Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3289-Mini-Packet City of Palo Alto (ID # 3289) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 11/5/2012 Summary Title: HSR & Caltrain Update Title: Status Report on Current High Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification Issues Submitted for Council Review and Comment From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Background It has been four years since Proposition 1A was passed by the voters in November 2008, essentially starting the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) project as it is known today. The project continues to face many of the same obstacles it has in the past including a lack of identified funding sources, local and regional opposition to its design and implementation plans, and debatable ridership figures; however, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) did achieve a major objective in July when the State legislature approved approximately $8B in funding for initial construction in the Central Valley and Bookends. Moreover, the CHSRA is proceeding with the implementation of a system that shares tracks with Caltrain, called a Blended System. While the Blended System removes some of the City’s concerns, a commitment that HSR not expand beyond a Blended System has not been given by the CHSRA. Based on the uncertain future funding for the project, its continued litigation, and evolving design it has been difficult for staff to predict what and when will happen with this project. Staff continues to implement Council’s position that the City of Palo Alto should oppose HSR because the current project fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters under Proposition 1A in 2008 and the business plan is fatally flawed and not credible. Below are updates on each of the major subject areas related to HSR and Caltrain. Federal Legislative Update Federal support for HSR continues to waver as the Republican controlled House of Representatives pushes for decreased government spending against the Democratically controlled Senate and Presidency. HSR specifically has become a target of this push because it once represented one of the President’s key transportation initiatives. Working with the City’s federal lobbyist, Van Scoyoc Associates, staff has closely monitored legislative action in Washington DC on this issue. Currently, the House has no funding in place for HSR. The Senate has a $100M place-holder for higher-speed rail this fiscal cycle but the issue has gotten little attention as legislators deal with reelection bids. Additionally, no funding for higher-speed rail was included in the continuing resolution that is funding the federal government through March 2013. If Mitt Romney is elected as President it is expected that no additional federal HSR expenditures will occur for the foreseeable future. If President Obama is reelected it is expected that an attempt to designate some limited additional funds for HSR will occur, yet, that greatly depends on the future make-up of Congress. State Legislative Update State legislative support for HSR continues to remain relatively strong with the Democratic controlled Assembly, Senate, and Governorship. Support has wavered in the last year as some legislators have become unsatisfied with the management of this project by the CHSRA. The dissatisfaction among Democrats is demonstrated by the “no” votes made against party lines by Senators Simitian, Lowenthal, DeSaulnier, and Pavley on HSR funding bill SB 1029 on July 6, 2012. However, despite the four Democratic “no” votes, the bill was ultimately passed. Working with the City’s state rail lobbyist, the Professional Evaluation Group (PEG), staff has closely monitored legislative action in Sacramento on this issue leading up to, during, and following the appropriation process. Staff and the PEG have now shifted their focus to monitoring ways the CHSRA may try to expedite the implementation of HSR at the expense of due process, including environmental review. Staff and the PEG have been particularly concerned about the growing possibility of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions or alternations. These exemptions would make it far easier for the CHSRA to construct this project but would be done so at the expense of the State’s environmental protection mandates. Another issue staff is currently watching is the upcoming vote on Proposition 30. Proposition 30 is a tax increase that adds substantial tax revenue to the State’s general fund. If this tax increase is not approved, trigger cuts to a variety of State programs would occur. Unknown to staff though is the impact those trigger cuts would have on both the public perception of HSR and the Governor’s support of the project. Additionally, polling has indicated that the passage of SB 1029 has made some voters unwilling to vote for Prop. 30. Finally, staff has been working with the PEG on finding representatives in the Assembly or Senate to sponsor SB 1029 clean-up legislation. This clean-up legislation would confirm in writing a number of assumptions that were made during the passage of SB 1029 but didn’t make it into the actual bill language. These assumptions include a guarantee that all existing and future CHSRA funding allocations now and in the future are limited to a two-track system, making the appropriation contingent on no HSR related alterations of CEQA, and guaranteeing that Caltrain is the lead agency for the San Francisco to San Jose segment. Regional Update The City of Palo Alto continues to stay actively involved in the Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC). The PCC continues to hold their meetings on the first Friday of every month unless otherwise scheduled and includes the six cities of Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto. Recently, the PCC has been focused on monitoring the legislative environment in Sacramento and evaluating the impacts and implications of a Blended System for HSR and Caltrain. The San Mateo County Rail Corridor Partnership made up of numerous cities in San Mateo County continues to hold periodic meetings but has not done so in quite some time. They currently do not have a future meeting scheduled. California High Speed Rail Authority Update In 2012, the CHSRA has both accomplished a number of their objectives and undergone a number of changes. The most obvious organizational objective they have realized this year is the passage of SB 1029. Although not under their control, the passage of SB 1029 (or a similar authorization bill) approving the expenditure of over $8B in HSR bond and stimulus funds was critical to their plan to begin building the Initial Construction Segment (ICS) in the Central Valley. This expenditure is particularly relevant to Palo Alto because it also authorizes funds for the electrification of the Caltrain corridor in anticipation of a future Blended System. Related to the CHSRA’s support of SB 1029 is their continued effort to complete environmental review documents. On May 3, 2012 the CHSRA certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Merced to Fresno section and is currently in the draft review process for the Fresno to Bakersfield EIR. Once both of these documents are finalized the CHSRA will be able to begin construction on the ICS; however, that does not take into account the growing role that litigation is taking in this project and its impact on construction timelines. The CHSRA has scheduled a closed session on November 14th related to seven open lawsuits, some of which directly challenge their desire to begin construction of the ICS in the Central Valley. Those seven lawsuits are listed below: 1) John Tos; Aaron Fukuda and County of Kings v. California High Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2001-00113919 2) City of Chowchilla v. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2012-80001166 3) County of Madera v. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2012-80001165 4) Timeless Investments, Inc. v. California, Sacramento Superior Court No. 34- 2012-80001168 5) Town of Atherton v. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2008-80000022 6) Town of Atherton v. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2010-80000679 7) Town of Atherton v. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, Case No. C070877 The CHSRA has also had a number of staff changes. The most prominent change has been the hiring of Jeff Morales to serve as CEO, replacing Roelof van Ark who stepped down in March. Previously, Morales has served as Director of the California Department of Transportation, Executive Director of the Chicago Transit Authority, and Senior Vice President and Director of Strategic Initiatives and Government Relations for Parsons Brinckerhoff Americas. Other notable hires include the hiring of Ben Tripousis, formerly with the City of San Jose, as the Northern California Regional Director and Frank Vacca, formerly the Chief Engineer of Amtrak, as its Chief Program Manager. Caltrain Update The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB), which oversees Caltrain, has been working on their plan to electrify the Caltrain corridor since the early 2000’s. Yet, for the first time in that approximately 10 year time horizon, funding has been identified for that plan with the passage of SB 1029. The complex task Caltrain now faces is how to implement stage one of the Blended System, an electrified Caltrain corridor including positive train control constructed to handle six peak hour trains per direction, the with the understanding that in the future the CHSRA plans to run up to four more additional peak hour trains per direction (for a total of 10 peak hour trains per direction). To put those figures in context, Caltrain currently runs five peak hour trains per direction. An increase to six peak hour trains per direction represents a 20% increase and an increase to 10 peak hour trains per direction represents a 100% increase. The increase in service is being addressed by Caltrain in two ways: one, Caltrain is studying the impacts that such an operation will have on the corridor itself and the number and length of tracks that will be required to support this increased level of service; and two, the impacts that this increased level of service will have on vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic running along the corridor and in adjacent neighborhoods, and how those impacts will have to be mitigated. Currently, City of Palo Alto staff is working with Caltrain staff as they prepare their grade crossing and traffic analysis report due to be completed in early 2013. This report will look at three different levels of service (six Caltrain trains and zero CHSRA trains per peak hour per direction; six Caltrain trains and two CHSRA trains per peak hour per direction; and six Caltrain trains and four CHSRA trains per peak hour per direction) and their resulting impacts related to things such as gate down times, vehicular movements, and train horn noise levels. The report will serve as the basis for a complex regional conversation that will have to occur about what impacts, what if any impacts are acceptable, and how they should be mitigated, specifically related to grade crossings. Additionally, Caltrain will also be releasing their service plan and operations simulation report in early 2013. This report will analyze the viability and pros and cons of different operation models for the three service levels referenced above. The most significant decision that will have to be made stemming from this report is where additional passing tracks will be constructed if they are needed. As a result of the complex conversations and decisions that will have to be made regarding electrifying the corridor for a Blended System, Caltrain has chosen to convene a policymaker working group with representatives from the 17 cities and three counties located along the corridor. This group had their first meeting on September 17th and decided to meet monthly starting in November. In September, Councilmember Burt was nominated by Mayor Yeh to represent the City of Palo Alto. Additionally, a similar working group of city and county staff also meets monthly to provide input and direction related to this process and City staff has been actively engaged in these meetings. Caltrain staff has also said that they will be updating their 2009 MOU with the CHSRA in the coming months. The reason for the update stems from changes that have occurred since the 2009 MOU was signed and their desire for the 2009 MOU to reflect those changes. The most obvious example is the introduction of the Blended System concept since the original MOU was signed and the parameters outlined in the nine-party Blended System funding MOU finalized in May of this year. Additionally, the role of the Peninsula Rail Program (the joint body formed to represent the interests of Caltrain and the CHSRA in the San Francisco to San Jose segment) has changed greatly since 2009. The proposed revisions to the MOU will be brought before the PCJPB for discussion purposes only at their November 2012 meeting before being voted on at their January 2013 meeting. Litigation Update The City of Palo Alto is currently a petitioner in two lawsuits regarding HSR and filed an amicus brief in a third. In the latter two cases the City of Palo Alto has been represented by Stuart Flashman, an attorney specializing in environmental, land use, and elections law. Staff consulted with Flashman to provide the update below: Atherton I Litigation related to the first lawsuit, commonly known as Atherton I (Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2008-80000022), is now in its third round. Palo Alto was not a petitioner but did file an amicus brief in the case. After that case was partially successful and a writ of mandate was issued, there were objections raised to the return on that writ, and those objections were addressed in a unified proceeding along with Atherton II. Atherton II Atherton II (Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2010-80000679) is a joint lawsuit filed by the cities of Atherton, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto, with additional petitioners and plaintiffs. Atherton II gave the City a partial victory. The trial court ruled that the CHSRA did not sufficiently take into account the movement of rail right-of-way (ROW) eastward from its current location south of San Jose. This movement of ROW eastward was ruled to have impacts to Monterey Highway and adjacent properties significant enough that those impacts must be studied at the program (or initial) level of environmental review. The court also ruled that the CHSRA did not sufficiently analyze the impacts to roadways along the Peninsula that will have lanes removed for construction of the HSR four-track Pacheco alignment. The City was unsuccessful in its arguments that the Altamont route was not sufficiently studied, that study of impacts from elevated sections along the Peninsula was improperly deferred, and that the CHSRA had not justified in its continued use of its ridership model. All of these issues are currently being argued on appeal. On the ridership issue, the question was whether the CHSRA's decision to accept and continue to use its ridership model was supported by substantial evidence when numerous reviews of the model had found it highly flawed, unreliable, and unsuitable for forecasting purposes. The trial court found that the Authority was entitled to rely on the professional judgment of its modeling consultant. The court also pointed to some passages in the Institute for Transportation Studies (ITS) review of the model as support. On appeal, the City is arguing that a consultant's professional opinion is not substantial evidence unless supported by factual evidence. We are also arguing that the Court misinterpreted the ITS comments, and when viewed properly, they offer no support for the CHSRA's continued use of the model. Atherton III Atherton III involves objections to the return and motion to discharge the writs from Atherton I and Atherton II. Atherton III does not have a separate case number because it is a consolidated proceeding continuing the trial court consideration of both Atherton I and Atherton II cases. Atherton III challenges the return of writ filed by the CHSRA and will be heard in trail court on November 9th. The challenge asserts that the CHSRA has still not properly addressed what it should have in the program level EIR. A major point of contention is that the CHSRA has since introduced the concept of a Blended System in implementation discussions, design, and funding plan but has refused to evaluate the alternative as an independent alternative. The CHSRA has instead evaluated the Blended System as a part of a larger implementation strategy. A second major point is that the PCJPB submitted a comment letter on the revised program level EIR and said it would not support a four-track alignment on the right of way it controls. Therefore, the City contends the CHSRA has not completed its necessary diligence by identifying where that four-track system could be constructed seeing as the PCJPB does not want the four-track system on their ROW which they own and control. Additionally, the City feels the CHSRA has failed to adequately evaluate the Altamont alternative alignment. Specifically, the City feels the CHSRA has not sufficiently evaluated using a Blended approach to the Altamont alignment. The CHSRA says it is not feasible, but opponents argue that it has not provided substantial evidence to support that determination. Prepared By: Richard Hackmann, Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager