Wise choice. Our streets are unable to support current volumes of traffic and parking. Future growth will make the situation untenable. Transportation infrastructure is among the top responsibilities of government. Vision and investment are needed to keep Palo Alto moving. Grade separation makes sense at a number of levels. Let's do as most great cities have done and bury our traffic problems. Underground it.

I think this is a good move although I am not sure how it could be done without interrupting Caltrain service.

I like the idea of having the space above the tracks used. We could have a proper bike path, separated from an extension of Central Expressway running all the way to Page Mill Road.

We could also have some green space too.

It would be a horrendous process but well worth the effort when it was finished.

But Palo Alto is not famous for getting stuff done so I am looking on it as pipe dream. That and the cost. It probably won't happen, sadly.

I support the City's coming up with a good estimate as to the cost of underpasses at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. Don't think the trenching is such a good idea, or likely to happen.

But one has to wonder what Caltrain will do with these studies? Unless the agencies are willing to accept the studies, and actually do something about the conclusions the studies present, what's the point of the exercise?

It's a shame that this work could not have been initiated via the Caltrain JPA.

Palo Alto has money to burn on consultant studies.

Wayne Martin - Caltrain is not going to do anything unless the city comes up with the money to pay for the changes that it wants. Some grade separations are going on in San Mateo County right now, but only after the county paid for them. Since Santa Clara County is blowing all its public transit money on BART right now, projects like this are going to have to come from city money.

> Caltrain is not going to do anything unless the city comes up
> with the money to pay for the changes that it wants.

Having researched this a bit, the cost of underpasses starts at/about $50M. The trenching is hundreds of millions more. The City has in the past refused to even talk about underpasses, other than possibily pedestrian underpasses, under the Caltrain line. So, this is a new expense to consider funding.

The City's infreastructure backlog is at least $550M, which does not include anything involving Caltrain problem mitigations. It's possible that the City will suggest that if Palo Alto wants to authroize the taxing of property owners to fund this trenching, and possibly underpasses, then they can push for ever larger bonding authority than they have so far.

We have not ever seen a valid infrastructure proposal, so there is no valid estimate for the cost of running the City for the next fifty years. It's pretty clear, however, that with the never-ending suggestions that we fund this, that, and the other--Palo Alto can not afford itself.

Trenching is a huge expense (upwards of $500,000,000 just for a couple of miles in Palo Alto) and unlikely to happen in my lifetime unless the city can get some outside source (like HSR) to pay for it.

A much more likely outcome is that the city will move one of the existing at-grade crossings into a tunnel under the train tracks. Close the other at-grade crossings to cars and replace them with inexpensive pedestrian bridges over the tracks. Car tunnels under the tracks will cost at least $50,000,000 each. Some nearby homes may need to be condemned to make room for car ramps (hopefully better designed than the ones at Oregon Expressway). A pedestrian bridge will cost only a small percentage of the cost of a tunnel, so the city should be able to build a bunch of these pretty quickly.

Last week I heard Russ Hancock speak about his vision for ECR as well as some comments about taking a more regionalized approach to various matters that impact this area. He has a vision for ECR that merits consideration BEFORE additional expensive work is done so that well planned, coordinated development occurs. It makes sense to me to know what in the heck is really happening with HSR and CalTrain BEFORE going forward with construction in the CalTrain corridor. At the very least we should sequence projects smartly and avoid the spectre of having to raze something that is relatively new. As City expenses go, 127k isn't all that much, but if it is essentially a waste as Mr. Klein suggests, what's the point?

Unfortunately this appears to be a waste of tax dollars. The High Speed Rail Authority is not going to spend $500M+ because Palo Alto wants it. I haven't seen any news about the grade crossings since the end of 2012. The plan still appears to be building partially elevated tracks with trenched under crossings where there are already at grade crossings.
Web Link

Sounds to me like Larry Klien is the only Council Member that's sees this clearly. Of course we are curious about the difference in costs of trenching vs underpasses, but curiosity does not justify expensive premature exploration.

I disagree with Klein on this one. Though he is correct that the money for rail "improvements" will come from agencies Palo Alto has little control over, Kniss and Price are correct on their point--that we need to stay in front of this. Caltrain WILL propose the project that is easiest and least expensive for them regardless of the impacts it causes for us--UNLESS we have documented the projected impacts of various options. We can rely on HSRA and Caltrain NOT to study Palo Alto streets impacts thoroughly. That has been their pattern of behavior.

This is a good investment--important due diligence. It will give us information we need in the environmental review process to nudge Caltrain toward solutions that might actually work better for Palo Alto.

Caltrain does not pay for grade separation. Local communities, or their counties do. San Mateo County has dedicated sales tax $$ for it, so they eliminate 1 or 2 grade separations per year.

I don't see Palo Alto pulling $50 million out of the general fund for each of these. A better route would be to go for consistent, county wide funding, covering train crossings across multiple cities, including Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and San Jose. Like the $200M sales tax funding (over several years) for county wide Bus Rapid Transit we have now. Maybe by 2030 we can have a early-mid 20th century quality train system, with full grade separation and electric power.

People who think the trenches will be topped with bike lanes or green space are either very new round here or intentionally trying to deceive, to gain support.
Any space created will be gobbled up by developers. They have long since expressed their wishes to build above the tracks.
Also, when Council member Kniss is in favor of something, follow the money.

Spending of money it going to happen but we need to find out different options to build the below grade trench. Does it have to be pretty?

@Not So Simple - good point about Kniss.

I find it very strange that Klein insists that even considering grade separations for some, or all, of Palo Alto is simply too expensive (estimated cost about $650M), and therefore should be stricken from consideration. Isn't Klein on the same city council salivating over a possible $200M bond for projects the city council can't even prioritize, let alone articulate very well?

Karen Holman needs more community feedback? Karen, are you paying attention? Grade separations have been desired along the Peninsula for decades, really. Remember that rail corridor report that came out about a year ago? Perhaps you ought to read it. The people who put that report together did a pretty good job.

Now that the Maybell project got voted down, how about have the developers build senior dense housing along Caltrain that must include burying it? :-)

I agree with Mr. Klein. You don't know how HSR is going to play out and you don't know how CalTrain electrification is going to play out, so you're going to spend a lot of money and wind up with a study that's obsolete before the ink is dry.

I really like the trench option and have been thinking about it for years. There are following advantages:
1. Way better looking, it removes the visual interruptions caused by flyovers and underpasses.
2. Requires less space: drop Caltrain tracks down 20 feet as it enters town on the other side of San francisquito creek. It should take <1/2 mile at 1% grade and by the time you are at Lytton the tracks are down. Streets have to climb 5 feet or so over the tracks, gentle ramps with a tiny bit of space needed compared to tunnel thru options.
3. Clears up the mess near downtown. University goes over tracks and El Camino, intersects with Alma with a wide and nice intersection. Lytton and Hamilton connect to El Camino to relive traffic on University. A parking structure for Caltrain patrons goes above the tracks, and two large pieces of land get (current parking) freed up.
4. Gets Stanford "closer" to town. Right now the train tracks and el Camino act like a barrier between town and campus.
5. Less train noise: 45 degree sides to the trench channel noise up.
6. Boost real estate values of properties on Alma
7. A reengineered Palo Alto station with 4 tracks that can accommodate HSR. Station depot above tracks bad platforms below tracks like European stations.

I just think we ought to find the money. It will be pretty when it is done!

If Palo Alto does not have a viable plan how to deal with the Caltrain corridor, rest assured that the CA HSR Authority and/or the Caltrain Joint Powers Board will do what ever is necessary to keep trains rolling at the absolute lowest cost. Community standards would be of no concern to them, and issues such as noise, eminent domain, elevated tracks, etc are all viable options. The less $$ they spend on tracks, the more they spend on bonuses, overtime, more bonuses, and a great party when it's done celebrating how they completely duped Palo Alto, and no doubt other communities, because those communities were certain that they had the upper hand.

Go bug Zuckerberg or Sergey Brin/Larry Page or Larry Ellison to pay for the cost of doing all this! . . .it makes NO financial sense to spend that kind of money on such a small distance of track. Insanity . . .

This scheme to re-engineer University avenue and build a parking structure etc. would add tens or hundreds of millions to the cost. How would your lowered tracks cross the creek and not damage El Palo Alto and accomodate HSR and accomodate the Union Pacific freights and fit in with CalTrain electrification? Didn't think about those, did you?

Regarding the condemnation of homes note that "eminent domain" does not pay the homeowner at market value. The calculation used is the tax assessment for the property with some other mitigating costs. If these homes have been in one ownership for many years than the variance between the tax assessment and market value will be substantial. Thus any investment to the homeowner will be a loss. And the homeowner will not be able to recover the differential in order to move to a new location. That needs to be brought out as it could affect other people in other city areas if eminent domain is used for other projects.

Once the property is condemned, doesn't its market value go to zero?

The word "condemned" that was used in the original proposal is incorrect.
The displacement of property for the purpose of a government action (change in roads, example) should have been "eminent domain". In that case the owner of the property is entitled to financial reimbursement. The change in title to the property for tax purposes - property and income tax - needs to happen to update the tax assessment system. Transfer of title to the property is a formal action. If the property is being kept up and meeting code then the word "condemnation" would not apply.
Eminent Domain is being used in the central valley for the purpose of HSR which is targeting properties in Fresno that have been in families for many years - so the tax assessed value has no relation to the current market value. People are suing over that discrepancy.

"Green light" for every study you paid. But Let the citizen vote for it first!

I hope the San Joaquin Valley settlers vs railroad dispute fares better than the 1880 version precipitating the Mussel Slough shootout. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.