|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
With deadline day fast approaching, Palo Alto’s elected leaders struggled on Monday to reach consensus on the city’s most complex and expensive project, the redesign of the rail corridor.
The City Council is scheduled to approve on June 10 its preferred alternatives for separating the railroad tracks from roads at three rail crossings: Churchill Avenue, East Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. Any delay could jeopardize the roughly $27 million in grants that the city has received for design work on the three rail crossings.
But while council members agreed on April 29 that they need to act quickly, they clashed over what exactly they should do. At Churchill Avenue, the council has generally accepted that the best approach is to build an underpass for cars under the tracks, which would remain in their current alignment. Known as a “partial underpass,” the option is almost certain to advance to the engineering phase.
There is far less consensus, however, on what to do at the Meadow and Charleston crossings, which the council sees as a higher priority than Churchill. With no clear frontrunner emerging at the two south Palo Alto crossings, council members debated two options that they acknowledged were deeply flawed, including one that would require acquisitions of more than two dozen properties.
“We know that every one of the alternatives that we’re looking at has pros and cons,” said Council member Pat Burt, who chairs the council’s Rail Committee. “Unfortunately, there’s no perfect alternative, whether it’s on Churchill or Charleston or East Meadow. And unfortunately, we all are accepting that as we go into these tough decisions.”
Even this hedged approach had its detractors. Council member Julie Lythcott-Haims, who serves on the Rail Committee, championed a viaduct in south Palo Alto, an option that the rest of the council rejected because of visual impact and Caltrain’s right-of-way constraints. Council members Greg Tanaka and Lydia Kou both advocated for the trench, an alternative that their colleagues say is infeasible because of steep engineering challenges and a steeper price tag, which city staff believe could be as high as $1.5 billion.
With little enthusiasm, the council tentatively supported two alternatives: a “hybrid” design that combines raising tracks and lowering roads, and an underpass that would send cars under tracks at the two southern crossings.
Among those concerned about the underpass are the residents of Charleston Road whose properties would need to be acquired — in part or in full — to accommodate the underpass and related traffic improvements. With Charleston lowered, eastbound drivers would no longer be able to turn left to go north on Alma. Instead, they would have to cross the tracks, go through a roundabout near Mumford Place and then go back toward the tracks and make a right on Alma.
To accommodate the roundabout east of the tracks, the Charleston underpass option would require 23 partial property acquisitions as well as two full property acquisitions, both on the 200 block of Charleston, according to the city’s engineering plans. West of the tracks, the city would need to acquire portions of seven properties along Charleston and to fully acquire the property at 4195 Park Boulevard, the plans show.
For the Meadow Drive underpass, the city would need to acquire portions of 12 properties and fully acquire two others, at 3553 Alma St. and 4097 Park Boulevard, the plans show.
Several residents protested the plans on Monday. Lu Li, who lives on Charleston, argued that losing a portion of her property would make her home unlivable.
“If you’re building that weird loop thing around Charleston, it’s going to take part of our front yard to the point where the traffic is going right next to our bedroom,” Li said.
While council members reassured concerned residents that any property acquisition would entail negotiations and fair compensation, not everyone took comfort in that. Patrice Banal, who lives on Charleston, urged the council to consider options that would not entail displacements. Residents of Charleston “don’t want to be your collateral damage or a necessary acceptable loss,” she said.
“If you’re negotiating with a gun to your head, it’s a robbery, it is not negotiation — and that’s how we feel on Charleston Road,” said Patrice Banal, a resident of Charleston Road.
If the south Palo Alto underpass is selected, the city and its consultants will continue to refine the alternative with the goal of minimizing property acquisitions. Burt, who serves on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, suggested that property acquisitions are often inevitable when it comes to transportation improvements.
“We think that we can optimize the designs on the hybrid and the underpass as we move forward on engineering. We don’t know how much,” Burt said. “But major transportation projects almost invariably have property impacts and that’s tough to swallow.”
Kou and Tanaka took a harder line and suggested that any option that requires property acquisitions deserves to be rejected.
“It’s not going to work for me if there’s any property taking,” Kou said.
Tanaka agreed.
“I don’t think people are just going to say, ‘No problem,'” Tanaka said. “I think there’s going to be a big battle and I think that’s going to be very expensive.”
Given the amount of time and the legal costs that the effort would entail, the underpass option should be taken off the table, he suggested.
“Legally and politically, I think it’s untenable,” Tanaka said.
While the council didn’t take any votes on April 29, the majority indicated that they would support analyzing both the hybrid and the underpass at the two southern crossings. They also recognized the urgency of acting now if they don’t want to risk losing its $6 million grant from the Federal Railway Administration and its $21 million grant from California State Transportation Agency.
Mayor Greer Stone favored advancing both options in south Palo Alto, consistent with recommendations from Burt and Vice Mayor Ed Lauing, who also serves on the Rail Committee. Residents whose properties are acquired, Stone said, will be “made whole … or close to.”
“We need to remember that we represent over 66,000 residents and that population is growing and we need to make the best decision that will benefit the whole community and future generations as well,” Stone said. “Although these property takings of a few residents will be difficult for us to be able to stomach, we do have to sometimes make those difficult decisions. Hoping that staff will be able to find ways to avoid that.”
Alas, there is no good answer. And the endeavor, based on a HSR that will never materialize, is pathetic. That being said, the process will take years (and of course longer than predicted) and IMO, whatever is LEAST disruptive to traffic during those decades should be chosen. Neither sound nor sight should be considered. Both can be mitigated.
If they have to do this approach, then it would be simpler to eliminate the roundabout. Better to loose the ability to turn north onto Alma, then the giant mess of a roundabout and the required property acquisitions.
Agreed. List property just to save some car some time.
If there is no HSR, is this still necessary?
It is funny that the local communities on the Peninsula are burdened with the expense of reconfiguring roadways at the convenience of CalTrain, Union Pacific and the future HSR/HST when:
1. Brightline, the High Desert’s, HST uses the CalTrans right of way to navigate the route between Las Vegas and Ranch Cucamonga – No local money there…!!!
2. The San Joaquin Valley segment HRS through Shafter, a community of approximately 17,000, includes funding for 6 grade separations through Federal funding under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
3. The recent electrification of the track was as part of a “Blended” segment program with little or no consideration for local grade crossings – this has been left to the towns to figure out, yet there’s a complete plan for the Central Valley.
4. And, looking at the High-Speed Rail Authority’s crossing plan, there are numerous examples of the HST tracks either passing over or under existing roadways including 3 overcrossings at rural roads in Shafter.(https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/2270/app_2a.pdf)
All problems including noise, grade separation, property values, etc. are solved by setting all the rails below grade, where they should be, and having vehicle/pedestrian overpasses at key intersections.
It’s electrification, not HSR.
” Any delay could jeopardize the roughly $27 million in grants that the city has received for design work on the three rail crossings.”
The project would cost an estimated $1.5 BILLION (before the usual cost over-runs) leaving us on the hook for $1,473 BILLION after the grants.
It seems like the availability of those measly grants are the tail that’s wagging the huge project dog, esp. since the Federal grants might disappear after the next Presidential election just like California’s funding for public transit projects disappeared now that we have a huge deficit.
Now with all the properties at risk and the expected lawsuits this hardly “pencils out”
Absolutely! The tail is wagging the mongrel. I am going to assume once the money is accepted – then the city is going to forced to comply with whatever ill conceived plan is dictated by outsiders. What if the city just said no? The lawsuits and cost associated with just a couple of the properties taken by eminent domain will gobble up half or more of the $27M.
No good solution. However, Palo Alto residents don’t like roundabouts because they are special! In other words, everywhere else in the world they work well, but of course Palo Alto is a special case.
I don’t understand why the viaduct was blown off without discussion. None of the options are visually pleasing. I am baffled that CC would assume that adding so much more concrete high-traffic road and placing it in people’s yards would be more attractive than lifting a train up so that it does not divide our city.
Other advantages of viaducts are:
1. It is the only option that EASES traffic rather than increases. When the train is elevated, there can be numerous “crossings” (really not crossings any more because there is no train to cross) rather than just one or two. This would immediately resolve the logjam we all face at the Charleston and Meadow / Alma intersections.
2. Viaducts are MUCH better at preventing train suicides than intersections. This is extremely important because, unfortunately, train suicides continue to be a tragic problem in Palo Alto.
3. Viaducts usually require less eminent domain. I agree with Lydia Kou that takings should be avoided. So why not prioritize the plan that requires the fewest takings?
4. Viaducts connect the city. This is especially important for the thousands of school children who fight traffic (and unfortunately, often risk their lives) simply to get to school and back.
5. Viaducts are usually more sustainable than other options, especially when made with steel (and/or sustainably harvested timber) rather than concrete. (Steel and natural materials can make the viaduct look cool too.)
6. When done well, Viaducts *are* visually pleasing. If the viaduct is built to minimize the size of the concrete pedestals, and embrace alternate, more sustainable materials instead, it can look nice in a neighborhood. The fact that a viaduct would take the place of ugly ground-level train tracks alone makes it an option that should be explored.
7. To avoid privacy problems, reduce noise, and mitigate pollution, shrubbery/drought resistant plants can be planted on either side of the train. Here is one example: https://www.arup.com/perspectives/road-to-decarbonisation-timber-paves-way-for-more-sustainable-road-bridges . An advantage of this, of course, is that plants (especially mature trees) are the most efficient and effective weapons against climate change, naturally and constantly removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and replacing it with oxygen.
There seems to be a lot going on with viaduct innovation lately, eg
https://www.structuremag.org/?p=21552
https://inhabitat.com/solar-wind-turbine-bridge-repurposes-viaduct-for-public-space/
That said, even if we looked again at City Council’s original viaduct plan (maybe swapping out materials to make it more green and attractive, and to make room for shrubs for visual impact and privacy), that would be a good option:
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/06/14/for-supporters-of-train-viaduct-things-are-starting-to-look-up/
Then again, I know nothing about the presumed “right of way” challenges. Whatever they are, couldn’t they be handled with old fashioned negotiation?
I wish you had a regular column in the weekly.
The original viaduct plan involved, I think, removing a lane of travel on Alma. I have no idea why this was, but it had something to do with Shoofly tracks? Also, there are going to be sections that are four tracks, not just two. However, when pressed, CalTrain DID come up with a viaduct design that did NOT take away a lane of travel, making it viable. However, it was too little too late. They can’t develop the plan in time to make the funding deadline cutoff.
Seems to me, the council is function a lot better with seven members instead of nine. I can’t but think that had this adjustment been made a decade ago, we might have our viaduct. Also, when council – I don’t know who – rejected viaduct as an option outright ten years ago, they did this city a inexcusable disservice.
Didn’t HSR say they eventually needed 4 tracks? A 4-track wide viaduct doesn’t seem feasible there, especially when you include space for maintenance access, and 2-up 2-down seems pointless as it doesn’t actually accomplish the grade-separation that is desired (and you’re not going to get a park underneath on the right-of-way)
Why not just lower the entire Alma-Charleston intersection? That will avoid the need for the roundabout and the on/off ramps to Alma.
I had the same idea, but even more, keep Alma lowered for both intersections (Charleston and E Meadow), basically lower both intersections below the track level, which should, oversimplified, keep the current traffic flow without need of roundabouts and imminent domain. The proximity of the two intersections is a plus in this scenario
Because then you’d lose access from the properties that front onto Alma and have no other road access.
Great idea. As N Briggs points out, it’ll impact the properties on the west side of Alma, but maybe there’s room for a little private frontage road for them that goes to Charleston.
Better to lose the red light or put a left turn light there that would let drivers make the u-turn when safe than to put a roundabout that would be dangerous for the Gunn students and others biking back and forth. Anyone who’s ridden a bike on the roundabout at Meadow and Ross knows how terrifying they are for bicyclists and how inappropriate they are for intersections with limited visibility.
Comment should have started “Better to lose the ability to turn north onto Alma or put a left turn light there”
Why can’t northbound cars just use El Camino? Would that require less property acquisition?
Don’t forget the proposed bike lane would eliminate some El Camino car lanes.
There’s no common sense being exercised. Requiring northbound drivers to exit Alma go around the traffic circle and re-enter Alma to continue northbound defies practical thinking.
I think someone is confused – that’s not what the image shows, even though the caption says that.
With respect to the Charleston and Meadow crossings, it seems that the best alternatives (trench and viaduct) have been eliminated from consideration. The Hybrid alternative seems to be the better of the two remaining. It involves very little acquisition of private property, and has almost none of the ridiculous traffic routing through the intersections that the Underpass alternative has. Hopefully the council will now make this choice and move along in the process.
Just one more thought…was speaking with a neighbor who was a teacher at Pally and they pointed out that the Library is adjacent to the tracks, adding the Library is where students take their SAT/ACT exams. Just another reason to trench the tracks and in that location add cover.