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.
DeleteThe 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.
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.)
Deletetightening 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!
Delete