4 ms·

19 million annually. I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze here. They should focus on making Caltrain run reliably timely, and safely for the passengers.

19 million annually. I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze here. They should focus on making Caltrain run reliably timely, and safely for the passengers. Once we get the ridership numbers up we can easily make up for the electricity efficiency.

Prosammer 2y ago
Caltrain runs reliably and safely for me, can you elaborate?
- declan_roberts 2y ago
  The $19 million for regenerative breaking can be used to extend lines or add new stations. We can make up for energy efficiency later.
  - renhanxue 2y ago
    I think you completely misunderstood the article. It says that the electricity used to power these trains was estimated to cost $19m a year, but the trains are a bit more efficient than expected, so the new estimate is only $16.5m/year. Most if not all electric trains powered by overhead wires have regenerative braking that feeds back to the grid as standard, and Caltrain's new Stadler units definitely do. Nobody paid extra for regenerative braking, it's just the default way to do things on electric trains, to the point that it'd be weird not to have it. Even diesel-electrics often have a kind of regenerative braking, but they don't have anywhere to store the recovered energy so they just convert it to heat via huge resistors.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      There's additional cost for the transformers powering the caternary above the track to allow them to receive power, not just send it. However, since this has been normal in Europe and Asia for decades, I doubt the additional expense is significant.
pm90 2y ago
Considering the anti transit attitude of most suburban dwelling Americans I am personally glad they are touting this.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Considering the bad transit options they get anti transit is the rational choice. Suburbs are dense enough for great transit but it is expensive and so nobody can afford to give it to them. Thus continuing the cycle of bad transit worth opposing as the waste of money it is.
  - jwagenet 2y ago
    Suburbs are absolutely not dense enough for great transit, and the per capita coverage is bad enough the expense isn’t worth it. They can get sparse bus or light rail coverage and thats it. Great transit offers coverage for stops every mile, preferably half mile. Systems like Caltrain and bart are great for regional rail, but anywhere serviced by them is generally not well enough connected that you don’t have to drive to the station.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      I think you are wrong. suburbs are dense enough in other countries to support ten minutes service. Then you just need to ensure no more than 15 minutes until you are on an express bus (not all will go downtown - the next suburb is important). Of course where you transfer to the express but should have lots of TOD so many are not transfering. The above if done across the whole metro should get 30% mode share across the merto which would be world class. It would also cost about $200 per month per adult - which is a lot cheaper than a car - but still massively more than any city spends on transit.
SkyPuncher 2y ago
It doesn't really seem like an either or type of situation. My understanding is the electricity efficiency is really just a nice bonus (or perhaps justification) for making improvements that would also increase ridership. I'm only loosely aware of the Electric Fleet, but my understanding is they add capacity that was desperately needed.
- declan_roberts 2y ago
  In what world is $19 million just a "nice bonus"? Get the rider numbers up and extend the lines. Thats the only thing we need right now.
tfehring 2y ago
Electrification wasn't just an efficiency thing, it also made the service much better because of the faster acceleration - IIRC my travel time to SF on weekends went from 75 to 50 minutes, which opens up a lot of use cases.
- erikgaas 2y ago
  The other important implication is how Caltrain could be routed through underground tunnels to Salesforce transit center. 4th and king isn't super nice and, correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't well connected to other modes of transport. Maybe some muni buses.
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    4th & King has much better connections to transit and neighborhoods, and I hope they never build that tunnel.
    - erikgaas 2y ago
      Much better really? Looking at the muni map, pretty much all transit clusters around downtown. And bart doesn't even stop at 4th and King. You have to go to Millbrae for a close-ish transfer. Added to that the transit center is very close to the ferry building. And then you have golden gate transit. And it's a hub that has tons of space to accommodate a ton of transfers. https://www.sfmta.com/maps/muni-service-map https://www.sfmta.com/maps/muni-service-map
      - jeffbee 2y ago
        From Salesforce you can go up to the street and get the 38, granted. But to connect with BART or Muni Metro you are walking 2 blocks. At Caltrain you can get the N or T right across from the end of the platform, or board the 15, 30, or 25 bus. The T transfers to BART at Powell, with significant subterranean walking. And for trips within SF you might be closer to your destination starting from Caltrain. You'd crawl through a tunnel to Salesforce to be in Downtown/SoMa, a place everyone wants to leave?

Prosammer 2y ago

Caltrain runs reliably and safely for me, can you elaborate?

declan_roberts 2y ago
The $19 million for regenerative breaking can be used to extend lines or add new stations. We can make up for energy efficiency later.
- renhanxue 2y ago
  I think you completely misunderstood the article. It says that the electricity used to power these trains was estimated to cost $19m a year, but the trains are a bit more efficient than expected, so the new estimate is only $16.5m/year. Most if not all electric trains powered by overhead wires have regenerative braking that feeds back to the grid as standard, and Caltrain's new Stadler units definitely do. Nobody paid extra for regenerative braking, it's just the default way to do things on electric trains, to the point that it'd be weird not to have it. Even diesel-electrics often have a kind of regenerative braking, but they don't have anywhere to store the recovered energy so they just convert it to heat via huge resistors.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    There's additional cost for the transformers powering the caternary above the track to allow them to receive power, not just send it. However, since this has been normal in Europe and Asia for decades, I doubt the additional expense is significant.

pm90 2y ago

Considering the anti transit attitude of most suburban dwelling Americans I am personally glad they are touting this.

bluGill 2y ago
Considering the bad transit options they get anti transit is the rational choice. Suburbs are dense enough for great transit but it is expensive and so nobody can afford to give it to them. Thus continuing the cycle of bad transit worth opposing as the waste of money it is.
- jwagenet 2y ago
  Suburbs are absolutely not dense enough for great transit, and the per capita coverage is bad enough the expense isn’t worth it. They can get sparse bus or light rail coverage and thats it. Great transit offers coverage for stops every mile, preferably half mile. Systems like Caltrain and bart are great for regional rail, but anywhere serviced by them is generally not well enough connected that you don’t have to drive to the station.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    I think you are wrong. suburbs are dense enough in other countries to support ten minutes service. Then you just need to ensure no more than 15 minutes until you are on an express bus (not all will go downtown - the next suburb is important). Of course where you transfer to the express but should have lots of TOD so many are not transfering. The above if done across the whole metro should get 30% mode share across the merto which would be world class. It would also cost about $200 per month per adult - which is a lot cheaper than a car - but still massively more than any city spends on transit.

SkyPuncher 2y ago

It doesn't really seem like an either or type of situation. My understanding is the electricity efficiency is really just a nice bonus (or perhaps justification) for making improvements that would also increase ridership. I'm only loosely aware of the Electric Fleet, but my understanding is they add capacity that was desperately needed.

declan_roberts 2y ago
In what world is $19 million just a "nice bonus"? Get the rider numbers up and extend the lines. Thats the only thing we need right now.

tfehring 2y ago

Electrification wasn't just an efficiency thing, it also made the service much better because of the faster acceleration - IIRC my travel time to SF on weekends went from 75 to 50 minutes, which opens up a lot of use cases.

erikgaas 2y ago
The other important implication is how Caltrain could be routed through underground tunnels to Salesforce transit center. 4th and king isn't super nice and, correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't well connected to other modes of transport. Maybe some muni buses.
- jeffbee 2y ago
  4th & King has much better connections to transit and neighborhoods, and I hope they never build that tunnel.
  - erikgaas 2y ago
    Much better really? Looking at the muni map, pretty much all transit clusters around downtown. And bart doesn't even stop at 4th and King. You have to go to Millbrae for a close-ish transfer. Added to that the transit center is very close to the ferry building. And then you have golden gate transit. And it's a hub that has tons of space to accommodate a ton of transfers. https://www.sfmta.com/maps/muni-service-map https://www.sfmta.com/maps/muni-service-map
    - jeffbee 2y ago
      From Salesforce you can go up to the street and get the 38, granted. But to connect with BART or Muni Metro you are walking 2 blocks. At Caltrain you can get the N or T right across from the end of the platform, or board the 15, 30, or 25 bus. The T transfers to BART at Powell, with significant subterranean walking. And for trips within SF you might be closer to your destination starting from Caltrain. You'd crawl through a tunnel to Salesforce to be in Downtown/SoMa, a place everyone wants to leave?