HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-21 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, March 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. Report on the March 6, 2018 Community Roundtable Meeting on the
Trench and Tunnel Grade Separation White Paper
2. Receive a Report on the Initial Screening of the Master List of Ideas for
the Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program
3. Verbal Update on Interagency Activities
Future Meetings and 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 # 9049)
City Council Rail Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/21/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Community Roundtable Meeting - Trench and Tunnel White
Paper
Title: Report on the March 6, 2018 Community Roundtable Meeting on the
Trench and Tunnel Grade Separation White Paper
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Information report only, no action required.
Discussion
On March 6, 2018 the City held a community roundtable focused on the Trench and
Tunnel White Paper prepared by Mott MacDonald (white paper can be viewed online:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/connectingpaloalto). The meeting was well attended with over
200 participants. Staff began the meeting with a summary of the White Paper followed
by a presentation by Mark Christoffels, the Chief Executive Officer/Chief Engineer of the
Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority in Southern California. Mr. Christoffels
shared his experience overseeing a major transit project in Southern California that
included building a trench. The second half of the community meeting was devoted to
roundtable discussions of the following questions:
1. Are there questions you didn’t get to ask about the presentations we just heard?
2. It sounds like a citywide tunnel is technically feasible and could have benefits
because of reduced construction impacts and property impacts, but City staff has
identified several significant impediments: the cost of construction, the approval
needed from adjacent cities, the need for 2% grade approval from Caltrain and
ongoing operating and maintenance costs and other agencies. Do you agree that
these issues are serious impediments and if not, why not?
3. Construction impacts are going to be a major challenge with any grade
separation alternative, including the trench and tunnel options. One example is
City of Palo Alto Page 2
the need for a “shoofly” track around the construction. A shoofly of various
lengths would be needed for all of the trench and tunnel options and could mean
closing all or a portion of Alma Street for the duration of construction (3-5yrs).
Do you have questions about this issue or information that would be helpful for
you and your neighbors to understand the construction impacts better?
4. Over the next couple of months, the City will be narrowing down the list of grade
separation alternatives from over 34 discrete ideas we’ve received at a series of
round table meetings like this to a short list of 4 to 8 alternatives for more in-
depth study. Tell us the one option you think should definitely stay on the table –
either for the one grade separation you are most interested in or for the entire
corridor?
5. Are there grade separation ideas that you think should be taken off the table?
6. As we continue exploring grade separation options, we want to get more
residents of Palo Alto involved in the process – and not just residents who live
along the rail corridor, as this will affect all of us. Can you suggest some ways
that we can get more people involved?
With the great attendance turnout at the meeting, staff floated to assist in the
roundtable discussions instead of sitting at a table and facilitating each discussion. In
many cases, citizens self-organized for the discussion and would ask staff for assistance
as needed.
The room was organized in a way that allowed each table to actually write on the table
itself in order to capture questions, ideas and comments. This format contributed to the
energy and engagement in the room to make this a very lively meeting. Attachment A
summarizes the written feedback heard and written at the community roundtable
discussion.
Citizens came prepared and contributed many thoughtful questions and comments. This
information, in addition to the input from other roundtable discussions, technical studies
and reports, will provide the needed context and data for the Rail Committee to begin
narrowing the broad list of grade separation ideas to a shorter list of four (4) to eight
(8) ideas to study in more detail. While staff is still evaluating the feedback from the
recent community roundtable discussion a few key takeaways include:
Deep bore tunnel – citywide
There remains, although certainly not universal, considerable hope and desire for a
citywide deep bore tunnel. The notion of potentially lower construction impacts,
reduced noise, and recapturing land above a tunnel make this idea naturally very
appealing to some discussion participants. Staff asked participants to suggest potential
solutions to the numerous and significant constructability challenges in building a
City of Palo Alto Page 3
tunnel, including the estimated $3 billion construction cost; necessary approvals from
adjacent cities; the need for 2% grade approval from Caltrain, as well as ongoing
operating and maintenance costs. Ideas to address these challenges included
monetizing the land value capture, state and federal funding, creation of a multi-city
joint powers construction authority, and hopes that the business community and
Stanford could assist with funding. These thoughts along with other participant ideas
are included in Attachment A.
City wide trench
There appeared to be less interest in a citywide trench, as the cost and construction
impacts in particular were seen as extreme. Significant concerns about a shoofly that
would likely require two lanes of Alma to be closed were troubling. The traffic impacts
related to a shoofly and response times for emergency vehicles were raised by a
number of citizens, although some wanted to fully understand how other grade
separation alternatives would be constructed (i.e. would other design options also need
a shoofly?), before considering this a fatal flaw.
Partial trench (e.g., East Meadow and Charleston crossings)
There appeared to be significant interest in further exploring a south Palo Alto trench
for the East Meadow and Charleston crossings. The close proximity of the crossings, the
potential for limited property impacts and lower cost than a citywide trench or tunnel
were appealing to some attendees.
Other takeaways
A recurring concern among participants was the potential property impacts and eminent
domain. In addition, some citizens would like to see elevating the rail line be
reconsidered while others felt strongly that elevating the rail line should be off the table
due to noise and privacy concerns. Another idea, separate from a trench and tunnel
was the closure of the Churchill Ave. crossing and conversion to a bike/pedestrian
underpass, while also improving traffic flow on Embarcadero Road.
Another recurring concern related to the meeting’s focus on one set of design options
(trenching and tunneling) without more context about the other options. This suggests
a real eagerness for the screening process that the Rail Committee is poised to
undertake. Members of the community want to compare ideas, narrow the field of
options, and get more information about those ideas that are considered most viable.
The ideas discussed at this community roundtable provided additional input for the
Council to consider. As previously stated, this information, in addition to the technical
studies and reports, will provide the needed context and data for the Rail Committee to
begin narrowing the broad list of grade separation ideas by June 2018 to a shorter list
of four (4) to eight (8) Alternatives for Study.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Copy of Reformatted Copy of Roundtable Comments 03.06.18 (2)
Comments from Tables at Community Roundtable on Grade Separation (March 5, 2018)
Table
#
Table #1
1 Study option like Blemont with road down & tracks up a bit. Stop studying trench/tunnel options that cost $billions that we don't have.
1 Move past heavy rail to light rail solution
1 Why isn't there a "JPA" for caltrain grade separations?
1 Value capture just part of solution. Factor in costs of closing of Alma traffic time & business leave. Minimize eminent domain.
1 1) More thoroughly explore the value capture for land made available by a city-wide tunnel. 2) Engage actively tech companies & Stanford for contribution & input
to preferred options. 3) Work with neighboring cities (Redwood City to Sunnyvale) for a more integrated and likely cheaper solution.
1 How is the innovative energy of Silicon valley being engaged in suggesting alternatives? What are the impacts on businesses in the cuty during construction and
afterward? Can there be a serious study of how to monetize the ROW for tunneling and covered trenches i.e. Bus Bartin Study. How can citizens contribute to the
effort to evaluate each plan? The total costs of each alternative have not been evaluated. Such as closing Alma or restricting traffic to 2 lanes for 5 years. How are
impacts during construction and after to be quantified for comparison? Such as traffic, access, etc. Has there been a design of an interchange between Alma &
Embarcadero? Are there traffic impact studies for the various alternatives?
1
Table #2
2 Ridership: is rail route appropriate?
2 Why isn’t there a JPA for grade seps?
2 Needs multiple pedestrians underpasses like PAMF one
2 #4 South Palo Alto Trench Charleston Meadow
2 Content sensitive solutions? What happened.
2 Are there any realistic options to avoid costs/complications related to freight?
2 #2 Involve CARRD!!
2 #2 Study tunnel option!! Not with creating and business wealth in Peninsula and Stanford engineers
2 Is this called a “heavy rail” since we do have freight (31 day)
2 Freight could be on surface or relocated
2 Want to hear about plan for financing and fund raisers
2 Businesses pay Trans?
2 Can we relocate freight?
2 Walk with surrounding communities
2 Goal: personal property (houses) need to be protected
2 #3 How many houses would be taken? Would 2 lanes be open in Alma? Would bikes be prohibited (yes) on Alma? Sidewalks: Look for long-term benefit. Find ways
to make ir work, not short-sighted
2 #3 Effect on resident cars getting out garbage, Fedex, noise
2 Funding Financing Plan? (Tax PG&E Businesses Trains)
2 #5 – Trains elevated overhead – Do not close Churchill!
2 #6 Good turnout longer. People won’t get involved unless they would be effected (Alma/Churchill residents )
2 Why isn’t Stanford, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Papetiere participating with money of the?
2 Explore hybrid solutions?
2 Process doesn’t appear transparent
2 When will Trump be impeached be impeached?
2 When will Pence be impeached?
2 #5 off the table -underpasses –overpasses
2 Minimize residential property loss
2 Why no big-picture thinking here in Silicon Valley?
2 #2 Learn more from Mark and his can-do attitude
2 #2 please be creative and try harder. Make some deals, tax some corporations
2 #2 we seem scarred (F.U.D. [fear of uncertainty and doubt])
2 #2 please keep tunnel as 1 of the 48 options!
2 #3 Josh needs to do a study. How many lanes closed? Give us some info. Residents access. Protect personal homes
2 #5 taking homes. Elevated tracks. Take off table.
2 #6 online
2 Consult with Elon Musk, MIT, Stanford, Google
2 Emphasize long term benefits to population instead of fear, uncertainty + doubt
2 Close California station + trench S. Palo Alto into Univ. Av. Station
Table #3
3 Options to keep on table for grade separation: Viaduct w/ sound barriers. No property take w. dropped roads & clover leafs. Aestheticallt pleasing. Bike & pedestrian
trail underneath. Is a viaduct one of the 40 options? For the boring options what is the cost of the boring equipment relative to the construction cost? If other
jurisdictions also bored, would sharing the cost of the equipment dramatically reduce the boring cost? Options to take off the table: take our citywide trenching but
what is its cost relative to viaduct? need more information. How can we better engage the community? Sidwalk outreach, at Farmers markets & parks etc, meet
people where they are rather than expect them to come to you.
3 Remove ideas that upset many properties. Don't take people's homes.
3 One idea to push is the tunne. Least impact on community, covers all rail crossings. Minor impact during construction.
3 What are the projected costs of the above ground or at grade options? What are staff suggesting if sub grade is too expensive? Why didn't the presentation mention
that staff thinks sub-grade us too expensive? Why weren't the staff suggestions about what would work presented? (at this meeting.)
3 Grade crossing priority consideration-raised tracks at Churchill. Citywide tunnel to take off the table for consideration.
Table #4
4 1) Have there been pedestrian safety issues with train trenches (e.g. in SoCal)? Have we sufficiently assessed the safety of cars, bicycles & pedestrians for the
options? Which are the safest options for pedestrians & bicycles? 2) Can the freight trains be re-routed? 3) Can cars be routed above the trains? 3) Which crossings
are being considered for blocking? 4) Can the trains and cars be lowered/raised part-way? 5) How many homes will be impacted? And how could we afford to make
them whole in today's market? 6) For Churchill & East Meadow, please consider tunnels for pedeestrians & bicycles, not for vehicles. Close to vehicles like Homer
Ave. 7) Please put more work into financial projections of the options. 8) There will always be impediments-these are challenges to be solved. We have the brightest
people living here. Keep the long view. 9) Consider a 1% grade or could Menlo Park be convinced to start the descent further out ( & same w. Mountain View) to
avoid 2% grade. 10) Idea to stay on table- Pedestrian/bicycle crossing tunnel at Churchil & Meadow-similar to Homer Ave.
4 Keep tunneling/boring.
4 Question: If build a tunnel, does the railroad own the ground & air rights above it?
4 Concerned that the financial impediments to the more expensive options suggest the City has not been creative enough in finding solutions.
4 Despite the enormous cost of tunneling (or trenching), the alternative will hugely, negatively transform the city. A tunnel (or covered trench) would positively
transform the city with green (illegible) (& limited development) unifying the E. & W. sides of the railroads.
4 Palo Alto is divided by the tracks. It is a hundred year impact to what we're doing. Can we unite the city by either a raised track or a tunnel?
4 The bike/pedestrian Alma St construction burdensome, but doable, if improve efficiency of the north-south streets, plus access to existing businesses on Alma.
Table #5
5 Provide access for emergency vehicles. Hopw will the city help families whose houses will be impacted (taken by eminent domain) to minimize their financial loss?
How do you mitigate construction challenges? Closing Alma would close the city. Televise furture meetings on cable & have access for all in questions. Thinks of
bicycle safety.
5 Send letters to homeowners who would be impacted by the plans & solici their activity in planning for success.
5 So what would you do to Churchill & N. PA?
5 Move the train down 101?
5 Block off some crossings, we don't need Embarcadero & Churchill. Block off Churchill?
5 They make tunnels work in Europe why can't we?
5 We are very panicked.
5 What is 1% grade from
5 High speed rail schedule?
5 What are the 40 options the City has?
5 Close off Churchill, no seizure of homes by eminent domain.
5 How can you close Alma for so long?
5 #5 A) Serve a letter to all residents/landlords that would be effected by this project. B) Discuss on KQED-Michael Krazing show C) local cable TV show
5 #4 At minimum: A) close Churchill & E. Meadow to calm traffic. B) Grade separations for all crossings to accommodate 20+ trains per hour.
5 Shoofly: Alma can't be reduced by 2 lanes-traffic is already horrible.
5 What is Mountain View doing? Trenching? And Menlo Park?
5 What about emergency vehicles if you reduce Alma?
5 #5) I feel the City is trying to direct us into a solution that they city wants or to remove solution the City doesn't want.
5 #3) Closing one lane each way on Alma will have very negative impact on the traffic not just Alma, because the traffic will spill into the other city streets. The city
needs to figure out what are the possible way to reroute the traffic.
5 1) Can we join forces with other cities for less costly overall option for tunneling doe to economy of scale?
5 Do all options require eminent domain?
5 4) I think the city should still consider the tunneling solutions we should look hard in the possibility to raise fund to pay the bill.
5 2) While I agree tunneling is more difficult, I think they city should take a harder look to raise fund for this option. I think this regions have enough wealthy
businesses that should help pay for it. Equally Stanford.
Table #6
6 "S. PA High-line" Why can't we tunnel only in S. PA? Why only looking at trench? We can make our city better w/ the bike access if the cost was similar. PA has more
crossings that other cities. Which car/track crossing can we eliminate, Meadow, Churchill? Pedestrian only underpass. I live in S. Palo Alto and I'm very concerned w/
the safety at the Charleston & Meadow crossings. What we are currently doing is not enough, children & random drivers are not safe. Going under is the only
responsible option. Palo Alto is a rich city w/ rich homeowners-we can afford to do the right thing. I am very interested to cover the tunnel w/ bike paths & city parks-
not development. Thank you, Rebecca Morasca
6 Can we tunnel under Alma & reclaim land no shoefly for construction.
6 Can the tracks be re-railed to El Camino? b/c commercial not residential.
6 What can be done to reduce noise?
6 How much property takes from a split alternative.
6 Fund/Financing: is it possible to combine funding sources to avoid cash flow drawbacks or onlt value capture.
6 What is noise impact of elevation/split. Electric trains? Freight trains?
6 How close does development need to be to the tracks/grade separation to generate value capture funding?
6 Please provide more detail on funding/financing options. Show comparables with other jurisdictions.
6 Stay on table: trenching for Charleston/ E. Meadow must stay on. Segue to the trenching at Churchill & Oregon (eventually as current structure ages) Southern Cal
street station not so expensive?
6 Rhetorical! Are not the traffic distruptions and auxilliary requirements as the trenching options.
6 Is there any other options that has the same safety problems for large teenage/child bike traffic? E.g. underpasses appear narrow, steep, or missing.
6 Bonding off property taxes then repay with property value?
6 Take off the table: car overpasses, fully raised tracks.
6 1) How do you keep water out of the trench? 2) Where do find $4B 3)Does SP own development rights over ROW? 4) What does SP think about these options? 5)
Can Embarcadero be fixed?
6 Not enough info here to really make decision or answer questions.
6 Construction impact: if Alma has to close, can work be done to improve N-S roads like Middlefield, perhaps closing some inersections, widening, remove lights?
6 We like the idea of closing 2 of the 4 (?) crossings (Churchill & Meadow), and add bike/ped overpass or underpass there as well.
6 Grade separations to keep: 1) tunneling 2) split (raise rail, lower road) 3) trenching South PA 4) pedestrian-only tunnel crossings (no cars) at Churchill & Meadow.
Assumes no narrowing of Charleston at Alma.
Table #7
7 1. Trench under E. Meadow & Charleston, build trench one track at a time. 2. Trench under Churchill and north. Get Elon Musk's Boring company to help keep freight
at surface and passenger trains?
Table #8
8 Q: Is this a meeting to steer public opinion away from the trench?!? (e.g. ohhh it "costs too much," see here chart…) Trench to East Meadow! (it's a good in between
solution) Build forever on Alma (if you need!) It's gonna impact Palo Alto for 100+ years! Should tell people that! It's compelling!
8 Increase awareness. flyers to houses nearby the tracks. It's how I learned about it.
8 Palo Alto Weekly 2/23/18: $700M Santa Clara Co. funding for grade-separation. Palo Alto lobbied behind Sunnyvale & Mountain View-council members playing
catch up. Why isn't Palo Alto leading adjacent cities seeking major funding from Sacramento & DC (to bore tunnels as far as possible as San Gabriel did) Bring back
elevated tracks option: cheaper, Caltrain wants it, affects 2 houses on each side, could sell rights to surface, minimal impact on cross traffic. Stunned that
"temporary track" will take half of Alma for ____ years
8 #2) Yes, I agree with the staff analysis. #3) Building a shoofly South of Oregon Exp should-at most- take up only one lane of Alma St. #4) Keep the elevated train
tracks (berm) option on the table, especially for the Charleston Road and Meadow Dr. crossings. #5) Take thge Palo Alto Ave. grade separation off the table. #6) A
mass mailing to all Palo Alto residents, or include updates in the Palo Alto utilities bill.
Table #9
9 Will half trade up have down effect shoefly and close road for how long?
9
9 $1,000 employees tax/yr for 2/3 of employees X100,000 employees X30 years is $2B
9 Get state money for costs of minimal solution. They should pay for the cheapest solution. We pay for a better solution.
9 Deep bored tunnel (twin) should not be off table yet. Many should be from bond issue so future generation will pay as they will enjoy it. For citizens to accept taxes
to find it, they need compelling vision that will renew city by removing the N-S barrier in our city.
9 Table of all impacts of all alternatives.
9 -Cost usage of land for other purposes; -loss of homes; –closure during construction of part or all of lanes on Alma and cross-streets
9 Re. 1. Do protect on a city-wide basis, coordinate all
9 Re. 2. Yes, trench/tunnel problems
9 Re. 3. Put ‘shoefly’ trench on Park Blvd (not Alma)
9 Re. 4 Put all rail at surface, or above with min new underpasses. Build rail cross structure to reduce noise concerns
9 Re. 5. Trench & tunnel = off
9 Re.6. add’l roundtable set-ups
9 Timeline: Ag. 2021 –Aba -<65 homes. PAUSD grandfathered in $2m is low.
Table #10
10 Possible combo: trench S. PA & Alma to El Camino raised or lowered? Isn't 2% required for S. PA trenching also (for San Antonio station)? Is there enough Caltrain
ROW at S. end of city to shoofly w/o "stealing" from Alma?
10 Are we negotiating with SP yet? It seems we should, at least about the 2% grade. If trenching leaves Meadow closed should Charleston be single land (narrowed)?
10 How can we proceed without close coordination with Menlo Park and Mountain View (at least)? i.e. do we need a regional JPA a la San Gabriel Valley?
10 How to understand the revenue opportunities for freeking up the existing tracks? Put Alma over RR tunnel? Sell old Alma land for housing/commercial; use proceeds
to pay back bond?
10 Who owns the track? SP? Who is Caltrain? We think bored tunnel should stay on. Get rid of 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b-especially option that leaves out E. Meadow: 3+ schools
rely on that crossing! All 6 of us agree. Pls report on what is happening in Boring technology developments improvements. What is changing? What is the future?
What is happening in Japan? China, Germany in boring? Elsewhere?
10 Who owns the air rights above tracks? Can we negotiate for using that space for Alma St?
10 Diesel cargo trains in tunnel?
10 Boring technologies getting better. Driverless cars. Should we wait to decide?
10 Given the 5 yrs of resident's discomforts during 5yr construction, & the cost, & the future population of the region it makes sense to do the project in whatever way
gives the greatest benefit for the future. Especially bad example is BART-slow, nonstandard rail gauge, horrible, ear damaging decibels-> bad planning all around.
10 Department/groceries in buildings above each station? See Tokyo
10 We are Palo Alto, we are creative and not afraid to take risks for the long term. Can we do tunnel and develop on land by going thru some financing options and
build a connected Palo Alto from East to the West? We need to think long term for 100+ years. 5 years of discomfort is a great reason that we don't do something
temporary and ugly.
Table #11
11 NO TAKING OF HOMES
11 Can cost be offset by Stanford or businesses? Increase business transportation taxes?
11 Can we enhance the crossings at Oregon and Embarcadero to avoid taking of property?
11 Build tunnel, tax businesses for funding
11 Can you negotiate a deal for these kids displaced to still go to PA schools?
11 If our property is acquired, can my kids stay in same school district
11 How will city compensate for owner who loses his house? Cash or land?
11 When will the list of houses owner informed that they lose the houses?
11 Compensate homeowner by giving out lands
11 Can government compensate to give land and pay for building house
11 Housing shortage, no houses should be taken
11 What happens to the people that have to move?
11 Safety of highschoolers riding bike East Meadow to Gunn
11 Traffic impact of shoefly – What is the result of the study? Southbound rush hr is already bad
11 How will the city address the taking of property or home to support the rail? Do not take homes or property.
11 Easements on homes near East Meadow – Are they temporary or permanent?
11 Reduction in noise at East Meadow crossing relative to current noise after trenching?
11 How does financing work? What’s the likelihood that PA can secure the required funding from the various sources? Can you bury the southern half of the trenching
only? Why do officials think that the whole –city option is infeasible? Is it primarily exercise, or is it that it is not clearly necessary? Whatever happens to the grade-
level crossing at Churchill, can anything be done to ensure bicycle access for Pali students? A bike tunnel the size of California Ave. would not carry enough traffic.
For the southern-only options, will 1% grades worth? Why do the proposals show a 2% grade? How do these studies relative to high-speed rail infrastructure?
What’s the anticipated O+M case for the citywide tunnel or southern-only tunnel? Have we studies the traffic impacts of closing half the lanes of Alma. 5. Don’t
bother with elevating the roads over the rail line. San Antonio crossing is huge and ugly. 4. Please do prioritize the boring/tunneling options (either whole city on
southern only). They seem best in the long run: quitter, better land use, less ugly.
11 Before spending money on studies details, ask Caltrain if 2% is ok. Otherwise, trench/tunnel is D.D.A.
11 Water table impact
11 1. Short-term/long-term
11 2. Effected distance from construction
11 Tunnel /trench – no homes taken? Overpass – many homes? Underpass – how many? No trench/tunnel – close meadow + Churchill, fix Embarcadero. School safety
very important.
11 1. 2 southern crossings should get trench funding
11 2. Churchill should be closed on west side, but left open on east side of tracks so cars can turn left and right onto Alma.
11 a) Ped/bike crossing under tracks
11 3. Widen Embarcadero to include additional lane
11 4. What to do with crossing at San Francisquito Creek?
11 *Trench should stay as one city-wide solution
11 *Any option that takes homes by eminent domain should be taken off table
11 Take off tasks – any option where eminent domain taking of houses
11 How did Berkeley finance tunnel for Bart?
11 Tunnel South Palo Alto alternatives (keep open on table
11 What bond alternative are there to budget financing timing for more costly but long term better solutions?
11 This long-term solution/benefit green belt w/ business’s on right-away
11 Value of Alma tunnel righ-away need to be relational to costs (trenching vs. tunneling)
11 Long-term vs. short-term solutions (e.g. Berkeley built Bart and happy long term)
11 To appropriately assess alternatives to meet revenue costs
11 Trench South Palo Alto (Meadow and Charleston and close Churchill)
11 Build South Palo Alto trench before Caltrain electrification!
11 Elevated track idea should be taken off the table
Table #12
12 How do we come up with a solution that works for the future? How do we account for running high speed rail along schools and houses?
12 Take off: elevated track
12 The questions seem leading, as if the leadership is trying to guide us to their preferred solution! The process seems far too piecemeal by city. Shouldn't there be a
larger conversation/planning? Where are we in the process? According to the schedule, you should be eliminating 30+ ideas, where are those ideas?
12 Why are you asking about shoo-fly if you need them for all alternatives except tunnel.
12 If you can tunnel under hay how come you can't stay closer to surface? Why do we need to go so deep? What are the future train traffic assumptions? Can't remove
alternatives until we know all the alternatives.
12 Why aren't we considering a Peninsula wide plan (similar to ACE) Need relative costs of all alterntives. What about freight? If not freight, what happens? Equity of N
vs South PA. Folks feel pushed to conclusion by staff.
12 When do we know about 2%? What are assumptions at train traffic & design standards? T & T seems expensive, but compared to what?? Any options w/o shoofly?
Do we have an appetite for 1/2 a solution (i.e. trench in south only)? What other sources of funds can we access? If T & T not realistic, what is?
12 #4 & #5- Don't have enough data for grade separations today. How can we answer?
12 How likely is it that some of the crossings will be closed? Why aren't we hearing about HSR? What are the costs of the other options? How are the stations affected?
Is doing nothing a legitimate option? What is the financial feasibility of trench/tunnel?
12 #2 What are relative costs of all options? Is tunneling in South Palo Alto only really feasible? How does freight train fit in? How should we think about funding? When
would we know about 2% exemption?
12 Can we buy out the freight ROW to eliminate this desing criteria? Why aren't we pushing Stanford to share in the funding? (i.e. via GUP) Is there any plan to build
pedestrian/bike underpasses 1st before roads are closed, in order to ease transportation barriers?
12 Will the N. Palo Alto power brokers honestly consider a trench only in S. Palo Alto? This is going to be costly & disruptive no matter what, so we need to choose a
solution we'll be happy with, rather than a compromise solution. Where is the last of 40 solutions? Why isn't this available for the public to view? Elminate option:
elevated track throughout city (i.e. berm)
Table #13
13 What options do we have to create a light rail solution? Buy out freight rail, convert caltrain to light rail.
13 Build hybrid like Belmont/San Carlos. Eliminate options that cost $1B+ and options that put the stations 50' down. Eliminate options that take too long or are not
funded.
13 Will they consider lift-able cap? (to get around train car removal problem) Full costs of managing construction & moving of tracks? w/o freight, there are more,
better, cheaper options. Any prospect to get rid of freight. Is shoefly only required for trench options?
Table #14
14 No eminent domain absorbing homes!
14 Can we do this gradualy? i.e. one street at a time or like South PA then north PA later? What about cross streets? Like with Meadow or Charleston?
14 We think that the trenching idea should be taken off the table. How to get more people interested: create drama/be controversial
Table #15
15 OUTREACH
15 Articles in PA Weekly
15 Close the railroad crossings for a whole day. Everyone will want to know what the heck is going on.
15 What are the noise considerations for a lowered train versus a raised train?
15 Do we have to keep stations in mind while we decide?
15 Dow we have to keep freight on this system?
15 Are we coordinating with other cities? Why are we going this above?
15 Cannot close Charleston or east Meadow. Need to keep both available!
15 Finance question: Are large businesses in PA paying their fare share to support infrastructure. Per employee fee? Better property tax parity so residents don’t pay all.
15 I agree – yes! This is the largest infrastructure project this city has faced in generations. All the more reason to do it right so it is valuable for generations to come.
Let’s not be cheap and regret it for decades.
15 Will you really read and consider all these questions?
15 1. What is a feasible budget?
15 2. Is a tunnel a most option b/c the rsailroad will veto?
15 3. What are the noise considerations for an overhead train vs. trench? Can noise be mitigated?
15 Charleston + Meadow both need to stay open and safe.
15 Why Joint Powers of effected cities
15 Overhead all the tracks
15 How much can Stanford pay?
15 Get rid of freight traffic!!! It wrecks the rails, and wrecks your Planning!! Don’t wait, and don’t say you can’t.
15 Are you sure this is going to be obsolete before it is finished
15 Noise for neighbors?
15 Do not be pennywise and pound-foolish
15 To get people involved more, temporarily close Charleston for a day with a sign to come to a meeting about the closing!
15 How about getting rid of freight train traffic?
15 Close the Churchill crossing and just allow pedestrian/bike crossing with an overpass or tunnel.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9052)
City Council Rail Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/21/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Initial Screening of the Master List of Ideas
Title: Receive a Report on the Initial Screening of the Master List of Ideas for
the Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Committee receive a report on the Initial Screening of the Master List of
Ideas for the Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program. Staff does not recommend any action until
early April 2018.
Background
The Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program is a community-based process to address long-standing
challenges associated with at-grade crossings on the Caltrain corridor that runs through Palo
Alto. This process will inform decisions affecting both community aesthetics and mobility
choices for many future generations, and has some urgency because of expected increases in
rail service (and resulting delays at at-grade crossings) enabled by ongoing Caltrain
electrification and the long development timeline for solutions. Community feedback and
collaboration has been a vital part of the decision-making process. Engagement activities that
inform, educate, gather input and connect citizens about potential rail design alternatives will
help prepare the City for the transit landscape of the future. For more information on the
Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program, and the work completed to-date, please visit
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/connectingpaloalto.
Throughout 2017 and early 2018, community comments were collected through a project
website, stakeholder interviews, an on-line questionnaire with 800 responses, two community
workshops with 228 attendees, and four community roundtables with 381 attendees. To-date,
Staff has received an additional 63 public comments or inquiries related to the project. All of
the input received has been entered into a public comment database.
Figure 1. Alternatives Screening Diagram
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Source: City of Palo Alto, February 2018
Staff has reviewed all of the input received to-date and drafted a Master List of Ideas. This list
contains all of the various grade separation projects suggested by members of the public and as
a result of previous planning efforts. A total of 34 discrete Ideas were identified by Staff (this
was previously described as ~40 Ideas). This Master List of Ideas is included as Attachment A. As
presented at the City Council retreat and Rail Committee meeting in February, the program
goals for 2018 are to identify four (4) to eight (8) Alternatives for Study in June and select a
Preferred Solution for Environmental Analysis and Preliminary Design by December. In order to
move toward the goal of identification of the handful of Alternatives for Study, Staff
recommends the early elimination of financially or technically infeasible Ideas through the use
of Initial Screening Criteria, which are based on the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Evaluation Criteria adopted
by City Council on September 6, 2017. A glossary of the terms used in this staff report is
included below.
Glossary
Option: A standard type of railroad grade crossing improvement or grade separation treatment.
Examples of Options include: safety upgrades, closure, road under rail, road over rail, hybrid, rail
under road, and rail over road.
Idea: An initial concept for a treatment at one or more specific grade crossings. An Idea has not
been evaluated for financial feasibility or constructability.
Master List of Ideas: A comprehensive list of all grade crossing treatment Ideas. All Ideas on The
Master List of Ideas were identified in public comments or in previous planning efforts.
Alternative for Study: An Idea that has been initially screened for financial and technical
feasibility and selected for further analysis. The cost to further analyze each Alternative for
Study is estimated at $200,000 to $300,000*.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Solution: A combination of one Alternative for Study for each of the four grade crossings (e.g.,
closing one crossing, putting a hybrid at two crossings, and putting a trench at one crossing
would equal one Solution). The Alternatives for Study within a Solution must be compatible with
one another.
Preferred Solution: The Solution selected by City Council to move into the environmental
analysis and preliminary design phase in 2019.
* The further analysis of an Alternative for Study will likely include traffic circulation and multi-
modal access evaluations, geotechnical investigations, structural type selections, hydraulic
analysis, utility conflict evaluations, constraints analysis, preliminary cost analysis, economic
and community impact analysis, construction phasing impacts, and multi-modal transportation
impact analysis).
Figure 2. Adopted Evaluation Criteria
Source: City of Palo Alto, March 12, 2018
Discussion
Using the methodology outlined below, Staff conducted an Initial Screening exercise based on
the adopted Evaluation Criteria, as well as three new criteria: 1) Estimated Community Support,
City of Palo Alto Page 4
2) Constructability, and 3) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Opinion. Much of this scoring is
qualitative in nature and relies on the professional judgement of Staff. An internal working
group comprised of staff from the Planning and Community Environment Department, Public
Works Department, and Utilities Department coordinated on the evaluation under the technical
screening criteria.
It’s important to recognize, however, that cumulatively, a minor change to the score under one
criterion is unlikely to change the results of the Initial Screening. Two exceptions to this are the
so-called Fatal Flaw criteria of 1) Funding Feasibility and 2) Constructability. It will likely be the
Staff recommendation that the Ideas that face substantial funding or construction challenges
be removed from consideration. An additional criterion on TAC Opinion remains blank, as the
Master List of Ideas was not presented to the Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Technical
Advisory Committee until March 13, 2018. The scoring under this criterion will be included in
the Rail Committee agenda packet for the early April meeting.
Tier 1 Evaluation Criteria
Facilitate Movement – All Modes
At year of completion, the project will likely improve access and mobility compared to a
scenario with no project.
At year of completion, the project will likely result in similar levels of access and mobility
compared to a scenario with no project.
At year of completion, the project will likely worsen access and mobility compared to a
scenario with no project.
Reduce Delay and Congestion
At year of completion, the project will likely decrease motor vehicle delay at signalized
intersections compared to a scenario with no project.
At year of completion, the project will likely result in similar levels of motor vehicle
delay at signalized intersections compared to a scenario with no project.
At year of completion, the project will likely increase motor vehicle delay at signalized
intersections compared to a scenario with no project.
Ped-Bike Circulation
The project is likely to substantially improve bicyclist and pedestrian connectivity across
the rail corridor and between key destinations.
The project is likely to moderately improve bicyclist and pedestrian connectivity across
the rail corridor and between key destinations.
The project is likely to degrade bicyclist and pedestrian connectivity across the rail
corridor and between key destinations.
Support Rail Operations
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The project will likely facilitate improved rail operations.
The project will likely have no impact on rail operations.
The project will likely constrain flexibility for future rail operations and expansion of
service.
Funding Feasibility (Fatal Flaw)
✔It’s possible that the entire project can be funded with established revenue
sources.
X It’s possible that the majority of the project can be funded with established
revenue sources, although some portion of the project will likely require new
funding mechanisms, and that portion is likely to be eligible for competitive grant
funding.
X The estimated cost of the project likely exceeds the capacity of existing
revenue sources and potential new funding mechanisms, and the project would be
unlikely to be eligible for competitive grant funding.
Tier 2 Evaluation Criteria
Reduce Noise
The project will likely reduce noise from trains—air horns and roadway crossing warning
bells—while not increasing other noise.
The project will likely reduce some sources of noise—air horns and roadway crossing
warning bells—while potentially increasing the degree or intensity of noise from other
sources.
The project will likely not reduce noise.
Minimize Visual Changes
The project will likely either improve or not substantially alter the appearance of the
project area.
The project will moderately alter the appearance of the project area.
The project will likely substantially alter the appearance of the project area.
Minimize Right-of-Way
The project will likely require very minimal or no permanent property acquisition.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
The project will likely require moderate permanent property acquisition, possibly
impacting only small portions of affected parcels.
The project will likely require substantial permanent property acquisition.
Minimize Construction Impacts
The extent and duration of project construction will likely have minimal impact on the
public and be mostly within the existing railroad right-of-way.
The extent and duration of project construction will likely have a moderate impact on
the public and be partially outside the existing railroad right-of-way.
The extent and duration of project construction will likely have a significant impact on
the public and be mostly outside the existing railroad right-of-way.
Estimated Community Support
Based on recent community engagement activities, Staff believes that the project may
have broad support within the community.
Based on recent community engagement activities, Staff believes that the project may
have some support within the community.
Based on recent community engagement activities, Staff believes that the project may
have little support in the community.
Constructability (Fatal Flaw)
✔Project can be constructed under existing technical standards and within
existing political framework. “Political framework” refers to the City’s ability to
obtain necessary approvals from other agencies.
X Project cannot be constructed under existing technical standards or within
existing political framework.
X Project cannot be constructed under existing technical standards and within
existing political framework.
TAC Opinion
As of April 1, 2018, the Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Technical Advisory
Committee members have not expressed any concerns with the project.
As of April 1, 2018, the Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Technical Advisory
Committee members have expressed minor concerns with the project.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
As of April 1, 2018, the Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Technical Advisory
Committee members have expressed major concerns with the project.
The results of the Initial Screening of the Master List of Ideas is included as Attachment B (the
detailed scoring from the Initial Screening will be distributed at the meeting). A total of 18 Ideas
have been identified by Staff for potential early elimination, which would leave 16 Ideas on the
Master List of Ideas. These 16 Ideas are summarized below, and reflect the results of Initial
Screening only. Some of these Ideas may prove unworkable and/or be viewed unfavorably by
the community as the screening process moves forward. Ultimately, the City Council will be
asked to identify four (4) to eight (8) Ideas worthy of in-depth analysis.
Ideas that Include Grade Crossing Closure Option
CAE Close Churchill Avenue crossing and widen existing Embarcadero Road roadway undercrossing
CAS
Close Churchill Avenue crossing and build a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing near the
planned Seale Avenue bicycle boulevard to connect to the existing Peers Park and planned
Stanford Avenue bicycle boulevard
MDL Close Meadow Drive crossing and build a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing near Loma Verde
Avenue to connect to the planned Matadero Avenue bicycle boulevard
PCE Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and build planned Everett Avenue bicycle and pedestrian
undercrossing
PCU Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and widen existing University Avenue roadway undercrossing
Ideas that Include Hybrid Option (Railroad Raise Slight and Roadway Depressed Slightly)
CAH Roadway under railroad hybrid at Churchill Avenue crossing
CRH Roadway under railroad hybrid at Charleston Road crossing (maintain connection between
Charleston Road and Alma Street)
MCH Roadway under rail hybrid at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings
MCL
Roadway under railroad hybrid at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings; new hybrid
path under rail bicycle and pedestrian crossing near Loma Verde Avenue
MDH Roadway under railroad hybrid at Meadow Drive crossing (maintain connection between
Meadow Drive and Alma Street)
City of Palo Alto Page 8
PAH Continue proposed Menlo Park hybrid alternative across San Francisquito Creek and Palo Alto
Avenue on a viaduct structure
Ideas that Include No Build Option (Safety Upgrades Only)
CAN
No grade separation at Churchill Avenue crossing; implement minor safety improvements
(quad-gates and wayside horns) in addition to planned Section 130 project to be completed in
2018-2019.
MDN
No grade separation at Meadow Drive crossing; implement minor safety improvements (quad-
gates and wayside horns) in addition to potential Section 130 project to be completed in 2020-
2022.
PAN No grade separation at Palo Alto Avenue crossing; implement minor safety improvements
(quad-gates and wayside horns) with the goal of making a quiet zone
Ideas that Include Rail under Road Option
MCT Railroad under roadway trench from Meadow Drive to Charleston Road; Alma Street not within
trench (maintain connections between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road)
MCX Railroad under roadway trench at Charleston Road; Close Meadow Drive crossing; Alma Street
not within trench (maintain connections between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road)
Timeline
Throughout March and early April, Staff will be recieving Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program
Technical Advisory Committee feedback on the Master List of Ideas and also meeting with key
stakeholders to review the results of the Initial Screening of the Master List of Ideas. It is
recommended that the Rail Committee take up an action item to move forward with the early
elimination of Ideas at its first meeting in April.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Draft Master List of Ideas
Attachment B - Draft Initial Screening Results
Attachment C - Rail Committee Presentation 2018-03-21
Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Master List of Ideas 03/07/2018
Alternative
ID Description of Alternative
MCA Railroad under roadway trench within existing railroad corridor from Meadow Drive to Charleston Road; Alma
Street within trench (no connections between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road)
MCH Roadway under rail hybrid at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings
MCL Roadway under railroad hybrid at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings; new hybrid path under rail bicycle
and pedestrian crossing near Loma Verde Avenue
MCT Railroad under roadway trench from Meadow Drive to Charleston Road; Alma Street not within trench (maintain
connections between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road)
MCX Railroad under roadway trench at Charleston Road; Close Meadow Drive crossing; Alma Street not within trench
(maintain connections between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road)
WBE Citywide deep bore railroad tunnel from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits under El Camino Real
with two new underground rail stations
WBR Citywide deep bore railroad tunnel from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits under existing rail
corridor with two new underground rail stations
WCE Citywide cut‐and‐cover railroad tunnel from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits under El Camino
Real with two new underground rail stations
WCR Citywide cut‐and‐cover railroad tunnel from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits under existing
railroad corridor with two new underground rail stations
WER Citywide railroad berm from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits within existing rail corridor with
two new elevated stations
WTR Citywide railroad under roadway trench within existing railroad right‐of‐way from Menlo Park city limits to
Mountain View city limits with two new depressed rail stations
WVR Citywide railroad viaduct from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits within existing rail corridor with
two new elevated stations
Citywide or Multiple Crossing Alternatives
DR
A
F
T
FO
R
DI
S
C
U
S
S
I
O
N
ON
L
Y
Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Master List of Ideas 03/07/2018
Alternative
ID Description of Alternative
PAH Continue proposed Menlo Park hybrid alternative across San Francisquito Creek and Palo Alto Avenue on a viaduct
structure
PAN No grade separation at Palo Alto Avenue crossing; implement minor safety improvements (quadgates and wayside
horns) with the goal of making a quiet zone
PAT
Connect Alma Street south of Palo Alto Avenue to Sand Hill Road with a roadway undercrossing beneath the
railroad corridor and El Camino Real; dead‐end Palo Alto Avenue east of Alma Street; connect the bicycle path from
Menlo Park to El Camino Park
PCA Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and connect Alma Street to Alma Street in Menlo Park
PCE Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and build planned Everett Avenue bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing
PCQ Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and extend Quarry Road under rail corridor to Alma Street to tie into Lytton Avenue
PCU Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and widen existing University Avenue roadway undercrossing
CAE Close Churchill Avenue crossing and widen existing Embarcadero Road roadway undercrossing
CAH Roadway under railroad hybrid at Churchill Avenue crossing
CAK Close Churchill Avenue crossing and build a a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing near Kellogg Avenue to connect to the
existing Embarcadero Shared‐use Path
CAN No grade separation at Churchill Avenue crossing; implement minor safety improvements (quadgates and wayside horns) in
addition to planned Section 130 project to be completed in 2018‐2019.
CAS Close Churchill Avenue crossing and build a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing near the planned Seale Avenue bicycle
boulevard to connect to the existing Peers Park and planned Stanford Avenue bicycle boulevard
CAT Railroad under roadway trench at Churchill Avenue crossing
Palo Alto Avenue (AKA Alma Street) Alternatives
Churchill Avenue Alternatives
DR
A
F
T
FO
R
DI
S
C
U
S
S
I
O
N
ON
L
Y
Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Master List of Ideas 03/07/2018
Alternative
ID Description of Alternative
MDA No grade separation at Meadow Drive crossing; depress Alma Street into trench within existing Alma Street right‐of‐way
under Meadow Drive (no connection between Meadow Drive and Alma Street)
MDH Roadway under railroad hybrid at Meadow Drive crossing (maintain connection between Meadow Drive and Alma Street)
MDL Close Meadow Drive crossing and build a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing near Loma Verde Avenue to connect to the
planned Matadero Avenue bicycle boulevard
MDN No grade separation at Meadow Drive crossing; implement minor safety improvements (quadgates and wayside horns) in
addition to potential Section 130 project to be completed in 2020‐2022.
MDU Roadway under railroad undercrossing at Meadow Drive crossing (maintain Alma Street connection)
CRA Roadway under railroad undercrossing at Charleston Road crossing (no connection between Charleston Road and Alma
Street)
CRH Roadway under railroad hybrid at Charleston Road crossing (maintain connection between Charleston Road and Alma Street)
CRO Roadway over railroad overcrossing at Charleston Road crossing (no connection between Charleston Road and Alma Street)
CRU Roadway under railroad undercrossing at Charleston Road crossing (maintain connection between Charleston Road and
Alma Street)
Charleston Road (Only) Alternatives
Meadow Drive (Only) Alternatives
DR
A
F
T
FO
R
DI
S
C
U
S
S
I
O
N
ON
L
Y
Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program
Matrix of Ideas – Top Scoring Ideas from Initial Screening of 34 Ideas
Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program
Matrix of Ideas – Top Scoring Ideas from Initial Screening of 34 Ideas
Type of Separation
(Alphabetical Order) Citywide Palo Alto Churchill Meadow Charleston
Closure
Palo Alto Ave Closed,
Everett Bike/Ped (PCE)
Palo Alto Ave Closed, Widen
University (PCU)
Churchill Ave Closed, Widen
Embarcadero (CAE)
Churchill Ave Closed, Seale
Bike/Ped (CAS)
Meadow Dr Closed, Loma
Verde Bike/Ped (MDL)
Hybrid
(Road under Rail)
Palo Alto Ave Hybrid (PAH)
Churchill Ave Hybrid (CAH)
Meadow + Charleston
Hybrid, Loma Verde
Bike/Ped (MCL)
Meadow Dr Hybrid (MDH) Charleston Road
Hybrid (CRH)
No Build / Do
Nothing
Palo Alto Ave No Build,
Safety Upgrades (PAN)
Churchill Ave No Build,
Safety Upgrades (CAN)
Meadow Dr No Build,
Safety Upgrades (MDN)
Rail under Road
(Trench)
Meadow + Charleston
Trench (MCT)
Rail under Road
(Tunnel)
Road over Rail
(Berm/Viaduct)
Road under Rail
Abbreviations
CAE – Close Churchill Ave. crossing, widen existing Embarcadero Rd. undercrossing
CAH – Churchill Ave. crossing with roadway under railroad Hybrid
CAN – Churchill Ave. crossing with No grade separation. Implement minor safety improvements
CAS − Close Churchill Ave. crossing, build bike/ped crossing near planned Seale Ave. bike boulevard to connect to Peers Park
and Stanford Ave. bike boulevard
CRH − Charleston Rd. crossing with Hybrid (maintain connection b/w Charleston Rd. and Alma St.)
MCH − Meadow Dr. and Charleston Rd. crossings with roadway under rail Hybrid
MCL − Meadow Dr. and Charleston Rd crossings with roadway under rail Hybrid; new hybrid bike/ped path under rail near
Loma Verde Ave.
MCT − Meadow Dr. to Charleston Rd Trench; Alma St. not within trench (maintain connections between Meadow Dr. and
Charleston Rd.)
MCX − Close Meadow Dr. crossing; Railroad under roadway trench at Charleston Rd.; Alma St not (X) in trench (maintain
connection b/w Meadow Dr. and Charleston Rd.)
MDH − Meadow Dr. crossing with roadway under railroad Hybrid (maintain connection b/w Meadow Dr. & Alma St.)
MDL − Close Meadow Dr. crossing, build bike/ped crossing near Loma Verde Ave. to connect to planned Matadero Ave. bike
boulevard
MDN − Meadow Dr. crossing with No grade separation; implement safety improvements
PAH − Continue proposed Menlo Park Hybrid across San Francisquito Creek and Palo Alto Ave. on a viaduct structure
PAN − Palo Alto Ave. crossing with No grade separation; implement safety improvements (quad-gates and wayside horns)
with the goal of making a quiet zone
PCE − Palo Alto Ave. crossing Closed; build Everett Ave. bike/ped undercrossing
PCU − Palo Alto Ave. crossing Closed; widen University Ave. roadway undercrossing
Meadow + Charleston
Hybrid (MCH)
Meadow Dr Closed,
Charleston Trench
(MCX)
1
Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program
Master List of Ideas –Initial Screening
City Council Rail Committee
March 21, 2018
2
Potential Changes to Existing Crossings
INTERSECTIONS
Charleston Meadow
Churchill Palo Alto
Closed to Vehicles Only;
Pedestrians & Bicycles OK
Closed to All
Traffic
Independent
of Alma
Connects
to Alma
Road
Under Rail
Road Over
Rail
HybridClosureNo Build /
Do
Nothing
Rail Under
Road
Rail Over
Road
Alma Below
Grade
Alma at
Grade
3
Types of Crossing Modification
Road Closure at Tracks
•Close City Road that crosses RR Property
•Fence RR Property
•Modify Alma intersection
•Reroute traffic to other crossings
Pros:
•Increased safety
•Eliminate train horn
•Traffic reduced
on/near closed road
•Alma traffic improved
•Low cost
•Low property impacts
Cons:
•Increased traffic
on/near other
crossings
•Longer routes for
bikes/peds
•More vehicle trips
Sample location: North
California Avenue, Palo Alto
4
Types of Crossing Modification
Lower Road/Ped/Bikes under Tracks
•Change local road profile to go under tracks
•Bike/Ped under RR –higher than road
•Retaining Walls parallel to road
•Train crosses over road on bridge –same elevation.
•Lower Alma to local road elevation
Pros:
•Increased safety
•Eliminate train horn
•Improved traffic flow
on grade separated
street
Cons:
•Increased traffic on
local road(s)
•Increased noise from
vehicles
•Property impacts
•Potential impact to
street system
•Utility Impacts
Sample Location:
Jefferson Ave,
Redwood City
5
Types of Crossing Modification
Raise Road/Ped/Bikes over Tracks
•Change local road profile to go over tracks
•Bike/Ped follow road profile
•Retaining Walls parallel to road
•Train crosses under road on existing ground
•Alma crosses under local road
Pros:
•Increased safety
•Eliminate train horn
•Improved traffic flow
Cons:
•Increased traffic on
local road(s)
•Increased noise from
vehicles
•Property impacts
•Local street
connections lost
•Utility Impacts
Sample Location:
Scott Boulevard,
Santa Clara
6
Types of Crossing Modification
Hybrid –Lower Road/Ped/Bikes and Raise Tracks
•Change local road profile to go under tracks
•Bike/Ped higher than road profile
•Retaining Walls parallel to road & parallel to tracks
•Train crosses over road at higher elevation
•Alma lowered to elevation of local road
Pros:
•Increased safety
•Eliminate train horn
•Improved traffic flow
•Reduced property
impacts from other
alternatives
Cons:
•Increased traffic on
local road(s)
•Increased noise
from vehicles and
train travel
•Property impacts
•Utility Impacts
Sample Location:
Holly Street, San
Carlos
7
Types of Crossing Modification
Lower Railroad Tracks under Local Road
•Change RR profile to go under local road
•Bike/Ped stay at road elevation
•Retaining Walls parallel to tracks
•Road crosses over RR tracks on bridge
•No impact to Alma (after construction)
Pros:
•Increased safety
•Eliminate train horn
and reduce travel
noise
•Improved traffic flow
•Few property
impacts (after
construction)
Cons:
•Increased traffic on
local road(s)
•Increased noise from
vehicles
•Utility Impacts
•Major construction
Impacts
Sample Location:
E Compton
Boulevard,
Compton
(Alameda Trench
Corridor)
8
Types of Crossing Modification
Elevate Railroad Tracks over Local Road
•Change RR profile to go over local road
•Bike/Ped stay at road elevation
•Retaining Walls parallel to road
•Train crosses over road on elevated tracks
•No impact to Alma (after construction)
Pros:
•Increased safety
•Eliminate train horn
and reduce travel
noise
•Improved traffic flow
•Few property
impacts (after
construction)
Cons:
•Increased traffic on local
road(s)
•Increased noise from
vehicles
•Substantial visual impacts
•Utility Impacts
•Major construction
Impacts
Sample Location:
BART Central Contra
Costa Viaduct,
Contra Costa
9
Mission for 2018
34 Ideas
Initial
Screening
of 34 Ideas
(Begins today)
4 -8
Alternatives
for Study
(June)
1 Preferred
Solution
(December)
10
Community Engagement
•Connecting Palo Alto website
www.cityofpaloalto.org/connectingpaloalto
•On-line questionnaire with 800 responses
•Held 2 Community Workshops, with 228
attendees
•Held 4 Community Roundtables, with 381
attendees
•Held 13 Rail Committee meetings
•Collected 63 public comments / inquiries
•Built a database of interested stakeholders
•Produced Connecting Palo Alto e-newsletter
•Posted extensively on social media
11
Master List of Ideas
•Community Engagement produced
40 grade separation ideas
•Examples:
•Close Palo Alto Avenue
crossing and connect Alma
Street to Alma Street in Menlo
Park
•Citywide railroad under
roadway trench within existing
railroad right-of-way from
Menlo Park city limits to
Mountain View city limits with
two new depressed rail
stations
12
Refining Process for Decisions
Tier 1 Criteria: Most Important
•East-West connectivity: facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of
transportation
•Traffic congestion: reduce delay and congestion for automobile traffic at rail crossings
•Ped/Bike circulation: provide clear and safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists seeking
to cross the rail corridor, separate from automobile traffic
•Rail operations: support continued rail operations and Caltrain service improvements
•Cost: finance with feasible funding sources
Tier 2 Criteria: Also Important
•Environmental impacts: reduce rail noise and vibration along the corridor
•Environmental impacts: minimize visual changes along the rail corridor
•Local access: maintain or improve access to neighborhoods, parks, schools and other
destinations along the corridor while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets
•Cost: minimize right-of-way acquisition by eminent domain
•Construction: minimize disruption and the duration of construction
Technical
Financial
Property
Construc-
tion
13
Refining Process for Decisions
Tier 1: Finance with feasible
funding sources
Tier 2: Minimize right-of-way acquisition Tier 2: Minimize disruption and duration
Technical Financial
Property Construction
Tier 1:
Facilitate movement
Reduce delay and congestion
Provide safe ped / bike routes
Support rail operations
Tier 2:
Reduce rail noise
Minimize visual changes
Maintain or improve local access
14
Evaluation Criteria with Sample Ideas
Standard
Scoring:
ID Description of Alternative
Initial Screening Criteria
Advance
into Study
Tier 1 Tier 2 New
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
-
Al
l
M
o
d
e
s
Re
d
u
c
e
D
e
l
a
y
a
n
d
Co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Pe
d
-Bi
k
e
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Su
p
p
o
r
t
R
a
i
l
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Re
d
u
c
e
N
o
i
s
e
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
V
i
s
u
a
l
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
R
i
g
h
t
-of
-
wa
y
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
TA
C
O
p
i
n
i
o
n
Alternatives
A Grade Separation Idea A X X ?N
B Grade Separation Idea B ✔✔?Y
C Grade Separation Idea C ✔X ?N
D Grade Separation Idea D X X ?Y
E Grade Separation Idea E ✔X ?Y
= Highest weight
= Middle weight
= Lowest weight
Fatal Flaw
Scoring:
✔= Feasible
X = Possibly Feasible
X = Not Feasible
15
Results of Initial Screening
Type of Separation
(Alphabetical Order)
Citywide Palo Alto Churchill Meadow Charleston
Closure
Palo Alto Ave Closed,
Everett Bike/Ped (PCE)
Palo Alto Ave Closed,
Widen University (PCU)
Churchill Ave Closed,
Widen Embarcadero
(CAE)
Churchill Ave Closed,
Seale Bike/Ped (CAS)
Meadow Dr Closed,
Loma Verde Bike/Ped
(MDL)
Hybrid
(Road under
Rail)
Palo Alto Ave Hybrid
(PAH)
Churchill Ave Hybrid
(CAH)
Meadow +Charleston Meadow +
Hybrid,Loma Verde Charleston
Bike/Ped (MCL) Hybrid (MCH)
Meadow Dr Hybrid
(MDH)
Charleston Road
Hybrid (CRH)
No Build / Do
Nothing
Palo Alto Ave No Build,
Safety Upgrades (PAN)
Churchill Ave No Build,
Safety Upgrades (CAN)
Meadow Dr No Build,
Safety Upgrades (MDN)
Rail under Road
(Trench)
Meadow + Charleston Meadow Dr Closed,
Trench (MCT) Charleston Trench
(MCX)
Rail under Road
(Tunnel)
Road over Rail
(Berm/Viaduct)
Road under Rail
16
Results of Initial Screening –Closure Ideas
PCE:Palo Alto Ave Closed, Everett Bike/Ped
PCU: Palo Alto Ave Closed, Widen University
CAE:Churchill Ave Closed, widen Embarcadero
CAS: Churchill Ave closed, Seale Ave Bike/Ped
MDL:Meadow Dr Closed, Loma Verde Bike/Ped
Road Closure at Tracks:
North California Avenue, Palo Alto
17
Results of Initial Screening –Hybrid Ideas
PAH: Palo Alto Ave Hybrid
CAH: Churchill Ave Hybrid
MCL:Meadow + Charleston Hybrid, Loma Verde
Bike/Ped
MCH: Meadow + Charleston Hybrid
MDH: Meadow Dr Hybrid
CRH: Charleston Rd Hybrid
Hybrid (Road Under Rail):
Holly Street, San Carlos
18
Results of Initial Screening –No Build Ideas
PAN:Palo Alto Ave No Build, Safety Upgrades
CAN:Churchill Ave No Build, Safety Upgrades
MDN: Meadow Drive No Build, Safety Upgrades
No Build:
Safety
Improvements,
e.g. Quad Gates,
Redwood City
19
Results of Initial Screening –Rail Under Road Ideas
MCT: Meadow + Charleston Trench
MCX: Meadow Closed, Charleston Trench
Rail Under Road (Trench):
Alameda Trench Corridor, Compton
20
Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program
Master List of Ideas –Initial Screening
City Council Rail Committee
March 21, 2018