This is a good article. Follow the link for more information.

Electrification of Caltrain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 the U.S. commuter railroad Caltrain, which serves 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 railway tunnel (the Downtown Rail Extension) into downtown San Francisco's Transbay Transit Center (as 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. In May 2017, the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) announced its intention to sign the grant and reversed Secretary Chao's deferment. Construction formally began two months later.

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 2021, 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.

History[edit]

Background[edit]

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.

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] By 1977, Southern Pacific were facing rapidly declining ridership and petitioned the state Public Utilities Commission to allow them to discontinue the commuter rail 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[edit]

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 a fleet of EMD AEM-7 electric locomotives to move the existing gallery passenger cars or Metro North Budd M-2/M-4 EMUs.[6] 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.[7] Because of the relatively close spacing between stops, the improved acceleration using electric locomotives compared to the existing diesel-electric 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.[6] 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, which had been built in 1985, were then relatively new and could be reused.[8]

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.[9] 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.[9] Instead, Caltrain studied a list of potential upgrades and went on to publish a draft Rapid Rail Study on October 1, 1998, which prioritized capital improvements to the physical infrastructure with the overarching goal of expanding rail service.[10] At that time, Caltrain was reporting daily ridership of approximately 25,000 passengers, a 40-year high.[9]

The 1998 Rapid Rail Study assumed that ridership would increase in direct proportion to improving travel times.[11] 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.[12] 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.[13] Some of the money to accomplish the rehabilitation and enhancement of existing track came from funds that had been intended for the downtown extension.[13] 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.[13] 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.[13] The electrification of Caltrain was assigned a higher priority than a future expansion of the system, which included proposals to bring service to Union City across the Dumbarton Rail Bridge and increased service to Gilroy.[14] Under the latest proposal to revive rail service over the Dumbarton Rail Corridor, diesel multiple units would first be used to establish Dumbarton Rail service as a rail shuttle between a new rail station in Newark and Caltrain's Redwood City station, later extending service from Newark to Union City, and finally followed by a commuter rail operation running from Union City to San Francisco and San Jose using EMUs.[15]

In 2003, The San Francisco County Transit Authority proposed Proposition K in San Francisco, a local transportation sales tax. Voters were given an expenditure plan estimating the total cost of Caltrain electrification as $183.5 Million with San Francisco's share costing $20.5M, met with Proposition K, which passed.[16]

Caltrain/HSR blended system[edit]

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,[17] 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.[18][19] Later, Caltrain announced that it had studied the plan and believed it to be feasible.[20]

Under a proposed agreement between Caltrain and the CHSRA, details of which were leaked in February 2012, up to $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.[21] 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.[21] This was one of two investments in "bookend" electrification projects, which were intended to upgrade existing passenger rail services near the planned CHSRA San Francisco and Los Angeles terminals to allow high-speed rail to share infrastructure.[22] In March 2012, Caltrain and other local agencies signed a memorandum of understanding with the CHSRA that detailed the blended plan,[23][24] which received approval from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission a week later.[25]

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.[24][25] 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.[26] In September 2012, the California Transportation Commission released $39.8 million to modernize CBOSS.[27] 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.[28] CHSRA approved the issue of bonds in December 2016.[22] 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.[29]

Lawsuits[edit]

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.[30] 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.[30]

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.[31] 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.[32] 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."[32] Atherton mayor Rick De Golia was quoted as saying "Caltrain is locked into an old technology and 20th century thinking."[32] 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.[33] In September 2016, Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Barry Goode sided with Caltrain, ruling that the electrification project did not hinge on the high-speed rail project's success, and was thus independent from the latter.[34][35]

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[34]

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.[22] In response, the California legislature allowed the funding to be redirected by passing Assembly Bill No. 1889, which had been championed by Assemblymember Kevin Mullin in 2015.[36] 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."[22]

Contracts awarded[edit]

Parsons Transportation Group was awarded a $138 million contract in November 2011 to design and install CBOSS by October 2015.[37] Parsons began physical work on CBOSS in September 2013, starting with the installation of a fiber optic line along the Caltrain right-of-way.[38] The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) approved Caltrain's plans in 2014 and Caltrain noted that CBOSS was due to enter revenue service by the end of 2015.[39] 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),[37][39] 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.[40]

The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) draft environmental impact report was released in February 2014.[41] After addressing comments received, PCJPB certified the final environmental impact report in January 2015.[42] A pre-qualification survey was sent out in May 2014, and six firms were pre-qualified to bid on PCEP construction, which was eventually awarded to Balfour Beatty Construction.[43]

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.[44][45] 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.[46] The Swiss firm Stadler was awarded a $551 million contract to deliver 96 of their "KISS" bilevel electric multiple unit cars, formed into 16 six-car trains. Under the contract, Caltrain holds an option to increase the order with an additional 96 cars in the future.[46][47] The contract also marks the first American design win for the Stadler KISS.[46] Stadler broke ground for a new factory near the Salt Lake City International Airport on October 13, 2017.[48] The first trains are scheduled for delivery in August 2019.[49]

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). 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.[50] In February 2017, Caltrain terminated its contract with Parsons for failure to perform on time and budget and announced potential litigation.[51] Parsons filed suit on February 22, saying delays were due to changing client requirements and circumstances beyond their control.[52] Caltrain filed suit a week later, seeking $98 million in damages; although the system has been mostly installed, testing is still incomplete.[53]

The plan to complete the installation of positive train control (PTC) will be presented to PCJPB in early 2018.[54] At the March 1, 2018 meeting, the PCJPB is expected to vote on awarding the contract to complete PTC to Wabtec. The switch to Wabtec would mean implementing I-ETMS technology, which was evaluated to be "the only technically and financially viable" solution to completing PTC before the FRA's deadline of December 31, 2018.[55]

Federal funding interruption[edit]

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.[56] 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 FTA's Core Capacity program.[57] 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,[57] 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.[58][59] 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.[60] The letter went on to call the project "an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars".[61]

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.[62] 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."[63] 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.[64] 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."[64] 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".[65]

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.[66] 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.[67]

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".[68][69] 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.[58][70] 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.[58][71] 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.[59] Since Secretary Chao had withheld grant approval for the electrification project, its future fell into doubt.[59]

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",[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 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".[65] 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".[70] In early March, California Governor Jerry Brown sent a letter to Secretary Chao, asking to discuss the funding grant,[75] 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.[76]

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.[77] 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.[78] On May 22, the FTA announced its intent to sign the funding grant, restoring the final piece of funding for the electrification project.[79] The official grant was finally signed on May 23.[80]

Construction begins[edit]

Newly installed catenary structures at San Bruno station in July 2018

A new weekday schedule designed to allow time for construction became effective on April 10, 2017. The weekend schedule was revised on July 15, 2017, which decreased frequency from 60 minutes to 90 minutes between trains and eliminated eight trains per weekend day.[81] The revised schedules are anticipated to be in effect until 2020, when construction associated with PCEP has completed.[82]

An official groundbreaking ceremony was held on July 21, 2017 at the Millbrae station.[83][84] As of June 2018, 149 poles had been erected in San Bruno and South San Francisco.[85]

Funding[edit]

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.[86] 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.[87]

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[88]

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 a power substation south of Tamien Station.[89] 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).[90] Land totaling 290,000 sq ft (6.7 acres; 2.7 ha) 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.[91] Barriers will be installed where road and pedestrian bridges cross over tracks to prevent damage to the electrical wires.[92] 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.[93]

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;[8] the 1998 Rapid Rail Study, which recommended low-cost upgrades to first improve service and build demand;[14] the 2006 Caltrain 2025 proposal, which proposed the use of lightweight electric multiple units;[94] the 2009 FRA waiver, which imposed certain conditions on mixed traffic;[95] 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.[96] 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.[97] Peak load on the system assuming twelve eight-EMU consists in each direction per hour was estimated to be approximately 75MW, with the load generally remaining under 40-50MW at any point.[98]

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.[99] They will also replace Caltrain's current diesel locomotives and passenger cars, a significant portion of which are nearing the end of their lives.[99] 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. Daily service may be restored to Atherton and Broadway stations.[100] Caltrain plans to complete the project by the end of 2021.[84]

Electrical station configuration[edit]

Proposed electrical station locations for PCEP
(closest train stop and milepost distance from San Francisco)[101][102] 
  •  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(s) of an electric train. Both the messenger wire and the contact wire are energized with single-phase alternating current at 25kV with a frequency of 60 Hz. 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.[101]

The 2×25kV autotransformer electrification system includes a third energized parallel negative feeder wire which helps control electromagnetic field propagation.[101][103] 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.[104] The choice of a 2×25kV autotransformer system means more traction power facilities are required in total, but also requires fewer traction power substations.[103]

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 Diridon). 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.[101]

A total of ten electrical stations are planned: two traction power substations, one switching station, and seven paralleling stations. 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.[101] The switching station (SWS) will be located near the Redwood Junction, approximately halfway between the two traction power substations. The SWS will include a phase break to electrically isolate the power supplied from each TPS and two 10MVA autotransformers, in a footprint of 80 by 160 feet (24 by 49 m). The paralleling stations (PS) each maintain system voltage with one or two 10MVA autotransformers and have a foot print of 40 by 80 feet (12 by 24 m).[101]

PS3 in Burlingame was originally approved via the FEIR for a location near the intersection of California and Lincoln; however, this would interfere with plans to grade separate the crossing at Broadway, so PS3 was moved west of the tracks to a location near Mills and California.[105] Based on resident objections to the new site, however,[106] the City of Burlingame offered an alternative site east of the tracks at 1369 North Carolan adjacent to the city-owned Corporation Yard.[107][108]

Construction plans[edit]

The PCJPB-owned right-of-way has been divided into four construction segments. From the north, the segments are arranged as:[109]

  1. San Francisco, 22nd Street, Bayshore
  2. (South San Francisco, San Bruno); (Millbrae, Broadway, Burlingame); (San Mateo, Hayward Park, Hillsdale); (Belmont, San Carlos); (Redwood City, Atherton)
  3. Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Stanford, California Avenue, San Antonio, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Lawrence
  4. (Santa Clara, College Park, San Jose Diridon, Tamien)

Segments are further divided into work areas, indicated by brackets in the list above. Work is scheduled to begin in Segments 2 and 4 and proceed from north to south within each segment before moving on to Segments 1 and 3. The first work area will be in the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno.[109] Within each work area, the first two months of activity will involve tree pruning and removal, followed by three to five months of construction of the foundations for the overhead contact system poles. Once the foundations are complete, construction of the electrical station(s) (if present) and pole and wire installation will work in parallel and take about a year. Schedules have been announced for Segment 2, Work Areas 5 (South City/San Bruno),[110] 4 (Millbrae/Burlingame),[111] 3 (San Mateo),[112] 2 (Belmont/San Carlos),[113] and 1 (Redwood City/Atherton).[114][115] Segment/Work Area 4 (San Jose/Santa Clara) spans from Tamien to just north of the Santa Clara station, where the tracks diverge from the Union Pacific tracks near the overpass of De la Cruz Boulevard,[109] and wire installation is scheduled to complete in late 2018.[116]

In Atherton, 18 trees are planned to be removed with an additional 63 trees pruned more than 25%. 83 trees will be replaced as a result, per the Atherton Tree Replacement Plan.[115] Atherton residents objected to the plans in November 2017, stating the five planned double-cantilever side poles (spanning both tracks from one side) were taller than expected, and asked PCJPB to redesign the OCS support to use ten shorter single-cantilever side poles (spanning one track each).[117][118] In their response, PCJPB stated it would cost an additional $200,000 to redesign and would require more extensive tree removal; a later response asked that Atherton pay the difference and indemnify Caltrain from further lawsuits related to PCEP,[119] which Atherton rejected.[118]

When work is being performed at a station, both northbound and southbound trains will stop on the same platform to accommodate station construction. Signs will be posted to indicate which platform remains active for passengers.[109]

Tunnel modifications[edit]

The four tunnels originally constructed for the Bayshore Cutoff will be modified to accommodate overhead wires.[120] The tunnel lining will be notched at the crown to allow clearance under the wire for freight trains, which mainly removes shotcrete placed in 2004, but some of the historical brick lining may be removed as part of the tunnel modification work. In addition, up to 21 inches (530 mm) of the decorative stone portal may be removed. In the FEIR, PCJPB noted they may exercise the option to lower tracks to minimize tunnel notching.[121]:3.4-19 to -21 The tunnel notching work will be performed during weekends, so service between Bayshore and 4th and King will be replaced by buses starting on October 6, 2018, with a planned "late Spring 2019" resumption.[120][122]

FRA waiver and CBOSS PTC[edit]

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.[123] CHSRA had proposed that mandated speeds and transit times could be met by using lighter-weight vehicles that did not comply with Federal requirements.[123] These required physical separation between FRA "compliant" and "non-compliant" rail vehicles[124] and structural strength.[125] 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.[126] 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.[127]

Positive train control became a Federal mandate with the passing of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.[126] 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.[128] The grant was conditioned on meeting nine additional requirements, including demonstrating minimum crashworthiness, seating, improving grade crossing, meeting FRA positive train control standards in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 236[129] with CBOSS, formalizing the temporal separation plan, and issuing a safety system program.[130]

Rolling stock[edit]

An image of a Stadler "KISS" electric train, operated by the German commuter railroad Westfalenbahn.

The Stadler KISS double-decker EMU that Caltrain ordered will be compliant with the FRA alternative Tier-I crash-worthiness standard. Under the alternative standard, 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. The implementation of the alternative Tier-I standard results in 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 mixed 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 trains 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, enabling unassisted boarding of all passengers as specified by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.[131] In January 2018, PCJPB applied for $631.5 million in state funds for the Electrification Expansion Project (EEP), part of which would be used to exercise the option to purchase an additional 96 EMUs at a cost of $600M. The existing funding for PCEP includes the purchase of 96 EMUs, which would displace 75% of the current diesel-hauled passenger trains from the Peninsula Corridor. The additional funds requested for EEP would bring the electric fleet to 192 EMUs, enabling Caltrain to displace all diesel passenger locomotives between San Francisco and Tamien with a fleet of 24 8-EMU consists. $11.5M of the request would be used for station improvements: $8M to expand certain platforms to accommodate 8-EMU trains and $3.5M to increase secure bicycle storage. An additional $14M would be used to implement on-board WiFi for passengers. The remaining $6M would be used to support planning and policies along the Peninsula Corridor.[132]

Electric Rolling Stock Compared with Existing Diesel Locomotives
  EMD
F40PH-2[133]
MPI
M36PH-3C[134]
EMD
AEM-7[135]
Stadler
KISS EMU[131]
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.[136] The May 2017 PCEP Monthly Progress Report noted that PCJPB was drafting two requests for proposals: one to purchase an electric locomotive to test the electrification system, and another to refurbish an electric locomotive.[137] By October 2017, the work in progress had identified two vendors: Mitsui for purchase, and Amtrak for refurbishment;[138] in January 2018, contracts were ready to be awarded to those vendors.[139] Mitsui owns several ex-Amtrak AEM-7 locomotives, and it has not been reported how many of these will be sold to Caltrain.[140] On June 7, 2018, Caltrain staff recommended that two contracts be awarded for a total of approximately $610,000: one to purchase two AEM-7ACs from Mitsui & Co, and the other to Amtrak for refurbishment, training, and transportation to Caltrain Centralized Equipment Maintenance and Operations Facility.[141]

The first two shells, destined for cab cars, were shipped from Altenrhein to Salt Lake City on June 5, 2018. Stadler's new Salt Lake City final assembly plant is still under construction, but a portion should be ready by the time the first shell arrives in August 2018.[85]

Footnotes[edit]

  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. ^ Morrison Knudsen Corp. 1992, p. 1
  6. ^ a b Morrison Knudsen Corp. 1992, p. 2
  7. ^ Morrison Knudsen Corp. 1992, p. 7
  8. ^ a b Morrison Knudsen Corp. 1992, p. 8
  9. ^ a b c Lewis, Gregory (July 7, 1997). "Backers: Downtown Caltrain link dead". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved February 27, 2017.
  10. ^ Caltrain 1998, pp. 4–5
  11. ^ Caltrain 1998, p. 24
  12. ^ Caltrain 1998, pp. 11–16
  13. ^ 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.
  14. ^ a b Caltrain 1998, p. 16
  15. ^ "12: Recommendations and Phasing". Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study (PDF) (Report). San Mateo County Transit District. August 2017. pp. 5–7. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 September 2017. Retrieved 23 August 2017.
  16. ^ Proposition K Legal Text (PDF). San Francisco Dept. of Elections. November 4, 2003. p. 155.
  17. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael (January 21, 2011). "Caltrain seeks answers to funding crisis". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
  18. ^ 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.
  19. ^ "EDITORIAL: Keeping Calif. high-speed rail plan on track". San Francisco Chronicle. April 21, 2011. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
  20. ^ LTK Engineering 2012, p. 3
  21. ^ a b Cabanatuan, Michael (February 13, 2012). "Caltrain plan would fast-track electric rail". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  22. ^ 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.
  23. ^ Caltrain 2012
  24. ^ a b Cabanatuan, Michael (March 22, 2012). "Caltrain upgrades a step toward high-speed rail". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  25. ^ a b Cabanatuan, Michael (March 29, 2012). "MTC approves Caltrain electrification plan". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  26. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael (July 28, 2012). "Fast electric Caltrain still years away". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  27. ^ Silverfarb, Bill (September 28, 2012). "Modernization dream now reality". San Mateo Daily Journal. Retrieved March 26, 2017.
  28. ^ Matier, Phil; Ross, Andrew (November 4, 2012). "$1.5 billion Caltrain deal packs some big extras". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  29. ^ Pandika, Melissa M. (March 3, 2013). "Caltrain electrification churns high-speed rail controversy". Peninsula Press. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  30. ^ 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.
  31. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael (February 10, 2015). "Atherton, high-speed rail foes sue to block electrifying Caltrain". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  32. ^ 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.
  33. ^ Orr, John (July 11, 2016). "Atherton won't seek temporary injunction in fight with Caltrain". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
  34. ^ 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". San Mateo Daily Journal. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  35. ^ Wood, Barbara (September 28, 2016). "Atherton loses lawsuit over Caltrain electrification project". The Almanac. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
  36. ^ 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.Direct link
  37. ^ a b "Parsons Selected by Caltrain for Communications-Based Overlay Signal System Positive Train Control" (PDF) (Press release). Parsons News. November 22, 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 1, 2013. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
  38. ^ "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.
  39. ^ 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.
  40. ^ "Major rail carriers slow to adopt safety technology". San Francisco Chronicle. Associated Press. November 28, 2016. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  41. ^ 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.
  42. ^ Caltrain 2015
  43. ^ "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.
  44. ^ "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.
  45. ^ Vantuono, William C. (July 8, 2016). "Caltrain awards electrtification, EMU contracts". Railway Age. Retrieved April 2, 2017.
  46. ^ a b c "Caltrain inks contracts with Balfour Beatty, Stadler for electrification project". Progressive Railroading. August 17, 2016. Retrieved April 2, 2017.
  47. ^ Vantuono, William C. (August 16, 2016). "For Caltrain, 16 KISSes from Stadler (but no FLIRTs)". Railway Age. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  48. ^ "New Stadler plant in Salt Lake City, USA". Global Railway Review. 20 October 2017. Retrieved 20 October 2017.
  49. ^ "New Stadler plant in Salt Lake City, USA – a ground breaking ceremony with VIP guests to celebrate" (PDF) (Press release). Stadler Rail. 16 October 2017. Retrieved 20 October 2017.
  50. ^ 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. pp. 3–6. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 1, 2017. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
  51. ^ "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.
  52. ^ Baldassari, Erin (March 1, 2017). "Caltrain fires contractor before testing of new safety system is completed". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved April 4, 2017.
  53. ^ Renda, Matthew (March 6, 2017). "Caltrain, Safety Contractor Trade Lawsuits". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved April 6, 2017.
  54. ^ Baldassari, Erin (December 20, 2017). "Train safety system on track in Bay Area, but not here yet". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved December 20, 2017.
  55. ^ "Wabtec selected to complete Caltrain PTC installation". Railway Gazette. 27 February 2018. Retrieved 27 February 2018.
  56. ^ Matier, Phil; Ross, Andrew (February 18, 2016). "High-speed rail on fast track to Bay Area". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  57. ^ a b "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Core Capacity Engineering" (PDF). Federal Transit Administration. August 2016. Retrieved April 4, 2017.
  58. ^ 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.
  59. ^ a b c Brekke, Dan (March 17, 2017). "Trump transportation plan could derail Bay Area transit projects". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  60. ^ Matier, Phil; Ross, Andrew (February 6, 2017). "With Trump in charge, Republicans target Caltrain". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 4, 2017.(subscription required)
  61. ^ "CA Republican Delegation HSR Letter to Secretary Chao" (PDF) (Letter). Letter to The Honorable Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation. January 24, 2017. Retrieved March 28, 2017.
  62. ^ Morain, Dan (February 24, 2017). "Kevin McCarthy displays his clout, for good and ill". Sacramento Bee. Retrieved March 28, 2017.
  63. ^ 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.
  64. ^ a b Murphy, Katy (February 7, 2017). "Political battle threatens to halt Caltrain electrification project". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved April 4, 2017.
  65. ^ 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.
  66. ^ "CA Democratic Delegation Letter to Secretary Chao" (PDF) (Letter). Letter to The Honorable Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation. February 3, 2017. Retrieved March 28, 2017.
  67. ^ 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.
  68. ^ 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.
  69. ^ Matier, Phil; Ross, Andrew (February 17, 2017). "Trump administration deals a big setback to Caltrain". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  70. ^ 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.
  71. ^ Cabanatuan, Michael (February 27, 2017). "Caltrain acts to keep electrification plan alive". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  72. ^ Editorial Board (March 24, 2017). "House Republicans launch a petty attack on a smart rail project". Sacramento Bee. Retrieved March 28, 2017.
  73. ^ Editorial Board (February 24, 2017). "Editorial: Feds should electrify Caltrain, kill bullet train". East Bay Times. Retrieved March 28, 2017.
  74. ^ Editorial Board (March 13, 2017). "A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck". The New York Times. Retrieved April 5, 2017.
  75. ^ Murphy, Katy (March 3, 2017). "Call me? Jerry Brown urges Trump administration to fund Caltrain project". East Bay Times. Retrieved March 28, 2017.
  76. ^ "Jerry Brown meets with Republicans, 'cautiously optimistic' about Caltrain approval". Sacramento Bee. March 21, 2017. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  77. ^ "TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017" (PDF). U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved May 2, 2017.
  78. ^ 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.
  79. ^ Rodriguez, Joe Fitzgerald (May 22, 2017). "Feds flip, will approve funding for Caltrain electrification". San Francisco Examiner. Retrieved May 22, 2017.
  80. ^ "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.
  81. ^ "Caltrain to begin reduced weekend service". San Mateo Daily Journal. 13 July 2017. Retrieved 19 July 2017.
  82. ^ "2017 Caltrain Service Changes". Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. March 7, 2017. Archived from the original on May 23, 2017. Retrieved May 23, 2017.
  83. ^ "Caltrain hosts groundbreaking for Electrification Project" (Press release). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 21 July 2017. Retrieved 22 July 2017.
  84. ^ a b Cabanatuan, Michael (21 July 2017). "Caltrain electrification project takes symbolic step forward". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 22 July 2017.
  85. ^ a b "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Q4 Quarterly Update #15: April 1 – June 30, 2018" (PDF). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 2 August 2018. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
  86. ^ "Feds Approve $647 Million Grant for Caltrain Electrification Project". KQED. May 22, 2017.
  87. ^ "Caltrain Modernization Program 4th Quarter FY 2016 Progress Report" (PDF). Caltrain. p. 13. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  88. ^ Tasha Bartholomew (21 April 2016). "Modernization: Electrifying the Bay Area's Silicon Valley Rail Corridor". Mass Transit Magazine. Retrieved 29 March 2017.
  89. ^ Caltrain 2015, p. 1, Chapter 2: Project Description
  90. ^ Caltrain 2015, Figure 2-2, Chapter 2: Project Description
  91. ^ Weigel, Samantha (July 7, 2017). "Caltrain may take private land". San Mateo Daily Journal. Retrieved July 11, 2017.
  92. ^ Caltrain 2015, pp. 9–10, Chapter 2: Project Description
  93. ^ "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Status Update (Feb 2017)" (PDF). Caltrain. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 March 2017. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  94. ^ Project 2025 (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. November 30, 2006. pp. 20–21. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 26, 2007. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  95. ^ Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 2009, p. 8
  96. ^ Caltrain 2012, pp. 5–6
  97. ^ LTK Engineering 2012, pp. 34–38
  98. ^ Kneschke, Tristan A. (June 2009). "Caltrain electrification". IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine. Vol. 4 no. 2. pp. 44–52. doi:10.1109/MVT.2009.932544. ISSN 1556-6072. alternate ResearchGate link with PDF
  99. ^ a b Kezra, Victoria (April 4, 2017). "Sunnyvale council gets update on Caltrain modernization". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved April 5, 2017.
  100. ^ Wood, Barbara (26 July 2017). "Atherton: Caltrain will soon cut trees to install electric wires". Retrieved 31 July 2017.
  101. ^ a b c d e f ICF International (February 2014). "2: Project Description". Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project EIR (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Retrieved 14 June 2018.
  102. ^ 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.
  103. ^ 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.
  104. ^ "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". Nuvola-inspired File Icons for MediaWiki-fileicon-doc.pngDOC Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Electric Safety and Reliability Branch, Safety and Enforcement Division. 10 November 2016. Retrieved 14 June 2018.
  105. ^ Clark, Zachary (20 July 2018). "Caltrain updates Burlingame on electrification". San Mateo Daily Journal. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
  106. ^ Gary, Jesse (2 August 2018). "Tensions build between Caltrain, Burlingame residents over tall electrification tower". KTVU Fox 2. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
  107. ^ "PCEP FEIR Addendum #5 – Relocation of PS-3 Burlingame" (PDF). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 2 August 2018. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
  108. ^ Brownrigg, Michael (1 August 2018). "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project - Proposed Modification to Siting for Paralleling Station 3 (PS-3) in Burlingame" (PDF). Retrieved 4 September 2018.
  109. ^ a b c d "Construction Activity Updates". Caltrain. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
  110. ^ "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Update Meeting: San Bruno Public Library" (PDF). Caltrain. 13 July 2017. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
  111. ^ "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Update Meeting: Burlingame Recreation Center" (PDF). Caltrain. 23 August 2017. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
  112. ^ "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Update Meeting: Caltrain Electrification Public Outreach Office" (PDF). Caltrain. 13 September 2017. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
  113. ^ "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Update Meeting: Twin Pines Senior and Community Center" (PDF). Caltrain. 11 October 2017. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
  114. ^ "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Update Meeting: Sequoia High School" (PDF). Caltrain. 1 November 2017. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
  115. ^ a b "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Update Meeting: Atherton Community Meeting" (PDF). Caltrain. 18 January 2018. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
  116. ^ "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Update Meeting: San Jose State Library" (PDF). Caltrain. 28 November 2017. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
  117. ^ Wood, Barbara (5 December 2017). "Atherton residents protest height of planned Caltrain poles". Menlo Park Almanac. Retrieved 14 June 2018.
  118. ^ a b Wood, Barbara (1 March 2018). "Caltrain and Atherton can't reach a deal on electrification poles". Menlo Park Almanac. Retrieved 14 June 2018.
  119. ^ Kashiwagi, Michael (21 February 2018). "Item No. 18, Town of Atherton: Caltrain Electrification Project - Discuss and provide direction regarding Caltrain response letter dated February 6, 2018". Town of Atherton. Retrieved 14 June 2018.
  120. ^ a b "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, Q4 Quarterly Update #15 (April 1 – June 30, 2018)" (PDF). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 2 August 2018. Retrieved 10 August 2018.
  121. ^ "3.4: Cultural Resources". Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, Final Environmental Impact Report (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. December 2014. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
  122. ^ "Weekend SF Caltrain Closure Oct. 6, 2018 – Late Spring 2019". Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Retrieved 25 September 2018.
  123. ^ 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.
  124. ^ 49 C.F.R. 211, Appendix A to Part 211. Issued 65 FR 42546 and amended 74 FR 25172
  125. ^ 49 C.F.R. 238 Subpart C
  126. ^ a b Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 2009, p. 4
  127. ^ Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 2009, pp. 3, 5, 14, 48
  128. ^ Rosenberg, Mike (May 27, 2010). "Electric train plan granted key waiver". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
  129. ^ 49 C.F.R. 236 Subpart I
  130. ^ Cothen Jr., Grady C. (May 27, 2010). "Docket Number FRA-2009-0124" (Letter). Letter to Michael Scanlon. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
  131. ^ a b "KISS Double-Decker Electric Multiple Unit EMU for Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (CALTRAIN), California, USA" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2016. Retrieved October 16, 2016.
  132. ^ "2018 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program Application for Peninsula Corridor Electrification Expansion" (PDF). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. 12 January 2018. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
  133. ^ "EMD F40PH-2". The Diesel Shop US. Retrieved April 28, 2017.
  134. ^ "Motive Power Industries M36PH-3C". The Diesel Shop US. Retrieved April 28, 2017.
  135. ^ Raul V. Bravo and Associates; Parsons Transportation Group (August 2000). "Section 4: Electric Rolling Stock Equipment Power". Assessment of Electrically Powered Rolling Stock Equipment (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. p. 7. Retrieved May 23, 2017.
  136. ^ Caltrain Modernization Program, Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) 3rd Quarter FY 2016 Progress Report (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. May 2016. p. 4. Retrieved April 7, 2017.
  137. ^ Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. May 2017. p. 18-1. Retrieved 27 February 2018.
  138. ^ Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. October 2017. p. 18-1. Retrieved 27 February 2018.
  139. ^ Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. January 2018. p. 18-1. Retrieved 27 February 2018.
  140. ^ "Termination and Release of Lien" (PDF). Surface Transportation Board. 25 September 2001. Retrieved 27 February 2018.
  141. ^ Agenda: PCJPB Meeting (PDF) (Report). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. June 7, 2018. p. 219. Retrieved 13 June 2018.

References[edit]

External links[edit]

Caltrain videos[edit]