HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3650
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3650)
City Council Rail Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 3/28/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Preliminary Questions & Issues on Grade Separations &
Below Grade Alternatives in Palo Alto
Title: Preliminary Overview of Questions and Issues on Grade Separations
and Below Grade Alternatives in Palo Alto
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Palo Alto City Council Rail Committee provide staff direction
on what next-steps to take on grade separation and below grade alternative issues in
Palo Alto.
Executive Summary &Background
At the February 28, 2013 Rail Committee meeting it was decided that the Rail
Committee would have a preliminary discussion at their next meeting on what action
City staff should take on two issues:
1. Grade separations in Palo Alto
2. Below grade track alignments in Palo Alto
Therefore, below is some background information and possible questions to aid the Rail
Committee as they deliberate what next-steps City staff should take on these issues.
Palo Alto currently has four at-grade crossings along the Caltrain corridor. Based on
proposals made by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB), the operator of
Caltrain, and the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), the number of trains
traveling in the corridor each day is expected to increase. If that increase in train traffic
occurs, it will have impacts on vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic along the
Packet Pg. 44
City of Palo Alto Page 2
corridor. Due to that potential increase in train traffic, questions about grade
separations and below grade track alignments (e.g. trenching) have come up.
Grade separations and below grade track alignments can reduce or eliminate the impact
that train traffic has on vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic; however, the
implementation and impacts of grade separations and below grade track alignments are
significant. Therefore, below are a few assumptions that are generally agreed upon to
be true regarding grade separations and below grade track alignments in Palo Alto:
1. Grade separations done by either elevating or submerging the roadway are likely
to be less expensive than trenching the corridor, and have fewer construction
impacts than trenching, but are likely to require property acquisitions
2. Trenching the railroad in the corridor is likely to be more expensive than grade
separating the four at-grade crossings in Palo Alto, and would have significant
construction impacts, but would likely require few, if any, property acquisitions
when compared to grade separating the four at-grade crossings
3. Trenching the railroad in the corridor is likely to have the fewest visual, noise,
and vibration impacts on the community once construction is complete
4. Trenching the railroad in the corridor is likely to take multiple years to complete,
require the removal of numerous tress along the corridor, and may necessitate
the installation of temporary tracks along the corridor, possibly resulting in the
temporary closure of multiple lanes on Alma St.
If the assumptions listed above are true, it leads to a number of questions:
1. What is the best way for the Rail Committee and City Council to engage in a
community dialogue about the pros and cons of different scenarios?
2. Will the Rail Committee and City Council endorse any proposal for grade
separations or trenching that requires any property acquisitions?
3. Can the Rail Committee and City Council eliminate any grade separation or
trenching scenarios now based on what is likely to be true?
4. To what degree does the Rail Committee and City Council want to engage the
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) and/or the California High Speed
Rail Authority (CHSRA) in evaluating the issues mentioned above?
5. Is there work the Rail Committee and City Council would like staff to have
consultants do?
Packet Pg. 45
City of Palo Alto Page 3
If the Rail Committee and City Council direct staff to have work done by the
engineering consultant Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) there is still an open contract with
HMM with $64,688.33 remaining for engineering services. That contract expires June
30, 2014.
Packet Pg. 46