SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[tech12]

^having all the commuter rail in the region all be under the same control would be pretty cool.

And I like those new BART cars. I was never a fan of the pointy nose cars honestly (just on aesthetics, that's all), so I'm glad that it looks like we won't be getting new ones like that. And the lack of cloth seats or carpets will be much better.

[ozone]

I am old enough to remember when BART was new. As a kid the train cars were very space-agey, clean and classy -especially compared to the trains I rode when I visited family back East. Today they are tired, tattered and dirty and are long overdue for an upgrade but give them respect - they were the best back in the day.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by tech12

^having all the commuter rail in the region all be under the same control would be pretty cool.

Doesn't even have to be the same control. It just needs to be a unified brand, with unified paint schemes, logos, and signage (and of course universal acceptance of Clipper and universal tickets).

[peanut gallery]

Cool video, fflint, thanks for posting that. I like the illumination around the doors when they open and the continuous wall of windows on each side with the maps and ads above on concepts B and C. I hope they go that route.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Doesn't even have to be the same control. It just needs to be a unified brand, with unified paint schemes, logos, and signage (and of course universal acceptance of Clipper and universal tickets).

Yeah that's what I was thinking. I guess I just assumed that if they had the same livery/logos/signage/etc, that it would mean it's now all the same system...as in, all "under the same control". It would pretty much be a merger of three different systems into one, right? Or am I missing something about how that could work?

[ardecila]

Not exactly. You just need the three agencies (Caltrain, SJRRC, Amtrak California) to agree on a common paint scheme, install Clipper machines, and do some sort of basic accounting where the revenue from a Capitol Corridor ticket purchased at a Caltrain station gets transferred from Caltrain to Amtrak.

It's a lot easier than actually merging the agencies, because then you'd have to sort out all the thorny political control issues, figure out how to combine different sources of funding, and generally deal with all sorts of really touchy, sensitive issues like eliminating redundant staff. It would be great for Bay Area taxpayers but it's not realistic, unless the governor or legislature were to push for it.

From the customer's perspective, all he cares about is how easy it is to get from Point A to Point B, not who's running the trains or how they're funded. If Point A is Palo Alto and Point B is Fremont, then all he cares about is a single ticket to make the journey and a quick, easy transfer at Diridon or Santa Clara.

[Gordo]

I can't imagine that there's really much need to combine the customer experience for those three lines - there just isn't much reason to use two on a given day (even if ACE expanded service dramatically and a second track was built for Capitol Corridor to have more than a handful of SJ trains).

Now...I could see the point if a Dumbarton crossing ever came to fruition.

Under current operating realities, it would make much more sense to brand Caltrain and BART together - much more existing and potential interchange, since both serve different areas but at reasonably similar frequencies.

[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.

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.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Cool video, fflint, thanks for posting that. I like the illumination around the doors when they open and the continuous wall of windows on each side with the maps and ads above on concepts B and C. I hope they go that route.

I think I like concept B the most... though maybe others might be able to point out better aspects of concepts A and C. I liked the middle section in concept B, with longitudinal seating near the middle doors, which in turn opens up the aisle a little more for easy flow of people in & out. And for people still wishing to sit facing forward/backwards & enjoy the view out the windows when above ground, there are a number of seats in this layout at the front & back of the car (as well as one row inserted between the longitudinal seating). Plus it seems to offer a little more standing room.

[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?