Tonight, in an agenda item slated for 9pm, Palo Alto City Council will start to consider a set of ten options to separate Caltrain tracks from four city streets (Palo Alto, Churchill, Meadow and Charleston).

* Options for Palo Alto Avenue include closing the street to cars and elevating the tracks over the street
* Options for Churchill include closing the street to cars and adding bike/ped improvements, trenching the tracks and elevating the street, or depressing the street and elevating the tracks
* Options for Meadow and Churchill include depressing the tracks in a tunnel or trench with or without raising the roadway, and elevating the tracks with or without depressing the roadway; with an additional bike/pedestrian crossing at Loma Verde, as listed in the city’s bicycle/pedestrian plan.

The options on the table also include a citywide tunnel, despite grave concerns by the city manager at the last City Council Rail Committee meeting that the prospects for funding a multi-billion dollar project seem vanishingly slim.

The timeline in the staff report has the city council considering the options tonight, and making a decision about a smaller number of options to study in depth on June 30, and selecting a “preferred alternative” for formal environmental study by the end of the year.

Some community groups including Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design have been recommending to convene citizens’ stakeholder group to help winnow through the remaining options.

What do you think?

Menlo Park advances “one-street” grade separation in divided vote

Earlier in May, Menlo Park City Council voted 3-1-1, with members Ray Mueller opposed and Catherine Carlton abstaining, to pursue further study of of the option to build a single underpass for vehicles at Ravenswood Avenue.

The Ravenswood Underpass option would steer most drivers across the tracks onto Ravenswood, requiring the street to be widened.  This option would also cut off driving access on Alma and Merrill Street, and would steer more drivers taking local trips to civic center locations (library, gym, city hall, etc) onto Laurel Street.

The result would be a small number of streets concentrating car traffic, with a less accessible grid of smaller streets for local trips by car, bicycling, and walking.

Over time, as train frequency increases, the remaining three streets (Oak Grove, Encinal, Valparaiso/Glenwood) would become more difficult to cross at peak periods; but pursing the Ravenswood Underpass would make it more difficult and less likely that the city would separate any of the other three at-grade crossings in the future, since this would require additional underpasses that would require significant property takings from buildings adjacent to the underpass.

Menlo Park’s Complete Streets Commission (disclosure, your blogger is a member of that commission), had recommended a 3-street option, because of concerns that a Ravenswood Underpass would impede cross-town connectivity for local trips.

However, city council also choose further exploration of a “viaduct” option that would fully elevate the tracks and allow full access across Oak Grove and Glenwood. Earlier explorations to extend an elevated option into Atherton reached a dead end when Atherton was uninterested in that option.

Council also sought a financial analysis of a trench or tunnel option along the lines of Palo Alto’s financial study.

As noted, Menlo Park’s vote was split, with Council Member Carlton abstaining but expressing grave concerns about funnelling Menlo Park’s crosstown traffic onto one street; Council Member Keith voting for the Ravenswood Underpass but expressing similar concerns to CM Carlton; and Cline voting for the underpass but strongly preferring a tunnel if possible to fund.

Given the split council and pursuit of parallel options, the direction could potentially change in the future, although the city will be spending more money on more detailed studies of the Ravenswood Underpass.

What do you think?