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

2. 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

3. Agenda Presentation – High Speed Rail Project Overview – Grassroots’ Influence of Project – Using Collaboration for Best Practices Q&A

4. 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)

5. 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

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 (we only get it if we make the deadlines) Plan calls for $3 Billion in Federal funding every year for 6 yrs

7. California Environmental Quality Act Applicant studies impacts, mitigations, alternatives Lead Agency certifies the studies Responsible for enforcing CEQA: you! DECIDERESPONDEVALUATELISTENINFORM Record of Decision Notice of Determination Notice of Intent/Preparation Circulate Draft EIR & Hearing Scoping Technical Studies Document Development Identify Preferred Alternative Final Document EIRAlternatives Analysis

8. Ridership Study / Analysis / Model San Francisco - San Jose Tiered Approach San Jose - Merced Bay Area - CentralValley 2008 Merced - Fresno Fresno - Bakersfield Bakersfield - Palmdale Palmdale – Los Angeles Los Angeles - Anaheim Statewide EIR 2005

9. 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”

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

11. Structural & Operational changes CurrentProposed Commuter + FreightCommuter + Freight + HSR Diesel enginesElectric trains (freight trains remain diesel) 2 tracks; passing tracks; freight spurs 4 track system, freight spurs 47 grade level crossingsFully grade separated 12 trains/hr peak20 HS trains/hr peak + 20 Caltrains/hr peak 79 mph max speed125 mph max speed SF – SJ via Baby Bullet: 57 minSF – SJ via HSR: 30 min

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. Grassroots Advocacy

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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 – T ransparency – push to get more information public – A ccountability – demand professionalism, accuracy – O versight – encourage State Senate, Peer Review

19. 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

20. 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

21. Collaboration to Achieve Best Practices

22. 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

23. 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

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

25. Mountain View Alternatives

26. 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

27. 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 C irculate 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 PUBLIC COMMENT

28. Funding Sources Timeline

29. Altamont Corridor Project

30. Vertical Alignments Type DesignAvg Width Above Grade Berm85 ft Viaduct79 ft At Grade Road over/under pass96 ft Below Grade Open Trench96 ft Cut & cover (trench)96 ft Bored tunnel96 ft

31. 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

32. Berm Alignment

33. Viaduct Alignment

34. At Grade (Overpass/Underpass)

35. Open Trench

36. Closed Trench (Cut & Cover)

37. 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.”

38. 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

39. Context Sensitive Solutions Steps