Exercise 3 – Stitching the Corridor Together June 17, 2010 Twg Meeting Results

Ref Doc: CSS6_003_Exercise3_Stitching_TWG_Summary Date: 6/17/2010

EXERCISE 3 – STITCHING THE CORRIDOR TOGETHER JUNE 17, 2010 TWG MEETING RESULTS

At the June 17, 2010 Technical Working Group (TWG) meeting, the TWG members were engaged in a collaborative exercise to “stitch the corridor together” with their adjacent communities. This exercise is part of the iterative process of identifying a coherent corridor rail system alternative with local design options that are technically feasible, achievable, and desirable. The TWG will be refining the exercise again at the July meeting.

The TWG was divided into two groups. Overall, it was found that the design team and TWG members came to the same conclusions regarding where practical solutions are more obvious because of fixed constraints and “challenge” areas that are more complex and require more creative technical solutions. Their selected design options, reasons for their selection, and any additional notes and/or questions that were raised are provided on the following pages. Below is a high level overview of the TWG exercise results.

• Four Alignment Sections with a single fixed design option: 1. San Francisco Transbay Transit Center to 4th/King 2. Bayshore Blvd to Millbrae (existing 4‐track, San Bruno Grade Separation project) 3. Hayward Park to 42nd Street (existing design) 4. Lawrence Station to Scott Blvd (existing 4‐track)

• Alignment Sections with more than one design option: 1. San Francisco 4th/King to Bayshore Blvd. 2. Millbrae to Hayward Park 3. Belmont to Redwood City 4. Redwood City Junction 5. North Fair Oaks to Lawrence Station 6. Scott Blvd to San Jose Diridon Station

• Priority considerations for Alignment Sections with more than one design option: • Minimize property impacts • Minimize environment impacts (including noise, vibration, historic stations, and trees) • Improve connectivity

• Outstanding Project Level EIR Questions: • Noise and vibration studies • Constructability issues • Operations issues • Design Coordination with local cities/counties • Coordination with freight service

Page 1 of 4 Ref Doc: CSS6_003_Exercise3_Stitching_TWG_Summary Date: 6/17/2010

GROUP A SUBSECTION 12 34 CALTRAIN STATIONS 22nd St Bayshore South SF San Bruno Millbrae Broadway Burlingame San Mateo Hayward Hillsdale Belmont San Carlos HST or (POTENTIAL HST) STATIONS Millbrae CITY SAN FRANCISCO BRISBANE SOUTH SF SAN BRUNO MILLBRAE BURLINGAME SAN MATEO BELMONT SAN CARLOS POST MARKER 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400

AERIAL Draw AT-GRADE Options TRENCH OR CUT & COVER HST DEEP TUNNEL - 16th St. crossing is main concern - ROW is major constraint - Berm in Belmont and San Carlos to be a) Identify the driving Design - Understand impact of 280 - Millbrae's economic development @ station a major factor replaced by aerial structure Consideration(s) - High School, Hospital, along ROW - Elevated @ Millbrae may cause issues w/Millbrae Station

b) Identify the reasons for the selected solution ROW width too narrow for 4-track Grade separations currently do not exist Minimize/reduce noise/visual impacts Protect natural systems/habitat and/or historic/cultural resources Increase cross-rail connectivity

c) Identify the cities in which tunnel portals / transitions are located

SUBSECTION 4 5 6 789 CALTRAIN STATIONS RWC Atherton Menlo Park Palo Alto Cal Ave San Antonio Mtn View Sunnyvale Lawrence Santa Clara Diridon HST or (POTENTIAL HST) STATIONS (RWC) (Palo Alto) (Mtn View) Diridon CITY REDWOOD CITYNFO ATHTN MENLO PARK PALO ALTO MOUNTAIN VIEW SUNNYVALE SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE POST MARKER 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 2350 2500 2550 2600 2650 2700 2750 2800

AERIAL Draw AT-GRADE Options TRENCH OR CUT & COVER HST DEEP TUNNEL - ROW constraints (no 4-track alignments fit, hence prefer stacked) - Less challenging, mostly adequate - Communities prefer depressed tracks; no support for elevated system ROW a) Identify the driving Design - Redwood Junction could be handled by stacked alignment, freight on Consideration(s) upper level

c) Identify the cities in which tunnel portals / transitions are located

Page 2 of 4 Ref Doc: CSS6_003_Exercise3_Stitching_TWG_Summary Date: 6/17/2010

GROUP B SUBSECTION 12 34 CALTRAIN STATIONS 22nd St Bayshore South SF San Bruno Millbrae Broadway Burlingame San Mateo Hayward Hillsdale Belmont San Carlos HST or (POTENTIAL HST) STATIONS Millbrae CITY SAN FRANCISCO BRISBANE SOUTH SF SAN BRUNO MILLBRAE BURLINGAME SAN MATEO BELMONT SAN CARLOS POST MARKER 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400

AERIAL Draw AT-GRADE Options TRENCH OR CUT & COVER HST DEEP TUNNEL - Grade separation Right of Way Stacked? -Aerial dictated by Caltrain Noise, visual a) Identify the driving Design at 16th St. elevation in Belmont impacts Consideration(s) -25th grade sep, under Hwy- 92

b) Identify the reasons for the selected solution ROW width too narrow for 4-track X Grade separations currently do not exist X XXX Minimize/reduce noise/visual impacts XX XX Protect natural systems/habitat and/or XX historic/cultural resources Increase cross-rail connectivity San Francisco Portal San Mateo (9th to 12th) c) Identify the cities in which tunnel portals / transitions are located

SUBSECTION 4 56 7 89 CALTRAIN STATIONS RWC Atherton Menlo Park Palo Alto Cal Ave San Antonio Mtn View Sunnyvale Lawrence Santa Clara Diridon HST or (POTENTIAL HST) STATIONS (RWC) (Palo Alto) (Mtn View) Diridon CITYREDWOOD CITY NFO ATHTN MENLO PARK PALO ALTO MOUNTAIN VIEW SUNNYVALE SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE POST MARKER 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 2350 2500 2550 2600 2650 2700 2750 2800

AERIAL To Freight Draw AT-GRADE Options TRENCH OR CUT & COVER HST DEEP TUNNEL

-ROW Impact - Visual/noise and vibration impacts (ROW 80 ft wide) - Connectivity within city a) Identify the driving Design - Freight connection Consideration(s) - Length of construction/impact on residents/ businesses Grade Crossings - Natural systems (creek crossings) b) Identify the reasons for the selected solution ROW width too narrow for 4-track X X Grade separations currently do not exist X X X (Ren) X (Cas) Minimize/reduce noise/visual impacts X X XXXX Protect natural systems/habitat and/or X historic/cultural resources X Increase cross-rail connectivity X XXXX Transition to freight in RWC and NFO Mountain View c) Identify the cities in which tunnel portals / transitions are located

Page 3 of 4 Ref Doc: CSS6_003_Exercise3_Stitching_TWG_Summary Date: 6/17/2010

ADDITIONAL NOTES AND QUESTIONS

GROUP A . General o Trench solution will be challenging GROUP B o Covered trench same as trench . Millbrae . Wider, separation walls required o Storm utility north of Millbrae Station . Construction easements o Site 1 Plans o Stacked solution best – HST tunnel below, Caltrain above . San Mateo o Existing roadway crossings impede ability to transition between vertical options o Downtown station must move? o Hydrological constraints o Depressed street = increased cost and ROW . San Bruno o San Mateo policy = depressed alignment (cut & cover or stacked o Design for San Bruno Grade Separation can accommodate the possible impact of vibration and noise o 51.5’ ROW at ~ 2nd/3rd Ave. . Burlingame o Alignment is dictated by Burlingame and Belmont o 4‐5 buildings will be impacted (Burlingame Station to Peninsula Ave.) . Redwood City o Elevated option would require air rights o Challenge is o At Burlingame Station . Cities north are okay with an aerial structure . High School . Cities south want underground . Senior Center . Need to connect still to freight at Redwood Junction . San Mateo (and Burlingame) . Atherton o What happens at Broadway is what has to occur through much of San Mateo o Aerial and at‐grade are politically unacceptable o Elevated option would require right‐of‐way . Mountain View . Belmont o Parallel VTA LRT system o Move track up to Aerial from sta. 1270 to 1320. Then go flat until sta. 1540 o Option to go over Stevens Creed w/trench still at Castro intersection? . From Menlo Park to San Jose, staff and VTA prefer trench option o Either at‐grad or trench to both Palo Alto or Sunnyvale . Mountain View o At‐grade option very disruptive to existing street network and “fabric” of community. o Historic properties . Sunnyvale o Interest in 4‐track below grade option o At‐grade option very disruptive to existing street network and “fabric” of community. . Santa Clara o Preferred options: trench and tunnel from San Jose to Santa Clara (Scott Blvd.) . Aerial option too high  At‐grade does not work because of Police Station and Historic Properties

Page 4 of 4