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

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 dont like the final decision

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

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

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

10. Structural & Operational changes CurrentProposed Commuter + FreightCommuter + Freight + HSR Diesel enginesElectric trains (freight trains remain diesel) 2 tracks; passing tracks; freight spurs 4 track system, freight spurs 47 grade level crossingsFully grade separated 12 trains/hr peak20 HS trains/hr peak + 20 Caltrains/hr peak 79 mph max speed125 mph max speed SF – SJ via Baby Bullet: 57 minSF – SJ via HSR: 30 min

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 Citys official preferred alternative is below grade in a tunnel or cut & cover

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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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 – Dont Railroad Us

20. Context Sensitive Solutions and the Tool Kit

21. 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

22. Context Sensitive Solutions Steps

23. 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!

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. Remember Dont be overwhelmed You know your community – just write about it The burden of proof is on the Authority – not you! If you dont offer ideas, we miss a chance for Best Practices Democracy is not a spectator sport!

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

31. Vertical Alignments Type DesignAvg Width Above Grade Berm85 ft Viaduct79 ft At Grade Road over/under pass96 ft Below Grade Open Trench96 ft Cut & cover (trench)96 ft Bored tunnel96 ft

32. Altamont Corridor Project