Caltrain Reinvented: The Customers Expectation

1
Caltrain Reinvented The Customers Expectation
2
Total Ridership 2004
Ridership in decline yr to yr 76 Trains
3
Total Ridership 2005
Up 7.3 FY 05 to FY 06 86 Trains 97 OTP
Express Service Introduced
4
Total Ridership 2006
Up 25.4 YTD (Pre BB to 06) 96 train schedule
New schedule
5
Fare Revenue (in 1,000s)
Highest On Record
6
Speed Sells

• A 15 reduction in end to end run time
• 25 increase in ridership and 60 increase in
  revenue over the last 2 years

7
Productivity
8
Effect of Capacity on DemandDemand based on
service levels
25 Improvement
16000
PUSH PULL
Capacity (passengers/peak hr)
11000
5900
2006
2025
2020
2010
2015
DEMAND 6 trains/hr 10 trains/hr
9
On-time Performance / Reliability
Begin Baby Bullet
10
Cal train's Project 2025and the State of
Good Repair Program
11
Project 2025

• Provides a capital investment strategy that
• Improves system safety
• Maintains / improves system reliability
• Supports future throughput requirements
• Supports system expansion
• Defines opportunities and constraints
• Identifies critical decision points

12
Capital Implementation Program
13
Capital Program Timeline
State of Good Repair / Replacement
Rehabilitation
Facilities / Grade Seps. / Extensions / Systems
Electrification
2010
2015
2020
2025
2006
6 trains
Peak Hr
10 trains
8 trains
14
State of Good Repair

• Optimizes condition of infrastructure
• Maintains FRA requirements
• Enhances system reliability availability
• Facilitates larger / more numerous capital
  program activities

15
Capital ImprovementsALL SCENARIOS

• Signal system upgrade
• Terminal capacity expansion
• Station improvements (remove hold out rule and
  improve station access/parking)
• Bridge replacement
• Grade crossing program
• Other state of good repair improvements

16
Capital Improvements SCENARIO SPECIFIC

• Platform design Regulatory Constraint
• Overtake requirement
• Fleet replacement
• Yard Storage expansion
• Terminal design

17
Capital Program Timeline
State of Good Repair / Replacement
Rehabilitation
Facilities /Grade Seps / Extensions / Systems
Electrification
2010
2015
2020
2025
2006
Peak Hr
6 trains/hour
10 trains/ hour
8 trains/ hour
18
Current Service Diesel Locomotives
passengers/peak hr
7200 seats
5900
6400 seats
Hold-out rule Signal upgrade
Purchase 8 cars
2006
2014 Electrification
2015
2010
19
Planned Operations
SF
RWC
Caltrain to SJ ACE Capitol Corridor Dumbarton
(under the wire) Downtown Extension SF to Gilroy
(under the wire)
SJ
GIL
20
Electric Locomotive
21
Elements of ConsiderationElectric Locomotive

• Reduction in end-to-end run time
• Lower operating costs
• Simple transition
• Access by mini-high or level boarding
• 10 trains per hour

• Loses performance with longer consist lengths
• Low operational flexibility
• Not compatible with HSR
• Requires mid-line overtake

22
Electric Locomotives
At 8 trains per hour
16500
16000
passengers/peak hr
11000
5900
Add cars Hold-out rule Signal upgrade
Electrification Signal Modification
2006
2025
2020
2015
2010
23
EMU Train Set
24
Elements of ConsiderationRAPID TRANSIT/EMU

• Significant reduction in end-to-end run time
• Lower operating costs
• Less rolling stock
• Possible level boarding
• Cost savings for DTX
• HSR compatible
• 10 trains per hour
• More frequent stops

• Additional facilities
• Regulatory Challenge - PTC

25
RAPID TRANSIT EMU (Not FRA compliant)
20000 25
At 9 trains per hour
17000
16000
passengers/peak hr
11000
5900
Add cars Hold-out rule Signal upgrade
Electrification Signal Modification
2006
2025
2020
2015
2010
26
Capital Improvements RAPID TRANSIT/EMU SCENARIO

• No midline overtake
• True level boarding (CPUC)
• Mixed Traffic (FRA)

27
Capital Program Timeline
State of Good Repair / Replacement
Rehabilitation
Enhancements (Facilities / Extensions / Systems)
Electrification
Rolling Stock
Improvements Dependent on Scenario
2010
2015
2020
2025
2006
28
Next Steps

• Examine Regulatory Environment
• Develop capital investment strategy
• Determine extent of capital improvements
• Analyze rolling stock alternatives
• Performance
• Cash Flow
• Lifecycle costs

29
Legacy Problems

• Legacy something given from the past
• Legacy Thinking maintaining the status quo
  because
• Risk averse (Nobody gets fired for buying IBM)
• Based on previously accepted assumptions
• (Flat Earth Theory)
• Protects vital industry or economic needs
• (Where are the US car manufactures now?)

IBM Layoffs, Executive Reviews...Everyday Life _at_
Big Blue
30
WORTHINE

CRASH
31
Steel is inversely proportional to brains Article
by Wayne Williams
increased until failures stopped.

• The origin of the 1,000,000 pd AAR buff force
  axial load
• At 600k and 800 k pounds coupler yokes and draft
  gears kept getting yanked out so we increased the
  design load until failures stopped.

32
Application

• And the requirement is global
• Regardless of traffic blend.
• Whether its mixed operations
• dominated by freight
• or one freight train per day
• or one freight train per week
• or some future need

33
Legacy Thinking
. . . static end load . . . 400,000 lb . . .
with an approximate factor of safety of 2.
34
Rules Applied To Airlines
35
On Highways - Even with heavier trucks at greater
frequency
36
Beyond Legacy Thinking

• FAA rules on child safety seats

37
Commuter Rail .

• is
• 31 times
• safer than the automobile

So how do we get more riders and save lives?
38
Railroad Lifecycle Economics

• Lighter rolling stock means
• less wheel and track wear,
• lighter less costly infrastructure,
• less fuel consumed,
• faster transit times,
• shorter blocks resulting in more trains,
• lower fares and
• more profit

39
Results of Rapid Transit Model

• From the Reduced Trip Times
• Carry More Passengers
• Improved ROI
• Earn More Revenue
• Increase average Fare
• Reduce Operating Costs
• Earned revenue per employee
• Save More Lives
• Off of the highways on to trains