Caltrain is working on their level boarding roadmap. If their
recent work on grade separations is anything to go by, the capture of the agency by the layers of consultants belonging to the transit industrial complex is likely to result in a gold-plated mega-project approach to delivering level boarding in the late 2030s, where each station platform must be reconstructed from the ground up using cast-in-place methods at a system-wide cost easily topping $2 billion.
We don’t need to let them turn level boarding into another costly and delayed mega-project. Existing platforms need to be raised by just 14” and are perfectly suitable as foundation slabs with built-in drainage, electric, plumbing, grounding and bonding. It can all be done without pouring a single cubic yard of concrete. Better yet: stations don't ever need to be closed during construction!
Note: in this article, we will not revisit the urgent need for level boarding, its advantages for reducing trip times and attracting ridership, improving punctuality, increasing crew/vehicle productivity (not just accessibility), or the choice of 48” versus 22” above top of rail (ATOR). These topics are covered extensively in the archives, accessible by search or by keyword label.
Here’s how to get level boarding done soon, quickly and affordably in five steps.
Step 1: EMU Step Retrofit |
Diagram (to scale) of new dual step arrangement. Fixed step in green. Retractable gap filler in red, shown in extended position at 22" platform. |
The retractable step modules currently installed on the EMUs are removed and replaced fleet-wide with a new dual step arrangement.
- A fixed (not retractable) step is fitted at 15” ATOR, similar to the step arrangement of the old Bombardier cars, proving the acceptable safety of this configuration. The step is sized to fit inside the allowable vehicle loading gauge. It protrudes outside the tapered profile of the lower car body, with structural fusing built in so that expensive damage to the aluminum primary structure is avoided in case the step is struck e.g. in a grade crossing collision.
- A retractable gap filler step at 22” ATOR that extends flush with EMU lower floor level, overhanging the fixed step. This arrangement exists on Swiss Stadler KISS models, and on MUNI Metro. This mechanism is fitted with ultrasonic sensors that inhibit its deployment at 8” low platforms, on an independent per-car basis, i.e. both doors on each car must sense the presence or absence of a 22” platform face and deploy accordingly. Deployment is controlled by onboard software with no intervention by the train crew.
This dual step arrangement allows an EMU to safely dock at an evolving mix of 22” or 8” platforms, or even at a partially raised (partly 8”, partly 22”) platform in mid construction. As the first step towards level boarding, this upgrade needs to be undertaken immediately in concert with Stadler Rail and their step supplier Bode.
Step 2: Platform Furnishing Modifications
In preparation for raising the level of a platform by 14”, all platform furnishings must be modified for the future height. This preparatory construction is performed without closing stations, although portions of a platform may be temporarily inaccessible as the work is performed during nights and weekends. Work can proceed asynchronously at different stations.
Furnishings fall into three categories:
- Items that have more than 14” of vertical clearance margin can remain as-is, such as taller shelter canopies, visual messaging signs, light poles, and catenary poles.
- Items that can be raised straightaway by 14” without affecting their compatibility with an 8” platform are modified, such as perimeter fencing, barriers and railing, Clipper terminals, signage, ticket vending machines, utility cabinets, or modular shelters.
- Items that can’t be raised until the rest of the platform is also raised, such as benches or garbage cans, are prepared. For benches, 14” leg extension brackets can be prefabricated so the raising can be accomplished quickly.
Concurrently with modifications to existing platform furnishings, new railing or fencing and 14” tall edging is added as needed to the outer perimeter of the platform not facing the tracks.
Step 3: Platform Edge Modules
 |
| Concept for a platform edge module |
The platform edge modules are engineered prefabricated assemblies, each 6 to 8 feet long. Caltrain will need many (about 6000 system-wide,) so the non-recurring cost of engineering a good design will be well-amortized over the mass production run. The edge modules have several important design features:
- Lightweight reinforced construction with lifting features to allow handling by pallet jack, small forklift or telescopic handler.
- Mounting holes that allow pinning to the existing concrete platform slab, preventing lateral movement from earthquakes or out-of-clearance trains.
- Integrated 24" wide tactile warning strips and high visibility markings from the factory, eliminating the cost of installing such in the field.
- Jacking pads for precise vertical leveling and horizontal lining of the platform edge, providing the required adjustment to comply with tight ADA clearance tolerances as the track settles or wears, or when track is periodically tamped and lined.
- Resilient rubber platform edges with vertical ribbing that supports the weight of boarding and alighting passengers while also providing longitudinal compliance in case of accidental contact. With an edge offset 68" from track center, ribs another 9" deep would keep hard structures outside the clearance envelope mandated by CPUC General Order 26-D, possibly facilitating a waiver. This also provides a compliant surface with which the train's extended gap filler steps can safely make physical contact for a zero-gap platform interface.
- On the side facing away from the tracks, a step with 7” rise and 12” tread depth, to enable temporary use of the module as a 22” platform prior to the remaining surface of the platform being also raised. This step effectively replaces the train’s step at 15", enabling the station to stay open during construction. Even a partial installation of platform edge modules, if not all are installed within one construction shift, can be operated through: the train will deploy the 22” gap filler where modules are detected, and keep them retracted where portions of the 8” platform remain.
While these edge modules aren't off-the-shelf items, their factory mass production can be made more affordable and field installation quicker than the traditional cast-in-place concrete method familiar to Caltain, especially for a systemwide project involving so many platforms at once. They wouldn't be the first customer for a project like this, with established vendors like Creative Composites Group (USA), A.C. Miller (USA), HERING Group (Germany), Dura Composites (UK), Poundfield Precast (UK), and doubtless many more.
Step 4: Platform Raising
 |
Cross section (roughly to scale) of materials used in raising platforms from 8" to 22" |
To bring the remaining platform surface up to 22”, five layers are constructed over the original 8" concrete platform slab that henceforth serves as a foundation, in order from bottom to top:
- Thin layer of gravel to preserve drainage along the surface of the original platform slab, reusing all existing drainage features.
- 10” layer of lightweight geofoam blocks with vertical drainage holes. This keeps down the dead load of the raised platform (~40 psf total, most likely well within the structural capacity of elevated stations.)
- Separator layer made of permeable geotextile, to prevent fouling of the underlying layers.
- Thin layer of compacted sand.
- Platform topping layer of 3” thick interlocking concrete pavers, similar to German practice.
The finished layers of the
raised platform can straightforwardly be reworked or modified as needed
(for example, relocating platform furnishings) without resorting to
concrete demolition.
Where electrical junction boxes, pull boxes or water valve boxes are embedded in the existing 8” platform surface, a 14” extension to the existing access frame is installed, sized as needed to preserve good access to existing utilities. This is straightforward to integrate with surrounding geofoam and pavers, and avoids the considerable cost of redoing all platform utilities.
Existing platform access stairs and ramps are extended within the existing footprint of the platform, with new railing installed as needed into the existing slab. Stairs require two more steps, and ramps require a 15-foot extension ramp running lengthwise along the platform to meet ADA regulations.
There will be cases where things get complicated, for example around the BART
escalators and turnstiles at Millbrae. These may require special configurations with additional ramps and steps, but these problems will arise regardless of construction approach.
Step 5: EMU Step Removal
Once all remaining 8” platforms have been raised to 22”, the fixed step on the trains can be removed, restoring the EMU’s sleek exterior. The sensors on the gap filler steps can also be removed, as these now always extend and no longer need to detect platform height.
In conclusion, this construction sequence for level boarding will not cost $2 billion nor take until the late 2030s. It can be deployed in three years if Caltrain wants it badly enough. Here we hit upon an underlying problem, that their actions over the past decade imply they may not care for level boarding at all. This must change; let them not rest on their electrification laurels for too long.
I always envisioned that at Millbrae we'd actually *lower* the Caltrain track level down to the same height as BART, instead of moving the platforms, though I admittedly have no idea how you'd stage that construction without severing the whole line to terminate at the short-turn platform.
ReplyDeleteMillbrae has an interesting question: what to do about the gates between the Caltrain and BART platforms that are currently (I think, haven't been there for a few years!) level.
DeleteIn an ideal (not our) world, the 1-2 bart tracks on the east side of the station should be given over to caltrain, with a cross platform transfer in both directions, and enough space for HSR without a tunnel..
DeleteLowering the Caltrain tracks at Millbrae could work. Drainage-wise wouldn’t end up any lower than BART. Could the track be progressively undercut without a service closure? Or add a single shoofly track to the West?
DeleteRE: Millbrae, I think it's time to have a conversation about unfucking the station and preparing it for HSR. Ideally, this is what I would do:
Delete1. Extend SFO AirTrain to the San Bruno BART station.
2. Close Millbrae BART and terminate BART at San Bruno BART station.
3. Rehabilitate the viaducts for BART's SFO station for AirTrain, extending AirTrain to Millbrae Caltrain station. At the same time, rebuild the station to allow for Caltrain, HSR, AirTrain, and BART to all serve the station. Adding some sort of bag check at Millbrae also could be great here.
4. Close San Bruno Caltrain station entirely, and run BART directly to Millbrae from San Bruno Caltrain.
This results in an organized station with adequate space and platforms for Caltrain, HSR, BART, and AirTrain, creating easy transfers for everyone.
Side note: relocating the rental car center to the industrial area between San Bruno BART and the long-term parking area would free up space to extend the runaway, and apron space for 10R/28L
@Anon:
DeleteA big question is how to arrange the platforms for the best interchange at Milbrae? The least important interchange would of course be Caltrain-HSR as both of these can have an intechange anywhere along the route. I.E. someone who really don't want to change platforms can change at San Jose or whatnot.
If the mainline tracks will still be just double track then Caltrain and HSR can alternate between which platform they use, in order for every other train to have an over-the-platform interchange with either BART or Skytrain, perhaps? Or possibly for every other train to have an interchange with both, while the other trains would only have an interchange with BART?
I.E. like this: Caltrain - Platform - Bart - Platform - Caltrain - Platform - Skytrain (possibly *2) - Platform - Caltrain - Platform - Bart - Platform - Caltrain. In this case HSR counts as Caltrain. I'd add back the San Bruno BART station but also extend Skytrain line you suggest, and that would probably be the better interchange between Skytrain and BART. Either way, if/when HSR arrives and/or Caltrain also runs faster trains in addition to at least 4THP (almost-)all-stopper trains those will be faster than BART for many users.
Cold take: IMHO the airport ought to sort all this out, at their expense. I.E. maybe just move the terminals / TSA checks and whatnot to Milbrae station and use insite-the-TSA-fence shuttles (buses and/or airport shuttle trains) to move passengers.
I'm anon re: Millbrae. To MiaM, I disagree with almost all aspects lol
DeleteHSR and Caltrain should be aligned with a 4-track ground-level alignment at Millbrae, and the rest of the station should be reconstructed around that. Part of the issue is that Millbrae has BART at ground level next to Caltrain (2 tracks), so you have to go up to a mezzanine, cross over, then back down to transfer between systems.
The ideal configuration would be this, from bottom to top:
-Caltrain platforms on the outer tracks; HSR platforms on the inner tracks,
-Mezzanine(s) that run the width of the station, with gated access to HSR platforms, but not Caltrain platforms.
-AirTrain on the SFO/101 end of the mezzanine, preferably at the same or similar level (replacing BART's alignment into SFO).
-BART on the opposite end, at the same or similar level.
This means passengers from BART can exit and walk just one flight of stairs to Caltrain/HSR, or directly to AirTrain for SFO. Caltrain & HSR just need to go up one flight to access BART or AirTrain/SFO.
In terms of the interchange between Caltrain and HSR, not necessarily. Suppose someone living in Bayshore is taking the HSR home from a weekend in LA. They would transfer at SFO to the Caltrain to reach their home station. Their seat from SFO - SF would then be taken up by someone flying into SFO and going to SF. While transfers would likely be easier at Diridon, the point is to achieve maximum flexibility and improve operations.
RE: buses, that's probably the least efficient solution. SFO is a large airport with somewhat lengthy road access from Millbrae, relative to the speed and convenience of AirTrain, especially considering luggage, strollers, etc.
SFO should be taking the lead on this, but part of the issue is that BART pays SFO a decent chunk of change for rent to send trains there, so I suspect SFO doesn't want to lose that revenue source just yet. If I were SFO, in the long term, I would work to relocate the rental car center to either the mall or the industrial area north of 380, with an AirTrain extension to San Bruno BART. Over time, you can then transition to closing the BART spur to Millbrae in favor of AirTrain.
Old posts on Millbrae from 2008 and 2011 show some possibilities. BART has too many platform tracks, could steal one for Caltrain + HSR.
DeleteThis Millbrae track plan would work without too much expense, but it's a phone call problem with BART, so they would rather spend five billion to avoid that phone call.
DeleteCurrent Millbrae HSR Station plan is to expand westwards, with a center high-level platform for HSR trains and no tunnels, also not touching BART side of the station. So CHSRA's plan is: platform-Caltrain-HSR-center platform-HSR-Caltrain-side platform.
Delete@William - Center platforms are a boon for transfers due to the short distance passengers walk plus no need to go up and down stairs to change platforms. So it seems odd that CAHSR would want a center platform between north and southbound HSR trains. Nobody would want to transfer from a northbound to a southbound HSR.
DeleteMuch better would be two center platforms, each between Caltrain and HSR going the same direction: Caltrain_S - center platform - HSR_S || HSR-N - center platform - Caltrain_N. Either that or put Caltrain in the middle and HSR on the outside.
Having Caltrain and HSR share the same center platform of course means adapting Caltrain to HSR's platform height which I believe the impetus for this blog in the first place.
@thielges26 I'm not sure I see the benefit of cross-platform transfers in the context of HSR. Nobody is making transfers to, from, or between HSR in a way where the time savings of not needing to to go up to the mezzanine will make a difference. However, riders taking local trains (such as BART and Caltrain) will be likely to make transfers that are much tighter (because the downside of missing a transfer is lower), so enabling those transfers to be quick and seamless is highly beneficial. To me, it seems like the highest priority transfers should be same-direction transfers between Caltrain and BART. So for example, one island would have NB BART and Caltrain, another would have SB BART and Caltrain, with BART in the middle so both directions can access tail tracks. CAHSR would either be on either side or on one side with a flyover. The boarding height issue can be solved by changing the height of the rails relative to the platform, just as is done today at the NB Caltrain/BART transfer platform.
Delete@thielges and @Anonymous 26 June, 2026 15:58: the main reason for HSR on its own center platform is that CAHSR can serve both tracks with single concourse area and associated fare gates. I don't think cross-platform transfer is that important as long as escalators and elevators are working.
DeleteHere is the preliminary design documents from CHSRA:
https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Final_EIRS_FJ_V3-14_Alternative-A-B_RSP_Design_Variant_Book_C.pdf
Excellent post Clem, thank you for still fighting for a better Caltrain over 15+ years.
ReplyDeleteIs there any indication that Caltrain has any interest in an alternative approach or an advocacy group who are putting pressure on the PCJPB to deliver more for riders?
There is a level boarding discussion item scheduled for the September CAC meeting. Time will tell if it’s a nothingburger.
DeleteInteresting post as always, and I wish that these sorts of alternatives were taken more seriously. I think another interesting case for modified quick builds would be at 4th and King, where theres not a large platform behind the edge to build on. Might need long ramps in the station itself to work there.
ReplyDeleteNew ramps at the end of the SF platforms wouldn’t be a problem. They only need to be 14 feet long for a 14 inch rise, and the distance from the end of the platform to the first train door is easily double that.
DeleteSFK is also a good place for testing and fine-tuning the system before full deployment. There are plenty of platforms to spare, and the system could be tested in actual use with real passengers without risking the functionality of a mid-line station.
DeleteGreat post! For the most part I agree with what you are proposing, but:
ReplyDeleteEnding up with the Stadler EMU bottom level as the platform height would make the platforms incompatible with the Cali HSR Platforms, if Cali HSR actually ends up buying trains to the spec they have put forward.
I'd say that it's a sunk cost to do what you propose. My luke warm take here is to solve the ADA accessibility problem with opening up mezzanine level doors on the EMUs would be to have the stupidest thing ever, "ADA mini low platforms", I.E. at designated spots on the stations there would be a 22" high platform section, while the rest is at mezzanine level (IIRC 44" or so?). This would be a temporary-almost-forever-solution that would go away as soon as any transit agency in Cali, or for that sake in USA that Caltrain could cooperate with, orders new EMUs from Stadler as you'd then order new single level cars with all the ADA features as replacement for the ones in the existing Caltrain EMUs, while the existing cars would be refurbished for use in otherwise new trains used elsewhere (or in theory for any other Caltrain branded service. How about buying, double tracking and electrifying San Jose - (Colliseum), and add a new double track to this route along Colliseum and a bit further north?).
The cost of doing this would not be that much more than what you propose, but will result in platforms that are compatible with any future high level platforms in California and probably the rest of western USA.
Going off on a tangent, re other places for high level platforms and also places that could order Stadler EMUs: As always I'm thinking about Socal, Metrolink, Coaster and the Surfliner. Caldot/Caltrans ought to both sort out their part of all this, and also as the government agency that is supposed to be the adult in the room put some pressure into NCTD and Metrolink to sort their things out. Also I would think that they are the government agency that is supposed to kind of coordinate things, and thus ought to coordinate things between HSR and everyone else.
1. CAHSR(if it ever happens) should be using low-level platforms anyways, preferably at 55 cm.
Delete2. Caltrain is not underfunded on the capitol projects time and again...we might as well ship the KISSes off to somebody else like Amtrak and get wider trains that don't taper below the door threshold so we can do level boarding at 55 cm easily.
3. The state themselves is clearly not interested, their new passenger cars board at a high-level height while serving low-level platforms, a throwback to the 1980s as opposed to the low-floor passenger cars that were recently running on the Central Valley route. The "adult in the room" is not doing a good job of coordinating a single, unified vision for the state at all.
There's still a path to high level platforms (51" floor, 48" platform, 73" offset, with motorized "drawbridge" type bridge plates as originally intended for the Stadlers.) See this post. It might not be a slam dunk, although maybe the edge module + geofoam concept might still work?
Delete“ Items that can be raised straightaway by 14” without affecting their compatibility with an 8” platform are modified, such as … Clipper terminals, signage, ticket vending machines,…
ReplyDeleteThis might not possible with Clipper/ticket machines. The ADA places a limit on how high operable screens/buttons can be, and a 14” lift might place them out of that limit.
Perhaps they could be raised by 7" to split the difference and stay within ADA limits for both platform heights?
Delete@Daniel That is a good thought, but it depends how the devices are laid out. ADA rules require all operable buttons/screens have to be between 15” and 48” above the floor. If all operable elements (buttons, ticket/card dispensers, etc.) are between 15” and 34” now you can raise the 14” and be ok, but anything higher won’t work. To only go up 7” means that no elements can be below 21” today, otherwise when you raise the floor 14” but the device only 7” it will be too low. The 7” rise is also not allowed if there is anything above 41” today, because then it would be at 49” before the floor raise.
DeleteThis is great work by Clem as always. However, I do think there is too much emphasis on trying to keep the platforms open at all times. A better plan is probably just to plan to close each station for several days and do all of the work at once. One station a week and done in about 9 months. One could still use Clem’s good ideas, but spend even less. No night or weekend prep work means no overtime rates. Contractors charge for each mobilization, so a schedule of “do all at once without interruption” will cost less than a schedule of “raise some items, then come back to put in the precast edges, then come back…”. Instead of precast custom edge blocks, just put in off the shelf metal edging around the whole platform. No temporary construction costs to keep open for passenger access the stairs/ramps that just can’t be done easily.
ReplyDeleteAn inconvenience for passengers, yes, for a few days. But they closed the Bay Bridge for 3-4 days at a time multiple times during construction of the new east span, and that bridge carries more people in a day than Caltrain carries all week over the whole system. One station down at a time is not an issue. For stations with side platforms you could one platform at each of two stations, keeping each open, and giving people the option of riding a stop in the wrong direction to transfer to the direction they want.
You make a good point, but there is a middle ground that may allow for equal efficiency in construction without nearly as many closures needed.
DeleteMost stations are side platforms, so upgrading one platform need not impact the other. Single tracking would be a lot less disruptive than a full closure and a bus bridge. It may require a slight reduction in service. Perhaps 3 locals per hour at peak instead of the current 4 trains per hour, but it would massively reduce the impact to the riders of that station. Since most crossovers are spaced between every other station, crews could work on one half of two adjacent stations at a time with the same single-tracking regime, so the speed of construction would stay the same. The handful of island platform stations would require full closures, but those represent a very small fraction of the total ridership.
Yep - and you could even do full closures of stations for lesser-used stations, like Atherton on the weekend. It's not a hard problem to solve, Caltrain just needs the balls to do it
DeleteWell I don't think Atherton will be a problem, not since it was closed down completely several years ago.
Delete> This mechanism is fitted with ultrasonic sensors that inhibit its deployment at 8” low platforms, on an independent per-car basis, i.e. both doors on each car must sense the presence or absence of a 22” platform face and deploy accordingly.
ReplyDeleteIs the sensor pointing down or out to detect platform status? Is it looking for a specific reflection? I just imagine a crowded platform and a sensor detecting knees as a platform edge.
Normal KISSes puchased by normal transit agencies staffed by anybody with minimal levels of competence come with normal automatically-deployed driver-controlled gap-filling extension plates that include platform edge detection right off the shelf.
DeleteAll it takes is to not being world-class fuck-ups and not always having rent-seeking contractor welfare as your top priority.