 |
| 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.
Now before we all start sketching five‑track viaducts through Gilroy , let’s get one thing straight, sport: there is no justification — none, zip, zilch — for any passenger rail service south of Diridon right now. Not Caltrain, not Capitol Corridor. The demand and land‑use is just quite weak with lots of large park n' rides or are next to freeways or big roads, and not many real jobs nearby.
DeleteAnd Richard Mlynarik laid this out back in March with numbers that haven't budged much: the entire Gilroy Caltrain operation hauls about 360 riders a day. That’s fewer than 100 riders per train. You don’t need a locomotive for that — you need one bus. One. Bus. One driver, no conductors, no diesel shop, no track maintenance, no UPRR ransom payments — just a VTA bus humming along. And the punchline? Two VTA routes (568 Rapid and 68 local) already do the job. The trains are basically a very expensive cosplay of transit.
And that’s before we even get to the demand‑capture fiasco. The CAHSRA‑commissioned travel survey — the one that’s vanished like someone stuffed it in their coat and walked off — survives only because Mlynarik quoted it in 2012. And what did it show? San Jose/Santa Clara generates roughly 8.6% of inter‑regional business travel into the Bay Area. 8.6 percent. You don’t twist a multi‑billion‑dollar statewide system around a 8.6% tail unless you’re trying to make somebody in City Hall feel like a big shot.
Altamont hits the real markets — SF, Oakland/Berkeley, the Peninsula, the Tri‑Valley, the 680 corridor cities. And San Jose? It can still get served just fine with a branch. A spur. A polite nod. No need to drag the entire state through Pacheco just to satisfy a political vanity project.
Once you take HSR off the Gilroy–San Jose corridor — which you absolutely should — the whole case for pouring money into it collapses like a folding chair at a county fair. Ridership is tiny, Caltrain doesn’t control the ROW, and the opportunity cost compared to the Peninsula is astronomical. The only thing that actually fits the corridor’s role today is the expensive Coast Starlight drifting through once a day like the land cruise it is, sport.
Anon-S here.
DeleteTo SomeRandomGuy - for clarification, I'm not formally proposing a 5-track viaduct through Gilroy. If you look more closely at what I proposed, I suggested 2 electric tracks over the existing crossings, keeping freight/diesel/Caltrain trains at grade as one potential solution to speed up CAHSR in the future. A full grade separation is possible but expensive, so my proposal may save some money.
My point is that the San Jose-Gilroy corridor can be easily upgraded to decent speeds at a reasonable cost, allowing us to save more elsewhere. For example, if we spend $2B on San Jose - Gilroy to get the line to ~125mph standards, that saves us 10 minutes, meaning we can run trains at 200mph through Pacheco instead of 220mph, lowering the costs and sizes of those tunnels, possibly saving us more than $2B overall. This could be done in stages, in a series, where you eliminate all the "rural" crossings outside of town (most of which can be closed as is with minor road realignments or new connections), to allow 125mph+ service between Tamien and just before Morgan Hill. San Jose is working on grade separations for the 3 remaining grade crossings south of Tamien (Skyway, Chynoweth, and Branham). 110mph through Morgan Hill and San Martin, 125mph until Leavesley in Gilroy. Slowing to 110mph for Morgan Hill, San Martin, and Gilroy is only about a 10 to 20 second penalty compared to full 125mph operation. Upgrading to 125mph+ saves a lot of time - the run time is estimated at 18 minutes between Gilroy and San Jose, but if we upgrade this to a partial 125/110mph mix, that saves 2 to 3 minutes, and upgrading to 165mph saves us 8 minutes. Those 8 minutes can be reallocated to the Gilroy-Merced segment, which is likely to net us big savings.
As for your point about the low ridership, absolutely. I actually agree that the Caltrain Gilroy - San Jose service is probably better off as a few fancy express buses to Diridon or Tamien for now, especially if they can add bus lanes in the 101 median. It saves Caltrain money by not needing a large diesel fleet (keeping only a few locos for electrical issues) and by cutting back on maintenance staff and associated costs. From there, it also frees up the Gilroy - San Jose stretch for construction and upgrades needed for CAHSR - there are very few trains a day on those tracks - I believe just 2 or 3: the Coast Starlight and a freight train or two. With such few trains, you can really get a lot of work done on this line cheaply and quickly. From there, once CAHSR has built out this line, you can then see about extending a few electric Caltrains down to Gilroy instead of the other way around, where we keep Caltrain on life support and build a shitty service for both CAHSR and Caltrain. And, now, with that <18 min run time for CAHSR, meaning a 23ish min run time for Caltrain, that now induces a ton of demand and moves traffic from 101 to Caltrain.
I actually don't agree with Altamont, but I'm not gonna relitigate that argument except for these points: skipping over San Jose and Silicon Valley isn't a great idea, especially for economic reasons - San Jose has about 1 million people, so skipping that potential ridership source is not a good idea. We're also underestimating the costs of Altamont, as much of that corridor has far more complex issues, like land-acquisition challenges due to sprawl, NIMBYs, and a lack of enviromental reviews, etc. Pacheco, by contrast, has comparatively fewer land owners, fewer homes, if any, and almost no NIMBYs, making this a more politically feasible project, which is the main point that a lot of Altamont folks miss. I know and agree that Altamont may be faster and operationally superior, but we also need to balance that with political realities. Now, add in that the San Jose - Gilroy corridor can be upgraded at some point for reasonable costs, and the Altamont-or-bust argument doesn't hold water. There are always trade-offs with every choice, and politics is often the deciding factor, not the "ideal" solution.
Sorry for the long post lol
> [...] I'm not formally proposing a 5-track viaduct through Gilroy [...]
DeleteMy apologies for misunderstanding.
>My point is that the San Jose-Gilroy corridor can be easily upgraded to decent speeds at a reasonable cost, >allowing us to save more elsewhere. [...]
Union Pacific won’t allow 125 mph, won’t allow 110 mph, and barely tolerates 79 mph without a hostage negotiation, so the entire premise collapses before the first engineering drawing is printed.
>instead of 220mph, lowering the costs and sizes of those tunnels, possibly
>saving us more than $2B overall. This could be done in stages, in a series, where you eliminate all the "rural" >crossings outside of town (most of which can be closed as is with minor road realignments or new >connections), to allow 125mph+ service between Tamien and [...]
The idea that you can “just close the rural crossings” overlooks that every closure requires new frontage roads, new overpasses, and local political approval — none of which come at the bargain‑basement prices you’re assuming. Olde tyme commute railroading Caltrain’s urban grade separations cost hundreds of millions each, and the rural ones won’t be cheap simply because there are cows nearby. And tunnel diameter is driven by pressure waves, clearances, and safety envelopes; slowing trains from 220 to 200 mph doesn’t shrink anything.
>110mph through Morgan Hill and San Martin, 125mph until Leavesley in Gilroy. Slowing to 110mph for Morgan >Hill, San Martin, and Gilroy is only about a 10 to 20 second penalty compared to full 125mph operation. >Upgrading to 125mph+ saves a lot of time - the run time is estimated at 18 minutes between Gilroy and San >Jose, but if we upgrade this to a partial 125/110mph mix, that saves 2 to 3 minutes, and upgrading to 165mph >saves us 8 minutes. Those 8 minutes can be reallocated to the Gilroy-Merced segment, which is likely to net >us big savings.
The HSRA isn’t “upgrading” anything here — it’s building a brand‑new railroad in a tight corridor. The ROW south of Tamien isn’t especially curvy; there are other constraints such as width. HSR isn’t using UP’s tracks; it’s building its own pair of tracks alongside them, and that corridor is far too narrow and inconsistent to fit a full double‑track HSR alignment without land acquisition, new structures, and major civil works. Once you acknowledge that, the entire “$2B for 125 mph and 8 minutes saved” scenario evaporates.
>As for your point about the low ridership, absolutely. I actually agree that the Caltrain Gilroy - San Jose service >is probably better off as a few fancy express buses to Diridon or Tamien for now, especially if they can add >bus lanes in the 101 median.
There are already two VTA bus routes paralleling the Caltrain corridor, so adding “fancy express buses” with the existing fleet is the actual low‑hanging fruit. If the goal is more service, it’s far cheaper to add express trips to the existing VTA schedule than to invent a whole new bus overlay.
>It saves Caltrain money by not needing a large diesel fleet (keeping only a few locos for electrical issues) and >by cutting back on maintenance staff and associated costs.
DeleteCaltrain doesn’t justify owning any locomotives at this point — the diesel fleet is already surplus, the Christmas Train has been downgraded from its once‑a‑year heritage role, and yard moves can be handled with trackmobiles. Even for rescue operations, most operators use small shunters, not full‑size switch engines. There’s no operational need for something as large as the MP15DCs they currently own(The JPBX 503 and 504).
> [...] there are very few trains a day on those tracks - I believe just 2 or 3: the Coast Starlight and a freight train or >two. With such few trains, you can really get a lot of work done on this line cheaply and quickly. [...]
The number of trains on the line isn’t the constraint here. Even if the South County Connector vanished tomorrow, the corridor doesn’t magically become “cheap and quick” to rebuild since HSR isn’t upgrading the existing UP tracks — it’s constructing its own double‑track alignment in a corridor that is narrow, irregular, and hemmed in by land use.
>I actually don't agree with Altamont, but I'm not gonna relitigate that argument except for these points: >skipping over San Jose and Silicon Valley isn't a great idea, especially for economic reasons - San Jose has >about 1 million people, so skipping that potential ridership source is not a good idea.
The idea that Altamont “skips” San Jose is based on a misunderstanding. Every serious Altamont alignment studied by SETEC and the HSRA includes a direct San Jose connection, either via the existing Fremont–San Jose rail corridor, the publicly owned ROW through North San Jose, or the I‑880 corridor. The SETEC study even notes that Altamont gives better access to San Jose for Sacramento and San Joaquin County riders, because it avoids the long detour through Los Banos, Gilroy, and Morgan Hill.
And ironically, it’s the Pacheco alignment that serves fewer people. By bypassing the entire Tri‑Valley/I‑680 corridor — Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, Danville/San Ramon — Pacheco misses one of the Bay Area’s largest job centers and one of the state’s biggest inter‑county commuter flows. I live in the Tri‑Valley, so I’m very aware of how large the employment base is here, but the numbers speak for themselves. Altamont directly taps into that demand; Pacheco doesn’t touch it.
Delete> [...]Pacheco, by
>contrast, has comparatively fewer land owners, fewer homes, if any, and almost no NIMBYs, making this a >more politically feasible project, which is the main point that a lot of Altamont folks miss.
The notion that Altamont is some kind of land‑acquisition nightmare just doesn’t square with the SETEC analysis or with what’s actually happened on the ground. Most of the Altamont approaches SETEC identified run in existing transportation corridors — the ACE line, the publicly owned Fremont–San Jose ROW (yes, made messier by BART and VTA mismanagement), and the I‑880 corridor SETEC practically waved a flag over. These aren’t untouched sprawl lands; they’re established rights‑of‑way. The takings are limited. The obstacles are predictable.
Meanwhile, Pacheco isn’t exactly a stroll through the daisies on the mountains. It demands entirely new infrastructure: long viaducts, fresh embankments, major tunnel system through the Coast Range— all while serving fewer people. Those are some of the priciest civil‑works elements in the entire statewide plan. Calling that “politically easier” because there are fewer rooftops on a parcel map is a cute trick, but it ignores where the real organized opposition actually came from. Some of the fiercest, best‑funded NIMBY pushback wasn’t in the Altamont corridor — it was on the Peninsula.
>I know and agree that Altamont may be faster and operationally superior, but we also need to balance that >with political realities. Now, add in that the San Jose - Gilroy corridor can be upgraded at some point for >reasonable costs, and the Altamont-or-bust argument doesn't hold water. There are always trade-offs with >every choice, and politics is often the deciding factor, not the "ideal" solution.
It’s no wonder SNCF’s proposals were rejected, JR Central walked away, and JR East never entered. When experienced operators raise concerns and those warnings go unheeded, the outcome is always the same. JR East said it plainly — they had doubts about the project’s profitability.
>Sorry for the long post lol
Right back at ya'.
Obviously, that accidental anonymous comment is mine. Oops...
DeleteAnon-S here: to SomeRandomGuy, I appreciate your responses. Some thoughts based on your comments, mostly tangential, though!
DeleteI don't disagree - I actually agree with most of your points, except for Altamont vs Pacheco - I think the land acquisition costs would be a lot cheaper, but the construction costs slightly higher for Pacheco. Also, the SECTEC analysis is out of date, fwiw. I just think the lawmakers weighed the political aspects more than the service/operational ones, which is, unfortunately, typical, and we have to live with that. That leads to my point about, hey, San Jose to Gilroy isn't that difficult to upgrade (granted, if we can get UP to cooperate somehow). Take a look at most of the rural crossings starting at Metcalf Road down to Gilroy. 75% of them could be closed as is right now if we simply extended a nearby road or two, or added a frontage road. That is orders of magntuide cheaper than building a grade separation. Blanchard Road and Metcalf is an example of this - just upgrade the existing road that connects to Santa Teresa Boulevard, and close the Blanchard crossing. You can see the rest yourself on Google Maps or here at this reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/1f94ncx/california_should_also_focus_on_san_jose_gilroy/
As for 200 vs 220mph not being a big difference, I actually disagree with you. CAHSR found that reducing the design speed from 242 to 220mph reduced tunneling from 15.1 miles to 7.1 miles. It stands to reason that a further reduction would also decrease tunnel lengths, since the main constraints here are downhill speeds and braking lengths at this incline. Source: https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025-Project-Update-Report-SUP-FINAL-081925-A11Y.pdf
However, this approach doesn't eliminate Altamont at all, I think. The Altamont or bust folks should be pushing for this as a regional project, not a HSR project, that would later on benefit HSR/statewide service. Specifically, I think Altamont efforts should focus on coordinating counties, Capitol Corridor/Gold Runner, etc, in parallel with Pacheco. It's best set up as a fast regional route for Tri-Valleys, Stockton, Sacramento, etc., rather than as a statewide north/south service. Gold Runner would be sped up significantly and have more ridership if it could run Stockton - Altamont - Oakland or San Jose, or if it were an entirely new service supplementing Capitol Corridor or similar, going Sacramento - Stockton - Altamont - Oakland/San Jose.
Related to that, I do think that at the state level, there needs to be serious consideration given to purchasing ROWs in general for passenger service. The Coast Subdivision between Oakland and Gilroy is a good contender here. I agree that UP will be a major issue given the ROW constraints, but if the state is able to step in and buy the corridor with small concessions like track slots, freight at night, etc., that'd be a good solution.
Based on that, when HSR completes Phase 1, there should be a passenger mainline from San Jose - Oakland with a wye connecting to Altamont. You could split some HSR trains to run to Richmond via San Jose - Oakland to serve the East Bay directly, and save some capacity on the Peninsula for other things. Additionally, this creates a lot more flexibility and interesting services, e.g.:
- Richmond - Oakland - Altamont - Stockton - Sacramento (regional service)
-San Jose - Oakland - Richmond, a new Caltrain line
-San Jose - Altamont - Stockton - Sacramento (regional)
-LA to San Jose to Altamont HSR
Also, that San Jose - Oakland leg allows for ring the bay service by all possible operators if Link21 happens.
Anywho, back to the main point here: Altamont is best as a regional project IMO, the state should buy more rail ROW to save money in the long run, and San Jose - Gilroy can easily be upgraded over time for time/complexity savings elsewhere.
@Onux and @Somerandonguy:
DeleteWhile I appreciate what Richard does, his posts about ridership data are impossible to interpret without comparing the source data with what he posts. He kind of posts a spreadsheet without headers.
Either way, I remember the discussion about the Gilroy service.
My interpretation of the data is that there for sure is demand for the Gilroy trains, in particular if you count the bus riders as potential train riders.
But also, the Gilroy route is the only rail route where it would be reasonably to add larger amounts of population in the future. Build a large "transit oriented development" along the route as a pilot project.
====
Re grade separations:
Obviously the right thing here would be for the involved road agencies to pay their share of this.
But also, if we add pedestrian+bike lanes along the grade separations we increase the walkability to the stations, and also since that is of benefit to the local area it's an additional argument for why the local city/county should pay a larger part of the grade separation cost.
============
Re Pacheco vs Altamont:
If there were any minuscule spec of will to actually connect the area east of the east bay with the central valley in any meaningful way by transit, we would already had the eBART extended to Stockton ages ago.
Also if there were any minuscule spec of will to have decent transit within this area BART would had been extended eastwards. There wouldn't had been NIMBYs stopping BART extensions.
For a short while it seemed like there would be a combination of improvements both to ACE and the San Joaquins / Gold Runner to match the then proposed Cali HSR IOS 18 trains per day frequency. That seemed to good to be true, and it turned out to be too good to be true. I don't know what actually happened but it seems like the project was silently killed off somehow, and remains of web sites and whatnot linger without updates.
Anon-S here.
DeleteTo MiaM, thank you. I completely agree with all of your points here. Adding:
1. Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and San Martin all have plenty of developable land right next to the station. Maybe someday when the fiscal environment is better, we can have Caltrain/VTA look into a Brightline Florida style approach, developing land at and around stations for revenue generation and ridership generation. In the interim, what to do: that is the hard question, I think. Extending Caltrain to Hollister is also an option in this scenario - lots of developable land there also.
2. Grade seps, agreed. Splitting the cost a few ways is a good way to do this - especially if paired with the amenities you suggest. A trail next to the tracks could be a good way to get the community's political support, like SMART.
3. Pacheco vs Altamont: THANK YOU. eBart, Gold Runner, ACE, BART, etc all could have used or upgraded Altamont. They haven't - for a reason. It's politically difficult and expensive, and Pacheco is easier on that front.
4. Train transfers for CAHSR: Well, from my understanding, there are a bunch of factors. Political environment at the federal level that is hostile to transit, and new plans from CAHSR to truncate to Madera and head to Gilroy instead. Apparently, they've been able to cut the amount of tunneling needed by over half simply by lowering design speeds from 242 mph to 220 mph over Pacheco, meaning they just may have enough money to reach the Bay Area, but that may mean bypassing or holding Merced for later. No point to coordinate and plan a "maybe" project, especially when these connections or transfers can be moved or added pretty quickly. Building a platform, adding an elevator, buying track slots from freights all can be done in less than a year once CAHSR decides what to do.
@MiaM, "connect the area east of the east bay with the central valley" has no real meaning, because the only thing between the East Bay and the Central Valley is the part of the Diablo Range that separates them, along the watershed boundary. The East Bay consists of two portions, the older-urbanized Bay flatlands beside the water itself and then the interior valleys in both Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. The water-side zone featuring Pittsburg and Antioch is another effective, older-settled part of the Bay flatlands. Concord and Livermore are both in the Bay Area. BART was supposed to go out to Livermore decades ago and the taxpayers there were cheated yet again with the decision to go to San Jose and Santa Clara instead. Across Altamont Pass, Patterson Pass, and Tesla Pass from Livermore is the Central Valley, including places like Mountain House adjacent to Tracy. With so much housing for the extended Bay Area commuter shed in the Central Valley now, it wouldn't be surprising to see BART go at least to Mountain House or Tracy, and a connector someday between Antioch and Mountain House or Tracy. That's not going to happen, however. An improved Altamont Pass to support conventional rail, electrified, for regional and longer-distance travel, including commuters, would be a much better thing and is more desired by those who already are familiar with the area and travel.
Delete-- "Me"
Anon-S, Altamont Pass always has been superior to Pacheco Pass. Altamont Pass serves the developed region, the Bay Area and northern San Joaquin, southernmost Sacramento Valleys that includes Sacramento and also is the extended Bay Area commuter shed, has been since the 1970s. Altamont Pass also is easier to improve, with interior valley flatlands making construction and operation easier, than Pacheco Pass helped only by a canyon at the western end. The high-speed rail project wants a long tunnel under it now, even though that is unnecessary and the project is discarding the desire if not intent earlier to minimize tunneling. Altamont Pass would be much easier to construct, without the need or desire for tunneling through most of the terrain, including a new tunnel where the pass itself is found, in addition to the East Bay Hills. No station at Los Banos or anywhere else between Gilroy and Merced (the Central Valley trunk portion of the project) is legally permitted to be built. There's next to nothing and nobody in the Central Valley on the Pacheco Pass route compared to using Altamont Pass instead. Where there is the natural wye at Manteca or Lathrop, that oddity, an actually valuable site for a transfer station, can be built, too, to use Altamont Pass better for high-speed service.
Deletehttps://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Pacheco-Pass-Factsheet-for-web-English.pdf
-- "Me"
Anon-S here:
Delete1. I agree about Altamont being more built up and having more potential to serve folks in the Bay, Central Valley, and Sacramento, and that is why I think that kind of actually proves my point about it being better for a regional project at first. Altamont in my opinion is probably better for a regional route over a HSR route (at first), largely because it can function as a regional and commuter rail system on it's own versus the Gilroy branch of Caltrain not really being viable as a stand alone commuter/regional line. Gilroy not being viable is actually a good thing for HSR - it takes the less busy and less populated route into the Bay Area, where San Jose - Gilroy can be upgraded to almost full HSR speeds, making it just as fast as Altamont. From there, Gold Runner, Capitol Corridor, ACE, eBart, etc should seriously think about a regional rail system for that area of Northern California that upgrades Altamont and uses that for a Bay Area - Tri-Valleys/Central Valley - Sacramento regional system. Once the system is mature, it can then be upgraded, plugged into HSR, Dumbarton, Link21, etc. In that case, Altamont would be good for a Phase 2 project that HSR partially funds and pays for trackage rights - like they have with Caltrain's electrification. It also gives the Bay Area greater flexibility for more types of service (HSR local, HSR express, regional, commuter) serving more people, with most of the the SF - LA HSR trains on Pacheco, and some HSR plus regional/commuter on Altamont.
2. The HSR can't build a station at Los Banos, that is true, but that does not preclude an operator like Caltrain in building their own station and paying for slots through Pacheco. The reverse is also true for Altamont. Others can build Altamont, and HSR can buy slots through Altamont.
3. The fact sheet you posted is out of date. The tunnel lengths have been cut back significantly with the new revisions of higher grades and slower design speeds as per the direction of the new HSR CEO, Choudri. They increased grades to 3.5% and decreased design speeds from 242/250mph to 220mph (the actual operating speed), so the tunnel length will decrease from 15.1 to just 7.1 miles. That cuts billions of dollars from Pacheco, making it an even better option. Source: https://hsr.ca.gov/communications-outreach/reports/project-update-reports/2025-project-update-report/
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.
ReplyDeleteI write this from the 10 Monterey bus stop at Glen Park BART station in 1982-1986, where the bus comes 8 minutes before my train or 12 minutes after. Very reliable but a routine, cold 12 minute wait in rain, fog, wind, every weeknight, for what is a mere 5 minute ride home. But a 16 minute walk. Consistent timing is good; consistent ill-timing is debatable. If they give enough time to transfer at Millbrae from Caltrain to BART and vice versa, both cross-platform and up-and-over through the concourse, that's great. The 15+20 minute schedule collision at Millbrae was irregular in a bad way, so I can see my student commute transfer at Glen Park wasn't so bad as it coulda been. - Ben in SF
DeleteJust leave the retractable step always out, right?
ReplyDeleteGreat post!
ReplyDeleteI'm late to the game, but still.
A few general comments:
At least elsewhere platforms are made of precast platform edge concrete elements, and then gravel/whatnot like any road, and then the surface is built the same way as you'd build roads, except that you use concrete tiles for things like tactile aids for visually impaired users and such.
I don't know if there are any benefits of just adding something on top of the existing platforms as compared to just replace them. Since you in an emergency can evacuate a train even where there aren't any platform, it would be fully possible to upgrade half of the platform length at a time with some of the works done during the night, and some taking place during the day. In particular the precast platform edge concrete blocks would obviously have to be placed when there aren't any trains running, but carting in/out gravel/whatnot, placing concrete tiles, installing canals for drainage, wiring and whatnot, and installing all "accessories" like benches, shelters, signs and whatnot can of course be done when trains are running if that would speed up the process.
The important thing is that the platform fulfills a safety function. If a train would derail, it would be bad if it would catch onto the platform edge and drag some sort of light weight add-on platform. With the classic precast edge blocks and gravel-and-whatnot with some concrete tiles and asphalt at the surface you'll just end up with a similar result as if you run into a gravel pile. Compare with the emergency runaway lanes on some highways which vehicles with brake problems can use, where the "lane" is basically sand, slowing things down.
Re speed improvements: I think it's important to point out that some improvements would over time not even cost but rather save money due to shorter round trip times, requiring fewer trains and staff for a given frequency. And since money is always mentioned in every discussion, it's also important to point out any improvements on turnaround times.