From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: CalTrain scheduling musings
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:11:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.010246.21195@erg.sri.com>, rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent) writes:
|> In the referenced article, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> >What's lousy is that grade-separations are more often than not
|> >funded out of "rail" funding pots, but really don't provide much
|> >real benefit for rail service.

|> 1) They keep the trains from having to stop at intersections like
|> light rail sometimes has to

Light rail does not have signal/crossing priority like a fast-moving
heavy rail train has to.  That's why CalTrain (or most any other train)
has crossing gates.  Your comment doesn't apply to private right of way
rail systems--especially fast-moving heavy rail.


|> 2) They keep the majority of the population from rising up and
|> strangling the designers of the rail system and voting against all
|> transit funding.

This isn't much of a problem.  The number of "no" votes on rail that
are linked to at-grade crossings is not worth worrying about.  I doubt
its worth $10 to $30 million per crossing.


|> 3) They improve safety

Ok, where there is a safety problem, you grade-separate.  I've looked
at the accident stats for every single crossing on the Peninsula.  From
what I remember, the average number of grade-crossing accidents per
crossing is on the order of 2 or so over the last 30 or 40 years.  When
you look at fatalities, it's even lower--with many crossings being
fatality free for as long as there are records.  I doubt you'd find
many auto intersections (signalized or not) with such a low incident
rate.


|> They are only necessary for providing short headway service.

In the case of most Peninsula crossings, no.  The worst traffic on
the Peninsula already coincides with the heaviest train traffic.  To
go to short headway service would mean running trains on, say, 15-minute
headways for the rest of the day.  For most crossings, this would hardly
be a problem.  On average, crossings that aren't near a station stop,
are blocked for less than a minute to allow a train carrying hundreds
of people to pass.  (Some crossings are only blocked for as little as
30 seconds per train.)  Now, more people are passing through the train-
auto "intersection" in the time that crossing is blocked than could
ever pass through in autos with average loadings of 1.1 to 1.3 people.
(The average CalTrain--which includes midday, late night & morning,
and weekend trains--carried 382 riders in October.)  At any rate,
with 15- or 20-minute headways during the off-peak (perfectly adequate
in my view) won't be much of a problem for the vast majority of
crossings.  That's only blocking the crossing for about 5 to 8 minutes
per hour to allow up to few thousand people to pass comfortably and
safely on the train!


|> Third: do you really care whether they fund the separations from the
|> rail money instead of transferring the money over to the highway
|> budget and funding it from there?

Yes.  The grade-separation monies provide more overall transportation
benefit when spent on real rail capital upgrades or on increased
service.  Some grade-separations are certainly justified.  But we must
rembember that unlike BART, CalTrain is not flimsily constructed and
can withstand the occasional collision with a motor vehicle easily.
Therefore, CalTrain planners, unlike BART, need not be concerned with
grade-separating *every* crossing, no matter how busy it is, just to
prevent the train from coming apart on the off chance some idiot puts
his vehicle in front of a train.

|> is it a real issue?

As real as waiting for real CalTrain upgrades while trains are delayed
as they tip-toe around grade separation construction projects that offer
little or no benefit to the train rider, or *potential* train rider.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov