California’s Amtrak Capitol Corridor carries a minuscule number of passengers, but is spending a whopping $325 million on capital improvement projects. What exactly are we getting for that money?
-
$70 million for the Sacramento station relocation. In effect, a real estate development funded in part by transit dollars.
-
New platforms at Sacramento and San Jose, and the new Fairfield-Vacaville station — plus $50 million for new rolling stock. Of course, no consideration whatsoever to provide level-platform boarding at the new platforms. (The new trains, by the way, are ludicrously over-priced thanks to FRA and Buy-America.)
-
$50 million for track improvements along the Oakland-San Jose segment. Prop 1A (High-Speed Rail Bond) is paying for this. Ridership on this segment of the Capitol Corridor has always been under-performing, and will get worse once the BART-SJ extension opens.
Systemic Failure 
The Sacramento station relocation project is especially bad because it actually manages to make operations and transit connectivity in Sacramento by increasing the distance to light rail and adding tight radius curves.
One other thing, you know very well that level boarding is a nonstarter on the Capitol Corridor due to CPUC regulations. You might be able to argue it for Caltrain, but not for the CC which has active freight and where I can rennet seeing workers riding on the outsides of freight cars a few years ago.
Should rail workers be riding on the outside of freight cars on main-lines? Does any other developed country permit that sort of practice? I can’t imagine how it could be safe, or why it is considered necessary.
Joseph, there is a rail yard surrounding the Davis station where the UP and Sacramento Northern exchange cars. There is a whole lot of switching as consists are broken up and made there.
If that’s really an issue in any one particular location then put the platform tracks on sidings.
What annoys me about the redesign of Sacramento Station is that almost no provision was made for future HSR. There is enough space between the tracks for columns, but straddle-bent structures, as always, aren’t cheap and the whole situation is less than pedestrian friendly. Why not reserve some of the (ample) at-grade space for future HSR platforms?
And why didn’t they implement level boarding at the new Sacramento Station, given that freight trains don’t even pass the platform tracks?
The issue with high platforms is that unless the CPUC changes its rules high platforms are illegal on tracks that can be used by freight in California. It’s a dumb rule, but it’s the law.
Well yes … I guess the more relevant question is why no one has challenged that law yet.
CPUC is irrelevant. The freights that own the tracks are just as vehement about not allowing anything over 8″.
Why should they care if their trains are never going to use the platform tracks?
Oops, my reply below was supposed to be to you, sorry.
The class Is seem to be very concerned about setting precedents. For example they do not want to deploy four-quadrant gates in one location and then get sued when some idiot drives around the gates and gets mowed down at a crossing without four-quadrant gates. (Remember that freight RRs are private corporations and do not enjoy the liability limits and protections afforded to DOTs.) Or consider this (scroll to [[Page 57927]]) on ADA access where they basically say “nope, never” to anything over 8″.
I’ve heard that Amtrak also does not like to have station sidings (at midline stations, not necessarily terminals) because (1) you have to pay for a couple interlockings, not cheap, and (2) once they are on the station siding, the dispatcher (a freight RR employee) can hold them there and let freights pass them. If they stop on the mainline, the dispatchers can’t do that.
Also, note that even if the CPUC changed its laws to require level boarding, the freight RRs could appeal to the STB on the grounds that the law would impact interstate commerce. This is also why a city or state can’t take RR property by eminent domain.
In most passenger cases in the US, there really is no excuse for not having level boarding. Agencies like the MBTA own most of their own ROW. But when you are dealing with long distance routes over track owned by the Class Is, it is a really difficult issue.
The new Sacramento Station platforms are on sidings though. The mainline tracks have no platforms.
It’s really simple.
Build the platforms outside of the freight car loading gauge. Crazy crazy idea!
Build the platforms at “low level” (~ 500 — 650mm ATOR) for level boarding with both low-floor single-deck and double-deck passenger trains: regional, commuter, intra-regional, inter-regional, high-speed all work.
There is zero conflict with freight (except that that is in the process of derailing or shifting. Cost of doing business!)
There is zero conflict with out-of-dimension loads, even. Well-flat away! Schnabel away! Go nuts with the aircraft fuselage ferrying!
Even some backwards Americans seem to be able to dimly grasp it..
As I recall, neither the Austin line nor the River line are owned by BNSF or UP. Their position is that you can’t build a platform above 8″ above TOR on their line. They don’t really have to give a reason. Take it up with them instead of taking cheap shots at people who don’t have any control over it.
Build outside the loading gauge and then have the agency utilizing the platforms indemnify the host railway for any legal action and damages resulting from the construction of the platforms for a distance covering a few hundred feet from each end of the platform. It is the legal concerns that are most often stated for the freight railways’ reluctance to change.