CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION
Staff-Recommended State’s Preferred Alternative
City of Millbrae City Council Tuesday, July 23, 2019
1 OBJECTIVE
Share staff-recommended State’s Preferred Alternative and process for identifying the State’s Preferred Alternative. • The staff-recommended State’s Preferred Alternative is based on stakeholder input and analyses completed to date. • All alternatives will be analyzed at an equal level of detail and described in the published Draft EIR/EIS. • Staff will summarize the comments received during planned outreach and report to the Authority Board for consideration with the recommended State’s Preferred Alternative on September 17, 2019. • Identifying the State’s Preferred Alternative does not approve or adopt a preferred alternative for final design or construction.
2 SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE PROJECT SECTION
REFINING THE ALTERNATIVES: Collaboration with Partner Agencies, Stakeholders, and Members of the Public
3 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
4 INTERFACING WITH NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AGENCIES Topics covered in 2018 - 2019
WATER TRANSPORTATION/ ENGINEERING/ JOINT 2018 BUSINESS ALIGNMENTS MANAGEMENT ROADS DESIGN LAND USE OUTREACH PLAN
Bay Area Rapid Transit
California Strategic Growth Council . . . .
Caltrain . . . .
Caltrans District 4 . . .
City and County Staff (throughout corridor) ......
Floodplain Administrators and Managers . . . .
Metropolitan Transportation Commission . . .
Mineta San Jose International Airport
San Francisco Bay Conservation and . . . . Development Commission
San Francisco International Airport . . . .
Santa Clara Valley Transportation . . . . . Authority
Transbay Joint Powers Authority . . .
REFINING THE ALTERNATIVES: Collaboration with Partner Agencies, Stakeholders, and Members of the Public 5 SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE COMMUNITY OUTREACH 2016 – 2019
2016 2017 2018 2019
Community Working Groups (14)
CSCG/LPMG (82)
Open Houses (11)
Community, Stakeholder & Environmental Justice Outreach (360+) Board Meeting September 2019
REFINING THE ALTERNATIVES: Collaboration with Partner Agencies, Stakeholders, and Members of the Public 6 SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE PROJECT SECTION
ALTERNATIVES OVERVIEW
7 SAN FRANCISCO – SAN JOSE PROJECT ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVE AB A AND B
8 LIGHT MAINTENANCE FACILITY Alternatives Carried Forward
Brisbane
Alternative A Alternative B M East M West
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 9 PASSING TRACKS Alternatives Carried Forward
• Alternative A: No Additional Passing Track Option
• Alternative B: Short-Middle 4-Track Passing Track Option (6 miles) » San Mateo to Redwood City » Adjacent to 1.8 miles of residential uses » Relocates San Carlos Caltrain station
Note: “Middle” means middle of the corridor
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 10 SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE Common Project Elements – Alternatives A & B
• High-Speed Rail stations1 » San Francisco 4th and King » Millbrae • Up to 110 mph speeds » Track modifications to support higher speeds • Peak operations » 4 High-Speed Rail trains and 6 Caltrain trains per hour/per direction
1 Salesforce Transit Center has been environmentally cleared by Transbay Joint Powers Authority and will not be part of the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s environmental analysis.
San Jose Diridon Station is being evaluated as part of the San Jose to Merced Project Section but will be included in both project sections’ environmental analysis.
11 SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE Common Project Elements – Alternatives A & B
• Remove hold-out rule at Broadway and Atherton Caltrain Stations
• Safety modifications at Caltrain-only stations and at-grade crossings
• Corridor fencing
Blended At-Grade • Uses Caltrain electrification infrastructure and tracks • Predominantly within the existing railroad right-of- way • At-grade tracks with quad gates at each road crossing
12 GRADE CROSSING FEATURES
8ft high right-of-way fence
Quad road barriers
Channelization
13 SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE PROJECT SECTION
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
14 STATE’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA
Environmental Factors . Biological and Aquatic Resources
System Performance, Operations, & Costs . Alignment Length . Maximum Authorized Speed Community Factors . Proximity to Transit Corridors . Displacements . Travel Time . Aesthetics and Visual Quality . Capital Costs . Land Use and Development . O&M Costs . Transportation . Emergency Vehicle Access/Response Time
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 15 ALTERNATIVE A – STAFF-RECOMMENDED STATE’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
16 Note:Note: FRA FRA has has not not yet yet concurred concurred with with the the Preferred Preferred Alternative Alternative SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION – SYSTEM PERFORMANCE, OPERATIONS, AND COST FACTORS
CRITERIA ALT A ALT B
Alignment length (miles) No Difference
Maximum Operating Speed (mph) No Difference
HSR Peak Hour Average Representative Travel Time San Francisco to San Jose (minutes)
Proposition 1A Service Travel Time Compliance
Estimated Capital Costs (2017$)
Estimated Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs (2017$) No Difference
Caltrain Peak Hour Average Representative Travel Time (minutes)
= Best-performing alternative
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 17 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION – COMMUNITY FACTORS CRITERIA ALT A ALT B
Residential displacements
Commercial and industrial displacements
Community and public facilities displacement
Number of key viewpoints with decreased visual quality
Temporary interference with local vehicle circulation
Pedestrian Access from Downtown San Carlos to Caltrain Station
Temporary increases emergency response time in south San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and northern Redwood City due to short-term road closures
Environmental Justice: Construction-related disruption to Caltrain Service
Environmental Justice: Permanent Effect on Planned Mixed Use Development (residential uses allowed) in Brisbane
= Best-performing alternative (fewest/least community impacts)
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 18 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION – ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
CRITERIA ALT A ALT B
Total permanent impacts on wetlands and other waters of the U.S.
Permanent Impacts on endangered callippe silverspot butterfly habitat
Visitacion Creek
= Best-performing alternativePhoto 2: Visitacion Cree (fewestk, east of Tunn eenvironmentall Road impacts)
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 19 CALTRAIN BUSINESS PLAN 2040 Baseline Growth Scenario
20 ALTERNATIVE A – Staff-Recommended State’s Preferred Alternative Conclusions of Technical Analysis
Fewest impacts on natural Fewest major visual impacts resources
Fewest displacements Lowest capital cost
Slower HSR, faster Caltrain Fewest road closures peak hour travel time
Fewest impacts on wetlands Policy-level alignment with the and habitats Caltrain Business Plan
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 21 FACT SHEETS: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
22 NEXT STEPS
23 NEXT STEPS
July August September March May March
2019 2020 2021
CWG Meetings Board Meeting Close of 45-day Public Comment Period Identification of Complete and Certify EIR/EIS State’s Preferred • Community Open Houses & Briefings Open Houses Alternative • Project Approval on Staff-Recommended State’s Preferred Publish Draft EIR/EIS Alternative • Ongoing Communication/Engagement • Public Hearings
24 UPCOMING MEETINGS
Community Working Groups Open Houses
Morgan Hill-Gilroy CWG South Peninsula Open House Gilroy Open House July 10, 6:00 – 8:00 pm August 6, 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. August 8, 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. Morgan Hill Community and Cultural Center Adrian Wilcox High School Gilroy Portuguese Hall Morgan Hill, CA Santa Clara, CA Gilroy, CA
San Jose CWG San Francisco Open House San Jose Open House July 16, 6:00 – 8:00 pm August 12, 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. August 15, 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. Leininger Center Bay Area Metro Center City Hall Council Chambers San Jose, CA San Francisco, CA San Jose, CA *Hosted by Sen. Beall San Francisco CWG San Mateo Open House July 22, 6:00 – 8:00 pm August 19, 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. Los Banos Open House Bay Area Metro Center Sequoia High School August 21, 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. San Francisco, CA Redwood City, CA Los Banos Community Center Los Banos, CA San Mateo County CWG July 24, 6:00 – 8:00 pm Burlingame Library Burlingame, CA
25 REQUEST FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL
Please share the information presented today with your communities and give us your feedback.
• Comments will be accepted through August 22, 2019 to be included in the staff report to the Authority Board.
• Comments can be submitted via email to [email protected] or via mail to: Northern California Regional Office California High-Speed Rail Authority 100 Paseo De San Antonio, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95113 OR
• Share feedback in person at an upcoming Open House or at the Authority Board meeting on September 17 in San Jose, CA.
OUTREACH UPDATE 26 SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE PROJECT SECTION Staff-Recommended Preferred Alternative Still of visual sim viaTHANK Kevin forthcoming. Will replace YOU existing photo
Headquarters California High-Speed Rail Authority Northern California Regional Office 770 L Street, Suite 620 Sacramento, CA 95814 California High-Speed Rail Authority www.hsr.ca.gov 100 Paseo De San Antonio, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95113
27 APPENDIX A – MILLBRAE STATION DETAIL
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE PROJECT SECTION
28 MILLBRAESAN FRANCISCO-SFO STATION TO AREA SAN JOSE Common Project Elements – Alternatives A & B
29 MILLBRAE-SFO STATION Alternative A – Section (2018)
30 MILLBRAE-SFO STATION Alternative A – Massing Diagram (2018)
31 MILLBRAE-SFO STATION Comprehensive Access Study Timeline
City of Millbrae On-going California High-Speed Rail Authority Millbrae Intermodel Working Group 1998 – Specific Plan Coordination 2010 – Preliminary Alternatives 2015 – Specific Plan Access Policy 2014 – TOD 1 & 1 Proposals 2012 – SB 1029 Blended System 2016 – Shared Goals 2016 – Specific Plan Update 2015 – Caltrain Electrification 2018/19 – Comprehensive Access Study 2018 – TOD 1 & 2 Approvals 2016 - 2021 – Engineering/Environmental Partners • SFO • Caltrain • BART • City of Millbrae • SamTrans • CA High-Speed Rail Authority
32 APPENDIX B – MILLBRAE STATION PEPD DEVELOPMENT
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE PROJECT SECTION
33 MILLBRAE-SFO STATION 2010 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
34 MILLBRAE-SFO STATION HSR STATION DELIVERY PROCESS
35 MILLBRAE-SFO STATION 2010 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
36 MILLBRAE-SFO STATION 2016 STATION CONCEPT & FOOTPRINT
37 MILLBRAE-SFO STATION 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN – STATION CONCEPTS
38 MILLBRAE-SFO STATION 2017 TRACK & PLATFOROM CONFIGURATION
39 ACCESS TO PEPD
Contact Andrew Yang or Linda Roberson to view Preliminary Engineering Project Definition design files of all four alternatives, including:
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 40 APPENDIX C – EVALUATION FACTORS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE PROJECT SECTION
41 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE, OPERATIONS AND COSTS1
Bold text in tables indicates best-performing alternative(s). CRITERIA ALT A ALT B
Alignment length (miles) 42.9
Maximum Operating Speed (mph) Up to 110
HSR Peak Hour Average Representative Travel Time San 47 45 Francisco to San Jose (minutes) Proposition 1A Service Travel Time Compliance
Estimated Capital Costs (2017$) $2.6 billion $3.5 billion
Estimated Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs (2017$) $78 million
Caltrain Peak Hour Average Representative Travel Time (minutes) 63 65
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 42 DISPLACEMENTS Bold text in tables indicates best-performing alternative(s). CRITERIA ALT A ALT B
Residential displacements (number of units) 10 19
Commercial and industrial displacements (# of businesses) 29 108
(square feet) 211,261 466,084 Community and public facilities displacement (number of units) 2 4
HSR Temporary Example: and permanent overlay of footprint footprint in urban area
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 43 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL QUALITY
Bold text in tables indicates best-performing alternative(s). CRITERION ALT A ALT B
Number of key viewpoints with decreased visual quality 3 5
San Carlos Station El Camino Real at 39th Avenue, San Mateo
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 44 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
• Both alternatives potentially reduce available land for development at Brisbane Baylands • Alternative B would convert 8 acres of land at Icehouse Hill and area containing endangered butterfly habitat that is designated for open space conservation
Alternative A M East Alternative B M West Impacts 93 acres planned commercial Impacts 90 acres planned commercial and 2 acres planned mixed use (with and 21 acres planned mixed use (with residential permitted) residential permitted)
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 45 TRANSPORTATION
Bold text in tables indicates best-performing alternative(s). CRITERIA ALT A ALT B Temporary interference with local vehicle Along El Camino Real during passing track No Change circulation construction
Pedestrian Access from Downtown San Carlos to Reduced pedestrian access due to the relocation No Change Caltrain Station of the station 2,260 feet south of current location
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 46 EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS/RESPONSE TIME
Bold text in tables indicates best-performing alternative. CRITERION ALT A ALT B Temporary increases in emergency vehicle access/response time in south San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and northern Redwood City due to None Yes short-term road closures and construction traffic associated with passing track construction
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 47 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Bold text in tables indicates best-performing alternative(s).
CRITERIA ALT A ALT B
Less than Alt. B More than Alt. Construction-related disruption due to no A due to EJ Populations + Impacts to Caltrain Service passing track passing track construction construction
Permanent Effect on Planned Mixed Use Development 2 21 (residential uses allowed) in EJ Populations Brisbane (acres)
Adverse & Beneficial Impacts
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 48 BIOLOGICAL AND AQUATIC RESOURCES
Bold text in tables indicates best-performing alternative(s). CRITERIA ALT A ALT B
Total permanent impacts on wetlands and other waters of the U.S. (acres) 8.8 12.8
Permanent Impacts on endangered callippe silverspot butterfly habitat (acres) 0.0 8.0
Visitacion Creek
Photo 2: Visitacion Creek, east of Tunnel Road
IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 49 APPENDIX D – SUPPLEMENTAL
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE PROJECT SECTION
50 PASSING TRACKS EVALUATION TIMELINE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Joint HSR Caltrain Shift to Caltrain Blended HSR/Caltrain EIR/EIS Business Plan Blended System Service Study Blended System Evaluation Planning Analysis
Three Passing Track . Alt. A – No • Feedback from . Five Passing Track . Options: Short- additional passing Alternatives Options: North, Middle-4, Long- tracks Analysis Short-Middle-4, Middle-4, Middle-3, . Alt. B – Short- • 2012 Business Long-Middle-4, No passing tracks Middle-4 passing Plan Middle-3, South Dismissed: tracks . Dismissed: . • MTC 9-party MOU Long Middle-4 and North and South due Evaluation of future Middle-3 due to • SB 1029/SB 557 to poor performance need for passing community impacts tracks
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 51 PASSING TRACKS Alternatives Eliminated 2016
• Long Middle 3-Track Passing Track Option (16 miles) » San Mateo to Palo Alto » Greatest community impacts and costs » Impacts 16 at-grade crossings » Adjacent to 8.3 miles of residential uses
• Long Middle 4-Track Passing Track Option (8 miles) » San Mateo to Southern Redwood City » Moderate community impacts and costs » Impacts 6 at-grade crossings » Adjacent to 2.3 miles of residential uses
Note: “Middle” means middle of the corridor
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 52 LIGHT MAINTENANCE FACILITY 2010 Alternatives Considered
• Port of San Francisco • East Brisbane/West Brisbane • San Francisco International Airport
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 53 LIGHT MAINTENANCE FACILITY 2010 Alternatives Eliminated
• Port of San Francisco » Regionally and locally important infrastructure » Permanent disruption to major circulation elements » Displaces Marine Eco-Industrial Center planned uses » More wetland/water impacts than Brisbane East LMF » Substantially higher costs than Brisbane LMF options
• San Francisco International Airport » Regionally important facility » Displaces airport operational land uses » Airport constrained from expansion by San Francisco Resolution 69.08 » More wetland/water impacts than Brisbane East LMF » Substantially higher costs than Brisbane LMF options
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 54