Menlo Park: Existing study prioritized for future Caltrain separations

So, here's were we stand in Menlo Park:
*The Council and Administration are development obsessed. The general plan is "more is better."
What's it about? The money.
*Steve Schmidt wants a viaduct, but not directly in front of or over his house.
*Rich Cline wants the money. As I always say, "It's not about the trains; it's about the money."
*Felton Gables has taken a firm stand and has voiced its objections to City Council.
*Where is the collective voice of the Park Forest community, which also fronts the Caltrain corridor?

So, let me ask you, how many times in your life have you said, I wish I had spent the additional dollars and done it right in the first place? I'm talking about trenching/tunneling. What we're discussing here will be around, running the entire North/South 8,000 ft. of width of Menlo Park, for the next 100 years +/-.

Can't we do it right in the first place?

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood - and soon to be a resident of Park Forest !!!
on Feb 25, 2015 at 2:36 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
If this is done one crossing at a time it will be very expensive, take a long time and result in a dis-integrated design.

Please at least think about a more comprehensive and integrated approach.

Why not see this as an opportunity rather than a problem?

One thought is the put the trains underground, use the surface rights above it for housing in the stretches between stations and use the surface above the stations for transit connections and parking. The surface area of the current right of way is very valuable land - particularly in Atherton - and could generate a lot of the needed capital.

Why not take this as an opportunity to design a multi-dimensional, multi-purpose system that uses the existing right-of-way that includes CalTrain, HSR, utility conduits for telephone and internet cables, surface housing with high density housing around each station. And add pedestrian path and a separate bicycle path on the surface along the entire right of way. And include 3 or 4 12" conduits for the technology of the future.

We should think of this right of way as an integrated multi-modal communications spine for the peninsula.

A piecemeal approach will be very expensive.

Do it once and do it right.

>>>> One thought is the put the trains underground, use the surface rights above it for housing in the stretches between stations and use the surface above the stations for transit connections and parking.

What surface rights? The land is owned by Caltrain and if they calculated they could make a profit by under-grounding the rail and building on top they would have done it already (they can't). Anyway you cannot build anything heavy, like a building, above the tunnel/trench because the soil here is weak and prone to liquefaction.

If the trains are put in a tunnel then the owner of the right of ways has an exploitable asset.

Tunnels are bored all the time in exactly the soils found here AND structures can then be built on the surface.

Just look at the rail extension in SF and the BART extension in San Jose.

Peter
MP does not have the density of population to support underground rail, nor is it feasible to underground these trains and he freight trains that Caltrain shares the tracks with.
1) it is just too expensive
2) the runnel would need to be dug very deep to accommodate SF creek.
3) tunnel would need to be much bigger than bart in order to accommodate freight trains, which are desiel and don't belong underground
Of course the neighborhood right next to the track opposes this, these folks and most of MP, ATH, PA have opposed every kind public transportation project for decades. It's been Cars or nothing for decades, not that roads were adequately build either. So here we are. There will be more trains, they traffic get's worse, the tracks get more dangerous. And yet the dizinens of MP & ATH just obstruct obstruct obstruct. Sure a subway might be ideal, if it wasn't too expensive and wrong for the trains it would serve. Why not support one of the many reasonable ideas that are being considered. I would be more open to your ideas if you were talking about what Atherton should rather than MP. Very tired of the people of Atherton telling the people MP what to do.

The San Jose BART tunnel is far deeper than what would be needed to go under a very small creek.

Borde tunnels can be as deep as needed.

Freight trains go all over the world in tunnels like in the Gotthard Base Tunnel in the Swiss Alps and the Chunnel.


Gotthard Base Tunnel
20141120 gotthard-basistunnel02-wikipedia-hannes-ortlieb.jpg
Turnout at Faido multifunction station
Overview
Official name German: Gotthard-Basistunnel
Italian: Galleria di base del San Gottardo
Romansh: Tunnel da basa dal Son Gottard
Line Gotthard Line
Location Switzerland (Uri, Graubünden, and Ticino)
Coordinates 46.600°N 8.765°ECoordinates: 46.600°N 8.765°E
Status Active since 11 December 2016[1]
System Swiss Federal Railways (SBB CFF FFS)
Crosses Alps (western Glarus Alps and central Lepontine Alps at the eastern Gotthard Massif)
Start Erstfeld, canton of Uri (north, 460 m (1,510 ft))
End Bodio, canton of Ticino (south, 312 m (1,024 ft))
Operation
Work begun 4 November 1999[2]
Opened 1 June 2016[3]
Owner SBB Infrastructure
Operator SBB CFF FFS
Traffic Railway
Character Passenger and freight
Technical
Length 151.840 km (94.349 mi)[4]
Line length 57.09 km (35.47 mi)[4]
Track length 57.104 km (35.483 mi) (east tunnel)
57.017 km (35.429 mi) (west tunnel)[4]
No. of tracks 2 single-track tubes[4]
Track gauge 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) (standard gauge)
Electrified 15 kV 16.7 Hz
Operating speed Up to 250 km/h (160 mph)
Highest elevation 549 m (1,801 ft)[4]
Lowest elevation 312 m (1,024 ft) (south portal)[4]
Tunnel clearance 5.20 m (17.1 ft) from top of rail to overhead conductor[4]
Grade max 4.055 ‰ (north), max 6.76 ‰ (south)[4]
Route map
Route map
The Gotthard Base Tunnel (GBT; German: Gotthard-Basistunnel, Italian: Galleria di base del San Gottardo, Romansh: Tunnel da basa dal Son Gottard) is a railway tunnel through the Alps in Switzerland. It opened on 1 June 2016, and full service began on 11 December 2016.[5][6] With a route length of 57.09 km (35.5 mi),[4] it is the world's longest and deepest traffic tunnel

"Just look at the rail extension in SF and the BART extension in San Jose."

The rail extension in SF and BART extension in San Jose take great care to route the tunnel mostly under roads. Where a tunnel does go under a building it is a light wooden bungalow or other structure with no cellar or modern seismic foundations.

Of course you can dig the tunnel very deep, but then you need to move your rail station deep underground which is very expensive, especially if the station platforms are below the water table.

The leaning tower of SF has 900 foundation piles that go down over 100 feet and it is still not enough.

wrong

Web Link

Web Link

If you want it cheap then you will get cheap.

"Freight trains go all over the world in tunnels like in the Gotthard Base Tunnel in the Swiss Alps and the Chunnel."

Swiss, French, and British mainline rail networks are all electrified, so there are no diesel trains operating in these chimney-less tunnels (except perhaps an occasion maintenance train)

If you want to persuade Union Pacific to buy electric locomotives just for a tiny 50 miles of peninsula track, good luck with that.

"wrong"

Bertha tunnel is goes 200 feet deep under downtown, Web Link it is not financially feasible to move 700 foot long Caltrain station platforms 200 feet underground.

Central Subway is built exactly under Fourth street and Stockton street:
Web Link

1. Caltrain opposes the construction of tunnels and trenches.
2. Caltrain has never built a tunnel or trench.
3. Caltrain spent $155m for three grade separations in San Bruno that were completed in 2014.
4. The CA PUC and Caltrain only rate Ravenswood as a high priority separation and it likely could complete this for less than $150M.
5. Caltrain will not spend a lot more simply because Menlo Park "wants" a tunnel.
6. The disruption on local traffic, local businesses and the environment during construction would last more than 5 years.

Get real! It can NEVER happen - as Palo Alto recently discovered.

Believers are simply playing mind games.

Create a solid funding 100% from Menlo Park to pay for the tunnel without delaying the whole project, otherwise it's a non-starter. Unless you agree to upzone a bunch of residential next to the station in order support high-density development (thousands more!), then this just doesn't make economical sense. Perhaps the impact fees from a bunch of new upzoning would pay for the tunnel. The NIMBY bubbles around the bay are going to burst in this housing crisis--like it or not. CarLa and SB35 are already having an effect. You can blame the city leaders across the bay area from SF to Silicon Valley and beyond who approve thousands of commercial jobs without any residential development to match for folks to live. The pressure cooker is going to burst...

Just think if we had created a tunnel 50 years ago. While it would have been expensive then, it would seem like a bargain today. Do it right the first time. Tunneling is the ONLY way to go.

Nobody has and is willing to pay the extra BILLION+ $$$ (minimum!) marginal cost of tunneling from south of San Francisquito Creek in Palo Alto (implies rebuilding University Ave. station platforms deep below grade due to the underpass there) to 5th Avenue, where ther's also an existing underpass. This will require massive and failsafe water pumping systems, ventilation shafts for diesel freights and life safety emergenc evacuation/escape staircases and powerful ventilation fans to push smoke & fumes away and out in case of freight hazmat spills and/or derailments and/or fires in the tunnel or new underground Menlo and Atherton stations.

The marginal extra cost for such an unnecessary extravagance, should it even be approved by Caltrain, UP and CPUC and MPFD, would certainly have to be entirely borne by Menlo-Atherton. Not. Going. To. Happen. Forget about it already. Air rights is a joke of a pittance, and its Caltrain's right of way.

Raising the train tracks is a bad choice.


1. Elevated Train Tracks through communities (residential and/or commercial) cause more problems than solutions. A report of 30 cities indicates that elevated train tracks have a negative impact on: Capital cost, Operating costs, Noise and Vibration, Aesthetic, Social impact on the community, Environment and Energy, Air pollution, Traffic control, Developmental potential, Ridership, and Land Value. Web Link

2. Throwing Good Money at Bad Money is never a good alternative. The fact that there are previous studies that make a recommendation based on the alternatives available before do not constitute enough support to continue with choices that are obviously inadequate.

3. Other cities besides Menlo Park are impacted: Atherton and Palo Alto, not only because of traffic, noise, aesthetic, and land value, but also because their choices going into the future will be limited by the choices Menlo Park city council makes.


We live in one of the most innovative regions in the world and I am appalled that the city has not considered alternatives that are more innovative and involve the huge body of financial, social, intellectual, and production capital available here.


Having lived in places where the train is an intricate part of the community, I would like to suggest an alternative that incorporates the train to the lives of the residents and minimizes the negative impact.

for example, in Subiaco - the first train stop after Perth’s City Center, in Western Australia, made the pivotal decision to constrain the modernization of the Train to projects that would:

1. GENERATE INCOME TO THE CITY.
2. CREATE A SENSE OF UNITY - not division - IN THE COMMUNITY
3. MINIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
4. WOULD BE ABLE TO EXPAND IN THE FUTURE


The result was a call for projects from developers who focused on creating value (economic, social, environmental, and cultural) to the city. It did cost tax payers ZERO dollars, it increased the value of properties, reinvigorated the area, and created a sense of pride.

"The government investment of $200m has so far generated more than $1b of private sector investment from a range of investors including Pindan, QUBE and Finbar. This combined investment has created new infrastructure, homes, business opportunities, public spaces and new jobs for 6,800 workers.”

The project involved burying the train tracks and creating a space above it that allowed for commercial and residential opportunities (with limited parking).

The mayor’s leadership was critical to this project: Roads generate costs, no income, and we can create a walking/ biking hub that is economically, socially, and environmentally savvy. Web Link

Subiaco train station is an example of innovation. The station itself, although lowered, is open. Around it, a vibrant community of stores and townhouses, a park, a community space. It integrated two areas formerly divided by the tracks.

I truly hope that we can shift the paradigm and begin thinking about the train as an opportunity to enhance Menlo Park and its surrounding cities, and not as a problem that will only create worse problems: an economic disaster that will need to be disposed of in years to come, a societal suicide that will ruin the beauty of the neighborhoods, an intellectual shame, and an environmental and aesthetic tragedy.

@ Alicia Castillo Holley

There is no doubt that if Menlo station was surrounded by industrial wasteland owned by the city (like in Subiaco), handing the land over to a developer to build dense Transit Orientated Development would be the way to go.

Transit Orientated Development is planned around San Jose station, but with Google spending billions to buy up the surrounding private property to achieve it.

Does Menlo city council have the intestinal fortitude and money to do the same?

Subiaco easily moved their new rail station below ground without shutting down the metro system for years by building the new station in a new location 100 yards to the side of the existing alignment. Menlo cannot easily do the same, and anyway Caltrain needs to keep their arrow straight alignment for future 110mph train operations.

In Subiaco, no buildings were built over the rail alignment, only streets and open spaces. Menlo would also have this restriction, so your plan is really all about persuading existing property owners to go away and then re-developing the land both sides of the tracks. If Caltrain can't/won't lower their tacks, the same separation effect can be achieved by raising the street level of the track-side developments and 'covering' the tracks, with pedestrian street level being built above two levels of underground parking.

You also have to factor in the fact that all the Nimby's here will fight any development on open space created above Peter's tunnel. Therefore, it becomes even less financially viable as the land will sit empty for decades, just like the car lots.

"At least 25 residents of the city's Felton Gables neighborhood attended the April 17 subcommittee meeting to voice their opposition to the possibility of raising the rail lines through their neighborhood. (Felton Gables is a neighborhood bounded roughly by the Caltrain line, Holbrook-Palmer Park, Encinal Elementary School and Encinal Avenue.)"

Facts:

1. No one has ever proposed a viaduct of any kind near the neighborhoods north of Encinal or south of Ravenswood so the Felton Gables protests are based on a misunderstanding. The city staff should have corrected this misperception but has chosen not to do so on several occasions. Why???

2. Unfortunately, the City and Consultant have constantly referred to fully elevated grade separations as a viaduct solution. This is inaccurate as the grades north of the Glenwood train bridge and south of the Ravenswood train bridge could be supported by a number of different type rail structures including berms, reinforced embankments, etc.

2.A solution based on fully elevated grade separations would raise the tracks north of Encinal AT MOST an average of less than 5 feet.

3. Trains, tracks and electrification poles would rarely if ever be viewable from Felton Gables as the thin 30-foot electrification system poles would be spaced 180-feet apart and be screened by trees.

4. Train noise will decrease NOT increase - a combination of no horns, new electric trains, and if necessary, wheel noise shielding.

All the claims and fears expressed by FG residents are unfounded in fact and a study would prove this to be the case. Why would any individual neighborhood oppose a study that would correct Council and community misperceptions and would likely support a superior grade separation solution?