I agree with the Almanac's position on three grade separations as what is best for the community. Thank you for expressing it so well.

Good governance combines knowing when to protect current practice and when to let go. The latter is often the more difficult choice as it often involves disappointing citizens with a vested interest in the status quo. Such is the case with our rail crossings, where for the good of the overall community people who live close to these intersections will be subject to construction inconveniences for the duration of the project. I thank you in advance for your sacrifice.

Bravo to the city council.

steve taffee

Like everyone else in Menlo Park, I also have and would like to share an opinion about all this grade separation business. I'll try to keep it simple.

1. Menlo Park has no business going it alone. The Peninsula is a series of contiguous towns. Our neighbors, north and south, have the same issues with grade separations that we do. We should be in constant coordination and interaction with them. Mayor Ray Mueller has already initiated such an effort. Good going, Ray.

2. Each town, each intersection, CANNOT have its own solution. Worst case scenario: a 50 roller-coaster ride down the Peninsula, better than the Great America Parkway ride.

2.1. From Caltrain/HSRs point of view: the (elevated)viaduct would be best since it can be the most level ride. Unfortunately, it's also the most intrusive into our quality of life. Think about this. If they build the viaduct, you can be sure that it will be able to support four, not just two or three tracks. It will be a looming, continuous concrete skeleton separating, more than ever, one side of town from the other.

2.2. In an industrial/commercial environment, it will make little difference. In a residential one, it will make all the difference. Also, if you live 10 miles away, you're not going to care. If you live within two or three miles, it will profoundly affect the way we live in Menlo Park; every one of us.

3. Do not, I beg you, take tunneling/trenching off the table. Yes, it's hugely expensive, indeed, the most expensive. However, we are talking about re-conceiving an urban public mass transit system for an indefinite future during which the Peninsula will become one continuous, high-density, high-rise, urbanized mega-city.
You can see that already!

3.1.Putting rail underground within cities is what the US has done more than once. Once such cities are already fully developed, it becomes incredibly challenging and costly. (I worked in D.C. during the 10+ years they put in the Metro.) So, the longer we wait to do it, the more expensive it's going to get. In fact, we need to think about capital development amortization over the next century for this far-sighted, strategic solution. (Isn't that the same rationale the high-speed rail promoters are using?)

Or, we can do it, as now recommended, two or three intersections at a time in each town and kick the proverbial can down the road for our children and grandchildren to deal with and pay for.

Martin:

Caltrain has a maximum average grade standard of 1%; therefore, passengers will not even notice/feel grade separations so your "roller coaster" analogy is off-base. Each community has different crossing conditions and environments so different types of grade separations are needed. Cities have been independently solving their own grade separation problems for years, e.g. Redwood City, San Carlos, Belmont, San Mateo, Burlingame so coordination is not necessary accept possibly with a trench and tunnel which will never be funded.

> There is no ideal solution to the challenge of separating the Caltrain tracks...

No, the fully elevated solution is ideal.

> the safest and most efficient of viable options is of utmost importance...

Actually, the safest solution is any kind of separation. The Felton Gables group wants to believe quad gates are safe, they're not. The most inefficient option is one under-crossing that will flood when it rains.

> with plans to bring electric trains and high-speed rail service...

HSR may stop in San Jose, but will NEVER come to the Peninsula.

> That consensus, however, was in support of a highly unsatisfactory solution.

The consensus last spring was to support any option that could garner 3 votes so as not to abandon the available funding, and to require staff to come back with numbers for the tunnel and fully elevated solution. That sounds more than satisfactory, it is this editorial that is unsatisfactory.

> What that council rejected, however, was Alternative C, which separates tracks from roadways at three crossings: Ravenswood, Oak Grove and Glenwood.

The one council member supported Alternative C (in 2018) was not re-elected.

> the council made clear to regional transportation officials...

This may all go to hell once District 3 has representation on council.

MartinE,

Your comment that a 4-track system is worse than a 2-track because it causes my separation doesn't make sense. Caltrain already owns the land it needs for 4-tracks and has fencing along. You're naive to think that if only 2 tracks are built, the extra space will be available for use.

Also, your claim that elevated track creates a bigger barrier does not hold water. Anytime Caltrain has elevated tracks, it created more connections under the tracks than existed when tracks were at grade. Please don't spread lies.

According to AOC, the world will be ending in 12 years, I suggest we stop any more discussions on improving the track, changes,

@Martin Engel

Caltrain/HSR don't like viaducts, viaducts are expensive to build and maintain. Caltrain/HSR prefer raised berms and lowered roads because they are quick and cheap to build and maintain, are resistant to earthquakes and are easy to widen to three or four tracks as required.

You worry that raising the railroad 20 feet will "will profoundly affect the way we live in Menlo Park" but predict that "the Peninsula will become one continuous, high-density, high-rise, urbanized mega-city". A high rise urbanized mega city will more profoundly change Menlo Park than a minor adjustment to the existing railroad.

Underground is sometimes the only way that existing cities can retro-fit metro systems. It makes no economic sense to move underground an already established surface right of way.

@ "HSR may stop in San Jose, but will NEVER come to the Peninsula."

On the contrary, the peninsula may be the first place where HSR trains can operate. By 2022 the electrified peninsula will be high speed train ready (max speed 79mph until Caltrain retires the last diesel locomotive)
There is talk of an SF to Gilroy beta test service.