Good post. The same is true in Palo Alto where I live.

Use is growing and we can support electrification and an independent funding source for CalTrain and, in the meantime, vote with our use as Paul suggests.

> Use it. That is the interim answer to speeding Caltrain service from Menlo Park.
> As for the long run: support electrification.

There are so many other, better, ways to accomplish improved caltrain travel times and service:

1) Caltrain's funding plan depends on money from Prop 1a. That funding looks very unlikely, and as a result Caltrain is doing the Bay Area a real disservice by intentionally making that their plan A, B, C and D for improving Caltrain service (primarily improving travel times, among other things). No Prop 1a = no HSR = no Caltrain electrification.

2) Caltrain can improve travel times by replacing their cars with lighter cars, and do the same for the trains. They already have equipment that is at/near end-of-life, so it's no like this will require new monies, unlike Electrification;

3) Caltrain can improve travel times by modifying stops so boarding is at-grade. That will making boarding/unboarding faster for everyone, particularly for the disabled.

4) BART uses diesel trains in parts of the East Bay, and saw a 40% reduction in costs.

5) Instead of trying to get money for electrification, Caltrain should try to work with communities to:
a) (partially) trench the tracks;
b) add a 3rd track;

The 3rd track will make it easier to run bullet trains while still supporting local service; trenching will help promote traffic flow throughout the peninsula and south bay. Our traffic problems are only going to get worse, even with improved caltrain service (actually, more caltrain service will make traffic worse, by stopping traffic through crossings more often).

6) The loss of thousands of trees is indefensibly stupid;

There are much better ways to improve caltrain than the approach promoted by caltrain.

I really don't understand why the electrification of CalTrain is held up as the salvation for the well used, but poorly financed (or managed as many could argue). Peninsula Resident makes many excellent points about some of what I consider to be the myths of an electrified CalTrain. Peninsula Resident also accurately points out that much or most of the $1.5B CalTrain wants to electrify, may never appear, then what? CalTrain and their fan club would have us believe that they will continue to suffer, pollute, be slow, noisy etc. When electrified, I doubt they will be managed any better than they are now, more trains will mean more gate down time, more cross traffic congestion, more horn and bell noise and probably more train/car and train/person collisions. Why?? Well, as anyone, except Caltrain apparently, knows, faster trains run in dense urban environments cry out for a fully separated system which means grade separations all along the Peninsula. Expensive, sadly yes, but personally, I would rather see a fully grade separated Caltrain than an electrified CalTrain any day.

> I would rather see a fully grade separated Caltrain than an electrified CalTrain any day.

Exactly. Trenching and adding a 3rd track is a good compromise in my book. The 3rd track makes the logistics of running more bullet trains and local service feasible, and the trenching allows traffic to flow.

I agree it's not cheap, but the economic and quality-of-life costs will be much higher in the long run.

And besides, it's not like digging would be unique to the peninsula. If caltrain (and HSR, though that's unlikely) goes to the Transbay Terminal, trenching in comparison is a pittance. Tunneling under a metropolis is much, much more expensive than surface trenching.

Also, trenching makes blowing the horn unnecessary.

There is an interesting power point from the "India Railways Fan Club" comparing diesel to electric trains:

Web Link

One surprising conclusion they had was that diesel was significantly more efficient than electricity, due to transmission losses. I'd like to see that evaluated with California's grid, but it's a surprising conclusion. (I think India generates electricity with coal, so that may impact the results.) Diesel really is electric, but with the generator on-board.

If it's true, then I'm rather hesitant to cut down that many trees in order to accommodate electrification.