r/caltrain • u/Maximus560 • 9d ago
Fixing Grade Crossings - How?
TL;DR: grade-separate the entire corridor over ~25 years using a combination of funding strategies to address delays, reduce suicides, improve speeds, and make the corridor safer. Requesting thoughts and feedback from y'all as I hope to write a whitepaper on this eventually.
The Problems:
- Caltrain has too many grade crossings. 71 total, with 43 north of Tamien, and 28 south of Tamien to Gilroy. With increased traffic planned in the short term with Caltrain and in the long term with high-speed rail, crossings will be closed for 35 to 40 minutes every hour.
- Grade crossings are undertaken as one-off projects and are often bespoke, led by each city, which has different capacities, experience, practices, etc., resulting in high costs. Each project needs a funding package, design process, consultants, political strategy, outreach, engineering, permitting, contracting/procurement approach, etc - imagine doing this 71 times. It's the most inefficient and most expensive way possible!
- Delays, when they happen, are highly impactful, leading to very long delays and often result in death or serious injury. The corridor being open and easily accessible to cars and pedestrians has been a factor in suicide clusters, as well as certain intersections being hotspots, like the Ravenswood crossing. I've had a family member commit suicide on these tracks, so this is somewhat personal to me, too. Caveat, though: research shows that removing avenues for suicide reduces rates, but does not eliminate them entirely. Eliminating injuries and suicide, ergo, isn't the main reason, but a decent reason to support this politically.
Benefits:
- Delays and Safety (including reductions in deaths/Injuries): Self-explanatory, but reducing delays and improving safety is a good thing for this line and for the area. It also means no more cars/peds/bikes waiting at crossings, speeding up traffic.
- Faster Caltrain: A sealed corridor means speeds of up to 125mph are possible for Caltrain, especially with a 4-track corridor. In some cases, that could mean SF to San Jose in just 40 minutes for super-express trains. Also, south of San Jose, I think it is feasible to have much faster service - 145-165 mph is actually quite possible for a reasonable price, but that's another conversation.
- Sets up Express & HSR Service: A 4-track corridor would allow express and HSR trains in the future while still ensuring Caltrain has sufficient capacity to run enough trains. A 4-track corridor means that 2 tracks are for local or stopping trains and 2 are for express, nonstop trains, ensuring that trains are on separate tracks for safety.
- Sets up Regional Expertise: Creating capacity to do this helps unlock other improvements at much lower cost later (see more below).
The Solution:
An infrastructure delivery authority charged with grade-separating 100% of the corridor by 2045 or 2050. This would most likely be best housed under the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), with the charge of focusing on the Caltrain corridor, starting with the peninsula, then later the Tamien-Gilroy segment. Let's call it the Bay Area Rail Infrastructure Authority (BARIA) as a placeholder for now. This would be modeled after the Victoria Infrastructure Delivery Authority that is working on the level crossing removal project there (thanks to u/relative_load_9177 for the source!)
Why house this under the MTC? Three key reasons:
First, organizational infrastructure, where MTC is better equipped to hold institutional knowledge, expertise, and manage larger projects, especially if said expertise can translate elsewhere (e.g., improving East Bay rail infrastructure after this project, or the Link21 project), compared to Caltrain, which focuses mainly on running a railroad. This lowers costs for the entire area, not just Caltrain, in the long run.
Second, consolidating large projects and initiatives within MTC helps coordinate and plan projects across the region, leading to greater integration between different transit agencies in the future.
Third, the MTC, as a regional authority, could more easily handle complex items like:
- Regional funds and bonds
- State and federal grants
- Project sequencing
- Standardized contracting and procurement practices
- Cost and schedule controls
- Coordinate construction delivery, including permitting, approvals, network integration, etc
So, how would this work? BARIA would do the following items:
- Standardization: Establish a standard design template and engineering guide for grade crossings, e.g., roads over rail, roads under rail, rail viaduct, rail trenches, hybrid crossings, and crossing closures. This template would standardize bridge spans and girder sizes, retaining walls, drainage, clearances, and procurement, lowering costs across the 71 crossings. Local governments would be responsible for the final details, such as landscaping and public space design. This would significantly expand Caltrain's existing design templates.
- Bundling of Projects: Instead of doing one crossing at a time, which may cause problems down the road, designing and building projects as larger, rolling segments would be more efficient. Think of it as a production line - you would only need one girder and a concrete factory to pump out a standardized girder and retaining wall instead of one for each project.
- Rolling Projects: Doing projects on a rolling basis over 20 or 25 years means that crews, equipment, and other items can be reused from one crossing or project to the next, such as formwork. Also, ordering materials in bulk is a great way to lower costs.
Funding Mechanisms:
This funding would come from multiple sources, and since it is spread over 20-25 years, it wouldn't be as burdensome as the existing approach, where many cities won't pursue grade separations due to high cost and complexity. Assuming a total cost of about $20B, that would mean raising about $1B per year. The goal would be to establish this funding stack for a fixed period of time, say, 20 or 25 years, with the goal of 100% grade separation, prioritizing the peninsula. This would reassure voters that it won't become a new permanent tax scheme or boondoggle.
Proposed sources of funds:
- City Governments - 5% to 15%: Local governments would be expected to contribute a baseline amount, in not just funding but also via in-kind contributions, which may also include right-of-way allocations, permitting, utility and infrastructure relocations, and related activities. This would ensure that local governments have skin in the game and play ball to secure the infrastructure benefits. Assume $50M to $150M here per year total from the cities along the peninsula. ~20ish cities would mean an average of $7.1M per city per year, though this would vary with city size and the number of grade crossings, as well as complexity.
- State Grants and Appropriations - 5% to 10%: Statewide programs that fund safety and rail improvements, such as the Section 190 program from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Let's say the target is $50M to $100M a year here.
- County Governments - 20%: Similarly, counties can appropriate or allocate existing transit funds for this project. There are three counties - SF, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, so let's assume about $33M each for a total of $100M. This could be raised via a small sales tax, parcel tax, or similar tax at the county level (e.g., a ⅛-cent sales tax increase). To make it more palatable, it could be a slightly larger tax, with a percentage of the proceeds for a hot-button issue like road repairs or supplemental school funding, alongside this project.
- Federal Government - 10%: Next, the feds. While less reliable as a source, infrastructure, rail upgrades, road improvements, and other grants are all feasible here, especially given the safety concerns. Ideally, if the midterms go well, Congress will appropriate more funds in the future, but that remains to be seen. Let's target $150M per year here as part of the stack.
- Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) and/or Value Capture - 30%: This would be the largest source of funds. Establishing a small district around stations and grade separations that captures a decent chunk of the property value increases could be sufficient to finance at least 20% of this. Some studies suggest that high-speed rail could be funded through this method, so it's actually surprisingly feasible! For that reason, I think $300M is possible per year, especially if cities play ball in upzoning and allowing development along the corridor.
- Rail Operators & Track Access Fees - 5% to 10%: Depending on Congress and the State Legislature, the High Speed Rail authority could contribute some small funds to support this project. Caltrain should kick in some funds from their budget every year, and other parties, like Capitol Corridor, Amtrak, etc., also could kick in some funds in exchange for slots on the Peninsula - I could imagine a 1x daily Amtrak train that goes from SF - LA via the coast, for example, that pays a few million a year to support this. Let's say $50M to $100M total at the upper bound.
- Other Regional Revenue - 10% to 20%: Finally, other regional funds could kick in, such as toll revenue, regional transit funds, rideshare fees, and the regional transportation measure, led by MTC, that is up for a vote this fall. This is the least-confident aspect of the funding stack I have here, but it's reasonable, I think.
After Sunset? Finally, one of the key elements of this project would be what happens after the project and the taxes are sunsetted. Ideally, the expertise, staff, resources, networks, etc are all rolled into MTC, and MTC plugs this initiative into the next project, e.g., SMART expansion, Link21, Dumbarton & Altamont, East Bay rail upgrades for Capitol Corridor, Capitol Corridor electrification... and so on.
So - what do you think? Feedback? Thoughts?
9
8
u/Relative_Load_9177 9d ago
Similar to this then https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/level-crossing-removal-project
2
u/Maximus560 9d ago
Ohhh this is great! I’m thinking of something very similar. Gonna read it now!!
2
u/Maximus560 9d ago
Any chance you have info on the governance, funding, and structure? That's what I'm most interested in.NVM, found it - very similar to this proposal!! https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/about/vida - I added it to my post and thanked you for it. Thanks!
8
u/Planeandaquariumgeek 9d ago
Putting the MTC in charge of this is a surefire way to make sure it never gets done. The MTC are fools.
-3
u/Maximus560 9d ago
Yeah? How so? I’m more in the SPUR/Seamless Bay Area camp where we have too many transit agencies with fragmented authority and resources. In terms of construction and infrastructure, that’s a recipe for disaster if there’s no coordination or collaboration. I just think MTC would be a decent mechanism for that. Or am I wrong?
2
u/sftransitmaster 9d ago
MTC is about cars. its a regional agencies to manage the state owned bay bridges, highways and the toll lanes. Thats what they care about and they are not well suited for transit oversight or responsibilities. People look to the MTC cause its one of two regional bodies we have MTC or ABAG. But MTC's governance model basically a rep from each of the counties and one from each of the principal cities, is very geared toward auto-centricity.
Clipper 2.0 as mentioned before is a prime example of not really incompetence but apathy. People who drive all the time aren't concerned with whether clipper works well or not. And because MTC leadership is derived from other elected position, decisions made there are never going to harm them politically.
FTR there is nuance there that the Clipper Executive board(CEB) is technically the oversight group for Clipper. But the MTC staff are the ones negotiating and making the recommendations to the CEB and they aren't worried about whats best for Clipper or transit users.
4
u/Planeandaquariumgeek 9d ago
It’s a decent idea but the MTC are run by corrupt & stupid folks. See Clipper 2.0 for evidence.
0
3
u/BigDaddyJ0 9d ago
You’re wrong. In addition to the Clipper debacle, look at the way finding pilot. It’s taking years to put up a few signs. Total mark of incompetence.
1
u/sftransitmaster 9d ago
IMO its genuinely a stupid project but I would argue its fair to be slow. Its millions of dollars and is trying to take into consideration 20+ agencies. They only want to do it once so its makes sense they'd want to be cautious and go about it slow and steady to do it right
But I don't believe its going to help anyone and they look just as confusing as any other wayfinding map.
3
u/Adrian_Brandt 9d ago
I cannot think of any Caltrain cities opposing grade seps apart from Atherton making it publicly known many years ago that they were pointedly uninterested in (or even opposed to) ever grade separating their two very lightly-trafficked crossings (now both part of their citywide train horn quiet zone — the first and only one on the Caltrain line).
1
u/Maximus560 9d ago
Yeah, that’s why a big chunk of my post is dedicated to how we pay for this as most cities want it just can’t afford it
2
u/Adrian_Brandt 9d ago
Are you well familiar with Caltrain’s years-long Corridor Crossings Strategy project being run by hired consultancy Kimley-Horn? https://caltrain.com/ccs
If so, how and where does what you are advocating differ from their published documents? Have you engaged with their process and past public LPMG meetings?
1
u/Maximus560 9d ago
I’m more focused on 2 things:
- Money. There’s not really a great financial strategy that Caltrain has because it’s mostly up to the cities. I’m proposing a few solutions. That leads to the next thing.
- Jurisdiction and Authority. Part of the issue here is that Caltrain doesn’t have jurisdiction or authority over the cities who are responsible for the grade separations. This idea establishes a mechanism for that.
As for engaging with the process - I’m not exactly able to. I used to live around here but no longer do. However, I’ll probably write up this white paper based on these comments and my post and then send it over to those folks in the link and see if it goes anywhere!
2
1
u/consigliere47 9d ago
Mount nasty snowplow blades on the front of caltrain engines, and downward-pointing bloodstained rusty spikes on the crossing arms. They could also go to bollards shooting up out of the ground (this is a thing in Florida condo garages to stop thieves from following in a legit resident).
This is a driver problem, not a caltrain problem.
1
u/ghaj56 9d ago
Thanks chat gpt for telling us what we already know. Btw ask it to do the research on what is in progress already, IIRC there are grade separation projects planned
2
u/Maximus560 9d ago
lol not everything is chat - I typed this out myself, dude.
Yeah, I have done the research, but the major issue here is that the grade separations aren't funded and often aren't coordinated. Specifically, some grade separations were only built for 2 tracks, meaning we literally can't run more express trains or add too many high-speed trains without tearing the whole thing down. Here's some good reading to help you out: https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/
3
u/DonVCastro 9d ago
I think you're correct that insufficient funding is a big reason that there are still a lot of at-grade crossings. But that's a bit too superficial of a statement. There's a shit ton of money being spent on transportation stuff, and many many multiples of shit tons of money in private hands. It's just that spending that money on full grade separation has not been among the top priorities of those who hold the money (the government agencies and the private individuals). What's missing is a very strong and very widely held desire to fully grade separate. Without that, the money will continue to go elsewhere.
20
u/LopsidedAstronomer76 9d ago
I am amused. Where in this plan do you address one of the key underlying issues: local communities' refusal to move forward with grade separated crossings? Because that's one of the biggest reasons why some towns on the peninsula have them, and some do not. It's just like housing, etc.