Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
California High Speed Rail Project
Menlo Park Rotary ClubMay 26, 2010
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
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 staff, no meetings Update: budget allocated
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
Automated safety systems (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
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
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.
Bay Area to Central Valley Issues
Cumulative Impacts– Altamont + Pacheco
Ridership Claims– May 6, 2010: legal action seeks to reopen Court’s
decision
New Altamont route proposal 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.”
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, manual control Electric trains w/ PTC (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
Menlo Park
Track Configuration– 2 additional tracks needed– Right of Way width < 100 ft thru most of City
Wakins ~ 85 ft Encinal ~ 75 ft Glenwood – Oak Grove ~ 60 ft South of Station ~ 80-100 ft
Grade Separations– (Watkins), Encinal, Glenwood, Oak Grove,
Ravenswood, (Alma) Caltrain Station reconfiguration
Alternatives for Menlo Park
Menlo Park Alternatives Eliminated
Berm/Retained Fill – Where: throughout city– Why: widespread community opposition
Open Trench– Where: border w/ Palo Alto– Why: San Francisquito Creek & El Palo Alto
Deep Tunnel for Caltrain– Where: corridor wide– Why: excessive cost
Type DesignWidth
approx Cost
Above Grade Aerial Viaduct80-105 3X base
At GradeAt Grade
(Road over/under pass)
95-105 Highly variable
Below Grade
Open Trench 100 3.5X base
Cut & cover (trench) 100-140 5X base
Bored tunnel 70-115 7X base
Aerial Viaduct
At Grade (Cars can NOT go over like they do today)
Highly Variable based road and property configuration
Trench
Cut and Cover
Deep Bored Tunnel – High Speed Rail ONLY
Process
How we got here & how you can help
Getting Involved
With HSRA– Officially via comments to the Environmental
Review process– As a CSS Stakeholder
With your community– Grassroots groups– City of Menlo Park– County, State and National Legislators– Talk to your friends
Upcoming Menlo Park Meetings
June 1st – Alternatives Analysis Meeting– 6pm in this room
June 22nd – Menlo Park City Council Meeting on HSR discussing city’s response to Preliminary AA
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
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!
Early participation is the best way to ensure your ideas and concerns are incorporated
Catalog community assets
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!
Context Sensitive Solutions Steps
Altamont Corridor Project
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]
