California High Speed Rail Project

Community Perspective

CARRD

 Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design – – – – – Grassroots volunteer organization Process focus Engage community and encourage participation Watchdog for transparency Do NOT advocate for a particular implementation or route    Founders – – Nadia Naik, Elizabeth Alexis, Rita Wespi, Sara Armstrong Palo Alto base, State wide focus We are not transportation experts, we are not lawyers Contact info – – website: www.calhsr.com

email: [email protected]

Agenda

 Project Overview  Regional & Local Focus  Process Description  Q&A

California High Speed Rail Project

  November 2008 - Prop 1A authorized State Bond Funds – plan, construct and operate a High Speed Train system from San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim 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 bond funds Peer Review Committee  8 appointed & confirmed members

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

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

Bay Area to Central Valley

     Program Level analyzed two routes – – East Bay via Altamont Peninsula via Pacheco Pacheco Route along Caltrain Corridor Selected Litigation challenged the decision EIR decertified and re circulated Deadline: April 26!

San Francisco to San Jose

 Caltrain Corridor  Caltrain + HSRA = Peninsula Rail Program  Caltrain and Freight will continue operations during construction

Structural & Operational changes

Current

Commuter + Freight Diesel engines

Proposed

Commuter + Freight + HSR Electric trains (freight trains remain diesel) 4 track system, freight spurs 2 tracks; passing tracks; freight spurs 47 grade level crossings 12 trains/hr peak 79 mph max speed Fully grade separated 20 HS trains/hr peak + 20 Caltrains/hr peak 125 mph max speed

Palo Alto

 Additional 2 tracks – Minimum 79 feet of ROW  Grade Separations – Alma, Churchill, Meadow, Charleston  Potential HSR Station – Station design options – Local requirements & contributions – Selection Process

Palo Alto Right of Way

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

96 ft 85 ft 79 ft

Vertical Alignments

Type Above Grade At Grade Below Grade Design Berm Avg Width 85 ft Viaduct 79 ft Road over/under pass 96 ft Open Trench Cut & cover (trench) Bored tunnel 96 ft 96 ft 96 ft

Visualization

HSRA Concept Video of Churchill Crossing

Berm Alignment

Viaduct Alignment

At Grade (Overpass/Underpass)

Open Trench

Closed Trench (Cut & Cover)

Deep bored tunnel

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

Process

How we got here & how you can help

Environmental Review Process

  Mandated by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) – – –

Applicant

studies impacts, mitigations, alternatives

Lead Agency

certifies the studies Responsible for enforcing CEQA:

you!

HSRA Environmental Reports – – – 2005: Statewide Program EIR 2008: Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR.

But

decertified & reopen now Segmented into 9 Geographic Project level teams  San Francisco to San Jose Project EIR – now in “Alternatives Analysis” phase

Re-circulated Program Level EIR

   Revised Draft of Program Level EIR released March 11 – – – www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov

website CHSRA requested comments focus only on revised material CARRD encourages stakeholders to submit comments on the *full* record to provide up-to-date information How to Comment - Anyone can comment!

– Subject: “

Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft Program EIR Material Comments

” – – – – Attn: Dan Levitt, California High Speed Rail Authority 925 L Street, Suite 1425 Sacramento, CA 95814 [email protected]

fax to (916) 322-0827 Deadline:

April 26, 2010

San Francisco – San Jose Project EIR

2009

Purpose and Need for HST Project

Alternatives Alternatives Analysis:

•Develop Alternatives and Design Options •Assess Environmental & ROW Constraints and Impacts •Select Alternatives to be Included in the EIR/EIS •Prepare Alternatives Analysis Report Analysis Report

2010

Prepare SF to SJ HST Draft EIR/EIS C irculate Draft EIR/EIS

2011

Formally Adopt San Francisco to San Jose HST

Final EIR/EIS SCOPING OUTREACH PUBLIC COMMENT PUBLIC & AGENCY OUTREACH PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

Why make a comment?

    Only official way to communicate concerns

Anyone

can comment EIR is like a full disclosure document – – – – Goal is to gather the most accurate data to based the analysis Help identify what they need to mitigate Do not assume HSRA knows your community Do not assume the City of Palo Alto will comment for you This is a once in a lifetime project and you can help make it better!

– If you write a comment – it MUST be considered and addressed. – No comment means you forgo rights to any recourse in the future

Three ways to send comments

 Regular U.S. mail to: – California High-Speed Rail Authority c/o Dan Leavitt 925 L Street, Suite 1425 Sacramento, CA 95814   Attn: Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft Program EIR Material Comments Via email to: [email protected]

– – Copy to: [email protected]

Subject line “Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft Program EIR Material Comments” Fax to: (916) 322-0827

Comment basics

   Include – – – Valid name & address Reviewing agencies or organizations should include the name of a contact person, who would be available for questions or consultation, along with their comments Title of EIR you are commenting on Submit it before the deadline. – Send your comments in early, so they have time to consider your concerns Keep a copy of your comments – Send a copy to your city

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

Content

 Cataloging community assets  Identifying impacts & mitigations  Suggesting alternatives  Correcting any inaccuracies, omissions, errors in the record

Catalog community asset

 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

  Consider ways to avoid impacts or enforceable ways to reduce the severity of impacts – – – – Quantify your concerns whenever possible Identify the specific impact in question; Explain why you believe the impact would occur; Explain why you believe the effect would be significant; – Explain what additional mitigation measure(s) or changes in proposed mitigations you would recommend.

– Explain why you would recommend any changes and support your recommendations.

Don’t let the fear of not having supporting data keep you from commenting.

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

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

CSS Toolkit

 Available at Caltrain/Peninsula Rail Program Website  Seeks community feedback on all alignment options  Early participation is the best way to ensure your ideas and concerns are incorporated

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.com

[email protected]