Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-19 Rail Committee Summary MinutesRAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 14 Regular Meeting November 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 virtual teleconference at 2:32 p.m. Present In-Person: Burt (Chair), Lauing, Lythcott-Haims Absent: None Call to Order Chair Burt called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared all (three) were present. Public Comments Bob Rebitzer resided on Seale Avenue and thought other residents of Seale would attend future meetings as they were all surprised that Council had not proceeded with the Churchill closure plan. He stated there had not been much consultation with people on Seale regarding the change in plan. He hoped there would be opportunities to engage with the engineering study identify best solutions, including reconsidering the Churchill closure option. Verbal Updates on Interagency Activities A. Caltrain Caltrain Government and Community Affairs Manager Navdeep Dhaliwal voiced that there had been a 17 percent increase in ridership since electrification. Caltrain would return in the early Q1 season to discuss ridership in general and some upcoming promotion related to fares and passes for 2025. Chair Burt asked if that 17 percent was from September to October. Manager Dhaliwal confirmed that was correct. Council Member Lythcott-Haims asked if there was a fear of that being novelty ridership. Manager Dhaliwal had anticipated there would be some novelty ridership. She hoped the holiday train would keep ridership up into the holiday season. They recognized that the landscape had changed for riding train. They were considering opportunities of this being more SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 14 (R) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/19/2024 of a regional rail rather than commuter rail and being diverse with ridership. She was cautiously optimistic that ridership would continue to increase. Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi added that one of the key hurdles was getting folks to try transit again. Chair Burt had heard that numerous people were using the new expanded schedule to go to San Francisco for events, etc. B. VTA. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated that no one from VTA was in attendance. Chair Burt announced there had been a meeting the morning of November 19 related to the inter-modal center, which brought all the agencies with a strong interest in that station. The focus was on near, medium, and long term, which he detailed. It was funded by $1 million from VTA with additional funds were in the pipeline. There would be notice on the next meeting. C. City Staff Chief Transportation Official Kamhi noted that there would be a hard stop at 5 p.m. He stated that the 100-percent plans had been completed for the Quiet Zone Project, the Palo Alto Avenue crossing, and today the City submitted the GO88 application for approval. Once approved, a contractor for construction could be procured. They were preparing concept plans for Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston crossings and preparing for additional outreach. The safety improvements for the fence project was in the procurement process and was anticipated to start in early 2025. He outlined what the project involved. Caltrain was funding the improvements, including the base bid and the alternate bid item. Staff was coordinating with Caltrain on maximizing the limits and funding the proposed improvements along the corridor. The additional crossing projects for South Palo Alto were recently kicked off. It was called South Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Railroad Crossings Alternatives Analysis and needed a shorter name, and they would work with the Communications Department regarding that. He outlined what the project aimed to identify and what the initial tasks included. The work closely aligned with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update, so there was some shared data and coordinated outreach, which was convenient. The project had three phases scheduled, which he elaborated on. They planned to present the plan and the work to the Rail Committee within each of the phases, and the first action item would come in January or February. Co-founder Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) Nadia Naik asked if there would be fencing for the entire right of way and if any needed to be replaced on the east side. She thought they had requested a map to see what was being changed from six to nine feet and where some might be missing, just to determine if there were funding gaps for closing other high-risk areas that might be addressed. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 14 (R) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/19/2024 Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia replied that Caltrain had prepared a map, which was previously shared, which he could share with CARRD Naik. He thought it covered the west side between Churchill and the station. The existing fencing on the westside was already compliant. Chair Burt noted that some of the fencing on the west side was 6 foot and some less, so the improvement would be nice. Agenda Items 1. Review the Draft Scope of Work to be included in the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Palo Alto, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the Connecting Palo Alto Grade Separation Projects at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road; and recommend to the City Council for approval Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi provided slides and announced who would be involved with this work. Staff wanted to discuss the scope of work and hoped to ultimately recommend that Council approve the agreement. He discussed being early in the process but entering into preliminary engineering. He outlined Council’s direction for the Churchill Avenue and Meadow-Charleston alternatives. He spoke of the key feedback received from Council and Rail Committee, which included reducing property impacts, doing robust engagement, reviewing congestion impacts, and optimizing bicycle and pedestrian crossings. He provided details of the funding for the next phase, which included FRA and VTA Measure B funds. Caltrain Rail Design & Construction Chief Robert Bernard thought they had assembled a good team to move this forward. Over the last several months, his team had worked to develop a technical and engagement approach to respond to Council’s feedback to help move the project to the next phase of design. Vice President at Kimley-Horn Jill Gibson displayed slides and outlined the goals and objectives, which included developing an understanding of the project development basis. They wanted to continue strong collaboration with Palo Alto and Caltrain, drive cost-effective delivery and durable decision-makings to be in alignment with the grant schedule and agreement, improve price certainty, continue to refine and narrow the scope that would move into preliminary engineering while maintaining an appropriate level of flexibility, and fulfill the federal funding agreement scope and schedule. She discussed project development goals and development, project approach and decision-making, and project development process steps. They would be kicking off the conceptual development and refinement. Once the concepts existed, they would develop an independent cost estimate schedule, preliminary funding plan, and a constructability approach. With that information, they would work with Rail Committee and ask Council for a refinement of the preferred alternative for Meadow and Charleston and a confirmation of the Churchill and Seale LPA and then proceed into preliminary engineering and environmental clearance phase. Then the independent cost estimate would be updated to schedule the funding plan and constructability approach to conclude the environmental and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 14 (R) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/19/2024 preliminary engineering phase. She spoke of the use of an independent cost estimate. She discussed their engagement goals and objectives. She detailed the schedule of Meadow- Charleston and Churchill-Seale. They would check in with Rail Committee and Council concerning the progress of the concepts and Rail Committee, and Council would address proceeding through 15 percent for both or, if one should be focused on, to advance into 15 percent. At the end of the calendar year 2025 going into 2026, they would return with the concepts for Rail Committee and Council to choose a concept to advance into 35 percent in environment. The end of 2027 would complete the 35-percent design environmental clearance phase. She supplied a draft of how they intended to work with Rail Committee, Council, the Caltrain board, the community, and neighbors. They planned to advance the concepts for Churchill-Seale and then check in throughout, but specifically at the end of Q4 2025, they would engage with decision-makers to refine the LPA selection and confirm how to advance through PE and environmental. Outreach and engagement with decision-making bodies aligned with the technical work. After execution of the cooperative agreement, the project team would start on development of the project management plan and the public outreach plan, and Caltrain would work to issue a work directive to onboard a general engineering consultant to start the work in collaboration with the City. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated the final recommendations were to review the draft scope of work to be included in the cooperative agreement and to recommend approval of the scope of work in the agreement providing the $14M in funding from the Measure B Grade Separation funding for the preliminary engineering and the environmental documentation phase. Next steps: On November 20, there would be a TOPS Committee meeting to execute the cooperative agreement. The executive agreement would likely be on December 9, and staff would also discuss all the projects occurring at Churchill Avenue. There would be a Caltrain board meeting on December 5 and a VTA meeting in December (a date would be determined). Council Member Lythcott-Haims inquired if the hybrid option was a combination of columns and earthen wall or it was columns versus earthen wall. She was surprised that the project cost estimate for Charleston-Meadow was not a higher proportion of the Churchill-Seale or vice versa. She requested examples of durable decision-making working well and not working well and how this type of behavior had led to an endurability in the decision-making. She stated that onboarding industry professionals to develop contractor style costs was new for Caltrain, and she asked how it might lead to efficiencies compared to how it had previously been approached. Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia clarified that different hybrid options would be considered. Concerning the project cost estimate, he explained that the Seale Avenue was not yet developed to any level and Meadow and Charleston were similar perhaps. Vice President Gibson explained what durable decision-making entailed in order to progress projects on schedule. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 14 (R) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/19/2024 Chief Bernard spoke of durable decision-making being a critical success factor for large projects. Regarding onboarding industry professionals to develop contractor style, consultants had done the estimates in the past, and he explained why it was important to use contractors instead. Vice Mayor Lauing was intrigued with the concept of a risk regulator and requested that be discussed. He asked what kind of changes would need to be made to the project and the document if two crossings were desired instead of three. He inquired if additional funding would be needed at the 35 percent stage. He commented for the public that there was a commitment to do the 15 and 35 percent, and the City could look at the data but a decision would not be made before the 15 percent came in, and any urgency to make changes was dependent on the 15 percent as data would be needed to make a good decision. Chief Bernard responded that the risk register was an active document listing possible risks to the project, which she provided an example of. It was a live document that the team would review actively at every project team meeting, etc. All identified risks would be considered. Senior Engineer Bhatia remarked, regarding changes being made to the project, that technically there was a commitment with FRA at these three crossings. If Council were to cancel it, the funding could be effected for this phase. Following this phase, Council could recommend not to further pursue the project. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi noted that typically a grant such as this was a very competitive process and it would not look good if the grant should not be delivered on, which could affect future grants. Palo Alto wanted to successfully deliver on its federal grants, and constructing the projects, going into final design, or even moving forward could be decided in this phase, but successfully delivering on the grant funds should be considered. Chair Burt discussed the proportion of cost of Meadow and Charleston to Churchill. He appreciated the value of the independent cost estimators and was happy that it would be part of the process. He spoke of next decisions and costs increasing for other City projects. He addressed the safety improvements made and being made on Churchill. He stated that wayside horns or quiet zones or signal optimization could be an alternative to a full construction of a grade separation. He asked how Caltrain had adopted enhanced crossing strategies as an alternative for high priority grade separations. Vice President Gibson answered that the corridor crossing strategy included all 71 crossings. They had been working on a broader strategy over the last two years. Caltrain published a delivery guide on their website. At the last LPMG meeting, there had been discussion about focusing the corridor crossings effort on high-priority projects and integrating the crossing enhancements as part of the program. There would be a focus group related to grade separation projects and what might be realized sooner for the benefit of crossing. Senior Engineer Bhatia added that the City also had improvements that were enhancing intersection safety additions. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 14 (R) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/19/2024 Chair Burt noted that initially those had all been separate projects, but when looking at them together and combined with other possibilities, it created a package. He included capacity, safety and security, and environmental and construction impacts in the package, and crossing enhancements would be a fraction of the cost of a grade separation and could be accomplished faster. He had been impressed with Kimley-Horn’s investing in the process. He voiced that the preferred alternative for Churchill was a partial underpass and that the backup alternative was closure. He noted that the secondary alternative might instead be an enhanced crossing strategy for a significant interim period or indefinitely. Item 1 Public Comments Michele G represented dozens of families on Seale Avenue and asked that what was to be done at Churchill be decoupled from the potential Seale Avenue tunnel. She discussed why she did not feel the process had been fair. She did not support a proposed tunnel. She voiced that property values had dropped with this being a part of the official City plan and asked how homeowners might be compensated. In the scope of work, she requested the language related to optimizing Seale Tunnel be changed to something like investigate Seale Tunnel. Elizabeth A supported considering alternatives before making decisions. She wanted to ensure this would be a cooperative process with an ability to consider what might be true requirements versus what might be nice to have. Especially for the South Palo Alto crossings, she suggested a red-team blue-team approach, which she explained. She liked the idea of extending the analysis beyond the rail crossing in certain instances, such as looking at changes in bike and ped and sometimes car networks She had provided the Committee with a handout related to measuring bike level of service and a traffic analysis for traffic calming. She suggested the two extra bike ped crossings at South Palo Alto be discussed in relation to the alternatives. Richard P addressed the partial underpass at Churchill and voiced that there was not a provision for access out of the neighborhood but the full Churchill closure proposal provided access out of the neighborhood. He requested that there be signalized access out of the neighborhood to go southbound on Alma. He discussed possible property impacts on the east side of Alma due to a partial underpass, and he suggested returning to the original proposal to possibly address those impacts. Laura G concurred with Richard P’s comments related to traffic flow, which she thought she had addressed in an email previously. She mentioned that the signal at Churchill was mis-triggering and asked that the public be notified as to when that would be addressed. She was disappointed that there had not been more detailed conversation about wayside horns. She understood that wayside horns would trigger when a signal triggered, which concerned her. She supported the quiet zones overall. Melinda M advocated for quiet zones. She asked if the quiet-zone crossing in the City of Atherton would be an underpass or hybrid, etc. She felt the quiet zones needed to be mitigated now, that the Alma Freeway bike traffic needed to stop, and that bike transportation should be SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 14 (R) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/19/2024 encouraged. She discussed ridership being down and the impact of construction. She did not find that there had been adequate engagement and outreach with the neighbors about electrification, although she was happy about the electric trains. She questioned how this would be paid for. She requested that the hybrid and eminent domain be reconsidered. John M was not happy to be a Caltrain neighbor due to noise, and he had been disappointed and frustrated with Caltrain in the past. He was in favor of there being quiet zones ASAP. He asked why Palo Alto would invest in grade separation projects/infrastructure for Caltrain with eminent domain. He was grateful that Caltrain was attending this meeting, and he hoped to have a productive and happy negotiation. Chair Burt appreciated the public’s concerns. He noted that the ghost train causing signal downtime was an issue, but that was in the control of Caltrain operations and being worked on by Caltrain. He asked when the public might be provided a schedule for that being solved. He understood that it could take up to five years to achieve quiet zones. Wayside horns could be done quicker and for less expense, whether supplemental to quiet zones or instead of, and about 80 percent of horn noise could be mitigated. He queried when the Committee would receive a quiet zone update. Concerning the partial underpass, he explained that they were looking at minimizing or eliminating property impacts. The City had not accepted the property impacts that had been reflected in the update. Chief Bernard voiced that the team was working on solving the ghost train causing signal downtime, and he would return to the Committee with a schedule. Chief Bernard added that new trains brought new challenges. She knew that gate downtimes was a community concern. They were working on a feature to help trains communicate with the gates, and they expected to have that software in early December. She would be happy to attend the next Committee meeting to provide an update related to those issues. Senior Engineer Bhatia stated that staff could bring the quiet zone concept plans to the Committee early next year. CARRD Nadia Naik expressed that a light had previously been proposed for Northern California and Alma, which would allow residents in Old Palo Alto to make a signalized left turn. Chair Burt recognized that Old Palo Alto needed a safe solution if they would not be able to make a right-hand turn. He clarified why Seale had become the preferred location for the bike and ped underpass, although if there was to be an enhanced crossing strategy, it was yet to be determined if the crossing should be at Seale or Churchill. The partial underpass would close off bike and ped crossing at Churchill, so they would need a new location. He ensured the public that the challenging issues were being addressed. Council Member Lythcott-Haims had been supportive of a viaduct because the construction time would be shorter. She requested that the impacts of construction over a two-, four-, and six-year period be quantified. She questioned what would be done to unclog the crosstown SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 14 (R) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/19/2024 corridors if there should be six years of construction. She noted that she was seeing mis- triggering at Palo Alto Avenue. Chair Burt discussed jacked boxes reducing construction time and impact, although he was told by AECOM that was not an approved process and they did not know if it would work. He pointed out that Kimley-Horn that listed as an innovative best practice. Although it would not be applicable everywhere, it would be considered. MOTION: Council Member Ed Lauing moved, seconded by Council Member Pat Burt, to recommend the City Council approve the scope of work as part of the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB/Caltrain), and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Chair Burt asked when this was scheduled to go to Council. Philip Kamhi stated that it likely would go to Council as a consent item on December 9, although it could be December 2. The ad hoc informational report would also be on the December 9 agenda. Chair Burt hoped there could be Council discussion of the enhanced crossing strategy package measures as an alternative. City Manager Ed Shikada clarified that the report from the committees was scheduled for December 16. The consent items being on the 16th could be discussed, so they would be concurrent. 2. Rail Committee 2024 Annual Summary Report Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi expressed that no action was required on this item. It was summarizing the activities of the year. Chair Burt noted that this could be reviewed and the Committee could provide something to staff in writing if anything additional needed to be reported out. City Manager Ed Shikada mentioned this would be discussed at the full Council on December 16, so there would be opportunity to expand on the narrative. 3. Action Item - Caltrain Stations Bicycle and Pedestrian Access: Receive Feedback on the Findings from the Spring 2024 Downtown Walking Tour and Community Bike Ride. CEQA Exempt - California Senate Bill 922. Chair Burt noted that this was listed as an action, but it was really to receive an update on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Draft Plan as related to Caltrain stations. He hoped it would encompass all ways in which the master plan intersected with rail grade crossings and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 14 (R) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/19/2024 perspective pedestrian crossings. However, if the conversation needed to be limited at this meeting, there could be a follow up to address the other areas. Senior Transportation Planner Ozzy Arce remarked that he was managing the Bike and Ped Plan update, referred to as the BPTP update. They would report on the findings from a community bike ride and walking tour they had done last spring as part of the existing conditions analysis phase for the BPTP. Staff was requesting feedback on the key themes and findings. The third phase would be moved into early next year, which would present the priorities and the recommended projects and update the vision, the performance measures, and the objectives of the plan. He remarked that there would be no action taken today, just the findings would be reported. Project Consultant at Kittelson & Associates Amanda Leahy displayed slides and declared that she would be sharing findings from the walking tour and the community bike tour. They were requesting feedback from the Committee on the findings. They were in phase three now and they would return with the recommendations for the bike network and pedestrian district guidelines, which would be projects improving access to the stations and crossings of the rail and other major barriers around the city. In April 2024, there had been a walking tour in partnership with Avenidas. She outlined the route taken, and they had collected feedback regarding the pedestrian environment. That information had been used to shape the pedestrian district guidelines and identify projects within the pedestrian district areas that would improve walking conditions. They had heard there was a need for sidewalk maintenance at the station and increased wayfinding. There had been a desire to explore continuous sidewalks at the Alma interchange and along University Avenue and an interest in extending the Main Street feel beyond University Avenue to the surrounding parallel streets. People had also discussed more car-free streets and enhancing alleyways and entrances. She provided photos of observations during the tour. The day after the walking tour, they had a bike ride hosted in partnership with Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, which was well attended. She outlined the route that had been taken. There had been a general interest in upgrades to the existing infrastructure, which might be more physical separation on existing bike lanes, wider bike lanes, better paved streets, and enhanced transitions from arterial roads to residential streets as well as connector bike paths. It was acknowledged that the City had connector bike paths but they could be tricky to find. She furnished pictures from stops along the route. The East Meadow Drive Pilot Project was highly anticipated. On the northeast side, there had been discussion about the types of traffic control used and the volume of students going to school and the change over time of a day and the usage of different lanes but a desire for fulltime bike lanes. They had received a number of comments throughout the engagement phases, which had been compiled from the interactive map, and other events that had been held and lighting, murals, low visibility, a lack of designated paths being challenging, and challenging behaviors of riders creating hazards had been discussed. There had been discussion supporting the Seale Avenue undercrossing to Peers Park and noting the lack of opportunities for crossing south of Oregon Expressway. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 14 (R) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/19/2024 Planner at Caltrain Hannah Greenberg furnished slides and provided an update on the station access policy, which outlined Caltrain’s goals for improving how people would get to and from the stations corridor wide. The policy could be found on their website by clicking on the projects tab from the home page. There were six goals, which covered safety, customer experience, ridership, equity, sustainability, and partnerships. They would discuss partnerships at this meeting. Partnerships with cities would help advance Station Access Policy goals. The policy included an appendix called the Station Access Toolkit, which listed actions that could help inform decision-making when identifying possible access improvements, which were organized into five categories and included customer experience, active transportation, transit and shuttles, private vehicles and parking, and partnerships. They needed cities to reach the goals outlined in the Station Access Policy, so they were reaching out to collaborate on planning or development projects in the Caltrain station area. They were seeking partnerships on the Station Access Policy, the City Partnership Toolkit, and the GoPass incentives. She discussed the benefits of the partnerships with cities. The ability of Caltrain to sustain and expand future service depended, in large part, on cities supporting the expansion of ridership to include groups beyond the current traditional Caltrain riders. Ed Lauing asked if what they had found had been expected and if the focus group wanted the tunnel and, if so, if they wanted it to be brighter. Project Consultant Leahy answered that what they found had been expected. There had been a focus on making University Avenue a welcoming space, and there had been discussion about possibly doing that with a parallel bikeway and prioritizing pedestrians. Regarding the tunnel, she thought there was an appreciation for the cost and feasibility of some of the improvements. She believed lighting was high on the list, which would be expensive but was essential for safety. She felt there would be more use there and at Cal Ave if lighting were improved. Senior Transportation Planner Arce added that the University Avenue piece stood out to him. He thought there were mixed opinions on whether bikes should or should not be on University or whether Hamilton and Lytton might be a more desirable option. In the Bike and Ped Plan Update effort, staff was leaning on the University Ave Streetscape Project to make that determination and moving forward with Council’s direction to prioritize Hamilton as the downtown corridors. Council Member Lythcott-Haims was stuck that Avenidas was chosen as the sole partner for the focus group. She asked if there would be additional perspectives from parents with small children and retail shoppers. She requested information on the East Meadow Drive Pilot. Planner Hannah Greenberg replied that they would get multiple additional perspectives, and they had been talking with parents at City/School Commission meetings and in separate focus groups. She explained why the walking tour had been hosted in partnership with Avenidas. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 14 (R) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/19/2024 Senior Transportation Planner Arce thought the East Meadow Drive Pilot referenced in the presentation related to the South Palo Alto’s Bikeways Demonstration Project, and they had been awarded a grant for a striping project. Council Member Lythcott-Haims detailed why she had hoped the East Meadow Pilot would deal with El Camino Way. She hoped that the Bike Ped Plan would continue to look at what had been done with El Camino Way and that safety enhancements would be put in place. Senior Transportation Planner Arce voiced that the Maybell El Camino Reale to El Camino Way area was on the radar. They had received feedback on the concerns Council Member Lythcott- Haims shared. He believed it was a designated school route. Chair Burt inquired if the community bike ride included Safe Routes to School leaders. He stated that their knowledge and perspective was extremely important and that focusing on Safe Routes to School had been central to the Bicycle Master Plans for 20 years. He queried if additional community rides were planned. He thought the focus for this meeting would be on the bike and ped access to and through the University station, and he had not heard what had been evaluated or what gaps or issues had been identified. Senior Transportation Planner Arce did not know if representatives from the City/School or parent communities had been on the bike ride. He voiced that everyone had been invited to the bike ride and the community meetings. Parents were an important part in the planning effort. They had done specific focus groups and invited parents, which had been very successful. A roundtable discussion with the parents had been done in the past, and they hoped to do it again. They could connect with the additional folks and invite leadership from the Safe Routes to School team. The downtown walking tour was not just about station access. It was about all of downtown in general. There were a few findings related to station access. He thought that part of the recommendations moving forward would include some pieces related to station access. Chair Burt thought solving bike access issues would have been a prime area of consideration, and he had not seen anything recognizing the problem or the solutions for it. The VTA Ad Hoc had discussed circulation through the University station and to the platforms, and there were problems with bike lanes not connecting through the station as well as the bike lane on Alma that ebbed out at Lytton. They received a VTA update on wayfinding, and MTC was in the process of a uniform and extensive wayfinding and signage system for all the transit systems in the Bay Area, and University station had been chosen as the trial for the new signage. He encouraged staff to connect with Jay Tyree at VTA for an update. He queried if bike parking and security of such were issues within the Bike Plan. He noted that there was a significant bike security problem at University, which he thought needed to be recognized and solved. Although the solution may be more in the arms of Caltrain and VTA, it was a big part of the City’s bike network. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 14 (R) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/19/2024 Senior Transportation Planner Arce answered that bike parking and security always came up. They had done a bike parking inventory as part of the existing conditions analysis. He assumed that moving forward there would be a recommendation for additional bike parking at key locations. They had looked at gaps downtown, and he expected there to be recommendations for us. Staff was aware of the bike security issues, and the City had purview over many of the elements but a lot of the solutions would happen in coordination with other agencies, like Caltrain. Wayfinding and lighting at the station were things the City could work in partnership with, but it was up to some agencies to take charge of some of the elements. Chair Burt assumed that it could be identified as problems within the plan and then it would reference partners to solve it. Senior Transportation Planner Arce confirmed that was correct. Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi noted that staff, Caltrain, and Kittelson & Associates were cognizant of the Lytton, University, etc., examples that were voiced. What was being presented today were things identified in the outreach, and staff was requesting feedback from the Committee, which would be built into their recommendations. A bike ride was not needed to identify where there were inadequacies at this point. Chair Burt thought the current status of the Bike and Pedestrian Plan draft as it related to the stations and their access and the grade crossings would have be presented at this meeting. He wanted to know where they were on the draft of the plan as it related to getting to and from stations. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated that the schedule of the BPTP showed where the City was in the process. They were not at the point of developing recommendations. They were gathering information and they wanted the Committee’s feedback on that. He understood that at the last Committee meeting the Committee did not yet want fully formed recommendations but that the Committee first wanted to provide input. Chair Burt voiced that part of this phase should be to know what was intended to be folded into the plan and the problems identified. Council Member Lythcott-Haims was expecting a presentation on the intersection of the Bike Ped Master Plan that would be coming with Rail, which she did not see in the presentation. She stated, as an example, that the Stanford Ad Hoc Committee had discussed how bikes would be coming from the northern part of Quarry Road Menlo Park across Quarry Road into the bus- train situation, and it was forecasted then that it would be important to know what the Bike Ped Plan was thinking about the bike routes. The resident bike enthusiast and expert informed her that it was hard to know where to go when on a bike at that particular location. She had expected that the Committee would be able to give feedback on such. The Committee wanted to be a part of the development of that. She felt that there had been a misalignment on the content that would be seen today. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 14 (R) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/19/2024 City Manager Ed Shikada thought it was a misalignment in timing. Staff was not at the point to report out at that stage in the completion of this work. He believed there had been a great deal of urgency in having this item come to the Committee on this date. He thought staff erred on the side of meeting the date while recognizing that the work had not reached the desired point. There would be a subsequent conversation after the first of the year. Chair Burt was looking for what had been identified as problems and issues any that you’ve to date have tentative solutions to them. CARRD Nadia Naik thought it might be helpful to review the 2012 plan, which already had a lot of metrics, etc. She stated that the report was not correct in stating the University Avenue Caltrain was busiest because of Stanford students. She indicated the majority of users were Stanford employees. In the 1998 Comp Plan, the City hoped to unite downtown retail with Stanford Shopping Center as a unified experience, and she stated that bicyclists and pedestrians moving through the station was an issue. Chair Burt echoed the value of comparing the 2012 plan and building off that and modifying it as opposed to starting from scratch. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi noted that staff working on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan were aware of the 2012 plan and several other plans, and they were taking heed to the Committees comments related to challenges with station access. Item 3 Public Comments Elizabeth A had provided a handout earlier and requested it be shared. She expressed that it would be helpful to do station audits for the San Antonio, Cal Ave, and downtown stations, and she detailed how that might be done. She suggested getting perspectives from a diverse group of people. She thought small things could be done on San Antonio Road to improve the situation. She did not believe measuring the level of service for the quality of a bike network was being done properly, and she thought using more quantitative methods could be a way to structure it. She would forward a soft copy of her handout to the Committee. Chair Burt commented that thousands of housing units were planned for the San Antonio corridor and the bike network feeding that area was a new consideration. Melinda M requested there be signage on Alma to direct bicyclists to Bryant Street, etc., for safety reasons. She assumed Stanford was a major stakeholder in connectivity to downtown, which she hoped was being considered. She thought she had sent an email to the Committee related to students crossing intersections. Chair Burt wanted a meeting in which staff would identify their findings. City Manager Shikada thought the date for such a meeting should be determined. He suggested targeting the product in keeping with the interests the Committee had heard. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 14 (R) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/19/2024 Senior Transportation Planner Arce stated staff had a lot of information. The next step would be to recommend solutions. Staff was looking at more than station access planning, which was important and there could be a subset focusing on that effort. He discussed this being a citywide Bike and Ped Plan Update. Chair Burt emphasized that there were two steps – identifying problem locations and proposed solutions. He wanted to know what staff had identified. The Committee was interested in bicyclists and pedestrians interacting with the rail line inclusive of the stations but not exclusive of the other matters. City Manager Shikada commented that an example was where crossings should be. He thought the conversation highlighted the importance of being clear on the extent to which this plan would define the level, to which the citywide plan would get, on the issues of station interface and the intersections, which staff needed to work on. Council Member Lythcott-Haims thanked staff for their work. She wanted the Bike Ped Plan folks to know of specific concerns of other parties, such as the Stanford Ad Hoc, but she did not want that to be forced upon staff too soon but she did want coordination. Chair Burt added that the City, Stanford, and VTA had a staff committee working on bus circulation and the improved bike and ped circulation related to new roadways. He thought the plan should identify problems with bicyclists getting to stations safely and efficiently with another group working on solutions. He indicated that the Bike and Plan should identify issues and goals to solve problems in getting to and through the station. CARRD Naik commented that line of sight (greenery, shrubs, etc.) should be considered when thinking about safety. The clerk remined the Committee that there was a hard stop at 5 p.m. Chair Burt provided an example of how staff could address the safety issue in the plan. He added that safety was a hindrance to ridership. Future Meetings and Agendas Chair Burt announced that there would be an update on the El Palo Alto Tree, which related to rail issues. The tree had not been designated as a state historic landmark. He suggested there be an update at a future meeting. He added that Council may want to act on initiating the historic designation. He thanked all for attending this meeting. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:06 p.m.