Wikipedia

Caltrain Modernization Program

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nick Moyes (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 30 March 2017 (Randomly fixing typos with Lupins spellchecking tool: postive->positive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Caltrain Modernization Program (CalMod) is a $1.9 billion project which will add a Positive Train Control system, electrify the main line for Caltrain, a commuter railroad serving cities in the San Francisco Peninsula and Silicon Valley, and transition from its current diesel-electric locomotive powered trains to electric multiple units (EMU).

Logo for CalMod, the Caltrain Modernization Program. Caltrain is seeking to electrify the main line of its commuter railroad as part of CalMod.

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 headways, reduce air pollution and noise, and facilitate a future underground extension (DTX) into 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 49 miles (79 km) of tracks between 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 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 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

Background

 
Caltrain has been using diesel locomotives (pictured above) since the early 1950s and hopes to replace them with electric trainsets.
Main article: 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.[1] However, by 1977, Southern Pacific began facing rapidly declining ridership and petitioned the state 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, and 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.[2]

Early electrification proposals

One year later in 1992, Caltrans released the first feasibility study detailing the possibility of electrifying the railroad between San Francisco and San Jose.[3] 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 Budd M-2/M-4 EMUs.[3] 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.[3] 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.[3] 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.[3]

Due to funding shortages, the project was postponed for the next two decades. In 1997, then-Mayor 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.[4] 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.[4] 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.[5] At that time, Caltrain was touting daily ridership of approximately 25,000 passengers, a 40-year high.[4]

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 90 mi/h (140 km/h), 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.[5] 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 79 mi/h (127 km/h) and improve safety.[5] 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.[5] 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%[6] and doubled by 2012.[7] Other proposed enhancements included station and parking upgrades.[5]

Finally, as a third step after rehabilitating and enhancing the system, the 1998 Rapid Rail Study proposed electrification.[5] 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.[5][8] Some of the money to accomplish the rehabilitation and enhancement of existing track came from funds that had been intended for the downtown extension.[8] 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.[8] 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.[8] 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.[5]

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 first priority.[9] Electrification of the line was discussed in 2000 during a series of public outreach educational meetings held by Caltrain officials.[10] Despite these discussions, electrification had already been deferred according to the Rapid Rail Study implementation plan published in February 1999.[11] CTX was prioritized instead, funded in 2000, and work on rehabilitation and enhancement of the line rapidly proceeded.[12]

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,[13] 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 billion to meet projected capacity demands.[14] Caltrain 2025 included the following elements:[14][15]

  • Use of lightweight electric multiple units (EMU) on heavy rail lines ($296 million to $1,024 million)
  • Install positive train control (PTC) system to eliminate the possibility of a collision between EMU and freight trains ($30 million)
  • Electrification infrastructure ($496 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 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)

PCJPB mandated that Peninsula Corridor infrastructure and equipment should be compatible with future California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) trains.[14] CHSRA had proposed that mandated speeds and transit times could be met by using lightweight "non-compliant" vehicles,[14] meaning a rail vehicle that did not comply with Federal requirements. These requirements include separation between light and heavy rail equipment[16] and structural strength.[17] 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.[18] 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.[18]

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.[18] 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.[18] The application was docketed as FRA-2009-0124.[19] 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.[20] 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[21] with CBOSS, formalizing the temporal separation plan, and issuing a safety system program.[22]

Caltrain applied for an amendment to the 2009 waiver in 2015, noting that since the previous waiver had been granted, new developments had taken place, including formalized rules that commuter rail vehicles meeting EN12663 and EN15227 were explicitly acceptable for mixed-use service (light and heavy rail) without temporal separation.[23] The amendment was granted in January 2016.[24]

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,[25] and the funding for electrification was still not completely identified. By 2012, the 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. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and then-State Senator Joe Simitian and Assemblyman 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.[26] In 2012, Caltrain and other local agencies signed a memorandum of understanding with the CHSRA that detailed the "blended" plan.[27]

In February 2015, shortly after the project received environmental clearance from California, the town of Atherton, which lies on the tracks, sued Caltrain, alleging that the agency's environmental impact review was inadequate and that its collaboration with the CHSRA should be further vetted. On 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.[28]

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 "KISS" bilevel electric multiple unit trains, with the option of expanding the order by an additional 96 cars in the future.[29]

Federal funding withdrawal

 
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.[30] 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 thirty-day review period.[31] However, during the review period, the fourteen Republican party 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".[32]

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".[31] Caltrain had expected Secretary Chao to approve the grant by March 1, which is normally a pro forma step done after the thirty-day comment period for a highly-rated project, and had already awarded construction contracts.[31][33] 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.[31]

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".[33] On March 21, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown met with Secretary Chao and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, author of 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.[34]

Design

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.

Jim Hartnett, Caltrain Executive Director[35]

The purpose of the electrification project is to electrify the main line of Caltrain's commuter railroad 49 miles (79 km) of tracks between 4th and King station and Tamien Station by installing new electrical infrastructure and purchasing electric trainsets. Service from Tamien to Gilroy station will continue to be served with existing diesel locomotives.[36] The idea to electrify the route began with a feasibility study conducted by the California Department of Transportation in 1992,[3] although funding considerations delayed the project for the next two decades. In 2012, Caltrain and the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), along with the 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.[27]

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.[36]

 
A Stadler KISS trainset in Rheine, Germany, similar to the type ordered by Caltrain.

Although Stadler's trains are built to European crash standards rather than U.S. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) standards, Caltrain received a waiver from the FRA to operate its electric trains in mixed traffic with diesel and freight locomotives. The waiver, a first in the United States, was granted due to Caltrain maintaining temporal separation between its passenger service and freight traffic, as well as its development of a collision mitigation and avoidance plan.[37][38]

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 Authority, California cap and trade revenue, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 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 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.[39]

References

  1. ^ "Early Milestones". Caltrain. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  2. ^ "Historic Milestones". Caltrain. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  3. ^ a b c d e f Morrison Knudsen Corporation (October 1992). Feasibility Study for Electrifying the Caltrain/PCS Railroad (PDF) (Report). California Department of Transportation. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  4. ^ a b c Lewis, Gregory (7 July 1997). "Backers: Downtown Caltrain link dead". San Francisco Examiner. Retrieved 27 February 2017.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h Caltrain; STV Incorporated (1 October 1998). Draft Caltrain Rapid Rail Study (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Retrieved 29 March 2017.
  6. ^ Murphy, Dave (30 June 2005). "BART's Peninsula Line Falls Short of Hopes / Competition from cheaper Baby Bullet trains could be hurting ridership on extension". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  7. ^ "2016 Annual Passenger Counts" (PDF). May 5, 2016. p. 3. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  8. ^ a b c d Pimentel, Benjamin (28 September 1998). "Caltrain Wants Fast Electric S.F.-San Jose Rail Link / It must decide whether to do repairs first". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  9. ^ Wilson, Marshall (2 April 1999). "Plan Revived To Electrify Caltrain Line / Proposal to spend $376 million divides members of oversight board". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  10. ^ "Electrification of Caltrain to Be Discussed Tonight". San Francisco Chronicle. 6 September 2000. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  11. ^ Caltrain Rapid Rail Study Implementation Plan (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 25 February 1999. pp. 9–10. Retrieved 30 March 2017. 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.
  12. ^ Gathright, Alan (19 November 2001). "Fast train to San Jose may boost L.A. bullet / Caltrain commuter seen as a first step". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  13. ^ "Caltrain 2025". Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 2007. Archived from the original on 21 October 2007. Retrieved 28 March 2017. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  14. ^ a b c d Cotey, Angela (July 2007). "At Caltrain, running electric multiple units is a key component of the agency's long-term growth plans". Progressive Railroading. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
  15. ^ Project 2025 (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 30 November 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 29 March 2017. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  16. ^ 49 CFR 211.A
  17. ^ 49 CFR 238
  18. ^ a b c d Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (December 2009). 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 (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  19. ^ "FRA-2009-0124 Caltrain – Waiver Petition". Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation. 2016. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  20. ^ Rosenberg, Mike (27 May 2010). "Electric train plan granted key waiver". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  21. ^ 49 CFR 236
  22. ^ Cothen Jr., Grady C. (27 May 2010). "Docket Number FRA-2009-0124". Letter to Michael Scanlon. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  23. ^ Hartnett, Jim (22 September 2015). "Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Waiver, Docket Number FRA-2009-0124". Letter to Ronald Hynes. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  24. ^ Lauby, Robert C. "Docket Number FRA-2009-0124". Letter to Jim Hartnett. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  25. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael (21 January 2011). "Caltrain seeks answers to funding crisis". San Francisco Chronicle. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  26. ^ Dong, Jocelyn and Gennady Sheyner (April 18, 2011). "Reps: High-speed rail should merge with improved Caltrain system in San Jose". Palo Alto Weekly. Retrieved March 29, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  27. ^ a b "Authorizing Approval of the High-Speed Rail Early Investment Strategy for a Blended System, Memorandum of Understanding" (PDF). Caltrain. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  28. ^ Weigel, Samantha (September 27, 2016). "Judge gives Caltrain electrification green light: Atherton loses lawsuit, claims local project was too closely tied to high-speed rail". The Daily Journal. Retrieved March 29, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  29. ^ Vantuono, William C. (August 16, 2016). "For Caltrain, 16 KISSes from Stadler (but no FLIRTs)". Railway Age. Retrieved March 29, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  30. ^ "Caltrain Statement: Electrification Must Move Forward". Caltrain. February 8, 2017. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  31. ^ a b c d Green, Jason (February 28, 2017). "Caltrain: Agreement with contractors to extend deadline keeps electrification project alive". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved March 29, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  32. ^ "In Silicon Valley, Caltrain Upgrade Is Imperiled as Trump Withholds Funds". The New York Times. March 6, 2017. Retrieved March 29, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  33. ^ a b Richards, Gary (March 24, 2017). "Trump, Chao get an earful on Caltrain funds from Silicon Valley leaders". East Bay Times. Retrieved March 29, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  34. ^ "Jerry Brown meets with Republicans, 'cautiously optimistic' about Caltrain approval". Sacramento Bee. March 21, 2017. Retrieved March 29, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  35. ^ Tasha Bartholomew (April 21, 2016). "Modernization: Electrifying the Bay Area's Silicon Valley Rail Corridor". Mass Transit Magazine. Retrieved March 29, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  36. ^ a b "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Status Update (Feb 2017)" (PDF). Caltrain. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  37. ^ "Caltrain lands FRA waiver for passenger operations". Railway Age. June 1, 2010. Retrieved March 29, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  38. ^ Cotey, Angela (July 2007). "At Caltrain, running electric multiple units is a key component of the agency's long-term growth plans". Progressive Railroading. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  39. ^ "Caltrain Modernization Program 4th Quarter FY 2016 Progress Report" (PDF). Caltrain. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caltrain_Modernization_Program&oldid=773012169"