News

Menlo Park: Two options to separate Caltrain tracks from roads move forward

Council chooses two options; an added third rail line to be studied

The Menlo Park City Council is pursuing two options to separate Menlo Park roads from the Caltrain tracks.

One option would separate Ravenswood Avenue from the tracks by tunneling the road beneath the rail line. The preliminary estimated cost of that option is between $140 million and $190 million.

The other option would elevate the Caltrain tracks at three crossings: Ravenswood, Oak Grove and Glenwood avenues. Three of the five council members – Rich Cline, Catherine Carlton and Kirsten Keith – expressed support for this option at Tuesday night's council meeting. The preliminary estimated cost of this option is between $280 million to $380 million.

A third option has been dropped. That would have separated Ravenswood and Oak Grove avenues from the Caltrain tracks at a preliminary estimated cost of between $230 million to $310 million. Councilman Peter Ohtaki said he preferred that option because it would cost less than adding Glenwood Avenue to the project.

"I think we need what we can get that has most likelihood of happening in our lifetimes," Ohtaki said, pointing out that the current administration in Washington, D.C., is not likely to offer funding support.

For the two options selected to move forward, the study will factor into the equation the possibility of an added third rail line, or "passing" track, through the city.

While Menlo Park has a policy that it does not support a third rail line, the study was funded, in large part, by a grant from the San Mateo County Transportation Authority via Measure A, a countywide half-cent sales tax. Considering a third rail track was made a condition of the grant.

There had been some ambiguity as to how far that grant requires Menlo Park to go to meet the requirement to plan for a possible third rail line. City staff consulted legal experts including Caltrain representatives, but not those from the transportation authority.

Council members Carlton, Keith and Ohtaki voted to add a potential third track on the outside of the existing tracks, likely the east side, rather than between the tracks. People would board and exit trains from a central platform between the existing two tracks, rather than having separate north- and south-bound boarding platforms, that exist now.

That would minimize the amount the rail area would have to be expanded, and would enable simpler plans if a third rail line ends up not being necessary, according to staff. That said, Menlo Park resident Steve van Pelt pointed out in a public comment that if plans for a passing track move forward, Menlo Park will have to coordinate with neighboring cities to make sure those track lines connect; the city may not have much say where the third rail goes. Councilman Rich Cline said in a message to the Almanac that he supports whatever option will fit with neighboring cities' rail lines.

Councilman Ray Mueller did not vote on either measure because he said he does not support the a third rail track through Menlo Park and wanted the council to meet in a closed session to talk about what exactly the legal requirements of the grant are with the transportation authority.

Not 'bold' enough?

Councilman Rich Cline said he has spent a lot of years on this subject, said the project isn't the far-sighted "50- to 100-year project" staff claim it is. "If we were to really consider this seriously as a 50- to 100-year project," he said, "we would be talking about tunneling right now."

"We're not being bold," he said.

Trains should go underground, not above ground, he told the council. Yet in his experience, he said, proposals to tunnel trains underground "died at the dais every single time," mostly because they're very expensive and funds are hard to come by.

"Wouldn't it be fabulous," suggested Councilwoman Carlton, "if Menlo Park were to join with neighboring cities to somehow find a way to tunnel the train beneath the road, and have a continuous bike and pedestrian path above the tracks. But she noted that her preference, of the options presented, was to study three crossing separations.

Menlo Park resident Chris Kilburn said in a public comment that he lived in Boston during its "Big Dig" project, which was under construction between 1991 and 2006. He admitted it was a pain while under construction (and cost billions and took years more than expected), but since it has opened, it has transformed and reconnected the city.

Similarly, Robert Cronin said in a public comment said that although people were inconvenienced by the construction of five grade separations in San Carlos and Belmont in years past, now, locals there say they appreciate it.

"If we don't tunnel this route - we are fools," Councilman Cline later wrote in a message to the Almanac.

Mayor Kirsten Keith said she would "love" to put the rails underground, but added: "I don't see that happening. … These are tough decisions. That's why nothing's been done for decades on this."

Quiet zone?

If the roads were no longer in conflict with the train tracks, then, theoretically, Caltrain wouldn't have to toot its horn at those crossings. That would improve quality of life for many, Bicycle Commissioner Cindy Welton said in a public comment.

That brought up the question: What about Encinal Avenue, Menlo Park's fourth rail crossing?

If it were not also separated from the tracks, then would Caltrain still have to blare at that spot, sending its reverberations through the city?

Some suggested that the crossing could be shut down, which, according to Mueller, might not be an undesirable alternative for some residents, given its likelihood to become a cut-through route with development growth nearby.

Others suggested installing a special "quad" gate at the crossing, such as what Atherton has done, which would enable Caltrain to skip the horn there. However, such gates can cost about $1 million, according to Nikki Nagaya, assistant public works director. The city might also have to take on liability if something bad were to happen on the tracks, she said.

According to Cline, the driver of the train always has the discretion and right to pull the horn – "nobody can change that," he said. "I don't think there ever is a quiet zone."

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

4 people like this
Posted by Rational
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 7, 2017 at 2:00 am

We should trench Caltrain in an open trench. Streets pass over with 5-10" of elevation gain. This will reduce visual and auditory impact of Caltrain. It will also free up real eastate by moving parking and station structures (imagine a roadside waiting room on top of the tracks with a escalator down to the platform) ...


1 person likes this
Posted by resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2017 at 8:13 am

Whatever they decide, I'm sure they will be done and dusted long before Palo Alto.

On a note on the above logical comment, where the DART in Dublin (Ireland) was trenched at the time it was built, in various areas they have just built a boardwalk (or similar)above. That has not been roadway safe, but it is pedestrian safe and is now used for cafe seating, children's play areas, planters, etc. and is a very pleasant pedestrian area.


1 person likes this
Posted by Dave Simpson
a resident of another community
on May 26, 2017 at 7:33 pm

The correct height for the railroad is whatever keeps it at the same height or as close to it as possible to the height(s) in the neighboring cities or in any unincorporated areas adjacent to Palo Alto on the right-of-way. Trenching of the railroad requires a lower level than would be needed for any roadway underpass. A so-called "hybrid" grade crossing, with an elevation of one right-of-way (the railroad is best) and depression of the other (the roadways), such as in San Carlos, is the best alternative for the Peninsula and for grade crossing treatment where crossings aren't to be closed. The position of absolute opposition to even an inch of railroad elevation is pure nonsense, as is any thought of tunneling. Trenching may be possible if the water table permits such a depth (lower than for roads, or for paved trail crossings, ideally one-lane service and emergency access roads closed to public motor vehicles with gates, but open for non-motorized use) and if the height change (rate) does not exceed maximum gradient for all trains, including freight trains. Note that additional height change for future overhead electrical infrastructure to power electric locomotives or train units is required. A valid alternative in addition to an embankment or berm with suitably chosen (and limited) crossings of the right-of-way is a fully-elevated or aerial structure, that is, a viaduct or continuous bridge, like BART's in the East Bay or Prague's New Connection viaduct, which is appropriate to the Peninsula, too, and leaves nearly all the land open for many, many more (at-grade) crossings. If trenching is viable, but there is a gradient change from the rest of the line, Palo Alto should pay for this elective or optional characteristic and should not be permitted to delay improvements because of this proper need for it to pay. As it is, the city has had decades to seek and even to design grade separations and to participate otherwise in a constructive manner, but it has refrained or refused, and now it has no business delaying overdue improvements and progress. Fewer than enough tracks also is inexcusable for all, Palo Alto included, who wrongly have opposed this.


Like this comment
Posted by One Dollar Bob
a resident of another community
on May 27, 2017 at 10:23 pm

Why can't hybrid crossings be done in Palo Alto without taking dozens and dozens of homes?


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

A new home in Redwood City for Mademoiselle Colette's croissants
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 8,240 views

Electric vs Gas Heat: Which wins?
By Sherry Listgarten | 18 comments | 3,834 views

Lights Out! Foods to Snuggle With in the Dark
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,683 views

What to do with all those cardboard boxes
By Cheryl Bac | 2 comments | 1,466 views

Some answers, please, PG&E
By Diana Diamond | 6 comments | 859 views

 

Race Results Are In

Thank you for joining us at the 35th annual Moonlight Run & Walk! All proceeds benefit the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday fund, supporting local nonprofits serving children and families.

Click for Race Results