The curious case of the Capitol Corridor (part 3):

Six keys to passenger-rail success

American cities and states have a long way to go in building their rail networks, but we have some excellent case studies to draw from. California’s Capitol Corridor line, which runs from Sacramento to the Bay Area, is among the best.

The Capitol Corridor is a revealing, curious case. For a few years after its launch in 1991, it offered few daily runs and drew few riders. It was a very middling line, in other words. Then, from the late 1990s to the early 2000s, a series of innovations and interventions transformed it into one of most popular and reliable passenger-rail lines in the nation.

This series tells its story based on the insights of Gene Skoropowski, who led the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) during the time when the line emerged as one of the nation’s best. The CCJPA is made up of six transportation agencies in the Corridor’s eight-county service area. It launched in 1998. Skoropowski was its first head.

Parts one and two of this series offer an overview of the line and a summary of its transformation. This installment offers six keys to success for advocates and leaders who aim to bring better trains to their own communities.

1. Frequency is critical. Frequent service is vital to making trains a real option for a critical mass of people. When there are few runs and few riders, line operators and state legislatures often try to cut costs by cutting the service, which creates a downward spiral as taking the train becomes less viable for more people. The Capitol Corridor took the opposite approach by increasing the frequency, from just four round-trips in 1997 to 16 by the mid-2000s. Ridership more than quadrupled—from about 400,000 annual riders to about 1.7 million—in a decade. Frequency and reliability drove the increase. As revenues and ridership grew through the 2000s, per-passenger operating costs fell, and the Capitol Corridor’s fare-box recovery rate rose sharply—from 29 percent in the late 1990s to 49 percent by 2011. Of course, speed is also important. By shortening travel times, it facilitates frequent runs and makes them cost effective. But for short lines with a high percentage of commuters—lines like the Capitol Corridor—the possibilities for adding speed are often limited. Even in those cases, adding frequency can be transformative. The Capitol Corridor’s top speed, after all, was 79 mph.
2. Treat the freight railroad as a valued partner. The Capitol Corridor cut against the grain in more ways than one. It not only increased frequency in the face of low ridership; it gave its host railroad, Union Pacific (UP), a strong financial stake in its success. As explained in detail in part two, the CCJPA created a staggered schedule of bonus payments, pegged to the on-time rate of Capitol Corridor trains. As a result, both UP and CCJPA had good incentives to invest in track and other infrastructure upgrades—and to complete the work efficiently. For example, they partnered on creating special schedules and “bus bridges” so that work crews could do upgrades and repairs without interruption. This all-in approach to getting the work done created some near-term inconveniences. But it allowed the trains to run more smoothly and reliably the rest of the year, which created a virtuous cycle of success. Capitol Corridor trains achieved a 90+ percent on-time performance rate by the late 2000s. More reliable service built a loyal base of riders. In turn, the increased revenues—and lower operating costs—allowed the CCJPA to steadily improve and upgrade the service.
3. Plan early for frequency. The fact that the CCJPA steadily added more runs through the late 1990s and early 2000s traces back to critical decisions made about a decade earlier. First, California voters approve ballot initiatives in 1990 that authorized nearly $3 billion in new investments for (mostly) passenger-rail projects. Then the California Department of Transportation (aka Caltrans) invested nearly $100 million in track upgrades on the line between San Jose and Sacramento (now owned by Union Pacific but then owned by the now-defunct Southern Pacific Railroad). With that investment, Caltrans got the right to run up 20 round-trips daily on the line. It launched the Capitol Corridor service in late 1991. Five years later, Caltrans offered only four daily round trips. But that would soon change, as the newly created CCPJA under Skoropowski committed to scaling up the service. The key point is that, although it took nearly a decade to fully leverage the line’s potential, Caltrans had the foresight to seize a great opportunity in the early 1990s. And that move prepared the way for the Capitol Corridor to build out the service a few years later. It often takes time for investments to bear fruit—but planning pays off.
4. Leadership is vital. So is the grassroots base. The Capitol Corridor’s story is a powerful example of how grassroots activism and determined leadership combine to deliver transformative change. On the grassroots side, engaged citizens pushed for—and collected signatures for—the ballot initiatives that resulted in California’s multi-billion-dollar investments in railroads in the early 1990s. But—as described above and in parts 1 and 2—the Capitol Corridor needed the support and determination of the CCJPA to thrive. As its head, Skoropowski developed strong relationships with the leadership of Amtrak, Caltrans, and United Pacific. Building on a foundation of trust and personal connections, he pushed for solutions and innovations that led to the line’s success. The takeaway is that broad-based movements can create the possibility, momentum, and vision for transformative change. But realizing it usually requires a leader with the skills, relationships, and decision-making power to articulate—and push forward—the movement’s vision.
5. Steady progress creates a culture of innovation and success. The culture of steady progress and innovations that made the Capitol Corridor a success in the early 2000s still define the line. For example, it is pioneering the first “tap-to-pay” system on a passenger-train line in the US. It also anchors the northern end of California’s best-in-the-nation intercity bus network. Train/bus connections are overlooked and under-funded in most of the US, but they’re vital for building successful train networks. (Read our recent post on the subject.) “The opportunity exists all over the country,” Skoropowski said. “Rather than buses competing in the same corridors as Amtrak, you could build a network that covers almost every community in the country through a rail network” with connecting buses. This commitment to steady progress is especially relevant right now. Even in this moment of intense polarization in national politics, some projects have strong bipartisan support and could make a real difference. “One of my favorites is a grade-crossing elimination program,” Skoropowski said, which “would put American companies and workers to work on projects that can’t be off-shored.” Grade separation is key to running trains faster and more reliably, “and we have a very good case study for how it’s done. It’s called the interstate highway system. It was built with highway money and does not have a grade crossing in it.”
6. Americans will ride trains. Thirty years ago, there was little sign that the Capitol Corridor would soon be a vital part of the economy and everyday life in the Bay Area and Sacramento. But when the trains became a viable alternative to driving, riders flocked to them. The same story played out in Boston, where Skoropowski began his career in train advocacy in the early 1970s. Commuter trains were an afterthought in transportation planning. Now the MBTA plans to invest $2.5 billion on upgrades and expansions through 2028, shifting from conventional commuter rail to regional rail. (For more on this, watch the recent Alliance webinar with Boston-based TransitMatters.) The point is: It’s not true that Americans just love to drive everywhere. It’s just that—in most cases and most places—it’s the only real option they have. Give them a reliable, affordable, and low-stress alternative to driving and they’ll gladly choose it.