Longer Trains May Be No Match for Growing Caltrain Crowds

Photo: danieljsf/Flickr

Caltrain’s rush hour trains have never been more crowded, which isn’t just uncomfortable for riders — it also discourages potential commuters who instead drive along Peninsula highways, and makes rides more difficult for elderly passengers and riders with disabilities. Commuters could see some relief in 2015, when Caltrain plans to extend the length of some of its trains, but the crunch won’t end any time soon if ridership trends continue.

During a typical weekday on Caltrain, the number of trains with more passengers than seats (with passengers left standing) has increased from just two during summer 2010 to over ten trains in summer 2013. The agency estimates that standees account for 10 to 20 percent of passengers on the busiest winter trains, and 30 to 40 percent during the summer.

Caltrain lacks dedicated areas for standing and has no rails or handles to hold on to, so standing on Caltrain is more difficult than on other rail transit systems such as BART. Caltrain’s cars are designed to maximize seats, with about 650 on each train, making it easy for commuters to read or work on laptops.

With Caltrain attracting about 4,300 new weekday riders every year since 2010, ridership will reach almost 60,000 on weekdays this summer, and could surpass 75,000 by 2018.

The number of passengers using Caltrain on weekdays has doubled over the past decade. As with many transit services, ridership peaks in the summer. Source: Caltrain

Weekday ridership on Caltrain has more than doubled since 2004, when it began running “Baby Bullet” express services that travel between San Francisco and San Jose in just one hour. Caltrain runs just a few more hourly trains now than it did then, but more of its mid-day local trains have been shifted to rush hour expresses to keep up with the surge in peak-hour, longer-distance demand.

Caltrain most recently expanded service 18 months ago, having cut service in 2009 and 2011 due to budget problems. “In October 2012 we added four trains, going from 86 to 92 weekday trains, which included two trains on the shoulder of the peak,” said Caltrain spokesperson Jayme Ackemann. “The goal was to shift people out of the most crowded trains, and to provide some later express trains for tech workers.”

Caltrain plans to purchase surplus train cars like these from LA Metrolink to extend its trains. Photo: Steven Cuevas / KPCC

To alleviate crowding in coming years, Caltrain is planning to run longer trains using 11 to 16 used train cars to be purchased from Los Angeles Metrolink for $8 to $10 million. By 2015, Caltrain riders could see some five-car trains extended to six-car trains. Those additional train cars would burn more fuel and require more maintenance, but would also boost seat capacity from 650 to 780 seats. Caltrain’s two busiest trains started seeing more than 780 passengers per train on typical weekdays since February 2013.

While the 20 percent increase in those trains’ capacity would help reduce crowding, the relief won’t last long. It took just two years (2011 to 2013) for weekday ridership to jump by 20 percent. That means the upgrade will bring crowding on rush hour trains in 2015 back to 2013’s crowding levels.

Caltrain’s real capacity boost is poised to arrive in 2019, when the system is converted from diesel to electricity. The new signaling system needed to operate modern electric trains is currently being installed, with workers laying a fiber-optic cable along the length of the railroad. When complete in 2015, Ackemann said that the signal upgrade would allow Caltrain to safely increase the number of trains per hour from five to six.

With electrification in 2019, Caltrain can take advantage of electric trains’ faster acceleration and deceleration, allowing it to increase the number of weekday trains from 92 to 114. The number of trains serving the morning rush hour (6 – 9 am) would increase from 27 to 38, and the number serving the evening rush hour (4 – 7 pm) would increase from 30 to 36, according to a proposed post-electrification schedule created by consulting firm Fehr & Peers that has not been released to the public. Nearly every Caltrain station would be served by more weekday trains than today.

But in planning for an electrified system compatible with and shared with California high-speed rail, some transit advocates say the agency isn’t giving a close enough look at opportunities to maximize the capacity boost — key to attracting commuters away from driving on congested Highway 101.

“We want to see Caltrain address the capacity crunch strategically,” said Adina Levin, Co-founder of Friends of Caltrain. “Caltrain should be planning for expected ridership based on demand from cities and employers, and proposing capacity improvements to address the demand.”

Wider electric Caltrain train cars could fit five seated passengers per row instead of today’s four per row. Image: Clem Tillier

Levin says level boarding platforms and wider trains could provide major increases in Caltrain’s capacity. The agency hasn’t sufficiently analyzed those measures’ costs, timelines, or most importantly, their potential for meeting future ridership demand.

Level boarding places station platforms and train floors at the same level, eliminating steps and saving another five minutes on the San Francisco to San Jose trip, bringing it down to 45 minutes beginning in 2019. “Extra-wide” electric trains, currently being built for use in Europe, could fit 25 percent more seats than today’s trains.

Some of the scenarios for electric Caltrain service analyzed in the agency’s draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on electrification are perplexingly unambitious. Weekday ridership has been growing by over ten percent per year since 2010, but the EIR predicts 69,151 weekday riders in 2020, an annual growth rate of only five percent from 2013 to 2020. At current growth rates, actual ridership will exceed levels predicted for 2020 at San Francisco 4th and King Station by 2016, Mountain View by 2017, and Palo Alto by 2018.

When service to San Francisco’s Transbay Transit Center begins in 2022, Caltrain only plans to run two trains per hour to the grand new hub, while up to four other trains would still stop at the existing 4th and King Station. The Transbay Center will have over 100,000 jobs located within a half-mile radius — more jobs than every other Caltrain station combined.

“This station absolutely must be served by each and every train, and it would be highly counter-productive to terminate any train at 4th and King,” wrote Clem Tillier, author of a blog on building a Caltrain system compatible with California High-Speed Rail.

The Caltrain Board of Directors briefly discussed its new ten-year draft Strategic Plan at this morning, but delayed any decision on whether or not to include in it an analysis of the more successful, higher-ridership scenarios described above.

  • the_greasybear

    You mean 40,000 daily boardings. But yes, you’re right–ridership has been slowly declining.

  • the_greasybear

    Agreed. Caltrain’s infrequent mid-day service makes the system all but useless for me personally, despite my willingness to try and make it work repeatedly. My latest attempt this Wednesday is a case in point.

    Transit 511’s trip planner gave me an incorrect departure time for a southbound train to South San Francisco–and that’s not Caltrain’s fault. I arrived at the station as my train pulled out. I’ve had this happen to me before when using Boston’s suburban commuter rail lines, and I knew I’d have to wait a while.

    But my wait wasn’t going to merely be an inconvenience–the next train serving South SF wouldn’t depart for roughly and hour and a half! I wouldn’t be able to make my appointment. Game over.

    I rode my bike to Embarcadero BART, and rode the last mile(s) from that station. After my appointment, I missed the hourly northbound train–and simply rode my bike the 12 miles home from there. I made it home more quickly than if I’d waited an hour for the train and then rode home from the station. Caltrain Fail.

  • Richard Mlynarik

    Agreed, but my understanding was that they literally can’t fit any more trains on the right-of-way during rush hour.

    And yet … and yet … 22 departures an hour from Embarcadero to West Oakland, today, on one single pair of tracks, by trains. That’s not even an exotic foreign not-applicable-to-special-magic-US-specific-conditions example.


    So it’s doesn’t seem to be “the right of way” that is the problem.

    Perhaps, just perhaps, it’s the grotesquely under-achieving operator of SF—SJ trains and their 19th century olde tyme “commuter railroading” mindset and their enthusiasm for spending billions of your tax dollars over decades while never actually managing to deliver improved service?

  • thielges

    One reason why there’s no good replacement for BoB is asymmetrical trip patterns, i.e. anything other than the typical A-B, B-A commute day. I ride Caltrain daily but almost never have an A-B, B-A Caltrain ride so bike lockers would not help at all. BABS has a chance of helping but they’d need to expand 10-20X larger in the south bay to make it viable for my daily routing. Same goes for ordinary VTA transit.

    My commute style is probably the minority but even A-B, B-A commuters will have an odd day when they need to visit the dentist or handle some other errand. This is one of the reasons so many Bay Area residents have a hard time getting rid of their car: the alternatives are often too rigid to meet ordinary travel needs. Bicycling on the other hand is just as flexible as driving. Caltrain and BART BoB tend to function as a “bicycling amplifiers”. Those BoB programs are awesome and should be expanded.

  • Darko Vukovic

    Worst part about this is that we will probably see the new tech bubble pop before any of the large improvements take place.

  • murphstahoe

    You know all this, yet it keeps happening. Useless.

  • Caelestor

    I didn’t discuss reverse peak service in my OP because capacity isn’t an issue yet. The problem is poor service to all stops that aren’t SF/22nd Street/Millbrae/Palo Alto/Mtn View. Frankly, the RP timetable is just inoptimal and needs to be rewritten: the timed transfers and perhaps the Baby Bullets don’t make a lot of sense, since there’s no point for any train south of RWC to run express (maybe skip a few points, but definitely not a Palo Alto – Santa Clara stretch). Quick fixes would include the following:

    – 208, 218, 228 need to make a lot more stops. California Ave, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale would probably add at least 500 new riders.

    – 206, 216, 226 trains need to stop at RWC and California Ave.

    Likewise the traditional peak timetable has to be rewritten at some point, but I didn’t nuke it yet because 4 of 5 trains have lots of riders and at this point it’s more important to redistribute loads properly to try to reduce station dwell times as much as possible (though the only way to truly fix this is to buy cars with more doors and install high-level platforms).

    I also agree that Sunnyvale, RWC, and Mountain View must be served by every single train. I didn’t do that for traditional peak service right now because I’m worried massive overcrowding will occur between Mtn View and Palo Alto. In the medium term (pre-electrification), I think NB baby bullet service needs to be standardized at SJ – Sunnyvale – Mtn View – Palo Alto – RWC – Hillsdale – SF; San Mateo and Millbrae can be served by all limited service trains meanwhile. SB baby bullet service is ultimately a flawed concept, but SF – 22nd St – Millbrae – RWC – Palo Alto – Mtn View – (maybe Sunnyvale) – SJ would be the standard stops.

    Here is an example quick fix schedule using your timetable tool.

  • lukebc

    That’s when you go to the operator and beg them to open the doors and just let you out as you’ll just walk the tunnel to the nearest station.

  • Andy Chow

    Almost all transit systems have peak ridership occurs during the peak hours, and that most transit systems provide more service during the peak hours.

    It is rather a policy decision not to spend limited subsidy on midday trains when Caltrain suffered a budget crunch a few years ago. I think we should revisit that decision again.

    In public policy planning, we make long term planning by basically predicting the future by using present situation/assumption and projecting out largely unchanged. However they’re almost always wrong so every bit of policy decisions can be questioned.

    At that time Caltrain almost decided to get rid of the Baby Bullets but we prevented that. If that happened then the ridership situation (especially for bikes) will be worse.

  • murphstahoe

    I think you underestimate how many riders would abandon trains that go from 40 min, to 50 min to their destination….

  • murphstahoe

    Trains 230 and 332 SB run at or near capacity. Train 134 runs mostly empty. Is this because the half hour later that train 134 arrives in a place like Palo Alto is the demarcation between on time and late?

    No, it’s because the ridership wants the fast train, no matter when it departs. Ridership spiked when the bullets came in. Caltrain’s corridor has a lot of underserved demand for *good* off peak service, at the very least in the shoulders of peak.

  • gb52

    Rather than fighting HSR, what we need is make it a better product. IF HSR can be priced reasonably for commuters to make the SJ to SF or Redwood City to SF trip, we could reduce the burden on Caltrain and make use of HSR capacity instead of duplicate service. But of course there are lots of IFs in there. In any case, it would be better to look at this holistically and realize what we need to do is increase capacity along the corridor or create alternatives like the HWY 101 median and start converting highway lanes to transit. [Or this would be hugely expensive, but start tunneling…]

  • Caelestor

    I totally agree that ridership suffers with longer trip times. The Baby Bullet trains are unchanged, and most O/D pair trip times have increased by at most two minutes. Reverse peak trains do have longer running times to SJ, but there is an argument to be made that the stations between RWC and SJ have much higher ridership potential and should be served more frequently. Mountain View, for instance, has double the ridership of SJ, and California Ave, served by one train per hour, has half of SJ’s ridership.

    Notably, I weight frequency more than trip times myself: with the advent of smartphones and increasingly worse traffic, I doubt increasing trip times by a couple of minutes will deter passengers away. In fact, giving more options and trying to redistribute loads may end up actually saving time by having the trains stop for less time.

    Obviously, the best plan going forth is the same as others have suggested: to build a 4-track segment from RWC to Hillsdale so that express trains can overtake local trains and everyone benefits, electrify trains to speed up running times, and build high-level platforms to lower station dwell times.

  • Caelestor

    There’s a tradeoff between capacity and speed. BART can run lots of trains on two tracks, but that’s because every train makes the same uniform stops. Obviously 10 slow local trains per hour are unlikely to attract many riders to SF, though I’d imagine ridership would be decent between SJ and RWC.

  • Affen_Theater

    Richard is absolutely right about this — and a bunch of other things — and yet nobody with any pull or control over the situation seems to give a shit because lots of smart people don’t seem to know or care what to do about it either … so they just shrug their shoulders (and/or get annoyed at Richard for being a downer for repeatedly pointing it out). Useless? Shameful and sad is more like it.

  • murphstahoe

    What is Richard doing about it other than complaining on a number of obscure blogs?

    This is not a technical problem. It’s a political problem. Someone fixated on the technical issues – useless.

  • Affen_Theater

    Richard has detailed his significant (and largely failed) efforts to do something about in in the past. Clearly his political skills are dwarfed by his technical ones.

    The very real and HUGE problems Richard periodically goes on about are not in question … and yet they persist … despite people like us who get it, know he’s right and are seemingly either unwilling, unable and/or powerless to do something about them.

    So when you take the time to point out his complaints are “useless” … what are you trying to accomplish? Discourage him and others from pointing out the big yet non-obvious-to-most elephant-in-the-room problems they can’t fix, or motivate others (besides you, I presume) to “do something” about them?

    Maybe, just maybe, one of these complaints will directly or indirectly come to the attention of someone (or enough people) who can effectuate some effective corrective actions.

  • Evans

    There are 3 locations of 4 track segment and Millbrae station have 3 tracks. Technically, NB local train can wait for by-passing express train at Lawrence, Redwood junction, Millbrae and Bayshore. Local train will be significantly slower but Baby Bullet can be run every 15 minutes.

  • Evans

    How does 2~5 min longer traveling time affect existing riders? I believe convenience (Frequency) offset the traveling time increase.

  • lukebc

    We know there will be a tech crash. Ever since the victory of the old “supply-side” economics with the reaganites, the old boom&bust era of the pre-New Deal has returned and thus the 2000 tech bust and the 2009 housing mega-bust. But this coming tech bust is different than the 2000 crash. There’ll be a bust but nowhere on the level of 2000.

  • Belmontese

    I think they should add a 1 am and 2 am SB train as well to enable people to take public transit after a night on the town in SF

  • lukebc

    That pictured Metrolink coach is the NEW Hyundai Rotem coach with the P40-look cab car and is NOT one of the coaches to be sold off.

  • andrelot

    I don’t think so, the region is adding jobs and a number of people working there wants to live in San Francisco.

  • andrelot

    HSR shouldn’t ever agree to that. HSR is not planned as a commuter service, and it is unlikely to carry standing passengers (as most high-speed systems in the World don’t).

    Once more regional services (Caltrain) are in place, and people depend on them, the political pressure against “expensive high speed rail” cancelling some of “their” trains would be enormous.

    Once some sort of transportation service is in place, it is very hard to take it away for what will be a worsened situation. Even ferries suffer from this bias.

  • andrelot

    high-speed trains are not meant for regular commute. If CAHSR is going to operate like in most of Europe, it will be an all-seat, compulsory reservation system, where you must have a ticket and an assigned seat to board. It is not a service meant to be used as a subway you just go board at whim. Finally, there would be only so much capacity available to be used by regional commute travel as commuters cannot take space of – say – San Francisco – Los Angeles travelers.

    The blend system is a bad idea, but the cities are bringing this upon themselves as they fight the alternative (fully segregated HSR/local track with plenty of elevated sections).

  • Caelestor

    Convenience does offset the traveling time increase, which is why slowing down some trains is justified. Let’s look at the NB peak timetable in my other post.

    A clear majority of passengers wants to go north to SF. Palo Alto also has a respectable amount of riders disembarking, with well over a thousand. Thus, the timetable needs to prioritize reaching those two stations over all others.

    Next if you look at statistics, SJ, Sunnyvale, Mtn View, Palo Alto, RWC, and Hillsdale have the highest number of passengers boarding. All Baby Bullets therefore must stop at these stations. (There is a slight caveat that having an express train stop at both Sunnyvale and Mtn View will overload the train, though, so some tweaks are likely necessary.)

    Finally the limited trains. 207, 217, 227 are unchanged except for an extra San Mateo stop. This gives a significant number of San Mateo riders the option to reach SF at 20 minutes past the hour, which is currently not available to them. 211, 221, and 231 has the extra stop at Palo Alto and no more stop at Hayward Park for the reasons I gave in my OP. I changed 215 and 225 from a limited train into a local-express train like 221 and 231 to give Lawrence, San Antonio, and Menlo Park riders more options. These changes should distribute existing loads better and hopefully divert ridership back to local stations.

    Though I didn’t display it in the timetable, an extra baby bullet or limited train to SF in the 8am hour may be a good idea to further divert ridership from crowded trains such as 329 and 233.

  • murphstahoe

    I read Richard’s stuf, always. He’s probably spot on, technically 90% or more of the time, and when he’s wrong I probably don’t know it. It’s an awesome read. There are plenty of situations where I have said the exact same thing (e.g. Hayward Park – has to go). But he’s a jerk. “BATSHIT INSANE”. So no matter how detailed his arguments he’s dismissed by anyone with any power.

    A bunch of us non-technical goofballs decided we wanted more bike space. Caltrain said no. We got 2000+ people to sign petitions and dozens to show up at the JPB meeting. We got more bike space. QED.

    If you know the right thing to do but don’t know how to get it done, it’s no better than doing the wrong thing.

  • murphstahoe

    How does 2~5 min longer traveling time affect existing riders?

    Look at the ridership stats for train 314 and train 216. train 314 is 5 minutes faster than 216 from SF to PA, and runs at 2x the ridership.

  • Affen_Theater

    OK and so what is it you hope to achieve by pointing out someone who is “spot on, technically 90% or more of the time” and “an awesome read” with discouraging and dismissive comments like “useless”?

    And I don’t get your last point either. I see doing the wrong thing as actively harmful, while not knowing how to get the right thing done as relatively harmless — or at worst ineffective and perhaps with a lost opportunity cost, but not actively harmful.

    Until the problems he occasionally hammers on are addressed, I’m happy to have Richard continue to point out the failings of our high-priced Finest Transportation Planning Professionals. It’s not like his sadly all-too-accurate take on things is a widely held and understood view, and it’s not like others are doing a better job covering that same ground — let alone covering it at all — so I don’t mind the repetition … in fact I welcome it and hope that someday it will catch the attention and motivate one or more folks who, in your words, do “know how to get the right thing done.”

  • murphstahoe

    I hope to achieve him cutting out the “ABSOLUTELY BATSHIT INSANE” that closes people’s ears.

    Of course having such hope makes me absolutely batshit insane.

  • Eric3497

    Why is it that weekday ridership drops by 20% in winter? Summer I could understand – schools and work have vacations then. Why winter?

  • baklazhan

    Perhaps by that point there would be enough political support for building the full four-track system?

  • Caelestor

    I don’t agree that speeding up trains necessarily increases ridership. 226 and 230 have the same running time to Palo Alto, but their riderships are drastically different due to other factors.

    For one, the stops that a train makes are super important. 314 stops at nearly every station with high ridership and thus transports more people. 216 stops at only minor stations and thus would logically have lesser ridership. Also, it doesn’t help that it literally runs 5 minutes after the express train. Personally, 216 needs to be reworked into a train with a clearer purpose. Right now, it runs skip-stop service, but it doesn’t even serve high ridership origin stations such as 22nd St or destination stations such as RWC or California Ave.

  • jd_x

    Great points, Adina. I fully agree. I do think if bikeshare was truly all over the Peninsula, then yes, many wouldn’t need their bikes on the train. But the reality is, there is no way this bikeshare program will have anywhere near the density anytime soon to make it practicable for most people. For example, I get off at 3 different stations depending on which train I take and time of day. I work nearest San Antonio (but on the 101 side, and bikeshare isn’t going over there anytime soon) so if I take a limited or local, I get off at San Antonio. But if I take the bullet, it doesn’t stop there, so I get off at either PA or MV, and which one depends on my mood (both take the same amount of time to my work). So for me, putting a bike in a locker will never work.

    In the end, I agree that Caltrain needs to stop with this nonsense that they know what riders want. Just do a damn poll and find out! Of course, they are doing this because it’s the easy way out for them: if they say that most riders don’t want to bring their bike on the train, what do you know, they don’t have to provide capacity! How convenient. it’s a cop-out and not a solution.

    For at least the next few years (probably much longer), there won’t be sufficient density of bikeshare in the Peninsula to make it practicable for most commuters. Therefore, in the short- and medium-term, Caltrain needs to continue to increase bicycle capacity alongside non-bicycle capacity.

  • jd_x

    During off-peak hours, Caltrain should go to a once-every-half-hour service like the briefly had a few years back. But here’s the catch: make every other one a limited inverted from the other. Since each limited is really just a local for 1/2 and a bullet for 1/2, you just alternate which side is the bullet and which is the local.

  • murphstahoe

    Want to make that happen?

  • JJ94117

    Baseball? Bikes?

  • Ryan Holman

    I would agree with you about Hayward Park but there is actually major TOD in the works for that area, which I think will boost ridership significantly.

  • aslevin

    We don’t need to solve the problem for most commuters to help reduce bumping.

    Bumping happens on the most crowded trains .Those trains have popular stops and at those stops there are probably clusters of riders going to a few destinations (plus onesie twosies) So figure out those destinations and put kiosks there. Station pairs are also tractable with this approach. Identify a top destination w people who are OK with using bikeshare. Find out that some of them use a station pair. So add bike share at the twin station, Lawrence/Sunnyvale or Hillsdale/San Mateo or PA/MP. You wind up with bikeshare at a less used station, and a set of people who keep their bikes off the train. It doesn’t have to happen at once – identify the biggest clusters, serve them, repeat.

  • Anandakos

    Not on the gravy train (unless you consider Social Security one of the cars, and you probably do). You probably think I’m stupid, but the Ford Foundation didn’t. I guess it gets down to “public sector corruption” and how you define it.

    You don’t happen to like the CalTrain Board. You’ve made that clear over and over. You don’t like public employees. You’ve also made that clear over and over.

    You don’t like much of anybody, truth to tell, except, of course, the genius you most admire: Richard Mlynarik.

    When you get elected dictator, then everything will be great, won’t it?

    The thing is, though, you won’t be elected dictator, and in the meantime your sniping, carping, sneering, and general throwing of shit will be used by people who don’t give a shit about public transportation — except to attack it wherever they find it — to stop even the projects which would meet your rigorous technical standards.

    They die along with all the ones you deem flawed because you’ve helped build an overwhelming public perception of transit as a worthless boondoggle.

  • Affen_Theater

    Oh, OK, so you’re just all about shaming Richard into fixing his posting style for fear of him closing _other_ people’s ears (after all, it’s an “awesome read” for you). How altruistic and patronizing of you! While arguably a touch inflammatory or hyperbolic … I’m having trouble identifying the BSI parts … which might mean I’m BSI too, or that Richard’s got it right and things really are pretty fucked up.

  • Affen_Theater

    So here’s what I think: the extent to which people are turned off and disengaged by someone’s observations or complaints is directly related to the bigness and overarching-ness of the problem. It’s just like with warming (now “climate change”) … people had a lot less trouble with accepting and engaging with CFC’s destroying the ozone than driving cars and pretty much all consumption of fossil fuel screwing with our climate.

    Richard’s complaints frequently go to the stuff that people haven’t the slightest idea of what to do about or how to fix. So it’s tough medicine to swallow and grapple with. Much easier to engage with stuff like “hey, there’s not enough space for bikes on the train” than the way Transportation Planning & Investments “work” in this state/country are all horribly fucked up.

  • jonobate

    You see Richard’s sort of attitude all the time in the workplace – people who are technically smart but are incapable of playing nicely with other people, and end up making enemies with everyone they interact with. Usually they get put in a box by themselves and kept to strictly technical tasks, or fired.

    It’s certainly true that ignoring technical considerations in favor of politically motivated decision making is the primary reason why Bay Area transportation is such a mess. But they way to change that is to present your technically based arguments in a politically sensitive manner, as folks such as Clem Tillier and Alon Levy are very capable of doing. Running around spewing abuse at everyone who doesn’t agree with your technical analysis is guaranteed to get you ignored.

  • Anandakos

    You can’t GET to the operator. You just have to force the doors.

  • Anandakos


    It’s a section reserved for short women, dwarves and wheelchairs. ADA compliant, don’t ya’ know?

  • Kenneth McCann

    Where are the people at Hayward Park station (and other smaller stations too) it is a losing time to stop at this or these stations with lack of people (and I rather to drive) and it’s should eliminate this stop and wasting of money build double platforms (both sides of NB and SB) and platform lighting and grade crossing in Hayward Park and it should add longer platform at other busyer station by increasing from 5 cars to 7 or 8 as well to10 cars (or more) with quicker hopping or getting off to more cars doors as well less standing in cars is needs to be seat to working reports on my laptop. Also I believed the High speed train (HSR) from LA will distraction CalTrain system and delays (just like Muni ir any other rails systems) and it is should be travel to East Bay after it’s stop at SJ and provide more jobs to build rail bridge between Oakland and SF as well future HSR to travel Sacramento and north or Nevada (just like Portland Oregon with several typed bridges).

  • lukebc

    You don’t know about the intercom? Never noticed the speaker with sign that says “contact operator”?

  • murphstahoe

    Better to put the bikeshare at Mountain View, the more used station. The bullets attract more ridership, period. Up to me, I move the bikes from San Antonio and put them near some job cluster a.k.a. Bayshore. Then put the lockers at San Antonio and the SA/MV user can use bike share when they are on the bullet, or their own when they go to SA.

  • jd_x

    Probably both. I think bikes are about 10% of ridership and there are definitely less bicyclists in the winter. There are also definitely way more riders during Giants games. I would also add that crappy weather pushes more people into cars because, even though their exposure to the elements is minimal, they still don’t want to walk at either end in the rain or stand on the platform.

  • Fantastic

    Oh, good.


Coming to Caltrain: Longer Trains With More Room for Bikes

Caltrain will add a third bike car to all six of its Bombardier trains, Executive Director Michael Scanlon announced at the transit agency’s monthly board of directors meeting last week. With the new cars, bike capacity will increase from 48 to 72 on each of the Bombardier trains. But it could take up to one year […]

Advocates say Bicycle Riders Could Save Caltrain from Service Cuts

Photo: sfbike With Caltrain facing a $2.3 million deficit, and its governing board considering service cuts and fare hikes, bicycle advocates from three Bay Area counties who have been leading the call for more bicycle capacity have calculated that the commuter rail line could stave off reductions if it would just accommodate the increasing demand […]