Home » Environmental Impact Report Released For SF To SJ Section Of High-Speed Rail Project

Environmental Impact Report Released For SF To SJ Section Of High-Speed Rail Project


The final environmental impact report is now complete for the section between San Francisco and San Jose of California’s high-speed rail project.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority released the final report on the possible environmental impacts of the roughly 49-mile northern leg of the rail system, which will extend through major population centers in the Bay Area.

The report builds on the previous May approval of the San Jose to Merced project section to complete the environmental analysis stage in Northern California, project spokesperson Anthony Lopez said in a statement.

To reduce adverse environmental impact, the project section will blend with the existing Caltrain system, including using the two-track configuration, incorporating boarding platforms at stations shared with Caltrain, and using existing transportation corridors and rights-of-way, according to the report.


Once it’s completed, people will be able to travel between San Francisco and San Jose in about 30 minutes. As the northern Bay Area terminus of the rail system, the project section also helps connect the Bay Area to the rest of the state via San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

“The capacity of California’s intercity transportation system, including San Francisco, the Peninsula, and South Bay, is insufficient to meet existing and future travel demand,” said the report.

With a growing population and job opportunities in the region, completing this project section will help keep pace with the increasing commuting demand between San Francisco and the South Bay.

The whole project was kick-started in 2008 when California voters approved a $9.95 billion bond measure to support high-speed rail across the state. It would run from San Diego to Sacramento by design and was initially set to be completed by 2030. The timeline has been extended due to cost overruns and delays.


The San Francisco to San Jose section will consist of three stops, the Fourth and King Street station in San Francisco (interim), the Millbrae BART Station and the Diridon station in San Jose. The northern track is planned to ultimately be extended to the Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco.

According to the report, the proposed preferred alternative would result in displacements of 14 residential units and three community and public facilities. It may also cause direct impacts on more than 100 acres of habitat for special-status plant species.

The authority’s Board of Directors will consider the final document for approval during its two-day board meeting on Aug. 17 and 18.


Dorothy June 15, 2022 - 10:13 AM - 10:13 AM

More reports, more studies, more maybe everything including costs. So what else is new? Nothing to show for it in all these years.

WC June 15, 2022 - 10:44 AM - 10:44 AM

With the Democrats letting crime grow who the heck is going to want to use it?

Raul June 15, 2022 - 12:02 PM - 12:02 PM

They can smash and grab in SF and 30 minutes later they can be close to another smash and grab in SJ

Badge1104 June 15, 2022 - 11:35 AM - 11:35 AM

This is for bums who think that Bart is too slow for them and they want to get to where they’re going faster (and of course without paying) also for the drug dealers and thugs want to get place to place quicker than Bart.
This new system will soon be theirs too

Captain Bebops June 15, 2022 - 11:36 AM - 11:36 AM

Should have been done in the 1980s when costs would have been more reasonable. Only problem was air fare was cheap in the 80’s so who would have bothered.

Tsa June 15, 2022 - 11:42 AM - 11:42 AM


Evil Banker June 15, 2022 - 2:33 PM - 2:33 PM

Given BART has become the Bay Area’s mobile homeless shelter, I suppose something to replace it may have become necessary. But I can never fathom why big government advocates are interested in traveling at only 300 mph when technology today permits compelling communication alternatives at the speed of light. The cost of construction and concomitant tax drag on the communities affected will be simply appalling when considering how few the number of passengers it can carry.

Roz June 15, 2022 - 12:11 PM - 12:11 PM

We’ll have another big Earthquake before it’s done.
‘London Bridge’ is falling down.

Randy June 15, 2022 - 12:12 PM - 12:12 PM

EIRs are politically driven…. have seen it first hand many times …politics drives how it will read…. Newsom promised in his campaign speeches he would stop the billions being wasted on the HSR … did he? noooooooo another campaign promise lie….

ConcordMike June 15, 2022 - 1:09 PM - 1:09 PM

Wait til the library’s get their hands on the report. Doomed to fail due to some political incorrectness. Or maybe some city has a moratorium on things that go fast. Something stupid is coming down the tracks. You’ll see.

Fed Up June 15, 2022 - 1:10 PM - 1:10 PM

They are going to have fun tunneling through the Tehachapi Mountains along with the San Andrius Fault. Years and years worth! Not to mention Billions worth. Better to have bought a fleet of planes and offer free flights with the initial $10 Billion.

Mutts June 15, 2022 - 1:41 PM - 1:41 PM

This must stop! I may have seen a three legged toad in the vicinity. EPA won’t like that!

Original G June 15, 2022 - 2:15 PM - 2:15 PM

“…using existing transportation corridors and rights-of-way…”

Given number of roads already crossing existing tracks exactly what are projected (claimed) speeds vs REAL WORD actual speeds going to be?

projected speed 110 mph

How about non governmental non political independent review by ACTUAL Transit experts ? ? ?

Will it become a suicide magnet ?

ClaytonVoter June 17, 2022 - 8:14 AM - 8:14 AM

The tracks will be grade-separated as part of other projects already in the works. Safety measures are considered in the environmental docs! That’s why we do them.

ClaytonVoter June 17, 2022 - 8:11 AM - 8:11 AM

If not now when? The person who bemoaned that it wasn’t built in the 80s, can’t see that it won’t get cheaper in the 2080s. Seems like many commentators here lack vision. The same sort of people probably said the Golden Gate was a pipedream and the Bay Bridge wasn’t necessary and that BART was a waste of money. And yet, we all enjoy crossing without ferry boats or driving in congestion that BART is mitigating. CEQA docs aren’t politically motivated–they’re the law. The people who sue them are often politically motivated. Don’t you want to know what the impacts of the project might be? Don’t you want those impacts mitigated? I suspect many who complain about public transportation don’t take it.

Comments are closed.



Subscribe to our newsletter!

Latest News

© Copyright 2023 Claycord News & Talk