The 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.
19 September 2024
September 2024 Open Thread
Electric service starts this weekend. The blog comment system stopped working on the August open thread, so let's try this instead?
Please continue comments in this thread. The August open thread seems permanently bugged, with newer comments not appearing. The tech support here is worth every penny I pay for it, which is zero :)
Reality Check commented on the old thread, and pointed out that if clicking "load more" the invisible comments gets loaded. Thanks!
Unfortunately the # thingie to go to the right comment when following either the links in the upper right hand side or RSS feed don't work directly. At least in Firefox just activating the URL field and pressing enter will take you to the correct comment.
Seems like the "load more" thingie should really also follow the # thingie, but don't.
Btw, also seems like we are writing too many comments :) The limit for the "load more" to show up seems to be 200 comments :D
Also, maybe edit this blog post to include Reality Checks two comments on the previous post,
"Caltrain will present its draft 10-year Capital Improvement Plan, which includes level boarding, at tonight’s September CAC meeting." https://www.caltrain.com/media/34083/download
According to the draft 10-year capital plan, Caltrain plans an entirely new signal and control system, new CCTV, intrusion detection, fencing, fiber optics, communications, etc.? Is there a real need for this or have the consultants said "there are risks" and "systems are aging?" Unfortunately, it seems 80% of the plan will be invisible to customers (besides some mini-high platforms and new Redwood City station).
A 10 year plan not including level boarding all the way along the line? Weird.
The other parts seems reasonable. Btw re fiber optics, I think an important thing for both Caltrain and Cali HSR would be to run extra fiber lines and rent out them to anyone who wants to use them, highest bidder. Sure, you can run fiber optics along power lines, and you can use radio links for communications, but offering an additional "route" for telecom could bring in some extra profit.
Caltrain staff says they have suffered numerous accidental fiber damaging incidents at the hands of various construction crews in recent years. In many or most cases, repairs were “temporary.” So the CIP fiber stuff involves more proper / permanent repairs in addition to something about getting set to rent out or lease excess (currently “dark”) fiber capacity.
Oh sweet summer child... let's not whitewash this one. The reason the fiber optic cables are so severely patched up is that the CBOSS subcontractor tasked with installing them was specifically directed not to bury them where it was easiest to dig, because the pole foundations would soon go there. The subcontractor not only disregarded this direction and quickly buried the fiber optic cables right where the foundations would go, but fraudulently falsified as-built drawings to show the cables were installed as directed. Fast forward to pole foundation installation, and the "potholing" process (exploratory digging) kept turning up the stupid cables. This caused huge delays and costs as pole foundations had to be redesigned and/or the cables spliced and moved out of the way. You may remember the acronym for this was "DSC" or "Discrepant Site Conditions" and the electrification contractor made some serious bank on DSC change orders. This info turned up in the CBOSS lawsuit, if anybody wants to go digging for the lurid details. In short, it is a giant steaming heap of incompetence and outright fraud that got us to the point where the cables need replacing from "accidental" damage.
So, what has CBOSS (which never delivered *anything*) cost the public at this point? Most assuredly over $300 million. Over $500 million yet? Quite possibly! Who can say? Who could even venture to guess? Numbers are social constructs, the past is no guide to the future, and FISCAL CLIFF SEND MORE MONEY.
Also, where was today's Caltrain CEO and where was Caltrain's former CEO when CBOSS was conceived ... approved ... funded ... contracted .. funded some more ... funded MORE AND MORE AND MORE ... and – as 100% accurately predicted, right here on caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com –, abjectly failed? I mean, you can't just *disappear* a half billion dollars of the public's cash with *zero* consequences, can you? *Can you????*
Is (attempted) cable theft a problem when it comes to fiber optics? (i.E. thieves not knowing what they are doing trying to steal fiber optics, or fiber optics being damaged when actual cable theft happens).
Comparison/whatnot: In Sweden the common practice is to put concrete trays/troughs, with concrete lids on top, along rail lines, for various cables. Not sure if those are used for fiber optics too, or only electrical cables. This makes it blatantly obvious where the wires are, and as a bonus they form a decent walkway for workers so they don't have to walk on gravel. The problems with cable theft seems to mostly affect thicker metal cables though, in particular grounding wires (which in absolute worst case can result in signalling equipment being destroyed due to the overhead electrification current going through the signalling cables rather than the correct ground path. This problem would likely apply no matter how you do electrification though; hard to bury the connections to the actual rails).
"State of Good Repair" is the biggest do-nothing-forever scam ever. American Commuter Railroads and Amtrak and of course the consultant scam just LOVE State of Good Repair.
Spend BILLIONS, for DECADES, deliver NOTHING.
But, you know, SAFETY. Can't be too SAFE. Can't be too careful or slow when GOOD REPAIR and SAFETY are concerned. Best overall not to run trains, just to be safe.
Back a couple decades ago the line that Caltrain staff bleated, incessantly, in repoorts, to their "oversight" Board, to the stupidest local city and county boards, was "you have to understand we're a fixer-upper railroad", so of course you can't expect as to DO anything IMPROVE anything until we've "fixed up" everything ... which is now, of course, in need of mid-life overhaul and repeated repeat repeat fixing up.
20 years later, they're JUST ONCE, perhaps going to deliver the ONLY service improvement to the public ... and for the next two decades (you know that a "10 year" capital plan will balloon out in budget and time to 20 years, because it always has and always will) they quite literally promise – PROMISE!!! — NOTHING. Nothing at all.
Money for nothing. Literally. Money for nothing, forever.
Seriously, screw you and your CCTV intrusion detection. Who asked for it? Nobody. "HOW, *EXACTLY* IS THIS GOING TO MAKE MORE TRAINS RUN MORE OFTEN AND RUN MORE CHEAPLY?" is the ONLY question. Show your calculations. Rank against other projects. Show coordination with other projects that also will actively help provide more and cheaper train operations to actual passengers. Show a real schedule of precisely when the better train schedule will be put into service.
Screw 10-year "Capital Plans" that PROMISE EXACTLY NOTHING aside from INCINERATING CAPITAL. Burn it all. Burn it all down. Burn in hell.
("** Does not include the full cost of implementing the Long-Range Service Vision: construction of major asset is in FY36 and beyond". Of course it doesn't. And a good thing, because the "Long-Range Service Vision" is to fucking throw Caltrain under the bus, trains sitting and waiting for 7 minutes at a time for high speed trains which are to have *all* the priority on the "blended service" corridor despite carrying fuck-all number of riders.)
I'm at least glad the Redwood City quad-track station is high on the list of capital improvements, even if the timelines are glacial. This post looked at its potential to improve service quality, and it's a big deal. The biggest challenge will be to help everyone understand the value of four-track approaches.
While I agree that state of good repair can be a black hole, it's worth comparing to what happens to systems that don't spend enough money... NY MTA / LIRR/ MN are probably the best examples of ancient rolling stock, dark territory.
For Caltrain, I don't recall the last slow-orders I've experienced. The average speed for baby bullets and locals is significantly higher than what LIRR/MN are able to achieve. You could take the glass half empty view that "things could still be much better", but it's worth acknowledging also that "things could be much much worse".
City Beautiful on YouTube did a video about Salesforce transit center. Probably mostly nothing new to most readers here, but still. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o3YX9SS2MU
I have to admit that I didn't know that Link21 is trying to decide on either building a BART tunnel or a mainline railway tunnel. I would think that a mainline tunnel would give the most bang-for-the-bucks.
I tried searching what the time table looked like before the pandemic but couldn't find it :( Today there are four lines sharing the current tunnel and each runs every 20 minute (looking at the time table from 7AM on a Friday, assuming this is the schedule for rush hour week days). This means approximately a train every five minutes, and to me that means that the current tunnel can host at least twice as many trains.
Btw the video states that BART can't share right of way with regular trains due to gauge differences. I don't think this is true since the difference is wide enough to likely fit tracks for both gauges. It's rather a matter of mixing FRA style crash worthy heavy trains and ligher non-FRA style trains on the same line at the same time that I would think hinders sharing the track bed. Also heavy trains needs to be at bit further apart time wise so it would be hard to mix things anyways.
But most importantly I think that it's questionable to have BART be the main rapid transit options between downtown SF and the further away stations on the east side of the bay.
Link21 has been implying for some time that they are leaning toward mainline--which you're correct is the best decision, as it provides HSR benefits in addition to higher-speed/longer-distance regional rail. For decades before the pandemic, it was assumed that a second transbay tube would be for BART--which is part of why a transbay route for HSR to get to SF was not seriously considered, even by Altamont advocates. This seems to have been assumed for several reasons. One, BART ridership was on a trendline to outgrow the existing tube in the near future, which it certainly no longer is. Two, it was ingrained in government planners' minds (and the general public's, though not the sort of people who comment here) that BART means modern frequent rapid transit and mainline means 1950s 'murican commuter rail (low frequency, slow trains, shit schedules, gallery cars, etc etc), so future rapid transit needs were assumed to be only addressable through more BART, not mainline rail (wtf is an s-bahn anyway). Three, agency turf wars over heavy rail in the inner Bay Area had always gone BART's way for half a century, and "BART" was assumed to mean the current BART system, not mainline trains with the BART logo on them. Point 1 is less of an issue post-pandemic, especially with BART's Transbay Core Capacity Program, which I'll expand on below. Point 2 is slowly (slowly!) becoming less of an issue as people see a glimmer of mainline rail becoming something better with electrified Caltrain. Point 3 is also becoming less relevant as BART-the-agency has gotten into the mainline business by operating Capitol Corridor--as evidenced by the BART-run Link21 study leaning in favor of mainline rail.
Before the pandemic, BART could run max 24 trains per hour through the tube, averaging just under 9 cars per train out of a max of 10. There were four constraints: rolling stock fleet size, traction power, train control, and train storage space. Transbay Core Capacity will expand the tube's capacity to 30 10-car trains per hour by addressing all four constraints. New traction power facilities have been built in SF and are still being built in the East Bay. Extra cars for the new fleet are now being delivered in addition to the original order which replaced the old fleet. Communications-based train control is being installed, although it's taking a maddeningly long time. And an expanded storage yard will be built in Hayward, although costs seem extreme. All of this will result in nearly a 40% increase in transbay capacity--all without building a new BART tube. And with ridership still below half of pre-pandemic, BART isn't likely to need a second tube for a long time.
You are right that gauge is the least of the issues with mixing BART and mainline traffic on one track bed. On top of crash standards, BART already runs a heavily-branched system at (in the past and again someday) very high utilization, so exposing it to delayed mainline trains would cause cascading delays across the BART network.
Your final point is also correct, BART's average speeds aren't high enough (due to many urban stations) to serve distances beyond what it already does (or indeed to serve the outer limits of what it already serves).
All of this means that there's an opening now to invest in a mainline transbay tube that will meet the Bay's HSR and longer-distance regional rail needs. With BART-the-system below capacity for the next few decades and BART-the-agency figuring out that it can get in on the mainline rail game, the factors that previously all but ensured BART-the-system would take a future second tube are gone.
Apart from the inadequate collision “buff strength” of lightweight aluminum BART trains, the BART ROW loading gauge (clearances) and structure load limits preclude simply dual-gauging to allow shared-use with FRA-compliant standard passenger rail equipment.
@MiaM, now you see yet again dysfunctional Bay Area transportation planning. Obviously a new tunnel should be "mainline," or conventional heavy rail, standard gauge plus be electrified overhead. It would allow all manner rail service not only in the Bay Area but regionally, which means also serving the northern San Joaquin Valley, including the commuter shed of the Bay Area actually beyond it plus obviously the Sacramento area. It also might one day offer potential along the East Bay for inter-city, meaning long-distance, service. That might include reaching the Central Valley and continuing to Southern California like the high-speed rail project is supposed to do, or also serve the "Coast Line" to Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo and onward to L.A. or even San Diego on that route. It's slow, but would see some interest, and an East Bay as well as Peninsula service option would be welcomed.
@Bryan Anderson, conventional or "heavy" rail has never been interpreted, nor has it been intended, only to be commuter rail be it metro only or regional someday with a new Altamont Pass route, improved Capitol Corridor-Sacramento ("I-80 corridor") route, or highly-desirable, worth discussing since they're the best, but won't happen Dublin Canyon Tri-Valley plus eastern Contra Costa and Stockton or new Sacramento routes. Rail service has always been thought of as at least regional and most have wanted at least some effort at better inter-city travel. The real biggie in this state has always been connecting the Los Angeles area to the southern Central Valley (Tulare Basin south of the San Joaquin Valley proper), and were that done, there would be finally some good rail interest given that would be a faster route than the Coast Route, pretty as the latter is. I'd like the Coast Route sped up, too.
@Anonymous You and I agree of course that a mainline tube should serve all of these things, and finally Link21 is talking about them too. I am referring to past discussions of a second tube, which seem to have always assumed that it would "obviously" be BART since that was the "obvious" way to serve regional transit needs, with mainline rail long being relegated to an afterthought.
This post seems relevant to the Link21 discussion. Here is an illustration of what a single-bore tunnel might look like. I am relieved that all signs point to a standard gauge regional rail solution.
Definitely relevant, as is your earlier post "Down the Tubes with DTX" [0] and the linked Deutsche Bahn transbay through-running study [1], which show the critical importance of a mainline Link21.
DB found a capacity of 20 tph if all trains through-run (or 14 through-run and 6 turn from the west). What DB did not apparently consider is the capacity if some trains turn from the *east* and never continue down the peninsula (and avoid the poorly designed western throat), as I argue HSR should do. Maybe some off-peak HSR could run through, but nothing that strangles Caltrain at peak time. 4th and Townsend HSR is dumb, airport HSR is overrated, Redwood City or Palo Alto HSR is marginal, and there's a better way to get HSR from Altamont to San Jose.
@Bryan (first comment in this sub thread): The bay area and probably all the way up to Sacramento and part of the San Joaquin valley seems to be in need of a "Verkehrsverbund" as the Germans call it, i.e. a joint transit agency where tickets are valid on all modes of transit (except longer distance trains, and possibly not local trips on regional lines in high density lines), and which also takes part in all sorts of planning and decision making.
We've had and still have the problem of different tickets on different modes within the same area over here in Europe too. I was about to write a long paragraph with various other examples, but I deleted it and decided to just say that there are plenty of examples where ticketing isn't perfect.
@Bryan (third comment in this sub thread): The DB report stating max 20 tph is interesting. It seems low, 24TPH should be achievable. I think there needs to be a study in why Caltrain insists on long dwell times, and in particular a price tag should be put on different dwell time lengths. I bet that such study would make it obvious that it's worth reducing dwell times as much as possible, as the other option to use line capacity would be more platforms. Changing Caltrain to level boarding and reducing reversing times must be super cheap as compared to additional platforms and whatnot.
Also the report mentions venting. I think there should be a study on what it would cost to have venting that's good enough for tracks "packed" full with trains, or rather how many trains might end up in a queue at a "reasonable" malfunction situation.
===========
Re existing BART lines/services: The triangle at Oakland makes the existing network best used if all three routes from this triangle has the same frequency.
I don't know what the demand is and will be in the future for the four BART branches on the east side. If any of the most major ones justify all capacity it's branch itself can handle, the other branch should be considered for conversion to mainline standard. In particular Walnut Creek and Dublin would seem like the obvious ones. The other solution that is worse is to have cross platform interchange with shuttle services on these routes over to regional rail. This assumes that BART has reached capacity peak hours and regional rail has capacity left over.
With less than 40% of its pre-pandemic ridership, Caltrain faces a fiscal cliff when federal pandemic operating funds run out in 2026, that will force a major cut in service if not averted.
At 9:30 Monday morning, the MTC Transportation Revenue Measure Select Committee will hold its second-to-last monthly meeting. The committee is negotiating a proposed 2026 transportation operating fund ballot measure to send to the state legislature for authorization, after Senator Wiener was forced to pull last year's SB 1031 due to opposition from Santa Clara County. There is currently significant doubt on the committee that a measure can successfully get through first the political compromise process and second the public campaign and vote, and the options under consideration are resultantly conservative.
Dozens of advocacy organizations are working via the Voices for Public Transportation coalition to push the operating measure forward, and they've called for turnout at Monday's meeting to comment via email, Zoom, or in person to support the regional measure.
RSVP to comment [here](https://www.caltrain.com/media/34083/download).
Caltrain's Gilroy service is the canary in the coal mine for the "fiscal cliff." Unless they shut down this extremely expensive service, the evidence suggests they aren't even trying to avoid a fiscal cliff. Either it doesn't exist or they don't care. If they truly had a dire fiscal cliff this would already be shut down and the entire diesel fleet sold off!
Gleaming red and white hulls of electric trains will whir into stations across the South Bay and Peninsula this weekend, whisking passengers along electrified lines with cleaner, more reliable transit.
That is, unless they live south of San Jose.
From Diridon Station to Gilroy, the familiar, hulking diesel locomotives will rumble along for years to come.
After years of planning and construction, Caltrain is fully launching rail electrification this weekend, showing off trains that will provide faster service and smoother, quieter rides with better Wi-Fi and outlets at every seat. Because the electric trains accelerate and slow down much faster than diesel trains, service will increase by 20%, offering between 75 and 104 weekday trips from most stations.
But even as Caltrain electrifies its fleet and retools its schedules, the more than 100,000 residents of south Santa Clara County will be left behind to rely on diesel trains that offer a fraction of the daily trips and no weekend service. While local leaders hope to push for more and better train options for those residents, the path forward is limited by funding issues and an obscure, 30-year-old contract dictating the ownership of the train lines in the South Bay.
“It’s really unfortunate that the electrification will end in San Jose and not be a part of South County,” said Morgan Hill Mayor Mark Turner. “We need more transit … we are constantly struggling with how to do more with less.
While South County passengers used to be able to get on one train and ride it to or from San Francisco, they will now need to swap trains in San Jose. Caltrain, however, says the transfers will be coordinated so passengers can simply walk across the platform once their train comes in.
Additionally, the stations south of Tamien station in San Jose only offer 4 round trips (for a total of 8 trips a day) and do not offer weekend service.
Local leaders say these issues are part of a history of south county being left behind in transit. Gilroy Mayor Marie Blankley, who serves on the VTA board, recalled seeing a Santa Clara County transportation study that simply excluded areas south of San Jose. In recent years, she and other local advocates have formed partnerships with local transit providers and pushed to include south county in the conversation. Last September, that advocacy bore fruit when Caltrain introduced a fourth train to Gilroy using Measure B funds from VTA, bringing them up from three round trips.
Still, Caltrain has struggled with low ridership, down around 60% this summer compared to the months before the COVID-19 pandemic, the company is expected to operate in the red in the next fiscal year. Ridership in South County hovers at just over a tenth of that of San Jose alone.
While Blankley acknowledges that growth is in part driven by ridership, she holds that more trains would bring along more riders, noting that the addition of the 4th train saw ridership in the South County jump up by a third. “I’m convinced people would ride if it made sense to do so. When it is convenient, when it works for you, you want to use it,” said Blankley. “The service has to be one that you can reasonably count on. And Gilroy and Morgan Hill have not had that yet.”
Though Sam Sargent, director of Strategy and Policy for Caltrain, admits that financial restrictions make expanding in south county more difficult, he says Caltrain has discussed finding public funding with the help of the VTA to bring a fifth train to south county.
Re objections to SB 1031 from Santa Clara County: This is a sign that USA needs an additional administrative division level between county and state. If there were a Bay area or Norcal-ish administrative division, responsible for public transit, voters in the other counties could vote for a majority that is for something like SB 1031 and just override what Santa Clara County and it's voters want. Kind of like how the state of California enforces some multi family home zoning even on counties that oppose this, except that regional transit seems like a matter for a region rather than the state.
Also, I've stated this over and over, but the obvious solution to the Gilroy question is to build the SJ-Gilroy part of HSR and just run Caltrain trains on it. It's a straight route and it would look more or less the same no matter if it will be used for HSR and Caltrain, or only for Caltrain, except that in theory Caltrain only could possibly cheap out with some single track sections.
======================================== Are transit enthusiasts advocating for making such obvious decisions be obvious to the general public by talking with media, and/or politicians? This could be a (minor, but still?) issue state politicians from the counties between Diridon and Gilroy station could work on.
@MiaM, an interesting question is if the state high-speed rail project builds its own line instead of using the Caltrain line, it is a change from the latest decision and the new nature of the system reported as of the 2018 business plan, to run at-grade with several crossings improved. If it reverts to building its own infrastructure instead, where is the additional (new) money for that going to come from, or will there be a cost and performance reduction elsewhere, "traded" or exchanged to compensate for such a change along the San Jose-Gilroy route?
If a new route again, will it be grade-separated again?
@Anonymous: Are you thinking about a totally different route, I.E. switching from the Pacheco pass to elsewhere, or are you thinking about a difference just between Gilroy and San Jose?
Even though Caltrain runs to San Jose, the railway doesn't belong to Caltrain (except iirc a short bit southwards from San Jose Diridon), so I think the plan has always been building new electric tracks either way.
Re "trading" cost/performance with elsewhere: How about trading some road works for railway works?
Along state route 101 Gilroy - San Jose there could be displays telling drivers when the next Caltrain train will run, how long it will take using Catrain to SF as compared to what it would take to drive. If drivers every day in rush hour sees that the trains is faster at least some of them will switch to taking the train (if they are going to an area decently served by transit, of course). Since both the highways and transit are ran by public agencies I don't see any conflicting interest or silly fees for "advertisement signs" or similar.
MiaM: I'm referring to the San Jose-Gilroy segment, no change from the planned Pacheco Pass route. Imagine the 2018 change reversed, changing from having high-speed trains running conventionally (slowly) with Caltrain, as on the Peninsula, to having a separate route permitting higher speed again. Imagine what's on page 30 in the following document, but reversed.
I wouldn't bother with social engineering billboards. Run any faster train within view of at least parts of the freeway route, if possible. It's free advertising of the best kind. It's of use elsewhere, too.
@Anonymous: The signs I refer to would show real time actual travel times.
In the Gothenburg region in Sweden the signs for the park+ride stations only shows when the next train and train after that departs, and maybe travel time. However there are also signs that show estimated travel times for different routes that goes to the same destination, so it would be technically possible to display a comparison between train and car too.
@MiaM, freeway signs here in the States show actual (current) travel times.
I do not know of any plans with either Caltrain or the high-speed service to show next arrival times and for at least the next train, the time of arrival at one or more places beyond the station.
So far Caltrain has changed 3 damage pantographs. One hit a hanging wire and another hit a puse break sign that fell. I got picture of them if anyone wants to see them.
Rode down to San Bruno today (I’m a sucker for free ice cream). We left SF five minutes late, and the driver announced that they’d try to make it up… but by the time we got to San Bruno we’d lost 3 more minutes.
Thought the ice cream line was gonna make me miss the northbound… but fortunately for me it was 12 minutes late. Lost another minute on the way back to SF.
Dwells mostly seemed to be over a minute, obviously worsened by the step deployment. There was pretty high ridership for a Sunday because of all the events/free rides, but definitely fewer bikes being carried on and off compared to a weekday. Tomorrow is going to be interesting.
Step deployment takes all of about 10 seconds, but is certainly annoying. The step overhangs the platform, so deploying in motion increases risk of injury and damage. Deploying as the doors open won't work, either, as some bozos will try to get off before the step is fully there.
The new Stadler trains are quiet and faster, no question. What I find annoying is the total mount of interior space wasted by electrical equipment cabinets, the upper door plugs, stairs, dead space for the wheelchair elevators, etc. The fixed seats are upright and hard, the folding seats on the door plugs and in the end cars are a joke. Single-level high-platform EMUs compatible with CAHSR would have been cheaper, put all of the electrical equipment under the floor, would not have quite as many seats, but could have been better arranged for large numbers of standee passengers. Given how the switchover happened, not arranging to switch to high platform at the same time was an unfortunate mistake.
"Overhangs the platforms" sounds like a stretch. Anyone standing this close to the tracks will have their upper body clipped by the train before the steps cause an impact.
But we're also talking about opening the steps when the train moves slowly, further diluting the argument.
Caltrain services cater to both short- and medium-distance markets, so without adequate seats, you don't have a product to offer those customers.
I agree with you that Stadler simply isn't as efficient with space utilization as the Bombardier Bi-Level design. One doesn't have to look further than the bathroom design (cost of 8 seats) or the strange longitudinal seating on the upper level (cost of 4 seats), which adds up across the trainset. Bombardier fits 72 seats on the upper level, about 20 more than Stadler.
The electrical cabinet may take up room, but in exchange, you get a seventh car instead of a locomotive. Not that capacity is a key challenge these days, anyway.
You may be right, but deploying them while moving (even slowly) effectively removes 4 or so inches from each platform edge safety zone. There are constrained platform areas (like at Bayshore) where columns and poles are right at the edge of the zone. I've also seen not very bright people sitting on mini-highs with their legs dangling off into the zone. I can wait 10 seconds, it's the lack of level boarding that's the real problem.
@AG My point was that single level cars have all of that electrical equipment outside of the passenger area, so there can be seats or standees the entire length of the car. Going to bi-level does not provide twice as many seats, and results in "solutions" like needing in-car elevators for level boarding.
After all of the effort on this I just can’t understand how they ended up with such awful, uncomfortable seats! Things like the door plugs and electrical boxes are annoying to those in the know, but everyone can understand easily how bad the seats are. I’ve ridden Stadler trains in Switzerland and the seats were comfortable enough to be unremarkable, yet somehow Caltrain ends up with these awful seats? Nobody at any point in the process said “hey, these seats sure are uncomfortable?”
Thank Buy American. Thank LTK Engineering Services. Consult American, Buy American, baby. The main thing isn't seats, the main thing is that the middlemen make a 50% markup. Also that the HORN IS VERY VERY LOUD INDEED.
Back in 2017, Caltrain sought input on EMU seats. I seem to recall they also set up a prototype set of seats to also get some rider feedback on comfort.
Apart from the color scheme, I don’t know what — if any — changes were made to the seat design as a result.
Regarding the FRA-mandated 96-110 decibel horns, Atherton implemented Caltrain’s first and only train horn quiet zone in 2016 at their then station-adjacent Fair Oaks Lane crossing. In a station closure deal with Caltrain, they have recently extended their QZ to Watkins Ave., making it the first and only Caltrain city (“Town of Atherton”) to be horn free.
More recently, neighboring cities Menlo Park & Palo Alto are advancing plans to follow Atherton’s lead in implementing train horn quiet zones. San Mateo has long done studies and shown interest, but hasn’t yet found or dedicated any funding to advance the necessary QZ supplemental safety measures (SSMs) to qualify and obtain regulatory approval.
@Marc. The stops do not protrude an extra 4 inches because they extend from the part of the car body that is tapering towards the rail. If you were to look straight down from above the car, you might not really see the step extending.
If @Anonymous and @Martin are right, then I propose the steps be modified to normally remain in the extended position … at least until platforms are raised in the interminable distant future for true all-door level-boarding.
This would cut intermediate station stop dwell times by ~8-10 seconds per stop at the (hopefully) relatively low cost of an easy software change to permit train movement regardless of step position.
As an added bonus, it will reduce wear & tear on the step deployment mechanism and eliminate the train delay risk related to the step failing to extend or retract.
Clem said in the prior post that the step extends 63.5 inches from centerline. Do we know how far the step protrudes from centerline on the Bombardiers? If it's the same, then I can't think of any justification for not just leaving them extended at all times on the EMUs.
Re seats: It's so dumb that people argue for using transit instead of driving cars, but then transit ends up with seats that makes the passengers envious of the seats in a Yugo (just taking that car as an example of one of the cheapest cars sold in USA; don't know much about it's seats).
The extended step has a strong vibe of something made by an engineer to be producted i a series of like 10-20 units, to solve a problem in a factory or so. Thinking in particular about the black painted metal part at each end of the step which most likely would be what causes injuries if any injury happen.
And as I've stated elsewhere, the solution is simple, just use air pressure rather than an electric motor. Bam, slam, step extended in 0.5 seconds. Bam, slam, step retracted in 0.5 seconds. And all this while not producing excessive force if the step gets stuck somehow, i.e. if someones leg end up between the train and the platform edge or so.
@Reality Check: Regarding "normally remain in the extended position … at least until platforms are raised" and "As an added bonus, it will reduce wear & tear on the step deployment mechanism and eliminate the train delay risk" -- YES. Since it's not done well, that particularly points to not wasting time with it.
Do the doors open by driver / software or by passenger initiation? If pasengers then only doors where people wish to enter / exit the train need to open incresing the time between failure of the door opening / step deployment mechanisms.
I was clearly remembered incorrectly how far the step extends over the platform. My main surprise on the first trip (to Palo Alto) was that the step was over the platform at all. Given the present status quo, fixed steps would have been quite adequate (as they have been till now). Clearly, the steps do need to be retractable to avoid damage when serving (far future) higher platforms. This is really just another dumb solution forced by an inability to choose a proper platform height.
A note on the steps: in deployed position, the step nose extends 64 inches from track center. That is also where the platform edge is nominally located. So the steps can only overhang the platform by whatever tolerance there is for those two dimensions, which I doubt would ever cumulate to more than 1 inch. If you sat on a mini-high with your feet in the yellow, you would be stupid but unscathed.
I forgot that I actually have an engineering drawing of the EMU step installation, originally downloaded from an FRA public docket.
This drawing clearly shows the steps are not intended to overhang the platform. However, they do violate AAR Plate F, which is why you might not want to keep them deployed all the time.
Already there are complaints that maybe Caltrain just isn’t able to reliably run the new, faster, all-electric schedule. As followers of the Xitter (pronounced “shitter”) Caltrain Alerts account can see, there has been a constant stream of xits (“shits”) about train delays of 10 or more minutes all week.
The latest includes a photo of car stuck on and blocking both tracks adjacent to the SF 16th St. crossing.
Oops, sorry! … while clueless motorists regularly continue to drive off grade crossings onto the ballasted tracks and get stuck — almost always after dark, and typically while attempting to follow sat nav system instructions to turn on the next street — the image I previously mentioned is associated with an old (pre-Xitter) tweet that is apparently only shown at the top of the “Caltrain Alerts” user profile if you’re not logged in. My bad for not noticing Musk’s Xitter only shows non logged-in visitors some weird old set of what might all be random old pre-Xitter tweets. Sorry, but I haven’t (and won’t) bother to figure it all out.
Is there any "no entry" signs on the ballasted tracks?
Can't remember if I've already asked this, but what is the legal implications for anyone veering off onto railway tracks in their car? is it possible for Caltrain to sue a person for all costs for delays and whatnot, and maybe even do a class action against that person representing every traveler that were delayed?
Those detectors that were discussed recently could be connected to bright red flashing stop signals + signage saying "back up, you are going the wrong way" when it looks like someone is trying to enter the rail tracks with a car. Technically simple.
Caltrain trains could also carry a hand operated winch and have attachment points at railway crossings, so when a car ends up on the rail tracks the train staff could just hook their winch to the car and tow it away. Don't know about the legal parts about this, but since it seems ok to shoot a person trespassing it might be ok to do this to someones car, even if you have to hook it onto a rim or similar as modern cars don't have tow hooks (permanently attached).
The inexpensive passive solution that I think they should try is to install rubber anti-trespass panels for ~10 meters on either side of the worst affected crossings.
These panels would give extremely strong vibratory feedback to inattentive drivers, while enabling the vehicle to maneuver back onto the road. In most of these incidents, the problem isn't so much the driving onto the tracks but rather that the car becomes high-centered on the rails when trying to maneuver off the tracks, so they get stuck. The anti-trespass panels fill the space between the rails and between each track, enabling a Honda Civic to perform a 3-point turn.
MiaM: there are strict constraints (California Public Utilities Commission, General Order 26-D) on what may be built in proximity to tracks. You can't just post a sign.
Why not just rotate the crossing gate arms horizontally instead of lifting them vertically? This would move the barrier from stopping vehicles crossing the tracks to stopping them entering them.
Howdy All, I know this is more of a Caltrain / HSR focused blog, but as the preeminent bay area rail experts I hope its alright if I ask a BART related question. I'm doing some research for one of those "Bay Area 2055" rail service crayons you see occasionally, and I found a 2004 study (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/JLSFeasibility1.pdf) from BART indicating that any Jack London square BART station on the existing tracks would be infeasible due to the need to triple track the corridor to "maintain operational flexibility." Is this another classic example of an American transit agency sandbagging a project because they just don't want to deal with it? Or is this a legitimate operational / construction concern, and I should remove a JLS BART station from my map (and its transfer to a future JLS Caltrain station)? Thanks!
Not 100% sure, but I think that they want enough track capacity to not end up with trains in tunnel that they can't bring to a platform if another train in front of it breaks down?
Btw Jack London seems like not the best place for a station TBH - way less density than where the current BART stations are.
Possibly something to do with BART wanting any second tube to connect to all three East Bay lines, which is hard from Jack London Square. It's just 6-9 blocks inland, and switches would have to be cut into the curving tunnel (both upper eastbound and lower westbound) before the existing wye, or somehow after. Better to go around this complex 2-level underground junction (or deep under it?) and tie into a less sensitive place. The proposals to tie Link21 to BART near a new 23rd St station in East Oakland, and somewhere closer to MacArthur BART, make some sense (to the extent it would be broad-gauge BART).
...Better also had I re-read the question and the link – BART looked at a JLS station on the EXISTING SF-Oakland mainline (or PRT or streetcar or a shuttle on the mythical lower-level 4th track at Oakland 12th St. station). The 2004 study makes clear the legitimate issues (grade, curves, busiest tracks on the system). Agree Jack London Square doesn't warrant a BART station (nor years of disruption); barely a there there. The three locations on the mainline are bad-to-worse (old industrial, constrained by freeway and railroad, lousy place for a mythical ballpark) and would follow the BART pattern where most of their new stations are named for places they aren't anywhere near. - Ben in SF
@MiaM: This is a different Anonymous. Jack London Square is a favored older landmark site in Oakland, that Amtrak goes by. That's why you will see it mentioned by numerous people wanting to imagine a bigger train system involving Oakland and beyond. More interestingly, it's also the typical vicinity of where some would like a bicycle-pedestrian crossing of the Estuary, and there has been some study of this, straining a bit to keep a straight face about so many of the alternatives. Too often that is overdone or involves the esoteric instead of a passage underneath the Estuary. There is a hope for a lift bridge that in its current form is a poor form, with nearly 20 meters height when lowered as an apparent sop to sailboat operators.
A lift bridge is not a "sop" to sailboat operators, have you ever looked at a map of the area? I'm sure the Coast Guard would appreciate having a way to get their cutters out to sea once in a while. Oddly enough, they have ultimate say, and what they say is a 150 foot minimum clearance from the surface of the water, period. There are also some decent arguments why a pedestrian tunnel (and I would same of a bridge, as well) is not desirable, would you like to think you are alone in the middle of a 300m long tunnel, then realize that you are not, in fact, alone? I think the new pedestrian ferry is the right idea. That could be automated, or better yet, expanded and used to provide more jobs to people in the community.
@Anonymous: apologies, I missed what you were saying. Having some height when the bridge is down is needed to make it workable at all, given that there are hundreds of boats in the marinas on the far side. A high fixed bridge requires ridiculously long ramps needed to get up and down to street level. A pedestrian tunnel has personal security issues, few will use it. There have also been discussions of fringe solutions like this one.
I'm impressed that the ferry actually went into operation. I've yet to see any ridership numbers.
The wildest hot take on this is that filling in the bay would solve the coast guard issue, the Dumbarton bridge question and also Link21 would be cheap to build.
Unfortunately it turns out that both the coast guard and permits to fill in waters are handled by the military, so most likely you can't just fill in the bay to spite the coast guard.
A more serious way to view this is that unfortunately the coast guard is a federal thing, and local/state politicians can't do much about them. Given the price difference for different bridge heights and whatnot it seems otherwise reasonable to just have the coast guard have separate fleets for different sides of low bridges. With a rebuilt Dumbarton bridge there would be two areas in the bay and then "open waters" (unless someone also decides to build a low bridge replacing the golden gate).
Is harbors and whatnot within the bay really something that earns any money any more, or could that be relegated to the western coast of the peninsula?
@MiaM: all you need to do is look at a satellite photo of the estuary, do a quick count of the boats, then multiply by $120 foot/year. There are also numerous boat/ship repair businesses on both sides of the estuary, which employ actual people. The boats will stay where they are.
They are just finishing up a decades long project to "re-wild" the salt production ponds that used to line both sides of the south part of the bay. The Coast Guard isn't going anywhere, all of the currently designated navigable waters in the bay will remain that for the foreseeable future.
@Marc: Everything else except the coast guard could have a time slot for a few hour say between 01 and 05 AM week days, and not at all on night after Friday, Saturday and additional extended holidays, where bridges are opened, but otherwise are kept closed.
Also the bottom could be lowered and taller ships could be transported using a lock of sorts, where the water level would be lowered for the ships to fit under the bridges, then the ships pass under the bridge, and then obviously the water level is increased again. It would cost energy to pump the water, but some part of that energy could be recouped by running the pumps backwards as a hydroelectric power plant of sorts when filling water back into the lock.
Sure, these are far out solutions, but still. It's worth doing a study on how good these businesses are for the society in general. Compare with that many other businesses move to less desireable areas when land value increases in cities. Ship/boat related work places have sort of gotten some exception since the land they occupy isn't that useful for anything else when you have reached a point that a city (or rather conurbation?) has enough publicly accessible beach/"coast". But when ship/board businesses conflict with transportation needs a rethink might be necessary.
@MiaM, I am not a boater (I don't even like taking a ferry), but the low drawbridge to the south of the marinas does have placarded hours, it is closed several hours per day to avoid interfering with commute traffic. That direction is also apparently not dredged deep enough for larger deep draft boats. Going north past Jack London Square solves both problems. What's not clear is whether there is any real (rather than imagined) demand for pedestrian/bike service, the ferry should start to answer that question. I'm reminded of the demands for bike lanes on the Bay Bridge, a few hundred million dollars that might well serve an optimistic 100 people per day? Perhaps they should spend that money on bus lanes.
"Also the bottom could be lowered and taller ships could be transported using a lock of sorts, where the water level would be lowered for the ships to fit under the bridges, then the ships pass under the bridge, and then obviously the water level is increased again. It would cost energy to pump the water, but some part of that energy could be recouped by running the pumps backwards as a hydroelectric power plant of sorts when filling water back into the lock."
It's called a "lock" and no one is going to go to that kind of massive expense to allow a few biking and walking fanatics get across the estuary, nor should they.
The Bay Bridge is the one that needs a pedestrian/bike path the least, since it's the only bridge with 24-hour bus service. Where it's really needed in the SMH bridge. Today there is no way whatsoever to cross it. Though I wonder how the cost of building a path would compare to the cost of hourly bus service 24/7.
@Marc: The Coast Guard requires a 600-foot clear span and 175 feet minimum vertical clearance. If a bridge is built, a movable bridge is in order. I still prefer a passage under the Estuary, as with the long-needed path crossing of the Hudson. Going under the water is done to keep clear of vessels in the water. Silly stuff like gondolas, or a transporter bridge, or more gimmicky things, won't do. You may have seen some of the material (studies) about a crossing, including the one that sandbagged the tube idea ridiculously (lifeline tunnel 60-plus feet bore), even if you may have missed the bridge height.
It's shame with degradation in so many metros now that a tube under the Estuary would be a security concern, but there are measures that could be taken to be protective (and keep any tube from being adopted as a new home, as with a Hudson crossing).
@AG: I'll call your Bay Bridge for rejecting a Bay Bridge non-motorized path, though it's not from what you state, but rather as it's recreational, not utilitarian, still largely so even with E-bikes, unlike a Hudson River path crossing, so it should be added somewhere else on the bridge, not misappropriate existing lanes, as also with any bus or bus-truck (commercial truck and also bus) lanes without more bridge capacity added elsewhere (where it really ought to be from the start, there, instead).
But in addition to calling your Bay Bridge I'll raise you the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
@Marc: Yes, that lowered bridge height for the Estuary crossing is ridiculously high, especially when desired access sites are constrained and access as reasonably close to the water's edge as possible is what's really desired. The sop to boaters and any related conflict also reminds me of Brightline and the maritime community's hatred of the FEC draw bridges.
Also, the study height was low 60s feet lowered, but elsewhere a 70-foot figure has been mentioned, which has some concerned.
@MiaM: Yes, there have been plans, rejected, to fill in much of the Bay.
@AG, the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge ("San Mateo Bridge" to natives) doesn't need a bike-ped path, but it would provide interesting recreation, especially on the gradients by the high portion. The most important large transportation project for the Bay Area as usual remains the I-380 to I-238 crossing, much longer than the San Mateo Bridge crossing, and an access roadway open to non-motorized use by the public would be a draw for those wanting 12 miles or more over the water. I suspect there would be interest in rail beside it, too.
I admit that I don't know what specific bridges you all are talking about. I was more thinking about bridges in general, like the broken Dumbarton bridge, or having Link21 be a bridge rather than a tunnel or whatnot.
Pedestrian+bicycle lanes don't need to be able to handle much load, and if wanted they could most likely be added to the outside of an existing road or even rail bridge and exist within the margins of the load capacity of the existing bridge. In order to stop "idiots with authority" to do something stupid, connecting ramps would have to be made in a way that they break if any heavy vehicle attempts to drive on them, in a way that minimizes injury but the vehicle gets stuck. Thinking about road surface cleaning vehicles, emergency services and whatnot. Or just permanently placed bollards that takes ages to remove, blocking any vehicle wider than the vehicles that would be suitable for usage on the bridge.
Crossing the bay is a bit long for biking and IMHO unfeasible for walking. But even though it's a long distance, it's not impossibly long for biking, and in particular most bridges don't have much slope so won't consume much energy, either from the batteries of a e-bike or from your body on a regular bicycle. In particular with that length with no traffic lights, give way or stop signs or other obstacles it can be an actually useful commute rather than just an enthusiast thing.
Re bus services - do these busses allow taking bicycles (on board and/or say on a bike rack in the front of the bus)? If not they aren't a replacement for bicycling. Sure, there are lots of rental bicycle things but many people like to use their own bicycle. I've yet to find any short term bicycle rental thing that uses external sprocket gears, which still is superior as compared to internal gears within the hub. (The internal gears always have a lot of energy loss in comparison - the reasonable distance for bicycling becomes shorter with those, and even shorter with "single speed" bicycles).
@MiaM: There are two bridges at Dumbarton, one newer high span for cars with a protected bike lane and an unused/damaged railroad trestle with two open swing bridges that are unlikely to ever close again. The bridge between San Mateo and Hayward is a high span car/bus only bridge about halfway between Dumbarton and SF. Transit buses across the Bay all allow taking bicycles, up to three on a folding rack (some of the larger buses have storage underneath).
If the local powers were actually interested in moving the maximum number of people across the bay, they'd paint bus-only lanes on each of the bridges and plan eventually for light rail. They could have done it (and likely gotten away with it) during the pandemic, trying now will only cost them their jobs. The funny part is, my guess is we're only 20 to 30 years away from all except short distance car commuting simply dying out.
All of the local rental fleets are now ebike-only, non-electric bike rentals never worked here.
You can do a little bit of long-distance travel using Google Street View, either on Google maps or (with a subscription) on Caltopo.com, which lets you overlay Google maps/aerials, Open Street Map, historical quads, and more. Mostly this puts you on roads (and bridges) but you can sometimes find viewpoints of our rail infrastructure. There used to be a substantial low-clearance drawbridge across the Oakland Estuary at Webster Street; for cars plus SP electric trains and local streetcars. It got hit by a ship in 1926 while the Webster Tube was under construction, and that was that. They used to move steamships and sailing ships up past Webster (estuary was the winter home of the Alaska Packers' big 3-masted sailing ships which transported cans, fish, and workers to/from Alaska. Sheltered deep water is hard to find. You can get one or the other but rarely both. - Ben in SF. [FWIW I write as Anonymous when posting from my big computer because it's an old three-master, compared to my newer laptop; the OS too old for certain log-in procedures. Cheaper to type my pen name at the bottom than to run out and buy a new Mac quite yet].
@Anonymous: Silly stuff like gondolas, or a transporter bridge, or more gimmicky things, won't do
The funny part is I'd normally 100% agree with you, but this is an odd case. Relatively short distance, space constraints on both sides, not much ridership (yet), and the former naval station on the other side will be filled with housing over the next decade. Going under the estuary seems appealing at first, but it will not be properly maintained. Remember, there is already a protect pedestrian/bike lane in the car tunnel just a short walk away, but few want to use it. Also visit (if you dare) the pedestrian tunnel that runs underneath Lake Merritt Blvd between the Oakland Museum (and Lake Merritt BART) and the lake.
I've spent a fair amount of time in Japan, they experiment with lots of odd ways to move people around. For new short distance moderately trafficked routes, particularly in harbor areas, the trend seems to be elevated automated guideway transit. These are not the tiny on-demand pods that the tech bros love, they're simply longer/faster automated airport shuttle trains. They're also a lot quieter than BART and the elevated structures would be much less intrusive.
If Oakland/Alameda about transit a single track AGT or light rail tunnel under the estuary (or just take a lane from the Posey Tube) could be the start of a route along Broadway as far as Rockridge, replacing the buses. That would be a major benefit to both Oakland and Alameda. Pedestrian/bike bridge or tunnel alone, kind of a waste, stick with the ferry if anyone rides it.
I also remind people that not so long ago Alameda was a "sundown town", it's not clear to me that they really want improved transit to Oakland.
JLS BART stations does make a lot of sense due to the large number of passengers coming from Amtrak and WETA and both are some of the busiest stations for their respective systems.
BART connectivity with Capitol Corridor is exceptionally poor. For people traveling from north of Oakland, the detour at Richmond takes 40 minutes into SF in addition to transfer time. Coliseum transfer is faster, but that suffers from far fewer trains and the route largely is duplicated by BART and Caltrain when going into SF.
Ideal Amtrak transfer would be where BART crosses over Amtrak in West Oakland, but a joint station never happened.
The 150 ft requirement for the bridge could be met with a bascule or a swing bridge, but even that height requirement should be reviewed. What are the tallest types of vessels that go south of JLS? Aside from the coast guard and sailboats, I'd bet money that few ships are taller than 100ft - if that.
@Martin: "JLS BART stations does make a lot of sense due to the large number of passengers coming from Amtrak and WETA and both are some of the busiest stations for their respective systems."
To me it doesn't really make sense as the current JLS Amtrak station is several blocks from where it should be. If I were in charge, I'd move the main line rail tracks underground and build a multi-modal transit center with housing near Broadway and 4th St.
I've written this before, but the tracks should be underground and a station preferably between Lake Merit and 12th/Oakland, of course with underground paths to both BART stations, to provide interchange with all BART services in the area.
Re diesels: On the other hand, the tracks wont get moved anytime soon either :( To make lemonade of the lemons, a tunnel could be planned for electric services. The "Steam trains" that really are "Steam trains", I.E. one per day per direction or so, could use another route or change locos where they enter/exit electrified areas. Like anyone thinking it's okay to travel 12 hr Oakland-LA and travel for ages to Chicaco or Seattle would probably not mind a few minutes extra dwell time to couple/uncouple an electric loco and start/stop the diesel loco. But also, once HSR is up and running and a hypothetical electrification of Capitol Corridor happens, there aren't that much reasons for running the slow diesel Amtrak trains further than Sacramento from Chicago/Seattle.
Also re I880, how about I980 instead? I know that it's the "wrong" direction for the existing tracks, but as I've been waffling about several times, it might be a better idea to run mainline rail via Walnut Creek - Martinez than via Richmond. Richmond could get either a "East bay Caltrain" service or some sort of express BART service on additional track along the existing rail route, and become a terminus station.
Btw, are there data that's easy to read where you can select any specific area and see where commuting takes place to/from for that particular area? In this case it would be interesting to see if Richmond sees much/little commuting from/to eastwards of Richmond.
Well, if you're adding only BART, then a station at JLS makes sense.
If you're gonna be replacing JLS, I'd just tunnel from Coliseum to Emeryville with a transfer station under the 11th St BART station. Then you can connect the 2nd Transbay Tube to those tunnels.
You'd provide a proper intercity train station for Oakland that connects intercity, regional Caltrain, and BART - with all agencies benefiting significantly with more ridership and sharing operating costs.
The first several weekdays with a fully electric train fleet have already seen two power outages and major delays, both caused by instances of equipment vandalism and theft.
Caltrain celebrated its electrification launch on Saturday, Sept. 21, but just two days later, an hourlong outage led to even longer delays and cancellations after someone tampered with the overhead contact system at the San Mateo train station. The next day, the theft of impedance bond cables — which ensure the higher voltage and lower voltage currents do not interfere with one another — near the 22nd Street station caused another outage and subsequent delays. Disruptions continued on Wednesday as the agency worked to replace the equipment.
Electrification is widely supported as a critical step toward reducing carbon emissions, not to mention boosting ridership with shorter travel times and greater trip frequency. But the incidents highlight new vulnerabilities that did not exist with diesel locomotives.
Bond cable thefts were an ongoing concern during the construction phase. More than 100 incidents of theft and vandalism were reported, the majority of which were related to the cables, typically stolen for their copper components.
Caltrain Chief Modernization Officer Prayana Shrestha has said during several Caltrain board meetings that redesigning the cable installation would be costly, though the financial burden incurred would still be lower than ongoing replacement and repair costs due to theft.
But the thefts aren’t just a fiscal concern or a nuisance for commuters. Those tampering with them can be seriously injured or die when doing so on a fully electrified system.
“We are redesigning the impedance bonds to make them harder to tamper with and make them more secure,” Caltrain spokesperson Dan Lieberman said.
He added that no injuries or deaths were reported as a result of either incident this week and that engineers and staff are still learning how to respond to the new challenges.
“It’s reasonable to say there is also a learning curve in the new system, and we expect there to be more general improvements, as everyone becomes more familiar with all the equipment,” Lieberman said.
Unless I'm mistaken, the impedance bond connection cables are made of braided copper. They should suck it up and design the copper out of these devices. Make them out of aluminum, which is five times less valuable per unit of mass when sold as scrap, with double the electrical conductivity per unit of mass.
"Impedance bonds" (for track circuits) are sad 1930s USA retro-tech. Block occupancy (non-CBTC) in the first world is done via axle counters, but ..., you know ..., USA USA USA. (And no, don't "broken rail detection" me. Just don't.)
@Richard: No, it'scommon to use track circuits. I don't think impedance bonds are used though. For example more or less everywhere in Sweden track circuits are used and one track is the ground return for overhead electrification combined with one pole of the track circuits, while the other rail is solely used for the track circuit.
Don't know what percentage of railways use track circuits v.s. what percentage uses axle counters.
And then there is the modern ERTMS/ETCS Regional or whatever it's called where the balisers in the track just tells the train exactly where it is, and the train reports this to the signalling system via radio and gets the equivalent of signal aspects via the same radio communication system. Currently afaik GSM-R is used for this, but there are works going on to switch over to newer technology, but for obvious reasons that is really slow.
1 - for Clem: Can you go back and review some older posts like the curve straightening one (https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/01/top-10-worst-curves.html) and revisit it based on what has happened since then? It would be interesting to see if Caltrain has done any of the suggestions or not, and if it is easy to do or not in the future.
I would also love to see some cost estimates for these items - for example, there's no clear documentation on how much level boarding may cost. How much would that cost among other upgrades?
Level boarding: On Google Maps, I see that to do level boarding for about 18 stations would just require a weekend or few-day closure for smaller stations and some new concrete, new foundations for lights and signs. The other 10 would be more complex (elevated stations, etc) but some could be bypassed, or some could be worked on over the weekend, or in a phased manner (front half then back half). That's easy enough to do, but what are the costs? Stations like Blossom Hill can't cost more than $5M, and I counted 18 stations with a similar design. Assuming $10M for these 18 stations, that's $360M, and for the other 10, even with a $100M price tag for each, that's still only a total of $1.36B with my (very) rough estimates.
Curve straightening: Based on your older post from 2009 about that, I can see that 6 out of the 10 major curves could be straightened for $10M to $30M each (tops), which gives us a budget of $60M to $180M. If the actual cost is close to the estimates, that's something that should be strongly considered, as it's an order of magnitude or two lower than electrification or even level boarding.
2 - Tamien - Gilroy: A few questions: a - Are there any new updates on UP, Caltrain, CAHSR negotiations? Seems to be a rumor that CAHSR wants to buy part of the ROW like Virginia did, but unsure the veracity of this rumor. b - Suppose after CAHSR gets ROW rights or purchases it, could Caltrain + CAHSR apply for grants to upgrade the corridor to allow electric trains to run to Gilroy? What grants would they qualify for, and what would it cost for electrification? My point being - if others are paying for it, why not upgrade the San Jose - Gilroy link for Caltrain even if service is relatively limited? c - I wrote up a post on Reddit about grade separations and electrifications for that San Jose - Gilroy section and I see something like at least 10 grade separations that can happen today with total costs being less than $100M. If they could seal the corridor between Blossom Hill and the Morgan Hill station area, you could have 110-125mph operation very easily and quickly for another $100M in fencing and signaling. Link - https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/1f94ncx/california_should_also_focus_on_san_jose_gilroy/
3 - Speaking of grade separations: Looking at Caltrain's map of grade separations, we can see that once current projects complete, we have the stretch between Millbrae and SF 100% grade separated. What are key grade separations that would have larger chunks of the corridor be fully separated? I ask because if we can have fully grade separated chunks, and with sufficient fencing/barriers, we could have segments that can run at 110mph or 125mph very soon which would make the trains much much faster. Is this possible?
Curve flattening: nothing done to my knowledge, except a small adjustment north of Hayward Park and the new (still too tight) curve at San Bruno.
Tamien-Gilroy: I think the state of California will purchase the ROW and grant UPRR trackage rights, similar to the arrangement on the rest of the peninsula corridor. Freight traffic is diminishing and there was a UPRR offer on the table many years ago, but Santa Clara County didn't bite. The price will be much higher now.
Grade seps: there was an overview here as well, made in 2012. I wouldn't change a thing to those prognostications, even after another 12 years elapsed.
Afaik a major (maybe the major) reason for the limited service to Gilroy is track capacity. In other words, if/when Cali HSR ends up building their own (electrified) tracks my crystal ball tells me that there will be more or less trains all day rather than just a few in the rush hours.
Re costs of improvements - every improvement that can be counted in exact time savings per round trip can also be converted to amount of trains saved to keep the current number of trains per hour. Even if the savings isn't evenly divisible by full trains, it can still be a saving anyways depending on how the time table is laid out (I think?).
The savings will last "forever" while the cost will be one time (well, maintenance of the infrastructure may vary), so it should be easy to estimate a time for break-even even without considering the savings for the society in general.
@MiaM, the Morgan Hill through Gilroy portion of SJ-Gilroy can see more development someday. Meanwhile, places beyond Gilroy someday, too, can see Caltrain and related service, such as Salinas (already sought), to Watsonville (Monterey Bay area access separate from Salinas-Monterey), and Hollister. The terrain widens around Gilroy, too, more area for housing to be built there than along Morgan Hill-Gilroy. (North of Gilroy toward South San Jose features land in the Coyote Valley that is now preserved for environmental reasons, and/or to direct housing elsewhere, I can add.)
With population growth comes more commuting and the highway and other routes will likely be neglected, plus there's only so much that can realistically be done for more capacity, and a train trip will be increasingly attractive if only from worse conditions on roads. That's if a train trip is feasible. If it is, it will be more attractive in the future if there is population growth and roads more crowded.
Re environmental preservation: I think that should be weighted against societal benefits. In particular high density development is probably better than a nature park near a city, but low density development isn't.
Side track, re the land use in the bay area: Something worth considering is the feasibility and cost of moving single family houses. I think it would be a good idea to do a study of moving houses to some other area, and replace them with medium/high density transit oriented development in select areas. Given that you don't have to redevelop every plot in an area, this could work even if some of the owners don't want to sell their houses.
@MiaM: Moving the houses where, though? Within the Bay Area or into its extended commuter shed? Beyond that?
Transit-oriented development is hyped, but it might work in some places, though the craze for more housing has much wrong with it, including neglect of employment at or near TOD sites, in fact as important and often more than housing. Also, the larger housing types, mid-rise boxes and high-rises, belong in downtown areas and along the largest major streets, or for high-rise in some specific places that are particularly notable and attractive. They don't belong anywhere and everywhere. Smaller housing types that already have long existed (2, 3, 4 households on a single household site more than small auxiliary homes, to increase density more) are appropriate to scatter in the established neighborhoods, though better as a transition between the big housing on the largest streets and the neighborhoods. But the smaller multiplex homes would be what you'd scatter in the neighborhoods themselves to increase density in them along with ADUs or lot splits and second houses being built. Some might want multiple parcels or larger parcels and 6, 8, 12 households put on them, though. That might work at TOD sites, especially those in established low-rise, low-density neighborhoods. Etc.
https://missingmiddlehousing.com/types
One of my living experiences in the US was a very successful and satisfying one in the center unit of a tri-plex that was built right -- I never heard any sound whatsoever from either neighbor indoors, a fundamental concern for multi-unit housing and for living in it.
@Anonymous: I'd say that it's an open question where to move them. Either select a place where they could be moved to, like say build a "Los Banos 2.0" on the north side of the HSR route, at about the same distance to the HSR route as the current city, and ensure that the road layout fits well for a bus service that can shuttle people to a hypothetical station along the HSR line (that due to the prop-somehting rules absolute is "not a HSR station" even though it would attach to the HSR route...). Or just offer them for sale to anyone having a plot to put a house on.
Re density: My impression is that the native English speaking world seems fixated on having density slope from downtown to suburbs. In many countries that aren't native/majority English speaking it's instead common to have high density suburbs, where the density might even be higher than downtown (especially when the downtown wasn't destroyed by war or similar). And sure, in some places these areas are considered "rough" but that is simply due to problems accumulate at the places where the cost of living is the lowest within the region, and since high density is the most effective the cost of living is also the lowest there (at least with the public sector as land lords). My answer to this problem is kind of to band building low quality housing, and enforce upgrades to existing low quality housing, so that say 40% or so of all housing have the same quality and then there would be outliers in the form of more expensive single family housing. The other solution is how the Netherlands has done it for decades - mix different quality/size of housing within the same area. I.E. say two staircases with 5 floors of apartments, and then 2-4 single family two floor homes, and then again two staircases with 5 floors of apartments, rinse and repeat. (Look for example at street view near the end of the tram line (iirc line 26) to Ijburg in Amsterdam.
I agree that "transit oriented development" is hyped, at least as a phrase, but the concept of enough houses and commercial spaces within walking distance of each transit stop is really sound, and was something that mostly the former east block but also other places has been doing since at least the 1960's or so.
I fully agree with work places. A simple solution is to have offices in the same buildings as you have ground floor and near ground floor commercial spaces and higher floor housing.
2 - RE: the ROW between Tamien & Gilroy, let's hope the negotiations go well in that case. Having a state-owned corridor there would be huge for future projects. Doing the math, we can see that an upgrade to 125mph or so shaves off about 10 minutes for CAHSR meaning it's easier to hit the 2:40 requirement, and would be a huge boon for state-wide travel. It would also shave off about 15 minutes between Gilroy and San Francisco for Caltrain and the future Monterey extension.
2a - Speaking of the Coast Subdivision... if the state could acquire not just the Tamien - Gilroy segment, but also the northern leg of the Coast Subdivision to Coliseum, plus the southern segment all the way to Burbank, we'd really be cooking here. It could enable so much more trips between the Bay Area and LA, plus allow for additional service to small towns in between. We could have meaningful service as part of a broader statewide network that ties into the high speed rail system in LA and in the Bay Area.... a lot of possibilities there that would be amazing, and take traffic off of 1 and 101 along that corridor.
@MiaM: I strongly disagree about moving housing to Los Banos. We simply need to massively increase density in areas that are already dense. San Jose has little to no skyline, plus if we simply wholesale upzone the area from single family zoning to 5 over 1s or even just allow 2-3 additional units on most lots in the city, San Jose can double its population overnight to 2 million. The same goes with most of San Francisco - we could easily house another 500,000 people just with a small city-wide density increase, e.g., Sunset, Richmond is all only 2-4 stories in that part of the city. For the case of towns like Gilroy, the land use is atrocious - just ¾ of a mile from the train station is farmland, on top of the immediate station area not being dense enough at all. If we redevelop the area immediately around the station (e.g., in a 2 mile radius, giving us a square mileage of about 6 miles), we could fit in about 100K more people for an equivalent density of San Francisco. Doing the same for Morgan Hill, Blossom Hill, etc gives us a crapload of housing (well over 300K units) - it's a lack of vision and cojones by Bay Area planners and leaders. For context, Washington DC is 8 miles by 8 miles (similar to size as San Francisco), and houses 700K people with a height limit of 12 stories, and still has plenty of room for more housing - at least another 300K to 400K across the city before the height limit becomes an issue. Washington DC built over 36K units in 6 years - the Bay Area is much larger with much more land, so 360K units in 5-10 years is very reasonable. Citation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/07/29/dc-housing-goal/ If we densify the Bay Area and build more housing, we can protect shrinking farmlands and help strengthen our cities - San Francisco and Oakland are struggling after covid, and by expanding their resident tax-paying base, they can make up for the loss in office space.
@MiaM: The east side of the Central Valley has cities already and is suited for more development. Getting more employment along with housing there is the real challenge.
@Anonymous-S: There's a practical limit to density increase in the real world, separate from people's acceptance of (over)crowding and related problems, namely the need to make the infrastructure, including roads, handle the growth. That also includes sufficient off-street parking to preclude chaos along the curbs. Yes, more people means more cars in the real world; collective transport is tied to specific routes and schedules, which limits their comparative utility, aside from sacrifice not only of autonomy and speed but of more importance recently, privacy and security. Also consider things such as the airport height limits in San Jose -- no NYC, Chicago, or Philly skyline can be expected there.
California's own government before the latest activism took hold there along with development interests saw the utility of boosting density substantially in the central cities in particular, for what that's worth, worth more than the bogus McKinsey study with its bogus figure, for example. It also acknowledges the natural attraction of coastal areas. Here:
Instead of the godawful hamster housing New Tenements, other approaches could be taken, including ADUs and lot splits in the low-rise detached neighborhoods plus some scattering there of low-rise apartments and smaller multi-plex housing that also would be transitional to major arterials and downtowns where mid-rise belongs and high-rise in particular belongs. But this also could be said to apply between cities: At the same time, if main cities' downtowns get much more housing, one could see mid-rise reaching into the inner-ring suburbs if not farther out from the downtowns. I'm not sure it can be done well, though. The odds are against it.
Open thread? Here you are. This has been waiting so long to amuse those interested in better transportation. Also, imagine in the better (pre-righty) days for Musk when he had groupies if he had "conceived" or "discovered" higher superelevation to speed trains through curves, as he conceived or discovered tube travel and evacuation of air in the tubes to enable higher speeds.
Clem, you and a few others in particular should view the details and be amused.
a new service between New York and Washington with parameters in the following ranges: maximum speed--180 to 210 mph; resultant [super]elevation--17 to 22 in.; and trip time with four intermediate stops--110 to 100 min
@Anonymous-S: Los Banos was just an example. Move the single family houses to Idaho or whereevery if that is more suitable. The point is to recoup some value of existing buildings when having to remove them in order to upzone in the bay area. Transport cost would be an issue for longer distances, therefore I suggested Los Banos as an example of a place that isn't that far away and where there are plenty of undeveloped land that otherwise will likely not be developed in a long time. And also I suggested leaving a large spot in between the existing Los Banos and a "Los Banos 2.0" to be able to add higher density in between.
@Anonymous: the major point about transit oriented development is not needing as much cars, and thus be able to have higher density without needing that much more infrastructure.
Eventually other types of infrastructure will also be an issue, and is something that has to be considered for long term planning. As an example in Berlin in the divided Germany times, the GDR decided to plan for future development north of Wartenberg along the ring railroad and inwards where there is green fields today, and they planned and built things like high voltage wires and whatnot to suite future development there. And thanks to that, this area is still the area that is considered for future development. (The reason that nothing has happened during the 35 years of reunified Germany is that the population actually declined in Berlin for a while, and it's only IIRC 5-10 years since it reached the 1989 level again, and thus it's only now that there is a need for new development).
@MiaM: There's an imaginary belief by some currently in magic, that providing homes at or near transit sites means people will use transit. That's not necessarily true at all in the real world, and usually isn't. Where are trips made? (When?) If one works and can commute by transit, and it's suitable, then great. The park-and-ride behavior for trips in and out of downtown San Francisco by transit also makes sense. (Try driving, though you'll manage, or worse, try parking there. BART and Caltrain are godsends even with Caltrain's too-far-away terminal in the City.) The same is true for imagining residents living closely to transit will not have cars. There also is acting to aid developers to get more housing built and higher density. In reality this introduces spillage of residents' cars onto adjacent streets. The threat is one motive for parking permits.
@Anonymous-S: The old Western Pacific Oakland Subdivision, where BART runs, in the East Bay is much better than the Coast branch, that misses the communities' hearts and main populations.
Insofar as the old SP, now UP Coast Route goes, it was once available for the taking, but wasn't acquired. Be aware, though, that it isn't and can't be made into a high-speed route. It could be sped up, and this has been sought, but intentions and any future efforts will be pitiful by your likely expectations or standards. San Luis Obispo south has more planned for it but it still won't be very fast, not like the earlier study work separate from Cal HSR that looked at hopefully cutting travel time on that route by about half (and claiming 110 mph tilting trains a good deal compared to non-tilting 125 mph service). There is still the Cuesta grade portion and the move toward the coast. Taking private land and revising the route to bypass (scenic) Cuesta and also the (scenic) coastal portion south of San Luis Obispo (not included in studies) would speed trains and serve more with a Santa Ynez Valley stop possible, but it's not to be.
By the way, no stop permitted by Cal HSR at Los Banos or elsewhere between Gilroy and Merced (officially) was won by the Sierra Club to prevent loss of farmland -- new residents will want houses and generous yards or more land -- and arguably other environmental demand in the bleak rain shadow of the Diablos where Los Banos is, albeit the ideal "HSR commuter dorm city" scenario (which is why the Sierra Club fought it).
The "magic" is that you provide homes with good transit to certain places, and no meaningful way of driving cars to certain places, which will result in that people who has reasons to go the places reachable by transit will be incentivized to move in, while people who has reasons to go places you'd need a car to go to would be deterred to move in. If this doesn't work, i.e. people taking uber's or whatnot every day, there is something else wrong like for example the well known housing crisis with too few homes being built in the larger city areas, or for that sake taking an uber might be too cheap in comparison to peoples wages.
In places where there is an actual functioning housing market, people move to places that reasonably fit them rather than whatever happens to be available. Like you for sure have never heard of a farmer living in a large city commuting to their farm.
Re speeds for rail on the east side of the bay - although high speed would be desirable, worth considering is that a decent chunk of the distance on a hypothetical Oakland - San Jose railway would be spent on accelerating and braking. Add like one station or possibly two and all time will be spent accelerating and braking (data source: Random reddit thread with GPS data from some Shinkansen train types, so afaik actual data but somewhat anecdotal)
Re Sierra Club: Wow... Sure, large plot single family houses wouldn't be great, but it's at least better if they park-and-ride to a rail station in the vicinity rather than commute by car somewhere else.
The MacArthur parking village has nearly 900 units with around 470 parking spaces shared between BART passengers, renters, and commercial spaces. It appears to be 95% full, so there's certainly a good supply of people who don't own a car, but want to live near transit. We don't know how many of them own a car, there's certainly high demand for such housing. One could argue that every BART and Caltrain station needs to have a couple 24 story towers adjacent to them - and blocking noise to the neighborhood.
My daughter is in her mid-twenties, she and about half of her friends are Oakland kids who never got driver's licenses, aren't interested enough to get one, and probably never will unless they end up moving to some hellish suburb.
@Anonymous: Also, have you ever considered that those who drive to park-and-ride stations are exactly the group of people who could live in transit-oriented development apartments? By moving to apartments within walking distance of Caltrain, BART and/or another good transit system, the wouldn't have to drive to a park-and-ride station.
==================== Btw I've always thought that it's somewhat surprising that there aren't ride-and-drive stations, i.e. stations far out in the outskirts where the land value is super low, where extremely long term parking is combined with a rail station, where people who rarely need their car could park their car, and just fetch it whenever it's needed. Provide each spot with a 0.5A mains power socket for a trickle charger for the car battery, and/or perhaps preferable offer connections to trickle chargers owned by the parking lot if there would ever be any safety issue with user supplied trickle chargers. Or just offer to rent a jump starter booster pack for say $5 for 30 min.
================ Also, speaking about cars in cities: There are uber/taxi, rental cars and various types of ride shares and whatnot, but afaik there aren't any system of booking some rental car and just stating between where you want to go, and what extra places you are willing to go from/to if you don't have to pay much for that part, and/or that you want to do it at a particular time but which day of the week don't matter that much, and whatnot, and end up with a system where cars are just handed over from one renter to another. Maybe "too hard", I.E. technically feasible but above the IQ level for a CEO type person to understand?
@MiaM: I work in Palo Alto and live in Oakland, the car trip takes 45 to 90 minutes, taking transit (bus to SF, walk, Caltrain to PA, OR bus, BART to Union City, Dumbarton bus to PA, which is now quicker) takes a minimum of 2 hours and can take upwards of 3 (I use transit anyway). Some of my co-workers live as far away as Stockton or Modesto which takes nearly 3 hours by car, if they hit the road at 4am, forget about a train. That's how far one out you have to go to get some semblance of affordable housing. Much of the open spaces between the Bay Area and the Central Valley (and also towards the coast) are covered by various open space and land use mandates, no houses can be built in those areas. Plus, those counties (and those who already live there) don't want to pay for roads, schools, and other infrastructure. We had one recent attempt by billionaire tech bros to build a "dream city" halfway between Sacramento and SF on farm land. They succeeded in secretly buying up the needed land, but once the plan became public the opposition came out in force. They're still making believe they will still go ahead with this, but it ain't gonna happen.
Any realistic plan involves building lots of new dense housing in all of the Bay Area cities, but little of that will be affordable, as construction costs are now upwards of 1 million dollars per unit. San Francisco, in particular, is heading the direction of London, lots of luxury apartments and condos that sit empty most of the time.
@Marc: Lots of new dense housing in all Bay Area cities itself is not realistic, nor is it wanted, and is not practical if the roads as well as other infrastructure is augmented for the growth. The state government is officially refusing to pay, as it should, the costs it is imposing on cities by forcing much new development on them. (Don't forget things like schools, too.) There will still be quite a lot of it built, as it is already being built, usually of low quality, eyesores without enough parking, making life worse. It is expensive (never mind high-rises instead of the routine mid-rises) and it has long been obvious that affordability requires government intervention and provision, directly or indirectly, in the expensive places in this country, and for that matter, elsewhere. Long distance high-speed commute lifestyles would be subsidized themselves, and only for a small fraction of the population.
"San Francisco, in particular, is heading the direction of London, lots of luxury apartments and condos that sit empty most of the time." Au contraire, San Francisco has one of the lowest housing vacancy rates in the United States, or indeed on Planet Earth.
"Lots of new dense housing in all Bay Area cities itself is not realistic" Perfectly realistic if artificial barriers and fees are removed.
"nor is it wanted" don't care
"and is not practical if the roads as well as other infrastructure is augmented for the growth." Prop 13 delenda est
"usually of low quality" Compared to barely-still-standing 1940s starter homes that sell for 3 million on the peninsula?
"eyesores" don't care
"without enough parking" good
"making life worse." Much the opposite.
"it has long been obvious that affordability requires government intervention and provision" True, the market will never serve the least fortunate, and direct state provision is then needed. But the most important government intervention by far is simply to force reactionary, segregationist (sorry, very very progressive) cities to allow new supply to be built so more new neighbors can afford to live where the jobs are.
(different anon) @Marc This state of things is unfortunate, but not unexpected given the circumstances. The bay's affliction is its poor use of land. So many transit stations are surrounded by huge vacant lots, either fenced (like due west of Millbrae station) or just far more parking that can ever be used (like Fremont BART). This stems from the fact that land is not taxed enough, so it's cheap to leave it underused, as a speculative lottery ticket. With political power held in the hands of property owners, efficient use of land is precisely what the polity votes against, since a greater supply of usable land lowers land prices for existing owners. It's rent-seeking all the way down.
Taxing land has a perfect synergy with transit funding: the locations that benefit from the public goods (by way of higher rental values) pay for them accordingly. Whereas when transit development is paid for with sales taxes, income taxes, or the like, productive economic activity is fined in order to inflate land values in particular locations and confer an unearned benefit to particular property owners.
None of our problems will be easily or quickly fixed without taxing land.
@Bryan Anderson: "Au contraire, San Francisco has one of the lowest housing vacancy rates in the United States, or indeed on Planet Earth." You did not read what I said correctly. A lot of luxury units are sold to owners with multiple residences elsewhere, they show up once in a while to "do SF" for a few days. I've had two old friends in recent years give me the keys to their SF condos to use when I wanted, as they were never around.
"Perfectly realistic if artificial barriers and fees are removed." Here in Oakland, anyway, the building department can be a bit gnarly to work with (mostly because they are horrendously understaffed), but they will give you a permit eventually. It's not the fees that are the problem, it's the contractor costs. I wanted to do a straightforward renovation of my detached garage and possibly convert it to an ADU, I lost interest when the quotes started at half a mil and went up from there.
@(different anon): I support your efforts at repealing Prop 13, as that's why property taxes can't be raised to cover transit costs. It won't happen. A good start would be repealing Prop 13 for corporations. Quite a few $5M and up houses around here are owned by dedicated LLCs. When the owner wants to move, they sell ownership of the corporation. The property never legally changes hands as defined by Prop 13 and does not get reassessed.
@different anon: Re land tax: Something that would likely be a hard sell, but would probably do wonders, would be a combination of forcing owners of empty plots to short term rent out the space, below market rate, for use as a shorter term trailer park / RV park for temporary housing. If all people who commute from really long distances would vote for this happening closer to their jobs in the cities, this would more or less force the local politicians in the cities to do whatever required to ensure that higher density gets built. Also state legislation outright banning almost all development where the density is low as compared to the population density in the area. Of course there needs to be exceptions to things like gas stations (that in theory can be part of a large building, but for safety reason that isn't really desirable). There would also be a need to have a hefty tax or fine for construction that takes "too long" time, I.E. you can't just apply for a permit and build walls for some basements and then just don't do continue just to not have to take part in the trailer part thing.
P.S. understaffed departments in the public sector is really a problem. Permits and whatnot should not need to take a long time.
The Bay Area's land has debatable land use, depending on the locations of interest. (The Bay's land is underwater. [sigh]) Much is older and much is industrial in an area that deindustrialized. Tech is an industry but is of a different nature now; it's software that's often made, not fabricated as in earlier times. Changing the land use raises concern for change for the better versus for the worse, surrounding effects included, at least to those with better values. The area and state have declined enough, and are worsening, already.
Prop. 13 has its faults but repeal makes no sense without controls and limits on resulting taxes and tax levels. What's desired is an end to inequity, not more revenue more than anything else. Property taxes should be objective, based on square footage for various uses, but don't expect that high a level of attainment among those who want to spend more and view property value as ability to pay more taxes, a level similar to what we see with MTC and say, the Bay Bridge eastern span debacle, and our progress with Caltrain as examples of transportation, or the politics and worse with the high-speed rail project.
Please continue comments in this thread. The August open thread seems permanently bugged, with newer comments not appearing. The tech support here is worth every penny I pay for it, which is zero :)
ReplyDeleteReality Check commented on the old thread, and pointed out that if clicking "load more" the invisible comments gets loaded. Thanks!
DeleteUnfortunately the # thingie to go to the right comment when following either the links in the upper right hand side or RSS feed don't work directly. At least in Firefox just activating the URL field and pressing enter will take you to the correct comment.
Seems like the "load more" thingie should really also follow the # thingie, but don't.
Btw, also seems like we are writing too many comments :) The limit for the "load more" to show up seems to be 200 comments :D
https://support.google.com/blogger/thread/208096732/how-can-i-increase-comment-limit?hl=en
Also, maybe edit this blog post to include Reality Checks two comments on the previous post,
Delete"Caltrain will present its draft 10-year Capital Improvement Plan, which includes level boarding, at tonight’s September CAC meeting."
https://www.caltrain.com/media/34083/download
https://www.caltrain.com/meetings/2024/09/jpb-citizens-advisory-committee
and
"Alstom ‘Buy America’ lawsuit may stall Brightline West’s Siemens train deal""
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-16/-buy-america-feud-risks-200-mile-an-hour-rail-from-vegas-to-la?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTcyNjUwMTI2MCwiZXhwIjoxNzI3MTA2MDYwLCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJTSkVGNUJEV1JHRzAwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiI4NjdEMUZFOUNCNjM0QUU3OThCOUM4RTRCMDMzN0UxMyJ9.NX9m5_rYC4sAdlnNeMdawWGHCh0Z9jR5dlT8Klt4xT8
(or we can just discuss it anyways :) )
According to the draft 10-year capital plan, Caltrain plans an entirely new signal and control system, new CCTV, intrusion detection, fencing, fiber optics, communications, etc.? Is there a real need for this or have the consultants said "there are risks" and "systems are aging?"
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it seems 80% of the plan will be invisible to customers (besides some mini-high platforms and new Redwood City station).
A 10 year plan not including level boarding all the way along the line? Weird.
DeleteThe other parts seems reasonable. Btw re fiber optics, I think an important thing for both Caltrain and Cali HSR would be to run extra fiber lines and rent out them to anyone who wants to use them, highest bidder. Sure, you can run fiber optics along power lines, and you can use radio links for communications, but offering an additional "route" for telecom could bring in some extra profit.
Caltrain staff says they have suffered numerous accidental fiber damaging incidents at the hands of various construction crews in recent years. In many or most cases, repairs were “temporary.” So the CIP fiber stuff involves more proper / permanent repairs in addition to something about getting set to rent out or lease excess (currently “dark”) fiber capacity.
DeleteOh sweet summer child... let's not whitewash this one. The reason the fiber optic cables are so severely patched up is that the CBOSS subcontractor tasked with installing them was specifically directed not to bury them where it was easiest to dig, because the pole foundations would soon go there. The subcontractor not only disregarded this direction and quickly buried the fiber optic cables right where the foundations would go, but fraudulently falsified as-built drawings to show the cables were installed as directed. Fast forward to pole foundation installation, and the "potholing" process (exploratory digging) kept turning up the stupid cables. This caused huge delays and costs as pole foundations had to be redesigned and/or the cables spliced and moved out of the way. You may remember the acronym for this was "DSC" or "Discrepant Site Conditions" and the electrification contractor made some serious bank on DSC change orders. This info turned up in the CBOSS lawsuit, if anybody wants to go digging for the lurid details. In short, it is a giant steaming heap of incompetence and outright fraud that got us to the point where the cables need replacing from "accidental" damage.
DeleteSo, what has CBOSS (which never delivered *anything*) cost the public at this point?
DeleteMost assuredly over $300 million.
Over $500 million yet? Quite possibly! Who can say? Who could even venture to guess? Numbers are social constructs, the past is no guide to the future, and FISCAL CLIFF SEND MORE MONEY.
Also, where was today's Caltrain CEO and where was Caltrain's former CEO when CBOSS was conceived ... approved ... funded ... contracted .. funded some more ... funded MORE AND MORE AND MORE ... and – as 100% accurately predicted, right here on caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com –, abjectly failed? I mean, you can't just *disappear* a half billion dollars of the public's cash with *zero* consequences, can you? *Can you????*
Is (attempted) cable theft a problem when it comes to fiber optics? (i.E. thieves not knowing what they are doing trying to steal fiber optics, or fiber optics being damaged when actual cable theft happens).
DeleteComparison/whatnot: In Sweden the common practice is to put concrete trays/troughs, with concrete lids on top, along rail lines, for various cables. Not sure if those are used for fiber optics too, or only electrical cables. This makes it blatantly obvious where the wires are, and as a bonus they form a decent walkway for workers so they don't have to walk on gravel. The problems with cable theft seems to mostly affect thicker metal cables though, in particular grounding wires (which in absolute worst case can result in signalling equipment being destroyed due to the overhead electrification current going through the signalling cables rather than the correct ground path. This problem would likely apply no matter how you do electrification though; hard to bury the connections to the actual rails).
"State of Good Repair" is the biggest do-nothing-forever scam ever.
DeleteAmerican Commuter Railroads and Amtrak and of course the consultant scam just LOVE State of Good Repair.
Spend BILLIONS, for DECADES, deliver NOTHING.
But, you know, SAFETY. Can't be too SAFE. Can't be too careful or slow when GOOD REPAIR and SAFETY are concerned. Best overall not to run trains, just to be safe.
Alon Levy has had some choice things to say about "State of Good Repair" as a bottomless pit of do-nothing and contractor/agency fraud.
Back a couple decades ago the line that Caltrain staff bleated, incessantly, in repoorts, to their "oversight" Board, to the stupidest local city and county boards, was "you have to understand we're a fixer-upper railroad", so of course you can't expect as to DO anything IMPROVE anything until we've "fixed up" everything ... which is now, of course, in need of mid-life overhaul and repeated repeat repeat fixing up.
20 years later, they're JUST ONCE, perhaps going to deliver the ONLY service improvement to the public ... and for the next two decades (you know that a "10 year" capital plan will balloon out in budget and time to 20 years, because it always has and always will) they quite literally promise – PROMISE!!! — NOTHING. Nothing at all.
Money for nothing. Literally. Money for nothing, forever.
Seriously, screw you and your CCTV intrusion detection. Who asked for it? Nobody. "HOW, *EXACTLY* IS THIS GOING TO MAKE MORE TRAINS RUN MORE OFTEN AND RUN MORE CHEAPLY?" is the ONLY question. Show your calculations. Rank against other projects. Show coordination with other projects that also will actively help provide more and cheaper train operations to actual passengers. Show a real schedule of precisely when the better train schedule will be put into service.
Screw 10-year "Capital Plans" that PROMISE EXACTLY NOTHING aside from INCINERATING CAPITAL. Burn it all. Burn it all down. Burn in hell.
("** Does not include the full cost of implementing the Long-Range Service Vision: construction
of major asset is in FY36 and beyond". Of course it doesn't. And a good thing, because the "Long-Range Service Vision" is to fucking throw Caltrain under the bus, trains sitting and waiting for 7 minutes at a time for high speed trains which are to have *all* the priority on the "blended service" corridor despite carrying fuck-all number of riders.)
Hey, let's take the win!
DeleteI'm at least glad the Redwood City quad-track station is high on the list of capital improvements, even if the timelines are glacial. This post looked at its potential to improve service quality, and it's a big deal. The biggest challenge will be to help everyone understand the value of four-track approaches.
While I agree that state of good repair can be a black hole, it's worth comparing to what happens to systems that don't spend enough money... NY MTA / LIRR/ MN are probably the best examples of ancient rolling stock, dark territory.
DeleteFor Caltrain, I don't recall the last slow-orders I've experienced. The average speed for baby bullets and locals is significantly higher than what LIRR/MN are able to achieve. You could take the glass half empty view that "things could still be much better", but it's worth acknowledging also that "things could be much much worse".
ReplyDeleteCity Beautiful on YouTube did a video about Salesforce transit center. Probably mostly nothing new to most readers here, but still.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o3YX9SS2MU
I have to admit that I didn't know that Link21 is trying to decide on either building a BART tunnel or a mainline railway tunnel. I would think that a mainline tunnel would give the most bang-for-the-bucks.
I tried searching what the time table looked like before the pandemic but couldn't find it :(
Today there are four lines sharing the current tunnel and each runs every 20 minute (looking at the time table from 7AM on a Friday, assuming this is the schedule for rush hour week days). This means approximately a train every five minutes, and to me that means that the current tunnel can host at least twice as many trains.
Btw the video states that BART can't share right of way with regular trains due to gauge differences. I don't think this is true since the difference is wide enough to likely fit tracks for both gauges. It's rather a matter of mixing FRA style crash worthy heavy trains and ligher non-FRA style trains on the same line at the same time that I would think hinders sharing the track bed. Also heavy trains needs to be at bit further apart time wise so it would be hard to mix things anyways.
But most importantly I think that it's questionable to have BART be the main rapid transit options between downtown SF and the further away stations on the east side of the bay.
Link21 has been implying for some time that they are leaning toward mainline--which you're correct is the best decision, as it provides HSR benefits in addition to higher-speed/longer-distance regional rail. For decades before the pandemic, it was assumed that a second transbay tube would be for BART--which is part of why a transbay route for HSR to get to SF was not seriously considered, even by Altamont advocates. This seems to have been assumed for several reasons. One, BART ridership was on a trendline to outgrow the existing tube in the near future, which it certainly no longer is. Two, it was ingrained in government planners' minds (and the general public's, though not the sort of people who comment here) that BART means modern frequent rapid transit and mainline means 1950s 'murican commuter rail (low frequency, slow trains, shit schedules, gallery cars, etc etc), so future rapid transit needs were assumed to be only addressable through more BART, not mainline rail (wtf is an s-bahn anyway). Three, agency turf wars over heavy rail in the inner Bay Area had always gone BART's way for half a century, and "BART" was assumed to mean the current BART system, not mainline trains with the BART logo on them. Point 1 is less of an issue post-pandemic, especially with BART's Transbay Core Capacity Program, which I'll expand on below. Point 2 is slowly (slowly!) becoming less of an issue as people see a glimmer of mainline rail becoming something better with electrified Caltrain. Point 3 is also becoming less relevant as BART-the-agency has gotten into the mainline business by operating Capitol Corridor--as evidenced by the BART-run Link21 study leaning in favor of mainline rail.
DeleteBefore the pandemic, BART could run max 24 trains per hour through the tube, averaging just under 9 cars per train out of a max of 10. There were four constraints: rolling stock fleet size, traction power, train control, and train storage space. Transbay Core Capacity will expand the tube's capacity to 30 10-car trains per hour by addressing all four constraints. New traction power facilities have been built in SF and are still being built in the East Bay. Extra cars for the new fleet are now being delivered in addition to the original order which replaced the old fleet. Communications-based train control is being installed, although it's taking a maddeningly long time. And an expanded storage yard will be built in Hayward, although costs seem extreme. All of this will result in nearly a 40% increase in transbay capacity--all without building a new BART tube. And with ridership still below half of pre-pandemic, BART isn't likely to need a second tube for a long time.
You are right that gauge is the least of the issues with mixing BART and mainline traffic on one track bed. On top of crash standards, BART already runs a heavily-branched system at (in the past and again someday) very high utilization, so exposing it to delayed mainline trains would cause cascading delays across the BART network.
Your final point is also correct, BART's average speeds aren't high enough (due to many urban stations) to serve distances beyond what it already does (or indeed to serve the outer limits of what it already serves).
All of this means that there's an opening now to invest in a mainline transbay tube that will meet the Bay's HSR and longer-distance regional rail needs. With BART-the-system below capacity for the next few decades and BART-the-agency figuring out that it can get in on the mainline rail game, the factors that previously all but ensured BART-the-system would take a future second tube are gone.
Apart from the inadequate collision “buff strength” of lightweight aluminum BART trains, the BART ROW loading gauge (clearances) and structure load limits preclude simply dual-gauging to allow shared-use with FRA-compliant standard passenger rail equipment.
Delete@MiaM, now you see yet again dysfunctional Bay Area transportation planning. Obviously a new tunnel should be "mainline," or conventional heavy rail, standard gauge plus be electrified overhead. It would allow all manner rail service not only in the Bay Area but regionally, which means also serving the northern San Joaquin Valley, including the commuter shed of the Bay Area actually beyond it plus obviously the Sacramento area. It also might one day offer potential along the East Bay for inter-city, meaning long-distance, service. That might include reaching the Central Valley and continuing to Southern California like the high-speed rail project is supposed to do, or also serve the "Coast Line" to Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo and onward to L.A. or even San Diego on that route. It's slow, but would see some interest, and an East Bay as well as Peninsula service option would be welcomed.
Delete@Bryan Anderson, conventional or "heavy" rail has never been interpreted, nor has it been intended, only to be commuter rail be it metro only or regional someday with a new Altamont Pass route, improved Capitol Corridor-Sacramento ("I-80 corridor") route, or highly-desirable, worth discussing since they're the best, but won't happen Dublin Canyon Tri-Valley plus eastern Contra Costa and Stockton or new Sacramento routes. Rail service has always been thought of as at least regional and most have wanted at least some effort at better inter-city travel. The real biggie in this state has always been connecting the Los Angeles area to the southern Central Valley (Tulare Basin south of the San Joaquin Valley proper), and were that done, there would be finally some good rail interest given that would be a faster route than the Coast Route, pretty as the latter is. I'd like the Coast Route sped up, too.
Delete@Anonymous
DeleteYou and I agree of course that a mainline tube should serve all of these things, and finally Link21 is talking about them too. I am referring to past discussions of a second tube, which seem to have always assumed that it would "obviously" be BART since that was the "obvious" way to serve regional transit needs, with mainline rail long being relegated to an afterthought.
This post seems relevant to the Link21 discussion. Here is an illustration of what a single-bore tunnel might look like. I am relieved that all signs point to a standard gauge regional rail solution.
DeleteDefinitely relevant, as is your earlier post "Down the Tubes with DTX" [0] and the linked Deutsche Bahn transbay through-running study [1], which show the critical importance of a mainline Link21.
DeleteDB found a capacity of 20 tph if all trains through-run (or 14 through-run and 6 turn from the west). What DB did not apparently consider is the capacity if some trains turn from the *east* and never continue down the peninsula (and avoid the poorly designed western throat), as I argue HSR should do. Maybe some off-peak HSR could run through, but nothing that strangles Caltrain at peak time. 4th and Townsend HSR is dumb, airport HSR is overrated, Redwood City or Palo Alto HSR is marginal, and there's a better way to get HSR from Altamont to San Jose.
[0] https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2021/09/down-tubes-with-dtx.html
[1] https://www.tjpa.org/files/2021/09/Item5_Through-Running-Operations-Analysis-to-Accom.-a-Potential-Future-East-Bay-Connection.pdf
@Bryan (first comment in this sub thread):
DeleteThe bay area and probably all the way up to Sacramento and part of the San Joaquin valley seems to be in need of a "Verkehrsverbund" as the Germans call it, i.e. a joint transit agency where tickets are valid on all modes of transit (except longer distance trains, and possibly not local trips on regional lines in high density lines), and which also takes part in all sorts of planning and decision making.
We've had and still have the problem of different tickets on different modes within the same area over here in Europe too. I was about to write a long paragraph with various other examples, but I deleted it and decided to just say that there are plenty of examples where ticketing isn't perfect.
@Bryan (third comment in this sub thread):
The DB report stating max 20 tph is interesting. It seems low, 24TPH should be achievable.
I think there needs to be a study in why Caltrain insists on long dwell times, and in particular a price tag should be put on different dwell time lengths. I bet that such study would make it obvious that it's worth reducing dwell times as much as possible, as the other option to use line capacity would be more platforms. Changing Caltrain to level boarding and reducing reversing times must be super cheap as compared to additional platforms and whatnot.
Also the report mentions venting. I think there should be a study on what it would cost to have venting that's good enough for tracks "packed" full with trains, or rather how many trains might end up in a queue at a "reasonable" malfunction situation.
===========
Re existing BART lines/services: The triangle at Oakland makes the existing network best used if all three routes from this triangle has the same frequency.
I don't know what the demand is and will be in the future for the four BART branches on the east side. If any of the most major ones justify all capacity it's branch itself can handle, the other branch should be considered for conversion to mainline standard. In particular Walnut Creek and Dublin would seem like the obvious ones. The other solution that is worse is to have cross platform interchange with shuttle services on these routes over to regional rail. This assumes that BART has reached capacity peak hours and regional rail has capacity left over.
With less than 40% of its pre-pandemic ridership, Caltrain faces a fiscal cliff when federal pandemic operating funds run out in 2026, that will force a major cut in service if not averted.
ReplyDeleteAt 9:30 Monday morning, the MTC Transportation Revenue Measure Select Committee will hold its second-to-last monthly meeting. The committee is negotiating a proposed 2026 transportation operating fund ballot measure to send to the state legislature for authorization, after Senator Wiener was forced to pull last year's SB 1031 due to opposition from Santa Clara County. There is currently significant doubt on the committee that a measure can successfully get through first the political compromise process and second the public campaign and vote, and the options under consideration are resultantly conservative.
Dozens of advocacy organizations are working via the Voices for Public Transportation coalition to push the operating measure forward, and they've called for turnout at Monday's meeting to comment via email, Zoom, or in person to support the regional measure.
RSVP to comment [here](https://www.caltrain.com/media/34083/download).
[Agenda](https://mtc.ca.gov/meetings-events/transportation-revenue-measure-select-committee-2024-09-23t163000)
Caltrain's Gilroy service is the canary in the coal mine for the "fiscal cliff." Unless they shut down this extremely expensive service, the evidence suggests they aren't even trying to avoid a fiscal cliff. Either it doesn't exist or they don't care. If they truly had a dire fiscal cliff this would already be shut down and the entire diesel fleet sold off!
DeleteCities north of San Jose will enjoy more frequent electric trains, but south SCCo. will be left with only 4 roundtrip diesel trains
DeleteBy LUIS MELECIO-ZAMBRANO
Gleaming red and white hulls of electric trains will whir into stations across the South Bay and Peninsula this weekend, whisking passengers along electrified lines with cleaner, more reliable transit.
That is, unless they live south of San Jose.
From Diridon Station to Gilroy, the familiar, hulking diesel locomotives will rumble along for years to come.
After years of planning and construction, Caltrain is fully launching rail electrification this weekend, showing off trains that will provide faster service and smoother, quieter rides with better Wi-Fi and outlets at every seat. Because the electric trains accelerate and slow down much faster than diesel trains, service will increase by 20%, offering between 75 and 104 weekday trips from most stations.
But even as Caltrain electrifies its fleet and retools its schedules, the more than 100,000 residents of south Santa Clara County will be left behind to rely on diesel trains that offer a fraction of the daily trips and no weekend service. While local leaders hope to push for more and better train options for those residents, the path forward is limited by funding issues and an obscure, 30-year-old contract dictating the ownership of the train lines in the South Bay.
“It’s really unfortunate that the electrification will end in San Jose and not be a part of South County,” said Morgan Hill Mayor Mark Turner. “We need more transit … we are constantly struggling with how to do more with less.
While South County passengers used to be able to get on one train and ride it to or from San Francisco, they will now need to swap trains in San Jose. Caltrain, however, says the transfers will be coordinated so passengers can simply walk across the platform once their train comes in.
Additionally, the stations south of Tamien station in San Jose only offer 4 round trips (for a total of 8 trips a day) and do not offer weekend service.
Local leaders say these issues are part of a history of south county being left behind in transit. Gilroy Mayor Marie Blankley, who serves on the VTA board, recalled seeing a Santa Clara County transportation study that simply excluded areas south of San Jose. In recent years, she and other local advocates have formed partnerships with local transit providers and pushed to include south county in the conversation. Last September, that advocacy bore fruit when Caltrain introduced a fourth train to Gilroy using Measure B funds from VTA, bringing them up from three round trips.
Still, Caltrain has struggled with low ridership, down around 60% this summer compared to the months before the COVID-19 pandemic, the company is expected to operate in the red in the next fiscal year. Ridership in South County hovers at just over a tenth of that of San Jose alone.
While Blankley acknowledges that growth is in part driven by ridership, she holds that more trains would bring along more riders, noting that the addition of the 4th train saw ridership in the South County jump up by a third. “I’m convinced people would ride if it made sense to do so. When it is convenient, when it works for you, you want to use it,” said Blankley. “The service has to be one that you can reasonably count on. And Gilroy and Morgan Hill have not had that yet.”
Though Sam Sargent, director of Strategy and Policy for Caltrain, admits that financial restrictions make expanding in south county more difficult, he says Caltrain has discussed finding public funding with the help of the VTA to bring a fifth train to south county.
(article continues)
Re objections to SB 1031 from Santa Clara County:
DeleteThis is a sign that USA needs an additional administrative division level between county and state. If there were a Bay area or Norcal-ish administrative division, responsible for public transit, voters in the other counties could vote for a majority that is for something like SB 1031 and just override what Santa Clara County and it's voters want. Kind of like how the state of California enforces some multi family home zoning even on counties that oppose this, except that regional transit seems like a matter for a region rather than the state.
Also, I've stated this over and over, but the obvious solution to the Gilroy question is to build the SJ-Gilroy part of HSR and just run Caltrain trains on it. It's a straight route and it would look more or less the same no matter if it will be used for HSR and Caltrain, or only for Caltrain, except that in theory Caltrain only could possibly cheap out with some single track sections.
========================================
Are transit enthusiasts advocating for making such obvious decisions be obvious to the general public by talking with media, and/or politicians? This could be a (minor, but still?) issue state politicians from the counties between Diridon and Gilroy station could work on.
@MiaM, an interesting question is if the state high-speed rail project builds its own line instead of using the Caltrain line, it is a change from the latest decision and the new nature of the system reported as of the 2018 business plan, to run at-grade with several crossings improved. If it reverts to building its own infrastructure instead, where is the additional (new) money for that going to come from, or will there be a cost and performance reduction elsewhere, "traded" or exchanged to compensate for such a change along the San Jose-Gilroy route?
DeleteIf a new route again, will it be grade-separated again?
@Anonymous:
DeleteAre you thinking about a totally different route, I.E. switching from the Pacheco pass to elsewhere, or are you thinking about a difference just between Gilroy and San Jose?
Even though Caltrain runs to San Jose, the railway doesn't belong to Caltrain (except iirc a short bit southwards from San Jose Diridon), so I think the plan has always been building new electric tracks either way.
Re "trading" cost/performance with elsewhere: How about trading some road works for railway works?
Along state route 101 Gilroy - San Jose there could be displays telling drivers when the next Caltrain train will run, how long it will take using Catrain to SF as compared to what it would take to drive. If drivers every day in rush hour sees that the trains is faster at least some of them will switch to taking the train (if they are going to an area decently served by transit, of course). Since both the highways and transit are ran by public agencies I don't see any conflicting interest or silly fees for "advertisement signs" or similar.
MiaM: I'm referring to the San Jose-Gilroy segment, no change from the planned Pacheco Pass route. Imagine the 2018 change reversed, changing from having high-speed trains running conventionally (slowly) with Caltrain, as on the Peninsula, to having a separate route permitting higher speed again. Imagine what's on page 30 in the following document, but reversed.
Deletehttps://www.hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/2018_Business_Plan_Basis_of_Estimate.pdf
I wouldn't bother with social engineering billboards. Run any faster train within view of at least parts of the freeway route, if possible. It's free advertising of the best kind. It's of use elsewhere, too.
@Anonymous:
DeleteThe signs I refer to would show real time actual travel times.
In the Gothenburg region in Sweden the signs for the park+ride stations only shows when the next train and train after that departs, and maybe travel time. However there are also signs that show estimated travel times for different routes that goes to the same destination, so it would be technically possible to display a comparison between train and car too.
@MiaM, freeway signs here in the States show actual (current) travel times.
DeleteI do not know of any plans with either Caltrain or the high-speed service to show next arrival times and for at least the next train, the time of arrival at one or more places beyond the station.
So far Caltrain has changed 3 damage pantographs. One hit a hanging wire and another hit a puse break sign that fell. I got picture of them if anyone wants to see them.
ReplyDeletePhase break*
DeletePics or it didn't happen. :)
DeleteHappy to post the pic if you send it to me, contact info in "About This Blog" section in the right margin of the page.
DeleteRode down to San Bruno today (I’m a sucker for free ice cream). We left SF five minutes late, and the driver announced that they’d try to make it up… but by the time we got to San Bruno we’d lost 3 more minutes.
ReplyDeleteThought the ice cream line was gonna make me miss the northbound… but fortunately for me it was 12 minutes late. Lost another minute on the way back to SF.
Dwells mostly seemed to be over a minute, obviously worsened by the step deployment. There was pretty high ridership for a Sunday because of all the events/free rides, but definitely fewer bikes being carried on and off compared to a weekday. Tomorrow is going to be interesting.
The shortest dwell that I've timed was 40 seconds from stop to start.
DeleteStep deployment takes all of about 10 seconds, but is certainly annoying. The step overhangs the platform, so deploying in motion increases risk of injury and damage. Deploying as the doors open won't work, either, as some bozos will try to get off before the step is fully there.
DeleteThe new Stadler trains are quiet and faster, no question. What I find annoying is the total mount of interior space wasted by electrical equipment cabinets, the upper door plugs, stairs, dead space for the wheelchair elevators, etc. The fixed seats are upright and hard, the folding seats on the door plugs and in the end cars are a joke. Single-level high-platform EMUs compatible with CAHSR would have been cheaper, put all of the electrical equipment under the floor, would not have quite as many seats, but could have been better arranged for large numbers of standee passengers. Given how the switchover happened, not arranging to switch to high platform at the same time was an unfortunate mistake.
"Overhangs the platforms" sounds like a stretch. Anyone standing this close to the tracks will have their upper body clipped by the train before the steps cause an impact.
DeleteBut we're also talking about opening the steps when the train moves slowly, further diluting the argument.
Caltrain services cater to both short- and medium-distance markets, so without adequate seats, you don't have a product to offer those customers.
I agree with you that Stadler simply isn't as efficient with space utilization as the Bombardier Bi-Level design. One doesn't have to look further than the bathroom design (cost of 8 seats) or the strange longitudinal seating on the upper level (cost of 4 seats), which adds up across the trainset. Bombardier fits 72 seats on the upper level, about 20 more than Stadler.
@Marc
DeleteThe electrical cabinet may take up room, but in exchange, you get a seventh car instead of a locomotive. Not that capacity is a key challenge these days, anyway.
You may be right, but deploying them while moving (even slowly) effectively removes 4 or so inches from each platform edge safety zone. There are constrained platform areas (like at Bayshore) where columns and poles are right at the edge of the zone. I've also seen not very bright people sitting on mini-highs with their legs dangling off into the zone. I can wait 10 seconds, it's the lack of level boarding that's the real problem.
Delete@AG My point was that single level cars have all of that electrical equipment outside of the passenger area, so there can be seats or standees the entire length of the car. Going to bi-level does not provide twice as many seats, and results in "solutions" like needing in-car elevators for level boarding.
DeleteYeah, double deckers are less of a capacity improvement, at all, for EMUs (and likely not at all for DMUs) than for loco hauled wagons.
DeleteAfter all of the effort on this I just can’t understand how they ended up with such awful, uncomfortable seats! Things like the door plugs and electrical boxes are annoying to those in the know, but everyone can understand easily how bad the seats are. I’ve ridden Stadler trains in Switzerland and the seats were comfortable enough to be unremarkable, yet somehow Caltrain ends up with these awful seats? Nobody at any point in the process said “hey, these seats sure are uncomfortable?”
DeleteThank Buy American. Thank LTK Engineering Services. Consult American, Buy American, baby. The main thing isn't seats, the main thing is that the middlemen make a 50% markup. Also that the HORN IS VERY VERY LOUD INDEED.
DeleteBack in 2017, Caltrain sought input on EMU seats. I seem to recall they also set up a prototype set of seats to also get some rider feedback on comfort.
DeleteApart from the color scheme, I don’t know what — if any — changes were made to the seat design as a result.
Regarding the FRA-mandated 96-110 decibel horns, Atherton implemented Caltrain’s first and only train horn quiet zone in 2016 at their then station-adjacent Fair Oaks Lane crossing. In a station closure deal with Caltrain, they have recently extended their QZ to Watkins Ave., making it the first and only Caltrain city (“Town of Atherton”) to be horn free.
DeleteMore recently, neighboring cities Menlo Park & Palo Alto are advancing plans to follow Atherton’s lead in implementing train horn quiet zones. San Mateo has long done studies and shown interest, but hasn’t yet found or dedicated any funding to advance the necessary QZ supplemental safety measures (SSMs) to qualify and obtain regulatory approval.
@Marc. The stops do not protrude an extra 4 inches because they extend from the part of the car body that is tapering towards the rail. If you were to look straight down from above the car, you might not really see the step extending.
DeleteIf @Anonymous and @Martin are right, then I propose the steps be modified to normally remain in the extended position … at least until platforms are raised in the interminable distant future for true all-door level-boarding.
DeleteThis would cut intermediate station stop dwell times by ~8-10 seconds per stop at the (hopefully) relatively low cost of an easy software change to permit train movement regardless of step position.
As an added bonus, it will reduce wear & tear on the step deployment mechanism and eliminate the train delay risk related to the step failing to extend or retract.
Here’s a good image showing the extended step in relation to the platform edge (as embedded in this “Caltrain Celebrates Electric Service” SF.StreetsBlog.org posting.
DeleteClem said in the prior post that the step extends 63.5 inches from centerline. Do we know how far the step protrudes from centerline on the Bombardiers? If it's the same, then I can't think of any justification for not just leaving them extended at all times on the EMUs.
DeleteRe seats: It's so dumb that people argue for using transit instead of driving cars, but then transit ends up with seats that makes the passengers envious of the seats in a Yugo (just taking that car as an example of one of the cheapest cars sold in USA; don't know much about it's seats).
DeleteThe extended step has a strong vibe of something made by an engineer to be producted i a series of like 10-20 units, to solve a problem in a factory or so. Thinking in particular about the black painted metal part at each end of the step which most likely would be what causes injuries if any injury happen.
And as I've stated elsewhere, the solution is simple, just use air pressure rather than an electric motor. Bam, slam, step extended in 0.5 seconds. Bam, slam, step retracted in 0.5 seconds. And all this while not producing excessive force if the step gets stuck somehow, i.e. if someones leg end up between the train and the platform edge or so.
@Reality Check: Regarding "normally remain in the extended position … at least until platforms are raised" and "As an added bonus, it will reduce wear & tear on the step deployment mechanism and eliminate the train delay risk" -- YES. Since it's not done well, that particularly points to not wasting time with it.
DeleteDo the doors open by driver / software or by passenger initiation? If pasengers then only doors where people wish to enter / exit the train need to open incresing the time between failure of the door opening / step deployment mechanisms.
DeleteConductor. - Ben in SF
DeleteI was clearly remembered incorrectly how far the step extends over the platform. My main surprise on the first trip (to Palo Alto) was that the step was over the platform at all. Given the present status quo, fixed steps would have been quite adequate (as they have been till now). Clearly, the steps do need to be retractable to avoid damage when serving (far future) higher platforms. This is really just another dumb solution forced by an inability to choose a proper platform height.
DeleteA note on the steps: in deployed position, the step nose extends 64 inches from track center. That is also where the platform edge is nominally located. So the steps can only overhang the platform by whatever tolerance there is for those two dimensions, which I doubt would ever cumulate to more than 1 inch. If you sat on a mini-high with your feet in the yellow, you would be stupid but unscathed.
ReplyDeleteI forgot that I actually have an engineering drawing of the EMU step installation, originally downloaded from an FRA public docket.
DeleteThis drawing clearly shows the steps are not intended to overhang the platform. However, they do violate AAR Plate F, which is why you might not want to keep them deployed all the time.
Reality
ReplyDeleteAlready there are complaints that maybe Caltrain just isn’t able to reliably run the new, faster, all-electric schedule. As followers of the Xitter (pronounced “shitter”) Caltrain Alerts account can see, there has been a constant stream of xits (“shits”) about train delays of 10 or more minutes all week.
DeleteThe latest includes a photo of car stuck on and blocking both tracks adjacent to the SF 16th St. crossing.
Oops, sorry! … while clueless motorists regularly continue to drive off grade crossings onto the ballasted tracks and get stuck — almost always after dark, and typically while attempting to follow sat nav system instructions to turn on the next street — the image I previously mentioned is associated with an old (pre-Xitter) tweet that is apparently only shown at the top of the “Caltrain Alerts” user profile if you’re not logged in. My bad for not noticing Musk’s Xitter only shows non logged-in visitors some weird old set of what might all be random old pre-Xitter tweets. Sorry, but I haven’t (and won’t) bother to figure it all out.
DeleteIs there any "no entry" signs on the ballasted tracks?
DeleteCan't remember if I've already asked this, but what is the legal implications for anyone veering off onto railway tracks in their car? is it possible for Caltrain to sue a person for all costs for delays and whatnot, and maybe even do a class action against that person representing every traveler that were delayed?
Those detectors that were discussed recently could be connected to bright red flashing stop signals + signage saying "back up, you are going the wrong way" when it looks like someone is trying to enter the rail tracks with a car. Technically simple.
Caltrain trains could also carry a hand operated winch and have attachment points at railway crossings, so when a car ends up on the rail tracks the train staff could just hook their winch to the car and tow it away. Don't know about the legal parts about this, but since it seems ok to shoot a person trespassing it might be ok to do this to someones car, even if you have to hook it onto a rim or similar as modern cars don't have tow hooks (permanently attached).
The inexpensive passive solution that I think they should try is to install rubber anti-trespass panels for ~10 meters on either side of the worst affected crossings.
DeleteThese panels would give extremely strong vibratory feedback to inattentive drivers, while enabling the vehicle to maneuver back onto the road. In most of these incidents, the problem isn't so much the driving onto the tracks but rather that the car becomes high-centered on the rails when trying to maneuver off the tracks, so they get stuck. The anti-trespass panels fill the space between the rails and between each track, enabling a Honda Civic to perform a 3-point turn.
MiaM: there are strict constraints (California Public Utilities Commission, General Order 26-D) on what may be built in proximity to tracks. You can't just post a sign.
Why not just rotate the crossing gate arms horizontally instead of lifting them vertically? This would move the barrier from stopping vehicles crossing the tracks to stopping them entering them.
DeleteHowdy All, I know this is more of a Caltrain / HSR focused blog, but as the preeminent bay area rail experts I hope its alright if I ask a BART related question. I'm doing some research for one of those "Bay Area 2055" rail service crayons you see occasionally, and I found a 2004 study (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/JLSFeasibility1.pdf) from BART indicating that any Jack London square BART station on the existing tracks would be infeasible due to the need to triple track the corridor to "maintain operational flexibility." Is this another classic example of an American transit agency sandbagging a project because they just don't want to deal with it? Or is this a legitimate operational / construction concern, and I should remove a JLS BART station from my map (and its transfer to a future JLS Caltrain station)? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteNot 100% sure, but I think that they want enough track capacity to not end up with trains in tunnel that they can't bring to a platform if another train in front of it breaks down?
DeleteBtw Jack London seems like not the best place for a station TBH - way less density than where the current BART stations are.
Possibly something to do with BART wanting any second tube to connect to all three East Bay lines, which is hard from Jack London Square. It's just 6-9 blocks inland, and switches would have to be cut into the curving tunnel (both upper eastbound and lower westbound) before the existing wye, or somehow after. Better to go around this complex 2-level underground junction (or deep under it?) and tie into a less sensitive place. The proposals to tie Link21 to BART near a new 23rd St station in East Oakland, and somewhere closer to MacArthur BART, make some sense (to the extent it would be broad-gauge BART).
Delete@MiaM: the correct response when you know nothing is so say nothing.
Delete...Better also had I re-read the question and the link – BART looked at a JLS station on the EXISTING SF-Oakland mainline (or PRT or streetcar or a shuttle on the mythical lower-level 4th track at Oakland 12th St. station). The 2004 study makes clear the legitimate issues (grade, curves, busiest tracks on the system). Agree Jack London Square doesn't warrant a BART station (nor years of disruption); barely a there there. The three locations on the mainline are bad-to-worse (old industrial, constrained by freeway and railroad, lousy place for a mythical ballpark) and would follow the BART pattern where most of their new stations are named for places they aren't anywhere near. - Ben in SF
Delete@MiaM: This is a different Anonymous. Jack London Square is a favored older landmark site in Oakland, that Amtrak goes by. That's why you will see it mentioned by numerous people wanting to imagine a bigger train system involving Oakland and beyond. More interestingly, it's also the typical vicinity of where some would like a bicycle-pedestrian crossing of the Estuary, and there has been some study of this, straining a bit to keep a straight face about so many of the alternatives. Too often that is overdone or involves the esoteric instead of a passage underneath the Estuary. There is a hope for a lift bridge that in its current form is a poor form, with nearly 20 meters height when lowered as an apparent sop to sailboat operators.
DeleteA lift bridge is not a "sop" to sailboat operators, have you ever looked at a map of the area? I'm sure the Coast Guard would appreciate having a way to get their cutters out to sea once in a while. Oddly enough, they have ultimate say, and what they say is a 150 foot minimum clearance from the surface of the water, period. There are also some decent arguments why a pedestrian tunnel (and I would same of a bridge, as well) is not desirable, would you like to think you are alone in the middle of a 300m long tunnel, then realize that you are not, in fact, alone? I think the new pedestrian ferry is the right idea. That could be automated, or better yet, expanded and used to provide more jobs to people in the community.
Delete@Anonymous: apologies, I missed what you were saying. Having some height when the bridge is down is needed to make it workable at all, given that there are hundreds of boats in the marinas on the far side. A high fixed bridge requires ridiculously long ramps needed to get up and down to street level. A pedestrian tunnel has personal security issues, few will use it. There have also been discussions of fringe solutions like this one.
DeleteI'm impressed that the ferry actually went into operation. I've yet to see any ridership numbers.
The wildest hot take on this is that filling in the bay would solve the coast guard issue, the Dumbarton bridge question and also Link21 would be cheap to build.
DeleteUnfortunately it turns out that both the coast guard and permits to fill in waters are handled by the military, so most likely you can't just fill in the bay to spite the coast guard.
A more serious way to view this is that unfortunately the coast guard is a federal thing, and local/state politicians can't do much about them. Given the price difference for different bridge heights and whatnot it seems otherwise reasonable to just have the coast guard have separate fleets for different sides of low bridges. With a rebuilt Dumbarton bridge there would be two areas in the bay and then "open waters" (unless someone also decides to build a low bridge replacing the golden gate).
Is harbors and whatnot within the bay really something that earns any money any more, or could that be relegated to the western coast of the peninsula?
@MiaM: all you need to do is look at a satellite photo of the estuary, do a quick count of the boats, then multiply by $120 foot/year. There are also numerous boat/ship repair businesses on both sides of the estuary, which employ actual people. The boats will stay where they are.
DeleteThey are just finishing up a decades long project to "re-wild" the salt production ponds that used to line both sides of the south part of the bay. The Coast Guard isn't going anywhere, all of the currently designated navigable waters in the bay will remain that for the foreseeable future.
@Marc:
DeleteEverything else except the coast guard could have a time slot for a few hour say between 01 and 05 AM week days, and not at all on night after Friday, Saturday and additional extended holidays, where bridges are opened, but otherwise are kept closed.
Also the bottom could be lowered and taller ships could be transported using a lock of sorts, where the water level would be lowered for the ships to fit under the bridges, then the ships pass under the bridge, and then obviously the water level is increased again. It would cost energy to pump the water, but some part of that energy could be recouped by running the pumps backwards as a hydroelectric power plant of sorts when filling water back into the lock.
Sure, these are far out solutions, but still.
It's worth doing a study on how good these businesses are for the society in general. Compare with that many other businesses move to less desireable areas when land value increases in cities. Ship/boat related work places have sort of gotten some exception since the land they occupy isn't that useful for anything else when you have reached a point that a city (or rather conurbation?) has enough publicly accessible beach/"coast". But when ship/board businesses conflict with transportation needs a rethink might be necessary.
@MiaM, I am not a boater (I don't even like taking a ferry), but the low drawbridge to the south of the marinas does have placarded hours, it is closed several hours per day to avoid interfering with commute traffic. That direction is also apparently not dredged deep enough for larger deep draft boats. Going north past Jack London Square solves both problems. What's not clear is whether there is any real (rather than imagined) demand for pedestrian/bike service, the ferry should start to answer that question. I'm reminded of the demands for bike lanes on the Bay Bridge, a few hundred million dollars that might well serve an optimistic 100 people per day? Perhaps they should spend that money on bus lanes.
Delete"Also the bottom could be lowered and taller ships could be transported using a lock of sorts, where the water level would be lowered for the ships to fit under the bridges, then the ships pass under the bridge, and then obviously the water level is increased again. It would cost energy to pump the water, but some part of that energy could be recouped by running the pumps backwards as a hydroelectric power plant of sorts when filling water back into the lock."
DeleteIt's called a "lock" and no one is going to go to that kind of massive expense to allow a few biking and walking fanatics get across the estuary, nor should they.
The Bay Bridge is the one that needs a pedestrian/bike path the least, since it's the only bridge with 24-hour bus service. Where it's really needed in the SMH bridge. Today there is no way whatsoever to cross it. Though I wonder how the cost of building a path would compare to the cost of hourly bus service 24/7.
Delete@Marc: The Coast Guard requires a 600-foot clear span and 175 feet minimum vertical clearance. If a bridge is built, a movable bridge is in order. I still prefer a passage under the Estuary, as with the long-needed path crossing of the Hudson. Going under the water is done to keep clear of vessels in the water. Silly stuff like gondolas, or a transporter bridge, or more gimmicky things, won't do. You may have seen some of the material (studies) about a crossing, including the one that sandbagged the tube idea ridiculously (lifeline tunnel 60-plus feet bore), even if you may have missed the bridge height.
DeleteIt's shame with degradation in so many metros now that a tube under the Estuary would be a security concern, but there are measures that could be taken to be protective (and keep any tube from being adopted as a new home, as with a Hudson crossing).
@AG: I'll call your Bay Bridge for rejecting a Bay Bridge non-motorized path, though it's not from what you state, but rather as it's recreational, not utilitarian, still largely so even with E-bikes, unlike a Hudson River path crossing, so it should be added somewhere else on the bridge, not misappropriate existing lanes, as also with any bus or bus-truck (commercial truck and also bus) lanes without more bridge capacity added elsewhere (where it really ought to be from the start, there, instead).
DeleteBut in addition to calling your Bay Bridge I'll raise you the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
@Marc: Yes, that lowered bridge height for the Estuary crossing is ridiculously high, especially when desired access sites are constrained and access as reasonably close to the water's edge as possible is what's really desired. The sop to boaters and any related conflict also reminds me of Brightline and the maritime community's hatred of the FEC draw bridges.
Also, the study height was low 60s feet lowered, but elsewhere a 70-foot figure has been mentioned, which has some concerned.
@MiaM: Yes, there have been plans, rejected, to fill in much of the Bay.
https://youtu.be/fy16vKonJUM
https://burritojustice.com/2010/04/01/damn-the-bay/
The site may seem dorky but read about the Bay model here.
https://everybodyhatesatourist.net/san-francisco-bay-model-visitor-center/
@AG, the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge ("San Mateo Bridge" to natives) doesn't need a bike-ped path, but it would provide interesting recreation, especially on the gradients by the high portion. The most important large transportation project for the Bay Area as usual remains the I-380 to I-238 crossing, much longer than the San Mateo Bridge crossing, and an access roadway open to non-motorized use by the public would be a draw for those wanting 12 miles or more over the water. I suspect there would be interest in rail beside it, too.
DeleteI admit that I don't know what specific bridges you all are talking about. I was more thinking about bridges in general, like the broken Dumbarton bridge, or having Link21 be a bridge rather than a tunnel or whatnot.
DeletePedestrian+bicycle lanes don't need to be able to handle much load, and if wanted they could most likely be added to the outside of an existing road or even rail bridge and exist within the margins of the load capacity of the existing bridge. In order to stop "idiots with authority" to do something stupid, connecting ramps would have to be made in a way that they break if any heavy vehicle attempts to drive on them, in a way that minimizes injury but the vehicle gets stuck. Thinking about road surface cleaning vehicles, emergency services and whatnot. Or just permanently placed bollards that takes ages to remove, blocking any vehicle wider than the vehicles that would be suitable for usage on the bridge.
Crossing the bay is a bit long for biking and IMHO unfeasible for walking. But even though it's a long distance, it's not impossibly long for biking, and in particular most bridges don't have much slope so won't consume much energy, either from the batteries of a e-bike or from your body on a regular bicycle. In particular with that length with no traffic lights, give way or stop signs or other obstacles it can be an actually useful commute rather than just an enthusiast thing.
Re bus services - do these busses allow taking bicycles (on board and/or say on a bike rack in the front of the bus)? If not they aren't a replacement for bicycling. Sure, there are lots of rental bicycle things but many people like to use their own bicycle. I've yet to find any short term bicycle rental thing that uses external sprocket gears, which still is superior as compared to internal gears within the hub. (The internal gears always have a lot of energy loss in comparison - the reasonable distance for bicycling becomes shorter with those, and even shorter with "single speed" bicycles).
@MiaM: There are two bridges at Dumbarton, one newer high span for cars with a protected bike lane and an unused/damaged railroad trestle with two open swing bridges that are unlikely to ever close again. The bridge between San Mateo and Hayward is a high span car/bus only bridge about halfway between Dumbarton and SF. Transit buses across the Bay all allow taking bicycles, up to three on a folding rack (some of the larger buses have storage underneath).
DeleteIf the local powers were actually interested in moving the maximum number of people across the bay, they'd paint bus-only lanes on each of the bridges and plan eventually for light rail. They could have done it (and likely gotten away with it) during the pandemic, trying now will only cost them their jobs. The funny part is, my guess is we're only 20 to 30 years away from all except short distance car commuting simply dying out.
All of the local rental fleets are now ebike-only, non-electric bike rentals never worked here.
You can do a little bit of long-distance travel using Google Street View, either on Google maps or (with a subscription) on Caltopo.com, which lets you overlay Google maps/aerials, Open Street Map, historical quads, and more. Mostly this puts you on roads (and bridges) but you can sometimes find viewpoints of our rail infrastructure. There used to be a substantial low-clearance drawbridge across the Oakland Estuary at Webster Street; for cars plus SP electric trains and local streetcars. It got hit by a ship in 1926 while the Webster Tube was under construction, and that was that. They used to move steamships and sailing ships up past Webster (estuary was the winter home of the Alaska Packers' big 3-masted sailing ships which transported cans, fish, and workers to/from Alaska. Sheltered deep water is hard to find. You can get one or the other but rarely both. - Ben in SF. [FWIW I write as Anonymous when posting from my big computer because it's an old three-master, compared to my newer laptop; the OS too old for certain log-in procedures. Cheaper to type my pen name at the bottom than to run out and buy a new Mac quite yet].
Delete@Anonymous: Silly stuff like gondolas, or a transporter bridge, or more gimmicky things, won't do
DeleteThe funny part is I'd normally 100% agree with you, but this is an odd case. Relatively short distance, space constraints on both sides, not much ridership (yet), and the former naval station on the other side will be filled with housing over the next decade. Going under the estuary seems appealing at first, but it will not be properly maintained. Remember, there is already a protect pedestrian/bike lane in the car tunnel just a short walk away, but few want to use it. Also visit (if you dare) the pedestrian tunnel that runs underneath Lake Merritt Blvd between the Oakland Museum (and Lake Merritt BART) and the lake.
I've spent a fair amount of time in Japan, they experiment with lots of odd ways to move people around. For new short distance moderately trafficked routes, particularly in harbor areas, the trend seems to be elevated automated guideway transit. These are not the tiny on-demand pods that the tech bros love, they're simply longer/faster automated airport shuttle trains. They're also a lot quieter than BART and the elevated structures would be much less intrusive.
If Oakland/Alameda about transit a single track AGT or light rail tunnel under the estuary (or just take a lane from the Posey Tube) could be the start of a route along Broadway as far as Rockridge, replacing the buses. That would be a major benefit to both Oakland and Alameda. Pedestrian/bike bridge or tunnel alone, kind of a waste, stick with the ferry if anyone rides it.
I also remind people that not so long ago Alameda was a "sundown town", it's not clear to me that they really want improved transit to Oakland.
JLS BART stations does make a lot of sense due to the large number of passengers coming from Amtrak and WETA and both are some of the busiest stations for their respective systems.
DeleteBART connectivity with Capitol Corridor is exceptionally poor. For people traveling from north of Oakland, the detour at Richmond takes 40 minutes into SF in addition to transfer time. Coliseum transfer is faster, but that suffers from far fewer trains and the route largely is duplicated by BART and Caltrain when going into SF.
Ideal Amtrak transfer would be where BART crosses over Amtrak in West Oakland, but a joint station never happened.
The 150 ft requirement for the bridge could be met with a bascule or a swing bridge, but even that height requirement should be reviewed. What are the tallest types of vessels that go south of JLS? Aside from the coast guard and sailboats, I'd bet money that few ships are taller than 100ft - if that.
@Martin: "JLS BART stations does make a lot of sense due to the large number of passengers coming from Amtrak and WETA and both are some of the busiest stations for their respective systems."
DeleteTo me it doesn't really make sense as the current JLS Amtrak station is several blocks from where it should be. If I were in charge, I'd move the main line rail tracks underground and build a multi-modal transit center with housing near Broadway and 4th St.
Actually, maybe the tracks should be moved to a trench under 880, as the diesel locomotives aren't going away any time soon.
DeleteI've written this before, but the tracks should be underground and a station preferably between Lake Merit and 12th/Oakland, of course with underground paths to both BART stations, to provide interchange with all BART services in the area.
DeleteRe diesels: On the other hand, the tracks wont get moved anytime soon either :( To make lemonade of the lemons, a tunnel could be planned for electric services. The "Steam trains" that really are "Steam trains", I.E. one per day per direction or so, could use another route or change locos where they enter/exit electrified areas. Like anyone thinking it's okay to travel 12 hr Oakland-LA and travel for ages to Chicaco or Seattle would probably not mind a few minutes extra dwell time to couple/uncouple an electric loco and start/stop the diesel loco. But also, once HSR is up and running and a hypothetical electrification of Capitol Corridor happens, there aren't that much reasons for running the slow diesel Amtrak trains further than Sacramento from Chicago/Seattle.
Also re I880, how about I980 instead? I know that it's the "wrong" direction for the existing tracks, but as I've been waffling about several times, it might be a better idea to run mainline rail via Walnut Creek - Martinez than via Richmond. Richmond could get either a "East bay Caltrain" service or some sort of express BART service on additional track along the existing rail route, and become a terminus station.
Btw, are there data that's easy to read where you can select any specific area and see where commuting takes place to/from for that particular area? In this case it would be interesting to see if Richmond sees much/little commuting from/to eastwards of Richmond.
Well, if you're adding only BART, then a station at JLS makes sense.
DeleteIf you're gonna be replacing JLS, I'd just tunnel from Coliseum to Emeryville with a transfer station under the 11th St BART station. Then you can connect the 2nd Transbay Tube to those tunnels.
You'd provide a proper intercity train station for Oakland that connects intercity, regional Caltrain, and BART - with all agencies benefiting significantly with more ridership and sharing operating costs.
New electric Caltrain trains delayed by vandalism & metal thefts
ReplyDeleteThe first several weekdays with a fully electric train fleet have already seen two power outages and major delays, both caused by instances of equipment vandalism and theft.
Caltrain celebrated its electrification launch on Saturday, Sept. 21, but just two days later, an hourlong outage led to even longer delays and cancellations after someone tampered with the overhead contact system at the San Mateo train station. The next day, the theft of impedance bond cables — which ensure the higher voltage and lower voltage currents do not interfere with one another — near the 22nd Street station caused another outage and subsequent delays. Disruptions continued on Wednesday as the agency worked to replace the equipment.
Electrification is widely supported as a critical step toward reducing carbon emissions, not to mention boosting ridership with shorter travel times and greater trip frequency. But the incidents highlight new vulnerabilities that did not exist with diesel locomotives.
Bond cable thefts were an ongoing concern during the construction phase. More than 100 incidents of theft and vandalism were reported, the majority of which were related to the cables, typically stolen for their copper components.
Caltrain Chief Modernization Officer Prayana Shrestha has said during several Caltrain board meetings that redesigning the cable installation would be costly, though the financial burden incurred would still be lower than ongoing replacement and repair costs due to theft.
But the thefts aren’t just a fiscal concern or a nuisance for commuters. Those tampering with them can be seriously injured or die when doing so on a fully electrified system.
“We are redesigning the impedance bonds to make them harder to tamper with and make them more secure,” Caltrain spokesperson Dan Lieberman said.
He added that no injuries or deaths were reported as a result of either incident this week and that engineers and staff are still learning how to respond to the new challenges.
“It’s reasonable to say there is also a learning curve in the new system, and we expect there to be more general improvements, as everyone becomes more familiar with all the equipment,” Lieberman said.
Unless I'm mistaken, the impedance bond connection cables are made of braided copper. They should suck it up and design the copper out of these devices. Make them out of aluminum, which is five times less valuable per unit of mass when sold as scrap, with double the electrical conductivity per unit of mass.
Delete"Impedance bonds" (for track circuits) are sad 1930s USA retro-tech.
DeleteBlock occupancy (non-CBTC) in the first world is done via axle counters, but ..., you know ..., USA USA USA.
(And no, don't "broken rail detection" me. Just don't.)
@Richard: No, it'scommon to use track circuits. I don't think impedance bonds are used though. For example more or less everywhere in Sweden track circuits are used and one track is the ground return for overhead electrification combined with one pole of the track circuits, while the other rail is solely used for the track circuit.
DeleteDon't know what percentage of railways use track circuits v.s. what percentage uses axle counters.
And then there is the modern ERTMS/ETCS Regional or whatever it's called where the balisers in the track just tells the train exactly where it is, and the train reports this to the signalling system via radio and gets the equivalent of signal aspects via the same radio communication system. Currently afaik GSM-R is used for this, but there are works going on to switch over to newer technology, but for obvious reasons that is really slow.
A few thoughts here:
ReplyDelete1 - for Clem: Can you go back and review some older posts like the curve straightening one (https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/01/top-10-worst-curves.html) and revisit it based on what has happened since then? It would be interesting to see if Caltrain has done any of the suggestions or not, and if it is easy to do or not in the future.
I would also love to see some cost estimates for these items - for example, there's no clear documentation on how much level boarding may cost. How much would that cost among other upgrades?
Level boarding: On Google Maps, I see that to do level boarding for about 18 stations would just require a weekend or few-day closure for smaller stations and some new concrete, new foundations for lights and signs. The other 10 would be more complex (elevated stations, etc) but some could be bypassed, or some could be worked on over the weekend, or in a phased manner (front half then back half). That's easy enough to do, but what are the costs? Stations like Blossom Hill can't cost more than $5M, and I counted 18 stations with a similar design. Assuming $10M for these 18 stations, that's $360M, and for the other 10, even with a $100M price tag for each, that's still only a total of $1.36B with my (very) rough estimates.
Curve straightening: Based on your older post from 2009 about that, I can see that 6 out of the 10 major curves could be straightened for $10M to $30M each (tops), which gives us a budget of $60M to $180M. If the actual cost is close to the estimates, that's something that should be strongly considered, as it's an order of magnitude or two lower than electrification or even level boarding.
2 - Tamien - Gilroy: A few questions:
a - Are there any new updates on UP, Caltrain, CAHSR negotiations? Seems to be a rumor that CAHSR wants to buy part of the ROW like Virginia did, but unsure the veracity of this rumor.
b - Suppose after CAHSR gets ROW rights or purchases it, could Caltrain + CAHSR apply for grants to upgrade the corridor to allow electric trains to run to Gilroy? What grants would they qualify for, and what would it cost for electrification? My point being - if others are paying for it, why not upgrade the San Jose - Gilroy link for Caltrain even if service is relatively limited?
c - I wrote up a post on Reddit about grade separations and electrifications for that San Jose - Gilroy section and I see something like at least 10 grade separations that can happen today with total costs being less than $100M. If they could seal the corridor between Blossom Hill and the Morgan Hill station area, you could have 110-125mph operation very easily and quickly for another $100M in fencing and signaling. Link - https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/1f94ncx/california_should_also_focus_on_san_jose_gilroy/
3 - Speaking of grade separations: Looking at Caltrain's map of grade separations, we can see that once current projects complete, we have the stretch between Millbrae and SF 100% grade separated. What are key grade separations that would have larger chunks of the corridor be fully separated? I ask because if we can have fully grade separated chunks, and with sufficient fencing/barriers, we could have segments that can run at 110mph or 125mph very soon which would make the trains much much faster. Is this possible?
Curve flattening: nothing done to my knowledge, except a small adjustment north of Hayward Park and the new (still too tight) curve at San Bruno.
DeleteTamien-Gilroy: I think the state of California will purchase the ROW and grant UPRR trackage rights, similar to the arrangement on the rest of the peninsula corridor. Freight traffic is diminishing and there was a UPRR offer on the table many years ago, but Santa Clara County didn't bite. The price will be much higher now.
Grade seps: there was an overview here as well, made in 2012. I wouldn't change a thing to those prognostications, even after another 12 years elapsed.
Afaik a major (maybe the major) reason for the limited service to Gilroy is track capacity. In other words, if/when Cali HSR ends up building their own (electrified) tracks my crystal ball tells me that there will be more or less trains all day rather than just a few in the rush hours.
DeleteRe costs of improvements - every improvement that can be counted in exact time savings per round trip can also be converted to amount of trains saved to keep the current number of trains per hour. Even if the savings isn't evenly divisible by full trains, it can still be a saving anyways depending on how the time table is laid out (I think?).
The savings will last "forever" while the cost will be one time (well, maintenance of the infrastructure may vary), so it should be easy to estimate a time for break-even even without considering the savings for the society in general.
@MiaM, the Morgan Hill through Gilroy portion of SJ-Gilroy can see more development someday. Meanwhile, places beyond Gilroy someday, too, can see Caltrain and related service, such as Salinas (already sought), to Watsonville (Monterey Bay area access separate from Salinas-Monterey), and Hollister. The terrain widens around Gilroy, too, more area for housing to be built there than along Morgan Hill-Gilroy. (North of Gilroy toward South San Jose features land in the Coyote Valley that is now preserved for environmental reasons, and/or to direct housing elsewhere, I can add.)
DeleteWith population growth comes more commuting and the highway and other routes will likely be neglected, plus there's only so much that can realistically be done for more capacity, and a train trip will be increasingly attractive if only from worse conditions on roads. That's if a train trip is feasible. If it is, it will be more attractive in the future if there is population growth and roads more crowded.
Re environmental preservation:
DeleteI think that should be weighted against societal benefits.
In particular high density development is probably better than a nature park near a city, but low density development isn't.
Side track, re the land use in the bay area:
Something worth considering is the feasibility and cost of moving single family houses. I think it would be a good idea to do a study of moving houses to some other area, and replace them with medium/high density transit oriented development in select areas. Given that you don't have to redevelop every plot in an area, this could work even if some of the owners don't want to sell their houses.
@MiaM: Moving the houses where, though? Within the Bay Area or into its extended commuter shed? Beyond that?
DeleteTransit-oriented development is hyped, but it might work in some places, though the craze for more housing has much wrong with it, including neglect of employment at or near TOD sites, in fact as important and often more than housing. Also, the larger housing types, mid-rise boxes and high-rises, belong in downtown areas and along the largest major streets, or for high-rise in some specific places that are particularly notable and attractive. They don't belong anywhere and everywhere. Smaller housing types that already have long existed (2, 3, 4 households on a single household site more than small auxiliary homes, to increase density more) are appropriate to scatter in the established neighborhoods, though better as a transition between the big housing on the largest streets and the neighborhoods. But the smaller multiplex homes would be what you'd scatter in the neighborhoods themselves to increase density in them along with ADUs or lot splits and second houses being built. Some might want multiple parcels or larger parcels and 6, 8, 12 households put on them, though. That might work at TOD sites, especially those in established low-rise, low-density neighborhoods. Etc.
https://missingmiddlehousing.com/types
One of my living experiences in the US was a very successful and satisfying one in the center unit of a tri-plex that was built right -- I never heard any sound whatsoever from either neighbor indoors, a fundamental concern for multi-unit housing and for living in it.
@Anonymous:
DeleteI'd say that it's an open question where to move them. Either select a place where they could be moved to, like say build a "Los Banos 2.0" on the north side of the HSR route, at about the same distance to the HSR route as the current city, and ensure that the road layout fits well for a bus service that can shuttle people to a hypothetical station along the HSR line (that due to the prop-somehting rules absolute is "not a HSR station" even though it would attach to the HSR route...). Or just offer them for sale to anyone having a plot to put a house on.
Re density: My impression is that the native English speaking world seems fixated on having density slope from downtown to suburbs. In many countries that aren't native/majority English speaking it's instead common to have high density suburbs, where the density might even be higher than downtown (especially when the downtown wasn't destroyed by war or similar). And sure, in some places these areas are considered "rough" but that is simply due to problems accumulate at the places where the cost of living is the lowest within the region, and since high density is the most effective the cost of living is also the lowest there (at least with the public sector as land lords). My answer to this problem is kind of to band building low quality housing, and enforce upgrades to existing low quality housing, so that say 40% or so of all housing have the same quality and then there would be outliers in the form of more expensive single family housing. The other solution is how the Netherlands has done it for decades - mix different quality/size of housing within the same area. I.E. say two staircases with 5 floors of apartments, and then 2-4 single family two floor homes, and then again two staircases with 5 floors of apartments, rinse and repeat. (Look for example at street view near the end of the tram line (iirc line 26) to Ijburg in Amsterdam.
I agree that "transit oriented development" is hyped, at least as a phrase, but the concept of enough houses and commercial spaces within walking distance of each transit stop is really sound, and was something that mostly the former east block but also other places has been doing since at least the 1960's or so.
I fully agree with work places. A simple solution is to have offices in the same buildings as you have ground floor and near ground floor commercial spaces and higher floor housing.
1 - Clem, thanks. Good to know!
Delete2 - RE: the ROW between Tamien & Gilroy, let's hope the negotiations go well in that case. Having a state-owned corridor there would be huge for future projects. Doing the math, we can see that an upgrade to 125mph or so shaves off about 10 minutes for CAHSR meaning it's easier to hit the 2:40 requirement, and would be a huge boon for state-wide travel. It would also shave off about 15 minutes between Gilroy and San Francisco for Caltrain and the future Monterey extension.
2a - Speaking of the Coast Subdivision... if the state could acquire not just the Tamien - Gilroy segment, but also the northern leg of the Coast Subdivision to Coliseum, plus the southern segment all the way to Burbank, we'd really be cooking here. It could enable so much more trips between the Bay Area and LA, plus allow for additional service to small towns in between. We could have meaningful service as part of a broader statewide network that ties into the high speed rail system in LA and in the Bay Area.... a lot of possibilities there that would be amazing, and take traffic off of 1 and 101 along that corridor.
@MiaM: I strongly disagree about moving housing to Los Banos. We simply need to massively increase density in areas that are already dense. San Jose has little to no skyline, plus if we simply wholesale upzone the area from single family zoning to 5 over 1s or even just allow 2-3 additional units on most lots in the city, San Jose can double its population overnight to 2 million. The same goes with most of San Francisco - we could easily house another 500,000 people just with a small city-wide density increase, e.g., Sunset, Richmond is all only 2-4 stories in that part of the city. For the case of towns like Gilroy, the land use is atrocious - just ¾ of a mile from the train station is farmland, on top of the immediate station area not being dense enough at all. If we redevelop the area immediately around the station (e.g., in a 2 mile radius, giving us a square mileage of about 6 miles), we could fit in about 100K more people for an equivalent density of San Francisco. Doing the same for Morgan Hill, Blossom Hill, etc gives us a crapload of housing (well over 300K units) - it's a lack of vision and cojones by Bay Area planners and leaders. For context, Washington DC is 8 miles by 8 miles (similar to size as San Francisco), and houses 700K people with a height limit of 12 stories, and still has plenty of room for more housing - at least another 300K to 400K across the city before the height limit becomes an issue. Washington DC built over 36K units in 6 years - the Bay Area is much larger with much more land, so 360K units in 5-10 years is very reasonable. Citation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/07/29/dc-housing-goal/ If we densify the Bay Area and build more housing, we can protect shrinking farmlands and help strengthen our cities - San Francisco and Oakland are struggling after covid, and by expanding their resident tax-paying base, they can make up for the loss in office space.
"e.g., in a 2 mile radius, giving us a square mileage of about 6 miles"
Deleteno wonder so much money gets wasted in transit projects, if the people involved and interested lack competence in 7th-grade math
@MiaM: The east side of the Central Valley has cities already and is suited for more development. Getting more employment along with housing there is the real challenge.
Delete@Anonymous-S: There's a practical limit to density increase in the real world, separate from people's acceptance of (over)crowding and related problems, namely the need to make the infrastructure, including roads, handle the growth. That also includes sufficient off-street parking to preclude chaos along the curbs. Yes, more people means more cars in the real world; collective transport is tied to specific routes and schedules, which limits their comparative utility, aside from sacrifice not only of autonomy and speed but of more importance recently, privacy and security. Also consider things such as the airport height limits in San Jose -- no NYC, Chicago, or Philly skyline can be expected there.
California's own government before the latest activism took hold there along with development interests saw the utility of boosting density substantially in the central cities in particular, for what that's worth, worth more than the bogus McKinsey study with its bogus figure, for example. It also acknowledges the natural attraction of coastal areas. Here:
https://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.aspx
Instead of the godawful hamster housing New Tenements, other approaches could be taken, including ADUs and lot splits in the low-rise detached neighborhoods plus some scattering there of low-rise apartments and smaller multi-plex housing that also would be transitional to major arterials and downtowns where mid-rise belongs and high-rise in particular belongs. But this also could be said to apply between cities: At the same time, if main cities' downtowns get much more housing, one could see mid-rise reaching into the inner-ring suburbs if not farther out from the downtowns. I'm not sure it can be done well, though. The odds are against it.
Open thread? Here you are. This has been waiting so long to amuse those interested in better transportation. Also, imagine in the better (pre-righty) days for Musk when he had groupies if he had "conceived" or "discovered" higher superelevation to speed trains through curves, as he conceived or discovered tube travel and evacuation of air in the tubes to enable higher speeds.
DeleteClem, you and a few others in particular should view the details and be amused.
a new service between New York and Washington with parameters in the following ranges: maximum speed--180 to 210 mph; resultant [super]elevation--17 to 22 in.; and trip time with four intermediate stops--110 to 100 min
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1985/1023/1023-001.pdf
@Anonymous-S:
DeleteLos Banos was just an example. Move the single family houses to Idaho or whereevery if that is more suitable. The point is to recoup some value of existing buildings when having to remove them in order to upzone in the bay area. Transport cost would be an issue for longer distances, therefore I suggested Los Banos as an example of a place that isn't that far away and where there are plenty of undeveloped land that otherwise will likely not be developed in a long time. And also I suggested leaving a large spot in between the existing Los Banos and a "Los Banos 2.0" to be able to add higher density in between.
@Anonymous:
the major point about transit oriented development is not needing as much cars, and thus be able to have higher density without needing that much more infrastructure.
Eventually other types of infrastructure will also be an issue, and is something that has to be considered for long term planning. As an example in Berlin in the divided Germany times, the GDR decided to plan for future development north of Wartenberg along the ring railroad and inwards where there is green fields today, and they planned and built things like high voltage wires and whatnot to suite future development there. And thanks to that, this area is still the area that is considered for future development. (The reason that nothing has happened during the 35 years of reunified Germany is that the population actually declined in Berlin for a while, and it's only IIRC 5-10 years since it reached the 1989 level again, and thus it's only now that there is a need for new development).
@MiaM: There's an imaginary belief by some currently in magic, that providing homes at or near transit sites means people will use transit. That's not necessarily true at all in the real world, and usually isn't. Where are trips made? (When?) If one works and can commute by transit, and it's suitable, then great. The park-and-ride behavior for trips in and out of downtown San Francisco by transit also makes sense. (Try driving, though you'll manage, or worse, try parking there. BART and Caltrain are godsends even with Caltrain's too-far-away terminal in the City.) The same is true for imagining residents living closely to transit will not have cars. There also is acting to aid developers to get more housing built and higher density. In reality this introduces spillage of residents' cars onto adjacent streets. The threat is one motive for parking permits.
Delete@Anonymous-S: The old Western Pacific Oakland Subdivision, where BART runs, in the East Bay is much better than the Coast branch, that misses the communities' hearts and main populations.
DeleteInsofar as the old SP, now UP Coast Route goes, it was once available for the taking, but wasn't acquired. Be aware, though, that it isn't and can't be made into a high-speed route. It could be sped up, and this has been sought, but intentions and any future efforts will be pitiful by your likely expectations or standards. San Luis Obispo south has more planned for it but it still won't be very fast, not like the earlier study work separate from Cal HSR that looked at hopefully cutting travel time on that route by about half (and claiming 110 mph tilting trains a good deal compared to non-tilting 125 mph service). There is still the Cuesta grade portion and the move toward the coast. Taking private land and revising the route to bypass (scenic) Cuesta and also the (scenic) coastal portion south of San Luis Obispo (not included in studies) would speed trains and serve more with a Santa Ynez Valley stop possible, but it's not to be.
By the way, no stop permitted by Cal HSR at Los Banos or elsewhere between Gilroy and Merced (officially) was won by the Sierra Club to prevent loss of farmland -- new residents will want houses and generous yards or more land -- and arguably other environmental demand in the bleak rain shadow of the Diablos where Los Banos is, albeit the ideal "HSR commuter dorm city" scenario (which is why the Sierra Club fought it).
@Anonymous:
DeleteThe "magic" is that you provide homes with good transit to certain places, and no meaningful way of driving cars to certain places, which will result in that people who has reasons to go the places reachable by transit will be incentivized to move in, while people who has reasons to go places you'd need a car to go to would be deterred to move in. If this doesn't work, i.e. people taking uber's or whatnot every day, there is something else wrong like for example the well known housing crisis with too few homes being built in the larger city areas, or for that sake taking an uber might be too cheap in comparison to peoples wages.
In places where there is an actual functioning housing market, people move to places that reasonably fit them rather than whatever happens to be available. Like you for sure have never heard of a farmer living in a large city commuting to their farm.
Re speeds for rail on the east side of the bay - although high speed would be desirable, worth considering is that a decent chunk of the distance on a hypothetical Oakland - San Jose railway would be spent on accelerating and braking. Add like one station or possibly two and all time will be spent accelerating and braking (data source: Random reddit thread with GPS data from some Shinkansen train types, so afaik actual data but somewhat anecdotal)
Re Sierra Club: Wow... Sure, large plot single family houses wouldn't be great, but it's at least better if they park-and-ride to a rail station in the vicinity rather than commute by car somewhere else.
The MacArthur parking village has nearly 900 units with around 470 parking spaces shared between BART passengers, renters, and commercial spaces. It appears to be 95% full, so there's certainly a good supply of people who don't own a car, but want to live near transit. We don't know how many of them own a car, there's certainly high demand for such housing. One could argue that every BART and Caltrain station needs to have a couple 24 story towers adjacent to them - and blocking noise to the neighborhood.
DeleteMy daughter is in her mid-twenties, she and about half of her friends are Oakland kids who never got driver's licenses, aren't interested enough to get one, and probably never will unless they end up moving to some hellish suburb.
Delete@Anonymous:
DeleteAlso, have you ever considered that those who drive to park-and-ride stations are exactly the group of people who could live in transit-oriented development apartments? By moving to apartments within walking distance of Caltrain, BART and/or another good transit system, the wouldn't have to drive to a park-and-ride station.
====================
Btw I've always thought that it's somewhat surprising that there aren't ride-and-drive stations, i.e. stations far out in the outskirts where the land value is super low, where extremely long term parking is combined with a rail station, where people who rarely need their car could park their car, and just fetch it whenever it's needed. Provide each spot with a 0.5A mains power socket for a trickle charger for the car battery, and/or perhaps preferable offer connections to trickle chargers owned by the parking lot if there would ever be any safety issue with user supplied trickle chargers. Or just offer to rent a jump starter booster pack for say $5 for 30 min.
================
Also, speaking about cars in cities: There are uber/taxi, rental cars and various types of ride shares and whatnot, but afaik there aren't any system of booking some rental car and just stating between where you want to go, and what extra places you are willing to go from/to if you don't have to pay much for that part, and/or that you want to do it at a particular time but which day of the week don't matter that much, and whatnot, and end up with a system where cars are just handed over from one renter to another. Maybe "too hard", I.E. technically feasible but above the IQ level for a CEO type person to understand?
@MiaM: I work in Palo Alto and live in Oakland, the car trip takes 45 to 90 minutes, taking transit (bus to SF, walk, Caltrain to PA, OR bus, BART to Union City, Dumbarton bus to PA, which is now quicker) takes a minimum of 2 hours and can take upwards of 3 (I use transit anyway). Some of my co-workers live as far away as Stockton or Modesto which takes nearly 3 hours by car, if they hit the road at 4am, forget about a train. That's how far one out you have to go to get some semblance of affordable housing. Much of the open spaces between the Bay Area and the Central Valley (and also towards the coast) are covered by various open space and land use mandates, no houses can be built in those areas. Plus, those counties (and those who already live there) don't want to pay for roads, schools, and other infrastructure. We had one recent attempt by billionaire tech bros to build a "dream city" halfway between Sacramento and SF on farm land. They succeeded in secretly buying up the needed land, but once the plan became public the opposition came out in force. They're still making believe they will still go ahead with this, but it ain't gonna happen.
ReplyDeleteAny realistic plan involves building lots of new dense housing in all of the Bay Area cities, but little of that will be affordable, as construction costs are now upwards of 1 million dollars per unit. San Francisco, in particular, is heading the direction of London, lots of luxury apartments and condos that sit empty most of the time.
@Marc: Lots of new dense housing in all Bay Area cities itself is not realistic, nor is it wanted, and is not practical if the roads as well as other infrastructure is augmented for the growth. The state government is officially refusing to pay, as it should, the costs it is imposing on cities by forcing much new development on them. (Don't forget things like schools, too.) There will still be quite a lot of it built, as it is already being built, usually of low quality, eyesores without enough parking, making life worse. It is expensive (never mind high-rises instead of the routine mid-rises) and it has long been obvious that affordability requires government intervention and provision, directly or indirectly, in the expensive places in this country, and for that matter, elsewhere. Long distance high-speed commute lifestyles would be subsidized themselves, and only for a small fraction of the population.
Delete"San Francisco, in particular, is heading the direction of London, lots of luxury apartments and condos that sit empty most of the time."
DeleteAu contraire, San Francisco has one of the lowest housing vacancy rates in the United States, or indeed on Planet Earth.
"Lots of new dense housing in all Bay Area cities itself is not realistic"
Perfectly realistic if artificial barriers and fees are removed.
"nor is it wanted"
don't care
"and is not practical if the roads as well as other infrastructure is augmented for the growth."
Prop 13 delenda est
"usually of low quality"
Compared to barely-still-standing 1940s starter homes that sell for 3 million on the peninsula?
"eyesores"
don't care
"without enough parking"
good
"making life worse."
Much the opposite.
"it has long been obvious that affordability requires government intervention and provision"
True, the market will never serve the least fortunate, and direct state provision is then needed. But the most important government intervention by far is simply to force reactionary, segregationist (sorry, very very progressive) cities to allow new supply to be built so more new neighbors can afford to live where the jobs are.
(different anon) @Marc This state of things is unfortunate, but not unexpected given the circumstances. The bay's affliction is its poor use of land. So many transit stations are surrounded by huge vacant lots, either fenced (like due west of Millbrae station) or just far more parking that can ever be used (like Fremont BART). This stems from the fact that land is not taxed enough, so it's cheap to leave it underused, as a speculative lottery ticket. With political power held in the hands of property owners, efficient use of land is precisely what the polity votes against, since a greater supply of usable land lowers land prices for existing owners. It's rent-seeking all the way down.
DeleteTaxing land has a perfect synergy with transit funding: the locations that benefit from the public goods (by way of higher rental values) pay for them accordingly. Whereas when transit development is paid for with sales taxes, income taxes, or the like, productive economic activity is fined in order to inflate land values in particular locations and confer an unearned benefit to particular property owners.
None of our problems will be easily or quickly fixed without taxing land.
@Bryan Anderson: "Au contraire, San Francisco has one of the lowest housing vacancy rates in the United States, or indeed on Planet Earth."
DeleteYou did not read what I said correctly. A lot of luxury units are sold to owners with multiple residences elsewhere, they show up once in a while to "do SF" for a few days. I've had two old friends in recent years give me the keys to their SF condos to use when I wanted, as they were never around.
"Perfectly realistic if artificial barriers and fees are removed."
Here in Oakland, anyway, the building department can be a bit gnarly to work with (mostly because they are horrendously understaffed), but they will give you a permit eventually. It's not the fees that are the problem, it's the contractor costs. I wanted to do a straightforward renovation of my detached garage and possibly convert it to an ADU, I lost interest when the quotes started at half a mil and went up from there.
@(different anon): I support your efforts at repealing Prop 13, as that's why property taxes can't be raised to cover transit costs. It won't happen. A good start would be repealing Prop 13 for corporations. Quite a few $5M and up houses around here are owned by dedicated LLCs. When the owner wants to move, they sell ownership of the corporation. The property never legally changes hands as defined by Prop 13 and does not get reassessed.
Delete@different anon:
DeleteRe land tax:
Something that would likely be a hard sell, but would probably do wonders, would be a combination of forcing owners of empty plots to short term rent out the space, below market rate, for use as a shorter term trailer park / RV park for temporary housing. If all people who commute from really long distances would vote for this happening closer to their jobs in the cities, this would more or less force the local politicians in the cities to do whatever required to ensure that higher density gets built. Also state legislation outright banning almost all development where the density is low as compared to the population density in the area. Of course there needs to be exceptions to things like gas stations (that in theory can be part of a large building, but for safety reason that isn't really desirable). There would also be a need to have a hefty tax or fine for construction that takes "too long" time, I.E. you can't just apply for a permit and build walls for some basements and then just don't do continue just to not have to take part in the trailer part thing.
P.S. understaffed departments in the public sector is really a problem. Permits and whatnot should not need to take a long time.
The Bay Area's land has debatable land use, depending on the locations of interest. (The Bay's land is underwater. [sigh]) Much is older and much is industrial in an area that deindustrialized. Tech is an industry but is of a different nature now; it's software that's often made, not fabricated as in earlier times. Changing the land use raises concern for change for the better versus for the worse, surrounding effects included, at least to those with better values. The area and state have declined enough, and are worsening, already.
DeleteProp. 13 has its faults but repeal makes no sense without controls and limits on resulting taxes and tax levels. What's desired is an end to inequity, not more revenue more than anything else. Property taxes should be objective, based on square footage for various uses, but don't expect that high a level of attainment among those who want to spend more and view property value as ability to pay more taxes, a level similar to what we see with MTC and say, the Bay Bridge eastern span debacle, and our progress with Caltrain as examples of transportation, or the politics and worse with the high-speed rail project.