HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-19 Rail Agenda Packet1
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council Rail Committee after distribution of the
agenda packet are available for public inspection in the city’s website at www.cityofpaloalto.org
CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE
Wednesday, October 19, 2022
Regular Meeting
Community Meeting Room
1:00 PM
Supplemental Report Added
Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council and Committee meetings will be held as “hybrid”
meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To
maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of
the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the
public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda.
HOW TO PARTICIPATE
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION
CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/86388142528)
Meeting ID: 863 8814 2528 Phone:1(669)900-6833
The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and s t rea m ed t o Midpen Media
Center at https://midpenmedia.org.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public Comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom meeting. All requests to
speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments
can be submitted in advance to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to
the Committee and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly
indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your email subject line.
Call to Order
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.
Action Items
1.Verbal Update on Interagency Activities
A. Caltrain
B. VTA
C. City Staff
2
City Council Rail Committee Regular Meeting October 19, 2022
Study Session
2.Study Session to review comments received from various stakeholders
to refine conceptual plans for Partial Underpass Alternative at Churchill
Avenue and Underpass Alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston
Road. Supplemental Report Added
Next Steps and Future Agendas
Adjournment
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to hybrid meetings via email, in
person, teleconference, or by phone.
1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
2.In person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on
the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk
prior to discussion of the item.
3.Spoken public comments using a computer or smart phone will be accepted
through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below
to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
•You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome
30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be
disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom
application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and
enter the Meeting ID below
•You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify
you that it is your turn to speak.
•When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before
they are called to speak.
•When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
•A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below.
When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that
you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before
addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called
please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
Click to Join Zoom Meeting ID: 863 8814 2528 Phone: 1(669)900-6833
Presentation
City of Palo Alto (ID # 14813)
City Council Rail Committee Staff Report
Meeting Date: 10/19/2022 Report Type: Next Steps and Future Agendas
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Title: Study Session to review comments received from various stakeholders
to refine conceptual plans for Partial Underpass Alternative at Churchill
Avenue and Underpass Alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Transportation Department
RECOMMENDATION
Study Session to review comments received from various stakeholders to refine conceptual
plans for the Partial Underpass Alternative at Churchill Avenue and the Underpass Alternatives
at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 23, 2022, City Council authorized City staff (staff) to seek additional feedback from the
key stakeholders for the revisions of the partial underpass alternative at Churchill Avenue and
underpass alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. City Staff and the consultant
reached out to the Pedestrian and Bike Advisory Committee (PABAC), Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD), Stanford, City School Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC), and lead
design engineers from the community who were involved in developing the conceptual design
of these partial underpass alternatives for their feedback and comments for refinement to the
conceptual plans.
Staff compiled all the comments received from these stakeholders and developed a master list
of all comments. These comments were then categorized into elements of major facilities that
is, Bicycle and Pedestrian, Roadway, Structures, and Rail. The review of the comments in the
various elements of these categories are discussed in detail in this staff report to seek direction
from the Rail Committee in addressing and incorporating these comments for the refinement of
conceptual plans. Staff will return to the Rail Committee at a future date with staff
recommendations as an action item.
BACKGROUND
After receiving the final report from the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) on April
26, 2021 (CMR 12185), Staff presented a detailed review of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road
2
Packet Pg. 3
City of Palo Alto Page 2
crossing alternatives on August 23, 2021 (CMR 13435) and presented details on Churchill
Avenue crossing alternatives for grade separation on November 1 & 29, 2021 (CMR 13543) &
(CMR 13746). At these meetings, the Council directed staff to perform additional studies. These
studies included work to refine Underpass alternatives with input from PAUSD, PABAC, and
Stanford to address current shortcomings and to conduct additional outreach. On May 23, 2022
(CMR 14341) the Council authorized an amendment with the consultant to perform these
additional tasks.
Staff with the support of the City’s consultant scheduled separate meetings with the
stakeholders to seek their input and feedback on partial underpass alternatives. Staff and
consultants attended several stakeholders’ meetings and made presentations with a detailed
review of the alternatives to seek feedback and comments from Stanford staff, PABAC, PAUSD
staff, and CSTSC in July and August. Due to the summer recess break, the outreach was delayed.
Staff also reached out to local design engineers and were able to consult with Mr. Michael Price
and Ms. Elizabeth Alexis, who were involved in developing initial conceptual plans for these
underpass alternatives to seek their input and comments.
DISCUSSION
City staff and the consultant presented the alternatives in consideration to PAUSD Staff, PABAC,
CSTSC, and Stanford staff in seeking feedback and comments on the proposed conceptual
alternatives. In addition, staff reached out to lead design engineers from the community who
were involved in developing the conceptual design of these partial underpass alternatives for
their feedback and comments for refinement to the conceptual plans. The compiled list of
comments is provided in Attachment A, however, a summary of comments received from these
stakeholders is as follows:
PAUSD: City staff and the consultant presented the alternatives in consideration to
PAUSD staff in seeking feedback and comments on the proposed conceptual
alternatives. The major concern of the PAUSD was to provide grade separation designs
that can accommodate high volumes of bicycle and pedestrian traffic using these
roadways. In addition, staff concerns included accommodation of the larger turning
vehicles such as school buses and maintenance vehicles at these crossings. PAUSD sent
a letter (See Attachment B) representing over 10,000 students, over 20,000 parents, and
2,000 employees reiterating concerns regarding the closure of Churchill Avenue. In
addition, the concerns regarding the closing of Churchill and/or Meadow appear more
damaging to the district. The PAUSD has concerns that “the potential closure would
negatively impact daily operations in a way we cannot mitigate with our buses or fleet
of maintenance vehicles”.
PABAC: City staff received more than a hundred comments from PABAC members.
Attachment A provides the list of all comments including comments received from
PABAC members. Some of the major concerns of the committee members were to
provide more direct continuity by providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities on both
2
Packet Pg. 4
City of Palo Alto Page 3
sides of the roadway. The concerns of additional maneuvering/circuitous facilities that
require additional crossings will cause additional delays, inconvenience, and therefore
deteriorated service to such users. The recommendation is to design these facilities
aligned with existing facilities and integrated with the roadway system. Also, the PABAC
members stressed for needs of such continuity on other intersecting bicycle routes such
as Park Blvd. Other comments include consideration of design to include measures to
lower grade on bicycle and pedestrian ramps, provide greater design speeds for
bicycles, and accommodate varying bicycle types through turning movements for such
facilities. In addition, roadway crossings and intersections shall consider bicycle and
pedestrian safety and provide adequate measures for safe crossings. Also, the
roundabout on Charleston shall be designed to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian
movements and may be reduced to one lane configuration. Finally, one of the major
concerns was to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians during construction.
CSTSC: The CSTSC members provided feedback similar to PABAC concerning the
accommodation of bicycles and pedestrian traffic and geometric consideration in these
alternatives. The desire to provide higher priority to bicycle and pedestrian traffic and to
improve service for such users. The comments included consideration of measures to
improve safety at conflicting points of bicycle and pedestrian with vehicular traffic. The
committee members also voiced concerns about the volume of bicycles and pedestrians
along these corridors and asked for conducting a study for the level of service analysis
for such needs. All comments received from CSTSC Committee are compiled in
Attachment A.
Stanford: Stanford staff generally supported and recognized the challenges of various
alternatives during the presentation delivering information and seeking feedback on the
conceptual design plans for various alternatives. However, Stanford did not provide any
formal feedback or comments to the City.
Lead design engineers from the community who were involved in developing
conceptual plans: Staff met with lead design engineers from the community who were
involved in developing the conceptual design of these partial underpass alternatives for
their feedback and comments for refinement to the conceptual plans. The major
comments were suggestions to reduce the project footprint by considering measures
such as reduced bridge depth thickness, reducing vertical clearance, reducing bridge
span by reducing lane and shoulder width, number of lanes, bridge support, and also by
reviewing vertical grades, and other measures. In addition, they recommended
providing enhancements to the aesthetics of bridge and roadway structures. The
detailed comments from Mr. Michael Price are attached as Attachment C. In addition,
concerns related to design aesthetics, construction timelines, traffic demand, and
encroachment into Caltrain right-of-way were also included in the feedback. Ms.
Elizabeth Alexis also had similar comments which are included in the compiled list of
comments (Attachment A).
2
Packet Pg. 5
City of Palo Alto Page 4
All comments received from the above stakeholders were compiled into a spreadsheet
(Attachment A). City staff and the consultant reviewed all the comments and categorized these
comments into various elements. These categories were identified into four major facilities, i.e.
Bicycle and Pedestrian, Roadways, Structures, and Rail. The following discussion provides a
summary of the various elements brought up in these comments.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Several comments from the stakeholders were related
to the design of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities. One of the major concerns was that
such shall be designed to accommodate high volumes of pedestrians and bike demand
along these corridors. Stakeholders requested for the City to conduct additional studies
on bicycle and pedestrian demands and service levels of the proposed facilities. Major
elements affecting these facilities are as follows:
Width & Pathway Configuration: Proposed width for ramps or pathways in the
conceptual plans is 10-foot to 20-foot wide. 20-foot-wide ramps/pathways are
only at a few places where feasible, such as along Meadow Drive, Charleston
Road, and the tunnel at Churchill Avenue. The comments included concerns that
even 20 feet may not be adequate width to accommodate pedestrian and bike
volumes present on these corridors. The comments asked for additional studies
on the Level of Service and Delay analysis to justify providing additional width for
these pedestrian and bike facilities. Providing wider facilities will require
additional right of way. An example would be to widen the pedestrian ramp on
Kellogg Street which will encroach into the residential landscaping area or
require additional right of way. In addition to width, comments also include a
request for bicycle and pedestrian pathways to have separate facilities. While
separating bicycles and pedestrian facilities may not be feasible, striping can
provide for the delineation of bicycles and pedestrian facilities, and aligning the
proposed facilities with existing facilities will be considered in detail during the
design phase where feasible.
Grade/Slope: Proposed grade in the conceptual plans meets the minimum
American Disability Act (ADA) requirement and provides an 8% grade with 5 foot
landing every 35 feet. The feedback from stakeholder's requests to provide a
maximum grade of 5% to meet recommended bicycle pathway guidelines. The
flatter slope, if provided will require greater approaches and therefore will have
a larger construction footprint, increased cost, and may also require additional
right of way. Changing the slope from 8% to 5% will increase the ramp length by
approx. 90 feet for an elevation change of 15 feet. Also, providing greater slope
conflicts with some other comments to limit long isolated ramps and tunnels
that may lead to personal safety concerns.
2
Packet Pg. 6
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Maneuvering & Additional Crossings: Having the bicycle and pedestrian facility
on one side of the roadway in underpass alternatives of Meadow Drive and
Charleston and a detour to Kellogg Street for a partial underpass alternative at
Churchill requires the bicyclists and pedestrians to cross the roadway. In
addition, crossings on Meadow Drive and Charleston at Park Blvd and ramps
from Alma Street to Meadow Drive or Charleston Road will have similar
concerns. These additional maneuvers will cause increased travel times and
inconvenience to bicyclists and pedestrians and may pose challenges for various
populations to use the crossings. The comments included concerns regarding
detours and maneuvers that require additional crossings and that such crossings
shall be protected or provided with traffic control measures to provide for safe
crossings. The project will include additional measures at these crossings during
the detailed design with input from stakeholders.
Design Speed, Design Bicycle, Turning Radius, Sight Distance: The comments
raised concerns about the design bicycle and design speed used in preparing the
conceptual plans for these underpass alternatives. While there are tools
available to review such designs for design vehicle and speed, the conceptual
plans were prepared with consideration of the minimum design requirements
for such facilities. These design considerations generally impact the turning
radius. Staff believes that while some turning radius may be provided for
ramps/tunnels without impacting right-of-way, however, will not be able to
accommodate recommended 20 mph design speeds at these facilities. To
accommodate the sight distance at these constrained turning locations,
alternatives such as striping, lighting and other measures will be considered
during the preparation of design plans.
Connectivity: There were few comments from stakeholders for the project to
show the connectivity of the bicycle and pedestrian to the major destinations in
the City. While the project is providing connectivity of pedestrians and bicycle
network to the adjacent facilities, the Citywide network for such facilities is
depicted in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP).
Construction Impacts: Several comments also included concerns with provisions
of bike and pedestrian crossing during construction at Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road. The stakeholders asked to provide for phasing of construction
to show for such provisions of the bicycle and pedestrian crossing during
construction. The objective is to maintain bicycle and pedestrian crossing at least
at one of these crossings, however, the detailed construction phasing for the
project will be developed in subsequent phases of design.
Bicycle Pedestrian Pathway on each side (Meadow and Charleston Underpass
Alternative): Some stakeholders valued having bicycle and pedestrian facilities
2
Packet Pg. 7
City of Palo Alto Page 6
on both sides of the roadway. While providing separated bicycle and pedestrian
facilities along both sides may not be feasible on Meadow Drive, for Charleston
Road it will require additional restrictions to movements at the intersection. In
addition, a right-of-way needs evaluation will be required for developing this
new concept plan.
Kellogg Ave vs Seale & Bike lane configuration on the pathway (Churchill
Avenue): Stakeholders had varying views about the location of the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Crossings. While the project conceptual plans show the crossings at
Kellogg Avenue, the merits of the crossing at Kellogg vs Seale will be studied as
part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update as directed by
Council. In addition, consideration of additional crossings across the Caltrain
corridor will also be part of this BPTP update. With regards to the configuration
of the bike lane markings on the bike path along the railroad track, it will be
evaluated for sightline improvements and review of alignment with the
Embarcadero bike path at its entry and exit.
Roadways: The comments from stakeholders concerning roadways reflected the desire
to reduce the project footprint. The various elements involved are as follows:
Shoulder and Lane Widths: The comments included reducing the shoulder width
and lane widths to reduce the project footprint. The conceptual plans indicated
10-12-foot-wide lanes with a shoulder width of up to 8 feet at places. The project
will be able to reduce lane width to 11-foot to meet the required minimum
standards. However, the shoulder width provides flexible space for larger turning
vehicles and accommodates any disabled vehicle and emergency vehicle access
and will be evaluated during a detailed design phase for any width reduction.
Vehicular Lane reductions: In general, there is only one lane in each direction
along these segments of Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road.
However, to accommodate traffic through intersections, generally, turning
movement lanes are added. For example, on eastbound Churchill Avenue, the
single lane splits into an eastbound left turn and an eastbound right turn lane.
This will help in reducing backups in the eastbound direction. Eliminating this
right turn lane will cause greater backups as the capacity at the intersection
decreases.
Intersection, Turning Radius, School Bus Turning Radius: Some concerns related
to a wider turning radius at various locations in the partial underpass
alternatives. While the turning radius along with shoulder areas are designed to
accommodate larger vehicles, the request is to consider measures to tighten
these curves with some calming measures while accommodating larger vehicles.
In addition, PAUSD raised concerns with respect to accommodating school buses
2
Packet Pg. 8
City of Palo Alto Page 7
through all these turning movements. The turning radius will be evaluated
further to ensure accommodation and address these issues.
Roadway Grade/Slope: Proposed grades in the conceptual plans range from 7%
to 12%. Some stakeholders requested to see if the slopes can be increased to
further reduce the footprint, however many stakeholder comments requested to
flatten the slopes to 5% to accommodate bikes using the traveled lane. The
flattening of the slopes will increase the project footprint and may also impact
the right-of-way needs.
Signage: Few comments related to the development of signage to ensure that
pedestrians and bike traffic is directed to appropriate facilities. In addition, the
concern was to have adequate signage to ensure that bicyclists are advised of
steep grades on Meadow, Charleston, and crossing limitations at Churchill
Avenue. Signage plans will be developed during the detailed design development
and these concerns will be addressed in implementing such signage.
Loss of landscaping strip on Alma: With Partial Underpass Alternatives, the
concern of loss of landscaping strip along Alma Street will bring the bicycles and
pedestrians using the sidewalk near the traveled way. Providing a landscaping
strip will require additional right of way from the fronting residents.
Roundabout for Charleston Underpass Alternative only: Stakeholders were also
concerned with the size of the roundabout. While the roundabout was designed
with two lanes to accommodate existing and projected traffic, the concern was
that the larger roundabout will be too complex to navigate for bicyclists. In
addition, since the shared bike path terminates before the roundabout that will
make it challenging for bicyclists and pedestrians to navigate around the
roundabout. The consultant is reviewing the possibility to extend the bike path
beyond the roundabout to accommodate this concern.
Bike Boulevard Continuity at intersections: Stakeholders also indicated concerns
with maneuverability along the existing established bike routes such as Park Blvd
through Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. While Bicycle and Pedestrian
connectivity is provided through bridges and ramps, the most direct route was
requested to be considered. The consideration of such routes was requested by
providing greater grades than what is currently provided (10-12%) and possible
realignment of intersections at Park Blvd. However, the initial review indicates
that roadway grades were optimized to provide the smallest footprint, and
realignment of intersections will require significant additional right of way.
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Structures: The comments from stakeholders with respect to structures relate mainly to
bridge structures. The following are the concerns brought up by the various
stakeholders:
Bridge Deck Thickness: Various stakeholders brought up concerns about the
bridge depth depicted in the plans. Depending upon the type of bridge
(Pedestrian & Bicycle, Roadway, or Rail) the bridge depth thickness may vary.
The consideration of 5 feet of the total bridge depth is assumed in conceptual
plans from the soffit (bottom of the structure) to the top of the rail. However,
few stakeholders feel that the width could be reduced further to improve the
project footprint. The bridge depth thickness currently is estimated based on the
general design guidelines. However, the actual design and value engineering will
be performed in subsequent phases for the selection of the bridge type and
design elements that will determine the required bridge deck thickness.
Vertical Clearance: Various stakeholders brought up concerns about the vertical
clearance under the bridges. Currently, the minimum vertical clearance of 15’-6”
is shown in accordance with minimum Caltrain requirements. For the bike
bridges, where feasible, 10 feet of vertical clearance is provided and an
exception is 8 feet under the railroad track on Meadow Drive.
Aesthetics: There were concerns from the stakeholders that the structures,
roadways, and other areas where aesthetic enhancements could be provided
shall be included in these revisions.
Rail: The comments from a stakeholder with respect to rail was limited to raising the rail
described as follows:
Raise the Rail: With regards to rail, the comment was to consider raising the rail
to lower the grade on the roadway. For the underpass design, one of the
features was to keep the rail at the existing vertical elevation. Also, alternative
construction technologies like Jack Box construction techniques could help
reduce construction timeframes. Finally, raising the rail will also be similar to the
hybrid alternative and therefore not considered with underpass alternatives.
In addition to these comments, it should be noted that these concept plans are prepared with
2-track options only.
Next Steps
• Following the Rail Committee’s study session, staff will come back with proposed
recommendations to be included in refining the Partial Underpass Alternative for
Churchill Avenue and Underpass Alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto Page 9
• Coordinate with PABAC Grade Separation subcommittee for review of comments and
update other stakeholders on the proposed recommendations.
• Perform design refinements recommended by the Rail Committee and bring back the
updated conceptual plans for Rail Committee approval.
• Provide an update to stakeholders and share revised concept plans for these
alternatives.
• Seek City Council review and approval of the Rail Committee’s recommendation for the
selection of the preferred alternative(s).
The selection of preferred alternatives will therefore lead to the development of preliminary
engineering and preparation of environmental documents including the associated
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
RESOURCE IMPACT
Revision to existing conceptual plans and cost estimates is within the approved scope of the
consultant contract. In the event, the City requires the development of new alternatives or
revisions beyond the refinement of current alternatives, additional services of the consultant
will be needed.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed action is part of a planning study for a possible future action, which has not been
approved, adopted, or funded and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. The future decision to
approve the construction of any one of the identified potential alternatives would be subject to
CEQA and require the preparation of an environmental analysis. Environmental review and
design for the grade separation project will be performed in the subsequent steps of the
project development.
DOCUMENTS
Attachment A: Compiled list of comments
Attachment B: Letters received from PAUSD
Attachment C: Comments received from Mr. Michael Price
Other Project related documents
All of the project-related documents are posted on the project webpage here:
https://connectingpaloalto.com/. Here are direct links for Rail Committee consideration for
review of the alternatives as part of this staff report:
• Fact Sheets & Matrix
• Renderings & Animations
• XCAP Final Report
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Part 1: Appendix A-1 thru A-2-1
Part 2: Appendix A-2-2 (01-04)
Part 3: Appendix A-2-2 (05-08)
Part 4: Appendix A-2-3 thru A-6
Part 5: Appendix B
Part 6: Appendix C
Attachments:
• Attachment A - Compiled List of Comments
• Attachment B - PAUSD Letters
• Attachment C - Comments from Mr. Price
2
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment A
Compiled List of Comments
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
1 Ken Joy PABAC 7/20/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Kellogg Ave vs Seale &
Bike lane configuration
on the pathway
(Churchill Avenue)
Seale Crossing is better than Kellog as it provides the direct
connection without 90 degree bend. Prefer Seale to Kellogg.
Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan update plans to
review merits of Seale Ave Vs Kellogg Ave. The project
will accommodate crossing based on City Council
Direction accordingly. Seale Ave may have some
advantages as it could provide more design flexibility on
the west side of the tracks.
Alternative
Preference Noted
2 Ken Joy PABAC 7/20/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Roadways Miscellaneous Similar comments to Arnout on Meadow/Charleston. Also
provided comments during the townhall and XCAP review
At the PABAC Meeting, staff requested to resend the
comments for including into the spreadsheet for
consideration and review
Direction Required
3 Arnout Boelens CSTC 2/2/2022 Churchill Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
At the Kellogg Ave Underpass there is a blind corner when it
meets the Embarcadero Bike path. Bicyclists will be going at
high speed at that point because of the downward slope of
the bike path, so that is a dangerous situation. There have to
be clear sight lines coming out of the tunnel.
Design potential to flare/taper the box structure to
increase line of sight; however, due to the right of way
constraints at this location, even a moderate speed for
bicyclists (> 5-10 mph) cannot be accommodated. The
geometry here will be very similar to the southwest
corner of the Homer UC where bicyclists will need to
slow down significantly (3-5 mph) or walk their bikes.
Comment will be
addressed
4 Arnout Boelens CSTC 2/2/2022 Churchill Closure Option 1
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
At the Churchill pedestrian and bike bridge there is a very
sharp corner. This is difficult to navigate on a bicycle by
young riders, older riders, and people with cargo bikes and
trailers. What kinds of bicycles are you designing this for and
what speeds? Can the bike/pedestrian bridge be raised a bit
so there is clearance for a more gentle curve?
There's the potential to taper the corner of the tunnel
(similar to the Homer UC) to maximize the turning radii
& design speed; however, due to constraints at this
location, this turning movement will be designed for
low speeds for bicyclists (< 10 mph). The geometry here
will be very similar to the southwest corner of the
Homer UC where bicyclists will need to slow down
significantly (3-5 mph) or walk their bikes. This turning
movement can be made by all bike types, except that
larger bikes, such as tandem bikes, will require riders to
dismount from their bikes.
Comment will be
addressed
5 Arnout Boelens CSTC 2/2/2022 Churchill Closure Option 2 Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
Option 2 is preferred because it eliminates the need to cross
Alma and there are clear sightlines through the tunnel.
Comment noted for consideration. City Council has
currently selected the Churchill Partial Underpass as the
preferred alternative with the Churchill Closure as the
backup alternative.
Alternative
Preference Noted
6 Arnout Boelens CSTC 2/2/2022 Meadow -
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
There are a number of hairpin curves and 90 degree curves in
the underpass design. These seem very difficult/impossible to
navigate for young riders, older riders, and people with cargo
bikes and trailers. These kinds of curves can also be found at
the Stevens Creek Trail and are very poor bicycle design.
Again, can the bike/pedestrian bridge be raised a bit so there
is clearance for a more gentle curve? (Stevens Creek Design
Link)https://www.google.com/maps/place/37%C2%B023'26.
5%22N+122%C2%B004'09.8%22W/@37.3906944,-
122.0693889,222m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x0:0x
5a51f76f7579d52!7e2!8m2!3d37.390691!4d-122.0693817
Clarification on "raising the bridge" - we think shifting
the bridge is meant, which would require additional
property acquisitions. The 90-degree movements were
used to minimize property impacts. Trying to design
these movements for bike speeds more than 5-10 mph
will require significant property acquisitions. These
movements will be similar to the 90-degree bends at
the Homer Ave UC where bikers will have to slow down
or dismount from their bicycles.
Significant Revision
Page 1/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
7 Arnout Boelens CSTC 2/2/2022 Meadow -
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
Walking along Alma and crossing the Charleston Rd ramp
seems very hazardous for pedestrians. The turning radius for
cars should be much smaller, so they are slowed down, and
the lane should be more narrow, again to slow down drivers.
We will look into alternative measures to address these
concerns, such as a mountable curb to reduce the
length of pedestrian travel across the vehicle traveled
way. However, the radius and pavement area was based
on accommodating a right turn by emergency vehicles.
There is an elevation difference & a wall/barrier that
prevents motor vehicles from encroaching on an
adjacent lane, thus requiring the inside of the curve to
be relatively wide.
Direction Required
8 Arnout Boelens CSTC 2/2/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
Installing a bidirectional bicycle path means people have to
cross the road to get there. The pedestrian/bicycle bridges
are quite a detour so many riders will take the more direct
route across the street. I would suggest installing speed
tables on Meadow and Charleston so this can be done safely.
Agreed that some speed reduction measures can be
taken. Please note that direct routes across the street
will not be possible in many locations due to the
elevation difference between the roadway and the
ped/bike path.
Clarification
Provided
9 Arnout Boelens CSTC 2/2/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity The bidirectional bicycle path stops before the roundabout.
How can bicyclists get to the path safely?
A wider path around the outside of the roundabout (on
the north side of Charleston) will be considered by the
City, to provide safer connectivity to the Mumford Pl
intersection.
Comment will be
addressed
10 Arnout Boelens CSTC 2/2/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Hybrid
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
Meadow and Charleston are crossing Alma directly. This is a
very busy road, so there should be protected bicycle
infrastructure installed.
Improvements to pedestrian and bicycle safety at the
signalized intersection with Alma St will be investigated
in the next phase if the Hybrid alternative is chosen.
Significant Revision
11 Arnout Boelens CSTC 2/2/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Trench
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
Meadow and Charleston are crossing Alma directly. This is a
very busy road, so there should be protected bicycle
infrastructure installed.
Improvements to pedestrian and bicycle safety at the
signalized intersection with Alma St will be investigated
in the next phase if the Trench alternative is chosen.
Significant Revision
12 Nadia Naik XCAP 6/18/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass Structures Vertical Clearence
The vertical clearance shall be kept to minimum. The AASHTO
minimum 14 feet, CA HDM min 15 Feet for
local/conventional Highway
Caltrain's current minimum standard is 15'-6". The
current conceptual plans are in compliance with such
requirements.
Significant Revision
13 Arnout Boelens CSTC 6/21/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
What "design vehicles" are all the pedestrian and bicycle
ramps and bridges designed for? Can they be navigated by
people on a tandem bike, bikes with trailers, cargo bikes? I
know from personal experience that, for example, the hairpin
curves in the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View are nearly
impossible to navigate on a cargo bike.
To reduce the impact of adjacent properties, the
turning movements are relatively tight, and are similar
to the 90-degree turns at the Homer UC. Riders on
tandem bikes and large cargo bikes will likely need to
dismount at these locations for their own safety and the
safety of others. Accommodating long bikes will require
larger radii, which would increase the extent of
property acquisitions.
Significant Revision
14 Arnout Boelens CSTC 6/21/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Grade/Slope The maximum grade of 8% seems quite steep, especially for
older and younger riders. AASHTO recommends 5%
ADA requirements allow 8% for ped ramps if 5-foot
landings are provided every 30 feet, however
preference is noted. Flatter grade have benefits, but at
the expense of a larger project footprint. The City will
consider different grades in the next phase of the
project.
Direction Required
Page 2/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
15 Arnout Boelens CSTC 6/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
Taking the bridges over Meadow and Charleston to reach the
bi-directional underpass is quite a detour, so I expect many
bicyclists/pedestrians will cross the road instead. How can
this be accommodated so it happens safely?
There will be an elevation difference between the
ped/bike path and the road, which will naturally prevent
shortcuts from being taken. In addition, a barrier and
fence will physically prevent road crossings at these
locations.
16 Arnout Boelens CSTC 6/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
How will the underpasses be connected to the bicycle lanes
on Meadow and Charleston? Will there be green pavement
to indicate the bike route?
Bike lane marking details will be investigated further by
the City in the next phase.Significant Revision
17 Arnout Boelens CSTC 6/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
With 12' travel lanes and 8' shoulders, Charleston and
Meadow will be quite wide, which will encourage drivers to
speed. How will your road design encourage safe behavior
from drivers? This is especially important at locations where
pedestrians/bicyclists have to cross the road or where
bicyclists are merging back on the road into the bike lanes.
Flashing beacons, signage, speed bumps - several
mitigation measures will be analyzed in the next phase.
Travelled lanes will be reduced to 11-foot lanes.
Significant Revision
18 Arnout Boelens CSTC 6/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
What "design vehicles" are all the pedestrian and bicycle
ramps and bridges designed for? Can they be navigated by
people on a tandem bike, bikes with trailers, cargo bikes? I
know from personal experience that, for example, the hairpin
curves in the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View are nearly
impossible to navigate on a cargo bike.
To reduce the impact of adjacent properties, the
turning movements are relatively tight, and are similar
to the 90-degree turns at the Homer UC. Riders on
tandem bikes and large cargo bikes will likely need to
dismount at these locations for their own safety and the
safety of others. Accommodating long bikes will require
larger radii, which would increase the extent of
property acquisitions.
Clarification
Provided
19 Arnout Boelens CSTC 6/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Grade/Slope The maximum grade of 8% seems quite steep, especially for
older and younger riders. AASHTO recommends 5%
ADA requirements allow 8% for ped ramps if 5-foot
landings are provided every 30 feet, however
preference is noted. Flatter grade have benefits, but at
the expense of a larger project footprint. The City will
consider different grades in the next phase of the
project.
Clarification
Provided
20
Arnout
Boelens/CSTC
Members
CSTC 6/21/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Kellogg Ave vs Seale &
Bike lane configuration
on the pathway
(Churchill Avenue)
Kellogg is the next best option after Churchill. This is a much
more direct route than Seale, and walking and biking along
Embarcadero is hazardous.
Noted - A ped/bike tunnel at Seale Ave is also being
considered. Decision on location of undercrossing is
pending.
Alternative
Preference Noted
21
Arnout
Boelens/CSTC
Members
CSTC 6/21/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Kellogg Ave vs Seale &
Bike lane configuration
on the pathway
(Churchill Avenue)
Have residents at Kellogg Ave been fully informed that there
will be a bicycle and pedestrian tunnel on their street?
Public information is available on the project website
(https://aecomvr.com/paloalto/), however the decision
on a final location is still pending. Outreach will be done
during the next phase of the project (the environmental
phase).
Clarification
Provided
22
Arnout
Boelens/CSTC
Members
CSTC 6/21/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity What will be done to prevent pedestrians and bicyclists
inadvertently ending up at the crossing of Churchill and Alma
Signage will be provided to direct peds/bikes away from
the underpass that will be geared mostly for motor
vehicles. Details will be provided in later phases of the
project (during final design).
Clarification
Provided
Page 3/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
23 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Structures Bridge Deck Thickness Bridge Thickness shall be minimized. This will allow for less
approach transition distance.
A 6-12" difference in the structure depth won't make a
large difference to the design (and project footprint),
but comment noted, and this will be evaluated more
closely during the preliminary
engineering/environmental phase when rail and road
surveys are completed.
Clarification
Provided
24 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Roadways Roadway Grade/Slope
What are the maximum design slopes for the vehicular
traffic/roadway provided? Can greater slope be provided
that reduced the approach transition distance?
Local agencies typically don't like to exceed 10-12%
slopes on roadways, but exceptions are sometimes
made in constrained conditions. Based on the design
speeds (25 mph on Churchill, and 35 mph on Alma), the
grades shown (12% maximum) are close to optimal
(they minimize the limits of roadway reconstruction).
Steeper grades could be used on the underpass
alternatives, but this would reduce the road's design
speed, which is not desirable.
Clarification
Provided
25 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
Show the radius/curves at the bike turns rather than 90
degrees angles at these turns
We can include turning radii, but note that relatively
large radii to accommodate bike speeds > 10 mph will
require significant right-of-way.
Comment will be
addressed
26 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Structures Vertical Clearence Minimize the slope of the bike facility by reducing the bridge
deck thickness, vertical clearance etc.
Comment noted, structure depths and slopes of
ped/bike ramps will be evaluated more closely during
the preliminary engineering/environmental phase.
Clarification
Provided
27 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Roadways Miscellaneous Make it with less concrete by reducing/minimizing the
project footprint
One opportunity to reduce the footprint is if the City
(and the traffic analysis) permits one lane on NB Alma
(versus the two that is currently shown)... this would
avoid removal of the landscape strip on Alma St.
Shoulder widths are highly desirable in select locations
to allow room for disabled vehicles. In addition, some
pavement widths may seem excessive, but they're
needed to accommodate turning movements of
emergency vehicles (fire trucks) and school buses.
Clarification
Provided
28 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass Structures Bridge Deck Thickness
Bridge Thickness shall be minimized. This will allow for less
approach transition distance and therefore could reduce
project footprint.
Comment noted, structure/bridge depths will be
evaluated more closely during the preliminary
engineering/environmental phase.
Clarification
Provided
29 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass Roadways Roadway Grade/Slope
What effects the vertical transition required on approaches
of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road? Design Speed,
Vertical clearance, etc.
The road profiles are based on a 25 mph design speed
and a 15'-6" vertical clearance. Sag curve lengths are
designed for passenger comfort, and crest curve lengths
are designed for sight distance.
Clarification
Provided
Page 4/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
30 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass Roadways Roadway Grade/Slope
What is the maximum design slope for the vehicular traffic
provided? Can greater slope be provided that reduced the
approach transitions.
Local agencies typically don't like to exceed 10-12%
slopes on roadways, but exceptions are sometimes
made in constrained conditions. Based on the design
speeds (25 mph on Churchill, and 35 mph on Alma), the
grades shown (12% maximum) are close to optimal
(they minimize the limits of roadway reconstruction).
Steeper grades could be used on the underpass
alternatives, but this would reduce the road's design
speed, which is not desirable.
Clarification
Provided
31 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass Roadways
Roundabout for
Charleston Underpass
Alternative Only
Traffic circle shall be minimized or eliminated. Consider
providing “U” turn movement on Churchill Avenue instead of
traffic circle
There are several issues with a U-turn. 1. The relatively
heavy volumes would require a traffic signal and a U-
turn pocket (2nd lane). 2. The queues at a signal for a
relatively high volume would create a long queue. 3.
This would introduce a weaving/safety issue for traffic
coming from NB Alma (via the frontage road).
Clarification
Provided
32 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Bicycle Pedestrian
Pathway on each side
(Meadow and
Charleston Underpass
Alternative)
May not need to provide a separate two-way separated
pedestrian walkway on a ped bike path for Meadow and
Charleston. Possibly something like 5-foot-wide pedestrian
and 2-way bike pathway on this facility may be adequate
We recommend maintaining at least 20 feet for safe, 2-
way passage of peds/bikes. Configuration shown is
similar to the Homer UC.
Clarification
Provided
33 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass Structures Vertical Clearence Minimize the slope of the bike facility by reducing the bridge
deck thickness, vertical clearance etc.
Comment noted, structure depths and slopes of
ped/bike ramps will be evaluated more closely during
the preliminary engineering/environmental phase.
Clarification
Provided
34 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Bicycle Pedestrian
Pathway on each side
(Meadow and
Charleston Underpass
Alternative)
Possibly review the configuration of Park Blvd at Meadow
Drive; Property acquisition may transition the Park Blvd to a
distance west and that provides for the bikes transition from
Park Blvd. to the east/ped bike ped pathway without using
the pedestrian/bike bridge
Reconfiguring the alignment/profile of Park Blvd will
likely require significant impacts and/or acquisitions of
private properties.
Clarification
Provided
35 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass Roadways Make it with less concrete by reducing/minimizing the
project footprint
We're hearing from many to increase the footprint
(increase radii at 90-deg turns, increase the width of the
ped/bike bridge, etc. Also note that a 20-foot wide, 2-
way path with retaining walls on both sides is not
excessive (the Homer tunnel is about 19 feet wide)...
the foot or two next to the wall is not usable.
Clarification
Provided
36 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
Provide the radius at the bike turns rather than 90 degrees
angles at these turns
We can include turning radii, but note that relatively
large radii to accommodate bike speeds > 10 mph will
require significant right-of-way.
Comment will be
addressed
37 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
May provide less width for pedestrian and bike facility;
however, provide additional crossings.
A 20-foot wide, 2-way path with retaining walls on both
sides is an appropriate width for this type of facility (the
Homer tunnel is about 19 feet wide). Note that some
stakeholders prefer a width more than 20 feet.
Clarification
Provided
Page 5/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
38 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity Show the bike path connectivity to the major city facilities
and how the priority bike movements work.
The corridor wide connectivity will be coordinated with
the City's Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The
project will ensure that it maintains such connections.
Comment will be
addressed
39 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
Eliminate vehicular movement at Wright Place on Charleston
Road and make it dedicate bike and pedestrian movements
only.
That is the current plan... motor vehicles are prohibited
on Wright Place (for peds/bike only).
Clarification
Provided
40 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
At Meadow Drive possibly connect with bike path from the
cul-de-sac at Emerson Street to Alma Street internally
thereby limiting or providing alternative for such movements
It appears that the existing ped/bike path connects
some homes to Alma Village, but not to Emerson
(fence/gate prohibits access to Emerson). The City can
investigate if allowing access to/from Emerson is
feasible (if directed by Rail Committee and/or Council).
Direction Required
41 Elizabeth Alexis Design
Community 7/21/2022 Meadow-
Charleston Underpass Roadways Roadway Grade/Slope
Is it possible to increase vertical roadway grades to reduce
the footprint on Meadow Drive to ensure that Emerson and
Park Blvd are not impacted and kept at similar grades.
The impacts to Emerson are minimal. Steeper grades to
reduce the project footprint is physically possible, but
that would result in a design speed of 20 mph or less on
Meadow, which is not desirable.
Clarification
Provided
42 Michael Price Design
Community 7/27/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Structures Aesthetics Lack of Attention to design aesthetics
Open to suggestions, but hardscape and landscape
design details should not be a factor in choosing an
alternative. These details will be discussed and provided
out during the subsequent phases of design.
Clarification
Provided
43 Michael Price Design
Community 7/27/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Construction Impacts High Disruption and lengthy construction
We might be able to find an answer to that after doing a
geotechnical investigation. City is in discussion with
Caltrain with regards to alternative technologies that
can help in reduced construction timelines.
Clarification
Provided
44 Michael Price Design
Community 7/27/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Roadways Miscellaneous No suitable location for a dewatering pump station This will be explored further in the next phase of the
project.
Clarification
Provided
45 Michael Price Design
Community 7/27/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Roadways Incremental encroachment on the Caltrain Right of way
Yes, this alternative as currently designed, requires
some encroachment in Caltrain's R/W, and would have
to be reviewed/approved by them.
Clarification
Provided
46 Michael Price Design
Community 7/27/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Structures Bridge Deck Thickness
The deck thickness of the bridge is the parameter upon which
the overall design is most sensitive, since the thickness is
driven by so many other design decisions
Comment noted, structure/bridge depths will be
evaluated more closely during the preliminary
engineering/environmental phase.
Clarification
Provided
47 Michael Price Design
Community 7/27/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Structures Bridge Deck Thickness The depth of the thickness is reduced which leads to lower
grade and reduction the apparent scale of the project
Comment noted, structure depths and slopes of the
roads, and ped/bike ramps will be evaluated more
closely during the preliminary
engineering/environmental phase.
Clarification
Provided
48 Michael Price Design
Community 7/27/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Structures Bridge Deck Thickness The deck thickness depends upon the bridge material and the
design constraints that presents as well the bridge span
Comment noted, structural details will be hashed out
during the preliminary engineering/environmental
phase.
Clarification
Provided
Page 6/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
49 Michael Price Design
Community 7/27/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Structures Bridge Deck Thickness How do we get the thinner bridge deck; Use steel rather than
concrete for the bridge
A steel through girder bridge (like the bridge over
Jerrold Ave in SF) would likely reduce the 'top of rail to
soffit (bottom of structure)' dimension. This could be
explored further during the next phase if this alternative
is selected.
Clarification
Provided
50 Michael Price Design
Community 7/27/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Roadways Shoulder and Lane
Width
Narrow span through reduce shoulder width, reduce number
of lanes (possibly right turn lane, and remove central bridge
support
Shoulder widths are needed to accommodate turning
movements of emergency vehicles and school buses.
Two turn lanes are needed to avoid peak hour queues
from spilling back towards Paly/Castilleja and beyond. In
addition, shoulder also provide for flexible space for
disabled vehicles.
Clarification
Provided
51 Michael Price Design
Community 7/27/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Roadways Vehicular Lane
Reductions
Remove proposed eastbound right turn lane; as the pocket is
too small, the space currently occupied by turn lane can be
used for dewatering station, and the lane reduction helps in
reducing induced traffic and capacity of the Churchill Avenue
The right turn lane provides traffic benefits, such as
providing storage and avoiding queues from spilling
back to adjacent intersections (Paly/Castilleja).
Clarification
Provided
52 Michael Price Design
Community 7/27/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Roadways Shoulder and Lane
Width
Reduce shoulder widths; Shoulder width is safety issue but
these widths can be optimized, Enough space is needed to
allow turning of large vehicles. This can be accomplished by
larger radii at the corners; Reducing width can reduce
encroachment on Caltrain ROW
Larger radii helps with turning movements, but at this
location, it would require moving the bridge abutments
out (further north/south), thus introducing a longer
span, which defeats the purpose of reducing shoulder
widths.
Clarification
Provided
53 Michael Price Design
Community 7/27/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Rail Raise the Rail Elevate the tracks a little (3-5 feet)Certainly possible... this could be investigated further if
this alternative is selected.Significant Revision
54 Michael Price Design
Community 7/27/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Structures Vertical Clearence Optimize the vertical clearance under the rail bridge
Comment noted... the engineers strive to optimize the
roadway and bridge geometry. The 15'-6" vertical
clearances are based on the minimum Caltrain
requirements.
Clarification
Provided
55 Gregory Brail CSTSC 7/30/2022 Churchill &
Alma
Partial
underpass Roadways Signage
As currently proposed with the partial underpass, there will
be no safe way for a pedestrian, or anyone but an
experienced cyclist, to navigate the Churchill / Alma
intersection at Churchill itself. There are no sidewalks, so any
pedestrian who unwisely decides to navigate the intersection
on foot will be in a dangerous position. A good cyclist could
certainly manage, but would be faced with a 7% grade to
climb with a traffic light at the bottom, no shoulder, and no
bike lane. Therefore, I think that the final design for this
intersection should at least include some elements (I don't
know what, fences, signs?) that would discourage
pedestrians and cyclists from even trying.
Agreed, signage would certainly be warranted to deter
peds/bike from using the roadway pavement, only an
experienced/fit bicyclist would be comfortable using the
Alma/Churchill intersection.
Clarification
Provided
56 Gregory Brail CSTSC 7/30/2022 Kellogg &
Alma
Partial
underpass Roadways Signage
In addition to discouraging pedestrians and bicyclists from
entering Churchill, they should be encouraged to take Kellogg
by making this underpass as attractive as possible.
Agreed, comment noted. Signage and other guidance
will be considered in subsequent phases of the project.
Clarification
Provided
Page 7/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
57 Arnout Boelens CSTSC 7/30/2022 All All underpass
alternatives Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
Policy T-6.1 states: “Continue to make safety the first priority
of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian,
bicycle and automobile safety over motor vehicle level of
service at intersections and motor vehicle parking.”. The fact
that all the underpass designs were optimized for Level Of
Service first and that pedestrians and bicycle infrastructure
are only addressed now, shows that the City is not taking
road safety for all road users seriously
The two are not mutually exclusive... we can design an
alternative that reduces delays (and emissions) of
motor vehicles and also provides an improved/safer
route for peds/bikes.
Clarification
Provided
58 Arnout Boelens CSTSC 7/30/2022 All All Roadways When can CSTSC and PABAC members expect a response to
their comments?
Staff will update CSTSC and PABAC through Committee
liaisons. Staff will seek direction from Rail Committee in
addressing these comments and will revise conceptual
plans accordingly.
Clarification
Provided
59 Arnout Boelens CSTSC 7/30/2022 Kellogg/Embar
cadero path
Churchill partial
underpass Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
There is a very sharp corner coming out of the Kellogg
underpass onto the ramp towards the Embarcadero Bike
Path. Could the whole Embarcadero Bike Path be lowered
locally, so the corner is not so sharp?
This has some pros and cons... it would increase the
cost of the project, and introduce a 'down, then back
up' north/south movement, but it would allow for
better visibility and a larger radius at this T-intersection.
Note that even in this configuration, bikes would have
to slow down considerably to make safe turning
movements.
Direction Required
60 Arnout Boelens CSTSC 7/30/2022
Churchill/
Seale/ Loma
Verde
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
Alma and the railroad tracks form a major barrier across the
city for pedestrians and bicyclists alike. Assuming an ideal
bicycle network size of 300-500m (CROW design manual for
bicycle traffic), one would want underpasses at
Kellogg/Churchill. Seale, and Loma Verde. Is it the
understanding of staff that underpasses will be built at all
these locations?
The City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Transporation Plan
update will review and recommend additional crossings
across the Caltrain Corridor. Based on the
recommendation future projects will be undertaken for
the additional crossings across the Caltrain corridor.
Clarification
Provided
61 Arnout Boelens CSTSC 7/30/2022 Charleston/
Alma
Partial
underpass Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
Walking as a pedestrian along the "east" side of alma and
crossing the ramp to Meadow seems terrifying. There is a
very wide turning radius and the lane is very wide. Drivers
will take this turn way too fast, which is very dangerous for
pedestrians.
For the crosswalk at Charleston, the pavement is wide
to accommodate the turning movement of an
emergency vehicle. We could look into mitigation
measures to make this safer for pedestrians.
Direction Required
62 Arnout Boelens CSTSC 7/30/2022
Kellogg/
Churchill/
Coleridge &
Alma
Partial
underpass Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
Please reduce the lane width of the side streets of Alma at
these crossings. Install bulb-outs with a small turning radius
to reduce crossing distance for pedestrians and to slow down
drivers.
Not sure of the exact location that's being referred to,
but bulb outs at some locations may be possible.Direction Required
63 Arnout Boelens CSTSC 7/30/2022 Meadow &
Charleston
Partial
underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
Taking the bridges over Meadow and Charleston to reach the
bi-directional underpass is quite a detour, so I expect many
bicyclists/pedestrians will cross the road instead. How can
this be accommodated so it happens safely? Speed tables
could be installed to slow down drivers and make them more
likely to yield to pedestrians/bicyclists
Note that shortcuts across Meadow or Charleston (at
Park Blvd) would not be possible due to the elevation
difference between the road and ped/bike path.
Clarification
Provided
Page 8/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
64 Arnout Boelens CSTSC 7/30/2022 Meadow &
Charleston
Partial
underpass Roadways Signage
How will the underpasses be connected to the bicycle lanes
on Meadow and Charleston? Will there be green pavement
to indicate the bike route? right now there are only
pedestrian crossings and no bicycle crossings on the roads
Bike lane marking details will be investigated further by
the City in the subsequent phases.
Clarification
Provided
65 Arnout Boelens CSTSC 7/30/2022 Meadow &
Charleston
Partial
underpass Roadways Shoulder and Lane
Width
With 12' travel lanes and 8' shields Charleston and Meadow
will be quite wide, which will encourage drivers to speed.
How will your road design encourage safe behavior from
drivers? This is especially important at locations where
pedestrians/bicyclists have to cross the road or where
bicyclists are merging back on the road into the bike lanes.
Flashing beacons, signage, speed bumps - several
mitigation measures will be analyzed in the subsequent
phases.
Clarification
Provided
66 Arnout Boelens CSTSC 7/30/2022 All Partial
underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
What "design vehicles" are all the pedestrian and bicycle
ramps and bridges designed for? Can they be navigated by
people on a tandem bike, bikes with trailers, cargo bikes? I
know from personal experience that, for example, the hairpin
curves in the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View are nearly
impossible to navigate on a cargo bike. Meadow, Charleston,
Churchill, and Park are all major cycling routes that need to
remain open for all kinds of bikes.
The layouts are based on other designs in the City, such
as the Homer UC. An average-sized bicycle can make
the 90-degree turns at low speeds (< 5 mph). Riders on
larger bikes, such as tandem bikes, would likely have to
dismount from the bike when making these maneuvers.
Clarification
Provided
67 Arnout Boelens CSTSC 7/30/2022
Kellogg &
Embarcadero
bike path
Partial
underpass Roadways Roadway Grade/Slope
The maximum grade of 8% seems quite steep, especially for
older and younger riders. AASHTO recommends a maximum
grade of 5%.
ADA requirements allow 8% for ped ramps if 5-foot
landings are provided every 30 feet, however
preference is noted. Flatter grade have benefits, but at
the expense of a larger project footprint. City will
consider grades in the next phase of the project.
Clarification
Provided
68 Jess McClellan CSTSC 7/30/2022
Meadow/
Train tracks &
Charleston/
Train tracks
Partial
underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Construction Impacts
For Meadow and Charleston, what is the detour plan for
ped/bike to maintain their safety for the duration of the
project? Rerouting to the Oregon pedestrian crossing near
Cal Ave is very much out of the way for folks in the area.
This level of detail will be reviewed in subsequent
phases of the project since many factors go into this
evaluation. One option is to construct one of the
underpasses first while the other remains as-is to allow
for safe passage of ped/bike across the tracks during
construction.
Clarification
Provided
69 Jess McClellan CSTSC 7/30/2022 Kellogg &
Alma
Partial
underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity As the ped/bike crossing is moving down a street, I think
some signs indicating as such would be helpful.Absolutely, signage will be important.Clarification
Provided
70 Jess McClellan CSTSC 7/30/2022 Meadow &
Charleston
Partial
underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
Would be ideal to have pedestrian crossing paint on the road
and flashing crossing lights where pedestrians and bicyclists
cross the road to access their underpass on Meadow and
Charleston. Since the stop lights are gone, drivers may speed
through here and this would be dangerous for those crossing
Agreed... additional safety measures would be
beneficial at the crosswalks.
Clarification
Provided
71 Jess McClellan CSTSC 7/30/2022 Charleston Partial
underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
Pedestrians will likely run across the 4 lane section of
Charleston. Would need some way to prevent that (barrier,
etc.)
Most of the 4-lane section on Charleston cannot be
crossed by pedestrians due to the elevation difference.
And where there are elevation differences, there are
retaining walls and railings to prevent those crossover
movements.
Clarification
Provided
Page 9/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
72 Liz Gardner CSTSC 7/30/2022 All All underpasses Structures Aesthetics
Under passes need to be well lit/bright. Emergency call box.
Mirrors on each end of the tunnel would also be great for
safety! 11 weeks in winter months kids ride in darkness from
school sports activities. This is going to be challenging with
reroutes.
Agreed, and these are design details that will be hashed
out and discussed with the public if this alternative is
chosen.
Clarification
Provided
73
Liz
Gardner/Arnout
Boelens
CSTSC 7/30/2022 All All Structures Vertical Clearence Lots and lots of concrete. Some artwork to improve
attractiveness would be nice.
Hardscape design details will be hashed out during final
design.
Clarification
Provided
74 Rose Mesterhazy CSTSC 7/30/2022 Meadow &
Charleston
Partial
underpass Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
Given the construction, I'm concerned traffic congestion on
the slip lane from E. Meadow to Alma will increase the
potential for drivers to attempt right turns without checking
for crossing bicyclists/pedestrians. Consider creating a speed
table, adding crosswalk striping, further tightening the turn
radius and/or removing shrubbery blocking sight lines on the
northeast corner of the street.
From WB Meadow to NB Alma, in the permanent
improvements, pedestrians will not be allowed here and
bicyclists should be visible to approaching drivers. In the
proposed condition, a separate ped/bike path will be
provided. Striping revisions will be evaluated.
Comment will be
addressed
The schedule can be strategically planned such that
construction takes place at least at one of one street
(Meadow or Charleston) at a time to allow for safe
passage at (at least) one location at all times.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Update will review and
recommend for additional crossings across the Caltrain
Corridor. At this time, no additional crossing is planned
as part of Grade Separation at Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road.
76 Cedric de La
Beaujardiere PABAC 8/2/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Hybrid Roadways Miscellaneous
The Meadow & Charleston Hybrid with elevated tracks and
slightly lowered roads is the best of the remaining options
under consideration. It has the least impacts and the most
natural and efficient movements
Comment noted.Alternative
Preference Noted
77 Cedric de La
Beaujardiere PABAC 8/2/2022 Charleston Underpass Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
westbound on Charleston, turning onto Alma, diagrams show
only one lane and this intersection will have capacity issues
and delays for right-turning vehicles as everyone will be stuck
waiting at the light and for left-turners to clear through. It
will take a long time to clear all the turners and I bet that not
everyone will be able to get through a single light cycle.
There will be pressure to have a shorter light so that Alma
traffic is not adversely affected, and this will adversely affect
Charleston traffic...
Comment noted... we will evaluate if a right-turn lane is
needed on WB Charleston at Alma.Direction Required
78 Cedric de La
Beaujardiere PABAC 8/2/2022 Churchill Closure w/ opts
1
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
Option 1 has terrible sightlines: people won't be able to see
oncoming traffic and there will be bike/bike and bike/ped
collisions.
Although sight lines could be improved slightly by
flaring out the ends of the tunnel, bicyclists will have to
slow down or walk their bikes, similar to what is done
today at the Homer UC.
Clarification
Provided
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Construction Impacts
Will the timing be set up to ensure a crossing is available at
either E. Meadow or E. Charleston for pedestrians and
bicyclists? Confirming Loma Verde is no longer being
considered for temporary or permanent passage?
Clarification
Provided75Rose Mesterhazy CSTSC 7/30/2022 Meadow &
Charleston
Partial
underpass
Page 10/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
79 Cedric de La
Beaujardiere PABAC 8/2/2022 Churchill Closure w/ Opt 1
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
Option 1's turns are too tight and will be difficult for longer or
bulkier bikes
Bicyclists will have to slow down or walk their bikes,
similar to what is done today at the Homer UC.
Clarification
Provided
80 Cedric de La
Beaujardiere PABAC 8/2/2022 Churchill Closure w/ Opt 1
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
Option 1 prevents people from looking ahead to see any
sketchy characters hanging out in the underpass, and
women, especially, will be afraid to go through the tunnel.
Thank you for your feedback providing support for
Closure with Mitigation Option 1. At this time, the
preferred alternative selected for Churchill Avenue is
Partial Underpass Alternative.
Alternative
Preference Noted
81 Cedric de La
Beaujardiere PABAC 8/2/2022 Churchill Closure w/ Opt 2
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
Option 2 has the best sightlines and easiest movements Comment noted.Alternative
Preference Noted
82 Cedric de La
Beaujardiere PABAC 8/2/2022 Churchill Closure w/ Opt 2
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
As someone noted in the meeting, this crossing gets a very
high volume of bike and ped traffic during school commute
hours, so the tunnel could be wider to accommodate this
flow.
A wider tunnel is possible, but would require removal of
the landscape strip on each side of the street (Churchill
in this case), just east of Alma.
Direction Required
83 Cedric de La
Beaujardiere PABAC 8/2/2022 Churchill Closure w/ Opt 2 Roadways
As someone noted in the meeting, and I agree, we should
make Churchill be a dead-end for cars at Alma and prevent
turns from Alma into Churchill and from Churchill out to
Alma. This will increase the safety of bikes and peds entering
and exiting the underpass ramp as well as support widening
the tunnel.
This is possible and can be explored further. A wider
tunnel is possible, but would require removal of the
landscape strip on each side of the street (Churchill in
this case), just east of Alma.
Direction Required
84 Cedric de La
Beaujardiere PABAC 8/2/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Trench Roadways Miscellaneous
The Trench option continues to have major creek impacts,
requiring lift stations or pumps, which any fish will not be
able to pass through and survive. Council is working to
naturalize a stretch of Matadero Creek, and it is my hope, as
well as, I understand, the desire of the Water District, to
naturalize all the creeks. Once naturalized we could have fish
swimming up and down the creeks from the bay to the hills,
but these lift stations or pumps will again harm the ecology
of the creek. If the Trench is pursued, and I sincerely hope it
is not, then instead of pumps and lift stations, we should
divert the creeks far enough to avoid the trench and just flow
naturally around and under the tracks.
Comment noted.Comment Noted
85 Carolyn Chow PAUSD 8/4/2022 Meadow Underpass Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
Provide the ability for School bus to make U-turns at Alma
Village north of Meadow Drive
We will take a look at this... some encroachment of the
Caltrain R/W might be necessary.
Comment will be
addressed
86 Carolyn Chow PAUSD 8/4/2022 Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity Ensure that there is connectivity for bike and pedestrian
movement across Charleston Road at Park Blvd.
This movement can be accommodated via the bridge
(over Charleston) just west of the tracks. Direct
north/south movement across Charleston (at Park Blvd)
is not possible due to the elevation difference between
the road and the ped/bike path.
Clarification
Provided
Page 11/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
87 Carolyn Chow PAUSD 8/4/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
The School Bike and Pedestrian traffic often use alternative
ways/maneuvers. The underpass alternatives may encourage
bicycle traffic to use other means. The Hybrid Alternative
provides for the most direct movements and thus Hybrid
Alternative for Charleston and Meadow seems much more
accommodative to bikes and pedestrians for school traffic
and is likely preferred by PAUSD.
Comment noted.Alternative
Preference Noted
88 Carolyn Chow PAUSD 8/4/2022 Churchill Partial
underpass Roadways Was the Hybrid Alternative considered at Churchill Avenue?
If so, why was it eliminated?
A hybrid alternative at Churchill was evaluated early on
(2018) and eliminated from further consideration due
to impacts and/or acquisitions of residential properties.
Clarification
Provided
89 Carolyn Chow PAUSD 8/4/2022 Churchill Partial
underpass Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
There are several buses that go onto Churchill Avenue and
From Churchill Avenue to Alma Street. The project should
review these movements and provide for adequate turning
for school buses in the Partial Underpass Alternative
Turning movements for buses (and fire trucks) can be
accommodated at the new Churchill/Alma intersection.
Clarification
Provided
90 Eric Holm PAUSD 8/4/2022 All Underpass Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
The proposed layout should also be reviewed by Safe Route
to School Committee/Staff.
City took the item to City School Traffic Safety
Committee at its August 25, 2022 meeting for seeking
their feedback. Comments received from CSTSC are
included in this report.
Clarification
Provided
91 Eric Holm PAUSD 8/4/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
Recommend increasing the width of the bike/ped movement
at Churchill due to high volumes of the pedestrians/bike.
A slight increase of the path width (from 10 feet to 12
feet) is possible on the west side of the tracks without
impacting the school's bleachers. This is also possible on
the east side of the tracks (along Kellogg).
Comment will be
addressed
92 Eric Holm PAUSD 8/4/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
For the Closure Alternative, during the PM commute from
3:00 PM to 4:00 PM, it takes a long time to clear the traffic.
The impacts on School buses, Employees, and school
Students will create significant detours/congestions. This
should be considered in decision-making for the selection of
the alternative.
Comment noted.Comment Noted
93 Eric Holm & Brent
Kline PAUSD 8/4/2022 All Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
70% of the students use a bike for school commute to JLS. Of
the 1000 students, 700 students ride or walk to school. The
width of the bike/ped facility does not appear to be adequate
and thus recommend increasing the width of the
Bike/Pedestrian facility at Meadow and Charleston. Possibly
provide 20 feet for bike/ped to handle the high volume of
school bicycle traffic during peak hours
This is possible, but will require more right of way.Direction Required
Page 12/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
94 Richard Swent PABAC 8/8/2022 Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
This is not a great solution for bicyclists and pedestrians. It
takes them out of their way significantly. Underpasses like
this have problems with sight lines and blind corners and are
awkward to share safely between bikes and pedestrians.
Entry/Exit in the middle of Kellogg is awkward, undesirable
and unsafe. Closing Kellogg at Alma would reduce vehicle
volumes on that block and make it safer for bikes and peds to
do the weird movements needed to get to and from the
ramp.
Closure of Kellogg at Alma is possible and can be
explored further. A wider tunnel (> 12 feet) is possible,
but would require removal of the landscape strip on
each side of the street (Kellogg in this case), just east of
Alma.
Direction Required
95 Richard Swent PABAC 8/8/2022 Churchill
Closure with
Mitigations
Option 1
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
This is far better than the underpass option, although there
are still potential problems with the blind turns at the bottom
of the underpass. It is not as much of a detour and it keeps
people on Churchill.
Comment noted, some improvement to the line of sight
is possible, but bicyclists will have to slow down or walk
their bikes similar to what is done at the Homer UC
today.
Clarification
Provided
96 Richard Swent PABAC 8/8/2022 Churchill
Closure with
Mitigations
Option 2
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
This the most direct and simplest option, if access issues at
each end of the underpass ramps can be solved. On the side
closest to Bryant safety could be improved by closing access
to Alma at that end of Churchill. Eliminating through auto
traffic on that block would reduce volumes and make it safer
for bikes and peds to do the weird movements needed to get
on and off the ramps.
Closure of Churchill at Alma is possible and can be
explored further. A wider tunnel (> 12 feet) is possible,
but would require removal of the landscape strip on
each side of the street (Churchill in this case), just east
of Alma.
Clarification
Provided
97 Richard Swent PABAC 8/8/2022 Meadow Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Bicycle Pedestrian
Pathway on each side
(Meadow and
Charleston Underpass
Alternative)
This looks terrible for bikes and peds. Two-way paths on one
side of a road are always inconvenient and require two
crossings for one direction, which can be slow and
dangerous. Forcing bicyclists to cross a busy road twice at
uncontrolled crosswalks is totally unacceptable. A bike path
on each side of the road would be much safer. The crossing
on Park is awkward. It means going well out of the way, with
sharp turns that could be problems for long bikes. It would be
better if there was a bike/ped overpass that went straight
across from Park to Park. Since Meadow is already lowered a
bit there the underpass would not have to be very high above
the grade on Park.
Comment noted. A bridge straight across Park Blvd is
not possible because Meadow is not low enough at this
location (not enough vertical clearance could be
provided unless Park Blvd was raised).
Clarification
Provided
98 Richard Swent PABAC 8/8/2022 Meadow Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
Southbound bicyclists on the bike/ped ramp at Park would be
going from the ramp into the road on Meadow at Park. This is
always a safety problem when bicyclists, out of sight and out
of mind for drivers, need to re-enter the road. Doing so at an
intersection where drivers can turn across the path of a
bicyclist without seeing them is a very bad idea. The intent
may be to divert bicyclists partway down Park to have them
cross at the crosswalk, but most will not want to go that far
out of their way and will go straight across at Park.
Pedestrians will probably go straight across, too.
Direct north/south movement across Meadow (at Park
Blvd) is not possible due to the elevation difference
between the road and the ped/bike path.
Clarification
Provided
Page 13/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
99 Richard Swent PABAC 8/8/2022 Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
This is the craziest idea of all of them. For southbound
bicyclists and peds it works OK except at the Park
intersection, which has some of the problems listed above for
Meadow. Bicyclists and pedestrians wanting to go across on
Park are seriously inconvenienced, but not as much as those
going northbound on Charleston. Dumping the bicyclists at a
crosswalk at the entrance to the circle is totally
unacceptable. The crossing of Charleston on Park has the
same problems as the underpass option for Meadow. A
straight overpass for bikes and peds would be much simpler
and more efficient and would avoid all the problems with
sharp turns and sight lines.
Comment noted. A bridge straight across Park Blvd is
not possible because Charleston is not low enough at
this location (not enough vertical clearance could be
provided unless Park Blvd was raised).
Clarification
Provided
100 Richard Swent PABAC 8/8/2022 Charleston &
Meadow Trench
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Miscellaneous
This is clearly the best for bicyclist and pedestrians. Straight
and flat, with no detours. Wide open with good sight lines.
Those on Park crossing Charleston and Meadow are not
affected, but as traffic volumes increase that crossing will get
more difficult. An overpass or a set of lights to get a break in
traffic would help.
A ped/bike overpass would require property
acquisitions.
Clarification
Provided
101 Richard Swent PABAC 8/8/2022 Charleston &
Meadow Hybrid
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
Although there are very few details in the documents, this
looks almost as good as the trench. It is straight and simple,
with only a small grade to go down and up. Good sight lines.
Those crossing on Park are not affected, but as traffic
volumes increase that crossing will get more difficult. An
overpass or a set of lights to get a break in traffic would help.
A ped/bike overpass would require property
acquisitions.
Clarification
Provided
102 Richard Swent PABAC 8/8/2022 All Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
All of the underpass designs are very problematical for
pedestrians and bicyclists. When PABAC had a rep from XCAP
at a previous meeting (1-2 years ago) I commented that it
appeared that these had been designed for cars first, and
after the design was settled they tried to figure out how to fit
in bicyclists and pedestrians. The XCAP rep acknowledged
that the process had, in fact, worked that way. It shows. I am
sure that we could do a much better job of accommodating
bicyclists and pedestrians if they had been included as equals
from the start of the design process.
All modes (peds, bikes, and motor vehicles) were
considered from the start. Given the right of way
constraints at all locations, each alternative lack the
ability to address all the concerns.
Clarification
Provided
Direct north/south movement across Meadow (at Park
Blvd) is not possible due to the elevation difference
between the road and the ped/bike path.
That's correct ped/bike traffic (westbound) will have to
cross at 2nd St. Safety mitigation measures can be
investigated further during the next phase of the
project.
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
Park Blvd is supposed to be a Bike Blvd. There is a long
section of Park between California Ave and Meadow with no
connection to East of the tracks. The connection between the
proposed bike path West bound on Meadow and park looks
quite hairy, crossing two way traffic coming uphill with no
space to make the turn. There should be someplace cyclists
can make the turn, stopping if necessary without blocking
through traffic. It will probably be recommended to go to
Clarification
Provided103Stephen Rock PABAC 8/8/2022 All Underpass
Page 14/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
104 Art Liberman PABAC 8/11/2022 Churchill Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
The ramps should be at least 10' wide to accommodate
pedestrians and bicyclists. This is very long tunnel and so
width should be at least 15', with a separate path for
pedestrians.
Increase in the width of ramps will require additional
right of way; however an increase of the ramp width to
12 feet is being reviewed. The tunnel is proposed to be
20 feet wide under the tracks and Alma St.
Clarification
Provided
105 Art Liberman PABAC 8/11/2022 Churchill Closure & Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
Because of the safety concerns for all users traversing a long
tunnel, especially women and older people, the tunnel
should have 24 hour lighting and be equipped with video
cameras that are monitored by the PAPD.
Provisions for such recommended measures will be
taken into consideration and added into the project
plans as the detailed project plans are prepared.
Clarification
Provided
106 Art Liberman PABAC 8/11/2022 Churchill Closure & Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Grade/Slope
What is the grade of the ramp? There should be speed
bumps on the ramp to control the speed of cyclists(important
for high school age students), and a flat section at the
bottom. How do the ramps compare in slope and in length to
the ramps at the Caltrain underpass at the Crossings in
Mountain View?
The grade of the ramps will either be 8% with 5-ft
landings every 30 feet or a constant grade of 5% or less.
This is similar to the ramps at the San Antonio Station in
Mt View. Agreed, a flat section (landing) would be
provided at the bottom. Mitigation measures for
slowing bike down can be investigated during the next
phase of the project.
Clarification
Provided
107 Art Liberman PABAC 8/11/2022 Churchill Closure & Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
The rush of students in the morning at after school who will
use the tunnel could lead to an unsafe condition. This is
partly due to the 90 degree bend at the tunnel entrance/exit.
The solution is to widen the exit entrance into a Y shape that
would soften the 90 degree turns somewhat and provide
needed additional space
Agreed, a wider entrance to the tunnel would be better,
but would require additional impact to the school.Significant Revision
108 Art Liberman PABAC 8/11/2022 Churchill Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
Instead of the tunnel from Kellogg, construct a tunnel from
Seale into Peers Park with an exit path from the park to
Castilleja Ave This would provide an easy and safe route to
school for Palo students. Issues of tunnel width and safety
are the same as mentioned above for the Kellogg tunnel.
Comment noted about a tunnel at Seale. Seale/Kellogg
will be studied as part of BPTP update. The tunnel is
proposed to be 20 feet wide under the tracks and Alma
St.
Clarification
Provided
109 Art Liberman PABAC 8/11/2022 Meadow &
Charleston
Meadow and
Charleston
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Bicycle Pedestrian
Pathway on each side
(Meadow and
Charleston Underpass
Alternative)
Having a 2 way cycle track on one side of the road with no
easy /safe way to cross at either end is a critical defect
Comment noted. Providing bike and pedestrian facility
as a separated facility has other significant challenges.
Review and direction of such alternative by the Rail
Committee/ City Council will be required.
Direction Required
The schedule can be strategically arranged such that
construction takes place at one street (Meadow or
Charleston) at a time to allow for safe passage at (at
least) one location at all times.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Update will also review and
recommend for additional crossings across the Caltrain
Corridor. At this time, no additional crossing is planned
as part of the Grade Separation Project at Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road.
Structures Miscellaneous
Video animation says both intersections (Meadow/Alma and
Charleston/Alma)would be closed at the same time, probably
for years, during construction. This would make it impossible
for the many students who live south of Alma to bike to
Fletcher and Gunn. What is necessary is another crossings of
Alma and Caltrain (the crossing of Alma could be surface
street crossing). There has been a need for additional
bike/ped crossings of Caltrain in south Palo Alto for years, as
noted by support for new crossings in previous bicycle and
pedestrian transportation plans.
Clarification
Provided110Art Liberman PABAC 8/11/2022 Meadow &
Charleston
Bike and Ped
Crossing
Page 15/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
111 Art Liberman PABAC 8/11/2022 Meadow &
Charleston
An Alternative to
the Meadow
Charleston plan
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Bicycle Pedestrian
Pathway on each side
(Meadow and
Charleston Underpass
Alternative)
Rather than have underpass under train and Alma, have
underpass only under the train - lower both Meadow & Alma,
and Charleston and Alma, (Alma lowered between Meadow
and Charleston) keeping intersections as they presently are.
Instead of two way cycle tracks, this would maintain bicycle
lanes on either side of the roadway.
Comment noted. This would be similar to the hybrid
alternatives.
Clarification
Provided
112 Art Liberman PABAC 8/11/2022 Meadow &
Charleston
Bike & Ped
During
Construction
Roadways Miscellaneous
The Underpass Option animation by AECOM mentions that
both Meadow and Charleston would be closed during the
construction, and they (one or both? ) would be closed
during the construction of the Trench Option. The Hybrid
Option animation does say that road way access would be
maintained (one lane of traffic, but nothing about bike and
ped connection and it doesn't look possible- and certainly not
safe if were possible - on the video). We have kind of heard it
alluded to but I'm not clear on is. There was a statement that
of course we intend to continue to have bike and ped access
during the construction of the vehicular crossings, and I've
never seen the design to show how that would be."
Details of the construction staging have not been
determined at this time, but it's likely that ped/bikes
would have to be reviewed to accommodate such
facilities during construction in subsequent phases of
the project.
Clarification
Provided
113 Bill Zaumen PABAC 8/22/2022
Churchill,
Meadow,
Charleston
Closure,
Underpass and
Partial
Underpass
Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
Some areas with very sharp bends: a very sharp turn at low
speeds is difficult enough to do that one will either have to
get off the bicycle to turn it or accept a higher than typical
risk of a fall.
To reduce the impact of adjacent properties, the
turning movements are relatively tight, and are similar
to the 90-degree turns at the Homer UC.
Clarification
Provided
114
Don
Austin/Carolyn
Chow
PAUSD 8/18/2022 Churchill
Avenue
Partial
underpass Roadways Vehicular Lane
Reductions
School requires that the selected alternative at Alma Street
shall accommodate turning movements of School buses.
Ensure that schools busses do not have to overcorrect by
using the adjacent lanes of traffic for such movements.
All turning movements at Churchill Avenue, SBR & NBL
from Alma to Churchill, and EBL & EBR from Churchill to
Alma can accommodate a 40-foot bus. The school
District will be contacted to verify school bus
data/turning template information.
Clarification
Provided
115 Bill Zaumen PABAC 8/22/2022
Churchill,
Meadow,
Charleston
Closure,
Underpass and
Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
Two way traffic along school commute routes can be
problematic: children tend to take up all the available space
and this can create a difficult situation for adult commuters
riding in the opposite direction.
Comment noted, the City will balance ped/bike path
width and property impacts/acquisitions. Centerline
striping may be provided to help provide guidance.
Clarification
Provided
116 Bill Zaumen PABAC 8/22/2022
Churchill,
Meadow,
Charleston
Closure,
Underpass and
Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
The intersections of the bike paths with the roads should be
closer to what would be done when two roads intersect
rather than the boundary between a road and a sidewalk.
Intersection details will be provided during the next
phase of the project, and include consideration of
safety mitigation measures.
Clarification
Provided
117 Bill Zaumen PABAC 8/22/2022 Churchill
Avenue Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
(See Email for clarification) For Churchill in particular, the
tunnels have T intersections, and it is important to have
adequate sight lines. The outlet from the tunnel to the bike
path parallel to the railroad tracks, as shown in some
illustrations, is simply dangerous: it requires traffic to merge
by crossing a lane of traffic moving in the opposite direction.
The T-intersection of the tunnel with the bike path will
be similar to the west side of the Homer Ave UC. Sight
lines will be restricted due to right of way constraints,
and the City will consider mitigations to make it as safe
as feasible.
Clarification
Provided
Page 16/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
118 Bruce Arthur PABAC 8/22/2022 Castilleja and
Churchill
Churchill Partial
Underpass Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
I am concerned that cars will drive too fast through the
underpass and not slow or stop for peds and bikes at
Castilleja and Churchill. Can we get a light or HAWK light at
that intersection?
The City will consider these during the next phase of the
project. Rapid flashing beacons are a good way to alert
approaching vehicles of peds and bikes crossing a
street.
Clarification
Provided
119 Bruce Arthur PABAC 8/22/2022 Kellogg
Underpass
Churchill Partial
Underpass Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
I fear that the Kellogg bike crossing will need a very sharp
turn with bad visibility. This seems really bad. Can we open
that up so the visibility is good and the turn is gradual
Sharp turns are needed in many locations, such as this
one, to avoid significant property impacts; however,
minor improvement can be made, such as flaring out
the end of the tunnel.
Clarification
Provided
120 Bruce Arthur PABAC 8/22/2022 Kellogg
Underpass
Churchill Partial
Underpass Structures Vertical Clearence
Riders just moving parallel to the tracks will tend to go
accelerate on the downhill in order to gain momentum for
the uphill that is coming up. Sadly, they will now be going
much too fast when they reach the bottom of the grade and
may be surprised by riders coming in from the Kellogg
underpass.
There are stairs proposed on the north side of the
tunnel, so there is no other ramp to climb. The tunnel at
the bottom of the ramp is similar to the layout of the
Homer Ave UC. Bikes will need to slow down for this 90-
degree movement.
Clarification
Provided
121 Bruce Arthur PABAC 8/22/2022 Kellogg
Underpass
Churchill Partial
Underpass Roadways
I think the best solution would be take more space and have
a through route that remains flat and have a separate path
that descends for the connection with the Kellogg tunnel.
This description is what is being proposed... not sure
why "more space" is needed.Comment Noted
122 Bruce Arthur PABAC 8/22/2022 Kellogg
Underpass
Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
The intersection of the existing bike path and the Kellogg
tunnel does not have enough visibility for it to me safe. The
tunnel needs to be considerably wider so pedestrians and
cyclists will have sufficient time to see each other before
moving into a possible conflict space. Additionally, we have
more cargo bikes and bikes with trailers now, and they need
larger radius turns.
The tunnel's geometry at the bottom of the ramp is
similar to the layout of the Homer Ave UC. Bikers will
need to slow down or dismount from their bike to safely
maneuver this 90-degree turn.
Clarification
Provided
123 Bruce Arthur PABAC 8/22/2022 Kellogg and
Alma
Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
Bicycles and pedestrians entering the tunnel on Kellogg will
have to carefully navigate from the sides of the road into the
tunnel. It would be much better to close the intersection of
Kellogg and Alma to reduce vehicles traffic there and make
the movement easier and safer.
Closure of Kellogg at Alma is possible and can be
explored further. A wider tunnel (> 12 feet) is possible,
but would require removal of the landscape strip on
each side of the street (Kellogg in this case), just east of
Alma.
Direction Required
124 Bruce Arthur PABAC 8/22/2022 Alma and
Churchill
Churchill Partial
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
I believe this was covered as “Option 2”. Having an underpass
just for bikes and pedestrians would be much, much better.
And please consider closing the intersection of Churchill and
Alma to reduce the vehicle traffic to make the tunnel ingress
and egress safer.
Closure of Churchill at Alma is possible and can be
explored further. A wider tunnel (> 12 feet) is possible,
but would require removal of the landscape strip on
each side of the street (Kellogg in this case), just east of
Alma.
Direction Required
125 Bruce Arthur PABAC 8/22/2022 Meadow and
Alma
Meadow -
Charleston
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Bicycle Pedestrian
Pathway on each side
(Meadow and
Charleston Underpass
Alternative)
Creating pedestrian and bike paths on only one side of the
street and requiring users to cross a busy street to use it is
terrible. Most cyclists will just ride in the road, or possible
ride the wrong way on the road on ingress or egress. This is
an astonishingly bad design.
Comment noted.Clarification
Provided
Page 17/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
126 Bruce Arthur PABAC 8/22/2022 Meadow and
Alma
Meadow -
Charleston
Underpass
Roadways
Roundabout for
Charleston Underpass
Alternative Only
Why on earth would we have a roundabout on a road not at
an intersection? This is expensive and nuts. The nominal
reason is to allow drivers moving North on Alma to have a
way to get to Charleston moving West. This could be done
with a simple turn lane, but in order to maximize car through
put we have added a very large and very expensive round
about two blocks away. I anticipate that drivers, pedestrians,
and cyclist will all hate this. Also, a roundabout two lanes
wide is much more dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists, and
cars. If you really want this roundabout, please make it only
one lane. And I suspect that acquiring the land to do this will
be very expensive. What a waste.
The roundabout is proposed because this alternative
requires a large volume of U-turn movements. The
roundabout accomplishes this more efficiently.
Clarification
Provided
127 Bruce Arthur PABAC 8/22/2022 Meadow and
Alma
Meadow -
Charleston
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Bicycle Pedestrian
Pathway on each side
(Meadow and
Charleston Underpass
Alternative)
Just add a side walk and a standard bike lane to the
underpass. This would be much simpler for everyone and
much less expensive. Another option would be to have 1 10
foot pedestrian and bike path on each side of Charleston.
This would look something like the Embarcadero underpass
near Paly
Modification of the alternative is possible, but would
result in the loss of some turning movements (EB
Charleston to SB Alma, for example), and require an
essentially new alternative be developed.
Direction Required
128 Bruce Arthur PABAC 8/22/2022 Meadow and
Alma
Meadow -
Charleston
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
This space is not large enough for bicycles and pedestrians or
people in wheel chairs to navigate safely. I am not sure why
we need it, but if we do, it needs to have substantially more
space to execute 180 degree turns.
Comment noted, we will evaluate this more closely to
determine how much, if any, additional space is needed
for this 180-degree movement.
Comment will be
addressed
129 Bruce Arthur PABAC 8/22/2022 Park and
Charleston
Meadow -
Charleston
Underpass
Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
The large radius turn is going to encourage vehicles to take
this corner fast. I see that the cross walk has been moved
back a bit, but that seems like the wrong solution. It would be
much better to keep that turn a tight turn to force driers to
slow down before turning.
We will look into alternative measures to address these
concerns, such as a mountable curb to reduce the
length of pedestrian travel across the vehicle traveled
way. However, the radius and pavement area was based
on accommodating a right turn by emergency vehicles.
There is an elevation difference & a wall/barrier that
prevents motor vehicles from encroaching on an
adjacent lane, thus requiring the inside of the curve to
be relatively wide.
Direction Required
130 Bruce Arthur PABAC 8/22/2022 Roundabout
Meadow -
Charleston
Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
There are cross walks for pedestrians tome across
Charleston, but I fear that drivers will fail to yield, particularly
those moving East. Adding pedestrian activated lights would
make this much safer. And please add pedestrian lights at any
location where you expect pedestrians and cyclists to cross
Meadow or Charleston to use those separate bike paths.
Comment noted... we will consider mitigations to
reduce motor vehicle speeds during the next phase of
the project.
Clarification
Provided
Page 18/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
131 Robert Neff PABAC 8/22/2022 Churchill Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
The underpass alternative looks very expensive, yet serves
relatively few compared to the Embarcadero underpass. If
Churchill were not upgraded, and this much investment were
made to improve Embarcadero, or even Embarcadero
underpass plus Embarcadero / El Camino Real, what would
be possible? 4 lanes and better sidewalks at Embarcadero?
Embarcadero lanes under ECR?
The Chruchill Avenue Closure with Mitigations is the
backup alternative. This alternative provides for
improvements on Embarcadero and other routes to
accommodate diverted traffic. Any additional measure
recommended in this suggestion will require significant
modifications.
Significant Revision
132 Robert Neff PABAC 44795 Churchill Underpass Roadways Shoulder and Lane
Width
This plan removes some of the existing setback from the East
side of Alma street, to make way for its improvements. This
will make the sidewalk less acceptable for walking and
bicycling. A planting strip between the street and the
sidewalk, or better, an 8' space, should be retained, or its
removal made apparent on the plans.
Agree... removal of the planting strip is not desirable,
but required to maintain two NB lanes on Alma. Note
that the removal of the planting strip can be seen
clearly on the photo simulation.
Clarification
Provided
133 Robert Neff PABAC 8/22/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
In much the same as at Alma, the plans show removal of the
planting strip and space that makes the sidewalk attractive
for cyclists and pedestrians on the East side of Alma.
Sacrifice of this strip is a significant negative.
The City concurs that removal of the planting strip is not
desirable, but is required for this alternative. Note that
a similar situation occurs on the south side of
Charleston (removal of the landscape strip).
Clarification
Provided
134 Robert Neff PABAC 8/22/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Construction Impacts
The construction planning showed up to 2 years of complete
closure of Charleston and Meadow to all modes. (bicycle,
pedestrian, and auto.) This makes the project very difficult to
accept. Alternative routes are too distant for such a long
closure.
Construction could be staged to allow for bike/peds to
cross safely at one street (say, Meadow) while the other
(Charleston) is constructed. However, this will lengthen
the duration of construction.
Clarification
Provided
135 Robert Neff PABAC 8/22/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Hybrid
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
The current intersections of Alma/Charleston and
Alma/Meadow are old, out of date designs that need
improvement to make them safer for bicyclists crossing Alma
in the bike lane. In particular, there are dangerous right-
hook conflicts going West on Charleston and East on
Meadow now, and with the Hybrid changes, going East on
Charleston will have a similar conflict. Redesign this
intersection to avoid this conflict, as we have, for example,
going East on Charleston at Middlefield with a right turn lane
to the right of the bike lane, or consider a protected lane and
bicycle signal phases as Cupertino has at Wolfe / Stevens
Creek. Incorporate a safer intersection design for bicyclists
and pedestrians into the plan, and perhaps require some land
acquisition (a few feet, or an encroachment towards the
sidewalks?) to improve this alternative. Creating a better,
state of the art intersection design for active transportation
makes this a fairer comparison to the underpass alternative.
Such an improvement could be done now, without grade
separation.
Improvements to these intersections will be
investigated further in subsequent phases of the project
if the Hybrid Alternative is selected as the preferred
alternative.
Significant Revision
Page 19/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
136 Robert Neff PABAC 8/22/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
Observation: Going East on Meadow, or West on Charleston,
is reasonably nice in this plan at the train tracks, (Though the
Charleston traffic circle seems like a huge, out-of-place
suburban amenity.) The opposite direction requires crossing
the road twice (Meadow), or a slow, circuitous loopback
followed by an awkward entry around a busy traffic circle
(Charleston).
Comment noted.Comment Noted
137 Robert Neff PABAC 8/22/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass Roadways
Roundabout for
Charleston Underpass
Alternative Only
The Bike/Ped crossing of the 2 entry and 2 exit lanes from the
traffic circle should include a signal that actually stops traffic
for vulnerable users crossing 2 lanes of otherwise free-
flowing traffic. I do not think a ladder crosswalk, or simple
flashing lights would not insure a safe crossing.
Crosswalks are common just beyond the outside
diameter of roundabouts where motor vehicle speeds
are expected to be relatively low; however, we will
consider additional safety mitigation measures during
the next phase of the project.
Significant Revision
138 Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass Structures Vertical Clearence
I appreciate that this alternative tries to minimize grade
change for bikes/peds. (Important on school routes for littler,
less powerful legs.) Could the grade change be made better
by reducing clearance? 10' clearance seems like a lot for a
bike/ped facility. Is that a requirement? Whose? Also, it
looks like part of the bike/ped underpass may be more than
10' clearance. Could this be adjusted to reduce grade
change?
Per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 10 feet is the
desirable vertical clearance; 8 feet is the minimum. The
clearance could be re-evaluated during the next phase
(preliminary design) of the project.
Clarification
Provided
139 Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022
E. Meadow -
Charleston
and Possible
Additional
SoPA Grade
Sep for
Construction
Detours
All Alternatives,
but especially
Underpass
Roadways Roadway Grade/Slope
There are 5 existing grade separations north of Oregon
Expwy and zero existing grade separations south of Oregon
Expwy. This disparity is an existing problem and will be a
much bigger problem during construction for every
Charleston & Meadow alternative, but especially for the
underpass. If both south PA crossings are closed
simultaneously, a bike/ped crossing in the vicinity of
Matadero Creek as recommended in the 2012 BPTP will be
insufficient to accommodate bike commuters who live south
of E. Meadow. Matadero would be an onerous bike/ped
detour through the construction period for many. For
instance, it would lengthen a school commute from my
neighborhood, Green Meadow, to Gunn from 17 minutes to
30 minutes or more. We need a bike/ped grade sep plan that
serves all of south Palo Alto through and after construction of
grade separations. Construction detours for south PA should
be part of the planning process now for every alternative in
south PA because there are no existing grade seps and there
are so few location options for new rail crossings. Please
begin to explore south PA construction detour options now.
Construction could be staged to allow for bike/peds to
cross safely at one street (say, Meadow) while the other
(Charleston) is constructed. However, this will lengthen
the duration of construction.
Clarification
Provided
Page 20/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
140 Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Miscellaneous
Circuitous bike/ped facilities via the roundabout and
bike/ped bridges on both Meadow and Charleston appear
less direct than existing routes. This may or may not make
this convenient for bike/peds. Long breaks in E/W auto traffic
platoons caused by train preemption today will go away
when grade seps are in place. This change, coupled with
projected induced auto demand after grade seps are in place,
might make it much harder to cross East Meadow at Park BB
at-grade, for instance, in the future--possibly affecting
bike/ped travel times with the hybrid or trench alternatives.
Please analyze bike/ped LOS for bike network cross streets
with each alternative and compare to existing conditions so
we can understand the effects of each alternative on
bike/ped travel times. Staff has studied automobile LOS for
these alternatives. Doing comparative bike/ped travel time
analysis would be consistent with Comp Plan Policy T-2.4
“Consistent with the principles of Complete Streets adopted
by the City, work to achieve and maintain acceptable levels
of service for transit vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians and
automobiles on roads in Palo Alto, while maintaining the
ability to customize to the Palo Alto context.”
Additional study for bicycle and pedestrian evaluation
will require Rail Committee and City Council Direction. Significant Revision
Visual impacts are typically evaluated during the
environmental phase of the project. Elevation of tracks
are proposed to remain at existing elevation with the
underpass alternatives.
We are open to suggestions on how to make the
drawings easier to understand for lay people. Staff will
meet with PABAC Grade Separation Subcommittee and
seek additional information.
142 Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
Peds/bikes won't have to wait for breaks in auto traffic to
cross Meadow or Charleston via Park as they do today with
this design. Crossing Charleston at Park safely and
conveniently is difficult right now at some times of day.
Question: How many people turn left or cross Charleston
from any direction at Charleston/Park today? I ask because I
live in Green Meadow and I usually avoid crossing Charleston
and making left turns at Charleston/Park. I do this by turning
left on Meadow from SB Park and using the Circles to get to a
signalized intersection where I can safely and easily turn left
at Carlson/Charleston. From EB Charleston, I turn at the
Wilkie signalized intersection to go to Meadow and then
north on Park.
Comment noted... bike counts could be determined in
the next phase to evaluate this more closely.Significant Revision
Rail Raise the Rail
This alternative keeps the train at grade which will minimize
impacts on nearby Eichler homes. I’m not personally affected
by this, but I know it is important to many people whose
homes and privacy will be affected. What I do not see is any
suggestion in renderings of how sight lines and privacy of
homes might be protected. Has anyone raised a story pole
and taken photos to show how views of the hills might be
affected? Will trees on a berm be an option? Are there ways
to protect glass-walled Eichler homes from prying eyes of
Significant Revision141Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022 E. Meadow
Charleston Underpass
Page 21/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
143 Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass Roadways Loss of Landscaping
Strip on Alma
This alternative completely separates people who walk and
bike from both high speed, multi-lane Alma Expressway and
the train tracks. Thank you for exploring a school route
alternative that tries this. While there are significant
problems with this concept, I hope you won't give up. The
Alma Xing on the school commute corridor is a major safety
problem. Right hooks, in particular, need to be addressed for
both EB and WB Charleston at the Alma intersection. In
addition, this alternative has a lot of potential to address the
privacy concerns of homeowners while not inhibiting
underground water flow as much as the trench would.
Need clarification... Additional discussion with
commentor will be needed to review this concern. Staff
will meet with PABAC Grade Separation Subcommittee
and seek additional information.
144 Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass Roadways Miscellaneous
According to the matrix, full bike/ped movement is
maintained, but I cannot see that in the materials available.
Please make that more clear in the renderings, plans and
animations so the community can see and understand how it
works. Overall, I found it was a lot of work to figure out from
these plans, profiles, renderings and matrix how it is all
supposed to work. The average citizen is not going to have
the time or patience to do that much work and we are going
to need their support of at least one alternative. The plans
and related documents need to communicate more clearly
and succinctly what will be built and how it will work. These
plans are a long way from ready for prime time.
3D animations showing the ped/bike movements might
be our best option to accomplish this.Direction Required
145 Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
This alternative may provide useful connectivity to the rest of
the bike network, but the drawings don't make that clear, so
I'm not sure. Please show how each alternative would
connect to the rest of the network and nearby destinations
that draw foot-powered people: schools, train station, super
block, community centers, shops, playing fields, etc. so the
public can understand.
Connectivity to the City's ped/bike network will be
explored in the next phase of the project.Significant Revision
A two lane roundabout is needed for two reasons:
1. A single lane roundabout will not operate well if the
volume entering one leg exceeds ~1,000 vehicles per
hour.
2. Two lanes are needed entering the roundabout from
EB Charleston... one lane coming from El Camino, one
lane from Alma St... there's not enough space to merge
these two lanes into one lane before entering the
roundabout. Keep in mind, these two lanes cannot
begin merging until they're at the same elevation.
Roadways
Roundabout for
Charleston Underpass
Alternative Only
The two-lane roundabout on Charleston appears over-
designed and dangerous for people on bikes and on foot. See
file:///C:/Users/pells/Downloads/safety-07-00020%20(1).pdf
. Design for the speed you want in the school zone. Entry
speeds coming off Alma Expressway will probably exceed 35
mph. A one-lane roundabout would more effectively
moderate auto speeds to 20mph as they enter the school
zone. I would like to see the traffic study and data that
supports this much capacity in the roundabout to understand
why it is needed. I have asked the engineer about this twice
and have not received a well-supported answer. I don't see
data in the traffic studies to justify this capacity. Please show
Clarification
Provided146Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022 Charleston Underpass
Page 22/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
Crosswalks are common just beyond the outside
diameter of roundabouts where motor vehicle speeds
are expected to be relatively low; however, we will
consider additional safety mitigation measures during
the next phase of the project.
Agreed, a traffic signal at the crosswalk just beyond the
roundabout is not recommended.
The relatively wide pavement area from NB Alma to EB
Charleston is based on accommodating the turning
movement of emergency vehicles. There is an elevation
difference & a wall/barrier that prevents motor vehicles
from encroaching on an adjacent lane, thus requiring
the inside of the curve to be relatively wide.
148 Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022 Charleston All Alternatives Roadways Vehicular Lane
Reductions
Is it possible to extend C-A Plan lane reduction further with
grade separation? People who walk and bike to/from
neighborhoods south of Charleston need a safe route. With
grade separation, we will no longer need so much auto lane
capacity to stack cars during train preemption. Can we
capture that space to extend lane reduction and create wider
bike lanes and sidewalks to and through the Alma-to-ECR
Charleston segment as far as possible both directions?
Currently, the lanes will be reduced to 11-foot lanes
with shoulders on both sides. Due to proposed grades
for roadway in underpass alternatives, the bicycles and
pedestrians pathway is provided, however, if one
continues to use the road, the shoulder space can be
flexibly used by bicycles.
Clarification
Provided
149 Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022 All locations
with tunnels
All Alternatives
with tunnels
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
Please minimize places where people may be isolated, like
long tunnels. (As a person who has been the victim of
attempted assault in a location like this, I generally avoid
them.) Where you have to use these facilities, design for
maximum personal safety: security cameras, emergency
phones, excellent sight lines around corners, minimize any
blind spots, excellent lighting, wide spaces to make escape
possible. Bullying or much worse can happen in places where
bad actors feel free of prying eyes. Keep our kids (and
everyone) safe.
Comment noted... this is certainly a concern for
pedestrian tunnels and will be evaluated further in the
next phase of the project.
Clarification
Provided
The midblock crosswalk is placed here (versus at the
Park/Meadow intersection because the sidewalk is
elevated above the roadway in the NE corner of the
intersection... ped/bikes cannot cross Park Blvd at this
location.
Not sure how a roundabout would help, and would
require additional property acquisition.
Structures Miscellaneous
Slide 42--The midblock crosswalk on Park just north of the
Meadow intersection is meant to get foot-powered folks on
the right side of the road to access the proposed bike/ped
Xing. Bikes don't use crosswalks. Also, this is too close to the
intersection. Might a traffic circle or roundabout with ped
crossing work better? If it is placed to do so, a roundabout
could also connect the park pathways to the bike boulevard.
Clarification
Provided150Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022 Meadow Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
The crosswalk at the entry/exit of the two-lane roundabout
on Charleston is not safe for people on foot and on bikes. It is
necessitated by the two-way multi-use path. I can't think of a
better solution for this design. Someone suggested a traffic
signal, but I don't know if that will work with a roundabout.
People don't expect a signal at a roundabout. In any case,
make the right turn radius from NB Alma sharp to encourage
drivers to moderate speed before entering Charleston and
the roundabout.
Clarification
Provided147Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022 Charleston Underpass
Page 23/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
151 Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022
Churchill
Kellogg Seale
Embarcadero
Selection of X-
ing locations:
Kellogg,
Churchill,
Embarcadero,
Seale
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
Seale probably would provide better connectivity for kids
commuting to Hays ES and Greene MS from Southgate. In
any case, it also provides a nice connection for Old Palo Alto
to the park. I don't know what Seale vs. Kellogg means for
Paly kids who are the largest group of school commuters in
this area. For those coming from the northern part of the
attendance boundary, Seale probably is worse. A big
downside of Kellogg is the isolated circuitous tunnel. Have
you thought about asking Paly students? Would they prefer a
grade sep X-ing at Kellogg or Seale or Churchill? Having just
read Robert Neff's comments on this, I wonder what
improvements Paly students might want at Embarcadero if
Churchill stayed at-grade and they got a Seale crossing? A
well-written survey might yield a clear answer. A survey
would also be a good opportunity to ask kids (and their
parents) how they feel about walking and biking in a tunnel
with limited sight lines like what is proposed at Kellogg.
Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan update plans to
review merits of Seale Ave Vs Kellogg Ave. The project
will accommodate crossing based on City Council
Direction accordingly. Seale Ave may have some
advantages as it could provide more design flexibility on
the west side of the tracks.
Clarification
Provided
152 Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022 Meadow &
Charleston All Alternatives
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
Whatever alternative you propose for Meadow and
Charleston, I hope you will do everything you can to
eliminate the risk of bike collisions at the Alma intersection.
Multi-lane, high speed Alma is a problem. Fix the right hook
problem on EB and WB Charleston at this intersection.
Drivers are busy watching for safe breaks in oncoming high
speed car/truck traffic. They don't even notice people on
bikes and on foot.
The bicycle and pedestrians will have a dedicated and
separated pathway for partial underpass alternatives.
For the other bicyclists that prefer and continue to use
the roadway traffic lanes, additional consideration can
be reviewed.
Comment Noted
Note that the project cannot accommodate
larger/wider turning movements for bikes as this will
result in significant property acquisitions.
Regarding exhibits, the best way to improve the
understanding of these relatively complex alternatives
is through 3D renderings and/or animations.
154 Eric Holm CSTSC 8/25/2022 Churchill
Avenue Underpass/Closure
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
As someone who uses the homer Ave underpass, it is
fantastic for low volumes but would not accommodate the
high numbers of Paly students.
Increase in the width of ramps will require additional
right of way; however, an increase of the ramp width to
12 feet is being reviewed. The tunnel is proposed to be
20 feet wide under the tracks and Alma St. Providing
additional width will require Rail Committee and City
Council direction as it will impact right of way
significantly.
Clarification
Provided
Roadways
Intersection, Turning
Radius, School Bus
Turning Radius
I heard several members of PABAC comment on the sharp
turns in the Kellogg, Meadow and Charleston plans. I
understand that staff intends the final designs will have much
wider turns with good sight lines. I can't think of a more
diplomatic way to say this. If PABAC is having trouble
understanding what you intend from these concept plans and
renderings, then the public will have even more trouble.
Direction Required153Penny Ellson PABAC 8/23/2022
Charleston
Meadow
Kellogg
All Alternatives
Page 24/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
155 Eric Holm CSTSC 8/25/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Maneuvering &
Additional Crossings
PAUSD worries the Charleston/meadow underpass solution
will reduce bicycle ridership. The underpass solution creates
complicated switchbacks that require cyclists to dismount
and walk their bikes. We feel this will disrupt the excellent
and safe North/south bike use on Park Blvd. and will reduce
ridership to JLS due to the switchbacks to cross the tracks
Comment noted.Comment Noted
156 Eric Holm CSTSC 8/25/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Construction Impacts
The only east west connections in South Palo Alto for bicyclist
and pedestrians are Meadow and Charleston. How is the city
going to make sure that students will continue to be able to
get to school walking and biking during construction? A
detour is no problem for a driver, but can really affect the
walking and bicycling mode share.
Construction could be staged to allow for bike/peds to
cross safely at one street (say, Meadow) while the other
(Charleston) is constructed. However, this will lengthen
the duration of construction.
Clarification
Provided
157 Matt O'Neal CSTSC 8/25/2022 All
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
right Eric this kind of situation sets up the kids on bikes to
have conflicts with peds, no one walks bikes nor should they
need to
Many of the turning movements were based on the
layout of the Homer Ave UC and were used to avoid
significant property impacts. In confined areas like this,
bikers will have to travel slowly (< 5 mph)... trying to
design the path for high bike speeds (> 10-15 mph) is
not possible (economically feasible) without significant
property acquisitions.
Clarification
Provided
158 Eric Holm CSTSC 8/25/2022 Churchill ellog/Churchill/Sea
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
PAUSD also has concerns that this will significantly reduce the
number of students that bike to Paly. The Kellogg underpass
will only accommodate a couple riders at a time. We have
several hundred cyclists that come at the same time.
Project designed based on the minimum requirement of
the HDM. Traffic study is beyond the current scope at
this time. Increase in the width of ramps will require
additional right of way; however an increase of the
ramp width to 12 feet is being reviewed. The tunnel is
proposed to be 20 feet wide under the tracks and Alma
St. Increased widths beyond these dimensions will
require acquisitions.
Significant Revision
159 Matt O'Neal CSTSC 8/25/2022 All Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
Awesome to hear about plans for Alma/Churchill! Hard to tell
from the plans but are these mixed paths or separated
ped/bike? Would love to avoid walking bikes or conflict zone
like Cal Ave underpass
It's understood that the geometry of the California
Underpass in not desirable (relatively narrow, with
steep grades). The layouts of the ped/bike paths were
based on the Homer Ave UC. To avoid significant
property impacts, some movements are tight and will
require bikes to maneuver slowly (< 5 mph).
Clarification
Provided
160 Jessica Asay CSTSC 8/25/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Miscellaneous
Does anyone on the ECR side of the tracks go to JLS? I know
we're fletcher in Ventura, but JLS is closer living at Park and
Meadow. Both Charleston and Meadow will affect Gunn
ridership
Will consult with Safe Route to School Staff and review
measures if needed to address these concerns.
Clarification
Provided
161 Rachael Pannizzo CSTSC 8/25/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Bicycle Pedestrian
Pathway on each side
(Meadow and
Charleston Underpass
Alternative)
Agrees with comments with Nikita Kutselev and Eric Holm
and has concerns about separating bikes and peds so they
are separated.
Some improvements are being considered based on
comments from others.
Clarification
Provided
Page 25/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
162 Deborah Gronke
Bennet 8/25/2022 Kellogg/Churc
hill/Seale Partial Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
Requested to conduct a traffic study of student bicyclists
along Churchill
Project designed based on the minimum requirement of
the HDM. Traffic study is beyond the current scope at
this time.
Clarification
Provided
163 Eric Holm CSTSC 8/25/2022 All Bike & Ped
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
Alternatives have not taken into account the stacking pace
currently needed to accommodate cyclists and is concern
students will not be able to make it through key
intersections.
It's not realistic or economically justified to design a
ped/bike path for high volumes of traffic for such a
short duration of time (15-30 mins before/after school).
During these times, bicyclists must travel slowly and
may have to wait for more than one traffic signal if the
volumes are high.
Clarification
Provided
164 Eric Holm CSTSC 8/25/2022 Kellogg/Churc
hill/Seale
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
Concerned preferred alternative will force students to
dismount, not confident a Homer-style underpass is the
solution.
Comment noted... the layouts of the ped/bike paths
were based on the Homer Ave UC to avoid significant
property impacts. Some movements are tight and will
require bikes to maneuver slowly (< 5 mph).
Clarification
Provided
165 Rich Marty CSTSC 8/25/2022 Kellogg/Churc
hill/Seale Bike & Ped
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
A bike volume study for the Churchill school day would be a
key point to relay.
A traffic study is beyond the current scope at this time.
Additional direction will be required to conduct such
study.
Clarification
Provided
166 Nikita Kutselev CSTSC 8/25/2022 Kellogg/Churc
hill/Seale
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
Preference for closure. Does not support partial alternative.
Removes pedestrian crossing, traffic lines and increases
speed and will increase collisions. Does not think enough is
being spent on bicycle infrastructure for this and thinks
closure is the preferred option because it closes the route for
cars, which is easier for cars. Will see an increase in the
number of cyclists if the closure option is chosen, will see an
increase in driving if partial underpass is chosen.
Comment noted.Alternative
Preference Noted
167 Arnout Boelens CSTSC 8/25/2022 All Construction
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Construction Impacts Concerned construction plans will not factor in
bicycle/pedestrian throughput
Although construction staging details have not been
hashed out yet, the project has the potential to be
staged to allow for bike/peds to cross safely at one
street (say, Meadow) while the other (Charleston) is
constructed. However, this would lengthen the duration
of construction.
Comment Noted
168 Eric Nordman PABAC 8/3/2022 Churchill
Seale/Peers Park
bike ped
crossing
Roadways Miscellaneous
Kellogg is close to Embarcadero. An undercrossing at
Seale/Peers Park would space crossings better and avoids
blind T intersection (likely conflict point). For the Kellogg
design there is also a conflict point with the two way
Embarcadero path but having two (N/S) ramps significantly
reduces the danger.
Comment noted.Alternative
Preference Noted
169 Eric Nordman PABAC 8/3/2022 Churchill Option 2 Roadways
The Churchill closure with modification (Option 2, pg. 55) is a
good option for bike/ped if they decide to close the road.
Option 1 is clearly inferior.
Comment noted.
Page 26/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
170 Eric Nordman PABAC 8/3/2022 E Meadow Hybrid
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity
The two lane bike path works well in only one direction. The
west bound direction is awkward and most commuters, high
school students, etc. will probably just ride on 5' shoulder of
E Meadow under the tracks. To allow this double crossing of
the busy streets, signals would probably be required. The
hybrid design approach avoids this and is much cheaper.
Comment noted... and agreed that the two-way bike
bath works best in one direction over the other. Some
safety mitigation measures will be explored in the next
phase of the project if this alternative is chosen as the
preferred alternative.
Comment Noted
171 Eric Nordman PABAC 8/3/2022 Meadow
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Miscellaneous
Unclear meaning of circles on diagram. Add legend. Remove
redundant (already on pg. 40) text. Title: Street level
bike/ped paths.
We will revise exhibits for clarity.Comment will be
addressed
172 Eric Nordman PABAC 8/3/2022 Meadow
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Miscellaneous Redundant text. Title: Route for west bound bike/ped Will revise.Comment will be
addressed
173 Eric Nordman PABAC 8/3/2022 Meadow Roadways Miscellaneous Acquisition of the two story apartment block sounds
expensive.Comment noted.Comment Noted
174 Eric Nordman PABAC 8/3/2022 Meadow Roadways Roadway Grade/Slope Meadow drive profile doesn't show ped bridges.
It's possible that the reviewer was looking at an old
exhibit. The current Meadow profile shows the
pedestrian bridges.
Clarification
Provided
175 Eric Nordman PABAC 8/3/2022 Charleston Roadways Miscellaneous Isn't there a partial acquisition required for north side of the
roundabout.
We believe you are correct... if the private properties
extend to the back of the existing sidewalk, there will be
some partial acquisitions on the north side of
Charleston.
Clarification
Provided
176 Eric Nordman PABAC 8/3/2022 Charleston Hybrid
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Connectivity The hybrid design avoids the awkward double road crossing
for bike/peds. It also looks much cheaper.Comment noted.Alternative
Preference Noted
177 Eric Nordman PABAC 8/3/2022 Charleston Hybrid
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
Consider adding an island so pedestrians can look for NB
Alma traffic separate from left turn from SB Alma onto
Charleston.
This is something that the City could possibly look into
further... if not in this phase, then the next (Preliminary
Engineering and Environmental) phase.
Direction Required
Comment noted... a traffic analysis and geometric
refinement of the roundabout might be required in the
next phase.
There are benefits to having both lanes merge before a
single lane roundabout, but a two lane roundabout is
needed because:
1. A single lane roundabout will not operate well if the
volume entering one leg exceeds ~1,000 vehicles per
hour.
Roadways
Roundabout for
Charleston Underpass
Alternative Only
In a normal 2 lane roundabout you are expected to select the
lane before the roundabout. Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEhNboz5GPk This is
not possible for the traffic exiting NB Alma wanting to turn
left using the roundabout. They are positioned in the right
lane but should be in the center lane. Similarly, traffic on EB
Charleston should be in the right lane but they are in the
center lane. These two parallel lanes need to cross each
Clarification
Provided178Eric Nordman PABAC 8/3/2022 Charleston
Hybrid design or
single lane
roundabout
Page 27/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
2. Two lanes are needed entering the roundabout from
EB Charleston... one lane coming from El Camino Real,
one lane from Alma St... there's not enough space to
merge these two lanes into one lane before entering
the roundabout. Keep in mind, these two lanes cannot
begin merging until they're at the same elevation.
179 Eric Nordman PABAC 8/3/2022 All Many options Rail Raise the Rail
While more frequent trains will cause backups at Charleston
and perhaps E Meadow, it seems prudent to maintain at
grade crossings at Churchill and Palo Alto Avenue until
construction is complete at the other crossings. High speed
rail doesn't seem likely anytime soon.
Comment noted.Comment Noted
180 Eric Nordman PABAC 8/3/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Hybrid design
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Because of the creeks and high water table the trench design
is likely to be very expensive. For bikes and pedestrians the
hybrid solution is comparable and dramatically cheaper.
Comment noted.Alternative
Preference Noted
181 Paul B Goldstein PABAC 8/3/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Bicycle Pedestrian
Pathway on each side
(Meadow and
Charleston Underpass
Alternative)
Palo Alto is a largely built-out city. Bicyclists use the streets to
get around, we do not have the luxury of having our own
dedicated travel routes. Because we ride on the streets, any
facility for bikes needs to be integrated with the street
network. Because they require some users to cross a (major)
road twice, two-way facilities on only one side of a street are
dangerous and problematic.
Comment noted.Alternative
Preference Noted
182 Paul B Goldstein PABAC 8/3/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Bicycle Pedestrian
Pathway on each side
(Meadow and
Charleston Underpass
Alternative)
Several of the alternatives provide for bicycle/pedestrian
facilities on only one side of the street. Although I recognize
that the City Council instructed that bike/ped facilities be
separated from automobile traffic, these two-way facilities
on only one side of the street are dangerous and
inconvenient for bicyclists and pedestrians. They require
users (in one direction) to cross the street twice: street
crossings are far more dangerous than riding with traffic. To
increase safety, the crossings should be signalized, but this
will require additional wait time and inconvenience and will
probably lead to even more dangerous behaviors (e.g. wrong-
way riding). If we want to encourage more bicycle and
pedestrian activity, we need to provide facilities on both
sides of the street. The crossings at Meadow and Charleston
are heavily used by bicycles and pedestrians and we should
be encouraging more (and safer) use rather than
discouraging this use and making it less safe.
A separate ped/bike path on each side of the street was
originally considered for this alternative, but modified
(to the north side of Charleston only). Modification of
the alternative is possible, but would result in the loss of
some turning movements (EB Charleston to SB Alma,
for example), and require an essentially new alternative
be developed.
Clarification
Provided
other. One option is to have both lanes merge first and then
have a one lane roundabout. The hybrid design avoids this
issue.
Page 28/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
The City proposes to extend the 2-way ped/bike path
around the north side of the roundabout and terminate
it near Mumford Pl.
A two lane roundabout is needed because:
1. A single lane roundabout will not operate well if the
volume entering one leg exceeds ~1,000 vehicles per
hour.
2. Two lanes are needed entering the roundabout from
EB Charleston... one lane coming from El Camino Real,
one lane from Alma St... there's not enough space to
merge these two lanes into one lane before entering
the roundabout. Keep in mind, these two lanes cannot
begin merging until they're at the same elevation.
184 Art Liberman PABAC 8/30/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass Roadways Roadway Grade/Slope Can we have the Meadow and Charleston Underpass design
to provide 5% roadway grade?
This is possible; however, it would increase the project's
footprint significantly and thus, increase property
impacts and acquisitions.
Clarification
Provided
185
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
This is possible, and can be considered. The NB
ped/bike traffic would be on the east side of the
ped/bike ramp, and the SB ped/bike traffic would be on
the west side of the ped/bike ramp, which would
reduce conflicts with NB/SB ped/bike traffic. The tunnel
would have to be slightly longer in this option. Caltrain
input will also be needed.
Direction Required
186 Alan Wachtel PABAC 8/23/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Bicycle Pedestrian
Pathway on each side
(Meadow and
Charleston Underpass
Alternative)
The two-way ped-bike path on the south side of Meadow
east of the tracks simply terminates at a sidewalk
continuation. This design is likely to produce mixed bicycle
and pedestrian traffic on a narrow sidewalk, wrong-way
westbound bicycle traffic on the street approaching the path,
and unpredictable westbound bicyclist movements to cross
from the right side of the street to the left side. Two one-way
paths would be far better. The situation is similar for the two-
way path on the north side of Charleston east of the tracks,
where only an uncontrolled crosswalk is provided for
crossing, and for both paths west of the tracks.
A separate ped/bike path on each side of the street was
originally considered for this alternative, but modified
(to the south side of Meadow only). Modification of the
alternative is possible, but would result in the loss of
some turning movements (SB EB Charleston to SB Alma,
for example), and require an essentially new alternative
be developed.
Alternative
Preference Noted
Roadways
Roundabout for
Charleston Underpass
Alternative Only
The two-lane roundabout on Charleston is a disaster for
bicyclists. One-lane roundabouts are very safe and
convenient for cyclists, but two-lane roundabouts are more
challenging and dangerous. Using the pedestrian features of
the roundabout are ok for pedestrians, but bicyclists will be
likely to ride through the crosswalks, creating conflict and
danger. As stated above, bike/ped facilities should be
provided on both sides of the street, eliminating the need for
most cyclists to use the roundabout.
Clarification
Provided183Paul B Goldstein PABAC 8/3/2022 Charleston Underpass
Page 29/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
No. Name Entity Date
Received Location Alternative CATEGORY Subcategory Comment Initial Review Response Status
187 Alan Wachtel PABAC 8/23/2022 Meadow &
Charleston Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Width & Pathway
Configuration
Mixing bicyclists and pedestrians on a path may be
hazardous to both, especially on the downgrade, where
bicycle speeds will be high. Effective separation is a
necessity.
We will look into this further, and possibly make a revisi
Comment will be
addressed
That's correct, both have 8-foot shoulders to
accommodate:
- Disabled vehicles.
- Bicyclists.
- Drainage facilities.
We will clarify road dimensions elsewhere, as needed.
189 Alan Wachtel PABAC 8/23/2022 Charleston Underpass Roadways
Roundabout for
Charleston Underpass
Alternative Only
The roundabout appears to be inaccessible to bicyclists on
the side path. Bicyclists on the Charleston roadway will find
using the roundabout to turn around challenging, since, in
order to avoid traffic exiting the roundabout, they must
either merge across two lanes of traffic to the left and then
merge back again across two lanes to the right, or merge
across one lane and ride between lanes of traffic.
We will extend the 2-way bike path along the north side
of the roundabout and terminate it at Mumford Pl.
Clarification
Provided
190 Alan Wachtel PABAC 8/23/2022 Park Blvd Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Design Speed, Design
Bicycle, Turning Radii,
Sight Distance
A number of locations on Park Boulevard, and also at the
west end of the Kellogg underpass, appear to call for near
right-angle turns by bicyclists. The HDM specifies a minimum
design speed for bike paths of 20 miles per hour and a
minimum radius of curvature for this speed as 90 feet. Can
these standards be met?
Due to right-of-way constraints, a greater design speed
is not economically feasible in some locations, and a
layout similar to the Homer UC is proposed.
Clarification
Provided
191 Alan Wachtel PABAC 8/23/2022 All Locations Underpass
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
Construction Impacts
What are the plans for maintaining bicycle and pedestrian
access across the tracks during construction without
imposing lengthy detours?
Construction could be staged to allow for bike/peds to
cross safely at one street (say, Meadow) while the other
(Charleston) is constructed. However, this will lengthen
the duration of construction.
Clarification
Provided
Roadways Roadway Grade/Slope
Both Meadow and Charleston under the tracks appear to
have 8-foot shoulders, which would be ample for bicyclists
who prefer to use the roadway, who must be anticipated and
designed for. The cross-section on these roads elsewhere,
however, is unclear. In addition, the 10 and 12 percent
grades through the underpasses make this option much more
difficult.
Comment will be
addressed 188 Alan Wachtel PABAC 8/23/2022 Meadow &
Charleston underpass
Page 30/30
2.a
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
25 Churchill Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Office of the Superintendent
To: Ed Shikada, City Manager
From: Don Austin, Superintendent of Schools
Date: February 20, 2020
Subject: Potential Closing of Churchill Avenue
The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) has not taken an official position regarding
proposed options to mitigate increased rail traffic. As the Superintendent of Schools, I want to
provide some context about District use of Churchill Avenue (Churchill).
On any given day, Palo Alto High School (Paly) averages a little under 1,000 bicycles. The
majority of bicycles enter from Churchill, although exact data is not easily obtainable. Clearly,
student safety is the top concern of the District and a full closure of Churchill may negatively
impact student safety related to bicycle commuters.
PAUSD deploys 22 busses each day to various parts of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. Currently,
our busses cross Alma Street at Churchill over 20 times per day as part of routine business. This
does not include athletic or other extra-curricular trips. Our only entrance to our
transportation yard is on Churchill. Practically speaking, a closure of Churchill would force
every bus onto El Camino to make a right or left turn.
Our Maintenance and Operations fleet crosses Alma and Churchill approximately 175 times per
day. This includes vans, trucks, and trailers. As described for our busses, the maintenance yard
also depends upon a single entry/exit point on Churchill.
It is our understanding that proposals exist or may arise restricting large vehicle access to some
mitigation options. PAUSD would contend that restrictions to large vehicles would negatively
impact our busses and maintenance vehicles.
Finally, while traffic is the main focus of mitigation efforts, PAUSD would also like to raise the
point that increased rail use negatively impacts the learning environment at Paly. Current rail
use is already a major distraction for students in classes paralleling the rail line. The staff and
students at Paly would benefit greatly by any mitigating efforts connected to sound barriers.
PAUSD is thankful for the efforts of our City leadership and the volunteers serving on the
committee to propose solutions.
2.b
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
-
P
A
U
S
D
L
e
t
t
e
r
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
)
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
25 Churchill Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650)329-3737
www.pausd.org
August 5, 2022
Dear Mr. Shikada,
I am writing to reiterate concerns from the Palo Alto Unified School District regarding the
possible closure of Churchill Avenue as part of the proposed rail project. My letter from
February of 2020 is attached as a reference.
Our CBO, Carolyn Chow, attended a meeting regarding the rail project on August 4 with City
staff. She reported that City staff stated that our letter was only one point of view and many
residents have shared different viewpoints. I would respectfully disagree and believe our letter
represented 10,500 students, over 20,000 parents, and 2,000 employees. We also contend that
the significant operational challenges for the District should be weighted heavily when compared
to aesthetic priorities.
City staff accurately stated that PAUSD forfeited our seat on the rail committee. There were
many reasons for this decision. I hope this was not seen as a forfeiture of our voice. Closing
Churchill and / or Meadow appears more damaging as each day of discussion passes. The
potential closure would negatively impact daily operations in a way we cannot mitigate with our
busses or fleet of maintenance vehicles.
I value our partnership with the City of Palo Alto and hope we can find a setting for a meaningful
discussion about any closure of Churchill.
Sincerely,
Don Austin
Superintendent of Schools
2.b
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
-
P
A
U
S
D
L
e
t
t
e
r
s
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
)
Probtems With the Current Churchill Partial-Underpass Design
1.Lack of attention to design aesthetics
2.High disruption and lengthy construction
3.No suitable location for a de-watering pump station
4.Incremental encroachment on the Caltrain right-of-way
5.Increased induced traffic
These problems are tightLy coupled to one another.A dependency graph can hel.p visualize
the inter-connected ness of the design parameters.’Note from the graph how much the
bridge design affects everything else.
Bridge Design
The deck thickness of the bridge is the parameter upon which the overalt design is most
sensitive,since the thickness is driven by so many other design decisions.
Reduction of the bridge deck leads to the following other changes:
1.The depth of the intersection is reduced,which leads to lower grade,and a reduction in
the apparent scale of the project.
2.Athinner deck allows for a more aesthetic design.
The deck thickness depends on:
1.Bridge material and the design constraints that presents
2.Bridge span
How do we get a thinner bridge deck?
A.Use steet rather than concrete for the bridge.
B.Reduce the bridge span:
1.Reduce shoutder width
2.Reduce number of tanes
3.Remove central bridge supports
C.Reduce the number of lanes by eliminating the right turn pocket on Churchill:
1.The pocket is too smaLl,to have much impact on traffic flow.
2.The space currently occupied by the pocket can be used for the de-watering station.
3.Eliminating the pocket helps reduce induced traffic by reducing the capacity of
Churchill.
D.Reduce shoulder widths
1.Shoulder width is a safety issue,but the widths can be optimized.
2.Enough space is needed to allow large vehicles to turn.This can be accomplished by
larger turning radii at the corners.
3.Reducing shoulder widths on Alma can reduce Caltrain encroachments.
E.Elevate the tracks a little (3-5 feet).
F.Optimize the vertical clearance under the rail bridge.
1 Churchitt Grade Crossing Dependency Graph,Michaet Price,2022
2.c
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
-
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
M
r
.
P
r
i
c
e
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
Steet bridge design
Steel.bridges up to 17 m spans can be constructed off-site,brought to the site and Iowered
into pI.ace with minimat disruption of rail operationst21.
This method of construction could greatly reduce construction cost,time,and disruDtion by
e[iminating the need for a shoofty.
There’s a tot of difference between a functiona[design and an aesthetic one.Consider this
original concept for the Golden Gate Bridge:
‘R ‘t)%i c;iL.nLN.c;TL u I
IflI [I ‘I IO\1II Pt \
A steel truss bridge,like that over San Francisquito Creek,is perhaps the default choice,but
there are alternatives:
There are also cabte-stayed designs that are more attractive,but more expensive.
2 Design Guide for Steel Railway Bridges,ILES,D.C,The SteeL Construction Institute,2004
2.c
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
-
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
M
r
.
P
r
i
c
e
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s
ChurchilL Grade Crossing Dependency Graph
The chart below is a first draft showing the dependencies between the various parameters of the
project and how decisions cascade from one issue to the next.It can be expanded with more detaiL and
altered to capture more issues,if people find this representation helpful.
ChurchiLL Grade Crossing
Tssue Dependandes
LEGEND
This item forces other decisions
An increase in this item causes a
good change in the dependant
An increase In this item causes a
bad change in the dependant
For example,anincrease in bridge
span causes an increase in bridge
deck thickness.Anincrease in deck
thickness causes an increase in
underpass depth,and so on.
MichaeL Price Page lof 1 vl.1
2.c
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
-
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
M
r
.
P
r
i
c
e
(
1
4
8
1
3
:
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
V
a
i
o
u
s