1. Where To With Caltrain
Governance?
Caltrain Governance Discussion
Lou Thompson
February 11, 2014
Thompson, Galenson and Associates, LLC
14684 Stoneridge Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070-5745
http://www.tgaassoc.com
Tel: (408) 647-2104
Fax: (408) 647-2105
lou.thompson@gmail.com

2. The Major Points






Caltrain does well operationally, BUT
Major changes coming
Major issues to be resolved
Options for new ownership and
governance structures
Making the decision: benefits, risks
and resources
For the sake of argument: one idea

3. Passengers
(millions)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
NOTE: All comparisons are 2011 data from FTA database

4. Passenger-Miles
(000)
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
-

5. Revenue/Passenger-Mile
($)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

6. Operating Expense/Passenger-Mile
($)
1.200
4.24
1.96
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
-
NOTE: DCTA and CDOT are truncated as shown

7. Revenue/Expense Ratio
(%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

8. Average Trip Length
(Miles)
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
-

9. Average Speed
(MPH)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Mix with HSR?

10. Passenger-Miles/Vehicle-Mile:
Rough Indicator of Load Factor
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

11. Vehicle-Miles/Train-Mile:
Average Train Length
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
-

12. Major Changes Are Coming






Electrification of Caltrain
DTX (with ET, could double Caltrain
demand)
HSR
UP (freight on Caltrain line)
ACE extensions (Dumbarton Bridge)?
BART to San Jose

13. Major Issues




Money (Caltrain, DTX and HSR)
Joint operations on same lines: who
owns, schedules, dispatches, pays
what to whom, and is liable?
Level boarding and common platform
heights (Transbay Terminal)
Grade crossings must be eliminated

14. The Options


Structure
Business Models

15. Rail Structures
Suburban
INFRASTRUCTURE
PASSENGER
Intercity
HSR
Integral (Monolithic)
Local or National
National Railway
Railway
Dominant/Tenant
National
Railway
Local operator Intercity operators
usually dominant usually dominant:
with intercity
freight in US,
tenants
passenger in Japan
Local or national
National
National Network
Separated Infrastructure
Network
Network
Provider
provider
Provider
FREIGHT
Suburban
Private or
National
Railway
Local or
National
Railway
Intercity
freight
operators
dominant
Local control,
some freight
and intercity
tenants
National
Network
Provider
Local
agencies
OPERATIONS
PASSENGER
Intercity
HSR
National
Railway
National
Railway
Freight
tenants
National
National
Operator,
Operator,
competition competition
possible
possible
FREIGHT
Examples
Private or
National
Railway
China, India,
BART
Passenger
tenants,
US (Class I
some freight and Amtrak),
tenants by
Canada,
trackage
Japan
rights
Multiple
operators
EU model,
Australia

16. Bringing Ownership Into the Picture
Private Role
Fully State-Owned
Unbundling
Integral (Monolithic)
China, Belarus,
South Africa,
Dominant Operator
Integral, tenant
operators pay
for access
Amtrak and VIA,
Japan Rail
Freight, Russia
Vertical Separation
("Open Access")
all operators pay
for access
"Standard" EU
model
Partnerships
Network Rail?
Exclusive
Passenger and
freight
concessions
Privately Owned
Smaller US freight
railroads (500),
East Japan,
Central Japan
and West
Japan, Taiwan
HSR
Caltrain with UP as
tenant
Most US freight
railways
Some UK franchises,
Network Rail?
Most UK franchises,
Railtrack (but
not Network
Rail), EWS

17. Business Models in Rail
Passenger Service





Wholly integral – BART
Management contract – Caltrain, MBTA
Gross cost franchise (UK urban
franchises)
Net cost franchise (UK longer haul
franchises, Rio and BsAs suburban)
Wholly private (Taiwan HSR, Japanese
HSR)

18. The U.K. Model?





Network Rail, a “not for profit” corporation owns, improves
and maintains the infrastructure.
Network Rail charges franchises (and freight companies) a
published set of access charges. These charges recover all
maintenance and some of the investment: regulated by ORR
Private companies compete for 5-7 year passenger franchises
awarded by DfT with some role by local authorities.
Competition is usually for minimum support, but can include
payments to government. Freight minimally supported.
Rolling stock leased from leasing companies (ROSCOs)
Services and charges regulated by ORR

19. CA Services and UK Franchise
Passengers
(000,000)
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
-
Note: UK Data taken from ORR National Rail Trends Yearbook 2010/2011

20. CA Services and UK Franchises:
Passenger-Miles (000,000)
3,500.0
3,000.0
2,500.0
2,000.0
1,500.0
1,000.0
500.0
-

21. CA Services and UK Franchises:
Miles of Line
2,000.0
1,800.0
1,600.0
1,400.0
1,200.0
1,000.0
800.0
600.0
400.0
200.0
-

22. CA Services and UK Franchises:
Average Trip Length (Mi)
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
-

23. CA Services and UK Franchises: Traffic
Density
(Pass-Mile/Mile of Line)
8,000.0
7,000.0
6,000.0
5,000.0
4,000.0
3,000.0
2,000.0
1,000.0
-

24. Making the Decision




Public versus market (private) benefit and
cost balance: wholly public leads to BART,
wholly private to Taiwan HSR. Usually the
result is a balance (there is a public role)
Risk allocation (cost, schedule and demand)
Resources (who can pay and under what
conditions). Model has to match the money
No magic solutions

25. For Argument: One Approach








DTX tracks leased to Caltrain for a fee (not based on use)
Caltrain owns/leases and maintains all infrastructure (stations?).
Charges HSR/others an access fee based on use (various options)
HSR/Caltrain agree on schedules, have joint dispatching (CTC) center
to ensure neutrality in dispatching
HSR franchise operator will be allowed to compete for Caltrain
franchise (or contract) when re-offered
UP replaced by short line operator that uses electric traction and
operates only at night (full temporal separation)
State/local program to eliminate all grade crossings before HSR
Re-open Dumbarton Bridge to remove freight and let ACE serve midPeninsula directly
Oversight agency to coordinate all services. Harmonize fares and
and provide common ticketing?