1. California High Speed Rail Project
Community Perspective

2. CARRD Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design Founders
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:

3. Agenda
Project Overview
Regional & Local Focus
Process Description
Q&A

4. California High Speed Rail Project
November 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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!
Need better map!

8. San Francisco to San Jose
Caltrain Corridor
Caltrain + HSRA = Peninsula Rail Program
Caltrain and Freight will continue operations during construction

9. 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
The 2035 service assumptions are as follows:
􀁸 Service Frequency
o HST will operate up to 10 trains per hour in each direction (8 trains per hour in the 2030 Phase 1
Operating Plan, plus an allowance for 2 additional trains per hour when the full system serves
Sacramento and San Diego), with system capacity of up to 12 trains per hour in 2035.
o Caltrain will operate up to 10 trains per hour in each direction (per the Caltrain Draft 2025 timetable)
􀁸 Station Stops
o HST will stop at San Jose Diridon, Millbrae and a Downtown San Francisco location. A potential
additional Mid-Peninsula station is under consideration either at Redwood City, Palo Alto or Mountain
View
o Caltrain will provide service to existing stations
􀁸 Operating Pattern
o HST will operate a mix of express trains that would not stop between San Jose and San Francisco
and other trains that would stop either at Millbrae, at the potential Mid-Peninsula station or at both

10. Palo Alto Additional 2 tracks Grade Separations Potential HSR Station
Minimum 79 feet of ROW
Grade Separations
Alma, Churchill, Meadow, Charleston
Potential HSR Station
Station design options
Local requirements & contributions
Selection Process

11. Palo Alto Right of Way* Peers Park Meadow Charleston San Antonio
University
Embarcadero
Alma
Cal Ave
96 ft
85 ft
79 ft
*Approximate – not perfectly to scale. Not official diagram.

12. Vertical Alignments Type Design Avg Width Above Grade Berm 85 ft
Viaduct
79 ft
At Grade
Road over/under pass
96 ft
Below Grade
Open Trench
Cut & cover (trench)
Bored tunnel
Aerial Viaduct – 79 feet
􀁸 Berm – 85 feet
􀁸 At Grade – 96 feet
􀁸 Open Trench – 96 feet
􀁸 Covered Trench/Tunnel – 96 feet

13. HSRA Concept Video of Churchill Crossing
Visualization
HSRA Concept Video of Churchill Crossing

14. Berm Alignment

15. Viaduct Alignment

16. At Grade (Overpass/Underpass)

17. Open Trench

18. Closed Trench (Cut & Cover)

19. Deep bored tunnel

20. Palo Alto Alternatives Carried Forward

21. 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
The Aerial Viaduct, At Grade, and Open Trench options may result in the loss of two traffic lanes on
Alma Street. A stacked configuration (2 tracks over 2 tracks) could minimize right-of-way requirements.

22. 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

23. How we got here & how you can help
Process
How we got here & how you can help

24. 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

25. Re-circulated Program Level EIR
Revised Draft of Program Level EIR released March 11
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
fax to (916)
Deadline: April 26, 2010

26. San Francisco – San Jose Project EIR
2009
2011
Purpose and Need for HST Project
SCOPING
OUTREACH
PUBLIC
COMMENT
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 SJ
HST
Draft EIR/EIS
Formally
Adopt San Francisco to San Jose HST Final
EIR/EIS
PUBLIC & AGENCY OUTREACH
2010
Circulate Draft EIR/EIS
Assess Environmental & ROW Constraints and Impacts

27. 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

28. Getting Involved With HSRA With your community
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 

29. 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

30. Three ways to send comments
Regular U.S. mail to:
California High-Speed Rail Authority c/o Dan Leavitt 925 L Street, Suite 1425 Sacramento, CA Attn: Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft Program EIR Material Comments
Via to:
Copy to:
Subject line “Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft Program EIR Material Comments”
Fax to: (916)

31. Comment basics Include Submit it before the deadline.
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

32. 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.

33. 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

34. Content Cataloging community assets Identifying impacts & mitigations
Suggesting alternatives
Correcting any inaccuracies, omissions, errors in the record

35. 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

36. 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.

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. Democracy is not a spectator sport!
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!

42. For more information: www.calhsr.com info@carrdnet.org
Thank You!
For more information: