HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1557City of Palo Alto (ID # 1557)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 5/2/2011
May 02, 2011 Page 1 of 8
(ID # 1557)
Summary Title: Caltrain & High Speed Rail Staff Update
Title: Caltrain & High Speed Rail Staff Update
From:City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto continues to take a leadership role in representing our
community’s interests and positions on various rail related matters concerning high
speed rail (HSR) and our local rail service provided by Caltrain. There have been many
developments since our last update to the City Council in December of last year.
The City has sent several letters to the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA),
the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA), our federal congressional leadership, and state elected officials. We also
continue to work cooperatively with regional agencies such as the Peninsula Cities
Consortium (PCC), neighboring communities, and other parties with an interest in rail.
The City has, with the Town of Atherton and the City of Menlo Park, introduced fiscal
year (FY) 2012 legislation regarding HSR described more fully below. We have formally
asked the CHSRA to explain the apparent difference in estimated costs for the overall
rail system estimated at $43B but based on their own documentation it shows a total
cost of $66B. We have asked the CHSRA to re-do the existing ridership study. The
current ridership study has been called into question by the University of California
Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies (UCBITS). UCBITS is the State Legislature’s
official consultant on transportation matters. An accurate ridership study is critical as it
has significant impacts on what HSR system should be built and on the short and long-
term financial viability of HSR. Thus far, the CHSRA has been unresponsive to our
request and to other local agencies that have raised this issue.
In the near term, the central focus of the CHSRA is the construction of the initial HSR
segment to be built in California’s Central Valley. CHSRA staff has indicated their
resources are being allocated to the Central Valley to ensure they meet mandated FRA
and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) expenditure requirements. The
practical impact of this is that the publication of the San Francisco to San Jose segment
project level environmental impact report (EIR)/environmental impact statement (EIS)
May 02, 2011 Page 2 of 8
(ID # 1557)
has been pushed back from December 2010 to the fall of 2012. There may be an
opportunity for the City of Palo Alto, in cooperation with other Peninsula cities, to
assemble a broader coalition of cities to advocate cooperatively for HSR options that are
acceptable to the Peninsula.
There has also been significant activity regarding Caltrain service. As the City Council is
aware, and the most recent 2011 Caltrain ridership numbers validate, Palo Alto
continues to have the 2nd highest ridership along the corridor. The City attended the
Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) Caltrain meeting held early this calendar year at
Stanford University. The purpose of this meeting was to identify and develop short and
long-term solutions to the current operational and capital funding issues faced by
Caltrain. The City Council Rail Committee recently hosted Supervisor Liz Kniss who
serves on the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) which oversees Caltrain
service. At this same meeting the Rail Committee heard presentations from Caltrain
technical staff on the current modernization plans for Caltrain.
In summary, the City is actively engaging in rail activities on a variety of fronts to
ensure the community’s interests are represented. Please read on for more details on
the current status of rail.
Discussion
I. Caltrain
Save Caltrain Town Hall Meeting
The City of Palo Alto has been working in cooperation with the Silicon Valley Leadership
Group (SVLG) and other Peninsula cities to get information out on the short and long-
term operational and capital issues associated with this rail provider. Further, the City
hosted a meeting on April 26th with the SVLG at the Palo Alto Sheraton Hotel to provide
information to the community on the current issues facing Caltrain service along the
corridor.
City Council Rail Committee
On April 13th the City Council Rail Committee hosted Santa Clara County Supervisor and
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) member Liz Kniss at their Committee
meeting for a discussion of issues facing Caltrain. At the meeting she provided a
presentation (attached) to the Rail Committee on the history of Caltrain while Caltrain
technical staff provided a presentation on electrification (attached). The PCJPB then
took action at their meeting April 21st in which the board approved measures that will
allow them to maintain the current 86 weekday train schedule through fiscal year (FY)
2012.
May 02, 2011 Page 3 of 8
(ID # 1557)
The Rail Committee will meet again April 28th to again hear from Caltrain technical staff
on the 35% engineering design they have completed for the future proposed
electrification program to modernize Caltrain. Caltrain has also retained the services of
an engineer with expertise in Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) and Electric Multiple Unit
(EMU) train sets. The Rail Committee will receive a future presentation on these two
alternative types of train sets. This information will be provided to the City Council
when available.
Key Caltrain Issues
·Short and long-term financial viability and system modernization issues as
Caltrain has no dedicated funding source unlike other Bay Area transit systems.
Modernization includes electrifying the rail line, purchasing a new signaling
system (known as positive train control), and purchasing new train sets. In the
near term, Caltrain appears to have developed a short-term (i.e. one year)
solution to fund their operations through the end of FY 2012. This was
accomplished through a series of one-time funding solutions from both member
agencies and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), a $0.25 cent
base fare increase, and a $1.00 daily parking fee increase.
·Short and long term capital fund needs remain for modernization of the Caltrain
line. As the attached presentations indicate, Caltrain does not have full funding
to modernize their line (i.e. electrification). Thus far, and subject to change,
Caltrain has linked modernization to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the CHSRA. The goal of Caltrain has been to secure funding to modernize
Caltrain service from HSR funds in exchange for granting the CHSRA rights to
use the Caltrain right-of-way.
·Recent federal budgetary actions have reduced the total federal HSR budget
from $2.5B to $1B (with the possibility of that number going to zero). Thus,
funding to build HSR in California, other than what has been provided so far,
may not materialize, casting into doubt the ability of Caltrain to secure funds for
its own modernization
·Currently, Caltrain is in the process of completing, for the first time, a series of
independent feasibility studies to determine whether electrification and
modernization of the system can meet the future needs of this agency in serving
its customer base
II. HSR
Key CHSRA Issues
May 02, 2011 Page 4 of 8
(ID # 1557)
·At the CHSRA board meeting on December 20th, the CHSRA allocated the
additional $616M in funds received from the FRA, from funds foregone by the
states of Ohio and Florida, to the Central Valley segment. Using FRA and
California Proposition 1A funds, the CHSRA has a total of $5.5B identified for
construction in the Central Valley. The recent allocation of additional FRA
funding enables the CHSRA to build up to 120 miles of the 520 project miles.
The segment to be built will start in the unincorporated community of Borden
and will extend to north of Bakersfield. The segment cost includes the
construction of tracks, two new stations (one in downtown Fresno and one east
of Hanford), construction of viaducts and rail bridges, site preparation, right-of-
way acquisition, and realignment of roadways, existing railways, and utilities. It
does not include the purchase of HSR trains, catenary wires, or a HSR
maintenance facility. Construction cannot commence until the project
environmental reviews are complete. These reviews are required to be
completed by September 2011, and construction is required to commence by
September 2012 in order to meet ARRA funding requirements. Recently, the
CHSRA applied for HSR funds foregone by the State of Florida. The CHSRA has
indicated they expect to hear in the next thirty days if former Florida HSR funds
will be awarded to California.
·In February 2011, CHSRA CEO van Ark asked staff to review and analyze a
phased HSR approach for the Peninsula. The concept is to potentially build more
limited infrastructure to support HSR operations between San Francisco and San
Jose. This would result in shared tracks for HSR and Caltrain. More information
on this plan is to be revealed at the May 5th CHSRA board meeting.
·The project level EIR/EIS is now projected to be released in the fall of 2012
(updated schedule attached).
·The planned issuance of a revised business plan was February 2011 but has
been delayed to the fall of 2011 with formal publication to occur in January 2012
FRA
The FRA has allocated:
·$715M to the CHSRA for HSR in October 2010. The CHSRA has decided to
allocate these funds to build HSR in the Central Valley.
May 02, 2011 Page 5 of 8
(ID # 1557)
·$616M to the CHSRA for HSR in December 2010 from funds originally allocated
for HSR in Ohio and Wisconsin. The CHSRA has decided to allocate these funds
to build HSR in the Central Valley as well.
Current HSR Cost
The total estimated project cost is $42.6B. However, this total has been called into
question by both the City of Palo Alto and other regional groups and communities.
Based on data provided by Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD),
the HSR cost figure is actually closer to $66B. What is remarkable is the $66B figure is
based on data released by the CHSRA; however, the City never received a response to
our letter to the CHSRA asking them to confirm or deny the accuracy of this estimate.
Current HSR Funds
The total funding in place specifically for CHSRA expenditure on HSR is $12.181B
The breakdown of that funding is:
·$9B in Proposition 1A bond funds ($950M of the $9.95B approved must be spent
on local railroad improvements) -November 2008
·$1.85B in ARRA funds –January 2010
o Please note that at this time $400M of additional money was awarded for
San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal.
·$715M in additional federal funds –October 2010
·$616M in additional federal funds redirected from the Ohio and Wisconsin HSR
projects –December 2010
Legislative Activities
·Council supported the 2011 legislative initiatives and staff is working with Capitol
Advocates Inc. to execute the plan. The three bills co-sponsored by Atherton,
Menlo Park, and Palo Alto include AB 952, AB 953, and AB 1164. On Monday,
April 25 language that would have prevented the expenditure of Proposition 1A
funds on HSR until a new ridership study is completed was removed from AB 953
in committee. Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) was
represented in the audience at this meeting. Attached are the bill summaries
and status.
·Rail Committee Chair Klein visited with federal legislative officials in March 2011
while in Washington DC. Key takeaways from this trip were that federal
legislators and their staff members were well aware of the discrepancies in cost
May 02, 2011 Page 6 of 8
(ID # 1557)
projections for the project (CHSRA’s $43B figure vs. CARRD’s $66B figure), there
may be no new funding provided for HSR, and there may be attempts to reclaim
federal funding allocations already committed but not yet spent on HSR
Peer Review Audit Findings
In December 2010, a legislatively initiated HSR peer review group reviewed current
CHSRA activities and outlined the following issues, among several, with current CHSRA
operations:
·The absence of a “credible financial plan” has become a “critical concern.” A
major question facing the CHSRA is whether or not it is realistic to expect the
federal government to contribute $17-19B to this project.
·CHSRA officials need to be more transparent regarding estimates of passenger
demand, revenues, investment and operating costs, and project timing.
·There needs to be greater CHSRA recognition of potential resistance from private
rail operators.
·The CHSRA needs to be clear about how much of the 800-mile system will run at
ground level vs. below grade or on elevated tracks.
Program EIR Litigation
The City of Palo Alto joined Atherton and Menlo Park in litigation against the CHSRA
certification of the Program EIR. This litigation is still pending and based on current
available information it is expected the court will hear the case sometime in the summer
of 2011.
Property and Economic Value Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) has commenced work, and is near completion, of
their report regarding the economic, property, and related impacts of the Caltrain
modernization proposal and HSR.
Eshoo/Simitian/Gordon Statement
On Monday, April 18 at the Menlo Park Caltrain station Congresswoman Anna Eshoo,
Senator Joe Simitian, and Assemblymember Rich Gordon made a joint statement
outlining what HSR “done right” means and called for “a blended system that integrates
HSR with a 21st Century Caltrain.”
May 02, 2011 Page 7 of 8
(ID # 1557)
HSR done right was defined using the following three criteria: one, the rejection of any
consideration of an aerial viaduct; two, the system should remain within the existing
Caltrain right-of-way; and three, the CHSRA should abandon its EIR
preparation/planning of a larger project over a 25 year time-frame and should focus on
a project of more limited scope.
The statement also included an explanation of how they thought this could be done and
included using some combination of the following: electrification, positive train control,
and new rolling sock. Please see the attached statement for more information.
San Mateo County Rail Corridor Partnership (SMCRCP) Meeting with van Ark
This recently formed group, comprised of elected officials from the communities of
Burlingame, Millbrae, Redwood City, and San Mateo, met in a non-public meeting with
CHSRA CEO Roelof van Ark on April 20th to discuss issues surrounding the project in San
Francisco to San Jose segment. This group had sent a letter dated February 14, 2011
to van Ark stating their objectives (attached). Staff from the City of Palo Alto and other
cities attended this meeting and staff has prepared a summary outline of what occurred
(attached).
III. Additional Information
Rail Corridor Task Force (RCTF)
The RCTF has held eight meetings to date. The City of Palo Alto Planning Department
selected BMS Design Group of San Francisco to assist with the completion of a plan to
generate a community vision for land use, transportation, and urban design
opportunities along the Caltrain corridor
Attachments:
·Supervisor Kniss’s April 13 Rail Committee meeting presentation (PDF)
·Caltrain staff’s April 13 Rail Committee meeting presentation (PDF)
·CHSRA project schedule for the San Francisco to San Jose section (PDF)
·Legislative bill summaries and status for AB 952, AB 953, and AB 1164 (PDF)
·Eshoo Simitian Gordon HSR Done Right Statement dated April 18, 2011 (PDF)
·SMCRCP letter to Roelof van Ark dated February 14, 2011 (PDF)
·SMCRCP meeting with CHSRA CEO van Ark summary dated April 20, 2011 (PDF)
·SMCRCP CHSRA Power Point April 20, 2011 presentation dated April 20, 2011 (PDF)
May 02, 2011 Page 8 of 8
(ID # 1557)
Prepared By:Richard Hackmann,
Department Head:James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
LIZ KNISS
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERVISOR, 5TH
DISTRICT
APRIL 13, 2011
Caltrain Briefing
Presentation Outline
History of Caltrain
Caltrain Governance
Ridership
Farebox Revenue
Passenger Survey
Caltrain Operating Deficit & Needs
Revised service proposal
Other possible funding sources
My position
History of Caltrain
1863 – passenger train service begun
San Francisco and San Jose Railroad Company
$600,000 of the original $2 million capital stock owned by S.F., S.M. & S.C. counties
1870 – acquired by firm eventually consolidated in Southern Pacific Railway (SP)
1904 – SP “double tracks” the corridor
1977 - SP petitioned PUC to abandon passenger service
The 3 Peninsula counties stepped in with a temporary plan to continue the service
Commuter tickets partially subsidized
State sponsorship of the “Peninsula Commute” begun in 1980
1980 – Caltrans contracted SP to provide passenger service
Operating subsidies shared by 3 counties
Caltrans responsible for station acquisitions & other capital improvements
1985 - Significant improvements made
SP trains replaced with new locomotives and rolling stock
Stations upgraded, shuttle busses added
Operation rebranded as Caltrain
1987 – Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) formed
1991 – JPB purchased right of way from SP
Provision that SP retained right to operate freight service
Service extended to Gilroy
1992 - SP replaced by Amtrak as contract operator
2005 – Baby Bullet service launched
Caltrain Governance
Board of Directors represent the three counties
City and County of San Francisco
Jose Cisneros, appointed by the Mayor of San Francisco
Sean Elsbernd (Chair), appointed by San Francisco County Board of Supervisors
Nathaniel Ford, appointed by the Municipal Transportation Agency
San Mateo County Transit District:
Omar Ahmad (Vice Chair), appointed by City Selection Committee
Arthur Lloyd, appointed by San Mateo County Transit District
Adrienne Tissier, appointed by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority
Ash Kalra, appointed by VTA
Liz Kniss, appointed by VTA
Ken Yeager, appointed by VTA
Executive Director
Michael Scanlon, appointed by Board
Also serves as General Manager of SamTrans and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority
Operations Contractor - Amtrak
Ridership Summary
Ridership exceeds previous high seen in 2009,
even in current economic climate and with service
reduction
Midday service remains steady even with
reduction of four trains, riders redistributed to
shoulder peak
All three counties saw comparable ridership
increases
Onboard bike ridership increased with expanded
onboard capacity
Weekend ridership growth shows demand for the
full complement of Caltrain services
Average Weekday Ridership:
2004 – 2011
36,77839,122
33,841
36,993
32,031
28,393
25,550
41,442
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Ri
d
e
r
s
96 trains
96 trains
98 trains
96 trains
86 trains
76 trains
90 trains
86 trains
Farebox Revenue per Operating Dollar
Caltrain farebox recovery is 2nd highest in Area
Caltrain receives $.48 in fares per dollar of operational cost
BART is $.61 per dollar
Caltrain operations are:
2x more self sustaining than MUNI
3x more self-sustaining than SamTrans
4x more self-sustaining than VTA
Passenger Survey
Main reasons for riding Caltrain:
Avoid traffic
Save money
Don’t have/want a car
Annual passenger $ saving using Caltrain
(vs. private automobile): SJ to SF
$8,954.16 (computed by Caltrain staff)
If Caltrain didn’t exist, it would take the equivalent of 2-3 lanes on 101 to carry the extra rush hour traffic
Caltrain Operating Deficit and Needs
Caltrain is only Bay Area transit system without permanent, dedicated source of funding
Caltrain has had funding shortfalls for several yearsEach year, budget balanced with short term solutions
The JPB partnership - SamTrans, VTA, Muni
SamTrans is the managing partner
If partner doesn’t fund their total share of the (balanced) budget,then the other two partners may reduce their share.
This can result in large budget deficit (e.g., $30 million this year)
Caltrain staff working to find solutions with
Regional, state, federal transit partners,
Friends of Caltrain and Silicon Valley Leadership Group (8 public meetings)
VTA has proposed solutions for funding gaps
March 2011 board meeting directed GM Burns to work urgently with partner GMs
Caltrain Operating Deficit …
Caltrain staff recently reported that some one time funds have been found. Staff proposal with revised funding:
Operate 76 trains (decrease from current 86 trains, and prior 96 trains)
Eliminate Baby Bullet service but run (slower) express trains instead
Close selected stations on a semi-permanent basis (and others on weekends)
Planned April 7 JPB decision deferred 2 weeks
April 21 special meeting in San Carlos
10 am, SamTrans auditorium.
Board directed Caltrain staff to continue search for funds
Additional $3.5 million + needed to maintain current 86 trains
Decision unanimous to continue decision for 2 weeks.
Revised Service Proposal:
Weekend Service
Stations with suspended weekend service (FY 2012)
22nd Street
Bayshore
South San Francisco
Broadway
Hayward Park
Belmont
San Carlos
Atherton
California Avenue
San Antonio
Lawrence
Tamien
Caltrain Operating Deficit …
Other potential sources of funding
Increase “preventive maintenance” money from MTC
Increase VTA “right of way” purchase payments to SamTrans($7.2 M offered by VTA, $2M accepted by SamTrans)
Redeploy or “borrow” Dumbarton Rail Project funds(Project unlikely soon - cost & environmental inhibitors)
Redeploy or “borrow” Caltrain electrification funds.
My position
Caltrain is vital transportation system w/more riders than ever (Riding is a Habit)
Use one time money to keep system running in short term
Long term solution is critical to system’s continued operation
Urgently seek fair and proper long term funding solutions
Further reductions risk crippling the system and impacting the greater region
Death spiral – ridership drops service reduced more Caltrain dies
“Ring the Bay with Rail” goal is jeopardized
FYI
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is currently hosting public meetings
Focus on long-term funding solutions for Caltrain
1
Caltrain Electrification Project Update
Prepared for: Palo Alto Rail Committee
Prepared by: JPB
April 13, 2011
2
Committee Requested Topics
• Electrification Project
• EMU vs. DMU
•HSR and Caltrain MOU
2
3
Caltrain Modernization Program
• Key Components
PTC/CBOSS
Electrification Project
Service Expansion
• Guiding Principles
Address Structural Deficit
Provide More Service
Improve the Environment
4
Project Definition
3
5
Electrification Project
• Distance: 51 miles (SF to Tamien)
• Service: 6 trains / peak hour /
direction
• Key Structure Elements
– Traction Power Facilities
– Overhead Contact System
• Electric Powered Vehicles
6
Ridership Forecast
• Projected Demand
– Base Year (2007) 33,420
– 2035 No Project 65,000
– 2035 Project 71,000
• Key Modeling Inputs
– 2005 ABAG population and job projections
– MTC RTP projects
– Caltrain service at all stations
Source: Caltrain Electrification EA/FEIR, July 2009
4
7
Capital Cost
$ 1,225Total Cost
$ 440 Vehicle Replacement
$ 785 Electrification Infrastructure
CostProject Elements
($ in Millions, Year of Expenditure)
Source: Caltrain Electrification EA/FEIR, July 2009
8
Capital Funding
• Status
– Committed: $269 million
– Expected: $352 million
– Needed: $604 million
• Funding Plan
– Federal and State HSR Funding
– PPP
– Financing
Source: Caltrain Electrification EA/FEIR, July 2009
5
9
O/M Revenue & Expense
$229M$87MExpense
$206M$47MRevenue
(23)(39)Net
11498# of Trains
2035 (Electric)2008 (Diesel)
Source: Caltrain Electrification EA/FEIR, July 2009
10
Positive Environmental Impacts
• Reduced congestion
• Reduced energy consumption by 64%
• Reduced air pollutants by 90%
• Reduced noise and vibration by 81%
6
11
Negative Enviromental Impacts
Proposed Mitigation
Category Impact Mitigation
Aesthetics Visual clutter Landscaping &
Screening
Biological Resources Tree trimming Vegetation
Management Plan
Cultural Resources Potential of archeological
remains
Burial and Programmatic
Agreements
Hazardous Waste
and Materials
Encountering existing
hazardous waste and
materials
Focused Phase II,
Worker Health and
Safety Plan
Hydrology /
Floodplain
Groundwater impacted by
foundations
Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan
Construction
(temporary impacts)
Noise, vibration, emissions,
traffic impacts during
construction
Best Management
Practice Plan
Transportation /
Traffic
Increased parking at
stations
Caltrain Access Program
12
Project Status
7
13
• 1999 Caltrain Rapid Rail Plan
•2001 MTC RTP
• 2004 Caltrain Strategic Plan
• 2008 Preliminary Engineering
• 2009 FRA Waiver
• 2009 Federal Environmental Clearance
Key Milestones
14
• FEIR Certification – JPB Board Consideration
– April 2010
– Timeout to address local concerns
• Discussions with Community Coalition on HSR
– Guiding Principles
– Tiered Environmental Clearance
• JPB Board certification in summer 2011?
Electrification EIR Certification
8
15
• Outdated: 2015 Revenue Service
• Duration by Phase
Final Design: 18 months
Construction: 3 years
Testing: 1 year
Public Project Schedule
16
Caltrain / HSR Coordination
9
17
•PTC/CBOSS
RFP
Access HSR Funding
• Electrification Project
Input to HSR Design
Input to HSR EIS/EIR Analysis
Project Coordination
18
• Strategic plans & ridership forecast
• HSR EIS/EIR
Alternatives
Design review
• Supplemental efforts
Caltrain system and station area impact analysis
Station area planning
Local economic analysis / value capture
1 – 2 Year Planning Focus
10
19
•SF to SJ
EIS/EIR public release Fall 2012
Completion Summer 2013
• SJ to Merced
EIS/EIR public release Early 2012
Completion Fall 2012
• Construction / Revenue Service TBD
HSR Revised Schedule
20
Discussion
Summary of
San Mateo County Rail Corridor Partnership Meeting
April 20, 2011
San Mateo City Hall
Meeting Purpose
Roelof van Ark, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA)
was present to provide a presentation on the San Francisco to San Jose Peninsula High Speed
Rail Project. Below is a summary of similarities and differences between Congresswoman
Eshoo, Senator Simitian and Assembly member Gordon’s press statement on high speed rail
dated April 18th and the presentation given by CEO van Ark April 20th in San Mateo:
Eshoo CHSRA CEO
Simitian van Ark
Gordon
Policy Position 4/18/2011 4/20/2011
Abandon EIR planning for larger project Yes No
over 25‐year time horizon to 2035
Eliminate 4‐track option Yes No
Focus project only on predominantly 2‐
track alignment Yes No
Rejection of Aerial Viaduct option Yes No
System should remain on Caltrain ROW Yes Yes
Meeting format
The meeting was scheduled from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. It was “closed to the public” and
meeting participation was primarily allowed only for representatives of the four San Mateo Rail
Corridor Partnership cities (i.e., Burlingame, Millbrae, Redwood City and San Mateo). These
representatives included assigned council members, city managers, public works directors in the
cities of Burlingame, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Mateo, South San Francisco and other San
Mateo County local agencies on the rail corridor and guests. The meeting was not a public
meeting under the Brown Act. The officials from these agencies sat at a table in the front of the
room. The meeting was presided by the Mayor of San Mateo. Other public agencies including
Palo Alto sat in chairs in the audience section of the room. Others present at the meeting
included Mike Scanlon, CEO of Caltrain, Marian Lee, Executive Officer, Planning and
Development, Samtrans, councilmember Sepi Richardson from Brisbane and a staff person from
the City of Menlo Park.
Presentation
Mr. Van Ark gave a PowerPoint presentation from 3:05 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. The meeting chair
then opened the meeting to questions from representatives of the San Mateo County Rail
Corridor Partnership cities.
Questions asked of Mr. van Ark by the Partnership agencies included:
Q. What documentation did CHSRA have that said a covered trench could only be
covered for 800’ then had to be opened up?
R. “Do not know, but will get back to you.”
Q. Is it your understanding that you cannot run high speed rail trains on same line as
freight trains?
R. CHSRA had been granted a waiver to enable both systems to run on the peninsula
with freight trains limited to running at times different than HSR and Caltrain trains
Q. What did CEO van Ark think about recent press accounts given by Congresswoman
Eshoo, Senator Simitian and Assemblymember Gordon and other legislators
regarding HSR on the peninsula?
R. Mr. van Ark responded he thought many of the concepts outlined had been covered
by the presentation given today including phased implementation and use of the
existing Caltrain ROW.
The City of Palo Alto had a number of questions we were unable to ask due to time limitations
and the answers to these questions were not addressed in the presentation by Mr. van Ark:
Would you be willing to modify the project description of the San Francisco to San Jose
EIR to limit the project to a two to three‐track system?
What is the status of the financing plan especially in light of fact that CHSRA’s own
documents show a project cost at $66B well in excess of the $43B advertized estimates?
What is the status of off‐shore company investment in High Speed Rail?
Would you support the “blended” project identified by Congresswoman Eshoo, Senator
Simitian and Assemblyman Gordon?
What role does commuter rail service, (i.e. Caltrain); have in the long‐term success of
statewide High Speed Rail system? Would improved commuter rail systems in Los
Angeles and the Bay Area with connections to a High Speed Rail spine through the
Central Valley be a long‐term model for success in light of the fact that federal funds
have already been committed to the Central Valley?
The Eshoo/Simitian/Gordon proposal contains a number of elements: elimination of a
viaduct or other elevated structure, limit the project to the Caltrain right‐of‐way,
elimination of the concept of a four‐track phased project scope during the next 25 years,
upgraded Caltrain service, and seamless transitions between HSR and Caltrain in San
Jose. Do you agree with these aspects of this proposal and if so which ones are most
feasible in your opinion?
Many on the Peninsula have supported “High Speed Rail Done Right”, meaning a system
that minimizes local impacts on our communities including below grade designs where
appropriate. In your opinion, is “High Speed Rail Done Right” feasible financially?
What is the status of the business plan? Will you adhere to the October 2011 deadline
set by the legislature?
What commitments will you make for cities and the public to have substantive input and
coordination as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) for the San Francisco to San Jose project?
SF-SJ SECTION
PHASED IMPLEMENTATION
APPROACH
presented to the
San Mateo County Rail
Corridor Partnership
by
Roelof van Ark
April 20, 2011
SF-SJ SECTION
2
4thand KingThe HSR Authority appreciates the
approach taken by the San Mateo
County Rail Corridor Partnership to
discuss rail issues with the Authority.
The HSRA continues to work with
Caltrain and the PRP to further the
joint development of an integrated
transportation system on the
Peninsula, which will benefit both
agencies and the communities the
systems serve.
ALIGNMENT DESIGN OPTIONS –A, B, B1
3
SAN MATEO COUNTY PARTNER’S LETTER
( D A T E D F E B 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 )
4
4th and King
Five Issues
1.Alternatives to Open Trench
Alignment: Covered Trench,
Intermittent Covering, Bored
Tunnel.
2.Phased Implementation
3.2-Track System
4.Land Use and Economic Impacts
5.Use of Right of Way Post
Construction.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
•The Authority remain consistent with the following
laws:
Voter-approved Proposition 1A
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
•The Authority must consider the full build-out of the
system in the year 2035 (the time horizon used by all
CA transportation authorities).
5
ALTERNATIVES ALIGNMENT DESIGNS
–New design option (B2) will
investigate partial covered
trench [800’ max sections] in
city centers on the corridor.
Will work with cities to
determine locations.
–Designed for lightweight uses
such as passenger malls or
parking.
–Heavy structures over trench
would require additional piling
and structures by developers
(to be further investigated)
Partially Covered Trench Alignment Sections:
ALTERNATIVES ALIGNMENT DESIGNS
–Bored tunnels considered primarily where no alternatives
exist (costs) like mountains, to eliminate high-rise
building destruction, etc.
–Taking HST exclusively into tunnel will not offer grade
separation for Caltrain and freight, nor an upgrade for
Caltrain infrastructure.
–Existing diesel freight trains would (a) require additional
ventilation if operated in tunnels, (b) require further
precautions when the freight trains transport HAZMAT
materials (which is the case on the Peninsula)
–Transitions for tunnels are difficult to place as they
require wider footprints for portals and long approaches
(more intrusive).
Bored Tunnel Alignment Sections:
•Central Valley Selected for
Receipt of ARRA funding and
early construction between
2012 and 2017
•Opportunity for Refined and
more Detailed Analysis and
increased collaboration on SF-
SJ Section
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION
Starting in the Central Valley
•Section where California’s HST system will
travel 220-mph maximum operating speed
for long periods of time (enabling the two-
hour, 40-minute requirement for trip time
between LA and San Francisco)
•Initial track in the Central Valley will serve
as testing and proving ground for new
high-speed train technology in the United
States
•Less expensive land and less complex
engineering in the Valley
•Near-term job creation benefits
(conservative estimate of 100,000 jobs –
direct and indirect –over life of the first
$5.5 billion in construction)
The high-speed rail backbone
FUTURE EXPANSION
Getting to Passenger Service
From
Initial
Construction
Section [ICS]
To
Initial Operable
Section [IOS]
To
Completion of
Phase 1
To
Phase 2
ICS
IOS
PH1PH2
PHASED IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
Many Peninsula communities have requested:
Evaluation of phased service implementation
Integration of HST and Caltrain services
Coordination of HST and Caltrain ridership and capacity
projections into long-term planning
Consideration of community specific plans and
development projects
HSR is most willing to use the additional time to
ensure that these issues are addressed, and to work
together with Caltrain to ensure mutual benefits.
11
PHASED IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
CHSRA has announced “Phased Implementation”
•Incremental implementation of HST service along
corridor
•Opportunity for greater collaboration with local and
regional agencies, and the communities
•Time to select ultimate build alternative subject to the
ability to accommodate phased implementation
Goal
•Provide HST “One-Seat Rides” from San Francisco in the
most cost effective manner and to enhance ridership of
the “Initial Operable Section”
12
INITIAL OPERATING PROJECT (IOP)
Peninsula IOP
•To define minimum infrastructure required to support an initial
level of High-Speed Train service
•Must be feasible as part of the full build DEIR/EIS
•Assumes sharing existing Caltrain tracks/ROW
•Must maintain Caltrain services during phased implementation
•Must consider the freight rail requirements on the Peninsula
•Would require Caltrain electrification, PTC, new generation
rolling stock (matching dimensions/platforms)
•Does not necessarily lead to grade separation advantages
13
2 TRACKS OR MORE?
14
Line Capacity (HSR and Caltrain)•Relative Operating Speeds•Stopping Patterns•Limited Passing Tracks
Overlapping Peak Hours
Infrastructure/Rolling Stock•Platform Heights•Potential wider body HSR vs Narrow Caltrain Vehicles
Crossings Impact Service•Rail line speed (FRA Guidelines: 80-110mph –Install additional
automated devices; 111-125mph –Fail-safe vehicle detection
devices and full barriers)•Roadway traffic congestion•Reliability
CONSTRUCTION STAGING EXAMPLE:
TRENCH
15
Caltrain today Electrified Electrified Shoofly Remove tracks
Final ConfigurationFirst Trench Transfer & 2nd Trench
CONSTRUCTION STAGING EXAMPLE:
AERIAL (1 BRIDGE)
16
SF-SJ DEIR/EIS TIMELINE
17
Publication of SF-SJ Section Draft EIR/EIS
extended to late summer/early fall of 2012.
RAIL CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP ISSUES
#3-5
•Two-Track Alternative:This has been covered
in the “Phased Implementation” discussion.
•Land Use and Economic Impacts: Adopted land-use
plans on rail corridor (Millbrae Station Area Plan, San Mateo
Downtown Plan etc.) will be considered in EIR/EIS. Close
relationship between Authority, Caltrain and cities
encouraged to ensure best results. Economic issue needs
further discussions between HSRA and Caltrain.
•Use of Rail Right of Way Post Construction: HSR would
like to ensure maximum benefits to local Authorities to
benefit from aerial rights as well as areas under aerial
structures. The Authority and Caltrain will need to discuss
what is possible (ROW belongs to Caltrain). The FRA is also
looking at the issue.
RAIL CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP ISSUES
Q & A
LOOKING AHEAD
Contact Info
–California High-Speed Rail Authority
925 L St., Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-324-1541
www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov
–Visit Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and Posterous
–Terry Lightfoot, Public Involvement Manager
tlightfoot@hntb.com / (415) 963-6718