News

Committee recommends no stakeholder group in rail redesign

City staff directed to look at other options for public input

Palo Alto could move ahead with plans to transform its rail corridor without a formal community stakeholder group to provide feedback on the project if the City Council approves its Rail Committee's recommendation, which runs counter to what the city's Planning and Transportation Commission supported last week.

The council Rail Committee unanimously agreed on Wednesday that it would be better to rely largely on community workshops, focus groups and other methods to gather public feedback as it considers alternatives for separating the railroad tracks from local streets at the city's four rail crossings. The committee directed staff to explore developing subcommittees and expanding the Technical Advisory Committee as ways to add community representatives to the group of experts typically called on to answer technical questions and present its recommendations to the council.

The city could have 200 people involved in a more hands-on way over the next eight months rather than a single committee with 10 people on it, committee members said as they discussed various ways the city could effectively include the community in project discussions without slowing down the process.

The decision to omit a community stakeholder group from the process came after a vigorous debate at the Aug. 9 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on whether the process should prominently feature a formal stakeholder group of residents and experts. The commission supported a new stakeholder group by a 4-2 vote, saying the group would be in sync with the city's Context Sensitive Solution (CSS) process, which places a premium on continuous stakeholder involvement for major projects.

Creating a stakeholder group, however, would have added months to a process already facing a tight deadline.

Santa Clara County voters approved Measure B last fall, which allocates $700 million for grade separations in north county, which includes Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority plans to come up with an implementation plan next year to determine how the money would be doled out over the 30-year life of the tax measure.

Palo Alto Chief Transportation Official Joshuah Mello said to stay on equal footing with Mountain View and Sunnyvale, Palo Alto needs to be prepared to propose its grade-separation plans to the VTA by March.

"We are currently on schedule if we continue along the path we're on," Mello said. "Each decision takes around two months and that's being somewhat ambitious. If we were to have a stakeholder group, we're estimating it would add another two weeks -- potentially four weeks -- to the process every time you want to make a decision. That doesn't sound like a lot, but cumulatively, when you make multiple decisions in the process, we could be adding months to the decision-making process."

Members of the Rail Committee, which includes councilmen Eric Filseth, Adrian Fine, Tom DuBois and Mayor Greg Scharff, agreed that expanding the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to include community members wouldn't create delays and would be in sync with the CSS process.

"Having these additional viewpoints, isn't going to add any more time, and we're going to get much richer recommendations on what the community is willing to accept," DuBois said. "I think the TAC should be more CSS, and not purely engineering-type decisions, but engineering with some community context."

Committee and staff also recognized that expanding the TAC to include community members could have negative impacts. TAC is typically used on an as-needed basis when the city needs technical advice from experts, such as Caltrain and the High-Speed Rail Authority, and meetings are not generally public. This could change under the committee's proposal.

"Tying everything all together is risky," City Manager James Keene said."There are lots of important conversations that have to take place with other peer agencies. Some may benefit from being open in public, but some may be debilitated by that. I guarantee that if every conversation we had on the San Francisquito Creek was public, we still wouldn't have some things done because we have to be able to get together with some other jurisdictions at times with some big arguments without it all being out there.

"I guarantee you a lot of other agencies outside of us aren't going to want to go to a meeting with us with our citizens ... nothing against them," Keene added. "Then, they're going to say, 'Wait, I guess we should bring our citizens, too' and all of a sudden you have a whole different meeting. We just have to remember that other agencies and jurisdictions see the world differently than we do."

The council is scheduled to consider the rail redesign process on Monday, Aug. 28.

---

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

Editors note: The third to last graph in the story incorrectly identified a committee member. It has been corrected.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

11 people like this
Posted by Elizabeth
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 17, 2017 at 10:44 am

I pray that this doesn't include blocking off some of the rail crossings!

I've noticed lately that it can take as many as four or more traffic lights to get from El Camino to Alma with the current configurations at East Meadow and Churchill.

Choosing to block off some of the current passages to save money is likely to cause hideous backups on the remaining crossings with likely gridlock on El Camino and Alma as a result of cars lining up to make that short transit.

Please tell me some of the people making these decisions actually drive these streets at various times of the day and feel the pain!


3 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 17, 2017 at 11:12 am

Online Name is a registered user.

@Elizabeth. good question. I've been pondering whether they're masochists, sadists or just hold stock in high blood pressure medical companies because of all the agita they inflict on the rest of us.


11 people like this
Posted by Chris
a resident of University South
on Aug 17, 2017 at 11:39 am

Glad they jettisoned the stakeholder idea.
Stakeholder is a synonym for obstructionist.

The question is whether all these people who complain about shutting down the crossings are willing to raise their taxes to pay for an underpass. A lot of people like to talk big but don't back up their statements with the cash.


11 people like this
Posted by Marie
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 17, 2017 at 11:48 am

Marie is a registered user.

What is the point of community input if they don't have the information to give rational responses? Without costs, a wishlist is just that - and will be ignored. The approach suggested will cost lots of money and yet not provide meaningful input. The first meeting ended with priorities that were a joke, like better bike connections. That is a nice to have. The critical goal is to eliminate grade crossings. We need to know if trenching the train, clearly the choice of almost everyone, has any possibility. We need to know how much it would cost to trench it and how much property would need to be taken. We need to same information for any solution. My suspicion is that after all the meetings, the city will come back with a solution no one will like and say there is no choice. Unless citizens can have input at the beginning and be able to see cost benefit analyses, input is a waste of time and money.

My cynical forecast is that nothing will be done as Caltrain has made it clear they will only consider solutions that require no change in the railbed which essentially requires an overcrossing, and seizing many houses. The number of properties to be seized would depend on whether the design includes connecting Alma to the crossings, which would require a cloverleaf and lots of land. Instead, we will be left with the Caltrain solution of quad gates, which stay closed much longer than current gates, and a much reduced ability to cross the tracks during commute hours.

If the city council had prioritized this issue three years ago, and worked with nearby cities to come up with a trench solution, there was a chance. I don't think there is any time left now. Once again, the city's decisions will be determined by what few options are still available.


1 person likes this
Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 17, 2017 at 1:05 pm

I am basically a bystander in this because the only times I cross the tracks is when I go out for breakfast at one of the restaurants on El Camino. The Charleston crossing is the one I use. I'm retired so don't know much about the backups commuters and parents driving kids to school are faced with. I visit California Ave fairly regularly but I use Oregon Expressway off the Alma exit for those trips.

So, I will only opine, with no skin in the game.

"The City could have 200 people involved in a more hands-on way over the next eight months rather than a single committee with 10 people on it,..." My question is about the 10 people idea. Who would they be? How would they be selected? Where would they be getting their input for making this important decision?

The expanded group idea: That is certainly attractive from the standpoint of getting more 'hands on' input from people that face the daily challenges of crossing the tracks. So, they provide data...and presumably a consensus answer to the solution. Then what? Filseth said it best in describing the difficulty in getting all agencies involved, up and down the Peninsula, to meet and come to some mutual agreement on solving the problem. Then the subject of cost and funding each of the solutions comes up. Another bump in the road. And who knows how the VTA funds will be distributed to the many communities in need of those dollars that were approved last fall.

And if Marie is right..."My cynical forecast is that nothing will be done as Caltrain has made it clear they will only consider solutions that require no change in the railbed which essentially requires an overcrossing, and seizing many houses", then where does that leave us? Another question I have is...does Caltrain really have the final say in all this? If the answer is 'yes' then our citizens could be wasting a lot of time in debating the issue.

Thank you, Rail Committee members, for your unanimous vote to try to bring it back down to your constituents so their voices could be heard.


6 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 17, 2017 at 1:06 pm

Whereas elimination of a stakeholder group is a good idea, it is important to me that those who make the decisions on this have to be local enough to use those crossings on a daily basis. Having a child in high school who needs to cross the tracks or goes to Paly with a classroom backing up on the tracks, or living near the tracks, or being someone who crosses the tracks by car, bike or foot on a regular basis should be a requirement for anyone making decisions.


4 people like this
Posted by Leslie
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 17, 2017 at 1:29 pm

"We need to know how much it would cost to trench it and how much property would need to be taken."

The engineering study is on line, complete with cost estimates as of 2014. All you have to do is read it.

Where do we get the notion that Caltrain doesn't want the tracks moved? Have they declared this formally or is it merely an urban myth promulgated by people opposed to the idea? They have elevated the tracks in other cities so why not Palo Alto?


2 people like this
Posted by Joe
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 17, 2017 at 2:43 pm

I've always had a problem with the idea of "stakeholders" .. people who somehow have more importance, or more insight, than the public at large.


4 people like this
Posted by Old Steve
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Aug 17, 2017 at 2:46 pm

If PA's request to the VTA has to be ready by March, and Caltrain is already in the beginnings of construction on Electrification, then whatever moves the railbed up or down will need to have a local funding component, both for the end result, and for the headaches of Caltrain stage construction. The current raised railbeds in San Mateo County are jointly funded projects with many funding sources, many years of development, and significant disruption during construction. Having a citizen's committee discuss all of those aspects, particularly in Palo Alto, would likely add a year before design and construction could really get underway. In discretionary transportation funding, local money really talks!


5 people like this
Posted by jean
a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Aug 17, 2017 at 2:46 pm

In Belmont or San Carlos, I cant remember which, they did both, elevate the track and lowered the road. It took forever, but the result is very nice. Go take a look. The Embarcadero is lowered under Alma and the tracks.
At Meadow Charleston and Churchill, the 3 crossings a lot of time would be saved for commuters and maybe lives saved.if the road is lowered. it would not stop the train noise for neighbors. But the electrification would be quieter. I would vote for lowering the roads. Then of course the drainage would need a fix.


7 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 17, 2017 at 3:49 pm

"I've always had a problem with the idea of "stakeholders" .. people who somehow have more importance, or more insight, than the public at large."

And more spare time.

But not to worry. City hall knows what it wants, and anything different the stakeholders might come up with will be ignored. So skip the stakeholders, avoid the charade, and save time.


4 people like this
Posted by We need Vision
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 17, 2017 at 4:30 pm

Whatever we decide to do with the train that decision will be with us for probably another 100 years. So we need some Vision and leadership.

I would hope that most people see that trenching the train saves us from giant earthen berms that would continue to divide the city. The trench will allow more connectivity along the train route.

Looking at the 2014 consultant report - the cost to trench is not much more than a berm and no property has to be taken. I'm guessing that once you take into account the properties that have to be acquired to make the berm (which doesn't seem to be part of the estimate) the cost of berm vs. trench will be about the same.

The other visionary result from a trench is that a city long bike/pedestrian path could be created along the train route. Before trenching we would need guarantees that nothing will be built on top of the trench - to save that corridor for future transportation options.

The one problem that I see is that it doesn't appear that even with measure A funding there will be enough money to deal with more than a couple of crossings. I'm guessing that we may have to do the trenching in stages as money becomes available.

I'm not a technical expert on train track construction, but it seems that starting with the Charleston and Meadow crossings would be the simplest and once they are trenched we could work our way north as money permits. Also that is the fairest since there are more crossings currently at the north end of town.

Again, I think the important point is that we need to have a Vision for what this rail corridor will look like and how it will fit in with Palo Alto for the next century. I see a bike/pedestrian path the length of the city that has been reclaimed from the at grade train with the electric trains zipping along in a trench nearby. And I see a city that has reclaimed connectivity from one side of the track to the other. I hope it can happen.


2 people like this
Posted by Old Steve
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Aug 17, 2017 at 5:04 pm

Vision is nice, but trenching Caltrain through Palo Alto a mile at a time is nuts! We either raise local money to save private homes and contribute to the cost of a trenched Caltrain Right of Way from Oregon to San Antonio, or VTA and Caltrain will seek approval beyond the City's jurisdiction to build what they deem most cost effective. All of the staging for multiple trench phases would add to the overall costs "bigly"!


4 people like this
Posted by Leslie
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 17, 2017 at 6:12 pm

A 2% trench has already been studied and is in the engineering study. Going North, it would begin just north of San Antonio Road, go under Charleston and Meadow, under Adobe, Barron and Matadero creeks and come back up to grade around Fry's Electronics where the trains would continue at grade as they do now, all the way to the city limit at S.F. creek. There would be no city-long bike path.

The engineers who came up with this plan wisely recognized that Oregon, Embarcadero and University are already grade separated. It would require massive, mega-expensive reconstruction of those crossings to continue the trench from Oregon all the way to the city limit at S.F. creek.

Vision is all well and fine but these things don't happen simply by envisioning them. There are 1,001 technical, economic,geological and political considerations involved. It becomes very complex very quickly. In addition, the right-of-way itself is not owned by CPA but by Caltrain (PCJPB). That affects any vision to build a bike path or develop the ROW.

You really need to read the engineering study.


Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 17, 2017 at 6:57 pm

"Going North, it would begin just north of San Antonio Road..."

Great. Where does it begin for trains going south?


"the right-of-way itself is not owned by CPA but by Caltrain (PCJPB). That affects any vision to build a bike path or develop the ROW."

Including any notion to dig the dirt out from under Caltrain's rails. You'll need permission.

In any case, that's a lot of work and expense to drop the trains under only two crossings and raise them back to the surface again. Not to mention the expense of pumping out water and the cost of not pumping out water some dark and stormy night, plus accommodating any subsurface toxic plumes that happen along.

Seems like we should also cut through a few more crossings over the ditch if we're going to spend all this money. Get more crossings in that stretch for our bucks.

Overall, it would be much cheaper and more efficient to just close those two crossings, and build housing on the road stubs that remain.


2 people like this
Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 17, 2017 at 7:18 pm

Annette is a registered user.

Interesting turn of events. CC takes this up on Aug 28, so August is gone. Not much gets done between Thanksgiving and Christmas, and it sounds like we need to have our plan ready for VTA's consideration in March. So, there's effectively 5 months to get our plan written. Per Mello, each decision takes 2 months. We're in trouble if the plan requires more than 2 consecutive decisions. I know we are process heavy in this town, but I have to believe there's been some progress that has not been reported; sure hope so. But if there hasn't been, the wrong people are in charge.

Data point: in 1981 the cost to trench the Metro Rail Project in LA was $8,500 PER INCH.

As big a number as $700M is, it may not be big enough; especially with multiple cities wanting a share.


3 people like this
Posted by South Palo Alto needs voice
a resident of Gunn High School
on Aug 17, 2017 at 8:02 pm

@ Curmudgeon

I frequently see you commenting about people proposing solution for other people's part of town that they wouldn't tolerate for their own part of town. Clearly you don't venture out of Downtown North often enough.

The train crossings at Charleston, Meadow and Churchill are vitally needed. BOTH of our town's high schools are located on the West side of the tracks while the majority of students live on the East side of the tracks.

We need to have rail crossings in South Palo Alto.


Like this comment
Posted by Raul Hightower
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Aug 17, 2017 at 8:20 pm

Raise the rail and sail on under with your Ubers and Teslas. Tax the adjacent dot com multi-millionaire neighborhoods progressively.


Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 17, 2017 at 10:48 pm

"I frequently see you commenting about people proposing solution for other people's part of town that they wouldn't tolerate for their own part of town. Clearly you don't venture out of Downtown North often enough."

OK, maybe you haven't read all my posts on this topic from its several threads. I propose closing ALL grade crossings, including the beloved crossing in my own 'hood, not because I have anything against grade crossings, but because that is the most fiscally rational option IF we insist on doing away with our grade crossings.

I have driven waysouth Alma several times a week for decades.

Remember the Silicon Valley motto: Disrupt. Adapt destinations affected by closure. The schools are easy--redraw their attendance boundaries. That would also immediately eliminate commuting student crossings of the tracks, way before any grade crossing mods are even begun. Thinking out of the communal box often yields unexpected extra communal benefits.

We in Palo Alto believe in Silicon Valley enough to practice what Silicon Valley preaches, don't we?


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 18, 2017 at 1:51 am

@Leslie, you can omit Matadero Creek from your list of what the 2% trench would go under. That solution sort of makes sense, except 50-feet clearance below Meadow Drive takes it 20-feet below sea level. Not even perpetually-pumped Oregon Expy is that deep (7 feet ABOVE sea level, by the HMM contour maps). Sinking Meadow and Charleston under the tracks could be done sequentially as funding appeared, like in different decades, and would not come near below-sea-level elevations. I'd think ground-water flow tends to be across the tracks like the creeks flow. A mile-long track trench would be quite an obstacle. Road undercrossing trenches are much more minor hydrological barriers. Churchill and north-end Alma can be treated separately and independently.


3 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 18, 2017 at 3:49 am

Curmudgeon - both high schools are west of the tracks. No amount of altering school boundaries will prevent half the high school population needing to cross the tracks.

Unless of course Cubberley is reopened, but even that would not take all the kids who lived east of the tracks. And it would not make sense for those who live right beside Paly to have to commute all the way to Cubberley.

So school kids are going to have to cross those tracks twice each day.


Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 18, 2017 at 12:28 pm

"So school kids are going to have to cross those tracks twice each day."

What about the Embarcadero Road undercrossing right there at Palo Alto High School?


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 18, 2017 at 12:58 pm

Curmudgeon, that's still crossing the tracks. Whether they go below the tracks, at grade or above the tracks, they are still crossing them.


Like this comment
Posted by Me 2
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 18, 2017 at 2:36 pm

Leslie,

This is continuation of our thread from other other story. I looked more closely at the HMM study, and actually it does address the scenario of lifting the tracks three feet and what the resulting parcel take would be. So it's not true that the study did not address a partial lifting of the tracks.

"This study also evaluated the potential of combining roadway undercrossings with a slight elevation of the rail tracks to minimize the extent of the ROW/traffic impacts along the crossing streets. For every 3’ the tracks are raised, the length of the impacted area along the cross street decreases by 40’-50’ at each end.

In the first scenario, with Alma St at existing grade, the following benefits will occur when the tracks are raised 3 feet:
• 3 parcel impacts will no longer be required at Churchill Ave
• Castilleja Ave closure will no longer be required at Churchill Ave
• 2 parcel impacts will no longer be required at Meadow Dr
• 2nd St closure will no longer be required at Meadow Dr
• 3 parcel impacts will no longer be required at Charleston Rd"

The study indicates the the challenge is simply that Alma is too close to the ROW, which is why the two approaches were to keep Alma at grade, which would require the lowering of rail crossing streets under Alma or lower Alma, which would actually cut Alma off from all streets.

Seems like the three options are:

> Lift the tracks until no parcels are taken (I'm sure this would get zero support from neighborhoods along the tracks and will be politically dead)
> Trench as much as we can. However, even the trenching proposal in the study will require the closing of Churchill and Palo Alto Ave, as the train would resurface before Oregon Expressway. (more residents would support, but we need to find the funding)
> Do nothing. Lose Measure B money. With Caltrain upping its schedule with Electrification, we will really only have three viable rail crossings - Embarcadero, Oregon Expressway and University -- all in the North. The at grade crossings will be de facto closed because trains would be crossing too often. Here comes gridlock.

Kind of a Hobsons Choice. The way we're going, we'll end up with the third.




Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 18, 2017 at 2:41 pm

"Curmudgeon, that's still crossing the tracks. Whether they go below the tracks, at grade or above the tracks, they are still crossing them."

So cross them. It's not like they're the Rubicon.

But, if you can convince the majority of your belief that crossing railroad tracks at grade and crossing railroad tracks in an undercrossing are equivalent, you can moot this whole topic and save the town a bunch of muss & money. Go for it, and godspeed.


Like this comment
Posted by Leslie
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 18, 2017 at 6:41 pm

"The study indicates the the challenge is simply that Alma is too close to the ROW, which is why the two approaches were to keep Alma at grade, which would require the lowering of rail crossing streets under Alma or lower Alma, which would actually cut Alma off from all streets.

Seems like the three options are:

> Lift the tracks until no parcels are taken (I'm sure this would get zero support from neighborhoods along the tracks and will be politically dead)
> Trench as much as we can. However, even the trenching proposal in the study will require the closing of Churchill and Palo Alto Ave, as the train would resurface before Oregon Expressway. (more residents would support, but we need to find the funding)"

Check the 2% trench solution again. The 2% trench would end south of Matadero creek and wouldn't even come close to Churchill. Churchill remains a problem case.

Leaving Churchill as is, with trains crossing every few minutes, might not be such a bad idea. Churchill is not the busiest auto thoroughfare in town. Maybe build a bike/ped underpass for Paly students.

"I have to believe there's been some progress that has not been reported; sure hope so."

Call me a pessimist but I have a feeling not, Annette. They sat on that H.M.M study for almost 3 years and did absolutely nothing with it. Now it seems like they're starting all over again from square one, as if nothing had ever been done in years past.

"But if there hasn't been, the wrong people are in charge." Ya think?

"As big a number as $700M is, it may not be big enough; especially with multiple cities wanting a share."

$700 million will pay for the first bulldozer full of dirt. Consider that the Bay Bridge went, what, 3x over budget? In addition, if the ROW is electrified first then grade separated, add the cost of electrifying the grade-separated crossings to the overall cost.


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 18, 2017 at 6:54 pm

Leslie

I will go back to a comment I have already made. When I said perhaps close Churchill, I meant of course, leave it alone. It does need to remain, but my point was meant that with the increase in train traffic, we really need to see a decrease in the amount of traffic that needs to cross the traffics at this intersection.

Therefore, I would definitely be in favor (and I'm not sure how so don't bite my head off) of finding more parking for Paly staff and students east of the tracks. Perhaps some dedicated parking with permits for Paly. With either a tunnel or pedestrian bridge, those who park east can then walk to Paly along with those bike riders and pedestrians that throng and wait to cross every commute morning (and afternoon).

This crossing is one of the most dangerous we have from the point of view of bike and pedestrian safety. There is not enough waiting space both sides when the gates come down. With more students as well as more trains, this waiting space is a crucial safety factor in my opinion.


Like this comment
Posted by Greg Bell
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 19, 2017 at 2:50 pm

Sam Trans has community involvement happening currently regarding the Dumbarton Rail Corridor project.
Here are details, including community meetings next week, August 22.


Building a network of public transportation will contribute to making the Bay Area livable again. Congestion is choking us! A complete transportation network is what we need; quickly too! It’s a fallacy to give all our hope to electric cars (EV’s) and self-driving cars. They are great (I drive and recommend EV’s), but they are only part of the answer. The answer is a robust transportation network like so many other countries have in place today.

We have the opportunity to improve another part of our transport network, the Dumbarton Bridge corridor,
And your help in needed.

Public meetings will examine opportunities to improve auto, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and other uses of the Dumbarton Bridge and Dumbarton rail bridge, including enhancements to Dumbarton Express Bus (DBX) commuter service. I appreciate your posting a supporting comment encouraging this project to completion.

Progress is encouraging.

Next meeting is Tuesday Aug 22 in Menlo Park.


Bus and rail options described:
Web Link

Post a supporting comment:
Web Link



Like this comment
Posted by Tom DuBois
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 21, 2017 at 2:12 pm

Tom DuBois is a registered user.

This article and headline are misleading. The Rail Committee did NOT recommend that be no stakeholder participation in rail design. That would be a recipe for failure.

As Chair of the Rail Committee, we passed a unanimous motion to add community members as Stakeholders to the Technical Advisory Committee. There was a lengthy discussion of the types of representatives we will add, the positives and negatives of doing so. We discussed adding neighborhood representatives, local businesses, and more Stanford representation including the Stanford Research Park, as well as PAUSD participants. We included in the motion that staff would define the roles and responsibilities of members and define subcommittees to address some of the concerns around technical discussions between rail agencies. Finally staff was interested in expanding other types of feedback so we also requested they propose focus groups in addition to the expanded TAC.

I am happy to answer any questions about the grade separation project and can be reached at tomforcouncil@gmail.com


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

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Chick-fil-A quietly starts delivering out of DoorDash kitchen in Redwood City
By Elena Kadvany | 59 comments | 9,522 views

Palo Altans and their Virtue Signaling
By Sherry Listgarten | 24 comments | 2,763 views

Differentiating Grief from Clinical Depression
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,484 views

Halloween with grandma
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 725 views

A Voter Warning from a Wise Friend
By Diana Diamond | 14 comments | 709 views