Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-23 Rail Summary MinutesRAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 8 Special Meeting August 23, 2023 The Rail Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 2:33 P.M. Present In Person: Burt (Chair), Veenker, Lauing (2:34 P.M.) Present Remotely: Absent: CALL TO ORDER Chair Pat Burt called the Rail Committee meeting to order at 2:33 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT: 1. Eric Nordman stated the level of service delay time in the traffic studies was different from actual travel time, leading to unfair comparison between alternates when some turning motions are not allowed. The average travel time could be calculated by Staff. He also noted the underpass option requires acquisition of at least 4 houses and one 14- unit apartment building and partial acquisitions from over 30 properties and asked that Staff create a spreadsheet of affected properties and update it as changes are made. 2. Adrian Brandt discussed the new 3-digit National Suicide Hotline number, which is 988. He felt signage along the Caltrain corridor should be updated to reflect this 3-digit number. VERBAL UPDATE ON INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIES A. Caltrain – There was no one present from Caltrain. B. VTA – There was no one present from VTA. C. City Staff SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 8 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 8/23/2023 Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi noted the final phase of Caltrain electrification was currently in progress, with service expected to begin in Fall 2024. There will be a presentation regarding the Caltrain Corridor Study alternatives at the LPMG meeting on August 24 and likely at the Board meeting on September 7. There is also a VTA Ad Hoc meeting on September 29. Regarding the San Francisquito Creek emergency repairs, Council approved the MOU to work with Caltrain and the scope of work within the City's right of way. The plans are currently at 100% design, and the estimated total project cost is $5.5M. The restoration work will begin in the next two to four weeks. Chair Burt stated he had attended the Train Exposition in San Jose recently. He felt the train cars themselves would be an additional inducement to ride. He noted Caltrain was committed to hitting the Fall 2024 deadline. He also stated Caltrain now has a Chief Safety Officer, who is an expert in safety on construction and operation of the line internally as well as externally on the track system. He felt Caltrain needed to look at a system-wide corridor safety approach independent of grade separations. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi added the new electrified trains will be the first battery- equipped electric EMUs in the nation. ACTION ITEMS 1. Review and Discuss New Grant Awards and Requirements from the Federal Railroad Administration and California State Transportation Agency for Grade Separation Projects, and Direct Staff to Develop Funding Agreements Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi stated Staff was seeking direction to develop the funding agreements because the grants come with obligations. He provided an overview of funding sources and gave updates on grants. The City has received $6M from the Rail Crossing Elimination Program and $23.79M for the Transit & Inter City Rail Capital Program, and Staff has applied for MEGA and INFRA grants. He reviewed the original timeline, which will have to shift, and the grant timelines. He reviewed the project activities in progress, which influence the timeline: geotechnical study, underpass refinements, Caltrain review, additional studies needed, Caltrain Corridor Strategy Study, and Council preferred alternatives. Council Member Lauing noted it would be preferred for the additional studies to be done more quickly. He asked if there are shortcuts, for example if it was possible sea level rise could nix an alternative at one of the crossings. There was further discussion about the additional studies and whether that information would be complete for Council and Rail Committee to make decisions. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 8 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 8/23/2023 Chair Burt noted that leading researchers have found that sea level rise will actually result in groundwater going closer to the surface because the saline water will push it up. The issues are the impact of water level during construction and the impact post construction. Council Member Lauing questioned the flexibility of the timeline regarding the granting agencies. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi noted the agencies have a performance period that cannot be shifted much and that this was the point to make a decision in order to take this funding. Council Member Veenker asked if there were any timeline implications for the $14M from Measure B. She asked for more information on the tentative future grant submission timeline. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi explained the Measure B funds are dedicated to the programs. Programming the funds needs to be coordinated with VTA and the other cities that have been allocated the funds. He stated it was likely that Section 190 funds would be awarded. Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia noted, with regards to Section 190, that there was $15M allocation for an annual basis statewide, prioritized based on the project readiness and funding availability. He stated this was lining up to be ready and able to access that funding when available. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi explained that "other federal grants" was meant to signify the potential for applying for construction dollars assuming final design for Charleston and Meadow was funded. These are typically reimbursement grants, so the project actually needs to be delivered in order to get reimbursed. Council Member Lauing stated these things were not aligned for the April 1, 2024, and asked for Staff recommendations on what to do to realign. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi was unsure how all of the projects could be completed by April 1. He clarified that LPA was locally preferred alternative and that deadline was that the project to be worked on needs to be decided in order to have the preliminary engineering and environmental phase start. Chair Burt described the dilemma of $23.7M available for Churchill even though it has tentatively been decided that Charleston and East Meadow will be sequentially first. There are more funds for the one that is further along in decision making but not in sequence. He asked if FRA would allow shifting funds from Churchill to Charleston and East Meadow once a preferred alternative was determined. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi noted it was actually through CalSTA, not FRA. He did not anticipate they would allow that because the accepted application was for Churchill, but Staff SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 8 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 8/23/2023 would be willing to discuss it with them. There was also a recent application for Charleston and East Meadow for final design funds. Chair Burt provided context on the corridor-wide grade separation, with the highest driver being the anticipation of more trains and more traffic on the roads, potentially leading to gridlock. There have since been decreases in ridership and in population growth projections, so the tailwind necessitating expansion of transportation and transit systems is not there anymore. He stated it would take proactive measures to get ridership back to where it was and further discussed this. Palo Alto also has a higher priority on track safety and security than other cities on the corridor, and he felt it was now of relative higher importance versus traffic and congestion than it was a couple years ago. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi explained that in order to move the preliminary engineering and environmental phase forward, preferred alternatives were needed for Charleston and Meadow. Continued work on final design for Churchill does not mean it would be placed ahead of Charleston and Meadow. Council had taken formal action of prioritizing Charleston and Meadow before Churchill. Chair Burt asked about the program for federal dollars through MTC that went to a couple of projects, including Mountain View, and whether that was through the Federal Infrastructure Act. Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia stated the FRA grant was part of that bill but Palo Alto was competing as an independent agency rather than through MTC. MTC selected a list of projects based on the level of completion, and Mountain View's projects were ahead of Palo Alto's at that time. Chair Burt pointed out that those dollars will run out in four more years. Council Member Veenker asked if there was a penalty for declining the grants if they were unable to be used. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi felt it would not look be looked on favorably but that it would be better to decline it now rather than later in the middle of the project. The direction Staff needed at this time was whether to find out how late this can be pushed out and whether to decline the funding if it does not work with the timeline, and also whether to proceed with the additional studies. Council Member Veenker asked if the Committee could take a look at the studies that might be holding this up and revisit whether they are needed before making this decision. Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia noted there could be high-level review rather than detailed studies. He added that sometimes less work is required but the processing of the agreement and execution of the procurements take time. All of this needs to fit into the equation of the grant. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 8 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 8/23/2023 There was detailed discussion about how to proceed. Council Member Lauing wanted to work on these items in parallel in order not to lose the funding opportunity. Chair Burt did not want the grant money to drive the decision. Council Member Veenker was inclined to make the grant work. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated Staff could potentially come back to Rail Committee at the next meeting and talk about how to fit the additional studies within the schedule, noting it will be a lot of work to meet the April 1 deadline. Chair Burt felt there needed to be more in-depth thought and discussion before making a decision. He noted that there had been no discussion about bike and ped separations and wanted to get more information on that at the September meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: 1. Elizabeth Alexis stated this project will drive traffic in Palo Alto for the next hundred years and felt the alternatives were still not at a point of getting the public on board. She felt the procurements for the engineering consultants needed to happen as soon as possible. She questioned if choosing to take advantage of exemptions for CEQA and NEPA for grade separations would give more flexibility and again urged getting the details right. 2. Adrian Brandt discussed the issue of grade separations and safety. He explained that most deaths on the Caltrain lines are intentional, having nothing to do with safety, and that even systems that are fully grade separated have comparable or higher suicide rates. 3. Laura Granka agreed with committee members about not declining funds immediately even if some things may be out of sequence. She stated the crossings being considered are unique in Palo Alto in the number of students crossing on a regular basis. 4. Steve Rosenblum emphasized Ms. Alexis's comments that this decision will affect Palo Alto for the next hundred years. He felt it was much more important to make sure to do the right thing than to act in order to take advantage of grants. MOTION: Chair Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Lauing, to direct Staff to continue to work on the Funding Agreements and continue discussion of this item at the September Rail meeting. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 8 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 8/23/2023 2. Rail Committee to Review the Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Study Memorandum prepared by the Consultant for Grade Separation Projects at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road AECOM Consultant Peter DeStefano reviewed the preliminary geotechnical exploration and exploratory findings, which revealed that each site is underlain by favorable soil, there is moderate liquefaction potential at Meadow and Charleston, and groundwater is expected to be encountered at Meadow and Charleston but not at Churchill. Temporary and permanent groundwater control will be required at Meadow and Charleston. Any open cut excavation or trenchless/tunneling methods, such as pipe arch canopy and sequential excavation, would be feasible. The tunneling methods would allow the tracks to remain in place. He discussed the pros and cons of the various construction methods. The recommendation for next steps was to perform additional geotechnical explorations during the final design to confirm stratigraphy, confirm design parameters, and evaluate groundwater cutoff wall requirements. PUBLIC COMMENT: 1. Elizabeth Alexis questioned the depth of the water table during the dry season and whether that helped with construction. She felt more information about the water table up and down the corridor as well as about the underwater flows would be important. 2. Steve Rosenblum stated that all three sites are in the 500-year flood zone and that there needed to be some future predicting on flood zones. The partial underpass at Churchill will go down within about 12 feet of the water table. He agreed with the suggestion of measuring at different times of year and in more locations for a better picture of the groundwater issue. He felt the viaduct presented a clean solution to both issues. 3. Adrian Brandt suggested that sequentially single-tracking to excavate each track could avoid a full shoofly. He concurred with Mr. Rosenblum that the obvious way around all of the difficulty was viaduct option. Council Member Lauing asked for any eureka moments found in the study. He stated it did not seem that any option was recommended to be ruled out automatically. AECOM Consultant Paul Boddie stated that the groundwater levels found at Churchill was consistent with previous studies provided by the City. They also align with what the Santa Clara Valley Water District has shown on their maps. He did not find anything to suggest that one option should be ruled out at Meadow and Charleston and explained the process of boring for groundwater measurements. Chair Burt asked if studies indicated problems with trenching, which would be perpendicular to the underground water flow, versus other options. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 8 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 8/23/2023 Consultant Boddie did not see trenching as a potential issue and believed any water would make its way below the trench. Post construction, if the area were dewatered, there would have to be a permanent dewatering system to manage the water so there would not be a groundwater rise. He stated a groundwater hydrologist would need to study and address potential mounding of groundwater on the upstream side of the box. Chair Burt noted that permanent dewatering would be a significant issue in the community as there has been an effort to reduce dewatering from construction. He questioned the ongoing problem with drainage at the Oregon Expressway underpass. Consultant Boddie had not reviewed the original plans but stated it was possible that the water level could have been deeper at the time studies were done at Oregon and that it may not have been not designed for groundwater rise. He noted it was possible to build measures in to prevent that. Council Member Veenker noted the memo described that solider piles and timber lagging walls were relative inexpensive and easy to install but were permeable and would require dewatering; therefore, the recommendation was for cutoff walls. She stated the description of solider pile and lagging processes also had an option for concrete instead of timber lagging and questioned whether that option that would be less permeable and also cheaper than the cutoff walls. Regarding retaining walls and foundation support at Churchill, she stated it was noted that in the instance of encountering weak soil deposits, there would be a switch to grade separation walls with cast-in-drilled-hole piles. She asked if there was a reason not to start with that. Consultant Boddie explained that concrete lagging would still be permeable because there would be gaps. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi explained that the decision on supports would be determined prior to construction based on the different analyses that will be completed. Chair Burt felt some favorable aspects of the jackbox had emerged from this discussion. He wanted to engage more with Caltrain to discuss several issues, including the cut in the wiring and also refinement on the length of shutdown. He was interested in the feasibility of jackbox at East Meadow and Charleston versus Churchill because of the constrained space. He noted it would be helpful to have estimates on the differences in construction times for various options. Council Member Veenker felt the pipe arch method was compelling but questioned how expensive it would be. Consultant DeStefano stated the options were all roughly in the same ballpark and one was not overwhelming less expensive, except maybe box jacking, which he did not yet have all the data on. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 8 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 8/23/2023 MOTION: Chair Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Veenker, to accept the Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Study Memorandum and authorize Staff to finalize it. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 19, 2023. The noise and vibration consultant will be present at the next meeting for a study session. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:02 P.M.