Content deleted Content added
→Federal funding interruption: Change portrait to one of her while being United States Secretary of Transportation. |
m →Inaugural service: spelling |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 82:
In early 2016, the CHSRA had selected a route that required extensive and costly tunneling in [[Southern California]] and revised its initial operating plans for high-speed rail to include the Bay Area.<ref name=SFC-160218>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/High-speed-rail-on-fast-track-to-Bay-Area-6830444.php |title=High-speed rail on fast track to Bay Area |author1=Matier, Phil |author2=Ross, Andrew |date=February 18, 2016 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> By February 2017, the electrification project had secured $1.3 billion in state, local, and regional funding, with the remaining funding gap to be closed by a $647 million grant from the FTA's Core Capacity program.<ref name=PCEP-CCE>{{cite web |url=https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/CA%20San%20Carlos%20Caltrain%20Peninsula%20Corridor%20Electrification%20Project%20Profile.pdf |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Core Capacity Engineering |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=August 2016 |publisher=[[Federal Transit Administration]] |access-date=April 4, 2017}}</ref> The grant had undergone a two-year review process starting in November 2015 under the [[Obama Administration]] and received a "medium-high" rating from the FTA in August 2016,<ref name=PCEP-CCE /> and was waiting for a signature from the newly appointed [[First presidency of Donald Trump|Trump Administration]] Secretary of Transportation [[Elaine Chao]] after a 30-day review period to secure a grant approval.<ref name="contractextension">{{cite news|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/28/caltrain-agreement-with-contractors-to-extend-deadline-keeps-electrification-project-alive/|title=Caltrain: Agreement with contractors to extend deadline keeps electrification project alive|newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]]|author=Green, Jason|date=February 28, 2017|access-date=March 29, 2017}}</ref><ref name=SFC-170317>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Trump-transportation-plan-could-derail-Bay-Area-11009336.php |title=Trump transportation plan could derail Bay Area transit projects |author=Brekke, Dan |date=March 17, 2017 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> However, during the review period, the fourteen [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican party]] [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House]] representatives from California sent a letter to Secretary Chao, urging her to deny funding due to the project's ties with high-speed rail, which they opposed.<ref name=SFC-170206>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/With-Trump-in-charge-Republicans-target-Caltrain-10907794.php |title=With Trump in charge, Republicans target Caltrain |author=Matier, Phil |author2=Ross, Andrew |date=February 6, 2017 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=April 4, 2017}}{{subscription required}}</ref> The letter went on to call the project "an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars".<ref name=RepublicanLetter>{{cite letter |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2017_01_24-ca-delegation-letter-to-secretary-chao-on-high-speed-rail-1.pdf |author1=Denham, Jeff |author2=McCarthy, Kevin |author3=Walters, Mimi |author4=Lamalfa, Doug |author5=Royce, Ed |author6=McClintock, Tom |author7=Hunter, Duncan |author8=Rohrabacher, Dana |author9=Issa, Darrell |author10=Cook, Paul |author11=Valadao, David G. |author12=Calvert, Ken |author13=Knight, Steve |author14=Nunes, Devin |date=January 24, 2017 |recipient=The Honorable [[Elaine Chao]], Secretary of Transportation |subject=CA Republican Delegation HSR Letter to Secretary Chao |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref>
The ''[[Sacramento Bee]]'' pointed out that despite regularly soliciting campaign funds from Silicon Valley business leaders, Representative and House Majority Leader [[Kevin McCarthy]], the author of the Republican letter to Secretary Chao, was targeting a project that benefited the region directly.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/dan-morain/article134903629.html |title=Kevin McCarthy displays his clout, for good and ill |author=Morain, Dan |date=February 24, 2017 |newspaper=[[Sacramento Bee]] |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref> Another Republican signatory, Representative [[Devin Nunes]], was unmoved by arguments on infrastructure benefits, saying in late February that he would not "feel too bad about one of the richest places on the planet not having a train."<ref>{{cite web |url=
The 39-member House and Senate [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] congressional delegation from California wrote a rebuttal letter to Secretary Chao on February 3, noting "a material misstatement of fact" in the Republican delegation's letter, which stated that the grant was being sought by the CHSRA, while in reality it is being sought by Caltrain. The rebuttal letter further delineated the separation between the electrification project and CHSRA and urged Secretary Chao to approve the grant by citing past precedent that only one low-rated project failed to receive a signature from the Secretary of Transportation over the prior twenty-year history of the Core Capacity program.<ref name=DemocraticLetter>{{cite letter |url=http://cal.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2017/02/CA-Delegation-letter-to-Secretary-Chao-re-Caltrain-2.3.17.pdf |author1=Eshoo, Anna |author2=Lofgren, Zoe |author3=Feinstein, Dianne |author4=Harris, Kamala |author5=Bass, Karen |author6=Bera, Ami |author7=Correa, Luis |author8=Brownley, Julia |author9=Chu, Judy |author10=Aguilar, Pete |author11=Lee, Barbara |author12=Davis, Susan |author13=Peters, Scott |author14=Torres, Norma |author15=Thompson, Mike |author16=DeSaulnier, Mark |author17=Lieu, Ted |author18=Takano, Mark |author19=Swalwell, Eric |author20=Costa, Jim |author21=Speier, Jackie |author22=Panetta, Jimmy |author23=Khanna, Ro |author24=Roybal-Allard, Lucille |author25=Carbajal, Salud O. |author26=Barragán, Nanette Diaz |author27=Huffman, Jared |author28=Lowenthal, Alan |author29=Cárdenas, Tony |author30=Matsui, Doris O. |author31=Sánchez, Linda T. |author32=Waters, Maxine |author33=McNerney, Jerry |author34=Napolitano, Grace F. |author35=Garamendi, John |author36=Sherman, Brad |author37=Ruiz, Raul |author38=Vargas, Juan |author39=Schiff, Adam B. |date=February 3, 2017 |recipient=The Honorable [[Elaine Chao]], Secretary of Transportation |subject=CA Democratic Delegation Letter to Secretary Chao |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref> The Democratic letter went on to note the infrastructure benefits of the project and the creation of 9,600 jobs, including 550 jobs at a new Stadler USA plant in Salt Lake City.<ref name=SMDJ-170208>{{cite news |url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/dems-fight-for-electrification-congressional-debate-centers-on-funding-for/article_85cd9996-3d01-593f-bab0-3daadc2d2cd8.html |title=Dems fight for electrification: congressional debate centers on funding for Caltrain modernization |author=Weigel, Samantha |date=February 8, 2017 |newspaper=San Mateo Daily Journal |access-date=April 1, 2017}}</ref>
Line 88:
In the end, Secretary Chao heeded the Republican letter's arguments, and deferred the grant in a letter written by FTA Executive Director Matthew Welbes to Caltrain which stated the FTA needed "additional time to complete review of this significant commitment of Federal resources".<ref name=SMDJ-170218>{{cite news |url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/electrification-funds-in-peril-federal-transit-administration-delays-million-caltrain/article_16d7f9d6-7ea3-52b7-992d-cf3528c708fe.html |title=Electrification funds in peril: Federal Transit Administration delays $647 million Caltrain decision |author=Weigel, Samantha |date=February 18, 2017 |newspaper=[[San Mateo Daily Journal]] |access-date=April 4, 2017}}</ref><ref name=SFC-170217>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Trump-administration-deals-a-big-setback-to-10941880.php |title=Trump administration deals a big setback to Caltrain |author1=Matier, Phil |author2=Ross, Andrew |date=February 17, 2017 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> Caltrain had expected Secretary Chao to approve the grant and sign the grant agreement by March 1, which is normally a ''[[pro forma]]'' step performed after the thirty-day comment period for a highly rated project, and had already awarded construction contracts.<ref name="contractextension"/><ref name="SV">{{cite news|url=http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/03/24/trump-chao-get-an-earful-on-caltrain-funds/|title=Trump, Chao get an earful on Caltrain funds from Silicon Valley leaders|newspaper=[[East Bay Times]]|author=Richards, Gary|date=March 24, 2017|access-date=March 29, 2017}}</ref> [[Balfour Beatty Construction]] and [[Stadler Rail]] had already begun preparations to upgrade the existing tracks and build electrical trainsets, respectively. Caltrain negotiated an emergency four-month contract extension at a potential cost of $20 million.<ref name="contractextension"/><ref name=SFC-170227>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Caltrain-acts-to-keep-electrification-plan-alive-10964012.php |title=Caltrain acts to keep electrification plan alive |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=February 27, 2017 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> Under the preliminary budget proposal released in mid-March 2017, the [[United States Department of Transportation]]'s Capital Investment Grant Program would be eliminated, although approved projects would continue to be funded.<ref name=SFC-170317 /> Since Secretary Chao had withheld grant approval for the electrification project, its future fell into doubt.<ref name=SFC-170317 />
In response to the grant deferral, various local officials traveled to [[Washington, D.C.]], to lobby federal officials to release the money. Editorials in local and national newspapers urged approval of the grant, including the ''[[Sacramento Bee]]'', which called the deferral "a petty attack",<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article140446843.html |title=House Republicans launch a petty attack on a smart rail project |author=Editorial Board |date=March 24, 2017 |newspaper=[[Sacramento Bee]] |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref> the ''[[East Bay Times]]'', a noted CHSRA detractor,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/02/24/editorial-feds-should-electrify-caltrain-kill-bullet-train/ |title=Editorial: Feds should electrify Caltrain, kill bullet train |author=Editorial Board |date=February 24, 2017 |newspaper=[[East Bay Times]] |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref> and ''[[The New York Times]]'', which called the delay "counter to Mr. Trump's campaign promises of increased infrastructure spending."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/a-silicon-valley-train-gets-stuck.html |url-access=subscription |title=A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck |author=Editorial Board |date=March 13, 2017 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=April 5, 2017}}</ref> Henry Grabar noted the grant deferral could be "an early test of a simmering fear that the state's outspoken political opposition to the Trump administration might come with a price".<ref name=Slate-Grabar>{{cite web |url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/02/16/will_elaine_chao_axe_federal_funding_for_caltrain.html |title=If Elaine Chao Axes This Bay Area Rail Funding, We'll Know She's Politicizing Transportation |author=Grabar, Henry |date=February 16, 2017 |work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]: Moneybox (blog) |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref> San Jose Mayor [[Sam Liccardo]] met with Department of Transportation officials, urging them to upgrade a system that "was built under the presidency of [[Abraham Lincoln]]". Additionally, more than 120 Silicon Valley business leaders sent a letter to Secretary Chao, asking her to explain "the last-minute attempt to derail two decades of work".<ref name="SV"/> In early March, California Governor [[Jerry Brown]] sent a letter to Secretary Chao, asking to discuss the funding grant,<ref name=EBT-170303>{{cite news |url=http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/03/03/call-me-jerry-brown-urges-trump-administration-to-fund-caltrain-project/ |url-access=subscription |title=Call me? Jerry Brown urges Trump administration to fund Caltrain project |author=Murphy, Katy |date=March 3, 2017 |newspaper=[[East Bay Times]] |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref> and subsequently met with Secretary Chao and Representative McCarthy, urging them to reconsider the funding deferral, saying afterward that he was "cautiously optimistic" that the money would be released.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article139943463.html |first1=Christopher |last1=Cadelago |title=Jerry Brown meets with Republicans, 'cautiously optimistic' about Caltrain approval|newspaper=[[Sacramento Bee]]|date=March 21, 2017|access-date=March 29, 2017}}</ref>
On April 30, legislators in the U.S. Congress released the proposed 2017 federal budget, which included partial funding for the electrification project, but restricts its distribution unless Secretary Chao signs off on the grant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules.house.gov/files/115/OMNI/DIVISION%20K%20-%20THUD%20SOM%20OCR%20FY17.pdf|title=Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017 |publisher=U.S. House of Representatives|access-date=May 2, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170502011347/https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules.house.gov/files/115/OMNI/DIVISION%20K%20-%20THUD%20SOM%20OCR%20FY17.pdf|archive-date=May 2, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref> The proposed budget includes $100 million of the $647 million grant, with the balance expected in future years. Secretary Chao claimed she could not sign the grant without the full grant being budgeted, which was disputed by Caltrain and both California Senators [[Dianne Feinstein]] and [[Kamala Harris]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/17/elaine-chao-caltrain-grant-hearing/ |title=Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao says she can't approve Caltrain electrification grant yet |author=Tolan, Casey |date=May 17, 2017 |newspaper=San Jose Mercury News |access-date=May 19, 2017}}</ref> On May 22, the FTA announced its intent to sign the funding grant, restoring the final piece of funding for the electrification project.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfexaminer.com/feds-flip-will-approve-funding-caltrain-electrification/ |title=Feds flip, will approve funding for Caltrain electrification |author=Rodriguez, Joe Fitzgerald |date=May 22, 2017 |newspaper=San Francisco Examiner |access-date=May 22, 2017 |archive-date=May 23, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170523152650/http://www.sfexaminer.com/feds-flip-will-approve-funding-caltrain-electrification/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> The official grant was finally signed on May 23.<ref>{{cite news|title=It's officially done. Caltrain's GM, Jim Hartnett, signed the FFGA @USDOT this morning.|url=https://twitter.com/Caltrain/status/867083183820611584|access-date=May 28, 2017|work=Official Caltrain [[Twitter]] Account|date=May 23, 2017}}</ref>
Line 182:
=== Inaugural service ===
On August 10, 2024, Caltrain concluded its tests of the Stadler KISS on the line with a non-revenue special run from 4th and King to Diridon Station and back.<ref name="First Pax 2024">{{cite web | title=Caltrain Welcomes First Passengers on New Electric Trains | website=Caltrain | date=August 10, 2024 | url=https://www.caltrain.com/news/caltrain-welcomes-first-passengers-new-electric-trains | access-date=August 11, 2024}}</ref> Caltrain Board Chair Dev Davis, Governor [[Gavin Newsom]], [[Federal Railroad Administration]] chair [[Amit Bose (government official)|Amit Bose]], U.S. Senator [[Alex Padilla]], U.S. Representatives [[Nancy Pelosi]], [[Kevin Mullin]] and [[Anna Eshoo]], [[California State Transportation Agency]] chief Toks Omishakin, noted transit advocates and state legislators [[Phil Ting]] and [[Scott Wiener]], and the mayors of San Francisco and San Jose, [[London Breed]] and [[Matt Mahan]], respectively, were among the passengers.<ref name="Forrest 2024">{{cite web | title=Press Kit |last=Forrest|first=Julia| website=Canva | date=August 10, 2024 | url=https://www.canva.com/design/DAGLyjeLzxo/d_tHBkjd5J-6WIAvchWrOQ/view?utm_content=DAGLyjeLzxo | access-date=August 11, 2024}}</ref> Revenue service began the next day, and was scheduled to ramp up to its highest frequency by September 21.<ref name="Cano 2024">{{cite web | last=Cano | first=Ricardo | title=Why California's high-speed rail project could look different if Trump regains the presidency | website=San Francisco Chronicle | date=August 11, 2024 | url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/california-high-speed-rail-trump-19628640.php | access-date=August 11, 2024}}</ref> On that date, Caltrain held a
==Funding==
Line 192:
{{quote box|width=30.0em|align=right|quote=Modernizing Caltrain is a priority because we need an improved rail system that will help reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and serve our growing ridership. Not only will the electrification project reduce diesel emissions in this corridor by 96 percent by 2040, but it will also allow Caltrain to provide additional service to more stations, increasing ridership and providing faster service in Silicon Valley from San Francisco to San Jose.|author= —Jim Hartnett, Caltrain Executive Director<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/12186524/caltrain-modernization-program-to-electrify-bay-areas-silicon-valley-rail-corridor|title=Modernization: Electrifying the Bay Area's Silicon Valley Rail Corridor|publisher=Mass Transit Magazine|date=21 April 2016|author=Tasha Bartholomew|access-date=29 March 2017}}</ref>}}
The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) electrified the entire {{convert|51|mi|adj=on}} right-of-way owned by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB), which extends from the San Francisco terminus at [[San Francisco 4th and King Street station|4th and King]] to a power substation south of [[Tamien Station]].<ref>{{harvnb|Caltrain|2015|loc=Chapter 2: Project Description|p=1}}</ref> New electrical infrastructure includes installation of approximately {{convert|130|to|140|mi}} of 25 kV 60 Hz single-phase AC overhead contact lines and ten new power stations (two traction power stations, a switching station approximately halfway along the line, and seven paralleling stations).<ref>{{harvnb|Caltrain|2015|loc=Figure 2-2, Chapter 2: Project Description}}</ref> Land totaling {{convert|290000|ft2|acre+ha|abbr=on}} was acquired from private property owners along the Peninsula Corridor in order to set up safety buffer zones between the overhead contact system and public property; PCJPB authorized [[Eminent ___domain in the United States|eminent ___domain]] proceedings in July 2017 in case negotiations broke down.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/caltrain-may-take-private-land/article_ed1c1ef4-62d3-11e7-99fb-1b1677cbb014.html |title=Caltrain may take private land |author=Weigel, Samantha |date=July 7, 2017 |newspaper=San Mateo Daily Journal |access-date=July 11, 2017}}</ref> Barriers were installed where road and pedestrian bridges cross over tracks to prevent damage to the electrical wires.<ref>{{harvnb|Caltrain|2015|loc=Chapter 2: Project Description|pp=9–10}}</ref> New electric trainsets were purchased for use on the new electrified segment, while service from Tamien to Gilroy, which is not planned to be electrified due to ownership by [[Union Pacific Railroad]] instead, continue to be served with existing diesel locomotives.<ref name="factsheet">{{cite web|url=
The second part of the CalMod project is a positive train control system, "CBOSS" (Communications Based Overlay Signal System), which is designed to meet federal safety requirements and as a condition set by the FRA to allow mixed traffic on the corridor. Key decisions in the development of CalMod can be traced back to the 1992 ''Feasibility Study'', which recommended 25 kV AC [[overhead line]]s;<ref name="Morrison Knudsen Corp. 1992 8"/> the 1998 ''Rapid Rail Study'', which recommended low-cost upgrades to first improve service and build demand;<ref name="Caltrain 1998 16"/> the 2006 ''Caltrain 2025'' proposal, which proposed the use of lightweight electric multiple units;<ref name=Project2025>{{cite report |url=http://www.caltrain.org/pdf/project2025/Project2025_REPORT_113006.pdf |title=Project 2025 |date=November 30, 2006 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=March 29, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071026221620/http://www.caltrain.org/pdf/project2025/Project2025_REPORT_113006.pdf |archive-date=October 26, 2007 |url-status=dead|pages=20–21}}</ref> the 2009 FRA waiver, which imposed certain conditions on mixed traffic;<ref>{{harvnb|Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board|2009|p=8}}</ref> and the 2012 memorandum of understanding with CHSRA, which resulted in a "blended" system to use the existing twin-track line as much as possible.<ref>{{harvnb|Caltrain|2012|pp=5–6}}</ref> The 2012 ''Blended Operations'' report concluded a new {{convert|8|mi|adj=on}} quad-track overtake section would allow Caltrain and CHSRA to coexist on the Peninsula Corridor with up to ten trains per peak hour: six Caltrain and four high-speed rail trains.<ref>{{harvnb|LTK Engineering|2012|pp=34–38}}</ref> Peak load on the system assuming twelve eight-EMU consists in each direction per hour was estimated to be approximately 75 MW, with the load generally remaining under 40-50 MW at any point.<ref>{{cite magazine |doi=10.1109/MVT.2009.932544 |author=Kneschke, Tristan A. |date=June 2009 |magazine=IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine |volume=4 |issue=2 |issn=1556-6072 |pages=44–52 |title=Caltrain electrification}} [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224468863_Caltrain_electrification alternate ResearchGate link with PDF]</ref>
Line 236:
|auto-caption=1
}}
Power is supplied to the trains through an [[overhead line|overhead contact system]] (OCS), consisting of a messenger wire, which assumes a
The [[25 kV AC railway electrification#2 x 25 kV autotransformer system|2×25 kV autotransformer electrification system]] includes a third energized parallel negative feeder wire which helps control [[electromagnetic field]] propagation.<ref name=DEIR-14-ch2 /><ref name=HSR-Sibal>{{cite report |url=http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/eir_memos/Proj_Guidelines_TM3_1_1_1R02.pdf |title=Technical Memorandum: Traction Power 2x25 kV Autotransformer Feed Type Electrification System & System Voltages, TM 3.1.1.1 |date=April 2010 |author=Sibal, Vinod |publisher=California High-Speed Rail Authority |access-date=14 June 2018}}</ref> The feeder wire is electrified at the same voltage and frequency, but is shifted 180° out of phase so the voltage difference between the contact wire and the feeder wire is always 50kV.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M169/K717/169717211.docx |title=Resolution SED-2 adopting safety requirements governing the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of the 25 kV AC (Alternating Current) railroad electrification system of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) on the San Francisco Peninsula Rail Corridor |date=10 November 2016 |publisher={{DOClink}} Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Electric Safety and Reliability Branch, Safety and Enforcement Division |access-date=14 June 2018}}</ref> The choice of a 2×25 kV autotransformer system means more traction power facilities are required in total, but also requires fewer traction power substations.<ref name=HSR-Sibal />
Line 453:
[[Category:25 kV AC railway electrification]]
[[Category:Electric railways in California]]
[[Category:Railway electrification in the United States]]
| |||