Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-19 Rail Committee Summary MinutesRAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 8 Regular Meeting March 19, 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 Chair Burt called the meeting to order. Roll was called with all present. Verbal Update on Interagency Activities A. Caltrain B. VTA C. City Staff Navdeep Dhaliwal, Caltrain Government and Community Affairs Officer, spoke about the public workshop for the corridor crossing strategy held the prior week. She said they would keep this group, as well as the public, aware of the next LPMG meeting. She announced they would be hosting a public train tour in San Mateo County on May 11 to allow the public to walk the electric train set. Chair Burt queried when the tour at the second largest train station in the system would occur. Ms. Dhaliwal answered they do not yet have a date but hoped it would be in the next couple of months. Chair Burt expressed hope the tour would be after the station has been spruced up. He provided an update received a few weeks prior from Chief of Safety Operations, Mike Meader, to include safety precaution improvements being made at the Churchill Grade Crossing and ramping up on a corridor-wide set of safety initiatives. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 8 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/2024 Phillip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Officer, announced that Caltrain successfully completed their testing of the electric trains in the Palo Alto area this month. He gave updates on the Palo Alto Avenue Quiet Zone project and outlined the next steps with hopes to target a fall construction timeline. He added the hope was to incorporate that into an existing public works project. The Churchill, Meadow and Charleston Crossings had been approved by City Council on March 4. He discussed the Section 130 project for the Churchill Avenue Crossing and one being started on Charleston Road. He discussed updates on the FRA Grant. Ripon Bhatia, Senior Engineer, clarified California High Speed Rail has been given authority by federal administration to be an environmental lead in California for several projects along the California High Speed Rail so they are extending their authority in this segment also and negotiating a final agreement for NEPA environmental document review and approval process. Chair Burt wanted an understanding of the implications. Mr. Bhatia outlined ways they are looking into that and said he would keep them informed as they discover more information. Nadia Naik, Ex-Officio Committee Member, questioned if this means all grade separations on the corridor. Mr. Bhatia discussed a 2019 agreement with California High-Speed Rail to do the environmental lead for FRA projects. Ms. Naik thought this might be something to raise at LPMG. Mr. Kamhi further discussed future funding plans. Chair Burt wanted to understand the criteria and would like to have that information before his meeting with the CTC Board the following Thursday. Mr. Bhatia reviewed some of the criteria. He offered to forward the formula for calculation of the rankings. Ms. Naik asked if the list was impacted by what projects have been selected already. Mr. Kamhi answered the project needs to be to a certain level of in the process to apply. Chair Burt added it was his understanding that an issue Mike Meader spoke about at Churchill is not a part of the Section 130 program but he did not how it integrates with it. He recalled a discussion about train noise being a component of contributing to suicides on the tracks which added a value to prioritization of quiet zones. He pointed out a problem with excessive gate downtimes at Churchill. He talked about two intra-agency tours at the University Avenue Station looking at the neglected condition of the station. The agencies have embraced looking at near, medium and long-term improvements of the station area. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 8 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/2024 Robert Barnard, Deputy Director of Capital Planning, said the excessive gate downtimes is part of the P-set Project. He will look into it and provide a response. Public Comment: 1. Adrian Brandt expressed a need to be clear-eyed about what grade separations can or cannot do. He discussed safety issues factors at Churchill and a need to improve lighting at night. He talked about the timeline of the gate optimization system. Action Items 1. Review of the Grade Separation Alternatives for Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings, including Consideration of Caltrain's Staff Comments; Provide Feedback and Direction to Staff; and Recommend that Council Advances (or Eliminates) Specific Alternative(s) for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation Phase Mr. Kamhi provided a slide presentation discussing City and Caltrain staff in attendance for the presentation, purpose of the item, a background of the project, an agenda, project planning schedule draft and next steps to advance. Mr. Barnard joined into the slide presentation outlining Caltrain’s engagement on connecting Palo Alto alternatives, developed draft solutions based on available planning level information, steps guiding solution-oriented thinking, Caltrain’s focus of review, Caltrain’s guiding principles, Churchill summary of findings, Meadow/Charleston summary of findings, Caltrain’s results of preliminary review by alternative, Churchill alternatives, Churchill partial underpass with Kellogg undercrossing, Churchill closure with Kellogg underpass summary, closure options with mitigations, Meadow/Charleston hybrid construction, the impact to Alma street during construction, plan views, Meadow/Charleston viaduct construction, existing conditions, final condition, north of Meadow viaduct, south of Meadow viaduct, proposed viaduct solution overview, Meadow/Charleston underpass, Meadow underpass solutions, Meadow underpass cross section view, Meadow underpass summary, Charleston underpass solutions, Charleston underpass cross section view, Charleston underpass summary and next steps. During the presentation, there was discussion regarding the height of the road, the length of the slope required, clearance from the railroad, maintenance access road and crossing safety for maintenance vehicles, appraisal and annual fee for the bike path encroachment, differences between closure options 1 and 2 and the necessity of repositioning of tracks 1 and 2. Item 1 Public Comment: 1. Adrian Brandt thought the widened bridges to allow rubber-tired maintenance vehicles to drive alongside the tracks was an unnecessary expense. He did not understand why the viaduct alternative appeared to be the only one that would leave the existing tracks SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 8 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/2024 at grade. He questioned using thinner structures through trusses or U-shaped viaducts and bridges so the train did not have to be as high up in the air and roads did not have to dip as deeply. He asked what maximum grades were being used for the approaches and maximum freight train speeds which drive the vertical curve lengths and approaches. 2. Stephen Rosenblum expressed disappointment in the presentation and in Caltrain’s list of demands. He did not see evidence of cooperation on the part of Caltrain. 3. Cedric de La Beaujardiere was dismayed to see the enormous widening of the berm for the hybrid. He supported the viaduct. He hoped Caltrain would continue to explore creative alternatives in order to make this happen. 4. Eric Nordman commented the jogs and right-of-ways seem to be historical artifacts and do not make sense for a rail. He suggested doing property swaps rather than perpetuating these jogs. He also suggested some level of batteries in the trains allowing doing short sections of maintenance at a time. 5. Tony Carrasco talked about prioritizing pedestrians and bikes and not only trains. 6. Penny Ellson hoped Caltrain would be thinking about the easements that she uses to cross the train tracks on her bike. She was surprised at the strong language used in this presentation and hoped Caltrain would consider their role as a partnership. 7. Phil Burton talked about a technique called box-jacking that could be an alternative to shoofly tracks. He was disappointed that Caltrain has not done any “creative thinking” about that. Lou Thompson opined that the least impact and cost would be the underpasses but he understood the alternatives need to be considered. Vice Mayor Lauing asked what Mr. Thompson would advise Caltrain in terms of box-jacking versus shoofly and negotiating the City on fees for right-of-ways, etc. Mr. Thompson advised avoiding shoofly tracks as they are expensive, difficult and a waste of resources. He explained Caltrain is charged with making maximum use of their assets and the price should be fair but they should not be expected to give something away. Vice Mayor Lauing asked for Mr. Barnard’s thoughts about box-jacking as an alternative. Mr. Barnard answered Caltrain has been actively engaging in the exploration of the use of box- jacking. He described an example. He agreed this could be considered for this project. Edgar Torres, Transit Consultant, Kimley Horn and Associates, clarified box-jacking only works for underpasses. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 8 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/2024 Vice Mayor Lauing asked if it was fair to state the four-track was contingent on high-speed rail and must be provided. He asked what they would do with the extra tracks if the state decided high-speed rail would no longer go through there in the future. Mr. Barnard stated they were talking about the viaduct option where there was a shoofly built and the viaduct of off partially over the Alma Street Right-of-Way. The notion would be that the region spent an enormous level of money to build an electrified asset with utility for railroad purposes to allow efficient operation of the railroad. Vice Mayor Lauing countered if the four-track is necessary for high-speed rail then there will have to be some other utility facility. Mr. Barnard said in the 2040 Service Vision, there is a moderate and a high growth. The moderate growth needed a four-track segment centered around California Avenue Station of about 1.9 miles long. For the high-growth scenario, it needed four-track through the entire area but it was relatively impactful at San Antonio and at the Palo Alto Station because of the footprint. Keeping that siding is not related to the four-track discussion. It is related to the community spending money to build an asset that has utility to turn around and tear it back out is not serving the public’s best interest. He also addressed the board policy for the fee for the licenses. He said Caltrain wants to run the railroad efficiently for the community but they also want to be a good community partner. Ms. Dhaliwal added if the additional tracks for high-speed rail were not needed in the future, that would be a conversation that would need to happen if that decision was made. Vice Mayor Lauing wanted to know what the eminent domain situation would be on Churchill, Charleston and Meadow. Mr. Barnard answered that Caltrain does not have eminent domain authority. It would be Palo Alto’s responsibility as it is their project. Chair Burt clarified it is Palo Alto’s design but Caltrain’s standard affecting their design. He asked Staff how these standards have affected their designs on what they now have on the vertical clearance. Mr. Bhatia explained they have not done that exercise at this time. They can do it but their intent is to keep it minimum. He recalled mentioning extensively the impact with different alternatives to private property at the last Rail Committee meeting. Mr. Barnard commented the notion was to put the maintenance one on the Alma side that would not impact property and the other one was minimum needed for emergency egress but it was a smaller width and did not appear to have an impact. Mr. Kamhi noted that eminent domain is typically a last resort. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 8 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/2024 Ms. Naik added the only alternative that would continue to have the potential for property acquisition remains the Charleston and Meadow underpass but none of the technical requirements would cause any eminent domain for the hybrid or viaduct. Mr. Bhatia noted if traffic circulation would be impacted they would have to understand any additional mitigation measures required could cause for more property impacts. Council Member Lythcott-Haims wanted to know what flipping the viaduct on top of the existing track would do and how that could be analyzed. Mr. Barnard pointed out the deadline with the FRA. He described a potential path exploring the viaduct or undercrossing more and then making a selection with additional information to support that decision making as opposed to making one decision on that day. Council Member Lythcott-Haims appreciated the public comments regarding talking only about the train and not about pedestrians and bikes. The phrase “preserving the flat plane for humans” resonated with her. She asked which option would have permanent impact on Alma. Mr. Torres explained it is conceived by the City concepts the viaduct would be the one to have permanent impact to Alma Street travel way. That could be explored further to thin it up during preliminary engineering. The hybrid would not encroach further into Alma permanently. The underpass concepts continue as conceived by the City. Council Member Lythcott-Haims wanted to know if there would still be some encroachment into the travel way of Alma with flipping the viaduct. Mr. Torres answered the highest likelihood would be that the shoofly would encroach into Alma Street but not necessarily the permanent condition. Council Member Lythcott-Haims talked about the roundabout and making as few impacts as possible in the design. She discussed the viaduct versus the flip option and asked how keeping the siding solved the issue of no longer having pedestrians, cars and bikes crossing at the level of the track. Mr. Barnard stated it depends on the use of the siding and explained how they can be used for maintenance. Chair Burt wanted to understand if the viaduct siding is essential. Mr. Barnard explained it was a direction the Staff was given and if they spent the money to build the siding, the railroad would continue to use it to meet business needs. Mr. Thompson thought it was desirable but not crucial. He said it was not avoidable for the construction process but was not a crucial need later. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 8 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/2024 Chair Burt asked how important rubber wheel access would be if it would only be in some places and why it had to be included on a bridge. Mr. Barnard answered that currently they could drive up and down the alignment to inspect the facilities and with a grade separation that ability should be maintained to operate and inspect the facility in an efficient manner. The access points with the configuration shown are 1.8 miles apart making it inefficient for generations to come to maintain that facility. This is a one time capital cost to provide that access versus an ongoing increase in maintenance cost forever. Chair Burt opined a lot of electrified systems do not require this for maintenance. Mike Rabinowitz, Principal Planner, Caltrain, did not know the answer to that but could say high-rail is more challenging to service because you cannot operate on the track. Mr. Barnard said if you can imagine a future where you have going from four to six to eight trains an hour each direction trying to get on and off the system in between those windows for inspections versus having an access road next to it, there is a difference. Chair Burt commented when saying it is capital versus operating, it is the City’s capital cost versus Caltrain’s operating cost. The question would be what choice Caltrain would make if they had to bear the capital cost. Mr. Barnard said it has been part of the standards for over 20 years. Walking through the conversations with the chief operating officer, safety officer, engineering and executive director instructed it complies with their standards to allow efficient operation of the railroad. The access points being so far apart makes it inefficient. Chair Burt stated they would have to figure out how to be at the table for that conversation and not just Caltrain internally. Ms. Dhaliwal added these solutions they are looking to find are not without the understanding that these are community investment projects. She thought the goal of this presentation was to find an opportunity where they both understand they are stewards of public funding and want to use that responsibility. Mr. Barnard commented that this is planning level work and there is more work to do. Mr. Rabinowitz interjected things can and probably will change in PE. Ms. Naik queried if action was not reached that day, would there be time to feed into the study that happens on April 22. Mr. Kamhi clarified the process they are planning for Council is not to have Council necessarily make any decisions. It is a study session. They are trying to catch the rest of Council up on SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 8 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/2024 where they are at. The decisions will come in June. They are also planning to do additional community outreach in between the study session and Council. The way they planned the agenda was a possibility of continuing this item into the next one in conjunction with also getting the memo from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan on Kellogg versus Seale. Chair Burt asked his colleagues if they need to have more discussion toward providing consensus input to Council going into the study session or do they just provide them with all the info like they have been discussing. Mr. Kamhi stated it is a study session it is something they could get in front of Council. He thought this would be the big item for the April 29 meeting. Council Member Lauing thought that was fine if it was just a study session. He did not think there was time for them to arrive at a recommendation by April 22. Chair Burt thought at the Council study session, even if they are not going to act they would want to set up a straw man of what they think is the direction they are going so Council would have that to respond to. If they are going to have a meeting on the 29th, the next regularly scheduled Rail Committee meeting on April 16 could provide input for the study session. If they have to have the study session on the 22nd, they need to look back on looking at a special meeting of the Rail Committee for that discussion. Ms. Naik’s concern about having a study session in April and then having a decision in June is that in her experience when City Council has not heard Rail stuff in a long time they have a very long study session that draws a lot of public comment and it takes a long time for everybody to digest what has happened. If they wait two more months and then have a decision meeting, everybody will need a refresher. She added if they have a June meeting, most of the public loses interested by June. Chair Burt asked why they are talking June instead of May for the action meeting on Council. Mr. Kamhi said it was because they have very packed agendas. They are also planning to reopen a revised online townhall to collect comments to help inform Council and they want to be able to have that open for a time. NO ACTION TAKEN Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 P.M.