1 / 32

California High Speed Rail Project

California High Speed Rail Project. Burlingame Parent Ed HSR-PREP May 25, 2010. CARRD. Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design Grassroots volunteer organization Process focus  Engage community and encourage participation Watchdog for transparency

cdaugherty
Download Presentation

California High Speed Rail Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. California High Speed Rail Project Burlingame Parent Ed HSR-PREP May 25, 2010

  2. CARRD • Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design • Grassroots volunteer organization • Process focus  • Engage community and encourage participation • Watchdog for transparency • Do NOT advocate for a particular implementation or route • Founders • Nadia Naik, Sara Armstrong, Elizabeth Alexis, Rita Wespi • Palo Alto base, State wide focus • We are not transportation experts, we are not lawyers • Contact info  • website: www.calhsr.com • email: info@carrdnet.org

  3. Presentation Additional Overview Information Community Engagement Using the CSS Tool-kit Q&A Reminder for Upcoming Meetings Agenda

  4. California HSR Governance • High Speed Rail Authority • 9 appointed Board members • less than dozen state employees • 4 tiered web of consultants / contractors do the bulk of the work • Legislature – controls State bond funds • Senate Transportation & Housing - Lowenthal • Senate Budget Subcommittee 2 – Simitian • Legislative Analysts Office • Peer Review Committee • 8 appointed members (5 of 8 so far) • No budget, no staff, no meetings (yet)

  5. Funding Plan Backbone System Cost: $42.6 billion Federal Grants $17 - $19 billion State Bond Funds $9 billion (Prop 1A) Local Contributions $4 - $5 billion Private Investors $10 - $12 billion Awarded $2.25 billion stimulus funds (we only get it if we make the deadlines) Plan calls for $3 Billion in Federal funding every year for 6 yrs

  6. Environmental Review Process • Mandated by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • Administrative, linear process • Applicant studies impacts, mitigations, alternatives • Lead Agency certifies the studies • Responsible for enforcing CEQA: you! • You must participate in the process to have any recourse if you don’t like the final decision

  7. Bay Area - CentralValley 2008 Statewide EIR 2005 San Jose - Merced Merced - Fresno Bakersfield - Palmdale San Francisco - San Jose Palmdale – Los Angeles Los Angeles - Anaheim Fresno - Bakersfield Tiered Approach to CEQA Ridership Study / Analysis / Model

  8. Cumulative Impacts Altamont + Pacheco Ridership Claims New Altamont route proposal Union Pacific Position Bay Area to Central Valley

  9. Caltrain Corridor Caltrain + HSRA = Peninsula Rail Program Caltrain and Freight will continue operations during construction San Francisco to San Jose

  10. Structural & Operational changes

  11. Burlingame • Right of Way • 2 additional tracks • Constrained width south of Howard • Grade Separations • Broadway, Oak Grove, North Lane (near station), Howard, Bayswater, Peninsula • Caltrain Station Re-Design

  12. Burlingame Considerations • Burlingame High School • Tree Canopy among the densest along the corridor • Historic Resources • Business District • Community cohesion & connectivity • City’s official preferred alternative is below grade in a tunnel or cut & cover

  13. Community Engagement How can I get involved and make a difference?

  14. Climate • Incredibly ambitious & complex project • Technical, funding, political, environmental, procedural challenges • Recognized benefits • Tremendous costs • Bunker mentality • Community Skepticism • Extent of impacts • Lack of specificity • Change is painful • Economic meltdown, budget crisis

  15. Grassroots Landscape Groups throughout the State – each with their own focus Common theme: Serve to educate elected officials & public on the issues Act as watchdogs for process – request information and access to data used for decisions Speak publicly at Senate, Assembly, City meetings, Transit Authorities, etc.

  16. CARRD Approach • Process focus  • Collaborative, open, constructive approach • We do NOT advocate for a particular implementation or route • Engage community and encourage participation • Wisdom of crowds, creative solutions • Tools for self-advocacy • Watchdogs for • Transparency – push to get more information public • Accountability – demand professionalism, accuracy • Oversight – encourage State Senate, Peer Review

  17. Getting Involved • With HSRA • Officially  via comments to the Environmental Review process • As a Stakeholder • With your community • Grassroots groups • City Council • County Representatives • Caltrain Representatives (Joint Powers Board) • Elected Officials – Testify, Send Letters • Media

  18. Organizations • Statewide • High Speed Rail Authority • CARRD, CC-HSR, CA4HSR • Regional • Peninsula Rail Program • Peninsula Cities Consortium • Counties, Caltrain, SamTrans • Burlingame focus • City of Burlingame • HSR-PREP • Don’t Railroad Us

  19. Context Sensitive Solutions and the Tool Kit

  20. Context Sensitive Solutions • Collaborative approach • Involves all stakeholders • Works by consensus • Balance transportation needs and community values • Proven Process • Adopted by Peninsula Rail Program for SF-SJ • First time it is being used on a Rail Project • “Toolkit” to collect community information

  21. Context Sensitive Solutions Steps

  22. CSS Toolkit • Available at Caltrain/Peninsula Rail Program Website • Seeks community feedback on all alignment options • Serves as a framework • Do not feel confined by the template – you can elaborate • You can write your comments too!

  23. Catalog community asset • Identify “sensitive” areas • Historic Resources • Natural Resources • Open space, trees, wildlife, wetlands/creeks • Sensitive areas • Schools, hospitals, places of worship, funeral homes • Parklands • Business Interests • Describe community values

  24. Identify Impacts & Mitigations • Identify the specific impact in question • Explain the significance of effect • Consider ways to avoid or reduce severity • Describe additional mitigation measure(s) needed • Recommend changes in proposed mitigations • Support your recommendations • Quantify your concerns whenever possible

  25. Suggest Alternatives • Offer specific alternatives • Describe how they meet the requirements of the project • Can be on specific alignments, operations, financing, etc • Suggest different analysis methodologies

  26. Help provide accurate record • Point out any inconsistencies in the document or the data • Point out outdated information or • Errors in logic • Focus on the sufficiency of the information in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts of the project on the environment

  27. Example – Noise Pollution • Provide inventory of sensitive areas • assume most impactful alternative • 900 feet on either side of tracks • 1/4 mile radius from Stations • Be Specific • document location, population, hours, layout • reference standards (City, Federal, WHO, etc) • request specific analyses and mitigations • Identify any omissions, inaccuracies and errors in the document

  28. Remember • Don’t be overwhelmed • You know your community – just write about it • The burden of proof is on the Authority – not you! • If you don’t offer ideas, we miss a chance for “Best Practices” Democracy is not a spectator sport!

  29. Thank You! For more information:www.calhsr.com info@carrdnet.org

  30. Vertical Alignments

  31. Altamont Corridor Project

More Related