Caltrain is great, but the rush hour trains are very crowded and most trains skip the California Ave train station. Caltrain promises that electrification will increase their capacity, but there are too many delays getting that running.

I am pleased to see Caltrain ridership increasing, but the trains are too often full, the zones make fares unfair and if you want say Palo Alto to Redwood City, much too infrequent.

I spoke recently to someone who lives near the train station in Gilroy but still drives to her job here as it is cheaper than train, fortunately she has employer provided parking.

Attitudes to using the train need to be more realistic. We can't crowd more people into already crowded trains. And Caltrain needs to do better for being affordable for shorter commutes and more choice for those who live further south than San Jose.

Another taxpayer-supported perk for our already highly compensated City Hall employees.

Posted by Resident; a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood:

>> I spoke recently to someone who lives near the train station in Gilroy but still drives to her job here as it is cheaper than train, fortunately she has employer provided parking.

I think your friends driving commute might be costing her more than she thinks. Depending on the two endpoints, Gilroy to Palo Alto is about 50 mi. About 100 mi round trip.

Various estimates of average and marginal cost per mile of driving in the U.S. run from the lowest 35 cents average/23 cents marginal for a very small, economical used car averaged over the U.S., to 50 cents averaged over the car fleet, to about 60 cents average for a large vehicle/SUV. These costs are higher in California due to higher fuel prices. But, even at the unrealistically low 23 cents per mile marginal cost estimate, that is $23 for the commute. For a single day, Caltrain is $20 (clipper card), using this unrealistically low estimate. And, for a daily commute, Caltrain is only $278.60/month, compared to around $500 for the month commuting in the car.

The higher costs include tires, maintenance, and repairs. People like your friend often use only the cost of fuel to make a comparison, but, tires wear out over time, cars need oil changes and tuneups, and eventually wear out, and need repairs, and eventually, replacement. Considering fuel only leaves out 10-30 cents per mile of other non-fuel costs.

And, of course, if through using Caltrain you can reduce the number of vehicles you (or your friend) own, then the full annual cost be saved, roughly $6000-$10,000/year (average $8469).

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link


I don't disagree that Caltrain's outmoded zone pricing model penalizes and discourages some short 2-zone trips (e.g. Menlo Park to Redwood City).

I think they'd have better participation in the commute program if they charged employees the market rate for parking at City Hall. Passes cost $730/year or $25/day.

Free parking encourages single occupancy drivers!

@Anon

This person I spoke with was not a friend as such but someone I was chatting to at an event. We did move the conversation along the lines you mention but she was fairly convinced it was more convenient and cheaper, particularly taking into account the cost of missing her train home (there is only one a day beyond San Jose). I have no idea if she drives solo all the way.

The “financial analysis” presented above is faulty beyond words. The approach that only looks at “what does it cost me” fails to look at the total cost of operating the system—which has become unbelievably expensive for the small number of people who use this system routinely.

CalTrain has always been a money loser, just like its big brother Amtrak. Just last year, Caltrain ran a $20M operating budget deficit, because the “directors” believe that the role of government is to “redistribute wealth”, not just provide essential community services.

Caltrain fares on rise: $20M budget shortfall could prompt parking, ride hikes:
Web Link

The reason that Caltrain was running a deficit? Because the prices is charges its clients don’t cover the costs of services. To make matters worse, little of the capital costs associated with the railway have been accounted for in the cost of tickets. This fact is more painfully true now that about $1.5B to electrify this boondoggle.

And to add insult to injury, proponents of failing municipal transportation systems want to exact another $100M a year in terms of a new sales tax to gouge the non-users of this system in order to make the cost of the system “attractive” to people who fail to understand how important automobiles are to the prosperity and security of our families and our countries.

Caltrain should have long ago been shut down. Sadly, it’s now grown to be a financial black hole that will such ever more money out of our local economy without returning much in the way of true regional economic growth.

What would be a much more accurate analysis would include the cost of capital projects, all of the pension costs for employees and the operating costs allocated against the actual number of riders (cost/ride). Such a cost will be more than presented above.

How many parking spaces in the City Hall garage have been freed up because of the shift to Caltrain use?

I don't know how Joe can call Caltrain "small" when everyone else on the thread complains that even with 5 trains an hour stopping at Palo Alto trains are VERY crowded with the 9000 passengers that board between Cal Ave and DT PA stations.

Dont forget that the partial reason for overcrowding is the short length of the train station platforms. I'm not sure if the cost of longer platforms has been considered here.

Wow, Anon, you did some fast research and had your calculator humming. I'm going to stay out of this fray, for now, except for a few comments.

"In addition, Palo Alto may soon offer the benefit to city workers outside City Hall. The new report notes that staff will continue to evaluate "the effectiveness of implementing the Go Pass at all City work sites in the coming year and will be promoting increased use of the Go Pass in conjunction with other TDM initiatives currently being considered."

Well why not? Why haven't other city workers been offered this benefit already? There are a lot more of them working in other areas than those folks in the "ivory tower", called City Hall. Same with the parking at City Hall. Why do those who have power to inflict costs on others, get free passes? Take those perks away so they feel the same hurt the rest of us feel...those of us they claim to be so supportive of, and caring about, at election time, when on the campaign trail.

Oh, and please answer Arthur Keller's question. It's a good one and I know there are staff available to answer the question!

Is the analysis faulty or just incomplete? City hall has at least 2 full-time parking experts who are managing mitigations such as Go Pass. They are also managing pricing, residential parking permit programs and optimization of city garage capacities.

What analysis is missing? We are not fully informed by metrics such as reduced demand for parking permits in the garage beneath City Hall. Has the waiting list for parking permits been reduced? Has the daily "show rate" dropped as more and more city hall employees opt for Caltrain? Is the Palo Alto TMA ready to hit the road on Jan 2 with improved programs to mitigate downtown employee traffic and parking?

These questions are cannot be answered in the next few months. However, if
city and TMA staff are held accountable for results, then proof of concept will be much more transparent by Jan 2, 2019.

Joe-"The approach that only looks at “what does it cost me” fails to look at the total cost of operating the system...What would be a much more accurate analysis would include the cost of capital projects, all of the pension costs for employees and the operating costs allocated against the actual number of riders (cost/ride). Such a cost will be more than presented above."

Fine. Do the same for the roads you drive on. His analysis of the cost of driving also only looks at "what does it costs me." Do you think free-market fairies build and maintain those roads you drive on? Yes, you PARTIALLY pay for them with your gas tax, much like Caltrain riders pay partially with their fare. the percentage you pay through gas tax has been dropping rapidly and now stands at about 50%.

Web Link

The rest is picked up by EVERYONE. Including Caltrain riders and even those damn cyclists.

More trains.

Whoops! I meant to say: "less trains - more cars on 101 and ECR!!"

Yeah. That'll teach em!

(seriously - y'all out of your mind complaining about mass transit costs?!?!)

I have been driving from San Jose downtown to pa downtown through Central. What used to take me 45 mins each way is now a 90 min endeavor going been home.
The go pass has given my my sanity back and I actually enjoy coming to work. I am glad the city is expanding usage.

Posted by Joe, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> The “financial analysis” presented above is faulty beyond words. The approach that only looks at “what does it cost me” fails to look at the total cost of operating the system

That was the question at hand: is it cheaper for an individual to drive a single occupancy vehicle from Gilroy, or, ride Caltrain. Answer: Caltrain is cheaper. That was the "cost me" question.

You are asking a different question entirely: the cost of transporting people for different systems, which requires looking at all the subsidies for all types of systems, including, for example, the cost of city streets, the cost of county roads, the cost of state highways, and interstates, all paid for out of various taxes, including gas taxes, gas sales taxes, general sales taxes, property taxes, state and federal income taxes, etc. It is difficult to add up the true cost because of the myriad of direct and indirect taxes and subsidies, but, I believe that this amounts to something like a 5 cent per mile subsidy. Single occupancy, that amounts to 5 cents per passenger (just the driver) mile. Private companies and public entities also pay for parking lots and structures and effectively subsidize employees by not charging them.

Regarding the costs of road construction and repair, the big winner is the trucking industry in general, and, heavy trucks in particular. (Heavy trucks cause most of the wear on inter-city/interstate highways and freeways.) Heavy trucks pay far less in fees than the wear and damage they cause.

Getting back to the Caltrain operating deficit: if I read the below report correctly, the operating subsidy is less than 5 cents per passenger-mile. That is looking at the yearly passenger miles divided by the yearly total operating operating subsidy.

Web Link

There may be a report online that shows that calculation directly-- that would be nice to see if someone knows where such a report is. It is quite possible that I missed something.

While I question why we have to subsidize all forms of transportation as much as we do, particularly because of the heavy truck issue, I would much rather subsidize a Caltrain rider than a single-occupancy-vehicle driver. The Caltrain tracks would have to be replaced by an additional freeway to replace the rush-hour capacity (Not In My Back Yard please!), at a huge cost, while Caltrain delivers passengers downtown-to-downtown all along the Peninsula, including to Palo Alto and Cal Ave, cost effectively, for people who can utilize it.

@ Anon - The problem with comparing the calculated cost of vehicle ownership with CalTrain rides is that almost EVERYONE who rides CalTrain also owns a car. They will still pay for insurance, tires, oil changes, regular maintenance, license plates, smog tests, etc.

Why?

CalTrain can't take you to many places if they're not located along the single line of tracks from Point A (4th & King in San Francisco) to Point Z (Gilroy CalTrain station).

The costs associated with vehicle ownership will be there unless you choose to not own a vehicle -- an unrealistic proposition for more people. Most people need a car to go to the beach, visit a theme park, drive to visit parents/grandparents, a weekend trip to Yosemite/Tahoe/Point Reyes, etc.

My problem with CalTrain is that it is just too expensive for regular use UNLESS I need to go someplace with paid parking.

Nayeli,

That is what the "marginal cost" is-- it excludes the fixed costs like car payments and insurance, and only includes costs like fuel, tires, and wear and tear (like brakes), and other things that actually wear out (drive train). The marginal costs are higher than you think. You are probably just looking at fuel only. Look at some of the web links that I provided if you need more evidence.

@ Anon - I understand what marginal cost means. The difference is that most of us will be paying most of those "marginal costs" associated with vehicle ownership whether we ride CalTrain, take the bus or take our cars. The people who estimate the "marginal costs" the highest are usually the ones trying to justify the high costs of public transportation.

I've owned several vehicles. I've never needed to replace my drive train (so I suppose that I've been lucky). We change the oil every 3-5 months (usually with fewer miles than usually needed). We have scheduled tune-ups as recommended by the manufacturer. We replace the tires (again, usually due to age of tires rather than wear and tear from accumulated miles).

In the last year, we paid for oil changes, tires, fuel and replacing headlight bulbs. Aside from fuel, we paid less than $600 maintenance for two vehicles (both of which are already paid for).

My point is that most of those marginal costs will be incurred due to ownership regardless of whether you ride a train and bus or take your vehicle to work.

That is my point. I like CalTrain. However, I can't use it unless I am visiting somewhere along the tracks (or I take my bicycle too). If someone takes their bicycle, they first need a job that allows them to park a bike. They also risk missing a train due to a lack of space for bicycles (it's happened to my husband twice and there are quite a few videos on YouTube of it happening to other Palo Alto residents too).

If CalTrain wants to be a viable option for more people, then it needs to increase demand by lowering cost. This would probably mean more cars are needed (which isn't much of an extra cost).

Just goes to show you any headline that includes "city employees" will somehow be turned into negative posts.
Seems all those posting love complaining but choose not to apply their self serving time to public service. Hey, let's complain and have someone else clean up our city streets! Palo Alto used to be a great innovative and progressive city filled with educated and knowledgeable residents but unfortunately has turned into a retirement community filled with folks who generally just love to complain. What a pity!

Nayeli, I think we are in agreement about a lot of things, so I don't want to belabor this point, but, based on what you say, I'm pretty sure that your marginal cost per mile of driving is quite a bit higher than you think.

I agree with your point about destinations:

>> That is my point. I like CalTrain. However, I can't use it unless I am visiting somewhere along the tracks (or I take my bicycle too).

Caltrain definitely works best if the destination (usu. job) is close to a Caltrain station. In general, that is usually Mountain View and north. For Sunnyvale and south, unless you are going to downtown San Jose, it is usually difficult to quickly and easily get crosstown from a station, e.g. Lawrence in Sunnyvale, to a random Silicon Valley location. Silicon Valley followed the postwar "Broadacre City" model of urban planning.

Web Link