A new San Francisco County Transportation Authority study forecasts that Caltrain ridership will increase by 200% by 2040, according to a study presented at the Citizens Advisory Committee  on January 30.   The increase is expected to be driven by Caltrain electrification, the completion of the Downtown Extension to the Transbay terminal (DTX), and continued growth in the South Bay.

Update:  SFCTA clarifies that the Caltrain projection is only for trips that will touch San Francisco.   Caltrain “only” expects ridership to nearly double overall once DTX is completed.

The presentation, reviewing transit, biking and walking needs in San Francisco, is a prelude to a discussion about San Francisco’s transportation infrastructure investment plans.

In his state of the city address on January 28, Mayor Lee called for a vision and funding strategies to meet future transit needs, starting with a task force convening in February, including SPUR director Gabe Metcalf and Supervisor Scott Wiener.  DTX is one of the major underfunded priorities for San Francisco. San Francisco’s approach to funding transit priorities will be worth watching in the coming year.

according to 

The funding to electrify Caltrain was approved this past summer, with money from the High Speed Rail project, and other state and regional sources.  The High Speed Rail funding was granted because electrifying the Caltrain tracks is a pre-requisite to running High Speed trains on the Caltrain corridor.

However, the question is frequently raised at local meetings regarding whether it is possible that alternative technologies would provide the Caltrain corridor with most of the benefits of electrification for less money.   This would be relevant in the event that the High Speed Rail project was halted before Caltrain electrification was done.

At a meeting last year at Palo Alto’s Rail Committee, representatives of Caltrain and LTK consulting delivered a presentation about relative merits of “Electric Multiple Units (EMUs), the technology that Caltrain plans to use, and “Diesel Multiple Units.”

Caltrain’s current diesel trains use one locomotive per train set to draw unpowered coaches. The train set is heavy, and acceleration is proportional to train length.  This means that if Caltrain wants to stop at many stations, the local service is very slow.  To speed up the train, Caltrain needs to cut stops.  This was the tradeoff with the Baby Bullet schedule – faster end to end service, but less service to many stations. Using its current technology, Caltrain does not benefit very much from making trains longer to handle capacity, since longer trains will accelerate even more slowly.

By contrast, “Diesel Multiple Units” provide distributed traction – each train car has its own engine. These trains are of medium weight, and provide medium acceleration.  ”Electric Multiple Units” also provide distributed traction.  These trains are lightweight and provide good acceleration.

This is the key slide that Caltrain used to make the argument for EMUs.  Because Caltrain has many stations fairly close together (average 2.1 mile spacing), the extra acceleration provided by the EMU provides a major benefit in allowing more stations to be served while maintaining the same or better trip times.   DMUs would not be able to provide as good a schedule.

Other transit lines where DMUs have been chosen have different characteristics – fewer stations, spaced further apart, and/or fewer train cars – so acceleration is less important to providing good service.

EMUs have other benefits, too. They emit much less pollution (particulates and greenhouse gases) and are much less expensive to run, since electricity is cheaper than diesel fuel.

Electrification and land use vision

Whether you agree that EMUs provide substantially better service for the Peninsula Corridor depends on your ideas about land use and transportation for the corridor.  Largely because of Caltrain’s presence for over a century, the corridor has a string of small, compact downtown areas.   Given concerns about sprawl, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, which has led to California to adopt statewide policies favoring more compact development near transit, and growing preferences among younger and older people to drive less, many cities along the corridor have transit-oriented development plans near the Caltrain line.   If you like the idea of multiple mid-sized, walkable downtown areas, connected with a frequent, BART-like schedule, then electrification provides the best results.

But if you prefer the greatest concentration of development in Downtown Palo Alto, downtown Mountain View, and Redwood City, and do not want transit-oriented development in areas with currently poor service, such as Brisbane Bayshore, Hayward Park, California Avenue, San Antonio, and Lawrence, then a service plan that visits more stations is less important. And if you believe that a peak hour commute service is best for the Peninsula, and there is little value in a transit schedule like BART, then a technology that provides lower cost of operation is less important.

Is Hybrid Diesel-Electric an option?

There are also questions asked about the possibility of using hybrid diesel electric technology.  However, current technology is not close to being able to run Caltrain, according to this report from the Caltrain-High Speed Rail Compatibility Blog. There are hybrid diesel/electric trains in use in Japan. They are used for lines whose cars seat about 45 passengers (compared to 100 for Caltrain) and travel at about 45mph max (compared to 79mph for Caltrain).  Their power output is less than a Chevy Tahoe hybrid’s.  This technology would not be able to serve the Peninsula Corridor.

Plan B if HSR implodes

Since High Speed Rail requires an electrified line, the DMU technology option would be relevant only in the event that the High Speed Rail project was halted before Caltrain electrification was done.   There are ongoing legal challenges to High Speed Rail, and the project has financial risks, so there are logical questions about whether Caltrain would have a Plan B in case High Speed Rail implodes. If that happens, and there is no other funding to electrify the line, Caltrain could be upgraded to DMUs for the cost of replacing the train set ($440 million for electric trains), and save the $785 million cost of electrification.

Meanwhile, the High Speed Rail project is moving forward, and the presentation makes a good argument that electrification is the strongest choice to modernize Caltrain with cost-effective, more frequent service.

The full presentation can be seen here:

On Monday June 11, Muni introduced a new express bus route between the 4th & King Caltrain station and the Civic Center area. This new route, 83X, runs during weekday peak hours from 7am to 11am and from 4pm to 8pm. This line has only three stops: 9th at Market, 8th at Market, 4th at Townsend

In the morning, the bus will meet with Caltrain arrivals. In the afternoon, the bus will depart from Market Street approximately every 15 minutes. The trip time will take about 10 minutes.

See schedule here.

To meet the growing ridership demand, Caltrain is planning to add service sometime this fall. The proposed additions include the 4 late morning/early afternoon trains that Caltrain cut in January 2011. Also 2 trains will be added to the afternoon peak hours schedule (4:31pm from San Jose, 6:20pm from San Francisco).  These peak hour trains will make limited stops but not serving Millbrae.

In addition to more trains, Caltrain plans to add stops to some existing peak hour trains to better utilize available capacity. Under the plan, the reverse commute Baby Bullet trains that stop in Menlo Park would also stop in Palo Alto, adding two minutes to the overall schedule. More northbound morning and southbound afternoon trains would stop in Sunnyvale.

Proposed schedule

A community meeting will be held this Wednesday in San Carlos:

Wednesday, May 30, at 6 p.m.
1250 San Carlos Ave., 2^nd floor auditorium, San Carlos

Funding for this service increase has already been included in the FY 2013 budget, which is set to be considered by the Joint Powers Board next month. Because of the small magnitude of this service change, a more formal “public hearing” will not be held nor the board is expected to take a separate action on this issue.

The new schedule is likely to take effect sometime this fall no earlier than September. Caltrain staff is not ready to set an exact date because of the recent transition of contract operator from Amtrak to Transit America Services over the Memorial Day weekend.

Even though Caltrain is planning to add service this year, it is doing so despite the fact it doesn’t yet have a dedicated funding source. Caltrain is still not financially stable beyond 2013 and it is still possible that Caltrain may have to drastically reduce service.

Last night, a draft Memorandum of Understanding was published that provides $1.5B of funding from High Speed Rail, federal, state and regional sources to fund the electrification of the Caltrain Corridor.

The MOU contains key protections for the Peninsula, defining the project as primarily within the Caltrain Right of Way, primarily two tracks.

This Early Investment Plan provides welcome funding for a badly-needed, long-awaited upgrade to Caltrain.  Ridership has been increasing for the last 18 months and some peak hour trains are standing room only. Electrification will provide a welcome increase in capacity, service frequency, and station access. This will provide relief for traffic congestion and rising gas prices, and reduce pollution and noise.

The agreement provides $600 Million of Proposition 1A funds (the High Speed Rail bond measure), and $106 Million
of Prop 1A connectivity funds, matched by Federal, state and regional funding.  According to the project description, if funding is finalized in 2012, the Electrification project could be complete in 2019.

If advanced by the MTC board on March 28, the High Speed Rail board will review it for approval on April 5 – along with a new draft business plan.  The language of the MOU will not be finalized until MTC’s board meeting in May, so there are still opportunities for refinement.

The high speed rail project deserves a lot of scrutiny this Spring in the legislative budget cycle but if it goes forward, this path provides major benefits to the region.

The devil is in the details. Read on for Friends of Caltrain analysis. It will be helpful to come to the MTC meeting on Wednesday, March 28, details are also below.

There is critical protection for the region built into the MOU.

1) The language of the MOU clarifies that the system “will remain substantially within the Caltrain Right of Way” and clarifies that it is “primarily a two-track system.”  Incorporating concerns of Peninsula communities, this MOU clearly rules out a continuous four-track system as envisioned by High Speed Rail initially, which was destructive and overkill in capacity.

2) The MOU clarifies that the Environmental Impact Report for Electrification needs to be recirculated to be brought up to date and “to incorporate local and regional conditions and concerns.”

3) The MOU clarifies that the project needs to support local land use and Transit Oriented Development policies (ruling out unwanted intrusions such as the large train storage and maintenance yard HSRA had intended for Brisbane).

However, there is a key area where clarification is needed.

There is a lot of confusion on the Peninsula about the relative role of MTC, Caltrain, and the High Speed Rail Authority.   It will be very helpful to clarify the respective roles to residents and local decision-makers.

* MTC assembles and disburses federal, state, and regional funding. In the current deal, MTC played a role in bringing in money from BART, bridge tolls, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and brokering the federal/state/regional funding package.

* Caltrain is the lead agency to manage the electrification project, including environmental review, design and construction. Decisions about grade separations and schedules will be made by Caltrain with the stakeholders in the cities affected by these changes.

Need future funding for Grade Separations, Downtown Extension to Transbay Terminal

The earlier drafts presented by Caltrain staff included some funding for grade separations that will be valuable for safety and traffic reduction on the Peninsula. Those funds are not present in the draft to present to the MTC board.

Once Caltrain has finished the 2-year planning process to define the electrification project, working with local communities, then Caltrain, local communities, and MTC should work together to put together funding for grade separations and other local enhancements that are needed for traffic mitigation and safety.

Important work is still needed to find the funding for a critical piece of the puzzle that is not included in this phase.  The funding does not cover Downtown Extension to Transbay (DTX).   This segment is needed to meet the requirements of Prop 1A for High Speed Rail. DTX will be very valuable for the region’s commuters since there are 10x the number of jobs in downtown San Francisco than at 4th and King.

MOU wisely stays out of local design decisions

The MOU does not record the feedback from many communities about specific local design needs, such as, for example, Burlingame’s plan for Broadway grade separation.  This silence is a good thing.  We do not want MTC documents planning, or otherwise expressing opinions about these critical local design decisions.  That work belongs in the hands of Caltrain as the lead agency on the project, working closely with local communities.

The MOU also does not rule out a short section of passing track, which was identified as an option in Caltrain’s capacity analysis. Without passing tracks, the corridor can carry 6 Caltrains and 2 High Speed Rail trains per direction per hour at peak.  With passing track, the corridor can carry up to 4 High Speed Trains.   But, there is no
funding for the passing tracks, and the first stage of the plan does not include them.

The passing tracks will not be needed until (and unless) HSR gets to San Jose. More analysis and evidence will be needed to determine whether the passing tracks will be needed.  By comparison, on the busiest passenger rail corridor in the country, Amtrak runs one express Acela and 1-2 local trains per peak
hour per direction between New York and DC.  If in the future the trains are full, and it is much more expensive to fly or drive, the decision will look very different.

Protecting Baby Bullet service revenue

One of the ideas brought up at Burlingame City Council was to ensure that Caltrain gets revenue if riders take high speed trains as an express commute service from San Jose to San Francisco.  That topic is not discussed in the MOU (and it shouldn’t be) but it is an important topic to consider for customer service and for Caltrain’s financial
viability (how not to cannibalize baby bullet revenue).

Why now?

The Early Investment plan has come together rapidly in recent months, and the process to gather stakeholder feedback was rushed. It would have been better to have Caltrain complete the 2 year planning process to define exactly what is wanted in the electrification project, working closely with stakeholders, and then apply for funding with a clear plan.   Especially on the Peninsula, where there are 17 cities between San Francisco and San Jose, the process was particularly strained.

But High Speed Rail needs to put together a credible business plan now, this spring, in order to have a chance of gaining legislative authorization to move the project forward.  It made sense to include the “Early Investment” now because that makes for a better plan which provides value earlier.

Come to the MTC meeting on March 28

The MTC meeting to review and make a decision about approving the Memorandum of Understanding is on Wednesday, March 28 at 9:30 am.   The meeting is at MTC Headquarters at 101 8th street in Oakland.  It is a long trip from much of the corridor to MTC headquarters in Oakland, but it will be valuable for Caltrain stakeholders to attend this critical meeting. This is an important decision that will affect our region for decades if High Speed Rail goes forward this year.