HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-30 City Council Agendas (16)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11759)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Information Reports Meeting Date: 11/30/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Grade Separations
Summary Title: Grade Separation Virtual Town Hall Report
Title: Connecting Palo Alto Rail Grade Separation: Report on Virtual Town
Hall
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Transportation Department
Staff is providing this cover memo to highlight the Virtual Town Hall Summary Report on
Connecting Palo Alto Rail Grade Separation conducted by the Office of Transportation.
Background
As part of the rail grade separation project, the Office of Transportation, with support from the
AECOM consulting team, hosted a virtual Town Hall to seek feedback from the community on
various alternatives under consideration for the grade crossings at Churchill Avenue, Meadow
Drive, and Charleston Road on the Caltrain corridor.
In normal times, the City conducts in-person town halls and community meetings at a specified
location on a specified date and time. However, due to unprecedented COVID restrictions, the
City used virtual tools to perform such community outreach. The virtual Town Hall platform
provided for materials to be interactive and depicted project information geographically on the
map. The virtual Town Hall was accessible conveniently using internet access on computers,
mobile phones, and other electronic devices.
The information on the virtual Town Hall included simulated animation of grade separation,
profiles, layouts, renderings, fact sheets, evaluation matrix, estimated costs, project reports,
etc. These documents were placed strategically for better visualization based on location for
each of the nine alternatives currently in consideration at three grade crossing locations.
Churchill Avenue: Closure with Mitigations (2 options)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Viaduct
Partial Underpass
Meadow Dr- Charleston Rd: Hybrid
Viaduct
Trench
Underpass
South Palo Alto Tunnel, Passenger and Freight
South Palo Alto Tunnel, Freight at Grade
Data Overview
Outreach to residents for virtual Town Hall was provided through various media including the
City’s website, email notifications to members registered at Connecting Palo Alto, newspaper
article, City’s blog, and various social media sites. Nearly 65% of the respondents were happy or
very happy with the virtual Town Hall experience, while 20% had a fair experience. About 15%
of the respondents were not pleased with the way information was presented.
Two questionnaires were requested from the residents to gauge their preference and feedback
on various alternatives in consideration. The Town Hall questionnaire was focused on their
overall experience and preference of the alternatives. The alternative questionnaire was to
better understand the perspectives of the community on each of the alternatives under
consideration.
Here is the Virtual Town Hall Summary Report which provides detailed feedback and comments
from the community. The virtual Town Hall web site is still running and provides the
information; however, the feedback and comment features were disabled on September 15,
2020.
Following is the summary of Virtual Town Hall facts of interest from the data collected:
Website Location: www.VRPaloAlto.com
Virtual Town Hall Dates: August 19 – September 14, 2020
Number of Unique Visitors: 1,006 *
Total Number of Page Views: 1,902
Live Question & Answer Sessions Held: 2 (August 27 & September 3, 2020)
Feedback Questions on Alternatives: 387
General Feedback Questions: 220
*Analytic data for the website, including the number of visitors, was unavailable from
August 19- 25, 2020 due to a technical issue
Summary
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Based on the community participation and responses received from the virtual Town Hall, staff
considers this community engagement through a virtual platform to be a successful experience.
The availability of the virtual platform for more than three weeks provided the community
flexibility and convenience to review project materials and provide feedback. Through this
virtual platform, the City was able to outreach to more than 1,000* unique visitors with a broad
range of neighborhoods represented. The neighborhood participation was quite diverse and
community response from 85% of the respondents rated fair to very good experience in using
the virtual platform. In-person community meetings generally bring in about 100 to 200
community members, with limited reach beyond neighborhoods adjacent to the crossings.
Comparing data from virtual Town Hall visits with in-person meetings attendance, we believe
that data clearly shows strong participation from our community members and overall a
successful event.
This Virtual Town Hall represents a new approach to community engagement that provided an
innovative platform for presenting complex technical information in a user-friendly and
intuitive manner. The AECOM team’s expertise and collaborative approach in a wide range of
engineering and technology disciplines was crucial to enabling the City and community
members to explore several alternatives and issues of concern related to the grade separation
options. The team’s ability to generate reports and exhibits, renderings, and animations, as well
as present and respond to questions, enabled effective communication on design concepts with
a diverse and engaged community. Their responsiveness, quality of work, and attention to
detail has been invaluable.
The Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) has also been invaluable to the evaluation and
identification of key community issues to be addressed through this effort. The XCAP has spent
countless hours reviewing and discussing the grade separation alternatives and potential
impacts, and their dedication has substantively improved the material presented through the
virtual Town Hall.
Attachments:
Attachment: Virtual Town Hall Summary Report (PDF)
Virtual Town Hall – Summary
Report
Connecting Palo Alto - Rail Grade Separation Project
City of Palo Alto
October 21, 2020
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 2
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto Contract No. 18171057
Prepared by:
Eileen Goodwin, Principal
Apex Strategies
M: (408) 309-1426
E: apexstr@pacbell.net
AECOM
300 Lakeside Drive
Suite 400
Oakland
CA 94612
aecom.com
Prepared in association with:
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 3
Table of Contents
1. Town Hall Overview .............................................................................................. 4
2. Q & A Sessions ..................................................................................................... 4
3. Town Hall Feedback ............................................................................................. 5
General Feedback .............................................................................................................................. 5
Alternative Feedback........................................................................................................................... 9
Appendix A – Meeting Notice .........................................................................................11
Appendix B – Feedback, Comments and Questions ..................................................... 13
Appendix C – Individual Alternative Feedback .............................................................. 65
Table of Figures
1. Figure 1. Site Analytics Report, 8/26/2020 - 9/14/2020 ............................................................................... 5
2. Figure 2. How did you hear about the Virtual Town Hall? (select all that apply) ........................................... 6
3. Figure 3. How many feedback responses have been received? ................................................................. 7
4. Figure 4. How would you rate your experience at our Virtual Town Hall for informing and finding desired
details on rail grade separations? (select one) ............................................................................................ 7
5. Figure 5. Has enough analysis been done to decide among the rail grade separation alternatives? ............ 8
6. Figure 6. Which neighborhood do you reside in/represent? (select one) ..................................................... 8
7. Figure 7. Has enough analysis been done to decide among the rail grade separation alternatives? ............ 9
8. Figure 8. Which alternative do you prefer at Churchill Avenue? (select one) ............................................... 9
9. Figure 9. Which alternative do you prefer at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road? (select one) ................ 10
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 4
1. Town Hall Overview
The City of Palo Alto hosted an interactive Virtual Town Hall (https://vrpaloalto.com) between August 19th and
September 14th, 2020. The Connecting Palo Alto Virtual Town Hall was an interactive digital forum with exhibits,
renderings, animations, supporting documentation and feedback tools designed to engage and inform the community
on rail crossing alternatives. This outreach was conducted in advance of the City’s next phase when City Council will
decide on and select rail crossing alternatives for Meadow Drive/Charleston Road and Churchill Avenue.
The virtual meeting was “held” at the virtual El Palo Alto Room, Mitchell Park Community Center facility, similar to the
in-person meetings held at the same facility during the earlier phases of the project and also set-up in a similar way.
The Virtual Town Hall contained a welcome video (https://vimeo.com/449772661) narrated by Ed Shikada, City
Manager, which included a welcoming and introductory remarks regarding the need for the project, previous Council
action, near and long-term schedule as well as funding information.
There was an additional video that was a “tutorial” (https://youtu.be/GxXoxqP95cg) to show virtual meeting attendees
how to navigate around the website, where and how to leave feedback and how to find the background information
and the project alternatives under review. The tutorial stressed the virtual feedback areas, where attendees were
asked to either check a box saying they had enough information about project alternatives or identify missing
information, weigh in on project alternatives and answer demographic questions. Fact sheets on all remaining
alternatives were available in the Virtual Town Hall. A copy of the matrix that identifies project benefits and challenges
aligned with Council-approved criteria, order of magnitude costs and schedules and engineering challenges for each
alternative were made available to virtual attendees.
The Virtual Town Hall included information for six alternatives at Meadow Drive/Charleston Road:
• Meadow-Charleston Hybrid
• Meadow-Charleston Viaduct
• Meadow-Charleston Trench
• Meadow-Charleston Underpass
• South Palo Alto Tunnel Passenger and Freight
• South Palo Alto Tunnel with At-Grade Freight
In addition, information was provided for three alternatives at Churchill Avenue:
• Churchill Viaduct
• Churchill Closure with Mitigations (Option 1 and Option 2)
• Churchill Partial Underpass
Background materials such as the traffic and noise reports and Caltrain information were also easily available in the
virtual room.
In addition to the Virtual Town Hall, two Virtual Town Hall Question and Answer (Q & A) Sessions were held and they
are discussed in Section 2. Appendix A includes a Meeting Notice for all the Town Hall events.
2. Q & A Sessions
Two Virtual Town Hall Q & A Sessions were held: one for Churchill grade separation alternatives on August 27, 2020
at 4:00pm and a session a week later for the Charleston/Meadow alternatives on September 3, 2020 at 4:00pm. The
question and answer sessions were held live on YouTube with a moderator, who read questions from the public
harvested from questions left in the Virtual Town Hall and the Project Team, including City Staff, answered the
questions live during the sessions. Instead of live input from the community during the Q&A sessions, participants
were encouraged to return to the Virtual Town Hall and leave their comments and questions in that online forum.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 5
There was a recording of the questions and answers presented for each session. In addition to the archived YouTube
sessions, the questions and their answers were also posted online in writing for the community to view in the
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section (https://connectingpaloalto.com/faqs/). The questions for each session
are captured separately and categorized in a drop down easy to navigate manner.
The August Q&A Session focused on the Churchill Avenue questions along with general topics that were of concern
or confusion gathered through the website comments. The September Q & A Session held exactly a week later,
focused on answering questions regarding the Meadow Drive/Charleston Road alternatives as well as the previous
general topic questions. Both sessions captured about 30 attendees when they were broadcast live, but had
significantly more viewers via the archived YouTube links (https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto/). The August
Question and Answer Session had over 190 additional views on YouTube and the September Q & A Session had an
additional 115 views on YouTube at the time of writing of this report.
In the first Q&A Session, the questions were general in nature about the need for the Project as well as whether the
School District and Stanford had preferences about the alternatives. In addition, questions related to traffic in the
vicinity of Churchill Avenue, design and placement of the proposed Churchill Avenue undercrossing and the Caltrain
design exception process. Meeting #2 questions related to traffic patterns in the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road
areas, bicycle movements, property impacts and construction methods.
3. Town Hall Feedback
General Feedback
Over 1,000 community members logged into the website during the interactive period. As can be seen in Figure 1,
there were 1,902 page views from August 26th to September 14th. Analytic data for the website between August 19th
through August 25th was unavailable due to a technical issue. However, based on Vimeo Tracking (log of views of
videos/animations), an additional of 61 unique visitors can be deduced during this time period.
Figure 1. Site Analytics Report, 8/26/2020 - 9/14/2020
When queried about how they heard about the Virtual Town Hall, Figure 2 illustrates the responses that were given by
those who chose to respond.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 6
Figure 2. How did you hear about the Virtual Town Hall? (select all that apply)
While over 1,000 community members attended the Virtual Town Hall, a subset of approximately 20% chose to
answer the Town Hall feedback questions as shown in Figure 3. In addition, there were 387 individual comments and
preferences logged on the Alternatives feedback. The feedback and comments received during the Town Hall are
summarized in Appendix B.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 7
Figure 3. How many feedback responses have been received?
Regarding a question related to the website itself and the virtual format, as can be seen in Figure 4, the vast majority
of those responding when asked how helpful the site was to communicate details about the project, chose “good” or
“very good” as their response. Only three respondents chose “very poor.”
Figure 4. How would you rate your experience at our Virtual Town Hall for informing and finding desired details on rail
grade separations? (select one)
The comment pattern seemed to ebb and flow related to promotion and to the various milestones in the process. As
can be seen in Figure 5 there was more activity on the site prior to and around the two Virtual Town Hall Question and
Answer Sessions held on August 27th and September 3rd. In addition, there was an uptick at the very end of the
period presumably related to last chance style communications that were pushed out by the Project Team to
encourage feedback.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 8
Figure 5. Has enough analysis been done to decide among the rail grade separation alternatives?
Representation by neighborhood of those providing feedback is illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Which neighborhood do you reside in/represent? (select one)
A question that had been asked in the previous community meetings for the project that was also asked at the Virtual
Town Hall was whether enough analysis had been done to decide among the rail separation alternatives. While only a
subset of attendees chose to respond, over 56% indicated that enough study had been completed to move to the
next phase (See Figure 7).
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 9
Figure 7. Has enough analysis been done to decide among the rail grade separation alternatives?
Alternative Feedback
When asked specifically about the three alternatives for Churchill Avenue (Closure with Mitigations, Viaduct, and
Partial Underpass), the respondents replied that the partial underpass was preferred as shown in Figure 8. When
asked about the Churchill Avenue alternatives individually (good, OK/neutral, or bad), Closure with Mitigations, Option
1 was seen by those who chose to respond as a “bad” idea and Option 2 was seen as a “good” idea by a similar
number of respondents. The Viaduct was considered mostly “bad” but with a strong number of “good” and
“OK/neutral” votes. Most considered the Partial Underpass as “ok/neutral” or “bad”. See Appendix C for more details.
Figure 8. Which alternative do you prefer at Churchill Avenue? (select one)
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 10
When asked about the six Meadow Drive and Charleston Road alternatives, respondents seemed to prefer the
Hybrid alternative where the railroad was raised partially and the streets lowered partially, but there was support for
most of the other alternatives as well. The South Palo Alto Tunnel which puts the commuter rail in a tunnel, but keeps
the freight on the surface, had little support compared to the other alternatives. The results are shown in Figure 9.
When asked about the alternatives individually (good, OK/neutral, or bad), the Hybrid as consider equally “good” and
“bad”. Most considered the Underpass and both Tunnel alternatives as “bad” and the Viaduct as “good”. See
Appendix C for more details.
Figure 9. Which alternative do you prefer at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road? (select one)
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 11
Appendix A – Meeting Notice
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 12
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 13
Appendix B – Feedback, Comments and
Questions
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 14
Comment Received
Item
No.
Feedback
Form
Alternative / Topic
*Italics - Generated via
comment content Comment
A001 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
The construction phase would close both streets for most of the duration of construction, estimated
at 3.5-4 years. All traffic, pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, would have to reroute to either San
Antonio or Oregon, and pedestrian and bicycle traffic would have to go even further out of the way.
By comparison, the disruption for the other alternatives would be days, and probably could be
scheduled so that both crossings would not be closed at the same time. This closure makes
implementation of this option completely impractical. The pedestrians and bicycle
implementations impact beyond the drawings here. There is no concrete description showing the
bicicle and pedestrian flow, and especially no description of how additional bicycle crossings
needed to get across the street twice will be implemented, and impact auto flow.
A002 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Looks like the best of the possible options (or closure option 2), as it's faster and doesn't require
closing half of alma for many years. The folks who don't want more traffic on embarcadero will be
against this, but the traffic mitigation plan looks good, and it would be much worse to close down
alma for (at least) 2 years. Plus the cost is much more realistic.
A003 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
A good option. The other options where we spend $200-$400M are insane.
A004 Alternative Churchill Viaduct The cost and duration are just insane. $400M is ridiculous. And this will take forever to build and
cause a terrible experience on Alma for years.
A005 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
$200M is crazy. Plus shutting down Alma for a long time or at least half is a terrible option.
A006 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
The viaduct option would destroy our neighborhood and family home of 40 years . What is the
likelihood that Palo Alto would be able to fund constructing a viaduct? What is the likelihood that
Caltrain would agree to a viaduct at Churchill?
A007 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The Churchill partial underpass would destroy our neighborhood and family home of 40 years.
What is the likelihood that Palo Alto would be able to fund this option? What is the likelihood that
Caltrain would agree to this option?
A008 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
From a cycling network perspective the underpass for cyclists and pedestrians should be at
Churchill. However, this design features dangerous sharp and blind corners in the tunnel, and a
dangerous crossing of Alma street.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 15
A009 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
The city has a S/CAP policy of 25% bicycle mode share by 2030. To achieve this goal the city
needs a coherent, safe, and low stress bicycle network. From a cycling network perspective the
underpass for cyclists and pedestrians should be at Churchill. This design features a clear line of
sight through the tunnel which increases safety, and eliminates a dangerous crossing of Alma
street.
A010 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The city has a S/CAP policy of 25% bicycle mode share by 2030. To achieve this goal the city
needs a coherent, safe, and low stress bicycle network. From a cycling network perspective the
underpass for cyclists and pedestrians should be at Churchill and not at Kellogg. This design
features sharp blind corners. This design has the same problems as the Homer tunnel, which is
very difficult to navigate for younger and older riders who are less stable.
A011 Alternative Churchill Viaduct This plan seems to keep intact the status quo for pedestrian, bike, and motorized traffic. Provided
a protected intersection is build at Alma, this could work.
A012 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
This option seems to preserve the existing traffic patterns for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars.
Protected intersections at Alma would be good to reduce the risk of accidents when crossing this
busy street.
A013 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Together with protected intersections on Alma to reduce the risk of accidents, this could be a safe
option that does not alter existing traffic flows for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.
A014 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
This design would preserve existing traffic patterns, while also being affordable. Protected
intersections are recommended to reduce the risk of accidents when crossing Alma.
A015 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
This design would preserve existing traffic patterns, but is very expensive. Protected intersections
are recommended to reduce the risk of accidents when crossing Alma.
A016 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
This design would significantly reduce the capacity of Alma and is very expensive. Protected
intersections are recommended to reduce the risk of accidents when crossing Alma.
A017 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
This design is seriously flawed from a cycling and walking perspective. There are sharp corners
everywhere which are difficult to navigate for younger and older riders, and cargo bikes. In
addition, there is no clear plan for the bicycle flow. The bicycle/pedestrian tunnel is nice, but there
is no clear connection to the existing bicycle infrastructure.
A018 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Option 2 is far better than option 1. It provides a ped/bike crossing of Alma critical for the High
School which could eliminate a light. The additional U shaped pedestrian bridge proposed on
Embarcadero seems wasteful given the existing bridge a hundred feet away.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 16
A019 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Option 2 is far better than option 1. It provides a ped/bike crossing of Alma critical for the High
School which could eliminate a light. The additional U shaped pedestrian bridge proposed on
Embarcadero seems wasteful given the existing bridge a hundred feet away. This option saves
100M relative to the partial underpass.
A020 Alternative Churchill Viaduct The partial underpass provides similar benefits for less money.
A021 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The Partial Underpass has a problem for those east of Alma as no left turns will be allowed and
doesn't allow cross-traffic under the tracks. For those west of Alma traffic under the tracks will be
allowed.
A022 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Suggest that the bike/pedestrian tunnel be moved back east 15 to 20 feet such that vehicles have
more room when making turns onto Alma and onto Churchill.
A023 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Not good flow for bikes and pedestrians.
A024 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
The Hybrid solution puts up a wall between east and west of Alma and also would be not a good
view for those people west of Alma.
A025 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
I believe that residents living close to the tracks would not like to see this.
A026 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
The underpass for Charleston is excellent. Suggest the rising road to south bound Alma be
eliminated, no need. It just cuts up Alma and costs time. Also Charleston going west suggest that
the square angle to make a right turn to Alma be made into a 8 to 10 foot radius to allow more
turning room. The solution for Meadow should be redone. Make it like the solution for Charleston.
Make sure that all 8 turns are possible.
A027 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
I think it looks low-rent and will get worse over time (e.g., see Charleston overpass). I also worry
about noise from elevated freight trains. The underpass is cheaper than this option and doesn't
suffer from aesthetics and elevated noise.
A028 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Benefits don't seem worth the additional cost and complexity of this option over Underpass.
A029 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Appealing in some ways, especially if we could get access to the new green parkway, but just too
expensive.
A030 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
Too much money for our small city.
A031 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
I don't like elevated trains, especially freight trains, but this is the second best option to the
underpass.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 17
A032 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
1. There are less expensive alternatives to facilitate grade separation at Churchill Avenue. 2. The
acquisition of private property to facilitate the Partial Underpass will not meet the standard for
exercising eminent domain. 3. The Partial Underpass requires approval of Caltrain to encroach on
a right-of-way and approval is uncertain. 4. The Kellogg Avenue tunnel creates conflict with
Castilleja School traffic. 5. The widening of Alma is unsafe for pedestrians/cyclists.
A033 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
regarding criterion “minimize disruption”: During the simultaneous closure of both crossings during
construction, bicyclists will be forced to divert to San Antonio Caltrain station or California Ave
tunnel (2.8+ miles apart). What will the Gunn H.S. Walk&Roll map show? Hoover Elem
Walk&Roll Map? regarding criterion “provide clear, safe routes that are separated from vehicles”:
The safety of the path location is exaggerated; having bicyclists on only one side of the
undercrossing is a hazard, particularly since there will be no traffic signal controlling east/west
motor traffic at Alma St; HAWK beacons will be needed at Park & Second for example. Also, the
access to the Charleston Bike/Ped Ramp on the west side of the tracks requires convoluted
movements for bicyclists which would *never* be imposed upon motorists and which are counter to
Comp Plan Policy TY-2.4 The traffic report completely ignores likely increase of motor traffic on
Wilkie Wy, which is a designated bicycle boulevard (mitigation required) in the Plan And Section
drawings: “Ped/Bike Profile from Park Blvd to Emerson St” only depicts one of the Ped/Bike Bridge
elements shown on the “Meadow Dr Profile” and the minimum vertical clearance is not listed for
the one element which is depicted. The minimum vertical clearance of 8’0” listed for the rail bridge
is permissible, but highly suboptimal. in the Plan And Section drawings: “Ped/Bike Profile from
Park Blvd to Wright Pl” does not contain the Ped/Bike Bridge element shown on the “Charleston
Rd Profile” and therefore no minimum vertical clearance is listed for that element. NB: it is very
difficult to evaluate these plans given the inability to zoom in using the display widget and the
inability to download the “Profile & Typical Sections” documents to use local applications.
A034 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Didn't PAUSD say that closing Churchill would be highly disruptive to their operations? Closing
Churchill would be disruptive to them as well as the Southgate neighborhood and everyone going
to/from Stanford.
A035 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Didn't PAUSD say that Closing Churchill would be detrimental to their operations? Also, it will be
detrimental to Southgate and other traffic flow.
A036 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
This is by far the ugliest option that would destroy the residential feel of Palo Alto...a place where
trees and natural beauty are important. This would be a forever blight to Palo Alto.
A037 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
This is the best option by far as it preserves the best traffic flow as well as improves the bike and
pedestrian safety at the intersection. It keeps the connectivity in Palo Alto instead of dividing the
city into two parts.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 18
A038 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Please include/show bicycles crossing using conventional bike lanes.
A039 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
DO NOTHING - KEEP CHURCHILL AS IT IS TODAY. WHY IS THIS NOT AN OPTION? It is too
early now to be deciding on any changes to crossings, due to Greatly Reduced CalTrain ridership,
which has an uncertain future!! ALSO - THERE IS POOR PUBLICITY ON THIS VIRTUAL TOWN
HALL. TOO FEW RESIDENTS KNOW ABOUT IT.
A040 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
This seems like a lot of money to spend on a relatively lightly used street. Holistically, would it be
better to leave this intersection as-is, and spend the money to grade separate El Camino /
Embarcadero, or otherwise improve Embarcadero at Alma?
A041 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The construction of the bike/ped underpass at Kellogg is really independent of this auto-centric
design. It just needs to be somewhere, and there will still be pedestrian and bicycle access to
cross the tracks at Embarcadero. The new bike/ped crossing should go through a wider analysis
phase. The Churchill crossing needs to be replaced, but Kellogg is probably not the right place.
For example, an ADA compliant crossing at Seale may serve the city better, and take care of
existing crowding at Cal Ave. This seems like a lot of money to spend on this crossing. Would
spending the same money to radically improve Embarcadero at Alma and El Camino give better
benefit to the city? It seems like a lot of Churchill traffic is for car drivers who don't want to be on
Embarcadero. The widening of Alma will make the sidewalks on the North side much worse for
pedestrian or bike use on the sidewalk. Alma is not an expressway. These should be maintained
with at least 3 more feet of sidewalk width or a planting strip. This (and some other plans) just take
this space for the roadway.
A042 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
I really like the upgrade of the crossing for bikes and peds to avoid waiting for Alma traffic. Also,
the low cost saves money for other possible transportation improvements. If the auto traffic is
closed at Churchill crossing the tracks, is it necessary to maintain the auto connection to Alma?
Would this be simplified even more if Churchill was closed to auto traffic on both sides of Alma, so
there would only be traffic for residents of Churchill, and bike/ped traffic to the underpass.
A043 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Saves a lot of money that could be put to use for other transportation improvements. Does not
require compromised railroad grade. Disruptions are moderate, without long periods of
interruption.
A044 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
How much would it cost and who would pay for it?
A045 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Can Embarcadero underpass really take the additional traffic? It seems to be a mess already.
A046 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Seems to be a good compromise. Keep traffic flowing (mostly), not the most expensive option,
allows for bike and pedestrian flow, too.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 19
A047 Alternative Churchill Viaduct I doubt Caltrain will allow this. I am guessing 1% grade limit is based on train's ability to get up the
grade. I think this option will not be able to proceed and it is the most expensive, too.
A048 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Hybrid is best comprimise. Viaduct won't pass 1% grade limit. too much water around and hybrid
avoids constant water issues (water always wins, so better to leave water alone).
A049 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Very expensive, no improvement for bikes and peds.
A050 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
U-shaped bike-ped path is long, awkward to negotiate, will make some users apprehensive of a
possible assailant in hiding. It doesn't relieve morning bike-ped chaos of Paly students.
A051 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Seems like the best combination of function and cost.
A052 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
L-shaped bike-ped underpass is better than U-shape (option 1), but still has a sharp corner,
requires backtracking for users from the south heading to Paly.
A053 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Best and most cost-effective alternative. Doesn't leave nearby residents staring at a gigantic
raised structure.
A054 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
Horrible for people living along the tracks. Have you seen how close their yards would be to this
gigantic structure? Erecting this would be unconscionable.
A055 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Horrible for folks living on the other side of the tracks. Their homes are so close, it would be
unconscionable to erect this gigantic structure above their heads.
A056 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Horrible for folks living on the other side of the tracks. They live so close, it would be
unconscionable to erect this gigantic structure above their heads.
A057 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
slightly better than Option 1
A058 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
better than option1 or option2, but still creates havoc in neighborhoods
A059 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
This is excellent -- keeps traffic flowing and even better than before. quieter since no rail
crossings, horn blowing and electric trains are quieter. If we don't do this, then I would like to see
Churchill crossing left as is.
A060 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
I prefer this alternative, but I think a final decision should not be made until and if the CalTrain
ridership increases again. In the meantime, I think nothing should be done and Churchill should
be kept as it is today. Why is "Do Nothing" not an option?
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 20
A061 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
As stated above, a more complete analysis of the impact on peds and bikes and neighborhood
traffic increases needs to be done before adopting a closure plan. As far as we can tell, no
analysis of Embarcadero traffic (pre-pandemic) was done, only LOS at various intersections. Also,
the PAUSD community and bike community were not fully consulted. Much more work needs to
be done on this plan before adopting any closure options.
A062 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
As stated above, a more complete analysis of the impact on peds and bikes and neighborhood
traffic increases needs to be done before adopting a closure plan. As far as we can tell, no
analysis of Embarcadero traffic (pre-pandemic) was done, only LOS at various intersections. Also,
the PAUSD community and bike community were not fully consulted. Much more work needs to
be done on this plan before adopting any closure options.
A063 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Bikes and peds are not separated at the crossing.
A064 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Analysis needs to be done regarding traffic redirections that impact the bike/ped route north of
Embarcadero. More traffic will flow down the 1100 block of Emerson that runs perpendicular to the
bike/ped path. This already busy yet dangerous school route needs to be redesigned.
A065 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Best alternative is to leave Churchill as is and save taxpayer money. Palo Alto High is right there
and needs to be accessible. No closure proposed for other crossings - why is it necessary at
Churchill? We cannot wall off neighborhoods, especially near our schools, and create more traffic
elsewhere. Why not spend resources getting the lights on Embarcadero to be more efficient for
traffic instead? Reduce wait times there, have lights that respond to traffic and not set in fixed
red/green schedules. This would decrease traffic on Churchill without an expensive construction
project.
A066 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
I strongly object to a total closure at Churchill and Alma.
A067 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The best alternative for Churchill isn't even listed, it is the NO CLOSURE alternative. Why close
this intersection when there is virtually no train ridership and traffic is down given the paradigm
shift in how we live? This process must be paused until the real data emerges from all of these
dramatic changes in our lives and rational decisions can then be made.
A068 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The only rational alternative is the NO Closure alternative at Churchill, which isn't even listed. This
is a biased, ridiculously expensive exercise which has zero credibility.
A069 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Please keep Churchill open to car traffic. Embarcadero is already a nightmare. I live on
Embarcadero and have to work from home due to COVID. I suffer from the constant noise and
vibration of traffic already day and night. It makes no sense to close Churchill and send thousands
of more cars next to my bedroom window. Don't turn Embarcadero into a freeway.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 21
A070 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Please keep Churchill open to car traffic. "Optimizing" the signals won't do anything to decrease
the total number of cars that would then have to travel on Embarcadero. Wider turn lanes doesn't
decrease traffic or noise. Embarcadero is already a nightmare. I live on Embarcadero and have to
work from home due to COVID. I suffer from the constant noise and vibration of traffic already day
and night. It makes no sense to close Churchill and send thousands of more cars next to my
bedroom window. Don't turn Embarcadero into a freeway.
A071 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Closing Churchill to cars is fine. Concern that this does not maximize safety and convenience for
pedestrians and bikes. Conflicts between Bikes & Peds may pose danger like Homer Ave crossing
- Bikes & Peds should have more separation. The bike/ped tunnel looks too deep, not daylighted
enough, may smell of urine. Can we raise Alma a couple feet and/or add a skylight in the median
to make it friendly for tunnel users?
A072 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Hideous and loud
A073 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Worst of both worlds - viaduct and trench. Traffic disruptions during construction would be
monumental,
A074 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
I thought the trench option looked insanely expensive then I saw this.
A075 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Too costly and complex to preserve a few car movements, ugly, a very poor 'compromise'.
Pedestrians & Bicyclists were clearly afterthoughts, most of their movements are awkward,
inconvenient, unprotected
A076 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Makes it easy for Peds & Bikes but may cost too much
A077 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
No problem blocking the cars, that part's fine. Peds & Bikes, including the students, must still cross
dangerous Alma. The underpass has such long ramps 1 block north and then 1 block south it's
very inconvenient.
A078 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
Worst of all worlds, not safe for Peds & Bikes, not safe for calls, Alma shrinks to 1 lane each way,
expensive - eliminate this!
A079 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Cost too high, we have so many other priorities. Delays, risk and complexities of re-routing &
pumping our creeks. Bad aesthetics -- we can't replace the trees. Hurting the neighbors by
eliminating trees from their back yards. Issues with freight trains in the tunnels. Too much cost,
problems, risks, let's do something faster, easier, cheaper
A080 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Best balance overall, great for pedestrians & bikes, cost-effective, good constructability, no risks
with the creeks, pumping, approvals - this is our #1
A081 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Traffic and congestion post-coved are significantly lower. I support doing nothing - but if forced to
choose will pick "partial underpass".
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 22
A082 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
This is the best alternative if we want to keep Churchill open and keep the Palo Alto community
connected.
A083 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Having ped/bike traffic cross Alma St is higher risk to those people. Having two right-angle turns at
the bottom of the incline to pass beneath the train tracks is both awkward and potentially
hazardous (limited sight-lines).
A084 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
In contrast to closureOption1, this allows ped/bikes to more safely travel across Alma/Caltrain. I do
note that the width of the proposed tunnel more closely resembles the California Ave tunnel than
the Homer Ave tunnel, so am somewhat unenthusiastic about this. I also note that Churchill Ave is
*much* closer to Embarcadero than to California Ave, suggesting that a direct bike/ped tunnel
between Seale Ave and Peers Park might be better than the option1 & option2.
A085 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
I do not favor this alternative. That said, I simply wish to echo what I have said elsewhere: a
potential bike/ped tunnel at Kellogg Ave is *much* closer to Embarcadero than to California Ave; a
possible crossing between Seale Ave & Peers Park would be highly advantageous. That is, if you
recommend the Churchill Underpass alternative, please move the bike/ped facility south, rather
than north. Thank you for considering this as an option...
A086 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
way too expensive
A087 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
way too expensive...
A088 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
not quite as expensive as Tunnel alternatives, but still hard to imagine...
A089 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Westbound Churchill traffic is nicely accommodated for access to PAUSD, Paly and vast Stanford
campus. Bike and pedestrian East/West access could be supplemented at Seale in addition to
Kellogg. Castilleja's intended expansion could negatively impact Kellogg access. Ground water
encroachment, adjacent property partial takings can raise cost and increase time to do.
A090 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
The Viaduct for all three "at grade crossings" would offer the advantages of greater "Connecting
Palo Alto" between east and west of the railroad, and the potential use of the space under the
viaduct for bike paths and park areas (e.g., benches).
A091 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
I think that a partial underpass is potentially the most desirable alternative, but this particular
design should be rethought with more time to come up with a better plan. This one has too many
zig-zags for bikes and pedestrians.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 23
A092 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
The underpass option for Meadow and Charleston looks like it eliminates a lot of options to turn
onto and off of Alma. One example: It looks like traffic on Alma (in either direction) that wants to
head southward on Charleston can only go northward, through the roundabout, and then back
southward across Alma. Another example: It looks like nobody on Meadow (in either direction) can
turn eastbound onto Alma. This looks like it will cause a big increase in traffic in the light
neighborhood streets, as drivers cut through "The Circles" or on Park to get between Meadow and
Charleston. I may have made some poor assumptions to get to that conclusion. Are there plans to
handle the increased traffic near Alma, beyond the roundabout on Charleston? My guess is "no",
which makes this my absolute least favorite choice for Meadow and Charleston.
A093 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
I do not see the value of leaving freight trains on the surface. I guess it's because that allows us to
dig smaller bores, so it's cheaper? This feels like a useless half-measure, with all the drawbacks of
constructing new tracks and none of the benefits of removing at-grade crossings.
A094 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The necessary widening of Alma for nearly 4 blocks between Melville and Lowell eliminates the
existing 10 foot buffer between the northbound traffic lane and the sidewalk. This places the
narrow sidewalk on the curb on a busy street and truck route where vehicles often exceed the
posted 35 mph speed limit. What mitigations are planned to make this 4 block stretch of sidewalk
to safe for pedestrians? Does the plan allow a sidewalk wider than the typical 5 feet? Can the city
reduce the speed limit along this stretch to 25 mph as is the case north of Embarcadero. Is it
possible to reduce the northbound lanes to just 1 lane on this stretch, as is the case on the
Embarcadero overpass on Alma, and thus retain the planting strip buffer between vehicle lanes
and pedestrian sidewalk?
A095 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Lower cost but lacking detail. Oops, did I miss a video?
A096 Alternative Churchill Viaduct This proposal is the most expensive build by a factor of 6, and a visual and aesthetic travesty for
the neighbors and city in general.
A097 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Closures Options 1 and 2 are described on the virtual site in a scattered way (probably due to
consulting costs). If Churchill gets closed and the mitigations are taken seriously, having
pedestrian and bike access under Alma and CalTrain in a straight line is highly desired.
A098 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
None of the options for the Churchill crossing are ideal. But the traffic studies indicate that the
intersection and road improvements included in the mitigations will allow the major east/west
arterials, Oregon Expressway and Embarcadero, to handle the diverted vehicle traffic without
significant impact. None of the other alternatives considered offer any better east/west vehicle
movement across the corridor despite the significantly higher cost they require to build.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 24
A099 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Can we just eliminate the ramp to south Alma for Charleston. I prefer no digging up of Alma. Can
we use the box jacking method for placing an underpass under both the tracks and Alma and not
need to install the shoofly tracks. I suggest an alternative for the Meadow underpass be studied
and make it look like the Charleston underpass.
A100 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
With all of the Palo Alto High bike and pedestrian traffic, needing to cross Alma seems less safe
and also more disruptive to Alma traffic. The lateral bike/ped underpass also seems less optimal
than in alternative 2.
A101 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
I like this alternative best. It is best for the bike and ped commuters, since they will cross the lanes
of the smaller Churchill St. rather than Alma.
A102 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
This seems unnecessary overkill. Much of the auto traffic which crosses from east of the tracks to
west Churchill could cross other places (University, Oregon/Page Mill, Embarcadero).
A103 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Closure will have huge impact on the PAUSD, Southgate and other communities
A104 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Do nothing should be an option, closure has huge impact on the PAUSD, Southgate,
Embarcadero, Oregon and other neighborhoods
A105 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Do nothing is better, but viaduct is acceptable
A106 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Simply too expensive and the disruption due to construction would be far too long.
A107 Alternative Churchill Viaduct This is the worst of all possible worlds
A108 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
It seems like really disruptive construction and a complex result (complicated and confusing traffic
and bicycle flow) for an intersection that really isn't that important.
A109 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Minimal disruption during construction is a plus. Cost is reasonable but much higher than the
hybrid. The hybrid seems a better approach.
A110 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Very high cost and long and disruptive construction makes this option a poor choice. The
underpass option has less costs and addresses both Alma and the train.
A111 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
The worst option. Extremely expensive with long and disruptive construction and freight is still at
grade.
A112 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Lower cost makes this more attractive than the viaduct.
A113 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
In addition to dealing with the train, this option mostly eliminates the intersection with Alma for
cars, pedestrians and bicyclists. This may justify the increased costs relative the hybrid which is
the next best solution. Forcing bicyclists and pedestrians to cross the street twice in one direction
is less than desirable. Similarly, drivers will have to get used to the roundabout to make the
common left turn onto westbound Charleston.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 25
A114 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
Tunnel would have ongoing long term cost implications to maintain pumping stations at depth
below water table.
A115 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Closure With Mitigations Option 2 is the safest option for high school students, other pedestrians
and bike riders. It's a safer, more direct connection (than Option 1) to Walter Hays for elementary
school kids in Southgate. It's a safer more direct connection for pedestrians to get to and from
Stanford events like football games. It improves access to El Camino for Southgate residents. It
reduces traffic in Southgate. It's the least disruptive construction project. It's 1/3 the cost of the
next most expensive alternative.
A116 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Lane closures on both Alma and Charleston have impact on neighborhood costs during
construction. Lowering the roadways introduce significant safety challenges to pedestrians and
cyclists during construction. Dirt, noise and vehicle crashes are serious concerns. West side
neighbors are not well protected from train noise.
A117 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
This is the only alternative that would improve "Connecting Palo Alto" by providing the possibility
for adding additional crossings between streets on the east and west sides of the tracks. Also, the
land under the tracks could be used for bike & ped paths and mini-parks. I wish we could rank our
preferred alternatives, and not just mark all as "Good" "OK" or "Bad". The only reason it is not my
first choice is that I feel that people who live on Park Blvd. would be opposed to it on "Aesthetic"
grounds. I live close to the tracks and would not object to this alternative on "Aesthetic" grounds.
A118 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Q: Would it be possible to select Hybrid for Meadow crossing and Underpass for Charleston?
Comment: PROs for Hybrid alternative: 1) all turning movements are permitted. Therefore traffic
not driven into the neighborhood streets. 2) I think there are not very many property acquisitions
compared to the Underpass alternative. CON: Bike and ped traffic not separated from car traffic
(Safety criteria)
A119 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
This is not a good option as it seems to 'disconnect' palo alto rather than connect it as it does not
allow all turning options at the meadow-alma intersection. This leads to increased waste of time
and fuel for neighborhood errands that may need use of a car. Also the bike/ped paths seem
rather convoluted and grade intensive. in addition, there are property acquisitions in this option
which i am not in favor of.
A120 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
PROS: 1) Bike and ped traffic separated from car traffic (Safety criteria) 2) Traffic going straight
across Meadow or Charleston does not have to stop at traffic light. CONS: 1) On Meadow there 2
turning movements not permitted, thereby driving traffic into neighborhood streets. 2) On
Charleston 2 turning movements involve driving down to roundabout on E. Charleston and back to
Alma. This will be confusing for drivers who don't drive in this area frequently. 3) On Charleston
and Meadow there are several property acquisitions. 4) Significantly more costly than the Hybrid
alternative.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 26
A121 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
no construction time line given same with option 1
A122 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
the budget is unrealistic and have huge overruns for money and time. plus were are the pumps to
be placed for the times the underpass floods.
A123 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Would prefer the viaduct alternative to this hybrid alternative. If the tracks are to be raised anyway,
a few more feet won't really make a difference -- specially if it can keep the roads at grade level
making it safer to drive (line of sight), easier to bike and bike, thus keeping Palo Alto a connected
bike/ped friendly city.
A124 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Meadow and Charleston should not be forced to have the same solution. I wanted to see the new
underpass with roundabout option
A125 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Low cost, low property acquisition, better bike and ped. crossing than underpass.
A126 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Fair on cost and aesthetics but good for bike and ped. flow with few property acquisitions.
A127 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Underpass has bad property acquisition impacts, high cost and appears to block E-W crossings at
BOTH intersections during construction which will force all Gunn High bikes to go through Cal Ave.
tunnel or over San Antonio overpass?
A128 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
While low cost and with low property impacts, closure with option 2 is less safe for bike/ped
crossing than option 1.
A129 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
This design is the only one that is friendly for pedestrians and cyclists, which should be the main
modes of transport moving through this area and to PALY.
A130 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
This doesn't interrupt traffic flow and it would be great to have a protected intersection at Alma.
A131 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Cheapest, visually most satisfactory and least disruptive, construction less disruptive, and no
private property acquisition.
A132 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
no trees between Alma and trains is a problem, also it's more expensive than Hybrid.
A133 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Can Caltrian just say no to this option due to the 1.4% grade?
A134 Alternative Churchill Viaduct The Viaduct would leave large sheltered areas that could attract encampments and be a target of
graffiti and other undesirable behavior.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 27
A135 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
No more backups on Alma. But will increase local commute traffic as a result
A136 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
The viaduct option is awful, industrial, ugly, and will completely separate the east and west sides of
the city. Palo Alto already has one big divider: Oregon Expressway carved the city into North and
South. Please don't make this mistake again by building a viaduct and completely siloing South
West Palo Alto.
A137 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
I like this option the best because the train is not much elevated.
A138 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
I like this but the financial cost is too high.
A139 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
I don't understand this one, because we'd pay the huge cost of a tunnel and still have the
inconvenience of an at-grade crossing.
A140 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
I like this one but have concerns about the bike/ped access. Also have concerns about the
roundabout, because of the high volume of cars it must handle.
A141 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
This should by far be the preferred option to maintain the integrity and the connectivity of this city
A142 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
THis is my second option in case the train underground is not an option. The most important thing
is to not affect the road, sidewalks, and bike lanes. If the trench is not an option, this is the best
one remaining since roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes are not affected
A143 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
I do not like this alternative since it changes the slope of the roads
A144 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
This seems to be the WORST option. It isolates neighborhoods, decreases access and
connectivity, and necessitates property acquisition, which I cannot support. It will also funnel more
cars into neighborhood and residential streets, which is unacceptable. There is absolutely no
reason why this option should be considered. Price should be a minimal factor here, since this
decision will affect this city and its neighbors for years and years to come. I implore everyone to
carefully consider the shortcomings of this option and to not take the "cheap" way out.
A145 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
What would the pump station look like and will there by noise?
A146 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
From a property owner on Park Blvd, this hybrid seems to be worse than the Viaduct. Solid wall
instead of seeing through it and much closer to our property.
A147 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Best alternative. preserves neighbourhood
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 28
A148 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Next best alternative to tunnel. Preserves neighbourhood aesthetics.
A149 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Bad aesthetics but preferable to hybrid and underpass. Noise is also problematic for residents
along the tracks.
A150 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
The road has to dip under the tracks which causes multiple issues such as problems for bikes and
pedestrians, pooling of rain water and breaking up the neighbourhood feel.
A151 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Bad, Bad, Bad. Bad option all around. Property acquisitions are unfair. Pedestrian and bikes will
have a hard time navigating. Leads to elimination of certain turns onto Alma and hence more traffic
through residential neighborhoods.
A152 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
This alternative puts trains/walls right next to the property owners back fence with significant
prominence of the train -- impeding privacy / positive home ownership
A153 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
I am hearing this is not a viable alternative under consideration; and voting for this alternative is
wasting your vote -- as won't have impact on the viable alternatives selection.
A154 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Though other options are more attractive and minimize disruptions to traffic, the cost-effectiveness
of this option is hard to beat. Longer, straight ramp allows good bike ped transportation. My main
concern here is just how bad traffic congestion could get at Embarcadero/Alma/El Camino.
A155 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
This option seems to "split the baby".
A156 Alternative Churchill Viaduct In a perfect world without budget constraints, i would pick this one. Looks good, minimal impact to
traffic flow. But the cost is huge and 2 years of construction is daunting.
A157 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Seems to be a good compromise option.
A158 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
The tunnel is an investment for many decades to come, the return on the investment in terms of
higher property value and lowered stress on the citizens will repay the higher up front cost over
time, likely not that much time.
A159 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Not as good as a tunnel, but still preferable to the other alternatives. Makes the city a better place
to be, provides long term improvement in property value (over lesser alternatives).
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 29
A160 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Don't do it. This exists up north, redwood city area. It's horrible! It divides the city beyond just
having tracks - it blocks the visual paths between city halves beyond just movement. It's a tall,
long, ugly, thick wall bisecting the city. Does nothing for noise (beyond the horns).
A161 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Don't do it. It's horrible! Does nothing for noise (beyond the horns). AND, it makes the traffic flow
completely ridiculous. A long term embarrassment, will depress property values for decades to
come. This is something VTA would do, and that is not a complement.
A162 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
Really? Keep both old and new tracks? Keep both the old and add new problems? Nuts. Who
thought of this? Send them to work for VTA.
A163 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Works good - this crossing is more problematic than beneficial, deserves to be closed. But, I don't
live in this neighborhood, so my point of view is as a commuter on Alma.
A164 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Best option if road closure is not an option.
A165 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Elevating the rail to stay within 1% grade forces significant roadway modifications and years long
disruptions. This is inferior to the Viaduct Option in my opinion. Insist on getting 1.4% grade for rail
pushed through. Regarding HSR speed of 110 mpg for diversion: just slow the HSR speed for
viaduct section!
A166 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
Devil in the details. Lift stations. Ultimate lane reductions on Alma. 2% grade for passenger rail.
Forget this idea!
A167 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
References to the Alameda Trench in So. Cal requires massive governmental coordination and
$$$.
A168 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
I prefer alternative 2 with the Churchill closure. It would be terrific to grade separate both the
railroad tracks and Alma for bikes an peds. Why not close Churchill on both sides, so traffic on
Churchill on both sides would be just for local block traffic, and bike/ped traffic going through.
A169 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
I love the complete grade separation for bikes/peds across Alma/Caltrain. I don't think the Churchill
/ Alma intersection needs to be maintained for autos. Why not just close the street at Alma, and
just a narrow lane and parking on the street, plus the underpass. If a traffic signal is needed, for
turns in and out of the neighborhood from Alma, why not use a different street? There are many
equally good choices, and some are a little wider. So keep the bike/ped underpass at Churchill,
and move the cars to Embarcadero and a wider neighborhood street.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 30
A170 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
* Was the cost of property seizure included in the cost estimate for the underpass option. If not
why not. If so, what prices were used for all the full and partial property seizures. What is the
estimated reimbursement for decreased property values due to increased noise and traffic. * What
will be done to better align the underpass option with the Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard project -
especially concerning bike traffic on Park and Wilkie Way? * The underpass option at both
Meadow and Charleston moves existing traffic flow from Alma onto neighborhood streets. This is
unacceptable. For Charleston this is in conflict with the recently completed Charleston/Arastradero
Corridor project which improves safety for pedestrians and cyclists. * Early on in the grade
separation process there was an uproar about property seizures in North Palo Alto, and options
requiring seizure were dropped. The underpass is a recent addition to options for
Meadow/Charleston. Was there a conscious decision to allow new options that have property
seizures in South Palo Alto?
A171 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Although more expensive, this option will provide safe pedestrian/bicycle flow, safe traffic flow, less
noise, no property acquisition, no need to close Meadow/Charleston for years, fewer surfaces
attracting graffiti
A172 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
the most ridiculous proposal for $1.75B we could have a solution that keep the car, bike and
pedestrian traffic the same. Where is the improvement.
A173 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Eminent domain will cost time & $(law suits). Beyond the taking of personal property why do we
find it acceptable to dig concrete canyons in a residential areas. These canyon are going to take
more time and money than $400 M. As with the tunnel and trench a lot of excavation is required
plus closures of Alma and perhaps shoo-fly rails installed until the rail bridge is installed.
A174 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Where would Alma traffic go?
A175 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
privacy at backyard
A176 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
access from Park Ave to both Charleston and Meadow will be eliminated
A177 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
Freight trains at night are VERY NOISY. People living near the tracks may have trouble sleeping
though the noise. How often would freight trains run at night?
A178 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
How much would property acquisition cost? How many properties?
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 31
A179 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
This could be Palo Alto's big dig. For $1.8B we can have a never ending construction congestion
with shoo-fly tracks blocking Alma for many years. The freight trains are diesel so their exhaust will
concentrate and have to be vented somewhere by someone’s back yard or venting fans add so the
fumes well come out at the tunnels openings. Then there is water proofing and pumps for drainage
and safety evacuation routs. Then the big truck logistics moving through residential streets for the
excavated spoils and precast concrete tunnel sections. All this with no improvement to pedestrian,
bike or car suface traffic.
A180 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
Clearly the viaduct has high visual impact. However, the fact that it can be built in a much shorter
time period with no taking of homes offsets that. Raising the tracks above grade provides an
opportunity for use of the land at ground level (perhaps even neighborhood serving commercial
space). This alternative has fewer drawbacks than the others; I give great weight to "Construction
Duration & Disruptions".
A181 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Clearly, this is the lowest cost alternative, which does make it attractive; the visual impact is high,
which offsets that advantage. In contrast to the Viaduct, which it resembles in some ways, this
does impact existing homes and it has more impact upon cyclists and pedestrians. It does not
provide any way to use the space beneath the tracks due to the berm (unlike the Viaduct). The
construction disruption & duration is higher than the Viaduct, influencing my rating.
A182 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
This alternative appears to have been designed with disregard to Complete Streets principles
(Comp Plan Policy T-2.4). The movements required of of bicyclists and pedestrians are at times
convoluted and potentially unsafe. The design almost certainly will affect existing bicycle boulevard
traffic on Wilkie Way with no mitigation mentioned. The fact that it involves property takings should
disqualify it--if that was disallowed at Churchill, why would it be considered here?
A183 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Even though the hybrid is a good idea its supporters will have to overcome the no rising of the train
an inch crowd. Raising the train is an aesthetic no-no to many in Palo Alt all though there are some
obvious advantages to raising the tracks. The construction logistics would not be as disruptive as
tunnel or trench. But the surface traffic of foot, bike and car would be close to unchanged. I must
point out that the trains bridge and rams must have sound deadening components designed in
from the start of planning.
A184 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
insure good connection to park/castellija bike route and bike path along PALY
A185 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
I wish a rough timeline for each phase of construction was also included in these videos!
A186 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Any complete closure of Churchill will divert traffic to Embarcadero, which will only exacerbate the
existing traffic problems.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 32
A187 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Any complete closure of Churchill will divert traffic to Embarcadero, which will only exacerbate the
existing traffic problems.
A188 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
I am strongly against closing Churchill, and I think this would be the best was to retain access for
all modes of transport. I am especially concerned about emergency access to Southgate and Paly,
and the ability to head east on Churchill in case of emergency evacuation.
A189 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
While this will involve quite a bit of disruption during construction, it would at least maintain the
ability for traffic to both east and west across Alma case of emergency (and also to alleviate traffic
congestion at Embarcadero & Page Mill). However, in this case I think it would be preferable to do
the bike/ped underpass at Seale rather than Kellogg in order to avoid congestion with Castilleja
school traffic.
A190 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Although not ideal—it will still divert *some* traffic to Embarcadero—this is the best compromise
solution. We retain some through-traffic flow and reign in the cost.
A191 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
I am strongly against closing Churchill because of concerns about emergency access as well as
traffic congestion at Embarcadero & Page Mill. However, if it does come to that, Option 1 would be
preferable to Option 2 because it's less disruptive to both sides of Churchill.
A192 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Any viaduct will be a blight, creating a visual divide to our city.
A193 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Although a noble idea, the cost is just too prohibitive and cannot be justified.
A194 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
The cost is just too prohibitive and cannot be justified.
A195 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Any raising of the tracks will be a blight, creating a visual divide to our city.
A196 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Would it be possible to convert part of the shoofly/temporary rail into some form of bike path or
walkway? Would be nice to have an extension of the existing Alma bikeway (Downtown to
Churchill) to Mitchell Park. Unfortunately, this alternative is also relatively expensive and may be
prone to flooding.
A197 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Would be nice if the land under the viaduct could be used for recreation or other uses (perhaps
retail). Also need to ensure seismic and soil stability so as not to accidentally split the area if a big
earthquake occurs.
A198 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Question of whether Alma traffic is prioritized during road closures, or Charleston/Meadow. Would
like to have multi-use of new structures, perhaps for decorative/art purposes. Unlike the viaduct,
it's a bit harder to create new paths.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 33
A199 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Will need to see if it's possible to develop anything on the at-grade ROW. Otherwise, this
alternative seems unnecessarily intrusive on Alma and complicated to do.
A200 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
While it may provide redundancy, this alternative seems to be doubling the amount of work needed
to solve a problem only found on the Caltrain side. It doesn't eliminate the noise at night, and it
doesn't otherwise improve anything else from as-is.
A201 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Really changes the traffic flow quite a bit, which may get complicated depending on how property
acquisition goes. Also don't particularly like the 180 bike turn needed to go north on Charleston, as
well as other oddities bikers would need to acclimate to.
A202 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Question of what greenspace is going to exist on the South Churchill segment (e.g. maintenance,
water usage, etc.) What kind of safety measures does the underpass to reduce collisions and
accidents.
A203 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Needs some protocol to prevent right-of-way disputes on north Churchill segment. The 180 turn
required to go back to Alma are not very good to bikers.
A204 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Seems intrusive and a bit hard to integrate the underways of viaducts into viable
pathways/openspace.
A205 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Similar to Option 2, has this weird rise-up for pedestrians/bike riders that requires sharp turns.
A206 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
bike/ped crossing is too narrow, has 2 90 degree turns, not big enough for bicycle to/from school.
"long way around" for cars to get to Paly. Also, why close Churchill at all? Why not leave as is?
A207 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Better than option 1. But still, bike/ped crossing is too narrow, not big enough for bicycle to/from
school. Should separate peds from bikes. "long way around" for cars to get to Paly. Also, why
close Churchill at all? Why not leave as is?
A208 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Leaves churchill open, a good thing i believe. am still concerned about the width of the tunnel to
handle both bikes and peds at the same time. kids are going to ride. peds are going to be angry.
make it wider and separate ped area.
A209 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
Why can't viaduct be built in vegetation area between tracks and alma? eliminate shoefly tracks.
narrow alma during construction. when complete, put vegetation where tracks are now. or put 2
lanes of alma on each side of viaduct and put vegetation on both sides of viaduct.
A210 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
It removes connectivity between east and west and therefore violates the Comprehensive Plan
A211 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
This is too complex a project, touches too much of all possible items, and to what end? Not raising
the tracks is the only + that I see. Charleston, a major x-street has weird flow and Meadow does
not have full flow. I dont see this worth it.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 34
A212 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
It cuts off connectivity between East and West and therefore violates the Comrehensive Plan
A213 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
This does not require shoefly tracks. It does not disrupt flow and either intersection. As long as
there is LOTS of open space under the elevated roadway and appropriately landscaped, then I like
this one. (I need to find a list of costs for each option)
A214 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Considering the options eliminated and those still being considered this partial underpass
maintains some connectivity between East and West. It makes too many compromises to avoid
any property acquisitions. The hybrid option was eliminated too early and before it could be
studied and compared with other options.
A215 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
this is maybe the best of the bad. At least with the viaduct there is open space at ground level. the
hybrid has a stark visual barrier, as well as the construction time/cost for lowering the intersections
A216 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
a nice idea, but i think impractical
A217 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Look is clean and welcoming. Suggest a different style of piers supporting the viaduct, ones that
would allow north-south access for bicycles and pedestrians, such as arc-shaped. Redwood trees
along backyards would grow quickly and provide beautiful screen.
A218 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
This is the best alternative with the least negative impact on the Southgate neighborhood. To close
Churchill would isolate our neighborhood from the rest of Palo Alto, decreasing the value of our
homes, making it more difficult to get to downtown, and making it more difficult for police, fire, and
ambulance services to get to our neighborhood in an emergency.
A219 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Closing Churchill is a terrible idea. To close Churchill would isolate our Southgate neighborhood
from the rest of Palo Alto, decreasing the value of our homes, making it more difficult and time
consuming to get to downtown, and making it more difficult for police, fire, and ambulance services
to get to our neighborhood in an emergency. Today, it takes me 5 minutes to get to the hardware
store on Alma. If Churchill were closed, I would have to go to El Camino to Embarcadero, to
KIngsley, to Alma. I clocked that at 18 minutes. And that's reduced covid traffic and without the
increased congestion due to closing Churchill. Closing Churchill before you determine a solution
for the Palo Alto Ave. crossing makes no sense to me. They probably deserve the same solution.
One solution might be to leave both intersections open but computerize the traffic lights and
coordinate the lights with the trains. Even with a tremendous increase in train traffic, there is still
plenty of time between trains, even during rush hours for Churchill (and Palo Alto Ave) traffic to
cross the tracks, albeit with an occasional longer-than-usual wait. And for non-rush hours, it would
be no worse than rush hour today. Well, even better because of the computerized traffic controls.
The best of the ideas you are considering is the partial underpass.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 35
A220 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
This option doesn't take into account the incredibly bad backup associated with turning left onto
Churchill on NB Alma. This traffic will now be required to turn right onto Kingsley, then left onto
Embarcardero, then get added to the terrible backup of lights at Paly and Town & Country.
Whoever came up with this idea clearly hasn't sat in everyday school and start-of-Stanford-hospital
morning and afternoon traffic.
A221 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
This option also doesn't take into account the incredibly bad backup currently associated with
turning left onto Churchill from NB Alma. This traffic will now be required to turn right onto
Kingsley, then left onto Embarcardero, then get added to the terrible backup of lights at Paly and
Town & Country. Whoever came up with this idea clearly hasn't sat in everyday school and start-
of-Stanford-hospital morning and afternoon traffic.
A222 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
This alternative allows Churchill to keep flowing, which is good, but will amplify the noise of the
trains greatly, which is bad. What about putting up a viaduct that's enclosed, so the noise is held
inside?
A223 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Closing Churchill is very myopic and will greatly increase traffic flow on alternate roads. And ruin
commute. The alternative of opening roads which are currently blocked off in Southgate area, goes
against all design principles of creating bike pathways and keeping traffic out of neighborhoods.
Please plan for the future and not myopically think of the now. The current proposals are NOT
what the majority want (as can be seen in Southgate survey). Please listen and vote what your
majority population has asked for ...
A224 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
This alternative will drive traffic into other parts of Palo Alto including Professorville. Traffic will
become completely backed up on Embarcadero Rd. as Stanford and Stanford hospital workers try
to get to campus. And Southgate residents will not be able to access Alma St. which is a main
thoroughfare to downtown and South Palo Alto.
A225 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
This alternative will drive traffic into other parts of Palo Alto including Professorville. Traffic will
become completely backed up on Embarcadero Rd. as Stanford and Stanford hospital workers try
to get to campus. And Southgate residents will not be able to access Alma St. which is a main
thoroughfare to downtown and South Palo Alto.
A226 Alternative Churchill Viaduct This is a costly, ugly alternative.
A227 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Any road closures have to be equitable to other neighborhoods.
A228 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
I think people will get used to the look. Good combination of minimal construction and
maintenance impacts with middling cost.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 36
A229 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
I strongly suspect that the likely outcome of closing Churchill is to cleave off Southgate and
Evergreen Park from the core of Palo Alto. They become disconnected sub-scale micro
neighborhoods with no clear association to the rest of the city. Not part of Stanford, not really Palo
Alto ... more realistically, just awkward spaces between El Camino and the train tracks. Yes, there
are tradeoffs to every option -- and I recognize that no perfect option exists. If Churchill closes,
Southgate residents may enjoy less traffic and even less train noise. Unfortunately (and much
more important to our family), we likely give up many of the connections to and associations with
downtown, Professorville, and especially Old Palo Alto that prompted us to move into this cool
neighborhood a decade ago. I foresee a withering and likely blighting of our area, when the city's
objective should have been to build vitality and connectivity.
A230 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Closing churchill would be bad for traffic around the city.
A231 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Closing churchill would be bad for traffic around the city.
A232 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
I am a doctor living in Southgate, and on weekends I am periodically on call for PAMF patients
who get admitted from the ER to El Camino Hospital. On occasions where there is some urgency,
minutes can count. I have compared my present travel route across the Churchill intersection vs
traveling through multiple stoplights on El Camino to Oregon, and closure would cause a
significant delay in my ability to get to the ER as expeditiously as possible. Some supporters of
closure like to refer to the delayed transit time as an 'inconvenience', but it can be much more than
that. For the sake of the entire Palo Alto community, please do not close this very important
intersection.
A233 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
This option is great since we retain the existing benefits of Churchill while also going forward with
this project.
A234 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Closing a main East west through fare affect a lot of people in addition to locking up the residents
of Southgate the mitigation for the two options can not solve the traffic problem.
A235 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Residents of Southgate will be boxed in. It will also make El Camino and Oregon Express lot more
congested.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 37
A236 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
The traffic study shows problems at 2 major intersections associated with closure AND mitigations
(El Camino and Oregon as well as El Camino and Embarcadero), and it only looks out 9 years
(with a projection of 5% growth). Please take a longer-term perspective and model modest
expectations for growth over the next 30-40 years. How do the current mitigations hold up in those
scenarios? Making this choice without considering longer term projections places the entire
community at risk. More cars sitting in traffic on El Camino, Embarcadero, and Oregon would be
very negative from multiple perspectives. If the XCAP chooses this option, it will be a choice
influenced by bias of it's composition (including members who been transparent about having a
narrow view of their role by representing specific streets/blocks) rather than a longer term view
regarding the longevity and quality of life for the entire community. Please do not place our
community at risk by choosing this option without modeling for the long term anticipated growth.
XCAP should have asked for it, but City Council needs to. Palo Alto can do better!
A237 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
There is no perfect alternative, but this one has the most promise in terms of mitigating the issues
of concern in the other alternatives, especially complete closure to vehicular traffic. It can likely be
optimized from an aesthetics standpoint, and of course a goal would be to minimize any property
impacts. Further resource is required to understand how to best mitigate these potential issues,
but that would be money well spent, particularly in light of the long term risks of closure.
A238 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
Although this has not been a popular option (and certainly has impact on properties on Mariposa),
it is also probably the least well understood. Contrary to popular belief, it is felt to be the least noisy
by the noise consultants, which is counterintuitive to almost everyone. As a result, very few people
understand it, and XCAP chose not to highlight that impression of the consultants. Some effective
education around that issue could be helpful if there is more momentum around this alternative at
some point. The second important way to build more support would be to bring forward some
renderings designed help to address concerns many have about aesthetics. If it could be done in
an aesthetically pleasing manner, it has the most potential to provide an integrated solution
including Palo Alto Avenue, and also offers the possibility of an efficient bike transit route through
the center of the city from north to south. To be fair, significant consideration should be given to
the Mariposa Avenue properties which back up to the tracks; there would be some property
impacts; lets treat those neighbors as we would wish to be treated ourselves.
A239 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Just leave it as it is. Stop doing this unnecessary construction.
A240 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
I live on Ventura Avenue and my concerns are for impact of the Ventura neighborhood and my
neighbors who border the tracks. This one seems to work and so does the Viaduct option.
A241 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
The trench is one of two options which meet the needs of all those impacted: commuters and
residents.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 38
A242 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
This is one of two options which maintains the neighborhoods connecting while eliminating
eminent domain.
A243 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
This alternative is the most disruptive for the neighbors and the character of the neighborhoods on
both sides of Alma.
A244 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
The Viaduct is the very best alternative that you have given us for our neighborhood. It doesn't
take away property or have much impact on anything. I hope you can find a way to make trains
less noisy for the properties that border the tracks and please make sure the structures are
earthquake proof.
A245 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
I'm concerned about disrupting the flow of the creeks. I live on Louis in the flood plain and worry
that if pumps fail that we could be causing a serious flood risk.
A246 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Too costly, too disruptive, too long to construct.
A247 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
This is a nice option, aesthetically pleasing, streamlined. There's an openness to it that I like.
A248 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
This is my second favorite alternative (the viaduct is #1). But this is a fine alternative in its own
right.
A249 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Don't like the end product, the ugliest of the grade separations, reminds me of the Oregon
Expwy/Alma underpass (not a good thing). A very cold, harsh looking design.
A250 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Of the Churchill closure options, option 2, with the bike/ped under both alma and tracks, and being
straight is the best. vs option 1 has awkward/dangerous 180 degree turns and doesn't even cross
Alma. Also, I would recommend option 1 bike/ped under-crossing to be wider, like that shown at
San Antonio, so it is safer for bikes and peds to share the space, even if it means closing Churchill
at Alma in one or both directions. In fact, closing Churchill at Alma into a culdersac with the tunnel
entrance at the end would make the entrance/egress safer than the tunnel emerging into the
middle of a thoroughfare. There are no driveways on Churchill at Alma, the two corner houses
have driveways on Alma.
A251 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
While the end result would be nice, this alternative is too costly and it would be too disruptive while
being built and take too long to build.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 39
A252 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
option 1 is not so good. I rate it "bad" because if you're going to do an underpass for bike peds, do
it right, like option 2: cross both alma and tracks, and don't do these dangerous 180 degree hairpin
turns. Bikes and peds can't see around that corner, bikes will speed down and crash into people
coming around the corner, and it will become a bottleneck and source of complaints forever.
A253 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
My least favorite alternative. Very costly to build and not very pleasing end result. All the other
alternatives are better than this one.
A254 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
My favorite Churchill alternative. Despite its costs, this is the most aesthetically pleasing and when
completed with have the best traffic flow for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians.
A255 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
I think the Churchill Viaduct could be done without the shoo-fly track, like for Meadow/Charleston,
building the viaduct between the existing tracks and Alma. While the ROW is narrower there, it is
the same or greater than the ROW at Meadow North of the intersection. It appears to be about 15'
from. track centerline to edge of ROW on the Alma Side, and from the drawings it looks like the
Viaducts track centerline to its edge is about 12'. This would reduce construction cost and
disruption. It might require taking a little slice out of Alma, maybe, but even if so, it is a LOT less
disruptive than some of the other options like tunnel with Freight at grade, which requires
permanent narrowing of Alma at the tunnel bypasses. Still, this option is relatively expensive and I
am ok with closing the intersection, possibly OK with the option of trains at grade and Churchill
depressed.
A256 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
I'm okay with this alternative (though it's not my favorite).
A257 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
Tunnel with Freight at Grade: BAD: permanent disruption of Alma, disruption of creeks, loss of
trees, absurdly expensive, permanent issue of water drainage. bad bad bad
A258 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Don't like the bike and pedestrian flow of this proposal.
A259 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Tunnel with Freight and passengers: BAD: significant Alma disruption during construction,
disruption of creeks, loss of trees, absurdly expensive, permanent issue of water drainage. bad
bad bad
A260 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
This is the better closure option because of the better traffic flow for pedestrians and bicyclists and
also the much nicer aesthetics compared to the other Churchill closure proposal.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 40
A261 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Underpass at Meadow/Churchill: BAD: BAD for bikes, with wrong-way bike/ped access (for east-
bound both entering and exiting tunnel); BAD for bikes in 2-lane roundabout, very dangerous for
bikes. BAD for homes and yards, with Roundabout taking out two homes and several yards. BAD
disruption of bike flow on Park Blvd which is a main north-south route alternative to Alma and El
Camino Real. As expensive as the Viaduct but with virtually none of the benefits, traffic-flow wise.
Awkard turn movements for cars going through the roundabout instead of just turning left.
A262 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Viaduct is the best alternative for Charleston/Meadow. Minimal construction impacts. Tracks
alignment moved 60' from backyards of properties on Park. Tracks elevated but open underneath,
so it's not so imposing. LEAST vibration impacts. Less noise than current conditions. No loss of
trees. Grounds below tracks can be replanted with trees, not just small shrubs, so better screening
of noise and sights and smells of homes from Alma and tracks.
A263 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Trench at Meadow/Charleston: BAD: significant Alma disruption during construction, disruption of
creeks, loss of trees, absurdly expensive, permanent issue of water drainage. bad bad bad I
include loss of trees is permanent private property acquisition of the Right of Way under people's
yards. This will be a significant impact to homes, yards, and ecology. Also, the Trench has more
vibration than the Viaduct, because vibration travels on the surface, up the trench wall and across
the ground. VS Viaduct vibration is forced to travel to the pylons or feet or whatever you call them
which support the structure, so if you are closer to the pylon there is more vibration and if you are
between teh pylons there is least vibration. the path of travel even from nearest to the pylons is the
longest path and so it has less vibration than the trench. Also since the viaduct is farther away the
vibrations are furthe reduced. (At grade is the most vibration, berm second most, trench third, and
Viaduct fourth, tunnel least because the vibrations have to go through the ground and is not as
efficiently propagated. but tunnel and trench are too expensive.
A264 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Oops, I had a typo in my comments, i said option 1 tunnel should be wider, i meant option 2 tunnel.
fixing: Of the Churchill closure options, option 2, with the bike/ped under both alma and tracks, and
being straight is the best. vs option 1 has awkward/dangerous 180 degree turns and doesn't even
cross Alma. Also, I would recommend option 2 (_TWO_) bike/ped under-crossing to be wider, like
that shown at San Antonio, so it is safer for bikes and peds to share the space, even if it means
closing Churchill at Alma in one or both directions. In fact, closing Churchill at Alma into a cul-de-
sac with the tunnel entrance at the end would make the entrance/egress safer than the tunnel
emerging into the middle of a thoroughfare. There are no driveways on Churchill at Alma, the two
corner houses have driveways on Alma.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 41
A265 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The Churchill Partial Underpass is an interesting alternative, certainly better than absurdly
expensive tunnel or trench, and seemingly less expensive than Viaduct (though see my comments
on Churchill Viaduct suggesting the non-shoo-fly option). Some comments which I think would
improve this option: 1. Bike Ped tunnel should be at Peers Park instead of at Kellogg, because
there's already bike/ped crossing of Alma and tracks at Embarcadero which is just two blocks
away (and if you're going to Paly you have to go around up to Embarcadero or Churchill anyway,
unless they add an entrance to campus there). Whereas there is a proposal for a bike-ped
crossing of Alma into Peers Park in the City's Bike/Ped plan, this location is almost mid-way
between Cal Ave and Embarcadero, and if constructed well with enough clearance could be a
better crossing with fewer bike/ped conflicts than Cal Ave. Kids coming from the north would cross
at Embarcadero, those from the south at Peers park. 2. Kind of sucks for house on corner of
Mariposa and Churchill, looks like a slice of their side yard is trimmed off, but this does not seem
necessary: There is a wide 16' shoulder on the north side of the auto under-crossing, seems like
this could be made narrower, maybe also narrow the shoulder on the south side, and then you
don't have to encroach on the house's property. This option has partial property acquisitions, while
the Viaduct option has zero property acquisitions.
A266 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
While the Meadow/Charleston Hybrid is less expensive than the Viaduct, it is had twice the
construction time (4 years vs 2) than the viaduct, and is more impactful to the residents. While the
raised Viaduct's track is at 5' higher than the raised Hybrid's, the Viaduct is 60' further away from
the properties on Park, and from the perspective drawings we see that the Viaduct train is
perceived to be lower and farther, while the Hybrid is right there in your face. In addition the
Hybrid's wall will transmit more vibration to neighboring Properties than the Viaduct. both because
of its proximity and due to its geometry (see my comments on Viaduct for discussion of Vibration:
Viaduct has the least vibration, Hybrid has the second most vibration. Aesthetically, the Hybrid's
wall is solid block of the view, while in the perspective drawing we see that over the fence the
property owner can see trees below and through the underside of the open Viaduct underside. The
Viaduct structure has an open, airy feel, the Hybrid's wall is a solid imposing block. The difference
in height is only 5'.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 42
E001 Email Meadow Charleston
Underpass
I reviewed your analysis of the Charleston underpass option in your memo dated August 13, 2020
on the subject of "Churchill, Meadow and Charleston Grade Separation Traffic Analysis.” (i.e.
Figures 8A, 8B, and surrounding text and tables).
I would like to point out a probable flaw in the design of the underpass option pertaining to the
traffic circle on Charleston between Mumford and Wright. I realize that Hexagon did not design this
option, but I am wondering whether you took the information I outline below fully into account in
your analysis. I do not raise this issue to scuttle this option — I like this option, but if it is
implemented I want to make sure it is done properly.
Here is the design flaw: For westbound Charleston traffic approaching Alma, the number of cars
that want to turn left or right onto Alma is very likely during peak traffic hours to cause the line of
cars waiting at that traffic light on Alma to back up all the way to the traffic circle. This will in turn
cause all traffic on Charleston in both directions to come to a complete halt, negating the benefit of
running Charleston under the train tracks.
Obviously, you are running a sophisticated simulation of traffic, but simulations can sometimes not
take into account certain conditions, and it can be easy not to notice the omission, especially in a
complex simulation. Also, if you are performing averaging or sampling, those processes can miss
or underweight low-frequency, high-impact situations. It’s easy to imagine situations in which the
cycling of the light on Alma does not allow a blockage of the traffic circle to fully resolve, resulting
in prolonged gridlock that persists across many traffic light cycles.
I would appreciate your reviewing your simulations and analysis to ensure that the situation
described above is properly taken into account. I further suggest that you deliberately induce the
problem in your simulation environment (e.g. by increasing the % of traffic that wants to turn,
reducing the cycle time of the traffic light, and/or increasing distance between cars in the turn lane,
etc.) to see what happens as a diagnostic.
If this is indeed a serious problem with this option, it should be brought to the attention of the City
and the engineers, because it could be fixed if anticipated in advance and properly mitigated.
One solution would be to eliminate the traffic light on Alma so that this option becomes a true
constant flow design. One way to do this would be to
disallow left turns from westbound Charleston onto Alma. (This is reasonable because cars that
want to go in this direction can instead turn left on Middlefield then right on San Antonio.) The right
lane on northbound Alma could then be converted to an exit only lane onto eastbound Charleston.
Restricting the northbound Alma traffic to one lane is reasonable because there will no longer be a
traffic light. This change would create a protected right lane to allow westbound Charleston traffic
to turn right onto Alma without a traffic light.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 43
Another solution would be to install a sophisticated car detection system that looks not only at cars
stopped directly in front of the traffic light, but extends all the way back to the traffic circle and
beyond, to allow an intelligent controller to lengthen the green light on Alma as necessary to
prevent gridlock at the traffic circle.
A second potential issue is that without the traffic light gating eastbound traffic on Charleston
approaching Alma, eastbound traffic will instead pile up behind the light at Middlefield road and
extend all the way back to the traffic circle, which will then have a cascading effect as it blocks
traffic that wants to go northbound on Alma from Charleston. It’s not clear where the perimeter of
your analysis is located, and whether it would catch this impact.
Finally, while it was not part of your assignment, I wish that the City of Palo Alto had also asked
you evaluate the “do nothing” scenario (in terms of modifying the track/roads) with the addition of a
more intelligent traffic control system — whatever is the best system currently available. The
current traffic control algorithm is not very sophisticated, and it is clear that a better system with a
more sophisticated algorithm and more inputs (including visual sensors looking far down Alma and
Charleston in both directions, and knowledge of approaching trains with a much longer time
horizon) could improve traffic flow. By how much, though, would be interesting to know. If you
would care to comment on this possibility based on your knowledge and experience, then perhaps
that would provide some impetus to add that analysis to your contract with the City as a new
addendum.
Thank you for taking the time to read this long email, and thank you for your contribution to this
important discussion.
T001 Townhall
Feedback General No closure at Churchill is necessary. Save taxpayer funds.
T002 Townhall
Feedback General
This feedback widget is hopefully not the only way to respond. I would have expected that I could
virtually put a post-it note on any element of any of the alternatives. The first impression I have is
extremely discouraging.
T003 Townhall
Feedback General
Thank you for continuing progress during this time and I am very impressed with all the effort that
has gone into gathering adequate community feedback!
T004 Townhall
Feedback General when will a decision be made?
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 44
T005 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Partial
Underpass
Either a Churchill viaduct or partial underpass would destroy our neighborhood and family home of
40 years. Negative neighborhood impacts should be more prominently described in the slick
promotional renderings. The yearslong morass of the grade separation project leaves me
disillusioned about the future of Palo Alto.
T006 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
Projects that require shooflys and/or east west road closures and Alma lane reductions during
constructions are not desirable. Community disruption and safety during complex construction
stages have costs to be considered.
T007 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Why is viaduct even an option? It would be an eyesore and increase train noise, not to mention the
potential dangers to nearby homes in case of an earthquake.
The underpass is the only option that would be affordable, separates traffic on Alma, East
Meadow, and Charleston, and keeps the train at grade for noise and aesthetics, and provides a
separated bike and pedestrian underpass.
T008 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Trench
This is a decision for generations. Tax the residents and trench the whole length.
T009 Townhall
Feedback General Yes, I prefer that the City leave Churchill Avenue as it is.
T010 Townhall
Feedback General Yes, doing nothing with Churchill Avenue should be an alternative and that's the alternative I
prefer.
T011 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
We need to discuss the changes to the Embarcadero over crossing at Alma. Are you going to
modify Embarcadero going under Alma when you widen the bridge. The roadway has to be
deepened to accommodate the widened bridge above for proper clearance or just rebuild the
entire structure and then have 2 lanes both ways above and below.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 45
T012 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
1) The City should not invest in any grade separation alternative without first participating in and
awaiting the results of Caltrain's corridor-wide grade separation study. 2) I also feel that forcing a
choice among the existing alternatives in this survey misses the concerns of many affected by
changes at the crossings. Speaking specifically of Churchill, your survey doesn't capture the
widespread sentiment that, above all, Churchill should not be closed. Perhaps a better method
would be to allow participants to rank the options and provide space for comments afterwards. 3)
While CAP and XCAP members have worked hard to understand the implications and technical
constraints on the rail crossing alternatives, the composition of the group does not adequately
represent the perspectives and concerns of residents. Arguably, at least two of the members
(member Cho and member Shen) are hampered in their ability to represent the greater good -- or
even their own neighborhoods -- by the very close proximity of their homes to the crossing and the
resulting direct effects of the alternatives on their property values. It's important to hear their
voices, but it would be better if we also heard the voices of those who have different, perhaps
broader concerns.
T013 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Trench
Trench and tunnel options are unrealistic in every way possible and should be dropped.
T014 Townhall
Feedback General
Why is so much time and money being wasted on options that will never command enough
funding? No-one is going to spend $1Bn so let's not spend any money pretending.
T015 Townhall
Feedback General
The process has FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE POOR RIDERSHIP NOW EXISTING FOR
CalTrain and THE FUTURE OF THE RIDERSHIP. It is too early now to finalize crossings based
on poorly projected ridership.
T016 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Don’t think you can rule any option out at Churchill, with the exception of closure, without extensive
engineering analysis. Closure is a bad idea. It isolates Southgate from the rest of PA, limits
emergency vehicle access and residential emergency evacuation options. Please don’t let the
train tracks further divide PA
T017 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Why is it assumed that the Churchill Ave. crossing must close? I would vote to keep it open as is.
Has adequate study been done how what rerouting that traffic will impact other neighborhoods?
Have Stanford and PAUSD commented publicly on the proposed closure?
As to crossings at Meadow & Charleston, I support whichever option is most cost effective and
palatable to residents of those neighborhoods.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 46
T018 Townhall
Feedback Multiple Where are the costs and the construction timelines for the various alternatives, including how long
various roads would be closed.This is CRUCIAL information!!
T019 Townhall
Feedback Churchil Viaduct
viaduct makes the most sense and will not have as great an impact in neighboring streets. If not
the viaduct, I would like to have "leave it as is" considered.
T020 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
Why does the TDM work done by AECOM assume that hundreds of millions will be spent on car
infrastructure, but no similar investment might be made to reduce the vehicle intensity of Palo
Alto? Even the "mitigations" scenario is quite light and is focused on just the intersection at
Churchill, rather than applied in a most holistic sense. If Palo Alto invested $500MM to promote
active transportation, as an example, it might end up with much better QoS / LoS than are shown
in these scenarios.
The flawed assumptions of the underlying traffic model are based in a worldview which suggests
that our community should (to a certain extent) significantly promote vehicle access for east/west
movement. This seems like a false choice. Instead, we could emphasize, incent, and create an
environment where much cheaper options (for pedestrians and cyclists) are facilitated. This would
lessen the load on existing separated grade crossings.
Ultimately, my recommendation as a resident is to pursue the lowest cost, least-significant
interventions but to hugely increase the funding required for true transformational change in
transportation in our community. If we are to do anything about climate change, not to mention
equitable access to all in our community, we must accelerate the adoption of transit and non-
private-vehicle modes in our community. We must make it easier for those who do not live here to
commute here, easier for those who live here to live without a car, and easier for those who want
to live here to actually do so. These steps are not without sacrifice: we must give up things that
can be held dear, like the presumption that automobile LoS should be the deciding factor for $1B+
of potential infrastructure allocation.
I do not care if these intersections, however re-graded, receive an "F" LoS score for cars if it
means that more *people* can move through the city, more cleanly and more equitably. This is not
what the current analysis optimizes, but it is what the council must take into consideration if it is to
meet the obligations that it - and the community - have set for ourselves as stewards of both our
neighborhoods, our planet, and our consciences.
If the council *Does* proceed with any of these car-oriented options -- especially the more
expensive ones -- I earnestly hope it will tie these to creative financing options that force people to
pay for the cost of their externalities. If it is critical to residents that they be able to drive huge
vehicles anywhere they want (putting pedestrians and cyclists and kids at risk) then they should be
willing to pay a significant amount to do so, so that the cost oft the negative externalities they
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 47
create can be recaptured and reinvested.
Once modeled, this might prove that no intervention is needed, actually -- $5 tolls to cross the
tracks may reduce those queueing times significantly. Variably price all the rail crossings in order
to balance supply/demand and add a low-income exemption. Put the proceeds in a fund that is
designed to reduce VMT and finally advance the Grand Boulevard project for El Camino. Voila --
problem solved!
T021 Townhall
Feedback General
How have the pandemic's economic/social consequences impacted the city/council's decision-
making process with regard to the rail crossing agenda?
T022 Townhall
Feedback General CalTrain ridership is now low. It seems wise to delay making final decisions until ridership
increases again (if it does).
T023 Townhall
Feedback General
Please break up into two phases, first phase to plan and implement South Palo Alto grade
separation(s). That will leave time to do comprehensive North Palo Alto study that includes Palo
Alto Avenue to Churchill. In general, I prefer streets not be closed as the Comprehensive Plan
specifically calls for, but to preserve and improve a permeable grid-system across town including
the rail. We must NOT move towards a more "expressway" like network that crams more and
faster cars on a few streets that will divide the city, but a more walkable, bike-able grid that is
traffic-calmed and safe city-wide. I do support the idea of more bike/walk rail crossings at Kellogg
and/or Seale. Finally, the cost of any diversion of traffic to Embarcadero should include the cost of
any so-called "mitigation", e.g. the cost of any widening or re-building undercrossings, roads and
intersections. Closing Churchill is definitely not "low cost". Thank you.
T024 Townhall
Feedback General
Why isn't the option of "do nothing" at the Churchill crossing listed here? It is one of the options
and the obvious one to choose, given the paradigm shift to people working at home, drastic
reduction in train commuting and driving. It is senseless to spend money on grade separations,
spend millions, needless construction and noise and destroy the town.
T025 Townhall
Feedback General
Do NOT close Churchill. This "do nothing" option, isn't even listed. This is an example of
incomplete and inaccurate information which has plagued this process throughout. There was
never a robust, data driven approach. For example, the question of the closure of Palo Alto Ave.
was set aside and recommendations and decisions being made now will all be wrong. What a
huge waste of money and destruction of a town. We have experienced a major Phase Change, a
dramatic shift to people working at home, people fleeing the cities to the suburbs, distrust in mass
transit, etc. All of the metrics have changed. The grade separation project needs to be paused in
its entirety until rational decisions can be made based on the the data that emerges from these
changes.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 48
T026 Townhall
Feedback General
(1). "Do Nothing" should be an option given the plummeting Caltrain Ridership. (2). Embarcadero
will be unbearable and dangerous, taking the brunt if Churchill is closed. (3) PALY school kids
safety not been considered at the Embarcadero /Alma intersection
T027 Townhall
Feedback General
CalTrain ridership is now low. It seems wise to delay making final decisions until ridership
increases again (if it does).traffic patterns have changed significantly due to covid - and it seems
traffic will be reduced for the long term - and Caltrans ridership is low and so number of trains will
not increase - so Churchill should have no changes
T028 Townhall
Feedback Churchill Viaduct In viaduct alternative, have you looked at all on putting the viaduct in the middle of Alma?
T029 Townhall
Feedback General
The key is to keep Palo Alto connected. Closing a main thoroughfare in the middle of Palo Alto
breaks up the community and will have long lasting effects.
T030 Townhall
Feedback General
The grade separation issue was thoughtfully investigated between 2010 and 2013, and reported in
2013: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/38025 The city then ignored the
findings in that report. Many years and several million dollars later, the city rediscovered that we
have train tracks running through town and concluded, again, that something should be done.
What a waste of time, money and effort.
I think ranked voting for each option would be more helpful reaching a conclusion than pick just
one option.
I absolutely prefer the tunnel, or the trench. Keep the train out of sight and literally contained in it's
own corridor, with the possibility of a green belt above a tunnel. A brilliant long term option. I
realize that the cost of the tunnel and trench pretty much kills those options, barring the revelation
of a miraculous source of funding.
I think the citizen underpass options at each crossing not only separate road from rail, but also
largely separate Alma auto traffic from auto-bike-ped traffic on Charleston, Meadow and Churchill
much more effectively than the other options. This seems to be the best option to really reduce
traffic congestion on Alma and all cross streets, and provide dedicated pid-bike crossing at Alma.
Also, the underpass keeps the train at ground level, and hopefully reduces noise transmission.
T031 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
I would like more thought to be put into optimizing embarcadero/alma and oregon exp/alma
intersection. Those changes are essential whatever happens at Churchill and Meadow. Pour more
thought, creativity and resources into improving those intersections. Churchill needs to be closed,
and improving those intersections is what needs to be done.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 49
T032 Townhall
Feedback General
I'd like to see other community member's input on alternatives in a digital map so comments are
aligned with specific locations. I'd like to see staff replies to community questions also located on
the map.
T033 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
traffic, bike and pedestrian impact in neighborhoods if Churchill is closed.
T034 Townhall
Feedback General
The partial underpass at Churchill will NOT seamlessly connect east and west sides of Palo Alto:
from Southgate, cars can only turn left or right onto Alma, coming from east, only right turn. Since
access to Alma from El Camino will be easier, it will attract more non-neighborhood traffic, having
serious negative impacts DAILY to Churchill residents, and UNSAFE conditions for Paly students
crossing Churchill to and from Castilleja bike boulevard. High cost for questionable gain, also
taking private property and removing trees on Alma.
Churchill closure with mitigations will be best, and will fix the current unacceptable situation at
Embarcadero/Alma, have a direct bike/ped tunnel option under Alma, no private property taken,
causes minimal inconvenience (<5 mins) for cars going to eastern Palo Alto, does not isolate
Southgate any more than College Terrace or Evergreen Park, cars from east can turn both
directions onto Alma, okay with fire/police depts, 1/3 cost of partial underpass
T035 Townhall
Feedback General
I remain interested in 50-100 year planning and I don't think any of the alternatives support a long-
term vision. Long-term the train should be like a subway, underground and running every 15
minutes or less. I understand Palo Alto cannot undertake tunneling alone, and that this would take
coordination along the whole corridor and large scale funding, but I don't see Palo Alto doing
anything to create this kind of coordination. The more concrete structures we create, the harder it
is to undo any design to accommodate a long term solution in the future.
T036 Townhall
Feedback Traffic While Alma is temporarily changed to two-lanes as needed during construction, traffic will back up
in both directions. Signal timing will need to be adjusted accordingly.
T037 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
We live close to Alma on Santa Rita and worried that additional lights planned as "mitigation" will
be on Alma (at the cloverleafs where Oregon goes under Alma, and at the two ends of the bridge
over Embarcadero) will create additional congestion on Alma as well as the other roads.
T038 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
1) Is the "underpass" option the only one that allows through traffic on Charleston and East
Meadow to cross both the train tracks and Alma without stopping? It seems to me that not having
to stop at Alma would reduce overall traffic congestion far more than any of the other alternatives.
Have any studies been done to evaluate how each alternative would affect traffic congestion? 2)
How does Southbound traffic on Alma turn left onto East Meadow and Charleston? I wasn't clear
from the video. 3) What is the estimated cost of each of the alternatives?
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 50
T039 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Would construction at Churchill occur at the same time as work on Meadow/Charleston? This
needs to be in stages so South Palo Alto residents have a way to cross the tracks somewhere
during the long-term construction. Also, I would like to know how much each alternative would
cost, how long they would take to construct, and how construction would affect the homeowners
immediately next to the tracks. Would the city need to demolish any private property, or
compensate the owners? What is the long-term maintenance for buried services versus permanent
pumps for the creeks? Would underpasses lead to flooding? How would these new crossings
affect the suicide rates in our community? What is the likelihood of tent cities around the
underpasses?
T040 Townhall
Feedback General What do the different options cost? Duration of each project.
T041 Townhall
Feedback Multiple I am strongly against raising the rail tracks up. You are going to spoil all neighborhoods along the
rail tracks. A tunnel would be ideal, but if that doesn't fly, then the trench is the next best option.
T042 Townhall
Feedback General
This process has gone on far too long. There is sufficient information to make a tentative decision
right now. In any case, any decision will be impacted by the fall out from Covid 19. And, the City
Council must bring closure and not continue to let this process further dissolve to a contest
between neighbors and neighborhoods, Make the best decision on the available facts, not
emotions.
T043 Townhall
Feedback General
Question: 1) Is there a way that you could email me my own responses to "Feedback on the
individual Alternatives" and "Feedback on the Town Hall"? 2) If I think of something else I want to
add to feedback, is it possible to add another response from the same Name/Email Address?
COMMENTS on VR Town Hall: 1) Overall the Virtual Town Hall was a very effective way to share
a whole lot of detailed information, and to solicit community feedback on the alternatives. THANK
YOU! 2) When I'm in the middle of writing feedback, I wish there was a way to "Save and Return"
to where I left off. 3) The email notification about the Town Hall was only received two days before
the Churchill Q&A.
COMMENTS on Preferred Alternatives: 1) I think that asking me to select one choice for each
crossing location is too restrictive to be informative on this complex decision. I think it would be
more helpful to be able to supply my 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences-- particularly for the Meadow &
Charleston crossings. 2) I checked the box "YES--Has there has been enough analysis?" for
XCAP and the City Council to decide on which alternatives to proceed on. However, I think more
design work needs to be done on the Churchill Partial Underpass option -- and that should be
taken into account in the decision.
T044 Townhall
Feedback General Minimize disruption and taking of private property is important. Timeline and cost are very
important. Aesthetics matter.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 51
T045 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Two years disruption versus the much longer alternatives that mess with the creeks make the
viaducts a much more desired alternative to me.
T046 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
The following questions deal with the Meadow/Charleston Underpass option
* Have you notified property owners about seizures of their property slated for the
Meadow/Charleston Underpass option? If not why not.
* Currently there is a 17 foot wide buffer (parking strip/planting strip) between the sidewalk and
Alma along Alma from Ely Place to farther north. Will this buffer continue to exist? It is an important
safety feature needed for pedestrians walking along Alma at all times but especially in the winter
when it is dark due to shorter days. This route is well used, for example by students traveling
to/from Gunn, workers traveling to/from the San Antonio caltrain station, access to the three places
of worship along Alma, etc. If this buffer is removed an additional concern is increased noise and
pollution for residents with backyards next to Alma.
* Currently there is a 8 foot wide buffer (parking strip/planting strip) between the sidewalk and
Charleston along Charleston from Alma to farther east. Will this buffer continue to exists? It is an
important safety feature needed for pedestrians walking along Charleston at all times but
especially in the winter when it is dark due to shorter days. If this buffer is removed an additional
concern is increased noise and pollution for residents with front yards/backyards next to
Charleston.
* Currently there is a bike lane along the south side of Charleston from Alma to farther east. Will
this bike lane continue to exist? It is needed for cyclists starting out from a home on the south side
of Charleston and needing to travel east (e.g. to go to Peets or Piazza's or farther east).
* What are the specific plans for traffic detours needed when Meadow and Charleston are closed
for years? Children need to get to/from school
* At one of the XCAP meetings I attended a speaker indicated he "was not a roundabout expert".
Have you hired an expert in roundabouts to make sure this design will accomplish the objectives.
* A diagram in the fact sheet shows a crosswalk at the south east corner of Charleston/Alma.
Please note that crossing will be needed early in the morning or in the evening when it is dark as
well as during daylight hours. Will this crosswalk be protected by a traffic signal? Also in that
diagram it shows a walking path on the overpass right next to the traffic on Alma - that looks
dangerous.
* A diagram in the fact sheet shows crosswalks to the west and to the east of the roundabout.
Please note that crossing will be needed early in the morning or in the evening when it is dark as
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 52
well as during daylight hours. What measures are planned to ensure pedestrians/cyclists can cross
safely?
* Overall I feel that the underpass option discourages walking or biking eastbound or westbound
along Charleston or Meadow. The fact sheet indicates "Pedestrians and cyclists traveling
east/west will have more circuitous routes". I suggest you add that these routes are confusing and
dangerous - especially for children. A 4-5% grade will cause issues for children on bikes. Also
problematic are the ramps - steep with sharp turns.
T047 Townhall
Feedback General How can I get a copy of the survey I submitted previously?
T048 Townhall
Feedback General No.
T049 Townhall
Feedback General
1) Please put emphasis on voice of close by/impacted property owners
2) you need to seriously consider keeping all crossing opens and build pedestrian and bike
underpasses along w improving the timing of traffic lights. This should achieve the benefits stated
in the city council criteria for a much lower cost. You have the option of also eliminating left turns
onto Alma (completely or during peak hours). I urge you to seriously consider this- especially as it
is not clear whether/when Caltrain ridership will return to pre- Covid levels and funding is less
certain
T050 Townhall
Feedback General
It doesn't feel like cyclists and pedestrians have been seriously considered, much less prioritized,
in these designs. Having followed these designs through several iterations, I'm disappointed that
the infrastructure design consultants haven't addressed the detailed, thoughtful feedback that has
been provided via PABAC and XCAP.
And, while I appreciate the effort to communicate the options and information about this project
through a virtual town hall format, I question if this could have been mapped out more clearly and
simply. Considering you'll have constituents of varying tech fluency and levels of knowledge about
this project, the layout feels scattered and time consuming to navigate. I would suggest some user
testing prior to rolling out new formats like this to ensure a smoother experience for all.
T051 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
I would rather have the HSR killed completely than go through all of this. It's important to keep 4
lanes of car traffic on ALMA at the end of this. With all of the traffic calming and bike project being
put in. drivers are getting screwed. Car traffic is not evil.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 53
T052 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Underpass
We live within 100 yards of the Alma/Meadow intersection. The elevated options for
Meadow/Charleston would be an eyesore for generations and divide the community. I cannot think
of another rail location in the Bay Area that is elevated in a residential area. Almost all elevated
trains are in business districts where their impacts are not as negative. I strongly support the
underpass option at Meadow/Charleston
T053 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Meadow and Charleston neighborhoods strongly prefer the underpass options to preserve the
integrity of our neighborhood communities. (No viaduct, hybrid or other elevated options)
T054 Townhall
Feedback General
Tooo much analysis leads to paralysis. The cost of funding additional consultants for additional
options, could have been used better to improve neighborhoods. or for staff .
I think to do this right, the city needs to take properties by eminent domain. . Many of the
homeowners will be dead or will have moved before any shovel hits the ground, since it will take
years to get started,
T055 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Thank you very much for putting this informative resource together.
We strongly favor the Hybrid for the Meadow / Charleston proposal, for the following reasons (
referring to the factsheet https://storage.net-
fs.com/hosting/6566581/3/files/file_571F3A7B_4A1C_1626_41B0_ACAE6BD26185.pdf):
- no acquisition of private properties is required (only driveway modifications). IMHO, this should
be the PRIMARY factor in the decision making process. The city council had declared this to be a
number one / top criterion early on in the process.
I must say that the video detailing the Charleston Underpass option construction process does the
city a disservice. With this option for Charleaston / Meadow, at least 3 properties will have to be
taken to accomodate the proposal. NOT A SINGLE COMMENT is made detailing or highlighting
the impacts on these properties in the video. Rather, the video seems to "glance over" the details
that 2 houses will have to be taken for the Charleston roundabout, and that an appartment
complex will have to be taken for the Meadow rightturn. It spends more time discussing the
impacts on trees than on these properties. This is unaccaptable and almost deceptive. I am urging
the city to AT LEAST highlight AND DISCUSS the impact, and not try to "sweep it under the
carpet". The video talks about the impact of the Charleston roundabout construction on the left
side of the roundabout (towards Middlefield). Where no houses have to be taken. NOT A SINGLE
WORD about the RIGHT SIDE, where 2 houses will have to be taken, and a third one (at the
corner of Mumford / Charleston) will get the end of the roundabout in the frontyard which will
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 54
reduce its property value considerably.
- cost: even compared to the underpass, the estimated $190M to $230M are considerably less
than the next cheapest option, the underpass / roundabouts for Charleston / Meadow.
- funding sources: the hybrid would require lower levels of local funding, with a substantial portion
of capital costs covered by Regional, State and Federal sources. Less taxes is better for
everybody.
- no Caltrain right-of-way acquisition expected makes the process easier from an adminstrative
point of view.
- No diversion of regional traffic, which keep the negative impact on the local traffic patterns
minimal - in comparison, the number of accomodations being planned for the underpass option, to
ensure that bicyclists and pedestrians can still go places and cross the traintracks etc., are
beoming a major project in itself. This does not seem to be reasonable given that there is a much
simpler and cheaper solution in form of the hybrid available.
Thank you for your work and consideration,
T056 Townhall
Feedback General
There has been NO information or communication on the impact on the properties situated near
the intersection of Charleston and Alma. We must not move forward until we present a plan to the
home owners.
T057 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
the tunnel doesn’t solve the problem with freight still at grade and the hybrid seems unnecessarily
complicated - I’ve always favored the trench idea - no houses removed - some will lose trees - the
Very best would be a tunnel the whole length of the thing!
T058 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Hybrid drawing Concept Plan does not clearly show Alma st going down then up and then down
and then up at Meadow and Charleston. I prefer Trench for Charleston/Meadow. However,
because of cost, I expect Hybrid to be selected.
T059 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
I understand the difficulty of the tunnel option, but the outcome is SO much better than the other
options. I'm sorry this option continues to be ignored. The very worst option of all is the viaduct,
which would be a continuing eyesore and noise problem for everyone along the route.
T060 Townhall
Feedback Multiple For Charleston Meadow, if a trench is not possible due to financial constraints, the viaduct will be
my second choice. The hybrid and underpass options are unacceptable.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 55
T061 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Are there any considerations of lowering Alma vs. messing with tracks.
Also, why not vote for top 3 ranking; so, if one (e.g., tunnel) gets eliminated; there is an
understanding of best of the rest... My rank would be 1. Tunnel with freight underground; 2.
Trench; 3. Viaduct. Viaduct is way better than hybrid; not up against back fence and doesn't
require lowering of roads.
T062 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
I think you should collect a ranking from citizens. Although I would pick Tunnel as 1st choice, my
understanding that this is actually off the table. My next choice is the Trench. The next would be
Viaduct which I feel is much better than the Hybrid. The Hybrid is too close to the Park Blvd fence
and it is a solid wall. There is only a 5 feet difference and is way more disruptive in building. I
would put the Underpass before the hybrid if people were well compensated for their property.
T063 Townhall
Feedback Churchill Viaduct As a second choice I would pick the Viaduct over the hybrid.
T064 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
I Want the train underground please. If that is not possible, put it on a viaduct so the roads don't
slope up and down like a racetrack. Worst options, please do not consider are the hybrid and
underpass.
T065 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
I mean, in a perfect world I'd like a tunnel but don't believe that it's realistic given the cost, so
picking trench as my preferred option.
Second choice is hybrid, but I'm dubious about the noise figures for this (which concludes that
trench is noisier than hybrid) - I know there are sound mitigations in hybrid for the wheels, but
noise from the upper part of the train (particularly the power pick ups) is significant in other high
speed train studies I've read, and that isn't mitigated at all in the hybrid option - but would be by
trench.
T066 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Why do the projects not include specifics on impacted houses on Charleston and Meadow, this
was completely glossed over in the videos? Enforcing eminent domain without offering a solution
to keep impacted citizens of palo alto in palo alto is shameful big government and in direct
opposition of the councils goals. The budget are grossly understated you cannot put an underpass
at Charleston and Meadow disrupting the residents mobility and quality of life as well as access for
3.5-4 years, which we all know will be much much longer and not include a plan for rehousing
them during construction. Charleston should not be Embarcadero South. Please do not destroy
families and our sense of community and peace by picking the charleston meadow underpass,
please.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 56
T067 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Why is a project that uses eminent domain even part of this proposal, and why are the videos so
ambiguous about exactly how many homes will be impacted? Using Eminent Domain to displace
citizen, and reduce property value of residents of east charleston rd is directly opposed to our city's
reputation as a city of inclusion and tolerance-inclusion must be for the residents of charleston and
east meadow, too-NO Eminent Domain.
The hybrid-$200m less, no property acquisitions, limited disruptions, mainly federal funding-
please be humane, civic minded, compassionate and responsible with your citizen's quality of life,
investments, and right to remain in their homes. The underpass and eminent domain should not be
used to take peoples homes when the city has other options-we are struggling to add housing-this
goes in the wrong direction-just NO
T068 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
The video for charleston-meadow underpass glosses over the property impacts, and does not
accurately show the APARTMENT COMPLEX expected to be claimed on E Meadow at all. Using
EMINENT DOMAIN for property takes when there are other cheaper options is shameful. Palo Alto
has a housing shortage and can not meet state quotas, why force more citizens out of their homes,
communities or reduce property value for the balance of East Charleston/Meadow residence by
creating Embarcadero South wheh the hybrid or trench options exist? One specific goal for this
project was to try and avoid property impacts, please be true to your goal and loyal to the ethics of
this city-community, compassion and inclusion-unnecessary property takes are anti palo alto.
Please do not victimize the citizens who have lived here and grown with palo alto by taking their
properties and investments in the name of progress-this is not progress, it is an assault-the city
has alternatives to eminent domain, please do not endorse any plans that take peoples properties.
T069 Townhall
Feedback
South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
The train is too noise and separates our city. Can we have the TUNNEL option? Thanks,
T070 Townhall
Feedback General
Why is north Palo Alto (Churchill) allowed to close their crossing, while south Palo Alto (Meadow)
is not allowed to close Meadow?
Closing Meadow would provide a great route for students bicycling to JLS, Gunn, Fairmeadow,
and Hoover.
T071 Townhall
Feedback Churchill Viaduct We are strongly opposed to viaduct at either location and feel that this would significantly disrupt
the feel of our community with marginal traffic benefit.
T072 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Viaduct in both places is the most equitable solution and cheaper than trenching or tunneling
solutions. Closing Churchill to vehicular traffic shifts the vehicular traffic to the remaining 6
crossings. This is unfair.
T073 Townhall
Feedback General What is the price of each option? My second choice would be viaduct, but it would be nice to know
the prices.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 57
T074 Townhall
Feedback General great due diligence study and nice virtual town hall setup
T075 Townhall
Feedback General This kind of polling mechanism is helpful but you gotta publicize if it’s going to have any value
T076 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Underpass
I want to say that the reason I am for the Hybrid alternative at Charleston Road and not the
underpass at Charleston road is because the underpass design puts a roundabout on Charleston
Road which I am completely against as it will create more traffic on Charelston, take private
property and completely destroy the whole purpose of the Charleston /Arastradero calming project.
Without the roundabout I would have been for the underpass.
T077 Townhall
Feedback General
The virtual town hall was well done but accessible mainly for people who are computer-savvy.
There should be additional outreach for the affected communities. For example a simple URL to
reach the surveys on the various options would be helpful. Or paper surveys perhaps in the utility
bill. Or phone surveys. For example in the Q+A Session 2, only 13 people had expressed an
opinion on an option - not a statistically significant sample.
T078 Townhall
Feedback General
OK This is my second attempt. I am not terribly interested in the construction phasing videos, but
they were good. I am interested in how bicycles (and pedestrians) will use these grade separations
to get across the corridor. There is not enough information for me to see how well this has been
thought out. I do know that when bikes are moved from one side of the street to another, there are
potentials for conflict. The rail crossings are only one part of the network, and bike routes have to
be integrated. Maybe it is hidden somewhere, but although the changes to Alma St are highlighted,
I was unable to see how the construction, or the ultimate solution, would affect the bike path from
Palo Alto Caltrain to Churchill Ave.
T079 Townhall
Feedback Churchill Viaduct
I was very worried about the Churchill Viaduct since I live very close to embarcadero but it seems
to be the option that has the highest reduction of the vibration caused by the freight trains going
through at night. Is that accurate? If so, I strongly support it as the freight trains will vibrate my
house at times and are very noisy. Please plan on mitigating the train noise and vibration as part of
any and all options.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 58
T080 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
I am concerned that the analysis of the potential mitigation actions for a Churchill Ave. closure has
been insufficient. The traffic study only focused on LOS and did not take into account the affect on
bicycle and pedestrian safety and on adjacent residential streets. The existing and projected traffic
volumes on Embarcadero are not included in the traffic analysis. The amount of community input
from (i) neighborhoods north of Embarcadero, (ii) PAUSD, (iii) Stanford, (iv) Town & Country, and
(v) bicycle advocates has been insufficient. Churchill is closely tied to Embarcadero and the traffic
patterns of Embarcadero and University/ Downtown are closely intertwined. This is a planning
effort that will be felt for the next 50 to 100 years, so it should be done on a more comprehensive
basis. The Embarcadero/ Alma St. bridge is almost 90 years old. Any attempt to widen or slightly
modify this bridge will likely only last a decade or so, if it can be done at all and yet it could cost
$50 million. It would make a lot more sense to make a well-integrated, long-term traffic/ bicycle/
pedestrian plan for North Palo Alto rather than a series of one-off, standalone, short-term fixes.
Palo Alto spent well over a decade preparing a Comprehensive Plan as a guide on long-term
strategic planning. Despite this fact, the Comprehensive Plan is barely discussed and has not
been used to guide the decisions of any body, either the XCAP or the City Council. These major
city planning efforts deserve a more comprehensive approach. Why do we have a Traffic and
Planning Commission if they are not involved in planning efforts such as this?
T081 Townhall
Feedback General Please take a long term view.
T082 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Underpass
I am deeply concerned about the Underpass and the disruptions to the Walnut Grove-
Greenmeadow neighbourhood especially as the result of the roundabout. My concerns also relate
to the use of Charleston and Meadows as crossing points for hundreds of school children . The
Underpass plan will increase vehicular traffic and will severely impact school children during and
after its construction. In my opinion, the Trench option is the best option.
Additionally, I also think that given the fact that nearly all companies are re-evaluating the need for
people to come into work daily (even after the current pandemic passes), we should be
reexamining the need for this project in the first place. Why do we need greater throughput of
Caltrain when the need for mass transit itself declines?
T083 Townhall
Feedback
South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Putting the trains into tunnels will minimize sound and improve RR crossing safety by eliminating
RR crossings.
T084 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Do not close Churchill. In a time when we are trying to bring people together, closing Churchill will
do nothing more than create a barrier.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 59
T085 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
* Need better $$ updates for final decisions to be made.
* Need to define temporary closures (time start to finish).
* Goal at end of the day, keep as close to what people have today to protect property values and
quality of life.
T086 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
I am strongly against closing Churchill because of concerns about emergency access to Southgate
& Paly, and also because of resulting congestion at Embarcadero & Page Mill. I think Palo Alto
should work with Caltrain to reevaluate ridership projections. With fewer trains it might not be
necessary to close Churchill all the time -- one could close only during commute times, if at all. The
bike/ped undercrossing in Option 1 could be retained, or one could consider an undercrossing at
Seale. I am against the undercrossing at Kellogg because of conflicts with Castilleja school traffic. I
am also strongly against any potential reopening of Southgate at Peers Park; given the narrow
streets in Southgate and the already heavy bike traffic on Castilleja Ave, adding any more
vehicular traffic through the neighborhood would be very dangerous.
T087 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Churchill Partial Underpass would be more favorable if the bike path didn't just come up in the
middle of a street.
Meadow/Charleston split between Viaduct and Hybrid. Really depends on what kind of parkspace
is available.
T088 Townhall
Feedback General
It seems wise to wait until the number of trains actually increases significantly, which may never
happen for many reasons.
Also, having lived right near one rail crossing and using it daily, one can't help notice how poorly
synchronized the traffic lights are with the trains. Fixing that would be far less expensive and
probably would postpone or eliminate the need for expensive solutions.
T089 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Seriously. How will you realistically deal with the thousands of cars driving through quiet
neighborhoods to circumvent a closed Churchill Avenue? How will you realistically deal with
Embarcadero and Oregon expressway Avenues, which are already totally backed up in normal
times to the freeway each morning, as Palo parents try to bring their students to school? The plan
to close Churchill affects so much more than just Southgate neighborhood. Closure will affect the
entire central area of Palo Alto as people try to figure out how to manage with just one or two
crossings. This doesn't even include the cars already on El Camino. El Camino in later afternoons
and mornings is also backed up. It can sometimes already take 20 mins to just go a couple of
blocks near Palo - to Oregon Expressway. Seriously.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 60
T090 Townhall
Feedback General
I don't believe Caltrain's projections, and the rise of self-driving cars and busses will make rigid
trains that miss the last mile to homes and businesses less important over time. If money were no
object I'd prefer tunnels and trenches, but I don't believe those to be feasible with the economy.
T091 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Comment: The closure times for underpass option at Charleston/Meadow make it a non-starter;
the viaduct has significantly less impact overall on traffic and provides the most traffic options after
completion. For Churchill, the underpass option is likely the best choice since a viaduct doesn't
meet CalTrain's incline requirements.
T092 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
I cannot find information regarding the Embarcadero slip road mitigation. I understand Palo Alto
High School parents are urged to drop off students using the slip road. This action would greatly
impact the safety and traffic congestion at the intersections of High Street, Embarcadero and
Alma. I did not see a grade separation option for trenching or tunneling of Caltrain tracks at
Churchill and Alma. Why not? All the current options will result in sending more cross traffic on
Embarcadero and neighboring streets. I suggest adding an option choice on your survey of Pause
the Churchill project till you have done a thorough traffic study and residents comments from the
Embarcadero corridor and Professorville up to Alma Street. Thank you.
T093 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Am concerned about the alternatives presented. As for the trenching plans, having permanent
water pumps to handle rains well as ground water problems sounds worrisome. Will noise be a
problem for the neighbors during the rainy season? Power outages need to be taken care of with
back generators with diesel
fuel storage, etc. The viaduct solution has issues with aesthetics as well as noise. Are there sure
shot methods to take care of noise as well as hide the trains from the backyards of neighbors for
privacy reasons ?
The full tunnel approach may be attractive, except for the cost issues. As proposed by city council
candidate Ms. Rebecca Eisenberg, is it possible the land over the tunnel will be the city's and can
in turn be used to generate money that can go towards the extra cost of tunnel boring ?
T094 Townhall
Feedback General
It's important to me to minimize taking of private property as well as keeping traffic flowing at
Churchill. I KNOW it's possible to run quiet trains. The Japanese are doing it, right, but I guess the
freight trains will pretty much trash the rails. How can that be mitigated?
T095 Townhall
Feedback General
I'm very disappointed that despite Southgate residents participating in a survey, the results of
which you've seen. The council decided to vote without adhering to any of our comments. Which I
must say is the majority opinion.
I would encourage the committee to avoid being swayed by parties with a loud voice and instead
listen to the majority. After all you've been elected to represent the majority and not the rabble
rousers.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 61
T096 Townhall
Feedback General
Why not make no change at Churchill and Meadow until we find out how much the Covid crisis is
going to cost us? It is insane to spend such money, if we won't have the money to spend, and not
enough ridership to justify it.
T097 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
We bought our house with the expectation that Churchill would not be closed to access Alma from
Southgate. Closing Churchill would completely change the value of our house to people who use
Alma to commute, like we do.
T098 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Trench
Trench is our second choice. We know that any tunneling is expensive but we believe that
residents are willing to pay for it. Tunneling has long term benefits.
T099 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Trench
Trench is my second choice. Even though digging tunnels are expensive, overall, it's the right
choice to maintain a nice neighborhood. Absolutely despise the viaduct option.
T100 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
As a student, closing Churchill will have devastating effects for us, such as creating unsafe bike
routes, bottlenecks in already crowded mornings, and will make it far more difficult to reach school
on time.
T101 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Closing Churchill will gravely impact our students, our school community along with all the families
living on Embarcadero.
T102 Townhall
Feedback General I strongly urge the city to hit "pause" on the Churchill Avenue crossing solution.
T103 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Closing Churchill is a short-sighted idea. It's one of the main connecting routes for Palo Alto. Its
closure will negatively impact traffic for various neighborhoods and create bottlenecks on already
traffic-burdened Alma and Embarcadero (especially in cases like Stanford football games).
It's seems like a lazy solution to close churchill entirely; work needs to be put in to retain this
important road in our city.
T104 Townhall
Feedback General Churchill is a necessary street for traffic to and from school, whether it be with cars, bikes, or other
methods.
T105 Townhall
Feedback General Many students of Palo Alto High School and Stanford use Churchill and doing a project on it will
just increase traffic near Embarcadero, which makes everyone more stressed and angry.
T106 Townhall
Feedback General Xcap members should not have a conflict of interred this
T107 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Churchill is the primary bike route for students attending Paly. In general, Embarcadero is not very
bike friendly, and funneling more cars and bikes that way does not seem safe.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 62
T108 Townhall
Feedback Traffic will cause traffic congestion
T109 Townhall
Feedback General It will clog the area even more, making it nearly impossible to get to school on times.
T110 Townhall
Feedback General It will cause undue problems for Palo Students.
T111 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Decreasing the number of crossings will increase traffic at other crossings which is not equitable to
other neighborhoods and will also divide the City even more.
T112 Townhall
Feedback General
Not only is this a huge waste of money, cutting off access to Churchill Ave would make traveling
across Palo Alto incredibly inconvenient and inefficient. Expect more blockage at other railroad
intersections that are already crowded. Our taxpayer dollars can clearly be better spent elsewhere.
T113 Townhall
Feedback General This would create unsafe bike routes, impossible for students to bike to school.
T114 Townhall
Feedback General unsafe bike paths
T115 Townhall
Feedback General It will create dangerous bike routes and during the school year, students won’t be able to get to
school. This will cause undue stress on students.
T116 Townhall
Feedback General Do we really expect Caltrain to be in business 2 years from now? Do we expect similar commute
patterns 2 years from now? Why are we still talking about this? Seems like this should be DOA.
T117 Townhall
Feedback Churchill Viaduct Viaduct is the worst option. It will have very negative impact to the quality of living here.
T118 Townhall
Feedback General Biking will be more difficult
T119 Townhall
Feedback General Solution has to be equitable to all impacted neighborhoods.
T120 Townhall
Feedback General Creates more unsafe bike routes for kids to get to school ontime, could cause mental health issues
T121 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Churchill should remain open to reduce traffic
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 63
T122 Townhall
Feedback General
Community involvement and feedback needs to be carefully considered. Unfortunately, XCAP was
not balanced in a way that it could provide a balanced long-term view from the perspective of the
neighborhoods most impacted, nor from perspective of the larger community. But we also realize
that this is the first step in a much longer process, and that the long term impacts of the pandemic
will likely need to be well understood before proceeding with grade separation projects. Once the
process resumes, let's figure out how to move forward in a balanced, collaborative way with the
long-term future of impacted neighborhoods and all of Palo Alto in mind as the top priorities.
T123 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
Has a traffic impact study been done analyzing the effects of ONLY building pedestrian/bike
tunnels to remove all ped/bike surface activity and then adjusting the traffic signals? Once all
ped/bike activity is below grade, there is more time for cars to go straight and to turn in all
directions.
T124 Townhall
Feedback General should we be deciding the alternatives when there is question about Caltrain finances as well as
future ridership?
T125 Townhall
Feedback General There isn’t enough information about why this is being done. This would also cause major traffic in
other areas of Palo Alto that already have enough traffic.
T126 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
I think very short sighted to cut off places to cross. Putting everyone in Embarcadero is a horrible
idea with all those lights. We back up Middlefield during busy hours. Of course 2020 is a different
world
T127 Townhall
Feedback General Costs
T128 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
I don't think the Churchill closure with mitigations is a good idea. It would have a negative effect on
the traffic and congestion in the city. I would rather leave the Churchill intersection as is instead of
closing of the road completely.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 64
T129 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
1) More official feedback needs to be obtained from the Bicycle Advisory Committee. We in the
committee appreciate the outreach that was done but we have not been able to give direct
feedback to the XCAP on the options and listening to one of the XCAP meetings, it was clear
some of the members did not feel the need to get our input, even though bikes are vehicles too,
one key to reducing Green House Gasses, and a significant transportation user base which is
strongly affected by the option chosen, especially if a "bad" option is picked and can't simply be
fixed at the design stage. Bike/Ped impacts need to be one of the driving considerations in picking
an option, not a design tweak on the chosen option.
2) The Noise and Vibration section of the "Summary of Evaluation" is misleading and insufficiently
informative:
A) The noise/vibration impacts are all compared to existing conditions, which obscures big
differences between the options themselves (given the existing noise of diesel engines and
clanging bells and blaring horns, all grade separation options are a big improvement). It would be
better to have two rows for noise/impact: one for comparing to current, the other for comparing to
each other. B) The Noise and Vibration section of the materials is misleading in regards to the
Viaduct. While the Viaduct option is described in the blurb as "There would be significant reduction
to vibration levels" it is rated the same as or worse than all the other options, even though all the
other options have some variation of "There would be a slight reduction to vibration levels". In
talking with the noise and vibration expert, it was clear that the viaduct had the most reduction in
vibration from all the options (see my comments on the Viaduct option for details), but this
information is not conveyed in the summary, even though this is going to be a big benefit for the
people who live closest to the train, on Park Blvd.
T130 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Do not close Churchill Ave as it is an important cross-town roadway. If the tunnel is too expensive,
then We prefer the hybrid partially raised, partially lowered option. Extend the bike lane the full
length of Palo Alto as part of this project, please! Thank you for all your work.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 65
Appendix C – Individual Alternative
Feedback
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 66
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Churchill Closure with Mitigation –Option 1)
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Churchill Closure with Mitigation –Option 2)
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 67
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
5
10
15
20
25
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Churchill Partial Underpass)
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
5
10
15
20
25
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Churchill Viaduct)
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 68
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Meadow/Charleston Hybrid)
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
5
10
15
20
25
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Meadow/Charleston Trench)
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 69
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Meadow/Charleston Underpass)
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Meadow/Charleston Viaduct)
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 70
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(South Palo Alto Tunnel -Passenger &
Freight)
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(South Palo Alto Tunnel -At-Grade Freight)