Content deleted Content added
Line 52:
Despite increasing ridership, Caltrain experienced a budget crisis in 2011 that nearly forced it to cut service to peak commute hours only,<ref name=SFC-110121>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Caltrain-seeks-answers-to-funding-crisis-2478068.php |title=Caltrain seeks answers to funding crisis |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=January 21, 2011 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 30, 2017}}</ref> while funding sources for electrification remained unidentified. At the same time, the [[California High-Speed Rail|California High-Speed Rail Authority]] (CHSRA) was having trouble identifying a route from San Jose to San Francisco in the face of local opposition. In response, U.S. Representative [[Anna Eshoo]], State Senator [[Joe Simitian]], and Assemblymember [[Rich Gordon]] announced a "blended" plan to partially fund electrification with high-speed rail money in return for allowing high-speed rail trains to share tracks in the future.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2011/04/18/reps-high-speed-rail-should-merge-with-improved-caltrain-system-in-san-jose-|title=Reps: High-speed rail should merge with improved Caltrain system in San Jose|newspaper=[[Palo Alto Weekly]]|author=Dong, Jocelyn and Gennady Sheyner|date=April 18, 2011|access-date=March 29, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Keeping-Calif-high-speed-rail-plan-on-track-2374647.php |title=EDITORIAL: Keeping Calif. high-speed rail plan on track |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=April 21, 2011 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 30, 2017}}</ref> Later, Caltrain announced that it had studied the plan and believed it to be feasible.<ref>{{harvnb|LTK Engineering|2012|p=3}}</ref>
Under a proposed agreement between Caltrain and the CHSRA, details of which were leaked in February 2012, up to $1 billion could be available from the high-speed rail project to help fund the CalMod project, including the [[positive train control]] system (dubbed "CBOSS"), electrification of the infrastructure, and elimination of some grade crossings. 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>{{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=February 13, 2012 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> This was one of two investments in "bookend" electrification projects, which were intended to upgrade existing passenger rail services near the planned CHSRA San Francisco and Los Angeles terminals to allow high-speed rail to share infrastructure.<ref name=SMDJ-161215 /> In March 2012, Caltrain and other local agencies signed a [[memorandum of understanding]] with the CHSRA that detailed the blended plan,<ref>{{harvnb|Caltrain|2012}}</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=March 22, 2012 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> which received approval from the [[Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area)|Metropolitan Transportation Commission]] 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=March 29, 2012 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref>
Under the memorandum, $706 million from the high-speed rail bond would 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=July 28, 2012 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> In September 2012, the [[California Transportation Commission]] released $39.8 million to modernize CBOSS.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/modernization-dream-now-reality/article_2040f837-0d72-5fe7-a5b2-0731e91967a7.html |title=Modernization dream now reality |author=Silverfarb, Bill |date=September 28, 2012 |newspaper=San Mateo Daily Journal |access-date=March 26, 2017}}</ref> A month later, the expected funding from high-speed rail bonds rose to $1.5 billion, which alongside electrification provided funding for the planned Downtown Extension (DTX), which would move 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=November 4, 2012 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> CHSRA approved the issue of bonds in December 2016.<ref name=SMDJ-161215>{{cite news |url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/caltrain-supporters-unfazed-by-high-speed-rail-suit-officials-believe/article_328b5a11-6f56-5fd7-abe5-69533f74a57f.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=December 15, 2016 |newspaper=San Mateo Daily Journal |access-date=March 31, 2017}}</ref> Critics of high-speed rail felt the slower trips and reduced service caused by "blending" the two systems over the Peninsula Corridor did not meet the original voter-approved vision of a quad-track line between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and ridership would never meet projections.<ref name=PP-130303>{{cite news |url=http://archive.peninsulapress.com/2013/03/03/caltrain-electrification-churns-high-speed-rail-controversy/ |title=Caltrain electrification churns high-speed rail controversy |author=Pandika, Melissa M. |date=March 3, 2013 |publisher=Peninsula Press |access-date=March 25, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170401143908/http://archive.peninsulapress.com/2013/03/03/caltrain-electrification-churns-high-speed-rail-controversy/ |archive-date=April 1, 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
| |||