California High Speed Rail Project

Palo Alto Chamber of CommerceMay 27, 2010

CARRD

Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design Founders

– Nadia Naik, Sara Armstrong, Elizabeth Alexis, Rita Wespi

– Palo Alto base, State wide focus We are not transportation experts, we are not lawyers Contact info 

– website: www.calhsr.com– email: info@carrdnet.org

CARRD Approach

Process focus – Collaborative, open, constructive approach– We do NOT advocate for a particular implementation or

route

Engage community and encourage participation– Wisdom of crowds, creative solutions– Tools for self-advocacy

Watchdogs for– Transparency – push to get more information public– Accountability – demand professionalism, accuracy– Oversight – encourage State Senate, Peer Review

California High Speed Rail Project

1980’s – California begins researching HSR 1993 – California Inter-City High Speed Rail

Commission 1994 – Federal “High Speed Rail Development Act”

creates five national HSR corridors 2002 – First bond measure proposed but delayed 2004 – Statewide system studied 2005 – Ridership surveys and studies 2008 – Bay Area to Central Valley EIR November 2008 - Prop 1A authorized State Bond

Funds– plan, construct and operate a High Speed Train system

from San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim

HSR System

800 mile network Electric powered trains

via overhead contact wires

Maximum speed of 220 miles per hour

Fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment

Automated safety systems (Positive train control)

California HSR Governance

High Speed Rail Authority– 9 appointed Board members– less than dozen state employees– 4 tiered web of consultants / contractors do the bulk of the

work Legislature – controls State bond funds

– Senate Transportation & Housing - Lowenthal– Senate Budget Subcommittee 2 – Simitian– Legislative Analysts Office

Peer Review Committee– 8 appointed members (5 of 8 so far)– No staff, no meetings (yet). Update: budget allocated

Federal Agencies – FRA, FTA

Funding Plan

Backbone System Cost: $42.6 billion– Federal Grants $17 - $19 billion– State Bond Funds $9 billion (Prop 1A)– Local Contributions $4 - $5 billion– Private Investors $10 - $12 billion

Awarded $2.25 billion stimulus funds (we only get it if we make the deadlines)

Plan calls for $3 Billion in Federal funding every year for 6 yrs

Environmental Review Process

Mandated by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Administrative, linear process Applicant studies impacts, mitigations,

alternatives Lead Agency certifies the studies Responsible for enforcing CEQA: you! You must participate in the process to have

any recourse if you don’t like the final decision

Ridership Study / Analysis / Model

San

Fra

nci

sco

-

San

Jo

se

Tiered Approach to CEQA

San

Jo

se -

Mer

ced

Bay Area -

CentralValley 2008

Mer

ced

-

Fre

sno

Fre

sno

-

Bak

ersf

ield

Bak

ersf

ield

-

Pal

md

ale

Pal

md

ale

– L

os

An

gel

es

Lo

s A

ng

eles

-

An

ahei

m

Statewide EIR2005

Bay Area to Central Valley

Program Level analyzed two routes

– East Bay via Altamont– Peninsula via Pacheco

Pacheco Route / Caltrain Corridor Selected

– Litigation challenged the decision.

– EIR decertified and re-circulated.

Altamont corridor will be an “overlay” to main HSR line

San Francisco to San Jose

Caltrain Corridor Caltrain + HSRA =

Peninsula Rail Program Caltrain and Freight will

continue operations during construction

Structural & Operational changes

Current Proposed

Commuter + Freight Commuter + Freight + HSR

Diesel engines, manual control Electric trains w/ PTC (freight trains remain diesel)

2 tracks; passing tracks; freight spurs

4 track system, freight spurs

47 grade level crossings Fully grade separated

12 trains/hr peak 20 HS trains/hr peak +

20 Caltrains/hr peak

79 mph max speed 125 mph max speed

SF – SJ via Baby Bullet: 57 min SF – SJ via HSR: 30 min

SF – SJ Build Costs &Timeline

Project Costs– $6.14 B in Year of Expenditure $– ARRA award set up $400M for Transbay

Terminal Timeline

– Dec 2010 - Draft EIR– Jul 2011 – Final EIR– Sep 2011 – Record of Decision– Winter 2012 – Begin construction– Summer 2019 – Revenue Service

Palo Alto

Track Configuration– 2 additional tracks needed– Constrained right of way widths near

Paly/Southgate Grade Separations

– Alma, Churchill, Meadow, Charleston Potential HSR Station

– Station design options– Local requirements & contributions– Selection Process

Palo Alto Right of Way*

Peer

s Pa

rk

Mea

dow

Cha

rles

ton

San

Ant

onio

Uni

vers

ity

Emba

rcad

ero

Alm

a

Cal

Ave

96 ft85 ft79 ft

*Approximate – not perfectly to scale. Not official diagram.

Type DesignWidth

approx Cost

Above Grade Aerial Viaduct80-105 3X base

At GradeAt Grade

(Road over/under pass)

95-105 Highly variable

Below Grade

Open Trench 100 3.5X base

Cut & cover (trench) 100-140 5X base

Bored tunnel 70-115 7X base

Aerial Viaduct

At Grade (Cars can NOT go over like they do today)

Highly Variable based road and property configuration

Trench

Cut and Cover

Deep Bored Tunnel – High Speed Rail ONLY

Palo Alto Alternatives Carried Forward

Palo Alto Alternatives Eliminated

Berm/Retained fill eliminated– Where: throughout Palo Alto– Why: community objection

Open Trench, Closed Trench, Viaduct– Where: Alma– Why: El Palo Alto & San Fransisquito Creek,

Historic Train Station Underground Station & deep tunnel Caltrain

– Where: corridor wide– Why: cost constraints

Mid Peninsula Station

One or none of– Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View

Palo Alto has second highest Caltrain ridership (followed by Mountain View)

Station designs currently being studied Local requirements

– Parking, transit facilities– Funding support

City of Palo Alto has not taken a formal position

Getting Involved

With HSRA– Officially  via comments to the Environmental Review

process– As a CSS Stakeholder

With your community– PAN and other grassroots groups– City of Palo Alto  

Palo Alto HSR Subcommittee meetings (1st & 3rd Thurs 8:30 am)

– Peninsula Cities Consortium  www.peninsularail.com

– County, State and National Legislators– Talk to your friends

Tips on writing a good comment

Be Objective and Specific– Whenever possible, present facts or expert

opinions. – If not, provide personal experience or your

personal observations. Don't just complain Separate your concerns into clearly

identifiable paragraphs or headings. Don't mix topics.

Areas of Study

Air Quality Noise / Vibration Traffic and Circulation Land Use, Development,

Planning, & Growth Biological Resources Wetlands / Waters of the

U.S. Flood Hazards,

Floodplains, and Water Quality

Visual Quality & Aesthetics Parks & Recreational

Facilities Historic / Archeological

Resources Hazards and Hazardous

Materials Community Impacts /

Environmental Justice Construction Impacts Cumulative Impacts

Catalog community assets

Identify “sensitive” areas– Historic Resources– Natural Resources

Open space, trees, wildlife, wetlands/creeks

– Sensitive areas Schools, hospitals, places of worship, funeral homes Parklands

– Business Interests Describe community values

Identify Impacts & Mitigations

Identify the specific impact in question Explain the significance of effect Consider ways to avoid or reduce severity

– Describe additional mitigation measure(s) needed

– Recommend changes in proposed mitigations Support your recommendations Quantify your concerns whenever possible

Suggest Alternatives

Offer specific alternatives Describe how they meet the requirements of

the project Can be on specific alignments, operations,

financing, etc Suggest different analysis methodologies

Help provide accurate record

Point out any inconsistencies in the document or the data

Point out outdated information or Errors in logic Focus on the sufficiency of the information in

identifying and analyzing the possible impacts of the project on the environment

Remember

Don’t be overwhelmed You know your community – just write about it The burden of proof is on the Authority – not you! If you don’t offer ideas, we miss a chance for

“Best Practices”

Democracy is not a spectator sport!

Thank You!

For more information:www.calhsr.cominfo@carrdnet.org

Context Sensitive Solutions

Collaborative approach– Involves all stakeholders – Works by consensus – Balance transportation

needs and community values

Proven Process Adopted by Peninsula

Rail Program for SF-SJ– First time it is being used

on a Rail Project– “Toolkit” to collect

community information

Climate

Incredibly ambitious & complex project– Technical, funding, political, environmental, procedural

challenges– Recognized benefits– Tremendous costs

Bunker mentality Community Skepticism

– Extent of impacts– Lack of specificity– Change is often painful

Economic meltdown, budget crisis

Grassroots Landscape

Groups throughout the State – each with their own focus

Common theme: Serve to educate elected officials & public on the issues

Act as watchdogs for process – request information and access to data used for decisions

Speak publicly at Senate, Assembly, City meetings, etc.

Context Sensitive Solutions Steps

Context Sensitive Solutions

Collaborative approach– Involves all stakeholders – Works by consensus – Balance transportation needs and community

values Proven Process Adopted by Peninsula Rail Program for SF-

SJ– First time it is being used on a Rail Project– “Toolkit” to collect community information

CSS Toolkit

Available at Caltrain/Peninsula Rail Program Website

Seeks community feedback on all alignment options

Serves as a framework– Do not feel confined by the template – you can

elaborate– You can write your comments too!

Early participation is the best way to ensure your ideas and concerns are incorporated

Altamont Corridor Project

Bay Area to Central Valley Issues

Cumulative Impacts– Altamont + Pacheco

Ridership Claims– May 6, 2010: legal action seeks to reopen Court’s

decision

New Altamont route proposal Union Pacific Position

– “no part of the high-speed rail corridor may be located on (or above, except for overpasses) UP’s rights of way at any location. To the extent the Authority ignores this position, its revised EIR is deficient.”

Example – Noise Pollution

Provide inventory of sensitive areas– assume most impactful alternative

900 feet on either side of tracks 1/4 mile radius from Stations

Be Specific– document location, population, hours, layout– reference standards (City, Federal, WHO, etc)– request specific analyses and mitigations– Identify any omissions, inaccuracies and errors in

the document

Menlo Park

Alternatives

Menlo Park

Track Configuration– 2 additional tracks needed– Right of Way width < 100 ft thru most of City

Wakins ~ 85 ft Encinal ~ 75 ft Glenwood – Oak Grove ~ 60 ft South of Station ~ 80-100 ft

Grade Separations– (Watkins), Encinal, Glenwood, Oak Grove,

Ravenswood, (Alma) Caltrain Station reconfiguration

Alternatives for Menlo Park

Menlo Park Alternatives Eliminated

Berm/Retained Fill – Where: throughout city– Why: widespread community opposition

Open Trench– Where: border w/ Palo Alto– Why: San Francisquito Creek & El Palo Alto

Deep Tunnel for Caltrain– Where: corridor wide– Why: excessive cost

Mountain View

Alternatives

Mountain View

Additional 2 tracks– Minimum 79 feet of ROW

Grade Separations– Rengstorff, Castro

Potential HSR Station– Station design options– Local requirements & contributions– Selection Process

Mountain View Alternatives