Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7.A <br />Page 12 <br /> <br />currently underway. Each transition from one vertical solution to another requires <br />approximately 3,000 feet or just over ~ mi~e, so "quick" adjustments between vertical <br />alternatives are not possible. <br /> <br />Table of Alternatives Carried Forward, page S - 2: <br />This table graphically summarizes each of the six vertical design options and highlights <br />which design options are "carried forward'~ for further consideration in each of the 10 <br />geographic subsections. Redwood City is in subsection 4C and 40; subsection 5 includes <br />unincorporated areas. The following alternatives are carried forward for each subsection: <br /> <br />. Subsection 4C from south of Cordilleras Creek to north of Woodside Road: aerial <br />viaduct, open trench, covered trench/tunnel, deep tunnel (HSR only) <br />. Subsection 4 D from north of Woodside Road to north of Sth A venue: aerial <br />viaduct (HSR only), at-grade (Caltrain only), open trench (HSR only), covered <br />trench/tunnel (HSR only), deep tunnel (HSR only) <br />. Subsection SA from north of 5th Avenue to south ofSth Avenue: at grade, deep <br />tunnel (HSR only) <br /> <br />"Next Steps," page. S - 5: <br />The preliminary AA Report informs the project description for the EIR/EIS. It also sets <br />parameters for the next level of design (1S%) and environmental analysis. As the <br />engineering and environmental work continues, the Authority and Caltrain will continue <br />to meet and engage the cities on the corridor in a discussion about the various <br />alternatives. If deemed necessary by the lead agencies, a supplemental AA Report will <br />consider feedback received about the preliminary AA Report and will discuss how the <br />alternatives analysis \vill infonn the detailed engineering, environmental, and outreach <br />activities on the Caltrain Corridor. These activities will inform preparation of the draft <br />EIRJEIS, which is currently scheduled for public comment in December of 2010. <br /> <br />"Design Objectives and Proje.ct Alternatives," pages 2-2 and 2-3: <br />Six tables are included in this section. One table summarizes the project design <br />objectives, and the remaining five tables summarize the measures used to evaluate and <br />compare the project alternatives: <br /> <br />. Alignment and station performance objectives and criteria <br />. Land use evaluation measures <br />. Constmctability evaluation measures <br />. Community evaluation measures <br />. Environmental resources evaluation measures <br />. Natural environment evaluation measures <br /> <br />Additional information pertaining to Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) principles and <br />transportation processes, outcomes, and decision-making are found here and on page 2-4. <br /> <br />"Alternatives," page 3-1: <br />This section describes the two-step process used for evaluation of project alternatives, <br />