Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01-23 Rail Committee Summary MinutesRAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 12 Special Meeting January 23, 2024 The Rail Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 2:30 P.M. Present In Person: Burt (Chair), Lauing, Veenker Present Remotely: Absent: Lythcott-Haims Call to Order Chair Pat Burt called the Rail Committee meeting to order. The clerk called roll with all being present. Public Comment 1. Jerry Underdal congratulated the Committee on reopening the grade separation discussion and thanked them for reviewing all options. 2. Eric Nordman presented data predicting an increase in traffic. He noted the studies were done with pre-pandemic data and opined that remote and hybrid work may in fact lead to a decrease in traffic. He thought if traffic is expected to increase, the underpass option is best but if no increase is expected, the hybrid option is preferred due to affordability and feasibility. He believed the hybrid option being used by other cities was a good predictor of funding agency support. Verbal Update on Interagency Activities A. Caltrain B. VTA C. City Staff SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/23/2024 Navi Dhaliwal, Government & Community Affairs Officer, Caltrain shared that the Corridor Crossings Strategy and 4-Track Refinement analysis results previously shared with the Rail Committee will be shared at the PC JPB’s Advocacy and Mega Projects Committee. Jill Gibson, Consultant, Kimley Horn and Associates provided an update on the Corridor Crossings Strategy. She noted the November workshop was a success and shared that another workshop is TBD for February or March to bring all jurisdictions together and talk about next steps for the program strategy and moving forward as a corridor. She shared that a draft grade separation guide was created and the City of Palo Alto reviewed it and provided over 300 comments. She stated Caltrain will be addressing and incorporating comments in the next few weeks with the goal of having a final document in March on their website. She explained the delivery guide documents the process while the program strategy is a longer-term vision for bringing the corridor together to advance crossings. She highlighted the upcoming Caltrain AMP Committee will hear results of the 4-Track Refinement work for Millbrae, Hayward, Hillsdale, Redwood City and a 1.9-mile segment in Palo Alto. She stated they will continue working with staff on how that is integrated into the Connecting Palo Alto Project. She summarized the corridor-wide program strategy and the three approaches they considered, of which a coordinated approach was preferred, according to feedback. Chair Burt elaborated on LPMG’s monthly meetings and quarterly workshops. It was noted that workshops are open to the public and meeting information is posted on caltrain.com on their CCS page. Chair Burt suggested the Committee send LMPG invites to their emailing list as well. He noted that a benefit of LPMG is that cities have a greater chance of getting large dollars collectively than individually. He reviewed VTA Committee updates from the last meeting and noted that VTA is the primary funding source for grade crossings in Santa Clara County. Council Member Ed Lauing explained that LPMG represents cities along the corridor. He noted the differences among those cities as well as their willingness to work together. Council Member Vicki Veenker expressed thanks for the Crossings Delivery Guide, opined it is a great resource and outlined its sections. Ripon Bhatia, Senior Engineer provided an update on the quiet zone project. Consultant services were procured to move forward with a design on permanent improvements required to implement a quiet zone study at Palo Alto Avenue. He noted they are working on an agreement which will come to the City Council for approval in February for a quiet zone study at Meadow, Charleston and Churchill crossings. The Palo Alto study completion timeline is 12 to 14 months but also depends on access and approvals by the FRA and CPUC. He also provided an update on FRA grants received. FRA’s objective is to have a funding agreement in place for the preliminary engineering and environmental phase for all three crossings by July of 2024. He shared they are coordinating and collaborating with Caltrain and legal to determine whether California High-Speed Rail Authority and/or FRA is their NEPA agency, as Caltrain is the lead agency for NEPA and CEQA for these projects. He reported the TIRCP CalSTA funding is programmed for the final design phase for Churchill Avenue for ’25-’26. He noted Caltrain SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/23/2024 Corridor Strategy guidelines were made available to staff to review and comments were due the previous Friday but the deadline was extended. He announced the hiring of a new senior planner, who will be geared toward pedestrian crossings across the Caltrain corridor. Public Comment: 1. Adrian Brandt (Zoom) expressed disappointment about the crossing guide not including a quiet zone toolkit as a primer for cities interested in doing one. He also suggested Caltrain loosen restrictive grade separation design guidelines that make grade separations expensive and preclude alternatives, especially pertaining to vertical curves and freight train speeds. He opined the guide could go further on bridge deck thickness and provided an example of a three-truss bridge design that Caltrain used at the Gerald Street Crossing in San Francisco. 2. Stephen Rosenblum (Zoom) commented on the timing of the crossing draft guide, which he stated was needed since 2009. He stated that the contractor AECOM was working under certain assumptions but Caltrain did not share guidance until this recent draft report. He thanked the staff and Council for their hard work and emphasized that decisions not being made on rail crossings are not due to the Palo Alto process but a lack of feedback from Caltrain. Action Items 1. Review and discuss comments received from Caltrain staff on the grade separation alternatives and provide feedback/direction to staff. Senior Engineer Bhatia presented a background of the Committee’s partnership with Caltrain on grade separation alternatives. He stated Caltrain will be leading the PE and environmental phase in accordance with their Capital Project Delivery process. He explained that the 200 plus comments received were categorized into eight buckets: vertical alignment, horizontal alignment, 4-track segment, roadway design, construction technology, culverts, cost estimates and cumulative concerns. He noted a correction in the report regarding roadway vertical clearance requirements, which could require reprofiling of roadways and impact driveways and right-of-ways. The other correction was top of rail to top of roadway requirements, which could affect cost and the length of the viaduct at the transition. He shared the Churchill Closure Option 1 and stated Caltrain policy requires it be placed outside of the Caltrain right-of-way or go through the JPB Board for approval. Nadia Naik noted that some comments are related to known and previously flagged concerns, which are noted on the matrix, while others are new. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/23/2024 Robert Barnard, Deputy Director of Capital Planning clarified that providing vertical clearance for the full width of the right-of-way has been in the standards for 20 years and is done by all railroads but the change from 15’6 to 16’6 is new. Chair Burt wondered why long-standing requirements were not mentioned or flagged by the consultants who worked with the Committee on alternatives. Council Member Veenker inquired about JPB Board approval processes, including length, cost and degree of stringency. Deputy Director Barnard shared a brief history of the rail service to the area and discussed Caltrain standards and changes, some relating to electrification. He stated 2024 standards will be published on their site in the coming weeks. He described the rail corridor use policy established by the board in February of 2020 and stated it runs out of the Planning Department. Chair Burt clarified that the board has three members from each of the three counties that comprise the joint power authority, totaling nine members. Deputy Director Barnard explained the variance process, which he described as a last resort after doing an exhaustive analysis and being unable to make standards work. He stated it is a review more for engineering than the board. Council Member Veenker inquired how much weight is put on cost and feasibility during the variance review process. Deputy Director Barnard responded that the process involves an exhaustive review to understand the context and is more of a conversation. Council Member Lauing asked about how different factors in the process are weighted, such as engineering, maintenance and unknown options. He expressed concern especially about eminent domain. Deputy Director Barnard explained the variance is a structured process seeking to understand the totality of the situation but is a last resort and reviewed case-by-case. Chair Burt highlighted the federal grant deadline of July 1, 2024 and expressed concerns about how the variance process aligns with the Council’s timing needs. Deputy Director Barnard responded by explaining best practices in the conceptual and engineering phases for laying out the largest likely footprint and understanding trade-offs between preferred clearances and potential need for variances. Nadia Naik emphasized that the project planning is down to smaller details and expressed concern about the timeline as well. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/23/2024 Deputy Director Barnard acknowledged the City’s exhaustive planning and matrix thus far but stressed the need to provide information for good decision-making, including alternatives as seen today and the impact of those choices represented simply. He provided examples from Menlo Park and reiterated Caltrain’s desire to be a collaborative partner in this process. Chair Burt highlighted differences between the Menlo Park and Palo Alto projects and reiterated his concern about the process timeline. Deputy Director Barnard responded that variances are not granted during the conceptual planning phase. He emphasized the need to show what the footprint would look like with and without variances to show the range of alternatives. Council Member Veenker added that alternatives cannot be done without a variance, making the process difficult. Deputy Director Barnard elaborated on the impact of the project on the community and how variances can alter that impact. Chair Burt asked how a decision can be made if the City does not know whether they can obtain critical variances. Deputy Director Barnard reiterated the need to show the full range of options in the conceptual phase, including the possible extent of alternatives. He provided examples and stated that each is a conversation to be walked through individually. Chair Burt recalled the intention to preserve the entire envelope of the corridor was based on the anticipation of four tracks of high-speed rail until the blended system was adopted by the legislature. He said because of state law, there will be no 4-track system throughout the whole length of the corridor, so the Caltrain guiding principles of preserving that latitude is disconnected from what is currently anticipated. He noted the possibility of having to rebuild a ramp in unforeseen circumstances and stated a need for deeper discussion on these topics. He gave example of right-of-way intrusion approved by Caltrain at Churchill and emphasized the impact of preserving latitude not needed in the past 160 years or in the next 40. Deputy Director Barnard responded that almost every railroad seeks to preserve right-of-way. He shared that the board established a right-of-way take or easement process for these discussions. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Torres explained that the Churchill turning lane example involves everything at grade. He shared when grade separations are involved, horizontal clearances are different. Chair Burt clarified that the concern relates more to clearances around structures not yet built but hypothesized. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/23/2024 Council Member Veenker stated that the totality of the circumstances approach is felt by the Committee as well as Caltrain. Senior Engineer Bhatia added that in conversations with peers, the entire right-of-way clearance was not required elsewhere in the corridor. Nadia Naik emphasized the need for a sense of the timing and flow of the process to ensure they can sign with the federal grant in July of 2024. Senior Engineer Bhatia continued his presentation of the grade separation draft and Caltrain comments. Churchill Closure Option 2 met all criteria and had no major comments. For the Churchill Partial Underpass, new facilities need to be placed outside of Caltrain right-of-way or go through the JPB Board for approval, retaining walls need adjustment, vertical clearance requires reprofiling the roadway, the bridge requires widening and the roadway design needs to meet Caltrain standards. The Meadow Charleston Underpass vertical clearance requires roadway reprofiling, bridge widening and adjustment of retaining walls for Caltrain right-of-way and must conform to Caltrain standards. The Meadow Charleston Hybrid option must provide required vertical clearance, retaining wall adjustment and sufficient horizontal clearance for structures, buildings and Caltrain right-of-way. The Meadow Charleston Viaduct requires additional vertical clearance, widening of the catwalk, retaining wall adjustment and horizontal clearance for structures, buildings and Caltrain right-of-way. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Torres elaborated on standards specific to the viaduct versus a bridge. He also shared that maintenance on viaducts is not done from an adjacent roadway but via high rail, which has rubber tires and rail wheels for transitioning between roadway and rail. He clarified the viaduct may need to shift because of the active and now electrified railroad. He noted there could be different construction techniques used, such as shutting down a lane on the street, which would require a more detailed constructability review. Deputy Director Barnard shared that as part of the delivery guide, Caltrain is proposing to change standards. To increase flexibility while increasing 16’6 clearance under the deck, he stated they want to loosen the standard to make it more attainable. He clarified that the director of engineering review is for 1% to 2% grade while a variance is a last resort, exhaustive analysis by the director of engineering that is decided at the board level because of the complexity. Chair Burt asked if the high rail maintenance vehicle would eliminate the need for the 10 feet of roadway access. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Torres explained that the viaduct is a structure supporting the rail but for the hybrid option, the retaining walls and soil support the rail through ties and ballast. He confirmed that the viaduct would allow for maintenance from the track rather than from a track-adjacent roadway. Chair Burt asked how the choice is made between a viaduct versus requiring a wider roadway. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/23/2024 Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Torres answered that the choice between a viaduct or a wider roadway has to do with the window for maintenance, which is affected for viaducts because of needing to de-energize and re-energize the OCS system. He confirmed that this trade-off needs to be discussed with Caltrain’s operations and maintenance. Chair Burt asked if it is possible to build a 2-track bridge now and later add two more tracks and elevate them if needed. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Torres answered that it could be done but must be designed to allow for that and needs to demonstrate how that secondary condition would be constructed. He stated it is not as easy as described. Deputy Director Barnard explained the OCS usually runs in half-mile segments, so raising the OCS is different than before, when it was the track. Chair Burt felt this was contingency planning for something unlikely to happen. Nadia Naik asked about culvert reconstruction needed for Adobe and Barron Creek to handle the extra weight or the viaduct or hybrid alternative. She expressed concerns about variances affecting not just engineering but time to construct, additional price, eminent domain and other factors like culverts. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Torres responded that part of the challenge is planning for structures like culverts and exploring different engineering and construction options. Senior Engineer Bhatia concluded his presentation with a summary of next steps, including coordination with Caltrain staff, consultants and/or the City Project Consultant for material changes and alternatives. Lou Thompson stated that engineering standards are the way engineers would like to have it but are never absolute and always subject to workarounds, compromises and solutions. He suggested making a list of all the variants of interest in one place and having a real discussion about solutions. He said providing for full track-wide clearance is not necessary in this case but in areas that will have four tracks in the future, they need to be provided for. He suggested reducing the discussion to what they would like to have and working together to minimize everyone’s cost. He added the underpass idea minimizes adverse impact on Caltrain and keeps them from having to change their operations. He emphasized that this project should not proceed from the assumption that standards are absolute. Public Comment: 1. Eric Nordman said a number of designs reviewed were recognized as less desirable and suggested getting Council approval to formally remove obsolete options. He opined that a safe solution for the Churchill northbound merge would be to have the right two lanes at ground level merge into one lane, so the ramp traffic does not merge. He thought SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/23/2024 feedback from Caltrain on what options are likely to be problematic or okay would be very helpful to the Council. He asked for clarification on whether the 10-foot clearance for maintenance is needed on one or both sides of the track. He noted an earlier mention of the Council making a decision on a preferred option for Meadow Charleston by 2024 and asked how this review changes that schedule. 2. Stephen Rosenblum (Zoom) complimented staff on a masterful job integrating Caltrain feedback into existing crossing proposals. He expressed disappointment in the lack of cooperativeness by Caltrain on helping make difficult decisions in view of their tardiness with requirements. He highlighted that Palo Alto real estate is very valuable and eminent domain is a lightning rod issue in the community. He opined that the 1% versus 2% grade is a place to start cooperating. He recommended submitting to the director of engineering for approval immediately on the 2% grade for the whole Palo Alto corridor. 3. Adrian Brandt (Zoom) emphasized that engineering standards should not be treated too reverently. He said the 2% grade is doable and nowhere else requires a 10-foot vehicular access road on elevated tracks, giving examples like Caltrain’s Gerald Avenue bridge in San Francisco, which is ballasted and does not have a 10-foot roadway. He said there is no ballast with a direct-fixation track, as the track is directly affixed to a concrete understructure and he did not understand why additional height is required, especially if a U-shaped viaduct is introduced, where the strength members are on the sides, similar to a through-girder bridge. He expressed disappointment in non- cooperativeness and encouraged more collaboration toward solutions. He wanted to see Caltrain be less doctrine and more flexible. He noted the viaduct is not just a cost on community in terms of profile but also creates a new linear space underneath, like with the Ohlone Greenway in the Bay Area. Council Member Veenker reiterated the Committee’s timeline needs and concluded they need to get the plans, forms and discussions in shape within 60 days. Chair Burt stated a need for a follow-up meeting between Committee staff, the Caltrain technical team and Caltrain’s CEO. Deputy Director Barnard noted Caltrain’s collaboration with Palo Alto and emphasized that Caltrain’s comments are intended as the beginning of finding solutions, not the end. Council Member Lauing felt this was a grim meeting and concluded that the reality is an intensive 60 days ahead to hold the necessary conversations. Nadia Naik commented that this process has been ongoing for years and opined the corridor crossing strategy booklet is a great resource. She felt the 60-day timeline was probably doable but would require Caltrain and the Council to see each other a lot. She suggested narrowing down the current three options to the more likely two solutions for each crossing. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/23/2024 Chair Burt asked about Caltrain’s capacity to focus on this project for the next couple months to deep dive and problem-solve. Deputy Director Barnard stated Caltrain could use their service agreement with AECOM and have Palo Alto staff direct AECOM while Caltrain provides the contracting vehicle. He stated that Caltrain staff and experts would also lean in to help and collaborate. He agreed that the timeline is important. He said they want to advance this, see what decisions can and cannot be made and bring those resources to bear. Lou Thompson commented that many variants are more policy than engineering. He said clearance of right-of-way is not engineering but policy and should be quickly resolvable after good discussion. He stated some variants require adroit engineering and that the risk is making assumptions about doing something a certain way and having to change it later on. He recommended that efforts should be made to separate policy from real engineering issues and to set aside non-viable options because it reduces work and time involved for everyone. Deputy Director Barnard confirmed that full width, retaining walls and ramps in terms of right- of-way are policies while vertical clearance is engineering and there are ways to walk around that. Chair Burt asked Senior Engineer Bhatia his thoughts on incorporating AECOM, Caltrain and the City to move forward with the project. Senior Engineer Bhatia said they asked AECOM to start looking at costs for addressing these comments, which could involve looking on a basic level, revising alternatives or rendering spec sheets and plan and profiles to be updated to reflect the desired guidelines. He thought it went with the procurement process to make amendments and get them through the City Council. He confirmed that some existing funding was allocated for a preliminary review of the 4-tracking, which is still available in the contract but may not be sufficient to perform these exercises. He explained they have about $100,000 and will need another $100,000 to $500,000, depending on the level of detail wanted. He noted that if these conversations can occur at the preliminary engineering phase and if there is a possibility to eliminate at least one alternative and continue with two alternatives for each location, they can have more detailed discussions and work in the preliminary engineering and design phase, which will then qualify toward the grant. He said there are efficiencies that can be created from the funding and timing perspective. He noted many constraints are resolvable in many ways and some are already known as key. He suggested identifying now which are dealbreaker options that are not feasible, adjustable or resolvable. Deputy Director Barnard added that some discussions and decisions will come down to constructability rather than policy as well. Senior Engineer Bhatia noted that contractors could come early on into this phase and give additional constructability insights. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/23/2024 Deputy Director Barnard agreed that a contractor could be brought on earlier to help support decision-making and do constructability analyses. Senior Engineer Bhatia confirmed that Measure B dollars can be used for this, so it will not negatively impact the budget. The Committee discussed how to go about narrowing options to two per location, which needs City Council approval. It was suggested that the options be narrowed unofficially for costing purposes that could help the decision-making process. Chair Burt noted the trench has been less favored as an option and the Council has not endorsed the viaduct. He asked whether that narrows the options to looking more closely at the hybrid and underpass options. Assistant City Manager Kiely Nosé believed this to be a prudent path, with the Committee taking the Council’s guidance to date. Then when the Committee makes recommendations to the Council, they will have funding associated with the narrowed options. Council Member Veenker expressed concerns about removing the viaduct option but noted Caltrain’s comments make the viaduct appear less desirable. She concluded this may be the only path to pursue this funding and the viaduct may later be brought back. Chair Burt summarized the next steps as two main tasks: engineering and cost-related work and negotiations with Caltrain on technical standards to get them in the right buckets and work through which are must-haves, variants or can be resolved quickly. He confirmed that this plan aims to have more information for the Council in April. He noted the long wait time to get on the Council agenda but the next month could be used to work with Caltrain on resolving technical standards, digesting that in this Committee and making recommendations to the Council where appropriate soon after that. Assistant City Manager Nosé agreed a meeting with the Council could be penciled in for March. She suggested deputizing a member of the Committee to participate in the Council meeting. She clarified that in terms of a consent item and contract, it will take over a month to get a contract amendment on the agenda, so there is runway to work during the interim and move forward with the adjustment. Chair Burt responded that they plan to have more technical things ironed out for the March meeting but March is not the end of the process. Assistant City Manager Nosé asked for clarification on the intent behind the detailed technical review with AECOM. Senior Engineer Bhatia explained that the outcome from the discussions with AECOM could help the Rail Committee narrow the options. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/23/2024 Chair Burt added that the meetings with Caltrain on technical issues would be on a broader range, including viaduct-related issues. Assistant City Manager Nosé said they might do two items with the Council, with the Rail Committee recommending an amendment to narrow the focus followed by the contract. She stated she would need to confirm that. Council Member Lauing stated he thought Chair Burt would be their representative and they would not need to deputize a committee member. Nadia Naik recommended doing this upcoming Council meeting in two steps because they have not had a rail update in a long time. She suggested doing a study session and then having a regular City Council meeting with this on the agenda. She noted the potential for public comments and newer Council members being less familiar with rail. Senior Engineer Bhatia asked whether an outreach is needed before the Council meeting. Chair Burt thought there could be an outreach to create better awareness of the study session and encourage public participation in that. Nadia Naik asked whether she might meet with Council members prior to the meeting to help refresh them on details and help the meeting go more smoothly. Deputy Director Barnard outlined his understanding of the next steps for clarification. Senior Engineer Bhatia said they will look at the plan and profiles once they have better guidelines and update them with renderings to give the Rail Committee visibility into alternatives. He noted they have updated the matrix and plan to share at the next committee meeting as well as traffic analyses, bike path, corridor timings, connectivity review and environmental impact assessments. He said he and Eric have discussed his traffic data and brought in their traffic consultant Hexagon, who are looking into it more. He noted various complex factors that affect the traffic prediction model. Chair Burt noted changes like hybrid work, regional population growth and anticipated housing. He stated an interest in understanding why those patterns do not seem logical. This was tabled for later discussion. MOTION: Council Member Veenker moved, seconded by Council Member Lauing, to direct staff to: 1. Proceed with City’s project consultant (AECOM) and coordinate with Caltrain Staff for the changes focused on demonstrating adherence to Caltrain Standards for accommodating 4-track passing tracks at California Avenue station that is currently in the existing scope of the agreement. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 12 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/23/2024 2. Proceed to coordinate with Caltrain Staff or their consultants and/or the City’s project consultant in developing the scope of work for the material changes to the alternatives concepts to address updated standards guiding the substantial changes in the alternative concepts for the following major elements. a. Right of way encroachment b. Vertical Alignment c. Horizontal Alignment d. Miscellaneous Items e. Policy f. Design g. Constructability 3. Proceed with appropriate contract amendments and funding needs to support the above actions. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Next Steps and Future Agendas Tuesday, Kimley-Horn Transit February 20, 2024 at 2:30 p.m. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 P.M.