SMART Money Part II: The Myth of Caltrain North

Dick Spotswood is a supporter of SMART and an optimist regarding its success, but his insistence that it could function with the same form as Caltrain shows a lack of understanding of how the SMART system must work.

Back in July, the columnist argued:

When in Oceanside, [former general manager Lillian] Hames' crew should have walked across the depot to ride Coaster, the excellent passenger rail line linking the San Diego County coast. There, they'd find an off-the-shelf commuter railroad using high-capacity cars that are America's standard.

They would work perfectly in the North Bay hauled by environment-friendly Tier Four locomotives… It's all proven technology. Think Caltrain on San Francisco's Peninsula.

This, he says, would result in $120 million in savings and provide twice the capacity over the Sharryo DMUs SMART ended up buying.  The savings would come from:

• Leasing non-customized trains rather than buying customized trains
• Cutting specialized track work
• Cutting specialized signaling systems
• Cutting high loading platforms

The numbers, unfortunately, don’t add up.  The Sharryo trains cost $6.3 million apiece.  A comparable Caltrain-style train costs $10.7 million*, almost double the original cost.  Not only that, but the locomotive makes the train too long to fit within a normal city block, meaning streets would be blocked while the train is at a station.   Caltrain's stations are grade-separated or otherwise designed so the agency does not have that issue.

The Federal Railroad Administration has rules regarding freight/passenger interaction that dictate SMART’s specialized track work and signaling systems, which total only $36 million.  ADA and FRA regulations conspire to require level boarding at stations, but the stations cost less than $3 million apiece.  Even cutting them all entirely would only save $27 million. 

If SMART set aside its length constrains, it could be leasing, rather than purchasing, traditional trains and save up to $50 million.  But I cannot understand how the additional $70 million in cost savings could be found without cutting legally and operationally required capital expenditures.

The point is that train type doesn’t dictate much with regards to SMART’s capital costs.  Specialization does come with a price, and there may be one to pay in maintenance later, but SMART’s cost overruns are not the result of purchasing DMUs and so cannot be fixed by replicating the Caltrain model in the North Bay.  Indeed, Caltrain is too long to run at street level and it is more expensive than the custom-built DMUs SMART already has.

If someone wants to build a boondoggle, running Caltrain on SMART’s tracks would be a good place to start.

<--

-----------------------------

* Assuming 1 locomotive at $5.7 million and 2 Bombardier Bi-Level cars, to accommodate the 312 seats Spotswood argues are necessary, at $2.5 million apiece.