.
Feedback

Report: Caltrain Electrification Could Pump Billions Into Economy

Report comes days before critical budget deadline in Sacramento.

 

The economic boost created by modernizing Caltrain could reach into the billions of dollars and create nearly 10,000 jobs, according to a report released Tuesday by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute.

The report comes just days before the California legislature’s deadline to submit a budget to Governor Jerry Brown that could commit the state to nearly $6 billion in funding for high speed rail.

Earlier this year, Caltrain with the California High Speed Rail Authority agreeing to pay for half of Caltrain’s modernization effort with high-speed rail funds. The budget deadline, on June 15th, is therefore also a critical date for Caltrain, because if state lawmakers decide against funding high speed rail, it could jeopardize Caltrain’s funding.

US Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Palo Alto) joined Bay Area Council President and CEO Jim Wunderman Tuesday morning and a coalition of business, labor, community and environmental leaders in announcing the report’s findings.

At its core, the report found that modernizing Caltrain by electrifying the entire system would create 9,581 job-years of new employment, $1 billion in immediate economic activity, and boost property value near rail stations by another $1 billion. Other economic benefits would total about $500 million.

“Our vision for a modernized Caltrain is before us—ready to go, ready to be funded, ready to make Caltrain better and to make our community better. The Bay Area Council study proves that modernizing Caltrain is a win on every level— environmental, economic and assurance of the kind of future we all want for our community,” Congresswoman Eshoo said. “Today, we’re poised to take steps that will assure a vibrant future for Caltrain. It’s time to show again that California can look ahead, can think big and that the little railroad that could, can again.”

Caltrain believes that, with funding from the California High-Speed Rail Authority, it can convert the entire Caltrain system to electric power by 2019.

The estimated benefits were calculated by looking at by adding gross regional product, state and local taxes, increases in residential property values, increased property tax collections, and the value of time saved by Caltrain riders.

“Our region needs this investment, our construction industry needs this, our environment needs this and frustrated drivers on Highway 101 need this. The state Legislature must approve this investment,” said Jim Wunderman, President and CEO of the Bay Area Council, which has been a strong advocate for investing in the electrification and modernization project. “Caltrain serves one of the most economically productive corridors in California and the nation, and one of the busiest and most congested commuter corridors in the Bay Area region. Electrifying this vital transportation system will boost ridership, clean up our air and remove thousands of cars a day from Highway 101.  At the same time, it lays the foundation for high speed rail to come to the Bay Area.”

Adrienne Tissier, chair of both the Caltrain Board of Directors and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, said that modernizing Caltrain is a mandatory part of the Peninsula's growth needs.

“For our region to grow and thrive we must invest in modernizing critical transportation infrastructure like Caltrain,” she said. “Investing in Caltrain will have significant and lasting benefits for our economy, jobs and our environment.”

For more San Carlos news, follow us on Twitter, or "like" us on Facebook!

Tom Ricks June 13, 2012 at 10:23 am
I am sorry to say this, but reports like this are the same "Economice-voodoo-BS" every government counsel of "economic-experts" puts out every time they want to get more tax-payor money. --They convientently forget to say that this "economic -boom" will be on the backs of the Calif. tax-payor. Consider this -If this high speed train deal was truly the economic wind-fall that they are saying it is --why hasn't private-investment capital (which looks at return-on-investment) rushed in and started building it????? The answer is that this train-project is a "pork-barrel" project for the politicans.-----

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Carlos Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Bob Winters June 18, 2013 at 08:51 am
Best of luck finding good homes, we already have two cats. You may want to consider this advertisingRead More technique: http://i41.tinypic.com/2s17tk0.jpg
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:07 pm
Marl Olbert said this right after refusing to second Matt Grocott's motion for 2 week delay of vote.Read More I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary. both in terms of compensation and provision I think part because he has never been a city manager before. and he had to prove himself. you can make a argument that that wasn't fair. if you think the person is capable for doing the job not necessarily the fact that they don't have the experience. it happens all over the place it happened to me personally it's just a part of the accepted process but another part of the accepted process is that if the person proves themselves you have to keep faith with them and if you don't you're actually sending a message You're saying that you can't trust us and i totally think that Mr. Maltbie is worth the pay, but besides that i think it is a issue of integrity and maintaining the integrity of the negotiation process and the hiring process that's why I'm going to vote yes for it.
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:08 pm
I would like to know who those various people were who gave Mark Olbert that understanding.
Michael G. Stogner June 17, 2013 at 04:54 pm
Council member Mark Olbert one who refused to second Mr. Grocott's motion made an interestingRead More statement. "I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary." I know for a fact that he didn't talk to Matt Grocott who was there. That leaves 3 potentials, 2 of them are deceased and the 3rd was Andy Klein who did not attend that meeting so he didn't vote. I would like to know who the "various people who were" are.
Marc Parent June 11, 2013 at 07:50 am
San Carlos just spent 10 Million after lawsuit from the "Bay Keepers", more activistsRead More wanting more money?
Holly Bell June 8, 2013 at 01:23 pm
Unbelievable!! Many voters are watching this issue closely and will remember this vote. Evidently,Read More these commissioners believe that resident's have no voice in city decision-making. Someone please name those commissioners who disregarded the loud-and-clear preference of the people. Time to clean house.
Bob Farkas June 8, 2013 at 02:01 pm
The two commissioners who voted for turf were John Seiling and Ray Merala. It was Ray's lastRead More meeting as a commissioner since he has termed out after 9+ years of service. I think they felt that the needs of the elite CYSO program should take precedence over neighbors and others who use the park. Youth sports seems a principal influencer at Parks and Rec. as they are the largest organized user of the facilities. I agree with many other opponents of this project that we all need to support adequate fields for youth sports. I just think these needs have to be in balance with those of the rest of the community. It was very disappointing that, although it is field availability which is purportedly driving this initiative, there was no available recent data to demonstrate the problem or an analysis of how much of the problem would be addressed by this measure. To a businessman like me, this seems a very unprofessional approach.
Concerned Taxpayer June 8, 2013 at 07:08 pm
This is purely a NIMBY issue. Lets just all be honest about that. The folks who live across fromRead More Highlands Park were the loudest opponents there and were citing all kinds of crazy issues when they should have just been honest and said,"I really don't want to look at more people and cars at the public park that is across the street from me and was there when I moved in." That is essentially the true gripe. NIMBY!!! A very weak argument and unelectable dishonest. Unless you can create more land we have to extend the use at existing parks and fields. This is very logical. We live in California and having to use astro turf stinks but we also live where there is no more available land to utilize. The commissions punted this to the council pure and simple. Well we already know who will vote against it. I am curious who will vote for it?????
Bill June 5, 2013 at 02:53 pm
This post makes zero sense. Bike lanes are a visual reminder to drivers that they must share theRead More road with riders. For every cyclist who is not observing the rules of traffic, I will show you 100 texting drivers. Removing bike lanes is not the answer.