HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2402-2675CITY OF PALO ALTO
Rail Committee
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 19, 2024
2:30 PM
Agenda Item
1.Review of the Grade Separation Alternatives for Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and
Charleston Road Crossings, including Consideration of Caltrain's Staff Comments; Provide
Feedback and Direction to Staff; and Recommend that Council Advances (or Eliminates)
Specific Alternative(s) for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation
Phase. Presentation, Public Comment
Rail Committee
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEM
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: March 19, 2024
Report #:2402-2675
TITLE
Review of the Grade Separation Alternatives for Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and
Charleston Road Crossings, including Consideration of Caltrain's Staff Comments; Provide
Feedback and Direction to Staff; and Recommend that Council Advances (or Eliminates) Specific
Alternative(s) for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation Phase.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends that the Rail Committee:
1. Review of the Grade Separation Alternatives for Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and
Charleston Road Crossings, including consideration of Caltrain's Staff comments;
2. Provide Feedback and Direction to Staff; and
3. Recommend that Council Advances (or Eliminates) Specific Alternative(s) for Preliminary
Engineering and Environmental Documentation Phase
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City and Caltrain staff met to understand the potential impacts of addressing the
Caltrain comments and adhering to Caltrain Standards on the conceptual design alternatives
and to discern the high-level material changes required for the concepts. This agenda Item
aims to present key findings on the impacts to various alternatives and discuss the material
changes necessary for these alternatives. Staff therefore seeks the Rail Committee review,
feedback, and direction for advancing alternatives into the next phase.
City Council in 2021 selected the preferred alternative for Churchill Avenue crossing and
narrowed the alternatives in consideration to three alternatives for Meadow and Charleston
Road crossings for grade separation and directed to further refine underpass alternatives and
conduct additional studies. Staff under the guidance and direction of the Rail Committee
updated the underpass alternatives, conducted additional studies, and updated the Council
Adopted Evaluation Criteria.
In addition, the City staff reached out to Caltrain in 2022 requesting the evaluation of the four-
tracking segment needs and other concerns with the design criteria. To address these concerns
Caltrain initiated the Caltrain Corridor Study and the City also entered into a service agreement
with Caltrain in June 2023 outlining their role in providing support for early coordination,
technical input, and expertise. In late 2023, Caltrain staff conducted their initial technical
review, provided feedback to City Staff with technical comments, and also provided their initial
analysis of the four tracking segment locations in Palo Alto.
Staff discussed the Caltrain comments at the January Rail Committee meeting and presented
the details of major elements affecting various alternatives identifying initial impacts on
alternatives for adherence to updated Caltrain Standards. At this meeting, the Rail committee
directed staff to coordinate with Caltrain staff to determine the material changes needed for
the alternative concepts to address updated standards guiding the substantial changes in the
concepts of the alternatives.
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 then,
the Partial Underpass alternative for Churchill Avenue and Underpass alternatives for
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road have been refined with input from various stakeholders
(Staff Report 2302-09731). In addition, a subsurface exploration was completed, and a
preliminary geotechnical report was prepared by the consultant for review of these
alternatives (Staff Report 2307-17472)
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) (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, the feasibility of LPAs,
and positioning the projects for successful implementation. The city staff has been reaching
out to Caltrain staff for their review, however, asked formally in June 2022 requesting for
evaluation of four tracking segment needs and other concerns with the design criteria.
As a result, Caltrain embarked upon the Caltrain Corridor Strategy Project to review the
1 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=1717&type=0
2 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=2688&type=0
concerns of various local agencies with projects along the corridor including an analysis of
four-tracking needs, and in early 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 are 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.
In November 2023, the Caltrain Staff provided an update on the four-tracking analysis at a
Rail Committee Study Session (Caltrain Presentation3). In addition, the City also received
technical review comments from Caltrain staff on the Partial Underpass and Closure with
Mitigation Alternatives at Churchill Avenue and for Hybrid, Viaduct, and Underpass
Alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings. These comments were
discussed in detail at the January 23, 2024 Rail Committee meeting (Staff Report 2311-
23034). At this meeting, the Rail committee directed staff to coordinate with Caltrain staff to
determine the material changes needed for the alternative concepts to address updated
standards guiding the substantial changes in the concepts of the alternatives.
ANALYSIS
Following the directions of the Rail Committee, City and Caltrain staff convened to discuss the
potential impacts of addressing Caltrain comments and adhering to Caltrain Standards on the
conceptual design alternatives, and to identify the high-level material changes required for the
concepts. Based on discussions, it was determined that several changes to the alternatives will
be required that will have major impacts on the various alternatives. The following summary
provides the high-level changes to the alignments for various alternatives.
Churchill Avenue:
Underpass: The Underpass alternative is viable with changes to the bridge design,
including increased width and length, with limited encroachment on the Caltrain ROW.
However, there are concerns about the encroachment of pedestrian crossing on the
west side railroad tracks for Kellogg Avenue bicycle and pedestrian crossing.
Closure with Mitigation Option 1: (Ramps parallel to railroad tracks at grade Alma
crossing) This option will be viable, but it will require narrow widths for bicycle and
pedestrian ramps and will necessitate aligning these ramps outside of the Caltrain right
of way with minimum encroachments.
3 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=0&type=7&uid=d2057565-6b16-44eb-b5eb-2a021fad2f24
4 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=0&type=7&uid=562ad105-2798-43bf-9d47-6947f2c40697
Closure with Mitigation Option 2: (Ramps perpendicular to railroad tracks and crosses
under Alma Street and railroad tracks) This option will be viable as presented.
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road
Trench Alternative: Further analysis of the trench alternative has been paused by the
Rail Committee mainly due to its high cost and feasibility challenges in accommodating
and addressing the four tracking needs of Caltrain and California High Speed Rail.
Hybrid Alternative: The existing alignment of rail in the hybrid alternative is proposed to
be realigned, considering factors such as jog in the railroad right of way, future four
tracking needs, shoofly placement, utilization of the railroad right of way, safety
requirements, constructability, and Caltrain standards. This realignment will cause
additional lane reductions during construction on Alma Street, Meadow Drive, and
Charleston Road than previously considered. The proposed alignment is viable with
refinements.
Viaduct Alternative: The existing alignment of the viaduct is proposed to be realigned,
considering factors such as jog in the railroad right of way, future four tracking needs,
shoofly placement, utilization of the railroad right of way, safety requirements,
constructability, and Caltrain standards. This realignment will cause the need for
additional encroachment on the City’s right of way for permanent placement of the
viaduct and approach structures resulting in a reduction of available traffic lanes on
Alma Street. In addition, the additional lane reductions at Alma Street, Meadow Drive,
and Charleston Road during construction will be more severe than previously
considered. It is also noted that Caltrain would like to retain the existing at-grade tracks
for railroad purposes.
Underpass Alternatives: The existing alignment of this rail alternative will, for the most
part, remain at its existing location; however, adjustments will be needed for
compliance with updated rail standards. Bridge widening is required to accommodate
access to maintenance and emergency vehicles, resulting in a wider bridge. Additionally,
the pedestrian bridge needs to be raised to comply with standards. The vertical
clearance required for vehicular traffic can be accommodated with a sacrificial beam
and agency agreements.
Staff therefore seeks the Rail Committee's review and feedback on the Grade Separation
Alternatives for Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings considering
accommodation of Caltrain's Staff Comments and direction on the recommended preferred
alternative(s) for advancement of the selected alternatives into the Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Documentation phase for Council consideration and direction.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Revisions to existing conceptual plans will require consultant support. The existing contract
with AECOM expires on April 22, 2024. Therefore, an amendment to the Consultant contract
will be needed to perform additional services.
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
design for the grade separation project will be performed in the subsequent steps of the
Project.
ATTACHMENTS
None
APPROVED BY:
Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official
Connecting Palo Alto Projects
Caltrain Technical Review Results
March 19, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org1
City and Caltrain Staff
City Staff
•Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official
•Ripon Bhatia, Senior Engineer
Caltrain Staff
•Robert Barnard,Chief, Rail Design and Construction
•Mike Rabinowitz, Principal Planner
•Navi Dhaliwal, Government & Community Affairs Officer
•Edgar Torres, Consultant, Kimley Horn and Associates
2
Purpose
3
Purpose
•Review of the Grade Separation Alternatives for Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings, including Consideration of Caltrain’s Review and Results
•Rail Committee’s reviews and provide guidance and directions to staff.
•Recommend that Council Advances (or Eliminates) Specific Alternative(s) for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation.
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 (May 2023)
•Conducted Review of Preliminary Geotechnical (August 2023)
•Study Session of Caltrain four-track segment analysis (November 2023)
•Discussion of Caltrain comments with Rail Committee (January 2024)
•Reviewed Updated Summary of Evaluation Criteria (February 2024)
AGENDA
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Schedule
Caltrain’s Results of
Process by Alternative
Draft and deliberative -For discussion purposes only
Executive Summary
Next Steps
Project Planning
6
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov
City
Caltrain
VTA
FRA
Rail
Committee
City
Council
City and Caltrain to collaborate for Selection of alternatives to
advance into next phase
Develop Service Agreement and/or Cooperative Agreement
with VTA, Caltrain, City for PE & Env Phase
City and Caltrain collaborate to develop and execute agreement with FRA
Review Alternatives Recommend Local
Preferred Alternative(s)
City Council to review and select
Locally Preferred Alternative(s) for
next phase
Begin PE & Environmental
Prepare and Execute Funding Agreement
Execute FRA Funding Agreement
Next Steps
7
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 and selection of preferred alternative for recommendation to the City Council
•Study session with City Council (April 2024)
•City Council to select preferred alternative for advancement into Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation phase for Meadow and Charleston Crossing (May/June 2024)
•Execute Agreement with FRA and Service Agreement/Cooperative
Agreement for Preliminary Engineering & Environmental with Caltrain &
VTA
CONNECTING PALO ALTO CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES TECHNICAL REVIEW
M A R C H 1 9 , 2 0 2 4
Caltrain’s engagement on Connecting Palo Alto Alternatives
•Execute Service agreement
•Initial review against Caltrain’s 2024 standards and policies
•Meetings with Palo Alto staff to share initial observations
•Presentation to Palo Alto’s January Rail Committee of initial observations
•Today -presentation with an intent to focus on developing solutions
Caltrain’s Engagement
Developed draft solutions based on available planning
level information
•Deeper dive analysis to support decision-making
•Seeking to balance needs of railroad and community
•Maintain utility of region’s investment in Caltrain
•Enable community’s vision for Palo Alto
•Intent to minimize additional private property impacts
Caltrain’s Partnership
Caltrain Partnership
1/29 •Engineering Team workshop of potential design and constructability solutions for all alternatives
(internal)
1/30 •Shared potential design and constructability solutions with City
•Received Questions from City
1/31
•Caltrain Team met with Chief Safety Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Director of Engineering
regarding solutions and questions (internal)
•Shared feedback on design and constructability solutions with City
2/1 •Caltrain Team met with Executive Director regarding solutions and Caltrain expectations (internal)
2/2 -2/9 •Caltrain Team begins applying direction to exhibits and materials (internal)
•Ongoing coordination between City staff and Caltrain
2/13 and 2/16 •Caltrain Team shares materials with City staff
3/19 •Rail Committee presentation
Steps Guiding Solution-Oriented Thinking
Reviewed Connecting Palo Alto Alternatives with a focus on
•Safety –Constructability
•Engineering –Practical Constraints
•Maintenance and Operations
•Policy and Agreements –Ensure projects are designed to meet Caltrain's future railroad needs and preserve property rights.
•Design Criteria “Preserve the existing ROW” (2007, 2011, 2020, 2024)
•Rail Corridor Use Policy (RCUP) (2020)
•Property Conveyance and fee schedule policy (2010, 2021)
•California High Speed Rail Authority agreements
•Union Pacific Railroad agreements
Caltrain’s Focus of Review
Railroad property is Caltrain’s most valuable and durable asset
•Caltrain will explore encroachments through revocable license agreements subject to
appraisals, annual fees escalated at CPI, and Board approval via the RCUP and Property Conveyance processes.
•For all alternatives and configurations requiring temporary use of Palo Alto right-of-
way, a future "construction, operation, and maintenance agreement" between the City and Caltrain is needed.
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Current at-grade crossings support
Caltrain’s use of its full ROW width
for railroad purposes
2021 Conveyance Policy
“Staff will analyze the request to
ensure . . . applicant’s
improvements are designed to be
compatible with the broadest range
of possible transportation
alternatives for the entire width of
the ROW”
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.
Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative.
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Provide a minimum 15’-6”
vertical clearance with
variance and sacrificial
beams across entire
width of Railroad ROW
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.
Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative.
•City designs that do not allow for above may proceed, but City will be responsible for re-building roads, or the incremental cost to the railroad to utilize the Caltrain ROW.
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.
Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative.
Executive Summary
Churchill Summary of Findings
Alternative Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
High-level
Findings
•Roadway and railroad
improvements viable with
refinements to Alma Street cross
section
•Bikeway western encroachment
into Caltrain ROW not viable
•Reduce width of pathway facility to
fit within available 25’ expired easement
or widen to the west
•Or relocate pathway undercrossing
to Seale Ave/Peers Park (under
preliminary review by others)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
•Moderately
viable with
refinements,less
than optimal eastern
ramp width (~7’)
•Wider eastern
ramp would impact
Alma Street travel
lanes
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
•Viable
as shown
Viaduct
•Viable with refinements
•Permanent impact to Alma travel
lanes for approach structures
(19’)
•Reducing the impact to Alma
travel lanes for approach
structures requires a new shoofly
track (6’)
•To retain use of Alma travel lanes
below viaduct requires a more
complex structure
•Caltrain to retain existing at grade
tracks for railroad purposes
Meadow/Charleston Summary of Findings
Alternative Hybrid
High-level
Findings
•Viable with refinements
•Includes elevating
width of Caltrain’s ROW
to retain utility
•Shoofly tracks will
impact Alma travel lanes
(12’)during construction
Underpass
•Viable with
refinements
*Trench Alternative: At the City of Palo Alto’s request, Caltrain was not charged with reviewing the trench alternative after it was replaced by
the viaduct alternative within the Service Agreement.
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Maximum 3’ encroachment into Caltrain, revocable license agreement is required, subject to appraisal, annual fee (indexed to CPI), and Board approval
Churchill Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing
Interior of bridge to accommodate: 25’ offset from MT1 track center (towards Alma St) and 12.5’ offset from MT2 track center (towards private property)
New tracks must be 15’ on center Widen railroad bridge to accommodate 12.5’ offset from MT 2
Remain in existing 25’ easement (expired) or widen to west
No further encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Existing 25’ easement for Embarcadero Bike Path has expired, a revocable license agreement is required, subject to appraisal, annual fee (indexed to CPI), and Board approval
Draft and deliberative -For discussion purposes only
Churchill Partial UnderpassExisting 25’ easement for Embarcadero Bike Path has expired, a revocable license agreement is required, subject to appraisal, annual fee (indexed to CPI), and Board approval
Churchill Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing
15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed with variance but will require a sacrificial beam with an agreement for the City to cover the cost (of repair and Caltrain operations) if beam were to be struck
Longer bridge span to accommodate design vehicle turning templates
Churchill Partial Underpassw/ Kellogg Undercrossing
Churchill Partial Underpasswith Kellogg Undercrossing Summary
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Churchill Closurew/ Kellogg Underpass Summary
Under preliminary review by others:
Locate bike path at Seale Ave connecting
Peers Park
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
(With Kellogg Undercrossing LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Viable as shown
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Meadow/Charleston HybridTracks will be aligned as far west as the southern portion of ROW allows and retaining walls will be placed to maximize utility of Caltrain ROW
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Place western retaining wall at 10’ from residential property line.
Place eastern retaining wall after removal of shoofly on Alma St property line Temporary wall will be required between activation of hybrid tracks and removal of shoofly
Caltrain will be allowed to close a lane on Alma St to inspect retaining walls. Permits will be at no cost to Caltrain and will not be unreasonably withheld.
If bridge minimum vertical clearance (16’-6” or 15’-6” with a variance and sacrificial beam) is not achieved across Caltrain ROW, if in the future the full width is needed for Railroad purposes, it will be the City’s choice to rebuild road or pay incremental cost for raising portion of railroad corridor.
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Interim Condition
Shoofly tracks will impact Alma travel lanes
(12’) during construction
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Retained fill between temporary wall and Alma Street wall to maintain utility of Caltrain operating ROW.
Interim Condition Final Condition
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
80’
Implications of ROW Offset
at Meadow Drive
95’100’
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT2
MT1
Existing Condition
Main Track 1: MT1
Main Track 2: MT2
Example South of Meadow
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT2
MT1
Construction zone
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
construction barrier/fence
Build New Shoofly
Tracks along Alma
Shoofly 1: SF1
Shoofly 2: SF2
9'
26'
10'
18'
45'
SF2
SF1
Build SF1
Build SF2
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
Shoofly Tracks along Alma
operational
SF2
SF1
45’
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
temporary retaining wall
MT2
MT1
Build Hybrid and Approach Structures with
Permanent MT1 and MT2
SF2
SF1
New Main Track 1: MT1
New Main Track 2: MT2
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
temporary retaining wall
MT2
MT1
Remove Temporary Shoofly tracks along Alma
Street
Construction zone
SF2
SF1
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Shoofly tracks removed, prepare for next phase Construction zone
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Build Final Eastern Retaining Wall and Retain Fill
Final Retaining Wall
Construction zone
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Final Condition
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT1 MT2
MT1
MT2
SF1 SF2
25’ clearance between track
center and fence45’
NORTH of Meadow Avenue Bridge
Looking South Final
Existing
Source: Google Earth, Google Street View, April 2023, Accessed February 2024
Plan View
Meadow Drive
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid Summary
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid Summary
Plan View
Charleston Road
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Tie-ins will require additional engineering and constructability evaluation during Preliminary Engineering
Caltrain will retain use of remaining tracks for railroad purposes as it deems necessary.
With a 13’ translated shoofly, viaduct and approach structures will need to be placed over Alma Street ROW. Viaduct will be required to provide 16’6” vertical clearance from structure and appurtenances.
Approach structure approximately 1,600 feet long south of Charleston Road
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Main Track 1: MT1
Main Track 2: MT2
Example South of Charleston
Existing Condition
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Example South of Charleston
49.5’ 25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Construction zone
Viaduct and Approach Structure
Footprint without Shoofly
52’
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Example South of Charleston
Existing Condition
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
SF2
Build New Shoofly 2
Build SF2
Example South of Charleston
Shoofly 2: SF2
MT2
MT1
Draft and deliberative -For discussion purposes only
Example South of Charleston
SF1
SF2
Build Viaduct and Approach Structures with
Permanent MT1 and MT2
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Construction zone
52’
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Shoofly 1: SF1
Shoofly 2: SF2
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Example South of Charleston
Final Condition
Siding 2
Siding 1
Tracks to remain for future railroad use
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
MT2
MT1 52’
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
SF1
SOUTH of Charleston Road
Looking South
Using Shoofly Tracks
SF2MT2
MT1
52’
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Source: Google Earth, Google Street View, April 2023, Accessed February 2024
North of Meadow Viaduct
Approach structure approximately 1,600 feet long south of Charleston Road and 2,000 feet long north of Meadow Dr
South of Meadow Viaduct
Approach structure approximately 1,600 feet long south of Charleston Road and 2,000 feet long north of Meadow Dr
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Existing Tracks at Grade to Remain in Place
Viaduct and approach structures will need to be placed over/on Alma Street ROW
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Meadow UnderpassWill require revocable license agreement
Interior of bridge extend 25’ from MT1 (towards Alma Street) and 12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property)
Pedestrian bridges typically have additional vertical clearance due to vulnerable users
Place fence on Caltrain ROW line
Provide required OCS pole offset
Track alignment shifted to west
New tracks –15’ on track center
Meadow Underpass
•Interior of bridge over Meadow Dr to accommodate 25’offset from proposed MT1 track center (towards Alma St) and 12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property
•Add maintenance crossovers on either side of bridge over Meadow Dr
•15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed but will require a variance and sacrificial beam with an agreement for the City to cover the cost (of repair and Caltrain operations) if beam were to be struck
Meadow Underpass Summary
Pedestrian bridges typically have additional vertical clearance due to vulnerable users
Interior of bridge extend 25’ from MT1 (towards Alma Street) and 12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property)
Charleston Underpass
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Provide required OCS pole offset
Place fence on Caltrain ROW line
Track alignment shifted to west
New tracks -15’ on track center
Charleston Underpass
•Interior of bridge over Charleston Rd to accommodate 25’ offset from proposed MT1 track center (towards Alma St) and 12.5’offset from proposed MT 2 track center (towards private property)
•Add maintenance crossovers on either side of bridge over Charleston Rd
•15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed but will require a variance and sacrificial beam with an agreement for the City to cover the cost (of repair and Caltrain operations) if beam were to be struck
Charleston Underpass Summary
Plan View
Charleston Road
Next Steps
64
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 and selection of preferred alternative for recommendation to the City Council
•Study session with City Council (April 2024)
•City Council to select preferred alternative for advancement into Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation phase for Meadow and Charleston Crossing (May/June 2024)
•Execute Agreement with FRA and Service Agreement/Cooperative
Agreement for Preliminary Engineering & Environmental with Caltrain &
VTA
65
1
From:Bhatia, Ripon
Sent:Tuesday, March 19, 2024 11:35 AM
To:ORG - Clerk's Office
Subject:FW: Questions regarding Caltrain slides for today’s 3/19 PA Rail Committee meeting
FYI,
Email/comment received today. Thanks
Best,
Ripon
From: Adrian Brandt
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 11:23 AM
To: Lythcott‐Haims, Julie ; Burt, Patrick; Robert Barnard; Veenker, Vicki
Cc: Bhatia, Ripon; Kamhi, Philip
Subject: Questions regarding Caltrain slides for today’s 3/19 PA Rail Committee meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable Mr. Rob Barnard and members of the Palo Alto Rail Committee,
While it is clear Caltrain ROW width preservation is a key theme, bridges over streets seem needlessly wide,
incorporating cost‐increasing luxury features such as space for track‐adjacent “maintenance roads” that are
unprecedented on all other Caltrain grade separations and past & present bridge replacements (eg Jerrold Ave bridge,
San Mateo bridges, Guadalupe River bridges).
To minimize their width, cost, and impact, standard railroad practice around the world is to assume use of track‐
mounted (aka “hi‐rail”) maintenance equipment on bridges.
Why on earth isn’t Caltrain using a clearance-maximizing, structure-depth-minimizing, U-shaped through-girder
design for the viaduct (or at least for bridges over streets)?
Some people who received this message don't often get email from adrian.brandt@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
2
(Source:
https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-u-shaped-grade-separation.html )
3
Why don’t temporary shoofly track pairs use 2-track cantilevered catenary support poles (instead of
center poles) to minimize track center spacing and therefore overall shoofly width and intrusion
impacts on Alma?
Similarly, why don’t the permanent viaducts & bridges use outside (vs. center) catenary support poles
to minimize track center spacing, structure widths and costs?
Why is the viaduct the only alternative saddled (sandbagged?) with retaining
(vs. eliminating) the two existing at‐grade tracks post‐construction for a total of 4 tracks?
Why does the viaduct proposed for Palo Alto retain at‐grade tracks (and therefore at‐grade street crossings) “for railroad
purposes” when all public presentations and published drawings for the planned viaduct across Redwood City do no
such thing, and instead have city residents and planners excitedly envisioning community‐reconnecting & ‐serving
“activation” and reuse of the newly‐created space under the viaduct (as with new grade separation viaducts in
Melbourne or Toronto, etc., or as with the beautiful path‐lined and landscaped Ohlone Greenway underneath the BART
viaduct between Berkeley and El Cerrito)?
Lastly, an error:
Caltrain’s presentation slides for today’s Palo Alto Rail Committee meeting incorrectly state:
“Provide a minimum 15’-6” vertical clearance with variance and sacrificial beams across entire width
of Railroad ROW“
That should be: “across the entire width of the street ROW.”
And on that topic, I would note that since Redwood City opened its busy downtown Jefferson Street
underpass grade separation in 1999 (for only $15m!) that despite only offering 14’6” clearance
(without a sacrificial beam), I am unaware of problems (let alone a single instance) of a tall vehicle
striking the unblemished painted concrete underside edge of the bridge (see image, courtesy of
Google Maps “street view”):
4
5
Thoughtfully and with kind regards,
Adrian Brandt
1
From:Transportation
Sent:Tuesday, March 19, 2024 1:16 PM
To:Bhatia, Ripon; Kamhi, Philip
Cc:Transportation; ORG - Clerk's Office
Subject:FW: Mar 19 Rail Committee comment
Forwarding along email for today’s RC meeting; it was also sent to CC and not sure if Clerk’s office received it.
Thank you
Andria Sumpter
Administrative Assistant, Office of Transportation
From: Laura Granka
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 9:58 AM
To: Transportation; Council, City
Subject: Mar 19 Rail Committee comment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
Below is my public comment/ feedback in advance of today's Mar 19th rail meeting as I cannot attend live. Thank you
for your time.
First, thank you for the quick progress on grade Separation feedback: A big thank you to the transportation team and
rail committee for processing the Caltrain feedback and readying proposals for the upcoming grant timelines. I
appreciate the urgency of the transportation team in working through these details, and hope that committee and city
can carry this momentum.
Based on Caltrain's feedback, it looks like the most viable options right now are for the Churchill crossing, and while this
crossing was initially deprioritized, it would still be a huge benefit to the city to continue forward progress, at least with
the grant studies, especially for a crossing in such close proximity to a school.
Quiet zone study: A request (on behalf of myself and neighbors) that City Council please approve the rail quiet zone
study when it comes to council. While the September electrification of Caltrain will have many benefits, one
consequence is that weekend passenger service will double, significantly increasing noise along the corridor. A quiet
zone, and eventual grade separations, will serve to retain quality of life and equity for those near the rail corridor, and
this study is the first step to assess what will be required.
Churchill crossing signal. I heard in the last committee meeting that Caltrain is investigating a faulty signal at Churchill
crossing. I wish I had reported this sooner; it has been falsely triggering for at least the past year, at least 2‐3 times a
day, compounding the already backed‐up traffic.
Minor suggestion for Churchill partial underpass: A public commenter in a recent meeting suggested that Alma NB
become one lane near the Churchill crossing, to preserve the tree canopy along Alma, which is proposed to be
Some people who received this message don't often get email from laura.granka@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
2
eliminated to accommodate the partial underpass. I suggested this last year: given Alma NB becomes one lane almost
immediately after Churchill (for the Embarcadero bridge), this solution would just extend that single lane for a slightly
longer stretch. Traffic impacts should be minimal, and should still be preferred over removing the entire tree canopy for
~7 blocks.
Thank you again for all of your work and progress,
Laura Granka
Churchill Ave resident