Town of Atherton ATHERTON RAIL COMMITTEE MINUTES TUESDAY, June 1, 2021 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. This meeting was held virtually
This meeting is compliant with the Governors Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 4, 2020 allowing for deviation of teleconference rules required by the Brown Act. The purpose of this is to provide the safest environment for staff and the public while allowing for public participation. The meeting will be held by tele or video conferencing. The public may participate via: Zoom Meeting.
Join Zoom Meeting: Remote Public Comments:
One tap mobile Meeting participants are encouraged to submit +16699006833,,93517000963# US (San Jose) public comments in writing in advance of the meeting. The following email address will be Dial by your location monitored during the meeting and public +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) comments received will be read into the record. Meeting ID: 935 1700 0963 Email: [email protected] Weblink: https://ci-atherton-ca.zoom.us/j/93517000963
1. ROLL CALL
Committee Members: Alex Keh (Chair), John Maulbetsch (Vice Chair), Greg Conlon, Paul Jones, Jim Janz, James Massey
Councilmember Liaisons: Vice Mayor Michael Lempres
Staff: Robert Ovadia
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS – For items not on the agenda. (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Committee on any matter not on the agenda that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Rail Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from acting on items not listed on the Agenda.)
Roland Lebrun provided a public comment related to High-Speed Rail Authority train heights are not being compatible with Caltrain. He indicated that he would be seeking resolution via legislation making it a condition of funding and that the platform specifications be codified by the CPUC.
Town of Atherton Rail Committee Minutes June 1, 2021 Page 2
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – April 6, 2021 Recommendation: Approve minutes for April 6, 2021
Motion: Member Massey Second: Member Jones
4. PRESENTATIONS – High-Speed Rail Authority Update High-Speed Rail Presentation
Boris Lipkin, Northern California Regional Director, provided a presentation highlighting the progress of the California High-Speed Pail project, including an overview of the 2020 Business Plan and public process; Status of environmental documents; Overview of project elements for the San Francisco to San Jose Segment; and an overview of the Pacheco Pass portion of the San Jose to Merced Segment. The Committee had an opportunity to ask the Northern California Regional Director questions related to the presentation and the High- Speed Rail project in general.
Public Comments from Roland Lebrun included comments that: • CPUC code sections 185032 and 185032 regarding roles and responsibilities granted to the HSRA vs Caltrain based on operating speeds • the job creation numbers cited by the HSRA being misleading and were separately estimated at less than 1,000/month • Link 21 asked Legislature to appropriate $5M to MTC to study faster alignment between Gilroy and Fresno • that the early train operator requires a $40 M operating subsidy to operate between SF and Gilroy • the new link 21 trans-bay tube would move the Brisbane LMF to Oakland; • the use of shared platforms (address of the train heights issues) will eliminate the need for dedicated platforms in Millbrae, allowing for shared platforms; • noise barriers should be 20 feet in height, but vegetation is the best solution; • the best time for quad gates is to incorporate them into the Caltrain warning time design for gate crossings; • the new administration is concerned about the status of the CHRA project and are focusing on higher speed service 160 MPH in the northeast corridor.
5. REGULAR AGENDA
5a. Atherton Caltrain Station Closure Update (15 min.) The Committee will receive a brief report on current status of the mitigation items associated with the closure of the Atherton Caltrain Station including the status of fencing installation, platform removal, Watkins Avenue safety improvements, and related funding agreements. The Committee will have the opportunity to discuss current and upcoming issues and activities as well as related items. Not an action item.
The Committee received an update from staff regarding status of the funding and
Town of Atherton Rail Committee Minutes June 1, 2021 Page 3
improvements associated with the closure of the station: Center platform was removed and graded; decorative fencing was installed along the rail corridor from Fair Oak Lane to Maple; a chain link fence was installed at Maple Avenue to close the gap in vegetation; the funding agreement is being finalized between JPB, SMCTA and Town to provide $400,000 outlined in the MOU with the JPB; Caltrain issued a contract to HNTB for the design of the quad gates at Watkins Avenue and a kickoff is to be scheduled in next couple of weeks.
5b. Caltrain Update (10 min.) The Committee will receive a brief report on current issues associated with Caltrain including the Peninsula Corridor Electrification project, governance changes, and other related items. The Committee will have the opportunity to discuss current and upcoming issues and activities as well as related items. Not an action item.
Reference Documents: 1. Bay Area Newsgroup Article April 13, 2021: Could a BART-Caltrain merger help fix one of Bay Area transit’s biggest problems? 2. Palo Alto Daily Post Article May 3, 2021: Caltrain begins to loosen San Mateo County’s grip by hiring new attorney
Governance changes at Caltrain have been initiated including the selection of a new legal firm. Balfour Betty is scheduled to begin some construction activities in the next couple of weeks to continue installation of foundations
Public Comment provided by Roland Lebrun regarding Caltrain construction schedule delays and cost over runs.
5c. High-Speed Rail Update (5 min.) The Committee will receive a brief report on current status of High-Speed Rail. The Committee will have the opportunity to discuss current and upcoming activities as well as related items.
Reference Documents: 1. RT&S Article April 7, 2021: With the BART/Millbrae deal force California high-speed rail underground? 2. San Mateo Daily Journal Article April 13, 2021: Millbrae rail plan causes rift
Update was provided by High-Speed Rail Authority in the presentation item.
5d. Dumbarton Rail Corridor Update (10 min.) The Committee will receive a brief report on current status of the Samtrans Dumbarton Rail project. The Committee will have the opportunity to discuss the Dumbarton Rail project as well as related items. Not an action item.
Reference Documents: 1. Dumbarton Rail Corridor Update Public Meeting Slides March 15, 2021
Town of Atherton Rail Committee Minutes June 1, 2021 Page 4
Staff referred to the slide deck from the most recent public meeting. Committee member Jones commented on their use of an econometric model to develop ridership projections.
6. COMMITTEE AND STAFF MEMBER COMMENTS
Member Conlon – regarding the status of BART merger with Caltrain based on an article related to a third-party pole on the concept.
Member Maulbetsch – regarding the mission of the Committee and if the Committee should be focusing on specific items and reporting to the Council.
Member Janz – regarding the status of in-person meetings and potential recognition of Malcolm Dudley.
Member Jones – regarding the status of the constant warning time system for Caltrain.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
Roland Lebrun – commented on projected ridership numbers and indicated that the reason that the Central Valley was chosen as the first operating segment was that the Northern California segment would only add approximately 6% to existing Caltrain ridership numbers; BART integration – Board structure may change to a similar structure to Capital Corridor whereby BART does the administration for Capital Corridor at a lower cost; Caltrain installed constant warning time devices at two locations and there were issues with the length of warning cycle – more information on this item will be discussed at the upcoming Caltrain Board meeting..
8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
• Discussion of Malcolm Dudley Recognition • Discussion of Committee’s Mission • Discussion of Atherton Station repurposing
9. NEXT MEETING – August 10, 2021 (Special Meeting)
10. ADJOURN
Motion: Member Massey Second: Member Janz
Next meeting is scheduled for: August 10, 2021 (Special Meeting)
Please contact the City Clerk’s office at (650) 752-0500 with any questions. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office
Town of Atherton Rail Committee Minutes June 1, 2021 Page 5
at 752-0500. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (29 CRF 35.104 ADA Title II)
From: Roland Lebrun To: Robert Ovadia Subject: Re: Atherton Rail Committee Public comment Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 4:11:01 AM Attachments: Test Book CT 47.51 - Virginia Street Crossing.pdf Test Book CT 47.35 - Auzerais Street Crossing.pdf
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.] See attached tables showing inconsistent gate crossing warning times at Virginia and Auzerais in San Jose.
From: Roland Lebrun Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 8:29 PM To: Robert Ovadia
Dear Atherton Rail Committee,
Please find below links to documents I referred to during public comment, specifically:
Peer Review Group comment on shared platforms
"We have recommended in past letters that the Authority consider adopting bi-Ievel trains from the outset because the loading platform level would be consistent with the lower level used by Caltrain and Metrolink (and ACE if there are joint operations in future). In our discussions, the Authority indicated that they will consider inputs from the new system operator (discussed below). We recommend that this issue be addressed carefully before HSRA commits itself to a rolling stock fleet design." https://www.cahsrprg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2018/08/PRG-letter-of-7-Feb-2017-Reduced.pdf (page 3)
CPUC Section 185032
"(b) Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in this subdivision precludes other local, regional, or state agencies from exercising powers provided by law with regard to planning or operating, or both, passenger rail service." https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PUC§ionNum=185032.
Quad gates operation: https://youtu.be/cuO2Fu63d0o
BBC News Level crossing safety Radar used to detect obstacles
The Office of Rail Regulation has announced how it is going to spend £21 billion on the rail network over the next five years.Targets include an improvement ...
youtu.be
Gilroy to Fresno alignment study: https://youtu.be/bqcW9jYvwQk
Trimble Quantm Alignment Planning Solutions
Watch an overview of Trimble Quantm Alignment Planning Solutions.Make better decisions, prove cost savings, and win more projects with Trimble Quantm Alignme...
youtu.be https://constructionsoftware.trimble.com/products/quantm/
Noise Analysis
Evaluate how noise impacts the community around the potential road corridor alternatives. With an overview of how the noise from the potential road will spread, gives an indicator of how the community around the project will be affected. https://constructionsoftware.trimble.com/resources/management/release-quantm-2021 https://youtu.be/BT6Az9sFEbg?t=396
Trimble Quantm 2021 - Alignment & Corridor Planning for Road & Rail
youtu.be
Early Train Operator Peninsula ridership study
The study shows that overlaying early HSR operations in the Peninsula corridor servicing only 4 HSR stations (difference between the 2028 Electrification Scenario and the 2028 Electrificati io) will result in an incremental increase of only approximately 6% in ridership.
Most of the improvements are already captured by the 2028 Electrification Scenario by Caltrain (without HSR).
HSR service attending only these 4 stations cannot produce a significant impact in the Peninsula corridor before the tunnel section connects the Central Valley (these 4 stations represent less than 12% of the total number of passengers traveling in the Peninsula Corridor).
The proposed HSR service without the connection to the Central Valley will compete with a well- established commuter rail corridor and except for the Gilroy to San Jose segment, adds incremental service to existing service (Caltrain baby bullet service). Therefore, the capture rate of these markets is limited. https://hsr.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/docs/about/legislative_affairs/Central_Valley_and_Peninsula_Corridors_Operations_Financial_Plan_Study.pdf (page 34).
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL EARLY TRAIN OPERATOR
Revision Log . Revision Date of Release Description of Changes . 1 May 1. st, 2019 . Initial release . Document ID: ETO_MGM_Central Valley and Peninsula Corridors Operations Financial Plan Confidential and Proprietary
hsr.ca.gov
Sincerely,
Roland Lebrun
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION
City of Atherton Rail Committee
June 1, 2021 BUSINESS PLAN & THE PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
• What is the Business Plan? »Required by PUC Section 185033 »Represents current program status »Summarizes implementation approach • Key Dates » March 25, 2021: Adopted by Authority board » April 12, 2021: Submitted to Legislature
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION 2 PROJECT PROGRESS 2018 to 2020
Category 2018 2020 Construction 2,573 5,216 Jobs Created Structures Completed or in 19 56 Construction Environmental Drafts Released 5 12 and ROD's Certified Right-of-Way Parcels 1,423 1,771 Acquired Miles of 47 79 Guideways Monthly Average Expenditures on $30.47M $68.13M Design-Build Contracts
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION 3 MERCED TO BAKERSFIELD 171-MILE INITIAL SERVICE • Reaffirms initial operating segment • Environmentally cleared with highest ridership potential • MOU with CalSTA and San Joaquin JPA to align interim service roles and responsibilities • Exploring phased track implementation • Independent peer review of ridership forecasts Steps to completion:
Advance Complete Procure Complete design extensions trains stations
2020 BUSINESS PLAN 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR ADVANCEMENT
Project Section Draft EIR/EIS Projected ROD
Bakersfield to Palmdale Complete (February 2020) Q2 2021
Burbank to Los Angeles Complete (May 2020) Q4 2021
San José to Merced Complete (April 2020) Q1 2022
San Francisco to San José Complete (July 2020) Q2 2022
Palmdale to Burbank Q3 2021 Q4 2022
Los Angeles to Anaheim Q4 2021 to Q1 2022 Q4 2022 to Q2 2023
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR ADVANCEMENT
Project Section Draft EIR/EIS Projected ROD
Bakersfield to Palmdale Complete (February 2020) Q2 2021
Burbank to Los Angeles Complete (May 2020) Q4 2021
San José to Merced Complete (April 2020) Q1 2022
San Francisco to San José Complete (July 2020) Q2 2022
Palmdale to Burbank Q3 2021 Q4 2022
Los Angeles to Anaheim Q4 2021 to Q1 2022 Q4 2022 to Q2 2023
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION 6 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS = ongoing outreach 2019
Notice of Development & Identification of Preparation Evaluation of Alternatives Preferred Alternative Public Review of Draft EIR/EIS 2021 2020
We are here
Recirculated Cooperating & Responsible Prepare Draft Materials Agency Review EIR/EIS
Early 2022
Respond to Comments Cooperating & Responsible Public Availability Authority Certifies and Prepare Final EIR/EIS Agency Review of Final EIR/EIS Final EIR/EIS and Issues ROD NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION 7 SELECT TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
8 Atherton
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION 9 BRISBANE LIGHT MAINTENANCE FACILITY
» Preferred Alternative (Alternative A) includes the Brisbane East LMF » City General Plan’s designation of mixed use (including housing) was key consideration » Working with the developer to incorporate the LMF as an option in their specific plan
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)
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION 10 MILLBRAE STATION PLANS
Millbrae Station and Development »City of Millbrae approved development adjacent to the Millbrae BART/Caltrain station in 2018 creating a conflict with plans for the HSR station »Authority plans do not preclude development around the station »The Authority is working with the City of Millbrae to resolve the conflict
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION 11 DRAFT EIR/EIS NOISE AND VIBRATION
Noise Mitigation Guidance »Based on industry best, practice, calls for installation of noise barriers where they are reasonable, physically feasible, practical, and cost-effective »Even with mitigation, there are still areas where noise impacts are significant and unavoidable »Draft EIR/EIS includes potential locations for sound barriers »Final decisions on placement, heights, and aesthetics will be made with communities Example of a noise barrier during final design.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION 12 NOISE IMPACTS IN CITY OF ATHERTON
Mitigation Measures » Sound barriers Draft EIR/EIS Noise and » Horn-free quiet zones (must be implemented by the City) Vibration Resources » Sound insulation of residences and institutional buildings » Chapter 3.4 » Acquisition of easements on properties severely affected » Proposed Noise Barriers by noise without Quiet Zones— Sound barriers in Atherton would be effective Alternatives A and B (if implemented) north of Fair Oaks Blvd. (Atherton) Table 3.4-2.1 Atherton: Proposed Noise Barriers » Proposed Noise Barriers with with and without Quiet Zones Quiet Zones—Alternatives A and B (Atherton) Length (feet) Height (feet) Table 3.4-22 » Noise and Vibration Mitigation 2,155 10 Guidelines
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION 13 PACHECO PASSSAN TUNNELING JOSE – MERCED STATUS AND TIMING RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE PROJECT SECTION 14 STAGE GATE PROCESS
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION 15 DISCUSSION / QUESTIONS
16 Headquarters Northern California Regional Office California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street, Suite 620 California High-Speed Rail Authority Sacramento, CA 95814 100 Paseo De San Antonio, Suite 300 www.hsr.ca.gov San Jose, CA 95113
17
aE bc Ed e d f gE
b c E hbE
ÿ !"#ÿ$ÿ$$#!ÿ%ÿ&!$ÿ$'()# "0ÿ (ÿ1"ÿÿ!2ÿ$!( 3456378ÿ@AB78Cÿ5Dÿ4DDCA8ÿE38 35ADÿDF85GHCÿB67Iÿ@GÿP7678B 3ÿ8AQÿ355D68AG
R&(ÿSTÿUVUWÿWVXSYÿ0` ÿÿ ÿ ÿ !ÿ"!##ÿ$%!&%
'(&ÿ)%0& ÿ#ÿ1234ÿ5!%3ÿ36&)&36&3!ÿ#ÿ!(&ÿ3#7&30&ÿ#ÿ"3ÿ8!& 573!9 ÿ)!0ÿ&6&% ÿ@ÿ 3ÿA&43ÿ@!(ÿÿ0(34&ÿ3ÿ@ÿ#%1 B
'(&ÿ%%69 ÿA%6ÿ3ÿ'(7% 6ÿC8ÿDEÿ@ÿF!&ÿ3ÿÿ!(%&&G&%HÿID 13ÿ03!%0!ÿ@!(ÿP236ÿ#%1ÿP 3ÿQ&10(B
5!%3ÿ ÿ6%))34ÿ!(&ÿ#%1ÿR3 3ÿ %64&!!ÿA&07 &ÿ#ÿ!(&ÿ6&ÿ!(& A%6ÿ !%702ÿ3ÿS747 !ÿ3ÿ%6&%ÿ!ÿ4&!ÿ8& 7%&ÿQQHÿ!(&ÿ3&G&4(!(G#GG 0&3!ÿ & ÿ!THÿ3ÿ!(&ÿA!ÿ3ÿ!(&ÿ%%69 ÿ!(%&&ÿ073!& Hÿ"3ÿ8!&H "3ÿU%30 0ÿ36ÿ"3!ÿ5%B
R3 3ÿ %64&!!ÿ ÿ ÿ"1'%3 ÿ36ÿ!(&ÿ073!9 ÿ!%3 )%!!3 7!(%!9 ÿ!!%3&Hÿ36ÿ#ÿ!(&ÿ03!37&6ÿ!ÿ@%2ÿ#%ÿ5!%3Hÿ!(!ÿ@76 A&ÿÿ)!&3!ÿ03#0!ÿ#ÿ3!&%& !B
S ÿ)%!ÿ#ÿ!(&ÿ6&Hÿ!(&ÿ5!%3ÿA%6ÿ4%&&6ÿ!ÿ))3!ÿÿ3&@ÿ!!%3& @(ÿ ÿ3!ÿ!(&ÿ 1&ÿ ÿ"1'%3 9ÿAÿVF&1A&%ÿWXWYBÿ'(&ÿ4%&&1&3! ÿ%&`7%& ÿ!(&ÿA%6ÿ!ÿ%&011&36ÿAÿ&0BÿaYHÿWXWYÿÿ3&@ÿ%ÿ0(34&6 4F&%330&ÿ !%70!7%&ÿ!(!ÿ4F& ÿ5!%3ÿ1%&ÿ36&)&36&30&ÿ#%1ÿ"3 8!&ÿ573!ÿ36ÿ1%&ÿ3#7&30&ÿAÿ"3!ÿ5%ÿ36ÿ"3ÿU%30 0 073!& B
S!!%3&ÿb1& ÿR%% 3ÿ@ÿ0!ÿ ÿ!(&ÿ)%1%ÿ!!%3&ÿ#%ÿP 3 Q&10(ÿ36ÿ@ÿ))&%ÿ!ÿ5!%3ÿA%6ÿ1&&!34 B
P 3ÿQ&10(ÿ ÿ!(&ÿ 1&ÿ@ÿ#%1ÿ!(!ÿ!(&ÿA%6ÿ(%&6ÿ3ÿ8%0(ÿWXWXÿ! 3F& !4!&ÿ!(&ÿ4F&%330&ÿ 7& ÿ!(!ÿ01&ÿ!ÿÿ(&6ÿ@(&3ÿ!(&ÿA%6 9!ÿ@AÿÿAÿ!ÿ!"!ÿ&ÿ4!7ÿÿ2ÿ#""B
C!!7!ÿ#9ÿ"!ÿÿ1ÿ Dÿ1ÿ6"ÿÿ1ÿE! 7!ÿ4ÿÿÿ2ÿ"!ÿ!744ÿ92ÿ2ÿ6"ÿ#ÿÿ Aÿ55%"!ÿ$4ÿ2ÿ2ÿ7!ÿÿ57ÿ !7ÿFFÿÿ2ÿ#""ÿ 2ÿ2ÿ7!BÿG2ÿ$7ÿ9!ÿ"A"@ÿ"ÿÿ2ÿ$ÿ2ÿ6"ÿ! 7ÿ#@ÿ14G!Dÿ1ÿ ÿ67@ !ÿ#7!ÿA@B
1ÿ ÿ67@ÿ!ÿÿ"ÿ$ÿ2ÿ"ÿ"ÿ#7!ÿ2ÿ2ÿ9 7!ÿ!""ÿ9ÿÿÿ4#ÿ"ÿ$ÿHIPBQÿ4""ÿ$4ÿ2ÿA" 572!ÿ$ÿ2ÿ"ÿ"ÿ$4ÿ172ÿR$ÿÿIPPIB
Cÿ"Sÿ"Sÿ2ÿ!57ÿ9!ÿAAÿÿS5ÿ2ÿ&ÿ$$ÿ2ÿ#""Dÿ!ÿ"" 2ÿ7!ÿÿ2ÿ!ÿA!ÿ97"ÿ2%ÿÿ55%ÿÿ#$ÿ 9ÿÿ%!BÿT7ÿÿ2ÿ"!ÿ47Dÿ1ÿE!ÿ175%!ÿ124 U"Dÿ1ÿ ÿ67@ÿ175%!ÿV%ÿRDÿ1ÿ6"ÿ67@ 175%!ÿ6@ÿ62%Wÿÿ1ÿE!ÿ 75"ÿG!ÿ8A@ TÿVÿ1%ÿX4Aÿ244ÿ7ÿÿ"ÿ2ÿ"7ÿAA ÿ9ÿ@B
G9ÿYS"ÿ$4!DÿY"!ÿF42ÿÿ @!ÿ`%ÿCBDÿ9ÿ2ÿ5 $"!!ÿ$ÿ2ÿa#BÿT7ÿ62$ÿE"ÿY$$ÿVSÿX!"ÿ!ÿY"! F42ÿ!ÿ2ÿ2A2!ÿÿ%9!ÿÿ%"7!ÿ$ÿ2ÿ"9ÿ$4!B
G2ÿ#ÿ4!ÿÿPÿB4BÿÿG27!@B
'()0 ÿ ÿ!" 1234 #$ÿ%ÿ%! ! 45%4!ÿ &! 6272""38"4 !ÿ55%
qÿ)rÿs )ÿ)ÿtuu') bcdecÿdÿcghi p7ÿ4"ÿ!!ÿ9""ÿÿ#ÿ57#"!2B
644ÿ
SUBSCRIBE • April 07, 2021
• Bridge/Retaining Walls/Tunnels, Commuter/Regional, High-Speed Rail, Passenger, Rail News, Railroad News, Track Construction, Track Structure Will the BART/Millbrae deal force California high-speed rail underground? Written by Bill Wilson, Editor-in-Chief
An agreement between a California city and BART could spell trouble for California high-speed rail. CHSRA The city of Millbrae, Calif., announced an agreement with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) to return several downtown parcels of land that both give the city new opportunities to develop significant mixed-use housing and commercial units and to further leverage its demands that California high-speed rail tracks be under-grounded. “This is terrific news and an important milestone for both the city and BART. New housing and a premier development on the transit corridor is one step closer to becoming a reality,” said Mayor Ann Schneider.
“Thanks to the collaborations with BART Director Bevan Dufty we are pleased to finally see these important properties transferred back to the city,” said council member Gina Papan. “With control of this land, Millbrae will continue working with our congressional and state representatives to obtain an estimated $165 million in funding designated for developing significant regional projects, which includes under-grounding the high-speed rail station.”
The pact between Millbrae and BART was signed April 5.
The deal returns land to Millbrae that BART had been holding as part of its extension into SFO airport. This agreement will turn currently underutilized land into a vibrant new development helping provide a catalyst for build out of the city’s prime downtown land.
The re-conveyance of property interests in four parcels located on the west side of the existing Millbrae transit station allows Millbrae to re-align California Drive to serve the already approved Serra Station project which includes 488 units of housing with 15% affordable units and 320,000 sq ft of office and commercial space. It also gives Millbrae the opportunity to develop a new adjacent transit-oriented project.
Millbrae will now consolidate several city-owned parcels and will soon seek proposals from developers to build the additional transit-oriented project immediately adjacent to Millbrae Serra Station.
The approximately 0.85 acres of land transferred back to the city will be used for California Drive and transit-serving uses. Upon completion of all land transfers the city will have about 1.2 acres of land for development on the west side of the station.
The city plans to issue an RFP for development of the parcels in the coming weeks.
The land agreement gives Millbrae new leverage in its challenges to California high- speed rail and its EIR and other approval processes, city leaders said. Millbrae is pushing high-speed rail to under-ground its tracks because its current plans would pave prime real estate in downtown Millbrae and turn it into a parking lot.
The city of Millbrae has filed a strenuous objection to the environmental impact report filed by the California High Speed Rail Authority, noting that the document violates the requirements of California’s CEQA law. Read more articles on passenger rail.
Categories: Bridge/Retaining Walls/Tunnels, Commuter/Regional, High-Speed Rail, Passenger, Rail News, Railroad News, Track Construction, Track Structure Tags: Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), California High-Speed Rail Authority, high-speed rail, passenger rail, rail tunnel, track construction SECTIONS • News • Freight • Passenger • C&S • Track Structure • Track Maintenance • Safety/Training • Regulatory ABOUT US • About Us • Advertise • Contact Us • Privacy Policy CONNECT WITH US • Subscribe • Newsletters • Magazine • Facebook • Twitter • RSS Copyright © 2021 Simmons-Boardman Publishing Inc.
Prepared by Facebook for the San Mateo County Transit District Public Meeting Dumbarton Rail Corridor Update
March 15, 2021 Virtual Meeting Guidelines
Simultaneous interpretation is available in Spanish, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Tongan, and Samoan. Click the Interpretation button at the bottom of your screen and select your preferred language.
Please save your questions until after the presentation. • To ask a question: • Click on the Q&A Icon • Type into the text box • People who called in should press *9 to raise their hand • All perspectives are welcome • One person speaks at a time • This meeting is being recorded • Any inappropriate comments or questions will be deleted and the person who produced them will be muted • Continual disruption will warrant removal from the meeting • All will have a chance to participate
2 Agenda
• Introductions
• Welcome
• Overview of Process to Date
• Proposed Alignments
• Ridership Forecast Results
• Cost Estimates
• Q&A
• Closing
3 Overview of Process to Date • Strategic Planning Process • Identify Project • Define Purpose and Need • Develop Conceptual Alternatives • Environmental Clearance • Permitting
4 Work to Date
• Draft Purpose and Need • Collaborated with Resource Agencies • Engaged with Stakeholders • Held Community Meetings • Documented Existing Conditions • Developed Range of Alternatives • Built Ridership Forecast Tool • Conducted Ridership Forecast Analysis
5 Current Phase of Work
• Document Existing Conditions • Conduct Ridership Forecasting Analysis • Stakeholder Engagement • Gov’t and Public Sector; 6 municipalities • Community: residents, advocates, community-based organizations, businesses • Community Meetings • Conduct Evaluation of Alternatives • Write Alternatives Analysis Report
6 Recommended Next Phase of Work
• Select Preferred Alternative (District Action) • Environmental Clearance – EIR/EIS • Engineering Refinements • Environmental Technical Studies • Travel Demand Forecast/Ridership Projections • Continued Inter-agency Coordination • Continued Outreach/Stakeholder Engagement • Permitting 7 Modes
Commuter Rail Light Rail Transit Bus Rapid Transit Autonomous Vehicle Transit (AVT) Transit (CRT) (LRT)LRT (BRT) BRT • 204 Seats • 136 Seats • 110 Seats • 8 Seats • 598 Total Riders • 428 Total Riders • 244 Total Riders • 22 Total Riders • Battery/Electric Hybrid• Electric • Battery • Battery • Dedicated Guideway • Dedicated • Dedicated • Dedicated Guideway Guideway Guideway • Flex-Service
8 Considerations: AVT Option
• This is a new and emerging technology/mode with limited examples of deployment o Global examples: Netherlands, Heathrow, UAE o North America: Pilot deployments nationwide o Note: There is no application of AVT at this mass transport scale • Further analysis needed to obtain US Gov’t approval to prove: o System reliability o Ability to scale o Technology readiness o Security • Evolving Federal policy related to AV transit
9 Considerations: BRT option • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): mode of public transportation that combines quality of rail transit with flexibility of buses. • Occupies a space between conventional bus service and Light Rail Transit (LRT) • “Rubber-tired” LRT: High level of service, quality amenities, and superior ride quality • Zero emission technology needs further R&D to show reliability • Technology changing quickly • Agencies testing both technologies • Challenges: • Scalability • Battery technology o Range o Charging time o Battery life 10 CRT Alignment Maintenance & Storage Facility
Note: Alignments and stations are being studied for technical feasibility in regards to engineering, operations, land use, city and agency coordination
11 LRT, BRT, & AVT Maintenance & Storage Facility Alignment
Note: Alignments and stations are being studied for technical feasibility in regards to engineering, operations, land use, city and agency coordination
12 Regional Bike/Ped Network Modeling Types
Ridership/Travel Demand Model Simulation Model Tells us how many people are Tells us how vehicles operate traveling through the corridor and how travelers will and when. experience the services. Ridership Forecast
Method & Assumptions • Ridership forecasts were developed using a travel demand model which conforms to industry standards and is used by most MPO’s. • Model encompasses the 9-County Region • Major inputs to the model include: • Transit and Highway network data • Region’s population, employment, and socio- economic data • Projected congestion levels • Transit Level of Service on the proposed project • Transit Oriented Development Ridership Projections 2040 Weekday Ridership 30,000
25,000 24,300
19,800 20,600 20,000 17,800 16,900 14,600 15,000
10,000 LRT BRT AVT
5,000
0 CRT LRT/BRT AVT Low High
Data Source: HDR 2021 Ridership Report Phase I Peninsula Boardings •First round of analysis
Methodology • Preliminary Phase I forecast to understand the potential ridership for each station • Ridership estimate is not mode-specific. Phase II Peninsula Boardings •Second round of analysis •Ridership estimate is mode- specific Adjusted Methodology •Ridership forecast adjusted to include land uses within a one-mile radius for the University Avenue Station, including an additional 5-million s/f of office space. This adjustment is seen on the updated Phase II 2040 weekday boardings. Ridership Projections 2040 Weekday Ridership Station Boardings
Stations CRT UPRR Alignment in LRT and BRT CA-84 AVT CA-84 Alignment in East Bay Alignment in East Bay East Bay Redwood City 1,800 to 2,200 3,500 to 4,000 4,800 to 5,500 Middlefield Road 1,400 to 1,700 2,800 to 3,200 2,900 to 3,400 Willow Road 2,100 to 2,500 2,900 to 3,400 4,100 to 4,800 University (adjusted) 700 to 1,000 900 to 1,200 1,100 to 1,400 Newark 500 to 700 1,000 to 1,200 800 to 1,000 LRT BRT AVT Ardenwood 500 to 600 1,100 to 1,300 1,400 to 1,700 Fremont 4,500 to 5,400 1,500 to 1,800 2,100 to 2,500 Union City 3,100 to 3,700 2,100 to 2,400 1,900 to 2,200 Quarry Lakes 1,100 to 1,300 1,500 to 1,800 14,600 to 17,800 16,900 to 19,800 20,600 to 24,300
Data Source: HDR 2021 Ridership Report Operation Diagrams
CRT
LRT/ BRT AVT Operations
21 Simulation Findings
• All four modes offered comparable travel times; +/- 30 minutes end to end. (CRT is estimated at +/- 25 minutes, but follows a different route) • Estimated Passenger wait times: CRT were longest (+/- 10 minutes), BRT and LRT were moderate (+/- 5 minutes) AVT was lowest (+/- 2 to 4 minutes) Basis of Concept Cost Estimates • Assumes Design-Build Contract Delivery • FTA Standard Cost Categories • 2021 Dollars with No Escalation • Based on Recent Executed Contracts in Region / Direct Vendor Outreach and FTA Capital Cost Data • Includes • Infrastructure Construction Costs • Vehicles per HDR Fleet Size (February 2021) • Soft Costs (PM, CM, Third Party, Insurance, Commissioning) • 30% Contingency • Excludes • All Real Estate costs • Parking Structures 23 Key Components by Mode All Costs in 2021 Dollars ($, Millions) Key Component CRT LRT BRT AVT
Stations 8 EA | $197 M 8 EA | $109 M 8 EA | $109 M 8 EA | $128 M
Systems $290 M $257 M $60 M $80 M
Grade Crossings 25 EA | $29 M 8 EA | $9 M 8 EA | $9 M 0 EA | $0
Maintenance & Storage $103 M $103 M $74 M $86 M Facility Operations Center $41 M $33 M $33 M $22 M
Bay Crossing Structure $334 M $297 M $297 M $226 M Bike Lane on Bay $35 M $35 M $35 M $35 M Crossing Structure Bike/Pedestrian Lanes $17 M $17 M $17 M $17 M
• All LRT, BRT, and AVT costs above consider the Decoto Road alignment • Source: HNTB, February 2021 24 Key Components by Mode • Stations – platform, vertical circulation, and bike storage • Systems – overhead catenary system, battery charging, traction power stations, wayside controls • Grade Crossings – vehicle/ped gates, safety improvements • Maintenance & Storage Facility – daily vehicle inspections and basic maintenance, overnight vehicle storage • Operations Center – control center for vehicle dispatch and operations • Bay Crossing Structure – high-rise, fixed span section, costs higher for heavier vehicles and flatter grades • Bike Lane on Bay Crossing Structure – 2-way bike/ped lane • Bike/Pedestrian Lanes – 2-way bike/ped dedicated path
25 Key Components by Mode, $, Million
Cost by Key Components, $ Millions 400 CRT LRT BRT AVT
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 Stations Systems Grade Crossings Maintenance & Operations Center Bay Crossing Bike Lane on Bay Bike/Pedestrian Lanes Storage Facility Structure Crossing Structure
26 Estimated Project Costs by Mode All Costs in 2021 Dollars ($, Billions) CRT / Decoto Road Alignment Quarry Lakes Alignment Mode Infrastructure Vehicles Soft Total Infrastructure Vehicles Soft Total Costs Costs CRT $2.43 B $0.14 B $0.75 B $3.32 B N/A
LRT $2.39 B $0.10 B $0.74 B $3.22 B $2.36 B $0.10 B $0.73 B $3.18 B
BRT $1.84 B $0.03 B $0.57 B $2.43 B $1.82 B $0.03 B $0.56 B $2.42 B
AVT $1.82 B $0.11 B $0.56 B $2.49 B $1.86 B $0.12 B $0.57 B $2.55 B
Notes: • CRT Project costs exclude UPRR Trackage Rights Fees • BRT Project costs assume similar infrastructure requirements as LRT Project • Source: HNTB, February 2021 27 Possible Phased East Bay Construction
Bay Crossing Bridge
Peninsula
28 Estimated Construction Costs by Phase
All Costs in 2021 Dollars ($, Billions)
Peninsula Bay Crossing East Bay Total Mode Infrastructure Soft Costs Infrastructure Soft Costs Alignment Infrastructure Soft Costs
CRT $0.56 B $0.17 B $1.34 B $0.42 B UPRR $0.52 B $0.16 B $3.17 B
Decoto Rd $0.77 B $0.24 B $3.13 B LRT $0.45 B $0.14 B $1.17 B $0.36 B Quarry $0.74 B $0.23 B $3.09 B Lakes Decoto Rd $0.55 B $0.17 B $2.40 B BRT $0.32 B $0.10 B $0.96 B $0.30 B Quarry $0.54 B $0.17 B $2.38 B Lakes Decoto Rd $0.57 B $0.18 B $2.40 B AVT $0.41 B $0.13 B $0.85 B $0.26 B Quarry $0.60 B $0.19 B $2.44 B Lakes • Costs above are for proportionate estimate only to determine order-of-magnitude estimate for phases and do not include Vehicle Costs • Source: HNTB, February 2021 29 Q&A Session
30 Contact Us
If you have any additional questions or comments, email us at dumbartonrail@samtrans.com
For more information, go to www.samtrans.com/dumbarton
31 Closing