HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 293-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: JUNE 23, 2010 CMR: 293:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
SUBJECT: Review of Draft City Comment Letter on the Preliminary Alternatives
Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section of the High Speed
Rail Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review and comment on the Draft City cover letter and comments on the HSR Preliminary
Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section of the High Speed
Train Project.
2. Authorize the Mayor to work with staff and the High Speed Rail Committee (HSR
Committee) to finalize and send the final cover letter and comments to the California High
Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) detailing Palo Alto's comments on the Preliminary
Alternatives Analysis Report on or before June 30, 2010.
BACKGROUND
The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (AA) Report was released for circulation and presented to
the HSRA Board on April 8, 2010. Upon the urging of many local agencies, the HSRA extended
their deadline for comments to June 30. HSRA staff will compile the comments into a report for
the August or September HSRA Board meeting.
DISCUSSION
This report transmits the revised draft comment letter (Attachment A) on the AA Report for the
San Francisco to San Jose Section of the High Speed Rail Project. Staff requests that Council
accept or modify the comments and authorize the Mayor to work with staff to finalize the letter,
and submit it to the HSRA by June 30.
The HSR Committee and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) discussed the draft
City comments at their respective meetings on Thursday, June 17. The draft minutes from both
meetings are included in this report (Attachments C and D). The detailed PTC report, including
CMR: 293:10 Page 1 of4
a copy of the technical Peer Review Report prepared by Hatch Mott MacDonald, is provided as
Attachment B.
The HSR Committee and PTC both proposed changes to the initial City comments included in
the PTC packet which have been incorporated into the attached revised draft comment letter. To
facilitate Council review of the changes proposed by each body, the HSR Committee's
comments are shown as underlined standard text and the PTC comments, as well as those of the
public and of CAARD are shown as underlined italicized text. Staff made some editing changes,
corrected typos, and provided a few format adjustments, which are not highlighted.
The HSR Committee recommended that the City's comments include a cover letter to function as
an executive summary to frame and underscore the City's position on key issues related to the
HSR project and AA Report, including: 1) statement of the alternative HSR alignments and AA
project alternatives the City supports or considers unacceptable; 2) reiteration of the fundamental
flaws in the AA and the inadequacy of the information and tools provided by HSRA with which
to compare the alternatives or make complete comments; 3) and expression of concern about
economic impacts to the City and project impacts that could jeopardize the viability of major
institutions in Palo Alto. The Committee stressed that due to these deficiencies, the comments
should not be construed as being final and that the City would retain the right to provide
additional comments as more information about the project becomes available. The HSR
Committee recommended specific additions and more detailed discussion in several areas,
including the following:
• Physical and noise impacts to major institutions such Palo Alto High School and the Palo
Alto Medical Foundation ,due to their proximity to the rail right-of-way, including the
need for further examination of the impacts of the HSR alternatives relative to the State
Education Code standards for noise and vibration impacts on classrooms
• Overall impacts of noise and vibration impacts for sensitive receptors (schools, parks,
etc.) throughout the City
• Economic impacts to adjacent commercial properties, such as the Sheraton and Westin
hotels and their viability should the HSR project impact the amount of parking on their
properties or limit the number of available rooms
• Impacts on City plans to move forward with construction of the water reservoir project
in EI Camino Park before the HSR project alignment (vertical and horizontal) is
determined .
• Traffic and circulation impacts of potential taking of right-of-way from Alma Street, and
impact to emergency response from Fire Station #1 on Alma Street
The PTC Commissioners concurred with the recommendations of the HSR Committee and made
further detailed comments that have been incorporated into the revised draft comments letter. In
addition, Commissioners offered more general comments and observations for Council
consideration outside the specific scope of the Alternatives analysis. Commissioner Fineberg
commented that the HSRA project should keep Palo Alto whole financially. She further
questioned if Caltrain were to cease operations, would HSRA be able to provide local commuter
service on the Peninsula. Commissioner Lippert noted that everything in the AA is shown in plan
view and that what is lacking is an understanding of the project in three dimensions relative to
CMR: 293:10 Page 2 of4
the adjacent properties along the right-of-way. He further commented that the location of the
mid-Peninsula HSR station would define the epicenter of Silicon Valley and would promote
economic development in that community. Commissioner Martinez remarked that the HSR
project should be viewed as an opportunity to address public safety issues, geographic divisions
in the community, and quality of life issues in Palo Alto. He further recommended that the City
should take the position that all roads should cross the railroad right-of-way at grade. Vice Chair
Tuma commented that the Guiding Principles should state that the City would not support any
project that is financially flawed or infeasible in terms of construction or operating costs.
Commissioner Tanaka questioned whether the EI Camino Park water reservoir project should be
delayed until the impact of HSR project is defined. He suggested it might lead to opportunities
for co-development of underground structures. He supports having the City take a position on
whether Palo Alto should be a HSR station. Chair Garber commented on the potential
transformative impact of major rail projects on communities and recommended the City not be
constrained by reaction to immediate issues nor lose sight of the opportunities of what HSR
could mean to Palo Alto in the long term. He encouraged the City to engage Stanford University
in discussions about a Palo Alto HSR st~tion. Staff included those comments specific to the AA
in the comments (Attachment A), and the other comments above are provided to Council for
information and/or are incorporated into the cover letter.
High Speed Rail Economic Analysis
At its June 17 meeting, the Council's HSR Committee recommended that the City Council
authorize the preparation of a scope of work and budget for an economic· analysis of the various
HSR alternative alignments. The study would be more extensive than just evaluating potential
impacts on property values, covering mitigation needs (sound barriers, tree replacement, safety
features, etc.); infrastructure demands; and potential land acquisition for right-of-way and for
construction, among other needs. Staff will prepare a scope and budget for HSR Committee
review prior to approval by Council.
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. Cover letter and summary from Mayor Pat Burt to' Don Leavitt Deputy Director HSRA
B. Revised Draft Comments on Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report
C. Planning and Transportation staff report dated June 17,2010
D. Draft Minutes for High Speed Rail Committee meeting of June 17,2010
E. Draft Minutes for Planning and Transportation Commission meeting of June 17, 2010
F. Comments from Linda and Tom Vlasic and Judith Wasserman
(Note: The AA is available online at http://wv..W.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/iibrary.asp?p=8243)
CMR: 293:10 Page 3 of4
PREPARED BY:
f' _ ~ GAYLE LIKENS ~ Mana ent S e . alist
APPROVED BY:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 293:10 Page 4 of4
June 3D, 2010
Mr. Dan Leavitt
Deputy Director
California High Speed Rail Authority
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT
Subject: California High Speed Rail Draft Alternatives Analysis
Dear Mr. Leavitt:
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto thanks you for the opportunity to provide comments on the
Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose section of the California
High-Speed Train project. This cover letter serves to summarize the City of Palo Alto's position on the
alternatives analysis report, and to highlight the main deficiencies that the City has identified in the
report. The City's extensive and detailed comments are attached.
The City of Palo Alto recognizes that the High Speed Rail (HSR) project and the Caltrain
electrification project provide a unique opportunity for the California High Speed Rail Authority
(CHSRA), the Caltrain Joint Powers Board, the City of Palo Alto, and nearby communities to address
transportation, quality of life, safety and economic issues surrounding the Caltrain corridor in a
collaborative process. The project also, however, has considerable potential to seriously damage the
character and community of Palo Alto if not carried out in an environmentally sensitive, cost-efficient,
and community-minded manner. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto believes that the current
Alternatives Analysis provides little assurance that these factors have been, or will be, considered by
theCHSRA.
The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report focuses only on alignment alternatives on the Peninsula
between San Jose and San Francisco. Accordingly, the attached comments document focuses solely on
the City of Palo Alto's comments in that regard. Comments on this Preliminary Alternatives Analysis
Report however, should not be interpreted as any sort of tacit approval from the City of Palo Alto for
any of the Peninsula alignment alternatives. The report provides a critical lack of sufficient
information about many significant environmental, economic, right-of-way and other impacts and
issues that are necessary to realistically compare the various alternatives. The City's attached
comments should not, therefore, be considered exhaustive or binding. The City of Palo Alto expects to
provide additional comments as more information about the proposed HSR project and alternatives
becomes available.
Mr. Dan Leavitt
California High Speed Rail Authority
June 30, 2010
Page 2
Ten categories of key concerns of the City Council are outlined below and presented in greater detail
in the attached comments:
1. The City of Palo Alto believes that alternative alignments other than the Caltrain right-of-way
remain viable options for evaluation. In particular, the Altamont Pass option to bring the high
speed train to the Bay Area is a feasible alternative that deserves more analysis by the CHSRA.
The City of Palo Alto again requests an expanded alternatives analysis in the pending Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for this project that reopens the analysis comparing the
Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass options before settling on a high-speed train rail aligninent
that travels up the Peninsula. The City of Palo Alto also believes that other Peninsula
alignments, particularly the Highway 101 alignment, are still viable and should be explored in
greater detail by the CHSRA.
2. The preferable options for the City of Palo Alto only include vertical alignment options that
place all HSR,Caltrain, and freight train tracks below grade and that maintain all existing at
grade roadway configurations at existing crossings. These preferable options would have the
least impact on the residents and businesses of the City of Palo Alto, including avoidance of
significant secondary impacts of and right-of-way needs for grade separations. Maintaining
, existing at-grade roadways provides greater connectivity between neighborhoods on either
side of the tracks, is more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, and is less disruptive to the
community. The City cannot yet state a position on the most preferred of the three beloyv
grade alternatives -open trench, covered trench, or deep tunnel-as insufficient information
has been provided to make a comparative assessment of these vertical alignment options. The
City of Palo Alto would also prefer options that allow for shared use of the tracks by HSR,
Cal train, and freight trains to the maximum extent possible, particularly if such shared use
would result in a decrease in the number of tracks required.
3. The unacceptable vertical alignments include the aerial viaduct and the at-grade options. The
elevated berm option has been removed from further analysis by the CHSRA, and the City of
Palo Alto agrees that the elevated berm option should not be carried forward for any
additional consideration. The City of Palo Alto also opposes any alignment configuration that
would require , existing at-grade roadway crossings of the rail corridor to be elevated or moved
underground.
4. The City of Palo Alto has not yet taken a position on whether the City would want to see a
HSR station in Palo Alto. The information thus far provided by the CHSRA regarding possible
I,
Mr. Dan Leavitt
California High Speed Rail Authority
June 30, 2010
Page 3
station configurations and associated financial and environmental impacts is substantially
incomplete, rendering it premature for the City of Palo Alto to state a position in favor or
opposition to a HSR station stop in Palo Alto. The City looks forward to reviewing additional
information from CHSRA regarding station requirements and constraints in upcoming
months.
5. The report lacks sufficient information on project costs and economic impacts to make a
quantitative comparison of the various vertical alignment options based on financial issues.
Some costs appear to be skewed excessively high or excessively low, while other costs appear
to have been omitted altogether. Costs of right-of-way and for grade separations, as well as for
project mitigation, are not included and are particularly critical to this kind of analysis.
6. The report lacks sufficient information regarding potential environmental impacts to allow for
a meaningful comparison of the various vertical alignment options. Noise and vibration
impacts are of particular concern to the City and its residents, and the report lacks sufficient
information to compare the noise and vibration impacts of the various vertical alignment
options. The report also lacks a discussion of mitigation measures that might be necessary for
the various alignment options, and how such mitigation measures could affect project costs.
7. The report does not address how the various vertical alignment options could affect the
viability of some key institutions and businesses in the City, such as the Palo Alto High
School, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, the Sheraton and Westin hotels near University
A venue, the approved water storage reservoir in El Camino Park, Fire Station #1 on Alma
Street, and other businesses and facilities. The various alignment options could result in the
taking of land, changes to traffic routes and patterns, noise and vibration impacts, and other
effects that could impair the continued viability of these institutions and businesses.
8. The report does not adequately address the direct and indirect impacts of right-of-way issues,
particularly in portions of the corridor where the Caltrain right-of-way would need to be
expanded to accommodate one or more of the vertical alignment options. Adjacent properties
could be directly affected by eminent domain, and properties farther from the corridor could
be affected by changes to traffic, the visual environment, noise and vibration, safety, and
quality of life. The right-of-way needs and impacts of revised traffic patterns (during
construction and after construction) on Alma Street are not addressed at all, although Alma is
the City's second busiest east-west thoroughfare.
9. The report does not adequately address issues related to grade separation between the rail
uses and autos, bicycles, and pedestrians. The report does not sufficiently discuss or identify
Mr. Dan Leavitt
California High Speed Rail Authority
June 30, 2010
Page 4
the costs of grade separation, the footprint affected by the grade separation, land acquisition
needs, and effects on adjacent development for each of the vertical alignment options.
10. The report uses flawed assumptions in establishing the ridership estimates, resulting in an
exaggerated estimate of ridership and questionable financial conclusions for the project as a
whole. The City of Palo Alto believes that ridership would be far lower than is currently
predicted by the CHSRA, and that project options using fewer tracks and fewer daily HSR
trains should be considered once a more reasonable and accurate ridership estimate is
established. The City of Palo Alto opposes any HSR project that is financially infeasible, either
for construction or operation.
The City of Palo Alto again appreciates this opportunity to review and comment on the Preliminary
Alternatives Analysis Report, and hopes to continue to work with the CHSRA to develop a High
Speed Rail project that is beneficial to California and to the City of Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Patrick Burt, Mayor
City of Palo Alto
Attachment: City of Palo Alto Comments on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the San
Francisco to San Jose Section of the California High-Speed Train Project
cc: Peninsula Cities Coalition
Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD)
City of Palo Alto Comments on the
Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the
San Francisco to San Jose Section of the California
High-Speed Train Project
The following discussion provides the City of Palo Alto's comments on the April 2010
Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section of the
California High-Speed Train Project.
A. Introductory Comments
The City of Palo Alto still believes that alternative alignments other than the Caltrain
right-of-way remain viable options for evaluation. In particular, the Altamont Pass
option to bring the high-speed train to the Bay Area is a feasible alternative that
deserves more analysis by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). The City
of Palo Alto would like to see an expanded alternatives analysis in the pending Draft
ErR for this project that reopens the analysis comparing the Altamont Pass and Pacheco
Pass options before settling on a high-speed train rail alignment that travels up the
Peninsula. The City of Palo Alto also believes that other Peninsula alignments,
particularly the Highway 101 alignment, are still viable and should be explored in
greater detail by the CHSRA.
The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, however, focuses pnly on alignment
alternatives on the Peninsula between San Jose and San Francisco. Accordingly, the
remainder of this letter will focus solely on the City of Palo Alto's comments in that
regard. Comments on this Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report should not be
interpreted as tacit approval from the City of Palo Alto for any of the Peninsula
alignment alternatives. The City's comments note that many significant environmental,
economic, right-of-way and other issues still remain unknown about the project due to
lack of sufficient information with which to compare the various alternatives. Therefore,
these comments should not be considered exhaustive or binding. The City of Palo Alto
expects to provide additional comments as more information about the proposed HSR
project and alternatives becomes available.
The City of Palo Alto has determined its preferable vertical alignments for the portion of
the HSR/Caltrain corridor within Palo Alto, as well as the unacceptable vertical
alignments. The preferable options for the City of Palo Alto include any vertical
alignment options that place all HSR, Caltrain, and freight train tracks below grade and
that maintain all existing at-grade roadways. These preferable options would have the
least impact on the residents and businesses of the City of Palo Alto, including
1
avoidance of significant secondary impacts of and right-of-way needs for grade
separations. Maintaining existing at-grade roadway crossings provides greater connectivity
between neighborhoods on either side of the tracks, is more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, and is
less disruptive to the community. The City cannot yet state a position on the most preferred of the
three below grade alternatives -open trench, covered trench, or deep tunnel -as insufficient
information has been provided thus far to make a comparative assessment of these vertical
alignment options. The City of Palo Alto also prefers options that allow for shared use of
the tracks by HSR, Caltrain, and freight trains to the maximum extent possible,
particularly if such shared use would result in a decrease in the number of tracks
required.
The unacceptable vertical alignments include the aerial viaduct, the elevated berm, and
the at-grade options. The elevated berm option has been removed from further analysis
by the CHSRA, and the City of Palo Alto agrees that the elevated berm option should
not be brought forward for any additional consideration. The City of Palo Alto also
opposes any alignment configuration that would require existing at-grade railroadway
crossings to be elevated or moved underground.
The City of Palo Alto has not yet taken a position on whether the City wishes to see a
HSR station in Palo Alto. The information thus far provided by the CHSRA regarding
possible station configurations and associated financial and environmental impacts is
substantially incomplete, rendering it premature for the City of Palo Alto to state a
position in favor or opposition to a HSR station stop in Palo Alto. The City looks
forward to reviewing additional information from CHSRA regarding station
requirements and constraints in upcoming months.
On May 17, 2010, the City of Palo Alto City Council adopted the following guiding
principles of the Council High Speed Rail Committee for the review and analysis of the
High-Speed Train (HSR) project and any modifications to existing rail service in the
City. These principles have guided the City in its review of the Preliminary Alternatives
Analysis Report, and in determining the City's preferred and unacceptable alignment
options:
1. The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto.
2. The City's preferred vertical alignment of HSR in Palo Alto is below grade.
3. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by HSR should be treated on the same
basis with respect to vertical alignment impacts.
4. The City believes that the pending program EIR for the Central Valley to San
Francisco portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the HSR Authority should
reopen and reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route.
2
5. The City further believes that the ridership study used by the Authority contains
dubious and erroneous assumptions and that the Legislature should order an
independent ridership study to be prepared under its direction and controL
6. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst's Office and State
Auditor which question the viability and accuracy of the Authority's Business
Plan on such matters as the identification of sufficient, reliable funding sources,
project management and operations of HSR.
7. The City favors legislation which would enable effective implementation. of the
Peer Review committee authorized by AB 3034 with respect to HSR.
8. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that are compatible with
our economic development strategies, transportation goals, and vision of the
transit corridor within our boundaries; HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the
goals and strategies of our Comprehensive Plan.
9. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions related to HSR and
Caltrain that are effectively funded and implemented by the Peninsula Rail
Program and the High Speed Rail Authority.
10. The High Speed Rail AuthOrity should provide sufficient funding to affected
cities to allow them to hire experts to study reports requiring feedback and
should conduct sufficient outreach to affected communities to adequately
identify and address their concerns and suggestions.
11. The High Speed Rail Authority should provide realistic renderings of the various
alternatives and also provide simulations that would help to provide an
understanp.ing of the potential sound and vibration impacts of the HSR.
12. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at present or
improved levels of service.
13. Palo Alto also supports the electrification of Caltrain pursuant to its present
plans, independent of HSR.
14. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to
HSR issues of mutual concern through vehicles such as the Peninsula Cities
Consortium.
15. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates the Palo Alto City
Council's adopted written comments to the Authority and its Representatives.
3
B. Consistency with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report does not provide sufficient detail to
determine whether any of the alignment alternatives comply with or conflict with the
goals and policies outlined in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The City
generally requires that any infrastructure or facilities installed in the City of Palo Alto
must conform to and/or be consistent with and promote the applicable goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The City requests that the pending Draft EIR
provide the details necessary to make this required consistency determination.
In the meantime, the City of Palo Alto provides below a list of the Comprehensive Plan
goals and policies that would apply to any rail alignment that passes through any
portion of the City of Palo Alto. The following list is based on the limited information
presently available from the CHSRA regarding potential HSR alignments that would
affect the City of Palo Alto, and so is not exhaustive of potentially applicable goals and
policies. Additional discussion of these or other goals and policies may be added later,
particularly upon review of the pending Draft EIR.
Please also note that the City of Palo Alto is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan, and it is
likely that the updated Comprehensive Plan will contain new or revised goals and policies that
directly relate to rail facilities in Palo Alto, particularly in regard to safety, aesthetics, traffic and
transportation, noise, and quality of life. The updated Comprehensive Plan is anticipated to be
approved by 2012.
Land Use and Community Design
Goal L-1: A Well-designed, Compact City, Providing Residents and Visitors with Attractive
Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts, Public Facilities, and Open Spaces.
Policy L-3: Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public
streets in the developed portions of the City.
The environmental review for any alignment that would utilize aboveground structures
(e.g., aerial rails, sound walls) in the City of Palo Alto (or any other affected community)
must thoroughly identify and analyze the potential visual impacts of such structures,
including whether these structures could obscure views of the foothills, the East Bay
hills, ~d all other scenic features. It is likely that any above-grade options would block views
of the hills from east-west streets.
Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming
and unacceptable due to their size and scale.
4
The Caltrain alignment discussed in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report
travels through developed neighborhoods and commercial communities in Palo Alto.
All rail infrastructure, particularly infrastructure that could be aboveground, must be
evaluated for its compliance with Policy L-S. In particular, in many areas within the corridor
are immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods, some of which are protected with single
story limitations or historic protection restrictions, and could be adversely impacted by aerial or
at-grade alignment alternatives.
Goal L-3: Safe, Attractive Residential Neighborhoods, Each with Its Own Distinct Character
and Within Walking Distance of Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public Gathering
Places.
Policy L-11: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial
and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
The opportunities for increased east-west connectivity, such as by keeping all roadway crossings
at grade, would support this policy.
Policy L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of
residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces.
Some of the public gathering spaces within the City of Palo Alto are located in close
proximity to the Caltrain alignment. The environmental analyses for the various vertical
options along this alignment must thoroughly analyze each option's potential impacts to
these public gathering spaces. On the other hand, an underground or trench HSR alternative
could provide an opportunity for a linear park system along the rail right-of-way that would
increase the number of public gathering spaces, and would support this policy.
Goal L-4: Inviting, Pedestrian-scale Centers that Offer a Variety of Retail and commercial
Services and Provide Focal Points and Community Gathering Places for the City's Residential
Neighborhoods and Employment Districts.
Policy L-27: Pursue redevelopment of the University Avenue Multi-Modal Transit Station area
to establish a link between University Avenue/Downtown and the Stanford Shopping Center.
Any proposal that would affect the existing University A venue Caltrain Station,
including the possible addition of a Palo Alto station for the high-speed train, must
enhance the link between these two commercial areas, consistent with the City's vision
for these areas. Redevelopment of the area would provide an opportunity to create
linkages and pedestrian connections between University Avenue/downtown, Stanford
Shopping Center, Stanford University, and nearby residential neighborhoods. This area's
reuse should optimize the effectiveness of the multi-modal transit center, protect nearby
residential areas from potential adverse development impacts, improve both the City and
University gateways, and enhance parkland and natural resources. By undergrounding the
S
trains in the downtown area, many east-west connections can be made that connect Stanford to
downtown.
Goal L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance
City Streets and Public Spaces.
Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with .
surrounding development and public spaces.
Any Peninsula rail alignment passing through Palo Alto must be compatible with the
surrounding development, and the environmental analysis for such an alignment must
thoroughly evaluate its potential compatibility and incompatibility in these respects.
Goal L-7: Conservation and Preservation of Palo Alto's Historic Buildings, Sites, and Districts.
Policy L-51: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have
historic merit, including residences listed in the Historic Inventory.
Policy L-52: Encourage the preservation of significant historic resources owned by the City of
Palo Alto. Allow such resources to be altered to meet contemporary needs, provided that the
preservations standards adopted by the City Council are satisfied.
Policy L-56: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown, promote the
preservation of significant historic buildings.
A number of historic and potentially historic buildings and features exist along the
Caltrain alignment. The environmental analysis for any proposed Peninsula alignment
must thoroughly evaluate its potential impacts to such historic resources, due to both
construction and operation phases of the project.
Goal L-8: Attractive and Safe Civic and Cultural Facilities Provided in All Neighborhoods and
Maintained and Used in Ways that Foster and Enrich Public Life.
Policy L-61: Promote the use of community and cultural centers, libraries, local schools, parks,
and other community facilities as gathering places. Ensure that they are inviting and safe places
that can deliver a variety of community services during both daytime and evening hours.
Policy L-64: Seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces, open space, and
community gardens that encourage and support pedestrian and bicycle travel and person-to
person contact, particularly in neighborhoods that lack these amenities.
6
A number of community facilities are located in relatively close proximity to the Caltrain
alignment. The environmental analysis for any HSR use of the Caltrain alignment must
address its potential impacts on these community facilities. It is likely that any below grade
option would provide opportunities to create public artwork, public open spaces, and other
features that would comply with this policy.
Goal L-9: Attractive, Inviting Public Spaces and Streets that Enhance the Image and Character
of the City.
Policy L-66: Maintain an aesthetically pleasing street network that helps frame and define the
community while meeting the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.
It is likely that any above grade option would degrade the aesthetics of the street network, while
below grade options would likely be less visually impactful and provide at-grade street crossings
that better meet the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.
Policy L-68: Integrate creeks and green spaces with the street and pedestrian/bicycle path system.
If the train alignments pass below the creeks, the creeks can be daylighted as they cross the north
south bike and pedestrian paths. Such an exposure of creek areas would create more natural
habitat, and provide an improved visual corridor.
Policy L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto roads and trails for motorists, cyclists,
pedestrians, and equestrians.
It is likely that any above grade option would obstruct the views of the hills, and would not
comply with this policy.
Policy L-71: Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances
to the City at Highway 101, El Camino Real, and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries
to commercial districts; and Embarcadero Road at EI Camino Real.
The two existing Caltrain stations are important gateways into Palo Alto. Any
modifications to these stations, as well as the addition of a Palo Alto station for the high
speed train, must enhance the character of the stations as community gateways, and the
environmental review for any HSR facilities in Palo Alto must evaluate the consistency
of the proposed facilities with these goals and policies.
Policy L-79: Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking
garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design standards. Look for opportunities to
use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or mitigate elements of existing
infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive.
It is likely that any above grade option would at the very least be visually disruptive, and could be
7
considered a visual blight.
Transportation
Goal T-l: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles.
Policy T-2: Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation
decisions.
It is likely that any above grade options would have environmental and social costs that could not
be mitigated to a less than significant level, particularly in the areas of visual, noise, and
transportation impacts. Such above grade alignment options would not be in compliance with
this goal and policy.
Goal T-2: A Convenient, Efficient, Public Transit System that Provides a Viable Alternative to
Driving.
Policy T-7: Support plans for a quiet, fast rail system that encircles the Bay, and for intra-county
and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and adjoining
counties.
Program T-17: Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco.
Goal T-5: A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods.
The City of Palo Alto supports public transit system improvements that provide for
convenient and efficient transportation without adversely affecting residential
neighborhoods. The environmental review and approval process for any HSR rail
improvements to be located in Palo Alto must ensure that the potential impacts to
existing residences are minimized, and that the benefits for Palo Alto residents outweigh
any adverse impacts.
Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and
Bicycling.
Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including
public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi
modal transit stations.
It is likely that any below grade options would increase the opportunities for pedestrian and
bicycle access in the east-west direction by keeping all roadway crossings at grade. Below grade
options would also likely provide a north-south axis that connects to the Mountain View light rail
in the south and Menlo Park in the north.
8
Policy T-15: Encourage the acquisition of easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths through
new private developments.
Policy T-16: Create connecting paths for pedestrians and bicycles where dead-end streets prevent
through circulation in new developments and in existing neighborhoods.
A key way to improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation is to overcome barriers and provide more
linkages between destinations. Detouring around obstacles like freeways and railroads is more
significant to bicyclists and pedestrians than it is to drivers. The below grade alignment options
would likely provide opportunities for increasing and enhancing pedestrian and bicycle
circulation across the Caltrain corridor.
Goal T-4: An Efficient Roadway Networkfor All Users.
Policy T-28: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto's major street network
without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. Palo
Alto's policy is to make necessary roadway improvements while providing for bicyclists and
pedestrians and ensuring the safety of all roadway and sidewalk users.
The below grade alignment options would likely increase the number of pedestrians and bicyclists
and decrease the number of motorists by providing opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle paths
parallel to the Caltrain corridor, as well as more favorable at-grade roadway crossings of the
CaItrain corridor.
Natural Environment
Goal N-l: A Citywide Open Space System that Protects and Conserves Palo Alto's Natural
Resources and Provides a Source of Beauty and Enjoyment for Palo Alto Residents.
Policy N-6: Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone
district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on views of the hillsides, on the
open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides.
The environmental analyses for any rail alignment proposed within the City of Palo Alto
must identify and thoroughly analyze its impacts to views of the hillsides and other
scenic vistas. It is likely that any above grade options would severely impact the views of the
hills.
Goal N-2: Conservation of Creeks and Riparian Areas as Open Space Amenities, Natural
Habitat Areas, and Elements of Community Design.
Policy N-13: Discourage creek bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and
flooding by minimizing site disturbance and vegetation removal on or near creeks and carefully
9
reviewing grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in the
watersheds of creeks.
The HSR environmental analyses for any rail alignment that passes over, under, or
through a creek, riparian area, or watershed must thoroughly evaluate its impacts on
bank stability, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and flooding.
Goal N-3: A Thriving "Urban Forest" that Provides Ecological, Economic, and Aesthetic
Benefits for Palo Alto.
Policy N-14: Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto's urban forest through public education,
sensitive regulation, and a long-term financial commitment that is adequate to protect this
resource.
It is likely that any above grade options would severely impact the many large trees and other
mature vegetation that lines Alma Street along the Caltrain right-of-way.
Program N-16: Continue to require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new
development, and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it is
impractical to locate them onsite.
This program cannot be implemented with above grade options, especially in places where the
existing right-of-way is narrow. Above ground alignment options would therefore generally not
comply with this program.
Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant
trees, on public and private property.
Any proposed rail alignment in Palo Alto must be evaluated to identify its potential
impacts on heritage trees, including El Palo Alto.
Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life,
Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety.
Policy N-18: Protect Palo Alto's groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses.
Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial,
industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities.
The extent to which the construction, operation and maintenance of HSR facilities in
Palo Alto could adversely affect the regional groundwater basin must be determined
and thoroughly analyzed in the pending Draft ElR.
10
Goal N-8: An Environment that Minimizes the Adverse Impacts of Noise.
Policy N-39: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments.
Use the guidelines in the table "Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment" to
determine compatibility.
• The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB.
This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for
the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline which
cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas with the constraints of economic or
aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major
consideration (e.g., backyards in single family housing developments, and recreational
areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an
Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended
for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through
project design.
• The indoor noise level as required by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards
must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in multiple family dwellings. This indoor criteria shall
also apply to new single family homes in Palo Alto.
• Interior noise levels in new single family and multiple family residential units exposed to
an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater should be limited to a maximum instantaneous noise
level of 50 dB in the bedrooms. Maximum instantaneous noise levels in other rooms
should not exceed 55 dB.
Noise exposure can be determined based on the noise contour map included in the Comprehensive
Plan, or more detailed noise measurements, if appropriate.
Policy N-41: When a proposed project is subject to CEQA, the noise impact of the project on
existing residential land uses should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels
and potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an
area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum
should not necessarily be allowed. A project should be considered to cause a significant
degradation of the noise environment if it meets any of the following criteria:
• The project would cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 dB or
more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB;
• The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential
area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB;
• The project would cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area
where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB.
11
Policy N-43: Protect the community and especially sensitive noise receptors, including schools,
hospitals, and senior care facilities, from excessive noise.
Construction and/or operation of HSR rail facilities in Palo Alto could produce an
increase in noise levels in the City, particularly for elevated or at-grade alignments with
a train traveling in each direction every three minutes. The environmental analyses for
any such facilities must, for each potential alignment and vertical option, determine the
anticipated increase in noise over existing conditions, compare the potential noise
impacts of all the various route alignments and vertical options, and determine the
extent to which each route alignment and vertical option may exceed the City's
maximum noise thresholds for residences and other sensitive receptors.
C. Technical Comments
C.l General Comments
The City of Palo Alto has reviewed the details provided in the Preliminary Alternatives
Analysis Report, and has compiled the following list of technical comments and
questions. The City of Palo Alto understands that the CHSRA will respond to these
comments either in a final version of the Alternatives Analysis Report or in the pending
Draft ElR.
• Comment C.l-l: The lack of adequate information regarding financial,
environmental, and right-of-way impacts precludes a reasoned determination of
preferred alternatives, both for the City and the public. In particular, the absence
of any meaningful discussion of noise and vibration impacts makes it impossible
to determine which vertical alignment options would have the least impact on
the many sensitive receptors along the Caltrain right-of-way. The CHSRA must
provide a more substantial analysis in the upcoming Draft ElR, and explore the
potential environmental impacts of each option to allow for a meaningful
comparison of alternatives. Similarly, the cost impacts (construction, right-of
way, grade separations, mitigation, and community disruption, etc.) and right
of-way needs leading to potential property "takings" must be fully addressed to
understand the implications of each alternative.
• Comment C.1-2: It appears that the CHSRA could significantly reduce the
number of vertical alignment options under consideration based upon the
feasibility of maintaining Caltrain operations during construction. Some of the
alternatives appear to consume the entire proposed right of way, and would then
preclude continued Caltrain operations during construction activities. At least
one alternative, involving the four tracks cut and cover box, at 123 feet in width,
consumes the entire existing Caltrain right of way and beyond. The CHSRA
12
needs to clarify how this and similar options can be constructed while Caltrain
service is maintained at the surface.
• Comment C.1-3: The report does not indicate how freight would operate on a
four lane configuration. Would freight trains be limited to the tracks that serve
Caltrain, or would they have the option of using the HSR rails as well? Rail
grades and underground structure ventilation requirements would be driven by
diesel freight train operation requirements.
• Comment C.1-4: The report indicates that the costs for each of the vertical
alignment options only represents the costs for the HSR infrastructure and not
the costs for modifications to the Caltrain tracks. The report does not clearly
indicate which configuration is proposed for Caltrain for each of the HSR vertical
options, the corresponding costs for the Caltrain configuration, or any additional
environmental impacts of the Caltrain configuration. The CHSRA and the public
cannot make a reasonable comparison of the various vertical options and the
feasibility of the associated mitigation measures without complete information
on the required modifications to the Caltrain tracks, the costs of such
modifications, and the potential environmental impacts associated with those
modifications. For example, how can traffic impacts be feasibly mitigated by the
project if the Caltrain configuration is to be retained at grade?
• Comment C.1-5: The report does not discuss the potential reuse of land in the
assessment of capital and operating costs. For the aerial, cut and cover, and deep
tunnel options (and, to a lesser extent, the aerial option), opportunity exists to use
the land at grade for additional uses, potentially creating a source of funds from
increased land values and future tax increments. The CHSRA needs to evaluate
the issue of the reuse of land for these various vertical alignment options to
permit an informed and reasonable comparison of the various options and to
assess the relative feasibility of the various options and associated mitigation
measures.
• Comment C.1-6: The drawing on page 8 of Appendix C indicates a 3-foot-wide
walkway. NFP A 130 and the CPUC General Order 26-D require only a 2.5-foot
wide walkway. The adoption of the 3-foot-wide dimension may add
considerable, unnecessary cost to the project. Please explain why this wider
walkway was chosen for this option.
• Comment C.1-7: The report indicates on Page S-l that each operator on the
Peninsula corridor will have a different maximum speed, with Caltrain operating
at a maximum speed of 110 miles per hour, and the HSR system operating at a
maximum of 125 miles per hour. The CHSRA needs to clarify if the two systems
13
are intended to operate on the same tracks, and if so, in what portions of the
corridor.
• Comment Cl-8: The report indicates on Page S-l that transitions from one
vertical option to another require approximately 3,000 feet of linear alignment,
potentially requiring adjacent subsections to share a vertical alignment
alternative. These potential transitions need to be described in greater detail by
the CHSRA, including all transition options potentially available for each
adjacent subsection, and where specifically those transitions would begin and
end. For example, there is no aerial option in Subsection 6A, but there is an aerial
option throughout the rest of the subsections in Palo Alto. For the aerial option,
the location of the transition to aerial in Subsection 6A and/or 6B of the
alignment in north Palo Alto would have significant environmental impacts that
need to be fully described.
• Comment Cl-9: The report provides a number of cross section options for each
type of vertical alignment, but does not indicate where each of these cross section
options would apply, or how they would be affected by transition points. More
detail regarding these cross section options needs to be included in the analysis,
particularly the cross section options at the transition points.
Comment C.l-lO: The City strongly preJers that existing roadways be retained at grade level,
rather than aligning Caltrain, HSR, or both at grade and then providing separate crossings Jar
the roadways above or below the tracks. Grade separation oj the roads is likely to result in the
need to "take" significant land, including many homes, parkland acreage, and Palo Alto High
School property, in addition to that land that may be needed Jar expanded rail right-oj-way,
adding substantially to the project costs and alteration of the character of these neighborhoods and
public facilities. Such grade separations would also decrease the connectivity between
neighborhoods and between residential, school, shopping, and employment centers, and create
unknown traffic patterns. Maintaining existing at-grade roadway/rail cross{ngs (and potentially
restoring such crossings at Oregon Expressway and/or other locations) provides greater
connectivity between neighborhoods on either side of the tracks, is more pedestrian and bicycle
friendly, and is less disruptive to the community.
• Comment C1-11: Some of the existing Palo Alto grade separations were
constructed in the 1930s. These structures may be inadequate to accommodate
the HSR project and may require upgrades to address vibration resulting from
the higher speed operation of the HSR service. The CHSRA needs to identify the
requirement for, and any costs or other impacts associated with, upgrading these
existing structures, including impacts to the grade separations that may be
considered historic resources, such as the University Avenue grade separation.
These issues surrounding the existing grade separations further support the City
14
of Palo Alto's preference that the CHSRA reject any at-grade options in favor of a ,
completely below grade option.
• Comment C.1-12: The report states on page 4-1 that HSR will operate up to
12 trains per hour per direction under a full build scenario, with Caltrain
operating an additional 10 trains per hour per direction. In the peak hour there
will be approximately 22 trains per direction per hour, or a train approximately
every 3 minutes each direction. It is noted that the HSR Operating Plan and
Caltrain service plan have not yet been integrated into a single operating plan.
HSR and Caltrain need to reconcile their service plans to optimize the alignment
and structure configurations. This reconciliation of service plans is necessary in
order to determine the feasibility of the various vertical alignment options, and
to determine which options best suit the operational needs of both rail services.
The specifics of the reconciled service plans also h.as implications for safety
issues, including safe train operations (particularly if Caltrain and HSR are
sharing tracks at any point along the alignment). The City of Palo Alto would
prefer a service plan allowing for maximum flexibility, with commuter and high
speed trains able to use all tracks and all station facilities.
• Comment C.1-13: The City of Palo Alto requests that the CHSRA evaluate the
merits of a three-track configuration versus the four-track configuration, with
HSR, Caltrain, and freight trains sharing the use of these three tracks. The City of
Palo Alto believes that the ridership estimates provided by the CHSRA are vastly
inflated, and that far fewer HSR trains will be necessary to accommodate actual
ridership. The City of Palo Alto therefore feels that fewer tracks may be
necessary to accommodate the reduced number of trains that the project would
actually require. The City of Palo Alto wishes to avoid a decrease in the level of
commuter rail service in terms of travel times and headways, and believes that
the CHSRA must investigate whether fewer tracks can be used to accommodate
the HSR project while still maintaining Cal train service at current levels. The City
of Palo Alto believes that any negative impact on commuter rail service should
be considered a negative impact in the alternatives analysis.
• Comment C.1-14. Map 7-1 oj Appendix B reJers to the cities oj Mountain View and Los
Altos, whereas a portion oj Palo Alto also extends south oj Adobe Creek. Other areas oj
Palo Alto also on this page do not immediately abut the rail right-oj-way but are likely to
be impacted by noise and vibration and revised traffic patterns during construction and
operation. The map should note that portions include land in Palo Alto, and other
sections oj the Alternatives Analysis (e.g., page 3-18), should similarly note that
correction.
• Comment C.1-15: The City oj Palo Alto believes that the CHSRA should explore using
maglev technology Jar the HSR project, as the maglev technology would allow Jar greater
15
train speeds and an ability to handle steeper grades than the currently proposed
technology. The CHSRA must discuss this readily available technology, and explain why
this technology is not being considered for the HSR project.
C.2 Ridership Estimates
• Comment C.2-1: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report is based on
ridership estimates that are incorrect and vastly inflated, as described in the
following paragraphs.
• Comment C.2-2: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report is based on
ridership estimates that were taken directly from the November 2005 Service
Plan. This plan predicted system-wide ridership of 159,000 trips per day, with
San Francisco boardings of 32,890 per day. In December 2009, CHSRA lowered
its ridership estimates to reflect increased fares. System-wide ridership was
lowered to 121,000 riders per day, and San Francisco boardings were reduced to
24)00 per day. The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report was not modified
to reflect these reduced ridership figures. Instead of basing the project design on
10 San Francisco departures per hour during peak hours, the departures per hour
should have been reduced to 8 to be consistent. with the 2009 revised ridership
estimates. Off peak departures should also have been appropriately reduced.
Such a reduction may eliminate the need for double trains during peak periods,
thus reducing the required length of station platforms in San Francisco and San
Jose. This modification to the project would be particularly important in the
design of the Trans Bay Terminal in San Francisco.
• Comment C.2-3: It is highly unlikely that high speed rail demand will ever
approach the level predicted in the December 2009 Business Plan. Independent
experts have examined the 2009 ridership estimates and have judged them to be
vastly overstated. This judgment is supported by worldwide high speed rail
experience, where actual ridership is one quarter to one half of the predicted
ridership. If the San Francisco Peninsula line carries only one quarter to one half
of the traffic that CHSRA has predicted, it will be necessary to dispatch only two
to three trains per rush hour from San Francisco. This level of traffic could easily
be accommodated by the existing Caltrain tracks if station passing tracks are
provided for local service and grade separations are completed. It is in the
financial and environmental interests of both CHSRA and the Peninsula cities to
use existing facilities to support high speed rait at least until travel demand
shows these facilities to be inadequate.
• Comment C.2-4: It appears that the ridership estimates include a large number
of passengers crossing the Bay from Alameda and Contra Costa counties to
16
board HSR in San Francisco; If this is the case, then these crossings would be
temporary because AB3034 requires that CHSRA provide service between
Oakland and Los Angeles with a travel time of no more than 2 hours, 40 minutes.
A BART or an AC Transit ride to the Transbay Terminal plus a high-speed rail
ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles would take longer than 2 hours, 40
minutes. Thus, at best, the additional riders from Alameda and Contra Costa
counties would be a temporary boost in San Francisco station ridership until the
high-speed rail line to Oakland can be completed.
• Comment C.2-5: High-speed rail in California would compete primarily with air
travel, not with automobile travel, particularly since in California there is
minimal public urban transportation service. One would then expect HSR
ridership to be comparable with airline patronage. Using figures from the
Program EIR, airline boardings in 2005 at SFO destined for LAX amounted to
slightly more than 8,000 passengers per day. This number has declined since
2005 due to the current economic downturn and advances in communication
technology. It is therefore unrealistic to expect travel between San Francisco and
Los Angeles to gro,w at the rate suggested in·the Program EIR. It is not even
certain that the California population will grow as CHSRA expects. It is also
unreasonable to expect HSR to capture all of the San Francisco to Los Angeles
airline traffic. Therefore, as some experts have predicted, the HSR boardings in
San Francisco may not exceed 5,000 per day as late as 2030.
• Comment C.2-6: If ridership does not exceed 5,000 passengers per day on the
Peninsula route, there is even less need to build four tracks down the Peninsula.
With Caltrain and HSR trains operating at comparable speeds, all HSR and
Caltrain traffic could easily be accommodated by the two tracks that already
exist as long as station sidings were added at all Cal train stations to
accommodate stopping. CHSRA would stand to save a great deal of money, and
the citizens of the Peninsula would avoid a great deal of environmental damage,
if the existing two sets of tracks could be used to accommodate the realistic HSR
ridership estimates.
• Comment C.2-7: Current and near-future technological advances, such as
telecommuting, teleconferencing, and autonomous cars, are reducing travel
requirements. The CHSRA must discuss how such changes in technology would affect
future ridership estimates.
• Comment C.2-8: The CHSRA must address what would happen if the ridership
estimates turn out to be greatly optimistic, and the actual ridership numbers are far
below the estimate. What happens if the operation of the HSR system is greater than the
income generated by ridership? Would Caltrain be negatively affected if the HSR system
proves to be financially unviable?
17
C.3 Service Plan
• Comment C.3-1: The proposed service plan is deeply flawed. The proposed HSR
system is burdened with an excessive number of stations. Balancing the desire
for limited intermediate stops against the requirement to serve all stations yields
a service pattern that repeats only once per hour for most of the intermediate
stations. A traveler seeking a particular service may only have hourly choices, no
better than the airline service that is available today. The alternative is to settle
for a slower trip, resulting in dissatisfaction and loss of passengers, as well as not
meeting the service goals for the high-speed train system.
C.4 Conceptual Cost Estimates
• Comment C.4-1: The report should explicitly state how the cost figures for each
of the vertical options have been calculated. This explanation should identify
which cross sections were used as the basis for the conceptual cost estimates. The
report should also provide a list of unit prices for significant cost elements (e.g.,
support of excavation walls, structural steel, concrete, formwork) so that the
estimated costs can be verified. Without this information, the CHSRA and the
City cannot adequately evaluate the costs of each alignment alternative or the
feasibility of the mitigation measures required for each alternative.
• Comment C.4-2: Although unit prices are provided for both rail and utility
relocations, no such costs are included in the cost estimates. It is clear that the
estimates also do not include ROW costs or the costs of environmental mitigation
measures such as sound walls. The costs for relocating existing utilities, track
relocations, ROW procurement for both temporary and permanent situations,
and environmental mitigation measures need to be disclosed in the cost
estimates.
• Comment C.4-3: The report identifies a certain number of sensitive noise
receptors for the aerial option, which indicates that noise mitigation measures
would be required. The cross sections for the aerial option do not show any noise
barriers, however, and noise barriers do not appear to be factored into the cost
estimate for the aerial option. The analysis needs to indicate the degree of noise
impact of the aerial option, the type of noise barriers that would be required to
mitigate this impact, and the cost of the noise barriers. Without this information,
it is impossible to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the mitigation
required for this option, or to make an informed and reasonable comparison of
this option to the other options.
• Comment CA-4: The report does not identify the number of sensitive noise
receptors for the at-grade option, nor does the cost of noise barriers appear to be
18
factored into the cost estimate for the at-grade option. The analysis needs to
indicate the degree of noise impact of the at-grade option, the type of noise
barriers that would be required to mitigate this impact, and the cost of the noise
barriers. Without this information, it is not possible to evaluate the feasibility
and effectiveness of the mitigation required for this option, or to make an
informed and reasonable comparison of this option to the other options.
• Comment C.4-5: The report does not clearly indicate whether the costs of
ancillary structures such as ventilation structures, egress structures (for all below
grade options), and cross passages (for the tunnel option) have been accounted
for in the estimated costs. This information is necessary to assess the feasibility
of these options and to make an informed and reasonable comparison of the
various options.
• Comment C.4-6: Page 4-55 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report
indicates that the costs of the Subsection 6A at-grade alignment are
approximately $75 -$290 million. However, Appendix L presents the costs of the
Subsection 6A at-grade alignment as approximately $48 -$75 million. The
CHSRA needs to address this discrepancy in pricing for the at-grade option.
• Comment C.4-7: Page 4-55 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report also
does not clearly explain for Subsections 6C and 6D how the open trench option
would be less expensive than the at-grade option. The CHSRA needs to provide
sufficient discussion to allow the report reader to understand how the ranges of
costs in Table 4-9 have been derived. This information is necessary for the
proposed infrastructure, construction, and operation costs, as well as for the costs
of all associated mitigation, to enable the CHSRA and the public to make an
informed comparison of the benefits and relative feasibility of each option.
• Comment C.4-8: The estimated cost of $34,972,672 per mile for the aerial viaduct
option translates to approximately $6,600 per linear foot. This figure appears low
based on a comparison of similar rail structure types. For instance, Los Angeles
Metro estimates that a twin track elevated structure for light rail transit would
cost approximately $9,200 per linear foot. This cost is approximately 50 percent
less more than the CHSRA figure, for a lighter vehicle. The CHSRA needs to
provide the basis for the cost estimate and correct any cost discrepancies before
completing the alternatives analysis.
• Comment C.4-9: The CHSRA needs to confirm the price of the four track aerial
viaduct option relative to the two track option. The cost difference between the
two structure types appears to be incorrect.
19
• Comment C4-10: The unit prices for excavation and backfill for "the covered
trench option ($6 each per cubic yard) seem very low. The report needs to
provide some basis for the unit rates. The covered trench price of $262,492,160
per mile corresponds to a figure of $49,714 per linear foot. For the proposed
width of the four track structure, this figure appears low, particularly as a
premium cost will apply resulting from working in and around an operating
railroad. The report should clearly identify what is included within this cost
figure, and provide a table of principal unit rates used in the evaluation so that
the reasonableness of the cost figures provided can be verified.
• Comment C4-11: The report is unclear on how the four track structure in the
covered trench option can be constructed without impacting existing Caltrain
service. The cost estimates do not include any temporary or permanent track
relocations for Caltrain.
• Comment CA-12: The difference in price between the open trench option
($14,932 per linear foot) and the covered trench option ($49,714 per linear foot) is
not justified in the report. The difference in the vertical profile between the two
options would not be significantly different and the construction methods would
be similar. The structures in these two options are the same width, and for a 7-
foot cover depth, the depth of the covered trench is only slightly deeper than that
for the open trench. It is not clear why the costs are an order of magnitude in
difference. For instance, the excavation volume for the covered trench is 2.7 times
that for the open trench, despite being only a fraction deeper. The covered trench
also provides greater flexibility for relocation of existing tracks during
construction. The difference in costs appears excessive and not justified by the
information in the report. The document needs to explain the reason for the large
disparity in cost between these two options.
• Comment C4-13: The CHSRA needs to clarify whether the costs .of ancillary
structures (such as ventilation structures and egress structures for all below
grade options, and cross passages for any bored tunnel options) are included in
the estimates. If they have not yet been included in the estimated costs for the
covered trench and deep tunnel options, then the cost estimates need to be
revised in order to disclose these costs.
• Comment CA-14: The CHSRA has stated in the past that the HSR project could
result in an economic boon to the area, particularly near a HSR station stop. This
claim has thus far been unsupported in any of the CHSRA documents, or in real
life examples of HSR projects elsewhere in the world. The CHSRA must provide
a detailed description of the economic impacts of the HSR project during both
construction and operation on the City of Palo Alto, and in particular on the
downtown business area.
20
CS Alternative Comparisons
General Comments
• Comment CS-l: The alternative alignment comparisons presented in the report
are qualitative and descriptive, making any ranking of these alternatives
unreliable at best. The only two quantified measures, acres of land taken and
alignment cost, appear to be grossly distorted.
• Comment CS-2: Acres of land taken is an imperfect measure because the value
of land depends on its location, its shape, its potential alternative use, and its
impact on adjacent property. No costs have been included for the acquisition of
right of way or temporary takes for construction support. Land values along the
San Francisco Peninsula vary widely in cost per acre, with the difference between
the cheapest and the most expensive land being a factor of 100 or more.
• Comment CS-3: Costs are presented only for those alternatives that use the
Caltrain corridor. Costs presented for the vertical alignment options using the
Caltrain corridor appear to be distorted to favor at-grade construction. Costs for
the at-grade option are based on only two tracks, while costs for elevated, open
trench, covered trench, and deep tunnel options include four tracks.
• Comment CS-4: The use of unit costs to estimate the relative costs of different
vertical alignments is very problematic. Some issues and obstacles have been
identified and been assigned costs, while other issues appear to have been
ignored. Under actual construction, no two segments of the route will experience
the same unit costs.
• Comment CS-S: The "Alternatives Development Process" section on page 2-2 of
the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report describes the objectives and criteria
that were used to compare the various Caltrain corridor alternatives. The
CHSRA has not defined Fire and Life Safety as specific analysis criteria, and both
topics must be considered to adequately analyze and compare the various
vertical alignment alternatives, particularly in densely populated areas such as
the San Francisco Peninsula.
• Comment C.S-6: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report does not
adequately address life safety issues. The CHSRA needs to elaborate on the
impacts of providing ventilation, egress, and other life safety systems for
enclosed underground options such as the covered trench and deep tunnel
options. In comparison with an at-grade or elevated option, an underground
alternative should identify right of way requirements for ventilation and
emergency egress structures.
21
• Comment CS-7: The CHSRA needs to explain how the vertical alignment of the
trench and deep tunnel options was derived, as it appears that the vertical
alignment of both alternatives is excessively deep. It appears that there is some
opportunity to raise the tunnel and trench profiles, thereby reducing
construction costs for either alternative. For example, the report indicates that a
deep tunnel option would be bored to a depth of 8S feet, yet Appendix Band
page B-1 suggests a cover of 1.5 tunnel diameters or 68 feet for a twin bore
option, and engineering standards may allow for an even shallower depth that
equals the diameter of the tunnel. For example, a 4S-foot diameter tunnel could
potentially be bored at a depth of 45 feet. The report does not indicate why the
deep tunnel option is proposed to be bored at a depth of 85 feet. The CHSRA
needs to state whether a shallower deep tunnel or covered trench alignment is an
option, and the difference in construction cost for a shallower alignment option.
The CHSRA needs to also address whether a shallower tunnel would increase
the feasibility of allowing for a station stop associated with a deep tunnel.
• Comment CS-8: The CHSRA needs to provide a table or other clear presentation
to indicate where each of the various cross sections provided in Appendix C
would be proposed along the alignment. The CHSRA also needs to indicate
which cross sections were used to develop the cost estimates for each of the
vertical alignments.
Elimination of I -280 and US 101 Alternatives
• Comment CS-9: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report concludes that
horizontal alignments that follow the Interstate 280 (1-280) and US 101 highway
corridors are infeasible. This conclusion is drawn from a cursory review of
potentially difficult interchanges, sharp curves, potentially liquefiable soils, and
potential biological constraints that were identified. There appears to have been
no serious look at opportunities to take adjacent land to avoid these obstacles. It
should be noted that land adjacent to major freeways is much cheaper than land
adjacent to the Caltrain corridor. Interchange~ can be passed on one side of the
freeway or another, or by tunneling. Close access to the San Francisco and San
Jose airports from a US 101 alternative could be used to great advantage. Existing
access to the San Francisco Airport from the Millbrae Caltrain station, by
comparison, is awkward, inconvenient, and time consuming. CHSRA must
thoroughly and adequately investigate both of these highway corridor route
alternatives in the alternatives analysis.
22
Right-af-Way Requirements
• Comment C.S-lO: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report does not
provide sufficient information about the additional right-of-way requirements
for each of the vertical alignment options (or for the Interstate-280 and US 101
corridor options) to permit an adequate comparison of the various options. The
analysis must consider not only the additional right-of-way necessary to
accommodate any additional or modified tracks, but also the land needed for
shoofly tracks to keep Caltrain running during construction, for construction
access, for staging and construction equipment, and to provide Union Pacific
access to its industrial tracks. Even if these right-of-way takings were temporary,
significant environmental damage could result from the need for additional
right-of-way, which would translate into increased costs for the project.
• Comment C.S-ll: The right of way plans in Appendix J indicate a typical PCJPB
Property width of 85 feet in the vicinity of Palo Alto. The CHSRA needs to clarify
which cross sections are under consideration so that the City of Palo Alto can
fully evaluate any additional right-of-way requirements (temporary or
permanent), particularly in areas of proposed development such as at the Palo
Alto High School. For example, the four track wide trench options would conflict
directly with the proposed improvements to the high school football stadium.
The CHSRA must consider construction alternatives that can be built entirely
within the existing right-of-way.
• Comment C.S-12: Alma Street is a vital arterial in the City of Palo Alto, second
only to E1 Camino Real in the volume of traffic carried each day in the east/west
direction. Any expansion of the Caltrain corridor that results in a narrowing of
Alma Street would likely have a significant impact on traffic patterns and traffic
levels in Palo Alto. In addition, the Palo Alto Fire Station #1 is located on Alma
Street, and any narrowing of Alma Street could interfere with the ability of fire
trucks and other emergency service equipment to maneuver in and out of the fire
station and respond to emergency situations. The CHSRA must evaluate the
impacts of any narrowing of Alma Street on traffic patterns, traffic levels, and
emergency response.
• Comment C.S-13: A mature tree canopy exists along the eastern boundary of the
Caltrain right-of-way and Alma Street. This tree canopy provides a visual screen
of the existing Caltrain operations and is an integral part of the visual setting in
the area. Any project option that results in the loss of some or all of these trees
could result in a significant visual impact. Any replacement vegetation would
take many years to mature, resulting in a long lasting visual impact. The CHSRA
23
must evaluate the potential loss of these trees and their effect on the visual
environment.
Aerial Viaduct Option
• Comment CS-14: The report states that an aerial option is considered for
subsection 6C, and costs for this option are provided in Table 4-9 (see pages 4-S4
and 4-61 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report). However, the plan
and profile drawings for Subsection 6-2 do not indicate an aerial alternative for
Subsection 6C The CHSRA needs to resolve this inconsistency.
Open Trench and Covered Trench Options
• Comment CS-IS: The report does not indicate the extent of the impacts of
liquefiable soils on the alignment with respect to the trench and cut-and-cover
options. The presence of liquefiable soils can greatly add to the cost of covered
trench and open trench structure options, requiring over-excavation to remove
and replace the soils, ground improvement to modify the in-situ characteristics
of the soils, or pile supports for the structures. The report needs to indicate
whether liquefiable soils are present in the alignment, and how these liquefiable
soils would be addressed.
• Comment C.S-16: The report does not discuss the effects and impacts of trenching in
areas where there are toxic plumes in the soil. Such trenching would have the potential to
release the toxic material to the atmosphere, and expose both workers and the public to
adverse health effects. Trenching within a toxic plume would also incur added expenses
for the handling and disposal of the toxic materials. The CHSRA must identify locations
of known or suspected toxic plumes within the Caltrain corridor, and address the impacts
and expenses of trenching through such plumes.
• Comment CS-17: For alignment subsections 6C and 6D, it is not clear how the
open trench option would be less expensive than the at-grade option. The cost
difference between these two options must be explained in the report.
• Comment C.S-15: The report does not indicate why the open trench option would cost
approximately 40 percent of the cost of the covered trench option. The difference in the
vertical profile between the two options would not be significantly different and the
construction methods would be similar. The covered trench also provides greater
flexibility for relocation of existing tracks during construction. The difference in costs
appears excessive and not justified by the information in the report.
•
• Comment CS-18: Under the constructability heading in Table 4-9, it is not clear
why the potential for disruption of existing rail service is indicated as "not
applicable." The open trench and covered trench options in particular would
24
have impacts on Caltrain and freight rail service during project construction. In
fact, the construction of either of these options could require the use of the entire
right-of-way, and may preclude continued Caltrain and freight service during
project construction. For example, the four track covered trench option would
require an area 123 feet in width, which is wider than the entire Caltrain right-of
way at any point within the City of Palo Alto. A cessation of Caltrain and freight
functions during project construction should be considered an unacceptable situation,
and should make design options infeasible.
• Comment C.S-19: In Appendix D, the table indicates that an 8.5-foot-wide box
culvert crosses the proposed alignment at Matadero Creek (Caltrain milepost
32.306). The CHSRA needs to address the effects of this utility infrastructure on
the costs and feasibility of the open trench and covered trench options.
• Comment C.S-20: In Appendix F on page F-8, the report indicates that a
comment was made at the San Carlos Open House on September 30, 2009
indicating the presence of a Hetch-Hetchy water pipe crossing the Caltrain
alignment at Alma Street. The CHSRA needs to confirm the presence of this
utility and address the effects of this utility infrastructure on the costs and
feasibility of the various vertical options.
• Comment C.5-21: The construction of the covered trench option across San
Francisquito Creek and other waterways would have potentially significant
environmental impacts in terms of biological resources, sedimentation, creek
bank stability, and water quality. Any waterway crossed by a covered trench
option would have to be diverted or temporarily dammed to permit construction
of the covered trench across the creek. These potential impacts must be identified
and analyzed as part of the CEQA review for this project.
• Comment C.5-22: The individual covered trench structure bores at 2S.5 feet in
width are considerably wider than indicated for the double track in tunnel
section, which has an indicated width of approximately 20 feet. CHSRA should
explain this apparent inconsistency in spatial requirements.
• Comment C.S-23: The two-double track cut and cover box option (CCB-2 in
Appendix C) should provide the opportunity to maintain Caltrain service at the
surface while one box is constructed. The surface tracks can then be shifted to
allow construction of the second box. The CHSRA needs to consider the
elimination of one of the central shoring walls between the two boxes, such that
the two boxes share an intermediate shoring wall. This elimination would reduce
the additional right-of-way impacts and cost of this option. This same comment
applies to TNCH-1 on page 17 of Appendix C.
2S
• Comment CS-24: The double deck structure configuration in CCB-3 (page 8 of
Appendix C) appears to permit continued operation of Caltrain service at grade
during construction. However, the CHSRA needs to consider requirements for
preventing hydrostatic uplift in the preliminary sizing of these structures. It
would appear that the structure, as shown, is likely to be buoyant. Additional
structure mass or piling appears to be required to mitigate uplift from
groundwater pressures. This is a technical issue that can be mitigated, but
additional cost would be incurred in doing so. The CHSRA needs to confirm that
all structures provide at least a minimum factor of safety against buoyancy.
• Comment CS-2S: In areas with a high groundwater table, any kind of trench
option is likely to be buoyant. The CHSRA needs to confirm that the cross
sections indicated in TNCH-T-l on page 16 of Appendix C provide minimum
factors of safety against uplift. Consideration needs to be made in the trench
design for the inclusion of tie-down piles to prevent uplift. The depth of the tie
down piles will help identify the requirements for the TBM profile.
• Comment CS-26: The following comments pertain to TNCH-T-l on page 16 of
Appendix C:
o The dimension between track centers in the trench is shown as IS feet,
but, with reference to comparable sections on drawing 17, the trench is
drawn much wider. This inconsistency should be resolved.
o As shown, the clearance between the trench invert and the top of the TBM
tunnel may be inadequate for the long-term stability of the tunneL
o With a IS-foot track spacing, the width of the excavation for the trench
would be approximately 46.S feet. The width of the TBM is shown as 47
feet. To fit as shown, the TBM must be driven to exacting tolerances to
avoid conflict with the trench support of excavation walls. Due to the size
of the bore, and the minimal clearance (3 inches per side), this
configuration may not be achievable unless the TBM profile is
significantly deeper.
• Comment CS-27: The trench in TNCH-T-2 on page 17 of Appendix C does not
appear to be drawn to scale. With a IS-foot-wide track spacing, it is likely that
the support of excavation wall for the trench would conflict with the TBM
location. The CHSRA must confirm the required profile for the TBM to avoid the
support of excavation walls.
• Comment CS-28: On page 18 of Appendix C, the figure shows a design that is
slightly narrower than the corresponding four track covered trench, but is still
26
wider than the corridor required by Caltrain to continue its service during
construction. This open-trench concept appears to have no options to divert the
existing Caltrain surface service other than with a temporary but expensive
bridge structure. CHSRA must explain how Caltrain service would be
maintained under this design option.
• Comment C.S-29: In regard to the figure on page 20 of Appendix C, there is a
considerable asymmetric load on this structure resulting from the adjacent berm.
Please confirm the adequacy of the 3-foot-thick wall shown in the figure.
Deep Tunnel Option
• Comment C.5-30: The report indicates on page 3-23 that the construction of a
deep tunnel station stop in Palo Alto is infeasible due to constructability
problems and expense. Undoubtedly, an underground station is more expensive
than an at-grade station, but underground stations connecting to deep bored
tunnels are constructed globally. Either localized ground improvement could be
undertaken to allow the ground cover over the tunnel boring machine (TBM) to
be reduced at the station interface, or a short length of cut and cover tunnel can
be provided to either side of the station, until sufficient cover exists to allow the
TBM to resume. These methods of construction are feasible and should be
recognized as such within the report, and considered by the CHSRA as part of
the study.
• Comment C.5-31: The report indicates that only CHRSA service would be
allowed in the deep tunnel option, with Caltrain and freight services occurring in
another type of vertical alignment. The report does not indicate what vertical
Caltrain/freight options would accompany a deep tunnel option, and the City
therefore cannot gauge the additional impacts and economic costs of the
Caltrain/freight option. The City's preference would be to have the HSR, in a deep
tunnel and the Cal train, and freight operations in a below grade optioncovered trench.
The report must analyze completely below grade options this combination of deep
tunnel and covered trench alignments to allow a comparison of this combination with
the other alignment options described in the report.
• Comment C.S-32: The report states on page 4-4 that the deep tunnel option
would not cause any property displacements. The CHSRA must consider any
property requirements for ventilation and egress structures, and for temporary
construction staging for the deep tunnel option. The CHSRA must also confirm
any additional property impacts for the potential Palo Alto station alternative.
Mezzanine, ancillary facilities, and platform configuration may increase the
width of the rights-of-way and easements required.
27
• Comment C.5-33: The report states on page 4-54 that the deep tunnel option is
considered in all subsections in Palo Alto (6A-6D and 7 A). This statement is not
consistent with the Appendix B Plan and Profile Drawings for Subsection 6-2,
which indicates the deep tunnel portal to be at approximately station 1900+00.
This results in a covered trench and/or open trench construction within
subsections 6C, 6D, and 7 A, and not a deep tunnel. The CHSRA needs to
reconcile this apparent inconsistency in the report. The City of Palo Alto prefers a
below grade option through the entirety of Palo Alto, including Subsections 6C
and 6D, and to begin any transitions to other vertical alignments outside the
boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. A deep tunnel option specifically would not
require the use of shooflys within Palo Alto, and would be less disruptive to the
community. A deep tunnel option in Subsections 6C and 6D would also seem to
solve the problem of alignment constraints experienced by the covered trench
option at Matadero, Barron, and Adobe Creeks. Also, once mobilized for
tunneling, the incremental cost of increasing the bored tunnel length to the south
would be relatively small.
• Comment C.5-34: In reference to the deep tunnel portal on page 4-54, some
staging can be remote from a portal area; however, in order to maximize the
tunneling productivity, an area of approximately 2-3 acres should be provided
for the contractor in the vicinity of the portal. The CHSRA should·indicate an
appropriate staging area on the right-of-way plans for any portals, and account
for the right-of-way cost ill the construction cost estimates.
• Comment C.5-35: The transitions shown in Figure 4.3.7 on page 4-54 should be
drawn to approximate scale so that their length can be understood and
visualized. The deep bored tunnel schematic should also be added to the figure.
This figure is intended to show potential profile and alignment constraints, yet
there are other constraints noted later in the report that have not been included
in this figure. The figure needs to be revised to include these other constraints.
• Comment C.5-36: The notes on page 4-54 indicate that most of the transitions
from open trench and covered trench to at grade seem to be infeasible at the
locations investigated. In order for viable open trench and covered trench
options to exist, some viable transitions need to be identified and evaluated as
part of the alternatives analysis. The CHSRA must identify, study, and develop
viable transition locations.
• Comment C.5-37: The listed cost of the deep tunnel option represents only the
cost for the HSR system to be underground (see pages 4-54 and 4-61 of the
Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, and Table 4-9). The report does not
clearly indicate which vertical alignment configuration is proposed for Caltrain,
which of the various cross sections options are proposed, and any additional
28
environmental impacts that would result from the other Caltrain alignment
option. The CHSRA needs to clarify how the total cost for each item presented
has been derived. The report indicates that (with the possible exception of some
localized grade separations) there is no option being considered that combines
HSR service in a deep bored tunnel with Caltrain and freight service below grade
in an open trench or covered trench. As mentioned previously, the preference for
the City of Palo Alto would be to have the HSR, facilities in a deep tunnel with the
Caltrain, and freight facilities stacked above in a covered trench or possibly an open
trenchall placed below grade. The CHSRA must develop information for completely
below grade alternatives this combined deep tunnel/covered or open trench alternative to
the same degree as it has developed information for the other alignment and
vertical option alternatives, so that the cost and feasibility of this combined
alternative can be reasonably compared to the other alternatives being
considered by the CHSRA.
• Comment CS-3S: While the deep tunnel and other below grade options appear
to generally minimize disruptions to communities and is the City of Palo Alto's
preferable Caltrain alignment alternative, the CHSRA needs to address the
design and location of surface penetrations (including ventilation buildings, vent
shafts, and emergency egress) in order to allow a reasonable comparative impact
evaluation with the other vertical alignment options. The design and placement
of such surface penetrations would require significant community input from
both a construction and visual aesthetic perspective.
• Comment CS-39: In Appendix C, emergency walkways are shown to the
outside of the tracks. The CHSRA needs to confirm how egress is facilitated in
the event of an emergency incident in a tunneL Per NFP A 130, cross passages
must be provided at a maximum of SOO foot centers, or egress to grade provided
at 2,SOO foot centers. For a cross passage option based upon the configuration
shown in CCB-1 and CCB-2, evacuees must cross the incident track and the
opposite track, which will still be live, to reach a safe haven at the corresponding
opposite walkway. Otherwise, additional right of way must be procured to
construct egress shafts. The City of Palo Alto recommends that the CHSRA locate
designated emergency walkways to either side of the interior walls separating
each outer and inner bore. In the event of an incident in any bore, egress can be
easily provided through cross passages to an adjacent walkway without patrons
having to cross live tracks.
• Comment CS-40: In reviewing CCB-T-2 in Appendix C, the depth of the bored
tunnels may ultimately be determined by the required depth of the cut and cover
tunnel support of excavation, which will be required both to support the
excavation and to provide a barrier to prevent groundwater ingress into the
excavation. The CHSRA must consider the location of the bores and the
29
sequencing of construction for this option to be feasible. The City of Palo Alto
prefers an option that includes all rail facilities below gradea deep tunnel with a cut
and cover structure above.
• Comment CS-41: With the 3/1 configuration shown in S-CCB-2and AG-CCB-2
on pages 13 and 14 of Appendix C, the CHSRA needs to identify the benefits of
vertically separating the service of one operator, as these benefits are not
apparent. For this single cell tunnel to achieve compliance with NFPA 130,
separate egress structures to grade must be provided.
• Comment C.S-42: The text and figures describing the deep tunnel option in Palo Alto
are misleading and must be clarified. The report lists deep tunnel as an option in
subsections 6C and 6D, yet all figures show the deep tunnel transitioning within these
two subsections to a trench or at-grade situation well before reaching the border with the
City of Mountain View. In addition, the various figures show the open trench and
covered trench options in subsections 6C and 6D occurring at a deeper elevation than the
transitioning deep tunnel option. The CHSRA must explain why the deep tunnel option
is shown at such a shallow level, and must clarify exactly where the deep tunnel option
ends and shallower options begin in subsections 6C and 6D. The figures and text also
need to be corrected to clearly indicate where deep tunnel is truly an option.
HSR Station Options
/
• Comment CS-43: The station configuration showing Caltrain outboard
(Figure 4-1 on page 4-1) eliminates the need for pedestrian underpasses or
overbridges to provide platform access. Platform heights must comply with
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and the CHSRA needs to
indicate how the various platform configurations meet these ADA requirements.
• Comment CS-44: HSR needs to identify how freight service will operate on the
corridor, including in the vicinity of the various station locations. Will freight
move to HSR tracks in the vicinity of Caltrain stations to permit level boarding?
For shared freight operations, HSR needs to identify and address issues with
clearances between freight trains and station infrastructure.
• Comment CS-4S: The following comments pertain to the HSR station options on
pages 3-S of Appendix C:
o Station alternatives STA-8, STA-9, and STA-1S do not appear to consider
how Caltrain will be maintained during construction. The CHSRA needs
to identify how Caltrain service would be maintained during the
construction of these station alternatives.
30
o The proposed train speeds through stations should be considered in the
determination of appropriate clearances. It would appear that the 12.75-
foot structure clearance indicated for option STA-8 is excessive for a '
Caltrain train moving at a station design speed.
o Option STA-ll is similar in layout to Option STA-8. However, this option
is wider, requiring more right of way, and is correspondingly more
expensive than STA-8. This option appears to offer no advantages in
comparison to Option STA-8, and should be considered for deletion.
o Options STA-12 and STA-13 would be constructed with a single support
of excavation system. The use of a pair of staggered walls as indicated in
Appendix C is unlikely. The station floor slab could be the roof of the
lower tunnel, and there is no need to separate the structures.
o The CHSRA needs to confirm that the upper box of STA-13 is drawn to
scale. The central1S-foot dimension appears to-be incorrect.
C.6 Union Pacific Railroad
• Comment C.6-1: The only vertical alignment alternative that gives the Union
Pacific Railroad (UP) full access to its service tracks is the at-grade option. Even
this option requires that UP trains cross high speed tracks to reach some service
tracks. This crossing can be done at night, but it would be critical that switches
are correctly set for high-speed train operation.
• Comment C.6-2: Other vertical alignment options would either require separate
UP tracks maintained at-grade (perhaps increasing the project to even more than
the four sets of tracks currently proposed), or require long access leads for the UP
tracks to reach grade. In either case, a great deal of additional land would be
required to support UP operations under these other alignment options. The
possible need for this additional land does not appear to have been considered in
the report. Because the need to acquire land affects the relative feasibility and
desirability of the various alternatives, this information must be included in the
report before the CHSRA can make a fully informed and reasonable selection
from among the various alternatives.
• Comment <;:.6-3: There is no evidence in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis
Report or any other documentation yet released for this project that serious
negotiations have been conducted with UP. By the terms of its trackage rights,
UP has the right to veto any intercity service over Caltrain rights-of-way. Unless
31
and until the CHRSA can secure agreements from UP to utilize this Peninsula
alignment, the CHRSA must continue to consider other alignment corridors.
C.7 General Impacts and Mitigation Measures
• Comment C.7-1: The report's claims that high-speed rail would relieve
congestion on other transportation arteries are vastly overstated. The 24,100
travelers per day projected to board and debark from high speed trains in San
Francisco could easily be accommodated on one freeway lane in each direction or
by a single airport runway. This additional marginal freeway and airport
capacity could be built at a fraction of the cost of the high-speed rail system,
including the costs for claiming additional right-of-way.
• Comment C.7-2: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report claims that, by
. using the Caltrain corridor, the high-speed rail project would have minimal
impacts on Peninsula cities. However, the report offers no explanation or
support for this claim. It is far more likely that the extensive land acquisitions
and construction activity would severely disrupt transportation, commerce, and
residential uses on the Peninsula for the ten years or more required for high
speed rail construction.
• Comment C.7-3: Despite the report's claims, high-speed rail is unlikely to
stimulate economic development along the Peninsula. Worldwide high-speed
rail experience reveals that induced development is insignificant when compared
with normal growth. The claims of beneficial economic impacts from the
operation of high-speed rail are exaggerated and inaccurate.
• Comment C.7-4: The definitions of impacted distances from the high-speed rail
right-of-way are unacceptably narrow and include many assumptions. Although
a 0.25-mile impact band for educational and cultural resources is stipulated by
law, it is much too narrow a band to include all environmental impacts on these
sensitive sites. Residential impacts extend well beyond the 300-foot distance for
noise impacts and the 200-foot distance for vibration impacts used in the
Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report. Visual impacts can extend across an
entire city and beyond. The distances used to assess the potential impacts of the
project must be widened to cover all of the reasonably foreseeable potential
impacts.
• Comment C.7-5: The Peninsula communities are 100 to 150 years old, and are
filled with large, beautiful heritage trees. Many of these trees have been planted
near the Caltrain right-of-way as a screen against noise and visual impacts. Any
enlargement of the right-of-way will require the removal of a large number of
these valuable trees. There is no suitable mitigation for these losses except to
32
plant young trees and wait for them to mature, a process that would take
decades. For this reason, great care should be taken to preserve as many of these
trees as possible.
• Comment C.7-6: The mitigation measures presented in the report are overly
general and it has not been shown that they can effectively mitigate the project's
significant impacts. For example, noise is not necessarily mitigated by walls and
barriers. Years of experience with walls along freeways has demonstrated that
noise behaves in varying ways, and is very difficult to contain. Mitigation for the
significant impacts relating to vibration has not been addressed in the report at
all; nor has the loss of heritage trees near the right-of-way. The pending Draft
EIR must address all potentially significant impacts with mitigation measures
that are quantifiable and can be proven to be effective at reducing impacts to a
less than significant level.
C.8 Site Specific Comments
The following comments relate to potential impacts to Palo Alto High School (P AHS),
located at 50 Embarcadero Road between El Camino Real and the Caltrain right-of-way:
• Comment C.8-1: The right-of-way required for the some HSR alignment options
would may affect approximately three quarters of the campus, including all auto,
bicycle, and pedestrian entrances and exits. Significant effects could potentially
include the loss of land for HSR right-of-way, noise and vibration impacts in
classrooms and outdoor use areas, and limitations on access due to the grade
separation of either Embarcadero Road, Churchill Avenue, or both. A
maintenance building would likely be directly affected and require relocation, as
would the stadium and bleachers. The potential project impacts on the P AHS
need to be ~xamined in detail and adequate mitigation measures developed and
described in the report. The CHSRA must also analyze whether these impacts to
P AHS (reduced land area, noise, access, etc.) would allow the site to even remain
viable for continued use as a high school.
• Comment C.8-2: The PAHS Master Plan includes four new facilities that will be
in close proximity to the existing Caltrain right-of-way. These permanent
facilities include:
o A two-story general classroom building on the northeast end of the
campus and approximately 100 feet from the Caltrain right-of-way
o A media arts complex
o A career tech center
o A 600-seat theater
33
. The potential impacts to these proposed facilities must be identified and
analyzed as part of the CEQA review of the HSR project.
• Comment C8-3: Pedestrian, bicycle, and auto access to the high school could be
affected by the project, particularly if the Caltrain corridor needs to be expanded
to accommodate the HSR project. A bicycle path currently travels along the rear
of the high school property along the Caltrain corridor, and would be eliminated
if the Caltrain corridor is widened. The Embarcadero and Churchill entrances to
the high school could be rendered impassable depending on the vertical
alignment option chosen for the HSR project and the subsequent grade
separation changes made at either or both of these two street crossings. Even the
El Camino Real entrance to P AHS could be affected if either of the Embarcadero
or Churchill entrances is altered in some way, forcing more auto traffic to enter
and exit the site from the El Camino Real entrance. The CHSRA must evaluate all
impacts to access to the P AHS site.
• Comment C8-4: Schools are included as sensitive receptors when considering
noise and vibration impacts. Construction noise and increased rail operations
adjacent to the P AHS could have detrimental effects on students and faculty, and
could violate noise thresholds for educational facilities. The CHSRA must fully
evaluate noise and vibration impacts on P AHS and other sensitive receptors, and
determine if the project impacts render the site unviable for continued use as a
high school.
The following comments relate to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (P AMF):
• Comment C8-5: The P AMF operates a number of facilities in close proximity to
the Caltrain right-of-way. These facilities include:
o The Clark Building, located at 795 El Camino Real
o The future Women Service Clinic, located at 49 Wells Avenue
o The Main Clinic, located at 795 El Camino Real
o A parking structure located at 87 Encina Avenue
Due to the proximity of these P AMF facilities to the Caltrain right-of'-way, the
construction and operation of the HSR project is likely to result in vibration,
noise, and electrical interference impacts that would be detrimental to patient
care and the operation of the clinics. All of these potential impacts must be
identified and analyzed as part of the CEQA review for the HSR project.
• Comment C8-6: The existing right-of-way narrows considerably at the western
edge of the parking structure located at the southwest comer of the P AMF
campus (87 Encina Avenue). The report is not clear whether additional right-of-
34
way will be necessary for any of the high speed rail vertical alignment options. If
additional right-of-way will be necessary, then the report needs to indicate what
impact the additional right-of-way will have on the Clark Building and the
parking structure.
• Comment C8-7: Four Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) units are located in
relatively close proximity to the Caltrain right-of-way. These four MRI units are
located at 87 Encina Avenue, 795 El Camino Real in Buildings C and D, and
Wells Avenue. The clinics at these sites are considered "sensitive receptors"
because of the sensitive imaging equipment housed there. The report needs to
identify the potential vibration impacts to these sensitive units from project
construction and operation.
• Comment C.8-8: Noise impacts may have a detrimental effect on effective
communication between patients, physicians, and staff. The report needs to
clearly identify the noise impacts associated with each alignment option and any
associated mitigation measures to reduce the severity of the noise impacts.
• Comment C8-9: An elevated train next to the P AMF Clark Building appears to
pose the greatest threat of noise and vibration impacts, and would also affect
views from the Clark Building. The aerial design option should be deleted from
further discussion in this segment of the alignment.
• Comment C8-IO: Parking in the P AMF area is already heavily affected by
various sources, including visitors to the adjacent Town and Country Village
shopping center, downtown workers, existing Caltrain users, and Stanford
University visitors and employees who park at the P AMF and use the
Marguerite shuttle to access Stanford. If Palo Alto becomes the location for a
station stop for the HSR system, then these parking issues would be further
exacerbated by the additional HSR ridership. The report must analyze the
parking impacts of a new station on the P AMF facility.
The following comments relate to the HSR alignment Subsections SA, 5B, and 5C
through .the communities of Menlo Park and Atherton:
• Comment C8-11: The vertical alignment options presented for Subsection 5 are
inadequate. Only an at-grade option is offered for the North Fair Oaks
neighborhood, and therefore the grade change to a deep tunnel or aerial
structure alignment option does not begin until reaching the Atherton border.
The tunnel portal would not be reached until well south of the Atherton Caltrain
station. As shown in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, the high
speed rail would not be underground through Atherton at alL It is noteworthy
that the report uses a 1 percent grade to the tunnel for this approach, but in San
35
Jose, the report uses a 2 percent approach gradient to the tunnel. If the Atherton
tunnel approach began immediately after the Dumbarton tum off and proceeded
down a 2 percent gradient, Atherton could have the underground high-speed
rail option that it prefers.
• Comment C.8-12: At the conclusion of the October 2009 workshop, the residents
of Atherton expressed a strong desire to have both high-speed rail and Caltrain
placed below ground in a trench, with Caltrain stacked above high-speed rail.
This preference has been omitted from the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis
Report, yet it is offered in Subsection 6 in Palo Alto.
The following comment relates to the approved underground water storage reservoir
that will soon begin construction at the El Camino Park:
• Comment C.8-13: A water storage reservoir has been approved for construction
within the El Camino Park in Palo Alto. The existing park and approved
reservoir are located immediately adjacent to the west side of the Caltrain right
of-way near the northern border between the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park.
Construction of this underground water storage reservoir will be completed in
2012, well ahead of the construction of any HSR facilities in the area. The location
of the water storage reservoir may prevent any temporary or permanent
expansion of the Caltrain right-of-way to the west. If the HSR project expanded
the Caltrain corridor to the west in such a way as to eliminate this reservoir, then
the purchasing of the reservoir land, securing of an alternate location for a
reservoir, and construction of a new reservoir would likely be prohibitively
expensive. Similarly, while the location of the El Palo Alto heritage redwood tree
to the east of the Caltrain right-of-way in the same vicinity, as well as the
presence of a particularly narrow but vital portion of Alma Street, will may
prevent expansion of the Caltrain right-of-way to the east. Therefore, the only
alignment options possible in this portion of the Caltrain corridor are may be
those that do not require any temporary or permanent expansion of the Caltrain
right-of-way, i.e., a deep tunnel.
The following comments relate to the existing Sheraton and Westin hotels located
adjacent to the Caltrain right-of-way in downtown Palo Alto:
• Comment C.8-14: Both the Sheraton Hotel nor and the Westin Hotel provide the
minimum number of parking spaces according to the City of Palo Alto Zoning
Ordinance. Any loss of parking spaces for either of these hotels, such as through
eminent domain and the expansion of the Caltrain corridor, would result in an
inability of these hotels to provide adequate parking and could reduce the
potential to rent out all of their existing rooms. This loss of rentable rooms would
in tum result in a loss of income both for the hotels and for the City. The CHSRA
36
must clearly indicate whether any land taking would occur in the vicinity of
these two hotels, what the direct and indirect impacts would be of such a taking,
and how such impacts would be mitigated.
• Comment C.S-iS: The most frequent complaints received by guests at the
Sheraton and Westin hotels is the amount of noise and vibration disturbance
caused by Caltrain operations. The CHSRA must address construc~on and
operation noise and vibration impacts on these two hotels. The City of Palo Alto
believes that placing all rail facilities below grade would help to reduce noise
and vibration impacts, and depending on the configuration of the rail facilities,
could also eliminate the need for an expanded right-of-way.
37
TO:
FROM:
. Attachment C
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING &
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Gayle Likens
Management Specialist
. .
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: June 17,2010
SUBJECT: Review and Recommendation to Council Regarding Draft City Comments
on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to
San Jose Section ofthe High Speed Rail Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation COmtfiissicin provide comments to the City
Council on the draft City comments on the San Francisco to San Jose High Speed Train Project
Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report.
BACKGROUND
The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (AA) Report was released for circulation and presented to the
California High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) Board on April 8, 2010. While HSRA staff stated
there was no legal deadline for providing comments, HSRA made it clear that comments received
during the first 60 days would be most timely and influential. Subsequently, upon the urging of
many local agencies, the quasi -deadline for timely comments was extended to June 30. HSRA staff
will compile the comments into a report for the August meeting of the HSRA Board.
On April 27, HSRA held a well-attended community workshop in the Palo Alto Council Chambers
on the Alternatives Analysis. Staff supplemented the HSRA' s outreach efforts by mailing notices to
praperties within 600 feet of the Caltrain right-of-way. HSRA and the Peninsula Rail Program
(PRP) staff presented an overview of the alternatives identified for the Palo Alto segment of the
project, responded to questions and led community members in break-out groups in a Context
Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Toolkit exercise.
On May 10, the City C('>uncil adopted new Guiding Principles for the High Speed Rail Committee of
the City Council (Attachment C). Among the guiding principles are three clear policy statements of
the Council on the configuration ofHSR should it be built through Palo Alto: .
City of Palo Alto Page 1
• The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSRlCaltrain in Palo Alto.
• The City's preferred vertical alignment of HSR in Palo Alto is below grade.
• All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by SHR should be treated on the same basis
with respect to vertical alignments impacts.
• Palo Alto strongly supports.Caltrain and the comniuter rail service at the present or
improved levels of service.
• Palo Alto also supports the electrification of Caltrain pursuant to its present plans but
independent of HSR.
Two community· meetings were held on May 18 at JLS Middle School and on May 20 at Jordan
Middle School to inform the community about the alternatives, present the findings of the peer
review analysis, and accept comments, concerns, and opinions. Over 100 residents pa,r1:icipated in
the two meetings. A summary of the public comments received at both meetings is provided as
Attachment D.
On June 7,2010, Mayor Burt sent a letter to the Peninsula Rail Project requesting that consideration
of the AA be postponed until serious deficiencies in the Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Toolkit
are rectified (Attachment E).
DISCUSSION
Peer Review Report of Preliminary Alternatives Analysis
The City retained the engineering firm Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) to conduct an independent
peer review oftechnical conclusions in the AA, such as tunneling feasibility and other below grade
options, impacts on grade crossings, costs, and railroad operations, etc. The scope of work included
full technical review of the AA and its appendices and participation in meetings with the HSR
Committee, City Council, and the community. The revised Dra:ft HMM Peer Review Report is
provided as Attachment B.
In Palo Alto, five alternative vertical alignments have been identified in the AA to be carried
forward to further engineering and environmental analysis: 1) aerial structure, 2) at existing
Caltrain grade, 3) open trench, 4) cut and cover tunnel, and 5) deep tunnel for HSTonly in a
combination of two Caltrain tracks at grade or elevated. However, the HMM review confirmed
that some alternatives will not be carried forward beyond the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis
to the environmental and engineering phases:
• Elevated Berm has been eliminated throughout Palo Alto
• Aerial and Open Trench are eliminated in Section 6A (San Francisquito Creek)
• Aerial structure is eliminated in Section 6C (California Station to Barron Creek)
• Deep Tunnel is not proposed for South Palo Alto
-The tunnel portal is shown at just south of Oregon Expressway and then trench
or cut and cover to Adobe Creek
-The Deep Tunnel is for High Speed Rail only and combined with At-grade or
Aerial for Caltrain
• No station is proposed at Palo Alto for the Deep Tunnel Option.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Other key findings from the HMM report include:
• The AA report states that deep bored tunnel options that include a station should be
avoided due to constructability problems and expense. Undoubtedly an underground
station is more expensive than an at-grade station, but examples of underground stations,
using cut and cover construction, connecting to deep bored tunnels exist globally.
• The AA report states that the deep tunnel option is considered in all subsections (6A-6D).
This statement is not consistent with the Appendix B Plan and Profile Drawings for
Subsection 6-2, which indicates the deep tunnel portal to be south of Oregon Expressway.
This results in covered trench and/or open trench construction within subsections 6C and
6D (covering areas south of Churchill to Adobe Creek).
• The vertical alignment of both the deep bore and trench alternatives appear excessively
deep. It would appear that there is some opportunity to raise the tunnel and trench
profiles, thereby reducing construction costs for either alternative.
• The cost provided for the deep tunnel represents cost for HSR to be underground only.
The'report does not clearly indicate which configuration is proposed for Caltrain, and any
additional environmental impacts.
• While the AA report presents numerous options for the construction of the alignment in
Appendix C: Typical Cross Sections, it is not clear which of the typical sections have
been used in the development of the alignment right of way requirements and cost
estimates.
• The feasibility of maintaining Caltrain service during construction of many of the
suggested construction alternatives appears to be questionable. Options which cannot
feasibly maintain Caltrain service during construction should'be rejected.
• The cost estimates provided are exclusive of rail relocations, utility relocations, right of
way (temporary and permanent) and environmental mitigation (noise barriers etc). Since
these costs are potentially significant, HSR should provide these costs and consider them
in the alternatives analysis.
• The unit rates provided are typically at such a high level, e.g. cut and cover tunnel at
$262-million per mile that it is not possible to adequately determine the reasonableness of
the figures adopted. The cost estimates for the cut and cover alignments in particular
appear to be higher than the expected range of costs for this type of construction. HSR
should provide additional information supporting the unit rates adopted.
• HMM recommends that the Alternatives Analysis report should explicitly state how the
cost figures for each of the alternatives have been calculated-identifying usage of
specific typical sections over defined lengths, and provide a list of unit prices for
significant cost elements -support of excavation walls, structural steel, concrete,
formwork etc., such that the appropriateness of the construction methods and the
construction costs can be verified.
HMM's conclusions and detailed comments have been incorporated into the City'S comment
letter.
Draft City Comment Letter
The intent of this PTC meeting is to allow the Commission to review and provide comments to
City of Palo Alto· Page 3
the City Council regarding the draft comment letter to the Peninsula Rail Program on the
Preliminary Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco to San Jose HST project (Attachment A).
Staff requests that the Commission focus on the substance of the comments~ identify issues to
add or modify~ or provide input ifthe nature of the comment is unclear. This draft will undergo
further editorial review before it is forwarded to the City Council. The Commission's comments
will be summarized in an "at-places" memorandum to the City Council on June 23~ together with
the PTC draft minutes. Staff and the PTC representative will provide a verbal summary of the
memorandum at the Council meeting~ with copies of any available written report at places.
The draft comment letter is divided into three sections. The Introductory Comments section
reiterates the City's belief that the Altamont Pass alignment should be studied further as an
integral part of an expanded alternatives analysis in the Draft Project EIR. The letter further
recites the Guiding Principles recently adopted by the City Council for the HST project. It
affirms the City position that vertical alignments of the HSR project including aerial viaduct,
elevated berm, and at-grade options are unacceptable to Palo Alto. Also any alignment that
would require existing at grade rail crossings to be converted to elevated or underground
crossings would be unacceptable.
The second section, Consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, describes the
potentially applicable Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for HSR or any rail
alignment that passes through any segment of Palo Alto. However, due to the lack of sufficient
details in the Alternatives Analysis, it is unclear to what extent each of the alignment alternatives
would comply or conflict with the goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
The final section, Technical Comments, contains the detailed technical/engineering comments
based largely upon the Peer Review Report prepared by Hatch Mott MacDonald. The technical
comments have been divided into topic areas including general comments, ridership estimates,
service plan, alternatives comparisons, Union Pacific Railroad issues, impacts and mitigation
measures, and site specific comments (including Palo Alto High School issues). Within the
alternatives comparisons are comments on the deficiencies, inadequacies, incomplete or
erroneous information contained in the analysis of the various vertical alignments.
NEXT STEPS
The Alternatives Analysis is one of the early phases in the preparation of the Project level
EIRIEIS. HSRA will consolidate comments on the Preliminary AA and submit a report to the
HSRA Board in early August. The AA will be modified and published in the Draft Project EIR
which is scheduled to be released in January 2011. Staff also expects HSRA to initiate
discussions with the City on a potential Palo Alto HSR station in the coming months.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft City Comments on the San Francisco to San Jose HST Project Preliminary Alternatives
Analysis Report.
B. Hatch Mott MacDonald Draft Peer ~eview Report; June 2010
C. May 10 Guiding Principles for the High Speed Rail Committee
D. Summary of Public Input from May 18 and May 20 Community Meetings
City of Palo Alto Page 4
E. Mayor Burt letter to Peninsula Rail Project dated June 7, 2010
F. Sheets 6-1, 6-2, and 7-1 of Appendix B of the Alternatives Analysis, Commissioners only.
The AA and its appendices are available online at
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library.asp?p=8243)
Prepared by: Gayle Likens, Management Specialist
City of Palo Alto PageS
ATTACHMENT A
City of Palo Alto Comment Letter on the
Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the
San Francisco to San Jose Section of the California
. High-Speed Train Project
This letter addresses the City of Palo Alto's comments on the April 2010 Preliminary
Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section of the California High
Speed Train Project.
A. Introductory Comments
The City of Palo Alto still believes that the Altamont Pass option to bring·the high-speed
train to the Bay Area is a viable alternative that deserves more analysis by the California
High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). The City of Palo Alto would like to see an'
expanded alternatives analysis in the pending Draft EIR for this project that reopens the
analysis comparing the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass options before settling on a
high-speed train rail aligrunent that travels up the Peninsula.
This Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, however, focuses only on alignment
alternatives on the Peninsula between San Jose and San Francisco. The remainder of this
letter will focus on the City of Palo Alto's comments in regard to the Peninsula
alignment alternatives. Comments on this Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report
should not be interpreted as tacit approval from the City of Palo Alto for any of the
Peninsula alignment alternatives.
On May 17, 2010, the City of Palo Alto City Council adopted the following guiding
principles for the review and analysis of the High-Speed Train (HST) project and any
modifications to existing rail service in the City:
1. The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto.
2. The City's preferred vertical alignment of HSR in Palo Alto is below grade.
3. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by HSR should be treated on the same
basis with respect to vertical alignment impacts.
4. The City believes that the pending program EIR for the Central Valley to San
Francisco portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the HSR Authority should
reopen and reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route.
1
5. The City further believes that the ridership study used by the Authority contains
dubious and erroneous assumptions and that the Legislature should order an
independent ridership study under its direction and control.
6. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analysts Office and State
Auditor which question the viability and accuracy of the Authority's Business
Plan on such matters as the identification of sufficient, reliable funding sources,
project management and operations of HSR.
7. The City favors legislation which would enable effective implementation of the
Peer Review committee authorized by AB 3034 with respect to HSR.
8. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that will be compatible
with our economic development strategies, transportation goals, and vision of
the transit corridor within our boundaries; HSRjCaitrain needs to complement
the goals and strategies of our Comprehensive Plan.
9. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions related to HSR and
Caltrain that is effectively funded and implemented by the Peninsula Rail
Program and the High Speed Rail Authority.
10. The High Speed Rail Authority should provide sufficient funding to affected
Cities to allow them to hire experts to study reports requiring feedback and
sufficient outreach to the community to capture their concerns and suggestions.
11. The High Speed Rail Authority should provide realistic renderings of the various
. alternatives and also provide simulations that would help to provide an
understanding of the sound and vibrations.
12. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at the present
or improved levels of service.
13. Palo Alto also supports the electrification of Caltrain pursuant to its present
plans but independent of HSR.
14. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to
HSR issues of mutual concern through vehicles such as the Peninsula Cities
Consortium.
15. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates Council adopted written
comments to the Authority and its Representatives.
Based on these guiding principles, the City of Palo Alto has determ,ined the preferable
and unacceptable vertical alignments for the portion of the HSRjCaltrain corridor within
Palo Alto. The preferable options for the City of Palo Alto include any vertical alignment
options that place all HSR, Caltrain, and freight train tracks below grade, and that
maintain all existing at-grade rail crossings. These preferable options would have the
2
least amount of impact on the residents and businesses of the City of Palo Alto. The
deep tunnel option is preferable to the covered trench option, and the covered trench
option is preferable to the open trench option. The unacceptable vertical alignments
include the aerial viaduct, the elevated berm, and an at grade options. The City of Palo
Alto is also opposed to any alignment configuration that requires that existing at grade
rail crossings be modified to become elevated or underground crossings.
B. Consistency with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report does not provide sufficient detail to
determine whether any of the alignment alternatives comply with or conflict with the
goals and policies outlined in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. It is hoped that
the pending Draft EIR will contain the details necessary in order to make this
assessment. In the meantime, the City of Palo Alto would like to provide the CHSRA
with a list of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies that would likely be applicable
to any rail alignment that passes through any portion of the City of Palo Alto. This list
below is not an exhaustive list of potentially applicable goals and policies; depending on
the contents of the pending Draft ElK additional goals and policies may be added to this
list.
Land Use and Community Design
Goal L-l: A Well-designed, Compact City, Providing Residents and Visitors with Attractive
Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts, Public Facilities, and Open Spaces.
Policy L-3: Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public
streets in the developed portions of ~he City.
Aboveground structures (e.g., aerial rails, sound walls) associated with any of the route
alternatives in Palo Alto will need to be evaluated on their visual impacts, including
whether these features obscure views of the foothills and East Bay hills. '
Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City, Avoid land uses that are overwhelming
and unacceptable due to their size and scale.
The Caltrain alignment discussed in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report
travels through developed neighborhoods and commercial communities in Palo Alto.
Rail infrastructure, particularly those project elements that will be aboveground, will
need to be evaluated for their compliance with Policy L-S.
3
Goal L-3: Safe, Attractive Residential Neighborhoods, Each with Its own Distinct Character and
within Walking Distance of Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public Gathering Places.
Policy L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of
residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces.
Some of the public gathering spaces within the City of Palo Alto are located in close
proximity to the Caltrain alignment. The various vertical options along this alignment
will need to be evaluated on their impacts to these public gathering spaces.
Goal L-4: Inviting, Pedestrian-scale Centers that Offer a Variety of Retail and commercial
Services and Provide Focal Points and Community Gathering Places for the City's Residential
Neighborhoods and Employment Districts.
Policy L-27: Pursue redevelopment of the University Avenue Multi-Modal Transit Station area
to establish a link between University Avenue/Downtown and the Stanford Shopping Center.
Any redevelopment of the existing University Avenue Caltrain Station, including the
. -possible addition of a Palo Alto station for the high-speed train, will need to be
evaluated on whether the redevelopment enhances the link between these two
commercial areas.
Goal L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance
City Streets and Public Spaces.
Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces.
Any Peninsula rail alignment passing through Palo Alto will need to be evaluated in
regard to its compatibility with surrounding development.
Goal L-7: Conservation and Preservation of Palo Alto's Historic Buildings, Sites, and Districts.
Policy L-51: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have
historic merit, including residences fisted in the Historic Inventory.
Policy L-56: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown, promote the
preservation of significant historic buildings.
A number of historic and potentially historic buildings and features exist along the
Cal train alignment. Any project alignment alternative will need to be evaluated on its
4
impacts to such historic resources, during both construction and operation phases of the
project.
Goal L-8: Attractive and Safe Civic and Cultural Facilities Provided in All Neighborhoods and
Maintained and Used in Ways that Foster and Enrich Public Life.
Policy L-61: Promote the use of community and cultural centers, libraries, local schools, parks,
and other community facilities as gathering places. Ensure that they are inviting and safe places
that can deliver a variety of community services during both daytime and evening hours.
A :t:tumber of community facilities are located in relatively close proximity to the Caltrain
alignment. Any rail options within this alignment will need to be evaluated based on
their impacts to such community facilities.
Goal L-9: Attractive, Inviting Public Spaces and Streets that Enhance the Image and Character
of the City.
Policy L-71: Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances
to the City at highway 101, EI Camino Real, and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries
to commercial districts; and Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real.
The two existing Caltrain stations are important gateways into Palo Alto. Any
modifications to these stations, including the possible addition of a Palo Alto station for
the high-speed train, will need to be evaluated on whether they strengthen the identity
of the City.
Transportation
Goal T-2: A Convenient, Efficient, Public Transit System that Provides a Viable Alternative to
Driving.
Policy T-7: Support plans for a quiet, fast rail system that encircles the Bay, and for intra-county
and transbay transit systems that link-Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and adjoining
counties.
Policy T-17: Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco.
Goal T-5: A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods.
The City of Palo Alto supports public transit system improvements that provide for
convenient and efficient transportation without adversely affecting residential
5
neighborhoods. Any rail alignment in Palo Alto will need to be evaluated on its ability
to provide public transit services with a minimum of impact to existing residences.
Natural Environment
Goal N-l: A Citywide Open Space System that Protects and Conserves Palo Alto's Natural
Reso7!rces and Provides a Source of Beauty and Enjoyment for Palo Alto Residents.
Policy N-6: Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone
district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on views 'of the hillsides, on the
open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides.
Any rail alignment in Palo Alto will be evaluated on its impacts to views of the hillsides.
Goal N-2: Conservation of Creeks and Riparian Areas as Open Space Amenities, Natural
Habitat Areas, and Elements of Community Design.
Policy N-13: Discourage creek bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and
flooding by minimizing site disturbance and vegetation removal on or near creeks and carefully
reviewing grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in the
watersheds of creeks.
Any rail alignment that passes over, under, or through a creek, riparian area, or
watershed will need to be evaluated in regard to impacts on bank stability, erosion,
downstream sedimentation, and flooding.
Goal N-3: A Thriving "Urban Forest" that Provides Ecological, Economic, and Aesthetic
Benefits for Palo Alto. .
Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant
trees, on public and private property.
Any rail alignment in Palo Alto will need to be evaluated in regard to impacts on
heritage trees, including El Palo Alto.
6
Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life,
Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety.
Policy N-18: Protect Palo Alto's groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses.
Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial,
industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities.
The construction and operation/maintenance activities of any rail alignment passing
through Palo Alto could have a negative effect on the quality and quantity of
grollildwater. These potential effects will need to be evaluated in the pending Draft EIR.
Goal N-8: An Environment that Minimizes the Adverse Impacts of Noise .
. Policy N-39: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments.
Use the guidelines in the table tiLand Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment" to
determine compatibility.
• The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB.
This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for
the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline which
cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas with the constraints of economic or
aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major
consideration (e.g., backyards in single family housing developments, and recreational
areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an
Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended
for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through
project design.
• The indoor noise level as required by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards
must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in multiple family dwellings. This indoor criteria shall
also apply to new singlefamily homes in Palo Alto.
• Interior noise levels in new single family and multiple family residential units exposed to
an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater should be limited to a maximum instantaneous noise
level of 50 dB in the bedrooms. Maximum instantaneous noise levels in other rooms
should not exceed 55 dB.
Noise exposure can be determined based on the noise contour map .included in the Comprehensive
Plan, or more detailed noise measurements, if appropriate.
7
Policy N-41: When a proposed project is subject to CEQA, the noise impact of the project on
existing residential land uses should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels
and potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an
area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum
should not necessarily be allowed. A project should be considered to cause a significant
degradation of the noise environment if it meets any of the following criteria:
• The project would cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 dB or
more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB;
• The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential
area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB;
• The project would cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area
where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB.
Policy N-43: Protect the community and especially sensitive noise receptors, including schools,
hospitals, and senior care facilities, from excessive noise .
. Any rail alternative proposed in Palo Alto will result in some level of noise impact. All
route alternatives and vertical options will need to be evaluated on their level of noise
impact compared to both baseline conditions and maximum noise thresholds for
residences and other sensitive receptors.
c. Technical Comments
C.l General Comments
The City of Palo Alto has reviewed the detClils provided in the Preliminary Alternatives
Analysis Report, and has compiled the following list of technical comments and
questions. The City of Palo Alto understands that the CHSRA will respond to these
comments either in a final version of the Alternatives Analysis Report or in the pending
Draft BIR.
• Comment C.1-1: It would appear that the CHSRA could significantly reduce the
number of vertical alignment options under consideration based upon the
feasibility of maintaining Caltrain surface operation during construction. Some of
the alternatives consume the enfu:e proposed right of way, and appear to
disregard how Caltrain would continue to operate during construction activities.
For instance, the four tracks cut and cover box, at 123 feet in width, consumes the
entire existing Caltrain right of way and beyond. The CHSRA needs to clarify
8
how this and similar options can be constructed while Caltrain service is
maintained at the surface.
• Comment C.1-2: The report does not indicate how freight would operate on a
four lane configuration. Would freight trains be limited to the tracks t,hat serve
Caltrain, or would they have the option of using the H5T rails as well? Rail
grades and underground structure ventilation requirements would be driven by
diesel freight train operation requirements.
• Comment C.1-3: The report indicates that the costs for each of the vertical
alignment options only represents the costs for the H5T infrastructure and not
. the costs for modifications to the Caltrain tracks. The report does not clearly
indicate which configuration is proposed for Caltrain for each of the H5T vertical
options, the corresponding costs for the Caltrain configuration, and any
additional environmental impacts of the Caltrain configuration. A true
comparison of all options cannot be made a consistent baseline is used. For
example, how can traffic impacts be improved by the project if the Caltrain
configuration is to be retained at grade?
• Comment C.1-4: The report does not discuss the potential reuse of land in the
assessment of capital and operating costs. For the aerial, cut and cover, and deep
tunnel options, opportunity exists to use the land at grade for additional uses,
potentially creating funds from land values and future tax increments. The
CH5RA needs to address the issue of the reuse of land for these various vertical
alignment options.
• Comment C.1-5: The drawing on page 8 of Appendix C indicates a 3-foot-wide
walkway. NFPA 130 and the CPUC General Order 26-D require only a 2.5-foot
wide walkway. The adoption of the 3-foot-wide dimension may add
considerable unnecessary cost to the project. Please explain why this wider
walkway width was chosen for this option.
• Comment C.1-6: The report indicates that each operator on the Peninsula
corridor will have a different maximum speed, with Caltrain operating at a
maximum speed of 110 miles per hour, and the H5R system operating at a
maximum of 125 miles per hour (see page 5-1 of the Preliminary Alternatives
Analysis Report). The CH5RA needs to clarify if the two systems are intended to
operate on the same tracks, and if so, in what portions of the corridor.
• Comment C.1-7: The report indicates on Page 5-1 that transitions from one
vertical option to another require approximately 3,000 feet of linear alignment,
potentially requiring adjacent subsections to share a vertical alignment
alternative. These potential transitions need to be described in greater detail by
9
the CHSRA, including all transition options potentially available for each
adjacent subsection, and where specifically those transitions would begin and
end. For example, there is no aerial option in Subsection 6A, but there is an aerial
option throughout the rest of the subsections in Palo Alto. For the aerial option,
the location of the transition to aerial in Subsection 6A and/or 6B of the
alignment in north Palo Alto would have significant environmental impacts that
need to be fully described.
• Comment C.l"8: Moreover, the report provides a number of cross section
variations for each type of vertical alignment, but does not indicate where each of
these cross section options would apply, or how they would be affected by
transition points. More detail regarding these cross section options needs to be
included in the analysis, particularly the cross section options at the transition
points.
• Comment C.l"9: Some of the existing Palo Alto grade separations were
constructed in 1930s. These structures may require upgrades to address vibration
resulting from the higher speed operation of the HSR service. The CHSRA needs
to identify the requirement for, and any costs or other impacts associated with,
upgrading these existing structures, including impacts to the grade separations
that are considered historic resources, such as the University A venue grade
separation.
• Comment C.l"10: Curve superelevation and underground structure ventilation
requirements will be dictated by the diesel locomotives for freight service. HSR
needs to clearly state how freight service will continue to operate on the four
track right of way. Will freight be limited to operating upon tracks dedicated to
Caltrain service? The CHSRA needs to confirm that with any shared service
alternatives, the track superelevation must be designed for slower traffic.
• Comment C.l-11: The report states on page 4"1 that HSR will operate up to 12
trains per hour per direction under a full build scenario, with Caltrain operating
a further 10 trains per hour per direction. In the peak hour there will be
approximately 22 trains per direction per hour, or a train approximately every 3
minutes. It is noted that the HSR Operating Plan and Caltrain service plan have
not yet been integrated into a single operating plan. HSR and Caltrain need to
reconcile their service plans to optimize the alignment and structure
configurations. This reconciliation.of service plans is necessary in order to
determine the feasibility of the various vertical alignment options, and to
determine which options best suit the operational needs of both rail services~ ~e
preferable service plan for the City of Palo Alto would be to allow for maximum
flexibility, with all trains able to use all tracks and all station facilities.
10
• Comment C.1-12: The City of Palo Alto requests that the CHSRA evaluate the
merits of a three-track configuration versus the four-track configuration. The City
of Palo Alto wishes to avoid a decrease in the level of commuter rail service in
terms of travel times and headways. The City of Palo Alto believes that any
negative impact on commuter rail service should be a considered a negative
impact in the alternatives analysis.
C.2 Ridership Estimates
• .. Comment C.2-1: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report is based on
ridership estimates that are incorrect and vastly inflated, as described in the
following paragraphs.
• Comment C.2-2: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report is based on
ridership estimates that were taken directly from the November 2005 Service
Plan. This plan predicted system-wide ridership of 159,000 trips per day, with
San Francisco boar dings of 32,890 per day. In December 2009, CHSRA lowered
its ridership estimates to reflect increased fares. System-wide ridership was
lowered to 121,000 riders per day, and San Francisco boardings were reduced to
24,100 per day. The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report was not modified
to reflect these reduced ridership figures. Instead of basing the project design on
10 San Francisco departures per hour during peak hours, the departures per hour
should have been reduced to 8 to be consistent with the 2009 revised ridership
estimates. Off peak departures should also have been appropriately reduced.
Such a reduction may eliminate the need for double trains during peak periods,
thus reducing the required length of station platforms in San Francisco and San
Jose. This modification to the project would be particularly important in the
design of the Trans Bay Terminal in San Francisco.
• CornmenlC.2-3: Moreover, it is highly unlikely that high speed rail demand will
ever approach the level predicted in the December 2009 Business Plan. Unbiased
experts have examined the 2009 ridership estimates and have judged them to be
vastly overstated. This judgment is supported by worldwide high speed rail
experience, where actual ridership is one quarter to one half of the predicted
ridership. If the San Francisco Peninsula line carries only one quarter to One half
of the traffic that CHSRA has predicted, it will be necessary to dispatch only two
to three trains per rush hour from San Francisco. This level of traffic could easily
be accommodated by the existing Caltrain tracks if station tracks are provided
for local service and grade separations are completed. It is in the financial and
environmental interests of both CHSRA and the Peninsula cities to use existing
facilities to support high speed rail at least until travel demand shows these
facilities to be inadequate.
11
• Comment C2-4: It appears that the ridership estimates include a large number
of passengers crossing the Bay from Alameda and Contra Costa counties to
board HSR in San Francisco. If this is the case, then these crossings would be
temporary because AB3034 requires that CHSRA provide service between
Oakland and Los Angeles that requires no more than 2 hours, 40 minutes of
travel time. A BART or an AC Transit ride to the Transbay Terminal plus a high
speed rail ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles would almost certainly take
longer than 2 hours, 40 minutes. Thus, at best, the additional riders from
Alameda and Contra Costa counties would be a temporary boost in San
Francisco station ridership until the high-speed rail line to Oakland can be
completed.
• Comment C2-5: High-speed rail in California would compete primarily with air
travel, not with automobile travel, particularly since in California there is
minimal public urban transportation service. One would then expect to be able to
compare HSR ridership with airline patronage. Using figures from the Program
EIR, airline boardings in 2005 at SFO destined for LAX amounted to slightly
more than 8,000 passengers per day. This number has declined since 2005 due to
the current economic downturn and advances in communication technology. It is
therefore unrealistic to expect travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles to
grow at the rate suggested in the Program EIR. It is not even certain that the
California population will grow as CHSRA expects. It is also unreasonable to
expect HSR to capture all of the San Francisco to Los Angeles airline traffic.
Therefore, as some experts have predicted, the HSR boardings in San Francisco
may not exceed 5,000 per day as late as 2030.
• Comment C2-6: If ridership does not exceed 5,000 passengers per day on the
Peninsula route, there is even less need to build four tracks down the Peninsula.
With Caltrain and HSR trains operating at comparable speeds, all HSR and
Caltrain traffic could easily be accommodated by the two tracks that already
exist as long as station sidings were added at all Caltrain stations to
accommodate,stopping. CHSRA would stand to save a great deal of money, and
the citizens of the Peninsula would avoid a great deal of environmental damage,
if the existing two sets of tracks could be used to accommodate the realistic HSR
ridership estimates.
C.3 Service Plan
• Comment C.3-1: The proposed service plan is deeply flawed. The proposed high
speed rail system is burdened with an excessive number of stations. Balancing
the desire for limited numbers of intermediate stops against the requirement to
serve all stations yields a service pattern that repeats only once per hour for most
12
of the intermediate stations. A traveler seeking a particular service may only
have hourly choices, no better than the airline service that is available today. The
alternative is to settle for a slower trip, resulting is trip dissatisfaction and loss of
passengers, as well as not meeting the service goals for the high-speed train
system.
C.4 Conceptual Cost Estimates
• Comment C.4-1: The report should explicitly state how the cost figures for each
of the vertical options have been calculated. This explanation should identify
which cross sections were used as the basis for the conceptual cost estimates. The
report should also provide a list of unit prices for significant cost elements (e.g.,
support of excavation walls, structural steel, concrete, formwork) so that the
estimated costs can be verified. Without this information, the City cannot
evaluate the costs of the alignment alternatives.
• Comment C.4-2: Although unit prices are provided for both rail and utility
relocations, no such costs are included the cost estimates. It is clear that the
estimates also do not include ROW costs or the costs of environmental mitigation
measures such as sound walls. The costs for relocating existing utilities, track
relocations, ROW procurement for both temporary and permanent situations,
and environmental mitigation measures need to be included in the cost
estimates.
• Comment C.4-3: The report identifies the number of sensitive noise receptors for
the aerial option, which would suggest that noise mitigation measures will be
required. The cross sections for the aerial option do not show any noise barriers,
however, and noise barriers do not appear to be factored into the cost estimate
for the aerial option. The analysis needs to indicate the degree of noise impact of
the aerial option, the type of noise barriers that would be required to mitigate
this impact, and the cost of the noise barriers.
• Comment C.4-4: The report does not identify the number of sensitive noise
receptors for the at grade option, nor does the cost of noise barriers appear to be
factored into the cost estimate for the at grade option. 'The analysis needs to
indicate the degree of noise impact of the at grade option, the type of noise
barriers that would be required to mitigate this impact, and the cost of the noise
barriers.
• Comment C.4-5: 'The report does not clearly indicate whether the costs of
ancillary structures such as ventilation structures, egress structures (for all below
grade options), and cross passages (for the tunnel option) have been accounted
for in the estimated costs.
13
• Comment C.4-6: Page 4-55 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report
indicates that the costs of the Subsection 6A at-grade alignment are in the range
of $75 -$290 million. However, Appendix L presents the costs of the Subsection
6A at-grade alignment as being in the range of $48 -$75 million. The CHSRA
needs to address this discrepancy in pricing for the at grade option.
• Comment C.4-7: Page 4-55 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report also
does not make it clear for Subsections 6C and 6D how the open trench option
would be less expensive than the at-grade option. The CHSRA needs to provide
sufficient discussion to allow the report reader to understand how the ranges of
costs in Table 4-9 have been derived.
• Comment C.4-8: The estimated cost of $34,972,672 per mile for the aerial viaduct
option translates to approximately $6,600 per linear foot. This figure appears low
based on a comparison of similar rail structure types. For instance, Los Angeles
Metro estimates that a twin track elevated structure for light rail transit would
cost approximately $9,200 per linear foot. This cost is approximately 50 percent
less than the CHSRA figure for a lighter vehicle. The CHSRA needs to should
provide the basis for the cost estimate and correct any cost discrepancies before
completing the alternatives analysis.
• Comment CA-9: The CHSRA needs to confirm the price of the four track aerial
viaduct option relative to the two track option. The cost difference between the
two structure types appears to be incorrect.
• CommenfCA-lO: The unit prices for excavation and backfill for the covered
trench option ($6 each per cubic yard) seem very low. The report needs to
\
provide some basis for the unit rates. The covered trench price of $262,492,160
per mile corresponds to a figure of $49,714 per linear foot. For the proposed
width of the four track structure, this figure appears low, particularly as a
premium cost will apply resulting from working in and around an operating
railroad. The report should clearly identify what is included within this cost
figure, and provide a table of principal unit rates used in the evaluation so that
the reasonableness of the cost figures provided can be verified.
• Comment CA-11: The report is unclear on how the four track structure in the
covered trench option can be constructed without impacting existing Caltrain
service. The cost estimates do not include any temporary or permanent track
relocations for Caltrain.
• Comment C.4-12: The difference in price between the open trench option
($14,932 per linear foot) and the covered trench option ($49,714 per linear foot)
14
are not justified in the report. The structures in these two options are the same
width, and for a 7-foot cover depth, the depth of the covered trench is only
slightly deeper than that for the open trench. It is not clear why the costs are an
order of magnitude in difference. For instance, the excavation volume for the
covered trench is 2.7 times that for the open trench, despite being only a fraction
deeper. The document needs to explain the reason for the large disparity in cost
between these two options.
• Comment C.4-13: The CHSRA needs to clarify whether the costs of ancillary
structures (such as ventilation structures and egress structures for all below
grade options, and cross passages for any pored tunnel options) are located. If
these costs have not yet been included in the estimated costs for the covered
trench and deep tunnel options, then the costs estimates need to be revised in
order to include these items.
C.5 Alternative Comparisons
General Comments
• Comment CS-l: The alternative alignment comparisons presented in the report
are qualitative and descriptive, making any ranking of these alternatives
unreliable at best. The only two quantified measures, acres of land taken and
alignment cost, appear to be grossly distorted.
• Comment CS-2:' Acres of land taken are an imperfect measure because the value
of land depends on its location, its shape, its potential alternative use, and its
impact on adjacent property. No costs have been included for the acquisition of
right of way or temporary takes for construction support. Land values along the
San Francisco Peninsula vary widely in cost per acre, with the difference between
the cheapest and the most expensive land being a factor oHDO ormore.
• Comment CS-3: Costs are presented only for those alternatives that use the
Caltrain corridor. Costs presented for the vertical alignment options using the
Caltrain corridor appear to be distorted to favor at grade construction. Costs for
the at grade option are based on only two tracks, while costs for elevated, open
trench, covered trench, and deep tunnel options include four tracks.
• Comment CS-4: The use of unit costs to estimate the relative costs of different
vertical alignments is very problematic. Some issues and obstacles have been
identified ahd been assigned costs, while other issues appear to have been
ignored. Under actual construction, no two segments of route will experience the
same unit costs.
15
• Comment C.5-S: The "Alternatives Development Process" section (see page 2-2
of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report) describes the objectives and
criteria that were used to compare the various Caltrain corridor alternatives. The
CHSRA has not defined Fire and Life Safety as specific analysis criteria, and both
topics need to be used to further analyze and compare the various vertical
alignment alternatives.
• Comment C.5-6: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report does not
adequately address life safety issues. The CHSRA needs to elaborate on the
impacts of providing ventilation, egress, and other life safety systems for
enclosed underground options such as the covered trench and deep tunnel
options. In comparison with an at-grade or elevated option, an underground
alternative' would require additional right of way for ventilation and emergency
egress structures.
• Comment C.5-7: The CHSRA needs to explain how the vertical alignment of the
trench and deep tunnel options was derived, as it would appear that the vertical
alignment of both alternatives is excessively deep. It would appear that there is
some opportunity to raise the tunnel and trench profiles, thereby reducing
. construction costs for either alternative. For example, the report indicates that a
deep tunnel option would be bored to a depth of 8S feet, yet Appendix B and
page B-1 suggests a cover of 1.5 tunnel diameters or 68 feet for a twin bore
option, and engineering standards may allow for an even shallower depth that
equals the diameter of the tunnel. For example, a 45-foot diameter tunnel could
potentially be bored at a depth of 4S feet. The report does not indicate why the
deep tunnel option is proposed to be bored at a depth of 85 feet. The CHSRA
needs to state whether a shallower deep tunnel or covered trench alignment is an
option, and what the difference in cost would be to construction a shallower
alignment option. The CHSRA needs to also address whether a shallower deep
tunnel would increase the feaSibility of allowing fora station stop associated
with a deep tunnel.
• Comment C.S-8: The CHSRA needs to provide a table or other clear presentation
to indicate where each of the various cross sections provided in Appendix C
would be proposed along the alignment. The CHSRA also needs to indicate
which cross sections were used to develop the cost estimates for each of the
vertical alignments.
Elimination of I -280 and US 101 Alternatives
• Comment C.S-9: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report takes only a
cursory look at the oppor~ties offered by horizontal alignments that follow the
16
Interstate 280 (1-280) and US 101 highway corridors. These alternative alignments
were dismissed from further consideration as soon as difficult interchanges,
sharp curves, potentially liquefiable soils, and potential biological constraints
were identified. There appears to have been no serious look at opportunities to
. take adjacent land to avoid these obstacles. It should benoted that land adjacent
to major freeways is much cheaper than land adjacent to the Caltrain corridor.
Interchanges can be passed on one side of the freeway or another, or by
tunneling. Close access to the San Francisco and San Jose airports from a US 101
alternative could be used to great advantage. Existing access to the San Francisco
Airport from the Millbrae Caltrain station, by comparison, is awkward,
inconvenient, and time consuming. Both of these highway corridor route
alternatives deserve a more 'serious investigation in the alternatives analysis.
Right-oj-Way Requirements
• Comment C.S-l0: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report does not
adequately address th~ additional right-of-way requirements for each of the
vertical alignment options (or for the Interstate-280 and US 101 corridor options)
in order to allow for a reasonable comparison of the various options. The
analysiS needs to consider not only the additional right-of-way that would be
needed to accommodate any additional or modified tracks, but it also needs to
consider the land needed for shoofly tracks to keep Caltrain running during
construction, for construction access, for staging and construction equipment,
and to provide Union Pacific access to its industrial tracks. Even if these right-of
way takings were temporary, significant environmental damage could result
from the need for additional right-of-way, and at least some of this damage
would translate into increased costs for the project.
• Comment C.5-tt: The right of way plans in Appendix J indicate a typical PCJPB
Property width of 85 feet in the vicinity of Palo Alto. The CHSRA needs to clarify
which cross sections are under consideration so that any additional right of way
requirements (temporary or permanent) can be fully evaluated, particularly in
areas of proposed development such as at the Palo Alto High School. For
example, the four track wide trench options would conflict directly with the
proposed improvements to the high school football stadium. The CHSRA needs
to consider construction alternatives that can be built entirely within the existing
right of way.
Aerial Viaduct Option
• Comment C.5-12: The report states that an aerial option is considered for
subsection 6C, and costs for this option are provided in Table 4-9 (see pages 4-54
and 4-61 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report). However, the plan
17
and profile drawings for Subsection 6-2 do not indicate an aerial alternative for
Subsection 6C. The CHSRA needs to resolve this inconsistency .
. Open Trench and Covered Trench Options
• Comment CS-13: The report does not indicate the extent of the impacts of
liquefiable soils on the alignment with respect to the trench and cut-and-cover
options. The presence of liquefiable soils can greatly add to the cost of covered
trench and open trench structure options, requiring over-excavation to remove
and replace the soils, ground improvement to modify ,the in-situ characteristics
of the soils, or pile supports for the structures. The report needs to indicate
whether liquefiable soils are present in the alignment, and how these liquefiable
soils would be addressed.
• Comment CS-14: For alignment subsections 6C and 6D, it is not clear how the
open trench option would be less expensive than the at-grade option.
• Comment C.5-1S: The report does not indicate why the open trench option
would cost approximately 40 percent of the cost of the covered trench option.
The difference in the vertical profile between the two options would not be
significantly different and the construction methods will be similar. The covered
trench also provides greater flexibility for relocation of existing tracks during
construction. The difference in costs appears excessive. '
• Comment CS-16: Under the constructability heading in Table 4-9, it is not clear
why the potential for disruption of existing rail service is indicated as /lnot
applicable". The open trench and covered trench options in particular would
have impacts on Caltrain and freight rail service during project construction. In
fact, the construction of either of these options would require the use of the entire
right-of-way, and appear to preclude continued Caltrain and freight service
during project construction. For example, the four track covered trench option
would require an area 123 feet in width, which is wider than the entire Caltrain
right-of-way within the City of Palo Alto. A cessation of Caltrain and freight
functions during project construction would make such design options
infeasible.
• Comment CS-17: In Appendix D, the table indicates that an 8.5-foot-wide box
culvert crosses the proposed alignment at Matadero Creek (Caltrain milepost
32.306). The CHSRA needs to address this utility impact as a constraint to the
open trench and covered trench options.
• Comment CS-18: In Appendix F on page F-8, the report indicates that a
comment was made at the San Carlos Open House on September 30, 2009
18
indicating the presence of a Hetch-Hetchy water pipe crossing the Caltrain
alignment at Alma Street. The CHSRA needs to confirm the presence of this
utility m:td indicate the utility as a constraint to the open trench, covered trench,
and/or deep tunnel options as necessary.
• Comment C.5-19: The construction of the covered trench option across San
Francisquito Creek and other waterways would have potentially significant
environmental impacts in terms of biological resources, sedimentation, creek
bank stability, and water quality. Any waterway crossed by a covered trench
option would have to be diverted or temporarily dammed to permit construction
of the covered trench across the creek. These potential impacts need to be
addressed in the CEQA review of this project.
• Comment C.5-20: The individual covered trench structure bores at 25.5 feet in
width are considerably wider than indicated for the double track in tunnel
section, which has an indicated width of approximately 20 feet. The reasons for
this apparent inconsistency in spatial requirements need to be provided.
• Comment C.5-21: It is intuitive that the two-double track cut and cover box
option (CCB-2 in Appendix C) provides the opportunity to maintain Caltrain
service at the surface while one box is constructed. The surface tracks can then be
shifted to allow construction of the second box. The CHSRA needs to consider
the elimination of one of the central shoring walls between the two boxes, such
that the two boxes share an intermediate shoring wall. This elimination would
reduce the additional right of way impacts and cost of this option. This same
comment applies to TNC~-1 on page 17 of Appendix C.
• Comment C.S-22: The double deck structure configuration in CCB-3 (page 8 of
Appendix C) appears to permit continued operation of Caltrain service at grade
during construction. However, the CHSRA needs to consider requirements for
preventing hydrostatic uplift in the preliminary sizing of these structures. It
would appear that the structure, as shown, is likely to be buoyant. Additional
structure mass or piling appears to be required to mitigate uplift from
groundwater pressures. This is a technical issue that can be mitigated, but
additional cost would be incurred in doing so. The CHSRA needs to confirm that
all structures indicated provide at least a minimum factor of safety against
buoyancy.
• Comment C.5-23: ill areas with a high groundwater table, any kind of trench
option is likely to be buoyant. The CHSRA needs to confirm that the cross
sections indicated in TNCH-T-1 on page 16 of Appendix C provide minimum
factors of safety against uplift. Consideration needs to be made in the trench
19
design for the inclusion of tie-down piles to prevent uplift. The depth of the tie
down piles will help identify the requirements for the TBM profile.
• Comment C.S-24: The following comments pertain to TNCH-T-l on page 16 of
AppendixC:
o The dimension between track centers in the trench is shown as IS feet,
but, with reference to comparable sections on drawing 17, the trench is
drawn much wider. This inconsistency should be resolved.
o As shown, the clearance between the trench invert and the top of the TBM
tunnel may be inadequate for the long-term stability of the tunnel.
o With a IS-foot track spacing, the width of the excavation for the trench
would be approximately 46.S feet. The width of the TBM is shown as 47
feet. To fit as shown, the TBM must be driven to exacting tolerances to
avoid conflict with the trench support of excavation walls. Due to the size
of the bore, and the minimal clearance (3 inches per side), this
configuration may not be achievable unless the TBM profile is
significantly deeper.
• Comment C.S-2S: The trench in TNCH-T-2 on page 17 of Appendix C does not
appear to be drawn to scale. With a IS-foot-wide track spacing, it is likely that
the support of excavation wall for the trench would conflict with the TBM
location. The CHSRA needs to confirm the required profile for the TBM to avoid
the support of excavation walls.
• Comment C.S-26: On page 18 of Appendix C, the figure shows a design that is
slightly narrower than the corresponding four track covered trench, but is still
wider than the corridor required by Caltrain to continue its service during
construction. The open-trench concept appears to have no options to divert the
existing Caltrain surface service other than with a temporary but expensive
bridge structure. Please explain how Caltrain service would be maintained under
this design option.
• Comment C.S-27: In regard to the figure on page 20 of Appendix C, there is a
considerable asymmetric load on this structure resulting from the adjacent berm .
. Please confirm the adequacy of the 3-foot-thick wall shown in the figure.
Deep Tunnel Option
• Comment C.S-28: The report indicates that the deep tunnel option in Palo Alto
would preclude the construction of a station stop in Palo Alto due to
20
constructability problems and expense (see page 3-23 of the Preliminary
Alternatives Analysis Report). Undoubtedly, an underground station is more
expensive than an at grade station, but underground stations connecting to deep
bored tunnels are constructed globally.TItis method of construction is feasible
and should be recognized as such within the report, and considered by the
CHSRA as part of the study. Either localized ground improvement could be
undertaken to allow the ground cover over the tunnel boring machine (TBM) to
be reduced at the station interface, or a short length of cut and cover tunnel can
be provided to either side of the station, until sufficient cover exists to allow the
IBM to resume.
• Comment C.S-29: The report indicates that only CHRSA service would be
allowed in the deep tunnel option, with Caltrain and freight services occurring in
another type of vertical alignment. The report does not indicate what vertical
Caltrain/freight options would accompany a deep tunnel option, and the City
therefore cannot gauge the additional impacts and economic costs of the
Caltrain/freight option. The City's preference would be to have the HSR in a
deep tunnel and the Caltrain and freight operations in a covered trench.
• Comment C.S-30: The report states on page 4-4 that the deep tunnel option
would not cause any property displacements. The CHSRA needs to consider any
property requirements for ventilation and egress structures, and for temporary
construction staging for the deep tunnel option. The CHSRA needs to also
confirm any additional property impacts for the potential Palo Alto station
alternative. Mezzanine, ancillary facilities, and platform configuration may
increase the width of the rights-of-way and easements required.
• Comment C.5-31: The report states on page 4-54 that the deep tunnel option is
considered in all subsections in Palo Alto (6A-6D). This statement is not
consistent with the Appendix B Plan and Profile Drawings for Subsection 6-2,
which indicates the deep tunnel portal to be at approximately station 1900+00.
TItis results in a covered trench and/or open trench construction within
subsections 6C and 6D, and not a deep tunnel. The CHSRA needs to reconcile
this apparent inconsistency in the report. The preference for the City of Palo Alto
would be to allow for a deep tunnel option through the entirety of Palo Alto,
including Subsections 6C and 6D, and to begin any transitions to other vertical
alignments outside the boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. A deep tunnel option
would not require the use of shooflys within Palo Alto, and would be less
disruptive to the community. A deep tunnel option in Subsections 6C and 6D
would also seem to solve the problem of alignment constraints experienced by
the covered trench option at Matadero, Barron, and Adobe Creeks. Also, once
mobilized for tunneling, the incremental cost if increasing the bored tunnel
length to the south would be relatively small.
21
• Comment C.5-32: In reference to the same deep tunnel portal on page 4-54, some
staging can be remote from a portal area; however, in order to maximize the
tunneling productivity, an area of approximately 2-3 acres should be provided
for the contractor in the vicinity of the portal. The CHSRA should indicate an
appropriate staging area on the right of way plans for any portals, and account
for the right of way cost in the construction cost estimates.
• Comment C.5-33: The transitions shown in Figure 4.3.7 on page 4-54 should be
drawn to approximate scale so that their length can be understood and
visualized. The deep bored tunnel schematic should also be added to the figure.
This figure is intended to show potential profile and alignment constraints, yet
there are other constraints noted later in the report that have not been included
in this figure. The figure needs to be revised to add in these other constraints.
• Comment C.5~34: The notes on page 4-54 indicate that most of the transitions
from open trench and covered trench to at grade seem to be infeasible at the
locations investigated. In order for viable open trench and covered trench
options to exist, some viable transitions need to be identified and evaluated as
part of the alternatives analysis. The'CHSRA needs to study and develop viable
transition locations.
• Comment C.S-35: The listed cost of the deep tunnel option represents only the
cost for the HSR system to be underground (see pages 4-54 and 4-61 of the
Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, and Table 4-9). The report does not
clearly indicate which vertical alignment configurafion is proposed for Caltrain,
which of the various cross sections options are proposed, and any additional
environmental impacts that would result from the other Caltrain alignment
option. The CHSRA needs to clarify how the total cost for each item presented
has been derived. The report indicates that (with the possible exception of some
localized grade separations) there is no option being considered that combines
HSR service in a deep bored tunnel with Caltrain and freight service below grade
in an open trench or covered trench. As mentioned previously, the preference for
the City of Palo Alto would be to have the HSR facilities in a deep tunnel with
the Caltrain and freight facilities stacked above in a covered trench or possibly an
open trench. The CHSRA needs to add this alignment alternatives to the
alternatives evaluation.
• Comment C.5-36: While the deep tunnel option appears to generally minimize
disruptions to communities and is the City of Palo Alto's preferable Caltrain
alignment alternative, the CHSRA needs to address the design and location of
surface penetrations (including ventilation buildings, vent shafts, and emergency
egress) iit order to allow a comparative impact evaluation with ,the other vertical
22
alignment options. The design and placement of such surface penetrations would
require significant community input from both a construction and visual
aesthetic perspective.
• Comment C.5-37: In Appendix C, emergency walkways are shown to the
outside of the tracks. The CHSRA needs to confirm how egress is facilitated in
the event of an emergency incident in a tunnel. Per NFP A 130, cross passages
must be provided at a maximum of 800 foot centers, or egress to grade provided
at 2,500 foot centers. For a cross passage option based upon the configuration
shown in CCB-1 and CCB-2, evacuees must cross the incident track and the
opposite track, which will still be live, to reach a safe haven at the corresponding
opposite walkway. Otherwise, additional right of way must be procured to
construct egress shafts. The City of Palo Alto recommends that the CHSRA locate
designated emergency walkways to either side of the interior walls separating
each outer and inner bore. In the event of an incident in any bore, egress can be
easily provided through cross passages to an adjacent walkway without patrons
having to cross live tracks.
• Comment C.5-38: In reviewing CCB-T-2 in Appendix C, the depth of the bored
tunnels may ultimately be determined by the required depth of the cut and cover
tunnel support of excavation, which will be required both ~o support the
excavation and to provide a barrier to prevent groundwater ingress into the
excavation. The CHSRA must consider the location of the bores and the
sequencing of construction for this option to be feasible. An option that includes
a deep tunnel with a cut and cover structure above is the preferred option for the
City of Palo Alto.
• Comment C.5-39: With the 3/1 configuration shown in S-CCB-2 and AG-CCB-2
on pages 13 and 14 of Appendix C, the CHSRA needs to identify the benefits of
vertically separating the service of one operator, as these benefits are not
apparent. For this single cell tunnel to achieve compliance with NFPA 130,
separate egress structures to grade must be provided.
HSR Station Options
• Comment C.S-40: The station configuration showing Caltrain outboard
(Figure 4-1 on page 4-1) eliminates the need for pedestrian underpasses or
overbridges to provide platform access. Platform heights must comply with
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and the CHSRA needs to
indicate how the various platform configurations meet these ADA requirements.
• Comment C.5-41: HSR needs to identify how freight service will operate on the
corridor, including in the vicinity of the various station locations. Will freight
23
move to HSR tracks in the vicinity of Caltrain stations to permit level boarding?
For shared freight operations, HSR needs identify and address issues with
clearances between freight trains and station infrastructure. The preference for
the City of Palo Alto is to allow freight trains to have the maximum flexibility to
use all tracks and all station locations.
• Comment C.5-42: The following comments pertain to the HSR station options on
pages 3-5 of Appendix C:
o Station alternatives STA-8, STA-9, and STA-15 do not appear to consider
how Caltrain will be maintained during construction. The CHSRA needs
to identify how Caltrain service would be maintained during the
construction of these station alternatives.
o The proposed train seeds through stations should be considered in the
determination of appropriate clearances. It would appear that the 12.75-
foot structure clearance indicated for option ST A-8 is excessive for a
Caltrain train moving at a station design speed.
o Option STA-ll is similar in layout to Option STA-8. However, this option
is wider, requiring more right of way, and correspondingly more
expensive than STA-8. This option appears to offer no advantages in
comparison to Option STA-8, and should be considered for deletion.
o Options STA-12 and STA-13 would be constructed with a single support
of excavation system. The use of a pair of staggered walls as indicated in
Appendix C is unlikely. The station floor slab could be the roof of the
lower tunnel, and there is no need to separate the structures.
o The CHSRA needs to confirm that HSR the upper box of STA-13 is drawn
to scale. The central 15-foot dimension appears to be incorrect.
C.6 Union Pacific Railroad
• Comment C.6-1: The only vertical alignment alternative that gives ~e Union
Pacific Railroad (UP) full access to its service tracks is the at-grade option. Even
this option requires that UP trains cross high speed tracks to reach some service
tracks. This crossing can be done at night, but itwould be critical that switches
are correctly set for high-speed train operation.
• Comment C.6-2: Other vertical alignment options would either require separate
UP tracks maintained at grade (perhaps increasing the project to even more than
24
the four sets of tracks currently proposed), or require long access leads for the UP
tracks to reach grade. In either case, a great deal of additional land would be
required to support UP operations under these other alignment options.
• Comment C.6-3: There is no evidence in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis
Report or any other documentation yet released for this project that serious
negotiations have been conducted with UP. By the terms of its trackage rights,
UP has the right to veto any intercity service over Caltrain rights of way. Unless
and until the CHRSA can secure agreements from UP to utilize this Peninsula
alignment, the CHRSA should continue to consider other alignment corridors.
C.7 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
• Comment C.7-1: The report's claims that high-speed rail would relieve
congestion on other transportation arteries is vastly over stated. The 24,100
travelers per day projected to board and debark from high speed trains in San
Francisco could easily be accommodated on one freeway lane in each direction or
by a single airport !Ullway. This additional marginal freeway and airport
capacity could be built a,t a fraction of the cost of the high-speed rail system,
including the costs for claiming additional right-of-way.
• Comment C.7-2: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report claims that, by
using the Caltrain corridor, high-speed rail project would have minimal impacts
on Peninsula cities. This claim is grossly in error. At the very least,
transportation, commerce, and residential uses on the Peninsula would be
thrown into a state of chaos for the ten years or more required for high-speed rail
construction. Unless the high-speed rail lines are placed underground and the
Caltrain alignment placed below ground, the Peninsula cities would continue to
be disrupted and disfigured in perpetuity.
• Comment C.7-3: Despite the report's claims, high-speed rail is unlikely to
stimulate economic development along the Peninsula. Worldwide high-speed
rail experience reveals that induced development in insignificant when
compared with normal growth. The claims of beneficial economic impacts from
the operation of high-speed rail are therefore exaggerated and inaccurate.
• Comment C.7-4: The definitions of impacted distances from the high-speed rail
right-of-way are unacceptably narrow and include many assumptions. Although
a 0.25-mile impact band for educational and cultural resources is stipulated by
law, it is much too narrow a band to include all environmental impacts on these
sensitive sites. Residential impacts extend well beyond the 300-foot distance for
noise impacts and the 200-foot distance for vibration impacts used in the
Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report. Visual impacts can extend across an
25
entire city and beyond. The distances used to measure potential project impacts
needs to be widened to cover the actual potential impacts of the project, and not
. a truncated, narrow corridor of impacts.
• Comment C.7-5: The Peninsula communities are 100 to 150 years old, and are
filled with large, beautiful heritage trees. Many of these trees have been planted
near the Caltrain right-of-way as a screen against noise and visual impacts. Any
enlargement of the right-of-way will require the removal of a large number of
these valuable trees. There is no suitable mitigation for these losses except to
plant young trees and wait for them to mature, a process that would take
decades. For this reason, great care should be taken to preserve as many of these
trees as possible. '
• Comment C.7-6: The mitigation measures presented in the report are very
general and not very convincing. Noise is not necessarily mitigated by walls and
barriers. Years of experience with walls along freeways has demonstrated that
noise behaves in strange ways, and is very difficult to contain. Vibration
mitigation has not been addressed in the report at all. The loss of heritage trees
near the right-of-way has also not been addressed. The pending Draft EIR will
need to address all potentially significant impacts with mitigation measures that
are quantifiable and can be proven to be effectiye at reducing impacts to a less
than signifiCant level.
C.B Site Specific Comments
The following comm~nts relate to the Palo Alto High School (PAHS), located at
50 Embarcadero Road between EI Camino Real and the Caltrain right-of-way:
• Comment C.8-1: The right-of-way required for the HST alignment options
would affect approximately three quarters of the campus, including all auto,
bicycle, and pedestrian entrances and exits. A maintenance building will likely
be directly affected and require relocation, as will the stadium and bleachers. The
potential project impacts on the P AHS need to be examined in detail.
• Comment C.8-2: The PAHS Master Plan includes four new facilities that will be
in close proximity to the existing Caltrain right-of-way. These permanent
facilities include:
o A two-story general classroom building on the northeast end of the
campus and approximately 100 feet from the Caltrain right-of-way
o A media arts complex
o A career tech center
o A 600-seat theater
26
The impacts to these proposed facilities needs to be included in the CEQA
review of the HST project.
The following comments relate to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (P AMF):
• Comment C.8-3: The PAMF operates a number of facilities in close proximity to
the Caltrain right-of-way. These facilities include:·
o The Clark Building, located at 795 El Camino Real
o The future Women Service Clinic, located at 49 Wells Avenue
o 'The Main Clinic, located at 795 El Camino Real
o A parking structure located at 87 Encina A venue
Due to the proximity of these P AMF facilities to the Caltrain right-of-way, the
construction and operation of the HST project is likely to result in vibration,
noise, and electrical interference impacts that would be detrimental to patient
care and the operation of the clinics.
• Comment C.8-4: 'The existing right-of-way narrows considerably at the western
edge of the parking structure located at the southwest comer of the P AMF
campus (87 Encina A venue). The report is not clear whether additional right-of
way will be necessary for any of the high speed rail vertical alignment options. If
additional right-:of-way will be necessary, then the report needs to indicate what
impact the additional right-of-way will have on the Clark Building and the
parking structure.
• Comment C.8-5: Four Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRJ) units are located in
relatively close proximity to the Caltrain right-of-way. These four MRI units are
located at 87 Encina Avenue, 795 El Camino Real in Buildings C and D, and
Wells Avenue. 'The clinics at these sites are considered "sensitive receptors"
because of the sensitive imaging equipment housed there. The report needs to
identify the potential vibration impacts to these sensitive units from project
construction and operation.
• Comment C.8-6: Noise impacts may have a detrimental effect on effective
communication between patients, physicians, and staff. The report needs to
clearly identify the noise impacts associated with each alignment option and any
associated mitigation measures to reduce the severity of the noise impacts.
• Comment C.8-7: An elevated train next to the P AMF Clark Building appears to
pose the greatest threat of noise and vibration impacts, and would also affect
27
'j
i'
I
views from the Clark Building. The aerial design option should be deleted from
further discussion in this segment of the alignment.
• Comment C.8-8: Parking in the P AMFarea is already heavily affected by a
number of different sources, including visitors to the adjacent Town and Country
Village shopping center, downtown workers, existing Caltrain users, and
Stanford University visitors and employees who park at the P AMF and use the
Marguerite shuttle to access St~ord. If Palo Alto becomes the location for a
station stop for the HST system, then these parking issues will be further
exacerbated by the additional HST ridership. The report needs to analyze the
parking impacts of a new station on the PAMF facility.
The following comments relate to the HST alignment Subsections 5A, 5B, and 5C
through the communities of Menlo Park and Atherton:
• Comment C.8-9: The vertical alignment options presented for Subsection 5 are
inadequate. Only an at-grade option is offered for the North Fair Oaks
neighborhood, and therefore the grade change to a deep tunnel or aerial
structure aligmnent option does not begin until reaching the Atherton border.
The tunnel portal would not be reached until well south of the Atherton Caltrain
station. As shown in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, the high
speed rail would not be underground through Atherton at all. It is noteworthy
that the report uses a 1 percent grade to the tunnel for this approach, but in San
Jose, the report uses a 2 percent approach gradient to the tunnel. If the Atherton
tunnel approach began immediately after the Durnbarton tum off and proceeded
down a 2 percent gradient, Atherton would have the underground high-speed
rail option that it prefers.
• Comment C.8-10: At the conclusion of the October 2009 workshop, the residents
of Atherton expressed a strong desire to have both high-speed rail and Caltrain
placed below ground in a trench, with Caltrain stacked above high-speed rail.
This preference has been omitted from the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis
Report, yet it is offered in Subsection 6 in Palo Alto.
The following comment relates to the approved underground water storage reservoir
that will soon begin construction at the EI Camino Park:
• Comment C.8-11: A water storage reservoir has been approved for construction
within the EI Camino Park in Palo Alto. The existing park and approved
reservoir are located immediately adjacent to the west side of the Caltrain right
of-way near the northern border between the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park.
Construction of this underground water storage reservoir will be completed in
2012, well ahead of the construction of any HSR facilities in the area. The location
28
of the water storage res~rvoir will prevent any temporary or permanent
expansion of the Caltrain right-of-way to the west, while the location of the El
Palo Alto heritage redwood tree to the east of the Caltrain right-of-way in the
same vicinity will prevent expa;nsion of the Caltrain right-of-way to the east.
Therefore, the only alignment options possible in this portion of the Caltrain
corridor are those that do not require any temporary or permanent expansion of
the Caftrain right-of-way.
29
ATTACHMENT B
California High-Speed Train
Draft Peer Review of the Preliminary
Alternatives Analysis Report for the San
Francisco to San Jose Section,
Report dated April 2010
Prepared by: Hatch Mott MacDonald
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto
Date: June 3, 2010
Hatch Mott
MacDonald
California High-Speed Train
Peer Review of the Preliminary
Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section, Report dated
April 2010
Date Rev Originator Checked Approved Status
5/14/2010 A Dave YounQ John Townsend Draft
6/03/2010 B Dave Young John Townsend Draft
6/03/2010 C Dave Young John Townsend Draft
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes
connected with the captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or
used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any
other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is
due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by ,other parties.
Hatch Mott MacDonald
3825 Hopyard Road, Suite 240
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Hatch Mott
MacDonald
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .. : ............................................................ : ................................................... 1
2.0 Peer Review .................................................................................................................. 2
3.0 Summary .. , ................................................................................................................... 11
1.0 Introduction
The Alternatives Analysis Report (AAR) presents construction alternatives to be carried
forward and evaluated as part of the California High Speed Rail Authority's (CHSRA)
Project Environmental Impact Reportl Environmental Impact Statement for a four track,
grade-separated combined use (CHSRA and Caltrain) Peninsula rail corridor, between
limits of San Francisco and San Jose. The report presents numerous options for at-grade,
above-grade and below-grade rail alignment for the Peninsula Corridor. The feasibility
of any parti~lar alignment option is location specific .
. Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) has performed a review of the AAR, focusing On the
design and construction issues pertinent to the City of Palo Alto. As indicated in the
project scope of services, review is based exclusively upon materials provided by
CHSRA, and comprises a factual, impartial review of the AAR, and the completeness
and fairness of the methods used for the evaluation of the alternatives.
The City of Palo Alto is deSignated as Subsection 6 within the AAR, extending from
existing Caltrain Milepost 29.72 to the North of the San Mateo County I Santa Clara
County Line, to Milepost 33.61, to the north of Adobe Creek. The tota1length of
Subsection 6 is 3.89 miles. Subsection 6 is further subdivided into the following
subsections:
Sub-· Milepost Location
section
6A 29.72 -30.94 North of San Mateo County I Santa Clara County
Line to south of Embarcadero Road
6B 30.94 -31.63 South of Embarcadero Road to South of Churchill Avenue
6C 31.63 -33.04 South of Churchill Avenue to North of East Meadow Drive
6D 33.04 -33.61 North of East Meadow Drive to North of Adobe Creek
A potential mid-Peninsula Station is indicated within Subsec~on 6A on the site of the
existing Caltrain Palo Alto Station. The limits and location descriptions of each
subsection are consistent with the AAR Table 3-9. However, as evidenced by the
Appendix J -Right of Way plans, the location descriptions are not particularly accurate
in defining the mileposts.
IIPage
2.0 Peer Review
The peer review included a review of each alternative within Subsection 6 of the
preliminary AAR. The review was undertaken by technical specialists in the disciplines
of structural and tunnel engineering, rail engineering and fire/life safety.
The review focused on the following specific issues:
• The clarity of the information provided
• The type and extent of each the various construction alternatives and the
reasonableness of the assumptions relative to options being continued to further
study or rejected.
.. The physical operation of the shared corridor
• Technical issues with a direct impact upon project cost
• The scope, consistency and reasonableness of the alternative cost estimates
The comments generated from the Peer Review are included in the following Table, and
are provided in sequence relative to specific report sections.
No. Pg AAR Comment
Section
Main Report
1 8-1 5.1 As the report indicates that each operator on the Peninsula Corridor
will have a different maximum speed -Caltrain 110 miles per hour,
and HSR 125 miles per hour, HSR should clarify where and if they
intend to operate on ·the same tracks as Caltrain.
2 8-1 5.1 The report clearly indicates that transitions from one vertical option to
another -from aerial to underground for instance, requires
approximately 3,000 feet of alignment, potentially requiring adjacent
subsections to share an alternative. This is an important consideration.
Cities and Subsections cannot be considered and reviewed in isolation
- a more holistic approach is necessary. For example there is no aerial
option in segment 6A, but there is an aerial option throughout the rest
of Palo Alto. For the Aerial option, the location of the transition to
aerial in Section 6A andj or 6B of the alignment in north Palo Altoi will
have significant environmental impacts that need to be fully described.
3 2-2 2.4 The "Alternatives Development Process" section describes the
objectives and criteria on which the selections are made. While HSR
has not defined Fire and Life Safety as specific criteria, this should be
identified as a subsequent input on the choice of whether an aerial, at-
grade or tunnel option is chosen for Palo Alto.
4 3-8 3.3.2 Some Palo Alto grade separations were constructed in 1930's. These
structures may require upgrades to address vibration resulting from
higher speed operation of the rail service. Some of these structures
21Page
No. Pg AAR Comment
Section
have historic value. HSR should identify the requirement for, and any
costs or other impacts associated with upgrading these existing
structures.
5 3-21 3.3.4 Life safety is mentioned with reference to Teclmical Working Groups.
and ventilation is specifically mentioned for tunnel and trench options.
HSR should elaborate on the impacts of providing ventilation and
other life safety systems for enclosed underground options. In
comparison with an at-grade or elevated option, a tunnel alternative
would require additional right of way for ventilation and emergency
egress structures.
6 3-23 3.3.4 The report states that deep bored tunnel options that include a station
should be avoided due to constructability problems and expense.
Undoubtedly an underground station is more expensive than an at-
grade station, but examples of underground stations, using cut and
cover construction, connecting to deep bored tunnels exist globally.
This~method of construction is feasible and should be recognized as
such within the report, and considered by HSR as necessary as part of
the study.
The costs of an underground station can be minimized by minimizing
the depth of the adjacent tunnels. This can be accomplished in a
number of ways. Underground station construction can be made
feasible through the use of localized ground improvement, undertaken
to allow the ground cover over the tunnel boring machine (IBM) to be
reduced at the station interface, or through the incorporation of a short
length of cut and cover tunnel to either side of the station, until
sufficient cover exists to allow the TBM to resume.
7 3-23 3.3.4 It is noted that for deep tunnel alternative, only HSR service will be
within the deep tunnels. Caltrain and freight service will be in another
vertical configuration. HSR sh6uld clearly identify the configurations
proposed for Caltrain and freight service in conjunction with the deep
tunnels, and clearly state the total costs for each option.
8 3-23 3.3.4 As design criteria including track vertical profile, curve superelevation
and underground structure ventilation requirements will be dictated
by the diesel locomotives for freight service. HSR should clearly state
how freight service will continue to operate on the four track right of
way. Will freight be limited to operating upon tracks dedicated to
Caltrain service?
9 4-1 4.1.2 The report states that HSR will operate up to 12 trains per hour per
direction under a full build scenario, with Caltrain operating a further
10 trains per hour per direction. In the peak hour there will be
approximately 22 trains per direction per hour, or a train every 3
minutes. It is noted that the HSR Operating Plan and Caltrain service
plan have not yet been mtegrated into a single operating plan. HSR and
Caltrain should reconcile their service plans to optimize the alignment
and structure configurations. Palo Alto wish to have the merits of 3
tracks versus 4 evaluated. Also, Palo Alto wish to avoid a decrease in
31Page
No. Pg AAR Comment
Section
the level of commuter rail service in terms of travel times and
headways. Any negative impact on commuter rail service should be a
~ considered a negative impact in the alternatives analysis.
10 4-1 4:1.2 The station 'configuration showing Caltrain outboard (Figure 4-1)
Fig 4-1 eliminates the need for pedestrian underpasses or overbridges to
& Fig 4-provide platform access. For Caltrain platform heights and Americans
2 with Disabilities Act compliance HSR should identify how freight
service will operate on the corridor. Will freight move to HSR tracks in
the vicinity of Caltrain stations to permit level boarding? For shared
freight operations, HSR should identify and address issues with
ciearances to station infrastructure.
11 4-4 4.2.2 The report states that the deep tunnel option would not cause any
property displacements. HSR should consider any property
requirements for ventilation and egress structures, and for temporary
construction staging for the deep tunnel option. HSR should also .
confirm any additional property impacts fO.r the potential Palo Alto
station alternative. Mezzanine/ancillary facilities/platform
configuration may increase the width of right of way/easement
required.
12 4-4 Table 4-HSR should clarify how the extent of liquefiable soils on the alignment
2 has been addressed with respect to the trench and cut-and-cover
options. Potential mitigations include over-excavation to remove and
replace the soils, ground improvement to modify the in-situ
characteristics of the soils, or pile supports for the structures. However,
each of these mitigations can greatly add to the cost of cut and cover
and trench structure options ..
13 4-54 4.3.7 The report states that the deep tunnel option is considered in all
subsections (6A-6D). This statement is not consistent with the
Appendix B Plan and Profile Drawings for Subsection 6-2, which
indicates the deep tunnel portal to be at station 1900+00 approximately.
This results in covered trench and/ or open trench construction within
subsections 6C and 6D. HSR should reconcile this apparent
inconsistency in the report. Palo Alto wishes to have the option of
deep bored tunnel extending all the way through Palo Alto included in
the Alternatives analysis. This would seem to solve the problem of
alignment constraint conflict with the covered trench option at
Matadero, Barron and Adobe Creeks. Also, once mobilized for
tunneling, the incremental cost if increasing the bored tunnel length to
the south is relatively small.
14 4-54 4.3.7 The transitions shown should be drawn to approximate scale so their
Figure length can be understood and visualized. The deep bored tunnel
schematic should be added to the figure. This figure shows potential
profile and alignment constraints. There are others noted later in this
report that should be added to this figure.
15 4-54 4.3.7 The notes on 4-54 indicate most of the transitions from below grade
41Page
No. Pg AAR Comment
S~ction
Figure trench and covered trench to at grade seem to be infeasible at the
locations investigated. In order for viable below grade trench and
covered trench options to exist, some viable transiti()ns need to be
. identified and evaluated as part of the alternatives analysis. HSR needs
to study and develop viable transition locations.
16 4-54 Table 4-The report states that an aerial option is considered for subsection 6C,
&4-9 and costs for this option are prOVided in Table 4-9. However, the plan
61 and profile drawings for Subsection #6-2 do not indicate an aerial
alternative for subsection 6C. HSR should resolve this inconsistency.
17 4-55~ Table 4-It is noted that the cost of the deep twmel represents cost for HSR to be
4-63 9 underground only. The report does not clearly indicate which
configuration is proposed for Caltrain, and any additional
environmental impacts. The reader must refer to the appendices to
understand how the cost is derived. HSR should clarify how the total
cost for each item presented has been derived. It is understood that
except possibly at localized grade separations, there is no option being
considered that combines HSR in deep bored tunnel with Caltrain
below grade in trench or covered trench. Palo Alto wish for this
comination to be considered in the Alternatvies evaluation.
18 4-55 Table 4-Costs of the Subsection 6A at-grade alignment are stated to be in the
9 range of 75 -290 million. However, Appendix L presents the costs of
the Subsection 6A at-grade alignment as being 48 -75 million. It is also
not immediately clear for subsections 6C and 6D, how the open trench
option would be less expensive than the at-grade option. HSR should
provide sufficient discussion to allow the report reader to understand
how the ranges of costs in Table 4-9 have been derived, .
19 4-55-Table 4-Design Objectives
4-63 9 The potential reuse of land does not appear to be included in the
assessment of capital and operating costs for Subsections 6A -6D. For
below grade options opportunity exists to resell right of way for
development, creating funds from land values and future tax
increments.HSR should consider this potential revenue stream in their
evaluation.
20 4-55-Table 4-Capital Cost
4-63 9 HSR should indicate which aerial and tunnel cross sections have been
adopted as the basis of the cost estimate in each case.
21 4-55-Table 4-Capital Cost
4-63 9 It is not clear why the open trench options cost approximately 40% of
the covered trench options. The alignments (vertical profile) will not be
significantly different and the construction methods will be similar.
The covered trench also provides greater flexibility for relocation of
existing tracks during construction. The difference in costs appears
excessive. HSR should resolve this apparent discrepancy
51Page
No. Pg AAR Comment
Section
r
22 4-55-Table 4-Constructability:
4-63 9 HSR should clarify why the constructability issue related to disruption
of existing railroads is indicated as 'not applicable' for the open trench,
covered trench/ tunnel and deep tunnel options. All, especially the
open trench and covered trench/tunnel options will have impacts on
Caltrain service during construction.
23 4-56 Table 4-Disruption to Communities
9 While the tunnel options seem to generally minimize disruptions to
communities, HSR should confirm that design of surface penetrations
including ventilation buildings and vent shafts will'require significant
community input from both a construction and visual aesthetic
perspective.
24 4-55 -Table 4-Environmental Resources:
4-63 9 HSR should identify the construction of the covered trench/tunnel
option across San Francisquito Creek, and other waterways as
potentially significant enviro~ental impacts. The waterway will have
to be diverted or temporarily dammed and over-pumped to permit
construction of the cut and cover tunnel across the creek,
Appendix B: Plan & Profile Drawings
25 B-1 HSR should confirm that with shared freight and Caltrain service the
track superelevation must be designed for slower traffic.
HSR should explain how the vertical alignment of the trench and deep
tunnel options was derived, as it would appear that.the vertical
Subsec' alignment of both alternatives is excessively deep. It would appear that
26 n#6-2 there is some opportunity to raise the tunnel and trench profiles,
thereby reducing construction costs for either alternative. Appendix B,
page B-1 suggests a cover of 1.5 tunnel diameters or 68 feet for twin
bore option.
A portal for the deep tunnel option is indicated at Station 1900+00
approximately. At this portal the tunnel boring machine (TBM) will be
launched or recovered. To facilitate the TBM operation, significant
Subsec' construction staging area will be required. While some staging can be
27 n#6-2 remote from the portal area, to maximize the tunneling productivity, an
area of approximately 2-3 acres should be provided for the contractor in
the vicinity of the portal. HSR should indicate an appropriate staging
area on the right of way plans, and account for the right of way cost in
the construction cost estimate.
Appendix C: Typical Cross Sections
28 General HSR should include a table, or other means, to indicate where each of
the cross sections shown is proposed on the alignment.
29 General The cross section drawings indicate a 3'-0" wide emergency walkway.
Both the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Fire Life Safety
Code NFP A 130 and the California Public Utilities Commission
61Page
No. Pg AAR Comment
Section
(CPUC) General Order 26-D require only a 2'-6" walkway. HSR should
consider the adoption of A 2'-6" walkway to help minimize project
cost.
30 Min. It would appear that HSR could significantly reduce the number of .
RO.W. options under consideration based upon the feasibility of maintaining
Exhibits Caltrain surface operation during construction. Some of the
alternatives consume the entire proposed right of way, and appear to
'wish' the construction into place with no consideration of how
Caltrain will continue to operate. For instance the four tracks cut and
cover box, at 123' in width, consumes the entire existing Caltrain right
of way and beyond. HSR should clarify how this and similar options
can be constructed while Caltrain service is maintained at the surface.
31 4/7 T-1/ . The width of individual cells of the cut and cover structure boxes, at
CCB-i 25' -6" are considerably wider than indicated for the double track in
tunnel section, which has an indicated width of approximately 20'-0".
HSR should provide an exp~ation for this apparent inconsistency in
the spatial requirements.
32 5 T-2 Emergency walkways are shown to the outside of the tracks. HSR
should confirm how egress is facilitated in the event of an emergency
incident in the tunnel. Per NFP A 130 cross passages must be provided
at a maximum of 800 foot centers, or egress to grade provided at 2,500
foot centers. For a cross passage option based upon the configuration
shown, evacuees must cross the incident track and the opposite track,
which will still be live, to reach a safe haven at the corresponding·
opposite walkway. Otherwise additional right of way must be
procured to construct egress shafts.
33 CCB-1 Per comment on T -2 above, it is recommended that HSR locates
CCB-2 designated emergency walkways to either side of the interior walls
separating each outer and inner bore. In the event of an incident in any
bore, egress can be easily provided through cross passages to an
adjacent walkway without patrons having to cross live tracks.
34 7 CCB-2 With reference to comment # 30 it is intuitive that the two-double track
cut and cover box (CCB-2) provides the opportunity to maintain
Caltrain service at the surface while one bo?, is constructed. The surface
tracks can then be shifted to allow construction of the second box. HSR
should consider the elimination of one of the central shoring walls,
such that the two boxes share an intermedi,ate shoring wall. This will
reduce the additional right of way impacts aJld cost of this option
35 8 CCB-3 The double deck structure configuration appears to permit continued
operation of Caltrain service at grade during construction. However,
HSR should consider requirements for preventing hydrostatic uplift in
the preliminary sizing of their structures. It would appear that the
structure, as shown, is likely to be buoyant. Additional structure mass
or piling appears to be required to mitigate uplift from groundwater
pressures. This is a technical issue which can be mitiJiated, but
71Page
No. Pg AAR Comment
Section
additional cost will be incurred in doing so. HSR should confirm that
all structures indicated provide at least a minimum factor of safety
against buoyancy.
36 12 CCB-T-The depth of the bored tunnels may ultimately be determined by the
2 required depth of the cut and cover tunnel support of excavation,
which will be required both to support the excavation and to provide a
barrier to prevent groundwater ingress into the excavation. HSR must
consider the location of the bores and the sequencing of construction
for this option to be feasible.
37 13/ S-CCB-With the 3/1 configuration HSR should identify the benefits of
14 2 vertically separating the service of one operator, as these are not
AG-apparent. For this single cell tunnet to achieve compliance with NFPA
CCB-2 130, separate egress structures to grade must be provided. .
38 16 TNCH-With a high groundwater table, any kind of trench option is likely to be
T-l buoyant. HSR should confirm that the cross sections indicated provide
minimum factors of safety against uplift. Consideration should be
made in the trench design for the inclusion of tie-down piles to prevent
uplift. The depth of the tie down piles will help identify the
.requirements for the TBM profile.
39 16 TNCH-· The dimension between track centers in the trench is shown as 15'-0", ., T-l but, with reference to comparable sections on drawing 17, the trench
does not appear to be to scale. HSR should resolve this inconsistency.
As shown, the clearance between the trench invert and top of the TBM
tunnel may be inadequate. HSR should confirm the TBM tunnel is
stable against uplift.
With a 15'-0" track spacing, the width of the excavation for the trench
will be approximately 46'-6". The width of the TBM is shown as 47'-0.
As the TBM width exceeds the trench width, HSR should confirm that
the configuration shown is feasible. Due to the size of the bore, this
configuration may not be achievable unless the TBM profile is
significantly deeper.
40 16 TNCH-Per comment on configuration TNCH-T-l, the trench does not appear
T-2 to be drawn to scale. With a 15'-0" track spacing it is likely that the
support of excavation wall for the trench will conflict with the TBM
location. HSR should confirm the required profile for the TBM to avoid
the support of excavation walls.
41 17 TNCH-Per comment on configuration CCB-2, the right of way required to
1 construct this option can be reduced by elimination of one of the
separating shoring walls. HSR should consider a configuration that
permits the two trench structures to share an intermediate shoring
wall.
42 18 S-While slightly narrower than the corresponding four track covered
TNCH-trench, HSR should consider how Caltrain is maintained at grade
1 during this construction. With either concept, there is nowhere to
TNCH-divert the existing surface service other than with a temporary, and
2 expensive, bridge structure, or through acquisition of considerable
additional right of way.
81Page
No. Pg AAR Comment
Section
43 20 RF-There is a considerable asymmetric load on this structure resulting
TNCH-from the adjacent berm. HSR should confirm the adequacy of the
1 typically shown 3'-0" wall thickness under static and seismic loading
conditions.
Appendix C: Typical Station Drawings
44 3 STA-8 HSR should demonstrate how these station alternatives maintain
STA-9 Caltrain service during construction.
STA-15
45 3 STA-8 HSR should consider proposed train speeds through stations in the
determination of appropriate clearances. It would appear that the 12'-
9" structure clearance indicated is excessive for a Caltrain train moving
at a station design speed.
46 4 STA-ll This option is similar in layout to Option STA-8. However, this option
is wider, requiring more right of way, and correspondingly more
expensive than STA-8. HSRshould identify what if any advantages this
option has in comparison to Option STA-8; otherwise it should be
considered for deletion.
47 '5 STA-12 HSR should clarify why two support of excavation systems are
STA-13 necessary. Either station option would be constructed within a single
support of excavation system, The use of a pair of staggered walls as
indicated is unlikely: The station floor slab could be the roof of the
lower tunnel, there is no need to separate the structures.
48 5 STA-13 HSR should confirm that the upper box is drawn to scale. The central
15'-0" dimension appears to be incorrect.
Appendix D: Utilities
49 The table indicates an 8.5 foot wide box culvert crossing of the
proposed alignment at Matadero Creek (Caltrain milepost 32.306). HSR
should identify this utility impact as a constraint to the open trench and'
covered trench/ tunnel options in the main report.
Appendix F: Outreach & Scoping
50 A comment made at the San Carlos Open House on September 30, 2009
indicates the presence of a Hetch Hetchy water pipe crossing the
F-8 alignment at Alma Street. HSR should confirm the prese~ce of this
utility and indicate the utility as a constraint to the open trench and
covered trench/ tunnel options as necessary.
AppendixJ:RlghtofVVay
The right of way plans indicate a typical PCJPB Property width of 85'-
0" in the vicinity of Palo Alto. HSR should clarify which cross sections
are under consideration such that any additional right of way
51 requirements -temporary and permanent-can be fully understood,
particularly in areas of proposed development, such as at the Palo Alto
High School. As the 4-track wide trench options will conflict directly
with the proposed improvements to the high school football stadium,
HSR should consider construction alternatives that can be built within
91Page
No. Pg
52
AM
Section
COmlnent
the existing right of way.
A planned water storage reservoir will be built by the City of Palo Alto
in EI Camino Park butting up against the existing Caltrain right-of-way.
Construction is planned to be complete by 2012. This should be
identified as a right-of-way constraint and HSR should consider
alternatives that can be built within the existing right of way.
Appendix L: Conceptual Cost Estimates
53 The report should indicate which alignment cross sections are used to
provide the basis for the estimates.
54
55
56
57
The construction cost estimates do not include the following items:
• Rail relocations
• Utility relocations
• Right of way (temporary and permanent)
• Environmental mitigation (noise barriers etc)
The costs for each of these categories will vary depending upon the
particular construction alternative. To allow a proper comparison of
the costs of the various alternatives, the costs of these elements must be
included.
Aerial Structure
The cost per mile of aerial structure of $34,972,672 translates to
approximately $6,600 per linear foot. This figure appears low based on
a comparison of similar rail structure types. For instance Los Angeles
Metro estimates twin track elevated structure for light rail transit to
cost $$9,200 per foot. This is approximately 50% less than the HSR
figure for a lighter vehicle. HSR should provide the basis for their
figure, and correct any cost discrepancies before completing
alternatives analysis.
Aerial Structure
HSR should confirm the price of the 4-track aerial structure relative to
the two track structure. The cost difference between the two structure
types appears to be incorrect.
Covered Trench
The unit prices for excavation and backfill, at $6 each per cubic yard
seems very low. HSR should provide some basis for the unit rates
adopted.
The covered trench structure price of $262,492,160 per mile
corresponds to a figure of $49,714 per linear foot. HSR should provide
justification for the use of this figure relative to a particular structure
configuration. The report should clearly identify what is included
within the cost figure, and provide a table of principal unit rates used
in the evaluation, such that the reasonableness of the figures provided
can be verified.
It is not clear how the four track structure can be constructed without
impacting existing Caltrain service, yet the costS do not include any
temporary or permanent track relocations. HSR should include costs
for maintaining Caltrain service during construction.
lOIPage
No. Pg AAR Comment
Section
58 Open Trench/ Covered Trench
HSR should justify the difference in price between the open trench, at
$14,932 per foot versus the covered trench at $49,714 per foot. The
structures are the same width, and for a 7' cover depth, the depth of the
covered trench is only slightly deeper that that for the open trench. It is
not clear why the costs are an order of magnitude in difference. For
instance the excavation volume for the covered trenc~ is 2.7 times that
for the open trench, despite being only a fraction deeper.
59 Covered Trench/Deep Tunnel
HSR should clarify where costs of ancillary structures -ventilation
structures, and egress structures for all below grade options, and cross
passages for the mined tunnel are located.
3.0 Summary
The CAHSRA Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report concludes that various at-grade,
above grade and below grade alignments through the CitY of Palo Alto are feasible to
construct. The report provides an evaluation of each of th~se alignments, based upon a
defined Development Process, with clearly stated Design Objectives and Evaluation
Measures.
The extent of each of the alignments is indicated upon the Appendix B: Plan and Profile
Drawings. In some cases the alignment is not specific to Palo Alto, as in the case of the
below grade trench and deep tunnel options which continue into the adjacent
Subsections of Atherton/Menlo Park and Mountain View/Sunnyvale.
While this HMM review has generated a number of comments on the work undertaken,
the CHSRA approach to the development and review of the alternatives has been clear
and consistent.
However, we offer the following primary concerns wi~ the preliminary alternatives
analysis for the consideration of the City of Palo Alto and HSR:
• . While the report presents numerous options for the construction of the alignment
in Appendix C: Typical Cross Sections, it is not clear which of the typical sections
have been used in the development of the alignment right of way requirements
and cost estimates. This clarification should be added to the report.
• The feasibility of maintaining Caltrain service during construction of many of the
suggested construction alternatives appears to be questionable. Options which
cannot feasibly maintain Caltrain service during construction should be rejected.
• The cost estimates provided are exclusive of rail relocations, utility relocations,
right of way (temporary and permanent) and environmental mitigation (noise
barriers etc). Since these costs are potentially significant, HSR should provide
these costs and consider them in the alternatives analysis.
lllPage
. • The unit rates provided are typically at such a high level, e.g. cut and cover
tunnel at $262-millionper mile that it is not·possible to adequately determine the
reasonableness of the figures adopted. HSR should provide additional
information supporting the unit rates adopted.
HMM recommend that the report should explicitly state how the cost figures for each of
the alternatives have been calculated -identifying usage of specific typical sections over
. defined lengths, and provide a list of unit prices for significant cost elements -support
of excavation walls, structural steel, concrete, formwork etc., such that the
appropriateness of the construction methods and the construction costs can be verified.
12\ Page
ATTACHMENT C
ROLE AND GUIDING PRINICIPLES OF THE HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE
OF THE PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
Adopted
May 17, 2010
Background
In November 2008 California voters approved a nearly ten billion dollar bond measure, the
primary purpose of which is to develop high speed rail (HSR) service from los Angeles to San
Francisco. The High Speed Rail Authority has decided that the route HSR will take from San Jose
to San Francisco is along the Caltrain right of way (ROW), inCluding the portion of the ROW that
runs through Palo Alto. However, the Environmental Impact Report used by the Authority ir:
making this decision has been de-certified per court order. Many issues, such as the vertical
alignment of the HSR, remain undecided. Recognizing that HSR could have many impacts on
Palo Alto, some quite negative, and that swift City action might be needed in many
.circumstances the City Council on May 18, 2009 created an ad hoc High Speed Rail
Subcommittee of four Council Members, (since changed to a standing committee and renamed
the High Speed Rail Committee). The Council also adopted a set of Guiding Principles which
allowed the Committee to take a variety of actions in the name of the City without action of the
full Council.
During the past year the Committee---indeed the entire community---have learned a great
deal about HSR and many HSR related actions have taken place. The City Council therefore,
adopts the following Principles to guide its decision making framework and actions of the
Committee:
Role and Authority of the High Speed Rail Committee
The Committee shall advise the City Council on HSR and related rail transit matters and
provide the community with appropriate forums for the discussion of such issues.
The Committee shall keep the full Council informed on a regular basis.
The Committee shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City on HSR and related rail
transit matters when there is not sufficient time to refer a particular issue to the full City
Council before action is needed; however, the Committee shall forward their decision to the
Council for final action if the Committee determines that it is feasible to do within the time
available. Such actions by the Committee shall include, but not be limited to, testimony
before the state legislature, the HSR Authority, Congress and other pertinent governmental
agencies and advocacy (oral or written) pertaining to pending or desired legislation. Such
actions by the Committee shall be consistent with the following policies of the City:
Guiding Principles
1. The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto.
2. The City's preferred vertical alignment of HSR in Palo Alto is below grade.
3. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by HSR should be treated on the same basis with
respect to vertical alignment impacts.
4. The City believes that the pending program EIR for the Central Valley to San Francisco
portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the HSR Authority should reopen and
reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route.
5 .. The City further believes that the ridership study used by the Authority contains dubious
and erroneous assumptions and that the Legislature should order an independent
ridership study under its direction and control.
6. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst's Office and State Auditor which
question the viability and accuracy of the Authority's Business Plan on such matters as
the identification of sufficient, reliable funding sources, project management and
operations of HSR.
7. The City favors legislation which would enable effective implementation of the Peer
Review committee authorized by AB 3034 with respect to HSR.
8. Palo Alto supports transit ·and urban design solutions that will be compatible with our
economic development strategies, transportation 'goals, and vision of the transit
corridor within our boundaries; HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the goals and
strategies of our Comprehensive Plan.
9. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions related td HSR and Caltrain
that is effectively funded and implemented by the Peninsula Rail Program and the High
Speed Rail Authority.
10. The High Speed Rail Authority should provide sufficient funding to affected Cities to
. allow them to hire experts to study reports requiring feedback and sufficient outreach
to the community to capture their concerns and suggestions.
ATTACHMENTD
High Speed Rail-Community Meeting
Peer Review of Alternatives Analysis
May 20, 2010.
JLS Middle School .
Public Comments
• What are infrastructure impacts?
• Right-of-way not included
• Why not condemn freight trains?
• . Study Hybrid Locomotives
• Don't trade off ridership with quality of life impacts to community
• Study stopping HSR in San Jose
• Derailment and seismic safety concerns
• Criteria is questionable
• What are Construction and access impacts if HSR uses part of Alma Street?
• Need real costs for cut/cover and trench plus dual rolling stock options
• Can we allow degraded service during construction using a single shoo fly?
• . Concern using Alma re: traffic impacts (loss of lanes on Alma Street)
• Concerns about noise impacts during construction
• Why not run HSR in another route, i.e. by the Bay
• How can we comment on the AA when the Program EIR is not certified?
• Let the public know how unprofessional HSR is
• Include an alternative with HSR in tunnel and Caltrain in trench
• What train speeds require grade separations?
• Alma Street impacts on emergency vehicles
• Concerns about temporary takings for construction
• Look at shared North/south platform with HSR + Caltrain -Palo Alto as "mini
stop"
• Don't use Alma
• Concerns about School impacts (Palo Alto High). Move ROW away from
neighborhoods
• Concerns about noise impact at Palo Alto High School
• Deep bored tunnel preferred through all Palo Alto
• What is the construction period for the Palo Alto segment?
• What time period is used for environmental domain value?
• Traffic analysis needed
• Horns at station after grade separations?
• Advertise Council Meeting
High Speed Rail -Community Meeting
Peer Review of Alternatives Analysis
May 20, 2010
Jordan Middle School
Public Comments
• How will the segments be phased San Jose to Los Angeles -what is the schedule?
• What is the best way to comment on the alternatives analysis?
• What are the emergency preparedness issues?
• Why doe HSR need to go through Palo Alto -what is Palo Alto's position on the
HSR?
• Why are be being asked to participate when there is no substantive information
available?
• Concern that controversy will destroy HSR. They should consider less impactful
alternatives to connect Southern and Northern California.
• Why has R.O.W. requirement increased from the earlier plans?
• Need better explanation of costs for cut and cover.
• What does the community have to do to get an alternative route considered?
• How long is the construction period? What happens to Caltrain service during
construction?
• What is the full impact of construction?
• Who is in favor of HSR in Palo Alto?
• Deep tunnel preserves trees and lessens impact on community
• Need to treat all sections equitably
• Need vote on whether we want HSR
• How much R. O. W will be needed at Peers Park? Can this be off set by added
park land? Is there a requirement to off set like the highway codes?
• Consensus of group meeting "we don't like any alternatives"
• Most residents don't want HSR. Tunnel and cut/cover are best compromise need
to preserve quality of life
• Both Caltrain and HSR need to be underground
• Who will run HSR after it's built?
• Need to consider HSR in tunnel & Caltrain in cut and cover trench
• Need to summarized all comments
• NEED TO EMPHISIZE COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT THIS
• Need to consider cost benefit in alternatives. Baby Bullet get from San Jose to
San Francisco in one hour with five stops
• What is the impact on the Palo Alto High School track and the Bike Path along
the railroad ROW?
• Straw Poll at the end of the meeting: Vote for preferred Alternative:
o Bored Tunnel: two tracks 0 votes
o Cut/cover trench: four tracks 13 votes
o At-grade: four tracks 0 votes
o Elevated: four tracks 0 votes
o No Build 15 votes
o Trench o votes
June 7, 2010
Robert Doty; Program Director
Peninsula Rail Program
1250 San Carlos Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94705
Dear Mr. Doty:
ATTACHMENT t,t
Ci~of Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
The City of Palo Alto requests that the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) postpone consideration
of the Alternatives Analysis (AA) for the San Jose to San Francisco segment until the numerous
deficiencies in it and the CSS Tool Kit are corrected and the documents then resubmItted to
stakeholders. The AA and the C5S Tool Kit at preserit are so flawed that any responses will have
limited vahie. .'
While Palo Alto will soon be submitting a more detailed letter specifying the missing arid
erroneous information in the CSS Took Kitan'd the fAA, the following examples areprovlded to
highlight our concerns with the present process: .
. ,': .
1. The cost estimates in the AA for trre aeri~1 alignments are based on a two track system
although four tracks are called for in this alternative.
2. There is a Significant discrepancy between thetre'nch and the 'cut and cover alternatives
which is not explained in the:-¥-. .
3. No detail is given as towhat properties may need to be purchased under different
alternatives and at V{hat cost. No impacts on properties values adjacent to the Right-of
Way were inclljded.·
4. The CSS To 0'. Kit does n9t provide a clear timeline or process for effective decision
making; it lacks a m;ethod610gy for evaluating preferred alterhatjves and provides no
milestones. . ..
5. The Values, Issues and .Goals Matrix is extremely cumbers.omeand confusing to use.
Stakeholders should be given the opportunity to particip.~te in. defining community
values and not have them determined by the HSRA. .
6. The Tool Kit limits the range of alternatives and ignores th.e: fundamental CSS precept
which involves the com.munity In the identificatIon of solutlo.ns;· .
7. It is not clear that there is complete and timely inclu~lo.n of important stakeholders. The
Tool Kit relies on voluntary stakeholder identification and ignores the fact that cities do
not have sufficient resources to supplement what shouJdbea HSRAresponsibility. , . . .
We appreciate that HSRA believes that1t must meet certain time lines if it is' to obtain federal
funding. However, this artificia1 deadline must be subordinate to doing properly the largest
transportation project in Califorriia history. We have confidence that if this project is done
properly federal funding will be available. We have confidence that if it's not done properly,
merely meetIng a deadline will not assure federal financing.
We have heard that this is an iterative process and that corrected information and more detail
will be provided in the next iteration. Such an argument misses the point. The Alternatives
'Analysis is meant to reduce the number of alternatives to be studied; an alternative eliminated·
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax
on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information will not be brought back to life in the next
iteration.
In light of the above concerns, Palo Alto respectfully requests that the AA and the Tool Kit be
withdrawn, corrected and expanded and that the process be restarted.
Sincerely,
Larry Klein
Chair High Speed Rail Committee
Mayor
Cc:
~ Attachment D
DRAFT
HSR City Council Committee
Members
Patrick Burt
Larry Kiein
Nancy Shepherd
Gail Price
Special Meeting
Thursday, June 17, 2010
9:30 am -11:00 am
Council Conference Room
Civic Center
Minutes
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
CM Price will arrive late.
1. Oral Communications
None
2. Approval of Minutes from the May 13, 2010 Meeting
CM Shepherd moved to approve. Mayor Burt seconded the motion. All
ayes. Minutes approved.
3. Committee Review of the Draft Comments being Sent to the Commission
Gayle Likens said the draft will be reviewed later tonight by the Planning
and Transportation Commission and edits will be incorporated in an
updated version for the Council packet.
Mayor Burt said there is no official response yet. Caltrain will be willing to
put in writing that they support that Palo Alto's comments are contingent
and not binding. These comments are not to be taken as our final
comments. The intention of the language is crucial-we must maintain
discretion to modify and finalize these comments.
Jeff Smith said the comments are a compilation from various groups and
organizations.
Chair Klein referred to page 15, C.4-8. He asked ifthe cost is actually
more, not less.
Gayle Likens responded that she would double-check.
HSR City Council Committee
CM Price asked ifthe EIR has been certified for this project.
Curtis Williams responded yes.
CM Shepherd said we established in the introduction that we want to
look at a below-grade option. However, on page 3, in the first paragraph,
we resurrect the possibility of other options. She asked why we were
doing this. These are not our preferred options.
Jeff Smith responded that we could add a sentence establishing that we
do not want such options as the "elevated berm".
CM Price asked if it is advisable to include an executive summary that
provides our key points.
Mr. Williams questioned if we should include an executive summary, or a
letter.
CM Price responded that as long as we are declarative and make our
points clear, the method does not matter.
Nadia Naik stated that any acquisition of open spaces of Palo Alto High
School is considered a full-take. Regarding noise and vibration comments,
we need to request more information. With the water supply, we should
consider that we are limiting our design feasibility if we build a reservoir
now.
Tony Carrasco stated he is a part ofthe Palo Alto Medical Foundation
Advisory Committee and this group will submit their comments as well.
Public Comment: The City of Palo Alto needs to say something definitive
about having a Palo Alto stop (station). There is a lack of clarity in the
definition of the width of the desired tracks.
Mayor Burt stated the City should include a comment in their submission
that states we cannot take a position on whether we want a station at
this time.
Bill Cutler said concerned citizens in his neighborhood met recently and
have visual concerns with HSR. The majority of the neighborhood consists
HSR City Council Committee
of single-family, single-story homes. Therefore, an elevated option would
be an egregious violation of zoning. The livability during construction
would be a concern as well. He also took the initiative to contact Stanford
to discuss some issues.
CM Shepherd stated we should include in our comments that the City
would like to see a shared-operation system.
Public Comment: To clarify an earlier comment, Palo Alto does have a
Redevelopment Agency, just no redevelopment projects. Everyone would
want to see the Final EIR before submitting comments. Traffic impacts on
Alma Street should be taken into consideration as well.
Brian Steen said Palo Alto needs to be careful in taking a stance on
certain issues -there could be legal ramifications involved.
4. Discussion of High Speed Rail Committee/Staff Meetings with Menlo Park and
Mountain View to Discuss Transitions
Mayor Burt said he has spoken with the Mayors of both Mountain View
and Menlo Park. We need to arrange a meeting with the full Committee
and these cities' representatives as soon as possible because it affects
our comments on the Alternatives Analysis.
6. Review of Staff Scope of Services for the Rail Corridor Study
Mr. Williams stated this is a preliminary scope of work for a corridor
study. We have outlined three phases and tried to estimate the cost of
each of these phases. The costs are $7SK, $8SK, $80K, for each of the
three phases respectively.
Mr. Williams added that some of the economic analysis would be very
difficult to do.
Chair Klein moved to recommend to the full Council to analyze the
economic alignments. Mayor Burt seconded the motion. All ayes. Motion
passed unanimously.
CM Price requested this item be continued first at the next meeting.
HSR City Council Committee
Chair Klein said all other items on the agenda would be continued at the
next meeting.
9. Future Meetings and Agendas
Chair Klein stated the next meeting will take place two weeks from today,
on July 1, 2010.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, listening assistive devices are
available in the Council Chambers and Council Conference Room. Sign language interpreters will be
provided upon request with 72 hours advance notice.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i
! Attachment E
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Special Meeting of Wednesday, June 17, 2010
Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor
ROLL CALL: 6:05 PM
Commissioners:
Daniel Garber -Chair
Samir Tuma -V-Chair
Susan Fineberg
Eduardo Martinez
Arthur Keller -absent
Lee 1 Lippert
Greg Tanaka
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1. High Speed Rail
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Staff:
Curtis Williams, Planning Director
Melissa Tronquet, Sr. Deputy City Attorney
Gayle Likens, Management Specialist
Zariah Betten, Admin Associate
Chair Garber: I start us off. Welcome everyone to the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation
Commission meeting for Thursday, June 17,2010. Would the Secretary please call roll? Thank
you.
26 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members ofthe public may speak to any item not on the agenda
27 with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
28 speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
29 Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
30 minutes.
31
32 Chair Garber: Now would be the time for anyone who would like to speak on items not on our
33 agenda to speak. I would actually like to invite Mr. Myerson if he would like to speak now he
34 may. Mr. Myerson. You will have three minutes.
35
City 0/ Palo Alto June 17,2010 Page 1 0/71
1 Mr. Stanley Myerson, Palo Alto: This is relevant to Planning. You have to have some kind of
2 projection like an operation analysis of what is going to be. In order to do that because this place
3 is going to grow, I just happen to be an analyst, a systems analyst and I have to project and make
4 it right. So I would like to speak on that subject. At least a five to ten year projection and how
5 to do it. That is all that you need. I will do it for nothing. I am well trained, New York
6 University, etc., etc., Operations Analyst, they call me a Strategic Analyst because they were
7 military where everything has to come together and the mission has to work. So I would like to
8 address that problem, at least the ten-year projection because it is a definition of Palo Alto. What
9 is the vision? What do you want it to be? That will determine your place. What I found was
10 that congestion is going to be -you have to get the cars off the street. I can get all the money
11 you need to be a model city. I work between Stanford and here. So think not of money, it is
12 right there. Think of what Palo Alto is and what you think it is, and your part in it. That's all.
13
14 Let me give you one example. You are going to take one policeman who handles traffic, a
15 supervisor, you have to think of an expansion and a good one too. I guarantee you all the money
16 you want if you will get rid of the cars. All the money you need. I have access to the President
17 of the United States that is a true fact.
18
19 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items
20 added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
21
22 AT6:00PM
23
24 Chair Garber: Thank you. Let's move to item number one, High-Speed Rail. The Review and
25 recommendation to Council regarding draft City comments on the Preliminary Alternatives
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 2 of 71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Analysis Report for San Francisco to San Jose Section High Speed Rail Project. Does Staffhave
a presentation?
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearing:
1. High Speed Rail: Review and recommendation to Council regarding draft City
comments on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for San Francisco to San Jose
Section High Speed Rail Project.
Ms. Gayle Likens, Management Specialist, Planning and Transportation Division: Yes, thank
you Chair Garber we do have a presentation. We are going to work off of the paper copies if you
don't mind until we can get the PowerPoint up and running. It is there but it is not advancing. I
apologize for that.
16 We are here tonight to ask for the Commission to review and comment on the draft comments on
17 the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco to San Jose High-Speed Train
18 project, which was included in your packet. Your comments are going to be forwarded to the
19 City Council for their meeting next Wednesday, June 23, 2010.
20
21 I would like to start out with a little bit of background and this may sound familiar to those of
22 you who have been following this project very closely. I did want to give a little bit of
23 background for the audience and anybody who is watching. As you may know in November of
24 2008 the voters of California passed Proposition lA, which was funding in the amount of$10
25 billion for the High-Speed Program. Very shortly after that the High-Speed Rail Authority ,
26 began to initiate their work all of the segments within California including the segment of the
27 project that is the San Francisco to San Jose project.
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 3 of71
1
2 For the San Francisco to San Jose project High-Speed Rail and Caltrain entered into a
3 Memorandum of Understanding that Caltrain, or the Peninsula Rail Program, would become the
4 project manager for the San Francisco to San Jose segment. So we are working closely with the
5 High-Speed Rail as the statewide entity but the project is also being managed by the Caltrain
6 Peninsula Rail Program.
7
8 In December of 2009 the High-Speed Rail Authority decertified the Environmental Program EIR
9 that concluded with the recommendation the preferred alternative coming to the Bay Area from
10 the Central Valley was to come through the Pacheco Pass Alignment. That was the Bay Area to
11 Central Valley Program ErR. That Program EIR was decertified because of court cases. The
12 City did provide comments on the recirculation of the Program EIR challenging many of the
13 assumptions in it, and this Commission also reviewed those comments. Those were submitted in
14 Aprilof2010. Shortly before eVen submitting those comments on the Program ErR High-Speed
15 Rail Authority released the Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco to San Jose Project, and
16 that was released in April. Originally we had a fairly short timeline, a 60-day turnaround. High-
17 Speed Rail Authority did extend their preferred comment period to the end of June in response to
18 concerns voiced by the City of Palo Alto, the Peninsula Cities Coalition, and many other
19 agencies who found the timeline too tight. In essence, although the High-Speed Rail Authority
20 will accept comments whenever they receive them in order for the comments to be collated and
21 addressed they have asked us to provide the comments by the end of this month, which we are
22 going to do.
23
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 4 of 71
1 We are in the middle of the review period for the Alternatives Analysis and during the course of
2 the last two months the High-Speed Rail Council Committee has been meeting regularly, bi-
3 weekly if not weekly, on this issue and many others. We held two community meetings in May,
4 one at JLS for residents of South Palo Alto or anybody who could attend, and on May 20 at
5 Jordan in North Palo Alto. Both meetings were very well attended. We had high turnout. Lots
6 of people were very engaged. We took those comments and tonight we are accepting your
7 comments on the Alternatives Analysis. Your comments will be forwarded to the City Council.
8 They will have their discussion on June 23 and then our comment letter will be finalized and
9 submitted by June 30, 2010. So that is within the next two weeks.
10
11 The next steps after that, just looking forward, are that High-Speed Rail will collect all the
12 comments received by the June 30 deadline, and they are intending to issue a Supplemental
13 Alternatives Analysis for presentation to their Board either in August or in September. It is a
14 little bit of a fluid deadline at this point. There are meetings that are occurring today, both this •
15 afternoon and this evening, of the Technical Advisory Committee and the Policy Advisory
16 Committee for the San Jose to San Francisco Project. I think the time line is going to be fleshed
17 out a little more. At this point, other than knowing that they are going to issue a Supplement ,
18 AA, I am not quite sure or we have not be told exactly what form that is going to take and what it
19 will actually include, but maybe that information is being provided at the meetings today.
20
21 The High-Speed Rail Authority is also going to be initiating discussions with the local agencies
22 that are prospective high-speed rail stops later this year. We think this will begin in the fall.
23 Palo Alto, Redwood City, and Mountain View are potential high-speed rail stations on the Mid-
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 5 of 71
1 Peninsula, and of course San Francisco, Millbrae, and San Jose are definite high-speed rail stops.
2 Each one of those cities will have a special study done and the agency will want to meet with us,
3 but that is not going to occur until the fall.
4
5 The Alternatives Analysis will feed into the actual Draft EIR. The final version of the
6 Alternatives Analysis will be included in the Draft EIR, which is scheduled to be circulated for
7 review in early 2011, so shortly after the first of the year unless the schedule does change.
8
9 The Alternatives Analysis does include the initial engineering and the feasibility of the vertical
10 grade alignments. In Palo Alto they are considering an aerial viaduct, at grade, an open or
11 covered trench, and a deep tunnel for high-speed rail. At this point our consultant Dave Young
12 from Hatch Mott MacDonald will discuss this in more detail.
13
14 They have taken off the table, for Palo Alto, an aerial berm. So that is not one of the alternatives
15 they are considering at this point. That was done largely in response to community input and
16 dissatisfaction with the aerial berm option.
17
18 Our Peer Review Consultant, Hatch Mott MacDonald did a detailed peer review that is attached
19 to your Report I believe. It includes a review of the alignment and typical sections, review of the
20 construction impacts, reyiew of rail operations, and considerations with regard to how the whole
21 system, both Caltrain and High-Speed Rail, will be operated on the Caltrain alignment, and
22 review of the basis for the costing and issues associated with the cost comparisons that they
23 provided. I would like to introduce our two consultants who are in the audience tonight, Dave
City of Palo Alto June 17,2010 Page 6 of 71
1 Young of Hatch Mott MacDonald, the project manager for this project. He is going to give his
2 own presentation in detail. Also in the audience is Jeff Smith from RMT Consulting Services
3 who has drafted and been the primary author of our Alternatives Analysis comments. He will be
4 available for comments and questions when we get to the actual comments themselves. At this
5 point, you have not seen this presentation, it has been largely given at the community meetings,
6 the Council saw an earlier version of this presentation, but the Commission has not. We thought
7 it would be useful to take the time to go over the detailed peer review.
8
9 Chair Garber: You may want to lift the microphone and then introduce yourself before you start.
10
11 Mr. Dave Young, Hatch Mott MacDonald, Consultants: Hatch Mott MacDonald did a peer
12 review ofthe Alternatives Analysis Report that was circulated by the High-Speed Rail Authority.
13 So we are just bringing that presentation up on the screen now. I will go through the basic
14 elements of our review and our findings. Also, I will start out with just describing what is shown
15 in the Alternatives Analysis Report as far as what the alternatives are.
16
17 Just a little bit of background on the Alternatives Analysis Report. It is early days in the
18 engineering definition of the alternatives. There is not a lot of detail. It doesn't all paint a clear
19 picture of what is being proposed. There is some kind of general information in there, and it
20 could use a lot more definition to try and understand for example where the deep tunnel option
21 begins and ends, and what that would look like, and what would be entailed with maintaining
22 Caltrain service while things are being constructed. I will illustrate that if we can get the
23 PowerPoint presentation going.
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 7 of 71
1
2 In the Alternatives Analysis Report, Section 3 gives a general overview of what the alternatives
3 are and then Section 4 does an evaluation of the alternatives and looks at the cost. The cost is
4 developed in one of the Appendixes based on some more detailed plan and profile sheets in
5 Appendix B of the Alternatives Analysis Report. That is what we have up on the wall over there.
6 So Palo Alto is Section 6 of the Peninsula Alignment, which is divided into 6A and 6B, which
7 are the middle two sheets on the wall. Then there are a lot of typical cross-sections that are
8 developed for example the deep tunnel option, the cut and cover option, the viaduct options, and
9 also for the stations that would go with those configurations. What is not clear in the report is
10 which typical cross-sections were used as a basis for developing the cost estimates. That linkage
11 has not been described yet in there. We are thinking that may be something that is provided in
12 more detail at the Draft EIR stage.
13
14 Chair Garber: Mr. Young, I am going to interrupt for just a moment. Would it be helpful to take
15 a break for perhaps ten minutes to see if we can get our visual aid operating?
16
17 Mr. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment: Yes, it may even be
18 preferable to connect your laptop to the computer. This is just such a big file and for some
19 reason going through out system is too slow.
20
21 Chair Garber: Why don't you take a moment?
22
23 Mr. Williams: Sorry about that.
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 8 of 71
1
2 Chair Garber: If anybody needs to go someplace for five minutes take the time.
3
4 Mr. Williams: Thank you for indulging us on our technological gambit.
5
6 Chair Garber: Mr. Young, would you like to start over?
7
8 Mr. Young: Yes, please. This is the scope of the peer review that Gayle had already gone over.
9 We reviewed the alignment and the typical sections. We reviewed the construction impacts from
10 the different types of construction that were being proposed in the Alternatives Analysis. We
11 reviewed rail operations considerations, what information there is in there, and I will touch on
12 that. We reviewed the costing. We produced a draft report and we will also produce a final peer
13 review report once we are done with this process.
14
15 Now if you go to the next slide. This is what I was describing earlier where in Section 3 there is
16 sort of course detail about what the different alternatives are for the Palo Alto section, Section 6.
17 So the blue is elevated, the green is at grade, and the orange is below grade. It doesn't
18 differentiate between trench, cut and cover, or deep bored tunnel when it says below grade. That
19 information is provided in more detail later on and I will show you that. This is one place where
20 it identifies what is still being considered, and what has been removed from further
21 consideration, and I will summarize that later.
22
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 9 of 71
1 Next slide. So this is in Section 4 where they do the alternatives evaluation. So there is more
2 detail here about what is being considered for the Palo Alto section, and also what are shown
3 here that was not described earlier are the transitions from the different elevations so the orange
4 is below grade. It still doesn't say whether that is deep bored tunnel, or cut and cover, or trench
5 in this section. What it does describe is if we are below grade where could they transition back
6 to grade, and also when you are at grade where could you transition to elevated. This helps to
7 understand how you could combine the different alternatives together. You could have deep
8 bored tunnel or below grade in one portion and then have it transition back to a different level,
9 whether it is at grade or above grade. It is important to consider that because of the alignment
10 constraints for high-speed rail and also just for normal rail that transition to different elevations
11 takes a long distance to occur because of the grade liinitations. So these are 3,000 to 4,000 foot
12 long transitions from one elevation to another.
13
14 Now if we go to the next couple of slides. Here is the north end of Palo Alto from Appendix B.
15 This provides the greatest level of detail of what was considered in the cost estimates. Still no
16 direct connection to which cross-section was being used for the different alternatives, but it does
17 show a deep bored tunnel is the lowest elevation one there in the profile down below in the plan
18 view. So that deep bored tunnel extends further north of Palo Alto.
19
20 Then also on the south that transitions over to the next slide. What this shows here is where the
21 deep bored tunnel would transition back to grade. What is indicated there is the tunnel portal is
22 right in the middle of the bottom there, right where Gayle is pointing right now. So for the basis
23 of their estimate they assumed that the deep bored tunnel ended right there. Then further on
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 10 of 71
1 south while that may be called deep bored tunnel in some of the other figures it is actually part of
2 the incline that is transitioning from grade to below grade. So that is constructed in an open cut,
3 or cut and cover configuration. So that is either going to be a trench or cut and cover section that
4 is in the approach to the bored tunnel. So that is right in the middle of Palo Alto right now.
5
6 So these were the options that were identified as not being carried forward. There was a high
7 berm all the way through Palo Alto before. There are still some elevated berm sections but I
8 don't believe they are as high as they were before. So they have really toned down that elevated
9 berm option from what was considered in the programmatic ElR. They have also eliminated the
10 aerial and open trench option for the northern most end of Palo Alto and the vicinity of San
11 Francisquito Creek. Then similarly between California Station to Barron Creek there is no aerial
12 section tJ;1ere anymore. I think they realized there were already grade separated structures there
13 and there was no need to carry the elevated option for that section.
14
15 Next. So more about the options that are not carried forward. For the deep bored tunnel, and
16 when I talk about the deep bored tunnel option what the High-Speed Rail Authority is saying is
17 they are only looking at putting the two tracks for high-speed rail in the deep bored tunnel.
18 There is no consideration for a twin deep bored tunnel where Caltrain and high-speed rail are
19 both in a deep bored tunnel. They are not looking at that. They are only looking at putting the
20 high-speed rail tracks, those two tracks, in a deep bored tunnel. So whenever I am talking about
21 deep bored tunnel that has to be combined with grade separation of the Caltrain. So that will be
22 either elevated or at grade with grade separation structures for Caltrain.
23
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 11 of71
1 What they have said for the deep bored tunnel is that it would make a Palo Alto station too deep.
2 So they are not looking at Palo Alto station for the deep bored tunnel option right now.
3
4 Next. These are some alignment constraints that they have recognized correctly in their report.
5 The deep bored tunnel and the cut and cover tunnel are constrained by the creeks. So that is a
6 vertical constraint that you either have to go under those or over them but not through them. I
7 think there is a little bit of tidying up to do on their alignments at one or two of the creeks, but
8 they have kind of recognized that those are going to constrain the options that they look at.
9 There is a cons~raint with liquefiable soils, and that would impact buried structures that are in the
10 liquefiable zone near the surface, so mostly impacting cut and cover structures and trench type
11 structures. Also, the gravity sewers and stormwater channels are constraints in the alignment.
12
13 A little bit on the typical sections that they have talked about in there. The deep bored tunnel
14 option they are actually showing two types of structures. There could be a single bore, I call it,
15 with the two tracks inside of one bore, or there could be twin bores where there is a set of tracks
16 in each bore. So they have shown both typical sections in Appendix C and it is not crystal clear
17 which one they are proposing at this point. Maybe they are still looking at both, I am not sure. It
18 looks like from Appendix B that what is being shown is the single bore option just by scaling the
19 bored tunnel size that they are showing there.
20
21 This has impact on the cover criteria. So they have established that we need a certain amount of
22 cover above the bored tunnels for protecting for settlement and various things. So the diameter
City of Palo Alto June ]7, 2010 Page 12 of71
1 that they assume affects how deep the tunnel has to be. So that is not all that well detailed at this
2 point.
3
4 The deeper the alignment the more expensive it will be. There is also the tradeoff of single bore
5 versus twin bore. There are a lot of factors in that including cost and operation and maintenance
6 type issues as well.
7
8 The cut and cover structures that are shown in Appendix C don't have a consistent clearance
9 envelope to the bored tunnels. So they look like they are providing a bigger clear space
10 underground for some reason, which is driving the cost of those cut and cover structures up.
11 They are making bigger structures than it seems like maybe they need to be if the clearance
12 envelope for the bored tunnel is adequate then why can't that be applied to the cut and cover
13 structures and making smaller cut and cover structures, and bringing the cost of the cut and cover
14 structures down a bit. So that is something that we could ask for clarification on.
15
16 There is a lot of mitigation that would happen to construct a major project like this in the middle
17 of town. There would be a lot of noise, and dust, and traffic, and there would be mitigation
18 measures for a lot of that. For example sound walls would be part of the work. None of that
19 mitigation stuff is priced in their cost estimate at the moment. They have not really evaluated the
20 impacts. I think that is normally part of the EIR process, so at this point they are just giving us a
21 section out ofthe future EIR and just describing the project but not the impacts yet. So
22 consequently those impacts have not been factored into the cost but once they are that would
23 provide you a better idea of what the relative costs are. If you are interested in let's say
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 13 of 71
1 tunneling for example there would be maybe less impacts than cut and cover or elevated type
2 construction. So the elevated and cut and cover type structures would have a higher mitigation
3 cost associated with them, which would bring the differential down.
4
5 We looked at the right-of-way at the Palo Alto station. So currently it is shown to be in that
6 range there of 160 to 187 feet. There are typical sections for stations in Appendix C. The width
7 of those stations from the Appendix kind of fits within the range of space that is available there.
8 So it seems like from a space standpoint at least the width is feasible to have a station.
9
10 Next. One of the constraints in the vertical alignment is San Francisquito Creek and how much
11 cover to provide from the structure to the bottom of the creek. For the cut and cover tunnel if
12 this was excavated as a trench and a structure built and then backfilled then there would be a lot
13 of disruption to the creek. There would not need to be 20 feet of cover between the creek and
14 that structure. It could be made a lot shallower and reducing the depth would reduce the cost.
15 So there may be a plan to do some sort of a short tunnel there and that is why they provided that
16 20 feet of cover. Definitely raising the tunnel for both the bored tunnel and the cut and cover
17 raising the depth up could save cost for the underground options.
18
19 As I mentioned, there is not a lot of discussion about construction impacts. The main one is how
20 to maintain Caltrain service while the cut and cover options are being built, and that is not
21 described in there and the costs are not provided for that. So that is a biggie that needs to be
22 addressed. There is a limited amount of right-of-way. What is the plan? Are they talking about
23 getting more right-of-way temporarily to move the Caltrain tracks so we can build the structure
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 14 of 71
1 or will it be built one piece at a time and the tracks moved around a lot within the existing right-
2 of-way? So that all needs to be described just so that the temporary construction easement can
3 be defined. There are other impacts listed there as well such as business loss, disruption, haul
4 routes, soil disposal, work hours, and that kind of thing.
5
6 There is not a whole lot of discussion about rail operations because at this point they have not
7 developed ~n integrated rail operation plan for Caltrain and High-Speed Rail. What they have
8 said is that Caltrain can continue to operate ten trains per hour on two tracks. They will add two
9 more tracks so that High-Sp,eed Rail can operate ten trains per hour. They will be able to share
10 tracks. That is the current concept. It is a joint use corridor. So High-Speed Rail can use any of
11 the four tracks, same with Caltrain, and to provide that extra flexibility they feel like and it is a
12 logical assumption that that will be enough tracks. They have not developed a detailed operating
13 plan that integrates the two rail systems to confirm that. So that is probably one of the future
14 steps they have to do.
15
16 The freight operates at night so it is not impacting during the daytime. It seems like from the
17 indications in the report that the Baby Bullet service could continue and that the Caltrain service
18 that is in place now would continue to operate.
19
20 The dark part of the slide are costs that we developed awhile ago, and then we added the red to
21 indicate what is currently being used for costs in the Alternatives Analysis to see where they are
22 in comparison to what we thought they might be using. Everything seems like it is in the '
23 ballpark. There is some uncertainly on the viaduct costs that they are using .. There is a two track
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 15 of 71
1 viaduct and a four track viaduct and the four track cost is clearly too low. I think that has already
2 been recognized. So that needs to be corrected. Also, there is something going on with the cut
3 and cover cost, which is quite high. I am not sure exactly why that is but that should be
4 questioned.
5
6 Next. So just summarize the at grade, above grade, and below grade alignments are feasible
7 from an: engineering viewpoint, but more information is needed to define exactly what they are
8 talking about so that we can look at what the impacts would be and consider those. The extent of
9 each option is in Appendix B but not what typical sections are being assumed. In some cases the
10 alignment is not specific to Palo Alto. There is a 3,000 to 4,000 foot length involved with
11 transitioning from deep tunnel to at grade and so that extends either within Palo Alto or beyond
12 the limits. The Palo Alto station is ruled out for the deep tunnel option. The San Francisquito
13 Creek elevation controls the depth of the underground options in Palo Alto. So the cover that
14 they are assuming that needs to be required between the structure and the creek is important, and
15 making that not any more than it needs to be will reduce the cost of the underground structures in
16 Palo Alto. Lastly, the cut and cover costs seem high. Okay, that's it.
17
18 Ms. Likens: I would just finish the presentation and then a CARRD representative would like to
19 make a presentation.
20
21 . So based on the peer review and other input we received from the Council High-Speed Rail
22 Committee, our own Staff evaluations, input from outside representatives like CARRD, and all
23 the communications we have received from the public we developed the comments on the
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 16 of 71
1 Alternatives Analysis that are included in your packet. We can go into as much detail as you
2 would like about them.
3
4 Just as an overview, the comments are divided into three sections. The first is the Introduction,
5 which includes kind of our major high policy comments that the Council has directed that we
6 include. It also includes the Council's Guiding Principles which they adopted in May, a revised
7 version of the Guiding Principles wherein they set out some direct policy direction to the High-
8 Speed Rail Committee, but it is policy direction for Staff and everyone else with regard to how
9 the City responds to the High-Speed Rail Alternatives Analysis. The second section is a
10 compendium of Comprehensive Plan policies that may not be as exhaustive and as complete as
11 the entire Comprehensive Plan but the key policies, programs, and goals of the Comprehensive
12 Plan that would have bearing on how we review the Alternatives Analysis. Thirdly is the
13 technical comment section of the report, which covers much of what Dave has written in his peer
14 review report and discussed here tonight.
15
16 With regard to the Council's policy direction I think there are some things that have been written
17 down and some things that are more verbal. I just wanted to remind you that we do have the
18 Guiding Principles in which they have concluded that any vertical alignments, anything that is
19 above grade, is really not what Palo Alto would like to see. We do not want any aerial
20 structures, or elevated structures, or at grade. We see that undergrounding is the preferred option
21 in Palo Alto for both Caltrain and for High-Speed Rail.
22
City o[ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 17 0[71
1 The Council has also identified the fact that because the Alternatives Analysis is so inadequate in
2 so many ways and so much information has not been included that it is very, very difficult for
3 the City to provide complete, comprehensive response to such an inadequate document. Weare
4 proposing to make these comments to meet the deadline, but the Council I am sure on
5 Wednesday confirm that this does not constitute the City's final comments, and that we would
6 want to reserve the right to make further comments in the future if more information is made
7 available that would bear upon how we would react to the Alternatives Analysis information.
8
9 The Mayor has sent a letter, and it was included in your packet I believe, asking for a
10 postponement by High-Speed Rail of any real consideration of the Alternatives Analysis until
11 such time as the information we have requested andthe complete information is made available.
12 I don't think we have a written response to that at this point. With that we are available to
13 answer any questions, and to go in whatever direction the Commission would like to go to. Our
14 consultant from RMT is here to answer any detailed comments or questions.
15
16 Chair Garber: I think we will go to the public hearing. We have one card from Tony Carrasco
17 and then I believe we also have one card from CARRD that would be Ms. Armstrong. You will
18 have five minutes.
19
20 Mr. Tony Carrasco, Palo Alto: Commissioners, I just wanted to talk to you about a general
21 overall approach and direction that this idea of undergrounding that we all prefer should come
22 from. As you know, in the document it states that Caltrain will have ten trains per hour in each
23 direction. High-Speed Rail plans eight to ten trains in addition to that. Ten trains per hour is one
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 18 of 71
1 train every six minutes, just Caltrain, in each direction that would be one every three minutes if
[
2 you are at a bad intersection. That would mean that the gates are down one-third of the time
3 hopefully if the gates last one minute. That creates gridlock on several of our streets, and that
4 should be an unacceptable condition if Cal train were to be separated from High-Speed Rail.
5 High-Speed Rail has budgeted for both Caltrain and HSR about $6.0 billion from San Jose to
6 San Francisco. The ARRA funds are around $2.25 billion. Most of it will be spent on Diridon
7 and the Trans Bay Terminal leaving Caltrain with little money to be able to do it right. What I
8 am asking you to do is look at the context of this report and do it right for both Cal train as well
9 as for High-Speed Rail. We have to do both,actually. Those are my comments.
10
11 Chair Garber: Thank you. Ms. Armstrong and Ms. Naik does it matter who goes first?
12
13 Ms. Sara Armstrong, CARRD: Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak tonight. How
14 are we going to advance the slides? I want to start off by saying that I am not a transportation
15 expert and I am not here to opine on whether or not the High-Speed Rail Authority is actually
16 going to implement this particular alternative. As you know they have not made any alternative
17 decisions. So the purpose of this presentation is just to give you an idea and some visualizations
18 about one of the alternatives that they are considering based on the information that is available
19 in the AA overlaid into our own context here in Palo Alto.
20
21 As was just mentioned, one of the alternatives is an at grade solution which means that the four
22 at grade roads in Palo Alto would nedl to be separated as a road project as opposed to a train
23 project.
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 19 of 71
1
2 If you can go to the next slide. The preliminary AA specifies the typical impacts for a grade
3 separation for both an underpass and an overpass on page 51. That is Table 4-5. If you look
4 over to the right where you have sort of the green hatch marks those are sort of the specifications
5 for how to look at the implications of an underpass for the road. I did the underpasses because
6 the overpasses actually take a little bit more space. So the underpass has a little bit less impact.
7 The color scheme is that the yellow are full parcel acquisition, the blue are partial impacts
8 whether that is temporary or partial is unknown. The key here is access to the property based on
9 elevations.
10
11 If you can go to the next slide. You can see the assumptions where an eight percent road grade
12 and a 22 foot vertical separation between the road and the track. The key assumption in terms of
13 property acquisition was that if there was a change of greater than two feet from the existing
14 driveway to the new roadway that would indicate a full parcel acquisition. The High-Speed Rail
15 Authority has stated on multiple occasions that they would not consider a road closure unless the
16 cities actually request that. So they are working under the assumption that those roads would
17 need to be maintained as is.
18
19 So if we look at what those assumptions mean laid on our own at grade crossings, if you click
20 over we can look at Charleston. I used a combination of Google Earth Maps, the City's parcel
21 maps, and then the specifications from the High-Speed Rail Authority. All of the specifications
22 talk about doing 475 feet from the centerline ofthe track. So you can see on the west Charleston
23 side the blue mark is where 475 feet is. On the east side for the neighborhoods of Green
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 200f71
1 Meadow and Fairmeadow you actually end up having to go a little bit further because Alma is a
2 major street, and you can't have the road separation at Charleston go down and then immediately
3 back up. Alma and Charleston have to sort of marry in the middle there and then you start your
4 gradual incline back up to grade after the intersection. So this is just an idea of what we are
5 looking at for Charleston.
6
7 If you click on the next slide. Those neighborhoods impacted would be Charleston Meadows,
8 Green Meadow, and Fairmeadow. We counted 23 full parcel acquisitions, those are all R-1, and·
9 16 additional R-1 parcels that would have some property impact. Plugging that into Zillow that
10 comes out to a monetization just for those that were the full parcel acquisitions for the residential
11 at $26 million.
12
13· If you go to the next slide, we can see Meadow. I am running out of time so maybe we should
14 zoom through these quickly. A bit more impactful because the streets are a little bit closer. If
15 you click onto the next slide you will see that that was 24 full parcel acquisitions including one
16 of the RM-30s and a CN, which is the dentist's office there near Alma Plaza, $21 million was the
17 estimate. Again, these estimates, obviously that is just what Zillow is saying for those
18 properties. It would be more than that and of course the value of someone's home is more than
19 what is on Zillow.
20
21 If you can click over to Churchill you can see that in North Palo Alto because there are so many
22 parcels where the driveways are on Alma and there are a number of flag lots you start to get a lot
23 more acquisition on that eastern side of Churchill.
City a/Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 21 0/71
1
2 If you go to the next slide you can see that that looked like 36 full parcel acquisitions, a mix of
3 R-ls, R-2s, and RM-15s, and a rough estimate of$50 million.
4
5 If you go to the next slide I just wanted to sort of have that be in your heads because most of the
6 numbers or all of the numbers actually that the High-Speed Rail Authority gives are only
7 construction based. They don't talk about parcel acquisitions. Although they consider the at
8 grade solution sort of the cheapest alternative you can see that it sort of has this collateral
9 damage out into a lot of our neighborhoods. So we have to bear that in mind when you are doing
10 that sort of consideration.
11
12 Just very quickly, this doesn't take into account any right-of-way width differentials in the
13 neighborhoods where we have constrained right-of-way, just for the grade separations.
14
15 Chair Garber: Thank you. Nadia.
16
17 Ms. Nadia Naik, CARRD: Hi. I am going to sort of reiterate the comments that I made at the
18 subcommittee today when we discussed the AA. There is a lot of wiggle room in the wording of
19 denotes a full property take and a partial property take. Some of it sort of has to do with the
20 landowner's concept of utility. So for instance if you had a circular driveway and they cutoff
21 your circular driveway on one side is the property no longer usable the way you imagined? So
22 the point is as we look at the kinds of comments we are going to write we should consider what
City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 22 0/71
1 those wiggle room kind of word are to make sure that we are covering the full scope of full and
2 partial acquisitions that there may be.
3
4 For instance at Paly they are looking at taking pieces of athletic field but they are also looking at
5 some open spaces, which might be places where for instance classrooms gather if it is a hot day
6 and a teacher wants to have class outside and they are not necessarily looked at as a normal
7 usable space. So we should consider how to couch our comments appropriately.
8
9 Second, I just wanted to bring to the attention of the PTC that we had this issue with the water
10 supply. I know it has been a very contentious issue of where it is going. It has been a long
11 battle. The general thought might be well, let's just build it where it is supposed to go and where
12 it has been zoned for and if we have to move it later the Authority will pay for it. I think we
13 should keep our minds open to the fact that we may decide from a design perspective that we
14 need to move it but it doesn't actually lie within the right-of-way so it would not be something
15 the Authority has to pay for. So we may want to think about holding off on what to do with that
16 until we have really flushed out whether Palo Alto wants to be a station for instance or not,
17 because it may have design flexibility issues with whether we have a trench or not or have a
18 tunnel or not, and the placement of that particular thing is very important. Obviously it is on
19 Stanford land so we need to sort of think about if that would be a place for eventual TOD, what
20 do we consider? I know we are pretty far down the path so I don't know what the implications
21 are. Could you stop the EIR at this point? Would you have to recirculate? What do you do? I
22 think you should be aware that that is an issue.
23
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 23 of71
1 . I think also we have to think about the fire station that is on Alma as well. If there is
2 construction on Alma downtown by the station how are those fire trucks going to get in and out
3 and are we properly commenting to make sure that we have the right access there.
4
5 I think lastly we want to be very careful not to back ourselves into any specific type of
6 construction. We want to think broadly about yes, we prefer a trench or we prefer this, but not
7 back ourselves into the point where we are saying specifically how we want the tracks
8 necessarily run because there may be flexibility there. So our comments in that regard might
9 need to be a little bit more broad. Thank you.
10
11 Chair Garber: Thank you. Hinda Sack, our last speaker.
12
13 Ms. Hinda Sack, Palo Alto: Thanks, Nadia and thanks Sara, again, and again, and again. I just
14 have a few very brief comments. I have never heard anybody talk about the possibility of a high-
15 speed rail station, if we even want one, at California Avenue. I don't know exactly why that has
16 never come up in any discussion except some comment I made a long time ago. Just throwing it
17 out there as consideration.
18
19 I am also wondering about the changes in possibilities for South Palo Alto with the changes in
20 Mountain View's approach to the vertical alignment as well. Nothing here has been said about
21 that.
22
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 24 of 71
1 I want to make a comment that all of the issues about roadway separation corne up whether or
2 not we have High-Speed Rail, because even with Caltrain alone it is really not acceptable to have
3 our current grade crossings.
4
5 Another thing about partial acquisition. I live on Park Boulevard not very far from Meadow. I
6 bought the house because I could basically walk in without any stairs. If the roadway is lowered,
7 I think my house would be taken anyway, but if the roadway is lowered and I have to have stairs
8 my accessibility to my own horne would be a problem. So changing it, reconfiguring it so that it
9 is no longer accessible for me is an issue. I don't know how you can comment on that but as you
10 are talking about those things I would appreciate it if you kept that in mind. Thank you.
11
12 Chair Garber: Thank you. Let us return to the Commission here. Commissioners, let me just
13 see if I can get a time check. Do you think we can get through our comments in sayan hour and
14 a half? That would give us each 15 minutes, three sets of five minutes. Questions and
15 comments.
16
17 Mr. Williams: Chair Garber, Gayle didn't have an opportunity before to just update you on a
18 few of the key comments that were made at the High-Speed Rail Committee meeting this
19 morning, which represent some changes that we will be making to the letter.
20
21 Chair Garber: Okay, that's great. Let's do that.
22
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 25 of7l
1 Ms. Likens: Ijust wanted to follow up because some of the members ofthe public mentioned
2 these same items to you tonight. The issue of the water reservoir, which is already included in
3 our comments, I think it is almost on the last page. The Council Committee wanted us to get a
4 little bit more specific and work with our Utilities Department to understand more exactly where
5 that project is and what options there are with regard to moving forward with that project before
6 High-Speed Rail makes their decisions. The EIR has been certified and the Utilities Department
7 is moving along to finalize the design and go out to bid and build the project. So we are
8 following up with Utilities and we will have more detailed comments that will go to the Council.
9
10 The issue of the fire station and the impact on Alma Street if some right-of-way were required
11 either in North Palo Alto or South Palo Alto and the impact on a major arterial in our
12 community, the second most busy city, well Alma Street is the busiest city arterial second to EI
13 Camino and Oregon Expressway. So that was one of the issues. As well the impact specifically
14 on Fire Station 1 should some of the Alma Street right-of-way be taken by High-Speed Rail and
15 how that would affect emergency response from Fire Station 1 was an additional comment.
16
17 The Committee is also very concerned about the impact on some of our other major institutions
18 including Palo Alto High School, and the impact of this project on it. We did receive comments
19 from the school district about their initial comments on the impact of this project on their site in
20 particular. We are following up with Bob Goulton and the school district to clarify some of their
21 comments and to further elucidate the High-Speed Rail on the specifics of the impacts on Palo
22 Alto High School.
23
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 26 of71
1 We want to delve a little more deeply into the issue of noise and vibration. What the standards
2 are with regard to school sites and noise and vibration and how this project could affect them.
3 Similarly, the Palo Alto Medial Foundation, which is very close to the right-of-way, has very
4 sensitive instruments that are of concern to them. Those comments have been captured in our
5 comments but if there is additional information that we can get from Palo Alto Medical
6 Foundation we would do so. Council is also concerned about the impact of this project on the
7 hotels just south of the station and potential loss of parking and what it would mean for the
8 viability of those hotels to operate, and make rooms available ifthe project impacted their
9 parking and other aspects of their operation. I think those were the main points that were
10 covered. Noise and vibration in general the Council Committee would like us to be much more
11 forceful in our discussions of noise and vibration not just for Palo Alto High School but in
12 general the impact noise and vibration would have throughout the city.
13
14 Of course the grade separations that Sara mentioned. So we will be including more detailed
15 comments. I just wanted you to be aware of that issue formally as you formulate your own
16 comments.
17
18 Chair Garber: Alright let's come back to the Commission with comments. I don't see any
19 lights. Commissioner Fineberg.
20
21 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start by thanking Staff, several of our consultants, and
22 members of the public. It is very apparent to me that a lot of work, a lot of time, and
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 27 of71
1 considerable thought has gone into drafting the draft. Frankly, I think it is one of the best draft
2 documents I have seen our Staff produce in a couple of years. So thank you and good work.
3
4 That said, it is wonderful that this is the kind of process that the more eyeballs, the more different
5 people with different experiences, with different perspectives can add to the richness of the
6 comments. So I appreciate the opportunity that we have tonight to make comments, and I
7 appreciate that Staff continues to collect comments as they come in. It is just a great process.
8
9 I want to start by focusing in Appendix B on Map 7, Section 1. The title in that map, this is a
10 very specific detailed comment, but as I continue this discussion you will see where I am going
11 with it.
12
13 Chair Garber: Page 3-177
14
15 Commissioner Fineberg: No. I don't believe most Commissioners will have a copy of this. It is
16 in Appendix B and it is the map that is posted on the wall. I think it is the furthest right one. So
17 that basically shows just north of Adobe Creek down to the Sunnyvale border. It is the section
18 that is the southernmost section of Palo Alto. Let me read the descriptive text. It says, north of
19 Adobe Creek to north of Fairoaks Avenue, and then it has some codes. This subsection is
20 located in the cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale. There needs to be a comment specifically
21 stating that it should this subsection is located in the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and
22 Sunnyvale. In every city discussion, at every place we have a map, and every place where we
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 28 of71
1 comment we need to look at Section 7-1. There was a place tonight where the analysis and the
2 discussion stopped at Section 6. So that is one clear comment on this.
3
4 The other piece where that same comment needs to be made clear is in our Preliminary
5 Alternatives Analysis Report, page 3-16. I am sorry I flipped my pages, page 3-18, Subsection
6 7, North of Adobe Creek to Fairmeadow and again it says the cities of Mountain View and
7 Sunnyvale.
8
9 Ms. Likens: Which document are you working from?
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report. So page 3-18. It is
12 basically the other place where we in the text are describing Subsection 7. Palo Alto is in
13 Subsection 7. So that is clear.
14
15 I am not sure how to word this but one of the things that needs to also have sort of inclusion is
16 under the railroad tracks themselves I believe until Adobe Creek it is in Palo Alto and then
17 Mountain View starts on the other side of Adobe Creek. When you cross Alma, Palo Alto
18 continues to south of San Antonio. So if we are looking at noise, vibration, and other impacts we
19 need to look down including San Antonio Road, and in Palo Alto it is San Antonio Avenue, and
20 we need to go that next block including the Palo Alto portion of Mayfield Mall. We need to look
21 at that for impacts, for noise, for height, for all those things.
22
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 29 of71
1 How am I on time? Thirty seconds, okay. We need to look at whether or not the impacts
2 throughout the city have been analyzed. The last time I saw the AA presentation the maps that
3 had sensitive receptors there were thousands ofthem, or hundreds, in North Palo Alto, and South
4 Palo Alto was blank. It didn't include public schools. It didn't include Mitchell Park.
5 Cubberley had one little preschool in it. It didn't include the parks and the amenities in Green
6 Meadow. It didn't include Green Meadow as an historic designation. It didn't include
7 Stevenson Senior House. It didn't include the churches and temples along Alma. Just a gross
8 blankness. I have not since that meeting at any of the places I have been seen those maps
9 presented again to the public for comment. So I don't know how but we have to get that richness
10 built in so that when the analysis continues they know where the sensitive receptors are.
11
12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Martinez.
13
14 Commissioner Lippert: First of all, I want to thank the folks from CARRD. I think they have
15 done a stellar job in terms of identifying a whole other level of impacts and ways to look at this.
16 As a result I have a number of questions for Mr. Young from Hatch Mott MacDonald.
17
18 Your firm is I guess involved in this project at both ends. Your firm is doing work on the LA
19 portion of the project and you have a firewall or a Chinese wall to keep you from communicating
20 with your folks down there. I assume you have similar experience to the group that is working
21 down in Southern California in terms of doing this peer review. Do you want to step up to the
22 podium?
23
City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 300/71
1 Mr. Young: Yes and the team that has been supporting me in the peer review have other
2 worldwide high-speed rail experience. They are just not working on the contracts that we
3 currently have with High-Speed Rail.
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, so your familiarity with working with high-speed rail projects,
6 and in doing the peer review analysis there are obviously some shortcomings in the analysis that
7 has been provided to us. How does your firm deal with doing an analysis? Do you include
8 things that are missing from this analysis here? What I mean specifically are things like they
9 have looked at alternatives but they have excluded for instance like land acquisitions. I am sorry
10 I didn't want to be demeaning. I was going to say the folks from CARRD. If your firm was
11 doing this analysis would they include land costs?
12
13 Mr. Young: At some point the land costs have to be included but I think that typically comes in
14 the EIR and not in the Alternatives Analysis. So I think we will eventually see that. The fact
15 . that it is not in here now I am not sure if that represents a major deficiency. I think it is good that
16 the High-Speed Rail Authority has released this for comment. It is an ongoing process for them
17 and they are probably working on lots of different things concurrently with what we are doing.
18 At some point they just have to give us what they have. So some of the statements in the
19 document are that we have not looked at certain things and those will be looked at later. So they
20 have identified that in the document.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: I think probably the most glaring aspect of the project is that even
23 though we are looking at a vertical alignment here there are actually width constraints that are a
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 31 of71
1 part of this program that are difficult to comply with. So if you look at for instance the
2 Downtown area, Alma Street, and the Southern Pacific right-of-way is much narrower and as
3 you get further south it actually broadens out. It is assumed that it is the right-of-way, of course,
4 and it runs from San Francisco all the way down the peninsula, but in fact it has a variety of
5 widths. It is not uniform in terms of width. So how do you begin to reconcile which alternatives
6 are appropriate if you cannot begin to understand what some of the underlying costs are in terms
7 of the solutions?
8
9 Mr. Young: I think I can help you answer that question. This step in the Alternatives Analysis is
10 to define what is going to be looked at in the EIR. So the next step for the High-Speed Rail
11 Authority is to take the alternatives that have been defined and then evaluate their impacts. One
12 of them is on right-of-way. So the greatest impact that we can have right now is to make sure
13 that they are looking at alternatives that we would like to see succeed. Then they will proceed on
14 their process of evaluating what the impacts for the alternatives are including right-of-way.
15
16 They do have in Appendix B a sort of preliminary analysis of what right-of-way width is
17 available. It is a color-coding scheme. So the legend for the color-coding is on the top of these
18 four posters on the wall. Then just below the plan view and above the profile is a color strip, and
19 that indicates the width of the existing right-of-way. Then if you go to the cross-sections in
20 Appendix C each cross-section has a color code associated with it meaning it is applicable to a
21 certain color shown on the drawings there in Appendix B.
22
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 32 of71
1 So the next step, you can't just chop and change from one cross-section to the next when the
2 color changes, there are transitions to consider. For example, you can't just switch from a single
3 ,bore to a twin bore very easily in a deep tunnel. So the next step is to factor in all these
4 transitions and use the alignment constraints, or alignment design criteria that they have for
5 High-Speed Rail that limit the radius of curves and the grades that can be accommodated to
6 design in these transitions. Then at the end of that you have sort of a working system at maybe
7 the ten percent design stage. They say that they are at I think it was two or three percent design
8 stage right now. So it is early days in the design. I don't know if I helped answer that.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, it helps.
11
12 Mr. Williams: If! could add just a comment. One of the first things I think Gayle indicated, and
13 in fact we are beefing up the early part of this letter. We will probably put a cover letter on it to
14 further emphasize that we feel like there is inadequate information here to really decide which
15 alignment is the best in each various segment. That is environmental information. That is
16 economic information. It is right-of-way information. It is all of those things. This is our
17 comments at this point but as we are able to obtain more of that information we will be able to
18 provide more response. So we want to emphasize that this is not in any way our final comment
19 on or response to the Alternatives Analysis or subsequently the EIR, but that we are particularly
20 concerned about being sort of asked which alternatives look better or worse without knowing a
21 lot of this information. So I think the point is well taken. Also, he is right, some of this
22 . information probably this is not the time that it necessarily would be available. We would hope
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 33 of 71
1 more of it would and that soon some of it would, and we would be able to provide supplemental
2 comments at that time.
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: If I might follow up here and then I will wrap things up. When you have
5 lemons you make lemonade. In this case here it is a very difficult report to work with. I agree
6 that there is missing information.
7
8 Mr. Myerson: I have one thing, very short. I would expect the Mayor and the CEO's to present
9 the community with a vision that they could look at, see, and act on. It should be proactive. This
lOis a vital community not one that is going to -so I would expect that of the MaY9r and you. You
11 are the best. That's all.
12
13 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. As I was saying, when you have lemons you make
14 lemonade. So I guess the best we can do is to comment on the information that we have here. I
15 do see several significant deficiencies .. One of them is number one, it is a longitudinal stretch of
16 road, the right-of-way. It is latitudinal. We don't have any longitudinal sections through
17 showing the right-of-way and how wide it is. We have it in plan but we don't have it showing
18 the abutting properties or the abutting configuration along Alma Street. In some cases we have
19 multistory buildings. They might be further away from the Caltrain right-of-way. As you get
20 down towards South Palo Alto there are sound walls that abut Alma Street with single story
21 residences. On the other side there are people's backyards. So there is no understanding in
22 three-dimensions any of this information. In fact, it is very disjointed in terms of having a three-
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 34 of71
1 dimensional understanding of what the configuration of the right-of-way really is. J think that is
2 really crucial to analyzing and understanding this report.
3
4 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez followed by Tuma and Tanaka.
5
6 Commissioner Martinez: I don't know ifthe Guiding Principles are sacrosanct, but it seems to
7 me like one of the most important principles we should state is that this High-Speed Rail Project
8 should either in its making or in providing an opportunity to correct some of the deep existing
9 public safety and quality of life issues in this corridor in Palo Alto. Now, I didn't state that well
10 but the concept is that we have issues of grade crossing, and splitting the community, safety of
11 our grade separations, age of our grade separations, non-grade separations, the speed of traffic,
/
12 the congestion of traffic, noise. This project should allow us the opportunity to address those
13 problems. I think that somewhere it should be stated a little bit more succinctly that this is a
14 guiding principle for the City.
15
16 I wanted to ask our consultant a couple of questions if you could step up again. I don't recall
17 exactly the scope of the work that you put up. Was it ostensibly to focus on the alignment itself,
18 the corridor itself, without looking at the impacts of the different alternatives?
19
20 Mr. Young: One of the things we were going to look at is what was identified as impacts and
21 whether we thought those were realistic. Since there is not a lot there to review we haven't
22 really contributed much on that part of the scope to this point.
23
City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 35 0/71
1 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, but that we expect to come.
2
3 Mr. Young: Yes.
4
5 Commissioner Martinez: To follow up on a couple of things that Commissioner Lippert asked,
6 do you see the process, and I know it is different in different communities, but the process of the
7 way in which the planning of the High-Speed Rail Corridor and Alternatives is I don't want to
8 say logical but it is sort of following a sort of standard of the industry or is there a different route
9 that the process is going?
10
11 Mr. Young: Just to put a caveat on my answer before I answer. I am a civil engineer and I
12 specialize in tunnels. I work mostly on design and construction management. There is a whole
13 different discipline of expertise in the CEQA and the EIRiEIS process. So I am going to respond
14 just from my vantage point. I get involved with producing the two percent design, ten percent
15 design, and the cost estimates. I have done this on other EIR projects and from what I am seeing
16 here it is the typical process. I have not seen anything other than that. It is maybe a matter of
17 degree of how much detail gets provided at each step ofthe way. To do these cost estimates I
18 think there is probably a lot more engineering that has been done that is kind of behind the
19 scenes that hasn't been released to the public in this Alternatives Analysis Report. That is
20 probably because it is maybe not as fine-tuned and will be coming at the next step. That is
21 usually the way I operate.
22
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 36 of 71
1 Commissioner Martinez: I appreciate that. I apologize for kind of putting you on the spot. I am
2 not a conspiracy kind of guy, but it seems to me that the way in which the process is working is
3 that the release of information, and these sort of oblique kind of alternative studies don't really
4 sort of address enough of well, if you do it this way the impact is that way. My sort of
5 immediate response is the same as the members ofCARRD, which is well, what happens at the
6 intersections? What is the impact of at grade? What is the impact of an overpass? It just seems
7 to me that just looking at dotted lines on a sheet really doesn't give us enough sort of feeling
8 about what is happening in this process. It seems to me that the next go around is going to
9 eliminate certain options without really giving us the chance to really see why. Okay. Thank
10 you.
11
12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma and then Tanaka.
13
14 Vice-Chair Tuma: A question for Staff. I know that the LAO and the State Auditor did some
15 analysis on the business plan. Have we thought about, or planned to, or done any of our own
16 analysis, or peer review analysis, or something else that takes a look at what those folks did to
17 come to the sense or conclusion that we are happy with the numbers that they came up with, or
18 are we going to do any of our own financial analysis?
19
20 Ms. Likens: We have not done any financial analysis on the level of what the LAO has done.
21 Our High-Speed Rail Committee has been tracking all of the documents produced by the LAO
22 and for the most part is supportive of the critiquing. The LAO had basically mirrored many of
23 the comments that have raised by the High-Speed Rail Committee.
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 37 of 71
1
2 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, but we are not planning on doing any sort of review of their analysis or
3 analysis of their analysis, if you will?
4
5 Mr. Williams: I don't think we are. Isn't there Cambridge or somebody that is doing some
6 further?
7
8 Ms. Likens: Well the High-Speed Rail Authority has retained basically the ITS Department at
9 UC Berkeley to critique the ridership assumptions and the ridership analysis that was prepared,
10 actually the assumptions of the ridership analysis that was done by Cambridge Systematics.
11 CARRD representatives have been tracking that very closely and I think we expect their work to
12 be completed and made public by the end of the month. Perhaps Nadia has an update on that.
13
14 Ms. Naik: I would say two things. One is Berkeley is not looking at the ridership assumptions.
15 Berkeley has been asked to peer review the model that was 'used to determine the ridership
16 forecasts. We are expecting that hopefully in the next week or two they are going to come out
17 with a report on what that is.
18
19 To go to what I think is your financial question, I think something that we have learned in the
20 subcommittees has been that at the policy working group where the Mayor has been in
21 attendance it became clear that the costing information that is in the Appendix ofthe AA shows
22 that the costing for the aerial structure is only for two tracks and not for four. That was very
23 significant. Basically the Caltrain folks and the Peninsula Rail Program people admitted that
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 380f71
1 was an error. The Mayor has since requested that that be clarified and further information be
2 given, and that has not come out. I am not sure that the Commission was aware of that so it is
3 important to note that essentially the costing numbers are completely off.
4
5 Vice-Chair Tuma: Right. Thanks for that. So the comment that I would make is that I read this
6 letter in detail and I was just so impressed with the amount of work that went in there. The one
7 section that seems to be lacking, and I think it even goes as far as to again, as Commissioner
8 Martinez said, questioning whether the Guiding Principles are sacrosanct. It seems to me that
9 there ought to be a Guiding Principle that says Palo Alto would never support a project that is
10 financially unfeasible.
11
12 I know that is sort of a blinding glimpse of the obvious but I think it highlights the fact that there
13 are a lot of real deep questions. The questions not only go to on the Cap Ex side whether there is
14 enough, what are the costing estimates to build this thing, but the Op Ex side when we get to
15 running this thing down the road. That is where the ridership issues come in front and center, but
16 there are going to be more than just the ridership issues. There are going to be how competitive
17 is it going to be, and all that sort of stuff.
18
19 So it seemed to me that the analysis that we have done and what we are putting forth in this
20 letter, and maybe appropriately so, the vast majority of it is focused on sort of the technical
21 aspects and the configurations and all that sort of stuff. I don't think we are strong enough in this
22 letter on the financial side. I think from the snippets and bits that I have heard from other
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 39 of 71
1 meetings, and from talking to Council Members and the Mayor and folks from CARRD there are
2 some serious, serious flaws that I think need to come out and we need to take a stronger position.
3
4 Here we are saying essentially we agree with the analysis that has been done by these other
5 groups, it is flawed, but I don't see the so what? To me the so what is therefore we cannot
6 support a project that is financially flawed. Now maybe it is implicit but I think we need to be
7 explicit. Again, financially flawed not only on the up-front costs but also on the operating costs.
8 One of my questions, not as a Commissioner but as a taxpayer and as a resident of the State of
9 California, is what the heck happens if they a) run out of money on the Cap Ex side when they
10 are building this thing, and b) down the road if the ridership doesn't materialize what does that
11 mean for us as taxpayers and residents? I want to know the answers to those questions. I know
12 that there are some discussions out there around that but perhaps putting some focus in this
13 document would be helpful.
14
17 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. I first want to thank the public for coming out and of course
18 Staff for the work on this. First two point on the Guiding Principles. First of all, I do agree with
19 Commissioners Martinez and Lippert in terms of this is an opportunity for Palo Alto to actually
20 solve a lot of problems around this corridor that we probably can never do ever again, at least for
21 some time. So I think that is something that we should maybe consider heavily to add to the
22 Guiding Principles.
23
City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 400/71
1 The other part is that Palo Alto is known around the world as being an environmental leader. I
2 think as we find a lot of the issues in this project I think it is also important for us to emphasize
3 that yes, even though there are a lot of issues we are concerned about climate change and the
4 environment.
5
6 So some comments on the Alternatives Analysis. I think it does make a lot of sense to actually
7 delay some of the reservoir work not only to figure out whether this will impact the flexibility of
8 possibly having a station or the tracks, but perhaps since the reservoir looks like it is going to be
9 underground as well perhaps there could also be some cost savings if they are co-developed.
10 Where there is a way for the overall project to be reduced in cost as well, which is important for
11 Palo Alto right now where capital improvements are a concern. So that is one comment that we
12 may want to consider, or not necessarily a comment but something we want to internalize as we
13 plan out the reservoir project.
14
15 This is a question for Staff. Does Staff know how many freight trains we have right now on
16 Caltrain?
17
18 Ms. Silver: I don't know the exact number. I think there are two or three.
19
20 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, that is what I heard. It is very rare. It is like two or three or
21 maybe one or so but not very much. I think something to also perhaps have in the response here
22 is given that a lot of the heavy manufacturing, the Port of Oakland where a lot of the shipping
23 happens these days, and it is kind made obliquely in one the public comments, perhaps to
City of Palo Alto June ]7, 2010 Page 41 of71
1 encourage the analysis of having freight trains on the East Bay only and not having them here on
2 the peninsula. That way we don't have to worry about diesel trains on the tracks here on the
3 peninsula. That could open more flexibility on the design. So if that could be done I think that
4 would be helpful, because that would open up opportunities.
5
6 So if you were able to get rid of the freight trains then perhaps all the trains could be in the
7 tunneling option thus perhaps lowering the cost versus having a tunnel and then a trench on top,
8 or a cut and cover on top. So this is another possibility to perhaps reduce the cost of the project
9 as well as going back to the earlier point that Commissioner Martinez made in terms of fixing a
10 lot of the grade separation issues and getting everything underground, and thus turning this
11 project into not just an okay project but a really great project that helps Palo Alto as well. So I
12 think that would be something that should also be considered if the freight trains in the East Bay
13 make sense given what has been happening on the peninsula. That's it for now.
14
15 Chair Garber: I have two very general comments before I come back to some more specific ones
16 on our next round or so. Interestingly, my comments are, although slightly different they do
17 share some of the comments that have been made by the public earlier this evening. When we
18 talk about High-Speed Rail what we are not talking about is, or when I talk about it at any rate,
19 we are talking about a lot of near and midterm impacts that can happen to Palo Alto and the pros
20 and cons of doing that. I was just doing a little research here, when Caltrain was first created and
21 it was not Cal train at that time that was in 1863 or thereabouts. That train drove the development
22 of the peninsula, and allowed people like Stanford to imagine creating a university and the
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 42 of71
1 surrounding towns that occurred there. Highway 101 was started in the mid 1920's. That was
2 some 63 years later. Then 280 completed in the mid 1960's or something of that sort.
3
4 Each one 6f these major transportation lines drove significant development and improvement to
5 the peninsula, to Stanford, to Palo Alto. What we are really talking about here is the next 50 to
6 60 years of what this city is going to become. We cannot lose sight of what the opportunities are
7 here for us as a result of that. So my initial comment here is in particular for our Council
8 Members is not to become constrained in their vision of what we can do here by the immediate
9 issues that we have in front of us and are trying to get through relative to grades and right-of-way
10 .and subsurface infrastructure, etc.
11
12 This brings me to the second point and that is just by way of example the Boston Big Dig, which
13 was started in 1985 or 1986, or something of that sort. At that time it was budgeted at $2 billion
14 and by the time it finished up in 2005 or so it was $22 billion, which tells you any number of
15 things but among them that we are talking about major dollars here, and you can do a lot with a
16 billion dollars, and that is just the starting point for what this project is going to be. As we talk
17 about mitigations, mitigations are not simply changing intersections for a project like this. The
18 amount of money that needs to be spent in order to allow these sorts of projects to occur is
19 enormous, and it is not as though Palo Alto would end up with a million dollars to try and spread
20 out to mitigate the sorts of impacts that this sort of project would have.
21
22 So by way of example, you end up with projects say like the parking garage over Grant Park in
23 Chicago, which is a two-story parking garage that is all below grade over 25 acres or something
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 43 of71
1 of that sort, and has a full park with mature trees and a band shell and any number of other
2 structures on top of it. That parking garage has significantly more than the 800 spaces that are
3 being required by a station.
4
5 So again, vision is extraordinarily important here. I only raise these two particular issu~s as a
6 way to help us remind ourselves that we can utilize this project for tremendous benefit on an
7 ongoing basis but we need to be flexible and open-minded enough to allow ourselves to see it. I
8 will get to some more very specific comments next time around.
9
10 Mr. Williams: Chair Garber, I wanted to make a comment that initially related to Mr. Martinez
11 and Mr. Tanaka's comments, but is particularly relevant I think to yours as well just as a sort of
12 sideline of information. All of you know when you met with the Council and talked about the
13 Comprehensive Plan and that, one of the issues on the table which the Council still has not acted
14 on or provided direction on is whether to or to what extent to incorporate the High-Speed Rail
15 into the Comprehensive Plan effort or develop some kind of a Comprehensive Plan component
16 of High-Speed Rail. Well, the subcommittee, the High-Speed Rail Committee has asked Staff to
17 put together sort of an outline of a scope of work for basically a rail corridor planning effort. We
18 have done that and they were going to talk about it this morning, but it was too late in their
19 meeting to really get into it. So they will talk about it in a couple of weeks from now.
20
21 The extent to which that will help inform the Alternatives Analysis is obviously very minimal,
22 but hopefully will be timely enough to at least provide input as the EIR is prepared, and as we
23 move forward and make further comments on the project down the line. The first thing we did
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 44 of71
1 was suggest dividing it up into three phases and the first one is having that vision discussion of
2 what are the opportunities and what are the constraints and obstacles associated with it. So
3 defining and being sure particularly to find those opportunities as well as the constraints. The
4 second phase is essentially a lot of the analysis that goes into developing perhaps alternatives
5 under the different alignment scenarios, and the land use, transportation, and urban design
6 elements of that. Then the third phase is basically selecting an alternative to move forward with,
7 the implementation measures, how that gets embodied in our Comprehensive Plan, etc., etc. So
8 there is not direction and money yet from the Council to do that but we are sort of moving that
9 way and I thought as background you should be aware of that.
10
11 Chair Garber: Thank you very much. Commissioners Fineberg and then Lippert. Sure,
12 Commissioner Martinez.
13
14 Commissioner Martinez: Planning Director, Williams, is there time to do that and fold it into the
15 High-Speed Rail process? Do we know?
16
17 Mr. Williams: To some extent that depends on how long each of these process take. How long
18 it takes for us to do that, how long it takes for the High-Speed Rail process to come to some
19 decision points. Our thought is that there can be some of that overall visioning and identification
20 of opportunities and such that is timely with at least the release of the EIR, and discussions that
21 pursue from there. If High-Speed Rail stays on the schedule that they say they are on we are not,
22 I don't think, going to have a plan developed by the time they make a decision. We will be
23 operating a bit more from the reactive mode in terms of what that is but still having an
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 45 of71
1 opportunity to then plan based on that. So they are going to be running somewhat parallel but
2 obviously High-Speed Rail is out in front of this effort right now. We can try and catch up but
3 frankly the money and time is not on our side to act very quickly but we can at least get started
4 on that and have some of those big picture discussions before the project moves too far down.
5
6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Lippert.
7
8 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Regarding Commissioner Tuma's comment about fiscal or
9 financial impacts, it might be worth adding some kind of comment also relating to keeping Palo
10 Alto whole financially. For instance, if we have certain grade crossings, let's say Charleston or
11 East Meadow or Churchill, and if High-Speed Rail is at grade there and they build an
12 undergrounded cross-street do they get to the end of their right-of-way, we have a nice
13 underground and then a road that is up at grade suspended in the air, and High-Speed Rail says
14 the cost of lowering your road is Palo Alto's responsibility? I have seeing from CARRD the
15 nodding heads, no. I have heard information --I believe it was High-Speed Rail Officials at
16 High-Speed Rail meetings saying their financial responsibility ends at the edge of their right-of-
17 way. So however that is handled we need an understanding of it, and we need to know that
18 whatever High-Speed Rail does leaves us as a city whole. Whether it is worded as 'whole' or
19 'no negative costs' however.
20
21 I want to take a giant step back and ask if we are at the right altitude on our comments. We have
22 been given the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, which has a limited scope of four or
23 five different vertical alignments. This analysis is being presented to us while the Program EIR
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 46 of 71
5 Mr. Williams: Right and that is also something that was discussed a little bit this morning. We
6 obviously made all those comments with the Program EIR comments. We do have in the
7 introductory section here indication that we would, in fact in like the very first paragraph talking
8 about revisiting the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass routes, and we are going to expand that to
9 talk a bit about 101 and other alternative things. So there will be a little more in here like that.
10 We don't want to focus too much on it. It is a bit outside and we don't want to lose the focus on
11 the alternatives themselves, but we did want to couch them in that context.
12
13 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. I was wondering about the 101 so thank you for saying you will
14 fill that out a little.
15
16 Okay, let me try and run through a bunch of things really quickly. Not sure, Staff will have to
17 decide if it is worth including a comment that there was less than clarity about the vertical
18 alignment for the deep bore tunnel. When one read the descriptive text in Chapter 3 and when
19 one looked at financial calculations it appeared as if a deep bore tunnel meant a deep bore tunnel
20 through, Palo Alto. There were no costs for the portal and the ramp, but yet when you get to
21 Appendix B hidden there you can·see that is clearly what the intent is. So I think it is worth a
22 statement saying 'misleading' or 'less than clear.'
23
City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 47 0/71
1 Also, regarding that on page 3-18, Section 7-A, it talks about the basis for removal of a below
2 grade option in the section north of Adobe Creek because it conflicts with Adobe Creek. I don't
3 understand that because if a deep bore tunnel is viable under San Francisquito Creek I don't
4 understand why a deep bore tunnel can't go under Adobe Creek. Isn't the reason it is being
5 eliminated is because they want to bring it to grade in Mountain View and it has nothing to do
6 with the creek? Then the creek happens to be sitting there if they are corning close to grade. But
7 it would be just as viable to stay way under Adobe Creek and corne up further south. That begs
8 the question of what heck does Mountain View want in Mountain View?
9
10 Ms. Likens: We had a preliminary staff-to-staffmeeting with Mountain View a couple of
11 months ago. The High-Speed Rail Committee has requested that Staff arrange for a joint policy
12 level discussion with the High-Speed Rail Committee in Mountain View to discuss transitions in
13 . particular, and to do the same thing with the City of Menlo Park. We need to understand what
14 each of those communities is interested in and how what would happen in Section 7-A because
15 of what they have determined in Mountain View in this document would affect Palo Alto and
16 vice-versa, especially 'if their thoughts in Mountain View have changed.
17
18 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, because if I can just finish this. If Mountain View wants, and I
19 have no reason to believe that this would be want they want, but if they want a deep tunnel the
20 deep tunnel continues. If they want trench maybe we can have a deep tunnel longer. I have
21 more particulars I will hold for my next round.
22
23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Martinez.
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 48 of71
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: I stared out as very enthusiastic about High-Speed Rail coming through
3 our city and I am very quickly beginning to become very frustrated, and I am also becoming very
4 disenchanted with the process. What I think I am beginning to find is that the process is really
5 very opaque. There are efforts to make it in the public eye but ultimately what I am concerned
6 about is something that my colleague Commissioner Martinez said and he wanted to steer away
7 from conspiracy theories, they are out there. I guess what I am beginning to find and I am
8 becoming disenchanted about is that we can comment on this and talk about the deficiencies in
9 the report. We can comment on what our vision is. Ultimately somebody out ther~ is going to
lObe making these decisions, and whether we look at a deep tunnel alternative, a surface
11 alternative, or a raised alternative, or even a trenched alternative somebody is going to be making
12 decisions. Both you and I as architects, and Commissioner Martinez know that behind every
13 engineering or architectural design project there are cost considerations.
14
15 What I see here are a couple of things. Number one, the lack of information, the detailed-ness of
16 the report. Number two, the cost analysis is flawed. When I say it is flawed I mean the numbers
17 are skewed. Either they are pushed exceedingly high in some areas but there is no reason given
18 as to why they are exceedingly high, or they are low-balled and there is no rationale as to why
19 they are low-balled. So what I am beginning to understand or beginning to think is maybe this
20 process is manipulated in a way that there is a certain outcome that has already been
21 predetermined. You don't have to look at the adjacent properties, and the reason you don't have
22 to look at the adjacent properties is that maybe the whole thing is going underground. Maybe it
23 is going away. Maybe it is not stopping in Palo Alto. Maybe it is coming out at a certain place
City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 49 0/71
1 so that it can become at surface in a city that desires it to be at surface so that they can have a
2 transit node there.
3
4 Where I am going is that in some ways we may be spending a lot of time and a lot of effort on
5 something that in fact may be predetermined and it may be the thing that is a self-fulfilling
6 prophecy. We don't want to see it. We don't want to hear it. We don't want to know it is here
7 and it won't be here. The unfortunate thing about looking at that and saying that so publicly is
8 that what it doesn't allow us to do is do exactly what Chair Garber says, which is that this is a
9 game-changer to be able to determine how we are going to grow and what we want here in this
10 city. That is unfortunate. I have looked at this. I have spent numerous hours as to what I think
11 the vision for High-Speed Rail should be here, but unless I can get some understanding as to
12 what is behind the curtain and who is really pulling the strings, and who is doing this, we are
13 spending an awful lot of time on something that may already be predetermined. The same thing
14 with the High-Speed Rail Committee.
15
16 I don't know if there is a way for Staff to answer that or not, but it is definitely a concern of
17 mine. So maybe what you can answer is what the process really is at the state level. Who is
18 making these decisions, and what are they making the determinations on? Number two, there are
19 basis for making overriding considerations in terms of mitigations and who is going to be
20 making those kinds of determinations? Is it the same group of people? I guess in some ways,
21 and I hate to bring it up, the whole thing that is going on in the gulf right now with the giant oil
22 slick. We had the Department of the Interior and the Mineral Mines Department that had the
23 same oversight and regulation on the leases and relaxed the regulations. Is there a conflict of
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 50 of 71
1 interest here? An entity that is given the task of having high-speed rail go from San Francisco to
2 LA in two hours and 40 minutes, is that what it is, being the same group of people that are
3 reviewing the necessary public documentation behind that. Again, I don't want to say that there
4 is a conspiracy theory going on I just think it is just like the way the railroads were back in the
5 1800's with the robber barons. They decided that the railroad is going to go here, they are going
6 to build it, and there is no way that anybody is going to stop it. In this case, maybe it is the High-
7 Speed Rail Authority, and they are the new modem day robber barons.
8
9 Ms. Likens: I think you have asked a very complex question and that is somewhat evolving.
10 The High-Speed Rail Authority is the statewide authority that has been tasked with developing
11 this plan and implementing it. However, the legislature had great control over the financial
12 resources that are available. There has been a lot of political scrutiny of the business plan, of the
13 operating plan, of the High-Speed Rail Authority structure and the way they are operating right
14 now. So I think this is going to be evolving.
15
16 One thing that the City has taken the opportunity to do is to comment at every stage very
17 thoroughly and completely to get on the record, not be on the sidelines, to be engaged both
18 politically on the record and through all the other avenues that we have working with the
19 legislature, working with adjacent cities. But it is a complex thing and there are a lot of
20 deficiencies in the current status. There may be legislative changes that could occur in the
21 future. There are a number of bills being proposed for how the structure of High-Speed Rail
22 would operate, and what controls the legislature would like to put on them. So I guess I don't
23 have a definitive answer.
City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 510/71
1
2 Mr. Williams: I would just add to that that the effort is we think worthwhile I think worst case,
3 yes, the High-Speed Rail Authority maybe in the end can override a lot of things, but there are a
4 lot of ideas being put forward and some of them inevitably have to catch and take hold and get
5 incorporated. So I think whatever is going to be an improvement over if we don't participate.
6 Then secondarily Gayle talked about the legislative component, which is very important, and we
7 have engaged in that dialogue with our legislators and other legislators at the state level and at
8 the federal level. Then I certainly would not minimize the unity of a lot of local voices as well. I
9 think that there are a lot of questions that are getting asked, and when they do then whether they
10 are on details like provide us the noise information and all that, or whether they are financial
11 questions about the viability, etc. that they have to respond at least to those. Some of them again
12 generate some better ideas, and some of them they might actually find out are useful for them.
13 While we don't have approval authority I think what Commissioner Fineberg mentioned as far as
14 like the streets, the intersections, and grade separations and that there is a big dollar ticket for
15 them to be providing all these grade separations. A lot of those, as was demonstrated by Sara's
16 map~, a lot of those are going to extend far outside the right-of-way of Cal train. When they do
17 the High-Speed Rail Authority I assume has two choices. One is that they pay to make that
18 happen or they somehow get the cities, or somehow do things for the cities that the cities want to
19 have done so that the cities are willing to incur some of that cost themselves. When I am talking
20 about that I am talking about the road improvements themselves not the homes and all that kind
21 of thing.
22
23 Chair Garber: Or three they choose a design that avoids that.
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 52 of71
1
2 Mr. Williams: Right. Yes, good point.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma.
5
6 Vice-Chair Tuma: Just a brief comment. I don't disagree that there is some sense of lack of
7 control here but I think we have also seen things like through the efforts of residents and what
8 the City has been doing, if you look at some of the stuff in the reports tonight about options not
9 carried forward like the berm, aerial open trench over Section 6-A, aerial Section 6-C, even the
10 fact that we are using CSS as a process here that was something that was generated locally. So I
11 think that yes, we certainly don't have any control over the ultimate decision, but shaping it,
12 moving it forward, and getting it down a path that maybe more palatable has already shown to be
13 one of the outcomes along the way. So I think it is a very worthwhile process.
14
15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez. Were you done Commissioner Lippert?
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: I will pass.
18
19 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez and then Tuma.
20
21 Commissioner Martinez: Actually I had kind of a different take from Commissioner Lippert
22 about Chair Garber's comment. I was kind of inspired that yes there is great hope and great
23 possibility for this process. Ithink Vice-Chair Tuma kind of reinforced that as well.
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 53 of71
1
2 Since the sage of the Commission is missing tonight I am going to take the role of giving the
3 quote of the day and quote Wayne Gretzky in that you miss 100 percent of the shots you don't
4 take. So I think we should put forth those items that will make this plan better as soon as
5 possible. For example, we should state that we want our roads to cross this right-of-way at
6 grade. The reason we do that is because it really reinforces the below grade options that would
7 make the project better for Palo Alto. It also makes the connectivity to our city better.
8
9 If you look at our grade crossings now those that go under Caltrain are terrible and don't work
10 for pedestrians. Probably the best crossing we have is University across El Camino, which is at
11 grade. It is kind of long but you see a lot of people doing it, and a lot of bicycles, and you see
12 less of that where there are these conflicts. So I would really stress the importance of that.
13
14 I don't know sort of where we are leaning on the Palo Alto station. I think it is kind of
15 contradictory to want to hold onto that since we are really trying to support and enhance Caltrain.
16 The ability to get on Caltrain and ride to San Jose to pick up High-Speed Rail seems clear. I take
17 Caltrain to the airport all the time. I don't expect the airplane to taxi down to my house to pick
18 me up. So I think we can really stress the things that really are going to work for Palo Alto.
19 Three thousand cars at California Avenue doesn't sound great and it probably wouldn't be. I
20 think we have lots of opportunities for development we don't need High-Speed Rail for that. I
21 think some clarity on sort of what we are looking for is really going to help the process move in
22 our direction. As Commissioner Tuma said, we are very strong and forthright about the elevated
23 structure and it looks like that will go away as well. So I think if we continue on the path of
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 54 of71
1 really stating what we want, what works, what makes the plan better, what we will support, what
2 will make it move faster I think we will begin to get some sympathy from High-Speed Rail
3 Authority. Thank you.
4
5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma and then Tanaka.
6
7 Vice-Chair Tuma: I just have a brief comment. At the very beginning of this process, which
8 was well before any of us were talking about it in here, I voted for this thing. Chair Garber's
9 comments earlier sort of brought me I wouldn't say full circle but back to thinking about why I
10 voted for it. I voted for it because without a lot of detail coming forth about it, and probably just
11 my lack of understanding about what was going on, conceptually it seemed like a great idea. I
12 think today conceptually it still seems like a great idea. If you could sort of close your eyes and
13 envision this high-speed rail as part of the next 30,40,50 years of how we get around California
14 and hopefully other parts of the country it is interesting. So I think Council should very much
15 take to heart what Chair Garber was saying and continue to work along the lines that we have
16 been working along to make it better. I do stick with what I said earlier which is the financial
17 viability of the thing. If there is a way to make all of these pieces work together and get
18 something out of it that is probably never going to make everybody happy in terms of what we
19 yYant, but things that don't create the .destruction and havoc and really altering the community
20 that we all love, then there is room for a solution. So I think we should be critical, be forceful,
21 and forthright in what we want, but at the same time imagining a world where there is a
22 significant high-speed rail component to our overall transportation. We talk a lot in our family
23 and friend about how wonderful it is to get around Europe on trains. I spent a lot of time in
City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 55 0/71
1 Japan on trains, the network that you have there. It has to start somewhere. So maybe there is a
2 solution here that works for everybody, Palo Alto right on out to the rest of the country. It is
3 something worth thinking about and I thank our Chair for sort of raising those thoughts again.
4
5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka and then Garber.
6
7 Commissioner Tanaka: I was thinking about what one of the members of the public mentioned
8 in terms of having a station at California A venue. I was thinking about my fellow
9 Commissioners' comments about should we even have a station and I realized that we are going
10 to have a deeper discussion about this in September. I think it may be beneficial for us to start
11 actually to think ahead of time about whether we want a station, what are the economic benefits
12 of having a station. I certainly know that Redwood City is vying for that and perhaps even
13 Mountain View. Generally by having a station it brings a lot of economic benefits and of course
14 associated impacts in terms of traffic, parking, etc. I think if we can make that decision sooner
15 than later and if the answer is we do want to have it then we should probably pursue it
16 aggressively since I imagine other cities will compete for it if they want it as well.
17
18 I thought this comment about having a station at California Avenue is actually quite interesting
19 for several different reasons. So perhaps that is something that can also be in the Alternatives
20 Analysis in terms of could there be a station at California Avenue. For one reason it looks like
21 the portal is actually starting to enter in around Oregon, it is a little hard to tell on the map, but
22 somewhere around that area. Maybe it wouldn't necessarily be California A venue maybe it
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 56 of 71
1 would an Oregon or Page Mill station, which actually has great access to 101, to 280, much
2 better than University. So actually that kind of is an interesting comment.
3
4 We are also looking at a concept plan for the California Avenue area, which would include
5 Oregon Expressway for that section. So it could be a good time to actually plan around that as
6 well. There is a lot of potential redevelopment in this area and it is actually the center of Palo
7 Alto, just about the geographic center of Palo Alto. So there are a lot of reasons to actually think
8 about that possible concept, to have a station at California A venue or maybe Oregon where there
9 could maybe be some parking like Chair Garber mentioned, underground with really nice trees
10 on top.
11
12 I think of course the first thing we have to figure out is would this be a net economic benefit for
13 Palo Alto. I think we should accelerate that decision fairly quickly if we 90uld. I think the
14 competition for the station will be competitive. Thank you.
15
16 Chair Garber: A couple of comments. Let me just state it this way, I support Commissioner
17 Tanaka's comments about the City and the interests the City should have in evaluating a station
18 and its pursuit of that. I believe that the key piece to that is engaging Stanford in that
19 conversation and that presentation that will eventually be made. That is the critical distinguisher
20 for us, and is the reason that we are the hub that we are today.
21
22 Relative to the letter, I think in the way that we have sort of put our foot down on above grade
23 alternatives we should put our foot down strongly on below grade ones, and that should be clear.
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 57 of 71
1 There should be some conversation, granted we are nowhere near the IR stage here, but the
2 conceptual cost estimates, and then the sort of mitigation conversations. Somehow we need to
3 be talking about, and mitigations sounds like such a small word, but what we are really talking
4 about are significant impacts that need to be accommodated here. Somehow we need to get that
5 language,into this letter. That those mitigations need to be made part of this project and part of
6 the consideration of this, and that they are not small. The nexus is enormous here even
7 compared to a project the size of Stanford.
8
9 Mr. Williams: Can I ask for clarification on that? Are you talking about the mitigations that
10 make below ground or below grade work? ,
11
12 Chair Garber: That would make anyone of the alternatives that might be considered, but
13 perhaps particularly the below grade ones. If we were to have a station here and we were to meet
14 the requirements that the High-Speed Rail Authority has set forth as part of that in a conceptual
15 way, meaning all the roadwork, all the infrastructure work that is presumably a part of this same
16 project. It is not clear to me whether it is or not but if there are separations, all of the work that
17 would have to go into the construction, which will have tremendous impacts over some numbers
18 of years. There are a lot of dollars. There is rerouting streets, infrastructure. I have no idea but
19 there are a lot of peripheral secondary costs that I would look to be wrapping into this entire
20 project. Granted we are way early before trying to analyze any ofthat stuff, but we need to get
21 the consciousness raised on that topic.
22
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 58 of7l
1 I would also like to emphasize there are comments regarding the elimination of the Interstate 280
2 and US 101 alternatives. I would like to emphasize those, because very early about a year or two
3 ago when we were talking about those alternatives origin~lly as it is set here briefly I think it is
4 worth adding a few more sentences about those, they present alternative routes that have
5 radically less impacts to our community. Relative to the High-Speed Rail Authority significantly
6 fewer communities to deal with. I recognize the advantage of dealing with Caltrain and going
7 that route because you have a clear right-of-way from point A to point B. As we are finding out
8 it ain't so clear. So utilizing the highways is a procedure that has been used in a variety of
9 strategies throughout the country, and it simplifies a lot. Relative to the impact to Palo Alto one
10 of the clear advantages there is that if we were to go down say for instance 101 is a station at San
11 Antonio would completely revitalize South Palo Alto and how we envision South Palo Alto and
12 the role it plays in the city. That was talked about or mentioned when it first came here.
13
14 One of the other things that is not addressed in here and this is further down the line, but is again
15 the plan that would have to be put in place during construction. I am not just talking about
16 dollars here. I am talking about how we actually go about that plan, how we put that plan
17 together, how it gets implemented and rolled out over a series of years.
18
19 If I may I am just going to walk through my other pieces here very quickly and then I will be
20 done. We have already talked about the water reservoir. Okay, that is good for me at the
21 moment.
22
City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 59 0/71
1 Commissioner Fineberg. This is our third round everybody. Let's see if we can make this our
2 last. So if you have comments that you want to roll up and complete let's see if we can do it this
3 time. Commissioner Fineberg and then Lippert.
4
5 Commissioner Fineberg: Let me see start with some fine points and then I will wrap up with a
6 global comment. I think we need to beefup our comments on what the construction impacts will
7 be on traffic at the Alma corridor. I know there were some comments in the letter but
8 specifically, and I know we don't hav~ an EIR so there is not information, but specifically if
9 there are construction impacts on Alma where will those cars detour to? Then if the full build
10 out depending on the alignment includes a permanent taking of Alma and reduced capacity on
11 Alma where will those cars detour to? And, what will the impacts be given the Stanford Hospital
12 Project that is currently being developed? Much of their mitigations include reliance on Caltrain.
13 If Caltrain operations are ceased it will create negative impacts that have to be considered that
14 the High-Speed Rail Project is then causing. If Caltrain ceases existence and we have High-
15 Speed Rail and there is one stop in San Francisco and one stop in Mountain View what happens
16 to all of our local transit that is dependent on having local stations, whereas High-Speed Rail
17 won't? If High-Speed Rail replaces Caltrain are they going to introduce a local service? That is
18 a sort of bigger, thornier issue. I am not sure how it would work in but does the Alternatives
19 Analysis need to include cumulative impacts including I think it is hundreds of thousands if not
20 millions of square feet of office space being built in the County portion of Stanford and what
21 those traffic impacts would be along Alma during construction and at full build out.
22
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 60 of 71
1 There is a comment C.5-23 in our letter that talks about the liquefaction of soils at Oregon either
2 with that or near that. I think there should be a similar comment about toxic plumes. It is
3 known, it is big. If you are bringing it up to grade and running it through a toxic plume what are
4 the dollar costs, and is it even viable? Obviously it would have to be for it to be pursued but are
5 they planning on an option that could be ruled out if there was some focus there?
6
7 Then in the south in Map 7-1 it has the deep tunnel option coming up higher than the trench
8 option. I don't understand why it is that way. Maybe can our consultant that is nodding his head
9 comment on that?
10
11 Chair Garber: Please introduce yourself as you begin.
12
13 Mr. Jeff Smith, RMT: Good evening. That is a question that we have been asking as well. The
14 maps perhaps are not accurate showing the elevations but yes, I see that cross point and deep
15 tunnel is actually higher than cut and cover or open trench, and it doesn't make a lot of sense.
16
17 Commissioner Fineberg: Did we ask that question in the letter? Did I miss finding it and it is in
18 there, or do we need to add that as a question/comment?
19
20 Mr. Smith: Don't think it is in there stated as clearly as that. We can make that clear in this
21 letter.
22
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 61 of71
1 Commissioner Fineberg: Please do that, thank you. Okay. We talked earlier about needing
2 more understanding of noise and vibration impacts. I think there needs to be some emphasis on
3 that in the areas where if there isn't a deep tunnel where it might be higher. So from Oregon
4 south what the differences would be. I know there still will be impacts from mechanical
5 equipment and ventilation with a deep tunnel. Specifically we have Green Meadow in the south
6 that has historic designation. There are peculiarities about the structures. They are Eichler
7 homes that have floor-to-ceiling single pane glass. There are restrictions on changing what the
8 exteriors look like. This would be true for Green Meadow and the circles to the north of
9 Charleston. The heating is in the floor. If you vibrate a 50-year old concrete slab with barely
10 functional pipes in it you cause leaks, you take out $25,000 heating systems. You can't retrofit it
11 for less than $30,000 or $40,000, significant, significant impacts that don't exist in normal
12 prevailing construction methods. I think it is worth specifically calling that out as something that
13 requires additional analysis and understanding both the historic designation in Green Meadow
14 and the construction methods of the Eichlers throughout the corridor.
15
16 In the same way that I think it was a wonderful analysis of the impacts at Palo Alto Medical
17 Foundation I think we need that same level of analysis, you talked about working with PAUSD
18 for Paly High School. I think we also need that for the historic Green Meadow neighborhood
19 and possibly for some of the parks that are within the impact zone throughout the corridor.
20
21 In Comment C.5-31 I referred to it earlier but this is the citation. It needs to include a discussion
22 of Subsection 7.
23
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 62 of 71
1 Then one of the other specific comments is there is a curve in the track right by San Antonio. I
2 am hearing that that curve requires high-speed trains to slow down. It might be worth stating
3 that a benefit of a deep tunnel is that one avoids a curve. I don't know what the air rights rules
4 are but you could do a straight line and eliminate a curve. Just something that might be called
5 out for notice.
6
7 Okay, global comment. If one thinks of trains as a product it has a life cycle and it has ways they
8 are marketed. Trains are interesting because depending on whether you look at them as a metal
9 box that has an engine and it goes, or whether you look at it as something that moves people
10 trains replaced other modes of transportation. They put the buggies out of business. Then in the
11 1950's cars came along and our federal government invested in the automobile industry. It
12 invested in highway infrastructure, and it invested later in airlines. It heavily invested in airlines
13 subsidizing the airline industry with things like high-speed computing facilities, super computing
14 facilities, wind tunnels at Moffett, cities subsidize it by paying for big airports. Federal
15 government has huge departments of our government the FAA, TSA, and the airlines don't
16 necessarily bear all those costs all by themselves. We as a country made a decision that we were
17 going to stop dealing with trains and start dealing with cars and airplanes.
18
19 Now for various reasons congestion, carbon footprint, capacity we are going backwards and
20 finding that maybe now trains are better. But unless we can get cities, states, and our federal
21 government to invest again in the technology there just is no way to get the financing to afford
22 them. I understand that there is a $2 billion investment in stimulus money but that is not going to
23 go very far when you are talking about a San Francisco to LA trip. One of my concerns is that
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 63 of71
1 we are going to end up building a high-speed rail train from San Francisco to San Jose and then
2 run out of money, and maybe have another one on the other end. There is absolutely no logic to
3 me in building an express train from San Francisco to San Jose that costs a thousand times the
4 magnitude of every improvement we would want and what we already have now. How we do it
5 so that we don't end up with that is going to be what makes the entire project work or be a
6 colossal failure. The two ends, San Francisco and LA have to meet or having San Francisco to
7 San Jose doesn't matter.
8
9 I don't know what we can do. We are kind of visioning this forward-looking trains are good.
10 The beauty of the train on the Caltrain right-of-way is it follows the historic development path
11 when EI Camino Real was the anchor for all the little villages that sprang up. It is where the
12 people are. Ifwe are trying to get the people to walk to the train and get out of their cars, if all
13 the transit brings people to those stations along that path then that is the beauty of the system.
14 Having it be off somewhere else doesn't capture that kind of elegance in the system. Then the
15 curse of it is the impacts are then huge. The ways we have to work around the mitigations may
16 make it infeasible or certainly more difficult but to me it is worth trying to get those mitigations
17 right so that we can maintain the elegant routing. So that is it for me.
18
19 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: First of all I would like to apologize to my fellow Commissioners. I had
22 gotten so low that you might think that I was supporting the deep tunnel alternative and got stuck
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 64 of 71
1 there, but I am a lot more resilient and a lot more enthusiastic about High-Speed Rail than I let
2 on in my last line of questioning.
3
4 This is really a game-changer that Chair Garber pointed out. This is really a century project.
5 This is a project that has the ability to change the whole complexion of not just Palo Alto but
6 also the State of California. Despite what we may do in this room it is going to get built. It is
7 going to be successful. It is going to wind up being something that is going to really meet a lot
8 of the demands of California. Probably the most significant thing is that it will help reduce
9 greenhouse gas emissions.
10
11 I want you to imagine for a second now, we all travel by air. We all fly to Southern California
12 and we drive to the airport. And we usually plan to be there an hour ahead of time, and we wait
13 around for another hour. Well, just in those two hours of getting to the airport and waiting for
14 our flight we could be three-quarters of the way to Los Angeles on high-speed rail. In addition
15 to that while air transportation is the most efficient per passenger mile of flying from point to
16 point, high-speed rail is far more efficient than that in terms of fuel consumption and eliminating
17 greenhouse gas emissions.
18
19 The reason I say this, and it is so important, is that there are three things that really define Palo
20 Alto. Number one, El Palo Alto. Portola and his men stopped here, they camped here on their
21 way traversing California, and put Palo Alto on the map. The second thing is Stanford
22 University. That was conceived and built by the railroad barons. Number three, Palo Alto is the
City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 65 0/71
1 epicenter of Silicon Valley. When people say Silicon Valley it is synonymous with Palo Alto.
2 You tell them you are from Palo Alto they say oh, Silicon Valley.
3
4 Now why do I say that? The reason I say that Palo Alto is the epicenter of Silicon Valley is that
5 where that train station is will be defined as the center of Silicon Valley and that is important in
6 terms of our economy here in Palo Alto.
7
8 Something that Commissioner Tanaka said that is very important and I have been thinking about
9 for a long time is that Palo Alto is in need of a station but it isn't a Downtown station. There are
10 too many impacts. We have the impact of an historic train station. We have the impact of EI
11 Palo Alto. California Avenue is a fresh canvas. It has several things that are very important.
12 Number one, a year and a half ago or two years ago we voted in PTOD, Pedestrian Transit
13 Overlay District. It has the potential of having increased growth and higher density in Palo Alto.
14 As we go through our Comprehensive Plan Housing Update we probably will begin to look at
15 that area in terms of increased housing density. The second thing that is important about
16 California Avenue is that it has parking lots, City-owned parking lots. The potential of those
17 City-owned parking lots is not necessarily what is built above them but what is built below them.
18 We need to be able to have adequate parking, adequate places where people can drive to park in
19 order to take high-speed rail. They can't do that in the Downtown.
20
21 What else is important about California Avenue is that we have one of the worst interchanges in
22 the entire city. Right now Alma Street and Caltrain bisects our city. What Commissioner
23 Martinez said in terms of being able to restore our surface streets to grade and have the train
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 66 of 71
1 tracks be somewhere else so that we don't have this barrier is very important. Right at the
2 intersection of Alma Street and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway we happen to have a ditch.
3 It is the ideal location. It has already begun to be dug. That could possibly be where we could
4 have a new transition from a very deep underground railroad approaching surface, begin to get
5 just below grade a train station without having to excavate, and then begin to make daylight and
6 begin to come up at the surface. Not only that but we also have an increased right-of-way,
7 Southern Pacific right-of-way, along there that could possibly handle four tracks and surface.
8
9 So I see very positive opportunities here in terms of us being able to leverage and use High-
10 Speed Rail to make Palo Alto continue to be the leader in Silicon Valley and define Silicon
11 Valley. Now it takes certain risks but there 8;re also rewards associated with that, and they do
12 need to be flushed out.
13
14 In closing, I just want to say a couple of other minor comments here. California Avenue, if you
15 look at a train schedule we are approximately eight minutes to Mountain View which makes it
16 ideal in terms of high-speed rail, people getting off, and being able to take surface trains to
17 Mountain View where of course Yahoo and Google and other Silicon Valley companies are
18 currently located. It is 11 to 12 minutes from that point to Redwood City, again, very
19 approachable in terms of being able to take surface transit from California Avenue.
20
21 With regard to the whole notion of freight trains I want to borrow something from what happens
22 with cruise ships and other large ships. When a large ship comes into a harbor it isn't the captain
23 of the ship that steers the ship in it is actually a pilot, a pilot boat. It is a pilot who comes in on
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 67 of71
1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None.
2
3 NEXT MEETING: Special Meeting on June 24, 2010 at 6:00 PM
4
5 REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS/COMMITTEES.
6
7 COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
8
9 ADJOURNED: 9:00 PM
City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 71 of 71
ATTACHMENT F
(Transmitted bv email June 17. 2010)
Mayor Pat Bert, and Members of the City Council
Office of the Mayor and City Council
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Linda and Tom Vlasic
1540 Mariposa Avenue
Palo Alto, California, 94306
Subject: Proposed Comment Letter on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (AA) for
Peninsula Section of the High Speed Train (HST) Project
Dear Mayor Burt and members of the City Council,
We greatly appreciate the time and effort that the City Council and city staff and consultants have, and
are, spending on review of the inadequate AA prepared by the HST Authority. We've had a chance to
review the City's draft AA comments document that you will be considering at your next meeting. As you
may be aware, I have also been working with my Southgate neighbors to review the AA document and
we have prepared a letter to the HST Authority stating our concerns. A copy of this letter is being
forwarded to the council by separate transmittal.
In Southgate we share essentially all of the significant concerns set forth in your draft, and particularly the
comments about looking to alternatives for use of the CalTrain right of way. The draft comments are
extensive and largely right on target. I do, however, want to take this opportunity to offer some
suggestions for your consideration. My comments focus mainly on neighborhood concerns and my worry
that some of the draft comments may convey an unintended meaning or suggest that some potential
impacts are not as significant as others, again from mainly a neighborhood perspective.
I have two general comments and then some more specific ones I hope you would consider before
sending in the AA letter. I would like to see a very strong statement upfront that the city does not support
any taking of private, single family residential property. Secondly, I ask that you consider adding site
specific comments relative to the single-family neighborhoods in the City along the train route. The
comment letter is site-specific regarding Paly High, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Menlo Park and
Atherton and EI Camino Park water storage reservoir. There should be similar site-specific comments for
all of the single-family residential neighborhoods in the City along the rail corridor, where the established
"neighborhood character" would be destroyed with several of the alternatives now being considered.
Specific comments follow:
Guiding principle 3. page 1. This says all neighborhoods should be treated the same with respect to the
vertical alignments impacts, but it does not say how they should be treated. I ask that you add that, "the
established single family character of these neighborhoods be protected and preserved." This is fully
consistent with the provisions of the comprehensive plan.
Goal L-3, page 3. This goal speaks directly to the "attractive" and distinctive character of the residential
neighborhoods. The comment, however, speaks only to "public gathering spaces." The comment should
be expanded to stress preservation of the "attractive and distinctive character of the residential
neighborhoods."
Policy L-61 , page 4. You mention protection of pubic facilities, but should specifically mention Peers
Park. In other locations the comments mention Paly and other specific facilities, but not Peers Park. This
is an important facility and should be highlighted.
Palo Alto City Council, AA Comments, June 17, 2010 Page 1
Goal T-5. page 5. This essentially states that the transportation system should have minimal impacts on
residential neighborhoods. But the comment states that the HST system "must ensure that the potential
impacts to existing residences are minimized, and that the benefits for Palo Alto residents outweigh any
adverse impacts." To me this reads that while the goal is to have minimal impacts, "adverse impacts" are
acceptable if there is enough benefit. This just offers the HST Authority to chance to say, "the HS Train
will get you from Palo Alto to LA fast, so that's benefit of destroying residential areas." I ask that the
. comment be revised, as it is not in the best interests of the City's neighborhoods.
Noise impact comments and conclusion on page 7. In general the comments are good, but the
concluding paragraph on page 7 is weak. It only talks about the analysis and what should be studied for
sensitive receptors. These comments while appropriate, don't speak to a specific position of the City
regarding change in noise environment. I ask that you consider adding that the noise levels should
consistent with the City's standards and less if the existing noise environment is less. There should be no
increase in noise (and vibration), and this should take into account cumulative impacts from the
projections for increased usage, i.e., based on accurate ridership models as the other comments call for.
Comment C.1.4. page 8. This talks about potential for reuse of land. First, given the poor data in the AA,
I find this comment premature and out of place at this point in the process. In some cases the right of
way that currently exists is so narrow that any "reuse" could be a basis for significant impacts. Further,
we are not certain where any HST right-of-way would start and it may have to take Alma and then have a
traffic lane above a covered train system. Speculating on reuse should be done after the City is satisfied
that there is a truly viable alternative and this is clearly not the case give the other statements in the
comment document.
Comment C5.11. page 15. This comment is about poor data on right-of-way widths. It mentions Paly
High, but not the residential neighborhoods where right of way is even more constrained. It should also
refer to impacts on Alma, as there will clearly be issues relative to Alma. In fact, there is minimum
comment in the statements about where the right of way would start and how this could impact Alma
during construction and over the long term.
Comment C.7-2. page 21. This discusses land acquisitions and characterizes these as "severely
disrupting transportation, commerce and residential uses." The comment sounds clinical when, in truth, it
deserves more emotion, passion and force. In MHO the impacts won't "severely disrupt," they will destroy
the neighborhoods. I would just like to see more power to this statement, but that is a very personal
opinion.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the above comments with you. And, thank you again for this great
effort and all that the City is doing to be on top of the HST process.
Sincerely,
Tom Vlasic with Linda Vlasic
Palo Alto City Council, AA Comments, June 17, 2010 Page 2
Williams, Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Judith Wasserman [jwarqiteq@aol.com]
Saturday, June 19, 20104:12 PM
Williams, Curtis
price gail; Emslie, Steve
HSR and the Comp Plan
Attachments: HSR and the Comp Plan.doc; ATT7886395.htm
Curtis -
.a. """0""" ~ V~ ~
I have done a comp plan analysis of the HSR alternatives that are under analysis now. Can you please see to it that it gets to the right
people?
Thank you very much,
Judith
6/21/2010
High Speed Rail and the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Goals, Policies and Programs that affect the HSR project.
LAND USE AND DESIGN CHAPTER
POLICY L-3:
Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from
public streets in the developed portions of the City.
Any above-grade solution will block views of the hills from east-west streets.
POLICYL-5:
Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.
Any above grade solution will overwhelm the scale of adjacent single -family
homes.
PROGRAM L-3:
Maintain and periodically review height and density limits to discourage single uses that
are inappropriate in size and scale to the surrounding uses.
Any above-grade solution would be inappropriate in scale to surrounding uses.
POLICY L-11:
Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between
commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
The opportunities for increased east-west connectivity will support this policy.
POLICY L-15:
Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of
residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has
such spaces.
The opportunity for a linear park system along the rail right-of-way will increase
the number of public gathering spaces.
The terminus of University A venue at Alma Street was a graceful plaza, shown
in this historic photo, until 1940 when it was displaced by a railroad
underpass. The City and Stanford University are jointly exploring the
possibility of reconstructing a civic plaza at this location.
We can do this!
POLICY L-27:
Pursue redevelopment of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station
area to establish a link between University Avenue/Downtown and the
Stanford Shopping Center.
Redevelopment of the area will provide linkages and pedestrian connections
between University Avenue/Downtown, Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford
University, and nearby Residential Neighborhoods. This area's reuse should
optimize the effectiveness of the multi-modal transit center, protect nearby
residential areas from potential adverse development impacts, improve both
the City and University gateways, and enhance parkland and natural
resources.
By undergrounding the trains in the downtown area, many east-west
connections can be made that connect Stanford to downtown. Bringing Quarry
Road across the train right of way to Alma Street would make this connection
very strong.
PROGRAM L-26:
Establish the following unranked community design priorities for the University
Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station Area:
• Improving pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto connections to create an urban link
between University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford Shopping Center.
• Creating a major civic space at the Caltrain Station that links University
Avenue/Downtown and Palm Drive.
• Infilling underutilized parcels with a mix of uses such as shopping, housing, office,
hotel, and medical facilities.
• Improving public park space.
• Protecting views of the foothills by guiding building heights and massing.
All of this can happen!
POLICY L-51:
Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have
historic merit, including residences listed in the Historic Inventory.
Southgate may not be listed, but it has historic merit.
POLICY L-52:
Encourage the preservation of significant historic resources owned by the City
of Palo Alto. Allow such resources to be altered to meet contemporary needs,
provided that the preservations standards adopted by the City Council are
satisfied.
The train station and El Palo Alto fall into this category.
POLICY L-64:
Seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces, open
space, and community gardens that encourage and support pedestrian and
bicycle travel and person-to-person contact, particularly in neighborhoods that
lack these amenities.
Any below grade solution will open many sites for these activities.
POLICY L-66:
Maintain an aesthetically pleasing street network that helps frame and define
the community while meeting the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and
motorists.
Any above grade solution will degrade the aesthetics of the street network; any
below grade solution increases the opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
POLICY L-67:
Balance traffic circulation needs with the goal of creating walkable
neighborhoods that are designed and oriented towards pedestrians.
Any below grade solution creates more walkable spaces.
POLICY L-68:
Integrate creeks and green spaces with the street and pedestrian/bicycle path
system.
If the trains pass below the creeks, the creeks can be daylighted as they cross the
north-south bike and pedestrian paths.
POLICY L-69:
Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto roads and trails for motorists,
cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians.
Any above grade solution obstructs the views of the hills.
PROGRAM L-71:
!<ecognize Sand Hill Road, University Avenue, Embarcadero Road, Page Mill Road,
Oregon Expressway, Interstate 280, Arastradero Road (west of Foothill Expressway),
Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway, and Skyline Boulevard as scenic routes.
Except for Sand Hiil, 280 and Arastradero, views from all these roads would be
impacted by any above grade solution.
PROGRAM L-72:
Develop a strategy to enhance gateway sites with special landscaping, art, public spaces,
and/or public buildings. Emphasize the creek bridges and riparian settings at the
entrances to the City over Adobe Creek and San Francisquito Creek.
If the rails go below San Francisquito Creek, there is an opportunity for an
enlarged riparian park at the Menlo Park gateway. Close Alma at Everett and
everything north becomes a park. Make the EI Camino-Alma connection at
Quarry Road.
POLICY L-73:
Consider public art and cultural facilities as a public benefit in connection
with new development projects. Consider incentives for including public art
in large development projects.
This must be considered for any alignment. If the trains are underground and
there are requirements for exits and ventilation of the "enclosed spaces", public
art can be included at each of these "events".
POLICY L-79:
Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures,
parking garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design standards.
Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public
infrastrufture. Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are
unsightly or visually disruptive.
Any above grade solution would be at the least visually disruptive; "unsightly"
may be a matter of opinion.
TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER
POLICYT-2:
Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local
transportation decisions.
Any above grade solution would have environmental and social costs that would
probably be beyond mitigation.
PROGRAM T-14:
Pursue development of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station conceptual
plan based on the 1993-1994 design study.
Here's our chance!
PROGRAM T-17:
Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco.
If Caltrain remains at grade, that will require grade separations that will require
property takings.
POLICY T-14:
Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations,
including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts,
shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations.
Any below grade solution will increase the opportunities for pedestrian and
bicycle access in the east-west direction, as well as providing a north-south axis
that connects to the Mountain View light rail in the south and Menlo Park in the
north.
PROGRAM T-21:
Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and the
Caltrain tracks and implement if feasible.
We never thought it could happen in reverse!
POLICY T-15:
Encourage the acquisition of easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths
through new private developments.
or public projects.
POLICY T-16:
Create connecting paths for pedestrians and bicycles where dead-end streets
prevent through circulation in new developments and in existing
neighborhoods.
A key way to improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation is to overcome barriers
and provide more linkages between destinations. Detouring around obstacles
like freeways and railroads is more significant to bicyclists and pedestrians than
it is to drivers. (Emphasis added.)
POLICY T-28:
Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto's major street
network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also
using this network. Palo Alto's policy is to make necessary roadway
improvements while providing for bicyclists and pedestrians and ensuring the
safety of all roadway and sidewalk users.
Below grade solutions that make both north-south bike paths and east-west
crossings possible will increase the number of pedestrians and cyclists and
decrease the number of motorists.
GOAL T -5: A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential
Neighborhoods.
Only below grade solutions meet this goal.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER
POLICYN-6:
Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space
zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on views
of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the
hillsides.
Any above grade solution severely impacts the views of the hills.
GOAL N-2 Conservation of Creeks and Riparian Areas as Open Space
Amenities, Natural Habitat Areas, and Elements of Community Design.
Below grade solutions that take the trains below the creeks allow for daylighting
and localized creek restoration.
POLICY N-14:
Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto's urban forest through public
education, sensitive regulation, and a long-term financial commitment that is
adequate to protect this resource.
Any above grade solution will severely impact the many large trees and shrubs
that line Alma Street along the right of way.
PROGRAM N-16:
Continue to require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development,
and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it is impractical to
locate them onsite.
This program cannot be implemented with above grade solutions, especially in
places where the existing right of way is already too narrow.
GOAL N-8: An Environment That Minimizes the Adverse Impacts of Noise.
Only below grade solutions meet this goal.
POLICY N-39:
Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise
environments. Use the guidelines in the table "Land Use Compatibility for
Community Noise Environment" to determine compatibility. The guideline
for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB.
Above grade trains every 3 minutes are not compatible with residential uses.
POLICY N-40:
Evaluate the potential for noise pollution and ways to reduce noise impacts
when reviewing development and activities in Palo Alto and surrounding
communities.
All above grade solutions will create noise pollution that cannot be sufficiently
reduced.
POLICY N-41:
When a proposed project is subject to CEQA, the noise impact of the project
on existing residential land uses should be evaluated in terms of the increase
in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community impact,
regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the
applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum
should not necessarily be allowed. A project should be considered to cause a
significant degradation of the noise environment if it meets any of the
following criteria:
• The project would cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by
5.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain
below 60 dB;
• The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing
residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB;
• The project would cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing
residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB.
This evaluation would have to be done to reach a scientific conclusion.
POLICY N-43:
Protect the community and especially sensitive noise receptors, including
schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from excessive noise.
See the accompanying CSS map for sensitive receptors.