Based on rider feedback, Caltrain is now saying that they are unlikely to cut weekend or Gilroy service. But the daily schedule is still at risk – Caltrain is considering cutting early morning, mid-day, and late night service. Yet cutting service makes the train less convenient, which drives down ridership and revenues. So it is not an effective way of balancing the budget. Other options Caltrain is considering include raising the price per zone by 25 cents, increasing the Go Pass price, and discontinuing the use of 8-ride passes by multiple riders (due to mandatory transition to Clipper Card).

At meetings held by Caltrain to get feedback on proposed service cuts, riders had different ideas about what could be done instead of cutting service to meet a budget gap. Riders had a wealth of suggestions to increase ridership and improve efficiency. Riders proposed suggestions about to run baby bullet trains on the weekends, increase bike capacity, promote commuter passes, take advantage of social campaigns such as Drive Less Challenge, promote the environmental benefits of the train, and more. Riders also had suggestions for decreasing costs without cutting service, including construction efficiencies, negotiating the terms in the upcoming labor contract.

According to the San Mateo County Times, more than 350 people have e-mailed comments to the agency so far, and more than 200 riders attended community meetings held in four cities Thursday August 19.

At an upcoming meeting at 10am on September 2, the Joint Powers Board will review rider suggestions and Caltrain staff recommendations. Let them know that cutting service is not the way to go, and keep sharing ideas for increasing ridership and saving money. Come to the meeting if you can, and keep sending your suggestions to Caltrain, at changes@caltrain.com.

The meeting is at Caltrain/Samtrans headquarters, 2nd Floor Auditorium, 1250 San Carlos Ave near the San Carlos train station.

At the high speed rail board meeting held last week in San Francisco, authority staff revealed the latest proposals to fund and build a high speed rail line on the Caltrain corridor. The proposals address many of the compatibility concerns, though there are still important details to be worked out. But the proposals also suggest that Caltrain’s electrification be delayed until after a large amount of grade separation and track building is done. Electrification will be a major benefit for riders, allowing trains to be run more cheaply at a much more frequent schedule. We question whether maintaining the aging diesel trains (and their inflexible schedule) while track and crossing construction is done is the right sequence for Caltrain riders.

There are two separate but related proposals on the table. The first is the revised alternative analysis, which is a list of project alternatives that the authority staff will carry forward to complete the environmental impact report. The revised AA still envisions a complete, built-out high speed rail corridor. The second is the ARRA federal stimulus funding application, which will only fund some of the elements of a complete corridor. Although the High Speed Rail Authority does not have the funding to build a built-out corridor, the agency needs to complete an environmental review before any of the ARRA and other funding is used.

Revised Alternatives Analysis

In the revised AA, the proposal is to have Caltrain operate on the outer two tracks and the high speed rail trains operate in the inner two tracks. In that track arrangement, Caltrain can also use the two inner tracks. Overall this proposal would reduce the footprint. Earlier the authority studied an alternative where HSR trains would operate entirely on separate tracks independent from Caltrain. In some cities, HSR trains would either run either elevated or in a trench.

On the other hand, the revised AA is drawing criticisms from some Peninsula cities because it ruled out tunnels and “stacking” options — where two tracks would place on top of other two tracks, either underground and/or above ground. The staff argued that more land would be needed at transition points (where stacking tracks start and end) with the stacking options. This option would also limit Caltrain/HSR inter-operability.

ARRA application

Last week, HSRA also submitted ARRA applications to the federal government. After the award of $2.25 billion in ARRA fund for HSR in California, the state still has $1.65 billion in HSR ARRA fund yet to be spent (the rest has been allocated to the train box at Transbay Terminal and HSR planning/engineering activities). HSRA staff has been asked to submit applications to spend the rest of the ARRA fund. The staff has come up with 4 different applications (one for SF-SJ, two for Central Valley, and one for LA-Anaheim) with each costing  $3.31 billion (half would come from ARRA and other half from HSR bond and other funding sources). HSRA staff is expecting that the one of the four applications would be chosen for the remaining fund. For each of those application, the staff is requesting funding for partial infrastructure improvements as the ARRA fund isn’t sufficient to build full HSR in any of the corridors. At the same time the proposals must provide “operational utility” — short term improvements for existing passenger rail services.

For the SF-SJ portion, the staff is planning to build a grade separated, 4 track corridor between Bayshore and Redwood City. The tracks through Burlingame and San Mateo would be elevated. The existing grade separated tracks in Belmont and San Carlos would be raised higher on an elevated structure.

That application does not include electrification. In the staff report to the board, the staff has proposed to submit electrification for the entire corridor under a separate non-ARRA funding application. That separate application would also include 4 track extension from Fair Oaks Avenue in Sunnyvale to Mountain View. The staff is not currently making any funding request to build extra tracks between Atherton and Palo Alto, nor to build a tunnel from 4th & King Station to the Transbay Terminal.

Californians for High Speed Rail is claiming victory because the plans include Caltrain electrification, the 4 track expansions and grade separations.

However, there’s no guarantee that the SF-SJ application will receive all or any of the ARRA funding (since the state has submitted three more applications for to use the same funding on different sections of the route). In addition, there’s no certainty that the federal government will actually fully fund one of the four applications (since every portion of the state wants a piece of that pie).

What does that mean to riders?

The revised AA and ARRA application indicate that Caltrain and HSR trains can at least share tracks. That means Caltrain service can be maintained if not incrementally improved as HSR infrastructure is being added, that Baby Bullet trains can still be maintained and bypass local trains, and the possibility that HSR trains can operate without a 100% four track, grade separated corridor.

On the other hand, there are concerns such as platform heights yet to be addressed. There are also issues with some of the priorities. HSRA is proposing to spend the precious, early ARRA funds to rebuild tracks in Belmont and San Carlos, which is largely unnecessary. The early part of the proposal will subject riders and the community to additional construction impacts that do not improve rider experience and add construction inconvenience.  That same ARRA funds could be used to electrify Caltrain earlier, which will vastly improve service and rider experience all along the corridor.

We have to question the notion that we cannot electrify until the 4 tracks are done. While we believe that Caltrain/HSR staff should do full diligence not to place any electric substation in areas that would be used for track expansions, much of the infrastructure could easily be relocated and reused. The plan already assumes that Caltrain service would be maintained throughout construction, which adds cost because of temporary tracks and stations. Continued service, is of course, a necessity for Caltrain commuters; there’s no viable substitute for Caltrain.

If we were to delay electrification, how should we address the operating needs, as most of the rolling stock will have to be replaced in a few years? Already Caltrain riders are suffering delays and system meltdowns because of mechanical problems. If all the funding is in-line as HSRA and Caltrain hope, electrification should be at least be done concurrently with track expansions and grade separation, rather than after.

Former Peninsula Rail 2000 (now BayRail Alliance) board member Russell Reagan wrote to us regarding the Transbay Terminal/Caltrain extension project:

1997 was the year when it was almost killed, and 1998 was when then-SF mayor Willie Brown backed away from his sharp rhetoric that the Caltrain extension needed to be killed that made headlines in 1997. I wouldn’t tell the story that it was almost killed in one specific year; it was barely alive during the mid-90s, and others might describe other points in its history when it was almost killed. But if there was any one year when it was closest to being killed, that year was 1997.

During the mid-90s, prior to Willie Brown’s harsh position in 1997, the project to extend the Caltrain line to the TT or alternative locations was under study, while the JPB, especially its staff and general manager Jerry Haugh, showed only weak interest in the project moving forward. Support for it was weak as well with the city/county of San Francisco, while so much political muscle was behind the BART-SFO extension, especially from Quentin Kopp, chair of the Senate Transportation Committee; and as you remember, Kopp also opposed the Caltrain DTX.

It was clear to us that the BART extension would be a failure in terms of ridership, especially if the DTX were built, or even if Caltrain continued to provide service north of where the two lines connected near the airport. All of these considerations pointed to the likely demise of the planned Caltrain DTX.

In June 1998 however, the SF League of Conservation Voters began their efforts to qualify for the ballot the initiative that would become Prop. H in November 1999. We did obtain a well over half of the signatures needed to qualify for the Nov. 1998 ballot by the deadline, and then SFLCV attempted to place it on that same ballot through the Board of Supervisors. At that time (two years before district elections were reinstated), nearly all the supes were loyal to Willie Brown.

Then Brown himself, in a political move related to a dispute with MTC over the alignment of the new Bay Bridge east span, placed on the Nov. 1998 ballot an advisory initiative calling for the return of rail service on the Bay Bridge. This was in conjunction with the cities of Emeryville, Oakland and Berkeley. This was instigated by then-mayor of Emeryville Ken Bukowski. All four cities passed similar advisory initiatives by wide margins in November 1998. Implicit in Brown’s involvement with this was a reversal of his position against tearing down the TT, almost completely unnoticed by the public after his very outspoken opposition to the Caltrain DTX the previous year.

“Coincidentally” around that time, the ownership of properties adjacent to the Terminal changed hands. They were acquired by a new owner who, unlike the previous owners, KSW Properties and Fritzi Realty, supported (or at least were not against) plans to rebuild the TT. KSW Properties and Fritzi Realty had owned the parcels since the 1970 fully expecting that BART meant the demise of transbay bus service and the Terminal as well.

The last bus (AC Transit O line) departs from the old Transbay Terminal about 15 minutes after midnight on August 7.

Yesterday, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced Muni will restore 61 percent of the service it cut in May by September 4. The SFMTA was able to put together about $15 million in funding from Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, plus savings from scaling back non-driving time operator hours. The goal is complete restoration of service within a year, according to Newsom’s public statement.

The Muni announcement is a positive sign that with commitment and effort, the Bay Area can keep public transit infrastructure running in economically difficult times. Another potential lesson for Caltrain supporters is the operating efficiencies that Muni was able to find. This fall, Caltrain’s operating contract with Amtrak is up for rebidding, and there may be opportunities for savings as part of a new contract.

For more details about the Muni funding restoration, see coverage in Streetsblog and the San Francisco Chronicle/

Caltrain will hold 4 drop in meetings on Thursday, August 19 to seek rider feedback on various service reduction and fare increase proposals. Caltrain needs to reduce spending and/or increase revenue to close the $1.2 million budget gap for this fiscal year.

Proposals to be considered:

• Suspend all weekend service
• Reduce weekday early morning, midday and/or late evening service
• Suspend service south of Tamien station to Gilroy
• Discontinue staffed ticket offices
• Increase the full fare one way base or zone fares by 25 cents, with corresponding changes to related fare media
• Increase Go Pass prices to $155
• Modify parking fees and regulations
• Revise fare policies to match with Clipper card policies, as Caltrain is mandated by MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) to eliminate multi-ride paper tickets/passes and offer those for Clipper cards only.
  • Discontinue monthly pass grace period
  • 8-ride tickets only be used by one rider only
  • Youth means 17 years old or under

The drop in meetings will be held at three locations from 6:00pm to 7:00pm on August 19:

• SF Caltrain Station
• SamTrans building in San Carlos (1250 San Carlos Avenue) – one block away from San Carlos Station
• San Jose Diridon Station

A drop in meeting will also be held at Gilroy Station between 5:30pm and 7:47pm to meet with all train arrivals.

As reported previously, many of those service reduction ideas won’t save much money, especially on weekend service where there’s a higher percentage of riders buying one way tickets and day passes.

If you live in Santa Clara County, it is important to note that VTA subsidizes Caltrain at less than $16 million last year and less than $15 million this year. In comparison, the proposed BART line from Berryessa Flea Market (which is totally funded by VTA) to the Alameda county line would receive more than twice of that amount (about $35-37 million) for operation from a VTA sales tax. The Berryessa line would only be less than 7 miles yet Caltrain runs 17 miles from Palo Alto to San Jose and another 30 miles from San Jose to Gilroy. Consider how much more service Caltrain can provide if VTA (along with SamTrans and Muni) were to contribute as much as it plans to subsidize a BART line. Gilroy and Morgan Hill riders need to demand VTA to treat South County riders more equally, and that VTA should not pursing expanding one rail system in northern part of the county and cutting service on another system serving the southern part of the county.

Regardless of where you live, please demand your JPB representative and your local transit agency to support Caltrain, and that a well funded Caltrain system would help improve ridership on local transit systems as well.

Whether you’re able to attend the meetings, you can send an email to changes@caltrain.com (also CC us at caltrainchange@bayrailalliance.org). You can also attend the JPB meeting on September 2 at 10am (See event calendar for details). If you have any new ideas to increase ridership (and revenue) and cut expenses for Caltrain, please let us and Caltrain know.