SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by fflint

As for BART and Caltrain, I disagree they have similar frequencies--maybe they're closer at the height of rush hour, but the rest of the time BART runs with much higher frequencies and longer hours. The difference is greatest at night and on weekends: for example, the last northbound Caltrain Sunday night leaves San Jose at 9:00pm, while the last BART train heads north from Fremont at midnight.

Sure, I just meant that Caltrain is closer to BART frequencies than it is to the frequencies of ACE or Capitol Corridor to SJ (where the three might have crossover riders). Capitol Corridor from Oakland to Sac is pretty close to Caltrain frequencies.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by fflint

Capitol Corridor is different from Caltrain and ACE, being both a commuter railroad and an inter-urban. Ditto for the San Joaquins. It would be weird to have Bay Area livery rolling through Sacramento or Bakersfield. Ultimately, the paint jobs and names don't matter as much as easy connectivity, a clear and unified regional transit map, and adoption of Clipper Cards for all systems. The SPUR piece posted earlier in this thread does a great job identifying what would really matter to riders.

So then you make it a NorCal livery instead of a Bay Area one. The point is that it's easy for riders to understand. In Germany, virtually all commuter rail runs under the DB livery for the whole country. Ditto in France for SNCF or Italy for FS.

You're right that fare integration is more important than paint, but paint is easier.

[CyberEric]

I fully support SPUR and really hope that something comes of this.

[M II A II R II K]

When fair integration is at play and you just get on and off and transfer, no one cares that each route may be run by a different company, or if they're loosely affiliated with some regional organization or something. At least for the convenience of the riders, efficient management is another story.

[Gordo]

I guess my main reasoning against it for a combined Caltrain/ACE/Capitol Corridor branding is that I don't want people associating Caltrain with "commuter rail," especially as electrification (and hopefully increased frequency) come to make it more and more like a metro or RER-type deal.

Some of the best branding that Caltrain ever did was to use the term "baby bullet," even though there was nothing special or bullet-trainish about the locomotives used for that. I don't know how many times I've talked with people who have a positive association with Caltrain, but think of Capitol Corridor or ACE as slow and dirty. I don't know how you fix that, but I'm leery that tying it with Caltrain would do that rather than vice versa.

[ardecila]

Okay. It can all be called Caltrain.

I can see the negative perceptions about ACE - it runs at a relatively pitiful service level. But Capitol Corridor is frequent and efficiently run, with at least hourly trains.

From my perspective, it just seems weird to use all these arbitrary names to describe services that are very similar and need to integrate. Even Amtrak's weird attachment to the train names from the ye olde railroads of yesteryear is kinda weird. I guess maybe for long-distance trains where people are taking them for the experience, but does the Chicago-Milwaukee train really need a cutesy name?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I guess maybe for long-distance trains where people are taking them for the experience, but does the Chicago-Milwaukee train really need a cutesy name?

Yes, it does. It's subsidized by Wisconsin. Even NEC regional trains that are subsidized by the various states have cutesy names. Just a few examples: Keystones, Empires, Vermonters, Downeasters, Pennsylvania, Carolina, and Piedmonts.
Get rid of the cutesy names = lose state subsidies.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by ardecila

From my perspective, it just seems weird to use all these arbitrary names to describe services that are very similar and need to integrate.

How is it the different commuter/inter-urban railroads "need to integrate"? Even though it is unlikely, I can see the potential public benefit of integrating systems we know see many transfers--BART to Muni, BART to AC Transit, Caltrain to Muni, Caltrain to VTA, etc. But because of the physical setup of the commuter/inter-urban railroads, I suspect very few people transfer between Caltrain, the Capitol Corridor, ACE and the San Joaquins--I don't see how integrating them meets a pressing 'need.'

Even Amtrak's weird attachment to the train names from the ye olde railroads of yesteryear is kinda weird. I guess maybe for long-distance trains where people are taking them for the experience, but does the Chicago-Milwaukee train really need a cutesy name?

Well, Amtrak California named the Capitol Corridor in 1991, when service commenced, because it travels to and from the capital city. The new railroad had to be called something, and I don't see how a name descriptive of the route is a bad thing.

[fflint]

MTC approves Caltrain electrification plan
Michael Cabanatuan
sfgate.com
Thursday, March 29, 2012

Regional transportation officials approved an agreement Wednesday to work with the High-Speed Rail Authority to electrify Caltrain, transforming the 149-year-old commuter line into a modern railroad capable of carrying more riders and accommodating high-speed trains.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved the regional pact, which outlines a $1.5 billion plan to electrify Caltrain, install an advanced train-control system, and replace its fleet of rail cars using a combination of high-speed rail bond money and local, regional and state transportation funds.

The work could be done before 2019, said Caltrain Chief Executive Officer Michael Scanlon.
....
Caltrain officials say the improvements could eventually allow trains to travel up to 110 mph, but they would continue to operate at speeds up to 79 mph at first. However, electric-powered trains can start, accelerate and stop faster, allowing Caltrain to shorten travel time or add stops and pick up more passengers. Scanlon said electrification would cut the railroad's operating costs in half by eliminating the purchase of 4.5 million gallons of diesel fuel a year and replace it with far cheaper and greener electricity.
....

[fflint]

The San Jose Mercury News article on Caltrain electrification provides a Bay Area CAHSR map with potential stations, and notes that with electrification, "six Caltrains would run each hour." That's for each direction, meaning passengers would never wait longer than ten minutes during hours of operation. That is basically metro-level service and is certainly comparable to BART service in outlying areas. CAHSR would, the article states, likely run two to four trains an hour in each direction as well.

The Penninsula rail corridor may or may not eventually offer BART's long hours and frequent night/weekend service, but for much of the weekday, passengers will be able to just show up on the platform and board a train in a very manageable, short span of time. The combined CAHSR/Caltrain corridor may even beat out BART's service frequency on the outer lines, at least for much of the day.

[ltsmotorsport]

Why does the peninsula still have stations for HSR? Wouldn't their service improvements through Caltrain be enough for them?

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

Why does the peninsula still have stations for HSR? Wouldn't their service improvements through Caltrain be enough for them?

No kidding.
Redwood City?
Mountain View?

Can we build a stop at my friend's house in San Mateo?
There's a liquor store that I like to pick up lottery tickets in South San Francisco, can we have a stop there too?

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by fflint

The San Jose Mercury News article on Caltrain electrification provides a Bay Area CAHSR map with potential stations, and notes that with electrification, "six Caltrains would run each hour." That's for each direction, meaning passengers would never wait longer than ten minutes during hours of operation.

Very nice. I made the mistake of taking CalTrain one time from South San Francisco to my home in SF. It took me 3 hours to get home. It's a 15 minute drive.

[fflint]

I'm not lobbying for any Penninsula station, let's make that clear.

Redwood City is probably a possible station because it is the San Mateo County seat. Palo Alto is about halfway up the corridor, has Stanford, and IMO the most lively and consistently pedestrianized downtown on the Penninsula. I have no idea why Mountain View would be a possible HSR station--I mean, its a very busy Caltrain station and has TOD, but I don't think it's any more urban or lively or transit-oriented than downtown San Mateo. Anyway, Burlingame has SFO so that one makes sense.

[Gordo]

Unless something has changed, the plan is this:

1. SFO airport station
2. One other station, of which the possibilities are Palo Alto, Redwood City, or Mountain View.

Palo Alto is the clear best choice, but also ground zero for the anti-HSR movement.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Very nice. I made the mistake of taking CalTrain one time from South San Francisco to my home in SF. It took me 3 hours to get home. It's a 15 minute drive.

How did this happen? I can honestly say that I've never ridden Caltrain where it wasn't on schedule, give or take five minutes (and I've ridden hundreds of times). Was there some kind of wreck or something?

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by Gordo

How did this happen? I can honestly say that I've never ridden Caltrain where it wasn't on schedule, give or take five minutes (and I've ridden hundreds of times). Was there some kind of wreck or something?

Well, I missed the train by a few minutes. So I had to wait for about an hour for the next train to come. It took about 20 minutes until I departed the train in SF. Then I had to board 2 MUNI buses, the 30 Stockton and the 1 California. By the time I got home 3 hours had passed. That's MUNI for ya.

I didn't verify any type of schedule before going to the station, but I think that public transit works best if you just show up at whatever moment and a train/ bus arrives in 5- 10 minutes, at the latest. People shouldn't have to coordinate their schedules around catching a once an hour train.

[peanut gallery]

SFO certainly makes sense. For one thing, there's already infrastructure and service in place for people arriving from a distance with nothing but luggage. As for the other three options, Palo Alto has to be the place to stop for the reasons fflint mentioned. Plus, I think it would be a fairly popular destination. The others will be well served by CalTrain -- which I am incredibly excited about.

[M II A II R II K]

Originally Posted by fflint

The Penninsula rail corridor may or may not eventually offer BART's long hours and frequent night/weekend service, but for much of the weekday, passengers will be able to just show up on the platform and board a train in a very manageable, short span of time. The combined CAHSR/Caltrain corridor may even beat out BART's service frequency on the outer lines, at least for much of the day.

They could run the double decker trains every hour off peak and provide express service and run an ALRT along it every hour for local service and even add more stations along the route once it's electrified.

Plus every 10 minutes the double deckers would probably be more than half empty which is a waste of running a big train like that.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Plus every 10 minutes the double deckers would probably be more than half empty which is a waste of running a big train like that.

Why do you think trains will be half-empty once the system is electrified in 2019? Caltrain ridership has grown tremendously as the trains rolled faster and more often. Average daily ridership increased from 27,191 in 2002 to 41,442 in 2012 due to the introduction and expansion of Baby Bullet and express service. Why would you assume even faster trains running even more often would fail to grow ridership in a similar fashion?