HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-02-21 Rail Agenda PacketCity Council Rail Committee
1
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Special Meeting
Community Meeting Room
8:00 AM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in
the Council Chambers on the Thursday 12 days preceding the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to agendized items. If you wish to address the Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers/Community Meeting Room, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not
required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Committee, but it is very helpful.
Call to Order
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.
Action Items
1. Presentation on Connecting Palo Alto: Trenching-Tunneling White
Paper
2. Review of Rail Committee 2018 Workplan
Interagency Communications
Next Steps and Future Agendas
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8975)
City Council Rail Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/21/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Presentation on Rail Trench/Tunnel White Paper
Title: Presentation on Connecting Palo Alto: Trenching-Tunneling White
Paper
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Rail Committee receive a presentation on the Connecting
Palo Alto: Trenching-Tunneling White Paper and begin public discussion of the white
paper and its findings.
Discussion
Attached is a transmittal memo dated February 5, 2018 and the accompanying white
paper titled “Technical Memo: Caltrain Trench and Tunnel Options.” Staff will present
an overview of this white paper at the Rail Committee meeting.
The transmittal memo indicates a community roundtable date pending. A meeting has
date and time now been scheduled as follows:
Date: Tuesday March 6, 2018
Location: Palo Alto Art Center Auditorium
Time: 6:30-8:30pm
Staff is circulating the white paper and organizing public discussions as key steps in the
selection of a focused set of grade separation alternatives for further evaluation.
In keeping with the open, transparent and engaging approach established for the rail
grade separation program, the white paper is being circulated for public review
concurrently with the first review by responsible agencies and other key stakeholders.
This review will undoubtedly raise questions and identify gaps in the analysis presented.
While fully expecting critique and debate, we are confident that the white paper
nonetheless serves to advance thoughtful and pragmatic community discussion of the
issues involved with trench and tunneling concepts, and decision-making on the most
City of Palo Alto Page 2
viable options.
Attachments:
Technical Memo: Caltrain Trench and Tunnel Options 2018-02-05
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITIEE & INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
JAMES KEENE, CITY MANAGER
FEBRUARY 5, 2018
CONNECTING PALO ALTO: TRENCHING-TUNNELLING WHITE PAPER
This memo and the attached white paper provide a concept-level evaluation of what would be involved
in using a trench or tunnel to lower the Caltrain tracks through all or a portion of Palo Alto, allowing
current at grade crossings to remain at grade.
These materials are being circulated for concurrent review by the Rail Committee, potentially involved
agencies, and the public similar to a recent draft white paper about local financing methods, and a
recent draft traffic circulation study. Questions and comments we receive on all of these materials will
inform supplemental work on these important subjects. Our intention is to inform our ongoing planning
process and a City Council decision regarding which alternatives should be the subject of further, in-
depth analysis.
Publication Date:
Rail Committee Date:
Public Meeting Date:
Public Comments Due:
Send Comments to:
Supporting Materials:
Overview
Trenching-Tunneling White Paper
February 5, 2018
February 21, 2018 (Tentative)
Pending (To Be Determined)
March 5, 2018
transportation@cityofpaloalto.org
Rail Corridor Circulation Study
https:ljwww.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62298
Draft Rail Financing White Paper
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62296
The attached analysis assesses the technical feasibility of constructing a trench or a tunnel through all or
a portion of Palo Alto to place Caltrain (and High Speed Rail) below ground.1 The analysis indicates that
1 Trenches are constructed from above and tunnels are constructed by boring underground.
February 5, 2018 Page 1of3
trenching and tunneling would be feasible from an engineering perspective. However, there are a
numper of significant issues associated with trenching or tunneling throughout the entire City, making it
very difficult for the City to obtain approval for or construct these alternatives. Principal issues, which
are identified below, include construction impacts, necessary agency approvals, construction costs, and
ongoing operational/maintenance costs.
Trenching under a portion of the City -specifically the Meadow and Charleston crossings or just the
Charleston crossing may be more feasible, but would require further analysis as we continue our
planning process including review by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of agency staff.
Issues & Observations
San Francisquito Creek forms the northern boundary of Palo Alto and its depth (27 feet) constitutes a
significant impediment to trenching or tunneling in northern Palo Alto. As the attached analysis points
out, the railroad tracks would have to be 32.5 feet below the creek bed or 59.5 feet below grade, and it
would take approximately 2,975 feet for the tracks to return to grade in Menlo Park, even assuming a
slope of 2%, which would require approval from Caltrain.
If the City were to pursue tunneling under San Francisquito Creek, Menlo Park residents would
experience impacts due to the excavation and construction staging area involved, as well as the need for
a temporary track along Alma Street to preserve rail service during construction. Residents on the Palo
Alto side of the creek would also experience these impacts, and traffic on the Alma Street corridor
would be affected.
A detailed analysis of hydrologic issues would be required, as would potential visual, noise, cultural
resource, and safety/security impacts associated with the segment of open trench where the railroad
tracks slowly rise from under the creek back to the surface. Caltrain, Menlo Park, and agencies with
jurisdiction over the creek would all have to approve plans for tunneling under the creek. Our staff does
not believe the City could secure these approvals.
Constructing a tunnel or trench through north Palo Alto would also require reconstructing all existing
stations underground, with new access points via stairs and elevators. Mechanical ventilation and
emergency exits would be required for tunnel and covered trench segments along the corridor.
Associated costs are included in the preliminary cost estimates, which do not include reconstructing the
University Ave, Embarcadero, and Oregon Expressway under crossings after construction of the trench
or tunnel. Our staff believes that the total cost of constructing a citywide trench or tunnel (estimated at
$2.BB to $4.BB) are prohibitive, significantly exceeding the funding available from the options recently
analyzed in the draft financing white paper. Agencies from which approval may be required include the
CA Public Utilities Commission, Caltrain, Union Pacific Railroad, Santa Clara County (Roads & Airports),
and the Santa Clara County Valley Water District.
The costs of operating and maintaining underground facilities during their lifespan would be also
significant and as in a recent example (i.e. the BART tunnel in Santa Clara County), the rail operator
February 5, 2018 Page 2 of 3
would seek to pass those costs onto another agency.2 From a public safety perspective, a trench or
tunnel would likely require training and equipment not currently deployed within Palo Alto.
South Palo Alto does not have all of the same constraints as north Palo Alto because the creek depths
are less and because a trench or tunnel passing under Charleston Ave would have sufficient distance to
return to the surface before reaching the Mountain View city limits. Nonetheless, constructing a trench
(and some other types of grade separation) anywhere along the corridor would require construction and
use of a temporary track during the construction period. For a Citywide trench, the temporary track
would extend the length of Alma Street, significantly disrupting traffic as well as the quality of life along
the corridor for the duration of construction. Traffic/roadway impacts could extend into Mountain
View.
Conclusion
Our staff believes that while trenching or tunneling under the entire City of Palo Alto may be technically
feasible as demonstrated in the attached white paper, there are significant issues that make these
options practically unworkable from a political (interagency) and financial perspective. However
trenching under a portion of the City -specifically the Meadow and Charleston crossings or just the
Charleston crossing -could appear to merit further analysis as we move forward with our planning
process.
City Manager
2 Santa Clara County established a 1/8 cent sales tax to fund VTA/BART operations and maintenance.
February 5, 2018 Page 3 of 3
Project: City of Palo Alto Caltrain Grade Separation Study
Our reference: 372569
Prepared by: Mike Lehnen Date: 12/29/17
Approved by: Chris Metzger
Subject: Caltrain Trench and Tunnel Options
Contents
1 Setting/Context 3
2 Previous and Related Studies 4
3 Methodology of Developing Options 4
4 Options Considered 8
5 Discussion of Options 9
Introduction 9
Shoofly Diversion Track 11
Citywide Subsurface Guideway Options 12
Open Trench 13
Covered Trench (Cut and Cover Box) 14
Bored Tunnels 15
Limited Subsurface Guideway 17
Fire/Life Safety (Ventilation & Emergency Egress) Considerations for All Options 17
Ventilation 18
Emergency Egress and Safety 18
Other Considerations Common to All Options 19
ROW 19
Site Assessment 20
Construction Methods and Impacts 21
Caltrain Electrification Impacts 24
Operations 26
Utilities 26
Order of Magnitude Costs 26
6 Other Considerations 27
7 Summary andNext Steps 28
References 30
Appendices 30
Technical Memo
Mott MacDonald 2
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It
should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other
purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.
This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without
consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.
This report has been pr epared sol el y for use by the party which commissi oned it (the ‘Client’) i n connecti on with the capti oned proj ect. It should not be used for any other purpose. N o person other than the Client or any party who has expressl y agreed ter ms of r eliance with us (the ‘Reci pient(s)’) may rel y on the content, i nformati on or any vi ews expressed i n the repor t. We accept no duty of care, responsi bility or liability to any other r eci pient of thi s document. This r eport is confi denti al and contains pr opri etar y intell ectual property. No representati on warranty or under taki ng expr ess or i mplied is made and no responsi bility or liability is accepted by us to any party other than the Cli ent or any Reci pient(s) as to the accuracy or completeness of the i nformati on contai ned i n this r eport For the avoidance of doubt this r eport does not in any way purport to i nclude any legal insur ance or fi nanci al advice or opi nion
Mott MacDonald 3
1 Setting/Context
The City of Palo Alto (City) is currently bisected by Caltrain, which runs in a generally north south direction the
entire length of Palo Alto. Over the years, as Caltrain has grown in popularity and the frequency and number
of trains has increased, the impacts to the City have also increased. Today, while value is created by the
Caltrain service for businesses and residents benefit, the Caltrain Facility also creates some negative impacts
for the City by, among other things: creating a barrier between the two sides of the tracks impeding access
and negatively affecting vehicular operations; creating noise pollution with train whistle and train operation
noise; creating air pollution with the diesel locomotives; creating a safety risk both on and near the tracks as
traffic increasingly conflicts with train operations.
The electrification of Caltrain, and the potential for the California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) to utilize the
corridor, portend increased train traffic through the City in the near and long-term future. The positive benefits
to the City will be similarly increased with the increased mobility created by Caltrain. The increased frequency
of Caltrain will also increase the majority of the negative impacts noted above. Electrification will, however,
eliminate air pollution from commuter rail currently caused by diesel engines. Electrification may also reduce
train noise along the corridor.
Currently there are four (4) multipurpose (vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle) at-grade crossings, three (3)
grade separated multipurpose crossings, and two pedestrian/bicycle crossings of the Caltrain Corridor within
the City. The City has undertaken multiple studies over the years to assess mobility and the impact of the
Caltrain Corridor and Caltrain operations on that mobility. More recently, focus has been on considering ways
to improve mobility across the corridor through grade separating one or more of the at-grade crossings and/or
adding additional pedestrian/bicycle crossings.
This paper considers the opportunities and issues specifically associated with grade separating the existing
at-grade multipurpose crossings by lowering the Caltrain tracks under the existing roadways. As noted below,
other options have been considered in previous studies and/or are being addressed through other ongoing
City sponsored efforts.
The information contained in this paper is presented to allow comparison of alternatives for lowering the tracks
within the City, and to help in the decision-making process related to mitigating the negative impacts of
increased train operations through the City. All information is based on previous studies, experience of
professionals familiar with this type of work, and preliminary information available. More detailed studies,
including environmental analysis and documentation, and preliminary engineering, are required to more fully
understand the specific impacts and opportunities associated with the concepts discussed herein.
Some major assumptions have been made in the development of this paper, as follows:
1. All work herein is based on current industry standards/codes, which are subject to change. Future project
development will continue to monitor and adapt to current standards.
2. Caltrain electrification will be complete and operational at the time of construction of any of the options
considered herein
3. There will be no passing track (3rd track) within Palo Alto (this potential configuration change and some
major impacts resulting therefrom is briefly discussed below in Section 4, Options Considered. Cost
estimates included herein do not account for passing/3rd track)
4. Caltrain remains in operation throughout construction of the improvements considered herein with the
exception of some weekend closures)
5. Major roadways which currently cross Caltrain (e.g. University Ave, Embarcadero Rd, Oregon Expwy)
remain in operation throughout construction of the improvements considered herein (some weekend/short
term closures may be allowed).
6. Note: The constraint of assumptions 4 and 5 means that existing facilities must be ‘designed around’
regardless if they are later modified (e.g. existing Embarcadero Rd. will remain in operation, requiring the
ultimate tracks to be constructed 30' below the existing grade of Embarcadero Road, regardless if later
Embarcadero is raised to grade)
Mott MacDonald 4
7. Temporary railroad alignments will be located to the east or the Alma Street side of the corridor to avoid
impacts to residential and/or commercial properties located to the west. Most trees and shrubbery between
the railroad and Alma Street will be removed for construction. Specific accommodation would be required
to preserve “El Palo Alto” in El Palo Alto Park.
8. Contaminated water or material is of such a nature that common industry approaches currently used can
be applied here (e.g. some off-haul of material to a Class 1 facility may be required, but most of the
material can be removed as Class 2 or 3 to locations within Northern California).
9. No ‘dewatering’ pumping is anticipated to be required. Pumping of water will consist of casual water
remaining after sealing of the trench sides and slab.
2 Previous and Related Studies
As noted above, the City has engaged in multiple studies over recent years to assess and consider
opportunities to mitigate impacts related to the Caltrain operations within City limits. Some of the more
relevant studies, which include more detail and from which information has been utilized herein, are listed in
the References and Appendices at the end of this paper.
3 Methodology of Developing Options
Prior to describing the specific options considered in this paper, the following presents the methodology
utilized in developing a transit option of this sort. Although an alternative horizontal alignment for the tunneling
option is discussed below, the options considered herein assume the ultimate horizontal alignment is within
the existing Caltrain right-of-way (ROW). This methodology is discussed in 3 steps:
• Step 1. Define the primary goal of the specific effort
• Step 2. Define the criteria controlling the transit option and the constraints around and/or within which the
concept(s) must be developed
• Step 3. Develop concepts that meet the goal, adhere to the criteria, and fit within the identified constraints
The following more fully develops these steps in relation to the focus of this paper.
Step 1. Define the Primary Goal
For the purpose of this paper, the goal is to improve circulation of pedestrians/bikes/vehicles within Palo Alto
by lowering the Caltrain tracks below one or more of the four existing at-grade roadway crossings. Additional
benefits, such as reduced train noise and increased safety may be realized, but are not the primary goal of
this effort.
Step 2. Define the Criteria and Constraints
The following criteria pertain to the improvements under consideration to achieve the primary goal from Step 1.
Criteria
As noted above, it is assumed Caltrain must remain in operation throughout construction. Relevant design
criteria/assumptions in establishing viable concepts are as follows:
• Vertical Clearance: Any structure over the Caltrain tracks must have a minimum clearance of 24.5’ above
the top of rail (TOR).
• Structure thickness: For local roadways a structure is assumed to be 5’ deep which accommodates a
majority of utilities running east/west within the structure.
– Thus, assuming the local roadway remains at existing grade, the Caltrain tracks must be lowered a
minimum of 29.5’ (say 30’) below existing grade. This applies at ALL roadways crossing the corridor,
not only those at-grade.
Mott MacDonald 5
(Note: it is further assumed that currently grade separated roadways such as University Ave are 20'
below the existing Caltrain top of rail grade. Thus, Caltrain must be lowered 20' + 30' = 50' below
existing grade at existing grade separated locations. This is consistent regardless of the construction
method.)
• Minimum required distance between the bottom of a creek and the top of rail of Caltrain tracks = 32.5’
(24.5 track clearance + 3' structure depth + 5' above structure to creek flowline).
– Based on available information, the approximate depths of creeks below TOR where they cross the
Caltrain corridor are as follows: San Francisquito (27’); Matadero (15’); Barron (10’) Adobe (15’). Thus,
the tracks must be lowered a minimum of 32.5’+10’ (42.5’) and a maximum of 32.5’+27’ (59.5’) below
the bottom of each creek. Rounded values are used below. Note that creek flowline elevations are
generally not able to be modified and are considered ‘fixed’ for the purposes of this paper.
• Slopes: Max allowable slope for the railroad tracks is 1% per Caltrain Standards. However, as it may be
possible to utilize 2% slopes if a design exception is approved by Caltrain, this paper assumes 2% max
slopes are achievable where noted. It should be further noted that variances are typically approved only
after more detailed engineering which justifies the use of a non-standard design. Per design criteria, slopes
greater than 1% will not be allowed if the track alignment is on a horizontal curve or as identified below.
The right of approval lies with Caltrain and there is no guarantee at this time that they will approve this 2%
slope exception.
• Station Platforms: must be level (this affects the profile options available). Caltrain platform lengths
assumed herein are 700'. Caltrain criteria also state that design should not preclude expansion of
platforms to 1000’ feet in the future to accommodate 8-car trains. This could directly affect the profile of a
depressed Caltrain facility in Palo Alto.
• Track Crossovers must be on tangent track and on relatively level ground. This paper does not define
crossover locations which are a critical element of overall train operations. Should HSR or future Caltrain
service require additional crossovers, essentially level track limits may be increased beyond what is
assumed in this paper
• Minimum width of ROW required for the Caltrain shoofly is 47’ in conformance with attached Figure 1.
(Prior to electrification, 35’ would have been required).
Figure 1: Caltrain Clearance Requirements for Shoofly Track
Mott MacDonald 6
Constraints
Applying the above criteria to the reach of Caltrain within City limits, the following are considered hard
constraints (or ‘fixed’). In developing the conceptual profile, it is assumed the project would not alter these
fixed constraints (e.g. not raise or lower a creek flowline) when developing feasible profiles for lowering
Caltrain tracks within the City. This process defines the depth Caltrain would be lowered at these locations for
the train to operate in a depressed condition.
1. San Francisquito Creek is fixed. Caltrain must be lowered 32.5 below the flow line of the creek where it
crosses Caltrain, or roughly 60’ below existing grade. (Note: Ravenswood Avenue in Menlo Park is located
within the projected slope – 1% or 2% - needed to return to grade north of San Francisquito Creek. See
discussion in Section 6, Other Considerations, on Caltrain profile changes being considered by Menlo Park
which would affect the profile of Caltrain in the northern portion of Palo Alto)
2. Palo Alto Avenue will remain at-grade (Caltrain must be lowered 30’ below existing grade. Given the
proximity to San Francisquito Creek, constraint #1 above controls the depth of Caltrain at this location)
3. University Avenue Grade Crossing. (See major assumption #5 above) – Caltrain must be lowered 30’
below the current University Avenue roadway grade (Or approximately 50’)
4. Palo Alto Station. Given proximity to University Avenue, this station, which requires level grade for
boarding will also be approximately 50’ below grade.
5. Homer Avenue Pedestrian/Bike Crossing. It is assumed that this crossing is not a defining characteristic
of the ultimate configuration of Caltrain through the City and is NOT considered a constraint for this study.
6. Embarcadero Road. Similar to University, Caltrain must be lowered 30’ below existing roadway grade, or
approximately 50’ below the current Caltrain grade.
7. Stanford Station. Similar to University Avenue Station, the platforms require level profile for boarding
purposes and will be approximately 50’ below existing grade. For purposes of this paper, it is assumed the
station will remain in operation. Future discussions with Caltrain may modify this assumption.
8. Churchill Avenue. Caltrain must be lowered 30’ below existing grade
9. California Avenue Station. Must be level profile for boarding, and given close proximity to Oregon
Expressway, tracks must be lowered approximately 50’ (it is assumed the Pedestrian UC at this location,
similar to Homer Avenue, is not considered a constraint for this paper)
10. Oregon Expressway. As for University and Embarcadero, Caltrain must be lowered approximately 50’
11. Matadero Creek. Caltrain must be lowered 32.5’ below the creek flowline, or approximately 50' below
existing grade
12. Barron Creek. Caltrain must be lowered 45' below existing grade.
13. West Meadow Drive. Caltrain must be lowered 30’ below existing grade
14. Charleston Avenue. Caltrain must be lowered 30’ below existing grade
15. Adobe Creek. Caltrain must be lowered 50' below existing grade
16. San Antonio Station. Level profile is required for boarding regardless of depth
The above list of vertical constraints is summarized in Table 1 below. The distance between each feature is
also listed in the table. Utilizing the required depth of the Caltrain track below existing grade, and a 2%
assumed maximum slope, the minimum distance for Caltrain to return to grade is calculated and shown in the
table. Given the required distance to return to grade, and the available distance between features, the
potential ability to return to grade at specific locations within the City is clearly identified.
Other constraints that would be assessed and addressed during future phases of project development
(preliminary engineering, environmental clearance and final design), include the following:
• Overhead utilities, including high voltage power lines, which may affect the shoofly on Alma Street
and construction activities within the Caltrain corridor
• Underground utilities which may require relocation and/or could affect the profile of a lowered Caltrain
Mott MacDonald 7
• El Palo Alto and parks, which require special environmental consideration, including avoidance,
which could affect temporary and permanent construction elements
Table 1. List of Summarized Constraints
Feature
Depth to
Lower CT
Distance
Between
Features
2% Slope
Distance Req. to
Return to Grade
Possible to Return to
Grade Between
Features FEET FEET FEET
Ravenswood Avenue (Menlo Park) N/A n/a Yes, to south
3,800
San Francisquito Creek (City Limits) 60 3000 Yes, to north
500
Palo Alto Avenue 30 1,600 No
1,500
University Avenue Grade Crossing 50 2,500 No
300
Palo Alto Avenue Station 50 2,500 No, to North (Note 2)
1,500
Homer Avenue Ped/Bike Crossing n/a
1,500
Embarcadero Road 50 2,500 No
0 (Adjacent)
Stanford Station (1) 50 2,500 No
1,500
Churchill Avenue 30 1,600 Yes, to South (note 3)
3,000
California Avenue Train Station (1) 50 2,500 Yes, to North
1,000
Oregon Expressway 50 2,500 No
2,300
Matadero Creek 50 2,500 Yes, to South
2,700
Barron Creek 45 2250 Yes to North
1,000
Meadow Drive 30 1,600 Yes, to South
2,000
Charleston Avenue 30 1,600 Yes, to North
1,000
Adobe Creek 50 2500 Yes, to South
3,000
San Antonio Station (City Limits +/-) N/A N/A Yes, to North
Notes:
(1) There is no specific requirement of depth for the stations, however, because it requires a level profile
and is in close proximity to other constraints, the same depth requirement is used.
(2) Caltrain could return to grade south of Palo Alto Station and north of Embarcadero Road if Homer Ave
UC is removed/relocated.
(3) Caltrain could potentially return to grade between Embarcadero Road and Churchill Ave if Stanford
Station is eliminated.
Mott MacDonald 8
This very simplified assessment of criteria and constraints identifies areas where it MAY be possible to
transition a depressed Caltrain facility back to grade. This table and the values therein do NOT take into
account additional distance needed for vertical curves to transition between a level slope and a 2% slope.
As reflected in Table 1, the best opportunities to depress the Caltrain tracks under a local road crossing and
return to grade within the City occur within the southern portion of the City. In the northern part of the City,
depressed tracks must remain depressed from the City limits to south of Embarcadero Road at a minimum.
Lowering tracks under San Francisquito Creek requires that tracks be depressed in the southern portion of the
City of Menlo Park.
Step 3: Develop Conceptual Profiles
Profiles that meet the stated goal, adhere to the criteria noted and respect the constraints noted can now be
developed. As noted, there are few opportunities to lower Caltrain below an existing feature and return to
grade prior to the next adjacent feature. Thus, there are essentially two major feasible options available to the
City for lowering Caltrain. These are presented in the next section of this paper.
4 Options Considered
Two primary options for depressing the Caltrain tracks below roadways within the City are presented below.
These are considered the most viable options and are assessed at a conceptual level. Other options
discussed but not addressed herein, and the reasoning behind that decision, are as follows:
Inclusion of a 3rd (passing) track in Palo Alto: Currently, the CAHSR is not proposing a third track in the
City. Should that change in the future, the fundamental result would be a significant increase in impacts and
costs. A very simple assessment would be increasing costs by a minimum of 50% to reflect the widening of
the trench approximately 50%. Further impacts resulting from the shoofly and features such as access stairs
and station areas would increase the impacts further. Thus, the challenges of a depressed 3 track facility
render it outside the scope of this initial assessment of depressing Caltrain in the City.
Rerouting Caltrain such as under El Camino Real: In assessing viability of a depressed track option, a
rerouted facility would face similar issues as the options considered. While shoofly requirements might be
reduced (a shoofly is still required at tie-in locations) rerouting will add costs to any option due to increased
length of the project, would require significant Right of Way acquisition, and would result in increased station
area impacts. As El Camino Real is presently a state-owned facility, the process to obtain agreements with
the state would be lengthy. Thus, while this option is possible, the discussion of issues and process would be
similar, while costs for Right of Way would be significantly increased. Construction costs would also be
increased to reflect the increased length of track required in this scenario.
Option 1. Citywide Subsurface Guideway
This option lowers Caltrain throughout the entire reach of the City. A trench section will be required in Menlo
Park where Caltrain would be on a 2% grade returning to existing grade just south of Ravenswood Drive. On
the southern end of the City, Caltrain would begin its descent into a depressed alignment just north of the San
Antonio Station at a slope between 1% and 2%. There are three different construction methodologies to
achieve this fully depressed guideway option:
• Open trench (except at local roadways, creeks and other select features
• Covered Trench (cut and cover box)
• Bored Tunnels
Option 2. Limited Subsurface Guideway
This option lowers Caltrain only in the southern portion of the City. Similar to Option 1, Caltrain would begin its
descent just north of the San Antonio Station at a slope of between 1% and 2%. Three variations are possible
for this option:
Mott MacDonald 9
1. Return to grade just north of Charleston Road. This alignment assumes a 2% slope north of Charleston
Road and requires modification of West Meadow Drive at the Caltrain corridor. West Meadow Drive could
be closed, raised over the profile of Caltrain, or a pedestrian/bicycle only facility could be constructed.
2. Return to grade north of West Meadow Drive and south of Matadero Creek. This alignment uses a 2%
grade north of West Meadow Drive and reflects a reduced vertical clearance under Barron Creek, which is
in a box culvert under the current Caltrain facility. This condition and suitability of the option will require
more detailed assessment and consultation with SCVWD and other regulatory agencies.
3. Return to grade north of West Meadow Drive at the Caltrain Standard 1% grade. This alignment uses a 1%
grade north of West Meadow Drive. This alignment is not shown due to the many constraints and impacts
associated with a 1% grade. The Caltrain tracks would pass under Matadero Creek, where clearance
would be an issue and may require keeping the track profile deeper at this location. The 1% grade
alignment also results in a direct conflict with Oregon Expressway as well as the California Pedestrian
Undercrossing. The major conflicts associated with this profile make it inappropriate for further study.
However, the profile was assessed to understand the multiple constraints and the impacts that must be
addressed in developing a viable option. This assessment results in the determination that if a variance for
a slope at or approaching 2% is not achieved, the multiple impacts of maintaining a 1% slope essentially
make any limited subsurface guideway infeasible.
5 Discussion of Options
Introduction
The options described in Section 4 above were developed to a schematic engineering level for presentation
and assessment purposes.
Based on the Criteria and Constraints listed in Section 3, plan and profile alignments were developed as
shown in Figure 2 below.
Mott MacDonald 1
Figure 2. Plan & Profile of CHSR Alignment Through Palo Alto
Mott MacDonald 11
Figure 3:Staging Schematic Trench-Shoofly Section Looking North N.T.S.
The horizontal alignment follows the existing Caltrain alignment and remains within the existing ROW
throughout the limits of the City. Refinements to the horizontal alignment would be considered during future
design development phases, to ensure that criteria – including ride quality considerations – are adequately
addressed when considered in the context of combined horizontal and vertical geometry.
The vertical alignment complies with the ‘constraints’ as listed in Section 3. The Citywide vertical profile
shown is derived from the CHSRA Draft Technical Memo dated June 2011, which is consistent with the
methodology presented herein.
Shoofly Diversion Track
Prior to discussing each of the individual guideway options, it should be noted that all options would require
a temporary diversion of the existing Caltrain tracks to provide for construction of the necessary
infrastructure on the current alignment. This diversion would be accomplished through installation of a
temporary or ‘shoofly’ track, which would diverge from the south end of the existing alignment, travel
parallel to the existing alignment throughout the length of construction, then converge back into the existing
alignment at the north end.
Depending on the option, the diversion/conversion of the shoofly from/to the existing alignment could occur
either within the limits of the City, or in the City of Mountain View to the south or the City of Menlo Park to
the north. It is important to note that the shoofly length extends further north and south than the ultimate
improvements, as it is necessary to clear the entire construction work zone. For example, though the
ultimate track profile may conform to existing grade north of San Antonio Station in some configurations,
the shoofly required would likely cause temporary re-configuration of the station platform.
The configuration of the shoofly would be finalized in later project development stages. A shoofly will be
required around all active construction that disrupts current track/operations. Horizontal geometry criteria
will determine where/how a shoofly ties back into the existing alignment. For the bored tunnel option,
shoofly’s are required around the tunnel portal areas, as well as all stations and potentially ventilation
structures. Options for a series of shorter shoofly’s for the bored or cut/cover tunnel options could also be
assessed with the intent to reduce the duration of shoofly impacts in specific reaches of the corridor.
A typical schematic, showing the relationship between the existing tracks, Alma Street, the temporary
shoofly, and the ultimately depressed track is presented in Figure 3 below. Note that the width of the
Caltrain Corridor varies, thus the impact to Alma Street will vary along the corridor. At Stations, where the
trench will be wider, it may be necessary to utilize all of Alma Street for the shoofly. In other locations,
preliminary research suggests half of Alma Street could be left open to vehicular traffic while the shoofly is
in operation.
Mott MacDonald 12
Characteristics of Shoofly Diversion Track
• Required for all Citywide options to construct transition ramps into subsurface guideway
• With system electrified, tracks must remain parallel and adjacent to each other to allow use of a
standard traction power system
• Temporary (multi-year) mainline track relocation will be to eastern portion of the Caltrain ROW, where
available, or within the Alma Street corridor. This will generally require removal of all existing vegetation
between the existing tracks and Alma Street. A complete count of the number of trees impacted would
be performed during the environmental clearance phase of the project.
• Temporary station platforms will be located along shoofly at existing station locations
Issues
• Preliminary efforts suggest that one to two lanes of traffic on Alma Street will be required for the shoofly
along the entire length of guideway, thus reducing the vehicular capacity on Alma Street significantly
and placing the Caltrain tracks and trains much closer to the occupants of properties on the east side of
Alma Street
• Temporary station platforms may disrupt local neighborhoods and further impact Alma Street
• Shoofly start point may be south of San Antonio Station which is constrained by Central Expressway /
San Antonio Road interchange. This may have significant additional impacts beyond those accounted
for herein
• May require work in City of Mountain View and/or City of Menlo Park. This work must be coordinated
with, and have complete acceptance by, the respective agencies for work within their jurisdictions
Opportunities
• Where existing stations/platforms are disrupted by the shoofly construction, the opportunity exists to
modify the location and access of the platforms should that be desired.
Citywide Subsurface Guideway Options
There are multiple options that could be employed to construct the Caltrain guideway in an underground facility. The three options deemed most appropriate based on the ground conditions, constraints and
engineering judgment are listed below:
• Open trench
• Covered Trench (Cut and Cover Box)
• Bored Tunneling
The profile of the track, which is primarily controlled by the criteria and constraints as noted above, will be
very similar for all three options. For the purposes of this paper they are considered the same. The three options considered for the construction of the Citywide Subsurface Guideway are summarized below.
The typical sections presented herein reflect the requirements of the system for the high-speed rail. Note
that the speed of the trains, and the resulting aerodynamic drag created by the moving trains, requires additional width between trains in comparison to Caltrain standards. The resulting cross-sectional area of
the running tunnel is thus larger with high-speed trains than would be required for current Caltrain operations.
Per the March 2012 operations work by Caltrain, both the CAHSR and Caltrain could operate at speeds up
to 110 mph in the future. Final determination on actual speeds has not been determined.
Mott MacDonald 13
Open Trench
This configuration, shown in Figure 4 below, is a trench that is open to the sky except where specific
features require the trench to be covered (such as at roadway or other crossing structures). The Open
Trench Option consists of:
• Temporary retaining walls known as deep Support of Excavation (SOE) walls along both sides of
the approximately 55 ft. wide trench width, for the full length of the guideway. These require
additional bracing during construction (removal of material between the walls)
• Track transitions to grade which tie into existing track alignment at either end. This paper assumes
those transitions utilize a 2% slope
• Permanent retaining walls (built inside the temporary walls) and base slab to support the tracks,
trackwork, Overhead Catenary System (OCS) - power for the trains- and system operational
equipment installed (I.e. communications equipment)
• Stations located in trench, with outside platforms
• Intermediate, regularly spaced emergency access/egress stairs to grade along the trench
• Intermediate pump stations, at locations to be determined, to remove storm water from the trench.
This consists of separate rooms and access thereto to collect the storm water, house the pumps
and provide access thereto.
• Mechanical ventilation is not required with an open trench. See further discussion under Section
5.5.1 Ventilation.
Issues
• ROW impacts for shoofly. Potential temporary ROW impacts on west side of corridor to allow
construction activities. Potential permanent underground easements required for retaining wall tie-
back anchors under properties located west of tracks.
• Support / relocation of existing utilities at crossings. It is assumed that the trench is deep enough
for existing utilities to be placed in the new bridge structure (as noted, the depth of the structure is
assumed to accommodate most utilities. Some gravity systems may require pump stations or
syphons to cross the depressed track facility)
• Open trench for the entire length of guideway except at transportation and creek crossings. An 8-
10’ height (consistent with existing City-installed) barrier or fence is required along the top of
trench walls for safety and for protection of materials entering the guideway from above.
• Potential noise and vibration impacts would be assessed. With the train depressed, there is
potential for noise and vibration to be realized differently in adjoining neighborhoods. This may
result in need for sound walls or mitigative track-form(s). (e.g. sound absorptive materials or shock
absorbing configurations may be required. The cost estimates shown herein do NOT take into
account any special treatment specifically for noise or vibration mitigation
Opportunities
• The Open Trench is the least expensive of the Citywide options.
• New transportation crossings could be added that don’t currently exist. Costs reflected for this
option assume no ventilation would be required, thus limiting the number and size of any new
crossings.
Mott MacDonald 14
Covered Trench (Cut and Cover Box)
The covered trench configuration, shown in Figure 5 below, is similar to the open trench concept
except that the trench is covered with a roof slab and not open to the sky where the track is fully
depressed (i.e. the transition areas would remain open trench until sufficient depth is achieved to cover
the tracks) . The area above the roof is backfilled, and roadways or other crossing structures are
constructed in their typical fashions. The Covered Trench Option consists of:
• Temporary retaining walls known as deep Support of Excavation (SOE) walls along both sides of
the approximately 55 ft. wide trench width, for the full length of the guideway. These require
additional bracing during removal of material between the walls.
• Track transitions to grade and tie into existing track alignment at either end. This paper assumes
those transitions utilize a 2% slope.
• Interior permanent retaining walls, base slab to support the tracks, trackwork, Overhead Catenary
System (OCS) - power for the trains- and system operational equipment installed (I.e.
communications equipment), and roof slab.
• Stations located in deep underground cut and cover box structures, with station operations rooms
and emergency ventilation facilities. Vertical circulation elements extending to grade. Side or
center platforms.
• Intermediate, regularly spaced emergency access/egress stairs to grade along the covered trench
guideway.
• Intermediate pump stations, at locations to be determined, to remove storm water from the
underground guideway. This consists of separate rooms and access thereto to collect the
stormwater, house the pumps and provide access thereto.
• Mechanical ventilation is required with a covered trench. See further discussion under Section
5.5.1 Ventilation.
Issues
• ROW impacts for shoofly. Potential temporary ROW impacts on west side of corridor to allow
construction activities. Similar to open trench but increased impacts to accommodate at grade
ventilation structures.
Figure 4: Typical Open Trench Section
Mott MacDonald 15
• Support / relocation of existing utilities at crossings during construction of the trench. Utilities
would be installed in their ultimate locations during backfilling operations over the covered trench
and reinstatement of roadway crossings.
• Covered and backfilled trench for the entire length of guideway except at transitions to grade at
either end of the guideway.
• Potential noise and vibration impacts would be assessed. With the train depressed, there is
potential for noise and vibration to be realized differently in adjoining neighborhoods.
– May result in need for sound walls in transition areas or mitigative trackform(s). (e.g. sound
absorptive materials or shock absorbing configurations may be required. The cost estimates
shown herein to NOT take into account any special treatment specifically for noise or vibration
mitigation
• The Covered Trench is the most expensive of the Citywide options.
Opportunities
• Potential for open space/recreational area development above guideway alignment. Structures or
other significant uses above the trench box would require specific analyses, potentially requiring
changes to the box structure and increasing the cost of the project.
Figure 5: Typical Covered Trench (Cut-and-Cover Box) Section
Bored Tunnels
A typical bored tunnel configuration is shown in Figure 6 below. Bored tunnels are constructed through
mechanized means, utilizing one or more Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs). Due to the length of
subsurface guideway required and ground conditions assumed, a bored tunnel configuration is
expected to be more economical in this instance than the covered trench configuration. Bored tunnels
would connect the stations, which would remain deep cut and cover structures as for the previous two
options. The stations would be identical in configuration to those required for the covered trench option.
The bored tunnel option would be comprised of the following:
• Twin circular approx. 30 ft. excavated diameter guideway running tunnels between stations, with
open trench portals at either end to transition to grade and tie into the existing track alignment.
Mott MacDonald 16
NOTES: 1. DIMENSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY 2. TWIN BORES ARE ONE TUNNEL DIAMETER AWAY
3. TUNNEL INNER DIAMTER REFERENCE TO CHSTP TM DRAEING 2.4.2.-A, DESIGN SPEED 90 MPH
• Tunnels constructed by one or more TBMs, and lined with a Precast Concrete Tunnel Lining
(PCTL) system as the TBM advances.
• Tunneling operations require launching and receiving pits where the boring machine ‘starts’ and
‘ends’. For this situation, where there are approach slopes, the pits would fit within the trench
section required at each end of the bored tunnel. Shoofly’s are required around the launching and
receiving areas, as well as the open trench transition areas. The launching and receiving areas
generally require more level grades and also require surface access to support the mining
operations.
• Mined transverse cross passages, to connect the bored tunnels, are constructed at regular
intervals along the alignment to provide for refuge in the event of an emergency event.
• Stations located in deep underground cut and cover box structures, with station operations rooms
and emergency ventilation facilities. Vertical circulation elements extending to grade. Side or
center platforms.
• Intermediate, regularly spaced emergency access/egress stairs to grade along the bored tunnel
guideway.
• Intermediate pump stations, at locations to be determined, to remove storm water from the
underground guideway. This consists of separate rooms and access thereto to collect the
stormwater, house the pumps and provide access thereto.
• Mechanical ventilation is required with bored tunnels. See further discussion under ventilation.
Issues
• ROW impacts for shoofly (required at two portal locations and at stations or any other open cut
operations such as for ventilation structures). Potential temporary ROW impacts on west side of
corridor to allow construction activities
• Support/relocation of existing utilities at crossings only where crossing are at or near stations or
portal trench structures.
• Potential noise and vibration impacts would be assessed. With the train depressed, there is
potential for noise and vibration to be realized differently in adjoining neighborhoods. This may
result in need for sound walls or mitigative trackform(s). (e.g. sound absorptive materials or shock
absorbing configurations may be required. The cost estimates shown herein to NOT take into
account any special treatment specifically for noise or vibration mitigation
Opportunities
Potential for open
space/recreational area
development above
guideway alignment. (see
discussion above for uses
above the depressed,
covered guideway)
Figure 6.
Typical Bored Tunnel with Cross-passage Section
(source CHSTP TM 2.4.2)
Mott MacDonald 17
Alternative Horizontal Alignment(s)
As noted above, this paper and the cost estimates included herein assume the ultimate horizontal
alignment of Caltrain is located within the existing Caltrain ROW. This seems most feasible for all options
noted, given the property is readily available and of an acceptable alignment.
For the tunneling option, it is possible to bore a different alignment without impacting surface features.
However, the construction of the stations, which with the platforms are wider than the standard section of
trackway, require open cut procedures, thus impacting all surface features within the footprint of each
station. Therefore, if alternative horizontal alignments were considered, the known critical element would be
station locations of similar concern would be the need for any crossovers in the depressed guideway limits,
as this would also require open cut construction. Significant ROW would be required for each station. Even
though the tunnel construction does not directly impact the surface features, underground easements are
still required. Finally, the perception and concern of an active railway operating under inhabited buildings
creates concerns by owners and occupants of settlement, noise and vibrations - both during construction
and on-going operations. These can be very challenging issues to address during design development.
Limited Subsurface Guideway
In the southern portion of the City, it is possible to construct a shorter segment of depressed track
and transition the depressed track to the surface between the noted constraints. Due to the short
length of the limited subsurface guideway, the Open Trench, and Covered Trench (Cut and Cover
Box) alternatives discussed in Section 5.3 would be most appropriate to consider for this option.
The Bored Tunnel alternative would be cost prohibitive as the costs of the TBM, the construction of
the launching and receiving pits, and of assembling and disassembling the machine are the same
as for the much longer tunnel. Therefore, the tunneled construction approach was not considered
further for purposes of the comparative analysis.
Two separate Limited Subsurface Guideway options have been considered:
1. Passing under both Charleston Road and West Meadow Drive, with transition ramps returning
to grade north of San Antonio Station and south of Matadero Creek. This option also passes
under and is partially controlled by Adobe Creek and Barron Creek. As developed to date, less
than the stated required clearance under Barron Creek can be obtained. As this section of the
creek is already in a box culvert, it is believed less vertical clearance below the box culvert is
needed. This will require verification with SCVWD if this option is pursued further.
2. The second Limited Subsurface Guideway option would pass only under Adobe Creek and
Charleston Avenue, beginning its 2% transition to grade just north of Charleston Road. As the
distance to West Meadow Drive does not accommodate the full transition to grade,
modifications to East/West Meadow Drive would be required. Potential options to consider
would include: closing West Meadow Drive at the Caltrain Corridor and create a “T” intersection
of East Meadow Drive with Alma Street; raising West Meadow Drive over the planned grade of
the tracks; or closing West Meadow Drive to vehicles and constructing an overcrossing for
bicycles and pedestrians only.
The descriptions/issues/constraints discussed in Section 5.3 for the Open Trench and Covered Trench would equally apply to this option, though there would be no need to reconstruct any of the
stations in a trench with either of the Limited Subsurface Guideway options.
Mott MacDonald 18
Fire/Life Safety (Ventilation & Emergency Egress) Considerations for
All Options
Ventilation
The design must accommodate the fire life safety requirements of National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems (NFPA 130) and the
California Building Code (CBC), which provide guidance for mechanical ventilation and emergency
egress requirements. Ventilation of the tunnels accounts for normal operating conditions – which at this
time would still need to address the freight traffic along the corridor (to remain diesel powered), normal
maintenance – which also uses diesel engines to access sites to be maintained, and emergency
situations where evacuation is required.
From the perspective of both construction and operating and maintenance costs, it is desirable to
minimize the length of the covered trench sections to minimize requirements for the provision of
mechanical ventilation. Not only does the capital cost of ventilation increase with the demand of the
system, but there are on-going Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs that must be funded (and the
work performed), there are additional surface features (ventilation structures) at the surface of the
corridor, and there is additional noise issues created by the fans, which must be routinely tested often
during non-revenue service hours.
Requirements for mechanical ventilation of covered sections are defined in NFPA 130, which states the
following:
• A mechanical emergency ventilation system shall not be required where the length of an
underground trainway is less than or equal to 197’.
• A mechanical emergency ventilation system shall be provided in a system underground or
enclosed trainway that is greater in length than 984’.
• Where supported by engineering analysis, a nonmechanical emergency ventilation system shall
be permitted to be provided in lieu of a mechanical emergency ventilation system where the length
of the underground or enclosed trainway is less than or equal to 984’ and greater than 197’.
Therefore, analytical models are required to demonstrate that any section of covered trench greater
than 197’ in length does not require mechanical ventilation. For a statewide transportation system, it is
likely that this analysis would require the approval of the State Fire Marshall, as well as CHSRA.
When mechanical ventilation is required, above ground ventilation structures are needed at a spacing
of 2,500’ to 5,000’. Structure(s) can be approximately 100’ by 100’ in size and require additional
maintenance.
Emergency Egress and Safety
NFPA 130 provides two options for emergency egress from underground guideways. The standard
states the following:
• Within underground trainways, the maximum distance between exits to surface by means of
emergency exit stairways shall not exceed 2,500’.
• Where cross-passageways are utilized in lieu of emergency exit stairways, the cross-
passageways shall not be farther than 800’ apart
In addition, with CAHSR being contemplated, the portals for the tunnel option may require flaring to
mitigate environmental noise concerns relating to the generation of micro-pressure waves created at
train entry to the tunnel. Similarly, the cross-section area of the running tunnel utilized in this paper is
larger than a typical commuter rail system due to the increased aerodynamic drag associated with high-
speed train sets.
Mott MacDonald 19
Emergency egress considerations for the three options are discussed below:
Open Trench
With this configuration, it may be possible to justify through engineering analysis that mechanical
ventilation is not required. In an open trench configuration, exits to grade would be required every
2,500’. To prevent passengers from crossing the tracks, exits would be required from each side of the
guideway. These exits require a trench area approximately 10' wider on each side than the standard 55'
width to accommodate stairs. At the top of the stairs, a clear safe path to a public area is required to
allow patrons to get to a safe, public space.
Covered Trench
A ventilation plant would be required at the stations with the possibility of mid line ventilation structures
especially at the location of crossovers. The tracks would require fire separation with a dividing wall.
For a covered guideway with a central dividing wall or twin bored tunnels, cross passages can be
introduced as a means of emergency egress. Introduction of the internal wall would increase the
covered structure width approximately 10’. The internal wall would also minimize the opportunity to
introduce track crossovers which will be essential in accommodating train movements at station
locations.
Bored Tunnels with Underground Stations
Ventilation requirement for a tunneled guideway would be similar to the Covered Trench option,
however the running tunnel cross section could be dictated by aerodynamic considerations.
For any of the options mentioned herein, specialized emergency response protocols and equipment for
both police and fire personnel must be developed. Special training programs and continual updating of
procedures and protocols will be required. Inspection of key elements of the facility related to safety will
be on-going throughout the life of the facility. For those options that return to grade outside the city
limits, and therefore modify Caltrain in Mountain View and/or Menlo Park, similar procedures, protocols
and training programs will be required.
The introduction of mechanical ventilation systems and Fire Life Safety requirements for a depressed
section of track requires ongoing Operations and Maintenance demands (both time and financial) that
are not currently required of either the City or Caltrain. Significant negotiations and development work
are required to establish clear lines of responsibility and funding sources for this additional demand on
the two agencies (or three if high-speed rail is involved).
Other Considerations Common to All Options
The following subsections discuss items that would require consideration for all options listed in this paper.
The extent to which each is applicable would depend on the option, but as a general statement the Citywide
Subsurface Guideway Options would – due to the extent of impact associated with each – require a greater
level of assessment and would result in greater impacts than the Limited Subsurface Guideway Options.
Many of the items would require further investigation and study to more accurately describe their impact on
each of the options.
ROW
Although the ultimate horizontal alignment is planned to be within the existing Caltrain ROW, there is
significant staging work that requires temporary construction easements. When considering temporary
construction easements, if the project requires the property for an extended period (multiple years) the
costs can quickly approach the same cost as complete acquisition. This could result in significant
project costs–perhaps beyond the estimates utilized in this paper.
Mott MacDonald 20
As noted above, there are other surface features that may be introduced into the project and require
additional ROW. These include contractor lay down/work areas, locations for vent structures, extra
width for emergency stairs, and additional area at stations to accommodate 'vertical access' elements
(escalators and elevators).
Site Assessment
Preliminary assessments indicate that soil and groundwater conditions present along the corridor are
suitable for construction and operation for all three concepts. Similarly, seismic loading conditions are
considered to be similar for all three concepts.
Groundwater and soil contamination is known to be present within the corridor. The general depth of
groundwater below the existing ground surface, as well as known locations of contaminated plumes in
the vicinity of the Caltrain corridor are shown in Figure 7. The highest concentration of contaminated
plume near the Caltrain corridor occurs adjacent to and south of Oregon Expressway. This
contamination would require specific attention for either of the citywide options, but would generally be
avoided with either of the feasible limited subsurface guideway options discussed in this paper.
No study was undertaken to locate and define the composition or extent of the contamination plume.
Our assumption on the level and amount of contamination is noted in our basic assumptions at the
beginning of this paper. Additional capital and operation and maintenance costs may be required for
investigation and mitigation.
During construction the standard approach is to seal (waterproof) the outer frame of the trench – both
sides and the bottom of the trench – through soil mixing and/or grouting or similar methods. In other
words, waterproof walls are installed prior to excavation, and seepage from below can be controlled
through multiple soil treatment methods. The resulting casual water within the trench area is then
removed with the use of pumps and treated appropriately, usually with the use of baker tanks. If
allowed by the agency(s) some water can be disposed of in the sanitary sewer system.
Underground water generally flows to the bay in the south San Francisco Bay Area, and it is believed
that Palo Alto is no different in this respect. The trench construction could interfere with the natural
underground flows, leading to a situation referred to as 'mounding' where water “backs up” on the
upstream side of the trench. On a recent project for BART to San Jose, this issue did occur, but was
mitigated with a few pipes of specific diameter to allow the water to flow under the trench. This
approach of maintaining underground water flow patterns with pipes crossing under the trench would
be applicable to trench construction in this area, and could be implemented at a moderate cost relative
to the projected overall project cost.
A separate ground water issue relates to contaminated plumes – which generally occur at elevations
above clean water plumes. The construction of the walls could jeopardize contaminating one plume
with another as you drive or drill between different aquifers. This situation must be closely studied.
Similar to the 'mounding' situation, there are established techniques to address this concern of cross
contamination of plumes. The plumes would be assessed in future analyses and proper techniques
would be employed to avoid cross contamination of plumes.
Mott MacDonald 21
Archeology/Environmental/Cultural requirements common to all three concepts:
• A full inventory of structures within and adjacent to the transit ROW will be required to determine
any potential historic resources (built before 1971). A number of known historic resources could
be affected by some options, including the Palo Alto (University Avenue) train station.
• The transit corridor passes through several areas of high sensitivity for buried archaeological
resources. Consultation with Native American Tribes, particularly the native Ohlone Indian groups,
and archaeological and/or native American monitoring will likely be required.
• Protocol-level surveys required for special status species associated with San Francisquito Creek
protected habitat listed as threatened or endangered by State or federal agencies. Special-status
species include: steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora
daytonii), coho salmon (O. kisutsch), and winter-run chinook salmon (O.tshawytscha).
• Permanent conversion of San Francisquito Creek habitat to transit improvements (bridge piers,
security lighting, and shading) may result in adverse effects to special status species.
• Substantial off-site mitigation costs anticipated.
• Mature trees that line the transit ROW may provide nesting habitat for birds and/or bats require
mitigation
Construction Methods and Impacts
Construction of an open trench and covered trench (cut-and-cover box) would be performed in a similar
manner. The following general stages apply to each option:
Figure 7. City Shallow Groundwater Map
Mott MacDonald 22
1. Relocate Utilities-All utilities, overhead and underground, in conflict with the trench construction will
have to be relocated outside of the trench construction limits to allow for installation of the SOE
walls. Underground utilities may remain in place at existing crossings by supporting them on
temporary structures while the trench is excavated below. These utilities would ultimately reside in
the structure above the trench. If significant underground utilities must remain in place, this could be
a controlling aspect to the profile of the depressed track.
2. Construct rail Shoofly for length of corridor, switch train to temporary tracks. Shoo-fly will have to be
completely electrified for compatibility with Caltrain electrification currently under design. This will
require a wider section than non-electrified.
3. Construct temporary SOE walls on each side of proposed trench.
4. Excavate and place permanent trench structure in phases, along with operations systems,
ventilation, facilities, and egress amenities.
5. Place intermediate struts, build roadway bridges or cover over trench structure, as applicable.
6. For covered sections, add backfill over trench.
7. Construct all offsite improvements.
The major equipment required would be comprised of large cranes and drilling equipment, excavators
and loaders, large trucks, and other miscellaneous equipment. Significant hauling of material both to
and away from the project site is required, on defined routes approved by the City, creating impacts to
the community on the trucking routes and potentially causing excessive damage to the roadways
utilized for the trucking operations.
Two typical pieces of equipment used for SOE wall installation are shown in Figure 8 below.
Figure 8: Typical Support of Excavation (SOE) Wall Installation Equipment
Impacts to be expected during construction of these type facilities are listed below:
• ROW may be needed to accommodate contractor's temporary staging and laydown requirements,
and permanent structures such as ventilation facilities, pump stations and any other features
needed for operations. Landscaping and trees will be removed in narrow areas of the corridor.
• Several areas will be identified throughout the corridor for use as staging areas and placement of
excavation material during construction.
Mott MacDonald 23
• Truck routes will be identified for delivery and removal of material. Depending on the option, the
order of magnitude of material to be removed could be between 250,000 and 1,500,000 Cubic
Yards (CY). This roughly equates to between 21,000 and 130,000 truck trips to remove the
excavated material. Specific requirements on hauling would be required to control the frequency,
volume and routes of the vehicles to and from the worksite.
• Heavy construction machinery will be required throughout the construction including but not
limited to cranes, excavators, and hauling trucks
• Overhead utilities may require relocation to clear the corridor for the construction operation such
as cranes and other machinery. Gas lines and other sensitive utilities may require permanent or
temporary relocation.
• There will be aesthetic impacts during construction. Excavation of trench, transit infrastructure
demolition and construction will be visible. Barricades, fences, traffic coning and similar temporary
facilities will be required to protect the public.
• Local transportation circulation and access will be disrupted during construction. Delays, detours,
closures of existing roadway system will occur.
• Operations of transit on Shoofly track will cause modifications to existing crossings including
detours, flagging, lane closures, limited movements.
• There will be additional noise and vibration during construction beyond that currently being
experienced along the corridor.
For the bored tunnel option, the following also require consideration:
• The Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) requires excavation of a launch pit . For a project of this
nature, the eventual tunnel portal would serve as the launch pit. The launch pit also provides a
work area during tunnel boring for spoil and other material storage and handling, electrical
transformers, construction ventilation equipment, water handling facilities, repair shops and
offices, and other mobile equipment and machinery required for efficient tunnel construction.
• Delivery and mobilization of the TBM that requires up to 50 semi-truck loads, some of which are
oversized.
• Large mobile cranes are required to assemble the TBM in the launch pit.
• TBM mining typically is performed around the clock six days per week with associated
construction traffic and crew changes.
• TBMs require 3 to 5 megawatts of three phase electrical power that may require a new main
service line be extended to the launch pit area.
• For TBM mining in soils the process includes excavation of soil and concurrent placement of a
pre-cast concrete segmental lining system. TBMs advancing on average 50’ per day will require
10 daily semi-truck deliveries of pre-cast concrete segments and an equal number of semi-trucks
hauling away excavated soil.
• At the conclusion of mining the tunnel, the TBM breaks through into the recovery pit and is
disassembled for removal. The recovery pit for this type of project would be the other tunnel portal.
• Twin bored tunnels can be constructed simultaneously or sequentially. Unless schedule
constraints dictate otherwise, typically the disassembled TBM is trucked back to the launch pit,
reassembled and launched again to complete the second tunnel.
• Other structures such as underground stations, ventilation facilities, and cross passages between
the two tunnels are constructed sequentially or concurrently with some lag. These are constructed
from the surface using a cut and cover technique.
Mott MacDonald 24
• Fit out with trackwork, train systems, lighting, communications, ventilation, fire suppression,
drainage, and other systems completes the tunnels and related underground structures.
A typical TBM and finished tunnel lining system is shown in Figure 9 below.
Figure 9: Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) - Left; Completed Tunnel Lining - Right
Caltrain Electrification Impacts
The on-going Caltrain Electrification project will alter the existing condition of the Caltrain corridor prior
to any trench or tunnel construction. Previous studies understood the trench would be widened to
accommodate OCS facilities. However, it was not clearly understood that the facility would be electrified
prior to the project(s) currently being considered in Palo Alto. The electrified Caltrain condition and
associated requirements for any temporary condition (shoofly) has significant impacts on a potential
trench project, as listed below:
• The proposed temporary shoofly diversion track would need to be electrified. The required width
for a shoofly of the electrified system would be required to accommodate the overhead catenary
system (OCS) supporting poles and foundations. A minimum fenced width under current
conditions is 35', whereas the minimum fenced width for an electrified system is roughly 47'.
• Additional width will increase the necessary ROW acquisitions for the shoo-fly. The width could be
minimized (see above minimum value) with the use of center poles between the shoofly tracks.
• The San Antonio Road overpass has limited space for the shoofly alignment and the clearances at
a shoofly location may be insufficient to accommodate standard OCS configurations.
• The transitions for the shoofly, expected to fall outside of the limits of Palo Alto, would present a
significant staging challenge, and may require Caltrain speed restrictions to accommodate the
necessary horizontal alignment shifts. Any reduction in design criteria is subject to approval from
Caltrain, who is concerned with safety and dependability of the operating system on a daily basis.
• The landscaping clear area around the electrified corridor would need to be larger to mitigate fire
risks, and may further increase the necessary temporary construction easement.
• The overall construction duration is increased as additional time is required to construct and
power up a temporary catenary system, including connections to the existing system.
• As part of the Caltrain Electrification Program, three (3) alternate sites are being considered for
placement of a Paralleling Station within the limits of the City. The three locations under
consideration are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11 below. Paralleling Stations are installed
between Traction Power Substations and Switching Stations (neither of which are currently
intended to be placed within the City limits as part of Caltrain electrification), and they are
equipped with either one or two 10 MVA oil-filled auto transformer units. These facilities also
contain a variety of circuit breakers and switching equipment. The function of paralleling stations is
Mott MacDonald 25
Figure 10: ParellelingStation Option 1
Figure 11: Parelleling Station Option 2
to maintain the auto-transformer system and system operating voltages, and their footprint is
approximately 40’ wide by 80’ long. The location of any such stations in the City must be
coordinated with both the temporary and permanent locations of the operating tracks and OCS
system. A typical paralleling station is shown in Figure 12.
Mott MacDonald 26
Figure 12: Typical Rail Corridor Paralleling Station
Operations
• Underground stations will require ADA-
compliant vertical circulation (elevators,
escalators, and stairs) for transit users, which
could potentially degrade access to transit
facilities.
• Guideway interference (objects on tracks) is an
issue for an open trench system; guideway
intrusion and maintenance requirements will be
similar to the current at-grade corridor conditions.
• Passenger exits to grade, in the form of
emergency stairs, would be required every 2,500’
each side of the guideway per National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) Standard for Fixed
Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems (NFPA 130).
Utilities
• Longitudinal utilities in the Caltrain corridor will need to be relocated outside of the trench footprint
to allow for installation of SOE walls and construction of the open or covered trench. Utilities
typically located in railroad ROW are communications systems, either for the operations of the
system or for third party providers. For the bored tunnel option, longitudinal utilities will only
require relocation at the cut and cover station locations, and the trench sections at the tunnel
portals transitioning the alignment to grade.
• Transverse utilities located in the existing street crossings may remain in place, depending on
their depth, and would require only temporary relocation during installation of the SOE walls
through the width of the street. They would be supported across the trench during construction.
• Overhead utilities may require relocation to clear the corridor for the construction operation, i.e.
cranes and other machinery. Additional utilities will be needed to service the new transit facilities.
Order of Magnitude Costs
Estimated ranges of total project cost for each of the three options is summarized in Table 2. These costs
are primarily for comparison purposes only. Given the very preliminary level of engineering performed,
these values reflect professional knowledge of costs of major construction elements, informed inputs on
ROW impacts, and industry standards for "soft" costs including environmental, engineering and
management costs. Ultimate costs may vary depending on future project development activities, industry
trends, decisions varying from assumptions contained herein, and similar variables beyond the scope of
this paper.
Of note for further comparison, VTA has estimated its 6+ mile extension of a two track BART system
through downtown San Jose, including 5+ miles of bored tunnel and 3 underground stations with a platform
length equal to that of Caltrain's (700 ft.) will cost $4.7B. That project is nearing a record of decision for the
environmental document, and thus has significantly more engineering available to support the cost
estimate. The BART system has smaller trains than Caltrain and does not allow any freight train traffic. The
BART tunnels are therefore smaller than required for Caltrain/CAHSR.
Mott MacDonald 27
Table 2: Summary of Planning Level Estimated Costs
Option
Total Estimated
Cost Range
($2017)
1a: Open Trench, City Limit to City Limit $2.4 - $2.9B
1b: Cut & Cover Tunnel, City Limit to City Limit $3.3 - $4.0B
1c: Twin Deep Bored Tunnels $2.8 - $3.4B
2a: Open Trench, Under West Meadow and Charleston, 2% Grade $750M - $1.0B
2b: Open Trench, Under Charleston Only, 2% Grade $500M-$700M
Estimated costs are a combination of cost per mile basis for linear work items such as excavation,
structures and trackwork, and discrete costs for major items such as stations, structures at crossings and
incremental increase in cost to deepen an at grade station to an underground station. Major civil
components included in the cost estimates include support of excavation, earthwork, trench and bridge
structures, bored tunnels, cross passages between tunnels, fire life safety and ventilation systems, pump
stations, traffic detours, railroad and roadway signaling, utility relocations, and ROW costs.
The following assumptions were used to develop the costs in Table 2:
• CHSRA Alternatives Analysis Report Typical Sections used as a basis for each option
• Unit costs for utility relocation, track, rail systems and MEP are based on costs provided in the CHSRA
Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Appendix L - Cost Estimates
• Sitework costs include security fencing, site preparation and temporary track relocations (shooflys)
• Twin bored tunnels needed to accommodate 10 trains per hour, each way
• Professional services include costs of design, construction management, permitting and agency review,
owner costs, legal fees and similar owner responsibilities
• Contingency provides for an assumed level of design and construction uncertainty
Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are not included. Covered and bored tunnel options will have
higher O&M costs. Similarly, depressed stations will have increased O&M for vertical circulation elements
noted above. Details of the planning level cost estimates for each option are provided in Appendix C.
6 Other Considerations
The City is considering a pedestrian/bicycle crossing at or near where Loma Verde Ave. intersects with
Alma Avenue south of Matadero Creek. This crossing would be fully accommodated with any of the
citywide options discussed herein. For the limited subsurface guideway option that crosses under both
West Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, the new track alignment would be only slightly depressed at this
point. This option returns to grade south of Matadero Creek, to avoid impacts thereto, and given the
proximity of Loma Verde to Matadero Creek, and the 2% max slope for the railroad, a grade separated
crossing would still be required to ascend a significant portion of the 24.5' required for clearance above the
top of rail. The further this planned crossing can be moved southerly; the less elevation of the crossing
above existing grade will be required. It is not until south of Barron Creek that a new crossing could be
constructed at the existing grade.
The shorter of the limited subsurface guideway options assessed herein, which passes only under
Charleston Avenue, is fully back to grade south of Barron Creek.
Both the City of Menlo Park and the City of Mountain View have studied options for mitigating Caltrain
impacts for their existing at-grade roadway crossings.
Mott MacDonald 28
In the City of Menlo Park, Ravenswood Ave is located approximately 3800’ north of the boundary between
the two Cities. A presentation was made to the Menlo Park City Council in mid-October on alternatives still
under consideration for grade separating Ravenswood Ave and Caltrain. The two alternatives presented are:
1. Alternative A. Lowering Ravenswood to pass under the railroad tracks, leaving the tracks at grade.
2. Alternative C. Hybrid solution that applies to Ravenswood Avenue, Oak Grove Avenue and Glennwood
Avenue. In this alternative, the 3 roadways are lowered partially, and the tracks are raised partially.
A depressed Caltrain configuration in northern Palo Alto could potentially work with Alternative A given the
2% slope is acceptable to Caltrain. However, Ravenswood may have to be lowered further than studied by
City of Menlo Park as Caltrain would be transitioning to grade from crossing under San Francisquito Creek.
Lowering Ravenswood further would increase the impacts to Menlo Park east and west of the Caltrain
corridor.
A depressed configuration in northern Palo Alto would not work with Alternative C, as the tracks will be
raised at Ravenswood Avenue and depending on the amount the tracks are raised (likely 10’ or more) there
is not enough room to then be depressed under San Francisquito Creek. One element of design that transit
operators also consider is the ride quality, which deteriorates with too many and too severe changes in
elevation. In this reach, from north to south, the tracks would be at grade north of Glenwood Ave, then be
elevated approximately 10’, then drop approximately 70’ to pass under the features in northern Palo Alto,
then return to grade somewhere within 6 miles of the 70’ decent.
In the City of Mountain View, Rengstorff Avenue crosses the Caltrain corridor approximately 3600’ south of
the city limits at San Antonio. City of Mountain View planning efforts to date have focused on depressing
Rengstorff Avenue below the existing Railroad tracks, leaving the tracks at their existing grade. Should that
remain the desired concept, there should be no direct impact between the options considered herein and
the City of Mountain View projects. However, staging of construction, should it occur simultaneously, will
require extensive coordination to ensure the railroad and the local roadways operate most efficiently
throughout construction.
7 Summary and Next Steps
The information presented herein is based on past studies, schematic development of options and
approaches, and industry expertise gained working on similar issues for other agencies. Additional design
development will be required to answer more detailed questions, including developing the requisite
information needed to gain environmental clearance for any of the options considered herein.
As noted herein, from a technical perspective the options presented are feasible – they can be designed,
constructed and operated. There are, however, significant issues associated with all options that would
require additional project development in order to more clearly define solutions and support resolution of
issues.
For all options discussed, it is considered essential that a design exception from the 1% maximum slope
criteria be obtained from Caltrain. The additional impacts to existing facilities resulting from adherence to
the 1% slope criteria significantly increases the complexity and therefore the projected costs well beyond
those costs presented herein. Therefore, we would consider any depressed configuration not practical at
1% longitudinal grade for the Caltrain tracks.
For all options that require ventilation, decisions will be required on responsibility for operating and
maintaining the mechanical systems. The project costs herein do not reflect long term maintenance and
operating expenses associated with the facilities. The O&M issue consists of both physical maintenance as
well as funding of the maintenance work.
Similar to ventilation, all options will introduce pump stations to remove water (storm and/or incidental
seepage of groundwater) from the trench or tunnel, which will require on-going funding and dedicated
personnel to maintain and operate.
Mott MacDonald 29
Below grade structures require on-going maintenance to address situations that occur over the life of the
structure. Typical and anticipated maintenance includes leakage detection and repair (for groundwater
intrusion), cracking and spalling that may occur from a variety of sources (e.g. weather, operations,
vandalism), fence repair, and repair of trench specific features such as stairs and railings.
For all options, on-going Fire Life Safety procedures and policies will be required to be developed,
implemented, and maintained for the life of the facilities. For those options that affect adjoining Cities, these
policies and procedures will require close coordination with safety personnel in the adjoining Cities. This
coordination is typically documented and implemented through the development of a cooperative
agreement between the agencies.
For the full-length options, that modify the Caltrain facility outside the City limits of Palo Alto, coordination
with those agencies, as well as Caltrain, will be required. Among the issues this presents is the necessity
for ROW acquisition, permanent or temporary, and the willingness of the adjacent city to support and effect
such acquisition. Additional issues related to changes occurring in adjacent cities include any changes to
the local transportation network, aesthetics, and similar community impacts to which the adjacent city would
be subjected.
Costs for these options are preliminarily estimated in the range of $500 million to $4 billion, in 2017 dollars.
Escalation and costs of financing are not included. These costs are for planning purposes only and are
developed based on industry experience for similar projects. For a simple, available comparison, the 6-mile
extension of BART through San Jose, with 5 miles of tunnel, is estimated to cost $4.7 billion. (Note: the
BART tunnels for a twin bore system would be smaller in diameter than is required for this project.)
Next steps will likely include preliminary engineering consisting of more complete data collection, more
detailed analyses, development of engineering drawings at a preliminary level and further project
documentation, leading eventually to the development of a full environmental review of the improvements
desired by the City.
Mott MacDonald 30
References
1. Basic Tunnel Configuration, Technical Memo 2.4.2, Revision 01, CHSTP Project Guidelines.
2. HSR Tunnel Structures, Technical Memo 2.4.5, Revision 00, CHSTP Project Guidelines.
3. Pantograph Clearance Envelopes, Technical Memo 3.2.3, Revision 00, CHSTP Project Guidelines.
4. Intrusion Protection, Technical Memo 2.1.7, Revision 01, CHSTP Project Guidelines.
5. Future Conditions & Lessons from Ongoing Traffic Circulation Study, September 16, 2017, 20 slide
Presentation, Josh Mello, Chief Transportation Official, City of Palo Alto.
6. Types of Grade Separations & Constraints, September 16, 2017, 26 slide Presentation, City of Palo
Alto.
7. Hydrology and Water Quality, Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft Existing Conditions Report, City of
Palo Alto, August 29, 2014
8. Geologic map of the Palo Alto and Part of the Redwood Point 7 -1/2’ Quadrangles, San Mateo and
Santa Clara Counties, California, E. Pampeyan, USGS, Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-
2371, 1993
Appendices
1. California High Speed Train System – Two Track Configuration, Draft Technical Memo dated June
2011, 16 pages plus appendices A thru E, Hatch Mott MacDonald.
2. Palo Alto Grade Separation Study, Technical Memo dated October 2014, 7 pages plus appendix A,
Hatch Mott MacDonald.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8976)
City Council Rail Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/21/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Rail Committee 2018 Workplan
Title: Review of Rail Committee 2018 Workplan
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Rail Committee review and provide feedback to staff on the
proposed 2018 Rail Committee workplan (Attachment A).
Background
At its February 5th Retreat, the City Council adopted “Selecting a preferred grade
separation alternative by December 2018” as its goal under the Council priority of Grade
Separations. This goal was set based on understanding the time sensitivity of decisions
needed in order to expeditiously plan, fund, design, and construct the rail grade
separations needed to address community safety, access, and traffic congestion
concerns throughout Palo Alto.
Even under an aggressive timeline, the steps necessary to proceed with completing
grade separations will likely span the upcoming decade. These steps and the
timeframes involved are summarized below:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Discussion
Achieving the timeline described above is dependent on the City’s ability to select a
preferred alternative by the end of 2018. The Rail Committee will play a key role in
advancing the City Council actions necessary to achieve this goal.
Over the last year, the City has undertaken an extensive citywide engagement effort to
establish a broad awareness of the need and issues associated with constructing rail
grade separations to ensure Palo Alto’s community connectedness is maintained in the
face of imminent electrification and increased train traffic on the Caltrain corridor. This
has generated roughly 40 discrete ideas for grade separations.
The next steps in decision-making will be to narrow these 40 ideas into a handful of
alternatives to be studied in detail. With an estimated $200,000-300,000 cost and time
required to study each alternative, it will be important that timely decisions be made to
narrow the ideas to a small number of the most viable alternatives. This will enable
more detailed study and selection of a preferred solution.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
To support this process, the City has refined the scope of consultant assistance needed
and is seeking a consultant with an enhanced focus on efficient program management,
interactive public engagement, grade separation concept visualization resources, and
alternatives identification and evaluation. A Request for Proposals is currently in
process with the goal of engaging this new consultant team by April. In conjunction
with these new resources, staff will develop a format for reporting progress to the Rail
Committee appropriate to the nature of ongoing work.
The transition to the next phase from ideas to feasible alternatives will provide further
opportunity to engage the community. A slate of public meetings, informal workshops,
and 1:1 outreach will support the Rail Committee workplan. Staff is currently refining
the community engagement approach previously approved by the City Council, and will
present this in detail to the Rail Committee once the new consultant team is
established.
Attachments:
Rail Committee Tentative Schedule
2/13/2018
Meeting
Date Line No.Item Title
1 Trench and Tunneling White Paper - Discussion Only (No Action)
2 Rail Committee 2018 Workplan
1 Preliminary review of grade separation ideas
2 Agreement with Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Relating to the Peninsula
Corridor Electrification Project - Recommend Council Approval
1 Introduction of New Consultant Team and Workplan
2 Potential Early Elimination of Specific Grade Separation Ideas - Recommend Council
Approval
3 VTA Measure B Grade Separation Funding Plan - Discussion Only
1 Grade separation alternatives to be evaluated - Recommend Council Approval
2 VTA Measure B Grade Separation Funding Plan - Recommend Council Approval
3 Caltrain Business Plan - Discussion/Potentially Recommend Council Position
June TBD 1 Schedule and Stakeholder Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Alternatives
Evaluation
August TBD 1 Outline of Interagency Roles and Responsibilities through Design and Construction -
Recommend Council Approval
September
TBD 1 Preliminary Grade Separation Alternatives Evaluation - Discussion Only
October TBD 1 Grade Separation Alternatives Evaluation - Discussion Only
November
TBD 1 Preferred Grade Separation Solutions - Recommend Council Approval
December
TBD 1 No meeting
ATTACHMENT A
May TBD
Rail Committee Items Tentatively Scheduled
March TBD
February 21
April TBD