Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-21 Rail Summary MinutesRAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 10 Special Meeting November 21, 2023 The Rail Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 2:31 P.M. Present In Person: Burt (Chair), Veenker, Lauing Present Remotely: Absent: Call to Order Chair Pat Burt called the Rail Committee meeting to order. The clerk called roll with all being present. Verbal Update on Interagency Activities A. Caltrain B. VTA C. City Staff Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia stated Staff was in the process of reviewing Caltrain’s Consultant Staff updates on the conceptual alternatives plans and would bring it back to the Rail Committee after they discussed them. He added they had submitted additional grant applications through Section 190 for each grade separation crossing at Meadow, Churchill and Charleston for the 24-25 fiscal year consideration. Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi noted they had an amendment with VTA for their funding agreement to include the Caltrain review Senior Engineer Bhatia described and it was approved by VTA. He said that Staff has been working with the procurement department in acquiring the contract for professional services with the consultant to perform the quiet zone study at Churchill, Meadow and Charleston. He discussed an agreement executed with Kimley Horn to provide support to continue the design. He announced the permit and repairs for San Francisquito Creek were delayed until the summer of 2024. An emergency declaration occurred on the 18th for the temporary bank stabilization efforts. Regular inspections would continue SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/2023 through the winter. He added that Caltrain continues to collaborate with the City, Stanford, San Francisquito Creek and Joint Powers Authority on this. Chair Burt asked for explanation of the Section 190 grants, what dollars were asked for and what the prospects were based on criteria. Senior Engineer Bhatia provided explanation of the Section 190 program. The maximum amount is $15M and they submitted that amount for each grant application. It was likely they would not get the grant this year. Chair Burt noted he had been having discussions with VTA and Caltrain and they brought up to Stanford about beginning to bring the five agencies together who have a shared interest on the Palo Alto Intermodal Station. VTA was pushing to get the Diridon Station planning moving forward. He pointed out that the Palo Alto Station was a more significant Intermodal Center in terms of Caltrain boardings and numbers of buses that go there and there is a great deal of justified future planning on Diridon although the urgency was being mitigated by Google pushing out the horizon on the Googleplex indefinitely. He hoped they would begin to have informal discussions with Caltrain, VTA, Stanford and SamTrans. The Stanford Ad-Hoc Committee has been having additional discussions on the bus-only entrance into the station via Quarry from El Camino. Study Session 1. Study Session: Update on 4-Tracking Analysis by Caltrain Caltrain Official Navdeep Dhaliwal stated they would be focusing on the 4-Track Analysis. She asked that questions regarding Caltrain’s design criteria and engineering standards be asked outside of the forum. Kimley-Horn Transit Project Manager Jill Gibson shared a slide presentation focusing on the 4- Tracking Analysis agenda, objectives, track configuration, adopted service vision 4-Track segments, analysis purpose and a recap of the 2017-2019 business plan growth scenarios. She clarified there was a note stating one 4-Track Station was needed in Northern Santa Clara County. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Edgar Torres provided explanation of the note regarding the funding agreement. He clarified that Caltrain cannot make a decision that would preclude or make materially more complicated future operations. He provided slides discussing the 4-Track initial planning approach, initial evaluation process for North Santa Clara County segments, operations considerations and planning parameter assumptions. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/2023 Chair Burt asked if the future minimum corridor separation time going from four to two minutes would reduce the length of a 4-Track system, what factors would enable them to go from four to two minutes and if the ability to accelerate faster from electrified trains would be a crucial aspect. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Edgar Torres confirmed shortening the corridor separation time would reduce track length. Positive train control and an upgrade to the signaling system would enable them to reduce the length. He discussed how faster acceleration would be crucial. Council Member Vicki Veenker noted the business plan slide that discussed the moderate growth scenario mentioning eight Caltrain and four HSR trains freight. She commented that it looked like the better technical crossing spot would have been Palo Alto Avenue. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Edgar Torres answered that was the peak-hour scenario and there is typically not freight operations during that time. He stated they would provide a diagram that would show how the trains would be slotted in the corridor. Nadia Naik asked if the two-minute headway would assume level boarding and center platforms and if the signaling upgrade would be a hardware or software upgrade and what it is called. Chair Burt noted currently there is no level boarding and there are times where it looks like everyone has boarded but the train does not take off because they have to factor in a certain amount of fudge time in case there was someone with a boarding issue. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Edgar Torres said it assumes a typical dwell time which could be level boarding. Center platforms are assumed where there are platforms. The signaling upgrade is both hardware and software and the name is to be determined. He stated there would be 10% accommodated time in the schedule. He provided slides representing the adopted service vision describing the details of how to decipher the information it provided and the two minute separation in and out of a 4-Track segment. He discussed the reason Palo Alto was not the crossing spot. He discussed the slides representing the track configuration and adopted service vision noting that prior to the work proceeding the 4-Track segment analysis in North Santa Clara county, the Mountain View Transit Center was identified as a 4-Track segment but was removed before the work initiated and outlined the reasons. He then discussed slides outlining the initial trade-offs and key elements and influence of turnout design on service. Council Member Veenker wanted to know why the left and right turnout was different. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Edgar Torres explained the differences between the turnouts. He presented a slide discussing typical section for running track. Chair Burt asked if the space for a vehicle on the outside of the track was a necessity or a preference. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/2023 Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Edgar Torres answered it is preferred and depends on the conditions of the location whether it is a necessity and explained the reasons. He then presented slides outlining the technical analysis, the high community and infrastructure impacts of the Palo Alto station segment and explanation of why Palo Alto as a crossing was avoided. Chair Burt commented that the picture showed that the tracks running through the University Avenue area have a dogleg. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Edgar Torres explained why that matters. Council Member Veenker asked if the dogleg is going to slow down the high-speed rail. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Edgar Torres stated it will slow down the high-speed rail. Nadia Naik asked what the significance of the softball field is. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Edgar Torres answered they were trying to be aware of anything that is a community asset. He stated the illustrations in the presentation were to be able to identify the key constraints and key trade-offs. He discussed infrastructure constraints at the Palo Alto Station. The next slides discussed California Avenue Station segment community and infrastructure impacts relative to the Palo Alto segment. Council Member Veenker asked if option D could be shorter. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Edgar Torres stated that option had been explored but the challenges it presented. He discussed slides regarding the San Antonio Station segment high community and infrastructure impacts and major reconstruction and San Antonio Road Overpass impact. He provided a summary of the constraints of all three segments and the preliminary understanding. Item 1 Public Comment 1. Eric Nordman wanted to know if the existing overpass will have to be upgraded to withstand extra weight when existing overpass grade separations are upgraded and since the 4-Track will have significant width, will that allow elimination of the trench option. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Edgar Torres answered the bridges need to be modified where necessary and the bridges may need to be upsized if necessary to accommodate the load to handle Caltrain and UP Service in the corridor. He discussed the impacts to the trench alternatives. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi further elaborated on the trench alternatives. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/2023 Caltrain Official Navdeep Dhaliwal added Caltrain has not had the opportunity to review the trench alternatives so that would be a question for the City and might require further analysis. Chair Burt stated at the next meeting, the Committee might want to have that analysis done so they could be clear whether a trench is viable or what greater cost impact it might have. Council Member Veenker asked if there would also be some legal analysis. Chair Burt’s understanding was they would technically only have to allow for it but practically it would be impossible to build a 2-Track trench and then a 4. Caltrain Official Navdeep Dhaliwal commented this went back to where operational feasibility kicks in on where the 4-Track is necessary based upon the blended service needs for both High-Speed Rail and Caltrain. She thought this could help influence a lot of the work they had been partnering with City Staff on and evaluating how to apply the knowledge to the alternatives. She stated it is about what is implementable for a 4-Track versus what is constructible later. Nadia Naik commented that the key is that it cannot preclude but also make materially more expensive. She felt it was obvious that it would not fit. Chair Burt stated that brought up the clarification that if and when a 4-Track is actually needed, that those funds would not be a burden on the City but on the railway system and that they cannot select an alternative that would be materially more expensive than other alternatives. Caltrain Official Navdeep Dhaliwal answered that is something the Project Team has explored and thought they should make sure they do that confirmation with the partner agency to ensure they have the right direction on what that future constructability would look like and who would be responsible. Council Member Ed Lauing asked if there was an update on the potential timeline as to when the decision would be made. Caltrain Official Navdeep Dhaliwal stated they could begin to have conversations about what the responsibility of funding would look like in the near future. In terms of timing when High-Speed Rail would come, the most recent marker they have is 2032-33 at the earliest and that would be up to the planning efforts from High-Speed Rail. Chair Burt stated $20B has been identified and the estimate of the system is about $120B but that is before they do cost updates. Council Member Ed Lauing commented that means there is an option that it does not get done and they cannot wait 50 years to decide to build two or four tracks and need direction SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/2023 on that and should they try to eliminate some of the alternatives in order not to disrupt infrastructure. Chair Burt surmised the dilemma is that whether they think High-Speed Rail is coming or not, they and Caltrain have to do grade separations in ways that allow for 4-Tracks in a given location. Council Member Lauing felt they could start the negotiation of where they want to go. 2. Steve Rosenblum asked if there were any compromises necessary to deal with freight on the right-of-way and if Caltrain has any idea how long freight service will be required on the right-of-way. 3. Adrian Brandt pointed out that CPUC will not allow tracks to be added to existing crossings but new crossings with more than two tracks. Regarding the switch numbers and turnout speeds, it is very common to have moving frog turnouts. He suggested improving the clarity of the chart showing the merging distances. He stated a viaduct was the easiest to expand except for on San Antonio Road where there is already something up in the air. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Edgar Torres stated with regards to compromising the design to deal with freight, there was no specific compromise. Caltrain Official Navdeep Dhaliwal stated Caltrain is planning for freight being a part of their system and will always accommodate for freight service. She added they have to accommodate High-Speed Rail and Caltrain service regardless of when High-Speed Rail comes. They did the analysis to provide that insight on where the segment would be and refinement of the 4-Track segment and were committed to working with the City to accommodate and not preclude the 4-Track and the City’s design efforts for their LPAs. They welcome feedback on the options throughout the service agreement process. Council Member Lauing asked if they just want a prioritization of one through four in terms of preferences. Chair Burt added the Staff just received technical feedback on the various alternatives they had been looking at which provided more considerations that influence the decision- making. He thought they would want to soon merge the additional considerations of the 4- Track impacts and the other technical impacts and see how that influences making one of the alternatives that are less favorable or another comparatively more favorable. He felt that would be crucial at the end of the meeting when they get into discussions on upcoming meetings because they have some aggressive timelines for narrowing the alternatives because of the grant funding they have and they will have to merge all the new information, make recommendations to Council and then get it to the Council to see if they can have additional refinement on preferred alternatives. He asked if VTA is up to speed on this. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/2023 Caltrain Official Navdeep Dhaliwal stated she had a very light-touch conversation with VTA about this but they were looking to share this information with them very soon. Chair Burt added VTA has the Grade Separation Ad-Hoc Committee and it is questioned if they want a presentation. They need to have VTA in the conversation to better understand whether reconstruction of San Antonio is an option. Council Member Veenker wondered if discussing the cost for different alternatives would be helpful. Chair Burt said that would bring up the question whether they need ACOM to begin work sooner rather than later on the very rough order of magnitude cost implications. Nadia Naik said they have costing data for all the alternative not including 4-Tracks. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi added they do not have open scope to do this and would need a new agreement or contract amendment that would need to go to Council. It would be significant work for the consultant. Chair Burt asked if he could meet with ACOM before the next meeting to get a little better understanding of how much time would be needed and how much it would cost because they need that input to make a good decision or they can do their own extrapolation based upon the cost of the alternatives they had on 2-Track systems. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi answered he could meet with them before the next meeting but probably would not have any new information by then. He felt they needed to discuss how in depth they will want them to go. Chair Burt stated he could get a rough estimate on San Antonio from VTA. Nadia Naik asked if there has been any consideration from the City’s perspective about doing a coordinated area plan with Mountain View about San Antonio generally based on the housing element. Chair Burt stated they do not necessarily have money for Measure A; although, in discussions with VTA leadership, there is belief that a study of Measure A would be eligible for an FTA grant for the study. Action Items 2. Provide update from Caltrain’s Local Policy Makers Group Meeting Regarding Caltrain Crossings Strategy Project, Review Caltrain's Proposed Metrics for Prioritizing Grade Crossings, and Propose Feedback for Caltrain Consideration SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/2023 Chair Burt announced a workshop meeting at Mountain View City Hall from 4:00 to 6:00 on Thursday, November 30 to propose metrics proposed by Caltrain for grade crossings and opened that discussion for feedback. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi noted there was a slide that identified the proposed four metrics to include safe and equitable mobility, equitable community benefits, cost efficiencies and reliable funding and maximized rail corridor utility. He explained the purpose of this item was to determine if there is any feedback the Rail Committee wants to provide for Caltrain’s consideration. Kimley-Horn Transit Project Manager Jill Gibson stated earlier in the Corridor Crossing Strategy study, they worked with Local Policy Maker’s Group (LPMG) and City Staff Coordinating Group (CSCG) to develop the four program goals. They are now working on an approach to start assessing crossings at the request of many of the jurisdictions along the Corridor to prioritize the projects. This initial assessment is a way to evaluate each crossing with binary metrics. Council Member Veenker asked for explanation about the downtime growth for the safe and equitable mobility factor. She wondered if there were changes in service levels and demand post pandemic. Kimley-Horn Transit Project Manager Jill Gibson answered that the calculation was based on the 2040 business plan. Chair Burt added nobody knows about the post pandemic changes yet. Caltrain is looking at reevaluating the business plan based on those circumstances which he explained in detail. Nadia Naik suggested it might be helpful to give the exact language they were thinking about and she thought the gate downtime presentations missed the multiplication of the downtime if the distance between two grade separations is short and that impacts the road network differently. She also suggested putting a number to emergency vehicle access. Kimley-Horn Transit Project Manager Jill Gibson stated that is something they had talked with the City Staff group about and were thinking about how to incorporate the feedback they received about that. Chair Burt commented that putting numbers to it goes to the challenge of a desire to have binary decisions but he stated examples of why he did not think that works. He thought the issue with gate downtime was the issue of the impact on gate downtime where it is a significant congestion factor and they want to look at how crossings relate to one another. Under the “equitable community benefits” column, he stated there are a lot of different kinds and sizes of schools and they should not be treated as equal impacts. He asked for clarification on the third column if it was saying it is higher or lower priority if it is within a quarter mile. He clarified that the future 4-Track area was placed in the same priority as if needed for blended purposes. He suggested they could look at the criteria established for selecting local preferred alternatives as a follow-up. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/2023 Kimley-Horn Transit Project Manager Jill Gibson answered this was thinking about the packaging and efficiency of projects. She thought it would be better written, “To the extent that two grade separations intermingle with each other.” She stated they were open to suggestions and they would talk more about it the next week. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi thought the Safe Routes to School was more critical than the 0.5 miles. He wondered if the first item introduced a recency bias. Nadia Naik pointed out that in if there is no inherent promise to the entire system that they are going to grade separate the entire corridor eventually, the metrics become tools used against each other. She added as they get better at doing the corridor things, there is an efficiency in coordinating several projects being built at the same time. Chair Burt agreed with looking at corridor-wide segment sequencing impact. He appreciated that the attempt at binary quantitative metrics was to get out of the cities competing but he was not sure they could get there. He felt having well-thought criteria is valuable even if they could not get to the point of eliminating the competition for dollars. Nadia Naik thought they should be in thought of coordination of light-timing through the corridor would be important. She suggested raising that issue with MTC. Senior Engineer Bhatia added the three different approaches are being looked at for all crossings for the whole corridor. He felt these metrics would be helpful and could be evaluated and updated on a periodic basis as more information is found. Future Meetings and Agendas Tuesday, December 5th Chair Burt announced Caltrain has submitted a substantial amount of feedback on the technical standards. He stated given how that affects the preferred alternatives combining with a 4- Track, they are on an aggressive timeline to address that. He asked if they could have a preliminary discussion of some of the germane parts of that at the December 5 meeting. Senior Engineer Bhatia answered they were hoping to bring a review at a more comprehensive level in January. Chair Burt stated that sounded more realistic. He asked what items are on the agenda for December. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi answered for December there will be a presentation from Ozzy Arce and the consultant on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/2023 Chair Burt discussed in January they will be reviewing the technical feedback from Caltrain and asked if they would then be ready to make recommendations to the Council on at least narrowing alternatives. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi thought that the technical Caltrain comments in conjunction with the 4-Tracking would lead them in that direction and he thought it was a possibility. Chair Burt noted that there are no January Committee meetings because the Mayor needs to reappoint or select new committee members. They have a discussion on procedures and protocols and he intended to bring up the question of whether the Council wants to support a rollover of existing committees into January and then in February it will be the same or different composition of committees. He was hoping for continuity so they could have a January meeting. Nadia Naik said that the January meeting would be highly technical and dense. She pointed out if they were not able to give decisions in January and pushed into a February meeting and if the composition changed, there would be new people who had to get caught up to speed. She felt that with all the new information, there should be a special effort to drive people to a Rail Committee or City Council meeting when it has all been discussed since it has been a while since the Community has heard any of it. Chair Burt stated that on Monday they could discuss the ramifications of having a meeting in January and whether they want to recommend continuity of a committee like this. He thought Staff could be thinking about at what point in time a public workshop meeting would be needed and that could be discussed in two weeks. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 P.M.