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.
All these idiots and worse want to get involved in real estate development and join the other creators of cheap eyesore future slums, for the most part, including MTC, which has sought to bankroll this kind of development. It shouldn't even be a subject or topic, should be incomprehensible, but we have those in charge of the Peninsula line sacrificing right-of-way, a railroad management sacrificing railroading, to this lowly "cause."
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.
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.
@InfrastructureWeak, don't forget the contemporary money-grubbing things the Authority says it can resort to (so much for the years of affordability boasts and claims, with fares) such as baggage fees and the like.
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.)
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.
There isn't much literature out there on triple-tracking operations, possibly because it's so rare, and so rare because ...
DeleteWhat would that say of any combined -- nope, not Altamont Pass, no serious support for that exists now by the powers that be, but Palmdale to Burbank with both high-speed service and local-regional service, including commuters, on the route with two, or three tracks? Why not make it four if enough service cannot fit on two.
RE four tracks over Palmdale - Burbank, they can use the tunnels for HSR/express trains, upgrade the Antelope Valley line for locals/regionals.
DeleteSame goes with Pacheco & Altamont. Pacheco + Altamont can spread around trains negating the need for a 4 track tunnel or 4 track crossing on either end.
@Anonymous 05 Sep 25 0840, yes, support an electrified Metro Rail regional service, and the access by trains throughout the coastal area, a.k.a. future Electrorail, as those wanting it there call it.
DeleteAltamont Pass also obviously needs this, but sadly, again, MTC has been failing, fails now, will fail later at this, along with local governments and the state. The Bay Area commuter shed reached into the northern San Joaquin Valley in Tracy and onward starting in the 1970s due to housing costs more than anything else. Long-distance commuting for tech now is hardly anything new, just a larger problem now. In a better-run state and with a better MTC and other authorities, the high-speed rail project would be piggybacking on local and regional rail, including a new Altamont Pass route that already was built, with four tracks from the start, incidentally.
Pacheco Pass offers much less value than Altamont Pass. It would be more important and busier if the Monterey Bay area inland to Salinas and other places like Carmel Valley near it were already highly or fully developed into another national-class coastal metro area south of the Bay Area. (Nope.)
Mention of the Monterey Bay area is a reminder some occasionally want rail service from (San Jose to) Los Gatos to Santa Cruz, often reviving the old rail line. They don't realize the old line has part of it underwater, other parts unavailable. There was a study of the route some time ago, for the curious; here it is again, the 1994 study. That's as of 1994: There is no base tunnel from beside the reservoir south under the ridge to the existing rail system or near it in the Scotts Valley area to reach Santa Cruz. Never mind light rail, heavy rail connecting San Jose to Los Gatos to a Monterey Bay rail line at Santa Cruz (and junction at Watsonville) or BART, no access tunnel with it open for recreational use, etc., no proposal for "masterful" Boring Company one-lane tunnel for Tesla cars.
@Anonymous 05 Sep 25 0840, I favor combining, or consolidating, train operations onto a new, better route, and combining all parties' funds for that purpose, too, incidentally, to create a better system. Routing LA metro-high desert trains through the new tunnel is an incentive for the LA system to feature at least some (principal first, then increasing) electrified routes, too, and again, that means an appeal or claim to funds. Think of reduced local energy costs, too.
DeleteIn Nor-Cal, the prospect of building two new crossings, Altamont and Pacheco, is dim. The existing Altamont route could be kept, some might say, but it's very slow and limited in capacity. It includes Niles Canyon as a slow section as well as Altamont Pass itself, including if the old, original transcontinental route is revived for this. Pacheco is the wrong choice and has been made by the Authority for political reasons, San Jose people having a small city complex. (See their subway system planned for BART that's more ambitious and grandly conceived than BART subways on the system elsewhere, including in downtown San Francisco.) South Bay interests would be happy for worker bees to imitate Japanese commuters on fast trains living far away for cheaper housing, too.
Where Pacheco could be improved is for conventional rail, if anything, to serve warehouses better.
@jpk122s, it doesn't only take political will, it continues to take what continues to be neglected, or in the HSR program's case, ignoring the fact, an agreement with Union Pacific for operations as well as adding any tracks or making any other physical changes along the right-of-way, San Jose-GIlroy. No, neither the project nor any governments have mentioned eminent domain to force new features.
Delete1: anon @15:40 - Agreed with combining NorCal rail ops. I think an east coast Caltrain + regional service between the Bay Area and Sacramento via Altamont and via Carniquez (merging Cap Corridor + ACE), would work great. Adding in Link21, and we'd be cooking here. The same goes with SoCal - Metrolink needs to get their shit together and try to electrify at least the routes they own outright. If they do that, it means BLW direct to LA Union; and Antelope Valley direct for HSR in an earlier stage (but slower).
DeleteAs for Altamont vs Pacheco, I disagree. If SF - SJ is upgraded to 125mph, and SJ - Gilroy to 125+ (preferably 220), that cancels out the advantage of Altamont, plus is likely cheaper (since there's no bridge to build). From there, you can work to upgrade Altamont gradually, and if it turns out to be a good express/regional route, good. The entire region is going to need the extra capacity of both routes, even if cities along the Pacheco route becomes a bedroom community of SF and SJ. I could see in the future an SF - Altamont - Interstate 5 - LA express route while Pacheco is for highway 99 trains.
2: Anon @15:46: I think it does correlate with political will. Political will would have meant that some surplus funds would have went to HSR, or a bigger share of cap and trade to HSR if it had the political support. The issue is that it's far easier to throw HSR a small bone, and kick the can down the road while maintaining you did something for transit. You don't even need eminent domain at this point - UP would love to sell off land next to their tracks which is free money to do basically nothing for them. In certain areas, realign the tracks, sure, but that's a rounding error in terms of the cost compared to a new route. Even if we were to acquire the UP Coast Subdivision south of Oakland all the way to Gilroy, that only requires minor upgrades of existing UP tracks and a purchase of that segment. Again, this is still a rounding error compared to the cost of entirely new tracks, and still a rounding error cheaper than any eminent domain at all.
A wild card is BART to Stockton.
DeleteWith reasonable regional rail performance, eBART but with EMUs, with say 1-3 extra stops plus of course Stockton itself, would likely provide faster travel times than the current San Joaquins via Martinez and Richmond, when comparing Oakland-Stockton.
Of course it's bad if an S-Bahn style system is faster than few-stops mainline rail, but still.
If BNSF would be fine with adding overhead electrification that would be ideal. Double track just west of the bridge (or whatever it is that the rail runs on west of Stockton surrounded by water) up to where a new eBART route would diverge. East Bay Municipal Utility District (which I assume is a public entity) owns a suitable potential right-of-way from where the BNSF tracks turns northwestwards, where this potential ROW runs along Grant Streent. While it would be ideal to turn and run on the UP route, it would also be possible to continue westwards to SR4, or potentially turn a block or two before reaching the highway, on land owned by Contra Costa Water District, along Jeffrey Way. The city of Antioch and "CCC FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONS" owns land to the east of the highway. Also the highway itself is on a rather large parcel. The possible potential problem is if this utility district land is actually used by something that can't easily/cheaply be moved and is incompatible with using the land for rail.
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.
Between San Jose and Gilroy there is already developed area and communities who won't accept having their circulation impeded much more with the introduction of passenger rail service. There are communities, so expect speeds limited to 125 mph -- earlier plans neglected this, true as well with Tracy to Manteca and elsewhere that the trains will be running in the Central Valley, not only closely at each end like San Jose - San Francisco (or Millbrae - San Francisco) or Burbank - L.A. Arbitrary crossing closures are unwelcome there as they would be on the Peninsula or in Palmdale or between Burbank and Los Angeles, as elsewhere where it's settled, even if sleepier. The busier streets are overdue, if anything, already for grade separations, would be if many more trains ran.
DeleteThe 2018 business plan had money shifted from stand-alone high-speed infrastructure to signal and gate, etc., improvements (for 110 mph) along San Jose-Gilroy. These could be adjusted for inflation.
Ideally there, as overdue for generations on the Peninsula, it all should be grade separated on either an embankment or a viaduct. Both provide opportunities for much improved traffic circulation. That is not what the state will do, though, on either segment.
Trains between Gilroy and San Jose will run through a developed area, won't be able to run at high speed, and it's only 30+ miles, not suited for running very far or long at a higher speed, anyway. At Gilroy the high-speed line changes from approximately north-south connecting Gilroy to points north to east-west connecting Gilroy to the eastern side of the Central Valley before another switch to north-south to connect to points south.
Yes, that's south, not points "north and south," not at this time. Are most aware of strategies now and how the Merced station might be skipped for now? ("QUICK!" say Los Banos station proponents. "While there's no Merced station, start a station in Los Gatos! It's legal if there's no Merced station!")
Aside from being limited to around 125 mph for noise, it's only 30 miles from San Jose to Gilroy, less than 50 kilometers, and how much time and distance will be taken by acceleration and deceleration?
The SJ–Gilroy corridor is much less developed than people think—outside Morgan Hill and Gilroy it’s mostly farmland. With grade separations and a couple of curve fixes, the existing ROW could support 110–125 mph service cheaply. Going from north to south, the grade crossings are:
DeleteSan Jose crossings:
-Auzerais: quad gates are fine since Diridon is nearby.
-West Virginia: close outright.
-Skyway, Branham, Chynoweth: already in planning for grade separations.
Between Blossom Hill & Morgan Hill:
-Easy fixes/closures: Blanchard, Fox
-Needed separations: Tilton, Masten, Buena Vista, E Middle, San Martin Ave (including a new station)
Gilroy area:
-Rucker/Las Animas
-Close ~half the crossings in Gilroy proper (e.g., IOOF, Martin, 7th).
Upgrade the rest of the crossings in town (Morgan Hill, Gilroy) with quad gates, and if needed in the future, do a stacked alignment or full grade separation, but I don't think it's necessary unless HSR traffic is overwhelming.
Travel time & cost:
~16 minutes SJ–Gilroy nonstop (vs ~50 minutes today).
-Cost ≈ $1B for 110–125 mph
Full 220 mph would only save ~7 more minutes but cost ≈ $6B (because of bypasses/stacks through Morgan Hill & Gilroy), so I personally would start with a 110–125 mph upgrade on the existing ROW—cheap, fast to implement, and expandable later when demand grows via bypasses or a stacked alignment in towns.
Plus, the rest of the alignment outside of the towns, if separated, could be upgraded to higher speeds very easily since it's mostly at grade through farmland.
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.
This makes me wonder if Caltrain should do a better job in utilizing the diesel fleet. Why can't they run their diesel trains past Diridon to reach Santa Clara/Levi, and maybe even to Coliseum or Jack London Square? They can take over the Jack London or Coliseum - Diridon service with hourly trains or something, and capture more riders that way.
Delete@Anonymous There are a few issues: the coast subdivision north of Santa Clara is very capacity constrained. Between Amtrak, ACE, and Union Pacific basically all of the capacity has been utilized. The very long stretches of single track only allow a single train to pass in each direction every hour or so. There are a couple of projects that will partially alleviate this, but the core bottleneck of line through the Alviso wetlands will remain unresolved, and can only be resolved with an expensive viaduct.
DeleteThe other issue is that they would need to acquire and compete for slots from Union Pacific with the two other passenger operators, one of which (Amtrak) has a statutory right of access to, and (funding being provided) would likely take up said slots as they have expressed interest in doing so.
@Nick, understood. Thank you for the clarification!
DeleteI just think Caltrain is not using it's diesel fleet very well, and in literally the most inefficient manner possible. Based on your comments, I wonder if this is possible?
1. Merge Capitol Corridor and Caltrain diesel service (south bay service) to free up more slots + provide more service south of Coliseum, where you truncate all Capitol Corridor trains to terminate at Coliseum, and diesel Caltrains terminate at Coliseum as well. The diesel Caltrains take over the Coliseum - Diridon responsibilities.
2. Create cross-platform transfers for diesel Caltrain to Capitol Corridor, with hourly service. This allows for BART, OAK connector, Capitol Corridor, and diesel Caltrains as a good interchange station, but might mean more upgrades at this station, but there's plenty of room if you expand into the industrial buildings next to the area, also allowing for future TOD to improve the area. This means now you have a Coliseum - Fremont - Levi - Santa Clara - Diridon - Tamien - Capitol - Blossom Hill - Morgan Hill - Gilroy train every hour in each direction.
3. Once the Monterey Extension work is complete, add that to this line, so after Gilroy, it would be Gilroy - Watsonville/Pajaro - Salinas. Also, consider the Capitol Corridor vision plan ideas, where the line is moved to the Coast Subdivision with a new station in Newark, making it faster and an express service that complements BART well.
4. Additionally, also consider a few trains a day that start/end in Hollister via this line after Gilroy to rope in San Benito County for cheap.
Now, you've created an East Bay Caltrain service that reaches both Monterey County and San Benito County, setting up a future expansion of Caltrain very nicely, while also utilizing the equipment more appropriately. This also has the advantage of turning trains quicker for Capitol Corridor.
What do you think?
Caltrain's "better job in utilizing the diesel fleet" is having no diesel fleet (aside from whatever couple locomotives are needed for work and rescue trains.)
DeleteIt ought to be somebody else's problem, not ours.
Merge Capitol Corridor and Caltrain diesel service (south bay service)
DeleteIf there ever was a rail tunnel underneath San Francisco Bay connecting that MTC $alesforce downtown train and bus station to Oakland, that would be more true than ever, as with electrified at least on the peninsula but also expected at least in the new rail tunnel. It should outdo traffic on the East Bay side.
Additionally, also consider a few trains a day that start/end in Hollister via this line after Gilroy to rope in San Benito County for cheap.
DeleteSo overlooked and underappreciated currently ... the whole area around GIlroy including Hollister is not only going to be just warehouses, an overdue truck stop or three at future 152-US 101, but is ideal for what else but more housing tracts, where houses can still be built, with some cheap apartment blocks beside the highways. Even things like a factory out let site may be redeveloped.
Although double tracking through the wetlands would be expensive, just double tracking between the southern edge of the wetlands and where the route joins the Caltrain route (and possible double track the non-electrified part down to Diridon) would be an improvement. In particular the section that is currently shared between ACE and the other trains have about five miles of double track, of which about half seems to have a third "siding" track. There is also a siding that is about a mile long at Albrae. Don't know if that counts as a passing loop? Either way the Santa Clara Great America station is about 4 miles away from the Santa Clara (Caltrain) station. If this section would be double tracked, the line could handle a train in each direction per 10MPH of average speed. The max speed for freight trains on the then remaining single track sections is mostly 60MPH, at a short section 55MPH and another short section 40MPH, and for passenger trains it's 70 MPH for most of the route, with
DeleteOops, continued:
Delete... with two short dips down to 65 and 50 MPH.
In other words since the average speed could be way above 40MPH, it would be possible to run a train every 15 minutes (including freight trains) between a double tracked Santa Clara Great America and Fremont / the place where ACE and Capitol Corridor (and Starlight-whatnot) diverges. I know that this is not the route that is talked about for future takeover by the public for rerouting the Capitol Corridor, but the section I mention double tracking of is the same.
The layout for non-electric trains from Santa Clara all the way to south of Blossom Hill is weird. I kind of get why it's the way it is, but for example Diridon has 8 tracks that seems to be kind of intended for Caltrain, and a single track intended for all other trains, including freight trains. Tamien has one platform edge on a siding, while one of the main tracks lack platform. Capitol and Blossom Hill only has platforms for one of the two tracks, and these are on the eastern track while Tamien lacks a platform on the eastern track, so Caltrain and other trains have to cross each other between Tamien and Capitol if they are to meet in that area.
Anyway, at Santa Clara (Caltrain) you could run these diesel trains so that northbound trains share track with Caltrain EMUs from Diridon, while southbound trains run on the non-electrified track. It would be a bit weird as you'd end up with left hand running for diesel trains and right hand running for electric trains from Diridon and northwards, but still. Long term the Santa Clara (Caltrain) station ought to have four platform tracks.
So they’re leasing out three F40PH-2C locomotives? Cute, except those haven’t existed since 2020. The units in question are F40PH-3C, rebuilt with public funds just five years ago. The fact that olde tyme commute railroading Caltrain can’t even name its own fleet correctly in an official resolution is peak Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board.
DeleteAnd now the EMUs. Caltrain insists this lease is just a “temporary measure” until the EMUs replace the F40s. Cute story—except the MPI F40s were already pulled from revenue service when the EMUs entered operation and now only make cameo appearances on Gilroy service. So what exactly are the EMUs replacing? Ghosts? Nostalgia? The lingering scent of diesel?
But wait—there’s more. The lease includes a 90-day recall clause, just in case Caltrain needs the locomotives back. Yes, really. Because nothing says confidence in your electrification program like hedging against its apparent success. Apparently, the EMUs might vanish in a puff of overhead wire failure, and Caltrain wants to be ready to diesel its way back to 1998.
Here’s the kicker: Caltrain’s remaining diesel locomotives—both the MP36s and these mysteriously misnamed “F40PH-2Cs”—are powered by EMD 645-series prime movers, the same engine family used in ACE’s active fleet of four F40PHs. (Not six anymore—ACE prematurely retired two, including one barely thirteen years old, thanks to the bureaucratic magic of CARB grant strings. Fleet management: nailed it.)
These units are mechanically compatible, already in service, and could be absorbed into ACE’s operations without so much as a hiccup. But instead of a straightforward transfer, we get a lease with a panic button—because Caltrain can’t commit to its own future.
And let’s not forget: in countries with serious railways, mainline passenger trains routinely operate for 30 to 40 years. Electrification should mean faster and smarter—though Caltrain’s grasp of “smart” is debatable, given its bungled electrification rollout and inexplicably oversized 7-car EMUs. What it should not mean is wasteful asset disposal of publicly funded equipment that other agencies could use tomorrow.
Caltrain should not have ANY diesel trains. Period. But when your idea of fleet management involves mislabeling your own locomotives, hedging against your own electrification, and retiring equipment that other agencies could use tomorrow—you’re not modernizing. You’re just burning public money for sport.
@Anonymous The F40s Caltrain still owns are F40PH-2Cs. Caltrain retired -2 and -2CAT variants. They never owned 3Cs, only ACE and MBTA operate that variant.
DeleteI had assumed—perhaps foolishly—that Caltrain’s 920–922 rebuilds in 2019–2020 included the obvious: replacing obsolete 1970s Dash-2 modular electronics with microprocessor controls, new wiring, diagnostics, and emissions upgrades—hence the -3C classification. You know, the standard package MPI delivered to MBTA and Tri-Rail when they rebuilt their F40PH-2Cs into actual -3Cs.
DeleteIf Caltrain skipped the electronics upgrade, then bravo: they’d be the only agency in North America to fund a full locomotive rebuild and still cling to Nixon-era tech. A move perfectly in line with Caltrain’s Olde Tyme Commute Railroading mystique...
Use of of one of my catchphrases and similar seething frustrated anger aside, this "anonymous" isn't me (and in fact, his style and interests mean he's not remotely anonymous, but we can pretend to pretend, can't we?)
DeleteI have no opinion about F40PH-2Cs much beyond that that they should never have existed.
I do try hard not to post anonymously -- when I do it's because of accidentally clicking the "Publish" button on the janky blockspot janky comment form before fully filling out the janky "Comment as:" business, but it's generally pretty obvious I imagine (eg this one and only one right on this page. Oh and the "Put down the keyboard and, for the love of God, please just stop with the logorrhea" comment also isn't mine, but is perfect in tone, and was indeed exactly and unhelpfully what I would have typed if I had bothered. I ought ought to be flattered! Or perhaps I've declined so far I'm now snarking in my sleep.)
Just to clarify before your next séance: I only commented twice—on Caltrain’s surplus rebuilt diesels and their lease logic. That’s it. The other two comments you mentioned—the accidental anonymous post and the logorrhea jab—weren’t mine. I’m not you, hadn’t heard of you, and I’m not your long-lost cousin either. I’m just what happens when you stare too long into the abyss of the JPB resolutions, Amjoke’s eternal shrug, and having ridden the services of Valley Transit Afterthought (VTA), decided to vent here. If a phrase or two happened to echo your style—well, maybe years of dealing with their individually unique dysfunctions just breeds parallel sarcasm...
DeleteI welcome the parallel sarcasm, now that Richard’s patent has expired
DeleteIt has been over 20 years, stretching back to ba.transportation! As for anons posting here, one of them could be that guy who had an incredibly short email address.
DeleteI don't get why diesel-electric under catenary is a problem. The New Haven and NYC ran dual-mode locomotives into NYC for decades. Thus is a sophisticated rail site. We should all remember this: every diesel locomotive -- other than a few spectacular hydraulic or "direct-drive" failures -- is a diesel-ELECTRIC
ReplyDeleteIt already has traction motors, and it requires only a pantograph, some some juice transforming circuitry, and a freaking switch to run under carenary powered by that catenary.
Overhead clearance or loading gauge, not that it's electric at the wheels
DeleteDual-use likely not worth it on this line
The issue is that locomotive-hauled trains are dogs and diesel (or solution-in-search-of-a-problem "dual mode") locomotive hauled trains are dead dogs.
DeleteEvery stupid slow (also breakdown-prone) historical train thrown onto an electrified route eats up line capacity and creates scheduling problems.
Just say no!
My God, even Caltrain, even Caltrain!, eventually got this memo drilled through theirs skulls, thankfully abandoning their decades-standing proposal that mixed diesel and EMU service should persist for years between SF and SJ and going all-in with the new fleet. (Today's Caltrain all-stops SF-SJ EMU trains are scheduled for 27% higher average speed than the same diesel service a year ago.)
Oh and what "The New Haven and NYC" do is always your guide to what never to do. Learn from (ie copy) success, not abject failure.
Here are comparisons of Caltrain's June 2024 diesel versus June 2025 EMU scheduled runs courtesy of Ye Olde Taktulator, still chugging along on nothing more than data from Clem's simple but pretty darned good train performance numerical integration done way back in 2011.
DeleteDiesels would work way better for passenger services if they would work like a Prius, I.E. have a battery large enough for what the traction motors can consume, minus what the diesel provides, for an acceleration from standstill to full line speed, of course assuming that the traction motors are way more powerful than the diesel.
DeleteWasn't the NYC/NH dual mode locos used for Grand Central? They used third rail 750V DC electrification, which means avoiding the large transformer that's needed for AC overhead electrification.
Re performance in particular in the Caltrain area: If you'd add an AEM7 loco, or whatever the current modern equivalents are, to the Caltrain diesel trains, they would have the same acceleration as the EMUs on electrified tracks.
I honestly believe that it's at least not unlikely that the AEM-7s that Caltrain got never ran (in any serious operation) due to malicious incompetence/malpractice by someone wanting them to not run. On one hand I get that more or less everyone wanted to get rid of the gallery cars, but on the other hand it would had been nice if the Gilroy trains would had ran along all of the route and had had the same performance as the EMUs (at least acceleration wise, I don't know about dwell times).
Either way Santa Clara (Caltrain) - Tamien is just five miles, or Santa Clara (Caltrain) - Diridon is slightly less than 3 miles. It's probably not worth making any trains to the east bay run electric on this section. Rather reconfigure the track layout so the diesel trains (or "steam trains" as Richard calls them) get their own double track.
"If you'd add an AEM7 loco to the Caltrain diesel trains, they would have the same acceleration as the EMUs on electrified tracks."
DeletePut down the keyboard and, for the love of God, please just stop with the logorrhea.
Electric locomotives would have performed much worse. See my slide presentation on this topic at the bottom of https://www.greencaltrain.com/2017/02/would-electric-locomotives-be-a-good-backup-plan-for-caltrain-electrification/
DeleteNote that I'm not arguing for having electric locos + the old gallery cars instead of EMUs, but rather as a way to allow services to run both on the electrified and the non-electrified part of the route without severe performance implications and/or like today force the passengers to change trains.
DeleteThis also assumes a scenario where Caltrain actually runs both a really frequent all-stopper service and a decently frequent skip-stop service, and these mixed trains would run some of the skip-stop services.
The alternative would be to attach and detach diesel locos to the EMUs. That is IMHO the better solution but for that to work you'd need to specify that you want this both when buying the EMUs and buying the diesel locos.
Obviously the best would be to electrify everything. Just force the darn freight railway companies to at least allow electrification.
It sounds like everyone believes that locomotive hauled electric trains are slower than EMU's in all cases. Is that a correct interpretation of your assertions? Well, then, I guess we'll be seeing EMU's with long fiberglass snouts on the leading unit on HSR lines any week now, right?
Delete"lI guess we'll be seeing EMU's with long fiberglass snouts on the leading unit"
DeleteYour unit's snout is safe from all the scary post-1960 stuff.
The SiC-MOSFETs aren't real and they can't hurt you.
Back to bed, now.
@MiaM
Delete“If you'd add an AEM7 loco, or whatever the current modern equivalents are, to the Caltrain diesel trains, they would have the same acceleration as the EMUs on electrified tracks.”
This is not true. First, the AEM-7 has 5MW of power while Caltrain’s EMUs have 7MW. The AEM-7 distributes that through 4 axles, while the EMU uses 8. As a result tractive effort for the AEM-7 is 230kN, while it is 645kN for the EMUs. An AEM-7 with 5 bilevel coaches weighs about as much as the Caltrain 7-car EMU. Less power and less traction for similar weight has to equal worse acceleration; the laws of physics demand this. Cut the bilevels to two and you still have half the weight of an EMU with just over 1/3rd the tractive effort over fewer axles. Acceleration will still be less. All this assumes you are taking the time to unhook the diesel while attaching the electric. Try to speed things up by only attaching the AEM-7 and the extra hundred-plus tons of diesel loco weight mean it’s impossible to get similar acceleration even with one passenger car.
Caltrain should not be running service south of Blossom Hill. The urban Bay Area ends just south of there at the Metcalf gap. Put google maps in satellite mode with around 2mi/km on the scale bar and this is obvious; look at the color north of the “Santa Theresa” label and the color south of it. Based on scale and distance, any rail service to Morgan Hill/Gilroy/etc. should be a southern extension of the Capitol Corridor, just as that train goes north of Sacramento to Auburn. If for some reason you are running Caltrain there, the ridership to the far south doesn’t justify through service beyond San Jose, it would have to be a transfer. If for some reason there was enough ridership to run through service (or if the Capitol Corridor took it over and was also electrified) the then proper solution isn’t to hook an electric locomotive to a diesel train, but to hook a diesel locomotive to the EMU to run on unelectrified tracks. That way instead of 4 types of rolling stock to maintain, with 4 sets of parts, spares and mechanic certifications - EMU, cars, diesel locomotive, electric locomotive - you only have 2 types. For the portion where service is electric, you get identical performance and service quality (signage, boarding height, interior design) for riders on that portion, so they don’t get confused when “that different train” pulls up.
I know Clem doesn’t like to hear it, but the way battery performance is going, BEMUs (EMUs with an on-board battery) may very well be the way to go, able to handle the distance with minimal infrastructure at the end of the line to charge while waiting to turn back. Then you aren’t even wasting time with diesels, just a variant of your standard train set that can be used for service anywhere along the line.
“Wasn't the NYC/NH dual mode locos used for Grand Central?”
The third rail power on these locos was for slow speed approach to GCT so that diesel fumes didn’t pollute the tunnel. They’re not really fully dual mode, when electric their max speed is 60-65moh vs 110mph on diesel.
@Anonymous 15:05
Delete“It sounds like everyone believes that locomotive hauled electric trains are slower than EMU's in all cases.”
In ALL cases? No, speed is a factor of power, weight and aerodynamics, and to a lesser extent the mechanics of the running gear. An EMU tram designed for street running will be slower than even a diesel locomotive designed for mainline service.
Where EMUs almost always outperform locomotives is not necessarily speed but acceleration (again, within a given class of service, a low power streetcar will accelerate slower than a powerful locomotive). EMUs distribute their power over the length of the train with motors on many axles. Locomotives only deliver power to the axles on the locomotive. This limits tractive effort, in addition to the fact that for a given motor size per axle the locomotive power is fixed, while EMU power can be set as large as one wants by powering more axles (until every axle is powered).
“Well, then, I guess we'll be seeing EMU's with long fiberglass snouts on the leading unit on HSR lines any week now, right?”
You do see EMUs on HSR lines, every day of every week, and have for decades. The vast majority of trains running on HSR lines all over the world are EMUs (all Japanese Shinkansen, Chinese CRH units, Siemens Velaro on German ICEs, most Italian trains except the ETR 500s, and derivatives of them all). The only people making locomotive hauled HSR trains are Alstrom in France and Talgo in Spain (Spain also uses Siemens EMUs for some of their network). But to the discussion above, those French/Spanish loco units are only 200m long (a locomotive at each end and 7-9 cars in between) while other EMUs I mention go up to 400m. If the loco HSR sets were 400m long, the almost double weight with same power would lower both acceleration and top speed. When France or Spain need 400m trains they couple two loco sets together. With one locomotive at each end and two in the middle, this is just an EMU with extra steps. The world record for steel rain trains was set by a French TGV with only three cars between the locomotives, and two of the four trucks on those three cars were powered - in other words they converted a locomotive train set into an EMU. Physics is physics, and at some point having more powered axles (i.e. more total power and more traction) via EMU design is necessary for very high speeds.
Thanks, Onux. I get the physics angle; more powered axles are a good thing, both for acceleration and reliability.
DeleteYou are saying that many or possibly most of the HSR trains running around the world today -- actual HSR trains, not slower all stops trains sharing the trackage -- are EMU's with distributed power throughout the train?
Why, then, do the intermediate cars not have pantographs? The train is spreading very high voltage or very high amperage at a lower probably still fatal voltage through the metal passenger cars?
Yes, I get that "EMU's do that", but at 200 miles per hour or more? Wow; that's pretty scary in a crack-up. What happens if only some cars leave the rails but stay connected. It seems that the car walls could become electrocution machines. Do the locomotives have emergency cut-offs to the rest of the train?
Thank you.
@Onyx, the Bay Area proper ends where the development ends in south San Jose, but the greater Bay Area commuter shed has long reached farther, in the past to Gilroy, now beyond that.
DeleteWhat do provide for it? Clem would argue for bus service, maybe using Gilroy as one stop and as a transit hub, glorified language for where Los Banos and other San Joaquin Valley commuters who use Pacheco Pass (highway 152, not high-speed rail) will do park-and-ride (inbound) transfer stops.
It's like some overdue common sense about the connection desired between the San Jose train station (which is what it is) and the airport, plus more expansive service along the Stevens Creek corridor being a separate, more ambitious possibility. (Nobody thinks of serving the football stadium in Santa Clara or making other stops to the north.) Rather than ridiculous to stupid (Hyperloop or other, 155-mph, service underground in Boring Company tunnels), or what was chosen, Glydways as a "gadgetbahn," as with simplicity to serving Morgan Hill, San Martin, and Gilroy and farther away, why not first consider bus service?
Can't edit to correct the training tag on the name at the start -- sorry about all the bold earlier.
Delete@Anonymous 23:57.
Delete“You are saying that many or possibly most of the HSR trains running around the world today -- actual HSR trains, not slower all stops trains sharing the trackage -- are EMU's with distributed power throughout the train?”
Yes, that is exactly right. Look up Siemens Velaro, N700 Shinkansen, or ETR1000 for examples.
“Why, then, do the intermediate cars not have pantographs? The train is spreading very high voltage or very high amperage at a lower probably still fatal voltage through the metal passenger cars?”
Intermediate cars do not have pantographs, however, high voltage is not spread throughout the train. Each car with a pantograph has a transformer that steps the voltage down to a working voltage for the motors at the axles, generally 1500-2500V (modern trains use variable frequency or variable voltage motors for precise speed control, so this voltage is usually not fixed). This voltage can be fatal, but so can much lower voltages such as 220V. The traction voltage is also comparable to that on subway train EMUs of 600-1000V direct current (600V DC is about as deadly as 1000V AC, all other things being equal.) Also this voltage is not passed through the metal cars, but via cabling underneath the train.
Finally this isn’t especially dangerous in an accident. If there is a detriment, dropping the pantograph (if the accident doesn’t) cuts power, like throwing a light switch. All electrocution risk disappears at the speed of light. I am not aware of any electrocution deaths in any HSR or EMU accidents, although I also have not really researched it. At 200mph+ (or really even 100mph+) the danger is from the kinetic energy of flying around after the crash.
I don't want to say "I told you so", but two decades later, Merced is now learning that if they would have supported Altamont, they would have been on the line between the Valley and Bay Area. Now they are "blindsided" that CHSRA understands that heading toward the Bay Area from the wye, instead of Merced, is a better idea. Many of us tried to tell Merced that 20 years ago.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Chronicle:
California city ‘blindsided’ by high-speed rail proposal to prioritize Bay Area service
By Megan Fan Munce,
Staff Writer
Aug 30, 2025
Merced officials said they were “blindsided” after the California High-Speed Rail Authority proposed delaying the opening of service in Merced to prioritize more populated areas, including the Bay Area.
Representatives from both the city and county of Merced said they were disappointed after learning about the proposal from news reports rather than the High-Speed Rail Authority itself, they said at a Thursday meeting of the High-Speed Rail Authority board.
“We felt blindsided,” said Frank Quintero, Merced’s deputy city manager. “As a partner, Merced felt abandoned. No communication or courtesy heads-up was provided by High-Speed Rail.”
The High-Speed Rail Authority is statutorily obligated to prioritize developing service between Merced and Bakersfield, which it projects would attract 1.6 million to 2.2 million riders per year. However, even the maximum projected revenue for the line wouldn’t come close to covering maintenance and operating costs, it estimates.
Remainder at (paywall, but you have to pay for actual news) https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/high-speed-rail-merced-21023396.php
Technically they don't have to be blindsided, and technically correct is the best correct.
DeleteI.E. Los Banos is in Merced county (although not in the city of Merced). Add a Los Banos station and you'd have HSR there.
In general I think that the idea of for a long time end at Merced isn't great, especially given that for that to work out great the plan seems to have been to build a long bridge connecting the Merced HSR station with the BNSF route for the San Joaquins trans to be able to reach that stations. That would be a long bridge that would only be useful between when HSR reaches Merced and when HSR extends north of HSR. Or rather, when any form of electrified improved rail happens northwards from Merced (as even if the route north of Merced would be slower you'd run HSR trains if it's at least electrified).
Also whenever Cali HSR reaches Gilroy and Palmdale, we can be fairly sure that the opinion will swing even more towards HSR, making it way easier to go ahead with HSR to Sacramento, including Merced. (Obviously electrifying Gilroy-San Jose would have the best cost-benefit factor after HSR reaches Gilroy and Palmdale, and electrifying and improving Palmdale-LA would be second best, but after those two extending HSR to Sacramento seems like the third best cost-benefit among potential future projects. If only the issue of buying ROW from UP can be solved it would be cheap to improve the existing route, to at least have HSR standard outside the cities along the route).
I.E. I don't think Merced has to wait that long to get HSR trains.
(Paying for the Chronicle doesn't gain much actual news. Bagel contests, beloved restaurant you've never heard of is closing, real-estate, the weather at Burning Man, nostalgia). -BenInSF
Delete"(Paying for the Chronicle doesn't gain much actual news. Bagel contests, beloved restaurant you've never heard of is closing, real-estate, the weather at Burning Man, nostalgia). -BenInSF"
DeleteYou're possibly confusing (and they do make it super confusing!) sfgate.com and sfchronicle.com
The SF Chronicle used to have utterly appalling politics (all "suck Willie Brown's dick, all the time") and it still pretty much does ("suck Ron Cowan's dick, nearly all the time") but the Chronicle does report some of the local hyper-egregious political shit, and there are decent reporters still trying to scrape by working there, and I have of been giving them money,. just as I similarly hopelessly do to less-compromised but similarly-dooomed missionlocal.org and suchlike.
I suggest you might consider doing likewise. (Or not. Nothing matters!)
I've nothing against restaurant reviews, by the way. These sorts of things are what I enjoy, as much as I can enjoy anything at all at this stage of the precipitous descent into horror, about living in a city full of interesting humans doing different interesting human things, including making snacks.
More interestingly, what if the HSR program starts the mountain crossing next -- should have been Altamont, yet again, but we have Pacheco Pass, instead to assuage the South Bay folks with greed and San Jose with small-city complex. If there is no Merced station yet (and this could be pursued until the actual opening day of such a station), some in the HSR program with more development in mind by the station could claim the prohibition of building between the Gilroy and Merced stations is not in effect, so it's okay to build at Los Banos. Los Banos TOD $$$ for the well-connected, that is.
DeleteI wish the project would push for Bakersfield-Palmdale next, or if a mountain crossing is preferred, while next pushing to complete the line northward to Sacramento. Else, if no mountain crossing, try building to Sacramento next if "terrain with most ease of building" (is that true?) is the criterion. If there are miracles, a station at the Manteca-Lathrop wye and natural bend in the rail route along the Central Valley, and change in orientation of the state to north-south, could be a reminder about the superiority of Altamont Pass.
Anon (01 Sept)- I agree that Bako-Palm would be a better "next phase" than Pacheco, but my semi-well-informed hunch is that the CHSRA is ready to remove billions in cost from Pacheco by reverting to a previously-studied alignment with many, many fewer miles of tunneling. They'll have to do a supplemental EIR if they do, but they've already mentioned that they're ready to accept much greater grades and drop the alignment speed to a much more reasonable 220mph. A steeper grade permits an almost straight alignment from the national cemetery in the east to Casa de Fruta in the west, paralleling 152 along part of the reservoir. Instead of one vvvveeeeeerrrrrryyyyyy long tunnel, it's short tunnels and viaducts. Cheaper and quicker to build.
Delete@Michael, You're probably right insofar as the project likely will do anything to keep Pacheco Pass rather than switch to Altamont Pass. (Housing development opportunities, included, "M&M")
DeleteI suspect the new Pacheco Pass route may not necessarily be the route found during the 2002 study.
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 identified an alignment and profile option that can potentially reduce the total required tunneling to only 5 miles.
Etc. The results for Pacheco Pass were:
3.5% max grade: 38.3 miles, 5.2 miles total tunneling, 1.5 miles longest tunnel
5.0% max grade: 38.5 miles, 4.6 miles total tunneling, 1.3 miles longest tunnel
Why the project didn't exploit this as it exploited the tool used for it in the south is a mystery, other than big egos and big appetites among the contractors for a 13.5 mile main tunnel.
Anything to keep Pacheco Pass will likely be done, rather than use Altamont Pass. The 2002 study did not include Altamont Pass. What it did include in the north in addition to Pacheco Pass was a set of routes directly east of the San Jose-Morgan Hill areas and the old 31-mile base tunnel considered earlier. Any revised Pacheco Pass route will be put forth with a straight face ignoring or reversing, without much to say, the earlier environmental rationalization for a 13.5 mile tunnel in place of a route that minimized tunneling. It's certainly possible for revised plans to say nothing about this, for environmental documents, even.
The way things are going with the project, it would be better to use one of the San Jose-Morgan Hill eastward routes found in the study to build a new highway to Merced at highway 99. Meanwhile, any serious work on a new regional, including commuter, Altamont Pass route by MTC or other Bay Area entities isn't happening, really. It's possible this is being suppressed politically to ensure high-speed rail development, if and when it happens, will use Pacheco Pass. Never mind that so many tech commuters would be served better by Altamont Pass, already, like other travelers.
"M&M" = Merced and Madera, the closest Central Valley stations, cities, locations to Gilroy on the route. This is where the current best hopes are to house new commuters to South Bay tech jobs who get to Gilroy then San Jose and transfer to Caltrain as needed to reach other Caltrain stations to commute inbound, the reverse outbound.
DeleteI don't believe anyone will insist that southern trains, operating south of the Chowchilla Wye only, can stop at Los Banos, too. Los Banos commuters transferring to and from Caltrain are a dream for now.
However, it's possible to argue for changing the law to permit Los Banos to have a station to generate more interest and argue for more utility (and real estate development) for the system.
@Michael re: new alignment - where can one find that info? I'd love to read more about it. I've always felt the tunnels were over-engineered and built to a gold-plated standard, so I'm glad they're coming back to reality. I suspect one of the canyons just north of the cemetery would give enough room to also shorten the tunnels a bit.
Delete@MiaM re: a new route from San Jose to Merced, wtf are you smoking lol?? There are hella mountains there and a new pass really isn't needed. There's 580/Altamont and Pacheco, where Pacheco Pass could be upgraded still quite a bit.
For example, some easy upgrades:
-A new freeway-grade routing that follows 25 to Shore Road and connects to an upgraded 156 around Dunneville instead of crawling through Gilroy
-Widening of the freeway to 3 lanes each direction or more
-A less steep climb up to Pacheco Pass on the west side, e.g., up and over via one of the North/South Canyons
-A less steep climb or drop to the Central Valley via Butts Road if we go up and over
Then, if you really want to throw Merced a bone, upgrade the San Joaquins/Gold Runner, for 1/10 the price. Done!
If you want to build out a new pass, a better bet is probably Panoche Pass but that makes Fresno harder to access as you are going southeast then have to go northeast so it's a few extra miles.
In terms of Los Banos, that shouldn't be the purview of CAHSR. The city/county can build a station at Los Banos strictly for commuter trains that use the CAHSR & Caltrain right of way, but honestly the town is just 48,000 folks. It's not really worth it at this stage, but in later stages, sure, why not.
I think we're better off investing in places like Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and southern San Jose, especially in terms of densification. You can house another 500K people very easily in San Jose alone with some marginal densification and investment in the downtown area, even following FAA rules. DC is able to house over 700K people in a tiny area with just a 12 story limit. Just build a shitload of housing towers in downtown and nearby clusters like Willow Glen, Santana Row, Japantown, etc, plus at a ½ or 1 mile radius around Tamien, Capitol, Blossom Hill, Morgan Hill, San Martin, and Gilroy. At a ½ mile radius at DC levels of density, that's around 11K people for each station, so 60K already in short order along the corridor alone.
Hey @clem, an idea for an easy-ish post for you if you want based on the above:
Delete-In light of the news of CAHSR focusing on Gilroy, what would ideal steps or approaches be for the Tamien to Gilroy corridor for Caltrain? What are easy upgrades like your curve straightening post for SF-SJ that is evergreen?
Other considerations: Close down the line for a few years to build out the alignment? Expand service now to include BEMU shuttles? Create electrification islands? Convert to bus-only until CAHSR arrives? Etc?
The current plans are to electrify the corridor between Tamien and Gilroy, with the latter serving as a hub for anyone transferring to Monterrey / Salinas. Clem has advocated for Caltrain to be permanently expanded to Blossom Hill in the past. There is also some consensus that Capitol Corridor should expand to Salinas and take over the current Caltrain Gilroy service.
DeleteDepending on how cooperative UP is, 2-3 tracks are sufficient. Full grade separation needs to be done to support 110+ mph operation. There is a strong argument to divest Caltrain of all its diesel assets, which could be transferred over to CC. By replacing the current money-losing operation with interim buses, Caltrain could free up funds for more electric service.
Aside from grade separation, curve straightening, and level boarding, there is an urgent need to 4-track RWC to enable more creative stopping patterns. The base takt of 3 tph SF - RWC (Dumbarton) local and 3 tph SF - RWC limited + RWC - SJ local services comes to mind.
@Anonymous 01 Sep 25 13:34,
DeleteThe 2002 Cal HSR (Authority) study of mountain crossing routes that included Pacheco Pass did exploit the "Casa de Fruita canyon" route, referred to in the report as the "SR-152 alignment" set of routes. Representative results in the report again are:
3.5% max grade: 38.3 miles, 5.2 miles total tunneling, 1.5 miles longest tunnel
5.0% max grade: 38.5 miles, 4.6 miles total tunneling, 1.3 miles longest tunnel
I'm afraid it was me, again, not @MiaM, who referred to a crossing directly east from San Jose or Morgan Hill. This also was in the 2002 report, the northern alternative to Pacheco Pass for the northern (Bay Area) mountain crossing. Altamont Pass was not investigated, nor Panoche Pass.
The project Authority earlier had no idea how to get over the widest and most imposing portion of the Diablo Range at the east edge of the Bay Area: "Because of time and resource constraints, the previous northern alignment studies in the screening evaluation had assumed that the crossing needed to be completely in tunnel because of the difficult and remote terrain. As a result, the only alignment considered included a 31-mile long tunnel through the mountain crossing. A tunnel of this length, however, is costly and difficult to construct." Yes, a base tunnel was their earlier thought.
This crossing of the widest part of the Diablos east of San Jose was checked in two places, east of Morgan Hill with and without crossing Coe Park in a tunnel, and crossing farther north by highway 130, which the study thought might be used as a service road during construction.
My remark earlier about a crossing there was an expression of frustration with the HSR project and referred to building a highway there, likelier to be successfully built than Cal HSR. Nobody has to worry about it happening, as it won't happen.
Altamont Pass is superior not only for better functioning by the high-speed trains, but for passenger rail travel on a real state system, for regional travel connecting the Bay Area with the Sacramento area and northern San Joaquin Valley, ever more the Bay Area's extended commuter shed. Panoche Pass has been considered even before 2008, such as with Hall's planners studying this in the 1990s. It's even better than Pacheco for reduced SF-LA travel time, but impractical otherwise.
Los Banos is mentioned and was an obvious concern of the Sierra Club before 2008 because that's the best location to demonstrate truly remote, distant commuting on the high-speed trains, which is a concept now being used to support or defend the high-speed rail project -- housing affordability in the Central Valley. Read the newer project literature and see for yourself. "BART on steroids"
Housing towers (high-rise) belong only where they make sense, not around every Caltrain or HSR station necessarily, and people need to think of offices and other employers, and jobs, not only housing. Mid-rise and high-rise only should be built and placed where appropriate, and be of high quality. Downtown San Jose can use more tall buildings; high-rise housing can reach to San Jose State University to the east and the entire Diridon Station area-related western part of the city to the west of the river that was going to be a Google village can feature mid- and high-rise offices and housing. Building around that area, unlike other places, always has shouted "Caltrain commuting!"
@anon 14:24, My bad lol.. Interesting. A base tunnel sounds like the contractor industrial complex at work - find the most complex and most expensive solution lol. The issue with the mountains are largely that they're simply so remote, not necessarily that they're tall or overly complex. The range is basically devoid of practically anything south of 580. 130 is also a very steep and windy road, which makes me question their sanity - it would be very very difficult to get any meaningful construction equipment up or down that road, plus it would take all day. RE: highway, understood, that is my bad, then.
DeleteAs for Altamont, yeah, I get your point but I actually disagree. Not to relitigiate that, but I think Pacheco was the better option when factoring in politics (which is the major factor affecting the project right now). Also, considering the political impacts of running trains from San Jose - Madera compared to SF - Dumbarton - Altamont - Stockton/Modesto, there are far less NIMBYs and far less political backlash. When weighing that in, even if Altamont comes out to be operationally superior, the political consequences may sink the project. In addition, I am of the opinion (maybe unwarranted haha) that the SJ - Gilroy corridor can easily be upgraded to 220 past Capitol Caltrain for a reasonable price, which will negate the Altamont benefits for SF-LA. Paired with Peninsula upgrades (curves, grade seps, etc), there will be little to no difference between the two. SJ - Gilroy also has the advantage of a phased approach to 79-110mph for early service, while Altamont would not have this advantage, requiring new tracks, tunnels, etc so financially it would be a wash.
My hope is that they build Pacheco, AND then Altamont gets upgraded via ValleyLink/San Joaquins/Capitol Corridor/a regional project. From there, you can keep Pacheco as a SF-LA express line, then use Altamont for regional trains, Sacramento trains, interlining trains on the Peninsula, even HSR that goes LA - San Jose - Altamont to Sac or back to LA, etc. That would help relieve pressure across the Bay Area and create higher capacity, especially in the East Bay. I do think a East Bay Caltrain to Oakland plus reroute of the Capitol Corridor or San Joaquins to go via Altamont would be an excellent investment regionally. Later on, HSR can use this routing. To that point, I do think that the focus on the Peninsula corridor, while great, also neglects the potential of the San Jose - Altamont - Oakland routing, especially if you tie in Link21 and/or Dumbarton.
Consider these service patterns in the future:
-LA/southern HSR to San Jose via Pacheco to San Francisco to Oakland to Altamont to Sacramento OR LA
-LA to San Jose to Altamont to Sac or LA
-Sacramento to Altamont to Oakland to SF to San Jose to LA
In addition, a super-express line after Phase 2 is complete (SD/Sac) could work very well once capacity is hit via Pacheco. Specifically, adding in Dumbarton (with a wye at each end to go both north or south), Link 21, and Altamont (also with a N/S wye) paired with super-express tracks via I-5 could mean a higher level of service from the Bay and LA. Use the I-5 express tracks as a way to pass the 99 corridor trains that stop at CV stations as a passing loop of sorts. While the capacity south of Bakersfield would also need to be upgraded, I suspect only Techacpi would need upgrades as a number of trains would go via High Desert Corridor, and the existing Antelope Valley line could be electrified/upgraded to allow for local/slow trains so only express trains use the Palmdale - Burbank tunnels, or dump pax to ride other trains at Palmdale.
Note to those still surprised about Merced: The Chowchilla wye should have made operational alternatives obvious. Now it's maybe also "pausing" a station elsewhere to get through Pacheco Pass, but the operational alternatives can mean something else, once more an opportunity, legal as well as operational. If the line north of the wye isn't used, or better, is "paused," and better still, the wye made a curve, then there can be trains that do not meet the following condition:
DeleteThere shall be no station between the Gilroy station and the Merced station.
This can be a loophole opened or even created for a Los Banos station and TOD opportunity. Not that it's going to happen or even is a big idea by those running the project nor by the likes of MTC (with suitably expansive view of the "mega-region"), bu tit becomes possible and if it's long-distance commuters they want, .... Madera, too, maybe, Fresno actually seems a bit dicey. (Far for car backup)
Note to Clem:
ReplyDeleteWhat is your update on the DTX/Portal situation considering that the Federal Government pulled a $24.7 million grant from the project?
$24.7 million is nothing, better expressed as $0.02 billion.
DeleteIn terms of Los Banos, that shouldn't be the purview of CAHSR. The city/county can build a station at Los Banos strictly for commuter trains that use the CAHSR & Caltrain right of way, but honestly the town is just 48,000 folks. It's not really worth it at this stage, but in later stages, sure, why not.
ReplyDeleteCurrently it's illegal, and if some other party builds a station anywhere, there's no obligation for the state HSR to stop at it.
The point about Los Banos is it would be the ideal Central Valley commuter site because it's so close. Hence the Sierra Club acted before 2008. People going there will want new houses and yards on the periphery, not "urban glamour" beside or over the station as with Brightline's TOD in busier places.
I think we're better off investing in places like Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and southern San Jose, especially in terms of densification. [...] at a ½ or 1 mile radius around Tamien, Capitol, Blossom Hill, Morgan Hill, San Martin, and Gilroy. At a ½ mile radius at DC levels of density, that's around 11K people for each station, so 60K already in short order along the corridor alone.
Some may put up with apartments by the stations, but the southern corridor (south of Coyote Valley and the preserve that isn't set for development currently) will see its "sides' east and west that is farm land eyed for housing tracts -- houses with yards. That is even more true in the huge area east, south, west of Gilroy ready in the future to see pressure to convert to housing tracts, not only warehouses that already are coming to that natural junction with 152 and points elsewhere.
Of course, the farther south one goes the better the likely prospects for train station parking or more likely by far, a lot of drop-off and pick-up traffic to and from the stations, especially Gilroy if the area all around it develops someday. Anyone there who has a job in San Francisco should naturally be thinking of the train!
That is where I'm going with this. Los Banos should be covered under a different regional project, pay for slots on the tracks.
DeleteAs for the Capitol/Blossom Hill/Morgan Hill/San Martin/Gilroy/Hollister axis, yeah. I think a short extension of just 15 miles to Hollister and a nice park/ride station there may also be a better idea. From there, if SB79 passes, we can upzone the crap out of these station areas to recreate the streetcar suburbs - even just a nice missing middle downtown of 6-12 stories would go a long ways towards relieving housing pressures plus create additional ridership. This axis can house thousands of folks easily. Take NoMA in DC - they added an infill metro station and built over 13K units in just 15 years within a 1 mile radius of the station. Do the same with these 5 stations and that's already 90K units. Add in other measures like Diridon/Google, etc and that will go a loooong way towards meeting our housing crisis.
Re "People going there will want new houses and yards on the periphery, not "urban glamour" beside or over the station".
DeleteI once saw a tweet (IIRC) stating something like letting the general population decide on urban planning is like letting toddlers decide what to eat.
In other words, rather than just decide to somehow fund a Los Banos station and fund some development of some kind of sort, rather somehow force whoever runs a Los Banos project to have everyone interested in moving there clearly decide if they want to pay X for a single family house and a yard or pay Y for an apartment, and clearly include all extra cost of single family housing in the comparison.
Even though Los Banos is almost fully single family suburban style sprawl, the city is currently small enough that everything is within walking distance from a potential future HSR station, at least in a pinch, and well within bicycling distance. The area between the planned HSR line and the existing city would be ideal for higher density development.
Also place any station parking lots in a way that forces people to walk through a bit of mixed use mid/high density development on their way to the train.
Anonymous 05 Sep 25 0833, the powers that be including in each affected city can hope for transit-oriented development rivaling that of Brightline in southeast Florida, and local boosters can hope for downtown revival and station area vitality. Go for it, but I don't believe that's what most going there will prefer if they are to be there indefinitely, have a family, etc., and it'll get old fast, as local people also will learn about daytime dorm desertion.
Delete@MiaM,
I once saw a tweet (IIRC) stating something like letting the general population decide on urban planning is like letting toddlers decide what to eat.
That is a mischaracterization and misstatement of reality, and typically also involves people oddly talking down to others with their heads craned up. That includes the extended-childhood crowd with too much unrealistic currently trendy urban fetishes about everything, where only some places are suitable for being that way, as well as places that are suitable for mid-rise and high-rise development instead of the typical low-rise found even in most downtowns of many cities. Incidentally, many planners and related types live in nice suburban or exurban houses.
Walking legs at starts and ends of trips, and in the interim, are overhead and time as well as distance are costly, should be minimized; that is what is desired.
Also see this. The preference in the map is normal and rational.
(2015)
They stepped off their trains and walked straight to the back parking lot. And even some of the commuters who parked in the front lot chose to walk around the building rather than through it.
https://i0.wp.com/voiceofoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ARTIC-graphic-2.jpg
https://voiceofoc.org/2015/10/anaheims-artic-wasteland/
I have commuted by bicycle (15-30+ miles each way) and on foot (2+ miles each way), as well as by bus and train on transit, but by my choices, correctly; it's not anyone else's place to say, much less officially and in laws that I should do this, or drive less, etc. Meanwhile,
somehow force whoever runs a Los Banos project to have everyone interested in moving there clearly decide if they want to pay X for a single family house and a yard or pay Y for an apartment
That's what everyone who chooses a home does, as with any housing that springs up in the Diridon Station area in San Jose, for example, which can happen independently of any now-old Google village plan, and as some want for Morgan Hill and Gilroy. (and Salinas, and added with straight face, Millbrae)
Brightline TOD looks like this, in West Palm. It has that sanitized, hospital, institutional look, but beats typical awful, junky mid-rise TOD and other projects happening now at Caltrain sites and elsewhere.
Delete(Brightline is a passenger train service brought to Florida by some real estate developers.)
@Anonymous:
DeleteRe walking:
Have you ever thought about that the drive between walking to your car and then walking from your car to the train platform is the overhead that should be cut out?
Nobody would ever claim that ARTIC (Anaheim Regional Transit Intermodal Center) is urbanism, transit oriented development or anything of the like. It's a prime example of a city that isn't the center of gravity wanting to overbuild something, without actually knowing what they are doing.
I don't know about how it's in North America, but in Europe there are plenty of examples of 1800's station buildings in small towns that are way overbuilt due to a town or a railway wanting to have an impressive building. An example from Sweden is the station in Herrljunga, a town with about 4k people, that also joins railways in four directions:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/8qQgknyzWHXYpZB6A
This is worth reading. "Not every station has to be the Taj Mahal", which I would say refers to either ARTIC or to the excessive large planned rebuild of San Jose Diridon.
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2025/06/30/panel-doing-high-speed-rail-right
@MiaM, the Big Armadillo in Anaheim is what I suspect some in San Jose envy and believe they must surpass with the future new Diridon Station. Others envision San Jose's future new station as something more like the most recently built large European train stations. Incidentally, San Jose is not the center of gravity of the Bay Area nor is it the center or "capital" of Silicon Valley, whose industry never was centered there and has shifted westward and somewhat north in the most recent decades. No doubt some wish there was even more proximity to the Palo Alto and Menlo Park stations than there is now for tech, and that the Dumbarton line was running with its Facebook Station and TOD-like development ("in the vicinity") in place, too.
DeleteSan Jose has a small city complex and will at least try to impress itself at others' expense if it can.
MTC didn't even get the downtown San Francisco station right, for a number of reasons that numerous critics have decried before, but which also includes failure to develop atop the station itself in the core of downtown San Francisco, of all places. At least the Brightline (FEC) people knew enough to exploit their downtown Miami location like the other two southeastern sites, as shown here, and here. MTC, Muni, Caltrain, BART, and other envious bureaucracies and commercial organizations (including building contractors, housing developers, tech companies) would want to be there, and apartments or condominium homes could be included with offices. But no. It also won't happen in San Jose, the way things are going. There will not be any living on one floor and working on another, commuting on elevators or stairways, or parts of floors, even, segregated offering one-floor commute potential. Apartments are good for overnight stays if working long or to get away at lunchtime, too.
Thank you for the Streetsblog link.
@MiaM,
DeleteHave you ever thought about that the drive between walking to your car and then walking from your car to the train platform is the overhead that should be cut out?
It is overhead. I have always said commuting is overhead. (Its cost should be deductible from income taxes on income earned at the related employment.)
Most don't live where they work, for numerous reasons. But in the many places I have worked I have taken pains to minimize the commute, so driving has been minimized. There is also the logistical detail that matters so much with this site's Caltrain, and downtown San Francisco, namely that it's easier and cheaper to go in and out of downtown San Francisco by transit than it is to drive there and attempt to park, the most one can expect to do during any busy day or time. San Francisco is among the very, very few central cities with some vitality remaining, which means pedestrians 24-7 but also, parking is challenging to a nightmare, and even driving there is avoided; it's preferable to take transit.
@Anonymous 05 Sep 25 0833, Caltrain or like service isn't going to be extended as a branch shared with high-speed service over the mountains to Los Banos. Conventional trains won't make sense as a commuter system to go farther than Los Banos. High-speed trains in theory might support people in Madera, too, and arguably in Fresno though I consider that iffy. Hollister definitely is possible.
DeleteMost streetcar suburb appeal to residents is in the single-family homes, not in the small downtowns or business districts of larger cities (in some case, from annexation of former separate towns). It's a separate appeal to some that there is often a decent amount of local business available, too.
There is no housing "crisis"; that word is routinely misused in an emotive way for chronic conditions, phenomena, and problems, as housing has been in California since the early 1970s. People began moving to the Central Valley and extending the Bay Area commuter shed there in the 1970s, too, for housing affordability and quality of life concerns for some. Only so many houses, which most want, can be built, and the Bay Area features physical constraints on development as well as legal such as environmental protection. The problem now in particular is demand, from highly-paid tech employees and others but also from big money of all kinds since 2008-9 and foreign as well as domestic interests. There is indeed a shortage of housing of all kinds, as a result. Multi-unit housing can be built in many, many places, but needs to be done better than it currently is being done, with more attention to quality of construction and appearance, placement of additional development, and adequate or sufficient off-street parking, despite transit use and interest by many.
The selection of Pacheco Pass over Altamont Pass was TOTALLY political, San Jose people getting their way with assuaging their small city complex (as with the BART subway and making it novel and pioneering, and especially large and expensive, as with the stations), and now the HSR project is being pushed as a super rapid transit system offering Japanese Shinkansen commuting from afar to reach more affordable housing. Most would prefer to live in the Bay Area itself, even on station sites and commute by Caltrain or BART if it were practical for them, in their earliest working years, in particular. Selection of Palmdale over Grapevine also was political, though Palmdale and the high desert area around it were reached for housing since the 1970s, too and Metro Rail if it were electrified really could effectively share Burbank-Palmdale with the high-speed trains.
@anon 11:54, somewhat agree/disagree, respectfully. Here are my thoughts - looking forward to hearing yours!
Delete1. Streetcar suburbs: it's a decent balance to strike IMO - looking at pre-war streetcar burbs, we have reasonable density, small walkable town centers, but still enough yard space and room to satisfy demand. This is evident in the Maryland suburbs of DC and Baltimore - e.g., Hyattsville/Riverdale. A similar approach for Morgan Hill, San Martin, Gilroy, Hollister, maybe Los Banos has a good chance of meeting the demand, so I think it's worth it.
2. Housing crisis: hard disagree. It IS a crisis, in fact, and the sooner we accept that, the sooner we start building. Dancing around "crisis" only makes the problem worse, IMO. New York and California have lost votes in the Electoral College vs places in the Sunbelt, primarily because NY and CA aren't building enough housing supply to meet demand. An "easy" way to create additional housing without hurting freeway traffic or "community character" which is BS, is to simply place tall housing towers directly on top or next to transit stations, which is my major point. Most of these tech bros would love to live in San Francisco lite type station/town centers that have food stores, bars, restaurants, gyms, etc on the first floor, their condo on a higher floor, and the station next door for when they need to go into the office. This has the consequence of reducing competition and demand for larger homes and condos for families, workers, etc. On the point of dense housing being done better, I 100% agree if it follows the preceding rant lol
3. No shit Pacheco is political. I may disagree on the San Jose as a small town inferiority complex, but Altamont would likely have been more expensive, and passing over San Jose is like passing over Oakland when building BART. Altamont would have required Dumbarton, a new tunneled alignment, and dealing with East Bay NIMBYs. Pacheco has very few NIMBYs comparatively - it's basically empty past Gilroy. There's also a lot of untapped potential along the Caltrain corridor in terms of development and job access - Morgan Hill, San Martin, Gilroy, maybe Hollister and Los Banos, all are great development opportunities, in addition to the existing corridor, especially Diridon. I also think the upgrade potential for San Jose - Gilroy is seriously underrated. It's relatively easy to upgrade the line to 220mph.
4. Grapevine: Again, this would have been more expensive, and neglected connections to BLW/Vegas as well as unlock Palmdale as a commuter town. Grapevine would have required a ~30 mile tunnel or something ridiculous vs breaking it up into two projects (Bakersfield - Palmdale; Palmdale - Burbank). Now, with the new downgrade of tunneled speed from 242 to 220, this dogleg is even cheaper. While it adds a few minutes, it creates better connections to LV/Brightline, and allows for Palmdale service.
Bounce
Delete1. The West Coast cities and particularly Morgan Hill and Gilroy in this context aren't like the eastern cities (I have lived there as well as in western cities), and TOD is a "clean slate." What's needed isn't just mass housing, not only jobs neglected by some for housing, but real neighborhood community assets to make the place good enough to draw residents from elsewhere in the vicinity, too.
2. There is no crisis, as with other misuses of the word. Wait a year, a few years, if you're unsure and want to see it change, will ebb and flow to a good degree with tech's ups and downs. It's common for California to be a net domestic exporter of people. New York typically loses except for effects of immigration, or that used to be so. Housing costs and availability are problems found all over the country, including popular red as well as blue places. (You know, or should know, there are blue cities in red states.) Community and neighborhood character is real, even if you dislike it. Large and tall buildings cannot go just anywhere and they need to be good, not bad, works. Developers are cheap and the legislature and others in state and other governments are sellouts. Housing by transit centers (apartments) may rent to tech worker commuters. We'll see if they're actually neighbors in addition to residents if they're in tech. They might take transit if their offices are also within easy access of transit. If enough of them live in one of the transit sites, wouldn't private buses possibly start serving them? Else they call for rides as well as deliveries like others. There are plenty of places to build, not only around transit stations and stops, and better buildings to build.
3. Pacheco is political, versus the serious Nor-Cal regional and state transportation system choice of Altamont Pass. Altamont Pass wouldn't be that much more challenging, and Dumbarton is as far south as HSR need go in the Bay Area anyway. San Jose to Gilroy: Acceleration at full power cannot start promptly south of Diridon, but farther away, later, and how long and far will it take to reach 220 mph, and to decelerate in the normal, not emergency, manner? It also means no longer sharing the Caltrain line but going back to a separate infrastructure. ($$$) It's part of a developed area and desire to limit speeds to around 125 mph may occur. This is also true on both sides of Altamont Pass and something along the Central Valley main stem, and desert cities in addition to the LA Basin that I suspect a number of people may have not realized. The state can certainly override local community objections, and refuse to compensate cities and counties for costs, as with housing.
4. Tehachapi (Palmdale) also was political, but at least serves the main adjacent regional market. Tejon (Grapevine) is a better route, including only a single instead of Palmdale's double mountain crossing with the inner one (the San Gabriels) larger than the East Bay Hills specter with Dumbarton and Altamont Pass.
Clem has addressed this nicely, here: The Truth About Tejon
The Brightline people on Brightline West could indeed seek to use a new High Desert Corridor and state HSR Palmdale-Los Angeles. They would forego the cost of construction and maintenance of their own route through Cajon Pass to Rancho Cucamonga, albeit with government assistance, but then waiting indefinitely for the state to build HSR to connect Rancho Cucamonga to LA. There's not a good analogue for the Bay Area and something 300 miles from San Francisco off the state route largely.
It's a bit hard to keep track of which Anonymous is which. Please consider clicking the "Comment as" button and fill in whatever name you want (please don't take mine though).
DeleteWhile people might want single family homes, do they really want that when they consider the actual cost?
I.E. if we build on the untouched land on the northern edge of the existing city of Los Banos, it would be obvious that multi floor multi family housing without backyards, setbacks, parking for each home and such, results in homes that is way way way cheaper both to build and to maintain (maintenance and energy costs and whatnot).
The problem is how things are treated, where everyone who isn't going to live at a particular site tries to gains as much money as possible from it. I believe it's called rent seeking behavour.
I think that it would be a good idea to decide that Los Banos and almost everywhere between San Jose and Gilroy are potential areas for future development, and just negotiate with everyone involved at each site to see what the resulting cost-of-living would be for people if each of these areas would be built, and then just have the areas compete against each other, where only one would get a go ahead.
The reason Brightline managed to build better urbanism is simply that it's a housing scheme with a railway attached to it, much like some railways operated in the second half of the 1800's.
For funding rail projects I also think we need to change the legislation so that the public sector are allowed to do "land speculation" for real. I.E. not have to go through the weird work around that is building gigantic parking lots and then later "realize" that they aren't needed and be able to sell off the land again at a profit.
The ideal solution that would probably never happen in USA is to just decide to build decent quality publicly owned housing in desirable areas, that is run without milking out profit of the residents.
As for walking distance between parking lot - stations or homes - stations, I'd say that having as many homes as possible within walking distance of a station is more important than having parking lots.
In particular I would say that no one in Los Banos needs a car for their daily commute if they would be commuting by a future HSR station.
I have no idea how to change it, but a problem is also cars as a status symbol, in particular in North America inefficient large trucks.
@MiaM, Brightline is building and selling developments around its train stations and where else it can make money.
DeleteI don't like the idea of transit or transportation agencies, whose purpose is to provide transportation services of some kind, or MTC, get involved in transit-oriented TOD as real estate ventures. Who's next, Caltrans in addition to the high-speed rail Authority at HSR station sites? That's the trend now. They have specific purposes already for the existence and functions. They don't need to get more involved in housing schemes (never employment and jobs, offices, industries?) on station sides., at the irresponsible reduction of parking below what's needed or not. (Parking and housing AND EMPLOYMENT have equal value being within walking distances of transit, for all transit users involved.) I suspect others in the state have varying views and strong feelings on the pro-housing side. I don't expect the classic Japanese National Railways example with local transit, regional transportation authorities, or the high-speed rail authority. On the other hand, you're right about Los Banos substituting the high-speed rail for a car commute if possible, which is why the Sierra Club acted to get it illegal to build there, the first place for a station typically identified in the Central Valley east of Pacheco Pass, known for car commuters already. People living there as commuters in multi-floor multi-unit housing would expect to live within a close walk of the station, wherever it was built.
More US public housing is thought by many as an experiment already that failed, fifty-plus years ago. There is ever present some interest in "social housing" that involves all income levels, or at least through upper moderate incomes that depending on family size can qualify for housing assistance in the Bay Area because housing is so expensive.
San Jose to Gilroy, except the Coyote Valley preserve (can be sold for much more later to build housing!), Morgan Hill to Gilroy, and all that larger area around Gilroy, Hollister, etc., is farm land ready to become housing, it seems. Building around the stations may result in people deserting homes during the day (dorm buildings for tech commuters, mainly) and keeping to themselves when at home, having things delivered to them now instead of their patronizing local businesses in person; it's a risk anywhere with development now. ("Ordering on Amazon, and DoorDash for food")
While I technically agree that transit agencies shouldn't act as real estate profit generators, I also think that that is kind of the only politically feasible alternative.
DeleteIt would be better to just decide to freeze rents and enforce a public agency to allocate rental units, in whatever is considered an area of influence from places that get improved transit, and the only way for property owners to gain more money is to build houses that contain more homes. This would include existing non-rental buildings too, I.E. if someone don't want to replace their single family house within walking distance of a station they would be obliged to rent it out to whoever the public rental apartment allocation agency decides. This would obviously never fly, but it would be better.
The other option would be for the city to just use eminent domain on every building within some sort of area of influence of transit stations, and go full planned economy with the area. This would also obviously never fly, but would also be better.
I.E. transit agencies scooping up land, and selling it at a profit, as a way to fund transit projects, is unfortunately something we seem to have to live with. I would like to at least change the rules so that public housing can be built on land owned by transit agencies.
But also: Another law that would be great but would never fly would be to regulate that both all new and existing spaces, housing and commercial, within an area of influence of transit stations, has to be "affordable", whatever that means.
In areas where there is a regional shortage of housing there shouldn't be any "non-affordable" homes. If people want luxury they can just buy a 78" TV and surround it with a golden frame, kind of sort of.
Evidently lacking railyard space, Caltrain gallery cars are sadly being stored on wood blocks in Lima. The start of any useful service using them is mired in political wrangling and seemingly endless and widely varying predictions of necessary red tape and unfunded years-worth of necessary track, station, signaling, and crossing protection infrastructure. Meanwhile, we can <a href="https://youtu.be/XdqB90947z4>watch as a little dog plays chicken with a walking-speed train passing by the stored gallery cars</a>.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, we can <a href="https://youtu.be/XdqB90947z4”>watch as a little dog plays chicken with a walking-speed train passing by the stored gallery cars</a>.
DeleteMeanwhile, we can watch as a little dog plays chicken with a walking-speed train passing by the stored gallery cars.
DeleteClem has said in the past that more employees work within 1/2 mile from the San Francisco Salesforce stop than ALL of the other CalTrain stops combined. The old information may need updating, but my question: Is it worth spending BILLIONS of dollars for the DTX extra mile closer to where people work???
ReplyDeleteThe Caltrain terminus at Fourth Street is literally (too) far from ideal. It's about a mile (1.6 km) on foot to places associated with "downtown" development, Union Square, etc. That's why there is interest in extending to a terminus downtown. BART reaches downtown and Market Street. The old Transbay Terminal, long before (yuck) Salesforce and tawdry commercialization including naming and naming rights as with sporting events and stadium deals, was better positioned.
DeleteClem has shown job and resident (population) census data before for Caltrain with an eye to planning Caltrain service. San Francisco is a standout for jobs. See here. The line-station diagram presentation in the second (2013) blog entry is the best.
https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2012/01/peninsula-rail-corridor-census.html
https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2013/10/census-driven-service-planning.html
and of course, related,
https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2017/01/san-jose-done-right.html
A question here is if the cost of Link21 itself would be any lower, if at all, or possibly even be more expensive, if Salesforce would be skipped.
DeleteIt's unfortunate that it's so expensive to build a new station in SF, but that's the price we have to pay for neglecting mainline style rail transit for so many years.
We can't predict the future, but a qualified guess is that unless we end up replaced by AI, or as brains connected to computers in a lab, we will commute for the foreseeable future, and thus the cost of connecting Salesforce and building Link 21 could easily be spread out over at least half a century.
@MiaM, are you suggesting abandoning The Portal™ or DTX or ∞BS, etc., project and just sliding somehow from Fourth Street toward Alameda (likely toward Jack London Square, if in no other way as a horrid Tee for Transfer project there) or west Oakland to reach Oakland (Jack London Square, of beloved Amtrak renown)?
DeleteVariations of the maps already are worth considering -- going directly from Fourth to Alameda, then Oakland, or to West Oakland, are possibilities. The better thing for transportation is to get Caltrain downtown, though, then connect downtown S.F. to Jack London Square or other desired site in Oakland. Whether a connection is made from Fourth or from downtown after DTX is built, it's costly, MTC costly atop California costly atop USA costly atop ordinarily costly.
Mia- Been involved in this for many decades. Project cost doesn't matter. It's political support that matters. In the 90's, the question was BART to SFO or Caltrain electrified and brought downtown. Note that SFO would have built its people mover to a Caltrain station as part of its expansion. Political will was behind BART.
DeleteAsk yourself if BART through San Jose is being questioned because of its cost. Project cost doesn't matter. (I AM NOT SAYING THAT'S A GOOD THING)
@Anon:
DeleteI'm just interested in knowing what the cost difference would be. Partially I'm interested but it's partially a rhetoric question as I just assume that there isn't much cost difference is the TBMs and whatnot would do it all in one go (which I doubt will happen, but still?).
While we are at it, I would say that Jack London Square is a crap location in Oakland as it's a bit too far away from any BART station. Given that Salesforce is also a bit away from the closest BART station I think it's important to get interchanges right on the Oakland side.
A real problem is how to get an interchange in Oakland right? In particular what services would run on Link21? With the suggested fork, that ends up with two different stations in Oakland where trains are split between them, it seems like a decision has to be made to which services to run in each direction.
It will likely never happen, but it would probably be a good idea to build an underground station in Oakland that has it's southern end near the northern end of BART Lake Merrit and it's northern end near BART 12th st/Oakland. Then connect Link21 in a drop shaped form, so Link21 trains to/from Richmond/Sacramento/Stockton (in my dreams also Stockton via Walnut Creek rather than Richmond/Martinez) connect to the southern half of the drop shaped Link21 connection, while trains to/from Fremont/San Jose/ACE connect to the northern half of the drop shaped Link 21 connection. That way all mainline trains will have connection with each other at this station, and they will also have connection with every BART route (except the short off-peak Dublin-Bayshore shuttle). Future non-Link 21 services would also use this station and it's connecting tracks, but different platforms than Link21 trains. Build a new BART station and a temporary mainline station for terminating trains form the south at the western end of 14th street, and similarly expand Richmond to be able to terminate the San Joaquins and the Capitol Corridor diesel trains, and/or as a place to connect/disconnect diesel locos. Add electric Caltrain EMUs shuttling between Richmond and wherever you'd temporary end the electrification southwards. This assumes that these mainline routes wouldn't have been electrified already at the time Link21 is built.
The luke warm take is that if a double tracked electrified mainline route would exist between San Jose and Oakland/Richmond, the need for Link21 might be somewhat reduced.
@Michael:
Yeah, I know that unfortunately it's about political will more than what's technically the best. Or at least it's that way for large projects and also for larger cities. Like for small projects or in smaller cities you can actually point out that a technically better solution would save money/time/whatnot and just change plans/operations.
BART through San Jose is bonkers, and having it parallel Caltrain along three stations is even more bonkers. Given what you say, it kind of feels like they are pushing the project as it would be the last chance to go ahead with it, as the general public would likely be more positive to Caltrain for longer distances and perhaps a way cheaper VTA route for shorter services. In particular an east bay Caltrain would have better interchange with BART removing a major reason for BART through downtown SJ.
I'm sorry, Mia, but your eyes are too big for the State's pocketbook. How in the world would you propose to pay for this tear-drop shaped terminal, much less a new pair of Trans bay tubes that can host trains with catenary rather than third rail?
DeleteI know that such a facility has been discussed for years, but the cost keeps rising much faster thanvthecstate's ability to pay for it.
Maybe the first part of CalHST will be finished to Alameda by 2050, but I wouldn't bet on it.
This would be another fifteen billion at least, today, and maybe a hundred then.
@MiaM, I don't know what the cost of the alternative would be, exactly, or at least an initial estimate, but no doubt it would be in a tunnel, too, very costly even before the overruns and delays, and any plan or design changes.
DeleteBART to downtown San Jose, Diridon Station, and Santa Clara, with the tunnel's naturally being started in Santa Clara, to be started in Santa Clara, indeed is bonkers. I have seen the following very, very rarely also criticized but it's also of note. There is no station at the university campus east of downtown (San Jose State University), just a ventilation facility a few cross streets farther east. Many students would be ideal candidates for taking transit instead of driving and parking at school. Apparently it's more important to start San Jose toward Millbrae from the south.
@Anandakos:
DeleteThe latest talks about Link21 seems to be that they are targeting mainline overhead electrificated rail, so that part is not just transit enthusiast fantasies but what the project it actually considering.
Even though the tunnels would be more expensive for larger trains, on the other hand it would be expensive, bonkers and perhaps not even possible to electrify the mainline network with third rail or possibly even regauge it to BART gauge, and this would include almost all mainline rail in California, and really also Brightline to Vegas, to save money on the Link21 tunnels.
Thinking about it, there is really no need for Link21 to connect southwards. The only real loser from doing this is potential future ACE trains to SF, but those would be better to run on a rebuilt Dumbarton bridge anyways, perhaps?
A suggestion posted elsewhere would be to remove the highway that is northwest of Broadway in Oakland, as that highway kind of doesn't fill any purpose (it connects two routes down along the east bay, where both routes have about equally good local connections), and replace it with both at least one new BART station (where BART already runs in the center of the highway) and a mailine rail station connecting Link21 and Colliseum - Fremont - San Jose from it's southwestern end, and with tunnels connecting to Richmond and possibly Walnut Creek (for far distant future connections for HSR to Sacramento and some type of connection to Stockton(that would be directer than via Richmond and Martinez)). Removing this highway would likely be of great benefit for Oakland as it's high density downtown kind of ends right before this highway, and removing it would free up a dozen of blocks of land for development, that currently is owned by the public sector. (It might be a bit costly to develop as the buildings would have to straddle where Link21 and a connector towards Colliseum emerges from underground, but still).
I have no idea when Cali HSR reaches the bay area, but I'm sure that by then the opinion will swing towards rail removing most problems with funding rail. Hopefully this happens sooner. It's at least not unlikely that the opinion starts to swing quite a bit as soon as the IOS is up and running.
@Anonymous (Michael?):
Oh, omitting the university campus seems bad...
Whoever makes the major decisions for/at VTA seems to be more about prestige projects than actual usability and cost-benefit. I wish that whoever funds what VTA spends money on would also fund Cali HSR.
(It's also extremely weird to see this BART extension on it's way while we also talk about cutting the few trains to Gilroy due to there not being enough money...).
MiaM - in terms of Link21 connecting south, hard disagree. We need more flexibility, not less. Caltrain can do ring-the-bay if tracks go south, as can CAHSR trains, using SF-Oakland to turn trains back south. The reverse is true - instead of running trains solely up the peninsula and down the East Bay, we can now run trains up the East Bay and then into SF to maximize capacity. As you said, ACE or similar trains can go Oakland - SF - San Jose/Dumbarton. The Coast Subdivision is right there and could be upgraded and electrified, and would relieve pressure on Link21 if demand exceeds capacity as there would be several transfer points to BART (Coliseum, new Oakland station).
DeleteAdditionally, if you use the 980 site for a new Link21 station and alignment, have it point east, with loop tracks. From the west, 3 different access points: from the north, the mainline to Richmond, from the west, Link21, and from the south, the existing mainline. From the east, 2-3 different access points as well, one from the south and one from the north for sure which allows the use of this new Oakland station as a turnaround for all trains, allowing for Oakland - San Jose service with cross platform transfers as needed, or long distance Amtraks dropping pax off at Oakland for cross platform transfers to Caltrain via Link21. Additionally, this also sets up a future new bore to access the Walnut Creek area to connect to the Capitol Corridor mainline or eBart line to Stockton.
Next, in this scenario, I'd think an ideal situation in San Jose is to extend electrification to at least Capitol Caltrain if not approximately the Metcalf area for a large storage and maintenance facility for Caltrain, ACE, Capitol Corridor, HSR, etc, maximizing the existing corridor(s). Adding in some way to loop trains back to either direction in Oakland or San Francisco at Diridon would also be ideal, but I have no clue how to do this without massive impacts.
From there, you now have through-running looping service through every major city in the Bay Area, and great connections to points beyond. Add in Altamont and Dumbarton, on top of all these improvements (including Pacheco, SJ-Gilroy improved service) and the Bay Area legitimately could have the best mainline rail service in the entire country if not the world. This is also why HSR is prioritizing a Gilroy/San Jose connection.
As for BART, that's better off as a new Sunset - Richmond/GG Park - Geary - Market - Alameda Island line later down the line. The Link21 and the 2nd BART tube serve entirely different purposes and audiences, ergo should be considered separately and built separately.
I'm anon 7:27 - and, yes, the BART decisions in San Jose are thanks to VTA. Extremely dumb decision, IMO. They should have gone a bit more south for a station directly at SJSU, then Diridon to Stevens Creek all the way to De Anza College. Elevate that sucker and save $10B. From there you can terminate the line or run it back as a loop via Sunnyvale, north San Jose/Santa Clara. Run a shuttle or APM from Diridon to SJC, and the Bay Area has fantastic transit access. It only makes sense when looked at as the most expensive contractor-friendly option
DeleteNon-7:27 and 7:31 Anon here -- East Santa Clara Street is the main thoroughfare and corridor in the area, and a station near the campus would be fine. The area east of campus is identified as one of those to build up as an urban neighborhood, too, so 12th-13th or the like is okay for a station, though if closer to campus obviously will benefit and attract students more. The closer and shorter the walk, the better, but something reasonable there would be, or would have been, good, including at 13th Street. A station incorporated with the ordinary cut-and-cover twin-tunnel design used in the rest of the system(!) as at the two San Francisco Mission station sites would have been fine, a bit swamped by students at times, but not at others, and that size suitable for east of that area, too.
DeleteWOW.
Anon 7:27 and 7:31 (12 Sep), a Dumbarton line would facilitate looping in the South Bay, too, or fun involving the South Bay and one day, the East Bay with high-speed trains. With a rail tunnel under the Bay someday (imagining the money is found for it, too), a one-seat ride San Jose-Peninsula-S.F.-Sacramento would be possible.
DeleteThe Coast Subdivision in the East Bay swings west toward the shore, south of Oakland, and bypasses the bulk of the population in the East Bay cities, unlike the old WP Oakland Subdivision route used by the BART East Bay Viaduct and other passage, and sought as a rec trail between Oakland and Fremont. See the about it, with a map that also shows the "swing-out" Coast Subdivision line to the west.
BART never had to be a subway into and east, out of, San Jose. "Small town insecurity, big egos"
The city solicited ideas for a Diridon-airport (Mineta) connector and Bombardier's submission using existing products was the most realistic, an automated people mover as at other airports for the airport-Diridon route alone, and a monorail as elsewhere as an option for the connector but also supporting the Stevens Creek extension. I'd also like to see it go north into Santa Clara (city) and serve the stadium, continue into North San Jose-Alviso or the Sunnyvale Moffett ("Caribbean") area, but that wasn't in the city's concept. (You have that idea originating from De Anza, hearing toward the southern Peninsula, then east, similarly to 85-237.) There also was no thought or consideration of intermediate stops on the 3 mile+ (5 km) airport-Diridon route, where new businesses or truly mixed use with residential were possible in the western or Diridon Station Area, not limited to the Google Village plan. BART was not one of the submissions, though some have thought of it. Also, some might wonder about VTA light rail route conversions.
The best submission (with examples, already)
DeleteThe choice (because high tech bragging rights matter), making typical people smile.
Anon 727/731 here:
DeleteYeah. For BART/local rail, San Jose has a lot of potential if they build good transit and densify, becoming Tokyo 2.0, especially in western and northwestern San Jose/Mountian View/Sunnyvale/Cupertino. As San Jose dictator, I would have actually cancelled BART into San Jose or truncate it at Berryessa, and instead built an automated metro like Vancouver BC or Honolulu. Stops would be Berryessa, 28th & Santa Clara, Santa Clara & 9th, Santa Clara & 1st, Diridon, San Carlos & Bascom, Stevens Creek & Winchester, Stevens Creek & Saratoga, Stevens Creek & Wolfe, Stevens Creek & De Anza. From there, you can start converting a lot of the light rail ROW to automated metro, e.g., VTA Orange elevated, straightened, and upgraded; VTA Green all the way to Los Gatos upgraded, and the VTA Blue de-interlined with Green so the Green line serves the W/NW axis, while the Blue serves a N/S axis, centered around downtown & Japantown, with a small detour to serve SJC. Add an East/West line from Milpitas or Berryessa BART to SJC, under the runaways to Santa Clara, down the Alameda and El Camino Real to Mountain View or San Antonio Caltrain, terminating at one of the warehouse areas north of 101 near Google/Moffett. You can start this line simply by connecting SJC - Milpitas/Berryessa BART, then add the legs on it later. Alternatively, if you can't or don't want to go under the runaways, turn it south to go BART - SJC - Diridon - back up to Santa Clara/Alameda to ECR in a U shape.
From there, heavy rail can be set up super nicely to serve both the South Bay and the region.
1. I would start with electrified Caltrain to Oakland via the Coast Subdivision so it's complementing, not competing with BART as an express service, where BART serves local destinations (e.g., Fremont, Union City, etc) while East Bay Caltrain would have just a few stops compared to BART: Diridon - Santa Clara - Levi's - Newark - Hayward - Coliseum - maybe Jack London.
2. Link21 for through-running from SF-Oakland. Now we have ring the bay Caltrain! Turn trains for now at Capitol with a new maintenance facility there. Potentially look into a loop track somehow at Diridon or south of Diridon also so trains can use Diridon to go east or west to SF/Oakland. Maybe after Diridon, follow 87 to Coleman Ave?
3. At this point, with HSR, Capitol Corridor, ACE, long distance Amtraks, etc, you'll start running into capacity issues. Add in Dumbarton and Altamont, with wyes at each end, for maximum flexibility. This basically gets you a figure 8 diagram with SF and Oakland at the top, Dumbarton being the middle of the 8, and San Jose at the bottom. Now, you have 3 mainline routes into the Bay (Pacheco, Altamont, and whatever Capitol Corridor decides to do), along with access to every major city in the Bay Area via mainline rail. Add in future feeder routes like Hollister, Salinas, even SMART via the Richmond bridge, ACE/Valley Link and we'd have an amazing network.
Is there a "block" capability on the blog? There is one notorious troll that I'd prefer not to see, regardless how highly he thinks of his "erudition".
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately no. Control over what you choose to see went out with the 2000s, citizen. You are a nothing more than an advertising and surveillance target.
DeleteIf your web browser still does allows you, the user, any control over what you see (Google Chrome most definitely does not wish to continue to do so), then the "Stylus" browser plugin/extension allows you to hack-up something. (I can't imagine how one could consider browsing at all without both Stylus and uBlock Origin installed and shields up to maximum.)
Try this:
.comment-header:has(cite.user a[href*="/mly."]) + .comment-content {
opacity: 20% !important;
font-size: 50% !important;
}
.comment-header cite.user a[href*="/mly."]::before {
content: "*** REDACTED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS ***"
}
One can do the same sort of thing directly with a uBlock Origin rules that looks something like (untested; I prefer to use Stylus for this sort of CSS override) "caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com#$#.comment-header:has(cite.user a[href*="/mly."]) + .comment-content { opacity: 20% !important; font-size: 50% !important; }" but I might not have that exactly correct.
Sadly this won't catch the many times I've typoed the URL, or fat-fingered and accidentally posted as "Anonymous", but it's a start, and may make your life my igorantly blissful.
You can do similar things like block all replies to a comment I've made using similar CSS-caveman hackery.
Fingers crossed on the endless typos front,
-- Richard
Thank you. I did not know that there are "programmable" browsers. This would be some sort of "rule" I gather.
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty cool.
From the August ridership report, Saturday and Sunday ridership are 25000 and 21000 respectively. SF 4th&King station has 7300/5900 riders during weekends. This is 56% of weekend ridership going to/from SF terminal. How much more ridership will be needed for Caltrain to increase weekend train frequency?
ReplyDeleteWeekend destination is concentrated to SF. Running limited type express (Local SJ-RWC, express to SF) may reduce traveling time from Silcon Valley to SF up to 20 min. Faster weekend train will attract more demands against Freeway 101/280.
Funding for a bridge loan for transit was approved, as reported typically here. The loan keeps the game going until a fuzzy future with an assumption, or is it hope because assumption is too inept or arrogant, that yet another href="https://my.lwv.org/california/bay-area/article/potential-bay-area-regional-transportation-measure">local tax measure will have been passed.
ReplyDeleteClip of trainset #19 being delivered as recorded by SBHRS webcam at 23:40 on Saturday 9/13.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Caltrain staff reports to its board, this set is supposed to be fitted with a catenary condition video monitoring system. Presumably also by Camlin Rail, the company that supplied Caltrain with the PanVue / RoofVue (pantograph / train roof) condition video monitoring system.
Anon-S:
ReplyDeleteRandom idea in the future RE: SJC. If we improve access to OAK and SFO from San Jose, plus build a major airport at Hollister with high speed connections, could we close down SJC and redevelop it like Denver did with Stapleton?
OAK - would just require Coast Subdivision electrification & upgrades to Coliseum for Caltrain to run all day service.
SFO - unfuck the BART monstrosity to have the APM run directly to an upgraded Millbrae station via existing BART structures. Also has the advantage of simplifying BART operations at the cost of increasing travel time to SFO by 2 minutes for BART folks, but speeding up SFO access via Caltrain by as much as 15 mins.
Hollister - extend an upgraded Caltrain to Hollister with 2 stops after Gilroy (Hollister airport; downtown Hollister). If you need to save money, truncate at Hollister airport and/or build a big park/ride station with a maintenance facility in that area.
SJC is over 400 acres, if not 500. Assuming about $600 per square foot, that gets us to a total value of over $12B, and if you pair this with TOD and dense development, you could easily double that. Putting aside $2B for transit still nets San Jose over $10B in this scenario, plus allows us to build out downtown San Jose very densely, in addition to the new land up for development.
400 acres at the population density of San Jose gets us about 5,000 new residents, or at the population density of San Francisco, gets us around 18,000 new residents, in addition to the increased heights allowed by the removal of SJC.
Transit in this scenario has the site on the west side covered by BART and Caltrain (Santa Clara), and on the east side, access to 87, downtown, and the light rail. Run a new line straight from Berryessa BART to the site, and through to Alameda/El Camino Real, and that'd really solve a big gap in the system.
I believe most would prefer Moffett Field, not limited to Google or tech heads only, as a replacement airport over Hollister, which reminds me of the Arlington-to-Lacey, both cities reminding me of Hollister, search for a new airport site for the Puget Sound (mainly Seattle) area, in addition to SEA-TAC that wasn't Paine Field, which had commercial development anticipated since the 1970s and was ready to become a commercial airport already, but stupid governments were reluctant to use. With Hollister, those who don't take trains, Caltrain or some special fast non-stop train between Diridon and the Hollister airport, face a DIA-style long, expensive taxi or other ride to get into the Bay Area proper (the actual metropolitan area, like Denver or Front Range neighbors).
DeleteHollister's airport is a smaller airport. Where it fits in can be bound on page 21 of this PDF file, marked page 17 of the actual document. There is much more in this document, too, of course.
https://edcsanbenito.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Airport-Layout-Plan-Update-and-Narrative-Report.pdf
Hollister might have a bigger future as not so much a relief airport but local area satellite of the Bay Area serving the big bowl around Gilroy, Hollister, San Juan Bautista, and so on, if it ever is more extensively developed into housing and also more employers than just more budding warehouses and the like. (Plus extra warehousing by a bigger Hollister airport)
Sadly, East Bay rail right-of-way use such as by BART has been haphazardly "expedient" and more is planned to get to Santa Clara Street that takes from rail assets we could use in place of the UPRR Coast Subdivision through Aiviso, also visible as a map feature below. The Coast alignment bypasses most people, cities, but we may get stuck with it the way things are locally run.
https://www.abandonedrails.com/niles-to-milpitas
https://www.abandonedrails.com/san-jose-california
It's a related shame how Oakland has fallen, not limited only to deindustrialization, but its airport used to be solid #2 and preferred by many. San Jose wasn't on the earliest BART maps as it was foreseen as able to be deferred for service until later sometime. The original Peninsula route for BART ended at Palo Alto. (Fremont on the East Bay inner flats)