San Diego
University City
Escondido
Murrieta
Riverside
Industry Ontario Airport
Palmdale
Anaheim
Norwalk
Los Angeles
Burbank
Sylmar
Bakersfield
Visalia/ Tulare/ Hanford
( Potential Station)
Fresno
Downtown Merced
Downtown Modesto
Stockton
Sacramento
San Jose
Redwood City/ Palo
Alto/ Mountain View
( Potential Station)
San Francisco
Transbay Terminal
Millbrae- SFO
PRELIMINARY
Alternatives Analysis Report
for the
San Francisco to San Jose Section
April 2010
Project Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement
Gilroy
California High- Speed Train Project
San Francisco to San Jose Section Project EIR/ EIS
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
Public Comment on Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report
Comments should be directed to:
Robert Doty
California High- Speed Rail Authority
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn: San Francisco to San Jose Section Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report Comments
Comments can be received by the Authority through regular U. S. mail, via email with the subject line “ San Francisco
to San Jose Section Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report Comments” sent to comments@ hsr. ca. gov, or by
facsimile transmission to ( 916) 322- 0827.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page i
Federal Railroad
Administration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations / Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... iii
Summary ............................................................................................................................... .................... S- 1
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... ..... 1- 1
1.1 California HST Project Background .......................................................................................... 1- 1
1.2 San Francisco to San Jose EIR/ EIS Background ........................................................................ 1- 1
1.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................................... 1- 1
1.4 Purpose of Study .................................................................................................................. 1- 1
1.5 Organization of Report .......................................................................................................... 1- 1
1.6 Context Sensitive Solutions .................................................................................................... 1- 2
2.0 Alternatives Development Process ...................................................................................................... 2- 1
2.1 HST Project Purpose ............................................................................................................. 2- 1
2.1.1 Objectives of the Statewide HST System and within the San Francisco to San Jose Region 2- 1
2.2 Identification of Alternatives to be Carried Forward ................................................................... 2- 1
2.3 HST Design Objectives .......................................................................................................... 2- 2
2.4 Comparison of Project Alternatives .......................................................................................... 2- 2
2.5 Context Sensitive Solutions ( CSS) ........................................................................................... 2- 3
3.0 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... ..... 3- 1
3.1 No Project Alternative ............................................................................................................ 3- 1
3.1.1 Conventional Passenger Rail Element .......................................................................... 3- 1
3.1.2 Highway Element ..................................................................................................... 3- 1
3.1.3 Transit Element ........................................................................................................ 3- 2
3.1.4 Aviation Element ...................................................................................................... 3- 2
3.2 Program Level Alternatives..................................................................................................... 3- 3
3.2.1 San Francisco to San Jose Routing Alternatives ............................................................ 3- 3
3.2.2 Station Alternatives .................................................................................................. 3- 5
3.3 Initial Identification of Project Alternatives ............................................................................... 3- 6
3.3.1 Alternatives Considered and Rejected ......................................................................... 3- 6
3.3.2 Development of Options for the Caltrain Shared Use Corridor ........................................ 3- 8
3.3.3 Initial Review of Vertical Alignment Options ................................................................ 3- 10
3.3.4 Agency Coordination and Public Outreach .................................................................. 3- 20
3.3.5 Options Carried Forward and Not Carried Forward into Detailed Evaluation .................... 3- 24
4.0 Development and Evaluation of Project Alternatives ............................................................................. 4- 1
4.1 Description of Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 4- 1
4.1.1 Definition of Vertical Options ..................................................................................... 4- 1
4.1.2 Train Operations and Arrangement of Tracks and Station Platforms ............................... 4- 1
4.2 Evaluation Measures ............................................................................................................. 4- 3
4.2.1 Capital Cost ............................................................................................................. 4- 3
4.2.2 Property Impact ....................................................................................................... 4- 4
4.2.3 Utilities .................................................................................................................... 4- 4
4.2.4 Environmental Resources and Measures ...................................................................... 4- 4
4.3 Summary of Evaluation Results .............................................................................................. 4- 5
4.3.1 Subsection 0 – San Francisco – Transbay Terminal to North of Mission Bay Drive ........... 4- 12
4.3.2 Subsection 1 – San Francisco ................................................................................... 4- 16
4.3.3 Subsection 2 – Brisbane, South San Francisco, San Bruno and Millbrae ......................... 4- 20
4.3.4 Subsection 3 – Burlingame and San Mateo ................................................................ 4- 28
4.3.5 Subsection 4 – San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos and Redwood City .............................. 4- 36
4.3.6 Subsection 5 – Atherton and Menlo Park ................................................................... 4- 46
4.3.7 Subsection 6 – Palo Alto .......................................................................................... 4- 54
4.3.8 Subsection 7 – Mountain View and Sunnyvale ............................................................ 4- 68
4.3.9 Subsection 8 – Sunnyvale and Santa Clara ................................................................ 4- 74
4.3.10 Subsection 9( a) – San Jose ...................................................................................... 4- 78
4.3.11 Subsection 9( b) – San Jose ...................................................................................... 4- 82
5.0 Analysis Summary and Conclusions..................................................................................................... 5- 1
6.0 References ............................................................................................................................... ...... 6- 1
APPENDICES
Appendix A – US 101 / I- 280 Alignment Analysis
Appendix B – Plan & Profile Drawings
Appendix C – Typical Cross Sections
Appendix D – Utilities Table
Appendix E – Scoping Comments Disposition Table
Appendix F – Outreach Meeting Comments Summary
Appendix G – Technical Memorandum- Alternatives Analysis Methods for Project EIR/ EIS ( October 2009)
Appendix H – San Francisco Terminal Alternatives
Appendix I – No Project Alternative
Appendix J – Right- of- Way
Appendix K – Train Operations
Appendix L – Conceptual Cost Estimates
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page ii
Federal Railroad
Administration
FIGURES
Figure 1- 1 San Francisco to San Jose HST Study Area ..................................................................................... 1- 3
Figure 3- 1 Alignment Alternative and Station Location Options Considered in Bay Area to Central Valley Program
EIR/ EIS ............................................................................................................................... ........... 3- 4
Figure 3- 2 Statewide Program EIR/ EIS Corridor Alignment Alternatives – San Francisco to San Jose ..................... 3- 4
Figure 3- 3 Typical Section for Elevated Option................................................................................................ 3- 9
Figure 3- 4 Typical Sections for Existing Caltrain Grade Option .......................................................................... 3- 9
Figure 3- 5 Typical Section for Trench/ Tunnel Railroad Crossing ........................................................................ 3- 9
Figure 3- 6 Subsection 0 – Vertical Alignment Options .................................................................................... 3- 11
Figure 3- 7 Subsection 1 – Vertical Alignment Options ..................................................................................... 3- 12
Figure 3- 8 Subsection 2 – Vertical Alignment Options .................................................................................... 3- 13
Figure 3- 9 Subsection 3 – Vertical Alignment Options .................................................................................... 3- 14
Figure 3- 10 Subsection 4 – Vertical Alignment Options .................................................................................. 3- 15
Figure 3- 11 Subsection 5 – Vertical Alignment Options .................................................................................. 3- 16
Figure 3- 12 Subsection 6 – Vertical Alignment Options .................................................................................. 3- 17
Figure 3- 13 Subsection 7 – Vertical Alignment Options .................................................................................. 3- 18
Figure 3- 14 Subsection 8 – Vertical Alignment Options .................................................................................. 3- 19
Figure 3- 15 Subsection 9 – Vertical Alignment Options .................................................................................. 3- 20
Figure 4- 1 Typical Configuration for Caltrain Outboard and HST in Center ......................................................... 4- 2
Figure 4- 2 Typical Configuration for Caltrain in the Center and HST Outboard .................................................... 4- 2
Figure 4- 3 Typical Configuration for Caltrain Westside and HST on the Eastside ................................................. 4- 3
Figure 4- 4 Typical Configuration for Caltrain Eastside and HST on the Westside ................................................. 4- 3
Figure 4- 5 Typical Parcel Impacts at Grade Separations................................................................................... 4- 6
Figure 5- 1 Vertical Options Carried Forward ................................................................................................... 5- 5
TABLES
Table S- 1 Alternatives Carried Forward .............................................................................................................. 2
Table 2- 1 Alignment and Station Performance Objectives and Criteria ................................................................ 2- 2
Table 2- 2 Land Use Evaluation Measures ........................................................................................................ 2- 2
Table 2- 3 Constructability Evaluation Measures................................................................................................ 2- 2
Table 2- 4 Community Evaluation Measures ..................................................................................................... 2- 3
Table 2- 5 Environmental Resources Evaluation Measures ................................................................................. 2- 3
Table 2- 6 Natural Environment Evaluation Measures ........................................................................................ 2- 3
Table 3- 1 Existing Highway Routes – San Francisco to San Jose ........................................................................ 3- 2
Table 3- 2 Existing ( 2009) Airport Facilities ...................................................................................................... 3- 2
Table 3- 3 Initial Review of Vertical Options– Subsection 0 .............................................................................. 3- 10
Table 3- 4 Initial Review of Vertical Options – Subsection 1 ............................................................................. 3- 12
Table 3- 5 Initial Review of Vertical Options – Subsection 2 ............................................................................. 3- 13
Table 3- 6 Initial Review of Vertical Options – Subsection 3 ............................................................................. 3- 14
Table 3- 7 Initial Review of Vertical Options – Subsection 4 ............................................................................. 3- 15
Table 3- 8 Initial Review of Vertical Options – Subsection 5 ............................................................................. 3- 16
Table 3- 9 Initial Review of Vertical Options – Subsection 6 ............................................................................. 3- 17
Table 3- 10 Initial Review of Vertical Options – Subsection 7 ............................................................................ 3- 18
Table 3- 11 Initial Review of Vertical Options – Subsection 8 ............................................................................ 3- 19
Table 3- 12 Initial Review of Vertical Options – Subsection 9 ............................................................................ 3- 20
Table 3- 13 Options Carried Forward ............................................................................................................. 3- 24
Table 4- 1 Environmental Resources Measures ................................................................................................. 4- 4
Table 4- 2 Environmental Measures ................................................................................................................. 4- 4
Table 4- 3 Summary Comparison of Design Options for Subsection 0 – San Francisco ......................................... 4- 13
Table 4- 4 Summary Comparison of Design Options for Subsection 1 – San Francisco ......................................... 4- 17
Table 4- 5 Summary Comparison of Design Options for Subsection 2 – Brisbane, South San Francisco, San Bruno,
Millbrae ............................................................................................................................... ......... 4- 21
Table 4- 6 Summary Comparison of Design Options for Subsection 3 – Burlingame, San Mateo............................ 4- 29
Table 4- 7 Summary Comparison of Design Options for Subsection 4 – San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood City
............................................................................................................................... .................... 4- 38
Table 4- 8 Summary Comparison of Design Options for Subsection 5 – Atherton, Menlo Park .............................. 4- 47
Table 4- 9 Summary Comparison of Design Options for Subsection 6 – Palo Alto ................................................ 4- 55
Table 4- 10 Summary Comparison of Design Options for Subsection 7 – Mountain View, Sunnyvale ..................... 4- 69
Table 4- 11 Summary Comparison of Design Options for Subsection 8 – Sunnyvale, Santa Clara .......................... 4- 75
Table 4- 12 Summary Comparison of Design Options for Subsection 9( a) – San Jose .......................................... 4- 79
Table 4- 13 Summary Comparison of Design Options for Subsection 9( b) – San Jose .......................................... 4- 83
Table 5- 1 Alternatives Carried Forward ........................................................................................................... 5- 2
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page iii
Federal Railroad
Administration
ABBREVIATIONS / ACRONYMS
AA ............................. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
AASHTO..................... AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
ACE ........................... ALTAMONT COMMUTER EXPRESS
AMTRAK .................... NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
AUTHORITY ............... CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY
BATA ......................... BAY AREA TOLL AUTHORITY
BNSF ......................... BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE
CALTRAIN .................. PENINSULA CORRIDORS JOINT POWERS BOARD
CALTRANS ................. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CAPITOLS .................. CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD
CEQA......................... CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CHRIS ....................... CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM
CNG .......................... COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS
CSS ........................... CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS
EIR ........................... ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EIS ............................ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
EMU .......................... ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNITS
FHWA ........................ FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
FRA ........................... FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
FTA ........................... FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
GIS .......................... GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
GPS .......................... GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM
HOT .......................... HIGH- OCCUPANCY TOLL
HOV ......................... HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE
HST ........................... HIGH- SPEED TRAIN
I ............................... INTERSTATE ROUTE
KOP........................... KEY OBSERVATION POINT
LOS ........................... LEVEL OF SERVICE
LRT ........................... LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT
MOA .......................... MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
MP ............................ MILE POST
MPH .......................... MILES PER HOUR
MT2........................... MAIN TRACK # 2
MTC .......................... METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MUNI ......................... SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION
NEPA ......................... NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
NRHP......................... NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
PCJPB ........................ PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD ( CALTRAIN)
PMT........................... PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TEAM
PWG .......................... POLICYMAKER WORKING GROUP
ROW ......................... RIGHT- OF- WAY
RRC .......................... REGIONAL REBUILD CENTER
RTP .......................... REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
SAMTRANS ................. SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
SECTION 4( f) ............. SECTION 4( f) OF THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION ACT OF 1966
SFO ........................... SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SJC............................ MINETA SAN JOSE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SJRRC ........................ SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
SR ............................. STATE ROUTE
STIP .......................... STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
TCE ........................... TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
TJPA .......................... TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
TOD ......................... TRANSIT- ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
TOR .......................... TOP OF RAIL
TTC ........................... TRANSBAY TRANSIT CENTER
TWG .......................... TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP
UP ............................. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
USGS ......................... UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
VTA ........................... SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
YOR........................... YEAR OF EXPENDITURE
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page iv
Federal Railroad
Administration
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page S - 1
Federal Railroad
Administration
Summary
S. 1 Results from the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis
The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis report and its associated engineering and environmental analysis confirms that a
four track, grade separated, shared Caltrain and High- Speed Train ( HST) system is feasible and the preferred HST
alternative between San Francisco and San Jose on the Peninsula ( see Figure S- 1). It also confirms that such a
system between San Francisco and San Jose can be built at costs that are in the range of what has been presented in
the 2009 Business Plan and in previous Program Level environmental documents.
Since 1996, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board ( PCJPB or Caltrain) has endorsed HST in concept and has
adopted multiple resolutions expressing such support. Since 2004, the PCJPB and the California High Speed Rail
Authority ( Authority) have worked in a partnership to develop the Caltrain corridor into a 21st century railroad
capable of serving both commuter and HST for the Peninsula and California. This partnership is founded on the basis
that there are considerable efficiencies and synergies between the two rail services. This alignment alternative would
increase intercity connectivity and accessibility to San Francisco, the Peninsula, and SFO, while improving the safety,
reliability, and performance of the regional Caltrain commuter service. The Caltrain corridor shared- use option would
take advantage of the existing rail infrastructure and would maximize the opportunity to provide rail service at- grade
where possible. Environmental impacts would be minimized since this alignment utilizes the existing Caltrain right- of-way.
In addition, the Caltrain shared use corridor would provide safety and traffic benefits by grade- separating
existing at- grade roadway crossings. For these reasons, the Caltrain shared use corridor is the preferred alignment
for HST service between San Francisco and San Jose.
The entire alignment will be a predominantly four track, grade separated railroad and would allow both Caltrain and
HST to operate their respective services. It would be a shared track system with HST operating at speeds up to 125
mph and Caltrain up to 110 mph.
The HST stations recommended for continued study are:
Downtown San Francisco: A joint terminal solution for downtown San Francisco at the Transbay Transit
Center and 4th and King.
San Francisco Airport Connector Station: Millbrae ( SFO).
A Potential Mid- Peninsula Station: Redwood City, Palo Alto and Mountain View Caltrain stations are
currently under consideration. One or none of these potential station locations could be selected to be part of
the HST system.
Downtown San Jose Terminus: Diridon Station.
The Authority, the FRA and Caltrain, in addition to performing engineering and environmental analysis, have engaged
the public and the communities on the Peninsula and are incorporating their input from San Francisco to San Jose.
The observations below outline some of the highlights from the work and input received to- date:
􀁸 In San Francisco the analysis supports focusing Authority, FRA and Caltrain engineering and study efforts on
a joint terminal solution for downtown San Francisco at the Transbay Transit Center and 4th and King. This
is consistent with the City and County of San Francisco’s and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority’s plans and
policies, and is a workable solution for the HST and Caltrain services.
􀁸 On the Peninsula, the Authority, FRA and Caltrain will limit the use of high berms in commercial or residential
areas where they would significantly reduce connectivity and mobility or where there is strong local
opposition to this type of structure.
􀁸 Tunnel options for Caltrain, HST or both have been added for further evaluation in sections throughout the
corridor. This was, in some cases, in direct response to suggestions from local communities.
􀁸 At the request of the City of Mountain View, the Authority is considering the current Caltrain Mountain View
station as an additional potential HST station.
For the detailed evaluation of alternatives, the three basic vertical options of elevated, at- grade and below grade have
been expanded to six options to better differentiate their characteristics.
􀁸 Aerial Viaduct
􀁸 Berm or Mechanically Stabilized Earth ( MSE)
􀁸 At- Grade ( Existing Caltrain Grade)
􀁸 Open Trench
􀁸 Covered Trench/ Tunnel
􀁸 Deep Tunnel
Table S- 1 and Figure S- 2 present the alternatives preliminarily identified to be carried forward for further engineering
and environmental analysis. Additional outreach will occur as these preliminary recommendations are finalized and
carried forward into further environmental and engineering analysis. It is important to understand that while some
subsections carry multiple design options it is not always possible to connect two vertical options from one subsection
to another ( tunnel to aerial viaduct for example). In some cases communities on the corridor will need to “ share” an
alternative. The transitions from one vertical solution to another takes approximately 3,000’ or just over half a mile,
so “ quick” adjustments between vertical alternatives are not possible. These types of engineering realities will
necessitate close cooperation between neighboring cities and communities, Caltrain and the Authority in developing
appropriate solutions in these subsections and throughout the corridor.
Given the highly developed nature of the Caltrain corridor, the Authority, FRA and Caltrain have carried a wide range
of vertical design options, where practical, from San Francisco to San Jose. No design options on the Caltrain corridor
were eliminated from further consideration due to cost alone. This was in part because many individuals and
communities on the corridor expressed a strong desire that alternatives be carried forward until there was a thorough
analysis and discussion of the costs, environmental impacts, and engineering issues of the various vertical options.
The other primary reason is that in order to develop an appropriate and logical cost estimate, all of the 10
subsections of the Caltrain corridor need to be “ stitched” together into a cohesive system from San Francisco to San
Jose. This exercise will be part of the 15% design study which is currently underway. Context sensitive solutions will
also be incorporated in this effort. Once these corridor- wide alternatives are developed, they will be described on an
engineering, environmental and cost basis. These corridor- wide alternatives can then become the basis for
discussion of cost sharing between the Authority, FRA and other agencies including cities on the corridor.
The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis report shows that if alternatives from San Francisco to San Jose were created
from the most costly design options put together, the costs could be between four to five times what has been
accounted for in the Business Plan or other previous estimates. Such high cost alternatives would be impracticable.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page S - 2
Federal Railroad
Administration
Table S- 1
Alternatives Carried Forward
Sub-section
Location
Alternatives Carried Forward
Aerial
Viaduct Berm At
Grade
Open
Trench
Covered
Trench/
Tunnel
Deep
Tunnel
0( a)
HST and Caltrain to
both Transbay and 4th &
King
􀀳
0( b)
HST and Caltrain to
Transbay, Caltrain to 4th
& King
0( c)
HST to 4th & King,
Caltrain to Transbay
and 4th & King
0( d)
HST and Caltrain to
both Beale Street and
4th & King
1A
North of Mission Bay
Drive to South of 16th
Street
􀀳 􀀳
1B- 1C
South of 16th Street to
North of Cesar Chavez
Street
􀀳 􀀳
1D- 1G
North of Cesar Chavez
Street to South Portal
Tunnel No. 4
􀀳 􀀳
2A
South Portal Tunnel No.
4 to south of Colma
Creek
􀀳
2B South of Colma Creek to
south of I- 380 􀀳
2C South of I- 380 to south
of Center Street 􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 HST Only HST Only
2D
South of Center Street
to south of Millbrae
Avenue
􀀳 HST Only HST Only
3A
South of Millbrae
Avenue to south of Mills
Creek
􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 􀀳
3B South of Mills Creek to
north of Villa Terrace 􀀳 􀀳 􀀳
3C- 3D
North of Villa Terrace to
north of Hayward Park
Station
􀀳 􀀳 􀀳
3E
North of Hayward Park
Station to north of
Highway 92
􀀳
4A North of Highway 92 to
south of 25th Avenue 􀀳
4B
South of 25th Avenue
to south of Cordilleras
Creek
􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 HST Only
Sub-section
Location
Alternatives Carried Forward
Aerial
Viaduct Berm At
Grade
Open
Trench
Covered
Trench/
Tunnel
Deep
Tunnel
4C
South of Cordilleras
Creek to north of
Woodside Road
􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 HST Only
4D North of Woodside Road
to north of 5th Avenue HST Only Caltrain
Only HST Only HST Only HST Only
5A North of 5th Avenue to
south of 5th Avenue 􀀳 HST Only
5B
South of 5th Avenue to
south of Ravenswood
Avenue
􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 HST Only
5C
South of Ravenswood
Avenue to north of San
Mateo County/ Santa
Clara County Line
􀀳 􀀳 HST Only
6A
North of San Mateo
County/ Santa Clara
County Line to south of
Embarcadero Road
􀀳 􀀳 HST Only
6B
South of Embarcadero
Road to south of
Churchill Avenue
􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 HST Only
6C
South of Churchill
Avenue to north of East
Meadow Drive
􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 HST Only
6D
North of East Meadow
Drive to north of Adobe
Creek
􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 HST Only
7A- 7B North of Adobe Creek to
north of Stevens Creek 􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 􀀳
7C- 7D
North of Stevens Creek
to north of Fair Oaks
Avenue
􀀳 􀀳 􀀳 􀀳
8A
North of Fair Oaks
Avenue to south of
Scott Boulevard
􀀳
8B
South of Scott
Boulevard to north of
De La Cruz Boulevard
HST Only HST Only HST Only HST Only
9( a) A
North of De La Cruz
Boulevard to South of
Taylor Street
HST Only HST Only HST Only HST Only
9( a) B South of Taylor Street
to Diridon Station HST Only
9( b) A
North of De La Cruz
Boulevard to South of
Taylor Street
HST Only
9( b) B South Taylor Street to
Diridon Station HST Only
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page S - 3
Federal Railroad
Administration
Figure S- 1
HST Caltrain Shared Use Corridor
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page S - 4
Federal Railroad
Administration
Figure S- 2
Alternatives Carried Forward
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page S - 5
Federal Railroad
Administration
S. 2 Next Steps
This Preliminary Alternatives Analysis report informs the Project Description for the EIR/ EIS. It is also sets
parameters for the next level of design ( 15%) and environmental analysis. This on- going work will provide the
Authority, FRA, Caltrain and the communities on the corridor more details and a fuller picture of the both the design
options in each subsection and a comprehensive vision of the entire corridor.
Detailed operations studies will be performed for combining the Caltrain and HST scheduled operations for the
corridor so that the design and the phasing of the construction of the project will inform the feasibility of the various
vertical alternatives.
As the engineering and environmental work continues, the Authority and Caltrain will continue to meet and engage
the cities on the corridor in a discussion about the various alternatives. If deemed necessary by the lead agencies, a
supplemental Alternative Analysis report will consider feedback received on this Preliminary Alternative Analysis report
and will discuss how the alternatives analysis will inform the detailed engineering, environmental and outreach
activities on the Caltrain Corridor. These activities will inform preparation of the draft EIR/ EIS, which is currently
scheduled for public comment in December of 2010.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 1- 1
Federal Railroad
Administration
1.0 Introduction
The California High- Speed Rail Authority ( the Authority) is studying alternative alignments and design options for a
high- speed train ( HST) section between San Francisco and San Jose. This report documents the evaluation of the
design options and identifies feasible and practicable alternatives to carry forward for environmental review and
evaluation in the San Francisco to San Jose HST Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact
Statement ( EIR/ EIS) to be prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) and the
National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA).
1.1 California HST Project Background
The California HST is planned to provide intercity, high- speed service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout
California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley,
Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The HST system is envisioned as a state- of- the- art,
electrically powered, high- speed, steel- wheel- on- steel- rail technology, which will include contemporary safety,
signaling, and automated train- control systems. The trains will be capable of operating at speeds of up to 220 miles
per hour ( mph) over a fully grade- separated, dedicated track alignment, with an expected express trip time between
Los Angeles and San Francisco of approximately 2 hours and 40 minutes. In the section between San Francisco and
San Jose, trains will not exceed the design speed of 125 mph and operate in a shared use corridor with Caltrain.
The California HST project will be planned, designed, constructed, and operated under the direction of the Authority,
a state governing board formed in 1996. The Authority’s statutory mandate is to develop a high- speed rail system
that is coordinated with the state’s existing transportation network, which includes intercity rail and bus lines, regional
commuter rail lines, urban rail and bus transit lines, highways, and airports.
1.2 San Francisco to San Jose EIR/ EIS Background
The San Francisco to San Jose HST Section is a critical link in Phase 1 of the HST System, which will provide service
between San Francisco, Los Angeles and Anaheim. The Caltrain Corridor route of the San Francisco to San Jose
Section was analyzed, evaluated and selected in the 2005 Final Program EIR/ EIS for the Proposed California High-
Speed Train System ( referred to hereafter as the Statewide Program EIR/ EIS) and again in the 2008 Bay Area to
Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/ EIS ( referred to hereafter as the Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS).
Stations will be located in the City of San Francisco at the Transbay Terminal and at 4th and King; in the City of
Millbrae at the existing Millbrae BART/ Caltrain station; and in the City of San Jose at the Intermodal Diridon station.
One potential mid- peninsula station stop is also under consideration. Alternative locations being reviewed for this
potential stop are in the City of Redwood City at the existing downtown Caltrain station; in the City of Palo Alto at the
existing Caltrain station; and in the City of Mountain View at the existing Caltrain/ VTA LRT station.
The Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR was the subject of a lawsuit filed by the Town of Atherton and others in
August 2008. In November 2009, the court issued its decision in the case. The court concluded that the EIR
complied with CEQA in most respects, including its analysis of alternatives and its analysis of impacts and mitigation
in the areas of biology, noise, aesthetics, growth and heritage trees. However, the court indicated that the EIR
required corrective work and recirculation for certain issues regarding the segment between San Jose and Gilroy. In
accordance with the court decision, the Authority has rescinded its resolution certifying the Bay Area Program EIR
and is preparing revisions to the Program EIR identified by the court. On March 11, 2010, the Authority began
circulating Revised Draft Program EIR Material for public review and comment prior to the Authority’s consideration of
the revised Program EIR.
Pre- scoping public outreach activities for the San Francisco to San Jose EIR/ EIS were initiated in December 2008.
Public scoping meetings were held in January 2009, and information meetings were held at the proposed/ potential
HST station locations. After the scoping period ended, an initial range of alternatives for the San Francisco to San
Jose Section was developed. Because the Caltrain corridor is constrained by development on both sides, the
alignment alternatives available are predominately vertical options. In Fall 2009, the initial alternatives were
presented to the Technical Working Groups and Policymaker Working Group. In addition, three public workshops
were held, and the regional team met with the staff of each City along the corridor to review the options. See Section
3.3.4 and Appendix F for further details regarding agency coordination and public outreach.
1.3 Study Area
The San Francisco to San Jose Section study area includes portions of San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara
counties and the Caltrain corridor which extends approximately 48 miles between the Transbay Terminal in San
Francisco and San Jose Diridon Caltrain station. The railroad passes through 14 cities on the San Francisco Peninsula.
While adjacent development is typically residential, commercial, office or industrial, many of the Caltrain stations are
located in the commercial “ downtown” of the communities they serve. The Caltrain corridor is primarily double track,
with some segments consisting of 3, 4 or more tracks, and includes 23 Caltrain stations within the study area.
Caltrain operates regional passenger rail service in the corridor and Union Pacific operates local freight service.
Though many crossings have been grade- separated, there are 47 at- grade railroad crossing locations remaining
within the study area. The existing Caltrain corridor and HST station locations are shown in Figure 1- 1.
1.4 Purpose of Study
This Preliminary Alternatives Analysis ( AA) Report documents preliminary planning, environmental, and engineering
information used to identify feasible and practicable alternatives to carry forward for further engineering and
environmental analysis. Additional outreach will occur as these preliminary recommendations are finalized which will
inform preparation of the San Francisco to San Jose HST Project EIR/ EIS. This report is intended to identify a range
of potentially feasible alternatives for further analysis and consideration. It documents the preliminary evaluation of
alternatives, indicating how each of the alternatives meets the purpose and need for the HST project, how evaluation
measures were applied, the results of that analysis, and the identification of alternatives to carry forward for more
detailed engineering and environmental analysis along with those alternatives not to be carried forward for further
analysis.
This report primarily addresses potential horizontal and vertical configurations of HST alternatives along the
Peninsula. The San Francisco to San Jose Section of the HST project also includes elements such as stations and a
maintenance facility, which will be a focus of the design, environmental and outreach teams in the upcoming months.
Maintenance facility alternatives will be addressed as part of a separate alternatives analysis process.
1.5 Organization of Report
This report is organized as follows:
􀁸 Section 1 – Introduction
􀁸 Section 2 – Alternatives development process
o Procedures and methods used to develop and evaluate the alternatives
o Purpose, goals and objectives
o Goals of the Context Sensitive Solutions ( CSS) process
􀁸 Section 3 – Alternatives
o No Project alternative
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 1- 2
Federal Railroad
Administration
o Previously considered alternatives in the program- level EIR/ EIS process
􀂃 Routes
􀂃 Stations
o Alternatives considered and rejected
􀂃 I- 280
􀂃 US 101
􀂃 Caltrain corridor exclusive guideway
􀂃 East Bay routes
􀂃 Bay Area terminal stations
o Development of alignment options for Caltrain shared use corridor
o Initial review of vertical alignment options
o Public and agency comments on initial options
o Vertical options carried forward into detailed evaluation
􀁸 Section 4 – Development and evaluation of project alternatives
o Definitions of vertical options
􀂃 Aerial Viaduct
􀂃 Berm
􀂃 At Grade
􀂃 Open Trench
􀂃 Covered Trench/ Tunnel
􀂃 Deep Tunnel
o Train operations and arrangement of tracks and station platforms
o Methods for developing evaluation measures
􀂃 Capital costs
􀂃 Property impacts
􀂃 Utilities
􀂃 Environmental resources and other measures
o Summary of evaluation results
􀂃 Subsection 0 – Transbay Terminal to Mission Bay
􀂃 Subsection 1 – Mission Bay to Brisbane
􀂃 Subsection 2 – Brisbane to Millbrae
􀂃 Subsection 3 – Millbrae to San Mateo
􀂃 Subsection 4 – San Mateo to Redwood City
􀂃 Subsection 5 – Redwood City to Menlo Park
􀂃 Subsection 6 – Palo Alto
􀂃 Subsection 7 – Mountain View to Sunnyvale
􀂃 Subsection 8 – Sunnyvale to Santa Clara
􀂃 Subsection 9 – Santa Clara to San Jose
􀁸 Section 5 – Analysis summary and conclusions
o Alternatives to be carried forward for further engineering and environmental analysis
􀁸 Appendices
o US 101/ I- 280 analysis
o Alignment exhibits
o Plans and profile drawings
o Typical cross sections
o Scoping and outreach comments
o San Francisco terminal analysis
o Existing right- of- way maps
o Potential train schedules and operational analyses
o Conceptual cost estimates
1.6 Context Sensitive Solutions
Context Sensitive Solutions ( CSS), a collaborative community engagement process, will build upon on the extensive
community outreach and public involvement conducted in the early outreach to agencies, stakeholders and the public
with the review of initial project alternatives. Key objectives of CSS in the public review of the Preliminary
Alternatives Analysis Report are to:
􀁸 Ensure that a broad range of stakeholders will be contacted and invited to participate in responding to the
preliminary Alternatives Analysis documents, including communities, interest groups ( business, labor,
environmental), and public agencies ( city, transportation, resource agencies), who are affected by or have an
interest in the project
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 1- 3
Federal Railroad
Administration
􀁸 Support community representative policymaker working groups and technical working groups to advise and
provide constructive input on preliminary alternatives, evaluation methodologies and selection criteria through
public meetings and workshops
􀁸 Support stakeholder education and constructive input on the preliminary alternatives, evaluation
methodologies and selection criteria through public meetings and workshops
􀁸 Document the process and results of stakeholder engagement as public comment and input to the
Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report and other environmental reports that are part of the EIR/ EIS as input
to the Final Alternatives Report
Figure 1- 1
San Francisco to San Jose HST Study Area
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 2- 1
Federal Railroad
Administration
2.0 Alternatives Development Process
This study involves the identification, creation and refinement of alternatives, through a step- by- step series of
processes to compare and evaluate alternatives. This study follows a defined alternative analysis process as
described in the Technical Memorandum Alternatives Analysis for Project- Level EIR/ EIS issued by the Authority
( October 2009), included in Appendix G, and uses both qualitative and quantitative evaluation measures that reflect a
mixture of applicable policy and technical considerations.
The analysis begins with the preferred alignment and station locations selected as part of the 2008 Final Bay Area to
Central Valley HST Program EIR/ EIS document. Public and agency comments in response to the Project EIR/ EIS
scoping processes and during ongoing interagency coordination meetings were used to identify initial alternatives to
carry forward for detailed environmental review. After identifying initial project alternatives, alignment plans,
profiles, and cross- sections have been developed and used for this preliminary evaluation of the alternatives.
The techniques that are used to gather information, develop and compare alternatives are described below:
Field Inspections of Corridor - The potential alignment, right- of- way, and station locations are the subject of field
inspection by experienced planning personnel, engineers, and analysts with experience in railroad operations and
design, to identify conditions and factors not visible in aerial photos or on maps. Over the course of the study, field
inspections become progressively more detailed as the alternatives are refined by the planning and engineering work.
Project Team Input and Review - The project team conducts team meetings to discuss alternatives and local issues
that potentially impact alignments.
Qualitative Assessment - A number of the qualitative measures used to describe the alternative alignments are
developed by professionals with experience in the construction and operation of high- speed rail and other
transportation systems. These measures include constructability, accessibility, operability, maintainability, right- of-way,
public infrastructure impacts, railway infrastructure impacts, and environmental impacts.
Engineering Assessment - Engineering assessments are provided for a number of measures that can be readily
quantified at this stage of project development. The engineering assessments can provide information on project
length, travel time, and configuration of key features of the alignment such as the presence of existing infrastructure.
GIS Analysis - The bulk of the assessment is performed using GIS data, which enables depictions of the project’s
interactions with a variety of measurable geographic features, both natural and built. GIS data is used to assess
impacts on farmland, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources,
current urban development, and infrastructure.
2.1 HST Project Purpose
The purpose of the San Francisco to San Jose California High- Speed Train ( HST) project is to implement the
statewide HST System consistent with program- level decisions that will: ( 1) link Southern California cities, the Central
Valley, Sacramento, and Bay Area; ( 2) provide a new transportation option that increases mobility throughout
California; ( 3) provide reliable HST service that delivers predictable and consistent travel times using electric powered
steel wheel trains, and ( 4) provide a transportation system that is commercially viable.
2.1.1 Objectives of the Statewide HST System and within the San Francisco to San
Jose Region
The California High- Speed Rail Authority’s statutory mandate is to plan, build, and operate a HST system that is
coordinated with California’s existing transportation network, particularly intercity rail and bus lines, commuter rail
lines, urban rail transit lines, highways, and airports.
The Authority’s objective is to provide reliable high- speed electric powered train service from San Francisco to San
Jose that delivers predictable and consistent travel times. The San Francisco to San Jose Section of the HST System
will provide greater access and choice of transportation modes, which will increase mobility throughout the region
and contribute to the increased mobility throughout California.
This section of the HST System will connect the San Francisco Transbay Transit Center, which will serve as the
northern terminus of the HST System in the San Francisco Bay Area, to the San Jose to Merced section in the south.
Connectivity and accessibility will be enhanced through HST connections with Caltrain commuter rail service, AC
Transit bus lines, SamTrans bus lines, Golden Gate Transit bus service, BART, Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority light rail and bus lines, Altamont Commuter Express commuter rail service, Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor, and
San Francisco International Airport. Grade separation of the Caltrain corridor will enhance vehicle and pedestrian
safety, improve air quality and reduce noise. Design practices will minimize and avoid environmental impacts to
stream crossings that can serve as habitat for listed wildlife species such as the California red- legged frog. Potential
impacts to neighborhoods and communities along the San Francisco to San Jose Section will be reduced by using the
existing Caltrain transportation corridor and right- of- way to minimize right- of- way acquisitions, project design effects,
and effects on community resources.
The Authority’s objectives and policies for the proposed HST system are:
􀁸 Provide intercity travel capacity to supplement critically over- used interstate highways and commercial
airports.
􀁸 Meet future intercity travel demand that will be unmet by present transportation systems and increase
capacity for intercity mobility.
􀁸 Maximize intermodal transportation opportunities by locating stations to connect with local transit, airports,
and highways.
􀁸 Improve the intercity travel experience for Californians by providing comfortable, safe, frequent, and reliable
high- speed travel.
􀁸 Provide a sustainable reduction in travel time between major urban centers.
􀁸 Increase the efficiency of the intercity transportation system.
􀁸 Maximize the use of existing transportation corridors and rights- of- way, to the extent feasible.
􀁸 Develop a practical and economically viable transportation system that can be implemented in phases by
2020 and generate revenues in excess of operations and maintenance costs.
2.2 Identification of Alternatives to be Carried Forward
The aim of this alternatives analysis is to consider a wide range of options and to identify the alternatives to be
carried forward for further engineering design and evaluation in the Draft EIR/ EIS. Significant factors used to
evaluate alternatives include:
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 2- 2
Federal Railroad
Administration
􀁸 Ability to meet purpose and need and project objectives
􀁸 Engineering feasibility
􀁸 Likelihood of environmental approval
􀁸 Practicality and ability to construct the alternative
􀁸 Effect in reducing or avoiding adverse environmental impacts
2.3 HST Design Objectives
To determine each design option’s ability to meet the HST Project’s primary intent, the alternatives were evaluated
using system performance criteria that address design differences and qualities in the alignment in terms of
performance. These objectives and criteria are summarized in Table 2- 1.
Table 2- 1
Alignment and Station Performance Objectives and Criteria
Objective Criteria
Maximize Ridership/ Revenue potential
Travel Time
Route Length
Ridership Forecasts
Maximize connectivity and accessibility Intermodal connections
Minimize operating and capital costs
Operating and maintenance costs
Capital cost
2.4 Comparison of Project Alternatives
In addition to the HST Project objectives and criteria presented above, five additional measures were used to
evaluate and compare the project alternatives. Each of these measures is discussed in more detail below.
A. Land use supports transit use and is consistent with existing, adopted local, regional and state plans, and is
supported by existing or future growth areas. Land use evaluation measures are summarized in Table 2- 2.
Table 2- 2
Land Use Evaluation Measures
Land Use
Measurement Method Source
Development potential for Transit- Oriented
Development ( TOD) within walking distance of
station
Identify existing and proposed land
uses within 1/ 2- mile of station
locations. Identify if there are TOD
districts, TOD overlay zones, mixed
use designations, or if local
jurisdictions have identified station
areas for redevelopment or
economic development
Regional and local planning
documents and land use
analysis and input from local
planning agencies.
Consistency with other planning efforts and
adopted plans
Qualitative - general analysis of
applicable planning and policy
documents
Land Use Analysis. Baseline
Conditions Study
B. Construction of the alternative is feasible in terms of constructability and right- of- way constraints.
Constructability evaluation measures are summarized in Table 2- 3.
Table 2- 3
Constructability Evaluation Measures
Constructability and Right of Way
Measurement Method Source
Constructability, access for construction, within
existing transportation ROW
Extent of feasible access to alignment for
construction
Conceptual design plans
and maps
Disruption to existing railroads Right- of- way constraints and impacts on
existing railroads
Conceptual design plans
and maps
Disruption to and relocation of utilities Number of utilities diversions Conceptual design plans
and maps
C. Minimizes disruption to neighborhoods and communities – extent to which an alternative minimizes right- of-way
acquisitions, minimizes dividing an established community, and minimizes conflicts with community
resources. Community evaluation measures are summarized in Table 2- 4.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 2- 3
Federal Railroad
Administration
Table 2- 4
Community Evaluation Measures
Minimized Disruption to Neighborhoods and Communities
Measurement Method Source
Displacements
If possible, number of properties by land use type that
would be displaced. Or acres of land within the right- of-way/
station footprint, by type of land use: single family,
multifamily, retail/ commercial, industrial, etc.
Identified comparing the alignment
conceptual design drawings with
aerial photographs, zoning maps,
and General Plan maps.
Property with Access
Affected
Identify potential locations along the alignments or at
station locations where access would be affected.
Estimated off conceptual design
plans and aerial photographs
Local Traffic Effects
around Stations
Identify potential locations where increases in traffic
congestion or LOS are expected to occur.
Existing traffic LOS from local
jurisdictions
Local Traffic Effects
at grade crossings
Identify potential locations at grade crossings where
changes in traffic congestion or LOS are expected to occur.
Existing traffic LOS from local
jurisdictions
D. Minimize impacts to environmental resources - extent to which an alternative minimizes impacts on natural
resources. Environmental resources evaluation measures are summarized in Table 2- 5.
Table 2- 5
Environmental Resources Evaluation Measures
Minimized Impact on Environmental Resources
Measurement Method Source
Waterways and wetlands and
natural preserves or biologically
sensitive habitat areas affected
Identify new bridge crossings required; rough
estimate of acres of wetlands, linear feet of
waterways; acres and species of threatened and
endangered habitat affected; acres of natural
areas/ critical habitat affected
Measured off conceptual design
plans and GIS layers.
Cultural Resources
Identify locations of NRHP or CHRIS listed properties.
For archaeological resources identify areas of high or
moderate sensitivity based on previous studies
conducted in the study area
Based on conceptual design
plans and GIS layers; Section
4( f) studies and cultural
resource records search and
surveys.
Parklands
Number and acres of parks that could be directly and
indirectly affected. This would also include major
trails that would be crossed
Based on conceptual design
plans and GIS layers; Section
4( f) studies
Agricultural Lands
Acres of prime farmland, farmland of statewide
importance, unique farmland, and farmland of local
importance within preliminary limits of disturbance
Based on conceptual design
plans and GIS layers.
E. Enhances environmental quality — extent to which an alternative minimizes impacts on the natural
environment. Natural environment evaluation measures are summarized in Table 2- 6.
Table 2- 6
Natural Environment Evaluation Measures
Minimize Impact on Natural Environment
Measurement Method Source
Noise and Vibration
effects on sensitive
receivers
Identify types of land use activities that would be affected by
HST passby noise and ground vibration.
Results of FRA screening level
assessment. Inventory of
potential receivers from site
survey and aerial maps.
Change in visual/ scenic
resources
Identify number of local and scenic corridors crossed and
scenic/ visual resources that would be affected by HST
elevated structures in scenic areas and shadows on sensitive
resources ( parks). Identify locations where residential
development is in close proximity to elevated HST structures.
Result of general assessment.
Survey of alignment corridors
and planning documents.
Maximize avoidance of
areas with geological and
soils constraints
Identify number of crossings of known seismic faults, acres
of encroachment into areas with highly erodible soils, acres
of encroachment into areas with high landslide susceptibility.
USGS maps and available GIS
data
Maximize avoidance of
areas with potential
hazardous materials
Hazardous materials/ waste constraints
Data from previous records
search conducted for other
projects within study area.
2.5 Context Sensitive Solutions ( CSS)
In response to public and agency comments on the need for a more collaborative process on how to integrate the
high- speed train system and Caltrain 2025 projects into the physical environments of Peninsula cities, the Authority
has adopted a Context Sensitive Solutions ( CSS) approach for system design, including the San Francisco to San Jose
Section. CSS is a process that involves interested parties in arriving at design solutions for public works projects,
such as transportation improvements, that are sensitive to community concerns while also supportive of the
objectives of the project.
CSS is creative, dynamic and interactive and focuses on solving problems that have been identified by a broad range
of stakeholders, including communities, interest groups ( business, labor, environmental), and public agencies ( city,
transportation, resource agencies), who are affected by or have an interest in the project. The stakeholders identify
problems, issues and opportunities, and work with technical professionals to develop solutions that will meet common
goals and objectives. According to the Joint AASHTO/ FHWA Context Sensitive Solutions Strategic Planning Process
Summary Report ( March 2007), the core CSS principles that apply to transportation processes, outcomes, and
decision- making are:
1. Strive towards a shared stakeholder vision to provide a basis for decisions.
2. Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of contexts.
3. Foster on- going communication and collaboration to achieve consensus.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 2- 4
Federal Railroad
Administration
4. Exercise flexibility and creativity to shape effective transportation solutions, while preserving and enhancing
community and natural environments.
CSS goals specific to the San Francisco to San Jose Section are:
• Ensure that community input is heard and considered during project planning and design;
• Assist cities and communities to define community- based measures of success and ensure that the project
evaluation criteria reflect the goals of stakeholder interests, as well as project goals;
• Facilitate inclusive community engagement that focuses on creative solutions at the corridor and local
community levels for alignment and station planning and design; and
• Support a corridor- wide advisory group that can represent community consensus on a preferred feasible and
achievable project.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 3- 1
Federal Railroad
Administration
3.0 Alternatives
A two- step process was used for evaluation of project alternatives. At first, all available alignment alternatives were
identified within each subsection and then each of these alignment alternatives was studied in detail using the
evaluation measures presented in Section 2. In addition, a No Project Alternative was developed.
3.1 No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative is the future condition absent the HST System. The No Project Alternative represents the
state’s transportation system ( highway, transit, air, and conventional rail) as it is currently and as it would be after
implementation of programs or projects that are currently identified in regional transportation plans ( RTPs), have
identified funds for implementation, and are expected to be in place by 2035, the study’s planning horizon. This
financially constrained level of infrastructure improvement ( based on expected federal, state, regional, and local
funding) was analyzed in consideration of the considerable growth in population and transportation demand that is
projected to occur in the San Francisco Bay Area by 2035.
Proposition 1A specifies Phase 1 of the HST project as service between San Francisco, Los Angeles and Anaheim.
Therefore, an option that terminates the HST system in San Jose with San Francisco passengers continuing north by
transferring to Caltrain is not a viable alternative for the HST system. This option was previously considered and
dismissed at the program level and would not meet the purpose and need and objectives of the HST system.
Under such an option, the lack of continued HST service to the peninsula, San Francisco Airport and downtown San
Francisco would significantly reduce ridership throughout the HST system. Bay Area HST riders who access the
system via transfer from transit ( BART, MUNI, Golden Gate Transit, AC Transit and SamTrans) to Caltrain would be
forced to make a second transfer at San Jose Diridon station from Caltrain to HST. Intermodal connectivity at SFO,
the hub international airport for Northern California, would be significantly reduced. Many of the economic
development opportunities in the northern Bay Area and peninsula communities that could occur with direct HST
service to San Francisco would remain unrealized. As the terminal station, San Jose Diridon would experience
increased vehicular traffic on the surrounding roadway and freeway network, and would likely attract much more
intense economic development.
This section describes the existing and future conditions for highways, transit, air travel and conventional passenger
rail within the San Francisco to San Jose corridor. With respect to high- speed train service, the No Project Alternative
presents conditions as they would be if the statewide HST system is not built. The No Project Alternative satisfies the
statutory requirements under CEQA and NEPA for an alternative that does not include any new action or project
beyond what is already committed. The No Project Alternative is based on the following sources of information:
􀁸 State Transportation Improvement Program ( STIP)
􀁸 The Regional Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area
􀁸 Airport Master Plans
􀁸 Intercity passenger rail plans
The future improvements that would be part of the No Project Alternative are also included under HST Build
Alternatives as part of the future 2035 baseline. The No Project Alternative includes conventional passenger rail,
highway, transit and aviation elements as discussed below.
3.1.1 Conventional Passenger Rail Element
Commuter rail services in the corridor are provided by Caltrain and ACE ( Altamont Commuter Express) while intercity
rail service is provided by the Capitol Corridor and Coast Starlight Amtrak service. ACE and Amtrak service is only
provided in the southernmost segment of the corridor, between the Santa Clara and Diridon San Jose Caltrain
stations.
Caltrain
Caltrain, operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board ( JPB), operates 90 daily one- way trains between San
Jose and San Francisco. Limited stop, express ( Baby Bullet) trains have operated during peak hours since 2004,
when new four- track segments were built and new rolling stock was acquired.
Though the JPB has a program called Caltrain 2025 to improve and expand commuter rail operations, it is not
included in the No Project Alternative. Key elements of this program include electrification of the line from San Jose
to San Francisco, acquisition of new electric locomotives or electric multiple units ( EMUs), additional grade
separations, station upgrades and improved signalization. This program calls for 114 daily one- way trains by 2035,
speeds of up to 90 miles per hour and is compatible with planned high- speed rail service. JPB and Caltrain officials
have publicly indicated that the electrification project and other program elements are not currently funded and
unlikely to occur without the HST project. In addition, the Final EIR and decision on the electrification project has not
yet acted upon by the JPB. Caltrain plans also include extending Caltrain to the Transbay Transit Center. This
project is also not fully funded and is not included in the No Project Alternative.
Other Commuter and Intercity Rail Services
ACE, operated by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission ( SJRRC), provides service between Stockton and San
Jose with 3 westbound a. m. and 3 eastbound p. m. trips ( 6 daily trains). Programmed improvements include track
and signal upgrades and a new maintenance facility in San Joaquin County. Additional service and capital
improvements are being investigated as part of the Altamont Corridor Rail Project, which is now analyzing potential
alternatives for inclusion in an EIS/ EIR.
Capitol Corridor service is operated by Amtrak under the management of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
( CCJPA). Current service provides 7 daily round trips between Sacramento and San Jose and 16 daily round trips
between Oakland and Sacramento. The programmed expansion plans ( from the 2008 California State Rail Plan) call
for an increase in San Jose – Sacramento service to 16 daily round trips by 2018. Additional track improvements are
planned in the corridor, but the service would utilize the planned Caltrain improvements track and station
improvements in the Santa Clara to San Jose segment of the line.
3.1.2 Highway Element
The highway routes that are included in the No Project Alternative are identified in Table 3- 1. The No Project
Alternative includes this existing highway system as well as funded and programmed improvements based on the
financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan ( RTP) developed by Metropolitan Transportation Commission
( MTC). Highway improvements included in the No Project Alternative include infrastructure projects and other
potential system improvements programmed to be built and in operation by 2035.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 3- 2
Federal Railroad
Administration
Table 3- 1
Existing Highway Routes – San Francisco to San Jose
Interstate
Highways
U. S. Highways State Routes
Interstate 280 ( I- 280) U. S. Highway 101 ( US- 101) State Route 82 ( SR- 82)
Interstate 380 ( I- 380) N/ A State Route 84 ( SR- 84)
Interstate 880 ( I- 880) N/ A State Route 85 ( SR- 85)
N/ A N/ A State Route 92 ( SR- 92)
N/ A N/ A State Route 237 ( SR- 237)
The programmed highway improvements consist primarily of interchange and operational improvements, with limited
roadway expansion. As such, the improvements do not cumulatively add substantial capacity to the highway system.
The highway improvements included as part of the No Project Alternative are identified by county in Appendix I and
are summarized below:
􀁸 New and upgraded interchanges along US- 101
􀁸 Additional US- 101 auxiliary lanes
􀁸 Operational improvements on US- 101 and other corridor highway routes
􀁸 Conversion of some HOV lanes to HOT ( High- Occupancy Toll) lanes
􀁸 New HOV / HOT lanes on segments of US- 101 and I- 880
􀁸 Local road widening and other improvements
3.1.3 Transit Element
In addition to commuter rail, other major transit services in the corridor are provided by San Francisco Muni, BART,
AC Transit, SamTrans and VTA. Each provides local bus services that connect to existing and future rail stations.
Muni and VTA also operate light rail systems that directly serve existing Caltrain stations in San Francisco, Mountain
View and San Jose. BART serves the northern portion of the corridor with a line that connects downtown San
Francisco with the San Francisco International Airport and the Millbrae Caltrain station.
The major programmed transit improvements consist of several new transit lines, facilities and extensions. The
transit improvements included as part of the No Project Alternative are identified by county and regionwide in
Appendix I and are summarized below:
􀁸 New Central Subway light rail line in San Francisco, connecting the 4th & King Caltrain station to Chinatown
􀁸 Replace Transbay Terminal, including construction of new Transbay Transit Center building ( Phase 1)
􀁸 An extension of the 3rd Street Muni light rail line to the Bayshore Caltrain station, including development of
an intermodal facility at the station
􀁸 Extension of BART from Warm Springs to downtown San Jose and Santa Clara, with a station at the San Jose
Diridon Caltrain station
􀁸 VTA light rail extensions to Eastridge and Vasona Junction
􀁸 New VTA Bus Rapid Transit lines on Santa Clara/ Alum Rock, El Camino Real ( from San Jose to Palo Alto).
Stevens Creek Boulevard ( from San Jose to De Anza College) and Monterey Highway
3.1.4 Aviation Element
The air transportation system evaluated under the No Project Alternative consists of airports that currently provide
commercial service in the San Francisco to San Jose Section. The airports do not necessarily provide commercial
service between the same intercity markets as the proposed HST system. The commercial airports serving the San
Francisco to San Jose Section are:
􀁸 San Francisco International Airport ( SFO)
􀁸 Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport ( SJC)
A summary description of each airport is provided in Table 3- 2 below.
Table 3- 2
Existing ( 2009) Airport Facilities
Airport
Total
Passenger
Terminal
Size
Total Boarding
& Arriving
Passengers
( annual) 1
Number
of
Runways
Number of
Gates
Number of
Parking
Spaces
Size of
Airport
San Francisco
international Airport
( SFO)
5,021,000
square feet 36 million 4 117 10,788 2,383
acres
Mineta San Jose
International Airport ( SJC)
403,800
square feet 9.7 million 3 28 8,500 1,000
acres
Sources:
Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS, except as noted
1. Federal Aviation Administration 2008 Airline Passenger Boarding Statistics
San Francisco International Airport ( SFO)
San Francisco International Airport ( SFO) is located 13 miles south of downtown San Francisco in San Mateo County.
The airport is operated by the City of San Francisco under the management of the San Francisco Airport Commission.
SFO is the largest Bay Area airport and the tenth largest in the United States. In 2008 the airport served over 36
million annual passengers ( boardings and arrivals) and future demand is projected to be more than 60 million
passengers by 2035.
The airport has four operating runways. However, limited clearance between the runways restricts simultaneous
arrivals during poor weather, resulting in frequent flight delays. According to the Regional Airport System Plan, SFO
will not have sufficient capacity to meet future demand due to these operating constraints.
SFO is composed of four terminals that surround a central transportation hub. Terminal 2 ( Central Terminal) is
currently closed for a major renovation.
The transportation hub includes a multi- level parking garage, a BART station ( at the International Terminal) and an
automated guideway system ( AirTrain) that serves each terminal, the BART station and the off- site rental car facility.
BART has direct service from SFO to downtown San Francisco. There is also a BART track connection from SFO to
the Millbrae Caltrain station, but direct revenue service from the airport to Millbrae is only provided on evenings and
weekends. SFO is also served by SamTrans buses and a variety of private buses and shuttles.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 3- 3
Federal Railroad
Administration
Mineta San Jose International Airport ( SJC)
Mineta San Jose International Airport ( SJC) is located three miles north of downtown San Jose adjacent to highways
87 and 101. The airport is located in and operated by the City of San Jose. In 2008 the airport served 9.7 million
annual passengers ( boardings and arrivals) and is the 39th busiest commercial airport in the country. Future demand
is estimated at over 16 million passengers by 2035.
Mineta San Jose is currently undergoing a major Airport Modernization Program. Through that program, a new
runway has been constructed, so that two 11,000 foot commercial runways are now available, providing adequate
capacity through 2035. There is also a shorter general aviation runway. Three terminals are in use at this time, but
Terminal C will close when Terminal B is completed this year. At that time the airport will have 28 gates.
The improvement program also includes a new rental car and public parking facility adjacent to Terminal B. A future
phase of the Modernization Program would further expand Terminal B, providing a total of 40 gates.
Programmed Airport Improvements
Statewide, the airport development process is distinct from the highway and rail development processes and is not
documented in local/ regional transportation plans or in the STIP. For this analysis and to conceptualize a No Project
airport system, proposed airport improvements were evaluated based on a review of an approved or under-development
airport master planning program, an environmental document, a regional aviation system planning
document or a capital improvement program. Identified improvement plans that were reviewed are summarized
below:
􀁸 San Francisco International Airport ( SFO) – in addition to the current renovation of Terminal 2, the Airport
Master Plan identifies the need for a solution to the current runway constraints in order to meet future
capacity requirements. Several alternatives are currently under consideration with varying degrees of
operational benefits and environmental impacts.
􀁸 Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport ( SJC) – the remaining phases of the Airport Master Plan
include the completion of Terminal B and the South Concourse. This project will increase the number of
potential gates from 28 to 40. The full terminal facility would be 1,700,000 square feet. The future
expansion also includes additional public and rental car parking facilities. The RTP also includes a project to
construct an automated people- mover system connecting the airport to VTA light rail, Caltrain and the future
BART line.
3.2 Program Level Alternatives
The Statewide Program EIR/ EIS for the CAHST was completed in November 2005. The Authority and FRA selected
the technology for the HST vehicles and identified potential route and station location options through the program
environmental analysis. For a more detailed examination of these issues, refer to the California High- Speed Train
Final Statewide Program EIR/ EIS.
The Statewide Program EIR/ EIS examined three major alternatives for the statewide transportation network. They
were:
No Project Alternative – The State’s transportation network as it is today, along with funded projects included in
regional transportation plans.
Modal Alternative – Enhancements to the State’s transportation network using existing modes and technologies
( mainly expanded airports and highways).
High- Speed Train Alternative – A new high- speed train system to connect California’s major urban centers.
The HST Alternative was the selected system alternative in the Statewide Program EIR/ EIS. The No Project
Alternative was determined to be unable to provide the needed level of intercity mobility in the future, while the
Modal Alternative provided reduced mobility compared to the HST Alternative. However, the Modal Alternative would
have had a higher cost than the HST Alternative, and more significant environmental impacts.
3.2.1 San Francisco to San Jose Routing Alternatives
At the conclusion of the Statewide Program EIR/ EIS, the Authority and FRA defined a broad corridor between the Bay
Area and Central Valley for additional review in a second program– level EIR/ EIS. The Bay Area to Central Valley
Program EIR/ EIS investigated a broad corridor generally bounded by and including Pacheco Pass ( State Route 152) to
the south, Altamont Pass ( Interstate 580) to the north, the BNSF rail corridor to the east, and the Caltrain corridor to
the west. Several operating scenarios for combinations of alignment alternatives and terminus stations were
investigated, with HST network alternatives ranging from one to three termini ( San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose)
for direct HST service to the Bay Area. As shown in Figure 3- 1, the representative network alternatives were grouped
into two basic approaches for linking the Bay Area and Central Valley: Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass.
The Pacheco Pass alternative serving San Francisco and San Jose termini was selected for HST service between the
Bay Area and the Central Valley. Chapter 8 of the Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS describes the
preferred HST network and alignment alternatives and station options as well as the evaluation of network
alternatives that supported the identification of the preferred alternative. ( As a result of a lawsuit, the Authority has
rescinded its certification of the Bay Area Program EIR pending corrective work and recirculation for certain issues;
see Section 1.2.)
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 3- 4
Federal Railroad
Administration
Figure 3- 1
Alignment Alternative and Station Location Options Considered in Bay Area to Central Valley Program
EIR/ EIS
The Statewide Program EIR/ EIS evaluated routing alternatives between San Francisco and San Jose. These options
were further considered and reviewed in the Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIS/ EIR. The program documents
considered four HST corridor alignment alternatives between San Francisco and San Jose:
􀁸 I- 280
􀁸 US 101
􀁸 Caltrain Corridor ( Exclusive Guideway)
􀁸 Caltrain Corridor ( Shared Use)
These corridor alignments are shown in Figure 3- 2. As a result of the evaluation, the first three of these alternatives
were removed from further study and the shared use Caltrain Corridor alternative was carried forward for further
consideration.
Figure 3- 2
Statewide Program EIR/ EIS Corridor Alignment Alternatives – San Francisco to San Jose
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 3- 5
Federal Railroad
Administration
3.2.2 Station Alternatives
The Statewide Program EIR/ EIS considered station options at San Francisco, San Jose, Millbrae, Redwood City, Palo
Alto and two airport connector station options: Millbrae and Santa Clara. These options were further considered and
reviewed in the Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS.
Downtown San Francisco Station Options
The HST program- level documents were predated by several environmental studies prepared by other agencies that
considered route and station alternatives in Downtown San Francisco. These studies include:
􀁸 Caltrain San Francisco Downtown Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Draft
Environmental Impact Report and Draft 4( f) Evaluation, referred to hereafter as the Caltrain Downtown
Extension DEIS/ EIR ( March 1997)
􀁸 Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan ( 2000)
􀁸 Transbay Terminal/ Caltrain Downtown Extension/ Redevelopment Project Final Environmental Impact
Statement/ Environmental Impact Report referred to hereafter as the Transbay FEIS/ EIR ( April 2004)
In addition to these studies, a series of policy decisions by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the voters of San
Francisco, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC) in its role as the Bay Area Toll Authority ( BATA)
resulted in the rejection of a number of study alternatives. Among the alternatives considered and rejected during
this process was retrofitting the Transbay Terminal to accommodate a Caltrain extension above ground, an
underground terminal under Beale Street at Market Street, and moving the underground Beale Street terminal one
block south to Mission Street. Reasons for rejecting the retrofitted Transbay Terminal alternatives included
insufficient capacity to meet future demand, blighting effect of additional aerial ramps, and poor curve geometry for
rail operations. The Beale Street alternatives were rejected because of poor pedestrian linkage to the Transbay
Terminal, inefficiencies due to lack of tail tracks, and risk of excavating a tunnel directly adjacent to the Bay Bridge
anchorage.
In April 2004, the TJPA and the Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) selected the alternative that extends Caltrain
below grade from the 4th& King station to a new terminal beneath a new Transbay Transit Center and certified the
Transbay FEIS/ EIR. The route from 4th & King would follow Townsend Street, turn north along Second Street to
Howard Street, and turn east into the basement of the new terminal.
The HST program documents considered two station options in San Francisco:
􀁸 Transbay Transit Center
􀁸 4th & King
The Transbay Transit Center was selected as the preferred location for the Downtown San Francisco terminus. The
Transbay Transit Center would offer greater connectivity to San Francisco and the Bay Area than the 4th & King site
because of its location in the heart of downtown San Francisco and because it would serve as the regional transit hub
for San Francisco. The Transbay Transit Center is located in the financial district where many potential HST
passengers could walk to the station. In contrast, the 4th & King station is more than 1 mi ( 1.6 km) from the financial
district. As a result, it was estimated that the 4th & King station would attract about 1 million fewer riders annually
than the Transbay Transit Center. The 4th & King station would not connect to BART or regional bus transit, while the
Transbay Transit Center is expected to emerge as the transit hub for all major services to downtown San Francisco,
with the advantage of direct connections to BART ( 1 block from the terminus), Muni, and regional bus transit
( SamTrans, AC Transit, and Golden Gate District). Moreover, the Transbay Transit Center would be compatible with
existing and planned development and is the focal point of the Transbay redevelopment plan that would include
extensive high density residential, office, and commercial/ retail development.
The rail facilities planned for the Transbay Transit Center include 6 tracks and 3 platforms, which would be shared by
Caltrain and HST. The program documents noted that further cooperative operations planning analysis of Transbay
Transit Center rail capacity was needed to determine the most efficient mix and scheduling of both HST and Caltrain
commuter services.
Airport Connector Station Options
Two airport connector station options were considered for the San Francisco peninsula in the HST program
documents; Millbrae for San Francisco International Airport ( SFO) and Santa Clara for San Jose International Airport.
SFO serves as the “ hub” airport for international travel in Northern California and is located about 12 miles south of
downtown San Francisco. The conceptual design is to link to SFO at the Millbrae Caltrain/ BART station location which
is adjacent to SFO ( but not directly at the airport). This multi- modal station would link to the airport by the existing
BART connection and could possibly be reached in the future by the airport people mover system.
A potential link to San Jose International Airport by a Santa Clara station would be less than 3 miles north of the
proposed downtown San Jose station. Because the downtown San Jose ( Diridon) station site would provide sufficient
connectivity to San Jose airport for the foreseeable future, it was determined that the preferred HST alternative would
not have an HST station at Santa Clara, and that the Millbrae ( SFO) station is the preferred HST airport connector
station on the San Francisco peninsula. The Millbrae ( SFO) HST station supports the objectives of the HST project by
providing an interface with the northern California hub airport for national and international flights.
Potential Mid- Peninsula Station
The HST program documents considered a potential optional station that would serve the Mid- Peninsula area. The
two location options considered were in Redwood City and Palo Alto. The conclusion was that both of these potential
location options should continue to be investigated as alternative sites for an optional Mid- Peninsula station, while
working with local agencies and the Caltrain JPB to determine whether a Mid- Peninsula station should be
recommended.
San Jose Diridon Station
The only San Jose station considered in the program EIS/ EIR documents was the Diridon station that currently serves
Caltrain and other transit modes and is adjacent to downtown San Jose. This station would provide significant multi-modal
transit connections.
Summary of Proposed and Potential Station Locations
In summary, the following preferred station locations for HST service between San Francisco and San Jose were
selected in the program documents:
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 3- 6
Federal Railroad
Administration
Downtown San Francisco Terminus: Transbay Transit Center. This location would offer the greatest
connectivity and accessibility to San Francisco and the Bay Area, best serve as a regional transit hub, and
have the highest ridership potential.
San Francisco Airport Connector Station: Millbrae ( SFO). This location supports the objectives of the
HST project by providing an interface with the northern California hub airport for national and international
flights.
Potential Mid- Peninsula Station: Work with local agencies and the Caltrain JPB to determine whether a
mid- peninsula station should be developed and continue to investigate potential sites. ( During the 2009
scoping process, the City of Mountain View requested that a potential station location option at the City of
Mountain View Caltrain station also be considered. As a result, locations in Redwood City, Palo Alto and
Mountain View are currently under consideration.)
Downtown San Jose Terminus: Diridon Station. This location maximizes connectivity to downtown San
Jose, San Jose International Airport, and the southern Bay Area, and would have high ridership potential.
3.3 Initial Identification of Project Alternatives
The starting point for identifying project alternatives in the San Francisco to San Jose Section was the Caltrain
corridor selected as the preferred alternative in the program- level analysis.
3.3.1 Alternatives Considered and Rejected
The three following route alternatives between San Francisco and San Jose that were considered and rejected in the
program- level analysis were reviewed to confirm that no information undermines the initial rationale for their
exclusion:
􀁸 I- 280
􀁸 US 101
􀁸 Caltrain Corridor ( Exclusive Guideway)
In program- level decisions, the fully grade- separated Caltrain shared use corridor was selected as the preferred
alignment for HST service between San Francisco and San Jose. When the initial set of alternatives for the project-level
Alternatives Analysis were being selected, it was found that sharing track with Caltrain is still the only realistic
alternative for a direct HST link to San Francisco because of the lack of sufficient available right- of- way along the
Peninsula and the high cost of acquiring additional right- of- way. Unlike the exclusive guideway options discussed
below, which would require tall elevated structures along the Caltrain, US 101 or I- 280 rights- of- way and extensive
purchases of additional right- of- way, the Caltrain corridor shared- use option takes advantage of the existing rail
infrastructure and maximizes the opportunity to provide rail service at grade where possible. In addition, the Caltrain
shared use option provides safety and traffic benefits by grade- separating existing at- grade roadway crossings.
Using the Caltrain alignment allows for significant travel time and capacity improvements of the existing Caltrain
system by supporting the implementation of the Caltrain 2025 plan, including fully grade separating and electrifying
the corridor.
The previously rejected alternatives were reviewed with respect to general project purpose and objectives,
practicability constraints, and environmental criteria. General project purpose and objectives were considered in
terms of ridership potential, connectivity and accessibility, incompatibility with existing or planned development, and
severe operational constraints. Practicability constraints were considered in terms of cost, constructability, right- of-way
constraints, and other technical issues. Environmental criteria were considered a reason for elimination when an
option had considerably more probable environmental impacts than other practicable options for the same segment.
The following paragraphs describe the alternatives considered and the reasons they were not carried forward. More
detailed analysis, alignment drawings and photographs of the I- 280 and US 101 alignments are presented in
Appendix A.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 3- 7
Federal Railroad
Administration
I- 280
In developed areas, the I- 280 alternative would be a separate guideway on an elevated structure either in the
median or to one side of the roadway. In the undeveloped areas, a separate at- grade guideway alongside the
freeway may be possible.
The terrain along I- 280 is hilly and considerable earthwork or retaining walls likely would be needed. The areas
through Palo Alto and Woodside are nature preserves, so encroachment outside the freeway right- of- way would have
potential adverse impacts. Due to mountainous terrain, there are many curves that would restrict speed for high-speed
train service for those areas where the guideway would have to be within the freeway right- of- way. If HST
were to be located in the median of I- 280, the travel time requirement of 30 minutes between San Francisco and San
Jose would not be met. Instead, the approximate travel time for the I- 280 median configuration would be 40
minutes. If the alignment were to meet the 30 minute travel time requirement there would be a significant need for
additional right- of- way, including encroachments into existing uses such as parkland, open space, residential,
commercial and schools.
The vertical alignment may also be incompatible in some areas, both in terms of grades and vertical curvature and
thus would require tall viaducts or deep tunneling. Appendix A presents the vertical and horizontal alignment
challenges at representative segments along the I- 280 alternative. An alignment along the I- 280 freeway would also
encounter difficulties at freeway interchanges with SR- 17/ I- 880, SR- 85, and SR- 92 as described below for the US 101
corridor.
For the proposed and potential HST stations in the San Francisco to San Jose Section, connectivity to the existing rail
and transit infrastructure would not be possible except at either end of the line in San Francisco or San Jose:
San Jose Diridon: It would not be feasible to stop at Diridon Station with the I- 280 alignment; instead the
area above I- 280 freeway between Bird Avenue and Lincoln Avenue would be a possible location for a
station. This location would have minimal connectivity with the major transit providers in the area.
Mid- Peninsula station: A mid- Peninsula station would most likely be near an interchange on the I- 280
freeway. Transit connections from the existing downtown to the new station would be required. In most
cases this type of station area development would be inconsistent with the surrounding area and possibly
current land uses. Additionally, transit oriented development opportunities may be limited in these generally
undeveloped areas.
SFO connection: There are two possible options: a stop at the I- 380 interchange or bringing the rail
alignment down the I- 380 corridor and stopping at a location near the airport. In both cases some sort of
new shuttle would be required to transfer passengers to the terminals at SFO.
Downtown San Francisco: Depending on the alignment, HST could either join the existing Caltrain
corridor near the intersection of I- 380 and US 101, or continue along the I- 280 alignment to downtown San
Francisco.
Placing HST in the I- 280 corridor has the potential to disturb sensitive biological resources and encroach into
hazardous areas, all of which can trigger additional mitigation and engineering costs. In particular, the I- 280
alignment could encroach into lands that are considered to be “ protected areas of open space.” Protected areas
encompass watershed lands, parks, and open space trust lands. In order to maintain the design speed and curves
along I- 280, portions of the I- 280 alignment, particularly along Crystal Springs on the west side of I- 280, may be
affected. These are watershed lands, owned and maintained by the City and County of San Francisco. Other
potentially affected protected areas includes parklands within the City of San Jose and watershed lands along the
Guadalupe River. Both of these types of protected areas would involve further approvals – specifically, Section 4( f)
evaluations would need to be prepared for the parks and possibly a Section 408 consultation with the US Army Corps
of Engineers would be required for effects to the flood control improvements along the Guadalupe River.
The I- 280 alignment through San Mateo and Santa Clara counties is recognized for its high visual quality, and
particularly for the design of the freeway to be complementary and harmonious with the natural terrain and
topography. In acknowledgment of the visual character of the corridor and the freeway design, the State has
declared I- 280 through these counties as a state scenic highway. The introduction of a new guideway to support the
HST in this visual landscape would raise concerns regarding its visual impact and would warrant special evaluation
and design to ensure that this alignment respects the state’s designation.
These constraints and lack of connectivity to other transit infrastructure detailed above highlight the major areas that
constrain the I- 280 corridor when it is considered as an HST alignment alternative. No information identified
undermines the initial rationale for the exclusion of the I- 280 alignment. The alignment would be impractical and
potentially infeasible when other alignment options are available.
US 101
Similar to the I- 280 alignment, the US 101 alternative would be an exclusive guideway in the US 101 freeway corridor
between San Francisco to San Jose. Unlike the I- 280 alignment where horizontal and vertical constraints are
predominant, the US 101 alignment is predominantly constrained by existing bridges that would have to be crossed
by the HST alignment. This exclusive guideway alignment would have major construction issues such as the
construction of an aerial guideway adjacent to and/ or above an active existing freeway facility which could require
temporary relocation of some existing roadway facilities. The US 101 alignment would require many sections of high-level
structures to pass over existing overpasses and connector ramps, resulting in high construction costs and
constructability issues that would make this option impractical. The SR85 and SR 92 interchanges would require
either tall HST viaducts or redesign and reconstruction of these interchanges. Both of these interchanges are
constrained within a tight right- of- way corridor and modifications to these facilities would also have a corresponding
right- of- way impact.
The aerial portions would introduce a major new visual element along the US 101 corridor that would have impacts
on the residential portions of this alignment. In areas near airports, such as Moffett Field and SFO, the aerial
alignment would have to transition to a trench or tunnel to avoid impacts to the flight path approaches. In addition,
the freeway has substandard features ( e. g., medians and shoulders) in many places, and it is assumed that any
space that might be available for HST facilities would likely be used by Caltrans to upgrade the freeway to current
standards in these areas. For example, the auxiliary lane project currently under construction along US 101 through
the cities of San Mateo and Burlingame utilizes the highway right- of- way to its maximum extent and would restrict
availability of right- of- way for the HST facilities.
An alignment generally following the US 101 corridor that would meet the travel time requirement of 30 minutes
would require extensive additional right- of- way through adjacent residential areas to provide curves of sufficient
radius to meet the 125 mph design speed. An HST alignment that more closely followed the US 101 freeway to avoid
these right- of- way impacts would have a travel time of 35 minutes which would not meet the required travel time of
30 minutes. The longer travel time is a result of tighter curves that could only be traveled at lower speeds.
For the proposed and potential HST stations along the San Francisco to San Jose Section, connectivity to the existing
rail and transit infrastructure would not be possible, except at either end of the line in San Francisco or San Jose:
San Jose Diridon: The HST San Jose station could remain as planned at the existing San Jose Diridon
station
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 3- 8
Federal Railroad
Administration
Mid Peninsula station: A mid Peninsula station would most likely be near an interchange on the highway.
Transit connections from the downtowns would be required. In most cases this type of land use would at
least be new to the surrounding area and possibly inconsistent with the current land uses.
SFO connection: A station could be built along the US 101 alignment near the airport. The HST alignment
would need to be either at- grade or tunneled to avoid violation of airspace restrictions around SFO. The
station would not have a direct connection to BART or Caltrain as would be possible if HST were on the
Caltrain corridor.
Downtown San Francisco: HST could join Caltrain near the San Francisco County/ San Mateo County Line
and continue on the Caltrain corridor to downtown.
Placing HST in the US 101 corridor has the potential to disturb sensitive biological resources and encroach into
hazardous areas, all of which can trigger additional mitigation and engineering costs. Based on National Wetland
Inventory data, the US 101 alignment would result in the greatest amount of potential wetland disturbance. In order
to achieve the desired design speeds and design criteria for curves, the US 101 alignment would run to the east of US
101 in two areas that contain sensitive wetland habitat, Sanchez Lagoon in Burlingame and Seal Slough in Redwood
City. It is in these two locales that the vast majority of the potentially affected wetlands occur. Potential fill of
wetlands is regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Environmental Protection Agency, and were this
alignment to be advanced, the federal agencies would require evidence that there is no practicable alternative that
could avoid these impacts.
The US 101 alignment, for more of its length than either the Caltrain or the I- 280 alignments, runs closer to the
Bayfront. As such, the US 101 alignment encroaches into a greater amount of land that was once along the historic
edge of San Francisco Bay, prior to the extensive fill and reclamation projects that moved the edge of the Bay
eastward. The proximity of the US 101 alignment to the bayfront means that it encroaches into more areas that are
characterized by Bay Muds and, thus, susceptible to liquefaction – commonly described as transforming the earth to a
quicksand- like consistency during an earthquake. The engineering costs to ensure the structural integrity of columns
and foundations placed on liquefiable soils is greater than on soils with a low potential for such hazards.
The US 101 alignment, by virtue of running near the Bayfront, is also much more susceptible to flood hazards than
the other alignments. Actual flood risks associated with this encroachment will vary based on the vertical profiles
( e. g., an elevated alignment would have much less effect and expose fewer to flood hazards than an at- grade
alignment); nevertheless, each of the alignments that pass through flood hazard areas has the potential to reduce
floodplain capacity and increase the areal extent of the area subject to flooding. These potentially adverse effects are
substantially greater with the US 101 alignment.
These constraints and lack of connectivity to other transit infrastructure detailed above highlight the major areas that
constrain the US 101 corridor when it is considered as an HST alignment alternative. No information identified
undermines the initial rationale for the exclusion of the US 101 alignment. The alignment would be impractical and
potentially infeasible when other alignment options are available.
Caltrain Corridor ( Exclusive Guideway)
This alternative would be an exclusive HST guideway along the Caltrain rail alignment between San Francisco and San
Jose. This type of exclusive guideway alignment would be impractical because it would have major construction
issues and high capital costs involving the construction of an aerial guideway adjacent to and above an active existing
transportation facility, while maintaining rail traffic. This alternative would require the extensive purchase of additional
right- of- way and construction of a number of elevated aerial structures between San Francisco and San Jose.
The exclusive HST guideway would preclude some future options by Caltrain to grade separate the existing at- grade
crossings. As a result, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board ( PCJPB), which owns the Caltrain right- of- way, has
rejected this alternative. Instead, the PCJPB and the Authority have entered into several Memorandums of
Understanding ( MOU) to cooperate relative to the proposed development of an HST system for California that would
share the PCJPB- owned rail corridor between San Francisco and San Jose, with the goal of implementing a fully
compatible joint project of commuter rail rapid transit and intercity high speed rail projects.
The introduction of the separate elevated structure for the high- speed tracks and stations would also have adverse
impacts along the Caltrain corridor. Compared to the Caltrain shared use alternative described in Section 3.3.2, the
exclusive guideway would represent more of a physical barrier for land use and urban design, have more impacts on
cultural resources and be less compatible with existing and planned development on the Peninsula. For these
reasons, Caltrain Corridor ( Exclusive Guideway) alternative was not carried forward in the alternative development
process.
3.3.2 Development of Options for the Caltrain Shared Use Corridor
Corridor Characteristics
The existing Caltrain corridor is generally a two- track railroad serving diesel hauled commuter trains. A limited
number of diesel freight trains also operate in the corridor. The railroad was originally built in the 1860s and has
been incrementally upgraded since that time. Over the years, tracks were added to create a two- track system, with
some four- track sections to allow operation of Baby Bullet express trains.
Road crossings have also been grade- separated over time. Some of the oldest grade separations in Palo Alto and San
Jose were constructed in the 1930s, while others in Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and Mountain View were built in the
1960s and 1970s. Some grade separation projects are less than 15 years old, such as those in San Carlos, Belmont
and Redwood City. Finally, some grade separations have been upgraded in the last 20 years, such as those at
Millbrae Avenue in Millbrae and East Grand Avenue in South San Francisco. However, over 40 at- grade roadway
crossings still exist, which would need to be grade- separated under the HST project.
As a result of incremental improvements over its 140- year history, the character of the existing Caltrain corridor
varies substantially over the course of its length. Some portions are modern, grade- separated four- track examples of
a high capacity railway, such as sections in Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Redwood City and Brisbane. Other portions are
closer to the railroad’s earlier beginnings, with narrow rights- of- way passing close- by homes and business, such as
sections in Menlo Park, Atherton and San Mateo. In some cities, the character changes quickly, such as in Palo Alto
where at- grade roadway crossings alternate with grade- separations.
Comments received from the public during the scoping process reflected the varying character of the Caltrain
corridor. Appendix E summarizes the scoping comments and notes their disposition regarding whether they will be
addressed in the Alternatives Analysis. Many comments focused on the future vertical configuration of the railroad,
often at specific locations. As seen in Appendix E, suggestions ranged from placing the tracks underground to placing
them on an aerial structure. Taken broadly, the scoping comments requested that all possible vertical configurations
be considered for every portion of the corridor.
Vertical Options
The project alternatives focus on the vertical placement of tracks within the Caltrain shared- use corridor. Three
vertical options were defined for the initial development of alternatives:
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 3- 9
Federal Railroad
Administration
􀁸 Elevated – on a berm or aerial structure above the existing Caltrain tracks. Figure 3- 3 below shows the
typical configuration for a roadway crossing under elevated tracks.
Figure 3- 3
Typical Section for Elevated Option
􀁸 Existing Caltrain Grade – usually at surface level, but sometimes an aerial, berm, trench or tunnel
configuration if the existing Caltrain tracks are in that configuration. Figure 3- 4 below shows the typical
configuration for a roadway going under or over the tracks.
Figure 3- 4
Typical Sections for Existing Caltrain Grade Option
􀁸 Below Grade – in a trench, a partially covered trench, or a tunnel ( defined as an enclosed space) below the
existing Caltrain tracks. Figure 3- 5 shows the typical configuration of a roadway crossing over below grade
tracks.
Figure 3- 5
Typical Section for Trench/ Tunnel Railroad Crossing
Defining Subsections
As discussed above, conditions affecting the vertical placement of tracks vary substantially along the section, and the
preferred vertical option could very well change from one location to another. Therefore, the section was divided into
10 subsections ( subsection 0 through 9) selected to group areas with common characteristics, such as:
􀁸 Municipal and County jurisdictions
􀁸 Existing roadway crossing conditions
􀁸 Land use adjacent to tracks
􀁸 Existing track configuration
The subsections were further divided into sub- subsections to group together common grade- separation conditions.
Sub- subsections limits were typically located where it may be desirable to transition from one vertical option to
another.
Downtown San Francisco Options
The 2008 Final Program Level EIR/ EIS stated that to serve all of the HST trains proposed in the Authority’s program-level
operational plan, four tracks and two island platforms would have to be dedicated to HST service at the
Transbay Transit Center. Following the publication of the Final Program EIR/ EIS document, the 2008 Business Plan
revised the forecasted ridership and revenue for the HST system statewide. An increase in forecasted ridership led to
a reexamination of the number of trains required to accommodate this new total demand in ridership for the entire
system and for downtown San Francisco. Based on the new ridership forecast, cooperative operations planning
analyses of the TTC rail capacity was conducted by TJPA, the Authority and Caltrain. These conceptual operational
studies focused on designing a feasible station configuration that could process 10 Caltrain trains and 10 HST trains
per hour per direction into Downtown San Francisco.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 3- 10
Federal Railroad
Administration
The development of alternatives in Downtown San Francisco was also informed by recent studies performed as part
of the preliminary design effort for the TTC/ Caltrain Extension project. In 2006, underground train storage at the 4th
& King location was considered and rejected due to limited and difficult access. In the first half of 2009, a double
deck train box under the TTC was considered and rejected due to constructability concerns.
Cooperative operations planning analysis of Transbay Transit Center rail capacity is ongoing to determine the most
efficient mix and scheduling of both HST and Caltrain commuter services. Three alternatives were identified to
represent the possible range of operating concepts:
a. The Transbay Transit Center and the 4th & King station would serve both HST and Caltrain.
b. The Transbay Transit Center would serve both HST and Caltrain and the 4th & King station would serve
Caltrain only. ( This alternative represents the preferred alternative from the program- level analysis)
c. The Transbay Transit Center would serve Caltrain and the 4th & King station would serve both HST and
Caltrain.
As a result of comments received during scoping, a fourth alternative was identified and designated “ d.” In this
alternative, the train station at the Transbay Terminal would be located in the two- block area bordered by Beale
Street, Harrison Street, Main Street and Folsom Street. The tracks between the new station and 4th & King would
follow Beale Street, the Embarcadero and Townsend Street. The Beale Street station and the 4th & King station
would serve both HST and Caltrain. Though the TJPA had studied and rejected Beale Street alternatives in their
earlier work, these alternatives were different than Option “ d.” Evaluation of alternative configurations for the San
Francisco HST terminus station is necessary given the Authority’s obligations under CEQA and FRA obligations under
NEPA when considering the implementation of the HST system.
3.3.3 Initial Review of Vertical Alignment Options
The subsections were examined to identify potentially practicable alternatives. Vertical options were dropped from
further consideration due to environmental or engineering issues that would make approvals or implementation
impractical. Vertical options were also dropped if they would not reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts,
would not meet purpose and need and project objectives, or would not be practical to construct. At its most basic
level, this initial review focused on whether or not existing major structures, creeks, or waterways were in the way of
the vertical option, which would have to be removed and/ or replaced if the vertical rail option was to be built.
The following discussion describes the key features and issues for each subsection and identifies any potential
conflicts or constraints that would prevent options from being further considered. The options removed from further
evaluation are identified along with the key factors for those recommendations.
Note that the following paragraphs describe the initial review of options. This initial review presented to local
agencies and the public as a part of the outreach efforts described in Section 3.3.4. Based on comments and
information received during these outreach activities, some of options that were initially identified for potential
removal were retained for further evaluation. Section 3.3.3 presents the options that were carried forward for detailed
evaluation. The results of this detailed evaluation are presented in Section 4.
Subsection 0 - Transbay Terminal to North of Common Street
This subsection is located within the City and County of San Francisco. The existing Caltrain alignment extends from
the platforms at the 4th & King station to the end of the subsection north of Mission Bay Drive. Though there are no
existing tracks between the Transbay Transit Center and the 4th & King Caltrain station, Alternatives 0( a) A and 0( b) A
assume that tracks will be added in an alignment under Seventh, Townsend and Second Streets. Alternative 0( d) A
assumes tracks would be added under Seventh, Townsend and Beale Streets to serve an underground terminal
between Beale and Main Streets oriented 90 degrees from the terminal assumed in Alternatives 0( a) A and 0( b) A.
The summary of the evaluation of these four alternatives is presented in Table 3- 3 and Figure 3- 6. The I- 80 Bay
Bridge approach structure and I- 280/ Fifth and Sixth Street ramps are constraints for the elevated option. The area
between Transbay Terminal and 4th & King Station is a densely developed portion of Downtown San Francisco with
closely spaced streets and multistory buildings. The at- grade option was dropped in this area because it would result
in substantial property acquisitions and disruption.
Table 3- 3
Initial Review of Vertical Options– Subsection 0
Sub-section
Mile
Post
Proposed HST
Grade Relative
to Existing
Caltrain Grade
Alternative
Carried
Forward
Alternative
Removed
From
Consideration
Basis for Removal
Subsection 0( a) A HST and Caltrain to both Transbay and 4th & King
0( a) A n. a.
Elevated 􀀳 Conflicts with I- 80 structure and I- 280 ramps
At Grade 􀀳 Would cause significant community disruption
and property acquisition north of 4th & King
Below Grade 􀀳
Subsection 0( b) A HST to Transbay, Caltrain to both Transbay and 4th & King
0( b) A n. a.
Elevated 􀀳 Conflicts with I- 80 structure and I- 280 ramps
At Grade 􀀳 Would cause significant community disruption
and property acquisition
Below Grade 􀀳
Subsection 0( c) A HST to 4th & King, Caltrain to both Transbay and 4th & King
0( c) A n. a.
Elevated 􀀳 Conflicts with I- 280 ramps ( HST to 4th & King
only)
At Grade 􀀳
Below Grade 􀀳
Subsection 0( d) A HST to Beale Street, Caltrain to both Beale Street and 4th & King
0( d) A n. a.
Elevated 􀀳 Conflicts with I- 80 structure and I- 280 ramps
At Grade 􀀳 Would cause significant community disruption
and property acquisition
Below Grade 􀀳
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 3- 11
Federal Railroad
Administration
Figure 3- 6
Subsection 0 – Vertical Alignment Options
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 3- 12
Federal Railroad
Administration
Subsection 1 – North of Mission Bay Drive to South Portal Tunnel No. 4
This subsection is located within the City and County of San Francisco. Except for two crossings near Mission Bay, all
other street crossings in this subsection are grade- separated. The existing Caltrain alignment passes through a series
of hills and valleys necessitating 4 tunnels and several embankment and trench segments. The I- 280 freeway
structure above the tracks and its support columns are constraints in the northern portion of the subsection for the
elevated option. The existing Caltrain grade ( including widening of existing tunnels) and new below grade options
were carried forward throughout the subsection. The summary of the evaluation is presented in Table 3- 4 and Figure
3- 7.
Table 3- 4
Initial Review of Vertical Options – Subsection 1
Sub-section
Mile
Post
Proposed HST
Grade Relative
to Existing
Caltrain Grade
Alternative
Carried
Forward
Alternative
Removed
From
Consideration
Basis for Removal
1A
1.03 North of Mission Bay Drive
Elevated 􀀳 Conflicts with existing I- 280 aerial structure
At Grade 􀀳
Below Grade 􀀳
1B
1.32 South of 16th Street
Elevated 􀀳 Conflicts with existing I- 280 aerial structure
At Grade 􀀳 Conflicts w/ columns from I- 280 aerial
structure
Below Grade 􀀳
1C
2.07 South of 23rd Street
Elevated 􀀳 Precluded by hilly terrain; exceeds maximum
allowable grade
At Grade 􀀳 Inadequate transition distance to Below Grade
option in subsection 1B
Below Grade 􀀳
1D
2.29 North of Cesar Chavez Street
Elevated 􀀳 Streets already grade- separated
At Grade 􀀳
Below Grade 􀀳
1E
3.21 South of Quint Street
Elevated 􀀳 Precluded by hilly terrain; exceeds maximum
allowable grade
At Grade 􀀳
Below Grade 􀀳
1F 3.87 North of Williams Street
Sub-section
Mile
Post
Proposed HST
Grade Relative
to Existing
Caltrain Grade
Alternative
Carried
Forward
Alternative
Removed
From
Consideration
Basis for Removal
Elevated 􀀳 Streets already grade- separated; limited
transition distance
At Grade 􀀳
Below Grade 􀀳
1G
4.36 South of Paul Avenue
Elevated 􀀳
Precluded by hilly terrain; exceeds maximum
allowable grade
At Grade 􀀳
Below Grade 􀀳
Figure 3- 7
Subsection 1 – Vertical Alignment Options
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U. S. Department
of Transportation Page 3- 13
Federal Railroad
Administration
Subsection 2 – South Portal Tunnel No. 4 to South of Millbrae Avenue
This subsection is located in the cities of Brisbane, South San Francisco, San Bruno and Millbrae. The existing
Caltrain alignment is at- grade in this subsection and many crossings are grade- separated. The northern portion of
this subsection is completely grade- separated and includes an existing 4- track segment in Brisbane. In the southern
portion of the subsection, BART runs alongside the Caltrain tracks. Existing aerial roadway structures crossing above
the tracks in portions of the subsection constrain the elevated option, except over Linden Avenue and Center Street.
The BART box and street undercrossings in the southern portion of this subsection constrain the below- grade option,
except in the vicinity of the Millbrae station. The existing Caltrain grade option was carried forward throughout the
subsection. The summary of the evaluation is presented in Table 3- 5 and Figure 3- 8.
Table 3- 5
Initial Review of Vertical Options – Subsection 2
Sub-section
Mile
Post
Proposed HST
Grade Relative
to Existing
Caltrain Grade
Alternative
Carried
Forward
Alternative
Removed
From
Consideration
Basis for Removal
2A 5.77 South Portal Tunnel No. 4
Elevated
􀀳
Precluded by existing aerial structures,
including US 101, Sierra Point, Oyster Point;
not compatible with freight operation at
South San Francisco yard; portion in
Brisbane is already 4- track
At Grade 􀀳
Below Grade
􀀳
Streets already grade- separated; not
compatible with freight operation at South
San Francisco yard; portion in Brisbane is
already 4- track
2B 9.93 South of Colma Creek
Elevated 􀀳
At Grade 􀀳
Below Grade
􀀳
Transition distance too short to
accommodate both Airport Blvd. and BART
underground structures
2C 10.96 South of I- 380
Elevated 􀀳
At Grade 􀀳
Below Grade 􀀳
2D 13.20 South of Center Street
Elevated 􀀳 Conflicts with Millbrae Ave. structure and
BART station
At Grade 􀀳
Below Grade 􀀳
Figure 3- 8
Subsection 2 – Vertical Alignment Options
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSI