C A L I F O R N I A H I G H - S P E E D R A I L A U T H O R I T Y
R e p o r t t o t h e L E G I S L A T U R E
2 0 0 9
D E C E M B E R
Introduction / Purpose
Executive Summary
The Project and Its History
The High- Speed Rail Authority
From Today to Passenger Service
Outreach
Ridership, Revenue, & Operations
Cost of the System
Paying for the System
Economy / Climate Right Now
Subsequent Sections
Risks and Mitigation
Oversight
Conclusion
AB 4x1 Checklist
Table of Contents
1
2
4
9
27
53
64
84
92
109
112
119
127
133
134
D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 9
1
The California high- speed train will dramatically change the
face of our state – from our economy to our environment,
to the communities the system passes through and the way
we are viewed around the world. It will create jobs, spur the
development of more livable and sustainable communities, help
achieve our state’s historic greenhouse gas reduction goals, and
reinvent Californians’ perception of the time and distance across
our great state.
Today is an exciting time for high- speed rail development, as
interest in the transportation option builds around the globe,
and as the President of the United States pursues a vision of
transportation in America in which high- speed trains play a
leading role.
Over the course of the past year, a number of events have
transformed California’s high- speed train project from simply an
idea into a viable infrastructure project. As such, the California
High- speed Rail Authority is also evolving from an entity focused
solely on planning a high- speed train project to one that must
also build it.
Just over a year ago, the people of California said clearly1 that
they want a high- speed train system – a new transportation
option – when they voted in favor of Proposition 1A. And
interest in California’s project – which has been in planning for
some 13 years – has now reached an unprecedented level.
For these reasons, the Legislature rightly included in the 2009-
10 State Budget language requiring the California High- Speed
Rail Authority to submit a business plan document by Dec. 15,
2009. Subsequent legislation additionally was passed by the
Legislature and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger requiring
the Authority to submit a revised business plan every two years2.
This document satisfies the requirement of the Budget Act of
20093 and lays out the path forward for California’s high- speed
rail project.
Introduction / Purpose
1 Secretary of State, Statement of Vote, November 2008 General Election, Proposition 1A,
the Safe, Reliable High- Speed Train Bond Act
2 Assembly Bill 783 ( Ashburn), Chaptered Oct. 11,2009
3 Assembly Bill 4x1, revisions to the Budget Act of 2009, SEC. 148. Item 2665- 004- 6043 of Section 2.00
D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 9
2
Inspired by successes of high- speed train systems around the
world, California has for more than 13 years been planning a
statewide high- speed rail line that will serve as a backbone
and a needed alternative to the state’s existing transportation
network. Stretching initially from Anaheim/ Los Angeles through
the Central Valley to San Francisco, and later to Sacramento and
San Diego, it will be capable of a 220 mph operating speed and
a travel time between Los Angeles and San Francisco of under
2 hours 40 minutes. It will interconnect with other modes of
transportation and provide an alternative, more environmentally
friendly option to vehicle and air travel.
The California High- Speed Rail Authority is the state entity
charged with planning, designing, building, and operating
the planned system. To date, the Authority has existed largely
as a planning organization, staffed by a small number of state
employees, relying largely on contract services, and governed by
a nine- member board of directors. However, now the Authority
must transform into an implementation entity responsible for
what will be the largest public works infrastructure project in
state history.
A project of this magnitude will have a significant impact on
our economy, in both the short and long terms, and will provide
the job creation and stimulus our state needs in this difficult
economic time. Construction startup by 2012 is expected to
generate 600,000 jobs ( one- year, full- time equivalents over
approximately 8 years) and kick- start economic activity in
design, construction and supply services.
The path from where California’s high- speed train project stands
today to initial revenue passenger service can be divided into
three categories of major milestones: planning, implementation,
and revenue service. This document describes the process,
shows where the project is currently, and discusses the plan to
achieve initial high- speed train service. An ideal timeline shows
full, Anaheim/ Los Angeles to San Francisco high- speed train
service by 2020, with smaller sections opening for limited or
shared- use service prior to that time.
Between today and passenger service, it is essential that the
Authority conduct effective and thorough outreach to inform
Californians about the project and its progress. Effective
outreach is integral to achieving the goals of the high- speed
train project, and it is incumbent upon the Authority to
effectively engage the public in its mission to be transparent
and accountable to the people of California. Already, the
Authority is putting in place a plan to augment and improve its
Executive Summary
On Track to Create Jobs, Stimulate Our Economy, Improve California’s
Mobility, and Support the President’s Vision
3
outreach efforts, and between today and the
commencement of construction, there will be
ample and significant opportunities for public
input and interaction.
Another stage in the lead up to construction
is to refine ridership and revenue estimates.
The ridership of a high- speed train system, the
revenue it brings in, and its operations costs are
all interconnected. Balancing the three elements
determines the viability of the system as a
business enterprise. This document describes
the Authority’s current ridership, revenues, and
operations costs estimates, and the steps we are
taking to further improve those numbers.
This document also updates the projected cost
of building the system, describing for the first
time the construction costs in terms of the
year the dollars will be expended rather than
today’s current dollars. Previously, the cost of
the project had been described in terms of the
current year. However, the federal government,
through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act application process, required
the description of a project’s cost to be made
in year- of- expenditure dollars; additionally, to
talk about the Proposition 1A bond dollars is to
talk in year- of- expenditure terms, as that dollar
amount is not indexed to inflation and will
remain static, at $ 9 billion available to the high-speed
train project, whether it is expended in
2008, 2018, or even further into the future. This
is a more credible manner by which to estimate
the cost of the high- speed train project, as
California clearly is not constructing the system
today but will instead be constructing it over
a period of time between 2012 and 2020. The
updated cost estimate for the San Francisco- to-
Anaheim initial high- speed rail system is $ 42.6
billion in year- of- expenditure dollars – the bulk
of which is due to inflationary costs.
A plan for financing that project cost is
included in this document. Bolstered by
the unanticipated American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, the state bond dollars
approved by California voters, and a new
President publicly eager to help build high-speed
rail networks in this country, the financial
plan lays out a realistic scenario for paying for
the system with a combination of state, federal,
local, and private funds.
Never before has there been more interest
and more momentum behind building a high-speed
train system in the United States. Already
in California, the Authority has experienced
tremendous amounts of interest from private
companies who work with train technology
as well as construction, in addition to intense
interest from foreign governments and
consortiums with experience building and
operating high- speed train systems overseas.
The Authority has executed cooperative
information- sharing agreements with a number
of countries.
But of course there are risks to a project of
this size, scope and nature – risks that could
jeopardize the project’s completion. Any frank
discussion of the project and its planning must
include these risks, and any credible plan for the
project must address how these risks would be
mitigated. This document does that.
Additionally, this document outlines the
unprecedented amount of oversight – the
comprehensive system of external controls,
oversight and review – guiding the Authority’s
work. The uniqueness and enormity of the
project make this scrutiny appropriate and
provide greater assurance that the public’s
interest will be protected and that the project’s
success will be realized.
In summary, California’s high- speed train
project is on track and being pushed along by
tremendous momentum from our partners in
government, the private sector, and the people
of our state who know that its construction
will mean jobs and economic stimulus and its
completion will mean a more mobile, vibrant,
environmentally friendly, and interconnected
California.
D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 9
4
The Project
California’s high- speed rail project is a planned transportation
backbone whose initial 500 miles will begin in Anaheim/ Los
Angeles, run through the Central Valley from Bakersfield to
Merced, then head northwest into the Bay Area. It will travel
up to 220 miles per hour and be able to make its journey from
Los Angeles to San Francisco in under 2 hours and 40 minutes.
Subsequent phases of the high- speed rail system are planned
for a southern extension from Los Angeles to San Diego via
the Inland Empire and an extension from Merced north to
Sacramento.
The project’s goal is to increase and maintain California’s
mobility, which is vital to our economy’s health, as our
population grows by a third – from 38 million today to a
projected 50 million by 2035.
The project will employ train technologies like those used in
other countries with established high- speed train systems ( for
example: Japan, France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, Korea and
China). That means steel- wheel- on- steel- rail technology, entirely
electric power, state- of- the- art safety and signaling systems, and
automated train control. This is not new technology – only new
to North America. It was introduced in Japan in 1964, France in
1981, and in many other countries within the past two decades.
The Project and Its History
Inspired by successes of high-speed
train systems around the
world, California has for more than
13 years been planning a state-wide
high- speed rail line that will
serve as a backbone and a needed
alternative to the state’s existing
transportation network. It is envi-sioned
as a new system stretching
initially from Anaheim/ Los Angeles
through the Central Valley to San
Francisco, and later to Sacramento
and San Diego. It will be capable
of 220 mph operating speed and
a travel time between Los Angeles
and San Francisco of under 2 hours
40 minutes. It will interconnect with
other modes of transportation and
provide an alternative, environmen-tally
friendly option to vehicle and
air travel. Today, the system is more
than a vision, it is a reality California
is working toward with the support
of the state’s voters, labor, environ-mental,
and business advocates,
and the strong support of the
governor and the President of the
United States. S
5
PHASE 1 OF PLANNED HIGH- SPEED RAIL SYSTEM
( Note: These two maps represent the
work that has been conducted in the
time between the submission of the 2008
Business Plan to the Legislature and Dec.
1, 2009. Subsequent to that date, the
High- Speed Rail Authority took action
that affects the Bay Area to Central Valley
portion of the planned system and the
related Program- Level EIR4. Also note
that the dots on these maps represent
station locations and optional station
locations; the total number of stations
on the system will not exceed 24, per
Proposition 1A.)
4 See “ Town of Atherton Lawsuit & the High- Speed Rail Line” in the following section within this chapter.
PLANNED SUBSEQUENT HIGH- SPEED RAIL SECTIONS
The system will interface with
and complement other modes of
transportation – commercial airports,
mass transit, the state’s highway
network, as well as bike paths and
foot traffic. The system will be capable
of many patterns of service and will
compete – as it has in other countries
– with air and automobile travel over
medium distances.
The California high- speed train will
operate primarily on exclusive track
with portions of the route shared
with other existing passenger
rail operations. The route will be
constructed at- grade, in an open
trench, in a tunnel, or on an elevated
guideway, depending on the terrain,
6
physical constraints, environmental impacts
and community input along sections of the line.
Extensive portions of the system will lie within,
or adjacent to, existing rail or highway right-of-
way ( rather than new alignment) to reduce
potential environmental impacts and minimize
land acquisition.
It is a project supported by California’s voters,
its congressional delegation, environmental
advocates, labor and business groups, the
President of the United States, as well as
transportation planners, who know that high-speed
train technology has proven to be the
safest and most reliable form of transportation.
History
Inspired by the successes of high- speed
train systems in Asia and Europe, the state
of California has for decades pondered the
possibility of a high- speed passenger rail system
in the Golden State.
It first pursued the idea of a Southern California
high- speed corridor working with Japanese
partners in 1981, under Governor Jerry Brown.
Lynn Schenk5 , who was at that time the
Secretary of the state Business, Transportation
and Housing Agency, went on to represent
California in the U. S. Congress, where she wrote
the bill creating the first five high- speed rail
planning corridors in the country, including
California’s, and introduced the “ High- Speed Rail
Development Act of 1994,” which was signed
into law that year by President Clinton.
In the mid- 1990s, as it became clear that
California’s increasing population was
putting a strain on its highways, airports, and
conventional passenger rail lines, investigation
of the potential for a high- speed rail system
began in earnest. Legislative Joint Resolution
by then- Senator Quentin Kopp was adopted
in 1993 and created the Intercity High- Speed
Rail Commission, charged with the task of
determining the feasibility of an intercity high-speed
rail system in California. Working through
the Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency, the commission in September 1996
issued its “ High- Speed Rail Summary Report
and Action Plan,” which concluded that such a
project was indeed feasible.
Subsequently, that same year, the California
High- Speed Rail Authority was created by the
Legislature and Governor Pete Wilson. The
Authority was tasked with preparing a plan and
design for the construction of an economically
viable high- speed train line linking major
metropolitan areas that would help sustain
the state’s long- term mobility and economic
growth.
Following release of the Authority’s first
business plan in 2000, the Legislature passed
and Governor Gray Davis signed SB 1856
by then- state Senator Jim Costa in 2002
authorizing a $ 9.95 billion bond issue to finance
a new high- speed train system in California.
Submission of the measure to the state’s voters
was delayed several years by the Legislature as
part of the state’s budget process.
In 2004, the Authority together with its federal
partner, the Federal Railroad Administration
( FRA), issued a Draft Program- Level
Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental
Impact Statement ( EIR/ EIS) ( two volumes
and 64 technical reports) that sought to
describe the proposed system and describe its
environmental impacts on a statewide scale.
Through the public environmental review
process, the Authority received and reviewed
over 2,000 public and government agency
comments on the draft document, which
was used to determine preferred corridors
and stations for the majority of the proposed
line. The program- level EIR/ EIS was certified
in 2005. An additional program- level EIR/ EIS
was certified in 2008 that examined the path
between the Central Valley and the Bay Area.
5 See Schenk biography in following section, “ The High- Speed Rail Authority”
7
Town of Atherton Lawsuit & the High- Speed Rail Line
In August 2008, a group of petitioners filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court
claiming the Authority’s Final Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR violated the California
Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) in numerous ways. ( Town of Atherton, et al., v. California
High- Speed Rail Authority, et al., Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34- 2008- 80000022.)
The Program EIR examined network alternatives for connecting the High- Speed Train system
between the San Francisco Bay area and the Central Valley, particularly network alternatives
involving the Altamont Pass and the Pacheco Pass.
In August 2009, the court issued a ruling upholding the Authority’s program EIR in most respects.
The court did, however, indicate the program EIR required revision and recirculation in the
following areas to comply with CEQA:
• description of the alignment of HST tracks between San Jose and Gilroy;
• impacts to surrounding businesses and residences, the Monterey Highway, and Union
Pacific freight operations between San Jose and Gilroy; and
• land- use impacts associated with Union Pacific’s denial of the use of its right- of- way.
The court also found that the Authority’s CEQA finding on vibration impacts was not supported
by substantial evidence. A final judgment was entered on November 3, 2009, and a peremptory
writ of mandate issued.
On December 3, 2009, the Authority approved resolution # HSRA 10- 0146 , as the first step in
complying with the court judgment. This action rescinds the Authority’s 2008 certification of
the program EIR and related approvals. The Authority directed staff to prepare the necessary
revisions to the program EIR and circulate them in accordance with CEQA for public comment.
The Authority will consider the revised program EIR and the entire record of material before
making a new decision to certify the revised final program EIR. The Authority will also make a
new decision on a network alternative, preferred alignments, and preferred station locations for
further study in project EIRs.
The Authority has begun the more specific,
project- level environmental reviews for
individual sections of the system in order to
better manage the environmental review
process. That is the stage the Authority is
currently engaged in as of the submission of this
Business Plan, along with the additional work
on the Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR to
address issues cited by the court and discussed
elsewhere in this report7.
In 2008, the state Legislature approved and
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed
Assembly Bill 3034 ( Galgiani), which revised
Senator Costa’s SB 1856 of 2002, finally
putting the $ 9.95 billion bond measure on the
November 2008 ballot – $ 9 billion of which was
targeted as partial financing of a high- speed
rail system. Proposition 1A, as it was named on
the ballot, was approved with 52.7 percent8
of the vote. It became the country’s first- ever
voter- approved multibillion- dollar financing
mechanism for high- speed rail.
Then, in 2009, newly elected U. S. President
Barack Obama included $ 8 billion in
funding within the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act ( ARRA) to be directed to high-speed
train projects throughout the country.
Along with that inclusion, he set out a Vision of
High- Speed Rail in America9 that envisions a
comprehensive high- speed intercity passenger
rail network through a long- term commitment
at both the federal and state levels.
6 http:// www. cahighspeedrail. ca. gov/ images/ chsr/ 20091201141348_ Agenda_ Item_ 3_-_ Resolution_ HSRA10- 012. pdf
7 On December 3, 2009, in order to comply with a Superior Court ruling, the California High- Speed Rail Authority Board voted to rescind the resolution certifying
the 2008 EIR, and the Authority is pursuing additional studies prior to bringing the document back before the Board for consideration or recertification.
8 California Secretary of State’s Office, Statement of Vote, 2008 General Election, http:// www. sos. ca. gov/ elections/ sov/ 2008_ general/ 57_ 65_ ballot_ measures. pdf
9 Obama Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Vision of High- Speed Rail in America
8
As of the submission of this Business Plan,
California stands to receive billions of dollars
from the ARRA for the construction of high-speed
rail. It has requested, through the
Governor, nearly $ 6 billion from that $ 8 billion
pot, $ 4.7 billion of which was requested
specifically for the high- speed train project.
Guidance issued for ARRA funding, which may
be announced as early as January 2010, sets
a deadline of September 2012 to obligate the
federal monies – meaning go to construction.
10 Budgeted
Project Expenditure History
Over the course of its 13- year history, the Authority’s budget has varied and has come from a variety
of funds, including those from regional partner transportation agencies. Below is a chart showing the
Authority’s funding since its inception, the sources of those funds, and the activities on which they
were expended
D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 9
9
Established in 1996 by state legislation, the California High-
Speed Rail Authority ( Authority) is the state entity responsible
for planning, constructing, and operating a high- speed train
system serving California’s major metropolitan areas.
Per state law setting up the Authority, it is governed by a nine-member
policy board. The Board members are appointed by
the governor and the Legislature – five members appointed
by the governor, two by the state Senate, and two by the state
Assembly.
To date, the California High-
Speed Rail Authority has been a
planning organization, staffed by
a small number of state employees,
relying largely on contract services,
and governed by a nine- member
board of directors. However, now
the Authority must transform
into an implementation entity
responsible for what will be the
largest public works infrastructure
project in state history. This section
describes the current organization
and the steps necessary to grow
it into a state entity overseeing
construction of the state’s high-speed
train system.
The High- Speed Rail Authority
The High- Speed Rail Authority Organization
10
Board Members
Chairperson: Curt Pringle
Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle was appointed to the High- Speed Rail
Authority in 2007 by Governor Schwarzenegger and his term expires
Dec. 31, 2010. He currently serves as Mayor of the City of Anaheim
and president of Curt Pringle & Associates. Pringle has also served as
an adjunct faculty member in the political science department at the
University of California, Irvine since 2000, where he teaches California
government. Previously, he served in the California State Assembly
from 1988 to 1990 and 1992 to 1998. While in the Assembly, Pringle
served as Speaker in 1996. His term on the High- Speed Rail Authority
Board expires December 31, 2010.
Vice Chairperson: Tom Umberg
Thomas J. Umberg is an attorney with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.
In 1995 Umberg was an Assistant U. S. Attorney in Los Angeles and
Orange County. In 1997 Umberg was nominated by the President
and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate as Deputy
Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
( ONDCP). Umberg served three terms in the California Legislature,
most recently between 2004 and 2006. He serves as a colonel in the
U. S. Army Reserve, and is currently on active duty in Afghanistan,
where he participates in monthly Authority Board meetings by
telephone. His term on the High- Speed Rail Authority Board expires
December 31, 2011.
Board Members:
David Crane, of San Francisco, has served on the Board of the
High- Speed Rail Authority since 2007, having been appointed by
Governor Schwarzenegger. He currently serves as special advisor
to the governor for jobs and economic growth. Before joining
the Administration, Crane was a partner with Babcock & Brown, a
financial services firm. His term on the High- Speed Rail Authority
Board expires December 31, 2012.
Rod Diridon, Sr., of Santa Clara is a Governor’s Office appointee to
the Board. He has served on the Authority since 2001, serving two
terms as chair. Additionally, Diridon serves as the executive director
of the Mineta Transportation Institute. Previously, he served on
the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors from 1975 to 1995
and served as chair of the Board for six terms. Diridon is past chair
of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, American Public
Transit Association, Bay Area Air Quality Management District and
the Association of Bay Area Governments. He is the president and
founder of the California Trolley and Railroad Corporation. His term
on the High- Speed Rail Authority Board expires December 31, 2009.
11
Richard Katz, of Sherman Oaks, is the owner of a public policy
and government relations firm based in Los Angeles, Richard
Katz Consulting, Inc. Katz was California’s lead negotiator for
the landmark Colorado River Agreement between the State of
California, the Federal Government, four California Water Agencies,
and the six Colorado River Basin States. Shortly after his election in
June of 2005, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa appointed
Katz to serve with him on the Governing Board of the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority. In September 2008, following the tragic
Metrolink crash, Mayor Villaraigosa appointed him to the Metrolink
board in order to lead the effort to right the agency. Governor
Davis appointed Katz as his Senior Advisor on Energy and Water
issues in 2001. Also in 2001, Katz was appointed to the State Water
Resources Control Board. Confirmed by the Senate, he served for
five years, occupying the water quality seat on the State Board. Katz
was first elected to the California State Assembly in 1980, serving
continuously for 16 years, 10 of which were as Chair of the Assembly
Transportation Committee. Katz’ term on the High- Speed Rail
Authority Board expires December 31, 2011.
Lynn Schenk is an attorney and senior corporate advisor who
served as Chief of Staff to California Governor Gray Davis from 1999
to 2003. In 1992 she became the first woman elected to the United
States House of Representatives to represent the San Diego area.
From 1978 to 1983, Ms. Schenk served in the Cabinet of Governor
Jerry Brown as California’s Secretary of Business, Transportation and
Housing ( the first woman to hold this Cabinet post). Prior to her
state Cabinet appointment, Ms. Schenk served as a Deputy Attorney
General in the criminal division of the California Attorney General’s
office, followed by several years as an in- house lawyer to the San
Diego Gas & Electric Company. In 1976, she was appointed a White
House Fellow by President Ford serving as a special assistant to Vice-
Presidents Nelson Rockefeller and Walter Mondale. A gubernatorial
appointee to the High- Speed Rail Authority Board, her term expired
in December 2004.
Fran Florez is a former City Council member and Mayor of the city
of Shafter. Florez, who retired from the banking industry after 35
years, is one of the principals of Florez & Florez consulting firm
and has contracted her services exclusively to Pacific Gas and
Electric Company’s Public Affairs Department. She served as Board
chairperson from September 2005 until September 2006. Her term
on the High- Speed Rail Authority Board expires December 31, 2012.
12
The Honorable Judge Quentin L. Kopp was appointed to the
San Mateo Superior Court on January 1, 1999, by Governor Pete
Wilson. Judge Kopp retired effective January 31, 2004, but was
immediately accepted in the Assigned Judges Program of the
California Judicial Council. On June 13, 2006, the state Senate
appointed him to the California High- Speed Rail Authority. He
served in the California State Senate from December 1, 1986, until
December 7, 1998, and as a member of the City and County of
San Francisco Board of Supervisors to which he was first elected in
November 1971, and re- elected four times thereafter. Judge Kopp
served as an ex- officio member of the California Transportation
Commission from 1988 until 1998, as a member of the California
Law Revision Commission from 1995 until 1998, and a member of
the Little Hoover Commission from 1996 until 1998. As an elected
local and state legislator for 27 years, Judge Kopp also served as
a leader on virtually every regional governmental policy- making
body affecting the Bay Area. His term on the High- Speed Rail
Authority Board expires December 31, 2010.
Russ Burns is business manager of Operating Engineers Local 3,
and was appointed to the Authority board by Assembly Speaker
Karen Bass. He previously served on the Cal- OSHA Standards
Board Subcommittee for Certification of Crane Operators. A third-generation
operating engineer and Local 3 member, Burns started
his career as a crane operator on a variety of high rises, bridges,
refineries and large treatment plants throughout Northern
California and Reno, NV. He joined the Local 3 staff in 1994. Burns
was recently re- appointed to the Authority and his term expires
December 31, 2013.
The Authority is staffed by a small number of
state employees charged with oversight of the
effort to build the high- speed train system in
California. It currently has state budget authority
for 11.5 personnel- year- equivalents ( PYs).
However, due largely to major events over the
past 13 months, it is now required that the
Authority’s organization change and grow.
• Additional state staff is needed to oversee
and administer the federal and state
bond dollars that are soon to be in hand,
and additional staff is needed to increase
public outreach and ensure adequate risk
management over increasing amounts
of work being conducted by contractors.
A plan is already in place to augment the
Authority’s staff, and is laid out below.
• The Authority Board has a need to
become more engaged in the project’s
details and progress. That transition is
already taking place under newly elected
Chairman Pringle.
13
• The contract Program Management
Team must prepare to transition from a
planning and environmental review phase
to a construction phase. A plan for such a
transition is laid out below.
Adjusting the Authority’s organization to
properly suit the project ahead of it will require
the partnership and cooperation of several
entities, including the Department of Finance,
the Legislature, and the Governor’s Office.
The Authority’s staff organization currently
consists of an Executive Director ( Mehdi
Morshed11), three Deputy Directors ( Finance
and Administration, Environmental and
Planning, and Communications, Public
Policy and Outreach), a small support staff,
as well as a Chief Engineer contractor, a
Project Management Oversight Management
contractor, Government Relations Management
contractor, a Program Management Team,
and Regional Project Management Teams.
Additionally, the Authority employs a financial
consultant contractor and a public outreach
and communications contractor. The California
Attorney General’s office provides legal support
to the Authority on all matters including review
of the environmental deliverables up to and
including the Final Environmental Report ( EIR)
and the Notice of Determination ( NOD). The
current overall project organization is illustrated
on the following chart.
The California high- speed train system is
also sponsored by the Federal Railroad
Administration ( FRA). The FRA is the federal lead
agency under the National Environmental Policy
Act ( NEPA) responsible for technical and legal
review of the regional project Environmental
Impact Statements ( EISs). All environmental
deliverables up to and including the Final EIS
and Record of Decision ( ROD) will be subject
to FRA approval. Likewise, the Authority is the
state lead agency responsible for preparation
and certification of the regional project
Environmental Impact Reports ( EIRs) required
under the California Environmental Quality Act
( CEQA).
11 Morshed was the first person appointed to the High- Speed Rail Authority when it was created in1996.
His biography can be read here: http:// www. cahighspeedrail. ca. gov/ about/ mehdi- morshed. htm.
14
Over the past 10 years the
Authority’s limited staff
members have managed
to oversee all the activities
related to the planning and
environmental work for a state
high- speed train. During those
years the Authority’s budget
has varied from $ 1.5 million to
nearly $ 140 million annually,
while the number of full- time-equivalent
state positions ( PYs)
has grown only from 5 to 11.5
( see chart to right).
FY Total Budget PYs Notes
1997/ 98 1,500,000 3
1998/ 99 3,000,000 4.5
1999/ 00 3,032,000 5
2000/ 01 6,026,000 4.5
2001/ 02 4,038,000 4
2002/ 03 7,928,000 4
2003/ 04 3,802,000 4
2004/ 05 1,151,000 3.5
2005/ 06 3,646,000 3.5
2006/ 07 14,553,000 6.5
2007/ 08 20,694,000 6.5
2008/ 09 44,231,000 9.5
2009/ 10 139,180,000 11.5 8.5PYs currently filled
Total 252,781,000
With the passage of the $ 9.95 billion bond measure last
November, the mission and the objective of the Authority, its
staff, and its contractors changed significantly. The promise
of federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ( ARRA)
funds additionally has changed the Authority’s mandate.
Put simply, the Authority is now building a high- speed train
system, not just building the hopes of one. Instead of the
gradual and intermittent planning and environmental studies
to match limited funds, the Authority must now proceed toward
construction and operation and do it as quickly as possible.
That means the Authority staff must be augmented to properly
direct and oversee the work of its contractors moving forward in
a manner that will preserve the intent of the project and protect
public funds.
To systematically determine the personnel demand for the
future activities, the Authority entered into a contract with
the firm of KPMG to evaluate the current activities, the future
needs, and the kind of organization and personnel that are
necessary to carry out the required work. The KPMG report12 is
a good guideline on the kind of organizational structure that
is necessary to implement the mission and objectives of the
Legislature and the governor who placed the proposal before
the voters, the voters who approved it, and the Authority. The
recommendations of that report – currently being acted on by
the Authority – are discussed in the following section.
The Authority
12 Available at the High- Speed Rail Authority’s Web site, at this URL: http:// www. cahighspeedrail. ca. gov/ images/
chsr/ 20091103104811_ 11- 05- 09_ Agenda_ Item_ 11_ attachment_ to_ Committee_ Mtg_ Item_ 2. pdf
15
Today’s Organization
CURRENT STATE EMPLOYEE STAFF
16
Because of the lack of budget authority to hire additional staff, many key functions are currently
being performed by contractors. Those functions include: oversight of the Program Management
Team ( contractor T. Y. Linn being brought on in December 2009); legal services ( provided by the state
Attorney General’s Office and Nossaman LLC lawfirm); fiscal services ( through the Department of
General Services); personnel services ( through Caltrans); legislative affairs ( contractor); chief engineer
( contractor); IT services ( provided by contractor Paperless Knowledge); and regional director roles
( two regional directors provided through joint agreements with Caltrans in the Central Valley and
Caltrain in the Bay Area).
Moving Forward
As the California high- speed train project moves toward construction, the Authority’s state staff must
be augmented in order to ensure governance and decision- making in the public interest, as well as
accountability and transparency.
The study conducted by KPMG and the resulting report provide a basis for necessary adjustments
to the Authority’s staff. With the input and approval of the Authority’s Board, the Authority will
immediately begin working to augment its staff.
The report pointed to the need to either create
or bring in- house several key positions:
• A “ Chief Executive Officer” to lead the
Authority in achieving its new mission
– Establishing a Chief Executive Officer
position at the helm of the Authority
will convey to the public, policy- makers,
industry, and the markets that the
Authority “ means business” as it embraces
this new phase
– The CEO title is more widely used in
certain local government and non- profit
organizations, especially those that
operate utilities or other “ enterprises”
that must attract and retain users in order
to generate revenues, much like private
businesses
• An experienced, in- house “ Chief
Program Manager”
– The position is more than a “ Chief
Engineer” – encompassing responsibility
for the Project life cycle, from planning
and environmental, design and
construction, to implementation and
operation
• An experienced, in- house “ Chief
Financial Officer”
– The Authority needs a highly- credible
financial specialist for driving funding
strategies and communicating with policy
makers and the markets
• A dedicated office for “ Project Controls
and Risk Management” ( including
quality assurance and health and safety)
– Importance of these functions warrants
a direct line to the Chief Executive Officer
• “ General Counsel”
• “ Regional Directors”
– There is a need for additional regional
directors, and the existing regional
directors ought to be brought in- house
• “ Internal Auditor”
Additional senior positions also are needed to
perform mission critical functions, including
both existing and new positions:
• Director, Legislation
• Director, Engineering and
Programming
• Director, Business and Procurement
Services
17
PROPOSED FUTURE STATE STAFF ORGANIZATION
18
Next Steps
In order to begin implementing these staffing
changes, the Authority needs to initiate a
number of important and time- sensitive actions,
including:
• Secure support from the Administration,
Legislature, and key stakeholders for the
Authority’s desired staffing, organizational
structure, and timing. This should include
the necessary legislative and executive
actions to provide the Authority with
additional exempt entitlements to
facilitate the hiring of quality individuals
from either inside or outside of state
service at competitive salaries.
• Carefully manage the recruitment effort
to attract world- class talent. This may
include engaging a qualified search firm( s)
or human resources consultant( s) to refine
position parameters, identify appropriate
classifications, and assess the competitive
landscape, before establishing positions
or commencing recruitment.
A Focus on Contracting
Rationale
It is a policy of the Authority’s Board that the
Authority rely on a relatively small core staff
of state employees and employ contractors
for the bulk of the project work. This policy
marries well with a project of this nature, which
requires highly specialized personnel for only
short periods of time. For example, the project
is currently in the environmental review phase,
and therefore needs engineers and planners
knowledgeable about state and federal
environmental review processes. However, this
phase of the project will be complete within
the next couple of years, and those personnel
and specific skills will no longer be needed by
the Authority. So, it makes more fiscal sense to
employ these personnel as contractors rather
than establishing state employee positions that
are finite in nature.
Using contractors also allows the Authority to
quickly augment or reduce its staff as necessary.
The alternative would be a rigid and slow state
hiring process.
Recently, a reliance on contractors has assisted
the Authority in maintaining its work schedule,
as contract personnel are not subject to the
governor- ordered three- days- per- month
furloughs.
Contracts
The following is a summary of the scope
of work, overall budget, and terms of all of
the Authority’s major contracts. All of the
contractors, with the exception of the legal
services contract, prepare and deliver an annual
work program which is due to the Authority
staff in early Spring. The annual work programs
include a scope of work, list of deliverables,
schedule, and budget which Authority staff
review, comment and negotiate prior to the
start of the fiscal year. Each contractor is
provided a notice to proceed based on the
negotiated annual work program immediately
after the enactment of the state budget.
Program Management Contract
Contractor Name:
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas
Agreement Total: $ 199,000,000.00
Term: 11/ 20/ 2006 – 06/ 30/ 2013
The Program Management Team ( led by
Parsons Brinckerhoff) is providing day- to-day
management of the program, working
closely with the Authority staff and directing
the work of other consultants. The work of
Parsons Brinckerhoff ( PB) includes development
of project controls, design and engineering
criteria, system specifications, environmental
methodologies, working with the Federal
Railroad Administration on compliance issues,
as well as working with state and federal
resource agencies in order to successfully obtain
environmental clearances and permits. PB is
19
responsible for the development of a project
implementation strategy and master plan, the
launch and management of the project level
environment work through a series of regional
consultants, development of a right- of- way
assessment and acquisition program, and the
management of procurement, final design and
construction, testing and commissioning, and
revenue start- up activities. PB will establish
the systems necessary to maintain control
of the schedule, budget, documentation,
procurement, construction contracting
strategies, etc. so that project delivery tracks the
established schedule and financial targets.
The work of the Program Management Team is
discussed in more detail in a section later in this
document.
Regional Contracts
Each regional contractor is responsible for
developing engineering ( 15 percent - 30
percent), planning, and environmental data;
for preparing one or more project site specific
Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental
Impact Statement ( EIR/ EIS) for the high- speed
train system in their respective corridors;
and for providing the described right- of- way
preservation and acquisition services in this
corridor; as requested by the Authority. The
project EIR/ EIS will include engineering and
environmental impact analysis of the high-speed
train line and facilities, including station
development, and connections with other
modes of transportation. EIR/ EIS process( es)
will include the involvement of the public,
interested groups, and appropriate local,
state, and federal agencies, as determined in
consultation with Authority staff.
Region: San Francisco to San Jose
Contractor Name: HNTB Corporation
Agreement Total: $ 55,000,000.00
Term: 10/ 16/ 2008 – 06/ 30/ 2014
Region: San Jose to Merced
Contractor Name: Parsons
Agreement Total: $ 55,000,000.00
Term: 11/ 12/ 2008 – 06/ 30/ 2014
Region: Sacramento to Fresno
Contractor Name: AECOM
Agreement Total: $ 83,400,000.00
Term: 11/ 20/ 2006 – 06/ 30/ 2013
Region: Fresno to Palmdale
Contractor Name: URS, Hatch Mott
MacDonald & ARUP a Joint Venture
Agreement Total: $ 119,985,612.00
Term: 02/ 12/ 2007 – 06/ 30/ 2012
Region: Palmdale to Los Angeles
Contractor Name: Hatch Mott MacDonald,
URS, & ARUP a Joint Venture
Agreement Total: $ 74,288,000.00
Term: 12/ 29/ 2006 – 06/ 30/ 2012
Region: Los Angeles to Orange County
Contractor Name: STV Incorporated
Agreement Total: $ 21,400,000.00
Term: 12/ 29/ 2006 – 06/ 30/ 2012
Region: Los Angeles to San Diego
Contractor Name: HNTB Corporation
Agreement Total: $ 94,805,692.00
Term: 02/ 12/ 2007 – 06/ 30/ 2012
Region: Altamont Corridor Rail Project
Contractor Name: AECOM USA Inc.
Agreement Total: $ 55,000,000.00
Term: 11/ 12/ 2008 – 06/ 30/ 2014
Other Contracts
Visual Simulation
Contractor Name:
Newlands & Company, Inc.
Agreement Total: $ 5,000,000.00
Term: 11/ 15/ 2006 – 06/ 30/ 2012
The Contractor is responsible for the
development of realistic visual and audio
simulations that will enable the public, agencies,
and decision- makers to understand the virtual
experience of a high- speed train system in
California.
20
Financial Services
Contractor Name: Infrastructure
Management Group, Inc.
Agreement Total: $ 4,000,000.00
Term: 11/ 15/ 2006 – 06/ 30/ 2012
The Contractor is responsible for the preparation
of a Financing Plan which includes a financing
strategy and model for the implementation
of the California high- speed train system.
Additionally the Contractor will provide on- call
advice and analysis to the authority on changes
and new development to funding strategies,
sources and availability.
Legal Services
Contractor Name: Nossaman LLP
Agreement Total: $ 500,000.00
Term: 02/ 28/ 2009 – 06/ 30/ 2011
The Authority retained outside legal counsel
to provide legal assistance concerning major
infrastructure financing, implementation
and project delivery, including public- private
partnerships, as well as legal assistance
concerning changes to and/ or compliance with
federal railroad regulations.
Oversight
In addition to contracting for a Program
Management Oversight ( PMO) team to oversee
the work of the PMT, the Authority takes a
series of steps that help ensure contracts are
written to prescribe specific deliverables and
that those items/ services are indeed delivered.
The Authority works with the state Department
of General Services to executive effective
contracts, and in addition to PMT monitoring
of deliverables, Authority staff tracks invoices,
deliverables, and program schedules. In the
Authority’s planned organizational changes,
additional state staff positions are envisioned
for oversight and risk management.
The Program Management Team
California’s high- speed rail system is being
developed with the assistance of a group of
the world’s leading experts in high- speed train
planning, construction, and operation. These
experts have guided the planning, construction,
and/ or operation of high- speed train systems
around the world, representing hundreds of
billions of dollars in infrastructure development.
The Authority has enlisted many of the world’s
most experienced private engineering and
planning firms to assist in:
• Program Management
• Project Engineering
• Economic Consulting
• Energy Consulting
• Environmental Services
• Infrastructure Design
• Systems, Operations and Ridership
• Right- of- Way and Land Use
• Specialty Engineering
• Transportation Planning
• Constructability Reviews
• Procurement
• Construction Management
• Testing & Commissioning
• Revenue Service Start- up
A brief summary of the Authority’s consultant
team experience is shown in the box
below. In 2006, the Authority engaged
Parsons Brinckerhoff13 to provide program
management services to oversee and manage
the California High- Speed Rail Program. The
Program Manager is providing program-level
management and oversight of eight
regional consulting firms that are performing
detailed planning, preparing project- level
environmental documents, conducting public
outreach and engagement, and performing
preliminary engineering design. Each of the
regional consultants reports to a regional
13 In October 2009, Parsons Brinckerhoff was acquired by international engineering, construction and investment group Balfour Beatty.
21
manager from the program management team. The regional managers are directing the project-level
environmental process and preliminary engineering design by the regional consultants, and
will manage procurement, construction management, testing commissioning, and revenue start- up
activities within their sections once this aspect of the program commences.
THE CHSTP TEAM
More than 600 persons are currently involved in the
planning and engineering of the CHSTP, including more
than 135 senior managers, planners, engineers, and
operators with significant project work on one or more
of the high- speed train projects in Europe and Asia,
as well as the Northeast Corridor. Examples of some
of these projects and corresponding number of team
members are shown below:
British HSR Projects: 21
Chinese HSR Projects: 1
Taiwan- Taipei- Kaohsiung: 23
Korea- Seoul- Pusan: 7
USA- North East Corridor: 65
Boston- New Haven, Electrification: 4
French TGV Projects: 2
HSL Zuid- Belgium- Netherlands: 2
Germany- ICE HSR: 2
Denmark Storebaelt & Oresund Links: 3
Portugal Linha do Norte: 2
Spanish HSR Projects: 3
Experts on this project have guided the planning,
construction and/ or operation of HST systems around
the world representing hundreds of billions of dollars in
infrastructure development.
( View Appendix A to this section that shows the Program Management
Team’s personnel and their relevant experience on high- speed train
projects around the globe.)
Successful management of a very
large and complex undertaking
like California’s high- speed train
project requires thoughtful
planning, proactive decision-making,
timely execution, and
regular monitoring. As delivery
activities overlap and schedules
compress, the challenge is
to consider and manage a
number of separate, often
concurrent, activities for different
geographical sections and
delivery phases of the system,
including:
• Planning, environmental
review and permitting;
preliminary engineering,
land acquisition, and
negotiations with existing
railroads, public and local
entities
• Procurement
documents, design,
construction, testing
and commissioning; and
training
• Revenue service operation
and maintenance of the
high- speed rail system
The Program Management Team
( PMT) has established standards
for design work, environmental
protocols, and revenue and
ridership analysis, and manages
the regional consulting firms
under direct contract with the
Authority. These standards are
based on worldwide state- of- the-art
high- speed rail experience and
U. S. federal and state regulatory
requirements to build and
operate the Nation’s first very-
22
high- speed rail system. The PMT is responsible for taking the program from environmental assessment
through preliminary engineering into procurement. A PMT will then follow the project into final
design and construction, testing and commissioning, start- up, and revenue service. The overall
schedule for the PMT’s activities is shown later in this report.
The PMT, having established the standards and protocols, then reviews and confirms the work of the
regional consulting firms for consistency and accuracy to ensure the system will function as intended.
Once the project milestones are reached for 30 percent design and environmental approval, the PMT
will create camera- ready documents for procurement of final design and construction contracts.
The current PMT organization is shown below. Led by Program Director ( Daniels), reporting through
Deputy Director ( Harrison), eight Regional Managers oversee the Regional Consultants. Five other
functional managers also report to the Director – an environmental program manager ( Wolf ); an
engineering manager ( Jong); an operations manager ( Valsecchi); a staging/ procurement manager
( Dallavalle); and a railroad operations manager ( Mosier). Each of these functional managers is
supported by the staff shown.
23
The current organization will grow as necessary
to carry out the needs of the project through
project- level environmental review to 30
percent design completion. The Authority‘ s
program manager will manage project
construction from 30 percent design through
launch of revenue service. Discussed and shown
below is one possible scenario in which the final
design and construction management team
builds from the existing base of the program
management team. Regional Managers would
remain in charge of the work in their section,
acquiring additional staff as needed to manage
the right- of- way work, the final design/
construction, testing and commissioning and
revenue service start- up.
Led by a Program Director with seven direct
reports, the PMT organization as depicted below
for the final design and construction phase will
be structured to provide both headquarters
and field office staffs responsible for managing
final design/ construction and the operations &
maintenance ( O& M) contract procurement and
administration, right- of- way ( ROW) acquisition,
construction management, engineering and
environmental management, safety, quality
assurance/ quality control ( QA/ QC), program
administration, program controls, testing
& commissioning, revenue service start- up,
and planning/ oversight of the O& M of the
completed system.
24
Design and construction of the core systems
will be managed separately from the
infrastructure design and construction. A
core systems construction group will manage
the rolling stock production, train control,
communications systems, electrification,
trackwork and maintenance facilities design
and construction. A testing & commissioning
group will also report to the Core Systems
Program Construction Director. A Technical
Services group will provide support to all the
regions in the areas of engineering & design,
environmental compliance & permitting,
and right- of- way acquisition. Also a Revenue
Service Operations Director will manage the
O& M Contract, operations planning, railroad
coordination, and start- up functions. System
safety will be managed by a Program Safety
Manager reporting to the Program Director.
Configuration management will be the
responsibility of the Program Controls Manager.
25
Appendix A
26
Appendix A - continued
27
From Today to Passenger Service
The path from where California’s
high- speed train project is today to
initial revenue passenger service
can be divided into planning and
implementation stages. Over the
coming two years, the project will
begin transitioning from the plan-ning
stage into the implementation
stage. This section will describe
the planning process, show where
the project is currently within the
projected timeline, and discuss the
plan to achieve initial high- speed
train service from San Francisco to
Anaheim by 2020.
The Process
The planning and implementation stages for the California High-
Speed Train Project ( CHSTP) include the following:
Planning
Statewide Program Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental
Impact Statement ( EIR/ EIS), Conceptual Engineering ( completed)
• Bay Area to Central Valley Program Environmental
Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement ( EIR/
EIS), Conceptual Engineering ( initially completed in 2008;
additional work in progress based on court ruling)
• Draft HST Section Project EIR/ EIS, 15% Design –
Preliminary Engineering ( in progress)
• Final HST Section Project EIR/ EIS, 30% Design –
Preliminary Engineering ( to follow Draft EIR/ EIS)
• Notices of Determination ( NODs) / Records of Decision
( RODs)
Implementation
• Procurement Documents
• Permitting
• Land Acquisition and Right- of- Way Preservation
• Design and Construction
• Testing, Commissioning, and Training
• Start- up
Planning
Planning for California’s high- speed train began more than two
decades ago. The Program EIR/ EIS documents approved by
the Authority and the FRA in 2005 and 2008 establish a solid
basis for the current regional Project EIR/ EIS’s and preliminary
engineering currently underway. Described below are the
remaining steps to complete the environmental reviews and
prepare for construction.
Environmental Review
The environmental review process must be complete before
a final project alignment can be chosen and before any
construction can take place. The process is being conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental
28
Protection Act ( NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA). The federal
lead agency responsible for NEPA compliance
is the Federal Railroad Administration ( FRA)
and the California High- Speed Rail Authority
( Authority) is the state agency responsible
for CEQA. To satisfy both NEPA and CEQA, a
combined environmental document is prepared
– Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) for CEQA
and Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS) for
NEPA. The combined environmental document
is referred to as an EIR/ EIS.
Previously, largely due to the sheer size
and scope of the high- speed train project,
the Authority decided to conduct the
environmental review in two parts – first with
a statewide program- level review, and second
with a more specific project- level review. After
breaking the project into multiple sections, the
project- level review is the current state of the
project.
Two Program- Level EIR/ EISs have already been
prepared by the Authority: a Statewide EIR/
EIS completed in 2005 and the Bay Area to
Central Valley EIR/ EIS completed in 200814. These
program level documents ( available on- line at
www. cahighspeedrail. ca. gov15) are the basis for
the project specific environmental documents
that are under preparation for the nine sections
of the 800- mile high- speed train system and the
Altamont Corridor Rail Project.
Process
The Project EIR/ EIS process begins with
SCOPING. The Authority and FRA conduct public
meetings called “ scoping meetings” at selected
locations within the study area to present the
Program- Level alternatives and optional station
sites, explain the environmental process, and
receive comments from the public and agencies
regarding any issues or concerns they may have
related to the high- speed train project.
Prior to the scoping meeting, a NOTICE OF
INTENT ( NOI) is prepared and published by
FRA in the Federal Register. The NOI describes
the project background, alternatives, and
potential environmental issues and provides the
locations and dates for the scoping meetings.
Under CEQA a similar notice, NOTICE OF
PREPARATION ( NOP) is prepared and filed with
the State Clearinghouse and advertised in local
newspapers.
During the environmental process it is
important to coordinate with local, regional,
state, and federal agencies to understand
their environmental approval and permitting
requirements. An AGENCY COORDINATION
PLAN is prepared that identifies these agencies.
The plan outlines the roles and responsibilities
of these agencies and the project information
that will be shared with them for comment.
Letters of invitation are sent to these agencies to
14 As described previously, the Authority is conducting additional program- level work on the Bay Area to Central Valley EIR in compliance with a court judgment and will
consider the entire record before it prior to certifying the revised EIR and making a new decision on the Bay Area/ Central Valley link for the high- speed train system.
15 http:// www. cahighspeedrail. ca. gov/ library. asp? p= 8224
29
seek agreement on their participation and their
role in the project. Similar plans are prepared
to facilitate public outreach, coordination with
Native American Indian Tribes, and outreach to
low- income and minority populations.
An ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ( AA) is conducted
to help identify the alignments and station
locations to carry forward in the environmental
review. It begins with a more detailed look at
alternatives identified in the program- level EIR/
EIS and development of additional alternatives
and design options based on input received
from the scoping meetings. These alternatives
are further refined based on feedback received
from public outreach and local planning,
transportation, and resource agencies. The
intent of the AA process is to define potentially
feasible project alternatives, design options,
and station locations that can meet the NEPA
Purpose and Need and CEQA project objectives
while avoiding or minimizing environmental
impacts. The Purpose and Need Statement is
a part of the NEPA process to document why a
project is undertaken. This documentation lays
the foundation for identifying and evaluating a
reasonable set of alternatives to be considered
in engineering and environmental studies that
are used in preparing an EIR/ EIS. During the AA
process the project study area will be defined
and the baseline environmental studies started.
A draft of the PROJECT DEFINITION/
DESCRIPTION is prepared when the AA process
is finished and is updated as engineering design
reaches 15 percent completion. The draft
project description will allow the preparation of
the environmental impact analysis which will be
completed as the 15 percent engineering design
is prepared. Then the Authority proceeds with
the preparation of TECHNICAL REPORTS and
with the development of baseline conditions,
impact analysis, and mitigation measures for the
Draft EIR/ EIS.
The DRAFT EIR/ EISs will be circulated for public
and agency review. A review period of 45 to 60
days will be provided to receive comments on
the project alternatives, the preferred alternative
( if identified in the Draft EIR/ EIS), 15 percent
engineering design, environmental issues, and
mitigation measures. In public hearings the
results of the Draft EIR/ EIS documents will be
presented and will be accepted regarding the
project. Responses will be prepared for the
comments received on the Draft EIR/ EISs. Both
the comments and responses will be presented
as part of the Final EIR/ EIS.
A FINAL EIR/ EIS will be prepared for each
high- speed train section. Upon being made
available, the final EIRs/ EISs will be ready for
consideration and certification by the Authority
at a noticed public meeting of the Authority
board, in conjunction with decisions on final
alignments and station locations for each
section of the train system. At the conclusion
of the process, the Authority will file a NOTICE
OF DETERMINATION ( NOD) for the decisions
it makes related to each Final EIR. The FRA will
make the Final EIRs/ EISs available for a 30- day
period prior to issuing a RECORD OF DECISION
( ROD). The FRA’s RODs and the Authority’s
final decisions will include commitments to
mitigation measures to be implemented in the
construction and operations of the project and
will identify the subsequent environmental
permitting that will be required during the next
phases of design and construction.
Current Status of Project EIR/ EIS
The environmental process for each of the
high- speed train project sections in both initial
and subsequent phases has been initiated. The
status of the work prepared for each section as
of December 1, 2009, is shown in the exhibits
below and summarized as follows16.
16 As noted above, the Authority is undertaking revision and recirculation of a portion of its Bay Area- to- Central Valley Program
EIR and will consider the revised material prior to making a new programmatic decision for connecting the Bay Area to the Central
Valley. The new decision has the potential to affect some project EIRs.
30
Phase 1 Sections
San Francisco to San Jose Section:
Scoping was initiated in December 2008. Three scoping meetings were held in San Mateo County,
San Francisco, and Santa Clara County in January 2009. Since then, working in cooperation with
the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board ( Caltrain), the Authority has benefited from significant
community participation in the identification and refinement of alignment and at- grade, aerial and
tunnel design options in this corridor, which extends from the planned Transbay Terminal in San
Francisco to Diridon Station in downtown San Jose. Based on significant engineering, right-of-
way and environmental work, these options have been evaluated using Authority criteria to
identify a set of technically viable alternatives for study in the project EIR/ EIS. Figure SFSJ shows the
location of the alignments and options to be studied in the environmental document. The AA process
is underway and is expected to be completed in early 2010.
Current overall percent complete to NOD/ ROD is currently estimated to be 20 percent. Target NOD/
ROD date: September 2011.
31
Figure SFSJ
32
San Jose to Merced Section:
Scoping was initiated in March 2009. Scoping meetings were held in San Jose, Merced, and Gilroy in
March 2009. Based on scoping and information from the Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS,
a large number of alignment and at- grade, vertical, and tunnel design options were identified. For
ease of analysis, the section was divided into six subsections: downtown San Jose, Monterey Highway,
Morgan Hill- Gilroy, Pacheco Pass, crossing the San Joaquin Valley, and the Wye connection near
Merced.
Engineering, right- of- way requirements, constructability issues, environmental constraints, and
neighborhood concerns were all considered in sifting through more than 30 alignment and design
options to arrive at a reduced set of alignment and options that the Authority and FRA have agreed
be evaluated in the project EIR/ EIS ( see Figure SJM) The AA process is underway and is expected to be
completed in early 2010. Current overall percent complete to NOD/ ROD is estimated to be 20 percent.
Target NOD/ ROD date: March 2012.
Figure SJM
33
Merced to Bakersfield Section:
Scoping was initiated in February 2009. Scoping meetings were held in Merced, Madera, Fresno,
Visalia, and Bakersfield in March 2009. Since then, FRA and the Authority determined that the
environmental effects of the high- speed train from Merced to Bakersfield were more appropriately
assessed in two separate documents – one for Merced to Fresno and another for Fresno to Bakersfield.
As a result, an amended NOI and NOP were issued in October 2009. In June, the FRA and Authority
agreed that four north- south alignments be carried forward and evaluated in the Alternatives
Analysis process. The four north- south alignments and the five alignments under study by the San
Jose to Merced section created 20 possible junction ( wye) configurations. Based on additional field
work, engineering, and environmental review, the alignments, wyes, station location and design
options were further evaluated using more detailed evaluation criteria. The results of this work
were then shared with the FRA and the Authority, resulting in an agreement that three north- south
alternatives and four wye connections with the San Jose to Merced section be studied as part of the
environmental evaluation process ( see Figure MF)
Fresno to Bakersfield Section:
A similar process was followed for the subsection between Fresno to Bakersfield. Through downtown
Fresno, 12 alternative alignments – combinations of route and vertical profile ( elevation) – were
identified and studied. Between Fresno and Bakersfield, two corridors, three route alignments, and a
number of design options were considered. Reaching Bakersfield, the project team considered two
main route alternatives. Based on engineering analysis, consideration of environmental issues, and
comments received from local officials, resources agencies, and the general public, the Authority and
FRA agreed that two north- south alignments alternatives with some design options be evaluated
in the EIR/ EIS ( see Figure FB). The AA process is underway for both the Merced to Fresno and Fresno
to Bakersfield Projects and is expected to be completed in December 2009. Current overall percent
complete to NOD/ ROD for both projects is currently estimated to be 25 percent. Target both NOD/
ROD dates: September 2011.
Figure MF
34
Figure FB
35
Bakersfield to Palmdale Section:
Scoping was initiated in September 2009. Scoping meetings were held in Bakersfield, Tehachapi,
and Palmdale in September 2009. From these scoping meetings as well as discussions with local
officials and community groups, the project team is now defining the range of study alternatives to
be considered during the Alternatives Analysis process. This section of the high- speed train system
will require crossing the Tehachapi Mountains. As a result, significant engineering work has already
occurred to identify alignment alternatives that meet the Authority’s design criteria. Field work is also
underway to identify environmental constraints associated with alignment and design options. Figure
BP shows the alignments identified during the public scoping process. The AA process is expected to
be completed in the summer of 2010. Current overall percent complete to NOD/ ROD is estimated to
be 10 percent. Target NOD/ ROD date: October 2012.
Figure BP
36
Palmdale to Los Angeles Section:
Scoping was initiated in March 2007. Scoping meetings were held in Los Angeles, Glendale, Sylmar,
and Palmdale in April 2007. Since then, significant engineering and environmental work has been
accomplished, including the evaluation of access into and out of Los Angeles Union Station. A
combination of at- grade, aerial and tunnel options have been considered, resulting in the initial
identification of 15 alignment and design options. Right- of- way constraints, potential land- use
impacts, constructability issues, and other factors have resulted in the Authority and FRA identifying
three basic alignments that are likely to be carried forward for analysis in the project EIR/ EIS ( see
Figure PLA). The AA process is well underway and the environmental technical reports are being
prepared. The Administrative Draft EIR/ EIS is expected to be completed in December 2010. Current
overall completion to NOD/ ROD is estimated to be 40 percent. Target NOD/ ROD date: December 2011.
Figure PLA
37
Los Angeles to Anaheim Section:
Scoping was initiated in March 2007. Three scoping meetings were held in Los Angeles, Norwalk,
and Anaheim in April 2007. Working in cooperation with LA MTA, significant engineering and
environmental work has been accomplished to identify and evaluate existing and future rail
passenger and freight operations within the section, access into and out of Los Angeles Union Station
( LAUS), design options for connecting with the planned Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal
Center ( ARTIC), a possible station in Fullerton, and alternative maintenance facility sites near LAUS
and ARTIC. The AA process and the environmental technical reports have been completed and the
Administrative Draft EIR/ EIS is in preparation, expected to be completed in January 2010. Current
overall percent complete to NOD/ ROD is estimated to be 50 percent. Target NOD/ ROD date: March
2011. ( see Figure LAA)
Figure LAA
38
Subsequent Sections
Merced to Sacramento Section:
The NOI/ NOP will be issued in December 2009. Scoping is planned to start in January 2010, with
scoping meetings to be held in Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, and Merced. Significant engineering
and environmental work will then follow with the AA process to be completed in August 2010. Work
will then be initiated on preparation of the project EIR/ EIS. Current overall percent complete to NOD/
ROD is estimated to be 1 percent. At this early stage, it is envisioned that the environmental review
would be completed no sooner than 2014, with construction to begin no sooner than 2015.
( see Figure MS)
Figure MS
39
Los Angeles to San Diego Section:
Scoping was initiated in October 2009. Scoping meetings were held in La Jolla, San Diego,
Escondido, Murrieta, Corona, Riverside, Monterey Park, West Covina, El Monte, and Pomona in
October 2009 and also Ontario and San Bernardino in November 2009. Public participation at these
meetings was significant, with over 1,900 comments received addressing alignment, engineering,
and environmental issues. Over the next year, substantial work will occur to identify the range of
alternatives suitable for study in the project EIR/ EIS. The AA process was started in November 2009
and will be completed in the fall of 2010. Current overall percent complete to NOD/ ROD is estimated
to be 3%. At this early stage, it is envisioned that the environmental review would be completed no
sooner than 2016, with construction to begin no sooner than 2017. ( see Figure LASD)
Figure LASD
40
Altamont Corridor Rail Project:
This is a partnership, separate from the high- speed train system, that the Authority is pursuing
with local and regional transit agencies to develop a joint- use rail infrastructure project between
the Central Valley and the Bay Area via the Altamont Pass. Scoping was initiated in November
2009, with sessions held in Livermore, Stockton, Fremont, and San Jose. The AA process will be
initiated in December 2009 and is expected to be completed in the summer of 2010. Current overall
percent complete to NOD/ ROD is estimated to be 2%. At this early stage, it is envisioned that the
environmental review would be completed no sooner than 2014, with construction to begin no
sooner than 2015.
( see Figure ALT)
Figure ALT
41
42
Engineering
The California high- speed train project will use
proven technology developed and operated
safely throughout the world over the past
several decades, which will be brought to the
United States through the FRA by way of what
is known as a “ Rule of Particular Applicability.”
There are three key considerations that define
the technical requirements of the CHSTP. These
include:
• A regulatory framework that sets the
mandatory safety requirements to
ensure public safety of the system, which
is further discussed in the Regulatory
Approvals section of this document.
• System performance objectives that
define what service levels are required of
the system, including intercity trip times,
which are outlined in legislation ( AB 3034,
Proposition 1A) included in the California
Streets and Highways Code as Chapter 20,
Division 3.
• Design standards, and operations and
maintenance plans that guide final
design, construction, and revenue service
operations, which are further expanded in
the following sections.
Design Standards and Operations
& Maintenance Plans
Developed to meet the federal and state safety
regulations and provide for the performance
objectives of the California high- speed train
system, project design standards and operations
& maintenance plans guide the final design,
construction, and revenue service operations of
the high- speed rail system.
At the program management level, the
engineering efforts are focused on five key areas
of activity, all of which are required to confirm
that the designed high- speed rail system
delivers the performance objectives. These key
areas include:
System- Wide Design Elements
• CHSTP requirements and design for a
network- wide 2x25 kV traction power
supply system and coordination with the
California Public Utilities Commission
( CPUC) for approvals process.
• Standard designs for trackwork, overhead
contact system ( OCS) to ensure a
consistent application across the CHSTP
network.
• Train control and communications
systems specifications that provide
Authority requirements for performance,
capacity, and safety and for consistent
application across the CHSTP network.
Design Criteria and Standards
• Design criteria that support FRA safety
standards and requirements, and the
Petition for Rule of Particular Applicability
( RPA), including trainsets, track alignment,
bridge and viaduct design, tunnel
design, building facility structural design,
earthworks, drainage design, safety and
security, geotechnical investigations and
design, seismic considerations, traction
power facility equipment, traction
power system analysis, overhead contact
system configuration, positive train
control, system architecture and design
requirements, system interfaces, and
supervisory control and data acquisition
( SCADA).
• Design criteria development is
documented in drawings and technical
memoranda and includes assessment
of existing high- speed rail systems,
analysis of what is appropriate for
the California high- speed rail system,
and design guidance for final design
and construction. Design criteria and
standards ensure all subsystems deliver a
reliable and safe high- speed train system
commensurate with industry standards
and provide a consistent design approach
to be applied to each CHSTP section.
43
• CHSTP Design Manual is the primary
design reference for final design and
construction. Standard specifications and
special provisions will be developed for
inclusion in the procurement documents.
Maintenance Plan
Program- wide maintenance concept plans for
use in defining maintenance facilities, including
general locations ( but not specific sites), size,
and activities of each facility.
Rolling stock inspection and maintenance plan
includes activities, and frequency intervals
( time or mileage as appropriate) typical for
high- speed rail rolling stock for purposes of
determining rolling stock facility requirements
including types of facilities, activities at each
of the facilities including major equipment,
required frequency of inspection and
maintenance, approximate location for each
of the facility types, approximate size of each
facility type, and rolling stock sitting time at
each location.
Maintenance of track infrastructure, known as
maintenance- of- way ( MOW), inspection and
maintenance activities and frequency intervals
( time or mileage as appropriate) typical for
high- speed rail infrastructure for purposes
of determining MOW facility requirements,
including activities at each site, equipment
requirements, and approximate size and
locations.
Operational Planning and Concept of
Operations
• Operational planning support to confirm
programmatic level studies and make
regional project recommendations to
optimize system performance.
• Operational concepts for the CHSTP,
including operational objectives, mainline
configuration, control of operations,
rolling stock maintenance and repair.
• Operating design criteria including
operating routes, operating speed and
restrictions, design level of service,
operating hours, operating schedule
and station dwell times, normal and
contingency modes of operations,
recovery time, headways, and trainset
length and seating requirements.
Rolling Stock
• Rolling stock specifications to support
procurement and acceptance of trainsets
that meet Authority performance and
safety requirements including maximum
operating speed, acceleration rate and
braking rates ( service and emergency),
leading dimensions and clearances,
trainset make- up, number of seats,
number of trainsets, distributed power
versus locomotive hauled, line voltage,
radial steering trucks, HVAC requirements,
coupling systems ( internal and external),
carbody materials, energy management
systems, signal and train control
technologies, and communications
requirements.
Regulatory Approvals
In conjunction with the project- specific
environmental reviews and preliminary
engineering of each high- speed train section,
there are a series of governmental requirements
that must be satisfied to implement the CHSTP.
These are summarized below, along with the
steps being taken to comply.
U. S. and State Environmental Regulatory
Agencies
In order to prepare for the necessary
environmental regulatory approvals; the
PMT is conducting statewide environmental
resource agency coordination meetings. These
meetings are held three times a year with the
federal and state resource agencies, such as
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, U. S. EPA, CA Department
of Fish and Game, State Historic Preservation
44
Office ( SHPO), and others. The PMT role in this
coordination is to provide early communication
and coordination to assure that the technical
review requirements of the approval agencies
will be met in the environmental review process
and subsequent applications, in some cases
by preparing Memoranda of Agreement or
Understanding, or Programmatic Agreements
between these agencies and the Authority and
FRA. The Authority will continue its meetings
and consultations with these agencies as it
moves toward seeking necessary approvals.
U. S. Department of Transportation / FRA
In April 2009, the U. S. Department of
Transportation published “ A Vision for High-
Speed Rail in America” to build a network of
high- speed rail corridors across America. Within
this document, the U. S. DOT identified the
“ Need for High- Speed Rail Safety Standards” as
one of five challenges inherent in advancing this
new passenger rail vision. This Vision document
also states that:
“… the systems approach required to ensure safety of new high- speed rail
corridors will necessitate consideration of additional changes in several
regulations, including equipment, system safety, and collision and derailment
prevention” and that this “ opportunity to revise its safety approach in a
manner that accelerates the development of high- speed rail while preserving
and improving upon a strong safety regime... will be a challenge for the [ FRA]
as it seeks to administer its critical safety responsibility.”
It is important to note that existing federal
regulations support train speeds up to 150 mph
and that introduction of modern high- speed
rail revenue service operations in California
and the United States depends on successful
completion of a RPA for the CHSTP. The RPA and
Notice of Proposed Rule Making ( NPRM) is the
federal process for introducing and adopting
new safety regulations into the Code of Federal
Regulations.
With California at the forefront of modern high-speed
rail development in the United States,
the Authority has taken the opportunity to
move forward with the FRA and define how best
to implement a system design approach and
develop the required federal safety regulations
and standards for high- speed rail with operating
speeds up to 220 mph. Since September 2008,
the Authority and its staff have met with FRA
regularly to discuss and advance how the CHSTP
will demonstrate compliance with existing
federal regulations and, more importantly, how
to develop high- speed rail safety regulations to
be included in future federal safety regulations.
California Public Utilities Commission
The California Public Utilities Commission
( CPUC) General Order ( GO) 95 provides safety-related
rules for electrified overhead line
construction on transportation systems. As
with the federal regulations and high- speed
rail at 220 mph, there exists a similar challenge
with GO 95 in that it does not address the
2x25kV traction power supply system required
for modern high- speed rail. The Authority is
meeting with the PUC to
determine the best way
to proceed in developing
the 2x25kV traction
power supply system
required for high- speed
rail operations.
California Department
of Transportation
The CHSTP crosses the state highway right-of-
way at dozens of locations including
interstates and state routes. The Authority will
be working with Caltrans as the owner and
maintainer of the state’s highway network in
areas where proposed HST work would affect
the highway right- of- way. To streamline and
possibly expedite the review and approval
process affecting state highway right of way,
the Authority has executed a statewide Master
Agreement with Caltrans to provide oversight,
environmental document review, design
support, and project approval.
45
EIR/ EIS Management to NOD/ ROD
In managing the EIR/ EIS process through
final approval of a NOD/ ROD for each high-speed
train section project, guidance has
been prepared to ensure that each Regional
Consultant will:
• Conduct public scoping meetings with
presentation materials intended to inform
the public of the CHSTP and have them
understand the environmental process.
• Have adequate public, stakeholder,
and agency outreach during the
environmental process.
• Provide outreach to non- English speaking
communities or groups.
• Conduct the AA process with the
same level of detail and public/ agency
involvement needed to select the most
reasonable and feasible options, which
will avoid or minimize potential impact.
• Use the same study area limits to identify
environmental baseline conditions.
• Use the same criteria and significance
thresholds to identify potential impacts.
• Identify similar measures to avoid,
minimize, and/ or mitigate impacts.
During the preparation of the environmental
deliverables and EIR/ EIS documents by the
Regional Consultants, the Authority and PMT
staff provide technical and quality assurance/
quality control ( QA/ QC) review to ensure that
the guidance and standard methods adopted by
the Authority and FRA are followed.
Preliminary Engineering
The Authority and PMT Engineering staffs are
providing ongoing oversight of the Regional
Consultants to assure design consistency across
the system and compliance by the Regional
Consultants with established design criteria
and other requirements. While it is common
engineering practice, and necessary, to break
out large projects into sections for development,
design, and construction, it is critical that all
Regional Consultants are guided by a consistent
set of design criteria and standards that have
been established to ensure the CHSTP will
operate as a single system. Design consistency
will be achieved by strict adherence to these
design criteria by the Regional Consultant teams
as they develop their 15 percent Design and 30
percent Design submittals as follows:
15 percent Design – Preliminary
engineering to support a regional
project EIR/ EIS, provide a more detailed
construction cost estimate, and conform
with all requirements and commitments
included in decision documents ( FRA ROD;
Authority resolution, CEQA findings, and
Mitigation Monitoring and Report Plan) and
the Final Statewide Programmatic EIR/ EIS for
the CHSTP, and the Final Program EIR/ EIS for
the San Francisco Bay Area to Central Valley
portion of the high- speed train system.
Generally, the level of engineering detail
will be sufficient to determine the required
footprint for the CHSTP facilities and identify
environmental impacts.
30 percent Design – Preliminary
engineering to support procurement of final
design and construction services, provide
a more detailed and accurate construction
cost estimate and in conformance with
the regional project Final Environmental
Documents. Generally, the level of
engineering detail will identify all elements
of the project to be constructed, but leave
construction details and final placement for
development during final design.
The engineering- related requirements
generally fall into two categories, technical
design requirements and safety requirements.
Compliance with the technical design
requirements is critical in ensuring that the
California high- speed train system provides
the performance mandated by the guiding
legislation ( AB 3034) and set forth by the
Authority in policy documents. Compliance
with the safety requirements, which will be
embodied in the RPA for the CHSTP, is critical to
securing FRA and CPUC certification to operate
the California high- speed train in revenue
service.
46
Procurement
Procurement activities include development
of legal, commercial, and technical elements
for bid documents, bid advertisement, bid
evaluation, contractor selection, contract award,
contract administration, and close- out.
Legal Provisions for Bid Documents.
The Authority will have legal and contract
support from State resources as well as standard
contract language for use in the procurement
documents. The PMT will support development
of legal provisions specific to the differences
between standard state contractual language
and procedures with the requirements for
alternative project delivery, particularly with
respect to liability and indemnification.
Commercial Provisions for Bid Documents.
In addition to supporting development of
standard commercial provisions, such as
progress reporting, and measurement and
payment policies, the Authority and PMT
staff will review commercial provisions that
have been used on other projects to improve
construction quality, reduce construction costs,
promote worker safety, minimize disruption
to the public and stakeholders, and improve
project schedules.
Technical specifications and drawings for Bid
Documents.
The majority of these documents are currently
being produced by the PMT and the Regional
Consultants. These technical documents
include the 30 percent Design submittals,
the CHSTP Design Manual, CHSTP Standard
Specifications, CHSTP Standard Drawings, and
Directive Drawings.
Bid Evaluation.
The Authority will manage the bid evaluation
process with support from the PMT. An
evaluation manual will be prepared and a
training seminar will be conducted for the
Bid Evaluation Team members. The PMT will
provide technical support to the Authority
in negotiations with the proposer that the
Authority selects to enter into a contract. Project
delivery strategies currently under discussion
will be further assessed and procurement
documents will be prepared and ready for
distribution when the regional section NODs/
RODs are approved by the Authority and FRA.
Due to the size of the Program, procurement
documents will likely include a range of
contract types ( e. g., Design/ Bid/ Build, Design/
Build, Design/ Build/ Finance, Design/ Build/
Operate/ Finance, Design / Build / Operate /
Maintain / Finance) depending on the overall
delivery strategy and schedule. Regardless,
the contracting strategy will reflect the needs
of the delivery schedule and operations and
maintenance of a safe and reliable high- speed
system.
Construction Management
Following the NODs / RODs and issuance of
the procurement documents, projects will
move on to the final design and construction
stage. At this point, the Authority will procure
Regional construction management ( CM)
contractors, who will manage the final design
and construction to ensure compliance with
the contract documents. The PMT will focus
on oversight and support of the Regional
CM contractors, the management of the
core systems contractor, and the testing &
commissioning program. Core system elements
currently include the high- speed trainsets,
heavy maintenance facility, train control/
signaling and communications systems, central
control center, electrification/ traction power
systems, and track. The core systems contractor
would design, build, demonstrate, test, validate,
and verify the core system elements in a test
section ( at least about 100 miles long) of very-high-
speed ( 250- mph) track in the Central
Valley between Merced and , before the high-speed
train systems elements are constructed
elsewhere in the initial San Francisco to
Anaheim route.
Given the number and value of active
construction projects and contracts required to
47
deliver the California high- speed train system,
multiple construction management teams
will be required to oversee and manage the
individual construction projects, similar to the
Regional Consultant design teams. The PMT’s
Construction Manager will monitor and actively
manage these Regional CM teams to confirm
construction progress, budgets, schedules,
quality, and compliance with standards
and specifications. This will ensure that a
Program- wide perspective is maintained for
on- time delivery of revenue service, including
development of schedule recovery plans as
needed. During this phase, the design and
construction contractor will likely bring forward
alternative approaches and designs that
provide economic benefits to the Authority. A
change control process will be implemented to
evaluate requested design variations against
the published California high- speed train design
criteria and standards to confirm any impacts
to safety, reliability, and overall achievement
of the system performance objectives. Where
necessary, the PMT will also provide additional
support to the Regional CM teams or take on
special assignments to ensure delivery of the
construction to meet schedule and revenue
service target dates.
It is critical that construction management
input be provided at the early stages in the
development of the program documents
to ensure a high level of efficiency and
effectiveness during procurement for design
and construction services, as well as during
the construction activity itself. Areas where
construction management input is critical
includes review of Regional Consultant
15 percent Design submittal packages for
constructability issues and review of Regional
Consultant 30 percent Design submittal
packages for both constructability and
bidability issues.
Agency Agreements and
Permitting
Statewide agency agreements will be prepared
with environmental resource agencies to
support the environmental permitting required
during final design and construction. These
agreements, Memorandum of Understanding
( MOU), Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA),
or Programmatic Agreement ( PA), will clearly
identify the Authority’s responsibilities in
meeting the permitting requirements of the
federal, state, and regional environmental
resource agencies.
The Project’s environmental permitting staff will
manage the permitting process which begins
during the preparation of the Final EIR/ EIS. The
major environmental permits that each of the
HST Projects will require are:
• Section 404 permit under the Clean
Water Act
• Section 401 water quality certification
permit
• Section 4( f ) and Section 6( f ) Approvals
• National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System ( NPDES) Permits
• USF& WS Section 7 Consultation and
Biological Opinion
• California ESA permits
• California Department of Fish and Game
( DFG) Section 1602 Lake and Streambed
Alteration Agreement
• Caltrans Encroachment Permits
Right- of- Way Preservation and
Acquisition
The Authority, with PMT and Regional
Consultant support, will lead the right- of- way
preservation and acquisition tasks. This work
will include identification of “ at- risk” parcels,
preparation of survey documents and legal
descriptions, and preparation for property
acquisition negotiations.
Identification of “ at- risk” parcels. The
Authority has the ability to take action to
protect rights- of- way and preserve land for the
future high- speed rail alignments using the
Program EIR/ EIS approvals, as available funding
permits consensual acquisitions and consistent
with environmental review requirements.
This might be considered in areas where
48
development is rapidly occurring or where
potential changes in land use could significantly
increase construction costs.
Survey documents and legal descriptions.
As the affected parcels are identified, specific
data with respect to ownership, easements,
parcel size, parcel requirements by the CHSTP
need to be gathered and documented as a legal
description to support negotiations.
Negotiation. Specific land acquisition by
segment can begin upon issuance of the
regional project NOD and ROD. Right- of- way
acquisitions will conform to the state and
federal relocation assistance requirements, and
other state and federal provisions required at
the time of acquisition. As part of the right- of-way
process and where shared use with existing
railroad corridors is confirmed, the Authority will
negotiate terms of access for shared rights- of-way
with railroad owners and operators.
Program Implementation
Implementing initial revenue service by 2020
will require setting many wheels in motion
in 2010. This section outlines a series of pre-construction
activities, commencing within the
next year, essential to achieving that goal. The
project’s near- term focus must be to advance
and complete the required environmental
reviews and preliminary engineering for each
of the seven CHSTP initial sections between
San Francisco and Anaheim. In parallel with
producing these environmental review and
preliminary engineering documents, the
Authority must also commence a series
of activities in preparation for the start of
construction as outlined below.
Pre- Construction Activities
One of the first steps in planning for the
design and construction of the initial system
is to develop and maintain a Project Master
Schedule, detailing the myriad of activities
required to implement the CHSTP. The master
schedule will include established milestones for
the NOD and ROD for each section and planned
design/ construction/ testing/ commissioning/
start- up activities in each geographic section
and project- wide. The master schedule will be
based on a series of supporting plans, including:
• ROW acquisition and relocation plans,
section- by- section
• Contract packaging plan section- by-section
and system- wide
• Procurement plan, including early work,
core systems, D/ B infrastructure and
system- wide construction contracts, and
system operator
• Testing & Commissioning plan, and
• Revenue Service Start- up plan
The work plan must take into account the
schedule requirements and milestones
established by the FRA for ARRA Track 2
grant funded projects.
The master schedule will identify early
construction work – utility relocation, ROW
clearing, railroad track relocation, building
demolition, major grade separations, and other
“ early work” to reduce construction risks. The
vast majority of the heavy construction work
will be procured and delivered through large
design- build ( D/ B) contracts, but early work will
be contracted using the best available means,
including traditional design- bid- build and
railroad force account, as appropriate, as well as
through smaller D/ B contracts. In each case, a
financial package from the private sector will be
part of the contract approach.
Another key near- term activity is procurement
of the system operator. There are a number
of options for how the operations and
maintenance ( O& M) contract could be
structured. It could be packaged with the core
systems procurement or separately as a long-term
( multi- year) concession. The exact timing
and structure of this procurement has not
been decided yet; however, an initial Request
for Expression of Interest ( RFEI) for the system
operations and maintenance contractor, along
with RFEIs for the major civil infrastructure, core
systems/ trainset contractors, and financing,
was issued in 2008. Since then, the Authority
49
has continued to reach out to the private sector
to gauge interest in the project as well as
seek guidance on technical and procurement
issues. In the future, draft contract documents
will be sent for industry review to selected
respondents, and the industry feedback will
be used in preparing the final Requests for
Proposals and contract documents for the major
contract procurements to follow.
In 2010, the Authority will develop draft RFPs
for industry review of the core systems. The
proposed approach involves contracting with a
consortium – a single contract team – to design,
build, demonstrate, test, validate, and verify
the core system elements in a test section ( at
least about 100 miles long) of very- high- speed
( 250- mph) track in the Central Valley between
Merced and Bakersfield, before the high-speed
train systems’ elements are constructed
elsewhere in the initial route. The roles and
responsibilities of the O& M and core systems
contractors are fundamental to achieving a safe,
reliable, maintainable and profitable high- speed
rail service.
Prior to the possible hiring of a core systems
consortium, individual sections of the Phase 1
HST final design and infrastructure construction
will commence as environmental reviews are
completed, and as funding is available, very
likely starting with the ARRA- funded program
corridors. Applications for ARRA- funded
corridor design and construction programs
were submitted for the San Francisco- San Jose,
Merced- Fresno, Fresno- Bakersfield, and LA-Anaheim
sections. The funding levels and timing
of the ARRA- program work will affect how soon
construction can start and which sections are
built first. Various scenarios can be envisioned
for implementing pieces of the system, and
connecting them into operable segments. The
scenario ultimately adopted will depend in
part on the outcome of the ARRA Track 2 grant
requests and negotiations, and which sections
will have near- term committed funding by the
High- Speed Rail Authority Board.
The infrastructure contractors may install the
track and electrification systems outside of the
test track area; the core systems contractor will
install all other systems elements project- wide.
As part of the core systems contract, the heavy
maintenance facility ( HMF), to be built adjacent
to the high- speed test track, will be needed
in time to receive trainsets for final assembly,
testing and commissioning. The HMF likely will
house the central control center for the entire
system.
Depending on the ARRA grant determination,
infrastructure in the LA- Anaheim, Merced-
Bakersfield, and San Francisco– San Jose sections
of the route might be constructed first, followed
by the San Jose to Merced, Bakersfield to
Palmdale and Palmdale to LA sections.
Other pre- construction activities include:
• Developing draft construction RFP
documents and construction contract
documents: General Provisions, Special
Provisions, Standard and Directive
Drawings and Standard Specifications
• Identifying Construction Management
( CM) requirements and preparing RFPs
for procuring Regional CM consultants
• Commencing ROW acquisition,
particularly “ protective” acquisitions
• Obtaining all necessary environmental
permits
• Applying for FRA and CPUC safety waivers
and approvals, including the FRA “ Rule of
Particular Applicability” for the CHSTP
Construction Staging
Upon receiving environmental approvals and
finalizing funding agreements, the Authority
will issue construction RFPs, continue ROW
acquisition, and procure CM services. Early work
will commence while the major D/ B contracts
are being advertised and awarded. Early
work will include site clearing and grubbing,
railroad track and facilities relocation, building
demolition, environmental remediation work,
and utility relocation in coordination with the
major D/ B contract schedules. The Contract
Procurement Plan will be updated as the timing
of additional environmental approvals and
funding sources becomes known. The Project
50
Master Schedule will be updated monthly
to incorporate contractors’ approved CPM
schedules and monthly updates. The general
sequence of construction is envisioned to be
as follows:
• Advertise, bid and award ARRA- funded
design and construction
• Advertise, bid and award other early
work, section- by- section
• Advertise, bid and award core systems in
the Merced to Bakersfield section
• As environmental approvals are received
and funding is available, advertise, bid
and award other major D/ B infrastructure
contracts
• Develop and implement integrated
systems testing, verification and
validation of the core systems design
• Complete the test track, HMF, central
control and other core systems elements
• Receive trainsets, continue integrated
testing, “ burn- in” and vehicle acceptance
• Incorporate and integrate the test track
verification and validation results with
the line section track, electrification and
regional “ systems” elements and with
the system- wide systems contracts ( train
control/ signaling and communications,
SCADA, and central control contracts)
• Administer early work and D/ B contracts,
including field changes, change orders,
claims management, and contract close-outs
• As facilities are completed, the Authority
will commission stations, facilities, and
systems to achieve operational readiness
in conjunction with the integrated
testing of each section
• The Authority will obtain CPUC and FRA
safety approval prior to commencing
revenue service in Minimum Operable
Segments, which will be further defined
as the Project Master Schedule is further
developed
• Once the operable segments are
connected and sufficient high- speed
trainsets have been accepted, and
system- wide testing, commissioning
and training are completed, full Initial
revenue service can commence
Independent Utility
Infrastructure in the LA- Anaheim, Merced-
Bakersfield, and San Francisco– San Jose sections
as proposed in the federal grant applications
would have independent utility even if the
entire CHSTP were not completed.
The LA- Anaheim corridor program will fully
grade- separate the existing right of way, expand
the width of the right- of- way where needed,
construct the alignment and track needed for
separate 110 mph operation to standards that
would allow the operation of the high- speed
train and lightweight DMU equipment, and
improve stations at Anaheim and Los Angeles.
The grade separation of this busy line, with
projected 60 freight trains, 22 intercity Amtrak
Surfliner trains, and 32 Metrolink trains daily, will
greatly enhance crossing safety for rail and road
users, decrease the causes for delays, and allow
faster operations schedules.
In the Central Valley, the Authority is proposing
to build the rural sections of high- speed track
between Fresno and Bakersfield and between
Merced and Fresno in a way that would provide
independent utility to Amtrak’s San Joaquin
service between those cities, if for whatever
reason the rest of the High- Speed Rail system
were not completed at the same time. The
grade separations would greatly enhance
crossing safety for both passenger and freight
trains in the corridor, and the new high- speed
trackage would be configured so that it could
be connected to the existing Amtrak stations
in Merced, Fresno and Bakersfield, if the system
were not completed at the same time.
In the San Francisco – San Jose corridor, the
Project would help implement long- standing
plans to electrify the corridor, and to grade-separate
several high- priority road rail crossings
in order to prepare the ground for high- speed
train service, and allow Caltrain to operate more
reliably and quickly. As in the other projects
above, the grade separations would greatly
51
enhance crossing safety for rail and road users.
Moreover, the speed- up that Caltrain estimates
is possible as a result of these improvements
would enhance the attractiveness of the Capitol
Corridor trains and the Starlight, which use the
San Jose Diridon station, as well as save time
for those in the northern part of the Peninsula
who access the Amtrak Capitol Corridor trains
at Emeryville via Caltrain and the dedicated bus
link from the Caltrain 4th & King Street station. 17
Funding permitting, all sections of the route
could be under construction by the 2012– 2014
timeframe. As individual sections are completed
and tested they could be operated as “ minimum
operable segments.” For instance, once the San
Jose- Merced section is completed, it could be
connected to the Merced- Bakersfield section
and initial service could commence between
San Jose and Bakersfield. Likewise, once the
line is built and tested through the Tehachapi
Mountains, initial service could be extended
to Palmdale. Incremental construction and
connection of operable segments would
continue until the entire San Francisco- to-
Anaheim system is fully operational.
Schedule
The following Master Summary Schedule for the
San Francisco to Anaheim portion of the CHSTP
is split in two parts: program management
activities and right- of- way acquisition and
construction activities. Together they show
major program management activities
and currently projected timelines for the
regional project- level environmental review/
preliminary engineering, target NOD/ ROD
milestones, procurement activities, final design/
construction durations, testing/ acceptance, and
pre- revenue operations leading to the start of
initial revenue service in 2020. This schedule
will be updated as the project advances and as
funding is secured to support the final design/
construction of the Project.
17 See discussion of court order at p. 7.
SAN FRANCISCO– ANAHEIM MASTER SUMMARY SCHEDULE – Program Management Activities
52
SAN FRANCISCO– ANAHEIM MASTER SUMMARY SCHEDULE – ROW and Construction Activities
53
Outreach
Effective outreach is integral
to achieving the goals of the
high- speed train project, and in
its mission to be transparent and
accountable to the people of
California it is incumbent upon the
Authority to effectively engage the
public.
Events over the past 13
months have necessitated that the
Authority’s outreach efforts turn
from educating Californians about
high- speed rail’s opportunities to a
new level of informational outreach
that engages and empowers the
broader public as they become
stakeholders in a project that
is moving toward construction.
With the higher visibility that will
accompany construction start- up
– potentially as early as 2011 – the
Authority’s responsibility to keep
Californians fully informed becomes
even more demanding.
Moving forward, the Authority
plans to increase the amount,
and improve the quality of
outreach efforts – to reach more
Californians with more information
– through refocusing its regional
outreach teams and upgrading
outreach tools such as Web- based
interactive tools, outreach to ethnic
communities, and partnerships with
legislators and local government
agencies.
Between today and the
commencement of construction,
there will be ample and significant
opportunities for public input and
interaction. These opportunities are
detailed in the following section.
Outreach to government agencies, stakeholders, the news
media and the public has been and continues to be a
significant obligation and mission of the California High- Speed
Rail Authority. Statewide and section- level outreach efforts
communicating plans and benchmarks for the project assure
transparency, provide a platform for local stakeholder input,
and help build strategic partnership alliances that will result in
collaborative operation of the system.
Outreach Efforts to Date
To date, the California high- speed train project’s outreach and
public information efforts have been coordinated primarily
by subcontractors18– at the statewide level by a subcontractor
( Deutschman Communications Group) directed and managed
by the Parsons Brinckerhoff Program Management Team
( PMT), and on a regional level by subcontractors to each of the
Regional Project Management teams.
Outreach has been focused on broad public project awareness
and on the outreach and public engagement required within
state and federal environmental review processes.
Through the environmental review process, outreach has
relied heavily on the project’s regional- focused engineers and
environmental planners, who have interacted with regional
transportation agencies, cities, counties, legislative staff, and the
public through public meetings and written materials.
Moving Forward
Events over the past 13 months necessitate increased outreach
efforts. Those events include:
• Passage of Proposition 1A
• Inclusion of high- speed rail funding within the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act
• Increased interest and demand for information from
California residents, local governments, legislators, and
the media
• Significant project planning milestones including public
scoping meetings and entering the alternatives analysis
process within several project sections
California High- Speed Rail Authority’s Outreach Program
18 Detailed below within discussions of each regional section
54
Recognizing the need for increased outreach
efforts, the Authority in August 2009
created the position of Deputy Director for
Communications, Policy and Public Outreach,
and Governor Schwarzenegger appointed a
person to fill that role. The goal of creating the
position was to bring outreach activities under
the direct control of the Authority, to streamline
the outreach program, and to increase the
quantity and quality of outreach activities.
To that end, the Authority also initiated the
procurement process to bring aboard a new
Statewide Communications and Outreach
contractor. Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide
was chosen in November as that new
contractor, and is expected to begin work with
the Authority in January 2010, following the
approval by the Department of General Services
of a contract.
Overall Communications Strategy
It is the Authority’s goal to reach as many
stakeholders and interested parties as possible
with thorough, accurate information about the
planned high- speed rail system and its progress.
Those stakeholders and interested parties
range from California residents and community
groups to elected officials, the financial industry,
international governments, and private
businesses.
The Authority’s outreach efforts occur on dual
but complementary tracks. The first is the public
engagement required as vital steps within the
environmental review and planning process.
This occurs on a section- by- section local level.
The second track is general public awareness of
the project, managed at the statewide level.
To achieve its outreach goals, the Authority
employs a number of tools, outlined below.
Public Engagement
The Authority’s outreach program is responsible
for engaging and responding to the public.
It accomplishes that by directly dealing with
the public in public meetings, through written
correspondence, person- to- person interaction,
and other modes of communication. It also
engages the public through partnering with
regional transportation agencies, through local
governments, through legislators, and through
the news media.
Moving forward, the Authority and its
new streamlined outreach organization
plan to increase the amount and quality of
public engagement by refocusing regional
management outreach staff and by improving
its Web- based public interaction tools.
News Media Relations
The Authority must rely on the news media as a
primary source of communication to the public,
since it does not currently employ advertising
or other costly mass- marketing options. The
outreach team writes and distributes all press
releases and media advisories, prepares and
places articles in state and national publications,
responds to requests for information from
journalists, and schedules media interviews
with appropriate representatives. In addition,
the team writes or prepares all communication
instruments for the Board and project, including
regional outreach materials and press relations
for Authority Board meetings and activities.
Guided by the deputy director for
communications and public outreach, outreach
team and PMT members handle virtually all
international, national, statewide and regional
media relations for the Authority, responding
to nearly 1,000 media inquiries in the past
year alone. This work has generated significant
coverage of California’s high- speed train system
in recent months, including coverage by CBS
Sunday Morning, PBS Television, National Public
Radio, the New York Times Sunday Magazine,
Wired Magazine and dozens of other national,
state and local print and broadcast media.
Because of the changing nature of the news
media, the outreach program makes significant
efforts to reach public and news media
audiences through Web- based communications
vehicles.
55
In recent months, due to interest in available
ARRA stimulus funding and to progress in the
California high- speed rail project’s development,
interest from media outlets has increased and
will bring more awareness to the project.
Web Site Strategy and Content Management
The Authority’s Web site is a vital tool for
providing project information and details to
interested parties and for providing another
means of contacting the Authority. The Web site
houses all documents developed by and for the
Authority – from reports and studies to Board
meeting agendas, project details, environmental
documents, etc.
The Authority is currently reviewing, updating
and reprogramming its Web site, focusing
on making the site more user- friendly. A key
goal is to regionalize available information
to provide better project understanding for
local stakeholders. Responsibilities include
regular updates to the Web site and posting
of new information such as EIR/ EIS materials,
Board meeting documents, program media
statements, press releases, and more. The site
now includes Webcast capabilities for Board
meetings, providing stakeholders an easier way
to participate and obtain information.
Additionally, the Authority has begun to employ
social media tools to provide information and
a means of interaction where today’s Internet-users
are congregating.
National and International Stakeholder
Presentations
The Authority receives dozens of requests
every year from national and international
leaders and organizations to provide
information and presentations about the status
and details of California’s high- speed train.
Recent presentations were prepared for U. S.
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, the
Federal Railroad Administration, dozens of
business, transportation and environmental
groups throughout the state, and national and
international conferences such as the American
Public Transit Association and the Cordoba
Conference on high- speed train development in
Spain.
The Authority already has experienced a
significant increase in demand from national
and international sources for information and
contact – an important element of the outreach
program because of the interconnectivity
of high- speed train planning, design and
production resources and programs around the
world.
Presentation and Printed Materials
Important to any statewide project of this scope
are printed materials that help communicate
key project details. The outreach program
prepares such materials as:
• Statewide and region- specific
brochures and fact sheets.
• PowerPoint presentations for
CHSRA speakers.
• E- Newsletters and Alerts, sent to
the CHSRA stakeholder databases
of thousands of individuals.
The Authority has created visual simulations
over the past several years to help the public
and stakeholders better understand the
proposed system – what it will look like, where
it will go, how it will interconnect with regional
transportation networks and how it will affect
local communities. Those simulations play a
valuable role in establishing understanding
and context for environmental analysis, local
planning and partnership development.
Moving forward, the Authority will focus its
printed and other materials at a regionalized
and intensely local level, to provide Californians
information about the train project in very
intimate terms of how its development,
construction, and ultimate service will affect
their communities and daily lives.
56
Ethnic and Diverse Communities Outreach
Statewide and regional outreach efforts have
always included significant steps to engage,
inform and take input from California’s diverse
communities. Multilingual printed materials
and legal advertising have been a compulsory
part of the Authority’s outreach. Staff and
contractors regularly interact with ethnic and
diverse audiences and stakeholders. Moving
forward, as the demands of public outreach
increase, the Authority intends to add a specific
ethnic outreach component to the statewide
communication plan and team, as a member
of the Ogilvy team being brought on board.
That person will advise the Authority on ethic
outreach strategies and lead the effort to
implement them.
Partner Agencies
The Authority will increasingly rely on partner
agencies with established contacts and
interaction with their communities to assist
the Authority on spreading information about
the high- speed rail project. Those agencies
include regional transportation agencies such
as the Orange County Transportation Authority
and SamTrans. Through its newly appointed
deputy director for communications and public
outreach, the Authority is beginning to more
directly engage those partner agencies with
its outreach efforts, in addition to its planning
efforts.
Legislative Outreach
Partnering with members of the Legislature
and their staffs is a critical piece of reaching
Californians with information about the
high- speed train project and also of hearing
their voices. Legislators have their fingers on
the pulse of their communities, and are an
established viaduct of communication from
local communities into the state capital. The
Authority, led by its newly elected Board
Chairman, is taking steps to better inform
legislators of the train project’s progress and
more effectively engage legislators and their
staffs in the public outreach process.
Communications Protocols
The outreach team regularly updates detailed
communications protocols to standardize
outreach among and within sections, which
ensures consistent communication formats,
styles and language. Similar protocols have
been developed for the CHSRA board of
directors and other project partners to
ensure consistent and accurate information
is distributed to the public and to create a
framework for more efficient interagency
activities.
Additionally, the Authority’s program
management team has committed to
training its regional managers in Context
Sensitive Solutions, an outreach tool being
employed with the communities in the
Bay Area’s Peninsula that is a collaborative,
interdisciplinary approach that ensures input
from all stakeholders. By ensuring that the
high- speed rail project’s regional managers are
trained in this collaborative public engagement
mindset, the Authority believes outreach efforts
will improve in quality.
Regional Outreach Efforts
As it had done fo