Content deleted Content added
Added more history re: blended system, opposition; added some pictures. |
|||
Line 15:
One year later in 1992, Caltrans released the first feasibility study detailing the possibility of electrifying the railroad between San Francisco and San Jose.<ref name="first proposal">{{cite report |url=http://bayrailalliance.org/files/library/Caltrans_feasibility_study_of_electrification.pdf |title=Feasibility Study for Electrifying the Caltrain/PCS Railroad |author=Morrison Knudsen Corporation |publisher=[[California Department of Transportation]] |date=October 1992 |accessdate=March 29, 2017}}</ref> The 1992 ''Feasibility Study'' proposed replacing the existing diesel-electric locomotives with either an [[EMD AEM-7]] electric locomotive to move the existing gallery passenger cars or [[Metro-North Railroad|Metro North]] [[M2 (railcar)|Budd M-2/M-4]] EMUs.<ref name="first proposal" /> The primary benefits of an electrified railway would be improvements in air quality, noise, and acceleration, but would also save on other ancillary costs, such as lubricating oil, cooling water, maintenance, and refueling.<ref name="first proposal" /> Because of the relatively close spacing between stops, the improved acceleration using the electric locomotive compared to the existing diesel locomotives would cut transit time between San Francisco and San Jose by up to 12 minutes, and using EMUs would cut the time over the same distance by up to 23 minutes, assuming the use of 10-car trainsets.<ref name="first proposal" /> The 1992 ''Feasibility Study'' recommended the use of electric locomotives and 25 kV AC overhead lines as the most cost-effective alternative, since the gallery cars (built in 1985) were then relatively new and could be reused.<ref name="first proposal" />
[[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 />
Line 21 ⟶ 22:
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, 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 billion 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 across the [[Dumbarton Rail Bridge]] and increased service to 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>
===Caltrain 2025 and FRA waiver===
Line 30 ⟶ 31:
* 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 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 million)
[[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 opportunity to apply for a 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 />
Line 37 ⟶ 39:
===Caltrain/HSR blended system===
Despite increased ridership with Baby Bullet service and the approval of the FRA waiver, 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=21 January 2011 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=30 March 2017}}</ref> and the funding for electrification was still not completely identified.
[[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 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= |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 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:
{{quote |text=<poem>
The trees provide beautification
And give screening plus noise insulation.
Should Caltrain take them down,
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 />}}
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 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 /> PAMPA 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]]
The Palo Alto–Menlo Park–Atherton lawsuit was finally dismissed in 2013 after Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ruled that CHSRA had acted "reasonably and in good faith" had revised plans to address the legal concerns from the three cities.<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=3 March 2013 |newspaper=Peninsula Press |accessdate=25 March 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 />
In February 2015, shortly after the project received environmental clearance from [[California]], Atherton sued Caltrain, alleging the agency's environmental impact review was inadequate and that its collaboration with the CHSRA should be further vetted.<ref name=SFC-150210>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Anti-high-speed-rail-groups-sue-over-Caltrain-6071826.php |title=Atherton, high-speed rail foes sue to block electrifying Caltrain |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=10 February 2015 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> In July 2015, the suit proceeded after Caltrain's request to the [[Surface Transportation Board]] to exempt it from [[California Environmental Quality Act]] (CEQA) guidelines was denied.<ref name=SJMN-150708>{{cite news |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/07/08/atherton-lawsuit-against-caltrain-over-electrification-project-clears-one-hurdle/ |title=Atherton lawsuit against Caltrain over electrification project clears one hurdle |author=Orr, John |date=8 July 2015 |newspaper=San Jose Mercury News |accessdate=31 March 2017}}</ref> Atherton reiterated its opposition to electrification on the basis that overhead wires would require removing a significant number of heritage trees, and city representatives asserted that "newer, cleaner, more efficient diesel trains" should supplant plans for "century-old catenary electrical line technology."<ref name=SJMN-150708 /> Atherton mayor Rick De Golia was quoted as saying "Caltrain is locked into an old technology and 20th century thinking."<ref name=SJMN-150708 /> After Caltrain issued infrastructure and rolling stock contracts in July 2016, Atherton representatives did not file a temporary restraining order to halt those contracts, preferring to let the suit proceed to a hearing.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/11/atherton-wont-seek-temporary-injunction-in-fight-with-caltrain/ |title=Atherton won’t seek temporary injunction in fight with Caltrain |author=Orr, John |date=11 July 2016 |newspaper=San Jose Mercury News |accessdate=31 March 2017}}</ref> In September 2016, [[Contra Costa County Superior Court]] Judge [[Barry Goode]] sided with Caltrain, ruling that the electrification project does not hinge on the high-speed rail project's success, and is thus independent from the latter.<ref name=SMDJ-160927>{{citeweb|url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2016-09-27/judge-gives-caltrain-electrification-green-light-atherton-loses-lawsuit-claims-local-project-was-too-closely-tied-to-high-speed-rail/1776425168923.html|title=Judge gives Caltrain electrification green light: Atherton loses lawsuit, claims local project was too closely tied to high-speed rail|publisher=''The Daily Journal''|date=September 27, 2016|author=Weigel, Samantha|accessdate=March 29, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2016/09/28/atherton-loses-lawsuit-over-caltrain-electrification-project |title=Atherton loses lawsuit over Caltrain electrification project |author=Wood, Barbara |date=28 September 2016 |newspaper=The Almanac |accessdate=31 March 2017}}</ref>
{{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 regarding with [increased traffic and environmental impacts] effectively and efficiently."<ref name=SMDJ-161215 />
===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 sixteen 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>
| |||