The Ups and Downs of Caltrain

With the recent news about Caltrain, I have an opportunity to connect some dots - or at least try to connect some dots since they don't all fit very well.  First we have the news that Caltrain ridership is down again.  Mid-week ridership dropped for the sixth straight month and is down 2.3% this year compared to last year or down about 1500 boarding per week.  In Monday's Daily Post our County supe, Dave Pine, was quoted as saying overcrowding maybe one factor.  Sort of like Yogi Berra's old saw "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

Some other factors are a shortage of shuttle drivers for the last-mile connections to business parks and medical centers, the increase in pass prices, the wet winter, and according to Caltrain COO Michelle Bouchard "overall economic cooling"!  Doesn't feel cooler out there to me.  The second dot is the planning for capacity increases.  Last Friday, the Daily Journal had a piece that you might be able to link to here if you haven't used up your free allotment for the month.  The basic question is how many trains to add, how many stops to add with those additional trains and where might four tracks be needed to accommodate the increased frequency?  The transit agency has been studying three scenarios for growth - "moderate", "baseline" and "high".  High-growth equates to 2.5 to 3.25 times the recent mid-week ridership and would require more expresses and a local stopping every 15 minutes along the route--which in turn drives the need for four tracks.  You have to wonder how Caltrain would pull off even modest lengths of four-track given the new housing developments immediately next to the right of way?  We've seen it in San Mateo and San Carlos and there are more on the way.

The "moderate" scenario in Caltrain's 2040 vision would actually trim stops at the downtown San Mateo station from 70 to 58 while the baseline would drive 116 stops.  The high-growth would need 196 stops and a number of grade separations to keep from completely snarling car traffic on the Peninsula- including ambulance, police and fire trucks.  That's a lot of money that doesn't exist right now meaning that dot is hard to connect.  And of course we have the specter of High-cost Rail running on the Peninsula.  Money continues to be burned on high-speed rail planning even though there is no real plan to get through the mountains in either Northern or Southern California.  The current thinking is that no new passing tracks would be needed on the Peninsula for HSR, but the confluence of moving parts makes that a tenuous decision at best.  The hand-waving in today's Daily Journal piece was impressive.  I think it's safe to say neither the local cities nor the County nor the State have a clue how train service will accommodate the needs of growth on the Peninsula.  The dots are disconnected.

Comments

[Choo Choo]

Boardings is the way to get the raw data. You probably need to divide that by 2.1 or 2.2 to get round trips as some people use Uber on the return when it is late or the train is inconvenient. The drop in ridership is a real concern and all of the causes noted are real. They are also a fact of life that is hard to solve. I cannot see any path to Caltrain serving three times as many customers as they do now. If the board can do no harm that would be the best we can expect.