Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the exception of a few US cities. I don't think many are capable of building an efficient bus system, let alone a subway system. The competence level just isn't there. However the car dealers are all over the place. We are expected to own a car in this country, and politics and corporations keep us in cars intentionally. Building subways in the bigger US cities, should have been done years ago. I wish it had, and since it was not. I wish subways were being built right now, I just don't see it happening in this country. Not with the limited controlling mindsets in the US. Sorry I say it like it is.
Most of the big US cities had subways built years ago, check.
Subways are being built now, check.
For most the car is the better choice, but that's largely dependent upon their own actions. Eg, for most people living in Manhattan the car is not the better choice as most people don't own a car. In many cities car ownership rate is much lower than the country at large. Eg, San Francisco 30% of households don't have a car versus 10% in Sacramento. It's just a lot easier to not have a car in San Francisco than it is Sacramento. Of course San Fancisco and Manhattan are expensive. But Philly isn't that expensive, nor is is Chicago. Cleveland and Minneapolis also both have fairly high numbers of households without cars as well.
It has become more expensive and there is more red tape now than ever. This goes for most construction.
Imagine the Empire State building went up in ONE YEAR. This could never happen today with all the safety regulations, environmental considerations, disposal of material guidelines, and other red tape.
Decades ago it was the norm and even expected for people to die on major construction projects. Now its a big media frenzy if someone dies building a subway tunnel or skyscraper. Then they start investigating and the family looks to sue and other stuff.
While building has become more efficient and less labor intensive than the past.. it gets delayed and slowed down because of red tape, politics, regulations and fighting between different funding parties.
Look how long it took the build the freedom tower.
Electrification of Caltrain likewise has long been an option but it's never made any sense to do it. It'll electrify as part of CA HSR but absent that it hasn't as it makes no sense to.
Actually, the cause has been funding. Unlike BART, Caltrain doesn't have a dedicated funding source. Electrification would be hugely useful for Caltrain, allowing it to run trains more often, but the money simply hasn't been there because, for all the huge value it provides to the peninsula, it gets very little love in return.
Actually, the cause has been funding. Unlike BART, Caltrain doesn't have a dedicated funding source. Electrification would be hugely useful for Caltrain, allowing it to run trains more often, but the money simply hasn't been there because, for all the huge value it provides to the peninsula, it gets very little love in return.
Wont Caltrain run into the new Transbay station (is there an opportunity to through route to the east bay? If so electrification would seem alomost a requirement
Wont Caltrain run into the new Transbay station (is there an opportunity to through route to the east bay? If so electrification would seem alomost a requirement
If that tunnel gets funding, yes, it will go to the Transbay Terminal. And, as part of HSR, Caltrain is being electrified (~$1bn).
It would be cost prohibitive, to put it lightly, to bore two tunnels of that diameter under the bay and across fault lines. And that's ignoring the distance needed to go to that depth at a grade (2-3%) Caltrain could handle; the end of the Transbay Terminal is only 1300' from the water's edge, but the tunnel would need to get ~140' down (BART gets to ~135' below sea level).
Actually, the cause has been funding. Unlike BART, Caltrain doesn't have a dedicated funding source. Electrification would be hugely useful for Caltrain, allowing it to run trains more often, but the money simply hasn't been there because, for all the huge value it provides to the peninsula, it gets very little love in return.
No, it wouldn't. To run more frequent service you just put more trains on the track. Electrification has nothing to do with it at all. It only becomes relevant when the greater acceleration of electrification becomes a factor, which is a total non-issue with Caltrain. The trains have pretty long dwell times and you could easily run more trains just by adding more trains and decreasing dwell time.
I wouldn't say it gets no love. Ridership is growing even faster than BART's is, and unlike BART it doesn't have the issues of overcrowding and antiquated infrastructure.
Wont Caltrain run into the new Transbay station (is there an opportunity to through route to the east bay? If so electrification would seem alomost a requirement
There's no plans for that. It will stop at the Transbay Center, get off, go two blocks and catch BART to go to the East Bay. There's no plans at all for any East Bay coverage as that's already covered with BART and ACE/Amtrak going out to Stockton and Sacramento.
I wouldn't say it gets no love. Ridership is growing even faster than BART's is, and unlike BART it doesn't have the issues of overcrowding and antiquated infrastructure.
It gets no love when it comes time to pay for things. Many peninsula cities treat it like a necessary evil, hating that it goes through their "pristine" city, that it causes delays on their streets. Look at Palo Alto, which, despite being a big beneficiary of Caltrain which owes much of its success as an employment center to PT, has gone to great lengths to fight anything that would make Caltrain more useful to riders and has no desire to pay for anything, even for things that would offset the city's own complaints.
BART, meanwhile, keeps being extended further and further as cities clamor for a BART station. I mean, look at all the money being thrown at BART to get it from Fremont to SJ/Santa Clara, then look at how difficult it has been for Caltrain to replace its rolling stock, to get electrification, to get PTC.
There's no plans for that. It will stop at the Transbay Center, get off, go two blocks and catch BART to go to the East Bay. There's no plans at all for any East Bay coverage as that's already covered with BART and ACE/Amtrak going out to Stockton and Sacramento.
Well, while the bold is true, that overlooks how valuable the Capitol Corridor route is and how useful an SF-Sac direct route would be (ignoring for the moment the above mentioned cost of such a trans-bay project). Having Sacramento, Oakland, SF, PA, and SJ on one route would do a lot to further cement the connection between the capitol and the bay area, and would improve ridership, probably dramatically.
It gets no love when it comes time to pay for things. Many peninsula cities treat it like a necessary evil, hating that it goes through their "pristine" city, that it causes delays on their streets. Look at Palo Alto, which, despite being a big beneficiary of Caltrain which owes much of its success as an employment center to PT, has gone to great lengths to fight anything that would make Caltrain more useful to riders and has no desire to pay for anything, even for things that would offset the city's own complaints.
BART, meanwhile, keeps being extended further and further as cities clamor for a BART station. I mean, look at all the money being thrown at BART to get it from Fremont to SJ/Santa Clara, then look at how difficult it has been for Caltrain to replace its rolling stock, to get electrification, to get PTC.
The love is lopsided.
I wouldn't call a 50% increase in taxpayer funding from 2014 to 2016 a lack of love. Caltrain doesn't need new rolling stock or electrification and it would be of no benefit to do it peviously. It isn't running trains that average 40 years old like BART is. I also wouldn't say it was all that hard. It just needed CA HSR. Like you look at the 2010 vote for $1.2 billion to electrify which the voters rejected. Well, first of all that was 2010. Secondly, it didn't need to be electrified yet. Average ridership is limited by the number of trains still today when ridership is 58,000 avg weekday and 60,000 on peak days. Ridership in 2010 was a bit over 38,000. There just wasn't a reason to electrify in 2010. It's not like it takes that long. The 2015 electrification project under CA HSR will be complete (scheduled) by 2020 by which time the 111,000 ridership might matter. It didn't matter in 2010. Now in 2015 it's a fairly logical time to be looking at it. In the middle of a severe recession when it wasn't even needed was not. I mean 2010 was when they were saying they had to cut service by 50% at the same time they wanted to electrify. Of course the voters rejected it. You also have to realize Caltrain and electrification is just boy who cried wolf. They started saying they needed to electrify all the way back in 1991 back when they were running 54 trains a day. I can't even find ridership going that far back. They just added more trains and ran longer trains which is the same thing they would have needed to do if they electrified anyway. Even today it still sits at stations pretty often for several minutes at a time simply because it's running ahead of schedule and can't depart. On time performance hasn't really been impacted by adding trains either and is also higher than BART's on-time performance. So again, why was it needed?
Last edited by Malloric; 10-17-2015 at 02:43 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
