HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-29 City Council Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Transportation Workshop
Monday, April 29, 2024
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by
teleconference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and
public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person.
Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end
of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be
broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto,
and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238)
Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900‐6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an
amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes
after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to
city.council@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection
on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your
subject line.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,
the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong
cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not
accepted.
Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,
posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not
create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when
displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or
passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.
TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to
change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be
heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage
the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.
CALL TO ORDER
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP: STUDY SESSIONS (Item 1: 5:30 ‐ 6:30 PM, Item 2: 6:30 ‐ 9:30
PM)
1.Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Review and discuss the vision
statement, objectives, performance measures, and share and obtain feedback on the
existing conditions technical analysis.
2.Review of Rail Grade Separation Alternatives for the advancement of the alternatives
into the preliminary engineering and environmental documentation phase; CEQA status –
statutorily exempt under CEQA section 15262 (feasibility and planning study).
ADJOURNMENT
INFORMATION REPORTS
Information reports are provided for informational purposes only to the Council and the public but are not listed for action
during this meeting’s agenda.
3.Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Action Plan Collision Analysis Report
OTHER INFORMATION
Standing Committee Meetings
Public Comment Letters
Schedule of Meetings
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. For in person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on the
table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Clerk prior to
discussion of the item.
3. Spoken public comments using a computer or smart phone will be accepted through
the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom application onto
your smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in the
Meeting ID below.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362‐027‐238 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
1 April 29, 2024
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection
at www.CityofPaloAlto.org/agendas.
CITY COUNCILSpecial MeetingTransportation WorkshopMonday, April 29, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid5:30 PMPalo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend byteleconference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency andpublic access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person.Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the endof the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will bebroadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto,and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238) Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tocity.council@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspectionon the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in yoursubject line.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to
change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be
heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage
the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.
CALL TO ORDER
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP: STUDY SESSIONS (Item 1: 5:30 ‐ 6:30 PM, Item 2: 6:30 ‐ 9:30
PM)
1.Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Review and discuss the vision
statement, objectives, performance measures, and share and obtain feedback on the
existing conditions technical analysis.
2.Review of Rail Grade Separation Alternatives for the advancement of the alternatives
into the preliminary engineering and environmental documentation phase; CEQA status –
statutorily exempt under CEQA section 15262 (feasibility and planning study).
ADJOURNMENT
INFORMATION REPORTS
Information reports are provided for informational purposes only to the Council and the public but are not listed for action
during this meeting’s agenda.
3.Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Action Plan Collision Analysis Report
OTHER INFORMATION
Standing Committee Meetings
Public Comment Letters
Schedule of Meetings
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. For in person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on the
table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Clerk prior to
discussion of the item.
3. Spoken public comments using a computer or smart phone will be accepted through
the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom application onto
your smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in the
Meeting ID below.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362‐027‐238 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
2 April 29, 2024
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection
at www.CityofPaloAlto.org/agendas.
CITY COUNCILSpecial MeetingTransportation WorkshopMonday, April 29, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid5:30 PMPalo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend byteleconference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency andpublic access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person.Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the endof the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will bebroadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto,and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238) Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tocity.council@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspectionon the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in yoursubject line.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, tochange the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may beheard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best managethe time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.CALL TO ORDERAGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSTRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP: STUDY SESSIONS (Item 1: 5:30 ‐ 6:30 PM, Item 2: 6:30 ‐ 9:30PM)1.Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Review and discuss the visionstatement, objectives, performance measures, and share and obtain feedback on theexisting conditions technical analysis.2.Review of Rail Grade Separation Alternatives for the advancement of the alternativesinto the preliminary engineering and environmental documentation phase; CEQA status –statutorily exempt under CEQA section 15262 (feasibility and planning study).ADJOURNMENTINFORMATION REPORTSInformation reports are provided for informational purposes only to the Council and the public but are not listed for actionduring this meeting’s agenda.3.Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Action Plan Collision Analysis ReportOTHER INFORMATIONStanding Committee MeetingsPublic Comment Letters
Schedule of Meetings
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. For in person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on the
table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Clerk prior to
discussion of the item.
3. Spoken public comments using a computer or smart phone will be accepted through
the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom application onto
your smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in the
Meeting ID below.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362‐027‐238 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
3 April 29, 2024
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection
at www.CityofPaloAlto.org/agendas.
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: STUDY SESSION
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: April 29, 2024
Report #:2402-2619
TITLE
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Review and discuss the vision
statement, objectives, performance measures, and share and obtain feedback on the existing
conditions technical analysis.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report, provide feedback on the project’s draft vision statement, objectives,
performance measures, and the existing conditions technical analysis.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an overview on the effort to update the City’s existing 2012 Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP), including an overview of the feedback received during
the introductory first phase of the project and the existing conditions analysis for biking,
walking, and wheeling in Palo Alto. The City Council is being asked to review and provide
feedback on the project’s revised draft vision statement (Attachment A), objectives
(Attachment B), and Performance Measures (Attachment C) created from feedback received
during the first phase of engagement.
The revised draft project vision statement (Attachment A) reads:
We envision a city where sustainable, safe, efficient, equitable, and enjoyable transportation
thrives. Together, we will create a comfortable and connected street and trail network that
supports walking, biking, and rolling for people of all ages and abilities. We continue to be a
leader in safe routes to school and invest more in active transportation infrastructure,
education, and encouragement programs.
The draft project objectives (Attachment B) outlined include:
•Safe and Inclusive
•Connected and Accessible
•Comfortable and Enjoyable
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 4 of 226
•Community-Driven
•Integrated and Collaborative
The draft project performance measures (Attachment C) sort the 2012 BPTP Objectives and the
Bike Friendly Community criteria to corresponding project objectives/themes, where available,
to develop potential measures for the BPTP Update. The 2012 BPTP Objectives include:
•Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction
•Walk/Bike Network Expansion
•Safe and Complete Streets
•Planning & Policy
•Education & Encouragement
•Community, Equity, and Advocacy
The analysis in this report includes a review of electric bicycles (e-bikes) and shared
micromobility in Palo Alto, an inventory of bicycle parking in Downtown Palo Alto, a Citywide
review of Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), an assessment of out-of-direction travel required
by major barriers, an analysis of five- and ten-year collision history, and an evaluation of
walking and biking trips across the city.
Key takeaways are:
•The most stressful segments for bicycles are located on El Camino Real, Alma Street,
Oregon Expressway, San Antonio Road, and Foothill Expressway.
•About 68% of street miles in Palo Alto are low stress for bicycles (LTS 1 or LTS 2), yet low
stress streets are often interrupted by high stress roadways and intersections.
•Major barriers and locations in the analysis include: Oregon Expressway, Adobe Creek,
Barron Creek, Matadero Creek, Rail, Palo Alto Station, Palo Alto Transit Center, and El
Camino Real/Embarcadero Road, California Avenue Station, El Camino Real/California
Avenue, San Antonio Station, El Camino Real/Charleston Road.
•Based on the ten most recent years (2012-2022) of collision data, there has been a
general decrease in the total number of pedestrian and bicycle involved collisions.
o Pedestrian-involved collisions tended to be more severe during dark conditions,
however, the majority of nighttime pedestrian-involved collisions took place in
areas with streetlights.
o Broadside collisions are the most frequent type of bicycle collision that occurred
in Palo Alto within the five year study period. The fatal and severe injury
bicyclist-involved collisions predominantly occurred in areas where streetlights
were absent.
•Based on location data modeled by Replica, the highest percentage of biking trips were
associated with schools and colleges (17%), followed by shopping (11%) and work (8%)
related trips.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 5 of 226
o With only 7% of the population, Hispanics and Latinos represent 20% of the total
bike trips. With about 15% of the population, people age 18-34 made almost
45% of the total bike trips.
o Over 59% of biking trips take place between 12 noon and 9 p.m., with the peak
time observed at 3 p.m., representing 13% of the total bike trips.
o The average bike trip is 14.2 minutes, and the median travel time is 10 minutes.
o The average bike trip length is 2.5 miles, and 56% of trips are less than 2 miles in
length, 23% are between 2 and 4 miles, and 20% are over 2 miles.
o The highest number of bicyclists travel to or from Stanford University.
•Based on location data modeled by Replica, the highest percentage of walking trips
were associated with shopping (31%), work (9%), and restaurant (9%) related trips.
o With only 7% of the population, Hispanics and Latinos represent 20% of the total
walking trips. With about 15% of the population, people age 18-34 made almost
37% of the total walking trips.
o The peak time for pedestrian trips occurs between 3 and 5 p.m.
o Most walking trips are under 5 minutes with a mean of 11 minutes and median
of 7 minutes.
o Most walking trips (56%) are under 0.5-mile, and 96% of trips are under 2 miles.
o The highest number of pedestrians travel to or from Stanford University with
other walking hubs in downtown, Barron Park, and Adobe Meadow/Meadow
Park.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City’s existing 2012 BPTP is a critical planning, policy, and implementation document that
supports efforts to improve the safety and attractiveness of walking, biking, and rolling as a
means of transportation and recreation. The objectives of the BPTP Update are to seek robust
community feedback; reevaluate implementation progress from previous plans to adjust
recommendations for new policies, facilities, and programs; and to determine appropriate
criteria and metrics to prioritize recommendations and network routes. The BPTP Update effort
will also further investigate safety data to propose impactful recommendations, explore the
role of emerging transportation technologies such as electric-bicycles and micro-mobility
devices, and establish big-picture planning to expand bicycling and walking for all user types in
support of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan, a Safe
System approach, and other planning documents and policies. The BPTP Update effort will be a
24-month process, with the BPTP Update adoption anticipated for Summer 2025.
BACKGROUND
At its May 17, 2021 meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution supporting the City’s grant
application for the State Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Funds for the BPTP
Update project, and in September 2021, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 6 of 226
approved of the allocation of Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA3) funds to the City
of Palo Alto in the amount of $334,852 for the purposes of updating the 2012 Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan. At the June 19, 2023 meeting, the City Council approved a
professional services contract with Kittelson & Associates, Inc. with subconsultant Mobycon, to
prepare this BPTP Update. At the January 22, 2024 meeting, the City Council received an
Informational Report as an overview on the BPTP Update effort.1
ANALYSIS
The City Council is being asked to review and provide feedback on the project’s draft vision
statement (Attachment A), objectives (Attachment B), and Performance Measures (Attachment
C) created from feedback received during the first phase of engagement. The City Council may
also provide feedback on the existing conditions and needs analysis. The following section
presents a brief discussion of the analysis approach and findings for each of the topics covered
in this task. And the Stakeholder Engagement section below goes into more detail about the
vision statement, objectives, and performance measures.
E-bikes and Shared Micromobility. Electrification of the transport system has expanded in various
ways with the development of electric bicycles (e-bikes) (which now out-sell electric cars in the
USA) and e-scooters. The widespread use of internet-connected mobile phones has also allowed
shared mobility to take off with bike, e-bike, and e-scooter sharing systems being implemented
in cities around the world.
Electric Bicycles. The State of California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) defines e-bikes as
“a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts.”
Within this definition, the DMV has established three classes of e-bikes.
•Class 1: A low speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle equipped with a motor which provides
assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when a speed
of 20 mph is reached.
•Class 2: A low speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle equipped with a motor used
exclusively to propel the bicycle and NOT capable of providing assistance when a speed
of 20 mph is reached.
•Class 3: A low speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle equipped with a speedometer, and a
motor which provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide
assistance when a speed of 28 mph is reached.
1 Palo Alto City Council Meeting January 22, 2024. Information Report 14: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan (BPTP) Update: an active transportation plan – introduction and overview, community engagement, context
and baseline conditions, and next steps.
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=3829&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=8932
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 7 of 226
With e-bikes allowing people to travel further by bicycle, e-bikes can contribute to mode shifts
and decongestion if they are replacing trips that would otherwise be made by personal
automobile. Although research has found decongestion benefits to be marginal compared to the
health benefits, these benefits are still relevant in the grand scheme of the transportation
landscape. Studies have shown that e-bike riders travel further and cycle more often with one
study from 2020 finding that after purchasing an e-bike, riders increased their total bicycle usage
from 1.3 miles to 5.7 miles per day and that their share of all trips made by bike increased from
17 per cent to 49 percent. Although the benefits of e-bikes far outweigh the disbenefits, there
are some challenges that must be addressed. E-bikes can allow users to travel at relatively high
speeds which may present a safety risk to e-bike users and other active users (pedestrians,
traditional cyclists) around them when there is a great speed differential, though the kinetic
energy involved in a crash between an e-bike and pedestrian is significantly less than that
involved in an automobile crash. While e-bikes are not drastically different than traditional
bicycles, safely and effectively accommodating them in the transportation system requires
careful thought. For example, to mitigate conflicts between modes, wider facilities should be
implemented to ensure faster users can overtake slower ones and additional separation could be
implemented to reduce the risk of crashes at conflict points. Design guidance developed for this
BPTP Update will consider potential increases in e-bike usage.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 8 of 226
of Palo Alto. The pilot program was extended by Council in 2019 (Resolution #9822) and
subsequently in 2020 (Resolution #9882). The pilot program implementation was initially delayed
due to staff resources and delayed further as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Staff
recommended extending the pilot program from its expiration date of March 31, 2022 for an
additional 18 months to test the concept of private bicycle and electric scooter sharing systems
in Palo Alto.2 However, the extension has not been implemented and other shared micromobility
partnerships have not been pursued since the 37-bike system run by Motivate was discontinued.
Bicycle Parking Inventory. Bicycle parking is an essential component of a complete bicycle
network. To better understand the supply and demand for bicycle parking within the active
downtown core of Palo Alto, a data collection effort was undertaken using the ESRI Survey123
application and tablets. The data collection area included three parallel streets – University
Avenue, Hamilton Avenue, Lytton Avenue – and cross streets between the Caltrain station and
Middlefield Road. A total of 142 data points were collected. Each data point represents one bike
parking location (e.g., a bike rack or bike corral). For each data point the following information
was obtained:
•Location of bike parking (University Avenue, Parallel Street, or Cross Street)
•Latitude and longitude of each data point
•Total number of bike parking spaces
•Number of bike parking spaces per rack
•Number of occupied bike parking spaces
•Type of bike rack (Inverted U, Series Inverted U, Wave, Locker, Elevated or Other)
•The presence of a bike corral (Yes/No)
•Location of bike rack/corral (on the sidewalk or on the street)
•Condition of bike rack
•Classification of bike parking as short-term or long-term
•For short-term parking, proximity to the front entrance of the building it serves (within
50 feet)
•Whether the bike parking is covered (Yes/No)
•Security level of the bike parking, specifically if it's secured to the ground
•Presence of signage and/or wayfinding information at the parking location (optional)
•Additional notes on observations (optional)
•Photos for visual documentation
2 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-
cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/id-11523.pdf?t=43227.24
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 9 of 226
There are a total of 679 bike parking spaces in the survey area. University Avenue features 180
bike parking spaces at 61 bike parking locations, while Hamilton and Lytton Avenues combined
offer 202 spaces at 43 locations, and the surrounding streets contribute an additional 297
spaces at 38 locations, including the Palo Alto Caltrain station. Approximately 90% of these
spaces are located on the sidewalks and the remaining 10% are located on the street. There is a
broad variety of bicycle rack types, with inverted U-racks (circular, rectangular) being
predominant. Almost 9% of spaces are covered.
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS). Bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) is a rating given to a road
segment or crossing indicating the traffic stress it imposes on bicyclists. Levels of traffic stress
range from 1 to 4 with LTS 1 indicating low stress facility and LTS 4 indicating a high stress
facility. The segment analysis considers roadway functional classification, vehicle volume,
posted or prevailing vehicle speeds, number of vehicle lanes, the presence of on-street parking,
and vehicle parking and bicycle lane widths. The crossing analysis considers the right-turn lane
configuration and length, bike lane approach, vehicle turning speeds, and the presence of a
median refuge. The draft Bicycle LTS maps are included as Attachments E, F, and G.
Major Barriers. The analysis of major barriers examines linear barriers and barriers near major
transit stations that require people to take detours and increase the length of walking and
biking trips. The draft barriers maps are included as Attachments H through N.
•US 101: The lack of crossing opportunities across US 101 results in noticeably longer
walking trips, including some paths that are more than four times longer than the
straight line crossing path. Of the existing crossing locations, the walking and bicycling
bridges provide the highest level of separation from vehicles, while the Embarcadero
Road and San Antonio Road crossings include vehicle-oriented facilities such as
channelized free highway on- and off-ramps. The most significant gap occurs between
the two walking and bicycling bridges, limiting access to the Adobe Creek Loop Trail.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 10 of 226
•Oregon Expressway: The Oregon Expressway does not create significantly longer
pedestrian crossing paths as crossings with curb ramps, crosswalks, and traffic signals
are generally located every quarter mile.
•Adobe Creek: The lack of crossing opportunities of Adobe Creek, especially to the south,
results in out-of-distance travel of approximately two times the trip length.
Opportunities to cross Adobe Creek include Louis Road, Middlefield Road, Charleston
Road, Alma Street, and El Camino Real (all of which include sidewalks). There are also
two walking- and bicycling-only connections: a walkway connecting the Miller Avenue
cul-de-sac to Wilkie Way, and the Los Altos-Palo Alto Bike Path (connecting Los Altos
Avenue to Arastradero Road). The greatest out of direction travel occurs in the area
between the Los Altos-Palo Alto Bike Path and the Foothill Expressway, where the creek
runs between the Alta Mesa Memorial Park and a residential neighborhood.
•Barron Creek: While some paths across Barron Creek are longer than the straight long
crossing distance, they are usually less than double that distance due to the availability
of closely-spaced crossing facilities. Crossing opportunities are generally located every
1,100 feet north of Waverly Street, and every 300 feet south of Waverly Street and
sidewalks are provided on streets crossing the creek.
•Matadero Creek: Lack of crossing opportunities of Matadero Creek result in increased
travel distances of up to 1.75 times, especially to cross the canal west of Bryant Street.
The presence of the rail line along the southern tip of the canal’s above-ground
alignment further increases the out of distance travel in that area.
•Rail: There is substantial variation in crossing opportunities along the length of the rail
line. The longest distances are near Seale Avenue, Colorado Avenue, El Dorado Avenue,
Loma Verde Avenue, and El Verano Avenue. There is an approximately 0.65-mile gap
between the Churchill Avenue and California Avenue crossings with a midpoint at Seale
Avenue. Peers Park is located between these two crossing locations on the west side of
the railroad tracks, across the tracks from residential neighborhoods. The Churchill
Avenue crossing is at grade. The California Avenue crossing is a grade-separated
undercrossing that is not yet ADA compliant, and bicyclists must dismount to navigate
the steep undercrossing if others are present in the tunnel. There is an approximately
1.3-mile gap between the California Avenue and Meadow Drive crossings (note, while
the Oregon Expressway crosses the tracks, sidewalks are not provided). The Meadow
Drive crossing is at grade.
•Palo Alto Station, Palo Alto Transit Center, and El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road:
Primary barriers include the presence of several channelized turn lanes, a number of
intersections missing crosswalk markings, and there is a gap in the sidewalk network
along Palo Alto Avenue east of El Camino Real.
•California Avenue Station, and El Camino Real/California Avenue: Primary barriers
include missing crosswalk markings and presence of a channelized right-turn lane at the
intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road.
•San Antonio Station and El Camino Real/Charleston Road: The primary barrier in this
area is a lack of sidewalks on a portion of San Antonio Road and on residential streets.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 11 of 226
Safety and Collisions. A high-level review of ten years of collision data was conducted to identify
a general trend in the number and severity of pedestrian and bicycle collisions. The most recent
five years of collision data was conducted to identify patterns or trends based on temporal
characteristics, lighting conditions, location characteristics (intersection versus segment),
primary collision factors, age, and gender. These collision profiles provide a better
understanding of the common risks, and where and how efforts should be focused to most
effectively make streets safer for people walking and biking.
94 98
92
104
69
78
92
73
40 41
16
7 4 2 2 4 5 2 4 7 2 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total Fatal and Severe Injury
Bicycle Collisions
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 12 of 226
Throughout the five years (2018-2022) under more detailed review, a total of 104 pedestrian
and 257 bicycle collisions were reported in the city of Palo Alto, with three collisions involving
both pedestrians and bicyclists. Around 12%, or 12, of the pedestrian collisions resulted in a
fatality (3 collisions) or severe injury (9 collisions). Around 5%, or 13, of the bicycle collisions
resulted in a fatality (one collision) or severe injury (12 collisions). Collision maps are included
as Attachments O, P, and Q.
Pedestrian-involved collisions tended to be more severe during dark conditions. Around 29%
(30 collisions) of the injury pedestrian collisions and almost half (6 collisions) of the fatal and
severe injury pedestrian collisions occurred at night. Although the majority of nighttime
pedestrian-involved collisions take place in areas with streetlights, the effectiveness of this
lighting is inconsistent. Often, streetlights may not be bright enough or may be spaced too far
apart. This issue particularly affects pedestrians and those on sidewalks, as streetlights are
often designed primarily with vehicles in travel lanes in mind.
The most frequent type of bicycle collision that occurred in Palo Alto within the five year study
period are broadside collisions, constituting 61% (156 collisions), followed by sideswipe
collisions at 13% (34 collisions). Considering fatal and severe injury bicycle collisions, broadside
collisions make up 54% (7 collisions), while head-on and hit object collisions comprise 15% (2
collisions) each. The fatal and severe injury bicyclist-involved collisions predominantly occurred
in areas where streetlights were absent.
33 33
37
22
31
25
40
30
10
19
6
1
4 3 1
4 3 3 5
2 2 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total Fatal and Severe Injury
Pedestrian Collisions
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 13 of 226
Activity and Demand. Replica (Big-Data provider) uses a comprehensive modeling technique
that simulates the movements of residents, visitors, and commercial vehicles based on a
synthetic population. This synthetic population is statistically representative of our community
and constructed from a blend of mobile location data, consumer/resident data, built
environment data, economic activity data and, when available, bike and pedestrian counts.
The
dataset is a complete trip and population table for a typical weekday and typical weekend day
for the selected season and region. Model inputs include American Community Survey 5-year
estimates, TIGER/Line data, LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics Data, and ACS
Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), the Census Transportation Planning Products Program
(CTPP) as well as data from the National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of
Education, building data and proprietary parcel data and points of interest data.
•Biking Activity. Based on Replica data, the highest percentage of biking trips was
associated with schools and colleges (17%), followed by shopping (11%) and work (8%)
related trips. With only 7% of the population, Hispanics and Latinos represent 20% of
the total bike trips. With about 15% of the population, people age 18-34 made almost
45% of the total bike trips. The highest percentage of trips in the morning occurs at 7
a.m., constituting around 11% of the overall bike trips. Over 59% of trips take place
between 12 noon and 9 p.m., with the peak time observed at 3 p.m., representing 13%
of the total bike trips. The average bike trip is 14.2 minutes, and the median travel time
is 10 minutes. The average bike trip length is 2.5 miles, and 56% of trips are less than 2
miles in length, 23% are between 2 and 4 miles, and 20% are over 2 miles. The highest
number of bicyclists travel to or from Stanford University.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 14 of 226
•Walking Activity. Based on Replica data, the highest percentage of walking trips were
associated with shopping (31%), work (9%), and restaurant (9%) related trips. With only
7% of the population, Hispanic and Latino represent 20% of the total walking trips. With
about 15% of the population, people age 18-34 made almost 37% of the total walk trips.
The peak time for pedestrian trips occurs between 3 and 5 p.m. Most walking trips are
under 5 minutes with a mean of 11 minutes and median of 7 minutes. Most walking
trips (56%) are under 0.5-mile, and 96% of trips are under 2 miles. The highest number
of pedestrians travel to or from Stanford University with other walking hubs in
downtown, Barron Park, and Adobe Meadow/Meadow Park.
NEXT STEPS
Following Council review and input on the existing conditions and needs analyses, as a part of
the next phase, Phase 3, the project team will develop network and corridor criteria to identify
and prioritize project, program, and policy recommendations. In Fall 2024, the project team will
conduct another series of public engagement activities to help refine the project
recommendations, including public meetings with Committees, Commissions, a community
meeting, an online survey, and street-level engagement activities. Draft recommendations will
be brought for Council review in Fall/Winter 2024. The Draft Plan (Phase 4) is anticipated for
Spring 2025, and the Final Plan (Phase 5) is scheduled for Summer/Fall 2025.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The BPTP Update project cost is $333,945, including a 10 percent contingency. The City is
eligible to cover project expenditures under MTC’s TDA Article 3 program and can request an
allocation of up to $334,852 for the effort. City staff anticipates that all eligible costs incurred
will be reimbursed through the TDA Article 3 payment reimbursement process. These funds are
included in the FY 2024 Adopted Budget in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Implementation Project (PL-04010). Costs for the implementation of any recommendations in
the plan will require the identification and appropriation of additional funding.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Phase 1 Community Engagement Themes
Phase 1 community engagement themes included an interactive map, public survey (developed
and distributed in partnership with the Safe Streets For All Action Plan team), a series of seven
committee and working group meetings, an in-person pop-up event at Bike Palo Alto, and a
virtual community meeting visioning workshop. An overview of what we heard through these
Phase 1 engagement activities is presented in this section.
•Interactive Map. A total of 952 unique comments were received between September 28
and December 31, 2023. Commenters had the option to select four different comment
categories, including safety concern, infrastructure needed, destination you want to
access, and other. Over half of the comments (54 percent, or 516 comments) were
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 15 of 226
categorized as a "Safety Concern", followed by 29 percent (274) of comments
categorized as "Infrastructure Needed", 14 percent (134) of comments were categorized
as “Other”, and the remaining 3 percent (28) of comments were categorized as
“Destination You Want to Access”. Participants were given the option to view and like
comments from other users. Notably, comments advocating for improved infrastructure
to address connectivity gaps in existing bicycle facilities, safety enhancements, wider
bike lanes for increased rider comfort, and the provision of bike infrastructure near
schools garnered the highest number of likes. The project team will be further reviewing
the comments in the upcoming months.
•Committee and Staff Working Group Meetings. The BPTP Update team engaged with
several standing committees and commissions and created a staff working group to
guide the development of the work. The Phase 1 working group and committee
feedback covers a wide range of topics related to safety, transportation infrastructure,
across barrier connections, transformative technologies, and future development. Key
themes that emerged from these meetings include:
1. Safety is a top priority. People expressed concerns about pedestrian and bicyclist
safety at various locations, especially for students walking to and from school.
2. There is demand for high quality transportation infrastructure. Suggestions to
support more walking and biking included implementation of more bicycle
boulevards with traffic calming treatments on neighborhood streets, as well as
additional secure and long-term bicycle parking, and separated bike lanes on higher
speed higher volume roadways. There was general agreement that quality was more
important than quantity when it comes to transportation infrastructure for walking
and biking.
3. Across barrier connections are needed. Committee and working group members
recognized the presence of major barriers, such as U.S. 101 and the Caltrain tracks,
and acknowledged the need for low-stress connections to overcome these barriers.
There was a sense of urgency around selecting a preferred location for grade-
separated crossing(s) of the Caltrain tracks.
4. Power and potential of transformative technologies. The presence of new travel
modes, including e-bikes and e-scooters, as well as the availability of new
technologies such as LiDar and vehicle to infrastructure sensors, has rapidly changed
the landscape of transportation planning and facility design. Committee and working
group members expressed an interest in considering and incorporating these
transformative technologies in the BPTP Update analysis and recommendations.
5. Plan for the future. There is substantial growth planned in Palo Alto, particularly
within select priority development areas. The BPTP Update must consider land use
changes and development patterns.
•Bike Palo Alto (October 1, 2023). The BPTP Update team participated in the Bike Palo
Alto event, which was held on October 1, 2023 from 1-3 p.m. at Fair Meadow
Elementary School. The team received comments from about 40 participants who
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 16 of 226
expressed concerns related to walking and biking safety, supported implementation of
protected bike lanes, and identified El Camino Real as a barrier to connectivity within
the city.
•Visioning Workshop (January 31, 2024). The goal of the visioning workshop was to
identify the direction of the BPTP Update and establish the vision and objectives for the
plan. The draft vision statement and objectives created during this process are as
follows:
o Draft Vision Statement: In Palo Alto, we envision a city where sustainable
transportation thrives, embodying safety, efficiency, and enjoyment. Our streets
will form a connected, cohesive network, supporting walking and cycling with
tree-lined paths, efficient shortcuts, and secure bike parking. We commit to
overcoming barriers, ensuring every part of our community is easily traversed on
foot or by bike, fostering a connected region where sustainable transportation is
a shared priority. Palo Alto aspires to be a leader, with comprehensive
programming encouraging everyone to embrace sustainable modes. We invest
more in walking and biking infrastructure, ensuring equity and accessibility for
all. Embracing the Safe System Approach, our city prioritizes safety and aims for
a future where walking or biking for short trips is more convenient than driving,
shaping a city where every journey, no matter how small, contributes to a more
sustainable and connected community.
o Draft Objectives:
▪Safe and Inclusive: Prioritizing safety for all road users and ensuring
equitable access to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure across the
community.
▪Connected and Accessible: Featuring a convenient and interconnected
network of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails that provide efficient travel
options and easy access to transit.
▪Comfortable and Enjoyable: Enhancing the comfort and enjoyment of
walking and cycling through amenities such as shade, greenery, and well-
designed streetscapes.
▪Community-Driven: Fostering community engagement and participation
in promoting active transportation, supported by education,
programming, and infrastructure investments.
▪Integrated and Collaborative: Collaborating with neighboring cities to
create a seamless and integrated regional network of pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure.
The draft vision statement was revised based on committee and working group feedback. The
revised draft project vision statement (Attachment A) reads: We envision a city where
sustainable, safe, efficient, equitable, and enjoyable transportation thrives. Together, we will
create a comfortable and connected street and trail network that supports walking, biking, and
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 17 of 226
rolling for people of all ages and abilities. We continue to be a leader in safe routes to school
and invest more in active transportation infrastructure, education, and encouragement
programs.
The revised draft vision, objectives, and performance measures are included as Attachment A,
B, and C, respectively. These will be refined with input from council, committee, and working
group members and participants in the Bicycle Network Development Workshop.
Phase 2 Community Engagement Activities
Phase 2 engagement activities include website updates, a bicycle network development
workshop, a community walk, a community bike ride, pop-ups at neighborhood events, and a
second series of committee and working group meetings.
•Project website and interactive map. The project website can be accessed at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/bikepedplan. The website will continue to be updated
with relevant material and information.
•Committee and Working Group Meetings. The project team has engaged the following
committees and working groups as part of Phase 2:
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (March 5, 2024)
o Parks and Recreation Commission (March 26, 2024)
o Planning and Transportation Commission (March 27, 2024)
o Interagency Staff Working Group (March 27, 2024)
o City School Transportation Safety Committee (March 28, 2024)
o City Council (April 29, 2024)
Key themes that emerged from these meetings include:
1. Vision statement. There was positive sentiment around the content of the draft
vision statement. However, many people expressed an interest in shortening the
statement and reducing redundancy while emphasizing the intent of the plan to
create an “all ages and abilities” network and include an educational element.
2. Level of traffic stress. There was interest in exploring the bicycle level of traffic
stress maps and analysis. Several people commented on how their experience
does or does not match the LTS ratings shown in the map. There were also
comments around how the level of comfort on a street may change based on
time of day or other conditions, such as events or school drop off and pick up.
3. Collision and safety analysis. There was interest in understanding the cause of
the positive downward trend in the number of pedestrian- and bicycle-involved
collisions. Potential factors contributing to the decrease in collisions include
fewer people driving, safer driver behavior, fewer people walking and biking
contributing to reduced exposure, and investments in infrastructure making
collisions less likely to occur or less severe. There was also interest in
incorporating more recent collision information, specifically, collisions that
occurred in 2023 and 2024, that were not part of the data set used in the
analysis.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 18 of 226
4. Activity analysis. There were requests for further explanation of the Replica
model inputs and outputs and clarification on the limitations of the data source.
•Bicycle Network Development Workshop. This bicycle network development workshop
was held on April 16, 2024 from 6:30-8pm. The workshop provides a visual way to
identify priority origin/destination pairs within the transportation network and results in
a conceptual key bicycle corridor network based on existing desire lines. The workshop
will offer a hands-on approach to explore key factors including local routes, travel
behaviors, and infrastructure gaps. The workshop will include:
o Definition of origins and destinations
o Development of the star patterns
o Bundling and optimization of the routes.
The outcomes from this workshop will be used to verify, modify, remove, and create the
active transportation network recommendations.
•Community Walking Tour. The community walk was held on April 17, 2024 from 1:30-
3:30 in partnership with Avenidas. The tour focused in the downtown area, and included
discussion on what works and what doesn’t in creating a pedestrian friendly zone.
Feedback will inform future Pedestrian District Guidelines.
•Community Cycle Tour. The community cycle tour was held on April 18, 2024 from 5:30-
7:30pm in partnership with Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition. The route included several
streets on the high injury network and streets near future housing and included a
discussion on transportation needs and opportunities in these priority development
areas. Feedback will inform the team’s understanding of community needs, and will
influence the conceptual and final bicycle network recommendations.
•Earth Day. The BPTP Update team provided materials to be shared at the Earth Day
event on April 21, 2024. The team sought input on community needs and priorities
related to walking and biking in the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
California Senate Bill 922 (2022) exempts active transportation plans, such as bicycle
transportation plans like the BPTP Update from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 19 of 226
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 20 of 226
April 2024
Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Update
Revised Draft Vision Statement
We envision a city where sustainable, safe, efficient, equitable, and
enjoyable transportation thrives. Together, we will create a comfortable
and connected street and trail network that supports walking, biking,
and rolling for people of all ages and abilities. We continue to be a
leader in safe routes to school and invest more in active transportation
infrastructure, education, and encouragement programs.
Item 1
Attachment A - Revised
Vision Statement (Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 21 of 226
Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Update
Draft Objectives
• Safe and Inclusive: Prioritizing safety for all road users and
ensuring equitable access to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
across the community.
• Connected and Accessible: Featuring a convenient and
interconnected network of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails that
provide efficient travel options and easy access to transit.
• Comfortable and Enjoyable: Enhancing the comfort and
enjoyment of walking and cycling through amenities such as
shade, greenery, and well-designed streetscapes.
• Community-Driven: Fostering community engagement and
participation in promoting active transportation, supported by
education, programming, and infrastructure investments.
• Integrated and Collaborative: Collaborating with neighboring
cities to create a seamless and integrated regional network of
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
Item 1
Attachment B - Objectives
(Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 22 of 226
Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Performance Measure Reference Table
2/15/2024
Reduce GHG
2024 Vision Workshop Themes 2012 Plan Objectives Bike Friendly Communities
Criteria Potential Measure(s) - Modified for 2024
Expand Walk/Bike Network
2024 Vision Workshop Themes 2012 Plan Objectives Bike Friendly Communities
Criteria Potential Measure(s) - Modified for 2024
High Speed Roads with Bike
Facilities
Leading Indicator: Projects with Complete Street checklists completed and approved
for AAA routes
Direct Lagging Indicator: Percentage of households that live within 1000ft of
completed and connected all ages and abilities (AAA) cycling infrastructure (bikeways,
trails)
Total Bicycle Network
Mileage to Total Road
Network Mileage
Leading Indicator: Miles of bicycle boulevards, enhanced bikeways, and trails
developed
Direct Lagging Indicator: Numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists on key facilities, as
determined by counts.
Leading Indicator: Amount of grants provided to local residents and community
groups to hold "open streets" events
Lagging indicator: Number of annual street closure events
Leading Indicator: Share of transportation budget spent on walking and biking
Direct Lagging Indicator: Construction of new Across Barrier Connections within or
near employment centers.
Lagging Indicator: Census commute mode share, school commute mode share, TMP
reports
Safe and Complete Streets
2024 Vision Workshop Themes 2012 Plan Objectives Bike Friendly Communities
Criteria Potential Measure(s) - Modified for 2024
Crashes per 10k bicycle
commuters
Leading Indicator: Annual installation of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
compliant curb ramps and accessible pedestrian signals
Fatalities per 10k bicycle
commuters
Leading Indicator: Percentage complete of pedestrian and bicycle collisions with KSIs
improved or studied.
Lagging Indicator: Annual pedestrian and bicycle collissions (either as 10k commuters
or pr 100,000 residents)
Comfortable and Enjoyable:
Enhancing the comfort and
enjoyment of walking and
cycling through amenities such
as shade, greenery, and well-
designed streetscapes.
Leading Indicator: Number of street tree installations along key walking and cycling
routes
Lagging Indicator: Canopy coverage of key walking and cycling routes
Planning & Policy
2024 Vision Workshop Themes 2012 Plan Objectives Bike Friendly Communities
Criteria Potential Measure(s) - Modified for 2024
Bike Plan is Current and is
Being Implemented
Leading Indicator: Share of transportation budget spent on walking and biking
Bike Program Staff to
Population
Leading Indicator: Projects completed involving multiple agency or departmental
funding sponsors
Share of Transportation
Budget Spent on Bicycling
Lagging Indicator: Change or introduction of bicycle-friendly laws and ordinances
Bicycle–Friendly Laws &
Ordinances
Leading Indicator: Number of connections to cycling infrastructure built by
neighbouring municipalities
Education & Encouragement
2024 Vision Workshop Themes 2012 Plan Objectives Bike Friendly Communities
Criteria Potential Measure(s) - Modified for 2024
N/A Bicycle Education in Schools Leading Indicator: Number of walking and biking promotion events run per year at
schools
Bike Month and Bike to Work Events
Leading Indicator: Number of schools with complete Safe Routes to School rolled out
Lagging Indicator: school commute mode share
Leading Indicator: Amount of grants provided to local residents and community
groups to hold "open streets" events
Lagging indicator: Number of annual street closure events
Community, Equity & Advocacy
2024 Vision Workshop Themes 2012 Plan Objectives Bike Friendly Communities
Criteria Potential Measure(s) - Modified for 2024
N/A N/A Presence of Active Bicycle
Advocacy Group
Leading Indicator: Presence of Active Bicycle Advocacy Group
Active Bicycle Advisory CommitteeLeading Indicator: Presence of Active Bicycle Advisory Committee
The tables below sort the 2012 Plan objectives and Bike Friendly Community criteria to corrsponding 2024 Vision Workshop themes, where available.
Convert discretionary vehicle trips into
walking and bicycling trips in order to
reduce City transportation-related
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by
2020.
N/AN/A
Community-Driven: Fostering
community engagement and
participation in promoting
active transportation,
supported by education,
programming, and
infrastructure investments.
Integrated and Collaborative:
Collaborating with neighboring
cities to create a seamless and
integrated regional network of
pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure.
Promote efficient, sustainable, and
creative use of limited public resources
through integrated design and planning.
Consider relying on the Palo Alto Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) to
address GHG emissions
GHG reduction is a lagging measure and an outcome of mode change which is
contigent on avaialility of AAA cycling and walking infrastrucutre
Develop a core network of shared paths,
bikeways, and traffic-calmed streets that
connects business and residential
districts, schools, parks, and open spaces
to promote healthy, active living.
Double the rate of bicycling for both local
and total work commutes by 2020 (to
15% and 5%, respectively).
Connected and Accessible:
Featuring a convenient and
interconnected network of
sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails
that provide efficient travel
options and easy access to
transit.
Bicycle Ridership Rate
Plan, construct, and maintain ‘Complete
Streets’ that are safe and accessible to all
modes and people of all ages and
abilities.
Safe and Inclusive: Prioritizing
safety for all road users and
ensuring equitable access to
pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure across the
community.
Item 1
Attachment C -
Performance Measures
(Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 23 of 226
101
280
82
Midd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Loui
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilki
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mille
r
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
101
280
82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LA HONDA
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
Class I - Shared Use Path
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Bike Route
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
Trail
Ped/Bike Bridge
Ped/Bike Underpass
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Stop
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC
0 1 2
Miles
01/05/2024
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Item 1
Attachment D - Existing
Bicycle Facilities Map
(Final)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 24 of 226
101
280
82
Midd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Loui
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilk
i
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
s
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
101
280
82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LA HONDA
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Stop
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC
0 1 2
Miles
Note: Split lines are only used for roadways with different conditions per direction
(for example: bike lane in only one direction or parking only on one side),
otherwise all roads are shown with only a centerline.
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress - Citywide
Item 1
Attachment E - Bicycle
Level of Traffic Stress
Map - Citywide (Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 25 of 226
101
280
82
Midd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Loui
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilki
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mille
r
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
101
280
82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LA HONDA
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Stop
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC
0 1 2
Miles
Note: Split lines are only used for roadways with different conditions per direction
(for example: bike lane in only one direction or parking only on one side),
otherwise all roads are shown with only a centerline.
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress - Bicycle Facilities
Item 1
Attachment F - Bicycle
Level of Traffic Stress
Map - Bicycle Facilities
(Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 26 of 226
101
280
82
Midd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Loui
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilki
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mille
r
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
101
280
82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LA HONDA
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Stop
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC
0 1 2
Miles
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress - Intersections
Item 1
Attachment G - Bicycle
Level of Traffic Stress
Map - Intersections
(Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 27 of 226
101
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Loui
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilki
e
W
y
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTO
PALO ALTO
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
Barrier Detour
Up to 1.25x Detour
1.25x - 1.75x Detour
1.75x - 2.00x Detour
2.00x - 4.00x Detour
More than 4.00x Detour
Available Barrier Crossing Locations
Level of Stress 1
Level of Stress 2
Level of Stress 3
Level of Stress 4
0 1 2
Miles
Barriers Map - US 101
Item 1
Attachment H - Barriers
Map - US 101 (Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 28 of 226
101
82
Midd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Loui
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilki
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Mille
r
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTO
PALO ALTO
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
Barrier Detour
Up to 1.25x Detour
1.25x - 1.75x Detour
1.75x - 2.00x Detour
2.00x - 4.00x Detour
More than 4.00x Detour
0 1 2
Miles
Barriers Map - Oregon Expressway
Item 1
Attachment I - Barriers
Map - Adobe Creek
(Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 29 of 226
101Alma
S
t
Loui
s
R
d
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilki
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hi
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Mille
r
A
v
e
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
Barrier Detour
Up to 1.25x Detour
1.25x - 1.75x Detour
1.75x - 2.00x Detour
2.00x - 4.00x Detour
More than 4.00x Detour
0 1 2
Miles
Barriers Map - Adobe Creek
Item 1
Attachment J - Barriers
Map - Barron Creek
(Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 30 of 226
101
Channing Ave
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Loui
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilki
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Mille
r
A
v
e
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
PALO ALTO
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
Barrier Detour
Up to 1.25x Detour
1.25x - 1.75x Detour
1.75x - 2.00x Detour
2.00x - 4.00x Detour
More than 4.00x Detour
0 1 2
Miles
Barriers Map - Barron Creek
Item 1
Attachment K - Barriers
Map - Matadero Creek
(Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 31 of 226
101
Midd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Loui
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilki
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Mille
r
A
v
e
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
PALO ALTO
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
Barrier Detour
Up to 1.25x Detour
1.25x - 1.75x Detour
1.75x - 2.00x Detour
2.00x - 4.00x Detour
More than 4.00x Detour
0 1 2
Miles
Barriers Map - Matadero Creek
Item 1
Attachment L - Barriers
Map - Oregon Expressway
(Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 32 of 226
101
82
Midd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Loui
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilki
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mille
r
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
PALO ALTO
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
Barrier Detour
Up to 1.25x Detour
1.25x - 1.75x Detour
1.75x - 2.00x Detour
2.00x - 4.00x Detour
More than 4.00x Detour
Available Barrier Crossing Locations
Level of Stress 1
Level of Stress 2
Level of Stress 3
Level of Stress 4
Churchill Avenue to Meadow Drive (1.3 mile) Crossing Gap
Churchill Avenue to California Avenue (0.7 mile) Crossing Gap
0 1 2
Miles
Barriers Map - Rail Corridor
Item 1
Attachment M - Barriers
Map - Rail Corridor (Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 33 of 226
101
280
82
Midd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Loui
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilki
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mille
r
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
Caltrain Stop
Rapid Bus Stop
Railroad
Rail Station Half-Mile Buffer
Rapid Bus Stop Quarter-Mile Buffer
City of Palo Alto
0 1 2
Miles
Barriers Map - Transit Station Areas
Item 1
Attachment N - Barriers
Map - Transit Station
Areas (Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 34 of 226
101
280
82
Midd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Loui
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilki
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mille
r
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
101
280
82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LA HONDA
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
Pedestrian Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Stop
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC
0 1 2
Miles
Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions
Item 1
Attachment O - Collision
Map - Pedestrian and
Bicycle Collisions (Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 35 of 226
101
280
82
Midd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Loui
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilki
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mille
r
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
101
280
82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LA HONDA
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions
Other Injury Collisions
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Stop
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC
0 1 2
Miles
Pedestrian Collisions by Severity
Item 1
Attachment P - Collision
Map - Pedestrian
Collisions by Severity
(Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 36 of 226
101
280
82
Midd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Loui
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilki
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mille
r
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
101
280
82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LA HONDA
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions
Other Injury Collisions
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Stop
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC
0 1 2
Miles
Bicycle Collisions by Severity
Item 1
Attachment Q - Collision
Map - Bicycle Collisions
by Severity (Draft)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 37 of 226
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: STUDY SESSION
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: April 29, 2024
Report #:2402-2593
TITLE
Review of Rail Grade Separation Alternatives for the advancement of the alternatives into the
preliminary engineering and environmental documentation phase; CEQA status – statutorily
exempt under CEQA section 15262 (feasibility and planning study).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council discuss and review the grade separation alternatives
considering Rail Committee recommendations and other work completed to date for the
possible selection of preferred alternative(s) and advancing grade separation alternatives into
the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation Phase.
Staff intends to bring an item to the City Council on June 3, 2024 seeking the Council action
on the following key decisions:
1.The Bicycle and Pedestrian crossing location at Kellogg Avenue versus Seale Avenue for
the Partial Underpass Alternative at Churchill Avenue Crossing
2.The selection of Preferred Alternative(s) at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road for
advancing grade separation alternatives into the Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Documentation Phase.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the selection of the Partial Underpass as the preferred alternative for Churchill Avenue
and the narrowing of the alternatives to Hybrid, Trench, and Underpass for Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road crossings by the City Council in 2021, the City has conducted various studies
and refinements to underpass alternatives. In addition, the Council-adopted Evaluation
Criteria was updated following Rail Committee recommendation in June 20231.
The project involves the construction impacting railroad facilities with active commuter and
1 Item 6, Action Item, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=82425
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 38 of 226
freight lines. This study session provides the platform for review and Council discussion of the
conceptual plans for various alternatives and staff is seeking Council feedback on:
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 39 of 226
BACKGROUND
After receiving the final report from the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) on March
23, 2021 (Staff Report 11797)2, Staff presented a detailed review of Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road crossing alternatives on August 23, 2021 (Staff Report 134353) and presented
details on Churchill Avenue crossing alternatives for grade separation on November 1 & 29,
2021 (Staff Report 135434) & (Staff Report 137875).
City Council Selection of Alternatives
At these meetings in November 2021, the Council eliminated the Viaduct Alternative and
selected the Partial Underpass Alternative as a preferred alternative for Churchill Avenue with
the Closure Alternative as backup.
For Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossing, the Council in August 2021 narrowed the
alternatives in consideration to three alternatives, namely Hybrid, Trench, and Underpass. The
City Council also directed staff to perform additional studies. These studies included work to
refine Underpass alternatives with input from PAUSD, PABAC, and Stanford to address current
shortcomings and to conduct additional outreach to these stakeholders. On May 23, 2022
(Staff Report 143416) the City Council authorized an amendment with the consultant to
perform these additional tasks.
Refinements to Underpass Alternatives
Following the City Council and Rail Committee direction, City Staff and the consultant reached
out to the Pedestrian and Bike Advisory Committee (PABAC), Palo Alto Unified School District
(PAUSD), Stanford, City School Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC), and members from
the community who were involved in developing the conceptual design of these partial
underpass alternatives for their feedback and comments for refinement to the conceptual
plans. Staff compiled all the comments received from these stakeholders and developed a
master list of all comments. These comments were then categorized into four elements:
Bicycle and Pedestrian, Roadway, Structures, and Rail. The following list of comments was
reviewed and addressed in the refinements.
•Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities:
o Width and Pathway configurations
o Grade/slope
o Maneuvering and additional crossings
2 Item 1, Study Session, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=81424
3 Item 6, Action Items, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=81581
4 Item 15, Action Item, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=81602
5 Item 11, Action Items, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=81655
6 Item 11, Consent Items, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=81903
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 40 of 226
o Design speed, design bicycle, turning radius and sight distance
o Construction impacts
o Bicycle and Pedestrian pathway on each side (Meadow and Charleston
Underpass alternative)
o Kellogg Avenue vs Seale Avenue and Bike Lane configurations on the pathway
for Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass alternative
•Roadways:
o Shoulder and lane widths
o Vehicular lane reductions
o Intersection, turning radius, school bus turning radius
o Roadway Grade/Slope
o Signage
o Loss of landscaping strip on Alma Street
o Roundabout for Charleston Underpass Alternative only
o Bike boulevard continuity at intersections
•Structures
o Bridge Depth thickness
o Vertical clearance
o Aesthetics
•Rail
o Raise the rail
The various elements related to these facilities were discussed during Rail Committee study
sessions on October 19, 2022 (Staff Report 148137) and November 18, 2022 (Staff Report
149048). Based on the study session review and feedback, the Conceptual Plans of the Partial
Underpass at Churchill Avenue and Underpass Alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston
Road were refined and approved by the Rail Committee on May 23, 2023 (Staff Report 2302-
09739). Attachment A (Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass Plan and Profile and Attachment E
(Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Underpass Plan and Profile) to this staff report include
updates resulting from this review.
Re-evaluation of Viaduct Alternative in-lieu of Trench alternative at Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road crossing for review by Caltrain
During the Rail Committee study sessions reviewing the refinements of underpass alternatives
in October and November of 2022, the members of the community, PABAC, and PAUSD
expressed concerns about bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and requested to reconsider
Viaduct Alternative for Rail Committee’s review, evaluation, and recommendation to Council.
7 Item 2, Study Session, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9206
8 Item 2, Study Session, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9207
9 Item 2, Action Items, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9216
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 41 of 226
In addition, during the same time; Caltrain staff provided information regarding the four
tracking needs in Palo Alto. Therefore, the Rail Committee paused further analysis of the
trench alternative, mainly due to its high cost and feasibility challenges concerning
accommodating and addressing the four tracking needs of Caltrain.
Furthermore, the Service Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Peninsula Corridor
Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) for the Connecting Palo Alto Grade Separation Projects at these
crossings was in the development process during this time. The draft service agreement was
reviewed by the Rail Committee at its April 26, 2023, meeting (Staff Report 2303-119910). The
Service Agreement was intended to provide early coordination, technical review, input, and
expertise to inform the capital project development process for the selection of Preferred
Alternative(s). Therefore, the Rail Committee considered this an opportunity to further review
the Viaduct Alternative instead of the Trench Alternative for Meadow Drive and Charleston
Road crossing at the June 20, 2023, Rail Committee meeting (Staff Report 2305-154611) to
accommodate community concerns.
Based on Caltrain’s review of the proposed viaduct alignment to keep the structure away from
residential properties west of the railroad track while keeping existing tracks as shoefly track,
addressing technical comments, and the four tracking needs; this alternative would cause
significant encroachment on Alma Street potentially reducing the street into one lane in each
direction. The Rail Committee meetings in March and April 2024 discussed a possible iteration
to the viaduct alternative with the proposed viaduct alignment to shift westward towards the
residential properties and to construct the shoefly tracks on the east side of the tracks. This
alternative was not evaluated by Caltrain as the intent was to remain consistent with the
previously envisioned concept that was developed through community input by the City. In
addition, there were time and scope constraints in the Caltrain Service Agreement.
Following an in-depth review and discussion, the Committee voted, with two in favor and one
opposed, to recommend the Underpass Alternative and Hybrid Alternative at Meadow Drive
and Charleston Road as the preferred options to the City Council for advancement into the
Preliminary Engineering review. Therefore, the Viaduct alternative was eliminated from
further consideration by the Rail Committee.
City Council Adopted Evaluation Criteria & Additional Studies
The Rail Committee on March 29, 2023 (Staff Report 2302-101012), and April 26, 2023 (Staff
10 Item 2, Action Items, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9213
11 Item 1, Action Items, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9225
12 Item 1, Action Items, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9212
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 42 of 226
Report 2304-126913), reviewed the Council Adopted Evaluation criteria, which led to a
recommendation from the Rail Committee the additional measures to be included in the
Council Adopted Evaluation Criteria. The revised evaluation criteria were unanimously
approved by the Rail Committee and recommended to the City Council for approval. The City
Council approved the updated evaluation criteria at its June 12, 2023, meeting (Staff Report #
2305-142614).
The additional measures in the evaluation criteria include reviewing impacts such as
connectivity, corridor travel times, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, sustainability, sea-level
rise, and visual and privacy considerations. These additional elements for the alternatives in
consideration were further evaluated. The Rail Committee reviewed the update to the
Summary of Evaluation of Council Adopted Criteria at its February 20, 2024, meeting (Staff
Report # 2401-250315).
The City’s engineering consultant (AECOM) also conducted the subsurface exploration and
performed data collection for the project. A study report was prepared by the Consultant
which included findings addressing subsurface conditions and the feasibility of alternative
construction methods with respect to soil conditions and recommendations for additional
studies in future phases. The study was presented to the Rail Committee on August 23, 2023,
Rail Committee Meeting (Staff Report 2307-174716)
In addition, at the Rail Committee’s request the Noise and Vibration Comparative Analysis
Report prepared by AECOM Engineers in July 2020 for the evaluation of the Grade Separation
Alternatives was reviewed to discuss the technical insights in a study session on September
19, 2023 (Staff Report 2308-194317)
Caltrain Review (Four Tracking and Technical Review of Alternatives)
The Caltrain 2040 Business plan’s inclusion of a possible passing track segment in either Palo
Alto or Mountain View presented challenges for grade separation planning in Palo Alto. At
each of these crossings, Caltrain required that grade separation designs not preclude four-
tracking. These requirements indicated a significant impediment to the timely and cost-
effective project development. Caltrain staff had previously indicated that Caltrain was taking
the most conservative approach in considering the potential for a four-track segment between
the San Francisquito Creek Bridge in Palo Alto and just through the Mountain View Station.
Therefore, in June 2022, City staff sent formal requests to consider narrowing the extent of
13 Item 2, Action Items, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9213
14 Item 6, Consent Items, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=82425
15 Item 1, Action Items, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9251
16 Item 2, Action Items, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9227
17 Item 2, Study Session, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9232
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 43 of 226
the four-track segment and review technical issues and concerns that surfaced related to their
design criteria.
18). Caltrain staff reviewed various alternatives including four
tracking segments at the following three locations:
•Palo Alto Avenue Station (Four tracking between Palo Alto Avenue and Churchill
Avenue)
•California Avenue Station (Four tracking between Churchill Avenue and Meadow
Drive)
•San Antonio Station (Four tracking between Rengstroff to Charleston Road)
18 Item 1, Study Session, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13219
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 44 of 226
Exhibit A: California Avenue Four Tracking Segment
On November 8, 2023, Caltrain staff conducted their first technical review and provided
comments to City Staff. Staff presented the major elements affecting various alternatives and
identified the initial impacts on alternatives for adherence to updated Caltrain Standards at
the January 23, 2024 (Staff Report 2311-230319) Rail Committee meeting. At this meeting, the
Rail Committee directed staff to coordinate with Caltrain staff and to determine the material
changes to the alternatives’ concepts to address updated standards guiding the substantiate
changes in the alternative’s concepts. These comments are related to the following major
elements.
a.Vertical Alignment
•Roadway vertical clearance
•Bridge structure depth
•Railroad grade and profile
•Pedestrian and Bicycle path clearance
b.Horizontal Alignment
•Roadway Encroachment into Caltrain right-of-way
•Pedestrian facilities encroachment into Caltrain right-of-way
•Railroad encroachment into Caltrain right-of-way
•Width of Bridges
•Retaining wall offsets/clearance from structure and roadways
•Maintenance and access requirements along railroad tracks
•Clearance for MSE Wall construction between shoofly and new walls
and maximize the right-of-way use
c.Four (4) tracking segments
19 Item 1, Action Items, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9239
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 45 of 226
•Four (4) tracking segments and roadway encroachment into Caltrain
right-of-way
•Four track alignment
d.Roadway Design
•Road profile/sag curve/grades
•Acceleration/deceleration lane, lane drops and weaving
•Roundabout design
•Curved bridges
e.Miscellaneous/Other
•Construction technology
•Culverts
Subsequently, City and Caltrain staff met to understand how addressing Caltrain comments
and adhering to Caltrain Standards will impact the conceptual design alternatives and
understand the high-level material changes that may be required to the concepts. A follow-
up study session with the Rail Committee was conducted on March 19, 2024 (Staff Report
2402-267520) presented key findings on the impacts to various alternatives and discussed the
material changes required for various alternatives.
The Rail Committee discussion regarding Caltrain's comments continued to the April 16, 2024
meeting. City and Caltrain Staff provided the details of major elements affecting various
alternatives identifying impacts on alternatives for adherence to updated Caltrain Standards.
Following an in-depth review and discussion, the Committee voted, with two in favor and one
opposed, to recommend the Underpass Alternative and Hybrid Alternative at Meadow Drive
and Charleston Road as the preferred options to the City Council for advancement into the
Preliminary Engineering review.
Additionally, the Rail Committee unanimously reconfirmed the preference for the Partial
Underpass for the Churchill Avenue crossing. The Committee also recommended to consider
the following elements for Underpass Alternatives at all crossings during the Preliminary
Engineering phase.
•Seek ways to reduce property impacts
•Optimize bike/pedestrian crossings
•Where feasible, improve connections to bike infrastructure beyond the study area to
improve the network
o Improve connection to Park Blvd
o Explore modifications/refinements to the Bike Blvd, along Park Blvd to
improve overall bike network
20 Item 1, Action Items, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9255
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 46 of 226
o Further refine the traffic circle on Charleston Road to reduce the property
impacts
o Refine construction impacts to better understand possible mutations needed
during the lengthy construction process.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing - Kellogg Avenue vs. Seale Ave
At the November 29, 2021 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to ensure that the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan included an evaluation of the bicycle and
pedestrian crossing for the Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass at the locations of Kellogg
Avenue and Seale Avenue. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan completed the evaluation of this
and prepared a technical memorandum summarizing their assessment (Attachment J:
Technical Memorandum Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment)
The assessment included a review of the prior analysis and plans, proximity to alternative
routes, landing locations, network connectivity, and community input. Based on this analysis,
it is recommended that bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue would fill a longer gap
between alternative locations and would increase connectivity. In addition, due to right-of-
way constraints on the west side of the railroad tracks at the Kellogg Avenue location, there is
potential for additional impact on the Palo Alto Unified School District property. The Kellogg
location also requires additional turns on the west side of the tracks to connect to the
Embarcadero Bike path which is currently within the easement on the Caltrain property.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 47 of 226
Exhibit B: Kellogg Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing
In addition to the above factors, the Seale Avenue crossing ends in Peers Park (as is currently
conceptualized). Significant construction involving Peers Park requires compliance with the
City’s park improvement ordinance process, which generally includes review by the City’s Park
and Recreation Commission and final approval by the City Council.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 48 of 226
Exhibit C: Seale Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing
Finalizing the location of a Bicycle and Pedestrian crossing presents complexities when
considered with the planned partial underpass at Churchill including but not limited to land
use and right of way. Staff is considering additional outreach to incorporate input from
stakeholders including but not limited to Palo Alto Unified School District, residents around
the crossings, and bike and pedestrian users including students at key locations such as Palo
Alto High School and affected neighborhood streets. In addition, this will allow staff to review
the crossing layout and the integration of a potential underpass with parkland uses at Peers
Park before the Rail Committee makes its final recommendation to the City Council.
Staff presented a review of the merits of Kellogg vs Seal to the Rail Committee on April 16,
2024 (Staff Report 2403-280221) The Rail Committee reviewed and unanimously selected Seale
Avenue as the preferred bicycle and pedestrian crossing location. Staff plans to conduct
additional outreach to stakeholders and inform the community about the bicycle and
pedestrian crossing location.
21 Item 2, Action Items, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9256
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 49 of 226
Next Steps
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 50 of 226
ATTACHMENTS
Technical Memorandum Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Attachment K: Summary of Evaluation Matrix based on Council Adopted Criteria
APPROVED BY:
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 51 of 226
Plan & Profile
Churchill Underpass
Churchill Ave Aerial View (Plan)
Alma St (Profile)
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning
Detail A
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:
Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
35 mph design speedChurchill Underpass Concept (Price) at Alma St
M
elville Ave
Kellog
g
Ave
Chu
rchill Ave
Coleridg
e Ave
Alma St
Paly Rd
Mariposa Ave
Castilleja Ave100 ft500 ft
See Detail A on this sheet
0.0%
0.0%
-7.0%+6.5%
Original Ground
Profile Grade
Roadway
60
50
40
30
20
60
50
40
30
20
202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00 208+00 209+00 210+00 211+00 212+00
330' VC
300' VC
305' VC
Total Length = 1,000 ft
Ave
Kellogg
Ave
Churchill
Ave
Coleridge
R=5'R=5'
32'
9'
9'
12'
Tunnel below
Item 2
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue
Partial Underpass Plan and Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 52 of 226
Profile & Typical Sections
Churchill Underpass
Churchill Ave (Profile)
Alma St (North of Churchill Ave)
Typical Section
Churchill Ave Underpass
Typical Section
Kellogg Ave
Typical Section
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Original Ground = Existing Top of Rail
CL
Churchill Ave
20' - 0" *
11'11'10'16'
centerline of Churchill Ave
*Dimension shown at
8'
WB Lane
Turn Lane
EB Left
Turn Lane
EB RightShld Shld
12% max grade (25 mph)Churchill Underpass Concept (Price)
10'
NB Alma St
NB LaneSB LaneSB Lane
12'
13'
NB Lane NB Lane
10'
10'8'
Shld
R/W
Caltrain
4'
12'
9'9'
PL
Prop
PL
Exist
Sidewalk
5'
Landscape
Track
MT-2
Track
MT-1
R/W
Caltrain
14' +/-
Ped/Bike Path
Southbound
Ped/Bike Path
Northbound
Ped/Bike Path
2-Way
To Be Reconstructed
Existing Bleachers
12'
LANE
RAMP
Ped/Bike
FL
FL
16'
Sidewalk
16'
LANE Sidewalk
PL PL
4'±4'±2'-6"2'-6"
60'
MT2
M
in Vert Clr
15' - 6"
Profile Grade
Roadway
Total length = 425 ft
Castilleja Ave
Paly Rd/
Alma St
NB
60
50
40
30
20
99+00 100+00
60
50
40
30
20
105+00104+00101+00 102+00 103+00
0%
-11%
+2%
Ground
Original MT1
Ped/Bike Bridge
St
Alma
RR Bridge
Item 2
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue
Partial Underpass Plan and Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 53 of 226
Option 1
Plan & Cross Sections
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Undercrossing at Churchill Avenue
Churchill Avenue (Plan)
CL
Alma St
Mariposa Ave
Churchill Ave
Section A-A Section B-B
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND
Stairway
Undercrossing Structure
Sidewalk Modifications
Roadway Modifications
Landscaping
Ramp
Right-of-Way
Fence
Alma St
A A
B
B
Item 2
Attachment B - Churchill Avenue
Closure Plan and Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 54 of 226
Option 2
Plan & Cross Sections
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Undercrossing at Churchill Avenue
Churchill Avenue (Plan)
Alm
a St
M
ariposa Ave
Churchill Ave
Section B-BSection A-A
A
CL
Alma St
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND
Stairway
Undercrossing Structure
Sidewalk Modifications
Roadway Modifications
Landscaping
Ramp
Right-of-Way
Fence
A
B
B
Item 2
Attachment B - Churchill Avenue
Closure Plan and Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 55 of 226
LOMA VERDE AVE
EL
VERAN
O
AV
E
CHARLESTO
N
RD
Alma St
Park Blvd
Park Blvd
EMERSON ST AD
O
BE CREE
K
M
EAD
OW
DR
LIDERO DR
TENN
N
ESEE LN
FERNE AVE
LUNDY LANE
G
REE
NM
EAD
O
W
W
AY
FERNE CT
BEN LOMOND DR
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 100 200
0
20
40
60
0
20
40
60
80
14
.0'
14
.0'
BARRO
N
CR
EE
K
MEADOW DR CHARLESTON RD
Meadow Drive & Charleston Road - Plan and Profile - Hybrid
Curtner Ave
Ventura Ave
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
NOVEMBER 08, 2018
6.0'
6.0'
Profile
Hybrid Track
Landmark
Creek
Right Of Way
Caltrain
Ground Level
Existing
Groundwater
Bridge
LEGEND:
Limits Of Roadway
120+00 125+00 130+00 135+00 140+00 145+00 150+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00
EL
E
V
A
TIO
N
(f
t)
AERIAL VIEW (PLAN)
ELEVATION VIEW (PROFILE)
Track (Shoofly)
Temporary
Track
New Permanent
Lowering
Robles Park
Outlet
Grocery
Church
Methodist
United
St Andrew's
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek
0.3%
1.0%
1.0%
TEMPORARY TRACKSCALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (EAST)
CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (WEST)
ELEV. 50.2
TOP OF RAIL
ELEV. 53.8
TOP OF RAIL
ROADWAY
ROADWAY
(TYP)
EMBANKMENT
RETAINED
HYBRID PROFILE
UNDERPASS
BRIDGE
UNDERPASS
BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN
CONSTRUCTION
ENDNEW TRACKS
LIMITS OF ROADWAY
LOWERING
LIMITS OF ROADWAY
LOWERING PALO ALTO
CITY LIMIT
Item 2
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 56 of 226
Alma St
60
50
40
30
20
12+00 13+00
50
40
30
20
10
12+00 13+00
0.0%-0.5%-1.0%
Meadow Dr
Total length = 680 ft
1.5%1.0%
0.5%0.0%
21+0020+0019+0018+0017+0016+0015+0014+00
14+00
0.0%
-5.0%
0.3%
M
in Vert Clr
15
'-6"
Total length = 460 ft
17+0016+0015+00 18+00 19+00
0.0%
Alma St
20+00 21+00
22+00
Design Speed = 35 MPH for Alma St
Design Speed = 25 MPH for W Meadow Dr
NOTE:
23+00
10
20
30
40
50
22+00
20
30
40
50
60
Original Ground
Original Ground
Plan & Profile
Meadow / Charleston Hybrid
Roadway Profile Grade
Roadway Profile Grade
Meadow Dr Aerial View (Plan)
Railroad Bridge Structure
Meadow Dr (Profile)
Alma St (Profile)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevati
on
(f
t)
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND:
Retaining Wall
Limits of Roadway Modifications
Direction of Traffic
Permanent Track Alignment
Caltrain Right-of-Way
Driveway Modification
Bridge Structure
Sidewalk Modification
To San Francisco
To San Jose
W
M
eado
w Dr
Park BlvdPark Blvd
E M
ea
do
w Dr
Caltrain Right-of-Way (East)
Caltrain Right-of-Way (West)
Palo Alto
Item 2
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 57 of 226
Alma St
60
50
40
30
20
14+00 15+00
0.0%
Total length = 460 ft
M
in Vert Clr
15
'-6"
-5.0%
16+00 17+00 18+00
0.3%
Alma St
19+00
0.0%
20+00 21+00
20
30
40
50
60 60
50
40
30
20
13+00 14+00
0.0%
15+00
-0.5%-1.0%1.5%1.0%
0.5%0.0%
21+0020+0019+0018+0017+0016+00 22+00
20
30
40
50
60
Total length = 680 ft
Charleston Rd
Original Ground
Design Speed = 35 MPH for Alma St
Design Speed = 25 MPH for Charleston Rd
NOTE:
Ground
Original
Plan & Profile
Meadow / Charleston Hybrid
Roadway Profile Grade
Roadway Profile Grade
Charleston Rd Aerial View (Plan)
Railroad Bridge Structure
Charleston Rd (Profile)Alma St (Profile)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND:
Retaining Wall
Limits of Roadway Modifications
Direction of Traffic
Permanent Track Alignment
Caltrain Right-of-Way
Driveway Modification
Bridge Structure
Sidewalk Modification
To San Jose
Park Blvd
Park Blvd
W
Charleston
Rd
E Charleston
Rd
Ely PlLindero Dr
To San Francisco
Caltrain Right-of-Way (East)
Caltrain Right-of-Way (West)
Palo Alto
Item 2
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 58 of 226
(Roadway Partially Lowered, Railroad Partially Elevated)
Charleston Intersection
Ground Level View
(Between Meadow and Charleston)
Example Sections - Hybrid - Looking North
Meadow Drive Intersection
Proposed Hybrid Solution Overview - Looking South West
Typical Property West of Tracks
Backyard View - Looking East
Hybrid
Railroad Grade Separation Sections and Renderings
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Item 2
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 59 of 226
42nd Avenue, San Mateo
(Roadway Partially Lowered, Railroad Partially Elevated)
Holly Street, San Carlos
San Bruno Avenue, San Bruno
Brittan Avenue, San Carlos
Hybrid
Railroad Grade Separation Examples
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Item 2
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 60 of 226
LOMA VERDE AVE
EL
VERAN
O
AV
E
CHARLESTO
N
RD
Alma St
Park Blvd
Park Blvd
EMERSON ST
M
EAD
OW
DR
LIDERO DR
TE
NN
N
ESEE
LN
FERNE AVE
LUNDY LANE
G
REE
NM
EAD
O
W
W
AY
FERNE CT
BEN LOMOND DR
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 100 200
REVERSE CONSTRUCTION ENVELOPE
0
20
40
60
-20
80
MEADOW DR
30
'30
'
CHARLESTON RD
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
Curtner Ave
Ventura Ave
BARRO
N
CR
EE
K
AD
O
BE CREE
K
Meadow Drive & Charleston Road - Plan and Profile - Trench
ELEVATION VIEW (PROFILE)
AERIAL VIEW (PLAN)
120+00115+00 175+00150+00 155+00 160+00 170+00165+00145+00125+00 140+00135+00130+00
-20
0
20
60
40
80
Landmark
Creek
Influence Area
Ground Anchor
Groundwater
Bridge
LEGEND:
EL
E
V
A
TIO
N
(f
t)
Profile
Trench Track
Right Of Way
Caltrain
Ground Level
Existing
Track (Shoofly)
Temporary
Track
New Permanent
Outlet
Grocery
Robles Park
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek
2.0%
0.3%
INFLUENCE AREA
GROUND ANCHOR
STATIONPUMP
EMERGENCY ACCESS STAIRS
TEMPORARY TRACK
LIFT STATION
LIFT STATION GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION
(2%)
TRENCH PROFILE
ELEV. 9.9
TOP OF RAIL
ELEV. 6.1
TOP OF RAIL
NEW PERMANENT TRACK
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN
CONSTRUCTION
END
MEADOW DR
STAIRS AT
EMERGENCY ACCESS
POTENTIAL
LIFT
STATION
LOCATION
POTENTIAL
LIFT
STATION
LOCATION
AT CHARLESTON ROAD
PUMP STATION
BRIDGE
OVERCROSSING
BRIDGE
OVERCROSSING
Church
Methodist
United
St Andrew's
CALTRAIN
RIGHT OF WAY
(WEST)
CALTRAIN
RIGHT OF WAY
(EAST)
PALO ALTO
CITY LIMIT
Item 2
Attachment D - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Trench Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 61 of 226
Trench
Railroad Grade Separation Examples
E Compton Blvd, Compton, CA
Alameda Trench Corridor - Completed 2002
E Compton Blvd & Alameda Street, Compton, CA
Alameda Trench Corridor - Completed 2002
Mission Road and Ramona St, San Gabriel, CA
Alameda Corridor East
Mission Road - San Gabriel, CA
Alameda Corridor East
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Lowered)
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Item 2
Attachment D - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Trench Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 62 of 226
Trench
Railroad Grade Separation Sections & Renderings
(Typical Between Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd)
Example Section - Trench - Looking North
Meadow Drive Intersection
Proposed Trench Solution Overview - Looking South West
Charleston intersection
Ground Level View - Looking South West
Typical Property West of the Trench
Backyard View - Looking East
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Lowered)
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Item 2
Attachment D - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Trench Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 63 of 226
Meadow Drive Aerial View (Plan)
Meadow Underpass
Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning Study
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning
Alma St
Park BlvdPark Blvd
Emerson St
E M
eadow Dr
2nd St
100 ft500 ft
See note
See note
NOTE:
beacons, to be considered in future phases.
traffic signals and rectangular rapid flashing
Additional features at crosswalks, such as HAWK
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:
Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
Item 2
Attachment E - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Underpass Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 64 of 226
Profiles & Typical Section
Meadow Dr Underpass
Meadow Dr Underpass
Typical Section
Meadow Dr Profile
Ped/Bike Profile from Park Blvd to Emerson St
(North Side of Meadow Dr)
Park Blvd Profile
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
11'
EB Lane
8'11'
WB Lane
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
Shld
8'
Shld
20'
2-Way Ped/Bike Path
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
58' ±
Meadow Dr (East of Alma St)
Typical Section - Modification of Meadow/Roundabout Concept
12'
Ped/Bike Path
101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
0Ped/Bike Path from Park Blvd to Emerson St
Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
200+00 201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
North Side
Side Street Profile from Park Blvd to Meadow
Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
20
30
40
50
60
400+00 401+00
20
30
40
50
60
Alma St
MT2
MT1
-0.5%
Total Length = 710 ft
St
Emerson
Original Ground
195' VC
296' VC
190' VC
15
' - 6"
-12%+10%
-1%
15
' - 6"
15
' - 6"
15
' - 6"
Blvd
Park
Profile Grade
Bridge
Ped/Bike
Bridge
Ped/Bike
MT1
MT2
100' VC
50' VC
Original Ground
8' - 0"
10
' - 0"
0%
-1%
-5%
+5%
St
Emerson
Profile Grade
Blvd
Park
St
AlmaBridge
Ped/Bike
10
' - 0"
Bridge
Ped/Bike
11
' - 0"
50' VC
35' VC
Ground
Original
0%
+8%
-2%
Grade
Profile
Dr
Meadow
Item 2
Attachment E - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Underpass Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 65 of 226
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:
Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
Planting Area
Ado
b
e Cr
Charleston Road Aerial View (Plan)
Charleston Underpass
Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning Study
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning
0 ft 175 ft87.5
Park Blvd
Alma St
Alma St
Park Blvd
W
Charleston
Rd
Ely Pl
G
ree
nm
ea
dow W
ay
E Charleston
Rd
Mumford Pl
Wright Pl
Ruthelma Ave
Carlson Ct
Item 2
Attachment E - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Underpass Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 66 of 226
Profiles & Typical Section
Charleston Underpass
Park Blvd Profile (North Side)
Charleston Rd Profile
Ped/Bike Profile from Park Blvd to Wright Pl
EB Charleston Rd to SB Alma St
Ramp Profile
Typical Section - Charleston Rd Underpass PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 109+00
Charleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
Ramp Profile from Charleston to Alma
Charleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
Ped/Bike Path from Park Blvd to Mumford
Charleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
-5%+4%
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
300+00 301+00 302+00 303+00 304+00 305+00 306+00 307+00299+00298+00
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
Park Blvd Profile
Charleston Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
-9%+12%
20
30
40
50
60
20
30
40
50
60
201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00
Ramp Profile from Charleston to AlmaCharleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
200+00 201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
11'
EB Lane
12'
EB Lane
8'
5'
Sidewalk
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
11'
WB Lane
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
Shld
8'
Shld
14'
WB Lane
20'
2-Way Ped/Bike Path
~12'
Typical Section - Charleston Rd (East of Alma St - Looking East)
Alma St
MT2 MT1
Grade Separation Structure
Park Blvd
Wright Pl
Bridge
Ped/Bike
186' VC
296' VC
190' VC
15
'-6"
15
'-6"-12%
+10%
-1%
-1%
Original Ground
Profile Grade
16
'-3"
MT2
MT1
Alma St
Wright Pl
50' VC10
'-0"
150' VC 10
'-0"
-1%
Profile Grade
Original Ground
Blvd
Park
Road Profile
Governed by
-1%-1%
70' VC
70' VC
20' VC
Profile Grade
Original Ground
Charleston Rd
-2%
55' VC
+9%
425' VC
0%
Profile Grade
Original Ground
Item 2
Attachment E - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Underpass Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 67 of 226
LOMA VERDE AVE
EL
VERAN
O
AV
E
CHARLESTO
N
RD
Alma St
Park Blvd
Park Blvd
EMERSON ST
M
EAD
OW
DR
LIDERO DR
TE
NN
N
ESEE
LN
FERNE AVE
LUNDY LANE
G
REE
NM
EAD
O
W
W
AY
FERNE CT
BEN LOMOND DR
LEGEND:
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 100 200
CHARLESTON RD
Landmark
Creek
Right Of Way
Caltrain
Ground Level
Existing
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
Curtner Ave
Ventura Ave
BARRO
N
CR
EE
K
AD
O
BE CREE
K
20
.5'
MEADOW DR
20
.5'
0
20
40
60
80
MEADOW DR
0
20
40
60
80
EL
E
V
A
TIO
N
(f
t)
120+00 125+00 130+00 135+00 140+00 145+00 150+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00 175+00 180+00115+00110+00105+00
Tracks
Existing
Profile
Viaduct Track
AERIAL VIEW (PLAN)
ELEVATION VIEW (PROFILE)
Bridge
Track
New Permanent
Groundwater
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road - Plan and Profile - Viaduct
Outlet
Grocery
Robles Park
0.086%
Barron Creek
0.3%
-1.4%
Adobe Creek
-0.031%1.0%
CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (WEST)
CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (EAST)
DURING CONSTRUCTIONCONSTRUCTION
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
END
ELEV 61.80
TOP OF RAIL
ELEV 55.45
TOP OF RAIL
EXISTING TRACKS
TO REMAIN OPERATIONAL
AND REMOVED AT END
OF CONSTRUCTION
ROADWAY
ROADWAY
VIADUCT PROFILE
TRACKS ON VIADUCT
PROPOSED NEW
APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION
Church
Methodist
United
St Andrew's
CITY LIMIT
PALO ALTO
Item 2
Attachment F - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Viaduct Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 68 of 226
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Elevated)
Walnut Creek BART Station
Viaduct
Railroad Grade Separation Examples
BART Viaduct, El Cerrito, CA BART Viaduct at distance, El Cerrito, CA
Link Light Rail, East Marginal Way, Seattle, WA
Item 2
Attachment F - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Viaduct Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 69 of 226
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Elevated)
(Typical Between Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd)
Example Section - Viaduct - Looking North
(Typical End Sections)
Example Section - Retained Fill - Looking North
(Typical Between Meadow Dr and Charleston Rd)
Track Level View - Looking North
Typical Property West of Tracks
Backyard View - Looking East
Meadow Drive Intersection
Proposed Viaduct Solution Overview - Looking South West
Charleston Road Intersection
Ground Level View - Looking South West
Viaduct
Railroad Grade Separation Sections & Renderings
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Item 2
Attachment F - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Viaduct Plan and
Profile
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 70 of 226
4-Track Analysis
11.21.23
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 71 of 226
AGENDA
Operations Considerations
4-Track Analysis
Purpose & Initial Approach
4-Track and Crossings
Preliminary Review
Next Steps and Engagement
4-Track Analysis
Corridor and Palo Alto Segments
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 72 of 226
Meeting Objectives
3
Review 4-Track Analysis
approach considerations and
trade-offs
Outline N. Santa Clara
Adopted Service Vision
segments
Discuss N. Santa Clara
Adopted Service Vision
segment observations and
constraints
Review operations
considerations
and analysis
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 73 of 226
Track Configuration Today
Caltrain 50.94
= UP 51.64
4
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 74 of 226
Adopted Service Vision
4-Track Segments
Adopted Service Vision
4-Track Segment
Station (Milepost)
Main Track Line
Controlled SidingAdopted Service Vision
4-Track Segment Options
x
Caltrain 50.94
= UP 51.64
Notes:
* Identified in Business Plan
*
5
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 75 of 226
4-Track Analysis
Purpose & Initial Approach
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 76 of 226
4-Track Analysis Purpose
7
Provide location, length, and mile post limits based on 4-track segments identified in
the Caltrain Business Plan
Define required infrastructure to meet the 2040 Long Range Service Vision (Adopted
Service Vision) for Caltrain and HSR service
Utilize analysis of 4-track segments to guide grade separation projects
Purpose
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 77 of 226
Business Plan (2017-2019):
Growth Scenarios Recap
Moderate Growth (Adopted Service Vision)
•8 Caltrain trains + 4 HSR trains phpd
High Growth (Higher Growth Service)
•12 Caltrain trains + 4 HSR trains phpd
8
PCJPB agrees that it shall not take action
… that PCJPB knows or reasonably should
have known at the time of the action would
effectively preclude or make materially
more complicated or expensive CHSRA’s
future operation in the Peninsula Rail
Corridor…
–PFMA Section 5.3.1
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 78 of 226
4-Track Initial Planning Approach
•Tested 4-track layouts using
Caltrain, CPUC, and HSR
engineering criteria
•Evaluated and simulated service
parameters of 4-track layouts
•Refined and validated 4-track
limits through service operations
and engineering analysis
Service
ROWEngineering
Criteria
9
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 79 of 226
4-Track Initial Evaluation Process
North Santa Clara County Segments
Focused on trade-offs between operations, ROW, and design
Worked towards reducing potential impacts to the surrounding environment
(i.e., at-grade crossings, adjacent land use, buildings, and infrastructure)
Identified interdependencies between platform configuration, express/high-
speed services (110mph), and turnout design and configuration
Focused on horizontal layout, but considered vertical opportunities and
constraints
10
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 80 of 226
Operations
Considerations
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 44 Packet Pg. 81 of 226
Planning Parameter Assumptions
12
Planning Parameter Assumption
Headway / Separation 2-minute minimum corridor separation time
Minimum Turnaround Time HSR: 20 min
Caltrain: 20 min
Minimum Dwell Time HSR: 2 min
Caltrain: 1 min at major stations, 0.7 min at minor stations
Rolling Stock
HSR: Generic High-Speed Trainset
Caltrain: KISS EMU
Freight: Dash9
Speed Limit 110 mph (Class 6 Passenger Track)
50 mph (Freight Speed)
Recovery Time 10% Distributed
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 45 Packet Pg. 82 of 226
Adopted Service Vision -12 TPH (8 Caltrain + 4 HSR)
13
Proposed 4-track sections for
HSR Platform
Proposed 4-track sections for
overtakes
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 46 Packet Pg. 83 of 226
01:0003:20
Two Minute Separation: In & Out of a 4-Track Segment
14
1:50
05:00
03:2004:00
04:20
2-minute separation between trains
00:00
Station
02:5006:2004:20
2:20
00:00Control Point Control Point
Dwell Time
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 47 Packet Pg. 84 of 226
4-Track Segment
Analysis
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 48 Packet Pg. 85 of 226
Track Configuration Today
Caltrain 50.94
= UP 51.64
16
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 49 Packet Pg. 86 of 226
Adopted Service Vision
4-Track Segments
Adopted Service Vision
4-Track Segment
Station (Milepost)
Main Track Line
Controlled SidingAdopted Service Vision
4-Track Segment Options
x
Caltrain 50.94
= UP 51.64
Notes:
* Identified in Business Plan
*
17
The Mountain View Transit Center was identified as a potential 4-track segment for the adopted
Service Vision. The segment was removed prior to the 4-track analysis process due to:
•4-track capacity further north better supports blended service patterns
•Not operationally preferred in the adopted Service Vision for a 4 -track capacity because it
would not support service patterns developed under the Service Plan
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 50 Packet Pg. 87 of 226
Initial Trade-Offs &
Key Elements
18
Service
ROWDesign
Impact sites vs. impact corridors
Changing schedules or
overtakes vs. no changes
Turnout design
Ownership, RCUPBasis of design,
function, and trackway
Location of 4-Track
segments
Type of grade
separation
Location of 4-Track segment and service
resilience
Train Speed
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 51 Packet Pg. 88 of 226
Influence of Turnout Design on Service
19
Maximum
Allowable Speed
Transition
Length to Center
Platform with
Left Hand
Turnout
(Approximate)
Transition
Length to Center
Platform with
Right Hand
Turnout
(Approximate)
79 mph 1200 ft.1800 ft.
110 mph 1500 ft.2200 ft.
Turnout No.Passenger Train Speed
Through Turnout
20 50 mph
24 60 mph
Left Hand Turnout Right Hand Turnout
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 52 Packet Pg. 89 of 226
Typical Section for Running Track
•Parameter assumptions
presented in Basis of Design
•Tangent 4-track running track
section
•Reusing existing OCS
equipment where possible
20
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 53 Packet Pg. 90 of 226
Technical Analysis
Cross-sections
21
Operations
Turnouts
Alignment
Concept
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 54 Packet Pg. 91 of 226
Segment Characteristics
MP Limits MP 29.7 -30.9
Length (miles)*1.2
Stations Impacted Palo Alto &
Stanford Stadium
At-Grade Crossings Impacted 2
Grade Separations Impacted 3
Active Projects Connecting Palo Alto
*Length includes 2-to 4-track transitions
Palo Alto Station Segment
High Community & Infrastructure Impacts
North Santa Clara Segment –Option A
Segment Location
22
x
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 55 Packet Pg. 92 of 226
Palo Alto Station Segment
San Francisquito
Creek Bridge and
El Palo Alto Tree El Camino Park
Palo Alto Southern
Pacific Station
Sutter Health
Center
Alma Street and
University Avenue
Caltrain CorridorArea of Influence
Palo Alto Station
North Santa Clara Segment –Option A
23
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 56 Packet Pg. 93 of 226
Palo Alto Station Segment
North Santa Clara Segment –Option A
Palo Alto Station
(Expanded & Relocated)
24
*Illustrative –Tracks can shift, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed.*Illustrative –Tracks can shift, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed.
Caltrain ROW Area of InfluenceLegend
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 57 Packet Pg. 94 of 226
San Antonio Station
Segment
Palo Alto Station
Palo Alto
Station
Infrastructure
Impacts
Caltrain Corridor
Infrastructure Modifications
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 58 Packet Pg. 95 of 226
California Ave Station Segment
Limited Community & Infrastructure Impacts
Segment Characteristics
MP Limits MP 30.9 -32.8
Length (miles)*1.9
Stations Impacted California Avenue
At-Grade Crossings Impacted 2
Grade Separations Impacted 2
Active Projects Connecting Palo Alto
*Length includes 2-to 4-track transitions
North Santa Clara Segment –Option B
Segment Location
26
x
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 59 Packet Pg. 96 of 226
California Avenue Station Segment
Alexander Peers
Park
California Avenue
Station
Oregon
Expressway
Caltrain CorridorArea of Influence
North Santa Clara Segment –Option B
27
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 60 Packet Pg. 97 of 226
California Ave Station Segment
North Santa Clara Segment –Option B
28
Caltrain ROW Area of InfluenceLegend
*Illustrative –Tracks can shift towards Alma Street, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed.
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 61 Packet Pg. 98 of 226
California Ave Station Segment
29
California Avenue Station
North Santa Clara Segment –Option B
*Illustrative –Tracks can shift, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed.
Caltrain ROW Area of InfluenceLegend
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 62 Packet Pg. 99 of 226
California Avenue Station
Oregon
Expressway
California
Avenue Station
Infrastructure
Impacts
Caltrain Corridor
Infrastructure Modifications
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 63 Packet Pg. 100 of 226
San Antonio Station Segment
High Community & Infrastructure Impacts –
Major Reconstruction
31
North Santa Clara Segment –Option C
Segment Location
Segment Characteristics
MP Limits MP 33.25 -34.60
Length (miles)*1.35
Stations Impacted San Antonio
At-Grade Crossings Impacted 3
Grade Separations Impacted 2
Active Projects
Connecting Palo Alto &
Rengstorff Grade
Separation
*Length includes 2-to 4-track transitions
x
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 64 Packet Pg. 101 of 226
San Antonio Station Segment
32
*Illustrative –Tracks can shift, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed.
Caltrain ROW Area of InfluenceLegend
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 65 Packet Pg. 102 of 226
San Antonio Station Segment
San Antonio Road
Overpass
33
San Antonio
Station
Caltrain CorridorArea of Influence
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 66 Packet Pg. 103 of 226
San Antonio Road Overpass
34
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 67 Packet Pg. 104 of 226
San Antonio Road Overpass
35
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 68 Packet Pg. 105 of 226
San Antonio Road Overpass
36
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 69 Packet Pg. 106 of 226
San Antonio
Station
Infrastructure
Impacts
Caltrain Corridor
Infrastructure Modifications
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 70 Packet Pg. 107 of 226
Northern Santa Clara County
Palo Alto (A)California (B)San Antonio (C)
Constraints •Palo Alto Southern Pacific
Station (SHPO -Cultural
Resource)
•University Ave/Alma Street
Interchange and Underpass
•San Francisquito Creek Bridge and
El Palo Alto Tree
•El Camino Park
•Homer Avenue pedestrian
undercrossing
•Sutter Health Center
•Palo Alto High School
•Residential areas surrounding
Caltrain ROW
•Alexander Peers Park
•Oregon Expressway –“T”
intersections for ramp
exits/entrances
•San Antonio Road Interchange and
Overpass
•Residential areas surrounding
Caltrain ROW
•Existing curve south of San Antonio
Station (Speed Constrain below
110 mph)
Adopted Service Vision
Refined 4-Track Segment
Station (Milepost)
38
Northern Santa Clara County Segment
Segment Option Consideredx
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 71 Packet Pg. 108 of 226
Northern Santa Clara County Preliminary Understanding
39
Validated 4-Track segment lengths
Assumes upgraded signaling system for 2 -minute buffer between
trains (current signal system allows for 4 -minute buffer)
Supports and provides operational flexibility for the service in the
Adopted Service Vision
Local train dwells 4 minutes (3 minutes more than standard 1 -minute
station dwell)
Operations Simulation of Segments
2
+3
4-Track Segments in Northern Santa Clara County were analyzed to evaluate trade -offs and determine the most viable
option to meet the needs of the Adopted Service Vision goals and Caltrain’s obligations for blended service in the corridor.
Caltrain will continue to coordinate with the city to not preclude future 4-track, as the city develops their Connecting
Palo Alto alternatives
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 72 Packet Pg. 109 of 226
Comments/Questions
Item 2
Attachment G - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 73 Packet Pg. 110 of 226
Connecting Palo Alto Projects
Caltrain Technical Review
January 23, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org1
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 74 Packet Pg. 111 of 226
Purpose
2
Purpose
•Rail Committee’s review of comments to provide guidance to staff on
specific elements.
•Direct staff to proceed coordination with Caltrain Staff or their
Consultants and/or City’s project consultant for material changes to
alternatives
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 75 Packet Pg. 112 of 226
Background
3
•Select Preferred Alternative to Proceed with
Preliminary Engineering and Environmental PhaseGoal
•Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)Grant Funding
Agreement in place by July 1, 2024.Objective
•Rail Committee to provide guidance to on
implementing design changes sufficient to support
the goal.Guidance
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 76 Packet Pg. 113 of 226
Background
4
CAP &
XCAP
•Alternatives developed, reviewed and updated (2018 -July 2020)
•Community Outreach & Community Feedback (August –October 2020)
•Deliberation and Recommendation to City Council (November 2020 -March 2021)
City
Council
•Council Review and Discussion
•Meadow Drive –Charleston (Narrowed Alternatives) -August 2021
•Churchill Avenue (Preferred Alternative & Backup Selection) -November 2021
Rail
Committee
•Reviewed and Refined underpass alternatives (June 2023)
•Reviewed and updated Council Adopted criteria
•Conducted Review of Preliminary Geotechnical
Caltrain /JPB
Review
•Service Agreement with Caltrain (June 2023)
•Technical Review and Comments to City November 2023
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 77 Packet Pg. 114 of 226
Overview of Caltrain Capital Project Management Process
5
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 78 Packet Pg. 115 of 226
Major Elements
6
Vertical Alignment
Vertical Clearance
Bridge Structure Elevation (Viaduct Only)
Railroad Grade Profile
Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Clearance
Horizontal Alignment
Roadway Encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities Encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Railroad Encroachment into City’s ROW
Retaining Wall offset/clearance from structures and roadways
Maintenance Access requirement along the railroad tracks
Clearance for MSE Wall construction during construction and
maximize use of ROW
Four Track Segment
Four Track segments and Roadway encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Four Tracking Alignment
Roadway Design
Road Profile, Sag Curves, Grades etc.
Offset from Barriers
Acceleration/Deceleration Lanes, Lane drops,
weaving distance, etc.
Roundabout Design
Curved bridges
Construction Technology
Shoofly vs Box Jacking
Culverts
Reconstructing and extending culverts
Cost Estimates
Preliminary Cost Estimates
Cumulative Concerns
Compounded impacts from above comments
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 79 Packet Pg. 116 of 226
Vertical Alignment (Correction)
7
1. Vertical Dimensions (Roadway Vertical Clearance required across Caltrain
ROW )
Vertical Clearance for vehicular traffic under the Railroad (Increase from 15.5’ to
16.5’)
Likely affects
length of
roadway profileMeadow Charleston -Hybrid
Profile View
Min vertical clearance is
16’-6” across ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Min vertical
clearance is 16’-6”
across ROW
Caltrain
ROW Caltrain
ROW
Meadow Drive Underpass
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 80 Packet Pg. 117 of 226
Vertical Alignment (Correction)
8
2. Vertical Dimensions (Top of Rail to Top of Roadway –Viaduct Alternative only)
Vertical Clearance for vehicular traffic under the Railroad (Increase from 20.5’ to 24.0’)
Provide 24’
vertical distance
Provide 24’
vertical distance
Likely affects
length of
roadway profile
Meadow Charleston -Viaduct Alternative
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 81 Packet Pg. 118 of 226
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue
9
Churchill Closure with Mitigations -Option 1
•New active transportation facilities should be placed outside of Caltrain ROW.
If not, they are subject to JPB Board approval
* No Changes for Churchill Avenue Closure with Mitigations Option 2
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 82 Packet Pg. 119 of 226
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue –Closure Option 1
10
Plan View
Section A-A
Section B-B
4-Track Influence Area
Transition between 2-Track and 4-TrackNew active
transportation
facilities should be
placed outside of
Caltrain ROW. If not,
subject to JPB Board
approval.
Extend tunnel to
extent of Caltrain
ROW
Relocate stairs
outside of
Caltrain ROW. If
not, subject to
JPB Board
approval.
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 83 Packet Pg. 120 of 226
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue –Closure Option 2
11
Alma St
Mariposa
Ave
Plan View
Section A-A
Section B-B
4-Track
Influence Area
Transition between 2-Track
and 4-Track
Show lane
width and
shoulder
dimension
s
No Major/Significant
Concerns
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 84 Packet Pg. 121 of 226
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue
12
Churchill -Partial Underpass
•New active transportation facilities should be placed outside of Caltrain ROW.
If not, they are subject to JPB Board approval.
•Adjust retaining walls outside of Caltrain ROW.
•Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain
ROW—will require reprofiling of roadway
•Bridge width to provide access for Caltrain maintenance and emergency
vehicles.
•Roadway design to meet Caltrans HDM/AASHTO ‘Greenbook’/AASHTO
‘Highway Safety Manual’
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 85 Packet Pg. 122 of 226
Profile View
Extend bridge width to
Caltrain ROW to provide
access to Caltrain
maintenance and emergency
vehicles
4-Track Influence Area
Transition between
2-Track and 4-Track
New active transportation
facilities should be placed
outside of Caltrain ROW.
If not, subject to JPB
Board approval.
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue –Partial Underpass
13
Roadway & Walls to
be outside of
Caltrain ROW
Provide 16’-6”
vertical clearance
Will affect length
roadway profile,
ROW, Driveways,
intersection,etc.
Other elements:
•Merging taper/median
design
•Offset from barriers
•Lane width etc.
•Curved bridges
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 86 Packet Pg. 123 of 226
Summary of Comments –Meadow Drive & Charleston Road
14
Meadow Charleston -Underpass
•Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain
ROW—will require reprofiling of roadway.
•Provide bridge width to provide access for Caltrain maintenance and
emergency vehicles.
•Adjust retaining walls outside of Caltrain ROW to accommodate 4-track and 4-
track transitions, provide sufficient space (10’ min) for maintenance vehicle
access, and maximize utility of Caltrain ROW.
•Roadway design to meet Caltrans HDM/AASHTO ‘Greenbook’/AASHTO
‘Highway Safety Manual’
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 87 Packet Pg. 124 of 226
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr -Underpass
15
Plan View (Meadow Drive)
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track
Adjust wall/foundation design
and location to be outside of
the Caltrain ROW. Additional
width is not needed for turning
lane sight distance.
Min vertical clearance is
16’-6” across ROW,
which will impact ROW,
Driveways, road profile.
Min vertical
clearance is 10’
across ROW
Caltrain
ROW Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Increase bridge width to
provide access road for
maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Steep grade limits
options for design
flexibility
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 88 Packet Pg. 125 of 226
Summary of Comments –Charleston Rd -Underpass
16
Plan View (Meadow Drive)
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track
Min vertical clearance is 16’-
6” across ROW,which will
impact ROW,Driveways, road
profile.
Min vertical
clearance is 10’
across ROW
Caltrain
ROW Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Increase bridge width to
provide access road for
maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Steep grade limits
options for design
flexibility
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 89 Packet Pg. 126 of 226
Summary of Comments –Meadow Drive & Charleston Road
17
Meadow Charleston -Hybrid
•Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain
ROW.
•Adjust retaining walls to accommodate 4-track and 4-track transitions.
•Provide sufficient space (10’ min) for maintenance vehicle access and
maximize utility of Caltrain ROW.
•Provide sufficient space (10’ min) clearance from the walls to the roadway
or structures
•Construction of permanent MSE walls to be at 20’ from center of shoofly
track—constructability clearance from OCS and active railroad.
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 90 Packet Pg. 127 of 226
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd -Hybrid
18
Plan View
Profile
Fill retaining walls to accommodate 4-
track and transition between 2-track
and 4-track
1% grade is the current maximum
without variance. 1% to 2% grade
requires review and approval by the
Director of Engineering
Min vertical clearance requirement
is 16’-6” across ROW
Provide additional width on the
bridge to accommodate access
road for maintenance and
emergency vehicles
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track
Design speed is 110
mph for passenger
rail
Transition segment should
be tangent as special
trackwork should stay
outside of vertical curves
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 91 Packet Pg. 128 of 226
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr -Hybrid
19
Profile View
Plan View
Typical Section
Min vertical clearance is
16’-6” across ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
10’ to maximize
utility of ROW
10’ min for maintenance
access between face of
retaining walls/ barriers and
adjacent
obstruction/roadway
Confirm proximity of OCS
and centerline of tracks
Width not
sufficient for
maintenance
vehicle access
Provide additional
width on the bridge to
accommodate a
maintenance and
emergency vehicle
access
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 92 Packet Pg. 129 of 226
Summary of Comments –Charleston Rd -Hybrid
20
Min 16’6”
clearance across
Caltrain ROW
Plan View
Profile View
Min vertical
clearance is 16’-6”
across ROW
10’ to maximize
utility of ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
10’ min for maintenance access
between face of retaining walls/
barriers and adjacent
obstruction/roadway
Confirm proximity of OCS
and centerline of tracks
Provide additional
width to the bridge
for maintenance and
emergency vehicle
access
Typical Section
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 93 Packet Pg. 130 of 226
Summary of Comments –Meadow Drive & Charleston Road
21
Meadow Charleston -Viaduct
•Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain ROW—
will require reprofiling of roadway and/or Caltrain tracks.
•The vertical dimension from the top of the roadway to the top of the rail should be
24’ instead of 20’ to accommodate 5-foot bridge depth and 2’-6” Rail.
•Provide bridge width to provide access for Caltrain maintenance and emergency
vehicles.
•Adjust retaining walls to accommodate 4-track and 4-track transitions.
•Provide sufficient space (10’ min) for maintenance vehicle access and maximize
utility of Caltrain ROW.
•Construction of permanent MSE walls to be at 20’ from center of shoofly track—
constructability clearance from OCS and active railroad.
•Roadway design to meet Caltrans HDM/AASHTO ‘Greenbook’/AASHTO ‘Highway
Safety Manual’
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 94 Packet Pg. 131 of 226
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd -Viaduct
22
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track Fill retaining walls to accommodate 4-
track and transition between 2-track
and 4-track
1% grade is the current maximum
without variance. 1% to 2% grade
requires review and approval by the
Director of Engineering
Increase distance roadway to top of
rail to 24’ to accommodate 16’-6”
roadway clearance
Design speed is 110
mph for passenger
rail
Transition segment should be tangent as
special trackwork should stay outside of
vertical curves
Plan View
Profile
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 95 Packet Pg. 132 of 226
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd -Viaduct
23
Place the permanent track
alignment to enable
maintenance and maximize
utility of ROW
16’-6” min
from roadway
to soffit
10’ min for maintenance
access between face of
retaining walls/ barriers and
adjacent
obstruction/roadwayConfirm proximity of OCS
and centerline of tracks
Extend OCS
foundation to
connect with
bridge pier
The plans show
part of the viaduct
constructed
outside Caltrain
ROW
Typical End Section Typical Section
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 96 Packet Pg. 133 of 226
Next Steps
24
Next Steps
The goal is to provide sufficient information for Rail Committee to evaluate
alternatives and make recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, Staff is
seeking
•Rail Committee’s review of comments to provide guidance to staff on
specific elements.
•Direct staff to proceed coordination with Caltrain Staff or their
Consultants and/or City’s project consultant for material changes to
alternatives
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 97 Packet Pg. 134 of 226
25
Item 2
Attachment H - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 98 Packet Pg. 135 of 226
Connecting Palo Alto Projects
Caltrain Technical Review Results
March 19, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org1
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 99 Packet Pg. 136 of 226
City and Caltrain Staff
City Staff
•Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official
•Ripon Bhatia, Senior Engineer
Caltrain Staff
•Robert Barnard,Chief, Rail Design and
Construction
•Mike Rabinowitz, Principal Planner
•Navi Dhaliwal, Government & Community
Affairs Officer
•Edgar Torres, Consultant, Kimley Horn and
Associates
2
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 100 Packet Pg. 137 of 226
Purpose
3
Purpose
•Review of the Grade Separation Alternatives for Churchill Avenue,
Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings, including Consideration
of Caltrain’s Review and Results
•Rail Committee’s reviews and provide guidance and directions to staff.
•Recommend that Council Advances (or Eliminates) Specific Alternative(s)
for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation.
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 101 Packet Pg. 138 of 226
Background
4
CAP &
XCAP
•Alternatives developed, reviewed and updated (2018 -July 2020)
•Community Outreach & Community Feedback (August –October 2020)
•Deliberation and Recommendation to City Council (November 2020 -March
2021)
City
Council
•Council Review and Discussion
•Meadow Drive –Charleston (Narrowed Alternatives) -August 2021
•Churchill Avenue (Preferred Alternative & Backup Selection) -November 2021
Rail
Committee
•Reviewed and Refined underpass alternatives (June 2023)
•Reviewed and updated Council Adopted criteria (May 2023)
•Conducted Review of Preliminary Geotechnical (August 2023)
•Study Session of Caltrain four-track segment analysis (November 2023)
•Discussion of Caltrain comments with Rail Committee (January 2024)
•Reviewed Updated Summary of Evaluation Criteria (February 2024)
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 102 Packet Pg. 139 of 226
AGENDA
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Schedule
Caltrain’s Results of
Process by Alternative
Draft and deliberative -For discussion purposes only
Executive Summary
Next Steps
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 103 Packet Pg. 140 of 226
Project Planning
6
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov
City
Caltrain
VTA
FRA
Rail
Committee
City
Council
City and Caltrain to collaborate for Selection of alternatives to
advance into next phase
Develop Service Agreement and/or Cooperative Agreement
with VTA, Caltrain, City for PE & Env Phase
City and Caltrain collaborate to develop and execute agreement with FRA
Review Alternatives Recommend Local
Preferred Alternative(s)
City Council to review and select
Locally Preferred Alternative(s) for
next phase
Begin PE & Environmental
Prepare and Execute Funding Agreement
Execute FRA Funding Agreement
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 104 Packet Pg. 141 of 226
Next Steps
7
Next Steps
The goal is to provide sufficient information for Rail Committee to evaluate
alternatives and make recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, Staff is
seeking
•Rail Committee’s review and selection of preferred alternative for
recommendation to the City Council
•Study session with City Council (April 2024)
•City Council to select preferred alternative for advancement into
Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation phase for
Meadow and Charleston Crossing (May/June 2024)
•Execute Agreement with FRA and Service Agreement/Cooperative
Agreement for Preliminary Engineering & Environmental with Caltrain &
VTA
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 105 Packet Pg. 142 of 226
CONNECTING PALO ALTO CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES TECHNICAL REVIEW
M A R C H 1 9 , 2 0 2 4
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 106 Packet Pg. 143 of 226
Caltrain’s engagement on Connecting Palo Alto Alternatives
•Execute Service agreement
•Initial review against Caltrain’s 2024 standards and policies
•Meetings with Palo Alto staff to share initial observations
•Presentation to Palo Alto’s January Rail Committee of initial observations
•Today -presentation with an intent to focus on developing solutions
Caltrain’s Engagement Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 107 Packet Pg. 144 of 226
Developed draft solutions based on available planning
level information
•Deeper dive analysis to support decision-making
•Seeking to balance needs of railroad and community
•Maintain utility of region’s investment in Caltrain
•Enable community’s vision for Palo Alto
•Intent to minimize additional private property impacts
Caltrain’s Partnership Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 108 Packet Pg. 145 of 226
Caltrain Partnership
1/29 •Engineering Team workshop of potential design and constructability solutions for all alternatives
(internal)
1/30 •Shared potential design and constructability solutions with City
•Received Questions from City
1/31
•Caltrain Team met with Chief Safety Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Director of Engineering
regarding solutions and questions (internal)
•Shared feedback on design and constructability solutions with City
2/1 •Caltrain Team met with Executive Director regarding solutions and Caltrain expectations (internal)
2/2 -2/9 •Caltrain Team begins applying direction to exhibits and materials (internal)
•Ongoing coordination between City staff and Caltrain
2/13 and 2/16 •Caltrain Team shares materials with City staff
3/19 •Rail Committee presentation
Steps Guiding Solution-Oriented Thinking
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 109 Packet Pg. 146 of 226
Reviewed Connecting Palo Alto Alternatives with a focus on
•Safety –Constructability
•Engineering –Practical Constraints
•Maintenance and Operations
•Policy and Agreements –Ensure projects are designed to meet Caltrain's future
railroad needs and preserve property rights.
•Design Criteria “Preserve the existing ROW” (2007, 2011, 2020, 2024)
•Rail Corridor Use Policy (RCUP) (2020)
•Property Conveyance and fee schedule policy (2010, 2021)
•California High Speed Rail Authority agreements
•Union Pacific Railroad agreements
Caltrain’s Focus of Review Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 110 Packet Pg. 147 of 226
Railroad property is Caltrain’s most valuable and durable asset
•Caltrain will explore encroachments through revocable license agreements subject to
appraisals, annual fees escalated at CPI, and Board approval via the RCUP and
Property Conveyance processes.
•For all alternatives and configurations requiring temporary use of Palo Alto right-of-
way, a future "construction, operation, and maintenance agreement" between the
City and Caltrain is needed.
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 111 Packet Pg. 148 of 226
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Current at-grade crossings support
Caltrain’s use of its full ROW width
for railroad purposes
2021 Conveyance Policy
“Staff will analyze the request to
ensure . . . applicant’s
improvements are designed to be
compatible with the broadest range
of possible transportation
alternatives for the entire width of
the ROW”
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.
Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative.
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 112 Packet Pg. 149 of 226
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Provide a minimum 15’-6”
vertical clearance with
variance and sacrificial
beams across entire
width of Railroad ROW
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.
Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative.
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 113 Packet Pg. 150 of 226
•City designs that do not allow for above may proceed, but City will be responsible for re-
building roads, or the incremental cost to the railroad to utilize the Caltrain ROW.
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.
Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative.
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 114 Packet Pg. 151 of 226
Executive Summary
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 115 Packet Pg. 152 of 226
Churchill Summary of Findings
Alternative Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
High-level
Findings
•Roadway and railroad
improvements viable with
refinements to Alma Street cross
section
•Bikeway western encroachment
into Caltrain ROW not viable
•Reduce width of pathway facility to
fit within available 25’ expired easement
or widen to the west
•Or relocate pathway undercrossing
to Seale Ave/Peers Park (under
preliminary review by others)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
•Moderately
viable with
refinements,less
than optimal
ramp width (~7’)
•Wider eastern
ramp would impact
Alma Street travel
lanes
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
•Viable
as shown
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 116 Packet Pg. 153 of 226
Viaduct
•Viable with refinements
•Permanent impact to Alma travel
lanes for approach structures
(19’)
•Reducing the impact to Alma
travel lanes for approach
structures requires a new shoofly
track (6’)
•To retain use of Alma travel lanes
below viaduct requires a more
complex structure
•Caltrain to retain existing at grade
tracks for railroad purposes
Meadow/Charleston Summary of Findings
Alternative Hybrid
High-level
Findings
•Viable with refinements
•Includes elevating
width of Caltrain’s ROW
to retain utility
•Shoofly tracks will
impact Alma travel lanes
(12’)during construction
Underpass
•Viable with
refinements
*Trench Alternative: At the City of Palo Alto’s request, Caltrain was not charged with reviewing the trench alternative after it was replaced by
the viaduct alternative within the Service Agreement.
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 117 Packet Pg. 154 of 226
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 118 Packet Pg. 155 of 226
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)(With Mitigations)(With Mitigations)
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 119 Packet Pg. 156 of 226
Maximum 3’ encroachment into Caltrain, revocable license agreement is required, subject to appraisal, annual fee (indexed to CPI), and Board approval
Churchill Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing
Interior of bridge to accommodate: 25’ offset from MT1 track center (towards Alma St) and 12.5’ offset from MT2 track center (towards private property)
New tracks must be 15’ on center Widen railroad bridge to accommodate 12.5’ offset from MT 2
Remain in existing 25’ easement (expired) or widen to west
No further encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Existing 25’ easement for Embarcadero Bike Path has expired, a revocable license agreement is required, subject to appraisal, annual fee (indexed to CPI), and Board approval
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 120 Packet Pg. 157 of 226
Draft and deliberative -For discussion purposes only
Churchill Partial UnderpassExisting 25’ easement for Embarcadero Bike Path has expired, a revocable license agreement is required, subject to appraisal, annual fee (indexed to CPI), and Board approval
Churchill Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing
15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed with variance but will require a sacrificial beam with an agreement for the City to cover the cost (of repair and Caltrain operations) if beam were to be struck
Longer bridge span to accommodate design vehicle turning templates
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 121 Packet Pg. 158 of 226
Churchill Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 122 Packet Pg. 159 of 226
Churchill Partial Underpass
with Kellogg Undercrossing Summary
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 123 Packet Pg. 160 of 226
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)(With Mitigations)
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 124 Packet Pg. 161 of 226
Churchill Closure
w/ Kellogg Underpass Summary
Under preliminary review by others:
Locate bike path at Seale Ave connecting
Peers Park
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 125 Packet Pg. 162 of 226
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
(With Kellogg Undercrossing LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Viable as shown
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 126 Packet Pg. 163 of 226
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 127 Packet Pg. 164 of 226
Meadow/Charleston HybridTracks will be aligned as far west as the southern portion of ROW allows and retaining walls will be placed to maximize utility of Caltrain ROW
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Place western retaining wall at 10’ from residential property line.
Place eastern retaining wall after removal of shoofly on Alma St property line Temporary wall will be required between activation of hybrid tracks and removal of shoofly
Caltrain will be allowed to close a lane on Alma St to inspect retaining walls. Permits will be at no cost to Caltrain and will not be unreasonably withheld.
If bridge minimum vertical clearance (16’-6” or 15’-6” with a variance and sacrificial beam) is not achieved across Caltrain ROW, if in the future the full width is needed for Railroad purposes, it will be the City’s choice to rebuild road or pay incremental cost for raising portion of railroad corridor.
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 128 Packet Pg. 165 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Interim Condition
Shoofly tracks will impact Alma travel lanes
(12’) during construction
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 129 Packet Pg. 166 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Retained fill between temporary wall and Alma Street wall to maintain utility of Caltrain operating ROW.
Interim Condition Final Condition
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 130 Packet Pg. 167 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
80’
Implications of ROW Offset
at Meadow Drive
95’100’
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 131 Packet Pg. 168 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT2
MT1
Existing Condition
Main Track 1: MT1
Main Track 2: MT2
Example South of Meadow
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 132 Packet Pg. 169 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT2
MT1
Construction zone
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
construction barrier/fence
Build New Shoofly
Tracks along Alma
Shoofly 1: SF1
Shoofly 2: SF2
9'
26'
10'
18'
45'
SF2
SF1
Build SF1
Build SF2
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 133 Packet Pg. 170 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
Shoofly Tracks along Alma
operational
SF2
SF1
45’
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 134 Packet Pg. 171 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
temporary retaining wall
MT2
MT1
Build Hybrid and Approach Structures with
Permanent MT1 and MT2
SF2
SF1
New Main Track 1: MT1
New Main Track 2: MT2
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 135 Packet Pg. 172 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
temporary retaining wall
MT2
MT1
Remove Temporary Shoofly tracks along Alma
Street
Construction zone
SF2
SF1
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 136 Packet Pg. 173 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Shoofly tracks removed, prepare for next phase Construction zone
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 137 Packet Pg. 174 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Build Final Eastern Retaining Wall and Retain Fill
Final Retaining Wall
Construction zone
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 138 Packet Pg. 175 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Final Condition
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 139 Packet Pg. 176 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT1
MT2
MT1
MT2
SF1 SF2
25’ clearance between track
center and fence45’
NORTH of Meadow Avenue Bridge
Looking South Final
Existing
Source: Google Earth, Google Street View, April 2023, Accessed February 2024
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 140 Packet Pg. 177 of 226
Plan View
Meadow Drive
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid SummaryItem 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 141 Packet Pg. 178 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid Summary
Plan View
Charleston Road
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 142 Packet Pg. 179 of 226
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 143 Packet Pg. 180 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Tie-ins will require additional engineering and constructability evaluation during Preliminary Engineering
Caltrain will retain use of remaining tracks for railroad purposes as it deems necessary.
With a 13’ translated shoofly, viaduct and approach structures will need to be placed over Alma Street ROW. Viaduct will be required to provide 16’6” vertical clearance from structure and appurtenances.
Approach structure approximately 1,600 feet long south of Charleston Road
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 144 Packet Pg. 181 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Main Track 1: MT1
Main Track 2: MT2
Example South of Charleston
Existing Condition
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 145 Packet Pg. 182 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Example South of Charleston
49.5’ 25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Construction zone
Viaduct and Approach Structure
Footprint without Shoofly
52’
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 146 Packet Pg. 183 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Example South of Charleston
Existing Condition
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 147 Packet Pg. 184 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
SF2
Build New Shoofly 2
Build SF2
Example South of Charleston
Shoofly 2: SF2
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 148 Packet Pg. 185 of 226
MT2
MT1
Draft and deliberative -For discussion purposes only
Example South of Charleston
SF1
SF2
Build Viaduct and Approach Structures with
Permanent MT1 and MT2
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Construction zone
52’
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Shoofly 1: SF1
Shoofly 2: SF2
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 149 Packet Pg. 186 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Example South of Charleston
Final Condition
Siding 2
Siding 1
Tracks to remain for future railroad use
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
MT2
MT1 52’
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 150 Packet Pg. 187 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
SF1
SOUTH of Charleston Road
Looking South
Using Shoofly Tracks
SF2MT2
MT1
52’
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Source: Google Earth, Google Street View, April 2023, Accessed February 2024
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 151 Packet Pg. 188 of 226
North of Meadow Viaduct
Approach structure approximately 1,600 feet long south of Charleston Road and 2,000 feet long north of Meadow Dr
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 152 Packet Pg. 189 of 226
South of Meadow Viaduct
Approach structure approximately 1,600 feet long south of Charleston Road and 2,000 feet long north of Meadow Dr
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 153 Packet Pg. 190 of 226
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Existing Tracks at Grade to Remain in Place
Viaduct and approach structures will need to be placed over/on Alma Street ROW
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 154 Packet Pg. 191 of 226
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 155 Packet Pg. 192 of 226
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Meadow UnderpassWill require revocable license agreement
Interior of bridge extend 25’ from MT1 (towards Alma Street) and 12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property)
Pedestrian bridges typically have additional vertical clearance due to vulnerable users
Place fence on Caltrain ROW line
Provide required OCS pole offset
Track alignment shifted to west
New tracks –15’ on track center
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 156 Packet Pg. 193 of 226
Meadow Underpass
•Interior of bridge over Meadow Dr to
accommodate 25’offset from proposed
MT1 track center (towards Alma St) and
12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property
•Add maintenance crossovers on either
side of bridge over Meadow Dr
•15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed but
will require a variance and sacrificial
beam with an agreement for the City to
cover the cost (of repair and Caltrain
operations) if beam were to be struck
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 157 Packet Pg. 194 of 226
Meadow Underpass Summary Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 158 Packet Pg. 195 of 226
Pedestrian bridges typically have additional vertical clearance due to vulnerable users
Interior of bridge extend 25’ from MT1 (towards Alma Street) and 12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property)
Charleston Underpass
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Provide required OCS pole offset
Place fence on Caltrain ROW line
Track alignment shifted to west
New tracks -15’ on track center
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 159 Packet Pg. 196 of 226
Charleston Underpass
•Interior of bridge over Charleston Rd to
accommodate 25’ offset from proposed
MT1 track center (towards Alma St) and
12.5’offset from proposed MT 2 track
center (towards private property)
•Add maintenance crossovers on either
side of bridge over Charleston Rd
•15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed but
will require a variance and sacrificial
beam with an agreement for the City to
cover the cost (of repair and Caltrain
operations) if beam were to be struck
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 160 Packet Pg. 197 of 226
Charleston Underpass Summary
Plan View
Charleston Road
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 161 Packet Pg. 198 of 226
Next Steps
64
Next Steps
The goal is to provide sufficient information for Rail Committee to evaluate
alternatives and make recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, Staff is
seeking
•Rail Committee’s review and selection of preferred alternative for
recommendation to the City Council
•Study session with City Council (April 2024)
•City Council to select preferred alternative for advancement into
Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation phase for
Meadow and Charleston Crossing (May/June 2024)
•Execute Agreement with FRA and Service Agreement/Cooperative
Agreement for Preliminary Engineering & Environmental with Caltrain &
VTA
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 162 Packet Pg. 199 of 226
65
Item 2
Attachment I - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 163 Packet Pg. 200 of 226
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
March 14, 2024 Project# 28476
To: Ozzy, Arce
Palo Alto Office of Transportation
,
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
RE: Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail
Crossing Assessment
The BPTP Update consultant team evaluated the merits of each location (Seale and Kellogg) for a grade
separated rail crossing based on the following assessment topics:
Prior analyses and plans
Proximity to alternative routes
Landing location
Network connectivity
Community input
The findings of the assessment are presented in Table 1.
Oakland, CA 94612
Item 2
Attachment J - Technical
Memorandum Seale vs
Kellogg Grade Separated
Rail Crossing Assessment
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 164 Packet Pg. 201 of 226
March 14, 2024 Page 2
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 1 Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
The 2012 BPTP identifies Seale Avenue as a
recommended location for an across barrier
connection.
The 2013 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study
identified Seale Avenue a potential crossing
location.
The 2021 XCAP Report identified the addition
of a bike/ped crossing at Seale as a general
potential mitigation for the Churchill grade
separation. This option was selected with
mitigation.
Avenue as a recommended across barrier
connection or location for a grade separated
rail crossing.
The 2013 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study identified Kellogg Avenue a potential crossing
location.
The 2021 XCAP Report included a ped/bike
tunnel as part of concept designs for the
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass. This option
was not selected.
Proximity to alternative routes
of the Cal Ave Tunnel and about 1,850 feet
south of the at-grade rail crossing at Churchill
Ave.
of the at-grade crossing at Churchill and about
1,200 feet south of the grade-separated rail
crossing at Embarcadero.
Landing locations
There is space available at Peers Park for a
landing. Paly High School.
Network connectivity
Seale Avenue connects to the Serra Street/Park
Boulevard and Stanford Avenue east-west
bikeways (along with the north-south
Castilleja-Park-Wilkie Bicycle Boulevard) across
Caltrain.
Bike Path and Bryant Street Bike Boulevard.
Kellog Avenue terminates at Waverley Street
three blocks east of the rail line, limiting utility
of this route as a through connection.
Community input
during the BPTP Update indicate a strong
demand for a grade-separate bike/ped
crossing of Alma and the rail line. Ideas
proposed for a new crossing include an
map during the BPTP Update indicated
demand for grade separated crossings, they
did not identify Kellogg as a preferred
alignment.
Item 2
Attachment J - Technical
Memorandum Seale vs Kellogg
Grade Separated Rail Crossing
Assessment
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 165 Packet Pg. 202 of 226
March 14, 2024 Page 3
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Park.
Churchill Avenue, the crossing nearest to Seale,
was flagged as stressful for cyclists and
pedestrians, indicating a lower stress route is
desired. A grade separated crossing at Seale
would provide an alternate low-stress facility.
Overall prior plans and analyses, would fill a longer
gap between alternative crossing locations,
appears to have adequate space for a landing
location, would increase connectivity to the
transportation network, and has been identified as a potential alignment for a grade-
separated rail crossing in public involvement
efforts for the BPTP Update.
long a gap between crossing locations and
have limited utility in terms of increasing
network connectivity.
Item 2
Attachment J - Technical
Memorandum Seale vs Kellogg
Grade Separated Rail Crossing
Assessment
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 166 Packet Pg. 203 of 226
March 14, 2024 Page 4
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
REFERENCES
Item 2
Attachment J - Technical
Memorandum Seale vs
Kellogg Grade Separated
Rail Crossing Assessment
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 167 Packet Pg. 204 of 226
March 14, 2024 Page 5
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
BPTP Update – Existing Bicycle Facilities Map
Yellow = pedestrian-involved collisions
Orange = bicycle involved collisions
Red line = Kellog (northwest) and Seale (southeast) crossing locations
Green line = bike/ped path access to Paly
BPTP Update – Draft Technical Analyses
o Five-Year (2018-2022) Collisions TIMS
Item 2
Attachment J - Technical
Memorandum Seale vs
Kellogg Grade Separated
Rail Crossing Assessment
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 168 Packet Pg. 205 of 226
March 14, 2024 Page 6
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Rail Crossing Study
o Figure 4.1
Item 2
Attachment J - Technical
Memorandum Seale vs
Kellogg Grade Separated
Rail Crossing Assessment
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 169 Packet Pg. 206 of 226
March 14, 2024 Page 7
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
2021 Report of the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) on Grade Separations for Palo Alto,
page 57
Item 2
Attachment J - Technical
Memorandum Seale vs
Kellogg Grade Separated
Rail Crossing Assessment
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 170 Packet Pg. 207 of 226
March 14, 2024 Page 8
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
School Catchment Area Maps - https://locator.pea.powerschool.com/?StudyID=171992
Item 2
Attachment J - Technical
Memorandum Seale vs
Kellogg Grade Separated
Rail Crossing Assessment
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 171 Packet Pg. 208 of 226
January 30, 2024 • Meadow-Charleston Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/1 of 5
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
Meadow-Charleston Evaluation of City Council-Adopted Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
Trench
Hybrid
Viaduct
Underpass
A
Facilitate movement
across the corridor for all
modes of transportation
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be grade separated from the railroad for all modes and will remain open.
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be grade separated from the railroad for all modes and will remain open.
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be grade separated from the railroad for all modes and will remain open. Viaduct provides opportunities for additional
crossings for all modes.
East/West (through) traffic on Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road will be grade separated from the railroad and Alma Street for all modes.
Turning movements from Meadow Drive to southbound
Alma Street will be prohibited. Turning movements from northbound Alma Street will require a U-turn at Alma Village Circle.
All turning movements on Charleston Road to/from Alma Street will be permitted; however, some movements will be
facilitated via a roundabout approximately 600 feet east
of Alma Street, resulting in longer routes for all modes
compared to the Trench, Hybrid, and Viaduct alternatives.
B
Reduce delay and
congestion
for vehicular traffic at rail
crossings
With construction of the grade
separation, the railroad crossing gates and warning lights at
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be removed. Thus,
the traffic will not be interrupted by the railroad crossing gates.
With construction of the grade
separation, the railroad crossing gates and warning lights at
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be removed. Thus,
the traffic will not be interrupted by the railroad crossing gates.
With construction of the grade
separation, the railroad crossing gates and warning lights at
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be removed. Thus,
the traffic will not be interrupted by the railroad crossing gates.
With construction of the grade
separation, the railroad crossing gates and warning lights at
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be removed. Thus,
the traffic will not be interrupted by the railroad crossing gates. Pedestrian and cyclist mode separation will also help reduce intersection congestion.
Some turning movements will be prohibited at the Alma/Meadow intersection and thus would use the Charleston
Road intersection or the new signal at Alma Village
Circle. At the Alma/Charleston intersection, some turning
movements will increase overall delays due to the circuitous nature of the movements, as vehicles would need to use the Charleston roundabout and return to the Alma intersection
to complete the movements (e.g. eastbound left-turns to
Alma, northbound left-turns and southbound right-turns to
Charleston).
C
Provide clear, safe routes
for pedestrians and
cyclists crossing the rail
corridor, separate from
vehicles
Pedestrians/cyclists will be separated from train traffic. Conflicts between pedestrians/cyclists
and motor vehicles will remain at the Alma intersections.
Bike lanes will be added to Meadow Drive and Charleston
Road intersections. Additional pedestrian/cyclist separations routes can be explored in the next phase of design.
Pedestrians/cyclists will be separated from train traffic. Conflicts between pedestrians/cyclists
and motor vehicles will remain at the Alma intersections.
Bike lanes will be added to Meadow Drive and Charleston
Road intersections. Additional pedestrian/cyclist separations routes can be explored in the next phase of design.
Pedestrians/cyclists will be separated from train traffic. Conflicts between pedestrians/cyclists
and motor vehicles will remain at the Alma intersections.
Bike lanes will be added to Meadow Drive and Charleston
Road intersections. Additional pedestrian/cyclist separations routes can be explored in the next phase of design.
Pedestrians and cyclists traveling east/
west will be completely separated from train and vehicular
traffic on Alma Street. Full pedestrian and cyclist movement is maintained.
Pedestrians and cyclists will have more circuitous routes traveling east/west across the corridor because the pedestrian/bike path is located on one side of the street
only: on the south side of Meadow Drive and on the north
side of Charleston Road. For example, cyclists traveling
eastbound on Charleston Road near Ruthelma Street will have to cross Charleston Road to get onto the north side of the road, then cross Charleston Road again at the
roundabout near Mumford Place to get back onto the right/
south side of the road.
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
Summary of Evaluation Item 2
Attachment K - Summary of
Evaluation Matrix based on Council
Adopted Criteria
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 172 Packet Pg. 209 of 226
January 30, 2024 • Meadow-Charleston Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/2 of 5
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
Meadow-Charleston Evaluation of City Council-Adopted Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
Trench
Hybrid
Viaduct
Underpass
D
Support continued rail
operations and Caltrain
service improvements
A temporary railroad track will be required, and a crossover track located north of the San Antonio Caltrain Station will be relocated. With the pump
stations, there will be potential risks to train operations from
flooding.
A temporary railroad track will be required, and a crossover track located north of the San Antonio Caltrain Station will be relocated.
New railroad tracks can be built without a temporary track, and a crossover track located north of
the San Antonio Caltrain Station will be relocated.
A temporary railroad track is likely to be required unless an alternate construction methodology and sequencing is acceptable to Caltrain.
E
Finance with feasible
funding sources
(order of magnitude cost)
The trench will require greater levels of local funding in the form of fees, taxes or special
assessments, the feasibility of which are still being studied
in the context of overall citywide infrastructure funding
needs.
The hybrid would require lower levels of local funding, with a substantial portion of capital costs
covered by Regional, State and Federal sources.
The viaduct would require substantial local funding resources more than the hybrid alternative, but
less than the trench and tunnel alternatives.
The underpass will require substantial local funding resources more than the hybrid alternative, but
less than the trench and tunnel alternatives.
F
Minimize right-of-way
acquisition (Private
property only)
Subsurface acquisition will be required
for the ground anchors for the trench retaining walls and
private properties will be required for creek diversion pump station.
No acquisition of private properties is
required; however, driveway modifications will be required.No acquisition of private properties is
required.
Five (5) full private property acquisitions
are required in multiple locations (two at Meadow Drive and
three at Charleston Road). Multiple driveway modifications will be also required.
Partial (sliver) acquisition of residential properties and removal of trees will be required at various locations and summarized below:
At Meadow Drive:
• Six (6) front yard acquisitions on both sides of Meadow
between 2nd Street and Park Boulevard.
• One (1) side yard acquisition on the north side of
Meadow, just west of Emerson Street.
• Five (5) backyard acquisitions on the south side of
Meadow between Alma Street and Emerson Street.
At Charleston Road:
• On both sides of Charleston between Ruthelma Avenue and Park Boulevard. Seven (7) front yard acquisitions; two (2) on the north side, five (5) on the south side of
Charleston.
• One side yard acquisition on the south side of Charleston
between Park Boulevard and the railroad tracks.
• Eight (8) property acquisitions on both sides of Charleston between Alma St and Wright Place; six (6)
backyard acquisitions on the north side of Charleston,
and two (2) front yard acquisitions on the south side of
Charleston (closest to Alma).
• Six (6) backyard acquisitions on the north side of
Charleston between Wright Place and Mumford Place.
• Six (6) property acquisitions along Alma Street between
Charleston Road and Ely Place; five (5) backyard
acquisitions, and one side yard acquisition (closest to Ely Place).
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
Summary of Evaluation Item 2
Attachment K - Summary of
Evaluation Matrix based on Council
Adopted Criteria
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 173 Packet Pg. 210 of 226
January 30, 2024 • Meadow-Charleston Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/3 of 5
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
Meadow-Charleston Evaluation of City Council-Adopted Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
Trench
Hybrid
Viaduct
Underpass
G1 Reduce rail noise and
vibration
Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated with the replacement of the at-grade crossings with grade separations. Utilizing EMU trains
instead of diesel locomotives will also reduce noise. Trains
operating in trench will reduce noise in neighborhoods.
Acoustically treated trench walls will eliminate acoustical reflections. There would be a slight reduction to vibration levels at nearby receptors.
Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated with the replacement of the at-grade crossings with grade separations. Utilizing EMU trains
instead of diesel engines will also reduce noise. Six-foot
high parapet sound barriers will help reduce propulsion
and wheel/rail noise. There would be a slight reduction to vibration levels at nearby receptors.
Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated with the replacement of the at-grade crossings with grade separations. Utilizing EMU trains
instead of diesel engines will also reduce noise. Six-foot
high parapet sound barriers will help reduce propulsion and
wheel/rail noise. There would be significant reduction to vibration levels at nearby receptors.
Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated by the replacement of the at-grade crossings
with grade separations. Utilizing EMU trains rather than
diesel engines will also reduce noise. Modern rail bridge
design will reduce excess structural noise. Sound barriers will also help to reduce propulsion and wheel/rail noise. There would be little to no change to vibration levels at
nearby receptors. An optional 6-foot high noise barrier near
the tracks and on the overpass structure could significantly
reduce wheel/rail and propulsion noise.
G2 Sea Level Rise
Susceptibility
The low point of the track profile
(Elevation 4 feet) for the trench alternative would be close
to the projected sea level rise inundation zone for the year 2100 (a sea level rise of 3.42 feet ).
The trench’s track profile is below the estimated
groundwater (approximately between Elevation 20 and 25) for about 4,000 feet along the track.
Increased groundwater elevations from sea level rise
would further expose the trench to emergent groundwater by 2100. A pump station is proposed, but groundwater depletion and additional studies would be needed to further
assess the feasibility of this alternative.
The hybrid alternative would be outside of the projected sea level rise inundation zone for the year
2100.
The low point of the proposed roadway for the Hybrid at
Meadow (Elevation 30 feet) is about 9 feet higher than
current groundwater (Elevation 21). The low point of the
proposed roadway for the Hybrid at Charleston (Elevation 34 feet) is about 12 feet higher than current groundwater (Elevation 22 ).
Increased groundwater elevations from sea level rise can damage a roadway from below, increasing the likelihood of cracks, potholes, and sinkholes.
The viaduct structure is not anticipated to be affected by sea level rise or emergent groundwater.The underpass alternative would be
outside of the projected sea level rise inundation zone for the year 2100.
The low point of the proposed roadway for the underpass at Meadow (Elevation 12 feet) is about 9 feet below current groundwater (Elevation 21).
The low point of the proposed roadway for the underpass at Charleston (Elevation 16 feet) is about 6 feet below current groundwater (Elevation 22).
Increased groundwater elevations from sea level rise would further expose the underpass alternative to emergent groundwater by 2100.
G3 Heat Island Effect
Construction extents are limited to the existing railroad tracks. Negligible changes to heat island effects due to minimal changes to land use.
The replacement of asphalt pavement
for roadway grading results in some impact to heat island effects, because newer asphalt pavement surfaces have lower albedo ratings that will increase with age.
Lower albedo ratings are less favorable because more light is absorbed, which heats up the surrounding air.
Construction extents are limited to the
existing railroad tracks. Negligible changes to heat island effects due to minimal changes to land use.
As the alternative with the largest
construction extents, the replacement of existing darker concrete with new concrete with higher albedo ratings results in some expected improvement to heat island
effects.
Higher albedo ratings are more favorable because more light is reflected, which can help cool the surrounding air.
G4 Stormwater Treatment
Construction extents are limited to the existing railroad tracks. Significant changes to the amount of stormwater runoff generated from project area expected,
due to changes in land use from existing railroad ballast to
significantly more impervious concrete surfaces.
Changes to land use and additional
impervious areas (i.e., new underpass bridge) are minimal.
Construction extents are limited to the
existing railroad tracks. With the assumption that runoff from the raised viaduct can all be directed to the underlying vegetated areas, no net increase in runoff generation is
expected.
As the alternative with the largest construction extents and changes to land use, especially with the conversion of existing vegetated areas to concrete
and asphalt surfaces, a moderate impact to the amount of
stormwater to be treated is expected.
H
Maintain access to
neighborhoods, parks, and
schools along the corridor,
while reducing regional
traffic on neighborhood
streets
No diversion of regional traffic with
construction of grade separations.
No diversion of regional traffic with
construction of grade separations.
No diversion of regional traffic with
construction of grade separations.
Regional traffic will be diverted due
to the restricted turning movements; however, travel in all directions will be possible, but may require a longer route and take more time. Turning movements at Ely Place will
be limited to right turns on northbound Alma Street only.
Pedestrian and cyclist access will improve due to mode
separation.
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
Summary of Evaluation Item 2
Attachment K - Summary of
Evaluation Matrix based on Council
Adopted Criteria
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 174 Packet Pg. 211 of 226
January 30, 2024 • Meadow-Charleston Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/4 of 5
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
Meadow-Charleston Evaluation of Engineering Challenges
Engineering Challenges
Trench
Hybrid
Viaduct
Underpass
L Creek/Drainage Impacts
• Requires diversion of Adobe and Barron creeks resulting in the need for pump stations.
• Numerous regulatory agency approvals required for creek
diversion.
• Pump stations also required to dewater the trench.
• Increased risk of flooding due to pump stations.
• Pump stations required for lowered roadways.
• Increased risk of flooding due to pump stations.
• No significant creek or drainage impacts.• Pump station required for lowered roadways.
• Increased risk of flooding due to pump station.
Meadow-Charleston Evaluation of City Council-Adopted Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
Trench
Hybrid
Viaduct
Underpass
I Minimize visual changes
along the corridor
Railroad tracks will be below grade with high fencing at grade. Landscaping options will be limited
to plants with shallow roots in areas where ground anchors
are required for the trench retaining walls.
Railroad tracks will be approximately 15 feet above grade. Landscaping with trees will be
incorporated for screening where feasible.
During the winter, late afternoon (after 3 pm) shadows are significant on the east side of the structure as they extend
to the west-facing, residential properties on the east side of
Alma Street.
Railroad tracks will be approximately 20 feet above grade. Landscaping with trees will be
incorporated for screening where feasible.
Shadows from the viaduct structure extend about 15 feet from each side of the structure in the mid-morning (9
am) and mid-afternoon (3 pm) hours during the summer
solstice.
During the winter, late afternoon (after 3 pm) shadows are
significant on the east side of the structure as they extend
to the west-facing, residential properties on the east side of Alma Street.
Railroad tracks will remain at-grade. On Charleston Road, removal of the planting strip on both sides
of the road will be required along with the planting strip on
the east side of Alma Street between Charleston Road and
Ely Place.
J Minimize disruption and
duration of construction
Extended road closures at Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road are required. Construction would
last for approximately 6 years.
Extended lane reductions at Alma
Street, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road will be required.
Construction would last for approximately 4 years.
The viaduct will have minimal road closures (nights/weekends only). Construction would last for approximately 2 years.
Lane reductions and temporary closures (nights/weekends only) on Alma Street, a closure of Meadow Drive between Emerson Street and Park Boulevard, and a closure of Charleston Road between Alma
Street and Park Boulevard will be required for the majority
of construction. The total duration of construction will
be approximately 3.5 to 4 years; however the durations are subject to change depending on the construction methodologies used.
Order of magnitude cost $800M to 950M*$190M to $230M*$400M to 500M*$340M to $420M*
* Total Preliminary Construction Cost for infrastructure of both railroad crossings in 2018 dollars, and includes escalation to 2025 (Subject to Change).
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
Summary of Evaluation Item 2
Attachment K - Summary of
Evaluation Matrix based on Council
Adopted Criteria
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 175 Packet Pg. 212 of 226
January 30, 2024 • Meadow-Charleston Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/5 of 5
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
Meadow-Charleston Evaluation of Engineering Challenges
Engineering Challenges
Trench
Hybrid
Viaduct
Underpass
M Long-Term Maintenance
Increased maintenance costs due to:
• Pump stations for creek diversions.
• Pump stations for trench dewatering.
• Below ground railroad alignment.
Increased maintenance costs due to:
• Pump stations for trench dewatering.
• Above ground railroad alignment with embankments and
undercrossing structures.
Increased maintenance costs due to:
• Above ground railroad alignment with embankments and
viaduct structures.
Increased maintenance cost due to:
• Pump stations for underpass dewatering.
• Above ground structures for both road and rail.
N Utility Relocations • Major utility relocations for lowered railroad.• Moderate amount of utility relocations for utility relocations for lowered roadways.• Some utility relocations required.• Major utility relocation due to the fully lowered roadway.
O Railroad Operations Impacts
during Construction
• Temporary track (i.e., shoofly) is required.• Temporary track (i.e., shoofly) is required, but a bit
shorter than the trench shoofly.• No temporary track (i.e., shoofly) required.• Temporary track (i.e., shoofly) likely required unless an
alternate construction methodology and sequencing is
acceptable to Caltrain.
P Local Street Circulation
Impacts during Construction
• Removal of right turn lanes on Alma Street at Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road; however, traffic will still be able to flow as needed despite lane reduction.
• Closes Meadow Drive while Charleston Road roadway bridges are constructed and visa versa.
• Removal of right turn lanes on Alma Street at Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road; however, traffic will still be able to flow as needed despite lane reduction.
• Alma Street, Charleston Road, and Meadow Drive reduced to 2 lanes.
• Reduced lane widths on Alma Street, north of Meadow
Drive and south of Charleston Road.
• Possible night time closures of Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road.
• Lane reduction on Alma Street during construction of the
shoofly and bridge.
• Closure of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road
throughout excavation and construction of the undercrossing and related features.
Q
Caltrain right-of-way Impact
(Probability of approval
by Caltrain of permanent
encroachment inside
Caltrain’s right-of-way is
unknown at this time).
Permanent encroachment inside
Caltrain’s right-of-way is required to accommodate pump
station(s).
No permanent encroachment inside
Caltrain’s right-of-way is required.No permanent encroachment inside
Caltrain’s right-of-way is required. However, options of a
linear park or dual use under the viaduct would require Caltrain approval.
No permanent encroachment inside
Caltrain’s right-of-way is required.
R Caltrain Design Exceptions
Needed
2% grade on track required. Maximum grade allowed by Caltrain is 1%.Temporary vertical clearance of 12 feet at undercrossing structures during construction.
Minimum vertical clearance allowed by Caltrain is 15.5 feet.
1.4% grade on track required. Maximum grade allowed by Caltrain is 1%.No Caltrain design exceptions required.
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
Summary of Evaluation Item 2
Attachment K - Summary of
Evaluation Matrix based on Council
Adopted Criteria
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 176 Packet Pg. 213 of 226
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
1 of 3January 30, 2024 • Churchill Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/
Churchill Evaluation of City Council-Adopted Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
Closure with Mitigations
Partial Underpass
A Facilitate movement across the corridor for
all modes of transportation
Churchill Avenue will be closed to vehicles at the railroad tracks. Pedestrians and cyclists will be grade separated from the railroad in Option 1. For Option 2, pedestrians and cyclists will be grade separated
from the railroad and vehicle traffic on Alma Street.
Churchill Avenue will be grade separated from the railroad for all modes and will remain open.
Through traffic on Churchill Avenue is no longer possible, and some traffic will have to take alternate routes. Pedestrian/bike (only) traffic will be grade separated from the railroad and vehicle traffic on Alma Street via an undercrossing at Kellogg Avenue or Seale Avenue.
B Reduce delay and congestion
for vehicular traffic at rail crossings
With closure of Churchill Avenue, traffic will be diverted to Embarcadero and Page Mill Road and thus, nearby intersections will be impacted; however, operational improvements are proposed at the Embarcadero/Kingsley/Alma intersection, El Camino Real intersections at Embarcadero Road and Page Mill Road
and Alma/Oregon Expressway interchange that would mitigate the traffic impacts.
With construction of the grade separation, the railroad crossing gates and warning lights at Churchill Avenue will be removed. Thus, the traffic will not be interrupted by the railroad crossing gates. Pedestrian undercrossing at Kellogg Avenue or Seale Avenue will also help reduce intersection congestion.
C
Provide clear, safe routes for pedestrians and
cyclists crossing the rail corridor, separate
from vehicles
Pedestrians/cyclists will be separated from train traffic and vehicles.Pedestrians and cyclists will be completely separated from train and vehicular traffic. Full pedestrian and cyclist movement is maintained with a new undercrossing at Kellogg Avenue or Seale Avenue.
D Support continued rail operations and Caltrain
service improvements
A temporary railroad track will not be required.A temporary railroad track is likely to be required unless an alternate construction methodology and sequencing is acceptable to Caltrain.
E Finance with feasible funding sources
(Order of magnitude cost)
The closure would require the lowest levels of local funding, with a substantial portion of capital costs covered by Regional, State and Federal sources. The underpasses would require lower levels of local funding, with a substantial portion of
capital costs covered by Regional, State, and Federal sources.
F Minimize right-of-way acquisition
(Private property only)
No acquisition of private properties is required; however, there will be impacts to the Palo Alto High School property. Loss of street parking loss and removal of the planter strip on both sides of Churchill
Avenue, east of Alma Street, will be required for the pedestrian/bike undercrossing (Option 2 only).
Driveway modifications, removal and relocation of planter strips, and and partial (sliver) acquisitions of residential properties will be required due to widening of Alma Street between Kellogg Avenue
and Coleridge Avenue. Some (sliver) acquisition of the high school and/or residential property fronting Churchill
Avenue on the west side of the tracks will be required.
For the pedestrian undercrossing at Kellogg Avenue (or Seale Avenue), loss of street parking and removal of the
planter strip on both sides of Kellogg Avenue (or Seale) will be required for approximately 250-300 feet from Alma
Street.
G1 Reduce rail noise and vibration
Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated with the removal of the at-grade
crossings with roadway closure. Utilizing EMU trains instead of diesel engines will also reduce noise. There would
be no change to vibration levels at nearby receptors. An optional 6-foot high noise barrier near the tracks could
significantly reduce wheel/rail and propulsion noise.
Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated by the replacement of the at-grade
crossings with grade separations. Utilizing EMU trains rather than diesel engines will also reduce noise and some
road noise would be reduced. Modern rail bridge design will reduce excess structural noise. There would be little
to no change to vibration levels at nearby receptors. An optional 6-foot high noise barrier near the tracks and on the overpass structure could significantly reduce wheel/rail and propulsion noise.
G2 Sea Level Rise Susceptibility
The closure alternative would be outside of the projected sea level rise inundation zone for
the year 2100.
The lowest pedestrian underpass elevations (27 feet at Kellogg, and 20 feet at Seale Avenue) would still be well
above current groundwater levels (Elevation 8-11 feet).
The underpass alternative would be outside of the projected sea level rise inundation zone for
the year 2100.
The lowest elevations (27 feet for the pedestrian underpass at Kellogg, 25 feet for the roadway underpass at
Churchill and 20 feet for the pedestrian underpass at Seale Avenue) would still be well above current groundwater
levels (Elevation 8-11 feet).
This alternative is not anticipated to be affected by sea level rise or emergent groundwater.
G3 Heat Island Effect
The introduction of new vegetated areas, with higher albedo ratings than asphalt surfaces and increased provision of shading, southwest of the Alma St & Churchill Ave intersection results in an expected improvement to heat island effects.
Higher albedo ratings are more favorable because more light is reflected, which can help cool the surrounding air.
The combination of replacing existing concrete with lighter albedo concrete and replacing existing asphalt with darker albedo asphalt pavements results in an expected neutral impact to heat island effects.
G4 Stormwater Treatment
The introduction of new vegetated areas, with lower runoff coefficients and higher expected perviousness, southwest of the Alma St & Churchill Ave intersection results in some expected reduction in stormwater generation.
Due to the large area of regraded (lowered) and replaced impervious surfaces the volume of
runoff requiring treatment will increase substantially as compared to existing conditions.
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
Summary of Evaluation Item 2
Attachment K - Summary of
Evaluation Matrix based on Council
Adopted Criteria
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 177 Packet Pg. 214 of 226
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
Churchill Evaluation of City Council-Adopted Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
Closure with Mitigations
Partial Underpass
H
Maintain access to neighborhoods, parks,
and schools along the corridor, while reducing
regional traffic on neighborhood streets
Vehicle access will be diverted and resultant regional traffic will be mitigated. Pedestrian and cyclist access will improve to mode separation.Regional traffic will be diverted due to the restricted turning movements. Pedestrian and
cyclist access will improve due to mode separation.
I Minimize visual changes along the corridor
Railroad tracks remain at existing grade. Residual roadway areas from the closure provide
opportunities for landscaping at Churchill between Mariposa Avenue and the tracks.
Some tree removals will be required on both sides of Churchill for a length of approximately 250-300 feet east of
Alma Street to accommodate a ped/bike ramp down the center of Churchill (Option 2 only).
The railroad tracks and the northbound lanes of Alma Street will remain at-grade, and the east side of Churchill Avenue will remain unchanged. Mature trees and overhead power poles within the Alma Street planting strip, from just north of Kellogg Avenue to just south of Coleridge Avenue, will be removed. Landscaping
restoration is limited due to space constraints.
J Minimize disruption and duration of
construction
The closure will have minimal road closures (nights/weekends only). Construction would last
for approximately 2 years.
Closure of Churchill Avenue between Alma Street and Mariposa Avenue will be required for
the majority of construction. Alma Street will be one-way northbound for approximately 6+ months. Total duration
of construction will be approximately 2.5 to 3 years; however the durations are subject to change depending on the construction methodologies used.
Order of magnitude cost $50M to $65M*$160M to $200M*
2 of 3January 30, 2024 • Churchill Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/
Churchill Evaluation of Engineering Challenges
Engineering Challenges
Closure with Mitigations
Partial Underpass
L Creek/Drainage Impacts • Pump station required for lowered pedestrian/bike undercrossing.
• Increased risk of flooding with pump stations.
• Relocation of the pump house at Embarcadero Road required to accommodate widening of Alma Street.
• Pump station required for lowered roadways.
• Increased risk of flooding due to pump station.
M Long-Term Maintenance
Increased maintenance costs due to:
• Pump stations for undercrossing dewatering.
Increased maintenance cost due to:
• Pump stations for underpass dewatering.
• Above ground structures for both road and rail.
N Utility Relocations • Potential utility relocations in Alma Street and Churchill Avenue for pedestrian/bike undercrossing.
• Minor utility relocations for Embarcadero Road/Alma Street improvements.
• Major utility relocations for lowered roadways.
O Railroad Operations Impacts during
Construction • No temporary track (i.e., shoofly) required, only single tracking during nights and weekends.• Temporary track (i.e., shoofly) likely required unless alternate construction methodology and sequencing is acceptable to Caltrain.
* Total Preliminary Construction Cost for infrastructure of the railroad crossing in 2018 dollars, and includes escalation to 2025 (Subject to Change).
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
Summary of Evaluation Item 2
Attachment K - Summary of
Evaluation Matrix based on Council
Adopted Criteria
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 178 Packet Pg. 215 of 226
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
3 of 3
Churchill Evaluation of Engineering Challenges
Engineering Challenges
Closure with Mitigations
Partial Underpass
P Local Street Circulation Impacts during
Construction
• Path along Palo Alto High School will temporarily be impacted during construction.
• Temporary night and weekend closure of lanes on Churchill Avenue, Alma Street, Embarcadero Road, El Camino Real, and Oregon Expressway.
• Lane reduction on Alma Street during construction of the shoofly and bridge.
• Likely closure of Churchill Avenue throughout the excavation and construction of the undercrossing and related features.
• Likely closure of Kellogg Avenue for the duration of the pedestrian underpass construction; driveway access from one direction only.
Q
Caltrain right-of-way Impact
(Probability of approval by Caltrain of
permanent encroachment inside Caltrain’s
right-of-way is unknown at this time).
Requires permanent longitudinal encroachment inside Caltrain’s right-of-way for the
pedestrian/bike ramps for undercrossing Option 1.
Requires permanent longitudinal encroachment inside Caltrain’s right-of-way for the
pedestrian/bike ramps (to the undercrossing at Kellogg Avenue) and for the lanes/shoulders for southbound Alma Street.
R Caltrain Design Exceptions Needed None required.No Caltrain design exceptions needed.
January 30, 2024 • Churchill Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/
Summary of Evaluation Item 2
Attachment K - Summary of
Evaluation Matrix based on Council
Adopted Criteria
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 179 Packet Pg. 216 of 226
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: April 29, 2024
Report #:2404-2839
TITLE
Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Action Plan Collision Analysis Report
RECOMMENDATION
Receive Report on the Collision Analysis of the Safe Streets for All Action Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report shares the collision data analysis for the ongoing development of the City’s
Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan. Collision data from 2018 through 2022 was
analyzed by crash severity and other factors to determine collision profiles and a High Injury
Network that will be used to prioritize future roadway projects and institutionalize the Safe
System Approach into the City’s existing policies and guidelines.
BACKGROUND
In late 2023, the City of Palo Alto and Fehr & Peers began the Safe Streets and Road for
All Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. City staff introduced the Action Plan and the Safe
System Approach to the Council via an Information Report on November 27, 2023.1 This Plan
will meet the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)’s SS4A requirements for a
safety action plan that can be found here.2 The primary goal of this planning effort is to
identify proactive, citywide opportunities across the Safe System elements (safe users, safe
speeds, safe roads, safe vehicles, and post-crash care) to improve safety for all road users in
support of the Vision Zero goal of reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries by 2030 or a
different year to be adopted by Council later in plan development.
1 Council Information Report, Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Action Plan & Safe System Approach Introduction,
November 27, 2023
2 US Department of Transportation, SS4A Action Plan Components
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 217 of 226
ANALYSIS
The Safe System Approach leverages crash data and contextual information about the
built environment to identify traffic safety hot spots, analyze crash patterns, develop
citywide insights from these patterns, and identify safety improvements that focus on
eliminating fatal and serious injury crash risk. The Comprehensive Safety Action Plan includes
the review of Citywide collision data from 2018 through 2022 available through the
Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). TIMS reports injury collisions from the Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) but excludes collisions that cause property damage
only and no injuries. Figure 1 shows the yearly collision numbers for the 2018 through 2022
period. For this timeframe in Palo Alto, there were a total of 1,132 collisions, of which 47 were
a collision in which someone was killed or severely injured (KSI).
Figure 1: All Collisions and Killed or Severe Injury (KSI) Collisions, 2018-2022
Figure 2 shows the mode of travel involved in all collisions and KSI collisions. The figure shows
vehicle-vehicle, vehicle-bike, and vehicle-pedestrian for collisions of all severities and for KSI
collisions. People walking or bicycling are particularly vulnerable, with pedestrian and bicycle
collisions making up 52% of KSI collisions even though they only represented 32% of the total
injury collisions.
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 218 of 226
Figure 2: All Collisions and KSI Collisions by Modes Involved, 2018-2022
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 219 of 226
Figure 3: All Collisions and KSI Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF), 2018-2022
Figure 4 shows all collisions and KSI sorted by the types of collisions reported by
officers. Broadside (90-degree angle) collisions and head-on collisions had two of the
highest percentages of KSI collisions, and most collisions occurred on weekdays and in the
afternoon and evening (3 PM to 9 PM).
Figure 4: All Collisions and KSI Collisions by Collision Type, 2018-2022
Identifying Trends
To assess corridors experiencing a disproportionate share of collisions, a High Injury
Network (HIN) was identified that shows that 62% of injury collisions occurred on 4% of Palo
Alto’s streets. Within the City’s roadway network, roadways are owned by the City, County,
and Caltrans. The HIN shown in Figure 5 incorporates and color-codes the roadways owned by
each entity. Key roadways on the HIN include higher speed arterials, as well as expressways and
a few collectors.
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 220 of 226
Note that the City and Caltrans have identified or initiated safety projects on portions of
the High Injury Network in Palo Alto. The City’s Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project is in
its final phase of construction this spring. City staff are also pursuing funding for a striping trial
of the South Palo Alto Bikeways Project and will engage the community to review the
concept plans that Council endorsed in 2021 for E. Meadow Drive, Fabian Way, and the
Waverley Path. Caltrans is currently proposing to repurpose on-street parking for bicycle lanes
as part of its Route 82 (El Camino Real) Pavement Rehabilitation and ADA Improvements
project. A series of community engagement meetings to provide feedback on this Caltrans plan
were scheduled for March and April of this year, with a Council Ad Hoc Committee recently
formed to continue consultation with stakeholders.
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 221 of 226
Figure 5: City of Palo Alto High Injury Network
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 222 of 226
Seven collision profiles were also developed to summarize key collision and associated
roadway contextual conditions in Palo Alto. Each collision profile represents up to 6-15% of all
KSI collisions in Palo Alto. These profiles include:
Next Steps
Having completed an existing conditions assessment of current safety policies, programs,
and practices as well as quantitative and qualitative safety data, the project is moving into
the recommendations phase with the development of an action plan and implementation
strategy. Another community engagement event is planned for May Fete. This community
engagement event is the last opportunity to engage community members before preparing the
Draft Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and will focus on prioritizing projects and
institutionalizing the Safe System Approach into the City’s existing policies and guidelines. The
Draft Plan will include a project list based on existing plans, supplemented with projects to
cover the entirety of the HIN; identification of where the City’s existing policies and guidance
could use an update to align with the Safe System Approach; and an Action Plan to identify the
ways in which the City can implement actions aligned with the goal of zero fatalities and serious
injuries by 2030.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 223 of 226
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 224 of 226
Standing Committee & Public Feedback on the Safety Action Plan Collision Analysis
February/March 2024
CSTSC – March 28
• Comment around the survey results not being representative of the entire community.
Response noted survey was made available through regular communication channels
and received a higher response rate
• Comment around the need for more recent data
• Comment noted that collision data may be underrepresented because many collisions
are not reported, especially by children/students. Response noted City’s ongoing
exploration into an interactive map to document near-miss or minor collisions where
police reports are not made
• Question regarding age information in TIMS database. Response noted that age in
reports is limited to categories for youth (under 14 years old, 14-18 years old)
• Comment that education is need for all school ages – elementary, middle, and high
school
• Question around Walk and Roll Routes – how additional housing on ECR would affect
Walk and Roll Routes, if the Walk and Roll Routes would be updated to reflect land use
changes near San Antonio Road
• Comment around including data from the pandemic years when school was not in
session
PABAC – March 5
• Question related to whether collisions occur along streets or crossing streets at the
intersection
• Question relate to how HIN was segmented and % of streets was calculated
• Question about collisions on Charleston and how that corresponds to previous
improvements on the street
• Comment that broadside collisions are not prevented by separated facilities
• Question on how bikes riding at night affect frequency of broadside bike collisions
• Comment that low KSI means larger error bars
• Question related to how restricting right on red helps reduce broadside collisions and
comment that right turn on green is more problematic
• Comments about residential arterials – housing development in the future will increase
need to include countermeasures on San Antonio
Item 3
Attachment A - Summary
of Standing Committee &
Public Feedback on
Collision Analysis
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 225 of 226
• Question on how moving to parallel streets will address crossing high LTS concerns
• Question on how the City will enforce new daylighting law
• Comment to address grade separated crossing for ped and bikes over rail crossing
• Question on statistical power of collision data used and whether we should be using 10
years of data instead
• Comment to add glossary of technical terms in report
• Comment related to bike facilities on Walk and Roll maps profile. It is misrepresented
because many of the Walk and Roll routes have bike facilities
PTC - February 28
• Question related to increase in 2020 collisions – during the pandemic, there were less
cars on the road, leading to increase in speeds and dangerous driving behaviors
• Comment related to the HIN on how 62% of collisions occurred on 3% of streets and an
inference that ADT is likely higher on these streets
• Question related to how collision profiles were chosen
• Comment to focus on collisions at intersections
• Question regarding trends in killed vs. serious injury collisions – project did not separate
analysis between killed and serious injury collisions
• Request for full survey to be included with report
• Clarification on if Vision Zero goal was adopted – Answer: It will be adopted by Council
with Plan
• Question if countermeasures would have eliminated deaths and comment that
countermeasures would not solve problems
• Request to ensure project addresses human side, not just data
• Comment to update map to layer KSIs on top – update complete
• Request to show before and after of Charleston corridor improvements
• Request to focus on intersection specific improvements
• Question if survey response was sufficient – response was that it was high for City-
released survey
• Request to include actions to address lighting at night and need for reflective surfaces
• Comment on need for improvements on El Camino
Item 3
Attachment A - Summary
of Standing Committee &
Public Feedback on
Collision Analysis
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 226 of 226