Caltrain Ridership Up Again

The Daily Journal has a rewrite of a Caltrain staff report that shows some financial improvement

Caltrain ridership is up this year, bringing a mixed bag of increased fare box revenue as well as overcrowded train cars.

As of January, average weekly ridership increased 3.2 percent to 57,018 from January 2017, which saw 55,271. Total fare box revenue is up 13.7 percent over that period, from $6.9 million to $7.9 million, according to a staff report.  While Caltrain ridership is up, its shuttle ridership is down 9.4 percent this year from 8,848 to 8,018 average rides, despite increased demand.

That's all well and good, but here is the kicker--we appear to be five years and more construction away from any increase in capacity!

To provide relief for packed trains, Lieberman said the goal is to increase the frequency of service by running an extra train during peak hours once electrification occurs in 2022. He also said the transit agency hopes to convert its future electric fleet to eight-car trains, which could improve seated capacity by 21 percent. For that to happen, station platforms would have to be extended to accommodate the longer trains, and both improvements would depend on additional grant funding.

 Expect the seats to get more scarce when the Giants return from Phoenix to start the season.

Comments

[J. Mir]

Some of that increase is due to the d.Tech school ridership. They do not allow students, even juniors and seniors with licenses, to park on-campus. When they shifted to Oracle this spring they continued that policy, to the point of adding a bunch of shuttle buses to/from Caltrain. So basically, these poor kids are riding the train because they have no choice.

[Jennifer]

"A Bold, Divisive Plan to Wean Californians From Cars" NYTimes
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/business/energy-environment/climate-density.html
All I can say is that Mr. Wiener and the others who espouse these draconian methods continue to show how ignorant they are in the area of public transportation outside of large cities. I lived in Europe long enough to know that taking public transportation is frequently a CHOICE. And people make that Choice, not only because gas is expensive, but because public transportation is good, safe, relatively inexpensive AND there is a complete network of it all over the landscape, including to communities smaller than ours.

We don't adequately fund public transportation of any kind except minimally in large cities, so why is anyone surprised that many put up with the gridlock in their cars, just to avoid the painful and aggravating attempts at being good, eco friendly citizens like we're supposed to be in the Bay Area.

This whole premise doesn't work. If thousands of apartments were built all over Burlingame as appears to be the plan (and by the way, the scope of this legislation is huge--within the 1/2 mile of the train or a bus on both sides of EL Camino, I'm thinking ballpark is about 2/3 of this city, alone), just where and what kind of public transportation do they think people on the Peninsula would use. There isn't anywhere near enough, there is no network, it is too infrequent, too expensive, and at least in some areas, increasingly less safe. And what about people who have their kids, pets (and their "stuff") groceries, etc. with them. Are they supposed to drag all this around-- what, on a bike? I think these people have truly lost their minds.

How about Mr. Wiener and his cohorts FIRST get funding in place for some REAL public transportation, that is widespread, and reasonably priced for the everyday person, and then they will see the change in behavior that they desire (and consequently, said development) , without partaking in these social engineering escapades. If we had decent transportation, then development would just happen organically where it should, and how it should.

But I guess it's much harder to crack that egg. 'So much easier and quicker to override cities' individual zoning and design policies and let them deal with the transportation and other service and infrastructure deficits on their own.

And the premise that building more, will result in decreased rents?!? Has he ever been to Paris, or Munich or even looked at what has happened in SF?? All those units for decades (centuries), and I don't think it's made any difference. People WANT to live in nice places, not cruddy ones. But maybe that is the plan afterall, to make the Peninsula "cruddy" by taking away our local power.

This is just so silly, all around. Shame on them.