California High Speed Rail Project Leadership Mountain View May 21, 2010.

California High Speed Rail ProjectLeadership 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

California Environmental Quality Act

Applicant studies impacts, mitigations, alternatives Lead Agency certifies the studies Responsible for enforcing CEQA: you!

DECIDERESPONDEVALUATELISTENINFORM

Rec

ord

of

Dec

isio

nN

oti

ce o

f D

eter

min

atio

n

No

tice

of

Inte

nt/

Pre

par

atio

n

Cir

cula

te D

raft

EIR

&

Hea

rin

g

Sco

pin

g

Tec

hn

ical

Stu

die

s

Do

cum

ent

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Iden

tify

Pre

ferr

ed

Alt

ern

ativ

e

Fin

al D

ocu

men

t E

IR

Alt

ern

ativ

es A

nal

ysis

Ridership Study / Analysis / Model

San

Fra

nci

sco

-

San

Jo

se

Tiered Approach

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

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– Minimum 79 feet of ROW

Grade Separations– 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– Technical, funding, political, environmental, procedural

challenges– Recognized benefits– Tremendous costs

Bunker mentality Community Skepticism

– 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 – 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

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:[email protected]

Mountain View Alternatives

Mid Peninsula Station

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

Mountain View has third highest Caltrain ridership (followed by San Jose)

Station designs currently being studied Local requirements

– Parking, transit facilities– Funding support

City of Mountain View officially requested being considered for a station

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

Funding Sources Timeline

Altamont Corridor Project

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

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– Altamont + Pacheco

Ridership Claims– 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 SF-

SJ– First time it is being used on a Rail Project– “Toolkit” to collect community information

Context Sensitive Solutions Steps