Capitol Corridor Service Expansion Program Program Environmental Assessment (EA)

1. Capitol Corridor Service Expansion Program Program Environmental Assessment (EA) BART Boardroom Presentation October 26, 2010

2. Capitol Corridor Route Map

3. Background • Capitol Corridor is one of the State’s three Intercity Passenger Rail systems • Capitol Corridor service is managed by the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) • Capitol Corridor (3rd busiest route in the Amtrak system) is an important regional and inter-regional transportation alternative reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality • Capitol Corridor operates on Union Pacific’s rail system

4. The CCJPA Board • The CCJPA is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of 16 elected officials from six member agencies along the 170-mile Capitol Corridor rail route • Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) • Solano Transportation Authority (STA) • Yolo County Transportation District (YCTD) • Sacramento Regional Transit District (Sac RT) • San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) • Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)

5. Presentation Outline • Discuss current program of projects to support service expansion plans • Identify phasing plan to implement planned track improvements to achieve service expansion plans • Discuss the environmental documentation process with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) • Describe the CCJPA’s Program Environmental Assessment (EA) and discuss the summary of impacts, if any • Answer questions

6. State Rail Plan (FY 2007/08 - 2017/18)and CCJPA Vision Plan • Frequency: Expanding service incrementally • Auburn – Sacramento: 4 round trips (currently 1) • Roseville – Sacramento: 10 round trips (currently 1) • Oakland – Sacramento: 18 round trips (currently 16) • San Jose – Sacramento: 16 round trips (currently 7) • Travel Time: Reduce average travel time by 12 percent (past and future reductions coming) • Reliability: Standard of 90% or better for on-time performance (currently 93% - tops in the nation)

7. FRA HSIPR Funding – Requirements • FRA administers the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) • High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program – a five-year capital grant program to fund high speed and intercity passenger rail • To be eligible for HSIPR funding • Complete a Service Development Plan • Complete a full HSIPR application • Complete Tier 1 Environmental Review – i.e., this Program EA • If awarded funding, subsequent projects must go through detailed project level (Tier 2) Environmental Review

8. NEPA Program EA • The Program EA evaluates the potential environmental effects of implementing an increase in Capitol Corridor Intercity Passenger Rail service as follows: • From 1 to 2 daily round-trips between Auburn and Sacramento • From 7 to 11 daily round-trips between Oakland and San Jose • The Program EA provides information that can be used to evaluate program alternatives when preparing project level Categorical Exemption or Environmental Assessments.

9. Why, What, and How? • Why must a program environmental document be completed ? • FRA requires a Program NEPA document before awarding service program funding • What level of program documentation is required? • FRA indicated that for limited corridor development a Program EA is appropriate • How should the public be involved in the Program EA? • FRA consulted with CCJPA to structure a public involvement process (document circulation, public meetings)

10. Projects in/around Fremont and Niles

11. Program EA adheres to CEQ regulations and FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts

12. Program Benefits • Additional service frequency • One additional Auburn frequency (1 to 2) • Four additional to/from San Jose frequencies (7 to 11) • Direct Benefits • Improvements in ridership - incremental about 12% • Improvements in revenue (offsetting State subsidy) – incremental about 14% • Indirect Benefits • Reduction in greenhouse emissions • Reduction in projected highway congestion

13. Projects on the Map • FY 2010 HSIPR Application • Project 1: Donner Pass • Project 4: Newark-Albrae Siding • Project 8: Fremont Platform • Future HSIPR funding • Remaining projects based on HSIPR funding levels and coordination with California request

14. Rail: East Bay and Beyond Port of Oakland Freight traffic to/from the Port of Oakland heads primarily northeast to the Roseville Yard (north of Sacramento), or via the Central Valley by the Altamont Pass route. Secondary usage goes south along a coastal route Niles Subdivision Coast Subdivision Oakland Subdivision

15. Niles/Fremont: Current Routing and Traffic Fremont Amtrak Station

16. Niles/Fremont: Project 9A Routing and Traffic Project 9A can work under either an Oakland Subdivision or Niles Subdivision alignment for Capitol Corridor service Fremont Amtrak Station

17. Rail: Routing under Project 9A Port of Oakland Freight traffic to/from the Altamont route could go over an upgraded Niles Canyon route (keeping Niles Canyon Railway whole and able to operate) thus reducing the need to accommodate freight traffic growth through Centerville. This allows capacity for increased Capitol Corridor service.

18. Rail: Routing under Project 9B Port of Oakland Freight traffic to/from the Altamont route could be increased by triple tracking through Centerville. In addition to freight growth, this allows capacity for increased Capitol Corridor service. This option is operationally worse for all concerned.

19. Program Schedule • Projects will be implemented based on funding availability • FRA – HSIPR now in 2nd year of 5 years (FY 2010 request is pending) • State – Funding dependent on State budget • Apply for funding in each remaining HSIPR year (FY 2011-2013) • If funded steadily, projects will commence in FY 2011 and be completed in FY 2016 or FY 2017 • Capitol Corridor service expansion will be incremental as projects are completed • Freight train growth is expected to increase independently of the improvements

20. No Action Alternative • Not implementing the program is impact-free to all resource categories except air quality • Under the No Action alternative for Air Quality, the project benefits to reduce in CO2 and general traffic congestion relief will not occur

21. Action Alternative – Implement Program EA • Across all resource categories, there are either • No impacts • Minimal impacts that can be fully mitigated • Approved Program EA will be used to advance specific projects incrementally as part of an application(s) for federal or state capital grants

22. Passenger-Freight Rail Partnership • CCJPA’s plan is to partner with UPRR to accrue public benefit from its investments • Added Capitol Corridor trains • Reduced truck traffic and greenhouse gas emissions

23. Summary • Program EA identified either no impacts, no impacts with mitigation, or benefits • Detailed project level environmental review will commence once we receive any FRA HSIPR funding • The CCJPA will be engaged with the communities along the route and agencies as CCJPA looks to advance the Capitol Corridor Service Expansion Plan THANK YOU