Preliminary Alternatives AnalysisCaltrain Modernization & High Speed Train Projects

City of Millbrae

Dominic Spaethling

Regional Program Manager

Bethany Williams

Public Involvement Manager, HNTB

April 28, 2010

Agenda

Meeting Objective : Understand characteristics of

preliminary alternatives

• Open House

• Presentation

• Question and Answer

• Open House

Results Achieved by Improvements2000 to 2008

• 98 trains per day / 5 peak hour

• Three types of service

• Express “Baby Bullet” SF-SJ in under 60 minutes

• Limited

• Local (Off Peak Only)

• Diesel push-pull service

• 46,000 riders per weekday

• 2,600 bicycles per weekday

The Challenge: Planning for the Future

• Infrastructure, signal system, and diesel

vehicle technology limit capacity

• Tripled demand from regional growth,

Transbay Transit Center and HSR

• Majority of fleet due for replacement by

2015

• Uncertain funding commitment or

sources

Maximum Speed

Limited Speed

Med. Speed

Improved Headway

Safety Improved

By Speed

EnforcementImproved Operating Speed

and Journey TimeManual Control of

Train Speed

Caltrain 2025

Main energy absorber

European-Style Rolling Stock Safer Train Design

Positive Train Control Grade Crossing Improvements

Maximum Speed

Limited Speed

Med. Speed

Improved Headway

Safety Improved

By Speed

EnforcementImproved Operating Speed

and Journey TimeManual Control of

Train Speed

NO FUNDING

Main energy absorber

European-Style Rolling Stock Safer Train Design

Positive Train Control Grade Crossing Improvements

Largest Public Transportation Project in U.S.

History

• 800 miles of new track + stations and related structures

• $40+ billion in planning and construction costs

• State, federal, local, and private partnership

• 10 years for Phase 1 build-out (includes SF –SJ)

• Safely grade-separated

• 100% clean electric power

Why does CA need the

High-Speed Train Project?

• California’s population expected to jump by 30% –12 million people – by 2030

• Rising gas prices

• Reduced greenhouse gases

• Maintain a robust economy

How does California benefit?

• Jobs:

• 450,000 new jobs by 2035

• 600,000 construction jobs (1 year jobs)

• Reduce the $20B lost each year to congestion in fuel and

time costs.

• HST uses 1/3 the energy of air travel

• HST uses 1/5 the energy of passenger cars

• Reduce dependence on foreign oil by 12.7 million barrels

per year

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12 billion pounds

per year

Different Systems; Common Needs

Electrified System

Vehicles – High performing with crash energy management

Positive Train Control

Grade Crossing Improvement

Grade Separated System

X X

X X

X X

X

X

A New Partnership:

The Peninsula Rail Program• Caltrain (JPB) - CHSRA MOU in March/April 2009

• Peninsula Rail Corridor - joint development of ONE

Program

1. Prelim. Alternatives Analysis -- Spring 2010

2. Stations -- Spring/Summer 2010

3. 15% Engineering & Costs Summer 2010

4. Draft EIR/S -- Dec. 2010

5. Public Comment Dec. 2010 – Feb. 2011

6. Final EIR/S – Summer 2011

7. NOD/ROD – September 2011

8. 30% Engineering

2010 2011

Alternatives Dev.

Draft EIR/S

Final

EIR/S

Project Schedule

Role of Alternatives Analysis

• Define a range of reasonable, practicable, and

feasible project study alternatives

• Present these alternatives to the CHSRA Board,

the FRA and the public for feedback

Planning Assumptions

• Stay within existing Caltrain Right of Way

• Four track, grade separated system

• HST up to 125 MPH and Caltrain up to 110 MPH

• Opportunity for joint operations

Planning Assumptions

• Improve Caltrain Service

• Shared High Speed & Caltrain Stations

• San Francisco, Millbrae (SFO), San Jose

• Potential high-speed train stop:

–Redwood City

–Palo Alto

–Mountain View

Additional Considerations Based on

Feedback

• Evaluate the use of berms – especially in

commercial or residential areas

• Additional tunnel options

• Evaluate San Francisco terminal options

Feedback from Millbrae

• Support HSR multi-modal station in Millbrae

• Support implementation of the Millbrae BART Station Specific Plan

• Study and mitigate impacts to the Community

• Avoid 4 track on grade alignment and ROW impacts

• Traffic, circulation and parking studies

• Urban design and land use

• Alternative mode station access

• Economic development and tax revenues

• Coordinated and transparent process with City Staff, elected

officials and public

WHAT IS

DESIRED

WHAT IS

FEASIBLE

WHAT IS

ACHIEVABLE

THE

OPTIMAL

SOLUTION

Findings

• Caltrain corridor is preferred alignment

• San Francisco joint terminal solution: Transbay

Transit Center and 4th and King

• Limit use of high berms

• Tunnel options added

• Ending High Speed Train service in San Jose

would negatively impact Caltrain and its riders, and

does not meet Prop. 1A requirements.

AERIAL

AT CALTRAIN GRADE

TRENCH/CUT & COVER

HST DEEP TUNNEL

Caltrain

High Speed Trains

COLOR CODE:

WIDTH: approx. 80 – 105 feet

PROS: Improved or New East/West Connections,

Narrow Width, Benefits to Riders, Constructability

CONS: Visual Impact, Noise Impact

Aerial Viaduct

COLOR CODE:

WIDTH: approx. 95 – 105 feet

PROS: Benefits to Riders, Constructability

CONS: Larger Impacts to Properties on East/West

Roads at Grade Crossings

Existing Caltrain Grade

COLOR CODE:

WIDTH: approx. 100 feet

PROS: Limited Visual Impact, Limited Ventilation

Needs

CONS: Doesn’t Improve Connectivity, Potential

Impacts to Waterways and Utilities, Cost, Right of

Way Needs

Trench

COLOR CODE:

WIDTH: approx. 100 – 140 feet

PROS: Limited Visual Impact, Improved Connectivity

CONS: Requires Ventilation System, Potential

Impacts to Waterways and Utilities, Cost, Right of

Way Needs

Cut & Cover

COLOR CODE:

WIDTH: approx. 70 – 115 feet

PROS: Limited Visual Impact of HST, Limited Noise

Impact of HST

CONS: Cost, Fire & Life Safety Issues, Centralized

Noise Impacts at Vent Shafts, No Upgrades to

Caltrain

Deep Bored Tunnel – HST ONLY

RESULTS

Single Option

INITIAL

AERIAL AT GRADE TRENCH/ C&C

RESULTS

Single Option

AERIAL AT GRADE TRENCH/ C&C

Design

TeamA

B

C

D

E

F

G

Outreach

Cities

Stakeholders

Communities

Prepare Draft

Deliverable

Present

Review

Input

Opportunity

Revise

Report Back

Inform

Community Engagement Process

Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS)

• Collaborative engagement of communities

• Balance Desirability, Feasibility, and Achievability

• Design transit facilities that fit setting

• Preserve and enhance scenic, aesthetic, historic and

environmental resources

• Enhance safety and mobility

• Promote transit-oriented development and sustainable,

livable communities

What is in the Toolkit?

• Reference Documents

• Context and technical information

• Exercises

• Provide input to project team and TWG/PWG members

at each step of the process

– Exercise #1: Mapping the Context

– Exercise #2: Grade Separation / Vertical Options

– More Exercises will be released

• http://www.caltrain.com/peninsularailprogram_csst

oolkit.html

Next Steps

• Continue to gather feedback

• “Stitch” Corridor together

• 15% Design & Cost Estimates

• Stations Planning

• Environmental Studies

• Draft EIR/EIS, December 2010

WHAT IS

DESIRED

WHAT IS

FEASIBLE

WHAT IS

ACHIEVABLE

THE

OPTIMAL

SOLUTION

For More Information

Email prp@caltrain.com and ask to be added to our email list.

Peninsula Rail Program

www.caltrain.com/peninsularailprogram.html

California High-Speed Rail Authority

www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov