Anybody who’s been on Caltrain at rush hour lately knows that there is a capacity crunch.  Many riders are standing, and sitting on stairs, in cars not designed for standing, with average trips 20-30 miles long. Ridership has been growing rapidly, doubling over the last decade.  To address the capacity crunch, Caltrain is in the process of purchasing extra cars from Metrolink (potentially adding a 6th car to a 5-car train).  The electrification project, scheduled to be implemented in 2019, will add extra capacity by allowing more frequent service (as well as growing ridership with the ability to stop at more stations).
If ridership continues to grow, how long will these measures alleviate the crunch? What else can Caltrain do to accommodate more riders? Â We did a bit of lightweight modeling using some information from Caltrain, and some logical inferences. Â The model shows that investments in capacity improvements building on basic electrification is highly likely to be needed to keep up with rider demand and changing transportation preferences, to address economic growth and regional initiatives for low-carbon transportation.
Ideas are welcome about how to improve the model and how to communicate the importance of investing in Caltrain capacity and productivity increases.
Peak hour capacity
The constraints to Caltrain capacity is at the peak times. Â Also, Caltrain frequency is described in terms of trains per direction hour. So this model focuses on peak hour capacity. How many riders can Caltrain carry during peak hour? How many is it carrying now? What are potential capacity improvements, and how much would they help?
Today, there are about 650 seats in a 5 car train set (consist). Â For reference, the most crowded train, the 329 NB out of San Jose, has over 850 passengers at peak season. Â Ouch.
Better accommodation for some people standing. The average trip is 20-30 miles long, and many travel longer than that, so it does make sense for Caltrain’s train design to accommodate a lot of people sitting, but there are still some people with shorter trips who’d be willing to stand.  BART survey data says that about 25% of BART riders stand, so let’s model that. If Caltrain reconfigures cars for a some more comfortable standing room that would be ~845 passengers per car.
Longer trains – pre-electrification. So when Caltrain adds the Metrolink cars, perhaps adjusted for more standees, that gets up to ~5,000 passengers per hour, with a 5 train per direction per hour peak schedule.
More frequent service. Â Electrification will allow Caltrain to run up to 6 trains per direction per hour. Â Assume the new trains have the same capacity as the old ones, that is about 6,000 passengers per peak hour.
Extended platforms. If Caltrain made its its platforms longer after electrification, that would enable it to have longer trains. With 8 car trains, that would provide over 7,000 passengers per peak hour.
Speed and Productivity improvements
Replacing remaining diesel trains. Â Caltrain plans to replace only 75% of its diesel trains travelling between San Francisco and San Jose, for budget reasons. With additional funding, Caltrain could replace those diesels, speeding travel time to attract riders, reducing operating cost. Â Replacing the diesels will also improving the health and quality of life for people living near the train, especially near 4th and King and the San Jose storage yard.
Level boarding. Â As Caltrain extends the platforms, upgrading the platforms to enable level boarding will make service faster and more reliable. Â Where BART stops for 30-40 seconds at each station, Caltrain stops for 1 to 1.5 minutes. Â A passenger needing mobility assistance can take up to two minutes on each end of the trip. This makes it very difficult for Caltrain to make timed transfers with BART, VTA, and other systems. Â Level boarding will speed trips, improve transfers, and increase accessibility for the elderly and disabled. Â Based on experience in other transit agencies, level boarding would increase ridership to fill the extra cars.
Even more frequent service. Many people believe that Caltrain service is capped at 6 trains per direction per hour because of the agreement with High Speed Rail.  That’s actually not quite the case.  According to Caltrain’s studies, the corridor can handle up to 8 trains per direction per hour without passing tracks, and up to 10 trains per direction per hour with additional passing tracks.  HSR’s most recent business plan shows a substantial amount of ridership on intra-Peninsula commute service. So, could Caltrain start running 7 or 8 trains per hour before HSR starts? Caltrain and HSR have confirmed that the answer is yes, and the agreement does not need to be changed to do this. With 8 trains per hour, 8 car trains, that’s over 9,000 passengers at the peak hour.
Caltrain’s studies indicate that the corridor could handle up to 10 trains per direction per hour, with the addition of passing tracks. That’s sufficiently far off in time and available budget that it’s not included in this model.
So, how much capacity will Caltrain need? When is Caltrain likely to outgrow some of these improvements?
|
Seats per car |
130 |
|
Seats per 5-car consist |
650 |
|
Seats per 6 car consist |
780 |
|
Seats per 8 car consist |
1040 |
|
BART standee ratio (actual) |
75/25 |
|
Caltrain passengers per 5 car train – w/more standees |
845 |
|
Passengers per peak hour, 5 cars seated |
3,250 |
|
Passengers per peak hour, 5 cars w/standees |
4,225 |
|
Passengers per peak hour, 6 cars x 5tph |
5,070 |
|
Passengers per peak hour, 6 cars x 6tph (electrification) |
6,084 |
|
Passengers per peak hour, 8 cars x 6tph |
7,301 |
|
Passengers per peak hour, 8 cars x 8tph |
9,710 |
Peak hour ridership – current and future
To estimate Caltrain’s peak hour ridership, we started with data that Caltrain published regarding its highest ridership trains.  The most crowded direction is AM Northbound.  Here is what Caltrain reports about the most crowded trains, based on the February counts, and extrapolated by Caltrain to the highest ridership summer season, based on the typical summer seasonal peak.
| Most crowded trains | Departs SJ | 2013 |
| 329 | 8:03:00 | 854 |
| 323 | 7:45:00 | 793 |
| 319 | 7:03:00 | 783 |
| 217 | 6:57:00 | 716 |
These trains are in two different hours. So we guesstimate the ridership in the peak hour, based on available information. We know that the 3 missing trains between 7 and 8am all have fewer than 716 riders each, because the 217 was the the #5 most crowded Northbound train.  (Caltrain has the data for the missing trains – we’ll fix this model if and when we get that data). By this estimate, Caltrain is carrying over 3000 riders in the peak hour peak direction.
| Peak hour AM northbound | Source | Departs SJ | 2013 |
| 329 | Caltrain data | 8:03:00 | 854 |
| 227 | Estimated | 7:55:00 | 500 |
| 225 | Estimated | 7:50:00 | 525 |
| 323 | Caltrain data | 7:45:00 | 793 |
| 221 | Estimated | 7:18:00 | 690 |
| 3362 |
So, how much will the Metrolink trains help, and how much will various other improvements help, if ridership continues to grow? This model assumes a linear growth in ridership, continuing the pattern of doubling over the last decade. Â In this scenario, the Metrolink trains will help (fitting over 5000 riders), but it will be quite crowded again by 2019.
Basic electrification will support up to 6000 riders, and will be immediately crowded. Â Longer platforms will support over 7000 riders in the peak hour, and will alleviate crowding through the early 2020s, according to this growth scenario.
Beyond that, the increased frequency provided by running up to 8 trains per hour will help substantially. Â This is important, since the downtown extension of the Caltrain tracks to Transbay terminal, and the BART extension to downtown San Jose are expected to be implemented in the 2020s, finally connecting rail backbone service around the bay. Â These connections will drive more ridership that will benefit from more frequent peak hour trains.
However, Caltrain’s studies of the blended system suggest that running 8 trains per hour in the 2020s will put a lot of pressure on high-traffic intersections. Grade separations seem likely to be needed to allow Caltrain to use that capacity.   It would be welcome to see the cities on the corridor work together – San Francisco, Peninsula cities, and San Jose – to implement the improvements to carry the riders when there is a big step up in ridership.
|
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
|
|
Growth rate |
0.14 |
0.11 |
0.10 |
0.09 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
0.07 |
0.07 |
0.06 |
0.06 |
0.06 |
0.05 |
|
Growth |
471 |
425 |
425 |
425 |
425 |
425 |
425 |
425 |
425 |
425 |
425 |
425 |
|
Peak Hour Ridership |
3833 |
4258 |
4683 |
5108 |
5533 |
5958 |
6383 |
6808 |
7233 |
7658 |
8083 |
8508 |
Other improvements and modeling details
There are other nuances that may affect capacity. Â Â Incentives or congestion pricing could encourage more riders to use trains outside of the height of the peak (for example, Bay Bridge congestion pricing shifted 10-15% of riders from the Bay Bridge to BART).
This model does not look at seat turnover.  Most riders don’t ride all the way between San Jose and San Francisco.  Often, the same seat holds a different rider between San Jose and Palo Alto, and then from Palo Alto to San Francisco (for example).  The number of riders per peak hour will be greater if turnover is modeled.
Bikes on Board take up room – but also provide an extremely effective and cost-effective means of last mile connectivity, in a region where 80% of jobs are within 2-3 miles of the train, and many are further than walking distance. How effective will a bikeshare program be at helping people use a bike without bringing it on board?
What the future may hold
The ridership growth is being driven by a strong Silicon Valley economy, plus underlying changes in people choosing to drive less, companies preferring to locate in more walkable locations, and transit oriented development on the corridor. Â The underlying shift in preferences toward less driving, and locating in more walkable places are generational and based on a lot of evidence likely to continue.
Transportation and land use improvements are likely to continue to drive ridership – the Central Subway is expected to be complete in 2019, connecting more riders to Powell Street BART and central SF. The Downtown Extension of the Caltrain tracks to Transbay terminal will connect to many more jobs and homes in SF and the East Bay. Â San Jose is completing its Diridon Station Area Plan, and BART will connect to downtown SJ, driving more riders to and from downtown SJ. Â These changes sometime in the 2020s are likely to drive demand for the next stage of capacity improvements, with more frequent service, and grade separations to keep intersections functioning with more frequent trains.
It will important to invest in the capacity and productivity improvements that allow Caltrain to continue to support. the region’s economic growth, people’s preferences to drive less, and the region’s environmental goals.
More eyes on the modeling are welcome.





The Bay Area is moving toward effective transit. Caltrain is the transit backbone on the Peninsula. We need to plan for and fund whatever it takes for Caltrain to be able to meet present and future needs.
Adina, nice summary. I’m thinking that a next stage in developing this analysis should highlight issues such as:
1. Capital constraints – timing and amount e.g. would it be better to fund the Metrolink cars or some by-pass tracks first?
2. Asset utilization – more efficient use of staff and equipment e.g a reduction in %idle time of rolling stock, new schedules with turn backs, no service beyond Blossom Hill.
3. VMT reduction – make this the over-arching goal e.g better service to more of the stations, predictable intermodal transfers.
Keep up the great work!
One problem is the definition of “peak hour”. The “peak” is when ridership is the highest. Note the most crowded trains – all bullets. Is the ridership the highest on those trains because those are the perfect times to ride the train, or because people simply prefer bullet trains? Note that the *most* crowded train is the *latest* bullet.
I assert that there is latent demand for *later* bullet trains – basically *extend* the duration of “peak hours” by extending the portion of the schedule which includes the bullet trains. This will move riders from trains like 329 to later trains. It will also increase overall ridership as riders who can’t make it to 329 take the new bullet trains, whereas currently once they miss the peak hour train and would be forced onto a local – “might as well drive”
[…] Green Caltrain Lists the Ways the System Could Increase Capacity Now […]
The AM NB commute definitely needs to go for one more hour. The last SB baby bullet leaves nearly an hour later.
Also, the current crunch points that there’s a higher demand for more more baby bullets than more local service. When Caltrain electrified, that 6th tph ought to be a Baby Bullet run.
Adina, I don’t know what sort of kool-aid you are chugging, but Caltrain’s $1.5 billion electrification plan does not increase capacity.
DOES.
NOT.
INCREASE.
CAPACITY.
Instead of regurgitating press releases from SamTrans HQ, why not look at what Caltrain, the project sponsors, claim, in their own project-justifying and hence best-case documentation, about the supposed service benefits of the project?
It is right there in black and white in their nose-bleed-expensively produced, staff-approved, consultant-approved DEIR and in all of their “planning” documents.
The number of trains serving the morning rush hour is supposed to increase (yes, increase) from 3 limited-stop trains per direction hour today in 2014 up to 4 equally-slow limited-stop trains per direction per hour solely by the magic mechanism of paying to run more trains.
“Paying to run more trains” is something they can choose to do today, but choose not to. It is unrelated to whether the trains have pantographs on top or diesel tanks, or whether the pig has slapped on lipstick or not.
It has nothing to do with electrification. NOTHING. (Nor anything to do with “benefits” supposedly delivered by the limitless indictable fraud of CBOSS.)_
And because Caltrain’s genius staff are adamant that Caltrain remain forever a FRA-regulated “commuter railroad”, those extra trains will be carting around 2 or 3 or even 4 completely unnecessary UTU dues-paying “conductors”, which is what really drives operating costs through the roof.
The kewl $1.5 billion Caltrain limited-stop Electric Trains Of The Future will take exactly as long to complete a run as a the crap Caltrain limited-stop diesel trains of today: 68 minutes with 15 intermediate stops IN THE WONDERFUL $1.5 BILLION POST-2020 FUTURE versus 67 minutes with 12 intermediate stops today.
Awesome way to spend a billion and a half of your and my tax dollars!
America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals, doing exactly what they always do.
If you’re after more train capacity when and where it is needed, and you’re after less than ruinously poor employee and equipment productivity, you’re going to have to look at something very different from anything that has ever been proposed or studied by thePCJPB’s professional staff or the PCJPB’s professional consultantocracy.
Caltrain claims that electrification will allow them to run more frequent services at lower relative cost. The operating cost estimates are expected to be out this summer. The prototypical schedule in the EIR is not actually the schedule, say agency staff when they are asked.
“And because Caltrain’s staff are adamant that Caltrain remain forever a FRA-regulated “commuter railroadâ€, those extra trains will be carting around 2 or 3 or even 4 completely unnecessary UTU dues-paying “conductorsâ€, which is what really drives operating costs through the roof.” – what are are other options available under US regulation? Could Caltrain choose other rules to work under, or is there a need to change the rules?
“If you’re after more train capacity when and where it is needed, and you’re after less than ruinously poor employee and equipment productivity, you’re going to have to look at something very different from anything that has ever been proposed or studied by thePCJPB’s professional staff or the PCJPB’s professional consultantocracy.”
Said in a different way, but echoing the point I was trying to make: where’s the creativity, open-mindedness , and clear analysis required of Caltrain staff to overcome the immediate problems of capacity. Advocating longer trains and electrification as the solution does nothing to address the in-built structural problems caused by the effect of crazy timetabling and limiting labor practices on inventory utilization.
Surely?
The extra Metrolink trains will be accompanied by changes in schedule. Apparently Caltrain will start public discussion about post-electrification schedule after the EIR is done. Those will be opportunities for change.
I posted this a few weeks back, but it’s still relevant:
It appears as though nearly every NB peak train in the morning is over capacity. While the entire schedule needs to be overhauled and more infrastructural improvements (electrification, level boarding) should be completed in the future, there are some quicker fixes that can be implemented in the meantime.
– Easiest solution: 211, 221, and 231, which definitely have capacity, need to stop at Palo Alto. This will close a 30-minute gap in service there and divert riders from 217, 323, and 233.
– Add another Bullet train in the 8am hour, which is almost guaranteed to accommodate 500 new riders.
– More controversial: close Hayward Park, which can be accommodated by San Mateo and Hillsdale, both of which have superior service. This speeds up all local trains.
– Even more controversial: Baby Bullets should consider skipping Millbrae. The primary purpose of the Baby Bullet trains should be to get riders to SF as fast and comfortable as possible; more riders disembark than embarking at Millbrae, which causes overcrowding on the stretches right before this stop. Replace with a stop at Sunnyvale, Mtn View, or RWC, all of which are adding riders faster than Millbrae.
This is good opportunity for Caltrain to overhaul timetable completely. As increasing ridership and road traffic, rider’s interest are shifting from faster trip to more frequent service.
Given current infrastructure (fleet, rail capacity, by-pass tracks) and demand, Caltrain can provide both express and local train with reasonable frequency.
Utilize bypassing track at Lawrence, Redwood junction, Milbrae (NB only) and Bayshore, it is possible to operate 4 tph express and 2 tph local train. This means express train runs every 15 min. (equal to BART) and local train runs every 30 min.
If this schedule change attract more rider, then Caltrain can spend bypassing track for more frequency and platform transfer between express and local train.
At the same time, I would like to see more frequent service in weekend.
AMEN! On a related note, it is frustrating for passengers sitting on the floors or standing in the toilets to learn that a dysfunctional transit agency incapable of running a bus system ended up being in charge of the administration of Caltrain.
[…] At last week’s Local Policy Maker Working Group, Caltrain shared information about what it will take to extend its platforms to handle longer trains. Â As rush hour trains get more and more crowded, the added capacity will be needed to to carry more riders. […]
Some of capacity issue comes from uneven train spacing and complicate stop pattern. Running Baby bulles runs every 30 minutes and 2 different patterns every 60 minutes require same operating expense. These improvement increase customer’s option and average out ridership.
For southbound commute, you could insert another baby bullet between 322 and 324. While 322 gets slowed down near Mountain View in preparation to pass 220 in Lawrence, 324 doesn’t pass any trains and easily keeps its schedule.
While NB commuters prefer frequency, SB prefer schedule as employer shuttles are tied to baby bullet arrivals – particularly in Mountain View.