HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-18 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
MARCH 18, 2002
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR:ll8:02
PALO ALTO INTERMODAL TRANSIT CENTER: ENDORSEMENT
OF CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND AUTHORIZATION OF NEXT STEPS
REPORT IN BRIEF
The Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center (PAITC) Conceptual Plan and Feasibility Study
comprises a design development of ideas first discussed at the Dream Team community
workshop in 1993. The vision created at that workshop was to re-create the historic roles of
the University Avenue rail passenger station environs as community gateway, civic
gathering place, and transportation hub. Over the past two years the City of Palo Alto and
Stanford University have joined together to translate this vision into a comprehensive
transportation and urban design plan. The PAITC plan and feasibility study was prepared in
collaboration with a steering committee consisting of Palo Alto residents, the Chamber of
Commerce, the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and regional transit
agencies. Community consultation during the past two years has included two additional
community workshops, two Planning and Transportation Commission pubic hearings, a
Council study session, presentations before neighborhood associations, Chamber of
Commerce committees and the bicycle advisory committee, and meetings with businesses in
the study area.
The PAITC conceptual plan consists of both transportation elements and community
amenities. Transportation elements include expanded rail and bus passenger service
capacity, an at-grade intersection of Alma Street and University Avenue, the re-design of
University Avenue between Alma Street and Palm Drive, and provision of a bicycle and
pedestrian undercrossing of Caltrain near Alma and Everett. Community amenities include
an urban park and civic space, public art, and urban design features.
The benefits of implementing PAITC include a reduction of between 1,500 and 3,000
vehicles commuting to and from Palo Alto each weekday; enhanced safety for cyclists,
pedestrians, and motorists in the train station environs; visual amenities and provision of
new civic space; improved way finding for visitors; and safe, pleasant linkages between
Palo Alto, the Stanford campus, and the Stanford Shopping Center.
CMR:118:02 Page 1 of 13
Staff is requesting Council direction on the PAITC conceptual plan options and priorities.
Council is also being asked to direct its representative to the Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) to advocate for Measure B Expenditure Plan funding for the PAITC. At
Council’s authorization, staff will take the lead in the CEQA process and work jointly with
Public Works staff to refine the concept designs. Staff will return to Council in one year to
report on environmental assessment, a proposal for the interagency consortium, and status of
external funding.
CMR:118:02 Page 2 of 13
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that Council:
Ao Provide Council comments on the two options for the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit
Center Conceptual Plan as the basis for the following further actions: 1) preparation of a
full CEQA/NEPA analysis before a final project design is selected, 2) efforts to obtain
federal, state, and regional grant funding; and 3) creation of an interagency consortium
to complete PAITC engineering design and eventually implement the project. 4)
engineering design.
B. Provide Council comments on the following conceptual plan priorities:
la.
o
o
°
Replace the existing rail bridge over University Avenue and creating a four-track
configuration at the University Avenue Caltrain Station.
Make Alma Street and University Avenue a signalized, at-grade intersection, with
final grade to be determined.
Extend Quarry Road for bus only access to the bus transfer center at the University
Avenue Caltrain station.
Create a new bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing of the Caltrain tracks beginning near
Everett and Alma Streets.
Reconfigure University Avenue between Alma Street and Palm Drive into two one-
way sections separated by a new public park. ’.
Replace the existing road bridge over E1 Camino Real.
Co Direct its representative to the VTA Board of Directors to advocate for the early and
full allocation of the $45,000,000 devoted to PAITC in the Measure B Expenditure Plan
of the 2006-2036 Santa Clara County Transportation Sales Tax reauthorized by the
voters in November 2000.
D.Direct staff to return to Council in one year to report on results of the CEQA/NEPA
analysis and the framework for an interagency consortium.
BACKGROUND
Each weekday, nearly 2,250 passengers board or alight at the University Avenue Caltrain
terminal in downtown Palo Alto. Each day approximately 40,000 vehicles use the
University Avenue and Alma Street interchange and about 30,000 vehicles navigate the E1
Camino Real and Palm Drive interchange. Nearly 600 transit buses visit the Caltrain station
daily. At peak hour during a weekday count in January 2000, 240 pedestrians and 75
bicyclists used the University Avenue/Alma Caltrain undercrossing and 100 pedestrians and
110 bicyclists used the University/Palm Drive overcrossing of E1 Camino Real. These latter
totals rise significantly with .milder weather.
CMR: 118:02 Page 3 of 13
Nevertheless, passenger way finding and navigation for motor vehicles and cyclists in this
area can be challenging. Walking or bicycling within the area is often difficult and
sometimes unpleasant. There is a lack of public green space and public art. Vistas are
limited by the configuration of bridges and ramps that were developed to facilitate vehicle
movement. No gateway feature celebrates this nexus between town and gown.. Rail and bus
transit capacity is physically constrained, which limits the potential for growth in high
occupancy vehicle use--a major transportation policy objective for both the City of Palo
Alto and Stanford. The increasing intensity of transit services and easy access to downtown
suggest that transit-oriented development opportunities may be available in the PAITC
project area.
The "Dream Team" charrette was held in 1993 to address these issues. Attachment A shows
an aerial view of the project area in 1993. Further work was undertaken in 1994 to refine the
concepts that were produced at the charrette. This refinement became the basis for the
design development work undertaken in the past two years.
The City was awarded a $200,000 Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) grant in
1997 to complete the work of creating a PAITC master plan and feasibility study. City staff
workload precluded initiating this effort until 1999. The City and Stanford each provided
$75,000 to supplement the PVEA grant. The intent of the PAITC planning project has been
to prepare a detailed, feasible design concept to inform future funding decisions,
engineering work, environmental clearances, and project implementation. The design
alternatives have been reviewed in two rounds. During the year 2000, conceptual design
alternatives were discussed at meetings of the PAITC Development Team and Steering
Committee (see Attachment B for a list of members), a community workshop, a Planning
and Transportation Commission public hearing, and a Council study session. In 2001, two
project alternatives that evolved from the prior year’s work were discussed at additional
meetings of both the PAITC Development Team and Steering Committee; a second
community workshop; and the Historic Resources Board, Architectural Resources Board,
and Planning and Transportation Commission. Materials from the April 28, 2001-
community workshop are included in Attachment F. Additional outreach by project staff to
date has included discussions with and presentations to the Palo Alto Chamber of
Commerce, MacArthur Park Restaurant, the Red Cross, the Sheraton, the Downtown North
Neighborhood Association, the University South Neighborhood Group, the Joint Powers
Board/Caltrain/Samtrans staff, and the VTA staff. City of Palo Alto and Stanford staff have
collaborated together closely throughout the two-year PAITC conceptual planning process.
DISCUSSION
Conceptual Plan Alternatives: Option 1
The PAITC Conceptual Plan Option 1 has the following components:
CMR:118:02 Page 4 of 13
1.The number of rail tracks at the University Avenue Caltrain passenger terminal is
increased from two to four, thus accommodating expansion of rail passenger services.
Some commuter parking along Alma Street would be lost;
2.The bus transit transfer center is expanded from five standard bays to six articulated
(double-length) and six standard bays. Shuttle bus drop-off and pick-up access would
also be provided near Everett and Alma Streets on the east side of the Caltrain tracks;
3.A new bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing of Caltrain is created at Everett and Alma
Streets;
4.Vehicle circulation is handled by transforming University Avenue between Alma
Street and E1 Camino Real into a large one-way loop around which all movements
circulate;
5.Nine inter-connected and coordinated traffic signals are installed on the oval; six of the
signals are for traffic handling and three are primarily for pedestrian protection;
6.Bicycle and pedestrian circulation would occur at the periphery and (at intervals) at
crossings of the loop. More experienced bicyclists would also be accommodated on
bike lanes on the loop road. Bicycle and pedestrian connections will also be provided
along an approximate diagonal routing between downtown Palo Alto and Stanford
Shopping Center;
7.Access to some of the increased rail passenger service demand will be met through
increased bus transit capacity (an increase in excess of 350 per.cent in terms of bus
seats per day) and greatly improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the PAITC
area. Existing reserve capacity at the new Caltrain commuter parking lot along Alma
near Forest will absorb some of the increased demand for passenger access to the
Intermodal Transit Center. In addition, there is potential for shared parking among
weekday commuters and evening and weekend concert patrons should a proposed
Performing ArtsCenter be located near the PAITC.
8.An urban form of train station is created, consisting of two center platforms, reached
from a transit concourse at level, with a re-designed University Avenue level~ (ADA
accessible and containing ancillary retail services for passengers). Attachment G shows
an artist’s view of this concourse as it might appear in Option 2; removing the access to
buses below tracks would transform this scene into such a concourse as appears in
Option 1.
9.An arrival plaza is created to clarify access for vans, buses, and autos;
10.A bus-only entry and exit is included, via an extension of Quarry Road from E1
Camino Real. All bus turning moves, other than left turns in, are allowed;
11. A park that is 160 feet by 960 feet (three football fields long) is created within the oval;
12. The preliminary design for the park includes the following: hedges placed along the
edge of the park; flowering tree groves placed within a series of terraced berms; a
circulation system of fine-grained paths traversing the park; and focal elements such as
a pavilion with seating function to provide shaded refuge. There are many other park
design possibilities. These are suggested as a framework to engage the community on
possible enhancements for the new urban park;
CMR: 118:02 Page 5 of 13
13.As the park crosses E1 Camino Real on a widened overpass, it terminates at a" major
ceremonial entry of Stanford, Palm Drive, and includes a public rose garden.
Circulation of the pedestrian, bicycle, and bus modes accessing the PAITC area are shown
in Attachments H, I, and J.
Conceptual Plan Alternatives: Option 2
This Option adds the following elements:
1.The bus transit transfer center is expanded from five standard bays to six articulated
(double-length) and six standard bays and placed directly beneath the Caltrain tracks and
platforms.
2.A possible paseo and transit village (e.g. with affordable housing and transit-supportive
retail) could be created to make an especially strong pedestrian connection between
downtown Palo Alto and the Stanford Shopping Center;
3. Parking provision below grade at the current bus transfer center location can be scaled to
meet the needs of the prospective re-use of land surface and to accommodate future
parking needs based on expanded rail passenger services. Access to some of this
increased rail passenger service demand will also be met through increased bus transit
capacity and greatly improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the PAITC area.
PAITC Conceptual Plan Option 1 and Option 2 both include expanded rail and bus transit
capacity; improvements to bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular circulation; and creation of
urban design, public art, open space, and recreational amenities in the environs of Palo
Alto’s downtown Caltrain station. The only difference between the two is that Option 1
provides for an expanded bus transfer center at grade level in approximately its current
location and Option 2 calls for placing the bus transfer center directly beneath the rail track
and passenger platforms. It should be noted that Option 2, which places the bus transfer
center below the tracks and platforms, was preferred both at the April community workshop
and by the PAITC Steering Committee. This preference was largely based on the land re-use
opportunities that undergrounding bus transit would provide.
Option 1 and Option 2 both would replace the existing rail bridge over University Avenue
with a wider, more open, four-track structure that would allow daylight to shine below
decks, creating a more secure and pleasant passage as well as open a vista between
downtown and the Stanford campus. The University Avenue at Alma interchange would be
transformed into a signal-controlled, at-grade intersection. University Avenue would be
separated into two one-way sections between Alma Street and Palm Drive, each section
comprising two through lanes and an on-road bicycle lane (with parallel off-road bicycle
lanes and walkways in each direction and several protected crossings of the oval park).
These intersection and roadway improvements will enhance travel safety for all modes and
provide a number of circulation options for cyclists and pedestrians. The two sections of
CMR:118:02 Page 6 of 13
University Avenue would enclose an oval public park roughly the size of Cesar Chavez Park
in downtown San Jose. A new wider highway bridge would be built over E1 Camino Real
near Palm Drive to accommodate the requirements of the new cross-section of University
Avenue and the new park between the east- and westbound sections. Both the new E1
Camino Real bridge and the new University Avenue Caltrain bridge would replace existing
structures with substandard vertical clearances. Attachments D and E show Option 1 and
Option 2 in plan view.
Both options would transform the University Avenue Caltrain station into a modem rail
terminal designed to efficiently facilitate cross-platform transfers between local and express
trains. In each option, access to passenger boarding platforms would be via stairs or
escalators with elevators provided for those with mobility impairments.
As previously noted, while both alternatives would expand the bus transfer center at the
University Avenue Caltrain station, Option 2 calls for placing this facility below the Caltrain
tracks, while Option 1 expands the bus center at its current at-grade location to the west of
the Caltrain depot. While placing bus transfers beneath the tracks would provide efficient
vertical integration of the bus and rail modes as well as potentially opening up space
adjacent to the University Avenue Caltrain station for other uses, Option 2 would cost an
estimated $51,500,000 more than Option 1. It is highly unlikely that extemal funding
sources would consider the added benefit of vertically integrating transit services worth this
large added cost.
In addition, both options would allow the community to benefit from two important regional
transit initiatives. The first is Caltrain’s Baby Bullet ~rain project, a fully funded effort to
reduce rail travel time along the Peninsula corridor approximately in half through various
improvements to various rail infrastructure and rolling stock. Secondly, VTA has begun a
Federal Transit Administration Rapid Bus Transit demonstration project along its Line 22,
including service on E1 Camino Real and to/from the University Avenue Caltrain terminal.
The increased passenger demand generated by these expedited transit services requires
expanded rail passenger facilities at major stops along the Caltrain corridor. Increased
passenger demand is highly likely at the downtown Palo Alto Caltrain station, which is
already the second busiest (to Caltrain’s terminus in San Francisco at 4th and King) on the
Caltrain system. Dramatic improvement in rail passenger travel time (reductions up to 50
percent) and significant improvement in bus travel time along E1 Camino Real have great
potential for drawing commuters out of single occupant vehicles and off of crowded Palo
Alto roadways.
Significant Issues for Either Conceptual Plan Altemative
1. Benefits of Options 1 and 2
Option 1 and Option 2 will both result in 1,500 to 3,000 fewer cars commuting to and
from Palo Alto each weekday, create a safe and convenient environment for cycling
CMR: 118:02 Page 7 of 13
o
and walking, enhance traffic safety and visual amenity, and effectively link downtown
Palo Alto to Stanford University and the Stanford Shopping Center. Either option will
create a civic place of beauty and utility as a gateway to Palo Alto and Stanford.
Cost/Funding
Total cost is estimated to range from $195.7 million for Option 1 to $247.2 for Option
2 (see Table 1). Seeing this project through will require partnerships among many
entities: the City of Palo Alto,, Stanford, Caltrain/Joint Powers Board, the VTA,
Caltrans, and the private, sector (see Table 2). A phased implementation over time will
most likely be necessary. A strong beginning on resource development for the project
was the inclusion of $45 million toward PAITC implementation in the re-authorization
of Santa Clara County’s half-cent transportation sales tax in November 2000. A further
$7 million in federal funding has been obtained by VTA for expansion of the current
at-grade.bus transfer center. This project is in the process of being implemented by the
VTA. The plan is compatible with the future PAITC Option 1 for the at-grade transit
facilities. Additional opportunities may arise with the re-authorization of the federal
Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in two years, as well as in
future Governor’s transportation budgets when California returns to an economic
growth path. While significant resources have been committed toward PAITC
implementation, between $54.5M and $88.5M in additional grant funding is required.
It is vital to recognize that the high cost of implementing all of the elements of either
Option 1 or Option 2 presents a formidable challenge. In the real world of
transportation funding, it is highly likely that major elements of the Palo Alto
Intermodal Transit Center conceptual design will have to either be eliminated or
deferred for an extended period of time, so that a portion of this important project can
be implemented. These elements include the following: placing the bus transit center
beneath the tracks and platforms, creating the new public park, and replacing the road
bridge over E1 Camino Real. It is important to note that no City of Palo Alto funds are
envisioned or requested as part of the proposed PAITC funding strategy.
Timing
The project will likely need to be phased. The rail improvements, creation of an at-
grade intersection at University and Alma, and development of an Everett
undercrossing may comprise the first phase. The park and replacement of the E1
Camino Real bridge.may need to be undertaken in a subsequent phase. The amount of
time between the phases is uncertain since it depends on success in obtaining grants for
the most difficult to fund PAITC components.
Traffic Management During Construction
PAITC implementation will require closure of University Avenue and Alma in order to
replace the Caltrain bridge, take down the Alma bridge, and re-configure University
CMR: 118:02 Page 8 of 13
o
°
o
°
Avenue. While every effort will be made to minimize the time of closure, there will be
disruptions to normal traffic flow. A key challenge in traffic management during
PAITC construction is to create convenient alternative routes without causing any
traffic infusion into near downtown residential neighborhoods. Page 25 of the draft
Final Report (Attachment C) describes traffic management requirements during PAITC
implementation.
Public Park Configuration and Program
The location, size, design, and facilities of the proposed pubic park land in either
Option 1 or Option 2 will determine much of the character of this physical and visual
gateway between downtown Palo Alto and Stanford. There will undoubtedly be
divergent views in the community on the appearance and use of this park. The
possibilities range from passive to active recreation and from simple to elaborate
landscape architecture.
Roadway Re-Configuration and Traffic
The proposed new bridge over E1 Camino Real will be expensive and will require
Caltrans approval and (potentially) funding. As noted earlier, a traffic management
plan will need to be implemented during PAITC construction.
Transit-Oriented Development
Option 1 continues the placement, albeit in an expanded footprint, of bus transfer
facilities at grade. Option 2 frees up this land for potential transit-oriented
development. The mix and intensity of uses will affect the visual character of the
PAITC study area, traffic patterns, and transit viability. Opportunities may exist in
Option 2 for affordable housing and/or a performing arts center, which could offer
joint efficient shared parking with weekday commuter transit, as well as generate
evening and weekend transit trips. Shared parking with a performing arts center is also
possible if Option 1 is implemented.
Connection between Downtown and Stanford Shopping Center
A below-grade bus transfer center as proposed in Option 2 would open up more
convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections at-grade between these two major
business districts. While Option 1 creates enhanced safety and navigability for cyclists
and pedestrians making the diagonal move between downtown and the Stanford
Shopping Center, some area of potential conflict with vehicles may remain and thus
will require some added circuity for nonmotorized modes in making this connection.
Complexity
PAITC will be a complex undertaking in two ways: institutionally and functionally.
Institutionally, project implementation will require close cooperation between the City
of Palo Alto, Stanford University, VTA, and the Joint Powers BoardiCaltrain.
CMR: 118:02 Page 9 of 13
Functionally, the difficult task will be to integrate all of the travel modes accessing the
PAITC area for safe, efficient operations while providing significant urban design
enhancements.
10.Historic Preservation
The station and surrounding area areon the national register of historic places. The
station was originally designed for four tracks. An important element of the planning
process is the retention of the area’s historic integrity.
11.Design Issues
Even assuming that the elements of the PAITC preferenc~e are all selected for funding,
substantial design issues remain and will be explored in the environmental review
process.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding to implement PAITC beyond the $45,000,000 allocated to VTA by the Santa Clara
County sales tax reauthorization and the $7,000,000 in County sales tax (1996 Measure)
funding allocated for expanding the University Avenue bus transfer will be sought from
federal, state and regional grants sources. Thus, no City of Palo Alto funding is envisioned
as being necessary or is being sought to implement PAITC. The most probable funding mix
is as follows:
Source
County Sales Tax (2006 Measure)
County Sales Tax (1996 Measure)
Caltrain
Amount
$45,000,000
$ 7,000,000
$55,000,000
Status
Allocated by VTA
Not yet allocated
To Complete Funding of the full Option 1 Plan -
Future Federal and State Grants $88,500,000 To be obtained
To Complete Option 1 Funding without new E1 Camino Bridge or Urban Park -
Future federal and state grants $54,500,000 To be obtained
The PAITC draft Final Report section on Financing Strategy, pp. 10-18, describes potential
external funding sources in detail.
There will, however, be impacts on existing staff resources. Transportation Division staff
will take the lead in the environmental process and work jointly with Public Works staff to
refine conceptual designs and cost estimates.
CMR:118:02 Page 10 of 13
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center (PAITC) project implements Program T-14 of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan:
"Pursue development of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station
conceptual plan based on the 1993-1994 design study."
The project is strategically important in that it also responds to the first two goals of the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element:
"Goal T-1 Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles."
"Goal T-2 A Convenient, Efficient Public Transit System that Provides a Viable
Alternative to Driving."
Both Option 1 and Option 2 facilitate expansion of bus and rail transit capacity and services
at the second busiest station stop on the Caltrain system. A downtown Palo Alto station able
to accommodate high speed "baby bullet" (as much as a 50 percent reduction in trip times
over current operations) express service between San Francisco and San Jose, supported by
expanded connecting bus services, could have a significant and positive impact on
commuting by Palo Alto residents and workers. This would implement Policy T-6 of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: "Improve public transit access to regional destinations,
including those within Palo Alto." Substantial increases in rail and bus transit use by those
who work in Palo Alto bus live outside the city as well as by Palo Alto residents will reduce
traffic congestion on Palo Alto streets, improve regional air quality, and reduce regional
dependence on nonrenewable energy sources.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation
Both options foster increased use of the bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel to, from, and
within the PAITC area. This implements Policy T-14 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan:
"Improve bicycle and pedestrian access to and between local destinations, including public
facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and
multimodal train stations." Project elements that contribute to this policy include provision
of off-street paths and sidewalks throughout the PAITC, on-street bicycle lanes on
University Avenue, and a new Caltrain bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing near Everett and
Alma.
Vehicle Circulation
Both options accommodate existing and future projected traffic volumes on University
Avenue and Alma Street.
CMR:118:02 Page 11 of 13
Urban Design, Civic Space, and Public Art
Both options open up a large expanse of civic space. Both schemes create a gateway
between the Palo Alto and Stanford and both offer many opportunities for public art and
enhanced urban design amenities in the PAITC area.
Transit-oriented Development
Option 2 allows for potential transit-supportive uses to be developed in the PAITC area. The
scale and nature of these uses is a policy question. Placing the bus transit plaza below grade
could open up a significant and desirable area for such uses as affordable housing, public
parking, transit-supportive retail, nonprofit office space, and/or community facilities.
Parking
Parking provision for PAITC needs to attain an equilibrium between adequately responding
to increased demand for access to downtown Palo Alto’s Caltrain station stop, the need to
encourage use of alternative access modes where possible, and the need to deter any
spillover rail patron parking into nearby residential streets. Existing excess parking capacity
at the new Caltrain commuter lot at Alma and Forest will be fully occupied with
implementation of PAITC. Additional parking, at-grade or structured, may be obtained in a
joint use arrangement with a proposed new performing arts center near the University
Avenue depot. Additional shuttle bus services to and from the terminal, along with the
improved access for cyclists and pedestrians, can provide access alternatives to many of the
new passengers drawn to the transit center by improvements in regional rail and bus transit.
NEXT STEPS
1.Solicit additional federal and state grants. (2002-2006)
2.Obtain VTA commitment for early allocation of County Transportation Sales Tax
revenues to PAITC. (2002)
3.Execute $200,000 federal grant agreement for environmental assessment and
engineering design. (2002)
4.Negotiate and execute interagency consortium agreement for PAITC implementation
stakeholders, including the City of Palo Alto, Stanford, VTA, and Caltrain. (2002)
5.Council approval of interagency agreement. (2003)
6.Conduct environmental review. (2003-2004)
7.Complete engineering design. (2004-2006)
8.Obtain Council approval to implement project. (2004)
9.Obtain full funding. (2002-2008)
10.Solicit contractor bids. (2009)
11.Initiate construction. (2010)
12.Complete construction (2012)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental review will be completed prior to approval of a final project design.
CMR: 118:02 Page 12 of 13
ATTACHMENTS
A. Aerial Photo of Project Area ~
B.PAITC Steering Committee and Development Team
C.PAITC Draft Final Report
D.Site Plan - Option 1
E.Site Plan - Option 2
F.April 28, 2001 Workshop Materials
G.View of Transit Concourse
H.Pedestrian Circulation Plan
I.Bicycle Circulation Plan
J.Bus Circulation Plan
K.Project Objectives
L.Project Evaluation Criteria
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
JOSEPH KOTT
Chief Transportation Official
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
cc:Project Steering Committee & Development Team
Planning and Transportation Commission
Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Chamber of Commerce
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
CMR:118:02 Page 13 of 13
The City of
Pa lo A1 to
This map ~s a product
of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
Jniversity Avenue Caltrain Terminal Environs
ATTACHMENT A~
~tt 8/16/01 10 48 03 AM This document is a graphic reprasentabon only o! bast avaltab~e sources
The City of Palo AIIO assumes no responsd~ldy for any errom.
ATTACHMENT B
PALO ALTO INTERMODAL TRANSIT CENTER STUDY
Greg Gleichman/Leslie Quintero
Leonie Batkin
Ruth Todd
Lisa Grote
Kent Steffens
Bill-Fellman
Jim Lightbody
Stanford University
Stanford Management Company
Stanford University Planning Office
City of Pato Alto Planning Department
City of Palo Alto Public Works Department
City of Palo Alto Real Estate Division
Valley Transportation Authority
Steering Committee
David Neuman
Chris Christofferson
Bill Phillips
Kathy Schmidt
Ed Gawf
Glenn Roberts
Jim Pierson
Steven Hanson
Ross Weir
John Thomas
Clement Chen
David Jury
Tony Carrasco
Emily Renzel
Barbara Gross
Ellen Fletcher
Stanford University Architect
Stanford University, Facilities
Stanford Management Company
Palo Alto Planning Commission
Palo Alto Planning-Department
Palo Alto Public Works Department
Valley Transportation Authority, Planning
Samtrans/Joint Powers Board
Samtrans/Joint Powers Board
Caltrans
Business Neighbor, Sheraton Hotel
Business Neighbor, Palo Alto Medical Foundation
Community Member
Community Member
Community Member
Bicycle Advocate
ATTACHMENT C
Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center Study
Draft Final Report
City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division
Stanford University Architect/Planning Office
July 2001
Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center Study
Draft Final Report
City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division
Stanford University Architect/Planning Office
With Assistance From:
Rob Wellington Quigley, FAIA
Peter Walker and Partners
Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc.
Bay Area Economics
Brian Kangas Foulk
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.
Hanscomb, Inc.
July 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Urban Design and Landscape Concept
Implementation Plan
¯Implementation Process 5
¯Financing Strategy 10
¯Executive Cost Summary (Table 1)11
¯Cost Allocations, Potential Funding Sources (Table 2)13
Consideration of PAITC Design Alternatives
Impacts on Historic Resources
19
Proposed Circulation
¯Traffic 21"
¯Bus 21
¯Pedestrian 22
¯Bicycle 23
¯Parking Considerations 23
Traffic Management During Construction 25
Attachments
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
1 - Site Plan, Preferred Scheme, Option 2
2 - Plaza Level, Preferred Scheme, Option 2 (with section references)
3 -Site Plan, Option 1
4 - Section through University Circle and Pond
5 - Section at Transit Plaza ~
6 - Section through Train Station
7 - Section through Bus Station, Preferred Scheme, Option 2
8 - View at Transit Concourse
9 - Pedestrian Circulation
10 - Bicycle Circulation
11 - Bus Circulation
12- PAITC Project Work Plan and Schedule
13 - Historic Resources Section
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center (PAITC) project is a direct response to Program
T-14 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan:
"Pursue development of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station conceptual plan
1based on the 1993-1994 design study."
The project is a strategically important in that it also responds to the first two goals of the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element:
"Goal T-1 Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles;
Goal T-2 A Convenient, Efficient Public Transit System that Provides a Viable Alternative to
2Driving"
While strategically important, this project is also extremely complex--and not only
because of its size and expense. The coordination of the interests and requirements of
multiple transit and public agencies, property owners, and the community will require the
concerted efforts of everyone involved for successful project implementation. This report
describes the elements that have been or must be addressed in order to carry the project
forward.
Process
The Palo Alto Intermodal Transit C~nter Design Development and Feasibility Study is a
joint initiative of the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University. Major funding for this
work was provided by a .State of California Petroleum Escrow Violation Account grant,
supplemented by equal contributions from the City and Stanford. A Steering Committee
has provided policy guidance and a Development Team technical oversight throughout
the study process. Each body included representatives of the City of Palo Alto, Stanford
University, transit operators, and other project stakeholders. Attachment 1 lists members
of Steering Committee and Development Team.
Previous project documents include a Working Paper issued on March 28, 2000, a
Planning and Transportation Commission staff report dated May 4, 2000, and a City
Council staff report dated August 7, 2000. A community workshop was held on April 8,
2000 to discuss project design options. Subsequent to the community workshop and
review by both the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council,
alternative concepts for the project area were developed and evaluated. The result of this
work is the Preferred Scheme (Option 2), an alternative to the earlier Option 1. This
scheme was reviewed by both the Development Team and Steering Committee and
discussed at a second community workshop, which was held on April 28, 2001. The
report to follow describes both options for the final conceptual plan, including all modes
Embracing the New Century: Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010, p. T-6.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, p. T-2 and p. T-5.
of circulation, phased construction and traffic management, infrastructure impacts,
potential costs, schedule, historic resource issues, and an implementation plan.
The original schedule for this study has been revised to reflect the change in the scope of
services and timeline. This draft report will be reviewed at separate meeting of the
Architectural Review Board, Historic Review Board, Planning and Transportation
Commission, and City Council. In addition, presentations to upper management and
boards at JPB and VTA will be scheduled. Input from these various reviews will be
incorporated into a final report and complete this study.
Project Description
Both options transform University Avenue between Alma and Palm Drive into an oval
loop enclosing a public park, accommodate an increase from two to four tracks, and
expand the existing bus transfer area. Option 1 retains the buses in their current location.
The Preferred Scheme (Option 2) relocates all bus and shuttle transfers to the level
below the tracks. The area currently occupied by the buses provides an opportunity for
future transit-oriented development. It could potentially include transit-related retail, a
joint-use City/Stanford performing arts theatre, affordable housing, and non-profit office
space. Both schemes are conceptual plans; thus an environmental assessment has not yet
been prepared. A preliminary consideration of the project’s historic resources identifies
specific impacts on each of several historic elements, which can be addressed.
Construction Phasing
One of the most critical aspects of project constructio~ will be retaining reasonable
access for buses, pedestrians and cyclists during construction, maintaining rail services,
and managing the area’s high traffic volumes without excessive congestion or unintended
detouring through sensitive neighborhoods. A traffic management plan is proposed that
addresses these requirements to minimize adverse transportation impacts.
Implementation Plan
A process for project implementation and a financing strategy have been developed to
identify potential sources of funding for needed infrastructure and other capital
improvements, and the uses of those funds. Option 1 is estimated to cost $196 million
and Option 2 (Preferred Scheme) is estimated at $247 million. The draft
recommendations include suggested funding sources for project components for both
options. The key steps for implementation are identified with an estimate of 10 to 15
years for planning, design, funding, and construction.
¯Establish ongoing project leadership and staffing.
¯Complete necessary planning and environmental work.
¯Target and secure capital funding commitments.
¯Refine project designs and staging plans.
¯Establish construction schedule and protocol for coordination with transit and traffic
operations.
¯Coordinate contracting and construction management.
URBAN DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT
This master plan accommodates regional public transit growth in coordination with the
heavy flows of bicycles, pedestrians and vehicles typical o~" an active downtown and
university. At the turn of the century, the Palo Alto rail stop and adjacent University
Circle were the social and commercial center of town. Access to Stanford University
across the at-grade rail crossing was simple. In the 1930s and 40s, volumes of cars
increased dramatically along with city and campus growth. These increases resulted in
the expansion of E1 Camino Real into a four-lane highway with an underpass and the
construction of an engineered labyrinth of ramps, viaducts and tunnels to grade-separate
cars from trains. This celebration of vehicular mobility, typical of the times, actually
resulted ina confusing and constricted connection between the City and the University.
Today, a pedestrian or cyclist travelling from downtown Palo Alto to Stanford must
endure 200 feet of a narrow, dark, often exhaust-filled turmel. This offers a poor entry
experience to either place. In 1993, Stanford and Palo Alto jointly initiated a dialog,
including a community workshop, on ways to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and open
space connections at this bottleneck and better facilitate transit usage. In 1999, the City
and Stanford undertook design development and an intensive feasibility study on
alternatives suggested during the earlier work. Discussions with regional transit
authorities undertaken early in design development and feasibility study process revealed
that a doubling of rail and a more than tripling of bus capacity was being planned at the
downtown Palo Alto Caltrain station. This underlined the importance of developing a
badly needed intermodal transit facility at this confluence of rail, bus, vehicle, bicycle,
pedestrian, and shuttle routes. Planned construction of a new rail bridge in conjunction
with rail service expansion also made it possible to introduce a generous civic space
marking the point of exchange between Stanford and Palo Alto.
New passenger rail plans call for two additional tracks requiring expanded center-loading
platforms that are accessed with ramps and escalators from a transit plaza one level
below, typical of urban conditions (Option 1). Building the new tracks and platforms on
columns expands this lower level and allows a concourse with transit-related retail and
services. The concourse level can be accessed from a series of plazas, with the main
_ plaza entry from University along the new park. Option 2 locates the expanded bus and
shuttles terminal directly below the tracks, allowing easy circulation between the two.
The historic 1938 train station and its front facade are dignified with an enhanced vehicle
arrival and drop off court. Note that the principal distinction between Option 1 and the
preferred Option 2 is that the latter proposes a vertical integration of rail and bus through
placement of bus transfer directly beneath rail passenger platforms.
In place of the cramped tunnel between the City and the University, train tracks continue
on columns to create a 200-foot wide bridge section allowing a major civic park to
engage University Circle and extend underneath, terminating at the Stanford Gate.
Vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian flows are concentrated in a large loop encircling the park,
clarifying movement while slowing the speed of cars in favor of pedestrian and bicycle
safety. The terrace levels, formed by parapet seat walls, contain a formal landscape with
scattered tables and chairs below. The bosques overlook adjacent level lawn areas that
can be occupied by groups of various sizes. In a similar fashion, University Circle
becomes a busy social scene once again with caf6 terraces and integrated public art
installations overlooking the park and station.
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
The PAITC project is extremely complex, not only because of its size and expense, but
also because of the number of different transit modes that it will accommodate. In
addition, the need tO accommodate the multiple transit operations must be coordinated
with improvements to traffic circulation and enhanced urban design interfaces between
downtown Palo Alto, Stanford University, and other surrounding development. A
successful project will require the concerted efforts of not only the transit operators
themselves but also the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University.
By virtue of the fact that the project involves improvements to facilities that will be used
by transit operators who serve passengers coming from throughout Santa Clara and San
Mateo Counties and beyond, this project has regional significance. It will be necessary to
coordinate the implementation of this project with other regional transportation planning
and financing entities. These include the funding programming responsibilities of Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (in its capacity as the Congestion Management
Agency for Santa Clara County) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (in its
role as the metropolitan planning organization for the entire San Francisco Bay Area).
It is recognized that the PAITC project will compete for funding with a number of other
similar multimodal transit center projects from within the region. Meanwhile, capital
funding is in limited supply. Project coordination, timing in relation to applicable
funding cycles, and the need to work within complicated political and governmental
processes to secure funding will be key factors in the success of the project. In light of
these considerations, the PAITC Project Team has identified a number of key steps for
project implementation, as described below.
1. Establish Ongoing Project Leadership and Staffing
(6 months - 1 year)
The PAITC project is a large and complicated building project. Successful construction
will require that multiple agencies take coordinated actions over an extended period of
time. The key participants include the City of Palo Alto, Stanford University, Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the Peninsula Joint Powers Board
(Caltrain), Sam Mateo County Transportation Authority (SamTrans), and Caltrans.
Hereatter, members of this group will be referred to as project partners. In addition to the
complexity of the actual construction process, the project planning and financing process
will also be extremely complicated. In particular, it will require a concerted effort of the
project partners for the PAITC project to successfully target and secure funding from the
multiple sources that are discussed in the Financing Strategy that follows this chapter.
Establish Managing Agency
While representatives of the project partners have indicated their respective agencies’
commitments to participating in the implementation of this project, it is recommended
that one agency take the role of Managing Agency for the implementation phase of this
project. The Managing Agency should take responsibility to coordinate refinement of the
overall development plans. The Managing Agency should also serve as the coordinator
for all of the project partners’ respective activities during the implementation process.
Because the project is centrally located within Palo Alto and because Palo Alto will have
regulatory responsibility for the project, including CEQA, design review, and land use
review, it makes sense for the City of Palo Alto to assume the Managing Agency role.
Palo Alto is probably also best positioned to coordinate the proposed roadway, park,
pedestrian, and bicycle improvements as part of the PAITC plan with the affected
citywide plans. Adequate funding, preferably through grant resources, should be
provided to staff this function. These fiscal and human resources are essential since
meeting the substantial existing commitments in the City’s ten-year infrastructure plan
will require all available Public Work Department resources.
Establish Memorandum of Understanding for Ongoing Implementation Support
Although the City of Palo Alto is likely the most desirable agency to serve as the
Managing Agency for implementation, the City does not have the staff resources to
dedicate to this role, and the City should not shoulder this burden alone. The PAITC
Project Team has preliminarily agreed that an appropriate way to address this situation is
for the various agencies to establish a Memorandum of Understanding (MOLl) or other
agreement among themselves. Each participating agency would contribute resources to
share the cost of the Managing Agency functions on behalf of the entire project. While
specific member contributions and Managing Agency responsibilities would be
determined at a later date, the Project Team members have expressed support for the idea
that member contributions, potentially coming from grant resources, would include
funding to hire a full-time Project Manager.
Recruit a Full-Time Project Manager
A full-time Project Manager who has a high level of skill in planning and managing
complex public works projects (preferably transit-related) will be a key element in the
success of this project. Such a person is needed to be a strong and dynamic leader for the
project, who can successfully work to build political and community support for the
project while refining implementation plans and coordinating the actual development
process. This individual must be able to successfully mobilize the support of high level
staff and officials from each of the participating agencies as well as from all levels of
government, from local to federal, in supporting and advocating the PAITC project. This
individual should have the status within the City that is equivalent to a senior-level staff
person or possibly even department head. It is likely that the City of Palo Alto would
hire the Project Manager to serve as a contract employee, funded by contributions made
by grant resources obtained by the City and from other signatories to the MOU.
Develop Institutional Leadership
A key task for the Project Manager, with the support of each of the member agencies,
will be to begin building a base of institutional support for the project. This is necessary
to ensure that funding decision-makers at the local, regional, state, and federal levels will
see that there is strong community support for the project and that it is a high priority for
all of the agencies involved. The Project Manager will likely require the assistance of
representatives from the governing boards of each of the participating agencies to identify
and make contact with those key decision-makers whose support must be garnered to
successfully implement the project and to enlist their support as champions of the project.
Delegate Implementation Responsibilities to Participating Agencies
The PAITC project is actually a collection.of several discrete projects. It is desirable to
identify a project sponsor for each of the constituent parts of the overall PAITC project
that will take responsibility to ensure that all steps for implementation are carried out for
a given project component, in coordination with the Project Manager. The financing plan
contains a preliminary delineation of the responsibilities for individual project
components. However, additional discussion among agencies will be necessary to
identify the most efficient way to delegate responsibility for activities such as site
preparation, traffic control, and general infrastructure work that are necessary for all parts
of the project.
Define Ongoing Operating and Maintenance Responsibilities for Project Components
In most cases, the project sponsor of a given project component will assume
responsibility for ongoing operation and maintenance responsibility for the project
component once it is completed. However, there may be instances in which there would
be efficiencies in establishing cooperative agreements between agencies so that one
agency takes maintenance responsibility for a larger area versus multiple agencies
maintaining a series of smaller areas.
2. Complete Necessary Planning/Environmental Work
(1-2 years)
The Managing Agency will take responsibility for coordinating the completion of any
planning and environmental work that will be necessary for the project to proceed. In all
likelihood, this project will utilize federal funds along with funds from other regional and
state sources; thus, a combined CEQA/NEPA environmental review process will be
necessary. This implementation phase will also includepreparing any City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning amendments that would be necessary to
accommodate the project. The Managing Agency will also need to obtain other required
City approvals, such as design review, historic preservation, traffic advisory committee,
etc. Input from these various City bodies may give rise to adjustments that must be
incorporated into the project design. During this stage, the Managing Agency should also
initiate the steps necessary to allow the extension of Quarry Road to encroach upon the
existing parkland, which may require approval by local ballot measure.
3. Target and Secure Capital Funding Commitments
(2 - 5 years)
A primary challenge for this project will be to secure the additional planning and capital
funding necessary to construct the project. This will involve dealing with multiple
funding sources and processes at local, regional, state, and federal levels. It is
recommended that the project sponsor for each major project component take the lead in
pursuing the relevant funding sources. However, additional coordination will be
necessary to ensure that all project costs are accounted for, and that locally available
funds are used to strategically leverage available regional, state, and federal funds. The
Financing Strategy in the following section preliminarily identifies targeted funding
sources for the various project components included in the PAITC plan.
Target and Secure Funding for Ongoing Project Planning and Development
The project partners estimate that required planning and environmental work and further
preliminary design work (e.g., item 4, below) will require funding of approximately $3 to
$5 million. Thus, initial project fundraising efforts should focus on securing funds in the
near term for continuing project development. Because this will need to occur prior to
fully establishing project leadership and staffing, the project partners will need to
collaborate on this effort as they have during this planning process.
Develop Work Plan and Timeline for Each Targeted Capital Funding Source
Given the extended lead-time necessary to secure funding from various state and federal
funding sources, it will be necessary to begin the construction fundraising process early
in the implementation phase of the project. The Project Manager should collaborate with
representatives of each of the agencies that would be responsible for advancing funding
requests for individual project components and outline a work plan and timeline for each
targeted funding source. The work plan should clearly identify the parties responsible to
take the lead in seeking funding for each source and identify the support those individuals
will need within their own organizations and from the project partners as a group in order
to successfully participate in the funding processes. A realistic timeline will also need to
be developed to secure funding commitments and to expect obligation of funds for the
project. By developing and maintaining a master work plan and funding schedule, the
Project Manager will be able to monitor the progress of this critical implementation
activity. The Project Manager will also keep all project partners apprised of the progress
on individual components and identify the need to revise phasing plans or schedules
according to anticipated funding availability.
Seek and Secure Project Funding Through Each Relevant Funding Process
With the support of the political leadership developed for this project, each of the project
partners will pursue and secure the funding necessary for their respective project
components through the relevant processes. This will likely require working to include
the relevant PAITC project components in the capital expenditures plans of the affected
local agencies, and carrying the expenditure proposals forward to the county Congestion
Management Agency (VTA) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for
inclusion in requests for various state and federal funding sources. Where appropriate,
the project partners as a group will facilitate this process, by continuing to refine the
overall project plan, and developing the necessary project documentation. There will also
need to be a parallel process of working at the regional, state and federal levels to
advocate for special earmarks when discretionary transportation funds become available
in the future.
VTA staffhave indicated that the VTA Board of Directors will be defining the process
and establishing the criteria to prioritize the expenditure of funds generated with the
passage of 2000 Santa Clara County Measure A (which includes $45 million earmarked
for the PAITC project) during the coming year. Thus, it is important that project partners
monitor this process carefully, even as the group works to establish its project leadership
and staffing, and advocate for the PAITC project whenever appropriate.
4. Refine Project Designs, Staging Plans, and Cost Estimates
(1 - 2 years, concurrent with Step 3 above)
Based on input from the Project Planning/Environmental work and from the early phases
of the project funding tasks described above, it will be necessary to refine the project
design, staging plans, and cost estimates for the project. As each of the project sponsors
begins to take a closer look at the design concept developed in this planning phase and
analyzes in more detail how the project components conform to their own design
standards and overallplans for their respective transit systems, they will likely identify
the need for further refinements. In addition, as the project partners begin to assess the
potential to secure funding from different sources, they will begin to establish a better
sense of the likely timing to obtain funds that would enable construction to commence.
This can be expected to be an ongoing process leading up to the actual start of
construction. As the designs for individual components are refined, it will be necessary
to ensure that they continue to mesh together. The Project Manager will need to "
coordinate these refinements to ensure that the project can proceed in a rational and
efficient fashion.
5. Establish Construction Schedule and Protocol for Coordination with Transit and
Traffic Operations
(1 year)
Once the project design and staging plans are set and funding for the first stages of the
development are secured, the project sponsors, in coordination with the Project Manager,
can begin to establish a phased construction schedule. A key part of this schedule will be
to establish a protocol for the efficient coordination of construction activities with
ongoing transit and traffic operations in the area. ~
6. Contracting and Construction Management
(4 years)
Contracting and construction management will be the final step in the development phase
of the project. This process can be expected to last for a number of.years, as the phased
construction process will likely be completed in major steps, as funding becomes
available. The project sponsors will each conduct their construction activities in
coordination with the Project Manager, undertaking such tasks as developing
construction documents, circulating contractor solicitations, selecting contractors, and
managing construction contracts. To the extent allowed by functional and timing
considerations, the project sponsors should collaborate to combine individual project
components into a single construction contract, where this would lead to construction
efficiencies.
FINANCING STRATEGY
The purpose of this section is to outline the methods that can be used to fund the
development of the proposed PAITC project. It summarizes the estimated project costs
for the two station design Options and identifies potential funding sources for each part of
the project. While this financing strategy is conceptual in nature, it is the starting point
for establishing a reasonable approach for project implementation. The intent is to begin
discussion between the project partners with the understanding that a conceptual
agreement and preliminary negotiations about project responsibilities will be necessary to
carry the project forward.
Basic Project Cost Estimates and Cost Allocations
This section is based upon project cost estimates, which group the project construction
costs into several major elements, including Site Work, Track Work, Miscellaneous Site
Infrastructure Improvements, and University Avenue/El Camino Interchange. Table 1
summarizes cost estimates for both options.
In such a complex project, there are numerous elements that are integral to more than one
of the PAITC project "components." For example, site preparation and landscaping are
necessary to support all of the different improvements proposed as part of this plan that
will be used by multiple agencies. Thus, it is a challenge to allocate costs of specific
improvements across the various project components. Table 2 allocates the percentage of
each project element that is attributable to each of the following components: Rail
Bridges and Track Improvements, E1 Camino Overcrossing, Park Amenities,
Bicycle/Pedestrian Circulation, Transit Station, University Avenue, Roadway
Improvements, and Supportive Development. Supportive Development includes cost
allocations for project components that would be necessary to accommodate potential
future transit-oriented development at the site. Park Amenities includes costs attributable
to the City park planned along University Avenue. Costs for landscaping features that
are integral to various transit improvements have been allocated to those features
accordingly.
Total Cost Estimates
The Executive Cost Summary (Table 1) includes various mark-ups to arrive at a total cost
estimate for each option. These additional mark-ups include overhead and profit,
phasing, contingencies and soft costs. Combined, these mark-ups inflate the basic
construction costs by approximately 115 percent. While the estimates are calculated
using 2001 dollars and thus do not include escalation, Measure A Transportation Sales
Tax disbursements will be escalated to account for inflation.
Table 2 shows these assignments and includes commentary regarding the rationale for
certain assignments. This table also includes the estimated total cost (including mark-
ups) that is allocated to each project component.
3.0
TABLE 1: EXECUTIVE COST SUMMARY
COMPONENT
SITE WORK
TRACK WORK
MISC. 1NFRASTRURE
UNIVERSITY AVENUE /
OPTION 1
$28,7OO,00O
$44,400,000
$10,900,000
$7,900,000
OPTION 2
$30,000,000
$63,300,000
$14,900,000
$7,900,000
EL CAMINO INTERCHANGE
OVERHEAD AND PROFIT (7%)
& PHASING (13%)
SUBTOTAL
DESIGN CONTINGENCY (15%)
CONSTR. CONTINGENCY (8%)
ESCALATION (Excluded)
SUBTOTAL
SOFT COSTS (35%)
PROJECT CONTINGNECY
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL COSTS
NOTES: soft costs include:
$19,200,000
$111,100,000
$16,700,000
$10,200,000
$26,900,000
$48,300,000
$9,400,000
$57,700,000
$195,700,000
$24,300,000
$140,000,000
$21,000,000
$12,900,000
$33,900,000
$61,000,000
$12,300,000
$73,300,000
$247,200,000
a. Design and Engineering Fees
b. Project Development Fees
c. Construction Management Fees
d. Environmental Reviews
11
While project participants are expected to take the lead on securing the necessary external
funding for their respective project components, they are not expected to provide the
financing themselves. It is expected that project sponsors will access funding from
outside sources, such as regional, state, or federal grant programs with the assistance and
support of other project partners. In some cases, it will be appropriate for other project
partners to contribute funding based on the benefits they will realize from a given project
component. The City of Palo Alto, through its land use regulatory powers, may have the
ability to require nearby private development that would benefit from the PAITC
improvements to pay for a part of the project costs.
Funding Sources
Project "Seed" Funds
The PAITC project is extremely fortunate to have been identified in Santa Clara County
Measure A, which won voter approval in November 2000. Measure A was a half-cent
countywide sales tax increase that was designated to fund certain transit projects in the
County. The measure takes effect in 2006, when the existing 1996 Measure A/B sales
tax measure expires. The PAITC project was earmarked for $45 million of the proceeds
from the new sales tax. VTA will administer these revenues under the guidance of a
citizen’s oversight committee selected especially for this purpose. Because these are
local funds, they represent a valuable source of money that can be used as the local match
to leverage various State and Federal funds that have not yet been committed to the
project. These funds will also serve as gap funding to pay for project components that
cannot be funded from other sources but which are deemed to be an integral part of the
project. The project partners should agree to the principle that these funds should not be
tagged for a specific project component unless all other potential sources have been ruled
out.
VTA representatives have also indicated that approximately $5 million in 1996 Santa
Clara County Measure B program funds and approximately $2 million in federal grant
funds are available to help fund the transit center portion of the PAITC project. The
project partners should seek credit for 1996 Measure B funds committed to the project as
local match for expenditures on other project components.
Other Funding Opportunities
Following are discussions of a range of local, regional, state, and federal funding sources
that the project partners will need to successfully pursue in order to fully fund the
proposed project. It must be noted that, except for locally controlled funding sources,
most of the funding sources identified below are competitive and in limited supply. In
addition, the timing for availability of future funding from these sources will vary.
According to VTA staff most of the federal TEA-21 funding has been programmed
through 2003. Allocation for new projects under most TEA-21 programs will not be
available until TEA-21 (or its successor legislation) is re-authorized in 2004. Table 2
summarizes the range of potential funding sources.
Table 2: Cost AIIocations~ Funding Responsibilities~ and Potential Funding Sources
Project Component
Rail Bridges and Track
Improvements
El Camino Over-Crossing
Cost Allocations (a)
Option 1 Option 2
$103,700,000 $143,900,000
$21,600,000 $21,600,000
Park Amenities $12,400,000 $12,400,000
Bike/Ped Circulation $6,300,000 $6,300,000
Transit Station $9,100,000 $20,400,000
University Avenue and
Roadway Improvements
Supportive Development
$38,400,000 $38,400,000
$4,200,000 $4,200,000
TOTALS $195,700,000 $247,200,000
Potential Funding Sources
2000 Measure A
State TDA, Articles 4 and 8
State Regional Improvement Program (part of STIP)
State Petroleum Violation Escrow Account
2000 Gov.’s $127 million TCRP allocation to Caltrain
Transportation Community and System Preservation Pilot Program
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (Caltrans)
State Regional Improvement Program (part of STIP)
TEA-21 Statewide Transportation Ehancements (STE)
TEA-21 STP
Local funding - developer contributions.
Local funding - developer contributions.
TEA-21 Transportation Enhancement Activities (MTC)
TEA-21 Transit Enhancement (MTC)
Local funding - developer contributions.
TDA Article 3 (local), TFCA (BAAQMD), TLC Capital Grant (MTC)
State Bicycle Transportation Account
TEA-21 STP
1996 Measure B, 2000 Measure A
TDA Articles 4 and 8
State Regional Improvement Program (part of STIP)
State Petroleum Violation Escrow Account
2000 $127 million State TCRP allocation to Caltrain
Bus Terminal: Federal Transit Act Section 5309 Bus
Station Preservation/Renovation: TEA-21 Transit Enhancement
and Transportation Enhancement Activities
State Regional Improvement Program (part of STIP)
TEA-21 STP
City General Fund or Dev. Fees could be used for local match
To be funded by actual development projects as part of
construction cost.
Note:
(a) Cost estimates include mark-ups for overhead and profit, phasing, design contingency, construction contingency, soft costs, and project contingency
Sources: Rob Wellington Quigley Architect, Hanscomb, Inc., BAE.
Rail Bridges and Track Improvements: The rail bridges will be used exclusively by
the Peninsula Joint Powers Board to operate the Caltrain system. Caltrain will be
expected to take the lead in developing the funding sources for this project
component. It should be noted that under the Preferred Plan (Option 2), the rail
bridges must be extended in order to accommodate the bus station underneath. In
addition to improved bus access and mode shift efficiency, this has the effect of
freeing up land for other uses. If adequate funding were unavailable for extending the
bridges, then the Option 1 design would avoid these extra costs but would not offer
the same level of rail/bus transit integration. The seemless integration of rail and bus
services is an important benefit of the Preferred Option.
Funding Sources: At least a portion of the costs of the rail bridge and track
improvements (see below) have been included in the Caltrain Rapid Rail Plan. This
is part of the agency’s long range capital expenditure strategy and is based on the
capital fimding resources that the agency expects to be allocated over the next ten
years. The Rapid Rail Plan specifically earmarked $13 million for the Palo Alto
Turnback project, the objective of which is to provide a third track to facilitate
express train service through Palo Alto. The Rapid Rail Plan also allocated $52
million, for Structures Replacement system-wide. A portion of this funding could
potentially be applied to the PAITC project to supplement the $13 million discussed
above. The 2000 Governor’s Transportation Congestion Relief Plan (AB 2928)
earmarked $127 million in funding for the Peninsula Caltrain corridor. A portion of
this funding could potentially be earmarked for the rail bridges. Federal
Demonstration Projects are typically earmarked by congress during the re-
authorization of ISTEA/TEA-21. The City of Palo Alto has indicated a strong
interest in working with its congressional representatives to seek such an earmark for
the PAITC project. Additional funding sources that could be targeted for remaining
gaps are shown in Table 2.
The Caltrain Rapid Rail plan earmarks $128 million in its capital improvement
program for Track Replacement throughout the Caltrain system. A portion of this
funding may be available to help fund track improvements that are included in the
PAITC project. In addition, a portion of the $127 million allocated in the
Transportation Congestion Relief Plan bill may also be available for these project
components. Additional funding sources that could be targeted for remaining gaps
are shown in Table 2.
E1 Camino Overcrossing: The E1 Camino Real overcrossing carries University
Avenue over E1 Camino Real. The PAITC project involves replacing the existing
structure, which is reportedly functionally obsolete by modern design standards, with
a new bridge that would be widened to provide room for the planned park to extend
all the way from Alma Street to Palm Drive. Because E1 Camino Real is a State
Highway, the bridge falls under Caltrans jurisdiction. For the purposes of
implementation, Caltrans is projected to be the project sponsor, although the
increased width of the bridge structure necessary to accommodate the planned park
amenity suggests that the City of Palo Alto may need to participate along with
Caltrans in designing and funding the bridge. City funding participation could be in
the form of external grants obtained for this purpose.
Funding Sources: There is no funding currently earmarked for the replacement of
the El Camino Real overcrossing. The funding source that most closely fits with this
project is the Highway Bridge Repair and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) that is
administered by Caltrans. Caltrans maintains an Eligible Bridge List (EBL), which is
an inventory of existing bridges that can qualify for HBRRP funds. It appears that the
E1 Camino Real overcrossing is included on this list. This is a program administered
by Caltrans itself, on behalf of the federal government. Another potential funding
source is the State Regional Improvement Program (RIP), expenditures for which are
recommended by MTC to the California Transportation Commission to be
programmed as part of the State Transportation Improvement Program (ST[P). Also,
the flexible Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds that are a part of TEA-21
may be a potential source. Another potential opportunity is the Statewide
Transportation Enhancements (STE) portion of TEA-21 through which the California
Resources Agency allocates funding from capital improvements related to
transportation funding. To access this source, Caltrans would need to partner with a
local agency, such as the City of Palo Alto, that would actually propose the project.
Although limited, exactions collected by the City of Palo Alto from certain
development projects in the form of cash contributions might be allocated to this
project to help pay the portion of the overcrossing costs attributable to the proposed
park amenity.
Park Amenities and Bike/Pedestrian Circulation: Although the park amenities and
the bike and pedestrian circulation elements designed into the PAITC project will
likely benefit many users of the transit facilities who come from outside Palo Alto,
the principal benefits of these amenities will accrue to the Palo Alto community,
including Stanford University. These features will become property of the City of
Palo Alto, and the City will maintain these facilities on an ongoing basis. It is
appropriate for the City of PaloAlto to become the project sponsor for these project
features and to take the lead in securing the necessary funding. Because these
features have been designed to provide a better connection between Downtown Palo
Alto, the transit station, Stanford University, and Stanford Shopping Center, it may be
appropriate for the University to seek a portion of the funding, possibly though grant
sources, .toward these features commensurate with the University’s improved access. "
This would recognize the benefits the improved connectivity will create for the
University’s students, staff, faculty, and visitors who travel through the area by
bicycle or foot.
Funding Sources: Local funding sources would normally be the first source of
funding for improvements such as these; however, unlike many communities, the
City of Palo Alto does not impose a park impact fee on new development. In
addition, the City has indicated that it has an extensive backlog of unfunded capital
projects, meaning that the chances of obtaining General Fund allocations for these
particular capital expenditures are negligible. The park, bike, and pedestrian
amenities are an integral part of the PAITC project, as they will function to help
increase ridership for the transit systems serving the station, because these amenities
will make the station much more accessible to people on foot and bicycle than at
present. In addition, the amenities help to form a much safer and more functional
corridor for bicyclists and pedestrians who wish to travel between Downtown Palo
Alto and Stanford. The improvements will encourage and facilitate the use of these
alternative transportation modes by people who may not need to use the transit
systems. Because of these characteristics, the parks, bike, and pedestrian amenities
could potentially qualify for funding under a number of programs that seek to
encourage this type of approach to transportation planning.
Locally, the City of Palo Alto controls a modest amount of State Transportation
Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funding (approximately $60,000 annually) that
could potentially be earmarked to fund a portion of the bicycle and pedestrian
features. The City could opt to earmark funds in multiple years, in order to contribute
greater amounts from this source. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) sponsors the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA), which assists
projects that help to reduce air pollution, and the MTC administers the Transit for
Livable Communities (TLC) program, which assists bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
projects that enhance community vitality. Two of the TEA-21 programs could also
be potential funding sources for these features. One is Transit Enhancement
Activities (TEA) which supports bicycle, pedestrian, and landscaping projects linked
to transportation. The other is Transit Enhancements, which can allocate funding to
assist bicycle and pedestrian facilities and landscaping. Finally, the City of Palo Alto
may be able to generate some local funding for this project through the process of
collecting developer contributions as exactions on new development projects in the
area.
Transit Station: The PAITC project represents a true multimodal facility, because it
will integrate public transit operated by Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, Dumbarton
Express, and the City of Palo Alto along with Stanford’s Marguerite Shuttle. The
station will also accommodate private autos, bicycles, and pedestrians. This makes it
difficult to project the role of project sponsor to any single entity; however, because
Caltrain already will have major responsibility as the project sponsor for the Rail
Bridges and the Track Improv.ements, VTA will likely be the project sponsor for the
Transit Station features. Because the transit station will be key to the operations of
the other agencies mentioned above, it should be expected that these other agencies
would contribute significantly to planning and funding of this project component.
Funding Sources: Table 2 lists a number of potential funding sources for the PAITC
transit station features. A portion of the $45 million allocated to PAITC in the 2000
Measure A funding package would likely be used for the transit station features. A3
portion of this funding may be available to support this project. Other potential State
funding sources include TDA, Regional Improvement Program, and State Petroleum
Violation Escrow Account. In addition, TEA-21 Transportation Enhancement
Activities or Transit Enhancement funds might be applicable for the preservation
component involving the existing train station structures. Federal Transit Agency
Section 5309 is a potential source of funds for the bus station facilities. As mentioned
in regard to the funding options for the rail bridge and track components, the City of
Palo Alto has expressed interest in working with its congressional representatives to
seek an earmark for Federal Demonstration Project funds in the next round of TEA-
21 re-authorization.
University Avenue and Roadway Improvements: Because University Avenue and
other miscellaneous roadway improvements are a part of the local Palo Alto street
system, and because the City will ultimately be responsible for the operation and
maintenance of these roadways, the City of Palo Alto is likely to be the project
sponsor for these PAITC project elements.
Funding Sources: As mentioned previously, the City has indicated that it has little
available funding for capital expenditures and a large’ backlog of unfounded projects.
The City’s local gas tax subventions from the State could be utilized for these
improvements; however, the City relies on all of its gas tax revenues to fund its
existing roadway maintenance program. Because these improvements are not strictly
transit-related, like the train tracks, transit station, or rail bridges, these features would
likely not be suitable candidates for many of the transit-related funding sources,
including the 2000 Measure A funds and other funds targeted towards reducing air
pollution or traffic congestion. This project component will likely be most successful
in targeting various flexible transportation funding programs, such as the State
Regional Improvement Program (RIP) and the TEA-21 Surface Transportation
Program (STP).
Site Preparations for Supportive Development: Various project cost allocations
have been made to this improvement category. This represents project expenditures;
applicable only in the Preferred Plan (Option 2), that would be made to configure the
3
In addition, the 2000 Transportation Congestion Relief Plan (TCRP) allocated $55 million to VTA to
improve parking, stations, and platforms in Santa Clara County. However, it is assumed that this funding
would be spent elsewhere in Santa Clara County given the separate earmark to Caltrain for funding of
improvements in the Peninsula Corridor.
17
site to accommodate transit-supportive development, such as housing, retail activities,
or nonprofit agency offices. Although the sites used for such development are owned
by Stanford University and any revenues generated by the lease of these sites for
transit-supportive uses would accrue to the University, lease revenues for the types of
transit-supportive development envisioned would be very modest.
Funding Sources: Because the use of available sites for transit-supportive
development would not generate significant land lease revenues, this type of
development is not likely to be a major funding source for the required site
preparations and improvements. One of the few public funding sources that could be
available to Stanford University directly, due to its status as a non-profit entity, is the
Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program administered by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The University could explore obtaining
TLC funds to support transit-oriented development at the PAITC site.
CONSIDERATION OF PAITC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
This preliminary identification of issues is based upon review of the conceptual design
drawings and clarifications by the design team, as well as historic research which is
presented comprehensively in the Historic Resources Section as an attachment.
Given: Easy and safe circulation, ADA access, overpass clearances, transit growth
issues, and urban design goals are not currently provided along University Avenue at the
PAITC project site. Resolving these complex issues will result in significant changes to
the existing historic resources on site.
MacArthur Park
Options I and 2:
¯ Sideyards are enhanced with new landscape. West side is significantly enhanced by
new scheme. East side will be re-graded to allow for ramp to entry/drop-offplaza.
¯Retains existing parking lot and access from east.
¯Retains existing flagpole.
"Front yard" is enlarged. Lowering of street and sidewalk to the level of the proposed
oval park enhances public visibility of the historic structure from the east (relative to
current situation).
Lowering of street and sidewalk to level of the proposed oval park creates retaining
wall at southeast comer of parking lot. Retaining wall slopes from maximum of 5 feet
in height to that of a seatwall at existing flagpole.
Option 2:
¯ Potential future development, if it takes place, could impact the rear of MacArthur
Park; any vehicular ramps to underground parking should be designed or relocated so
as to minimize impact to rear of historic structure.
Southern Pacific Depot
Options 1 and 2:
¯ Original University Avenue bridge overpass/roadway and elevated pedestrian tunnels
are removed.
Historic Depot is preserved. Entry from west is enhanced by new station/drop-off
plaza. Entry from east is (both visually and functionally) negatively impacted by low
railings required at new tracks. New tracks are at level of existing tracks and maintain
original depot/track relationship, but the tracks will not be accessed directly from the
station (although current scheme does not necessarily preclude it in the future). New
tracks are close to east face Of projecting canopy but reflect location identified in
original master plan for future track.
New depot terrace has been developed at southwest comer of Depot, to the west of
the ramp tunnel. This terrace overlooks the street/sidewalk below, as well as the oval
park.
Three of the four ramp tunnel structures remain, but are shortened by 30 feet
(approximately 40%) in order to allow for width of new park, road and pedestrian
sidewalks. Tunnels (not currently ADA accessible) are re-worked to become stairs or
escalators to new train platforms, thus retaining their original circulation function at a
new grade. Southeast ramp structure is removed, but original stairs and landscape
remain in this location.
Existing stair tunnel structure at Baggage Room remains and connects underground
via new circulation path to original stair structure to east. Existing tunnel remains if
possible and becomes circulation to new bus transfer station and market hall below.
Existing waiting shelter/kiosk is relocated to new auto drop-off area. Original stairs
and landscape associated with this shelter are removed. Existing cedar trees are
relocated to new drop-offplaza.
New vertical circulation structures which access the two new train platforms
(elevators, new stairs, escalators, etc.) should be designed to complement the
Streamline Modeme style of the Depot and its associated site structures.
Option 2:
¯Any new development should respect setbacks of historic Depot so that it remains as
the dominant visual element of the site.
20
PROPOSED TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION
Traffic Circulation Concept
As illustrated in the site plan (Attachment 1), the proposed traffic circulation concept
consists of the following elements:
Eliminate the existing loop interchange at the Alma! University Avenue intersection
and the existing loop interchange at University Circle.
Create a two-lane, looping roadway around the oval park extending from the west
side of El Camino, across a widened E1 Camino overcrossing, and under the railroad
tracks, to just east of Alma Street. Traffic will circulate on the oval in one direction,
counterclockwise.
¯Establish traffic crossings of the oval at two locations: 1) a five-lane crossing at Alma
Street, and 2) a two-lane northbound crossing at the northbound E1 Camino ramps.
¯Traffic on the oval will converge to single two-way streets at each end: Palm Drive
entering the Stanford campus and University Avenue entering downtown Palo Alto.
Allow fight-turns to and from the oval at the following intermediate points:
southbound E1 Camino off-ramp and on-ramp, Urban Lane, entrance to train station,
MacArthur Park, Red Cross.
Install nine inter-connected and coordinated traffic signals on the oval. Six of the
signals are for traffic handling and pedestrian protection, while three are primarily for
pedestrian protection.
Establish bus-only access to bus transfer terminal at train station to/from the new
signalized intersection at E1 Camino and Quarry Road, allowing the following bus
movements: northbound entry to terminal from northbound El Camino ramp, access
across E1 Camino from Quarry, left-turn/right-turn exits by buses from terminal onto
southbound! northbound E1 Camino. No vehicles will be permitted to turn left from
E1 Camino into the bus terminal.
¯Establish bus access for downtown buses from Alma/Everett intersection into drop-
off area on east side of railroad tracks.
Bus Circulation
Attachment 11 illustrates how buses access the transfer terminal via several access points:
¯E1 Camino buses and Stanford Marguerite will access via Quarry/El Camino
intersection, as described above.
21
¯Downtown-area buses may access a separate drop-off area on the east side of the
tracks directly from the Alma/Everett intersection.
¯Through buses will continue to travel along E1 Camino, Alma, and along the new
University oval.
Pedestrian Circulation Concept
Attachment 9 illustrates the proposed pedestrian circulation pattems. Primary pedestrian
corridors through the area include the ’following north/south sidewalks and signal-
protected crosswalks along:
¯East and west side of Alma Street
¯East and west side of Urban Lane, crossing into oval (west side of Urban Lane) and
then crossing from oval and into and through the train station/MacArthur Park area
¯Along east side of E1 Camino northbound ramps, and crossing through oval
¯Along west side of Stanford E1 Camino frontage and into oval or around west side of
oval
In addition north/south pedestrian circulation will be provided:
¯Through the train terminal access lobby and market place under the tracks and
boarding platforms (from north side of oval)
¯Elevated at track-level over the University oval, without crossing streets and
connecting to Alma/Homer undercrossing further south
East/west pedestrian circulation will be accommodated:
Along outside of oval (both sides) from Palm Drive to University Avenue
Along inside of oval (both sides and central) from Stanford gates to Alma, but not
crossing Alma
Signalized pedestrian crossings will be located at nine points around the oval:
1. Alma south
2. Alma north
3.Train station entrance pedestrian signal
4.Northbound E1 Camino on-ramp
5.Southbound E1 Camino off-ramp
6.Palm Drive entrance to Stanford pedestrian signal
7.Palm Drive exit and southbound El Camino on-ramp
8.Northbound E1 Camino off-ramp
9.Urban Lane pedestrian signal
Six of the signals are for traffic handling and pedestrian protection, while three are
primarily for pedestrian protection.
22
In addition, not shown in Attachment 9, pedestrians will be able to cross E1 Camino at the
new signalized intersection at Quarry Road (north side of intersection only) from
Stanford shopping center into the PAITC area. From there pedestrian paths will connect
directly to the oval along the east side of E1 Camino, into the train station and bus transfer
area and under the tracks to the Alma/Everett intersection.
Bicycle Circulation Concept
Attachment 10 illustrates the proposed bicycle circulation concept. On-street bike lanes
will be provided around the outer edge of the oval (for counterclockwise bicycle flow)
from Palm Drive to Alma Street. Bike lanes will also be provided on both sides of Alma
from the oval north to connect with the proposed Everett bicycle boulevard.
Off-street bicycle travel will also be accommodated as shown in Attachment 10.
Principal paths include:
*East and west side of Urban Lane, crossing into oval (west side of Urban Lane) and
then crossing from oval and into and through the train station/MacArthur Park area
¯Along east side of E1 Camino northbound ramps, and crossing through oval
¯Along west side of E1 Camino and around west side of oval.
In addition north/south bicycle circulation will be provided elevated above the oval at
track-level, allowing cyclists to cross the oval without crossing streets. This route will
also connect with the planned Alma/Homer under-crossing further south and the Everett/
Quarry east/west bike corridor further north (not shown in Attachment 10).
Parking Considerations
The proposed project will result in the following net losses of parking spaces in the area
east of E1 Camino and west of Alma Street:
Caltrain Lots along Alma
Bus Transfer Lot (Red Cross and Caltrain)
Urban Lane
Sheraton Hotel
55 spaces
10 - 15 spaces
0 spaces
0 spaces
Surveys conducted on a typical weekday afternoon in early 2000 found that there were
about 80 unused parking spaces on Urban Lane and about 15 unused non-Red-Cross
spaces in the transfer lot. Therefore, under static parking demand levels, the project will
not result in parking deficits in the area.
This analysis does not account for possible increases in Caltrain-related parking demand
resulting from increased or higher quality train service at the Palo Alto station. Parking
prqjections prepared by JPB in 1997 estimated about 4% to 5% annual growth in parking
23
space demand at the Palo Alto Caltrain station. The PAITC concepts attempt to
encourage increased use of transit, walking and bicycles for access to the station to help
offset this projected increase in parking demand. However, even with greater-than-
anticipated use of alternate access modes, additional Caltrain parking may be needed in
the future. Possible locations for constructing such parking, through lot expansion or
structured parking, might include the existing JPB lots along Alma south of University,
Urban Lane, area north of Red Cross, or the current bus transfer area (if the transfer
terminal is relocated as proposed in PAITC Option 2). Although not specifically called
for in the PAITC proposal, the proposal does not foreclose the possibility of constructing
such additional parking.
The objective would be to accommodate additional Caltrain parking demand within the
PAITC project boundaries. It is not anticipated that the City’s new parking garages will
be available for Caltrain users. However, it is assumed that downtown parking
construction keeps pace with growth in downtown parking demand, so that growth in
parking demand resulting from any new commercial or housing development in the area
is accommodated outside of the PAITC project boundaries.
24
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION
One of the most critical aspects of constructing the new PAITC roadway system will be
retaining reasonable access for buses, pedestrians and cyclists during construction, and
managing the area’s high traffic volumes without excessive congestion impacts or
unintended detouring through sensitive neighborhoods. Night and summer-season
construction should be used to the extent possible to avoid the periods of heaviest traffic.
However, it will also be necessary to construct the PAITC circulation system in a logical,
incremental manner to keep traffic, transit and pedestrians moving through the area
during construction.
One of the greatest challenges will be to maintain east/west circulation across the Caltrain
tracks during construction. Incremental staging of reconstruction of the Alma/University
intersection and the segment of University under the tracks should attempt to keep four
lanes of traffic open under the tracks at all peak traffic times and protected pedestrian and
bicycle corridors available. Any peak-period disruptions to circulation in the University/
Alma area could result in traffic diversion to alternate routes, raising the possibility that
at least one of the following two scenarios may need to be considered:
1.Acceptance of temporary increases in traffic and congestion on other downtown area
streets for certain periods during PAITC construction.
If JPB decides to construct a grade-separation at the location where Alma (Palo Alto
Ave) crosses Caltrain just east of E1 Camino, construct this project prior to
constructing the PAITC project. More efficient traffic, pedestrian and bicycle flow is
made possible at that location prior to disrupting flow at the University crossing.
25
I
ATTACHMENT D
SITE PLAN: Palo Alto Int~rmodal Transit Study
Transit and Open Space Improvements. OpUon One
Site Plan - Option 1
ATTACHMENT E
Sl[e Plan - Option 2
SUMMARY OF
April 28, 2001
PAITS Community Workshop
ATTACHMENT F
Workshop Format
The second community workshop took place on the ~orning of April 28th from
8:30 to noon at the Sheraton Hotel, the site of the original Dream Team
Charrette. About 50 people attended the workshop, including citizens,
transit users, two council people, two planning commissioners, and members
of the project steering committee and development team. The intent of the
workshop was to present the refined scheme (with two options) to the
community and solicit input to .forward to the City Council and Planning
~Commission.
The meeting started with introductions and background by Vice Mayor Vic
Ojakian and Charles Carter, Stanford’s Associate Planning Director.
Project manager Maryanne Welton presented a summary of the scope and
process~for the current study and the format for this workshop.
James Lord of Peter Walker’s office then presented the refined schemes.
Both options transform University Avenue between Alma and Palm Drive into
an oval loop enclosing a public park, accommodate an increase from two to
four tracks, and expand the existing bus transfer area. Option 1 retains
the buses in their current location. The Preferred Scheme (Option 2)
relocates all bus and shuttle transfers to the level below the tracks.
The area currently occupied by the buses provides an opportunity for
future transit-oriented development. It could potentially include
transit-related retail, a joint-use City/Stanford performing arts theatre,
affordable housing and non-profit office space.
Jim Lightbody, VTA’s Manager of Planning, and Ed Gawf, Director of
Planning and Community Development, presented a summary of the transit
benefits and outline of the steps necessary to implement the project.
A model, traffic and circulation diagrams, plans, sections, historical and
aerial photos, and the original dream team scheme were displayed. Members
of the consultant team, JPB, and VTA were available to explain the schemes
in more detail and provide technical expertise to participants as
required.
After the presentations, the workshop participants worked with volunteer
facilitators in four groups to review the plans. They used evaluation
criteria which were developed in the first phase of the study to focus
discussion on the key elements of the plan and which option they
preferred. Each group presented their recommendations to the entire
workshop and their comments were summarized by Maryanne Welton.
This summary is prepared for inclusion in the staff report to the
Architectural Review Board, Historic Review Board, Planning and
Transportation Commission, and City Council. The same options that were
reviewed at the workshop will be presented at public hearings for each of
these groups. After these reviews, the Steering Committee will meet with
the project team and consultants to finalize the study. Based on that
input, a final report and implementation plan will be prepared that
outlines the steps and funding necessary for completion of the project.
Summary of Small Group Presentations
There was clear consensus that Option 2 best addressed the evaluation
criteria. Both options were considered improvements over the existing
conditions. There was a strong preference for Option 2 because the
stacked buses/trains would facilitate access between transportation modes
and the existing bus transfer area would be freed up for uses that meet
community needs.
Some people expressed concern about an expanded transit center bringing
more people to Palo Alto and thought a more modest plan could be
implemented. There were alsoquestions about the cost of the project and
whether it benefited Stanford and the shopping center more than Palo Alto.
A few people objected to Option 2 because it proposed new development in
the project area, while others thought the development could help pay for
the transit enhancements in Option 2.
7
The preservation of the historic depot was applauded and new shelters
should complement the depot design.
There was general consensus on the following issues:
i. Does the proposed design balance urban design goals with transit needs?
Most people thought Option 2 was more successful in meeting these
criteria. Some people were concerned that the increased cost of Option
2 might delay the project and it should be phased so that funding is
available when needed to implement the stacked buses and trains.
2.Are pedestrian, bicycle, auto and transit connections improved between
the train station area and downtown, University, Stanford Shopping
Center, and surrounding residential neighborhoods?
Both plans improve connections but there is a concern about increased
congestion due to the signalized intersection at University/Alma. The
Everett Street undercrossing should be enhanced to make it more of a
pedestrian/bicycle connection from downtown..
3.Does the proposed design increase safety for all modes of travel and
accessibility for those with disabilities?
There is significant improvement in safety. Attention should focus on
the University/Alma intersection, placement of mid-block cross walks
around the oval park, ramps, and elevators to ease disabled access.
4.Is a major civic space created that links the University, downtown and
Stanford Shopping Center?
Both options create new civic space, although one group thought the
area for new development in Option 2 provided more opportunity for new
civic spaces.
5. Are the gateways to both the City and University improved?
Both options create gateways and most groups felt Option 2 does it
better. The Quarry/ECR intersection needs more focus to increase its
function as a new gateway/connector to downtown. One group suggested
parks and fountains be used at each end of the oval park and at
Everett/Lytton/Alma and Quarry/ECR to terminate views and create focal
points at gateways.
6. Are parkland and natural resources enhanced?
Both options enhance parkland but more land is freed up in Option 2.
The location of the proposedtheatre or any other type of development
should not extend into the existing park. While most people liked the
plan for the oval park, some questioned whether it would be used by
residents.
7.Are infill opportunities created for new civic, residential and mixed-
use development?
Only in Option 2..
ATTACHMENT G
View at Transit Concourse
ATTACHMENT H
~_~~: Pedestrian Corridors
Signalized Crossings
Pedestrian Circulation
~FEI~& PEERS ASSOCIATI~S, I~C.
Tran~ortation Cons~dtant~
1497-05
ATTACHMENT I
LEGEND:
m Bike Lanes on Street
.... Bike Paths or Mixed Use
(~ Signelized Crossings
’~ FEBR & PEI~tS ASSOCIATES, 11~C.~rtation onsultants
1497-05 Bicycle Circulation
ATTACHMENT J
Bus Circulation
Pale Alto Intermodal Train Station Study
2/24/00
ATTACHMENT K
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Dream Team Charette
1,Dptimize the effectiveness of the mutli-modal transportetion center in serving all of the surrounding
communities.
2,Protect the integrity of nearby residential neighborhoods from negative impacts of urban development.
3.Create e gatawayto the downtown and university.
4.Clarify circulation in the study area while keeping in mind the larger picture and visionary goals of the
Dream Team.
5.Protect open space, cultural and natural resources.
Comp Plan Program L-26 "~
6.Improve pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto connections to creet~ an urban linkbetween University
Avenue/Downtown end Stanford Shopping Center.
7.Create e major civic space at the Celtrain Station that links University Avenue/Downtown and Palm
Drive.
8.Infill underutilized parcels with a mix of uses such as shopping, housing, office, hotel, end medical
facilities.
Improve public perk space.
10, Protect views of the foothills by guiding building heights end messing.
Camp Plan Program T-5
11. Pursue development of the University Avenue Multi-Modal Transit station conceptual plan based on
the 1993-1994 design study.
1Z.Improve pedestrian end bicycle access to end between local destinetions, including public facilities,
schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping ~enters, and multi-modal transit stations.
13.Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and the Csltrain
tracks and implement if feasible.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
ATTACHMENT L
Planning, Lend Use and Urban Design
1.Is a major civic space created that links the University, downtown and Stanford Shopping Center?
2.Are the gateways to both the City and University improved?
3.Are infill opportunities created for new ci~ic, residential and mixed-use development?
4.Are nearby residential areas protected from potential adverse development impe~ts?
5.Are parkland and natural resources enhanced?
Transportation and Circulation
6. Does the proposed design balance urban design goals with transit needs?
7. " Is transit enhanced and do the transit agencies benefit from the proposed improvements?
81 Are pedestrian, bicycle, auto and transit connections improved between the train station area end
downtown, University, Stanford Shopping Center, end surrounding residential neighborho.ods?
9.Do the proposed transit facilities, par.kin9 and circulation meet current demands and have capacity for
future needs?
10.
11.
Does the proposed design increase safety for all modes of travel end accessibil~ for those With
disabilities?
Does traffic level of service meet standards set by the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clare County Congestion
Management Agency, and Celtrens?
12. Is vehicular access to local businesses end residential neighborhoods maintained?
Implementation
13,
14.
15.
Has each represented agency approved the project c6ncept?
Are local, state and federal programs identified tofund the project?
Can the project be de’/eloped in phases consistent with available funding?
16. Can the project be phased end implemented to minimize traffic ,,disruption during construction?