Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-12-05 Rail Summary MinutesRAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 12 Special Meeting December 5, 2023 The Rail Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 2:37 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. Public Comment 1. Martin Sommer discussed the contents of an email he sent to the Rail Committee and Council regarding the meeting two weeks before. He added comments about Option A to include there are 44 homes directly across the street from the University Avenue Station and relocating the tracks directly in front of their windows would be devasting. He also clarified they did not want the tracks straightened at University Avenue with 110 MPH trains going past their windows. 2. Adrian Brandt wanting to bring awareness to the fact that project costs are escalating due to background inflation. He noted that Caltrain’s proposed contract with Aecom for the Rengstorff Grade Separation mentions that they will be building the bridge and the electrification infrastructure such that it will accommodate four tracks. The City may decide to defer Rengstorff in order to continue building Castro on the previously envisioned schedule. 3. Steve Rosenblum mentioned the possibility of permanently reducing the width of Alma from four to two lanes making it no longer a high-speed roadway through town which would make a viaduct much more accessible if they were to build one. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/05/2023 Verbal Update on Interagency Activities A. Caltrain B. VTA C. City Staff Chief Transportation Official Kamhi said that City Staff met with Caltrain Staff the day before to do an initial review of the Caltrain technical comments. He noted the VTA ad-hoc committee meeting on December 15 at 10 a.m. at VTA Headquarters. Chair Burt added that BART and MTC Board Members have spoken publicly about an issue that was being explored by MTC Staff in recent months which is the prospect of a merger of Caltrain and BART which is not an initiative that is supported by Caltrain. This would be discussed at a meeting the following Friday. Study Session 1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: an active transportation plan— Introduction & Overview, Community Engagement, Context & Baseline Conditions, and Next Steps No action taken. Senior Transportation Planner Ozzy Arce provided a presentation about the BPTP update. The plan was last updated in 2012. He advised that the plan goes beyond bicycles and pedestrians to include scooters and e-bikes. He outlined the presentation agenda. Kittelson & Associates Consultant Amanda Leahy joined the presentation and discussed slides outlining the Rail Committee role and responsibilities, BPTP update objectives, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan update vs. Safe Streets for All action plan, project overview and timeline, phases of engagement and engagement tools and activities. She next provided slides outlining the technical analysis to include baseline conditions – analysis topics, document review, existing facilities inventory and Bicycle Community Friendly review. She then discussed the next steps. Senior Transportation Planner Arce discussed the previous direction from the City Council and Rail Committee relating to the BPTP update. Council Member Lauing asked what Seale vs. Kellogg means. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/05/2023 Senior Transportation Planner Arce explained Seale vs. Kellogg is two locations that will be evaluated. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi clarified for the Churchill underpass option, they are looking at a bicycle and pedestrian underpass and if it should occur at either Seale or Kellogg. Chair Burt clarified that this Committee has already recommended that the focus be placed on Seale. They are anxiously awaiting the Council’s official endorsement. Senior Transportation Planner Arce mentioned that they did include the evaluation of this as part of their scope of work but they wanted to be sure to evaluate it as part of their network and include things to determine where the best connections to these potential crossings are as it relates to the network. Chair Burt stated that is one of the reasons they wanted to deemphasize Kellogg because it appears to have less value to the network that Seale as well as having a lot of physical issues which he elaborated on. He added that this was the only Council Committee keyed up to be reviewing this plan. They were not focused on elements of the plan that do not relate to the Rail Corridor but most of the plan relates to Rail. He asked for explanation of the terms facilities, bike level of stress and quiet streets. He inquired about a glossary of terms which he felt would be helpful. Kittelson & Associates Consultant Leahy provided explanations of those terms in the context of this plan. She added creating a glossary for the report document was included in their scope of work. Council Member Veenker wanted to know why there is a BPTP safety survey on their website with a deadline of December 31 that was not referenced in the presented update. Senior Transportation Planner Arce said it is the Safe Systems For All Action Plan Survey that is also related to the BPTP in the context of bicycle and pedestrian safety. They wanted to promote it as part of their website. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi clarified the Safe Streets For All Action Plan is really for all modes whereas the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan is focused on active transportation. The survey has crossover to both of those plans. Council Member Veenker thought it was interesting that it is first as if it is part of that plan and she felt that should be clarified. She wanted to know if there was a reason it was not on the Safety Analysis slide. Senior Transportation Planner Arce stated they could add it as part of that. He clarified the data will feed into both projects. He noted there have been blog posts and communications that have been referenced together and that they have received a substantial amount of responses on both the interactive map and the survey. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/05/2023 Council Member Lauing noted the prioritization of data on the high injury networks and he presumed they would go ahead and fix what is at emergency level now. He asked if the multiday collab and work sessions were intended for the public and asked for a breakdown of what that will look like. Senior Transportation Planner Arce answered that it will help them to prioritize potential projects. Kittelson & Associates Consultant Leahy answered the multiday collab and work sessions would be a mix of events that have not been all planned out yet. She described some potential ideas that were being considered. Nadia Naik was curious about their methodology for doing bike and traffic counts and how they use the existing data. She noticed that the collision data mentioned in the Staff report only goes five years back and thought that might not be the best data to collect due to the pandemic and they might need to go back further. Kittelson & Associates Consultant Leahy believed the City has manual counts conducted at some locations. The last counts were collected a couple of years ago. They would look at that data and as part of the activity and demand analysis, they were going to pull in big data sources that use cellphone data, possibly Replica, to supplement the lack of counts. An outcome of this and the last plan was a recommendation for a count program establishing more consistent counts in the City. Regarding the collision data and history, they understand the limitations of that time period; however, federal guidance for some grants requires a five-year time period. She described some challenges in going longer. One thing they planned to do to help tell a more long-term picture is pull 10 years of data from a transportation injury website mapping tool but they will base the high-injury network and collision profile analysis on the five-year period for the reasons she had mentioned. Chair Burt talked about sensors that had been installed about 10 years ago for a 5-year period that picked up bikes and peds. He thought it may not be a good technology any longer. He stated they have a huge school commute program and elementary students would not have cellular data. He wanted to make sure that was captured. The Safe Routes to School Program has their own information that could complement what they were able to get through other sources. He did not think of any recent significant roadway changes that would have changed that. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi added it does not have to be a significant roadway change but any roadway change that changes behavior. Chair Burt suggested they might consider engaging with the School Board and private schools that are not as strongly involved with the Safe Routes to School Program. He wanted to know where the lines are drawn as to what lane e-bikes belong in. He talked about a need to accelerate the decisions on locations of bike and ped crossings under the Caltrain corridor. He SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/05/2023 discussed bike and ped crossings versus separated crossings in Palo Alto and asked if that had been looked at as a high-level context as a timing priority. Senior Transportation Planner Arce answered that the crossings will be evaluated. He discussed how they would develop the network. Chair Burt stated they have already identified these things tentatively for a decade and if there needs to be an update to that, they need to decide how to move forward the ability to focus effort on being able to make themselves eligible for funding for bike and ped crossings in months rather than years in a way that does not hinder their sequencing on the whole grade separation program. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi noted that they are following the process directed by Council and he explained that process. Public Comment 1. Ken Joye said that if they are looking to make pedestrian or bicycle grade separations on the other side of Oregon Expressway, he thought something near Loma Verde would take clear priority over something near Adobe Creek. He hoped things would be prioritized appropriately. 2. Amie Ashton, daily Caltrain bike commuter, advocated for the units that they know are coming on Cal Ave stating they need to ensure the new neighbors have convenient access to the underpasses and stations. She agreed the plans need to be simple and easy to use. 3. Eric Nordman reiterated the importance of building the pedestrian and bicycle crossings before the construction begins. He clarified that level 2 e-bikes have a throttle like a motorcycle and level 3 e-bikes are pedal-assist but have a 28 mph max speed. 4. Keri Wagner agreed more pedestrian and bike crossings were needed in South Palo Alto and that it is important to have this in place before construction because of the kids that have to bike across the railroad tracks to get to school. 5. Steve Rosenblum, representative of Reconnect Palo Alto, promoted the viaduct as the best solution of the rail crossings and discussed the reasons for that. 6. Bruce Arthur believed separate bike and pedestrian crossings were needed in South Palo Alto and his reasoning behind that. 7. Penny Ellson agreed about the need for prioritization of projects. She talked about the importance of maintaining the South Palo Alto grade separated crossings through the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/05/2023 construction period. She found it worrisome that there were no plans for South Palo Alto in the presentation. Council Member Lauing echoed the concern about getting going on the grade separation underpasses in South Palo Alto and added that housing would be added on El Camino that would have the same problem. He liked the organization of the plan and thought it would be productive. He wanted to know what was meant by providing support for marginalized groups. Kittelson & Associates Consultant Amanda Leahy said they have some budget set aside for transition or interpretation services if that is requested. She added they may also choose to site their engagements nearer to East Palo Alto or Stanford University. Council Member Veenker asked for discussion about how things could be accelerated to ensure prioritization. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi answered a separate task had been included in the scope that comes out earlier than the completion of the entire bicycle and pedestrian plan for the specific South Palo Alto additional bike and ped crossings. They are also trying to hire a senior planner to work on that to help expedite it. They believe they can do that within the timing necessary in order to apply for grants. He talked about the differentiation between the two. Nadia Naik said on the list of documents on Packet Page 21, she did not see the Rail Corridor statement and thought they would want to put it in the list of referring documents to make sure everybody understood they looked at it. On Packet Page 22, under Vision and Goals, she thought a bullet was needed to represent the emphasis that policy-makers built in the comprehensive plan in the 2012 Bike Plan to talk about the permeability of the Rail Corridor. She reminded that the reason Seale and Kellogg were so specific was because it is tied to the Churchill Underpass alternative. She also clarified that during construction of the grade separations at Meadow and Charleston, the City would be able to make it so that pedestrians and bicyclists can cross but parents are concerned about it causing kids to go through a construction zone which is why there is discussion of other things. She said all of the planning documents point toward something in the vicinity of Loma Verde being the highest priority. She wanted to know if it was possible to apply Measure B money to some of this as they apply for funding or if the money raised on the business tax could be put down as a matching funding to get more grants. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi thought VTA unofficially told them they could not use the funding for additional crossings. They said they could build a bike and ped tunnel at the crossing where it is separate and they would consider that as part of the project. He did believe the business tax would be a possibility in leveraging grants. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/05/2023 Chair Burt noted that Measure B also has two other buckets of funding that would potentially apply here. The discretionary fund for improved roadway conditions for cities with a PCI score below what they are could be pursued. VTA and others had emphasized other active transportation dollars that would be available for this sort of dedicated crossing and had pushed them to move forward as quickly as possible to not lose the window of opportunity for those funds. He wanted to revisit how to move forward with prioritizing a crossing in the vicinity of Loma Verde and discussed an extensive study covering that. He asked about the timing and the addition of Staff to help with this. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated they have a new Staff member Council approved but they have been unsuccessful in recruitment and would have to go back out again. Chair Burt asked if they need to go back to the Council to have them give greater clarity under Task 5. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi noted the steps they have going on right now are to collect the Community data and compile all the data they have to look at the network. That needs to occur in order for them to get to Task 5. Senior Transportation Planner Arce added essentially they need to go through the sequence of steps to get to Task 5 which means understanding the existing conditions as well as understanding the needs and concerns of residents and starting to develop those recommendations. Task 5 will include a memo that speaks to the grade separations crossings and that will come before the draft and final plan. Kittelson & Associates Consultant Leahy stated the technical analysis she had previously outlined feeds into their understanding of which alignment or route might be the one that they prioritize. They will be developing a set of prioritization criteria in the needs and concerns phase. Once they have determined that, they will be developing the concepts they are looking for. Chair Burt did not believe they need to have a complete restart of the network analysis. The location prioritization does not need to be redetermined. If the current thinking is that without Council stepping in and clarifying that is part of the crucial network gap and they want to proceed on that ahead of the more systematic approaches that are ideal and necessary for the whole system, they need to give it back to the Council to provide clarity. Nadia Naik stated it was taken out of the Rail Corridor Study and given to the NVCAP. Chair Burt added it was referred to the NVCAP rather than Rail Corridor Study because they were actively having the coordinated area plan that was focused and would be completed sooner. He was not clear why it was not brought forward by Staff within that context despite the fact that Council gave that direction. This is a series of over 20 years saying this is a priority and he thought the Committee needs to decide whether they want to request that this be agendized to the Council as soon as possible so they can get clarity and be on the same page. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/05/2023 He asked the City Manager where they are on next update to the Council on Rail issues where they seek Council determination or guidance on certain things and how soon could it go to the Council, would it be part of another package on Rail or best be come forward as a single item. City Manager Ed Shikada answered standalone versus packaged with others would depend on the status of the other issues and readiness to go. Incorporating the issue of the crossing location as a part of the overall BPTP was to ensure that the connectivity of the crossings reflected the Citywide needs. No matter where the crossing is located, some level of localized concerns or opposition could be expected. Using the overall BPTP planning process was used as a way to ensure that the context is provided such that as those concerns are raised the Council and City has that to rely on going forward. The challenge with pushing forward on the crossing location now would be having the potential to confront that kind of concern. The question for Staff is if there is an early point rather than waiting for the full plan to be completed at which sufficient clarity has been defined through the ongoing planning process to be able to come forward and say based on the evaluation of needs and options they have confirmed that this is the preferential crossing location. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi noted that is how the plan was outlined. The final task will be Task 8 and he noted that is why it was included in Task 5. Any type of expediating this in any regard would require Staff unless it comes at the expense of something else they are working on. Chair Burt added that his assumption was Staff was not to determine a precise set of routes on that. It is in the general location of Loma Verde and Matadero Creek. He discussed issues they have on different locations. The first level step was if they are prioritizing going forward with a grade separation in the vicinity of Loma Verde. Once that has been determined, they do not need to do another network study to determine what networks studies have determined successfully for 20 year which the map shows it is the greatest distance in the whole City without a crossing of both Alma and the Railway. They do not have a traffic signal near Meadow all the way to Churchill. This is why it has been prioritized for 20 years. The question if whether they need that clarification from the Council so there is no ambiguity and then the issues of staffing the resources to take the next step but not awaiting the network study. If they authorize an additional staffing person to accelerate things like this, the next step will be determining the best location and looking at a preliminary design. That does not preclude them from saying they are not going to pull this back for the network study and other aspects of the plan. He asked the City Manager if clarification is needed and, if so, how soon can they get before the Council. City Manager Ed Shikada stated there was need for clarification on expectations for what benefit there is to have a general vicinity identified versus a specific intersection. Their experience in looking for a route in this vicinity has always come down to the very specifics of what is a viable route and what has some fatal flaw. He got the sense they needed a specific location to be identified in order to be useful for enabling the City to move to the next place that would be project development for the bike and ped crossing. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/05/2023 Chief Transportation Official Kamhi thought they were talking about six months to get to Task 5. He thought there was an assumption that it was further out because of the scale of the whole plan but they were not talking about completing the entire plan before completing this. He concurred with what the City Manager said that it was tied to the direction they received from Council of looking at the network as a whole in order to determine this location. Chair Burt added that six months was unnecessary. They had already lost 18 months or more since they had a similar discussion at the end of last year. He did not think they need to identify a precise route location before moving forward. He thought they needed to go in the sequence of prioritizing the location, putting the resources in and then going through a process on that. The exploration of using the Valley Water Corridor east of Alma was worth pursuing and was not feasible. It was pivoted to placing a dedicated lane on Loma Verde which necessitated taking parking out from an entire side of the street and there was pushback on that. That is a big deal anywhere in the City. The alternatives are looking at having a low-traffic volume street one or two streets north of Loma Verde. That may require a comp plan amendment because they have a restriction on street closures and they may need to modify that to look at allowing certain restrictions to help facilitate bike travel. That would need to be done sooner rather than later and would have to be on the 2024 agenda. If Council was already given guidance that they are open to that, these things could be done in parallel. He thought on the west of El Camino, they would have some contention on whether to have an off-road path in the Valley Water Right-of-Way versus the share roads currently on Matadero Road. He wants to get this started as soon as they have a new Staff person or consultant. He reiterated all the reasons to move forward. Nadia Naik suggested adding the 2016 Midtown Connector Study into the list of documents. She thought the biggest problem was getting across and under the Caltrain Right-of-Way. They now have information about Four Tracks and detailed information on what they will require for bike and pedestrian undercrossings so they are in the best position to be able to use that information and they have a good argument to bring to Council. City Manager Ed Shikada suggested this be handled standalone. He would expect that something else will slow down in order to accelerate this decision and the expectation of follow-up after. He would want to consider the six months and say if the Committee is inclined to not bring this to Council right now, that Staff take a look at the schedule to see what can be done to accelerate that six months. Chair Burt stated that shortening was a question of whether they have to review again the network plan in order to have an agreement for about five different documents that have all identified this as being a high-priority gap in the network. That goes back to whether that is really necessary to go through that process again or can they let the network plan go forward but hold this off with an understanding that it is well established that it is a crucial link in the network and does not need to await that still dependent on getting the Staff onboard and proceeding with the next steps. They did not need to take it to Council if they have agreement SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/05/2023 with Staff that it does not have to go through that reevaluation of the network. If it does, they need to take it to the Council. City Manager Ed Shikada thought they need to have Staff perspective on how to rationalize that recommendation and what that would mean in terms of accelerating the next steps. Council Member Veenker supported whatever it takes to get it to Council or avoid that. Council Member Lauing felt it seemed the City Manager’s suggestion would have to be done anyway. Chair Burt agreed they will need additional resources to come onboard before they can take the policy direction and start moving on it. He asked if they need clarity from the Council on this as a policy direction or do they have Staff go back and review what they pointed out in the history and do they concur that there is adequate existing policy that enables them to prioritize that. Assuming it goes forward and they have a January Rail Committee meeting, they can wait to have a final decision on that or just informally ask the City Manager to pursue with Transportation Staff whether they will agree that this can precede the network analysis and if not be working on the soonest it can get to the Council agenda. Based on the City Manager’s guidance, he was okay with deferring this to an update in January. Council Member Veenker asked for clarification of the kinds of things should be noted on the City’s interactive map and when it would be closed. She noted that there is nothing between Oregon and Meadow going up and down Alma. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi provided that clarification. He stated they had to repopulate the map because it was so filled with comments. He noted that there would be a hard stop that night at 5 p.m. Chair Burt asked why they would not continue the map after the first of the year. Senior Transportation Planner Arce answered that at some point they want to conclude this phase as a Community engagement plan to summarize the results. Community Member Penny Ellson added that in the spring they do big bicycle promotions at the schools and that gets more kids on bikes. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi said that the survey was supposed to end on November 30 and they decided to extend it through December. The difficulty with keeping it open longer is that it takes them longer to get to the analysis. Chair Burt thought there would be value in capturing the data they have received and then reopening the survey if possible. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/05/2023 Senior Transportation Planner Arce added there will be other forms of engagement as they proceed and move along in the effort. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated as part of the Safe Streets For All action plan they would have ongoing opportunities and are considering options for interactive and physical maps to continue to collect this type of data. He stated they had received 600 to 800 surveys and it seemed to be tapering off. The map filled up with comments very quickly before it was cleared and seems to be filling up more slowly now. Council Member Veenker wondered if there is a possibility they could learn how to tweak the map from the nature of the comments. Kittelson & Associates Consultant Leahy explained ways they could customize the map. She thought the main concern of keeping the map open too long would be the time required to continue reading through the comments and responding to them. Chair Burt suggested featuring the map on their homepage for the remaining time before it closes. City Manager Ed Shikada stated it has been featured on the homepage. He pointed out that talking about extending the input period would conflict with his ability to push Staff to compress the time to get to the project. He thought it might be interesting to validate the conclusions and the draft plan and use that as a way to get additional engagement and feedback at the subsequent phase of the project. Chair Burt wanted to say one thing that had not been a priority in their network plan but would potentially be imposed on them was the separated bike lanes on El Camino that Caltrans is pursuing. In Palo Alto, they have spent decades establishing parallel routes to El Camino and have not had an opportunity as a City to look at the pros and cons of that and whether it should be in addition to what they are doing. He had recently been told County Roads has a plan to make a more explicit bike lane on Central. The prior plan had the prospect of an offroad path in the wide parking strip from East Meadow down to San Antonio. They needed to look at the pros and cons of removing the parking on El Camino to establish a bike lane and the pros and cons of safety of a separated lane from the cars running parallel versus cars every 50 to 100 yards being able to cross against a bike lane. He asked if they have seen the actual drawings of Caltrans is proposing. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi answered they had seen an early version but they have been redone and they have not seen the current ones yet. They requested that information by December 15. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/05/2023 Future Meetings and Agendas Chair Burt clarified that the next meeting would be focused on the Caltrain Technical Standard feedback. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi confirmed that and trying to confirm that Caltrain would be able to come to the January meeting. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:59 P.M.