tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post6055111912187421375..comments2024-03-28T11:51:19.078-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Pandemic Open ThreadClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-39556799285137672020-08-28T19:19:01.148-07:002020-08-28T19:19:01.148-07:00Caltrain's signal woes continue: besides weird...Caltrain's signal woes continue: besides weirdness around CP Dumbarton and Redwood City (the things that caused the gates to require police officers to direct traffic a few months ago), weirdness with the signalling/PTC around CP Trousdale led to other issues in Burlingame. Then (based on engineer testimony) someone intentionally drove through Broadway's gates, breaking them and causing more havoc and delay. Based on just cursory evidence, around six additional trains were subject to delays yesterday because of it.<br /><br />Fun!aarondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-25452791105930666662020-08-10T09:57:34.777-07:002020-08-10T09:57:34.777-07:00Phishing, don't click the linkPhishing, don't click the linkkiwi.jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18215458981556481196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-81777012308272004192020-06-30T12:21:58.772-07:002020-06-30T12:21:58.772-07:00I agree with the anonymous poster, in thinking tha...I agree with the anonymous poster, in thinking that closing 4th and King would be a completely asinine decision. The 4th and King railyard is the only easily accessible and expansion ready land that Caltrain has in San Francisco. If anything, it's the only place with potential to become a "Grand Central" of the bay. The fact of the matter is that the new Transbay Terminal has built the line into a corner, with almost no possibility of expansion past six tracks. I think there is possibility for development within the 4th and King city block, but the train station should come as priority because it vital for the long term. Just imagine that the $6 billion promised for DTX could go towards a real investment into making 4th and King a viable and future-proof terminal, while at the same time satiating the desire to develop the area for housing. I imagine that some of the infrastructure at 4th and King could be put underground, and similarly to the rebuilding of Penn Station in NYC (minus the lack of foresight and mismanagement) there could be buildings built on top.Isambard Kingdom Brunelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05960287485572777274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-45008794629152336772020-05-26T11:45:26.188-07:002020-05-26T11:45:26.188-07:00"And they are built in the lower cost plants ..."<i>And they are built in the lower cost plants of Stadler.</i>"<br />Caltrain could have chosen to buy at lower cost. It was an explicit political decision to involve federal cash (with "Buy American" bullshit) and to involve layer upon layer of negative-value permanent unfirable USA consultants and layers of negative-value American shell corportations in the procurement.<br /><br />Paying more than twice as much for trains as necessary and "customizing" them (Stadler pretty much customizes everything for everybody -- as you well know that's how they started, and it's how they're continuing even while selling hundreds of standard platform trains) is something the criminals at Caltrain <b>freely chose</b> to do. That money's not going really going Stadler Rail AG and it's not going to make more service or cheaper servife or better service -- it's going to line the pockets of the rent-seeking consult mafia.<br /><br />It can't be repeated often enough that <b>spending money</b> is the primary purpose and very often the only purpose of American "public transit". Delivering service -- if it ever happens -- is an accidental side-effect.<br /><br />Just to be clear -- Caltrain is paying <b>TWICE THE GOING RATE</b> for its rolling stock, and having it delivered without a working signalling system, and delivered years late. <b>TWICE</b>, not 5%, not 10%, TWICE.<br /><br />Heckuva job, LTK and PTG and friends. Heckuva job.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-1565050703918586022020-05-26T11:22:13.641-07:002020-05-26T11:22:13.641-07:00To be fair, this order is based on a framework con...To be fair, this order is based on a framework contract over 40 units, dating back to 2017. And they are built in the lower cost plants of Stadler.<br /><br />But still, the USAn contracts are very high… and not everything is explained by the customization.<br />Max Wysshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07828566935411668866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-75810037678867428672020-05-26T03:46:13.146-07:002020-05-26T03:46:13.146-07:00On the topic of merging DTX and TBT II, Caltrain&#...On the topic of merging DTX and TBT II, Caltrain's SF route should be reevaluated to hit the areas of maximum ridership. Namely, the tunnel should continue up 7th St and make one right turn onto Mission St, which removes the three right-angle turns that will slow down the trains. Build stations at Oakdale, 16 St Mission Bay (replaces 22 St), 5 St Mission, and 1 St Mission. Close the existing 4th & King terminal and extend the N Judah to the new 16 St station to cover the gap. Treat the STC train box as a sunk cost; maybe it can be reused as an HSR terminal when CAHSR makes it up to SF.<br /><br />On the Oakland side, Caltrain service should split into two branches. The south branch has an intermediate stop at Oakland JLS before terminating at an intermodal 14 Ave / San Antonio station. In the very long term, this branch can be extended further south to Bay Fair, and have it take over the existing Dublin/Pleasanton branch (rebuilt with standard gauge rail) to connect with Valley Link. The north branch should follow the existing Amtrak ROW with stations at Grand Ave, Emeryville, University Ave, Central Ave, Cutting Blvd, Richmond, and Market Ave. This branch should ultimately be extended to Hercules, but the alignment is TBD. Lastly, Caltrain's new maintenance yard will be located at the West Oakland wye.<br /><br />As for TBT II itself, stick with a dual-bore standard-gauge tube for now. The Geary subway shouldn't be a regional rail line and is better suited for Muni to operate.Caelestornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-54692903308655289232020-05-25T17:38:32.822-07:002020-05-25T17:38:32.822-07:00Stadler recently contracted for 21x6 KISS with Hun...Stadler recently contracted for <a href="https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/2020_0107_media%20release_mav%20kiss%20option_en.pdf" rel="nofollow">21x6 KISS with Hungary MAV for EUR 313m</a>.<br /><br />That's about $2.7m per "car" for 216 "cars". (Oh, and the trains come with ETCS2, which, you know, <i>fucking works</i> and can be bought from multiple vendors, utterly unlike any bullshit bespoke signal system crap Caltrain's criminal contractor scammers pull out of their rear ends.)<br /><br />Now compare Caltrain: $203m on top of $551m (!!!!!!!!!) for 19x7 = 133 "cars".<br /><br />A cool $5.7m per "car".<br /><br />Whoa.<br /><br />Whao!<br /><br />WHOA!!!!!<br /><br />Well over twice as much for the same product from the same manufacturer, only ... worse (no working signalling system; no realistic plan for level boarding ever; 1 instead of 4 toilets per train, etc.)<br /><br />Three cheers for American Capitalism, and for American contractors, and American sub-contractors, and American sub-sub-sub-contractors, and for the most professsional public agency management team that has ever been assembled using bits and pieces of the Redwood City city council wetlands real estate development syndicate!Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-78806333363613475812020-05-21T00:32:01.799-07:002020-05-21T00:32:01.799-07:00@jpk122s Thanks for the link. That article describ...@jpk122s Thanks for the link. That article describes roughly the route that I have in mind, however the implementation being discussed just underlines my point about the disconnect between VTA's perception of public need and reality. An analysis regarding job density along the route completely misses the point regarding the role of commuter rail in a suburban environment. Likewise a fixation on employmentin Mountain View alone ignores that the project would not be a standalone line but part of a wider hub-and-spoke regional network. <br /><br />And then there's the uninformed quip about parking being 'cheap and plentiful' in Mountain View, and that west county commuters should 'just drive' to the Caltrain. The time limited city garages are not for commuter use, and the Caltrain lot fills up quickly in the morning - to speak nothing of peak-hour congestion on the 85 corridor which is the entire point of the discussion.<br /><br />That VTA study appears to envision 'light rail' on this alignment as it exists elsewhere in the county today - fully electrified dual track with tightly spaced stations geared for pedestrian access with minimum surface parking. Personally I would NOT support a project in this form. Examples in Asia and Europe demonstrate that a low cost, DMU operated commuter line can serve as a very efficient feeder for mainline service. Closer to home, Antioch BART's 1000 spaces were oversubscribed on opening day, necessitating a rush to build out a second lot.<br /><br />You do have a valid point regarding the political challenge of developing the UP quarry ROW, or the freeway median, for that matter. Thats why I prefaced my comment with an acknowledgement that its all just futile musing.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-62278895106327986622020-05-19T19:39:30.627-07:002020-05-19T19:39:30.627-07:00@JohnBrant None of those developments will generat...@JohnBrant None of those developments will generate much transit demand, certainly not enough to justify rail. Bus lanes, or at least queue jumps at major intersections would be a good place to start on Stevens Creek, but the car dealers will scream if you try to remove any street parking. That's where their employees park.jpk122shttp://twitter.com/jpk122snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-63756618789134656842020-05-19T09:00:30.843-07:002020-05-19T09:00:30.843-07:00Vallco project was approved by the courts. Wolfe/S...Vallco project was approved by the courts. Wolfe/Stevens Creek will look much denser and more transit friendly in the future. Plus you have continuing development at Santana Row and midtown San Jose. It's better to get ahead of that by improving transit. <br /><br />John Brantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-56012852864861666282020-05-19T08:57:31.478-07:002020-05-19T08:57:31.478-07:00Vallco project was approved by the courts. Wolfe/S...Vallco project was approved by the courts. Wolfe/Stevens Creek will look much denser and more transit friendly in the future. It's better to get ahead of that by improving transit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-30934859291995267752020-05-18T17:38:57.177-07:002020-05-18T17:38:57.177-07:00Interesting how fare policies differ from region t...Interesting how fare policies differ from region to region. The Bay Area is fairly consistent with an under 18 youth fare and is working to have all transit agencies comply. <br /><br />You raise a good point regarding flat fares on local/city systems. Should local bus and light rail service be a flat fare, while long haul rail service (Caltrain, BART, ACE, SMART, Capital Corridor) are distance based? Should a 45-mile bus trip cost $2.50? It will take a few hours and require transfers for this trip. The trip on Caltrain would be $9.95 and take 60-90 minutes depending on express/or local trains.<br /><br />I totally agree that high fares are a gift to auto and petroleum industries and that peak-hour surcharges hurt those of us who must adhere to a specific work or class schedule. How do we get transit agencies to understand this?<br /><br />Problem with most fare policies, is that they are developed by non-riding transit planners who don’t see things from a riders perspective. Another problem is the “commuter rail” ideology many agencies are caught in, i. e. riders are well-paid and can afford high fares. Unfortunately, there are plenty of lower income riders who can not or can barely afford these high fares, especially when they have to transfer between multiple systems. Additionally, many of the high-income riders fares are fully or partially subsidized by their employer. This means that this class of riders are least likely to be impacted by high fares and fare increases. Caltrain fails to fully take this into consideration in their fare policy and so-called fare study. While Caltrain is moving ahead with means-based fares in conjunction with MTC, it is unknown what would happen if ALL riders were required to pay full retail fares without employer subsidies. <br />Jeff Carternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-50442029809001061722020-05-16T10:01:59.906-07:002020-05-16T10:01:59.906-07:00@Pete I think what you are basically proposing is ...@Pete I think what you are basically proposing is rail along the vasona line/85 median from 85/17 to MV. VTA looked recently at light rail in 85 median along this stretch and decided it was a terrible idea. See this article:<br /><br />http://mv-voice.com/news/2019/07/11/vta-may-scrap-plans-for-light-rail-on-highway-85<br /><br />Basically job density in MV is not high enough to support park+ride rail, Also,note that the freight line belongs to UP and is single track through residential neighborhoods so would be a tough sell to use for commuter rail. jpk122shttp://twitter.com/jpk122snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-47850950560001165632020-05-15T11:29:32.911-07:002020-05-15T11:29:32.911-07:00Here is a pie-in-the-sky counterpoint that follows...Here is a pie-in-the-sky counterpoint that follows commuter rail principles:<br /><br />1) Remove half the stations on existing Winchester stub, expand parking at those remaining.<br />2) Run along the existing freight tracks into Cupertino. <br />3) Single commuter rail station 'Cupertino' at De Anza college, provision 2000 spaces.<br />3) Run down 85 median, merge back onto VTA ROW at Mountain View. (This would be the most expensive part of the proposal, but still no worse than Stevens Creek BART). There is room for value engineering - with no intermediate stations between Cupertino & Mtn View, a single track along the freeway can easily support 4 TPH.<br />4) Operate SJ Diridon -> Mountain View DMU service by way of Campbell & Cupertino, with timed transfers for SF bound BART 'purple line' at Mountain View.<br /><br />My expectation is that this alignment would bring attract better ridership (and congestion relief) than either Stevens Creek and/or Santa Clara BART, at a fraction of the cost.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-77531888344560722202020-05-15T11:01:56.873-07:002020-05-15T11:01:56.873-07:00I feel there are really 2 niches for transit to su...I feel there are really 2 niches for transit to succeed in the US - one is a highly urbanized core where density presents practical impediments for automobile ownership by residents. Few parts of this nation, and certainly no part of Santa Clara county falls in this category. <br /><br />The other niche is commuter rail, which is necessitated by the inability of existing highway and parking capacity to accommodate the influx of 1) suburban workers into 2) a dense cluster of employment. This, in my opinion, is ALSO a more uncommon scenario than rail boosters around the country would have you believe. Most 'light rail' systems in this country struggle for this reason. The ones that do succeed, do so by leveraging the suburban lifestyle and cars already in driveways to complete the last mile efficiently and at minimum operating cost to the transit agency.<br /><br />It happens that the condition for commuter rail to succeed DO existing in the bay area. However, one has to identify these rare markets for success. This requires an understanding of consumer demand and choice economics which I feel has been absent in VTA decision making. Much of the VTA network has been laid down without the necessary push factors to succeed, and the same would apply, in my opinion, to a Steven's Creek scheme.<br /><br />Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-42213999340613856222020-05-15T07:18:59.601-07:002020-05-15T07:18:59.601-07:00BART has left the extension track and Milpitas and...BART has left the extension track and Milpitas and San Jose stations sit unused for three years. BART, obviously, can't handle what it has now. BART doesn't have the management or engineering to add Caltrain to its plate. Ask BART why it blew 100 thyristors (power electronic switches the size/shape of a hockey puck at $1000 each) on one section of East Bay track. It couldn't figure it out. [People want BART because it has its own completely dedicated, isolated track. It doesn't block roads. It doesn't have the dozen deaths per year that Caltrain has. BART runs the Oakland Airport Connector --- $500 million spent, $6 for a three mile one-way tram ride. Can commuters afford that every day? SFO workers didn't use the BART extension until they were given special dispensation from the SFO surcharge.]Reedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906420018851058973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-88058876181292502522020-05-14T21:47:09.674-07:002020-05-14T21:47:09.674-07:00"People keep talking about rail transit along..."<i>People keep talking about rail transit along Stevens Creek, but it’s like they’ve never been there.</i>"<br /><br />Exactly. Thank you.<br /><br />VTA's problem is <i>not enough BART</i>.<br />That Caltrain SF extension's problem is <i>not enough tunnels</i>.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-29740568328834270932020-05-14T19:05:47.625-07:002020-05-14T19:05:47.625-07:00People keep talking about rail transit along Steve...People keep talking about rail transit along Stevens Creek, but it’s like they’ve never been there. There is approximately zero transit demand outside of students as evidenced by the 323 ridership. All significant destinations except for the mall are 2-3 story office parks surrounded by oceans of free parking. Santa Clara and Cupertino want to keep it that way. jpk122shttp://twitter.com/jpk122snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-21827761827860192582020-05-14T17:40:31.657-07:002020-05-14T17:40:31.657-07:00About fare inequity. As a child I discovered that...About fare inequity. As a child I discovered that 10 miles from my home to anywhere in downtown DC was double what I paid in Chicago when visiting kin. In fact Chicago not only charged a single flat fare within city limits, but offered 1/2 fare until I turned 12, while DC Transit charged full fare from 6 yrs, and zone fares in the near in suburban areas beyond the arbitrary border. So, later, living in (briefly) Philly and then NYC, I benefited from a single flat fare within most of the city with subway routes of 20 miles or more. Thus,to me, since farebox recovery in much of transit is less than 30 %, my attitude is that high fares are simply a gift to the auto and petroleum companies. We build transit and sidewalks because they enhance our access to the features that bring us to cities in the first place. Surcharging during rush hours targetsthose of us required to work a specificschedule--universally the lower paid segment of the workforce. david vartanoffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-7110524622464631272020-05-14T12:29:04.607-07:002020-05-14T12:29:04.607-07:00TBT II: the immersed tube involved digging trench...TBT II: the immersed tube involved digging trenches for the tube, which stirred up huge volumes of contaminated sediment. I've read (here, usually) that that won't pass current environment standards.<br /><br />As for why massive 4-track tunnel rather than 2 two-track tunnels: if that is a better idea, then it illustrates perfectly the _utter futility_ of merging BART and Caltrain.<br /><br />BART suffers from the same issues as Caltrain: absence of in-house expertise to oversee (or overrule) contractor proposals; contractor capture; incompetent or uninterested (not disinterested) management (exhibit A: Steve Heminger, Bay Bridge bolts and rods!), and so on.<br /><br />Personally, I don't see how merging BART and Caltrain helps Caltrain. It just makes it even harder to reform the (larger, older, more ossified) management. Obviously, Clem disagrees. I'll have to write a longer post with more of the problems I see.kiwi.jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18215458981556481196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-91883685491672527212020-05-14T08:50:34.489-07:002020-05-14T08:50:34.489-07:00San Jose doesn't need BART to get a line servi...San Jose doesn't need BART to get a line serving Stevens Creek Blvd, it just needs VTA to plan well and build a line of its own there. In fact, an E-W route on Stevens Creek from De Anza College to SJSU should have been the second line VTA built, after the N-S route. Instead they have fiddled about with low performing extensions.<br /><br />This actually brings up a little recognized point about VTA's poor performance: like BART it has an S-Bahn/RER topology, with all lines sharing a single route downtown, instead of an urban rail topology with a net of intersecting lines (1st+Monterrey, Stevens Creek+San Carlos, El Camino+Santa Clara).Onuxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-48605704679772323862020-05-14T08:37:31.891-07:002020-05-14T08:37:31.891-07:00Merging Caltrain and BART is a great idea, especia...Merging Caltrain and BART is a great idea, especially for all of the coordinated planning. Look how well this works in New York, with the MTA controlling the Subway, Long Island Railroad and Metro North to ensure the commuter railroads cooperate sharing space at Grand Central and Penn Station, plus the unified fare structure with a single mode-independent price from Jamaica to Manhattan.<br /><br />Sarcasm aside, why should TBT II use a TBM, instead of immersed tube like the current crossing? Also, why go for a massive 4-track tunnel instead of two 2-track tunnels for the different services. In addition to avoiding Seattle Bertha-like complications, it would allow the services to have different endpoints for different needs (such as BART from 2nd/Embarcadero to Alameda Pt, then on-land construction to JLS and DT Oak; while heavy rail goes from Howard/Emb to join existing tracks in Oakland Middle Harbor.)Onuxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-54389941210686643122020-05-14T02:21:53.968-07:002020-05-14T02:21:53.968-07:00My idea
* Unify BART, ACE, Caltrain, Muni, SMART, ...My idea<br />* Unify BART, ACE, Caltrain, Muni, SMART, VTA, AC Transit, County Connection, FAST, Golden Gate Transit, Muni, SamTrans, Santa Rosa CityBus, SolTrans, Sonoma County Transit, Tri Delta Transit, VINE Transit and WHEELS into a single agency, like NJT, MBTA, MTA and SEPTA. This new agency would be called Bay Area Transportation Authority.<br />** Divisions<br />*** City Transit Division: Local bus routes, light rail trains such as Muni Metro and VTA Light Rail<br />*** Suburban Division: Intercity bus routes, the former BART system<br />*** Railroad Division: The former Caltrain, SMART and ACE.<br />* Extend eBART into Tracy, where it can connect with ACE<br />* Build a new rail line that largely follows I-880, bypassing the UP tracks. This includes relocating the freight tracks away from Embardcadero. As part of that, build a new rail line following I-80 from Richmond to Fairfield to bypass the freight tracks, and new rail lines following I-680 and I-580.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-48340256674175201022020-05-13T11:58:38.041-07:002020-05-13T11:58:38.041-07:00Yes, it goes back to when conductors sold and coll...Yes, it goes back to when conductors sold and collected tickets on-board trains, I started riding the train in 1977. Zones used to be shorter prior to 2003 when Millbrae BART opened, when there were 9 zones. Caltrain went to six 13-mile zones, claiming to ‘simplify’ the fare structure, however one of the underlying reasons was to make the Caltrain to SF fare similar to the BART to SF fare from Millbrae. Caltrain did a fare study and everything, LOL. The problem with bulky 13-mile zones is that the base fare and the per-zone fare has to be abnormally high.<br /><br />I have developed a distance- based fare matrix based on mileage, which proves that it can be done relatively easily. It includes single ride, monthly pass, 7-day pass, and 10-ride. It can be revenue neutral, revenue positive or revenue negative all depending on whatever base fare and per mile fare you want to plug into it. <br /><br />One potential problem is to re-program Clipper, the Clipper contractor will charge MTC/Caltrain or whoever an outrageous fee to do so, possibly into the high $100k or over $1 million. <br />Jeff Carternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-73124248388509775332020-05-13T10:36:47.376-07:002020-05-13T10:36:47.376-07:00Caltrain fare zones are a holdover from the era be...Caltrain fare zones are a holdover from the era before electronic ticketing. I don't see a technical reason why clipper card validators cannot be reprogrammed to bill by origin and destination. Caltrain fares are already distance based - just not very granular.<br /><br />Many European and Asian systems combine point-to-point one-way fares with zone or line-based passes. Perhaps not inconceivable for the newly expanded BART to offer a purple line only monthly pass.<br />Petenoreply@blogger.com