HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 122-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: JANUARY 25, 2010 CMR: 122:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM
SUBJECT: Monthly Update on City Activities Related to High Speed Rail Project and
Authorization to Expend up to $88,000 from the Council Contingency
Account for the Proposed Resources Plan for FY 2010
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Review the quarterly update on City activities related to the California High Speed Train
(HST) project.
2. Authorize the City Manager to expend up to $88,000 from the Council Contingency account
to fund the proposed Resources Plan in FY2010 related to the Council High Speed Rail Ad
Hoc Committee review of the High Speed Rail project, including the following:
a) Additional engineering consultant services to perform a peer review of the
Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco to San Jose HST project.
Estimated cost: $18,000.
b) Outside expert consultant services for peer review of HST ridership, HST fiscal and
economic issues, and general environmental issues. Estimated cost: $30,000.
c) A Sacramento Legislative Liaison consultant to represent the City's interests to the
Legislature. Estimated cost: $25,000.
d) A one -day High Speed Rail symposium (Teach -In) on financing of HST
alternatives and a potential HST station in Palo Alto. Estimated cost: $15,000.
BACKGROUND
Since passage of Proposition lA in November 2008, approving funds for the High Speed Rail
connection from Los Angeles to San Francisco, the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) has
initiated environmental and engineering studies for implementation of the train system statewide.
The HSRA consulting team for the San Francisco to San Jose Project Level Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) began work in early 2009.
On May 18th 2009, the City Council adopted Guiding Principles to provide direction to the
City's High Speed Rail Ad Hoc Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee has been working closely
with the Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) to develop public outreach and education efforts,
CMR: 122:10 Page 1 of 7
monitor and evaluate HST activities, and to explore urban design solutions that consider
community values for the high speed train project.
On August 3, 2009, the Council approved a transfer of Council Contingency in the amount of
$70,000 to fund the a HST symposium (or Teach -in) in September, a two-day design workshop
in October and retention of outside expertise to provide peer review and analysis of technical
documents including the HST project alternatives analysis.
As reported in the last HSR update report in November 2009, the California HSRA team had
initiated the alternatives analysis for the San Francisco to San Jose HST project and was revising
the 2008 system -wide Business Plan. The updated Business Plan was released in December, but
the Alternatives Analysis is delayed until March 2010.
DISCUSSION
This report provides an update regarding activities related to the High Speed Rail project that
have been undertaken at the State and City levels since the last report in November 2009 and
provides a Resources Plan for the balance of FY 2010 for outside consulting services, proposed
community outreach and internal staffing to provide Council with the necessary technical
analysis of the San Francisco to San Jose HST Project Level EIR and other HSRA reports.
HSRA Activities Update
Litigation and Status of Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR
In August 2008, a group of petitioners filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court
claiming the Authority's Final Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR violated the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in numerous ways. (Town of Atherton, et al., v. California
High -Speed Rail Authority, et al). In August 2009, the Court issued a ruling that the program
EIR required revision and recirculation in the several areas to comply with CEQA related to the
San Jose to Gilroy section and vibration impacts, etc.
On December 3, 2009, the Authority approved resolution rescinding the 2008 certification of the
Program EIR and related approvals and directed Authority staff to prepare the necessary
revisions to the EIR and circulate them in accordance with CEQA for public comment. The
Authority will consider the revised Program EIR and the entire record of material before making
a new decision to certify the revised Final Program EIR. The Authority will also make a new
decision on a network alternative, preferred alignments, and preferred station locations for
further study in Project EIR as stated in the 2009 Business Plan update. However, HSRA staff
have indicated that the rescission of the Program EIR has not affected the project -level analysis
schedule.
State Senate HSR Information Hearing
State, Senator Joe Simitian hosted a State Senate Transportation Subcommittee informational
hearing with State Senator Alan Lowenthal on high speed rail on January 21st in the Palo Alto
Council Chambers. Staff will provide a verbal report on the meeting to the Council on January
25th.
CMR:122:10 Page 2 of 7
HSRA Business Plan
The 2009-10 State Budget mandated that the HSRA submit an updated Business Plan to the
Legislature by December 15, 2009 (see Attachment B, HSRA Business Plan Fact Sheet). The
document was prepared and submitted in mid -December. The report updates the cost of the
project's Phase 1 into years of construction dollars (rather than current year dollars) and provides
an updated financing plan that takes into account Proposition 1A, ARRA stimulus funding, and
other funding sources that were not known last year. The Plan also includes discussion of
community outreach plans, system details, cost, financing, a working timeline, risks and threats
to project completion, project development, proposed levels of service, ridership, system
capacity, operational plans, staffing, and a history of expenditures and accomplishments to date.
The new Business Plan projects approximately 30% lower system ridership by 2035, higher
construction costs, and higher passenger fares based on 83% of the cost of air travel rather than
50% cost.
On January 12, 2010 the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) released comments to the Assembly
Transportation Commission on the 2009 Business Plan (See Attachment C). The LAO found the
report substantially lacking in detail and cited the lack of information on risk management,
including the risk of incorrect ridership forecasts and the financial risks associated with a flawed
funding plan. The LAO further found the timelines very general and potentially inconsistent and
identified a potential violation of state law associated with the funding plan. The Senate
Transportation and Housing Committee scheduled a hearing on the Business Plan on January
19th
San Francisco to San Jose HST Project Alternatives Analysis
Currently HSRA staff is working on the Alternatives Analysis (AA) Report to be completed and
ready for circulation in early March for presentation to the HSRA Board on March 4. The AA is
an important part of the EIR/EIS as it will incorporate conceptual engineering information,
identify and compare the alternatives, and will explain why some alternatives will be retained
while others will be dropped from further study in the EIR/EIS. The AA evaluation will be based
on planning and engineering at a 2% to 4% level of engineering design. This level of detail may
be enough to understand if an alternative can feasibly be constructed and if the alternative might
encounter significant environmental, community, and construction -related impacts. The AA will
describe the alternatives based on alignment and vertical profile, that is, whether the alignment
will be below ground, at -grade, or elevated.
Staff anticipates that the Ad Hoc Committee and Council will need independent peer review of
technical conclusions in the AA, such as tunneling feasibility and other below grade options,
costs, and railroad operations. As a result, the City is in the process of retaining outside expertise
as technical documents are released by HSRA staff. Once the document is released, cities and
the public will have 45 days to review the report and submit comments on the document.
Attachment D is a HSRA handout that discusses common questions and answers related to the
AA for High Speed Rail. Attachment E is the Technical Memorandum on the Alternatives
Analysis methodology for the Project Level EIR/EIS that will be employed by HSRA. Site
specific alignment and station alternatives will be developed for the project level AA.
CMR:122:10 Page 3 of 7
Ad- Hoc Committee Activities
The Council Ad Hoc Committee continues to meet every two weeks and will focus much of its
efforts on working with the other peninsula communities that are potentially impacted by high
speed rail. Mayor Burt has appointed Council Members Klein, Price and Shepherd to serve with
him on the committee this year. The Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) also continues to
engage various community groups organized around the potential impacts of high speed rail to
coordinate local, statewide and national legislation.
The Committee sent a letter to the HRSA staff in December (Attachment F) reiterating the City's
request that the Alternatives Analysis included an alternative that ends HST service at San Jose
and provides connecting service to San Francisco via enhanced Caltrain service.
City staff has also continued to receive support of volunteer resources from the Californians
Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) that have provided comprehensive legislative
summaries. Staff will continue to post these periodic updates on its High Speed Rail website as
they become available at www.citvofpaloalto.org/cahsr. Updates on upcoming PCC events and
copies of reports/presentations can be viewed at the following website
http://www.peninsularail.ord/.
City Resources Plan
In August, the Council approved a transfer of $70,000 from the Council Contingency to fund the
HSR Teach -In ($5,000) Design Workshop ($15,000) and technical consulting services related to
the City review of the San Francisco to San Jose Project EIR ($50,000). The technical
consulting services were specifically targeted to an engineering consultant who could perform
independent peer review of technical conclusions such as tunneling feasibility and other
engineering matters.
The Teach -In budget was $5,000 and the actual expenses were $11,000, therefore this budget
was exceeded by $6,000. The Design Workshop budget was $15,000 with actual expenses of
$33,000 which caused the budget to be exceeded by $18,000. The cities of Menlo Park and
Atherton will be billed their prorate share of the Design Workshop totaling approximately
$16,000. This total reimbursement will be added to the remaining HSR budget balance of
$26,000 to arrive at the new balance of $42,000. This $42,000 amount would be earmarked for
the Engineering Peer Review of Alternative Analysis consultant.
In order to proceed with the next steps in the Ad Hoc Committee and Council review of the San
Francisco to San Jose High Speed Train Project EIR/EIS, staff has prepared a proposed
Resources Plan (Attachment A) that identifies the need for funding of approximately $88,000 for
the following four activities:
1. Peer Review of HST Alternatives Analysis
The estimated cost of the peer review of the Alternatives Analysis that will be released in March
for the San Francisco to San Jose High Speed Train HST project is $60,000. An additional
$18,000 is needed to supplement the current remaining budget of $42,000 that is reserved for this
purpose.
CMR:122:10 Page 4 of 7
2. Additional Peer Review consultant services for peer review analysis
Staff proposes to expand outside consultant services resources, as needed, for peer review of the
engineering alternatives and potential urban design impacts of the HST project. The consultants
would critique or validate the assumptions and conclusions of the HSRA engineering and
environmental consultants including ridership forecasting methodologies and ridership
projections and for the system and potential Palo Alto station, and other technical issues
including but not limited to: train operations, fiscal/economic (Business Plan critique),
environmental consultant (noise, vibration, geology, visual, traffic, etc.).
The estimated consultant services cost is $30,000 for the remainder of this fiscal year.
3. Sacramento Legislative Liaison Consultant
Staff believes it would be in the City's interest to retain a knowledgeable, well-connected legal
and legislative consultant who could represent the City's interests before the High Speed Rail
Authority and monitor proposed legislation affecting the HSR Project. Over the past year, a
significant number of bills relating to HSR have been introduced in the Legislature. While the
City has benefited from the detailed monitoring of the legislation by members of the citizen
group CARRD (Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design), a professional representing
the City's interests in Sacramento could meet with legislators and their staffs on the City's
behalf, attend CHSRA meetings and provide briefings to the staff and Ad Hoc Committee.
It is estimated that a consultant contract would be approximately $5,000 per month for Palo Alto.
Staff proposes that such a consultant be hired for five months at $25,000 and then the value of
the contract reassessed. Alternately, if all the PCC cities were agree to participate in a shared
contract for a legislative liaison, the estimate cost would rise to $10,000 per month. In that
scenario, Palo Alto's share on a per capita basis would be approximately $3,900 per month. This
issue, however, has not been formally discussed with the PCC as a whole.
The City will continue to rely upon the Van Scoyoc Associates to advocate for the City's high
speed rail and other transportation priorities before federal legislators in Washington, DC.
4. HST Financial Workshop
Staff proposes that another workshop be held this spring, similar to the September high speed rail
teach -in event, focusing on the financing scenarios and land use alternatives for funding the
optimal HST alignment within Palo Alto.
Staff estimates the cost of the workshop would be approximately $15,000.
In addition to the above, the HSR activities would continue to be staffed by the Deputy City
Manager, City Attorney, and Senior Deputy City Attorney on an as needed basis and contract
transportation planner.
Next Steps/Planned Activities
The schedule for local PCC and City Couhcil meetings is provided as Attachment G.
The next milestones for the Project are:
CMR:122:10 Page 5 of 7
Alternatives Analysis Report —early March 2010
Draft EIR/EIS — First Quarter of 2011
Final EIR/EIS — End of 2011
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for the HSR Ad Hoc committee was not included in the City's FY 2010 Adopted
Budget. The annual appropriation or the City Council Contingency Account is $250,000. A
transfer of $70,000 from the Council Contingency was previously approved by the City Council
in August 2009 to fund Ad Hoc Committee review of high speed rail activities. Staff is
requesting that Council approve an additional transfer from the Council Contingency in the
amount of $88,000 in funding for FY 2010 to fund the three activities discussed in this report.
This transaction will reduce the City Council's Contingency account from $173,500 to $85,500.
Because of the importance of this project and the need for the City to be responsive new
information released from the HSRA, staff will be preparing a budget proposal for the FY 2010-
2011 operating budget that will document the direct staff costs and non -salary expenses that will
be required to support the City Council and Ad Hoc Committee HSR oversight activities.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendations in this report are consistent with existing Council policy direction related
to the California High Speed Rail Project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommendations in this report do not constitute a project requiring environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed City Resources Plan Summary
B. HSRA Fact Sheet on 2009 Business Plan Report to the Legislature
C. Legislative Analyst Report on 2009 High Speed Rail Business Plan
D. HSRA Handout on Common Questions and Answers for Alternatives Analysis
E. HSRA Technical Memorandum re Alternatives Analysis Methods for Project Level
EIR/EIR
F. Ad Hoc Committee letter to HSRA dated December 15, 2009
G. Palo Alto High Speed Rail 2010 Schedule
PREPARED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Aj_
GAYLE
Manage
STEVE EM LIE
Deputy City Manager
CMR:122:10 Page 6 of 7
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
S KEENE
Manager
CMR:122:10 Page 7 of 7
DRAFT
City of Palo Alto
Reso urces Plan for High Speed Rail Project Evaluatio n and Monitoring
FY 2009/2010
Item
Palo Alto Only All PCC Cities
Estimated B udget Estimated Budget*
Funded Consultant Expertise
Engin eering Peer Review of Alternative Analysis $42,000
U nfunded Consultant Expertise
A dditional Funding for Engineering Peer Review
of A ltern ativ es A nalysis $60,000
Less previou s Council Contingen cy Transfer -$42,000
Total Additional Fun din g Required $18,000
A dditional Con sultant for Peer R eview as needed $30,000
of ridership projections, and other technical issues
in clu ding but not limited to: Train operations ex pert
Fiscal/economic (Business Plan critique),
Env ironmental con sultant
Sacramento Lobbyist consulta nt
(5 months @ $10,000/mo. for PCC
Or
For Palo Alto without PCC participation
Public O utreach Event
Financial Teach -In Event at Cubberley
Total A dditional Fu nding Request
$19,500
(PA share of PCC expense)
Or
$25,000
$180,000
$100,000
$ 50,000
$15,000 $ NA
$82,500-$88,000 $330,000
* Costs to each participating city would be a pportioned on a per capita basis: Palo A lto (39%), Menlo Park (20%),
Bur linga me (19%), Belmont (17%), an d A therton (5%)
ATTACHMENT B
FACT SHEET: December 2009 Business Plan Report to the Legislature
THE REPORT ADDRESSES EVERY ITEM OUTLINED IN THE BUDGET BILL
The High -Speed Rail Authority's revised business plan was submitted on time to the Legislature, and satisfies the
language of the 2009 Budget Act. It addresses: community outreach plans, system details, cost, financing, a working
timeline, risks and threats to project completion, project development, proposed levels of service, ridership, system
capacity, operational plans, staffing, and a history of expenditures and accomplishments to date.
THE REPORT DESCRIBES THE UNPRECEDENTED MOMENTUM BEHIND CALIFORNIA'S HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECT
> Proposition 1A was approved by the voters in November 2008.
o President Obama publicly supports the development of high-speed rail corridors in the United States.
o He included $8 billion for high-speed rail in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
o He expressed a desire for an annual appropriation for high-speed rail.
> Congress approved $2.5 billion for high-speed rail in the annual transportation bill.
> Private entities are interested in investing in California's high-speed rail project.
CALIFORNIA'S HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT IS ON TRACK
Environmental reviews are taking place, the project is moving toward construction, outreach to communities is being
improved, interest is increasing from private partners.
THE AUTHORITY IS GEARING UP FOR CONSTRUCTION AND HAS AN ORGANIZATIONAL PLAN TO GET THERE
The Authority is transforming from an entity focused only on planning to one that must oversee the construction of a
large public infrastructure project.
> The Board elected a new Chairman, Mayor Curt Pringle.
> The Authority conducted an organizational assessment to guide its growth.
The Authority will begin the process in 2010 to seek a construction management team and financial partners.
THE HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT WILL CREATE JOBS
The high-speed train system will generate 600,000 construction -related jobs over the life of construction (one-year, full-
time equivalents over approximately 8 years).
Nearly 130,000 of those would be directly related to ARRA funding if California's request is fully funded.
Rough estimates show job creation by region/rail section to be:
San Francisco —San Jose: 105,000
San Jose — Merced: 112,000
Merced — Bakersfield: 135,000
Bakersfield — Palmdale: 81,000
Palmdale — Los Angeles: 125,000
Los Angeles — Anaheim: 92,000
TODAY'S PROGRESS — IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAGE, HEADING TOWARD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The path from where California's high-speed train project stands today to initial revenue passenger service can be
divided into three categories of major milestones: planning, implementation, and revenue service.
The report to the Legislature illustrates that the project is on track to:
... begin completing environmental reviews in 2011,
... enter construction in 2012,
... begin opening sections for passenger service 2017 or earlier, and
... complete the initial system from Anaheim to San Francisco by 2020.
OUTREACH ACTIVITIES ARE RAMPING UP
Along with increased momentum and significant project progress comes the need for increased outreach and
information. The Authority has: hired a Deputy Executive Director for Communications and Public Outreach; brought on
a new communications and outreach contractor, begun building partnerships with partner agencies, local governments,
and community groups to better focus on outreach.
A CREDIBLE COST ESTIMATE BETTER EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION RATHER THAN TODAY'S
DOLLARS
Previously, the cost of the project had been described in terms of the current year. But since we are not building it in the
current year, that does not accurately reflect the cost for the project in the years in which we will build it. Now, for the
first time, the project's cost is expressed in years -of -expenditure (YOE) dollars, providing a much more credible estimate.
In 2008, the cost of the Anaheim -to -San Francisco system was estimated at $33.6 billion (in 2008 dollars).
> Updated cost estimate (also in 2008 dollars) is $34.9 billion; due to changes in track alignment and structural needs.
> Using year -of -expenditure dollars to account for inflation and more accurately reflect the financing needs of the
project over the life of when it will actually be constructed, the updated cost estimate for the San Francisco -to -
Anaheim initial high-speed rail system is $42.6 billion in year -of -expenditure dollars.
A VIABLE FINANCE PLAN TO FUND THE PROJECT'S CONSTRUCTION
Bolstered by the unanticipated American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the state bond dollars approved by California
voters, and a new President publicly eager to help build high-speed rail networks in this country, the financial plan lays
out a realistic scenario for paying for the system with a combination of state, federal, local, and private funds.
State funding: $9 billion from Proposition 1A (used to leverage additional investment)
Federal funding: $17-19 billion (ARRA, other federal loan programs, transportation appropriations)
Local funding: $4-5 billion (in right-of-way, parking fees, transit -oriented developments, contributions)
Private funding: $10-12 billion (public -private partnerships, vendor financing, availability payments, etc.)
Total: $45 billion
RIDERSHIP SCENARIO THAT SHOWS PROFITABILITY
Through its environmental review the Authority is pursuing a scenario of lower ticket fares and larger ridership in order
to study the broadest possible environmental impacts. For the purposes of this business plan, we look at a scenario that:
> Sets average ticket prices at 83 percent of airfares over the same distances
> Projects 41 million riders per year in 2035
> Shows annual revenue of $2.87 billion in 2035
Sooner, in the first year of planned operation, 2020, the scenario projects:
> 13.5 million riders
> Revenue of nearly $1 billion ($950 million)
HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT HAS MUCH OVERSIGHT AND SCRUTINY
The High -Speed Rail Authority and the high-speed train project are overseen by a large number of entities. These
include:
> The Authority's Board and appointees of the Senate, Assembly, and Governor's Office
> Legislation that requires routine reporting
➢ Proposition 1A, and the reporting, oversight requirements contained within it
> Budgetary oversight by legislative committees, Department of Finance, and Governor's Office
➢ Legislative policy oversight, including Assembly and Senate transportation committees, others
➢ Peer review board set up within Proposition 1A and whose members are appointed by a variety of control agencies
and constitutional officers
> Program Management Oversight contractor hired to scrutinize the overall management of the project
> Local agreements with regional entities
> Recovery Act oversight required by the federal government and the state Inspector General
WHAT HIGH-SPEED RAIL MEANS
All -electric power and fully separated from automobile traffic, California's high-speed train will provide a new
transportation option available to more than 90 percent of the residents of the state. The system is being designed to
carry more than 100 million passengers a year.
NEED EXISTS FOR A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE
By 2030, the state's population will grow to 50 million people, which will nearly double interregional travel to one billion
trips per year. A high-speed rail system will alleviate the need to build thousands of additional miles of new freeway and
dozens of new airport departure gates and runways.
ATTACHMENT C
i5 '!cA2� OF SERVICE
January 11, 2010
The 2009 High -Speed Rail
Business Plan
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
Presented to:
Assembly Transportation Committee
Hon. Mike Eng, Chair
January 11, 2010
63 YEARS OF SERV[CE
2008 High -Speed Rail Business Plan
Requirement. Chapter 267, Statutes of 2008 (AB 3034, Gal-
giani), required the High -Speed Rail Authority to submit a busi-
ness plan for the high-speed train system to the Legislature by
September 1, 2008. The plan was released on November 7, 2008.
Plan Lacked Specifics. Information provided in the plan was
very general and did not provide specifics that are included in
typical business plans. The figure below summarizes our review
of the 2008 plan. (See 2009-10 Budget Analysis Series: Trans-
portation, page TR-47.)
2008 Business Plan Fails to Provide Many Details.
u eme
isstn
Deal
Description of the anticipated system
Forecast of patronage, operating, and capital costs
Estimate of necessary federal, state, and local funds
Proposed construction timeline for each segment
Discussion of risks and mitigation strategies
• What are the expected service levels, by segment?
• What is the assumed train capacity?
• How are the ridership estimates projected?
• What is the operating break-even point?
• How will costs be distributed by route segment?
• How would funds be secured?
• What level of confidence is there for receiving each type of funding?
• What is the proposed schedule, by segment, for completing design/
environmental clearance?
• For beginning/completing construction?
• How would each type of risk impact the project?
• What specific mitigation strategies are planned to be deployed?
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
1
January 11, 2010
2OC9 10 Budget Requires
65 YEARS OF SERVICE
Business Plan Revision
2009-10 Budget Requirement. The current year budget direct-
ed the authority to submit a revised business plan to the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee by December 15, 2009.
Required Elements. The revised plan must include, at a mini-
mum:
■ A plan for a community outreach component to cities, towns,
and neighborhoods affected by the project.
■ Further system details, such as route selection and alterna-
tive alignment considerations.
■ A thorough discussion describing the steps being pursued to
secure financing.
® A working timeline with specific, achievable project mile-
stones.
■ The strategies the authority would pursue to mitigate different
risks and threats.
® Additional information related to funding, project development
, schedule, proposed levels of service, ridership, capacity, op-
erational plans, cost, private investment strategies, staffing,
and a history of expenditures and accomplishments to date.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 2
January 11, 2010
L
65 YEARS OF SERVICE
Revised Business Plan Improved
Revised Plan More Informative in Some Areas. The revised
plan includes at least some description of all the elements re-
quired by the 2009-10 budget. The plan also provides more
information than the previous version in certain areas.
■ Community Outreach. Though the authority only recently
obtained their public relations consultant, the plan contains a
summary description of a community outreach plan.
■ System Details. The plan includes:
— General route selection and various alternative align-
ments.
— Updated cost estimates using year -of -expenditure dollars.
— Forecasted ridership, revenues, and proposed levels of
service.
— Projected operating and equipment replacement costs.
■ Funding. Descriptions of various types of financing available
and possible funding sources for the project are included.
■ Authority Operations. The plan provides a short discussion
of necessary future staffing for the authority as well as his-
toric levels of funding.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 3
January 11, 2010
1 J. a
63 YEARS OF SERVICE
Some Significant D.taiis Still MM11ssin
inINIIMINIMMEGICLUNIMEILEffek
Inadequate and Incomplete Discussion of Risk. The plan's
discussion of risk management is significantly inadequate, lack-
ing any description of mitigation processes or detailed consider-
ation of many key types of risk.
Uninformative Timeline. Few deliverables or milestones are
identified in the plan against which progress can be measured.
Also, inconsistencies in the proposed order of events create
some uncertainty.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 4
January 11, 2010
L
65 YEARS OF SERVICE
Risk Discussion incomplete and Inadequate
No Risk Management Strategy. The plan contains no discus-
sion of the authority's plans or processes to (1) identify poten-
tial threats or (2) manage, respond, and mitigate those threats.
The plan only states that the authority "believes it is aware of all
existing threats and is taking the appropriate steps to prevent or
mitigate those threats."
Unknown Confidence in Projections. The plan does not pro-
vide any numerical ranges nor confidence intervals for projec-
tions contained in the plan (such as cost, revenues, or ridership).
Without this information, the risk of not realizing the forecasted
ridership, revenues, or costs is unknown.
Inadequate Discussion of Key Types of Risks. The plan con-
tains no detailed discussions or consideration of even the most
significant risks to the project, such as ridership and funding.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 5
January 11, 2010
r : Discussion of Risk -Two Examples
65 YEARS OF S RVLCE
Ridership Risk. The plan addresses the risk of incorrectly
forecasted ridership with one sentence, stating the risk "would
be mitigated by policies that continue to draw people to reside in
California and encourage high-speed rail as an alternative mode
of transportation."
Funding Risks. The plan identifies the following types of finan-
cial risks, and how these risks would be addressed:
■ Credit Approval Risk. To avoid the risk of failing to win
credit approval from investors, the authority's strategy is "to
clearly communicate the project and obtain up-to-date feed-
back."
■ Overall Market Risk. To mitigate the risk that financial mar-
kets shut down and stop lending, the authority "has to contin-
ually monitor the market and develop strong back-up strate-
gies such as project segmentation."
■ Government Funding Risk. The authority plans to avoid the
risk that governments are not able to follow through on their
commitments "by carefully assessing how each government
funding source affects the build -out of each segment."
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 6
65 YEARS OF SERVICE
January 11, 2010
Timelines Very General and
Potentially Inconsistent
Uninformative Timeline. The program management and proj-
ect delivery timelines contained in the plan are very general and
provide little opportunity for increased accountability. There are
few deliverables or milestones included against which progress
can be measured.
Inconsistent Order of Events. Because the timelines in the
plan are so general, it is unclear in what order various events
will occur. For example, regulatory approvals are expected by
2018 but procurement is scheduled to be complete by 2014. This
could mean the train technology and rolling stock will be pro-
cured before regulatory agencies approve their use.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 7
65 YEARS OF SER.ViCE
January 11, 2010
Funding Plan Uncertain;
Appears to Violate Law
Operating Subsidy Necessary for Private Funding. The
Proposition 1A bond measure explicitly prohibits any public op-
erating subsidy. However, the plan expects the following items to
be funded by the private sector.
■ Revenue Guarantee. The plan assumes some form of
revenue guarantee from the public sector to attract private in-
vestment. This generally means some public entity promises
to pay the contractor the difference between projected and
realized revenues if necessary. The plan does not explain
how the guarantee could be structured so as not to violate
the law.
• Operations Insurance. The plan anticipates the cost of
insurance for operating the system would not be borne by the
private operator. If the public sector pays for insurance, that
would constitute an operating subsidy in violation of Proposi-
tion 1A.
Federal Funding Expectations Highly Uncertain. The plan
assumes between $17 billion and $19 billion from federal funds
by 2016, or nearly $3 billion per year for the next six years. In
comparison, over the past five years California has received
roughly $3 billion per year of formula funding for the state's entire
highway system, which is primarily funded through federal gas
tax collected in the state
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 8
ATTACHMENT D
September 2009
Common Questions and Answers related to the
Alternatives Analysis for the
San Francisco to San Jose High -Speed Train Section
What is an Alternatives Analysis? The Alternatives Analysis (AA) is a methodical process to provide the
California High -Speed Rail Authority (Authority) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) with sufficient
information and documentation of the evaluation process used to identify and define a range of reasonable,
practicab/e, and feasible project study alternatives. The AA will incorporate conceptual engineering
information and will identify feasible and practicable alternatives to carry forward for review and evaluation in
the project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the San Francisco to
San Jose section of the California High -Speed Train Project (CHSTP). The AA will provide information that
highlights and compares the alternatives, and will explain why some alternatives will be retained while others
will be dropped from further study in the EIR/EIS. The Authority and the FRA will make the results of the AA
available for public input.
Where do the alternatives come from? The alternatives will take into account previous work conducted
for the Statewide Program EIR/EIS. For the San Francisco to San Jose section, the program document
identified the Caltrain right-of-way as the CHSTP route, with stations in San Francisco, Millbrae, and San Jose.
Optional stations will be considered in Redwood City, Palo Alto, and Mountain View. In addition, the
Authority and FRA will consider public and agency comments provided during a series of public scoping
meetings held this past spring. In addition, input received from the community more recently will also be
considered.
How detailed are the alternatives? The AA evaluation will consider preliminary project features based on
planning and engineering at a 2% to 4% level of engineering design. This level of detail is enough to
understand if an alternative can feasibly be constructed and if the alternative might encounter significant
environmental, community, and construction -related impacts. In the San Francisco to San Jose section, with
the proposed use of the Caltrain right-of-way, the AA will describe the alternatives based on alignment and
"vertical profile;" that is, whether the alignment will be below ground, at -grade, or elevated.
How will the EIR/EIS study alternatives be identified? The Authority has established a ten -step
process to identify practicable and feasible alternatives for study in the EIR/EIS. The steps are illustrated in
the chart below and described in greater detail on the next page. In the gray boxes below, the following
abbreviations are used: PMT = Program Management Team, providing guidance on the design of the overall
HST system and to each of the regional planning and engineering teams on behalf of the Authority; CHSRA =
California High -Speed Rail Authority; FRA = Federal Railroad Administration; and AG = California Attorney
General's Office.
Alternatives Analysis Process
Initki I
Development
of Alternatives
Revised
Definition of
Alternatives
Agency
cy.
Public/
akethckl
utriach.
Fine
Alternat ves
Analysis ."
Report
Draft
Alternatives
Analysis _=
Report
Acre i
Publicf
takeholdr
utreac1'i
Project
Description
2009 AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER OVEMBER ` DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY': 2010
September 2009
Step .1: Initial Development of Alternatives (August 2009)
Using the selected program -level corridor alignments and station locations, the planning and
engineering team will develop site -specific project alternatives considering existing conditions and
constraints as well as information gathered during the scoping process. It is essential to start with
the selected program alternatives as these were identified as likely to contain the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) with concurrence by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps through the Clean Water Act Section 404
alternatives analysis process.
Apresentation will be made to the PMT/Authority/FRA on the initial alternatives developed for further
consideration through the AA process based on:
• the program -level selected alternatives, alignment routes, and station locations, and
consideration of purpose and need/project objectives;
• public and agency input received during and after scoping; and
• further analysis of the study area to identify alternatives and/or variations and design options
that are practicable and feasible.
Step 2: Ear/y Outreach to Agencies, Public, and Stakeholders (September/October 2009)
The alternatives identified for further consideration will be presented informally to the local and
regional planning agencies, transportation agencies, and environmental resource agencies in
meetings. A similar effort will be conducted to inform the public. Coordination with Cooperating
Agencies will also be conducted at this time.
Step 3; Revise Definition of Alternatives (October/November 2009)
Based on information and feedback received from early outreach, the Initial Project Alternatives may
be revised and then resubmitted to the Program Management Team (PMT)/Authority/FRA for review.
Step 4; PMT/Authority/FRA Project Alternatives Workshop (November2009)
A workshop will be conducted by the planning and engineering team with the PMT/Authority/FRA to
review the details and information regarding all alternatives studied to date. This will include
discussion of severe design constraints or conflicts, and environmental impacts and benefits for each
alternative. The purpose of the workshop is to get direction from the Authority and FRA on further
investigation of alternatives, to identify alternatives requiring no further analysis, and to evaluation
conclusions.
Step 5; Alternatives Analysis (AA) Draft Report (December 2009)
An AA Draft Report will be prepared that presents the results of the AA process to this point.
Step 6; PMT/Authority/FRA/AG Review (December 2009/January 2010)
The AA Draft Report will be reviewed by the PMT/Authority/FRA. When approved for release, the AA
Draft Report will be posted to the Authority's website.
Step 7.• Presentation to CAHSR4 Board (December 2009/January 2010)
The results of the AA Draft Report will be presented to the Board as an information agenda item.
Step 8; Outreach to Agencies, Public, and Stakeholders on the 44 Draft Report (January 2010)
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Administration
Page 2
September 2009
The alternatives identified for inclusion in the EIR/EIS will be presented to the local and regional
planning agencies, transportation agencies, and environmental resource agencies through a series of
meetings. A similar effort will be conducted to inform the public. Coordination with cooperating
agencies will also be conducted at this time.
Step 9: Alternatives Analysis (44) Final Report (February 2010)
The AA Draft Report will be finalized and will include the results of outreach meetings and
consultation with cooperating and other agencies. The AA Final Report will be reviewed by the
PMT/Authority/FRA and posted to the Authority's website when approved for release.
Step 10: Prepare Draft Project Description (February 2010)
Based on the Final AA report, a project description will be prepared that will identify a preferred
alternative. The project description will include information about the CHSTP for the San Francisco to
San Jose section including the horizontal and vertical alignment, the stations, other facilities such as
sites for maintenance, and the operating schedule for the trains. Design options to the preferred
alternative, if any, will also be identified. Options may include variations to a vertical alignment, to a
station location or layout, or to any other feature of the design and operation of the HST system that
need to be studied to provide the Authority, FRA, and the public with reasonable choices to make an
informed decision about the project. The EIR/EIS will evaluate how the preferred alternative
changes existing baseline conditions and how significant the changes are.
How are the number and range of alternatives to be narrowed? Broad sets of criteria have been
defined to help explain the goals of the HST system. Then, specific measures have been developed to
evaluate and compare the project alternatives. The first goal focuses on meeting the purpose and need.
Project Goal
Criteria
Measure
Purpose and Need
Travel time
30 minutes San Jose to San
Francisco (Express Service)
Intermodal connectivity (Stations)
Connections with other
transit services and airports
Operations and maintenance costs
Relative measure (None,
Low, Medium, High) relative
to one -another
The following criteria and measures seek to expand on HST goals to be supportive of local land use
plans, be feasible from an engineering perspective, minimize disruption to neighborhoods and
communities, minimize impacts to environmental resources, and minimize impacts to the natural
environment.
Project Goal
Criteria
, Measure
Land Use Planning
Support
Sites within 1/2 mile available for significant
Transit Oriented Development
Acres suited to
redevelopment/revitalization
within 1/2 mile
Consistent with existing plans and policies
Review of existing zoning ,
redevelopment and general
plans
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Administration
Page 3
September 2009
Constructability
Vertical profile feasibility, compatibility with
adjacent segments
Vertical control points,
grades, length of curves,
combined vertical and
horizontal curves, vertical
profile of adjacent
segments
Horizontal clearance through existing structures
(columns, bents, etc.)
Locations of existing
columns, bents and width of
structures
Major utility relocations
Existence of major utilities
requiring relocation
Ability to maintain Caltrain operations during
construction
Qualitative assessment of
High, Medium, Low
Ability to maintain critical traffic operations
during construction
Qualitative assessment of
High, Medium, Low
Construction costs
Relative measure (None,
Low, Medium, High
compared to one another)
Neighborhood
Compatibility
Property displacements — acquisitions (full and
partial)
Number of full or partial
residential acquisitions
Properties with access affected
Number of properties with
changes in access
Local traffic effects
Street closures/un-
resolvable capacity
constraints
Development/construction foot print (stations)
Property
acquisitions/relocation to
accommodate station
(residential/commercial)
Protection of
Environmental
Resources and
Natural
Environment
Waterways/wetlands/sensitive species habitat
Potential jurisdictional
wetlands and habitat for
listed species
Cultural resources (historic, archaeological,
paleontological)
Listed historic
resources/known
archaeological/known
paleontological sites
Parklands
Existing
parklands/community
facilities that provide
recreation (Section 4(f))
Noise and vibration
Sensitive receptors
(schools, hospitals,
convalescent homes,
daycare) within FRA
screening distance
�ALIPORMA
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Administration
Page 4
September 2009
Protection of
Environmental
Resources and
Natural
Environment
(Continued)
Visual/scenic
Obstruction of designated
view corridors and scenic
resources by elevated
structures
Geologic/soils
Soil and slope constraints
(high landslide
susceptibility), seismic
constraints (very strong
groundshaking, cross active
faults)
Hazardous materials
Known hazardous
materials/wastes sites from
database lists
What might be reasons to not advance an alternative for further study? The AA identifies the
alternatives evaluation process. Not all alternatives will be evaluated in the EIR/EIS. Reasons that could
provide a rationale to exclude an alternative from further consideration include:
• Alternative does not meet the purpose and need and project objectives.
• Alternative has environmental or engineering issues that would make approvals infeasible.
• Alternative is not feasible or practical to construct.
• Alternative does not reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts.
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Administration
Page 5
ATTACHMENT E
Ca orn a
eed Tr hi Project
TECHNICAL EMO NDU
Alternatives Analysis Methods
For Project -Level ETR/ EIS
Prepared By:
Checked By:
Approved By:
Released By:
Reviewed By:
Accepted tay:
Steven
rilyn Duffey
Steven Wolf, Environ
/ At
al
armor
puty Director, GSRA
le di Morshed, Execu
rector, CHSI
Nov 08
Nov
Nov 08
Dec 08
[_Revision
0
Date
Oesription J
16 M 08
initial Release .
l'
1
11 June 08
PMT Review
2
8 July 08
PMT Comments Incorporated
.�._.. ._
__
. t6 Sept o8 ,LFRA
02 ec 08
X23 Cher 08
Comments incorporated
_._
CAA & Atirthori Comments Incorporated
Authority & FRA Comments Incorporated
California High Speed Train Project Alternatives Analysis Methods
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 APPLICABILITY 1
1.3 OVERVIEW 1
1.4 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION,. 2
2.0 LEVEL OF EFFORT 2
2.1 APPROACH 2
2.2 COORDINATION 4
3.0 ASSESSMENT / ANALYSIS 4
3.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 4
3.2 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 4
4.0 EVALUATION MEASURES 5
4.1 CHSTP DESIGN OBJECTIVES 5
4.2 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CRITERIA 5
5.0 DOCUMENTATION 7.
5.1 LEVEL OF IMPACT 7
5.2 ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON 7
6.0 REFERENCES 8
6.1 .INFORMATION FOR INCLUSION 8
:A41FgRN14
Page
C4i/FOLVG Mg SPEED R O.A(7Y.OUry
California High Speed Train Project Alternatives Analysis Methods
1.0 .PURPOSE
1.1 Introduction
This memorandum serves as a guide to the regional teams in preparing California High -Speed
Train (HST) project -level Alternatives Analysis (AA) Reports for sections of the HST system.
The AA Reports will incorporate conceptual engineering information and will identify feasible
and practicable alternatives to carry forward for environmental review and evaluation in
Environmental Impact Reports/Environmental Impact Statements (EIR/EIS) for sections of the
California HST Project (CHSTP). In developing the AA Reports the regional teams will begin
analysis with the alternatives selected with the previously prepared statewide and Bay Area
prograrn EIRs/E1Ss. After identifying initial project alternatives; alignment plans, profiles, and
sections will be developed and used for the preliminary evaluation of the alternatives. The AA
evaluations will be used to assist the HSRA and the FRA in identifying the range of potentially
feasible alternatives to analyze in the draft project. EIR/EIS. The guidelines contained in this
memorandum are designed to maintain consistency among the regional teams in identifying an
appropriate range of alternatives to analyze in each EIR/EIS, conducting a preliminary analysis,
applying evaluation criteria, and documenting the evaluation process, while still allowing.
flexibility to account for consideration of regional differences.
1.2 Applicability
The AA Reports are intended to provide the California- High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) and
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) with sufficient information and documentation to
provide a clear understanding of the evaluation process used to identify and define a range of
reasonable, practicable and feasible project alternatives. The Authority and the FRA expect to
make the AA Reports available for public input. The alternatives evaluation will support
decisions guiding the project design and environmental review process, including specifically
the identification of reasonable alternatives to be further considered in the project -level
environmental analysis and the identification of alternatives that will not be studied in the
EIR/EIS analysis.• The Authority and the FRA will make these decisions, considering agency
and public input. The AA reports will provide the basis for drafting the Alternatives Chapter in
the Draft Project EIR/EIS.
This memorandum applies to the initial review and analysis process to be used by each of the
regional teams in identifying the full range of HST project alternatives and station sites for
preliminary review in order to support decisions determining the reasonable and feasible
alternatives to carry forward for further engineering and environmental review.. Each regional
team is to use the engineering CAHST Basis of Design Technical Memo in their evaluation
efforts, but will have flexibility if needed, to identify additional evaluation criteria that are specific
to their region. This memorandum is consistent with the guidelines developed for the project
environmentalreview phase, as defined by the CAHST Project Environmental Analysis
Methodologies Report, and will help to ensure a consistent level of documentation of the
analytic process for determining the alternatives to be analyzed in a project -level EIR/EIS.
1.3 OVERVIEW
Whereas the program EIR/EISs analyzed alternative corridors and station location alternatives,
site -specific alignment and station alternatives will be developed for the project -level AA
Reports. In the statewide program EIR/EIS, No Project, Modal, and HST Alternatives were
considered. The Authority and FRA selected the HST Alternative and selected corridor
alternatives and station location options for further analysis, and identified needs for HST
system cleaning and maintenance facilities. The Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program
EIR/EIS supported Authority and FRA selection of corridor alternatives and station location
Page 1
December 2008
['tfffeinai FF1f./FSP141'daILKG'1fWer r
California High Speed Train Project Alternatives Analysis Methods
options for further analysis in the Bay Area and Central Valley regions. The program -level
environmental reviews were integrated with early steps in the Clean Water Act Section 404
alternatives analysis process.
The evaluation conducted for each of the AA reports will be based on preliminary alignments
and will reflect a level of detail that considers preliminary project features at a 2% to 4%
engineering design, but does not focus on the details of design. The analysis of alternatives will
take into account previous work conducted for the Program EIRs/EISs. In some locations,
program -level decisions narrowly defined the HST corridor, while in other locations a broader
area was defined as the corridor for further evaluation. In addition, each of the regional teams
will consider public and agency comments in response to the project -level EIR/E1S scoping
processes and direction from the Authority and FRA. Input during the agency involvement
process will also be Considered a key part of the alternatives analysis process to identify
reasonable and feasible alternatives to carry forward for environmental review. The AA reports
will fully document how each of the alternatives meets the Purpose and Need for the project,
and how evaluation criteria was used to determine which alternatives would be carried forward
for environmental analysis and which alternatives did not meet the evaluation criteria and were
screened from further analysis.
After the AA Reports have been finalized and reasonable and feasible HST location and design
alternatives have been identified, a separate report that provides a detailed definition of
alternatives will be prepared to describe each of the alternatives carried forward for
environmental review. This report, the Alternatives Definition Report, will describe all design
features and assumptions for the alternatives to support environmental evaluation and
preliminary engineering design to 15%.
1.4 Additional Information
Additional information and resources on HST system background, technical guidance, and
evaluation criteria as well as previous Authority and FRA decisions can be found in the following
locations.
http://www:cahiohspeedraii.ca.govi
Final Program EIR/EIS, Volumes 1 through 3, August 2005; the Authority's Certification and
Decision on the Final Program EIR/EIS (Resolution No. 05-01); FRA Record of Decision for
California High -Speed Train.. System, November 18, 2005,including the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Plan, the Summary of Public Comments from CEQA Certification, and the Errata
for the Final Program EIR/EIS.
Final Bay Area to Central Valley High -Speed Train Program EIR/EIS; Volumes 1 through 3, May
2008, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Summary of Public Comments
from CEQA Certification, and. the Errata for the Final EIR/EIS; the Authority's Certification and
Decision on the Final Program EIR/EIS (Resolution No. 08-01); and FRA Record of Decision,.
December 2, 2008.
https://ww2.prolectsolve2.com/eRoom/SFOF/CAHSRProoramMemt
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/corridor planning.pdf
2.0 LEVEL OF EFFORT
2.1 APPROACH
The AA Reports will document the initial process of defining and evaluating project alternatives
for sections of the HST system. The process will begin with the alignment and station
information provided in the relevant program EIR/EIS, which with additional information
Page 2
December 2008
, vmz a rnan.urfnMI{ dunwwn•
California High Speed Train Project ,alternatives Analysis Methods
gathered by the section design team and information gathered during scoping will be used by
the team to identify preliminary project alternatives. These alternatives will include alignment
alternatives, station site alternatives, alternative sites for the cleaning, maintenance and storage
facilities, and power supply facility alternatives needed for the HST system section. As the
Alternative Analysis process continues, the alternatives will be revised using CHSTP design
criteria for trackwork geometries, civil and structures design, systems design, and train
operations. The AA Reports are to provide sufficient detail to document the evaluation process
used to identify reasonable and feasible project alternatives that would meet the Purpose and
Need for the project and are consistent with the Basis of Design Report as well as to identify
those alternatives where environmental issues (severe conflicts or constraints) or engineering
challenges may justify dropping them from further analysis. The AA Reports are to provide
comparative information and data that highlight and compare similarities and differences
between alternatives by using project design criteria. Each Regional Team will evaluate
preliminary location and design alternatives against existing conditions, project -related changes,
applicable state and federal standards, environmental impact criterion, design criteria,
construction and operating factors, to support identification and selection of the reasonable
range of practicable and feasible alternatives for project environmental review.
The process will include the following steps:
1. Initial Project Alternatives — Using the selected program -level corridor alignments and
station locations, develop site -specific project alternatives considering current contextual
conditions and constraints as well as information gathered during the scoping process.
It is essential to start with the selected program alternatives as these were identified as
likely to contain the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
with concurrence by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps
through the Clean Water Act Section 404 alternatives analysis process.
2. PMT, Authority and FRA review of initial project alternatives.
3. Initial Screening Prepare an initial evaluation for each alternative based on project -
level existing conditions, future development plans, and other environmental studies
prepared within the study area to identify alternatives likely to have severe constraints,
conflicts with existing. conditions, or approved future development in the study area.
4. Compare alternatives that are similar and determine which are best to carry forward for
further evaluation.
5. Assess Environmental and Right -of -Way Constraints - Using the project alternative
evaluation measures presented in Section 4.2 of this memo prepare a comparative
analysis of the alternatives.
6. Project Alternatives Workshop - Conduct a workshop with the Authority and FRA to
discuss the Draft Alternatives Analysis Report, severe design constraints or conflicts,
and environmental impacts and benefits for each alternative. Purpose of the workshop
is to get direction from the Authority and FRA on further investigation of alternatives, and
to discuss alternatives to be identified for no further analysis, evaluation conclusions,
and material to present to the public.
7. Draft. Alternatives. Analysis Report — Develop a preliminary definition of the project
alternatives using the Basis of Design Report and applicable Technical Memoranda.
Submit to the Authority and FRA for approval.
Page 3
December 2008
C4U'w, iiliic adranu&W a, maxim
California High Speed Train Project Alternatives Analysis Methods
8. Public & Agency Outreach - Present evaluation process for preliminary alternatives to
environmental, local, and transportation agencies and public and private stakeholders for
input.
9. Refine Preliminary Definition of Project Alternatives — Based on comments and input
received from the Public Outreach revise the project alternatives, as needed.
10. Final Alternatives Analysis Report — Finalize the report and submit to the Authority and
FRA for approval. The Final Alternatives Analysis Report will document the alternatives
to be carried forward through the environmental analysis process and alternatives not to
receive further analysis.
2.2 COORDINATION
Each Regional Team will coordinate their efforts with the project management team (PMT),
Authority and FRA. Preliminary information including the initial project alternatives as well as
initial alternatives screening and evaluation shall be presented to the PMT, Authority and FRA
using diagrams, drawings, memoranda, and presentations that effectively communicate the
informationwhile minimizing preparation time and effort. The AA reports will be initially
reviewed by the. PMT, revised and submitted to the Authority and FRA for their review and
comment. In addition, each AA Report will contain a discussion of the coordination and
consultation efforts related to alternatives analysis and opportunities for agency and public input
in the process. Coordination among regional teams is required at shared project limits where
the end points would connect at common stations (example; Union Station for Anaheim to LA
and LA to Palmdale sections).
3.0 ASSESSMENT / ANALYSIS
3.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The AA evaluation will be conducted using standardized criteria so that each of the alternatives
can be compared with each other in an effort to identify feasible and reasonable alternatives
and those that should be eliminated from further consideration due to environmental or
engineering issues that would make approvals or implementation infeasible; that would not
reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts, that would not meet purpose and need and
project objectives, or would not be feasible or practicable to construct. Each AA Report will
assess preliminary alignments and station sites appropriate to the section of the HST system
being studied, using the evaluation measures discussed in Section 4.0; however, each of the
regional teams will have the flexibility to weight evaluation criteria differently to reflect the
relative importance of issues in their region. Each report will include a brief discussion that
characterizes key constraints or concerns in the region and explains criteria weighting. Specific
evaluation criteria to be used in addition to criteria listed in Section 4.0 below must be discussed
with and approved in advance by the PMT, Authority, and FRA. Applicable evaluation,
discussion, and conclusions from the program EIRs/EISs should be incorporated as appropriate
into the AA Reports.
3.2 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
Whereas the Program EIR/EIS evaluated the potential impacts various system alternatives
would have ata planning level of detail, the AA Reports will assess preliminary project
alignments, station sites and related facilities sites at a site -specific level of detail. The. AA
Reports will document literature review; database queries, and field reconnaissance and will
include a discussion of potential environmental constraints related to short-term and long-term
effects. Short-term impacts will include construction and implementation issues. Long-term
impacts will consider the direct and indirect effects of construction and daily operations of the
project. The AA Reports are to describe the physical effects of the location and design
Page 4
December 2008
eu uvA•u 11(CASPFEIQ RG d lR NORM
California High Speed Train Project Alternatives Analysis Methods
alternatives as well as consistencies with federal, and sta.?. environmental standards and future
planned development. The AA Reports are to describe a range of typical measures or
engineering designs that could be considered to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts
and an assessment of the reasonableness and feasibility of these measures. Appropriate
measures and engineering designs to be considered should be identified first from the mitigation
monitoring and reporting programs approved for the two Program EIRIEISs, and then should be
further defined and refined to apply to the site -specific and regional issues.
4.0 EVALUATION MEASURES
4.1 CHSTP DESIGN OBJECTIVES
Project alternatives shall be evaluated using system performancecriteria that address design
differences and qualities. Alignment. and station performance objectives and criteria are:
Objective
Criteria
Maximize
ridership/revenue potential
Travel time
Route length.
Maximize connectivity and
accessibility
Intermodal connections
Minimize operating and
capital costs
Operations and maintenance
issues and costs
4.2 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CRITERIA
In addition to the CHSTP objectives and criteria above, further measures to evaluate and
compare the project alternatives have been described below. Where it is possible to quantify the
effects, estimates are to be provided, and where it is not possible to quantify effects, qualitative
evaluation should be provided.
A. Land use supports transit use and is consistent with existing, adopted local, regional,
and state plans; and is supported by existing or future growth areas as measured by:
Measurement
Method
Source
Development potential for
Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) within walking distance of
station
Sites within 1i2 -mile of station
compare potential of different
stationsites; note location(s)
with highest potential for TOD
development
Regional and local planning
documents and land use analysis
and input from local planning
agencies
Consistency with other planning
efforts and adopted plans
Qualitative - General analysis of
applicable planning and policy
documents
Land use analysis and input from
planning agencies
Page 5
December 2008
CALIFORNI OGI/SPEED w¢.ionmarr
California High Speed Train Project
Alternatives Analysis Methods
B. Construction of the alternative is feasible in terms of engineering challenges and right-of-
way constraints as measured by:
Measurement
Method
Source
Constructability, access for
construction; within existing
transportation ROW
Extent of feasible access to
alignment for construction
Plans and maps
C. Minimize disruption to neighborhoods and communities — extent to which an alternative
minimizes right-of-way acquisitions, minimizes dividing an established community and
minimizes conflicts with community resources as measured by:
Measurement
Method
Source
Displacements.
Number of residences and
businesses displaced, size of
properties and magnitude of
property value of displaced (ranked
as least, .most # displaced; # acres)
Identified using concept
drawings and aerial
photographs
Properties with Access Affected
Number of properties whose access
would be permanently disrupted
Number of properties disrupted by
construction
Estimated off concept plans
and aerial photographs
Local Traffic Effects around
stations
Potential increase in traffic
congestion or LOS at critical
intersections
Existing traffic LOS from local
jurisdictions
D. Minimize impacts to environmental resources — extent to which an alternative minimizes
impacts on natural resources as measured by:
Measurement
Method
Source
Waterways and wetlands and
nature preserves or biologically
sensitive habitat areas affected
Number of new bridge crossings
required; rough estimate of acres of
wetlands; linear feet of waterways;
acres and species of T&E habitat
affected; acres of natural areas
affected
Measured off concept plans
and GIS layers; Section
404(b)1 analysis.
Cultural resources
Number and type of historic.
architecturalproperties and
archaeological sites directly
impacted
Basedonconcept plans and
GIS layers; Section 4(f)
studies and cultural resource
records search and surveys
Parklands
Number and acres of wildlife refuges
and parks directly and indirectly
affected
Based on concept plans and
GIS layers; Section 4(f)
studies..
Agricultural lands
Acres of prime farmland, farmland of
statewide importance, unique
farmland, and farmland of local
importance within preliminary limits
of disturbance
Based on concept plans and
GIS layers
GfwwOR94
A47F0/iNf.A
1.1117110M RUI;,i,'rnoRtn'
Page 6
December 2008
California `nigh Speed Train Project
Alternatives Analysis Methods
E. Extent to which an alternative minimizes impacts on the natural environment as
measured by:
Measurement
Method
Source
NoiseNibration effects an
sensitive receivers
Number of and types of receivers
with projected noise levels and
vibration levels above FRA
impact threshold
Results of screening level
assessment: inventory of
potential receivers from site
survey and aerial maps
Change in visual/scenic
resources
Number of view corridors and
scenicivisual resources affected;
extent of elevated structures in
scenic areas and shadows on
sensitive resources (parks)
Results of general assessment;
survey of alignment corridors and
planning documents from local
and regional agencies
Maximize avoidance of areas
with geologic and soils
constraints
Soils/slope constraints
Seismic constraints (proximity to
earthquake zones)
USGS maps
Maximize avoidance of areas
with potential hazardous
materials
Hazardous materials/waste
constraints
Data from records search of
hazardous materials locations
and generators.
5.0 DOCUMENTATION
5.1 LEVEL OF IMPACT
Each preliminary alternative should be evaluated individually under each objective and criterion
at a preliminary level of analysis sufficient to identify potentially severe constraints and to
provide an overall comparative analysis of the potential 'levels of impact' for the alternatives in a
summary format. This information is expected to support determination of the feasible
alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft Project EIR/EIS and the alternatives dismissed from
further consideration. Starting with the Authority's adopted program -level Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Plans, the Regional Team should identify practical mitigation measures, design
considerations or avoidance techniques to address ways to minimize or avoid potentially
significant impacts for consideration in the EIR/EIS: The measures should illustrate a general
approach versus describing specific mitigation measures which would be addressed in the
EIR/EI.S. The measures should account for cause, effect, resolution and follow an "if this", "then
that" format. Consideration should be given to estimated costs and likely ability to mitigate
different ROW and environmental impacts.
5.2 ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON
The primary purpose of the AA Reports is to clearly describe the relative differences between
preliminary alternatives based on a consistent set of evaluation criteria applied to each
alternative. The AA Reports will summarize the attributes, potential design issues and
environmental impacts and benefits for each alternative in matrix format. Alternatives identified
to be dropped from further analysis should be included in the matrix and reasons for dropping
the alternative should be described in the summary,
A4iFPRNIA"
-CaL!}i7RV'.ti Mai iPEEDIL dUTTttMIli
Page 7
December 2008
California High Speed Train Project Alternatives Analysis Methods
6.0 REFERENCES
6.1 INFORMATION FOR INCLUSION
All references will follow the format guidelines provided for the CHSTP. All sources must be
referenced, including text, data, graphics, base maps, etc. Full referencing is also required in
the text of the document in a footnote at the end of the sourced text. For tables, references will
be listed as sources at the bottom of the table. For graphics, references, including base
mapping, will be listed as sources in the legend.
ALIFQRNIA
C LIFOR' ,lfG7fSPE&DR11L , l7,o,YIri
Page 8
December 2008
ATTACHMENT F
Cityof Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
" December 15, 2009
Mehdi Morshed, Executive Director
California High Speed Rail Authority
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Alternatives Analysis for San Francisco to San Jose Project EIR
Dear Mr. Morshed:
The Alternatives identified to date for study in the Project EIR for the San Francisco to San Jose
Project include two elevated alignments (berm or elevated structure) and two below grade
options (open trench or tunnel). The No Build project stops the HST service in San Jose without
a HST alternative extending north to San Francisco.
Palo Alto wishes to reiterate the following comments provided in the City's March 30 scoping
comments letter to the Authority with regard to inclusion of an alternative that ends HST service
at San Jose and provides connecting service to San Francisco via enhanced Caltrain service:
"Evaluate an alternative that would end HST at San Jose and rely on upgraded electrified and
grade -separated Caltrain connections to/from San Francisco, including facilitating improved
Caltrain access and speeds and possible reduction in the number of tracks required in the
Caltrain corridor. The Palo Alto station is the second busiest on the Caltrain line and as such
serves approximately 3,700 hoardings per day. Caltrain's future 2025 Plan provides for
electrification and an increase in the current 96 daily trains up to 172 trains. The EIR/EIS
should evaluate whether Caltrain could provide the frequency, capacity and speed for the
connecting service between San Jose and San Francisco in lieu of HST service."
Palo Alto thus requests that the alternatives for the San Francisco to San Jose section be
expanded to include this alternative.
Thank you for considering this request, and please let us know as soon as possible whether these
items can be incorporated into your project. If you or others have questions, please feel free to
contact me or Deputy City Manager Steve Emslie at 329-2354 or
steve.emslie@cityofpaloalto.org.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
Palo to City Council
by City Council Subcommittee Chair for High Speed Rail
P.O. Box 10250
cc: Robert Doty, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Boasd Alto, CA 94303
City Council 650.329.2477
James Keene, City Manager 650.328.3631 fax
Printed with soy -based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine.
ATTACHMENT G
HIGH SPEED RAIL 2010 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS
All Dates Subject to Change
Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) Meetings: (8:15-9:45 a.m.):
PCC meetings rotate between the Cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Belmont, and
Burlingame on a quarterly basis.
Menlo Park
January 8 & 22
February 5 & 19
March 5 & 19
Venue TBD
April 2, 16, & 30
May 14 & 28
June 11 & 25
Venue TBD
July 9 & 23
August 6 & 20
September 3 & 17
Venue TBD
October 1, 15, & 29
November 12 & 26
December 10 & 24
Palo Alto City Council
January 25
March 1
April 19
June 7
July 19
August
September 13
October 25
December 6
HSRA Board Meetings:
January 7
February 4
March 4
April 1
May 6
June 3
July 1
August 5
Council Committee Report
Council Study Session
Council Committee Report
Council Committee Report
Council Study Session
Break
Council Committee Report
Council Committee Report
Council Study Session
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 at 10:00 am
September 2
October 7
November 4
December 2
Peninsula High Speed Rail Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) & Policv Advisory
Committee (PAC):
February
May
August
November
Alternatives Analysis Report:
March
Draft EIR/EIR:
December