the evolution of commuter rail in the san francisco peninsula

7/22/2019 The Evolution of Commuter Rail in the San Francisco Peninsula

1/16

!"#$ &

TRB Paper 14-1449&

'

(

The Evolution of Commuter Rail in the San Francisco Peninsula)*

+

Tom Tsai, Friends of Caltrain,640 Fulton Street-Palo Alto, California 94301.

&/

&&

[email protected]&'&(

650-327-2290&)

&*

&+

&,

&-

&.

'/

Abstract: 210 words'&Total: 4633 words''

'(

Ten Figures.')'*

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal


2/16

!"#$ '

ABSTRACT&

'

Commuting by rail in the San Francisco Peninsula has been a travel option for(nearly 150 years. However, only in the last 30 years has commuter rail gained recognition)as a mode of public transportation separate and distinct from other railroad services.*

The development of commuter rail as a mode of public transportation, supported+

and operated by public entities, was a marked shift for an industry comprised of self-,reliant firms. Railroads and public entities developed new techniques to manage finances,-optimize schedules, and market their services. New agreements assigned responsibility.for costs and liabilities to public entities and set limits on infrastructure usage. The&/increased responsibility of public entities for commuter rail services has required a public&&policy permitting subsidy of operations, infrastructure investments, and new governance&'structures.&(

This paper traces the evolution of commuter rail service in the San Francisco&)Peninsula and describes the operating practices, agreements, and institutional structures&*that facilitated its rise as a mode of public transportation.&+

Understanding how and why choices were made at the beginning is crucial for&,

appreciating how this commuter rail service has evolved into its current state and how&-this particular operation can be enhanced with electrification and eventually blended&.operations with the future intercity high-speed rail service in California.'/

'&

''

'(

')



3/16

!"#$ (

The Evolution of ommuter Rail in the San Francisco&Peninsula'

(

)

INTRODUCTION*

When the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) went on strike in July and again in+October 2013 for a few days each, the commuting highway and ferry traffic between East,Bay and downtown San Francisco became a nightmare. This made residents of the San-Francisco Peninsula (Peninsula), the series of towns and cities between San Francisco.and San Jose, appreciate the service of Caltrain even more. For nearly 150 years,&/Caltrain has continuously provided commuter rail service between San Francisco and San&&Jose and recently, its extension to Gilroy. It has evolved from steam to diesel power and&'has just begun its latest transformation to electrification.&(

Like other commuter rail services in the nation, Caltrain has undergone significant&)transformation in its operation and ownership from a private railroad to a public service&*

over the years. It has just replaced its contract operator from Amtrak, after 30 years of&+service, to Transit America Services, Inc. last year. As Caltrain kicked off the celebration&,of its 150thanniversary of railroad service between San Francisco and San Jose with a&-community festival at its Menlo Park station in October 2013, reviewing its evolution&.would provide insights that may help understand the development of commuter rail as a'/mode of public service.'&

HISTORY OF COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE IN THE PENINSULA''

In October 1863, passenger trains pulled by a steam engine, similar to the wood-'(burning steam locomotive San Mateo, (Figure 1, photo by Van Court about 1867, from')the collection of the Redwood City Public Library) began service in the Peninsula.'*

'+ Figure 1. An Early Passenger Train in the Peninsula','-



4/16

!"#$ )

The original railroad between San Francisco and San Jose (the first capital of&California), was completed in January 1864 by the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad,'which was merged into the new Southern Pacific Railroads (SP) in 1870, shortly after the(completion of the continental railroad. Of the two million shares of stock available to)construct this railroad, $600,000 came from the treasury of San Francisco ($300K), San*

Mateo ($100K) and Santa Clara ($200K) Counties.+

Although the railroad provided freight and passenger service with the initial ticket,price of $2.50, much lower than the charges of stagecoach before it, most of the-passengers were from the upper class who lived in San Francisco and owned properties in.the Peninsula. Very few people lived in the vast open spaces outside San Francisco. After&/the railroad opened, even with just two or three passenger trains a day, more people and&&businesses moved to the Peninsula.&'

Under the ownership of SP, the line was double tracked in 1904 and shortened via&(the Bayshore cutoff to avoid the need to run double tracks through the Mission District in&)1907. Passenger traffic experienced record ridership during World War II. After the war&*and with the construction of highway US-101 in 1962 and I-280 in 1972, annual ridership&+

slowly declined from the war time high of 9.5 million in 1944 to 4.4 million in 1978. The&,

rolling stock was replaced with diesel locomotives and double deck gallery cars&-beginning in 1954. The availability of this commuter rail service in the Peninsula was one&.reason why Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties withdrew from the planned Bay Area'/Rail Transit (BART) network on 1957 and 1961, respectively.'&

With the opening of the San Francisco Bay Bridge in 1936, the ocean shipping''and industrial base of San Francisco gradually moved across the Bay to Oakland and the'(East Bay partly to avoid the lengthy detour around the Bay, resulting in a steady decline')of rail freight service in the Peninsula. By the 1960s and 1970s, SP discussed'*discontinuing the money-losing commuter service. In 1971 when Amtrak took over long'+distance rail passenger operations nation-wide, SP stopped its extended commuter train',Del Monte to Monterey, but retained normal commuter service in the Peninsula, partly'-for the benefit of many of its own employees who commuted to its headquarters in'.downtown San Francisco. In one of its attempts to induce riders off the rail to justify its(/proposal to stop the passenger service, SP even offered 1000 free vans to riders in 1976.(&In 1977, SPpetitioned the California Public Utilities Commission (which said "no") and('then the Interstate Commerce Commission to discontinue the service.((

To keep this critical commuter rail service in the growing Peninsula, after lengthy()negotiation, the three Counties in the Peninsula and the California Department of(*Transportation (CalTrans), reached an agreement with SP in 1980 for SP to be the(+contractor and the public agencies to cover most of the operating costs.(,

During its administration, CalTrans purchased new locomotives and rolling stock(-that replaced the SP equipment in the passenger service that by then was known as(.CalTrain (Figure 2, from the collections of the San Mateo County History Museum).)/Some of its bi-level cars were designed as cab cars that initiated the push-pull service in)&1985, thus eliminated the need of keeping a locomotive at the lead end of the train.)'

)(



5/16

!"#$ *

&

FIGURE 2 New Bi-level Cars of CalTrain in 1985.'In 1987, under an agreement between CalTrans and the three counties in the(

Peninsula, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) was formed to manage the)line. With funding by San Mateo County, JPB bought the railroad right of way between*San Francisco and San Jose from SP in 1991 for $220 million. In 1992, JPB took+responsibility for CalTrain operations and selected Amtrak as the contract operator and,extended the service to Gilroy.-

To meet the need of reverse commuter traffic and more riders, JPB added more.trains and rebuilt the line and its stations that had decades of deferred maintenance. Seven&/of the stations on the 50-mile corridor are listed on the National Register of Historic&&Places, with Palo Alto station (Figure 3) as the last one registered in 1996. Palo Alto&'station, built in 1941 in a Streamline Moderne style to replace an earlier one, is also one&(

of the busiest stations in the Caltrain system, second only to the 4 thand King Street&)Station in San Francisco. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places for its&*architecturalsignificance. The other six listed are Millbrae, Burlingame, San Carlos,&+Menlo Park, Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon stations.&,

After further service improvement, the current logo and name of Caltrain were&-adopted in 1997 when CalTrans transferred all the property to JPB. The Centralized&.Equipment Maintenance & Operations Facility north of San Jose opened in September'/2007. The $140-million facility took two years to build and accommodates such critical'&activities as inspections, maintenance, and storage. More detailed descriptions of the''history and many interesting pictures of the equipment and stations of Caltrain could be'(found in the excellent books of Stindt (1), Duncan (2) and McGovern (3).')

'*



6/16

!"#$ +

&

Figure 3 The Palo Alto Caltrain Station'PRESENT OPERATION OF CALTRAIN(

The Public Governance)

JPB is a partnership among the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans),*the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the City and County of San+Francisco through the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). Its,nine-member board, consisting of three members from each agency, provides policy-direction and budget authority over Caltrain. JPB is a legally separate and financially.independent entity. It is not a component unit of the County of San Francisco, the County&/

of San Mateo, the County of Santa Clara or any other organization. Furthermore, JPB has&&

no component unit organizations under its control. Detailed administrative support and&'contract management of Caltrain is provided by the staff of SamTrans. JBP created a&(Citizens Advisory Committee with three members from each county to articulate the&)concerns of customers about Caltrain and its future expansion.&*

In September 2011, Caltrain signed a five-year, $62.5 million contract with&+Transit America Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Herzog Transit Systems, after taking&,proposals from three other firms. One of these was Amtrak, which had provided&-operating employees since 1992. Since May 26, 2012, Transit America Services has been&.responsible for conductors, engineers, dispatching andmaintenance of the rolling stock'/and right-of-way.'&

''

Highlights of Operations'(

With its 118 bi-level cars and 29 mostly EMD F40-PH-2 locomotives and a')centralized traffic control system, which sets the stage for the Baby Bullet express'*service, Caltrain reached an all-time high of 98 trains each weekday in 2008. Due to'+financial reasons since then, Caltrain has reduced service to 92 trains on weekdays and',less than half of that on weekends. More schedule information can be found on its'-website. http://www.caltrain.cm/about/statsandreports.html'.



7/16

!"#$ ,

Over the years, many regional connecting services have been added. In 1998 the&San Francisco Municipal Railway extended its N Line from Market Street to the San'Francisco Caltrain Station at 4th and King Street, providing a direct Caltrain-Muni Metro(connection for the first time. A year later, VTA extended its Light Rail from Santa Clara)to the Caltrain station in Mountain View and later at the San Jose Diridon Station. In*

June 2003 a passenger connection for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Caltrain+

systems opened at Millbrae station just south of the San Francisco International Airport.,Many SamTrans buses were also connected at this new intermodal station. Through a free-shuttle bus operated by VTA, Caltrain passengers can also reach the San Jose.International Airport via the Santa Clara Caltrain station.&/

In September 2003, Caltrain implemented a proof-of-payment fare collection&&system that has increased internal controls and freed conductors from selling tickets&'onboard, thus allowing them to focus on customer service and safety concerns. The new&(system also corrected inequities in fare administration by standardizing zone distances&)and rates. JPB is the first rail system in the nation to migrate from on-board ticket sales&*to on-board proof-of-payment with automated ticket vending machines on all stations that&+

sell train ticket as well as parking permit.&,

In June 2004 Caltrain finished a two-year Caltrain Express (CTX) project for its&-Baby Bullet express service. The project (4, 5) added bypass tracks in Brisbane and&.Sunnyvale and replaced an absolute block signaling system with a centralized traffic'/control system. The Baby Bullet trains reduced travel time by stopping at only four or'&five stations between San Francisco and San Jose Diridon. The express trains could''overtake local trains at the two locations near Lawrence and Bayshore stations where'(bypass tracks were added. Express service between San Francisco and San Jose is 57')minutes (four stops) or 59 minutes (five stops), compared to 1 hour 30 minutes for local'*trains. Top speed of the Baby Bullets is the same as that of local trains, but the fewer'+stops shorten travel time. CTX project bought new Bombardier bi-level cars and six MPI',locomotives (Figure 4) for the express service. The Baby Bullets have proved popular,'-

generating increased ridership and revenues.'.

(/

(&

FIGURE 4. A Baby Bullet Train at the Palo Alto Station('



8/16

!"#$ -

The current Caltrain operating system map of 32 stations, grouped into six fare&zones, and 77 route miles is shown in Figure 5.'

( FIGURE 5 System Map of Caltrain.)



9/16

!"#$ .

Ridership and Farebox Recovery&

Each February, Caltrain conducts a ridership survey by counting the boarding and'alighting passengers for every train in a week at all stations during weekdays. The total(number of passengers for each train is then averaged over the five weekdays to get the)average weekday ridership (AWR). The 2013 AWR exceeded the 2012 AWR by 11*

percent , with 47,060 boarding. Its ridership is at an all-time high and keeps increasing.+

For example, in July 2013, its average weekday ridership was 54,989, which is an,increase of 13 percent over July 2012. The average passenger trip is about 23 miles. With-the booming technology business in the Silicon Valley, Caltrain has very strong reverse.commuter traffic. The ratio of the traditional peak riders to reverse peak rider, 60/40 for&/the last few years, is approaching even in 2013, among the highest in the nation. At the&&same time, stops were added to some peak commute-hour trains. These trains are serving&'22.5 percent more riders on an average weekday.&(

Caltrain probably carries more bikes than any transit system in the country. A&)program to ensure that every train has two bike cars was completed in 2011. Average&*weekday bike ridership increased nearly 16 percent in the last year. While two of the five&+

cars on the train are designated to carry bikes, the most popular trains often fill to&,

capacity in the first few station stops. At the recent survey in 2012, almost ten percent of&-the riders are bike riders with another two percent parking their bikes at the stations.&.Caltrain is looking at bicycle-sharing and wayside bicycle storage options as an answer to'/this challenging issue.'&

As shown in Figure 6, starting in 2001, when the dot-com bubble burst, ridership''was in a steady decline until the introduction of Baby Bullet service in June 2004 that'(reduced the service time between San Francisco to San Jose from 96 to 57 minutes and its')improved service in 2005 with more express trains during peak hours. Since the summer'*of 2004, ridership has been steadily increasing, with the exception of a slight decrease in'+2010. Ridership has grown nearly 77 percent since June 2004. Ridership has continued',

to increase as the region recovered from the tough economic environment of 2009 and'-

2010. The APTA 2012 Ridership Report (8) shows that the average weekday ridership of'.Caltrain, with a 14 percent increase from 2011 to 2012, is the largest among commuter(/rail operators outside of the Northeast Corridor and Chicago.(&



10/16

!"#$ &/

& FIGURE 6 Caltrain Ridership (7).'(

With increased ridership and fares, the farebox recovery ratio of Caltrain has also)increased over the years (Figure 7). Its present fare recovery ratio, which shows that*Caltrain riders pay over half of its operating expenses, is the best among all transit+operators, other than BART, whose farebox recovery ratio of 76% is the best among,national heavy rail operations, in the Bay area, and among the highest of commuter rail-operations in the nation (Figure 8)..

&/

&&

&'

FIGURE 7 Farebox Recovery Ratios of Caltrain (7).&(

24,597

26,794

26,028

29,728

33,691

29,178

25,577 23,947

26,533

29,760

31,507

34,611

36,232

34,120

37,779

42,354

47,060

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Riders

Year

Caltrain Average Weekday Ridership Trend

/

&/

'/

(/

)/

*/

+/

,/

01/( 01/) 01/* 01/+ 01/, 01/- 01/. 01&/ 01&& 01&'



11/16

!"#$ &&

&

'

( FIGURE 8 Farebox Recovery Ratios of Selected Commuter Rail) Operators in 2011 9)*+

Budget Crisis,

As a result of the recent long economic recession that reduced the revenues of-JPB members and the State and Federal agencies, Caltrain announced in early 2010 the.need to cut its services by around 50%, because it was required to cut $30 million from&/its $97 million budget and previous State funding had been reduced by $10 million a&&year.&'

On January 1, 2011, Caltrain cut four mid-day trains but upgraded four weekend&(

trains to Baby Bullet service as a pilot program. This reduced its service from 90 to 86&)

trains each weekday. At the same time, it raised fares $0.25 for each zone and continued&*to consider cutting weekday service to 48 trains during commute hours only. By April&+2011, Caltrain's board had approved a budget with fare increases to take effect on July 1,&,2011, and no service cuts. The budget gap would be closed with another $0.25 fare&-increase for each zone, a $1 parking fee increase to $4, and additional support from other&.regional transit agencies.'/

Because of recent improvements in the Peninsula economy, many of its rush hour'&trains have standing-room conditions. Thus, the June 2012 budget added six more trains''before and after the peak rush hour for a total of 92 trains, including 22 Baby Bullets.'(Although the present budget appears sufficient to support current operation, JPB warns of')serious shortage in the coming years unless means can be found to put Caltrain on a firm'*financial footing. Caltrain is working with local, regional, state and federal partners to'+find both near-term and long-term solutions to its fiscal situation.That includes exploring',a wide range of alternatives in close collaboration with regional and local partners, like'-the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Friends of Caltrain.'.

(/

MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS(&

The Caltrain Modernization Program includes the electrification of the existing('

/

&/

'/

(/

)/

*/

+/

,/



12/16

!"#$ &'

Caltrain corridor between San Francisco and San Jose; the installation of a&Communications Based Overlay Signal System Positive Train Control (CBOSS-PTC),'which is an advanced signal system that includes federally-mandated safety(improvements; and the replacement of Caltrains diesel trains with high-performance)electric trains called Electric Multiple Units (EMU). The $1.5 billion program is funded*

through a nine-party regional agreementthat leverages local, regional and federal funding+

to match $705 million in voter-approved high-speed rail bond revenues.,The modernization program will meet the safety requirements as federally-

mandated by the Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which requires the.installation of PTC on all commuter railroads and some freight railroads by 2015. PTC&/will minimize train-to-train collision and over-speeding mishaps. It will automatically&&stop trains when there is a violation of speed or route. Therefore, headways between&'trains can be reduced to allow more trains in service. It also provides additional safety for&(railroad workers on the tracks and requires inter-operability among rail services operating&)on the same tracks. This inter-operability assures compliance among all vehicles using&*the same tracks with the PTC system. This is important because Caltrain tracks are also&+

used by other rail operators such as Altamont Corridor Express, Amtrak Capitol Corridor,&,

freight, and planned intercity high-speed trains.&-The electrification project, first approved in 1999, would install a 25 KV, 60 Hz&.

overhead catenary along the Caltrain mainline between San Francisco and San Jose.'/Electrification will allow the use of lighter and faster equipment, thus reducing fuel cost,'&pollution and noise. Electrification will also allow planned extension of commuter rail''service to the new Transbay Transit Center in downtown San Francisco.'(

The capital cost, excluding electric rolling stock, for the track between San')Francisco and San Jose, is estimated at $471 million in 2006 dollars. Because of vehicle'*design and capacity issues, Caltrain plans to use EMU (Figure 9) like the rolling stock of'+European rail transit operations (10). The Federal Railroad Administration, based on the',analysis of Caltrain, granted Caltrain the necessary shared-use waiver to operate such'-equipment in May 2010 (10,11). Caltrain plans to retain the newer diesel-electric rolling'.stock for Baby Bullets, a possible branch line to connect BART service in the East Bay(/by the Dumbarton Bridge, and commuter service to Gilroy. If design and construction(&proceed as planned, the PTC system will be in place in 2015 and electrified equipment('could be in service by 2019.((

Both the train control and electrification projects are being developed in close()coordination with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) as part of the new(*blended rail system in the Peninsula. Track upgrade from Class 4 to Class 6 will be(+needed to accommodate future high-speed trains up to 110 mph with the start of service(,planned by 2029.(-

(.



13/16

!"#$ &(

&

FIGURE 9 Concept EMU 11) '( DOWNTOWN EXTENSION DTX))*

Together with electrification and blended high-speed operation isan important+planned 1.3 mile rail extension from the current Caltrain station at 4th and King streets to the new,

Transbay Transit Center which the Transbay Joint Powers Authority is developing. Back when-

the railroad was built, the service ended at a temporary terminal at 3rd and Townsend and later.moved to its current location at 4th

and King streets when the local community refused to allow&/

the steam locomotive into their neighborhood. Until a Muni line was extended to meet the trains&&

in 1998, people had to catch a shuttle bus for the last mile and half, which was often a tedious&' effort in the infamous traffic of San Francisco.&(

Over the years, many studies and outreach activities were carried out to find a solution&)

acceptable to the community (12). Finally, it is the planned blended operation with the high-speed&*rail service that offers a strong justification and financial support to extend the railroad to the new&+

Transbay Transit Center being built in downtown San Francisco where all the transit services will&,

meet under one roof. However, because the rolling stocks of Caltrain and CHSRA are designed&-

differently, such issues as level boarding and gate operations may result in different layouts of the&.underground rail terminal, whose preliminary design has six platform tracks with two dedicated'/

to commuter rail service.'&

''

DISCUSSION'(

')In addition to proposed changes in infrastructure and equipment, Caltrain will also'*

see blended operation with the high-speed trains, now that its modernization is funded as'+a part of high-speed rail state appropriations. Considerable analysis and coordination',efforts are taking place to meet the needs of commuter and high-speed rail services. As an'-example, Caltrain and CHSRA are discussing platform designs to achieve shared'.platforms in stations of blended operation. Caltrain would also like to increase the(/platform height from its current eight inches above railhead to match the design of the(&



14/16

!"#$ &)

proposed EMU. The resulting level boarding would help bicycle riders and handicapped&passengers (Figure 10) and thus reduce or control the dwell time at each station stop.'Some updated discussionof the compatibility of equipment of Caltrain and high-speed(rail services, and design issues of level boarding and proposed rail terminal layout at the)Transbay Transit Center, could be found in the excellent Caltrain and HSR Compatibility*

Blog(13).+

Many of the busiest grade crossings of Caltrain have been grade separated. But to,ensure the safety of high-speed service and increased traffic, the remaining 40 crossings-still need improvement and/or grade separation. Caltrain has been gradually fencing its.right of way, especially in areas of highest risk to reduce pedestrian trespassing and&/vehicular accidents.&&

&' Figure 10. Wheelchair Loading from Low Platform&(&)

Traditional funding sources may not suffice to meet the need of these&*modernization and operational projects. Multi-year financial planning including&+partnership with cities, local businesses and developers, private interests and the&,utilization of new financial techniques together with the funding initiatives, such as high-&-speed rail bonds, federal reauthorization, local sales tax reauthorization, will provide&.needed revenues. For instance, a nine-party regional memorandum of understanding was'/approved recently to fund the PTC, electrification and equipment, all of which help lay'&the foundation for high-speed rail service to reach San Francisco.''

'(

LESSONS LEARNED')

'*

After serving nearly 150 years in the Peninsula, Caltrain has evolved from a single-'+track, small, private railroad to a modern public service for an increasing number of',commuters in the high-tech Silicon Valley. Looking back, two major lessons for'-transportation planners stand out why it has succeeded.'.

a. Get the customers involved: This railroad was built with financial support from(/



15/16

!"#$ &*

the Peninsula counties which help saved it in 1980 and again in 1992 when they bought it&outright from SP. Over the last 30 years, with cooperation among the regional'communities and the same right-of-way, it has provided an essential and continued(commuter service and saved the Peninsula from the cost and service interruption that a)BART and/or HSR construction would have brought.*

b. Flexible and upgraded service: As a private railroad, it went through many up+

and down cycles like the boom years during the second world war and the doom years,when highways took people off the railroad. With various equipment and operating plans,-it survived until it became a service with public assistance. To meet the economic growth.of the Peninsula, it upgraded its equipment and initiated flexible service such as bicycle&/riding and storage service. At the same time, it developed new programs like the CTX to&&create new and effective express services. Electrification and DTX will further enhance&'its capabilities.&(

&) EPILOGUE&*&+

With Caltrains electrification and continued economic development in the Silicon&,

Valley, the reverse commuter traffic and off-peak travel may equal or exceed traditional&-commuter traffic some day. It could transform Caltrain from a peak-period commuter rail&.operation to a frequent urban rail operation, connecting with BART in San Francisco and'/San Jose when BART completes its extension to Santa Clara County.'&

This would complete the electrified rail transit network around the San Francisco''Bay, a vision when the BART was planned in the 1950s but not realized when San'(Mateo and Santa Clara Counties opted out because of high construction cost and the')existing commuter rail service. As Caltrain marks its 150 years of continuous service in'*the Peninsula in January 2014, we shall celebrate its evolution in technology and'+governance, especially its cooperation with the communities. This has made Caltain part',of a great public transportation system in the Peninsula today.'-

'.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT(/

The author thanks Mark Duncan, Janet McGovern and staff members of(&American Public Transportation Association, Caltrain, and the Friends of Caltrain for('invaluable help and friendship in preparing this article, the authors first on commuter((railroad development since he retired from the Federal Railroad Administration in 2006.()

(*

REFERENCES(+

1. Stindt, F.A. Peninsula Service: A Story of Southern Pacific Commuter Trains,(,The Western Railroader, San Mateo, California (1957)(-

(.

2. Duncan, Mark, The San Francisco Peninsula Railroad ServicesPast, Present)/and Future, Askmar Publishing, Menlo Park, CA (2005))&

3. McGovern, Janet, Caltrain and the Peninsula Commuter Services, Arcadia)'Publishing. Charleston, South Carolina, (2012))(



16/16

!"#$ &+

4. Steelman, Harry and Robert Nagel, The Caltrain CTX Project, American&Railroad Engineers and Maintain of Way Association Conference, accessed July 25, 2013'http://www.arema.org/files/library/2004_Conference_Proceedings/00006.pdf(

5. Nash, Andrew, Caltrain Rapid Rail Plan, Transportation Research Record,)

Journal of Transportion Research Board No. 1677, Washington, D.C. (1999)*

6. February 2013 Annual Passenger Counts, Caltrain, San Carlos, CA (2013)+

7. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2012,,Caltrain, San Carlos, CA (2013)-

.

8. Transit Ridership Report, Second Quarter, 2012; American Public Transportation Association,&/Washington, DC (2012)&&

&'

9. National Transit Database of 2011, Table 26, American Public Transportation&(Association, Washington, DC (2012)&)

&*10. DiBrito, D.A., Ron Mayville, Robert Doty and Camille Tsao, Moving&+

Towards Unrestricted Shared Use: How Caltrain Took the Next Step and What Recent&,Developments Mean to U.S. Commuter Railroads. In Transportation Research Record:&-Journal of TRB No. 2219, Washington, D.C., (2011)&.

'/

11. Mayville, Ron, FRA Wavier--An Alternative Approach- The Caltrain'&Experience. APTA 2011 Rail Conference, Boston, MA (2011)''

'(

12. Nash, Andrew, Public Decision Making for the CalTrain Downtown San')Francisco Extension Project, In Transportation Research Record; Journal of'*

Transportation Research Board No. 1571, Washington, D.C., (1997)'+',

13. Tillier, Clem, Caltrain and HSR Compatibility Blog, accessed October 31,'-2013; http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com(2013)'.

(/

(&

('

((

()

the evolution of commuter rail in the san francisco peninsula

Documents