Caltrain is getting bids for electric rail cars that are expected to go into service in late 2020, providing faster, more frequent, cleaner service.  At least, the air will be cleaner.
Despite feedback from many riders that they want the new electric trains to have bathrooms, the board is leaning toward eliminating bathrooms. Caltrain is soliciting bids for train sets with either zero bathroom or one bathroom. The
There are many reasons Caltrain riders say they want to keep bathrooms on the trains.
- Some riders have long trips on local trains
- Elderly riders and people with health conditions need bathroom access
- Pregnant women need bathroom access
- Parents travelling with children need bathrooms
- People take Caltrain for sports events, concerts, parades and fireworks shows, where they can drink and enjoy without having to drive. People who have been drinking need access to bathrooms, or may relieve themselves on the train without the benefit of a bathroom
- People riding trains carrying other passengers who’ve been drinking at entertainment events really want bathrooms on the trains
- People who are stuck on trains that are delayed due to mechanical failures and unfortunate collisions need bathrooms on the trains
The board wanted to consider opening or adding bathrooms at stations.  Unfortunately,most of the stations that have bathrooms have closed the bathrooms over the years, because they were difficult and costly to clean, maintain, and keep secure during Caltrain service hours.  It is not clear who would staff the bathrooms to keep them clean, secure, and open, and who would pay for maintenance, security, and staffing.  BART closed most of its bathrooms after September 11, 2001, due to concerns about terrorism, and still has not reopened them.
Caltrain currently provides at least one bathroom on every train. We believe Caltrain should adopt the proposal which provides one bathroom on every train set.
If you think at least one bathroom per trainset is essential, sign this petition and pass it along.
If you’d like to collect petition signatures and spread the word, add a note in comments or send email to friends@friendsofcaltrain.com
And you’re undecided, would you want to share a long train ride with these happy Giants fans, with no bathrooms on board?
Giants fans – and people sharing trains with Giants fans will appreciate bathrooms
7 reasons Caltrain riders want bathrooms on electric trains. Tell the board if you agree. http://t.co/l5ADuGsqkl
Did you get stuck in yesterday’s Caltrain meltdown? Sign and share if you want bathrooms on the new electric trains: http://t.co/lZtp3C3qeP
One toilet per train sounds reasonable. It won’t cost too much money or space. But with the high/low door configuration that is required for the transition to HSR compatibility, won’t this leave some disabled passengers unable to reach the bathroom? If a wheelchair user boards on the high door and the bathroom is below (or visa versa) they will not be able to traverse the steps to reach the toilet. So the car would need to be fitted with either a lift or 2 toilets.
Correct and that is precisely one of the many reasons why the FRA will never allow this dual platform height nonsense: http://tinyurl.com/nrdpdo4
Do you take #Caltrain? Do you want bathrooms on #trains? @bayrailalliance #rail http://t.co/RL4T1wknD6 http://t.co/ybUU92e18Q
Roland – What are the other reasons that the FRA objects to dual platform heights?
The dual boarding height issue for ADA customers has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a toilet. You need an interior lift anyway, to change levels during the height transition. Having a toilet located on the lower level forces this lift to remain in service even after the platform height transition is complete.
@Roland, why would the FRA disallow this? Please be specific, avoiding the use of phrases like “kindly tell us” or random URLs thrown in without explanation.
I like your list, especially as a person with a health condition requiring frequent and immediate restroom access. But it also strikes me that the list could also be quite brief. Who needs bathrooms? HUMANS. This is a basic human need. Just do it!
@ Thielges: The FRA will not allow “orphan” lines (trainsets that can never leave their own exclusive right of way).
@ Clem: Why are the Russians blowing up all their 44″ platforms and taking them down to 22″?
Here is great report by Eric Eidlin explaining how this works in Europe: http://www.gmfus.org/publications/making-most-high-speed-rail-california
Here is a podcast of the same presentation: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/07/16/talking-headways-podcast-high-speed-rail-lessons-from-france-and-germany/
Hi Roland – Do you have any answers to the questions about the FRA issue you brought up above?
Hi Thielges,
I responded yesterday including a question to Clem about Russian platform heights but someone (Clem?) is blocking my posts.
In the meantime, did you read the presentation and listen to the podcast?
For the record, I do not control this blog and even if I did, I would never censor a comment that I disagree with. I too am curious to hear Roland’s arguments.
The report contains important points about platform heights, and notes that U.S. ADA laws are far more restrictive than their European equivalents, making most European platform-sharing solutions illegal in the U.S. That’s why Caltrain proposes a solution that you’ll never see in Europe.
New Caltrain cars may not have restrooms… http://t.co/BXwyUqqv53
@Clem. Sounds good but who is blocking contrarian posts on http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/?
With regards to: “That’s why Caltrain proposes a solution that you’ll never see in Europe.” how about coming out clean about that too?
First, there is no such thing as “Caltrain”, only an agency CURRENTLY managed by SamTrams AKA the single most dysfunctional transit agency in all 9 Bay Area Counties.
Second, this “solution that you’ll never see in Europe” came from a blogger with way too much spare time on his/her hands and the FRA have made it very clear that this “solution” will never be seen in the US or Canada either: http://tinyurl.com/pav6rux.
@Roland, if the FRA were truly so hot to make Tier III HSR interoperable with everything else, you would figure that in the four years since the 2011 presentation that you linked, they might have started a rule making process. They have not.
And even if they did, HSR would then be required to add traps and wheelchair lifts to their trains. What’s the big deal? On new construction (as here on the peninsula) the ADA level boarding rules still prevail.
As for censorship on my blog, you are mistaken. The only comments that I ever censor are either extremely rude or simply unrelated to the topic. I value all points of view.
Finally, the notion that some random blogger has the power to influence a half-billion dollar procurement is just laughable!
@Clem. With regards to “They have not.”
Quite the contrary in fact, so it may be useful at this point in time to take a refresher on how the FRA’s Regulatory Process works starting with slide 10 in this presentation: http://tinyurl.com/os58dor
1. Need for a regulation is identified
2. Rule text and supporting documentation is developed: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
3. Rule text and supporting documentation is published in the Federal Register.
4. Comments are received from the Public
5. Final Rule Text and supporting documentation is developed.
6. Final Rule Text Published in the Federal Register
So the reason you are not finding anything in the Federal Register (step 3) is that nothing has been published there (yet).
Going back to the current status of Tier III regulations, the RSAC ETF released the second draft version of the NPRM (ETF_001-02) for public review on 3/25/2013: http://tinyurl.com/prxn6d3
The third revision (ETF_001-03) is expected to add the sections dealing with
– Trainset Width
– Trainset Floor Height
– Strategies for the Disabled (ADA)
http://tinyurl.com/os58dor (slide 22)
@Roland, do you believe that CHSRA, Caltrain, LTK, and car builders haven’t been intimately involved in this drafting process? Have you noticed the FRA’s new collaborative and conciliatory rule making approach, emphasizing non-prescriptive regulations with means of alternate compliance? Do you believe that FRA is unaware of Caltrain’s proposed solution? Do you believe that any new rules, should they become law, would apply retroactively?
@ Clem. Here is what I believe in:
– I believe that whatever you or I believe in is basically irrelevant unless it is backed by cold hard facts, not FUD. As an example, the answer to your question about who is on the RSAC ETF is on slide 13 of this presentation: http://tinyurl.com/pav6rux. The “California High-Speed Rail Authority†is actually Parsons Brinckerhoff (Frank Banko and others). “Caltrain” is being impersonated by LTK Engineering.
– I believe that Parsons Brinckerhoff telling “Caltrain” how to design their cars is like the Tier III tail wagging the Tier I dog (do you believe that the solution for Capitol Corridor going to Transbay is new rolling stock with “phantom” doors, elimination of +/- 200 seats, no toilets and/or blowing up every single platform between Oakland and Sacramento???)
– I believe that the CHSRA trainset procurement process is on hold pending the release of ETF_001-03 http://tinyurl.com/q5r6uel
– I believe that LTK engineering will have a lot of explaining to do at the August Caltrain Board meeting about their “difficulties” with the FRA over the CBOSS certification process.
Aha! You want the Tier 1 dinosaur trains to use a new Transbay tube and the peninsula corridor. Your aversion to high platforms is fully explained!
I come from a different school of thought: the Cap Corr should become a DMU doodlebug (like your VTA Sprinter) and be replaced by SF – Dumbarton – Altamont – Tracy – Sacramento HSR. Bonus: lightning fast SJ – Sac connection.
[…] Friends of Caltrain listed more reasons in a blog post: […]
[…] Friends of Caltrain listed some-more reasons in a blog post: […]
“following staff and public complaints the government has made the installation of toilets a requirement of NS Reizigers’ concession to operate passenger services on the core network”
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/sprinter-lighttrain-upgrade-contract-awarded.html