HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 18, 2004 I-03AGENDA ITEM 101
CITY OF LODI
. ' COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TM
AGENDA TITLE: Approve Comments on High Speed Rail Environmental Impact Report
MEETING DATE: August 18, 2004
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve comments on the High Speed Rail
Environmental Impact Report on the proposed California High -Speed Train
System.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The California High Speed Rail Authority has issued a draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed California High -Speed Train System.
Through a series of studies and earlier decisions, the proposed
Sacramento/Bakersfield segment will be routed along the east side of Lodi,
along the Central California Traction Company alignment. The EIR includes alternative alignments north and south
of Lodi (Exhibits A and B).
Exhibit C is a copy of the Authority's Highlights of the Draft EIR which promotes the project and generally describes
major impacts. Exhibit D presents a brief comparison of the two proposed routes.
This project has the potential to significantly impact the north San Joaquin County area in the form of road closures,
noise and various property impacts. These are described in the numerous volumes of documents available on the
Authority's website: www.cahighspeedrail.gg.gov. The Public Works Department also has a copy of the documents
on CD-ROM; we can provide copies upon request.
This facility has some characteristics that perhaps are not well known (see Exhibit E).-
•
):
• Although the right-of-way width may be as little as 50 feet, it will be entirely fenced and separated from
adjacent property. This means there will be no at -grade road crossings except in certain areas where
train speeds will be reduced, such as near the stations. Given the high cost of elevating the tracks or
building over/under passes, there will be considerable pressure to close local roads where they cross the
facility.
• The high-speed trains can not run next to existing railroad tracks due to Federal Railroad Administration
requirements. The planning work has focused on running alongside existing rail corridors to minimize
impacts, but the facility will still need to acquire land and be built outside the existing rail line.
Another issue that Council may wish to comment on is the Central Valley to Bay Area alignment. Of the three
options being consider earlier, the Authority has already eliminated the Altamont corridor, leaving two southern
options, one along the Highway 152/Pacheco Pass corridor, the other slightly north (see Exhibit F).
Comments on the EIR are due August 31, 2004.
Staff recommends that the City comment that specific road closures and grade separations are not identified in the
EIR, and the associated impacts are not discussed.
FUNDING: Not applicable.
RichardPrima, Jr.
Public Works Director
RCPlpmf
Attachments
cc: Rad Bartlam, Community Development Director
APPROVED.
HighSpeedRailEJRCOmments.doc
Janet,$, Keeter, Interim City Manager
81512004
Sacramento to
r
Downoown Sacremem0 Yailey
e
X. 1_ 7
Power Inn Road
7.
Figure 6.3-1
ton AtiGAMO ltaM Potential Station options
A
�aiu”
- I , _ �
-
T
i� i k.
;fir'
I
NO
ACE Downtown
SO
-
—
}
4d
IUPRR*BfflWq..
K- !L
Y�
--
►.
Tunnel Vrhan.iaea
4.
i.K.'_CN1aSi!�—t AMM&M f'
k ?lig -
_ `+4 L•.
�� . �'
Y•
Mwaff
"��'w�_
.-
i 1. _
- - -• -
�
�
/-
r„4-
.
A
�aiu”
- I , _ �
-
u- '• ��
i� i k.
;fir'
I
NO
ACE Downtown
-4:
4d
IUPRR*BfflWq..
-...
Y�
--
►.
Tunnel Vrhan.iaea
4.
i.K.'_CN1aSi!�—t AMM&M f'
k ?lig -
_ `+4 L•.
�� . �'
Mwaff
M pagaleal RUM inti [ism"
Exhibit B I
Note — High Speed Rail Detail
preliminary alignment; line width is
not to scale.
MW
Exhibit C
ivt
g
R-PrOgram Environmental Impact
ReW/Wronmental Impact
:S"t(E1RjE(5)for the pnposed —
t4lifbMla High -Speed Train System
A$TV(W BY114E -CALIFOUIA HINWEED RAIL
-.,AUTH6RRY= WE FEDERK RAILROAD ADIVIRISIRATION
Ir
J
A. f
How will you mel from
Sa► Ahe",, Calif6snia oq Bay Area in 2020?
High-speed trains could be in your future
afiriil!
dd
Ur
It)T r
uCtOn, Mdt'�d�Tiit h t�M 06 hii6•�i�
<.. , t
Iha caffi) 4e 'spew Ral ffid, " i 644W ar0paid�t eI"-
ham t� al rr �n.e�v rdyt6016 Wpi ifpmped b e
iOd 0e6)9Wi FDKb WO iftt t, ~ rib --W MfiaSIDr M**.travel
W evhfiip*; ierferallyir kswathe.Central
Valley, to Los:A Vle$-and WOE
The altearnativ��srin�l�aii`M� arj#fir'idtt1�...
e No Pmjeo: 14 ianoe an t t� e`3g rig trans rt iDar erns
■ Modal bik*pmea — imptib*t to Wq C boo' **travel networks
■ high:: il'i� t r .nett L ld int i1 ^ # Ie M tes in length, capableof:tt&d
at spebA mph
Bawd an the DraltProgrant UW111i lii[ fNq"figil
■ Would beW44o*tae0 k)esl t' n1e7 ' " f" airports to serve similar t F lerna ds
■ would impr�►r�.}rderr, r tranrportafipAre b'lily
■ Are pro ED:0rryIds tnarttiilli0rt papiivally.by 2020 = with the capagity-.to.carry
abouti6 wwhy passrtr p7.
■ Would be the Ow energy .ef iotht of the alternativO
IS Wouldhm of k trade) Com'
■ woul4 W passenger."* -mile
■ Would be safer and rare rgaVleithae highway and'af�Wtvai
High•speed:trains could
r Offerat�ewalroigeininterr.'it+jtravei
■ Connettib airpor dl bifisit terminals
:"l. ""fi] t Wdim:
■ Ease the.gr min'gdemand on existing highways and$i rt� h 2* -and beyond
*
'Intercity,, rodaia region-to-reodri:trips; not including Qo lr ute trips.
WAIN
mob
The statexrrtrM�rrj sus gni
This alternative consists of the state's intercity transportation system (highway, air and conventional
rail) as it existed in 1999-2000, and as it would be in 2020 with the addition of transportation projects currently
programmed for implementation (already in funded programs/financially constrained plans), including:
■ State Transportation Improvement Program
■ Regional Transportation Plans for highways and public transit
■ Airport improvement plans
■ Intercity passenger rail plans
Would not meet intercity travel needs projected for 2020 as population continues to grow
• Highway capacity would be insufficient to accommodate projected intercity travel growth in
the regions that would be served by the proposed high-speed train system
• Many of the state's airports already are at or near capacity and could become severely
congested under this alternative
• Highway congestion and airport delays would continue to increase, hindering the economy
and eroding California's quality of life
Would contribute to environmental degradation
• There would be negative impacts on traffic: increased congestion, decreased mobility and
reduced reliability and safety
• Degradation of air quality and increased energy demand
Total "door-to-door" travel time from Los Angeles to San Francisco
• Highway travel time would increase by one hour in 2020
• Air travel time would increase by 30 minutes in 2020
• Existing conventional rail travel time 10:05 (requires two bus transfers)
ESTIMATED TOTAL TRAVEL TIMES "DOOR-TO-DOOR"
BETWEEN CITIES BY AUTO, AIR AND HIGH-SPEED TRAIN IN 2020
CITY PAIRS
AUTO
AIR
HIGH-SPEED TRAIN
DOWNTOWN TO
NO PROJECT
NO PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE
DOWNTOWN
ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE
OPTIMAL EXPRESS TIMES
TOTAL
LINE HAUL' TOTAL
LINE HAUL* TOTAL
LOS ANGELES To
7:57
1:20 3:32
2:25 3:20
SAN FRANCISCO
LOS ANGELES To
4:30
1:05 3:02
1:12 2:23
FRESNO
LOS ANGELES To
2:49
0:48 3:00
1:13 2:16
SAN DIEGO
LOS ANGELES
6:50
1:00 3:14
1:49 2:52
TO SAN JOSE
SACRAMENTO TO
2:40
NO SERVICE NO SERVICE
0:50 1:53
SAN JOSE
'ACTUAL TIME IN PLANE OR TRAIN
Modal Alternative
Add(tional h0ptomements to existl~ag highway and air travel systems
This aItern ative consists of potentially feasible improvements to existing highways and airports
sufficient to serve at least 68 million person trips annually. While these improvements are not proposed or
recommended, they represent theoretically feasible options and include:
2,970 additional lane -miles on intercity highways statewide, which would include at least two and sometimes
four additional highway lanes along selected intercity highways
■ Nearly 60 new gates and five new runways statewide — equivalent to two new Ontario International Airports
■ No increased transportation choices or improved connectivity
■ Little or no sustainable capacity beyond the 68 million trips
Would help to meet the need for intercity travel into the future, but with significant disadvantages
• Would be less safe and less reliable than the proposed high-speed train alternative
• Congestion would still increase on highways and at airports compared to existing conditions
as well as congestion and travel delays on streets and highways leading to and from airports
• Highway and air transportation improvements would result in reduced travel times and congestion
as compared to the No Project Alternative
• As compared to the No Project Alternative, employment would be expected to increase by 250,000 and
urbanized area by 65,000 acres between 2002 and 2035
• Would cost $82 billion (2003 dollars) — more than two times more expensive than the high-speed
train alternative
Would have the potential for significant negative environmental impacts
• Increased energy use and dependence on petroleum
• Increased emissions of air pollutants
• Impacts on property and land uses
• Increased suburban sprawl
• Impacts to wetlands and biological resources
• Effects on cultural resources, such as historic sites
• Impacts on water quality
• Impacts on park lands
Total "door-to-door" travel time from Los Angeles to San Francisco
• Highway travel time would increase from the existing 6:57 in 2000 to 7:16 in 2020
• Air travel time would increase from the existing 3:20 in 2000 to 3:27 in 2020
_ High- eed''Vai , fternative
A new MOW* trad#nWafibn akwork capable of traveling
at 220 mph It:onnectinfft'srr metropolitan areas
This alternative consists of a new high-speed train system approximately 700 miles long that would
deliver predictable, consistent and competitive intercity travel.
• State-of-the-art electrically powered high-speed steel -wheel -on -steel -rail technology with automatic train control
• Up to 68 million passengers a year by 2020
■ Exclusive tracks for most of the system, fully grade -separated, either in an open trench or tunnel, at -grade,
or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and physical constraints
• Most alignments within or adjacent to existing rail or highway right-of-Ivay
r New and upgraded stations, with connections to major airports
Would help to meet the need for intercity travel into the future
• Safer, more reliable than highway or air travel
• A new mode of transportation that would increase connectivity and accessibility to existing transit systems
and airports
• Quick, predictable, consistent travel times that would be sustainable over time
• Improved travel options in parts of the state with limited bus, rail and air transportation service
• Employment opportunities expected to increase by 450,000 over the No Project Alternative; however,
urbanization decreases by 2,600 acres compared to the No Project Alternative between 2002 and 2035
• Congestion would still increase on highways and at airports as compared to existing conditions
• Reduction of total travel times for all transportation modes as a result of traffic diversion to high-speed trains
• Cost to construct the entire system — $33 to $37 billion (2003 dollars)
• Passenger cost lower than auto or air travel for the same intercity markets
• Diverting trips to high-speed trains would reduce congestion on highways and for air travel
Would have the potential for significant negative environmental impacts
• Impacts on property and land uses • Noise and vibration impacts
• Impacts to wetlands and biological resources • Impacts to farmlands
• Impacts to cultural resources, such as historic sites • Impacts to park land and water quality
Would provide environmental benefits compared with the No Project and Modal Alternatives
• Decreased energy consumption
• Reduced air pollutant emissions and improved air quality
• Would use less land than would be needed to expand existing highways and airports
• Would provide opportunities to plan for transit -oriented growth to meet future demands
• Fewer environmental impacts overall on sensitive habitats and water resources (floodplains, streams and
wetlands) than the Modal Alternative
• For longer distance intercity travel, high-speed trains would provide "door-to-door' travel times comparable
to air transportation and less than one-half as long as highway travel times
• For intermediate intercity markets such as Fresno to Los Angeles, high-speed trains would provide considerably
quicker "door-to-door" travel times than either air or highway transportation options
• Would provide additional capacity for future generations
Total "door-to-door' travel time from Los Angeles to San Francisco
• Highway travel time would increase from the existing 6:57 in 2000 to 7:36 in 2020
• Air travel time would increase from the existing 3:02 in 2000 to 3:26 in 2020
• High-speed train travel time would be 3:20 in 2020
L}J
EIR S Prepares Way For Meeting
tern a's Transportation Needs
220 W train yslem would link major California cities
The California High -Speed Rall Authority (the Authority) has proposed high-
speed train service for intercity travel in California between the major metropolitan centers of the San Francisco
Bay Area and Sacramento in the north, through the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south.
The proposed high-speed train system is projected to carry as many as 68 million passengers annually by the
year 2020.
The Authority adopted a Final Business Plan in June 2000, for an economically viable high-speed train system
capable of speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour on a mostly dedicated, fully grade -separated track with state-
of-the-art safety, signaling and automated train control systems.
To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), a Draft Program EIR/EIS has been prepared. The Authority is both the project sponsor and the lead
agency for purposes of the state CEQA requirements. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the federal
lead agency for compliance under NEPA.
Preparation of the Draft Program EIR/EIS by the Authority and the FRA has involved more than 30 months
of identification, planning, review and evaluation of alternatives. Seventeen public scoping meetings, plus
numerous briefings and presentations to large and small groups, were conducted during the preparation of the
Draft Program EIR/EIS.
The Draft Program EIR/EIS document includes:
■ A full description of the alternatives
s Evaluation of potential environmental impacts for each alternative
■ Identification of general mitigation strategies for the proposed high-speed train alternative
o Discussion of potential high-speed train alignment and station location options
'The Draft Program EIR/EIS identifies high-speed trains as the
preferred alternative that could shape California's intercity
transportation future:
■ A completely new and separate intercity transportation alternative to augment existing air,
highway and conventional rail travel
im Quick travel times
a Better for the environment than only expanding highways and airports
r Proven, 22 -year safety record in Europe and Japan
r Capable of carrying 68 million passengers a year by 2020
o Low passenger travel cost per mile
lrti1 - 1 d Trabill
Brie►. r
The Draft Progmq't! (WdA&&5Wffa1 p Mitandikition kation options
Alignment options include:
Northern Mountain Crossing
Through the Pacheco Pass (SR152), or a Diablo
Range northern crossing more directly aligned
with San lose.
Southern Mountain Crossing
Through the Tehachapi Mountain Range
between Los Angeles and Bakersfield via
the 1-5 corridor or a crossing through
Palmdale and the Antelope Valley.
Bay Area
Service options to the Bay Area along the Peninsula
to San Francisco and/or the East Bay to Oakland.
Central Valley
Service along or near the Highway 99 corridor
from Bakersfield to Sacramento and the Bay Area.
Service to San Diego (Inland)
Through the Inland Empire via the 1-215/
1-15 corridor to either downtown San Diego
or Qualcomm Stadium.
Service to San Diego (Coast)
Transfer to LOSSAN rail corridor in Los Angeles
or direct service to Orange County with a transfer
in either Anaheim or Irvine for service to San
Diego on Surfliner trains using an improved
LOSSAN rail corridor.
Shared Use and Intermodal
Connections
Service to the urban centers on shared tracks with
other passenger rail services at moderate speeds
in heavily urbanized areas (i.e., San lose to San
Francisco and Los Angeles to Orange County).
Potential direct link to Los Angeles International
Airport (LAX).
Potential station connections to San Francisco
International Airport, Oakland Metropolitan
International Airport, Norman Y. Mineta San lose
International Airport, Burbank -Glendale -Pasadena
Airport, Ontario International Airport and San
Diego International -Lindbergh Field.
Potential station connections at major transit hubs
in California's metropolitan areas.
c
IVb
- ti reclrMnd rills Semov
Nen-EkMifla FM serme
1RWAe 00norr.
,...' 40
� f
c
I
�A
- ti reclrMnd rills Semov
Nen-EkMifla FM serme
1RWAe 00norr.
,...' 40
4.:
■ Public release and 90 -day review of the Draft Program EIR/EIS
■ Hearings held in affected regions
■ Public submits comments on Draft Program EIR/EIS at hearings or in writing
■ The Authority and FRA prepare Final Program EIR/EIS that may identify preferred
alignment and station options and includes responses to comments
■ Determine whether to advance high-speed train system to next phase — Project
Development and Project Environmental Analysis Phase
Check out the California High -Speed Rail Authority's Web site
for the Draft Program EIR/EIS and related technical reports.
www.cahighspeedraii.ca.gov
List of cities where libraries will have document available:
Anaheim
Gilroy
Norwalk
Riverside
San lose
Bakersfield
Irvine
Oakland
Sacramento
Santa Clarita
Burbank
Los Angeles
Oceanside
San Clemente
Stockton
Escondido
Merced
Ontario
San Diego
Sylmar
Fremont
Modesto
Palmdale
San Francisco
Temecula
Fresno
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Gabriel
Tulare
The Draft Program EIR/EIS is available for viewing in libraries
and can be obtained on CD by contacting the
California High -Speed Rail Authority
at(916)322-1419
•s
CALIFORNIA HIGI I-SPGfD RAR AUT'riOR ITY
U.S. Deparrmeni.
of Transport<�Uoi i
Fedoral Railroad
Administration
Vain image on cover provided by Bombardier fransponation
California High -Speed Train Program EIR/EIS High -Speed Train Alignment Options Comparison
6.3 SACRAMENTO TO BAKERSFIELD REGION
This region of central California includes a large portion of the Central Valley (San Joaquin Valley) from Sacramento south to Bakersfield.
6.3.1 Sacramento to Bakersfield Alignment Options
A. SACRAMENTO TO STOCKTON ALIGNMENT OPTIONS
All information presented is for the area from Sacramento to Stockton. This segment is shown in Figure 6.3-1.
RailroadUnion Pacific (UPRR) Central California Traction (CCT)
(Downtown Sacramento to Downtown Stockton) (Downtown Sacramento to Downtown Stockton)
Physical/Operational Characteristics
Alignment Description
The UPRR alignment begins at the Sacramento Rail Depot in
The CCT alignment begins at the Sacramento Rail Depot in
downtown Sacramento. North of Lodi, the alignment diverges
downtown Sacramento, using the UPRR alignment until
from UPRR to the CCT to bypass Lodi and reconnects to the
transitioning to CCT near the potential Power Inn Road station
UPRR to serve the proposed downtown Stockton station site.
site. The CCT alignment reconnects to UPRR to serve the
This alignment option includes a new alignment bypass of
proposed downtown Stockton station site. This alignment
Stockton for express services. Station options considered in this
option includes a new alignment bypass of Stockton for
segment include Sacramento Downtown station, Power Inn
express services. Station options considered in this segment
Road station and Stockton ACE Downtown.
include Sacramento Downtown station Power Inn Road station
and Stockton ACE Downtown.
Length in miles (km)
49 mi (79 km)
50 mi (80 km)
Cost26 (dollars)
$2.49 billion
$2.64 billion
Travel Time (min)
20 min
21 min
Ridership
The UPRR is a more direct route with slightly shorter travel
The CCT and UPRR rail alignments would serve the same
times (1 min less). The UPRR and CCT rail alignments would
basic populations and the same number of potential stations.
serve the same basic populations and the same number of
potential stations.
Constructability
The UPRR traverses more urban area than the CCT; however,
The transition from CCT at the Power Inn Road potential
HST would share freight right-of-way through Sacramento.
station site to the UPRR alignment to reach downtown
Sacramento would include 2 mi (3 km) of property acquisition
takes in urban Sacramento.
26 Segment cost and length includes 3.8 mi south of Stockton ACE Downtown station (Little John Creek).
U-11. D"rument
otTranspartalmn
"Uft u+r Ynv ccn a w.r.7r xvrr Feder*[ Railroad
Adminisrrafion
Page 6-21
California High -Speed Train Program EIR/EIS High -Speed Train Alignment Options Comparison
U.S.ra m Page 6-23
ODul' Transpoanspunmion
I UrMe umrrrsresu"M1, newrr Federal Railroad
Adminimration
RailroadUnion Pacific (UPRR)
Central California Traction (CCT)
(Downtown Sacrameqo to D.wntown Stockton)
(Downtown Sacramento to Downtown Stockton)
Land Use and Planning,
Compatibility: High potential impacts
Compatibility: High potential impacts
Communities and
Environmental Justice: Low potential minority population
Environmental Justice: Lowotential minority
P ty population
Neighborhoods, Property,
impacts
impacts
and Environmental Justice
Community: Low potential impacts
Community: Low potential impacts
Property: Low potential impacts
Property: Low potential impacts
Although compatibility is considered low, the proposed
The CCT has slightly more land designated for residential and
alignment would be on or adjacent to the existing rail corridor.
agricultural use than the UPRR route, which would make it
All station sites are located in areas where minority populations
potentially less compatible with future land uses. The CCT
have been identified. Although stations would create potential
alignment traverses primarily rural lands, resulting in low
impacts, they would also produce community access benefits.
potential property impacts. However, there are some small
The Sacramento Valley and Stockton Downtown stations sites
segments with high potential impacts, particularly in
are at existing rail hub stations.
Sacramento if the downtown station (UPRR connection) is
selected.
Farmlands :28 Ac (ha) of
Farmlands: 588-599 ac (238-242 ha)
Farmlands: 449-460 ac (182-186 ha)
farmland (depending on
specific configuration with
loops and connections)
Existing UPRR rail alignment reduces potential impacts on
Existing UP Existing CCT rail alignment reduces potential
farmlands between Sacramento and Lodi. Connection to CCT
impacts on farmlands between Sacramento and Stockton.
north of Lodi and express loop to the east of Stockton would
The express loop to the east of Stockton would require new
require new alignments through farmlands, which could have
alignments through farmlands, which could have potential
potential severance impacts.
severance impacts.
Cultural Resources and
Known cultural resources: 39-49
Known cultural resources: 44-54
Paleontological
Resources:29 Potential
presence of historical
Potential for historical resources through downtown Sacramento
Potential for historical resources through downtown
resources in area of potential
and Stockton. However, the alignments through both cities
Sacramento and Stockton. However, through both cities, the
effect
would use existing rail right-of-way.
alignments would use existing rail right-of-way. The CCT
traverses fewer urban areas.
28 The farmland resources study area is defined as 50 ft (15 m) on each side of alignment centerline (100 ft [30 m] total) when the alignment is separate from an existing rail corridor.
When the alignment is adjacent to an existing rail corridor, the study area would extend 100 ft (30 m) from the rail right-of-way on the side the alignment would run.
29 The archaeological area of potential effect is defined as 500 ft (152 m) on each side of the alignment centerline for new routes requiring additional right-of-way, and 100 ft (30 m)
on each side of centerline for routes along existing highways and railroads, where very little additional right-of-way would be required. The study area for paleontological resources is
defined as 100 ft (30 m) on each side of alignment centerline.
U.S.ra m Page 6-23
ODul' Transpoanspunmion
I UrMe umrrrsresu"M1, newrr Federal Railroad
Adminimration
1.2 High -Speed Trains for California
The decision to choose a particular type of high-speed technology for California
should be deferred until after the environmental clearance phase of this project.
Manufacturers of stockwheel-on -steel -rail and Maglev technologies should
be able to compete for the opportunity to use their technology in California,
ensuring the best product for the best price.
Regardless of technology, high-speed trains will offer Californians a new way
of traveling. Combining the benefits of moving from one part of the state to
another quickly with the freedom to plug in your computer or talk on a cell
phone or get up to get a cup of coffee, high-speed train travel promises
Californians a relaxing, productive trip. Tables would be available for group seat-
ing, with conference: rooms available for business meetings en route. Because
they travel over new dedicated infrastructure, trains traveling at high speeds
provide an extremely safe, smooth and comfortable ride — seat belts are never
needed. And high-speed trains are the most reliable way to travel, not
hampered by rain, fog or interstate freeway delays in completing their
scheduled runs.
Design Standards for California
In this business plan, high-speed trains are defined as those capable of exceed-
ing 200 miles per hour. However, these trains will not operate at those speeds
everywhere in the state. Within the state's urban regions, high-speed trains will
likely only travel at maximum speeds between 100 and 150 miles per hour.
For purposes of this business plan, all other trains — equipment, service, and
trackage — will be known as "conventional rail."
The high-speed infrastructure will be a state-of-the-art, proven, world-class
technology that significantly increases the states transportation capacity. The
system will use electric propulsion on a double track or guideway to provide the
necessary high capacity, flexibility, and reliability. The system will be completely
grade separated, with no potential for conflict with pedestrian or vehicular
traffic. In addition, the high-speed train right-of-way will be completely fenced
and monitored to avoid intrusion by pedestrians, wildlife or livestock. Using
modern signaling technology, trains on similar infrastructure in Asia and Europe
can operate at three-minute intervals.
I.01®Eat Is a RIO-*" Train Wen?
Il I M Is a 110 -Sind rrW 99=7
In general, the high-speed train system will be built at -grade and require a
corridor 50 feet wide (see Figure 1.1). In severely constrained urban areas,
where grade separation costs are prohibitive, aerial structures (Figure 1.2) or
retained fill are assumed. By comparison, a 12 -lane freeway constructed to
Caltrans' standards requires a nearly 225 -foot -wide right-of-way.
All intermediate stations will feature siding tracks to allow express trains to
pass through without slowing down. High-level boarding platforms will facilitate
passenger loading and unloading as well as meet requirements for disabled
passengers under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Each station will be
a transportation hub connecting the high-speed train system to highways,
conventional rail, transit, and/or air transportation networks, as appropriate.
The ridership and revenue estimates in this plan have assumed 10 -car trains
capable of seating 650 passengers, and that by 2020, the system will need to
operate trains about every 15 minutes during peak periods. To put the total
available capacity of this system into perspective, consider that the signaling
L1fEhAt f
SILYrvp.i
%AKIES 2�rn I
F-'✓TROFNCY
NALKWAY
FEWE*Nk,
figure 1.1
Rt -Grade Ballasted Trackulny
P1 "M1C
ENI'E1 OFE
90U1N000ND NOMBOUND
for OF I
KAIL
iDI AMP 6LW611 REO J
UbGK Vk
FILL
system would permit trains to run every three min-
utes, and additional passenger cars could be added
to the trainsets. Two trainsets could even be linked
— effectively doubling their capacity. Trains carrying
650 passengers every three minutes in both
directions could serve up to 26,000 passengers per
hour — equivalent to the number of passengers
currently moved on a 12 -Lane urban freeway during
peak periods. The Authority's projections suggest
that even by 2050, the high-speed system would be
carrying less than 50 percent of its ultimate potential
capacity. The high-speed train infrastructure would
provide capacity to serve Californias growing trans-
portation and mobility needs to move intercity
passengers, commuters, and goods throughout the
22nd century.
%Fro, -E
OUR Nr
NrAT-
;K kCf fW..C.INr %UfiE.ti AC.CrRP24,.
10 :454N' SM -FI).
RAIL
+Ni FLc:.Evrok JRLH.
A.4 kF tiNi('
r!�U Adr W.7'
%- ra�. r au:r
MICE
figure 1.2
flerlal irackuray
Compatibility with
Other Rail Services
The Authority has assumed that the dual track or
guideway is dedicated exclusively to high-speed and
compatible rail services. Presently, high-speed trains
capable of speeds exceeding 200 miles per hour
cannot share track or guideway with conventional rail
operations, including the current generation of pas-
senger equipment operated by Amtrak and regional
rail authorities, as well as the freight equipment
currenW operated by the freight railroads. Where
high-speed and conventional rail operations must
share a right-of-way, the incompatible services
must be separated horizontally or vertically. The high-
speed tracks or guideway will be protected by
an intrusion detection system and, in some areas,
separated from conventional rail operations by a
crash barrier or by placing the high-speed trains on
an aerial structure.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules do not
allow for mixed operations of high-speed and
conventional rail equipment, primarily because the
two classes of equipment are designed to withstand
different impact loads in the evert of a collision.
Because conventional rail equipment is much heav-
ier and impact -resistant, the possibility of collision
with a lighter high-speed trainset poses a potential
safety hazard. The FRA may eventually adopt rules
consistent with European practice that rely on
collision avoidance rather than traffic separation. it
is also possible that a high-speed trainset meeting
both crashworthiness and high-speed performance
specifications will be available during the implemen-
tation time frame of this project.
C
1.111111" Is a 1111wSUN rrm Systm7
Exhibit F
California High -Speed Train Program EIR/EIS Screening Report
6.0 ALIGNMENTS AND STATIONS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION
The screening evaluation concluded with a set of recommended alignment and station locations for each
region. Combining these recommended alignments and stations produces a statewide set of alignments
and stations that the Authority has approved to be studied further in the EIR/EIS process. Figures 6-1
and 6-2 present the alignment and station options for further evaluation in the northern and southern
portions of the system, respectively. The following sections define each the alignment and station
options.
Figure 6-1
Alignment and Station Locations for Continued Investigation
(Northern)
• 3a�rar-2nt.
CCT
U P: SP
1
t
I
S:oc<:cr,
Oaklancj i:rst C_cl,rid
Trarscay iandnat _�'112;i 5hcofiCily Cm 1••r
San Francisco '• !' Co!t5e�m
- _ _
4th b K11Q Hayward_A3T V BNSF
�5FO Ur *,;city UP/SP
Caltrarn ltuaeao
Shared -Use Nilos
a Aut3'ddii P,]rMtray
Radn,0' City Mulford Lino
P3I0,V10 Diablo Range North
SartaC'ara ,ar _osc.'f.,cion
Callrain -' 61ucaJ
lL
Gilroy Drat110 R1RJd Direct
1Lv9:n H it ' Bypass Loc 3.rc: -
G!Iroy Pacheco UPrSP
BNSF
Pass
n,nf:rd - Vsalia
i
UPISP
BNSF
� I
u.s. Department Page 6-1
or Transportation
--�T Federal Railroad
nrvaavi+.vc�rsria.aw .+N»s' Administration
AGENDA ITEM 1-3
J16% CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TM
AGENDA TITLE: Approve Comments on High Speed Rail Environmental Impact Report
(SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION)
MEETING DATE: August 18, 2004
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve comments on the High Speed Rail
Environmental Impact Report on the proposed California High
Speed Train System.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City has received the attached material concerning the High
Speed Rail route to the Bay Area from the TRAC -- Train Riders
Association of California. This group is actively lobbying to have the
High Speed Rail Commission reverse a previous decision
eliminating the Sacramento/Bay Area connection via the Altamont
from further consideration.
A copy of background material from the Commission on this topic is also attached. This material is taken
from the Commission's "Confirmation of Previous Decisions (Compilation of Regional Report Excerpts)"
dated October 1, 2001, and explains the reasons the Altamont corridor was not selected.
The San Joaquin Council of Governments has also been monitoring this issue. The Board previously
took action supporting High Speed Rail and the Altamont alignment but has not taken further action.
COG staff is submitting comments on the EIR/EIS, mainly focusing on alignments and station issues in
the Stockton area.
FUNDING: Not applicable.
6
Richard C. Prima, Jr.
Public Works Director
RCPlpmf
Attachments
cc: Rad Bartlam, Community Development Director
APPROVED:
Janet S. Keeter, Interim City Manager
HighSpeedRai4F 4RComments_Supp4omental. doc
$!1612004
TRAC
- J Street,
Sui Suite 612 _
Train Riders
_-� , - 7HID Sacramento
' ' CA 95814!?
Association
Ventura County
67
of Cahforpa%
July 12, 2004 (916) 448-1789 fax
Los Angeles County
Altamont gives San Jose its own line, its own trains and a stop right at the San
4t '
Dear Councilmember:
San Mateo County
Are you aware of the far-reaching effects high-speed rail will have on your
inmunity and the region? Where it is built is of crucial importance.
Gerald Cauthen
-,The mandate of the High Speed Rail Commission (Commission), which
sunsetted as a state agency in 1999, was to move above the fray of local
politics and objectively select a route that is best for California as a whole.
The enclosed brochure explains why Altamont was and should again be the
The Commission produced its final route selection in 1999. The preferred
preferred route for high-speed rail. Additional copies are available on request.
route segments included an express bypass for the two-thirds of trains that
Alan C. MillI1,'
would run through the Central Valley without stopping, keeping 200 mph
Executive Diiector
trains out of Valley downtowns and neighborhoods. Also preferred was the
T...._.:.. (�4..._..oc-'
uCt,l llC lillCil+�V�U
Altamont Pass route, the most -traveled corridor between the Rax, Arca and tho
'-� -"
Office Manager
Central Valley. The final recommendation of the Commission was to have the
officers
Altamont route serve the Bay Area with two major lines, one terminating in
San Jose and the other in San Francisco.
Richard Tolmach
President
Today's High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA), however, has not been so
Roger Christensen
objective. While the Commission chose Altamont as their preferred route,
Vice President
HSRA not only dropped Altamont from preferred status but dropped the
Hal Wanaselja
Altamont Route from consideration altogether. This is wrong because
Secretary
Altamont has major advantages:
Lynn A. Franks
Treasurer
The Altamont Route serves a more populated region and provides better
connections between Northern California cities. It is the only viable route for
Board Members
Sacramento and Stockton trips to the Peninsula and San Francisco. The
Donald Bing
HSRA's preferred route via Merced is over three times longer than today's
Ventura County
Capitol Corridor and is therefore not time competitive.
Neil Bjornsen
Los Angeles County
Altamont gives San Jose its own line, its own trains and a stop right at the San
Adnan Brandt
Jose airport. Altamont gives Bay Area, San Ramon Valley, South Bay, San
San Mateo County
Joaquin Valley and Sacramento commuters a high-speed alternative route to
jobs and provides significant congestion relief on Interstates 580 and 680.
Gerald Cauthen
Alameda County
The enclosed brochure explains why Altamont was and should again be the
Michael Dickerson
Los Angeles County
preferred route for high-speed rail. Additional copies are available on request.
We invite your city to discuss this issue and submit comments on the route
Michael Kieshng
selection to the High -Speed Rail Authority by the draft EIR deadline of
San Francisco
August 31, 2004. Comments should be submitted to: California High -Speed
Ron Kilcoyne
Rail Authority, 925 L Street, Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Los Angeles County
William F. McGeehan, III If you have any questions, please feel free to contact TRAC at (916) 557-1667.
Contra Costa County
Dan McNamara Sincerely, /]����
San Mateo County 11.1 /�
Alan C. Miller
Executive Director
Enclosed: List of Altamont Route Supporters, Route Support Brochure
TRAC, active since 1984, is a non-profit consumer lobby advocating improved passenger train service in California.
TRAC 926 J Street,
Suite 612
Train Riders
Sacramento t=-
4. Train Riders Association of California
CA 95814
Association
of California
(916) 557-1667
(916) 448-1789 fax
These organizations support the study of an Altamont Pass route:
1. Sierra Club
2. Planning and Conservation League
3. Bay Area Open Spaces Council
Alan C. Miller
4. Train Riders Association of California
Executive Director
Jeanie Sherwood
5. California Rail Foundation
Office Manager
Officers
6. Defenders of Wildlife
Richard Tolmach
7. American Farmland Trust
President
Roger Christensen
8. Transportation Involves Everyone
Vice President
Hal Wanaselja
9. Nature Conservancy
Secretary
Lynn A. Franks
10. Surface Transportation Policy Project
Treasurer
11. Mountain Lion Foundation
Board Members
Donald Bing
12. Regional Alliance for Transit
Ventura County
Neil Bjornsen
13. Bay Rail Alliance
Los Angeles County
Adrian Brandt
14. Transportation and Land Use Coalition
San Mateo County
The following representatives support the study of an Altamont Pass
Gerald Cauthen
Alameda County
Ioute:
Michael Dickerson
Los Angeles County
1.
Senator Jackie Speier, Representing San Francisco and San Mateo
Counties
Michael Kiesling
San Francisco
2.
Senator Don Perata, Senate Majority Leader
Ron Kilcoyne
Los Angeles County
3.
Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, Chair, Assembly Committee on
William F. McGeehan, III
Appropriations
Contra Costa County
Dan McNamara
4.
Assemblyman Mark Leno, 13th District (San Francisco)
San Mateo County
5.
Assemblyman Guy Houston, 15`h District (San Ramon Valley)
6.
Assemblywoman Wilma Chan, 16`h District (Oakland)
TRAC, active since 1984, is a non-profit consumer lobby advocating improved passenger train service in California.
ALTAMONT GIVES A BETTER ANSWER;
N
,.'..-What does Northern California
rim h i
Relie o
Palo Alto Fremont- .
eedle
h speed rail?
►, ck.
-)''..'gest
ed and
3 1 corridors
,47
NMI
ALTAMONT
N tM Tracy
on of the
9- NNNI
E
raT
f��
-5L,-
PAC ECS Y
Hollister
Hess
ants Nella
""Mmumm"m
Los Banos
,b = - Od *E :Izl %A
0, - 2, 0
a 2 cc E 0
-a w 0.
0 -
c E
M a �
-Z O.E W.0 D w -C
'u, Do z
o N,
'R cr
c w -.S'b 2 r
0 M -r- 15 5 -
0 0 V, cr w w
IF 0 - 00 0
0 > :5
ED 0-- E E 2 -
Lu -C M CL
-D
a o- -r.9 D�:E
r m :5 T) E >m =-0 0 w 2 0
M C'o
LA V W g
2 E E c: -0
w C� 7--
,.y 2
0 CLO E *6 c T tow(
M . �� 2 -
.2., 21 0 w
E LL T -S Zc E' OE
M 4) ol r 4, E q, 75 > n t -
% M - -0 > 7
C! t
c 0 M O. -L
u kA <,= % ,, �: i!= S :D (
M CL
c -�Q �g 2 v� cm,
0 CL 0 U -6 C'L 'o
o E 3: 0 c
E 41 0 re -0 a
8 0 (2 = � 8 D
emo E LA --C —0 C
E — -a E'vi m cp Om
M � e kn 0
c) .9 m 0 c. 4,) c D E
C4 � -0 z iz o E cc @ 2 1,-' m
4" . u E E
E Z! E 8,o
TL =M I- pc um Mr- �, -o 13 M c .- M >:� c
E OJ m E :FC -C m FE e m
c E w c'o'S 0 3'
a M w z 0'a c -z'
Z S E E 0
a :3 .0 :3 c 'o w E E --r- 1c)
W 7i 7 m ld t u m> S
E om M:? E
= M ".t! = , d 6 0 :7t c
- 0 c, .9 u -F, w r O�
c ; M -
'MA -r- I. Aw -u 'N -z'; .- = w
D U CIC w w E 2'8.'- -- E - R c- w
24V _0 M 4� 3: W m -� M WU M m.S W 0 CL_
00. -Q) ol a U 0. M 8 lrm � .,�.
e, -;'t 0 -0 0) E !E5 't
0.
wc cw r-
_0 0 u w 0
u " 4) c r��
up E E (L
u 'r' E s
vi r- cn
A'
< CTL CIL M
Al 0 0 0
'E'O 0 -m';; o
E
r
- L� CL :3
c,.2 a c 8
S! � cc mn .2 -0 -a
0 E " - C- a 4�'
tA I �� CL M
2LA @ '0, 6
CC -C b,= :C -
S3 iju
0
2 0
EA
i. E
uECE%-c9,sV
0 E t E > 5 o
_0
M8 f 0, -.ia -0 Co Cmr E
c 0 J! b u E OIT
E c c
da)
C:,A= me c
E
0
u --s zo
I I
6 c , W, ' � -'
0 M - E - -�k
0 E c -6 M .0 u
_0 2 T I -c-
E V
:3 6
c E CwL a E -o c
- c
o o m
0 -0 CL 0
4--
2= m 'o
c -�:g C CWL a'-
0 M
0
-= -R 9 3: IF
0 Q, c 75 o"k:
M Ji, 4-- M M
0 c
:2 W r
Mtn 0,
4).r -0 = -S 4, E
>, 0.4) :3 .2 5
-j = M r C 0 'a -6 -0 72
M
j o
qj E 3: 0 CL
Ol c
.2 m 0 2 12
c
Z .2
c c m
0 E
Z E 8
2 or -
C
0-6 E
'5 (Eu -M
< :3 Q -S 8
-ra 0' v x -0
- f -r- Cm
w do
(u
w -r- , E c �Q
Q. W M.Q LU
Ln E -!-- % i?
= r- 6. < t ru-
M 2 = -d 0,
r
CWL
0 0, u
z 2 Zm E . s
MU
LL tR
C3 Z
:c
4a C IQ'
c
0
E
IZ3
< -.-5c
0
2 E
OD - 4)
0
8-20 >0
C >
0 , 6
-r, -r- c
t= C
0
0 CL
ar-) c
> c
2 .... c
- � 4) a- 4) -C
t5 -u; E.0 c
02< - "
E Q Z5
:2 d:g
;Fc -C
b 0 0
C: L� *Z:; c
0 co M
u e 0) t
>,Co -r 0.
CO 10 - 0.
-C
C
0
0, 21 cc
E -T
c c a) -0
-0
101,
0 , c
C.c a) a) .h
.0 'L
E -0 c
o 10-0
0 0-0- 2
M E
c: 0)
.2 -S
c: " .
M .- � 0
o E 2 u c
U
E u
0 -0
U U C M
Om a) M.c c
>, CL
-0 0
TRAC
Train Riders Association of California
TRAC, active since 1984, is a non-profit consumer lobby
advocating improved passenger train service in California.
Please contact TRAC for further information.
926 J Street #612, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 557-1667 phone * (916) 448-1789 fax
trac@omsoft.com
www.calrailnews.com
Los Angeles to San Diego via Orange County
California High -Speed Train Program EIR/EIS High -Speed Train Screening Evaluation
2.0 BAY AREA TO MERCED REGION
2.1 ALIGNMENTAND STATION DEFINITION
This section describes alignments and stations that were previously studied for high-speed train service
by the High-speed Rail Commission or the current High -Speed Rail Authority. Alignments previously
studied but since withdrawn from consideration are described first in Section 3.1. Reasons for their
withdrawal are provided.
2.2 ALIGNMENTS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED By HIGH-SPEED RAIL COMMISSION AND
AUTHORITY BUT WITHDRAWN FROM CURRENT CONSIDERATION
Three alignments were previously reviewed by the High -Speed Rail Commission and Authority but have
since been withdrawn from consideration: (1) Altamont Pass, and (2) Panoche Pass, and (3) 1-80 corridor
from Oakland to Sacramento. The 1-80 corridor may be reevaluated at a future date as a possible
extension of a baseline high-speed train system.
2.2.1 Altamont Pass Alignment
One Alignment evaluated in prior studies would pass from the San Joaquin Valley over the Altamont Pass
into the Bay Area. For this Altamont Pass alignment, individual high-speed trains would not be able to
serve San lose San
I
Francisco, and Oakland.
An Altamont alignment
would require incoming
trains to travel to only
one of these three
destinations.
Consequently, service to
the Bay Area would be
compromised, and total
ridership would be lower
for an Altamont Pass
alignment as compared
to the Pacheco Pass
Alignment.
The HSRA staff analysis,
as summarized in the
July 14, 2000 Revised
Staff Recommendations
for VHS Route Adoption,
recommended the Pacheco Pass rather than the Altamont Pass alignment for the reasons identified
above. The analysis noted that significant trade-offs exist between the Altamont and Pacheco Pass
alignments. While the Pacheco Pass Alignment was previously estimated to be approximately $2 billion
more costly than an Altamont Alignment because of its longer length, a Pacheco Pass alignment was
forecast to have higher ridership and revenue potential from the Central Valley to San Francisco (See
Table 2.1-1). Using Year 2015 forecasts, the Pacheco Pass Alignment is estimated to have 1.1 million
more riders per year and $56 million more in annual revenues than the Altamont Pass Alignment.
i0hk U.S. partment Page 2
� o' Sansportafion
Railroad
Los Angeles to San Diego via Orange County
California High -Speed Train Program EIR/EIS High -Speed Train Screening Evaluation
Table 2.1- 1
Annual Ridership and Revenue for High Speed Trains
Pacheco and Altamont Pass VHS Alignments (millions)
These two mountain passes also differ in how they would serve Central Valley and Bay Area populations.
The Altamont Pass would offer superior service to the Bay Area from the fast growing San Joaquin
County area and would provide faster travel times between Sacramento and San lose or San Francisco.
This is the reason this alignment is favored by some Central Valley leaders. An express train traveling
between Sacramento and San lose would take 47 minutes via the Altamont Pass compared to 82 minutes
Via the Pacheco Pass.
Although the Altamont Pass would provide a more direct link between San Joaquin and Stanislaus
counties and the Bay Area population centers, this corridor represents a relatively short distance market
with ridership characteristics more fitting a commute corridor than an intercity corridor. The distance
between the SR -99 Junction and the San Jose high-speed station would be 66 miles (89 miles to San
Francisco). Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties are working with Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara
counties on a cooperative transportation planning approach to serve commuters living in the northern
Central Valley and working in Southern Alameda county and the Silicon Valley.
Compared to the Altamont Pass, the Pacheco Pass Alignment would reduce travel times between Los
Angeles and San Jose by at least 10 minutes (See Table 2.1-2).
However, the greatest benefit of the Pacheco Pass is that all trains would pass through San Jose,
regardless of whether San Francisco, Oakland, or both were served. Therefore, from an operational
perspective, the Pacheco Pass Alignment would be superior alignments for serving the largest Bay Area
markets. The Altarriont Pass Alignment would require the system to split at Newark/Fremont to serve
either San Jose or San Francisco (or Oakland). This means that only some trains passing through the
Altamont Pass from Los Angeles would go to San Francisco, some to Oakland, and some to San lose. The
Pacheco Pass therefore would have superior frequencies of service to the Bay Area and would be less
costly and easier to operate.
U. S. Departrnent Page 3
.1 Transportation
F
ederal Railroad
C4jA-MW2M A"WA4PMVIW4Ar A*
Bay Area Northern Terminus
[Alignment
San Francisco
Oakland
I Both*
Pacheco Pass
Riders
21.12
20.49
21.10
Revenue
$744
$725
$746
Altamont Pass
Riders
20.02
18.95
Revenue
$688
$657
'Ridership via Pacheco Pass to San Francisco and Oakland is shown without
adding additional trains, i.e., SF and Oakland would each be served with half as
many trains in comparison to a terminus at either SF or Oakland. Via the Altamon
Pass, however, it is not possible to serve both San Francisco and Oakland along
with San Jose.
Source: Final Report, California High -Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation,
HSR -98004, December 30, 1999.
These two mountain passes also differ in how they would serve Central Valley and Bay Area populations.
The Altamont Pass would offer superior service to the Bay Area from the fast growing San Joaquin
County area and would provide faster travel times between Sacramento and San lose or San Francisco.
This is the reason this alignment is favored by some Central Valley leaders. An express train traveling
between Sacramento and San lose would take 47 minutes via the Altamont Pass compared to 82 minutes
Via the Pacheco Pass.
Although the Altamont Pass would provide a more direct link between San Joaquin and Stanislaus
counties and the Bay Area population centers, this corridor represents a relatively short distance market
with ridership characteristics more fitting a commute corridor than an intercity corridor. The distance
between the SR -99 Junction and the San Jose high-speed station would be 66 miles (89 miles to San
Francisco). Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties are working with Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara
counties on a cooperative transportation planning approach to serve commuters living in the northern
Central Valley and working in Southern Alameda county and the Silicon Valley.
Compared to the Altamont Pass, the Pacheco Pass Alignment would reduce travel times between Los
Angeles and San Jose by at least 10 minutes (See Table 2.1-2).
However, the greatest benefit of the Pacheco Pass is that all trains would pass through San Jose,
regardless of whether San Francisco, Oakland, or both were served. Therefore, from an operational
perspective, the Pacheco Pass Alignment would be superior alignments for serving the largest Bay Area
markets. The Altarriont Pass Alignment would require the system to split at Newark/Fremont to serve
either San Jose or San Francisco (or Oakland). This means that only some trains passing through the
Altamont Pass from Los Angeles would go to San Francisco, some to Oakland, and some to San lose. The
Pacheco Pass therefore would have superior frequencies of service to the Bay Area and would be less
costly and easier to operate.
U. S. Departrnent Page 3
.1 Transportation
F
ederal Railroad
C4jA-MW2M A"WA4PMVIW4Ar A*
Los Angeles to San Diego via Orange County
California High -Speed Train Program EIR/EIS High -Speed Train Screening Evaluation
Table 2.1-2
VHS Travel rime to the Bay Area from Los Angeles
Compared for Pacheco and Altamont Pass Alignments (minutes)
For the Pacheco Pass Alignment, the number of annual riders to San Jose in the Year 2015 is projected to
be 3.3 million, with 5.7 million riders using the downtown San Francisco Station. In contrast, operations
under the Altamont Pass Alignment would cut service levels by half to each destination due to the split at
Newark/Fremont. Moreover, travel times to San Jose from Los Angeles via Altamont would increase by
10 minutes. As a result, system ridership would drop by 1.1 million per year (See Table 2.1-1).
Another negative aspect of the Altamont Route is that it would require building a new bridge across the
environmentally sensitive San Francisco Bay for service to San Francisco.
2.2.2 Panoche Pass Alignment
A Panoche Pass Alignment was also reviewed in prior high-speed train studies. This pass is 35-40 miles
south of the Pacheco Pass, A Panoche Pass Alignment would be more expensive and would have lower
ridership than the Pacheco Pass Alignment. Compared with the Pacheco Pass Alignment, the Panoche
Pass Alignment would cost about $0.5 billion additional for just the mountain pass segment alone. 1 The
difference in total system cost with respect to the Pacheco Pass Alignment would be even higher, given
the added distance through the Panoche Pass. Although service from Los Angeles to the Bay Area via
the Panoche Pass would be slightly faster than via the Pacheco Pass, ridership would be lower by an
estimated 300,000 riders per year because the Merced area would not be as well served, In addition, the
Panoche Pass Alignment would reduce the high-speed train service provided to the northern portion of
the Central Valley (e.g., Stockton and Sacramento), in that trips from northern California to the Bay Area
would take substantially longer via this pass.
2.2.3 1-80 Corridor from Oakland to Sacramento
Previous High-speed Rail Commission studies considered the 1-80 corridor to link the San Francisco Bay
Area and Sacramento. These studies concluded that tKe existing "Capitol" rail service should be
improved to speeds of up to 110 mph and would serve as a feeder system to the statewide high-speed
train system. The existing rail corridor between Oakland and Benicia has major curve and speed
constraints and cannot be upgraded to achieve high speeds without major capital cost implications. The
distance between Oakland and Sacramento is relatively short when viewed as an intercity market, and
high -speeds are not needed to serve this market. However, a trip from Sacramento to Los Angeles via
the 1-80 corridor would be approximately 11/2hours longer through the San Francisco Bay Area than a
trip from Sacramento to Los Angeles through the Central Valley. Capitol Corridor rail service currently
exists between San Francisco and Sacramento, and operating and rail improvements are anticipated for
this service. This alignment could be considered as a potential future extension of the high-speed train
system but is not proposed to be included in the initial baseline system or in the Program EIS/EIR.
' Intercity High -Speed Rail Commission, High -Speed Rail Summary Report and Action Plan, Final Report
December 1966, Table 8.5.
U.S. Department 11age 4
of Transportation
VHS Express Travel Time
from Los ngeles to:
San Jose
San Francisco
Alignment
Pacheco Pass
122
150
Altarnont Pass
132
153
Source: Final Report, California High -Speed Rail Corridor
Evaluation, HSR -98004, December 30, 1999.
For the Pacheco Pass Alignment, the number of annual riders to San Jose in the Year 2015 is projected to
be 3.3 million, with 5.7 million riders using the downtown San Francisco Station. In contrast, operations
under the Altamont Pass Alignment would cut service levels by half to each destination due to the split at
Newark/Fremont. Moreover, travel times to San Jose from Los Angeles via Altamont would increase by
10 minutes. As a result, system ridership would drop by 1.1 million per year (See Table 2.1-1).
Another negative aspect of the Altamont Route is that it would require building a new bridge across the
environmentally sensitive San Francisco Bay for service to San Francisco.
2.2.2 Panoche Pass Alignment
A Panoche Pass Alignment was also reviewed in prior high-speed train studies. This pass is 35-40 miles
south of the Pacheco Pass, A Panoche Pass Alignment would be more expensive and would have lower
ridership than the Pacheco Pass Alignment. Compared with the Pacheco Pass Alignment, the Panoche
Pass Alignment would cost about $0.5 billion additional for just the mountain pass segment alone. 1 The
difference in total system cost with respect to the Pacheco Pass Alignment would be even higher, given
the added distance through the Panoche Pass. Although service from Los Angeles to the Bay Area via
the Panoche Pass would be slightly faster than via the Pacheco Pass, ridership would be lower by an
estimated 300,000 riders per year because the Merced area would not be as well served, In addition, the
Panoche Pass Alignment would reduce the high-speed train service provided to the northern portion of
the Central Valley (e.g., Stockton and Sacramento), in that trips from northern California to the Bay Area
would take substantially longer via this pass.
2.2.3 1-80 Corridor from Oakland to Sacramento
Previous High-speed Rail Commission studies considered the 1-80 corridor to link the San Francisco Bay
Area and Sacramento. These studies concluded that tKe existing "Capitol" rail service should be
improved to speeds of up to 110 mph and would serve as a feeder system to the statewide high-speed
train system. The existing rail corridor between Oakland and Benicia has major curve and speed
constraints and cannot be upgraded to achieve high speeds without major capital cost implications. The
distance between Oakland and Sacramento is relatively short when viewed as an intercity market, and
high -speeds are not needed to serve this market. However, a trip from Sacramento to Los Angeles via
the 1-80 corridor would be approximately 11/2hours longer through the San Francisco Bay Area than a
trip from Sacramento to Los Angeles through the Central Valley. Capitol Corridor rail service currently
exists between San Francisco and Sacramento, and operating and rail improvements are anticipated for
this service. This alignment could be considered as a potential future extension of the high-speed train
system but is not proposed to be included in the initial baseline system or in the Program EIS/EIR.
' Intercity High -Speed Rail Commission, High -Speed Rail Summary Report and Action Plan, Final Report
December 1966, Table 8.5.
U.S. Department 11age 4
of Transportation