User:Mliu92/sandbox/Caltrain Modernization

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

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

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 EMU 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[edit]

Background[edit]

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 to 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[edit]

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]

EMD AEM-7 electric locomotive, part of the equipment proposed in the 1992 Feasibility Study to electrify Caltrain. This AEM-7 is in revenue service with SEPTA.

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.[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 and enhance the line, then electrify it.[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][6] Some of the money to accomplish the rehabilitation and enhancement of existing track came from funds that had been intended for the downtown extension.[6] 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.[6] 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.[6] The electrification of Caltrain was seen as a prerequisite for a future expansion of the system, including service to Union City across the Dumbarton Rail Bridge and increased service to Gilroy.[5]

Caltrain 2025 and FRA waiver[edit]

Under Appendix A of 49 CFR 211, light rail vehicles such as this Stadler KISS belonging to Luxembourg's CFL are not allowed to share rail lines with heavy freight trains.

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,[7] 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.[8]

PCJPB mandated that Peninsula Corridor infrastructure and equipment should be compatible with future California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) trains.[8] CHSRA had proposed that mandated speeds and transit times could be met by using lightweight "non-compliant" vehicles,[8] meaning a rail vehicle that did not comply with Federal requirements. These requirements include separation between light and heavy rail equipment[9] and structural strength.[10] Caltrain saw this as an opportunity to apply for a FRA waiver to run EMUs, which could accelerate faster and provide headways as low as five minutes.[11] The December 2009 FRA waiver application included the deployment of an enhanced PTC system, which Caltrain named CBOSS, designed to not only enforce positive train control, but also check for overspeed and protect rail workers.[11] PTC had already been mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, enacted in the wake of the fatal 2008 Chatsworth train collision.[11] 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.[12]

Caltrain/HSR blended system[edit]

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,[13] and the funding for electrification was still not completely identified. 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. 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.[14][15] Caltrain announced preliminary results from a capacity study in August 2011 which stated the "blended" plan was feasible.[16][17][18]

'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.[19] 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 rail lines and electrical infrastructure.[19] A similar amount could be directed to Metrolink to help electrify that line's infrastructure to downtown Los Angeles.[19] The investments in the "bookend" electrification projects were intended to allow high-speed rail to share infrastructure with existing passenger rail services.[20] In March 2012, Caltrain and other local agencies signed a memorandum of understanding with the CHSRA that detailed the "blended" plan,[21][22] and it was subsequently approved by MTC a week later.[23]

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.[22][23] 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.[24] In September 2012, the California Transportation Commission released $39.8 million to fund CBOSS.[25] Later in November 2012, the total released from high-speed rail bonds rose to $1.5 billion, which would include partial funding for the planned Downtown Extension (DTX), moving the northern terminus of the Caltrain line from 4th and King to the Transbay Transit Center.[26] With ever-increasing ridership and lack of a dedicated funding source, Caltrain was relying on CalMod to cut costs and increase capacity.[27] CHSRA approved the issue of bonds in December 2016.[28]

Opposition[edit]

The affluent city of Atherton, which lies on the tracks, was an early and vocal opponent of electrification.[29] 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 the town could potentially be divided in two by permanently closing the two grade crossings at Fair Oaks Lane and Watkins Avenue.[29] Jack Ringham, an Atherton resident since 1966, summed up his feelings in a 2004 limerick:

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.

— Atherton resident Jack Ringham, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle article[29]
Caltrain has a weekend-only holdout-rule station in Atherton, which dates back to 1866

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.[30] 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.[31] 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."[31] Atherton mayor Rick De Golia was quoted as saying "Caltrain is locked into an old technology and 20th century thinking."[31] 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.[32] 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.[33][34]

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.

— Judge Barry Goode, 2016 ruling[33]

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.[28] Instead, the funding was allowed to be redirected under the recently-passed Assembly Bill 1889,[20][35] which had been championed by Assemblymember Kevin Mullin in 2015.[28] 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 regard to dealing with [increased traffic and environmental impacts] effectively and efficiently."[28]

Contracts awarded[edit]

Parsons Transportation Group (PTG) was awarded a $138 million contract in November 2011 to design and install CBOSS by October 2015.[36] CBOSS kicked off physical work in September 2013, starting the installation of a fiber optic line along the Caltrain right-of-way.[37] 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.[38][39]

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.[40][41] 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.[42] Stadler was awarded a $551 million contract to deliver 16 "KISS" trains of 6 bilevel electric multiple units each, with the option to increase the order with an additional 96 cars in the future.[42][43] The contract also marks the first American design win for the Stadler KISS.[42]

Federal funding withdrawal and issues[edit]

In April 2016, after missing the initial October 2015 deadline, Caltrain requested a third party review of the CBOSS project from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).[44] 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.[44] In February 2017, Caltrain terminated its contract with PTG for failure to perform on time and budget and announced potential litigation.[45] Parsons filed suit on February 22, saying delays were due to changing client requirements and circumstances beyond their control.[46] Caltrain filed suit a week later, seeking $98 million in damages; although the system has been mostly installed, testing is still incomplete.[47]

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.[48][49][50] The grant had undergone a two-year review process starting in November 2015 under the Obama Administration and received a "medium-high" rating from the FTA in August 2016,[48] and was waiting for a signature from the newly-appointed Trump Administration Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao after a 30-day review period to secure a Final Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA).[51][52][53][54] However, during the review period, the 14 Republican party U.S. House representatives from California sent a letter on January 24, 2017 to Secretary Chao,[55] urging her to deny funding due to the project's ties with high-speed rail, which they opposed.[55][56]

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.[55] In the January article, Vartabedian reported on a confidential FRA risk analysis showing a potential budget overrun of $3.6 billion for the first 118-mile (190 km) CHSRA operating segment from Merced to Shafter.[57] 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.[58] 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".[55][59][60][61]

The 39-member House and Senate 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 CHSRA; 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.[53][62] 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.[53][62]

Secretary Chao heeded the Republican letter's arguments, and deferred the grant in a letter written by FTA Executive Director Matthew Welbes to Caltrain which stated the FTA needed "additional time to complete review of this significant commitment of Federal resources".[51][52][63][64] Caltrain had expected Secretary Chao to approve the grant and sign the FFGA by March 1, which is normally a pro forma step performed after the 30-day comment period for a highly-rated project, and had already awarded construction contracts.[51][65] Balfour Beatty Construction and Stadler Rail had already begun preparations to upgrade the existing tracks and build electrical trainsets, respectively. Caltrain negotiated an emergency four-month contract extension at a potential cost of $20 million.[51][66][67] Under the preliminary budget proposal released in mid-March 2017, the United States Department of Transportation's Capital Investment Grant Program would be eliminated, although projects holding a completed FFGA would continue to be funded.[54] Since Secretary Chao had withheld approval of the FFGA for PCEP,[68] the project's future was questionable.[54]

Several signatories to the House Republican letter were asked why they would block funding for California.[61] Dan Morain pointed out that despite regularly soliciting campaign funds from Silicon Valley business leaders, Representative Kevin McCarthy (R-CA23) was targeting a project that benefited the region directly.[69] Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA22) was unmoved by arguments on infrastructure benefits, 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."[70] Representative Jeff Denham (R-CA10) defended the letter, saying PCEP and CHSRA were closely intertwined because PCEP derived some funding under the "blended plan" agreement of 2012.[61] Representative Tom McClintock (R-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."[61] Representative Mimi Walters (R-CA45) also made a statement that she was not opposed to PCEP, but instead held "serious concerns about the use of taxpayer funds for a project that is tied to high speed rail".[71]

Editorials in local and national newspapers urged approval of the grant, including the Sacramento Bee, who called the deferral "a petty attack";[72] the East Bay Times, a noted CHSRA detractor;[73] and The New York Times, which called the delay "counter to Mr. Trump's campaign promises of increased infrastructure spending."[74] Henry Grabar noted the politicized nature of the grant deferral.[75] The Independent stated the deferral stood in contradiction to "President Trump's vow to improve American infrastructure, but is consistent with criticisms that he is friendly [with] the oil and gas lobby," going on to note he "is know[n] for his value of loyalty and recoils at criticism," speculating it may have been retaliation for Governor Brown's criticism of his policies.[76]

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".[65][77] In early March, California Governor Jerry Brown sent a letter to Secretary Chao, asking to discuss the funding grant;[78] on March 21, he subsequently met with Secretary Chao and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, author of the 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.[79][80]

Design[edit]

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[81]

The electrification project will convert 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.[82]

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.[83] A significant portion of Caltrain's existing fleet of diesel locomotives and passenger cars are nearing the end of their lives.[83] 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.[82]

Evolution[edit]

CalMod consists of two linked sub-projects: CBOSS (to meet federal safety requirements and as a condition of the FRA waiver for mixed traffic) and PCEP (to build the electric infrastructure and procure EMUs). Key decisions in the development of CalMod can be traced back to the 1992 Feasibility Study, which recommended 25 kV AC overhead lines;[3] the 1998 Rapid Rail Study, which recommended low-cost upgrades to first improve service and build demand;[5] the 2006 Caltrain 2025 proposal, which first proposed the use of lightweight electric multiple units;[84] the 2009-10 FRA waiver, which imposed certain conditions on mixed traffic;[11] and the 2012 memorandum of understanding with CHSRA, which resulted in a "blended" system to use the existing twin-track line as much as possible.[21]

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. The 1992 Feasibility Study recommended the use of electric locomotives to directly replace the existing EMD F40PH diesel-electric locomotives and installing 25 kV AC overhead contact lines as the most cost-effective alternative, since the gallery cars (built in 1985) were then relatively new and could be reused with electric locomotives.[3]

Electrification was revisited after San Francisco pulled funding from Downtown Extension project planning, and the 1998 Rapid Rail Study proposed a multiphase capital improvement program which would improve the tracks, raise the speed limit to 90 mi/h (140 km/h), consolidate three stations, and electrify the Peninsula Corridor, resulting in a decrease in transit time by nearly 17 minutes, or 21% of the total trip time between San Francisco and San Jose.[5] The first phase of the 1998 study called for rehabilitation, which would be accomplished by replacing crossing signals and executing deferred maintenance on degraded structures to raise the speed limit to 79 mi/h (127 km/h); followed by a second phase enhancement of the line by adding a third track in some places, adding more rolling stock, and replacing the existing centralized traffic control system; and finally a third phase, consisting of electrification, would follow.[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 potential first priority.[85] Electrification of the line was discussed in 2000 during a series of public outreach educational meetings held by Caltrain officials.[86] San Mateo County Supervisors Mike Nevin and 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.[87] Despite these discussions, electrification had already been deferred according to the Rapid Rail Study implementation plan published in February 1999.[88] CTX was prioritized instead, funded in 2000, and work on rehabilitation and enhancement of the line rapidly proceeded.[89] The first two phases were performed during the Caltrain Express project (CTX) and resulted in Baby Bullet service starting in June 2004. Spurred on by the new Baby Bullet trains, by 2005 Caltrain ridership increased by 12%[90] and doubled by 2012.[91]

MPI MP36PH-3C locomotives were acquired as part of CTX

After CTX was completed, the third phase was re-studied and refined. 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,[92] 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.[8] Caltrain 2025 proposed implementing the following key elements:[8][84]

  • Use of lightweight electric multiple units (EMU) on heavy rail lines ($296 million to $1.024 billion)
  • 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 billion)

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 SR 152 from Interstate 5 in the Central Valley to US 101 in Gilroy and then follow the existing Union Pacific (UP) and Caltrain right-of-way to San Francisco.[93] The feasibility of mixing high-speed and commuter rail traffic over the Caltrain right-of-way was considered in 2011 and the resulting Blended Operations Analysis concluded that up to 10 trains per hour could be accommodated with the addition of a new 8-mile (13 km) quad-track overtake section: 6 local commuter trains (Caltrain) and 4 high-speed trains (CHSRA).[16][18] 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 once electrification and the Downtown Extension is complete.[21]

However, 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 high-speed rail route, fearing the high-speed trains would eventually be routed through their cities on an elevated concrete viaduct.[93]. Menlo Park and Atherton were joined by the city of Palo Alto in 2009.[93] 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.[94] The revised CHSRA EIR was approved with the Pacheco alignment in 2010.[94]

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.[93]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.[95] 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.[95] By early 2016, the CHSRA had selected a route that required extensive tunneling and so the initial operating segment for high-speed rail was moved north, making CalMod a higher priority.[96]

FRA waiver[edit]

Under U.S. federal regulations, light-weight trainsets such as this Stadler KISS belonging to Luxembourg's CFL are not allowed to share rail lines with heavy freight trains.

As a result of the blended plan, PCJPB mandated that Peninsula Corridor infrastructure and equipment should be compatible with future California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) trains.[8] CHSRA had proposed that mandated speeds and transit times could be met by using lightweight vehicles that did not comply with Federal requirements,[8] These requirements mandated separation between light and heavy rail equipment[97] and structural strength.[98] Caltrain saw this as an opportunity to apply for an FRA waiver to run EMUs, which could accelerate faster and provide headways as low as five minutes.[11] The December 2009 FRA waiver application detailed Caltrain's plans to instittute temporal separation of passenger and freight rail traffic north of Santa Clara, where freight traffic was restricted to the non-revenue hours, and the deployment of an enhanced PTC system, which Caltrain named CBOSS, designed to not only enforce positive train control, but also check for overspeed and protect rail workers.[11]

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, and CBOSS includes Caltrain's implementation of the new regulations.[11] In the FRA waiver application, Caltrain proposed a "defense-in-depth" philosophy for collisions: firstly, reduce the probability of collisions to nearly zero by employing temporal and spatial separation from freight rail, then mitigate the impact of a collision by deploying vehicles with crash energy management (CEM) structures.[11] 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.[99] 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[100] with CBOSS, formalizing the temporal separation plan, and issuing a safety system program.[101]

specifically the static end strength,[102] anti-climbing mechanism,(205) link between coupling and car body,(207) collision posts,(211) and corner posts (213)[11]

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.[11] The application was docketed as FRA-2009-0124.[103] 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[104] with CBOSS, formalizing the temporal separation plan, and issuing a safety system program.[105]

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 EN 12663 and EN 15227 were explicitly acceptable for mixed-use service (light and heavy rail) without temporal separation.[106] The amendment was granted in January 2016.[107]

CBOSS[edit]

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),[36][38] 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.[108]

Electrical configuration[edit]

Map
About OpenStreetMaps
Maps: terms of use
8km
5miles
none
10
PS7 (Tamien, MP 49.7 [Variant C] or MP 49.8 [Variant D])
9
TPS2 (College Park, MP 46.0)
8
PS6 (Sunnyvale, MP 38.7)
7
PS5 (San Antonio, MP 32.0)
6
SWS1 (Redwood City/Atherton, MP 26.7 [option 1] or MP 26.2 [option 2])
5
PS4 (Hillsdale, MP 20.4)
4
PS3 (Broadway, MP 15.0)
3
TPS1 (South San Francisco, MP 9.2)
2
PS2 (Bayshore, MP 5.0)
1
PS1 (San Francisco/22nd Street, milepost 1.3)
Proposed electrical station locations for PCEP
(closest train stop and milepost distance from San Francisco)[109][110] 
  •  Paralleling Station 
  •  Traction Power Substation 
  •  Switching Station 

1
PS1 (San Francisco/22nd Street, milepost 1.3)
2
PS2 (Bayshore, MP 5.0)
3
TPS1 (South San Francisco, MP 9.2)
4
PS3 (Broadway, MP 15.0)
5
PS4 (Hillsdale, MP 20.4)
6
SWS1 (Redwood City/Atherton, MP 26.7 [option 1] or MP 26.2 [option 2])
7
PS5 (San Antonio, MP 32.0)
8
PS6 (Sunnyvale, MP 38.7)
9
TPS2 (College Park, MP 46.0)
10
PS7 (Tamien, MP 49.7 [Variant C] or MP 49.8 [Variant D])

Power is supplied to the trains through an overhead contact system (OCS), consisting of a messenger wire, which assumes a parabolic shape due to sag, and a contact wire suspended below the messenger wire. The contact wire is nearly parallel to the ground, and supplies traction current to the pantograph of an electric train's. Both the messenger wire and the contact wire are energized with single-phase alternating current at 25kV with a frequency of 60Hz. This allows the OCS to be used for both Caltrain and future California High-speed Rail service, and this electrical configuration matches that of Amtrak (on the Northeast Corridor) and portions of the New Jersey Transit commuter rail system.[109]

The 2×25kV autotransformer electrification system includes a third energized parallel negative feeder wire which helps control electromagnetic field propagation.[109][111] The feeder wire is electrified at the same voltage and frequency, but is shifted 180° out of phase so the voltage difference between the contact wire and the feeder wire is always 50kV.[112] The choice of a 2×25kV autotransformer system means more traction power facilities are required in total, but also requires fewer traction power substations.[111]

Contact wire height is planned to vary between 16 to 23 feet (4.9 to 7.0 m), depending on overhead clearance required, with the messenger wire another 2 to 5 feet (0.61 to 1.52 m) above that, and pole height will vary between 30 to 50 feet (9.1 to 15.2 m). Nominal clearance under the contact wire will be 23 feet (7.0 m) to accommodate freight and non-electrified passenger rail service. Poles are nominally spaced 180 to 200 feet (55 to 61 m) apart, but can be reduced to 75 feet (23 m) for the tightest-radius bends (just south of San Francisco and just north of San Jose). Typical pole spacing in bends will be 120 to 150 feet (37 to 46 m), and for straight sections of track, maximum spacing is 230 feet (70 m) between poles.[109]

Each traction power substation (TPS) is anticipated to have a footprint of 150 by 200 feet (46 by 61 m) and would contain two 60MVA transformers to step down supply power (at 115kV AC) to the 2×25kV AC required for the messenger/contact and feeder lines.[109] The switching station (SWS) will be approximately halfway between each traction power substation, and includes a phase break to electrically isolate the power supplied from each TPS and two 10MVA autotransformers. SWS footprint will be 80 by 160 feet (24 by 49 m). In addition, there will be seven paralleling stations (PS), which maintain system voltage with one or two 10MVA autotransformers and have a foot print of 40 by 80 feet (12 by 24 m).[109]

PCEP[edit]

The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) will electrify the entire 51-mile (82 km) right-of-way owned by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB), which extends from the San Francisco terminus at 4th and King to Control Point Lick, approximately 2 miles (3.2 km) south of Tamien Station.[113] Planned work includes installation of approximately 130 to 140 miles (210 to 230 km) of 25 kV 60 Hz single-phase AC overhead contact lines and ten new power stations.[113] 25 kV overhead lines are typically used for high-speed intercity rail (light rail vehicles such as those used by Muni Metro or VTA typically use lower voltage).[113] The ten stations include one switching station (proposed location near the Fair Oaks neighborhood of Redwood City), two traction power substations (spaced 36 miles (58 km) apart in South San Francisco and Santa Clara), and seven paralleling stations (at San Francisco, Bayshore, Millbrae, Hillsdale, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and San Jose).[113] Barriers will be installed where road and pedestrian bridges cross over tracks to prevent damage to the electrical wires.[113]

The 2012 Blended Operations report stated an 8 miles (13 km) quad-track overtake section would allow Caltrain and CHSRA to coexist on the Peninsula Corridor with up to ten trains per peak hour: six local (Caltrain) and four HSR (high-speed rail).[18] Three locations were proposed for the projected overtake: either north (Millbrae–South San Francisco–Brisbane), midline (San Carlos–Belmont–San Mateo), or south (Mountain View–Sunnyvale).[24] The north and south overtake options would extend the quad-track sections that were installed from 2002 to 2004 for CTX.[18] Without the overtake, the existing system would still be able to support six local and two high-speed trains per peak hour.[18]

Construction is scheduled to

The proposed 25 kV AC supply lines would require substations along the rail line spaced 15 to 30 miles (24 to 48 km) apart, and after a cursory study in 1992, the local utility, PG&E, stated lines were already in-place to provide the power aside from a potential feeder line needed near Redwood City.[3] This meant the initial 1992 design called for four traction power substations and a total of 120 miles (190 km) of catenary supply lines, supported by approximately 60 to 70 poles per mile, with an estimated two years of construction required.[3]

Three locations were proposed for the projected overtake: either north (Millbrae–South San Francisco–Brisbane), midline (San Carlos–Belmont–San Mateo), or south (Mountain View).[24] The north overtake would extend the existing quad-track section at Bayshore station south through South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae stations; the full midline overtake would extend the quad-track section south of Redwood City north through San Carlos, Belmont, Hillsdale, and Hayward Park stations, while a short midline overtake option would avoid Redwood City, which has right-of-way width limitations; finally, the south overtake would extend the quad-track section north from Lawrence through Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and San Antonio.[18] Without the overtake, the existing system would still be able to support 6 local and 2 high-speed trains per peak hour.[18]

The traction power station locations were finalized in February 2015. Stations will be constructed in San Francisco, South San Francisco, San Mateo, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale.[114]

Balfour Beatty at work rebuilding the Ostkreuz rail station in Berlin

The PCEP draft environmental impact report (EIR) was released in February 2014,[115][116] and solicited comments for the draft EIR through the end of April 2014, extending the comment period past the required 45 days.[115] In the worst-case draft EIR 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).[115] The final EIR, issued in January 2015 to address comments received, 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.[117]

Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 785 in September 2014,[118] extending the deadline for Caltrain (and other transit agencies) to solicit bids as a combined design and construction project.[119] After the final EIR addressed the comments received for the draft EIR, PCJPB certified the final EIR in January 2015.[117][120] In February 2015, PCJPB released the PCEP request for proposals (RFP).[114]

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; Mass Electric/Siemens JV; Skanska-Comstock-Aldridge JV; and Peninsula Electrification Partners (a JV between PTG and Isolux Corsán).[114]

Rolling stock[edit]

Caltrain solicited a request for information from EMU vendors in May 2014;[121] 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).[122] The EMU RFP was released in August 2015,[122] with only one firm responding.


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.[123][8]

The Stadler KISS double-decker EMU that Caltrain ordered will have Crash Energy Management (CEM) feature and be compliant with FRA alternative Tier-I crash-worthiness standard. Coupling with Positive Train Control (PTC) system that will be installed on the Caltrain line, Caltrain KISS trains will be allowed for mix operation with trains that are compliant with standard Tier-I standard, such as Amtrak passenger trains and Union Pacific freight trains. [124]

Cost and funding[edit]

The total cost of the electrification project was estimated (in the 1992 Feasibility Study) at up to US$313,840,000 (equivalent to $681,400,000 in 2023), the sum of US$213,500,000 (equivalent to $463,600,000 in 2023) for new electric locomotives and US$100,340,000 (equivalent to $217,900,000 in 2023) for infrastructure upgrades.[3] By 1998, the new estimate for the electrification project had risen to US$376,000,000 (equivalent to $702,900,000 in 2023) in the Rapid Rail Study.[5] The estimated cost rose again to US$835,000,000 (equivalent to $1,477,300,000 in 2023) in 2000, although that included approximately $100 million in rail line upgrades to support CTX.[87] In 2006, the estimated cost of infrastructure alone had risen to US$496,000,000 (equivalent to $749,600,000 in 2023) in Project 2025[84]

The proposed fiscal year 2017 budget for Caltrain estimated the total cost of the CalMod project at US$2,227,300,000 (equivalent to $2,827,700,000 in 2023): US$1,159,500,000 (equivalent to $1,472,000,000 in 2023) for electrification infrastructure; US$821,100,000 (equivalent to $1,042,400,000 in 2023) for EMU procurement [a total of US$1,980,600,000 (equivalent to $2,514,500,000 in 2023) for PCEP]; and US$246,700,000 (equivalent to $313,200,000 in 2023) for CBOSS.[125]

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.[126]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Early Milestones". Caltrain. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  2. ^ "Historic Milestones". Caltrain. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j 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 i Caltrain; STV Incorporated (1 October 1998). Draft Caltrain Rapid Rail Study (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Retrieved 29 March 2017.
  6. ^ 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.
  7. ^ "Caltrain 2025". Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 2007. Archived from the original on 21 October 2007. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h 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.
  9. ^ 49 CFR 211.A
  10. ^ 49 CFR 238
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h i j 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.
  12. ^ Rosenberg, Mike (27 May 2010). "Electric train plan granted key waiver". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  13. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael (21 January 2011). "Caltrain seeks answers to funding crisis". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  14. ^ 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.
  15. ^ "EDITORIAL: Keeping Calif. high-speed rail plan on track". San Francisco Chronicle. 21 April 2011. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  16. ^ a b Cabanatuan, Michael (18 August 2011). "Caltrain could share tracks with high-speed rail". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  17. ^ "EDITORIAL: High-speed rail needs leadership to survive". San Francisco Chronicle. 19 August 2011. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  18. ^ a b c d e f g LTK Engineering Services (March 2012). Caltrain/California HSR Blended Operations Analysis (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
  19. ^ a b c Cabanatuan, Michael (13 February 2012). "Caltrain plan would fast-track electric rail". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  20. ^ a b Mullin, Kevin (28 September 2016). "An act to add Section 2704.78 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation". Secretary of State, State of California. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  21. ^ a b c "Authorizing Approval of the High-Speed Rail Early Investment Strategy for a Blended System, Memorandum of Understanding" (PDF). Caltrain. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  22. ^ a b Cabanatuan, Michael (22 March 2012). "Caltrain upgrades a step toward high-speed rail". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  23. ^ a b Cabanatuan, Michael (29 March 2012). "MTC approves Caltrain electrification plan". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  24. ^ a b c Cabanatuan, Michael (28 July 2012). "Fast electric Caltrain still years away". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  25. ^ Silverfarb, Bill (28 September 2012). "Modernization dream now reality". San Mateo Daily Journal. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  26. ^ Matier, Phil; Ross, Andrew (4 November 2012). "$1.5 billion Caltrain deal packs some big extras". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  27. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael (5 May 2013). "Popular Caltrain heads toward fiscal crisis". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  28. ^ a b c d Weigel, Samantha (15 December 2016). "Caltrain supporters unfazed by high-speed rail suit: Officials believe bond sale, electrification will stay on track despite new case". San Mateo Daily Journal.
  29. ^ a b c Whiting, Sam (25 July 2004). "End of an Era / Caltrain's electrification plans threaten Atherton's railroad charm". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  30. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael (10 February 2015). "Atherton, high-speed rail foes sue to block electrifying Caltrain". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  31. ^ a b c Orr, John (8 July 2015). "Atherton lawsuit against Caltrain over electrification project clears one hurdle". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  32. ^ Orr, John (11 July 2016). "Atherton won't seek temporary injunction in fight with Caltrain". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  33. ^ a b 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.
  34. ^ Wood, Barbara (28 September 2016). "Atherton loses lawsuit over Caltrain electrification project". The Almanac. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  35. ^ California State Assembly. "An act to add Section 2704.78 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation". Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 744.
  36. ^ a b "Parsons Selected by Caltrain for Communications-Based Overlay Signal System Positive Train Control" (PDF) (Press release). Parsons News. 22 November 2011. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  37. ^ "Caltrain Modernization Kicks Off Advanced Signal System Work" (Press release). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 17 September 2013. Archived from the original on 7 May 2016. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  38. ^ a b "Caltrain Receives FRA Approval to Proceed with New Positive Train Control System" (Press release). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 16 October 2014. Archived from the original on 7 May 2016. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  39. ^ Lambrecht, Bill (28 July 2014). "System can prevent train accidents, rail industry slow to adopt". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  40. ^ "Caltrain's Board Approves Electrification Design-Build and EMU Contracts" (Press release). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 7 July 2016. Archived from the original on 2 April 2017. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
  41. ^ Vantuono, William C. (8 July 2016). "Caltrain awards electrtification, EMU contracts". Railway Age. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
  42. ^ a b c "Caltrain inks contracts with Balfour Beatty, Stadler for electrification project". Progressive Railroading. 17 August 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
  43. ^ 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)
  44. ^ a b North American Transit Services Association (4 July 2016). American Public Transportation Association Peer Review for Caltrain, San Carlos, California (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Archived from the original on 31 March 2017. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  45. ^ "Caltrain Terminates Contract with Parsons Transportation Group (PTG)" (Press release). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 24 February 2017. Archived from the original on 31 March 2017. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  46. ^ Baldassari, Erin (1 March 2017). "Caltrain fires contractor before testing of new safety system is completed". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
  47. ^ Renda, Matthew (6 March 2017). "Caltrain, Safety Contractor Trade Lawsuits". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 6 April 2017.
  48. ^ a b "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Core Capacity Engineering" (PDF). Federal Transit Administration. August 2016. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
  49. ^ Annual Report on Funding Recommendations, Fiscal Year 2017 (PDF) (Report). Federal Transit Administration. 2016. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
  50. ^ "Caltrain Statement: Electrification Must Move Forward". Caltrain. February 8, 2017. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  51. ^ 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.
  52. ^ a b Weigel, Samantha (18 February 2017). "Electrification funds in peril: Federal Transit Administration delays $647 million Caltrain decision". San Mateo Daily Journal. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
  53. ^ a b c Eshoo, Anna; Lofgren, Zoe; Feinstein, Dianne; Harris, Kamala; Bass, Karen; Bera, Ami; Correa, Luis; Brownley, Julia; Chu, Judy; Aguilar, Pete; Lee, Barbara; Davis, Susan; Peters, Scott; Torres, Norma; Thompson, Mike; DeSaulnier, Mark; Lieu, Ted; Takano, Mark; Swalwell, Eric; Costa, Jim; Speier, Jackie; Panetta, Jimmy; Khanna, Ro; Roybal-Allard, Lucille; Carbajal, Salud O.; Barragán, Nanette Diaz; Huffman, Jared; Lowenthal, Alan; Cárdenas, Tony; Matsui, Doris O.; Sánchez, Linda T.; Waters, Maxine; McNerney, Jerry; Napolitano, Grace F.; Garamendi, John; Sherman, Brad; Ruiz, Raul; Vargas, Juan; Schiff, Adam B. (3 February 2017). "CA Democratic Delegation Letter to Secretary Chao" (PDF). Letter to The Honorable Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation. {{cite press release}}: Unknown parameter |accessddate= ignored (help)
  54. ^ a b c Brekke, Dan (17 March 2017). "Trump transportation plan could derail Bay Area transit projects". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  55. ^ a b c d Denham, Jeff; McCarthy, Kevin; Walters, Mimi; Lamalfa, Doug; Royce, Ed; McClintock, Tom; Hunter, Duncan; Rohrabacher, Dana; Issa, Darrell; Cook, Paul; Valadao, David G.; Calvert, Ken; Knight, Steve; Nunes, Devin (24 January 2017). "CA Republican Delegation HSR Letter to Secretary Chao" (PDF). Letter to The Honorable Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation. {{cite press release}}: Unknown parameter |accessddate= ignored (help)
  56. ^ Matier, Phil; Ross, Andrew (6 February 2017). "With Trump in charge, Republicans target Caltrain". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 4 April 2017.(subscription required)
  57. ^ Vartabedian, Ralph (13 January 2017). "California's bullet train is hurtling toward a multi-billion-dollar overrun, a confidential federal report warns". Los Angeles Time. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
  58. ^ Richard, Dan (13 January 2017). "Correction of serious msicharacterization and misrepresentation of information" (PDF). Letter to Members of the California Legislature. California High-Speed Rail Authority. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
  59. ^ Vartabedian, Ralph (6 February 2017). "California Republicans ask Trump administration to block bullet train funding". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
  60. ^ "In Silicon Valley, Caltrain Upgrade Is Imperiled as Trump Withholds Funds". The New York Times. March 6, 2017. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  61. ^ a b c d Murphy, Katy (7 February 2017). "Political battle threatens to halt Caltrain electrification project". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
  62. ^ a b Weigel, Samantha (8 February 2017). "Dems fight for electrification: congressional debate centers on funding for Caltrain modernization". San Mateo Daily Journal. Retrieved 1 April 2017.
  63. ^ Matier, Phil; Ross, Andrew (17 February 2017). "Trump administration deals a big setback to Caltrain". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  64. ^ Sheehan, Tim (17 February 2017). "Feds delay grant approval for Bay Area rail electrification". Fresno Bee. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
  65. ^ 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.
  66. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael (27 February 2017). "Caltrain acts to keep electrification plan alive". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  67. ^ "Contractors Agree To 3-Month Deadline Extension With Caltrain On Electrification Project". Bay City News Service. 27 February 2017. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  68. ^ "Current Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Projects". Federal Transit Administration. 2017. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
  69. ^ Morain, Dan (24 February 2017). "Kevin McCarthy displays his clout, for good and ill". Sacramento Bee. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
  70. ^ Siders, David; Marinucci, Carla; Ocasio, Bianca Padro (27 February 2017). "TRUMP electrifies CA REPUBLICANS — ISSA's EVOLUTION — NUNES doubles down on CALTRAIN". California Playbook. Politico. Retrieved 28 March 2017. 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."
  71. ^ Cite error: The named reference Slate-Grabar was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  72. ^ Editorial Board (24 March 2017). "House Republicans launch a petty attack on a smart rail project". Sacramento Bee. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
  73. ^ Editorial Board (24 February 2017). "Editorial: Feds should electrify Caltrain, kill bullet train". East Bay Times. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
  74. ^ Editorial Board (13 March 2017). "A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 April 2017.
  75. ^ Grabar, Henry (16 February 2017). "If Elaine Chao Axes This Bay Area Rail Funding, We'll Know She's Politicizing Transportation". Moneybox (blog). Slate. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
  76. ^ Garcia, Feliks (22 February 2017). "Donald Trump's administration kills funding for California's clean energy electric rail project". The Independent. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
  77. ^ Silicon Valley Leadership Group (23 March 2017). "Letter to President Trump and Transportation Secretary Chao". Letter to President Trump and Transportation Secretary Chao. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
  78. ^ Murphy, Katy (3 March 2017). "Call me? Jerry Brown urges Trump administration to fund Caltrain project". East Bay Times. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
  79. ^ "Jerry Brown meets with Republicans, 'cautiously optimistic' about Caltrain approval". Sacramento Bee. March 21, 2017. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  80. ^ Lochhead, Carolyn (21 March 2017). "Brown 'cautiously optimistic' about federal Caltrain funding". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  81. ^ Tasha Bartholomew (April 21, 2016). "Modernization: Electrifying the Bay Area's Silicon Valley Rail Corridor". Mass Transit Magazine. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  82. ^ a b "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Status Update (Feb 2017)" (PDF). Caltrain. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  83. ^ a b Kezra, Victoria (4 April 2017). "Sunnyvale council gets update on Caltrain modernization". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 5 April 2017.
  84. ^ a b c 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.
  85. ^ 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.
  86. ^ "Electrification of Caltrain to Be Discussed Tonight". San Francisco Chronicle. 6 September 2000. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  87. ^ a b Simon, Mark (29 February 2000). "Getting Commuters On Track / Strategy for more riders on Caltrains sooner". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  88. ^ 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.
  89. ^ 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.
  90. ^ 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.
  91. ^ "2016 Annual Passenger Counts" (PDF). May 5, 2016. p. 3. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  92. ^ "Caltrain 2025". Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 2007. Archived from the original on 21 October 2007. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
  93. ^ a b c d Cabanatuan, Michael (4 May 2009). "Peninsula cities want high-speed rail tunnel". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  94. ^ a b Cabanatuan, Michael (3 September 2010). "Pacheco Pass high-speed rail route wins again". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  95. ^ a b Pandika, Melissa M. (3 March 2013). "Caltrain electrification churns high-speed rail controversy". Peninsula Press. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  96. ^ Matier, Phil; Ross, Andrew (18 February 2016). "High-speed rail on fast track to Bay Area". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  97. ^ 49 CFR 211.A
  98. ^ 49 CFR 238
  99. ^ Rosenberg, Mike (27 May 2010). "Electric train plan granted key waiver". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  100. ^ 49 CFR 236
  101. ^ Cothen Jr., Grady C. (27 May 2010). "Docket Number FRA-2009-0124". Letter to Michael Scanlon. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  102. ^ 49 CFR 238.203
  103. ^ "FRA-2009-0124 Caltrain – Waiver Petition". Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation. 2016. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  104. ^ 49 CFR 236
  105. ^ Cothen Jr., Grady C. (27 May 2010). "Docket Number FRA-2009-0124". Letter to Michael Scanlon. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  106. ^ Hartnett, Jim (22 September 2015). "Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Waiver, Docket Number FRA-2009-0124". Letter to Ronald Hynes. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  107. ^ Lauby, Robert C. "Docket Number FRA-2009-0124". Letter to Jim Hartnett. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  108. ^ "Major rail carriers slow to adopt safety technology". San Francisco Chronicle. Associated Press. 28 November 2016. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  109. ^ a b c d e f ICF International (February 2014). "2: Project Description" (PDF). Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project EIR (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Retrieved 14 June 2018.
  110. ^ ICF International; Walter, Rich (February 2016). Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Environmental Re-Evaluation for Proposed Project Changes After Finding of No Significant Impact (December 2009); Changed Traction Power Facility Locations, Overhead Contact System and Electrical Safety Zone Alignments, and Right of Way Acquisition (PDF) (Report). Federal Transit Administration. Retrieved 14 June 2018.
  111. ^ a b Sibal, Vinod (April 2010). Technical Memorandum: Traction Power 2x25kV Autotransformer Feed Type Electrification System & System Voltages, TM 3.1.1.1 (PDF) (Report). California High-Speed Rail Authority. Retrieved 14 June 2018.
  112. ^ "Resolution SED-2 adopting safety requirements governing the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of the 25 kV AC (Alternating Current) railroad electrification system of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) on the San Francisco Peninsula Rail Corridor". DOC Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Electric Safety and Reliability Branch, Safety and Enforcement Division. 10 November 2016. Retrieved 14 June 2018.
  113. ^ a b c d e "2: Project Description" (PDF). Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Final Environmental Impact Report (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. December 2014. Retrieved 7 April 2017.
  114. ^ a b c "Caltrain Board Authorizes Release of Electrification Design Build RFP" (Press release). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 6 February 2015. Archived from the original on 7 May 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
  115. ^ a b c "Caltrain Releases Electrification Project Draft Environmental Impact Report" (Press release). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 28 February 2014. Archived from the original on 7 May 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
  116. ^ Peninsula Corridor Electrification Proect (PCEP) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), February 2014 (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. February 2014. Archived from the original on 7 May 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
  117. ^ a b "Caltrain Board Certifies Final Environmental Impact Report and Approves Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project" (Press release). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 8 January 2015. Archived from the original on 7 May 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
  118. ^ Wolk, Lois (30 September 2014). "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". Secretary of State, State of California. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
  119. ^ "Caltrain Gets Clearance to Proceed with Design/Build Plans for Electrification" (Press release). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 6 October 2014. Archived from the original on 7 May 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
  120. ^ Peninsula Corridor Electrification Proect (PCEP) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), January 2015 (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. January 2015. Archived from the original on 7 May 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
  121. ^ "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" (PDF). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 22 May 2014. Archived from the original on 2 April 2017. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
  122. ^ a b "Caltrain Modernization Program: High-Performance Electric Trains". Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 2017. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
  123. ^ "Caltrain lands FRA waiver for passenger operations". Railway Age. June 1, 2010. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  124. ^ "KISS Double-Decker Electric Multiple Unit EMU" (PDF). Stadler Rail. Retrieved April 4, 2017.
  125. ^ "Caltrain proposed FY 2017 capital budget" (PDF). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 2 June 2016. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
  126. ^ "Caltrain Modernization Program 4th Quarter FY 2016 Progress Report" (PDF). Caltrain. Retrieved March 29, 2017.

External links[edit]

Caltrain videos[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mliu92/sandbox/Caltrain_Modernization&oldid=1167798717"