Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-09-08 Rail Committee Summary MinutesRAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 9 Regular Meeting September 8, 2026 The Rail Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 2:32 p.m. Present In-Person: Chair Burt, Councilmember Lauing, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims Absent: None. Call to Order Chair Burt called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared all members were present. In-Person Public Comments None Verbal Updates on Interagency Activities A. Caltrain Caltrain Government and Community Affairs Manager Navdeep Dhaliwal stated Caltrain was foregoing its monthly update to allow more time for the grade separation discussion. Chair Burt noted Caltrain’s City Highlights promotion for Downtown Palo Alto had gone live on the Caltrain website. Manager Dhaliwal stated the City Highlights page included short videos showing what passengers could experience after taking Caltrain to the Palo Alto station. Caltrain would promote special events through its social media channels. B. VTA Chief Transportation Official Ria Lo stated VTA had released an RFP for its station area master plan and was reviewing proposals. Chair Burt stated the University Station Ad Hoc Committee was reviewing the master plan and that City-owned tunnels at the station had been rewired, repainted, and equipped with new lighting, improving the sense of safety at night. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 9 (Reg.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/8/2026 C. City Staff Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia stated quiet zone projects were in progress. At the Palo Alto Avenue crossing, Caltrain had observed vehicles spilling back from the El Camino Real/Sand Hill Road/Palo Alto Avenue intersection into the crossing. Following a July meeting with the CPUC and FRA, the CPUC recommended additional improvements in August. Staff was working with Public Works and Caltrain to install those improvements within the next few months and would return to the Rail Committee for a Notice of Establishment and next steps for quiet zone implementation. Requests for proposals for the Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road grade separations were issued during the summer. Two consultant proposals were evaluated by City and Caltrain staff. Staff planned to recommend that Council award the contract to BKF Engineers on September 28. North-side Embarcadero Road improvements were complete and final design was underway for Phase 2 improvements on the south side, with construction planned for 2027. Charleston Road safety improvements were in final design and staff was working with Caltrans to allocate construction funding following CPUC approval. Caltrain had retained a contractor for safety enhancements at its crossings, including Palo Alto Avenue, Alma Street, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road, with existing striping scheduled to be refreshed in the coming months. Chair Burt commended the bicycle and pedestrian improvements on the north side of Embarcadero Road between Emerson Street and the underpass, noting improved safety and traffic flow despite the constrained area. In response to his question regarding the quiet zone timeline, Senior Engineer Bhatia stated construction at Palo Alto Avenue was expected to be completed by the end of 2026, with the project returning to the Rail Committee and Council for the next steps in quiet zone implementation. Design for Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road was expected to be completed by fall 2027, with construction anticipated in the fall of 2028. Chief Transportation Official Lo announced Senior Engineer Bhatia’s departure from the City and thanked him for his leadership on the grade separation and quiet zone projects. Chair Burt, Councilmember Lauing, and Councilmember Lythcott-Haims thanked Senior Engineer Bhatia for his service, responsiveness to the community, technical expertise, and assistance to the Rail Committee. Agenda Items 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 Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia stated the Committee would review the 15 percent designs for grade separation at all 3 crossings. Council had selected a partial underpass with a bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue for Churchill Avenue, a hybrid alternative for Meadow Drive, and an underpass alternative for Charleston Road. Staff held 2 community meetings in SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 9 (Reg.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/8/2026 August and presented the designs to the City-School Transportation Safety Committee and PABAC for feedback. Comments from those groups and the Rail Committee would be tracked as the projects advanced. Staff planned to seek Council concurrence on September 28 to advance the projects. Kimley-Horn Transportation Practice Leader Jill Gibson stated the 15 percent design had advanced over the previous 8 months following Council direction. Staff would seek Council concurrence on September 28 to advance the projects to 35 percent design and environmental review, with completion targeted for the end of 2027 to meet the FRA grant deadline. Previous Rail Committee discussions addressed structural and design considerations for the Meadow Drive hybrid alternative and technical work including the project footprint, temporary track, box jacking, structures, geotechnical work, utilities, track geometry, construction sequencing, cost estimates, and project delivery. The 2 August community meetings included presentations on the projects, cost estimates, and risks, followed by questions and an open house. Questions and comments received at the meetings and online were being documented and answered for inclusion in the September 28 Council materials. Practice Leader Gibson reiterated that Council had directed staff to evaluate 3 components: the Churchill Avenue partial underpass; Meadow Drive and Charleston Road together as a package; and a Charleston Road underpass as an independent project. A slide showed the projects nearing completion of the Project Development phase and moving toward Preliminary Design, including environmental clearance, with several additional stages of project development and delivery to follow over multiple years. Kimley-Horn Transit Consultant Edgar Torres stated the 15 percent design validated the previous concept work, with track and roadway geometry remaining generally consistent. The preliminary project footprint had been developed for environmental review and would be confirmed during 35 percent design. Utility investigations identified potential conflicts, including impacts to bicycle and pedestrian access, and subsurface utility exploration would begin in October. Roadway and drainage work identified preliminary pump station locations. Geotechnical investigations would further evaluate soil conditions, groundwater, and structural design. Consultant Torres stated no track modifications were proposed for Churchill Avenue or the standalone Charleston Road project. If Meadow Drive and Charleston Road were constructed concurrently, the tracks would be raised approximately 16 feet at Meadow Drive and 4.5 feet at Charleston Road, allowing the Charleston roadway profile to be less steep and providing construction efficiencies. Churchill Avenue would be lowered approximately 22 feet, Meadow Drive 7 feet, Charleston Road 20 feet if constructed with Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road 24 feet if constructed independently. During 35 percent design, a traffic study would evaluate permanent and construction-period operations, including intersection performance, detours, temporary closures, emergency and school access, and bicycle and pedestrian access. Stormwater, groundwater, and dewatering requirements would be further evaluated. At Churchill Avenue, the roadway would be lowered within a concrete box beneath the tracks. The Seale Avenue tunnel had been extended into Peers Park to reduce retained-soil depths. Ramp and retaining walls were shortened approximately 14 feet on each side. Site- SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 9 (Reg.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/8/2026 specific geotechnical investigations would evaluate soil suitability, groundwater-control requirements, and potential track settlement. Consultant Torres stated Council had directed the team to evaluate Churchill Avenue and Seale Avenue as a package and 3 delivery scenarios for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road: concurrent construction, sequential construction, and Charleston Road independently if funding was insufficient for the combined project. Project cost estimates reflected the current level of design and would be refined as design advanced and project risks were addressed. Total project costs included construction, design and engineering, agency costs, property and easements, escalation, and contingency. Estimates assumed a 2032 construction start. Churchill Avenue and Seale Avenue were estimated at $420M–$450M with a 3–4-year construction period. Concurrent construction of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road was estimated at $1B– $1.1B over 5 years, compared with $1.2B–$1.3B over 9 years if constructed sequentially. Constructing Charleston Road independently was estimated at $480M–$530M over 4 years. Practice Leader Gibson reiterated environmental documentation would proceed concurrently with 35 percent design, beginning with technical studies and preparation of the environmental document. CEQA and NEPA review would be required, with the FRA serving as the lead agency for NEPA and the Caltrain Board approving the CEQA document before Council could consider advancing the project to implementation. A slide showed that potential property impacts could include permanent acquisitions and temporary construction easements. The 15 percent design identified the preliminary project footprint and potentially affected parcels, while 35 percent design would refine the project and construction limits. Practice Leader Gibson stated the FRA Rail Crossing Elimination Grant provided $20M for the current and 35 percent design phases. Funding available for future phases included a $23.79M State TIRCP award and $9M in City Measure K funding but a more comprehensive funding strategy would be required before advancing to final design. Council consideration of advancing the project to 35 percent design and environmental review was anticipated on September 28. Councilmember Lauing asked why the estimates were based on 2026 dollars rather than projected future costs. Consultant Torres explained that the estimates reflected current market conditions and included escalation for anticipated inflation through the midpoint of construction. Councilmember Lauing noted the estimated combined cost of all 3 projects was approximately $1.5B–$1.6B and significantly exceeded currently identified funding. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked for a high-level summary of feedback from the community, SRTS, and PABAC meetings. Practice Leader Gibson stated feedback generally focused on the proposed concepts, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities and roadways; construction and property impacts, including shoofly track locations; and project cost estimates. Consultant Torres stated PABAC raised concerns about bicycle and pedestrian connections at the Charleston Road underpass, particularly the west-side switchback ramps, which were approximately 10 feet wide rather than the 14-foot design standard because of space constraints. The team would evaluate bicycle facilities along Charleston Road and potential relocation of the 24-inch gas transmission line to provide additional design flexibility. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 9 (Reg.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/8/2026 Chief Transportation Official Lo noted community concerns that the Meadow Drive hybrid alternative could create the appearance of a wall. Consultant Torres explained that the retaining wall would reach approximately 17 feet near the intersection, where Meadow Drive would be lowered 7 feet, and would taper quickly beyond the intersection. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims requested a reminder about why the hybrid alternative had been selected over an underpass. Consultant Torres cited constructability challenges, an access ramp near the shopping center, substantially greater property impacts, including multifamily residences northeast of the intersection, and efforts to make the crossing more accessible to student cyclists. Senior Engineer Bhatia added that the underpass would have limited traffic movements. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims noted the staff report identified 5 potential full property acquisitions and 33 partial acquisitions, while the presentation showed only 3 potential full acquisitions, and asked about the discrepancy. Consultant Torres stated 2 additional potential full acquisitions had been identified on the south side of Charleston Road but design work was continuing to determine whether those properties would be directly impacted. Councilmember Lauing clarified that the property acquisition estimates applied to all crossings and asked whether the 15 percent design had identified more potential property impacts than anticipated. Consultant Torres confirmed it had, explaining that utility analysis had revealed potential property acquisition challenges. During 35 percent design, the team would work with the City’s Utilities Department to evaluate utility rerouting that could reduce property impacts. Chair Burt asked whether a stairway could be added near the Charleston Road bicycle and pedestrian ramps as an alternative to the switchbacks. Consultant Torres stated that option had not been evaluated but would be explored, along with a staircase closer to Park Boulevard. Chair Burt asked how the grade separation projects were being coordinated with the proposed South Palo Alto bikeway underpass near Matadero Creek, which could provide an additional bicycle and pedestrian crossing during construction. Chief Transportation Official Lo stated the projects were being considered concurrently and funding was being pursued. Chair Burt requested that the bikeway project be included in the Council presentation to show its relationship to traffic and bicycle and pedestrian access. Senior Engineer Bhatia stated the traffic study would consider the bikeway underpass. Chair Burt asked about projected traffic operations at Charleston Road. Consultant Torres stated previous analysis showed average morning vehicle delay of approximately 1.5 minutes under existing conditions, compared with 0.5 minute with the direct access ramp. Without the grade separation, projected 2040 delay would increase to approximately 3 minutes, compared with 0.5 minute with the project. Afternoon delay was approximately 3 minutes under existing conditions and was projected to increase to 6 minutes without the grade separation in 2040, compared with approximately 0.5 minute with the project. The 2040 projections assumed Caltrain’s adopted service vision. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 9 (Reg.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/8/2026 Chair Burt asked why the Meadow Drive retaining-wall area extended to the edge of Alma Street. Consultant Torres stated the walls were designed to the edge of Caltrain’s right-of-way to accommodate maintenance and a potential future third track. Chair Burt questioned whether Caltrain’s maintenance and access requirements unnecessarily increased grade separation costs and noted that Caltrain was reviewing its policies. Consultant Torres stated the 15 percent design applied Caltrain standards, including maintenance clearances associated with electrified rail, and potential tradeoffs could be evaluated during 35 percent design. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked whether Caltrain should bear costs associated with its operations and maintenance requirements rather than the City’s grade separation needs. Consultant Torres stated the issue would be addressed during 35 percent design. Chair Burt noted that the recently constructed 25th Avenue grade separation in San Mateo did not include comparable Caltrain maintenance access despite being designed in anticipation of electrification. Consultant Torres stated the team could investigate lessons learned from that project. Chair Burt asked whether the State TIRCP grant was at risk due to its expiration timeline. Senior Engineer Bhatia stated staff was working with the State to extend the deadline and could pursue additional Measure B funding if needed. Chair Burt estimated that approximately $48M had been identified through final design, assuming extension of the TIRCP grant, and approximately $400M could potentially be available for construction through Measure B and City Measure K funding. Item 1 Public Comment 1. John M. (Zoom), speaking on behalf of Melinda M., Neilson B., Jessica C., Sylvia F., and Timothy C., presented an AI-assisted video illustrating potential construction and long- term impacts of the Meadow Drive hybrid alternative. The video depicted the temporary shoofly track, extended construction adjacent to operating trains and Alma Street, and the permanent elevated rail and retaining wall from a pedestrian and neighborhood perspective. The commenter acknowledged that the illustrations were not engineering-quality renderings but said they were intended to help the community understand the project at a human scale. Concerns included insufficient refinement and presentation of the Meadow Drive underpass for comparison with the hybrid alternative. The Committee was urged to further study the underpass, including potential solutions to property impacts, before advancing the hybrid alternative and to consider impacts on residents living near the Caltrain corridor. 2. Roland (Zoom) advocated a privately led approach to the rail corridor between Emeryville and Gilroy, estimating a total project cost of $20B, including $5B in federal funding and $5B in private investment. The commenter stated the approach could deliver the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road projects in 1–2 years for less than $500M without shoofly tracks or loss of lanes on Alma Street. It was further suggested that use of existing passing tracks south of Redwood City could eliminate the need for additional passing tracks near Menlo Park or Palo Alto. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 9 (Reg.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/8/2026 3. Stephen R. (Zoom), a resident of Old Palo Alto, urged reconsideration of a viaduct alternative, noting that the 15 percent design cost estimates for the hybrid and underpass alternatives were approximately double earlier estimates. The commenter stated a viaduct could avoid roadway depressions, pump stations, bicycle and pedestrian ramps, relocation of the 24-inch gas line, and shoofly tracks. The commenter questioned whether cities should bear costs associated with Caltrain operations rather than grade separation needs. Councilmember Lauing expressed concern that the estimated cost of the 3 grade separations was unrealistic and suggested formally pausing the Churchill Avenue project and focusing resources on fewer crossings. Councilmember Lauing supported obtaining more information on potential property acquisitions associated with the Meadow Drive underpass and questioned whether the City should focus on the Charleston Road underpass, estimated at $480M with a 4- year construction period, rather than advancing multiple projects. Councilmember Lauing stated the 15 percent design had not provided as much information as he would like. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked why Charleston Road would be prioritized and about the likelihood of securing sufficient state and federal funding for all 3 crossings. Senior Engineer Bhatia stated completion of environmental review and 35 percent design would make additional funding sources available. Chief Transportation Official Lo stated existing grants obligated the City to advance all 3 crossings through 35 percent design but no commitment existed beyond that point. Senior Engineer Bhatia stated Council could then determine which crossings to advance to final design and noted Charleston Road had the highest traffic volume. Chair Burt asked whether constructability favored Charleston Road over Meadow Drive. Consultant Torres stated Meadow Drive presented additional constraints from larger structures east of Alma Street and utilities associated with an underpass. Consultant Torres and Caltrain Government and Community Affairs Manager Navdeep Dhaliwal stated Caltrain was working with corridor cities on a programmatic approach to grade separation funding, which could improve competitiveness for state and federal funding compared with pursuing individual projects. Palo Alto’s local investment could help leverage additional funding. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims noted The Jed Foundation’s recommendation for grade separation throughout the City as part of its work addressing means restriction for people contemplating suicide and asked whether the safety benefit could strengthen the City’s case for state and federal funding. Manager Dhaliwal stated project readiness, safety, design progress, and local investment were factors considered in funding decisions and that a unified corridor- wide approach could strengthen funding efforts. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims stated the potential funding benefits of advancing multiple crossings made her reluctant to narrow the City’s efforts to 1 project. Manager Dhaliwal emphasized a programmatic corridor approach to grade separations while recognizing the safety benefits and opportunity costs associated with advancing all 3 projects. Chair Burt stated The Jed Foundation had recommended grade separation at 4 crossings, including Palo Alto Avenue, but questioned the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of completing SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 9 (Reg.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/8/2026 all 4 in the foreseeable future. Chair Burt cited enhanced at-grade safety measures, particularly crossing guards, as providing safety benefits while acknowledging that no measure was failsafe and grade separations would not address incidents at stations. Chair Burt agreed that completion of 35 percent design would provide Council with a decision point for determining which projects to advance. Based on information available to date, Chair Burt anticipated prioritizing the Charleston Road underpass and the bicycle and pedestrian underpass near Matadero Creek but supported waiting for the 35 percent design before Council made further decisions. Chair Burt asked why the Meadow Drive hybrid design did not use a steeper track grade. Consultant Torres stated Caltrain now permitted grades up to 2 percent but the vertical curves required for freight operations limited use of a steeper grade. Union Pacific’s trackage rights required accommodating a specific track classification based on speed without materially affecting freight operations. Chair Burt requested further analysis of Union Pacific’s specific trackage rights and associated requirements. Chair Burt asked about vehicle clearance requirements for the underpasses and their effect on project design and cost. Consultant Torres stated the 15 percent design assumed Caltrain’s 16.5-foot clearance standard, while the 35 percent design would evaluate reducing the clearance to 15.5 feet with a sacrificial beam. Lower clearances at the Oregon Expressway and Embarcadero Road underpasses reflected older standards, while Caltrain’s current requirements addressed the risk of vehicle collisions with rail bridges. Senior Engineer Bhatia emphasized that State and other grant requirements would need to be considered. Chair Burt requested clarification during further design regarding required standards versus discretionary design features. Chair Burt suggested considering traffic signals on Alma Street between Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue and, if the Churchill Avenue project were deferred, exploring a bicycle-only underpass north of California Avenue while retaining the existing underpass for pedestrians. Chair Burt supported the project team’s emphasis on geotechnical and utility risks and Caltrain’s programmatic approach to corridor-wide funding. Chair Burt noted that reduced long-term state population growth projections, higher project costs, and reduced state and federal funding could affect future grade separation needs and supported considering a narrower project focus as design advanced. No recommendation to Council was being made at this meeting and the Committee would reconsider project priorities following completion of 35 percent design. Councilmember Lauing asked whether staff needed direction to ensure the Meadow Drive underpass received further consideration during 35 percent design based on public comments. Consultant Torres stated the underpass and hybrid alternatives had been evaluated before Council selected the hybrid alternative, including circulation, constructability, and property impacts, and the analysis found no practical way to avoid the underpass’s property impacts. Advancing the underpass to 15 or 35 percent design would require additional funding and time. Chair Burt stated the existing grant did not allow the Meadow Drive underpass to advance SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 9 (Reg.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/8/2026 through 15 or 35 percent design but requested additional explanation to the public of why the underpass presented greater challenges at Meadow Drive than at Charleston Road and more specific information regarding the hybrid alternative’s wall height and construction duration. Consultant Torres agreed to provide the additional context and noted that some public comments regarding construction duration were inaccurate. Councilmember Lauing clarified that selecting the Meadow Drive underpass after completion of 35 percent design would require new funding. Consultant Torres confirmed that additional funding would be required. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims clarified that the Meadow Drive hybrid alternative would require 2 partial property acquisitions but no full acquisitions, while the Charleston Road underpass would require full acquisitions. Consultant Torres confirmed that a Meadow Drive underpass would require full property acquisitions. Chair Burt noted that reducing property impacts was a primary reason Council selected the Meadow Drive hybrid alternative in late 2024. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims acknowledged concerns about the hybrid alternative but stated the Meadow Drive underpass and viaduct had been considered and were not part of the current design process. Chair Burt requested that future presentations provide the public with the history and rationale for Council’s previous decisions, including why alternatives were not advanced. Consultant Torres agreed and stated the 35 percent design would focus on addressing construction-period concerns associated with the selected alternative. NO ACTION TAKEN Virtual General Public Comment None. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 p.m.