Today, I had the opportunity to participate in the Save Our Caltrain summit, organized by the grassroots group Friends of Caltrain. It was a pleasure to meet many blog readers in person. My presentation focused on how capital investment in Caltrain should be carefully targeted to increase service quality, grow ridership, and put Caltrain on a sustainable path that breaks out of the debilitating spiral of cost-cutting. Some participants at the summit asked for my presentation slides, so here they are:Download Slides (1.1 MB PDF file)
There wasn't enough time in six minutes to drive home some very important points.
- In deciding which improvements to make, it is of the utmost importance for all stakeholders to agree on the metrics that will be used to determine the relative merits of various proposals. Until agreement is established on the scoring framework, debating the particular merits of this or that project is an arbitrary, subjective exercise with no reasonable chance of closure. You can read more about what I think are the metrics that matter.
- Caltrain has failed miserably in marketing the electrification project to the public. It is often sold on the basis of lower emissions, "lower" operating cost, lower noise, lower fuel costs, greater comfort, etc. The bottom line is that electrification is about trip times. Caltrain's product is its timetable, and improving the timetable should be the organization's singular focus. The potential support that peninsula communities could provide to the project is not being tapped because Caltrain has failed to communicate the tangible benefits of electrification to each individual city. Caltrain must promise and deliver a future timetable, and identify specifically how each city would be better served. (How many more trains stopping per hour, and trip times to key destinations.)
- There are several reasons beyond poor marketing that explain why the Caltrain electrification project has been in the works forever, and threatens to continue to languish in that perpetual state of indecision--despite its very high return on investment. None of the reasons are technical. It's all politics.
- Electrification will not create many local jobs because it is a systems contract that contains primarily highly manufactured goods.
- Electrification does not involve the pouring of enormous amounts of concrete, so the local transportation-industrial complex (aligned around large civil engineering and construction firms) is not inclined to support it.
- Electrification would undermine the justification for BART on the peninsula. The federal funding for new transit mega-projects is scored in part on the basis of cost per new rider, and allowing Caltrain to tap those new riders would make BART look far less attractive an investment.
- Electrification is considered by many anti-HSR activists to be the camel's nose under the tent. It potentially hastens the day when high-speed trains will reach San Francisco. The mere threat of litigation has put the project on the back burner since last April.
- DMUs (Diesel Multiple Units) were often mentioned at the summit as an alternative to electrification. This solution will not achieve the required time savings! Electric trains have a much higher power-to-weight ratio that gives them the required acceleration. It cannot be emphasized enough that the quality desired of Caltrain's new fleet is acceleration. Top speed matters much less. When picking a new train fleet, the key performance spec is power-to-weight ratio... today's diesels are at about 6 kW/metric ton, and we need to be at least in the 12-15 kW/ton range. A few people mentioned Japanese hybrid DMUs (diesel with battery storage), but those extremely lightweight DMUs would never meet the crash standards that are being required of Caltrain. If these hybrid trains were imported here, their structural mass would have to be increased and their acceleration would be insufficient to provide much of a benefit. If it can't do 12 kW/ton, forget about it.
- The mid-line overtake isn't half bad for offering continuing service to San Francisco Transbay, should the high-speed rail project initially terminate in San Jose.
- Some people asked about the doctored BART EMU photo. It is based on a Stadler KISS EMU (an off-the-shelf European design) that would be perfect for the peninsula. Here is the big version of the rendering.
Posts
"Extremely lightweight DMUs would never meet the crash standards that are being required of Caltrain. If these hybrid trains were imported here, their structural mass would have to be increased and their acceleration would be insufficient to provide much of a benefit. If it can't do 12 kW/ton, forget about it."
ReplyDeleteSo basically you are saying that Caltrain needs electrification because FRA rules prohibit the use of DMUs that would be up to the task.
Perhaps we Caltrain supporters should be pushing for FRA rule changes or waivers (once positive train control is implemented) to allow the use of very light trains. This would allow fast acceleration for the implementation of good local service in just a couple of years (as soon as the train control is in place and the new trains arrive)
I love the idea of electrification, because even modern DMUs are not as nice, but it would be great if Caltrain could modernize with DMUs now, and then plan electrification after the HSR construction in the area is completed, which may not be until 10 or 15 years from now
Oh, now I read your presentation, and I see that the $440 cost of new trains is already budgeted, which means that the $785 million for electrification is only for the wires, substations, etc.
ReplyDeleteIs it absolutely too late to change the order to DMUs (with capability to be upgraded to EMU operation) now, if money for electrification falls thru?
No trains have been ordered, but buying a completely new fleet to be replaced with EMUs in a few years anyway is pointless.
ReplyDeleteAbout the crash standards: CalTrain has received an FRA waiver for lightweight trains, but they mandate UIC crash standards, which puts Japanese DMUs out of the running.
Oh and just to reiterate: While they're better than locomotive hauled FRA monsters, DMUs have nowhere near the performance of EMUs.
Joseph: those DMUs don't just not meet existing FRA standards, they probably don't meet the more relaxed standards used for Caltrain's waiver under which they plan to operate european EMUs.
ReplyDeleteWhat I want to know, though, is how the heck did they manage to make the installation of wires and substation so expensive? Judging by how much electrification tends to cost worldwide, the total cost of the infrastructure side seems rather high.
buying a completely new fleet to be replaced with EMUs in a few years anyway is pointless.
ReplyDeleteThere's a thriving market in used rail vehicles. They wouldn't even have to sell them, they could lease them to other agencies in the Bay Area or even LA.
Clem, realizing that you are far more knowledgeable about all matters rail than I am, I still wish to disagree with you when you say that “Caltrain's product is its timetable.” No, Caltrain’s product is public mass transit service wherein cost/effectiveness must be judged on a cost/benefit basis. As I’ve said many times about Caltrain, they believe they are in the railroad business, when they should understand that they are in the public mass transit business.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, modality efficiency (speed) is not the highest criterion. It’s networked connectivity. In other words, if the DEMUs are a little slower accelerating and decelerating than EMUs, that is not be the basis for either losing or increasing ridership.
The greatest benefit provided by self-powered passenger cars is the greater flexibility in train set length, permitting Caltrain to optimize its service with appropriate numbers of cars based on
demand. Running shorter train sets on a more frequent basis, coordinated with demand, increases performance efficiency.
The basis for Caltrain’s success is total trip CONVENIENCE. Of course travel time matters, but it is not the most critical variable. It’s convenience and that includes getting to and from train stations, as in the first and last mile. Interconnectivity is critical and that means with other modalities like buses and shuttles. Biker riders should be enabled and encouraged rather than discouraged. If the trip from SJ to SF takes 50 minutes or 40 minutes is a minor difference. The real issue is convenience from door to door (so you can leave your car at home) and Caltrain must understand that it is only one integral component of that trip, not the whole thing.
Lest I am too dismissive about hardware improvements, I do believe that level entry is a major feature of convenience and even scheduling. You understand this better than I. Raise the platforms, lower the cars,both, whatever.
Even amortized, the cost difference between a full electrification of Caltrain’s corridor (and accommodation to UPs template needs), and the acquisition of DEMUs is considerable. Furthermore, the deployment of new rolling stock can be done on a gradual as-funds-become-available basis, not requiring a total transformation of the entire 55 or 70 miles of corridor.
What I’m saying here is that it would be far more important for Caltrain and its confounding organizationally overlaid structure
to be integrated with the other transit operators across the several counties (rather than competing) to the benefit of the rider. I consider that far more important than the hardware upgrades that are admittedly much more fun to talk about.
And, about the camel’s nose in the tent. Clem, you and I differ insofar as I am a HSR opposer for both California and for the Nation, the northeast corridor excepted. (And please don’t resort to ad hominem attacks.) Yes, those of us who fear HSR on the Caltrain corridor do see electrification as paving the way. And here, we must agree to disagree.
@Martin: I'm glad I finally had the time to address your earlier question about Caltrain without HSR.
ReplyDeleteWe all have to acknowledge the evidence. In 2004, the Baby Bullet did not particularly change the connectivity with other peninsula transit. And yet it undeniably created a huge increase in ridership. Why? Trip times. The new timetable was indeed the product, and that is why the BB was so successful. You simply can't explain that away.
Right now the system is 100% saturated at rush hour, and adding even a single additional train per hour would destroy the Baby Bullet. (This is the speed vs. frequency trade-off at work: if you want more frequency, you have to give up some speed.) Many smaller stops like Menlo Park are poorly served at rush hour to enable high speeds. The whole notion of transit-oriented development around Caltrain stations will fail if the trains are unable to serve smaller stops when they most need to, at rush hour... people use Caltrain primarily to commute to their jobs, and if train service is not convenient during rush hour, they're just going to buy a car.
Higher train acceleration and reduced trip times can be invested in more stops at under-served stations like Belmont, Burlingame, Menlo Park, California Ave, etc.
This is not something where we can nibble around the edges anymore. We have to go big, and pretending that better bus and shuttle connections is somehow going to revolutionize Caltrain is really grasping at straws in my opinion.
That said, you are correct that door-to-door times are key. That is why my metrics include some measure of time spent waiting for the next train. It's not all about making the actual time on the train shorter.
@arcady: yes, the electrification budget of $785M is very expensive. It includes:
$358M for overhead contact system
$171M for traction power supply
$93M for signal system & grade crossing modifications
$40M for communications (?)
$39M for tunnel & overcrossing clearance modifications
$27M for utilities and landscaping
$22M for OCS equipment & materials storage
$13M for real estate acquisition
$11M for CEMOF tooling & training
$9M for insurance and financing
$2M for MOW platform cars
$358M for OCS is about $3M per track-mile. That does seem rather steep... $100K per catenary mast!!! That must be the charge for gold plating per specification ASTM-B-488.
In future discussion of grade separations you should probably include 28th and 31st Avenues in San Mateo. Both of the these crossings are planned (and needed) for the Bay Meadows Phase II development. How they'll be funded is anyone's guess.
ReplyDeleteEven amortized, the cost difference between a full electrification of Caltrain’s corridor (and accommodation to UPs template needs), and the acquisition of DEMUs is considerable.
ReplyDeletewhich costs more? Electrification is expensive but it saves money in the long term. Or should...
@anon: 28th and 31st were discussed in Focus on San Mateo.
ReplyDeleteInteresting diagram on page 9. I thought that the mid-line overtake was planned at Redwood City? Nevertheless, Hillsdale is also a valid option.
ReplyDeleteThe mid-line overtake isn't "planned" by any more than a few transit nuts and bloggers. Caltrain is completely oblivious to this concept of operations. Doing it in Redwood City requires a lot of new grade separations. If you're going to do it on the cheap, Hillsdale is much better.
ReplyDeleteI recall reading about a plan to do a bunch of grade separations in Redwood City, relocate the station a bit north of its current location, and have the new station be elevated and with four tracks. I think one other thing Caltrain needs to think about changing is their axiom that all trains run from San Francisco to San Jose, and there are no short turns. Redwood City would be a logical place to short-turn trains, and a four-track station there would make for easy cross-platform transfers between services. Also, in terms of service plan, I think 4 tph express and 2 tph local makes more sense than the other way around, based on current demand patterns, but ultimately we'll have to wait and see how demand develops with better service. A clockface schedule is essential to allow good onward connections though.
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, what's with the aversion to electrification in the U.S? Are we just too cheap to consider any long-term investments?
ReplyDelete@Joey: electrification costs in the US are unusually high, and the proposed costs for Caltrain triply so, literally - this project costs about the same as the NEC's Northend electrification project, covering three times the route length.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure which components are apples-to-apples, but in Auckland's proposal for electrification of a similar route length, "traction" costs NZ$80 million (about US$60 million) for 80 km of route - see here.
Disproportionately high costs are not unique to electrification.
ReplyDelete@MartinEngal I completely disagree that convenience is more important than time. Just looking at the ridership difference baby bullets made should tell you that speeding trains pays off better and quicker than TOD. I take caltrain every day, and if it weren't for the baby bullets on the timetable, I'd probably drive. The train averages about 50mph from SF to MV where a shuttle takes me to work.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how you feel that caltrain can improve on that by having shorter or longer trainsets.
Clem,
ReplyDeleteThe funding you display for BART Silicon Valley is inaccraute. Please futher research your numbers. VTA is currently in the process of securing the remaining 15% (900 million) from FTA to complete the first segement.
@ Brent Pearse
ReplyDeleteClem's number is for the entire project, all the way to Santa Clara. If they actually manage the complete project for the $6 billion budget it will be a miracle.
FYI re "information" from Brent Pearse:
ReplyDelete"Currently serves as the outreach team member for the BART to Silicon Valley Project, representing communities in Fremont and Milpitas."
In other words, he's a fully owned subsidary of Parsons Brinkerhoff and allied consultants, paid to shill and lie by omission or commision, just as his predecessors did about the costs and ridership and "profitability" of BART to SFO.
It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. And one thing history shows is that there's never any penalty for being proven to have been a perjurer once the billions have been bagged.
@ Brent
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't VTA simply use the money slated for BART to Santa Clara instead to electrify Caltrain? It would be a much more cost-effective use of the money. But wait, that would make too much sense...
arcady said...
ReplyDeleteRedwood City would be a logical place to short-turn trains, and a four-track station......
I fully agree. Even with current two-track staion, Caltrain should do this for cost reduction and better service.
4 tph SanFrancisco to San Jose: 2 Baby Bullet (With same stop pattern) and 2 Express(SF~Redwood City)-Local(Redwood city~San Jose)
2 tph San Francisco-Redwood City: Local train of 2~3 car(=faster accerelation)/ one conductor!
Use Redwood juction siding for this turn-around where is currently underutilized.
"Run Jedi, Run. You have only prolonged the inevitable."
ReplyDelete-The General
@Brent: my mistake--I incorrectly assumed that only the $2.1B for phase 1 to Berryessa was lined up. As you pointed out, a goodly portion of phase 2 to Santa Clara is funded, putting the total closer to 80%. That only reinforces my point that the three Caltrain counties are awash in cash for rail projects, although Caltrain is not partaking in that bounty.
ReplyDelete@Peter: do yourself a favor and study up on Santa Clara Measure A (2000). VTA asked county voters to fund a wide basket of transit projects including SCCo's entire portion of the Caltrain electrification project, from Palo Alto to Gilroy. In 2008 VTA decided to defund Caltrain electrification (since HSR was Caltrain's white knight) and everything else, and assigned all the money into BART. Without asking voters. This will probably be litigated at some point.
Regarding the baby bullets... It's interesting how perception seems to have played a part in their success.
ReplyDeleteThey really aren't much faster than some limited express trains(ex. 285 is 9 minutes slower than 383 from SJ to SF), yet I would frequently hear passengers talk as if they were twice as fast. In conversations people would even argue it until I showed them the schedule. Marketing matters (since when was 48MPH avg "like a bullet" anyway? especially when compared to 42MPH avg?)
Alas, I stopped riding caltrain after I got fed up with poor transit connections and infrequent, unreliable service. The morning commute becomes much longer when MUNI runs late and you miss your train (for example) or the shuttle to work decides to not show up. Nevermind the lack of flexibility for days that I needed to work early or late, or caltrain's weekly(or more) mechanical glitches. Raw speed matters, but so does reliability, frequency, and availability of reliable transit connections.
@ Clem
ReplyDeleteI know about VTA defunding electrification, I was being snarky.
Does anyone know much more it would cost Caltrain in the long run if instead of purchasing all-new electric trainsets, it electrified its current two track system, leased some more Bombardier cars to replace the Gallery cars that are reaching the end of their life, and leased some electric locomotives from Amtrak. Maybe they could lease some of the HHP-8s that are being replaced in a few years. That would give Caltrain enough equipment to hold them over until they have the funds together to upgrade to a full EMU fleet.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this all presumes that Caltrain is able to survive in the short term...
Peter: HHP-8s are a likely fleet, or even more immediately, New Jersey Transit is getting rid of their ALP-44s, which is a fairly tried and true design, and the locomotives themselves were built in the late 80s and early 90s, which isn't all that long ago. Plus, NJT is already in the railcar leasing business, what with their old Comet I cars making appearances in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City.
ReplyDeleteNJTransit sold them to Utah which leased them to LA before they got repainted.
ReplyDeleteMissing the point, again. The hard part of this isn't getting trains, new or used. The funding for fleet replacement is all lined up from the FTA.
ReplyDeleteThe hard part is getting wires strung up... there is strong institutional resistance to this for the 4 reasons I listed:
(1) the local transportation-industrial complex (fronted by MTC) doesn't like it because there's no concrete pouring
(2) not so many local jobs created
(3) undermines the case for BART on the peninsula, should HSR fall through
(4) viewed by litigious anti-HSR forces as a foot in the door for HSR and therefore must not be allowed under any circumstance. Scorched earth and all that.
This is a very difficult political puzzle. The technical stuff is a no-brainer...
"Raw speed matters, but so does reliability, frequency, and availability of reliable transit connections."
ReplyDeleteRaw speed matters to people who don't need to care about being late. A lot of older professionals fall into this category.
If you're young, you are better off driving. First, if you aren't at work for whatever reason, you can be replaced far more easily. Second, the boss isn't going to care that your connection failed. Someone else showed up and can likely do your job just as well.
Commuter rail in California is really the older generation who are already established. If older workers are late because of the train or a missed connection, they'll be believed. If they show up late, others are probably waiting for them, not the other way around. Trains are not reliable enough for people who count on it the most. I stopped taking the bus because I didn't want to be late for quizzes and tests. I missed one quiz when a guy decided it would be a good idea to get angry and shatter the window of the bus. Out of service and the next bus comes in an hour.
When I finally graduate, I won't be taking rail. Some guy decides to jump in front of the train and, bam, I'm fired because I couldn't show up to work. At least if your auto commute is three hours, you can leave early enough to get there on time. Car accidents are cleaned up relatively quickly.
Clem: Ah, so the funding is for the trains specifically. I was hoping it could be transfered to building the wires themselves, and Caltrain could lease some electric trains until they got enough money to buy the new EMUs.
ReplyDeleteSpokker: in the tech jobs in Silicon Valley, people tend to wander in by about 10 am, and leave around dinnertime. On time performance of trains is more an annoyance than anything, and the real constraint is on schedule flexibility. For example, if I were to take Caltrain and the shuttle to work from San Francisco, I couldn't leave any later than 7:44 am, to get to work at 9, an hour before everyone else gets there. I feel like commuting by car is also subject to random delays, plus it's pretty stressful the whole time, since for many people it's 30 miles of heavy freeway traffic. Plus, on the train you can read your email on the way to/from work, which counts as "work" time.
5 different stopping pattern in peak period(2 different Baby Bullet, 2 Local-express and limited) makes inflexible if people miss the train, or any of train accident.
ReplyDeleteCaltrain should consider re-optimization the schedule.
Baby bullet should have same stopping pattern just differenciate between "Traditional commute" vs "Reverse commute". They did not changed the schedule scince 2005.
Clem, you points are very good.... but it's really really stupid to string up wire, which has a 75 year or so life cycle and then rip it all out a few years later. Run diesels until plans for HSR are finalized.
ReplyDeleteOnce the wire is up there's no technical reason whey an HSR train couldn't go to San Francisco. Regulatory ones but no technical ones.
Much of the infrastructure can be reused, and some, like substations, doesn't have to change at all (assuming it's built to accommodate additional power demand when HSR comes around and isn't built within the space that might eventually be occupied by additional tracks).
ReplyDeleteLooking at the San Bruno project which you brought up in the slides, I notice that they do not provide room for more than 2 tracks! I feel that no work should be permitted anywhere that, if it is possible, does not include room for future high speed. Does it not cross the minds of those involved with the San Bruno station that they should be building a station with 4 platforms? The lack of foresight will destroy all of the physical improvements within a decade at the least. Please correct me If I am wrong. If I am not, then I fear for the intelligence of our leaders.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is just asinine to not take the properties along Montgomery Street so the San Bruno curve can be straightened out!
ReplyDeleteI wanted to address a bunch of points.
ReplyDeleteit's really really stupid to string up wire, which has a 75 year or so life cycle and then rip it all out a few years later
It's not so stupid if you think about it. A lot of the investment is in parts and components that can be re-configured like a giant erector set. The only parts "lost" would be pole footings. Everything else, poles, hardware, insulators, wire, etc. would be re-usable. Not to mention all the other stuff that doesn't depend on future track configuration (substations, CEMOF, 4th & King, SF tunnels, etc.)
Caltrain needed electrification 10 years ago, not 10 years from now. At this point, peninsula high-speed rail is an open-ended proposition with no clear dates in sight. Not only that, but the CHSRA is now talking about doing it in phases, i.e. starting with the two track system and gradually building stuff where it is most pressing.
Once the wire is up there's no technical reason whey an HSR train couldn't go to San Francisco. Regulatory ones but no technical ones.
Not even regulatory. Provided that the high-speed trains meet the same Euro structural and crashworthiness standards as Caltrain (as allowed by the waiver, and as the Velaros, Talgos and AGVs of the world already do), there is no technical or regulatory barrier to running HSR through 43 grade crossings. The reasons why you might *not* want to do this have to do with track capacity and gate down-times.
Looking at the San Bruno project which you brought up in the slides, I notice that they do not provide room for more than 2 tracks!
They do, sort of. Read and weep:
Caltrain presentation
Blog post: San Bruno Done Wrong
Blog post: San Bruno Done Right
Blog post: San Bruno Out to Bid
I've been told that Somebody Important (city council or higher) owns property on Montgomery, and that's why the curve wasn't eased. I cannot confirm this rumor.
"I've been told that Somebody Important (city council or higher) owns property on Montgomery, and that's why the curve wasn't eased. I cannot confirm this rumor."
ReplyDeleteNow why doesn't that surprise me? Politics have always had the upper hand. Been like that since this country was founded.
At this point, peninsula high-speed rail is an open-ended proposition with no clear dates in sight.
ReplyDeleteI thought that it's actually been like that all along, with the HSR design not really getting past the very preliminary stage, despite the appearance from the HSRA (with which they managed to anger half the cities along the line). And one could argue that the Caltrain staff should have known better than to tie the future of their agency to the HSR albatross. But hey, Bob Doty got himself a pretty nice job at HNTB out of it.
A lot of the investment is in parts and components that can be re-configured like a giant erector set.
ReplyDeleteThat work isn't going to be done by Keebler Elves. It's going to be done by construction workers who will want to be paid in cold hard cash or it's equivalents in electronic funds transfers.
The reasons why you might *not* want to do this have to do with track capacity and gate down-times.
And the people who will be boarding in San Jose instead of San Francisco will be getting to San Jose by going to the Keebler Elf tree on the corner and using the elfin teletransporter to get to San Jose? The gates will be down whether the logo on the side of the train says Caltrain or CAHSR or Virgin or Southern Pacific...
I've been told that Somebody Important (city council or higher) owns property on Montgomery, and that's why the curve wasn't eased. I cannot confirm this rumor.
Hmm the stereotypical rumor mongering is that someone important owns the property to be taken and is planning on making a killing when the good ol' boy network inflates the assessment.
I've been told that Somebody Important (city council or higher) owns property on Montgomery, and that's why the curve wasn't eased. I cannot confirm this rumor.
ReplyDeleteThe weird thing about this, if true, is that the location in question is quite blighted. It's surrounded by I-380, Caltrain, airport parking, and auto body shops/light industrial. It's really a terrible location for a residential neighborhood. I seriously doubt the city councilmember lives there...most likely they are renting it out for not much rent.
If I owned property there, I'd want the city/county to buy me out. At least then I'd have a shot at getting an above-market price for selling quickly, plus I could avoid the 10% hit in transaction costs. And every "comp" they could possibly use in assigning the price they'd give me could only increase the value, because it's basically the worst location in San Bruno. You definitely won't get much trying to sell it on the actual market.
From Richard Mlynarik...
ReplyDelete---
One could speculate, or one could make the effort to gather data. (One could also just ask the right people, which would be even easier.)
The San Mateo County Assessor Recorder's Office provides a form that enables one to easily determine, from the comfort of one's own living room, the lot and block numbers of the relevant parcels (APNs, Assessor's Parcel Numbers in SMCo-speak.)
We're looking at:
* 014-292-130 (903 Montgomery)
* 014-292-120 (925 Montgomery)
* 014-292-110 (933 Montgomery)
* 014-292-100 (937 Montgomery)
* 014-292-090 (941 Montgomery)
* 014-292-080 (949 Montgomery)
* 014-292-070 (957 Montgomery)
* 014-292-060 (961 Montgomery)
* 014-292-050 (967 Montgomery)
* 014-292-040 (973 Montgomery)
Using a painfully misimplemented search form is is straightforward if a little tiresome to determine the recorded owners of these parcels.
* 014-292-130 (903 Montgomery), last sold for $125,000 on 14-Mar-1986, belongs to
REDACTED PER CA AB2238 of 851 Crane Avenue, Foster City.
A trivial amount of Googling reveals that the owners are some members of the Keighran family.
I don't know much about penny ante micro town politics, but there's an Ann Keighran on the mighty Burlingame City Council, and appear to be a lot of sundry Keighrans embedded left and right.
No idea if these people are big movers and shakers in the big bad world of San Bruno politics.
* 014-292-120 through -090 (925, 933, 937, 941 Montgomery)
(last sold for $129,000, $99,000, $129,000, $129,000 on in Jun-Jul 1986), all belong to
REDACTED PER CA AB2238 of 88 Idlewood Court, South San Francisco.
That would of course be Vijay Chand, Saras W Chand
They appear to own significant amounts of local real estate.
* 014-292-080 (949 Montgomery)
last sold for $320,000 on 22 Jan 2010 as a foreclosure sale to David Kuan.
* 014-292-070 (957 Montgomery) belongs to
Josefina Palafox.
* 014-292-060 (961 Montgomery) belongs to
Jose Joel Arevalos and Maria Guadalupe Arevalos.
* 014-292-050 (967 Montgomery) belongs to
Arthur Fanfelle who lives inside PO Box 1176, San Bruno.
He seems to own a number of properties around San Bruno, though less than the Chand landlords.
* 014-292-040 (973 Montgomery) belongs to
the G & C Sanchez Family Limited Partnership of 2820 Evergreen Drive, San Bruno, which is also the address of the "Guadalupe A Sanchez Trust".
Thanks, Richard, for doing all the hard work of looking up those records. Given that there are 10 parcels and extrapolating from the sale price that we know, it would be reasonable to estimate the cost of acquiring them at something like $5 million, which is quite insignificant compared even to the cost of the grade separation project, much less the cost of any Caltrain upgrade program or the numbers being thrown around for HSR construction. And acquiring those properties and easing the curve would have a real, tangible benefit to travel time, and would be more cost effective than saving the same amount of time by building five miles of HSR track that allows the San Joaquins to run at 110 mph instead of 80. As Caltrain is also used by thousands of commuters daily, the benefits would be greater too.
ReplyDeleteCaltrain just posted proposed 48 train schedule in their web site. It is something similar to their proposed schedule after HSR is introduced. I fully doubt their planning capabilities.
ReplyDeleteI also worried about their willingness on cost reduction. It looks that Caltrain want new Tax but they don't want to change themselves. Caltrain is stick to 48 train, no weekend and station closure.
What really concerns me with Caltrain is that it seems like parts of the agency just don't talk to each other. For example, right now they're in the middle of renegotiating their operating contract, and accepting bids from non-Amtrak contractors. Yet I haven't heard anything at all about how this would affect their operating budget for the next year, which could obviously have a huge impact on the level of service they could provide.
ReplyDelete"For example, right now they're in the middle of renegotiating their operating contract, and accepting bids from non-Amtrak contractors ..."
ReplyDeleteOh, it's much, much, MUCH worse than even you might imagine.
You see, the terms of the operating contract were that the bidders were REQUIRED to take on the full massive over-staffing level of Amtrak, regardless of anything ... including service cutbacks!
So there is less than zero scope for any operational efficiency, even if the dim-wit proven incompetents within the agency were open in the slightest to input from outside the SamTrans bunker, which they aren't.
So there's supposedly a "bidding" process, but it's over nothing. The same number of people get employed to do nothing a great deal of the time, the bidders are in control over none of service level, service planning, capital project co-ordination, capital project priorities, staffing levels, or 95% of the ability to employ their own workforce.
You want something other than yet more 19th century commuter rail? You want any "new" (post 1920!) thinking? You want anything but the most trivial change in operational efficiency? Don't look for it at Caltrain. They simply do not want any of this and have set up the process to preclude it.