California High Speed Rail Project Leadership Mountain View

1. California High Speed Rail ProjectLeadership Mountain View May 21, 2010

2. CARRD • Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design • Grassroots volunteer organization • Founders: Nadia Naik, Sara Armstrong, Elizabeth Alexis, Rita Wespi • Palo Alto base, State wide focus • We are not transportation experts, we are not lawyers

3. Presentation High Speed Rail Project Overview Grassroots’ Influence of Project Using Collaboration for Best Practices Q&A Agenda

4. California High Speed Rail Project • November 2008 - Prop 1A authorized State Bond Funds • plan, construct and operate a High Speed Train system from San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim • 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 • Peer Review Committee • 8 appointed members (5 of 8 so far) • No budget, no staff, no meetings (yet)

5. 800 mile network Electric powered trains via overhead contact wires Maximum speed of 220 miles per hour (125 between SF-SJ) Fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment Positive Train Control California HSR System

6. 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

7. Applicant studies impacts, mitigations, alternatives Lead Agency certifies the studies Responsible for enforcing CEQA: you! INFORM LISTEN EVALUATE RESPOND DECIDE Record of Decision Notice of Determination Document Development Circulate Draft EIR & Hearing Identify Preferred Alternative Notice of Intent/Preparation Alternatives Analysis Final Document EIR Technical Studies Scoping California Environmental Quality Act

8. 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 Ridership Study / Analysis / Model

9. Program Level analyzed two routes East Bay via Altamont Peninsula via Pacheco Pacheco Route along Caltrain Corridor Selected Altamont will be done as an “overlay” Bay Area to Central Valley

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

11. Structural & Operational changes

12. SF – SJ Build Costs & Timeline • Project Costs • $6.14 Billion • ARRA award set up $400M for Transbay Terminal • Timeline • Dec 2010 - Draft EIR • Jul 2011 – Final EIR • Sep 2011 – Record of Decision • Winter 2012 – Begin construction • Summer 2019 – Revenue Service

13. Mountain View • Additional 2 tracks • Minimum 79 feet of ROW • Grade Separations • Rengstorff, Castro • Potential HSR Station • Station design options • Local requirements & contributions • Selection Process

14. Getting Involved with HSR • With HSRA and Peninsula Rail Program • Officially  via comments to the Environmental Review process • As a CSS Stakeholder • With your community • City of Mountain View   • HSR Subcommittee meetings • Meeting on Alternative Analysis: Tuesday, May 25, 5pm • Peninsula Cities Consortium  • www.peninsularail.com • Alternating Friday mornings

15. Grassroots Advocacy

16. 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 often painful • Economic meltdown, budget crisis

17. 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, etc.

18. 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

19. Focus on providing value • Legislative Update • Education & Outreach • Business Plan and Ridership Review • Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) • Collaborative approach • Involves all stakeholders • Works by consensus • Balance transportation needs and community values

20. Lessons Learned • Show up • Highlight BOTH sides of the issue – balance • Focus on process – not outcomes • Don’t just complain - Offer help and suggest improvements • Make suggestions to Authority, Cities, Agencies and Elected Officials to improve the public process all around • Provide information or connect people to share information

21. Collaboration to Achieve Best Practices

22. All Politics is Local • Importance of Legislation on local issues • CEQA Exemptions • Spending of money • Checks and balances on the process • Governance of project • Help Elected Officials understand your issue • Help Cities serve their citizens • Engage all stakeholders to broaden awareness of concerns

23. Take aways • Become an “expert” on all aspects • Understand the issue from a variety of perspectives • Work towards informing the public about the entire issue • Collaborate with those who need help understanding the issues • Volunteer to help without an agenda

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

25. Mountain View Alternatives

26. Mid Peninsula Station • One or none of • Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View • Mountain View has third highest Caltrain ridership (followed by San Jose) • Station designs currently being studied • Local requirements • Parking, transit facilities • Funding support • City of Mountain View officially requested being considered for a station

27. 2011 2010 2009 • Alternatives Analysis: • Develop Alternatives and Design Options • Assess the Environmental and ROW Constraints and Impacts • Select Alternatives to be Included in the EIR/EIS • Prepare Alternatives Analysis Report • Alternatives Analysis: • Develop Alternatives and Design Options • Assess Environmental & ROW Constraints and Impacts • Select Alternatives to be Included in the EIR/EIS • Prepare Alternatives Analysis Report • Alternatives Analysis: • Develop Alternatives and Design Options • Assess the Environmental and ROW Constraints and Impacts • Select Alternatives to be Included in the EIR/EIS • Prepare Alternatives Analysis Report Circulate Draft EIR/EIS Prepare SF to SJ HST Draft EIR/EIS Formally Adopt San Francisco to San Jose HST Final EIR/EIS PUBLIC & AGENCY OUTREACH PUBLIC COMMENT PUBLIC COMMENT Purpose and Need for HST Project SCOPING OUTREACH San Francisco – San Jose Project EIR

28. Funding Sources Timeline

29. Altamont Corridor Project

30. Vertical Alignments

31. How CARRD works • All volunteer network – each volunteer works with their strengths and interests • Quickly determined too much info was unavailable or missing • Research info and distribute or post it • Focus on process, transparency, accountability and oversight • Goal is to get the public access to info so everyone can all make informed decisions

32. Berm Alignment

33. Viaduct Alignment

34. At Grade (Overpass/Underpass)

35. Open Trench

36. Closed Trench (Cut & Cover)

37. Cumulative Impacts Altamont + Pacheco Ridership Claims May 6, 2010: legal action seeks to reopen Court’s decision Union Pacific Position “no part of the high-speed rail corridor may be located on (or above, except for overpasses) UP’s rights of way at any location. To the extent the Authority ignores this position, its revised EIR is deficient.” Bay Area to Central Valley Issues

38. 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

39. Context Sensitive Solutions Steps