Level Boarding Soon, Fast, and Cheap

Caltrain is working on their level boarding roadmap. If their recent work on grade separations is anything to go by, the capture of the agency by the layers of consultants belonging to the transit industrial complex is likely to result in a gold-plated mega-project approach to delivering level boarding in the late 2030s, where each station platform must be reconstructed from the ground up at a system-wide cost easily topping $2 billion.

We don’t need to let them turn level boarding into another costly and delayed mega-project. Existing platforms need to be raised by just 14” and are perfectly suitable as foundation slabs with built-in drainage, electric, plumbing, grounding and bonding. It can all be done without pouring a single cubic yard of concrete. Better yet: stations don't ever need to be closed during construction!

Note: in this article, we will not revisit the urgent need for level boarding, its advantages for reducing trip times and attracting ridership, improving punctuality, increasing crew/vehicle productivity (not just accessibility), or the choice of 48” versus 22” above top of rail (ATOR). These topics are covered extensively in the archives, accessible by search or by keyword label.

Here’s how to get level boarding done soon, quickly and affordably in five steps.

Step 1: EMU Step Retrofit

Diagram (to scale) of new dual step
arrangement. Fixed step in green.
Retractable gap filler in red, shown
in extended position at 22" platform.

The retractable step modules currently installed on the EMUs are removed and replaced fleet-wide with a new dual step arrangement.

• A fixed (not retractable) step is fitted at 15” ATOR, similar to the step arrangement of the old Bombardier cars, proving the acceptable safety of this configuration. The step is sized to fit inside the allowable vehicle loading gauge. It protrudes outside the tapered profile of the lower car body, with structural fusing built in so that expensive damage to the aluminum primary structure is avoided in case the step is struck e.g. in a grade crossing collision.
• A retractable gap filler step at 22” ATOR that extends flush with EMU lower floor level, overhanging the fixed step. This arrangement exists on Swiss Stalder KISS models, and on MUNI Metro. This mechanism is fitted with ultrasonic sensors that inhibit its deployment at 8” low platforms, on an independent per-car basis, i.e. both doors on each car must sense the presence or absence of a 22” platform face and deploy accordingly. Deployment is controlled by onboard software with no intervention by the train crew.

This dual step arrangement allows an EMU to safely dock at an evolving mix of 22” or 8” platforms, or even at a partially raised (partly 8”, partly 22”) platform in mid construction. As the first step towards level boarding, this upgrade needs to be undertaken immediately in concert with Stadler Rail and their step supplier Bode.

Step 2: Platform Furnishing Modifications

In preparation for raising the level of a platform by 14”, all platform furnishings must be modified for the future height. This preparatory construction is performed without closing stations, although portions of a platform may be temporarily inaccessible as the work is performed during nights and weekends. Work can proceed asynchronously at different stations.

Furnishings fall into three categories:

1. Items that have more than 14” of vertical clearance margin can remain as-is, such as taller shelter canopies, visual messaging signs, light poles, and catenary poles.
2. Items that can be raised straightaway by 14” without affecting their compatibility with an 8” platform are modified, such as perimeter fencing, barriers and railing, Clipper terminals, signage, ticket vending machines, utility cabinets, or modular shelters.
3. Items that can’t be raised until the rest of the platform is also raised, such as benches or garbage cans, are prepared. For benches, 14” leg extension brackets can be prefabricated so the raising can be accomplished quickly.

Concurrently with modifications to existing platform furnishings, new railing or fencing and 14” tall edging is added as needed to the outer perimeter of the platform not facing the tracks.

Step 3: Platform Edge Modules

Concept for a platform edge module

The platform edge modules are  engineered prefabricated assemblies, each 6 to 8 feet long. Caltrain will need many (about 6000 system-wide,) so the non-recurring cost of engineering a good design will be well-amortized over the mass production run. The edge modules have several important design features:

• Lightweight reinforced construction with lifting features to allow handling by pallet jack, small forklift or telescopic handler.
• Mounting holes that allow pinning to the existing concrete platform slab, preventing lateral movement from earthquakes or out-of-clearance trains.
• Integrated 24" wide tactile warning strips and high visibility markings from the factory, eliminating the cost of installing such in the field.
• Jacking pads for precise vertical leveling and horizontal lining of the platform edge, providing the required adjustment to comply with tight ADA clearance tolerances as the track settles or wears, or when track is periodically tamped and lined.
• Resilient rubber platform edges with vertical ribbing that supports the weight of boarding and alighting passengers while also providing longitudinal compliance in case of accidental contact. With an edge offset 68" from track center, ribs another 9" deep would keep hard structures outside the clearance envelope mandated by CPUC General Order 26-D, possibly facilitating a waiver. This also provides a compliant surface with which the train's extended gap filler steps can safely make physical contact for a zero-gap platform interface.
• On the side facing away from the tracks, a step with 7” rise and 12” tread depth, to enable temporary use of the module as a 22” platform prior to the remaining surface of the platform being also raised. This step effectively replaces the train’s step at 15", enabling the station to stay open during construction. Even a partial installation of platform edge modules, if not all are installed within one construction shift, can be operated through: the train will deploy the 22” gap filler where modules are detected, and keep them retracted where portions of the 8” platform remain.

While these edge modules aren't off-the-shelf items, their factory mass production can be made more affordable and field installation quicker than the traditional cast-in-place concrete method familiar to Caltain, especially for a systemwide project involving so many platforms at once. They wouldn't be the first customer for a project like this, with established vendors like Creative Composites Group (USA), A.C. Miller (USA),  HERING Group (Germany), Dura Composites (UK), Poundfield Precast (UK), and doubtless many more.

Step 4: Platform Raising

Cross section (roughly to scale)
of materials used in raising
platforms from 8" to 22"

To bring the remaining platform surface up to 22”, five layers are constructed over the original 8" concrete platform slab that henceforth serves as a foundation, in order from bottom to top:

1. Thin layer of gravel to preserve drainage along the surface of the original platform slab, reusing all existing drainage features.
2. 10” layer of lightweight geofoam blocks with vertical drainage holes. This keeps down the dead load of the raised platform (~40 psf total, most likely well within the structural capacity of elevated stations.)
3. Separator layer made of permeable geotextile, to prevent fouling of the underlying layers.
4. Thin layer of compacted sand.
5. Platform topping layer of 3” thick interlocking concrete pavers, similar to German practice.

The finished layers of the raised platform can straightforwardly be reworked or modified as needed (for example, relocating platform furnishings) without resorting to concrete demolition.

Where electrical junction boxes, pull boxes or water valve boxes are embedded in the existing 8” platform surface, a 14” extension to the existing access frame is installed, sized as needed to preserve good access to existing utilities. This is straightforward to integrate with surrounding geofoam and pavers, and avoids the considerable cost of redoing all platform utilities.

Existing platform access stairs and ramps are extended within the existing footprint of the platform, with new railing installed as needed into the existing slab. Stairs require two more steps, and ramps require a 15-foot extension ramp running lengthwise along the platform to meet ADA regulations.

There will be cases where things get complicated, for example around the BART escalators and turnstiles at Millbrae. These may require special configurations with additional ramps and steps, but these problems will arise regardless of construction approach.

Step 5: EMU Step Removal

Once all remaining 8” platforms have been raised to 22”, the fixed step on the trains can be removed, restoring the EMU’s sleek exterior. The sensors on the gap filler steps can also be removed, as these now always extend and no longer need to detect platform height.

In conclusion, this construction sequence for level boarding will not cost $2 billion nor take until the late 2030s. It can be deployed in three years if Caltrain wants it badly enough. Here we hit upon an underlying problem, that their actions over the past decade imply they may not care for level boarding at all. This must change; let them not rest on their electrification laurels for too long.

It's the Trip Time, Stupid

Components of trip time.
Electrification only improved
time in motion. Photos by
Mliu92, Evan0512, SaarPro.

Marco Chitti recently penned a great piece about Why Speed Matters, a critique of Toronto's recently opened and glacially slow Finch West light rail. It echoes some of the themes that have infused discussions about how best to improve Caltrain, and what to focus on next. Electrification had obvious speed benefits that have now been realized, resulting in a ridership boost recently recognized by an industry group as "America's Fastest-Growing Transit Agency." But what now? As the accolades die down and the catenary fades into the scenery, will Caltrain lose its sense of purpose and fall asleep on its laurels?

Their relentless focus must remain on trip time, which comprises more than the time in motion, the component of trip time that was so remarkably improved by electrification. Trip time also includes time at rest, made up of all those station dwell times, and time waiting for the train, which depends on service frequency. The peninsula rail corridor's entire capital program should be organized around reducing trip time; instead, we see attention and funding being scattered among an incoherent set of gold-plated projects that produce no discernible trip time improvements:

• stupendously expensive grade separation projects such as Broadway in Burlingame ($615M to $889M) or Rengstorff Ave in Mountain View ($395M to $453M) masquerading as train projects are actually massive road traffic sewer expansions that provide negligible benefit to the average train passenger, especially after Caltrain recently demonstrated major reductions in cars-on-tracks incidents.
  
  
• like the White House ballroom, a grandiose remodel of the San Jose station (the "Diridon Integration Station Concept Plan") will plow under (literally!) 3 to 6 billion dollars to over-deliver on Caltrain's need for a single island platform at this not particularly remarkable train stop.

None of these shameful nine- and ten-figure megaprojects do anything to attack the components of trip time. To improve trip time, these are the projects that actually matter, in order of small to large:

1. Fixed EMU door software to reduce each station dwell time by about ten seconds (the cost rounds to zero, serving as a useful litmus test of Caltrain's faith in trip time). Reduces time at rest.
    
2. Updated EMU step design, a prerequisite for the transition to level boarding. The prototype cost is $3M and fleet-wide deployment likely less than $10M. This is currently the most important capital project at Caltrain, whether the college intern assigned to it knows this or not. Enables future reduction of time at rest.
    
3. Twenty-minute base frequency, improved from today's half-hour, when the fleet grows to 21 (reliable!) trains. The capital cost is ~$0.4B but is already sunk. This adds operating cost, but only marginally since Caltrain has high fixed costs that can be better amortized over more riders. Reduces time waiting.
    
4. Level boarding, not as a consultant-bloated megaproject where all platforms are replaced, but as a simple and incremental project using the existing platforms as foundation slab with modular, lightweight elements added to raise the height up by two steps (14 inches). This is likely < $0.5B system-wide and reduces time at rest.
    
5. The four-track hub station in Redwood City, preferably with quadruple approach tracks (for simultaneous local+express arrivals and departures) from CP Dumbarton to San Carlos. This is the only grade separation project on the corridor that has any value for trip time. This one is likely about $1B. Reduces both time at rest (for the local being overtaken, thanks to the quadruple approach tracks) and time in motion (via cross-platform transfer to/from an express).
    
6. The SF downtown extension, another dazzlingly expensive megaproject that will only be worth its cost (>$10B) if San Francisco downtown office towers fill up again, if service is extended through a new Transbay Tube to destinations eastward as part of Link21, and if the federal government ever funds big transit projects again. Compared to a two-seat ride, a direct connection reduces time in motion, time at rest, and time waiting for a transfer.

Ridership and revenue follows from trip time, another way of saying that time is money. All other capital projects are at best value-maintaining, not value-adding.

Note: Trip time forms the basis of timetable scoring in the Taktulator, with the nerdy details laid out in the formulation of a service quality metric and the posts linked therefrom. Reading this material over a decade later, it still rings just as true.

Easy Little Fixes

Here is a punch list that Caltrain could address to improve the passenger experience. Some of these items have been discussed before, but they are gathered here as an attractive display of low-hanging fruit.

1. Eliminate step deploy/retract delays

The timetable is the product. Why spend billions on saving time in motion only to waste a portion of that at rest? The EMU step mechanism wastes precious time during station dwells. A software update can tighten up the step sequence and save ten seconds per stop, or about three minutes per run, making the timetable 4% faster. If your product can be made 4% better at almost zero cost, why sleep on that, especially when facing a fiscal crisis? 

Steps should be allowed to deploy and retract while the train is in (slow) motion, under 5 mph. This would have no impact on safety because the steps do not overhang the platform when deployed; they only go out to 63.5 inches from center line. There is no credible danger of clipping waiting passengers, even at slow speed.

2. Improve the auditory warning experience

Auditory signals are an integral part of assuring safety for riders of all abilities or states of impairment. Overdone, they become an assault on the eardrums, detracting from the passenger experience.

• Tone down the alarmingly loud door open/close beeps to the volume required by accessibility regulations. Ditch the shrill continuous beep and use a more musical chime like BART.
   
• Tone down the warning bell on the front of the train. It doesn't need to ding quite so loudly or insistently; unlike horns, there is no FRA-mandated minimum sound level required for bells. It's an electronic bell, so it can be reprogrammed.

3. Fix the passenger information system

First, mandate that it be correctly configured and used by all crews.

Next, get with Stadler's passenger information systems engineers to improve the information presented on the screens.

• Most importantly, improve the system's reliability. Too often, the screens show a Chrome browser error message indicating some sort of memory-related software crash. The frequency with which this happens is unacceptable.
    
• Display direction to the bathroom (this important passenger information is a sticker recently added next to the passenger information screen, missing the point by mere inches!) and, more importantly, indicate the bathroom's availability status, something you can't do with a sticker. This information could occupy a small portion of each screen so it is constantly in view as other information pages through.
  
  
• Display live crowding information. The EMUs have this information available in software, and it should appear on the screens so that passengers may redistribute themselves as needed throughout the train.
  
  
• Last but not least, display better connecting information. "Connect with: VTA" is useless information. "Connect with: VTA 89" is more useful. "Connect with: VTA 89, depart in :03, :23" is how it ought to be, in the year 2025.

4. Develop the new step design for level boarding

The timetable is the product. The next big timetable upgrade available to Caltrain is to reduce dwell time through level boarding. This will increase average speeds and make the product even more compelling as an alternative to traffic jams.

The most important but obscure little capital project at Caltrain right now is to develop the new step design that will enable raising platforms, a project said to cost just $3M per their level boarding roadmap. This is a first and necessary project that should be undertaken immediately.

--- 

This list of easy little fixes is attainable and affordable, can improve Caltrain's product in the short term, and will directly contribute to the bottom line.

August 2025 Open Thread

The comment section from the last post has overflowed, so here is an open thread to keep the discussions going. Some noteworthy developments fished out of the previous comments:

• Caltrain ridership is rising quickly, with June total ridership up a stunning +75% from one year ago; stay tuned to their ridership dashboard for upcoming July numbers. This steep increase is likely driven by a combination of a superior product and freeways jamming again as the post-pandemic return to the office continues. While this is still only 65% of June 2019, a full recovery seems within reach.
   
• As ridership increases, it will soon be time to consider tightening the base takt from 30 minutes to 20 minutes. In past times of fiscal crisis, Caltrain has argued that its high fixed costs would make service cuts kill more ridership and revenue than the money saved on operations & maintenance; that same argument can be turned around that increasing service will generate more ridership and revenue than the money spent on additional O&M.
   
• The pre-pandemic "long-range service vision" has been scaled back, with the ambitious 12 Caltrain + 4 HSR per hour per direction "expanded growth" scenario eliminated from the planning horizon. The 8 Caltrain + 4 HSR per hour per direction "core" scenario thankfully remains, and one hopes that Caltrain planners understand that its successful realization requires four-track Redwood City station approaches, not just a four-track station. See quantitative justification.
   
• The old gallery fleet is being transferred to Lima, Peru, with the first shipment already delivered and the second being loaded as of this writing in Stockton. Follow the ship here. Per YouTube videos, there is political controversy developing in Peru around the Caltrain transaction. Notably, there is disappointment that the trains are old and decrepit, but we knew that.

A request to commenters: thank you for staying focused on Caltrain and HSR issues here in the SF Bay Area.

Fixing Santa Clara County

Today, Caltrain is hardly recognizable with regular and punctual half-hour service all day, every day, using swift and comfortable trains that are the envy of any North American regional rail system. This unequivocal success sets the agency on the best possible trajectory out of the pandemic doldrums. Unfortunately, that won't be enough.

Most of what is still wrong with Caltrain is concentrated in Santa Clara County, where the wrong priorities are hurting Caltrain's finances. Revenue comes from a good product: a passenger experience of fast, frequent, and regular service. Here's what should be fixed in Santa Clara County:

Frequency is freedom 

It is a well-established research finding that short and regular headways result in a faster-than-linear positive response in ridership and revenue. Unfortunately, Caltrain planners have decided that an end-to-end trip under the one-hour mark (known in the diesel era as the Baby Bullet) is worth sacrificing regular headways. Once an hour during the morning and evening peaks, a train will skip five stops to make this stunt possible: Santa Clara, Lawrence, San Antonio, California Avenue and Menlo Park, just across the county line. Fixing this error at a grand total of eight minutes of run time would unlock 15-minute clockface frequency throughout Silicon Valley, at zero added operational cost. The ridership induced by this tweak will dwarf the tiny number of long-distance riders who abandon Caltrain due to a longer trip, recalling that the average Caltrain ride is ~25 miles.

Re-imagine connecting shuttles 

With 15-minute peak service throughout Silicon Valley, connecting services can be reconfigured so they no longer need to reach "major" stops (known in the diesel era as Baby Bullet stops). Silicon Valley always was a continuous employment and housing blob, and "major" stops were an artifact of diesel service patterns where the tradeoff between frequency and trip duration was far more pronounced than it is with swift EMUs. To reach "major" stops, shuttles spend precious minutes stuck in gridlocked traffic sewers that run parallel to Caltrain, such as El Camino Real and Central Expressway. Ditching this gridlock not only speeds each connecting trip, but allows the same number of shuttle drivers and vehicles to be redeployed towards more frequent trips; both effects will generate Caltrain ridership. The vast fleets of luxury coaches that ply highway 101 can be viewed as an indictment of Caltrain's service pattern; major employers will respond if Caltrain upgrades to a compelling 15-minute product.

Ditch diesel

Operating and maintaining a separate diesel fleet to provide infrequent part-time service to the small towns south of San Jose generates less than one percent of weekday Caltrain ridership (see chart). This astonishing under-performance persists even after the addition of a fourth daily round-trip to Gilroy in late 2023.

While transit agencies aren't profit-seeking businesses and their purpose isn't always to maximize ridership, the Gilroy branch is one of those cases where the cost of providing the service is very far out of proportion with the public benefit. While Caltrain doesn't break out the cost of Gilroy service, the marginal cost of the fourth train is quoted as ~$3M, so we can extrapolate at least $12M plus the fixed operating and maintenance costs of separate tooling, training, parts, etc. associated with sustaining the diesel fleet. Caltrain would be better off spending this money on contracting with VTA for more frequent 568 rapid bus service. Between Gilroy and Blossom Hill, this south county bus is already much more frequent (~every half hour) and barely any slower (~8 minutes in peak traffic) than Caltrain.

Divesting of the remaining diesel fleet (9 locomotives and 41 cars) is a one-time source of income, but has some strings attached because the FTA funded its original purchase. Hanging on to diesels for "fleet resiliency" is becoming less critical as the electrified system demonstrates increasing reliability. The Trump administration is unlikely to care either way, and there are plenty of operators who might be interested, such as a potential new agency based in Monterey County.

Is this poking south county in the eye? No, because there's a much better plan. Read on.

Acquire UPRR's Coast Subdivision and electrify to Blossom Hill

As compensation for deleting service to Gilroy, Caltrain should extend electrification and frequent EMU service by six miles from Tamien to Blossom Hill. This portion of the corridor has high residential density to support significant new ridership if well-served, which it currently isn't. Caltrain likes to argue that a railroad has high fixed costs, and that cutting service can't save much money. The converse must also be true: adding more EMU service, using the existing fleet, can't cost all that much.

A stack train under the wires;
it's really no big deal.
(Samuel Walker photo)

 

Land owner Union Pacific is notoriously difficult to negotiate with, but there is no reason for Caltrain or VTA to fight alone. The state should get involved since this corridor forms part of the future high-speed rail system and is already slated for acquisition. Freight trackage rights would be preserved, and the tallest freight trains could operate under the wires as they already do elsewhere in the U.S. (see photo). Bridge clearances are already above 23 feet to clear Plate H at Almaden Expressway and Blossom Hill Road, and above 22 feet at Curtner Ave. and Capitol Expressway, nothing that would require expensive bridge reconstruction.

If this sounds like a megaproject, it isn't. It does not require any new traction power facilities; no new paralleling station is needed at Blossom Hill if this short extension is initially built as basic 25 kV without feeders. It does not require environmental clearance, thanks to new laws (Alex Lee's AB2503). It does not require any new trains, as Caltrain's EMU fleet will soon swell to 23 trains, where today's service pattern only requires 14. It's about as basic as electrification projects come: string up 15 track-miles of wire.

To get VTA interested in helping to fund this capital project, you would call it the "South County BART Connector." Since San Jose Diridon station would then require two tracks and a single island platform to support all Caltrain service, there could be savings in postponing the gold-plated Diridon Integrated Station Concept, a megaproject that costs $3-$6 billion while providing no identifiable service benefit for Caltrain passengers.

Failure of Imagination

With pandemic-era federal subsidies expiring and a new transit-hostile federal administration, Caltrain needs to show more creativity and imagination in adjusting its offering. The success of the initial electrified service shows that the best prescription for financial health is to focus relentlessly on the product: fast, frequent and regular service. Anything that doesn't contribute to the product is a distraction.