|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Menlo Park council members said Tuesday night they need more information before they can pick preferred options for separating roadways from railroad tracks, a costly and complex undertaking intended to increase traffic flow and safety at rail crossings.
At a study session Feb. 7, representatives of the consultant group AECOM and city staff presented the council with three options – A, B, and C – and asked the council to help them narrow their research to two: A, and either B or C.
Council members didn’t reach a consensus and called for more information.
The city is exploring road-rail separations at three of Menlo Park’s rail crossings – at Ravenswood, Oak Grove and Glenwood avenues. The three options are:
● Option A: Tunnel Ravenswood Avenue under the Caltrain tracks.
● Option B: Combine elevating the tracks with lowering the roads at the Ravenswood and Oak Grove avenues crossings. The tracks could be raised as much as 17 feet above ground. The road could be lowered as much as 15 feet at Oak Grove Avenue.
● Option C: The same as Option B, but adds the Glenwood Avenue crossing. According to the staff report, the tracks at Glenwood Avenue would be elevated up to 10 feet and the road lowered a maximum of 11 feet.
Encinal Avenue’s rail crossing in Menlo Park is not included among the options.
All of the options would separate bikes and pedestrians, as well as motorists, from the tracks.
Each option has its pros and cons, presenter Etty Mercurio of AECOM said, and carries implications for other grade separations along the Caltrain line. For instance, if the city were to pick Option A, it could be harder and more expensive to build grade separations at the other rail crossings later on, since the chance to raise the tracks may have passed.
Council members expressed surprise that more residents, particularly homeowners near the Caltrain line, weren’t at the meeting to express their concerns. They said the consultants should send out mailers on the three options in advance of the next meeting to make sure the word gets out.
One of the sticking points in the discussion is the requirement that the study “not preclude” the possibility of building a third rail line through Menlo Park.
The space for a third line could be later used for high-speed rail, but it could also be used by Caltrain to enable trains to pass each other, said Angela Obeso, city transportation engineer.
The city’s policy stance is to oppose a third rail line being installed in Menlo Park, but since the funding for the study of road-rail separations came from Measure A funds from the San Mateo County Transit Authority, the city has to comply with that requirement.
Other options?
Members of the public asked why the city couldn’t just fully elevate Caltrain or tunnel it completely underground.
Former councilwoman Mickie Winkler sent the council a rendering of what a fully elevated Caltrain line could look like, along with a recommendation of a company that makes such a system prefabricated. Elevating the tracks fully can’t be done in Menlo Park without extending the elevation into neighboring cities, consultants said, since the maximum amount of elevation change Caltrain allows is a 1 percent grade.
In that scenario, even if the goal were to elevate the Caltrain line as much as possible, the city would still have to lower the elevation of the road to create a tall enough gap for cars and trucks to pass through, said Ms. Mercurio.
Tunneling the Caltrain tracks beneath the road has been ruled out because it would likely triple the cost of an already very expensive project, she said. That, too, would need cooperation with other cities on the Caltrain Corridor, many of which have already built grade separations with elevated train tracks.
The consultants haven’t yet calculated exactly what the project might cost in Menlo Park. Ms. Mercurio said that a recent study for a similar project in Burlingame found that separating a single road crossing from the tracks would likely cost $250 million, including the costs to reroute Caltrain for the duration of the project. To run Caltrain underground through Burlingame, the estimated price tag was $900 million.
Electrification at risk?
Another question is how the project would be affected if Caltrain does not get the federal funding it is seeking for its electrification project. According to Liz Scanlon, Caltrain planning manager, the project could be adjusted if funding doesn’t come through, but said, “We’re quite hopeful we’ll receive funding from the feds.”
A Feb. 8 statement from Caltrain’s Executive Director Jim Hartnett says that the electrification project needs a $647 million grant from the Federal Transit Administration’s Core Capacity program, which would be matched with $1.3 billion of local, regional and state dollars.
Earlier this week, according to the Los Angeles Times, California’s congressional Republicans signed a letter asking that the pending federal grant for Caltrain electrification be blocked until an audit of the project’s finances is completed. The letter, Democrats countered, misstated that the grant was requested by the High Speed Rail Authority, when it was requested by the Caltrain Joint Powers Board as a separate project from high-speed rail.
According to Adina Levin, who blogs about Caltrain and is a Menlo Park transportation commissioner, “The grant application was made by Caltrain, for a project that has been in the works for many decades. The tracks from San Francisco to San Jose are owned by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Authority (Caltrain), which has an agreement to share the tracks with High Speed Rail when that service goes forward.”
__
-
A 3-D rendering of what a fully-elevated Caltrain might look like, according to Mickie Winkler, former councilwoman. She recommended the company conXtech. Consultants said fully elevating the Caltrain tracks can’t be done without cooperation from neighboring cities. (Image courtesy Mickie Winkler.) -
A 3-D rendering of what Ravenswood Avenue might look like under Option A, looking east. This option, proposed by consultants, would leave the Caltrain tracks where they are and would tunnel Ravenswood Avenue beneath. (Image courtesy AECOM/City of Menlo Park.) -
A summary of the three options proposed for separating Menlo Park roads from the Caltrain tracks. (Image courtesy AECOM/City of Menlo Park.)
Between B and C, the obvious answer is C – if you’re going to go through the trouble of elevating tracks, you should remove as many grade crossings as possible.
Overall, C seems a lot more sensible than A – depressing Ravenswood only covers a single crossing, and creates a barrier to getting across ECR.
Mind you, my expectation is that by the time this is actually implemented, we’ll all be long gone…
“rendering of what a fully-elevated Caltrain might look like… Consultants said fully elevating the Caltrain tracks can’t be done without cooperation from neighboring cities.”
Not true regarding Palo Alto, the consultants are overlooking the tracks are already elevated more that ten feet at Willow, but a fully-elevated Caltrain would impact Atherton’s crossings. Atherton’s current plan is to leave all crossings at grade while enforcing a quiet zone. One possible outcome of this strategy is a truck/train collision leading to derailment.
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 20, 2015 at 10:48 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
The way to put it underground is to bore a tunnel or two. Trench and cover is not the solution because it does not provide a right of way during construction.
Deep tunnel boring is being done all over the world. Not cheap but clearly the best long term solution.
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 25, 2015 at 2:36 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
If this is done one crossing at a time it will be very expensive, take a long time and result in a dis-integrated design.
Please at least think about a more comprehensive and integrated approach.
Why not see this as an opportunity rather than a problem?
One thought is the put the trains underground, use the surface rights above it for housing in the stretches between stations and use the surface above the stations for transit connections and parking. The surface area of the current right of way is very valuable land – particularly in Atherton – and could generate a lot of the needed capital.
Why not take this as an opportunity to design a multi-dimensional, multi-purpose system that uses the existing right-of-way that includes CalTrain, HSR, utility conduits for telephone and internet cables, surface housing with high density housing around each station. And add pedestrian path and a separate bicycle path on the surface along the entire right of way. And include 3 or 4 12″ conduits for the technology of the future.
We should think of this right of way as an integrated multi-modal communications spine for the peninsula.
A piecemeal approach will be very expensive.
Do it once and do it right.
Let’s take the big view and come up with a win-win solution.
Peter
This approach is very well thought out
Can you put a net price tag on it in real future dollars and how to pay for it
Thank you for the article.
What’s missing from the article is that there is already a potential source of revenue for a grade separation project in Menlo Park. The SMCTA has been providing funding to help grade separate crossings on a first-come-first-serve basis for crossings that it deems critical and hazardous. Ravenswood fits that criteria, even the SMCTA agrees.
The issues are:
1: this funding is running dry, because other communities (in particular San Mateo) are better organized and more swift in requesting funding;
2: Menlo Park wants to do more than 1 intersection. SMCTA doesn’t view the other intersections (Oak Grove, for example) as a priority since they’re relatively low-volume traffic, and is very unlikely to fund a grade separation at non-Ravenswood intersections as a result.
I should also mention that IIRC the SMCTA has a strong preference for an underpass at Ravenswood.
So Menlo Park’s *real* options are:
A: Grade separate Ravenswood, and get significant funding from SMCTA;
B: Grade separate Ravenswood and Oak Grove, get significant funding from SMCTA for Ravenswood and none for Oak Grove (which means Menlo Park must self-fund the Oak Grove separation in its entirety, which means Menlo Park residents pay for it in its entirety);
C: Dawdle and get ZIPPO funding from the SMCTA;
Sadly, I fear Menlo Park’s choice will be “C”
To the best of my recollection, the electrification project specifically included exactly $0 for grade separations such as this the entire length of the Caltrain right of way. The CA HSR Authority also made it abundantly clear, with respect to the Caltrain electrification project, that grade separations, and any problems any local community may experience as a result of more faster Caltrain trains and HSR running through town w/o grade separations, are ‘local problems’, not their concern, so stop asking. So, whether Caltrain looses its Federal dollars for Electrification seems irrelevant to Menlo Parks plans here, they were never going to help after signing that questionable ‘blended’ deal with HSR. Peter Carpenter is right, if you are considering grade separations anywhere in Menlo Park, do them all, and be done with it. Better still, trench or trench and cover the train so it’s out of sight, and relatively silent. Then, the trains can come and go as they please, and the community doesn’t have to listen to them. While you are at it, give Palo Alto a big dope slap and get them working on their own grade separations!
I don’t see the point of elevating Alma so that it crosses over Ravenswood, seems like a huge cost and very little traffic goes across that intersection. Just connect them together as they are now and don’t allow driving from Alma across Ravenswood. If that was really important you could always put a traffic light there now that they would be below grade and not interfering with the railroad.
The idea of tunneling under San Francisquito Creek for an electric train tunnel is complete insanity. Also, underground train stations in the suburbs will be problematic, just visit any underground BART station at night.
There are literally thousands of underground electric train tunnels around the world – the closest example is BART.
@water hazard:
@Peter Carpenter:
Yes, but those underground rail systems carry *FAR* more passengers than Caltrain.
The funding necessary for underground rail tunneling (current price of about $1 billion per mile) isn’t there for Caltrain and can’t be justified by current or anticipated ridership levels over the next fifty years.
The Caltrain right-of-way at Ravenswood isn’t wide enough to elevate the tracks (the right-of-way in San Carlos is considerably wider).
A vehicle overpass isn’t feasible either with El Camino Real so close by, so there are really two options: A. vehicle underpass, or B. continue with the grade crossing.
The story says council wants more information. What more do they want to know?
This issue has been the topic of endless public meetings and discussion for decades.
The villagers are tired of talk — why can’t council make a decision and at least indicate which of the basic alternatives to pursue?
“The story says council wants more information. What more do they want to know?”
This article has more details what further questions council members have.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/08/menlo-park-plan-to-separate-rail-from-roads-hits-snag/
Thanks, Peter, for keeping discussion of the tunnel option alive. The focus is always on the difficulties and costs of tunneling but the benefits haven’t been fully considered. Peter alludes to he utility of the surface land which would be freed. Yes! But imagine also, the less tangible benefits deriving from our communities, east and west sides, joined for the first time, physically (transit-wise), visually and socially.
In contrast, the elevated track options would make the divisiveness of the railroad even more stark than is is now.
Reader: Why do you say there is not enough room for an elevated track system. How much is needed and how much is available and where are you getting these numbers. This is the first time I have heard this argument.
“Anticipated ridership levels don’t justify expense of tunneling”. While I oppose all tunneling proposals, I believe that the amount of office buildings being permitted in Menlo Park will bring in thousands of office workers who will need to travel to/from these buildings. The City will never catch up with enough housing for the office worker population so anything the City does to get the transit infrastructure in place is a good step.
The Council plan seems to be to urbanize Menlo Park and in that scenario, we will need a train system that can carry double the SF/SJ Caltrain ridership that we have today which is 60,000. 101 cannot handle the increase in autos but will Caltrain?
Our Council has to be realistic about the growth it has encouraged and stop throwing obstacles in the way of Caltrain and High Speed Rail. To turn MP into an Jobs Center like San Jose but ignore the urgency of transit and housing is governing with all hands on the rear view mirror. There is a big picture in front of our Council but no big thinkers on our council.
Water Hazard: You raise a good point. A train system in a tunnel will mean a train some 80 to 90 ft below the existing street. The train will be electrified with overhead wires. It will have to be deeper than the bed of the San Francisquito creek. Elevators, escalators add to the extravagant price.
And, as you say, picture being in an underground tunnel at night after returning from an evening event in SF.
I’ll be taking my car. How about you?
Civilized countries all over the world have below ground subway stations that are both beautiful and safe.
PS – they operate on electricity.
Those continually holding out for the unrealistic and cost-prohibitive underground pipe dream (pun intended) are, as they have in the past, continuing to help ensure nothing happens.
A highly permeable and largely open viaduct removes the barrier/division effect since it’s more easily crossed at numerous points than the existing at-grade tracks or tracks on a berm (as in San Carlos/Belmont). Of course, there can also be a blend of berm and viaduct in areas where openness and permeability are needed. Remember too, that for every alternative, a shoofly (temporary bypass) track(s) will be needed in order to allow for continued train service during construction (remember how San Carlos was done: shoofly tracks along ECR and a temporary station adjacent to ECR at the foot of San Carlos Ave. while the berm and elevated station were built).
The most reasonable way to go has always been and remains elevating the tracks a bit and depressing the road a bit. Caltrain’s new electric trains will very quiet and horns will no longer be blown as they are a minimum of 3x per grade crossing.
That artist’s impression in the article would look better if the Menlo gate arches were integrated into the design of the viaduct. Better than on the grass at the corner.
Trinity Railway Express in Texas successfully operates its Dallas-area commuter trains on a miles-long concrete viaduct through Irving, Texas.
The project successfully raised the former Rock Island tracks up and above vehicular traffic, leaving roads at the original elevation. Since it’s a viaduct, there is no berm dividing the city. The viaduct carries two tracks, and hosts both freight and passenger trains. In Menlo Park, a three-track option to satisfy county funders is certainly possible.
Like options B and C under consideration in Menlo Park, it would require a shoo-fly track to host trains during construction.
Here’s a link to a Flickr album with three photos of the Irving viaduct: https://flic.kr/s/aHskQV6gGf
@Need info, please:
Contact the Caltrain if you want information about how much space is needed to elevate the tracks. They have commissioned many studies about the feasibility of raising the track bed, but regardless of the actual dimensions, there must be ample space on both sides to build a berm like San Carlos.
It may be the first time you’ve heard of this, but the tracks have been here 150+ years. The topic has been beaten to death.
The right-of-way is very narrow in certain spots. So narrow that it is impossible to add an extra set of tracks which would really be a boon for high-speed rail, express trains, etc. For example, the right-of-away at the West Meadow grade crossing is too narrow for four tracks. Again, this horse has been completely beaten to death.
Nothing new has been said here. There are stories about Caltrain all the time and the same discussion points always come up.
The longer it takes for the populace to come to grips with what is fiscally feasible, the more time will elapse with the status quo and the more expensive it will become to effectuate those changes.
Heck, the Caltrain electrification project is in jeopardy with the new administration:
http://sfist.com/2017/02/06/trump_threatens_to_yank_funds_from.php
Anyhow, good luck finding those tunnel dollars.
Carpenter writes, “Civilized countries all over the world have below ground subway stations that are both beautiful and safe.”
The creek bed between Palo Alto and Menlo Park is 30 to 40 feet below the bridge. If 3 billion dollars were allocated to build this tunnel, the Menlo Park train station would need to be 50 to 70 feet underground.
With 80 thousand people riding the train, but only 10 to 20 homes in Atherton with tracks at their back fence, it is more cost effective to plant some trees.
For anyone wondering what a trench might look like, here’s a link to a Flickr album showing two trenches in Southern California. You can decide for yourself whether this is something you want to see in Menlo Park.
It’s actually two projects. One is a trench through Alhambra completed 40 years ago, and the other is a trench under construction in San Gabriel. The photos were taken last June.
Since the San Gabriel trench is still under construction in these photos, you will see the existing tracks at street level. Once the trench is completed, the street-level tracks will be removed.
The Alhambra trench eliminated about 9 grade crossings, and San Gabriel will eliminate 5 or 6. Since Alhambra and San Gabriel are next to each other, the two trenches provide many miles of running without any grade crossings.
Here’s the link: https://flic.kr/s/aHskCD6QpW
Trench
SAN GABRIEL TRENCH PROJECT
Flooding, Inundation and Floodplains http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/56542.pdf (Page 192) …there are no areas of 100-year floodplain in the project area. As there are no floodplains in the project area, the risk associated with the project is low… No large bodies of water are present in the vicinity of the project, and the project site is more than 24 miles (38.62 kilometers) from the Pacific Ocean coastline.
The trench could be engineered to provide an alternate route for flood waters, keeping hundreds multi-million dollar Palo Alto homes from flooding. Caltrain service would need to be halted during the winter to avoid drowning and electrocuting thousands of people. http://www.sfcjpa.org/documents/Corps_of_Engineers_100-year_floodplain_map.pdf
I didn’t see any mention of possible train crossings at Willow Road. Was that considered?
One of the reasons that the Ravenswood intersection is so congested is that there aren’t enough places to cross the tracks. An underpass at Willow Road would dramatically reduce the traffic at Oak Grove and Ravenswood.
The idea of pushing Willow through to El Camino, and the dreaded Willow Freeway project linking up with Sand Hill Road, was killed by opposition, largely in Linfield Oaks, 50-plus years ago.
Any talk of reviving the idea of connecting Willow to El Camino would surely start a revolt in Linfield Oaks.
Although you are correct, Jason, there aren’t enough places to cross the tracks, and in the bigger picture, connecting Willow to El Camino, would have been a good thing to do.
About 30 years ago, as I recall, there was halfway-serious discussion about building a new road that connected with El Camino Real at Middle, crossed under the tracks, and skirted the south edge of Burgess Park and SRI, crossing Middlefield and running through St. Patrick’s before connecting up with Willow somewhere around the VA.
It was a good idea, but in typical Menlo Park style, the idea died on the vine. Since then, houses were built at St. Patrick’s, and buildings erected at the USGS where the proposed road would have gone.
Instead of having a relatively modern route from 101 to El Camino Real — which would better serve the type of development that is envisioned now in Menlo Park — we are left with the way things were in 1950, Willow-Middlefield-Ravenswood.
If history is any indicator, council will squander this opportunity to separate the tracks from traffic at Ravenswood, and this same discussion will be going on a decade from now.
I’d support Peter Carpenter’s proposals. I lived in Boston all through the multi-billion dollar big dig project, which put a few miles of the old elevated highway underground and built new connectors to the airport, etc. Everybody grumbled about it for the 25 years of the project (25 years!!!), but when it was done…WOW! It’s one of the best things they’ve done in that city, and it was more than well worth the money and the time it took to do the right thing, even though it still requires some major repairs and replacement of faulty materials.
I see two options for doing the right thing here: go high (elevated trains like BART in the East Bay as the right of way seems too narrow for a wide embankment) or go low (deep bore tunneling). If the barrier is that Atherton doesn’t want elevated train crossings, then we do nothing until we can get both Atherton and MP to agree to a joint plan. And in the rendering, why would you elevate Alma St as well? Just have it meet Ravenswood without allowing for cross traffic (akin to how it is today with the barriers).
Which brings in another question which I’m sure has been answered before somewhere (but perhaps before I moved here): why can’t the HSR line just go up along the bay (Amtrak runs along the wetlands in the East Bay)?
Top Spot Asked For Menlo Park Underpass Plan
The Times, San Mateo — Sat, Nov 10, 1956
MENLO PARK, Nov. 10 — A recommendation by the city planning commission that an underpass of the Southern Pacific right of way to connect the Linfield Oaks area with El Camino Real be given top priority in the city’s proposed capital improvement projects has been submitted to the city council.
The recommendation follows a joint discussion between the planners and the park and recreation commission concerning capital improvements needs for Menlo Park.
The exact location of the propose underpass will not be recommenced until completion of a survey by City Engineer Edwin H. Smith. Planners have indicated previously, however, that the underpass should be located at Middle avenue, with the location at Willow road and El Camino a second consideration.
A number of other capital improvements have also been recommended by the planning commission.
These include widening of Middlefield road, construction of a community center building in the civic center and full development of recreation facilities at Belle Haven park, including a multi-use room, swimming pool and baseball diamonds.
A new police headquarters building in the civic center is the last item on the priority list submitted to the council for consideration.
I agree with Aaron, Peter’s plan sounds great.
But right now, Peter is like the one guy in the corner banging the drum.
Where is the buy-in from Atherton?
Where is the leadership in Menlo Park?
Who brought their checkbook?
Seriously, there is barely a pot of money to help pay for an underpass at Ravenswood. Maybe in 50 or 100 years train ridership will be at levels that might attract interstate highway-type funding. But Menlo Park needs an underpass or three now.
It’s beyond time to make something happen and concede that reimagining the future will be the responsibility of our grandchildren.
It is time to stop fretting about whether residents in Felton Gables will be offended, or endless worrying about whether there is room for a berm. There is plenty of room.
It is time for council to show some leadership and make a decision.
Whatever is built will be new, different, and be a change from today. But you know what — Menlo Park will adapt, just as it did more than a century ago when the railroad first laid the second track through town.
It’s time to make something happen.
Donald Trump is not going to let the Federal government pay for Caltrain improvements. If Menlo Park wants to get this done, we need to enact a new property tax to pay for it ourselves. Can someone do the math on how much each homeowner needs to pay to get this to happen?
Finance a full length four track tunnel with San Mateo County and Santa Clara County county wide sales taxes.
Everybody pays and everybody benefits.
How does @Peter Carpenter propose passing another transportation sales tax? Is that even possible before the existing transportation sales tax expires (many years from now)? Almost all of that money is going to bigger highways, not transit or safety on local streets. If Menlo Park wants something done within the next decade, we need to pay for it ourselves with a new property tax.
The likelihood of Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Atherton, or any suburban, Peninsula city getting a tunnel for Caltrain, before San Jose gets its downtown BART tunnel completed, is about the same as boysenberry pie suddenly appearing in the sky.
And the 49ers are likely to field a winning team before any of that happens.
Shall we just put up with Ravenswood Avenue as it is now until then?
People that drive cars want less gridlock at commute time. Improving Caltrain capacity will remove vehicles from the road. Reactivating the Dumbarton rail line will make an even bigger impact here.
People that read about the tragic loss of life want grade separations. Menlo Park has been stalled on this issue for 50 years, even though State and Federal grants are available to pay for the bulk of the project. Moving forward on a “viable” option will put an end to the carnage.
People that live near the tracks want peace and quiet. The horns, bells and diesel engines are noisy. Elevating and electrifying the tracks will allow all trains to zip past quietly. Planting trees is a good way to obscure the visual impact of passing trains.
People that ride the train want to get to work and home again. GRADE SEPARATIONS will keep the train from impacting a stalled truck leading to derailment and massive loss of life. ELECTRIFICATION will allow for quieter trains and more timely service. A CENTER PASSING TRACK will allow full service even when there is mechanical failure, 80 mile-per-hour bullet trains passing won’t be passing right next to people standing at the platform, and WIDE freight trains will use the center track(s) allowing closer/higher platforms for LEVEL boarding.
Union Pacific (owners of the right-of-way) want to make money from freight service. Proposals for 2% from 1% grade will require shorter/lighter trains and more engines and engineers to operate, making freight service no longer financially sound. Because freight trains can be wider than commuter trains, we’ll never have level boarding (where the platform comes right up to meet the flood of the coach) unless we have 3 or 4 tracks.
Elevating the tracks while planting a few trees should resolve all these issues.
Viagaraforsale Maxium Pediatric Amoxil Dose Cheap Viagra Buy Pharmacy Online Now [url=http://costofcial.com ]generic cialis[/url] Acheter Cialis Sans Ordonnance Ligne Sex Mit Viagra Cialis Levitra Isotretinoin acutane