Transcript California High Speed Rail Project Leadership Mountain View May 21, 2010 CARRD  Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design  Grassroots volunteer organization  – Founders: Nadia Naik, Sara Armstrong,

California High Speed Rail Project
Leadership Mountain View
May 21, 2010
CARRD

Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design

Grassroots volunteer organization

–
Founders: Nadia Naik, Sara Armstrong, Elizabeth
–
Alexis, Rita Wespi
Palo Alto base, State wide focus
We are not transportation experts, we are not lawyers
Agenda

Presentation
–
–
–

High Speed Rail Project Overview
Grassroots’ Influence of Project
Using Collaboration for Best Practices
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 State bond funds
Peer Review Committee


8 appointed members (5 of 8 so far)
No budget, no staff, no meetings (yet)
California HSR System





800 mile network
Electric powered trains
via overhead contact
wires
Maximum speed of 220
miles per hour (125
between SF-SJ)
Fully grade-separated,
dedicated track
alignment
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



RESPOND
DECIDE
Final Document EIR
Record of Decision
Notice of
Determination
EVALUATE
Identify Preferred
Alternative
Circulate Draft EIR &
Hearing
Document
Development
LISTEN
Alternatives Analysis
INFORM
Technical Studies
Scoping
Notice of
Intent/Preparation
California Environmental Quality Act
Applicant studies impacts, mitigations, alternatives
Lead Agency certifies the studies
Responsible for enforcing CEQA: you!
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
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
Altamont will be done
as an “overlay”
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
SF – SJ Build Costs & Timeline

Project Costs
–
–

$6.14 Billion
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
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
Getting Involved with HSR

With HSRA and Peninsula Rail Program
–
–

Officially via comments to the Environmental
Review process
As a CSS Stakeholder
With your community
–
City of Mountain View


–
HSR Subcommittee meetings
Meeting on Alternative Analysis: Tuesday, May 25, 5pm
Peninsula Cities Consortium


www.peninsularail.com
Alternating Friday mornings
Grassroots Advocacy
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.
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
Focus on providing value




Legislative Update
Education & Outreach
Business Plan and Ridership Review
Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS)
–
–
–
–
Collaborative approach
Involves all stakeholders
Works by consensus
Balance transportation needs and community
values
Lessons Learned






Show up
Highlight BOTH sides of the issue – balance
Focus on process – not outcomes
Don’t just complain - Offer help and suggest
improvements
Make suggestions to Authority, Cities,
Agencies and Elected Officials to improve the
public process all around
Provide information or connect people to
share information
Collaboration to Achieve Best
Practices
All Politics is Local

Importance of Legislation on local issues
–
–
–
–



CEQA Exemptions
Spending of money
Checks and balances on the process
Governance of project
Help Elected Officials understand your issue
Help Cities serve their citizens
Engage all stakeholders to broaden
awareness of concerns
Take aways





Become an “expert” on all aspects
Understand the issue from a variety of
perspectives
Work towards informing the public about the
entire issue
Collaborate with those who need help
understanding the issues
Volunteer to help without an agenda
Thank You!
For more information:
www.calhsr.com
[email protected]
Mountain View Alternatives
Mid Peninsula Station

One or none of
–



Mountain View has third highest Caltrain
ridership (followed by San Jose)
Station designs currently being studied
Local requirements
–
–

Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View
Parking, transit facilities
Funding support
City of Mountain View officially requested
being considered for a station
San Francisco – San Jose Project EIR
2009
Purpose
and
Need
for HST
Project
SCOPING
OUTREACH
Alternatives
Alternatives
Alternatives
Analysis:
•Develop
Analysis:
Analysis:
Alternatives and
•Develop
Alternatives
•Develop Alternatives
Design
Options
and
Options
and Design
Design Options
•Assess
the
•Assess
•Assess the
Environmental&and
and
Environmental
Environmental
ROWConstraints
Constraintsand
ROW
Constraints
ROW
and
and Impacts
Impacts
Impacts
•Select
Alternatives
•Select
Alternativesto
•Select Alternatives
be
Included
in the
tobe
be
Included
inthe
to
Included
in
EIR/EIS
the EIR/EIS
EIR/EIS
•Prepare
Alternatives
•PrepareAlternatives
•Prepare
Analysis
Report
Alternatives
Analysis
Report
Analysis Report
PUBLIC
COMMENT
2011
2010
Prepare
SF to SJ
HST
Draft
EIR/EIS
PUBLIC &
AGENCY
OUTREACH
Circulate
Draft
EIR/EIS
Formally
Adopt San
Francisco
to San
Jose HST
Final
EIR/EIS
PUBLIC
COMMENT
Funding Sources Timeline
Altamont Corridor Project
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
How CARRD works





All volunteer network – each volunteer works
with their strengths and interests
Quickly determined too much info was
unavailable or missing
Research info and distribute or post it
Focus on process, transparency,
accountability and oversight
Goal is to get the public access to info so
everyone can all make informed decisions
Berm Alignment
Viaduct Alignment
At Grade (Overpass/Underpass)
Open Trench
Closed Trench (Cut & Cover)
Bay Area to Central Valley Issues

Cumulative Impacts
–

Ridership Claims
–

Altamont + Pacheco
May 6, 2010: legal action seeks to reopen Court’s
decision
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.”
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