The comment section from the last post has overflowed, so here is an open thread to keep the discussions going. Some noteworthy developments fished out of the previous comments:
- Caltrain ridership is rising quickly, with June total ridership up a stunning +75% from one year ago; stay tuned to their ridership dashboard for upcoming July numbers. This steep increase is likely driven by a combination of a superior product and freeways jamming again as the post-pandemic return to the office continues. While this is still only 65% of June 2019, a full recovery seems within reach.
- As ridership increases, it will soon be time to consider tightening the base takt from 30 minutes to 20 minutes. In past times of fiscal crisis, Caltrain has argued that its high fixed costs would make service cuts kill more ridership and revenue than the money saved on operations & maintenance; that same argument can be turned around that increasing service will generate more ridership and revenue than the money spent on additional O&M.
- The pre-pandemic "long-range service vision" has been scaled back, with the ambitious 12 Caltrain + 4 HSR per hour per direction "expanded growth" scenario eliminated from the planning horizon. The 8 Caltrain + 4 HSR per hour per direction "core" scenario thankfully remains, and one hopes that Caltrain planners understand that its successful realization requires four-track Redwood City station approaches, not just a four-track station. See quantitative justification.
- The old gallery fleet is being transferred to Lima, Peru, with the first shipment already delivered and the second being loaded as of this writing in Stockton. Follow the ship here. Per YouTube videos, there is political controversy developing in Peru around the Caltrain transaction. Notably, there is disappointment that the trains are old and decrepit, but we knew that.
A request to commenters: thank you for staying focused on Caltrain and HSR issues here in the SF Bay Area.
Posts
The service vision materials you link seem to permanently foreclose the possibility of quad-tracking for much of the Peninsula Corridor… isn’t that a fairly substantial change from current policy that deserves robust public input?
ReplyDeleteYes, it's a major change, and it's hitting on major weaknesses in the current governance setup: Caltrain JPB governed by individual cities, which have an interest in freeing up ROW for TOD; state interest in the corridor not considered. The Board had a small quorum when this was discussed in June, but the ED and members present were very dismissive of the 12+4 vision, and eager to reap the near-term benefits of dropping it.
DeleteIn my opinion, the 4th & King yard is sacrificable: the real long-range vision is through-running to a yard in the East Bay. That takes care of SF's interest in maximizing its Prologis development deal (though imo that also shouldn't go through until DTX construction is done and the construction site logistics can be massively improved).
However, giving up 4-tracking of the other areas on the corridor is fraught: we don't know what the eventual through-running service, as contemplated in the state rail plan, will require. And the TOD and grade separation savings opportunities there are much less substantial than at 4th and King - maybe you save 25ft of width on your rail overpass, but that's a tiny share of the overall cost. Maybe you gain 25ft of TOD at a station, but that's in the double-digit millions of building value.
Caltrain doesn't need to commit to ever running 12+4 service specifically, but it should guard its ROW more like a freight railroad would. Without intervention from the state to protect the ROW, this could become a major headache for future investment.
The JPB's job is to run Caltrain well, period.
DeleteIt isn't to roll out the red carpet for HSR, whose cheap-out plans for the peninsula would absolutely gut Caltrain service quality. Their entire approach is to bunch regional trains together to open up HSR express slots without adding any tracks, making some Caltrain dwells exceed five minutes (if everything is on time!) so the HSR express can overtake.
This cheap plan is sold on the false pretense that regional commuters would enjoy faster SF-SJ trips via HSR, but we need only look at ticket prices between Stamford, CT and New York Penn to understand that HSR yield management will preclude it: Acela is many times more expensive than Metro-North, to preserve sales of more lucrative long-distance seats.
I didn't see the elimination of the 12+4 "expanded growth" scenario as a secret plan to sell off ROW, so I'm not particularly exercised about it -- that would indeed be incredibly short-sighted.
If the state wants to run HSR on the peninsula, it will have to invest a lot more $$ to make the services mesh well by adding passing tracks. The microscopic amount of funding contributed to the electrification project does not earn it the right to gut regional rail service, which will always generate more ridership than HSR.
That said, I've often griped about Caltrain being so careless with their ROW utilization (Hillsdale? San Bruno?) that they preclude efficient development of the corridor's latent transportation capacity. Case in point: Redwood City, the one and only four-track section actually needed by Caltrain, where indications are that the agency just doesn't comprehend the dire operational implications of their plans for a two-track grade separation. They have enough ROW for four tracks and they should make efficient use of it-- if there is ever a place to throw around their legal rights as a railroad, this is it!
I would like to believe that there is no plan to sell off ROW behind this change in policy. However, the original slides presenting this to the board made clear mention of development possiblities in the Belmont parking lot as a motivating factor for the change. Take a look at what happened with TOD at San Carlos Station and you can see the potential impact. 4 tracking is now only possible if the station is relocated.
DeleteI bet $1k that it is all about selling off ROW in Belmont, forever crippling Caltrain service.
DeleteI mean, just look at the utter fucking disaster of the Caltrain-reaming public-screwing San Carlos "TOD" -- same house, same call. It's almost as if they're in the business of destroying the public realm.
The dickwad clowns on the PCJPB and SMCTA will go on and on and on about the revenue their "fiscal cliff" agency is receiving from this Transit Oriented Development, but in reality the net from forever crippling future service will be measured in the single digits of millions of dollars -- where we know Caltrain today can't even build half a mile of non-revenue track for $10 million.
It's pure evil and pure corruption and pure stupidity. These people are the very worst, and we're all utterly doomed.
"The JPB's job is to run Caltrain well, period."
DeleteThis attitude is the exact antithesis of the one taken by places which get the highest transit usage. German "Verkehrsverbünde", Swiss/Dutch national Takt timetabling, RATP in Paris or TfL in London all work on the principle of integrating different modes and maximizing/optimizing use of infrastructure, not sandbox games of "this is mine go build your own." New York City wasted billions on East Side Access because Metro North was unwilling to allow Long Island Rail Road access to some of Grand Central Terminals numerous tracks and platforms. Adopting the same attitude on the Peninsula is just an opening for Richard's "Finest Transportation Professionals" to want to 'invest' much more than a microscopic amount of money in things like totally unnecessary tunneled HSR, or HSR building two track grade separations while leaving Caltrain with at grade crossings ("they didn't roll out the red carpet for US, why would we pay for THEIR grade separation...").
I completely agree with out that local commuter ridership always dwarfs intercity travel, and the tail should not wag the dog, but yes, Caltrain SHOULD roll out the red carpet for CAHSR. The peninsula rail corridor is a state (national?) level asset for the access it gives to the core of the fifth largest combined metro area in the country. The work needed to be done to accommodate CAHSR is an opportunity for both it and Caltrain, not an attack.
As jpk122s mentioned, Caltrain explicitly states the motivation for this change in policy in the presentation linked in this open thread's parent post:
Delete"A. Reduced costs for planning and design
B. Benefits for Caltrain, partners, and corridor communities
C. Improved potential viability for SF Railyards Development Project
D. Reduced costs of capital project investments"
It goes on to include a map of Belmont station, explaining that "Preliminary analysis shows removal of Expanded Growth passing tracks in a future update to the Rail Corridor Use Policy maps could result in one potential opportunity site that could be available in the near-term for a development project at Belmont Station." "Service Vision Capital Project Overlay in Belmont currently preserves JPB property for potential future passing tracks for Expanded Growth. Impacts of potential future capital projects to non-JPB property are not mapped."
Through we don't like it, as Clem's "HSR Lays and Egg in Caltrain's Nest" post notes, HSR has the right to, and intends to, screw up Caltrain headways to create the 8+4 operating plan, bunching up local and express trains to create big gaps in service where HSR trains can operate non-stop. Any fix to that is going to require more passing track than is in the 8+4 plan.
In my opinion, Caltrain is OK to drop the ROW expansion provisions of the 12+4 plan, but should continue to prohibit use of existing ROW for TOD. They're welcome to, and should, start a new long-term operating plan study that incorporates new info: standard-gauge Link21, the state rail plan, etc.
But that's not their current intent; their current intent is to give up 12+4 and any owned ROW required for it to TOD that's low-value vs the value of a preserved rail corridor. They need to be steered away from that via advocacy.
Right of way preservation for a statewide rail system should be the job of the state. If the Caltrans division of rail or the California HSR Authority are asleep at the wheel, that's on them-- it isn't "advocacy" that can replace competent centralized planning.
DeleteEvery example cited by Onux above is coordinated at the regional level, not led from behind by individual operators or sub-regional component agencies, which is what we seem to expect Caltrain to do. I'm all for regional coordination, but asking Caltrain to do it is like asking a monkey to manage the zoo.
I hadn't read closely enough that Caltrain wants to sell off ROW in Belmont, and that would indeed be astonishingly shortsighted. The state should stop them, and if they don't, then California is ineffectively governed.
IMHO a problem is that USA still to a large extent clings on to having the same company/organization/agency owning tracks and running trains. The one major exception is also the worst example of not doing this: Amtrak on tracks owned by freight railways.
DeleteIf Caltrain were structured like railways in for example parts of Europe, there would be:
* An agency that owns, builds and maintains the infrastructure absolutely needed for running trains (tracks, bridges, tunnels, signalling, electrification, platforms, any bridges or tunnels for accessing the platforms, but usually not station buildings and absolutely not trains, except trains for maintenance/inspections and such).
* An agency actually owning and operating the trains (or sub contracting the operations to some private company). This latter agency could own station buildings, but they could also be owned by local cities.
* Local cities/counties would own station buildings at places that aren't a major interchange between trains and longer distance buses, destination and/or origin of travelers. I.E. 4th/King, Diridon and such would be owned by the agency that owns the tracks, while "medium importance" stations (like major interchanges to local buses / transit) would be owned by the agency that owns the trains, while stations that are only of local importance would be owned by the local city/county.
In this case Caltrans would be the suitable owner both for the infrastructure Caltrain owns, and also for the infrastructure that the Metrolink counties and San Diego county owns, and also the Cali HSR infrastructure.
The objective for the agency owning the infrastructure should be to provide an as good as possible general public transit within the limits of their funding. Meanwhile the objective for the agency running the trains should be to provide an as good as possible local/regional transit in it's area.
(Had to split it into two comments)
DeleteBut now we are stuck with mini fiefdoms owning their part of things. The counties involved in Caltrain can at least be happy that they are just three counties and that they have a joint board. Although Metrolink is a joint operation, the right-of-way is owned by each county individually (except when it's owned by freight railways of course). It's also organized in a way that seem to make it impossible for a single county to decide on trains that only run in their county and it's related infrastructure. Also even though Moorpark-LAUS and along the LA River, and from Fullerton and southwards, are publicly owned, the non-greater LA counties that are part of the Surfliner have no say in what happens with this infrastructure.
Anyways, the goal of Caltrain and the PCJPB should be to do what's in the best interest of the population on the peninsula. And I'd argue that it's in their best long term interest to have a decent connection to Cali HSR, and it's also in their long term interest to in the future be able to run a mix of express and all-stop trains along the route. The alternative would be that Cali HSR just dumps off / picks up all passengers at Diridon. Also if it ends up being a question of who is willing to take Cali HSR trains, the owners of an improved Capitol Corridor route might be interested in having HSR trains running to Oakland/Richmond, and then the peninsula part of the Caltrain route suffers, especially the northern part. (Yes, I know that prop 1A specifically states SF-LA, but afaik it doesn't hinder trains running to/from other places too).
Re fares: Since PCJPB owns the route, I would assume that they would get to negotiate trackage right fees for Cali HSR. This in turn means that they can negotiate other things with Cali HSR, like for example Caltrain ticket validity along the Caltrain route. Unfortunately in general it wouldn't work great to share southbound evening peak trains and/or northbound morning peak trains. Fortunately though I assume that the peak hours directions for regional commuters is mostly northbound in the morning, and southbound in the evening, while for HSR trains it would be the opposite direction, and thus sharing would be a bit more feasible.
A possible option would be to allow sharing, but have a slightly higher fee for tickets that are also valid on HSR trains. This likely keeps out the most obnoxious local/regional passengers from the HSR trains. Like it's not great if the area around a seat is full of garbage left from a SF-SJ commuter if that seat is then to be used for someone traveling from Fresno to LA.
The CAHSR Authority has shared for the first time that it intends to issue a Request for Proposals for public/private partnerships (e.g. DBFM) to build large segments of CAHSR, with private financing backed by the $1B/year guarantee that Newsom is negotiating to be included in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
ReplyDeleteRFEI question response #28 states: "The Authority anticipates releasing a Request for Proposals for P3 in 2025."
The RFEI itself says that "The Authority’s medium-term goal is to link the Bay Area at Gilroy and greater Los Angeles at Palmdale in less than 20 years and deliver useful project segments in the interim." RFEI responses were due at the end of July; interviews with respondents are to take place through August.
That P3 proposal is a complete Hail Mary. Note that Brightline has stopped paying their bonds, which are now junk.
DeleteIn practice they are trying to take out a type of loan.
DeleteWhy would an organization entirely owned the state of California take out loans by their own, rather than the state itself taking loans, likely with a much lower interest rate?
This is 100% a politics failure.
Would there be any benefit to increased service into triple tracking the whole corridor? Would having 3 tracks allow adding CAHSR trains into the mix of Caltrain service without gumming things up?
ReplyDeleteThe main obstacle to adding tracks isn't ROW width, which is ample, but the cost of grade separations. On such a busy high-speed corridor, the CPUC (which regulates grade crossings and their modification) will require grade separation, whether it's for three or four tracks. So the cost of three is the cost of four, and if you contemplate adding a third track you might as well add the fourth and be done.
DeleteIf anyone has it, could they please cite any official (e.g. CPUC, FRA, etc.) rule or regulation that requires grade separation for any increase of tracks beyond two across existing California grade crossings?
DeleteWhile I believe this to be a true, I’d like to have a cite since I’ve recently encountered someone that denied it was actually the case.
I do not believe it is true. Metrolink/SCRRA has a document from 2021 that says "All projects that propose an additional track ... that increases the track count of a highway-rail grade crossing to three (3) or more main line tracks, will require a comprehensive analysis ... and shall involve the full and joint participation of ... SCRRA, Highway Agency or Agencies, CPUC, FRA." So it seems to be possible to have a new 3-track crossing, just lots of red tape.
Deletehttps://metrolinktrains.com/globalassets/about/engineering/scrra_grade_crossing_manual.pdf
Since the approved CAHSR San Jose - Gilroy plan (alternative 4) relies on increasing multiple at-grade crossings to 3 tracks I have to believe that it is not impossible. Like all these things, it just takes political will. CPUC commissioners are appointed by the Governor. As a practical matter does adding a 3rd track really impact safety significantly? There is at least one existing 3-track at-grade crossing on the Caltrain line (Mission Bay Dr.)
DeleteTriple tracking is generally a terrible idea, undertaken only when quadrupling is physically impossible or when the rail planners are utter morons (as they all are in the USA)
DeleteIt can work OK in some sort of 2+1 arrangement where low-traffic freight is segregated onto its own bidirectional single track to avoid eating capacity on the pair of passenger tracks, or where high-traffic but very carefully scheduled local trains are segregated onto a single track with frequent passing loops (ie short sections of quadrupliing exactly where the timetable and narrow ROW allow) to avoid earing capacity on a pair of long-distance passenger tracks, but nobody with a brian does this voluntarily.
As Clem has noted for decades here now, the only constraints on quadrupling the Caltrian right of way south of the SF tunnels — a ROW assembled with foresight by the Southern Pacifi Railroad more than a century ago and aquired by the public for passenger rail transportation, not for penny-ante real estrate scams by cheaply-bribed local sleazebags — are deliberate acts of sabotage perpetuated by Caltrain's grossly unprofessional staff and Caltrain's easily corrupted know-nothing Board.
The construction impacts and temporary easements required for a four-track grade separation do not differ in any material way from those for short-sighted dounble-track or insane triple-track. Not unless you're in the business of in-house sabotage and fucking over the public interest. Shoving a few more truck fulls of dirt of concrete around is nothing, just down ion the noise given the soft-costs-to-infinity regime Caltrain's contractors have cornered us into.
A fundamental way in which talk of triple tracking is particularly stupid and dangerous in the context of the Caltrain corridor is that in a desirable (by everybody aside from US transportation planners) symmetrical clockface schedule, the desirable places for trains to overtake are at four-track four-platform-face stations, and most desirably trains from both directions arrive within minutes of each other. For this to operate stably and reliably, quadruple track, not triple track, extends at least one additional station away from the symmetrical node major station.
In particular, for the one true Caltrain service plan, quadruple tracks extend from the major node at Redwood City through San Carlos and ideally through Belmont. (Quadrupling south of the station is needed only for very optional turnback/storage tracks or for the HSR tracks headed to the Dumbarton crossing and the Altamont Pass.)
Triple tracking also very strongly bakes in exactly one service plan. I know I personally write about The One True Timetable, but I've been known to change my mind.
(20 years ago I thought that local and express Caltrain service should cross-platform overtake at Hillsdale, and that both local and express trains should all run SF-SJ with no local turnback -- I was wrong! But at least I didn't ever proposed to place shitty shitty shitty condos on all the Caltrain ROW except for a half mile north and south of Hillsdale. That would be what Caltrain's in-house assholes are doing as we speak.)
With quadruple track sections where one carefully determines they are needed today, around timetable node stations, one doesn't preclude different overtakes locations of different headways or different stopping patterns in the future, because the ROW is still there if the funds can be found in the future to carefully implement further quadrupling in service of a carefully updated and analysed newer service plan. But with triple tracking, you're very much baking in exactly one set of passing locations for exactly one service plan at exactly one headway, forever.
Another use case for triple track, that isn't relevant for the Caltrain route, is that on a steep hill you can have one downward track but have two upward tracks, where you use one track for trains that can keep a decent speed while the other is for trains that can't run fast upwards.
DeleteI fully agree though that quad tracking is the only way to go.
tightening the base takt from 30 minutes to 20 minutes:
ReplyDeleteHow about split between SJ-SF Limited and RWC-SF local train? (Limited skip all the station between RWC-SF except Millbrae)
As we see weekend ridership increase of 4th and King, there are very large demands to/from San Francisco. Running express on weekend 9am – 6pm will attract even more leisure customer then 20 min frequency.
With skipping 11 stations traveling time will be16~18 minutes shorter. (SJ-SF 64~62min, Palo Alto-SF 34~36 min). North of Redwood City will see more seats available.
Is this capable? This option need to utilize Redwood Junction as turn around point.
Give it a whirl in Richard Mlynarik's taktulator to see if it works!
DeleteHere you go (did this stuff a couple years ago, brushing off cobwebs, eliminating Tamien):
Delete* The One True Timetable 20s 10% 6MW 4tph San Mateo shuttle 4tph Santa Clara limited
* The One True Timetable 20s 10% 6MW 3tph San Mateo shuttle 3tph Santa Clara limited
Common build-out for both is (Belmont—)San Carlos—Redwood City quadruplication. As anybody with even a single functioning neuron would be prioritizing
Can this schedule work without Quad tracks? It seems work if local train from SF 5~6 min after departing Limited and arrive RWC 5~6 min before next Limited. San Mateo shuttle can discharge all the passenger within 3 min and clear track for next Limited.
Delete"Can this schedule work without Quad tracks? It seems work if local train from SF 5~6 min after departing Limited and arrive RWC 5~6 min before next Limited. San Mateo shuttle can discharge all the passenger within 3 min and clear track for next Limited."
DeleteI've spent many hours on this in the past and it's pretty hopeless.
Caltrain used to sort-of operate a same direction transfers between different limited-stops trains at Redwood City for a the two decades of no service improvements 2004-2019, but reality is that the poor level (no level boarding!) of Caltrain timetable adherence and and the inadequate signalling system make it hard to run close enough headways reliably enough to make these lengthy and flaky "transfers" at all attractive.
And then when one tries to try to do it anyway, the existing infrastructure constraints for reversing a train at and south of Redwood City station lead to
* northbound/southbound conficts at the one crossover, or
* excessively long turnback times (poor use of train and crew), or
* conflicts between arriving and departing trains from the single available turnback track,
* or ... all of these problems at once!
It's a huge waste of time to try to make it work, but of course that's the sort of thing I do. Not proud of that at all, but at least I work it through before saying it's not realistic.
Transit analyst/consultant Peter Rogoff (ex SoundTransit CEO, USDOT policy undersecretary, and FTA Administrator) presented his depressing Caltrain Cost
ReplyDeleteChallenges In Line with
National Trends” slide deck to the Caltrain board this morning.
His introduction, presentation, and board discussion begins at the 32:20 mark of the meeting video.
This just feels like a whole bunch of excuse-making. Stuff costs a lot because stuff costs a lot, donchaknow.
DeleteAs Rogoff verbally explains as he talks through his slides, there’s way, way more to it than just the price of stuff (materials). In fact, that doesn’t even appear to be among the top reasons for skyrocketing project costs for all infrastructure (not just rail/transit). Listen to his presentation and you’ll see.
DeleteGeneric thought about costs:
DeleteI think it would be a good idea to be less goal oriented, and more cost-benefit oriented.
Run each possible improvement as a mini project, where someone works part time as a project leader, and then periodically do cost-benefit analysis of each project, and decide which would get a go-ahead depending on which provide the best cost-benefit. Sure, many projects are intertwined, but by doing things this way anyone involved would realize that unless they keep costs down their project won't get done.
@ MiaM - look up Californians for Electric Rail on BlueSky. They discuss this quite a bit, including reforming of the TIRCP program to sort of align with this. The main issue here is planning, engineering/design, consistent funding throughout project phases, and proper contracting procedures (and oversight). Our grant-based programs aren't effective for this: see the issues with city by city implementation of grade separations along the Caltrain corridor vs if we had a statewide agency that did the planning and engineering work. That would cut costs significantly, especially if a standardized design was implemented up and down the corridor instead of a bespoke project for each intersection.
DeleteIn this month's board supplemental reading file, a few train nerd details:
ReplyDeleteThe single BEMU will be delivered in late 2028
18 trainsets have been delivered (the latest in June)
Trainset 19 is coming this month, and is specially tricked out with a $0.7M OCS monitoring system. This one closes out the first option order.
Trainsets 20-23 of the second option order arrive every ~3 months starting next June.
Reminder that Caltrain needs 14 trains to run the current service pattern, so they will have nine sitting around and depreciating unless they increase service. 20-minute takt in 2027!
It'd be fun if Trainset 19 was given a Dr. Red livery (Tokaido Shinkansen Dr. Yellow style)
Delete"It'd be fun if Trainset 19 was given a Dr. Red livery (Tokaido Shinkansen Dr. Yellow style)"
DeleteJR Central retired Dr. Yellow earlier this year—inspections now handled by modified N700S sets with onboard systems. JR West is expected to follow.
Caltrain seems to be doing something similar using their revenue fleet. No word yet on MP15s 503/504, but motor cars could take over if they go that route. If so, locomotive operation could be fully abolished on Caltrain in the long term...
ED Bouchard announced today that the long-awaited APCs (Automatic Passenger Counters) have finally been tuned & validated to achieve what she says is acceptable-enough accuracy (95%) for imminent deployment and activation at all train doors. This ought to make available all sorts of new, detailed, nearly real-time on/off rider (and bike!) statistics down to the per-car/door/train/station/hour of day/day of week/etc. level that Caltrain has never before had.
ReplyDeleteRe Automatic Passenger Counters: assuming these are counting total human entries/exits per station stop per train, that's certainly something that might be of use, but it just gives origin and destination data, not origin—destination data (how many people are taking particular trips between particualr points and when) — for that you need periodic random surveys to calibrate models driven by coarser entry/exit data, and Caltrain doesn't seem to do that much.
DeleteOr... in addition, one could TEMPORARILY (2 hour window, after which non-aggregate data is DISCARDED) track pretty much every Wifi device on the train by Ethernet MAC address (randomized or not, doesn't matter), noting when a new device (new to this train, in this 2 hour window, after which forget everything your snooped) starts looking for Wifi networks, and when it stops sniffing.
Not super-ultra precise (but probably good enough for station-level granularity), confounded by people carrying multiple Wifi devices (I mean, who doesn't have a cloud-connected neural implant these days?), and people (WHO DO COUNT!) without any Wifi-promiscurous device, but potentially a useful set of data for service planning and evaluation. If you want to plan or evaluate service. Or of course if you want another route for the Stasi to panopticon surveil. Because you KNOW they won't delete their "temporary" logs, and you KNOW they won't resist building up identifiable profiles, don't you, because, reasons? And of course this would be a multi-million-dollar cancerous IT disaster at Caltrain, because procurement reasons, because consultant reasons.
Origin-destination and other tasty data will come with Clipper 2 as staff plans to require tapping on & off for all Clipper based rides — which includes monthlies and even GoPasses (which already require it for usage statistics for issued passes and each participating agency/organization employer and to help staff gauge & guide their evolving GoPass pricing scheme).
DeleteTo ensure/motivate compliance, GoPass holders are already subject to the standard $75 citation if they’re caught onboard without having tapped on!
This only leaves out paper TVM tickets & passes as IIRC the mobile app (or at least its ticket purchase feature) will be discontinued.
Note though that this type of data is great for for example service planning on an existing route.
DeleteIt's worthless for planning any extensions though.
You'd at least need to combine data from all transit systems for it to be meaningful for any extensions or even changes in stopping pattern.
A prime example is the free shuttle mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that could go to a closer by Caltrain station if that station had a more frequent service. For data to really be useful you'd need to require users to tap in even on this free shuttle.
You really need to know the real origin and destination to plan changes like moving stations, change service pattern, build new routes or whatnot. Except for the scammer within Caltrain, no one lives in the station buildings, and the few people who work in station buildings are negligible from a planning perspective.
As an example someone might live with almost the same walking distance to two stations, and if service patterns differ they would just choose the station with the better service. But also even if they live a bit further away from a station with a better service pattern they might choose the station with the better service pattern even at a time where the "worse" station is serviced, depending on if this person walks or rides their bike to/from the station. (Ages ago I used to commute where buses and trains shared monthly passes, but the bus and the train stopped at different places, and my bike seemed to always end up at the wrong place).
And yes, privacy is a big concern here. This is one of the few cases where collecting data actually are for the greater good for the everyday user of transit systems, rather than for extracting as much money as possible and/or pushing political campaigns onto people or whatnot.
"Origin-destination and other tasty data will come with Clipper 2 as staff plans to require tapping on & off for all Clipper based rides ..."
DeleteTotal, absolute, shit-headed, fucking transparent assholery.
So just how "tasty" is this data?
Sounds like a SHIT SANDWICH, served up for tens of millions of dollars.
Mmmmmm... data ... data to be overwhelmed by, to not he analysed (because the policies are already set!), to be ignored, but collected, by somebody, at somebody's cost, to SOMEBODY ELSE'S profit.
ARE THEY TRYING TO MAKE PROOF OF PAYMENT AS FUCKING AWFUL AS FARE-GATED FORTRESS STATIONS?
What the hell POSITIVE result are they proposing to reap. PRECISELY, from all this "data" they're proposing to collect AT THE DIRECT COST OF THE TIME AND CONVENIENCE OF THEIR PASSENGERS that can possibly justify every person on every trip fucking wasting their own personal time fucking finding a fucking WORKING Clipper machine TWICE ON EVERY SINGLE TRIP EVERY SINGLE DAY?
Just how much does that "tasty" shit sandwich cost ... and why are forcing shit down the mouths of our customers anyway?
Passengers have a worse time. Door-to-door trips take longer. Costs increase. People get FINED (and as a result say FUCK YOU AND FUCKING TASTY DATA, FUCK YOU FOREVER) for not doing the utterly insane and unneccessary and counter-productive tag-in tag-out waste time, miss your connection.
And in return ... "tasty data"? Who the hell signs up for such bullshit? Who the hell is being paid to front this fraud?
Qui bono?
You know who fucking makes out? Fucking Cubic Systems, inc, the rent-seeking pig-fucking bid-rigging sole-source defence contractor subhuman assholes who get a tasty extra cut for every "smart" card tag and for every extra "required" no-bid Clipper device to service tags that no actual passenger needs to make for any legitimate purpose. (And no, "tasty" data is not a legitimate anything.)
Fuck them. Fuck them all.
Supposedly the trains are run by a PUBLIC agency for the benefit and convenience of THE PUBLIC, but you're never suspect it from a single action the "public servants" take at the "public agency", always setting dumpsters full of public cash on fire, always delivering negative value, always keeping the consultants and contractors morbidly obese but never satisfied.
Seriuously fuck Cubic. Fuck "tasty data". Fuck any ignorant-of-anywhere-but-NYC-and-London staffer who lusts after bigger and more walled in fare gates and access control getting in the way of GETTING ON AND OFF TRAINS. Fuck anybody who doesn't understand that MINIMIZING FRICTION and MINIMIZING POINTLESS TRANSACTIONS is what we're after.
Fuck them all.
The sole customer benefit is that monthly passes are no longer fixed to specific zones, and instead you can go through any set of zones up to the number of your pass. I would still prefer not having to tag on/off.
DeleteRidership estimate dashboard has been updated.
ReplyDeleteStations ranked by percentage of total monthly ridership increase 2024-07 to 2025-07; system-wide: +77.8% of which:
San Francisco: 23.3%
Palo Alto: 7.7%
San Jose: 7.4%
Mountain View: 6.9%
Sunnyvale: 6.3%
Redwood City: 5.3%
Hillsdale: 4.5%
San Mateo: 4.1%
22nd Street: 4.0%
Millbrae: 3.8%
California Avenue: 3.7%
Santa Clara: 3.1%
San Antonio: 2.9%
South San Francisco: 2.9%
Menlo Park: 2.4%
Lawrence: 2.4%
Burlingame: 2.0%
San Carlos: 1.9%
Belmont: 1.8%
San Bruno: 1.4%
Hayward Park: 1.3%
Bayshore: 0.9%
College Park: 0.0%
Stations ranked by percentage of average weekend ridership increase 2024-07 to 2025-07; system-wide: +115.2% of which:
San Francisco: 51.9%
Palo Alto: 13.4%
San Jose: 12.8%
Mountain View: 12.6%
Sunnyvale: 10.6%
Millbrae: 10.2%
Redwood City: 9.1%
Hillsdale: 7.7%
San Mateo: 7.0%
Santa Clara: 6.3%
22nd Street: 6.1%
Menlo Park: 5.0%
California Avenue: 4.7%
San Antonio: 4.6%
Burlingame: 4.1%
Lawrence: 3.9%
San Carlos: 3.3%
Belmont: 3.2%
South San Francisco: 3.0%
San Bruno: 2.8%
Hayward Park: 1.9%
Bayshore: 1.4%
Broadway: 1.0%
Oops I *totally* screwed up (cut and paste error) weekend fraction-of-growth percentages.
DeleteCORRECT Stations ranked by percentage of average weekend ridership increase 2024-07 to 2025-07; system-wide: +115.2% of which:
San Francisco: 27.1%
San Jose: 7.8%
Mountain View: 7.2%
Palo Alto: 6.3%
Sunnyvale: 6.1%
Millbrae: 5.0%
Hillsdale: 4.9%
Redwood City: 4.3%
San Mateo: 3.8%
Santa Clara: 3.4%
22nd Street: 3.4%
California Avenue: 2.7%
San Antonio: 2.6%
Menlo Park: 2.6%
Burlingame: 2.2%
Lawrence: 2.2%
South San Francisco: 1.8%
Belmont: 1.7%
San Carlos: 1.6%
San Bruno: 1.3%
Hayward Park: 1.1%
Bayshore: 0.8%
Broadway: 0.6%
In penance, here's the corresponding average weekday broken out:
Stations ranked by percentage of average weekday ridership increase 2024-07 to 2025-07; system-wide: +70.9% of which:
San Francisco: 22.2%
Palo Alto: 8.2%
San Jose: 7.2%
Mountain View: 6.8%
Sunnyvale: 6.3%
Redwood City: 5.6%
Hillsdale: 4.4%
San Mateo: 4.3%
22nd Street: 4.1%
California Avenue: 4.0%
Millbrae: 3.5%
South San Francisco: 3.2%
Santa Clara: 3.1%
San Antonio: 2.9%
Lawrence: 2.4%
Menlo Park: 2.3%
San Carlos: 2.0%
Burlingame: 1.9%
Belmont: 1.9%
Hayward Park: 1.4%
San Bruno: 1.4%
Bayshore: 0.9%
Gilroy: 0.3%
Morgan Hill: 0.1%
Capitol: 0.1%
Blossom Hill: 0.0%
San Martin: 0.0%
College Park: 0.0%
Tamien: -0.6%
The "Capitol of Silicon Valley" is clearly Palo Alto to Mountain View (include or exclude intermediate California Avenue and San Antonio or not, the objective facts remain the same), not San José, a blood-sucking political leech at the southern extremity, way past Stanford, way beyond relevance.
DeleteHere's a comparison of the percentage change portion of system-wide weekday ridership by station between 2024-07 and 2025-07,
Deleteie how much ridership has shifted relatively between different stations.
The winners:
California Avenue: +0.76% [TERMINATE THE BABY BULLET YOU COWARDS!]
South San Francisco: +0.56% [still hugely underperforming]
Sunnyvale: +0.54% [formerly underserved, now all trains stop]
San Antonio: +0.50% [Greater Palo Alto—Mountain View co-prosperity Zone]
San Jose: +0.48%
22nd Street: +0.22%
Santa Clara: +0.20% [TERMINATE THE BABY BULLET YOU COWARDS!]
Bayshore: +0.18% [still a dog; still should be mothballed]
San Francisco: +0.17%
Hayward Park: +0.17% [still a dog; still should be permanently closed]
San Mateo: +0.14%
Lawrence: +0.13% [TERMINATE THE BABY BULLET YOU COWARDS!]
San Bruno, Belmont, Burlingame, San Carlos stable ±0.1%
The losers:
Menlo Park: -0.13% [what's up here?]
Hillsdale: -0.19%
Mountain View: -0.27% [what's up here? Shifting to San Antonio? To Sunnyvale?]
Redwood City: -0.49% [what's up here especially?]
Tamien: -0.56% [a hopeless dog even before its 1tph service was suspended]
Millbrae: -0.68% [some shifted to South SF maybe?]
Palo Alto: -1.52% [some shifted to California Avenue definitely, but overally quite surprising]
(Hello from a current Cal Ave / former PA rider)
DeleteThe lack of a full commitment to Cal Ave means that Stanford still runs its frequent Marguerite Research Park buses from University Ave, wasting to-and-fro time in El Camino traffic. They added the sad little CAX shuttle which I tried once and never again (slow, infrequent, inconveniently long connections).
With all trains stopping at Cal Ave (really just one more stop per hour per direction) Stanford could move their entire RP shuttle operations there and meet every train with 15-minute service.
They’re so close to getting it, but Baby Bullet won’t die…
With 5 buses right now used between RP and CAX given the 35-40 min loop they could cut that to 3 and provide 15 min service. Although they also need to stop doing it as a single direction service where they then dead head back to the start.
DeleteAs I suspect I might have commented here before, I was a 22nd—California Avenue commuter in the 1990s pre-"Baby Bullet" and to even more hellish locations further south after. The northbound Cal Ave "platform" (a strip of asphalt between the tracks) would overflow with people getting on the crappy gallery cars for evening peak hour trains, especially the handful of limited stop options. As busy or busier than Palo Alto at times, so much so that some of those insane-stop-pattern trains skipped PA.
DeleteThe Marguerite shuttle buses were a decent component of Cal Ave ridership, along with a collection of free mini shuttle buses to Stanford Business Park and a VTA line (or two? Can't recall.)
Marguerite, of course, was the project of Jeff Tumlin, then a junior transportation wonk who landed a job as the Stanford Transportation Department, and who went on to be the only good thing that has happened to Muni in 40 years (and was canned by SF Mayor Danny Bluejeans in reward.)
Stanford mucky-mucks (all car-heads, nothing ever changes) actually hated the success of Marguerite and tried numerous times to kill or radically scale back growing useful network during Tumlin's tenure and after he left, but the problem they had was that it was too damned popular and too damned successful, with an appreciative and engaged constituency of riders, and had to learn to live with it.
2004's "Baby Bullet" timetable — and Caltrain's do-nothing staff's 15 year failure to improve or alter the schedule in any non-superficial way — tanked Cal Ave ridership, and with it levels of connecting bus service.
It was obvious that more service to a station with a proven "there there" (it's way closer to the business park stuff than downtown PA is, and more convenient for much of the Stanford campus and, you know, there isn't all that much more activity low-density downtown PA than in the even-lower-density but larger office park spawl less far from California Avenue.
As I've commented here before, the rising ridership at San Antonio is more of a surprise to me — it used to be crickets and tumbleweeds through the mid-2010s. Sunnyvale ("served", like Cal Ave by one train per HOUR at peaks in peak hours in the peak-Caltrain-being-Caltrain Year of Our Lord 2019! 1tph!) no srurpse at all..
But one has to be willing to change, and not be stuck in 2004, and not having spent one's entire professional career doing the same thing year in and year out, because that's how we do things, and we can always rely on Highway 101/280 congestion to force reluctant riders to take the needlessly poor service on offer and then claim "ridership is booming we must be doing everything right".
OK I exaggerate a tiny bit about Tumlin and Muni, but not completely! Proof of Payment all-door boarding, first on trains, now blissfully on buses, came long before, and that was and remains massive. Not all the bus lanes are from his tenure of course, but a lot of Good Shit Got Done "quick build" in 2019-2022 that the assholes have only partially managed to undo.
DeleteAnd yes, he was a prominent cheerleader in public for the fucking disaster Central Subway, but that's how things are done.
San Antonio has had a ton of development in the past ten years: commercial, office, and residential.
ReplyDeleteOn Caltrain’s Facebook page today:
ReplyDeleteCaltrain is hiring a [Project] Schedule Controls Manger to lead the development, oversight, and continuous improvement of scheduling processes for our Capital Program. Apply today: https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/smctd/caltrain/jobs/5042112/manager-schedule-controls?pagetype=jobOpportunitiesJobs.
At 55%, Sunnyvale had the largest FY25 percentage ridership ridership increase over FY24 in this FY25 Annual Ridership Report slide show. What’s less surprising is that Friday and then Monday were the lowest ridership weekdays.
ReplyDeleteI'm a huge non-fan of "percentage ridership increase" because, well, what's ONE BILLION PERCENT of zero?
DeleteYou'll notice that everything I've posted over the last few months derived from Caltrain's posted ridership model (and it is just a model, with a very low degree of real world statistical sampling attempting to validate it) always talks about percentage of total ridership, for just that reason.
So I can simutaneously calculate that Bayshore estimated monthly ridership is UP 143 PERCENT OVER 2024, THE GREATEST PERCENTAGE GROWTH OF ANY STATION, but know that 143% of 0.47% is fuck-all, for God's sake just half of beyond-hopeless Hayward Park's, just stick a fork in it.
Sunnyvale's ridership increase is good and encouraging (and totally predictable, if only anybody had updated the Caltrain timetable any time in the prior 20 years!), but in comparative terms it is 30% of the San Francisco Mission Bay station, and about the same as Palo Alto (which though comparatively "under performing", is and remains Number Two Top Dog in percentage of riders and in percentage of ridership growth and in most everything else), Mountain View, SJ Cahill Street, and is not too much higher than Mountain View's.
Anyway, Caltrain doesn't break out their Tue/Wed/Thu average estimated "mid-week" ridership from "weekday" estimates in what upload to their web site, so it's hard to say anything informed about any of this.
Given that nobody anywhere seems to be remotely close to proposing separate Tue/Wed/Thu vs Mon/Fri vs Sat/Sun timetables, it's kind of academic (interesting to be sure, but of no practical operational use) to exclude Mon/Fri and crow about higher, cherry-picked Tue/Wed/Thu numbers. Just juicing for PR purposes.
(Also, some day they need to get over baseball. Do what BART does and always has done: RUN REGULAR TRAINS OFTEN ENOUGH.)
@Richard:
DeletePlease don't take this the wrong way, but:
Yet you post comments with loads and loads of percentage numers. Sure, they might not be percentage change from previous numbers for a station, but rather percentage of all rides within the period. But yet they suffer from the problem of being hard to compare. Like it doesn't mater if station X only has 2% of all riders last year while it had 4% of all rides in 2020 if the total ridership has increased at least 100%, as the station then still haven't lost riders.
(A bit of an exaggerated example, but you get the point).
"Like it doesn't mater if station X only has 2% of all riders last year while it had 4% of all rides in 2020 if the total ridership has increased at least 100%, as the station then still haven't lost riders."
DeleteLike, it does.
As I said one billion percent of zero is zero.
Not losing a hypothetical 3 riders per day at some station, in fact even QUADRUPLING OMG ridership to 12 per day, is irrelevant and a total distraction if the next station over is is gaining or losing 900 boardings.
Analyzing how total ridership growth is distributed provides insight into where future growth might come, perhaps insight into factors that are suppressing expected growth (KILL THE BABY BULLET!), and suggests ways in which service other than peak-hour workday trains (the very most expensive to own and operate) might head. Overall patterns of weekend versus weekday change are interesting. Overall patterns (for which Caltrain doesn't publish data) of peak versus weekday non-peak would be interesting. Performance of particular stations or particular origin-destination pairs relative to to an average background of overall system-wide ridership gain provides more meaningful insight than fixating on ZOMG BAYSHORE UP 817.70792 ESTIMATED TOTAL MONTHLY RIDERS JUNE TO JULY 2025 AND 817.70792 IS GREATER THAN ZERO GREAT SUCCESS
Anyway, this is just a hobby while the world burns. Mucking around with speadsheets and posting wall of text and numbers blog comments here affects nothing.
ReplyDelete"Caltrain ridership is rising quickly, with June total ridership up a stunning +75% from one year ago; stay tuned to their ridership dashboard for upcoming July numbers. This steep increase is likely driven by a combination of a superior product and freeways jamming again as the post-pandemic return to the office continues. While this is still only 65% of June 2019, a full recovery seems within reach."
Still doesn’t justify dragging 7-car sets around at noon or off peak hours. Caltrain should’ve bought some 4-car EMU set—more nimble, scalable, and better suited to real-world demand.
Early plans as described in waiver docs filed with the FRA by Caltrain’s then “Rail Transformation Chief” guru Robert Doty were to order 4-car sets. For reasons unclear, staff later decided to go for 6-car, and even later with the option 1 order, 7-car sets.
Delete“For reasons unclear, staff later decided to go for 6-car, and even later with the option 1 order, 7-car sets."
DeleteOriginal plan called for 4-car sets. The shift to longer consists came without explanation. Standard Caltrain practice, supported by Bay Area transit planning norms...
If the scam / bad joke "DOGE" would actually had been what it said it were to be (that no-one actually believed), this would had been a great thing for them to look in to. Run things almost like criminal investigations within law enforcement, and find exactly who made which decisions and why.
DeleteI don't know what would be a good idea to do with that information though. If you'd sue people for things like this, I have a suspicion that you'd run out of people employed within the public sector pretty soon.
Perhaps force people to wear some badge, or a badge sewn on to their clothes, stating what mistake(s) they've made, with different colors on how severe it was.
Cost reduction from Coupling/Decoupling may not be so big compared to 30 years ago when EMU have Resistance Control. Even so, Caltrain 4-Car EMU only makes sense if labor union agree to run single conductor.
ReplyDelete... or if "elephant arse" / rubber nose style trains would be allowed. I.E. those with a flat front and a rubber thing surrounding the front, used in Denmark, southern Sweden, Belgium and whatnot. When you are about to couple them, you deflate the rubber thing, couple, reinflate the rubber thing forming an air tight seal between the trains, and then you just fold away the drivers cab, forming a walkway between the trains. The only tell tale that you are walking at this place in those trains is that there is a fairly long and narrow walkway with no windows and to the uninvited no obvious reason for it being so narrow.
Delete....or you keep it simple and more aesthetically pleasing by using gangway ended control cars like the Japanese railroads.
Delete@MiaM, in English they're called "bellows" or "gangway bellows". I suspect the real issue here isn't just ordering more control cars, or (expensively) rebuilding trailer cars into control cars; but getting more cars with ADA toilets for off-peak 4-car consists. (Never mind 3 cars, or 2 cars, or whatever length the current union agreement permits single conductor).
DeleteWhile cutting crew size would obviously increase savings for Caltrain, BART staff has numerous times crowed to its board about the O&M cost savings (e.g. energy, vehicle miles & wear) being enjoyed by their relatively recent conscious efforts to shorten “right-size” train lengths when & where they can.
Delete"in English they're called "bellows" or "gangway bellows". I suspect the real issue here isn't just ordering more control cars, or (expensively) rebuilding trailer cars into control cars; but getting more cars with ADA toilets for off-peak 4-car consists. (Never mind 3 cars, or 2 cars, or whatever length the current union agreement permits single conductor)."
DeleteWell that’s a shame, but Metra and Metro-North don’t seem to lose sleep over it. They run shorter consists and still manage to include enough ADA-accessible toilets—because they planned for it from the start. It wasn’t treated as a retrofit problem or a capital project.
Meanwhile, Caltrain’s shiny new 7-car EMUs come with exactly one toilet—so if you’re not in that car, good luck.
And let’s not even get into how Japanese railroads solved this issue decades ago...
@anonymous:
DeleteThanks, didn't know that they are called bellows/gangway bellows. I hope I will remember that in the future.
IMHO Japanese and even worse British trains with gangways are super ugly, way uglier than the rubber bellow trains.
Re ADA compliance and "too long trians":
I think that the only reasonable scenario is that this is solved whenever more trains are needed. There could be a number of scenarios where that happen. The Santa Cruz - Pajaro route could use similar trains, a larger electrification Tamien-Gilroy-Salinas and perhaps Gilroy-Hollister could use similar trains. Electrification Merced-Sacramento (or Merced-Stockton and then taking over the eBART route) could use HSR trains for through trains to Bakersfield/LA while using Caltrain like trains for all-stopping shorter distance services. And finally within Cali any Metrolink electrification could also use Caltrain style trains.
The two potential scenarios then would be to either use parts of the existing trains in combination with new parts to form a larger fleet, with each train shorter than the current ones.
Or considering that this will be in a longer distant future the existing trains would have been well used and would be more usable as is only for some peak hour services, while new trains would be used both for all off-peak services and also for some peak hour services. That is actually really a great way to run things, as maintenance cost per running distance increase with age while the booked value (and/or any remaining loans) lowers over time, so it costs almost nothing to own old trains while they tend to be expensive to run, I.E. ideal to use them for a few peak hour services as they then just run for a few hours each (week) day, while the newer trains where ownership is expensive but running distance cost is low would be used all day.
"Thanks, didn't know that they are called bellows/gangway bellows. I hope I will remember that in the future.
DeleteIMHO Japanese and even worse British trains with gangways are super ugly, way uglier than the rubber bellow trains."
To each their own when it comes to aesthetics. Personally, I find British trains—and quite a lot of European conventional sets(but of course not all)—visually underwhelming. To me Japanese designs and several older American trains tend to have more presence, especially if one favors angular, boxy lines. That preference probably explains my bias.
"Re ADA compliance and "too long trians":
I think that the only reasonable scenario is that this is solved whenever more trains are needed. There could be a number of scenarios where that happen."
That’s a nice theory, but in practice, deferring ADA compliance until “more trains are needed” is a blueprint for costly retrofits. Caltrain’s one-toilet-per-7-car EMU configuration is already a logistical failure—there are other issues on caltrain like the ongoing platform height debacle. Accessibility should be embedded from the start, not treated as a future upgrade. The lack of coordination with the HSR authority only compounds the issue. It’s a textbook case of what happens when planning is reactive instead of deliberate.
" The Santa Cruz - Pajaro route could use similar trains, a larger electrification Tamien-Gilroy-Salinas and perhaps Gilroy-Hollister could use similar trains. Electrification Merced-Sacramento (or Merced-Stockton and then taking over the eBART route) could use HSR trains for through trains to Bakersfield/LA while using Caltrain like trains for all-stopping shorter distance services. And finally within Cali any Metrolink electrification could also use Caltrain style trains."
Electrifying south of Tamien,Merced-Sacramento or anywhere on Metrolink’s current network, is a fiscal nonstarter unless service levels are radically improved. The Gilroy segment is a prime example: oversized, underutilized, and operationally pointless. Those truncated baby bullets should be sold off to someone who actually has a use for them.
"The two potential scenarios then would be to either use parts of the existing trains in combination with new parts to form a larger fleet, with each train shorter than the current ones. Or considering that this will be in a longer distant future the existing trains would have been well used and would be more usable as is only for some peak hour services, while new trains would be used both for all off-peak services and also for some peak hour services..."
Reasonable in theory, but it hinges on having a coherent service plan and a labor agreement that allows flexible consist lengths and crew sizes. Without that, you’re just shuffling expensive assets around to meet arbitrary constraints. Present day Europe and Japan pull this off for the most part because they match rolling stock to demand with near surgical precision. In California, we tend to buy shiny trains first and figure out how to use them later.
"...maintenance cost per running distance increase with age while the booked value (and/or any remaining loans) lowers over time, so it costs almost nothing to own old trains while they tend to be expensive to run, I.E. ideal to use them for a few peak hour services..."
That’s a reasonable concept. But its success depends entirely on operational discipline and institutional competence, both of which are in short supply among most Californian transit agencies. But deploying older rolling stock for peak-only service assumes you have the scheduling precision, fleet flexibility, and labor structure to make it work. Most agencies here don’t. They’ll either abuse older trains or underutilize the new ones—because the plan looks good on paper but collapses under the operational inertia.
(This is mostly a repeat of previous comments over the last few months, but still)
Delete@anonymous:
With ADA compliance I refer to making the trains ADA compliant with stations that have Cali HSR platform heights, and the train doors at that level. Afaik the trains are already ADA compliant if the train-platform interface would be solved, I.E. gap fillers and a temporary somewhat higher platform than today, but yet not at Cali HSR level.
I'm not thinking of any retrofit of individual cars. Whenever new trains are needed, the new parts would be built with ADA compliant toilets and whatnot for doors at Cali HSR platform height, and cars from the existing trains would be used for non-ADA purposes. (The prime use case for the current ADA cars would be for bicycles, strollers, large baggage and such). This assumes that the existing trains haven't gotten too old by then.
I don't know what the ADA requirements are when it comes to really frequent services? Are there any leeway for exceptions for say every second train if the frequency is something like every 7½ or 5 minutes? Note that the non-ADA compliance would just be a slightly too sharp slope on a ramp inside the trains.
The other way would be to simply have two different platform heights, with a short portion matching 1½ cars have the platform height of the current doors of the trains, and the rest have a platform height matching Cali HSR trains. Cali HSR trains would then need to have any special ADA compliant cars at "the other end" of the trains, which might cause operational issues with the planned triangle south of Merced. Long term there might also be issues with whatever happens to the rail network in the greater LA area (like say a disruption north of LA Union station leading to a train taking the High Dessert Corridor to Rancho Cucamonga and then continuing via the San Bernardio line. But at the time that would be possible we might not have to worry about the existing Caltrain EMUs?).
Tamien-Gilroy:
As is it's not worth electrifying, but as part of Cali HSR it's a must to electrify, and if anything happens with Santa Cruz - Pajaro and Salinas-Gilroy then electrifying all this would be reasonable.
Metrolink needs improved frequency anyways. But also, between Union Station and the southern prats of Orange County there is actually a 30 min service when combining Metrolink and Surfliner, and Oceanside-San Diego has spurts of 20 minute service when combining Surfliner and Coaster. This is certainly enough to justify electrification, and by adding some double track infill all of the route could have a 20/30 minute frequency, except for whatever the constraints might be on the BNSF section LA River - Fullerton. There are two terminus tracks at Fullerton for trains from the south, so although not as useful it would be possible to terminate trains there, to at least have a higher frequency San Diego - Fullerton if that would be desirable.
Merced-Stockton is planned to have 18 trains per day, to match the 18 planned trains on Cali HSR IOS, and afaik of these 18 something like 3 or so is planned to go via Martinez to Oakland and the others to Sacramento. Either way, all 18 would go to Stockton. In particular I think electrification is worth the cost as it would mean not needing to buy any more diesel trains or other not great options (battery trains, hydrogen trains where you emit no pollution locally but the hydrogen in practice comes from fossil sources).
(pt 2/2)
DeleteWhat labor agreement would be needed if you buy new trains that when coupled acts as a single train, while obviously when not coupled acts as individual trains?
Re precision: Given that for example NYC Subway at least manages to vary the frequency, there must be capacity for planning required capacity, and thus it must be possible to do things like this in Cali too. Just "bully" the decision makers by telling them that they seem less competent than their counterparts in NYC :)
Also, if coupling/uncoupling doesn't work you should threaten with firing everyone and only hiring staff that previously have worked at DSB (the danish state railways), as those are kind of known for actually not having trouble with coupling/uncoupling trains that are in service (for example when the frequency changes, at the start of rush hour you would want to couple trains, and after the rush hour you would want to uncouple them).
Re institutional competence and whatnot: A way to make the general public be a part of forcing competence: Just decide that if trains ends up out of schedule people would have to transfer to another train near the depot. This would also be a great incentive for moving CEMOF (the maintenance depot north of Diridon) to south of San Jose, and use the existing land for high density mixed building development. That would also straighten curves reducing travel time a bit. As a bonus I would think that part of the right-of-way could be used for a VTA light rail route if it would be desired to have closer spaced stops along that section. (Way better than the expensive idea of BART to Diridon and then northwards along the Caltrain route).
“With ADA compliance I refer to making the trains ADA compliant with stations that have Cali HSR platform heights, and the train doors at that level. Afaik the trains are already ADA compliant if the train-platform interface would be solved, I.E. gap fillers and a temporary somewhat higher platform than today, but yet not at Cali HSR level.”
DeleteADA compliance “if the interface were solved” is like bragging the elevator works flawlessly—once someone gets around to building the shaft. Gap fillers and “temporary” platforms are just the railroading equivalent of tossing a step stool at the problem and calling it universal access.
“I'm not thinking of any retrofit of individual cars. Whenever new trains are needed, the new parts would be built with ADA compliant toilets and whatnot for doors at Cali HSR platform height, and cars from the existing trains would be used for non-ADA purposes. (The prime use case for the current ADA cars would be for bicycles, strollers, large baggage and such). This assumes that the existing trains haven't gotten too old by then.“
So a plan is to wait until the next procurement cycle to fix accessibility? That’s not planning, that’s procrastination with a PR spin. And repurposing ADA cars for bikes and strollers assumes a level of operational discipline that Caltrain has never demonstrated.
“I don't know what the ADA requirements are when it comes to really frequent services? Are there any leeway for exceptions for say every second train if the frequency is something like every 7½ or 5 minutes? Note that the non-ADA compliance would just be a slightly too sharp slope on a ramp inside the trains.”
ADA doesn’t care how often your trains run. “Every second train is accessible” is not a legal defense, it’s a lawsuit waiting to happen. Accessibility isn’t a feature one can toggle based on headways—it’s a baseline requirement.
“The other way would be to simply have two different platform heights, with a short portion matching 1½ cars have the platform height of the current doors of the trains, and the rest have a platform height matching Cali HSR trains. Cali HSR trains would then need to have any special ADA compliant cars at "the other end" of the trains, which might cause operational issues with the planned triangle south of Merced. Long term there might also be issues with whatever happens to the rail network in the greater LA area (like say a disruption north of LA Union station leading to a train taking the High Dessert Corridor to Rancho Cucamonga and then continuing via the San Bernardio line. But at the time that would be possible we might not have to worry about the existing Caltrain EMUs?).
“
Dual-height platforms introduce complexity at the interface level. They require precise train alignment, consistent car placement, and passenger awareness. The operational burden could be significant.
“As is it's not worth electrifying, but as part of Cali HSR it's a must to electrify, and if anything happens with Santa Cruz - Pajaro and Salinas-Gilroy then electrifying all this would be reasonable.”
Electrifying Tamien–Gilroy is a given—HSR demands it. Caltrain is a guest on HSR’s infrastructure, and HSR doesn’t run on diesel. But Santa Cruz–Pajaro and Salinas–Gilroy? Those are conventional branches. Until they prove real ridership, fleet compatibility, and operational value, stringing wires is premature. Strategy waits for results, not hopes.
ReplyDelete“Metrolink needs improved frequency anyways. But also, between Union Station and the southern prats of Orange County there is actually a 30 min service when combining Metrolink and Surfliner, and Oceanside-San Diego has spurts of 20 minute service when combining Surfliner and Coaster. This is certainly enough to justify electrification, and by adding some double track infill all of the route could have a 20/30 minute frequency, except for whatever the constraints might be on the BNSF section LA River - Fullerton. There are two terminus tracks at Fullerton for trains from the south, so although not as useful it would be possible to terminate trains there, to at least have a higher frequency San Diego - Fullerton if that would be desirable.”
Electrification sounds tempting, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Even with Metrolink, Surfliner, and COASTER combined, the corridor barely hits ~ 40 weekday roundtrips-hovering near the lower edge of what’s typically considered viable for electrification in practice. Peak-hour headways may look promising, but the service remains tidal and uneven. Until the corridor proves it can support dense, all-day service with real passenger loads, electrification remains a premature indulgence. Regarding Metrolink, the San Bernardino line can perhaps show promise to be electrified… runs 22 roundtrips per weekday with relatively even spacing from morning to evening, making it the most promising candidate for electrification in the region. But even there, expanding service and confirming demand should come first.
“Merced-Stockton is planned to have 18 trains per day, to match the 18 planned trains on Cali HSR IOS, and afaik of these 18 something like 3 or so is planned to go via Martinez to Oakland and the others to Sacramento. Either way, all 18 would go to Stockton. In particular I think electrification is worth the cost as it would mean not needing to buy any more diesel trains or other not great options (battery trains, hydrogen trains where you emit no pollution locally but the hydrogen in practice comes from fossil sources).”
Eighteen trains per day equates to one train every 80 minutes. This does not meet the threshold for electrification efficiency. The strategic value of electrification lies in high-frequency, high-ridership corridors. Without significant service expansion, this idea represents a misalignment of infrastructure investment and operational yield.
“What labor agreement would be needed if you buy new trains that when coupled acts as a single train, while obviously when not coupled acts as individual trains?”
DeleteAh, the dream: buy new trains and hope to pick and choose better labor agreements . Sadly, Caltrain’s labor structure isn’t governed by consistent logic—it’s governed by legacy contracts, job protections, and a deep institutional fear of upsetting the status quo. You can couple two trainsets into one, but if the agreement says each half needs its own conductor, congratulations—you’ve just doubled your labor cost for the privilege of pretending to be efficient.
“Re precision: Given that for example NYC Subway at least manages to vary the frequency, there must be capacity for planning required capacity, and thus it must be possible to do things like this in Cali too. “
Yes, and NYC Subway also doesn’t share track with freight, doesn’t run on PTC, and doesn’t have to coordinate with Union Pacific’s mood swings. It’s a fully grade-separated, vertically integrated system. Olde-tyme commuter railroading Caltrain, meanwhile, runs on a part-time schedule with full-time excuses. Planning capacity isn’t the problem—executing it is.
“Just "bully" the decision makers by telling them that they seem less competent than their counterparts in NYC :)”
If that worked, Caltrain would have been modernized in the early 2000’s.
“Also, if coupling/uncoupling doesn't work you should threaten with firing everyone and only hiring staff that previously have worked at DSB (the danish state railways), as those are kind of known for actually not having trouble with coupling/uncoupling trains that are in service (for example when the frequency changes, at the start of rush hour you would want to couple trains, and after the rush hour you would want to uncouple them).”
DSB staff might be coupling trains mid-service, but they also operate in a system with standardized rolling stock, centralized control, and a culture of operational competence. Transplanting that into Caltrain’s fragmented, union-bound, multi-agency ecosystem would be like dropping a Formula 1 pit crew into a DMV office and expecting a race. No one would be taken seriously if they threatened to fire local workers who’ve never been trained in a better system—they’re not the problem, the system is.
“Re institutional competence and whatnot: A way to make the general public be a part of forcing competence: Just decide that if trains ends up out of schedule people would have to transfer to another train near the depot.”
Forcing passengers to transfer onto another train “near the depot” as punishment for late trains is less “institutional reform” and more “transit-themed hazing.” It’s a great way to generate complaints, not good service. But hey, if we’re going full Hunger Games, at least give the depot a snack bar !
“This would also be a great incentive for moving CEMOF (the maintenance depot north of Diridon) to south of San Jose, and use the existing land for high density mixed building development. That would also straighten curves reducing travel time a bit.“
Now we’re talking. Straighten the curves, unlock transit oriented development. But unless the redevelopment includes a new Caltrain station or a serious upgrade to College Park, good luck convincing the new neighbors to tolerate the Very Terrible Authority(VTA).
Delete“As a bonus I would think that part of the right-of-way could be used for a VTA light rail route if it would be desired to have closer spaced stops along that section. (Way better than the expensive idea of BART to Diridon and then northwards along the Caltrain route).”
Agreed. If the goal is to unlock TOD on the ex-CEMOF site, great—build the housing, straighten the tracks. But light rail has to actually go somewhere important. If the “bonus” is another 15 mph Toonerville Trolley crawling to a random coordinate in San Jose like the current system, it’s not a mobility solution—it’s a decorative ribbon on a planning document. We don’t need more lines that exist to say “we have transit.” We need service that actually goes somewhere, faster than a jog, and ideally doesn’t require a decoder ring to understand the schedule.
Your vision is admirable—ambitious, even. But ambition without comprehension is a blade without a hilt. Ground your strategy in the realities of these systems, and you may yet wield influence not as a dreamer, but as a master of outcomes. That is the kind of thoughts people remember, Mr. MiaM.
Gilroy councilmember & VTA PAC member Zach Hilton urges “suspend Gilroy Caltrain service”
ReplyDeleteBreaking News: New HSRA report suggests lengthening IOS, deferring Merced stub, and instead building from Madera to Gilroy.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few things buried in the announcement which each seem like a fairly big deal:
Delete- Increasing the baseline and maximum grades to 3.5% and 4%, respectively. This allows them to reduce the Pacheco pass tunnel length from 15.1to 7.1 miles, and Tehachapi pass tunnels from 10.8 to 5.8 miles. This by itself should be a massive cost saving.
- Reducing the design speed from 250mph to 220mph to match the maximum operating speed.
- Updating the seismic design requirements to use rail-specific specifications instead of the current manual from Caltrans (which is designed for roadway structures).
- Reducing vertical clearances from 27 to 16 feet.
Oh, this is really interesting!
DeleteMore or less halving the length of the tunnels would be a massive saving.
I used to think that Bakersfield-Palmdale is a better first project, but I've realized that that might cement the existing slow Palmdale-LA line as status quo for ages. Starting out with reaching Gilroy is better, as the connection Gilroy-San Jose is more or less obvious (and with the single track UP line it would be glaringly obvious to the least informed people on what needs to be done if Cali HSR starts running bus shuttles Gilroy-Tamien due to there only being 3-4 peak hours time slots in each direction, and no overhead electrification).
Not building the section to Merced would offer time to rethink what happens north of Merced - in particular there would be no need for an expensive transfer station and more so an expensive bridge connecting Cali HSR's station at the UP alignment to the BNSF route that the San Joaquins currently run at.
A major question now is what would happen to plans on improving ACE and the San Joaquins? Would they have to change the planned total 18 trains per day per direction (ACE+San Joaquins) to Merced to whatever fewer number of trains the same amount of money would buy if going further down to Madera?
Also I hope that the Cali HSR talks with Los Banos and perhaps the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority strongly hinting at while Cali HSR can't build a station there, the city itself and/or San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority can, much like Madera are doing. Like sure, it's only 50k people and it's single family housing, and the line would be a bit away from the city. But still, about half of the city would be within somewhat reasonable walking distance and all of the city are within comfortable bicycling distance to a possible station location.
The luke warm take is that Los Banos and Cali HSR ought to consider moving the HSR line a bit southwards (and/or use curves to divert to a station that is a bit south of the non-stop route, but that seems expensive with extra flyovers, and/or not great to have non-grade separated crossings between the rails).
I wonder where they initially got the idea of having 27 feet vertical clearance? Some sort of idea to use trains that would fit railways that can take double stack container trains? I.E. if they are going to share a section with BNSF LA-Anaheim the electrification needs to be higher up than elsewhere, and they perhaps aimed for this height everywhere? Seems expensive, pantographs that can handle way different heights seems way cheaper.
This should alert the reader more than the 2018 Business Plan that included a great reduction of high-speed-related expenditures and added much new with signals and gates at railroad crossings, indicating a change from separate high-speed route to sharing the Caltrain-Union Pacific route (don't forget the latter), between Gilroy and San Jose.
DeleteThe introduction with the three scenarios isn't the best, since these aren't independent, but rely on the first to be done, especially as it's currently required. Note the other two include Gilroy, meaning they commit to Pacheco Pass. Some would argue for the southern mountain crossing being done first, as it's better for rail transport rather than bragging rights by South Bay parties and a glorified bet on cheaper housing in the Central Valley. (New housing in particular still will be expensive.) The third scenario only reaches to Palmdale, doesn't include the second mountain crossing between Palmdale and Burbank. Ignore the related blabber throughout the introduction, including the junk about Brightline West, to which project literature continues to refer even though it's not the state's project. "Collaborate with partners," for examples, means trying to get money from them to complete 110 mph capability San Jose-San Francisco, for example. It's reasonable to assume that "first scenario" (what the project is required to do -- or is project management trying to make this conditional and this not be done?) should be done (tried?) first, and then the choice is between #2 and #3. Note there is no guarantee of any High Desert Corridor rail line any more than an overdue highway improvement.
1. Merced – Bakersfield: Complete the current statutorily required segment ...
2. San Francisco – Gilroy – Bakersfield: Build high-speed rail infrastructure extending from the Central Valley to Gilroy [...]
3. San Francisco – Gilroy – Palmdale: Build an expanded high-speed rail infrastructure from Gilroy to Palmdale [...]
@MiaM, the 27 feet vertical clearance requirement is characteristic of the project's design standards and incorporation of the Overhead Catenary System (OCS). More details merit a separate comment. It looks like more downgrading and it would be amusing to see any clam that the required end-to-end travel time could then be met. That's not just at Pacheco Pass, but what about the southern mountain crossings?
It's so amusing that now> cost-cutting opportunities are being sought that include primarily "to reduce the length of major cost and schedule drivers — namely tunnels, bridges, and associated earthworks" and emphasizing "reducing tunnel lengths." It's befitting they took the cheap route, to "refine the vertical route of the corridor" and did it to seek "significant reductions in tunnel requirements" so the project "reduces the number of critical path elements."
DeleteIn 2002, after the earlier tunneling convention in Marina Del Rey and the arrival at the decision to reduce tunneling in the high-speed rail convention, and for other reasons, the project management used Quantm route-finding and planning software (now Trimble Quantm) to examine mountain crossing routes for the project that would minimize tunneling and aerial structures, related earthwork. Some may recognize Quantm references in the Bakersfield-Palmdale segment literature for the project. Desired tunnel maximum length then was six (6) miles. Pacheco Pass was included. For Pacheco Pass, routes were found with maximum grade 3.5 per cent and also with maximum tunnel length within 6.0 miles. From the report's conclusion, there even is a reference to an earlier design study, plus a desirable route:
The alignment option identified in the previous Corridor Evaluation Study (1999) required 12 miles of tunnel with a maximum segment length of 4.5 miles. Refinement of this SR-152/Pacheco Pass alignment at 3.5% max grade identified an alignment and profile option that can potentially reduce the total required tunneling to only 5.2 miles.
(Note: The longest tunnel length for the new route is 1.5 miles.)
In the south, Bakersfield-Palmdale was described this way in 2002:
The minimum length of tunneling required through the Tehachapi Mountain crossing on the SR-58 corridor at a max grade of 3.5% is 5.1 miles as compared to 24 miles for the alignment options considered in the screening evaluation (at 2.8% maximum grade) and 5.8 miles for the alignment option considered in the previous corridor evaluation. [...] All major fault crossings can be maintained at-grade for the 3.5% maximum grade option in this corridor.
Now what the project is saying is this:
In the Pacheco Pass corridor, increasing the maximum allowable gradient could enable a reduction in tunnel length from 15.1 miles to 7.1 miles. In the Tehachapis, raising the maximum allowable gradient could eliminate four tunnels and shorten five others, reducing the total length of tunneling from 10.8 miles to 5.8 miles.
(Is the previous 1999 option being considered for Bakersfield-Palmdale as part of design compromises? I wouldn't put it past them.)
Other reductions like the maximum speed of 250 mph where possible, to enable future performance increases (previous standard) to 200 mph aren't necessarily limited to the mountain crossings. (!) If the overhead clearance is reduced to the latest envelope figure, what other reductions in tunnel bores and tunnel speeds will follow, and will it be retroactively applied to the rest of the system? Then there is the pathetic grubbing for more money with the Ancillary Revenue Opportunities, including baggage and other travel fees and parking fees. (!) How many potential patrons will be lost, then? That's aside from the specter of, say, "Meta Fresno High-Speed Rail Station." What are power costs to climb steeper grades? Things are getting worse for this project. Will the required end-to-end times for non-stop trains still be met?
Meanwhile, committing to Pacheco Pass still means a worse system than if Altamont Pass were used. But this is California politics, and project management.
What other interesting details, and any more surprises, will be in a future Business Plan?
@Nick@, the reduction of maximum speed where possible from 250 to 220 mph (in the tunnels, 200 mph has been discussed) represents a step back, the loss of the ability to operate faster at a future date (after start of high-speed rail service). The project administration is no longer anticipating being able to run at higher speeds to demonstrate system use. I'd rather see something more refined than their refinements, namely to limit reduced speeds to the mountain crossings. (Stated in the literature, explicitly) As to a lower catenary height, it's still unclear what effect that has on tunnel bores, which need to be large to permit high speeds.
DeleteIt wouldn't surprise me to see a slowdown in the mountains and a waiver on the end-to-end non-stop travel time requirements.
@MiaM. Los Banos could see a station and development around it if the high-speed rail project, the MTC (Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission), and others in government acquire land first there for housing, mainly, and some commercial development, then get a waiver from state law or force through a revision in a ballot measure (with Los Banos as a station site appealing to many now, probably, as a known way to boost patronage, by commuters at the ideal site), to enable it to happen legally. The housing can be built before the train station, too.
The real speed constraints in this scenario aren’t the tunnels—they matter less than the slow blended segments at each end. Also, a waiver likely isn’t necessary if the project shows steady, phased progress toward the requirement.
DeleteFor example: first extend electrified service to Gilroy from San Jose at 79 mph on Caltrain, then upgrade to 110 mph, then 125 mph, and so on. If each step trims a few minutes from travel times, regulators/politicians should be satisfied and a waiver wouldn't be needed. This approach also gets service running sooner and upgrades later, rather than insisting on a gold-plated solution upfront which would make things more complicated and more expensive.
Bringing San Francisco to San Jose up to 125 mph alone saves over 10 minutes, if not 15-20. The San Jose–Gilroy corridor is relatively easy to upgrade with full grade separations or bypasses (e.g., Morgan Hill and Gilroy) where HSR trains could reach 220 mph by the 101/85 interchange. Even capped at 125 mph, that's still a significant savings - 15 to 30 minutes alone on this stretch, and would cost less than 5 miles of tunnels.
A similar strategy applies in Southern California. Skipping Burbank Airport and building a downtown Burbank station, plus grade separating and upgrading the Sun Valley–LA Union Station stretch to 125 mph+, would get 5–10 minutes in savings at a fraction of the cost of additional tunneling.
By contrast, reducing tunnel speeds from 220 to 200 mph costs only 5 minutes per tunnel but saves billions. For instance, cutting $3 billion from the Pacheco tunnels would make the system cheaper and faster to deliver, while freeing funds for later, easier upgrades that further improve travel times.
Also - for Los Banos, yes. This is another way CAHSR could have additional revenue to finance tunnels and upgrades - sell off slots through Pacheco to Los Banos commuter trains. They can do the same in the south with Brightline West.
> Bringing San Francisco to San Jose up to 125 mph alone saves over 10 minutes, if not 15-20
DeleteIn a world where Caltrain doesn't exist, that's true. But Caltrain exists, and HSR will have to use the slot afforded to it without destroying local service quality on the peninsula. If they want to cannonball, they'll have to build more tracks and grade separations than is budgeted for in their plan (~zero)
Interestingly HSR don't even include the cost of purchasing and electrifying San Jose to Gilroy in their current cost plan. They vaguely say they will "collaborate with partners to enhance the Gilroy to San Jose rail corridor" and budget only for station improvements and rolling stock to extend from Gilroy to SF. It's really presented as a "Gilroy to Bakersfield" plan with an assumption that something will be figured out later for the rest. I still prefer it to the Merced to Bakersfield IOS which never made any sense from a ridership perspective.
Delete@jpk122s, the high-speed project saying it will "collaborate with partners" means it wants money from them, in this case mainly for track work, and the signal and gate upgrades, between Gilroy and San Jose. I do not know nor do I believe California HSR is working with Caltrain on any grade separations on Gilroy to San Jose, which is sleepier than the Peninsula route. Clem has advocated a bus service for Gilroy-San Jose in place of Caltrain; it's that sleepy. (Would also apply to Salinas or Monterey Bay service extensions)
DeleteMeanwhile, there are enough people to be concerned about crossing blockage such as at Tennant Avenue that they'd like a grade separation if possible. To date the HSR management has opposed this and part of the reasoning isn't reasoning but political activism; a grade separation could facilitate an increase in evil VMT and activists in state government cannot accept that. (Tell that nonsense to ambulance drivers.)
@Clem, fair point. I am trying to say that grade seps + upgrades between SF and Gilroy net more bang for your buck in terms of raising speeds along that alignment compared to the faster speeds in the tunnels (designed for 242mph). I know Caltrain doesn't have a plan or interest for this (they should), but I think there will be political pressure on Caltrain/VTA/MTC/etc once we see the Pacheco tunnels break ground. That should then be the impetus for investments between SF & Gilroy. We'll see what happens!
DeleteSo, in this sense, lowering tunnel speeds to 200mph or even 220mph probably saves $5B or more, and only increases travel times by a couple of minutes. Putting even a fraction of that towards SF-Gilroy improvements will save a lot more time for a lot less dollars, especially if they follow the blue print you put forward. A lot of these upgrades between SF-Gilroy are just marginal things in that sense.
Specifically, along the corridor, Gilroy - Capitol station could easily be a 110-125mph route as is with very little adjustment to the ROW or curves or alignment, just requiring a few grade separations between towns, quad gates in towns, and just two curve realignments. Over time, fully grade separating the corridor would be much easier and cheaper than SF - San Jose. This route could even get up to 220mph and would have minimal impacts.
The real challenge would be SF-San Jose and this is where MTC and the state needs to step in (see Californians for Electric Rail on Bluesky for some good discussion) to have a corridor-wide approach to grade separations and improvements instead of an individualized gold plated approach for each and every crossing with a bespoke city-specific solution.
Just my 2 cents!
Re Los Banos, again: It's in Merced County. That is one of the counties in the area that don't have a really large city and also isn't part of the bay area itself. That might make it more interested in expanding and doing things to make itself more popular, than most other counties might be. (Or it might not, hard to tell without examining the electorate).
DeleteIn particular the actual city of Los Banos is almost the built up area, with just a few empty areas (mostly to the east of the current city). The HSR route is NOT within the city.
Thus Merced County could buy land and more or less form a new city around a station. They could even call it "Dos Banos" as a pun.
Re San Jose - Gilroy:
I'm very much against any incremental improvements. The end result is likely that phase 17 of 42 phases will never go ahead, as there won't be political will for going further.
It's politically better to have the HSR trains terminate at Gilroy and send the passengers on buses or the shittiest old gallery double decker trains on the existing route, and then have them transfer to Caltrain EMUs at Tamien. That is the best way to create public opinion for actually building HSR Gilroy-Tamien.
Suggestion: Call the diesel hauled trains "Bunion Horrific" as a word play on "Union Pacific"
Re San Jose - SF speeds:
Changing the max line speed, and/or changing acceleration for the trains, just moves where you need quad track stations. Sure, you might need a few more passing places in some scenarios, but still.
Also increasing the max speed results in the HSR trains and express Caltrain trains running faster off-peak than peak hours, which is also a great way of creating public opinion for quad tracking. Heck, you could even run only all-stoppers every 10-15 minutes peak hours, while running a fast and a slow train, every 30 minutes each, during off-peak hours. That clearly demonstrates what speeds are possible, but also that more track capacity is needed.
Remember that while the general public aren't all idiots, most of them aren't particularly informed in how railways work, and aren't interested in learning either, so blatantly clear examples is the best way to convey the message.
@MiaM - I don't agree on SJ - Gilroy. Look at Google Maps and count how many grade crossings can be closed *right now* with zero or minimal impact, or closed with some minor realignments of roads (e.g., Rucker Avenue as is in Gilroy, or Blanchard Road & Emado Avenue by Metcalf with a small extension of the road west to Santa Teresa Road). Additionally, the ROW is almost straight enough to run 220mph with just two curves to fix, grade separations, fencing, and HSR/Caltrain specific tracks. For that reason, a phased approach is actually ideal here IMO. Also, this allows for Caltrain, MTC, long distance Amtrak, etc to pitch in since they can benefit also.
DeleteSpecifically, there are only really 6 to 7 projects on the corridor to get it to 220mph. If done in this order, you can get 110, then 125 then 220 in very short order:
1: Grade separations on all crossings outside of the Morgan Hill & Gilroy cluster. Most of these rural crossings can be closed either as is or with a road extension like the examples above. This will cost at most $50M.
2: Quad gates in towns to allow 110mph operation. I dunno the cost, but let's say $200M.
3: Additional tracks & electrification. The ROW is wide enough for 90% of the route right now, so assume little to no land acquisition cost. 60 miles times $14M per mile = $840M
-110mph electrified operation, at $1.09B so far -
4: Curve straightening - there are just two!! One is at Metcalf and one is crossing Llagas Creek just north of San Martin. Metcalf would need realignment of Monterey Highway, and Llagas would need some farmland purchased. Call it $50-100M.
4: San Martin grade separations - If you redo Llagas Creek crossing, the San Martin station is right there and easily grade separated in the same project on a berm. Add in $10M here for contingency.
-125mph operation except near Morgan Hill and Gilroy at another $60-110M (running total so far is $1.1B-1.19B) -
5: Gilroy grade separations: with good coordination, you could put up most of the tracks on a berm very easily, continuing south of San Martin, with prefabricated crossings, and a few closed ones in downtown Gilroy, too. Say, $300M tops, since it's mostly just dirt and fill to raise the tracks at most 5 to 10 feet. Preferably, the city funds and leads most of this.
6: Morgan Hill grade separations: This is the tough one, but 4 to 5 grade separations via a 1.5 mile long berm and a new station costs around $500M. Preferably, the city funds and leads most of this.
7: Fencing and intrusion detection until Capitol station: $500M.
-220mph operation until just before Capitol, total cost of $2.39B-
8: Side note, Caltrain will need to either add more tracks or get faster trains, but that's not included here.
220mph from Pacheco tunnel exit to Capitol station saves as much as 15 mins fwiw.
As for SF and SJ - that's a different beast altogether. I think the only solution is for the state to step in to lead a corridor-wide project, with cities contributing a percentage, HSR a percentage, Caltrain/MTC a percentage, the state a percentage, and the feds a percentage. Build it with one standardized design on berms or prefabricated beams shipped in, and if cities want it underground, they pay the difference. Done. While that'll cost $5B or something, it needs to be done.
Travel time difference between Express and Local is 18 min in current schedule. Base take of 20 min will need by-pass or slow down the express. Can Millbrae platform 4S use for local train waiting while Express arriving main platform 4? Providing Express-Local transfer enalbes Traveling time reduction both Express and Local train.Traditional express by-passing @Bayshore and Lawrence provide negative impact to local train.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea being proposed here is to run 3tph locals all day every day and eliminate the express. Like BART blue line service.
DeleteRe 20 minute base service, I posted about some of the trade-offs of trying to work extra peak trains a couple months ago in this thread of comments. There are placeholder trains in the Taktulator link that can be made active to look at 3/4/5/6 trains per hour in all-local and limited-stops mixtures.
DeleteAssuming one wishes to keep the base 20 minute service all day every day (and I personally find this a very appealing concept!), then what?
As you observe, because of Caltrain's stupidly located and misconfigured worthless little bits of quadruple track, any extra trains can't have a radically different stopping pattern («constrained by being about ~10 minutes faster at most SF-SJ, which translates into no more than 7 or 8 skipped stops), and even then trains bunch up non-helpfully.
So maybe just putting in some more of the same at peak, going to 10 minute headways, or some 10 minute headways? That's what BART does, of course.
Is 4tph spaced 10/10/20/20 minutes apart useful in practice for Caltrain peaks? Or should that 1tph be limited stops? Who's going to time theur life around saving 10 minutes by waiting for an hourly train?
How about 5tph 10/10/10/10/20? 6tph?
Does 6tph service on Caltrain make even the slightest sense given it took BART decades to get to the point where it filled trains operating that frequently, smaller trains running with lower crewing snd lower operating cost and connecting to most advantageous possible SF-Oakland core corridor?
Clem likes to point out that Caltrain has the trains (ie has far too many far too poorly-configured fat-ass trains) to run 6tph. But who's going to pay for that? Yes, Caltrain's fixed operating overheads are insanely high, but everybody in the country is screaming poor-mouth for single dollars of marginal operating cost, and saying "we're already super inefficient so let's double down on that" has limited appeal to anybody on this side of the taxpaying ledger.
And at 6tph, who's going to ride? 101 and 280 continue to exist. Caltrain fares remain unattractively high. Caltrain's SF station remains peripheral. Connecting transit to Caltrain south of SF remains laughable.
I'd love a world where non-empty 183m long double deck trains came every 10 minutes. I've spent three decades going on about it! But honestly I have little idea any longer about how one might get there from where we are.
A general remark re partial quad tracking and faster trains overtaking slower trains:
DeleteIn general it's a good idea to have quad tracking extending from the station where the fast trains stop, to the adjacent only-slow-stop station in each direction. That way you have the travel time between these stations as margins for delays to not cascade between the slow and fast services, and you also avoid needing switches that can handle fast trains in the diverging route.
As for Milbrae: I don't know what would be a good layout here.
How about having all Caltrain trains stop both at Milbrae and San Bruno, build a new BART station directly under the Caltrain San Bruno station, and just run a single shuttle BART train between Milbrae and SFO?
For at least one of the stations (whichever HSR would eventually stop at)you'd want easy transfers between slow and fast Caltrain trains.
At San Bruno you'd want easy transfers between both BART directions and any Caltrain train. I don't know how the BART tracks are laid out underground here. If they are above each other (unlikely, but still) you could have escalators from two Caltrain platforms, reaching each BART platform. Otherwise you'd need some sort of mezzanine level of sorts, possibly above the Caltrain platforms and/or below the BART platforms (each of these options are worse than between the platforms, but there is likely not enough space for that). Or if the platforms are angled to each other it might be possible to avoid this.
At Milbrae you'd want easy transfers between all Caltrain trains and at least one terminating BART platform. Have a BART platform either above or below two Caltrain platforms and either have the BART platform as a terminus platform, or have a pedestrian bridge that covers the tracks to the BART depot (you could even have a BART compatible trailer that fills this gap). Or as the station anyways needs to be rebuilt, just elevate the Caltrain route and lower the BART tracks, and have ground level as a mezzanine level.
Another option would be to scrap Milbrae BART, have all major interchanges at a future improved San Bruno station, and have a stabling track for at least one BART train north of the station, ready to be put in service as a SFO shuttle if there are any disruptions on the BART service.
IMHO perhaps the best option would be to extend the SFO Airtrain both to Milbrae and San Bruno, and use that as main way for transfers between Caltrain and SFO.
Or just f**k flying and ignore those changes...
Other possibilities of 3 tracks or 4 tracks without significant constructions. (1) Sunnyvale northbound platform is wide enough to add one more truck. This can be used for turn around to north. Ridership density north of Sunnyvale support additional train. (2) Millbrae can add southbound 4th track as westside of station have lot of vacant area.
ReplyDeleteThe west side of Millbrae station is about the be developed with TOD as HSR and Millbrae just agreed a settlement. I believe the current HSR plan is to add a dedicated center platform for HSR but keep it at 2 tracks.
DeleteSpeaking of HSR, Caltrain thinks that expanding Cal Ave. to 4 tracks as an overtake location is the best option, but I think they should consider 3 tracks at Palo Alto (already wide enough) and 3 tracks at Cal Ave as an alternative lower cost solution.
If they really wanted to quad track or add express tracks and there are constraints, they can have a stacked alignment using prefabricated beams like they do in the Central Valley for their crossovers across freight tracks. One standard design along the entire corridor saves a lot of time and money tbh.
DeleteI'd keep Caltrain on the bottom at 79-110mph with some limited grade crossings, stack in areas that are horizontally constrained. In some cases, future-proof the alignment to allow for 4 tracks on the elevated alignment, and over time, convert the space below to trails and station space. If cities want cut/cover or tunnels, they can pay the difference. Done.
"The west side of Millbrae station is about the be developed with TOD as HSR and Millbrae just agreed a settlement"
DeleteDeath is too kind a fate.
Anonymous- The foundations to support a stacked alignment above the existing tracks are likely to be as wide, or wider than the width of a track at grade. The columns needed to support the bent that would span the existing tracks do not just go straight into the ground. They are supported on a series of piles that are joined together at a concrete base (usually just below ground level) that the column then rise from. You're not saving any right of way by building over existing tracks. There are also buried utilities along the right of way that would need to find a new home. And if the upper tracks need to pass OVER an existing roadway overcrossing, things are going to get really tall.
DeletePalo Alto University Ave have unutilized space between SB/NB tracks which can fit for two tracks. Then, remove existing track platform to convert 2 Island Platforms with 4 tracks which enables transfer between local and Express or Limited and San Mateo Local. There is also space for turn around pocket track south of the station.
DeleteRebuilding Redwood City station will take 5~10 years from now. Will Caltrain's Peak ridership recovery take such long?
With Clipper 2 (aka “Next Gen”) Caltrain will be dumping its longtime popular Caltrain mobile ticket and parking app (developed & maintained by moovel) and switching to ParkMobile, a parking-only app, as described here.
ReplyDeleteBut why? (stop reading here, Richard!)
The first bullet on page 3 “Context” explains:
* Clipper Next Gen requires the removal of competing apps within 6 months of launch; this has previously been agreed to by the board.
Death is too kind a fate
DeleteStaff’s May 28 “Next Generation Clipper Implementation, Challenges, and Mitigation Strategies” presentation slides to the board’s TOPS Committee mentions the plan for “floating” validity of monthly passes. Instead of being anchored to a set of one or more contiguous fare zones, monthlies will be valid for n zones of travel. Of course this means one could travel the length of the Caltrain line with a 2-zone pass by stringing together a bunch of tap on/off and on again “rides” across zone boundaries … so there will be a re-tap on after tap-off time-out period that would prevent jumping out to quickly tap off & back on and reboarding the same train.
DeleteLOL...."Upgrade from Crystal Reports to a modern datastore and reporting system."
DeleteSo who the hell is crying out for "flexible" multi-zone monthly passes?
DeleteThere is NO USE CASE.
The WHOLE POINT of any unlimited-rides-for-X-period tickets is firstly to avoid the bullshit hassle of buying and/or validating the same product over and over again (I want to get on the train and RIDE SOMEWHERE, not fucking jump through hoops that solely profit Cubic Systems Inc, and expose my to all sorts of bullshit fines and threats if I happen to not exactly follow the instructions from the authorities that maximally profit Cubic Systems Inc.)
Secondary goals of such fare media are to "reward" loyal customers (I don't think this is a valid goal, given that those who can most afford to pay or have somebody else pay up-front for long-validity fare instruments are those least need even more fiscal support) and encouraging recreational use (through the buyer's sunk cost fallacy: "I already have a Caltrian pass for riding to work; I guess I'll take a recreational weekend trip to Hayward Park, just for fun")
But there's no gain for anybody if the thing they're selling is "any trip of maximal value $X, for an inflexible period of one CALENDAR month, and we're going to make you tap on and tap off on ever single trip because that's what Cubic Systems Inc wants us to make you do, and if you want to exceed to maximum trip value FINE CITATION HAH HAH HAH."
For that case it is FAR better to just sell stored-value cards and do per-PERIOD (per-24-hours or per-3*24-hours or per-8*24-hours or per-31*24-hours) CAPPING of maximal spend, not per-ride maximum spend.
The whole "flexible" concept of putting an upper limit on the value of any particular ride but then saying "ride all you want" is insane.
But this is all REALLY about MANDATORY TAG-ON TAG-OFF and about mandatory maximalized profits for Cubic Systems Inc and, in the long run, the sweet, sweet, sweet hundreds of millions of dollars "required" for access controlling and fare-gating every station and building mezzanine levels and separate landside and airside circulation and concrete everywhere.
Because the assholes not only don't begin to understand Proof of Payment, and why it WORKS FOR CUSTOMERS and WORKS for NON-CUSTOMER-HOSTILE transit operators, but they're implacably hostile to their customers. After all, one of them might, somewhere, at sometime, get away with something, and the most important thing is zero fare evasion, which we can totally achieve, even if it means deploying the Arkansas National Guard to San Francisco to achieve full pacification.
Total shitheads.
The point of multi-ride and time-limited passes is to MINIMIZE TRANSACTION OVERHEADS -- mostly for the convenience of THE CUSTOMER, but also for the agency too!
Being forced to constantly tag on and and tag off via Cubic System's sole-source hardware MAXIMIZES TIME AND HASSLE (and opportunity for massive "accidental" overcharging, always in the vendor's favour), while incurring more costs and erequiring more stupid equipment --- which is exactly what rent-seeking bid-rigging sole-source-queen pig-fucking defense contractor Cubic Systems wants.
And imagine what a shit-show of extra delay the horrible SF 4th&Townsend station is going to become with mandatory tag-off. In addition to the today's utter bullshit of three dudes standing around with Cubic scanners subjecting every boarding passenger to a shitty Amtrak-style line to be processed through the stupid narrow door to the stupid narrow platform, a double dose of shit is going to be forced on every passenger after they get off the train and single-file through stupid single-access-point door and then have to queue up yet again to wave their Cubic card at Cubic's machines to make Cubic happy and fat.
For what?
If any of those rider-hostile clowns actually wanted to IMPROVE anything, RIGHT NOW, you'd make "monthly" passes valid for 31*24 hours, and "day" passes valid for 24 hours (one tag-on per MONTH or per DAY, not TWO PER TRIP), and you'd make the TVM and online Clipper software to buy and to activate before boarding a "zone upgrade" add-on ticket really fast and simple and easy.
DeleteI should be able to go to the Caltrain WEB SITE, and in about two clicks or finger stabs have a "one zone upgrade valid for 2 hours from now" in the wallet on my phone, using the payment methods on my phone. No I don't want your fucking app. No, I don't want to register another worthless useless fucking account to be compromised in some data breach. I want to buy something, and I want to do it now, and WHY THE HELL DO YOU MAKE THINGS DIFFICULT?
This stuff was completely solved, using pieces of printed paper and coins, decades ago. In theory it should be VASTYLY EASIER today. In theory. In theory. Qui bono?
From the latest TOPS meeting agenda, Caltrain plans to lease their 3 remaining F40PH-2C locomotives and 16 Bombardier coaches (13 trailers, 3 cabs) to Caltrans for use on NorCal Amtrak services and/or ACE for up to 5 years. Lease is expected to generate $2.14 million per year and save $500k on maintenance and insurance costs.
ReplyDeleteAlso mentioned is that Caltrain plans to retire the aforementioned locomotives once they receive the remaining EMUs.