Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 389-10 (2)CMR: 389:10 Page 1 of 6 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER DATE: OCOTBER 25, 2010 CMR: 389:10 REPORT TYPE: Action SUBJECT: Recommendation from the High Speed Rail Committee Regarding California High Speed Rail Station in Palo Alto and Other High Speed Rail Issues Summary The focus of the discussion is whether the City of Palo Alto seeks to take a formal position on this issue. The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) is currently evaluating three communities for a mid-peninsula High Speed Rail Station (HSRS). The three communities are Mountain View, Palo Alto and Redwood City. CHSRA has held public workshops in Mountain View and Palo Alto. They have planned a similar workshop soon in Redwood City. The Mountain View City Council has indicated they do not want CHSRA to further consider an HSRS in downtown Mountain View. Notwithstanding this position by the City of Mountain View or any other community under consideration, the CHSRA may continue to analyze a station in a particular community despite formal opposition. The City Council has several alternatives it can consider including but not limited to: 1. Status quo, take no formal position on a station at this time pending review of further information that may be published by CHSRA as part of the Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) and completion of various city reports and studies including the rail corridor study and property and economic value reports; 2. Take a position indicating the City is against further consideration of a mid-peninsula station at University Avenue; 3. Take a position indicating the City would consider a mid-peninsula station at University Avenue provided certain conditions were met; 4. Request in writing the CHSRA consider a California Avenue HSRS, since a request in writing is required for CHSRA consideration. CMR: 389:10 Page 2 of 6 The HSR Committee will consider these alternatives and any others the Committee may want to add at its meeting on October 21st and present its recommendation to the City Council at the meeting on October 25th. Discussion On Thursday, October 7th the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) hosted a community study session workshop in Palo Alto. The purpose of this workshop was to discuss the potential for a mid-peninsula High Speed Rail Station (HSRS) in Palo Alto. In addition, the CHSRA was seeking input from the community regarding a potential HSRS. There were approximately twenty attendees from the general public at the meeting. The other two potential HSRS’s under review by CHSRA are Redwood City and Mountain View. After Mountain View’s September 13th CHSRA HSRS workshop, their City Council decided not to support a station in the City of Mountain View. The CHSRA Redwood City workshop is scheduled for late-October or early November. Background The High Speed Rail Committee received an HSRS presentation from HNTB at their meeting on July 29th 2010. HNTB is the engineering design firm hired by the CHSRA for the San Francisco to San Jose segment of the high speed rail project. HNTB staff brought with them various track layouts and a scale model of the proposed station. The purpose of these materials was to describe and provide some visualization (e.g., scale) of potential track layouts and designs for a mid- peninsula HSRS. The available data based assumed a full build-out in 2035 which included the following:  Minimum HSRS building size: 67,000’  HSRS platform length: 1,410’ (approximately twice as long as current Palo Alto University Avenue Caltrain platform)  HSRS alignment: could be a north-south aligned with existing Caltrain station or east-west alignment across and over the tracks  HSRS required parking spaces: 3,000 total, 1,000 adjacent to the station and 2,000 within 3 miles of station  HSRS station boarding’s: approximately 7,800 daily boardings  HSRS vehicle trips: 750 trips in the a.m. /p.m.  HSRS daily vehicles: 8,440 The following sections provide a background and overview of relevant city policies. Comprehensive Plan Policies CMR: 389:10 Page 3 of 6 Land Use & Design 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. This policy states in part: “the area’s reuse should optimize the effectiveness of the multi-modal transit center, protect nearby residential areas from potential adverse environmental impacts, improve both the City and University gateways, and enhance parkland and natural resources” (p. L-23) Transportation, Public Transit Goal T-2: A Convenient, Efficient, Public Transit System that Provides a Viable Alternative to Driving (p. T-5) Program T-14: Pursue development of the University-Avenue Multi-Modal Transit Station conceptual plan based on the 1993 – 1994 design study (p. T-6) Policy T-6: Improve public transit access to regional destinations, including those within Palo Alto (p. T- 7) 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 (p. T-7) Program T-16: Evaluate the extension of a light-rail line from Mountain View through Palo Alto to Menlo Park (p. T-8) Program T-17: Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco (p. T-8) Policy T-8: Encourage employers to develop shuttle services connecting employment areas with the multi-modal transit stations and business districts (p. T-8) Policy T-46: Minimize the need for all-day employee parking facilities in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts and encourage short-term customer parking (p. T-26) Policy T-51: Support the efforts of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to coordinate transportation planning and services for the Mid-Peninsula and the Bay Area that emphasize alternatives to the automobile. Encourage MTC to base its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) on compact land use development assumptions (p. T-27) HSR Station Requirements and Operations The information provided here is founded on data provided by CHSRA. Station size A new HSRS building would be approximately 67,000’. CMR: 389:10 Page 4 of 6 Ridership The CHSRA projects a daily ridership of 7,800 boardings and 7,800 alightings at a new HSRS. The total daily riders for the station would therefore be approximately 15,600. This number is approximately equivalent to the 15,500 daily ridership totals at the San Francisco Caltrain station located at 4th and King Street. According to a February 2010 Caltrain ridership survey Palo Alto ranks #2 in total numbers of riders. The current Palo Alto Caltrain ridership boardings is 3,905 per day. Parking The HSRS requires 1,000 parking spaces adjacent to the station and 2,000 additional spaces within 3 miles of the station for a total requirement of 3,000. As a point of comparison for how much space might be required for a 1,000 space parking garage, the Bryant Street parking garage has 692 parking spaces on seven floors of which two floors are underground. In addition to the adjacent station parking space requirements, an additional 2,000 parking spaces would be required within a 3-mile radius of the downtown station. The CHSRA has indicated that parking facilities are not included in the project. CHSRA has also not included parking in their cost estimates with the expectation that the station parking would be the responsibility of the local jurisdiction, possibly in partnership with private operators. HSRS Benefits and Impacts Staff has been working with CHSRA staff to secure information on any potential benefits and impacts of an HSRS. The following is a brief overview of existing information available. Ridership and Traffic Volumes The following chart lists CHSRA estimated ridership volumes: Boardings and Alightings Auto drop-off 4,400 Auto park 4,800 Rental cars 1,440 Taxis 1,360 Transit 1,600 Walk/Bike 2,000 Total for boardings or alightings 15,600 The CHSRA has stated the total expected daily traffic from a downtown station would be approximately 8,400 trips. The CHSRA has not evaluated the traffic impact to Palo Alto’s local roadway network. Additional studies and analysis would be required to understand these potential traffic and circulation related impacts. Economic Benefit CMR: 389:10 Page 5 of 6 The CHSRA has outlined for staff several potential economic benefits including:  Attracts investment/enhances real estate value  Creates an identity/destination from the location of the HSRS  Statewide accessibility  Supports multi-modal connectivity  Supports sustainability None of the above benefits have been quantified nor corroborated by any independent analysis or study therefore staff makes no claims to the accuracy of the stated benefits. Additional Considerations California Avenue location The CHSRA is only evaluating the potential for a HSRS at University Avenue. Staff inquired if CHSRA would also evaluate the California Avenue location for a potential station. CHSRA staff indicated they would only do so upon a written request. Thus, there has been no planning or design work for a potential station at this location. Downtown The impact of a HSRS for the City is at best uncertain. There are very few U.S. models for comparison regarding economic impacts. Given this, more research is necessary, which has prompted the City to engage in its own analysis, which is currently ongoing. Unless conclusive economic data suggests otherwise, it seems that the traffic-inducing nature of a HSRS could produce serious impacts on City infrastructure and services. Although more visitors would usually equate to more retail activity, our preliminary analysis suggests the nature of the increased trips would be for long-distance travelers, similar to airport traffic. As such, we would expect minimal secondary retail sales in the downtown area due to HSR users. Moreover, because of the uncertainties regarding future track alignment, we are unable to fully comprehend the physical impacts on downtown. Much of Palo Alto’s success as a retail destination is driven by its pedestrian scale and character, which could be damaged by a future HSRS. Stanford University Stanford University has been carefully following and evaluating the information published by the CHSRA. Stanford has submitted letters to CHSRA stating its views and positions on various HSR studies and reports. Stanford sent a letter June 30, 2010 to the CHSRA stating its views on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report (PAAR). For the September 20th, 2010 Palo Alto City Council meeting staff provided the City Council with a one-page “Stanford Statement on California High Speed Rail (HSR)” which briefly discussed the potential for a station in Palo Alto at University Avenue. Stanford, while acknowledging there could be potential benefits to Stanford Area businesses from an HSRS, concluded a station should not be a priority, given the limited traffic and parking capacity in the area surrounding the potential station location. Next Steps The CHSRA will continue to evaluate a mid-peninsula station location as part of the Project level Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This includes CMR: 389:10 Page 6 of 6 but is not limited to review of roadways and critical intersections, transit/pedestrian/bicycle connections, parking, and plans and policies associated with an HSRS. CHSRA is also planning additional workshops on the HSRS concept in Millbrae the end of October and in Redwood City in either late-October or early November. The City is in the process of selecting professional firms (separate firms) to conduct and complete a rail corridor study and a property and economic value analysis of the impacts of HSR. This analysis is likely to produce more information on the impacts of HSR than currently available information provided by CHSRA. PREPARED BY: ___________________________ ROB BRAULIK Project Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: __________________________ STEVE EMSLIE Deputy City Manager CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ___________________________ JAMES KEENE City Manager