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.
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.
DeleteWould 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!
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
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.
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!
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.
ReplyDelete