Caltrain is using extra funding from fast-growing rider revenues to balance its operating budget in 2016.   Ridership for FY 2015 is up 10%, farebox revenue is up 13%,  and Caltrain’s “farebox recovery” remains over 60%, which is excellent for US transit agencies.
For FY 2016, Caltrain is expecting $88 million out of a $139 million operating budget to come from riders (including fares and parking).  The three county partners (San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties) are contributing about $20million.  And an additional $18 Million comes from savings and extra revenue from the last year’s very strong performance.
While the budget is balanced this year, the structural budget risk remains. The county partner contributions are voluntary  – every year, counties decide whether – yes, whether – to pay their Caltrain bill.  In a down year, when county partners face their own budget crunch, partners can choose not to pay their bill.  If any of the partners stiffs the check, they all do,  cutting up to a 30% hole in Caltrain’s budget.
In FY2021, with the start of electric service, Caltrain’s budget is expected to improve. Â Electric service is cheaper to run (electricity is cheaper than diesel), and more frequent service is expected to generate more riders. Â Caltrain is expected to disclose a draft budget for electric service this Spring, showing how much public contribution will need to be nailed down.
Caltrain’s draft capital budget for 2016 is not in the packet of materials published in advance for Thursday’s board meeting. Â Watch for news about how and whether Caltrain will keep its trains maintained and running, while the project to electrify moves forward.
Electrification is a worthy goal. However there are other goals that should be considered in parallel. Level (at grade) crossings have to be eliminated, both for Caltrain and HSR. Little point in building the poles and wires only to be rebuilt after reconstruction of the right-of-way. Platforms must be hi-level to reduce station dwell time and improve wheel chair. access.
@Allan repeats the misinformed notion that projects such as grade separations require poles and wires “to be rebuilt”.
First off, “poles and wires” are a small (but important!) part of electrification.
Second, grade separations and other projects are built on electric (and diesel) powered railroads all the time. The presence of wires (or 3rd rail) is not a major deterrent or impediment to such projects.
Lastly, moving wires and poles around, as needed, during such projects is a trivial and perfectly manageable well-understood activity … and does not amount to any substantial extra expense or difficulty as comments such as @Allan’s seem to suggest or imply.
In sum, the need for current and future grade separations or station platform reconfigurations don’t and shouldn’t have any bearing on the need or appropriateness of electrification whatsoever.
My respondent makes light of grade separations and relocating power poles and wires. The grade separation problem is non-trivial, contentious, and very expensive. Ask Palo Alto and Menlo Park how they feel about the proposed solutions: Elevated right-of-way, or buried trench or a combination. The cost to move established poles and wires will be almost the same as the original construction, minus the cost of materials (poles, wire). I am not arguing against electrification. I am only pointing out it is not a stand alone solution because the other issues have to be solved too.
Wire and poles are trivially easy to move around along with when tracks are moved or rerouted. SImple. No big deal.
@Reality Check. See Electrification RFP Volume 3 page 28 “The Design Builder shall take into account Project Phase II and III when laying out the base design for OCS structure placement so that if these projects are undertaken after the base contract is complete the structures will support the construction of the options with minor modifications to the OCS REGISTRATION placements.”
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ogcdb5t2jy09k5c/AACAQZUEfJSeQyBC0n6Q38ZKa/1%20-%20RFP%20-%202-27-2015/14-PCJPB-P-053%20DB%20Elect%20RFP%20-%20Vol%203%20-%202-27.pdf?dl=0. English translation: “Make sure that we don’t have to move any poles later because having to remove pole foundations is even more fun then putting them in”.
Having said all this, this conversation really belongs in Adina’s next blog (capital budget).
[…] Caltrain’s Fare Revenues Up, Balancing Operating Budget for Next Year (Green Caltrain) […]
Since Caltrain did not increase regular train both weekday and weekend, increasing farebox revenue should increase the recovery index.
However, reality is different. If county partners keep same amount of payment, how much % of farebox revenue increse is needed to balance the budget?
BART Board approves budget focused on service improvements.
https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2015/news20150611
1. Moving train cars from maintenance to passenger service at a faster pace (BART already boasts one of the industry’s highest rates of cars availability).
2. Adding shifts for train car maintenance workers.
Caltrain should follow same direction. Improve train frequency and longer train without spending money on rolling stock.