At the Caltrain board meeting on Thursday June 4, the liveliest subject of discussion was the proposed configuration of electric trains scheduled to roll out in 2020.
The largest number of public comments, in the board meeting room and on social media were in favor of keeping at least one bathroom (although each bathroom, legally required to accommodate passengers with wheelchairs, would take the space of 8 seats). Â Older passengers, younger passengers, sports fans, emergencies – these were some of the more common reasons to keep a bathrooms on a service where the average trip is ~40 minutes long.
On the subject of bike space, Caltrain announced a notable financial commitment –  $3 Million – to increase bike lockers and other offboard bike facilities, to keep up with the growth of passengers using bicycles for the first and/or last mile of their trips. But will that be enough?
Caltrain is proposing to maintain the same 9:1 ratio of seats to bikes as today (see this blog post for an analysis of the various bike options). Â Caltrain’s proposal would mean a much greater share of people using offboard facilities – five to ten times the share of people than today. With today’s limited bike lockers and bike share, the vast majority of bike users bring their bike on board.
We’ve got some analysis suggesting that Caltrain may need more like $10 Million to keep up with the growth in bike use.  Compare that to over $600 million that is being proposed for High Speed Rail to enable platform compatibility and keep up with Caltrain capacity needs.  $10 million may seem like a lot, but compare that to the value of 5-10% more seats on the trains.
The Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and San Francisco Bicycle Coalition have moderated their “ask” from supporting 20% bike space on the train, to supporting 20% bike space overall, with 16% bike space on the train (compared to Caltrain’s proposed 11% bike space).
Caltrain staff predicted in their board presentation that if more bike space is allotted onboard, then fewer passengers would take the train and overall ridership would go down.  Caltrain’s proposal already includes an assumption of more standing room in the future, as the electric service becomes more of BART-like, frequent, metro-style service.
Based on experience so far, this blogger thinks that instead of driving, more people would continue to ride Caltrain, and crowding would continue to get worse. According to this model, the 16% bike space ratio could lead to about 2/3 of passengers standing – similar BART but with average trips twice as long.
What do you think?
* Should electric trains have at least one bathroom per train? or more?
* Should Caltrain increase the amount of bike space on board, with a consequence of fewer passengers, or having 2/3 of passengers stand?
* If Caltrain is planning for more people to use offboard bike facilities, should they plan to fully fund this?
Share your thoughts in comments – and to the Caltrain board, Board@Caltrain.com.
Here is an updated model that looks at the potential consequences of different amounts of bike space on the train, in terms of standing room, the amount of offboard bike facilities needed, and the cost of offboard bike facilities. Â Feel free to review, ask questions, suggest improvements.
What Caltrain needs to do is to think bigger, instead of pitting against each other the different uses of precious on-board space.
The new trains should have eight cars (4+4 rather than their 3+3 plan) and as much width as can fit in the SF tunnels. In a five abreast seating arrangement, nobody likes the middle seat, but the middle seat sure beats standing. In the bike car, more width means more bikes and more room to maneuver. In the aisles and vestibules it means more room to stand.
They’re thinking too small! The marginal cost of wider and longer trains is low and gives electrification way more bang for the buck.
The problem isn’t the average trip of forty minutes, it’s that Caltrain is the middle of a trip that often extends to two hours even on a good day. Caltrain is the only restroom opportunity. It’s also the portion of my commute that is most likely to suddenly turn from 45 minutes to two hours or more.
“4+4 and 3+3”. Well, well, well. Now we are beginning to see how we ever got into this mess!!! Let’s start with the basics:
1) How are we ever going to be able to cram more seats, bikes, toilets and wheelchairs than what we have now if we stick 2 cab cars in the middle of a train???
2) What about DTX? How will passengers be able to escape in a DTX emergency if there are 2 cab cars in the middle of a train? Do America’ Finest Transportation Planning Professionals really think that DTX will have a cross-passage every 300 feet or do they expect that half of the passengers in the train will have to walk 300 feet in dense smoke to the nearest cross-passage???
3) “3+2” does not increase capacity because the end result is less room in the 2 adjacent seats while the 3 adjacent seats usually only seat 2 people with their stuff (or possibly a child) in the middle seat.
4) It is impossible to run wider trains without blowing up every single platform in the Peninsula (what is your migration plan?)
5) Wider trains will result in even narrower platforms @ Transbay & Diridon (ever tried boarding a northbound baby bullet @ Diridon during peak?)
Once again (and hopefully for the last time), would America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals kindly help the rest of us understand which part of:
– 660 feet long
– 965 seats (including flip-ups)
– 80 bikes (40 each in the front and rear cab cars)
– 7 ADA toilets (each toilet takes the same room as 4 seats, not 8)
– 7 wheelchairs (or an additional 14 bikes)
– BUILT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
it is that they do not understand
BTW, the reason behind the 7 toilets is to enable passengers with restricted mobility to board the train from ANY door (except the cab car doors which are reserved for bicycles).
New middle cars, whether they are motorized or not, can be inserted to an EMU trainset at a later date, so arguing for 3 cars or 4 cars set is moot at this point.
As for no bathroom on board, it is doable as Caltrain only need to add bathrooms in selective stations. HSR-shared station will definitely has bathrooms. High ridership stations such as Palo Alto, Mountain View, Redwood City, and terminal stations such as Gilroy, also needs bathroom.
I have a great solution for SamTrans. It is called ECR BRT. Just hook up a bike trailer, make sure that there is a toilet at every stop, run it as frequently as you like and you are all set!
In the meantime kindly get off OUR tracks and let someone else run something that resembles a high-capacity commuter rail system that people might actually be interested in riding!
American Exceptionalism strikes again! Apparently we have exceptionally tiny bladders.
Bike lockers don’t help me since I need my bike at both ends of the trip. Do we know what fraction of bikes-on-board users could use a bike locker if it was available, fast, and convenient?
[…] Recommendations for New Electric Trains: No Bathrooms, Same Bike Capacity (GC, […]
If Caltrain doesn’t include bathrooms on the trains, they better plan to add them at the stations. Anything else would just be cruel to passengers.
Matthew, according to a recent survey 56% of people who use bikes with Caltrain say they’d be willing to use a bike locker or staffed storage facility if it was available and convenient. This won’t work for everyone, but based on the results of the survey may work for many more people than today. (see this blog post)
Trainset should have one bathroom with current station amenity. Caltrain needs install more bathroom at station, so on board bathroom for emergency. Beside bike storage, Bathroom, Ticket vending machine (and clipper addvalue) and Grade separation (removal of grade crossing) will be most important.
[…] Network today: More thoughts on the perniciousness of victim-blaming from a Bike Portland reader; Green Caltrain reports on efforts to accommodate more passengers with bikes; and Second Avenue Sagas laments the […]
8 car trains will be great, and the question to address is how to get them paid for.
Only express train in traditional commute direction need 8-car or longer. Until Caltrain to find money, they can use existing diesel train-set with 8-car consist.
Local train need faster acceleration to escape from express train. So, express may not require faster acceleration until certain period.
If it is a maintenance cost issue then charge $0.25 to use the restroom. Sometimes it’s an emergency, and getting off, finding a restroom somewhere else and then getting back on is not an option for Caltrain given their current level of service and lack of station facilities.
The issue isn’t so much maintenance as it is space on the train. Each bathroom takes the space that would be occupied by 8 seats. With space at a premium, how many bathrooms does it make sense to provide?
Where does this 8 seats per bathroom BS come from?
Let’s also keep in mind that the electric trains will accelerate and stop faster and (potentially) more abruptly than Caltrain does now, so standing up will be even less pleasant than it is now. One of the main appeals of Caltrain USED to be that it’s so much more comfortable than other transit modes. But if we won’t even have one bathroom, won’t have enough space to sit, and are welcoming more bikes onboard, this will push a lot of people away from riding.
Let’s focus on seating capacity (with one bathroom per train, or a bathroom at the top 15 stations) and vastly improved bike parking: both long-term and daily lockers, secure racks, and rentals
I think that the time has come for people who actually ride and bring bikes on board Caltrain to be more proactive in the EMU procurement process starting with a letter to the Caltrain Board: http://tinyurl.com/nd4ufw9.
I came across this train last year while researching HSR platform compatibility in Europe (this is currently the only double-decker train capable of level boarding at 550, 760 & 920 mm OFF THE SHELF): http://www.bombardier.com/content/dam/Websites/bombardiercom/Events/Supporting%20Documents/BT/bombardier-transportation-OMNEO-brochure-en.pdf.
I went back to this train earlier this year when the bikes vs. toilets issues showed up and discovered that there is no other train that can cram as many seats/bikes/wheelchairs/toilets per foot of platform:
http://www.bombardier.com/content/dam/Websites/bombardiercom/Events/Supporting%20Documents/BT/bombardier-transportation-Regio-2N-datasheet-en.pdf.
The only “problem” with this train is that it has no competition…
Anyway, the basic building blocks and potential modifications are in the letter to the Caltrain Board. Let’s work on this collaboratively and come up with a specification for the best train OUR money will buy. If we do this, we will be able to eliminate the need for this eye-watering $65M “EMU Procurement Consultant” contract and use the money to buy an additional 3 trains.
[…] from its staff to include one bathroom on every six-car train while maintaining the same seat-to-bike ratio that exists today of ten-to-one. After a push from board member Tom Nolan, who is also the chair […]