UPDATE: Transit police have cleared trains to run in both directions at maximum speed at 5:07 p.m.
A train has struck a vehicle at the East Meadow crossing in Palo Alto, according to Caltrain. The vehicle was occupied, but Caltrain is reporting that no one was injured.
The incident occurred at approximately 4:16 p.m. The car was reportedly off the tracks, but all trains were holding immediately after the collision, the rail agency is reporting.
At 4:39 p.m., Caltrain reported that the train that struck the vehicle — Northbound Train 261 — was cleared to begin moving passengers. Eight minutes later, southbound trains were cleared for movement, though at reduced speeds.
Caltrain reported that passengers from #261 will be accommodated on northbound train #263. Passengers should expect delays of about 20 minutes.
Police have closed the grade crossing at East Meadow shortly after the incident.
More information will be posted as it becomes available.
The article does not say how the car wound up in the path of the train. For some reason, that information is rarely reported.
Cars getting hit by Caltrain in Palo Alto happens way too often, in my opinion. Could this collison have been prevented by moving the stop lights at this intersection to the other side of the train tracks? Every time a crash happens, moving the stop light is brought up again. Many years ago, city engineers said that moving the stop light is feasible, but nothing ever happens.
I realize that there are tremendous NIMBY issues with creating grade separations by elevating the train tracks through the city. However, moving the stop light should have no NIMBY issues as far as I can tell.
@resident,
When the crossing guards go down, the light changes to green to let people go through, but I have seen that confuse people further back who ended up moving forward then panicking on the track and trying not to get stuck there. Something about the timing of this should be improved.
A grade separation would be great, but above ground separation really cuts a town in half.
I want to make one gentle correction. That’s a misuse of the word “NIMBY”. You should be aware of the correct use, because it’s almost like liberal kryptonite, except overusing it will destroy it’s power and already is.
A nimby is someone who is all for something as long as it doesn’t happen near them, and is especially pernicious in regards to people’s prejudices. For example, a Councilmember might be all for housing poor people but only if it is in a South Palo Alto location far from their North Palo Alto enclave. Or someone might be all for recycling but only if the messy recycling center happens in some other, usually poorer, town. That’s Nimbyism. It’s a specific kind of hypocrisy.
But being against undesirable change, or an impactful development project, or a kind of construction, for specific reasons, is not nimbyism. People can have opinions about whether any given action or project will have negative consequences or may need to be changed, without it being nimbyism. The way you tell the difference: opposition is specific, has nothing to do with a prejudice against a traditionally oppressed group, for example , and can be addressed, or opponents would have similar opposition to the problem issue or project anywhere.
For example, I don’t think overbuilding should ever be done, anywhere, where the infrastructure can’t really support the added traffic unless the City ignores the state traffic circulation provisions and all reasonable safety planning. I just think that’s a way to ruin a City and be foolish about the costs down the line, as well as foist the actual costs of development on ordinary citizens while the rich make out at public expense. People use the word “nimby” left and right over development issues to leverage its kryptonite power, when it’s a total misuse. When people wouldn’t want a kind of over development anywhere – their backyard, poor people’s backyards, anyone’s backyards – that’s just opposition to bad development or overdevelopment, it’s nothing to do with nimbyism.
When I’m against a home built behind me that was allowed to go up without applying any of the City planning requirements for privacy, and is intrusive, that’s not nimbyism even though it’s in my backyard, because I don’t think anyone anywhere should be subject to that kind of intrusion, and I think everyone, poor, in rundown homes, etc, deserves the same protections from a rich person doing whatever they want no matter the consequences or breaking of rules. Protecting quality of life, or opposing stupid or illegal or intrusive development, is not in and of itself nimbyism.
I don’t think raised grade separation is good when it bisects a small town like this. I would oppose it for the change it would make to any similar town, I think there are longterm costs that proponents don’t understand and once they realize, it’s too late. Not everyone understands how important the physical environment is. It would be one thing if it weren’t possible to trench, but it is. I think tunneling in key places is worth funding, too. Others may disagree. If I am advocating for a tunnel because it has many advantages to the environment and safety, and quality of life, are you a nimby because you oppose it? That’s the other test. If opposition is purely in order to get your way for something that is less beneficial than another option you don’t like or think is too expensive, etc, that’s not nimbyism. Nimbyism is not defined by opposition to something that is negative – ugliness, ruining the environment, stupid and shortsighted planning, ruining quality of life, etc. If the person with the more beneficial option calls you a nimby for opposing the option, and it makes no sense because the more beneficial option is maybe just a little more expensive or will require more public scrutiny, but doesn’t involve hypocrisy over traditionally discriminated groups, again, that’s not nimbyism.
When you abuse the word, you destroy its power to help the powerless who need it, and that, IMHO, is worse.
San Bruno, Belmont, & San Carlos are all small Peninsula towns with recent grade separation projects that raised the tracks over the streets. Those projects seem to be working out well enough for those folks. The cost differentials between above ground tracks and the trench are substantial. Berkley residents have been paying extra for their BART subway all these years. I have not seen or heard anyone suggest Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Mountain View offer to pay a cost increment for a potential trench, so in my book, that is NIMBY. What works for others, Not In (Your) back yard?
We must have grade separation ASAP. I got stuck on the train tracks on Charleston because a car wanted to turn left onto Park Blvd. and traffic travelling West would not let the car in so traffic backed up onto the train tracks. I could not change lanes because traffic was going by me on the right hand lane travelling West. I was stuck and ready to leap out of my car if a train came down the tracks. That’s why we need grade separation ASAP.
This is happening far too often and seems to be getting worse.
Some type of information should be released as to the causes of these accidents. Are there any common denominators in these accidents. Are they happening all in the same direction, in similar traffic conditions, etc.? Are these happening because drivers are using GPS? Are these happening to people who are unfamiliar with Caltrain? Are these accidents completely random or are there any similarities? If there are similarities then can anything be done to make these crossings safer for vehicles?
If there are similarities what is going to be done to prevent further similar accidents?
I just don’t understand how any driver drives onto the tracks before there is a clear space for them on the other side.
“We must have grade separation ASAP.”
ASAP = never. Grade separation costs much too much of the money which nobody has lying around anyway.
Getting smarter drivers is a remote possibility, but it is more practical to close those crossings during Caltrain operating hours.
If your car is on the tracks unintentionally, you should have your license revoked. I grew up in this town, before all the safety gates, etc. Pay attention to your surroundings. If you can’t keep your car off the tracks, call Uber, you’re really not fit to drive anywhere.
Maybe we should try lowering the gates 45 seconds before the train gets there rather than 30 seconds. Seems better than Curmudgeon’s solution of leaving the gates down all day. An extra 15 seconds x 92 trains would close the crossing just an extra 23 minutes per day.
Or something crazy like an automated bulldozer standing by to quickly clear the tracks of any vehicle illegally stopping on them. Followed by an expensive citation.
I guess underpasses like we have on Oregon and Embarcadero would be too much to ask. Engineers five decades ago could figure that out and get it done in a year.
If it is any consolation, we have the high speed rail boondoggle syphoning off resources and connecting two tumbleweeds together near Bakersfield. In the meantime, maybe we could get Curmudgeon to stand out by the tracks and wave a red lantern when the train is coming 😉
We had underpass cost-estimates for Charleston, Meadow, and Churchill done by Hatch Mott MacDonald in 2014. Cheapest solution came to about $100M each.
I cross the tracks twice a day for 32 years now. The problem is not the trains or the grade. It is the drivers.
I see so much bad behavior by drivers who seem to think that when the lights flash red and the gates are coming down it means they should speed up faster to beat the gates.
Then there is the inattentive drivers: Yesterday I was crossing at Charleston eastbound. A huge black SUV in front of me, driver on the phone, turned right onto tracks thinking it was the road. After they realized it, they backed up to correct (I waited while the drivers behind me laid on their horns in anger). The SUV then turned onto Central soutbound. The SUV sped up to about 55mph (Speed limit is 35 on that section of central and I was behind them). I’ve no idea who that was or where they went, but I’m sure a serious accident is in their future.
People need to slow down, pay attention and respect the laws at train crossings.
IT IS NOT A RACE !
I’m reposting my earlier comment because I think it is important.
This is happening far too often and seems to be getting worse.
Some type of information should be released as to the causes of these accidents. Are there any common denominators in these accidents. Are they happening all in the same direction, in similar traffic conditions, etc.? Are these happening because drivers are using GPS? Are these happening to people who are unfamiliar with Caltrain? Are these accidents completely random or are there any similarities? If there are similarities then can anything be done to make these crossings safer for vehicles?
If there are similarities what is going to be done to prevent further similar accidents?
@Musical
The original underpass was built for $160,000 in ten months. After adjusting for inflation it would equal roughly $1,271,560.26. Far less than $100 million!
When you receive outrageous numbers like the consulting report you should wonder who is trying to manipulate the alternatives being considered.
“If your car is on the tracks unintentionally, you should have your license revoked.”
No dice. You’d probably get killed while the cop writes the citation; maybe also the cop.
And how about the drivers who stop their cars on the tracks intentionally?
@Sanct, those cost estimates will no doubt be revisited by Council in the near future. Included were tens of millions for the eminent domain takings of at least a dozen properties at each of the underpass configurations studied. Unclear to me which properties and why. Cheapest is roadway under both Alma and the tracks together, and eliminating any pesky traffic-signals and turnoffs from or to Alma Street. Standard for underpass vertical clearance is 15.5 feet, and maximum roadway grade is 8%. At Meadow and Charleston, Park Blvd is only 150 feet from the tracks, so something must give if those Park Blvd intersections are to be retained rather than becoming dead ends. Likewise Mariposa at Churchill.
I agree that the newspaper should do a better job of reporting on what really happened. At a minimum, what direction the car was heading should be easy to figure out.
Stand on the corner of University and Emerson at 5:15 pm some weekday, and watch how many cars get caught in the middle of the intersection when the signal turns red. Clearly many drivers have conditioned themselves into occupying no-man’s land before there is room for them on the other side. That propensity does not translate well where railroad tracks are concerned.
“We had underpass cost-estimates for Charleston, Meadow, and Churchill done by Hatch Mott MacDonald in 2014. Cheapest solution came to about $100M each.”
I’ve read that study. It was poorly done and is impractical. There needs to be a study done by a better engineering firm, such as the firm that did the crossings in San Carlos. Hybrid crossings need to be considered which the H.M.M. does not do. A hybrid crossing elevates the tracks a few feet and depresses the roadway a few feet.
There isn’t a house in Palo Alto with a market value of less than $2 million, so don’t tell me the money isn’t there.
A stopgap I proposed in this space years ago is to install crossing cameras. If your car is on the tracks in violation of the California Vehicle Code, your picture gets snapped and sent to the constabulary. If found in violation, a $1,500 ticket and a moving violation on your driving record might get people’s attention. But that’s just a stopgap. Grade separation is what’s really needed.
The real tragedy is that Palo Alto city officials seem to be paralyzed on the issue of grade separation and have done nothing about it in recent years.
The firm of Hatch, Mott McDonald was involved in the bay bridge rebuild, a project notorious for going hugely over budget. Is that the firm you want doing grade separation in Palo Alto?
http://www.mottmacamericas.com/article/11562/projects/san-francisco-oakland-bay-bridge