Caltrain Declares Fiscal Emergency
by Rafael
Note: cross-posted from comments on Clem Tillier’s post on Caltrain’s CBOSS signaling project. Sorry, I don’t have any time for fancy editing today.
The following links are to news clippings coming on the heels of the recent conditional FRA waiver on mixed traffic and Rep. Anna Eshoo’s calls to use HSR funds to “save Caltrain”. They suggest Caltrain may struggle to survive long enough to take advantage of it as the three counties it services are forced to sharply cut its operating subsidy.
—
News: Caltrain declares fiscal emergency to implement service cuts and fare hikes without environmental review.
SJ-Gilroy an obvious target, operations to be put out to tender this year. Reduced crew complements and reining in salary growth would help as well, though it would mean confronting powerful public sector unions.
There’s little Caltrain can do about fuel costs until it meets the preconditions for the waiver, one of which is implementing PTC. The CBOSS project entails the risk of massive delays as well as cost overruns, so implementing off-the-shelf technology that will be shared with and paid for by CHSRA isn’t just common sense. It may in fact be vital to keeping Caltrain operations afloat during the corridor remodeling project, when ridership is likely to be down from today’s levels.
—
The Mountain View Voice weighs in on Caltrain’s upcoming reductions in service and the impact on traffic.
It’s not clear if Caltrain will be operating longer consists to compensate for reduced train frequency. Fewer trains per hour would also make remodeling the corridor easier, perhaps a smidgeon cheaper.
—
Final one from the San Mateo County Times: Caltrain mulling shutdown in 2012, presumably with a view to restoring service after the corridor is remodeled. It’s unclear if 100% of the existing Caltrain station would then be brought back into service. A narrow focus on just those served by baby bullet trains today would cost ridership today, but it might eliminate the need for quad tracking the entire peninsula. With fewer stations served, Caltrain could perhaps be sped up and share many more miles of track with CHSRA without excessive constraints on HSR train frequency. This would absolutely require Caltrain to abandon CBOSS and piggy-back onto the off-the-shelf signaling and traffic management technology, possibly ETCS level 2 and ERTMS, respectively.
Note that it would be possible to speed up that work dramatically while reducing width requirements if UPRR service were suspended as well, though that might entail invoking paragraph 8.3(c) of the 1991 contract between PCJPB and Southern Pacific, which later merged with Union Pacific, i.e. unilateral abandonment of the corridor with unspecified compensation for UPRR and its customers.
Unfortunately, even a temporary suspension of these two services would have a massive impact on road traffic and possibly force some peninsula business to relocate or declare bankruptcy. UPRR service in particular might never recover at all, though that prospect would permit the Peninsula Rail Program to get more creative with regard to vertical gradients for the corridor grade separation project and cut costs at the same time.
Terrible, if not unexpected news. We need to start pressuring VTA, SamTrans, Muni, the State, and the federal government to contribute funding to maintain what is in fact a public service.
The sad truth is that the Bay Area is beginning to abandon mass transit. This news should be seen as a massive crisis for the Bay Area, especially SF, the Peninsula, and San José. This ought to spur the MTC or some other agency to put a gas tax measure on the November ballot to help save this service.
Instead local politicians are spending their time talking down HSR and, whether intentionally or not, talking down passenger rail. We need an all-hands-on-deck approach to saving and improving mass transit in the region, from local buses to HSR and everything in between.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Sadly, sometimes need to completely fall apart before something good can happen.
HSRforCali Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
That’s what had to happen to LA. We had to completely loose our Pacific Electric system before people saw rail as an important part of mobility.
Joey Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Oh, and you don’t think the Bay Area didn’t once have at least 100 times as much passenger trackage as it does today?
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Hind-sight is always 20-20, isn’t it?
HSRforCali Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 6:59 am
Well you guys built BART far before we built a single mile of light rail, the Metro Blue Line.
Samsonian Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
It wasn’t until after we lost streetcar lines in SF, interurban lines like the Key System, SP’s Easy Bay Electric, Sacramento Northern, and heavy rail lines like the Iron Horse Corridor, among others.
Not that Northern California experience here was unique, every major part of the country experienced this. What’s a shame is 70 years ago, we had more than twice as much trackage and better rail service than we do today. And we may never get back to that point.
I would not support eliminating many of the local Caltrain stations. Then Caltrain would turn into the BART model. Super large parking lots serving widely spaced stations. The urban design of the downtowns linked to a trains station is what is what we need for all our towns, even smaller ones.
Rafael Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Caltrain wouldn’t need to follow the BART model, its baby bullet stations don’t feature giant parking lots. Instead, they rely on kiss+ride, corporate shuttles, connecting local transit, bicycles and plain old walking. Eliminating locals would permit substantially better baby bullet line haul times based on new EMUs featuring high acceleration (e.g. 1.2m/s^2 for Stadler Dosto) and top speeds well above 79mph. A couple of years after re-launching the service with a new business model, boarding volume at those stations could then be higher than it is today.
Customers who use secondary stations today might well scream blue murder at the prospect that they might be closed permanently. However, local trains require the highest operating subsidies. If UPRR service is discontinued and the required track count reduced from 4 to 2 in many sections, it might be possible to make the anyhow planned corridor access road next to the tracks available to cyclists during rush hour. This might involve e.g. special fences that service crews working off-peak or at night could easily move out of the way and and then restore. Combined with a modest subsidy program to encourage the purchase of electric bicycles and bicycle parking featuring recharge outlets at the remaining Caltrain station, that might be a viable solution for increasing the catchment area.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
If your acceleration is 1.2 m/s^2, you can afford to go to the stop spacing of normal commuter trains, which is what Caltrain local is offering. If the locals are permanently gone, then the system will have to rely on park and rides, in which case most people will drive the whole way.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Nor would I.
Note to readers: later today a CA4HSR letter to Caltrain regarding the electrification project will be published. There’s lots of details there about the project and suggestions about how to effectively integrate it with HSR.
Expanding further on the idea of shutting down the rail corridor entirely in 2012, with a view to re-launching a redefined Caltrain service after corridor remodeling.
As the saying goes: “This glass is neither half full nor half empty, it’s twice the size it needs to be.”
Pros:
- number of tracks needed for HSR + Caltrain 2.0 = 2 + long bypass track sections near Caltrain stations
- platform height harmonization at HSR levels
- greater range of grade separation options, especially with regard to vertical gradients in transition sections
- elimination of tunnels from CHSRA plans for Bayshore to 4th& King in SF
- elimination of tunnel from CHSRA plans for San Tomas Expressway to SJ Diridon in the south Bay
- less right of way width needed during construction, i.e. reduced risk of eminent domain takings
- cancellation of Caltrain plans for San Bruno = opportunity to ease curve radius for HSR
- potential for eliminating the chicane at University Ave in Palo Alto
- faster execution of corridor remodeling projects
- reduced corridor remodeling cost
- cancellation of CBOSS signaling R&D project
- permanently reduced Caltrain operating budget and subsidies due to track sharing
- substantially improved line haul speeds for baby bullets
- elimination of freight train noise and derailment risk
- potential for redeveloping selected industrial sites currently occupied by UPRR customers
- re-use of UPRR yard in south San Francisco for HSR
Cons:
- temporary loss of Caltrain baby bullet service
- permanent loss of Caltrain local service (loss of secondary stations & associated ridership)
- temporary, possibly permanent loss of UPRR heavy rail service, with compensation due
- potential job and tax base losses as UPRR customers respond to losing freight rail service
- hardening of UPRR’s stance against HSR elsewhere in California, possibly other states
- increased traffic on peninsula roads
- possible need for ride-through buffers in OCS system to keep Caltrain electricity cost low in spite of higher acceleration requirements
- HSR and Caltrain 2.0 permanently joined at the hip (integrated timetable, reduced top speed during rush hour, constraints on infill stations, either 17 or 22.5t axle load limit)
Rafael Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 10:19 am
For reference, only 10 out of a total of 29 stations are served by at least a subset baby bullets today. However, any given baby bullet train only stops at 6-8 of those 10. Details here:
http://www.caltrain.com/timetable.html
Paul Steranka Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Is anyone know why they have 2×2=4 different set of Baby Bullet stop pattern? Caltrain should simplify the stop pattern into two: Traditional and Reverse.
I think all “Traditional” should stop both Sunnyvale and Mountain View, which generate highest boarding next to San Jose.
All “Reverse” should stop Palo Alto with same reason.
Traditional: Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Redwood City, Hilsdale, Milbrae
Reverse: 22nd, Milbrae, Hilsdale, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View
Travel time may extend 2~3 minutes. However, frequent baby bullet stop may benefit more to the customer.
Rafael Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Those patterns are necessary to also accommodate limited and local service levels on the same timetable, given the location of Caltrain’s existing bypass tracks.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Actually, the standard way to do it is to have Baby Bullets make the same stops in both directions. This means all trains stop at TBT, 4th/Townsend, Millbrae, Hillsdale, RWC, PA, MV, Sunnyvale, and DIG. Somewhere in the middle there should be a timed local/express transfer.
The only reason Baby Bullets currently run skip-stop is that track capacity is low, preventing a predictable pattern.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
“Regular headways and symmetry: the secrets of timetabling” (And even you can understand German many of the speakers are barely comprehensible.)
There’s no reason not to have a small amount of spontaneous symmetry breaking (just make sure you use the same gauge group) and add, say, a 22nd St stop to southbound-AM NB-PM peak fast trains. But throw in too much crap and you end up with, well, Caltrain.
Caelestor Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
In other countries, they have 2 tracks with select stations having 4 for transfers. Can’t we do that here? Gets rid of the awkward Timed Transfer…
Joey Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Huh? Isn’t the point of having four tracks at major stations so that you can have timed transfers?
Alon Levy Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 12:45 am
Caltrain has one timed transfer, from a local-then-express train to an express-then-local train. But it has a 6-minute connection time, which is horrific. I believe that’s the awkward timed transfer in question.
Timed local/express transfers can be done on fully four-tracked systems, between two two-tracked lines, or on four-track passing sections of two-track lines. They do not have to be awkward at all. Here’s a hint: timed implies that the connection time is not 6 minutes. 6 minutes is longer than how much I wait at 96th Street when I just miss my connecting local.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 6:13 am
I can’t find a video. Someone has to make one or two or three or 47. Of the local and the express pulling into the station at the same time give or take a few seconds, the doors sliding open of both trains, a bit of mayhem and the doors sliding closed just before both trains leave the station. Shouldn’t be much longer than 90 seconds including the time it takes for the trains to enter the station and clear the station…
….. six minutes is shoulder isn’t it? they are much better during peak and off peak about timing transfers, or were….
Alon Levy Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Yes, that’s what happens when the local and the express arrive simultaneously. The problem is that they aren’t always timed to. This by itself isn’t stupid; metros don’t need to run on a schedule. But it means it’s not a good example of what Caltrain needs.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 8:21 am
The subway runs on a schedule. Not that anyone actually consults it…. or that the MTA keeps to it. Except in the wee hours of the morning or at the end of the line one weekends, a train is going to be there “soon”.
They are having trouble conceiving of cross platform transfers. With level boarding, lots of doors and passengers who aren’t stupid it should take seconds not minutes. A video of what happens at a two island platform subway station would make it easier to understand.
They definitely don’t get the rush hour patterns that suburban lines use elsewhere – local for a few stops and then express, while the stations down the line have their own express that runs local for a few stops and then runs express both of them expressing past the the third trains that runs local for a few stops and then runs express. … not that the Peninsula is ever going to have enough traffic to warrant that at the busiest part of the peak.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
The rush hour suburban traffic patterns you say exist “Elsewhere” are limited to the New York area. In Japan and South Korea, trains run predictable local and express patterns, like on the New York City Subway; in Tokyo the patterns get a bit chaotic on the express trains on the outer parts, with several level of express service and timed transfers, but there’s nothing like the local-for-three-stations-then-express-to-Manhattan pattern what you see on the LIRR and Metro-North. In France, trains run local off-peak with a couple of extra express runs at peak hour; in Paris the express patterns get chaotic, but again there’s nothing like what you see in New York. The only reason to run trains MTA-style is if you regard all goals as secondary to moving people from the suburbs to the CBD at rush hour.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
They do it in Chicago and Philadelphia. Metra Electric… ya need a interpreter to figure out Metra Electric schedules. Some of the diesel lines do it too. Penn Line in Maryland has expresses, I think to DC. NJTransit does on the Newark Division and the Morris and Essex lines. I haven’t looked at Hoboken Division schedules in a very very long time. There are expresses to/from Rockland County. I looked at schedules in and out of London one rainy afternoon…. all I remember is that there is express service during the rush hours.
They are never going to have the destination the Chicago or Philadelphia is and never ever going to be the draw that Manhattan is. If someday they can fill a train at 3 to 5 suburban stops it might make sense to have that kind of express during peak, keeps people off the normal pattern limiteds. On the other some of them are getting all frothy and building 4 tracks to Gilroy because sometime in the 2080s there might be ten passenger trains and a freight in one hour. …
Alon Levy Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Metra Electric is cryptic because it’s three lines that hog one set of schedule. Within the three lines, there are expresses, and the lines that branch further out skip the stops on the shared trunk; this isn’t industry best practice, but it’s still way better than the LIRR and Metro-North’s way of doing things.
The local-then-express pattern exists on NJT to some extent. However, it’s nowhere near as bad as what happens on Metro-North, where a train will stop at three suburban stations and then express to 125th. Any connection between that and the express trains run by competent agencies is coincidental.
Yas Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 8:19 am
Originally, time transfer at Redwood City was 5min. Inefficient equipment (long dwell time of 1 door per car), long signal spacing makes it 6 min.
Even under current infrastructure, there will be solution. Use of Bombardia Car (2 door per car + Mini high platform), more signal around Redwood City station, short train local stop SF-RWC (3 car instead of 5, faster accerelation) makes timed transfer may be 3~4min.
Caelestor Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Yes, that’s what I was saying, sorry for not clarifying.
During peak hours, there should be 2 local tph and 4 express tph. They should coincide at important stations to reduce the transfer to at most 2 minutes.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
blockquote>Is anyone know why they have 2×2=4 different set of Baby Bullet stop pattern?
Bob Doty was obsessed with parking lot capacity as the limit to train ridership. so some of the random junk was his and sidekick Michelle Bouchard’s attempt to make people, say, drive to Sunnyvale instead of Mountain View.
But that doesn’t mean it isn’t bat shit insane to not stop every train in Palo Alto, the station with the best transit connections along the line, because of perceived limits in the number of people driving to that station. Likewise, not stopping every “reverse peak” train at 22nd St just screws real riders without providing any quantifiable benefit.
But once some people fasten onto one idea and have one single career success, there’s no way to get them to let go. Hence the horror of their world class visionary 2025 service “plan“.
So the answer is: “That’s the way we do it. Suck it down.”
Paul Steranka Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
It is very disappointing to hear this fact from the Caltrain’s management. They did not understand what customer want, and the reason why people prefer BART.
If two Baby bullet stop same pattern, at least within those station stops Baby Bullet enjoys BART loke frequency during commute hours if it combined with local train. People don’t care about either Diesel or Electric.
Andy Chow Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
As if BART management is any more competent than Caltrain’s.
Caltrain is doing fine if SamTrans doesn’t pull its subsidy. Caltrain is doing as well if not better than any of its peers. SamTrans itself has structural problems and which SamTrans is trying to pass it on Caltrain.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
BART’s operations department is quite admirable. They do a great job day in and day out working with and around the far less than desirable technical and political faits accomplis with which they must deal.
And BART’s sleaze ridden dollar sucking capital projects mafia front is extremely competent at what it does. I choose not to call that admirable, however.
Joey Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Why? Because they have what?…one cross-platform transfer?
rafael Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 12:13 am
No, because they keep the trains moving on time in downtown SF in spite of multiple ridiculously long lines that all converge there. The Embarcadero and to a slightly lesser extent, Montgomery stations are running at above 100% of designed passenger flow capacity during rush hour, dwell times are very short. Any delay in getting any train moving again propagates to subsequent trains on all of the lines in the same direction. It then takes some time to get everything back on schedule.
All of that means trains and infrastructure must be maintained very well and, drivers and signalmen must do their jobs very well also.
Caelestor Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 12:18 am
BART is absurdly slow in the East Bay suburbs. Who thought it was a good idea to build a metro in low density areas? It, however, is great for getting into SF.
Whenever I need to go to the city, a short drive to Fruitvale and a 15-20 minute ride, and I’m there.
No parking hassles.
Rafael Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 5:01 am
@ Caelstor -
I agree that implementing BART as a local-only subway with lines that are 50 miles long wasn’t smart. They should have constructed a giant transfer station in downtown Oakland and kept all other parts of the network standard gauge. The problem is that politicians wanted direct routes plus, BART was the only fully grade separated game in town.
Does that mean BART itself couldn’t have implemented some bypass tracks for an express service level? Not easily, because county-level politicians were – and still are – much more concerned with putting as many constituents as possible close to a BART station than they are with fast and robust operations. Just witness the ongoing expansion mania in east Contra Costa county, Livermore and south to Santa Clara when the single biggest problem is rush-hour pedestrian flow capacity between platforms and grade level in downtown SF.
In addition, many BART sections run in narrow freeway medians. It is possible to create bypass tracks even in those via track stacking, but platform access gets seriously funky and it costs a lot more. That’s money not spent on making the lines even longer! The name is Franz. Franz Kafka.
Yas Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 8:27 am
I agree. People prefer BART because customer don’t have to consult with time table. Whenever they go to BART station, train will come within 15 minutes. For Caltrain, only San Jose-San Francisco passenger in peak hours enjoys this privilege. In other station, we have to wait maximum of 60 minutes if we missed the train.
Caelestor Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 11:36 am
A question: Bayshore Station doesn’t have much ridership. What would shutting it down like Broadway do? Hayward Park may also be another stop to consider.
Regarding Gilroy, I don’t see it as an effective competitor to HWY 101. Buses may be better for that route.
As a side note, I can see Richard Mlynarik approving of this plan, though I shudder at the loss of secondary stations.
P.S. $12.5 million is so measly compared to the billions I see being thrown out in the news…and yet we can’t even afford that…for shame.
Paul Steranka Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
I also propose to skip 22nd street station except “Reverse commute” train. If both 22nd and Bayshore are skipped, peak local train don’t have to wait express train. Travel time SF to/from stations like Burlingame, San Mateo and Belmont can be 6~7 minutes faster.
I also suggest to close San Bruno and South San Francisco. These two city have BART. There is no such demand to maintain two stations.
Skip 5 station: 22nd, Bayshore, South San Francisco, San Bruno and Hayward Park – Local train runtime is 79min (SJ-Hilsdale 49min. Hilsdale-San Mateo 4min, San Mateo-Milbare 8min, Milbrae-SF is 18min)
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
It’s an idiotic scheme. Transportation systems should serve humans, not the other way around.
There’s a perfectly simple, comparatively cheap, very straightforward and blindingly obvious way to maximize service, minimize cost, maximize community benefit and minimize disruption.
Nobody controlling the process is interested in cost, cost-effectiveness or in serving human needs, so it’s not going to happen. Enjoy the ride.
And never ever, no matter what, forget to remember to allow for “possible need for ride-through buffers in OCS system”.
Rafael Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
The link you provided is broken.
Besides, I was actually looking to reduce HSR construction cost in the corridor by making do with just two tracks instead of four, except near baby bullet stations. The express service accounts for about 83% of Caltrain’s ridership. Limiting the service model to just that with a view to improving line haul times while reducing future opex and minimizing the disruption associated with HSR design and construction does arguably maximize community benefit.
The objective isn’t to maximize service in the sense of running as many trains as possible and having them stop in as many places as possible. It’s delivering the most public transportation value per opex dollar, i.e. getting as many commuters off peninsula roads as possible. Does it really matter to the three counties, the state and the feds if those commuters are traveling between Menlo Park and SF or between Palo Alto and SF?
But then, Richard is always right about everything and everyone else is a complete idiot.
Joey Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I believe this is the document he was trying to link.
rafael Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 12:25 am
Ah. That diagram implies routing HSR via Altamont, with a spur to San Jose in the East Bay. That’s not on the table right now.
It also limits HSR service to SF to just 4 trains per hour and Caltrain to 6, permanently. Richard may feel that’s enough capacity, forever, but that’s debatable.
As for the bypass sections, fair enough. There may well be scope for optimization there, they may not be needed at each and every Caltrain station that remains in service. That said, 125mph and four passenger tracks through South SF wouldn’t be feasible as long as UPRR owns and operates a switching yard there – at least not at grade and there are plenty of overpasses in the area, which is close to the Bay (high water table).
Ergo, as pretty as the diagram is, the assumptions inherent in it are questionable.
Caelestor Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Well, I assumed you wanted to kill the current Caltrain due to its negligence and rebuild it from the ashes.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Transportation systems should serve humans, not the other way around.
Keep repeating it. Californians keep forgetting the whole point of passenger railroads is passengers
Alon Levy Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 12:22 am
As opposed to New Yorkers, who never forget it.
The problem isn’t California. It’s the country it’s in.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Stations should be kept open, even if subsidized, in order to fuel future ridership growth.
Peter Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Not to mention to avoid losing those riders who rely on the service.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Shuttering service should be a non-starter… and I bet with my mooolaaa, that it will not happen. Instead, focus work at night and weekends. If we’re just talking OCS…. easily done. If new trackwork do the shoe fly’s, or whatever they are called.
It does need it own funding and that is not going to happen right now …I see it over the long run becoming part of the HST operations just like the AVE line.
Rafael Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 9:41 am
In essence, the Caltrain 2.0 I have in mind would be a strictly regional HSR operator, except that it would have long sidings to additional stations that would not be used by statewide trains and therefore not count toward the 24-station limit enshrined in AB3034(2008).
Keep in mind that the financial bottleneck for Caltrain is the annual operating subsidy. As a public service, a commuter railway will never ever be self-sustaining. Neither is the road network. If Caltrain is to have a long-term future, it needs to reduce its demand for subsidies in absolute terms without losing too much ridership (and then growing it again). Piggybacking onto as much of the HSR infrastructure as possible would sharply reduce maintenance overheads.
Capital investments come out of separate pots of money, as would the compensation due if UPRR is kicked off the peninsula.
Caltrain needs to be saved and have a dedicated source of funding, although I’m not sure where they’d get it from. On the other hand, once there is a firm design for the corridor, perhaps it would make sense to shut down Caltrain and have work progress on the corridor 24/7 for a year to expedite the remodeling of the corridor and re-introduce Caltrain as an HSR-ready electric system. If things are planned well to include some pre-fabricated supplies along with thousands of people working on the line, a lot could change in a year.
Rafael Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Ultimately, the way to properly fund public transportation throughout the state is to raise gas taxes. This would create additional revenue, increase ridership and foster transit-oriented development.
Rafael Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Speeding up construction would indeed be a major benefit of this radical approach, but only if UPRR service is suspended/cancelled as well.
As for Caltrain’s customers and staff: it might make sense to teach that staff to drive buses and then rent a fleet of them to provide at least limited alternate service capacity. Peninsula cities and counties could temporarily dedicate lanes on El Camino Real/Alma/Central Expressway/De La Cruz/The Alameda to this effort – at least during rush hour – during the remodeling period. In San Bruno, buses would switch to San Mateo Ave/Gateway Blvd/Bayshore Blvd/Tunnel Ave/3rd St to hew close to the rail corridor. Off-peak, 101 could be used instead.
Perhaps these temporary bus routes could extend beyond 4th & King to (near) the temporary Transbay Terminal to minimize Caltrain ridership losses. Idem in San Jose, extend the bus route beyond SJ Diridon to SJ State University. Getting much closer to the business districts would partially compensate for the slower line haul times of bus service.
Peter Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Or just fast-track the currently planned BRT corridors for VTA, and push for them along El Camino north of Palo Alto.
Rafael Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 10:30 am
That might be appropriate in Santa Clara county, which is covered by VTA. It depends on whether the leased buses would be suitable for BRT operations. Further north, what I’m proposing would be discontinued as soon as rail service became available again – though that might take a few years.
After this period, the bus fleet would be returned. If leasing isn’t possible, they would be sold as used vehicles to local bus operators in the state and nation in the context of fleet churn or service expansions that they had anyhow planned.
For reference, a motor coach probably costs on the order of $50-$100k to purchase. Operating costs tend to be higher than for diesel-based rail service, mostly because you need to employ more drivers per 100 passengers. Fuel costs can be higher, though some modern bus designs feature parallel hybrid drivetrains that can recuperate some of the brake energy and use it to accelerate the vehicle back up again.
Rafael Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Btw, I forgot to mention that any lanes reserved for bus service on El Camino Real etc. for a number of years would also be available for construction traffic related to the remodeling effort, at least between the construction sites and the nearest freeway. There’s going to be a lot of earthmoving, concrete/cement/sand/rebar deliveries etc.
In this instance, I would argue that the Bay Area isn’t abandoning mass transit; they’re in fact abandoning Caltrain as we know it! Think about it: diesel-spewing commuter heavy-rail that carry’s only 43,000 daily riders (vs. 300,000+ for BART) that is “in the way” (so to speak) of a more advanced form of transit (HSR).
I like Rafael’s idea at 9:30: bring Caltrain back in the future with only the current Baby Bullet stations, with elimination of all (or most) secondary stations. Caltrain Baby Bullet becomes the “local HSR” of the Peninsula and vast swath’s of the ROW could be kept at 2-track; (gulp!) appeasing Peninsula NIMBY’s at the same time
Hey, it looks like my “end Caltrain as we know it” scenario of a few months ago may happen after all!
Peter Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 10:03 am
I think that eliminating local service just to placate the NIMBYs would be a horrible idea. NIMBYs are easier to deal with than the loss of jobs that would occur if Caltrain drops local service.
Just as an example, probably 1/3 of the employees at my wife’s work are completely dependent on Caltrain to get to work. My wife takes Caltrain because it’s more convenient, but others would no longer be able to get to and from work AT ALL. I have no doubt there are many employers in that same boat.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Totally agreed. Our job as passenger rail advocates is to protect and defend local service, while improving Caltrain’s and HSR’s ability to meet regional and intrastate needs.
Rafael Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Placating NIMBYs wouldn’t be the reason, it would just be a welcome fringe benefit. Rather, the reason for shutting down Caltrain and re-launching it with a new business model after the corridor is remodeled would be that the peninsula counties cannot (or choose not to) maintain the current operating subsidy levels. Leveraging HSR assets, including especially the tracks, to the maximum extent possible would bring those recurring costs down. However, shutting down UPRR would be a political hurdle and also cost a TBD amount in compensation.
A new service model that supports fewer stations but does so better, at lower cost, would still be a whole lot better than no service at all. Indeed, thanks to faster line haul times, it might even result in higher aggregate ridership than Caltrain attracts today, though it would take a number of years to get to that point.
Tony D. Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Could not have said it better myself Rafael!
Peter Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Seriously, though, cutting local service would be the Caltrain equivalent of HSR adopting Tolmach’s nutty plan to bypass the CV cities with an I-5 alignment.
You’d cut out a lot of people who would be left behind economically. I don’t see how even increased overall ridership would help anyone other than Caltrain itself if the remainder of the ridership is punished.
Rafael Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 11:55 am
I think that analogy is totally wide of the mark, given that Caltrain itself introduced the baby bullet service because ridership on its locals was declining fast. According to Caltrain’s most recent ridership analysis, the express service contributes some 30,000 (83%) of a total of 36,000 average weekday riders. Why should the peninsula counties, not to mention the state and federal governments, pay for 50 miles of full quad tracking incl. ROW widening and grade separation works, just so Caltrain can maintain highly subsidized service to 1/6th of its anyhow modest ridership and UPRR can keep running a handful of daily freight trains? Seems to me there has to be some correlation between operating subsidies and especially, capital improvements on the one hand and ridership/tax revenue from freight customers on the other.
Also, if speeding up the baby bullets were to eventually grow ridership beyond today’s levels, that would mean more cars off peninsula roads (esp. freeways) during rush hour. Isn’t that the whole point of regional passenger rail service in the first place?
Besides, it’s not me that’s proposing shuttering the current service altogether in 2012. It’s Caltrain, in response to cuts in its operating subsidy. The status quo is evidently unsustainable in any event, with or without the HSR project. Once you start cutting service and raising fares, you’re headed for oblivion.
What I’m talking about is leveraging the demise of Caltrain into an opportunity to both improve the HSR project and re-launch a sustainable level of regional rail service in its wake. Change is your friend.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
I’m with Peter. There is benefit and value to local service, as well as the regional and intercity service that Caltrain/HSR provides.
Local service is a key element of the Peninsula’s ability to survive peak oil and remain a prosperous community. So too is HSR. Both are needed and both should be supported.
Tony D. Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Had to stand up and applaud Rafael for this post! Again, financial realities dictate that Caltrain is on life-support and perhaps even terminally ill; something needs to change! Look, Gilroy serves 82 riders per day…82 A DAY! That service should (and will) be cut. Is that unfair for the 82? Perhaps, but that’s reality. Until full-fledged HSR is up and running, the 82 can use VTA express buses to Diridon/SJ or carpool. The same could happen for those on the Peninsula who loose their service on secondary Caltrain stations. In closing, change will become everyone’s friend whether they like it or not, so let’s start planning accordingly.
Peter Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I agree that Gilroy service can be cut. Spending $770,000 yearly on 82 riders daily is an utter waste. Now, if Caltrain in fact did connect to Salinas, that would be a different matter.
However, I still cannot see how closing other “secondary” stations on the corridor would offer a benefit to the public. People do in fact use Caltrain for trips from one station to the next…
Peter Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
82 riders times 5 weekdays times 52 weeks is 21,320 trips. If Caltrain spends $770,000 per year on Gilroy service, that gives us $36.12 per rider per round-trip.
Assuming they travel only between Gilroy and San Jose, that’s three zones. That would cost them $12 for a roundtrip, assuming they are paying full fare.
That’s less than 1/3 farebox recovery. Is that in line with Caltrain’s farebox recovery overall?
rafael Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 12:29 am
Overall, Caltrain achieves fare box returns of around 60%.
Tony D. Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
“People do in fact use Caltrain for trips from one station to the next…” Highly subsidized commuter rail trips for 1-2 mile journeys? I’m sorry Peter, but that’s what buses and bicycles are for. Just saying.
Peter Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Point taken.
However, what would you do with stations like Santa Clara? Not a Baby Bullet stop, but still used quite heavily. Closest stop to Santa Clara University, not to mention that it is the connector to SJC.
You want to eliminate that
Peter Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
?
Samsonian Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Trips like that on metro systems in urban areas are common, including BART.
If the Peninsula rail corridor is rebuilt correctly, designed to serve people, then CalTrain can run more trains, at faster speeds, with less cost. And we’ll have more short trips like that on the Peninsula as well.
rafael Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 12:50 am
The 10 baby bullet stations would be starting point for figuring out what Caltrain 2.0 would look like. A small number of stations with intermediate ridership levels could perhaps be added.
Wrt Santa Clara specifically, it will eventually have BART service. Meanwhile, build a
ped/bike bridge across all the standard gauge tracks and extend the SJC shuttle to the long-term parking lot out to a new tight turnaround loop the end of Brokaw Rd to increase Caltrain ridership to that station. Install larger elevators than ADA compliance would require – passengers headed to the airport tend to have more baggage. The pedestrian bridge would double as a safe connection between the northbound Caltrain platform and Benton St (no need to walk across tracks) as well as between the Caltrain and BART platforms. Note that ACE is waiting on UPRR to complete trackwork in the area so it can restore service to the Santa Clara station (in addition to Great America). The city of Santa Clara has TOD plans for the area in-between the Newhall yard and Coleman Ave.
Amanda in the South Bay Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Of course people use Caltrain for shorter intra-county commutes: I’m one of them, and it is a million times more convienent than relying on the VTA (try taking a late night 22 from Palo Alto, then waiting 30 minutes for the last 26 of the day at Wolfe/El Camino to come through).
It helps that the two stations that I use wouldn’t be lost (MV and PA) but no one wants to use VTA uses if they dont have to.
Peter Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 11:11 am
@ Rafael
Right, because BART service to Santa Clara would help people going to and from the Peninsula.
There simply is nothing you can argue that will convince those of us who are reliant on Caltrain’s local stops that those stops should be removed. It’s idiotic.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
One single web search takes you straight to http://www.caltrain.org/pdf/annual_ridership_counts/2010_Caltrain_Ridership_Counts.pdf
South of Tamien ridership is circa 340 boardings per day.
But that’s still an order or magnitude or two removed from any economic justification, at least at FRA stream train operating costs. The Gilroy extension should never have been operated at all (mightily important connection to the Monterey blogger market notwithstanding) and it should have been terminated with prejudice years ago by any rational accounting and analysis.
It albatrossy existence is pure politics: VTA doubled the lanes of a parallel freeway and then demanded that trains which were hopelessly inefficient even before that continue to run when ridership (completely predictably) dropped by 75%. The great part about Caltrain is that both the people who work for the agency and the people who politically control it all work consistently and as hard as they can to kill it.
Peter Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I didn’t do my due diligence (I expected that Tony D. had done so). Yes, daily boardings south of Tamien were in fact 339. I will know better for next time.
And yes, that is a huge waste.
Tony D. Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
My bad all! I was just quoting what was in today’s Mercury News. Perhaps its 82 riders generated at the Gilroy Station only (?). Don’t forget: south of Tamien there’s Capitol, Blossom Hill, Morgan Hill and San Martin stations.
Amanda in the South Bay Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 11:00 am
It seems as if 339 is for *all* stations south of Tamien, not just Gilroy.
I am all for eliminating the south of Diridion stations (maybe keeping Tamien, since quite a few peole connect via lrt). Maybe people who live in Santa Teresa, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, etc. should actually lvie closer to work instead out in middle of the sticks?
Alon Levy Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Gilroy is serviceable using lightweight DMUs and a timed transfer at Diridon. It’s not serviceable using FRA-compliant trains. The loco-hauled Caltrain diesels need 2.62 gallons to travel 1 mile, a figure that can’t be much reduced by shortening the train. Modern diesel Stadlers get about 4-5 mpg per car, and one car is enough for the demand south of Diridon.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 8:25 am
There’s going to wire hanging over the track anyway. Why bother with the complexity of diesel when there’s electricity available? Run a California version of the Dinky.
Rafael Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 9:11 am
@adirondacker12800 -
south of San Jose Diridon station, HSR is only going to electrify only its own tracks. Thanks to the Gardner NIMBYs, PCJPB is going to have to pay for the wires down to Tamien itself.
The legacy tracks that Caltrain uses for service (3 trains per day each way) down to Gilroy belong to UPRR. There are no plans to electrify those.
However, I suspect that SJ-Gilroy service will be axed very shortly anyhow. It would definitely no longer be viable once HSR trains stop in Gilroy, even if the station ends up east of 101. In that case, Monterey county will likely look for ways to provide express bus service to Gilroy, perhaps San Jose Diridon.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 9:33 am
What are these “own tracks” of which you speak? Does HSR operate on a different track gauge or something?
Anybody (eg Caltrain “planning” staff) who even considers Caltrain+freight vs HSR rather than Caltrain+HSR vs FRA is a certified moron.
rafael Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 11:30 am
@ Richard Mlynarik -
CHSRA is planning to turn SJ Diridon into a bi-level station. Under the alignment preference they just made, HSR trains would run on a high S-shaped “iconic bridge” across 280 and 87 en route to Lick and the Monterey Highway.
Harebrained? Absolutely, HSR and Caltrain ought to be sharing track through San Jose, at standard speeds and with a single level station at grade. Between Santa Clara and the Monterey Highway, there should be three grade separated tracks two for Caltrain + HSR and one for UPRR, Amtrak and ACE. Three tracks through Gardner is one thing, four another.
HSR trains should run through San Jose at standard speeds, i.e. 79mph max. It’ll actually be less than that on account of the CEMOF and Gardner curves plus the fact that most of them will actually stop at SJ Diridon.
Track sharing would only be possible if Caltrain doesn’t block HSR trains by stopping
on the main line so often that the number of slots available for HSR becomes too low. You’ve argued for 4tph, which may be enough initially but this is a long-term project. I’d want the Santa Clara and Tamien stations upgraded with express bypass tracks, which means a minimum of 5 tracks side-by-side at grade at those points. The College Park station, with just 59 average daily riders, might have to be sacrificed.
Peter Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 11:42 am
As stupid as the idea is, I must state that they have not decided to build an “iconic bridge”. Yet. We should work to convince the Authority not to finance an “iconic bridge”. Have the city do that if they want such a ridiculous structure.
Daniel Krause Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Given all the various commuter/intercity rail services (with more possible in the future), freight, etc at the Diridon station, I think it makes sense for an elevated HSR station at Diridon. Whereas, I agree with single level, cross platform transfer arangments at Peninsula HSR stations where the only tranfer will be between Caltrain and HSR, at San Jose, it makes sense to create an efficient stacked station with easy transfers between the two levels.
Another thing that must always be considered is TOD. HSR is not just a transportation project. It is something that provides the opportunity to redirect significant growth around rail hubs. Station designs need to take TOD into account. As for Diridon, significantly widening the at-grade ROW would reduce the amount of land available for TOD and would likely require that the historic station building to be moved (as there are condos immediately west of the existing tracks and platforms).
Maybe Baby Bullets could utilize the upper level tracks along with HSR for convenient cross platform transfers (though this in no way would validate the position to stop HSR in SJ, rather it would allow people to get off HSR trains and travel to baby bullet stations not served by HSR). But for Caltrain locals that continue southerward, ACE, and Capital corridor, it would make sense to leave them at-grade. The only issue that may arise is that unelectrfied ACE and capital trains might belch diesel that would impact the airquality of the tracks above. I sure there can be some solution, or maybe it is really not a big deal as long as they don’t idle.
rafael Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
@ Peter -
please, let’s nip the “iconic bridge” nonsense in the bud! If at the end of the day, running
through Gardner at 50mph really isn’t possible, at least put the tracks in the 280 median at
grade and cut over to the 101 median all the way to 85.
@ Daniel Krause -
An elevated station would allow HSR to fly over CEMOF. However, what they’re planning right now is a tunnel from San Tomas to just north of Diridon plus an elevated station. They have to reduce cost and the best way to do that is to keep the tracks at grade. There’s enough room for four island platforms at SJ Diridon, the only reason there aren’t right now if that Caltrain uses part of the station as a yard for parking during the day. There’s an old turnoff into south San Jose located just south of Tamien. Revive that and acquire some land there for a yard (by eminent domain if need be) and there is zero need for a bi-level station.
Get to a point at which all passenger trains can always through SJ Diridon and Tamien stations, don’t stack tracks without a compelling reason.
Peter Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
@ Rafael
I’m still not convinced that you can use the 280 and 101 medians for HSR. How would you transition into the 280 median? What are Caltrans’ plans for expanding 280 and 101? I would guess that those medians are already spoken for…
Peter Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
@ Rafael
I couldn’t find where you had replied to the issue of a two-level station at Diridon, but it looks like they are still looking at running an aerial all the way from Lafayette St in San Jose. Check Page 122.
rafael Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
@ Peter -
The medians are spoken for? More carpool lanes that offer a fraction of the capacity of a railway?
The aerial is only one of three options being carried forward, but flying over 880 would require an extra-tall structure. Better to keep everything at grade between Santa Clara and 880, with bypass tracks for HSR only at the Caltrain Santa Clara station. At SJ Diridon, express trains can run past the platforms at 55mph no problem, this is common throughout the world. I’m not sure how BART is supposed to run under 880, I’m guessing underground.
The bigger headache is how to grade separate W San Carlos (currently an overpass), Auzerais and W Virginia. Ideally, those roads should be at grade and Caltrain/HSR elevated. The elevation transition would begin south of the station. A third track used only by UPRR and Amtrak would remain at grade, east of the aerial. It would see only very light traffic and eventually cross under the HSR tracks. Caltrain would return to grade at Tamien.
wu ming Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 2:48 am
electrification would speed up the locals significantly as well, because of the added start/stop speed of the lighter trains. it seems like we’re accepting the paradigm of slash and burn that’s wrecking so many other public goods across the state and the world, when in fact we need to be thinking about getting adequate revenue to support those public goods.
when gas gets back up around $4 a gallon, it’d be nice to have not constrained our mass transit options.
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
I think it’s cute you think that would placate the NIMBYs. All of a sudden they’re perfectly ok with slightly thinner aerials? They’re still going to demand a tunnel. The ROW/EOD savings of going to two tracks on the peninsula are slim, now that the gardner alignment is out, they’re practically nonexistent.
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
ED, not EOD, freudian slip at end of day on a friday.
rafael Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 1:16 am
This isn’t about placating any NIMBYs. It’s about the fact that Caltrain is dying on its own accord because the peninsula counties are no longer willing to keep subsidizing operations at present levels. Ergo, the service model has to be slimmed down to maintain any service at all. Right now that means fewer trains during the day and on weekends. If the corridor is remodeled at reduced cost (i.e. two tracks), the slimming down would come in the form of eliminating local service.
The ED risk would definitely diminish if fewer tracks need to be constructed. As for tunneling, two tracks would be massively cheaper than four, but arguably still too expensive even if no new tunnels are dug between 4th & King and Bayshore plus San Tomas Expressway to SJ Diridon. The objective has to be to reduce the overall cost of the HSR project, including the SF-SJ section, unless and until there is reason to believe the entire starter line is fully funded.
I suspect a majority of residents in the mid-peninsula would be more willing to accept elevated, split grade or at-grade solutions if there were only two tracks, since there would be fewer impacts on properties and frontage roads abutting the ROW. Keep in mind that UPRR trains are extremely heavy, which implies any aerial supporting them would need extremely massive supports. Imposing an axle load limit or else killing off freight service on the peninsula altogether would permit much less intrusive, even moderately elegant supports.
As for noise, the comparison with BART is a little wide of the mark since operation at 125mph requires that track, rail and wheel geometry be built and maintained to tighter tolerances. But yes, an aerial that you can walk/build a cross road under wherever you like is going to be noisier at grade level than a retained fill embankment with a limited number of crossing points. All that earth really does dampen vibrations and structure-borne noise. In addition, embankments can easily support ballast track, which adds to the damping. An aerial would almost certainly feature slab track, though it could perhaps be floating.
Now, if peninsula voters were to approve county-level sales tax hikes to increase the subsidies available for Caltrain and other transit operations (as opposed to capital investments), the situation would change. So far, no such propositions are headed for the November ballot.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Given the number of foamer boys here all worked up dreaming about their 200mph trains, I doubt it.
Brian Stanke Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
No Richard, the foamers are over at TRAC dreaming of the always-five-years-in-the-future California Daylight and non-negotiable future of the San Joaquin. The sensible people see that if you want to link LA, the CV, and the Bay Area in less than three hours then you need late 20th century technology (200 mph trains) not late 19th century streamers, or the even slower trains that Amtrak currently runs.
YesonHSR Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
thank you …that is just how I feel and many more that voted for this bond…Taking the Coast line is fun for ajoy ride .its another thing to get to SoCal in 3 hours which HSR will bring..and the Millions of riders
Rafael Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Who’s dreaming of trains running at 200mph through the peninsula. Exactly, no-one.
Shut it down! Clearly, it will never make a profit or break even. Also, I have no concept of externalities, positive or negative! My favorite web site is the Antiplanner blog.
Rafael Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Sarcasm will get you, well, everywhere ;^)
Maybe the service should be re-launched under a new name after the construction period.
Peter Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Maybe “Calbrain”, as in, “We brained Caltrain. With a rock.”
Rafael Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 11:18 am
“We” being the three peninsula counties, mind you.
How about “Firebird“?
shut down caltrain and make it into a double-decker highway, that’ll placate the NIMBY!
Any shutdown of any type is unacceptable. If we can’t afford to keep Caltrain operating, we are in no position to build and run HSR.
Caltrain is fine as it is if SamTrans does not pull off its subsidy. Other than commute trips, which is driven by employment, more and more riders are turning to Caltrain.
There’s no substitute for the rail service, and bus service will not cut it. SamTrans has already cut its commuter bus service to SF, so actually people who could rely on buses have to rely on Caltrain now. Even a weekend shutdown would cause havoc since buses simply don’t have the capacity, especially for bikes.
Amanda in the South Bay Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 11:02 am
I agree that bus service is in no way a substitute for Caltrain. Hell, I take VTA buses almost everyday, and it sucks. Caltrain tends to serve a more white collar/affluent ridership, and I don’t think a lot of them would want to take buses everyday to/from the city.,
HSRforCali Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 11:40 am
I agree. However, trying to maintain Caltrain service during high-speed rail construction would likely prove to be quite difficult, if not impossible.
Joey Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
It is entirely possible (see second to last page).
rafael Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Possible, yes. However, in many cases the construction of quad tracking + grade separation will require more than the 60-75 feet of ROW width that are needed permanently (depending on whether there’s a utility road). Workers have to stop and stand back every time a train passes, a low speed and no doubt with bells and horns blaring “for safety”. You need to move earth out and concrete, rebar, steel etc in.
You may also need to move one or both tracks incl. signaling etc. laterally before you can even get started. At least one of the tracks HSR express trains will end up using will need to support FRA-compliant Caltrain legacy gear plus UPRR freight trains, so its geometry will suffer even before HSR service begins. Ok, slab track is less susceptible to that but it is more expensive to construct, especially the floating type that cuts down on structure-borne noise and vibrations.
It’s definitely cheaper and faster to execute construction if you don’t have to support continued operations. However, shuttering Caltrain would have serious consequences for road traffic and future ridership, plus it wouldn’t much help unless UPRR trains stopped running as well. Unfortunately, the Dumbarton rail bridge is not available, that would at least greatly ease construction in the mid-peninsula burgs of Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto.
“If we can’t afford to keep Caltrain operating, we are in no position to build and run HSR.”
Outrageous AC! Are you really going to compare the current Caltrain to systems like AVE, ICE, TGV, etc.? Just cross the Bay, San Mateo, or Dumbarton Bridges and you have a hybrid rapid-transit/commuter rail system that carry’s over 300,000+ daily riders; vs. 36,000 riders per day Caltrain. Come on, get real AC!
rafael Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 1:21 am
Actually, one reason HSR is so popular with politicians the world over is that it does generate fare box returns in excess of 100%, i.e. after a ramp-up period to grow ridership it no longer needs any operating subsidies. Indeed, there’s enough left over to fund network expansion. The taxpayer investment remains limited to constructing the starter line.
Not so with local transit and regional/statewide rail service at speeds below the 110-125mph range. Those are straight-up public services that need a stable source of operating subsidies.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Of course, the capital costs of fully grade-separated HSR lines are vastly more expensive than conventional rail lines. Taxpayer investment in constructing the starter line is most substantial, and right now, the CHSRA project is entirely a straight-up public program.
The reasons politicians are attracted to HSR include the flashy image, the ‘green’ image, the patronage jobs, and the donations from private contractors. The politicians know they will be out of office or have moved on long before operation begins.
Rafael Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Yes, CHSRA is a straight-up public program at this point, because we’re in the capital investment phase for the starter line. It’s bad enough that anyone’s even trying to get private investment for that, since the conditions would almost certainly shift the profit opportunity to the private party while leaving taxpayers on the hook for ridership liabilities. PPPs are corporate welfare at its finest, but the Governator insists on it.
I don’t get why constructing tracks for passenger trains are supposed to be a strictly private enterprise while it’s perfectly ok for taxpayers to throw billions at freeway construction, grade separations and all. Perhaps it’s just that selfish people don’t want to pay for anything that they don’t intend to use while expecting everyone else to chip in for those they do.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
I think it’s generational and WOOFer ideology; “My taxes pay for roads, if the railroads and transit lines can’t make it, they should go out of business.” This also ties in with an outlook of railroads as “19th century technology” that should have gone the way of the stagecoach, and a future that features self-driving or flying cars; one such dumb old fool I ran into thought a very active freight railroad in the Shenandoah Valley should be converted to a commercial truck highway to get trucks off Interstate 81. Never mind the fact that roads, at best, have only be paid for at the rate of 65% or so from user fees, that they are currently at 51% on a national cash-flow basis (see my earlier commentary with information from “Highway Statistics”), and that this cash-flow analysis doesn’t include deferred maintenance and other costs. Cars replaced railroads like railroads replaced coaches, that’s it!
Problem is, these same dumb fools tend to be vocal and vote, and politicians, being the idiots and cowards they very often are, are afraid of them. Ironically, except for the worst of them, if you can quickly lay out the costs of roads and the real cost of gasoline, many will come around. Of course, you have some diehards who will argue that the project will take 50 years, and no one will build a trolley line down every street, and so on, but that just goes to show how dumb and stubborn some of these clowns are.
I do argue that part of the problem is that the real costs of roads and driving are hidden in income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and so on. What it amounts to is that the game is rigged against private enterprise in the public transport sphere, and is at best a difficult game in the freight railroad sphere. The heavy hands of highway subsidy, air subisdy, railroad property taxation, and rate regulation of the 1960s was enough for “Trains” magazine’s chief editor, the late David P. Morgan, to pen an extended editorial back about 1964 or so, that asked the question, “Is It Illeagal to be a Railroad?”
We need to unrig the game, and put the cost of driving where it belongs; considering how much the real cost is, it gives us a good shot at reducing income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes–and would also make this a opportunity for private capital to get back in the game.
The arguments about railroad taxation in “Trains” go back a long way. In September of 1946 or 1947, the founder and then-editor Al Kalmbach suggested that if highway taxes should be used for more highways, then railroad taxes should be used for more railroads, income taxes to create more income, real estate taxes to create more real estate, and whisky taxes for more whisky!
How many whisky drinkers here like that last one? :-)
Joey Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Yes, and freeways are vastly more expensive than two lane roads. But evidently there are places where the more expensive solution makes more sense.