Transcript California High Speed Rail Project Menlo Park Rotary Club May 26, 2010

California High Speed Rail Project
Menlo Park Rotary Club
May 26, 2010
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

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 State bond funds
Peer Review Committee


8 appointed members (5 of 8 so far)
No staff, no meetings Update: budget allocated
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)
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
–
–

East Bay via Altamont
Peninsula via Pacheco
Pacheco Route along
Caltrain Corridor
Selected
–
–
Litigation challenged
the decision.
EIR decertified and
re-circulated.
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.”
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
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
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
Process
How we got here & how
you can help
Getting Involved

With HSRA
–
–

Officially via comments to the Environmental
Review process
As a CSS Stakeholder
With your community
–
–
–
–
Grassroots groups
City of Menlo Park
County, State and National Legislators
Talk to your friends
Upcoming Menlo Park Meetings

June 1st – Alternatives Analysis Meeting
–

6pm in this room
June 22nd – Menlo Park City Council Meeting
on HSR discussing city’s response to
Preliminary AA
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
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
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]
Context Sensitive Solutions Steps
Altamont Corridor Project
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]