New Menlo Park council reverses decision on Caltrain separations

The wheels of Menlo Park’s grade separation project lurched forward Tuesday night in a markedly different direction from where plans were headed under the previous City Council.

In the freshly seated council’s first major decision, new members Cecilia Taylor, Betsy Nash and Drew Combs joined Councilwoman Catherine Carlton – who had previously abstained from a vote on the matter – in reversing the previous council’s decision. They voted in favor of separating three Menlo Park roadways that cross the Caltrain line, not only one as the previous council had endorsed, as the “preferred option” moving forward.

The council voted 4-0, with Mayor Ray Mueller absent (he was attending his father’s funeral), to accept “Alternative C” as its preferred alternative in the first stage of the project. That alternative would partially raise the rail tracks and partially lower the roadways, creating a berm along the bulk of the rail line through Menlo Park. Under this plan, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists would no longer have to cross the Caltrain tracks at Ravenswood, Oak Grove and Glenwood avenues.

The alternative is estimated to cost of $390 million.

In May, the council voted 3-1-1, with Mayor Ray Mueller opposed and Carlton abstaining, to approve Alternative A, a plan to build a single, roughly $200 million underpass for vehicles at Ravenswood Avenue, tunneling the road 22 feet below the train tracks and restricting access to Alma Street. At the time, Alternative C was not favored, the council majority said, because it was nearly twice as expensive as Alternative A, and because the expected construction time, about five years, at three of the city’s four main east-west crossings, would have major impacts to people moving around the city during that time.

Staff and consultants from the engineering firm AECOM are now working on wrapping up a “project study report” that essentially describes all the work that has been done so far on the project and identifies a preferred alternative. According to project manager Angela Obeso, the city received a grant for that step of the project from the San Mateo County Transportation Authority and needs to complete the report to be eligible for more funds. The city is in competition for these funds with other cities in the county trying to build grade separations on the Peninsula, so, staff says, time is of the essence to make these decisions and ensure that Menlo Park remains eligible for further funding.

Why the change?

In the last cycle of public comment, residents of the Felton Gables neighborhood voiced strong opposition to any elevation of the rail line. That neighborhood sits along the tracks and residents there were extremely concerned about the visual and noise impacts.

They are still opposed, but others in public comment have been more vocal in opposing Alternative A, the Ravenswood underpass plan, because it would cut off access to Alma Street from Ravenswood Avenue, make future grade separations far costlier, and not fully address the imminent problem of Caltrain electrification and the fact that the rails will soon be capable of running many more trains per hour across the tracks, creating more of a traffic and safety problem for people crossing the tracks than ever before.

Felton Gables resident Marcy Abramowitz told the council that its decision would impact the city’s character, desirability and livability for decades to come. Elevated rails are not compatible with residential areas, she argued, and would have adverse noise, vibration and real estate impacts to nearby homes.

Ike Griffin, who said he represents a group called “Design First,” presented slides showing elevated rail segments in the area, depicting berms and vandalism along the rail line. “What we’ve seen is not pretty,” he said. “I think that Menlo Park deserves better.”

According to a staff report, 30 letters were received at City Hall opposing Alternative A, while 20 explicitly described a preference for Alternative C, since the draft report expressing the council’s preference for Alternative A was released. Many people opposed Alternative A because it would eliminate access to Alma Street from Ravenswood Avenue.

Other commenters asked that the council give less weight to visual concerns than concerns involving safety.

With Caltrain electrification around the corner there will be trains running more frequently; hence, the crossing gates will be down and preventing traffic flow more often. “That’ll be a bigger barrier than the physical view of elevated rail,” said Linfield Oaks resident Verle Aebi.

Katie Behroozi, a Complete Streets commissioner, pointed out that separating only one rail crossing – via an underpass at Ravenswod Avenue – precludes the possibility of raising the rails at a later time, meaning that if more crossings have to be separated later, Oak Grove and Glenwood avenues would also have to be tunneled beneath the tracks, thereby causing additional roads near the tracks to be cut off.

While elevating the rails has been resisted by some neighborhoods with aesthetic concerns, she urged the council to “look at the big picture,” and account for the needs of residents throughout the city, not just those of people in specific neighborhoods.

Another factor is the passage of the 2018 California State Rail Plan.

That plan states that over the past decade, Caltrain’s ridership has grown the fastest out of any of the state’s four commuter rail operators, nearly doubling its ridership from 2005 to 2015, and that the system already operates at or near capacity at peak hours. “These near-term needs will necessitate new infrastructure investments,” the report says. Grade separations between San Francisco and San Jose are listed as a long-term goal, or by 2040, a priority, in the report.

In other words, funding help from the state may be possible.

Trench or tunnel looking less feasible

Picking a preferred alternative for the project study report doesn’t mean the city can’t do more research, though. Following requests from council members, staff will set aside funding for researching a viaduct option – or fully elevating the rail line, but not to research a trench or tunnel – unless the city gets a clear indication from neighboring jurisdictions that that’s something they’re also interested in pursuing.

Trench or tunnel options are far more expensive than other options.

A recent white paper analysis conducted in Palo Alto priced a trench or tunnel through that city at between $2.4 and $4 billion, depending on the design.

According to Complete Streets Commissioner Adina Levin, the executive director of Friends of Caltrain, the state is unlikely to help foot the bill for a trench or tunnel. Ensuring that local residents won’t have to see the train from their window at home, she pointed out, is not something policymakers in the Central Valley are likely to support if there are other, less-costly options that provide the same mobility benefits. And finding the will to pay the difference as a city, given other capital needs, seems unlikely, she added.

“Raising an extra billion dollars for us is, I think, out of reach,” she said.

Council members present appeared to reach the same conclusion. “I was a big fan of the tunnel or trenching,” said Carlton. “I don’t think we’re going to come up with the money to do it.”

She said she was willing to support Alternative C, despite the serious construction impacts. “This is a huge decision,” she said. “Sometimes you have to hold your nose and think: This is going to be really inconvenient for a little while, but the benefits are going to be tremendous.”

Nash agreed. “I think, fundamentally, three crossings are more logical than one. … I also agree that a tunnel, … while a wonderful pipe dream, is not feasible.”

Combs said he opposes Alternative A, but wants to see further study of the viaduct and trench or tunnel options. “I appreciate that a tunnel or trench may be magical thinking or that a viaduct looks a lot nicer in the European countryside than going up the Peninsula,” he said, before adding, “I would be willing to go down that path so we can close off those options.”

Vice Mayor Taylor said she favors Alternative C for safety reasons.

Mayor Ray Mueller, while not present, has expressed continued interested in pursuing the possibility of a trench or tunnel option with other cities. He recently sent an email to the Palo Alto City Council stating: “I remain very interested in meeting with representatives of the Palo Alto City Council and other City Councils subregionally, formally, to discuss the viability of a tunnel for high speed rail in our portion of the peninsula. My hope is you will not dismiss this alternative until we have had a chance to discuss this option, collaboratively, together.”

This morning, Mueller told The Almanac that he agrees with “the council’s consensus that all three roadways crossing the rail line need to be separated and I appreciate their concern of whether or not tunneling may be feasible.”

Interim City Manager Starla Jerome-Robinson said she and the city’s rail subcommittee – currently made up of council members Combs and Mueller – would meet with the rail subcommittees in other cities and report back their interest at a later meeting.

The matter is expected to be returned to the council in February to formally approve Alternative C and discuss the revised scope of further research into the viaduct, trench and tunnel alternatives.

Pilot’s report of ‘erratically’ flying paraglider triggers search at SLAC campusJanuary 19, 2026 11:20 am

Ownership change brings new flavors to this 70-year-old Palo Alto ice cream institutionJanuary 19, 2026 2:24 pm

Donors pony up $2.5 million to beautify Woodside Road medians9 hours ago