 |
| Components of trip time. Electrification only improved time in motion. Photos by Mliu92, Evan0512, SaarPro. |
Marco Chitti recently penned a great piece about Why Speed Matters, a critique of Toronto's recently opened and glacially slow Finch West light rail. It echoes some of the themes that have infused discussions about how best to improve Caltrain, and what to focus on next. Electrification had obvious speed benefits that have now been realized, resulting in a ridership boost recently recognized by an industry group as "America's Fastest-Growing Transit Agency." But what now? As the accolades die down and the catenary fades into the scenery, will Caltrain lose its sense of purpose and fall asleep on its laurels?
Their relentless focus must remain on trip time, which comprises more than the time in motion, the component of trip time that was so remarkably improved by electrification. Trip time also includes time at rest, made up of all those station dwell times, and time waiting for the train, which depends on service frequency. The peninsula rail corridor's entire capital program should be organized around reducing trip time; instead, we see attention and funding being scattered among an incoherent set of gold-plated projects that produce no discernible trip time improvements:
- stupendously expensive grade separation projects such as Broadway in Burlingame ($615M to $889M) or Rengstorff Ave in Mountain View ($395M to $453M) masquerading as train projects are actually massive road traffic sewer expansions that provide negligible benefit to the average train passenger, especially after Caltrain recently demonstrated major reductions in cars-on-tracks incidents.
- like the White House ballroom, a grandiose remodel of the San Jose station (the "Diridon Integration Station Concept Plan") will plow under (literally!) 3 to 6 billion dollars to over-deliver on Caltrain's need for a single island platform at this not particularly remarkable train stop.
None of these shameful nine- and ten-figure megaprojects do anything to attack the components of trip time. To improve trip time, these are the projects that actually matter, in order of small to large:
- Fixed EMU door software to reduce each station dwell time by about ten seconds (the cost rounds to zero, serving as a useful litmus test of Caltrain's faith in trip time). Reduces time at rest.
- Updated EMU step design, a prerequisite for the transition to level boarding. The prototype cost is $3M and fleet-wide deployment likely less than $10M. This is currently the most important capital project at Caltrain, whether the college intern assigned to it knows this or not. Enables future reduction of time at rest.
- Twenty-minute base frequency, improved from today's half-hour, when the fleet grows to 21 (reliable!) trains. The capital cost is ~$0.4B but is already sunk. This adds operating cost, but only marginally since Caltrain has high fixed costs that can be better amortized over more riders. Reduces time waiting.
- Level boarding, not as a consultant-bloated megaproject where all platforms are replaced, but as a simple and incremental project using the existing platforms as foundation slab with modular, lightweight elements added to raise the height up by two steps (14 inches). This is likely < $0.5B system-wide and reduces time at rest.
- The four-track hub station in Redwood City, preferably with quadruple approach tracks (for simultaneous local+express arrivals and departures) from CP Dumbarton to San Carlos. This is the only grade separation project on the corridor that has any value for trip time. This one is likely about $1B. Reduces both time at rest (for the local being overtaken, thanks to the quadruple approach tracks) and time in motion (via cross-platform transfer to/from an express).
- The SF downtown extension, another dazzlingly expensive megaproject that will only be worth its cost (>$10B) if San Francisco downtown office towers fill up again, if service is extended through a new Transbay Tube to destinations eastward as part of Link21, and if the federal government ever funds big transit projects again. Compared to a two-seat ride, a direct connection reduces time in motion, time at rest, and time waiting for a transfer.
Ridership and revenue follows from trip time, another way of saying that time is money. All other capital projects are at best value-maintaining, not value-adding.
Note: Trip time forms the basis of timetable scoring in the Taktulator, with the nerdy details laid out in the formulation of a service quality metric and the posts linked therefrom. Reading this material over a decade later, it still rings just as true.
Posts
Thanks for the update. Hopefully, Santa will bring all of the fixes for 2026.
ReplyDeleteAnon-S here: Clem, great post, as usual. I appreciate the clear distinctions between time at rest, time in motion, and time waiting - these are useful when considering how to improve service and ridership.
ReplyDeleteTwo broader questions to think about in this frame, in my humble opinion:
Question 1 - How does the evergreen curve straightening post factor into this discussion, now? (https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/01/top-10-worst-curves.html)
My answer is that I suspect it's roughly between #4, level boarding, and #5, Redwood City Intergalactic Station, as, by my estimates, the #3 through #9 curves (Palo Alto, Millbrae, Hayward Park, Lawrence, Bowers, San Antonio, Belmont/San Carlos) would most likely cost a total of $1 billion. On the other hand, #1, #2, and #10 would be $3 billion+, knowing the transit industrial complex in the Bay Area...
Question 2 - How does the cost for quad gates / 110mph operation also factor into this discussion?
My answer is that it slots in after Redwood City Intergalactic station, and that focusing on curves and other things like level boarding probably would be a far better solution, especially since 110mph operation would basically only benefit express trains and HSR trains, not your regular Caltrain service, unless all of these curves are straightened.
The curve flattening only makes sense in the context of higher top speeds, from which as you point out there is little benefit to local service. The savings on time in motion from raising top speed to 110 mph are marginal and probably not worth it compared to the other ways we can reduce trip time. Look at it this way: electrification picked the low-hanging fruit for reducing time in motion; now that it's done, the focus needs to shift towards reducing time at rest and time waiting. Not as sexy, but just as important.
DeleteWe could go full Montreal on the doors. :-P https://youtube.com/shorts/qedDCi3boqc
ReplyDeleteThat might not fly from a regulatory perspective, but it might make sense to replace the moving steps (which are obviously failure-prone) with a fixed arrangement of the same dimensions as the step on the old Bombardier cars. Not as sleek, but more reliable, and with zero deploy/retract penalty.
Delete#4: "modular, lightweight elements added to raise the height up by two steps (14 inches)"
ReplyDeleteSpelled R-A-M-P-S?
-- "Me"
Reducing trip time has not been seriously considered by the high-speed rail project administration, as their actions past (since the 1990s) and recent show.
ReplyDeleteAnon-S here: this is where I think the advocacy group Californians for Electric Rail has a great point. We need a systematic approach to upgrading rail across the state to focus on improving trip times and service improvements, and even just iterative upgrades would have a huge impact, especially along the shared segments of the HSR corridor (Caltrain, Metrolink, etc).
DeleteI really think that the Gilroy - San Jose stretch is low-hanging and decently cheap fruit for upgrades, but no one is looking at that just yet, beyond the (IMO) lazy 90mph to 110mph quad gate alignment. It is just two curves past Blossom Hill, and about 12 to 16 grade separations at most, which can be completed over 10-15 years fairly easily, with the exception of the Morgan Hill and Gilroy station areas. Fully upgraded, you can have trains reaching speeds of 220mph as soon as Bailey Avenue in south San Jose, which saves up to 10 to 15 minutes of trip time.
That's also not to mention the complete abandonment of an improved, grade-separated 4-track line between San Jose and SF, which would significantly speed up the line to 125mph, resulting in yet another 10 to 15 minutes of savings for relatively little cost (if planned and iterated properly).
TL;DR - if done well, Caltrain upgrades from SF to Gilroy can provide as much as 30 minutes of travel time savings for HSR, which is significant for a 2-hour 45-minute line. I also think that this could be easily and affordably upgraded as part of a more comprehensive process, as Californians for Electrification proposes.
For example, to that end, Caltrain can pretty easily do the following:
-Review all planned/existing capital projects and work to future-proof the projects (e.g., the new Tamien bridge should be at least set up for 4 tracks)
-When Caltrain needs to replace some rail here and there, they can straighten certain curves and realign tracks for higher speeds or to set up 4 tracks in the future
-Slowly acquire ROW, add sidings/passing tracks here and there in anticipation of 4 tracks, starting with the mid-peninsula overtake, among other similar projects (e.g., buy up land around Capitol Caltrain for a future maintenance/layover facility to fix the CEMOF curve)
-Publish basic design standards and contracting practices for the SF - Gilroy corridor to reduce design and engineering costs (e.g., standardized station layouts that enable easy passing at stations; grade separation 'best practices')
-Coordinate with cities and counties to grant Caltrain or a lead agency the authority to do grade separations across the corridor in a systematic manner, instead of 1 at a time
Caltrain isn’t just the Grinch who could steal your money — they’re seemingly the rent‑seeking Grinch....
ReplyDeleteThe only thing they might deliver on time is a funding request…
re:"Twenty-minute base frequency, improved from today's half-hour, when the fleet grows to 21 (reliable!) trains. The capital cost is ~$0.4B but is already sunk. This adds operating cost, but only marginally since Caltrain has high fixed costs that can be better amortized over more riders. Reduces time waiting."
I am curious as to what prevents Caltrain from moving beyond the commuter‑rail model(4tph peak and 2tph offpeak) and running 20‑minute clockface all‑day service, (nearly) everyday?
Ummmm... operating costs in an era where no one is sure if 5 day a week peak hours will ever come back. Why does my MUNI bus no longer run to 1am? Same thing.
DeleteAnon-S here:
DeleteI think the point is that running 15 min frequency vs 20 min frequency is basically a marginal cost thing. It's a rounding error, and the major factors that influences ridership are frequency and speed. A fast train doesn't mean shit if it only comes twice a day, and a very slow train also doesn't mean shit even if it comes every 10 minutes. There's an optimal balance, and Caltrain now needs to focus on frequency over speed (as Clem said earlier, the low hanging and major speed project of electrification is now complete).
Even if you don't run trains late for Caltrain, at least run them frequently enough when the system is open so it becomes convenient and reliable, and you'll continue to see ridership increase. This is why and how the weekend service is seeing so many riders.
Anon S- please work up your spreadsheet and bring it to the JPB meeting to show how this works. They seem (as does BART) that they’re financially f’d. They need your help to straighten it out.
DeleteMichael, the “operating costs” hand‑wave doesn’t survive even the most basic look at one of Olde tyme Commute Railroading Caltrain’s own older documents.
DeleteCaltrain’s financial outlook shows that most operating costs are _fixed_, not variable, and as Clem points out the marginal costs added from more service is negligible. Member agency contributions historically covered only ~$20–40M of the budget, while fare revenue was the dominant share.
Link: https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/SFCTA_Board_Item9D_TransitRecoveryandFiscalCliffUpdatePRESENTATION_2024-09-25.pdf
It is ironic, they branded themselves as a "regional railroad" even though their service patterns and operational decisions don't actually resemble one...
https://www.caltrain.com/about-caltrain/statistics-reports/ridership?agency=Caltrain
The ridership data makes this even clearer. Off‑peak and weekend ridership is recovering much faster than peak commuting — and that’s after Caltrain doubled weekend service from 14/12 roundtrips pre‑pandemic to 32 roundtrips on both Saturday and Sunday- which is still embarrassingly low for an agency that insists on branding itself a “regional railroad.”
If Caltrain can’t deliver modern regional‑rail frequencies after spending billions(which in itself was needlessly high) on electrification, the problem isn’t the budget.
The problem is _Caltrain_.
AnonS here:
DeleteTo SomeRandomGuy, thank you. This is exactly what I meant - the overhead really is a marginal cost. I would actually be ok with 1-2 hours less of operation per day of Caltrain only if they ran more trains when the system was actually open. It costs you almost nothing to run more trains in terms of overhead, but it costs you a lot when your trains aren't frequent enough to make it convenient for all kinds of riders. This is why Randy Clarke at WMATA (DC Metro) has been doing so well - he understands that people need a good level of service all day in order to rely on Metro as a decent option. The same goes with Caltrain, here.
One obstacle to running more trains is the cost of the assistant conductor. Convert those labor costs into paying for the third additional off-peak train. The other obstacle is the rewriting of the schedule: the takt is clearly 30 minutes, in order to support the 1 hour express train. The simplest solution would to create a simpler 20 minute takt with no express trains, with one local and one limited train per interval.
DeleteAnother improvement to the schedule would be to follow BART / WMATA and run one weekday schedule, with the same service during peak and off-peak hours. Not running weekday off-peak hours doesn't lead to cost savings. In the era of flexible work, there is plenty of upside to running trains when commuters may need them.
@Anon-S: Caltrain says there are 28 (not “about 12 to 16 at most”) grade crossings on the UP-owned SJ-Gilroy line in addition to the 41 on Caltrain’s.
ReplyDeleteAnon-S here:
DeleteI say 12-16 at most because a lot of the grade separations are clustered and should be viewed as one project or separation, especially the Gilroy station area. A decent chunk of the crossings can be closed as is with some minor realignments of roads or a small extension/addition of a road connecting one area to another outside of the cities. Within the cities, there are clusters of grade crossings that can be addressed in one project instead of several separate ones, like Morgan Hill. There are two crossings immediately on either side of the Morgan Hill station, then two more less than a half mile south, meaning it would have to be one coordinated project. The same goes with Gilroy, where there are 6 grade crossings from Leavesley avenue to the Gilroy station, then two more south of the station, so 8 grade crossings within 2 miles. You can't really feasibly grade separate 1 at a time in these cases, so better to look at it as one project, not several.
The way I'd do it is to focus on Gilroy first - do a large downtown project, for those 8 grade crossings, then work your way northwards. That way, HSR and Caltrain can run at least 125mph to San Martin, then over time move the 125mph zone further north until you hit the denser parts of San Jose. I'd also have cities/county/towns focus on closing as many grade crossings as possible, starting with half of the crossings in downtown Gilroy, then from south to north, Las Animas Ave, Rucker Ave, Live Oak Ave, Palm Ave, and Blanchard/Metcalf which all can be closed right now with minimal impact. Then, there's a few more that only require a small road connection or realignment, for example, Church Ave to connect to Lena Avenue & Masten.
I found this post on Reddit that covered it well. https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/1f94ncx/california_should_also_focus_on_san_jose_gilroy/
What do you think?
Anonymous-S, I don't have problem with grade separations, which are needed for safety and operational security, and for financing need to have costs shared with local government (that is, state and local funding) because grade separation will improve circulation, which includes for cyclists and pedestrians among the road users. Grade separation isn't limited to where existing crossings are, incidentally. A viaduct would be even better for circulation.
DeleteHowever, and never mind curves that impede this, too, or noise and vibration concerns or "concerns" some may have: Don't expect 125 mph, much less faster, speeds close to any place where trains will stop and re-start. It takes time and distance to accelerate and decelerate, even by the faster trains. The acceleration is limited among other things by passenger comfort tolerance.
Anon-S here:
DeleteAgreed with you on the grade separations. It really needs to be a good, large joint project that is financed by the state, county, cities, and HSR/Caltrain, and by doing this as one project, we can have one design standard and one contract standard instead of 50 different custom projects which end up increasing complexity and drives costs up.
In this case of Gilroy - San Jose, I would do something similar to what CAHSR is doing in the Central Valley, where they use pergolas to cross over tracks. In areas around stations, I would build the columns on the sides of the ROW, and prefabricate the beams offsite. At night time or when trains aren't running, crane in the beams. Outside of cities/towns, you can run all of the tracks at grade, and close most of the rural crossings, with a few key separations where roads go over the tracks. Because the design is basically standardized, you now can prefabricate most of the components off site, re-use forms and calculations/designs, and do them slowly without disrupting road traffic nor rail traffic. Do this over 10 to 15 years, and it will be ready just in time for CAHSR when it reaches Gilroy.
In terms of 125mph, hmm. If this corridor has at least 4 if not 5 tracks, with 2 grade separated, we could easily run HSR and Caltrain express trains at 125mph, even through towns. At the rural or less congested areas, run trains at grade side by side (1 freight, 2 to 4 for electrified passenger rail). In towns, stack the tracks - keep the existing alignment at grade with 2 to 3 tracks for trains stopping in Gilroy, San Martin, and Morgan Hill. The express trains stay above when passing through towns, and with sound walls, 125mph isn't a major issue. It also deconflicts stopping trains from passing trains entirely.
@Anon-S
DeleteYou are probably correct that grade separating Caltrain’s 69 crossings would be less than 69 projects, however, Caltrain should not be wasting time or money to fix a single crossing south of Blossom Hill, ever, let alone starting in Gilroy. As Richard M has pointed out, ridership to the far south is anemic to the point that Caltrain shouldn’t be running the service (he would cancel, I would extend the Capital Corridor). Giving 125 mph service to a few hundred passengers is terrible cost/benefit when tens of thousands could benefit from grade separation or other work (hello level boarding) on the peninsula. Plus as the other anonymous pointed out 125mph through Gilroy or Morgan Hill isn’t really helpful when you are stopping in those places. It would be helpful for CAHSR, which shouldn’t be going that way but at this point likely will, because it wouldn’t stop in these places, so let CAHSR pay for those grade separations when or if they ever need them.
According to a letter published last week, the City of Mountain View has lost confidence in Caltrain's ability to effectively deliver the Rengstorff Ave grade separation, and wants project management to be turned over to VTA.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.caltrain.com/media/36322/download
Just a reminder that an actual grade separation of Caltrain at Rengstorff Avenue would involve the construction of one (1) ~75 foot long rail bridge oncve one (1) existing roadway, and can be constructed entirely (or close enough to) within the WIIIIIDE Caltrain corridor, which itself lies parallel to a WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDE VTA-owned traffic sewer "expressway" hellscape.
DeleteIt does not involve intersection reconfiguration.
It does not involve roadway overpasses.
It does not involve separate pedestrian routes.
It does not involve area-wide road circulation changes.
It does not involve blocks and blocks and blocks and blocks of permanent street excavation.
It involves ZERO street utility impacts and relocations.
One (1) 75 foot long 2-track railway bridge does not cost $262 million.
It does not cost $453 million.
VTA (fucking VTA! Of all cost-is-no-object consultant slave agencies!) and the City of Mountain View are as full to the eyeballs of egregious larding and outright misrepresentation of transportation projects as the proven-incompetent shitstain consultants (electrification only 3x the going global price!) at Caltrain are. This isn't a transit project. It isn't a rail grade separation project. It's hundreds of subhuman consultant scum in a trenchcoat scamming the public for subhuman road digging fun money.
This "grade separation" project is nothing or the sort. Anybody connected in any way at any time with this scam -- or the similar utter disasters at Churchill and East Meadow/Charleston in Palo Alto) -- need to be strapped to the outside of a rocket and fired directly into the heart of the sun.
@Richard, I would be quite interested in seeing a chart of what you see as the lowest-cost choices to grade separate the Caltrain corridor, similar to the vertical profile you did for 7th & Howard DTX. I have the impression that petty local preferences against things like berming/retained filling/viaducting the tracks are driving the infeasible costs, but I lack the knowledge of things like vertical curves or required ROW width to prove that out. My feeling overall is that there's a state interest in using its money effectively and in delivering the full set of projects before the end of the century, which should be overriding, if indeed there are local issues causing overly-deferential design.
DeleteAnon-S here:
DeleteI concur with you, InfrastructureWeak. I'd love to see external analysis in this area, especially with said intricacies.
I also feel that if we had a coherent design guideline and standardized approach for the entire corridor, we could cut costs by half. Doing it bespoke for each and every crossing is a terrible idea, and Palo Alto is the perfect example of this. Decades of community input and yet they chose the most standard and basic option - all that "input" for nothing. The state needs an engineering and contracting team to lead the project, establish these standards, then implement them across the state.
For example, they could establish four basic options for crossings, and force cities to pick one, unless they want to pay up for more:
1. Berm
2. Viaduct (standard columns on the edge of the ROW, prefab beams built offsite and craned into place, which keeps the corridor open during construction)
3. Closure of said grade crossing
4. Cars go under/over tracks, leave train corridor as is
And so on...
I write this comment from the northbound BART platform at Millbrae on my way to SFO. The benefits of Caltrain running a 20-minute headway timed to match BART are enormous.
ReplyDeleteJust leave the retractable step always out, right?
ReplyDelete