Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-02 City Council (11)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER November 2, 1998 CALTRAIN RAPID RAIL STUDY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING CMR:412:98 REPORT IN BRIEF This is an information report. No Council action is required. The "Caltrain Rapid Rail Study" was released by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) on October 1, 1998. This staffreport provides a summary of that study and describes the proposed Caltmin projects that will have specific impacts on Palo Alto. Accompanying this staff report is a letter to the J-PB from the Director of Planning and Community Environment, transmitting the City’s support for the Rapid Rail Study. The Rapid Rail Study is a comprehensive study of Caltrain’s infrastructure, service and environment in 1998, with recommendations for future improvements. The Rapid Rail Study’s key recommendation is that Caltrain should aggressively pursue rehabilitation and enhancement projects, while.beginning work on electrification. The capital cost of these projects is estimated, to be $900 million, not including furore service expansions and new grade separations. Implementation is expected to begin immediately and be completed within approximately ten years. Proposed Projects with Specific Impact on Palo Alto. Major proposed rehabilitation and enhaneementprojeets in Palo Alto are listed below. Palo Alto Avenue and Charleston Road Grade Seoaration.~ are fifth and sixth priorities, respectively, out of 14 new grade separation ~rojects identified in the study, with estimated costs of $26 million ~nd $40 million, reSpeCtively. In the overall Caltrain CIP, new grade separations are last priority. Caltrain would act as coordinator and promoter in order to stimulate action on the part of individual cities to implement these projects. Funding sources and time frames have not yet been identified. Palo Alto .(University Avenue)_S;ation Reconfi~, to include third track and platform, ADA improvements and other amenity and access improvements. Future additional trains are planned to terminate in Palo Alto and would need. a third "turn back" track and loading platform. This track would presumably be placed within the available JPB right-of-way, probably resulting in use of the full right-of-way in the vicinity of the Palo Alto Station. Staff does not believe that this would impact the proposed pedestrian/bicycle path to be built behind and on the new Palo Alto Medical CMR:412:98 Page I 0f7 Foundation (PAMF) campus and extending to the Palo Alto Station along the edge of JPB property. However, the turn back track, if it extends far enough south, could impact the possible future section of the path between Palo Alto High School and the new PAMF campus that Council has asked staff to continue to pursue. This section of the path is planned to be located in the JPB right-of-way, whereas the turn back track might require full use of the JPB right-of-way. The turn back track should not impact a possible future pedestrian railroad undercrossing near Homer Avenue, as the undercrossing will be planned to cross under the full width of the railroad right-of-way. One element of this station rehabilitation program has already been submitted to the’ Public Works Department for review. In order to bring station access into compliance with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Caltrain will construct a new at-grade pedestrian crossing within the station area and close the tunnel located near the north end of the station. Staffhad previously reviewed this proposal and agreed with Caltrain that the cost and physical constraints associated with bringing the tunnel up to ADA standards was prohibitive. The four tunnels connecting to University Avenue are not involved in this ADA project. California Avenue Station Reoonfiguration, to include outside boarding, track improvement, improved pedestrian crossings, and other amenity and access improvements. It may be possible for Palo Alto to integrate its future proposed California Avenue pedestrian undererossing upgrade project into this larger Caltrain project. Third Track From California Avenue Station to Sunnyvsle Station, Details have not been provided. There is sufficient railroad right-of-way in Palo Alto for a third track. Third tracks increase operational flexibility, especially with regard to increasing the number of limited-stop trains. Station reconfigurations and third tracks are designated as second priority (enhancement) projects in the CIP. Electrification. The primary negative impact of electrification for Palo Alto is visual, caused by the poles and overhead catenary system. Electromagnetic field radiation from the high voltage lines may be an issue for some citizens. The primary beneficial impacts are reduced air pollution and running noise, and slightly faster travel times for riders. Increased Train Frequency and Speeds. More and faster trains are the ultimate substantial outcome of the Rapid Rail CIP. By 2015, up to 130 daily trains operating every 30 minutes during off-peak periods could be running at up to 90 mph (versus today’s 66 trains running at less than 70 mph). More and faster trains will mean an increased average noise level. Running-noise would be somewhat offset by electrification, but crossing noise (train whistles and crossing bells) would increase proportionally to the number of trains. More trains will also increase traffic congestion and, potentially, safety problems at remaining grade crossings. CMR:412:98 Page 2 of 7 BACKGROUND Caltrain provides commute rail service along a 77-mile corridor between San Francisco and Gilroy. Caltrain is managed by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), a public agency formed by San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties to operate rail service along this corridor. Although all three counties operate their own extensive bus and rail systems (bus only in San Mateo County), with limited service into neighboring counties, only Caltrain provides full intercounty service between and through the three counties. The JPB contracts with Amtrak to operate the rail service. The Rapid Rail Study was released on October 1, 1998. The main impetus for this new study was the rejection by the City of San Francisco of a long-planned Caltrain extension from the existing terminal (Fourth and Townsend Streets) to a new multi modal transportation terminal near Market Street. The decision left the JPB without one of the major organizing principles for its improvement program and left it with financial resources that could be redirected to other projects. In this context, the Rapid Rail Study sets forth a new strategy and recommended set of capital improvements for Caltrain. The JPB is seeking public input on this document at its upcoming November 5 meeting. The Rapid Rail Study is a comprehensive study of Caltrain’s infrastructure, service and environment in 1998, with recommendations for future improvements. Caltrain’s recommendations should not be considered as set in stone, but rather part of a dynamic set of prineip.les designed to optimize transportation service along the Peninsula corridor. It is a long- term strategie plan. A significant amount of work remains to be done in order to implement the recommendations, including service planning, engineering, and fund programming. The two primary recommendations in the Rapid Rail Study are (1) a Capital Improvement Program and (2) consolidating stations and dosing grade crossings. Both of these are described briefly below. More detail is contained in the Draft Executive Summary (Attachment 1). Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Rapid Rail Study’s key recommendation is that Caltmin should aggressively pursue rehabilitation and enhancement projects, while beginning work on electrification. Rehabilitation is the first priority, and includes projects related to safety, track and grade crossing reconstruction, and replacement of structures such as bridges. Enhancement is the second priority, and includes projects to increase operating flexibility (such as new third track sections and replacing the current train control system); station enhancement projects (minor upgrades for all stations and major upgrades for certain stations); and increased parking and access. Together, these projects will enhance safety, improve train speeds, increase train frequency and capacity, improve customer service and reduce operating costs. The study recommends that engineering and construction of rehabilitation and enhancement projects start immediately and be completed by 2006. The total estimated cost of these projects is $536 million..(Note: there are some slight inconsistencies in cost figures for the enhancement projects in various sections of the draft report.) CMR:412:98 Page 3 of 7 The third CIP priority is system-wide electrification, at an estimated cost of $376 million. Benefits include reduced travel times, noise and air pollution, as well as presentation of a more modem image. Caltrain believes that the full benefits of electrification can be realized only after the rehabilitation and enhancement projects are undertaken. Engineering and planning work would begin immediately, with construction beginning in 2004 and fmishing in 2009. The fourth CIP priority is system expansion, including the Dumbarton rail Corridor, San Francisco Airport light rail system connector, increased service to Gilroy, and 14 grade separation projects.~ Due to the high cost of the grade separation projects ($590 million), Caltrain plans to meet with the affected cities to determine their interest in pursuing the projects. The time frame of this portion of the program has not yet been determined. Palo Alto projects are discussed below. Consolidating Stations and Closing Grade Crossings. Increased safety and decreased travel time are the primary benefits of these projects. Caltrain would perform a thorough analysis of any specific crossing closing or station consolidation before it is implemented. No projects are identified for Palo Alto. Proposed Projects with Specific Impact on Palo Alto. Major proposed rehabilitation and enhancement projects in Palo Alto are listed below. Palo Alto Avenue and Charleston Road Grade Separations are fifth and sixth priorities, respectively, out of 14 new grade separation projects identified in the study, with estimated costs of $26 million and $40 million, respectively. In the overall Caltrain CIP, new grade separations are last priority. Caltrain would act as coordinator and promoter in order to stimulate action on the part of individual cities to implement these projects. Funding sources and time frames have not yet been identified. Palo Alto .(University Avenue) Station Reconfi_t, urati0n, to include third track and platform, ADA improvements and other amenity and access improvements. Future additional trains are planned to terminate in Palo Alto and would need a third "turn back" track and loading platform. This track would presumably be placed within the available JPB fight-of-way, probably resulting in use of the full right-of-way in the vicinity of the Palo Alto Station. Staff does not believe that this would impact the proposed pedestrian/bicycle path to be built behind and on the new Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) campus .and extending to the Palo Alto Station along the edge of JPB property. However, the turn back track, if it extends far enough south, could impact the possible future section of the path between Palo Alto High School and the new PAMF campus that Council has asked staff to continue to pursue. This section of the path is planned to be located in the JPB right-of-way, whereas the turn back track might require full use of the JPB right-of-way. The turn back track should not impact a possible future pedestrian railroad undercrossing near Homer Avenue, as the undercrossing will be planned to cross under the full width of the railroad right-of-way.. CMR:412:98 Page 4 of 7 One element of this station rehabilitation program has already been submitted to the Public Works Department for review. In order to bring station access into compliance with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Caltrain will construct a new at-grade pedestrian crossing within the station area and close the tunnel located near the north end of the station. Staffhad previously reviewed this proposal and agreed with Caltrain that the cost and physical constraints associated with bringing the tunnel up to ADA standards was prohibitive. The four ttmnels connecting to University Avenue are not involved in this ADA project. California Avenue Station Reconfi_mlration, to include outside boarding, track improvement, improved pedestrian crossings, and other amenity and access improvements. It may be possible for Palo Alto to integrate its future proposed California Avenue pedestrian undercrossing upgrade project into this larger Caltrain project. Third Track From California Avenue Station to Sunnyvale Station. Details have not been provided. There is sufficient railroad right-of-way in Palo Alto for a third track. Third tracks increase operational flexibility, especially with regard to increasing the number of limited-stop trains. Station reconfigurations and third tracks are designated as second pdodty (enhancement) projects in the CIP. Electrification. The primary negative impact of electrification for Palo Alto is visual, caused by the.poles and overhead catenary system. Electromagnetic field radiation from the high voltage lines may be an issue for some citizens. The primary beneficial impacts are reduced air pollution and running noise, and slightly faster travel times for riders. Increased Train Frequency and Speeds. More and faster trains are the ultimate substantial outcome of the Rapid Rail CIP. By 2015, up to 130 .daily trains operating every 30 minutes during off-peak periods could be running at up to 90 mph (versus today’s 66 trains nmning at less than 70 mph). More and faster trains will mean an increased average noise level. Running noise would be somewhat offset by electrification, but crossing noise (train whistles and crossing bells) would increase proportionally to the number of trains. More trains will also increase traffic congestion and, potentially, safety problems at remaining grade crossings. JPB staffmade the first presentation of the Rapid Rail Study to the public and the Board at its October 1, 1998 meeting. This presentation was accompanied by what seemed to be new enthusiasm on the part of the staff and the Board to move forward on an aggressive improvement program. The majority of the limited public comment at this meeting was in support of moving electrification to first priority in the CIP, up from third priority, and most believed that the cost of electrification was substantially overestimated. The downtown San Francisco extension is not mentioned in the Rapid Rail Study. However, some members of the public believe that this extension should not be forgotten, as some events may have recently CMR:412:98 Page 5 of 7 changed with regard to rail in downtown San Francisco--changed thinking on the viability of the Transbay Terminal, and the possibility of rail on the Bay Bridge. It has always been desirable to have a direct Caltrain connection to regional transit services converging in downtown San Francisco. RESOURCE IMPACT The Rapid Rail C~ was developed as a fmancially constrained scenario using funds expected to be available to Caltrain. One critical assumption is that Caltrain will have to aggressively seek an increase in federal and state funding forthe program in order to reduce the amount of local and discretionary funding required. Local funding is needed for two reasons:, first, to meet matching requirements of federal and state funding programs; and second, to make up the shortfall between the cost of the projects and the available federal and state funds. The study identifies the required local funding as $66 million to match federal funds and $186 million to make up the shortfall of federal and state funds. Of all potential improvements included in the Rapid Rail Study, the only ones that could include partial City funding would be the Palo Alto Avenue and Charleston Road grade separations, if pursued. Caltrain would probably seek highway-related funding sources for these projects, but details have not yet been provided. POLICY IMPLICATIONS With the exception of the grade separation projects, staff believes that the Comprehensive Plan fully supports the Caltrain Rapid Rail Program. Staff has previously commented to the JPB regarding Caltrain’s short range transit plans and strategic plan, most recently in 1993, 1995 and 1997. The City has consistently and strongly supported electrification, increased train frequency, and the downtown San Francisco extension. The City has also shown consistent support for bicycle parking, bicycles on board trains, and a direct Caltrain connectionto San Francisco Airport. Comprehensive Plan Program T-21 supports pedestrian and bicycle grade separations at railroad crossings. Full highway grade separations were not included in the Comprehensive Plan because vehicle undercrossings of the railroad and Alma (with the connecting vehicle ramps) would require additional right-of-way to be taken from single family land uses, and would have other substantial undesirable impacts on these uses in the vicinity of the crossings. This grade. crossing issue has presented somewhat of a conundrum for Palo Alto. As mentioned above, greater train frequency (which Palo Alto supports) would increase crossing noise, congestion and, potentially, safety problems at the City’s grade crossings. Full grade separations accommodating vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists would fully mitigate these impacts, yet the City feels that the impacts associated with full grade Separations are possibly worse than the problems they would solve. The compromise, as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, is to construct grade separations only for bicyclists and pedestrians, which does not address the impacts of crossing noise and vehicular congestion and safety. A possible exception, not mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan, would be construction of a full grade separation at the ClVlR:412:98 Page 6 of 7 Palo Alto Avenue crossing. A grade separation at this location would not present the problems associated with the other locations, as ramps would not be required to connect with Alma Street, and there are no immediately adjacent single family residences. Staff believes that Caltrain needs to explore further options to mitigate the impacts of increased train frequency at grade crossings, and should include in its grade separation program the construction of pedestrian and bicycle grade separations at the Charleston Road, East Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue crossings. Staffhas sent a letter to the JPB supporting the Rapid Rail Study, the downtown San Francisco extension, bicycle improvements, and raising the above grade separation issues (Attachment 2). ATTACHMENTS A.Draft Executive Summary, Caltrain Rapid Rail Study B.Letter from Director of Planning and Community Environment to the JPB PREPARED BY:CarlStoffel, Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT. HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: G. EDWARD ~ Director of Planning and Community Environment Assistant City .Manager Stanford University (David Neuman) Palo Alto Medical Foundation (David Jlll’y) Joint Powers Board Sheraton Inn (Clement Chen) Downtown North Neighborhood Association (D. Michael GrifYm) University South Neighborhoods Group (Laami vonRuden) Chamber of Commerce CMR:412:98 Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT A Executive Summary Caltrain Rapid Rail tudy Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board October 1, 1998 A Collaboration of Caltrain ..a STV Incorporated Caltrain Rapid Rail Study DRAFT 1 Executive summary Rapid Rail Study key findings and recommendations The purpose of the Caltrain Rapid Rail Study is to develop a comprehensive approach for improv- ing and expanding the railroad’s physical infrastructure. The intent was to focus on how capital improvements to the physical infrastructure could improve Caltrain travel times.and therefore at- tract more riders to the system. The Rapid Rail Study is the first comprehensive analysis of Caltrain’s rehabilitation needs to bring the railroad’s infrastructure to a state of good repair and coordinate long-term expansion projects within this context. Most importantly, it is the In:st study tha, t specifically addresses the trade-offs between programming critical rehabilitation improvements and expansion projects. Comparing these types of projects is a critical step in guiding Caltrain to a furore that optimizes capital spend- ing and benefits to its customers. The Rapid Rail Study focused on evaluating proposed improvements in four k~y categories: 1.Reducing travel times. 2.Increasing frequency and capacity. 3.Improving reliability. 4.Being a better neighbor. Ca#rain Rapid Rail Study DRAFT Important findings in these categories are outlined below. Travel time and ridership The Rapid Rail Study evaluated several projects that could reduce travel time and/or increase rider- ship. Table 1-1 summarizes the results of that analysis. Consolidate 3 stations. Electrification - existinq track Electrification - rehabilitated track Electrification - enhanced track, consolidate 3 stations Parkin.~ oroflram 5:28 10:28 5:00 11:50 16i50 -ha 13.20% 6% 15% 21% na 3,500 1,600 4,000 5,600 1 ~800 13% 6% 15% 21% 7% }rove track to 90 90 mph track ’ 79 mph track 90 mph track Table 1-! illustrates a very important principle, namely, improving Caltrain will be an incremental process made-up of several building blocks designed to work in concert. Only by implementing the building blocks in a structured and well planned manner can Caltrain achieve its true potential for serving the Peninsula’s growing transportation needs. For example, electrifying the existing railroad would improve run times by about 6%, but, with the recommended rehabilitation and enhancement program, electrification could improve run times by approximately 21%. Caltrain Rapid Rail Study DRAFT Train frequency and capacity A second important point is that once Caltrain completes the rehabilitation and enhancement pro- gram and acquires additional railcars, the system will be able to carry significantly increased num- bers of passengers by increasing the frequency of trains. For example, during peak periods train frequencies could be increased as shown in Table 1-2. 7 2 +500% 51000 300 13,400 +169% The rehabilitation and enhancement program includes sections of third track and improvements to the train control system that will enable Caltrain to operate significantly increased peak period service. As shown in Table 1-2, following the rehabilitation and enhancement program, Caltrain’s existing peak period capacity could more than double to 18,200 in the peak direction and could increase by almost 170% to 13,400 in the reverse peak direction. The timing for increasing train service will depend upon operating subsidies provided by the JPB member agencies and acquisi- tion of additional railcars. A better neighbor. In addition (o carrying more customers, upon completion of the Rapid Rail Study improvements, Caltrain would be a better neighbor. Electrification will reduce air pollution and noise generated by Caltrain locomotives. As part of the rehabilitation and enhancements programs, Caltrain will work closely with cities to improve stations and grade crossings. Stations would be made safer and more attractive. Grade crossings would be made safer and easier to use by pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. _Caltrain Rapid Rail Sturdy ~_=DRAFT Service reliability While reducing travel times, increasing capacity and being a better neighbor are very important objectives, one quality most desired by Caltrain customers is reliability. If Caltrain can not get you where you are going when you need to be there- consistently- then you will think twice about using it. Caltrain currently provides a very high ~degree of reliability of over 90% on time performance. Caltrain’s significant increase in ridership.can be partly attributed to that performance. However, Caltrain operates on a system whose tracks, structures and signaling systems will require signifi- cant rehabilitation in the near term to maintain that high level of reliability. If Caltrain does not aggressively rehabilitate these critical parts of the system, then reliability and other measures of customer satisfaction will decrease. Key recommendations The following chapters of the Rapid Rail Study contain many important recommendations for improving Caltrain service. However, there are three key recommendations which summarize the main findings of the study. These recommendations are: Caltrain should aggressively complete a comprehensive rehabilitation and upgrade of the existing railroad infrastructure. The proposed rehabilitation and enhancement projects will enhance safety, improve train speeds, increase train frequency and capacity, improve cus- tomer service and reduce operating costs. Engineering and construction should be started immediately; this rehabilitation will cost approximately $543,000,000. 1-4 ,Ca#rain, Rapid Rail Study __ __ DRA~.._.~ Electrification has many benefits including reduced travel times, less noise and lower lev- els of air pollution. Therefore, Caltrain should begin work immediately on engineering and planning for electrification. The cost for electrifying Caltrain to Gilroy is approximately $376,000,000. Consideration should be given to electrifying Caltrain using a design/build/procure ap- proach similar to that being used for several major railroad projects now underway, includ- ing Amtrak’ s Northeast Corridor electrification Project. Under this approach, .several teams of private engineering, construction and railcar manufacturers would develop detailed plans and cost estimates (bids) for completing the entire electrification project, including new railcars. This approach has very significant advantages in that the infrastructure can be fully integrated with the railcars. An example is that one team might propose replacing Caltrain’s existing passenger cars with electric multiple unit (EMU) railcars. Performance wise, compared to electric loco- motives hauling push/pull railcars, EMUs would reduce travel times by approximately 3%; however, EMUs also cost more to purchase and maintain. The JPB will be able to evaluate the trade-offs between the different approaches proposed by each team and select the best possible electrification plan to implement. The bids would contain a cost and schedule, so once the JPB selects a team, work could start immediately. This approach could lead to a better electrification project than would otherwise be possible and would significantly reduce the time necessary to electrify Caltrain. Furthermore, the teams could assist with financing the project. Once the rehabilitation, enhancements and electrification programs are underway, Caltraln should focus on expansion projects, which could include the Dumbarton Rail Corridor and a direct connection with San Francisco International Airport’s new AirTrain system, now under construction. In order to successfully implement these recommendations, Caltrain must significantly improve its ability to construct impro.vement projects and must seek additional funding. However, by aggres- sively moving forward with these recommendations Caitrain can achieve its goals of increasing ridership, improving customer service and becoming a better neighbor more quickly, cost-effec- tively and with less disruption than would otherwise be possible. One logical question to ask at this point is whether it makes sense to spend approximately half a billion dollars to rehabilitate and enhance Caltrain and an additional approximately $376,000,000 to electrify the railroad. Findings of the Rapid Rail Study answer that question with an unqualified Caltrain Rapid Rail Study ¯DRAFT YES. Caltrain has many advantages over other solutions for increasing transportation capacity in the corridor. These include: ,Cost. Improving Caltrain is less expensive in terms of capital and operating costs than constructing a new light or heavy rail system within the same corridor. Flexibility. The enhancement program will enable Caltrain to operate additional express trains specifically tailored to serve particular markets, an ability rapid transit and light rail .systems lack. *Capacity. The enhancement program will enable Caltrain to provide capacity similar to rapid rail systems by increasing frequency. Inter-operability. Caltrain is compatible with other standard gauge railroads. Improving Caltrain and retaining standard gauge tracks provides the flexibility to easily expand ser- vice to new areas such as the Dumbarton Corridor, through Altamont Pass, and onto Monterey. It also enables other operatorsm such as Amtrak, Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), Capitol Corridor trainsD to share Caltrain tracks for through service. Maintenance of service. Replacing Caltrain with another completely new rail system might require curtailing service on Caltrain while the new system is constructed. In contrast, Caltrain can implement its improvement program without shutting down service. Because of its cost effectiveness, flexibility and relative ease of implementation, commuter rail systems have become a popular antidote to increasing traffic congestion. Without the benefit of a concerted marketing campaign, the new Altamont Commuter Express service has taken orders for over 600 monthly tickets for its two daily trains and it isn’t even operating yet. The Bay Area Rapid Transit District has decided to embrace commuter rail technology on the Capitol Corridor (Bay Area to Sacramento area corridor). European cities are focusing on improving their regional rail operations by increasing speeds, improving access to stations and introducing new generations of railcars. This is exactly the approach recommended in the Rapid.Rail Study. Finally, it is important to emphasize that the Rapid F,.ail Study simply presents a long-term strategic plan for improving Caltrain. A significant amount of work remains to be done in order to imple- ment the recommendations, including service planning, engineering, and fund programming. As with any strategic plan, the Rapid Rail Study will need to be revisited on a regular basis in the future to refine and revise plans based on changes to Caltrain’s markets and operating environment. 1-6 Ca#rain Rapid Rail Study DRAFT 1.1 Background Caltrain provides commuter rail service along a 77 mile corridor between San Francisco and Gilroy in Santa Clara County. Caltrain is managed by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Bo~d (JPB), a public agency formed by San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties to operate rail service along this corridor. There are 34 Caltrain stations along this route, serving three counties and 19 communities. In 1991, the JPB purchased the rail line between San Francisco and San Jose from the Southern Pacific Railroad (SP). Prior to that, the SP had owned and operated railroad service along the Peninsula for over a hundred years. At the turn of the century the SP made considerable invest- ments in improving its passenger rail service. Such improvements included building tunnels through tlie southeast portion of San Francisco to provide a direct route into the city., and procuring right-of- way for a four-track, high-speed service. Unfortunately, by the time the JPB purchased the line, its infrastructure had deteriorated to the point that it was in need of significant repair. While the railroad requires significant investment to reverse decades of deferred maintenance, it does own a priceless assetw an excellent railroad corridor along a relatively densely developed Ca#rain Raid Rail Stud DRAFT urban setting. Caltrain’s exclusive right-of-way has the ability to provide a fast, reliable and conve- nient way to travel along the Peninsula. ¯In addition to its valuable route, Caltrain’s as a commuter rail service, is ideally suited to meeting today’s transportation needs. Commuter rail is an inherently simple and flexible technology. This enables Caltrain to serve niche markets relatively easily. For example, Caltrain has the ability to operate express trains- trains that can be customized to meet specific market niches. Caltrain’s extremely popular "reverse" commute express service is another example of serving an emerging market niche. These trains operate from San Francisco during the morning peak period to various .Silicon Valley employment sites, and in the opposite direction during the afternoon peak period. Caltrain’s ridership has grown significantly since the JPB assumed operation of the raikoad. While Caltrain has been able to add additional service (expanding from 54 to 66 daily trains) to accommo- date growing demand and new markets, its aging physical infrastructure and rolling stock is plac- ing limits on the ability to further increase service and to better serve customers. The Rapid Rail Study’s objective is to develop a capital improvement plan that will enable Caltrain to most effec- tively serve existing and new markets and thereby improve mobility along the’ Peninsula. Planning context The main impetus for this study was the rejection by the City of San Francisco of a long planned Caltrain extension from the existing terminal (at Forth and Townsend Streets) to a new multi- 1-8 Caltrain Rapid Rail Study DRAFT modal transportation terminal near Market Street. This decision left the JPB without one of the major organizing principles for its improvement program and left it with financial resources that could be redirected for other Projects. In this context, the Rapid Rail Study sets forttf a new strat- egy and recommended set of capital improvements for Caltrain. ’ Caltrain has completed several studies since the JPB began operating service in 1992. The Rapid Rail Study is based upon information from some of these previous studies including: o Caltrain’s Market Demand Study (1997). °Caltrain’s 20-Year Strategic Plan (1997). °Caltrain’s Fleet Plan. °Caltrain Simulation Study (1998). The Market Demand Study used a computerized transportation demand model to evaluate the im- pact Of various types of improvements upon Caltrain ridership. Ridership increases presented in this study are largely based upon data from the Market Demand Study. The Strategic Plan describes goals and objectives for improving Caltrain service. The Strategic Plan’s five goals are: 1.Improve customer service by putting passenger needs and desires first, and by maintaining a quality rail system. 2.Attain ridership growth by expanding service, infrastructure and facilities. = Achieve financial stability and member agency commitment to the future. Develop regional partnerships to establish multi-modal linkages throughout the Bay Area and beyond. Serve local needs and support livable communities by linking land use and transportation decisions. The Rapid Rail Study recommendations are based on how well projects and programs meet these five goals. In addition to the Market Demand Study and Strategic Plan, Caltrain has completed a series of planning studies that evaluate specific improvement projects. These include: additional train ser- vice (Caltrain Simulation Study), service on the Dumbarton Branch, a direct connection to San Francisco Airport’ s new AirTrain light rail system, electrification of Caltrain and extending Caltrain Caltrain Rapid Rail Study_=.DRAFT~ to Downtown San Francisco. Results from these studies were used to provide basic information and concepts for improvements in the Rapid Rail Study. 1.3 Study methodology The goal of the Rapid Rail Study was to develop a long-range capital improvement plan for Caltrain, which is intended tO increase speed, frequenc...y and reliability, and to improve access. Simply stated, the study effort evaluated candidate capital improvement projects and priodtized them within expected funding availability. The study’s main steps are outlined below (more detailed descrip- tions are presented in the following chapters). Define future service strategy This step Consisted of developing a basic.understanding of the type and level of Caltrain service that would be operated in the future using travel trends and demographic forecasts. One of Caltrain’s key goals is to increase service. There are three factors that govern increasing service: 1)Operating support.. 2)Physical infrastructure (including rolling stock). 3)Market demand. Caltrain’s operating subsidy is provided by the three JPB members, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. The level of subsidy is determined during the annual budget process and is closely related to the number of trains operated. In order to increase service, the annual subsidy provided will need to increase. The Rapid Rail Study focused on determining the structure for service increases and the physical infrastructure needed to increase service. The approach used was to analyze service using a three- tier approach to service expansion. The three tiers are summarized in Table 1-3. 1-10 Caltrain Rapid Rail Study DRAFT on Passen(]er cars Locomotives Peak pedod trips Middav frequency Gilroy trips Daily trips Peak capacity Existin¢ 73 20 14 peak/9 reverse Hourly 8 66 7~800 peak/5,000 rev 92 23 16 peak/11 reverse Hourly Up to 16 (’peak & off) 72 - 80 9,200 peak/6,300 rev Growth in service to 2015. 170 30 23.peak/17 reverse 30 minutes 86 -130 18,200 peak/3,400 rev Note: Achievin.q these service levels depends on the level of ol~eratin.q subsidy provided by member a.qencies, rehabilitation of railroad and implementation of .improvements recommended in Rapid Rail Study. As p~rt of the Rapid Rail Study, the capital improvements necessary to effectively operate the proposed services were identified for each service tier. Railcar.requirements were estimated based on the Caltrain Fleet Plan, but it is recommended that Caltrain develop a long range comprehensive fleet plan to address future fleet needs for increased service as soon as possible. Tier.2 service will be possible once Caltrain completes its current railcar acquisition and rehabili- tation program. Until Caltrain has its full compliment of locomotives and railcars (or leases ve- hicles from other operators) it is impossible to operate any significant increase in service. Tier 3 service can be implemented in steps. However under all cases the railroad must first be rehabilitated and the signal system replaced with. centralized traffic control. Aggressive imple- mentation of the rehabilitation and enhancement program will reduce the time until when Tier 3 service may be implemented. The additional improvements necessary to operate increased Tier 3 service include constructing third track sections (to operate more peak service), adding new track crossovers, providing a new maintenance facility (to improve the availability of railcars for opera- tion), acquiring additional rolling stock and installing new turnback tracks. A key benefit of using this three-tiered approach was that future levels of service could be pre- sented in a general way. The exact number of trains would depend upon. the operating funding provided by the member agencies, but the infrastructure would be capableof accommodating in- creased train service. Analyze existing infrastructure and major new initiative projects A field survey was conducted of the existing railroad and its infrastructure and facilities. This was the first comprehensive survey of the railroad in several years. Using results of the field survey, a Caltrain Rapid Rail Study DRAFT_ program of rehabilitation and enhancement projects was developed. The rehabilitation projects, also known as "state of good repair" improvements, were those necessary to maintain railroad operation and reverse years of deferred maintenance. Enhancement projects were those which could be implemented concurrently with the rehabilitation projects and substantially contribute to improved system operations and customer service. Ex- amples of enhancement projects include station improvements and the installation of sections of third main line tracks. New. initiative projects were defined as extensions and major upgrades to service. They included electrification, the Dumbarton Corridor extension, San Francisco International Airport AirTrain Connection, grade separation projects, and Gilroy service expansion. The purpose of this analysis was to complete a comprehensive and long-term plan for Caltrain, so that improvements could be implemented in an efficient and effective manner. For example, if the decision was made to elec~ trify Caltrain, track could be rebuilt during the rehabilitation using a design compatible with electri- fication. Project prioritization and development of Capital Improvement Plan Following project identification and. evaluation, the projects were prioritized using criteria devel- oped from the goals, principles and policies outlined in Caltraln’s Strategic Plan. These criteria were: Safety. Customer service- improved system reliability and efficiency. Ridership growth- more frequent service, increased speed, imp~:oved station access and parking. Ridership growth- new service extensions, more responsive schedule patterns. Financial stability- reduced operating costs. Multi-modal linkages- improved station access and extensions. Local needs and livable communities- improved station access, promotion of transit-ori- ented development, as well as reduced noise and pollution from Caltrain operations. Using the results of the prioritization process, recommendations were developed and a capital im- provement plan (CIP) was prepared which linked specific projects with specific funding programs. 1-12 Caltrain Rapid Rail Stud~y DRA~ 1.4 Recommendations The Rapid Rail Study is a comprehensive study of Caltrain’s infrastructure, service and environ- ment in 1998. Recognizing the there will be many changes in these areas during the coming years and much more information coming from more detailed studies that will be completed, these rec- ommendations should not be considered as set in stone,but rather part of a dynamic set of prin- ciples designed to ’optimize transportation service along the Peninsula Corridor. Three types of recommendations were developed: 1) a recommended capital improvement pro- gram; 2) recommendations for consolidating stations and closing grade crossings and, 3) program planning recommendations. 1.4.1 Capital Improvement Program The Rapid Rail Study’s key recommendation is that Caltrain should aggressively pursue rehabili- tation and enhancement projects while beginning work on electrification. This approach will mini- mize the time it takes to renew Caltrain to a state of good repair and significantly improve customer amenities. It also will enable Caltrain to develop an integrated approach to electrification whereby the rolling stock, electrical systems, operations and financing can be optimized to best serve its customers and neighbors. 1-13 ,Caltrain Rapid Rail Study .....DRA~ The Capital Improvement Pian recommendations are: Priority 1: Rehabilitdtion Consistent with Caltrain’s Strategic Plan goal to improve customer service and safety, rehabilita- tion- comprising a set of projects to keep the railroad operating safely and reliablym was established as Caltrain’s number one priority. This includes the following projects: Safety priority projects. This includes signal system replacement and systemwide annual rehabilitation projects (trackwork and structures). These projects must be completed soon in. order to keep the railroad operating; together they cost approximately $40,000,000. Speed and operations: track replacement. This includes reconstructing track and grade Crossings where necessary. These projects will address years of deferred maintenance on the rail infrastructure and are necessary to enable Caltrain to improve track speeds to 79 mph through- out the entire system. The increase in speed will reduce Caltrain running times by approxi- mately 6%, which will in turn, increase daily passenger trips by approximately 1,600. The cost of these projects is approximately $128,000,000. Speed and operations: structure replacement. This Includes replacing bridges, culverts and other major structures. Similar to track replacement, these projects will address years of der ferred maintenance and are necessary to keep Caltrain operating. The cost of these projects is approximately $52,000,000. Priority 2: Enhancements Enhancement projects meet all five goals in Caltrain’s Strategic Plan. They improve customer service and safety, they enable increased service and promote ridership growth, they reduce operat- ing costs, they help improve multi-modal connectivity and they support local efforts to improve station areas. These projects would be implemented simultaneously with the rehabilitation projects in order to reduce impact on Caltrain’s customers and neighbors, as well as to reduce construction costs. The following projects are included in the enhancements category: Operating flexibility. This includes constructing new third main line track sections, improv- ing San Francisco and San Jose terminals, and replacing the existing CTC system. These projects will enable Caltrain to increase the number of peak hour trains and improve speed to 90 mph; they also will improve service reliability and operations. Collectively, the cost of these projects totals approximately $98,000,000. 1-14 Caltrain Rapid Rail Study DRAFT Station enhancement projects. There are two types.of station enhancement projects: systemwide improvements and station upgrades. The systemwide improvements consist of making comparatively minor improvements to all Caltrain stations to bring them up to a basic level of amenities and passenger facilities in conformance with the newly established Caltrain Station Planning Concepts document. The cost for this program is approximately $14,000,000. The station upgrades are more significant station reconstruction projects that include construct- ing outside boarding platforms and providing full ADA accessibility. These projects will im- prove safety, attractiveness, Caltrain operations and speed. The cost for these projects is ap- proximately $144,000,000. Parking and access. This project category seeks to increase the supply of Caltrain parking and to improve multi-modal access to Caltrain stations. There are two major projects in this. cat- egory: the f’trst would capitalize upon low cost opportunities to improve parking and access, the second is a major parking projects subcategory that would fund property acquisition and (potentially) structured parking. These projects would address the need for improved access to Caltrain stations. The cost for these projects is estimated at approximately $60,000,000. Ac- cording to forecasts provided in Caltrain’ s Market Demand Study, providing parking for Caltrain passengers is estimated to increase ridership by 1,800 daily passenger trips. Priority 3: Electrification Electrific.ation has many benefits including reduced travel times, lower operating costs (once the threshold of 114 trains per day has been reached), less air pollution, less noise and a more modem image. Electrification is consistent with many of Caltrain’s Strategic Plan goals, but its cost (ap- proximately $376,000,000) means that it must be separately considered. One important fact is that electrification, by itself, will not significantly improve Caltrain service. All of the rehabilitation projects and many of the enhancement projects must be implemented to obtain the full benefits of electrification. Specifically, electrifying the existing railroad would reduce run times by approximately 6%. However, improving the railroad to 79 mph operation and eliminating three Stations would reduce run times by approximately 21%. Given the benefits of electrification, especially as a part of a vastly improved Caltrain infrastruc- ture, the Rapid Rail Study recommends beginning detailed planning for electrification immedi- ately. It is recommended that Caltraln consider a design/build/procure approach (described above) to electrification. 1-15 Caltrain Rap id Rail Stud ry .,DRAFT_ Priority 4: Expansion Expansion projects areconsistent with Caltrain’s Strategic Plan goal to increase ridership. They are projects that ’ ,maplement a significant new service or changes to service. The Rapid Rail Study recommends that once the rehabilitation, enhancement and electrification projects areunderway, Caltrain focus on the expansion projects. Dumbarton rail corridor. This project would cost approximately $150,000,000. Caltrain should continue to work to develop the feasibility of this project and to seek additional funding partners for this important regional project. San Francisco International Airport Air Train connection. The project would cost approxi- mately $70,000,000. Caltrain should ensure that nothing is done to preclude making this connec- tion and should seek additional funding partners for this project. Grade separation Projects. The Rapid Rail Study pdoritized each grade crossing project for implementation. The cost of the 14 highest priority grade separation projects is estimated at ap- proximately $590,000,000. Given this high cost and limited available funding, it is recommended that Caltrain meet with cities to determine their interest in pursuing these grade separation projects. Depending upon their interest, preliminary planning for these long-term projects could begin. The Rapid Rail Study recommends closing 11 existing grade crossings which have low traffic volumes and leaving the remaining 23 existing grade crossings in operation. It should be noted that elimi- nating grade crossings is not required for improving Caltrain service but would be required for a rapid transit system such as BART. Gilroy service. This project would increase service to Gilro~. Santa Clara County has expressed a strong desire to increase Gilroy service and has. funding available in its Measure A/B sales tax. Therefore, the JPB should work closely with Santa Clara County to develop a mutually beneficial plan to increase such service. Capital costs for increasing Gilroy service were not included in the Rapid Rail Study because they are subject tonegotiation with the Union Pacific Railroad. Table 1-4 summarizes the recommended Capital Improvement plan. 1.4.2 Consolidating stations and closing grade crossings The Rapid Rail Study evaluated Caltrain’s infrastructure from a strategic perspective. Two impor- tant findings were that grade crossings should be eliminated whenever possible and that travel times could be increased significantly by closing several stations with very low patronage. These are not recommendations that will be popular with customers directly impacted by them, but they would provide significant benefits to the Caltrain community at large. 1-16 Caltrain Rapid Rail Study¯DRAFT Given the strong public feelings on these recommendations Caltrain would perform a thorough analysis of any specific crossing closing or station consolidation project before it is implemented. This analysis will include the pros and cons of closure on costs, ridership and safety. This analysis would involve extensive public participation. The objective would be to develop a win-win situa- tion by considering innovative solutions. The specific recommendations presented below should be considered as a starting point. The next step in the planning process would be to meet with affected communities and groups, to begin the planning process for these long-term projects. , Closing grade crossings In order to improve safety, pedestrian and vehicle grade crossings should be eliminated whenever possible through either grade separation projects or by permanently closing the crossing. Another important reason for eliminating grade crossings is that this will reduce the cost of electrification and reduce Caltrain’s operating and maintenance costs. Grade separation projects and closing grade crossings will both have impacts on communities. Caltrain will work closely with cities, the FRA, the PUC and local agencies to develop mutually acceptable plans for addressing grade crossing safety. The following highway grade crossings have been recommended for closure: ¯Scott Street (South San Francisco). °North Lane (Burlingame). ¯South Lan~ (Burlingame). o Villa Terrace (San Mateo). °2*d Avenue (San Mateo). °Maple Street (Redwood City). ¯Watkins Avenue (Atherton). o Glenwood Avenue (Menlo Park). ¯Stockton Avenue (San Jose). ¯Lenzen Avenue (San Jose). 1-17 Caltrain Rapid Rail Study DRAFT In addition to these highway grade crossings it is recommended that Caltrain provide grade-sepa- rated pedestrian crossings at stations whenever adjacent highway grade crossings are grade sepa- rated. Consolidating stations Several Caltrain stations serve fewer than one hundred customers each day. Each station stop adds approximately a minute and a half to a train’s running time, considering the time it takes a train to brake, board passengers-and then accelerate. This is a significant amount of time, especially given the amount-of money Caltrain would need to spend on other improvements to achieve the same travel time savings. One of the most effective ways of reducing Caltrain’s running speed is to reduce.the number of stops- this is why Caltrain’s express trains are so popular. Therefore, in order to improve travel speed, underutilized stations should be consolidated with other stations, especially when there are alternate stations nearby. Travel time simulations indicate that eliminating three station stops would reduce run times by about 6% leading to an increase of approximately 1,600 trips per day. Another benefit of consolidating stations is reducing station maintenance and capital costs. An average Caltrain station costs approximately $25,000 per year to maintain and bringing a typical Caltrain station up to the current Station Planning Concept standards costs on the order of $2,000,000 to $3,000,000. Furthermore, reducing the number of stations will enable Caltrain to better focus improvements on the remaining stations. Clearly this is a case where the community’s needs must be carefully balanced against Caltrain’s objectives, but consolidating stations withlow boardings will improve service for the majority of Caltrain passengers and significantly reduce calSital and operating costs. The following stations are candidates for consolidation: Paul Avenue (20 average weekday boardings). Broadway- consolidate with Burlingame Station. Bay Meadows- consolidate with Hillsdale Station. Atherton (206 average weekday boardings). Castro- replace with new San Antonio Station. College Park (197 average weekday.boardings when school is in session). 1-18 Caltrain Rapid Rail Study DRAFT 1.4.3 Program planning recommendations It is recommended that Caltrain take the following actions to improve planning and project imple- mentation. Safety Caltrain’s first priority is-safety for our customers, employees and all others who intei:act with the system. Consistency with long-term planning All Caltrain capital improvements should be consistent with long’term plans, to the maximum extent feasible. Update Fleet Management Plan Lead times for procuring new rolling stock can take several years; therefore, Caltrain should imme- diately develop a long-term fleet strategy and management plan. This plan should be closely coordinated with the electrification proposal. Even if electrification is not pursued, Caltrain still needs to begin planning for a new fleet to replace the existing fleet. ’ 1-19 ~Caltrain Rapid Rail Study .....~DRAFT. Minimize impacts on customers and communities Caltrain should implement all construction projects in a manner that will minimize the impacts on customers and neighboring communities. One way of accomplishing this policy is to package " improvements so that all the projects in a given area are completed simultaneously. For example, station enhancement projects and grade crossing improvements should be undertaken at the same time as track in the area is being rehabilitated. In addition to reducing customer disruption, this will reduce overall costs and reduce the time needed to complete the program. This appro, ach was fol- lowed in the recommended capital improvement plan. Project ddivery In order to construct the r~habilitation and enhancement projects needed to restore Caltrain to a state of good _repair, Caltrain will need to expand its ability to deliver capital projects. Implement- ing an improvement program of nearly $900,000,000 will require a well thought-out approach that could include combining projects into large single programs similar to the approach used for the Ponderosa Project. Another idea is to explore is using a single contractor to complete both the design and actual Project construction (design/build). Should a design/build contractor approacli be selected, the electrification project could be included in the rehabilitation and enhancement package. Caltrain must develop a detailed approach to project delivery within the next year. 1-20 October 29, 1998 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHMENT B Divisions Inspection Services Planning Transportation Mr. Gerald T. Haugh Executive Director Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board P.O. Box 3006 San Carlos, CA 94070,1306 Dear Mr. Haugh: ~ Thank you for the opporttmity to comment on the Draft Caltrain Rapid Rail Study of October 1, 1998. Palo Alto strongly supports the overall Rapid Rail Study, with its aggressive program for rehabilitation, enhancement, and electrification. The new Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains numerous policies and programs that support the improvement and expansion of Caltrain, as envisioned in the Rapid Rail Study. Of particular interest to Palo Alto are the following issues. Electrification. Palo Alto has been a consistent and strong supporter of electrification, for environmental reasons, and as a way to reduce running times. We are pleased that electrification has been given a more urgent status in the Rapid Rail Study compared to the past strategic and short range transit plans. To the extent feasible, we urge the JPB to include electrification within the same time frame as the rehabilitation and enhancement projects. Extensions. Palo Alto has been a long supporter of the downtown San Francisco extension as a means to provide a direct connection to the regional transit systems that converge in downtown San Francisco. If, due to changing conditions in San Francisco, this. extension should again seem reasonably feasible, Palo Alto would support and encourage its inclusion in the Rapid Rail Study. Palo Alto supports a direct connection to the San Francisco Airport light rail system, hopefully in a reasonably short time frame that can be identified in the plan. Substantial numbers of airport customers and employees live south of the airport and will not directly benefit from the BART eXtension from the north. These potential Caltrain patrons deserve better service from the Peninsula’s long time transit provider. The Dumbarton corridor, along with other south bay.east-west corridors serving Silicon Valley employers, is severely congested, with minimal transit service currently available. With limited (or no) future highway capacity available across the bay, and current 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2404 650.329.2154 fax Mr. Gerald T. Haugh October 29, 1998 Page 2 highways at full capacity during peak periods, rail service provides the only commuter relief. We recognize that numerous hurdles limit the feasibility of Dumbarton corridor service, but every effort should be made to implement pilot service into the south bay area. Bicycle Access and Bicycle Parking. The Rapid Rail Study did not appear to include plans for increased bicycle access to trains, whether by improved station parking or on- board capacity. Bicycle access to Caltrain is a cost-effective and environmentally sound measure, as it reduces cold-start emissions and the pressure to expand expensive vehicle parking facilities and shuttle bus service. Palo Alto requests that the Rapid Rail Study include a specific section on future needs and expansion of bicycle parking and on-board bicycle accommodation. Increased Train Frequency. Palo Alto supports increased service frequency for all time periods up to a headway of 20 minutes or less, with implementation of all the improvements that are necessary to reach this frequency. We also support the Study’s recognition of the need for additional service focused on Santa Clara County, with a possible turn back at Palo Alto. We are, however, concerned about how Caltrain will mitigate the increased crossingnoise, vehicl~ congestion, and potential safety problems that will result from increased train frequency, as discussed below. Palo Alto-Specific Projects. Palo Alto supports the proposed improvements at the Palo Alto and California Avenue stations. We request that additional details be provided about the configuration and location of the third turn back track at the Palo Alto station, as well as the 7.5-mile third track between California and Sunnyvale Stations (Table 10- 1). The Study should be corrected to note that Charleston grade separation at MP 33.4 is in Palo Alto, not Mountain View (Table 11-1). Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan supports grade separations only for bicyclists and pedestrians, not full vehicular separations, due to lack of right-of-way and impacts on adjacent single-family neighborhoods. The proposed Palo Alto Avenue grade separation (MP 29.8) is the only one in Pal0 Alto that might be feasible for vehicles as well as pedestrians and bicyclists, as it would be limited to crossing under the railroad only (not also under Alma Street as at other locations, and, thus, would not require connecting vehicle ramps to Alma Street). Palo Alto requests that Caltrain include a thorough investigation of all options to mitigate the impacts of increased train frequency at grade crossings, given Palo Alto’s current opposition to new vehicular grade separations. We also request that the Rapid Rail Study CIP include in its grade separation program the construction of pedestrian and bicycle grade separations at the Charleston Road, East Meadow Drive, and Churchill Mr. Gerald T. Haugh October 29, 1998 Page 3 Avenue crossings. As stated in the Study, Palo Alto staff expects to work closely with the JPB on any proposed grade separation projects. The Study does not provide details of any proposed vehicle parking expansions, yet in Palo Alto, staff has heard of such projects frequently in the past few years. The Study should include a section on parking expansion, discussing where at-grade and structure parking may be feasible and/or necessary. Thank you for this opportunity to review the Rapid Rail Study, and we look forward to your consideration of Palo Alto’s comments. Sincerely, G. EDWARD GAWF Director of Planning and Community Environment - co: City Council