California High Speed Rail Project Burlingame Parent Ed HSR-PREP May 25, 2010.

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!

Thank You!

For more information:[email protected]

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