Caltrain Modernization Program

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pi.1415926535 (talk | contribs) at 03:12, 12 July 2017 (- 4 categories using HotCat (duplicates of Category:Caltrain)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The CalMod logo.
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 (PTC) 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). According to Caltrain, electrification of the tracks will allow it 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.

Proposals for electrifying the line began as early as 1992, when the California Department of Transportation conducted an early feasibility study. For two decades, the project lay dormant due to lack of funding until Caltrain agreed to share its tracks with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), which was looking for a route for the constitutionally-mandated San Jose—San Francisco segment. The Authority agreed to partially fund the electrification project in exchange for rights to share the track. Construction contracts for electrification were awarded on July 2016 and groundbreaking was expected to occur in March 2017, but was delayed when the new United States Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao indefinitely deferred federal funding just before construction was about to begin. That same month, Caltrain removed the contractor responsible for implementing PTC for failure to perform on-budget and on-schedule. Two months later in May 2017, FTA announced its intention to sign the grant reversing Secretary Chao's deferment.

When completed, CalMod will electrify 51 miles (82 km) of tracks between 4th and King station and Tamien Station and install a PTC management system along the tracks. PTC 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. Funding for the project comes from various federal, state, and local sources, including from the CHSRA. 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

Background

An image of Caltrain's current diesel locomotive, an EMD F40PH model.
Caltrain has been using diesel locomotives (EMD F40PH 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 (SP) in 1870. SP announced that it would investigate the electrification of its line in September 1921, promising better and more frequent service.[1] However, SP cited excessive post-war inflation, taxation, and competition from publicly-funded highways as factors making electrification neither "practicable or desirable".[2] In the early 1950s, SP began introducing diesel locomotives on the route.[3] 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.[4]

Early electrification proposals

In 1992, Caltrans released the first feasibility study detailing the possibility of electrifying the railroad between San Francisco and San Jose.[5] 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.[5] 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.[5] 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 twelve minutes, and using EMUs would cut the time over the same distance by up to 23 minutes, assuming the use of ten-car trainsets.[5] 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.[5]

An image of an electric locomotive, an AEM-7 model, that was proposed in a 1992 study.
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, 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.[6] 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.[6] 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.[7] At that time, Caltrain was touting daily ridership of approximately 25,000 passengers, a 40-year high.[6]

The 1998 Rapid Rail Study assumed that ridership would increase in direct proportion to improving travel times.[7] 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.[7] 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.[7][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 future expansion of the system, including service to Union City across the Dumbarton Rail Bridge and increased service to Gilroy.[7]

Caltrain/HSR blended system

A map detailing California high-speed rail's "bookend projects", or projects at the tail end of high-speed rail route to improve public transportation and access to high-speed rail stations.
The first phase of California's high-speed rail project includes funding for public transit systems along its route, including Caltrain.

Despite increasing ridership, Caltrain experienced a budget crisis in 2011 that nearly forced it to cut service to peak commute hours only,[9] while funding sources for electrification remained unidentified. At the same time, 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. In response, U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo, 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.[10][11] Later, Caltrain announced that it had studied the plan and believed it to be feasible.[12]

Details of a proposed agreement between Caltrain and the CHSRA leaked in February 2012, which stated that $1 billion could be available from the high-speed rail project to help fund the CalMod project, including the positive train control system (dubbed "CBOSS"), electrification of the infrastructure, and elimination of some grade crossings.[13] Under the agreement, the Peninsula Corridor would become eligible for high-speed rail money because the planned routing to San Francisco would use the same lines.[13] The investments in the "bookend" electrification projects were intended to allow high-speed rail to share infrastructure with existing passenger rail services.[14] In March 2012, Caltrain and other local agencies signed a memorandum of understanding with the CHSRA that detailed the "blended" plan,[15][16] which received approval from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission a week later.[17]

Under the memorandum, $706 million from the high-speed rail bond would be matched by state, regional, and local transportation funds to pay for the estimated $1.5 billion needed for CalMod.[16][17] 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.[18] In September 2012, the California Transportation Commission released $39.8 million to modernize CBOSS.[19] A month later, the expected funding from high-speed rail bonds rose to $1.5 billion, which alongside electrification provided funding for the planned Downtown Extension (DTX), which would move the northern terminus of the Caltrain line from 4th and King to the Transbay Transit Center.[20] CHSRA approved the issue of bonds in December 2016.[21] 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.[22]

Lawsuits

An image of a train station, including tracks, platforms, and a shelter.
The southbound platform of the Atherton station. The town of Atherton has backed litigation against Caltrain's electrification plans.

The town of Atherton, which lies on the tracks, was an early and vocal opponent of electrification.[23] 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.[23]

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.[24] 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.[25] 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."[25] Atherton mayor Rick De Golia was quoted as saying "Caltrain is locked into an old technology and 20th century thinking."[25] 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.[26] 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.[27][28]

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[27]

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.[21] Instead, the funding was allowed to be redirected under the recently-passed Assembly Bill 1889,[14][29] which had been championed by Assemblymember Kevin Mullin in 2015.[21] 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."[21]

Contracts awarded

Parsons Transportation Group was awarded a $138 million contract in November 2011 to design and install CBOSS by October 2015.[30] CBOSS kicked off physical work in September 2013, starting the installation of a fiber optic line along the Caltrain right-of-way.[31] The FRA approved Caltrain's plans in 2014 and Caltrain noted that CBOSS was due to enter revenue service by the end of 2015.[32] 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),[30][32] 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.[33]

The PCEP draft environmental impact report (EIR) was released in February 2014.[34] After the final EIR addressed the comments received, PCJPB certified the final EIR in January 2015.[35] A pre-qualification survey was sent out in May 2014, and six firms were pre-qualified to bid on PCEP, which was eventually awarded to Balfour Beatty Construction.[36]

In July 2016, Caltrain's Board of Directors awarded contracts to Balfour Beatty and Stadler Rail to construct infrastructure for the electric trains and the electric trains themselves, respectively.[37][38] 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.[39] 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.[39][40] The contract also marks the first American design win for the Stadler KISS.[39]

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).[41] APTA noted that Caltrain was not effectively managing the project schedule and cost because of generally poor communication between Caltrain's project management and Parsons, and Caltrain's project manager did not have the technical experience or authority to resolve technical and contractual issues with Parsons.[41] In February 2017, Caltrain terminated its contract with Parsons for failure to perform on time and budget and announced potential litigation.[42] Parsons filed suit on February 22, saying delays were due to changing client requirements and circumstances beyond their control.[43] Caltrain filed suit a week later, seeking $98 million in damages; although the system has been mostly installed, testing is still incomplete.[44]

Federal funding interruption

An image of Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao.
Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao deferred expected federal funding for the electrification project just before construction was about to commence.

In early 2016, the CHSRA had selected a route that required extensive and costly tunneling in Southern California and revised its initial operating plans for high-speed rail to include the Bay Area.[45] 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.[46] 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,[46] 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 grant approval.[47][48] 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.[49] The letter went on to call the project "an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars".[50]

The Sacramento Bee pointed out that despite regularly soliciting campaign funds from Silicon Valley business leaders, Representative and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the author of the Republican letter to Secretary Chao, was targeting a project that benefited the region directly.[51] Another Republican signatory, Representative Devin Nunes, was unmoved by arguments on infrastructure benefits, saying in late February that he would not "feel too bad about one of the richest places on the planet not having a train."[52] Fellow Republican Representative Jeff Denham defended the letter, saying Caltrain's electrification project and CHSRA were closely intertwined because the former derived some funding under the "blended plan" agreement.[53] Representative Tom McClintock reiterated his opposition to high-speed rail without addressing Caltrain: "I have never supported a dollar of state funding going for [high-speed rail], and would never support a dollar of federal funding."[53] Representative Mimi Walters also made a statement that she was not opposed to electrification, but instead held "serious concerns about the use of taxpayer funds for a project that is tied to high speed rail".[54]

The 39-member House and Senate Democratic congressional delegation from California wrote a rebuttal letter to Secretary Chao on February 3, noting "a material misstatement of fact" in the Republican delegation's letter, which stated that the grant was being sought by the CHSRA, while in reality it is being sought by Caltrain. The rebuttal letter further delineated the separation between the electrification project and CHSRA and urged Secretary Chao to approve the grant by citing past precedent that only one low-rated project failed to receive a signature from the Secretary of Transportation over the prior twenty-year history of the Core Capacity program.[55] 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.[56]

In the end, 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".[57][58] Caltrain had expected Secretary Chao to approve the grant and sign the grant agreement by March 1, which is normally a pro forma step performed after the thirty-day comment period for a highly-rated project, and had already awarded construction contracts.[47][59] 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.[47][60] 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 approved projects would continue to be funded.[48] Since Secretary Chao had withheld grant approval for the electrification project, its future fell into doubt.[48]

In response to the grant deferral, various local officials traveled to Washington D.C. in order to lobby federal officials to release the money. Editorials in local and national newspapers urged approval of the grant, including the Sacramento Bee, which called the deferral "a petty attack",[61] the East Bay Times, a noted CHSRA detractor,[62] and The New York Times, which called the delay "counter to Mr. Trump's campaign promises of increased infrastructure spending."[63] Henry Grabar noted the grant deferral could be "an early test of a simmering fear that the state's outspoken political opposition to the Trump administration might come with a price".[54] 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".[59] In early March, California Governor Jerry Brown sent a letter to Secretary Chao, asking to discuss the funding grant,[64] and subsequently met with Secretary Chao and Representative McCarthy, urging them to reconsider the funding deferral, saying afterward that he was "cautiously optimistic" that the money would be released.[65]

On April 30, legislators in the U.S. Congress released the proposed 2017 federal budget, which included partial funding for the electrification project, but restricts its distribution unless Secretary Chao signs off on the grant.[66] The proposed budget includes $100 million of the $647 million grant, with the balance expected in future years. Secretary Chao claimed she could not sign the grant without the full grant being budgeted, which was disputed by Caltrain and both California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris.[67] On May 22, the FTA announced its intent to sign the funding grant, restoring the final piece of funding for the electrification project.[68] The official grant was finally signed on May 23.[69]

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[70]

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.[71] New electrical infrastructure 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 (two traction power stations, a switching station approximately halfway along the line, and seven paralleling stations).[71] Land totaling 290,000 sq ft (6.7 acres)* will be acquired from private property owners along the Peninsula Corridor in order to set up safety buffer zones between the overhead contact system and public property; PCJPB authorized eminent domain proceedings in July 2017 in case negotiations break down.[72] Barriers will be installed where road and pedestrian bridges cross over tracks to prevent damage to the electrical wires.[71] New electric trainsets will be purchased for use on the new electrified segment, while service from Tamien to Gilroy station, which is not planned to be electrified, will continue to be served with existing diesel locomotives.[73]

The second part of the CalMod project is a positive train control system dubbed "CBOSS" (Communications Based Overlay Signal System), which is designed to meet federal safety requirements and as a condition set by the FRA to allow mixed traffic on the corridor. Key decisions in the development of CalMod can be traced back to the 1992 Feasibility Study, which recommended 25 kV AC overhead lines;[5] the 1998 Rapid Rail Study, which recommended low-cost upgrades to first improve service and build demand;[7] the 2006 Caltrain 2025 proposal, which first proposed the use of lightweight electric multiple units;[74] the 2009–10 FRA waiver, which imposed certain conditions on mixed traffic;[75] 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.[15] The 2012 Blended Operations report concluded a new 8-mile (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 Caltrain and four high-speed rail trains.[12]

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.[76] They will also replace Caltrain's current diesel locomotives and passenger cars, a significant portion of which are nearing the end of their lives.[76] 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.[73]

FRA waiver and CBOSS PTC

An image of a Stadler "KISS" electric train.
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.[77] CHSRA had proposed that mandated speeds and transit times could be met by using lighter-weight vehicles that did not comply with Federal requirements.[77] These required physical separation between FRA "compliant" and "non-compliant" rail vehicles[78] and structural strength.[79] Caltrain saw this as an opportunity to apply for an FRA waiver to run lighter-weight EMUs, which could accelerate faster and provide headways as low as five minutes.[75] The December 2009 FRA waiver application detailed Caltrain's plans to prevent collisions: first, reduce the probability of collisions to nearly zero by employing temporal and spatial separation from freight rail and restricting freight traffic to the non-revenue hours, then mitigate the impact of a collision by deploying vehicles with crash energy management (CEM) structures, and then deployment of an enhanced positive train control system, which Caltrain named CBOSS, designed to check for speeding trains and protect rail workers.[75]

Positive train control became a Federal mandate with the passing of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, enacted in the wake of the fatal 2008 Chatsworth train collision crash.[75] After review, the FRA waiver was granted in May 2010, marking the first time lighter-weight EMUs were allowed to share rails with freight in the United States.[80] 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[81] with CBOSS, formalizing the temporal separation plan, and issuing a safety system program.[82]

Service changes

A new weekday schedule became effective on April 10, 2017 to allow PCEP work. The weekend schedule will be changed starting in the summer of 2017, which will increase headways (and decrease service frequency) from 60 minutes to 90 minutes between trains. The revised schedules are anticipated to be in effect until 2020, when construction associated with PCEP has completed.[83]

Rolling stock

An image of a Stadler "KISS" electric train.

The Stadler KISS double-decker EMU that Caltrain ordered will be compliant with FRA alternative Tier-I crash-worthiness standard, in which it will have Crash Energy Management (CEM) features that allow parts of the EMU to collapse whilst keeping the passenger seating area intact in the event of collision, instead of relying on pure structural strength as in the traditional Tier-I standard, leading to a lighter train that will save energy and track maintenance cost. Coupled with the positive train control system that is being installed on the Caltrain line, Caltrain KISS trains will be allowed to operate in mix traffic with heavier trains, such as Amtrak passenger trains and Union Pacific freight trains, instead of the temporal separation required in the 2009 waiver.

Because the existing Caltrain platforms are at a different height compared to proposed high-speed rail vehicles, the EMU train will be equipped with doors at two heights, at 22-inch (560 mm) and 50.5-inch (1,280 mm) above-top-of-rail, allowing Caltrain to eventually transition from the existing 8-inch (200 mm) low platforms to CHSRA compatible high platforms for ADA-compliant unassisted boarding of all passengers.[84]

Electric Rolling Stock Compared with Existing Diesel Locomotives
  EMD
F40PH-2[85] 		MPI
M36PH-3C[86] 		EMD
AEM-7[87] 		Stadler
KISS EMU[84]
Length 56 ft 2 in
(17.12 m) 		68 ft
(21 m) 		53 ft
(16 m) 		515 ft 3 in
(157.05 m)
(6-car set)
Weight 260,000 lb
(120,000 kg) 		265,000 lb
(120,000 kg) 		200,000 lb
(91,000 kg) 		208,400 lb
(94,500 kg)
(per car)
Power 3,000 hp
(2,200 kW) 		3,600 hp
(2,700 kW) 		6,700 hp
(5,000 kW) 		8,000 hp
(6,000 kW)
(6-car set)
Starting tractive effort 65,000 lbf
(290,000 N) 		85,000 lbf
(380,000 N) 		51,700 lbf
(230,000 N) 		122,000 lbf
(540,000 N)
(6-car set)

As Amtrak is in the process of replacing its fleet of EMD AEM-7 locomotives with Siemens ACS-64, PCJPB entered discussions to purchase several retired AEM-7s to test the electrification system and to serve as reserve locomotives in the event of EMU unavailability. Because of the delay in delivering ACS-64s, the target sale date for the AEM-7 was moved out to June 2016.[88]

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, will come from Federal Transit Administration's Core Capacity grant, with the funding agreement approved on May 22, 2017 after a three-month delay.[89] 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.[90]

References

  1. ^ "Electrifying of S.P. to be investigated". Sacramento Union. September 7, 1921. Retrieved April 27, 2017.
  2. ^ "Not Practicable to Electrify Lines Down Peninsula—Sproule". Sacramento Union. September 17, 1921. Retrieved April 27, 2017.
  3. ^ "Early Milestones". Caltrain. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  4. ^ "Historic Milestones". Caltrain. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  5. ^ 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.
  6. ^ a b c Lewis, Gregory (July 7, 1997). "Backers: Downtown Caltrain link dead". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved February 27, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  7. ^ a b c d e f Caltrain; STV Incorporated (October 1, 1998). Draft Caltrain Rapid Rail Study (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  8. ^ a b c d Pimentel, Benjamin (September 28, 1998). "Caltrain Wants Fast Electric S.F.-San Jose Rail Link / It must decide whether to do repairs first". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  9. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael (January 21, 2011). "Caltrain seeks answers to funding crisis". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 30, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  10. ^ 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)
  11. ^ "EDITORIAL: Keeping Calif. high-speed rail plan on track". San Francisco Chronicle. April 21, 2011. Retrieved March 30, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  12. ^ a b LTK Engineering Services (March 2012). Caltrain/California HSR Blended Operations Analysis (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Retrieved April 4, 2017.
  13. ^ a b Cabanatuan, Michael (February 13, 2012). "Caltrain plan would fast-track electric rail". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  14. ^ a b Mullin, Kevin (September 28, 2016). "An act to add Section 2704.78 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation". Secretary of State, State of California. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
  15. ^ 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.
  16. ^ a b Cabanatuan, Michael (March 22, 2012). "Caltrain upgrades a step toward high-speed rail". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  17. ^ a b Cabanatuan, Michael (March 29, 2012). "MTC approves Caltrain electrification plan". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  18. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael (July 28, 2012). "Fast electric Caltrain still years away". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  19. ^ Silverfarb, Bill (September 28, 2012). "Modernization dream now reality". San Mateo Daily Journal. Retrieved March 26, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  20. ^ Matier, Phil; Ross, Andrew (November 4, 2012). "$1.5 billion Caltrain deal packs some big extras". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  21. ^ a b c d Weigel, Samantha (December 15, 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 . Retrieved March 31, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  22. ^ Pandika, Melissa M. (March 3, 2013). "Caltrain electrification churns high-speed rail controversy". Peninsula Press. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  23. ^ a b Whiting, Sam (July 25, 2004). "End of an Era / Caltrain's electrification plans threaten Atherton's railroad charm". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  24. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael (February 10, 2015). "Atherton, high-speed rail foes sue to block electrifying Caltrain". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  25. ^ a b c Orr, John (July 8, 2015). "Atherton lawsuit against Caltrain over electrification project clears one hurdle". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved March 31, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  26. ^ Orr, John (July 11, 2016). "Atherton won't seek temporary injunction in fight with Caltrain". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved March 31, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  27. ^ 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. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  28. ^ Wood, Barbara (September 28, 2016). "Atherton loses lawsuit over Caltrain electrification project". The Almanac. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
  29. ^ 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.
  30. ^ a b "Parsons Selected by Caltrain for Communications-Based Overlay Signal System Positive Train Control" (PDF) (Press release). Parsons News. November 22, 2011. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
  31. ^ "Caltrain Modernization Kicks Off Advanced Signal System Work" (Press release). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. September 17, 2013. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved March 31, 2017. {{cite press release}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  32. ^ a b "Caltrain Receives FRA Approval to Proceed with New Positive Train Control System" (Press release). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. October 16, 2014. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved March 31, 2017. {{cite press release}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  33. ^ "Major rail carriers slow to adopt safety technology". San Francisco Chronicle. Associated Press. November 28, 2016. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  34. ^ Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), February 2014 (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. February 2014. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved April 2, 2017. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  35. ^ Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), January 2015 (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. January 2015. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved April 2, 2017. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  36. ^ "Caltrain Board Authorizes Release of Electrification Design Build RFP" (Press release). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. February 6, 2015. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved April 2, 2017. {{cite press release}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  37. ^ "Caltrain's Board Approves Electrification Design-Build and EMU Contracts" (Press release). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. July 7, 2016. Archived from the original on April 3, 2017. Retrieved April 2, 2017. {{cite press release}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  38. ^ Vantuono, William C. (July 8, 2016). "Caltrain awards electrtification, EMU contracts". Railway Age. Retrieved April 2, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  39. ^ a b c "Caltrain inks contracts with Balfour Beatty, Stadler for electrification project". Progressive Railroading. August 17, 2016. Retrieved April 2, 2017.
  40. ^ 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)
  41. ^ a b North American Transit Services Association (July 4, 2016). American Public Transportation Association Peer Review for Caltrain, San Carlos, California (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 1, 2017. Retrieved March 31, 2017. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  42. ^ "Caltrain Terminates Contract with Parsons Transportation Group (PTG)" (Press release). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. February 24, 2017. Archived from the original on April 1, 2017. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite press release}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  43. ^ Baldassari, Erin (March 1, 2017). "Caltrain fires contractor before testing of new safety system is completed". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved April 4, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  44. ^ Renda, Matthew (March 6, 2017). "Caltrain, Safety Contractor Trade Lawsuits". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved April 6, 2017.
  45. ^ Matier, Phil; Ross, Andrew (February 18, 2016). "High-speed rail on fast track to Bay Area". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  46. ^ a b "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Core Capacity Engineering" (PDF). Federal Transit Administration. August 2016. Retrieved April 4, 2017.
  47. ^ a b c 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)
  48. ^ a b c Brekke, Dan (March 17, 2017). "Trump transportation plan could derail Bay Area transit projects". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  49. ^ Matier, Phil; Ross, Andrew (February 6, 2017). "With Trump in charge, Republicans target Caltrain". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 4, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)(subscription required)
  50. ^ 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 (January 24, 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)
  51. ^ Morain, Dan (February 24, 2017). "Kevin McCarthy displays his clout, for good and ill". Sacramento Bee. Retrieved March 28, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  52. ^ Siders, David; Marinucci, Carla; Ocasio, Bianca Padro (February 27, 2017). "TRUMP electrifies CA REPUBLICANS — ISSA's EVOLUTION — NUNES doubles down on CALTRAIN". California Playbook. Politico. Retrieved March 28, 2017. 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.
  53. ^ a b Murphy, Katy (February 7, 2017). "Political battle threatens to halt Caltrain electrification project". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved April 4, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  54. ^ a b Grabar, Henry (February 16, 2017). "If Elaine Chao Axes This Bay Area Rail Funding, We'll Know She's Politicizing Transportation". Slate: Moneybox (blog). Retrieved March 28, 2017.
  55. ^ 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. (February 3, 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)
  56. ^ Weigel, Samantha (February 8, 2017). "Dems fight for electrification: congressional debate centers on funding for Caltrain modernization". San Mateo Daily Journal. Retrieved April 1, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  57. ^ Weigel, Samantha (February 18, 2017). "Electrification funds in peril: Federal Transit Administration delays $647 million Caltrain decision". San Mateo Daily Journal. Retrieved April 4, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  58. ^ Matier, Phil; Ross, Andrew (February 17, 2017). "Trump administration deals a big setback to Caltrain". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  59. ^ 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)
  60. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael (February 27, 2017). "Caltrain acts to keep electrification plan alive". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  61. ^ Editorial Board (March 24, 2017). "House Republicans launch a petty attack on a smart rail project". Sacramento Bee. Retrieved March 28, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  62. ^ Editorial Board (February 24, 2017). "Editorial: Feds should electrify Caltrain, kill bullet train". East Bay Times. Retrieved March 28, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  63. ^ Editorial Board (March 13, 2017). "A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck". The New York Times. Retrieved April 5, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  64. ^ Murphy, Katy (March 3, 2017). "Call me? Jerry Brown urges Trump administration to fund Caltrain project". East Bay Times. Retrieved March 28, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  65. ^ "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)
  66. ^ "TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017" (PDF). U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved May 2, 2017.
  67. ^ Tolan, Casey (May 17, 2017). "Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao says she can't approve Caltrain electrification grant yet". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved May 19, 2017.
  68. ^ Rodriguez, Joe Fitzgerald (May 22, 2017). "Feds flip, will approve funding for Caltrain electrification". San Francisco Examiner. Retrieved May 22, 2017.
  69. ^ "It's officially done. Caltrain's GM, Jim Hartnett, signed the FFGA @USDOT this morning". Official Caltrain Twitter Account. May 23, 2017. Retrieved May 28, 2017.
  70. ^ 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)
  71. ^ a b c "2: Project Description". Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Final Environmental Impact Report (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. December 2014. Retrieved April 7, 2017.
  72. ^ Weigel, Samantha (July 7, 2017). "Caltrain may take private land". San Mateo Daily Journal. Retrieved July 11, 2017.
  73. ^ a b "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Status Update (Feb 2017)" (PDF). Caltrain. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  74. ^ Project 2025 (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. November 30, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 26, 2007. Retrieved March 29, 2017. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  75. ^ 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 March 30, 2017.
  76. ^ a b Kezra, Victoria (April 4, 2017). "Sunnyvale council gets update on Caltrain modernization". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved April 5, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  77. ^ a b 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 28, 2017.
  78. ^ 49 CFR 211.A
  79. ^ 49 CFR 238
  80. ^ Rosenberg, Mike (May 27, 2010). "Electric train plan granted key waiver". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved March 30, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  81. ^ 49 CFR 236
  82. ^ Cothen Jr., Grady C. (May 27, 2010). "Docket Number FRA-2009-0124". Letter to Michael Scanlon. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
  83. ^ "2017 Caltrain Service Changes". Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. March 7, 2017. Archived from the original on May 23, 2017. Retrieved May 23, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  84. ^ a b "KISS Double-Decker Electric Multiple Unit EMU for Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (CALTRAIN), California, USA" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 6, 2016. Retrieved October 16, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  85. ^ "EMD F40PH-2". The Diesel Shop US. Retrieved April 28, 2017.
  86. ^ "Motive Power Industries M36PH-3C". The Diesel Shop US. Retrieved April 28, 2017.
  87. ^ Raul V. Bravo and Associates; Parsons Transportation Group (August 2000). "Appendix 7: Locomotives Comparison of Technical Data". Assessment of Electrically Powered Rolling Stock Equipment (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Retrieved May 23, 2017.
  88. ^ Caltrain Modernization Program, Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) 3rd Quarter FY 2016 Progress Report (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. May 2016. Retrieved April 7, 2017.
  89. ^ "Feds Approve $647 Million Grant for Caltrain Electrification Project". KQED. May 22, 2017.
  90. ^ "Caltrain Modernization Program 4th Quarter FY 2016 Progress Report" (PDF). Caltrain. Retrieved March 29, 2017.

External links

Caltrain videos

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caltrain_Modernization_Program&oldid=790183065"