California High Speed Rail Project

Community Perspective

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, Elizabeth Alexis, Rita Wespi, Sara Armstrong– 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

Agenda

Project Overview Regional & Local Focus Process Description 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 bond funds– Peer Review Committee

8 appointed & confirmed members

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

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 Plan calls for $3 Billion in Federal funding

every year for 6 yrs

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

Deadline: April 26!

San Francisco to San Jose

Caltrain Corridor Caltrain + HSRA =

Peninsula Rail Program Caltrain and Freight will

continue operations during construction

Structural & Operational changes

Current ProposedCommuter + 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

Palo Alto

Additional 2 tracks– Minimum 79 feet of ROW

Grade Separations– Alma, Churchill, Meadow, Charleston

Potential HSR Station– Station design options– Local requirements & contributions– Selection Process

Palo Alto Right of Way*

Peer

s Par

k

Meado

wCh

arles

ton

San

Anto

nio

Unive

rsity

Emba

rcad

ero

Alm

a

Cal A

ve96 ft85 ft79 ft

*Approximate – not perfectly to scale. Not official diagram.

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

Visualization

HSRA Concept Video of Churchill Crossing

Berm Alignment

Viaduct Alignment

At Grade (Overpass/Underpass)

Open Trench

Closed Trench (Cut & Cover)

Deep bored tunnel

Palo Alto Alternatives Carried Forward

Palo Alto Alternatives Eliminated

Berm/Retained fill eliminated– Where: throughout Palo Alto– Why: community objection

Open Trench, Closed Trench, Viaduct– Where: Alma– Why: El Palo Alto & San Fransisquito Creek,

Historic Train Station Underground Station & deep tunnel Caltrain

– Where: corridor wide– Why: cost constraints

Mid Peninsula Station

One or none of– Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View

Palo Alto has second highest Caltrain ridership (followed by Mountain View)

Station designs currently being studied Local requirements

– Parking, transit facilities– Funding support

City of Palo Alto has not taken a formal position

Process

How we got here & how you can help

Environmental Review Process

Mandated by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)– Applicant studies impacts, mitigations, alternatives– Lead Agency certifies the studies– Responsible for enforcing CEQA: you!

HSRA Environmental Reports– 2005: Statewide Program EIR – 2008: Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR. But

decertified & reopen now– Segmented into 9 Geographic Project level teams

San Francisco to San Jose Project EIR – now in “Alternatives Analysis” phase

Re-circulated Program Level EIR

Revised Draft of Program Level EIR released March 11– www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov website– CHSRA requested comments focus only on revised material– CARRD encourages stakeholders to submit comments on the

*full* record to provide up-to-date information How to Comment - Anyone can comment!

– Subject: “Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft Program EIR Material Comments” 

– Attn: Dan Levitt, California High Speed Rail Authority– 925 L Street, Suite 1425 Sacramento, CA 95814– comments@hsr.ca.gov– fax to (916) 322-0827

Deadline: April 26, 2010

San Francisco – San Jose Project EIR

2009 2011

Purpose and

Need for HST Project

SCOPING OUTREACH

PUBLICCOMMENT

Alternatives Analysis:

•Develop Alternatives and Design Options

•Assess the Environmental and ROW Constraints and Impacts

•Select Alternatives to be Included in the EIR/EIS

•Prepare Alternatives Analysis Report

Prepare SF to SJHST Draft

EIR/EIS

FormallyAdopt San Francisco

to San Jose HST

Final EIR/EIS

PUBLIC & AGENCY

OUTREACH

2010

Circulate Draft

EIR/EIS

Alternatives Analysis:

•Develop Alternatives and Design Options

•Assess the Environmental and ROW Constraints and Impacts

•Select Alternatives to be Included in the EIR/EIS

•Prepare Alternatives Analysis Report

Alternatives Analysis:

•Develop Alternatives and Design Options

•Assess Environmental & ROW Constraints and Impacts

•Select Alternatives to be Included in the EIR/EIS

•Prepare Alternatives Analysis Report

PUBLICCOMMENT

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

Getting Involved

With HSRA– Officially  via comments to the Environmental

Review process– As a CSS Stakeholder

With your community– PAN and other grassroots groups– City of Palo Alto  

Palo Alto HSR Subcommittee meetings (1st & 3rd Thurs 8:30 am)

– Peninsula Cities Consortium  www.peninsularail.com

Why make a comment?

Only official way to communicate concerns Anyone can comment EIR is like a full disclosure document

– Goal is to gather the most accurate data to based the analysis

– Help identify what they need to mitigate – Do not assume HSRA knows your community – Do not assume the City of Palo Alto will comment for you

This is a once in a lifetime project and you can help make it better!

– If you write a comment – it MUST be considered and addressed.

– No comment means you forgo rights to any recourse in the future

Three ways to send comments

Regular U.S. mail to:– California High-Speed Rail Authority c/o Dan Leavitt

925 L Street, Suite 1425Sacramento, CA 95814

Attn: Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft Program EIR Material Comments

Via email to: comments@hsr.ca.gov– Copy to: Plandiv.info@cityofpaloalto.org– Subject line “Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft

Program EIR Material Comments” Fax to: (916) 322-0827

Comment basics

Include– Valid name & address– Reviewing agencies or organizations should include the

name of a contact person, who would be available for questions or consultation, along with their comments

– Title of EIR you are commenting on Submit it before the deadline.

– Send your comments in early, so they have time to consider your concerns

Keep a copy of your comments – Send a copy to your city

Tips on writing a good comment

Be Objective and Specific– Whenever possible, present facts or expert

opinions. – If not, provide personal experience or your

personal observations. Don't just complain Separate your concerns into clearly

identifiable paragraphs or headings. Don't mix topics.

Areas of Study

Air Quality Noise / Vibration Traffic and Circulation Land Use, Development,

Planning, & Growth Biological Resources Wetlands / Waters of the

U.S. Flood Hazards,

Floodplains, and Water Quality

Visual Quality & Aesthetics Parks & Recreational

Facilities Historic / Archeological

Resources Hazards and Hazardous

Materials Community Impacts /

Environmental Justice Construction Impacts Cumulative Impacts

Content

Cataloging community assets Identifying impacts & mitigations Suggesting alternatives Correcting any inaccuracies, omissions,

errors in the record

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

Consider ways to avoid impacts or enforceable ways to reduce the severity of impacts

– Quantify your concerns whenever possible – Identify the specific impact in question;– Explain why you believe the impact would occur;– Explain why you believe the effect would be significant;– Explain what additional mitigation measure(s) or changes

in proposed mitigations you would recommend.– Explain why you would recommend any changes and

support your recommendations. Don’t let the fear of not having supporting data keep

you from commenting.

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 EIR 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

CSS Toolkit

Available at Caltrain/Peninsula Rail Program Website

Seeks community feedback on all alignment options

Early participation is the best way to ensure your ideas and concerns are incorporated

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