Is the Caltrain Downtown Extension in Jeopardy too?

A rendering of the Transbay terminal with Caltrain and HSR. Image: Transbay Authority
A rendering of the Transbay terminal with Caltrain and HSR. Image: Transbay Authority

Today, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a story that made it appear that San Francisco County Transportation Authority  (CTA) Chairman Aaron Peskin wants to shelve the downtown extension of Caltrain, now that the Trump Administration seems to have jammed up funding for Caltrain electrification.

From the Chronicle story:

…without an electrified Caltrain line, there can be no high-speed trains into downtown San Francisco. “Why are we spending money to design something that may never be built at all?” said Supervisor Aaron Peskin… Some officials hold out hope that President Trump will eventually release the $647 million in electrification funding for Caltrain, but that’s hardly a sure thing. Peskin figured it was time to hold off, at least until the authority hears more next month from city transportation planners. So on Friday, the authority sent word that the city’s money, like the federal contribution, will stay on ice.

Fortunately, initial reactions are that the Chron‘s story is misleading. Apparently, Peskin asked for the delay so that the CTA board could hear a presentation about the Railyard Alternatives and I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study (RAB), which is directly related, before approving $6.7 million in city funding for preliminary engineering work on the DTX.

“He’s… having a parallel conversation with folks about delaying the vote so we could talk about the DTX alignment,” said Sunny Angulo, legislative aide to Peskin, in a phone interview with Streetsblog. “What we’ve been telling stakeholders is we want to push the vote to March, so we could talk to Caltrain, the rail yard study people, and discuss alignments…. The quote [in the Chron] is out of context.”

The Chron piece may, indeed, be conflating innocent scheduling issues with the Caltrain electrification funding problem. Either way, DTX, as Streetsblog’s past editorials argue, has been pushed back for too long.

From Streetsblog’s perspective, the DTX must move forward, even if Caltrain electrification falls through in this round thanks to the Trump Administration. Yes, Caltrain’s current locomotive-hauled diesel trains emit fumes, which are a big problem in a long tunnel and underground station. But Caltrain electrification is going to happen eventually. Given the long timeline of these projects, it would be better to proceed with DTX and find stop-gap service options, if necessary.

San Francisco will have to electrify the Transbay Terminal train station and the DTX itself regardless. So if DTX ends up finished before Caltrain electrifies, San Francisco can, at the very least, run an electric train shuttle between Transbay and 4th and King. Or Caltrain can use dual-mode locomotives (which can run on diesel or electrification) to run Caltrain trains directly into Transbay without electrifying its mainline–New York City has used dual-mode commuter trains for over seventy years to bring diesel-powered trains into Grand Central and Penn Station. Either way, it would make no sense to use problems with Caltrain electrification as a reason to jam up the DTX project.

“DTX is an absolutely critical project. It wouldn’t just connect the Peninsula and South Bay to downtown S.F., it would allow transit riders to access the whole region via transfers at the Transbay Terminal,” said Stuart Cohen, Executive Director of TransForm.  “We should be moving ahead.”

The CTA Board will hear more about DTX at its regular meeting tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb. 28, at 11:00 AM in the Legislative Chamber (Room 250), City Hall.

  • ItsEasyBeingGreen

    Wouldn’t they not be able to run service into an underground terminal unless the trains were electric?

  • Roger R.

    Thanks for commenting. Yes, but there are workarounds (note that NYC has been running diesels into Penn and Grand Central for over 70 years, using dual-mode diesel-electrics). I had a few paragraphs in the post about that and other potential stop-gap measures but inadvertently removed them. I’ll update when I get a chance.

  • hikertom

    Caltrain electrification should be a no-brainer. It creates jobs, gets more people to work faster, and boosts economic growth. Shouldn’t it be a higher priority than making more nuclear bombs?

  • Since Peskin has come up with a new excuse to defund Caltrain, does that mean he’s no longer using the Millennium tower as an excuse to screw Caltrain riders?

  • Holmes


  • Drew Levitt

    Of course – but then again we libtards live in a world of non-alternative facts. Silly us.

  • david vartanoff

    Yes, there have been dual mode units run in and out of Penn and GCT, but aside from lousy MDBF, the simple excess cost of operating a locomotive carrying extra dead weight every mile does add up over the years.


SPUR Talk: High-Speed Rail on its Way to Northern California

High-Speed Rail construction is well underway in the Central Valley, said Ben Tripousis, Northern California Regional Director for the California High Speed Rail Authority, during a forum at the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association’s (SPUR) Mission Street center. “The High-Speed Rail question has shifted from ‘if’ to ‘when,'” he told the packed house at today’s […]

Forum: Governing Caltrain in the Age of Electrification

From the Bay Rail Alliance: How does it make sense to govern Caltrain in the age of electrification? The Transbay Joint Powers Authority is considering the creation of a public-private partnership, charging a toll on Caltrain and HSR riders to help fund the Downtown Extension to the Transbay Terminal.  Would it make sense to have […]