Caltrain Modernization Program: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:26, 31 March 2017

Revision as of 04:22, 3 April 2017

Line 1:

[[File:CalMod Logo.svg|thumb|Logo for CalMod, the Caltrain Modernization Program. Caltrain is seeking to electrify the main line of its commuter railroad as part of CalMod.]]

The '''Caltrain Modernization Program''' (CalMod) is a $1.9 billion project whichthat will add a [[Positive train control|Positive Train Control]] system, and [[Railway electrification system|electrify the main line]] forof [[Caltrain]], a [[commuter railroad]] serving cities in the [[San Francisco Peninsula]] and [[Silicon Valley]], andas well as transition from its current [[diesel-electric locomotive]] powered trains to [[electric multiple unit]]s (EMU).

CalMod is divided into two sub-projects: the '''Communications Based Overlay Signal System''' Positive Train Control system (CBOSS/PTC) and the '''Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project''' (PCEP). CBOSS is designed to fulfill federal safety mandates for passenger rail and is part of the [[Federal Railroad Administration]] (FRA) waiver to use EMUs on tracks shared with freight traffic. PCEP will allow Caltrain to improve service times via faster acceleration and shorter [[headway]]s, reduce air pollution and noise, and facilitate a future [[Downtown Extension (Caltrain)|underground extension]] (DTX) into [[Financial District, San Francisco|downtown San Francisco]]'s [[Transbay Transit Center]] because the current diesel trains cannot serve underground stations. EMU procurement is part of PCEP.

When complete, CalMod will electrify {{convert|49|mi|km}} of tracks between [[San Francisco 4th and King Street Station|4th and King station]] and [[Tamien Station]]. Funding for the project comes from various federal, state, and local sources, including from the [[California High-Speed Rail|California High-Speed Rail Authority]], which plans to share Caltrain's tracks in the future. Construction contracts for electrification were awarded on July 2016 and [[groundbreaking]] was expected to occur in March 2017, but was delayed when the United States Secretary of Transportation [[Elaine Chao]] indefinitely deferred federal funding just before construction was about to begin. Also in early 2017, Caltrain removed the contractor responsible for implementing CBOSS for failure to perform on-budget and on-schedule. Caltrain plans to complete the project by 2020, after which it plans to use double-decker [[electric multiple unit]]EMU [[Stadler Rail]] trainsets on the electrified route. Some of the diesel locomotives will be retained for service south of Tamien and, potentially, on the [[Dumbarton Rail Corridor]].

==History==

Line 10:

[[File:Caltrain JPBX 922 at Santa Clara Station.JPG|thumb|Caltrain has been using diesel locomotives (pictured above) since the early 1950s and hopes to replace them with electric trainsets.]]

{{main|Peninsula Commute}}

Commuter railroad service on the [[San Francisco Peninsula]] was inaugurated in 1863 as the [[San Francisco and San Jose Rail Road]] and purchased by [[Southern Pacific]] in 1890. In the early 1950s, Southern Pacific began introducing diesel locomotives on the route.<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/Caltrain150/Milestones/Early_Milestones.html|title=Early Milestones|publisher=Caltrain|accessdate=March 29, 2017}}</ref> However, by 1977, Southern Pacific began facing rapidly declining ridership and petitioned the state [[California Public Utilities Commission|Public Utilities Commission]] to allow them discontinue the commute operation. From 1980 until 1992, the [[California Department of Transportation]] (Caltrans) and the three service counties, [[San Francisco]], [[San Mateo County, California|San Mateo]], and [[Santa Clara County, California|Santa Clara]], subsidized Southern Pacific operations on the railway until the local Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) acquired the right-of-way in 1991.<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/Caltrain150/Milestones.html|title=Historic Milestones|publisher=Caltrain|accessdate=March 29, 2017}}</ref>

===Early electrification proposals===

Line 16:

[[File:SEPTA AEM7.jpg|thumb|right|[[EMD AEM-7]] electric locomotive, part of the equipment proposed in the 1992 ''Feasibility Study'' to electrify Caltrain. This AEM-7 is running for [[SEPTA]].]]

Due to funding shortages, the project was postponed for the next two decades. In 1997, then-Mayor [[Willie Brown (politician)|Willie Brown]] canceled the appropriation for San Francisco's share of costs to extend rail service to downtown, saying Peninsula residents "ought to fund the whole project" since it would mainly benefit their commute.<ref name=SFE-970707>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Backers-Downtown-Caltrain-link-dead-3111189.php |title=Backers: Downtown Caltrain link dead |author=Lewis, Gregory |date=7 July 1997 |newspaper=San Francisco Examiner |accessdate=27 February 2017}}</ref> San Francisco instead applied the money to the [[Third Street Light Rail Project]]. [[Mike Nevin]], PCJPB member from San Mateo County noted that while the downtown extension "would have enhanced particularly the electrification of the system,", lack of it would not cause Caltrain to collapse.<ref name=SFE-970707 /> Instead, Caltrain studied a list of potential upgrades and went on to publish the draft ''Rapid Rail Study'' on October 1, 1998, which prioritized capital improvements to the physical infrastructure with the overarching goal of expanding rail service.<ref name=98RRS>{{cite report |url=http://bayrailalliance.org/files/library/Caltrain_RRP_draft.pdf |title=Draft Caltrain Rapid Rail Study |author1=Caltrain |author2=STV Incorporated |date=1 October 1998 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=29 March 2017}}</ref> At that time, Caltrain was touting daily ridership of approximately 25,000 passengers, a 40-year high.<ref name=SFE-970707 />

The 1998 ''Rapid Rail Study'' assumed that ridership would increase in direct proportion to improving travel times, and proposed that a combination of improving the tracks, raising the speed limit to {{convert|90|mi/hour|km/hour|abbr=on}}, consolidating three stations, and electrifying the Peninsula Corridor would decrease transit time by nearly 17 minutes, or 21% of the total trip time between San Francisco and San Jose.<ref name=98RRS /> The study concluded that in order to meet the five goals presented in the ''20-Year Strategic Plan'' of 1997, Caltrain should first rehabilitate the track by replacing crossing signals and executing deferred maintenance on degraded structures to raise the speed limit to {{convert|79|mi/hour|km/hour|abbr=on}} and improve safety.<ref name=98RRS /> Once rehabilitation was complete, Caltrain could then move on to enhance the system by adding a third track in some places, adding more rolling stock, and replacing the existing [[centralized traffic control]] system.<ref name=98RRS /> These rehabilitation and enhancement improvements were eventually funded and completed in 2004 as part of the [[Caltrain Express]] (CTX) project, which resulted in the rollout of Baby Bullet express trains. Spurred on by the new Baby Bullet trains, by 2005 Caltrain ridership increased by 12%<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-S-PENINSULA-LINE-FALLS-SHORT-OF-HOPES-2658527.php |title=BART's Peninsula Line Falls Short of Hopes / Competition from cheaper Baby Bullet trains could be hurting ridership on extension |author=Murphy, Dave |date=30 June 2005 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> and doubled by 2012.<ref name="2016ridership">{{citeweb|url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Directors/Presentations/2016/2016-05-05+Annual+Counts.pdf|title=2016 Annual Passenger Counts|page=3|date=May 5, 2016|accessdate=March 29, 2017}}</ref> Other proposed enhancements included station and parking upgrades.<ref name=98RRS />

Finally, as a third step after rehabilitating and enhancing the system, the 1998 ''Rapid Rail Study'' proposed electrification.<ref name=98RRS /> By itself, electrification was not projected to significantly improve service, and the high estimated cost of electrification and its lower priority meant electrification would be deferred.<ref name=98RRS /><ref name=SFC-980928>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Caltrain-Wants-Fast-Electric-S-F-San-Jose-Rail-2988377.php |title=Caltrain Wants Fast Electric S.F.-San Jose Rail Link / It must decide whether to do repairs first |author=Pimentel, Benjamin |date=28 September 1998 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> Some of the money to accomplish the rehabilitation and enhancement of existing track came from funds that had been intended for the downtown extension.<ref name=SFC-980928 /> Steve Schmidt, a councilman from [[Menlo Park, California|Menlo Park]], argued that electrification instead should be the top priority to make the rail line more palatable to neighbors, citing improvements in noise and pollution.<ref name=SFC-980928 /> Other advocates for electrification of Caltrain noted the $1.2&nbsp;billion [[Bay Area Rapid Transit|BART]] extension to [[San Francisco International Airport]] may have revived the decades-old dream of BART around the Bay, which would render an electrified Caltrain redundant.<ref name=SFC-980928 /> The electrification of Caltrain was seen as a prerequisite for a dramatic expansion of the system in a future phase, including service to [[Union City, California|Union City]] across the [[Dumbarton Rail Bridge]] and increased service to [[Gilroy, California|Gilroy]].<ref name=98RRS />

PCJPB members were divided and failed to come up with a consensus list of prioritized projects in April 1999, meaning that electrification was still considered as a potential first priority.<ref name=SFC-990402>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Plan-Revived-To-Electrify-Caltrain-Line-2938257.php |title=Plan Revived To Electrify Caltrain Line / Proposal to spend $376 million divides members of oversight board |author=Wilson, Marshall |date=2 April 1999 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> Electrification of the line was discussed in 2000 during a series of public outreach educational meetings held by Caltrain officials.<ref name=SFC-000906>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Electrification-of-Caltrain-to-Be-Discussed-2740385.php |title=Electrification of Caltrain to Be Discussed Tonight |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=6 September 2000 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> San Mateo County Supervisors Mike Nevin and [[Jerry Hill (politician)|Jerry Hill]] also announced plans in 2000 to develop part of the Peninsula Corridor right-of-way in order to raise money to pay for electrification, taking advantage of that county's sole ownership of the right-of-way.<ref name=SFC-000229>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Getting-Commuters-On-Track-Strategy-for-more-2799893.php |title=Getting Commuters On Track / Strategy for more riders on Caltrains sooner |author=Simon, Mark |date=29 February 2000 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=26 March 2017}}</ref> Despite these discussions, electrification had already been deferred according to the ''Rapid Rail Study'' implementation plan published in February 1999.<ref>{{cite report |url=http://bayrailalliance.org/files/library/Caltrain_RRP_implementation_plan.pdf |title=Caltrain Rapid Rail Study Implementation Plan |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=25 February 1999 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=30 March 2017 |quote=Upon consideration of Caltrain's other capital needs and the lack of available funding from any sources for electrification, electrification will be deferred until a solid source of funding can be identified for the project and system rehabilitation is completed. In the meantime, capital projects completed on the railroad will be designed to be consistent with future electrification to the maximum extent feasible. |pages=9–10}}</ref> CTX was prioritized instead, funded in 2000, and work on rehabilitation and enhancement of the line rapidly proceeded.<ref name=SFC-011119>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Fast-train-to-San-Jose-may-boost-L-A-bullet-2853206.php |title=Fast train to San Jose may boost L.A. bullet / Caltrain commuter seen as a first step |author=Gathright, Alan |date=19 November 2001 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref>

Line 26:

===Caltrain 2025 and FRA waiver===

Once CTX was complete, marking an end to the rehabilitation and enhancement phases proposed in the 1998 ''Rapid Rail Study'', Caltrain leadership turned their sights back to electrification. Members began working on a plan known as Project 2025 or Caltrain 2025,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.caltrain.org/caltrain2025.html |title=Caltrain 2025 |author=<!--staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=2007 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=28 March 2017 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071021073827/http://www.caltrain.org/caltrain2025.html |archivedate=21 October 2007 |deadurl=yes}}</ref> informally meeting during fall 2005; these meetings culminated in an August 2006 presentation to PCJPB for a wish list of items, including electrification, totaling $3.9&nbsp;billion to meet projected capacity demands.<ref name=ProgRail>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/At-Caltrain-running-electric-multiple-units-is-a-key-component-of-the-agencys-long-term-growth-plans--32040 |title=At Caltrain, running electric multiple units is a key component of the agency's long-term growth plans |author=Cotey, Angela |date=July 2007 |magazine=Progressive Railroading |accessdate=28 March 2017}}</ref> Caltrain 2025 included the following elements:<ref name=ProgRail /><ref name=Project2025>{{cite report |url=http://www.caltrain.org/pdf/project2025/Project2025_REPORT_113006.pdf |title=Project 2025 |author= |date=30 November 2006 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=29 March 2017 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071026221620/http://www.caltrain.org/pdf/project2025/Project2025_REPORT_113006.pdf |archivedate=26 October 2007 |deadurl=yes}}</ref>

* Use of lightweight electric multiple units (EMUEMUs) on heavy rail lines ($296&nbsp;million to $1,.024&nbsp;million billion)

* Install positive train control (PTC) system to eliminate the possibility of a collision between EMU and freight trains ($30&nbsp;million)

* Electrification infrastructure ($496&nbsp;million)

* Other infrastructure upgrades, including the addition of track between Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon to alleviate traffic on this section, which is shared between three passenger rail agencies ([[Altamont Corridor Express]], [[Capitol Corridor]], Caltrain) and [[Union Pacific Railroad|Union Pacific]] freight; rebuilding station platforms to facilitate level boarding; and rebuilding 4th and King to add a mezzanine level so boarding and unloading can happen simultaneously ($1,.044&nbsp;million billion)

[[File:Stadler KISS of CFL in Trier in July 2014.jpg|thumb|right|Under Appendix A of [[Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations|49 CFR]] 211, light rail vehicles such as this [[Stadler KISS]] belonging to [[Luxembourg]]'s [[Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois|CFL]] are not allowed to share rail lines with heavy freight trains.]]

PCJPB mandated that Peninsula Corridor infrastructure and equipment should be compatible with future [[California High-Speed Rail|California High-Speed Rail Authority]] (CHSRA) trains.<ref name=ProgRail /> CHSRA had proposed that mandated speeds and transit times could be met by using lightweight "non-compliant" vehicles,<ref name=ProgRail /> meaning a rail vehicle that did not comply with Federal requirements. These requirements include separation between light and heavy rail equipment<ref>{{CodeFedReg |49|211|subpart=F|prefix=Appendix|A}}</ref> and structural strength.<ref>{{CodeFedReg |49|238|subpart=C}}</ref> Caltrain saw this as an opportunity to apply for aan FRA waiver to run EMUs, which could accelerate faster and provide headways as low as five minutes.<ref name=FRAwaiver>{{cite report |url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/FRA+Waiver+2009/Caltrain+Mixed+Traffic+Request.pdf |title=Petition of Peninsula Joint Powers Board / Caltrain for approval of mixed use and waiver of certain federal railroad administration regulations pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Section 238.203, 49 C.F.R. Section 238.205, 49 C.F.R. Section 238.207, 49 C.F.R. Section 238.211, 49 C.F.R. Section 238.213 |author=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |date=December 2009 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=30 March 2017}}</ref> The December 2009 FRA waiver application included temporal separation of passenger and freight rail traffic north of Santa Clara, where freight traffic was restricted to the nonrevenue hours between midnight and 5 A.M.; it also included the deployment of an enhanced PTC system, which Caltrain named CBOSS, which was designed to not only enforce positive train control, but also check for overspeed and protect rail workers.<ref name=FRAwaiver />

PTC had already been mandated by the [[Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008]], enacted in the wake of the fatal [[2008 Chatsworth train collision]] crash; CBOSS includes Caltrain's implementation of the new regulations.<ref name=FRAwaiver /> In the FRA waiver application, Caltrain proposed a defense-in-depth philosophy for collisions: first reduce the probability of collisions to nearly zero by employing temporal and spatial (PTC) separation from freight rail; then mitigate the impact of a collision by deploying vehicles with crash energy management (CEM) structures.<ref name=FRAwaiver /> The application was docketed as FRA-2009-0124.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FRA-2009-0124 |title=FRA-2009-0124 Caltrain – Waiver Petition |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=2016 |publisher=Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation |accessdate=30 March 2017}}</ref> After review, the FRA waiver was granted in May 2010, marking the first time EMUs were allowed to share rails with freight in the United States.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/05/27/electric-train-plan-granted-key-waiver/ |title=Electric train plan granted key waiver |author=Rosenberg, Mike |date=27 May 2010 |newspaper=San Jose Mercury News |accessdate=30 March 2017}}</ref> The grant was conditioned on meeting nine additional requirements, including demonstrating minimum crashworthiness, seating, improving grade crossing, meeting FRA PTC standards in 49 CFR 236<ref>{{CodeFedReg |49|236|subpart=I}}</ref> with CBOSS, formalizing the temporal separation plan, and issuing a safety system program.<ref>{{cite letter |url=https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=FRA-2009-0124-0014&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf |last=Cothen Jr. |first=Grady C. |recipient=Michael Scanlon |subject=Docket Number FRA-2009-0124 |date=27 May 2010 |accessdate=30 March 2017}}</ref>

Line 42:

[[File:StatewideRailMod BubbleMap 013013.jpg|thumb|right|250px|'Early investment' in Caltrain and Metrolink "bookend" segments is planned for Phase 1 implementation of the California high-speed rail line.]]

Details of a proposed agreement leaked in February 2012, which stated to $1&nbsp;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 (California)|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&nbsp;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&nbsp;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&nbsp;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&nbsp;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===

The affluent city of [[Atherton, California|Atherton]], which lies on the tracks, was an early and vocal opponent of electrification.<ref name=SFC-040725>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/End-of-an-Era-Caltrain-s-electrification-plans-2738949.php |title=End of an Era / Caltrain's electrification plans threaten Atherton's railroad charm |author=Whiting, Sam |date=25 July 2004 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> Billed as "America's second wealthiest city", residents opposed electrification and the proposed high-speed rail route because the overhead electrical lines would require tree removal and the town could potentially be divided in two by permanently closing the two grade crossings at Fair Oaks Lane and Watkins Avenue.<ref name=SFC-040725 /> Jack Ringham, an Atherton resident since 1966, summed up his feelings in a 2004 [[Limerick (poetry)|limerick]]:

{{quote |text=<poem>

Line 55:

The outcry from the town

Would resound with great amplification.

</poem> |author=Atherton resident Jack Ringham |source=2004 ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'' article<ref name=SFC-040725 />|author=Atherton resident Jack Ringham }}

The holdout-rule station at Atherton became a weekend-only stop in August 2005 with the expansion of Baby Bullet service.<ref name=SFC-050801>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/TRANSPORTATION-Baby-Bullet-service-expands-2651234.php |title=TRANSPORTATION / Baby Bullet service expands / Starting this morning, Caltrain is running 96 trains on weekdays |author=Murphy, Dave |date=1 August 2005 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> In 2007, CHSRA chose [[Pacheco Pass]] over the Altamont Pass alignment; using Pacheco Pass meant high-speed rail lines would roughly follow the route of [[California State Route 152|SR 152]] from [[Interstate 5 in California|Interstate 5]] in the [[Central Valley (California)|Central Valley]] to [[U.S. Route 101 in California|US 101]] in [[Gilroy, California|Gilroy]] and then follow the existing Union Pacific (UP) and Caltrain right-of-way to San Francisco.<ref name=SFC-090504>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Peninsula-cities-want-high-speed-rail-tunnel-3162795.php |title=Peninsula cities want high-speed rail tunnel |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=4 May 2009 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=31 March 2017}}</ref> Once the first environmental studies for routing high-speed rail over the Peninsula Corridor were published, the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton sued in 2008 to block the Peninsula Corridor route, joined by the city of [[Palo Alto, California|Palo Alto]] in 2009, fearing the high-speed trains would eventually be routed through their cities on an elevated concrete viaduct.<ref name=SFC-090504 /> CHSRA reiterated its preference for Pacheco Pass in 2008 and approved the environmental impact report (EIR); however, in 2009, a judge upheld the lawsuit and ruled the San Jose-to-Gilroy segment was inadequately covered in the EIR because UP had stated it opposed sharing tracks and the vibrations from high-speed trains were not sufficiently studied.<ref name=SFC-100903>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Pacheco-Pass-high-speed-rail-route-wins-again-3176124.php |title=Pacheco Pass high-speed rail route wins again |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=3 September 2010 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=31 March 2017}}</ref> The revised EIR was approved with the Pacheco alignment in 2010.<ref name=SFC-100903 /> Lawsuit supporters pushed for a tunnel instead of an elevated, grade-separated route on the Peninsula, but CHSRA board member [[Rod Diridon]] noted that tunneling was costly and could affect underground water.<ref name=SFC-090504 />

[[File:Caltrain Atherton Station.jpg|thumb|right|Caltrain has a weekend-only holdout-rule station in Atherton, which dates back to 1866]]

Line 69:

===Contracts awarded===

In 2016, Caltrain's Board of Directors awarded contracts to [[Balfour Beatty Construction]] and [[Stadler Rail]] to construct infrastructure for the electric trains and the electric trains themselves, respectively. Balfour Beatty is contracted to electrify the line at 25kV AC, replace signaling systems, construct two traction power substations, one switching substation, and seven paralleling substations. Stadler is contracted to deliver sixteen16 of their "[[Stadler KISS|KISS]]" [[bilevel rail car|bilevel]] [[electric multiple unit]] trains, with the option of expanding the order by an additional 96 cars in the future.<ref>{{cite news|title=For Caltrain, 16 KISSes from Stadler (but no FLIRTs)|url=http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/commuter-regional/for-caltrain-16-kisses-from-stadler-but-no-flirts.html|publisher=''[[Railway Age]]''|date=August 16, 2016|accessdate=March 29, 2017|author=Vantuono, William C.}}</ref>

===Federal funding withdrawal===

[[File:Elaine Chao large.jpg|thumb|upright|left|Secretary of Transportation [[Elaine Chao]] deferred expected federal funding for the electrification project just before construction was about to commence.]]

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 [[Federal Transit Administration]]’s (FTA) Core Capacity program.<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Statement__Electrification_Must_Move_Forward.html|title=Caltrain Statement: Electrification Must Move Forward|publisher=Caltrain|date=February 8, 2017|accessdate=March 29, 2017}}</ref> The grant had undergone a two-year review process under the [[Obama Administration]] and received a "medium-high" rating from the FTA, and was waiting the new [[Trump Administration]]-appointed Secretary of Transportation [[Elaine Chao]]'s signature after a thirty30-day review period.<ref name="contractextension">{{citeweb|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|publisher=''[[San Jose Mercury News]]''|author=Green, Jason|date=February 28, 2017|accessdate=March 29, 2017}}</ref> However, during the review period, the fourteen14 [[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. They called the high-speed rail project a "boondoggle" and the Caltrain grant as a "waste of taxpayer dollars".<ref name="grant">{{citeweb|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/trump-and-republicans-block-caltrain-grant.html|title=In Silicon Valley, Caltrain Upgrade Is Imperiled as Trump Withholds Funds|publisher=''[[The New York Times]]''|date=March 6, 2017|accessdate=March 29, 2017}}</ref>

Secretary Chao heeded their arguments, and deferred the grant in a letter to Caltrain which stated that the FTA needed "additional time to complete review of this significant commitment of Federal resources".<ref name="contractextension"/> Caltrain had expected Secretary Chao to approve the grant by March 1, which is normally a ''[[pro forma]]'' step done after the thirty30-day comment period for a highly-rated project, and had already awarded construction contracts.<ref name="contractextension"/><ref name="SV">{{citeweb|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|publisher=''East Bay Times''|author=Richards, Gary|date=March 24, 2017|accessdate=March 29, 2017}}</ref> [[Balfour Beatty Construction]] and [[Stadler Rail]] had already begun preparations to upgrade the existing tracks and build electrical trainsets, respectively. In response, Caltrain negotiated an emergency four-month extension at the cost of $20 million.<ref name="contractextension"/>

In response to the grant deferral, various local officials traveled to [[Washington D.C.]] in order to lobby federal officials to release the money. 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"/> On March 21, 2017, California Governor [[Jerry Brown]] met with Secretary Chao and House Majority Leader [[Kevin McCarthy (California politician)|Kevin McCarthy]], author of the House Republican letter to Chao, urging them to reconsider the funding deferral, saying afterward that he was "cautiously optimistic" that the money would be released.<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article139943463.html|title=Jerry Brown meets with Republicans, ‘cautiously optimistic’ about Caltrain approval|publisher=''[[Sacramento Bee]]''|date=March 21, 2017|accessdate=March 29, 2017}}</ref>

==Design==

{{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>{{citeweb|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=April 21, 2016|author=Tasha Bartholomew|accessdate=March 29, 2017}}</ref>}}

The purpose of the electrification project is to electrify the main line of Caltrain's commuter railroad, {{convert|49|mi|km}} of tracks between [[San Francisco 4th and King Street Station|4th and King station]] and [[Tamien Station]], by installing new electrical infrastructure and purchasing electric trainsets. Service from Tamien to [[Gilroy (Caltrain station)|Gilroy station]] will continue to be served with existing diesel locomotives.<ref name="factsheet">{{citeweb|url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Electrification/PCEP+Fact+Sheet+February+2017.pdf|title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Status Update (Feb 2017)|publisher=Caltrain|accessdate=March 29, 2017}}</ref> The idea to electrify the route began with a feasibility study conducted by the California Department of Transportation in 1992,<ref name="first proposal"/> although funding considerations delayed the project for the next two decades. In 2012, Caltrain and the [[California High-Speed Rail|California High-Speed Rail Authority]] (CHSRA), along with the [[Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area)|Metropolitan Transportation Commission]] and other local stakeholders, signed a [[memorandum of understanding]] that the CHSRA would partially fund the electrification project in exchange for future rights to share the tracks. In effect, Caltrain's tracks will be used by the CHSRA to reach the [[Transbay Transit Center]] in downtown San Francisco.<ref name="hsr"/>

According to Caltrain, the electrification project will bring multiple benefits to the corridor. Firstly, electric trains can accelerate and decelerate more quickly than the existing diesel locomotives, resulting in faster and more frequent service. Additionally, electric trainsets are quieter and produce less air pollution that diesel locomotives, and the use of electric trains will lower Caltrain's fuel costs while increasing passenger revenue, due to an expected increase in ridership. Once complete, Caltrain expects to annually reduce [[carbon dioxide]] emissions by 176,000 metric tons and increase daily ridership by 21% by 2040. Caltrain plans to complete the project by the end of 2020.<ref name="factsheet"/>

Line 90:

===Funding===

Funding for the $1.9 billion project comes from a mix of funds contributed by the [[California Department of Transportation]], [[California High-Speed Rail|California High-Speed Rail Authority]], California [[Emissions trading|cap and trade]] revenue, [[Bay Area Air Quality Management District]], [[Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area)|Metropolitan Transportation Commission]], the city and county of [[San Francisco]], [[SamTrans]], and [[Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority]]. 32% of the funding, or $647 million, was expected as part of the [[Federal Transit Administration]]'s Core Capacity grant, but was indefinitely deferred by Transportation Secretary [[Elaine Chao]]. An additional $600 million comes from [[California Proposition 1A (2008)|Proposition 1A]] funds that authorized the construction of high-speed rail, $113 million from cap and trade revenue, and the rest coming from local and regional sources.<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/PCEP+Quarter+4+2016+Report.pdf|title=Caltrain Modernization Program 4th Quarter FY 2016 Progress Report|publisher=Caltrain|accessdate=March 29, 2017}}</ref>

==References==