HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-22 City Council (11)City of Palo Altd
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning
September 22, 1998 CMR:362:98
RECOMMENDED CANCELLATION OF THE EMBARCADERO
ROAD PEDESTRIAN/BIKE BRIDGE AND BIKE PATH CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT 19310
REPORT IN BRIEF
For the past several years, staff has been developing a project to construct a bike/pedestrian
path along the Caltrain right-of-way, fi’om Churchill Avenue to Palo Alto Avenue, including
a pedestrian/bike bridge over Embarcadero Road. The project was bid in May 1996, but the
bidding process resulted in bids that were more than 50 percent over the engineer’s estimate
and the available funding. Subsequently, the bids were rejected and steps were taken to
postpone the construction of the pedestaian/bike bridge over Embarcadero, until funding
became available. It was decided, however, to consta~ct the path portion of the project,
including working with the Joint Powers Board (JPB) to use the existing railroad bridge on
an interim basis. The JPB accepted the City’s proposal in March 1997. However, shortly
after obtaining JPB approval, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) objected to the
temporary use of the existing raih’oad bridge, in particular, and the entire path, in general.
The JPB then acceded to the PUC’s position and withdrew its approval.
After meeting with JPB and PUC staff and representatives of the railroad unions, staff
substantially modified the project to address the concerns raised. With the proposed
modifications, the PUC staff no longer opposes the project, but representatives of one of the
unions has stated unequivocally that it opposes the project and would file a formal complaint
with the PUC should the project proceed. In which case; ~e PUC staff would stop the
project until a hearing could be conducted before the Co~ission.
In addition, the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD) Board and the Council raised several concerns regarding the temporary
connection through Palo Alto High School, which appears to be the only solution to connect
the two ends of the path on either side of Embarcadero Road. The proposed changes are
estimated to cost $232,000, and the project has a cun’ent shortfall of $380,000. In view of
the above, staffis recommending that Council direct staff to cancel the project and take other
related, appropriate actions.
CMR:362:98 Page 1 of 8
RECOMMENDATION ¯
Staff recommends that the Council take the following actions with respect to the
Embarcadero. Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Bike Path Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Project No. 19310.
Direct staff to cancel the project and not proceed with further design of the project
and subsequent construction at this time.
Direct staff to cancel the existing consultant agreement (C4044185) with HMH, Inc.
for design and construction services.
Direct staff to acknowledge the easement from Palo Alto Medical Foundation and
afftma the intent to consta’uct the bike path on PAMF property in the event that the
bike path south of the PAMF property is consmlcted.
°Direct staff to inform the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority that the City
has suspended the project and, therefore, will not need the approved Federal and
State funds for the project.
Require PAMF to consmact the designed and approved bicycle path from the
Caltrain station to a point southeast of the landscaped area known as the Building
D site (northerly connection), for travel to and from the north(Attachment I),
including all related improvements, such as retaining walls, landscaping, lighting.
and fencing.
Agree that PAMF will not be required to construct or pay for construction of the
remaining bicycle path or related improvements that the City may, in the future,
decide to build (south of the northerly connection).
o
Agree that PAMF will not be required to install lighting and fencing along that
portion of the bicycle path that is not being constructed, at this time or later.
Direct staffto retain the currently dedicated easement from PAMF for the bike path
along the railroad frontage on its property.. (In the event that the City fmds it
feasible to consmact the remainder of the bicycle path, including related
improvements such as retaining walls, fencing and lighting, at some future date, the
City will be obligated to consmlct them at its own cost.)
The landscaping and lighting plans for the area where the bicycle path is not being
constructed will be revised to reflect the change in use of the area as mutually
agreed upon by City staff and PAMF.
10.The planned PAMF southern connection to the bike path will not be constructed at
this time, as the City bicycle path will not exist at that location. However, PAMF
CMR:362:98 Page 2 of 8
will be obligated to allow this or a similar connection when the remaining portion
of the bicycle path is constructed in the future.
Staffhas discussed the above recommendations with PAMF’s representative, who concurs
with staff’s recommendations (Attachment J).
BACKGROUND
For the past several years, staffhas been pursuing the development of a bike/pedestrian path
along the Caltrain right-of-way, from Churchill Avenue to the Palo Alto train station.
In February 1993, a feasibility study to determine potential alignment(s) for the path was
completed, This study concluded that a bike path through this area was feasible, but would
be very complex because it would involve the interests of several entities, including Stanford
University, the JPB, PAUSD, MCI, Sprint, and Wiltel, and it would be more costly than
originally anticipated. Since then, necessary agreements were negotiated and executed with
all of the affected parties, and the scope of work of the project evolved and changed, as a
result of review and comments by the interested parties, as well as construction of the PAMF
project. As a condition of the PAMF project approval, PAMF was required to build a
segment of the bike path from Encina to University Circle.
The design of a portion of the project, .from Churchill Avenue to Encina (to be constructed
by the City), was. completed in Spring i996 (Attachment A), and the project was bid for
construction in May 1996. However, the bidding process resulted in bids that were more
than 50 percent over the engineer’s estimate and the available funding, and the bids were
rejected. After considering several alteruatives including canceling the whole *project, it
became evident that the only item of sufficient cost consequence to make a substantial
difference was to delete the new bridge over Embarcadero Road from the project.
Subsequently, steps were taken to postpone the construction of the pedestrian/bike bridge
over Embarcadero, until funding became available, and to use a temporary connection
through the Palo Alto High School site, between the path and the pedestrian traffic signal
crossing Embarcadero Road, subject to the City and PAUSD reaching an agreement
(CMR:509:96). However, at its meeting of December 16, 1996, Council found the proposed
temporary connection through Palo Alto High School unsatisfactory, and directed staff to
pursue with the JPB the possible development of an alternative temporary connection using
the existing railroad bridge.
In February 1997, the Mayor sent a letter to the JPB requesting that the JPB .allow the use
of the existing Caltrain bridge for an interim period of time, to temporarily connect the two
ends of the main path (Attachment B). The City’s proposal for use of the existing Caltrain
bridge was accepted by the JPB in March 1997, subject to the City agreeing to:
1. Install a seven foot high solid wooden fence between the path on the existing bridge
¯ and the tracks,
CMR:362:98 Page 3 of 8
Construct approximately 350 feet of high-level concrete platform to replace
platform lost through Caltrain locomotives stopping on the bridge,
o Erect signs on the path and bridge crossing advising pedestrians and bicyclists that
this is a temporary connection, that trains may pass at any time, and that extreme
caution is mandatory.
Carry the post-construction liability coverage as stipulated in the recorded Grant of
Easement, between the JPB and the City.
However, shortly thereafter staff was advised by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that
it objected to the temporary use of the existing railroad bridge. After multiple phone calls
and several meetings, staff learned that one or more railroad unions had filed an informal
complaint with the PUC regarding the use of the bridge, in particular, and the entire path, in
general. The unions oppose construction of any bicycle paths on Caltrain right-of-way due
to safety concerns. They see too many accidents involving taains hitting objects, people, and
animals. Callrain operators say that they live with these thoughts and memories and believe
that construction of a bike path on Caltrain right-of-way in proximity to a very active rail
corridor will add to and/or create more safety problems. In view of this, the JPB acceded to
the position of the PUC and withdrew its approval for the temporary use of the existing
Caltrain bridge (Attachment C).
Subsequently, staff agreed not to pro’sue the temporal5, use of the existing bridge and offered
to modify the project in several ways that were intended to address concerns raised by the
representatives of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, United Transportation Union,
Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration,. and the PUC. Accordingly, staff sent a letter
to the PUC (Attachment D) modifying the project in the following ways:
Instead of using the existing raih’oad bridge as a temporary connection, the existing
traffic signal on Embarcadero Road would be used.
°In place of the proposed 6-foot high steel tubular fence, the City would substitute
a vertical, 2 inch x 6 inch steel mesh fence, 8 feet high (Steel 450 Typhoon Welded
Mesh), such as the type being used in similar situations by MetroLink in the Los
Angeles area and proposed for use by the JPB along critical sections of the Caltrain
right-of-way.
°The City would add a 6-foot chain link fence.between the. tracks and Alma Street,
(where there is already heavy vegetation obsta’ucting ready access to the tracks),
which will further impede any access.
4. The lighting to be added along the path would be vandal-proof.
ClVlR:362:98 Page 4 of 8
Upon completion of the bike path, Palo Alto police officers would provide
additional enforcement and issue citations if necessary, under Penal Code Sections
369i and 555. The JPB has already posted "No Trespassing" signs along the
railroad tracks and is responsible for providing enforcement.
DISCUSSION
PUC and Union Position
The current situation is one wherein, while the PUC staff has concerns about increased
traffic the path may bring to the vicinity of the tracks, with the proposed modifications to the
project they no longer oppose the project (Attachment E). However, one of the unions has
stated unequivocally that it continues to vigorously oppose the project or any such project
in this location (Attachment F). It is staff’ s understanding that union has the fight to file a
formal complaint with the PUC. In that situation, the PUC staff would stop the project until
a hearing could be conducted before the Commission. There would then be a formal
investigation, hearing, and determination by an administa’ative law judge and/or the PUC
itself, which could take up to a year or two in lapsed time, and additional staff and fmancial
resources. Staff believes that until the City actually proceeds with construction, the union
has no reason to file a formal complaint and the PUC has no procedure to settle such issues
on a pre-complaint basis.
Temporary. Connection Through Palo Alto High School "
Council approved an approach earlier that would resla~ucture the project into two stages. The
first stage included construction of the path with the deletion of the new bridge, because the
new bridge was the only item of sufficient cost consequences to reduce the overall cost of
the project. The second stage involved pursuing funding to build the new bridge. Between
the time that the path is completed and the new bridge is constructed, the use of a temporary
connection through the Palo Alto High School site appears to be the only possible solution.
In December 1996, staff had negotiated a conceptual connection and a set of possible
conditions as a basis for preparation of an easement aga’eement with PAUSD staff
(Attachment G). Those negotiations would have to be restarted. In addition, the PABAC
the PAUSD Board, and the City Council had raised several operational and safety concerns
regarding this alternative, including the length of the detour, narrowness of the path, and the
possibility of bike/pedestrian conflicts.
The temporary connection thiough the Palo Alto High School site, incorporation of
additional items that were intended to address concerns regarding the use of the railroad
corridor, inflation, and risk assessment are estimated at $232,000:$60,000 to construct the
temporary connection tlu’ough the school, including constructing an area to replace lost
parking; $70,000 for additional fencing; $20,000" for risk assessment; and $82,000 for
inflation, which amounts to a total construction cost of $913,000 (Attachment H).
Path from Encina to [Jniversi .ty Circle
As a condition of approval of the PAMF project, PAMF was required to construct a
CMR:362:98 Page 5 of 8
bicycle/pedestrian path from its property line just north of Encina to University Circle. A
portion of this segment is located on PAMF’s property, behind the PAMF project; the
remainder of the path from the PAMF campus to University Circle runs parallel to the Urban
Lane Extension. A bicycle connection between the PAMF campus and destinations such as
the Caltrain station, the downtown area and the City’s bicycle network accessible from
University Avenue and University Circle was seen as a necessary part of a multi-modal
access between the PAMF campus and destinations north of it. Since theCity had also
proposed the bicycle/pedestrian path along the JPB corridor, it was considered essential to
require PAMF to build a path on its property connecting it to the bike path proposed by the
City.
As shown in Attachment A, two connections to .the path on the PAMF property were
planned, one at the southeast comer of the PAMF site for travel in the southerly direction,
and another connection immediately to the southeast of the landscaped area known as the
Building D Site, for travel in the northerly direction. Since the City’s path from Churchill
to Encina will not be built, there is no present need to provide a connection to the City’s .path
for travel to and from the south. Therefore, staff believes that under these circumstances
there is no need for PAMF to build the portion of the path on. its property south of the
northerly connection. A path north of the northerly connection on the PAMF property will
continue to provide a bike/pedestrian connection to points north of the PAMF property,
including the Caltrain station and downtown.
Staff has discussed this issue with PABAC. While PABAC would like to see the City’s
bicycle/pedestrian path project completed, PABAC understands the reasons for not
proceeding with the project. In addition, if the project does not proceed, PABAC supports
deleting PAMF’s obligation to construct that portion of the path south of the northerly
connection on PAMF’s property.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The total funds currently available for this project are $716,770, of which $183,500 was
budgeted for design and $533,270 for construction. Project funding is from State
Transportation Development Act funds ($195,510), State Transportation Systems
Management funds ($46,000), Federal Congestion Mitigation Ah" Quality funds ($320,000),
Holiday Inn mitigation fees ($37,000), and the City’s Street Improvement Fund ($118,260).
The engineer’s estimate for construction of the project and related costs is $913,000, which
reflects a current shortfall of approximately $380,000. Should the Council approve the staff
recommendation, the City would not incur additional costs and time in redesigning and
constructing the project, and negotiating with PAUSD for an easement agreement. The City
would forego $592,316 of State and Federal funds that have been approved, on a
reimbursement basis, for this project and are, as yet, unspent. These funds cannot be used
for any other projects in Palo Alto.
CMR:362:98 Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
An alternative to staff’s recommendation could be for the Council to direct staff to proceed
with the project. The City would incur an additional cost of $380;000 for design and
construction, as well as time for plan revision, bidding the project and awarding the
construction contract. Staff would also incur additional time in complex negotiations with
PAUSD for a temporary connection through the Palo Alto High School site, a solution which
is perceived, at best, as less desirable. In addition, there would be the risk of having to
suspend the contract and shut down work in the early pm~ of construction, if a formal
complaint were filed with the PUC. The City could prevail at the PUC hearing, but that is
not certain, However, it would take more time and resources to prepare for a PUC hearing
and a year or more delay in proceeding with the construction, which could result in
contractor claims for additional money.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An enviromnental assessment (94-EIA-16) for this project was approved by the Council in
its meeting of August 1, 1994. Suspension of a project, however, does not require an
environmental assessment.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Diagram of the pol~ion of the bike path PAMF will not construct
B.Letter from PAMF regarding revising its portion of bike path project
C.Project Diagram
D.Letter to JPB requesting use of existing bridge
E.Letter from JPB rescinding approval to use existing bridge
F.Letter to PUC modifying project to address.concerns raised
G.Letter from PUC stating it no longer opposes project
H.Letter from Rail Road Unions opposing project
Ii Conceptual design of bike path connection through Palo Alto High School
J.Estimated cost of the project
CMR:362:98 Page 7 of 8
PREPARED BY: Ashok Aggmaval, Acting Chief Transportation Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ANNE CRONIN MOORE
Interim Director of Planning and
Community
FLEMIE
Manager~
co:Hin Kung, Caltrans, Local Assistance Program
Tom Davids, Joint Powers Board
HMH, Inc.
David Jury, Palo Alto Medical Foundation
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
Rosemarie Bednar, Palo Alto Unified School DistTict
Bill Phillips, Stanford Management Company
Ron Wilson, Town & Country Village
Jim Williams,. Town & Country Village
CMR:362:98 Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT A
JPB ’Coltroln’Bike Palh to Parallel
Urban Lane Extension
Bike Path on PAMF Campus
PAMF to Build
Bike Path As Designed
Northerly Connection
Path Project
Recommended to be Cancelled
Southerly Connection
PAMF Not to Build Bike Path.
But Maintain Easement for
Future Construction By City
Not to Scale
Embarcadero Bike Path
Project
Cily of Palo Alto
Transportation Division
Portion
Not To Be
of Bike Path
Built By PAMF
8/19/98
ATTACHMENT B
ECE|VEED
Health Care Division
June 18, 1998
Ms. Anne Moore
Planning Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
JUk 0 6 1998
DIVISION OF
TRANSPORTATIOI~
via fax 329-2240
Original to follow
Dear Anne:
A Sutter Health Afft’liate
During the planning process for the 795 E1 Camino Real project we were required to provide
access for pedestrians and bicycles to and from the CalTrain station. Because of the city bicycle
path being constructed along the railroad tracks, the City Staff required that the access be
provided along the railroad tracks and in effect that we would construct that portion of the city
bicycle path running behind our project and the JPB Parking Lot. No other method of providing
that access (sidewalk along street and parking lot) was considered appropriate by the City Staffas
our access had to be a part of and connect to the remainder of the city bicycle path. As a
consequence, we have designed a portion of a very expensive Bicycle/Pedestrian Path that meets
City of Palo Alto and Joint Powers Board requirements. This pathway was designed to handle
commute traffic from south Palo Alto.
As a result of our recent meeting we now understand that City Staff ismaking a recommendation
to the City Council to abandon the City Bike Path Project due to issues related to (1) use of the
JPB right-of-way, (2) the cost of the project and (3) temporary crossing of Embarcadero Road.
In view of the above we feel it is fair to revise the portion of the path on our property. We
propose the following:
We will construct the bicycle path as designed and approved from the CalTrain station to a
planned point of connection to the new campus circulation system shown on our site plan
immediately to the Southeast of the landscaped area known as the Building D site.
We will allow the currently dedicated easement for the bike path to remain along the railroad
frontage of our property in the event that the City desires to construct the rest. of the bicycle
path, including related improvements such as retaining walls, fencing and lighting, at some
future date.
We will not be required to construct or pay for construction of that remaining bicycle path or
related improvements that the City may in the future decide to build.
Landscaping, lighting and fencing along the portion of the bicycle path that we will construct
will be installed as planned and approved.
Lighting and fencing along that portion of the bicycle path that is not being constructed will
not be installed by PAMF at this time or later.
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
300 Homer Ave.
Palo Alto
CA 94301
Anne Moore
June 18, 1998
6.Landscaping along that portion of the bicycle path that is not being constructed will be
revised to reflect the change in use of the area as mutually agreed upon by City Staff and
PAMF.
The planned bicycle connection to the bike path at the extreme southeast comer of our site
will not be constructed at this time, as the bicycle path will not exist at that location. PAMF
is willing to allow this or a similar connection when the remaining portion of the bicycle path
is constructed.
This is, in our opinion, a fair and equitable solution to the bike path issue. Clearly, we were
required to plan more elaborate facilities than necessary due to the City’s plans for a mt~ch more
-extensive bicycle path. To re-design bicycle/pedestrian access to run along the Urban Lane
extension is possible and would result in less costly Construction but would, at this late date,
cause very costly delays in construction. As we see it, this proposal will have us construct what is
necessary now and the City is free to construct what it desires in the future.
It is imperative that .this issue be addressed soon as our construction is progressing and some
preparatory work is necessary soon. A significant delay will cost a great deal of money.
I look forward to your response.
Real
CC:Nick Sica
Ashok Aggarwal
ATTACHMENT C
JPB "Caltrain*
Parking Lot
PAMF’s Portion of Bike Path
Bike Path Project
Recommended to be Cancelled
Not to Scale
Embarcadero Bike Path
Project
City of Palo Alto
Transpoffation Division
Bike lath Pro ect
Recommended to be Cancelled
8/9/98
February 18, 1997
Office of the Maj/or a~ld Citj/ Colmcil
ATTACHMENT D
Emilio Cruz, Chair "
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
P.O. Box 3006
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
Dear Mr. Cruz:
During the past several months, staff members of the Joint Powers Board (JPB) and the
City have discussed several options for addressing the need l~o(...a temporary
pedestrian/bike path across the CalTrain bridge at Embarcader6 Road, in Palo Alto.
Ciicumstances have necessitated that the proposed new pedestrian/bike bridge across
Embarcadero Road be postponed to a later date, when additional funding is secured. The
City remains committed to pursue alternative funding sources for the construction of the
new bridge, as soon as possible.
In the interim, between the time that the path is completed and the bridge is completed,
a temporary connection is needed. The enclosed proposal outli.nes a plan to use a portion
of the existing CalTrain bridge for a temporary path, so that this important prg.ject can
proceed and not jeopardize the funding that has already been approved.
The support of the JPB has been an important factor in the planning and development of
this project to date, and we hope that the JPB will agree to this additional step which is
critical to proceeding with the entire project. On behalf of the Palo Alto City Council, I
would like to request that this issue be included on a JPB agenda fc)r discussion and
possible action, at the earliest practical date.
Thank you for your time and consideration,, as well as the considerable efforts that your
staff has already devoted to this project. City staff is available to provide additional
information at any time.
ayor
bcc:Gerald Haugh
Tom Davids
Ashok Aggarwal
Enclosures (2)
cc:City Council
June Fleming, City Manager
Ken 8chreiber, Dir., PlanninglCommunity Envir’mnt
Marvin Overway, Chief Transportation Officialv"
PROPOSAL TO USE THE EXISTING CALTRAIN BRIDGE
AT EMBARCADERO ROAD
AS AN INTERIM PEDESTRIANIBIKE PATH
The City of Palo Alto is proceeding wiih the development of a project to construct a
pedestrian/bike path along the west side of the CaITrain tracks, from Churchill Avenue to
the southerly end ofthe CalTrain parking lot at the Palo Alto CalTrain Station. The
development of the project has been dependent upon, and has benefited substantially
from, significant cooperation from the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and the Palo
Alto Unified School District.
The design of the project was fully completed in spring 1996, with the intent to construct
the project during the summer and fall period of this year. However,.the bidding process
resulted in bids that were well over (50 percent +) the engineer’s&stir~ate, as well as the
available funding. After considering several alternatives, including the possibility of
canceling the whole project, it became evident that the only item of sufficient cost
consequence to make a substantial difference is the deletion of the Embarcadero Road
pedestrian/bike bridge from the project. While this is clearly not a preferred solution, it is
a workable interim approach.
Therefore, the City decided to restructure the project into two stages. The first stage would
include construction of the pedestrian/bike path, .essentially as proposed (e.g. lighting,
steel fencing, etc.), but with deletion of the proposed new bridge. The second stage would
involve pursuing sources for sufficient funds to build the proposed bridge structure. The
constructionof the path would proceed in the spring of 19971 while the construction of the
bridge would proceed when funding is secured.
While there are currently no funding source opportunities for this bridge project, historical
precedent strongly suggests that there will be new and renewed funding programs at the
federal, state and local levels. At such time that such opportunities materialize, this bridge
project would likely be highly competitive since the design is complete, the cost is
established, and the environmental review is approved. Securing funding for the bridge
may occur within a one to two year time frame, but could take as long as five years or
more.
Between the time that the path is completed and the new bridge is constructed, there is
a need to find a interim solution for crossing Embarcadero Road. Two optionshave been
explored. One is to use the existing CalTrain bridge and one is to use a connection
through the Palo Alto High School site, between the path and the pedestrian traffic signal
crossing at Embarcadero Road.
City staff has pursued the possibility of using a connection through the Palo Alto High
School site on an interim basis, but has not been able to satisfactorily resolve fundamental
safety, service and campus access issues.
Page 1
INSTALL 18’ ROLL GATE
AT EX CCNC PYLON
ADVANCED ENGINEERING DESIGN
i
April 22, 1997
Penin a Corridc $oint Powers Board
1250 San Carlos Ave., P.O. Box 3006, San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
(415) 508-6269 fax (415) 508-6281
ATTACHMENT E
The Honorable Joseph
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
H. Huber
Dear Mayor Huber:
SUBJECT: EMBARCADERO ROAD INTERIM PEDESTRIAN/BIKE PATH
On March 4, 1997, we wrote to you with temporary approval for the Ciu to locate a
portion of the proposed Churchill/University bicycle path over the Embarcadero Road
CalTrain Rail Bridge. Since thenl we have been contacted by the California Public
Utilities Commission (PUC), which opposes use of the Embarcadero Bridge for the
bicycle project. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Region 7 Administrator
shares this view.
We further understand that the PUC reiterated its opposition to the project during a
meeting with City staff on April 17.
Accordingly, we believe it is appropriat.e to accede to the position of the PUC as
transmitted in its letter dated April 9, 1997, and withdraw our approval for the
Embarcadero Road Bridge as a portion of the bike path project. We presume that if the
bike path is constructed, users will be directed to a signalized crossing on
Embarcadero, and that appropriate fencing will prohibit cyclists or pedestrians from the
Embarcadero Bridge.
It is our hope that the City wi!l be successful in attracting funding to underwrite a
dedicated crossing for bicyclists as an ultimate solution to the Embarcadero problem.
T. Haugh
Executive Director
GTH/JAG/dr
JPB Members
Howard Goode
Jerry Kirzner
Tom Davids
Gary Mello
Depa~.~. t ofPlanning and
Cdmmunity Environment
July 17, 1997
ATTACHMENT F
TransportationDivisioi~
Paul W. King
Public Utilities Commission
Safety and Enforcement Division
Railroad Safety Branch
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Paul:
¯ The purpose of this letter is to thank you for arranging the meeting on May 12 to
discuss the Embarcadero Bike Path Project, and also to follow up onthe discussions
that occurred at that meeting. We felt that the meeting was very helpful in
¯ developing a better common understanding of all aspects of the project, among all
participants. While we continue to believe that the project has substantial merit and
a number of positive benefits to existing problems, we also take very seriously the
concerns .that were .expressed and propose to modify the project to respond
positively to those concerns.
The project is to construct a pedestrian/bike path along the west side of the CaITrain
tracks, from Churchill Avenue to the parking lot at the southerly end of the Palo Alto
CalTrain Station. The proposed project will complete a critical missing gap in the
bikeway and provide a continuous bike route from the south city limits with Mountain
View, to the north city limits with Menlo Park. In so doing, it will serve and facilitate
pedestrian and bicycle travel to a number of important destinations, including the
Palo Alto CalTrain Station/Transit Center. This project has a broad base of support
including local businesses, the Palo Alto Unified School District, Stanford University,
the bicycle community, and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB).
The total length of the project is approximately 4600 feet, of which only 1000 feet (20
percent) will be on JPB right-of-way. The other 3600 feet (80 percent) will be onthe
property of the Palo Alto Unified School District and Palo Alto Medical Foundation.
Our agreement with the JPB includes a provision that we will relocate that portion of
the path off the JPB right-of-way as soon as an opportunity arises, and/or upon
¯ notice that the JPB needs the right-of-way for other purposes.
As you know, the project calls for a new bridge across Embarcadero Road. When
we previously bid the project, the costs were such that we have decided to
temporarily delete the bridge, until suitable funding is available. As an interim
measure, we investigated two options, one being the temporary use of the existing
250HamiltonAvenue
P.O.Box10250
Palo Alto, CA94303
415.329.2520
415.329.2299 Fax
Paul W. King
July 17, 1997
Page 2
railroad bridge and the other being a temporary use of the pedestrian signal.on
Embarcadero Road. In response to concerns that have been expressed through the
Public Utilities Commission, we have decided not to pursue the temporary use of the
existing bridge. In the meantime, we will pursue the use of a temporary connection
via the existing pedestrian traffic signal. However, it appears that we have a near-
term opportunity to secure funding for the new bridge. That funding opportunity
means that we want, and will need, to rebid the project within the next month.
Since our May 12 meeting, we have spent considerable time and effort to investigate
and consider ways that we could modify the project to address the concerns that
were raised at the meeting, and still maintain a viable project. As a result, we intend
to modify the project in the following ways:
The temporary use of the existing railroad bridge will not be. considered further.
Instead, we will use a temporary connection via the existing traffic signal on
Embarcadero Road.
In place of the 6-foot high steel tubular fence that was-proposed, we will
substitute a vertical, 2 inch x 6 inch steel mesh fence, 8 feet high (Steel 450
Typhoon Welded Mesh), as is being used in similar situations by MetroLink in the
Los Angeles area, as well as proposed for use by the JPB along critical sections
of the CalTrain right-of-way.
We will add a 6-foot chain link fence on the other side of the train tracks, between
the tracks and Alma Street. As you know, this area has heavy vegetation that
already obstructs ready access to the tracks. The additional fence will further
impede any access.
The lighting that will be added along the path will be vandal proof.
The JPB has already posted "No Trespassing" signs along the railroad tracks and
is responsible for providing enforcement. Upon completion of the bike path, Palo
Alto police officers will provide additional .enforcement and issue citations, if
necessary, under Penal Code Sections 369i and 555.
Each of these changes is in direct response .to the concerns that were raised at the
meeting. While we do not necessarily agree with the need for all such actions, we
share and.respect the concerns expressed and want to be as responsive as possible.
I would also like to share with you the fact that Ashok Aggarwal visited MetroLink and
had a very productive meeting with John Tandy, to review what MetroLink is doing.,
as well as to share information con&erning our project. They have examplesof
similar types of paths and are optimistic about developing more. They appear to
Paul W. King
July 17, 1997
Page 3
have the support of, or at least lack the opposition of, all interests responsible for
railroad safety. John volunteered to talk with anyone who wished to learn more
¯ about their projects. He can be reached at (213) 452-0276.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that this project is very important, it enjoys.a
broad spectrum of support, it will directly resolve the current trespassing problem,
which is of concern to everyone, and fencing on both sides will make it very difficult
to trespassand/or place objects on the tracks. I must also emphasize that we share
the concern for safety. We always have and will continue to do so. Our project to
build a pedestrian/bike path parallel and adjacent to the existing railroad bridge
crossing San Francisquito Creek is but one example whereby we have been
proactive in addressing safety concerns..We believe that the Embarcadero
Pedestrian/Bike Path project will solve some basic, existing safety issues and provide
a much needed additional service, in.a safe manner.
We are prepared to move forward with the construction of this project., with the above
modifications. We would appreciate it if you would share this information with the
other representatives at our May 12 meeting and provide any comments or feedback
¯ as soon as possible. We will be in touch with you shortly regarding this matter.
Thank you for your help in arranging the meeting and other efforts to reach ar~
acceptable solution. If there are .any questions, please feel free to contact either
Ashok Aggarwal or myself.
Sincerely,
bcc:
Marvin L. Overway
Chief Transportation Official
Gerald Haugh, Joint Powers Board
Tom Davids, Joint Powers Board
Jean McCown
John Tandy, MetroLink
June Fleming
Ken Schreiber
POST
NOT
NOTES:
REGULAR WIRE MESH
(STEEL 450 TYPHOON WIV]F)
FENCE MESH SHALL BE 13/64" HARDENED STEEL WIRE CONSISTING OF 2"x6"
RECTANGLES.
FENCE POSTS SHALL BE 2 3/8" x 2 3/8" RECTANGULAR TUBING WITH WALL
THICKNESS OF 3/32".POST TOP SHALL BE COVERED WITH A 1/16"
ALUMINIUM CAP.~ POSTS SHALL BE SPACED AT i0’ APART.
POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS.
MESH SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE POST BY FOUR (4) 1/8" STAINLESS
STEEL FASTNERS (TYPE YRI) .
5. REFER TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
PCJPB
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD
REGULAR WIRE MESH
FENCING DETAILS
DESIGNED BY SM ~ DATE 05107/97
DRAWN SM I CHECKED
I SCALE NOT TO SCALE,~,APPROVED BY PLAN SHEET NO,1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ¯
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
October 17, 1997
Marvin Overway
Chief Transportation Official
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo AIto,CA 94301
ATTACqMENT G
PETE WILSON, Governor
RECEIVED
1997
DIVISION OF
TRANSPORTATION
Dear Mr. Overway,
This refers to discussions between our staff (Staff), the City of Palo Alto, and
other parties regarding the City of Palo Alto’s plans to construct a bike or multi-
use path parallel to the Caltrain tracksin PaloAlto. Thank you for your recent
letter describing new protections added to the construction plans for the path.
We understand these additions include a taller fence, fencing the opposite side
of the tracks to provide further deterrent to trespassing in the area, a rerouting of
the path away from the existing railroad bridge, and vandal-proof lighting.
While the staff still has concerns about increased traffic the path may bring to the
vicinity of the tracks, with your added improvements at this time we have
insufficient evidence to indicate overall safety will be decreased as a result of the
installation of the path. Therefore we do not oppose the construction as
planned.
As you know, we have informal complaints opposing the path’s construction. As
one of the cemplainants may still oppose the path, please note that they have
the right to petition the Commission to conduct a formal investigation, While the
Commission relies on Staff for advice, only formal Commission action is binding.
This letter is advisory only, but does reflect Staff’s opinion with the information
currently available.
If you proceed with the construction, it will be imperative to work closely with the
railroad to ensure all necessary safety procedures are followed. Additionally, we
urge you to work closely with the railroad and its operating employees to monitor
safety in this area. It will be particularly helpful to objectively assess risk factors
before and after the installation. For example, it will be important to establish a
current base line of risky behaviors such as trespassing for comparison to the
incidence of risky behaviors after the installation is complete.
Very truly yours,
~enneth k. Koss
Director, Rail Safety and Carriers Division
Locomotive Englneer
SAN JOSE DIVISIQN 65 - AMTRAK
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT H
RECEIVED
SEP 0 9 1997
DIVISION OF
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer.
City of PaiD Alto
P.O. Box 10250
PaiD Alto, California 94303
September 3, 1997
Dear Mr. Aggarwal,
The members of Division 65, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers vigorously opposes any
bicycle trails on or near the active Caltrain right of way from the PaiD Alto (University
Avenue Station) to Churchill Street. We believe that in the interest of safety to people riding
the trains, people using any proposed bicycle path for whatever reason, and the train crews
and equipment, that the proposed bicycle path poses some extremely dangerous
opportunites for major incidents to occur.
Although we support and encourage alternative methods of transportation including
bicycles, we sincerely, hope that a better bicycle path can be planned away from the
railroad tracks.
Sincerely,
James R. Barry, Legisla!ive Representative
808 Grovewood Court
San Jose, California 95120
cc:Mr. Paul King, Public Utilities Commission
Mr. Emelio Cruz, Chair, Caltrain JPB
Mr. Paul Morrison, CSLB Chairman, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
Mr. Don Saunders, General Manager, Amtrak (Caltrain)
¯ ,~, P,ot,~ ~, u.s.A.AFFILIATED WITH A.F.L.-C.I.O. AND C.L.C.Serving Since 1863
o o,
Conditions under which tentative approval of a temporaD’ exclusive easement will be recommended
bvPAUSDStaff. Enclosures for December 17 Board meeting must be submitted in Draft form nolat6i’[~n
Friday, December6. Response from City to these conditions must be submitted to PAUSD not later than noon,
December 5.
1.The temporary exclusive easement for a pedestrian bike path along the existing drive;vay would be for a
maximum of 5 years. The term for which the easement would be granted mav be extended at the District’s
discretion.
At City’s costs replacement parking in the amount of ~
different from the area now designated as a fire lane.
spaces would be provided by the City at a location
At City’s cost, a chain link fence would be installed along the driveway to separate the path from the vehicular
travel lanes. Two-way traffic would be maintained with two 10-foot t-ravel lanes. The City would be
responsible for constructing the interim path to an acceptabie standard as well as maintaining the fence and
path during the period of use.
4~
o
The City would erect appropriate signing that would direct people between the new path and the pedestrian
traffic signal, and not into the school campus.
The City would connect the existing lights along this segment of the roadway into a City electric meter and
consult with PAUSD regarding future lighting schedules.
Within (30) days after con_clusion of use, the City shal! remove all fencing and signage, repair asphalt, restore
.speed humps and reconnect lighting to District’s satisfaction.
Insurance Clause to be included in any grant of easement:
"During the period that the easement is in force and until such time .as the fencing is removed and the
pathway is restored, City shall keep in force, at City’s expense, and City shall cause District to be named as
’additional insured’ thereunder, liability insurance for coverage up to $5,000,000 per person and $5,000,000 per
accident, andproperty damage of $1,000,000 combined single limit. The City’s insurance shall be primaD’ and
any coverage maintained by the District shall be excess to the coverage required to be provided by the City
and not contributive to City’s insurance. Copies of said certificate with endorsement shall be deposited with
the District and the City shall obtain the written agreement of insurers to notify the Dist:rict in writing 30 days
prior to any termination or non-renewal of insurance. City may satisfy such insurance requirements by
endorsement to existing policies. Should the City choose not to purchase insurance, coverage will be provided
by either the City’s seld-insuring for the required amounts or the City’s entering into a pooling program with
applicable coverage. Coverage in excess of the City’s $1,000,000 self-insured reten~on may be provided by the
City’s participation with the ACCEE Joint Powers Agreement. Coverage by ACCEL must be approved by said
board of directors. City shall inform District within (30) days of any change relating to specific lines of
coverage.
Indemnification Clause to be include in ahy grant of easement:
"City shall indemnidy, defend and hold Palo Alto Unified School District harmless from any liability or
expense including attorney fees and other costs of defense, on account of suits, verdicts, judgments, costs or
claims of any nature or kind arising out of, in or any way connected with operations on, possession, use,
management, improvement, alteration or control of the bike path easement including but not limited to
condition of bike path surface and Lighting of the easement."
Other costs ~.r’~,. e k ~-~s~- ,,1,4.. c.A.z "v, ,.n’- a-.K r_.a.~ ~
City shall reimburse district for incidental costs,~,associated with processing the easement grant, including but
not necessarily limited to attorney fees’and legal publication of the resolution of intent in the newspaper.
~I126/96
ATTACHMENTJ
Lowest Base Bid received in 1996 ....................$810,000
Minus all the new ped/bike bridge items ..............$<258,000>
on Embarcadero Road items ......................$552,000
Inflation 15% .........................$ 82,000
School District Construction ..............60,000
Fencing ..............................70,000
Risk Assessment ......................20,000
sub-total ....................$784,000
Construction Management ...............39,000
Contingencies .........................80,000
Testing ...........................10,000
TOTAL .....................$913,000
Note:Estimate assumes that field surveying for School District Work, construction
staking, and inspection will be provided by Public Works.
C:V~LLDATA\CMRS\EMBARC 10.AI