HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2506-4895
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: December 10, 2025
Report #:2506-4895
TITLE
Review and Selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) to proceed with 15% design and
Prepare CEQA and NEPA Documentation for the Grade Separations at Churchill Avenue,
Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings; CEQA status – CEQA and NEPA will be
conducted on this project as part of the upcoming scope of work.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council reviews and formally selects the Locally Preferred Alternatives
(LPA) to proceed with 15% design for the grade separations at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive,
and Charleston Road Crossings.
Of the two options presented for the bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue under the
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass Alternative, the Rail Committee unanimously recommended
advancing the Alma Street Ramp option and eliminating the Seale Avenue ramp option from
further consideration to the City Council.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In coordination with City staff, Caltrain has refined the conceptual designs for the partial
underpass alternative at Churchill Avenue, as well as the hybrid and underpass alternatives for
the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road grade separation projects. Additionally, Caltrain has
developed preliminary design concepts for the bike/ped crossing at Seale Avenue as part of the
Churchill Avenue grade separation.
These updates reflect direction from the City Council to reduce right-of-way impacts and
improve mobility as part of the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation
phase of the City of Palo Alto’s Grade Separation Project. An initial review of the revised
concepts was presented at the Rail Committee meeting on September 16, 2025. Two
community engagement workshops were also held on September 30, 2025, with more than 300
comments from community members considered to further refine the conceptual designs. The
Rail Committee reviewed updated materials on November 18, 2025 and recommended that, for
the Seale Avenue Undercrossing, City Council consider advancing the Alma Street Ramp option
and eliminate the Seale Avenue ramp option from further consideration. The Rail Committee
also recommended that City Council review both Hybrid and Underpass alternatives at Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road and to select a Locally Preferred Alternative to advance to the 15%
design phase. Previously, Council selected the partial underpass as the locally preferred
alternative at Churchill Avenue.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto’s rail corridor planning efforts commenced in 2010 with the Palo Alto Rail
Corridor Study, which was adopted by Council on January 22, 2013 (Staff Report # 3410 1). From
November 4, 2013, the City developed preliminary grade separation alternatives as part of the
Connecting Palo Alto project, which explored multiple options for the four at-grade rail crossing
locations of Charleston Road, Meadow Drive, Churchill Avenue, and Palo Alto Avenue. This
work resulted in a Rail Corridor Circulation Study and initial screening of ideas for various
alternatives that was reviewed by the Council on May 29, 2018 (Staff Report # 9284 2). In April
2018, in-depth analysis of engineering options continued, with review by the Rail Committee
and Rail Crossing Community Advisory Committee (XCAP). The XCAP completed its review and
presented recommendation to Council on March 23, 2021 (Staff Report 11797)3.
Since 2022, staff have secured grants from the Federal Rail Administration (FRA), California
State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Measure B program, and have continued to develop grade separation alternatives. In
consultation with the community, Rail Committee and Council, the City has refined project
alternatives for rail crossings at Charleston Road, Meadow Drive, and Churchill Avenue, while
the Palo Alto Avenue crossing was put on hold.
On June 10, 2024 (Staff Report # 2402-2957 4) and June 18, 2024 (Staff Report # 2406-3169 5),
Council selected the following alternatives to advance into the Conceptual Development phase
in preparation for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation:
•For Churchill Avenue, the Council selected the Partial Underpass as the Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA) with vehicle crossing at Churchill Avenue and pedestrian/bicycle
1 City Council, January 22, 2013; Item 7, Action Item, SR# 3410
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-
cmrs/year-archive/2013/railcorridor1_22.pdf
2 City Council, May 29, 2018; Item 7, Action Item, SR# 9284
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=2136
3 City Council, March 23, 2021; Item 1, Study Session Item, SR# 9284
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=2236
4 City Council, June 10, 2024; Item 13, Action Item, SR# 2402-2957
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=82879
5 City Council, June 18, 2024; Item AA3, Action Item, SR# 2406-3169
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=82944
crossing at Seale Avenue / Peers Park. Additionally, the Council identified the
Pedestrian/Bicycle Undercrossing at Churchill (aka Closure Alternative) as the backup
alternative if needed in the future for this location. (As directed by Council, the backup
alternative will not advance to preliminary engineering at this time.)
•For Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, the Council identified the Hybrid Underpass
and Underpass as the two alternatives to advance to Conceptual Design with
refinements to minimize right-of-way impacts and improve mobility at each location.
The preferred alternative for each location will advance to 35% Design. Constructability
concerns may require the City to implement grade separations in these two locations in
a coordinated manner.
Caltrain is leading the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase and
the City collaborates with Caltrain for project design and acts as the project sponsor. The City
has successfully secured $6 million in FRA Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) program funds
towards completing Preliminary Engineering (35%) and Environmental Documentation for
grade separations at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. In addition, on
December 9, 2024 (Staff Report # 2408-3322 6), City Council approved a Cooperative Agreement
with VTA for $14 million in Measure B Caltrain Grade Separation funding for this phase.
City Council also directed staff to refine the project concepts with a focus on minimizing
property impacts and enhancing mobility. To facilitate durable decision-making and expedited
refinement of the alternatives, the Project is divided into two steps:
•Preliminary Engineering Alternatives Design Refinements (15% Design), which is
anticipated to progress through Summer-2026; and
•Preliminary Engineering (35% Design) and Environmental Documentation under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), which is anticipated to conclude in Fall 2027.
Design refinement also includes estimation of project costs and evaluation of constructability
issues to support the selection of an LPA at each location, prior to progressing with 35% design
plans and environmental documents.
In consultation with City, Caltrain refined the alternatives for review by the Rail Committee on
September 16, 2025. The following refined alternatives were developed to minimize private
property impacts while maintaining and/or improving the traffic circulation and enhancing
pedestrian and bicycle crossings were shared at this meeting:
•Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass Alternative including the following elements that
have been further developed since June 2024 (as displayed in Attachment A):
o One northbound vehicular lane on the upper portion of Alma Street, which
6 City Council , December 9, 2024; Item 12, Consent Item, SR# 2408-3 322
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=37338&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto
connects to Churchill Avenue east of Alma Street. This represents a reduction
from the previously proposed 2-lane configuration.
o One northbound combined lane (northbound through and northbound left turn)
that is depressed approximately 22.5 to 29 feet below the current roadway
depending upon construction methods and bridge design, that connects with
Churchill Avenue for motor vehicles only.
o Seale Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle crossing to provide active transportation
access across the tracks 1,800-feet (four blocks) south of Churchill Avenue. This
crossing has two variants:
Seale Option 1: Seale Avenue Ramp
Seale Option 2: Alma Street Ramp
• Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Crossings include the following elements (as
displayed in Attachment B and C for Meadow and Charleston respectively):
o Hybrid Underpass at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, where the railway
tracks are elevated by 17 -19 ft and the roadway is depressed 4-6 ft.
o Underpass at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, where the tracks remain at
their existing elevation and Charleston Road or Meadow Drive is depressed 22.5
to 29 ft depending upon construction techniques and bridge design. The
Charleston Road Underpass has two variants:
Charleston Underpass Option 1: 1-lane Roundabout where drivers
traveling from northbound Alma Street to westbound Charleston turn
right and make a u-turn at a new roundabout 630 feet east of the
interchange to travel westbound on Charleston Road.
Charleston Underpass Option 2: Direct Access Ramp where drivers
traveling from northbound Alma Street to westbound Charleston turn left
at a new lower-level traffic signalized intersection connecting with the
depressed portion of Charleston Road.
o Combination: Hybrid Alternative at Meadow Drive and Underpass Alternative at
Charleston Road.
ANALYSIS
Staff conducted community engagement to gather feedback on the refined concept
alternatives. In addition to in-person meetings, community members were invited to submit
comments via the project website. Staff also conducted outreach to the Palo Alto Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PABAC) Grade Separation Ad Hoc Group and Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) staff to provide project updates and collect their input.
The project received a total of approximately 335 comments through community meetings,
email submissions, and project website. All feedback comments were compiled in a
spreadsheet for review. The following themes were identified from the comments:
• Property Impacts
• Traffic Impacts
• Cost and Funding
• Safety for Students and Access to Schools
• Active Transportation
• Construction Impacts
• Aesthetics and Visual Impacts
• Equitable Engagement
The top themes identified via community engagement for each alternative are described below:
Churchill Avenue
• Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass
o Active Transportation: Respondents suggested prioritizing walkability, bikeability
and school access by providing landscaped buffers, and direct, accessible routes for
pedestrians and cyclists, especially to schools. Respondents also requested ADA-
compliant ramps, improved lighting, and high visibility crossings to enhance safe,
convenient travel for all users.
o Traffic Speed and Volume: Respondents desired design measures to discourage
speeding and increased traffic volumes on Alma Street, including lane reductions
and new or adjusted traffic signals to improve safety and access. Some community
members expressed concern that widening Alma may increase traffic volumes, while
others noted that changes to this major corridor could affect walkability.
o Access to Schools: Respondents desired expressed a desire for direct school routes.
Respondents expressed concern that longer or more complex paths may lead
students to use roadways with cars such as Alma.
• Seale Avenue Ramp
o Active Transportation: Respondents suggested green markings where the bike ramp
meets Seale, raised crosswalks, ADA compliant slopes and lighting. Respondents also
asked to keep bikes and pedestrians separated and to slow cyclists on ramps.
o Parking and Traffic Impact: Respondents expressed concern about parking impacts
on Seale as well as implications of the ramp on route choices to and from Alma for
abutting residents in terms of potential detours, one-way movements and U turns.
o Property Access: Respondents expressed concern about loss of on-street parking for
residents, driveway maneuvering space, and requested information on the number
of dwellings affected—not just parcels (since this street has many multi-dwelling
parcels); and ripple effects on visitors, deliveries, and seniors/ADA access along
Seale.
• Alma Street Ramp
o Active Transportation: Respondents asked for clarification on how the Alma Ramp
would work for bicyclists and pedestrians including level of visibility at conflict
points, lighting, ADA grades, mirrors, and overall comfort.
o Traffic Impact: Respondents expressed concern about intersection operations such
as the ability to make turns to and from Alma Street
o Safety for Students: Respondents were concerned that students may dislike tunnels,
and that unsafe facilities could push families toward driving—increasing traffic
volume and safety concerns; they also requested attention to lighting and
consideration of student travel patterns.
Meadow Drive
• Hybrid
o Construction Impacts: Respondents requested more information on construction
impacts for residents along Alma Street including duration and extent of night work
and detours, and mitigation planned to address construction impacts.
o Aesthetics and Visual Impact: Respondents expressed concern about a new retaining
wall including visual quality, height, and design treatment.
o Active Transportation: Some respondents favored this option based on a preference
for direct routes for bike and pedestrian facilities and routes but requested more
specifics on lane width, buffers, crossing treatments, and how grades and turns
affect comfort.
• Underpass
o Active Transportation: Some respondents favored this option based on a preference
for more protected bicycle and pedestrian routes.
o Traffic Impacts: Respondents expressed concern about inconvenience and delays to
motorists, particularly regarding lane configuration, turn restrictions, and detours
that impact traffic on surrounding streets.
o Property Impacts: Respondents requested information on the number of dwellings
affected by property impacts, and not just the number of parcels.
o Construction Impacts: Respondents were concerned about construction impacts
such as road closures, noise, and disruptions to daily life, and they requested
information on the duration of construction impacts.
Charleston Road
• Hybrid
o Property Impacts: Respondents generally expressed a preference for this option
relative to the Underpass due to the lower level of potential property acquisitions.
o Cost and Funding: Many respondents noted that this option has lower construction
costs.
o Traffic Impacts: Respondents also noted that this option minimizes traffic
disruptions and preserves neighborhood circulation.
o Active Transportation: Some respondents expressed support for the direct routes for
the bike and pedestrian facilities and routes but requested more specifics on lane
width, buffers, crossing treatments, and how grades/turns affect comfort.
• Underpass – Roundabout
o Traffic Impacts: Respondents expressed concern about the circulation of traffic
including increased traffic volume and lower convenience for motorists associated
with circuitous maneuvers through the intersection.
o Active Transportation: Respondents requested additional information on bicycle and
pedestrian routes, including connectivity, facility design, usability and comfort.
o Property Impacts: Respondents expressed concern about property impacts and
requested more detailed information on the number of dwellings affected and size
of partial acquisitions needed (in terms of a percentage of property footprint).
• Underpass – Direct Access Ramp
o Construction Impacts: Respondents expressed concern about construction duration,
road closures, noise, and disruption to daily life.
o Active Transportation: Respondents expressed an interest in safe, direct, and
accessible bicycle and pedestrian routes.
Refinements to Alternatives
Based on community input and technical analysis, the project team clarified active
transportation routes and design elements such as the height of walls or tracks. Updated
alternative plans are provided in
• Attachment A for Churchill Avenue Crossing (including the Seale Avenue pedestrian and
bicycle crossing),
• Attachment B for Meadow Drive Crossing (Hybrid and Underpass alternatives), and
• Attachment C for Charleston Road Crossing (Hybrid and Underpass alternatives).
In response to questions from community members, the team also developed additional
renderings (including a Hybrid variant for Charleston and Meadow with columns). A traffic
study was also conducted and is included in Attachment D and initial estimates of potential
property impacts are included in Attachment E. Updates to construction costs, more precise
data on potential property impacts, and additional details on construction impacts will be
addressed during the 15% design phase. Furthermore, detailed review of individual property
title reports will occur during the 35% design phase and environmental documentation phase.
The updates to the preliminary designs reflect direction from the City Council to reduce right-
of-way impacts and improve mobility that would inform Council further into the decision
making for selection of Locally Preferred Alternative at each crossing.
Rail Committee Review and Recommendation
An initial review of the revised alternatives was presented at the Rail Committee meeting on
September 16, 2025. Public outreach workshops were also held on September 30, 2025, with
strong community participation. The project received more than 300 comments from
community members. These comments were compiled and used to further refine the
alternatives.
Rail Committee then reviewed updated materials on November 18, 2025. For Seale Avenue
Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing, Rail Committee recommended that City Council consider
advancing the Alma Street Ramp option and eliminate the Seale Avenue ramp option from
further consideration.
For the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings, Rail Committee also recommended that
City Council review alternatives and select a Locally Preferred Alternative to advance to 15%
design. Council has previously selected the partial underpass alternative at Churchill Avenue
crossing as the locally preferred alternative.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The action requested—advancing the selected grade separation alternatives to the 15% design
as part of the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase—is fully
funded with $20 million in secured external funds. These funds consist of a $6 million Federal
Rail Administration (FRA) Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) grant and a $14 million Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Measure B Grade Separation Funding Cooperative
Agreement, which Council approved on December 9, 2024.
Appropriations for this work are included in the FY 2026 Adopted Capital Budget, with future
costs programmed in the FY 2026-2030 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), as capital projects PL-
24000 (Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) and PL-24001 (Churchill Avenue Rail Grade
Separation and Safety Improvements). The secured $20 million is programmed to cover the
costs of this 15% design phase as well as the subsequent 35% Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Documentation phase. Therefore, this item has no new fiscal impact.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Rail Committee meetings and City Council sessions are open to the public, offering
community members an opportunity to share comments directly with Committee and staff.
Regular project updates are presented during these meetings.
Since the last presentation to Rail Committee, staff has hosted two outreach meetings on
September 30, 2025—one focused on Churchill Avenue (including the Seale Avenue crossing)
and the other on Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings—to gather community input
and feedback. Updated plans, renderings, meeting materials, and videos are available on the
project website. Community members were also invited to provide additional feedback through
comment forms at the meetings and on the project website.
Staff also engaged and conducted meetings with the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory
Committee’s (PABAC) Rail Grade Separation Subcommittee on October 10, 2025, as well as
PAUSD staff on October 16, 2025, to gather further input. PABAC will also review the project at
its special meeting on December 2, 2025, for a formal recommendation to Council.
To reach a wide cross section and help spread awareness of these engagement opportunities,
staff also used social media, onsite signage, digital ads, and other communication channels.
Meeting invitations were also sent to a range of stakeholders, including neighborhood groups,
business associations, the school district, Stanford University, and various City committees
Continued progress on refining and narrowing project alternatives will provide greater certainty
for property owners throughout this multi-year planning process. For example, staff were
recently approached by a property owner potentially impacted by a design alternative who
expressed interest in selling their property to the City. However, the City is not yet able to use
project funds for property acquisition at this stage in project development. Such an action
would require approval from both Council and funding partners.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase of the grade separation
project includes environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The environmental review is
anticipated to begin in fall of 2026.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Attachment D – Traffic Study Memorandum (LINK)
Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
APPROVED BY:
Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official
1445 ALMA
105 CHURCHILL 102 CHURCHILL
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
1415 ALMA
1433 ALMA
1435 ALMA
1437 ALMA
106 KELLOGG
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
103 KELLOGG
1.
7
±
F
T
0.3± FT
1425 ALMA
1427 ALMA
1429 ALMA
1431 ALMA
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
102 CHURCHILL
2.
5
±
F
T
1525 ALMA
1541 ALMA
1543 ALMA
1545 ALMA
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
96 CHURCHILL
1.8± FT
1551 ALMA 1555 ALMA 109 COLERIDGE
102 COLERIDGE
1635 ALMA
1645 ALMA
1647 ALMA
1649 ALMA
1651 ALMA
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
F
T
M
A
X
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
105 CHURCHILL 102 CHURCHILL106 KELLOGG
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
103 KELLOGG
5.1
±
F
T
1.7
±
F
T
1.5
±
F
T
3.5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
105 CHURCHILL 102 CHURCHILL106 KELLOGG
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
103 KELLOGG
5.1
±
F
T
1.7
±
F
T
1.5
±
F
T
3.5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
102 CHURCHILL
96 CHURCHILL
1.8± FT
109 COLERIDGE
102 COLERIDGE
1.7
±
F
T
2.9
±
F
T
1.7
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
1.
1
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
3.
9
±
F
T
0.
9
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
151 SEALE 143 SEALE 135 SEALE 125 SEALE
127 SEALE
129 SEALE
119 SEALE
121 SEALE
123 SEALE
109 SEALE
113 SEALE
103 SEALE
105 SEALE
107 SEALE
152 SEALE 150 SEALE 134 SEALE
136 SEALE
126 SEALE
128 SEALE
130 SEALE
120 SEALE 110 SEALE
112 SEALE
114 SEALE
102 SEALE
104 SEALE
106 SEALE
Feet
0 15 30
NO
R
T
H
1685 MARIPOSA
1677 MARIPOSA
1851 ALMA
2.
7
±
F
T
7.
1
±
F
T
3.
0
±
F
T
8.3± FT
103 SEALE AVE
105 SEALE AVE
107 SEALE AVE
3,250± SF
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
4101 PARK
24.7± FT
22
.
4
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
4097 PARK
150 W MEADOW
2.2± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
3553 ALMA
171 E MEADOW
48 ROOSEVELT
46 ROOSEVELT
44 ROOSEVELT
5.1± FT
9.9± FT
9.6± FT
3.9± FT
1.3± FT
1.3± FT
2.3± FT
8.9± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
4201 PARK
4195 PARK
33.7± FT
38
.
1
±
F
T
29.2± FT
30
.
5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
3781 STARR KING
3783 STARR KING
256 E CHARLESTON
242 E CHARLESTON
15.0
±
F
T
36
.
7
±
F
T
13.2± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
3711 STARR KING
3709 STARR KING
3707 STARR KING
3705 STARR KING
3703 STARR KING
3701 STARR KING
126 E CHARLESTON
102 E CHARLESTON 110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
46.6± FT
35
.
1
±
F
T
39.
4
±
F
T
29
.
6
±
F
T
20.2
±
F
T
16.0± FT
19.8
±
F
T
17.2± FT
18.4± FT
19.7±
F
T
11.0± FT
0.9± FT
3.2± FT
20.
9
±
F
T
11
.
7
±
F
T
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
250 W CHARLESTON
240 W CHARLESTON
220 W CHARLESTON
4195 PARK
4201 RUTHELMA
285 CHARLESTON
275 CHARLESTON
265 CHARLESTON
4200 PARK 4201 PARK
2.
4
9
±
F
T
12
.
7
4
±
F
T
12
.
5
8
±
F
T
1.
5
8
±
F
T
9.
1
5
±
F
T
12
.
0
7
±
F
T
10
.
4
5
±
F
T
1.
2
6
±
F
T
8.
0
3
±
F
T
12
.
5
3
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40NO
R
T
H
110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
145 LUNDY 137 LUNDY 129 LUNDY
109 ELY
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
10
.
7
±
F
T
9.
1
±
F
T
7.
2
±
F
T
4.
5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
1.0± FT
4.0± FT
3785 STARR KING
3787 STARR KING
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
3711 STARR KING
3709 STARR KING
3707 STARR KING
3705 STARR KING
3703 STARR KING
3701 STARR KING
126 E CHARLESTON
102 E CHARLESTON 110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
46.6± FT
35
.
1
±
F
T
39.
4
±
F
T
29
.
6
±
F
T
20.2
±
F
T
16.0± FT
19.8
±
F
T
17.2± FT
18.4± FT
19.7±
F
T
11.0± FT
0.9± FT
3.2± FT
20.
9
±
F
T
11
.
7
±
F
T
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
250 W CHARLESTON
240 W CHARLESTON
220 W CHARLESTON
4195 PARK
4201 RUTHELMA
285 CHARLESTON
275 CHARLESTON
265 CHARLESTON
4200 PARK 4201 PARK
2.
4
9
±
F
T
12
.
7
4
±
F
T
12
.
5
8
±
F
T
1.
5
8
±
F
T
9.
1
5
±
F
T
12
.
0
7
±
F
T
10
.
4
5
±
F
T
1.
2
6
±
F
T
8.
0
3
±
F
T
12
.
5
3
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40NO
R
T
H
110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
145 LUNDY 137 LUNDY 129 LUNDY
109 ELY
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
10
.
7
±
F
T
9.
1
±
F
T
7.
2
±
F
T
4.
5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Attachment D: Draft Traffic Analysis Memorandum Link
1445 ALMA
105 CHURCHILL 102 CHURCHILL
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
1415 ALMA
1433 ALMA
1435 ALMA
1437 ALMA
106 KELLOGG
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
103 KELLOGG
1.
7
±
F
T
0.3± FT
1425 ALMA
1427 ALMA
1429 ALMA
1431 ALMA
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
102 CHURCHILL
2.
5
±
F
T
1525 ALMA
1541 ALMA
1543 ALMA
1545 ALMA
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
96 CHURCHILL
1.8± FT
1551 ALMA 1555 ALMA 109 COLERIDGE
102 COLERIDGE
1635 ALMA
1645 ALMA
1647 ALMA
1649 ALMA
1651 ALMA
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
F
T
M
A
X
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
105 CHURCHILL 102 CHURCHILL106 KELLOGG
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
103 KELLOGG
5.1
±
F
T
1.7
±
F
T
1.5
±
F
T
3.5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
102 CHURCHILL
96 CHURCHILL
1.8± FT
109 COLERIDGE
102 COLERIDGE
1.7
±
F
T
2.9
±
F
T
1.7
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
1.
1
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
3.
9
±
F
T
0.
9
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
151 SEALE 143 SEALE 135 SEALE 125 SEALE
127 SEALE
129 SEALE
119 SEALE
121 SEALE
123 SEALE
109 SEALE
113 SEALE
103 SEALE
105 SEALE
107 SEALE
152 SEALE 150 SEALE 134 SEALE
136 SEALE
126 SEALE
128 SEALE
130 SEALE
120 SEALE 110 SEALE
112 SEALE
114 SEALE
102 SEALE
104 SEALE
106 SEALE
Feet
0 15 30
NO
R
T
H
1685 MARIPOSA
1677 MARIPOSA
1851 ALMA
2.
7
±
F
T
7.
1
±
F
T
3.
0
±
F
T
8.3± FT
103 SEALE AVE
105 SEALE AVE
107 SEALE AVE
3,250± SF
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
4101 PARK
24.7± FT
22
.
4
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
4097 PARK
150 W MEADOW
2.2± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
3553 ALMA
171 E MEADOW
48 ROOSEVELT
46 ROOSEVELT
44 ROOSEVELT
5.1± FT
9.9± FT
9.6± FT
3.9± FT
1.3± FT
1.3± FT
2.3± FT
8.9± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
4201 PARK
4195 PARK
33.7± FT
38
.
1
±
F
T
29.2± FT
30
.
5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
3781 STARR KING
3783 STARR KING
256 E CHARLESTON
242 E CHARLESTON
15.0
±
F
T
36
.
7
±
F
T
13.2± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
3711 STARR KING
3709 STARR KING
3707 STARR KING
3705 STARR KING
3703 STARR KING
3701 STARR KING
126 E CHARLESTON
102 E CHARLESTON 110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
46.6± FT
35
.
1
±
F
T
39.
4
±
F
T
29
.
6
±
F
T
20.2
±
F
T
16.0± FT
19.8
±
F
T
17.2± FT
18.4± FT
19.7±
F
T
11.0± FT
0.9± FT
3.2± FT
20.
9
±
F
T
11
.
7
±
F
T
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
250 W CHARLESTON
240 W CHARLESTON
220 W CHARLESTON
4195 PARK
4201 RUTHELMA
285 CHARLESTON
275 CHARLESTON
265 CHARLESTON
4200 PARK 4201 PARK
2.
4
9
±
F
T
12
.
7
4
±
F
T
12
.
5
8
±
F
T
1.
5
8
±
F
T
9.
1
5
±
F
T
12
.
0
7
±
F
T
10
.
4
5
±
F
T
1.
2
6
±
F
T
8.
0
3
±
F
T
12
.
5
3
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40NO
R
T
H
110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
145 LUNDY 137 LUNDY 129 LUNDY
109 ELY
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
10
.
7
±
F
T
9.
1
±
F
T
7.
2
±
F
T
4.
5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
1.0± FT
4.0± FT
3785 STARR KING
3787 STARR KING
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
3711 STARR KING
3709 STARR KING
3707 STARR KING
3705 STARR KING
3703 STARR KING
3701 STARR KING
126 E CHARLESTON
102 E CHARLESTON 110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
46.6± FT
35
.
1
±
F
T
39.
4
±
F
T
29
.
6
±
F
T
20.2
±
F
T
16.0± FT
19.8
±
F
T
17.2± FT
18.4± FT
19.7±
F
T
11.0± FT
0.9± FT
3.2± FT
20.
9
±
F
T
11
.
7
±
F
T
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
250 W CHARLESTON
240 W CHARLESTON
220 W CHARLESTON
4195 PARK
4201 RUTHELMA
285 CHARLESTON
275 CHARLESTON
265 CHARLESTON
4200 PARK 4201 PARK
2.
4
9
±
F
T
12
.
7
4
±
F
T
12
.
5
8
±
F
T
1.
5
8
±
F
T
9.
1
5
±
F
T
12
.
0
7
±
F
T
10
.
4
5
±
F
T
1.
2
6
±
F
T
8.
0
3
±
F
T
12
.
5
3
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40NO
R
T
H
110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
145 LUNDY 137 LUNDY 129 LUNDY
109 ELY
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
10
.
7
±
F
T
9.
1
±
F
T
7.
2
±
F
T
4.
5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
City of Palo Alto
Grade Separation Project
Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive,
and Charleston Road
City Council Meeting
December 10, 2025
Funded by:
Project Team
Ripon Bhatia
Senior Engineer
Ria Ria Hutabarat Lo
Chief Transportation Official
Receive community engagement update
Review each alternative with considerations and
community feedback
Action: Determine which alternatives to advance to 15%
Meeting Purpose
2
Project Site
Project Site
Project Site
City Council Direction: Crossing Prioritization
6
Motion approved to prioritize addressing the
Charleston Road and East Meadow Drive
crossing over other grade separation
alternatives being considered and studied.
Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road
November 2021
City Council Direction: Alternatives for Refinement
7
Motion approved to advance Hybrid (including mixed wall/column approach) and Underpass alternatives into the Preliminary
Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase.
Council requested updates through the alternatives’ refinements (during 15% design) with opportunities to change
course and refocus on one option, if desired.
June 2024
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road
Meadow
Drive
Charleston
Road
City Council Direction: Alternatives for Refinement
8
Locally Preferred Alternative
(Includes Seale Bike/Ped Crossing)
Bike/Ped Crossing
Backup
Motion approved to recommend Seale Avenue as the
Bicycle and Pedestrian crossing location for the
Partial Underpass Alternative at Churchill Avenue to
advance into the Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Documentation phase, with the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing (Street Closure)
alternative as a backup.
Churchill Avenue
June 2024
City Council Direction for Refinement
9
Improve safety
Improve mobility and
minimize congestion
Establish project footprint for
environmental clearance &
minimize environmental impacts
Minimize potential private
property impacts
Current Project Phase
10
2025 2026 2027
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Preliminary Engineering and Environmental
35% Design and Environmental 15% DesignAlternative Development
and Refinement
Funding
Total: $20 Million (VTA Measure B = $14 M + FRA Rail Crossing Elimination = $6 M)
Deadline: Complete 35% Design and Environmental Documentation by the end of 2027
December: Receive direction from
City Council on which alternatives to
advance to 15% Design.
Community Engagement
11
914 Mailers sent to residents/owners
Social Media Blasts Promoted project via Palo Alto Weekly
6 Lawn Signs placed
Email blasts to
Neighborhood
Associations
9/30: Two Community Meetings +
Online Feedback
•Presentation and interactive workshop
Community Engagement
12
300+
Comments
100+
Attendees for
both meetings
Traffic Impacts
Active Transportation (Safety,
Connectivity, and ADA Accessibility)
Property Impacts
Safety for Students
Aesthetics and Visual Impacts
Costs and Funding
Construction Impacts
Access to Schools
Feedback Themes Across All Alternatives
13
September 16 and November 18: Rail Committee presentations
October 10: Met with Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
(PABAC) Grade Separation Ad-Hoc Committee
October 16: Met with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
December 2: PABAC presentation
Sent 900+ mailers for December 10 City Council meeting
Additional Engagement
14
Summary of Alternatives
15
Roundabout Direct Access
Ramp
OP
T
I
O
N
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
CR
O
S
S
I
N
G
Meadow Drive Charleston Road
HYBRID UNDERPASS HYBRID UNDERPASS
With
Landscape
Strip
Without
Landscape
Strip
Seale Avenue
Ramp
Alma Street
Ramp
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
Churchill Avenue
Vehicle Crossing Bike/Ped Crossing
Technical Content Flow
16
2. Plan Views1. Renderings 3. Considerations
Construction
Community Feedback
Property Impacts
Traffic and Circulation
Considerations to Advance Selected Alternatives to 15%
17
Traffic and
Circulation
Active
Transportation
Potential
Property
Impacts
Construction
Based on City Council direction, Rail Committee feedback, and key community engagement themes
Community
Feedback
Churchill Avenue
18
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
19
DRAFT
Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass
(Looking south on Alma Street – with landscape strip between curb and sidewalk)
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
2
1
Palo
Alto
High
School
4
3
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
20
DRAFT
Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass
(Looking south on Alma Street – no landscape strip between curb and sidewalk)
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
2
1
Palo
Alto
High
School
4
3
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
21
Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass
(shown with landscape strip between curb and sidewalk)
DRAFT
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
ME
L
V
I
L
L
E
A
V
E
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
2
3
CH
U
R
C
H
I
L
L
A
V
E
CASTILLEJA AVE
MARIPOSA AVE
ALMA ST
KE
L
L
O
G
G
A
V
E
CH
U
R
C
H
I
L
L
A
V
E
1
ALMA ST
CO
L
E
R
I
D
G
E
A
V
E
4
•Intersection Delay is average time
cars are stopped at intersection
(seconds per vehicle)
•Level of Service (LOS) is a letter
grade, A to F, summarizing the delay
that a driver experiences at an
intersection
•LOS A to D is considered acceptable
•LOS E is considered acceptable in urban
areas
Preliminary Traffic Results
22
Preliminary Intersection Traffic Results
23
Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass
Signalized
Intersection
AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay (Level of Service)
PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay (Level of Service)
2025
2025
with Partial
Underpass
2040
with Partial
Underpass
2025
2025
with Partial
Underpass
2040
with Partial
Underpass
Alma Street at
Churchill Avenue 30.0 (C)--39.7 (D)--
Alma Street at
Churchill Avenue
(Lower)
-12.9 (B) 14.4 (B)-15.4 (B)19.1 (B)
Turning Movements
Allowed
Not Allowed
Lower Alma St
Upper Alma St
Lower Alma St
Upper Alma St
Without Landscape Strip
Partial: 7 Parcels* (8 Dwelling Units)
Mostly intersection corners for ADA ramps
Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass
24
With Landscape Strip
Partial: 17 Parcels* (29 Dwelling Units)
Potential Property Acquisition
*Count does not include Palo Alto High School
Construction Considerations
25
Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass with and without Landscape Strip
•Bike/ped crossing built first to maintain access high school
•Method TBD – Proceeding by assuming box jacking and no shoofly
•Utility relocation, including potential undergrounding of electrical
•Phasing for maintenance of traffic, retaining walls & bridge construction
•Alma Street may be reduced to one lane during construction
•Soil export from site
Community Feedback
26
Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass with and without Landscape Strip
•Prioritize student access and safety.
•Include a physical buffer for walkability and perceived safety along Alma Street.
•Calm Alma Street traffic while preserving practical neighborhood access and egress.
•Provide clarity of potential property impacts including driveway, sidewalk, and planter strip
changes.
Seale Avenue
Bike/Pedestrian Crossing
of Churchill Avenue
Partial Underpass
27
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
28
Seale Avenue – Seale Avenue Ramp
This rendering is shown for
illustrative purposes only.
DRAFT
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
Ramp
to/from
Tunnel
Ramp
to/from
Tunnel
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
1
2
3
4
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
29
Seale Avenue – Seale Avenue Ramp
This rendering is shown for illustrative purposes only.
DRAFT
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
1
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
30
Seale Avenue – Seale Avenue Ramp
This rendering is shown for illustrative purposes only.
DRAFT
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
4
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
DRAFT
Seale Avenue – Seale Avenue Ramp
31
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
2
3
1
4
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS Seale Avenue – Alma Street Ramp
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
Ramp
to/from
TunnelRamp
to/from
Tunnel
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
1
2
3
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS Seale Avenue – Alma Street Ramp
Ramp
to/from
Tunnel
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
1
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
DRAFT
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS Seale Avenue – Alma Street Ramp
Ramp
to/from
Tunnel
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
3
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
DRAFT
Seale Avenue – Alma Street Ramp
35
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
2
3
1
Alma Street Ramp
Partial: 4 Parcels (15 Dwelling Units)
Note: Peers Park entrance closer to Palo Alto High School
Seale Avenue Ramp
Partial: 14 Parcels (28 Dwelling Units)
Note: Removes Seale Avenue on-street parking & trees
36
Seale Avenue – Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing
Potential Property Acquisition
Construction Considerations
37
Alma Street Ramp
•Potential temporary lane closures on Alma Street (extents dependent on construction method)
•Temporary disruption of utility services to Alma Street homes for utility relocation
Seale Avenue Ramp
•Temporary interruption of access to Seale Ave
homes
•Temporary disruption of utility services to Seale Ave
homes for utility relocation
•Changes to dog park and removal of large trees
Seale Avenue – Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing
•Utility relocations
•Construction of tunnel from Peers Park to Seale Avenue
•May require sewer pump station
Community Feedback
38
Seale Avenue – Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing
Alma Street Ramp
•Concern regarding bike/vehicle conflict at
intersection; opportunity for delineation & sightline
improvements
•More direct route to Paly
•Fewer property and parking impacts
Seale Avenue Ramp
•Loss of on-street parking; driveway conflicts
•Tree removal concerns
•Concern regarding student use of tunnel given California Ave and Embarcadero Rd facilities
•Wall/tunnel heights; interest in design/landscape treatments
•Provide more user-specific views/context of the crossing
Seale Avenue Ramp Alma Street Ramp
Traffic & Circulation
•Driveway turning restrictions on Seale
•More bike/ped traffic to Peers Park & Paly
•More bike/ped traffic on Seale & Peers Park
Active
Transportation
•Tunnel under Alma and tracks
•Peers Park entrance closer to high school
•Tunnel under Alma and tracks
•Direct access to Peers Park
•Connects closer to Palo Alto High School
Potential Property
Impacts
Potential Acquisitions:
•Partial: 14 Parcels (28 Dwelling Units)
Potential Acquisitions:
•Partial: 4 Parcels (15 Dwelling Units)
Construction
Both:
•Relocation of utilities
•Construction of tunnel from Peers Park to Seale Avenue
•May require sewer pump station
•Potential interruption of access to Seale Ave homes
•Removal of dog park and large trees
•Potential temporary lane closures on Alma Street
Seale Avenue: Considerations Summary
39
Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road
40
HYBRID
41
DRAFT
Meadow Drive – HybridHYBRIDHYBRID
2
1
3
HYBRID
42
DRAFT
Meadow Drive – HybridHYBRID
2
3
1
UNDERPASS
43
DRAFT
Meadow Drive – UnderpassUNDERPASSUNDERPASS
1
5
4
6
3
2
UNDERPASS
44
DRAFT
Meadow Drive – UnderpassUNDERPASS
PARK BLVD PARK BLVD
ALMA STALMA ST
EMERSON ST
2
3
1
4
5
6
Preliminary Intersection Traffic Results
45
Meadow Drive
Signalized
Intersection
AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay (Level of Service)
PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay (Level of Service)
2025 Hybrid Underpass 2025 Hybrid Underpass
2025 2040 2025 2040 2025 2040 2025 2040
Alma Street at
Meadow Drive 41.7 (D)34.6 (C)40.4 (D)--62.6 (E)37.9 (D)49.8 (D)--
Alma Street at
Meadow Drive
(Lower)
---9.9 (A)12.9 (B)---9.8 (A)12.5 (B)
Turning Movements
Allowed
Not Allowed
Via Out-of-Direction Travel
Alma St Alma St Alma St Alma St
Underpass
Full:
2 Parcels
(16 Dwelling Units)
Partial:
6 Parcels/Dwelling Units
Hybrid
Partial:
1 Parcel/Dwelling Unit
46
Meadow Drive
Potential Property Acquisition
Construction Considerations
47
Underpass
•Currently assuming box jacking (no shoofly)
•Temporary closure of Park Blvd at Meadow Dr;
Alma St may temporarily reduce to one lane
•More utilities relocations and interruptions; sewer
pump station
•Phased work for retaining walls & bridges
•Soil export from site
Hybrid
•Shoofly anticipated
•Potential for phased approach to mitigate traffic
impacts to Alma Street
•Fewer utility relocations and interruptions
•Soil import into and export out of site
Meadow Drive
•Temporary or full closure of Meadow Drive crossing during construction
•Temporary lane closures on Alma Street (extents dependent on construction method)
•Utility relocation and temporary disruption of utility services; major sewer line relocation
Community Feedback
48
Underpass
•Steep grades, long ramps, tight turns for bikes/wheelchairs
•Turn restrictions, indirect routes, spillover to Alma, Park, Los Robles
•Indirect travel for southbound trips from the intersection
Hybrid
•Comfortable walking/biking
(grades, ramps, lighting)
•Consider mixed wall/column treatments
Meadow Drive
•Minimize property acquisitions
•Concern over construction period impacts (closures, noise, disruptions)
•Avoid graffiti-prone concrete; include landscaping and shade
Hybrid Underpass
Traffic & Circulation
•Adds left-turn lanes
•Traffic operations similar to existing and future
•All movements are maintained
•Disconnects Park Blvd (south of Park & Meadow intersection)
•Improved traffic operations for existing and future with less
movements
Active Transportation •Added bicycle queuing area on westbound Meadow Dr
•Sidewalks and on-street bike lanes
•Dedicated multi-use path and pedestrian bridges
Potential Property
Impacts
Potential Acquisition:
•Partial: 1 Parcel/Dwelling Unit
Potential Acquisitions:
•Full: 2 Parcels (16 Dwelling Units)
•Partial: 6 Parcels/Dwelling Units
Construction
•Temporary or full closure of Meadow Drive crossing during construction
•Temporary lane closures on Alma Street (extents dependent on construction method)
•Utility relocation and temporary disruption of utility services; major sewer line relocation
•Shoofly anticipated
•Potential for phased approach to mitigate traffic impacts
to Alma Street
•Fewer utility relocations and interruptions
•Soil import to site
•Currently assuming box jacking (no shoofly)
•Temporary closure of Park Blvd at Meadow Dr; Alma St may
temporarily reduce to one lane
•More utilities relocations and interruptions; sewer pump station
•Phased work for retaining walls & bridges
•Soil export from site
Meadow Drive: Considerations Summary
49
HYBRID
50
Charleston Road – HybridHYBRIDHYBRID
DRAFT
3
2
1
HYBRID
DRAFT
51
Charleston Road – HybridHYBRID
1
2
3
UNDERPASS
52
UNDERPASSUNDERPASSUNDERPASS Charleston Road – Underpass
Roundabout
UNDERPASS
1
2
3
5
4
UNDERPASS
DRAFT
53
UNDERPASS Charleston Road – Underpass
Roundabout
PARK BLVD
PARK BLVD
ALMA STGR
E
E
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
W
A
Y
MUMFORD PL
1
2 3
4
UNDERPASS
DRAFT
UNDERPASSUNDERPASS Charleston Road – Underpass
Direct Access Ramp
UNDERPASS
1
UNDERPASSUNDERPASS
55
DRAFT
UNDERPASS Charleston Road – Underpass
Direct Access Ramp
UNDERPASS
PARK BLVD
PARK BLVD
ALMA ST
GR
E
E
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
W
A
Y
EL
Y
P
L
MUMFORD PL
1
Preliminary Intersection Traffic Results
56
Charleston Road
Signalized
Intersection
AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay (Level of Service)
PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay (Level of Service)
2025
Hybrid Underpass
with Roundabout
Underpass with
Direct Access Ramp 2025
Hybrid Underpass
with Roundabout
Underpass with
Direct Access Ramp
2025 2040 2025 2040 2025 2040 2025 2040 2025 2040 2025 2040
Alma St at
Charleston Rd 57.2 (E)41.8 (D)50.4 (D)----106.4 (F)52.9 (D)101.3 (F)----
Alma St at
Charleston Rd
(Upper)
---13.5 (B)16.5 (B)12.3 (B)14.9 (B)---12.4 (B)14.6 (B)12.4 (B)15.2 (B)
Alma St at
Charleston Rd
(Lower)
-----10.6 (B)13.8 (B)-----7.0 (A)7.7 (A)
Turning
Movements
Available
Not Allowed
Via Out-of-Direction
Travel
Alma St Alma St
Partial: 2 Parcels/DU
(DU = Dwelling Unit)
Hybrid
57
Potential Property Acquisition
Full: 3 Parcels/DU
Partial: 26 Parcels/DU
Full: 1 Parcel/DU
Partial: 23 Parcels/DU
Charleston Road
Underpass
Roundabout
Underpass
Direct-Access
Ramp
Construction Considerations
58
Underpass
•Currently assuming box jacking (no shoofly)
•Temporary closure of Park Boulevard at Charleston Road
•Alma Street may temporarily reduce to one lane
•Roundabout has more disruption to Charleston Road
•Direct-Access ramp has more disruption to Alma Street
•More utilities relocations and interruptions; sewer pump station
•Phased work for retaining walls & bridges
•Soil export from site
Hybrid
•Shoofly anticipated
•Potential for phased approach to mitigate
traffic impacts to Alma Street
•Fewer utility relocations and interruptions
•Soil import into and out of site
Charleston Road
•Temporary or full closure of Charleston Road crossing during construction
•Temporary lane closures on Alma Street (extents dependent on construction method)
•Utility relocation and temporary disruption of utility services; major utility relocation
Community Feedback
59
Charleston Road
Roundabout
•Property impact concerns
•Perceived safety challenges for bikes/peds
•Indirect travel
•Less favored vs Hybrid and Direct Access Ramp
Hybrid
•Least property impacts
•Maintains neighborhood
access; minimal traffic
detours
•Visual concerns on retaining
walls; suggest creative
treatments
•Better for bikes/peds with
safer, direct crossings
Direct Access Ramp
•Mixed views on
roadway/ped/bike design
•Fewer property impacts; better
traffic operations
Underpass
Concern over construction impacts (closures, noise, disruptions, dust)
60
Hybrid Underpass – Roundabout Underpass – Direct Access Ramp
Traffic & Circulation
•May divert Alma traffic
•Traffic operations like existing/future
•One-lane roundabout
•Restricts turning movements between Park
Boulevard and Charleston Road
•Improved projected traffic operations for both
existing/future
•Direct-access ramp
•Allows northbound Alma Street left-turns to
westbound Charleston Road at
intersection
•Restricts turning movements between
Park Boulevard and Charleston Road
•Improved projected traffic operations for
both existing/future
Active Transportation
& School Access
•Sidewalks and on-street bike lanes •Dedicated multi-use path and pedestrian
bridge
•Dedicated multi-use path and pedestrian
bridge
Potential Property
Impacts
Potential Acquisitions:
•Partial: 2 Parcels/Dwelling Units
Potential Acquisitions
•Full: 3 Parcels/Dwelling Units
•Partial: 26 Parcels/Dwelling Units
Potential Acquisitions
•Full: 1 Parcel/Dwelling Unit
•Partial: 23 Parcels/Dwelling Units
Construction
•Temporary or full closure of Charleston Road crossing during construction
•Temporary lane closures on Alma Street (extents dependent on construction method)
•Utility relocation and temporary disruption of utility services (including major utilities)
•Shoofly anticipated
•Potential for phased approach to
mitigate traffic impacts to Alma
Street
•Fewer utility relocations and
interruptions
•Soil import into and export out of site.
•Currently assuming box jacking (no shoofly)
•Temporary closure of Park Boulevard at Charleston Road
•Alma Street may temporarily reduce to one lane
•Roundabout has more disruption to Charleston Road
•Direct-Access ramp has more disruption to Alma Street
•More utilities relocations and interruptions; sewer pump station
•Phased work for retaining walls & bridges
•Soil export from site
Charleston Road: Considerations Summary
DRAFT Crossing Alternative Profiles
61
UNDERPASS
HYBRID
COMBINATION
(or vice versa)
Meadow Drive Charleston RoadEl Verano Avenue Greenmeadow Way
Not to Scale
Below are preliminary construction only
cost estimates developed in 2020 and
updated in 2024 as part of the City’s previous
planning efforts.
•Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass
with Bike/Ped Crossing
•$260M to $320M combined
•Meadow and Charleston Hybrids
•$390M to $480M combined
•Meadow and Charleston Underpasses
•$690M to $850M combined
Previous Preliminary Cost Estimates
62
Key Considerations:
•These preliminary costs have not been vetted or validated by the integrated project team.
•Recent commercial industry contractor cost estimates for grade separations on the Caltrain corridor have shown total project costs are substantially higher than previously estimated by project sponsors.
•Total (Delivery + Construction) engineering cost estimates for project completion will be complete in mid-2026 based on 15% Design Drawings, to be informed by:
•Construction work hours/rail service disruptions
•Construction clearances required for active electrified rail operations
•Current market costs
Seale Avenue Ramp Alma Street Ramp
Traffic & Circulation
•Driveway turning restrictions on Seale
•More bike/ped traffic to Peers Park & Paly
•More bike/ped traffic on Seale & Peers Park
Active
Transportation
•Tunnel under Alma and tracks
•Peers Park entrance closer to high school
•Tunnel under Alma and tracks
•Direct access to Peers Park
•Connects closer to Palo Alto High School
Potential Property
Impacts
Potential Acquisitions:
•Partial: 14 Parcels (28 Dwelling Units)
Potential Acquisitions:
•Partial: 4 Parcels (15 Dwelling Units)
Construction
Both:
•Relocation of utilities
•Construction of tunnel from Peers Park towards Seale Avenue
•May require sewer pump station
•Potential interruption of access to Seale Ave homes
•Removal of dog park and large trees
•Potential temporary lane closures on Alma Street
Seale Avenue: Considerations Summary
63
Hybrid Underpass
Traffic & Circulation
•Adds left-turn lanes
•Traffic operations similar to existing and future
•Disconnects Park Blvd (south of Park & Meadow intersection)
•Improved traffic operations for existing and future
Active Transportation •Added bicycle queuing area on westbound Meadow Dr
•Sidewalks and on-street bike lanes
•Dedicated multi-use path and pedestrian bridges
Potential Property
Impacts
Potential Acquisition:
•Partial: 1 Parcel/Dwelling Unit
Potential Acquisitions:
•Full: 2 Parcels (16 Dwelling Units)
•Partial: 6 Parcels/Dwelling Units
Construction
•Temporary or full closure of Meadow Drive crossing during construction
•Temporary lane closures on Alma Street (extents dependent on construction method)
•Utility relocation and temporary disruption of utility services; major sewer line relocation
•Shoofly anticipated
•Potential for phased approach to mitigate traffic impacts
to Alma Street
•Fewer utility relocations and interruptions
•Soil import to site
•Currently assuming box jacking (no shoofly)
•Temporary closure of Park Blvd at Meadow Dr; Alma St may
temporarily reduce to one lane
•More utilities relocations and interruptions; sewer pump station
•Phased work for retaining walls & bridges
•Soil export from site
Meadow Drive: Considerations Summary
64
65
Hybrid Underpass – Roundabout Underpass – Direct Access Ramp
Traffic & Circulation
•May divert Alma traffic
•Traffic operations like existing/future
•One-lane roundabout
•Restricts turning movements between Park
Boulevard and Charleston Road
•Improved projected traffic operations for both
existing/future
•Direct-access ramp
•Allows northbound Alma Street left-turns to
westbound Charleston Road at
intersection
•Restricts turning movements between
Park Boulevard and Charleston Road
•Improved projected traffic operations for
both existing/future
Active Transportation •Sidewalks and on-street bike lanes •Dedicated multi-use path and pedestrian
bridge
•Dedicated multi-use path and pedestrian
bridge
Potential Property
Impacts
Potential Acquisitions:
•Partial: 2 Parcels/Dwelling Units
Potential Acquisitions
•Full: 3 Parcels/Dwelling Units
•Partial: 26 Parcels/Dwelling Units
Potential Acquisitions
•Full: 1 Parcel/Dwelling Unit
•Partial: 23 Parcels/Dwelling Units
Construction
•Temporary or full closure of Charleston Road crossing during construction
•Temporary lane closures on Alma Street (extents dependent on construction method)
•Utility relocation and temporary disruption of utility services (including major utilities)
•Shoofly anticipated
•Potential for phased approach to
mitigate traffic impacts to Alma
Street
•Fewer utility relocations and
interruptions
•Soil import into and export out of site
•Currently assuming box jacking (no shoofly)
•Temporary closure of Park Boulevard at Charleston Road
•Alma Street may temporarily reduce to one lane
•Roundabout has more disruption to Charleston Road
•Direct-Access ramp has more disruption to Alma Street
•More utilities relocations and interruptions; sewer pump station
•Phased work for retaining walls & bridges
•Soil export from site
Charleston Road: Considerations Summary
November 18:
Rail Committee recommends to
eliminate the Seale Avenue Ramp
option from advancement
Rail Committee Recommendation
66
OP
T
I
O
N
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
CR
O
S
S
I
N
G
With
Landscape
Strip
Without
Landscape
Strip
Seale Avenue
Ramp
Alma Street
Ramp
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
Churchill Avenue
Vehicle Crossing Bike/Ped Crossing
December 2:
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory
Committee recommends the
Hybrid options for Charleston and
Meadow advance to 15% designs.
PABAC does not recommend the
Underpass options to advance.
PABAC Recommendation
67
OP
T
I
O
N
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
CR
O
S
S
I
N
G
Roundabout Direct Access
Ramp
Meadow Drive Charleston Road
HYBRID UNDERPASS HYBRID UNDERPASS
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass
•With or without landscape strip
•Seale Avenue bicycle and pedestrian
crossing
•Seale Avenue Ramp
•Rail Committee recommended to
eliminate this option
•Alma Street Ramp
City Council Motion
68
City Council to identify which alternatives to advance to 15% Design in preparation for
environmental review
Meadow Drive
•Hybrid
•Underpass
Charleston Road
•Hybrid
•Underpass
•With Roundabout
•With Direct Access Ramp
Funded by:
Project Team
Ripon Bhatia
Senior Engineer
Ria Hutabarat Lo
Chief Transportation Official
Jill Gibson
Program Manager
Edgar Torres
Technical Specialist
Whitney DiGiantomasso
Project Manager
Transporation@paloalto.gov