Federal funding halted for Caltrain electrification

Trump is getting back at all the states that voted against him in the election. People's lives are jobs are just a game for his ego to play with.

Well, Caltrain tried to take a shortcut and hitched a ride on the locomotive to nowhere, and it came back to bite them. If the project stood on its own, perhaps it would have stood a chance.

California can easily fund the Caltrain electrification by stopping work on the high speed rail, and redirecting those funds to improving local transit. And maybe patch up some dams too. This isn't payback, this is about common sense and not wasting money on vanity projects while letting critical infrastructure suffer.

Don't blame this entirely on President Trump. As Barack Obama famously opined: "Elections have consequences." Personally, I don't think that it's the federal government's responsibility to divert taxpayer funds to this sort of project.

If Jerry Brown wants to electrify CalTrain for peninsula and south bay residents or build a $100 Billion (by the time all is spent) fast train from Sacramento to Los Angeles, then let him try to force California taxpayers to fund it.

Of course, I'd rather the state upgrade existing infrastructure first. I think that is more important than asking taxpayers to spend $100 Billion for construction of a fast train and then require passengers to spend $300 per ticket that will still be slower, less safe and more expensive than an airline ticket.

I'm not entirely opposed to electrifying CalTrain. I'd just rather the funds be spent elsewhere first.

Serves this state right for protests, riots, sanctuary city establishments, and just utter non-sense. If the state cannot support getting America, and Americans back on track (no pun intended), then why should the Feds be there for CA state of leftists?

Hold back all federal funds to this state, until it realizes how it is ripping off its citizenry with high taxes on everything from driving, owning a vehicle to just earning income. And, this state makes it so difficult for people in need to actually get housing, SSDI, and any type of benefits. Appeal, appeal, appeal one must do.

California deserves any withholding of federal funds until it tries to implement equal policies for all, and stop catering to the techies and the wealthy. And one should begin to ask, where does all of our taxes go to? Certainly not bettering the state via infrastructure, and equal opportunity programs for socio economic groups.

[Post removed.]

Infrastructure projects that can't be funded as a tax credit won't be funded. Private roads and bridges by developers are the future now. Forget mass transit or water projects.

California gives the Federal Government more money than it gets back. The opposite is true for many of the states that voted for Trump. It would be easy for California to fund this and other projects if we could use our money on our state.

This is an example of Trump being President of 35% of the people and not only making no effort to be President of all the people but doing exactly the opposite.

To turn a phrase I hear so often: "We lost, get used to it".

Not my President.

spending $68 billion on HSR so that Caltrain gets $647 million to electrified is just wrong and why we are so deep in debt.

It would be much better for Jerry Brown to directly fund $647 million to Caltrain. And the remaining $67 billion should be devoted to regional mass transit for the Bay Area, LA/Orange County and Sacramento. Regional mass transit will do more to reduce green house gas emission, improve traffic, and raise economic activity, than a High Speed Rail project between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

[Post removed.]

It's a miracle!!! I didn't think President Trump had the power to save California. I absolutely love this. Let's stop overpopulating our cities and trying to force people out of their cars and have an inefficient, lower quality of life. MAGA

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]

After approving funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for Caltrain's “modernization program”, the LA Times published an article revealing that former FTA Administrator Carolyn Flowers, has suddenly been employed by AECOM, a major vendor to Caltrain. AECOM has a financial interest in the “modernization” project, which the grant will fund. This is conflict of interest to the max. See Web Link

This is probably just the beginning of federal withholding of funds to CA. If CA is so obtuse as to declare itself a sanctuary state, then Trump will make CalTrain electrification seem like small potatoes. CA is really in a political fix now...of its own making.

I live very close to the train tracks and was very sad to hear this news as I was looking forward to not having to inhale diesel fumes that Caltrain spews out 20 hours a day. On the other hand, electrifying caltrain is supposed to increase train frequency which will cause more traffic congestion at the already backed up non-grade separated RR crossings along the peninsula, especially Palo Alto and Menlo Park. It seems that the RR tracks should be grade separated before adding more train trips: Grade separation first, electrification second.

I also agree that improving the transportation infrastructure should be addressed before building the HSR.

@Resident

I'm sorry? There's no obligation to "respect" descisions that are made solely to punish regions someone doesn't agree with politically. However, I understand opponents attempts to frame this as some sort of larger struggle rather than on the project's own merits, especially when they can no longer use the "waste of money because Californians don't ride trains" meme.

@allen: Let me touch on a few things.

First of all, California is ranked #1 in federal funds distributed by the federal government by state but #40 in federal funds distributed by the federal government per person (or #42 if you include Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico). Part of this has to do with the massive size and population of the state. However, it also doesn't account for illegal immigrant population either -- which would certainly move California further up in rank.

Of the ten states that actually receive the LEAST money per person from the federal government, seven of them were won by Trump (including Utah, Wisconsin, Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska and Indiana). Of the ten states (not counting Washington D.C. or Puerto Rico) that receive the MOST money per person from the federal government, six of them were won by Hillary Clinton (including Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, New Mexico, Connecticut and Maine). Of the 25 states that received the least money per person from the federal government, 17 of them were won by Donald Trump.

Web Link

Web Link

It helps that California doesn't have as much of an "old" population -- since the largest distribution of federal funds goes out in the form of retirement benefits. It is also helpful that California has the largest immigrant population too -- since many of them are younger, on non-permanent visas or have not yet become eligible for retirement benefits. That proverbial straw hasn't been added to the camel's back yet. Moreover, California's number of federal workers (another large distribution of federal funds) is proportionately lower per person when compared with the overall population of most other states.

Still, your point in that matter is well-taken.

About your claim that Trump that Trump is president of just 35% of the people: That is simply absurd.

I suspect that you're citing a recent Gallup poll about Trump's job approval rating. For one, that poll was an outlier when compared with other credible scientific opinion polls about Trump. Rasmussen has Trump's approval rating at 55%, but most have his approval at around 45%. In fact, that is in line with RealClearPolitics' current average for Trump (44.9%).

Web Link

Even with a , I suspect that only a small, fringe sub-section of the population would try to assert that President Trump is "not my president" -- which was also true of President Obama. I disagreed vehemently with many of President Obama's policy goals, but he was still my president.

In fact, I think that it is important to remember the presidency of Barack Obama. Obama's average approval rating over the course of his eight years in office was, according to Gallup, 47.9%. This is the fourth lowest average approval rating since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Web Link

In addition, the eight years of Obama led to historic gains by Republicans around the United States. Since Obama was inaugurated in 2009, Republicans won majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Republicans also now control 32 state legislatures (out of 50) and 33 gubernatorial seats. In fact, Democrats have lost over 1000 seats in state legislatures since 2009.

Next year, there will be an important election for the U.S. Senate. There will be at least 33 seats up for grabs. Only eight of those seats are held by incumbent Republicans. Many of those seats up for election are in states won by Trump. Republicans currently have 52 seats in the Senate. It's quite possible that Republicans will hit the magic 60 seats needed to prevent Democrats blocking votes.

You can say that Trump is not your president. Still, whether you like him or not, he is the President of the United States of America. He won 30 out of 50 states in the election last year. The Democratic Party is in danger of becoming a regional party when it comes to control.

Reading the papers today on this topic I am concerned that this whole situation is not being portrayed correctly. We voted for HSR way back when based on specific time and cost projections. We did not vote for Caltrain as a specific item. Reality steps up and we cannot get HSR to LA because of the type geography in the mountains and the congestion in LA in that area. LA has filled in their requirements and it is densely situated with existing rail lines. The cost of tearing out that situation is prohibitive and not going to happen.

The design for Caltrain is outdated - how many years old? They have existing contracts and do not want to upgrade from those contracts. So we are expected to go forward with a system that is outdated.
It keeps talking about the engines. There are new engines used by Amtrak - get new engines. And worse here is building the cars in Utah. Is that because the tax code is cheaper? We need to build the cars in CA and we need to fix our tax rate. Our state management is out of control and going the wrong way. Fix the tax code, build anything in CA, and quit trying to rob Peter to pay Paul.

This is an effort to get it right. That is what President Trump will do. By cutting the electrical lifeline to CalTrain, it opens up the elevated four track system as a better play. Why roll down the track and share with CalTrain (the High Speed Rail System) potentially causing more children suicides and also later on when capacity is again too much, tear it up and rebuild it the right way(four tracks) ? The justification is take one step back and two forward. Either way, they may rule that the funds be diverted back to the southland or Central Valley. Sad news is that will leave all the commuters waiting for a train that does not arrive...for some time.

There was a large article about what has happened in the central valley up to this point in time. They have ripped out residences, businesses, family farms.
My sense here is that they carved through properties held for a long time that have low tax base. [Portion removed due to factual inaccuracies.] The whole city of Fresno is being ripped up. Just imagine what will happen when they get to Alma - you will see whole sections ripped up. Sorry - this whole concept is poorly conceived. Get some new engines from Amtrak. Get some new cars from Amtrak - they have very efficient and current equipment.

Donnie Hu, I'm not sure I understand your point...how will electrifying CalTrain affect HSR, which will also be electric? If the 4 track system is implemented, CalTrain will need to be electrified anyway - better to get a jump on it now than waiting for years and years for HSR to reach the Peninsula. Also, HSR won't replace CalTrain. If it did, it would have to stop at each train stop along the Peninsula and would no longer be HSR.

This was predictable, really. The CA Republican delegation, state and federal, has been fighting the high speed rail project since its bond measure was approved by voters in 2008. Why? Because it's a fiscal turd, driven by politics, and huge contracts worth billions very large corporations are desperate to secure, all funded by tax payers. The alleged benefits were, and still are, likely to be very small, and the ridership numbers have been, and still are, fake news. The massive gridlock in the SF Bay area and in LA will not be improved by long distance rail service. Transportation between SF Bay and LA already exists, at a comparable fare, by numerous flights each day north and south. In the mean time, local congestion will get worse, as nearly $2B is wasted on long distance rail service.

Electrifying Caltrain has been a long term goal for that transportation agency. However, all the claims that electric trains will be silent, and commute problems will vanish are nonsense. Yes, electric trains are quieter then diesel trains, but it's the train horns and crossing bells that wake up the Peninsula because those sounds carry, the rumble of the diesel does not. Take away the diesel rumbling and the bells and train horns do not go away, they will still be around, and will get worse, not better. Why? Because the whole point of electrification is to add more faster trains to the tracks. More trains means more crossing bell noise and horns. More, and faster trains, means more train-person-car collisions, and with more crossing gate down time, more cross track congestion.

The problem is Caltrain sold its sole to HSR because they need electrified tracks to run their trains to San Francisco. As a part of the deal, HSR has made it clear that they will run trains as fast as they can, but will not add any grade separations as a part of the process to increase safety and reduce cross track congestion and noise. For comparison, BART is a completely grade separated rail system.

The best solution in my opinion is to grade separate the entire caltrain corridor first. Once that is done, train horn and crossing bell noise disappears. Instead of running more trains to accommodate increased ridership, caltrain can run much longer trains. The added cars would likely add a very small added fuel cost, but allow ridership to expand tremendously. Why is this? because the train length now can not exceed a fixed number of cars, no train can be so long as it stops blocking cross streets at either end of existing stations. With a fully grade separated system, that is no longer a problem.

It is disappointing caltrain might loose electrification funds, but it the HSR pig that is the target. Caltrain picked the wrong partner for its future growth.

"The problem is Caltrain sold its sole to HSR"

Very expensive pair of shoes :-)

"The best solution in my opinion is to grade separate the entire caltrain corridor first. "

Yep. We can only hope that Elon Musk can figure it out fast enough....

Web Link

Well, well, look what a Democratic-run State has done-- funded a boondoggle like the HSRail that runs through the middle of nowhere, while it's two largest cities, LA/SF, are choked with traffic... Where was the support for local transportation improvement? It's laughable to me to now see 101 look like the 405, while a diesel monstrosity like CalTrain runs up and down the Peninsula killing people with pollution and brake dust-- an absolutely despicable sign of incompetence in the State Government. It will take a nuclear war and a startover for things to ever normalize in the Bay area traffic-- too much inbred politics has killed any hope.

@Timmie Tee

Well the state and local governments were putting well over 1 billion into upgrading Caltrain, but I suppose it makes sense that the GOP would want to get kill off this "local transportation improvement" due to the fact that HSR may some day be able to use the same tracks...

It's Trump's trumped-up campaign promises of infrastructure improvements at work--or not.

Anyway, he needs the money for making America great again, by having ICE break up immigrant families.

The only fiscally responsible politician in the room is President Trump. All the limousine liberals in Palo Alto that spew vitriol toward him won't acknowledge that he's saving PA from being cut in half and visually destroyed.

@Robert/Curmudgeion:: How long has Caltrain been around? Didn't it arise from the failed transportation policies from the '70's when the Peninsula voted down Bart? Then year-after-year, CalTrain never got funding to either scrap the diesel or to extend Bart. Then, beyond belief, Dems vote for a high-speed train to the moon. Talk about mis-placed priorities! Then blame Trump for a quarter-century of mismanaged public funds. This is Calif Dem politics at its finest. Don't put it all on Trump.

The VC's, the tech companies, and Stanford, need
to step-up and cover the $650 million for electrification. They could raise the money in one day. It's past time for some of the private wealth
which has been created here to step-up.

"How long has Caltrain been around? Didn't it arise from the failed transportation policies from the '70's when the Peninsula voted down Bart?"

CalTrain commuter service began in the 19-th century under the CPRR, which begat the SPRR, which begat CalTrain.

Objectively, electrification is an ugly needless boondoggle that is uniquely vulnerable to various failures and poses hazards to life that diesels are/do not. Nevertheless, our new and all-wise leader did not tear himself from Fox and CNN to analyze this issue and reveal his considered judgement to the breathlessly waiting masses.

No. This monkey wrench is only another routine fumble from an already legendarily inept administration. Expect many, many more.

Any discussion of CalTrain electrification and/or CalHSR quickly turns to politics, because we all understand that's what it's really all about.

The establishment Democrats in California have become very cozy with real-estate developers and the construction industry. The waste, fraud, abuse, and cronyism generated by a multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects like CalHSR is a great way for elected officials to pay back the people who contributed so generously to their political campaigns by funneling state and federal tax dollars, and other lucrative benefits, to connected insiders. How well CalHSR works, or if it works at all, is really a secondary consideration.

The pattern of connections that emerged after our local elections here in River City (whoop, I mean Palo Alto) are really just a fractal of a pattern that covers most of the state.

@time to step-up - California collects > $100 billion in tax revenue a year. California can "step up" and pay for it. If high speed rail from Bakersfield to Modesto is more important, then we can skip electrification.

Trump derangement syndrome got you down? Wanna get away?

Then just fly Southwest from San Jose to LA starting at $39 each way. We don't even need to invest a taxpayer dime to do it and it is available now.

The Trump train didn't kill HSR, better and more economical transportation alternatives did. Now the only question is which liberal albatross will crash and burn first.

High speed rail or Obamacare?

"...just fly Southwest from San Jose to LA starting at $39 each way. We don't even need to invest a taxpayer dime to do it..."

So who do you think funds those airports and air traffic control? Popeye?

You're only fooling yourself. No transportation mode operates without taxpayer dimes. Lots of taxpayer dimes, and not a few quarters too.

Yup, those aviation services are taxpayer funded, by the federal excise taxes on fuel, cargo and airline tickets. The estimate for fiscal 2017 excise tax revenue is 14.7 billion. The FAA operations budget is 10 billion, facilities and equipment 3 billion, and airport improvement grants 3 billion. Total 16 billion, 90 percent covered by excise taxes from the direct users, 10 percent covered by the general fund (a few dimes of my income tax).

If SW Air is here now and 10% the price of an LA-SF ticket then why bother with HSR?

Yes airports are tax payer funded so what? No arguing with a straw man.

The pollution from CalTrain coupled with pollution from woodsmoke and cars has turned my asthma into COPD!

There is nothing I would love more than to have CalTrain electrified, and second to that, get wood-burning fireplaces converted to natural gas!

Now, if we could get rid of all the Downtown and Park Blvd offices.....

Airports are taxpayer funded -- but you get much more return on the investment than you would a fast train. A person can go to SFO or SJC and fly to many destinations. The train will take you from one Point A or Point B to Point C.

Does the paltry amount of traffic going from Sacramento to north of L.A. justify building a $60-100 Billion train (which will likely cost more for passengers than flying)?

Talking transportation we voted to take BART around the Bay. For some reason it stops in San Mateo County and starts somewhere in San Jose. I vote that we take BART - which is electrified - down the 280 side of the bay so that it services the west side of the peninsula -VA Hospital, Foothill College, SU- both the original and newer campus in Redwood City. Then it goes down to Cupertino and Apple - then on to the connection point in Santa Clara. That increases the ridership overall and cuts freeway traffic.

We get new engines for Caltrain - the newest engines are super, and some new cars. Also change up the road crossing points to Caltrain so that it is not crossing streets - then it can speed up and have more cars. That is a "transportation" concept that is easier to sell then ripping up everything for the overhead wires.

So what are we trying to sell here - good transportation - or some old design supporting a bunch of companies. We have not sold HSR or electrified Caltrain - it is not popular or workable. But the road crossing issue is desirable, much needed and will require some cash. We need to work on what we can sell now. As to electrification much land is now underwater which would ruin the electrification plan and require a lot of repair. Rails are built to last - just need to be on a raised bed.

Caltrain's locomotives could be replace with clean quiet hybrid locomotives for a small fraction of the cost of overhead electrification. If we get a breakthrough in storage technology in the next decade, they could again be upgraded to full on-board electric power.

Interesting to note that the government run Caltrain system's diesel locomotives are exempt from the stringent pollution regulations that government has put in place for just about everything else.

"Hybrid locomotives - The Prius principle" Web Link

I just drove up El Camino in San Mateo County. As you go up there are numerous under-crossings to the Caltrain tracks. There are also some tunnels for bikes and walkers. The under crossings do not take up a lot of room and are not elaborate - just very useful. It disturbs me that there is an obvious outlay of cash in San Mateo county that you do not see in Santa Clara County.
So why are we getting shorted in cash in Santa Clara County?
If you look at Redwood City they have just built huge apartment buildings next to the existing tracks. It is clear that no one else is waiting around for HSR or electrification - everyone else is going ahead with whatever upgrades they want in their cities. We are being held back by some group of people who put roadblocks in front of any good transportation upgrade for some concept that they have been unable to sell. No one wants HSR on the peninsula and no one wants overhead wires - except the people who are selling the concept. What ever you all thought up 15 years ago has not happened and will not happen so lets get the projects we all want done now.

There are now buses that hold up to three hundred people. Adding fifty of these buses could carry a significant number of people from SF into the Silicon Valley at a very low cost, compared to Caltrain electrification.

This is a huge boondoggle, and should not proceed.

"Caltrain's locomotives could be replace with clean quiet hybrid locomotives for a small fraction of the cost of overhead electrification."

"Diesel" locomotives are hybrids and always have been. What is missing are government regulations limiting their noise and exhaust pollutants. Do not expect those from the Trump regime.

Just want to point out that HSR is tearing up Fresno and making a mess, as well as putting businesses and residents out of their property. And the one person who sees this in Bakersfield is the one person who will not be fooled.
He is the California rep in Congress. This has nothing to do with Trump - this has to do with the 15 years of mismanagement by Gov. Jerry Brown.

Diesel locomotives are not really hybrids. Diesel locomotive use electric traction motors but do not have battery storage, or regenerative braking (like a hybrid).

When a diesel locomotive needs to accelerate, the diesel engine needs to accelerate to provide more power to the traction motors. It is during this acceleration that the diesel engine makes a lot of noise, and belches smoke and soot as the fuel injection system struggles (but fails) to provide the perfect fuel/air ratio to the engine's combustion chambers.

When a true hybrid needs to accelerate, the extra power is provided by the battery while the internal combustion engine continues to run at a medium engine speed where the fuel injection system can provide a near perfect fuel/air ratio to the combustion chambers.

If diesel locomotives were required to meet emission standards (like cars), with hybrid technologies and other modern pollution control technologies, they could be as quiet, fuel efficient, and clean as a Prius.

"Hybrid locomotives - The Prius principle" Web Link

Curmudgeon said: "What is missing are government regulations limiting their noise and exhaust pollutants. Do not expect those from the Trump regime."

California does not need Trump to regulate diesel locomotive noise and exhaust. Noise and pollution can be regulated by the state. California has stricter automobile pollution regulations than the rest of the country. "What is missing are government regulations limiting their noise and exhaust pollutants." Do not expect those from the Brown regime.

"Diesel locomotives are not really hybrids. Diesel locomotive use electric traction motors but do not have battery storage, or regenerative braking (like a hybrid)."

They are serial hybrids. Prii and their cousins are mostly parallel hybrids. Some diesel-electric designs feature regenerative braking via dissipation grids on the roof. Supercapacitors are arguably superior to batteries for boosting acceleration.

And now there are reports that Carolyn Flowers, who was acting chief of the FTA, approved the grant on Jan. 18 and on Jan. 31 went to work as an executive of a LA-based firm that provides management services to Caltrain (according to a story in this morning's Daily Post).

This entire HSR swamp should be drained before a single dime more is spent on it.

Why do we have surface trains here when our Bay Area population is greater than London when it built its first subways?

For over 100 years, the big train companies bought off politicians to build their tracks and then their unions bought off politicians as union rules decimated the rail companies' profits. Southern Pacific (SP) which still owns the tracks and all the lucrative air rights above them wanted out of the commuter sevice by 1977 since that was no longer profitable thanks to years of crazy union deals. Crazy? For example, in the 1960's the union still required fireman on duty for coal and wood even though diesel was used and a conductor doing one run from SF to Gilroy was paid for a whole day's work. SP still made decent money running freight to SF and the Port of Redwood City, and rents from telcom wire easements along track poles, so it didn't want to abandon its tracks while the Santa Clara County voters didn't want to run BART here as long as Caltrain took over the commuter trains.

Peninsula real estate is now so valuable and traffic so bad the SP tracks will one day be undergrounded and we'll finally connect to BART. Before the politicians do anything, I'll bet Musk's Boring Company will makie a deal with SP to underground its tracks here. SP and Boring Co. will have an epic payday as they sell off the ground rights to the old SP ground right of way.

I think at least part of this problem is that public transportation around the Bay Area is so fragmented. We have so many different agencies, some for buses, some for trains, some for subways, some for ferries, that they are competing against each other rather than coordinating. On top of that, there are duplicate administration which is expensive for each agency.

When is the Bay Area going to wake up to the real issues. Public transportation is infrastructure that affects all of us living in the Bay Area even if we don't personally use it. Public transportation gets our workers to work, whether they are our teachers or doctors, tech workers or students, tourists or those who are unable to drive. Putting public transportation dollars to work means looking at the big picture, making all public transport efficient and reliable, and yes, electrifying Caltrain to enable more frequent services and options.

Regardless of your views on Trump, it reeks of corruption when a federal official approves a grant then takes a job with one of the beneficiaries of said grant. At the very least, Flowers should be dismissed and AECOM should be disqualified from working on the project. How is any of this Trump's fault? Flowers was an Obama appointee.

Caltrain and high speed rail need to be completely seperated! 2 sets of track down the peninsula!

I am renaming the project Slow Speed Expensive Rail (SSER) instead of High Speed Rail (HSR).

"According to official ridership estimates, between 18 million and 31 million passengers annually will board the train in its early years. And the project's most recent business plan predicts that by 2030, two years after L.A.-to-San Francisco service begins, ticket sales will hit $2 billion annually, or roughly $700 million a year more than operating expenses. Even at the low end of ridership projections, state officials say, revenues will more than cover operating costs."

Web Link

About a 72% variation in the estimate 13 years from now. In other words, a bald faced guess. Also, in order to keep ticket prices below air or bus fares the SSER would require $100s of millions of dollars in annual taxpayer subsidies - PERMANENTLY. Truly a gift that will keep on budget-wrecking giving.

I suspect the people making this SSER forecast model are the same ones who tell us that the VTA light rail and buses are all full, the global temperature hiatus is not real and Hillary Clinton was going to win in a landslide.

Wow, this comment thread is... impressive.

I'm one of those Palo Alto residents who appreciate our convenient access to an at-least-decent transit option that enables travel up and down the Peninsula without driving.

That access is something that plenty of other people seem to appreciate, too, even if they don't tend to hang out in these comments.

Electrification would make Caltrain both faster and more frequent. That would be a real improvement in our quality of life. I'm dismayed by this news.

We have now an unbelievable number of state transportation issues to resolve including ruined roads, and it all costs money to resolve. Any bottom line money spent to resolve these unplanned situations is a hit to the taxpayer. The priorities to date on how money is spent in the state has not been credible. We may all wish for something but the state is responsible for first resolving the basic requirements. Electrification is not a basic requirement.

> We have now an unbelievable number of state transportation issues to resolve including ruined roads.... We may all wish for something but the state is responsible for first resolving the basic requirements. Electrification is not a basic requirement.

I don't know what makes something a "basic requirement", and it's certainly not easy to balance budget priorities, but it sounds like roads are important to you, and you think they need to be better.

Caltrain seems important to the 60,000 people using it on a given day. Palo Alto has two of the busiest stations on the entire line, so a lot of those people are part of this community, too.

I'm sure many of them think that Caltrain needs to be better. I certainly do.

Caltrain works just fine right now. It is not broken. The roads are broken. Especially with this storm they are crumbling and breaking up. I am watching the news showing all of the problems all over. Worse in the hills - the whole support system washing out.

Every time I see those massive, noisy, dirty, antediluvian diesel-electric locomotives lumbering into the CalTrain station I wonder to myself: Why on Earth are we still using those monsters to pull a puny 5-car commuter train? In any other developed country I would expect to see a simple, clean, quiet, electrified light rail system doing the job. It's just pitiful. Shamefully backward. But here's the silver lining: The California Republic is strong, and California Republic is rational (more-or-less :) We can do it ourselves! We should be moving on all fronts to disconnect ourselves from the failing United States federal government and develop an independent California.

@Person,

Only 30,000 people use Caltrain. Caltrian has 60,000 rides per day, but most people make two rides per day to and from a destination. To put that in perspective 3,000,000+ people live on the peninsula between SF and SJ, so 1% of the people on the peninsula us Caltrain.

Caltrain electrification is going to cost $3,000,000,000 ($3 billion) to increase the capacity of the system by 20% (6,000 riders). That comes to $100,000 per current rider, or $500,000 per additional rider.

For the the same cost taxpayers are paying to electrify Caltrain, they could buy every current Caltrain rider a brand new all electric Tesla, or every new rider a starter home.

If you were a taxpayer, how would you feel about buying 30,000 very special people on the peninsula, a brand new all electric Tesla?

This may be a blessing. ridership is pitifully small compared to BART. When you add the cost of grade separation to electrification we might be better served completing BART from San Jose to Millbrae

@Ahem

Caltrain is bursting at the seams during commute times and needs to be expanded. The only other option is increased road traffic (and I know how other commenters on here feel about our packed roadways). Electrification is the next step towards future expansions of the system to bring on more passengers and take more people off the roads.

To the comments about there "only" being 60,000 riders: If you rode on Caltrain regularly you'd realize that this is with a system which is completely at capacity during the rush hour commutes. You literally can not fit more people onto the trains, even with many of the trains having switched from five cars to six. Watching the people doing the ridership counts is literally comical when you're packed in like sardines.

When we're able to replace the trains with higher accelerating, higher capacity, electrical powered EMUs with more frequency, the ridership numbers will easily double again. The amount of money being sought after from the FRA is a pittance compared to how much it would cost to replace the entire system with BART.

This is a good project. We need to figure a way to make it happen.

@Patrick,

Again Caltrain only has 30,000 riders. Each rider takes two rides per day for 60,000 rides. 30,000 people is only 1% of the 3,000,000 people living on the peninsula between SF and SJ (inclusive).

Caltrain gets their ridership numbers from a combination of ticket sales and rider counts, so the number are pretty good.

Caltrain estimates that electrification will allow them to increase capacity by 21%. The 21% number is based on the additional capacity the faster accelerating electric locomotives will allow Caltrain to put on the tracks, not market surveys of demand.

Electrification will only allow Caltrain to increase capacity by 21% or 6000 additional riders. Electric locomotives accelerate faster out of the station but will not have faster top speeds, and still must maintain safe spacing between other locals and express trains on the same line. This is the fundamental flaw inherent to a one-dimensional system.

That's right. You are going to have to wait 10 years and pay $3,000,000,000, to get a 21% increase in capacity from Caltrain electrification. Hybrid locomotives with better acceleration could be in place within 18 months for a fraction of the cost of overhead electrification.

"What are the scope and benefits of Caltrain’s electrification plans?" Web Link

CalTrain electrification would help 30,000 train riders while creating gridlock for 250,000+ people who use at grade crossings. You can do your own "research" by standing on the corner of Alma and East Meadow at 5 pm. Then imagine what would happen if there were twice as many trains. Any increase in the number of trains without a plan for separated grade crossings is simply insanity.










on the Peninsula

We do not need electrification. We need to put in the under crossing tunnels so traffic is not at a stand still forever. Once we solve that problem we can upgrade to current locomotives which now are supper. And add more cars.

Electrification with overhead wires has a number of risks due to weather. On the news a line came down and was a hazard due to amount of water in the road. Electricity and water do not mix. How many people were without power due to lines coming down? All over the state. We are in jeopardy of getting stuck somewhere due to lack of power.

So how many people commenting are part of the contracts that will be issued for the proposed work which is 15 years old in technology? The state is an atm card for old technology - that has got to stop.

Ahem: We do vehicle counts on freeways the same way. Regardless of how you want to count, putting an additional 30,000 cars on Highway 101 during either rush hour is clearly not going to work.

Caltrain's estimate for potential ridership is low, and they've been called out for that before, particularly given the ridership gains of the last few years, and by the fact that the system is absolutely slammed. Thankfully the CBOSS Advanced signaling project allows lower headway times which enables greater throughput, and is not contingent on the FRA DOT funding. The problem is that Caltrain still needs more trains to carry more people, which if you're going to invest in new trains, you should probably buy electric ones if the system is going to be converted. They can't do that right now thanks to Secretary Chao withholding funds, so it's a chicken-and-egg problem.

You can find out more information about here: Web Link

Additionally, to the people complaining about at-grade-crossings. In Santa Clara County we just voted for Measure B, which contributes $1 billion toward grade separation throughout the county. So, yes, the crossing at Alma and Meadow is a problem (I cross it twice a day, so I'm well versed at how annoying it can be), however, now is the time to fix it.

Can anyone answer the question of why HSR doesn't followup Freeway 280 North instead of going through high population zones?

The bigger question is why doesn't HSR go up the east side of the bay to Oakland? The east side of the bay has more clearance for tracks and can use some of the BART facilities for coordination of space available. The east side is not going through residential home areas. You have to stop kidding yourself that the residences on Alma will be gone and Alma widened.

Why would you want mass transit to not go through high population zones? It's supposed to be easy to access. Ideally you shouldn't even have to drive to it.

CAHSR should have stopped in SJ, SJ airport, SFO and then terminate at downtown SF. Using overhead rails on the 101 right away. I don't agree with the project and the cost by any means - but at least this would have been a much better implementation. HSR is a not a commuter line - why even put it there?

HSR is not "mass transit" - it is not suppose to stop. The whole point is to speed through the state in 2 plus hours. LA to SF was the original plan. However the whole route at this time is being built over with new construction. No one is waiting around for something to happen - all cities are building what they want. The idea that a train is going to whip up the peninsula through residential housing right next to the tracks is not well thought out.

@Patrick,

What you do not, or will not understand, is the 21% increase estimated by Caltrain is not the amount of additional people that will want to ride after electrification. The 21% is an estimate of the additional capacity electrification will allow Caltrain to provide.

Think of this way. If before electrification the maximum number of rail-cars Caltrain could cram onto the tracks is 100, after electrification the maximum number of rail-cars Caltrain will be able to cram onto the tracks is 121.

It doesn't matter how many people want to use Caltrain after electrification, there will only be room for 21% more riders because electrification will only allow Caltrain to provide 21% more capacity.

I see various comments from automobile advocates that seem to be ignoring a basic point. One (no stop signs/lights) freeway lane can carry, optimally, at most, 2200 passenger cars/hour. To average 55 mph, the capacity is 1100-1550 vehicles/hour.

Source:
Web Link

In contrast, a rail "lane" can carry 12-18 trains per hour, with some trains carrying up to 1600 passengers. The MBTA Red line in Boston is running up to 13 trains per hour - roughly 20,000 passengers per hour, now.

Source:
Web Link

Rip out CalTrain and extend Bart... it's stupid to tie CalTrain into a misconceived HSR system.... if you think gov-incompetence is bad, try it with two agencies trying to coordinate a trans-plan. CalTrain was outmoded when it was put in, now it's a carbon-belching monument to incompetent local government. HSR is another boondoggle. It has no chance of supporting itself-- look at the NE US Amtrack corridor-- even with it's high population density, it requires massive gov subsidies to continue operation. Who is it in Calif State gov or lobbyists that pushed this albatross through anyway?

The key to adding more cars and speed to the train requires overpasses at the key interchanges = Charleston, East Meadow, etc. Electrification is irrelevant to that equation. Adding more cars requires that the train functions unimpeded. Electrification does not affect that equation and in fact may stymy it. All we need is adverse weather and the electrification element could be bounced out. Huge areas for generators would be required to back up the system - or run the system. That means taking out homes on Alma and setting up an electrical grid that is competing with the electrical grid for the homes. Just think of the problems we have had with the competing Wi-Fi elements in this town. How many big time grids can this town support in a residential area? No one who is talking electrification is willing to talk how many homes will be removed and what the back-up systems are suppose to be.

Palo Alto & Menlo Park missed the boat years ago when they had an opportunity to separate road & rail grades when federal funds were available for that. Belmont & San Carlos managed to take advantage of that. Redwood City separated grades at both Jefferson and 5th Ave but not at Whipple(?) The most important step to improve Peninsula transportation gridlock is to separate the RR tracks and streets. North Palo Alto had this figured out decades ago 50-70 years ago but Charleston, Meadow, & Churchill are long overdue. Since the Alma crossing involves 2 counties & 2 towns, it's more difficult. Getting hybrid locomotives in order to add cars is next.

HSR is a fiscally irresponsible plan for wasting taxpayer money on a system offering little benefit to any but the politicians, attorneys & contractors involved in its construction. How any voters could have thought the proposed budget was adequate, or that it was either necessary or beneficial project for the Peninsula, is beyond me.

Recently, driving on El Camino from the PAMF Surgicenter, leaving @ 4:50 pm, to Jefferson Ave in Redwood City, 4.8 miles, took 50 minutes. Over 10 minutes per mile! At 11 am on a recent weekday, it took 4 signal cycles to get from El Camino southbound onto Alma. The left-turn lane backup narrowed El Camino to 2 lanes for nearly 2 blocks.

Build under & overpasses. Buy new engines. Forget HSR & CalTrain electrification. If you really want to work on a long-term project, think BART extension.

YEAH Chip = totally agree with you.

Let's have Joe Simitian buy the Caltrain right of way for "pennies on the dollar" using eminent domain.

Turn the rail right of way in a bus/bicycle route.

"This is conflict of interest to the max."

So some bureaucrat signs off at the last minute on a government grant to a company they then take a job with, knowing that in a couple days the Trump regime will cancel the grant. Slick operator, no?

"I can get on a train in downtown Palo Alto and go directly to San Francisco without driving or parking. That makes me very angry and let's get rid of it." - Half the people in this thread

Y'all crazy...

HSR is supposed to use current Caltrain routes and make stops at current stations between. Really, guys, please go travel outside of the country to go see what rail systems in other countries look like. You can have HSR run between long stretches between cities as well as make stops to cities and stations close to each other. Our transit system in the bay area is woefully out of date and at max capacity, and other countries around the world have working solutions that we should strive to implement.

The only mass transit system that I know of which is profitable off of fares is Hong Kong's MTR. That's besides the point though, because mass transits purpose, much like other government programs, is to provide a public good, not to make a profit. The benefits of mass transit are less cars clogging the road and less environmental pollution.

"Really, guys, please go travel outside of the country to go see what rail systems in other countries look like. "

I have. Just because it works in EU and Japan doesn't mean it would work in California.

"HSR is supposed to use current Caltrain routes and make stops at current stations between. "

Prop 1A has a transit time limit (2hr40m) between LA and SF. If it stops at every Caltrain stop, it won't make it.

"I have. Just because it works in EU and Japan doesn't mean it would work in California."

Why exactly wouldn't it work here? What prevents California from repeating what has already been done multiple times over across the world?

"Prop 1A has a transit time limit (2hr40m) between LA and SF. If it stops at every Caltrain stop, it won't make it."

It doesn't need to stop at EVERY Caltrain stop. You can have different trains stop at different sub-groups of stations along the same route, covering the whole system while maintaining speedy service.

"Why exactly wouldn't it work here? What prevents California from repeating what has already been done multiple times over across the world?"

We're way more spread out (i.e. we are not as densely packed as the Japanese and Europeans). The cost to build anything in the states is higher than anywhere else (see Web Link - we don't have a dictatorship that can take land arbitrarily like they can in China.

Furthermore, rail in Europe was built before low cost air travel. Low cost carriers is eating into rail travel in Europe. And it costs less to fly roundtrip between LAX and SFO than the projected fares for HSR.

"It doesn't need to stop at EVERY Caltrain stop. You can have different trains stop at different sub-groups of stations along the same route, covering the whole system while maintaining speedy service."

Prop 1a says it needs to get between SJ and SF in 30 minutes. Tell me how a train that is supposed to be sharing the rails ("blended system") with Caltrain is going to be able to do that and still stop at a "sub group" of stations.

This whole thing is a sham. The whole HSR plan was full of BS to cover up real issues in the hopes that they could gain momentum and make HSR a reality regardless. This is your Democratic-run state government at work.

You seem to be making multiple arguments against separate things and then squishing them together. Your density/spread-out argument is an issue with having a central subway mass transit system similar to one in Hong Kong, Tokyo, or London. Regional / statewide rail systems are unaffected by this as they are concerned with making stops at city centers, not servicing an entire city (local-rail would feed into a regional-rail system).

Low-cost carriers like Ryanair in Europe are taking some of the market that regional and inter-country rail services service, but there's a big chasm between that and low-cost regional air making rail untenable.

30 minutes from SJ to SF on the current rail system is definitely a pipe-dream. I can see that happening once we have 4 rails in place. I can easily see HSR cutting transit time between SJ and SF to under an hour though in current conditions.

So, while it's easy to tear down a proposal for what it lacks, what is your proposal to accomplish what the HSR is seeking to do, but better?

"We're way more spread out (i.e. we are not as densely packed as the Japanese and Europeans)"

I'm truly curious how this whole nonsense got started, by and large the vast majority of Californians live in its biggest cities and metro areas, something like 1% of the population lives in rural areas.

ON TV tonight they went to the San Francisco Transportation Center, under construction, which will open for transit buses, then eventually Caltrain and HSR. They said that Caltrain and HSR would be electrified. But the funding for these efforts is projected way out in time. When they showed a facsimile of the trains there was no overhead wires so what they are saying and what the pictures show is not the same. The trains will be in a lower tunnel so unclear why overhead wires would fit in the underground lower tunnel. Or why would they be necessary. There are a lot of new technologies which make overhead wires obsolete so it appears that this is an investment from a 15 year old plan and the contractor is still in the game.
The original plan for HSR is to go from LA to SF in 2 Plus hours so stopping at different stops already says the original plan is obsolete. This is getting down to competing with Caltrain for the San Jose to SF corridor which was not the original plan.
There lies the problem - over time there is confusing information and "facts"
which change as newer technology gets argued against the original plan. And as the Fresno portion roles out the holes in the plan start to show up. Way over budget. Taxpayer revolt. No trust in Government.

"You seem to be making multiple arguments against separate things and then squishing them together."

Squishing them together into the conclusion that HSR will be an albatross around the neck of Californians if built.

"Your density/spread-out argument is an issue with having a central subway mass transit system similar to one in Hong Kong, Tokyo, or London. "

Add Robert (is this Robert from Seattle?) "I'm truly curious how this whole nonsense got started, by and large the vast majority of Californians live in its biggest cities and metro areas, something like 1% of the population lives in rural areas."

Rail, like any transit system, requires density at the endpoints to work. We don't even have it in the Bay Area. San Francisco is not even the largest city in the Bay Area - that's San Jose - yet we're mandating the terminus to be there.

Going back to the original point of this thread - that's the problem we have with Caltrain and how really it is not effective as a people mover here right now. I take Caltrain everyday and I've been a regular BART and MUNI user in the past.. Caltrain designed to funnel people into San Francisco, yet a lot of big tech employers are on peninsula, where their main campuses are not even near any of the Caltrain stations. VTA is ineffective, so employers have to rely on private shuttles to get people around.

HSR basically would end up nowhere. We don't have the local transit support structure to support it. We propose HSR to end up in city centers where there's not enough land to have the same kind of support structures that we have around airports (parking, rental cars, etc.).

"30 minutes from SJ to SF on the current rail system is definitely a pipe-dream."

Well, that's what was written into Prop 1A. If it's a pipe-dream, then the Prop 1A funds should be withdrawn immediately.

"So, while it's easy to tear down a proposal for what it lacks, what is your proposal to accomplish what the HSR is seeking to do, but better?"

Travel between SFO/SJC and LAX/ONT/BUR already exists - it's air travel and it's a competitive market. As I noted earlier, fares today are even lower than what HSR proposes to pretend to fund itself. And, BTW, the planes today are regional jets or narrowbody aircraft (think 737s and A3xx). If airlines see the need to increase capacity, they could easily up gauge to bigger planes (e.g., 767s or A330s) without additional capital investment. In fact, even in Japan, where Shinkansen is prevalent, there is still air travel using wide bodies between cities.

What if I told you that HSR isn't just about getting from LA to SF, but also linking both of them to the Central Valley? Going from Fresno to San Jose would be immensely easier via HSR than via car, and far more accessible than via regional air.

Agree with the link to Central Valley. So just make it a train- not an HSR. HSR will never go to LA so the original concept is not doable.

@YIMBY - "What if I told you that HSR isn't just about getting from LA to SF, but also linking both of them to the Central Valley?"

I'm sure most people would be even more horrified at the extreme waste of money.

If Caltrain really wants to be competitive it needs to extend and improve its service.

For example, three northbound trains from Gilroy/Morgan Hill each morning and three southbound return trains in the evening commutes give very little choices to residents of the south county to get to even San Jose each day let alone to further points north of SJ. The south county is building and has space for more housing. Highway 101 is a commuter crawl. If Caltrain improved its service to this part of Silicon Valley it would help. So why isn't it doing so? Electrification is not the excuse for poor service choices down there, but what is? There has to be a passenger base and a better service would encourage more people to consider moving there. VTA is piloting a dedicated bus service using the HOV lanes on freeways from this area to Mountain View for a fare of $6 one way. How can and will Caltrain compete with this service?

There is a bigger picture here which is being overlooked completely. Electrification is necessary for the improvement of Caltrain, but it is not the only factor.

@ Resident--

Regarding Caltrain service south of San Jose--

Someone with more knowledge than I have can fill this in, but I believe there are issues of track ownership and sharing with Union Pacific freight service down there, I think I recall hearing long ago. The ownership structure is different than on the Peninsula. That's not to say that if there were sufficient demand somehow shown, that some additional schedules couldn't be worked out. Also, my understanding has been that the Caltrain service out of Gilroy would still use diesel trains, all the way up the Peninsula, interspersed with the electric trains out of San Jose.

I know that Union Pacific trains roll through late at night. So the tracks need to be able to carry both type of trains. I have seen more Union Pacific trains roll through the Redwood City Sequoia Station stop because there is more manufacturing going north. Seaport in Redwood City uses trains. And in Gilroy you have the agriculture so trains needed for crops. Those rails are for more than passengers. I don't get how they can have electric trains in the same set of rails as Union Pacific Freight trains. Also at some point there was a movement to carry more freight by train than trucks. Oakland is suppose to be building up their train capability so that more trains are carrying freight than trucks. It is unclear how these different concepts of rail use are all working out. But I assume that the money for electrification is on hold so we just keep going into limbo.

@resident wrote: "I don't get how they can have electric trains in the same set of rails as Union Pacific Freight trains."

Just like trucks and campers drive underneath streetcar (aka "light rail") wires, the overhead wires Caltrain will use are high enough for diesel locomotive-hauled (or electric) freight trains to safely run underneath. Happens all the time in other places here in the US and abroad. Easy peasy.

I don't understand why the High Speed Rail Authority can't do this itself. Six-hundred and forty eight million dollars is almost to the dollar ONE PERCENT of the sixty-four billion dollar bill for the entire project. Surely there are sufficient "contingency funds" to cover this essential project.

If there's a contingency that deserves the funds, this is it.

We need no high speed rail.

In regards to federal funding review, it is a good thing to make sure that these projects have value.

Respectfully

Reading the letters to the Editors of our local papers today - SFC and SJM - Trump gets blamed for HSR and lack of electrification funding. It is so amazing that Jerry Brown has been working this project for how many years and could have got the funding from Obama. Yet it did not happen because the project had too many holes in it. People - you cannot pass off to Trump the poor management of the current California politicians who cannot manage themselves out of the current flailing's and angst. It does not help that the local Silicon Valley representatives are continually tying to manipulate the transportation dollars. We voted for BART and did not get BART in Santa Clara County. That is a major sore point. We voted for tax help to upgrade the system in Santa Clara and we are still no where there. People need to start assigning responsibility for major errors in judgement where those errors occurred - that was more that 23 days ago.

Didn't Atherton continually hold up the program through litigation?

"What if I told you that HSR isn't just about getting from LA to SF, but also linking both of them to the Central Valley? Going from Fresno to San Jose would be immensely easier via HSR than via car, and far more accessible than via regional air."

So, you're advocating the expansion of sprawl to the Central Valley?

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you, for halting the electrification project. While in general I support the eventual electrification of CalTrain, the way they went about it was entirely wrong. You may recall Jerry Hill was against the high speed rail project initially, but eventually sold out and agreed to support the high speed rail project subject to get the electrification of CalTrain done for his voters. Nice job Jerry. So basically Jerry threw the tax payers under the bus (or train) because now we are stuck with the high speed rail project which has doubled or tripled in cost since the tax payers agreed to it. Sound like the new section of the Bay Bridge? Yep. Wake up tax payers. The high speed rail project is a great idea for some time far into the future. But not now. It's a solution to a problem that we don't have...Cal Train electrification should not be tied to the high speed rail project.

"Trump gets blamed for HSR and lack of electrification funding."

Trump deserves the blame for lack of electrification funding, but not for HSR--yet. Give him time.


"It is so amazing that Jerry Brown has been working this project for how many years and could have got the funding from Obama. Yet it did not happen ..."

Yes it did--see the post by "conflict of interest" in this thread.

Ahem: You're correct. It increases by about 1/5th due being able to accelerate and brake more quickly. Read my post about headway times.

You can increase capacity by either reducing headways (the interval between trains), or you can increase the capacity of the train. This is not rocket science.

Let's not forget that a major portion of planned CAHSR funding was supposed to come from private investment. And how is that going? Um, zero. Why? Any money manager can smell a stinker from a mile (or more) away.

Me-2 in on point.... "HSR basically would end up nowhere. We don't have the local transit support structure to support it. We propose HSR to end up in city centers where there's not enough land to have the same kind of support structures that we have around airports (parking, rental cars, etc.)"

HSR makes no sense with inadequate public transportation at the end points. HSR funds should have been used to build/improve the local trains and bicycle transit in LA/SF before even thinking about a high-speed link. The peninsula needs something like the one in Frankfurt Germany-- an underground U-bahn for intracity travel on the peninsula between SF and SJ, and a S-bahn connecting Bay area cities outside this corridor. This would address commuter congestion on 101/280/237, which is the highest priority, not traveling between SF-LA, which is adequately served by air or highway. The HSR is a massive waste of public funds with misplaced priorities-- trying to be "Green" while dying from CalTrain's carcinogenic diesel exhaust.

If electrification is so important, maybe we could use some of the money the state and county are using to fund sanctuary cities and illegal immigrant defense funds to pay for it?

Liberal progressive governments can fund those priorities whilst our roads, dams and railways crumble. Take a few of those heavily worn protester poster boards and put some signs outside the courthouse stating, "Your tax dollars at work".

This wasn't always a $2B project ... It started as $1.2B. Why can't Caltrain scale the project back to the currently allocated funds, and just get it done (without federal funds)? That's what we all do in our households!

One example, is to stop the idea to doing construction while trains are running. Just shut down service during off peak hours and weekends, and upgrade it then. I am sure, that money will be saved.

"The peninsula needs something like the one in Frankfurt Germany-- an underground U-bahn for intracity travel on the peninsula between SF and SJ, and a S-bahn connecting Bay area cities outside this corridor."

Amen Timmie. In fact, if we really want to use Europe as a "great example" for rail, it should be for how public transit is done in Germany (big fan of Munich's S-Bahn and U-Bahn myself).

What’s really going on here is Jerry Brown wants his legacy high-speed train, and that train will run on electricity. The state doesn’t have enough money to make the portion from San Jose to San Francisco into a high-speed route, but it still needs electrical power to run to San Francisco at conventional speeds. The feds don’t have any more money for high-speed rail, so the state asked for the money for Caltrain electrification (which would eventually be used by the semi-high-speed trains) as a way of getting around that limit.

That didn’t matter to outgoing Federal Transit Administration administrator Carolyn Flowers, who made a last-minute grant of $647 million to the state two days before Trump took over. A few days later, Flowers took a high-paying job with AECOM, a company that has been a major contractor for both Caltrain and the California High Speed Rail Authority. This led the Wall Street Journal to call California’s state capital “America’s western swamp.”
Web Link

This grant was approved by Federal Transit Administration chief Carolyn Flowers two days before President Obama left office. Ms Flowers now works at an engineering company that is a contractor for the Caltrain project. If in fact "Under normal circumstances this should have been easy," then the Obama administration should have approved it, rather than making a bad grant just to make the new administration look like bad guys. This is all about politics, but don't blame the current administration.

"If Caltrain really wants to be competitive it needs to extend and improve its service."

Competitive?

If Caltrain is to be competitive, it has to work without taxpayer subsidies. By my reckoning, taxpayers kick in about about $50 per passenger ride to subsidize the system! It uses far more fuel than buses or even 2-person automobiles for the rides it provides. It takes people from where they aren't to where they don't want to go at times they don't particularly want to travel - with the threat of a $300 criminal citation if they make a mistake with the arcane and opaque ticketing system.

We would be better off if Caltrain was forced to collect its full costs at the farebox - which would shut it down pronto - and if we instead legalized privately-run intercity buses and jitneys (think large-scale Uber Pool) to provide service along the route.

"If Caltrain is to be competitive, it has to work without taxpayer subsidies."

Competitive with what? Every transportation mode uses taxpayer subsidies. Even just ambling down the sidewalk.

Caltrain should not be viewed as a competitive entity. It is in fact part of our infrastructure and serves the whole community, even those who never ride it. It enables your doctor, dentist, teachers, retail workers, restaurant workers, get to work. It reduces the number of solo vehicles on the road. It is also the most used commuter public transport that we have here.

As part of our infrastructure, it has to be partly publicly funded. It provides a vital function for thousands of people every day. Just like any other infrastructure, if it fails, it will hit all of us.

Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't looking at the real world.

Someone above mentioned the arcane ticketing system. I am laughing now but the first time I rode to go up to a baseball game I did not do the ticket right and the conductor told me he could prosecute me. I am an avid Bart rider and think their ticketing system is the best. However I did get a bunch of gold tone dollars which was super.

I do not want to hear about Trump in relation to this project. We have been talking about this forever and not able to pull it off. Put the blame where it belongs - Jerry Brown.

"if we instead legalized privately-run intercity buses and jitneys (think large-scale Uber Pool) to provide service along the route."

And where would these buses and oversize Uber pools travel? Forget about turning the railroad right-of-way into a busway. You seem to be unaware that Union Pacific uses those tracks every day for freight and Jerry Brown's vanity HSR project has designs on it, so the tracks aren't going away. The only other place for your jitneys is the overcrowded freeways and El Camino where they'll be stuck in traffic jams along with everyone else. A commute rail service with a dedicated right-of-way is golden considering how badly the roads are congested nowadays.

The peninsula commute service lost money for Southern Pacific for years. That's why the State of California took it off their hands, so we knew it would require subsidies from the get-go.

The plan to electrify Caltrain is a mere bagatelle, a ruse to grease the skids for HSR in communities along the peninsula.

There is no way in Hades redundant rail service is needed up and down the peninsula. HSR should go no further than San Jose. Passengers can then transfer to Caltrain to get to the city.

Some of us want to upgrade Caltrain into a HSR system to make getting around the Peninsula easier/faster.

@Resident (of Another Palo Alto neighborhood),

Let's be honest about who is riding Caltrain. First, only 30,000 people or 1% of the peninsula's population of 3,000,000 people ride Caltrain.

While there might be some doctors, dentists, teachers, retail workers, restaurant workers, the vast majority of riders are millennial office-space workers who prefer to prefer to live in SF and limit their career options to one of the employers available along the railroad tracks.

Most of the doctors and dentists I know drive Tesla's. Savvy blue collar workers don't understand why anyone would voluntarily adopt a dis-empowering transportation technology and prefer motor-vehicles because they service their neighborhoods and their late/odd hours, and can haul awkward and/or heavy tools and equipment.

Caltrain electrification is going to cost $3,000,000,000 and will only increase the capacity of the system by 20% (6,000 riders). That comes to $100,000 per current rider, or $500,000 per additional rider. If this boondoggle is ever completed the vast majority of the benefits will accrue to a very small minority of mostly self-serving elites who want to pretend they are living in New York, but don't have the courage to go live there.

Caltrain is filled to the gills every rush hour. It's "only" 30,000 because max capacity has been hit. I'd also love to see this study on ridership demographics that I assume you're pulling the "millennial office-space worker" stat from.

Also, "a dis-empowering transportation technology". Not everyone needs a car to feel empowered, but hey, you do you.