|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Presented with three options to separate Ravenswood Avenue, and possibly other roads, from the Caltrain tracks, the Menlo Park City Council on April 4 winnowed those options down to two.
However, some council members expressed dissatisfaction with the options presented, whether because they’d prefer to see the tracks separated from the roads via a trench or tunnel, or because the options include the possibility of a third rail line running through the city.
The options that will receive further study are, one, separating Ravenswood Avenue from the Caltrain tracks, and two, separating Ravenswood, Oak Grove and Glenwood avenues from the tracks.
The first option would run Ravenswood Avenue under the tracks, which would stay at their current elevation. The preliminary estimated cost is between $140 million and $190 million.
Go to the city’s project webpage for more information.
The other option would elevate the Caltrain tracks at three crossings: Ravenswood, Oak Grove and Glenwood avenues. This option would create a berm to elevate Caltrain, at a maximum of 10 feet, and would depress the roads. Three of the five council members – Rich Cline, Catherine Carlton and Kirsten Keith – expressed support for this option at the April 4 council meeting. The preliminary estimated cost of this option is between $280 million to $380 million.
The option that was eliminated would have separated the Caltrain tracks from Ravenswood and Oak Grove avenues, and would have created a berm through the city that would reach a maximum height of 17 feet, at a preliminary estimated cost of between $230 million to $310 million.
Councilman Peter Ohtaki was the sole supporter of this option, noting it would cost less than adding Glenwood Avenue to the project.
“I think we need what we can get that has most likelihood of happening in our lifetimes,” Mr. Ohtaki said, pointing out that the current administration in Washington, D.C., is not likely to offer funding support.
Third rail
For the two options selected to move forward, the study will factor into the equation the possibility of an added third rail line, or “passing” track, through the city.
While Menlo Park has a policy that does not support a third rail line, the study was funded, in large part, by a grant from the San Mateo County Transportation Authority via Measure A, a countywide half-cent sales tax. Considering a third rail track was a condition of the grant.
There had been some ambiguity over how far that grant requires Menlo Park to go in planning for a third rail line. City staff consulted legal experts, including Caltrain representatives, but not those from the transportation authority.
Council members Carlton, Keith and Ohtaki voted to add a potential third track on the outside of the existing tracks, likely the east side, rather than between the tracks. At the Menlo Park station, people would board and exit trains from a central platform between the existing two tracks, rather than having separate north- and south-bound boarding platforms, as exist now.
That would minimize the amount the rail area would have to be expanded, and would enable simpler plans if a third rail line ends up not being necessary, according to staff.
That said, Menlo Park resident Steve van Pelt pointed out in a public comment that if plans for a passing track move forward, Menlo Park will have to coordinate with neighboring cities to make sure those track lines connect; the city may not have much say where the third rail goes. Councilman Rich Cline said in a message to the Almanac that he supports whatever option will fit with neighboring cities’ rail lines.
Councilman Ray Mueller did not vote on either measure because he said he does not support a third rail track through Menlo Park and wanted the council to meet in a closed session to talk about what exactly the legal requirements of the grant are with the transportation authority.
Not ‘bold’ enough?
Councilman Rich Cline said he has spent a lot of years on this subject, and the project isn’t the far-sighted “50- to 100-year project” staff claim it is. “If we were to really consider this seriously as a 50- to 100-year project,” he said, “we would be talking about tunneling (the tracks) right now.”
“We’re not being bold,” he said.
Trains should go underground, not above ground, he told the council. Yet in his experience, he said, proposals to tunnel trains underground “died at the dais every single time,” mostly because they’re very expensive and funds are hard to come by.
“Wouldn’t it be fabulous,” suggested Councilwoman Carlton, if Menlo Park were to join with neighboring cities to somehow find a way to tunnel the train beneath the road, and have a continuous bike and pedestrian path above the tracks. But she noted that her preference, of the options presented, was to study three crossing separations.
Menlo Park resident Chris Kilburn said in a public comment that he lived in Boston during its “Big Dig” project, which was under construction between 1991 and 2006. He admitted it was a pain while under construction (and cost billions and took years more than expected), but since it has opened, it has transformed and reconnected the city.
Similarly, Robert Cronin said in a public comment said that although people were inconvenienced by the construction of five grade separations in San Carlos and Belmont in years past, now, locals there say they appreciate it.
“If we don’t tunnel this route – we are fools,” Councilman Cline later wrote in a message to the Almanac.
Mayor Kirsten Keith said she would “love” to put the rails underground, but added: “I don’t see that happening. … These are tough decisions. That’s why nothing’s been done for decades on this.”
Quiet zone?
If the roads were no longer in conflict with the train tracks, then, theoretically, Caltrain wouldn’t have to toot its horn at those crossings. That would improve quality of life for many, Bicycle Commissioner Cindy Welton said in a public comment.
That brought up the question: What about Encinal Avenue, Menlo Park’s fourth rail crossing?
If it were not also separated from the tracks, then would Caltrain still have to blare at that spot, sending its reverberations through the city?
Some suggested that the crossing could be shut down, which, according to Councilman Mueller, might not be an undesirable alternative for some residents, given its likelihood to become a cut-through route with development growth nearby.
Others suggested installing a special “quad” gate at the crossing, such as what Atherton has done, which would enable Caltrain to skip the horn there. However, such gates can cost about $1 million, according to Nikki Nagaya, assistant public works director. Also, the city might take on liability if something bad were to happen on the tracks, she said.
According to Mr. Cline, the driver of the train always has the discretion and right to pull the horn – “nobody can change that,” he said. “I don’t think there ever is a quiet zone.”
__
-
The Menlo Park council voted to study options A and C further, with plans to further narrow the options to one preferred alternative by the fall. (Image courtesy city of Menlo Park/AECOM.) -
A screenshot from a photorealistic video showing what a Ravenswood Avenue underpass beneath the Caltrain tracks might look like, with traffic heading westbound. Bicycle and pedestrian areas would be elevated compared to the road. (Image: city of Menlo Park/AECOM.)
Redwood City attorney sues ‘First Amendment auditors’ after Menlo Park disputeApril 2, 2026 11:31 am
I am just curious why should we even consider spending money to create a situation where Caltrain drivers do not need to blow the horn? People who bought near the tracks and crossings were fully aware of what they were getting when they made the purchase, it is not like the tracks have not been there for 100 years.
Who would end up paying the $140 to $380 million dollars that these options are projected to cost? Don’t think we will get any funding from Washington to offset those costs? I personally would be opposed to any bond measures to cover them. Better crossing gates for $1 million make sense, maybe trying to get the High Speed Rail project to pay makes sense (if that actually happens) but Menlo Park footing the bill does not make sense.
How many of us will be dead and gone before anything gets done on this?
Raise the tracks.
I am deeply disappointed that the Council and City Manager have not been more diligent in pursuing a solution to this issue. The Council needs to move beyond the “wouldn’t it be cool if…” stage of the conversation. It is time to select a reality-based alternative, get on with designing it, and start applying for funding, before that funding has been awarded to other projects. Spoiler alert: our neighbors to the north and south don’t support tunneling, and so there will be no tunnel through Menlo Park. There just isn’t enough real estate to allow for safe elevation changes along a railroad line (think of a rollercoaster)
Next, the City needs to figure out how it wants the immediately adjacent areas to be re-developed over the next few years and update its land use planning documents accordingly.
On this issue, Menlo Park (unfortunately) has much more in common with Atherton than it does with its other neighbors. Despite Atherton’s best efforts, Caltrain isn’t going anywhere, and high speed rail will be coming in the next 20-25 years.
I’ve resided in Park Forest, off and on, since 1964 and my unscientific opinion is that train engineers are blowing the horns more often and for longer periods today than in the past. Do whatever is necessary to reduce and/or eliminate the need for horn blowing to improve the quality of life for everyone throughout Menlo Park . As we all know, the horns are audible, everywhere, late at night and early in the morning.
Since the current administration supposedly wants to develop jobs by emphasizing infrastructure, why not find out whether it is willing to “put its money where its mouth is” by proposing the best, albeit most expensive alternative?
“Raise the tracks.”
As San Carlos and Belmont are (about) to find out, raising the tracks has significant side effects.
In particular, if HSR has its way, the berm through San Carlos and Belmont will have to be rebuilt. Why? Because HSR wants a passing track through there. That means mucho construction through those areas, and of course results in the complete waste of money that was spent to build those berms…that may now be rebuilt.
Raising the tracks is dumb, dumb, dumb.
Cline is right, but he sounds like he is resigned to the fact that no below grade option will ever see the light of day.
Anyone who thinks neighbors are opposed to undergrounding rail either have lived past their prime or they aren’t much for research. New council members in Palo Alto just asked this very question – why not underground? Atherton supports tunneling.
Wake up. We can always build tired old grade crossings…
I agree – raise the tracks. San Bruno, San Carlos, Belmont, etc.. all have much better traffic and audio qualities because they were smart enough to get it done early.
*IF* they have to add a track, then yes, it will be some work, but most of the structure stays in place (ie.. they don’t have to reroute Ralston, Harbor, San Bruno Ave, Holly, etc..)
Talk to anyone up there – they would never go back.
Since 2006 the MP Council has had opportunities to do something about the dangerous at grade crossings in Menlo Park. The approval of the High Speed Rail Bond in November 2008 was a golden opportunity to leverage local, regional, state and federal money to build infrastructure for a modernized and fully grade separated Caltrain on the Peninsula and through Menlo Park.
For reasons that can only be characterized as short-sighted and political, the 2008-10 Council chose to fight any initiatives that could have benefitted HSR. Close to midnight August 5, 2008 at a City Council meeting with no public notice or comment Rich Cline and Kelly Fergusson voted 2-1 to join a lawsuit against HSR. Council Member John Boyle asked that the vote be taken when a full council was present, but his request was denied. While this Council majority held its power, they also discouraged modest transit-oriented residential and commercial developments on El Camino near the train station.
In 2011, the Council joined Joe Simitian, Anna Eshoo and Rich Gordon in support and the ultimate approval of the “Blended Plan”, which was designed to inhibit HSR function. This one act also became an ongoing operational burden for Caltrain modernization.
Our City Council sided with forces that eventually succeeded in banishing HSR to the agricultural hinterlands of the San Joaquin Valley. Instead of an upgraded usable electrified rail segment from San Francisco to San Jose, we have an isolated project that might serve Fresno, Merced and Bakersfield. Now Trump’s Republicans have stopped Caltrain electrification, and the prospect of any federal money for any federally supported transit projects in the Bay Area are slim to none.
As long as planning money was awarded to MP for a grade separation planning study, the City should use the money responsibly. There needs to be a good faith effort to analyze the best case option for improving safety, elimination of horn noise, retaining access to downtown properties, facilitating east-west mobility for all modes and enabling Caltrain to best serve the region. This calls for a three-track viaduct that grade separates all four of our at-grade crossings. It’s possible and our City Staff should allow the consultant to show us how it’s done!
Let’s have the best solution ready for when sane people return to government and recognize the value of spending big money on transit infrastructure.
The passing track? Oh yes, consideration of it was a condition of the Measure A planning grant and the Council shouldn’t be trying to get around this obligation. Of course it should be included in any design. The passing track works best in the middle with outside boarding platforms, just like now. Center boarding platforms are dangerous for both passengers and train operators and have been all but eliminated in the Caltrain system.
Re: the post by Brian about why create quiet zones- people who purchased homes near Caltrain knew about the tracks, the train noise, etc. I grew up in Menlo Park and our home was within a block of the train tracks. When my parents purchased the home, there were just a few commute trains that passed by every half hr. in a very short window -7 a.m.-9 a.m. and in the evening 5p.m.- 6:30 p.m. Midday there were trains that passed once an hr. Things have changed significantly since my parents purchased their home. I no longer live there, but I have friends who would like to live close to downtown so they can walk to the shops and restaurants rather than using a car but the train horn has discouraged several people I know from doing so. Many communities including cities in the East Bay and up north have installed quiet zones. Even our neighboring town, Atherton has taken steps to install quiet zones. I do think it would help Menlo Park in many ways. I know this is not a new subject but I think the City Council member(s) who actually make it happen will be long remembered as making a significant contribution.
MP Council as usual favors the most expensive most intrusive solution.
My solution – move CalTrain next to 101 freeway. Use some eminent domain on the big corps.
“Center boarding platforms … have been all but eliminated in the Caltrain system.”
Not true
Ever seen a freight train? Imagine a freight train passing below San Francisquito Creek. With a 1% grade, the new Menlo Park train station would need to be 2 or 3 stories below ground level. This is embarrassing. Menlo Park should be talking about building a modern transit center like Mountain View or San Carlos.
Atherton wants to bury Caltrain, but they can’t figure out how to bury the creek at Marsh Road. Are these the people we want creating a situation with their “quiet zone” that could lead to derailment and a massive loss of life in Felton Gables?
“Ever seen a freight train? Imagine a freight train passing below San Francisquito Creek”
Freight trains travel underneath the Hudson River every day.
“Menlo Park should be talking about building a modern transit center like Mountain View or San Carlos.”
Thanks to its brilliant non-Comprehensive Planning Menlo Park does not have ANY PF zoning to permit a surface level transit center.
“*IF* they have to add a track, then yes, it will be some work”
Your hand-waving of rebuilding a berm is amusing. I can practically hear you saying “pshaw! Just a few extra billion here and there, nothing to fret about at all! Move along people, move along.” 🙂
My point is that adding a 3rd track in other areas is easier is other locations than the San Carlos/Belmont berm, infrastructurally-speaking; there are many sections of the Caltrain ROW that already have room for a 3rd track. But of course San Carlos and Belmont decided on a berm, and will live with the consequences of that decision if HSR gets what it wants.
“they don’t have to reroute Ralston, Harbor, San Bruno Ave, Holly, etc..”
What do you base this assertion on?
This talk of adding a berm or viaduct through Menlo Park is pointless, anyways:
1: Palo Alto doesn’t want a berm or viaduct;
2: Atherton doesn’t want a berm or viaduct;
3: without one-or-both of those towns agreeing to a berm/viaduct, you can’t build a berm/viaduct in Menlo Park, mostly because trains are very bad at grade changes, and worse at levitation. By the time the berm was raised enough to not need a below-grade underpass for cars, the berm would need to be lowered again.
MP may be able to do a hybrid grade separation at Oak Grove and Ravenswood, but that’s pretty much the extent of it; Glenwood and Encinal are pipe dreams for a berm, and highly unlikely for an underpass.
And let’s not forget that the current funding source for grade separation will only pay for Ravenswood. Menlo Park is completely on its own for grade separating its other rail/road intersections.
Peninsula Resident writes, “without [Palo Alto] agreeing to a berm/viaduct, you can’t build a berm/viaduct in Menlo Park, mostly because trains are very bad at grade changes, and worse at levitation.”
Sorry, the bridge at the county line is already elevated. With a 1% grade, the tracks could get to full elevation at Ravenswood.
Peninsula Resident writes, “let’s not forget that the current funding source for grade separation will only pay for Ravenswood. Menlo Park is completely on its own for grade separating its other rail/road intersections.”
Examine the funding sources for the San Bruno and San Carlos grade separations. The presumption that Menlo Park would foot the bill is not a reasonable.
“Examine the funding sources for the San Bruno and San Carlos grade separations. The presumption that Menlo Park would foot the bill is not a reasonable.”
Those funding sources were available to Menlo Park and were turned down – now they are now long gone.
You sleep, you lose.
The decision is for a very long time. Sorry, Cline, it really is at leadt a 50 year decision. Make the right one. The safest and least obtrusive option is not bring pursued.
It is more expensive for just the tracks but consider fewer costs from eminent domain and offsetting revenue from ability to use grade level and up for other uses.
Trains in europe go underground all the time especially in neighborhoods. They go through mountains and are not impeded by bodies of water. This is quite feasible here. Take the longview and don’t cut corners. The character and livability of our town is at stake. .
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 25, 2015 at 2:36 pm
“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 a 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.”
Do it once and do it right.
The train needs to go underground without a doubt. It will greatly alter our beautiful downtown. The train will be very loud and run every 30 minutes. The noise will be overwhelming. Boston spent A great deal of money to depress central artery rather than raising the highway. The city now has a beautiful Greenway. Please don’t let overground railroad come to our city.
Wow, did that work.
Hey everyone, let’s debate tunneling which no one actually voted for due to cost, so we all ignore the fact the City just caved on third rail all through the City, without barely a sigh.
Good grief.
And here is what Palo alto is doing to also “study grade separation”:
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/04/05/city-looks-to-bring-public-onboard-for-grade-separation-debate
Might it be too logically to suggest that the communities work TOGETHER????
I’m new to this issue and am asking in earnest if someone can explain why this is such an important project? I would have thought Caltrain was a minor inconvenience. I would hope that a $250M for a municipal project (which means it could cost $1B when we’re all done) would bring a revolutionary change.
“why this is such an important project? ”
Because the current low speed trains can and do kill people at these grade level crossings and higher speed trains must, by law, be grade separated.
Today’s Daily Post reads, “…a desire for the city’s train tracks to run underground, which would cost over $415 million…”
• True cost of Big Dig exceeds $24 billion with interest, officials determine: http://archive.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/07/10/true-cost-big-dig-exceeds-billion-with-interest-officials-determine/AtR5AakwfEyORFSeSpBn1K/story.html
• Why $1 Billion Doesn’t Buy Much Transit Infrastructure Anymore: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/1-billion-doesnt-buy-much-transit-infrastructure-anymore/456/
• The Berryessa Extension is estimated to cost $2.3 billion: http://www.vta.org/bart/faq
* Phase II of VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Extension is anticipated to cost $4.7 billion: http://www.vta.org/bart/faqphaseII
Any underground transit work must be estimated in billions, not millions.
> I would hope that a $250M for a municipal project (which means it could cost $1B when we’re all done) would bring a revolutionary change.
This is California we’re talking about. Once all the consultants, unions, etc. have been paid off, we’re lucky if $1B keeps the status quo.
@Peter Carpenter, while I support grade separation, it is not true that law requires it for the existing two tracks at the maximum speeds HSR and Caltrain envision for the Peninsula (110 mph maximum). If you believe otherwise, please cite the law.
While anyone can cite the existence of tunneled trains or highways elsewhere, tiny suburban Menlo Park with a perfectly good and plenty wide 150+ year-old operating right-of-way, does not have — nor has anyone put forth a plausible scenario where it will receive — the $billion+ easily necessary for undergrounding its tracks and station.
Delusions of grandeur. Reality check time.
For $180m, note what San Mateo is doing right now (eminent domain for a bit of Bohannon-owned parking lots is underway) for 25th Ave. and a new raised Hillsdale station with a wider, safer, operationally more flexible center platform: http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/Projects/Caltrain_Capital_Program/25th_Avenue_Grade_Separation.html
Upcoming Community Meeting on the 25th Avenue Grade Separation Project on April 11:
http://www.caltrain.com/Page4911.aspx
As the linked PDF summarizes, HSRA has recently settled on the San Mateo to Redwood City passing track alternative, so while Menlo’s current planning grant from SMCTA required that designs do not preclude a future 3rd passing track … it now appears highly unlikely Menlo Park will have any additional tracks imposed upon it.
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/statewide_rail/proj_sections/SanFran_SanJose/SF_SJ_Range_of_Alternatives_April_2017.pdf
Peter Carpenter wrote:
“higher speed trains must, by law, be grade separated.”
Reality Check wrote:
“it is not true that law requires it for the existing two tracks at the maximum speeds HSR and Caltrain envision for the Peninsula (110 mph maximum).”
(background: Caltrain currently uses class-4 tracks, which have a maximum speed of 80mph. A max-speed of 90mph are class-5 tracks, and a max-speed of 110mps are class-6 tracks.)
While you’re (kind of) both right, Reality Check is more right.
At the speeds HSR has been targeting through the peninsula (as RC mentioned, max of 110mph), the only legal requirement at highway grade crossings are SSMs (Supplemental Safety Measures), such as quad-gates, wayside horns, lane barriers, etc. Grade separation is not required by the FRA for a 110mph max speed.
That said, if HSR (or Caltrain for that matter), wanted to go faster than 125mph (specifically, class 8 or class 9 tracks), then grade separation is required.
Here’s a useful chart: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/xings/com_roaduser/07010/sec05.cfm