New idea for rail bridges in Menlo New idea for rail bridges in Menlo (September 15, 2004)

By Richard Hine
Almanac Staff Writer

The prospect of building four large rail bridges over Menlo Park roads -- to separate vehicle and rail traffic -- is daunting, to put it mildly, for many residents and public officials. That was evident again last week as consultants presented the latest information on their study of the project -- known as "grade separations" -- at a meeting of the Menlo Park Transportation Commission.

"Stop the train I want to get off," said Commissioner Mary Gilles after hearing the presentation. "The tear in the fabric of the community is tremendous."

Later in the meeting, a new idea for building the bridges was offered besides the two options the City Council is focusing on. A Redwood City engineer said his "top-down" method promised less disruption, cost and impact on adjacent properties.

After hearing it, Commission Chair Reg Rice said he wasn't convinced the two City Council options were the best, and no motion was made to recommend one of them to the City Council.

The commission did recommend that the council appoint a subcommittee to meet with Atherton and Palo Alto officials to discuss common grade-separation concerns.

Menlo Park is not committed to building the structures yet, but agreed to the $188,000 study -- paid for by county Transportation Authority funds -- in part to be in a position to influence the design should a grade-separation project be funded or mandated.

If California voters approve bonds to build a high-speed rail system from Los Angeles to San Francisco -- a measure that is expected to be on the ballot in 2006 -- the number of rail tracks in the Caltrain corridor would double from two to four, and the city would have no choice but to build the grade separations or close some of the four roads that cross the tracks: Ravenswood, Oak Grove, Encinal and Glenwood avenues.

Several grade separations have been built on the Peninsula in recent years to improve safety and traffic flow, and the pressure to build them increases as more trains -- currently 86 on weekdays -- use the corridor, tying up traffic at rail crossings.

Council's options

The City Council has asked the staff to focus on two options:

** The staff-preferred "split-level" design, with tracks elevated and roadways depressed -- the design used for the Holly Street grade separation in San Carlos. Consultants said such a design would have less impact on adjacent properties and cross streets than alternatives.

** A deep underpass design -- keeping the rail at its current elevation and lowering the road by 20 feet.

During the meeting, which drew about 70 people to the City Council Chambers, the Transportation Commission heard presentations and viewed graphics on both options, and also heard about the "top-down" construction method that its advocates say would have less impact on the city.

Consultants also offered a new layout for the Menlo Park train station should the tracks be increased from two to four. The three structures would be moved, most notably the main depot building, which would be located closer to Santa Cruz Avenue, where it could be seen from the downtown area.

The City Council is expected to hear the presentations October 19.

New idea

The "underpass" alternative -- building the road 20 feet under the rail bridge -- is appealing to some because it would keep the rail line at its current elevation. However, this option involves building long and deep road approaches, with retaining walls as high as 25 feet, and cutting or reducing access to side streets and adjacent properties.

The split-level option -- for example, raising the rail line 10 feet and lowering the roadway 10 feet -- would reduce this impact, but many oppose the elevated rail.

Among them is Menlo Park commercial property owner Walter Harrington, who told commissioners last week he was alarmed at the prospect of an elevated rail line dividing the city with a "Hadrian's Wall."

He proposed a new idea, created by Nick Watry, a Redwood City-based architect and construction engineer, who spoke at the meeting. The Watry top-down construction idea would keep the rail at its present elevation.

The conventional construction method, Mr. Watry explained in an interview, involves closing the intersection, rerouting cars, and building a "shoefly" -- a temporary rail line around the existing crossing. Then, workers excavate the underpass, build the rail bridge, put the old rail line back on it, and dismantle the shoefly.

Each grade separation can cost $25 million and can take about two years to build.

With the Watry method, he said, you build from the top down. You build the rail bridge first while the trains stay in service and cars on the roadway have a short swing around the intersection. You do this by drilling 30-inch-diameter holes beside the rail line, pouring concrete in for the foundation, and then building the bridge on top. When that's done, you excavate the dirt under the pre-constructed bridge. No shoefly is required.

With this method, he said, the roadway undercrossing could be 17 -- instead of 20 -- feet deep, allowing for a shorter and shallower approaching ramps, and therefore less impact on adjacent properties.

Contractor Jay Kuhre told the commissioners that his company, the Concord-based bridge builder William P. Young Construction Inc., had examined this design and concluded that it would substantially reduce costs and reduce construction time by 30 percent. He said the techniques were "proven," although they had not been used for this application.

Mr. Watry, who has proposed a similar construction method for a Broadway grade separation in Redwood City, said in an interview he planned to meet with Caltrain engineers this week to discuss this concept.

Several people spoke at the meeting, including residents near the rail line whose properties could be severely impacted by the project.

INFORMATION

For more information, e-mail transportation@menlopark.org, or call 330-6770.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.