Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-20 Rail Committee Summary MinutesRAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 10 Special Meeting February 20, 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, Lythcott-Haims Present Remotely: Absent: Call to Order Council Member Burt called the meeting to order. Public Comment 1) Bruce A. was opposed to an underpass at the South Palo Alto rail crossing due to the lack of a bike lane and sidewalk. He worried about the danger of cyclists using the vehicle lane, which is their right under State law. 2) Richard S. urged everyone to keep in mind that rail crossings had direct impacts to people’s safety and livelihood. He requested a 10-second moment of silence for the pedestrian struck and killed today by a Caltrain south of the California Avenue Station. 3) Jerry U. read a letter from Stewart “Stew” Plock, Channing House, 850 Webster Street, a Palo Alto resident for 47 years and member of Reconnect Palo Alto advocating for the viaduct strategy. He requested the addition of Criterion K to the analysis and expansion of Palo Alto’s recreational square acreage. Trains on a viaduct offered opportunities to walk, bike and relax in a new greenspace zone the length of Palo Alto. Redwood City was considering rail viaducts. Jerry U. stated all the proposed solutions offered some relief from suicides on the tracks and was thankful the Rail Committee was taking action. Verbal Update on Interagency Activities A. Caltrain SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/20/2024 Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia welcomed new Rail Committee Member, Council Member Lythcott-Haims. He thanked Council Member Veenker for her service to the Rail Committee over the past year. Senior Engineer Bhatia delivered a slide presentation. In March, Caltrain will begin testing their electric trains in Palo Alto and we can expect additional activations on the gates as they roll through the corridor. Caltrain tests each train set for 1000 miles before deeming them ready for passenger service. Caltrain tested four train sets from Mountain View to San Jose since September 2023. Electric trains tests start at 10 p.m. Council Member Burt remarked that in March and perhaps April there will be weekend bus bridges due to rail interruptions on the weekends for testing. Senior Engineer Bhatia stated the City procured a consultant to prepare design plans for the Palo Alto Avenue quiet zone project. After improvements are designed, the City will submit a GO 88-B application to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for approval and obtain necessary encroachment permits from Caltrain for construction. Staff was procuring a consultant for a quiet zone study at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. Staff will seek City Council approval to award the consultant contract in early March. Meadow Drive, Charleston and Churchill crossings have experienced fatalities and safety issues. Section 130 funded a project to design and construct safety improvements at the Churchill Avenue crossing. The design was completed. The City received GO 88-B approval for construction. The Churchill Avenue crossing project was awarded for construction. The City was working on potholing, underground utility relocations and procuring additional equipment for traffic signals and necessary improvements at the Churchill Avenue crossing. Staff was developing a funding agreement with the State of California for improvements at the Charleston Road crossing. The project will initiate with a study to identify safety improvements, which would likely include signal modifications and advanced preemption. California High Speed Rail released their 2024 draft business plan for review and comments. Most of the segment between Palo Alto and San Francisco used the blended system managed by Caltrain. Staff continues to work with Caltrain on grade separation initiatives in Palo Alto. The public can provide feedback on the High Speed Rail 2024 business plan at the February 29 public hearing or submit comments via email. Information is available online. The City calendar and City’s calendar homepage has the Rail Committee meeting schedule. Anyone subscribed through YouTube to the City of Palo Alto’s meetings receives notifications. The City Clerk’s weekly newsletter contains meeting information. The City’s quarterly Transportation Newsletter includes information about transportation projects. As milestones are set for Council consideration, the City planned to issue community updates. Previous XCAP members receive email notifications and a panelist link to join Rail Committee meetings. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/20/2024 Council Member Burt queried if the City notified residents on the XCAP email list. Senior Engineer Bhatia thought the Transportation Connect newsletter included those people but staff could explore doing more outreach if the Rail Committee wished. Chief Transportation Official Phillip Kamhi stated that the City’s Transportation bulk email lists were merged. Council Member Burt pointed out the update underestimated costs because it does not include engineering analysis of tunneling through Pacheco Pass and other multibillion-dollar projects. Council Member Burt stated that Caltrain was initiating new safety measures at the Churchill crossing to reduce unintended vehicular incursions as part of a multiyear, comprehensive, corridor-wide safety and security program. These measures include engaging with social media companies about people misunderstanding Google Map directions and turning onto the tracks instead of Alma. Of 60 at-grade crossings in the system, the five with the highest vehicular collisions constitute 40% of all collisions. The Churchill crossing had the highest number of vehicular collisions in the system. Additional technologies such as LIDAR may be used to help with safety and security. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi clarified that City projects were funded through CPUC Section 130, including pre-signals and other crossing safety improvements. The City was scoping a similar project at Charleston that would be awarded funding. A year ago, Council Member Lythcott-Haims rode along with the Palo Alto Police Department and witnessed a vehicle unintentionally turn at Churchill onto the tracks. Senior Engineer Bhatia addressed Council Member Lythcott-Haims’s questions about achieving quiet zone designation. The quiet zone falls under Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Regulation 49. As part of the safety analysis of the crossing, staff reviewed collision records, volumes, bicycle and pedestrian usage as well as railroad crossing arm mechanism to determine the risk index. The risk index was compared with the national average. The risk index must fall below the FRA-established threshold for quiet zones. The analysis identified needed improvements, including signing, striping, protection of the gate arm mechanisms and modification to the median islands because they are not tall enough to prevent a vehicle from going the opposite direction. Those improvements will undergo design, review by CPUC and FRA, and issuance of an encroachment permit. The objective of a quiet zone is to reduce noise but adequate safety measures must be present if trains do not blow their horn. Council Member Burt queried if quad gates were a quiet zone requirement. Senior Engineer Bhatia explained it depended upon the risk index. Palo Alto Avenue did not need quad gates because median islands on both sides prevent a vehicle jumping over to the opposite lane. Council Member Burt remarked that the cost of a couple hundred thousand dollars and amount of time to do a quiet zone at Palo Alto Avenue was lower in comparison to the other three crossings that would cost millions and take longer to complete. The City opted last year to move forward with a quiet zone at Palo Alto Avenue but only evaluations and submittals for the other three crossings. Chief Transportation Officer Kamhi commented that the Palo Alto Avenue project had been determined. Staff anticipated a more substantial project for the other locations but the scope was unknown until the study is complete. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/20/2024 In reply to Vice Mayor Lauing noting the completion date was within 15 months of the start date but the start date was not specified, Senior Engineer Bhatia responded that staff planned to award the contract in March. Ex-Officio Committee Member Nadia Naik clarified that Palo Alto Avenue does not need quad gates because it was at an angle instead of a T intersection, so it had to do with track geometry. Senior Engineer Bhatia stated there was progress with the FRA on allocation of funding for the PE and environmental phase. The objective was to have it executed by June/July 2024. Staff was collaborating with Caltrain and VTA for development of the funding agreement and funding allocation. Staff submitted a Section 190 Grant Application for fiscal years 2024/2025 and 2025/2026. CPUC provided a draft ranking of applications received statewide. Churchill Avenue ranked 9th, Meadow Drive 12th, Charleston Road 13th, Burlingame 1st, Rengstorff 7th and San Francisco 6th. Staff will learn how to score better on their next application. Council Member Burt asked if staff could provide an update to the Rail Committee regarding ranking criteria. The Caltrain Board noted Churchill ranked highest in vehicular collisions, which he thought was an important criterion. Based on Senior Engineer Bhatia’s observation, ranking factored the number of collisions, volume of vehicular traffic and amount of funding requested. Ex-Officio Committee Member Naik remarked that Section 190 was a State-run fund and usually higher rankings depended on how prepared you were in your designs because funding was intended to match projects that were ready to go. Palo Alto may not score as high because our engineering was not ready to match the money. XCAP was told that you are penalized later in the list if funding was awarded but you were not ready. Discussion ensued regarding alternatives in consideration for the grade separation project. AECOM Consultants Project Manager Peter DeStefano remarked that all elements in consideration would increase the project footprint, cost and timeline. Staff will seek direction from the Rail Committee to advance alternatives to the next phase. Staff will work with Caltrain on possible solutions and present that information to the Rail Committee. The City was working with VTA and Caltrain to initiate agreements for funding and service. Council Member Burt announced that the local policymaker group of Caltrain has their next public workshop in Redwood City on March 14 from 4 to 6 p.m. primarily to address the corridor-wide grade crossing strategy. Caltrain’s website has the new electrification service plan for how many trains will run and when. Council Member Burt encouraged the City to promote this on our website and with the use of posters to inform the public. Caltrain was evolving from a commuter service at peak hours to serving a combination of commuters and other users at other times of day and on weekends. Council Member Burt anticipated a Caltrain event displaying the new electric cars at the University Avenue Station before September when electrification was scheduled to launch. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/20/2024 Chief Transportation Official Kamhi suggested having a study session at a regularly scheduled Rail Committee meeting. The Clerk could help with possible dates if the Rail Committee desired a Special Meeting to take action. B. VTA Council Member Burt stated that the 2016 Measure B bond for Santa Clara County included $750M for grade separations from Sunnyvale to Palo Alto (now with inflation over $800M), of which Palo Alto would receive half of those funds. Measure B included an additional $300M toward the Caltrain modernization program (CalMod) in Santa Clara County. Caltrain and VTA wanted to determine the allocation of funds. Three VTA Board Members serve on the Caltrain Board, Supervisor Chavez, San Jose City Council Member Devora Davis and Council Member Burt. Council Member Burt will be involved with a VTA Ad Hoc Committee being formed to discuss how to best utilize the $300M in Santa Clara County. Ex-Officio VTA Board Member and Mountain View Council Member Margaret Abe-Koga may replace Supervisor Chavez on the Caltrain Board. One topic for consideration was level boarding for people to move on and off trains quicker. Level boarding has a huge service value because the current schedule has to allow increased boarding time for strollers, wheelchairs, etc. to go up the steps. Public Comment: 1) Cedric de La B. commented on building a viaduct between the existing tracks at Alma, decreasing the cost and duration of construction by avoiding a shoofly. He thought level boarding was fantastic as it can be difficult to carry a bike up steps. He suggested using a viaduct from Palo Alto Avenue to the Churchill crossing. 2) Adrian B. thought Caltrain’s request to allow room for utility vehicles to drive alongside tracks across bridges was unreasonable. He encouraged viewing a video on YouTube on the Ohlone Greenway underneath the Bart viaduct between El Cerrito and North Berkeley to envision possibilities underneath a viaduct in Palo Alto. He did not see any reason to leave tracks at grade level. 3) Rachel C. stated that queues on Churchill go from the train tracks to El Camino during the evening rush hour and extend down to Santa Rita to turn left onto Churchill in the morning. She wondered if it was possible to have a partial underpass with one lane northbound on Alma, no need for a light at Churchill, and continue the single lane past Churchill into northern Palo Alto or until you pass Embarcadero. One of the complaints on a partial underpass was the removal of all greenery on both sides; however, one lane might allow us to keep some trees and avoid taking people’s front yards. Council Member Burt commented that the increased downtime at Churchill was a technical issue and Caltrain was working on optimizing the signal recovery system. Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia stated that Caltrain was upgrading their signaling system. Caltrain hoped to have it done before September. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/20/2024 Council Member Burt remarked that trees fell on the tracks during last winter and this winter. With the new electric catenary system, a tree falling on the track would shut down the train system. Caltrain will have a discussion with Cities about necessary tree pruning or tree removals. The biggest risks are the eucalyptus trees near the tracks. Action Items 1. Review the updated Summary of Evaluation Matrix based on the updated Council Adopted Criteria for evaluation of the grade separation alternatives Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia delivered a slide presentation. Studies evaluated travel time, delays, safety and connectivity for motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. The analysis included environmental-related impacts (sea level rise susceptibility, heat island effect and stormwater treatment), property impacts and visual impacts on corridors with elevated trains. There was an error in the staff report on Page 3. Paragraph 3 should read: Meadow and Charleston railroad crossings currently have three alternatives in consideration: Trench, hybrid and underpass; however, the Rail Committee has requested Caltrain to review viaduct in lieu of the trench alternative. The trench and hybrid options would lower the railroad with Meadow and Charleston passing over. Similarly, the viaduct option would raise the railroad with Meadow and Charleston passing under. Traffic signals at Alma Street would persist, causing delays at red lights for motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians; however, delays at railroad crossings would be eliminated. Similar conditions will persist for the viaduct alternative. President Gary Black of Hexagon Transportation Consultants introduced himself. Hexagon calculated the travel time for motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians with the goal of improving connectivity east and west across the corridor. You cannot go straight across east to west with a partial underpass at Churchill. Delay would decrease for vehicles making right and left turns to and from the high school by removing conflicting movements from the signal. The trench/viaduct/hybrid alternatives at Meadow and Charleston keep the signal at Alma and eliminate delay from railroad gate downtime. With an underpass, there is no delay for east- west travel under the tracks going straight across Meadow or Charleston; however, the elimination of turning movements at Meadow requires a U-turn at Alma Village causing more delay. An underpass at Charleston requires a roundabout for right and left turns. Some turns have less delay because of signals without many conflicting movements. Some turns involve more travel time to go through the roundabout. About 100-150 cars an hour make left and right turns at Meadow. There is no delay with a separated two-way cycle track on the south side of the road for bicycles and pedestrians at Meadow to avoid crossing the tracks or Alma. With a viaduct or hybrid, bikes and pedestrians go through the signal and have a delay if there is a red light. Traveling eastbound, the cycle track is on the right side of the road. Traveling westbound, you have to cross over Meadow to SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/20/2024 access and exit the cycle track. Ex-Officio Committee Member Nadia Naik commented that the only alternative that improved Meadow and Charleston was the underpass. Council Member Lythcott-Haims was worried about parents driving on Alma to take their kids to Gunn looping into the roundabout to get onto West Charleston. She wanted reassurance that Gunn traffic was taken into consideration. Meadow has a river of cyclists in the morning. Meadow to El Camino Way was one of the most dangerous routes she drives because it is one lane, had green striping and on-street parking for cars. Hexagon President Black stated that roundabouts were studied extensively and staff had a simulation. AECOM Consultants Project Manager Peter DeStefano spoke about property impacts with a partial underpass at Churchill. To accommodate the proposed lanes on Alma Street, the planter strip on the east side of Alma would be removed and replaced slightly to the east onto private properties from just north of Kellogg to just south of Coleridge, impacting 15 properties. To accommodate a pedestrian/bike tunnel at Seale, the planter strip on the north and south sides of Seale would be removed, resulting in the removal of some trees and loss of street parking for about 300 feet from Alma, impacting eight properties (four on each side of the street). To accommodate proposed infrastructure at Meadow requires two full property acquisitions, one on each side of the tracks, one is an apartment building on the east side near the intersection between Alma and Emerson. Twelve partial acquisitions include tree removals, six properties on each side of the tracks. Six front yard acquisitions require driveway modifications to move the sidewalk closer to the homes and maybe some elevation differences. A Charleston underpass would require three full property acquisitions, one on the west side of the tracks and two on the east, to accommodate the proposed roundabout. Thirty partial acquisitions include tree removals. Front yard acquisitions require driveway modifications. A high-level evaluation on the environmental impacts of alternatives was performed. Considered in the evaluation was sea level rise and increase in groundwater elevations in 2100. There was no impact to sea level rise by the alternatives at Churchill or the Meadow/Charleston viaduct. There was a potential impact with the Meadow/Charleston hybrid because of lower roads, putting them at risk from emergent groundwater in the future. The two alternatives impacted the most by sea level rise were the Meadow/Charleston trench and underpass. The study showed a 66% probability that sea level would rise about 3½ feet by 2100. For the heat island effect, the albedo level was evaluated for each alternative. Albedo is the ability of an object to reflect solar radiation. Albedo values ranged from 0 to 1. Lighter-colored materials have a higher albedo value, which is more favorable as it reflects more solar radiation and helps cool the surrounding air. The Meadow/Charleston hybrid had some impact to heat island effects due to an increase of dark-colored asphalt pavement area. Each alternative was assessed for stormwater runoff in comparison to existing conditions. Churchill mitigations generated less runoff. The greatest impacts were from a partial underpass SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/20/2024 at Churchill, Meadow/Charleston trench and Meadow /Charleston underpass due to an increase in impervious area, resulting in less water infiltration and additional runoff. Shadow analysis was performed of the Meadow-Charleston viaduct. A time-lapse animation depicted viaduct shadows on December 21 and June 21 from early in the morning to late afternoon. There were no shadows on properties during the morning of December 21 but the afternoon sun would cast shadows on homes on the east side of the tracks. Council Member Burt pointed out the simulation was based upon the viaduct being on the west side of the corridor but Caltrain indicated it was more likely to be on the east side. On June 21, there were shadows on west-side properties in the early morning but it did not reach properties on the east side in the afternoon. A more detailed evaluation of costs was pending. Staff was evaluating refinements to the alternatives based on feedback from Caltrain. Staff expected costs to increase significantly from the 2018 estimates due to escalating costs and Caltrain’s revised requirements. In reply to Council Member Lythcott-Haims’ query about viaducts, AECOM Project Manager DeStefano thought there was discussion in the evaluation matrix about potential privacy concerns due to an elevated rail. Senior Engineer Bhatia recalled initial studies evaluated parapet walls and other methods of noise absorption. Performing a noise study could provide more information. Staff suggested privacy screens on rail cars but that would have to be discussed with Caltrain as the project moves forward. Public Comment: 1) Eric N. stated that the 14-unit apartment property would lose access to the road. He presented a chart to summarize property acquisitions. The hybrid and viaduct alternatives had zero property acquisitions, whereas the underpass alternative had multiple acquisitions. Having one lane would address some of the Churchill property acquisitions. He opined that the noise evaluation rating of “some improvement” was incorrect. He wondered if the 2030 traffic projections were valid. Hexagon used a VTA model for the traffic study. He showed an email sent to him from VTA that stated the VTA model should not have been used as-is because model refinement and a validation process were needed. 2) Cedric de La B. thought traffic criteria should include construction-related traffic impacts and a shoofly track on Alma. He thought greenspace and trees underneath a viaduct could reduce heat. For privacy, louvers can direct passengers’ sight up and out instead of down to people’s yards and windows. The City could pursue selling or giving part of its right-of-way to Caltrain to allow encroachment and building of a viaduct in the area between the tracks and Alma, thereby avoiding a shoofly track. 3) Adrian B. recalled a noise expert presented a noise/vibration study to S/CAP. Most alternatives were significantly quieter due to electrification and a low parapet wall SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/20/2024 blocking sound from the rail-wheel interface. He noted a remarkable difference in Belmont. It is louder if a train passes through at grade instead of on a viaduct or berm wall. A viaduct can create greenspace and avoids convoluted traffic flows and contraflows for bikes. 4) Stephen R. spoke about the need for weighting criteria in the evaluation matrix. He opined that connectivity was an extremely high priority whereas people’s privacy along the rail tracks was not as high a priority. Costs need to be recalculated in light of Caltrain’s new specifications and requirements. In Table 1 of the Hexagon study, crossings times eliminated by a partial underpass were labeled N/A and color-coded white. He suggested using red to denote eliminated crossings. He believed the viaduct alternative had the least engineering risk. 5) Alan W., Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Member, stated PABAC had not taken a formal position but there was widespread sentiment that the underpass alternative as currently designed was the least desirable for bicycle and pedestrian traffic on Meadow and Charleston because of interchanges instead of signalized intersections at Alma Street. The elimination of some direct movements between Alma and Meadow or Charleston leads to circuitous and non-intuitive vehicular travel. It is slow and potentially hazardous for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross a busy multilane road in an uncontrolled crosswalk. He did not believe the 30-second delay assumed in the consultant’s report was realistic. Mixing e-bike riders with slower bicyclists and pedestrians as well as imposing climbs could be an impediment to children, elderly and disabled. The viaduct and hybrid alternatives kept more traffic at grade level or on shallower grades, eliminating many of these problems. In response to Council Member Burt’s questions about the 2030 study, Hexagon President Black explained they had a lot of confidence in the traffic study because it was used to compare alternatives, not to determine operations in the year 2030. Hexagon updated the model when performing the analysis for Palo Alto’s Housing Element and forecasts were similar to this study. Council Member Burt stated projections should include 2050 and 2080, as this is a long- term project. Around 30 percent of Palo Alto residents work in Palo Alto. Increased housing will increase outbound commute volume and decrease inbound commute volume. Council Member Burt asked for the rationale of using two lanes as opposed to one lane. AECOM Project Manager DeStefano offered to talk about it offline. Hexagon President Black recalled one Churchill alternative required two lanes on Alma to accommodate bikes and pedestrians crossing Alma on a crosswalk and using a bridge to go under the tracks. Ex-Officio Committee Member Naik remarked that one of XCAP’s suggestions was to have a light at N. California Avenue because residents in old Palo Alto on the east side make unsignalized left turns to go south on Alma or turn at Churchill at the light. A light at N. California could be timed with the light at El Camino and Churchill to pulse people through. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 10 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/20/2024 Council Member Burt commented that a left turn was lost southbound from Churchill onto Alma and at Coleridge. AECOM Project Manager DeStefano stated that was true at Kellogg and Coleridge regardless where the pedestrian/bike crossing was located. Senior Engineer Bhatia offered to include analysis of those impacts as well as the option of a single lane as part of the PE and environmental phase. Ex-Officio Committee Member Naik pointed out that regional traffic models would change with new RHNA allocations. She believed the 2030 traffic model was validated. Hexagon President Black stated the model was validated in 2015. Senior Engineer Bhatia planned on including Caltrain and City staff at the next Rail Committee meeting to present alternatives and seek the Rail Committee’s direction on the next steps to advance the alternatives. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.