Caltrain's electric fleet more efficient than expected(caltrain.com)
caltrain.com
Caltrain's electric fleet more efficient than expected
https://www.caltrain.com/news/caltrains-electric-fleet-more-efficient-expected
300 comments
Agreed largely, though IMO BART is holding the bay area back. Unlike Caltrain and Muni, BART management is completely incompetent and more focused on spending their money on random things than actually running their transit system.
Fun fact: BART police has a large fleet of SUVs, with the highest vehicle-to-officer ratio in the bay area (if only there were some other way for them to get around!)
Fun exercise: compare the cleanliness of a Muni Bus/LRV to a BART car (even a new one at the start of the day). There is a huge difference.
Fun fact: BART police has a large fleet of SUVs, with the highest vehicle-to-officer ratio in the bay area (if only there were some other way for them to get around!)
Fun exercise: compare the cleanliness of a Muni Bus/LRV to a BART car (even a new one at the start of the day). There is a huge difference.
I think BART struggles with who it's meant to serve now, since it was clearly designed for ultra-peak weekday commute traffic. Recovery for weekend ridership is way better than weekday.
I also agree that the governance structure for BART is weird and overly complex. Why do I elect a BART director? Why are they in their own special BART districts completely discontinuous from the 10 other ways we have sliced up the Bay Area?
All that being said, BART has done some good stuff too. The new cars really are way better, and they were not easy to procure since BART has its own weird, non-standard rail gauge. They have increased frequency and shortened trains on weekends to respond to the ridership changes.
Most of all, BART remains the only form of Bay Area transit genuinely faster than driving in real-world circumstances: it averages above 60mph in parts of the east bay, and goes from downtown Oakland to downtown SF in 11min, which is often 2-3x faster than driving. It's the primary transit system that can compete head-to-head with driving. For that reason, I do hope they keep increasing frequency (shortening trains if necessary).
I also agree that the governance structure for BART is weird and overly complex. Why do I elect a BART director? Why are they in their own special BART districts completely discontinuous from the 10 other ways we have sliced up the Bay Area?
All that being said, BART has done some good stuff too. The new cars really are way better, and they were not easy to procure since BART has its own weird, non-standard rail gauge. They have increased frequency and shortened trains on weekends to respond to the ridership changes.
Most of all, BART remains the only form of Bay Area transit genuinely faster than driving in real-world circumstances: it averages above 60mph in parts of the east bay, and goes from downtown Oakland to downtown SF in 11min, which is often 2-3x faster than driving. It's the primary transit system that can compete head-to-head with driving. For that reason, I do hope they keep increasing frequency (shortening trains if necessary).
It’s kind of sad that BART’s first mover advantage means it’ll forever be a second-class railway. They’ll never do the “correct” thing and shut it down long enough to replace everything with standard equipment and gauge.
Being a first mover didn't prevent them from adopting standard gauge which already had existed for 100 years.
It has been said the broader gauge was chosen at the time to make trains able to run safely over Golden Gate Bridge with strong side winds. My physics is not good enough to calculate whether that argument makes sense. And I have no idea how realistic that route ever was.
I don't think the gauge is a major problem. Train orders are always a custom project, few urban networks use exactly the same standards. Railroad manufacturers are used to different gauges.
I don't think the gauge is a major problem. Train orders are always a custom project, few urban networks use exactly the same standards. Railroad manufacturers are used to different gauges.
In particular the track gauge is a long way from being the only consideration. Structure gauge and Loading gauge are also crucial. When I first moved here despite this being an important port city a Victorian arch bridge carrying road traffic over the railway meant every single freight train carrying containers from the port to the rest of the country needed to either go on a circuitous route or use special low wagons with reduced capacity, which hold a container below axle height so as to fit under that bridge.
In that case blocking the road and dropping in a new road bridge was affordable given the economic value but generally you put up with what you've got.
In that case blocking the road and dropping in a new road bridge was affordable given the economic value but generally you put up with what you've got.
True, when it comes to loading gauge one can no longer even about a standard. Most countries have several different loading gauges even for the same track gauge.
In practice I am not convinced the BART is severely impacted by their "weird" gauge (whatever is meant by that, not sure what their loading gauge is, for passenger trains the distance to and height of the platforms would be most relevant).
Stadler KISS series used by Caltrain is built at least in 3 different widths.
Auckland, NZ had (not sure whether still in use) rolling stock from the UK, converted from 1435 mm to 1067 mm track gauge, the loading gauge obviously was close enough.
Finland has engines (Sr3, Dr20) and railcars (Dm12) designed for smaller central European loading gauges. They look a bit tiny compared to other stock, but they are fully usable.
In practice I am not convinced the BART is severely impacted by their "weird" gauge (whatever is meant by that, not sure what their loading gauge is, for passenger trains the distance to and height of the platforms would be most relevant).
Stadler KISS series used by Caltrain is built at least in 3 different widths.
Auckland, NZ had (not sure whether still in use) rolling stock from the UK, converted from 1435 mm to 1067 mm track gauge, the loading gauge obviously was close enough.
Finland has engines (Sr3, Dr20) and railcars (Dm12) designed for smaller central European loading gauges. They look a bit tiny compared to other stock, but they are fully usable.
Wait, BART director is an elected position? Why don't I get to vote on it?
(Also, while I am biased towards Caltrain, the new trains beat traffic on 101/280 San Francisco↔San Jose during rush hour).
(Also, while I am biased towards Caltrain, the new trains beat traffic on 101/280 San Francisco↔San Jose during rush hour).
You do.
San Jose’s districts were not up in the most recent election https://www.bart.gov/about/bod/elections
Santa Clara County is not part of the BART District. The extension to downtown San Jose is being funded by VTA as a service-purchase agreement.
Oh wow
What district do they have? I don't see anyone on this list that seems like they cover the area: https://www.bart.gov/about/bod
Yep, I was wrong. I had assumed SCC joined up to get Berryessa
It shouldn't be, though. There is way too much democracy in California localities.
There should be no elected school board, transit districts, utility boards, assessors, sheriff, and so much more. No one is properly informed about candidates for these positions.
For that matter, the Board of Supervisors should have no power other than oversight and impeachment. The Mayor should basically be a local dictator, with the power to do anything the State authorizes the municipality to do, at their sole discretion, with the oversight of an elected board.
There should be no elected school board, transit districts, utility boards, assessors, sheriff, and so much more. No one is properly informed about candidates for these positions.
For that matter, the Board of Supervisors should have no power other than oversight and impeachment. The Mayor should basically be a local dictator, with the power to do anything the State authorizes the municipality to do, at their sole discretion, with the oversight of an elected board.
[deleted]
Americans seem to have a view that if you get a part of an unengaged electorate to mark an x in a box every few years that’s democracy, and more is thus better.
Instead it removes accountability from public servants who can simply hide behind the “elected” excuse.
Instead it removes accountability from public servants who can simply hide behind the “elected” excuse.
What terrifies me the most are elections for judges. I am not a legal scholar and I rely upon local bar associations for qualification ratings (and I’m not convinced I made the right call all the time); to my horror I’ve had educated colleagues tell me they just pick cool sounding names.
I do research on all judges before I vote and while I might not know what a good judge is, a bad judge sticks out like a sore thumb.
Speaking of BART, this story is priceless: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/bart-seat-slasher-hur...
The firm that reupholstered damaged BART seats in the ‘80s paid people to slash them so they’d get more business.
The firm that reupholstered damaged BART seats in the ‘80s paid people to slash them so they’d get more business.
I love these kinds of true snippets of general security history:
It was estimated that "possibly 85 percent of the more than 7,000 BART train cushions damaged since August 1979" was the work of this company, the Examiner reported at the time.
All said and done, BART had paid the company $115,000 for the repairs, a total of about $339,128 in today's money.
The profit motive always incentiveses this sort of innovation and efficiency when it comes to making more profit.
>paid people to slash them so they’d get more business
Charlie Chaplin did it first https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izqhtBPd4VQ
Charlie Chaplin did it first https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izqhtBPd4VQ
Fun fact: Michael Healy in the second photo lives in Larry Ellison’s old house in Oakland. He also has a book on Amazon.
My "favorite" story: BART Withholding Surveillance Videos Of Crime To Avoid 'Stereotypes' <https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholdin...>
marxisttemp(2)
Yep, BART is pretty reviled by all the other transit authorities, and for good reason, based on what my friends who work some of the other authorities have said.
> with the highest vehicle-to-officer ratio in the bay area
There are 30% more violent assaults on BART vs Muni.
> if only there were some other way for them to get around!
Do you want them to respond rapidly or eventually?
There are 30% more violent assaults on BART vs Muni.
> if only there were some other way for them to get around!
Do you want them to respond rapidly or eventually?
Are you saying that they need vehicles to get to the crime locations faster? Are vehicles really faster than them being at the BART station on foot?
If anything that statistic you cited shows that their existing policies are not a deterrent. Perhaps because they are in their vehicles instead of on train cars where the crimes are happening.
If anything that statistic you cited shows that their existing policies are not a deterrent. Perhaps because they are in their vehicles instead of on train cars where the crimes are happening.
> Are vehicles really faster than them being at the BART station on foot?
So you're sure you can create a deployment plan that will have the correct amount of officers on station at all times? What if they need backup? What if two incidents happen at once?
> their existing policies are not a deterrent.
I'm sure their vehicle strategy has little to do with deterrence. Or are you suggesting this is the _reason_ why there is more crime?
> instead of on train cars where the crimes are happening.
Crimes also happen on the platform, the turnstiles, and the curtilage. I get that people want to be "mad the vehicles exist" but this is not sensible.
So you're sure you can create a deployment plan that will have the correct amount of officers on station at all times? What if they need backup? What if two incidents happen at once?
> their existing policies are not a deterrent.
I'm sure their vehicle strategy has little to do with deterrence. Or are you suggesting this is the _reason_ why there is more crime?
> instead of on train cars where the crimes are happening.
Crimes also happen on the platform, the turnstiles, and the curtilage. I get that people want to be "mad the vehicles exist" but this is not sensible.
My son and I visited San Francisco carless last year. Awesome trip!
BART and Muni were great. My only complaint was that BART from downtown to SFO was almost painfully loud.
BART and Muni were great. My only complaint was that BART from downtown to SFO was almost painfully loud.
> BART police
why does a transit system need its own police force? Aren't municipal and county police enough?
why does a transit system need its own police force? Aren't municipal and county police enough?
Actually, train systems having its own assigned branches of police is common enough that there's a Wikipedia article[1]. Unique part is that the US doesn't have an umbrella national or state agency that such branches would be part of.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police
Massachusetts has a state level Transit Police, at least.
They're not actually "assigned branches" of the police, they're private police. The US/Canadian railway police are not government employees, they're employees of the Class I railways and deputized with general law enforcement powers. They're spiritual successors to the old timey Pinkertons.
Two of the biggest are Canadian National Police and Canadian Pacific Kansas City Police -- and those two are deputized, in both Canada and the US, with Federal, State and Provincial police powers. Despite being railway employees they can cite you for, e.g. speeding if they catch you doing so. Either on or off railway property.
Two of the biggest are Canadian National Police and Canadian Pacific Kansas City Police -- and those two are deputized, in both Canada and the US, with Federal, State and Provincial police powers. Despite being railway employees they can cite you for, e.g. speeding if they catch you doing so. Either on or off railway property.
BART exists in 5 counties (San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara) and multiple cities (SF, Oakland, San Jose, and multiple smaller ones).
Having people who have jurisdiction in any bart station is useful. And for example, consistent foot patrols are valuable to BART but not necessarily valuable to the city of Hayward, or whatever. As a concrete example, BART has more or less a goal to be able to put an officer on the car within a stop or two if you report on the app. That's logistically challenging for like a half dozen reasons if the bart police wasn't it's own org.
Having people who have jurisdiction in any bart station is useful. And for example, consistent foot patrols are valuable to BART but not necessarily valuable to the city of Hayward, or whatever. As a concrete example, BART has more or less a goal to be able to put an officer on the car within a stop or two if you report on the app. That's logistically challenging for like a half dozen reasons if the bart police wasn't it's own org.
East Bay Regional Park District also has its own police force, for the same reasons.
That's a good question, any I have no idea of the answer, but the port authority of NY and NJ has it's own police. I always figured it was because it spanned jurisdictions, but perhaps there are other reasons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police are actually a thing! It's not just transit either. Most of the big US railroads have their own private police forces. The officers are deputized by the state, and then by federal law their powers are valid in any state that railroad has track. They even have arrest powers.
CN and CPKC police are deputized in both the US and Canada, at the Federal, Provincial and State levels. Transnational private police.
Chicago has CTA police and the suburban rail system Metra has its own police also.
CTA doesn’t have its own police. That’s just normal CPD.
Hm, maybe CPD has a CTA detail then? I thought there was (or used to be) a CTA police division that had their own uniforms, cars, etc. I seem to also remember a CHA police for the housing projects, but it's been a long time since I lived there.
Presumably because police usually only have jurisdiction within their employer’s city limits, and sheriffs’ employees only have jurisdiction within their counties, so if mass transit moves between multiple jurisdictions, then their police can have jurisdiction wherever the mass transit goes (even across state lines, because a lot of metropolitan regions served by the same mass transit system span two or more states).
Wouldn't they just have jurisdiction in the transit area though? Like it's not like a BART employee could pull you over for speeding?
If they are a sworn law enforcement officer they probably could, but probably wouldn’t.
With prior consent, the authority of California peace officers extends to any place in the state. [1]
You would think that the counties could get together and work out an MoU.
1. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
You would think that the counties could get together and work out an MoU.
1. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
Most city police and sheriffs officers have jurisdiction anywhere in their state, AFAIK. They typically stay in their area, but if they’re pursuing a suspect they don’t break off if they cross the city limits.
Which nearly any campus police will tell you during orientation.
No, there are a lot of jurisdictional issues and motivational issues.
An example of how it goes wrong is NYC. NYPD absorbed the transit police years ago and the role basically degraded to an overtime sink.
Also, with normal railways rails generate property taxes and towns often make deals where slivers of tracks get annexed to nearby towns or cities.
An example of how it goes wrong is NYC. NYPD absorbed the transit police years ago and the role basically degraded to an overtime sink.
Also, with normal railways rails generate property taxes and towns often make deals where slivers of tracks get annexed to nearby towns or cities.
It's pretty common around the country. If it isn't a separate entity you end up having a department of the normal local police doing it separately anyway. Also BART goes through several different police jurisdictions and trains... move. I can imagine the mess and disagreements about which police department was responsible for answering a call or riding in a car as it moved between cities/counties.
It's a chain of command (i.e. BART police report to BART, Campus police report to the school, way less messy than BART or the school having to convince the jurisdiction how to police the area) and prioritization thing. Bespoke police agencies exist to police their niche to an extent that would be unjustifiable if it were coming your normal police department and taking resources away from their other tasks.
Transit police, campus police, DEA, ATF, etc, etc, etc. Their entire job is to harass people that the equivalent generalist police couldn't justify allocating resources toward.
Irate homeless? SFPD won't show, but BART Police will.
Drunk college kids shenanigans? Normal cops don't care, but campus police does.
Weirdos making machine guns or huge amounts of LSD? FBI don't care as long as you're not trafficking, they got real crime with real victims to chase. ATF and DEA care though.
Wash rinse repeat this pattern for literally every bespoke police agency.
Yeah, jurisdiction can be a theoretical reason for these agencies but once again it's still a priority thing. When agencies care jurisdiction and coordination isn't a problem. Having one agency span multiple only helps if you're chasing stuff so petty it would get dropped.
Transit police, campus police, DEA, ATF, etc, etc, etc. Their entire job is to harass people that the equivalent generalist police couldn't justify allocating resources toward.
Irate homeless? SFPD won't show, but BART Police will.
Drunk college kids shenanigans? Normal cops don't care, but campus police does.
Weirdos making machine guns or huge amounts of LSD? FBI don't care as long as you're not trafficking, they got real crime with real victims to chase. ATF and DEA care though.
Wash rinse repeat this pattern for literally every bespoke police agency.
Yeah, jurisdiction can be a theoretical reason for these agencies but once again it's still a priority thing. When agencies care jurisdiction and coordination isn't a problem. Having one agency span multiple only helps if you're chasing stuff so petty it would get dropped.
Except for the last one in your list, the others are quality of life problems. I have no problem if police interfere with either. Even the last one, is at best borderline. If there is a weirdo making machine guns in my neighborhood and I have kids, I sure as hell want police to interfere.
That works in theory, until the police are overrun with things they don't specialize in and don't have the officers to handle the day to day plus illegal arms dealers.
The US is underpoliced per capita
By what standard? The US is more policed per capita than Europe.
I hate Reddit but having both in one image is really convenient.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/x2d7v7/num...
I hate Reddit but having both in one image is really convenient.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/x2d7v7/num...
To unlock the true value of these systems the BA needs to be forced to increase density of their cities though. We need SF proper to look more like Manhattan.
It also needs a much bigger emphasis on transit oriented development. In Japan the best place to eat in town is often in the train station or within a few feet of it. In the US the stops are often some of the worst places like parking lots or run down parts of town. Rarely have I seen good shopping/dining/living integrated into BA, or even US in general, transit systems.
Agreed. Caltrain stops are… definitely not that. The SF stations are somewhat out of the way (although the planned extension would bring it all the way to the transit center). I do see a lot more residential units coming up near transit nodes, although its not nearly enough! The San Jose Caltrain is a prime exhibition of what you said: surrounded by parking lots and it feels quite deserted and creepy instead of being a bustling, thriving commercial area (although a few blocks near there is a nice commercial area with a brewery and many eateries, including a whole foods).
My office in Cambridge, Massachusetts is directly in a 12 story tower with ground floor retail directly on top of a transit station. TOD does exist, it’s just rare for whatever reason in NA.
That said, there are lots of other stops in the area that are either overrun with parking, like you said, or are one story business districts with no housing. Lots left to do.
I suspect the problem might be mismatched incentives. ISTR reading that some East Asian transit companies own and develop the parcels on and around their stations, which provides funding and drives ridership.
That said, there are lots of other stops in the area that are either overrun with parking, like you said, or are one story business districts with no housing. Lots left to do.
I suspect the problem might be mismatched incentives. ISTR reading that some East Asian transit companies own and develop the parcels on and around their stations, which provides funding and drives ridership.
> My office in Cambridge, Massachusetts is directly in a 12 story tower with ground floor retail directly on top of a transit station
That station (the Google Office MIT/Kendall one I'm assuming) was part of the larger redevelopment that happened in Kendall Square over the last 40 years which displaced a significant portion of Cambridge residents due to eh flawed 1949 Urban Redevelopment Act (the same one James Baldwin historically opposed).
Just go one stop inbound (MGH) or outbound (Central) and that level of synergy goes away.
A lot of this is because the T is just straight up old. Most of the stations are at least a century old if not older and it would take an inordinate amount of money to rebuild stations in a more modern manner.
> I suspect the problem might be mismatched incentives
The Asian as well as the more recent North American metro systems like BART or DC Metro are much newer (built or rebuilt in the last 50-70 years) and were thus able to include that public-private mixture.
That station (the Google Office MIT/Kendall one I'm assuming) was part of the larger redevelopment that happened in Kendall Square over the last 40 years which displaced a significant portion of Cambridge residents due to eh flawed 1949 Urban Redevelopment Act (the same one James Baldwin historically opposed).
Just go one stop inbound (MGH) or outbound (Central) and that level of synergy goes away.
A lot of this is because the T is just straight up old. Most of the stations are at least a century old if not older and it would take an inordinate amount of money to rebuild stations in a more modern manner.
> I suspect the problem might be mismatched incentives
The Asian as well as the more recent North American metro systems like BART or DC Metro are much newer (built or rebuilt in the last 50-70 years) and were thus able to include that public-private mixture.
What do you mean? Subway in 4th and King is fire
It doesn't have to look like Manhattan. Even medium density (5-10 stories) will be enough in terms of housing provided, and is cheaper to build, and doesn't risk making the street level inhospitable (if nothing is human scale and there's no sunlight on the street, there will be less people there, making it feel or become dangerous).
Totally agree, though SF is closer to overall NYC density than you'd expect (NYC 29k, SF 18k ppl/sq mi; Manhattan is 73k).
I think the Bay Area suburbs are also egregious - e.g. North Berkeley BART station is surrounded by single family homes, even though it's 25min from downtown SF by train.
I think the Bay Area suburbs are also egregious - e.g. North Berkeley BART station is surrounded by single family homes, even though it's 25min from downtown SF by train.
It has been great hasn't it?!? The difference between running every 30 minutes on weekends vs ever 2 hours is the difference between hopping on the train up to Redwood City for lunch with a friend and then back again. Versus one of us driving one way or the other.
If they can electrify the San Jose to Gilroy segment that will be even better.
If they can electrify the San Jose to Gilroy segment that will be even better.
I think they are running into issues with that because they don't own the rail lines, so they will probably go with batteries rather than overhead lines.
> It’s way quieter, the cars have nicer interiors, and it is running faster and more frequently than before.
Not that electric isn't a huge step up for all the usual reasons but most of that is just because it's new and hasn't been worn out yet.
Not that electric isn't a huge step up for all the usual reasons but most of that is just because it's new and hasn't been worn out yet.
Electric does help with getting cars to run quieter and faster though. With the old diesel engines, they needed more headway because of slower cold start times so there's more frequency and can hit the speed limit faster. Electric engines have high torque and are naturally much quieter.
It's not the electric motor torque that makes the difference. Caltrain used to use traditional locomotives, you'd have a single F40PH or MP36PH at one end pulling a bunch of unpowered carriages. Those locomotives were diesel-electric though, that is the diesel is only there to act as a generator while the traction motors are electric.
The Stadler KISS units are so much faster because they're EMU's (Electric Multiple Units), that is most of the wheels in a 7-car consist are powered with their own traction motors. An F40PH makes 3000 hp (2200 kW) while a Caltrain 7-car KISS consist can put out 9400 hp (7000 kW) continuous and about 50% more than that in short duration overload mode for starting. That's the reason it accelerates so much faster.
Traditional locomotive trains are completely obsolete in any sort of commuter service with frequent stops, there's just no way for them to keep up with EMU's or even DMU's. You can't solve it by just putting bigger engines on the locomotives, you wouldn't have enough weight on the wheels to make sufficient tractive effort.
The Stadler KISS units are so much faster because they're EMU's (Electric Multiple Units), that is most of the wheels in a 7-car consist are powered with their own traction motors. An F40PH makes 3000 hp (2200 kW) while a Caltrain 7-car KISS consist can put out 9400 hp (7000 kW) continuous and about 50% more than that in short duration overload mode for starting. That's the reason it accelerates so much faster.
Traditional locomotive trains are completely obsolete in any sort of commuter service with frequent stops, there's just no way for them to keep up with EMU's or even DMU's. You can't solve it by just putting bigger engines on the locomotives, you wouldn't have enough weight on the wheels to make sufficient tractive effort.
Yup not to mention that the fumes from diesel engines got into the cars so you tended to avoid the ones close to the engine. Its a HUGE qol improvement!
Also makes waiting at either end, San Jose or San Francisco more pleasant with cleaner air to breathe instead of fumes if you are a little early.
San Jose unfortunately has the Gilroy commuter trains idling in the station :(
For now. They're replacing them with battery-electric trains that can go past Tamien. Yeah, it should just have caternaries the whole way down but you know how rail is around here -- owned by Union Pacific, and the federal government prevents municipalities from exercising eminent domain to take control of railways.
I did not know that. I checked the schedule for those when I had jury duty in Morgan Hill and it was always never the right time and/or in the wrong direction, so I had to take the bus from the Diridon station to make my jury duty appointments.
Yeah they only run in the “I commute to SF during the day” direction unfortunately.
Honestly, I think even the old Caltrain cars were pretty clean. The only dirty parts were the bathrooms (and honestly, train bathrooms are sort of gross most places). Caltrain has always been sort of luxury, though; the median Caltrain rider has a >100k household income, which come to think of it, might be one of the highest median rider incomes for a public transit system in the world.
Apparently in 2019 the average household income of a Caltrain rider is $158,000. It dropped to $95,000 in 2020.
https://www.caltrain.com/media/1537/download?inline
https://www.caltrain.com/media/1537/download?inline
I think COVID year stats are always a bit sus. I imagine the people who had the option of working from home tended to be higher income. Outside of medicine jobs, the stay home order mostly exempted lower income jobs (eg grocery stores, mechanics)
Im reading this from a train going from SFO to Milbrae! Y’all can thank me for the electricity later!!
How is safety these days? The last time I was in a BART station, I had to intervene in an uncomfortable situation where a (possibly high) man was bothering a young woman. It felt surreal because everyone around hadn’t helped her at all and was just ignoring what was happening.
BART is better than it was but still bad. Caltrain is totally fine though.
Don't forget the Sea Change Hydrogen Ferry!
The train itself was quiet when I rode it from SF to Palo Alto but they were honking the horn almost nonstop… so much for peace and quiet.
That's because they still haven't eliminated the crossing points.
They need to turn every road or pedestrian crossing into an underpass or overpass, or eliminate it. They've started on this process, but it will take many years.
They need to turn every road or pedestrian crossing into an underpass or overpass, or eliminate it. They've started on this process, but it will take many years.
I live a block away from a train crossing for a track that does a lot of local refinery transfers and occasional has freight. It has the normal old style crossing with an arm on each side with lights, a loud bell, and trains required to signal with horn. There are 8 road crossings in a short distance so each train is signals 8 times nearby.
The requirements for a no-signal crossing is essentially a pedestrian gate. The quote the city has for each crossing was if I remember right 1.5 million usd. And you’d need to replace many of them. The city doesn’t want to prioritize that much money. (FWIW I agree)
The worst thing is we have under utilized tracks going all over the region and no commuter train service. Even with the rail expansion prior to the Olympics (I’m near Los Angeles), the commuter rail is only being extended to the northern most edge of the city.
Neighbors have been fighting against commuter rail every step of the way. I’ll say attending local govt and rail proposal meetings is at once interesting, impressive at what some groups are trying to achieve and disturbing at the lengths people go to prevent change.
The requirements for a no-signal crossing is essentially a pedestrian gate. The quote the city has for each crossing was if I remember right 1.5 million usd. And you’d need to replace many of them. The city doesn’t want to prioritize that much money. (FWIW I agree)
The worst thing is we have under utilized tracks going all over the region and no commuter train service. Even with the rail expansion prior to the Olympics (I’m near Los Angeles), the commuter rail is only being extended to the northern most edge of the city.
Neighbors have been fighting against commuter rail every step of the way. I’ll say attending local govt and rail proposal meetings is at once interesting, impressive at what some groups are trying to achieve and disturbing at the lengths people go to prevent change.
Trains don't honk in much of Europe when approaching a gated crossing.
The lights and barriers are assumed to be sufficient. Within cities, there may well be CCTV cameras (pointing only at the crossing) so the signal controllers can check the crossing is clear.
More video than you could possibly want:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hidjpkqJ0-Y
(I think the honk in the first one is the train driver recognizing the person filming? It's far too late to be for safety.)
The lights and barriers are assumed to be sufficient. Within cities, there may well be CCTV cameras (pointing only at the crossing) so the signal controllers can check the crossing is clear.
More video than you could possibly want:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hidjpkqJ0-Y
(I think the honk in the first one is the train driver recognizing the person filming? It's far too late to be for safety.)
I think they need the honking in the USA since this is the standard of behavior for American drivers…
https://youtu.be/5kPxJnPQsBU?si=B8YyzKMAAWgimumi
https://youtu.be/5kPxJnPQsBU?si=B8YyzKMAAWgimumi
I grew up in a 600,000 inhabitants city in Germany. They got EMUs in the 1930s. When they got the next generation in the 1970s all level crossings were replaced.
So California, one of the forerunners in the US, seems to be roughly 90 years behind. Depends on your age whether you'll be able to enjoy a quiet train trip during your lifetime. </sarcasm>
So California, one of the forerunners in the US, seems to be roughly 90 years behind. Depends on your age whether you'll be able to enjoy a quiet train trip during your lifetime. </sarcasm>
In 1930s California’s population boom had just started. There were 5 million people in the state, split between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Both cities had electric trams, but the demand for regional rail wasn’t high enough to electrify it.
Even today it’s not uncommon to de-electrify lower-volume rights of way.
Even today it’s not uncommon to de-electrify lower-volume rights of way.
Still loud as ever until they get rid of the horns.
People don't understand and respect public transportation (train in this context) in this country. There's a lot of dumbasses who will be on the tracks when and where they should not be. Hence we need those loud horns.
People have much easier access to roads, where many more deaths occur. We don't require automobile drivers to use their horn at every intersection. Why do we require trains to sound the horn at every intersection? Why can the train not reserve the horn for when there is someone on the tracks?
The new sfo terminal too
I was so excited for the EMUs, but unfortunately the near-vertical seat backs are extremely uncomfortable. I ride a coach bus to work and rely on working during my commute. I simply cannot work on Caltrain.
Haha. Doubtful. In your lifetime you won't see any transit system in the bay area that approaches anything remotely close to what you see in places like Tokyo or NYC.
I get that there's improvement but like it's still rather pathetic compared to almost everywhere else across the pond.
I get that there's improvement but like it's still rather pathetic compared to almost everywhere else across the pond.
If you copy Japan policies you can get something much closer to Japan, it's not magic.
(Transit oriented upzoning, no parking minimums, and businesses in the station building.)
(Transit oriented upzoning, no parking minimums, and businesses in the station building.)
If it's not magic why isn't it being done? That's the point. This news is rather pathetic strictly because a better scenario is NOT magic.
It is. A bunch of Bart stops now have developments around them, just look at MacArthur in Oakland with its 40 floor residential building next to Bart.
How is that magic? That's good!
The problem is that Bart network will barely get denser. At the rate they're building it, your great great great great great grandkids will live in a bay area where most people don't need to jump on a car to get to work.
We can do better. It's not magic. But we don't. And that is pathetic.
The problem is that Bart network will barely get denser. At the rate they're building it, your great great great great great grandkids will live in a bay area where most people don't need to jump on a car to get to work.
We can do better. It's not magic. But we don't. And that is pathetic.
The economy is built around juicing home values. The costs make it too expensive for eminent domain and nimby people mobilize now.
Agreed, hence why the situation is rather pathetic.
Too many voters vote to preserve their way of life in amber (see: prop 13, nimbyism in general) instead of evolving with society’s needs
Simple. Most people don’t want it.
They do. You're not being realistic. Almost everyone would like to have a choice between getting on a subway for super cheap or driving through traffic. You're saying they would rather have no choice between the two options? Come on.
The Bay area (people) want top of the line transit, all of California wants it. It's similar to how Ethiopia wants to get out of poverty. Both places can't get what they want for similar reasons: incapability.
Take a look at the high speed rail. Probably won't finish in both of our lifetimes. People want that thing, what's stopping it from happening is incompetence.
The Bay area (people) want top of the line transit, all of California wants it. It's similar to how Ethiopia wants to get out of poverty. Both places can't get what they want for similar reasons: incapability.
Take a look at the high speed rail. Probably won't finish in both of our lifetimes. People want that thing, what's stopping it from happening is incompetence.
They do. You're not being realistic. Almost everyone would like to have a choice between getting on a subway for super cheap or driving through traffic. You're saying they would rather have no choice between the two options? Come on
Sure, everyone wants an easy commute where the train picks them up in front of their house and drops them off at the office, but they also want their house with yard in Walnut Creek. Or lacking that, their single family house in the Sunset.
Sure some people would be happy in a high density city, but do enough people want it to make it worth building? As dense as downtown San Francisco is, it's still a long commute to the Easy Bay or Peninsula from the Sunset or Richmond. Driving is usually faster and more convenient.
Sure, everyone wants an easy commute where the train picks them up in front of their house and drops them off at the office, but they also want their house with yard in Walnut Creek. Or lacking that, their single family house in the Sunset.
Sure some people would be happy in a high density city, but do enough people want it to make it worth building? As dense as downtown San Francisco is, it's still a long commute to the Easy Bay or Peninsula from the Sunset or Richmond. Driving is usually faster and more convenient.
> but do enough people want it to make it worth building?
The reason we don't build more density isn't lack of demand (see: the price of rent), it is entirely political.
The reason we don't build more density isn't lack of demand (see: the price of rent), it is entirely political.
I'd like to see some evidence for that -- sure, there are a lot of people in big cities that are happy with high density (but even many of them move out to the suburbs when they decide to settle down and have kids), but there are many people in the USA that won't give up their 2000 sq ft house with 3 car garage that fits their F150 pickup.
Much of my midwest family is that way - they couldn't believe how tiny my "city" apartment was that wasn't even in the city, it was a 1600 sq ft townhouse that was a 40 minute commute from city center.
It's going to take decades (or some catastrophic disaster) to get Americans to change that mindset and give up low density living.
Much of my midwest family is that way - they couldn't believe how tiny my "city" apartment was that wasn't even in the city, it was a 1600 sq ft townhouse that was a 40 minute commute from city center.
It's going to take decades (or some catastrophic disaster) to get Americans to change that mindset and give up low density living.
> I'd like to see some evidence for that
Zoning rules are the evidence. Eliminate the zoning rules and let the market sort it out. No? Why not, are you afraid the "character" will change immediately?
Zoning rules are the evidence. Eliminate the zoning rules and let the market sort it out. No? Why not, are you afraid the "character" will change immediately?
you're severely out of touch. Only around 15% of Californians can afford to buy a home. Why can't they buy a home? LACK of Inventory. You can see this on the news, you can quote experts everywhere saying this. There's not enough houses and that raises prices. So how do you lower prices? Build more homes. How do you build more homes? Increase density. Yeah if you're in the 15% sure, buy a big home. If you're in the 85%, well you want to buy a smaller home. You can safely assume 85% of the people who can't afford a home, want cheaper homes and therefore want higher density.
>It's going to take decades (or some catastrophic disaster) to get Americans to change that mindset and give up low density living.
Bro, that catastrophic disaster is called global warming. And you can see the effects of global warming in the weather in the US. There have already been entire cultures and peoples uprooted from where they live because of rising sea levels. The luxuries we enjoyed living in cities designed for cars is bought and paid for with our future.
>It's going to take decades (or some catastrophic disaster) to get Americans to change that mindset and give up low density living.
Bro, that catastrophic disaster is called global warming. And you can see the effects of global warming in the weather in the US. There have already been entire cultures and peoples uprooted from where they live because of rising sea levels. The luxuries we enjoyed living in cities designed for cars is bought and paid for with our future.
You can't force developers to build what they can't sell at a profit.
I'm sure San Francisco would love to have more billion dollar high density buildings, but can a developer sell enough million dollar condos to pay for them? Is there any evidence that it's zoning that's keeping more residentials towers from being built in downtown SF?
>Bro, that catastrophic disaster is called global warming
It's not a catastrophic disaster yet -- nearly all Americans sat at home in comfort watching the LA fires. People don't see a disaster if it doesn't affect them, then it's just a tragedy.
I'm sure San Francisco would love to have more billion dollar high density buildings, but can a developer sell enough million dollar condos to pay for them? Is there any evidence that it's zoning that's keeping more residentials towers from being built in downtown SF?
>Bro, that catastrophic disaster is called global warming
It's not a catastrophic disaster yet -- nearly all Americans sat at home in comfort watching the LA fires. People don't see a disaster if it doesn't affect them, then it's just a tragedy.
There are and is currently more residential towers being built in SF. https://youtu.be/kP08AWGfG-w?si=ax8R4l8z0Hd4t_HJ
It is zoning that is stopping high density from going up. The house owners are stopping it. You. When you remove those restrictions you get tons of projects wanting to execute on that.
Look up builders remedy.
In the Bay Area, examples of "Builder's Remedy" projects include proposed developments in cities like Mountain View, Menlo Park, Saratoga, and Los Gatos, where developers leverage the state law to build high-density housing projects in areas previously resistant to new development, often by proposing large apartment complexes or mixed-use developments on sites zoned for lower density housing, particularly in affluent communities that haven't met state housing mandates; notable examples include a 200-unit project at 1920 Gamel Way in Mountain View and a large development at the Mountain Winery near Saratoga, which could include a hotel alongside residential units, all while utilizing the "Builder's Remedy" to bypass local zoning restrictions due to the inclusion of a significant portion of affordable housing within the project. Key points about Bay Area Builder's
Targeted areas:
Developers often target affluent cities like Menlo Park, Los Gatos, and parts of Santa Clara County, where housing needs are high but local resistance to new development is strong.
High-density development:
These projects often propose significantly denser housing than what is typically allowed under local zoning, including multi-story apartment buildings. Affordable housing inclusion: To qualify for "Builder's Remedy," developers must include a substantial percentage of affordable housing units within the project.
Local opposition:
While intended to address housing shortages, these projects often face significant local opposition from residents concerned about increased density and potential impacts on their neighborhoods. These are rich house owners who own a home and they are the 15% who oppose the 85 percent who don’t. It’s class warfare.
It is zoning that is stopping high density from going up. The house owners are stopping it. You. When you remove those restrictions you get tons of projects wanting to execute on that.
Look up builders remedy.
In the Bay Area, examples of "Builder's Remedy" projects include proposed developments in cities like Mountain View, Menlo Park, Saratoga, and Los Gatos, where developers leverage the state law to build high-density housing projects in areas previously resistant to new development, often by proposing large apartment complexes or mixed-use developments on sites zoned for lower density housing, particularly in affluent communities that haven't met state housing mandates; notable examples include a 200-unit project at 1920 Gamel Way in Mountain View and a large development at the Mountain Winery near Saratoga, which could include a hotel alongside residential units, all while utilizing the "Builder's Remedy" to bypass local zoning restrictions due to the inclusion of a significant portion of affordable housing within the project. Key points about Bay Area Builder's
Targeted areas:
Developers often target affluent cities like Menlo Park, Los Gatos, and parts of Santa Clara County, where housing needs are high but local resistance to new development is strong.
High-density development:
These projects often propose significantly denser housing than what is typically allowed under local zoning, including multi-story apartment buildings. Affordable housing inclusion: To qualify for "Builder's Remedy," developers must include a substantial percentage of affordable housing units within the project.
Local opposition:
While intended to address housing shortages, these projects often face significant local opposition from residents concerned about increased density and potential impacts on their neighborhoods. These are rich house owners who own a home and they are the 15% who oppose the 85 percent who don’t. It’s class warfare.
> It's not a catastrophic disaster yet -- nearly all Americans sat at home in comfort watching the LA fires. People don't see a disaster if it doesn't affect them, then it's just a tragedy.
LA is your front doorstep and I lived in LA about two miles from the border of the fire.
Yeah watch from the comfort of your own home. Give it some more time and one day people will be watching you from the comfort of their own home.
LA is your front doorstep and I lived in LA about two miles from the border of the fire.
Yeah watch from the comfort of your own home. Give it some more time and one day people will be watching you from the comfort of their own home.
>Sure, everyone wants an easy commute where the train picks them up in front of their house and drops them off at the office, but they also want their house with yard in Walnut Creek. Or lacking that, their single family house in the Sunset.
You can have both. Tokyo is twice the size of the bay area. Density isn't the issue. It's incompetence.
You can have both. Tokyo is twice the size of the bay area. Density isn't the issue. It's incompetence.
I mentioned 3 things -- pick them up and home and office, and have the big suburban house with a yard.
And I'm saying you can HAVE all 3 of those things PLUS a metro.
Hence the term BOTH <3 things && metro>
Hence the term BOTH <3 things && metro>
Where in Tokyo do you have easy access to transit and a large suburban house?
My brother in law moved from Tokyo to where he could buy a house and yard in Chiba Japan, it's around 900 sq ft with a "yard" that's smaller than the deck on the back of my house. And it's still a 20 minute bike ride + 90 minute train ride to his job in Tokyo.
I don't know if you've been to many homes in Walnut creek, but a small attached house is not what people are moving out of the city for - if that's what they wanted, they could just move to the avenues and stay in SF
I don't think I'm overstating when I say that American style suburbs with large lots and large homes are not conducive effective public transit.
My brother in law moved from Tokyo to where he could buy a house and yard in Chiba Japan, it's around 900 sq ft with a "yard" that's smaller than the deck on the back of my house. And it's still a 20 minute bike ride + 90 minute train ride to his job in Tokyo.
I don't know if you've been to many homes in Walnut creek, but a small attached house is not what people are moving out of the city for - if that's what they wanted, they could just move to the avenues and stay in SF
I don't think I'm overstating when I say that American style suburbs with large lots and large homes are not conducive effective public transit.
I lived in the bay area my entire life. You don't have to go to walnut creek to see suburbia. That ugly shit is everywhere.
Public transit in Tokyo is largely underground. Density is irrelevant. If you have high density or low density above ground, this factor is completely orthogonal to whatever you build Underground. Understand?
>I don't think I'm overstating when I say that American style suburbs with large lots and large homes are not conducive effective public transit.
You, in fact, didn't say ANYTHING related to this matter. You simply stated it's not conducive without mentioning why it's not conducive. I disagree. You can still build it because what's above ground has nothing to do with what's below ground.
The fact of the matter is, once you build this, barring zoning restrictions, the density should follow. Right now the bay area is a political battle ground where rich people effectively price out poor people with zoning restrictions. It's a class based war where a luxury you want is impacting the lives of people less fortunate than you.
If you let the bay grow naturally and fairly then people with your "wants" should move to the country side.
Suburbia is also not sustainable for the environment. It's why greenhouse gases per capita in the US is the worst in the world.
Public transit in Tokyo is largely underground. Density is irrelevant. If you have high density or low density above ground, this factor is completely orthogonal to whatever you build Underground. Understand?
>I don't think I'm overstating when I say that American style suburbs with large lots and large homes are not conducive effective public transit.
You, in fact, didn't say ANYTHING related to this matter. You simply stated it's not conducive without mentioning why it's not conducive. I disagree. You can still build it because what's above ground has nothing to do with what's below ground.
The fact of the matter is, once you build this, barring zoning restrictions, the density should follow. Right now the bay area is a political battle ground where rich people effectively price out poor people with zoning restrictions. It's a class based war where a luxury you want is impacting the lives of people less fortunate than you.
If you let the bay grow naturally and fairly then people with your "wants" should move to the country side.
Suburbia is also not sustainable for the environment. It's why greenhouse gases per capita in the US is the worst in the world.
Because our politicians patrons are rentier capitalists who think the government spending money on things is a waste of their money. So yeah they really hate spending money on transit projects.
Doesn't help that we're at the end stages of a debt driven real estate/rent price spiral. That means acquiring land for mass transit is twice as expensive as it should be. Ditto labor costs.
Doesn't help that we're at the end stages of a debt driven real estate/rent price spiral. That means acquiring land for mass transit is twice as expensive as it should be. Ditto labor costs.
There's no "they" here. You're describing like five different groups that aren't aligned with each other, and most of them aren't capitalists. Japan is capitalist, more so than California.
Why so negative? Given that the served population is conservatively a quarter of either of those areas, doesn't seem like a fair comparison.
More to the point, I've been favorably impressed with the transit options since moving here, and in terms of reliability it's been better than NYC, though obviously there are fewer trains/branches.
I'd love to see BART open later, like NYC, but even Tokyo trains stop at midnight.
More to the point, I've been favorably impressed with the transit options since moving here, and in terms of reliability it's been better than NYC, though obviously there are fewer trains/branches.
I'd love to see BART open later, like NYC, but even Tokyo trains stop at midnight.
It's fair. NYC is 8.8 million, bay area is 7 million. Tokyo is about double that.
Not being negative. Being realistic. It's unfortunate that being realistic often is negative. Transit here is garbage. You either luck out and live and work near transit or you're like most people and have to drive.
A couple million in energy savings doesn't mean anything compared to the amount wasted by cars.
Not being negative. Being realistic. It's unfortunate that being realistic often is negative. Transit here is garbage. You either luck out and live and work near transit or you're like most people and have to drive.
A couple million in energy savings doesn't mean anything compared to the amount wasted by cars.
Those are not the right population metrics to compare. If you're talking full Bay Area, you might as well talk NYC metro area (MTA claims to serve 15.3 million [1]). Tokyo's even trickier, but I think 36 million [2] seems closer to right.
It's probably not worth arguing about too much, because ultimately I agree with you that there's a lot more to be done to reduce car ridership. But pointing at those places and saying "copy them" misses a lot of structural differences.
[1] https://mta.info/about [2] https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0056b6a98b8b4a48869f822...
It's probably not worth arguing about too much, because ultimately I agree with you that there's a lot more to be done to reduce car ridership. But pointing at those places and saying "copy them" misses a lot of structural differences.
[1] https://mta.info/about [2] https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0056b6a98b8b4a48869f822...
Surely the relevant metric is population density?
You have the causal arrow backwards. A high density train network enables population density and high energy efficiency.
At current population density all of our lives would improve if a network as dense as the tokyo metro appeared in the bay area over night.
At current population density all of our lives would improve if a network as dense as the tokyo metro appeared in the bay area over night.
NYC is more or less the only system in the world that runs all night like that. It makes it very hard to do maintenance.
And NYC can do that because most of it's lines have three or four tracks.
Tokyo metropolitan area is nothing like the SF Bay Area. It's extremely different and so is ridership.
Also, if you check out smaller cities in Japan they don't always have as good public transit.
Heck, even in Tokyo you can find neighborhoods where you still need to walk or maybe take a bus because train lines don't quite reach them.
Also, if you check out smaller cities in Japan they don't always have as good public transit.
Heck, even in Tokyo you can find neighborhoods where you still need to walk or maybe take a bus because train lines don't quite reach them.
Huh? The new BART cars sound as screechy as ever to me, much louder than the old diesel Caltrain, never mind the new electric Caltrain.
Transit renaissance? Until I can get across both the 84 and 92 bridges by train, to Half Moon Bay, and to Santa Cruz by train, I wouldn't call it a renaissance.
Even Cupertino doesn't have a station ffs
Even Cupertino doesn't have a station ffs
It's great, but it took more than 20 years to get here due to environmental reviews and shaky funding. ...and this was just re-fitting an existing, relatively short stretch of track!
We (as Californians) have GOT to do better than this! There are huge infrastructure projects that we need to undertake in the coming years. We have got to cut the red tape and properly fund projects.
We (as Californians) have GOT to do better than this! There are huge infrastructure projects that we need to undertake in the coming years. We have got to cut the red tape and properly fund projects.
How do Californians in 2025 feel about the California High-Speed Rail?
A similar project [1] is underway in Canada, but I worry sometimes it'll fall prey to the same administrative bog that the CHSR did. It'll be managed by a new Crown corp, VIA HFR, and from my understanding they're still taking engineering bids. I expect it'll be a while before shovels hit the ground.
A cheap, fast, and reliable rail from Toronto to Montreal would be a dream come true for a lot of Canadians. Any ideas on how best to make it a reality?
[1] https://tc.canada.ca/en/rail-transportation/railway-lines/hi...
A similar project [1] is underway in Canada, but I worry sometimes it'll fall prey to the same administrative bog that the CHSR did. It'll be managed by a new Crown corp, VIA HFR, and from my understanding they're still taking engineering bids. I expect it'll be a while before shovels hit the ground.
A cheap, fast, and reliable rail from Toronto to Montreal would be a dream come true for a lot of Canadians. Any ideas on how best to make it a reality?
[1] https://tc.canada.ca/en/rail-transportation/railway-lines/hi...
I think high-speed rail between SF and LA is a great idea, and it’s difficult to understand how much of its cost is avoidable excess when the only solution proposed by critics is to shut down the project entirely.
This got 8.9B allocated in 2008... The government should be banned from mega projects sucking up my tax payer dollars.
> more than 20 years to get here due to environmental reviews
How thorough were they being?
> We (as Californians) have GOT to do better than this!
We pay more taxes than anyone else in the country. /We/ are doing our part. The administration needs to be held accountable.
> We have got to cut the red tape and properly fund projects.
We need to light a fire under the administration and someone needs to take a wrecking ball through the state assembly.
How thorough were they being?
> We (as Californians) have GOT to do better than this!
We pay more taxes than anyone else in the country. /We/ are doing our part. The administration needs to be held accountable.
> We have got to cut the red tape and properly fund projects.
We need to light a fire under the administration and someone needs to take a wrecking ball through the state assembly.
> /We/ are doing our part. The administration needs to be held accountable.
... By the electorate, who clearly aren't doing their part if things like this keep happening.
... By the electorate, who clearly aren't doing their part if things like this keep happening.
Other than going down to the assembly and yelling what do you propose? We could call the representatives, recall the representatives, create a ballot measure, or vote differently next time.
Stop re-electing the same people. I vote for someone different in my state’s partisan primaries, because I believe high turnover of elected representatives is beneficial. I may still vote for the incumbent in the general election, but never in the primary.
There are term limits in california.
Dalewyn(3)
People want infrastructure and then when it gets built, they say it’s too expensive and takes too long. Valid criticisms but many throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Rail for people is hard to get profitable without pretty high cost (or permanent subsidies).
Look at Switzerland - this is the land of trains, all reachable cities and villages have main train station at their heart, use is frequent, and its part of national pride (precision, coverage, cleanliness etc.). Yet prices are brutal, sure if you live here you can often afford it but it still hurts. The price keeps rising.
And I still use our family car for anything else but commuting to work (and even for that sometimes). Morning trains packed like sardines, in reality there are frequent (usually small though) delays which cascade. Car for 4 is significantly cheaper - I'd say 4x for full tickets, less with half/card but then thats 200 bucks a year on its own per head.
Whatever problems you are facing, I doubt that in US rail will solve all of them. Happy to be wrong here of course. I see rather some AI vans/minibuses ondemand hailing and sharing as way more effective and cheap solution. Small bus full of people has minimal env impact and can provide door-to-door transport.
Look at Switzerland - this is the land of trains, all reachable cities and villages have main train station at their heart, use is frequent, and its part of national pride (precision, coverage, cleanliness etc.). Yet prices are brutal, sure if you live here you can often afford it but it still hurts. The price keeps rising.
And I still use our family car for anything else but commuting to work (and even for that sometimes). Morning trains packed like sardines, in reality there are frequent (usually small though) delays which cascade. Car for 4 is significantly cheaper - I'd say 4x for full tickets, less with half/card but then thats 200 bucks a year on its own per head.
Whatever problems you are facing, I doubt that in US rail will solve all of them. Happy to be wrong here of course. I see rather some AI vans/minibuses ondemand hailing and sharing as way more effective and cheap solution. Small bus full of people has minimal env impact and can provide door-to-door transport.
> Car for 4 is significantly cheaper - I'd say 4x for full tickets
Would it be cheaper with all the usual externalities priced in?
Would it be cheaper with all the usual externalities priced in?
I meant that it takes a long time to build and costs too much to build. But like another commenter said, externalities and the implicit subsidies that other modes of transportation get make it a difficult comparison.
Cleaner forms of transportation should be subsidized. The fact that it costs me $8 to cross the Bay Bridge into SF but costs $10+ round trip on BART is a shame. Especially when you have two or three people in the car.
Cleaner forms of transportation should be subsidized. The fact that it costs me $8 to cross the Bay Bridge into SF but costs $10+ round trip on BART is a shame. Especially when you have two or three people in the car.
Completely agree!
The hard parts seems to be figuring out (1) how to cut red tape for only certain projects and (2) figuring out what red tape to keep.
Chesterton's fence and all that.
The hard parts seems to be figuring out (1) how to cut red tape for only certain projects and (2) figuring out what red tape to keep.
Chesterton's fence and all that.
I’m getting more and more convinced that this is a main problem all over the West. In Germany, a business owner called Marco Scheel is becoming more and more popular by being very outspoken about how bureaucracy is hindering him. His company is called Nordwolle by the way. They make clothing out of sheep wool. They spend a lot of effort finding the right type of wool so they don’t need chemicals to paint it.
One major example which Marco first became popular with was that he owned a barn but wasn’t allowed to use it for the factory since it was a farm on paper. The government told him to move to a designated factory area. He argued that it made no sense since he was living in a very remote area, and the barn was of high quality. What else should he do with the barn? Why would he need to build something new somewhere else? The barn was there already and stood already for hundreds of years.
His most popular quote is something along the lines of “we can’t all sit with a Chai latte and a MacBook in a coworking space in Berlin and make the 5th dating app. We need some people who do that but not everyone. Some people need to make things with their hands! And for that I need space! I don’t need glass fibre. I need space!”
One major example which Marco first became popular with was that he owned a barn but wasn’t allowed to use it for the factory since it was a farm on paper. The government told him to move to a designated factory area. He argued that it made no sense since he was living in a very remote area, and the barn was of high quality. What else should he do with the barn? Why would he need to build something new somewhere else? The barn was there already and stood already for hundreds of years.
His most popular quote is something along the lines of “we can’t all sit with a Chai latte and a MacBook in a coworking space in Berlin and make the 5th dating app. We need some people who do that but not everyone. Some people need to make things with their hands! And for that I need space! I don’t need glass fibre. I need space!”
> One major example which Marco first became popular with was that he owned a barn but wasn’t allowed to use it for the factory since it was a farm on paper. The government told him to move to a designated factory area. He argued that it made no sense since he was living in a very remote area, and the barn was of high quality. What else should he do with the barn? Why would he need to build something new somewhere else? The barn was there already and stood already for hundreds of years.
Of course it makes sense. Farmland is dedicated to farming and producing food/related things. It lacks connectivity, has fertile soil, prices are cheaper. If anyone can just build a factory there, they will have a negative ecological impact (interrupt animal flows, pollute in areas that are supposed to be cleaner, etc). It's the same reason why you can't farm in an industrial zone, nor can you set up a factory in the middle of the city.
Yes, it can be taken too far and abused, but absolutely 100% makes sense and must exist.
Of course it makes sense. Farmland is dedicated to farming and producing food/related things. It lacks connectivity, has fertile soil, prices are cheaper. If anyone can just build a factory there, they will have a negative ecological impact (interrupt animal flows, pollute in areas that are supposed to be cleaner, etc). It's the same reason why you can't farm in an industrial zone, nor can you set up a factory in the middle of the city.
Yes, it can be taken too far and abused, but absolutely 100% makes sense and must exist.
The guy's not building a gigafactory in his garden, is he?
> If anyone can just build a factory there, they will have a negative ecological impact (interrupt animal flows, pollute in areas that are supposed to be cleaner, etc).
All true of farming. FWIW as a fellow NIMBY myself, I use the excuse of 'animal flow' (in particular the flow of bats) to prevent anyone from putting anything more than a fence up within 150m of my house. It's great!
> If anyone can just build a factory there, they will have a negative ecological impact (interrupt animal flows, pollute in areas that are supposed to be cleaner, etc).
All true of farming. FWIW as a fellow NIMBY myself, I use the excuse of 'animal flow' (in particular the flow of bats) to prevent anyone from putting anything more than a fence up within 150m of my house. It's great!
> The guy's not building a gigafactory in his garden, is he?
How could this possibly be known without a review in your opinion?
> fellow NIMBY myself
Unless you're American, things don't have to be so binary. The choice isn't between nothing gets built or anyone can just do whatever. We need a balance.
> All true of farming
I'm pretty sure birds and bees and what not prefer having plants than factories.
How could this possibly be known without a review in your opinion?
> fellow NIMBY myself
Unless you're American, things don't have to be so binary. The choice isn't between nothing gets built or anyone can just do whatever. We need a balance.
> All true of farming
I'm pretty sure birds and bees and what not prefer having plants than factories.
> How could this possibly be known without a review in your opinion?
By all means, have planning applications and a system to process them. Things don't have to be so binary.
By all means, have planning applications and a system to process them. Things don't have to be so binary.
You're going to end up in a position where you're telling a farmer how to manage & value farmland. That'll lead to more misses than hits.
> You're going to end up in a position where you're telling a farmer how to manage
Funny you say that. Not only does that actually happen in pretty much all developed country, it's actually needed for a variety of reasons. There are subsidies to incentivise the "correct" crops (you don't want all farmers only doing cash crops for export, rendering your country very vulnerable to import markets to sustain itself), there are also rules/policies to rotate crops to avoid top soil erosion which could be devastating, there are rules on what types of pesticides can be used, etc etc etc etc.
Funny you say that. Not only does that actually happen in pretty much all developed country, it's actually needed for a variety of reasons. There are subsidies to incentivise the "correct" crops (you don't want all farmers only doing cash crops for export, rendering your country very vulnerable to import markets to sustain itself), there are also rules/policies to rotate crops to avoid top soil erosion which could be devastating, there are rules on what types of pesticides can be used, etc etc etc etc.
> Not only does that actually happen in pretty much all developed country...
"Everyone does it" isn't much of an argument when it comes to economics, the field is littered with a long history of group-think episodes where most people do things in a way that was, in hindsight, a mistake. And being steamrollered by more economically productive societies that don't ban progress. The modern policies developed countries adopted have resulted in vast investments in China (and Asia more broadly) to dodge the regulatory states that were built.
And the rest of your comment is straightforwardly telling farmers how to farm. On average, I bet they know all that stuff better than the legislators. They're farmers! If we can't trust them to farm then putting regulators in charge isn't going to save us. That attitude of mother knowing best is still going to result in more misses than hits, even if confidently repeated a few times.
"Everyone does it" isn't much of an argument when it comes to economics, the field is littered with a long history of group-think episodes where most people do things in a way that was, in hindsight, a mistake. And being steamrollered by more economically productive societies that don't ban progress. The modern policies developed countries adopted have resulted in vast investments in China (and Asia more broadly) to dodge the regulatory states that were built.
And the rest of your comment is straightforwardly telling farmers how to farm. On average, I bet they know all that stuff better than the legislators. They're farmers! If we can't trust them to farm then putting regulators in charge isn't going to save us. That attitude of mother knowing best is still going to result in more misses than hits, even if confidently repeated a few times.
> And the rest of your comment is straightforwardly telling farmers how to farm. On average, I bet they know all that stuff better than the legislators. They're farmers
Strongly disagree. The incentives are just not the same. If farmers use pesticides which will kill all bugs and pollute nearby rivers to increase their yield a tiny bit, that's not good for everyone else. If they decide they're only going to do tobacco because it's very lucrative to export, that's not good either. If the techniques they're using are obsolete (and thus inefficient and resulting in them barely being able to survive against foreign competition) or very bad for the soil/environment.
Farmers produce food, it's one of the most critical things in a country. If things go wrong, there are famines or economical crisis (cf. Egypt, Sri Lanka in the last few years, Soviet Russia in the past century). Hell, many countries were couped to take over control over their farming sectors for commercial interests (Hawai, Central America and the Caribbean, cf. the Banana Wars).
Strongly disagree. The incentives are just not the same. If farmers use pesticides which will kill all bugs and pollute nearby rivers to increase their yield a tiny bit, that's not good for everyone else. If they decide they're only going to do tobacco because it's very lucrative to export, that's not good either. If the techniques they're using are obsolete (and thus inefficient and resulting in them barely being able to survive against foreign competition) or very bad for the soil/environment.
Farmers produce food, it's one of the most critical things in a country. If things go wrong, there are famines or economical crisis (cf. Egypt, Sri Lanka in the last few years, Soviet Russia in the past century). Hell, many countries were couped to take over control over their farming sectors for commercial interests (Hawai, Central America and the Caribbean, cf. the Banana Wars).
I associate this attitude with criticism of Wikipedia and narcissism. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's often around editing things they are related to that this comes up.
I tried to do something and they stopped me. This is wrong, I should be able to do this and write my own story.
Which is a perfectly normal feeling. But if you end up saying that loudly in public without ever thinking, well what if the rule of "let this person do whatever they want" applied to people other than yourself, then that seems to indicate some lack of a wider view.
I tried to do something and they stopped me. This is wrong, I should be able to do this and write my own story.
Which is a perfectly normal feeling. But if you end up saying that loudly in public without ever thinking, well what if the rule of "let this person do whatever they want" applied to people other than yourself, then that seems to indicate some lack of a wider view.
> ... well what if the rule of "let this person do whatever they want" applied to people other than yourself, then that seems to indicate some lack of a wider view.
It sounds like Mr. Scheel is applying exactly that view. The idea is everyone should be able to use their remote farm shed for industrial purposes. Indeed, most of the intellectual foundation of the pro-freedom view is precisely that when you take a wider view freedom is generally better for everyone than authoritarianism right up until it becomes a threat to personal safety (even then, pushing the dial a little further towards freedom generally gets better results). If people can't do what they want, then how are things supposed to get done? If we're all doing things in ways that are believed to be impractical then it is going to waste an unreasonable amount of resources and be stupid.
It sounds like Mr. Scheel is applying exactly that view. The idea is everyone should be able to use their remote farm shed for industrial purposes. Indeed, most of the intellectual foundation of the pro-freedom view is precisely that when you take a wider view freedom is generally better for everyone than authoritarianism right up until it becomes a threat to personal safety (even then, pushing the dial a little further towards freedom generally gets better results). If people can't do what they want, then how are things supposed to get done? If we're all doing things in ways that are believed to be impractical then it is going to waste an unreasonable amount of resources and be stupid.
> I associate this attitude with criticism of Wikipedia and narcissism.
I never said anything about Wikipedia. For the record, I'm a big fan of Wikipedia and I'm skeptical about the new US government.
Please don't assume that because someone holds opinion X that they also hold opinion Y. With the current levels of polarization, it's probably a fair assumption to make, but I think we all as individuals have a responsibility to counter that.
I never said anything about Wikipedia. For the record, I'm a big fan of Wikipedia and I'm skeptical about the new US government.
Please don't assume that because someone holds opinion X that they also hold opinion Y. With the current levels of polarization, it's probably a fair assumption to make, but I think we all as individuals have a responsibility to counter that.
I brought up Wikipedia because it's something I'm interested in.
And it's an example of somewhere I'd seen this exact argument against rules/regulation regularly made on HN stories and the comments on them in what I thought was a mostly non-political context.
And it's an example of somewhere I'd seen this exact argument against rules/regulation regularly made on HN stories and the comments on them in what I thought was a mostly non-political context.
> I associate this attitude with criticism of Wikipedia and narcissism.
> I brought up Wikipedia because it's something I'm interested in.
> I brought up Wikipedia because it's something I'm interested in.
If you have to cut red tape for certain projects, the tape probably shouldn't exist in the first place.
edit: for instance, if you have e.g. an environmental regulation that is so onerous that exemptions must be doled out for something as sensible as train electrification, then you don't have an environmental review regulation, you have a 'build nothing except what the exemptor decrees' regulation. Which is rather antithetical to the rule of law and good governance.
edit: for instance, if you have e.g. an environmental regulation that is so onerous that exemptions must be doled out for something as sensible as train electrification, then you don't have an environmental review regulation, you have a 'build nothing except what the exemptor decrees' regulation. Which is rather antithetical to the rule of law and good governance.
As a former Californian, you try saying that and you'll be labeled a crazy person railing against the machine.
Bureaucracies everywhere tend to protect itself, but California's is particularly vicious. There is a reason many of us call the place Commiefornia.
Bureaucracies everywhere tend to protect itself, but California's is particularly vicious. There is a reason many of us call the place Commiefornia.
I'm not sure it'll work but we have one of the loudest critics of over regulation making it hard to build things setting up the Department of Government Efficiency when he's not doing iffy salutes on stage.
Their proposed approach as written in a WSJ opinion piece is quite interesting -
>Most legal edicts aren’t laws enacted by Congress but “rules and regulations” promulgated by unelected bureaucrats—tens of thousands of them each year
>...President Trump, [] can, by executive action, immediately pause the enforcement of those regulations and initiate the process for review and rescission.
>When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics will allege executive overreach. In fact, it will be correcting the executive overreach of thousands of regulations promulgated by administrative fiat that were never authorized by Congress...
(wsj thing https://archive.is/nFNp4)
>Most legal edicts aren’t laws enacted by Congress but “rules and regulations” promulgated by unelected bureaucrats—tens of thousands of them each year
>...President Trump, [] can, by executive action, immediately pause the enforcement of those regulations and initiate the process for review and rescission.
>When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics will allege executive overreach. In fact, it will be correcting the executive overreach of thousands of regulations promulgated by administrative fiat that were never authorized by Congress...
(wsj thing https://archive.is/nFNp4)
> iffy
You can just call it what it is and say Nazi salute.
You can just call it what it is and say Nazi salute.
That's good to hear. Especially since the electric trains accelerate so much faster than the Diesel ones did. Have you been next to one at takeoff? They're going about 40MPH before the train has traveled its own length. Probably limited more by standing passengers than power. Most of the energy used accelerating is recovered at the next stop, so the fast acceleration does not consume much energy.
> Most of the energy used accelerating is recovered at the next stop, so the fast acceleration does not consume much energy.
Not "most," but a lot. From the article: > regenerative braking on the new trains is generating and sending back to the electric grid approximately 23% of the energy consumed by the system
Not "most," but a lot. From the article: > regenerative braking on the new trains is generating and sending back to the electric grid approximately 23% of the energy consumed by the system
it is 23% of total energy. if you consider only acceleration energy, it will be much larger percentage, probably 80% (as in electric cars).
> so the fast acceleration does not consume much energy
Also, acceleration has no effect on the energy if you’re trying to hit the same target speed (unless there is friction, in which case you’d use less energy with higher acceleration)
Also, acceleration has no effect on the energy if you’re trying to hit the same target speed (unless there is friction, in which case you’d use less energy with higher acceleration)
Another cool thing in the article that I didn't know personally: Caltrain runs on 100% renewable power!
They claim that "Caltrain is running its service on 100% renewable energy", but they are connected to the same grid as everyone else. It doesn't really make sense to say, half of our electricity is green, so customer X is renewable, but customer Y is not renewable.
Power is pooled. If I buy from a supplier or group of suppliers that (1) procures only from renewable resources (2) isn’t reselling power from non renewable sources, (3) hasn’t sold the power more than once, and (4) is capable of providing my energy demands at any given time, then I am buying green power from the pool. It doesn’t matter if the actual electrons come from Ng or coal because I bought enough for the pool (the electrons I added to the pool will be used by someone else if I am using ng electrons).
Not 100% sure this is how Caltrain works but the fact that everyone is physically using the same pool does not imply that you cannot be 100% renewable if you buy from suppliers to the pool with the above properties.
Not 100% sure this is how Caltrain works but the fact that everyone is physically using the same pool does not imply that you cannot be 100% renewable if you buy from suppliers to the pool with the above properties.
It doesn't physically, but it does financially. Power generation is not free after all, so any power station, be it renewable or non-renewable, will only be producing as long as people are buying electricity from it.
You can generally choose what kind of power generation mix you want from a utility. eg I am on a 100% renewable plan.
Out of the 25GW being generated right now only 3GW are renewable. There is a corner where there is more demand from "100% renewable" customers than there actually is available renewable energy. There is no point at which this gets made up.
I’m not sure where your figures are coming from, did you mean at the moment of posting your comment? If you look at the integral over the year, California does decently well[1] on renewables, and the people paying for it help blunt the competitive edge of the tremendous federal subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels.
[1]https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...
[1]https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...
> did you mean at the moment of posting your comment?
Yes, right this moment. You can see this here: https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/supply
> does decently well[1] on renewables
Technically it does decently well on combined "non greenhouse gas + renewables." This is a rather self serving categorization of generation sources and might not be what people buying "100% renewable" energy think they're actually getting.
In any case, subtracting Nuclear and Hydro, if more than half the kWh purchased in the state are purchased as "100% renewable", they cannot all be possibly served by renewables even in the aggregate.
Yes, right this moment. You can see this here: https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/supply
> does decently well[1] on renewables
Technically it does decently well on combined "non greenhouse gas + renewables." This is a rather self serving categorization of generation sources and might not be what people buying "100% renewable" energy think they're actually getting.
In any case, subtracting Nuclear and Hydro, if more than half the kWh purchased in the state are purchased as "100% renewable", they cannot all be possibly served by renewables even in the aggregate.
There are two views of this.
The first is that at any given point in time, my instantaneous energy use is offset by renewables.
The second is that over some period of time (e.g., one month) my aggregate energy use is offset by renewables.
The second is MUCH easier. When people say things are 100% renewable, I generally think they mean the second thing. This is a bit of a fudge (not wrong but not 100% level).
The first is that at any given point in time, my instantaneous energy use is offset by renewables.
The second is that over some period of time (e.g., one month) my aggregate energy use is offset by renewables.
The second is MUCH easier. When people say things are 100% renewable, I generally think they mean the second thing. This is a bit of a fudge (not wrong but not 100% level).
Yes, electrons are electrons are electrons. But customer X is paying for the renewable sources and customer Y is paying for the non-renewable sources, so customer X can say that they are renewable.
I'm using the solar. You're using the natural gas. Easy. You just say it.
This literally doesn’t matter. The energy consumption of a train is trivial compared to displacing cars. If there was a way to trade this savings for higher speed, ridership, or frequency, it would be worth it.
(If there’s not, this is a free win and yay - but it’s the wrong focus)
(If there’s not, this is a free win and yay - but it’s the wrong focus)
At least it's a win for air quality for the people that live near the tracks. You could smell and taste the old diesels, was pretty annoying.
really? how close were you living? i lived for years just 3 houses over from the tracks and never even smelled the trains. definitely heard them tho
I lived across the street. Just walking around you smell it when they go by. Not a huge deal but definitely an improvement!
I'd breathe it as I biked alongside. Maybe prevailing wind helped your air quality.
Both speed and frequency are significantly up, and I’ve heard ridership is as well. Also, noise and pollution are substantially down. A huge win all around.
It's hilarious but sad to watch Americans learn things that agencies abroad already know. The other example of this I saw today was that in NYC the congestion pricing has "surprisingly" slashed the number of car crashes and injuries in Manhattan. Like, duh.
I feel this is positive news moving in a positive direction. Do you suggest not doing anything to improve the situation? We can’t go back in time. But we can help ourselves in the future.
I think it’s more that Americans seem to be surprised by things that people in other countries have known for decades.
Meanwhile, the current administration is trying to send us back to the 19th century in civil rights, healthcare and energy policy.
Meanwhile, the current administration is trying to send us back to the 19th century in civil rights, healthcare and energy policy.
https://xkcd.com/1053/ but with different numbers
One way to help yourselves in the future would be to learn the meta-lesson that actually things that work in other countries mostly work the same way in the US too.
Yes this whole thread is so depressing. Most commenters here are talking as if electric trains were an oddity. It's like listening to people questioning the benefit of running water over the old school walk to the well.
Oh, we all know. It’s just convenient to pretend otherwise sometimes.
I feel this improvement is negligible. I doubt you'll see any meaningful change in your lifetime.
At best you'll see an electric car renaissance. But the infra for trains and public transit? Doubtful.
At best you'll see an electric car renaissance. But the infra for trains and public transit? Doubtful.
It’s still a positive change an I’m all for it.
I'm all for positive change too. But as someone who isn't delusional, I have to account for practicality rather then dreaming about an unrealistic future.
Of course its positive news. Of fourse we cant go back in time. Its still good fun to poke at US for being so late on these discoveries.
How do you get the choir to sing? You preach to the choir.
When the needle is moving in the right direction, publicize that so everyone knows about it. That public info makes it harder if someone then comes around and suggests undoing/defunding or any other type of thing that stop the needle or make the needle move in the opposite direction. Keeping the info quiet makes yanking the plug very easy
When the needle is moving in the right direction, publicize that so everyone knows about it. That public info makes it harder if someone then comes around and suggests undoing/defunding or any other type of thing that stop the needle or make the needle move in the opposite direction. Keeping the info quiet makes yanking the plug very easy
I dunno...
Many trains in London still don't do regenerative braking despite the technology to generate electricity from motion being around for... checks notes... 194 years!
Many trains in London still don't do regenerative braking despite the technology to generate electricity from motion being around for... checks notes... 194 years!
You probably know more about this than me, but it looks like some lines do: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-informa...
Regenerative braking in cars also keeps a lot of brake dust out of the air. A pair of brake pads lasts about as long as the life of an EV.
Regenerative braking in cars also keeps a lot of brake dust out of the air. A pair of brake pads lasts about as long as the life of an EV.
> You probably know more about this than me, but it looks like some lines do
I'm confused. Your phrasing suggests that you're adding in new and potentially conflicting information, but "many don't" and "some do" mean the same thing.
I'm confused. Your phrasing suggests that you're adding in new and potentially conflicting information, but "many don't" and "some do" mean the same thing.
The missing piece of info here is that while most of the trains have the capability to do regen braking, it is generally ineffective because it can only be used if another train on the same section of track happens to also be accelerating at the same time.
That happens rarely enough that most of the trains, most of the time, do not effectively regen, and instead use mechanical or resistive braking.
That happens rarely enough that most of the trains, most of the time, do not effectively regen, and instead use mechanical or resistive braking.
There was chatter 20-30 years ago about using flywheels to bank the energy until needed.
The deepest metro lines are also boiling, because the heat from braking just gets constantly absorbed into the ground, and the ground's ability to disperse the heat is maxed out.
Some of that heat is now used to heat homes via a local heat network originally built to use combined heat and power.
Do trains need batteries for regenerative braking, or is it sent right back on the same power lines?
The article says this version sends it back out on the same power lines, either used by other trains or pushed back into the grid. Seems like a perfect job for supercapacitors, although I have no idea about the feasibility of that solution. I imagine that batteries having huge input/output cycles like that wouldn't be healthy for them. Again, pulled from my imagination because I don't really know much about battery wear/use.
If it were 1995, the optimal solution would have been NiMH batteries at the side of the track. They can do massive currents in and out, and a few tons of batteries would be enough to fully store the energy of a passenger train stopping from 60 mph to nil inside 30 secs.
NiMH could have been attached directly to the rails.
Today, lithium batteries win for Watts per dollar, and perhaps custom made packs could also be attached directly to the rails.
But a cheaper solution is probably bidirectional inverters, allowing the DC generated by the trains to be fed back into the 3 phase national grid.
Unfortunately, all trains in London today cannot regen into the grid - they can only regen into the rails and hope that some other train on the same rail is accelerating at the same time to use the energy. By my estimates, that only happens less than half the time.
NiMH could have been attached directly to the rails.
Today, lithium batteries win for Watts per dollar, and perhaps custom made packs could also be attached directly to the rails.
But a cheaper solution is probably bidirectional inverters, allowing the DC generated by the trains to be fed back into the 3 phase national grid.
Unfortunately, all trains in London today cannot regen into the grid - they can only regen into the rails and hope that some other train on the same rail is accelerating at the same time to use the energy. By my estimates, that only happens less than half the time.
Generally, trains are scheduled so that one train decelerating roughly coincide with another accelerating. You can plan ahead and orchestrate all you want and overcommit capacity as much as you want. Leftover that didn't cancel out is fed back to hydroelectric dams for gravity storage which do require cleaning but are immune to chemical degradation.
By the way, implementing regen on synchronous motors is relatively easy, IIUC, command a positive torque to the inverter and it draws current and line voltage gets pulled down. Command negative and opposite happens.
By the way, implementing regen on synchronous motors is relatively easy, IIUC, command a positive torque to the inverter and it draws current and line voltage gets pulled down. Command negative and opposite happens.
> The other example of this I saw today was that in NYC the congestion pricing has "surprisingly" slashed the number of car crashes and injuries in Manhattan. Like, duh.
You didn't see the online crowds screaming up and down that it wouldn't do anything but pick the pockets of people? Many genuinely did not believe things would change.
You didn't see the online crowds screaming up and down that it wouldn't do anything but pick the pockets of people? Many genuinely did not believe things would change.
I don't see why it couldn't be surprising - if there are fewer cars in Manhattan, it could mean the cars will have a higher average speed, meaning they might be more likely to get into an accident.
My experience in Manhattan is that when it gets really congested, it turns into a giant game of chicken with everyone jockeying for position. This has got to lead to a lot of accidents (although probably mostly fairly minor)
"Surprisingly" is an opinion on the part of whoever wrote that, but it's not a surprise to any of the advocates.
It has been working better than expected, possibly because the bad drivers were breaking a lot of other traffic laws and this one's easier to enforce so is actually keeping them away.
It has been working better than expected, possibly because the bad drivers were breaking a lot of other traffic laws and this one's easier to enforce so is actually keeping them away.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I can’t believe the New York City subway does not have this technology. We are currently breathing brake dust in the subway.
>regenerative braking on the new trains is generating and sending back to the electric grid approximately 23% of the energy consumed by the system
does this make sense? let's round that 23 up to 25%, and say brake energy regeneration is 100% efficient (it's not): one quarter of the energy put into the system comes back out? city driving in a car, you might have your foot on the brake 25% of the time (yes, that's not how it works, just think conceptually) but a train spends a lot of time running, and comparatively a small amount of time braking, and if you were to detach the engine from the train, one doesn't get a sense the train would roll very far unpowered, so while there's momentum to scavenge, it doesn't seem like 25% of the total
I'm just thinking, how do these numbers make sense?
does this make sense? let's round that 23 up to 25%, and say brake energy regeneration is 100% efficient (it's not): one quarter of the energy put into the system comes back out? city driving in a car, you might have your foot on the brake 25% of the time (yes, that's not how it works, just think conceptually) but a train spends a lot of time running, and comparatively a small amount of time braking, and if you were to detach the engine from the train, one doesn't get a sense the train would roll very far unpowered, so while there's momentum to scavenge, it doesn't seem like 25% of the total
I'm just thinking, how do these numbers make sense?
Firstly, I believe the trains are EMUs, so every bogey is powered rather than having the whole thing hailed by an engine; this is actually a huge benefit of electric as the trains can accelerate to speed much faster when they’re all wheel drive.
But to address your main point, the rolling resistance of a train in motion is tiny; basically all the energy cost is at acceleration time— it probably cruises at like 5-10% power.
But to address your main point, the rolling resistance of a train in motion is tiny; basically all the energy cost is at acceleration time— it probably cruises at like 5-10% power.
"rolling very far unpowered" is like the entire point of rail systems
I would say that's not precisely true. the point of rail systems started out as "big power plant pulls lots of load". Once that was in place, yes, rolling very far unpowered becomes a compelling improvement.
a good comparison would be the invention of the travois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travois which benefitted from the addition of wheels.
a good comparison would be the invention of the travois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travois which benefitted from the addition of wheels.
Rails were invented for horse drawn carts. The low rolling resistance was the point. First steam locomotives were pretty weak and needed the efficiency. They were also used on existing tramways that had to be upgraded as trains got bigger.
Exactly. There's a train route here in The Netherlands, from Den Bosch to Utrecht, where the train can coast the last 20 km. That's out of a 48 km trip, so almost half!
Trains have little friction on the tracks. That's one of the ways they are much more efficient than a car (with rubber tires).
If the moving friction is very low, it makes sense that not that much energy is used to move the train once it's at speed. Slowing it down would return some of the energy back (with the rest dissipated as heat).
If the moving friction is very low, it makes sense that not that much energy is used to move the train once it's at speed. Slowing it down would return some of the energy back (with the rest dissipated as heat).
Even with a car's higher rolling resistance, most of the drag at cruising speed is aerodynamic, though.
But a commuter train, by definition, starts and stops a lot so it makes sense that a large fraction of the energy used would be for acceleration.
But a commuter train, by definition, starts and stops a lot so it makes sense that a large fraction of the energy used would be for acceleration.
Aerodynamic drag is proportional to cross sectional area. A train only has maybe 2-3x the drag of a car at the same speed, but it has on the order of 100 to 1000x the mass and momentum. It takes forever for drag to do anything to a train at speed.
> one doesn't get a sense the train would roll very far unpowered
Even a model/toy train wagon can easily coast the length of a large room when given a push.
See how little metal is in contact, about 1cm²: https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/17ysd...
There's very little friction.
Even a model/toy train wagon can easily coast the length of a large room when given a push.
See how little metal is in contact, about 1cm²: https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/17ysd...
There's very little friction.
Try out the video game Derail Valley and you'll get a decently realistic idea of just how much trains tend to just coast along without any power input. On flat ground you just need a little nudge every once in a while to keep going.
If the renewably sourced power is purchased from big hydroelectric dams, the institutional price might depend on how full the reservoirs are. Power costs might be higher in drier years.
> With the agency expecting approximately $6 million annually in energy credits from the California Air Resources Board’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program the first year of electric service will have lower fuel costs than the previous diesel service
Thats the key. Without the subsidy its more expensive and less efficient than carbon based fuel. In the long run we are worse off, because the subsidy can't last forever.
Thats the key. Without the subsidy its more expensive and less efficient than carbon based fuel. In the long run we are worse off, because the subsidy can't last forever.
They've significantly increased the timetable frequency though, so they're running more trains, and those trains are accelerating and running much faster than the old diesel-electrics. I don't think you're comparing like for like.
> Without the subsidy its more expensive and less efficient than carbon based fuel.
If markets actually worked for long-term decisionmaking and were therefore capable of pricing in negative externalities, then factoring in the cost of causing Earth to asymptotically approach Venus would change this calculus.
If markets actually worked for long-term decisionmaking and were therefore capable of pricing in negative externalities, then factoring in the cost of causing Earth to asymptotically approach Venus would change this calculus.
> Without the subsidy its more expensive and less efficient than carbon based fuel. In the long run we are worse off, because the subsidy can't last forever.
That doesn't seem to be the full picture.
1) The most recent FY 2025 budget (https://www.caltrain.com/media/30699/) has fuel and lubricant expenditures expected to be $5 million. With electricity expenditure estimates dropping to $16.5 million, that puts total expenditures at $21.5 million. The diesel expenditures remain because the long San Jose <> Gilroy corridor isn't electrified and requires diesel locomotive service. Contrast this against FY 2023 expenditures of $17.5 million. That's almost a 25% increase in movement power expenditures.
2) There is increased service now. About ~120 trains run on the latest weekday service timetable (https://www.caltrain.com/media/34716), and 8 of them are diesel service between San Jose and Gilroy. Compare this to ~90 trains for weekday service in 2023 (https://www.caltrain.com/media/30027/download?inline), of which 6 are diesel service between San Jose and Gilroy. Conservatively, we have a 25% increase in service.
3) The new trains are faster. Hitting every stop between San Jose and San Francisco is 101 minutes on diesel and 83 minutes on electric.
So we get an increase in movement power costs proportional to the increase in service, all while having faster trains. I think it's a fair trade.
The subsidies are just gravy on top for a job well done.
EDIT: fixed 2023 weekday service link
That doesn't seem to be the full picture.
1) The most recent FY 2025 budget (https://www.caltrain.com/media/30699/) has fuel and lubricant expenditures expected to be $5 million. With electricity expenditure estimates dropping to $16.5 million, that puts total expenditures at $21.5 million. The diesel expenditures remain because the long San Jose <> Gilroy corridor isn't electrified and requires diesel locomotive service. Contrast this against FY 2023 expenditures of $17.5 million. That's almost a 25% increase in movement power expenditures.
2) There is increased service now. About ~120 trains run on the latest weekday service timetable (https://www.caltrain.com/media/34716), and 8 of them are diesel service between San Jose and Gilroy. Compare this to ~90 trains for weekday service in 2023 (https://www.caltrain.com/media/30027/download?inline), of which 6 are diesel service between San Jose and Gilroy. Conservatively, we have a 25% increase in service.
3) The new trains are faster. Hitting every stop between San Jose and San Francisco is 101 minutes on diesel and 83 minutes on electric.
So we get an increase in movement power costs proportional to the increase in service, all while having faster trains. I think it's a fair trade.
The subsidies are just gravy on top for a job well done.
EDIT: fixed 2023 weekday service link
> Currently, Caltrain is providing that power to the grid free of charge as there is no legal requirement for the agency to be reimbursed for the energy generated.
With further investment in energy storage it sounds like they could nearly cover a lost subsidy.
Moreover, the improved service from electric (faster acceleration and better air quality) seem very worthwhile.
With further investment in energy storage it sounds like they could nearly cover a lost subsidy.
Moreover, the improved service from electric (faster acceleration and better air quality) seem very worthwhile.
This is because PG&E retail is about 2.5x the national average.
Also, worth noting in the event the conclusions are extrapolated to diesel over the road transportation: train diesel is much less expensive as it's exempt from fuel (state and federal) taxes.
Also, worth noting in the event the conclusions are extrapolated to diesel over the road transportation: train diesel is much less expensive as it's exempt from fuel (state and federal) taxes.
>In the long run we are worse off, because the subsidy can't last forever.
You're making the classic error here of not factoring the externalities involved - the pollution and other issues from fossil fuels. If they were actually being paid for then electricity would be much cheaper. Fossil fuels get a defacto subsidy by being able to pollute the environment without any cost.
You're making the classic error here of not factoring the externalities involved - the pollution and other issues from fossil fuels. If they were actually being paid for then electricity would be much cheaper. Fossil fuels get a defacto subsidy by being able to pollute the environment without any cost.
I mean, this is good news, but why was the efficiency of the system so misunderstood at the design phase? I hope someone's interested enough to find out!
Ahoi! Participated to the development of a simulation tool for that purpose. Many factors need to be taken into account:
- The gradients of the track
- How agressively you want to drive at different time of the day
- How many trains
- The timing of the trains. When one train brakes, it can power another one that accelerates at the same moment
- The efficiency of the power chain
- The resistance model of the train
With so many parameters the results can be quite volatile. However, rule of the thumb in the business is that 30% saving can be achieved with good energy management. Hope this clarifies a little.
Update: bullet points
- The gradients of the track
- How agressively you want to drive at different time of the day
- How many trains
- The timing of the trains. When one train brakes, it can power another one that accelerates at the same moment
- The efficiency of the power chain
- The resistance model of the train
With so many parameters the results can be quite volatile. However, rule of the thumb in the business is that 30% saving can be achieved with good energy management. Hope this clarifies a little.
Update: bullet points
Maybe they didn't factor in ridership on certain part of the track gradient, which would lead to more regen braking than expected?
Train technology is so behind compared to road electric vehicles.
Companies that build train batteries have been trying to sell to us (car OEMs) lately, and we look at the battery specs and battery management system capabilities and go uhhhh…
On the motor and control fronts as well.
Companies that build train batteries have been trying to sell to us (car OEMs) lately, and we look at the battery specs and battery management system capabilities and go uhhhh…
On the motor and control fronts as well.
Why? Just build more trains any train infrastructure is so much better than cars, they barely need improvement, they just need to be built
But for example if they used PMM squirrel cage motors etc, they would be nice and smooth, cheaper to build, more energy efficient.
On the battery front, using car-style or truck-style EV battery modules would be more robust and would reduce cost by somewhere in the order of 50%.
Instead, most trains still use induction motors (this is the high pitch whine you hear) and many train battery designs use industrial style rack mount batteries, with screw terminals, controlled by a massive PLC cabinet. In eMobility the controls are handled by a small safety-rated microcontroller.
On the battery front, using car-style or truck-style EV battery modules would be more robust and would reduce cost by somewhere in the order of 50%.
Instead, most trains still use induction motors (this is the high pitch whine you hear) and many train battery designs use industrial style rack mount batteries, with screw terminals, controlled by a massive PLC cabinet. In eMobility the controls are handled by a small safety-rated microcontroller.
They care a lot more about robustness, maintenance, max continuous power, than cost, volume, or short duration ratings. Commuter trains are used for a decade and half, then sold to developing nation to be used couple more. No surprise that they're choose rack batteries with thick cables to bus bars over plastic packs in trays, if they even consider using degradable batteries at all.
Developing a new train platform takes a lot of time but Siemen’s Velaro Novo platform (in development since 2013 and presented 2018) uses PMM motors[1].
Siemens has been trialing PMM motors since at least 2003[2].
[1] https://www.railjournal.com/in_depth/velaro-evolution/
[2] https://www.ew.tu-darmstadt.de/media/ew/rd/ew_vortraege/0305...
[1] https://www.railjournal.com/in_depth/velaro-evolution/
[2] https://www.ew.tu-darmstadt.de/media/ew/rd/ew_vortraege/0305...
What are you talking about? The noise you hear from trains is the wheels. Battery trains basically don't exist because of this cool invention called a wire and pantograph.
Electric commuter trains has coil whines, same thing as spaceship sounds Teslas make when launched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0B2bvd9rFQ
[deleted]
The “nice smooth trains” that commenters are talking about use a pantograph, transformer and small on-board battery, and can go a small distance (few kms) through tunnels and between track segments with the pantograph lowered.
The power system after the battery is similar to older model electric vehicles.
The power system after the battery is similar to older model electric vehicles.
There's no battery for the motors. A train can easily coast through a tunnel etc without any power.
(There will be a battery for lights etc.)
(There will be a battery for lights etc.)
Caltrain is plenty smooth, have you ridden it recently?
The fundamental problem with any infrastructure today is that
a) it works better in a densely populated territory,
b) but the more people around, the more NIMBY cliques to throw sand into the permiting process, usually abusing environmental protections to do so.
If the new Trump administration defangs NEPA reviews just a bit - and I see no evidence that the original intent behind NEPA was to delay everything everywhere by decades - it might help, but a powerful YIMBY movement would be even better.
a) it works better in a densely populated territory,
b) but the more people around, the more NIMBY cliques to throw sand into the permiting process, usually abusing environmental protections to do so.
If the new Trump administration defangs NEPA reviews just a bit - and I see no evidence that the original intent behind NEPA was to delay everything everywhere by decades - it might help, but a powerful YIMBY movement would be even better.
While this sounds like good news it's very odd to me that a project the size of Caltrain would completely forget about regenerative breaking when calculating the electricity usage.
They are using less electricity than expected. The article neglects to specify whether this is due to higher than expected efficiency, or higher than expected downtime. Not that there is necessarily a problem with the technology, but energy efficiency estimates should be expected to already be quite accurate, all the technology is super old. If the efficiency is not in fact higher, I think the article is written a little disingenuously, they should really be more specific.
[deleted]
Finally some good news
19 million annually. I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze here. They should focus on making Caltrain run reliably timely, and safely for the passengers.
Once we get the ridership numbers up we can easily make up for the electricity efficiency.
Once we get the ridership numbers up we can easily make up for the electricity efficiency.
Electrification wasn't just an efficiency thing, it also made the service much better because of the faster acceleration - IIRC my travel time to SF on weekends went from 75 to 50 minutes, which opens up a lot of use cases.
The other important implication is how Caltrain could be routed through underground tunnels to Salesforce transit center. 4th and king isn't super nice and, correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't well connected to other modes of transport. Maybe some muni buses.
4th & King has much better connections to transit and neighborhoods, and I hope they never build that tunnel.
Much better really? Looking at the muni map, pretty much all transit clusters around downtown. And bart doesn't even stop at 4th and King. You have to go to Millbrae for a close-ish transfer. Added to that the transit center is very close to the ferry building. And then you have golden gate transit. And it's a hub that has tons of space to accommodate a ton of transfers.
https://www.sfmta.com/maps/muni-service-map
https://www.sfmta.com/maps/muni-service-map
From Salesforce you can go up to the street and get the 38, granted. But to connect with BART or Muni Metro you are walking 2 blocks. At Caltrain you can get the N or T right across from the end of the platform, or board the 15, 30, or 25 bus. The T transfers to BART at Powell, with significant subterranean walking. And for trips within SF you might be closer to your destination starting from Caltrain. You'd crawl through a tunnel to Salesforce to be in Downtown/SoMa, a place everyone wants to leave?
This is certainly a take. Getting anywhere except SOMA startupland from 4th and King is a minimum 15 minute ride on the T or N.
It doesn't really seem like an either or type of situation.
My understanding is the electricity efficiency is really just a nice bonus (or perhaps justification) for making improvements that would also increase ridership.
I'm only loosely aware of the Electric Fleet, but my understanding is they add capacity that was desperately needed.
My understanding is the electricity efficiency is really just a nice bonus (or perhaps justification) for making improvements that would also increase ridership.
I'm only loosely aware of the Electric Fleet, but my understanding is they add capacity that was desperately needed.
In what world is $19 million just a "nice bonus"?
Get the rider numbers up and extend the lines. Thats the only thing we need right now.
Get the rider numbers up and extend the lines. Thats the only thing we need right now.
Considering the anti transit attitude of most suburban dwelling Americans I am personally glad they are touting this.
Considering the bad transit options they get anti transit is the rational choice. Suburbs are dense enough for great transit but it is expensive and so nobody can afford to give it to them. Thus continuing the cycle of bad transit worth opposing as the waste of money it is.
Suburbs are absolutely not dense enough for great transit, and the per capita coverage is bad enough the expense isn’t worth it. They can get sparse bus or light rail coverage and thats it. Great transit offers coverage for stops every mile, preferably half mile. Systems like Caltrain and bart are great for regional rail, but anywhere serviced by them is generally not well enough connected that you don’t have to drive to the station.
I think you are wrong. suburbs are dense enough in other countries to support ten minutes service. Then you just need to ensure no more than 15 minutes until you are on an express bus (not all will go downtown - the next suburb is important). Of course where you transfer to the express but should have lots of TOD so many are not transfering.
The above if done across the whole metro should get 30% mode share across the merto which would be world class. It would also cost about $200 per month per adult - which is a lot cheaper than a car - but still massively more than any city spends on transit.
The above if done across the whole metro should get 30% mode share across the merto which would be world class. It would also cost about $200 per month per adult - which is a lot cheaper than a car - but still massively more than any city spends on transit.
Caltrain runs reliably and safely for me, can you elaborate?
The $19 million for regenerative breaking can be used to extend lines or add new stations. We can make up for energy efficiency later.
I think you completely misunderstood the article. It says that the electricity used to power these trains was estimated to cost $19m a year, but the trains are a bit more efficient than expected, so the new estimate is only $16.5m/year.
Most if not all electric trains powered by overhead wires have regenerative braking that feeds back to the grid as standard, and Caltrain's new Stadler units definitely do. Nobody paid extra for regenerative braking, it's just the default way to do things on electric trains, to the point that it'd be weird not to have it. Even diesel-electrics often have a kind of regenerative braking, but they don't have anywhere to store the recovered energy so they just convert it to heat via huge resistors.
Most if not all electric trains powered by overhead wires have regenerative braking that feeds back to the grid as standard, and Caltrain's new Stadler units definitely do. Nobody paid extra for regenerative braking, it's just the default way to do things on electric trains, to the point that it'd be weird not to have it. Even diesel-electrics often have a kind of regenerative braking, but they don't have anywhere to store the recovered energy so they just convert it to heat via huge resistors.
There's additional cost for the transformers powering the caternary above the track to allow them to receive power, not just send it.
However, since this has been normal in Europe and Asia for decades, I doubt the additional expense is significant.
However, since this has been normal in Europe and Asia for decades, I doubt the additional expense is significant.
Between this, the new BART cars (also much quieter!), and Muni hitting a reliability & satisfaction records, there’s really a transit renaissance going on in the Bay Area. I really hope we can keep this going!