stories tall</a>. If that is eye-opening to residents of Redwood City, consider that few people yet know that a greatly expanded Redwood City station is the keystone transfer node to enable the growth envisioned in Caltrain's <a href="http://caltrain2040.org/wp-content/uploads/Caltrain-BP-Service-Vision-Presentation.pdf" target="_blank">business plan service vision</a>. This new station will require slightly more land than the railroad already owns, and can only be located in Redwood City, the sweet spot that lies halfway between San Francisco and San Jose at the connection point to the Dumbarton rail corridor.<br />
<br />
This creates a risk: if a commercial development project is allowed to proceed without respect to the future real estate needs of the railroad, then Caltrain will be constricted and unable to build the optimal infrastructure to support future growth.<br />
<br />
<b>Additional Land Needed For Caltrain</b><br />
<br />
Caltrain and Samtrans have extensive land holdings at the Redwood City transit center. Still, just a bit more is needed to build a high-functioning piece of infrastructure, and be could traded for other parcels. Click to expand the map:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrxKWoPgIMrj-naQXVTnjmGHJ7VPjAIfdi1AF0I8fUquDrRuh0SHgkaz4Fb93-efwJ1a4FvGu94ls1btARqlHaVtztbJ-sP_YXVS-YfqG6d8e6q6QaUhUyzClXfXuD3uWCHQ2mOvqlEQBM/s1600/redwood_city_station_footprint_map.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="1447" height="219" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrxKWoPgIMrj-naQXVTnjmGHJ7VPjAIfdi1AF0I8fUquDrRuh0SHgkaz4Fb93-efwJ1a4FvGu94ls1btARqlHaVtztbJ-sP_YXVS-YfqG6d8e6q6QaUhUyzClXfXuD3uWCHQ2mOvqlEQBM/s640/redwood_city_station_footprint_map.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Land needed for future expanded station in Redwood City (shaded green)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Design Principles</b><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu_ssq4gdWkRD5n1RxbUVSSdLDv_BN2EkogqUfBpxST3jV2O6BHVAlrww53YuKFx-mrERok8O8_dlKbGPUz2eCawsWIOquGLSkDjBAieuxSocT57t_A9VAETZcLhyQcoPz-1BlHKHIIC5A/s1600/rwc_at_grade_station.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="643" data-original-width="1500" height="85" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu_ssq4gdWkRD5n1RxbUVSSdLDv_BN2EkogqUfBpxST3jV2O6BHVAlrww53YuKFx-mrERok8O8_dlKbGPUz2eCawsWIOquGLSkDjBAieuxSocT57t_A9VAETZcLhyQcoPz-1BlHKHIIC5A/s200/rwc_at_grade_station.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The absolute worst way to build it.<br />
Existence of this city rendering is<br />
reason enough to be concerned.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
To ensure that the Sequoia Station project becomes an exemplar transit-oriented
development, rather than relegating Caltrain to the role of
development-oriented transit, the rail agency and the developer should agree on some broad design principles.
<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2018/10/thinking-big-in-redwood-city.html">Think Big</a>. Redwood City is one of the few stops on the peninsula rail corridor not surrounded by a sea of low-density single-family housing. Intensive land use and transportation must fit together to achieve a dynamic yet sustainable low-carbon future.<br /> </li>
<li><u>Form follows function</u>. No amount of architectural flourish or amenity can make up for a poor station design. Optimize for convenient access, easy transfers between trains and buses, short walks, direct and intuitive routes.<br /> </li>
<li><u>Put the station at the center</u> of the action, right over Broadway. Don't shove it to the north, out of the way of the development. The city rendering at right shows precisely what NOT to do.<br /> </li>
<li><u>Configure the station as two island platforms</u> to facilitate cross-platform transfers, without time-consuming vertical circulation or platform changes. The Caltrain business plan's staff-recommended service vision relies <b>entirely </b>on these Redwood City cross-platform transfers; every single train that pulls into Redwood City will make a timed transfer to another same-direction train docked at the opposite edge of the same platform. Denoting express tracks as 'F' for Fast and local tracks as 'S' for Slow, <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2008/12/slow-traffic-keep-left.html">the optimal layout is FSSF</a> with two islands, resulting in F-platform-SS-platform-F. Again, the city rendering shows precisely what NOT to do: passengers would not only have to change platforms, but also cross the tracks at grade.<br /> </li>
<li><u>Elevate the train station</u> to reconnect the street grid and make the railroad permeable to pedestrians, bikes, and other traffic. A busy four-track station is fundamentally incompatible with at-grade railroad crossings, and the only reasonable way to grade separate at this location is by elevating the entire station. Obstacles to pedestrian circulation such as the Jefferson Avenue underpass would be removed. Once again, the at-grade city rendering shows what NOT to do.<br /> </li>
<li><u>Use four-track approaches</u> from the north and the south. Cross-platform transfers are most efficient if trains do not have to arrive and depart sequentially using the same track, which adds about 3 minutes of delay. The best transfer is one where the two same-direction trains can arrive and depart simultaneously on their own separate tracks. Temporal separation is efficiently established by having the local train stop one station away from Redwood City (southbound at San Carlos or northbound at a new Fair Oaks station at Fifth Avenue) at each end of a new four-track segment that will ultimately measure four miles. In this arrangement, the express trains naturally gain on the local trains without a single passenger being delayed at Redwood City.<br /> </li>
<li><u>Include turn-back tracks</u>. Preserve room in the right of way north and south of the station for turn back pocket sidings, between the central slow tracks. Dumbarton rail corridor trains may not necessarily "interline" or continue on the peninsula rail corridor, so it's important to give them a convenient place to transfer and turn around without fouling other train traffic on the express tracks (hence FSSF arrangement). Same thing for a possible San Mateo local, which could serve the more densely spaced stops north of Redwood City.<br /> </li>
<li><u>Don't be constrained by discrete city blocks</u>. It could make sense to build structures or connect them over and across the tracks, more tightly knitting the station complex into surrounding mixed-use neighborhoods. This has some surmountable safety and liability implications, but buildings on top of busy stations are a common feature of successful cities around the world.<br /> </li>
<li><u>Plan for long 400-meter platforms</u>, not Caltrain's standard 700-foot platform length (again as seen in the city rendering of what NOT to do). While statewide high-speed rail plans currently do not include a stop in Redwood City, it is becoming enough of a destination and a regional transportation node that it makes sense to build a station large enough to future-proof it for service by long high-speed trains, regardless of what the California High-Speed Rail Authority might have to say about it.<br /> </li>
<li><u>Think ahead about construction sequencing</u>. Redwood City should be grade separated in one project from Whipple to Route 84, including the elevated station, taking advantage of <a href="http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/01/caltrain-right-of-way-maps.html">Caltrain's land holdings</a> to minimize the use of temporary tracks. A shoo-fly track would have to be built on Pennsylvania Avenue (within the railroad right of way) to make room for construction of the western two-track viaduct. Trains would begin using the elevated station while a second eastern two-track viaduct is constructed. Pennsylvania Avenue could re-open later, under the new four-track viaduct. Construction sequencing may drive how much extra land is needed for the railroad, so it's important to think it through up front.</li>
</ul>
If these design principles are respected, the re-development of Sequoia Station will present not a risk but an amazing opportunity to enhance Redwood City by realizing its full potential as the fulcrum of the Caltrain corridor and of a new regional express network reaching across the Dumbarton bridge and beyond.Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com116tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-73449573656113792712019-09-01T15:09:00.002-07:002019-09-01T15:09:47.619-07:00Electrification DelayedCaltrain's electrification project is showing ominous signs of falling badly behind schedule. There are at least five bearish indicators:<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7rL7NcYNLNbymNxs7Qz_SzTIT02y3xxM_YHlkXgh65i30tiZx-t_wZS2vF_XtXTtd3GXqfICSX-O15lY3SnHS1dSpIPCAe8IY-XtO3-7BBGWrDfre_dNsLDJPSmXr5vOYUnuG4bgNctP-/s1600/pcep_completion_slips_201909.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="339" data-original-width="641" height="105" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7rL7NcYNLNbymNxs7Qz_SzTIT02y3xxM_YHlkXgh65i30tiZx-t_wZS2vF_XtXTtd3GXqfICSX-O15lY3SnHS1dSpIPCAe8IY-XtO3-7BBGWrDfre_dNsLDJPSmXr5vOYUnuG4bgNctP-/s200/pcep_completion_slips_201909.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Slippery milestone</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Slipping Milestones</b>. One key milestone reported in the project's <a href="http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/CalMod_Document_Library.html" target="_blank">monthly progress reports</a> is known as "Electrification Substantial Completion." From the December 2018 report to the July 2019 report (over a span of 7 months), the milestone has slipped from 6/23/2021 to 12/31/2021 (a bit over 6 months). When a major milestone slips almost day for day, you know the project has gone sideways. The latest <a href="http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/PMOC+Reports/2019-06+June+PCEP+PMOC+Quarterly+Monitoring+Report+June+2019.pdf" target="_blank">PMOC report</a> from the FTA shows that the contractor's date for this key milestone has slipped well into 2022, over a thousand days late relative to the milestone date promised when the contract was signed.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBuWiS0wgxbeUDZFEgxrdXzTV0K7uOirLKOzU9aK_rY6KuOiuxyeOBTIe8vrJMD9BOskDzws8Dr1l8YKmyvG1o5ULqjQ91fN2hQlmoK74ajMIqq6bdoeeCEXCFAjzGZyei03ZFgrKW9ugm/s1600/pcep_underspent_201909.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="570" data-original-width="1118" height="101" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBuWiS0wgxbeUDZFEgxrdXzTV0K7uOirLKOzU9aK_rY6KuOiuxyeOBTIe8vrJMD9BOskDzws8Dr1l8YKmyvG1o5ULqjQ91fN2hQlmoK74ajMIqq6bdoeeCEXCFAjzGZyei03ZFgrKW9ugm/s200/pcep_underspent_201909.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Severely under spend plan</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Significant Under-Spending</b>. The amount of money spent to date is about $640 million less than planned at the start of the project. If the value of the work accomplished is commensurate with the amount spent, then the project is 1.5 years behind schedule. However, there are strong indications of inefficiencies (such as "differing site conditions" disrupting foundation installation) and unplanned scope (such as the new grade crossing constant warning time solution) that make it exceedingly likely that the value earned so far is less than had been planned for the amount spent. From an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_value_management" target="_blank">earned value</a> perspective, the CPI is likely under 1 (over budget) and the SPI below 0.6 (further behind schedule than the spend curve might imply).<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXw5fFLRNZzeXQIV3fvQ7Yz-NEIXDV2P0w45m2FXNluPaFEjz65ALZQBwosBHuX-liRL4uBYQZyAhsWlKSuBH_gxxBIVCOikQ01a8H_9kSUmuBTSB8PhZT5pn1JUkQMqD9UQCg3kp4fLfE/s1600/pcep_foundations_201909.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="513" data-original-width="1155" height="88" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXw5fFLRNZzeXQIV3fvQ7Yz-NEIXDV2P0w45m2FXNluPaFEjz65ALZQBwosBHuX-liRL4uBYQZyAhsWlKSuBH_gxxBIVCOikQ01a8H_9kSUmuBTSB8PhZT5pn1JUkQMqD9UQCg3kp4fLfE/s200/pcep_foundations_201909.PNG" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The little engine that couldn't</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Foundation Chaos</b>. As is plainly obvious to anyone riding the train, foundation installation is not a spatially or temporally orderly process. Digging into the ground reveals old utilities, and often reveals the recently-installed CBOSS fiber optic cables, evidently placed by the contractor where it was easiest (right where foundations need to go) with the as-built configuration either incorrectly documented or not at all. This is another CBOSS issue that could end up in court. Conflict with these cables does not bode well for PTC testing or activation, or for the cost of foundation and pole redesign and relocation. Recent <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2019/04/foundation-progress-tracker.html">indicators</a> show a slight uptick of foundation productivity, but it still lags well below the monthly average of 174 that must now be sustained <i>every month</i> to complete on time. The all-time record is 122, and indications are that August 2019 totals have slid back considerably below trend.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4yIS62JyfXgR4xwwhYUZli_fpZAMJ7FHsK0Us8_wzSFC8b4Ah_DoeSNunaHUajhs0i1HbENlf8GL4yhBbFnZrXZzTxClsEn4NRk2zDs4i-CBne0jC3uG9dadikejy-CTelN6gAZF0DY7d/s1600/pcep_appendix_c_missing_tasks_201909.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="613" data-original-width="751" height="163" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4yIS62JyfXgR4xwwhYUZli_fpZAMJ7FHsK0Us8_wzSFC8b4Ah_DoeSNunaHUajhs0i1HbENlf8GL4yhBbFnZrXZzTxClsEn4NRk2zDs4i-CBne0jC3uG9dadikejy-CTelN6gAZF0DY7d/s200/pcep_appendix_c_missing_tasks_201909.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Missing tasks are delayed and<br />on the critical path</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Missing Schedule Tasks</b>. By all accounts, the long pole in the tent (the critical path of the Balfour Beatty schedule) is the design, installation and testing of the signal system modifications, including the new <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2018/12/grade-crossing-trouble-ahead.html">grade crossing warning system</a>. However, such a task is nowhere to be found in the schedule published in Appendix C of the monthly report, which obscures any insight into the true status of the project. Having recently <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-end-of-cboss.html">set $150 million on fire</a> with CBOSS, Caltrain is understandably skittish about revealing further unforeseen costs and delays associated with signalling, but it seems inexcusable at this juncture that the public master schedule would show only "OCS," "Traction Power," and "Segment Testing" tasks for the electrification contract, when all the action is in the missing task "Signal System Modifications," which is very much on the critical path in Caltrain's internal schedule and the contractor's schedule.<br />
<br />
<b>Proliferation of Schedules</b>. There is apparently no agreement between Caltrain and their contractor on what the real program schedule is. The public schedule in the monthly report is served with a cautionary statement that Balfour Beatty is reporting a significant delay, but the completion milestone is still optimistically set to 12/31/2021. When you end up with several schedules, there is effectively no longer a project schedule. It's anyone's guess when the project will be done, and chances are increasing rapidly that it won't be in 2022, despite Caltrain's increasingly desperate insistence that everything is fine.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Right now would be a good time to come clean about what's really going on. Total transparency is the only saving grace that can spare Caltrain from accusations of project management incompetence.Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com43