Caltrain is very convenient. However, it just too expensive as a daily commuter. It currently costs $16.50 per day to travel to San Francisco and back (but Caltrain has proposed to raise prices yet again).

I'm trying to compare it with other regional transportation systems. Thus far, Caltrain costs more to ride than every regional transportation system that I've looked at in this country. Moreover, Caltrain doesn't have the benefit of being part of the same regional mass transit corporation.

I would have hoped that electrification would lower the costs. However, I suspect that -- if anything -- costs will rise yet again. It will primarily become the regional transit system for those with the means to pay for it.

Caltrain at present is probably not a very utilized form of commuting. But it must be said that when things get back to normal traffic and commute, it will be very necessary not only for those who use it, but for anyone commuting north/south by other means to keep those other routes from getting more impacted.

I know several people who commute in regular times by Caltrain, very few of them go more than a few stops.

There are many employers who give incentives to employees who commute by Caltrain, including the City of Palo Alto.

SU has been building up it's RWC campus on the basis that people could go back and forth easily to PA. Google is also building up a presence in the Seaport Business complex. All part of RWC working on developing a ferry service up to SF as well as the Dumbarton crossing. All of which connect to Caltrain. You need to include these stakeholders in Caltrain to help offset costs.

@Resident (of Another Palo Alto neighborhood)

Things are never going to get back to normal for Caltrain.

The pandemic has changed everything. People understand germ theory better than Caltrain management and are avoiding Caltrain like the plague. Even if we find a Covid-19 vaccine or develop herd immunity Caltrain is ill-adapted and totally unprepared for the next pandemic.

Caltrain ridership is down 95-97%. Most of the people who used to ride Caltrain have already purchased an automobile and have become accustomed to the convenience, utility, and safety they offer. Many others have discovered tele-work and no longer need Caltrain or an automobile to commute.

Postponing the Caltrain tax is not enough. We need emergency legislation to claw back the funds being wasted on this dead-end transportation technology. The recovered funds should be used to aid people who need help purchasing an automobile and to buy ride-share passes for people who are unable to drive.

"SU has been building up it's RWC campus on the basis that people could go back and forth easily to PA. Google is also building up a presence in the Seaport Business complex. All part of RWC working on developing a ferry service up to SF as well as the Dumbarton crossing. All of which connect to Caltrain. You need to include these stakeholders in Caltrain to help offset costs."

The problem is with the Stanford RWC campus and Seaport is that they're both nowhere near a Caltrain station.

And that's the big problem with Caltrain - the last mile problem. I've stated this again and again, but the peninsula is too spread out for Caltrain to really be an effective commuter train. It's designed to shuffle people to SF for work and back down south to go home. In that way, it's very much like NJTransit, which is designed to get people to their jobs in Manhattan and back home in New Jersey. But it's worse because parking is so crappy at the stations.

It does a terrible job for commuting to the peninsula or within the peninsula because it simply isn't designed to do that.

As long as we continue to be a suburban landscape, a fixed rail system will not work well unless we start building more density around each station. And I say this as a Caltrain rider who commuted to SF for work pre-pandemic. I'm fortunate to be walking distance to a Caltrain station, but most working people are not.

You can't be a residentalist and also support Caltrain. Just doesn't work.

RWC - the Caltrain station is at the RWC Sequoia Station Shopping Center. There is a new, huge SU apartment complex across the street from the shopping center. All that is required is a shuttle from the SU complex to the Sequoia station. That is only a couple of blocks. M2 - do you ever go up to RWC? As to the Seaport Business complex there are tracks that go from that location up to El Camino. Getting that track set up with a shuttle train is the perfect answer. It is all there. Go look. As we speak the Port is gearing up for it's new roles.

"RWC - the Caltrain station is at the RWC Sequoia Station Shopping Center. There is a new, huge SU apartment complex across the street from the shopping center. All that is required is a shuttle from the SU complex to the Sequoia station."

You know your transit system doesn't work when the private sector has to step up in this manner. I'm sure Stanford felt that road access was more important, which is why the campus itself is near 101.

"As to the Seaport Business complex there are tracks that go from that location up to El Camino. Getting that track set up with a shuttle train is the perfect answer. It is all there. Go look. As we speak the Port is gearing up for it's new roles."

Who's going to run that? I can make up imaginary solutions as well. Shuttle train? Seriously?

"M2 - do you ever go up to RWC?"

Yes. And more importantly, I have used quite a number of transit systems in the Bay Area and around the country. Commuting doesn't work well when more than two modes of transit are required. And the problem for the majority of folks, getting to Caltrain is already one mode as only a small minority of folks live near a Caltrain station, not to mention that VTA and Samtrans both provide terrible feeds to Caltrain stations.. Then hopping off Caltrain and getting on another mode of transit is another.

It's a fragile setup that pushes people to driving.

The reason Caltrain costs riders more is that the public subsidies are very small (less than 30%). By contrast, taxes pay for about 90% of VTA. So comparing passenger charges is comparing apples and oranges.

Also, pre-pandemic, Caltrsin ridership had roughly tripled since day the introduction of Baby Bullets. It is silly to say it is not well utilized. Compare it to VTA or Samtrans.

Caltrain Go Pass is less than $1 a day for unlimited rides.
Catch is need to join the right group and pay $342/year whether use it or not.

San Mateo County's exclusive control of Caltrain management appears to be the main sticking point for San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties. So wouldn't a good compromise be for San Mateo County to give up management of Caltrain and let San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties appoint a separate entity to manage the railroad under a joint operating powers agreement? In addition to solving the who-controls-the-railroad problem, positions on the joint operating board would also provide further job opportunities for termed-out members of the various city councils and county boards of supervisors. It's a win-win!

Further comment: What we are witnessing now is a hard-ball negotiation based on the Golden Rule: He/She who controls the gold, rules.

Posted by OldPA Resident, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> San Mateo County's exclusive control of Caltrain management appears to be the main sticking point for San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties.

San Francisco will do what it thinks is best for San Francisco, but, unfortunately, SF is too committed to (the very expensive) BART.

@musical - The Go Pass is a great option -- but one that is limited to big companies for which you must work. It isn't $342. Rather, it is at least $28,728 for an organization (or $342 per employee -- whichever is higher). So, for this to be viable, your organization needs at least 84 employee to hit the $342 sweet spot.

That is a fantastic option for big companies that have at least $28,728 to spend. Then, you'd only need company photo identification badge onto which the Caltrain Go Pass sticker can be applied. At that point, the business can determine what portion of the cost must be passed down to the organization.

Unfortunately, smaller companies or non-profits are not permitted to join another company for the purposes of securing a Go Pass. Instead, Caltrain urges them to use the "Commuter Check" system. That is a different system for employers. The Commuter Check system doesn't seem to save individuals much (if any) money anyway unless the employer is paying for it.

My point is that Caltrain is an expensive method of transit UNLESS you're enrolled in an employer program that funds your transit (such as the Go Pass). From everything that I've seen, its per capita costs are higher than any other regional transit system in America.

However, Caltrain's defenders point to how cost effective it is by adding things like parking costs, car maintenance, car insurance, gas, car payments, etc. In even the best case scenarios, the supposed savings aren't really realized by most commuters. More importantly, it doesn't take into account that most people own vehicles anyway -- so you'll be paying for insurance, regular maintenance and, of course, car payments anyway.

I'd love to see Caltrain's own internal supply-demand curve predictions. It seems like they have shifted higher...because they think (*or know) that they can. It just seems that -- if the goal is fewer cars on the road -- lower costs per person (or per company) would be the most viable option.

It should not cost more per trip for a normal Bay Area commuter (who wouldn't have to pay for parking at work) simply in order to use their transit system. Regional transit should be cheaper than the alternative (driving). This is just not the case for Caltrain.

Caltrain gets about 70% of its revenue from fares, one of the highest 'farebox-recovery' rates around, while most other transit agencies get less than 50% from fares. If Caltrain fares were reduced, the money would have to come from somewhere else, meaning local tax subsidies.

Many of the pros of Caltrain cannot be quantified by cost as much as it would make sense to do so.

One of the biggest pros has to be the time element. Getting to San Francisco or San Jose by car means time sitting in the vehicle, and if you are the driver, it is unproductive time. As a passenger you can sleep, work, catch up on social media, be entertained, read, I have even heard of one PhD student who did most of his studies on his 50 minute each way commute 5 days a week, listening to lectures or working on papers. These types of things cannot be quantified by money.

Saying that though of course, Caltrain has been its own worst enemy by not making benefits to users. We do not have off peak fares, family fares, free parking after 3 pm for evening activities, or other incentives to attract people to use them. Even signage is particularly poor for those who do not understand the system such as tourists and other visitors.

Having used public transport in so many other places in the world, I would put Caltrain in particular very low in being user friendly, along with BART, Muni, VTA and other local agencies.

Public transportation is definitely taking a hit now, but I am convinced that as traffic picks up, and I was stuck in traffic on 101 within the last week so it is increasing, that the requirements of a good transportation system for the Bay Area region is a necessity. Will it suit everyone every day? Probably not. But every single time someone uses it, the overall traffic volume to our roads benefits. And it is important to remember that all our food in our stores and restaurants, all our hospital workers, teachers (when there is in person school that is, dentist, that we expect to see at work in their office, needs to get there without being stuck in traffic so that we can avail of them when we need them. Every time an alternative to our highways is used, it means that someone else can get where we need them to be on time.

@WilliamR - This is where the demand curve would find the "sweet spot." It's the law of demand. As a public non-profit, the goal of Caltrain should be to provide the service at the lowest possible equilibrium price in order to break even.

If you lower prices, more people will ride.
If more people ride, Caltrain earns more money.
If Caltrain earns more money, it would make up the difference in the "70% of revenue from fares."

Web Link

@ Resident - Good points.

However, I'd also counter the major "pro" for commuting by Caltrain by saying that the time management aspect is good for people motivated by initiative.

This is true of people with employment responsibilities where the extra time can be used to that end. It can be used by students trying to finish an assignment or study for an exam. It can be for people who use that commute time to read or even nap (of which there are so many nappers on Caltrain).

Yet, there are many people who are only looking for transportation. They don't plan to work outside of the office. I have a suspicion that this is most riders (particularly those who aren't white collar employees). Then again, the cost of a Caltrain ticket might already be priced out of their reach for many such employees.

Also in regard to time management: Caltrain has designated stops. The commuter (who doesn't drive to a Caltrain parking lot) must also plan to walk from home to Caltrain and walk to the place of employment. If there is a 15 minute walk to Caltrain and a 15 minute walk to the place of employment, then that commuter has added an hour per day to their commute (albeit by foot). Even if a commuter drives to the parking lot, it still results in the vehicle time (and traffic).

On the other hand, Caltrain is a great option if it is paid for or subsidized by your employer AND you live near a station AND you would otherwise have to pay full-price for parking everyday where you work.

I still say that a reduced price per commute would increase the number of commuters. This would make up for any potential loss in revenue. I just hope that Caltrain considers this when they are finally electrified.

Now is a perfect time to shut down all Caltrain trains, and complete the electrification project. With empty tracks (with the exception of an occasional freight train), construction crews can work 24 x 7 to complete all tract related work. When this is done, start bringing in the electric test train, and eventually return Caltrain as a modern electrified service.

Carpe diem, seize the moment!

Fixed rail was a great invention - for the 19th and 20th centuries. We need to put money into the 21st century, not prop up costly outdated ideas. How about special lanes for autonomous-only vehicles, capable of very high speed bumper-to-bumper door-to-door driving? With no worries about human driver skills and rules compliance our transportation could be vastly higher speed and capacity. Build out would be easy - just blocked off highway lanes. Spaces needed would be vastly reduced because computers are much better at communicating and coordinating with each other. The 21st century future beckons.

OldPA,

The joint powers board you describe exists now. The executive director they chose happens to also be the head of Samtrans.

Our future, high-tech, interconnected world will be full of pandemics and self-driving cars and buses.

Packing sick people into tin cans on fixed rails and dropping them off miles from their destination is an idea whose time has passed. At this point, these things are being driven by political empire building and pork barrel politics, with no connection to citizens' actual needs.

Please work with RWC and the Port of RWC concerning any actions on Caltrain. The Seaport Business complex has tracks to bring people up to the Caltrain tracks. Fb is looking to subsidize the crossing on Dumbarton Bridge so the East Bay can cross and connect with Caltrain. The SURWC campus is connecting with the SUPA campus by train. A lot of planning has been done to tie the whole transportation systems together and if there is no train than that whole work is now obsolete. Every thing was coming together.
I am wondering if the San Francisco Center is resisting participation because of the electrification issue. That center has been having financial problems and maybe the electrification issue is an added cost for them. Since they are the sticking point here then some issue needs to be identified which is causing them problems.

Why can't we just pave over the tracks and exclusively run public buses on them with volume based on demand and routes people seek?

"Caltrain officials said the tax would raise $100 million annually for 30 years to keep the transit agency afloat. According to officials, $40 million would go directly to funding Caltrain operations."

So where does the other $60 million go?

Every major European city and Asian City has trains. When tourist go to a foreign country they get the train passes and go all over. This illness is going to pass And we are going to have a ton of tourist coming in - we need those tourists for our planes, hotels and restaurants. The whole economy benefits by lots of tourists.

When the concept of HSR came up the selling point was that Europe and Japan had HSR trains and every one loved them. When people come here they do not expect to rent cars to go everywhere. We are suppose to be selling city access without cars or buses. Also our workers and students do not want to be trapped in cars for their every day commutes.

We still do not know why the city of SF is stymied right now. If they cannot deal with electrification at the transportation center then that needs to be resolved now so we are not spinning our wheels on a costly change to an existing system that works. From where I am sitting each of the counties does not have the same amount of enthusiasm for electrification and do not want to spend money on that right now - the counties have bigger problems to solve right now.
there is a bottom line to any upgrade and this just may be too much right now. We do need the underpasses and that alone is a big budget cost. Across the board this state does not have that much money right now.

I commuted 10 years on Caltrain and the prices really did get too high. The only way it is worth it now to ride it is with federally subsidized passes, which I got through work. A lot of people who work in SF get federal funds for commuting. So Cal Train is already milking federal tax dollars in their inflated fares then they rip off locals and tourist going to the game with the same crazy fares. Haven't ridden it since Sep 2016 and I sure don't miss getting sneezed on.

A mystery for me was solved today. Big article in the SFC about a transportation system in SF - "Streamline of S.F. Muni train lines ready to roll." S.F. Muni reinvents its light rail system. The map provided appears to cover the city and it's key points of interests but does not indicate how it connects with BART or Caltrain. And it is specific to the city only.

So we have been spending our time and potential funding working issues with assumptions that have no valid starting and ending points. A person has to wonder about all of the strategies being used to justify the building of residential and commercial towers on assumptions that in fact are not going to happen.

The only thing we do know for sure is that we need underpasses in the residential cross streets - Charleston, East Meadow, going north as needed. In San Bruno an underpass went up in a week but in a commercial zone. It is limited to cars and delivery type trucks but not big rigs. This is something we can do to make our lives more livable here and promotes the safety of the students, residents who use those streets. That is our best bet for what ever funding we do have.

@Resident 1-Adobe Meadows

That change to the SF MUNI Metro system has to do with optimizing the underground Market portion of the rail system. There's no new capital investment. Has nothing to do with connection to BART or Caltrain, because that was not the goal. This change has been floated around for years (Google: "M-Market") so they're taking advantage of low ridership to alter scheduling and routes that they probably should have done earlier.

I don't know why you're focused on SF - the supes did end up voting for putting the (dead on arrival) sales tax proposal on the ballot this fall.

Caltrain problems are inherent to how our peninsula is laid out. And, BTW, HSR is dead.

In the MV Voice forum, it was well pointed out that paving can't work since the rails are also used by freight?

With that in mind, there are buses that can also drive on rails, avoiding the need to pave or reduce freight use, and allows transit to scale up/down, flex routes in ways not possible now.

Article Link: Web Link
Article Excerpt:
Toyota and its truck-making subsidiary Hino Motors have signed on with Japan Rail Hokkaido to develop the vehicles, which carry 25 people and reportedly burn one-fourth the amount of diesel fuel required by conventional buses. Japan Rail started testing them about 18 months ago, and bringing Toyota aboard could speed up development and commercialization of what may be the mass transit vehicle of the future.

Why focus on SF? They are the ones that were trying to kill the Caltrain tax - that is why. And they are the end point of the system. You need to define the beginning - Gilroy and the end - SF. That is Total System Design. How can someone sitting in SF kill the whole system? It boggles the mind. What do they have going on up there that would cause that to happen?

My focus is on RWC and the SU growth in that city. If you go to the end of Seaport and look at the names on the buildings you will see Google and other companies that you recognize. Add to that a local boat harbor - and a high end private yacht club at the end. Add to that a ferry service that will go to SF - that is in the works.

All of the tourists and students will be on the train going up to RWC then take the ferry to SF. That is a "Day Adventure". I used to go up to the ferry Building via BART then take the Ferry to Sausalito. That is a Day-Vacation / Day Adventure.

Add to that Mr. Google is saying that the employees will work from home until 2021. If you check out Bair Island you will find new buildings with little yacht harbors in the back. That is in part where working from home is. And if you check out the whole area you will find the SU Rowing Club building - a really nice set-up.

At the south end of the system their will be new building in Gilroy - sale of farm land. New buildings - new residents, and if they work in Silicon Valley will be using the train. And we need to keep the rails for the freight being moved up and down the system. More efficient that trucks.

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>> Why focus on SF? They are the ones that were trying to kill the Caltrain tax - that is why. And they are the end point of the system. You need to define the beginning - Gilroy and the end - SF. That is Total System Design. How can someone sitting in SF kill the whole system? It boggles the mind. What do they have going on up there that would cause that to happen?

Just to be clear-- "they" don't want to kill Caltrain and replace it with auto traffic. "They" want to kill Caltrain and replace it with BART. And they want us to join them in paying sales tax to support BART. The whole thing is a cynical ploy to -replace- Caltrain with BART - and, more sales tax revenue from SCC and SMC. We need to tell them very politely that we don't want to do that-- never tell someone their baby is ugly, even if it is. -Especially- when it is.

I would like a BART that travels on the west side of the SU campus, goes to the Veterans facility, and goes down to Cupertino to the Apple complex. Foothill Expressway with an elevated Bart track. That would open up the whole 280 side of the peninsula. Bart up in San Mateo County is not on the Caltrain tracks - it is on a upper level near 280. San Mateo County has it right. Santa Clara County keeps talking but gets it wrong. Yes to Bart on the 280 side, Caltrain on the 101 side. Who benefits? Foothill CC, Canada CC. The whole 280 side of this world we live in.

Just what we need on the peninsula — more failure-prone, high-maintenance BART with its proprietary, outdated technology that doesn't connect with anything.

It's a good route, between Palo Alto and Cupertino. It used to be the old Southern Pacific Los Altos branch which was paved over and is now Foothill expressway. The old line split off from the main S.P. (Caltrain) line and ran behind Fry's Electronics. It did not go to the back door of Stanford University. But conventional rail, not BART.

What would be the benefit of paving over the Caltrain tracks and turning the right of way into a busway? It'll never happen anyway. It's used for freight and is part of the "blended approach" for HSR which unfortunately isn't dead. They would never give up that right of way.

In the video interview linked below Nassim Nicholas Taleb (MIT professor & author of Black Swan, Anti-fragile, etc) says the most important tool we have to control any novel pandemic are:

1. Identifying and quarantining people who are sick.
2. Identifying and limiting "super-spreaders".

In Nick Taleb's view "super-spreaders" are NOT people but systems and he specifically cites subways as an example of a "super-spreader". In a post COVID world it makes NO sense to continuing to spending billions of dollars weaving "super-spreaders" into the fabric of our landscape.

There are far too many people desperately clinging to an obsolete vision of the future that can never be. We need to have the vision, creativity, and courage to imagine a transportation system that will protect us from the next deadly contagious pathogen.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb on the Pandemic (07/27/2020): Web Link

Caltrain is a simple solution - move people from point A to point B. In order for this area to work we need businesses which build products and that does not happen in residential neighborhoods. The high tech industries can exist in residential areas because the products are not manufactured - but generated by computer technology. In order to build a diverse population like we used to have you have to have a mix of commercial and high tech - a diverse economy. We are not caving into a world which is designed to address pandemics.

A lot in the papers today concerning the politics in this issue - still no input from our governor who used to be the mayor of SF. The articles describe the on-going failures of that city to complete their internal transit issues. So the same failed politicians are busy creating more failures throughout the peninsula.

Combine that with the BLM movement that is looking at jobs leaving this area and you are in big trouble. San Jose - long standing businesses, family owned are shutting down. The Derridean Station which is suppose to be the transit hub has a leaking roof and is falling apart. Continue down this path and you will have many high tech businesses leaving the area. Many are leaving the SF city. Infrastructure is the business of the city, county, and state. The Governor has to step in here and take over this debacle. A bunch of incompetent people cannot be left to destroy the economy of the peninsula.