Transcript Document

California High Speed Rail Project
Palo Alto Chamber of
Commerce
May 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: [email protected]
CARRD Approach

Process focus
–
–

Engage community and encourage participation
–
–

Collaborative, open, constructive approach
We do NOT advocate for a particular implementation or
route
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
Los Angeles Anaheim
Palmdale –
Los Angeles
Bakersfield Palmdale
Fresno Bakersfield
Merced Fresno
San Jose Merced
San Francisco
- San Jose
Tiered Approach to CEQA
Statewide EIR
2005
Bay Area to Central Valley

Program Level analyzed
two routes
–
–

Pacheco Route / Caltrain
Corridor Selected
–
–

East Bay via Altamont
Peninsula via Pacheco
Litigation challenged the
decision.
EIR decertified and recirculated.
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
–
–

Grade Separations
–

2 additional tracks needed
Constrained right of way widths near
Paly/Southgate
Alma, Churchill, Meadow, Charleston
Potential HSR Station
–
–
–
Station design options
Local requirements & contributions
Selection Process
Palo Alto Right of Way*
96 ft
85 ft
79 ft
*Approximate – not perfectly to scale. Not official diagram.
Type
Design
Above Grade
Aerial Viaduct
At Grade
Below Grade
At Grade
(Road over/under
pass)
Open Trench
Width
approx
80-105
95-105
Highly
variable
100
3.5X base
Cut & cover (trench) 100-140
Bored tunnel
Cost
3X base
70-115
5X base
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
–
–

Open Trench, Closed Trench, Viaduct
–
–

Where: throughout Palo Alto
Why: community objection
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
–



Palo Alto has second highest Caltrain
ridership (followed by Mountain View)
Station designs currently being studied
Local requirements
–
–

Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View
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

–
Peninsula Cities Consortium

–
–
Palo Alto HSR Subcommittee meetings (1st & 3rd Thurs 8:30
am)
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

–
Sensitive areas


–

Open space, trees, wildlife, wetlands/creeks
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.com
[email protected]
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
–
–
–


Bunker mentality
Community Skepticism
–
–
–

Technical, funding, political, environmental, procedural
challenges
Recognized benefits
Tremendous costs
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 SFSJ
–
–
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
–

Ridership Claims
–


Altamont + Pacheco
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





Grade Separations
–

Wakins ~ 85 ft
Encinal ~ 75 ft
Glenwood – Oak Grove ~ 60 ft
South of Station ~ 80-100 ft
(Watkins), Encinal, Glenwood, Oak Grove,
Ravenswood, (Alma)
Caltrain Station reconfiguration
Alternatives for Menlo Park
Menlo Park Alternatives Eliminated

Berm/Retained Fill
–
–

Open Trench
–
–

Where: throughout city
Why: widespread community opposition
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
–

Grade Separations
–

Minimum 79 feet of ROW
Rengstorff, Castro
Potential HSR Station
–
–
–
Station design options
Local requirements & contributions
Selection Process
Mountain View Alternatives