The Seale Avenue bicycle underpass is a great idea. I hope it gets built! This will provide a much safer bicycle route to Paly!

The underpass designs for Charleston and East Meadow are a nightmare for pedestrians and bicyclists. They take people out of their way with significant elevation gains and losses that will be hard on pedestrians and people in wheelchairs. They mix all speeds of non-motorized traffic, including small children, elderly pedestrians, all speeds of bicyclists and e-bikers on narrow paths with lots of bends and poor sight lines. And since the paths are only on one side of the road, everyone traveling on the other side will have to cross at an uncontrolled crosswalk to get to the path and cross again at the other end. This idiotic plan was clearly not designed by anyone who is experienced at designing pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The consultants hired by the city for this project are completely unqualified to be designing something like this, and I am appalled that the process is going so badly. Unfortunately, the City Council members on this committee seem equally clueless about how bad the designs are despite having tons of highly negative comments from the public.

Well, Donald. I'm not sure I agree that it will be a nightmare - just a bit inconvenient to have to go slightly down hill and then back up again. But I agree that the interchanges appear to be poorly designed. I'm amazed that (according to this article) that all northbound traffic on Alma will have to turn right on Charleston, go a couple of blocks to a roundabout near Mumford, do a U-turn, return to Alma, and then turn right on Alma. I'm certain that can't be correct, but the article repeats that description a couple of times. And assuming the Meadow interchange is a twin of the Charleston interchange, will the same be true there? Yikes!

Pedestrian Underpasses are terrifying for women and children. Look At what recently happened at the the shark underpass to Cal Ave. these are terrifying options that keep many of us unable to use them. If you go this route, please do consider live cameras at all times with emergency call bottoms to police.

"Funding remains a big question mark. While the passage of Measure B in 2020 is expected to bring about $350 million to Palo Alto for construction, this is unlikely to cover grade separations at all four of the city's rail crossing."

And just today there were articles about how Newsom's new budget won't be funding transit due to the state's growing deficit and about how ridership continues to tank and how weekend service has been shut off as an example od the other anticipated service cutbacks...

A community in the long run is defined by what it accomplishes. These plans continues to evolve and improve; however, the ulitimate goal is not planning. The goal is doing.

Palo Alto and its transportation agency partners can be more open about their respective responsibilities to deliver results on credible timelines. Who can present a credible timeline for one bike underpass or one grade crossing?

Brian,
Going down and up is a minor issue for most people, but can require significant effort for a wheelchair user. Also, crossing a busy street twice at uncontrolled crosswalks is more than an inconvenience. It is downright dangerous. The viaduct option, which seems to be off the table now, is flat and can have pedestrian and bike traffic on both sides, with no crossings. Much safer and more convenient.

Any of these tunnels (or underpasses) are a nightmare for pedestrians, especially when they are called “Bike Tunnels” by the media. Pedestrians are second class citizens in this city. If you want to see for yourself, just take a look at pedestrians being run down by bike riders in the CA Ave underpass or watching pedestrians being ignored by bike riders when crossing the street in the crosswalk. The riders are supposed to dismount when encountering a pedestrian in the underpass and stop at a stop sign at an intersection… especially if there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Why is there no enforcement of the laws protecting pedestrians? If there is going to be no enforcement, how about adding the pedestrian tunnel?

Yikes. No turning on Alma from either Meadow or Charleston/Arastradero? In addition to making it difficult for neighbors to navigate our town, this would cut off commuters coming to Palo Alto to work. There are only 2 exits for commuters to come in to Palo Alto, University and Arastradero. Now we want to take that stopped morning traffic on Arastradero and force drivers to use a roundabout? Please no.

I frequent the Cal Ave underpass, have never seen a collision or rude encounter between pedestrian and cyclist. Why would we leave an irrational fear that isn't happening today slow progress? As for wheelchair access, what is preferable, crossing Alma on a timed light with rail traffic, commuter traffic, and rush hour? Or a separated tunnel?

Please don't let perfection be the enemy of progress.

The plans for the bike and pedestrian underpasses are for 20 foot wide tunnels to safely accommodate bikes and pedestrians. And their slope is planned to be gentle. The Cal Ave underpass is a very old and outdated design that is not a relevant comparison to what is being planned today.

Be easier and less destructive to the community to trench the train tracks. [Portion removed.]

All of this proposed permanent & flood-prone Rube Goldbergian bike ped-hostile underpass nonsense could be avoided with a viaduct that gets the soon-to-be far quieter electric trains completely and safely up and out of the way of surface-level human & vehicular movement and activity, creating new “activatable” and community-connecting/usable open space underneath as seen with the Ohlone Greenway between North Berkeley and El Cerrito:

Web Link

… and other modern RR viaducts as seen in the massive Melbourne (Australia) “Level Crossings” grade separation project:

Web Link
Web Link

Indeed, there is a lovely viaduct with a bike path and green space at the San Antonio crossing.

Just kidding about the lovely part. In reality you will find only ample amounts of trash, weeds, and spray paint, plus the occasional homeless or addict nodding off.

Maybe we could choose the viaduct option and have a design contest the way they did with the bridge over 101!

For those who don't remember, the design contest there set the project back by years. The choice arrived at after the design contest had environmental issues and was way too expensive so they had to start from scratch. The delays were quite costly, too. It was finally built but it could have been done faster and cheaper if the City Council had kept their paws off of the project.

In the unlikely event that Caltrain approves a train trench, what will that do to plans for bike/ped tunnels? Trenching the trains would involve a couple of creek crossings and now you want to throw ped tunnels into the mix? Would these tunnels go under the train trench in which case they would go deep underground?

There is the challenge of keeping a train trench dry and not turning into a water-filled canal during heavy storms. This could potentially bring all Caltrain service to a halt if the trains can't move due to flooding in Palo Alto. CPA has a poor record of keeping Oregon expwy and Embarcadero dry during heavy storms and there is no natural drainage along the ROW. Caltrain would be crazy to approve an open trench.

A viaduct would solve a lot of problems but would be aesthetically overpowering so close to residences. Before you go planting posies on the vacated roadbed if a viaduct were built, consider that CPA does not own that land and Caltrain (the owners) will likely want some kind of lease for it. They're not going to give away land for free. How much would that cost CPA?

That narrows it down to either automobile underpasses like at Embarcadero, or hybrid crossings where the rail roadbed is elevated and the roadway is slightly depressed, with cars passing beneath the tracks as has been done in San Carlos.

The rail committee needs to do a better job of looking at the big picture, IMO.

@Reality Check

Thanks for reopening discussion of the Viaduct option and providing useful links to better imagine what it could look like if implemented here. I was disappointed with reports that "progress" had been achieved in throwing the Viaduct into the discard pile along with the Trench. Given the weaknesses of the grade separation options currently being considered (including the plan to put bikes in tunnels at the Meadow and Charleston crossings) it's clear that the Viaduct option must be brought back to the table--this time for real.

The viaducts in the videos would have more aesthetic appeal if they were covered with some kind of foliage. A sterile gray concrete edifice that looks like it was designed in Sacramento by the DMV will be a tough sell in Palo Alto and could fail at the ballot box when it comes time to vote for funding. Even still, covered with foliage it will be a huge, overpowering thing. You'd have to rethink how the station platforms would access the trains which are high up on this viaduct.

I agree that it would be nice to add aesthetic touches but that adds cost. My baseline would be keeping the concrete supports free of graffitti. I'd be delighted if there were easily maintainable cosmetic add-ons, but that's a debate for later. For now, identifying benefits sufficient to overcome the hesitations of a public that seems to have rejected the very notion of a viaduct for whatever reason is the challenge. Without a general perception that this would be better for the city long-term (think 100-years) than the other choices, the Viaduct option cannot prevail--no matter how good it is.

To your point about station platforms, that would not come into play for the Churchill, Meadow and Charleston crossings.

"To your point about station platforms, that would not come into play for the Churchill, Meadow and Charleston crossings."

You can't have trains going up and down like a roller coaster. 1% is Caltrain's preferred grade. Having the trains go up on a viaduct and then come down at the stations would be a tough nut to crack. You've got the Calif. Ave. station located in between Churchill and Meadow.

These are important matters of fact and choice that will need to be addressed when, and if, the Viaduct option is fully understood and its benefits compared with other choice. Personally, I know more about and have had more engagement with the Meadow and Charleston crossings, especially when Palo Alto was trying to get a handle on the suicide clusters that weighted the air across the city for years.

Why not remove the rails completely from ground level and put them 20 feet above street traffic, allowing bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists to move freely, concerned only about traffic on Alma? I disagree that the viaduct "would be aesthetically overpowering so close to residences." In South Palo Alto, there is a 100' right-of-way and the elevated tracks can be placed closer to the expressway which would put the homes along Park Boulevard at a greater distance from the rails than at present.

It’s easy to support the viaduct option if you live a distance from the two South Palo Alto crossings. The viaducts as shown in the videos in Reality Check’s posting are hideous—and would destroy the neighborhood. A definite non-starter.

The viaducts would result in a simple, wide open and easy to navigate design. Most bicyclists I know would prefer that to a complicated and circuitous underpass, assuming that enhanced bikeways and improved intersections are part of the design. However, the City Council seems to have given up on the viaduct because of political pressure from a small number of people who claim it will interfere with their privacy. I personally think that their concerns can be addressed with proper engineering, but City Council won't even direct staff or consultants to study that.

Donald: With all due respect, the “small number of people” you refer to are the neighbors of the two South Palo Alto crossings. The “political pressure” they exerted is their right to free speech. Of course, neighbors want to influence the City Council’s decisions. I’m glad that they have, according to your post.

@local nws junky

I don't know whether the number that actively opposed viaducts for Meadow and Charleston was large or small, but it always seemed to me that the default position, without the benefit of a back-and-forth community discussion would be negative. Memories of racket from elevated trains in Eastern cities and squealing wheels on curved segments of elevated BART lines are hard to dismiss. After reading Cedric de La Beaujardiere's argument in favor of modern viaducts on Town Square a year-and-a-half ago (Web Link though, I changed my mind. He addressed many of the concerns I had well enough to make me think it made sense to explore this option.

I don't think that's happened yet, but hopefully it will.

Jerry Underdal:
Unfortunately, the link you posted didn’t work for me. I did go to the official high-speed rail site to see its renderings of viaducts. These are MASSIVE structures. Would you want one a couple of houses away from you? I don’t. It’s as simple as that.

A "committee" of 3 people are deciding the fate of everyone who lives along Alma Street or frequents businesses there? And forcing people in wheelchairs to have to huff and puff to get uphill because 3 people who are able bodied can't conceptualize living with a handicap? And making elderly people step lively so as not to get run over by a bicyclist who wants to go 35 MPH through a tunnel yelling "move aside" while whizzing past? Because a bicyclist knows if they slow down while going downhill, they will have to pedal hard when they get to the uphill. BOO HOO. These committee members won't even be sitting there by the time their replacements "celebrate" the groundbreaking event. More pie in the sky whizbang ideas from the Lollipop Guild. I demand to see the Wizard. NOW.

"A "committee" of 3 people are deciding the fate of everyone who lives along Alma Street or frequents businesses there?"

Worse, this panel of amateurs has been spinning its wheels for years with scant input from Caltrain, which owns the very property they are debating over. Hopefully that will change with the new agreement.

Watch a video of one of their meetings and you'll see why, despite all the meetings and planning and engineering studies over 10 years, they have naught to show for it but some whiz-bang computer animations.

@local news junky

"I did go to the official high-speed rail site to see its renderings of viaducts. These are MASSIVE structures. Would you want one a couple of houses away from you? I don’t. It’s as simple as that."

Sorry for the delay in responding. I needed a friend's help to get this link for this video showing the viaduct option as presented to the committee. Web Link

You and I are looking at the same resource and coming to different conclusions as to whether the viaduct, in light of what we know about the options available, would be the preferable choice. I encourage anyone who wants to weigh in on the viaduct option to watch the video first so we share a common reference point for our differing opinions.

[Post removed; successive comments by same poster are not permitted.]

That video is misleading. It depicts a two-track viaduct. Will that fly with Caltrain when the HSR "blended approach" is taken into account? Will it have to be a four-track viaduct over all or part of its length? Also, the video does not state the slope that will be required to get the trains up and down on this viaduct. 1% is Caltrain's preferred slope. Anything over 1% requires Caltrain approval. Does any part of this scheme involve a slope greater than 1% and if so, what is the maximum slope and will Caltrain approve it? At 1% it takes 100 feet to elevate the tracks by one foot. If the structure is, say, 20 feet tall, it would take 2,000 feet to bring the trains up and another 2,000 feet down. That's about 3/4 mile just for the ramps up and down.

This is what happens when a panel of amateurs tries to design a solution with no input from Caltrain. Will Caltrain allow the abandoned roadbed to be landscaped? What would Caltrain want for CPA to landscape and use it as a bike path or whatever?

The devil is in the details.

A viaduct has all kinds of practical benefits, but you'll hear arguments to the effect of "it divides the city", "Berlin wall" and "sterile gray concrete structure". I would expect it to face a lot of resistance from residents.

The hybrid option is almost as good as the viaduct from a traffic perspective, and is much lower than the viaduct and has lesser grades for the trains. It would still require pedestrians and bicyclists to go down and up a bit but it would be less than the underpass options and the distances would be shorter. It would not divide the city any more than the tracks do already.

Jerry Underdal:
Thanks for reposting the link. The viaduct pictured in the video is a little less objectionable than that pictured on the high-speed rail site. But is either "official" or just ideas/proposals?
Neighborhood character is a "thing." Barron Park has its own character, so does Old Palo Alto, Crescent Park, Ventura, South of Midtown, and any other neighborhood in Palo Alto, including Charleston Meadows, where I live and where a viaduct would go through. Of course, neighbors are objecting to this massive structure. Luckily, there are other options.

@Leslie York

"A viaduct has all kinds of practical benefits, but you'll hear arguments to the effect of "it divides the city", "Berlin wall" and "sterile gray concrete structure". I would expect it to face a lot of resistance from residents."

So would I. Unless residents come to see the benefits of a viaduct option it won't figure in our city's future--ever. And that's regardless of the cost. People whose attitude is "I wouldn't take that if it was free!" will not support, in the exchange of ideas or the levying of taxes, this answer to our grade separation dilemma.

I don't know the answers to the important and difficult questions you've raised. They need to be answered, but not by me. I'm no expert. Let's hear from people that are rather than prematurely give up on an idea that holds promise. Thanks for your engagement on this matter.

The first question that needs to be answered is, how many tracks are we designing for, 2 tracks or 4? This will affect all four design options: hybrid, viaduct, trench, automobile underpass. This requires input from Caltrain.

Next do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the grades involved to get into and out of the trech/viaduct/hybrid, keeping n mind that 1% is Caltrain's preferred slope.

Given the number of years they've been at it with three different engineering firms,CPA should already have some of this information on hand.

It isn't just Caltrain. Union Pacific uses the tracks for freight trains, and a grade that exceeds 1% will cost them money. Unlike Caltrain, they have no incentive to approve an exception and negotiating with them could be very slow and unproductive. I am concerned that any option that relies on grades of 2% could advance for years and then simply get denied by UP, leaving us back at square one with all the Measure B money spent on other cities that had their act together sooner.

Good point about freight trains, but UP does not have an ownership stake in the ROW and thus has no authority over what may be built on it. UP merely has trackage rights, i.e. the right to run freight trains on the ROW. I'm sure Caltrain would have freight in mind when asked to approve a grade over 1%.

Every time I use BART to cross the bay, when it goes down underwater I hold my breath. Disaster movies like "Titanic" and "Inferno" and "The Poseidon Adventure" fill my head. We are in serious earthquake country. Anything that is built here has to be seismically sound, or it will be the next movie. I think that's a missing element in all of the new LEGO buildings sprouting up -- we won't know for sure until the next "big one" if they can withstand a severe quake. Tyvek covering plywood might play somewhere else, but not here. But we're doing it anyway. Let's call it "an experiment".

Alma street has too few crossings. The way the neighborhoods that surround the tracks don't go in a straight line is the problem. Let's tear down some property, and build more streets that go straight from Middlefield that pass the tracks at Alma. It would be cheaper and quicker than any plan the 3 Stooges can visualize. So much of what our CC does is verbal masturbation. I know that portion will be removed but it's a word with a meaning that applies here, and it's not obscene. What's obscene is wasting our tax payer dollars on something we have no say in. Caltrain will make the decisions.

My Feelz:

Modern bldg codes allow residential wood construction up to a certain height specifically because the building type has been proven to survive earthquakes. We don't allow soft story garages below anymore, so you see woodframe on top of concrete podiums. Caltrain won't design it because they are not paying for it. They will consult, to make sure their requirements are understood. Caltrain has hired a CM/GC for Castro Street. Palo Alto cannot get out of its own way, and likely will never be able to. Quad gates and quiet zones would be much cheaper, but will also cause a good deal of traffic chaos.

Don't hold your breath....

At a recent meeting the rail committee was informed that quad gates would not be required at Palo Alto Ave. for the planned quiet zone which covers Menlo Park and extends into Palo Alto. Instead, an 8" raised barrier would be constructed to separate the two directions of traffic. The crossing will have to be restriped and the signage upgraded.

There was no discussion of how this would fit into future plans to grade separate the crossing, and no discussion of trestle replacement at the creek.

The bike/ped crossing at Seal Ave should be at Churchill instead. There was a lot of support for closing Churchill to cars all together and this option is a backup plan to the citizen’s proposal for a crossing at Churchill – still be studied more. To save time and money, go for the closed option at Churchill now and move the bike/ped crossing from Seal to Churchill. That way you only have to build one crossing that is bike/ped (where most Paly Students now cross). This is much less expensive then building two crossings, one for cars and one for bike/ped – both of which still need a lot of study (time and money) to look into and may not even be viable after great expense.

This option will help alleviate traffic, give safe passage for bikes and peds (our school kids) and point Palo Alto towards active transportation and away from cars, which supports our Sustainability and Climate Action Plan.

@ Leslie York, thanks for your info, the devil is in the details; 2000 feet is less then 1/2 a mile, not 3/4 of a mile.

And there's a lot of opposition to closing Churchill -- from parents and kids trying to get to/from Paly, from people trying to use Embarcadero which is already gridlocked much of the day and which is one of three access points to 101 and which will get worse when the multi-year Casti construction starts ...

The big issue hardly mentioned about closing Churchill are the school buses.

The other issue is that Paly people will park in the neighboring residential streets and walk into Paly.

Additionally, PAUSD Churchill office will be hit by closure too.

It is also a well used street for access to Stanford, both the University and hospital, as well as Shopping Center and PAMF.

These are reality issues.

KTVU is reporting money being opened up for these crossings.

The City fails to recognize how important an artery Churchill Ave. is for both cars, pedestrians and bikers. Paly and the district have limited entrances and Churchill Avenue provides access to: district, Paly, Paly football field, Paly highschool, Paly gym/athletic center, District bus parking, Paly school parking, and Paly parent pick up and drop off loop for Paly students.

Really the city should just trench the train and provide grade separation at Churchill. This would make this very used Churchill Avenue an incredibly safe route for bikers and cars at Churchill. Trench the train, or if this not possible, raise the train. Provide a grade separation at Churchill.

Instead, the city has decided to build yet another redundant bike and pedestrian underpass at Seale and Alma. Why is it not surprising all the useful city routes for bikers and pedestrians always favor Old Palo Alto?

KIds trying to get to Paly have to deal with the crazy traffic at Embarcadero, where there is little barrier between the pedestrian walkway that bikers and pedestrians use at Embarcadero (near Paly's only other entrance) or now, kids have to go further east to Seale, which is just a few blocks from the North California underpass.

Not surprised Old Palo Alto neighborhood gets yet one more connection to Palo Alto south of Alma, while anything west of Embarcadero that is not Old Palo Alto City, gets ... well the rubbish.

"2000 feet is less then 1/2 a mile, not 3/4 of a mile."

Read the post again. 2,000' up + 2,000' down = 4,000'. 4,000 / 5,280 = apx 0.75 mile.

"The big issue hardly mentioned about closing Churchill are the school buses."

PAUSD has a yard near the Paly campus, with lots of vehicles coming and going.

CPA can't even keep Oregon expwy and Embarcadero underpasses from flooding during a heavy storm. How do you think they will they keep a train trench from flooding? Answer: they won't. There is no natural drainage along the right-of-way. Caltrain would be nuts to approve a trench.