Content deleted Content added
→Federal funding withdrawal: Added references. |
m →Caltrain/HSR blended system: Added reference name. |
||
Line 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. 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 and Caltrain was having trouble identifying funds for its electrification project. In 2011, Member of US Congress [[Anna Eshoo]], then-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>{{citeweb|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|publisher=''[[Palo Alto Weekly]]''|author=Dong, Jocelyn and Gennady Sheyner|date=April 18, 2011|accessdate=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=21 April 2011 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=30 March 2017}}</ref> Caltrain announced preliminary results from a capacity study in August 2011 which stated the "blended" plan was feasible: by adding a new {{convert|8|mi|adj=on}} quad-track overtake section, the rail line could handle up to 10 local commuter trains (Caltrain) and 4 high-speed trains (CHSRA) per hour.<ref name=SFC-110818>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Caltrain-could-share-tracks-with-high-speed-rail-2334756.php |title=Caltrain could share tracks with high-speed rail |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=18 August 2011 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=30 March 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/High-speed-rail-needs-leadership-to-survive-2334750.php |title=EDITORIAL: High-speed rail needs leadership to survive |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=19 August 2011 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=30 March 2017}}</ref> Three locations were proposed for the projected overtake: either north (Millbrae–South San Francisco–Brisbane), central (San Carlos–Belmont–San Mateo), or south (Mountain View).<ref name=SFC-120728 />
[[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.]]
| |||