Green Caltrain

BayRail Alliance Blog
Random Image

The Green Caltrain blog is sponsored by BayRail Alliance, an all-volunteer non-profit organization supporting green rail transit in the Bay Area. This blog and BayRail have no affiliation with Caltrain.


Take action to save Caltrain

Go to the Friends of Caltrain for the most current actions to save Caltrain.

December community meetings, BART to Silicon Valley

For those interested in the project to connect BART to Caltrain at Diridon, and the other stations that might or might not get build as part of the plan (Alum Rock, Santa Clara, Downtown San Jose), VTA has confirmed three meeting dates and times have been confirmed during early December.

Monday, December 1, 2014, 6:30pm
School of Arts and Culture at Mexican Heritage Plaza
1700 Alum Rock Ave, San Jose

Tuesday, December 2, 2014 6:30 pm
VTA Customer Service Center
55 West Santa Clara Street, San Jose

Tuesday, December 9, 2014, 6:30 pm
Santa Clara University, Locatelli Hall – Bldg. 710
500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA

Should SamTrans run Caltrain? Key contract requirement has expired

The SamTrans board is starting the process to appoint the new CEO for SamTrans and Caltrain. However, the provision requiring SamTrans to run Caltrain has a time condition which has expired.  Should SamTrans continue to run Caltrain, given transportation needs nearly 20 years after the current structure was created?

SamTrans’ responsibility to run Caltrain is granted according to a provision in the  Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Agreement that was signed in 1996, creating Caltrain in its current form, following San Mateo County’s purchase of the right of way (ROW) from the state.  The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) was created to govern Caltrain, and SamTrans was designated as the agency that would manage the Caltrain service.

The JPA states in section 6B, “SamTrans hereby is appointed as Managing Agency for the duration of the term, provided, however, that the JPB may replace SamTrans as the Managing Agency upon one (1) year’s prior written notice given at the end of any fiscal year after SamTrans has been fully repaid monies advanced by it to cover the ROW purchase price.”

As part of the temporary resolution to Caltrain’s 2011 fiscal crisis brokered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties finally paid back their portion of the right of way purchase.  So, with one year’s written notice, the Caltrain board now has the right to swap out SamTrans as the managing agency, in which case Caltrain and SamTrans would need different leadership.

Meanwhile, content in SamTrans’ strategic plan suggests that the agency might not mind being rid of its Caltrain obligations.  On page 9 of the Draft Strategic Plan, SamTrans takes credit for reducing its contribution to Caltrain by $39,400,000 between 2009 and 2014.

Conditions have changed substantially since San Mateo County rescued the Peninsula Corridor rail line.   Facing declining ridership Southern Pacific once considered replacing the ailing rail service with vanpool shuttles.

southernpacificvanpools

When SamTrans took over the rail service, average weekday ridership was 64,000, and Caltrain ridership was only 26,000.  Today, Caltrain’s average weekday ridership is about 60,000, and SamTrans average weekday ridership has declined to about 40,000.

Caltrain is in the process of a major electrification project which will help it carry more riders.  Given ridership increases, Caltrain needs to do capacity planning and implement incremental improvements to be able to keep up with demand. Over the next decade, Caltrain will have increasing demands to provide integrated service with BART, when BART connects to Caltrain at Diridon station in San Jose, and with High Speed Rail, when the services connect at Diridon and Transbay.

Leading Caltrain through the upcoming transition period will be a big job, and a different job from the priorities of SamTrans.   Should the agencies continue to be coupled?  Should the same executive be responsible for managing both services?

VTA expands community input, slows plans to seek federal funding for BART Phase 2

As the feature presenter at a “Green Drinks” event in San Jose on Friday night, San Jose City Council Member and VTA Board Chair Ash Kalra confirmed that VTA would not submit an application for federal funding for the Silicon Valley Phase 2 project before the end of the year.  The application for federal funding was given as the reason to have a rapid review process with only one community meeting, the day before the Board reviewed the proposal.

The staff proposal had been to put forward a two-station project, with Downtown and Diridon stations, for federal funding, while deferring stations at Alum Rock and City of Santa Clara.

In response to strong community interest in the project, VTA is in the process of setting up three community meetings at Mexican Heritage Plaza in East San Jose, in Downtown San Jose, and in Santa Clara.  Times have not yet been set, nor are there yet locations for the meetings in DTSJ and Santa Clara.

For transit supporters who are concerned about the Alum Rock station, the topic is expected to be discussed at several upcoming meetings, including the Neighborhoods Commission, and two community meetings about the East Santa Clara Urban Village. The two Urban Village meetings will discuss the same material, at different locations.

San Jose Neighborhoods Commission
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
6:30 – 9:00 p.m (agenda item to start at 7pm or later)
City Hall, 200 East Santa Clara Street, West Wing (rm. 118)

East Santa Clara Urban Village Community meeting
November 12, 6 to 8:30 pm  
Roosevelt Community Center
901 E. Santa Clara St, San Jose

East Santa Clara Urban Village Community Meeting
November 13, 6:00 PM - 8:30 PM
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, 2nd Floor

Update:

Dates have now been set for the VTA community meetings focusing on the BART project.

Wednesday, November 19th
Roosevelt Community Center
901 E. Santa Clara St.
Multipurpose Room
6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.

December 2
VTA Customer Service Center in downtown San Jose
Time not yet set

and December 4
Santa Clara University (SCU)
Time not yet set

Caltrain reports progress on platforms with HSR

At the last Caltrain board meeting, General Manager Mike Scanlon and electrification project lead Dave Couch talked about progress that had been made in technical and management discussions with High Speed Rail about the potential for platform compatibility.

If Caltrain and High Speed Rail use different platforms, that has the potential to limit Caltrain ridership, by limiting the amount of service to Transbay, which currently has 3x the number of jobs within a half-mile than the rest of the line put together.

The agencies expect to report on progress and options to the Caltrain and Transbay board in December (not in November).

There are several open questions, as the agencies work together as possible solutions.

1) Are all of the reasonable options on the table?

The Caltrain/HSR compatibility blog reports on a bi-level Electric Multiple Unit train- the preferred design for Caltrain, because it can fit the most riders with the best performance for Peninsula corridor.

High Speed Rail has been claiming that 50″ platforms, which are harder for Caltrain to adapt to, are needed to achieve the project’s speed goals. However, Clem Tillier reports that the world speed record (357 mph) was set by a modified TGV Duplex bi-level train, with a lower platform. Given the benefits to High Speed Rail of maximizing the capacity of the blended system, High Speed Rail should be looking at all reasonable options also.

2) If there are compromises, will they be worthwhile? Will the agencies provide their boards the information needed to make the decisions?

Some of the options available to Caltrain could result in lower speed and/or lower capacity. Given the overall speed benefits of accelerated level boarding and ridership benefits of full service into Transbay, there are probably some level of tradeoffs that are worthwhile, and some tradeoffs that are not.

In order to give the boards the information needed to make the decision, it would make sense for Caltrain and High Speed Rail to report on the results that would be achieved with the various options. Meaningful metrics include:

* Capacity into/out of Transbay – for the various options, how much peak hour service can be delivered from the space-constrained Transbay terminal? This which will be a huge driver of ridership for the system as a whole
* Peak hour capacity for Caltrain, considering the impact of level boarding on dwell time and schedule. Level boarding can help even out the rush hour schedule, and enable greater use from the existing trains.
* Caltrain speed for an average trip (20-30 miles).
* Operating costs increases or decreases for various options

It is at least good news that the agencies are taking the issue seriously, since the outcome will affect the amount of service available on the Peninsula Corridor for many decades to come.

Caltrain electrification price tag higher, schedule longer

At last week’s board meeting, Caltrain staff presented results of updating the price tag and schedule for electrification, since the estimates were published in 2008.  The price tag is now expected to go up by at least $250 Million to as much as $300 Million over the earlier price tag of $1,456 Million. In the six years since the numbers were last estimated, costs have increased across the board for most components of the project (see slide 21)

The beginning of electric service has been pushed back from Winter 2019 to Spring 2021, based on a more detailed analysis of construction schedule options. The 2021 date could be achieved by working in two sections of track at once, and reducing weekend train frequency to every 90 minutes. Weekend closures were considered, but that did not have a substantial impact on the schedule, according to project lead Dave Couch.

Sources of funding that could be used to fill the gap include financing (which Caltrain had already been discussing), fare increases, Cap and Trade funding, Regional Measure 2 bridge tolls, and federal funds in the Core Capacity and Vehicle Replacement categories.

There are two other options that were not yet mentioned. San Francisco and Santa Clara County are planning transportation ballot measures in 2016; and San Mateo county could conceivably go to voters at the same time, and could include supplementary funding for electrification, as well as potential dedicated operating funding.

Another option relates to High Speed Rail’s offer to contribute funding to upgrades that would be needed to achieve platform compatibility and level boarding. To accelerate these goals, Caltrain could replace the remaining 25% diesels running between SJ and SF more quickly, and High Speed Rail could contribute to platform upgrades. These changes would improve Caltrain’s operating results, and help pay down financing.

Other thoughts about the costs and schedule?

  • Subscribe to our RSS

    Total Posts 312
    Total Comments 863.

  • Interactive Caltrain schedule

  • Calendar of events

    Events cannot currently be displayed, sorry! Please check back later.