california high speed rail project leadership mountain view may 21, 2010
TRANSCRIPT
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
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