Transcript Document

California High Speed Rail Project
Burlingame Parent Ed
HSR-PREP
May 25, 2010
CARRD

Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design
–
–
–
–
–

Founders
–
–


Grassroots volunteer organization
Process focus
Engage community and encourage participation
Watchdog for transparency
Do NOT advocate for a particular implementation or route
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]
Agenda

Presentation
–
–
–


Additional Overview Information
Community Engagement
Using the CSS Tool-kit
Q&A
Reminder for Upcoming Meetings
California HSR Governance

High Speed Rail Authority
–
–
–

Legislature – controls State bond funds
–
–
–

9 appointed Board members
less than dozen state employees
4 tiered web of consultants / contractors do the bulk
of the work
Senate Transportation & Housing - Lowenthal
Senate Budget Subcommittee 2 – Simitian
Legislative Analysts Office
Peer Review Committee
–
–
8 appointed members (5 of 8 so far)
No budget, no staff, no meetings (yet)
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

Cumulative Impacts
–



Altamont + Pacheco
Ridership Claims
New Altamont route
proposal
Union Pacific Position
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
Electric trains
(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
Burlingame

Right of Way
–
–

Grade Separations
–

2 additional tracks
Constrained width south of Howard
Broadway, Oak Grove, North Lane (near station),
Howard, Bayswater, Peninsula
Caltrain Station Re-Design
Burlingame Considerations






Burlingame High School
Tree Canopy among the densest along the
corridor
Historic Resources
Business District
Community cohesion & connectivity
City’s official preferred alternative is below
grade in a tunnel or cut & cover
Community Engagement
How can I get involved
and make a difference?
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 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, Transit Authorities, etc.
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
Getting Involved

With HSRA
–
–

Officially via comments to the Environmental
Review process
As a Stakeholder
With your community
–
–
–
–
–
–
Grassroots groups
City Council
County Representatives
Caltrain Representatives (Joint Powers Board)
Elected Officials – Testify, Send Letters
Media
Organizations

Statewide
–
–

Regional
–
–
–

High Speed Rail Authority
CARRD, CC-HSR, CA4HSR
Peninsula Rail Program
Peninsula Cities Consortium
Counties, Caltrain, SamTrans
Burlingame focus
–
–
–
City of Burlingame
HSR-PREP
Don’t Railroad Us
Context Sensitive Solutions and
the Tool Kit
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
Context Sensitive Solutions Steps
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!
Catalog community asset

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
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
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]
Vertical Alignments
Type
Above Grade
At Grade
Below Grade
Design
Avg Width
Berm
85 ft
Viaduct
79 ft
Road over/under pass
96 ft
Open Trench
96 ft
Cut & cover (trench)
96 ft
Bored tunnel
96 ft
Altamont Corridor Project