Caltrain is functional, I guess, but it's one linear system. It doesn't even have express tracks. (It has a few four-tracked overtaking areas, but nothing pervasive.) Inside, basic electric power outlets are hard to find. Grade separation? Ridiculous fantasy. The route map hasn't expanded since 1992.
Yeah, they've electrified the system. Congrats, I guess? The system is still a glorified people mover. It goes in one direction, turns around, and goes in the other direction.
Given Caltrain's route map stagnation and the worse fates of other CA rail projects, it really doesn't seem, well, grounded to reality, to suggest everyone emulate California rail's success. After all, it takes two days to grab a train from Seattle to SF!
If you want a half-decent model, at least look at NYC. The LIRR, Metro North, PATH, and the subway form something resembling a coherent transit grid.
It's notable that the annual ridership is up 47% in the FY ending June 2025 vs the FY ending June 2024, when electrification was only complete in September 2024-- in other words, it's not even a full year's worth of ridership increase.
On the flip side, I find it shocking that ridership is still only 60% of pre-pandemic levels.
Anecdotally, the increased service is a game-changer. Speed matters, too, a lot, but the frequency is what matters to me. A transit system that only arrives once an hour off-peak is not particularly useful. The increased frequency, to a minimum of once every 30mins means missing a train is merely annoying. It's still infrequent enough that you want to check a schedule to avoid waiting around for too long, but not a deal-breaker, IMO.
No, we shouldn't. Caltrain shows that even the best transit systems are not comfortable for daily commutes.
The upper limit for comfortable commutes is 30 minutes one way. Even assuming that you synchronize your schedule with Caltrain departures, the map of locations within this timeframe would look like a string of rather small beads along the Caltrain route.
As a simpler example, try playing with routes from the Salesforce Tower. You start blowing past that 30-minute mark by the time the train is still passing Brisbane.
The Caltrain sucks though because taking a car is so much more fast/practical. I must have taken it once in 5y because it's just so far out in the city and not easy to access (and then super slow).
People in Europe take trains because it's a better alternative than driving!
Make subways land right in the train station in SF, then make the train faster, then you have something useful.
On the other hand I agree with the premise of the article. If you have high mobility in a state, the state will become reacher. Doesn't make sense to wait for national trains to be a thing, make sure people can easily move across your state without having to rely on having a car.
So RTO started happening around the same time they electrified and ridership is on its way back up to pre pandemic levels. I don't really care if Metra is diesel or electric if I need to get into the office.
The US needs a model for stronger state and regional authorities that plan and implement mass transit and zoning. In California in particular, cities and counties have consistently bungled planning, locking entire communities into single family housing with low height maximums, ceded walkable downtowns to freeway strip malls dominated by a handful of national retailers, and few updates to mass transit since BART was built in the 1970s. The example of the North Bay NIMBYs blocking BART expansion sticks out to me in particular.
I'm really surprised that nobody has yet commented on the dismal economic failure that the California High Speed Rail has been. After 11 years and $15B ($3.4B in federal grants), they've made very little progress. They just lost $4B more in federal grants because the project is a classic example of
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse (FWA). California sued over the cancelled grant, but then dropped the suit. My guess is that it was dropped because it would have opened up California to discovery, which would have revealed the details of the FWA.
Estimates to complete the original plan call for another $100B and at least another 12 years. I don't think it's ever going to be completed given the massive state budget deficit (reliable figures are difficult to find). Even if it ever got completed, it would never pay for itself.
It's interesting that their schedule increase seems to demonstrate that (at least below a certain cap), increasing frequency directly increases ridership.
11 comments
[ 0.30 ms ] story [ 36.5 ms ] threadYeah, they've electrified the system. Congrats, I guess? The system is still a glorified people mover. It goes in one direction, turns around, and goes in the other direction.
Given Caltrain's route map stagnation and the worse fates of other CA rail projects, it really doesn't seem, well, grounded to reality, to suggest everyone emulate California rail's success. After all, it takes two days to grab a train from Seattle to SF!
If you want a half-decent model, at least look at NYC. The LIRR, Metro North, PATH, and the subway form something resembling a coherent transit grid.
On the flip side, I find it shocking that ridership is still only 60% of pre-pandemic levels.
Anecdotally, the increased service is a game-changer. Speed matters, too, a lot, but the frequency is what matters to me. A transit system that only arrives once an hour off-peak is not particularly useful. The increased frequency, to a minimum of once every 30mins means missing a train is merely annoying. It's still infrequent enough that you want to check a schedule to avoid waiting around for too long, but not a deal-breaker, IMO.
The upper limit for comfortable commutes is 30 minutes one way. Even assuming that you synchronize your schedule with Caltrain departures, the map of locations within this timeframe would look like a string of rather small beads along the Caltrain route.
As a simpler example, try playing with routes from the Salesforce Tower. You start blowing past that 30-minute mark by the time the train is still passing Brisbane.
People in Europe take trains because it's a better alternative than driving!
Make subways land right in the train station in SF, then make the train faster, then you have something useful.
On the other hand I agree with the premise of the article. If you have high mobility in a state, the state will become reacher. Doesn't make sense to wait for national trains to be a thing, make sure people can easily move across your state without having to rely on having a car.
Estimates to complete the original plan call for another $100B and at least another 12 years. I don't think it's ever going to be completed given the massive state budget deficit (reliable figures are difficult to find). Even if it ever got completed, it would never pay for itself.
https://www.hsrail.org/california-is-building-high-speed-rai...
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/california-drops-lawsuit-ch...