HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2311-2303CITY OF PALO ALTO
Rail Committee
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, January 23, 2024
2:30 PM
Agenda Item
1.Review and discuss comments received from Caltrain staff on the grade separation
alternatives and provide feedback/direction to staff. Presentation
3
6
3
0
Rail Committee
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: January 23, 2024
Report #:2311-2303
TITLE
Review and discuss comments received from Caltrain staff on the grade separation alternatives
and provide feedback/direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that Rail provides direction to the staff regarding the following:
1. Proceed with City’s project consultant (AECOM) and coordinate with Caltrain Staff for
the changes focused on demonstrating adherence to Caltrain Standards for
accommodating 4-track passing tracks at California Avenue station that is currently in
the existing scope of the agreement.
2. Proceed to coordinate with Caltrain Staff or their consultants and/or the City’s project
consultant in developing the scope of work for the material changes to the alternatives
concepts to address updated standards guiding the substantiate changes in the
alternative’s concepts for the following major elements.
a. Right of way encroachment
b. Vertical Alignment
c. Horizontal Alignment
d. Miscellaneous Items
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 8, 2023, City and Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB aka Caltrain) entered
into a Service Agreement. Per agreement, Caltrain is to provide railroad expertise and technical
input to inform the Connecting Palo Alto project development process and the City to continue
to manage the development of alternatives, define and considers tradeoffs, and select the
preferred alternative for the three crossings at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and
Charleston Road.
On November 8, 2023, Caltrain staff conducted their first technical review relative to Caltrain
Standards (and roadway standards) and provided comments to City Staff. Subsequently, City
3
6
3
0
and Caltrain staff met to understand how addressing Caltrain comments and adhering to
Caltrain Standards will impact the conceptual design alternatives, understand the high-level
material changes that may be required to the concepts, and explore next steps.
This staff report presents key Caltrain Standards, as identified by Caltrain, that may require
material changes to alternative concepts. By identifying and presenting the changes to each
alternative concept, the staff report demonstrates:
•Initial take of impacts on alternatives for adherence to updated Caltrain Standards,
•Trade-offs between constraints/impacts and design criteria (i.e., design variance), and
•Contrast between alternatives during the LPA selection process.
This Staff report therefore seeks the Rail Committee’s review of the major elements that relate
to each alternative and direction in proceeding forward with the next steps.
BACKGROUND
Connecting Palo Alto is a project undertaken by the City of Palo Alto to implement grade
separation at existing at-grade crossings along the Caltrain corridor. The concept designs for
this Project were completed in 2020 and approved by the City Council in 2021. Since that time,
Caltrain has implemented a change in their design standards.
As a local agency project, the City is obligated to coordinate with Caltrain for several reasons
including the project's involvement with and impact on the Caltrain Right of Way (ROW) and
the need to verify compliance of conceptual design phase documentation with the Caltrain
Engineering Standards (being revised through 2023). In addition, after the selection of
Preferred Alternative(s) aka Local Preferred Alternative(s) by Caltrain (LPA) for each grade-
separation, Caltrain will become the lead agency for designing and implementing the selected
LPAs. As this project is currently in the conceptual design phase, addressing concerns related to
Caltrain Engineering Standards is a key factor in demonstrating ROW, feasibility of LPAs, and
positions the projects for successful implementation.
On June 8, 2023, the City and Caltrain (PCJPB) entered into a service agreement outlining
Caltrain's role in providing support for early coordination, technical input, and expertise.
Caltrain’s support and input is crucial as the City evaluates conceptual alternatives, aiming to
select and recommend a viable locally preferred alternative (LPA) for grade separation at these
crossings. The Service Agreement (June 8, 2023) also provides the contracting vehicle for
Caltrain to support the integration of its comments into the City’s conceptual alternatives, upon
discussion and approval by the parties.
On November 8, 2023, the Caltrain Staff provided the marked up conceptual plans (Attachment
C) and the comments to the City Staff for various alternatives in consideration (Attachment B).
City staff reviewed materials from Caltrain staff and compiled all the comments into a matrix
(see Attachment A) to categorize into eight (8) major elements, each influencing the various
3
6
3
0
alternatives at the three crossings. The subsequent discussion offers a summary of the initial
review of these elements across the different alternatives:
•Vertical Alignment
•Horizontal Alignment
•Four (4) Tracking segments
•Roadway Design
•Construction Technology
•Creeks
•Costs
•Cumulative Concerns
Caltrain is advising staff on the Caltrain Standards to be integrated into each concept to
determine the presence of any fatal flaws in the proposed concepts.
As noted by staff in the past, Caltrain will consider Design Variances. While it is best practice to
identify potential variances from Caltrain engineering standards as early in the planning and
design process as possible to allow time to research and analyze alternatives, to document
recommendations, and to minimize the overall impact of a design variance on the project and
on the Caltrain System. Caltrain Standard Procedure for Design Variances (Version 1a - October
8, 2019) requires that the circumstances justifying the potential variances be materialized. In
light of this requirement, Caltrain is also advising staff on ways to adhere to Caltrain Standards
that would efficiently highlight the project-specific circumstances. Caltrain will then discuss and
process Design Variances requests during the Preliminary Engineering phase as the design
progresses.
ANALYSIS
The city received more than two hundred comments. Caltrain provided comments on the
conceptual design drawings, as well as in spreadsheet format. Staff summarized the key
findings and compiled them in a matrix format for review and summary as Attachment A
(Attachment A: Summary of Comments). Staff conducted the initial review of Caltrain’s
comments to understand their implications on the project’s conceptual design alternatives
included as Attachment B (Caltrain Comments and Response Tracking with initial staff review).
The redline comments on the alternatives conceptual plans are also attached as Attachment C
for reference (Attachment C: Conceptual Plans with Caltrain Comments for all Alternatives
The following discussion provide a summary of the comments and next steps that would
support the review by Rail Committee for direction to the City Staff.
3
6
3
0
Vertical Alignment
1. Roadway Vertical Clearance: The Caltrain Engineering Standards now require that the
vertical clearance from the roadway to the bottom of a rail bridge is 16’-6” for the
extent of the Caltrain’s ROW. The project assumed the vertical clearance of 15’-6” only
in the impacted area under the proposed rail bridges which is consistent with Caltrans’
Highway Design Manual (HMA) for local roads and was previously the standard used by
for Caltrain before recent revision. This increase in vertical clearance will require
changes to all alternatives and increase the project footprint. To accommodate vertical
clearance two options are available: 1) adjusting profile of the crossing roadways and/or
2) adjust the railway profile as it impacts the profile grade of the crossing roadways.
Applies to:All Alternatives (except Churchill Avenue
closures)
Implications:Underpass Alternatives
Combined with other comments, if
addressed, increased vertical clearance
would require more of roadway
adjustment away from Caltrain ROW,
and would increase the project
footprint.
Hybrid Alternative
Increased vertical clearance would
require adjustment to railway profile (at
stepper grades) and or adjustment of
roadway away from Caltrain ROW.
Depending on the concept changes, this
may increase the project footprint.
Viaduct Alternative
Increased vertical clearance would
require adjustment to railway profile
(potentially at stepper grades).
Depending on the concept changes, this
may increase the project footprint along
Caltrain ROW and impact visibility
Level:Underpasses - High
Hybrid – Moderate
Viaduct - Moderate
3
6
3
0
2. Bridge Structure Depth (Depth from bottom of the bridge to the top of the rail): City as
assumed 5’-0” from the bottom of the bridge to the top of the rail, based on the recent
project designs on the Caltrain corridor and industry standards. However, Caltrain is
recommending providing 24 feet from the roadway to the top of rail considering 16’-6”
for vertical clearance requirement stated in item 1, five (5) feet for bridge deck, and 2’-
6” which will increase this bridge depth consideration to 7’-6” increasing the structure
depth by 2’-6”. Similar to vertical clearance, it could be addressed either by raising the
rail profile or by adjusting the crossing roadway profiles for underpass alternatives.
Applies to:
Implications:
Level:
All Alternatives (except Churchill Avenue
closure)
Underpass Alternatives
Combined with other comments, if
addressed, increased bridge depth
would require more of roadway
adjustment away from Caltrain ROW and
would increase the project footprint.
Hybrid Alternative
Increased bridge depth would require
adjustment to railway profile (at stepper
grades) and or adjustment of roadway
away from Caltrain ROW. Depending on
the concept changes, may increase the
project footprint.
Viaduct Alternative
Increased bridge depth would require
adjustment to railway profile (potentially
at stepper grades). Depending on the
concept changes, this may increase the
project footprint along Caltrain ROW and
impact visibility.
Moderate to High
3. Railroad Grade/Profile: Current (Dec 2023) Caltrain design criteria allow construction of
a profile grade to a maximum of 1%, with grades exceeding 1% requiring a design
variance (i.e., last resort action). Caltrain’s updated criteria (Q1 2024) allows profile
grades up to 2% with review and approval of the Director of Engineering versus a
variance. The approval will be based on a detailed review of the specific location, track
3
6
3
0
configuration, proximity to future facilities and other operational and maintenance
factors.
Applies to: Hybrid and Viaduct Alternatives
Implications: Provides railroad profile flexibility for alternatives
Level: If approved - None; If not - Moderate
4. Pedestrian/Bicycle path Clearance: Caltrain requires having the pedestrian path with a
vertical clearance of 10 feet. The project made every effort to provide 10 feet of vertical
clearance along the pedestrian/bicycle path; however, for Meadow Drive, the
pedestrian/bike path under the railroad structure is shown as 8 feet due to constrained
site conditions. This I consistent with the HDM’s recommendation for minimum vertical
clearance
Applies to:Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive
only)
Implications:Adjustment to the pedestrian/bike path
profile, extending away from Caltrain
ROW.
Level:Moderate
Next Steps for Items related to Vertical Alignment:
A. City Staff and Caltrain to coordinate and review conceptual plans considering review and
directions from the Rail Committee.
Caltrain staff indicated that the vertical roadway clearance and bridge depth thickness
are the recommended to provide design flexibility in this early stage of the project
development. In addition, these additional tolerances also work to address the
construction tolerances. The bridge depth is typically during the latter design phase
during bridge type selection and structural design. Staff has asked the Caltrain staff to
reevaluate these comments as the project design criteria was reviewed by Caltrain prior
to development of conceptual designs and the conceptual plans are consistent with
recently constructed bridges along the Caltrain Corridor.
City staff will work with Caltrain to revise the current designs to meet Caltrain Standards
and identify trade-offs in accordance with review and direction of the Rail Committee.
Caltrain will partner with city staff to integrate key comments at a high level to highlight
changes in the alternative concepts. This will be presented to decisionmakers to support
transparent decision-making and the selection of feasible LPAs.
B.City will consider adjustment if feasible during design phase without significantly
adjusting design.
3
6
3
0
With regards to pedestrian path clearance, the minimum 8 feet clearance provided due
to constrained sight conforms to California HDM, however, is not compliant with
Caltrain’s the minimum standard vertical clearance of 10 feet. Review of potential
design variance can occur during the subsequent design phases of the project.
C.City will seek approval of grades exceeding 1%l during subsequent design phases as
appropriate.
Caltrain indicated that the process to seek approval of the rail profile grade exceeding
1% will now require review and approval from the director of engineering rather than
going through the design variance process. The design of Meadow Charleston Viaduct
Alternative or Trench alternative would need such approval. Staff will seek such
approvals as needed during the preliminary engineering phase.
Horizontal Alignment:
5. Roadway Encroachment into Caltrain Right-of-Way: There were several comments on
various facilities such as roadway, wall foundations encroaching into Caltrain ROW.
Caltrain requires that the proposed improvements be outside of Caltrain ROW.
Applies to:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive)
Implications:Placement of retaining walls for
roadways outside of Caltrain ROW will
likely shift or narrow the roadway
project footprint and require adjustment
to intersection geometry.
Level:Very High for Churchill Avenue
Alternatives
Low to Moderate for Meadow Drive
Underpass
6. Pedestrian facilities encroachment into Caltrain Right of Way: Certain pedestrian
improvements are planned to use existing JPB ROW currently hosting Embarcadero Bike
path. However, such existing easements are not permanent. In the event bicycle and
pedestrian facilities cannot be constructed in JPB ROW, such facilities will not be
feasible. Additionally, Caltrain requires alternatives with non-railroad uses (i.e., active
transportation facilities) within Caltrain ROW to be relocated outside of the ROW or to
follow a compatibility review process under the Rail Corridor Use Policy (RCUP). For
Pedestrian and Bicycle improvements, another Alternative at Seale Avenue, which
would not impact the Caltrain’s right-of-way is under consideration by the City.
3
6
3
0
Applies to:Partial Underpass (Pedestrian facilities at
Kellogg Avenue)
Closure Option 1 (Bike/Ped ramps along
railroad Churchill Ave)
Implications:Caltrain RCUP compatibility process will
determine if the use of JPB ROW for the
proposed non-railroad uses is
compatible with current and future
potential railroad needs.
Level:High (however, Seale Ave is an
alternative location and Closure Option 2
avoids encroachment in Caltrain’s ROW)
7. Railroad Encroachment into City’s Right-of-Way: The ROW along the railroad tracks is
impacted by railroad’s horizontal alignment. For Viaduct alignment as proposed in the
conceptual plans, the proposed alignment of permanent tracks, wall foundations, other
parts of the structures will be encroaching into City’s ROW. In addition, for hybrid
alternatives, the retaining walls as proposed are at the City and JPB ROW. Therefore,
these structures will be encroaching into City’s ROW. These concepts will therefore
require dedication of the City’s ROW to JPB.
Applies to:Hybrid, Viaduct (Meadow/Charleston)
Implications:Horizontal adjustment of railway
alignment
Level:If alignment of railroad within the JPB is
required, the impact will be Moderate to
High
8. Width of Bridges: Caltrain requires a 10-foot width on one side of all bridges to provide
adequate space for maintenance and emergency vehicles access.
Alternatives impacted:All alternatives (except closure and
viaduct)
Implications:Meeting of vertical clearance
requirements defined above will ensure
bridge width can be accommodated.
Level:Moderate
9. Retaining Wall offset/clearance from structures and roadways: Caltrain desires to have
at least 10 feet of clearance (buffer) between the roadway and the retaining walls (or
structures) to provide adequate space to access and maintain these structures.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
3
6
3
0
Hybrid, Viaduct, Underpass (Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road)
Implications:
Level:
Adjustment to horizontal alignment of
rail and/or walls
Moderate to High
10. Maintenance and Access requirements along the Railroad tracks: On certain
alternatives, Caltrain requires sufficient width to provide for emergency and
maintenance vehicles along the railroad tracks. This additional requirement will impact
the horizontal track alignment, ROW needs, and constructability.
Alternatives impacted:Hybrid and Viaduct
Implications:Adjustment to horizontal alignment of
walls
Level:Moderate to High
11. Provide 20-foot clearance for MSE wall construction between the shoofly and new walls
and maximize the right of way use: Caltrain requires a minimum width of 20-feet
between the face of a permanent wall (or structure) and the centerline of the nearest
shoofly track to avoid fouling the shoofly track and electrified Overhead Contact System
(OCS) while constructing the permanent tracks. This additional width (previously
assumed to be 10 feet) will impact the impact the horizontal alignment, right-of-way
needs, and constructability. Noting that the realignment of the track to the west would
likely be required to accommodate this required clearance.
Alternatives impacted:Hybrid and Viaduct
Implications:Will require realignment of the
permanent track to the west and would
likely require shoofly tracks/use of
existing tracks to the east. Realignments
may open up enough space for
clearances to be accommodated.
Level:Very High
Next Steps for Items related to Horizontal Alignment:
D. City staff will work with Caltrain to integrate key comments into the current designs in
accordance with review and direction of the Rail Committee.
Caltrain will partner with city staff to integrate key comments at a high level to show the
updates they bring to the alternatives. This will be presented to decisionmakers in order
to support transparent decision-making and the selection of feasible LPAs.
3
6
3
0
E. The city will seek approval from PCJPB/Caltrain board for encroachment into the
Railroad Right of Way for necessary easements.
One of Caltrain’s key directives is to preserve its ROW for all current and potential
future railroad uses. If a preferred alternative was to proceed with any use of the JPB
ROW, it will need to go through the Rail Corridor Use Policy (RCUP) compatibility review
process and require JPB Board approval in subsequent phases. However, Caltrain staff
cannot guarantee that approval will be granted. Therefore, Caltrain staff recommends
that the concept designs should not include encroachment into the JPB ROW to
understand likely impacts of alternatives during decision-making and the selection of
feasible LPAs.
F. City Staff asked Caltrain to reconsider/reevaluate the increased horizontal dimensions
such as additional width for bridges, additional widths for emergency vehicles and
maintenance vehicles, etc.
Caltrain staff indicated that the increased bridge and embankment width is required to
provide access for maintenance and emergency vehicles along the railroad for the
Hybrid Alterative. For the underpass alternatives, Caltrain requires wider bridge widths.
For the Viaduct Alternative, the requirement is to provide space for maintenance staff
(e.g., catwalk) along the entire segment that was previously assumed. The full impact of
the increase width requirement will require detailed design review however the initial
assessment results in modest increase the cost and footprint of the project. Staff has
also pointed out that other projects along the corridor that do not have such provisions
and therefore will be an additional cost and time to the project.
G. City staff needs further clarification on the increased horizontal offsets and clearance for
permanent structures and temporary conditions during construction. City will consider
adjustment if feasible during design phase without significantly adjusting design or if
such efforts do not impact right-of-way.
Caltrain staff indicated that the horizontal clearance/offsets from other objects and
roadway are not adequate. In addition, these additional clearances are also required
during the construction phases of the project. The Caltrain staff has previously reviewed
the design criteria prior to initiation of the design of conceptual plans in 2019. However,
Caltrain is updating standards resulting in recommendation of new clearance and
offsets. These new additional criterion/standards would likely cause for certain
alternatives to impact the right-of-way, costs, design and constructability.
Four (4) Tracking Segments:
12. Four (4) Track Segments and Roadway Encroachment into Caltrain Right-of-Way: Design
will need to accommodate the 4-track segments as identified by Caltrain’s 4-track
3
6
3
0
assessment. Several comments on various facilities such as roadway, wall foundations
etc. encroaching into Caltrain ROW that may impact Caltrain’s future utility of its ROW
(including 4-track infrastructure. The project comments recommend City improvements
to be outside of Caltrain ROW.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive)
Viaduct, Hybrid Alternative (Meadow
Drive)
Implications:Adjustment of retaining walls and
roadway improvements off Caltrain
ROW.
Level:Moderate to High
13. Four (4) tracking alignment: The design needs to be reviewed for the four tracking
provisions including distance of OCS poles from the Railroad tracks and track alignment.
The project will need to be constructed to accommodate future 4 tracking areas.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive)
Viaduct, Hybrid Alternative (Meadow
Drive)
Implications:Adjustment of retaining walls and
roadway improvements off Caltrain
ROW.
Level:Moderate to High
Next Steps for Items related to 4 Tracking:
H.City to consider design of 4-Tracking.
Caltrain has recently completed the portion of the Corridor Crossing Study focused on
the four-track segments in northern Santa Clara County required to support blended
service of Caltrain and High Speed Rail in the future. The study identified California
Avenue Station as the proposed location for passing tracks. The proposed four track
segment will therefore affect the south side of Churchill Avenue crossing and north side
of Meadow Drive. The project will need to consider design of four track for Churchill
Avenue Underpass, Meadow and Charleston Viaduct, Meadow and Charleston Hybrid,
Meadow and Charleston Trench, and Meadow Drive Underpass Alternative.
Caltrain presented the Four Track segment study report to the Rail Committee in a study
session at its November 21, 2023 meeting. At this meeting it was discussed that
reserving space for a future four-track segment would have a considerable amount of
impact on the trench alternative.
3
6
3
0
Roadway Design:
14. Road Profile/Sag Curve/Grades: There are several comments related to the design of
the roadway. These include vertical curve design and grades of underpass crossing for
all alternatives (except viaduct). The City’s current design provides use of higher grades
to ensure smaller footprint and limit impact to private properties. In addition, the
vertical curves support lower design speeds. The project design will require some
exceptions from the City Council at the time of approval for these factors. However,
Caltrain staff advised to reduce the maximum grades and increase sag vertical curve
lengths on such roadways to be in a better compliance with California HDM.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive &
Charleston)
Implications:Roadway profile, rail profile, bridge
depth, and minimum vertical clearances
influence one another.
All vehicular crossing alternatives would
require a larger project footprint to
accommodate vertical clearances,
Caltrain ROW, and design speed of 25
mph.
Level:High
15. Offset from barriers: The current project plans provide at minimum 2 feet offset from
the barriers, however Caltrain review indicated need of greater offsets to provide
greater safety. Noting that exceptions for shoulder width are very common on roadway
facilities where the geometry is limited.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive)
Viaduct, Hybrid Alternative (Meadow
Drive)
Implications:Exceptions for shoulder width are very
common on roadway facilities where the
geometry is limited.
Level:Low (if an exception is taken)
16. Acceleration-Deceleration Lane/Lane drops/Weaving: Caltrain provided feedback on
the Churchill Avenue underpass alternative for the northbound through lane merge and
median island to be extended. In addition, weaving merge lanes (Grocery outlet
entrance) provided for the Underpass alternative at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road
3
6
3
0
are not adequate. City Staff notes that there are limited options for roadway
improvements due to right-of-way constraints that limit such improvements.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive)
Implications:Requires adjustment to roadway design
to provide sufficient weaving distance.
Level:Very High
17. Roundabout Design: Caltrain comments included clarifications on the roundabout
design. City staff indicated that current design is planned with initial level design with
guidance from Federal Highway Guidelines. The design will be refined in subsequent
phases.
Alternatives impacted:Underpass Alternative (Charleston Road)
Implications:Requires review of the roundabout
design.
Level:Low
18. Curved Bridges: Caltrain recommends that curved bridge design and handrail are
complex, costly and hard to construction and therefore recommend linear cantilever
chord segments. Bridges design as recommended can be considered in the subsequent
phases.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road)
Implications:Requires adjustment to pedestrian/bike
bridge design in subsequent phases.
Level:Low
Next Steps for Items related to Roadway Design
I.City is requesting Caltrain to consider the revisions to roadway design in the next phase
(Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Phase)
Items related to roadway design are generally in the preview and jurisdiction of the City
of Palo Alto. Staff has noted the recommendation and intend to review and incorporate
if there is not a significant increase in the project costs in the subsequent phases of the
project.
J. City staff will work with Caltrain to integrate key comments into the current designs in
accordance with the review and direction of the Rail Committee.
3
6
3
0
Caltrain will partner with city staff to integrate key comments at a high level to show the
updates they bring to the alternatives. This will be presented to decisionmakers to
support transparent decision-making and the selection of feasible LPAs.
Construction Technology:
19. Shoofly vs Box Jacking: A few comments related to eliminating the need of shoofly and
substituting the design with box Jacking were provided. The City is highly interested in
designing the project using alternative technology eliminating the need of shoofly. As
such the subsequent phases will review during value engineering and modify the plans
to reflect it, as using alternative technologies may require further lowering of the road
profile.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road)
Implications:Alternative analysis may impact other
areas of the design as such technologies
may require greater clearances.
Level:High
Next Steps for Items related to Construction Technology
K.City is requests Caltrain, as part of the subsequent phases, study box jacking as a
construction method to remove the need for shoofly tracks.
Items related to alternative construction technology are generally not vetted out during
the conceptual design phase of the project Staff has noted the recommendation and
intend to review and incorporate based on the constructability review in the subsequent
phases of the project.
Culverts
20. Reconstructing and extending culverts: There are comments related to the redesign of
culverts which may be required for Viaduct and Hybrid alternatives of Meadow Drive
and Charleston Road. Caltrain staff indicated that due to additional loading from the
embankments, these culverts will need to be revaluated. In addition, Caltrain staff has
indicated extension of these culverts to cover the entire width of the Caltrain right of
way. Staff believes that reevaluation of existing structures may lead to
3
6
3
0
recommendations for the improvements needed and that can be performed in the
subsequent phases.
Alternatives impacted:Viaduct Alternative (Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road)
Hybrid Alternative (Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road
Implications:Additional Cost
Level:Moderate
Next Steps for Items related Existing Culverts
L.City is requesting Caltrain to consider the revisions in subsequent phases of the project.
Items related to culverts can be vetted out during the subsequent design phases of the
project Staff has noted the recommendation and intend to review and incorporate
based on the constructability review in the subsequent phases of the project.
Cost Estimates
21. Preliminary Cost Estimates: There were no significant comments on the cost estimates.
Caltrain recommended use of recent bid estimates for designer to prepare cost
estimates.
Alternatives impacted:All Alternatives
Implications:Additional Cost
Level:Moderate
Next Steps for Items related to Cost Estimates
M.Cost Estimates Update: Updating cost estimates will be a significant task needing
services of the consultant.
Cumulative Concerns
22. Cumulative Concerns: Several inter-related elements such as provisions for vertical and
horizontal clearances, maintenance access needs, clearance during construction,
maximizing the use of right-of-way, and provision of 4 tracking, etc. could cause for
compounded impact and may lead to substantial impact necessitating redesign, update
of cost estimates, constructability, evaluating feasibility of various alternatives.
Alternatives impacted:All Alternatives
3
6
3
0
Implications:May likely require realignment for
Viaduct and Hybrid Alternatives
(Meadow and Charleston), ROW impacts
on Partial Underpass Alternative
(Churchill Avenue) and Viaduct and
Hybrid Alternatives (Meadow and
Charleston), and Costs for all alternatives
Level:Very High
Next Steps for Items related to Cumulative Concerns
N. City staff will work with Caltrain to integrate key comments into the current designs in
accordance with review and direction of the Rail Committee.
Caltrain will partner with city staff to integrate key comments at a high level to show the
updates they bring to the alternatives in accordance with the review and direction of
the Rail Committee. This will be presented to decisionmakers to support transparent
decision-making and the selection of feasible LPAs.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Revisions to existing conceptual plans will require consultant support. The existing contract
with the AECOM Consultant has an optional task to perform a high-level analysis of the impacts
of 4-tracking for a maximum of five alternatives. The contract has no additional capacity to review
the design and revise to address additional comments. The existing contract with AECOM expires
on April 22, 2024. Therefore, an amendment to the Consultant contract or procurement of a
new consultant will be needed to perform additional services. There is also the possibility of
utilizing the Caltrain Staff and their consultant for providing additional support in addressing
and integration of comments, upon discussion and approval of the parties.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Rail Committee meetings are open to the public and therefore provide the community with
opportunities to provide comments to the Rail Committee and City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed action is part of a planning study for a possible future action, which has not been
approved, adopted, or funded and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. The future decision to
approve the construction of any one of the identified potential alternatives would be subject to
CEQA and require the preparation of an environmental analysis. Environmental review and
3
6
3
0
design for the grade separation project will be performed in the subsequent steps of the
project development.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Summary of Comments
Attachment B: Caltrain Comments and Response Tracking (with initial staff review)
Attachment C: Conceptual Plans with Caltrain Comments for all Alternatives
APPROVED BY:
Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official
Attachment A
(Summary of Comments)
Element No. Item Description Churchill Underpass Churchill
Closure 1
Churchill
Closure 2
Meadow-Charleston
Hybrid
Meadow-Charlesoton
Viaduct
Meadow
Underpass
Charleston
Underpass
Initial
Staff Review
Commments
1 Road clearance 16'-6"Exist 15'-6"Exist 15'-6"Exist 15'-6"Exist 15'-6"Exist 15'-6"Exist 15'-6"Exist 15'-6"
Requesting Caltrain to evaluate and
review this requirement. Currently, exist
at other locations and it is consistent
with standards (for local roads) described
in CA HDM and AASHTO Greenbook
2 Bridge Depth of 5' and Rail
Depth of 2'-6" Total 24 ft Exist 5'Exist 5'Exist 5'Exist 5'Exist 5'Exist 5'Exist 5'
The bridge depth assumptions are based
on span to depth ratio; standard in
industry. Actual bridge depth will depend
upon the final design. May use thin/steel
bridge, similar to other locations
(Rengstraff 6' for span of 120', Holly 5' for
span of 60' feet etc.
3
RR Grade/Profile (1% Rail
Grade Standard Anything
>1% requires DOE approval)
N/A NA NA Design conforms to
current standards
Design approval from
Director of engineering
for 1.4% for current
design
NA NA
Rail at exist grade or conform to
standards except for viaduct, Will reqeust
Caltrain for approval. Also will request if
Caltrain will allow raising rail 1-2 ft near
crossing to accommodate concern with
greater vertical clearance. Viaduct will
requrie DOE approval
4 Pedestrian Bridge
Clearance
The ped bridge shall
have 10 foot
clearance
This will impact the pedestrian path
profile for the Meadow Underpass
alternative. 10 feet is recommended but
not required per the Caltrans HDM. This
will require additional evaluation during
the subsequent design phases.
5 Encroachment
(Vehicular /Roadway)
Intersection
Improvements, Wall
Foundations
(Churchill/Alma)
-
Wall foundation of off
ramp to be in outside
of Caltrain ROW
Walls could be designed with
foundations on one side to avoid ROW
encroachment; however, some
encroachment of Alma St (into Caltrain's
ROW) will be required for the Partial
Underpass at Churchill to avoid property
acquisitions along Alma St.
6 Encroachment
(Pedestrian/Bikepath)
Kellogg Bike
Facilities
Bike/ped Ramps along
RR Tracks
Altenative location of Seale Avenue is
proposed/considered
7 Encroachment (Rail)
Wall Foundations of
the embankment;
Shoofly during
construction -track
layout/4 tracking
review and
constructability
Rail uses City ROW. Rail
Viaduct aligns edge
aligns with Alma Street
ROW Concerns will need review/approval
from JPB board, RCUP process
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
C
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
1 of 4
Attachment A
(Summary of Comments)
Element No. Item Description Churchill Underpass Churchill
Closure 1
Churchill
Closure 2
Meadow-Charleston
Hybrid
Meadow-Charlesoton
Viaduct
Meadow
Underpass
Charleston
Underpass
Initial
Staff Review
Commments
8 Bridge Width Increase
Additional width;
suggestion was to
be joined with
ped/bike/Bridge
NA NA Additional width Additional Width Additional Width Additional Width
Additional cost. Depending upon the
alignment will need to review
constructability in conjunction with other
4 tracking requirements,
hoirzontal/vertical clearances
9a
Retaining walls shall be a
minimum of 10' distance
from nearest structure or
roadway
Wall Foundation, 4
tracking design, and
ROW
Wall Foundations of
the embankment;
Shoofly during
construction -track
layout/4 tracking
review and
constructability
Will need to review from constructability,
cost, design isssues associated with this
requirement.
9b
Retaining walls shall be a
minimum of 10' distance
from nearest structure or
roadway during
construction
This will be a challenge
in certain areas as the
project with current
alignment of
Temporary Shoofly and
Permanent Track
Will need to review from constructability,
cost, design isssues associated with this
requirement. Additional discussion with
Caltrain will be needed to resolve this
concern
9c OCS Poles Distances (13'
from track C/L Currently at 13' Currently at 13'
Currently at 13' from C/L of pole to C/L of
RR tracks. We believe that the plans
comply with this requirement
10
Embankment width to
provide 10' for
Maintenance
Additional Cost along
the segment,
Constructability issue
for phasing at
transitions
Additional Cost along
the segment,
Constructability issue
for phasing at
transitions
Are these requirements along the entire
length of Viaduct? Is this a new
standard? All projects include such
widths?
11a
Provide additional width
between MSE wall and
shoofly Track Center line a
min 20 ft for MSE
construction during an
electrified service operation
Will be ROW
constraints. The
construction phasing
review will be needed
Will be ROW
constraints. The
construction phasing
review will be needed
Will need to review from constructability
and cost perspective. 20 foot in this area
may have ROW issues. Phasing will need
to be identified.
11b
Permanent tracks to be
placed to enable
maintenance and maximize
utility ROW
This will need review.
20' clearance for
construction, 10 for
maintenance, etc.
This will need review.
20' clearance for
construction, 10 for
maintenance, etc.
Will need to review from constructability
and cost perspective.
Ho
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
2 of 4
Attachment A
(Summary of Comments)
Element No. Item Description Churchill Underpass Churchill
Closure 1
Churchill
Closure 2
Meadow-Charleston
Hybrid
Meadow-Charlesoton
Viaduct
Meadow
Underpass
Charleston
Underpass
Initial
Staff Review
Commments
12
4 Tracking Alignment
(Retaining fills and walls to
accommodate 4 track and
transitions between 2 an 4
track
Wall Foundation
Design and ROW
encroachment
Wall Foundations of
the embankment;
Shoofly during
construction -track
layout/4 tracking
review and
constructability
Alignment and
constructability review
along with other
elements
To review/evaluate for design
13 a
Transition segment should
be tangent outside of
vertical curve
Will need to
coordinate and
evaluate during
review/design
Will need to coordinate
and evaluate during
review/design
Will need to coordinate
and evaluate during
review/design
To review/evaluate for design
13b OCS Poles Distances (13'
from track C/L To review/evaluate for design
14
Road Profile (very high
grade%, sag curve, lane
widths etc.)
Community desires
for low speed/traffic
calming design
Community desires
for low speed/traffic
calming design
Community desires
for low speed/traffic
calming design
Sag curves are commonly designed for
passenger comfort in urban areas where
lighting is present. Designing for
headlight sight distance results in
excessively long/flat curves, which is
more applicable in rural areas with no
lighting. Some grades are relatively steep
(12% Max), but occur over a very short
length (< 25 ft). AASHTO's Green Book
states that grades for local residential
streets should not exceed 15%.
15 increase 2' to 4' for offset
from barriers Applicable Applicable Applicable
Will consider in subsequent phases for
implementation without major impact to
ROW
16
Improve acceleration lane,
weaving, lane drops,
deceleration lanes where
applicable
Will review during
PE phase and
improve if no
significant impact to
ROW
Lane drop at Meadow
is due to ROW and
Physical constraints
Will review during PE
phase and improve if
no significant impact
to ROW
Minimize ROW, however will review for
design to conform with HDM and provide
if feasible without ROW impacts
17 Roundabout radius Currently for pannign
stages of 80' diameter
Will design consistent with local
standards, and consideration of state and
federal guidelines, and to ensure the
design vehicle (emergency vehicle) can
be accommodated.
18 Curved Bridges to
Cantilever bridge
To accommodate
greater radius for
bicycles
To accommodate
greater radius for
bicycles
To accommodate
greater radius for
bicycles
Will consider in subsequent phases
4 T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
3 of 4
Attachment A
(Summary of Comments)
Element No. Item Description Churchill Underpass Churchill
Closure 1
Churchill
Closure 2
Meadow-Charleston
Hybrid
Meadow-Charlesoton
Viaduct
Meadow
Underpass
Charleston
Underpass
Initial
Staff Review
Commments
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Tec
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
19 Shoofly/Jack Boxing
Determination Applicable Applicable Will consider in subsequent phases
Cu
l
v
e
r
t
s
20 Reconstruct and widen
culvert/bridges for creeks
Additional
Width/structure
requiements
Additional
Width/structure
requiements
Will review and discuss in subsequent
phases of the project
Co
s
t
s 21 Prelminary Cost Estimates Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Wil prepare in subsequent phases of he
project
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Im
p
a
c
t
s
22 Cumulative Impacts Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable
All the factors discussed above may
compund and cause for more signifiant
impacts requiring changes to ROW,
Alignment, Design, Costs and Other
imapcts.
4 of 4
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
1 1
Extend bridge width to Caltrain ROW. this additional width is
needed to provide access to Caltrain Maintenance and
emergency vehicles. best if 27ft width from cl track can be
reached. 1
Will discuss. Need to review the
alignment, impacts, additional
cost and may need redesign
(Need Direction)
Bridge Width Design and Cost
2 1
adjust graphics, showing the box dashed at that location
since it is below ground and covered with Pink color per
typical section.1
Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
3 1 Active transportation facilities should be placed outside of
Caltrain ROW. If not, subject to JPB Board approval.1
ROW impacts. Alternative
location being considerd at Seale
Avenue
ROW,
Horizontal
Alignment
JPB Approval
4 1 Please provide profile for pedestrian crossing ramps 1 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
5 1 Section here is requested to show: 1. Relationship of
depressed Alma St, retaining walls, and Caltrain ROW.1 Will provide in next phase Graphics None at this
time
6 1
Section here is requested to show: 1. Vertical clearance under
track 2. Relationship of depressed Alma St, retaining walls,
and Caltrain ROW.1
Will provide in next phase Graphics None at this
time
7 1 Cut retaining walls to accommodate transition between 2-
track and 4-track to be placed outside of Caltrain ROW and
easements 1
Will discuss. Need to review the
alignment, impacts, additional
cost and need design for 4
tracking segment
4 Tracking ROW,
Feasibility
8 1 This wall is encroaching into Caltrain ROW. Adjust wall
location to be outside of Caltrain ROW. There is adequate
sight distance for turning traffic at the signalized intersection. 1
The widened roadway is to
provide for traversing Buses.
Clearing ROW impact project
design
Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
9 1
Increase radii of curb return to match northwest curb return. 1
The striping only. This is to
provide traffic calming. Will
adjust in next phase
Graphics Striping change
Churchill Ave Grade Seperation 1 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
10 1 Adjust wall/foundation design and location to not encroach
into Caltrain ROW. 1 #7 & #8 Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
11 1 Adjust wall/foundation design and location to not encroach
into Caltrain ROW. 1 #7 & #8 Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
12 1 please show horizontal stationing to match profile grade
location 2 Will provide in next phase Graphics None at this
time
13 1 Excessive shoulder width. any reason? this might encourage
driver to use as a passing lane.2
#8 may find alternative solution
to deter passing in next phase Clarification None at this
time
14 1
Please show design speed and K value accordingly 2
Consultant, discuss, Review; The
K Values were used for driver
comfort and not the lighting
condition. Design speed lowered
to encourage reduced speeds
Graphics None at this
time
15 1
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Churchill
Ave at Alma St: Churchill Ave STA XXX+XX = Alma St STA
XXX+XX 2
Will provide in next phase Graphics None at this
time
16 1 Please provide proposed profile for pedestrian crossing 2 Will provide in next phase Graphics None at this
time
17 1
Recommend switching the wide shoulder to the right side
near the 2 traveling lanes to improve the sight distance at the
Churchill intersection and build a taper deceleration lane
without encroaching into the Caltrain ROW. 2
Will review and revise in next
phase Graphics None at this
time
18 1 show major stationing text on the aerial to coordinate with
the shown Profile 3 Will provide in next phase Graphics None at this
time
19 1 please note reconstruction of the parking apron might be
necessary to many of the home to meet the widening grade. 3
Agree, Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
Churchill Ave Grade Seperation 2 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
20 1
the driver do not have clear sight to the main line traffic at
this point due to grade ascending and conc barrier. this will
impact the driver decision in finding a gap merge right with
the mainline traffic 3
Will review for ROW impacts and
revise in next phase. Roadway Will Consider
21 1
recommend increasing the acceleration lane to provide
adequate sight distance for the driver to find a gap after
reaching the end of K rail and reach the required speed while 3
#20 Roadway
Profile
ROW,
Feasibility
22 1 a Physical K rail barrier separation will be required to prevent
last minute errant car from entering the opposite lane if
driver encounter difficulties entering the through lane. 3
#20 Roadway Will Consider
23 1 Curved bridges are not recommended as they are
complicated to design and expansive to build. Recommend a
curve-linear bridge beam with curved slab. 3
Will review and revise in next
phase Structures Will Consider
24 1
Adjust barrier end treatment (i.e., crash cushion) away from
intersection to allow for design vehicle (e.g., WB-50) turn
radius. 3
Castilleja is residential roadway.
Will review and adjust in next
phase
Roadway Will Consider
25 1
Recommend to increasing the shoulder width on the frontage
road lane side to 2ft - 4 ft to provide recovery distance near
the crash cushion and concrete barrier. 3
Will review for ROW impacts and
revise in next phase if feasible. Roadway Will Consider
26 1 recommend building the signal foundation integral within the
wall structure, to eliminate shoulder reduction.3
Will review and revise in next
phase, If feasbile Roadway Will Consider
27 1 Provide a min of 2' to 3' ft offset from concrete barrier and
crash cushion for safe recovery. 3 #25 Roadway Will Consider
28 2
Provide 16.5 ft Clearance under all bridges. 2023 Caltrain
standard 1
Will review. This action may
impact project foot print, impact
ROW, redesign and additional
costs (need direction)
Vertical
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
Churchill Ave Grade Seperation 3 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
29 2 Please correct the lane width from 16' to 14'. should not
include the gutter as a traveling lane 1 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
30 2 What is the dimension?1
?? Consultant to provide
dimensions Graphics None at this
time
31 2 What is the dimension?1
?? Consultant to provide
dimensions Graphics None at this
time
32 2 Please note where these sections are and the direction we
are looking in the plan view.1 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
33 2 Please confirm no change in track profile is required for this
option 1
Yes, this alternative assumes the
Rail alignment profile remains as
existing
Clarification None at this
time
34 2 Please confirm that we are looking north 1 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
35 2 Min vertical clearance requirement is 16'-6" across the ROW 1 #28 Vertical
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
36 2 What is this dimension? Elevation for top of retaining wall
should match elevation for top of rail 1
Will review. Addition impacts
and costs and revise in next
phase if feasible
Structures Will Consider
37 2
adjust S/W width to reflect 3.5'remianing width. reduce the
outer buffer to 2'- 6" width to Zero. The min S/W width is 5 ft
increase to 6ft when adjacent to the curb and without a
green buffer area. 1
Will review and adjust in next
phase; Althouhg 2-6' for utility
poles/trees
Roadway Will Consider
38 2 Cantilever wall and base foundation need to be outside
Caltrain ROW.1 #8 Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
39 2
Please clarify if all pedestrian structure are constructed within
an easement or it is a row encroachment. 1
Yes this alternative assumes use
of Caltrain ROW. However,
alternative lcoation at Seale
Avenue is in considertion.
Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
Churchill Ave Grade Seperation 4 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
40 2 need to revise the Wall type to L shape wall, soldier pile or
secant piles to avoid encroachment into Caltrain row during
the construction of the cantilever wall base as shown. 1
#8 Structures Will consider in
next phase
41 2
Provide Dimension to the entire typical section 1
Consultant to provide
dimensions. Will provide in next
phase
Graphics None at this
time
42 2 show existing OCS poles on both sides of the track. this
comment is applicable to all track sections.1
Consultant to provide. Will
provide in next phase Graphics None at this
time
43 2 What is the reason for having such a large shldr, future lane?
can it be reduced. 2 School Bus turning templates Clarification None at this
time
44 2 Recommend increasing the lane width to 11ft min. not safe
especially when wide vehicles are occupying the lane. 2
Community needs traffic calming
for reduced speeds.Roadway Will Consider
45 2 similar recommend increasing the lane width to 11 ft by
reducing theshldr width 2 #44 Roadway Will consider
46 2 Steep grade limited options for design flexibility 2 Minimize ROW impact Roadway
Profile
ROW,
Feasibility
47 2
This is a steep grade dropping 20 ft in 300 ft length with a k =
4 < K = 19 for 20 MPH design . see fig 201.5 in Caltrans 2020
design manual 2
Minimize ROW impact. Lower
desing speed is intentially used
Roadway
Profile
ROW,
Feasibility
48 2 Recommend additional 2 ft near the Conc Barrier wall for safe
recovery in case the car get near the edge of the lane. 2
#25 Roadway will consider
49 2
recommend additional shy distance/offset min 3' next to the
conc barrier to provide a recovery at the nose area and crash
cushion.3
#25 Roadway Will consider
50 2
recommend using a mountable curb to increase the width of
the road for passing a stalled vehicle. see asshto requirement
21 ft 3
Will review and discuss with FD
in next phase Roadway ROW,
Feasibility
Churchill Ave Grade Seperation 5 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
51 2 please clarify if this also is a U wall construction? 3
Will need to review and revise in
next phase Clarification None at this
time
52 2
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at
Churchill Ave: Alma St STA XXX+XX = Churchill Ave STA
XXX+XX 3
Will revise and update in next
phase Graphics None at this
time
53 2 Please number all sections and show approximate locations
on the plans. this will help in matching the provided section
information with the horizontal layout 3
?? Consultant to review. Will
provide in next phase Graphics None at this
time
54 2
recommend extending box to Caltrain ROW to include the
pedestrian crossing. this can be a major saving in construction
cost and schedule. 3
Will review and discuss with
Caltrain, Next phase Bridges Will consider
55 2
A bridge construction will have major impact to Caltrain
operations. recommend a large box jacking approach that
will eliminate the need for a Shoofly, fiber, signal and OCS
relocation 1, 3
Shoofly vs Box jacking
discussion. City preference is to
use Box Jacking. Will update in
next phase
Construction
Technology
Box Jacking Vs
Shoofly
56 2 Recommend changing this structure from Bridge to Jack and
Bore tunnel Box. as indicated in other comments regarding
the elimination of shoofly construction.1, 3
#55 Construction
Technology
Box Jacking Vs
Shoofly
57 3 Relocate Ped ramps outside Caltrain ROW 1 #3 Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
58 3 relocate Stairs outside Caltrain ROW 1 #3 Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
59 3 increase tunnel width to reach Caltrain ROW. 1 #3 Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
60 3 Extend Jack and Bore Ped Tunnel to meet Caltrain ROW on
both ends.1 #3 Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
61 3 Transition between 2-track and 4-track. No adjustments 1 Comment noted 4 Tracking None at this
time
Churchill Ave Grade Seperation 6 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
62 3 relocate ped ramps outside Caltrain ROW 1 #3 Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
63 3 Please provide Clearance below Caltrain Track 2 #28 Graphics None at this
time
64 5 Please remove the encroachment on Caltrain ROW. 1 #3, # 8 Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
65 5 Please see plans view for shoulder swapping/increase
comments 1 #25 Roadway Will consider
66 5 construct the signal base integral within the wall structure to
eliminate encroachment into the shoulder.3
#26 Roadway Will Consider
67 6 additional width needed to provide access for maintenance
and emergency vehicles. 1 #1 Bridge Width Design and Cost
68 6
Adjust wall/foundation design and location to be outside of
the Caltrain ROW. Please verify the sight triangle. Based on
the concept, the sight triangle is too large for the turning left
distance in a signalized controlled movement (see AASHTO
Case D). 1
#8, #43 Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
69 6 extend barrier an additional 20 ft to prevent driver from
accessing Alma St 3
Will review and adjust in next
phase Roadway Will consider
70 6 Signal foundation can be integrated in the wall structure to
eliminate encroachment into the shoulder 3
#26 Roadway Will Consider
71 6
Recommend providing a minimum 2ft - 3 ft recovery shoulder
for when approaching the crash cushion and safer distance
near the barrier. 3
#25 Roadway Will consider
72 8 see previous comment regarding Signal foundation. can be
integral into the wall to avoid shldr encroachment. 3
#26 Roadway Will consider
Churchill Ave Grade Seperation 7 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
73 9
Recommend extending the acceleration/merge distance to
allow driver to reach the desired speed and see a gap in
traffic from the incoming right lane before merging. Left
entrance is not favorable and would need additional safety
features. 3
#20 Roadway Will consider
74 9
Recommend placing a median separator to avoid last minute
intrusion into the opposite lane when the merging driver
attempts to avoid a collision if they are unable to find a gap in
traffic to merge. 3
#20 Roadway Will consider
75 10 With the steep grade, the main line traffic on the right is not
visible to the driver until they reach the gore area.
Recommend increasing the acceleration lane ahead. 3
#20 Roadway Will consider
76 12 same comments as before. driver visibility to opposite traffic
and ascending grade require longer acceleration lane before
merging 3
#20 Roadway Will consider
77 13
integrate the signal foundation into the wall to avoid
reduction in shoulder width at this critical intersection
location. 3
#26 Roadway Will consider
78 13 bridge can be replaced with a jacking Box to avoid the
construction of Shoofly and relocation of OCS. 1, 3 #55 Construction
Technology
Jack Boxing and
Shoofly
79 14
Adjust wall/foundation design and location to be outside of
the Caltrain ROW. Additional width is not needed for turning
lane sight distance. 1
#3, #8 Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
80 14 additional bridge width is required to provide access to
maintenance and emergency vehicles 3 #1 Bridge Width Design and Cost
81 14
recommend an Auxiliary taper deceleration turn lane to
avoid a sudden stop by turning drivers in a steep ascending
main line grade. high risk for accident 3
#20 Roadway Will consider
Churchill Ave Grade Seperation 8 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
82 16 extra wide shoulder, any reason?3 Bus Turning Template Clarification None at this
time
83 17 Handrail not needed. 3 Noted. Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
84 17 increase shy distance to the barrier to 2ft - 3 ft . 3 #25 Roadway Will consider
85 18 Transition between 2-track and 4-track. No adjustments to
alternative.1 Noted 4 Tracking None at this
time
86 18 show lane width and shoulder dimensions. 2
Will revise and update in next
phase Graphics None at this
time
Churchill Ave Grade Seperation 9 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
1 1 show proposed box culvert or Bridge over the Adobe creek. 1 Additional Scope and cost Structures Design and Cost
2 1 Provide additional width on the bridge to accommodate
access road for maintenance and emergency vehicles.
1
Will need to review for impacts.
Additional scope and cost;
Constructability Review
Bridge Width
Design, Cost,
ROW and
Feasibility
3 1 show bridge or culvert that span almost the entire 100 ft wide
corridor 1 #1 Structures Design and Cost
4 1 construct a bridge or culvert to span both the temp shoofly
track and the permanent elevated structure.1 #1 Structures Design and Cost
5 1
Provide 16.5 vertical clearance for vehicular traffic under the
bridge
1
This will increase the
scale/footprint of project and
may need to evaluate for
additional ROW, redesign, cost
and other impacts (need
direction)
Vertical
Clearance
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
6 1 Fill retaining walls to accommodate 4-track and transition
between 2-track and 4-track
1
Yes, will coordinate. This action
will require design review,
constructability review, and
additional cost
4 Tracking Design and Cost
7 1 Transition between 2-track and 4-track 1 #6 4 Tracking Design and Cost
8 1
Maximum rail profile grade is currently 1%, higher than 1%
requires a variance (as a last resort)—maximum will be
updated to 2%, grades above 1% subject to review and
approval from Director of Engineering
1
No design exception is needed
for the current design. If revised
will keep in consideration
Rail Profile None at this
time
9 1 Transition segment should be tangent as special trackwork
should stay outside of the vertical curves 1 Will coordinate design with
Caltrain 4 Tracking Design and Cost
10 1 Note design speed is 110 mph for passenger rail 1 110 mph design speed is used Clarification None at this
time
M-CH Hybrid Plan & Profile 10 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
11 1 Alternative to accommodate 4-track and transition between 2-
track and 4-track 1 #6 4 Tracking Design and Cost
12 1 similar comment. Provide 16.5 ft clearance for vehicular traffic
under the bridge.
1 #5 Vertical
Clearance
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
13 1 Show required box culvert or bridge structure over Barron
Creek. 1 #1 Structures Design and Cost
14 1 1% grade is the current maximum without variance but will
soon be 2%. Grades between 1% and 2% will require review
and approval by the Director of Engineering.
1 #8 Rail Profile None at this
time
15 1
Recommend including a Phasing plan in the design of the walls
to accommodate the trailing end of the 4 Tracks typical section
and transition design package centered at California Station.
Please coordinate with Caltrain Planning department on the
final configuration.
2 #6, Phasing plan will likely be
considered in next phase 4 Tracking Design and Cost
16 1
Please clarify if the shoofly shown in plans is constructed
outside Caltrain ROW? if so indicate required construction
easement.
2 Yes, temporary construction
easement Clarification Yes
17 1 modify begin construction to end of track transition 3 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
18 1 Pleas indicate the end of construction at this location 3 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
19 1
Please modify the end of construction to new location shown
in other comment. similar to other side label as begin track
shift
3 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
20 1 Provide typical section with dimensions showing the track
encroachment into Alma st row and any temporary wall or
structure needed to accommodate grading.
3 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
M-CH Hybrid Plan & Profile 11 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
21 1 This location is more indicative of full typical section
implementation out of the transition zone.
3 Yes, typical section in the
segment Graphics None at this
time
22 1 Adjust the Begin Construction limit to this location on the
plans.3 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
23 1
Hybrid alternative will need to be further evaluated to
consider the impacts to the railroad and other utilities. Need to
understand cost and service implications, such as the
construction of an electrified Shoofly that will need a two time
relocation of OCS poles, cables, signals and fiber adjacent to a
regular Caltrain operations
3 Yes, OCS is provided during
construction Noted None at this
time
24 1 Please show the alignment stationing to coordinate the height
location with the Profile shown below.3 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
25 2 Provide typical section for Caltrain section. 1 Will provide in the next phase Graphics None at this
time
26 2
The hybrid approach has a great impact to Caltrain operations.
affecting the access to the track during maintenance and
emergency situation.
1 Will discuss with Caltrain Noted
27 2 provide additional width on the bridge to accommodate a
maintenance and emergency vehicle access
1 #2 Bridge Width Design and Cost
28 2 width not sufficient for maintenance vehicle Access 1 #2 Rail Profile Design and Cost
29 2
Min vertical clearance requirement is 16'-6" across ROW
1 #6 Vertical
Clearance
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
30 2 Adjust wall/foundation design and location to follow Caltrain
ROW and provide room for landscaping.
2
ROW Impacts and will review
and coordinate with Caltrain in
next phase
Horizontal
Alignment ROW
M-CH Hybrid Plan & Profile 12 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
31 2 Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at
Meadow Dr: Alma St STA XXX+XX = Meadow Dr STA XXX+XX
3 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
32 2 Please include equation of alignment stationing for Meadow
Dr at Alma St: Meadow Dr STA XXX+XX = Alma St STA XXX+XX
3 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
33 3 Please provide additional width to the bridge for maintenance
and emergency vehicle access.
1 #2 Bridge Width Design and Cost
34 3
Provide minimum 16.5ft clearance across Caltrain ROW.
1 #5 Vertical
Clearance
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
35 3
Recommend maintaining the left lane as a through lane and
drop the right lane instead especially when having a sudden
stop for driveway connections.
3 Will revise in next phase Roadway Will consider
36 3 Please display horizontal geometry stationing to match the
profile grade and stations. 3 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
37 3
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Charleston
Rd at Alma St: Charleston Rd STA XXX+XX = Alma St STA
XXX+XX
3 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
38 3
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at
Charleston Rd: Alma St STA XXX+XX = Charleston Rd STA
XXX+XX
3 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
39 4 provide additional width between MSE wall and shoofly Track
Center line a min 20 ft for MSE construction during an
electrified service operation
1
Discuss with Caltrain; Will need
to review for impacts. Additional
scope and cost; Constructability
Review.
Horizontal
Alignment
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
40 4 Need to maintain access road along the corridor to provide
access road for maintenance and emergency vehicles
1
Will need to review for impacts.
Additional scope and cost;
Constructability Review
Horizontal
Alignment
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
M-CH Hybrid Plan & Profile 13 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
41 4 similar comments the noise wall height is not to scale.1 Will revise in next phase
(renderings)Graphics None at this
time
42 4
Confirm proximity of OCS and centerline of tracks
1 Current OCS pole to RR CL is 12
feet min Clarification
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
43 4 10' min for maintenance access between face of retaining
walls/barriers and adjacent obstruction/roadway
1 #40; likely impact horizontal
alignment
Horizontal
Alignment
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
44 4 General note: Indicate vertical elevation distances from top of
rail.1 Will revise in next phase Graphics None at this
time
45 4 Place permanent to enable maintenance and maximize utility
of ROW
1 #40, #43 Horizontal
Alignment
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
46 4
10' to maximize utility of ROW
1 #40, #43 Horizontal
Alignment
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
47 4 The horizontal layout of the shoofly on the aerial shows that
the track footprint encroaches into Alma Street. Please verify.
1 Correct Clarification None at this
time
48 4
Please label the track CL offset to ROW fence
3 Will revise in next phase Discuss
with Caltrain/Consultant Graphics None at this
time
49 4 Please provide wall to wall dimension label for section. 3 Will review and label as needed. Graphics None at this
time
50 4 Please show noise wall to scale to the wood fence below.
Typical section shows 6ft sound wall. 3 #41 Graphics None at this
time
51 4 use single OCS pole system in the median. cantilever pole near
the wall will need a special foundation interfering with the
MSE wall straps and sleeping slab for the Noise wall.
1, 3
Will need to review for impacts.
Additional scope and cost;
Constructability Review
Structures
Design, Cost,
ROW and
Feasibility
M-CH Hybrid Plan & Profile 14 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
52 4
Consider replacing the MSE wall with an earth slope. This
approach will require to a build a temporary wire mesh wall
then backfill the dirt to meet a 3:1 slope and space for a
maintenance road.
1, 3
Will need to review for impacts.
Additional scope and cost;
Constructability Review
Horizontal
Alignment
Constructability
Review
M-CH Hybrid Plan & Profile 15 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
1 1 The wall construction will require the reconstruction
extension of the bike lane. Need to extend the pink
construction limit
1
Will review and discuss. Alma
does not have bike lanes
Sidewalk only at this time.
Therefore likely not needed
Roadway Will discuss
2 1
Proposed retaining walls not within 4-track section must be
outside of Caltrain ROW
1
4 Tracking Segments will require
design. ROW impacts to be
evaluated. Will discuss with
Caltrain. Additional costs,
impacts and ROW needs
Horizontal
Alignment
ROW and
Feasibility
3 1
Cut retaining wall to accommodate transition between 2-track
and 4-track
1
4 Tracking Segments will require
design. ROW impacts to be
evaluated. Will discuss with
Caltrain. Additional costs,
impacts and ROW needs
4 Tracking Design and Cost
4 1 Section here is requested to show: 1, Relationship of
depressed Meadow Rd, retaining walls, and Caltrain ROW
1 Will provide in next phase of
design Graphics None at this
time
5 1 Please increase the bridge width to provide access road for
maintenance and Emergency vehicles.
1 Additional costs/redesign, Bridge width
ROW, Design,
Cost and
Feasibility
6 1
Is this property a full acquisition?
1
There are few full acquisitions
and few partial takes. See the
fact sheets for more info
Clarification
Property
Acquisition
Maps
7 1 please check the deflection angle. Recommend extending the
transition length to reduce the angle and provide adequate
driver reaction for a sudden shift in lane direction.
1
There are ROW constraints. The
speeds may be lowered.
Additional changes will require
ROW, Costs and redesign
Roadway Will consider
Meadow Rd Grade Separation Stud 16 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
8 1
Move exit taper further north to provide sufficient
deceleration distance. (see comments on stop Bar turning
traffic gap on the right)
3 Will review and adjust in next
phase. Roadway Will consider
9 1 Please provide to sections for Alma before and after Meadow
Dr.3 Will provide in next phase of
design Graphics None at this
time
10 1
Please check if you need a short wall on this side of the
return. according to the profile we have almost 4-5 ft
difference in elevation. Please display stationing on the
horizontal plan layout to check against the proposed profile
elevation
3 ?? Consultant to verify Roadway Will consider
11 1 Please show CL stationing to correlate with the provided
profile stationing. 3 Will provide in next phase of
design Graphics None at this
time
12 1
The stop bar for the turning traffic is within the taper exit
deceleration segment of the ramp. Recommend moving the
taper further north and extending the tangent segment of the
ramp to properly provide adequate deceleration and storage
before coming to a full stop. The current ramp configuration
does not meet driver expectancy and does not provide the
driver with sufficient distance to react when the signal is red
for turning traffic from the grocery outlet supermarket.
3 #8 Roadway Will consider
13 1 Please check if a short wall is needed on this side of the bike
trail.3 #10 Roadway Will consider
14 1
The gap provided does not provide sufficient weave distance
for Meadow ramp traffic to merge with Alma main line
traffic, similar conflicting with Alma traffic trying to exist for
the right turn/full stop auxiliary lane to the Grocery Outlet
supermarket and local apartment complex.
3 #7 Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
Meadow Rd Grade Separation Stud 17 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
15 1
Recommend providing turning median lane under the bridges
to maintain free flow traffic lane. Additional space for turning
lane can be obtained by reducing the shoulder width and bike
lane shoulder width shown in red.
3 ROW constraints. Bike
lane/shoulder needs vs traffic Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
16 1 Similar comments as above regarding curved bridges
constructability 3 Will review during next phase of
design Structures Will consider
17 1
Curved bridge design and Handrail are complex, costly and
hard to construct. recommend linear cantilever chord
segments
3 #16 Structures Will consider
18 1 Provide a minimum 2ft shy distance to the barrier and crash
cushion for recovery especially when the lane is 11ft wide.
3
Will review for ROW impacts
and adjust if feasible during
next phase of design
Roadway Will consider
19 2
K Value 13.6 below 10 MPH design speed
1
Will discuss. profile designed for
comfort and not for sag curve.
ROW impacts, cost, project foot
print etc. in consideration
Roadway
Profile
ROW and
Feasibility
20 2
bridge can be replaced with Jack and Bore Box. reduce impact
to Caltrain operations and remove the need to build a shoofly
with OCS relocation twice.
1 Box Jacking vs Shoofly
discussion
Construction
technology
Jack Boxing and
Shoofly
21 2
Min vertical clearance requirement is 16'-6" across ROW
1
Will increase the project foot
print, ROW impact and project
costs. Will need to discuss and
Vertical
Clearance
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
22 2
Clearance is low. Recommend providing 10ft clearance.
1
One of the ped crossing will
need low clearance. Otherwise
the entire profile will need to be
lowered causing extreme
impacts
Vertical
Clearance
Meets
minimum
HDM/AASHTO
standards
23 2 please indicate location of section even if typical 2 Will revise - Consultant Graphics None at this
time
24 2 recommend extending the profile limits to reduce the 12%
slope. same on the opposite side. 2 #19 Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
Meadow Rd Grade Separation Stud 18 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
25 2 recommend increasing the lane width to 12 ft and reducing
the shoulder to accommodate the double strip width at the
center line.
2
ROW impacts to be evaluated.
Will discuss. Additional costs,
impacts and ROW needs
Roadway Will consider
26 2 Steep grade limited options for design flexibility 2 #19 Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
27 2 Steep grade limited options for design flexibility 2 #19 Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
28 2 steep grade recommend reducing to 9% or 7%2 #19 Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
29 2 Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at
Meadow Dr: Alma St STA XXX+XX = Meadow Dr STA XXX+XX
3 Will provide in next phase of
design Graphics None at this
time
30 3 please increase the bridge width to provide access for
Maintenance and emergency vehicles.
1 #5 Bridge width
ROW, Design,
Cost and
Feasibility
31 3 Recommend providing a minimum 2ft space next to the
barrier. similar to opposite side.
3
Will need to review for ROW
impacts and can be adjusted if
feasible in next phase
Roadway Will consider
32 3 Reduce the fence length since we do not have a pedestrian
access in that area, to provide a clear sight distance for traffic
on Alma St merging with ascending traffic from meadow
3 Will revise and adjust in next
phase Roadway Will consider
33 4 Please check horizontal stopping sight distance for turning
traffic into the ramp if based on free flow design speed
3 ?? Where comment Clarification
34 7 Recommend providing a 10ft wide turning lane in the median
to reduce risk of accidents. 3 Bike lane/shoulder vs traffic
lane Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
35 8 Please provide additional bridge width to accommodate
access to maintenance and emergency vehicles.
1 #5 Bridge width
ROW, Design,
Cost and
Feasibility
36 8 if this turning movement includes bikes. please improve right
shldr width at Alma exit ramp 3 No Bike lanes on Alma. Roadway Will discuss
Meadow Rd Grade Separation Stud 19 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
37 8 Extend barrier to close gap 3 Will review and adjust in next
phase. Roadway Will consider
38 8
the lane shift deflection angle is steep and exceed 8 degree
for 30 MPH. recommend extending the widening further
north
3 Will review and revise in next
phase Roadway Will consider
39 8 Please provide additional 2 ft width next to the barrier and
crash cushion.3 #31 Roadway Will consider
40 8 The drop lane configuration not adequate to provide a merge
distance into main traffic lane. see comments in plan view.
3 ROW and physical constraints Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
41 10
Curved bridge design and Handrail are complex, costly and
hard to construct. recommend linear cantilever chord
segments
3 Will review and revise in next
phase Structures Will consider
Meadow Rd Grade Separation Stud 20 of 31
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
1 1
increase width of bridge to 25 ft from Track CL on both bridge sides
for maintenance and emergency access
1
Consultant to Review. May
increase scale/footprint of the
project and may need additional
ROW, redesign, cost and other
impacts
Bridge Width Design and Cost
2 1
increase bridge width to provide access for Maintenance and
emergency vehicles.
1
Consultant to Review. May
increase scale/footprint of the
project and may need additional
ROW, redesign, cost and other
impacts
Bridge Width Design and Cost
3 1 Section here is requested to show: 1, Relationship of depressed
Charleston Rd, retaining walls, and Caltrain ROW 1 Will review and address in next
phase of design Graphics None at this
time
4 1 Replace bridge structure with Box jacking to avoid constructing
shoofly and OCS relocation 1 Review will performed in
subsequent phases.
Construction
Technology
Jack Boxing and
Shoofly
5 1 show ramp and mainline stationing to associate profile location and
grades. 2 Will review and address in next
phase of design Graphics None at this
time
6 1 Please explain the additional width under the bridge. is it for turning
auxiliary lane or for future roadway widening. 2 The shoulder provides for bike,
drainage, etc.Clarification None at this
time
7 1 Combine bridge to reduce foundation cost by not building two
abutments. 2 Will review and address in next
phase of design Bridge Width Design and Cost
8 1 Based on the provided profile, additional wall will be longer then
what is shown. Please update to display stationing for confirmation.
2 Will review and address in next
phase of design Graphics None at this
time
9 1
Looking at the aerial photo the traffic volume back up to make right
turn into Charleston is large filling two auxiliary right turn lanes.
Please explain how this right turn traffic volume is accommodated in
the new grade crossing configuration. Incase needed, a right turn
single lane ramp with walls on both sides can be constructed with
minor extension of the ped and Charleston bridge to Caltrain ROW.
The turning movement into Charleston will be controlled by a right
turn signal. Please note that additional width to Caltrain bridge is
needed to accommodate the Maintenance and Emergency vehicle
access across Charleston.
2 Traffic study has reviewed the
future LOS. Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 21 of 31
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
10 1
is this property full acquisition?
3
There are few properties that
require takes full and other
partial takes. See Fact Sheets
Clarification
Property
Acquisition
Maps
11 1
need to provide additional shldr width for recovery space on both
sides of the walls..
3
Will review and address in next
phase of design. The offset to
barriers and walls were kept at
minimum to minimize ROW take
Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
12 1
extend full width Shldr to the end of construction. do not
recommend tapering emergency shldr
3
The pavement outside of the fog
line is to accommodate
emergency vehicle turning
template. Not provide for
shoulder
Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
13 1 we can use circular ramp access to reduce impact on properties. 3 Will review and update in next
phase of design Roadway Will Consider
14 1
Do we need a right turning movement. see comments on the plans.
3
Additional turning movement
will be helpful. This will cause for
additional ROW. See traffic study
for more info
Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
15 1
Please label the roundabout radius to confirm if large enough for
trailer trucks. Additional inside shoulders help achieve the desired
turning radius for larger vehicles.
3 Will review and update in next
phase of design Graphics None at this
time
16 1 Curved bridges and rail are costly to design and build. Recommend
curved linear beam solution with a curved wider bridge slab.
3 Will review and update in next
phase of design Structures Will Consider
17 1 Will the concept require full acquisition of property due to concept
impacting property structure?
3 #10 Clarification
Property
Acquisition
Maps
18 1 Combine bridge to reduce foundation cost by not building two
abutments. 3 Will review and update in next
phase of design Bridge Will Consider
19 1
Identify full property acquisitions due to roundabout.
3 #10 Clarification
Property
Acquisition
Maps
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 22 of 31
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
20 1
Identify full property acquisitions due to roundabout.
3 #10 Clarification
Property
Acquisition
Maps
21 1 It is possible to adjust stop bar location closer to the bridge. since
cross walk not provided and will reduce left turn traveled distance.
3 Will review and update in next
phase of design Roadway Will Consider
22 1 Increase ramp width to provide space to pass a stalled vehicle. the
travel lane is constrained by walls on both sides. Refer to Caltrans
and AASHTO standards for minimum ramp widths.
3
This action will require redesign,
may require additional ROW And
have additional Costs
Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
23 1 Check ramp width in constrained areas if sufficient pavement width is
provided to pass a stalled vehicle. 3 # 22 Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
24 1 Will the concept require full acquisition of property due to impacting
property structure?
3 #10 Clarification
Property
Acquisition
Maps
25 1
Confirm the intent of the roadway modification here. Is it being
proposed to make Ely Ply a one-way street or restricting the turning
movement onto Ely Pl from Alma St? Please provide traffic directions
and labels to clarify.
3 Traffic Calming Clarification None at this
time
26 1
Recommend increasing the lane transition length to reduce the
sudden 12ft lane shift using reverse curvature. improve driver
expectation with a sudden shift.
3 Will review and address in the
next phase of design Roadway Will Consider
27 2 Bridge should match the rail elevation since we are not lowering the
rail profile unless a box tunnel is being proposed.
1 Noted; Consultant to verify Graphics Review
28 2
All vertical clearances need to be 16.5 ft per Caltrain new standard.
1
This will increase the
scale/footprint of project and
may need additional ROW,
redesign, cost and other impacts
Vertical
Clearance
ROW, Design,
Cost, Feasibility
29 2
grade extremely steep descending 25 ft in 350 ft at 12%. the current
K for sight distance = 13.6 below K = 19 for 20MPH see Caltrans fig
201.5 2020 design manual
2 # 28 Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
30 2 U Tub structure not required. recommend to convert this wall to MSE
wall. same note on the other wall 2 AECOM Structures Will Consider
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 23 of 31
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
31 2
please show Design speed and K values.
2 Design speed is based on riders
comfort of 25 mph. AECOM Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
32 2 Steep grade limited options for design flexibility 2 # 31 Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
33 2 It's not clear the location of this profile low point. please show
stationing on plans.
2 Consultant Graphics None at this
time
34 2 Clearance varies. please clarify if these structures are BOX Tunnels or
bridges
2
The construction methodology
will be determined in future
phases
Graphics
35 2 Steep grade limited options for design flexibility. 2 Yes Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
36 2 combine bridges to reduce the cost of dual abutment 3 Will review and address in the
next phase of design Bridges Design and Cost
37 2 Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at
Charleston Rd: Alma St STA XXX+XX = Charleston Rd STA XXX+XX
3 Consultant Graphics Will Consider
38 2
14 ft wide ramp with barrier on both sides do not provide adequate
width for passing a stalled vehicle. refer to Caltrans and AASHTO
standards for min ramps width.
3 # 22 Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
39 2 This wall can be converted to MSE wall since excavation is required.
this option would be more economical 3 Will review and address in the
next phase of design Structures Will Consider
40 2 No need to build a U tube walls. replace with cantilever or soldier pile
wall. 3 AECOM, Consultant Structures Will Consider
41 3
Recommend removing fence as it obstructs drivers from seeing the
merging traffic. Fence is unnecessary as there are no sidewalks or
pedestrian facilities in the vicinity. In case, fence is preferred by the
City, recommend reducing the height to provide better sight distance
to drivers.
3 Will review and address in the
next phase of design Roadway Will Consider
42 3 Fencing not necessary if pedestrian facilities are not located near the
concrete traffic barrier 3 Will Do in next phase of design Roadway Will Consider
43 5 Fencing not required. no pedestrian facilities near conc Barrier 3 Will Do in next phase of design Roadway Will Consider
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 24 of 31
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
44 5
Fencing not required same comments as before. no pedestrian
facilities near conc Barrier. in addition it reduce the driver sight
distance until pass the gore area. in case still need to install,
recommend shortening the length based on height, providing better
sight distance to the drivers.
3 Will Do in next phase of design Roadway Will Consider
45 5 Please provide additional shldr width on both sides of the ramps. for
safe recovery near the barrier. Similar to other comments need to
comply with ramp width requirement to pass a Stalled vehicle.
3 Will review and provide where
feasible without additional ROW; Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
46 7 Combine bridge to reduce foundation cost by not building two
abutments. 2 #18 Bridges Design and
Cost
47 7 Combine bridge to reduce foundation cost by not building two
abutments. 3 # 18 Bridges Design and Cost
48 8 Increase width of bridge to 25 ft from Track CL on both bridge sides
for maintenance and emergency access. 1 # 2 Bridge Width Design and Cost
49 8 Curved bridges and handrail are costly due to design complexity and
cost to construct 3 Will review and address in next
phase of design Structures Will Consider
50 9
Recommend combining bridge over Charleston and pedestrian bridge
into a two span bridge to reduce foundation costs by removing need
for two abutments.
1 # 18 Bridges Design and Cost
51 9 Ramp width not sufficient to pass a stalled vehicle. See other
comments. 3 # 22 Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
52 10 Please explain the need for additional widening width under Caltrain
bridge. is this for future lane? please clarify 2 For drainage, bike lane etc. Clarification None at this
time
53 11 Increase bridge width as per previous note.1 # 2 Bridge Width Design and Cost
54 11
Both bridge can be replaced with Two boxes similar to the crossing
under the rail. no need for Shoofly and relocation of OCS to build the
bridges
2 Will review and address in next
phase of design
Construction
Technology
Jack Boxing and
Shoofly
55 11
Recommend combining both bridge over Charleston and Pedestrian
in a two span bridge or box to reduce foundation redundancy cost
building two abutments.
3 #18 Construction
Technology
Jack Boxing and
Shoofly
56 11 Ramp width not sufficient to pass a stalled vehicle. See other
comments 3 # 22 Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 25 of 31
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
57 11
Increase bridge width to provide sight distance for turning vehicles
left, in addition to having the conc barrier obstructing the driver
sight for approaching biker on the right intersecting with the
ascending ramp.
3 Consultant, Signal Control Bridge Design and Cost
58 12 Recommend increasing the ramp width to pass a stalled vehicle.
similar to the other ascending opposite ramp. 3 #18 Roadway ROW and
Feasibility
59 13
Recommend increasing the shoulder width or shy distance near the
crash cushion to allow for safe recovery.
3
Will review and address.
Additional Width will require
more ROW. If it can be
accommodated, will review and
add in next phase
Roadway Will Consider
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 26 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
1 1 This portion of the Transition to the Viaduct will be impacted by the 4
tracking study that center on California Station. (Please coordinate
with Caltrain Planning department on this issue)
1
Yes, will coordinate. This action
will require design review,
constructability review and
depending upon alignment may
impact ROW. Additional cost
4 Tracking
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
2 1
increase clearance to 24 FT to accommodate 16.5 roadway
clearance.
1
This will increase the
scale/footprint of project and
may need additional ROW,
redesign, cost and other impacts
Vertical
Clearance
Design, Cost,
and Visibility
3 1
Maximum rail profile grade is currently 1%, higher than 1% requires a
variance (as a last resort)—maximum will be updated to 2%, grades
above 1% subject to review and approval from Director of
Engineering
1 Design exemption approval from
the director will be needed Rail Profile Need Approval
4 1 Alternative to accommodate 4-track and transition between 2-track
and 4-track
1 # 1 4 Tracking
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
5 1 Transition segment should be tangent as special trackwork should
stay outside of the vertical curves
1 # 1 4 Tracking
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
6 1 Fill retaining wall to accommodate 4-track and transition between 2-
track and 4-track
1 Noted 4 Tracking
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
7 1 Note design speed is 110 mph for passenger rail 1 # 3 Noted
8 1 The walls location and construction will need to aligned with the
future 4 tracking typical section.
1 # 1 4 Tracking
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
9 1 1% grade is the current maximum without variance but will soon be
2%. Grades between 1% and 2% will require review and approval by
the Director of Engineering.
1
This will increase the
scale/footprint of project and
may need additional ROW,
redesign, cost and other impacts
Rail Profile Need Approval
M-CH Viaduct Plan & Profile 27 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
10 1 Existing box culvert will need to be replaced. The original structure
was not designed to handle the additional 10ft of soil load and the
MSE wall.
1
The reconstruction of culverts at
Adobe Creek and Barron Creek
was not anticipated and will be
additional scope/cost to the
project
Structures Design and Cost
11 1
Existing box culvert will need to be replaced. The original structure
was not designed to handle the additional 10ft of soil load and the
MSE wall.
1 #10 Structures Design and Cost
12 1 Please provide 16.5 ft roadway clearance under the structure. Total
clearance package: 16.5ft + 5 ft structural depth+2.5ft track= 24 ft
1 #2 Vertical
Clearance
Design, Cost,
and Visibility
13 1
Please confirm that the viaduct footprint is constructed outside
Caltrain ROW.
3
Yes, the alignment as shown will
shift towards Alma (joint use).
The prposed alignment uses
existing tracks using construction
Clarification
14 2 nice light rail example. in our case the Pier and Girder sections will
be heavier and deeper to carry the heavy rail and UPRR load.
1 These are examples only. Actual
will depend upon the final design Clarification
15 3 extend OCS foundation to connect with bridge Pier.1 Noted; will be addressed during
design phase Structures Will consider
16 3
we understand it is just a structural bridge concept. we recommend
using Two pre-cast post tensioned girder tubs. the cast in place box
girder shown will be difficult to construct. since the form work and
scaffolding will interfere with the nearby electrification infrastructure
in the shoofly.
1 AECOM Structures Will consider
17 3 Please show the Caltrain/Alma ROW Limit. in addition to the
encroachment as shown on plans. 1 Consultant Review Graphics ROW and
Feasibility
18 3 OCS height varies more than 3 ft depending on the location and
power connection 1 Noted and will address during
design phase Graphics None at this
time
M-CH Viaduct Plan & Profile 28 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
19 3
Label width of structure min 47' having the pole in the middle of the
bridge this will require more clearance requirement. 22 CL to CL track
+25 outer buffer with walkway.
1
Consultant Review. May increase
scale/footprint of the project
and may need additional ROW,
redesign, cost and other
impacts. Outside placement of
OCS will be considered to reduce
structure width
Viaduct
Structures
20 3
10' min for maintenance access between face of retaining
walls/barriers and adjacent obstruction/roadway
1
This action will require design
review, constructability review
and depending upon alignment
may impact ROW. Additional
cost
Horizontal
Alignment
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
21 3
Place permanent to enable maintenance and maximize utility of ROW
1 #21 Horizontal
Alignment
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
22 3 16.5' min from roadway to soffit 1 #2 Vertical
Clearance
Design, Cost
and Visibility
23 3
Confirm proximity of OCS and centerline of tracks
1
Conceptual designs and sketches
aimed at providing at least 12 ft
between track centerline and
face of OCS pole.
Graphics None at this
time
24 3 Confirm proximity of OCS and centerline of tracks 1 #23 Graphics None at this
time
25 3
10' to maximize utility of ROW
1 #21 Horizontal
Alignment
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
26 3
General note: Indicate vertical elevation distances from top of rail.
Elevation at top of retaining wall should match elevation at top of
rail.
1 Noted
27 3
10' to maximize utility of ROW
1 #21 Horizontal
Alignment
Design, Cost
ROW and
Feasibility
M-CH Viaduct Plan & Profile 29 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
28 3
Place permanent to enable maintenance and maximize utility of ROW
1 #21 Horizontal
Alignment
Design, Cost
ROW and
Feasibility
29 3
Max height of wall should be 15ft. At the abutment, the pre-cast tub
girders are 4ft-5ft deep plus 2.5ft for track. This would leave 8.5 ft for
maintenance and landscaping access.
1 Will review and recommend to
address in next phase of design Structures Will consider
30 3 The plans shows part of the viaduct constructed outside Caltrain
ROW. Please confirm 1 #13 Clarification
31 3 20' Max need to be increased to include 16.5 clearance +6.5' Girder
depth and track. = 23- 24 Max 1 # 2 Vertical Design, Cost,
and Visibility
32 3 Evaluate horizontal clear zone requirement maybe a conc barrier wall
is necessary to protect the Caltrain Pier.
2 Will review and recommend to
address in next phase of design
Horizontal
Alignment ??
33 3
indicate existing fence to be removed after constructing MSE wall.
most of it will be destroyed during construction block maintenance
access.
3 Will review and recommend to
address in next phase of design Noted
34 3
Draw sound wall height proportional to the scale or adjust wall
height to reflect the correct 8 Foot max height of the MSE below.
Now the sound wall measure about 3 ft tall
3 Will review and address in next
phase (rendering only)Graphics None at this
time
35 3
label all sections dimensions and not to scale (NTS)
3 Will review and recommend to
address in next phase of design Graphics None at this
time
36 3
Same comments regarding the Sound wall height. not displayed as 6
ft tall. or this is caused by the perspective view distortion? Please
check.
3 Will review and address in next
phase (rendering only)Graphics None at this
time
37 3 Please label horizontal dimensions for the entire section including
clearance from Track CL to the MSE 3 Will review and address in next
phase Graphics None at this
time
38 3 Please show curb or fence location with dimensions to the bridge
Pier.3 Will review and address in next
phase Graphics None at this
time
39 3 Please label typical section dimensions. 3 Will review and address in next
phase Graphics None at this
time
40 3 recommend installing the signal on the bridge girder instead of
having a hazardous Signal pole in the middle of the intersection.
3 Will review and address in next
phase Roadway Will consider
M-CH Viaduct Plan & Profile 30 of 31
Comm
ent
No.
Page
Label
Caltrain
Comments
Comment
Category Initial Review Category Potential
Impacts
41 3 Direct fixation is good for transit service, but not adequate when we
share the corridor with Heavy axle freight load
1, 3 # 2 Viaduct
Structures
Vertical Height
impacts
42 3
Caltrain to evaluate if signals can be mounted to bridge structure.
Agreement would need to be developed. it will be safer installation
and more visible for traffic
2, 3 Will review and address in next
phase Roadway Will consider
M-CH Viaduct Plan & Profile 31 of 31
Plan & Profile
Churchill Underpass
Churchill Ave Aerial View (Plan)
Alma St (Profile)
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning
Detail A
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:
Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
35 mph design speedChurchill Underpass Concept (Price) at Alma St
M
elville Ave
Kellog
g
A
ve
C
hu
rchill Ave
Coleridg
e A
ve
Alma St
Paly Rd
Mariposa Ave
Castilleja Ave100 ft500 ft
See Detail A on this sheet
0.0%
0.0%
-7.0%+6.5%
Original Ground
Profile Grade
Roadway
60
50
40
30
20
60
50
40
30
20
202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00 208+00 209+00 210+00 211+00 212+00
330' VC
300' VC
305' VC
Total Length = 1,000 ft
Ave
Kellogg
Ave
Churchill
Ave
Coleridge
R=5'R=5'
32'
9'
9'
12'
Tunnel below
Please provide profile for
pedestrian crossing
ramps
Curved bridges are notrecommended as they
are complicated to
design and expansive
to build. Recommend a
curve-linear bridge
beam with curved slab.
recommend
increasing the
acceleration lane to
provide adequatesight distance for thedriver to find a gapafter reaching the endof K rail and reach therequired speed whileascending a 7%
grade
a Physical K rail barrierseparation will be required to
prevent last minute errant car
from entering the opposite lane
if driver encounter difficulties
entering the through lane.Extend bridge widthto Caltrain ROW. thisadditional width isneeded to provideaccess to Caltrain
Maintenance and
emergency vehicles.
best if 27ft width from
cl track can be
reached.
This wall isencroaching intoCaltrain ROW. Adjustwall location to beoutside of Caltrain
ROW. There is
adequate sight
distance for turning
traffic at the
signalizedintersection.
Increase radii of curb
return to match northwestcurb return.
Excessive shoulderwidth. any reason?this might encouragedriver to use as apassing lane.
Adjust barrier endtreatment (i.e., crashcushion) away fromintersection to allow
for design vehicle
(e.g., WB-50) turn
radius.
Recommend toincreasing theshoulder width on thefrontage road laneside to 2ft - 4 ft to
provide recovery
distance near the
crash cushion and
concrete barrier.
Recommendswitching the wideshoulder to the rightside near the 2traveling lanes to
improve the sight
distance at the
Churchill intersection
and build a taper
deceleration lanewithout encroachinginto the CaltrainROW.
recommend building
the signal foundation
integral within the wall
structure, to eliminateshoulder reduction.
Provide a min of 2' to
3' ft offset from
concrete barrier andcrash cushion for saferecovery.
Adjust wall/foundationdesign and location tonot encroach intoCaltrain ROW.
Adjust wall/foundation
design and location to
not encroach into
Caltrain ROW.
show major
stationing text on
the aerial to
coordinate with the
shown Profile
the driver do nothave clear sight to
the main line trafficat this point due to
grade ascendingand conc barrier.
this will impact the
driver decision in
finding a gap
merge right withthe mainline traffic
Please show
design speed andK value
accordingly
please notereconstruction of
the parking apronmight be
necessary to many
of the home to
meet the widening
grade.
please show
horizentalstationing to match
profile gradelocation
adjust graphics,showing the box
dashed at that
location since
since it is below
ground and
covered with Pink
color per typicalsection.
Section here is requested to show:1. Vertical clearance under track
2. Relationship of depressed Alma St,
retaining walls, and Caltrain ROW.
Section here is
requested to
show:
1. Relationshipof depressed
Alma St,retaining walls,
and CaltrainROW.
Please provide
proposed profile forpedestrian crossing
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Churchill Ave at Alma
St:Churchill Ave STA XXX+XX = Alma St STA XXX+XX
Active transportation facilities shouldbe placed outside of Caltrain ROW.
If not, subject to JPB Boardapproval.
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
Cut retaining walls toaccommodate
transition between2-track and 4-track
to be placed outside
of Caltrain ROW and
easements
3
3
3 1 1
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
3
Profile & Typical Sections
Churchill Underpass
Churchill Ave (Profile)
Alma St (North of Churchill Ave)
Typical Section
Churchill Ave Underpass
Typical Section
Kellogg Ave
Typical Section
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Original Ground = Existing Top of Rail
CL
Churchill Ave
20' - 0" *
11'11'10'16'
centerline of Churchill Ave
*Dimension shown at
8'
WB Lane
Turn Lane
EB Left
Turn Lane
EB RightShld Shld
12% max grade (25 mph)Churchill Underpass Concept (Price)
10'
NB Alma St
NB LaneSB LaneSB Lane
12'
13'
NB Lane NB Lane
10'
10'8'
Shld
R/W
Caltrain
4'
12'
9'9'
PL
Prop
PL
Exist
Sidewalk
5'
Landscape
Track
MT-2
Track
MT-1
R/W
Caltrain
14' +/-
Ped/Bike Path
Southbound
Ped/Bike Path
Northbound
Ped/Bike Path
2-Way
To Be Reconstructed
Existing Bleachers
12'
LANE
RAMP
Ped/Bike
FL
FL
16'
Sidewalk
16'
LANE Sidewalk
PL PL
4'±4'±2'-6"2'-6"
60'
MT2
Min Vert Clr
15
' - 6"
Profile Grade
Roadway
Total length = 425 ft
Castilleja Ave
Paly Rd/
Alma St
NB
60
50
40
30
20
99+00 100+00
60
50
40
30
20
105+00104+00101+00 102+00 103+00
0%
-11%
+2%
Ground
Original MT1
Ped/Bike Bridge
St
Alma
RR Bridge
Please confirm that
we are looking north
recommendadditional shy
distance/offset
min 3' next to
the conc barrier
to provide a
recovery at the
nose area and
crash coushion.
Please number
all sections and
show
approximate
locations on the
plans. this will
help in matching
the provided
section
information with
the horizontal
layout
Provide 16.5 ft
Clearance under all
bridges. 2023
Caltrain standard
Please correct
the lane width
from 16' to 14'.should not
include the
gutter as a
traveling lane
adjust S/W width to
reflect 3.5'remianing
width. reduce the
outer buffer to 2'- 6"
width to Zero. The
min S/W width is 5 ftincrease to 6ft whenadjacent to the curband without a greenbuffer area.
A bridge constructionwill have majorimpact to caltrain
operations.
recommend a large
box jacking approach
that will eliminate the
need for a Shoofly,
fiber, signal and OCSrelocation
need to revise
the Wall type to
L shape wall,
soldier pile or
secant piles to
avoid
encroachment
into Caltrain row
during the
construction of
the cantileverwall base as
shown.
Cantilever wall
and basefoundation need to
be outside CaltrainROW.
What is the reason forhaving such a largeshldr, future lane?can it be reduced.
Please clarify if
all pedestrian
structure are
constructed
within an
easment or it is
a row
encrochement.
Recommend changing this
structure from Bridge to Jack
and Bore tunnel Box. as
indicated in other comments
regarding the elimination ofshoofly construction.
recommend
extending box to
Caltrain ROW to
include the pedestrian
crossing. this can be
a major saving inconstruction cost andschedule.
recommned using amountable curb toincrease the width ofthe road for passing astalled vehicle. seeasshto requirement
21 ft
This is a steep
grade dropping 20
ft in 300 ft length
with a k = 4 < K =
19 for 20 MPHdesign . see fig
201.5 in Caltrans2020 design
manual
show existing
OCS poles on
both sides of the
track. this
comment is
applicable to all
track sections.
please clarify if
this also is a U
wall construction?
Recommend
increasing the lane
width to 11ft min.
not safe especiallywhen wide
vehicles areoccupying the
lane.
similar
recommendincreasing the lane
width to 11 ft by
reducing theshldr
width
Recommend
additional 2 ft near
the Conc Barrier
wall for safe
recovery in casethe car get near
the edge of thelane.
Please confirm no change in track profile
is required for this option
Wh
a
t
i
s
t
h
e
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
?
Please note where these sections are and the directionwe are looking in the plan view.
What is the dimension?
Min vertical clearance
requirement is 16'-6" across theROW
CaltrainR/W
What is thisdimension?
Elevation for top
of retaining wall
should match
elevation for topof rail
Caltrain
R/W
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at Churchill
Ave:Alma St STA XXX+XX = Churchill Ave STA XXX+XX
Steep grade limited options
for design flexibility
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
11
1
1
3
1
3
1 3
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
Provide Dimension
to the entire typicalsection
1
3
1
3
2
Option 1
Plan & Cross Sections
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Undercrossing at Churchill Avenue
Churchill Avenue (Plan)
CL
Alma St
Mariposa Ave
C
hu
rchill Ave
Section A-A Section B-B
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND
Stairway
Undercrossing Structure
Sidewalk Modifications
Roadway Modifications
Landscaping
Ramp
Right-of-Way
Fence
Alma St
A A
B
B
relocate ped
ramps outside
Caltrain ROW
Relocate Ped rampsoutside Caltrain ROW
Extend Jack
and Bore Ped
Tunnel to meet
Caltrain ROW
on both ends.
relocate Stairs
outside Caltrain ROW
increase tunnel widthto reach Caltrain
ROW.
Transition
between 2-track
and 4-track. No
adjustments
1
Please provideClearnace below
Caltrain Track
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Option 1
3D Renderings
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Undercrossing at Churchill Avenue
Alma Street - Looking North
Pedestrian/Bike Ramp - Looking NorthPedestrian Plaza - Looking North
Alma Street - Looking Southwest Alma Street - Looking Northwest
Alma Street - Looking Southeast
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Please see plans
view for shoulder
swapping/increase
comments
Please remove the
encroachment on
Caltrain ROW.
construct the
signal base
integral within the
wall structure to
eliminate
encrochement into
the shoulder.
1
1
3
Signal foundation can
be integrated in the
wall structure to
eliminate
encroachment into
the shoulder
Adjust
wall/foundation
design and location to
be outside of the
Caltrain ROW. Please
verify the sight
triangle. Based on the
concept, the sight
triangle is too large
for the turning left
distance in a
signalized controlled
movement (see
AASHTO Case D).
additional width
needed to provide
access for
maintenance and
emergency vehicles.
extend barrier an
additional 20 ft to
prevent driver from
accessing Alma St
Recommend
providing a
minimum 2ft - 3 ft
recovery shoulder
for when
approaching the
crash cushion and
safer distance
near the barrier.
1
3
1
3
3
see previous
comment
regarding Signal
foundation. can be
integral into the
wall to avoid shldr
encroachment.3
Recommend extending the
acceleration/merge distance to
allow driver to reach the desired
speed and see a gap in traffic
from the incoming right lane
before merging. Left entrance is
not favorable and would need
additional safety features.
Recommend
placing a median
separator to avoid
last minute
intrusion into the
opposite lane
when the merging
driver attempts to
avoid a collision if
they are unable to
find a gap in traffic
to merge.
3
3
With the steep
grade, the main
line traffic on the
right is not visible
to the driver until
they reach the
gore area.
Recommend
increasing the
acceleration lane
ahead.
3
same comments
as before. driver
visibility to
opposite traffic
and ascending
grade require
longer
acceleration lane
before merging
3
bridge can be
replaced with a
jacking Box to
avoid the
construction of
Shoofly and
relocation of OCS.
integrate the
signal foundation
into the wall to
avoid reduction in
shoulder width at
this critical
intersection
location.
3
1 3
additional bridge
width is required to
provide access to
maintenance and
emergency
vehicles
Adjust
wall/foundation
design and
location to be
outside of the
Caltrain ROW.
Additional width is
not needed for
turning lane sight
distance.
recommend an
Auxiliary taper
deceleration turn
lane to avoid a
sudden stop by
turning drivers in a
steep ascending
main line grade.
high risk for
accident
1
1
3
extra wide
shoulder, any
reason?
3
increase shy
distance to the
barrier to 2ft - 3 ft .
Handrail not
needed.
3
3
Option 2
Plan & Cross Sections
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Undercrossing at Churchill Avenue
Churchill Avenue (Plan)
Alm
a S
t
M
aripo
sa A
ve
Churchill Ave
Section B-BSection A-A
A
CL
Alma St
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND
Stairway
Undercrossing Structure
Sidewalk Modifications
Roadway Modifications
Landscaping
Ramp
Right-of-Way
Fence
A
B
B
show lane width
and shoulder
dimensions.
Transitionbetween 2-track
and 4-track. Noadjustments to
alternative.
1
2
Option 2
3D Renderings
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Undercrossing at Churchill Avenue
Churchill Avenue - Looking West
Churchill Avenue - Looking West Churchill Avenue - Looking Northwest Churchill Avenue - Looking East
Churchill Avenue - Looking Northeast Churchill Avenue - Looking East
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
E
L
V
E
R
A
N
O
A
V
E
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
Alma St
Park Blvd
Park Blvd
EMERSON ST
A
D
O
B
E
C
R
E
E
K
M
E
A
D
O
W
D
R
L
ID
E
R
O
D
R
T
E
N
N
N
E
S
E
E
L
N
F
E
R
N
E
A
V
E
LUNDY LANE
G
R
E
E
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
W
A
Y
FERNE CT
BEN LOMOND DR
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 100 200
0
20
40
60
0
20
40
60
80
1
4
.
0
'
1
4
.0
'
B
A
R
R
O
N
C
R
E
E
K
MEADOW DR CHARLESTON RD
Meadow Drive & Charleston Road - Plan and Profile - Hybrid
C
u
rtn
e
r A
v
e
V
e
n
tu
ra
A
v
e
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
NOVEMBER 08, 2018
6
.0
'
6
.0
'
Profile
Hybrid Track
Landmark
Creek
Right Of Way
Caltrain
Ground Level
Existing Groundwater
Bridge
LEGEND:
Limits Of Roadway
120+00 125+00 130+00 135+00 140+00 145+00 150+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
f
t
)
AERIAL VIEW (PLAN)
ELEVATION VIEW (PROFILE)
Track (Shoofly)
Temporary
Track
New Permanent
Lowering
Robles Park
Outlet
Grocery
Church
Methodist
United
St Andrew's
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek
0.3%
1.0%
1.0%
TEMPORARY TRACKSCALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (EAST)
CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (WEST)
ELEV. 50.2
TOP OF RAIL
ELEV. 53.8
TOP OF RAIL
ROADWAY
ROADWAY
(TYP)
EMBANKMENT
RETAINED
HYBRID PROFILE
UNDERPASS
BRIDGE
UNDERPASS
BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN
CONSTRUCTION
ENDNEW TRACKS
LIMITS OF ROADWAY
LOWERING
LIMITS OF ROADWAY
LOWERING PALO ALTO
CITY LIMIT
1% grade is thecurrent maximum
without variancebut will soon be
2%. Grades
between 1% and
2% will require
review andapproval by the
Director ofEngineering.
Provide 16.5
vertical clearance
for vehicular traffic
under the bridge
similar comment.
Provide 16.5 ftclearnace for
vehicular traffic
under the bridge.
Show required boxculvert or bridge
structure over
Barron Creek.
show proposed
box culvert orBridge overthe
Adobe creek.
Adjust the Begin
Construction limitto this location on
the plans.
modify begin
construction to
end of track
transition
Pleas indicate the
end of
construction at thislocationPlease show the
alignmentstationing to
coordinate thehight location with
the Profile shown
below.
Please modify theend of
construction tonew location
shown in other
comment. similar
to other side label
as begin track shift
Provide additional
width on thebridge to
accommodate
access road for
maintenance and
emergency
vehicles.
Please clarify ifthe shoofly
shown in plansis constructed
outside CaltrainROW? if so
indicate
required
construction
easement.
Recommend including a
Phasing plan in the design of the
walls to accommodate the
trailing end of the 4 Tracks
typical section and transitiondesign package centered at
California Station. Please coordinate with Caltrain Planing
department on the final
configuration.
show bridge or
culvert that span
almost the entire
100 ft wide
corridor
construct a bridge
or culvert to spanboth the temp
shoofly track and
the permanent
elevated structure.
Provide typical
section withdimensions
showing the trackencroachment into
Alma st row and
any temporary wall
or structure
needed to
accommodate
grading.
Hybrid alternative will
need to be further
evaluated to consider the
impacts to the railroad
and other utilies. Need tounderstand cost and
service implications,such as the construction
of an electrified Shoofly that will need a
two time relocation of
OCS poles, cables,
signals and fiber
adjacent to a regularCaltrain operations
Fill retaining walls to
accommodate 4-track andtransition between 2-track and
4-track
Transitionbetween 2-track
and 4-track
Alternative to accommodate4-track and transition between
2-track and 4-track Note design speed is110 mph for passenger
rail
Transition segment
should be tangent as
special trackwork shouldstay outside of the
vertical curves Maximum rail profile grade is currently 1%, higher than
1% requires a variance (as a last resort)—maximum will
be updated to 2%, grades above 1% subject to review
and approval from Director of Engineering
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
This location is
more indicative offull typical section
implementationout of the
transition zone.
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
Alma St
60
50
40
30
20
12+00 13+00
50
40
30
20
10
12+00 13+00
0.0%-0.5%-1.0%
Meadow Dr
Total length = 680 ft
1.5%1.0%
0.5%0.0%
21+0020+0019+0018+0017+0016+0015+0014+00
14+00
0.0%
-5.0%
0.3%
Min Vert Clr
15
'-6"
Total length = 460 ft
17+0016+0015+00 18+00 19+00
0.0%
Alma St
20+00 21+00
22+00
Design Speed = 35 MPH for Alma St
Design Speed = 25 MPH for W Meadow Dr
NOTE:
23+00
10
20
30
40
50
22+00
20
30
40
50
60
Original Ground
Original Ground
Plan & Profile
Meadow / Charleston Hybrid
Roadway Profile Grade
Roadway Profile Grade
Meadow Dr Aerial View (Plan)
Railroad Bridge Structure
Meadow Dr (Profile)
Alma St (Profile)
E
levati
on
(f
t)
Elevati
on
(f
t)
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND:
Retaining Wall
Limits of Roadway Modifications
Direction of Traffic
Permanent Track Alignment
Caltrain Right-of-Way
Driveway Modification
Bridge Structure
Sidewalk Modification
To San Francisco
To San Jose
W
M
eado
w
D
r
Park BlvdPark Blvd
E M
ea
do
w
D
r
Caltrain Right-of-Way (East)
Caltrain Right-of-Way (West)
Palo Alto
The hybrid
approach has agreat impact to
Caltrain
operations.
affecting the
access to the track during
maintenace andemergency
situation.Provide typical
section for Caltrainsection.
width not sufficientfor maintenance
vehicle Access
Adjust
wall/foundation
design andlocation to follow
Caltrain ROW andprovide room for
landscaping.
provide additionalwidth on the
bridge to
accommodate a
maintenance and
emergency vehicle access
Min vertical clearance
requirement is 16'-6" across
ROW
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at Meadow
Dr:Alma St STA XXX+XX = Meadow Dr STA XXX+XX
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Meadow Dr at Alma
St:
Meadow Dr STA XXX+XX = Alma St STA XXX+XX
Caltrain
R/W
Caltrain
R/W
3
3
2
1
1
11
1
Alma St
60
50
40
30
20
14+00 15+00
0.0%
Total length = 460 ft
Min Vert Clr
15
'-6"
-5.0%
16+00 17+00 18+00
0.3%
Alma St
19+00
0.0%
20+00 21+00
20
30
40
50
60 60
50
40
30
20
13+00 14+00
0.0%
15+00
-0.5%-1.0%1.5%1.0%0.5%0.0%
21+0020+0019+0018+0017+0016+00 22+00
20
30
40
50
60
Total length = 680 ft
Charleston Rd
Original Ground
Design Speed = 35 MPH for Alma St
Design Speed = 25 MPH for Charleston Rd
NOTE:
GroundOriginal
Plan & Profile
Meadow / Charleston Hybrid
Roadway Profile Grade
Roadway Profile Grade
Charleston Rd Aerial View (Plan)
Railroad Bridge Structure
Charleston Rd (Profile)Alma St (Profile)
Elevati
o
n
(f
t)
Elevati
o
n
(f
t)
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND:
Retaining Wall
Limits of Roadway Modifications
Direction of Traffic
Permanent Track Alignment
Caltrain Right-of-Way
Driveway Modification
Bridge Structure
Sidewalk Modification
To San Jose
Park Blvd
Park Blvd
W
C
harleston
Rd
E C
harleston
R
d
Ely PlLindero Dr
To San Francisco
Caltrain Right-of-Way (East)
Caltrain Right-of-Way (West)
Palo Alto
Provide minimum
16.5ft clearance
across Caltrain
ROW.
Recommend
maintaining the left
lane as a through
lane and drop the
right lane instead
especially when having a sudden
stop for drivewayconnections.
Please display
horizontal
geometry
stationing to match
the profile gradeand stations.
Please provide
additional width to
the bridge formaintenance and
emergency vehicleaccess.
Caltrain
R/W CaltrainR/W
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at CharlestonRd:
Alma St STA XXX+XX = Charleston Rd STA XXX+XX
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Charleston Rd at Alma
St:
Charleston Rd STA XXX+XX = Alma St STA XXX+XX3 3
3
3
1
1
(Roadway Partially Lowered, Railroad Partially Elevated)
Charleston Intersection
Ground Level View
(Between Meadow and Charleston)
Example Sections - Hybrid - Looking North
Meadow Drive Intersection
Proposed Hybrid Solution Overview - Looking South West
Typical Property West of Tracks
Backyard View - Looking East
Hybrid
Railroad Grade Separation Sections and Renderings
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Need to maintain
access road along
the corridor to
provide access
road for
maintenance and
emergencyvehicles
provide additional
width between
MSE wall and
shoofly Track
Center line a min20 ft for MSE
constructionduring an
electrified service
operation
The horizontal
layout of the
shoofly on the
aerial shows that
the track footprintencroaches into
Alma Street.Please verify.
Please label the
track CL offset to
ROW fence
Please provide
wall to walldimension label for
section.
use single OCS
pole system in themedian. cantilever
pole near the wallwill need a special
foundationinterfering with the
MSE wall straps
and sleeping slab
for the Noise wall.
Consider replacing
the MSE wall with
an earth slope.This approach will
require to a build atemporary wire
mesh wall then
backfill the dirt to
meet a 3:1 slope
and space for amaintenance road.
Please show noise
wall to scale to thewood fence below.
Typical section
shows 6ft sound
wall.
similar comments
the noise wallheight is not to
scale.
General note: Indicate vertical
elevation distances from top of rail.
Caltrain
R/W
Caltrain
R/W
10' min for maintenance access between
face of retaining walls/barriers and adjacent
obstruction/roadway
Confirm proximity of OCS
and centerline of tracks
Place permanent to
enable maintenance andmaximize utility of ROW
10' to maximizeutility of ROW
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
3 1
3
42nd Avenue, San Mateo
(Roadway Partially Lowered, Railroad Partially Elevated)
Holly Street, San Carlos
San Bruno Avenue, San Bruno
Brittan Avenue, San Carlos
Hybrid
Railroad Grade Separation Examples
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
E
L
V
E
R
A
N
O
A
V
E
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
Alma St
Park Blvd
Park Blvd
EMERSON ST
M
E
A
D
O
W
D
R
L
ID
E
R
O
D
R
T
E
N
N
N
E
S
E
E
L
N
F
E
R
N
E
A
V
E
LUNDY LANE
G
R
E
E
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
W
A
Y
FERNE CT
BEN LOMOND DR
LEGEND:
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 100 200
CHARLESTON RD
Landmark
Creek
Right Of Way
Caltrain
Ground Level
Existing
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
C
u
rtn
e
r A
v
e
V
e
n
tu
ra
A
v
e
B
A
R
R
O
N
C
R
E
E
K
A
D
O
B
E
C
R
E
E
K
2
0
.5
'
MEADOW DR
2
0
.5
'
0
20
40
60
80
MEADOW DR
0
20
40
60
80
E
L
E
V
A
T
IO
N
(
f
t
)
120+00 125+00 130+00 135+00 140+00 145+00 150+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00 175+00 180+00115+00110+00105+00
Tracks
Existing
Profile
Viaduct Track
AERIAL VIEW (PLAN)
ELEVATION VIEW (PROFILE)
Bridge
Track
New Permanent
Groundwater
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road - Plan and Profile - Viaduct
Outlet
Grocery
Robles Park
0.086%
Barron Creek
0.3%
-1.4%
Adobe Creek
-0.031%1.0%
CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (WEST)
CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (EAST)
DURING CONSTRUCTIONCONSTRUCTION
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
END
ELEV 61.80
TOP OF RAIL
ELEV 55.45
TOP OF RAIL
EXISTING TRACKS
TO REMAIN OPERATIONAL
AND REMOVED AT END
OF CONSTRUCTION
ROADWAY
ROADWAY
VIADUCT PROFILE
TRACKS ON VIADUCT
PROPOSED NEW
APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION
Church
Methodist
United
St Andrew's
CITY LIMIT
PALO ALTO
1% grade is the
current maximum
without variance
but will soon be2%. Grades
between 1% and2% will require
review and
approval by the
Director of
Engineering.
This portion of the
Transition to the
Viaduct will be
impacted by the 4tracking study that
center onCalifornia Station.
(Please coordinate
with Caltrain
Planningdepartment on this
issue)
increase clearanceto 24 FT to
accommodate
16.5 roadway
clearance.
The walls location
and construction
will need to
aligned with thefuture 4 tracking
typical section.
Existing box
culvert will need to
be replaced. The
original structurewas not designed
to handle theadditional 10ft of
soil load and theMSE wall.
Existing box
culvert will need to
be replaced. The
original structurewas not designed
to handle theadditional 10ft of
soil load and theMSE wall.
Please provide
16.5 ft roadway
clearance under
the structure.total
clearancepackage: 16.5ft +
5 ft structuraldepth+2.5ft track=
24 ft
Please confirmthat the viaduct
footprint is
constructed
outside Caltrain
ROW.
Fill retaining wall toaccommodate 4-track and
transition between 2-track and4-track
Alternative to accommodate4-track and transition
between 2-track and 4-track
Transition segment should be
tangent as special trackworkshould stay outside of the vertical
curves
Maximum rail profile grade is currently 1%, higher than1% requires a variance (as a last resort)—maximum will
be updated to 2%, grades above 1% subject to review
and approval from Director of Engineering
Note design speed is 110
mph for passenger rail
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Elevated)
Walnut Creek BART Station
Viaduct
Railroad Grade Separation Examples
BART Viaduct, El Cerrito, CA BART Viaduct at distance, El Cerrito, CA
Link Light Rail, East Marginal Way, Seattle, WA
nice light rail example. in our
case the Pier andGirder sections will
be heavier anddeeper to carry the
heavy rail and
UPRR load.
1
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Elevated)
(Typical Between Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd)
Example Section - Viaduct - Looking North
(Typical End Sections)
Example Section - Retained Fill - Looking North
(Typical Between Meadow Dr and Charleston Rd)
Track Level View - Looking North
Typical Property West of Tracks
Backyard View - Looking East
Meadow Drive Intersection
Proposed Viaduct Solution Overview - Looking South West
Charleston Road Intersection
Ground Level View - Looking South West
Viaduct
Railroad Grade Separation Sections & Renderings
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Label width of
structure min 47'having the pole in
the middle of thebridge this will
require more
clearance
requirement.
22 CL to CL track+25 outer buffer
with walkway.
we understand it is
just a structural
bridge concept.
we recommendusing Two
pre-cast posttensioned girder
tubs. the cast inplace box girder
shown will be
difficult to
construct. since
the form work andscaffolding will
interfere with thenearby
electrification
infrastructure in
the shoofly.
extend OCS
foundation to
connect with
bridge Pier.
Draw sound wall
height proportionalto the scale or
adjust wall heightto reflect the
correct 8 Foot max
height of the MSE
below. Now the
sound wallmeasure about 3 ft
tall
Max height of wall
should be 15ft. At
the abutment, the
pre-cast tubgirders are 4ft-5ft
deep plus 2.5ft fortrack. This would
leave 8.5 ft formaintenance and
landscaping
access.
20' Max need tobe increased to
include 16.5
clearance +6.5'
Girder depth
and track. = 23-
24 Max
label all sectionsdimensions and
not to scale (NTS)
Direct fixation is
good for transit
service, but notadequate when we
share the corridorwith Heavy axle
freight load
Please label
typical sectiondimensions.
indicate existing
fence to be
removed after
constructing MSE
wall. most of it willbe destroyed
duringconstruction block
maintenance
access.
Please show curbor fence location
with dimensions
tothe bridge Pier.
OCS height varies
more than 3 ftdepending on the
location and power
connection
Please labelhorizontal
dimensions for the
entire section
including
clearance from
Track CL to the
MSE
Evaluatehorizontal clear
zone requirementmaybe a conc
barrier wall is
necessary to
protect the
Caltrain Pier.
recommend
installing the
signal on the
bridge girder
instead of having a
hazardous Signalpole in the middle
of the intersection.
Caltrain toevaluate if signals
can be mounted to
bridge structure.
Agreement would
need to be
developed. it will
be saferinstallation and
more visible fortraffic
Same commentsregarding the
Sound wall height.not displayed as 6
ft tall. or this iscaused by the
perspective view
distortion? Please
check.
The plans showspart of the viaduct
constructed
outside Caltrain
ROW. Please
confirm
Please show the
Caltrain/Alma
ROW Limit. inaddition to the
encroachment asshown on plans.
General note: Indicatevertical elevation distances
from top of rail.
Elevation at top of retaining
wall should match elevation
at top of rail.
10' to maximize utility of
ROW 10' to maximize utility of
ROW
10' min for maintenance access between face of
retaining walls/barriers and adjacent
obstruction/roadway
16.5' min from
roadway to soffit
Confirm proximity
of OCS and
centerline of tracks
Confirm proximity of
OCS and centerline
of tracks
Place permanent to
enable maintenance andmaximize utility of ROW
Place permanent to
enable maintenance and
maximize utility of ROW
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
3
31
3
1
3
Meadow Drive Aerial View (Plan)
Meadow Underpass
Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning Study
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning
Alma St
Park BlvdPark Blvd
Emerson St
E
M
ea
do
w Dr
2nd St
100 ft500 ft
See note
See note
NOTE:
beacons, to be considered in future phases.
traffic signals and rectangular rapid flashing
Additional features at crosswalks, such as HAWK
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:
Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
Move exit taper
further north to
provide sufficient
decelerationdistance. (see
comments on stopBar turning traffic
gap on the right)
Curved bridge
design andHandrail are
complex, costlyand hard to
construct.recommend linear
cantilever chord
segments
The stop bar for the turning traffic is within the
taper exit deceleration segment of the ramp.Recommend moving the taper further north and
extending the tangent segment of the ramp toproperly provide adequate deceleration and
storage before coming to a full stop. The current
ramp configuration does not meet driver
expectancy and does not provide the driver with
sufficient distance to react when the signal is redfor turning traffic from the grocery outlet
supermarket.
The gap provided does not
provide sufficient weave
distance for Meadow ramp
traffic to merge with Alma
main line traffic, similarconflicting with Alma traffic
trying to exist for the rightturn/full stop auxiliary lane
to the Grocery Outletsupermarket and local
apartment complex.
Similar comments
as aboveregarding curved
bridgesconstructibility
Please increasethe bridge width to
provide access
road for
maintenance and
Emergency
vehicles.
please check thedeflection angle.
Recommend
extending the
transition length to
reduce the angleand provide
adequate driverreaction for a
sudden shift in
lane direction.
The wall
construction willrequire the
reconstructionextension of the
bike lane.need to
extend the pink
construction limit
Is this property a
full acquisition?
Please check if
you need a short
wall on this side ofthe return.
according to theprofile we have
almost 4-5 ft
difference in
elevation. Please
display stationing
on the horizontal
plan layout tocheck against the
proposed profileelevation
Please check if a
short wall is
needed on this
side of the bike
trail.
Please show CL
stationing tocorrelate with the
provided profile
stationing.
Provide a
minimum 2ft shydistance to the
barrier and crashcushion for
recovery
especially when
the lane is 11ft
wide.
Recommend
providing turning
median lane under
the bridges to
maintain free flow
traffic lane.Additional space
for turning lanecan be obtained by
reducing the
shoulder width and
bike lane shoulder
width shown inred.
Cut retaining wall to accommodatetransition between 2-track and 4-track
Section here is requested to show:
1, Relationship of depressed
Meadow Rd, retaining walls, and
Caltrain ROW
Proposed retaining walls not
within 4-track section mustbe outside of Caltrain ROW
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
Please provide to
sections for Alam
before and after
Meadow Dr.
3
3
11
3
13
3
3
3
Profiles & Typical Section
Meadow Dr Underpass
Meadow Dr Underpass
Typical Section
Meadow Dr Profile
Ped/Bike Profile from Park Blvd to Emerson St
(North Side of Meadow Dr)
Park Blvd Profile
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
11'
EB Lane
8'11'
WB Lane
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
Shld
8'
Shld
20'
2-Way Ped/Bike Path
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
58' ±
Meadow Dr (East of Alma St)
Typical Section - Modification of Meadow/Roundabout Concept
12'
Ped/Bike Path
101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
0Ped/Bike Path from Park Blvd to Emerson St
Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
200+00 201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
North Side
Side Street Profile from Park Blvd to Meadow
Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
20
30
40
50
60
400+00 401+00
20
30
40
50
60
Alma St
MT2
MT1
-0.5%
Total Length = 710 ft
St
Emerson
Original Ground
195' VC
296' VC
190' VC
15
' - 6"
-12%+10%
-1%
15
' - 6"
15
' - 6"
15
' - 6"
Blvd
Park
Profile Grade
Bridge
Ped/Bike
Bridge
Ped/Bike
MT1
MT2
100' VC
50' VC
Original Ground
8' - 0"
10
' - 0"
0%
-1%
-5%
+5%
St
Emerson
Profile Grade
Blvd
Park
St
AlmaBridge
Ped/Bike
10
' - 0"
Bridge
Ped/Bike
11
' - 0"
50' VC
35' VC
Ground
Original
0%
+8%
-2%
Grade
Profile
Dr
Meadow
bridge can bereplaced with Jack
and Bore Box.reduce impact to
Caltrain operations
and remove the
need to build a
shoofly with OCSrelocation twice.
K Value 13.6
below 10 MPH
design speed
steep grade
recommend
reducing to 9% or
7%
please indicate
location of section
even if typical
recommendincreasing the lane
width to 12 ft and
reducing the
shoulder to
accommodate thedouble strip width
at the center line.
recommend
extending the
profile limits to
reduce the 12%slope. same on
the opposite side.
Clearance is low.
Recommendproviding 10ft
clearance.
Min vertical clearancerequirement is 16'-6"
across ROW
CaltrainR/W Caltrain
R/W
Caltrain
R/W Caltrain
R/W
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at Meadow
Dr:Alma St STA XXX+XX = Meadow Dr STA XXX+XX
Steep grade limited
options for designflexibility
Steep grade limited optionsfor design flexibility 2
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
Recommend
providing a
minimum 2ft space
next to the barrier.
similar to opposite
side.
please increase
the bridge width to
provide access for
Maintenance and
emergency
vehicles.1
3
Reduce the fence
length since we do
not have a
pedestrian access
in that area, to
provide a clear
sight distance for
traffic on Alma St
merging with
ascending traffic
from meadow
3
Please check
horizontal
stopping sight
distance for
turning traffic into
the ramp if based
on free flow design
speed
3
Recommend
providing a 10ft
wide turning lane
in the median to
reduce risk of
accidents.3
Extend barrier to
close gap
if this turning
movement
includes bikes.
please improve
right shldr width at
Alma exit ramp
The drop lane
configuration not
adequate to
provide a merge
distance into main
traffic lane. see
comments in plan
view.the lane shift
deflection angle is
steep and exceed
8 degree for 30
MPH. recommend
extending the
widening further
north
Please provide
additional 2 ft
width next to the
barrier and crash
cushion.
Please provide
additional bridge
width to
accommodate
access to
maintenance and
emergency
vehicles.
3
1
3
3
3
3
Curved bridge
design and
Handrail are
complex, costly
and hard to
construct.
recommend linear
cantilever chord
segments
3
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:
Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
Planting Area
Ado
b
e Cr
Charleston Road Aerial View (Plan)
Charleston Underpass
Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning Study
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning
0 ft 175 ft87.5
Park Blvd
Alma St
Alma St
Park Blvd
W
Charleston
Rd
E
ly Pl
G
ree
nm
ea
dow
W
ay
E C
harleston
Rd
Mumford Pl
Wright Pl
Ruthelma Ave
Carlson Ct
Section here is requested to show:
1, Relationship of depressed CharlestonRd, retaining walls, and Caltrain ROW
Please label the
roundabout radius to
confirm if large
enough for trailer
trucks. Additional
inside shoulders helpachieve the desiredturning radius forlarger vehicles.
increase bridge widthto provide access forMaintenance andemergency vehicles.
Curved bridges
and rail arecostly to design
and build.
Recommend
curved linear
beam solution
with a curved
wider bridgeslab.
Will the concept
require fullacquisition of
property due toconcept impacting
property structure?
Recommendincreasing the lane
transition length to
reduce the sudden
12ft lane shift using
reverse curvature.
improve driverexpectation with asudden shift.
increase width of
bridge to 25 ftfrom Track CL
on both bridgesides for
maintenance
and emergency
access
Please explain the
additional width
under the bridge.
is it for turning
auxiliary lane orfor future roadway
widening.
Combine bridge to
reduce foundation
cost by not buildingtwo abutments.
Combine bridge to
reduce foundation
cost by notbuilding two
abutments.
Replace bridge
structure with Box
jacking to avoid
constructingshoofly and OCS
relocation
Identify full
propertyacquisitions due to
roundabout.
It is possible to
adjust stop bar
location closer to
the bridge. since
cross walk notprovided and will
reduce left turntraveled distance.
Increase rampwidth to provide
space to pass a
stalled vehicle. the
travel lane is
constrained bywalls on both
sides. Refer toCaltrans and
AASHTOstandards for
minimum ramp
widths.
Check ramp widthin constrained
areas if sufficient
pavement width is
provided to pass a
stalled vehicle.
show ramp and
mainline stationing
to associate profile
location and
grades.
Identify full
property
acquisitions due to
roundabout.
is this property fullacquisition?
Will the
concept require
full acquisition
of property due
to impactingproperty
structure?
need to provideadditional shldr
width for recovery
space on both
sides of the walls..
Based on the
provided profile,additional wall will
be longer thenwhat is shown.
Please update to
display stationing
for confirmation.
extend full width
Shldr to the end of
construction. donot recommend
taperingemergency shldr
Confirm the intentof the roadway
modification here.Is it being
proposed to make
Ely Ply a one-way
street or restricting
the turningmovement onto
Ely Pl from AlmaSt? Please provide
traffic directions
and labels to
clarify.
we can use
circular ramp
access to reduce
impact on
properties.
Looking at the aerial photo the traffic volume
back up to make right turn into Charleston islarge filling two auxiliary right turn lanes.
Please explain how this right turn trafficvolume is accommodated in the new grade
crossing configuration. Incase needed, a rightturn single lane ramp with walls on both sides
can be constructed with minor extension of the
ped and Charleston bridge to Caltrain ROW.
The turning movement into Charleston will be
controlled by a right turn signal. Please notethat additional width to Caltrain bridge is
needed to accommodate the Maintenance andEmergency vehicle access across Charleston.
Do we need a right
turning movement.
see comments onthe plans.
1
3
3
3
3
3
13
3
1
3
3
3
2
2 3
3
1
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
Profiles & Typical Section
Charleston Underpass
Park Blvd Profile (North Side)
Charleston Rd Profile
Ped/Bike Profile from Park Blvd to Wright Pl
EB Charleston Rd to SB Alma St
Ramp Profile
Typical Section - Charleston Rd Underpass PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 109+00
Charleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
Ramp Profile from Charleston to Alma
Charleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
Ped/Bike Path from Park Blvd to Mumford
Charleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
-5%+4%
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
300+00 301+00 302+00 303+00 304+00 305+00 306+00 307+00299+00298+00
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
Park Blvd Profile
Charleston Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
-9%+12%
20
30
40
50
60
20
30
40
50
60
201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00
Ramp Profile from Charleston to AlmaCharleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
200+00 201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
11'
EB Lane
12'
EB Lane
8'
5'
Sidewalk
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
11'
WB Lane
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
Shld
8'
Shld
14'
WB Lane
20'
2-Way Ped/Bike Path
~12'
Typical Section - Charleston Rd (East of Alma St - Looking East)
Alma St
MT2 MT1
Grade Separation Structure
Park Blvd
Wright Pl
Bridge
Ped/Bike
186' VC
296' VC
190' VC
15
'-6"
15
'-6"-12%
+10%
-1%
-1%
Original Ground
Profile Grade
16
'-3"
MT2
MT1
Alma St
Wright Pl
50' VC10
'-0"
150' VC 10
'-0"
-1%
Profile Grade
Original Ground
Blvd
Park
Road Profile
Governed by
-1%-1%
70' VC
70' VC
20' VC
Profile Grade
Original Ground
Charleston Rd
-2%
55' VC
+9%
425' VC
0%
Profile Grade
Original Ground
All vertical clearnaces
need to be 16.5 ft per
caltrain new standard.
14 ft wide ramp withbarrier on both sidesdo not provideadequate width for
passing a stalled
vehicle. refer to
Caltrans and
AASHTO standards
for min ramps width.
grade extremely
steep descending
25 ft in 350 ft at
12%. the current K
for sight distance =13.6 below K = 19
for 20MPH seeCaltrans fig 201.5
2020 design
manual
It's not clear the
location of this
profile low point.
please showstationing on
plans.
U Tub structure
not required.
recommend toconvert this wall to
MSE wall. samenote on the other
wall
This wall can beconverted to MSE
wall since
excavation is
required. this
option would bemore economical
No need to build aU tube walls.
replace withcantilever or
soldier pile wall.
combine bridges
to reduce the cost
of dual abutment
please show
Design speed and
K values.
Bridge shouldmatch the rail
elevation since we
are not lowering
the rail profile
unless a boxtunnel is being
proposed.
Clearance varies.
please clarify if
these structuresare BOX Tunnels
or bridges
Caltrain
R/W
Caltrain
R/W
CaltrainR/W CaltrainR/W
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at CharlestonRd:
Alma St STA XXX+XX = Charleston Rd STA XXX+XX
Steep grade limited options fordesign flexibility
2
3
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
Steep grade limited options
for design flexibility.
Recommend
removing fence as
it obstructs drivers
from seeing the
merging traffic.
Fence is
unnecessary as
there are no
sidewalks or
pedestrian
facilities in the
vicinity. In case,
fence is preferred
by the City,
recommend
reducing the
height to provide
better sight
distance to drivers.
Fencing not
necessary if
pedestrian
facilities are not
located near the
concrete traffic
barrier
3 3
Please provide
additional shldr
width on both
sides of the
ramps. for safe
recovery near the
barrier. Similar to
other comments
need to comply
with ramp width
requirement to
pass a Stalled
vehicle.
Fencing not
required same
comments as
before. no
pedestrian
facilities near conc
Barrier. in addition
it reduce the driver
sight distance
until pass the gore
area. in case still
need to install,
recommend
shortening the
length based on
height, providing
better sight
distance to the
drivers.
Fencing not
required. no
pedestrian
facilities near conc
Barrier
3
3
3
Combine bridge to
reduce foundation
cost by not
building two
abutments.
Combine bridge to
reduce foundation
cost by not
building two
abutments.
32
Curved bridges
and handrail are
costly due to
design complexity
and cost to
construct
Increase width of
bridge to 25 ft from
Track CL on both
bridge sides for
maintenance and
emergency
access.1
3
Recommend
combining bridge
over Charleston
and pedestrian
bridge into a two
span bridge to
reduce foundation
costs by removing
need for two
abutments.
Ramp width not
sufficient to pass a
stalled vehicle.
See other
comments.
1
3
Please explain the
need for additional
widening width
under Caltrain
bridge. is this for
future lane?
please clarify2
Increase bridge
width as per
previous note.
Increase bridge
width to provide
sight distance for
turning vehicles
left, in addition to
having the conc
barrier obstructing
the driver sight for
for approaching
biker on the right
intersecting with
the ascending
ramp.
Recommend
combining both
bridge over
Charleston and
Pedestrian in a
two span bridge or
box to reduce
foundation
redundancy cost
building two
abutments.
Both bridge can be
replaced with Two
boxes similar to
the crossing under
the rail. no need
for Shoofly and
relocation of OCS
to build the
bridges
Ramp width not
sufficient to pass a
stalled vehicle.see
other comments
3
1
3
3
2
Recommend
increasing the
ramp width to pass
a stalled vehicle.
similar to the other
ascending
opposite ramp. 3
Recommend
increasing the
shoulder width or
shy distance near
the crash cushion
to allow for safe
recovery. 3
Connecting Palo Alto Projects
Caltrain Technical Review
January 23, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org1
Purpose
2
Purpose
•Rail Committee’s review of comments to provide guidance to staff on
specific elements.
•Direct staff to proceed coordination with Caltrain Staff or their Consultants and/or City’s project consultant for material changes to alternatives
Background
3
•Select Preferred Alternative to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering and Environmental PhaseGoal
•Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)Grant Funding Agreement in place by July 1, 2024.Objective
•Rail Committee to provide guidance to on implementing design changes sufficient to support the goal.Guidance
Background
4
CAP &
XCAP
•Alternatives developed, reviewed and updated (2018 -July 2020)
•Community Outreach & Community Feedback (August –October 2020)
•Deliberation and Recommendation to City Council (November 2020 -March 2021)
City
Council
•Council Review and Discussion
•Meadow Drive –Charleston (Narrowed Alternatives) -August 2021
•Churchill Avenue (Preferred Alternative & Backup Selection) -November 2021
Rail
Committee
•Reviewed and Refined underpass alternatives (June 2023)
•Reviewed and updated Council Adopted criteria
•Conducted Review of Preliminary Geotechnical
Caltrain /JPB
Review
•Service Agreement with Caltrain (June 2023)
•Technical Review and Comments to City November 2023
Overview of Caltrain Capital Project Management Process
5
Major Elements
6
Vertical Alignment
Vertical Clearance
Bridge Structure Elevation (Viaduct Only)
Railroad Grade Profile
Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Clearance
Horizontal Alignment
Roadway Encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities Encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Railroad Encroachment into City’s ROW
Retaining Wall offset/clearance from structures and roadways
Maintenance Access requirement along the railroad tracks
Clearance for MSE Wall construction during construction and
maximize use of ROW
Four Track Segment
Four Track segments and Roadway encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Four Tracking Alignment
Roadway Design
Road Profile, Sag Curves, Grades etc.
Offset from Barriers
Acceleration/Deceleration Lanes, Lane drops,
weaving distance, etc.
Roundabout Design
Curved bridges
Construction Technology
Shoofly vs Box Jacking
Culverts
Reconstructing and extending culverts
Cost Estimates
Preliminary Cost Estimates
Cumulative Concerns
Compounded impacts from above comments
Vertical Alignment (Correction)
7
1. Vertical Dimensions (Roadway Vertical Clearance required across Caltrain
ROW )
Vertical Clearance for vehicular traffic under the Railroad (Increase from 15.5’ to
16.5’)
Likely affects
length of
roadway profileMeadow Charleston -Hybrid
Profile View
Min vertical clearance is
16’-6” across ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Min vertical
clearance is 16’-6”
across ROW
Caltrain
ROW Caltrain
ROW
Meadow Drive Underpass
Vertical Alignment (Correction)
8
2. Vertical Dimensions (Top of Rail to Top of Roadway –Viaduct Alternative only)
Vertical Clearance for vehicular traffic under the Railroad (Increase from 20.5’ to 24.0’)
Provide 24’
vertical distance
Provide 24’
vertical distance
Likely affects
length of
roadway profile
Meadow Charleston -Viaduct Alternative
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue
9
Churchill Closure with Mitigations -Option 1
•New active transportation facilities should be placed outside of Caltrain ROW. If not, they are subject to JPB Board approval
* No Changes for Churchill Avenue Closure with Mitigations Option 2
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue –Closure Option 1
10
Plan View
Section A-A
Section B-B
4-Track Influence Area
Transition between 2-Track and 4-TrackNew active
transportation
facilities should be
placed outside of
Caltrain ROW. If not,
subject to JPB Board
approval.
Extend tunnel to
extent of Caltrain
ROW
Relocate stairs
outside of
Caltrain ROW. If
not, subject to
JPB Board
approval.
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue –Closure Option 2
11
Alma St
Mariposa
Ave
Plan View
Section A-A
Section B-B
4-Track
Influence Area
Transition between 2-Track
and 4-Track
Show lane
width and
shoulder
dimension
s
No Major/Significant
Concerns
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue
12
Churchill -Partial Underpass
•New active transportation facilities should be placed outside of Caltrain ROW.
If not, they are subject to JPB Board approval.
•Adjust retaining walls outside of Caltrain ROW.
•Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain
ROW—will require reprofiling of roadway
•Bridge width to provide access for Caltrain maintenance and emergency vehicles.
•Roadway design to meet Caltrans HDM/AASHTO ‘Greenbook’/AASHTO
‘Highway Safety Manual’
Profile View
Extend bridge width to
Caltrain ROW to provide
access to Caltrain
maintenance and emergency
vehicles
4-Track Influence Area
Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track
New active transportation
facilities should be placed
outside of Caltrain ROW.
If not, subject to JPB
Board approval.
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue –Partial Underpass
13
Roadway & Walls to
be outside of
Caltrain ROW
Provide 16’-6”
vertical clearance
Will affect length
roadway profile,
ROW, Driveways,
intersection,etc.
Other elements:
•Merging taper/median
design
•Offset from barriers
•Lane width etc.
•Curved bridges
Summary of Comments –Meadow Drive & Charleston Road
14
Meadow Charleston -Underpass
•Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain
ROW—will require reprofiling of roadway.
•Provide bridge width to provide access for Caltrain maintenance and emergency vehicles.
•Adjust retaining walls outside of Caltrain ROW to accommodate 4-track and 4-
track transitions, provide sufficient space (10’ min) for maintenance vehicle
access, and maximize utility of Caltrain ROW.
•Roadway design to meet Caltrans HDM/AASHTO ‘Greenbook’/AASHTO ‘Highway Safety Manual’
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr -Underpass
15
Plan View (Meadow Drive)
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track
Adjust wall/foundation design
and location to be outside of
the Caltrain ROW. Additional
width is not needed for turning
lane sight distance.
Min vertical clearance is
16’-6” across ROW,
which will impact ROW,
Driveways, road profile.
Min vertical
clearance is 10’
across ROW
Caltrain
ROW Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Increase bridge width to
provide access road for
maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Steep grade limits
options for design
flexibility
Summary of Comments –Charleston Rd -Underpass
16
Plan View (Meadow Drive)
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track
Min vertical clearance is 16’-
6” across ROW,which will
impact ROW,Driveways, road
profile.
Min vertical
clearance is 10’
across ROW
Caltrain
ROW Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Increase bridge width to
provide access road for
maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Steep grade limits
options for design
flexibility
Summary of Comments –Meadow Drive & Charleston Road
17
Meadow Charleston -Hybrid
•Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain
ROW.
•Adjust retaining walls to accommodate 4-track and 4-track transitions.
•Provide sufficient space (10’ min) for maintenance vehicle access and
maximize utility of Caltrain ROW.
•Provide sufficient space (10’ min) clearance from the walls to the roadway or structures
•Construction of permanent MSE walls to be at 20’ from center of shoofly
track—constructability clearance from OCS and active railroad.
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd -Hybrid
18
Plan View
Profile
Fill retaining walls to accommodate 4-
track and transition between 2-track
and 4-track
1% grade is the current maximum
without variance. 1% to 2% grade
requires review and approval by the
Director of Engineering
Min vertical clearance requirement
is 16’-6” across ROW
Provide additional width on the
bridge to accommodate access
road for maintenance and
emergency vehicles
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track
Design speed is 110
mph for passenger
rail
Transition segment should
be tangent as special
trackwork should stay
outside of vertical curves
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr -Hybrid
19
Profile View
Plan View
Typical Section
Min vertical clearance is
16’-6” across ROW
CaltrainROWCaltrainROW
10’ to maximize
utility of ROW
10’ min for maintenance
access between face of
retaining walls/ barriers and
adjacent
obstruction/roadway
Confirm proximity of OCS
and centerline of tracks
Width not
sufficient for
maintenance
vehicle access
Provide additional
width on the bridge to
accommodate a
maintenance and
emergency vehicle
access
Summary of Comments –Charleston Rd -Hybrid
20
Min 16’6”
clearance across
Caltrain ROW
Plan View
Profile View
Min vertical
clearance is 16’-6”
across ROW
10’ to maximize
utility of ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
10’ min for maintenance access
between face of retaining walls/
barriers and adjacent
obstruction/roadway
Confirm proximity of OCS
and centerline of tracks
Provide additional
width to the bridge
for maintenance and
emergency vehicle
access
Typical Section
Summary of Comments –Meadow Drive & Charleston Road
21
Meadow Charleston -Viaduct
•Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain ROW—will require reprofiling of roadway and/or Caltrain tracks.
•The vertical dimension from the top of the roadway to the top of the rail should be 24’ instead of 20’ to accommodate 5-foot bridge depth and 2’-6” Rail.
•Provide bridge width to provide access for Caltrain maintenance and emergency
vehicles.
•Adjust retaining walls to accommodate 4-track and 4-track transitions.
•Provide sufficient space (10’ min) for maintenance vehicle access and maximize utility of Caltrain ROW.
•Construction of permanent MSE walls to be at 20’ from center of shoofly track—
constructability clearance from OCS and active railroad.
•Roadway design to meet Caltrans HDM/AASHTO ‘Greenbook’/AASHTO ‘Highway Safety Manual’
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd -Viaduct
22
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track Fill retaining walls to accommodate 4-
track and transition between 2-track
and 4-track
1% grade is the current maximum
without variance. 1% to 2% grade
requires review and approval by the
Director of Engineering
Increase distance roadway to top of
rail to 24’ to accommodate 16’-6”
roadway clearance
Design speed is 110
mph for passenger
rail
Transition segment should be tangent as
special trackwork should stay outside of
vertical curves
Plan View
Profile
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd -Viaduct
23
Place the permanent track
alignment to enable
maintenance and maximize
utility of ROW
16’-6” min
from roadway
to soffit
10’ min for maintenance
access between face of
retaining walls/ barriers and
adjacent
obstruction/roadwayConfirm proximity of OCS
and centerline of tracks
Extend OCS
foundation to
connect with
bridge pier
The plans show
part of the viaduct
constructed
outside Caltrain
ROW
Typical End Section Typical Section
Next Steps
24
Next Steps
The goal is to provide sufficient information for Rail Committee to evaluate
alternatives and make recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, Staff is seeking
•Rail Committee’s review of comments to provide guidance to staff on
specific elements.
•Direct staff to proceed coordination with Caltrain Staff or their Consultants and/or City’s project consultant for material changes to alternatives
25