california high speed rail project burlingame parent ed hsr-prep may 25, 2010
TRANSCRIPT
California High Speed Rail Project
Burlingame Parent EdHSR-PREPMay 25, 2010
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: [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– 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 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
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
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– 2 additional tracks– Constrained width south of Howard
Grade Separations– 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– Technical, funding, political, environmental, procedural
challenges– Recognized benefits– Tremendous costs
Bunker mentality Community Skepticism
– 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 – 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
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– High Speed Rail Authority– CARRD, CC-HSR, CA4HSR
Regional– 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 SF-
SJ– 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
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!
Vertical Alignments
Type Design Avg Width
Above GradeBerm 85 ft
Viaduct 79 ft
At Grade Road over/under pass 96 ft
Below Grade
Open Trench 96 ft
Cut & cover (trench) 96 ft
Bored tunnel 96 ft
Altamont Corridor Project