Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-20 Rail Committee Summary MinutesRAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 11 Special Meeting August 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 virtual teleconference at 2:30 PM Present In-Person: Burt (Chair), Julie Lythcott-Haims, Ed Lauing Present Virtually: Absent: Call to Order Chair Burt called the meeting to order. The Clerk called roll and declared all were present. Public Comments There were no requests to speak. Verbal Updates on Interagency Activities A. Caltrain B. VTA C. City Staff Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi provided updates for various agencies. Regarding the Quiet Zone project for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing, they had received comments from different agencies on the 70% plans, and the consultant was working on completing the 100% plans, specifications and estimates, and the consultant was working on the GO 88-B application, which needed to be submitted to the CPUC along with the 100% plans. There would be a presentation later for Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston crossings. Caltrain was working on finalizing the plans, specifications and estimates, for the safety improvements for the fencing, which he provided details on. They were coordinating with Caltrain on maximizing the limits of the installation and ensuring there would be adequate funding for the proposed improvements along the corridor. They were waiting on Caltrain to receive bids and discuss the outcome of SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/20/2024 the bids. At that time, staff would consider recommendations to the improvements and potential additional funding that may be necessary. He provided some updates related to grants. It appeared that the CalSTA grant funding was going to be successful. It was unclear how the funding would be prioritized and allocated to the different projects, which they would have to monitor. The FRA Agreement had been fully executed, so they were working on the funding allocation, which was expected to be ready the end of September 2024. Concerning the next phase of the project, which was the preliminary engineering and environmental phase, staff had been collaborating with Caltrain and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to develop a cooperative agreement for the next phase, which would be a three-agency agreement. They expected to bring the agreement to the September meeting for the Rail Committee's review, which would set out the roles and responsibilities. Caltrain's electrification first day of service would be September 21, and there would be a celebration in Palo Alto, and all rides on Caltrain September 21 and 22 would be free. Chair Burt stated that Caltrain's electrification celebration would be a big event and all partners would participate with information, food, music, etc. All trains in the corridor would be electrified. He discussed TIRCP funding being prioritized by legislation, and he thanked all who had helped in saving those dollars. The plan for fencing was to fill gaps and make it more secure. The cost estimate for the Burlingame grade separation had increased to $600M from $316M, so there was likely to be cost increases for Palo Alto's grade separations, so there should be discussions on what would be needed and what would likely be feasible. Vice Mayor Lauing asked what the gap in funding was for the completion of fences citywide on both sides of the tracks. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi was unsure of the gap in funding as bids were being collected by Caltrain. Chair Burt noted that the dollars would be used for the remaining fencing that was highest priority, not that it would complete both sides. Caltrain had set a goal for corridor-wide best practices for security and safety, and they were beginning the process of appraising such. Vice Mayor Lauing asked what additional information was needed to discuss maybe only emphasizing the south and Churchill being delayed for a time. Chair Burt answered that was part of the next step on the 15% engineering, which would enable a better cost estimate, so the outcomes may be anticipated, but it would be hard to reach decisions before having updated numbers, which would go hand-in-hand with the engineering. Council Member Lythcott-Haims questioned who was organizing the food, music, etc., for the September 21 event. Chair Burt detailed how the event had been organized as a partnership. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/20/2024 Verbal Updates Public Comment Adrian B. was disappointed to hear about the cost escalation in Burlingame. He pointed out that 4 multiplied by $600M+ equaled the entire price tag of the systemwide electrification and modernization of the trains. He indicated that grade crossing separations did not increase train speed. He explained that fencing would only be as good as the weakest link, which he opined to be the stations. Chair Burt emphasized that Caltrain and the City of Palo Alto had engaged with national experts on track safety, security, and fatalities, and it was determined that there was value in addressing possible fatality hot spots. He queried what the timeline was for the quiet zone at Palo Alto Avenue. Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi replied that Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia was not at the meeting, and he, himself, did not have any more information beyond trying to get to 100%. They did not know how long the approval process might take. Once approved, they thought it would move forward quickly. Agenda Items 1. Review and Discuss the Initial Analysis of the City’s Quiet Zone Implementation Project at Existing At-Grade Crossings (Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road); CEQA status – statutorily exempt per Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies). Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi displayed slides. He stated that the purpose of the study was to explore the implementation of quiet zones focusing on Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston crossings. He clarified the purpose of a quiet zone. The study would identify and assess where modifications were needed to meet quiet zone requirements. Kimley-Horn had been retained to guide the project. After the needed modifications had been identified, recommendations would be submitted to the Federal Rail Administration and California Public Utilities Commission to ensure compliance with their regulations. Alongside the technical work, staff would continue to engage with community members to gather input and share updates. The goal was to develop a comprehensive implementation plan balancing safety, regulatory requirements, and community needs. The quiet zone analysis was based on existing conditions at the aforementioned locations, and current safety measures had been evaluated by the consultant. The consultant had developed several options meeting the minimum criteria for quiet zone implementation at the crossings. The findings from the technical review had been complied into a memo that would guide the next steps in the project. He shared a slide and discussed the four main options for implementing the quiet zones. He noted that Option 4 did not meet the requirements to establish a full quiet zone, so if the option was considered, it would only be recommended by staff as an interim measure. The next steps were to refine the approach by incorporating feedback received from key stakeholders, including community members, the regulatory agencies, and the technical experts. Based on that input, a preliminary concept would be designed and then there would be a diagnostic meeting with the relevant SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/20/2024 authorities. Community outreach would continue to be a priority throughout the process. Once the preliminary concepts had been refined, the conceptual plans would be finalized. The final step would be to seek approval from the Rail Committee and City Council before moving forward with detailed design and implantation. This meeting was an opportunity for the Committee to review the initial study findings, ask the consultant questions, and direct staff in order to proceed with the development of conceptual plans and implementation. Chair Burt mentioned the slides in the back contained a summary of the context of quiet zones, different designs, and images. Regarding Option 4, he thought it would be helpful to know how much noise wayside horns produced and how much noise would be reduced with electric trains versus diesel trains. He added that train horns could be heard up to a half mile away from a grade crossing. He requested a rough estimate of the cost of the full proposals and the comparative costs of the options and a sense of construction time frames. He requested that at the next meeting Caltrain provide information related to the pilot program that would soon be implemented at Churchill. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi had read a study that indicated wayside horns could reduce the decibels by around 13, and a train horn was 96 to 100 decibels, although the wayside horns provided a more localized [inaudible]. Blake Silkwood of Kimley-Horn responded, related to cost estimates, that design had not been completed but generally the three crossings were similar in terms of needed improvements and he would benchmark the cost in the range of $200K per crossing, which would include gates, miscellaneous flatwork improvements, and changing crossing panel locations. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi commented that the Menlo Park estimates were much higher than $200K. Chair Burt requested a clearer estimate of the cost, and he wanted to look at comparisons elsewhere in the corridor. He desired information on wayside horns and possible noise reduction benefits to the community. He wanted to know how many people in the community would be effected by wayside and train horns. He asked how long a wayside horn and an onboard horn sounded. Ex-Officio Committee Member Nadia Naik voiced that XCAP had done some work on horn noise. She explained that the advantage of wayside horns was their placement at the intersection. When XCAP considered which grade separation would provide the best noise reduction, wayside horns were determined to be the most significant thing that could be done for noise. She thought it would be interesting for Caltrain to look at wayside horns being done corridor-wide, which she indicated would be better from a safety perspective. She thought raising the concrete was going to cost $180K just for Palo Alto Avenue, so she wanted to hear more about the cost estimates. She queried if FRA and CPUC would be the ones deciding if the threshold had been met. She understood that the decision did not lie within Caltrain's purview. Blake Silkwood confirmed that FRA and CPUC would decide if the threshold had been met. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/20/2024 Council Member Lythcott-Haims spoke of wayside horns affecting a different set of residents than those hearing the doppler-effect noise of a moving train, which she stated was solving a problem for those hearing the doppler blast but possibly a new set of folks being impacted by the wayside horns. She questioned how such an impact could be studied. She had observed that electric trains had a higher pitched, less massive sound than diesel trains. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi answered that most of the surveys he had seen showed residents in areas where wayside horns had been implemented or tested found it to be less annoying than train horns. He did not think a new group of residents would hear the wayside horns. He described as being fewer decibels for a shorter duration at a more localized location. Chair Burt understood there may be a noise increase with a localized horn, so he wanted clarity on that, and he questioned whether sound could be mitigated. He noted that the cost of Atherton had been much higher than $200K, so he was confused and concerned that there had been an estimate a few months ago for $2M (though he did know if that was for a single or all three) and now the estimate was much lower. He did not feel as though he had enough information today to provide the requested input. Item 1 Public Comment John M. lived 150 feet from the Caltrain crossing at Lindero Drive, and he encouraged implementation of a quiet zone or a localized horn situation. The electric trains were quieter and qualitatively better. He discussed trains running from 5:00 AM to 1 AM being an issue. Melinda M., wife of John M., invited the Committee to their home to witness the situation. Regarding community input, she voiced that they had never been surveyed. She spoke of freight trains running in the daytime, not just at night, and the passenger trains not having many passengers. She added that they may have to relocate due to the grade separation construction. She requested a copy of the quiet zone presentation. Elizabeth A. (zoom) strongly supported addressing the noise, which she regarded as a health issue. She encouraged the use of wayside horns. Stephen R. (zoom) supported the idea of quiet zones and quad gates, which he considered a good interim solution until grade separation could be accomplished. He explained why he was requesting gate downtimes be considered. Adrian B. (zoom) commented that gate downtime would be optimized by a wireless cross optimization system that Caltrain was installing. He spoke of train horn noise being a significant impact. He did not particularly support wayside horns. He suggested bundling Palo Alto Avenue in to make the quiet zone qualify more easily. He opined that proper gate protections could reduce horn blowing. He suggested pulling some of the High-Speed Rail Authority funding forward to help pay for the quad gates. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/20/2024 Chief Transportation Official Kamhi declared that the presentation and the packet were available online. He reiterated that staff was seeking the Rail Committee's feedback and direction to move into the next step of developing the conceptual plans, which would include developing preliminary concepts for all three locations, conducting a diagnostic meeting, community outreach, and refining the conceptual plans and then approval would be sought from the Rail Committee and Council before moving into the implementation phase. He explained why the cost estimates were lower than what had been witnessed in Menlo Park, etc., due to funding from Section 130, etc. Blake Silkwood added that quiet zone projects could trigger additional improvements, so there could be larger costs. A large amount of Palo Alto's improvements had been programmed under a different source, and they were assuming those improvements would be constructed prior to the quiet zone. Chair Burt questioned if the Churchill improvements were similar to what he had seen at Caltrain. He requested more information about the preliminary work and the Section 130 funding relating to the quiet zone, quad gates, etc. He requested that next month Caltrain present on their upgrades on near-term progress on safety and how the that was providing a good portion of the needed groundwork for the quiet zone and reducing the cost. He asked if some of the electronic upgrades would enable gate downtime improvements. He discussed ridership and the number of trains running, and next year Caltrain would update the business plan to reflect current conditions and what it would mean for the future. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi replied that there was a Caltrain component to the Section 130 Project, but he thought Caltrain had something separate that involved something totally different. Palo Alto's component identified a more discrete project. He noted that Public Works was anticipating that paving and concrete work would begin in Palo Alto later this month. Concerning the preliminary work and the Section 130 funding, he was not sure what was being done under that project related to the quiet zone, but it involved the installation of a pre-signal (which was for safety), lighting modifications, resurfacing, etc. He did not know if the electronic upgrades would enable gate downtime improvements. City Manager Ed Shikada confirmed that Caltrain had a separate project in which they were using innovative pavement markings, etc., to reinforce crossing safety. He believed they were hoping to get it done quickly. Ex-Officio Committee Member Naik voiced that XCAP had looked at gate downtime but it was more about how the new system would talk to the signals, and she did not know the status of that. It would be good to get clarification on the quiet zone and if including Palo Alto Avenue would change the risk factor. She addressed a public comment related to timing trains to pass in intersections at roughly the same time, and she explained why it was not possible. Blake Silkwood replied, related to including Palo Alto Avenue, that there could be only one quiet zone. Credit, so to speak, was not being given for it, but it was being treated as a future SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/20/2024 existing condition, so all four crossings were examined together. Palo Alto Avenue did not require any additional improvements, but it was included in the overall risk analysis. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi spoke of travel time and train frequency being important issues for commuters, and he had seen on Caltrain's website that the new electrified service would provide shorter commute times for some. Chair Burt requested that staff provide information related to the commute times. Vice Mayor Lauing requested an explanation of Table 1 on Page 7. Blake Silkwood addressed Table 1 on Page 7 and stated that there was a risk value and the higher the number the higher the risk, so it was a before-and-after analysis. The goal of putting in SSMs was to get the number below 258 thousand. He explained how the risk value was calculated. Council Member Lythcott-Haims referenced Table 1, Existing SSM and Risk values associated with Quiet Zone, and it appeared that the numbers were well above the not-to-be-exceeded threshold. Blake Silkwood explained that it was a threshold that would not be approved as a quiet zone. It meant that SSMs had to be implemented to lower the risk at each crossing, and if the total average could be brought below the risk index, there was potential for getting a quiet zone approved. The average of the risk values across all four crossings would decide whether the threshold was being met. He clarified the meaning the Pre-SSM numbers on the slide. Ex-Officio Committee Member Naik asked if there would be a guarantee of approval for a quiet zone as long as the ratio was below the risk index. She inquired if the FRA could say an intersection was still too dangerous even though everything had been done that they had asked for. Blake Silkwood understood that Option 1 would guarantee approval. If looking at Option 1 and 2, they were not considering them saying an intersection would still be too dangerous. Option 1 was a prescriptive option. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi understood it would automatically qualify if the quad gates were done at all the intersections along with the other things happening with the other project. Vice Mayor Lauing asked what the funding sources were in addition to the grants. He questioned if this should be accelerated if grade crossing should be delayed and if CIPs would be a quicker way to get the funding. He remarked that this should be expedited now. Regarding funding for the quiet zone study, he queried if more dollars were needed for the preliminary plan. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/20/2024 Chief Transportation Official Kamhi responded that they needed to investigate the funding sources. They would try to identify possible grant opportunities. There was potential for funding from other rail grade separation sources. With regard to accelerating this if grade crossing should be delayed and if CIPs would be a quicker way to get the funding, he answered that regardless of the grade separation project, staff recommended continuing to expedite the process for quiet zones because this would provide a community health benefit. The funding had been identified for the preliminary plan, and no more dollars were needed. Council Member Lythcott-Haims asked what the cost was for the wayside horns and how long it would take to implement and if consideration should be given to horns first and quiet zones second. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi responded that the cost needed to be refined in the next phase. Chair Burt shared a slide showing sound contours, which was a study out of Iowa, comparing on-locomotive horns and wayside horns. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi thanked Chair Burt for the slide, which he found helpful. The next phase would determine if wayside horns would be a good interim measure. He did not know if they would be significantly cheaper or if it could be done quicker than the full implementation of quiet zones. He explained that Caltrain could possibly still use their horns if needed. Council Member Lythcott-Haims wanted to know what percentage of the problem wayside horns might address and if things had to happen in series or if one might be a lot better than the other. Ex-Officio Committee Member Naik mentioned that the bells would still ring. She added that the cost of the Atherton quad gates was about $600K for one intersection, although she did not know what improvements had been included. She had found that wayside horns for Metrolink in Monrovia, California, had cost about $150K. Chair Burt wanted to know how much quicker wayside horns could be implemented and the approval process of wayside horns versus the quiet zone. He requested that the locations and types of incidents occurring be considered to understand if quad gates may be ideal for some areas versus other areas. He wanted to ensure that bike and pedestrian safety improvements would be integrated with the design. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi replied that the next phase could include information on time to implement wayside horns and the approval process for them versus the quiet zone. Related to the context of locations and types of incidents occurring, it had been based on the FRA's calculator for quiet zones and the measures they would accept. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/20/2024 Blake Silkwood added, regarding context specificity, the only SSM that would be applicable would be a quad gate system. Vice Mayor Lauing asked what was being used as community goals as it related to the statement due to community goals and the surrounding street geometry, the only feasible SSM was a quad-gate system on Packet Page 6. Blake Silkwood answered that the statement was referring to not closing the crossing, driveways, etc. Chair Burt wanted to understand how this would address safety despite the FRA's scoring system. Council Member Lythcott-Haims inquired if there was information related to the failure rate of gates and bells. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi responded that Caltrain would use their horn if a gate failed. Most often when gates failed, they were in the down position, not the up position, and there was a reason for that. Blake Silkwood added that the gates were designed to fail safe, in the down position. Chair Burt spoke of Caltrain not being a fan of quiet zones because they feared it would impede safety. He discussed quad gates and other quiet zone-type measures combined with wayside horns as opposed to horn elimination, and he wondered if that could make intersections quieter and safer and if it should be considered. Council Member Lythcott-Haims was confused why a system like Palo Alto’s with four crossings could be established as a quiet zone if not all the intersections were addressed, and at which intersections the horns would sound. Blake Silkwood answered that the FRA was approaching it mathematically and the study showed that improving two of the three crossings would decrease the average risk level. He explained that the unimproved crossing would still be part of the quiet zone, and blowing the horn was not mandated. Blake Silkwood explained that the quad gates had a benefit of making vehicle movement safer, which was not related to being quiet. Chair Burt stated the primary purpose of the quad gates was to make vehicle movement safer. Chair Burt spoke of quad gates being safer, which may allow noise being eliminated. He spoke of Churchill and questioned if an alternative to a grade separation could be quad gates, wayside horns, and signal optimization, which may cost less, and he felt that should be considered. He wanted an upcoming meeting to answer some of the questions raised at this meeting. He asked SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/20/2024 if Chief Transportation Official Kamhi had the information he needed and if this needed to go to Council as a recommendation. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi was not sure if it needed to go to Council. He was looking for direction to proceed in developing the concepts, and staff recommended considering Options 1 and 4. The next steps would be developing concepts, getting community feedback, and then bringing it back to the Rail Committee for feedback, approval, and direction to Council. Vice Mayor Lauing asked if the concepts could be returned before community outreach. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated it could be done concurrently. Ex-Officio Committee Member Naik requested that the community be updated. Discussion ensued concerning when the conversation with the public should occur. Chair Burt guessed that some of the PTC's questions would be answered at the next meeting and that then a follow-up discussion could be agendized. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi explained that all the previous plans would be move forward. He thought it was realistic to say that since Meadow and Charleston had been prioritized, it would be a long time before there would be funding to construct a third location. At the minimum, these could be interim measures that could provide benefit. The cost of the study was budgeted within the CIP. MOTION: Council Member Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Council Member Lauing, to recommend: Option 1 Upgrade all crossings with Quad Grade System 1. Churchill Avenue 2. Meadow Drive 3. Charleston Road Option 4 Wayside horns at all locations MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Future Meetings and Agendas Chair Burt elaborated on why he was interested in getting an update from the consultants on the Bike and Ped Master Plan as related to station access and circulation. He suggested having Caltrain present on their Station Access Plan. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/20/2024 Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi noted that the item would not be ready for the September meeting, but it was scheduled for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Chair Burt wanted to provide input, so the final draft would have that input incorporated. He asked if the consultants had adequate input to provide a draft reflective of considerations, including emerging considerations as a result of discussions with Stanford. Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi stated that the consultant, staff, and Council approved a scope and they were compiling all the received input and had plans to bring it back to the committees in October or November, before bringing it to Council. There would be an opportunity for the Rail Committee to provide feedback. They had received information related to everything going on, including El Camino Real, etc. Staff was in Phase 3 of 5, and the next phase would be Committee review of projects, plans, etc. In September, they hoped to have the three-party agreement on the preliminary engineering and environmental. Chair Burt hoped the update from the consultants on the Bike and Ped Master Plan along with a Caltrain presentation would occur at the October meeting. Related to the September three- party agreement meeting, he asked if it would be a tentative agreement defining the parties' roles and who would define the scoping and the RFP parameters or if it would be upstream of that. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi thought it would be upstream of defining the scoping and the RFP parameters, but it could contain some components of that. He thought the key to the agreement was about the funding and what it would mean for roles and responsibilities. There could be discussion around the scope of the RFP. Ex-Officio Committee Member Nadia Naik inquired if roles and responsibilities had to be decided at the next meeting. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi replied that it did not necessarily mean roles and responsibilities had to be decided at the next meeting. He could not speak definitively on that, but he did not believe it would be too much of a holdup if delayed another meeting or so, but it was sort of time sensitive. He needed to speak with the grantor to determine when a decision was needed. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:37 PM