I don't think it is possible elevate the rails 20 feet above Glenwood and return the rails to grade by the city limit at Atherton.

Glenwood Ave is already 6 feet higher than the Atherton city limit, so elevating the rails 20 feet over Glenwood would require a rise of 26 feet from Atherton to Glenwood. At a 1% slope this would need 2600 feet plus a 10km vertical curve radius to transition from flat to 1%.

I think Glenwood Ave would need to be lowered by a few feet in any scenario that is acceptable to Caltrain and does not impact Atherton.

The rails can be raised 20 feet on an earth berm as has been done in San Carlos. A Berm is considerably quicker and less expensive to construct than a concrete viaduct, is less expensive to maintain and is more resilient to earthquakes.

The space under a viaduct would be owned by Caltrain, so if the city wants to exploit the space they would rent it from Caltrain and then pay to maintain the space and to evict the homeless. A cost benefit analysis needs to be done.

The consultant may have proposed the specific split-grade heights because they have done the math and that was the least expensive combination.

@bob.smith is correct: Glenwood is at 58 feet (but briefly rises ~3 feet just to pass over the tracks), but the tracks at the Atherton border (175 feet south of Watkins) are at an elevation of 52 feet (6 feet lower). So with a 20-foot track elevation over Glenwood, the height difference to get the tracks back to existing grade at the Atherton border is 26 feet. Which implies an *average* grade of 1% over the 2,600 feet would do the job.

The vertical curve length required is given by the (DV²K)/A formula described in section 7.2 of Chapter 2 of Caltrain's Engineering Standards manual:
Web Link

While Caltrain's preferred maximum grade is currently still 1%, as illustrated by the 1.25% grade used for the recently-completed elevated grade separation across downtown San Bruno, and as confirmed in section 7.1 of the aforementioned Caltrain track standards document, "grades up to two percent (2%) may be implemented for new construction projects" with Caltrain's approval.

As mentioned earlier, it's 2,600 feet from Glenwood to where the Atherton city limit crosses the tracks (only 175 feet south of Watkins).

From Oak Grove, it's ~2,160 feet to Encinal and ~3,675 feet to the Atherton city limit ... so a number of permutations are possible for getting the tracks back to (or very near) their current elevation from either Oak Grove or Glenwood by either Encinal or the Atherton city limit, depending on what design goals and track grades of 1% (or more with Caltrain approval) are assumed.

If the tracks begin their downslope immediately north of Oak Grove, it is possible, with a modest grade exception, to get them back down to (or very near) current elevation at Encinal, and certainly well before the bulk of Felton Gables and the Atherton city limit. Of course, similar to the existing Alt. C scenario, Glenwood would have to be dipped down under the partially elevated tracks in a split (or "hybrid") grade separation design under that scenario.

It seems a no-brainer: a fully-elevated alternative across the downtown area must be fully and fairly studied. The council and residents owe it to ourselves and each other and future generations to get the facts to make a more fully informed decision. More information is always better. Anything less would be bordering on foolishly irresponsible for making such a momentous and essentially permanent infrastructure design decision across the heart of our downtown.

almanac - there were other comments posted. where did they go?

Soon after my guest opinion “Grade Separation – A Test of Menlo ParkCouncil Leadership” (view) appeared in The Almanac, I received an email from a Felton Gables resident who spoke at the recent Menlo Park Rail Subcommittee meeting. I sent my responses and encouraged him to share both his comments and my responses with his neighbors. Because this exchange deals with many persistent misperceptions and misunderstandings about fully elevated grade separations I am sharing our exchange as other residents might find this information beneficial. Web Link

In answer to "where are other comments": There are two threads of comments on this guest opinion. Here's the other one:

Web Link

One thing to consider with a longer ramp towards Atherton is how to build the temporary shoofly tracks around the work zone.
Menlo Park is lucky to have unencumbered open space next to the track for most of the work zone, but toward Atherton there are some private residencies next to the track.
The proposals on the table fit the shoofly tracks into the available open space, but a longer ramp might necessitate property takes, even into Atherton, which would be politically inconvenient.

Renee - thank you for the reply. It would be a service if these two threads with identical headlines could be combined.

There is an interesting email to City Council saying a shoofly would not be necessary for Option A. That should be considered seriously. Apparently the idea was brought up by someone in the construction business.

For the life of me, I do not understand how Option C gets priority over Option A. The construction phase for C would shut down Menlo Park.

Last, if this viaduct option is evaluated, then trenching/undergrounding also should be evaluated -- with an analysis of not just costs but also revenue and benefit potential, and with input from both Palo Alto and Atherton because the costs can be spread across 3 cities, and the benefits (such as at-grade pedestrian/bike paths, housing) should be greater if all 3 work together.

BTW those of us who have lived in or visited cities with raised tracks know that there is more noise, safety concerns, and visual blight from raised tracks. The best part of this idea is that it frees up some space in the middle of town, which trench or undergrounding also do and do much better.

Taking a broader and longer-term view would be a real sign of council leadership.

How would you undertaking any of these options not lead to catastrophic gridlock in an already suffering eastern side of Menlo Park? Closing Encinal? Where will traffic go during constrructuon? The quality of life for those of us who live on the other side of El Camino is already stressed with Facebook traffic that spills into all of our surrounding neighborhoods, an at capacity high school, and a school district the opted to split two schools so that there’s more cross traffic between the upper and Laurel campuses. There are no more pipe lines across El Camino. We cannot consider options that shut down life on this side of the city.

@gridlock, I sympathize–-and yet I think doing nothing will also ultimately result in terrible gridlock. Caltrain crossings already cause traffic delays and bottlenecks. Imagine how more frequent trains would affect our already crowded East-West routes. I think this might need to be one of those things–like the Big Dig in Boston, for example–for which the down-the-road projected benefits will extract huge up-front costs that we just have to live with.

>>>> "costs can be spread across 3 cities, and the benefits (such as at-grade pedestrian/bike paths, housing) should be greater if all 3 work together."

After paying for a comprehensive study, Palo Alto have already rejected trenching/tunneling options on the grounds that they can't scrape together $3000 million to pay for it. (the annual repayments on a 30 year mortgage would be more then the cities actual annual budget)

Atherton can't realistically do a trench because there is no space to put the temporary shoofly tracks without taking out dozens of expensive homes (and they couldn't scrape together $1000 million either)

Spreading the costs is not going to reduce the cost per mile by much.

Return on investment is poor, technically, housing cannot be built above the trench and even if it could the land is owned by Caltrain so they would earn the income from it, not the city.

You don't need to pay an expensive consultant to create a report to understand that a 3 city trench or tunnel is a non starter.

To minimize gridlock during construction, one technique is to build the elevated rail bridge over the road without closing or lowering the road. This creates a low underpass that can be used by cars but not by trucks. Later the roads can be closed and lowered one at a time.

@bob.smith wondered if the somewhat longer ramping required to achieve full elevation across downtown may bump into some (or more) private properties.

Happily, according to the right-of-way charts, there's plenty of room to avoid any such thing north of the narrowest portion of the right of way (50 feet) between Oak Grove and Glenwood ... where the shoofly will run along or over Garwood on the west (ECR) side of the tracks:

Web Link

Please also note that using U-channel bridges over Glenwood, Oak Grove and Ravenswood will allow a lower full-elevation height and built-in wheel noise barriers since the tracks sit down inside the "U" (instead of on top as with the more traditionally favored pre-cast concrete bridges) as discussed here: Advantages of U-Shaped Grade Separations: Web Link

@bob.smith, oops! I should've said the narrowest part of Menlo Park's Caltrain right-of-way is the ~1,040 feet between Oak Grove and Glenwood is 60 (not 50!) feet wide.

Caltrain track standards require 15-foot track centers between tracks with 10 feet from the outside track center to side obstacles. So 2 tracks require a minimum ROW width of 35 (10+15+10) feet. So along with the city-owned Garwood right of way between Oak Grove and Glenwood, there is plenty of width for a 2-track shoofly in addition to the existing mainline tracks to be elevated.

As can be seen in the following ROW map ( Web Link ), the Caltrain ROW north of there (between Glenwood and the Atherton City limit) varies between 75 and 80 feet ... more than enough room for a temporary 2-track shoofly.

@Reality Check. This map Web Link shows the shoofly further over, but it could be a caricature for discussion purposes.

The Shoofly will be electrified so the contractor will want to stay a safe distance from the live cable to reduce insurance costs.

What if Caltrain wants the berm to be wide enough for three tracks?

@bob.smith, while they are just conceptual and for the sake of discussion at this point, the west option shooflies in the diagram you linked to are further over to pass in front of (on the Merrill side) of the historic depot. The east option shooflies mainly show why those don't make sense when the west option doesn't wipe out any structures and stays entirely (or nearly so) on public rights of way.

While not anticipated at this time, if Caltrain were to require and justify one or more extra tracks in the future, and gets the approvals and funding to do so, then that's likely what will get built. As we can see with 57 parcels needed for the electrification project now underway, if additional parcels (or portions thereof) are required, Caltrain can, does and will negotiate with their owners to acquire them (28 offers already accepted and 21 in possession so far) at full and fair market value. Eminent domain (only 4 cases filed so far) is used to force a sale at FMV as determined by the court only as a last resort when a mutually acceptable purchase price cannot be negotiated.

Menlo Park City Council Members:

Thank you for the Fully Elevated Grade Separation Study!

A small team of advocates for fully elevated grade separations (FEGS) - including me - want to express our deep appreciation for your decision to study this promising alternative. It will not only provide three grade separations but also cause less traffic disruptions during construction than Alternative A. Ravenswood likely would only be closed one weekend. In San Bruno, two streets were closed for one weekend while train bridges were installed, and a third was closed for a week but only at night. Also, we are confident neighborhood concerns about negative noise and visual impacts can be successfully addressed.

We look forward to helping you and city staff develop a well-designed study, address issues and concerns during the study process and evaluate results.

Our coalition of FEGS supporters includes a small core team of individuals with critical planning, track engineering and architectural expertise and excellent contacts with Caltrain, Palo Alto and a growing number of local businesses and commercial property owners who are concerned about the potential impacts of grade separations on the vitality of the train station area and, more broadly, on the health of their daily operations.

Again, thanks for your decision. It demonstrates your desire to make the best possible decisions for our city and to consider the interests of all members of our community.

Sincerely,

Dana Hendrickson