california high speed rail project menlo park rotary club may 26, 2010

California High Speed Rail Project

Menlo Park Rotary ClubMay 26, 2010

CARRD Approach

Process focus – Collaborative, open, constructive approach– We do NOT advocate for a particular implementation or

route

Engage community and encourage participation– 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

San

Fra

nci

sco

-

San

Jo

se

Tiered Approach to CEQA

San

Jo

se -

Mer

ced

Bay Area -

CentralValley 2008

Mer

ced

-

Fre

sno

Fre

sno

-

Bak

ersf

ield

Bak

ersf

ield

-

Pal

md

ale

Pal

md

ale

– L

os

An

gel

es

Lo

s A

ng

eles

-

An

ahei

m

Statewide EIR2005

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– Altamont + Pacheco

Ridership Claims– 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

Wakins ~ 85 ft Encinal ~ 75 ft Glenwood – Oak Grove ~ 60 ft South of Station ~ 80-100 ft

Grade Separations– (Watkins), Encinal, Glenwood, Oak Grove,

Ravenswood, (Alma) Caltrain Station reconfiguration

Alternatives for Menlo Park

Menlo Park Alternatives Eliminated

Berm/Retained Fill – Where: throughout city– Why: widespread community opposition

Open Trench– Where: border w/ Palo Alto– Why: San Francisquito Creek & El Palo Alto

Deep Tunnel for Caltrain– Where: corridor wide– Why: excessive cost

Type DesignWidth

approx Cost

Above Grade Aerial Viaduct80-105 3X base

At GradeAt Grade

(Road over/under pass)

95-105 Highly variable

Below Grade

Open Trench 100 3.5X base

Cut & cover (trench) 100-140 5X base

Bored tunnel 70-115 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 SF-

SJ– 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

Open space, trees, wildlife, wetlands/creeks

– Sensitive areas 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.cominfo@carrdnet.org

Context Sensitive Solutions Steps

Altamont Corridor Project

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, 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: info@carrdnet.org