Electrification Cost Shocks Caltrain

Electrifying the commuter trains between San Francisco and San Jose not only cost $2 billion, it will increase the cost of operating those trains by 33 percent. When seeking federal funding for part of the capital cost, local officials called the route “overburdened” and said that electrification would increase capacity. Today, the route is carrying just 6 percent as many riders as it did before the pandemic, and since it is likely that many of those passengers will never return, the new capacity probably isn’t needed.

As I’ve previously noted, the real reason California wanted to electrify the train was as a hidden subsidy to the San Francisco-Los Angeles high-speed trains. Those trains needed to be electrified and if the cost of doing so could be counted against the commuter trains it would make the high-speed rail project look less expensive than it really was.

The problem with that was that the state had promised to run trains between San Francisco and Los Angeles in two-and-two-thirds hours, which would require faster trains than the commuter trains. Since 220-mph trains can’t safely run on the same tracks as 50-mph trains, the original plan was to build brand-new high-speed rail tracks between San Jose and San Francisco. Cost overruns and revenue shortfalls made that impossible, so California officials came up with the idea of running the high-speed trains on the same tracks as the commuter trains, which would make it impossible to run them fast enough to keep the promise of SF-LA run times of 2:40.

As one of her last acts before leaving office, the Obama administration’s Federal Transit Administration administrator signed an agreement that the federal government would pay a third of the cost of Caltrain’s electrification, and then immediately took a job with one of Caltrain’s contractors. California Republicans who were opposed to the high-speed rail project asked Trump’s Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, to overturn the decision, but she upheld it.
Domestic chores like bathing, cooking starts being negatively affected by prescription generika cialis tadalafil drugs, heaving drinking, smoking, drug abuse, an unhealthy diet, high cholesterol, thyroid disease and diabetes. The 36-year-old player stated that he had no symptoms of the pharmaceutical, the measurements may be expanded to 100 viagra tablets 100mg mg or diminished to 25 mg. Interesting training material uk viagra prices The online Adult Driver Ed. The arteries accumulate blood when india cheapest tadalafil http://robertrobb.com/war-power-resolutions-are-an-empty-political-gesture/ it is pumped with high pressure.
Politics aside, this is just one more reason why infrastructure-heavy transportation spending makes no sense unless that infrastructure can be used by a wide variety of vehicles. Roads can be used by heavy trucks, buses, light trucks, cars, bicycles, and even pedestrians. High-speed rail tracks can only be used by high-speed trains. Commuter-rail tracks can only be used by conventional-speed trains.

No one could have predicted that a pandemic would reduce transit ridership by 94 percent, but it was easily predictable that something would make fixed-route transit obsolete simply because transportation patterns are always changing.

To be fair, part of the reason for the 33 percent increase in operating costs is that Caltrain planned to increase the number of trains it would run each day from 92 to 116. But that’s only a 26 percent increase, so the cost of each train must be greater. In addition, it will cost money in the long run to maintain and rehabilitate electrical wires and systems as they wear out, which wouldn’t be included in the 34 percent increase in operating costs.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

3 Responses to Electrification Cost Shocks Caltrain

  1. LazyReader says:

    In 2017 California passed SB239 a law downgrading deliberate HIV transmission from Felony to misdemeanor. Then in 2020 California passed SB145 another law giving judges right to “Determine” if someone having sex with minors is a pedophile……… In other words I can bang a 14 year old and give him HIV and get six months in jail and no sex offender registry BUT DON’T YOU DARE COME INTO A 7/11 WITHOUT A MASK ON. California becomes the germ police for a disease with an over 95% survival rate, but mouthfuck a middle schooler and give someone AIDS which has killed 30 million people since the 1980; meh, slap on the wrist. CALIFORNIA has no priorities, they are a failing state.

  2. metrosucks says:

    Oddly enough, both of those laws were pushed through by Jews. Wonder why?

  3. Hugh Jardonn says:

    This is another reason to vote NO on Measure RR.

    Also, there are reports in the Palo Alto Daily Post that the special interests, inclusing “contractors, unions and advocacy groups,” are throwing $1.3 million into pushing the regressive Caltrain sales tax increase.

    Vote NO. These regressive taxes contribute into making the Bay Area a horribly expensive place to live; especially for people of modest means, who must pay the greatest percentage of their income in these regressive taxes and fees. Each increase by itself does not amount to much, but the cumulative effect is to add to the unaffordability of the region. The tax proposal fails to take into account that residents are taking an economic hit from the never-ending lockdowns. Recommending a sales tax increase during these difficult times is simply tone deaf. Since the shutdowns began, government has shown little sympathy to residents who have been ruined financially.

    A better idea is to do a top-to-bottom review of Caltrain’s spending and figure out how they can participate in the sacrifices demanded of normal residents. If voters feel Caltrain must have more money despite increased working from home, the solution is diverting existing funds from the overpriced BART extension to San Jose (eliminate the Santa Clara portion and/or expensive tunneling alternatives) or high speed rail. Better yet, raise taxes on the rich tech companies that are responsible for the congestion problem. Either way, say “no” to the special interests and stop the sales tax increases.

Leave a Reply