At meetings held by Caltrain to get feedback on proposed service cuts, riders had different ideas about what could be done instead of cutting service to meet a budget gap. Riders had a wealth of suggestions to increase ridership and improve efficiency. Riders proposed suggestions about to run baby bullet trains on the weekends, increase bike capacity, promote commuter passes, take advantage of social campaigns such as Drive Less Challenge, promote the environmental benefits of the train, and more. Riders also had suggestions for decreasing costs without cutting service, including construction efficiencies, negotiating the terms in the upcoming labor contract.

According to the San Mateo County Times, more than 350 people have e-mailed comments to the agency so far, and more than 200 riders attended community meetings held in four cities Thursday August 19.

At an upcoming meeting at 10am on September 2, the Joint Powers Board will review rider suggestions and Caltrain staff recommendations. Let them know that cutting service is not the way to go, and keep sharing ideas for increasing ridership and saving money. Come to the meeting if you can, and keep sending your suggestions to Caltrain, at changes@caltrain.com.

The meeting is at Caltrain/Samtrans headquarters, 2nd Floor Auditorium, 1250 San Carlos Ave near the San Carlos train station.

There are two separate but related proposals on the table. The first is the revised alternative analysis, which is a list of project alternatives that the authority staff will carry forward to complete the environmental impact report. The revised AA still envisions a complete, built-out high speed rail corridor. The second is the ARRA federal stimulus funding application, which will only fund some of the elements of a complete corridor. Although the High Speed Rail Authority does not have the funding to build a built-out corridor, the agency needs to complete an environmental review before any of the ARRA and other funding is used.

Revised Alternatives Analysis

In the revised AA, the proposal is to have Caltrain operate on the outer two tracks and the high speed rail trains operate in the inner two tracks. In that track arrangement, Caltrain can also use the two inner tracks. Overall this proposal would reduce the footprint. Earlier the authority studied an alternative where HSR trains would operate entirely on separate tracks independent from Caltrain. In some cities, HSR trains would either run either elevated or in a trench.

On the other hand, the revised AA is drawing criticisms from some Peninsula cities because it ruled out tunnels and “stacking” options — where two tracks would place on top of other two tracks, either underground and/or above ground. The staff argued that more land would be needed at transition points (where stacking tracks start and end) with the stacking options. This option would also limit Caltrain/HSR inter-operability.

ARRA application

Last week, HSRA also submitted ARRA applications to the federal government. After the award of $2.25 billion in ARRA fund for HSR in California, the state still has $1.65 billion in HSR ARRA fund yet to be spent (the rest has been allocated to the train box at Transbay Terminal and HSR planning/engineering activities). HSRA staff has been asked to submit applications to spend the rest of the ARRA fund. The staff has come up with 4 different applications (one for SF-SJ, two for Central Valley, and one for LA-Anaheim) with each costing  $3.31 billion (half would come from ARRA and other half from HSR bond and other funding sources). HSRA staff is expecting that the one of the four applications would be chosen for the remaining fund. For each of those application, the staff is requesting funding for partial infrastructure improvements as the ARRA fund isn’t sufficient to build full HSR in any of the corridors. At the same time the proposals must provide “operational utility” — short term improvements for existing passenger rail services.

For the SF-SJ portion, the staff is planning to build a grade separated, 4 track corridor between Bayshore and Redwood City. The tracks through Burlingame and San Mateo would be elevated. The existing grade separated tracks in Belmont and San Carlos would be raised higher on an elevated structure.

That application does not include electrification. In the staff report to the board, the staff has proposed to submit electrification for the entire corridor under a separate non-ARRA funding application. That separate application would also include 4 track extension from Fair Oaks Avenue in Sunnyvale to Mountain View. The staff is not currently making any funding request to build extra tracks between Atherton and Palo Alto, nor to build a tunnel from 4th & King Station to the Transbay Terminal.

Californians for High Speed Rail is claiming victory because the plans include Caltrain electrification, the 4 track expansions and grade separations.

However, there’s no guarantee that the SF-SJ application will receive all or any of the ARRA funding (since the state has submitted three more applications for to use the same funding on different sections of the route). In addition, there’s no certainty that the federal government will actually fully fund one of the four applications (since every portion of the state wants a piece of that pie).

What does that mean to riders?

The revised AA and ARRA application indicate that Caltrain and HSR trains can at least share tracks. That means Caltrain service can be maintained if not incrementally improved as HSR infrastructure is being added, that Baby Bullet trains can still be maintained and bypass local trains, and the possibility that HSR trains can operate without a 100% four track, grade separated corridor.

On the other hand, there are concerns such as platform heights yet to be addressed. There are also issues with some of the priorities. HSRA is proposing to spend the precious, early ARRA funds to rebuild tracks in Belmont and San Carlos, which is largely unnecessary. The early part of the proposal will subject riders and the community to additional construction impacts that do not improve rider experience and add construction inconvenience.  That same ARRA funds could be used to electrify Caltrain earlier, which will vastly improve service and rider experience all along the corridor.

We have to question the notion that we cannot electrify until the 4 tracks are done. While we believe that Caltrain/HSR staff should do full diligence not to place any electric substation in areas that would be used for track expansions, much of the infrastructure could easily be relocated and reused. The plan already assumes that Caltrain service would be maintained throughout construction, which adds cost because of temporary tracks and stations. Continued service, is of course, a necessity for Caltrain commuters; there’s no viable substitute for Caltrain.

If we were to delay electrification, how should we address the operating needs, as most of the rolling stock will have to be replaced in a few years? Already Caltrain riders are suffering delays and system meltdowns because of mechanical problems. If all the funding is in-line as HSRA and Caltrain hope, electrification should be at least be done concurrently with track expansions and grade separation, rather than after.

1997 was the year when it was almost killed, and 1998 was when then-SF mayor Willie Brown backed away from his sharp rhetoric that the Caltrain extension needed to be killed that made headlines in 1997. I wouldn’t tell the story that it was almost killed in one specific year; it was barely alive during the mid-90s, and others might describe other points in its history when it was almost killed. But if there was any one year when it was closest to being killed, that year was 1997.

During the mid-90s, prior to Willie Brown’s harsh position in 1997, the project to extend the Caltrain line to the TT or alternative locations was under study, while the JPB, especially its staff and general manager Jerry Haugh, showed only weak interest in the project moving forward. Support for it was weak as well with the city/county of San Francisco, while so much political muscle was behind the BART-SFO extension, especially from Quentin Kopp, chair of the Senate Transportation Committee; and as you remember, Kopp also opposed the Caltrain DTX.

It was clear to us that the BART extension would be a failure in terms of ridership, especially if the DTX were built, or even if Caltrain continued to provide service north of where the two lines connected near the airport. All of these considerations pointed to the likely demise of the planned Caltrain DTX.

In June 1998 however, the SF League of Conservation Voters began their efforts to qualify for the ballot the initiative that would become Prop. H in November 1999. We did obtain a well over half of the signatures needed to qualify for the Nov. 1998 ballot by the deadline, and then SFLCV attempted to place it on that same ballot through the Board of Supervisors. At that time (two years before district elections were reinstated), nearly all the supes were loyal to Willie Brown.

Then Brown himself, in a political move related to a dispute with MTC over the alignment of the new Bay Bridge east span, placed on the Nov. 1998 ballot an advisory initiative calling for the return of rail service on the Bay Bridge. This was in conjunction with the cities of Emeryville, Oakland and Berkeley. This was instigated by then-mayor of Emeryville Ken Bukowski. All four cities passed similar advisory initiatives by wide margins in November 1998. Implicit in Brown’s involvement with this was a reversal of his position against tearing down the TT, almost completely unnoticed by the public after his very outspoken opposition to the Caltrain DTX the previous year.

“Coincidentally” around that time, the ownership of properties adjacent to the Terminal changed hands. They were acquired by a new owner who, unlike the previous owners, KSW Properties and Fritzi Realty, supported (or at least were not against) plans to rebuild the TT. KSW Properties and Fritzi Realty had owned the parcels since the 1970 fully expecting that BART meant the demise of transbay bus service and the Terminal as well.

The last bus (AC Transit O line) departs from the old Transbay Terminal about 15 minutes after midnight on August 7.

The Muni announcement is a positive sign that with commitment and effort, the Bay Area can keep public transit infrastructure running in economically difficult times. Another potential lesson for Caltrain supporters is the operating efficiencies that Muni was able to find. This fall, Caltrain’s operating contract with Amtrak is up for rebidding, and there may be opportunities for savings as part of a new contract.

For more details about the Muni funding restoration, see coverage in Streetsblog and the San Francisco Chronicle/

Proposals to be considered:

• Suspend all weekend service
• Reduce weekday early morning, midday and/or late evening service
• Suspend service south of Tamien station to Gilroy
• Discontinue staffed ticket offices
• Increase the full fare one way base or zone fares by 25 cents, with corresponding changes to related fare media
• Increase Go Pass prices to $155
• Modify parking fees and regulations
• Revise fare policies to match with Clipper card policies, as Caltrain is mandated by MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) to eliminate multi-ride paper tickets/passes and offer those for Clipper cards only.
  • Discontinue monthly pass grace period
  • 8-ride tickets only be used by one rider only
  • Youth means 17 years old or under

The drop in meetings will be held at three locations from 6:00pm to 7:00pm on August 19:

• SF Caltrain Station
• SamTrans building in San Carlos (1250 San Carlos Avenue) – one block away from San Carlos Station
• San Jose Diridon Station

A drop in meeting will also be held at Gilroy Station between 5:30pm and 7:47pm to meet with all train arrivals.

As reported previously, many of those service reduction ideas won’t save much money, especially on weekend service where there’s a higher percentage of riders buying one way tickets and day passes.

If you live in Santa Clara County, it is important to note that VTA subsidizes Caltrain at less than $16 million last year and less than $15 million this year. In comparison, the proposed BART line from Berryessa Flea Market (which is totally funded by VTA) to the Alameda county line would receive more than twice of that amount (about $35-37 million) for operation from a VTA sales tax. The Berryessa line would only be less than 7 miles yet Caltrain runs 17 miles from Palo Alto to San Jose and another 30 miles from San Jose to Gilroy. Consider how much more service Caltrain can provide if VTA (along with SamTrans and Muni) were to contribute as much as it plans to subsidize a BART line. Gilroy and Morgan Hill riders need to demand VTA to treat South County riders more equally, and that VTA should not pursing expanding one rail system in northern part of the county and cutting service on another system serving the southern part of the county.

Regardless of where you live, please demand your JPB representative and your local transit agency to support Caltrain, and that a well funded Caltrain system would help improve ridership on local transit systems as well.

Whether you’re able to attend the meetings, you can send an email to changes@caltrain.com (also CC us at caltrainchange@bayrailalliance.org). You can also attend the JPB meeting on September 2 at 10am (See event calendar for details). If you have any new ideas to increase ridership (and revenue) and cut expenses for Caltrain, please let us and Caltrain know.

On August 7, 2010, the old Transbay Terminal will be closed and torn down after seven decades of operation. The old terminal will eventually be replaced by a modern facility that will accommodate the future extension of Caltrain and High Speed Rail. When the Terminal was opened in 1939, it was served by the Key System interurban trains from the East Bay and Sacramento Northern rail trains from as far as  Chico. In 1958, rail service was discontinued at the Transbay Terminal and the Key System rail system became what is today’s AC Transit Transbay bus network.

After BART began Transbay service in 1974, there were many suggestions to remove the Transbay Terminal to make room for additional office developments. However, the initial founders of Peninsula Rail 2000 (today’s BayRail Alliance) believed that the Transbay Terminal could still be an important transit asset. The founders of the group specifically included the extension of commuter rail service from 4th & King as a part of the plan to preserve and modernize Caltrain.

For the following two decades, the plan to extend Caltrain to the Transbay Terminal was studied numerous times (some of the documents are available at the BayRail’s transit library). The plan was almost killed in 1998 (when Muni Metro service to Caltrain began and when MTC and SamTrans were pushing to extend BART to SFO) but was revived after voters overwhelmingly approved a measure supporting the project a year later. In 2001, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority was created to oversee the planning and construction of the project. Since then, TJPA and BayRail fought battles to obtain the right of way and get the EIR approved. BayRail Alliance is proud to see the project finally becoming reality.

After the closure of the old terminal, all buses will stop at the ground-level temporary terminal at Howard and Main streets for the next 7 years while the new terminal is being constructed.

Hourly guided tours of the old terminal will be provided on Friday, July 30th. The tours will meet at the ground floor entrance at 1st & Mission streets.
Tour I: 12 noon
Tour II: 1 pm
Tour III: 2 pm
Tour IV : 3 pm
Tour V : 4 pm

In addition, an open-house event will be held at the temporary terminal on August 3rd from 4pm to 7pm.

The Peninsula Cities Coalition is hosting a meeting this Friday, July 23, in Belmont. This meeting provides an important opportunity for riders to speak up about how critical it is for Caltrain and High Speed Rail to work together to serve riders. Details about the meeting are below.

Compatibility issues

In summary, the three main potential problems for the systems working together are track sharing, platform heights, and signal systems

Track sharing. California High Speed Rail Authority is assuming a separated corridor along the Caltrain right of way, according to the Alternatives Analysis. To visualize this, imagine two HSR tracks and two Caltrain tracks running side by side but there would be limited access from one system to another. This means it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Baby Bullet Caltrain trains to pass local trains or trains on either system to pass disabled trains. With the split corridor, station facilities would also be separate.

Platform heights Another potential difficulty in sharing stations is that Caltrain is planning on using equipment with a different door height than the HSR equipment. This means even if the tracks and stations were shared, the platforms could not accommodate both Caltrain and HSR since the platforms will be at different heights. While this will create rider inconvenience along the peninsula, the Transbay Terminal is affected the most by this discrepancy. Currently, Caltrain terminates at 4th and King streets in San Francisco which is about 1 mile from the job rich financial district. In multiple studies, local governments have concluded that a downtown Transbay Terminal terminus for Caltrain is essential to grow Caltrain ridership. Despite the $4 billion cost of the Transbay Terminal, platform compatibility issues mean half of all Caltrain trains will continue to terminate at 4th and King.

At the meeting, Mark Simon danced around the issue of sharing tracks and stations, saying that he hopes for a phased implementation plan, with Caltrain electrification first, and working out the track sharing later.

Signal systems. The two agencies are planning on using different signal systems. Caltrain is planning to build a custom-developed system, which is still on the drawing board. Simon assured the audience at the meeting that Caltrain’s new system will be built to be compatible with the HSR system, and if there are incompatibilities, it will be easy to retrofit. It’s hard to evaluate the claim, since the new system is still being designed and does not have published specifications, or whether the custom system will be able to be modified cheaply.

The California for High Speed Rail Blog provides an in-depth analysis of the technical compatibility issues. Readers interested in more detail are highly encouraged to read this analysis.

Challenges working together. Simon talked openly about tensions between the agencies so far. Discussing differences in approach, Simon observed that “Caltrain isn’t giving up and owns the right of way – we still have the trump card,” though he expressed hope that new management at the High Speed Rail Authority would be more collaborative. This language indicates that the combination of Caltrain and High Speed Rail is seen as a zero sum game. But if the agencies are competing with each other, riders and taxpayers lose. Riders don’t care who wins the arguments, we want to have a system that works together smoothly.

Solving the compatibility problems
An alternative to the shared but separate corridor currently proposed by the High Speed Rail Authority and a submissive Caltrain is a true shared corridor. Caltrain would order new electrified trains that are compatible with high speed trains so platforms can be shared. The signaling system would be shared. With compatible platform heights, Caltrain could preserve express and local service with cross-platform transfers between the two. Everyone wins in this scenario.

There are many technical details that need to be worked out for interoperability. The California High Speed Rail Blog offers one detailed proposal for how this interoperability might occur. For riders and taxpayers, the important thing is that the two systems work well together, so riders can have schedule choices and convenient trips. And so taxpayer money won’t be wasted ripping up and rebuilding systems that weren’t built to work together the first time.

Californians on the Peninsula will need to live and work with this train system for decades. There is no excuse for territorial squabbling resulting in a system that doesn’t work well for riders.

Tell Caltrain and High Speed Rail to work together
The Peninsula Cities Coalition is hosting a meeting this coming Friday, focusing on interoperability between Caltrain and High Speed Rail. Californians for High Speed Rail will present their analysis of the issues. The meeting is expected to have representatives from Caltrain and the High Speed Rail Authority.

Please come to the Friday meeting and tell Caltrain and HSR that they need to cooperate to make the trains work together for riders.

Friday, July 23, 8:15am
One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont

Last week, San Mateo County’s congestion management agency – C/CAG (City/County Association of Governments), approved the same fee on the ballot in San Mateo County. For the San Mateo County’s ballot measure, half of the funds would go directly to cities for local streets and roads, and the other half would fund county-wide programs including SamTrans and Caltrain. Although the funds generated from the fee is not large (about $6 million per year), it would be a partial solution to the funding problem at SamTrans and Caltrain. Each train between SF and San Jose reflects about $100,000 in Caltrain’s budget, so using some of these funds to support Caltrain will keep a noticeable amount of service.

Currently SFCTA is not planning to use any of the license fee revenue for transit operations. While half of the revenue would fund street repair and reconstruction, the rest would be split among pedestrian programs and “transit reliability” improvements.

According to the staff memo regarding the fee, there was a discussion about whether to use some of the money for Caltrain:

“The issue of whether or not to commit a portion of the revenues to support transit operations has been raised throughout the Expenditure Plan development process.  Two members of the stakeholder advisory panel in particular felt strongly that San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties should commit all or part of  their respective SB 83 revenues to support and preserve Caltrain service, given its current budget crisis.  The CAC subcommittee and other members of the stakeholder advisory panel felt that Caltrain’s and the MTA’s operations needs are too large to be a good fit for this small fund source.  They also recognized that since the revenues will not likely be available until mid-2012, this would not be a solution for filling budget shortfalls during the current or next fiscal years.  Several members of both committees also felt that the approach to resolving Caltrain needed to be a regional one given the governance structure that includes San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.”

While a longer term solution needs to be found, SFCTA should take an active role in solving Caltrain’s funding crisis. SFCTA already funds various Caltrain capital projects with its Proposition K sales tax. It makes sense for SFCTA to support the continuation of Caltrain service.

If you can make it, please attend this meeting, and leave a message in comments.

July 20, 11am
San Francisco City Hall, Room 250

If you are unable to make to the meeting, please send a note to the SFCTA board encouraging them to use the $10 DMV fee to support continuing Caltrain service.

The board members are the SF Supervisors.
Michela.Alioto-Pier@sfgov.org
John.Avalos@sfgov.org
David.Campos@sfgov.org
David.Chiu@sfgov.org
Carmen.Chu@sfgov.org
Chris.Daly@sfgov.org
Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org
Sean.Elsbernd@sfgov.org
Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org
Sophie.Maxwell@sfgov.org
Ross.Mirkarimi@sfgov.org

And copy your letter to the SFTA clerk, erika@sfcta.org

Thanks for supporting Caltrain and Bay Area transit!

This Thursday July 8, the CCAG (County/City Association of Governments) will be reviewing the content of the ballot proposal – including whether transit will be in the mix for the proposed use of funds. The draft spending plan calls for half of the money to be spent on local roads and half for county programs including funding Caltrain and SamTrans. The spending on local roads could be used to support local feeder shuttles. The proposal has been polling well – your input will influence whether it will be used to fund transit, not just roads.

If you can, please attend C/CAG meeting and ask the board to support the $10 fee, and to ensure that funds from the measure to be targeted at transit.

Time: 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Location: 2nd Floor Auditorium
San Mateo County Transit District
1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos

If you can’t make the meeting, please write or call:

Richard Napier
Executive Director
rnapier@co.sanmateo.ca.us
650-599-1420

Staff proposed potential service cuts for FY2011, including eliminating Gilroy service, cutting early morning and mid-day trains, and closing ticket agent offices in San Francisco and San Jose.   Board members said they were looking for the highest net benefit from the cuts.  The board was more apprehensive and hesitant when they discussed potentially eliminating the midday, weekend, and early morning/late evening service.  As this analysis in Streetsblog shows, cutting these services doesn’t save very much money compared to the elimination of Gilroy service.

Decisions will be made in September, and final changes will go into effect in January.  There will be opportunities for public comment between now and September. The Joint Powers Board will be holding a public hearing on September 2nd at 10AM. Between now and then, they will be conducting meetings in the three counties during the evening but dates have not yet been set for these meetings.   Board members typically do not attend the meetings, but staff members do, and the board almost always takes staff recommendations.

Outlook for FY 2012 – Cloudy
The board and staff also mentioned FY2012 will be much, much worse. If SamTrans goes forward with the plan to eliminate operating funding to Caltrain (and subsequently trigger funding cut from Muni and VTA), Caltrain will likely face a $30 million deficit which would force much more drastic changes.  There are also several variables that could change the FY 2012 budget picture.  There will be a $10 vehicle registration fee on the ballot in San Mateo County to pay for roads and transit.   In addition, the Amtrak staffing contract is up for renewal, and competitive bidding or renegotiation could affect labor costs.

How to help keep Caltrain service
Right now, the most important thing to do is to share your thoughts on service cuts with the SamTrans and JPB board. Cutting service hours during the week makes Caltrain less convenient, and that means less people will use it, leading to less ridership overall. Cutting service to Gilroy hurts, but there are relatively few Gilroy riders, so it is less damaging.

Please send an email message to the JPB board at martinezm@samtrans.com and mention that you want the email be sent to the SamTrans boardmembers.

There is SamTrans board meeting on July 14, next week Wednesday. Please attend if you can, and leave a comment if you can attend. There will be additional public comment meetings with dates to be announced later.

Meanwhile, it is important to support longer-term sources of funding for Caltrain and for transit.  We’ll cover these issues in upcoming posts.

Be sure to follow our Twitter, Facebook, and blog for the times and locations of the three upcoming public meetings.

Reporting from Jarrett Mullen and Pat Giorni