Tonight: Menlo Park reviews grade separations, library improvements

Only the hybrid plan to separate all the intersections makes any sense. Therefore, we can be quite confident that Menlo Park will choose something else.

"These might include evaluations of how steeply the tracks would have to rise or descend to have the tracks be at ground level at the city's borders with Atherton and Palo Alto,

This news item adds to the confusion surrounding the elevation of tracks, i.e., the so-called "viaduct" option.

The proposed Fully Elevated Grade Separation study should evaluate all practical track profiles that remain entirely within Menlo Park and do not require lowering streets more than a few feet, This avoids the cost, complexities, risks and traffic congestion associated with major street excavation.

"Almost" fully elevated train tracks, i.e., streets lowered only a few feet have been built in San Carlos and approved for San Mateo and Burlingame and should be considered in Menlo Park, as well. This design might be needed at Glenwood and should be evaluated as one potential solution.

Interpreting a viaduct to mean no street lowering is short-sighted and impractical.

It makes no sense to rule-out options without first fully understanding them.

"It makes no sense to rule-out options without first fully understanding them."

Correct. Which is why a total life cycle analysis of the bored tunnel option should also be evaluated. It is much more expensive in the short term but would provide a much better and much less disruptive long term option.


Do it once and do it right!

"Or third, staffers say, the council could opt to not do any additional studies." Yeah, right. Aren't studies the very life-blood of administrative staff? (rhetorical question!) Don't worry, staff. So long as any funding is obtainable, there will always be "additional studies."

It is stunning that these discussions are taking place independently in (at least) three contiguous towns (Ath.MP,PA), as if any construction and operational consequences stop at the respective borders.

Nearly ten years ago, various towns on the Peninsula met (in Palo Alto) publicly, and frequently, to discuss the ramifications of various below, at, and above ground options for Caltrain's future operation. That group's existence should have been extended and certainly should be in business today.

Discussions acknowledged that there could be no independent town solution that did not impact its neighbors. The tracks cannot undulate like a carnival roller-coaster. Solutions need to be collective.

It seems to me that a first step is not what Menlo Park does or doesn't recommend to Caltrain, but to reconstitute a Peninsula-long committee -- independent of Caltrain's planners -- to ascertain what is in our collective best interest.

No, Martin, studies are not "the very life-blood of administrative staff." You think people go to work for the government so they can get nothing done, rinse, repeat? What could they possibly have to gain from this kind of frustrating stalemate?

If it were up to staff, grade separation would have happened years ago, as it did in Belmont, San Carlos, etc. But previous councils have been reluctant to pull the trigger, fearful that hindsight would show that a tunnel–nay, a viaduct!–would have been the smarter choice. Last night's study session gave me hope, however. We heard from the usual panoply of contradicting voices--and the four council members responded with pragmatism. Maybe in my lifetime we will get this done.