Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
San Jose Community Working Group
Wednesday, July 12, 2017 6:00 P.M. – 8:00 P.M.
Southside Community Center
Multipurpose Room 5585 Cottle Rd.
San Jose, CA 95123 Agenda
I. Welcome – Ben Tripousis and John Ristow
II. CWG Meeting Report (Feedback Summary) Significance– Ben Tripousis (6:00-6:05)
III. Introduction – Facilitator (6:05-6:10) a. Meeting Ground Rules b. Roles & Responsibilities c. Purpose & Goals
IV. San Jose to Merced Project Section Update – Ben Tripousis (6:10-6:15)
a. Early Train Operator Procurement Update
V. Environmental Process & Evaluation Criteria – Rebecca Kohlstrand (6:15-6:50) a. Environmental Approach b. Screening Criteria
VI. Range of Alternatives: Monterey Corridor Subsection – Gary Kennerley/James Tung (6:50-7:35)
a. New Visual Simulations b. Review of Alternatives Considered
VII. CWG Next Steps – Leah Robinson-Leach (7:35-7:45)
a. 2017 Meeting Schedule
VIII. Public Questions/Comments - Facilitator (7:45-8:00)
July 11, 2017
San Jose Community Working Group
Member Roster
Updated: July 11, 2017
CWG Members
Brian Adams, VP Marketing/Communications, Bellarmine College Preparatory
Rose Amador, La Raza Roundtable
GB Arrington, GB Place Making, LLC
Shiloh Ballard, Executive Director, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Gail Baugh, President, Havens Neighborhood Association
Tom Brown, Tuscany Hills Neighborhood Association
Cyndy Broyles, President, Alma Neighborhood Association
Barbra Buchanan
Jeffery Buchanan, Director of Public Policy, Working Partnerships USA
Carol Calderon, Property Manager, Pepper Tree Estates
Patricia Carlin, Resident, Metcalf Neighborhood
Kevin Christman, Gardner Neighborhood Resident
Rose Combs, Secretary/Treasurer, Edenvale Great Oaks Plan Implementation Coalition
(EGOPIC)
Harvey Darnell, North Willow Glen Neighborhood Association
Fatima De Guzman, President, Seven Trees Neighborhood Association
Jonathan Fleming, President, Senter Monterey Neighborhood Association
July 11, 2017
Josue Garcia, CEO, Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building & Construction Trades
Council
Marie Garica, Owner, My Disenadora & Decoradora
Danny Garza, Mexican-America Political Association (M.A.P.A.)
Amy Georgiades, San Jose Resident
Jim Goddard, Executive VP, Business & Building Operations, SJ Sharks/Arena
Management LLC
Ron Gonzalez, President & CEO, Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley
Carl Guardino, President & CEO, Silicon Valley Leadership Group,
Brian Gurney, President, Tulare Hill HOA
Ed Janke, President, Janke and Associates
Carolyn Johnson, President, Iola Williams Senior Advisory Board
Alice Kaufman, Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills
Dennis King, Executive Director, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Silicon Valley
Jerry King, President, OJK Architecture + Planning
Lea King, Executive Director, Silicon Valley Talent Partnership
Scott Knies, Executive Director, San Jose Downtown Association
Pete Kolstad, Resident
Andrea Mackenzie, General Manager, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority
Matthew Mahood, President & CEO, San Jose Chamber of Commerce
Nicole McNeil Smith, San Jose Resident
Deborah Miller, Silver Leaf Neighborhood Resident
Ralph Molica, President, Alma Senior Board
July 11, 2017
Laura Monczynski, President, Hayes Neighborhood Association
Herarcio Mondragon, Owner, Birria el Primo
Darryl Ospring, Board Member, Coyote Creek Neighborhood Association
James Patterson, President, Oak Grove Neighborhood Association
Gregory Peck, President, Los Paseos Neighborhood Association
John Reinke, President, Santa Teresa Foothills Neighborhood Association
Stephani Rideau, President, Coyote Creek Neighborhood Association
Jill Rodby, President, Monterey Corridor Business Association
Marilyn Rodgers, Chair/President, District 10 Leadership Coalition / VEP Community
Association
Dayana Salazar, Executive Director, CommUniverCity
Mary Schriver, Goodyear Mastic Neighborhood Association
Kathy Sutherland, Delmas Park Neighborhood Association
Aaron Teixeira, President, Guadalupe Washington Coalition
Laura Tolkoff, San Jose Policy Director, SPUR San Jose
John Urban, Newhall Neighborhood Association
Kiyomi Yamamoto, South Bay Regional Representative, Greenbelt Alliance
July 11, 2017
Alternates
Matt Freeman, Assistant General Manager, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority
Rich Giammona, VEP Neighborhood Association
Craig Hamburg, Vice President, Havens Neighborhood Association
Karen Lattin, Board Member, Los Paseos Neighborhood Association
Shaun Lee, Vice President, Silver Leaf Neighborhood Association
Steve Levin, District 10 Leadership Coalition
Mike McCarroll, Director of Guest Service, SJ Sharks/Arena Management LLC
Indelisa Montes, Owner, Trine's Café
Jonathan Velasquez, Seven Trees Neighborhood Association
June 2017
San Jose to Merced Project Section CWG Meeting: 05/31 Meeting Report San Jose City Hall, 200 East Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95113
Attendees: 12 Community Working Group Members, 7 public Comment Cards: 1 speaker card Elected Office Representation:
• San Jose City Councilmember Dev Davis • Representatives from the Office of California Senator Jim Beall, San Jose City Councilmember
Raul Perales (D-3), San Jose City Councilmember Sergio Jimenez (D-2) Stakeholders:
• Metcalf Neighborhood • Gardner Neighborhood • North Willow Glen Neighborhood Association • Mexican-American Political Association (M.A.P.A.) • SPUR San Jose • Newhall Neighborhood Association • Delmas Park Neighborhood Association • Tulare Hill HOA • Committee for Green Foothills • Los Paseos Neighborhood Association • District 10 Leadership Coalition • District 10 Leadership Coalition/VEP Community Association • SAP Center • Greenbelt Alliance • VTA Bart Phase II
Media: None Meeting Purpose: To provide information about the current Range of Alternatives, to gather input from
San Jose CWG members on topic areas where more information is needed, and areas for improvement for communications.
Questions and Comments
• Can CWG members participate in both North and South sections of the working group? • Will the schedule change impact the 45 day review period? • When can CWG members see the assessment of Environmental Justice impacts? • Is there another group that is going to look at the Gilroy impacts? • How is the alignment in South San Jose connected to the decisions being made for Morgan Hill? • Need to look at wildlife impacts north of Bernal. • How is Santa Clara County’s input considered?
• Are screening criteria prioritized? • What are the speeds and can they be reduced in residential areas? • How considerations for wildlife protection are weighted against those for people • Assumptions about the blended alternatives and how that influences design of the alternatives • Cut and cover along Monterey Highway • 3rd party review of the Authority’s analyses (i.e. costs, cut and cover, 101 alignment) • Frequency at which this group meets • Providing CWG with roster of members and their contact information
Suggested Focus Areas for Future Meetings Received during meeting
• Land use and station planning • Environmental Justice considerations throughout San Jose • Prioritization or ranking for environmental considerations • Noise, speed, and safety impacts
Received via homework assignment
• Noise, speed, visual, and safety impacts and mitigations o How would impacts vary/be mitigated (including degree of mitigation) with each
alignment option (i.e. aerial v. at-grade) • Grade separation of West Virginia in Gardner neighborhood • Update on discussion with UPRR, particularly, if an at-grade through Monterey Corridor is
feasible without their cooperation • Connecting high-speed rail to Mineta International Airport • Cut and cover along Monterey Highway
o Status of study and any preliminary results o Costs o Integration with Grand Blvd plans o Specific location it would be implemented
• Impacts to property o Methodology for determining and process for providing property owners with reparations
for lost equity, particularly, for those adjacent to the alignment o Effects the aerial and at-grade alternatives along Monterey Highway would have on
specific homes, businesses, schools, etc. that would be o What assurances there are against additional vibration, noise or pushed wind impacts for
those living adjacent to alignment • Project costs
o How they are estimated o How they are weighted against community benefits/impacts o How they have and continue to effect alternatives studied/pursued
• Examples/renderings of o Mitigation strategies (i.e. noise) o Viaduct along Monterey Highway
• Track maintenance plans
• How the current and future Caltrain, ACE and Capital Corridor configurations (Schedule, vehicle storage, platform height, car boarding heights and location) affect at-grade alternative for high-speed rail
• Diridon Station/approach o Clarification on where the short viaduct would begin for the Diridon approach o Breakdown of estimated costs for a underground vs elevated Diridon Station and how
each would affect non-high-speed rail development o The impact each approach option will have on pedestrian, bicycle, and auto traffic, both
during construction and in operation. o Intermodal connectivity o The exact placement of all the southern approaches to Diridon that are being considered,
both vertical and horizontal, including the location of support columns. o The visual and aesthetic impact of each approach option, using diagrams and renders. o The impact each approach option will have on nearby residences and businesses,
including noise, dust, and traffic, during construction and in operation.
PROJECT SECTION OVERVIEW The San Jose to Merced Project Section is part of the first phase of the California High-Speed Rail System that will provide a critical rail link between the Silicon Valley and the Central Valley. The approximately 84-mile project section will travel between stations in San Jose and Gilroy and (after passing through the Central Valley Wye) north to Merced or south to Fresno. The focus of the San Jose to Merced Project Section is the area between San Jose and the Central Valley Wye. The Central Valley Wye is being studied separately as an addition to the environmental document for the Merced to Fresno Project Section.
The project section generally follows the Caltrain corridor and then the Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) corridor through San Jose. From south of San Jose through Morgan Hill and Gilroy, the corridor could traverse either east of the UPRR corridor or along US 101. From Gilroy, the corridor extends east through Pacheco Pass, generally following State Route 152, and then along Henry Mill-er Road up to Carlucci Road, approximately eight miles east of Los Banos in Merced County.
PROJECT SECTION HIGHLIGHTS
Links the Silicon Valley with the Central Valley with dedicated high-speed train tracks in a grade-separated and protected corridor
Approximately 84 miles (San Jose to Pacheco Pass)
Proposed stations: San Jose (Diridon Station) and Gilroy (Downtown or East Gilroy)
Estimated travel time of one hour between San Jose Diridon Station and Merced or Fresno
www.hsr.ca.gov | (800) 455-8166 | [email protected]
SPRING 2017
San Jose to Merced Project Section
www.hsr.ca.gov | (800) 455-8166 | [email protected]
CALIFORNIAHigh-Speed Rail Authority
San Jose to Merced Project SectionPROJECT SECTION OVERVIEWThe San Jose to Merced Project Section will connect communities from the Bay Area to the Central Valley. The section travels between stations in San Jose and Gilroy and (after passing through the Central Valley Wye) north to Merced or Fresno. The Project Section corridor generally follows the Caltrain corridor and then the Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) corridor through San Jose. From south San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy, the corridor could traverse either east of the UPRR corridor or along US 101. From Gilroy, the corridor extends east through the Pacheco Pass, generally following State Route 152, and then along Henry Miller Road up to Carlucci Road, approximately 8 miles east of Los Banos in Merced County.
PROJECT SECTION HIGHLIGHTS Approximately 84 miles (San Jose to Central Valley Wye)
• Three proposed stations: San Jose (Diridon Station), Gilroy (Downtown or East Gilroy) and Merced (Downtown)
• Estimated travel time of one hour between San Jose Diridon Station and Merced or Fresno
• Alternative for an at-grade Diridon Station combined with blended service in the Caltrain corridor
• Links Silicon with the Central Valley with dedicated high-speed train tracks in a grade separated and protected corridor
SPRING 2016
www.hsr.ca.gov | (800) 455-8166 | [email protected]
CALIFORNIAHigh-Speed Rail Authority
San Jose to Merced Project SectionPROJECT SECTION OVERVIEWThe San Jose to Merced Project Section will connect communities from the Bay Area to the Central Valley. The section travels between stations in San Jose and Gilroy and (after passing through the Central Valley Wye) north to Merced or Fresno. The Project Section corridor generally follows the Caltrain corridor and then the Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) corridor through San Jose. From south San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy, the corridor could traverse either east of the UPRR corridor or along US 101. From Gilroy, the corridor extends east through the Pacheco Pass, generally following State Route 152, and then along Henry Miller Road up to Carlucci Road, approximately 8 miles east of Los Banos in Merced County.
PROJECT SECTION HIGHLIGHTS Approximately 84 miles (San Jose to Central Valley Wye)
• Three proposed stations: San Jose (Diridon Station), Gilroy (Downtown or East Gilroy) and Merced (Downtown)
• Estimated travel time of one hour between San Jose Diridon Station and Merced or Fresno
• Alternative for an at-grade Diridon Station combined with blended service in the Caltrain corridor
• Links Silicon with the Central Valley with dedicated high-speed train tracks in a grade separated and protected corridor
SPRING 2016
M
M
SAN
JOSE
DIR
IDO
NST
ATIO
N
DO
WN
TOW
NG
ILRO
YST
ATIO
N
EAST
GIL
ROY
STAT
ION
SAN
TA C
RU
ZC
OU
NTY
MER
CED
CO
UN
TY
STA
NIS
LAU
SC
OU
NTY
SAN
TA C
LAR
AC
OU
NTY
MO
NTE
REY
CO
UN
TYSA
N B
ENIT
OC
OU
NTY
CEN
TRA
L V
ALL
EY W
YE
STU
DY
AR
EA
680
880
1
165
140
152
33
25
152
156
N
Mile
s10
52.5
0
Bernal Way
Scott Blvd
I-5
Carlucci Road
Wes
t Alm
a Av
enue
Casa D
e Fruta
HEN
RY
MIL
LER
RO
AD
NO
RTH
PA
CH
ECO
ON
E TU
NN
EL
EMB
AN
KM
ENT
TOD
OW
NTO
WN
GIL
RO
Y
AT
GR
AD
E
VIA
DU
CT
TO D
OW
NTO
WN
GIL
RO
Y
VIA
DU
CT
VIA
DU
CT
TO I
880
VIA
DU
CT
TO S
COT
T B
LVD
VIA
DU
CT
TO E
AST
GIL
RO
Y
SAN
JOSE
TO
MER
CED
SEC
TIO
NSA
N JO
SE T
O T
HE
CEN
TRA
L VA
LLEY
WYE
Caltr
ain
Capi
tol S
tatio
n
Coyo
te C
reek
Park
Mor
gan
Hill
San
Mar
tin
Gilr
oy
San
Luis
Rese
rvoi
r
Volta
Sant
aN
ella
Los
Bano
s
LEG
END San J
ose t
o Mer
ced P
ropo
sed
Alte
rnat
ive El
emen
ts
Cent
ral V
alley
Wye
Align
men
ts
Prop
osed
HSR
Stat
ions
Prop
osed
Main
tena
nce F
acilit
yM
Sour
ce: S
an Jo
se to
Mer
ced D
raft
Chec
kpoin
t B A
dden
dum
;
Ja
nuar
y 11,
2017
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS In 2001, the Authority, in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), started a tiered environmental review process for the statewide high-speed rail system per requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Na-tional Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 2005 first-tier California High-Speed Rail Program Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Statewide Program EIR/EIS) described the program alignment, which included the San Jose to Merced Project Section.
The development of the environmental document for the San Jose to Merced Project Section is advancing and a draft is anticipated for release in the Fall of 2017. The release of this draft will include public hearings as well as agency and public comment opportuni-ties. The Authority is committed to an ongoing planning process that will continue to include public involvement opportunities.
TIMELINE OF ACTIVITIES
The Authority is currently studying a range of alternatives for the San Jose to Merced Project Section. The full analysis of these alternatives will be included in an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). The range of alter-natives incorporates refinements that further avoid, minimize or mitigate potential impacts to the surrounding communities, existing facilities, land uses and environmental resources. In 2017, key next steps in the environmental process are to develop the staff-recommended Preferred Alternative (PA) and to release the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environment Impact State-ment (DEIR/DEIS) for the public review and public hearing process.
The Authority will continue to provide program and project updates as we work towards developing the Draft Environmental Documents the staff-recommended Preferred Alternative. The final project alternative will be selected upon adoption of the Final EIR/EIS.
ABOUT THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY The California High-Speed Rail Authority is responsible for planning, designing, building and operating the first high-speed rail system in the nation. California high-speed rail will connect the mega-regions of the state, contribute to economic development and a cleaner environment, create jobs and preserve agricultural and protected lands. By 2029, the system will run from San Francisco to the Los Angeles basin in under three hours at speeds capable of over 200 miles per hour. The system will eventually extend to Sacramento and San Diego, totaling 800 miles with up to 24 stations. In addition, the Authority is working with regional partners to implement a state-wide rail modernization plan that will invest billions of dollars in local and regional rail lines to meet the state’s 21st century transportation needs.
2009 2010 2011-2015 2016 2017 2018Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation (NOI/NOP)
Public Scoping
Community Outreach
Stakeholder Engagement
Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report
Community Outreach
Stakeholder Engagement
Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report (2011)
Continued Development of Alternatives
Community Outreach
Stakeholder Engagement
2016 Business Plan Adopted, Establishing Valley to Valley Segment
Community Outreach
Stakeholder Engagement
Staff-Recommended Preferred Alternative for Board Consideration
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) to be issued
Community Outreach
Public Hearing to take Public Comment
45-Day Public Comment Periodd
Final EIR/EIS with Response to Comments
Board Notice of Decision (NOD)/Certification
Federal Railroad Administration Record of Decision (ROD)/Approval
Community Outreach (ongoing)
Stakeholder Engagement (ongoing)
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
youtube.com/ CAHighSpeedRail@cahsra @cahsrafacebook.com/
CaliforniaHighSpeedRail
HIGH-SPEED RAIL WILL BETTER CONNECT THE STATE AND IMPROVE OUR REGIONS IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS:
Phase 1
Phase 2
Riverside
Burbank
Proposed Station
Sacramento
San Francisco
Stockton
San Jose
Gilroy
Modesto
Merced
Madera
Fresno
Kings/Tulare
Bakersfield
Palmdale
Los Angeles
Anaheim
San Diego
San Bernardino
SUBJECT TO CHANGE – MAY 2016
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL STATEWIDE SYSTEM
LEGEND
Proposed Statewide Alignment
CURRENT PROGRAM STATUS The Authority remains focused on three fundamental objectives:
1. Initiate high-speed rail passenger service as soon as possible.
2. Make strategic, concurrent investments throughout the sys-tem that will be linked together over time.
3. Position additional segments for construction as funding becomes available.
Major activities underway now include the construction of the backbone of the high-speed rail system in the Central Valley, plan-ning and environmental clearance of the remainder of the Phase 1 system, planning for the Phase 2 system and implementation of a statewide-rail modernization plan, in partnership with local stakeholders, that invests billions of dollars in local and regional rail lines right now.
The Phase 1 system that will ultimately connect the San Francisco Bay Area to the Los Angeles Basin via the Central Valley will be sequenced to maximize current federal and state dollars, and de-liver the earliest operating high-speed rail line by 2029. The Silicon Valley to Central Valley Line will connect San Jose to just north of Bakersfield, is fully fundable at a cost of $20.7 Billion and will be operational by 2025.
Increase Mobility Improve mobility in the face of growth – with the state's population
estimated to reach 50 million by 2050.
Better Air Quality Improve air quality – by shifting people from cars and planes to
clean trains.
Job Growth Stimulate job growth across the state – now with construction and
long-term with maintenance and operations.
Needed Alternative Provide a more convenient and productive way to travel and new
opportunities to collaborate on business.
San Jose to Merced Project Section Milestones Timeline
MARCH 2017
California High-Speed Rail Authority Created
• NOI/NOP Issued• Public Scoping• Community Open House Meetings • Stakeholder Engagement
• Federal Funds Grant (FY10)• Supplemental Alternative
Analysis Report• Community/Technical
Working Group Meetings• Community Open House
Meetings • Stakeholder Engagement
1996
2009
2011
Federal High-Speed Rail Development Act
1994
2014
• Proposition 1A Approved• Bay Area to Central Valley Program
EIR/EIS Approved
• Federal Funds Grant (ARRA)
• Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report
• Community Open House Meetings
• Stakeholder Engagement
2008
2010
• 2012 Business Plan Adopted• Senate Bill 1029
(Funding Allocated)• Bay Area to Central Valley
Partially Revised Program EIR Approved
2016 Business Plan Adopted, Establishing Valley to Valley Segment
2012
Ongoing Funding through Cap & Trade Program
• Community Open House Meetings
• Environmental Justice Outreach
• Community/Technical Working Group Meetings
2015 - ONGOING
2016
• Staff-Recommended Preferred Alternative for Board Consideration
• Draft EIR/EIS Issued• Community Open House Meetings• Public Hearing to take Comment• 45-Day Public Comment Period
2017
DRAFT
FINAL• Final EIR/EIS Issued with
Response to Comments• Board NOD/Certification• FRA ROD/ Approval• STB Approval
2018
Phase 1 Complete
2029
Statewide Program EIR/EIS Approved
2005
Silicon Valley to Central Valley Passenger Service Begins
2025
San Jose to Merced Project Section2017 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
SAN JOSE DIRIDON APPROACH SUBSECTIONThe San Jose Diridon Approach subsection spans the cities of
Santa Clara and San Jose and is the point of transition
between the Caltrain corridor and the High-Speed Rail
system. There are two options for aerial structures leading to an
elevated high-speed rail station over existing Diridon Station.
Viaduct to Scott Boulevard (Long Viaduct)
•6-mile aerial structure from Scott Blvd. to Diridon Station to West Alma Ave.
•Aerial Diridon Station
Viaduct to I-880 (Short Viaduct)
•4-mile aerial structure fromI-880 to Diridon Station to West Alma Ave.
•Aerial Diridon Station•Reduces High-Speed Rail footprint
•Reduces visual impacts
San Jose
Diridon Approach
Notes: The proposed alternatives are subject to refinement.
At-Grade at Diridon still being studied. Apr
il 20
17
MONTEREY CORRIDOR SUBSECTION
There are two options under consideration for the Monterey
Corridor subsection: one is an aerial viaduct structure in the
median of Monterey Road; the other runs at-grade adjacent to the
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right of way.
Viaduct
• In median of Monterey Rd.•Viaduct is 60 ft. high over following roadway crossings:
oCapitol Expy.
oBlossom Hill Rd.
oSR 85
oBernal Way
•Minimizes utilities disturbance
At-Grade
•Adjacent to UPRR right of way•Three major roadway crossings grade separated:
oSkyway Dr.oBranham Ln.oChynoweth Ave.
•Intrusion protection barrier between High-Speed Rail and UPRR
•Some minor roadway crossings closed
Monterey Corridor
Note: The proposed alternatives are subject to refinement.
San Jose to Merced Project Section2017 Range of Alternatives Under Consideration
Apr
il 20
17
SANTA CRUZ
SANTA CLARA
STANISLAUS
Morgan Hill
Henry Coe State Park
EAST GILROY STATION OPTION
DOWNTOWN GILROY STATION OPTION
M
M
SAN JOSE DIRIDON STATION
Bernal W
ay
West Alma Ave
2
3
5
1
6
4
LEGEND
Proposed HSR Stations
Dense Residential & Commercial Developments
Maintenance FacilityAirport
Current Range of AlternativesPrevious Alignment Considered & Withdrawn
N
M
Updated: April 2017
1
2
3
4
5
6
Blossom Hill connection to Monterey HwyImpacts to high density development and reduces operational speeds
Dense residential and commercial developments on both sides of US 101
SR 85 connection to Monterey Hwy Extensive impacts to Caltrans freewayCoyote Creek ParkSection 4(f) of DOT Act of 1996; avoids impacts to public parks & recreational areas Aquatic ParkSection 4(f) of DOT Act of 1996; avoids impacts to public parks & recreational areas South of SR 85US 101 Median: Avoided due to slow-speed curves andCaltrans’ plans for future expansion in median
West side of US 101: Con�icts with San Martin Airport
East side of US 101: Alignment was included in the 2011 Preliminary Alternatives Analysis to avoid UPRR interface. It had several Section 4(f) impacts and used costly straddle bents and a cut-and-cover tunnel to cross US 101 twice. The Morgan Hill Bypass led to the removal of this alignment.
SAN JOSE TO MERCEDPROJECT SECTION
CONFLICTS WITH HWY 101
ALL IMAGES AND GRAPHICS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
TUNNEL AND TUNNEL PORTAL EXAMPLESTunnels are used to move high-speed trains through mountain crossings and other land barriers, and can help minimize impacts to ecological resources. A portal is an entrance to a tunnel.
San Jose to Merced Project SectionPROPOSED DESIGN ELEMENTSBRIDGE EXAMPLESBridges that accommodate high-speed rail trains can take many forms. Bridges are designed to accommodate flooding and wildlife movements, as well as to withstand earthquakes and fires.
VIADUCT A viaduct is an aerial, bridge-like structure, typically a series of arches, carrying a road or railroad across a valley or other low ground.
ALL IMAGES AND GRAPHICS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
EMBANKMENTAn embankment is a bank of earth or stone built to carry a road or railroad over an area of low ground.
OVERCROSSING
GRADE SEPARATIONSGrade separations refer to places where a roadway is realigned over or under a railway to eliminate hazards and to allow for the crossing of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians at different elevations.
UNDERCROSSING
SOUNDWALL EXAMPLESSound walls, sound barriers (solid and/or transparent), or earthen berms built between the train tracks and residential or other noise-sensitive areas can help reduce noise disturbance caused by the train service. Additionally, at areas where the train will need to travel through at-grade crossings, the establishment of “quiet zones” where additional safety measures remove the need to sound train horns can help significantly reduce noise-disturbance.
RETAINED EMBANKMENT An embankment where the fill is held back by a retaining wall is considered a retained embankment.
ALL IMAGES AND GRAPHICS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
ADDITIONAL HIGH SPEED RAIL FEATURES
COMMUNICATION TOWERS AND TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS
The Authority will implement a comprehensive seismic safety program, including earthquake early-warning and appropriate operational responses.
INTRUSION WARNING AND BARRIERSHazard analyses, risk assessments, and implementation of appropriatemitigations to reduce the potential for intrusion will allow the high-speed railsystem to safely operate in proximity to existing transportation systems.
Communications Towers are located every 2-3 miles and use a radio-based system for train control.
Overhead Catenary Systems supply electric energy to rail vehicles.
The Substation provides transfer of power supply and is located every 30 miles.
Early Earthquake Warning System Intrusion Barrier Intrusion Detection System
Perimeter Fencing
EARTHQUAKE WARNING
