Passenger Trains > Caltrain SJ to Gilroy

Some days back there was discussionof how Gilroy would be served after electrified service took over between SF andSJ.  Here is a link to the Caltrain statement in their update rec'd today.

https://samtrans.us12.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d896ef13a157ebf6c017ce131&id=3cecfee7e0&e=32ca21ccca

Less than 300 people for four trains is pretty dismal.  Looking back pre-covid the ridership was double the ridership for this segment.

 

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

Covid changed a lot of things, this is just one of them. Just like 9/11 changed many things too.
Time marches on, weather you want to or not...

Expecting a full train from or to the outermost terminal misunderstands how commuter trains function.    Caltrain should increase service to Gilroy because  greater frequency on almost any route increases ridership as convenience increases.   They noted unequal NB v SB ridership which says the SB schedule needs greater span. 

BrynMawr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Caltrain should increase service to Gilroy because  greater frequency on almost any route increases ridership as convenience increases."

As would the operating deficit, except at an even greater rate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/24 07:40 by TractiveEffort.

TractiveEffort Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrynMawr Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Caltrain should increase service to Gilroy
> because  greater frequency on almost any route
> increases ridership as convenience increases."
>
> As would the operating deficit, except at an even
> greater rate.

Yup

Posted from Android

The point of offering greater span of service is to increase convenience.   Many on this and other boards have pointed at tri-weekly services (SSL,Cardinal)  as needing 7 day service n order to make them more useful.   The same concept applies to hours of service on acommuterline.  Caltrain says there is an imbalance in NB to SB pax on the Gilroy trains.   Apparently the evening return trains don't fir the needs of paxwho ride N in the AM.   A survey of those riders should derive data on whether they want earlier than peak, or post peak service SB.   Increasing service to meet that market has the potential to attract more riders.

A word about transit service deficits.   Unless you still believe that endless expansion of  part time linear parking lots (freeways),  providing viable alternatives is a society wide benefit.  As to profits, since exactly zero transit in North America earns a profit, much as Fire Services don't,  these are services which mark a civilised society.  

Anyone who's travelled the 101 through that area understands the market is there if the service is adequate. Well, at least before Covid and the work from home movement.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/24 13:04 by ChrisCampi.

The plan is a diesel "feeder" connecting to the new electric trains in San Jose. I wonder how wild the current passengers will be about the forced transfer....

There was (is?) also talk about extending this service to Salinas....I don't know the current status of that project, though. 

cph Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The plan is a diesel "feeder" connecting to the
> new electric trains in San Jose. I wonder how wild
> the current passengers will be about the forced
> transfer....
>

A commute on the 101 is much worse, a transfer is nothing.

if any public rail transit system's ridership is below what it was before covid, working remotely still remains popular, and businesses have been leaving the cities served, what reasonable growth in ridership would be expected?

66



 

Since Gilroy and San Jose are close, the crews could work at least two round trips per day.  

I read that the new yard for servicing equipment is under design, or being built in Salinas.  Salinas has become a bigger bedroom community, and 101 down there is only 2 lanes, and it's miserable when it's bumper to bumper.  The train could really attract some ridership.

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since Gilroy and San Jose are close, the crews
> could work at least two round trips per day.  

Not quite, in this instance, there are only four trips northbound in the AM commute, then four matrching trips southbound in the afternoon commute.

AA

Stanford White
Carmel Valley, CA

BrynMawr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Caltrain says there is an imbalance in NB to SB
> pax on the Gilroy trains.   Apparently the
> evening return trains don't fir the needs of
> paxwho ride N in the AM.   A survey of those
> riders should derive data on whether they want
> earlier than peak, or post peak service SB.  
> Increasing service to meet that market has the
> potential to attract more riders.

Survey at this point is a waste of money. Why? Look up VTA bus routes 568 and 68 and there's your answer. People who ride the train northbound don't just disappear, and this is how they return home. FYI, 568 is a Rapid service, like 522 and 523 - quite popular with VTA riders.

Analyze employment habits and this makes even more sense. Most people show up at work at similar times, but depending on nature of their work, they may not want to deal with the stress of trying to finish the day's work and catching the last train home. Hope you looked at the bus schedules, especially 68. Runs real late. No worries there.

Caltrain fare from San Jose to Gilroy (and in between) is much higher since it can cover up to 2 zones. For less than half at $2.50, you can ride leisurely home on 68 or 568. By the way, VTA Light Rail makes connection to 68/568 at several locations, including the terminus, Santa Teresa. And Light Rail runs late, too.

So adding frequency blindly doesn't solve the problem. Now we are ready for a real survey - how about a later train? If "survey says NO" then no change is necessary - people are willing to go slower for much less money, and it's tough to change their minds.

People who advocate should do the homework, and especially obtain local knowledge. Not doing that leads to aimless discussions and arguments.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/24 22:16 by cchan006.

The elephant in the room for all these grand thoughts of gaining ridership will become unimportant with the looming California budget deficit of what appears to be $50 billion this year. To put this in perspective the worst deficit until now was in 1992 when I worked for the state and was paid with an IOU was around $14 billion.  Public transit including bus and commuter rail is in need of huge amounts of state subsidies to keep operating empty trains and buses. The money spigot is about to close.

I don't think much has changed since last year when the annual deficit was predicted at $50 million a year:  https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/04/13/report-caltrain-budget-deficit-could-surpass-half-a-billion-dollars-over-next-decade/
Where is that money going to come from? Certainly not from the State of California.

Caltrain south of San Jose is carrying less than 300 people a day on four trains which is not economically sustainable once the subsidies get cut.  That comes out to about 75 people per train, but I am guessing by the time the train gets to Gilroy that number is probably a handful of riders.  I find those low numbers rather surprising as recently I have spent a bit of time on the 101 parking lot north of San Martin. Perhaps all these people are headed to Fremont where there isn't commuter rail service. 

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

Try as they might, there is still no such thing as a totally free lunch.

webmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps all these people are headed to Fremont
> where there isn't commuter rail service. 

That's exactly why I continue to feel that the better option for service south of San Jose should be provided by the Capital Corridor. They are much better suited for the Diradon to Salinas segment and allows CalTrain to simplify their operation. Passengers from the peninsula will have to transfer to a non-electric train at San Jose anyways. Why not transfer to a train with food service and WiFi?

Jarrod DellaChiesa
Oakley, CA

I agree with you. TAMC is working in geological time to build the Salinas layover facility so who knows when it will be completed.  You'd think they are building a new rail line for how long it is taking. It would make more sense to run two Capitols out of Salinas in the morning and then return two more in the the afternoon and evening. Supplement rail with bus service and just do away with Caltrain south beyond San Jose. 

> > Perhaps all these people are headed to Fremont
> > where there isn't commuter rail service. 
>
> That's exactly why I continue to feel that the
> better option for service south of San Jose should
> be provided by the Capital Corridor. They are much
> better suited for the Diradon to Salinas segment
> and allows CalTrain to simplify their
> operation. Passengers from the peninsula will
> have to transfer to a non-electric train at San
> Jose anyways. Why not transfer to a train with
> food service and WiFi?

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

The key in either version is timed transfers.   Decades ago, in Chicago, trains from my branch did not run downtown at many hours on weekends--you transferred at 63rd or 67th.   Maybe 3 minutes slower total trip time.