Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 13435 (2) City of Palo Alto (ID # 13435) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/23/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Railroad Grade Separation - Meadow/Charleston Title: Detailed Review of Alternatives Being Considered for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Train Crossings, and Direction to City Staff for Conducting Additional Studies for Consideration of Final/Preferred Alternative(s) (7:35 PM - 10:00 PM) From: City Manager Lead Department: Transportation Department RECOMMENDED MOTION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Review the four (4) alternatives under consideration for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings along the Caltrain corridor; 2. Review the preliminary scope and cost estimates of additional studies, and direct staff to negotiate with AECOM to develop the scope and costs to perform the additional studies as directed by the City Council for consideration of the final alternative(s) to design and construct grade separation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY With completion of the XCAP review of grade separation options, the City Council provided direction to staff at the April 26, 2021 Council meeting to come back with a detailed review of the alternatives still under consideration at each of these crossings to then provide direction on additional studies/next phase of the project. This staff report provides detailed information on Charleston Road and Meadow Drive Grade Separation and seeks council direction in pursuing additional studies that could assist further in selecting preferred alternative(s). Staff plans to bring back a similar item for the Churchill Avenue crossing in the fall of this year. The report is organized as follows in the Discussion section of this report: • Detailed Review of Charleston Road and Meadow Drive Grade Separation Alternatives o Layout (Vehicular, Bike, Pedestrians) & Right of Way o Traffic Circulation: o Noise & Vibration Analysis o Outreach 6 Packet Pg. 19 City of Palo Alto Page 2 o Construction & Engineering Challenges o Project Cost • Additional Studies, as described below • Next Steps Staff is seeking Council guidance on the scope of additional studies for consideration of the final alternative(s) to design and construct grade separation. Below is a brief list of issues of interest previously identified by the XCAP and councilmembers for consideration, further details on each of these can be found under “Additional Studies” in the report. It should be noted that many of these studies are typically conducted later in a construction project development process and focused on a primary rather than multiple alternatives. This is reflected in the associated costs. In addition, conclusions from these studies must be considered preliminary, since responsible agencies such as Caltrain will provide limited guidance and feedback at the current conceptual design stage. Nonetheless, to the extent these studies provide community stakeholders greater confidence in decision-making, the costs involved represent a small percentage of the ultimate costs of grade separation construction. • Track Review and Caltrain Coordination (estimated $90,000-$110,000): Palo Alto has been identified in the Caltrain Business Plan as a potential location for high-growth capacity improvements, including 4-tracks. To date, alternatives developed for the Rail Program has only been evaluated for 2-tracks. Work to further define the ability of grade separation alternatives to accommodate four tracks includes: Gather Data from Caltrain, Evaluate Alternatives, Meet with Caltrain, Prepare memorandum report • Traffic Study Update (2040) (estimated $45,000-$55,000): Update to traffic analysis to reflect a future forecast year of 2040 rather than the year 2030 forecasts will require the following specific tasks: Work to Model Land Use, Model Forecasts, Traffic Calculations, Documentation. • Design Refinement of Underpass Alternatives (estimated $125,000-$150,000): Refinement of the Underpass Alternative at Meadow and Charleston requires additional iteration of review to ensure that input from the PABAC and school committees should be incorporated to further refine this alternative. As such staff requested the Consultant for their support to develop the estimated costs and scope as follows: Enhance Alternatives, Update Exhibits, Update Renderings, Update Cost Estimates, Update Miscellaneous Items. • Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations (estimated $130,000-$160,000): Data Collection and Review – Groundwater and Geotechnical, Field Investigation – Two CPT Borings, Memorandum Report – Draft and Final. • Box Jacking System/Geotechnical Investigation & Feasibility Study (estimated $350,000- $600,000): Data Collection and Review – Groundwater and Geotechnical, Construction 6 Packet Pg. 20 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Methodology Evaluation, Construction Phasing / Sequencing, Cost Estimate, 3D Animation, Memorandum Report. • Shadow Analysis (Light Plane Review) (estimated $20,000-$25,000): 3D Model Development, Shadow Study Analysis, Study Document Production and Final Report • Additional Noise Study (estimated $55,000-$65,000): Expand Study Area/Measurements, Expand Analysis for Future Growth, Analyze Structural Noise/Vibration, Update Noise Study Report • Storm Drainage Infrastructure (estimated $200,000 – $250,000): Evaluate Trench Storm Drain Alternatives, A rough order-of-magnitude (ROM) cost will be developed for both options. Evaluate Underpass Storm Drain Alternatives, Prepare Memorandum Report. • Additional Outreach (estimated $15,000-$20,000): Conduct Meetings with Additional Stakeholders, Prepare Meeting Notes. • Urban Designer (estimated $100,000-$125,000): Urban Design / Public Realm Opportunity Mapping opportunities for public realm improvements for each of the three (3) alternatives and constraints urban design plan diagram will be created for each of the three alternatives, Urban Design / Public Realm Design Enhancements conceptual site plan for each alternative will be updated with the proposed public realm design features, and Meetings. • Conceptual Design for Ped/Bike Undercrossing At Seale And Loma Verde (estimated $80,000-$100,000): Conceptual Layouts, Cost Estimates, 3D Renderings, and Miscellaneous Public Outreach Materials. • Sustainability (estimated $50,000-80,000): Sustainability Strategy Plan strategy to identify major categories where sustainable materials and practices can be incorporated into final design of alternatives, and Bike/Ped Usage improvement in relation to the grade separation alternatives. Note: The estimated scope and fee listed above for various studies is inclusive of work anticipated for all three crossings (Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road). BACKGROUND With the proposed California High Speed Rail (CAHSR) using the Caltrain corridor and the planned electrification of the Caltrain corridor that will increase the frequency of trains along this corridor, the delays to the at-grade crossings are expected to increase significantly. Therefore, City initiated the plan to consider grade separation at all four of the existing at-grade crossings in Palo Alto. For the past decade, City engaged the public to help develop and evaluate potential grade separation options at each of Palo Alto’s four Caltrain rail crossings. Since 2017, the City’s focus has been mainly on the three existing grade crossings of Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. Palo Alto Avenue Crossing was separated to be integrated with the Downtown Coordinated Area plan. The planning process for the development of alternatives at the three crossings of Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and 6 Packet Pg. 21 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Charleston Road was led by staff and consultants with public input coming through community meetings. In 2018, City Council created a Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) for advising staff and consultants on developing alternatives and improving community outreach and communications efforts. Later in 2019, City Council formed an Expanded Community Working Group for the evaluation of the Connecting Palo Alto railroad grade separation at these three crossings (Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road) along the Caltrain corridor and to achieve greater community input for selection of the preferred alternative at these three crossings. The XCAP group diligently over the period of eighteen (18) months completed the review of a total of nine (9) alternatives and prepared a final report providing their recommendations to the Council on March 23, 2021. At this study session, Council received the final XCAP report and discussed major recommendations and findings from the report. Considering the environmental challenges and the estimated costs for the South Palo Alto Tunnel alternatives, the XCAP unanimously recommended the Council removes the tunnel alternatives from further consideration. After the review of the XCAP report and considering the XCAP recommendation, the City Council on April 26, 2021, removed the two tunnel alternatives 1) South Palo Alto Tunnel (Passenger and Freight) 2) South Palo Alto Tunnel (With At-Grade Freight) from further consideration for grade separation. The final seven (7) alternatives in consideration at these three crossings are as follows: Churchill Avenue Churchill Avenue Closure with Mitigation - Option 1 & 2 Churchill Avenue Viaduct Churchill Partial Underpass Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Meadow Charleston Trench Meadow Charleston Viaduct Meadow Charleston Hybrid Meadow Charleston Underpass DISCUSSION This agenda item presents a detailed review of the alternatives in considerations at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Crossings and seeks City Council direction on the additional studies needed for selection of a preferred alternative(s) at each of these locations. Layout (Vehicular, Bike, Pedestrians) & Right of Way 6 Packet Pg. 22 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Below is a summary of the layout and right of way that would result in each of the four alternatives. Further explanation and details can be found below this summary table organized by alternative (trench, viaduct, hybrid, and underpass). TABLE 1: Summary of Layout & Right of Way Trench Viaduct Hybrid Underpass Ve h i c u l a r On the bridge – similar to the existing configuration At Grade – similar to the existing configuration Will be lowered by about 6 feet – similar to the existing configuration At Meadow: • NBL & NBR will be made through U-Turn at Alma Village; • EBR & WBL will be prohibited. • Park Blvd will be closed on south side, North side will be limited to right-in and right out. At Charleston: • NBL, SBR, and EBL will be made by using the roundabout at Mumford Place. • Only SBR & EBR at Park Place. No Through movements. • Ely Place will be limited to right out only. Pe d e s t r i a n On the bridge – will have separate sidewalks At Grade – will have separate sidewalks Will be lowered by about 6 feet – with sidewalks • Bike and Pedestrian pathway provided on one side of the roadway. Connection made through circuitous way to connect using ramps. • Ninety (90) degrees bends to provide adequate ramp slopes meeting ADA requirements. Bike and Ped Crossings needed Bi k e On the bridge – will have bike lanes At Grade – will have bike lanes Will be lowered by about 6 feet – with bike lanes • Bike and Pedestrian pathway provided on one side of the roadway. Connection made through circuitous way to connect using ramps. • Ninety (90) degrees bends to provide adequate ramp slopes meeting ADA requirements. Ot h e r Bridge will provide adequate width, & Charleston will require widening Meadow & Charleston will require widening Meadow & Charleston will require widening • Will require full property acquisitions and partial property acquisitions at both Meadow & Charleston. • Bike and Ped Crossings needed for Meadow at 2nd Street & Emerson Street and for Charleston at new traffic circle/ roundabout 6 Packet Pg. 23 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Trench: For the trench alternative, the railroad tracks will be lowered in a U-shaped box below Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The new electrified railroad tracks will be built at the same location as the existing railroad tracks and will begin lowering south of Loma Verde Avenue, remain lowered under Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, and return to the existing elevation north of the San Antonio Station. The maximum railroad grade will be 2% which will require a Caltrain design exception. The railroad tracks will be approximately 30 feet below the existing street between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. A high fence will be required along trench walls. The roadways at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will remain at their existing grade on a bridge over the railroad tracks. The roadway will have a similar configuration to what exists today with the addition of Class II buffered bike lanes on Charleston Road. This will require expanding the width of the road to maintain bike lanes through the overpass of the railroad. Charleston Road over the railroad will be 24.5 feet. The railroad tracks will be approximately 30 feet below the existing street between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. A high fence will be required along trench walls. Viaduct: For the viaduct alternative, the railroad tracks will be elevated on a structure over Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The new electrified railroad tracks will be built between the existing railroad tracks and Alma Street (east side) and will begin rising north of Loma Verde Avenue, remain elevated over Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, and return to the existing elevation south of Ferne Avenue. The maximum railroad grade for this alternative will be 1.4% which will also require a Caltrain design exception. The railroad tracks will be approximately 20 feet above the existing street between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The roadways at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will remain at their existing grade and have a similar configuration to what exists today, with the addition of Class II buffered bike lanes on Charleston Road. This addition will require expanding the width of the road to maintain bike lanes through the underpass of the railroad and to accommodate the new column supporting the railroad structure Hybrid: For the hybrid alternative, the railroad tracks will be raised above Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The new electrified railroad tracks will be built at the same location as the existing railroad tracks and will begin rising near El Verano Avenue, remain raised above Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, and return to the existing elevation north of Ferne Avenue. This alternative meets the Caltrans preferred maximum grades for the railroad alignment of 1% and therefore no design exception is anticipated for this alternative. The railroad tracks will be approximately 15 feet above the existing street between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. 6 Packet Pg. 24 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Between Park Boulevard and Alma Street, the roadways at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be lowered and will have a similar configuration that exists today, with the addition of Class II buffered bike lanes on Charleston Road. This will require expanding the width of the road to maintain bike lanes and pedestrian facilities through the underpass of the railroad. The maximum grade for the roadways will be near 5%. No additional Right of Way is anticipated; however, this alternative will require driveway modifications. Underpass: The underpass alternative retains the Caltrain tracks at the current grade and lowers Meadow Drive and Charleston Road under the tracks and Alma Street for through traffic. Alma Street will retain four lanes of traffic, two northbound and two southbound, supported on a new road bridge spanning the intersecting road. The maximum grade on Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, and the modified portion of Park Blvd will be 12%. The vertical clearance of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road under the railroad will be 15.5 feet. Turning movements to and from Alma Street will be facilitated by ramps for key traffic flow directions and controlled by traffic signals. On the east side of Alma Street, the new road profile will begin descending just west of Emerson Street for Meadow Drive, and just west of Wright Place on Charleston Road and will return to grade on the west side of the tracks, just west of Park Boulevard. Turning movements from various side streets will be limited. The Caltrain tracks will be supported on a new rail bridge that spans the width of the intersecting road and the pedestrian/bike ramp while remaining on its current alignment. The on-ramp and off-ramp connecting Meadow Drive to Alma Street will be limited to northbound and southbound traffic, respectively. Through traffic on Park Boulevard will no longer be possible. The connection from the south side of Park Boulevard to Meadow Drive will no longer be possible and will end in a cul-de-sac, while the north side of Park Boulevard will have driveway modifications but turning movements will be retained. The northbound left and right turns will be facilitated by making U-turns at Alma Village and Alma Street signalized intersection north of the grade crossing. With connection ramps only to East Charleston Road, movement to and from Alma Street will be facilitated via a roundabout on East Charleston Road just west of Mumford Place. As with Meadow Drive, through traffic on Park Boulevard will no longer be possible, however, a bridge will be constructed just west of the tracks to provide north/south pedestrian/bike connectivity at Park Boulevard. Ely Place intersection with Alma Street will only facilitate an exit onto northbound Alma Street. Entrance from southbound Alma Street into Ely Place will be prohibited. The pedestrian/bike ramp will provide a crossing for cyclists and foot traffic of both Alma Street and the railroad. This pedestrian/bike crossing is separate and at a different grade from both 6 Packet Pg. 25 City of Palo Alto Page 8 the rail and the road, providing both the benefits of a safer route and less traffic interference resulting in better traffic flow. Also, since roadway profile grade exceeds American Disability standards, ramp structure will provide grades meeting such requirements for all pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Right-of-way acquisitions including multiple private property acquisitions and some (sliver) acquisitions of residential properties will be required to accommodate this alternative. In addition, driveway modifications for this alternative. Traffic Circulation To review the traffic circulation, a traffic study was conducted by Hexagon Traffic consultants. The study evaluated the existing traffic conditions based on the traffic counts conducted in October 2019. The future traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic forecasts based on the 2016 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for future (Year 2030) conditions. The study analyzed traffic operations during the weekday AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) peak commute hours. The traffic study focuses on vehicular traffic operations; however, bicycle and pedestrian circulation have been accounted for in the traffic analysis. Trench, Viaduct & Hybrid: The roadway configuration for trench, viaduct, and hybrid are similar and therefore these alternatives have similar traffic impacts. Based on the traffic study for these three alternatives, the intersection of Alma/Charleston operates at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. With future traffic volumes (see Table below), the analysis shows that both the Meadow and Charleston intersections would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. With electrification, the analysis shows that both intersections would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours with future traffic volumes. TABLE 2: Meadow and Charleston Grade Separation Alternatives – Future Traffic Volumes 6 Packet Pg. 26 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Underpass: The Underpass alternative proposes to keep the Caltrain tracks at grade and lower Meadow Drive and Charleston Road to go under the tracks and Alma Road. This alternative was analyzed for future conditions as shown in the table below. Meadow Drive: As briefly discussed in the layout description above, the right of way and intersection geometry makes certain movements difficult to provide for at this crossing. Therefore, a U-turn lane on northbound Alma at the existing signalized intersection of Alma Street and Alma Village Circle was proposed to facilitate certain movements. Alma Village Circle is located approximately 600 feet to the north of Meadow Drive. The U-turn lane would allow northbound traffic on Alma Street to access Meadow Drive by making a U-turn at the Alma Village Circle and using the proposed southbound Alma Street off-ramp to Meadow Drive. The westbound left and eastbound right movements cannot be accommodated in this alternative at Meadow Drive. The traffic for such movements will use other streets such as El Camino Road and internal roadways to access Alma Street. Various options for traffic control devices such as stop signs or signals were evaluated to review future traffic conditions. At the Alma and Meadow intersection, the analysis shows that both the ramps from southbound Alma to Meadow and from Meadow to northbound Alma would operate at acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours with future traffic volumes. Where the northbound on-ramp would merge onto Alma Street, the analysis shows that the on-ramp approach would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour, as traffic merging onto Alma Street would have to find gaps in the uncontrolled traffic flow on northbound Alma, which is the peak direction. Charleston Road: At the Alma/Charleston intersection, some turning movements would be cut off at the intersection itself but would be accommodated via a two-lane roundabout that would be provided on Charleston Road at Mumford Place, east of Alma Street. The analysis shows that the two signalized intersections at Alma/Charleston would operate at LOS C or better during both the AM and PM peak hours under future conditions. Where the on- ramp from eastbound Charleston would merge onto southbound Alma Street, the analysis shows that the on-ramp approach would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour under future traffic conditions, as traffic merging onto Alma Street would have to find gaps in the uncontrolled traffic flow on southbound Alma, which is the peak direction. The analysis shows that the two-lane roundabout at Charleston/Mumford would operate at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours under existing and future conditions. 6 Packet Pg. 27 City of Palo Alto Page 10 TABLE 3: Meadow and Charleston Partial Underpass – Future Traffic Volumes Noise & Vibration Analysis Noise Analysis As part of the evaluation, a noise study was conducted to better understand the relative benefits or penalties of the grade separation alternatives. A noise survey was conducted in the study area to establish existing conditions in a variety of locations throughout the project. The noise measurement locations were selected to represent a variety of noise sensitive land uses in the study area with an emphasis on residential land uses. Most measurement locations were conducted at publicly accessible areas that were similar in distance and acoustical setting to nearby residential locations with an emphasis on first and second row homes (typically within about 300 feet of the rail line and about 1500 feet of a grade crossing). Both short- and long- term noise measurements were conducted to evaluate the noise study. For each alternative, the noise levels were predicted for generalized locations of the first row and second row of homes on both east and west side of the tracks. It was expected that at locations beyond second row homes, train events may still be audible, but calculated noise levels would be much closer to (or lower than) existing ambient noise levels. The following table provides a summary of how the relative contributions of rail and road noise sources may be expected to change as a function of proposed alternatives. Most noise source levels will be reduced by most alternatives as they introduce more noise reducing features such 6 Packet Pg. 28 City of Palo Alto Page 11 as increased shielding from noise barriers or structures, however, it is noted that engine noise from hybrid and viaduct alternatives could increase slightly since the increased elevation of the rail path may reduce the effectiveness of first row shielding at second row homes. TABLE 4: Noise Source Changes by Alternative In order to provide a quantitative comparison of relative acoustical benefits for these alternatives, future noise levels were calculated for representative residential locations at typical first and second row homes to the east and west of the rail line. These calculations followed the methodology and calculation methods presented in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) and assumptions were based on the Caltrain data provided in their environmental documents. In addition to the alternatives in consideration, the noise study reviewed the two additional scenarios with beneficial 6-foot tall parapet barrier that was assumed for the viaduct and hybrid alternatives for the grade crossing closure and underpass alternatives. The following table provides a summary of the results of the noise reduction based on the prediction analysis for each alternative and each generalized receiver location 6 Packet Pg. 29 City of Palo Alto Page 12 TABLE 5: Predicted Noise Reduction Relative to Existing Condition by Alternative (dBA) The study indicated that the biggest noise reduction would come from eliminating horn soundings in the vicinity of grade crossings with typical reductions of 9 to 14 dBA (as demonstrated by the “Existing vs. Closure” scenario). While all the studied alternatives will provide the acoustical benefit of ending horn soundings, some will provide smaller additional benefits. Viaduct and hybrid alternatives will provide the additional benefit of reducing wheel/rail noise at all receivers and the hybrid alternative will also help reduce Alma street road noise for homes to the west of the rail line. The trench alternative will both provide significant reductions for engine and wheel/rail noise. Vibration Analysis The movements of rail vehicles generate ground-borne vibration. According to FTA guidelines, a passenger/freight rail line would have to pass within less than 20 feet of a typical residential structure to potentially cause structural damage which would not be an issue with this project. However, human perception of, and potential annoyance to ground-borne vibration could be triggered in homes within 150-200 feet from the tracks. Under the current/existing conditions, many of the first-row homes to both the east and west of the track are already within 200 feet of the tracks and may already be experiencing perceptible vibrations from train pass-by events. The vibration study conducted a relative qualitative assessment of changes in ground-borne vibration level by proposed alternatives based on FTA guidance. The following table provides a brief summary of the qualitative assessment. 6 Packet Pg. 30 City of Palo Alto Page 13 TABLE 6: Potential Change in Ground-Borne Vibration by Alternative As indicated in the table above, most of the proposed alternatives would either create no significant change or perhaps a slight improvement in ground-borne vibration. The viaduct alternative may provide a significant improvement. However, a more detailed ground vibration engineering analysis for the selected alternative at each of the crossings will need to be completed to develop a more detailed vibration impact assessment with detailed recommendations for vibration mitigation features to be incorporated into the final design. Outreach During the XCAP Process community represented participated and provided feedback and comments. The city staff and Consultant provided support at the XCAP meetings and conducted studies, performed analysis, and provided additional technical information for the review of the alternatives. Earlier in 2020, before the pandemic began, the City hosted two well attended Rail Town Hall meetings and smaller neighborhood specific open house meetings to gain community input on the rail alternatives and answer community questions. Staff also developed and released online surveys and used social media, the City’s website, and electronic newsletters to inform, answer questions and gain feedback from the community on this important City priority. In addition, to further engage the community, City staff hosted a Virtual Town Hall from August 19, 2020 to September 14, 2020 gaining over 1,000 unique visitors to the online platform. This virtual platform was designed to inform the community and seek feedback on the proposed alternatives for grade separation at the three grade crossing locations of Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. A summary report of virtual townhall was provided as an informational report to the City Council on November 30, 2020. Staff and XCAP also provided project update and related information to the Pedestrian and Bike Advisory Committee (PABAC), City’s School Liaison Committee, and City School Traffic Committee. A shift to the 6 Packet Pg. 31 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Virtual Town Hall format was a direct result of the pandemic and the opportunity to further community engagement through this project phase. Construction & Engineering Challenges: There are several Construction and Engineering challenges with each of these alternatives. These challenges are described below and are summarized in the table to show the impact on each alternative. - Conformance of railroad grade with preferred maximum grade by Joint Peninsula Board (JPB)/Caltrain. With the current design, only the hybrid and underpass alternatives for Meadow and Charleston are in compliance with Caltrain’s maximum preferred railroad grade. The viaduct and the trench alternative will require design exceptions from the JPB/Caltrain. - Four Tracking of Caltrain: during the later stages of the conceptual plan development, JPB/Caltrain indicated a need for four (4) tracking of its railroad line within the vicinity of south Palo Alto may be needed to accommodate future Caltrain demands. As a result, all designs shall accommodate the need of these future four tracks. The concepts as planned has not been designed to accommodate these four (4) tracking requirement. As such a future review and coordination with Caltrain will be needed. - Underground Structure Conflicts: Installation of underground structures will impact the underground facilities. For the Trench alternative at these crossings, it will require diversion of Adobe and Barron creeks, resulting in the need for lift station/siphons. In addition, the trench will require ground anchors to support structures. These ground anchors will require easements on the properties to the west and trees removal. Also, approval of such facilities will require permitting from the numerous regulatory agencies that may involve lengthy and difficult negotiations. For all other alternatives, there will be minimal to no impacts on the creeks. - Ground Water Conditions: Due to the groundwater conditions all alternatives except Viaduct will require pump stations for dewatering which will increase long-term maintenance costs and risk of flooding due to pump stations. The trench will require the most groundwater dewatering along the entire alignment, whereas the hybrid and underpass alternatives will require such dewatering only near the intersections where improvements are constructed. However, some dewatering will be required to construct footings for viaduct structures. - Utility Relocation: Utility relocations will be required to remove any conflicts with foundations/trench and for any lowered construction condition. For Trench Alternative, the utility relocation will be required along the entire alignment whereas, for the hybrid and underpass alternative, utility relocations will be at these intersections. Also, for 6 Packet Pg. 32 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Viaduct any utility conflict within the foundations and pier structure will need relocation. - Shoo-Fly/Temporary Rial System: Shoo-Fly /Temporary Rail system included temporary electrification of the tracks will be required to accommodate all alternatives except for the viaduct based on the current design. For the Underpass alternative, the XCAP members shared an alternative methodology “Box Jacking” that may be feasible. Such technique will require further evaluation and Caltrain acceptance before determination of applicability for Underpass Alternative. - Traffic During Construction: For all alternatives except Viaduct, during construction, Meadow Drive will be closed, while the Charleston Road bridge is constructed, and vice versa. In addition, Alma Street will be reduced to a two-lane roadway to accommodate shoofly for both Hybrid and Underpass Alternatives. For the Trench alternative, one southbound lane on Alma Street will be needed to install the pump structures during construction. During construction, all alternatives will have additional impacts at the intersections on Alma Street at both Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. For Hybrid Alternative, the construction will be done in two phases, the first phase will comprise of raising the rail structure and the second phase will be lowering the roadway. For Underpass Alternative, a closure of Meadow Drive between Emerson Street and Park Boulevard, and closure of Charleston Road between Alma Street and Park Boulevard will be required for the majority of construction duration. However, the duration of such closures for Underpass Alternative may change depending upon the construction means and methods. - Construction Time Period. Viaduct Alternative is expected to take the least time for completing grade separation in two (2) years while Trench is anticipated to be completed over six (6) years. The Hybrid is anticipated to be constructed in 4 years whereas Underpass Alternatives will take three and a half (3-1/2) to four (4) years. However, construction duration for the Underpass Alternative may change depending upon the construction means and methods. TABLE 7: Summary of Construction and Engineering Challenges LOCATION/ DESCRIPTION VIADUCT HYBRID TRENCH UNDERPASS Construction Period 2 Years 4 Years 6 Years 3.5-4 Years Railroad Grade 1.4% 1% 2% - Shoo-Fly /Temp Rail System - Yes Yes Yes /Alt Tech Utility Relocation Yes, Conflicts with Foundations Yes, at crossings & Approaches Yes, along the alignment Yes, at Crossings 6 Packet Pg. 33 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Closure on Alma None expected, SBR lane in areas closure Reduced to 2 lanes One lane reduction for pump station Reduced to 2 lanes Intersection Closures/impacts SBR Turn lanes to use through lanes Minor Widening, some closures Meadow/Charleston (west side) Closures Intersection Closures, Other impacts - 2 phases – 12’ Clearance for a period - - Dewatering & Excavation - Yes Yes, along the alignment Yes, significant at intersections Long term dewatering - Pump Station Pump Station (Major) Pump Station Adobe Creek/ Baron Creek Raised above creeks (minimum impacts) Raised above creeks (minimum impacts) Lift Station/Siphon - Project Cost As far as the construction cost of the project, the Hybrid Alternative is the cheapest of all alternatives estimated at $190-230 million and Trench is the most expensive at approx. $800- 950 million. Both Viaduct and Underpass Alternatives are anticipated in the mid-range of these alternatives. The high-level cost breakdown based on the current designs is shown in the following table. TABLE 8: Summary of Project Cost LOCATION/ DESCRIPTION VIADUCT HYBRID TRENCH UNDERPASS Roadway & Railroad Items $72M to $90M $84M to $102M $450M to $540M $124M to $152M Structure Items $155M to $194M $10M to $12M $8M to $10M $18M to $22M Right-Of-Way & Utilities $18M to $22M $26M to $32M $26M to 28M $80M to $98M Support Costs $80M to $100M $35M to $42M $166M to $194M $80M to $98M Escalation To 2025 Dollars $75M to $94M $35M to $42M $150M to $178M $64M to $78M Total Project Costs $400M to $500M $190M to $230M $800M to $950M $340M to $420M Construction Period 2 Years 4 Years 6 Years 3.5-4 Years 6 Packet Pg. 34 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Additional Studies With the presentation of the XCAP final report to the City Council at the study session on March 23, 2021 and final recommendations on April 26, 2021, several concerns were brought up that would require additional studies and consultant support in order to fully address in reviewing the alternatives. Subsequently, staff requested the project Consultant AECOM to provide estimated scope and costs for the additional studies and revisions that may be helpful in further reviewing the alternatives in consideration for the selection of the preferred alternative(s). It should be noted that many of these studies are typically conducted later in a construction project development process and focused on a primary rather than multiple alternatives. This is reflected in the associated costs. In addition, conclusions from these studies must be considered preliminary, since responsible agencies such as Caltrain will provide limited guidance and feedback at the current conceptual design stage. Nonetheless, to the extent these studies provide community stakeholders greater confidence in decision-making, the costs involved represent a small percentage of the ultimate costs of grade separation construction. The additional studies with estimated scopes and fees are listed below. Overall, the estimated scope and fee listed above for various studies is inclusive of work anticipated for all three crossings (Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road). In general, these costs are not directly proportional to the number of crossings. Depending upon the City Council direction, if a particular item needs exclusion from further study at any of the crossings, the scope will be reviewed and negotiated with the consultant. Discussion and direction from the Council on priorities within these potential additional studies will help staff manage project costs and ensure continued progress on the evaluation of the alternatives within resources. Track Review and Caltrain Coordination: Estimated fee* $90,000-$110,000. JPB/Caltrain has adopted the moderate-growth improvement program as outlined in its Business Plan (https://caltrain2040.org/ ). However, JPB also indicated that the high-growth improvement program should not be precluded. Palo Alto has been identified in the Business Plan as a location for the high-growth improvements, including 4-tracks. To date, alternatives developed for the Rail Program have been evaluated for 2-tracks. Identifying the implications of each alternative with 4-tracks will require additional engineering analysis. • Gather Data from Caltrain: Meet with Caltrain to gather more information about what the limits of the 4-track alignment would be and what the typical section would be along the limits and at the stations. • Evaluate Alternatives: Conduct a high-level analysis of the impacts of 4-tracks for each alternative still under consideration (MC Viaduct, MC Hybrid, MC Trench, MC Underpass, CH Viaduct, CH Underpass, and CH Closure) by overlaying Caltrain’s 4-track geometry over the proposed 2-track. Identify a list of significant impacts for each alternative. Determine if the alternatives are still feasible with 4-tracks or does not 6 Packet Pg. 35 City of Palo Alto Page 18 preclude 4-tracks in the future. Note: This task assumes no animations or photo simulations or updates to existing exhibits. • Meet with Caltrain: Meet with Caltrain to review the evaluation of alternatives and gather additional feedback on the feasibility and impacts of each. • Prepare memorandum report: Prepare a draft and final memorandum report that documents the evaluation of the 4-track alignment and feedback received from Caltrain. Incorporate one-set of consolidated comments from the City and Caltrain on the draft technical memorandum. Traffic Study Update (2040): Estimated fee* $45,000-$55,000 During the study session and the XCAP recommendations, there was a discussion to review the traffic conditions with the future forecast of 2040 rather than the 2030 forecasts that have been used in the traffic study. While explained that the forecast reflects Comprehensive Plan buildout rather than a specific year, additional land use forecasts could be incorporated in order to update the traffic model. The update to traffic analysis to reflect a future forecast year of “2040” rather than the year 2030 forecasts will require the following specific tasks. • Model Land Use: Palo Alto has not identified any growth beyond 2030, which is considered the horizon for the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, for the traffic analysis zones (TAZ) within Palo Alto, the land use data will be the same as the 2030 forecasts. Outside of Palo Alto, Hexagon will update the land use data to year 2040 using the latest version of the VTA model. • Model Forecasts: Consultant (Hexagon) will run the Palo Alto model and produce traffic volume forecasts for the major streets in Palo Alto in the study area. These forecasts will be used to calculate growth factors, and the growth factors will be applied to the existing intersection turning movement counts from the prior traffic study. This will yield an estimate of intersection turning movement counts for 2040. • Traffic Calculations: The 2040 forecast intersection turning movements will be used to recalculate intersection levels of service for the project alternatives. There are 11 project alternatives, and calculations will be done for the AM and PM peak hours. Thus, 22 scenarios will be included in the study. • Documentation: Consultant (Hexagon) will prepare a revised traffic report that updates the long-range analysis to year 2040. The existing conditions analysis will remain unchanged. 6 Packet Pg. 36 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Design Refinement Of Underpass Alternatives: Estimated fee* $125,000-$150,000 The XCAP in their presentation to the City Council recommended that the Underpass Alternative at Meadow and Charleston undergo an additional design iteration to incorporate input from the PABAC and school committees. As such staff requested the Consultant for their support to develop the estimated costs and scope as follows: • Enhance Alternatives: Refine the three underpass alternatives (Churchill, Meadow and Charleston) by including input received by the XCAP, the school committees, and the ped/bike advisory committees (PABAC, etc.). Note: This task assumes the railroad profiles remains at-grade. • Update Exhibits: Update the plan, profile and typical section exhibits for each of the three alternatives. • Update Renderings: Update the 3D CAD model and still image renderings to include all refinements, including those not captured previously (U-turn at Alma Plaza, for example). Note: This task does not include animations or photo simulations. • Update Cost Estimates: Update the quantities, and cost estimates for each alternative. Note: If the unit costs get updated, then additional time will need to be added to update all other alternatives too for consistency. • Update Miscellaneous Items: Update the Evaluation Matrix, Fact Sheets, website materials and VR room materials/exhibits based on the refinements. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations: Estimated fee* $130,000-$160,000 • Data Collection and Review – Groundwater and Geotechnical: Collect available geotechnical and groundwater data from adjacent projects. This could include data from Santa Clara Water District channel projects, Caltrans Local Bridges, and other sources. • Field Investigation – Two CPT Borings: Once the existing available data has been collected and reviewed, make are recommendation to conduct a limited geotechnical field investigation to confirm data closer to proposed bridge and retaining wall structures. For this effort, two Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) borings are anticipated. Recommendations for further detail geotechnical filed investigations will be evaluated but deferred to the next level of design. The purpose of this limited geotechnical investigation is to confirm design assumptions made during this design phase. • Memorandum Report – Draft and Final: The data collected in stated tasks above will be summarized in a memorandum. The memorandum will also discuss further investigation needed for detailed design as well as confirm assumptions used for bridge and retaining walls foundations. 6 Packet Pg. 37 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Box Jacking System/Geotechnical Investigation & Feasibility Study: Estimated fee* $350,000- $600,000 • Data Collection and Review – Groundwater and Geotechnical: The scope described in task above for Preliminary Geotechnical investigation for data collection and field investigations is also be included in this task. In addition to the CPT described in task above, one exploratory boring would be taken at each crossing location to supplement the data collected from the CPT. • Construction Methodology Evaluation: Data collected in the above task will be used to determine the feasibility of a relatively long-span (40-60 feet or possibly longer) box culvert-like structure to support the various loading conditions (dead load, live load, lateral and vertical seismic loads, and buoyancy due to groundwater). • Construction Phasing / Sequencing: In this task, the various components involved with the set up and operation of a box jacking system will be evaluated, such as: dewatering of the excavation pit, the size of the pit and the extent of the temporary shoring, utility conflicts and the potential need for relocations, the maintenance of vehicular traffic and Caltrain’s overhead contact system. • Cost Estimate: Prepare a rough order-of-magnitude (ROM) cost for the box jacking system. • 3D Animation: Prepare a 3D animation of the steps anticipated to complete the installation of a box culvert-like substructure via a box jacking system. • Memorandum Report: The information in Tasks stated above would be summarized in a technical memorandum. It also includes incorporation of one round of comments is (one Draft and one Final report). Cost Details: Geotechnical Investigation $120,000-$150,000; Structural Analysis $230,00- $450,000 Shadow Analysis (Light Plane Review): Estimated fee* $20,000-$25,000 • 3D Model Development - Collect geolocation info (Lat/Long and Elevation data) for correct sun angle - Complete topology and surface conditions o Note: This does not include a Lidar scan, it’s assumed that 3D information from public sources (i.e., Google Earth) are used - Complete object 3D model (features that will cast shadows) - Complete subject 3D model (features that will receive shadows) - Model other details, as needed (trees, etc.) • Shadow Study Analysis - Shadow Study Analysis o Note: One specific day of the year will be selected for the analysis - Organization and Preparation: Study imagery combined with analytics - Add Legend/Icons/Notes • Study Document Production and Final Report 6 Packet Pg. 38 City of Palo Alto Page 21 - Image and document post-production using Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop - Combine multiple studies using Adobe InDesign - Address comments and complete final report Assumptions for these studies: • Three sites (Churchill, Meadow and Charleston) and two alternatives (Viaduct at each and a Hybrid at Meadow and Charleston) will be studied. • Each site has three proposed subjects (buildings) to be analyzed. • Each site will have several buildings that can be used to extrapolate shadow study analytics for that area. Structures predicted to receive the most shading will be the subjects for study. • The estimate includes one study at Churchill (Viaduct), two studies each at Meadow and Charleston (Viaduct and Hybrid). • Fifteen (15) shadow analyses will be completed; three (3) at Churchill, six (6) at Meadow and six (6) at Charleston. Each one will include an analysis of shadow impact on the target structure and a visual of the shadow path, sun angles, and other simulation details. Studies for each site will be combined and annotated according to any given constraints. For example, a pass/fail system based on a maximum number of shade hours a target structure is allowed to receive. Additional Noise Study: Estimated fee* $55,000-$65,000 • Expand Study Area/Measurements: Conduct additional noise measurements, going further back into the adjacent residential neighborhoods (perhaps 3 or 4 rows in a few locations near grade crossings) to determine the contribution of existing train noise relative to non-train ambient noise levels at these locations and incorporate these findings into the evaluation of the various grade separation alternatives. • Expand Analysis for Future Growth: Expand the noise analysis to consider the comparative influence of the future growth scenarios (see table below) on the projected relative effectiveness of the proposed grade-crossing design alternatives. TABLE 9: Trains per Day, Caltrain Corridor Scenario Year (Est.) Type of Train Comment Caltrain Freight HSR Existing 2020 92 3 0 All diesel Locos Electrification 2024 114 3 0 All EMU (used in current analysis) Baseline growth 2040 174 3 130 Per Caltrain Business Plan Moderate growth 2040 268 3 130 High Growth 2040 348 3 130 Source: Caltrain Business Plan 6 Packet Pg. 39 City of Palo Alto Page 22 • Analyze Structural Noise/Vibration: Conduct a limited literature review to collect data and support technical conclusions regarding the relative acoustical contribution of modern viaduct structures such as those proposed for use in the viaduct alternative. • Update Noise Study Report: Update the technical noise report document to incorporate all three of the preceding expanded analyses and present the result (remotely) at a City Council meeting and incorporate one round of comments into a final report document. Storm Drainage Infrastructure: Estimated fee* $200,000 – $250,000 • Evaluate Trench Storm Drain Alternatives: An evaluation of a siphon or a lift station options will be performed for the creek crossing based on the trench grade separation alternative. The following items will be considered: - Environmental issues/concerns (e.g., impact to creek habitat) - Permit requirements (RWQCB, SCVWD, FEMA, USACE, Department of Fish and Game) - Flooding potential and impacts - Maintenance issues and long term requirements - Design Options and conceptual details (depth of siphon, entrance/exit slope and length, etc.) - Utility conflicts and impacts - Temporary shoring requirements - Traffic impacts during construction - Right-of-way impacts - Groundwater and aquifer impacts A rough order-of-magnitude (ROM) cost will be developed for both options. • Evaluate Underpass Storm Drain Alternatives: Drainage requirements for the underpass alternatives will be determined. For example, the size of the pump station, and the location of a motor control center (MCC) building, and potential right-of-way impacts, will be considered. A ROM cost will also be included. • Prepare Memorandum Report: The information from the evaluation will be summarized in a technical memorandum. Incorporation of one round of comments is assumed (one Draft and one Final report). Additional Outreach: Estimated fee* $15,000-$20,000 • Conduct Meetings with Additional Stakeholders: Conduct separate virtual meetings with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), Stanford, and the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) to review the alternatives still under consideration (MC Viaduct, MC Hybrid, MC Trench, MC Underpass, CH Viaduct, CH Underpass, and CH Closure). A total of three meetings with the stakeholder are anticipated. • Prepare Meeting Notes: Prepare draft and final meeting notes for each that documents the feedback received from each stakeholder. Develop list of revisions to be considered at the next phase of design. Incorporate one-set of consolidated comments from the 6 Packet Pg. 40 City of Palo Alto Page 23 City and Caltrain on the draft technical memorandum. Note: This task does not include revising/updating any previously prepared exhibits or changing the location of the ped/bike undercrossing. Urban Designer: Estimated fee* $100,000-$125,000 • Urban Design / Public Realm Opportunity Mapping: Identify opportunities for public realm improvements for each of the three (3) alternatives that considers landscaping, public art, pedestrian, and bicycle network enhancements and other placemaking strategies that benefit the community as well as the environment. An opportunities and constraints urban design plan diagram will be created for each of the three alternatives. • Urban Design / Public Realm Design Enhancements: Building on the analysis in opportunity mapping task, the layout of potential public realm enhancements that provide co-benefits to the community will be prepared. Strategies that will be considered includes urban greening, integration of public art, aesthetic character of walls and hardscape, and an overall human-centric approach to design that enhances the experience for the public. A conceptual site plan for each alternative will be updated with the proposed public realm design features. Note: This task does not include renderings, animations or photo simulations. • Meetings: Two (2) team members to attend up to eight (8), virtual team coordination meetings. Conceptual Design for Ped/Bike Undercrossing At Seale And Loma Verde: Estimated fee* $80,000-$100,000 • Conceptual Layouts: Develop plan, profile and typical section exhibits for a ped/bike undercrossing at two locations: Seale Ave/Peers Park and Loma Verde Ave. • Cost Estimates: Develop a conceptual-level cost estimate at each location to the same level of detail that was done for the previous alternatives. • 3D Renderings: Create a 3D CAD model of the conceptual designs and provide up to six (6) computer-generated renderings and two (2) photo simulations at each location. • Miscellaneous Public Outreach Materials: The two concepts will be added to the Evaluation Matrix. Fact Sheets for each will be provided, and exhibits will be uploaded to the website. In addition, the VR room will be updated accordingly. Sustainability: Estimated fee* $50,000-$80,000 • Sustainability Strategy Plan: All of the alternatives developed to date can incorporate sustainability practices into the design. This task will develop a strategy to identify major categories where sustainable materials and practices can be incorporated into final design of alternatives. • Bike/Ped Usage: Lowering greenhouse gases usage factors into the sustainable design of an alternative. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities factor into reduced greenhouse gases. 6 Packet Pg. 41 City of Palo Alto Page 24 This task would evaluate how bike/ped facilities can be improved in relation to the grade separation alternatives. *The estimated scope and fee listed above for various studies is inclusive of work anticipated for all three crossings (Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road). In general, these costs are not directly proportional to the number of crossings. Depending upon the City Council direction, if a particular item needs exclusion from further study at any of the crossings, the scope will be reviewed and negotiated with the consultant. Next Steps • Staff will perform a detailed review of Churchill Avenue Crossing in the fall of this year including discussion on additional studies. • Following the City Council's review of alternatives in detail and information on the additional studies for all three crossings, staff will negotiate with AECOM Consultants, the final scope and fee for this additional work. Staff will then return to Council for approval of an amendment to the existing consultant contract for expanded scope of work needed to accomplish additional work. • Perform additional studies of selected alternatives as directed at each of the locations and bring back additional information for Council consideration. • Rail Committee to discuss the financial consideration. • Direct staff to prepare the initial Project Study Report (PSR) that provides the summary of actions and demonstrates the purpose, need, and provides the scope of the project which is necessary to complete studies and the work needed for project approval and environmental design. The selection of preferred alternatives will therefore lead to the development of preliminary engineering and preparation of environmental documents including the associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The completion of Environmental documents will better position the City to seek grant funding from Federal and State programs for such projects. Depending upon the timing and funding availability, after the approval of EIR, the project will move towards completion of final design documents and then followed by construction of project improvements. RESOURCE IMPACT Preliminary scope and cost estimates to conduct additional studies were developed for all three rail crossings (Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) for Council’s review and consideration for further staff direction. The recommendation to perform additional studies needed to select the preferred alternative will result in direct resource impact. Amendment to the Consultant Contract for performing these additional studies will be brought forward for Council approval. Funding for grade separation project of $2.3 million is programmed in the FY 2022 Adopted Capital Improvement Budget for Railroad Grade Separation Project (PL-17001) that includes 6 Packet Pg. 42 City of Palo Alto Page 25 funding from 2016 Measure B Local Streets and Roads. The anticipated costs of the all the studies for these crossings is estimated to range between $1.25 to $1.73 million. Funding for future years is subject to City Council approval through the annual budget process. Direction from the City Council regarding further work, outside those recommended in this report, on the grade separation projects may lead to future resource impacts. As City Council direction is provided, corresponding budget adjustments will be brought forward for approval as appropriate. Rail grade separation projects are historically funded by the General Capital Improvement Fund through funding sources such as Measure B, SB1 and in or through General Fund support. Additional funding allocations will need to be taken into consideration of competing needs and limited funding remaining as part of the general Capital Improvement Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed action is part of a planning study for a possible future action, which has not been approved, adopted, or funded and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. The future decision to approve the construction of any one of the identified potential alternatives would be subject to CEQA and require the preparation of an environmental analysis. Environmental review and design for the grade separation project will be performed in the subsequent steps of the project development. DOCUMENTS All of the project related documents are posted on the project webpage here: https://connectingpaloalto.com/. Here are direct links furthered for Council consideration and public information as part of this staff report: • Fact Sheets & Matrix • Renderings & Animations • Traffic Analysis Report • Noise & Vibration Report • Virtual Townhall Page XCAP Final Report & Appendix Appendix A contains Fact Sheets, Matrix, Renderings and Plans (created by AECOM). Appendix B contains general information. Appendix C contains XCAP materials. Due to file size limitations, the Appendix is broken into six parts: • XCAP Final Report Part 1: Appendix A-1 thru A-2-1 Part 2: Appendix A-2-2 (01-04) Part 3: Appendix A-2-2 (05-08) Part 4: Appendix A-2-3 thru A-6 6 Packet Pg. 43 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Part 5: Appendix B Part 6: Appendix C Attachments: • Attachment6.a: Exhibit A: Presentation for Grade Separation Project 6 Packet Pg. 44 City Council Study Session Connecting Palo Alto Rail Grade Separation Project August 23, 2021 www.cityofpaloalto.org1 6.a Packet Pg. 45 Discussion Outline §Introduction §Detailed Review of Meadow-Charleston Alternatives §Overview/Discussion on additional Studies §Summary & Recommendations §Public Comments §Councilmembers Question & Comments 2 6.a Packet Pg. 46 Purpose §Review and discuss additional studies that will help in furthering the selection of preferred alternative(s) for Meadow and Charleston grade separation. §Direct staff on the additional studies that staff should pursue to evaluate the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Grade crossings. §Following the City Council meeting tonight, staff recommends: 1.Review of Churchill Avenue Grade Crossing details and direction to staff for additional studies (September/October 2021). 2.To initiate contract amendment and finalize scope with Consultant to perform recommended additional work for all three crossings (October/November 2021) 3 6.a Packet Pg. 47 Review of Issues from Study Session §Detailed Design Review §Additional Studies for review: 4 §Track Review and Caltrain Coordination §Traffic Study Update (2040) §Design Refinement of Underpass Alternatives §Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations §Box Jacking System/Geotechnical Investigation & Feasibility Study §Shadow Analysis (Light Plane Review) §Additional Noise Study §Storm Drainage Infrastructure §Additional Outreach §Urban Designer §Conceptual Design for Ped/Bike Undercrossing At Seale And Loma Verde §Sustainability 6.a Packet Pg. 48 Meadow Charleston –Alternatives §Viaduct §Trench §Hybrid §Underpass 5 6.a Packet Pg. 49 Meadow –Charleston –Viaduct Plan and Profile 6 6.a Packet Pg. 50 Meadow –Charleston –Viaduct Rendering 7 6.a Packet Pg. 51 Meadow-Charleston –Trench Plan and Profile 8 6.a Packet Pg. 52 Meadow –Charleston –Trench Rendering 9 Looking South towards Meadow Drive 6.a Packet Pg. 53 Meadow -Charleston –Hybrid Plan and Profile 10 6.a Packet Pg. 54 Meadow Drive –Hybrid Layout 11 6.a Packet Pg. 55 Charleston Drive –Hybrid Layout 12 6.a Packet Pg. 56 Meadow –Charleston –Hybrid Rendering 13 6.a Packet Pg. 57 Meadow Drive –Underpass Layout Restricted Movements •Eastbound Right •Westbound Left •Northbound Left and Right (U-Turn at Alma Village) •Ped/Bike Crossings at 2nd Street on west side and Emerson Street on east side 14 6.a Packet Pg. 58 Meadow Drive Underpass Renderings 15 Looking North on Alma St Looking West on Meadow Dr 6.a Packet Pg. 59 Charleston –Underpass Layout Movements Accommodated via Roundabout: •Eastbound Left •Northbound Left •Southbound Right 16 6.a Packet Pg. 60 Charleston Road Underpass Renderings 17 Looking South on Alma St Looking West on Charleston Rd 6.a Packet Pg. 61 Question about the Noise Study §The noise report Table 5-1 is intended to provide a qualitative accounting of which proposed design alternatives would help reduce which noise sources. §Both Hybrid and Viaduct design alternatives are generally expected to reduce both wheel/rail and engine noise (with noted exceptions for diesel locomotive engine noise at second row receptors). §Noise reduction is due primarily to the presence of the 6-foot parapet noise barriers that are included as an integral part of those alternatives specifically to reduce wheel/rail and EMU engine noise. §The short/parapet noise barriers could be added as a stand only treatment for at grade trains, but even if they were, they would still create a wheel/rail and engine noise reduction for the hybrid and viaduct alternatives.However, switching to EMUs alone, or grade crossing closure alone, or underpass alternative alone, would not provide a notable reduction for wheel/rail noise 18 6.a Packet Pg. 62 Track Review and Caltrain Coordination 19 Scope of Work §Gather Data from Caltrain §Evaluate Alternatives §Meet with Caltrain §Prepare Memorandum Report §Determining if 4 tracks would not be precluded, as indicated in the Caltrain Business Plan, could potentially eliminate one or more alternatives. Preliminary Cost Estimate $ 90,000 –$ 110,000 6.a Packet Pg. 63 Traffic Study Update (2040) 20 Scope of Work §Model Land Use and Forecast §Traffic Calculations §Documentation §Since Palo Alto has not identified any growth beyond 2030, updating traffic volumes for 2040 land use would only affect zones outside of Palo Alto, and thus not make a significant difference to volumes in the project’s study area. Preliminary Cost Estimate $ 45,000 –$ 55,000 6.a Packet Pg. 64 Design Refinement of Underpass Alternatives 21 Scope of Work §Enhance Alternatives §Update Exhibits & Renderings §Update Cost Estimates §Update Miscellaneous Items §Documentation §Further study defines the alternatives in more detail and could provide additional information on the alternatives; however, this information may not help narrow the alternatives. Preliminary Cost Estimate $ 125,000 –$ 150,000 6.a Packet Pg. 65 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations 22 Scope of Work §Data Collection and Review –Groundwater and Geotechnical §Field Investigation –Two CPT Borings §Memorandum Report –Draft and Final §Geotech investigations are typically completed during the next phase; however, could confirm assumptions and unit costs, and could help determine if the box jacking method has some merit. Preliminary Cost Estimate $ 130,000 –$ 160,000 6.a Packet Pg. 66 Box Jacking System/Geotechnical Investigation & Feasibility Study 23 Scope of Work §Data Collection and Review –Groundwater and Geotechnical §Construction Methodology Evaluation §Construction Phasing / Sequencing §3D Animation §Cost Estimates & Memorandum Report §Relatively costly study since there are many aspects to consider (structural, geotechnical, groundwater, traffic impacts, etc.), and Caltrain would likely not review/endorse the construction method in this preliminary phase. In addition, there may not be cost savings realized with the Box Jacking System. Preliminary Cost Estimate $ 350,000 –$ 600,000 Geotech Preliminary: $ 125,000 –$ 150,000 Structural Analysis $230,00-$450,000 6.a Packet Pg. 67 Shadow Analysis (Light Plane Review) 24 Scope of Work §3D Model Development §Shadow Analysis §Study Documentation and Final Report §Visual impact studies are typically completed during the next phase; however, could help better understand one of the visual impacts of an elevated structure. Preliminary Cost Estimate $ 20,000 –$ 25,000 6.a Packet Pg. 68 Additional Noise Study 25 Scope of Work §Expand Study Area/Measurements: §Expand Analysis for Future Growth §Analyze Structural Noise/Vibration §Update Noise Study Report §Adding Caltrain’s long-term (2040) growth forecasts and the potential addition of substantial HSR activity to the analysis could cause some of the alternative recommendations to shift. Preliminary Cost Estimate $ 55,000 –$ 65,000 6.a Packet Pg. 69 Storm Drainage Infrastructure 26 Scope of Work §Evaluate Drainage for Trench Alternatives §Evaluate Drainage for Underpass Alternatives §Prepare Memorandum Report §Could further define the impacts related to creek crossings, pump stations and siphons; and could help to better define drainage costs for all alternatives. §Negotiations with the regulatory agencies for permit approvals to divert the creeks for the trench would be lengthy and challenging since there are other “least impacting” alternatives that could be considered. Preliminary Cost Estimate $ 200,000 –$250,000 6.a Packet Pg. 70 Additional Outreach 27 Scope of Work §Conduct Meetings with Additional Stakeholders §Prepare Meeting Notes §Could help gather feedback and refine some details, and thus make it easier to narrow the alternatives under consideration. Preliminary Cost Estimate $ 15,000 –$20,000 6.a Packet Pg. 71 Urban Design 28 Scope of Work §Urban Design / Public Realm Opportunity Mapping §Urban Design / Public Realm Design Enhancements §Meetings §Further study defines the alternatives in more detail and could provide additional information on the alternatives; however, this information may not help narrow the alternatives. §This task is typically performed after the selection of the preferred alternative. Preliminary Cost Estimate $ 100,000 –$125,000 6.a Packet Pg. 72 Conceptual Design for Ped/Bike Undercrossing At Seale And Loma Verde 29 Scope of Work §Conceptual Layouts §Cost Estimates §3D Renderings §Miscellaneous Public Outreach Materials §The City is expecting Seale and/or Loma Verde to be reviewed as part of the City’s Ped/Bike Transportation Plan update and these projects would be independent of the grade separation study. Preliminary Cost Estimate $ 80,000 –$100,000 6.a Packet Pg. 73 Sustainability 30 Scope of Work §Sustainability Strategy Plan §Bike/Ped Usage §This is typically completed during the next phase, and likely would not help narrow the alternatives. Preliminary Cost Estimate $ 50,000 –$80,000 6.a Packet Pg. 74 Summary of Additional Studies: Potential Prioritization High Medium Low Track Review and Caltrain Coordination Design Refinement of Underpass Alternatives Traffic Study Update (2040) Additional Outreach Preliminary Geotechnical Study Box Jacking System/Geotechnical Investigation & Feasibility Study Shadow Analysis (Light Plane Review)Urban Designer Additional Noise Study Conceptual Design for Ped/Bike Undercrossing At Seale And Loma Verde Storm Drainage Infrastructure Sustainability 31 6.a Packet Pg. 75 Council Action & Resulting Next Steps The goal is to provide grade separation and improve traffic safety and circulation across the Caltrain Corridor. Recognizing this goal, tonight staff is seeking Council direction to: 1)Possibly reduce the number of alternatives for further consideration 2)Provide direction on desired additional studies to help in further the selection of preferred alternative(s) for Meadow and Charleston grade separation Next Steps: The following are some of the potential items for consideration at the next Study Session: Ø Invite regional partners like Caltrain and Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) to discuss City Council’s concerns and questions Ø Perform additional studies of selected alternatives as directed at each of the locations and bring back additional information for Council consideration Ø Narrow the number of alternatives further for selection of preferred alternative(s) Ø Direct staff to prepare the Project Study Report 32 6.a Packet Pg. 76 33 6.a Packet Pg. 77