HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01-23 Rail Committee Agenda PacketRAIL COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
Tuesday, January 23, 2024
Community Meeting Room & Hybrid
2:30 PM
Rail 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. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The
meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media
Center https://midpenmedia.org.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/86388142528)
Meeting ID: 863 8814 2528 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an
amount of time determined by the Chair. 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 Council and available for inspection
on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your
subject line.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,
the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong
cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not
accepted.
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.
VERBAL UPDATE ON INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIES
A.Caltrain
B.VTA
C.City Staff
Draft Caltrain Corridor Crossings Delivery Guide available at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/rail/draft‐caltrain‐
corridor‐crossings‐delivery‐guide.pdf
ACTION ITEMS
1.Review and discuss comments received from Caltrain staff on the grade separation
alternatives and provide feedback/direction to staff.
FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. For 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 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 smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in 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 HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 863‐8814‐2528 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
1 Special Meeting January 23, 2024
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/agendas
RAIL COMMITTEESpecial MeetingTuesday, January 23, 2024Community Meeting Room & Hybrid2:30 PMRail Committee meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend byteleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintainingtransparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home orattend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting islocated at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. Themeeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/86388142528)Meeting ID: 863 8814 2528 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tocity.council@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspectionon the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in yoursubject line.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,
the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong
cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not
accepted.
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.
VERBAL UPDATE ON INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIES
A.Caltrain
B.VTA
C.City Staff
Draft Caltrain Corridor Crossings Delivery Guide available at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/rail/draft‐caltrain‐
corridor‐crossings‐delivery‐guide.pdf
ACTION ITEMS
1.Review and discuss comments received from Caltrain staff on the grade separation
alternatives and provide feedback/direction to staff.
FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. For 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 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 smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in 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 HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 863‐8814‐2528 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
2 Special Meeting January 23, 2024
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/agendas
RAIL COMMITTEESpecial MeetingTuesday, January 23, 2024Community Meeting Room & Hybrid2:30 PMRail Committee meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend byteleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintainingtransparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home orattend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting islocated at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. Themeeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/86388142528)Meeting ID: 863 8814 2528 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tocity.council@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspectionon the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in yoursubject line.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDERPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. VERBAL UPDATE ON INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIESA.CaltrainB.VTAC.City StaffDraft Caltrain Corridor Crossings Delivery Guide available atwww.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/rail/draft‐caltrain‐corridor‐crossings‐delivery‐guide.pdfACTION ITEMS1.Review and discuss comments received from Caltrain staff on the grade separationalternatives and provide feedback/direction to staff.FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s)
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. For 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 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 smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in 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 HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 863‐8814‐2528 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
3 Special Meeting January 23, 2024
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/agendas
Rail Committee
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: January 23, 2024
Report #:2311-2303
TITLE
Review and discuss comments received from Caltrain staff on the grade separation alternatives
and provide feedback/direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that Rail provides direction to the staff regarding the following:
1. Proceed with City’s project consultant (AECOM) and coordinate with Caltrain Staff for
the changes focused on demonstrating adherence to Caltrain Standards for
accommodating 4-track passing tracks at California Avenue station that is currently in
the existing scope of the agreement.
2. Proceed to coordinate with Caltrain Staff or their consultants and/or the City’s project
consultant in developing the scope of work for the material changes to the alternatives
concepts to address updated standards guiding the substantiate changes in the
alternative’s concepts for the following major elements.
a. Right of way encroachment
b. Vertical Alignment
c. Horizontal Alignment
d. Miscellaneous Items
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 8, 2023, City and Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB aka Caltrain) entered
into a Service Agreement. Per agreement, Caltrain is to provide railroad expertise and technical
input to inform the Connecting Palo Alto project development process and the City to continue
to manage the development of alternatives, define and considers tradeoffs, and select the
preferred alternative for the three crossings at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and
Charleston Road.
On November 8, 2023, Caltrain staff conducted their first technical review relative to Caltrain
Standards (and roadway standards) and provided comments to City Staff. Subsequently, City
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 4 of 107
and Caltrain staff met to understand how addressing Caltrain comments and adhering to
Caltrain Standards will impact the conceptual design alternatives, understand the high-level
material changes that may be required to the concepts, and explore next steps.
This staff report presents key Caltrain Standards, as identified by Caltrain, that may require
material changes to alternative concepts. By identifying and presenting the changes to each
alternative concept, the staff report demonstrates:
•Initial take of impacts on alternatives for adherence to updated Caltrain Standards,
•Trade-offs between constraints/impacts and design criteria (i.e., design variance), and
•Contrast between alternatives during the LPA selection process.
This Staff report therefore seeks the Rail Committee’s review of the major elements that relate
to each alternative and direction in proceeding forward with the next steps.
BACKGROUND
Connecting Palo Alto is a project undertaken by the City of Palo Alto to implement grade
separation at existing at-grade crossings along the Caltrain corridor. The concept designs for
this Project were completed in 2020 and approved by the City Council in 2021. Since that time,
Caltrain has implemented a change in their design standards.
As a local agency project, the City is obligated to coordinate with Caltrain for several reasons
including the project's involvement with and impact on the Caltrain Right of Way (ROW) and
the need to verify compliance of conceptual design phase documentation with the Caltrain
Engineering Standards (being revised through 2023). In addition, after the selection of
Preferred Alternative(s) aka Local Preferred Alternative(s) by Caltrain (LPA) for each grade-
separation, Caltrain will become the lead agency for designing and implementing the selected
LPAs. As this project is currently in the conceptual design phase, addressing concerns related to
Caltrain Engineering Standards is a key factor in demonstrating ROW, feasibility of LPAs, and
positions the projects for successful implementation.
On June 8, 2023, the City and Caltrain (PCJPB) entered into a service agreement outlining
Caltrain's role in providing support for early coordination, technical input, and expertise.
Caltrain’s support and input is crucial as the City evaluates conceptual alternatives, aiming to
select and recommend a viable locally preferred alternative (LPA) for grade separation at these
crossings. The Service Agreement (June 8, 2023) also provides the contracting vehicle for
Caltrain to support the integration of its comments into the City’s conceptual alternatives, upon
discussion and approval by the parties.
On November 8, 2023, the Caltrain Staff provided the marked up conceptual plans (Attachment
C) and the comments to the City Staff for various alternatives in consideration (Attachment B).
City staff reviewed materials from Caltrain staff and compiled all the comments into a matrix
(see Attachment A) to categorize into eight (8) major elements, each influencing the various
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 5 of 107
alternatives at the three crossings. The subsequent discussion offers a summary of the initial
review of these elements across the different alternatives:
•Vertical Alignment
•Horizontal Alignment
•Four (4) Tracking segments
•Roadway Design
•Construction Technology
•Creeks
•Costs
•Cumulative Concerns
Caltrain is advising staff on the Caltrain Standards to be integrated into each concept to
determine the presence of any fatal flaws in the proposed concepts.
As noted by staff in the past, Caltrain will consider Design Variances. While it is best practice to
identify potential variances from Caltrain engineering standards as early in the planning and
design process as possible to allow time to research and analyze alternatives, to document
recommendations, and to minimize the overall impact of a design variance on the project and
on the Caltrain System. Caltrain Standard Procedure for Design Variances (Version 1a - October
8, 2019) requires that the circumstances justifying the potential variances be materialized. In
light of this requirement, Caltrain is also advising staff on ways to adhere to Caltrain Standards
that would efficiently highlight the project-specific circumstances. Caltrain will then discuss and
process Design Variances requests during the Preliminary Engineering phase as the design
progresses.
ANALYSIS
The city received more than two hundred comments. Caltrain provided comments on the
conceptual design drawings, as well as in spreadsheet format. Staff summarized the key
findings and compiled them in a matrix format for review and summary as Attachment A
(Attachment A: Summary of Comments). Staff conducted the initial review of Caltrain’s
comments to understand their implications on the project’s conceptual design alternatives
included as Attachment B (Caltrain Comments and Response Tracking with initial staff review).
The redline comments on the alternatives conceptual plans are also attached as Attachment C
for reference (Attachment C: Conceptual Plans with Caltrain Comments for all Alternatives
The following discussion provide a summary of the comments and next steps that would
support the review by Rail Committee for direction to the City Staff.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 6 of 107
Vertical Alignment
1. Roadway Vertical Clearance: The Caltrain Engineering Standards now require that the
vertical clearance from the roadway to the bottom of a rail bridge is 16’-6” for the
extent of the Caltrain’s ROW. The project assumed the vertical clearance of 15’-6” only
in the impacted area under the proposed rail bridges which is consistent with Caltrans’
Highway Design Manual (HMA) for local roads and was previously the standard used by
for Caltrain before recent revision. This increase in vertical clearance will require
changes to all alternatives and increase the project footprint. To accommodate vertical
clearance two options are available: 1) adjusting profile of the crossing roadways and/or
2) adjust the railway profile as it impacts the profile grade of the crossing roadways.
Applies to:All Alternatives (except Churchill Avenue
closures)
Implications:Underpass Alternatives
Combined with other comments, if
addressed, increased vertical clearance
would require more of roadway
adjustment away from Caltrain ROW,
and would increase the project
footprint.
Hybrid Alternative
Increased vertical clearance would
require adjustment to railway profile (at
stepper grades) and or adjustment of
roadway away from Caltrain ROW.
Depending on the concept changes, this
may increase the project footprint.
Viaduct Alternative
Increased vertical clearance would
require adjustment to railway profile
(potentially at stepper grades).
Depending on the concept changes, this
may increase the project footprint along
Caltrain ROW and impact visibility
Level:Underpasses - High
Hybrid – Moderate
Viaduct - Moderate
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 7 of 107
2. Bridge Structure Depth (Depth from bottom of the bridge to the top of the rail): City as
assumed 5’-0” from the bottom of the bridge to the top of the rail, based on the recent
project designs on the Caltrain corridor and industry standards. However, Caltrain is
recommending providing 24 feet from the roadway to the top of rail considering 16’-6”
for vertical clearance requirement stated in item 1, five (5) feet for bridge deck, and 2’-
6” which will increase this bridge depth consideration to 7’-6” increasing the structure
depth by 2’-6”. Similar to vertical clearance, it could be addressed either by raising the
rail profile or by adjusting the crossing roadway profiles for underpass alternatives.
Applies to:
Implications:
Level:
All Alternatives (except Churchill Avenue
closure)
Underpass Alternatives
Combined with other comments, if
addressed, increased bridge depth
would require more of roadway
adjustment away from Caltrain ROW and
would increase the project footprint.
Hybrid Alternative
Increased bridge depth would require
adjustment to railway profile (at stepper
grades) and or adjustment of roadway
away from Caltrain ROW. Depending on
the concept changes, may increase the
project footprint.
Viaduct Alternative
Increased bridge depth would require
adjustment to railway profile (potentially
at stepper grades). Depending on the
concept changes, this may increase the
project footprint along Caltrain ROW and
impact visibility.
Moderate to High
3. Railroad Grade/Profile: Current (Dec 2023) Caltrain design criteria allow construction of
a profile grade to a maximum of 1%, with grades exceeding 1% requiring a design
variance (i.e., last resort action). Caltrain’s updated criteria (Q1 2024) allows profile
grades up to 2% with review and approval of the Director of Engineering versus a
variance. The approval will be based on a detailed review of the specific location, track
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 8 of 107
configuration, proximity to future facilities and other operational and maintenance
factors.
Applies to: Hybrid and Viaduct Alternatives
Implications: Provides railroad profile flexibility for alternatives
Level: If approved - None; If not - Moderate
4. Pedestrian/Bicycle path Clearance: Caltrain requires having the pedestrian path with a
vertical clearance of 10 feet. The project made every effort to provide 10 feet of vertical
clearance along the pedestrian/bicycle path; however, for Meadow Drive, the
pedestrian/bike path under the railroad structure is shown as 8 feet due to constrained
site conditions. This I consistent with the HDM’s recommendation for minimum vertical
clearance
Applies to:Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive
only)
Implications:Adjustment to the pedestrian/bike path
profile, extending away from Caltrain
ROW.
Level:Moderate
Next Steps for Items related to Vertical Alignment:
A. City Staff and Caltrain to coordinate and review conceptual plans considering review and
directions from the Rail Committee.
Caltrain staff indicated that the vertical roadway clearance and bridge depth thickness
are the recommended to provide design flexibility in this early stage of the project
development. In addition, these additional tolerances also work to address the
construction tolerances. The bridge depth is typically during the latter design phase
during bridge type selection and structural design. Staff has asked the Caltrain staff to
reevaluate these comments as the project design criteria was reviewed by Caltrain prior
to development of conceptual designs and the conceptual plans are consistent with
recently constructed bridges along the Caltrain Corridor.
City staff will work with Caltrain to revise the current designs to meet Caltrain Standards
and identify trade-offs in accordance with review and direction of the Rail Committee.
Caltrain will partner with city staff to integrate key comments at a high level to highlight
changes in the alternative concepts. This will be presented to decisionmakers to support
transparent decision-making and the selection of feasible LPAs.
B.City will consider adjustment if feasible during design phase without significantly
adjusting design.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 9 of 107
With regards to pedestrian path clearance, the minimum 8 feet clearance provided due
to constrained sight conforms to California HDM, however, is not compliant with
Caltrain’s the minimum standard vertical clearance of 10 feet. Review of potential
design variance can occur during the subsequent design phases of the project.
C.City will seek approval of grades exceeding 1%l during subsequent design phases as
appropriate.
Caltrain indicated that the process to seek approval of the rail profile grade exceeding
1% will now require review and approval from the director of engineering rather than
going through the design variance process. The design of Meadow Charleston Viaduct
Alternative or Trench alternative would need such approval. Staff will seek such
approvals as needed during the preliminary engineering phase.
Horizontal Alignment:
5. Roadway Encroachment into Caltrain Right-of-Way: There were several comments on
various facilities such as roadway, wall foundations encroaching into Caltrain ROW.
Caltrain requires that the proposed improvements be outside of Caltrain ROW.
Applies to:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive)
Implications:Placement of retaining walls for
roadways outside of Caltrain ROW will
likely shift or narrow the roadway
project footprint and require adjustment
to intersection geometry.
Level:Very High for Churchill Avenue
Alternatives
Low to Moderate for Meadow Drive
Underpass
6. Pedestrian facilities encroachment into Caltrain Right of Way: Certain pedestrian
improvements are planned to use existing JPB ROW currently hosting Embarcadero Bike
path. However, such existing easements are not permanent. In the event bicycle and
pedestrian facilities cannot be constructed in JPB ROW, such facilities will not be
feasible. Additionally, Caltrain requires alternatives with non-railroad uses (i.e., active
transportation facilities) within Caltrain ROW to be relocated outside of the ROW or to
follow a compatibility review process under the Rail Corridor Use Policy (RCUP). For
Pedestrian and Bicycle improvements, another Alternative at Seale Avenue, which
would not impact the Caltrain’s right-of-way is under consideration by the City.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 10 of 107
Applies to:Partial Underpass (Pedestrian facilities at
Kellogg Avenue)
Closure Option 1 (Bike/Ped ramps along
railroad Churchill Ave)
Implications:Caltrain RCUP compatibility process will
determine if the use of JPB ROW for the
proposed non-railroad uses is
compatible with current and future
potential railroad needs.
Level:High (however, Seale Ave is an
alternative location and Closure Option 2
avoids encroachment in Caltrain’s ROW)
7. Railroad Encroachment into City’s Right-of-Way: The ROW along the railroad tracks is
impacted by railroad’s horizontal alignment. For Viaduct alignment as proposed in the
conceptual plans, the proposed alignment of permanent tracks, wall foundations, other
parts of the structures will be encroaching into City’s ROW. In addition, for hybrid
alternatives, the retaining walls as proposed are at the City and JPB ROW. Therefore,
these structures will be encroaching into City’s ROW. These concepts will therefore
require dedication of the City’s ROW to JPB.
Applies to:Hybrid, Viaduct (Meadow/Charleston)
Implications:Horizontal adjustment of railway
alignment
Level:If alignment of railroad within the JPB is
required, the impact will be Moderate to
High
8. Width of Bridges: Caltrain requires a 10-foot width on one side of all bridges to provide
adequate space for maintenance and emergency vehicles access.
Alternatives impacted:All alternatives (except closure and
viaduct)
Implications:Meeting of vertical clearance
requirements defined above will ensure
bridge width can be accommodated.
Level:Moderate
9. Retaining Wall offset/clearance from structures and roadways: Caltrain desires to have
at least 10 feet of clearance (buffer) between the roadway and the retaining walls (or
structures) to provide adequate space to access and maintain these structures.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 11 of 107
Hybrid, Viaduct, Underpass (Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road)
Implications:
Level:
Adjustment to horizontal alignment of
rail and/or walls
Moderate to High
10. Maintenance and Access requirements along the Railroad tracks: On certain
alternatives, Caltrain requires sufficient width to provide for emergency and
maintenance vehicles along the railroad tracks. This additional requirement will impact
the horizontal track alignment, ROW needs, and constructability.
Alternatives impacted:Hybrid and Viaduct
Implications:Adjustment to horizontal alignment of
walls
Level:Moderate to High
11. Provide 20-foot clearance for MSE wall construction between the shoofly and new walls
and maximize the right of way use: Caltrain requires a minimum width of 20-feet
between the face of a permanent wall (or structure) and the centerline of the nearest
shoofly track to avoid fouling the shoofly track and electrified Overhead Contact System
(OCS) while constructing the permanent tracks. This additional width (previously
assumed to be 10 feet) will impact the impact the horizontal alignment, right-of-way
needs, and constructability. Noting that the realignment of the track to the west would
likely be required to accommodate this required clearance.
Alternatives impacted:Hybrid and Viaduct
Implications:Will require realignment of the
permanent track to the west and would
likely require shoofly tracks/use of
existing tracks to the east. Realignments
may open up enough space for
clearances to be accommodated.
Level:Very High
Next Steps for Items related to Horizontal Alignment:
D. City staff will work with Caltrain to integrate key comments into the current designs in
accordance with review and direction of the Rail Committee.
Caltrain will partner with city staff to integrate key comments at a high level to show the
updates they bring to the alternatives. This will be presented to decisionmakers in order
to support transparent decision-making and the selection of feasible LPAs.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 12 of 107
E. The city will seek approval from PCJPB/Caltrain board for encroachment into the
Railroad Right of Way for necessary easements.
One of Caltrain’s key directives is to preserve its ROW for all current and potential
future railroad uses. If a preferred alternative was to proceed with any use of the JPB
ROW, it will need to go through the Rail Corridor Use Policy (RCUP) compatibility review
process and require JPB Board approval in subsequent phases. However, Caltrain staff
cannot guarantee that approval will be granted. Therefore, Caltrain staff recommends
that the concept designs should not include encroachment into the JPB ROW to
understand likely impacts of alternatives during decision-making and the selection of
feasible LPAs.
F. City Staff asked Caltrain to reconsider/reevaluate the increased horizontal dimensions
such as additional width for bridges, additional widths for emergency vehicles and
maintenance vehicles, etc.
Caltrain staff indicated that the increased bridge and embankment width is required to
provide access for maintenance and emergency vehicles along the railroad for the
Hybrid Alterative. For the underpass alternatives, Caltrain requires wider bridge widths.
For the Viaduct Alternative, the requirement is to provide space for maintenance staff
(e.g., catwalk) along the entire segment that was previously assumed. The full impact of
the increase width requirement will require detailed design review however the initial
assessment results in modest increase the cost and footprint of the project. Staff has
also pointed out that other projects along the corridor that do not have such provisions
and therefore will be an additional cost and time to the project.
G. City staff needs further clarification on the increased horizontal offsets and clearance for
permanent structures and temporary conditions during construction. City will consider
adjustment if feasible during design phase without significantly adjusting design or if
such efforts do not impact right-of-way.
Caltrain staff indicated that the horizontal clearance/offsets from other objects and
roadway are not adequate. In addition, these additional clearances are also required
during the construction phases of the project. The Caltrain staff has previously reviewed
the design criteria prior to initiation of the design of conceptual plans in 2019. However,
Caltrain is updating standards resulting in recommendation of new clearance and
offsets. These new additional criterion/standards would likely cause for certain
alternatives to impact the right-of-way, costs, design and constructability.
Four (4) Tracking Segments:
12. Four (4) Track Segments and Roadway Encroachment into Caltrain Right-of-Way: Design
will need to accommodate the 4-track segments as identified by Caltrain’s 4-track
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 13 of 107
assessment. Several comments on various facilities such as roadway, wall foundations
etc. encroaching into Caltrain ROW that may impact Caltrain’s future utility of its ROW
(including 4-track infrastructure. The project comments recommend City improvements
to be outside of Caltrain ROW.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive)
Viaduct, Hybrid Alternative (Meadow
Drive)
Implications:Adjustment of retaining walls and
roadway improvements off Caltrain
ROW.
Level:Moderate to High
13. Four (4) tracking alignment: The design needs to be reviewed for the four tracking
provisions including distance of OCS poles from the Railroad tracks and track alignment.
The project will need to be constructed to accommodate future 4 tracking areas.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive)
Viaduct, Hybrid Alternative (Meadow
Drive)
Implications:Adjustment of retaining walls and
roadway improvements off Caltrain
ROW.
Level:Moderate to High
Next Steps for Items related to 4 Tracking:
H.City to consider design of 4-Tracking.
Caltrain has recently completed the portion of the Corridor Crossing Study focused on
the four-track segments in northern Santa Clara County required to support blended
service of Caltrain and High Speed Rail in the future. The study identified California
Avenue Station as the proposed location for passing tracks. The proposed four track
segment will therefore affect the south side of Churchill Avenue crossing and north side
of Meadow Drive. The project will need to consider design of four track for Churchill
Avenue Underpass, Meadow and Charleston Viaduct, Meadow and Charleston Hybrid,
Meadow and Charleston Trench, and Meadow Drive Underpass Alternative.
Caltrain presented the Four Track segment study report to the Rail Committee in a study
session at its November 21, 2023 meeting. At this meeting it was discussed that
reserving space for a future four-track segment would have a considerable amount of
impact on the trench alternative.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 14 of 107
Roadway Design:
14. Road Profile/Sag Curve/Grades: There are several comments related to the design of
the roadway. These include vertical curve design and grades of underpass crossing for
all alternatives (except viaduct). The City’s current design provides use of higher grades
to ensure smaller footprint and limit impact to private properties. In addition, the
vertical curves support lower design speeds. The project design will require some
exceptions from the City Council at the time of approval for these factors. However,
Caltrain staff advised to reduce the maximum grades and increase sag vertical curve
lengths on such roadways to be in a better compliance with California HDM.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive &
Charleston)
Implications:Roadway profile, rail profile, bridge
depth, and minimum vertical clearances
influence one another.
All vehicular crossing alternatives would
require a larger project footprint to
accommodate vertical clearances,
Caltrain ROW, and design speed of 25
mph.
Level:High
15. Offset from barriers: The current project plans provide at minimum 2 feet offset from
the barriers, however Caltrain review indicated need of greater offsets to provide
greater safety. Noting that exceptions for shoulder width are very common on roadway
facilities where the geometry is limited.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive)
Viaduct, Hybrid Alternative (Meadow
Drive)
Implications:Exceptions for shoulder width are very
common on roadway facilities where the
geometry is limited.
Level:Low (if an exception is taken)
16. Acceleration-Deceleration Lane/Lane drops/Weaving: Caltrain provided feedback on
the Churchill Avenue underpass alternative for the northbound through lane merge and
median island to be extended. In addition, weaving merge lanes (Grocery outlet
entrance) provided for the Underpass alternative at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 15 of 107
are not adequate. City Staff notes that there are limited options for roadway
improvements due to right-of-way constraints that limit such improvements.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive)
Implications:Requires adjustment to roadway design
to provide sufficient weaving distance.
Level:Very High
17. Roundabout Design: Caltrain comments included clarifications on the roundabout
design. City staff indicated that current design is planned with initial level design with
guidance from Federal Highway Guidelines. The design will be refined in subsequent
phases.
Alternatives impacted:Underpass Alternative (Charleston Road)
Implications:Requires review of the roundabout
design.
Level:Low
18. Curved Bridges: Caltrain recommends that curved bridge design and handrail are
complex, costly and hard to construction and therefore recommend linear cantilever
chord segments. Bridges design as recommended can be considered in the subsequent
phases.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road)
Implications:Requires adjustment to pedestrian/bike
bridge design in subsequent phases.
Level:Low
Next Steps for Items related to Roadway Design
I.City is requesting Caltrain to consider the revisions to roadway design in the next phase
(Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Phase)
Items related to roadway design are generally in the preview and jurisdiction of the City
of Palo Alto. Staff has noted the recommendation and intend to review and incorporate
if there is not a significant increase in the project costs in the subsequent phases of the
project.
J. City staff will work with Caltrain to integrate key comments into the current designs in
accordance with the review and direction of the Rail Committee.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 16 of 107
Caltrain will partner with city staff to integrate key comments at a high level to show the
updates they bring to the alternatives. This will be presented to decisionmakers to
support transparent decision-making and the selection of feasible LPAs.
Construction Technology:
19. Shoofly vs Box Jacking: A few comments related to eliminating the need of shoofly and
substituting the design with box Jacking were provided. The City is highly interested in
designing the project using alternative technology eliminating the need of shoofly. As
such the subsequent phases will review during value engineering and modify the plans
to reflect it, as using alternative technologies may require further lowering of the road
profile.
Alternatives impacted:Partial Underpass (Churchill Avenue)
Underpass Alternative (Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road)
Implications:Alternative analysis may impact other
areas of the design as such technologies
may require greater clearances.
Level:High
Next Steps for Items related to Construction Technology
K.City is requests Caltrain, as part of the subsequent phases, study box jacking as a
construction method to remove the need for shoofly tracks.
Items related to alternative construction technology are generally not vetted out during
the conceptual design phase of the project Staff has noted the recommendation and
intend to review and incorporate based on the constructability review in the subsequent
phases of the project.
Culverts
20. Reconstructing and extending culverts: There are comments related to the redesign of
culverts which may be required for Viaduct and Hybrid alternatives of Meadow Drive
and Charleston Road. Caltrain staff indicated that due to additional loading from the
embankments, these culverts will need to be revaluated. In addition, Caltrain staff has
indicated extension of these culverts to cover the entire width of the Caltrain right of
way. Staff believes that reevaluation of existing structures may lead to
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 17 of 107
recommendations for the improvements needed and that can be performed in the
subsequent phases.
Alternatives impacted:Viaduct Alternative (Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road)
Hybrid Alternative (Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road
Implications:Additional Cost
Level:Moderate
Next Steps for Items related Existing Culverts
L.City is requesting Caltrain to consider the revisions in subsequent phases of the project.
Items related to culverts can be vetted out during the subsequent design phases of the
project Staff has noted the recommendation and intend to review and incorporate
based on the constructability review in the subsequent phases of the project.
Cost Estimates
21. Preliminary Cost Estimates: There were no significant comments on the cost estimates.
Caltrain recommended use of recent bid estimates for designer to prepare cost
estimates.
Alternatives impacted:All Alternatives
Implications:Additional Cost
Level:Moderate
Next Steps for Items related to Cost Estimates
M.Cost Estimates Update: Updating cost estimates will be a significant task needing
services of the consultant.
Cumulative Concerns
22. Cumulative Concerns: Several inter-related elements such as provisions for vertical and
horizontal clearances, maintenance access needs, clearance during construction,
maximizing the use of right-of-way, and provision of 4 tracking, etc. could cause for
compounded impact and may lead to substantial impact necessitating redesign, update
of cost estimates, constructability, evaluating feasibility of various alternatives.
Alternatives impacted:All Alternatives
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 18 of 107
Implications:May likely require realignment for
Viaduct and Hybrid Alternatives
(Meadow and Charleston), ROW impacts
on Partial Underpass Alternative
(Churchill Avenue) and Viaduct and
Hybrid Alternatives (Meadow and
Charleston), and Costs for all alternatives
Level:Very High
Next Steps for Items related to Cumulative Concerns
N. City staff will work with Caltrain to integrate key comments into the current designs in
accordance with review and direction of the Rail Committee.
Caltrain will partner with city staff to integrate key comments at a high level to show the
updates they bring to the alternatives in accordance with the review and direction of
the Rail Committee. This will be presented to decisionmakers to support transparent
decision-making and the selection of feasible LPAs.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Revisions to existing conceptual plans will require consultant support. The existing contract
with the AECOM Consultant has an optional task to perform a high-level analysis of the impacts
of 4-tracking for a maximum of five alternatives. The contract has no additional capacity to review
the design and revise to address additional comments. The existing contract with AECOM expires
on April 22, 2024. Therefore, an amendment to the Consultant contract or procurement of a
new consultant will be needed to perform additional services. There is also the possibility of
utilizing the Caltrain Staff and their consultant for providing additional support in addressing
and integration of comments, upon discussion and approval of the parties.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Rail Committee meetings are open to the public and therefore provide the community with
opportunities to provide comments to the Rail Committee and City.
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
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 19 of 107
design for the grade separation project will be performed in the subsequent steps of the
project development.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Summary of Comments
Attachment B: Caltrain Comments and Response Tracking (with initial staff review)
Attachment C: Conceptual Plans with Caltrain Comments for all Alternatives
APPROVED BY:
Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 20 of 107
Attachment A
(Summary of Comments)
Element No. Item Description Churchill Underpass Churchill
Closure 1
Churchill
Closure 2
Meadow-Charleston
Hybrid
Meadow-Charlesoton
Viaduct
Meadow
Underpass
Charleston
Underpass
Initial
Staff Review
Commments
1 Road clearance 16'-6"Exist 15'-6"Exist 15'-6"Exist 15'-6"Exist 15'-6"Exist 15'-6"Exist 15'-6"Exist 15'-6"
Requesting Caltrain to evaluate and
review this requirement. Currently, exist
at other locations and it is consistent
with standards (for local roads) described
in CA HDM and AASHTO Greenbook
2 Bridge Depth of 5' and Rail
Depth of 2'-6" Total 24 ft Exist 5'Exist 5'Exist 5'Exist 5'Exist 5'Exist 5'Exist 5'
The bridge depth assumptions are based
on span to depth ratio; standard in
industry. Actual bridge depth will depend
upon the final design. May use thin/steel
bridge, similar to other locations
(Rengstraff 6' for span of 120', Holly 5' for
span of 60' feet etc.
3
RR Grade/Profile (1% Rail
Grade Standard Anything
>1% requires DOE approval)
N/A NA NA Design conforms to
current standards
Design approval from
Director of engineering
for 1.4% for current
design
NA NA
Rail at exist grade or conform to
standards except for viaduct, Will reqeust
Caltrain for approval. Also will request if
Caltrain will allow raising rail 1-2 ft near
crossing to accommodate concern with
greater vertical clearance. Viaduct will
requrie DOE approval
4 Pedestrian Bridge
Clearance
The ped bridge shall
have 10 foot
clearance
This will impact the pedestrian path
profile for the Meadow Underpass
alternative. 10 feet is recommended but
not required per the Caltrans HDM. This
will require additional evaluation during
the subsequent design phases.
5 Encroachment
(Vehicular /Roadway)
Intersection
Improvements, Wall
Foundations
(Churchill/Alma)
-
Wall foundation of off
ramp to be in outside
of Caltrain ROW
Walls could be designed with
foundations on one side to avoid ROW
encroachment; however, some
encroachment of Alma St (into Caltrain's
ROW) will be required for the Partial
Underpass at Churchill to avoid property
acquisitions along Alma St.
6 Encroachment
(Pedestrian/Bikepath)
Kellogg Bike
Facilities
Bike/ped Ramps along
RR Tracks
Altenative location of Seale Avenue is
proposed/considered
7 Encroachment (Rail)
Wall Foundations of
the embankment;
Shoofly during
construction -track
layout/4 tracking
review and
constructability
Rail uses City ROW. Rail
Viaduct aligns edge
aligns with Alma Street
ROW Concerns will need review/approval
from JPB board, RCUP process
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
C
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
1 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A - Summary of
Comments
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 21 of 107
Attachment A
(Summary of Comments)
Element No. Item Description Churchill Underpass Churchill
Closure 1
Churchill
Closure 2
Meadow-Charleston
Hybrid
Meadow-Charlesoton
Viaduct
Meadow
Underpass
Charleston
Underpass
Initial
Staff Review
Commments
8 Bridge Width Increase
Additional width;
suggestion was to
be joined with
ped/bike/Bridge
NA NA Additional width Additional Width Additional Width Additional Width
Additional cost. Depending upon the
alignment will need to review
constructability in conjunction with other
4 tracking requirements,
hoirzontal/vertical clearances
9a
Retaining walls shall be a
minimum of 10' distance
from nearest structure or
roadway
Wall Foundation, 4
tracking design, and
ROW
Wall Foundations of
the embankment;
Shoofly during
construction -track
layout/4 tracking
review and
constructability
Will need to review from constructability,
cost, design isssues associated with this
requirement.
9b
Retaining walls shall be a
minimum of 10' distance
from nearest structure or
roadway during
construction
This will be a challenge
in certain areas as the
project with current
alignment of
Temporary Shoofly and
Permanent Track
Will need to review from constructability,
cost, design isssues associated with this
requirement. Additional discussion with
Caltrain will be needed to resolve this
concern
9c OCS Poles Distances (13'
from track C/L Currently at 13' Currently at 13'
Currently at 13' from C/L of pole to C/L of
RR tracks. We believe that the plans
comply with this requirement
10
Embankment width to
provide 10' for
Maintenance
Additional Cost along
the segment,
Constructability issue
for phasing at
transitions
Additional Cost along
the segment,
Constructability issue
for phasing at
transitions
Are these requirements along the entire
length of Viaduct? Is this a new
standard? All projects include such
widths?
11a
Provide additional width
between MSE wall and
shoofly Track Center line a
min 20 ft for MSE
construction during an
electrified service operation
Will be ROW
constraints. The
construction phasing
review will be needed
Will be ROW
constraints. The
construction phasing
review will be needed
Will need to review from constructability
and cost perspective. 20 foot in this area
may have ROW issues. Phasing will need
to be identified.
11b
Permanent tracks to be
placed to enable
maintenance and maximize
utility ROW
This will need review.
20' clearance for
construction, 10 for
maintenance, etc.
This will need review.
20' clearance for
construction, 10 for
maintenance, etc.
Will need to review from constructability
and cost perspective.
Ho
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
2 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A - Summary of
Comments
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 22 of 107
Attachment A
(Summary of Comments)
Element No. Item Description Churchill Underpass Churchill
Closure 1
Churchill
Closure 2
Meadow-Charleston
Hybrid
Meadow-Charlesoton
Viaduct
Meadow
Underpass
Charleston
Underpass
Initial
Staff Review
Commments
12
4 Tracking Alignment
(Retaining fills and walls to
accommodate 4 track and
transitions between 2 an 4
track
Wall Foundation
Design and ROW
encroachment
Wall Foundations of
the embankment;
Shoofly during
construction -track
layout/4 tracking
review and
constructability
Alignment and
constructability review
along with other
elements
To review/evaluate for design
13 a
Transition segment should
be tangent outside of
vertical curve
Will need to
coordinate and
evaluate during
review/design
Will need to coordinate
and evaluate during
review/design
Will need to coordinate
and evaluate during
review/design
To review/evaluate for design
13b OCS Poles Distances (13'
from track C/L To review/evaluate for design
14
Road Profile (very high
grade%, sag curve, lane
widths etc.)
Community desires
for low speed/traffic
calming design
Community desires
for low speed/traffic
calming design
Community desires
for low speed/traffic
calming design
Sag curves are commonly designed for
passenger comfort in urban areas where
lighting is present. Designing for
headlight sight distance results in
excessively long/flat curves, which is
more applicable in rural areas with no
lighting. Some grades are relatively steep
(12% Max), but occur over a very short
length (< 25 ft). AASHTO's Green Book
states that grades for local residential
streets should not exceed 15%.
15 increase 2' to 4' for offset
from barriers Applicable Applicable Applicable
Will consider in subsequent phases for
implementation without major impact to
ROW
16
Improve acceleration lane,
weaving, lane drops,
deceleration lanes where
applicable
Will review during
PE phase and
improve if no
significant impact to
ROW
Lane drop at Meadow
is due to ROW and
Physical constraints
Will review during PE
phase and improve if
no significant impact
to ROW
Minimize ROW, however will review for
design to conform with HDM and provide
if feasible without ROW impacts
17 Roundabout radius Currently for pannign
stages of 80' diameter
Will design consistent with local
standards, and consideration of state and
federal guidelines, and to ensure the
design vehicle (emergency vehicle) can
be accommodated.
18 Curved Bridges to
Cantilever bridge
To accommodate
greater radius for
bicycles
To accommodate
greater radius for
bicycles
To accommodate
greater radius for
bicycles
Will consider in subsequent phases
4 T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
3 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A - Summary of
Comments
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 23 of 107
Attachment A
(Summary of Comments)
Element No. Item Description Churchill Underpass Churchill
Closure 1
Churchill
Closure 2
Meadow-Charleston
Hybrid
Meadow-Charlesoton
Viaduct
Meadow
Underpass
Charleston
Underpass
Initial
Staff Review
Commments
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
19 Shoofly/Jack Boxing
Determination Applicable Applicable Will consider in subsequent phases
Cu
l
v
e
r
t
s
20 Reconstruct and widen
culvert/bridges for creeks
Additional
Width/structure
requiements
Additional
Width/structure
requiements
Will review and discuss in subsequent
phases of the project
Co
s
t
s
21 Prelminary Cost Estimates Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Wil prepare in subsequent phases of he
project
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Im
p
a
c
t
s
22 Cumulative Impacts Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable
All the factors discussed above may
compund and cause for more signifiant
impacts requiring changes to ROW,
Alignment, Design, Costs and Other
imapcts.
4 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A - Summary of
Comments
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 24 of 107
Churchill Ave Grade Separation
Comm Potential
Impactsent
No. Label Comments
Extend bridge width to Caltrain ROW. this additional width is
Page Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
Will discuss. Need to review the
alignment, impacts, additional
cost and may need redesign
(Need Direction)
needed to provide access to Caltrain Maintenance and
emergency vehicles. best if 27ft width from cl track can be
reached.
Bridge Width Design and Cost
1
2
1
1
Zouheir Farah 9/14/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/15/2023
1
1
adjust graphics, showing the box dashed at that location since
it is below ground and covered with Pink color per typical
section.
None at thisWill revise in next phase Graphics time
ROW impacts. Alternative
location being considerd at
Seale Avenue
ROW,
Horizontal
Alignment
Active transportation facilities should be placed outside of
Caltrain ROW. If not, subject to JPB Board approval.
JPB Approval
3
4
5
1
1
1
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
1
1
1
None at this
time
None at this
time
Will revise in next phase
Will provide in next phase
Graphics
Graphics
Please provide profile for pedestrian crossing ramps
Section here is requested to show: 1. Relationship of
depressed Alma St, retaining walls, and Caltrain ROW.
Section here is requested to show: 1. Vertical clearance under
track 2. Relationship of depressed Alma St, retaining walls, and
Caltrain ROW.
None at this
timeWill provide in next phase Graphics
6
7
8
1
1
1
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
1
1
1
Will discuss. Need to review the
alignment, impacts, additional
cost and need design for 4
tracking segment
The widened roadway is to
provide for traversing Buses.
Clearing ROW impact project
design
Cut retaining walls to accommodate transition between 2‐
track and 4‐track to be placed outside of Caltrain ROW and
easements
ROW,
Feasibility4 Tracking
This wall is encroaching into Caltrain ROW. Adjust wall
location to be outside of Caltrain ROW. There is adequate
sight distance for turning traffic at the signalized intersection. Zouheir Farah 10/25/2023
Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
The striping only. This is to
provide traffic calming. Will
adjust in next phase
Graphics Striping change
9 1
1
1
1
Increase radii of curb return to match northwest curb return. Zouheir Farah 10/25/2023
Adjust wall/foundation design and location to not encroach
1
1
1
2
Horizontal
Alignment
Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
ROW,
Feasibility
None at this
time
#7 & #810
11
12
into Caltrain ROW.Zouheir Farah 10/25/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/25/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023
Adjust wall/foundation design and location to not encroach
into Caltrain ROW.#7 & #8
please show horizontal stationing to match profile grade
location Will provide in next phase Graphics
#8 may find alternative solution
to deter passing in next phase
None at this
timeExcessive shoulder width. any reason? this might encourage
driver to use as a passing lane.
Clarification
13 1 Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023 2
Churchill Ave Grade Separation 1 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 25 of 107
Churchill Ave Grade Separation
Comm
ent
No. Label Comments
Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
Consultant, discuss, Review; The
K Values were used for driver
comfort and not the lighting
condition. Design speed lowered
to encourage reduced speeds
None at this
timeGraphics
14 1 Please show design speed and K value accordingly
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Churchill
Ave at Alma St: Churchill Ave STA XXX+XX = Alma St STA
XXX+XX
Zouheir Farah 10/17/2023 2
None at this
timeWill provide in next phase
Will provide in next phase
Graphics
Graphics
15
16
1
1
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
2
2
None at this
timePlease provide proposed profile for pedestrian crossing
Recommend switching the wide shoulder to the right side near
the 2 traveling lanes to improve the sight distance at the
Churchill intersection and build a taper deceleration lane
without encroaching into the Caltrain ROW.
Will review and revise in next
phase
None at this
timeGraphics
17
18
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/25/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/15/2023
2
3
show major stationing text on the aerial to coordinate with
the shown Profile
None at this
timeWill provide in next phase Graphics
Graphics None at this
timeplease note reconstruction of the parking apron might be
necessary to many of the home to meet the widening grade. Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023
Agree, Will revise in next phase
19 1 3
Will review for ROW impacts
and revise in next phase. These
are good suggestions and
incorporated during design
phases
the driver do not have clear sight to the main line traffic at
this point due to grade ascending and conc barrier. this will
impact the driver decision in finding a gap merge right with the
Roadway Will Consider
20
21
1
1
mainline traffic Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023
3
3
adequate sight distance for the driver to find a gap after
reaching the end of K rail and reach the required speed while
ascending a 7% grade
Roadway
Profile
ROW,
Feasibility#20
a Physical K rail barrier separation will be required to prevent
last minute errant car from entering the opposite lane if driver
encounter difficulties entering the through lane.
Curved bridges are not recommended as they are complicated
to design and expansive to build. Recommend a curve‐linear
bridge beam with curved slab.
Adjust barrier end treatment (i.e., crash cushion) away from
intersection to allow for design vehicle (e.g., WB‐50) turn
radius.
#20 Roadway Will Consider
22
23
24
1
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/25/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/25/2023
3
3
3
Will review and revise in next
phase. Curves are provided for
Bicycle turning comforts
Castilleja is residential roadway.
Will review and adjust in next
phase
Structures
Roadway
Will Consider
Will Consider
Churchill Ave Grade Separation 2 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 26 of 107
Churchill Ave Grade Separation
Comm Potential
Impactsent
No. Label Comments
Recommend to increasing the shoulder width on the frontage
Page Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
Will review for ROW impacts
and revise in next phase if
feasible.
Will review and revise in next
phase
road lane side to 2ft ‐ 4 ft to provide recovery distance near
the crash cushion and concrete barrier.
Roadway Will Consider
25
26
27
1
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/25/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/25/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/25/2023
3
3
3
recommend building the signal foundation integral within the
wall structure, to eliminate shoulder reduction.
Provide a min of 2' to 3' ft offset from concrete barrier and
crash cushion for safe recovery.
Roadway
Roadway
Will Consider
Will Consider#25
Will review. This action may
impact project foot print, impact
ROW, redesign and additional
costs (need direction)
Vertical
Alignment
ROW,
FeasibilityProvide 16.5 ft Clearance under all bridges. 2023 Caltrain
standard
Please correct the lane width from 16' to 14'. should not
include the gutter as a traveling lane
28
29
30
31
32
2
2
2
2
2
Zouheir Farah 9/13/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/13/2023
1
1
1
1
1
None at this
time
None at this
time
None at this
time
None at this
time
Will revise in next phase Graphics
Graphics
Graphics
Graphics
?? Consultant to provide
dimensions
?? Consultant to provide
dimensions
What is the dimension?Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/22/2023
10/22/2023
10/23/2023
What is the dimension?
Please note where these sections are and the direction we are
looking in the plan view.Will revise in next phase
Yes, this alternative assumes the
Rail alignment profile remains as Clarification
existing
None at this
timePlease confirm no change in track profile is required for this
option33
34
35
2
2
2
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
1
1
1
None at this
time
ROW,
Feasibility
Will revise in next phase
#28
GraphicsPlease confirm that we are looking north
Vertical
AlignmentMin vertical clearance requirement is 16'‐6" across the ROW Edgar Torres
Will review. Addition impacts
and costs and revise in next
phase if feasible
What is this dimension? Elevation for top of retaining wall
should match elevation for top of rail
Structures
Roadway
Will Consider
Will Consider
36 2 Edgar Torres 10/23/2023 1
adjust S/W width to reflect 3.5'remianing width. reduce the
outer buffer to 2'‐ 6" width to Zero. The min S/W width is 5 ft
increase to 6ft when adjacent to the curb and without a green
buffer area.
Cantilever wall and base foundation need to be outside
Caltrain ROW.
Will review and adjust in next
phase; Although 2‐6' for utility
poles/trees37
38
2
2
Zouheir Farah 10/25/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
1
1
Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility#8
Yes this alternative assumes use
of Caltrain ROW. However,
alternative lcoation at Seale
Avenue is in considertion.
Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
FeasibilityPlease clarify if all pedestrian structure are constructed within
an easement or it is a row encroachment.39 2 Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023 1
Churchill Ave Grade Separation 3 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 27 of 107
Churchill Ave Grade Separation
Comm
ent
No. Label Comments
Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Structures
Graphics
Author Date
need to revise the Wall type to L shape wall, soldier pile or Will consider in
next phase#8secant piles to avoid encroachment into Caltrain row during
the construction of the cantilever wall base as shown.40 2 Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023 1
Consultant to provide
dimensions. Will provide in next
phase
Consultant to provide. Will
provide in next phase
None at this
time41
42
43
44
45
46
2
2
2
2
2
2
Provide Dimension to the entire typical section
show existing OCS poles on both sides of the track. this
comment is applicable to all track sections.
What is the reason for having such a large shldr, future lane?
can it be reduced.
Recommend increasing the lane width to 11ft min. not safe
especially when wide vehicles are occupying the lane.
similar recommend increasing the lane width to 11 ft by
reducing theshldr width
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/14/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/17/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/17/2023
1
1
2
2
2
2
None at this
time
None at this
time
Graphics
Clarification
Roadway
School Bus turning templates
Community needs traffic
calming for reduced speeds.Will Consider
Will consider#44 Roadway
Roadway
Profile
ROW,
FeasibilityMinimize ROW impactSteep grade limited options for design flexibility Edgar Torres 10/23/2023
Minimize ROW impact. Lower
design speed is intentially used.
Designed based on passanger
comfort and not healight
distance
Roadway
Profile
ROW,
FeasibilityThis is a steep grade dropping 20 ft in 300 ft length with a k =
4 < K = 19 for 20 MPH design . see fig 201.5 in Caltrans 2020
design manual
Recommend additional 2 ft near the Conc Barrier wall for safe
recovery in case the car get near the edge of the lane.
recommend additional shy distance/offset min 3' next to the
conc barrier to provide a recovery at the nose area and crash
cushion.
47
48
2
2
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
2
2 #25 Roadway
Roadway
will consider
Will consider#25
49
50
2
2
Zouheir Farah 9/13/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/14/2023
3
3
recommend using a mountable curb to increase the width of
the road for passing a stalled vehicle. see asshto requirement
21 ft
Will review and discuss with FD
in next phase
ROW,
FeasibilityRoadway
A U‐wall will likely be used for
the ped/bike ramps. This is will
be confirmed during final design.
None at this
timeClarification
51
52
53
2
2
2
please clarify if this also is a U wall construction?Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023 3
3
3
Will revise and update in next
phase
None at this
timePlease include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at Graphics
Graphics
Churchill Ave: Alma St STA XXX+XX = Churchill Ave STA XXX+XX Edgar Torres
Please number all sections and show approximate locations on
the plans. this will help in matching the provided section
10/23/2023
Consultant to review. Will
provide in next phase
None at this
timeinformation with the horizontal layout Zouheir Farah 10/25/2023
Churchill Ave Grade Separation 4 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 28 of 107
Churchill Ave Grade Separation
Comm Potential
Impactsent
No. Label Comments
recommend extending box to Caltrain ROW to include the
Page Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
Will review and discuss with
Caltrain, Next phasepedestrian crossing. this can be a major saving in construction
cost and schedule.
Bridges Will consider
54 2 Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023 3
Shoofly vs Box jacking
discussion. City preference is to
use Box Jacking. Will update in
next phase. Noting that Jack
Boxing may require additional
depth affecting road profile
A bridge construction will have major impact to Caltrain
operations. recommend a large box jacking approach that
will eliminate the need for a Shoofly, fiber, signal and OCS
relocation
Construction Box Jacking Vs
Technology Shoofly
55 2 Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023 1, 3
Recommend changing this structure from Bridge to Jack and
Bore tunnel Box. as indicated in other comments regarding the
elimination of shoofly construction.
Construction Box Jacking Vs#55 Technology Shoofly56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
6
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/14/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/14/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/14/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/15/2023
1, 3
1
Horizontal
Alignment
Horizontal
Alignment
Horizontal
Alignment
Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility
ROW,
Feasibility
ROW,
Feasibility
ROW,
Feasibility
None at this
time
#3Relocate Ped ramps outside Caltrain ROW
relocate Stairs outside Caltrain ROW #31
#3increase tunnel width to reach Caltrain ROW.
Extend Jack and Bore Ped Tunnel to meet Caltrain ROW on
both ends.
1
#31
Comment noted 4 TrackingTransition between 2‐track and 4‐track. No adjustments
relocate ped ramps outside Caltrain ROW
Edgar Torres 10/23/2023 1
Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,#3Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/15/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/15/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/25/2023
1 Feasibility
None at this
time#28
#3, # 8
#25
#26
#1
GraphicsPlease provide Clearance below Caltrain Track 2
Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
FeasibilityPlease remove the encroachment on Caltrain ROW.
Please see plans view for shoulder swapping/increase
comments
construct the signal base integral within the wall structure to
eliminate encroachment into the shoulder.
additional width needed to provide access for maintenance
and emergency vehicles.
1
Roadway
Roadway
Will consider
Will Consider
1
3
Bridge Width Design and Cost1
Adjust wall/foundation design and location to be outside of
the Caltrain ROW. Please verify the sight triangle. Based on the
concept, the sight triangle is too large for the turning left
distance in a signalized controlled movement (see AASHTO
Case D).
Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility#8, #43
68 6 Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023 1
Churchill Ave Grade Separation 5 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 29 of 107
Churchill Ave Grade Separation
Comm Potential
Impactsent
No. Label Comments
extend barrier an additional 20 ft to prevent driver from
Page Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
Will review and adjust in next
phase Roadway
Roadway
Will consider
Will Consider
69 6 accessing Alma St Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
3
3
Signal foundation can be integrated in the wall structure to
eliminate encroachment into the shoulder
Recommend providing a minimum 2ft ‐ 3 ft recovery shoulder
for when approaching the crash cushion and safer distance
near the barrier.
#26
#25
#26
70 6
Roadway
Roadway
Will consider
Will consider
71
72
6
8
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023
3
3
see previous comment regarding Signal foundation. can be
integral into the wall to avoid shldr encroachment.
Recommend extending the acceleration/merge distance to
allow driver to reach the desired speed and see a gap in traffic
from the incoming right lane before merging. Left entrance is
not favorable and would need additional safety features.
Recommend placing a median separator to avoid last minute
intrusion into the opposite lane when the merging driver
attempts to avoid a collision if they are unable to find a gap in
traffic to merge.
#20 Roadway Will consider
73 9
9
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023 3
#20
#20
#20
Roadway
Roadway
Roadway
Roadway
Will consider
Will consider
Will consider
Will consider
74
75
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
3
3
With the steep grade, the main line traffic on the right is not
visible to the driver until they reach the gore area.
10 Recommend increasing the acceleration lane ahead.
same comments as before. driver visibility to opposite traffic
and ascending grade require longer acceleration lane before
12 merging
integrate the signal foundation into the wall to avoid
reduction in shoulder width at this critical intersection
13 location.
bridge can be replaced with a jacking Box to avoid the
13 construction of Shoofly and relocation of OCS.
Adjust wall/foundation design and location to be outside of
the Caltrain ROW. Additional width is not needed for turning
14 lane sight distance.
76 Zouheir Farah 9/15/2023 3
#26
77
78
Zouheir Farah 9/15/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023
3
Construction Jack Boxing and
Technology#551, 3 Shoofly
Horizontal
Alignment
ROW,
Feasibility#3, #8
79
80
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/15/2023
1
3
additional bridge width is required to provide access to
14 maintenance and emergency vehicles #1 Bridge Width Design and Cost
recommend an Auxiliary taper deceleration turn lane to avoid
a sudden stop by turning drivers in a steep ascending main line
14 grade. high risk for accident
#20 Roadway Will consider
81
82
Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/15/2023
3
3
None at this
timeBus Turning Template Clarification16 extra wide shoulder, any reason?
Churchill Ave Grade Separation 6 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 30 of 107
Churchill Ave Grade Separation
Comm
ent
No. Label Comments
Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
None at this
time
Will consider
None at this
time
Noted. Will revise in next phase Graphics
Roadway
4 Tracking
83
84
17 Handrail not needed.Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
3
317 increase shy distance to the barrier to 2ft ‐ 3 ft .
Transition between 2‐track and 4‐track. No adjustments to
18 alternative.
#25
Noted85
86
Edgar Torres 10/23/2023 1
2
Will revise and update in next
phase
None at this
timeGraphics18 show lane width and shoulder dimensions.Zouheir Farah 9/15/2023
Churchill Ave Grade Separation 7 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 31 of 107
Comm
ent
No. Label Comments
Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
Additional Scope and cost Structures Design and Cost
Design, Cost,
1 1 show proposed box culvert or Bridge over the Adobe creek.Zouheir Farah 9/21/2023 1
Will need to review for impacts.
Additional scope and cost;
Constructability Review
Provide additional width on the bridge to accommodate
access road for maintenance and emergency vehicles.
show bridge or culvert that span almost the entire 100 ft wide
corridor
construct a bridge or culvert to span both the temp shoofly
track and the permanent elevated structure.
Bridge Width ROW and
Feasibility2
3
4
1
1
1
Zouheir Farah 9/21/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/21/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/21/2023
1
1
1
#1
#1
Structures Design and Cost
Structures Design and Cost
This will increase the
scale/footprint of project and
may need to evaluate for
additional ROW, redesign, cost
and other impacts (need
direction)
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
Vertical
Clearance
Provide 16.5 vertical clearance for vehicular traffic under the
bridge51 Zouheir Farah 9/25/2023 1
Yes, will coordinate. This action
will require design review,
constructability review, and
additional cost
4 Tracking Design and CostFill retaining walls to accommodate 4‐track and transition
between 2‐track and 4‐track6
7
1
1
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
1
1 #6 4 Tracking Design and Cost
None at this
Transition between 2‐track and 4‐track
Maximum rail profile grade is currently 1%, higher than 1%
requires a variance (as a last resort)—maximum will be
updated to 2%, grades above 1% subject to review and
approval from Director of Engineering
Transition segment should be tangent as special trackwork
should stay outside of the vertical curves
No design exception is needed
for the current design. If revised Rail Profile
will keep in consideration time
8
9
1
1
1
1
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
10/24/2023
1
1
1
1
Will coordinate design with
Caltrain 4 Tracking Design and Cost
None at this110 mph design speed is used Clarification10
11
Note design speed is 110 mph for passenger rail
Alternative to accommodate 4‐track and transition between 2‐
track and 4‐track
time
#6
#5
#1
#8
4 Tracking Design and Cost
Design, ROW,Vertical
Clearancesimilar comment. Provide 16.5 ft clearance for vehicular traffic
under the bridge.
Show required box culvert or bridge structure over Barron
Creek.
1% grade is the current maximum without variance but will
soon be 2%. Grades between 1% and 2% will require review
and approval by the Director of Engineering.
Cost and
Feasibility12
13
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
1
1 Structures Design and Cost
None at thisRail Profile time141Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023 1
M‐CH Hybrid Plan & Profile 8 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 32 of 107
Comm
ent Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
No. Label Comments
Recommend including a Phasing plan in the design of the walls
Author Date
to accommodate the trailing end of the 4 Tracks typical
section and transition design package centered at California
Station. Please coordinate with Caltrain Planning department
on the final configuration.
#6, Phasing plan will likely be
considered in next phase 4 Tracking Design and Cost
15 1 Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023 2
Please clarify if the shoofly shown in plans is constructed
outside Caltrain ROW? if so indicate required construction
easement.
Yes, temporary construction
easement Clarification Yes
16
17
18
1
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/21/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/21/2023
2
3
3
None at this
time
None at this
time
Will revise in next phase
Will revise in next phase
Graphics
Graphics
modify begin construction to end of track transition
Pleas indicate the end of construction at this location
Please modify the end of construction to new location shown
in other comment. similar to other side label as begin track
shift
Provide typical section with dimensions showing the track
encroachment into Alma st row and any temporary wall or
structure needed to accommodate grading.
None at this
timeWill revise in next phase
Will revise in next phase
Graphics
Graphics
19
20
1
1
Zouheir Farah 9/21/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/22/2023
3
3
None at this
time
Yes, typical section in the
segment
None at this
timeThis location is more indicative of full typical section
implementation out of the transition zone.
Adjust the Begin Construction limit to this location on the
plans.
Graphics
Graphics
21
22
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
3
3
None at this
timeWill revise in next phase
Hybrid alternative will need to be further evaluated to
consider the impacts to the railroad and other utilities. Need
to understand cost and service implications, such as the
construction of an electrified Shoofly that will need a two
time relocation of OCS poles, cables, signals and fiber
adjacent to a regular Caltrain operations
Yes, OCS is provided during
construction
None at this
timeNoted
23
24
25
1
1
2
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/21/2023
3
3
1
Please show the alignment stationing to coordinate the height
location with the Profile shown below.
None at this
time
None at this
time
Will revise in next phase Graphics
Graphics?? Will provide in the next phaseProvide typical section for Caltrain section.
The hybrid approach has a great impact to Caltrain operations.
affecting the access to the track during maintenance and
emergency situation.
provide additional width on the bridge to accommodate a
maintenance and emergency vehicle access
Will discuss with Caltrain Noted
26
27
28
2
2
2
Zouheir Farah 9/22/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/27/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/27/2023
1
1
1
#2
#2
Bridge Width Design and Cost
Rail Profile Design and Costwidth not sufficient for maintenance vehicle Access
M‐CH Hybrid Plan & Profile 9 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 33 of 107
Comm
ent
No. Label Comments
Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
Vertical
Clearance#6
29
30
31
32
33
34
2
2
2
2
3
3
Min vertical clearance requirement is 16'‐6" across ROW Edgar Torres 10/23/2023 1
2
3
3
1
1
ROW Impacts and will review
and coordinate with Caltrain in
next phase
Horizontal
AlignmentAdjust wall/foundation design and location to follow Caltrain
ROW and provide room for landscaping.
ROW
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
None at this
timePlease include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at
Meadow Dr: Alma St STA XXX+XX = Meadow Dr STA XXX+XX
Will revise in next phase Graphics
Graphics
Edgar Torres 10/23/2023
10/23/2023
None at this
timePlease include equation of alignment stationing for Meadow
Dr at Alma St: Meadow Dr STA XXX+XX = Alma St STA XXX+XX Edgar Torres
Will revise in next phase
Please provide additional width to the bridge for maintenance
and emergency vehicle access.
#2
#5
Bridge Width Design and Cost
Design, ROW,
Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
Vertical Cost andClearanceProvide minimum 16.5ft clearance across Caltrain ROW.
Recommend maintaining the left lane as a through lane and
drop the right lane instead especially when having a sudden
stop for driveway connections.
Please display horizontal geometry stationing to match the
profile grade and stations.
Feasibility
Will revise in next phase
Will revise in next phase
Will revise in next phase
Roadway
Graphics
Graphics
Will consider
35
36
3
3
Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023
3
3
None at this
time
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Charleston
Rd at Alma St: Charleston Rd STA XXX+XX = Alma St STA
XXX+XX
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at
Charleston Rd: Alma St STA XXX+XX = Charleston Rd STA
XXX+XX
None at this
time37
38
3
3
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
3
3
None at this
timeWill revise in next phase Graphics
Discuss with Caltrain; Will need
to review for impacts. Additional
scope and cost; Constructability
Review.
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
provide additional width between MSE wall and shoofly Track
Center line a min 20 ft for MSE construction during an
electrified service operation
Horizontal
Alignment
39 4 Zouheir Farah 9/21/2023 1
Will need to review for impacts.
Additional scope and cost;
Constructability Review
Will revise in next phase
(renderings)
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
None at this
time
Horizontal
AlignmentNeed to maintain access road along the corridor to provide
access road for maintenance and emergency vehicles40
41
42
4
4
4
Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023
1
1
1
Graphicssimilar comments the noise wall height is not to scale.
Confirm proximity of OCS and centerline of tracks
Current OCS pole to RR CL is 12
feet min ClarificationEdgar Torres 10/23/2023
M‐CH Hybrid Plan & Profile 10 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 34 of 107
Comm
ent
No. Label Comments
Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
None at this
time
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
Design, ROW,
Cost and
#40; likely impact horizontal
alignment
Horizontal
Alignment10' min for maintenance access between face of retaining
walls/barriers and adjacent obstruction/roadway
General note: Indicate vertical elevation distances from top of
rail.
43
44
4
4
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
1
1 Will revise in next phase
#40, #43
Graphics
Horizontal
AlignmentPlace permanent to enable maintenance and maximize utility
of ROW45
46
47
4
4
4
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
1
1
1
Horizontal
Alignment#40, #43
Correct
10' to maximize utility of ROW Feasibility
None at this
timeThe horizontal layout of the shoofly on the aerial shows that
the track footprint encroaches into Alma Street. Please verify. Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
Clarification
GraphicsWill revise in next phase?
Discuss with Caltrain/Consultant
None at this
time48
49
50
4
4
4
Please label the track CL offset to ROW fence Zouheir Farah 9/22/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
3
3
3
None at this
time
None at this
time
??Graphics
Graphics
Please provide wall to wall dimension label for section.
Please show noise wall to scale to the wood fence below.
Typical section shows 6ft sound wall.#41
Will need to review for impacts.
Additional scope and cost;
Constructability Review
Design, Cost,
ROW and
Feasibility
use single OCS pole system in the median. cantilever pole near
the wall will need a special foundation interfering with the
MSE wall straps and sleeping slab for the Noise wall.
Consider replacing the MSE wall with an earth slope. This
approach will require to a build a temporary wire mesh wall
then backfill the dirt to meet a 3:1 slope and space for a
maintenance road.
Structures
51
52
4
4
Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
1, 3
1, 3
Will need to review for impacts.
Additional scope and cost;
Constructability Review
Horizontal
Alignment
Constructability
Review
M‐CH Hybrid Plan & Profile 11 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 35 of 107
Comm
ent
No. Label Comments
Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
Yes, will coordinate. This action
will require design review,
constructability review and
depending upon alignment may
impact ROW. Additional cost
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
This portion of the Transition to the Viaduct will be impacted 4 Trackingby the 4 tracking study that center on California Station.
(Please coordinate with Caltrain Planning department on this
issue)1
2
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/15/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/15/2023
1
1
This will increase the
scale/footprint of project and
may need additional ROW,
redesign, cost and other impacts
Vertical
Clearance
Design, Cost,
and Visibilityincrease clearance to 24 FT to accommodate 16.5 roadway
clearance.
Maximum rail profile grade is currently 1%, higher than 1%
requires a variance (as a last resort)—maximum will be
updated to 2%, grades above 1% subject to review and
approval from Director of Engineering
Design exemption approval from
the director will be needed Rail Profile Need Approval
3
4
5
1
1
1
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
1
1
1
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
Alternative to accommodate 4‐track and transition between 2‐
track and 4‐track
# 1
# 1
4 Tracking
4 TrackingTransition segment should be tangent as special trackwork
should stay outside of the vertical curves
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
Fill retaining wall to accommodate 4‐track and transition
between 2‐track and 4‐track
Note design speed is 110 mph for passenger rail
Noted
# 3
4 Tracking
Noted
6
7
1
1
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
1
1
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
The walls location and construction will need to aligned with
the future 4 tracking typical section.
# 1 4 Tracking
8
9
1
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
1
1
1
This will increase the
scale/footprint of project and
may need additional ROW,
redesign, cost and other impacts
1% grade is the current maximum without variance but will
soon be 2%. Grades between 1% and 2% will require review
and approval by the Director of Engineering.
Rail Profile Need Approval
The reconstruction of culverts at
Adobe Creek and Barron Creek
was not anticipated and will be
additional scope/cost to the
project
Existing box culvert will need to be replaced. The original
structure was not designed to handle the additional 10ft of
soil load and the MSE wall.
Structures Design and Cost
10
M‐CH Viaduct Plan & Profile 12 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 36 of 107
Comm
ent Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
No. Label Comments
Existing box culvert will need to be replaced. The original
Author Date
structure was not designed to handle the additional 10ft of
soil load and the MSE wall.
Please provide 16.5 ft roadway clearance under the structure.
Total clearance package: 16.5ft + 5 ft structural depth+2.5ft
track= 24 ft
#10
#2
Structures Design and Cost
11
12
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
1
1
Vertical Design, Cost,
and VisibilityClearance
Yes, the alignment as shown will
shift towards Alma (joint use).
The prposed alignment uses
existing tracks using
Clarification
Please confirm that the viaduct footprint is constructed
outside Caltrain ROW.13 1 Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023 3 construction
nice light rail example. in our case the Pier and Girder sections
will be heavier and deeper to carry the heavy rail and UPRR
load.
These are examples only. Actual
will depend upon the final
design
Noted; will be addressed during
design phase
Clarification
Structures
14
15
2
3
Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/15/2023
1
1 Will consider
Will consider
extend OCS foundation to connect with bridge Pier.
we understand it is just a structural bridge concept. we
recommend using Two pre‐cast post tensioned girder tubs.
the cast in place box girder shown will be difficult to
construct. since the form work and scaffolding will interfere
with the nearby electrification infrastructure in the shoofly.
Please show the Caltrain/Alma ROW Limit. in addition to the
encroachment as shown on plans.
AECOM Structures
16
17
18
3
3
3
Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023
1
1
1
ROW and
Feasibility
None at this
time
Consultant Review Graphics
GraphicsOCS height varies more than 3 ft depending on the location
and power connection
Noted and will address during
design phase
Consultant Review. May
increase scale/footprint of the
project and may need additional
ROW, redesign, cost and other
impacts. Outside placement of
OCS will be considered to
Viaduct
Structures
Label width of structure min 47' having the pole in the middle
of the bridge this will require more clearance requirement. 22
CL to CL track +25 outer buffer with walkway.reduce structure width19
20
3
3
Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023 1
1
This action will require design
review, constructability review
and depending upon alignment
may impact ROW. Additional
cost
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
Horizontal
Alignment10' min for maintenance access between face of retaining
walls/barriers and adjacent obstruction/roadway Edgar Torres 10/23/2023
M‐CH Viaduct Plan & Profile 13 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 37 of 107
Comm
ent
No. Label Comments
Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
Design, Cost
and Visibility
Horizontal
AlignmentPlace permanent to enable maintenance and maximize utility
of ROW
#21
#2
21
22
3
3
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
1
1
Vertical
Clearance16.5' min from roadway to soffit
Conceptual designs and sketches
aimed at providing at least 12 ft
between track centerline and
face of OCS pole.
None at this
timeGraphics
Graphics
23 3 Confirm proximity of OCS and centerline of tracks
Confirm proximity of OCS and centerline of tracks
Edgar Torres 10/23/2023 1
None at this
time#23
#21
24
25
26
27
28
3
3
3
3
3
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
1
1
1
1
1
Design, Cost,
ROW and
feasibility
Horizontal
Alignment10' to maximize utility of ROW
General note: Indicate vertical elevation distances from top of
rail. Elevation at top of retaining wall should match elevation
at top of rail.
Noted
Design, Cost
ROW and
Feasibility
Design, Cost
ROW and
Horizontal
Alignment#21
#21
10' to maximize utility of ROW
Horizontal
AlignmentPlace permanent to enable maintenance and maximize utility
of ROW Feasibility
Max height of wall should be 15ft. At the abutment, the pre‐
cast tub girders are 4ft‐5ft deep plus 2.5ft for track. This would
leave 8.5 ft for maintenance and landscaping access.
The plans shows part of the viaduct constructed outside
Caltrain ROW. Please confirm
Will review and recommend to
address in next phase of design Structures Will consider
29
30
31
3
3
3
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
1
1
1
#13
# 2
Clarification
Vertical20' Max need to be increased to include 16.5 clearance +6.5'
Girder depth and track. = 23‐ 24 Max
Design, Cost,
and Visibility
Will review and recommend to
address in next phase of design
Horizontal
AlignmentEvaluate horizontal clear zone requirement maybe a conc
barrier wall is necessary to protect the Caltrain Pier.
indicate existing fence to be removed after constructing MSE
wall. most of it will be destroyed during construction block
maintenance access.
??
32
33
3
3
Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/25/2023
2
3
Will review and recommend to
address in next phase of design Noted
M‐CH Viaduct Plan & Profile 14 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 38 of 107
Comm
ent Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Graphics
Graphics
Graphics
No. Label Comments
Draw sound wall height proportional to the scale or adjust
Author Date
Will review and address in next
phase (rendering only)
None at this
timewall height to reflect the correct 8 Foot max height of the MSE
below. Now the sound wall measure about 3 ft tall34
35
3
3
Zouheir Farah 10/16/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
3
3
Will review and recommend to
address in next phase of design
None at this
timelabel all sections dimensions and not to scale (NTS)
Same comments regarding the Sound wall height. not
displayed as 6 ft tall. or this is caused by the perspective view
distortion? Please check.
Will review and address in next
phase (rendering only)
None at this
time36
37
38
39
3
3
3
3
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
3
3
3
3
Please label horizontal dimensions for the entire section
including clearance from Track CL to the MSE
Please show curb or fence location with dimensions to the
bridge Pier.
Will review and address in next None at this
time
None at this
time
None at this
time
Graphics
Graphics
Graphics
phase
Will review and address in next
phase
Will review and address in next
phasePlease label typical section dimensions.
recommend installing the signal on the bridge girder instead of
having a hazardous Signal pole in the middle of the
intersection.
Direct fixation is good for transit service, but not adequate
when we share the corridor with Heavy axle freight load
Caltrain to evaluate if signals can be mounted to bridge
structure. Agreement would need to be developed. it will be
safer installation and more visible for traffic
Will review and address in next
phase Roadway Will consider
40
41
3
3
Zouheir Farah 10/30/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/25/2023
3
Viaduct
Structures
Vertical Height
impacts# 21, 3
Will review and address in next
phase Roadway Will consider
42 3 Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023 2, 3
M‐CH Viaduct Plan & Profile 15 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 39 of 107
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Comm
ent
No. Label Comments
Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
Consultant to Review. May
increase scale/footprint of the
project and may need
additional ROW, redesign, cost
and other impacts
Consultant to Review. May
increase scale/footprint of the
project and may need
additional ROW, redesign, cost
and other impacts
Design and
CostBridge Width
increase width of bridge to 25 ft from Track CL on both
bridge sides for maintenance and emergency access1
2
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/12/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023
1
1
Design and
CostBridge Width
Graphics
increase bridge width to provide access for Maintenance and
emergency vehicles.
Will review and address in next
phase of design
None at this
timeSection here is requested to show: 1, Relationship of
depressed Charleston Rd, retaining walls, and Caltrain ROW Edgar Torres
Replace bridge structure with Box jacking to avoid
constructing shoofly and OCS relocation
show ramp and mainline stationing to associate profile
location and grades.
Please explain the additional width under the bridge. is it for
turning auxiliary lane or for future roadway widening.
Combine bridge to reduce foundation cost by not building
two abutments.
3
4
5
6
7
1
1
1
1
1
10/23/2023 1
1
2
2
2
Construction Jack Boxing andConsultantZouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/12/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Technology Shoofly
None at this
time
None at this
time
Will review and address in next
phase of design
The shoulder provides for bike,
drainage, etc.
Will review and address in next
phase of design
Graphics
Clarification
Bridge Width Design and
Cost
Based on the provided profile, additional wall will be longer
then what is shown. Please update to display stationing for
confirmation.
Will review and address in next
phase of design
None at this
timeGraphics
8 1 Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023 2
Looking at the aerial photo the traffic volume back up to
make right turn into Charleston is large filling two auxiliary
right turn lanes. Please explain how this right turn traffic
volume is accommodated in the new grade crossing
configuration. Incase needed, a right turn single lane ramp
with walls on both sides can be constructed with minor
extension of the ped and Charleston bridge to Caltrain ROW.
The turning movement into Charleston will be controlled by a
right turn signal. Please note that additional width to Caltrain
bridge is needed to accommodate the Maintenance and
Emergency vehicle access across Charleston.
Traffic study has reviewed the
future LOS.
ROW and
FeasibilityRoadway
9 1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/12/2023
2
3
There are few properties that
require takes full and other
partial takes. See Fact Sheets
Will review and address in next
phase of design. The offset to
barriers and walls were kept at
minimum to minimize ROW
take
Property
Acquisition
Maps
Clarification
Roadway
10 is this property full acquisition?
ROW and
Feasibilityneed to provide additional shldr width for recovery space on
both sides of the walls..11 1 Zouheir Farah 10/12/2023 3
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 16 of [Pages]
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 40 of 107
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Comm
ent
No. Label Comments
Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
The pavement outside of the
fog line is to accommodate
emergency vehicle turning
template. Not provide for
shoulder
Will review and update in next
phase of design
Additional turning movement
will be helpful. This will cause
for additional ROW. See traffic
study for more info
ROW and
FeasibilityRoadway
extend full width Shldr to the end of construction. do not
12
13
1
1
recommend tapering emergency shldr
we can use circular ramp access to reduce impact on
properties.
Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023
3
3 Roadway
Roadway
Will Consider
ROW and
FeasibilityDo we need a right turning movement. see comments on the
plans.14
15
16
1
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
3
3
3
Please label the roundabout radius to confirm if large enough
for trailer trucks. Additional inside shoulders help achieve the
desired turning radius for larger vehicles.
Curved bridges and rail are costly to design and build.
Recommend curved linear beam solution with a curved wider
bridge slab.
Will review and update in next
phase of design
None at this
timeGraphics
Will review and update in next
phase of design Structures Will Consider
Property
Acquisition
Maps
Will the concept require full acquisition of property due to
concept impacting property structure?
Combine bridge to reduce foundation cost by not building
two abutments.
#10 Clarification
Bridge
17
18
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
3
3
Will review and update in next
phase of design Will Consider
Property
Acquisition
Maps
Property
Acquisition
Maps
#10
#10
Clarification
19
20
21
1
1
1
Identify full property acquisitions due to roundabout.Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
3
3
3
Clarification
Roadway
Identify full property acquisitions due to roundabout.
It is possible to adjust stop bar location closer to the bridge.
since cross walk not provided and will reduce left turn
traveled distance.
Will review and update in next
phase of design Will Consider
Increase ramp width to provide space to pass a stalled
vehicle. the travel lane is constrained by walls on both sides.
Refer to Caltrans and AASHTO standards for minimum ramp
widths.
Check ramp width in constrained areas if sufficient pavement
width is provided to pass a stalled vehicle.
This action will require
redesign, may require
additional ROW And have
additional Costs
ROW and
FeasibilityRoadway
22
23
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
3
3
ROW and
Feasibility
Property
Acquisition
Maps
# 22 Roadway
Will the concept require full acquisition of property due to
impacting property structure?
Confirm the intent of the roadway modification here. Is it
being proposed to make Ely Ply a one‐way street or
restricting the turning movement onto Ely Pl from Alma St?
Please provide traffic directions and labels to clarify.
#10 Clarification
24
25
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
3
3
None at this
timeTraffic Calming Clarification
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 17 of [Pages]
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 41 of 107
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Comm Potential
Impactsent
No. Label Comments
Recommend increasing the lane transition length to reduce
Page Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Roadway
Graphics
Author Date
Will review and address in the
next phase of designthe sudden 12ft lane shift using reverse curvature. improve
driver expectation with a sudden shift.
Will Consider
Review
26
27
1
2
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
3
1
Bridge should match the rail elevation since we are not
lowering the rail profile unless a box tunnel is being
proposed.
Noted; Consultant to verify
This will increase the
scale/footprint of project and
may need additional ROW,
redesign, cost and other
impacts
Vertical
Clearance
ROW, Design,
Cost, FeasibilityAll vertical clearances need to be 16.5 ft per Caltrain new
standard.
grade extremely steep descending 25 ft in 350 ft at 12%. the
current K for sight distance = 13.6 below K = 19 for 20MPH
see Caltrans fig 201.5 2020 design manual
28 2 Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023 1
ROW and
Feasibility# 28 Roadway
Structures
Roadway
Roadway
Graphics
29
30
2
2
Zouheir Farah 9/15/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023
2
2
U Tub structure not required. recommend to convert this
wall to MSE wall. same note on the other wall AECOM Will Consider
Design speed is based on riders
comfort of 25 mph. AECOM
ROW and
Feasibility31
32
2
2
please show Design speed and K values.Zouheir Farah 10/13/2023 2
2
ROW and
Feasibility# 31Steep grade limited options for design flexibility Edgar Torres 10/23/2023
None at this
timeIt's not clear the location of this profile low point. please
show stationing on plans.
Consultant
33 2 Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
2
The construction methodology
will be determined in future
phases
Clearance varies. please clarify if these structures are BOX
Tunnels or bridges
Graphics
34
35
36
2
2
2
2
2
3
ROW and
Feasibility
Design and
Cost
Yes Roadway
Bridges
Steep grade limited options for design flexibility.Edgar Torres 11/2/2023
Will review and address in the
next phase of designcombine bridges to reduce the cost of dual abutment
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St
at Charleston Rd: Alma St STA XXX+XX = Charleston Rd STA
XXX+XX
14 ft wide ramp with barrier on both sides do not provide
adequate width for passing a stalled vehicle. refer to
Caltrans and AASHTO standards for min ramps width.
This wall can be converted to MSE wall since excavation is
required. this option would be more economical
No need to build a U tube walls. replace with cantilever or
soldier pile wall.
Zouheir Farah 10/12/2023
Consultant
# 22
Graphics
Roadway
Will Consider
37 2 Edgar Torres 10/23/2023 3
ROW and
Feasibility38
39
40
2
2
2
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
3
3
3
Will review and address in the
next phase of design Structures
Structures
Will Consider
Will ConsiderAECOM, Consultant
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 18 of [Pages]
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 42 of 107
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Comm Potential
Impactsent
No. Label Comments
Recommend removing fence as it obstructs drivers from
Page Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
seeing the merging traffic. Fence is unnecessary as there are
no sidewalks or pedestrian facilities in the vicinity. In case,
fence is preferred by the City, recommend reducing the
height to provide better sight distance to drivers.
Fencing not necessary if pedestrian facilities are not located
near the concrete traffic barrier
Will review and address in the
next phase of design Roadway Will Consider
41
42
43
3
3
5
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
3
3
3
Will Do in next phase of design
Will Do in next phase of design
Roadway
Roadway
Will Consider
Will ConsiderFencing not required. no pedestrian facilities near conc
Barrier
Fencing not required same comments as before. no
pedestrian facilities near conc Barrier. in addition it reduce
the driver sight distance until pass the gore area. in case still
need to install, recommend shortening the length based on
height, providing better sight distance to the drivers.
Please provide additional shldr width on both sides of the
ramps. for safe recovery near the barrier. Similar to other
comments need to comply with ramp width requirement to
pass a Stalled vehicle.
Combine bridge to reduce foundation cost by not building
two abutments.
Combine bridge to reduce foundation cost by not building
two abutments.
Will Do in next phase of design Roadway
Roadway
Will Consider
44 5 Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023 3
Will review and provide where
feasible without additional
ROW;
ROW and
Feasibility
45
46
47
48
49
5
7
7
8
8
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/11/2023
3
2
3
1
3
Design and
Cost
Design and
Cost
Design and
Cost
#18
# 18
# 2
Bridges
Bridges
Increase width of bridge to 25 ft from Track CL on both bridge
sides for maintenance and emergency access.
Curved bridges and handrail are costly due to design
complexity and cost to construct
Bridge Width
Structures
Both sides? Why
Will review and address in next
phase of design Will Consider
Recommend combining bridge over Charleston and
pedestrian bridge into a two span bridge to reduce
foundation costs by removing need for two abutments.
Ramp width not sufficient to pass a stalled vehicle. See other
comments.
Design and
Cost# 18 Bridges
50
51
52
53
9
9
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
1
3
2
1
ROW and
Feasibility
None at this
time
Design and
Cost
# 22 Roadway
Clarification
Bridge Width
Please explain the need for additional widening width under For drainage, bike lane etc.
# 2
10 Caltrain bridge. is this for future lane? please clarify
11 Increase bridge width as per previous note.
Both bridge can be replaced with Two boxes similar to the
crossing under the rail. no need for Shoofly and relocation of
11 OCS to build the bridges
Will review and address in next Construction Jack Boxing and
phase of design Technology Shoofly54Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023 2
Recommend combining both bridge over Charleston and
Pedestrian in a two span bridge or box to reduce foundation
11 redundancy cost building two abutments.
Ramp width not sufficient to pass a stalled vehicle. See other
11 comments
Construction Jack Boxing and#18 Technology
Roadway
Shoofly55
56
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
3
3
ROW and
Feasibility# 22
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 19 of [Pages]
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 43 of 107
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Comm Potential
Impactsent
No. Label Comments
Increase bridge width to provide sight distance for turning
Page Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
vehicles left, in addition to having the conc barrier
obstructing the driver sight for approaching biker on the
11 right intersecting with the ascending ramp.
Recommend increasing the ramp width to pass a stalled
12 vehicle. similar to the other ascending opposite ramp.
Design and
CostConsultant, Signal Control
#18
Bridge
57
58
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023
3
3
ROW and
FeasibilityRoadway
Will review and address.
Additional Width will require
more ROW. If it can be
accommodated, will review and
add in next phase
Roadway Will Consider
Recommend increasing the shoulder width or shy distance
13 near the crash cushion to allow for safe recovery.59 Zouheir Farah 10/26/2023 3
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 20 of [Pages]
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 44 of 107
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 21 of [Pages]
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 45 of 107
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 22 of [Pages]
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 46 of 107
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 23 of [Pages]
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 44 Packet Pg. 47 of 107
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
y
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 24 of [Pages]
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 45 Packet Pg. 48 of 107
Charleston Grade Separation Comments
Charleston Rd Grade Separation 25 of [Pages]
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 46 Packet Pg. 49 of 107
Comm
ent
No. Label Comments
Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
Will review and discuss. Alma
does not have bike lanes
Sidewalk only at this time.
Therefore likely not needed
4 Tracking Segments will require
design. ROW impacts to be
evaluated. Will discuss with
Caltrain. Additional costs,
impacts and ROW needs
4 Tracking Segments will require
design. ROW impacts to be
evaluated. Will discuss with
Caltrain. Additional costs,
impacts and ROW needs
Will provide in next phase of
design
Roadway Will discussThe wall construction will require the reconstruction extension
of the bike lane. Need to extend the pink construction limit1
2
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/11/2023 1
1
Horizontal
Alignment
ROW and
FeasibilityProposed retaining walls not within 4‐track section must be
outside of Caltrain ROW Edgar Torres 10/23/2023
4 Tracking Design and Cost
None at this
Cut retaining wall to accommodate transition between 2‐track
and 4‐track
Section here is requested to show: 1, Relationship of
depressed Meadow Rd, retaining walls, and Caltrain ROW
3
4
1
1
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
1
1 Graphics time
ROW, Design,
Cost and
Feasibility
Property
Acquisition
Maps
Please increase the bridge width to provide access road for
maintenance and Emergency vehicles.
Additional costs/redesign,Bridge width
5
6
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
1
1
There are few full acquisitions
and few partial takes. See the
fact sheets for more info
There are ROW constraints. The
speeds may be lowered.
Clarification
Roadway
Is this property a full acquisition?
please check the deflection angle. Recommend extending the
transition length to reduce the angle and provide adequate
driver reaction for a sudden shift in lane direction.
Move exit taper further north to provide sufficient
deceleration distance. (see comments on stop Bar turning
traffic gap on the right)
Will considerAdditional changes will require
ROW, Costs and redesign71Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023 1
Will review and adjust in next
phase.Roadway
Graphics
Will consider
8
9
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/11/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
3
3
Please provide to sections for Alma before and after Meadow
Dr.
Will provide in next phase of
design
None at this
time
Please check if you need a short wall on this side of the return.
according to the profile we have almost 4‐5 ft difference in
elevation. Please display stationing on the horizontal plan
layout to check against the proposed profile elevation
Please show CL stationing to correlate with the provided
profile stationing.
?? Consultant to verify Roadway
Graphics
Will consider
10
11
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
3
3
Will provide in next phase of
design
None at this
time
Meadow Rd Grade Separation Stud 26 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 47 Packet Pg. 50 of 107
Comm
ent
No. Label Comments
Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
The stop bar for the turning traffic is within the taper exit
deceleration segment of the ramp. Recommend moving the
taper further north and extending the tangent segment of the
ramp to properly provide adequate deceleration and storage
before coming to a full stop. The current ramp configuration
does not meet driver expectancy and does not provide the
driver with sufficient distance to react when the signal is red
for turning traffic from the grocery outlet supermarket.
Please check if a short wall is needed on this side of the bike
trail.
The gap provided does not provide sufficient weave distance
for Meadow ramp traffic to merge with Alma main line traffic,
similar conflicting with Alma traffic trying to exist for the right
turn/full stop auxiliary lane to the Grocery Outlet supermarket
and local apartment complex.
#8 Roadway Will consider
12
13
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
3
3 #10
#7
Roadway
Roadway
Will consider
ROW and
Feasibility
14 1 Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023 3
Recommend providing turning median lane under the bridges
to maintain free flow traffic lane. Additional space for turning
lane can be obtained by reducing the shoulder width and bike
lane shoulder width shown in red.
Similar comments as above regarding curved bridges
constructability
Curved bridge design and Handrail are complex, costly and
hard to construct. recommend linear cantilever chord
segments
ROW constraints. Bike
lane/shoulder needs vs traffic
ROW and
FeasibilityRoadway
15
16
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
3
3
Will review during next phase of
design Structures
Structures
Will consider
Will consider#16
17
18
1
1
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
3
3
Will review for ROW impacts
and adjust if feasible during
next phase of design
Provide a minimum 2ft shy distance to the barrier and crash
cushion for recovery especially when the lane is 11ft wide.
Roadway Will consider
Will discuss. profile designed for
comfort and not for sag curve.
ROW impacts, cost, project foot
print etc. in consideration
Roadway
Profile
ROW and
Feasibility
19
20
21
2
2
2
K Value 13.6 below 10 MPH design speed Zouheir Farah 9/19/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/19/2023
1
1
1
bridge can be replaced with Jack and Bore Box. reduce impact
to Caltrain operations and remove the need to build a shoofly
with OCS relocation twice.
Box Jacking vs Shoofly
discussion
Construction Jack Boxing and
technology Shoofly
Design, ROW,
Cost and
Feasibility
print, ROW impact and project
costs. Will need to discuss and
Vertical
ClearanceMin vertical clearance requirement is 16'‐6" across ROW Edgar Torres 10/23/2023
Meadow Rd Grade Separation Stud 27 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 48 Packet Pg. 51 of 107
Comm
ent
No. Label Comments
Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
Author Date
One of the ped crossing will
need low clearance. Otherwise
the entire profile will need to be
lowered causing extreme
impacts
Meets
minimum
HDM/AASHTO
standards
Vertical
Clearance
22
23
24
2
2
2
Clearance is low. Recommend providing 10ft clearance.Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/19/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/19/2023
1
2
2
None at this
time
ROW and
Feasibility
Will revise ‐ Consultant Graphics
Roadway
please indicate location of section even if typical
recommend extending the profile limits to reduce the 12%
slope. same on the opposite side.#19
recommend increasing the lane width to 12 ft and reducing
the shoulder to accommodate the double strip width at the
center line.
ROW impacts to be evaluated.
Will discuss. Additional costs,
impacts and ROW needs
Roadway Will consider
25
26
27
28
2
2
2
2
Zouheir Farah 10/11/2023 2
2
2
2
ROW and
Feasibility
ROW and
Feasibility
ROW and
Feasibility
#19
#19
#19
Roadway
Roadway
Roadway
Steep grade limited options for design flexibility
Steep grade limited options for design flexibility
steep grade recommend reducing to 9% or 7%
Edgar Torres
Edgar Torres
10/23/2023
10/23/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Will provide in next phase of
design
None at this
timePlease include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at
Meadow Dr: Alma St STA XXX+XX = Meadow Dr STA XXX+XX Edgar Torres
Graphics
Bridge width
Roadway
29
30
31
2
3
3
10/23/2023 3
1
3
ROW, Design,
Cost and
Feasibility
please increase the bridge width to provide access for
Maintenance and emergency vehicles.
#5
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Will need to review for ROW
impacts and can be adjusted if
feasible in next phase
Recommend providing a minimum 2ft space next to the
barrier. similar to opposite side.
Will consider
Will considerReduce the fence length since we do not have a pedestrian
access in that area, to provide a clear sight distance for traffic
on Alma St merging with ascending traffic from meadow
Will revise and adjust in next
phase Roadway
32 3 Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023 3
Please check horizontal stopping sight distance for turning
traffic into the ramp if based on free flow design speed
Recommend providing a 10ft wide turning lane in the median
to reduce risk of accidents.
?? Where comment Clarification
Roadway
33
34
4
7
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
3
3
ROW and
Feasibility
ROW, Design,
Cost and
Bike lane/shoulder vs traffic lane
#5Please provide additional bridge width to accommodate
access to maintenance and emergency vehicles.
Bridge width
35 8 Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023 1 Feasibility
Meadow Rd Grade Separation Stud 28 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 49 Packet Pg. 52 of 107
Comm
ent Potential
ImpactsPage Caltrain Comment
Category
Initial Review Category
No. Label Comments
if this turning movement includes bikes. please improve right
36
Author Date
No Bike lanes on Alma.Roadway
Roadway
Will discuss8shldr width at Alma exit ramp Zouheir Farah 9/19/2023
Zouheir Farah 9/19/2023
3
3
Will review and adjust in next
phase.Will consider378Extend barrier to close gap
Will review and revise in next
phasethe lane shift deflection angle is steep and exceed 8 degree for
30 MPH. recommend extending the widening further north
Please provide additional 2 ft width next to the barrier and
crash cushion.
Roadway
Roadway
Roadway
Will consider
Will consider
38
39
8
8
Zouheir Farah 9/19/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
3
3 #31
ROW and
FeasibilityThe drop lane configuration not adequate to provide a merge
distance into main traffic lane. see comments in plan view.
Curved bridge design and Handrail are complex, costly and
hard to construct. recommend linear cantilever chord
ROW and physical constraints
40
41
8 Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
Zouheir Farah 10/27/2023
3
3
Will review and revise in next
phase Structures Will consider
10 segments
Meadow Rd Grade Separation Stud 29 of 29
Item 1
Attachment B - Caltrain Comments
and Response Tracking
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 50 Packet Pg. 53 of 107
Plan & Profile
Churchill Underpass
Churchill Ave Aerial View (Plan)
Alma St (Profile)
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning
Detail A
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:
Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
35 mph design speedChurchill Underpass Concept (Price) at Alma St
M
e
lvill
e
A
ve
K
e
llo
g
g
A
ve
C
h
u
rch
ill
A
ve
C
o
le
rid
g
e
A
ve
Alma St
Paly Rd
Mariposa Ave
Castilleja Ave100 ft500 ft
See Detail A on this sheet
0.0%
0.0%
-7.0%
+6.5%
Original Ground
Profile Grade
Roadway
60
50
40
30
20
60
50
40
30
20
202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00 208+00 209+00 210+00 211+00 212+00
330' VC
300' VC
305' VC
Total Length = 1,000 ft
Ave
Kellogg
Ave
Churchill
Ave
Coleridge
R=5'R=5'
32'
9'
9'
12'
Tunnel below
Please provide profile for
pedestrian crossing
ramps
Curved bridges are not
recommended as they
are complicated to
design and expansive
to build. Recommend a
curve-linear bridge
beam with curved slab.
recommend
increasing the
acceleration lane to
provide adequate
sight distance for the
driver to find a gap
after reaching the end
of K rail and reach the
required speed while
ascending a 7%
grade
a Physical K rail barrier
separation will be required to
prevent last minute errant car
from entering the opposite lane
if driver encounter difficulties
entering the through lane.
Extend bridge width
to Caltrain ROW. this
additional width is
needed to provide
access to Caltrain
Maintenance and
emergency vehicles.
best if 27ft width from
cl track can be
reached.
This wall is
encroaching into
Caltrain ROW. Adjust
wall location to be
outside of Caltrain
ROW. There is
adequate sight
distance for turning
traffic at the
signalized
intersection.
Increase radii of curb
return to match northwest
curb return.
Excessive shoulder
width. any reason?
this might encourage
driver to use as a
passing lane.
Adjust barrier end
treatment (i.e., crash
cushion) away from
intersection to allow
for design vehicle
(e.g., WB-50) turn
radius.
Recommend to
increasing the
shoulder width on the
frontage road lane
side to 2ft - 4 ft to
provide recovery
distance near the
crash cushion and
concrete barrier.
Recommend
switching the wide
shoulder to the right
side near the 2
traveling lanes to
improve the sight
distance at the
Churchill intersection
and build a taper
deceleration lane
without encroaching
into the Caltrain
ROW.
recommend building
the signal foundation
integral within the wall
structure, to eliminate
shoulder reduction.
Provide a min of 2' to
3' ft offset from
concrete barrier and
crash cushion for safe
recovery.
Adjust wall/foundation
design and location to
not encroach into
Caltrain ROW.
Adjust wall/foundation
design and location to
not encroach into
Caltrain ROW.
show major
stationing text on
the aerial to
coordinate with the
shown Profile
the driver do not
have clear sight to
the main line traffic
at this point due to
grade ascending
and conc barrier.
this will impact the
driver decision in
finding a gap
merge right with
the mainline traffic
Please show
design speed and
K value
accordingly
please note
reconstruction of
the parking apron
might be
necessary to many
of the home to
meet the widening
grade.
please show
horizental
stationing to match
profile grade
location
adjust graphics,
showing the box
dashed at that
location since
since it is below
ground and
covered with Pink
color per typical
section.
Section here is requested to show:
1. Vertical clearance under track
2. Relationship of depressed Alma St,
retaining walls, and Caltrain ROW.
Section here is
requested to
show:
1. Relationship
of depressed
Alma St,
retaining walls,
and Caltrain
ROW.
Please provide
proposed profile for
pedestrian crossing
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Churchill Ave at Alma
St:
Churchill Ave STA XXX+XX = Alma St STA XXX+XX
Active transportation facilities should
be placed outside of Caltrain ROW.
If not, subject to JPB Board
approval.
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
Cut retaining walls to
accommodate
transition between
2-track and 4-track
to be placed outside
of Caltrain ROW and
easements
3
3
3 1 1
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 51 Packet Pg. 54 of 107
Profile & Typical Sections
Churchill Underpass
Churchill Ave (Profile)
Alma St (North of Churchill Ave)
Typical Section
Churchill Ave Underpass
Typical Section
Kellogg Ave
Typical Section
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Original Ground = Existing Top of Rail
CL
Churchill Ave
20' - 0" *
11'11'10'16'
centerline of Churchill Ave
*Dimension shown at
8'
WB Lane
Turn Lane
EB Left
Turn Lane
EB RightShld Shld
12% max grade (25 mph)Churchill Underpass Concept (Price)
10'
NB Alma St
NB LaneSB LaneSB Lane
12'
13'
NB Lane NB Lane
10'
10'8'
Shld
R/W
Caltrain
4'
12'
9'9'
PL
Prop
PL
Exist
Sidewalk
5'
Landscape
Track
MT-2
Track
MT-1
R/W
Caltrain
14' +/-
Ped/Bike Path
Southbound
Ped/Bike Path
Northbound
Ped/Bike Path
2-Way
To Be Reconstructed
Existing Bleachers
12'
LANE
RAMP
Ped/Bike
FL
FL
16'
Sidewalk
16'
LANE Sidewalk
PL PL
4'±4'±2'-6"2'-6"
60'
MT2
M
in
V
e
rt C
lr
15
' - 6
"
Profile Grade
Roadway
Total length = 425 ft
Castilleja Ave
Paly Rd/
Alma St
NB
60
50
40
30
20
99+00 100+00
60
50
40
30
20
105+00104+00101+00 102+00 103+00
0%
-11%
+2%
Ground
Original MT1
Ped/Bike Bridge
St
Alma
RR Bridge
Please confirm that
we are looking north
recommend
additional shy
distance/offset
min 3' next to
the conc barrier
to provide a
recovery at the
nose area and
crash coushion.
Please number
all sections and
show
approximate
locations on the
plans. this will
help in matching
the provided
section
information with
the horizontal
layout
Provide 16.5 ft
Clearance under all
bridges. 2023
Caltrain standard
Please correct
the lane width
from 16' to 14'.
should not
include the
gutter as a
traveling lane
adjust S/W width to
reflect 3.5'remianing
width. reduce the
outer buffer to 2'- 6"
width to Zero. The
min S/W width is 5 ft
increase to 6ft when
adjacent to the curb
and without a green
buffer area.
A bridge construction
will have major
impact to caltrain
operations.
recommend a large
box jacking approach
that will eliminate the
need for a Shoofly,
fiber, signal and OCS
relocation
need to revise
the Wall type to
L shape wall,
soldier pile or
secant piles to
avoid
encroachment
into Caltrain row
during the
construction of
the cantilever
wall base as
shown.
Cantilever wall
and base
foundation need to
be outside Caltrain
ROW.
What is the reason for
having such a large
shldr, future lane?
can it be reduced.
Please clarify if
all pedestrian
structure are
constructed
within an
easment or it is
a row
encrochement.
Recommend changing this
structure from Bridge to Jack
and Bore tunnel Box. as
indicated in other comments
regarding the elimination of
shoofly construction.
recommend
extending box to
Caltrain ROW to
include the pedestrian
crossing. this can be
a major saving in
construction cost and
schedule.
recommned using a
mountable curb to
increase the width of
the road for passing a
stalled vehicle. see
asshto requirement
21 ft
This is a steep
grade dropping 20
ft in 300 ft length
with a k = 4 < K =
19 for 20 MPH
design . see fig
201.5 in Caltrans
2020 design
manual
show existing
OCS poles on
both sides of the
track. this
comment is
applicable to all
track sections.
please clarify if
this also is a U
wall construction?
Recommend
increasing the lane
width to 11ft min.
not safe especially
when wide
vehicles are
occupying the
lane.
similar
recommend
increasing the lane
width to 11 ft by
reducing theshldr
width
Recommend
additional 2 ft near
the Conc Barrier
wall for safe
recovery in case
the car get near
the edge of the
lane.
Please confirm no change in track profile
is required for this option
W
h
a
t
i
s
t
h
e
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
?
Please note where these sections are and the direction
we are looking in the plan view.
What is the dimension?
Min vertical clearance
requirement is 16'-6" across the
ROW
Caltrain
R/W
What is this
dimension?
Elevation for top
of retaining wall
should match
elevation for top
of rail
Caltrain
R/W
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at Churchill
Ave:
Alma St STA XXX+XX = Churchill Ave STA XXX+XX
Steep grade limited options
for design flexibility
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
11
1
1
3
1
3
1 3
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
Provide Dimension
to the entire typical
section
1
3
1
3
2
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 52 Packet Pg. 55 of 107
Option 1
Plan & Cross Sections
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Undercrossing at Churchill Avenue
Churchill Avenue (Plan)
CL
Alma St
Mariposa Ave
C
h
u
rch
ill
A
ve
Section A-A Section B-B
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND
Stairway
Undercrossing Structure
Sidewalk Modifications
Roadway Modifications
Landscaping
Ramp
Right-of-Way
Fence
Alma St
A A
B
B
relocate ped
ramps outside
Caltrain ROW
Relocate Ped ramps
outside Caltrain ROW
Extend Jack
and Bore Ped
Tunnel to meet
Caltrain ROW
on both ends.
relocate Stairs
outside Caltrain ROW
increase tunnel width
to reach Caltrain
ROW.
Transition
between 2-track
and 4-track. No
adjustments
1
Please provide
Clearnace below
Caltrain Track
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 53 Packet Pg. 56 of 107
Option 1
3D Renderings
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Undercrossing at Churchill Avenue
Alma Street - Looking North
Pedestrian/Bike Ramp - Looking NorthPedestrian Plaza - Looking North
Alma Street - Looking Southwest Alma Street - Looking Northwest
Alma Street - Looking Southeast
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 54 Packet Pg. 57 of 107
Please see plans
view for shoulder
swapping/increase
comments
Please remove the
encroachment on
Caltrain ROW.
construct the
signal base
integral within the
wall structure to
eliminate
encrochement into
the shoulder.
1
1
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 55 Packet Pg. 58 of 107
Signal foundation can
be integrated in the
wall structure to
eliminate
encroachment into
the shoulder
Adjust
wall/foundation
design and location to
be outside of the
Caltrain ROW. Please
verify the sight
triangle. Based on the
concept, the sight
triangle is too large
for the turning left
distance in a
signalized controlled
movement (see
AASHTO Case D).
additional width
needed to provide
access for
maintenance and
emergency vehicles.
extend barrier an
additional 20 ft to
prevent driver from
accessing Alma St
Recommend
providing a
minimum 2ft - 3 ft
recovery shoulder
for when
approaching the
crash cushion and
safer distance
near the barrier.
1
3
1
3
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 56 Packet Pg. 59 of 107
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 57 Packet Pg. 60 of 107
see previous
comment
regarding Signal
foundation. can be
integral into the
wall to avoid shldr
encroachment.3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 58 Packet Pg. 61 of 107
Recommend extending the
acceleration/merge distance to
allow driver to reach the desired
speed and see a gap in traffic
from the incoming right lane
before merging. Left entrance is
not favorable and would need
additional safety features.
Recommend
placing a median
separator to avoid
last minute
intrusion into the
opposite lane
when the merging
driver attempts to
avoid a collision if
they are unable to
find a gap in traffic
to merge.
3
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 59 Packet Pg. 62 of 107
With the steep
grade, the main
line traffic on the
right is not visible
to the driver until
they reach the
gore area.
Recommend
increasing the
acceleration lane
ahead.
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 60 Packet Pg. 63 of 107
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 61 Packet Pg. 64 of 107
same comments
as before. driver
visibility to
opposite traffic
and ascending
grade require
longer
acceleration lane
before merging
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 62 Packet Pg. 65 of 107
bridge can be
replaced with a
jacking Box to
avoid the
construction of
Shoofly and
relocation of OCS.
integrate the
signal foundation
into the wall to
avoid reduction in
shoulder width at
this critical
intersection
location.
3
1 3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 63 Packet Pg. 66 of 107
additional bridge
width is required to
provide access to
maintenance and
emergency
vehicles
Adjust
wall/foundation
design and
location to be
outside of the
Caltrain ROW.
Additional width is
not needed for
turning lane sight
distance.
recommend an
Auxiliary taper
deceleration turn
lane to avoid a
sudden stop by
turning drivers in a
steep ascending
main line grade.
high risk for
accident
1
1
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 64 Packet Pg. 67 of 107
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 65 Packet Pg. 68 of 107
extra wide
shoulder, any
reason?
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 66 Packet Pg. 69 of 107
increase shy
distance to the
barrier to 2ft - 3 ft .
Handrail not
needed.
3
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 67 Packet Pg. 70 of 107
Option 2
Plan & Cross Sections
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Undercrossing at Churchill Avenue
Churchill Avenue (Plan)
A
lm
a
S
t
M
a
rip
o
sa
A
ve
Churchill Ave
Section B-BSection A-A
A
CL
Alma St
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND
Stairway
Undercrossing Structure
Sidewalk Modifications
Roadway Modifications
Landscaping
Ramp
Right-of-Way
Fence
A
B
B
show lane width
and shoulder
dimensions.
Transition
between 2-track
and 4-track. No
adjustments to
alternative.
1
2
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 68 Packet Pg. 71 of 107
Option 2
3D Renderings
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Undercrossing at Churchill Avenue
Churchill Avenue - Looking West
Churchill Avenue - Looking West Churchill Avenue - Looking Northwest Churchill Avenue - Looking East
Churchill Avenue - Looking Northeast Churchill Avenue - Looking East
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 69 Packet Pg. 72 of 107
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 70 Packet Pg. 73 of 107
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 71 Packet Pg. 74 of 107
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 72 Packet Pg. 75 of 107
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 73 Packet Pg. 76 of 107
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
E
L
V
E
R
A
N
O
A
V
E
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
Alma St
Park Blvd
Park Blvd
EMERSON ST
A
D
O
B
E
C
R
E
E
K
M
E
A
D
O
W
D
R
L
ID
E
R
O
D
R
T
E
N
N
N
E
S
E
E
L
N
F
E
R
N
E
A
V
E
LUNDY LANE
G
R
E
E
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
W
A
Y
FERNE CT
BEN LOMOND DR
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 100 200
0
20
40
60
0
20
40
60
80
1
4
.
0
'
1
4
.
0
'
B
A
R
R
O
N
C
R
E
E
K
MEADOW DR CHARLESTON RD
Meadow Drive & Charleston Road - Plan and Profile - Hybrid
C
u
r
t
n
e
r
A
v
e
V
e
n
t
u
r
a
A
v
e
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
NOVEMBER 08, 2018
6
.
0
'
6
.
0
'
Profile
Hybrid Track
Landmark
Creek
Right Of Way
Caltrain
Ground Level
Existing
Groundwater
Bridge
LEGEND:
Limits Of Roadway
120+00 125+00 130+00 135+00 140+00 145+00 150+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
f
t
)
AERIAL VIEW (PLAN)
ELEVATION VIEW (PROFILE)
Track (Shoofly)
Temporary
Track
New Permanent
Lowering
Robles Park
Outlet
Grocery
Church
Methodist
United
St Andrew's
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek
0.3%
1.0%
1.0%
TEMPORARY TRACKSCALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (EAST)
CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (WEST)
ELEV. 50.2
TOP OF RAIL
ELEV. 53.8
TOP OF RAIL
ROADWAY
ROADWAY
(TYP)
EMBANKMENT
RETAINED
HYBRID PROFILE
UNDERPASS
BRIDGE
UNDERPASS
BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN
CONSTRUCTION
ENDNEW TRACKS
LIMITS OF ROADWAY
LOWERING
LIMITS OF ROADWAY
LOWERING PALO ALTO
CITY LIMIT
1% grade is the
current maximum
without variance
but will soon be
2%. Grades
between 1% and
2% will require
review and
approval by the
Director of
Engineering.
Provide 16.5
vertical clearance
for vehicular traffic
under the bridge
similar comment.
Provide 16.5 ft
clearnace for
vehicular traffic
under the bridge.
Show required box
culvert or bridge
structure over
Barron Creek.
show proposed
box culvert or
Bridge overthe
Adobe creek.
Adjust the Begin
Construction limit
to this location on
the plans.
modify begin
construction to
end of track
transition
Pleas indicate the
end of
construction at this
locationPlease show the
alignment
stationing to
coordinate the
hight location with
the Profile shown
below.
Please modify the
end of
construction to
new location
shown in other
comment. similar
to other side label
as begin track shift
Provide additional
width on the
bridge to
accommodate
access road for
maintenance and
emergency
vehicles.
Please clarify if
the shoofly
shown in plans
is constructed
outside Caltrain
ROW? if so
indicate
required
construction
easement.
Recommend including a
Phasing plan in the design of the
walls to accommodate the
trailing end of the 4 Tracks
typical section and transition
design package centered at
California Station. Please
coordinate with Caltrain Planing
department on the final
configuration.
show bridge or
culvert that span
almost the entire
100 ft wide
corridor
construct a bridge
or culvert to span
both the temp
shoofly track and
the permanent
elevated structure.
Provide typical
section with
dimensions
showing the track
encroachment into
Alma st row and
any temporary wall
or structure
needed to
accommodate
grading.
Hybrid alternative will
need to be further
evaluated to consider the
impacts to the railroad
and other utilies. Need to
understand cost and
service implications,
such as the construction
of an electrified
Shoofly that will need a
two time relocation of
OCS poles, cables,
signals and fiber
adjacent to a regular
Caltrain operations
Fill retaining walls to
accommodate 4-track and
transition between 2-track and
4-track
Transition
between 2-track
and 4-track
Alternative to accommodate
4-track and transition between
2-track and 4-track Note design speed is
110 mph for passenger
rail
Transition segment
should be tangent as
special trackwork should
stay outside of the
vertical curves Maximum rail profile grade is currently 1%, higher than
1% requires a variance (as a last resort)—maximum will
be updated to 2%, grades above 1% subject to review
and approval from Director of Engineering
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
This location is
more indicative of
full typical section
implementation
out of the
transition zone.
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 74 Packet Pg. 77 of 107
Alma St
60
50
40
30
20
12+00 13+00
50
40
30
20
10
12+00 13+00
0.0%-0.5%-1.0%
Meadow Dr
Total length = 680 ft
1.5%1.0%
0.5%0.0%
21+0020+0019+0018+0017+0016+0015+0014+00
14+00
0.0%
-5.0%
0.3%
M
in V
ert C
lr
15
'-6"
Total length = 460 ft
17+0016+0015+00 18+00 19+00
0.0%
Alma St
20+00 21+00
22+00
Design Speed = 35 MPH for Alma St
Design Speed = 25 MPH for W Meadow Dr
NOTE:
23+00
10
20
30
40
50
22+00
20
30
40
50
60
Original Ground
Original Ground
Plan & Profile
Meadow / Charleston Hybrid
Roadway Profile Grade
Roadway Profile Grade
Meadow Dr Aerial View (Plan)
Railroad Bridge Structure
Meadow Dr (Profile)
Alma St (Profile)
E
le
v
a
ti
o
n
(f
t)
E
le
v
a
ti
o
n
(f
t)
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND:
Retaining Wall
Limits of Roadway Modifications
Direction of Traffic
Permanent Track Alignment
Caltrain Right-of-Way
Driveway Modification
Bridge Structure
Sidewalk Modification
To San Francisco
To San Jose
W
M
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
Park BlvdPark Blvd
E
M
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
Caltrain Right-of-Way (East)
Caltrain Right-of-Way (West)
Palo Alto
The hybrid
approach has a
great impact to
Caltrain
operations.
affecting the
access to the
track during
maintenace and
emergency
situation.
Provide typical
section for Caltrain
section.
width not sufficient
for maintenance
vehicle Access
Adjust
wall/foundation
design and
location to follow
Caltrain ROW and
provide room for
landscaping.
provide additional
width on the
bridge to
accommodate a
maintenance and
emergency
vehicle access
Min vertical clearance
requirement is 16'-6" across
ROW
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at Meadow
Dr:
Alma St STA XXX+XX = Meadow Dr STA XXX+XX
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Meadow Dr at Alma
St:
Meadow Dr STA XXX+XX = Alma St STA XXX+XX
Caltrain
R/W
Caltrain
R/W
3
3
2
1
1
11
1
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 75 Packet Pg. 78 of 107
Alma St
60
50
40
30
20
14+00 15+00
0.0%
Total length = 460 ft
M
in
V
e
rt C
lr
15
'-6
"
-5.0%
16+00 17+00 18+00
0.3%
Alma St
19+00
0.0%
20+00 21+00
20
30
40
50
60 60
50
40
30
20
13+00 14+00
0.0%
15+00
-0.5%-1.0%1.5%1.0%
0.5%0.0%
21+0020+0019+0018+0017+0016+00 22+00
20
30
40
50
60
Total length = 680 ft
Charleston Rd
Original Ground
Design Speed = 35 MPH for Alma St
Design Speed = 25 MPH for Charleston Rd
NOTE:
Ground
Original
Plan & Profile
Meadow / Charleston Hybrid
Roadway Profile Grade
Roadway Profile Grade
Charleston Rd Aerial View (Plan)
Railroad Bridge Structure
Charleston Rd (Profile)Alma St (Profile)
E
le
v
a
ti
o
n
(f
t)
E
le
v
a
ti
o
n
(f
t)
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND:
Retaining Wall
Limits of Roadway Modifications
Direction of Traffic
Permanent Track Alignment
Caltrain Right-of-Way
Driveway Modification
Bridge Structure
Sidewalk Modification
To San Jose
Park Blvd
Park Blvd
W
C
h
a
rle
sto
n
R
d
E
C
h
a
rle
sto
n
R
d
E
ly P
lLindero D
r
To San Francisco
Caltrain Right-of-Way (East)
Caltrain Right-of-Way (West)
Palo Alto
Provide minimum
16.5ft clearance
across Caltrain
ROW.
Recommend
maintaining the left
lane as a through
lane and drop the
right lane instead
especially when
having a sudden
stop for driveway
connections.
Please display
horizontal
geometry
stationing to match
the profile grade
and stations.
Please provide
additional width to
the bridge for
maintenance and
emergency vehicle
access.
Caltrain
R/W
Caltrain
R/W
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at Charleston
Rd:
Alma St STA XXX+XX = Charleston Rd STA XXX+XX
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Charleston Rd at Alma
St:
Charleston Rd STA XXX+XX = Alma St STA XXX+XX3 3
3
3
1
1
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 76 Packet Pg. 79 of 107
(Roadway Partially Lowered, Railroad Partially Elevated)
Charleston Intersection
Ground Level View
(Between Meadow and Charleston)
Example Sections - Hybrid - Looking North
Meadow Drive Intersection
Proposed Hybrid Solution Overview - Looking South West
Typical Property West of Tracks
Backyard View - Looking East
Hybrid
Railroad Grade Separation Sections and Renderings
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Need to maintain
access road along
the corridor to
provide access
road for
maintenance and
emergency
vehicles
provide additional
width between
MSE wall and
shoofly Track
Center line a min
20 ft for MSE
construction
during an
electrified service
operation
The horizontal
layout of the
shoofly on the
aerial shows that
the track footprint
encroaches into
Alma Street.
Please verify.
Please label the
track CL offset to
ROW fence
Please provide
wall to wall
dimension label for
section.
use single OCS
pole system in the
median. cantilever
pole near the wall
will need a special
foundation
interfering with the
MSE wall straps
and sleeping slab
for the Noise wall.
Consider replacing
the MSE wall with
an earth slope.
This approach will
require to a build a
temporary wire
mesh wall then
backfill the dirt to
meet a 3:1 slope
and space for a
maintenance road.
Please show noise
wall to scale to the
wood fence below.
Typical section
shows 6ft sound
wall.
similar comments
the noise wall
height is not to
scale.
General note: Indicate vertical
elevation distances from top of rail.
Caltrain
R/W
Caltrain
R/W
10' min for maintenance access between
face of retaining walls/barriers and adjacent
obstruction/roadway
Confirm proximity of OCS
and centerline of tracks
Place permanent to
enable maintenance and
maximize utility of ROW
10' to maximize
utility of ROW
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
3 1
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 77 Packet Pg. 80 of 107
42nd Avenue, San Mateo
(Roadway Partially Lowered, Railroad Partially Elevated)
Holly Street, San Carlos
San Bruno Avenue, San Bruno
Brittan Avenue, San Carlos
Hybrid
Railroad Grade Separation Examples
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 78 Packet Pg. 81 of 107
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
E
L
V
E
R
A
N
O
A
V
E
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
Alma St
Park Blvd
Park Blvd
EMERSON ST
M
E
A
D
O
W
D
R
L
ID
E
R
O
D
R
T
E
N
N
N
E
S
E
E
L
N
F
E
R
N
E
A
V
E
LUNDY LANE
G
R
E
E
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
W
A
Y
FERNE CT
BEN LOMOND DR
LEGEND:
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 100 200
CHARLESTON RD
Landmark
Creek
Right Of Way
Caltrain
Ground Level
Existing
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
C
u
r
t
n
e
r
A
v
e
V
e
n
t
u
r
a
A
v
e
B
A
R
R
O
N
C
R
E
E
K
A
D
O
B
E
C
R
E
E
K
2
0
.
5
'
MEADOW DR
2
0
.
5
'
0
20
40
60
80
MEADOW DR
0
20
40
60
80
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
f
t
)
120+00 125+00 130+00 135+00 140+00 145+00 150+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00 175+00 180+00115+00110+00105+00
Tracks
Existing
Profile
Viaduct Track
AERIAL VIEW (PLAN)
ELEVATION VIEW (PROFILE)
Bridge
Track
New Permanent
Groundwater
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road - Plan and Profile - Viaduct
Outlet
Grocery
Robles Park
0.086%
Barron Creek
0.3%
-1.4%
Adobe Creek
-0.031%1.0%
CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (WEST)
CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (EAST)
DURING CONSTRUCTIONCONSTRUCTION
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
END
ELEV 61.80
TOP OF RAIL
ELEV 55.45
TOP OF RAIL
EXISTING TRACKS
TO REMAIN OPERATIONAL
AND REMOVED AT END
OF CONSTRUCTION
ROADWAY
ROADWAY
VIADUCT PROFILE
TRACKS ON VIADUCT
PROPOSED NEW
APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION
Church
Methodist
United
St Andrew's
CITY LIMIT
PALO ALTO
1% grade is the
current maximum
without variance
but will soon be
2%. Grades
between 1% and
2% will require
review and
approval by the
Director of
Engineering.
This portion of the
Transition to the
Viaduct will be
impacted by the 4
tracking study that
center on
California Station.
(Please coordinate
with Caltrain
Planning
department on this
issue)
increase clearance
to 24 FT to
accommodate
16.5 roadway
clearance.
The walls location
and construction
will need to
aligned with the
future 4 tracking
typical section.
Existing box
culvert will need to
be replaced. The
original structure
was not designed
to handle the
additional 10ft of
soil load and the
MSE wall.
Existing box
culvert will need to
be replaced. The
original structure
was not designed
to handle the
additional 10ft of
soil load and the
MSE wall.
Please provide
16.5 ft roadway
clearance under
the structure.total
clearance
package: 16.5ft +
5 ft structural
depth+2.5ft track=
24 ft
Please confirm
that the viaduct
footprint is
constructed
outside Caltrain
ROW.
Fill retaining wall to
accommodate 4-track and
transition between 2-track and
4-track
Alternative to accommodate
4-track and transition
between 2-track and 4-track
Transition segment should be
tangent as special trackwork
should stay outside of the vertical
curves
Maximum rail profile grade is currently 1%, higher than
1% requires a variance (as a last resort)—maximum will
be updated to 2%, grades above 1% subject to review
and approval from Director of Engineering
Note design speed is 110
mph for passenger rail
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 79 Packet Pg. 82 of 107
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Elevated)
Walnut Creek BART Station
Viaduct
Railroad Grade Separation Examples
BART Viaduct, El Cerrito, CA BART Viaduct at distance, El Cerrito, CA
Link Light Rail, East Marginal Way, Seattle, WA
nice light rail
example. in our
case the Pier and
Girder sections will
be heavier and
deeper to carry the
heavy rail and
UPRR load.
1
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 80 Packet Pg. 83 of 107
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Elevated)
(Typical Between Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd)
Example Section - Viaduct - Looking North
(Typical End Sections)
Example Section - Retained Fill - Looking North
(Typical Between Meadow Dr and Charleston Rd)
Track Level View - Looking North
Typical Property West of Tracks
Backyard View - Looking East
Meadow Drive Intersection
Proposed Viaduct Solution Overview - Looking South West
Charleston Road Intersection
Ground Level View - Looking South West
Viaduct
Railroad Grade Separation Sections & Renderings
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Label width of
structure min 47'
having the pole in
the middle of the
bridge this will
require more
clearance
requirement.
22 CL to CL track
+25 outer buffer
with walkway.
we understand it is
just a structural
bridge concept.
we recommend
using Two
pre-cast post
tensioned girder
tubs. the cast in
place box girder
shown will be
difficult to
construct. since
the form work and
scaffolding will
interfere with the
nearby
electrification
infrastructure in
the shoofly.
extend OCS
foundation to
connect with
bridge Pier.
Draw sound wall
height proportional
to the scale or
adjust wall height
to reflect the
correct 8 Foot max
height of the MSE
below. Now the
sound wall
measure about 3 ft
tall
Max height of wall
should be 15ft. At
the abutment, the
pre-cast tub
girders are 4ft-5ft
deep plus 2.5ft for
track. This would
leave 8.5 ft for
maintenance and
landscaping
access.
20' Max need to
be increased to
include 16.5
clearance +6.5'
Girder depth
and track. = 23-
24 Max
label all sections
dimensions and
not to scale (NTS)
Direct fixation is
good for transit
service, but not
adequate when we
share the corridor
with Heavy axle
freight load
Please label
typical section
dimensions.
indicate existing
fence to be
removed after
constructing MSE
wall. most of it will
be destroyed
during
construction block
maintenance
access.
Please show curb
or fence location
with dimensions
tothe bridge Pier.
OCS height varies
more than 3 ft
depending on the
location and power
connection
Please label
horizontal
dimensions for the
entire section
including
clearance from
Track CL to the
MSE
Evaluate
horizontal clear
zone requirement
maybe a conc
barrier wall is
necessary to
protect the
Caltrain Pier.
recommend
installing the
signal on the
bridge girder
instead of having a
hazardous Signal
pole in the middle
of the intersection.
Caltrain to
evaluate if signals
can be mounted to
bridge structure.
Agreement would
need to be
developed. it will
be safer
installation and
more visible for
traffic
Same comments
regarding the
Sound wall height.
not displayed as 6
ft tall. or this is
caused by the
perspective view
distortion? Please
check.
The plans shows
part of the viaduct
constructed
outside Caltrain
ROW. Please
confirm
Please show the
Caltrain/Alma
ROW Limit. in
addition to the
encroachment as
shown on plans.
General note: Indicate
vertical elevation distances
from top of rail.
Elevation at top of retaining
wall should match elevation
at top of rail.
10' to maximize utility of
ROW 10' to maximize utility of
ROW
10' min for maintenance access between face of
retaining walls/barriers and adjacent
obstruction/roadway
16.5' min from
roadway to soffit
Confirm proximity
of OCS and
centerline of tracks
Confirm proximity of
OCS and centerline
of tracks
Place permanent to
enable maintenance and
maximize utility of ROW
Place permanent to
enable maintenance and
maximize utility of ROW
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
3
31
3
1
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 81 Packet Pg. 84 of 107
Meadow Drive Aerial View (Plan)
Meadow Underpass
Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning Study
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning
Alma St
Park BlvdPark Blvd
Emerson St
E
M
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
2nd St
100 ft500 ft
See note
See note
NOTE:
beacons, to be considered in future phases.
traffic signals and rectangular rapid flashing
Additional features at crosswalks, such as HAWK
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:
Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
Move exit taper
further north to
provide sufficient
deceleration
distance. (see
comments on stop
Bar turning traffic
gap on the right)
Curved bridge
design and
Handrail are
complex, costly
and hard to
construct.
recommend linear
cantilever chord
segments
The stop bar for the turning traffic is within the
taper exit deceleration segment of the ramp.
Recommend moving the taper further north and
extending the tangent segment of the ramp to
properly provide adequate deceleration and
storage before coming to a full stop. The current
ramp configuration does not meet driver
expectancy and does not provide the driver with
sufficient distance to react when the signal is red
for turning traffic from the grocery outlet
supermarket.
The gap provided does not
provide sufficient weave
distance for Meadow ramp
traffic to merge with Alma
main line traffic, similar
conflicting with Alma traffic
trying to exist for the right
turn/full stop auxiliary lane
to the Grocery Outlet
supermarket and local
apartment complex.
Similar comments
as above
regarding curved
bridges
constructibility
Please increase
the bridge width to
provide access
road for
maintenance and
Emergency
vehicles.
please check the
deflection angle.
Recommend
extending the
transition length to
reduce the angle
and provide
adequate driver
reaction for a
sudden shift in
lane direction.
The wall
construction will
require the
reconstruction
extension of the
bike lane.need to
extend the pink
construction limit
Is this property a
full acquisition?
Please check if
you need a short
wall on this side of
the return.
according to the
profile we have
almost 4-5 ft
difference in
elevation. Please
display stationing
on the horizontal
plan layout to
check against the
proposed profile
elevation
Please check if a
short wall is
needed on this
side of the bike
trail.
Please show CL
stationing to
correlate with the
provided profile
stationing.
Provide a
minimum 2ft shy
distance to the
barrier and crash
cushion for
recovery
especially when
the lane is 11ft
wide.
Recommend
providing turning
median lane under
the bridges to
maintain free flow
traffic lane.
Additional space
for turning lane
can be obtained by
reducing the
shoulder width and
bike lane shoulder
width shown in
red.
Cut retaining wall to accommodate
transition between 2-track and 4-track
Section here is requested to show:
1, Relationship of depressed
Meadow Rd, retaining walls, and
Caltrain ROW
Proposed retaining walls not
within 4-track section must
be outside of Caltrain ROW
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
Please provide to
sections for Alam
before and after
Meadow Dr.
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 82 Packet Pg. 85 of 107
Profiles & Typical Section
Meadow Dr Underpass
Meadow Dr Underpass
Typical Section
Meadow Dr Profile
Ped/Bike Profile from Park Blvd to Emerson St
(North Side of Meadow Dr)
Park Blvd Profile
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
11'
EB Lane
8'11'
WB Lane
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
Shld
8'
Shld
20'
2-Way Ped/Bike Path
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
58' ±
Meadow Dr (East of Alma St)
Typical Section - Modification of Meadow/Roundabout Concept
12'
Ped/Bike Path
101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
0Ped/Bike Path from Park Blvd to Emerson St
Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
200+00 201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
North Side
Side Street Profile from Park Blvd to Meadow
Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
20
30
40
50
60
400+00 401+00
20
30
40
50
60
Alma St
MT2
MT1
-0.5%
Total Length = 710 ft
St
Emerson
Original Ground
195' VC
296' VC
190' VC
1
5
' - 6
"
-12%+10%
-1%
1
5
' - 6
"
1
5
' - 6
"
1
5
' - 6
"
Blvd
Park
Profile Grade
Bridge
Ped/Bike
Bridge
Ped/Bike
MT1
MT2
100' VC
50' VC
Original Ground
8' - 0
"
10
' - 0
"
0%
-1%
-5%
+5%
St
Emerson
Profile Grade
Blvd
Park
St
AlmaBridge
Ped/Bike
10
' - 0
"
Bridge
Ped/Bike
11
' - 0
"
50' VC
35' VC
Ground
Original
0%
+8%
-2%
Grade
Profile
Dr
Meadow
bridge can be
replaced with Jack
and Bore Box.
reduce impact to
Caltrain operations
and remove the
need to build a
shoofly with OCS
relocation twice.
K Value 13.6
below 10 MPH
design speed
steep grade
recommend
reducing to 9% or
7%
please indicate
location of section
even if typical
recommend
increasing the lane
width to 12 ft and
reducing the
shoulder to
accommodate the
double strip width
at the center line.
recommend
extending the
profile limits to
reduce the 12%
slope. same on
the opposite side.
Clearance is low.
Recommend
providing 10ft
clearance.
Min vertical clearance
requirement is 16'-6"
across ROW
Caltrain
R/W Caltrain
R/W
Caltrain
R/W
Caltrain
R/W
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at Meadow
Dr:
Alma St STA XXX+XX = Meadow Dr STA XXX+XX
Steep grade limited
options for design
flexibility
Steep grade limited options
for design flexibility 2
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 83 Packet Pg. 86 of 107
Recommend
providing a
minimum 2ft space
next to the barrier.
similar to opposite
side.
please increase
the bridge width to
provide access for
Maintenance and
emergency
vehicles.1
3
Reduce the fence
length since we do
not have a
pedestrian access
in that area, to
provide a clear
sight distance for
traffic on Alma St
merging with
ascending traffic
from meadow
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 84 Packet Pg. 87 of 107
Please check
horizontal
stopping sight
distance for
turning traffic into
the ramp if based
on free flow design
speed
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 85 Packet Pg. 88 of 107
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 86 Packet Pg. 89 of 107
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 87 Packet Pg. 90 of 107
Recommend
providing a 10ft
wide turning lane
in the median to
reduce risk of
accidents.3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 88 Packet Pg. 91 of 107
Extend barrier to
close gap
if this turning
movement
includes bikes.
please improve
right shldr width at
Alma exit ramp
The drop lane
configuration not
adequate to
provide a merge
distance into main
traffic lane. see
comments in plan
view.the lane shift
deflection angle is
steep and exceed
8 degree for 30
MPH. recommend
extending the
widening further
north
Please provide
additional 2 ft
width next to the
barrier and crash
cushion.
Please provide
additional bridge
width to
accommodate
access to
maintenance and
emergency
vehicles.
3
1
3
3
3
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 89 Packet Pg. 92 of 107
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 90 Packet Pg. 93 of 107
Curved bridge
design and
Handrail are
complex, costly
and hard to
construct.
recommend linear
cantilever chord
segments
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 91 Packet Pg. 94 of 107
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:
Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
Planting Area
A
do
b
e C
r
Charleston Road Aerial View (Plan)
Charleston Underpass
Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning Study
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning
0 ft 175 ft87.5
Park Blvd
Alma St
Alma St
Park Blvd
W
C
h
a
rle
sto
n
R
d
E
ly P
l
G
re
e
n
m
e
a
d
o
w
W
a
y
E
C
harleston
R
d
Mumford Pl
Wright Pl
Ruthelma Ave
Carlson Ct
Section here is requested to show:
1, Relationship of depressed Charleston
Rd, retaining walls, and Caltrain ROW
Please label the
roundabout radius to
confirm if large
enough for trailer
trucks. Additional
inside shoulders help
achieve the desired
turning radius for
larger vehicles.
increase bridge width
to provide access for
Maintenance and
emergency vehicles.
Curved bridges
and rail are
costly to design
and build.
Recommend
curved linear
beam solution
with a curved
wider bridge
slab.
Will the concept
require full
acquisition of
property due to
concept impacting
property structure?
Recommend
increasing the lane
transition length to
reduce the sudden
12ft lane shift using
reverse curvature.
improve driver
expectation with a
sudden shift.
increase width of
bridge to 25 ft
from Track CL
on both bridge
sides for
maintenance
and emergency
access
Please explain the
additional width
under the bridge.
is it for turning
auxiliary lane or
for future roadway
widening.
Combine bridge to
reduce foundation
cost by not building
two abutments.
Combine bridge to
reduce foundation
cost by not
building two
abutments.
Replace bridge
structure with Box
jacking to avoid
constructing
shoofly and OCS
relocation
Identify full
property
acquisitions due to
roundabout.
It is possible to
adjust stop bar
location closer to
the bridge. since
cross walk not
provided and will
reduce left turn
traveled distance.
Increase ramp
width to provide
space to pass a
stalled vehicle. the
travel lane is
constrained by
walls on both
sides. Refer to
Caltrans and
AASHTO
standards for
minimum ramp
widths.
Check ramp width
in constrained
areas if sufficient
pavement width is
provided to pass a
stalled vehicle.
show ramp and
mainline stationing
to associate profile
location and
grades.
Identify full
property
acquisitions due to
roundabout.
is this property full
acquisition?
Will the
concept require
full acquisition
of property due
to impacting
property
structure?
need to provide
additional shldr
width for recovery
space on both
sides of the walls..
Based on the
provided profile,
additional wall will
be longer then
what is shown.
Please update to
display stationing
for confirmation.
extend full width
Shldr to the end of
construction. do
not recommend
tapering
emergency shldr
Confirm the intent
of the roadway
modification here.
Is it being
proposed to make
Ely Ply a one-way
street or restricting
the turning
movement onto
Ely Pl from Alma
St? Please provide
traffic directions
and labels to
clarify.
we can use
circular ramp
access to reduce
impact on
properties.
Looking at the aerial photo the traffic volume
back up to make right turn into Charleston is
large filling two auxiliary right turn lanes.
Please explain how this right turn traffic
volume is accommodated in the new grade
crossing configuration. Incase needed, a right
turn single lane ramp with walls on both sides
can be constructed with minor extension of the
ped and Charleston bridge to Caltrain ROW.
The turning movement into Charleston will be
controlled by a right turn signal. Please note
that additional width to Caltrain bridge is
needed to accommodate the Maintenance and
Emergency vehicle access across Charleston.
Do we need a right
turning movement.
see comments on
the plans.
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
2
2 3
3
1
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 92 Packet Pg. 95 of 107
Profiles & Typical Section
Charleston Underpass
Park Blvd Profile (North Side)
Charleston Rd Profile
Ped/Bike Profile from Park Blvd to Wright Pl
EB Charleston Rd to SB Alma St
Ramp Profile
Typical Section - Charleston Rd Underpass PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 109+00
Charleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
Ramp Profile from Charleston to Alma
Charleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
Ped/Bike Path from Park Blvd to Mumford
Charleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
-5%
+4%
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
300+00 301+00 302+00 303+00 304+00 305+00 306+00 307+00299+00298+00
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
Park Blvd Profile
Charleston Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
-9%+12%
20
30
40
50
60
20
30
40
50
60
201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00
Ramp Profile from Charleston to AlmaCharleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
200+00 201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
11'
EB Lane
12'
EB Lane
8'
5'
Sidewalk
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
11'
WB Lane
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
Shld
8'
Shld
14'
WB Lane
20'
2-Way Ped/Bike Path
~12'
Typical Section - Charleston Rd (East of Alma St - Looking East)
Alma St
MT2 MT1
Grade Separation Structure
Park Blvd
Wright Pl
Bridge
Ped/Bike
186' VC
296' VC
190' VC
1
5
'-6
"
1
5
'-6
"-12%
+10
%
-1%
-1%
Original Ground
Profile Grade
1
6
'-3
"
MT2
MT1
Alma St
Wright Pl
50' VC
1
0
'-0
"
150' VC 1
0
'-0
"
-1%
Profile Grade
Original Ground
Blvd
Park
Road Profile
Governed by
-1%
-1%
70' VC
70' VC
20' VC
Profile Grade
Original Ground
Charleston Rd
-2%
55' VC
+9%
425' VC
0%
Profile Grade
Original Ground
All vertical clearnaces
need to be 16.5 ft per
caltrain new standard.
14 ft wide ramp with
barrier on both sides
do not provide
adequate width for
passing a stalled
vehicle. refer to
Caltrans and
AASHTO standards
for min ramps width.
grade extremely
steep descending
25 ft in 350 ft at
12%. the current K
for sight distance =
13.6 below K = 19
for 20MPH see
Caltrans fig 201.5
2020 design
manual
It's not clear the
location of this
profile low point.
please show
stationing on
plans.
U Tub structure
not required.
recommend to
convert this wall to
MSE wall. same
note on the other
wall
This wall can be
converted to MSE
wall since
excavation is
required. this
option would be
more economical
No need to build a
U tube walls.
replace with
cantilever or
soldier pile wall.
combine bridges
to reduce the cost
of dual abutment
please show
Design speed and
K values.
Bridge should
match the rail
elevation since we
are not lowering
the rail profile
unless a box
tunnel is being
proposed.
Clearance varies.
please clarify if
these structures
are BOX Tunnels
or bridges
Caltrain
R/W
Caltrain
R/W
Caltrain
R/W Caltrain
R/W
Please include equation of alignment stationing for Alma St at Charleston
Rd:
Alma St STA XXX+XX = Charleston Rd STA XXX+XX
Steep grade limited options for
design flexibility
2
3
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
Steep grade limited options
for design flexibility.
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 93 Packet Pg. 96 of 107
Recommend
removing fence as
it obstructs drivers
from seeing the
merging traffic.
Fence is
unnecessary as
there are no
sidewalks or
pedestrian
facilities in the
vicinity. In case,
fence is preferred
by the City,
recommend
reducing the
height to provide
better sight
distance to drivers.
Fencing not
necessary if
pedestrian
facilities are not
located near the
concrete traffic
barrier
3
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 94 Packet Pg. 97 of 107
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 95 Packet Pg. 98 of 107
Please provide
additional shldr
width on both
sides of the
ramps. for safe
recovery near the
barrier. Similar to
other comments
need to comply
with ramp width
requirement to
pass a Stalled
vehicle.
Fencing not
required same
comments as
before. no
pedestrian
facilities near conc
Barrier. in addition
it reduce the driver
sight distance
until pass the gore
area. in case still
need to install,
recommend
shortening the
length based on
height, providing
better sight
distance to the
drivers.
Fencing not
required. no
pedestrian
facilities near conc
Barrier
3
3
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 96 Packet Pg. 99 of 107
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 97 Packet Pg. 100 of 107
Combine bridge to
reduce foundation
cost by not
building two
abutments.
Combine bridge to
reduce foundation
cost by not
building two
abutments.
32
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 98 Packet Pg. 101 of 107
Curved bridges
and handrail are
costly due to
design complexity
and cost to
construct
Increase width of
bridge to 25 ft from
Track CL on both
bridge sides for
maintenance and
emergency
access.1
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 99 Packet Pg. 102 of 107
Recommend
combining bridge
over Charleston
and pedestrian
bridge into a two
span bridge to
reduce foundation
costs by removing
need for two
abutments.
Ramp width not
sufficient to pass a
stalled vehicle.
See other
comments.
1
3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 100 Packet Pg. 103 of 107
Please explain the
need for additional
widening width
under Caltrain
bridge. is this for
future lane?
please clarify2
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 101 Packet Pg. 104 of 107
Increase bridge
width as per
previous note.
Increase bridge
width to provide
sight distance for
turning vehicles
left, in addition to
having the conc
barrier obstructing
the driver sight for
for approaching
biker on the right
intersecting with
the ascending
ramp.
Recommend
combining both
bridge over
Charleston and
Pedestrian in a
two span bridge or
box to reduce
foundation
redundancy cost
building two
abutments.
Both bridge can be
replaced with Two
boxes similar to
the crossing under
the rail. no need
for Shoofly and
relocation of OCS
to build the
bridges
Ramp width not
sufficient to pass a
stalled vehicle.see
other comments
3
1
3
3
2
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 102 Packet Pg. 105 of 107
Recommend
increasing the
ramp width to pass
a stalled vehicle.
similar to the other
ascending
opposite ramp. 3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 103 Packet Pg. 106 of 107
Recommend
increasing the
shoulder width or
shy distance near
the crash cushion
to allow for safe
recovery. 3
Item 1
Attachment C - Conceptual Plans
with Caltrain Comments for all
Alternatives
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 104 Packet Pg. 107 of 107