There's plenty of room for a passing track through Menlo Park that will be useful for several reasons. First, it allows the baby bullet to pass at 80mph without threatening those waiting on the platform. Also, the passing track will allow for continued service when there is equipment failure or a collision. Lastly, freight trains have wide loads, so we'll never have level boarding, where the platform meets the doorway (as with BART), unless there is a passing track. The passing track is not an evil plot by California High Speed Rail.

Plenty of room? Last night at the City Council meeting officials tumbled to the fact the third rail will cause the inclines at the grade separations will go so far back as to make entry into business located near the rail line impossible in some circumstances.

The Almanac asks: How seriously should the city consider a passing track?

How seriously should the city consider anything to do with Caltrain and grade separations?

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. It works best in the middle. Center boarding platforms are dangerous and have been all but eliminated in the Caltrain system.