It's notable that the annual ridership is up 47% in the FY ending June 2025 vs the FY ending June 2024, when electrification was only complete in September 2024-- in other words, it's not even a full year's worth of ridership increase.
On the flip side, I find it shocking that ridership is still only 60% of pre-pandemic levels.
Anecdotally, the increased service is a game-changer. Speed matters, too, a lot, but the frequency is what matters to me. A transit system that only arrives once an hour off-peak is not particularly useful. The increased frequency, to a minimum of once every 30mins means missing a train is merely annoying. It's still infrequent enough that you want to check a schedule to avoid waiting around for too long, but not a deal-breaker, IMO.
> On the flip side, I find it shocking that ridership is still only 60% of pre-pandemic levels.
It makes a lot of sense. Many companies went full remote during the pandemic and stayed that way, or if they went in person, it's only 60% of the time or less. And a lot of people left the area during the pandemic, and those that are returning are coming back to SF, not the suburbs.
I used to take the train every day for years, but I've only been on it once or twice since the pandemic.
To put it in startup terms, the TAM for ridership shrank considerably. They may very well be capturing a greater amount of the TAM than before the pandemic.
Commuting and residential patterns changed too. A lot of Googlers purchased houses in the Tri-valley during COVID instead of living in apartments in Mountain View or Sunnyvale or SF. Now they have a Dumbarton or 237 commute instead of something Caltrain-accessible. Tech companies also started laying off in 2022, and stopped hiring in the Bay Area; I'd bet that total employment along the Caltrain corridor is significantly lower than in 2019.
The Bay Area also needs way better last-mile transportation. I looked into taking Caltrain to work; it'd take 22 minutes to Caltrain the ~15 miles to the nearest Caltrain station, and then another 22 minutes to shuttle the 2.5 miles to work.
This happened in my country. Basically many people only go the office a few days a week. Friday's are virtual ghost towns.
Unfortunately for railroad companies commuters are the lifeblood.
> On the flip side, I find it shocking that ridership is still only 60% of pre-pandemic levels.
My understand is that it's been true of commuter rail everywhere - e.g. a Twin Cities commuter railroad has shut down as well due to declining ridership.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/M...
Here's a relatively rigorous report from the GAO synthesizing cross-US experiences:
https://www.gao.gov/blog/most-commuter-rail-systems-are-stil...
My understanding is that there's a decline in transit use in general, but I would hazard to guess that the emphasis on commuters has hit commuter rail the hardest.
> My understand is that it's been true of commuter rail everywhere
Yet, astoundingly, many transit system budgets are higher than ever.
Also WFH is still around. Sure RTO is being forced but it's not universal. Lots of orgs are still hybrid.
Yeah; my bay area job is basically remote (in all but name), but I keep hearing "everyone" had to RTO.
" find it shocking that ridership is still only 60% of pre-pandemic levels."
Do we know how much of this 47% is due to electrification vs just post-pandemic trend?
Living in Jersey City, the Path train to Manhattan only leaves every 20 minutes on Sundays, and that's infrequent enough that we were discouraged from making that trip. We still went, but I'm sure not as often.
Last time I rode Caltrain (late last year) I had my life threatened by some low life who got mad b/c they had been in the bathroom for 5+ stops and an employee had the audacity to knock on the door and tell them to wrap it up and get out (I just happened to be nearby) so there's that aspect of it.
I can tell you the light rail in Austin is a complete failure. There was some ridership before the pandemic, but after a few years, the numbers are dismal. They've covered the windows with ads, so you can't even tell how empty they are inside. Meanwhile, they crisscross the city, constantly blocking streets with rail guards just to shuffle a handful of people north and south.
> light rail in Austin is a complete failure
Light rail is stupid. It’s a bus that can’t change lanes. A train that gets stuck in traffic.
And, as you said, they visibly disrupt drivers which generates class animosity.
I think you’re thinking of streetcars—trains that share right of way with cars. Light rail often has its own right-of-way with priority over cars. (That’s what the crossing guards are for.)
> Light rail often has its own right-of-way with priority over cars
It’s still at grade. Priority is meaningless if there is a car in the way when the guards come down. And those guards, in interrupting traffic, are annoying to drivers. (I’d also point out that the line between trams, street cars and light rail is ambiguous. It’s an American term describing principally European infrastructure.)
> Priority is meaningless if there is a car in the way when the guards come down.
This possibility is so far outside my experience I can only think your perspective has more to do with emotion than logic. Maybe it happens more often in your city than mine.
The Austin train you are talking about is heavy rail. Not to be confused with Austin light rail which is Coming Soon (TM).
It's still more reliable than the busses. I think it's pretty fun.
I'm not sure how you'd measure the effectiveness of light rail/trams vs buses - a hybrid of average journey duration, number of passengers, and I suppose some ROI type metric?
Either way personally priority bus lanes feel significantly more flexible and cheaper to implement than LR/trams...but that's just a personal opinion.