Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-18 Rail Committee Summary MinutesRAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 8 Special Meeting March 18, 2025 The Rail Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at virtual teleconference at 1:33 P.M. Present In-Person: Burt (Chair), Lythcott-Haims Absent: Lauing Call to Order Chair Burt called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared two were present, one absent. Public Comments 1. Eric N. provided a slide presentation of a concept to reduce the Churchill Bridge cost and disruption that was created by someone that was not a civil engineer including a background and the proposed concept. Chair Burt requested the clerk forward the presentation to the Committee. City Manager Ed Shikada noted that the printed agenda stated members of the public may speak only in person on an item not on the agenda. Chair Burt acknowledged it was on the agenda but did not recall that having been a Council action. He stated they would abide by the agenda and the remote speaker was welcome to send in comments. He added they would follow up and confirm what the Council action was. Nadia Naik, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design 2. Amber W. spoke in an attempt to revive community coalitions, engage with the City, schools, and parent networks. She was excited to form a partnership on rail crossing improvements, specifically structural deterrence and barriers to facilitate intended pedestrian behavior. She wanted to see the Palo Alto process narrative change to efficiency, innovation, and action. She urged the Committee to work with the appropriate governing bodies and experts in the near term to reduce means access. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 8 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/18/2025 3. Kerry Y. talked about the safety issues of kids crossing Churchill Crossing. She did not think there was a valid reason for not having a grade separation completed at Churchill Crossing. 4. John M. appreciated the action taken on quiet zones. He felt none of the Alma Street grade separations proposed were desirable. He thought Caltrain should pay for the construction to their infrastructure. Verbal Updates on Interagency Activities A. Caltrain Navdeep Dhaliwal, Government and Community Affairs Manager, provided an update on some of the rail crossing enhancements the community could expect to see as well as an additional pilot program they intended to launch at Palo Alto station. She described RailSentry that was installed at Churchill on March 12 and 13. She stated the learning phase would take two to three weeks to gather a representative sample of data and she would be happy to bring that information back. They planned to also review video footage and Caltrain would continue to work with the City of Palo Alto to enhance safety measures at this crossing. They were preparing to submit the GO 88 application for rail crossing enhancement following communication with the California Public Utilities Commission to help shepherd in additional improvements. They would be reaching out to the city of Palo Alto for any additional information needed to finalize that application and get them submitted. She commented that as of the prior week, the contractor had replaced approximately 1700 feet of fencing out of a total of 4000 feet. They remained on track with the April 17 completion date. Caltrain recently installed Throne smart restrooms at three of their stations. They were proposing one at Palo Alto Station. They are installed, cleaned and maintained by Throne Labs with cleaning conducted multiple times a day by Throne employees. They are ADA accessible featuring a ramp for entry and have exterior cameras to help deter vandalism. Access is managed via text messages or QR code enabling Throne to gather real time feedback to support maintaining cleanliness and security. The restroom at Palo Alto station would be installed on the east side on the sidewalk in the parking lot. They had received great feedback from the existing smart restrooms. They plan to run the pilot for one year and would closely monitor its progress making adjustments as needed based upon results and feedback. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims wanted information about what geofencing offers. She was interested in hearing about the confidence in fencing. Ms. Dhaliwal offered to come back and provide additional clarification on the specifics of what that feature would help them deliver. She explained the fence replacement work began at the southern end of the southbound Palo Alto Station platform and extended south to Churchill Avenue. The purpose was to offer a physical and visual barrier to mitigate people approaching the track. It has been the number one opportunity to create a safer corridor. Caltrain hoped to envision a future where there would be fencing along the entirety of the corridor to continue to SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 8 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/18/2025 collaborate with the corridor community and partners in ensuring an initial barrier alongside the work they were doing at the actual at-grade crossings to improve safety. Chair Burt’s understanding was they already had certain sensors they had been operating and communicate with public safety and directly with the trains. The RailSentry added additional cameras and LIDAR sensing. The geofencing referred to the specific physical boundaries that would set off the alarm if somebody crosses. It would notify the conductor on the train potentially for an emergency stop. In parallel to RailSentry, Caltrain had been working with Google, Waze and Apple on their maps, which had misleadingly directed people to turn down the tracks. Solar lighting and delineators were also being installed to provide boundaries at night. Additional painting and striping made the boundaries even more clear to cars. There were a bunch of modest measures that had an impact on the safety of cars inadvertently going there and individuals deliberately entering the track area. Nadia Naik thought there was already fencing between University Avenue Station and Churchill on the east side and that the improvements were from the Churchill intersection further south to the Cal Ave Station along the east side. Ms. Dhaliwal explained existing fencing was already in place. They wanted to add additional fencing that was a lot higher. They removed sections of the existing fencing and installed new fencing that incorporated a winglet to provide an additional safety measure. They have been endeavoring to see what funding opportunities were available to continue to expand additional fencing along the corridor. Chair Burt added fencing was installed on the east side the length of the corridor around 2013 or 2014. The next phase on the west side would address an area with some sections of low fencing. He mentioned that on the inadvertent following of maps, Waze and Google had already altered their maps. Apple was slower to engage with Caltrain but are now doing so. He commented that last year Caltrain adopted an initiative to pursue corridor-wide safety and security best practices on the entire corridor. Over the last 15 years, Caltrain had been step-by- step going from very little engagement and sense of responsibility for protection of the corridor to a very significant one but had not set an endpoint they were aiming for so this was a big policy decision. They have been pursuing grants. He noted that the past week at MTC, they had a policy discussion on legislative initiatives. This ended up being one of the initiatives they discussed for cap-and-trade dollars at the state level in part because High-Speed Rail receives 25% of the cap-and-trade dollars and still has plans to come up the peninsula. In those plans, there is no plan to grade separate and no funding in the High-Speed Rail business plan but to have quad gates on the peninsula. The argument they have made is if quad gates were in their plan, they should step forward and provide the funding for quad gates and other safety measures on the corridor. They would be advocating this to the legislature and looking for elected representatives throughout the corridor to advocate with the legislators in this opportunity when cap-and-trade dollars are renewed and they can redirect some of those dollars to more valuable measures. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 8 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/18/2025 B. VTA. (None) C. City Staff Ripon Batia, Senior Engineer Office of Transportation, reported City Staff was working on several projects along the corridor in Palo Alto including quiet zone, pedestrian underpasses and safety improvements at these crossings. Regarding the Quiet Zone Project, the City had received CPUC approval to proceed with construction. The design had been completed and the project had been transitioned to the construction phase. They would be working with the Public Works staff to procure the construction contractor to complete the improvements. The notice to intent had been issued to FRA to implement a quiet zone at the location. Following the construction, they would issue a notice of implementation to the FRA and CPUC. For Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston Crossings, they had met with FRA, CPUC and Caltrain in late 2024. They had developed the conceptual plans, which were shared with the Rail Committee late last year. They were planning to conduct an outreach meeting to the community tentatively scheduled for April 16. He offered to coordinate with the city clerks if Council and committee members wanted to participate at these meetings. South Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian underpasses is in a planning phase. The project would aim to develop two grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle underpasses south of Oregon Expressway. Kittelson and Associates was hired in late 2024 who are reviewing existing conditions to find alternatives. A community outreach is being planned to seek feedback and comments on April 2, 2025, at Mitchell Park Community Center. Council members were encouraged to coordinate with the city clerk office if they would like to attend. Churchill Avenue and Alma Street Safety Improvement Projects had been planned and were in construction phase. It was called Section 130 Funded Project. It included safety improvements that cater toward signal light improvements, preventing anyone on the railroad tracks, providing more time for pedestrians to cross and ensuring they meet with the current regulations and standards. They were expected to conclude in late spring/early summer of 2025. Night work was scheduled from time to time because of restrictions which causing some longer times to construct the improvements. They had received federal funding for the Charleston and Alma Street Intersection improvements. They were looking at similar improvements for traffic signal and intersection for improving bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular traffic to ensure safety. There will be new signal light equipment there. A diagnostic meeting was to be conducted with California Public Utilities Commission and FRA. They hoped to schedule that meeting in early summer, late spring. They had already executed agreements with state for disbursement of funding and Staff would be conducting surveys and collecting data at those locations to ensure their improvements were in line with the future and current conditions. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked for the time and place of the community outreach meeting for April 16. Mr. Batia replied the plan was to have the meeting at City Hall at 6:00 PM. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 8 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/18/2025 Chair Burt asked to be refreshed on the steps and timing for the full quiet zones and the wayside horns. He noted one other potential funding source would be the county VTA Measure B funds. They cannot use those funds for these purposes but that would be explored at VTA and Caltrain. Mr. Batia replied the steps were similar for quiet zone implementation as wayside horns or as part of the other full quiet zones because they required the CPUC and Caltrain concurrence and rewards to the FRA, FRAs buyout on the proposed plan and then in their initial concept plans design offers. The challenge in the timeline was the coordination and seeking that concurrence from those agencies because they are federal and state level agencies that have higher priorities and other projects they work on and getting their attention to get to meet with them. Some of those timelines were out of their hands and they were dependent on them for their approval. The steps involve an original concept plan development based on the meetings and concurrence from both departments then feedback from the community and acceptance and buy in from the various bodies and then going back and getting those plans designed and getting the GO 88-B approval for approval permit to construct. That permit also has timelines. Before construction, they have to issue notice of intent that has its own regulatory time period for the comment period from FRA and CPUC. After the construction is complete, they have to do notice of implementation which has its own statutory guidelines for the number of days it has to be on the street for public hearing. Once FRA gives them final approval, then they would be able to let Caltrain implement the quiet zone. They anticipated about two to two-and-a-half years for the concept plan refinement project time, another year to year-and-a-half for design and then a year to year-and-a-half in construction so about five years total. Regarding the wayside horn timeline, the funding sources and funding scheduling impact the timeline of the actual construction of these improvements. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims wanted clarification on what they estimated would be the timeline for wayside horns. She was curious what more they could do to lobby people to respond to their requests to make meetings happen more quickly. Mr. Batia clarified the savings would be in the construction time. The process would be the same as that of a quiet zone. He stated they could seek guidance of the advocacy from the city manager. Chair Burt stated he had been talking to Caltrain and some of the elected officials about what potential they had to engage Staff with the California Public Utilities Commission through board representatives on the various bodies or the state representatives to advocate on their behalf with the PUC. Agenda Items 1. Summary of the Draft Project Management Plan for the advancement through Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phases of the grade separation project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road crossings. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 8 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/18/2025 Mr. Batia started a slide presentation about the City of Palo Alto Grade Separation Project including the purpose and agenda. Jill Gibson, Vice President at Kimley Horn, resume the presentation with a map of the project site, conceptual alternatives, project goals, co-op agreement execution, a project timeline, design development objectives, Project Management Plan overview, integrated leadership team, concept refinement phase, 15% design phase, preliminary engineering and environmental phase, risk management process, roles and responsibilities of the general engineering consultant, GEC procurement schedule, GEC process and scope, public outreach and engagement plan, communication strategies, outreach and engagement activities and the draft milestone schedule. Mr. Batia resumed the presentation discussing future Rail Committee engagement. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims wanted to know how to better align with the public and Council’s perception of what the process would entail and how long it would take. She wanted to reconcile the misunderstanding that they had come to a decision in June 2024. She recalled the Council conversation wherein a number of them articulated they needed to put two forward to 15% so they could appreciate what their impacts would be but did not think that was happening. Mr. Batia replied June 18 Council directed them to proceed forward with the two alternatives for Meadow and Charleston and then selected a locally preferred alternative for Churchill. For Meadow and Charleston, Council wanted them to proceed with 15% but wanted them to come back with a refined version of the two alternatives, looking at the right-of-way impacts and some improvements on the pedestrian bikeway concerns. Between then and the present, Council asked them to do an additional step to reconfirm those two alternatives. Sometimes 15% development can be considered concept level and sometimes can be considered as 15% preliminary engineering so the definitions can be different depending upon individual usage. The two steps approach is what Council wanted then to do and that was the plan. Regarding the timing, in order to use the federal and EVTA funding, they would have to go through agreements, processing, signatures and authorizations. Those steps take a longer time. He added at decision point one, the Rail Committee would have an option to proceed forward with both options. That additional information may provide guidance to Staff to proceed forward with two or one. City Manager Shikada clarified Council direction was unaffected. What was coming back to the Committee was a more refined version of the two alternatives. Potentially, at the next decision point, they would bring it down to one that would proceed into the next phase. Ms. Gibson referred to slide 10 to describe the timeline as once the GEC was onboard starting the refinement of those concepts from Council direction in the discussion and understanding the goals to minimize property impacts, understanding the mobility and private property impacts trade-offs, refining those concepts, coming back to Rail Committee, having robust SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 8 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/18/2025 discussion with city council, hopefully narrowing down to one option to advance through 15% to come back in Q2 of 2026 informed by a draft cost estimate to then receive direction on how to advance into 35% and environmental clearance. Chair Burt wanted follow-up on the independent cost estimating. He opined there was value in comparing to similar projects. He inquired what best practice tools were available through simulations and cost-effective iterations. He opined that the cost estimates from four or five years ago would be out the window and they should not be shocked by the major cost differences they would be seeing. Edgar Torres, Transit Consultant at Kimley Horn, replied they were able to work with the GEC in developing digital twins to create the environment a build environment to understand how it could potentially be constructed. It could be done in 3D in order to test the different spaces of how things could get done. There would be less information available during the refinement phase but more information the further along they got in the design. Ms. Dhaliwal stated they had a keen understanding of what was happening corridor wide and nationwide and what the market was presently looking like. They knew there were nationwide increases due to inflation, supply chain disruptions, and labor shortages. They were seeing more than 20% but those were not the only issues contributing to the cost increases. They were understanding that building an electrified environment was more challenging compared to a diesel system because of additional safety protocols and conditions that bring on additional complexities when building around these systems. She applauded the City of Palo Alto and this project team for bringing in the early contractor pricing to get more accurate information that was already embedded in this project management plan so they could get a better forecast of the costs and how they could make decisions to these community vision projects forward so they could be focused on not only viability from a technical component, but also fundability. She stated in the coming months in close collaboration with their corridor partners, they anticipated a larger conversation about how to address these projects on a corridor scale through the corridor crossing strategy and identify what projects were grade separation projects versus safety enhancements or closures. She thought it was important to understand about advocacy and speaking through one voice to deliver these projects in a way in which makes sense in order to get a clear picture of what the future would look like. The intention for the day was to make sure there were key inflection points to allow the Committee and Council to make well-informed decisions of not only technical work that needs to happen but what the market was telling them so they could deliver whatever the community vision was that would make sense for Palo Alto. Item 1 Public Comment 1. Michele G. described concern about property impacts and potential increased traffic on Seale Avenue and felt the members of that community had not had the opportunity to address those concerns. She worried that the Churchill Underpass Plan did not have a good SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 8 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/18/2025 2. Melinda M. indicated that they had been warned that manufacturers did not want to install wayside horns because they cannot repair them and if they break down the quiet zone designation would be lost. She was not sure grade separations were the answer and addressed teen mental health issues. She did not support the Seale idea. 3. Stephen R. agreed with the previous comments about the bicycle undercrossing. He urged the Committee to think about getting the trains above street level and thought they would regret any other solution in the future. 4. Adrian B. mentioned that grade separation projects were not new and urged to try to learn from best practices elsewhere. He supported quiet zones but urged caution on wayside horns. He agreed that a grade separation would prevent a spur of the moment suicide but means denial would not be achieved by doing one grade separation. 5. Roland inquired if it would be possible to enable the save transcript button in order to have a complete picture of what was said during the meeting. He recommended paying close attention to what was going on with Brightline in Florida regarding quiet zones being rejected for safety reasons. He indicated he would be writing to the Committee to address how grade separations were done elsewhere in the world and presenting a solution on how to build a viaduct on Meadow and Churchill. Ms. Naik inquired how the closure element was being treated. She mentioned that work windows played a part in driving price increases. She flagged that some of the refinement points for August would go back to the Rail Committee for approved refinement concepts. She cautioned against trying to do public outreach in the summer and advised doing them as soon as possible. She wanted to clarify the funds they were receiving would be a refund. Mr. Batia explained it would be considered as a backup and not being modified at this time. If Council decided to pursue instead of the locally preferred alternative at a later date, it could be reviewed at that time. He confirmed that the funds would be on a reimbursement basis. Chair Burt asked to have the mayor notified of that. Future Meetings and Agendas Tuesday, May 20, 2025, at 2:30 PM Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 3:24 PM