Content deleted Content added
m →Design |
→History: Expanded last two sections. |
||
Line 69:
===Contracts awarded===
[[Parsons Corporation|Parsons Transportation Group]] (PTG) was awarded a $138 million contract in November 2011 to design and install CBOSS by October 2015.<ref name=PR-111122>{{cite press release |url=https://www.parsons.com/Media%20Library/11-11-ptg-caltrain-cboss-ptc.pdf |title=Parsons Selected by Caltrain for Communications-Based Overlay Signal System Positive Train Control |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=22 November 2011 |publisher=Parsons News |accessdate=31 March 2017}}</ref> CBOSS kicked off physical work in September 2013, starting the installation of a fiber optic line along the Caltrain right-of-way.<ref name=PR-130917>{{cite press release |url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/News_Archive/Caltrain_Modernization_Kicks_Off_Advanced_Signal_System_Work.html |title=Caltrain Modernization Kicks Off Advanced Signal System Work |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=17 September 2013 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=31 March 2017 |archiveurl=https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20160507092317/http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/News_Archive/Caltrain_Modernization_Kicks_Off_Advanced_Signal_System_Work.html |archivedate=7 May 2016 |deadurl=yes}}</ref> The FRA approved Caltrain's PTC plans in 2014 and Caltrain noted that CBOSS was due to enter revenue service by the end of 2015.<ref name=PR-141016>{{cite press release |url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Receives_FRA_Approval_to_Proceed_with_New_Positive_Train_Control_System.html |title=Caltrain Receives FRA Approval to Proceed with New Positive Train Control System |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=16 October 2014 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=31 March 2017 |archiveurl=https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20160507040006/http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Receives_FRA_Approval_to_Proceed_with_New_Positive_Train_Control_System.html |archivedate=7 May 2016 |deadurl=yes}}</ref><ref name=SFC-140728>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/System-can-prevent-train-accidents-rail-industry-5650550.php |title=System can prevent train accidents, rail industry slow to adopt |author=Lambrecht, Bill |date=28 July 2014 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> Because Caltrain had multiple goals for CBOSS, including increased safety, improved operational efficiency, and ensured interoperability with other rail providers (Caltrain shares tracks with Union Pacific, Altamont Corridor Express, and Amtrak),<ref name=PR-111122 /><ref name=PR-141016 /> implementation was challenging and Caltrain, the busiest commuter rail service on the West Coast, still had not fully implemented the system by the end of 2016.<ref name=SFC-161128>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Major-rail-carriers-slow-to-adopt-safety-10640598.php |title=Major rail carriers slow to adopt safety technology |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |agency=Associated Press |date=28 November 2016 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref>
The PCEP draft environmental impact report (EIR) was released in February 2014.<ref name=PR-140228>{{cite press release |url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Releases_Electrification_Project_Draft_Environmental_Impact_Report.html |title=Caltrain Releases Electrification Project Draft Environmental Impact Report |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=28 February 2014 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=2 April 2017 |archiveurl=https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20160507042437/http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Releases_Electrification_Project_Draft_Environmental_Impact_Report.html |archivedate=7 May 2016 |deadurl=yes}}</ref><ref name=DEIR>{{cite report |url=http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/PCEP_DEIR_2014.html |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Proect (PCEP) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), February 2014 |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=February 2014 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=2 April 2017 |archiveurl=https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20160507071203/http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/PCEP_DEIR_2014.html |archivedate=7 May 2016 |deadurl=yes}}</ref> Caltrain solicited comments through the end of April 2014, extending the comment period by 33% past the required 45 days.<ref name=PR-140228 /> In the worst-case scenario, more than 10% of the trees (2,200 out of an estimated 19,000 total) along the Peninsula Corridor would be removed to make way for the overhead contact system (OCS).<ref name=PR-140228 /> A pre-qualification survey was sent out in May 2014, and six firms were pre-qualified to bid on PCEP: a joint venture partnership (JV) between Shimmick and [[Alstom]]; Caltrain Modernization Partners (a JV between Elecnor and Cobra); Balfour Beatty; [[Kiewit Corporation|Mass Electric]]/[[Siemens]] JV; [[Skanska]]-Comstock-Aldridge JV; and Peninsula Electrification Partners (a JV between PTG and [[Luis Delso Heras|Isolux Corsán]]).<ref name=PR-150206 />
[[File:Baustelle Ostkreuz 20150224 5.jpg|thumb|right|[[Balfour Beatty Construction|Balfour Beatty]] at work rebuilding the [[Ostkreuz]] rail station in [[Berlin]]]]
Governor [[Jerry Brown]] signed SB 785 in September 2014,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB785 |title=Senate Bill No. 785 / Chapter 931: An act to repeal Sections 14661 and 14661.1 of the Government Code, to amend, repeal, and add Section 32132.5 of the Health and Safety Code, to amend Section 20209.14 of, to add and repeal Article 6 (commencing with Section 10187) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 2 of, to add and repeal Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 22160) of Part 3 of Division 2 of, to repeal Sections 20133, 20175.2, 20193, 20301.5, and 20688.6 of, and to repeal Article 22 (commencing with Section 20360) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 2 of, the Public Contract Code, to add Section 37.2 to the San Diego Unified Port District Act (Chapter 67 of the First Extraordinary Session of the Statutes of 1962), and to repeal Section 6 of Chapter 2 of the Second Extraordinary Session of the Statutes of 2009, relating to design-build. |author=Wolk, Lois |author-link=Lois Wolk |date=30 September 2014 |publisher=Secretary of State, State of California |accessdate=2 April 2017}}</ref> extending the deadline for Caltrain (and other transit agencies) to solicit bids as a combined design and construction project.<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Gets_Clearance_to_Proceed_with_Design_Build_Plans_for_Electrification.html |title=Caltrain Gets Clearance to Proceed with Design/Build Plans for Electrification |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=6 October 2014 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=2 April 2017 |archiveurl=https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20160507040544/http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Gets_Clearance_to_Proceed_with_Design_Build_Plans_for_Electrification.html |archivedate=7 May 2016 |deadurl=yes}}</ref> After the final EIR addressed the comments received, PCJPB certified the final EIR in January 2015.<ref name=PR-150108>{{cite press release |url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Board_Certifies_Final_Environmental_Impact_Report_and_Approves_Peninsula_Corridor_Electrification_Project.html |title=Caltrain Board Certifies Final Environmental Impact Report and Approves Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=8 January 2015 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=2 April 2017 |archiveurl=https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20160507035136/http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Board_Certifies_Final_Environmental_Impact_Report_and_Approves_Peninsula_Corridor_Electrification_Project.html |archivedate=7 May 2016 |deadurl=yes}}</ref><ref name=FEIR>{{cite report |url=http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/PCEP_FEIR_2014.html |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Proect (PCEP) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), January 2015 |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=January 2015 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=2 April 2017 |archiveurl=https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20160507055222/http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/PCEP_FEIR_2014.html |archivedate=7 May 2016 |deadurl=yes}}</ref> The final EIR reduced the number of trees projected to be removed by more than half; only 1,000 of the estimated 19,000 trees along the Peninsula Corridor would need to be removed.<ref name=PR-150108 /> In February 2015, PCJPB released the PCEP request for proposals (RFP).<ref name=PR-150206>{{cite press release |url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Board_Authorizes_Release_of_Electrification_Design_Build_RFP.html |title=Caltrain Board Authorizes Release of Electrification Design Build RFP |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=6 February 2015 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=2 April 2017 |archiveurl=https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20160507034804/http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Board_Authorizes_Release_of_Electrification_Design_Build_RFP.html |archivedate=7 May 2016 |deadurl=yes}}</ref>
Caltrain solicited a request for information from EMU vendors in May 2014;<ref name=EMU-RFI>{{cite web |url=http://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/EMU_RFI.pdf |title=Caltrain Modernization Program Request for Information (RFI) from Railcar Manufacturers Only Concerning Procurement of Bi-Level Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Rolling Stock for the JPB's Operating Train Corridor Between San Francisco and San Jose |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=22 May 2014 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=2 April 2017 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6pRFcEFII |archivedate=2 April 2017 |deadurl=no}}</ref> based on the input received, a rider survey was circulated in fall 2014 to determine feature priority (bikes and on-board bathrooms, both of which would reduce seated capacity).<ref name=EMUs>{{cite web |url=http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/Electric-Multiple-Unit-EMU-trains.html |title=Caltrain Modernization Program: High-Performance Electric Trains |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=2017 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=2 April 2017}}</ref> The EMU RFP was released in August 2015,<ref name=EMUs /> with only one firm responding.
In July 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.<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/News_Archive/Caltrain_s_Board_Approves_Electrification_Design-Build_and_EMU_Contracts.html |title=Caltrain's Board Approves Electrification Design-Build and EMU Contracts |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=7 July 2016 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=2 April 2017 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6pRDhEjHi |archivedate=2 April 2017 |deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/intercity/caltrain-awards-electrification-emu-contracts.html |title=Caltrain awards electrtification, EMU contracts |author=Vantuono, William C. |date=8 July 2016 |newspaper=Railway Age |accessdate=2 April 2017}}</ref> Balfour Beatty was awarded a $697 million contract, its largest contract in the United States, to electrify the line at 25kV AC, replace signaling systems, construct two traction power substations, one switching substation, and seven paralleling substations.<ref name=ProgRail-16>{{cite news |url=http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Caltrain-inks-contracts-with-Balfour-Beatty-Stadler-for-electrification-project--49177 |title=Caltrain inks contracts with Balfour Beatty, Stadler for electrification project |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=17 August 2016 |newspaper=Progressive Railroading |accessdate=2 April 2017}}</ref> Stadler was awarded a $551 million contract to deliver 16 "[[Stadler KISS|KISS]]" trains of 6 [[bilevel rail car|bilevel]] [[electric multiple unit]]s each, with the option to increase the order with an additional 96 cars in the future.<ref name=ProgRail-16 /><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> The contract also marks the first American design win for the Stadler KISS.<ref name=ProgRail-16 />
===Federal funding withdrawal===
In April 2016, after missing the initial 2015 deadline, Caltrain requested a third party review of the CBOSS project from the [[American Public Transportation Association]] (APTA).<ref name=APTA>{{cite report |url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/CBOSS+PTC/APTA+Peer+Review+Report.pdf |title=American Public Transportation Association Peer Review for Caltrain, San Carlos, California |author=North American Transit Services Association |date=4 July 2016 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=31 March 2017 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6pOCBMZ3y |archivedate=31 March 2017 |deadurl=no}}</ref> APTA noted that Caltrain was not effectively managing the project schedule and cost because of generally poor communication between Caltrain's project management and PTG, and Caltrain's project manager did not have the technical experience or authority to resolve technical and contractual issues with PTG.<ref name=APTA /> In February 2017, Caltrain terminated its contract with PTG for failure to perform on time and budget and announced potential litigation.<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Terminates_Contract_with_Parsons_Transportation_Group__PTG_.html |title=Caltrain Terminates Contract with Parsons Transportation Group (PTG) |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=24 February 2017 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |accessdate=25 March 2017 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6pODay11G |archivedate=31 March 2017 |deadurl=no}}</ref>
[[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.]]
In early 2016, the CHSRA had selected a route that required extensive tunneling and so the initial operating segment for high-speed rail was redirected north.<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=18 February 2016 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> By February 2017, the electrification project had secured $1.3
The letter from the Republican delegation called out "yet another cost overrun in the consistently maligned [high-speed rail] project", quoting from a January 13, 2017 ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' article written by Ralph Vartabedian.<ref name=RepublicanLetter /> In the January article, Vartabedian reported on a confidential FRA risk analysis showing a potential budget overrun of $3.6 billion for the first {{convert|118|mi|adj=on}} CHSRA operating segment from Merced to Shafter.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-cost-overruns-20170106-story.html |title=California's bullet train is hurtling toward a multi-billion-dollar overrun, a confidential federal report warns |author=Vartabedian, Ralph |date=13 January 2017 |newspaper=Los Angeles Time |accessdate=4 April 2017}}</ref> CHSRA responded to the ''Times'' article in an open letter to the California legislature on that same day, January 13, by noting the true cost estimate was $7.8 billion, which included $900 million in contingencies, and the ''Times'' article had mischaracterized the nature of the risk analysis report.<ref>{{cite letter |url=http://hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/2017_Letter_to_Legislature_LA_Times_Article.pdf |last=Richard |first=Dan |recipient=Members of the California Legislature |subject=Correction of serious msicharacterization and misrepresentation of information |date=13 January 2017 |publisher=California High-Speed Rail Authority |accessdate=4 April 2017}}</ref> The Republican letter of January 24 went on to ask the pending PCEP grant for $650 million be halted, calling it "an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars".<ref name=RepublicanLetter /><ref name=LAT-170206>{{cite news |url=http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-trump-20170206-story.html |title=California Republicans ask Trump administration to block bullet train funding |author=Vartabedian, Ralph |date=6 February 2017 |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |accessdate=28 March 2017}}</ref><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><ref name=SJMN-170207>{{cite news |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/07/california-republicans-want-trump-to-block-caltrain-electrification/ |title=Political battle threatens to halt Caltrain electrification project |author=Murphy, Katy |date=7 February 2017 |newspaper=San Jose Mercury News |accessdate=4 April 2017}}</ref>
The 39-member House and Senate [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] congressional delegation from California wrote a letter in response to Secretary Chao on February 3, noting "a material misstatement of fact" in the January 24 letter, namely that the grant was being sought by Caltrain, not CHSRA; delineating the separation between PCEP and CAHSR; and urging her to "approve this grant agreement immediately", citing past precedent that only one low-rated project failed to receive a signature from the Secretary of Transportation over the prior 20-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=3 February 2017 |recipient=The Honorable [[Elaine Chao]], Secretary of Transportation |subject=CA Democratic Delegation Letter to Secretary Chao |accessddate=28 March 2017}}</ref><ref name=SMDJ-170208>{{cite news |url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2017-02-08/dems-fight-for-electrification-congressional-debate-centers-on-funding-for-caltrain-modernization/1776425175561.html |title=Dems fight for electrification: congressional debate centers on funding for Caltrain modernization |author=Weigel, Samantha |date=8 February 2017 |newspaper=San Mateo Daily Journal |accessdate=1 April 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=DemocraticLetter /><ref name=SMDJ-170208 />
Several signatories to the House Republican letter were asked why they would block funding for California.<ref name=SJMN-170207 /> Representative [[Devin Nunes]] (R-[[California's 22nd congressional district|CA22]]) was unmoved, saying in late February that he wasn't going "to feel too bad about one of the richest places on the planet not having a train."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/california-playbook/2017/02/trump-electrifies-ca-republicans-issas-evolution-nunes-doubles-down-on-caltrain-218921 |title=TRUMP electrifies CA REPUBLICANS — ISSA's EVOLUTION — NUNES doubles down on CALTRAIN |author1=Siders, David |author2=Marinucci, Carla |author3=Ocasio, Bianca Padro |date=27 February 2017 |website=California Playbook |publisher=Politico |accessdate=28 March 2017 |quote=In response [to] questions from POLITICO on Saturday, Nunes said the federal government shouldn’t pay for a project in “one of the richest places on the planet.” — “I don’t know much about the transit system there in Silicon Valley, so I’m a little bit out of my realm to answer this,’’ Nunes said. “But I err on the side of the federal government really shouldn’t be involved in those issues, like high speed rail.” Told the project represents 10,000 jobs and potentially millions of dollars of impact to the economy, Nunes said: “I don’t see them crying about the 30 percent unemployment in Mendota … I don’t see them trying to help the farmworkers … So you’re not going to get me to feel too bad about one of the richest places on the planet not having a train.”}}</ref> Representative [[Jeff Denham]] (R-[[California's 10th congressional district|CA10]]) defended the letter, saying PCEP and CHSRA were closely intertwined because PCEP derived some funding under the "blended plan" agreement of 2012.<ref name=SJMN-170207 /> Representative [[Tom McClintock]] (R-[[California's 4th congressional district|CA04]]) reiterated his opposition to high-speed rail without addressing PCEP: "I have never supported a dollar of state funding going for [high-speed rail], and would never support a dollar of federal funding."<ref name=SJMN-170207 />
Secretary Chao heeded
In response to the grant deferral, various local officials traveled to [[Washington D.C.]] in order to lobby federal officials to release the money. Editorials in local newspapers urged approval of the grant, including the ''Sacramento Bee'', who 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=24 March 2017 |newspaper=Sacramento Bee |accessdate=28 March 2017}}</ref> and 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=24 February 2017 |newspaper=East Bay Times |accessdate=28 March 2017}}</ref> Henry Grabar noted the politicized nature of the grant deferral<ref>{{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=16 February 2017 |website=Moneybox (blog) |publisher=Slate |accessdate=28 March 2017}}</ref> and Dan Morain pointed out that despite regularly soliciting campaign funds from Silicon Valley business leaders, Representative [[Kevin McCarthy (California politician)|Kevin McCarthy]] (R-[[California's 23rd congressional district|CA23]]) 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=24 February 2017 |newspaper=Sacramento Bee |accessdate=28 March 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"/><ref
==Design==
| |||