Content deleted Content added
→Opposition: Copyedits (removed undefined acronym, added article) |
→History: Corrected quote, added URL. |
||
Line 44:
Details of a proposed agreement leaked in February 2012, which stated to $1 billion could be available from the high-speed rail project to help fund the CalMod project, including the advanced train-control system (CBOSS), electrification of the infrastructure (PCEP), and elimination of some grade crossings.<ref name=SFC-120213>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Caltrain-plan-would-fast-track-electric-rail-3308582.php |title=Caltrain plan would fast-track electric rail |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=13 February 2012 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> Under the agreement, the Peninsula Corridor would become eligible for high-speed rail money because the planned routing to San Francisco would use the same lines.<ref name=SFC-120213 /> A similar amount could be directed to [[Metrolink]] to help electrify that line's infrastructure to downtown Los Angeles.<ref name=SFC-120213 /> The investments in the "bookend" electrification projects were intended to allow high-speed rail to share infrastructure with existing passenger rail services.<ref name=AB1889-2 /> In March 2012, Caltrain and other local agencies signed a [[memorandum of understanding]] with the CHSRA that detailed the "blended" plan,<ref name="hsr">{{citeweb|url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/Bay+Area+HSR+Early+Investment+MOU-+JPB+Board+Resolution+2012.pdf|title=Authorizing Approval of the High-Speed Rail Early Investment Strategy for a Blended System, Memorandum of Understanding|publisher=Caltrain|accessdate=March 29, 2017}}</ref><ref name=SFC-120322>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Caltrain-upgrades-a-step-toward-high-speed-rail-3425806.php |title=Caltrain upgrades a step toward high-speed rail |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=22 March 2012 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> and it was subsequently approved by MTC a week later.<ref name=SFC-120329>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/MTC-approves-Caltrain-electrification-plan-3442745.php |title=MTC approves Caltrain electrification plan |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=29 March 2012 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref>
Under the memorandum, $706 million from the high-speed rail bond would be issued to be matched by state, regional, and local transportation funds to pay for the estimated $1.5 billion needed for CalMod.<ref name=SFC-120322 /><ref name=SFC-120329 /> However, since the bonds had not yet been issued, the money was not available, and a prior environmental impact report that had been issued for electrification in 2009 needed to be reissued before construction could start.<ref name=SFC-120728>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Fast-electric-Caltrain-still-years-away-3743563.php |title=Fast electric Caltrain still years away |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=28 July 2012 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> In September 2012, the California Transportation Commission released $39.8 million to fund CBOSS.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2012-09-28/modernization-dream-now-reality/1755530.html |title=Modernization dream now reality |author=Silverfarb, Bill |date=28 September 2012 |newspaper=San Mateo Daily Journal |accessdate=26 March 2017}}</ref> Later in November 2012, the total released from high-speed rail bonds rose to $1.5 billion, which would include funding for the planned Downtown Extension (DTX), moving the northern terminus of the Caltrain line from 4th and King to the [[Transbay Transit Center]].<ref name=SFC-121104>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/1-5-billion-Caltrain-deal-packs-some-big-extras-3433993.php |title=$1.5 billion Caltrain deal packs some big extras |author1=Matier, Phil |author2=Ross, Andrew |date=4 November 2012 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> With ever-increasing ridership and lack of a dedicated funding source, Caltrain was relying on CalMod to cut costs and increase capacity.<ref name=SFC-130505>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Popular-Caltrain-heads-toward-fiscal-crisis-4490366.php |title=Popular Caltrain heads toward fiscal crisis |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=5 May 2013 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> CHSRA approved the issue of bonds in December 2016.<ref name=SMDJ-161215>{{cite news |url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2016-12-15/caltrain-supporters-unfazed-by-high-speed-rail-suit-officials-believe-bond-sale-electrification-will-stay-on-track-despite-new-case/1776425172844.html |title=Caltrain supporters unfazed by high-speed rail suit: Officials believe bond sale, electrification will stay on track despite new case |author=Weigel, Samantha |date=15 December 2016 |newspaper=San Mateo Daily Journal |accessdate=31 March 2017}}</ref>
===Opposition===
Line 66:
{{quote |text=Indeed, at bottom [California High-Speed Rail] is providing funds to Caltrain while hoping that the rest of CHSRA’s plans work out well enough that, someday, it can bring the blended system to fruition. But if CHSRA is unable to do that, Caltrain will still have a successful project. Put another way, HSR may need to have Caltrain’s Electrification Project completed. But Caltrain does not need to have High Speed Rail completed for the Electrification Project to be a success. |author=Judge Barry Goode |source=2016 ruling<ref name=SMDJ-160927 />}}
Atherton sued CHSRA again in December 2016, stating that using bond money intended for high-speed rail for CalMod was a material change in usage and therefore was unconstitutional because such a change would require voter approval first.<ref name=SMDJ-161215 /> Instead, the funding was allowed to be redirected under the recently-passed Assembly Bill 1889,<ref name=AB1889-2>{{cite web |url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1889 |title=An act to add Section 2704.78 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation |author=Mullin, Kevin |date=28 September 2016 |publisher=Secretary of State, State of California |accessdate=31 March 2017}}</ref><ref name=AB1889>{{cite California statute |year=2015 |chapter=744 |title=An act to add Section 2704.78 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation |page=}}</ref> which had been championed by Assemblymember [[Kevin Mullin]] in 2015.<ref name=SMDJ-161215 /> Mullin noted "this entire Caltrain corridor is the epicenter of the innovation economy and it's a job creation and economic engine. This electrification project, I would argue, is monumental with
===Contracts awarded===
| |||