HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2608-6600CITY OF PALO ALTO
Rail Committee
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 08, 2026
2:30 PM
Agenda Item
1.Review Locally Preferred Alternatives for Grade Separation at Churchill Avenue, Meadow
Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings to Advance into 35% Design and Environmental
Review. Staff Presentation
Rail Committee
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
Report #:2608-6600
TITLE
Review Locally Preferred Alternatives for Grade Separation at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive,
and Charleston Road Crossings to Advance into 35% Design and Environmental Review.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is seeking the Rail Committee’s review and input on the completed 15% Design phase,
rough order-of-magnitude cost estimates, and preliminary construction schedules for the Palo
Alto Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road for the
project to advance into 35% Design and Environmental Review.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This staff report presents an update on the 15% Design plans completed for Churchill Avenue
Partial Underpass with a bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue, Meadow Drive
Hybrid, and Charleston Road Underpass with a Direct Access Ramp (DAR). Completion of 15%
design plans established a preliminary project footprint for initiating the environmental process
and identified the preliminary cost and constructability drivers at each crossing. These design
plans were used to determine the project footprint, develop an independent cost estimate and
establish a preliminary construction schedule for each delivery scenario.
On August 25 and 26, 2026 staff conducted community engagement meetings to share the 15%
design plans and total rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) project costs at each crossing. Staff
seek Rail Committee input before returning to City Council to request approval to advance
alternatives to 35% Design and Environmental Review.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto's rail corridor planning efforts began in 2010 with the Palo Alto Rail
Corridor Study and have advanced through the Connecting Palo Alto alternatives screening, the
Rail Crossing Community Advisory Committee (XCAP) deliberations, and successive Rail
Committee and City Council direction.
On December 10 and December 15, 2025, Council directed staff to advance the following
alternatives into 15% Design, with a focus on enhancing safety and access, establishing a
preliminary project footprint for environmental clearance, and minimizing congestion,
environmental impacts, and property impacts:
Churchill Avenue: A Partial Underpass was selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative ,
with a partial crossing for motor vehicles at Churchill Avenue, no landscaping strip along
Alma Street, and a pedestrian and bicycle crossing at Seale Avenue/Peers Park with a
ramp along Alma Street. (Consistent with Council direction from November 29, 2021,
the Pedestrian and Bicycle Undercrossing at Churchill remains as the backup alternative
and is not being advanced into preliminary engineering at this time.)
Meadow Drive: A Hybrid Underpass was selected as the preferred alternative, with
direction to evaluate earthen berm and podium options during 15% Design. The Rail
Committee reviewed structural and design considerations for both options on March 10,
2026 and confirmed the earthen berm with a short bridge over Meadow Drive as the
basis of design.
Charleston Road: An Underpass with a Direct Access Ramp was selected as the preferred
alternative.
ANALYSIS
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue
change, no track design was required for this location. The 15% Design assumes a hybrid
retaining wall system, including deep soil mixing walls and conventional cantilever
retaining walls along the ramps, with a concrete box structure for the undercrossing.
Both undercrossings are assumed to be constructed using box jacking, which allows rail
operations to continue without a shoofly track.
Charleston Road Underpass and Meadow Drive Hybrid Underpass delivered
concurrently
At both crossings, the Caltrain tracks would be raised on an embankment supported by
retaining walls, with bridges over the roadways. The track profile would be raised by up
to approximately 16 feet at Meadow Drive and approximately 4.5 feet at Charleston
Road, beginning near Loma Verde Avenue and extending to near Greenmeadow Way.
Meadow Drive would be lowered by approximately 7 feet, and Charleston Road would
be lowered by approximately 20.25 feet. At Charleston Road, Alma Street would be
raised over the lowered roadway on a new bridge, with turning movements
accommodated through upper and lower intersections and a separate multi-use path
adjacent to the lowered roadway. Because the two crossings are approximately 0.3
miles apart and both require raising the tracks, this scenario assumes construction of a
shoofly track along Alma Street to maintain rail operations through both work areas.
Charleston Road Underpass and Meadow Drive Hybrid Underpass delivered sequentially
as back-to-back projects
Under this scenario, the Charleston Road Underpass would be constructed first using
box jacking, which would allow rail operations to continue without a shoofly track. The
Meadow Drive Hybrid would then be constructed as a later, separate project and would
require a shoofly track along Alma Street. Construction of the Meadow Drive Hybrid
would also raise the track profile over the previously completed Charleston Road
Underpass.
Charleston Road Underpass Only
Under this scenario, the Charleston Road Underpass would be constructed and the
Meadow Drive crossing would remain at grade. This scenario was included based on City
Council direction on December 15, 2025.
Shoofly Operations
Where the track profile must be raised, such as at Meadow Drive, trains cannot remain on the
existing alignment while the permanent improvements are constructed and a temporary
shoofly track would be constructed east of the existing tracks along the southbound portion of
Alma Street to maintain rail service through the work area. The need for a shoofly varies by
delivery scenario.
In the combined delivery scenario, the shoofly track would begin north of Meadow Drive and
end south of Charleston Road, ahead of the existing crossover, allowing it to serve both
crossings during construction. Based on the current 15% Design, the approach embankment is
approximately 55 feet wide, with an estimated 25 feet of clear distance between the shoofly
and the new wall. A temporary at-grade crossing would also be installed at Meadow Drive to
maintain access during construction.
15% Design Phase
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass: The Churchill Ave concept maintains access
across Churchill Avenue with a pedestrian and bicycle bridge adjacent to Caltrain
tracks across the lowered Churchill Avenue roadway. The bridge is anticipated to
include railings and fencing to separate users from the rail corridor and roadway.
Seale Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing: The Seale Ave concept
provides a 16-foot-wide pedestrian and bicycle path that descends from Seale
Avenue along Alma Street, passes beneath Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks,
and emerges in Peers Park, and ramps up to grade at Castilleja Avenue. The
tunnel provides 8 feet of vertical clearance for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Meadow Drive Hybrid Underpass: The Meadow Drive concept would provide a 5-
foot bicycle lane in each direction and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of Meadow
Drive beneath the rail bridge, reconnecting to existing bicycle facilities at project
limits.
Charleston Road Underpass with Direct Access Ramp: The Charleston Road
concept includes a vertically separated pedestrian and bicycle path that would
run parallel to the lowered Charleston Road as it passes beneath Alma Street and
the Caltrain tracks. The path has a minimum clear width of 14 feet through the
undercrossing with at least 8 feet of vertical clearance. The concept also includes
an approximately 60-foot pedestrian and bicycle bridge adjacent to the rail
bridge that would allow for bicycle and pedestrian access across Charleston
Road.
Connections to the Surrounding Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: The proposed facilities
enhance east-west pedestrian and bicycle connections across the Caltrain corridor and
connect to existing facilities at project limits. The Churchill Avenue and Seale Avenue
facilities would connect to the Embarcadero Bike Path and Park Bike Boulevard and
support access to Palo Alto High School and adjacent neighborhoods. At Meadow Drive,
the reconstructed bicycle lanes and sidewalks would connect to existing and future
facilities on East and West Meadow Drive. At Charleston Road, the separated path and
pedestrian and bicycle bridge would connect Charleston Road with Alma Street and Park
Bike Boulevard. These facilities would support access to nearby schools and
neighborhoods destinations. Specific off-site improvements and transitions between the
existing and proposed facilities will be refined.
Cost & Risk: The 15% design phase includes permanent pedestrian and bicycle facilities
and preliminary construction traffic control. Temporary pedestrian and bicycle routes,
accessible detours, barriers, signs, lighting, and other construction-period
accommodations have not been fully defined. Temporary and permanent
pedestrian/bicycle access elements could affect construction staging, property needs,
project cost, and construction duration.
Next Step for 35% Design: The 35% design phase will focus on refining the pedestrian
and bicycle facility alignment, accessibility, connections and transitions to existing
facilities, as well as lighting, wayfinding, and other safety features. A traffic study will
evaluate permanent and construction-period pedestrian and bicycle operations,
including school access, temporary closures, detour routes, and options to maintain a
usable crossing or reduce the duration of overlapping closures. The results will inform
more detailed construction phasing and sequencing, access plans, environmental
analysis, and updated cost and schedule information.
Vehicle Access and Circulation
15% Design Objective: Confirm whether each alternative can accommodate safe
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle movement, and explore methods to maintain pedestrian
and bicycle access during construction. Alma Street is a designated local truck route for
its entire length within the City, which shapes geometric requirements at each crossing.
15% Design Analysis and Findings: Passenger vehicles can generally be accommodated
within the preliminary roadway geometry. However, much of the available stopping and
nighttime headlight sight distance falls below Caltrans criteria, particularly along Alma
Street and at roadway low points. Larger vehicles including semi-trailers, fire apparatus,
school buses, and City garbage trucks require wider turning paths or operational
adjustments at several locations. Recommendations from the analysis include restricting
large vehicles from the Charleston Road Direct Access Ramp, modifying curb and
sidewalk geometry at the upper Alma Street/Charleston Road intersection, installing
high visibility pavement markings, green bike lanes, pedestrian and street lighting. These
recommendations are preliminary and will continue to be evaluated and refined as the
design progresses.
Cost & Risk: The cost estimate developed during the 15% Design phase includes the
principal pedestrian, bicycle and roadway facilities, traffic signals, lighting, pavement
markings, and preliminary construction traffic control. Further geometric changes could
affect retaining walls, bridge elements, utilities, property needs, construction staging,
and project cost.
Next Step for 35% Design: The 35% phase will refine roadway profiles and intersection
geometry, update sight-distance and turning analyses, define vehicle restrictions and
traffic control measures, and advance pedestrian and bicycle facility design. A traffic
study will be completed to evaluate permanent and construction-period operations,
including intersection performance, diversion routes, temporary closures, and
emergency, school, pedestrian, and bicycle access. The results will inform more detailed
construction phasing, detours, access plans, cost estimates, schedule, and
environmental analyses.
Utility Identification and Relocation
15% Design Objective: Collect additional information on the existing water, sewer, gas,
electrical, and communication lines to establish a preliminary utility base map and
evaluate potential conflicts with roadway grading, retaining walls, bridges, and
excavation.
15% Design Analysis and Findings: Utility records indicate extensive infrastructure at
each crossing. Preliminary concepts for utility relocation include moving utilities into
shared trenches or duct banks, rerouting or lowering individual lines, and protecting
certain facilities in place. The analysis was limited to approximate horizontal locations
and utility depths. Vertical conflicts between utilities were not analyzed during the 15%
Design phase.
Cost & Risk: Utility relocation is a significant source of cost and schedule uncertainty.
The estimate includes preliminary relocation quantities, but these cost estimates could
be impacted by unknown utility depths, nonstandard clearance requirements, utility-
owner requirements, and unidentified conflicts. The 24-inch PG&E gas transmission line
at Charleston Road is assumed to remain in place; and any required protection or
relocation of this line will also result in cost and schedule impacts. Responsibility for
relocation costs among the City, Caltrain, and utility owners has not been determined at
this stage of the Project.
Next Step for 35% Design: The 35% Design phase will verify utility locations and depths
through subsurface investigation and potholing, develop a detailed utility conflict
matrix, and refine relocation and protection plans with utility owners. This work will
verify required clearances, as well as preliminary construction sequencing, service
interruptions, property or easement needs and cost responsibility to provide greater
clarity on costs associated with utilities.
Potential Property Acquisition
15% Design Objective: The 15% Design established a preliminary project footprint and
potentially affected parcels using preliminary plans, assessor maps, available right-of-
way records, and limited title information and identified potential property impacts to
the level of detail needed support environmental review and cost estimation. The
design aimed to minimize property impacts while meeting safety, access,
constructability, and Caltrain operating requirements.
15% Design Analysis and Findings: Based on available assessor maps, partial Caltrain
right-of-way information, and limited title reports, the 15% Design preliminarily
identifies five (5) full property acquisitions and 33 additional partial acquisitions of
private parcels. Additional right-of-way from Caltrain may also be required. These
findings are preliminary because a complete boundary survey was not available and the
exact limits and types of property interests have not been established.
Cost & Risk: Final cost estimates will depend on updated project footprints and
estimated extents of permanent acquisition and temporary construction easements.
Property constraints may also affect retaining walls, the temporary shoofly, construction
staging and access, and therefore construction cost and schedule.
Next Step for 35% Design: Property impacts are refined progressively as design
advances. During the 35% Design, additional survey, title, and engineering information
will be used to refine parcel-specific limits, distinguish potential permanent acquisition
and easements from temporary construction easements, and evaluate design changes
that could avoid or reduce impacts. The 35% findings will provide a more reliable basis
for environmental analysis and future coordination with property owners but will not
authorize any real estate acquisition or determine that any specific property will be
acquired. Any future acquisition would require conformation of the Project and right of
way needs, compliance with applicable acquisition procedures, separate funding and
separate authorization. No construction funding is currently identified or programmed.
Total ROM Project Costs and Preliminary Construction Schedule
Cost estimates become more reliable as design advances and assumptions are replaced by
verified information. The 15% Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is an early-phase
estimate. It is intended to document the current level of design, inform delivery planning, test
the reasonableness of planning-level figures, and focus design efforts during the next phase. It
is not intended to establish a final project budget or serve as the basis for construction funding
requests.
Figure 1: Cost Estimate Lifecycle
An independent cost estimator, working separately from the design team, prepared a 15%
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost and a preliminary construction schedule for the project.
The cost estimate was prepared using a design-bid-build procurement assumption for pricing
purposes and reflects how a contractor would price the work based on the current level of
design. The estimate was developed using the available 15% Design and technical materials
prepared for this phase, including the 15% plan sets and supporting technical documentation.
Components of Total ROM Project Cost Ranges
The total ROM project cost ranges include the following major cost categories:
Construction contractor costs, including direct construction costs such as roadway work,
utility work, retaining walls and bridges, jacked boxes, dewatering, track work, rail
systems, overhead contact system (OCS), lighting, power, and landscaping.
Contractor indirect costs, including contractor supervision, staffing, field office
expenses, general and administrative costs, escalation, and contractor fees.
Designer/Engineer of Record costs, including design services needed to advance the
project through subsequent design phases.
Agency costs, including project management, oversight, construction administration,
management, and inspection.
Environmental documentation and permitting, including costs associated with
CEQA/NEPA documentation and required permits.
Trans America Services Inc. (TASI), a third party managing the Caltrain operation as
included in the total project cost assumptions.
Real property and easements, including property acquisition and temporary or
permanent easement needs.
Escalation, reflecting the assumed timing of construction and year-of-expenditure cost
basis.
Project contingency, reflecting uncertainty at the current level of design and the need
for refinement as the project advances.
Costs are developed in 2026 dollars, with escalation applied beginning in 2027 at 5
percent per year using a project midpoint approach
Total ROM project costs are expressed in year-of-expenditure dollars, meaning they
include escalation.
Craft labor rates reflect current Northern California union agreements.
Work within the Caltrain right-of-way is assumed to occur at night, including in
residential areas where night work is assumed to be permissible.
Weekend closures are assumed for temporary rail bridge installation and removal and
for track cutovers.
Productivity inefficiency factors are applied to account for work adjacent to active rail
operations.
Construction is assumed to begin in 2032.
Table 1: Total ROM Project Cost Range and Preliminary Construction Duration
Delivery Scenario Total ROM Project Cost
Range
Preliminary Construction
Duration
Churchill Avenue Partial
Underpass with bicycle and
pedestrian crossing at Seale
Avenue
$420M – $450M 3-4 Years
Charleston Road Underpass
and Meadow Drive Hybrid
delivered concurrently
$1B - $1.1B 5 Years
Charleston Road Underpass
and Meadow Drive Hybrid
delivered sequentially as
back-to-back projects
$ 1.2B -$1.3B 9 Years
Charleston Road Underpass
constructed on its own $480M - $530M 4 Years
Primary Cost Drivers of the 15% Estimate
The 15% total ROM project costs is a tool to support decision-making and is based on the
current level of design, supplemented by contractor means-and-methods assumptions and
estimating judgement where information was incomplete.
Design Progression: The 15% estimate includes allowances and contingency for cost
elements that are not fully defined at this stage of design. Allowances were included for
design, potential real estate and easement needs. Contingency was included for other
project-specific risk items. These buffers reflect the preliminary nature of 15% Design
and will be updated as the project advances and additional technical work is completed.
Physical Cost Drivers: Major Cost Drivers include retaining walls and bridges, jacked-box
structures, shoofly and track work, signal and OCS changes, deep excavation and
dewatering, pump stations and drainage, potential ground improvement, and extensive
utility relocation.
Schedule and Market Drivers: Cost and duration are highly dependent on delivery
method, sequencing, construction work windows and flagging, weekend shutdowns,
night work, productivity next to active rail, anticipated start of construction, escalation,
and contractor market conditions.
Key Findings for Charleston Road and Meadow Drive Delivery Scenarios:
The Charleston Road and Meadow Drive delivery scenarios have different implications for
construction duration, access across the Caltrain corridor, and the timing of construction
impacts in the community.
Utilities: Utility profiles have not yet been developed, so utility depths were estimated
using standard assumptions. A 24-inch gas transmission line along Charleston Road is
assumed to remain in place with no associated work. Utility relocation cost
responsibility between the City, Caltrain, and utility owners has not been established.
Potential Property Acquisition: Property impacts will be refined as design advances.
Groundwater and dewatering: No groundwater flow rate data was available at 15%
Design. Dewatering assumptions were developed from geotechnical groundwater
elevations and anticipated excavation depths, and will be refined through additional
geotechnical investigation, groundwater monitoring, and pumping tests.
Ground improvement: Deep soil mixing for soil stabilization beneath the jacked boxes at
Churchill Avenue and Charleston Road, and beneath the mechanically stabilized earth
system at Meadow Drive, may be required but is not included in the current estimate.
Box jacking performance: Limited space for casting and launching the jacked box
segments creates a risk that the box could deviate downward during jacking. Additional
ground improvement or other mitigation may be required, and a separate contingency
is recommended.
Construction sequencing: Cost and duration are sensitive to whether Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road are delivered together or separately, and to the sequencing of roadway
and railroad work within each scenario.
Railroad work windows and flagging: Track access, weekend shutdown availability, and
flagging requirements will be determined with Caltrain. Flagging is carried as a separate
allowance rather than in the base estimate.
Escalation and construction start year: Escalation is applied based on an assumed
construction start. A later start increases cost. Construction start depends on funding
availability.
As the project advances into 35% Design, Staff will continue to refine the total ROM project cost
ranges and preliminary construction schedules, particularly as key assumptions are confirmed
or updated. Future updates will incorporate more detailed information on construction
sequencing, rail service requirements, utility conflicts, property needs, permitting
requirements, market conditions, and other design refinements that affect project cost and
schedule.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
No action with a fiscal impact is requested as part of this staff report. Advancing the selected
grade separation alternatives through the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental
Documentation phase is fully funded with $20 million in secured external funds. These funds
include a $6 million Federal Railroad 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 to 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 the 15% Design phase as well as the subsequent 35% Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Documentation phase. Therefore, this item has no new fiscal impact.
The total project cost estimates developed at the 15% Design stage are planning-level estimates
intended to support decision-making on project advancement, delivery planning, and funding
strategies. They do not establish a final project budget. While preliminary engineering and
environmental review are funded, no construction funding has been identified or programmed.
Construction will require additional federal, state, regional, and local funding, and the timing
and sequencing of construction will depend on when those funds are secured. Cost estimates
and schedules will continue to be refined as design advances and key assumptions are verified.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official
City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation:
Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by:
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass
Upper Alma St
Ch
u
r
c
h
i
l
l
A
v
e
Ch
u
r
c
h
i
l
l
A
v
e
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
A
v
e
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
A
v
e
Co
l
e
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
Co
l
e
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
Ch
u
r
c
h
i
l
l
A
v
e
Ch
u
r
c
h
i
l
l
A
v
e
Lower Alma St
LEGEND
Preliminary Project Footprint
Caltrain Right-of-Way
Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes
from the Seale Ave Underpass
Access and Connectivity
NOR
T
H
80
Graphic Scale in Feet
160 3200
Retaining walls
Connection to
Embarcadero Bike Path
Retaining walls
Bridge for railroad tracks
Bicycle and
pedestrian bridge One northbound through lane to intersection of
Lower Alma St and Churchill Ave (west leg)
One-way through traffic
City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation:
Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by:
Seale Avenue - Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing
Alma StAlma St
Se
a
l
e
A
v
e
Se
a
l
e
A
v
e
Te
n
n
y
s
o
n
A
v
e
Te
n
n
y
s
o
n
A
v
e
Ri
n
c
o
n
d
a
A
v
e
Ri
n
c
o
n
d
a
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
Par
k
B
l
v
d
LEGEND
Preliminary Project Footprint
Caltrain Right-of-Way
Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes
from the Seale Ave Underpass
Access and Connectivity
NOR
T
H
80
Graphic Scale in Feet
160 3200
PEERS PARKPEERS PARK
Retaining walls
Retaining wallsDriveway
access
maintained
Bicycle and pedestrian
connection under Alma
Street and railroad tracks
Bicycle and pedestrian
ramp to/from crossing
Bicycle and pedestrian
ramp to/from crossing
Bicycle and pedestrian connection to
Palo Alto High School from Peers Park
Alma St travel lanes shifted
west to accommodate ramp
City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation:
Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by:
Meadow Drive - Hybrid
City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation:
Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by:
Charleston Road - Underpass with Direct Access Ramp
City of Palo Alto
Grade Separation Project
Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive,
and Charleston Road
Rail Committee
September 8th, 2026
Review Technical Project 15% Design
Today’s Objectives
2
Describe Total Project Cost and Schedule Development Process
Outline the 35% Design and Environmental Phase
Purpose: Input and review of the 15% Design Phase
Project Area
Downtown
Palo Alto
Current Project Phase
4
2025 2026 2027
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Preliminary Engineering and Environmental
35% Design and Environmental 15% DesignConcept Development
and Refinement
City Council Direction #2:
Concurrence with concepts to
advance to 35% Design and
Environmental Documentation
City Council Direction #1:
Identified alternatives to
advance to 15% Design
Completed 35% Design and
Environmental Documentation
#1 #2
We are here
Rail Committee Feedback Shaping 15% Design
5
Study session focused on structural and
design considerations for the Meadow
Drive hybrid options.
Committee Direction
Carry this configuration forward as the
basis of design for 15% Design.
Meadow Drive
Hybrid Options
March
Initial review of the technical work informing
15% Design across all three crossings.
Review Topics
•Stable project footprint
•Shoofly extents and box jacking
•Structures and geotechnical
•Utilities and track geometry
•Construction sequencing
•Delivery and cost estimate
Technical Activities
Informing 15% Design
May
Key Topics Discussed
•Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access
•Design Elements and Development
•Total Project Cost Estimate
•Construction Considerations
What we are doing next
•Public Comments and project team responses
will be logged in the comment matrix and
shared with City Council on 9/28
•Community meeting materials are posted to
the project website
Community Meetings Recap
6
Direction from City Council
7
GRADE
SEPARATION
APPROACH
CROSSING Charleston Road
UNDERPASS
Direct Access
Ramp
PARTIAL
UNDERPASS
Churchill Avenue
Vehicle Crossing
(without Landscape Strip)
Bike/Ped Crossing
(Seale - Alma Street
Ramp)
Meadow Drive & Charleston Road
HYBRID
Elevated rail
bridge
UNDERPASS
Direct Access
Ramp
8
Caltrain Elimination Project Delivery
Initiation Project
Development
Preliminary
Design
Final
Design Construction Turnover &
Close Out
KEY
ACTIVITIES
Define Project Scope
Identify and Evaluate
Alternatives
Funding Approach
Develop & Refine
Concepts
Select Preferred
Alternative
Funding Strategy &
Plan
Develop Preliminary
Design Plans
Obtain Environmental
Clearance
Preliminary Total
Project Cost &
Schedule Estimate
Execute Funding Plan
Grant Applications
Complete Design and
Develop Construction
Documents
Refine Total Project
Cost
Execute Funding Plan
Grant Applications
Construct Project
Change Order Control
Maintenance of Rail
Service and Traffic
Administer
Construction Funding
Inspections
Project Closeout
PROPERTY
ACQUISITION Potential Scale of Need Identify Locations with
Potential Impacts
Potential Property
Impact Assessment &
Appraisals
Property Acquisition &
ROW Certification
Utilize Property and
Easements
Release Temporary
Easements
UTILITIES
•Flag Critical Utility
Constraints
•Identify Potential
Relocations
•Utility Conflict Matrix
•Pothole Potential
Conflicts
•Execute Agreements
•Early Works & Utility
Relocations
•Utility Relocations
•Service Cutover
•Document As-Builts
•Easement Records
DELIVERY
METHOD
Identify Potential
Delivery Methods
Evaluate & Select
Delivery Method
Contractor Procurement
& Construction
Readiness
Administer Delivery
Method Final Acceptance
15% Design Findings and Next Steps
9
Key Design Element 15% Design Findings 35% Design Will Provide
Track
•Churchill Avenue tracks remain at existing
elevation.
•Track profile raised at Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road (when delivered together)
•Refined vertical and horizontal alignment,
shoofly design, and confirmation of track profile
under each delivery scenario
Project Footprint •Developed preliminary project footprint for
environmental studies •Established project footprint for approvals
Roadway and Drainage
•Established roadway profiles and preliminary
drainage, including pump stations at each
depressed crossing
•Refined profiles and geometry, plus a traffic
study of construction-period and permanent
operations
Structural and Geotechnical
•Established structural approach at each
crossing, including retaining wall systems and
box structures.
•Site-specific geotechnical investigation of soil,
groundwater, and settlement risk
Utilities •Developed preliminary utility base map and
conflict matrix from records research
•Verified locations and depths through subsurface
investigation and potholing, a detailed conflict
matrix, and refined relocation plans
•Churchill Ave – No modifications to track
•Charleston Rd Only – No modifications to track
•Meadow Dr + Charleston Rd – Raise tracks
•Raise track 16 feet at Meadow Drive
•Due to Meadow Drive track raise, track raises at
Charleston Road by 4.5 feet
•Track set on bridges (over roadway crossings) and
embankment with retaining walls (everywhere else)
Design Elements: Track
10
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass Rendering
Meadow Drive Hybrid Rendering
Design Elements: Roadway + Drainage
11
15% design drawings are
consistent with concepts presented
to City in November
•Churchill Avenue lowered 22 feet
•Meadow Drive lowered 7 feet
•Charleston Road lowered 20 feet,
if constructed with Meadow Drive
•Charleston Road lowered 24 feet,
if constructed alone
Next Steps
•Traffic study to evaluate
permanent and construction-
period operations including:
•intersection performance
•detours
•temporary closures
•emergency, school, pedestrian,
and bicycle access
Design Elements: Structural + Geotechnical
12
Next Steps
•Site-specific geotechnical
investigations at each underpass
location will evaluate:
•soil suitability
•groundwater control requirements
•potential track settlement risk
Churchill Avenue – Partial
Underpass
•Roadway lowered within concrete box
under tracks with cantilever retaining
walls and elsewhere
Seale Avenue – Underpass
•Tunnel was extended into Peers Park
to reduce excessive retained soil
depths—particularly at the west ramp,
where depths approached 18 feet
•Ramp end retaining walls were
shortened by 14 feet
Design Elements: Utilities
13
•Desktop research has identified
major utilities within the Project
limits – with preliminary utility
matrix
•Further investigation is needed
Next Steps
•Subsurface Utility Exploration
•ground penetrating radar
•potholing
•Develop a comprehensive utility
matrix
•Project-specific discussions with
utility companies (City, PG&E)
Delivery Scenarios Evaluated
14
CHURCHILL
AVENUE
CROSSING
Charleston Road
+
Meadow Drive
Charleston Road
Meadow Drive
Charleston Road MEADOW AND
CHARLESTON
CROSSING
Churchill Avenue
with Seale Avenue
Cost and Schedule Tradeoffs
15
Design development involves balancing safety, access, rail operations, and community impact
Considerations Potential Constraint(s)
Maintain Vehicular Access
During Construction More complex staging and tighter work areas
Maintain High-Frequency Rail Operations Focused work windows outside of peak period adjacent to
rail
Minimize Project Footprint Tighter work areas and more complex staging
Limit Noise During Construction Reduced constructability and longer durations
Maintain Bicycle/Pedestrian Connections Additional temporary detours and signage
Total Project Cost Estimate Life Cycle
16
Concept Design
Purpose of the Estimate
Schedule
High-level schedule estimate
Preliminary Design &
Environmental Review
Schedule
Preliminary schedule
Design Development
Schedule
Revised schedule
Final Design &
Construction Documents
Schedule
Project baseline schedule
Support concept due diligence
and inform early decisions
Purpose of the Estimate
Support environmental review
and funding plan
Purpose of the Estimate
Support procurement, and
contract packaging
Purpose of the Estimate
Establish construction budget
Final
Design
35%
Design
65%
Design
15%
Design
Cost Estimate Cost Estimate Cost Estimate Cost Estimate
Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM)Preliminary Detailed Project baseline budget
WE ARE
HERE
LATE
2027
Risk Associated with Costs*
17
35%
Design +
Environmental
65%
Design
Construction
Documents
✓Risks Addressed/Mitigated
Stable project footprint identified
!Risks Remaining
Delivery method not confirmed
Unknown utilities
Potential property impacts not confirmed
Soil and groundwater undefined
Construction sequencing uncertainty
Schedule and funding uncertainty
✓Risks Addressed/Mitigated
Delivery method
Project footprint refined
!Risks Remaining
Utility relocations
Potential property acquisition
Railroad work windows
Construction staging
✓Risks Addressed/Mitigated
Utilities located
Soil investigated
Potential property acquisitions appraised
!Risks Remaining
Market conditions
Regulatory approvals
Long-lead time materials
✓Risks Addressed/Mitigated
Scope finalized
Utility design complete
Potential property acquired
Railroad windows confirmed
!Risks Remaining
Unforeseen conditions
Price increases before award
Range of Estimate
Improves with
Design
*Typical risks shown; not inclusive of all potential risks
15%
Current Design
Phase
Total Project Cost Estimate – Buildup
18
Construction Contractor Cost
(Direct & Indirect)
•Permitting and Utilities
Designer/Engineer of Record Costs
Agency Costs
(Caltrain, City, etc.)
•Project Management and Oversight•Environmental Documentation and Permitting•TASI•Construction Administration, Management, and Inspections
Real Property and Easements
Escalation
(Cost of Time)
Project Contingency
(Unallocated & Allocated)
Basis of Total Project Cost Estimates
19
Churchill
Estimate Year
(Year of Dollar)2026
Estimated
Construction Start 2032
Key Input of Cost 15% design
High-Level
Construction Duration 3 – 4 years 5 years 9 years 4 years
Charleston Road +
Meadow Drive
Charleston
Road
Meadow
Drive
Charleston Road Seale & Churchill
Avenue
Costs and durations are preliminary in nature and represent rough order-of-
magnitude estimates that will be further refined during future phases of design.
Churchill: Total Project Cost & Construction Duration
Seale & Churchill Avenue
3 – 4 years
$420M – $450M
Construction
Duration
Total Project Cost Estimate
(Year of Expenditure)
Delivery Scenario
Costs and durations are preliminary in nature and represent rough order-of-
magnitude estimates that will be further refined during future phases of design.20
Meadow/Charleston: Total Project Cost & Construction Duration
9 years
$1.2B – 1.3B
Construction Duration
Total Project Cost Estimate
(Year of Expenditure)
Delivery Scenario
Charleston Road
+
Meadow Drive
Charleston
Road
5 years
$1B – 1.1B
4 years
$480M – 530M
Charleston Road
Meadow Drive
Costs and durations are preliminary in nature and represent rough order-of-
magnitude estimates that will be further refined during future phases of design.21
Prepare
Environmental
Document
Findings documented
for required
determination level
Environmental Documentation Process
Environmental documentation runs in parallel with 35% Design Fall 2027Fall 2026
Perform Technical
Studies
Traffic, noise, air
quality, biology, cultural
resources, and related
studies completed
Agency Review
and Approval
Lead Agencies
complete review and
issue an environmental
approvals
Project Decision
City Council considers
whether to authorize
the project for
implementation
Caltrain Board
approves CEQA
document
FRA approves
NEPA
22
Approach to Potential Property Impacts
Possible Permanent Acquisition
Property or right-of-way that may be needed for
the permanent improvements
Possible Temporary Construction Easements
Property access that may be needed during
construction
15% Design
Identifies preliminary project
footprint and potentially
affected parcels
35% Design
Refines project and
construction limits and
evaluates project changes that
could change potential property
needs
Future Phases
Future acquisitions would
require approval to advance the
project into implementation and
to follow Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act (URA).
Project is not approved or cleared for implementation; potential
impacts are for planning purposes only.
WE ARE
HERE
23
Anticipated Funding Sources
24
FRA Rail Crossing Elimination Grant
VTA Measure B Grade Separation Fund
Project Phase Funding Sources
Planning & Conceptual
Design $5M
15% Design
$20M
35% Design
Final Design
Construction
$23.79M$9M State TIRCP Award
City
Measure K
Phases fully funded
Funding
Strategy to be
Determined
Findings from design process
will inform future City Council
decisions surrounding
prioritization, phasing, and
implementation strategy
City Capital
Funds
VTA Measure B Local
Streets & Roads Fund
Potential Unallocated Funding:
City Measure K: $5M – $30M
VTA Measure B: $325 – $350M
Engagement
25
Rail Committee
Total Project Cost Estimate
and schedule community
meeting summary
AUGUST OCTOBER15101520253051015202530
9/8
CSTSC
New access routes for
Palo Alto HS & other
PAUSD schools
8/20
Community Meetings
15% design overview; Total Project Cost Estimate
and schedule; community feedback opportunities;
what will continue to be refined
8/25 & 8/26
PABAC
Planned ped/bike
improvements
9/3
City Council
Concurrence on alternatives to
advance into 35% design and
environmental documentation
9/28