San Francisco to San Jose High-Speed Train Project EIR/EIS San Francisco to San Jose Preliminary Alternatives Analysis April 15, 2010 Page 1
Largest Public Transportation Project in U.S. History 800 miles of new track + stations and related structures $40+ billion in planning and construction costs State, federal, local, and private partnership 10 years for Phase 1 build-out (includes SF SJ) Safely grade-separated 100% clean electric power
A Proven Technology Japan s Shinkansen 1964 France s TGV 1981 Korea's KTX 2004
Project History 2010 California HSRA awarded $2.25B via ARRA 2009 Pres. Obama designates $8B in ARRA funds 2008 Ca. voters approve Prop. 1A - $9.95B bond 2007-present Project-level EIR/EIS process 2002-2005 1999-2002 1996 Program-level EIR/EIS process Forecasts of ridership, revenue, cost & benefits; initial Business Plan development. High-Speed Rail Authority created
CA Needs High-Speed Train Project California s population expected to jump by 30% 12 million people by 2030 Decreased reliance on foreign oil Competition with air travel Maintain a robust economy Reduced greenhouses gases; meeting California s / Governor Schwarzenegger s environmental goals
The High-Speed Future Service up to 220 MPH linking Southern California, the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area. LA to San Francisco: 2:38 San Jose to San Francisco: :30 Anaheim to San Francisco: 2:57 LA to San Diego: 1:18 SD to Riverside: :48 Fresno to LA: 1:24 San Francisco to Fresno: 1:20
Jobs Created in California Construction-related jobs: Approximately 600,000 1-year jobs Operations & Maintenance Jobs: Forecast 5,000+ permanent jobs Economy-wide: Approximately 450,000 jobs by 2035 Individual CA Household: Provide an annual increase in household incomes of more than $800 per family of four
Environmental Benefits Congestion costs Californians about $20 billion a year in wasted fuel and lost time. 1/3 the energy of airplanes 1/5 the energy of passenger cars Dependence on foreign oil reduced by 12.7 million barrels a year Greenhouse gases cut by 12 billion pounds a year
Environmental Review Process Develop Project Goals 2003 2008 Program-Level EIR/EIS (at statewide level) Study: Train Tech. (modes) Statewide Corridors Enviro. Impacts Prepare Draft Program- Level EIR/EIS Formally Adopt Final EIR/EIS With Selected Corridors And Train Modes 2008 2011 Articulate Project Goals at the Project Level Project-Level EIR/EIS (at corridor level) Study: Detailed Corridor Level Design Corridor Enviro. Impacts Alternatives where applicable Prepare Draft Project- Level EIR/EIS Formally Adopt Final Project Level EIR/EIS Initial Public Meetings Public Input Public Comment Scoping Public Comment
Program Level EIR Update March 4, 2010 Revisions to the Program Level EIR were presented CHSRA Board and posted online at www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov (under the What s New tab on the home page). March 11, 2010 Public Comment Period on the Program Level EIR begins. Comments may be sent with Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft Program EIR Material Comments in the subject line via: Regular U.S. mail to Dan Leavitt California High-Speed Rail Authority 925 L Street, Suite 1425 Sacramento, CA 95814 Email at comments@hsr.ca.gov Facsimile transmission at (916) 322-0827 April 26, 2010 Public Comment Period on the Program Level EIR closes.
Project-Level Environmental Process San Jose to San Francisco EIR/EIS 2009 2010 2011 Alternatives Alternatives Analysis: Develop Analysis: Formally Develop Alternatives Alternatives and Purpose Prepare Adopt San and Design Design Options Options and Assess the SF to SJ Circulate Francisco Environmental and Need HST Draft to San Jose ROW Constraints and HST for HST Draft EIR/EIS Impacts and Impacts to Project EIR/EIS Final Select Alternatives to be Included in EIR/EIS be Included in the EIR/EIS the EIR/EIS Prepare Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Report Analysis Report SCOPING OUTREACH PUBLIC COMMENT PUBLIC & AGENCY OUTREACH PUBLIC COMMENT Page 11
Role of Alternatives Analysis Define a range of reasonable, practicable, and feasible project study alternatives Present these alternatives to the CHSRA Board, the FRA and the public for feedback Page 12
Planning Assumptions CHSRA & Caltrain: Shared Benefits Four track, grade separated system HST up to 125 MPH and Caltrain up to 110 MPH Opportunity for joint operations Shared facilities and stations San Francisco, Millbrae (SFO), San Jose Potential Midline station in either Redwood City, Palo Alto or Mountain View Page 13
Findings The Caltrain corridor is preferred alignment San Francisco joint terminal solution: Transbay Transit Center and 4th and King Limit use of high berms in commercial or residential areas Tunnel options added Deep tunnel stations should be avoided Potential Mountain View HST station added Stopping service in San Jose does not meet the purpose and need nor the requirements of Page 14 Proposition 1 A or Caltrain
Walk through Right of Way Section 4-3 (Southern Portion) Page 15
Walk through Right of Way Section 5-1 (Northern Portion) Page 16
Legend of Alternatives Page 17
RESULTS INITIAL Berm Removed Page 18
RESULTS Berm Removed Page 19
RESULTS INITIAL
RESULTS
Aerial Viaduct COLOR CODE: WIDTH: approx. 80 105 feet PROS: Improved or New East/West Connections, Narrow Width, Benefits to Riders, Constructability CONS: Visual Impact, Noise Impact Page 22
Section 4-3 (Southern Portion) Page 23
Section 5-1 (Northern Portion) Page 24
Existing Caltrain Grade COLOR CODE: WIDTH: approx. 95 105 feet PROS: Benefits to Riders, Constructability CONS: Larger Impacts to Properties on East/West Roads at Grade Crossings Page 25
Section 4-3 (Southern Portion) Page 26
Section 5-1 (Northern Portion) Page 27
Trench COLOR CODE: WIDTH: approx. 100 feet PROS: Limited Visual Impact, Limited Ventilation Needs CONS: Doesn t Improve Connectivity, Potential Impacts to Waterways and Utilities, Cost, Right of Way Needs Page 28
Cut & Cover COLOR CODE: WIDTH: approx. 100 140 feet PROS: Limited Visual Impact, Improved Connectivity CONS: Requires Ventilation System, Potential Impacts to Waterways and Utilities, Cost, Right of Way Needs Page 29
Section 4-3 (Southern Portion) Page 30
Section 5-1 (Northern Portion) Page 31
Deep Bored Tunnel HST ONLY COLOR CODE: WIDTH: approx. 70 115 feet PROS: Limited Visual Impact of HST, Limited Noise Impact of HST CONS: Cost, Fire & Life Safety Issues, Centralized Noise Impacts at Vent Shafts, Caltrain remains at-grade Page 32
Section 4-3 (Southern Portion) Page 33
Section 5-1 (Northern Portion) Page 34
Introduction to Appendix B Drawings Page 35
Sub- Section Numbers are consistent with previous concept drawings Page 36
Indicates where the subsection is on the alignment Page 37
Sub- Sections are further divided and indicated by letters Page 38
1 to 500 scale aerial photos with horizontal alignment indicated Page 39
Colored band indicates the width of the existing Caltrain ROW in 10 foot increments Page 40
Colored lines indicate vertical alignments, transitions, and proposed station locations. The green line indicates EXISTING Caltrain grade. Page 41
Indicates height at sea level. (0 = Sea Level, not grade level) Page 42
What are the Next Steps in the Process? 1. Draft Alternatives Analysis -- Spring 2010 2. Stations -- Spring/Summer 2010 2010 2011 3. 15% Engineering & Costs Summer 2010 Alternatives Dev. 4. Draft EIR/S -- Dec. 2010 5. Public Comment Dec. 2010 Feb. 2011 6. Final EIR/S Fall 2011 Draft EIR/S 7. NOD/ROD Fall 2011 8. 30% Engineering Final EIR/S 43
Next Steps Engagement of Peninsula in alternatives discussion Stations 15% Design & Cost Estimates Environmental Studies Stitch Corridor together Draft EIR/EIS, December 2010 Page 44
WHAT IS DESIRED THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION WHAT IS FEASIBLE WHAT IS ACHIEVABLE Page 45
For More Information Email prp@caltrain.com and ask to be added to our email list. Peninsula Rail Program www.caltrain.com/peninsularailprogram.html California High-Speed Rail Authority www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov Page 46
END Page 47