A small team of residents that includes an architect, two rail transportation planners, and two former mayors of Menlo Park  has recommended our city study a fully elevated graded separation alternative because we believe it offers more benefits and fewer negative impacts than the two alternative solutions already studied –  Alternatives A and C. The following table illustrates how we think the three approaches stack-up based on key evaluation criteria. A comprehensive FEGS study would soundly test our assumptions and perceptions.

Ratings

Ratings Support

Communications To Menlo Park City Council

January 2019

January 14, 2019 – Email To City Council

In early December, city staff proposed a scope for the study of potential fully elevated grade solutions (FEGS) that includes design constraints that eliminate all practical track profiles except the one with the steepest possible northern grade. Based on our own analysis this grade would likely NOT be acceptable to Caltrain, a fact already well understood by both staff and AECOM.  Unfortunately, these constraints remain in the January 14 staff report. The City Council must remove them to ensure the study of FEGS alternatives is both complete and fair. Our community deserves opportunities to fully understand these alternatives and express their preferences; City Council is responsible for ensuring this happens.

The current staff proposal REQUIRES the northern grade starts south of Encinal and rises to full elevation over Glenwood, i.e., no lowering of the street, over a distance of approximately 1085 feet.  This produces an average grade that far exceeds the 1% maximum average grade Caltrain standard and likely would NOT qualify for an exception.

While it is useful to understand the track profile proposed by city staff and AECOM, the technical feasibility of three other track profiles are needed BEFORE noise and aesthetic evaluations are undertaken. We recommend AECOM perform a track profile analysis on the four alternatives shown in this table.

Please note that many elevated tracks on the Peninsula are “almost fully elevated”, i.e., streets are lowered just a few feet to avoid major excavations, and this type of separation should also be considered for Glenwood. Also, a closing of Encinal to vehicle traffic should be on the table.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and continue to offer our assistance to city staff, the Rail Subcommittee and City Council.

Thank you.

Dana Hendrickson

January 4, 2019

Recommended Scope For the Initial FEGS Study

Menlo Park residents deserve a politically unbiased evaluation of fully elevated grade separations (FEGS) so all can judge the FACTUAL trade-offs between this alternative and the Ravenswood-only underpass approved by the previous City Council. To that end, the design of the FEGS study – and on-going evaluations – must reflect a genuine interest in identifying a FEGS solution that best accomplishes the following objectives. 

• Improves vehicle traffic circulation and safety
• Improves east-west bike and pedestrian connectivity (convenience, safety)
• Improves the vitality of the up-and-coming Train Station Area Business District
• Minimizes the amount and duration of negative effects caused by construction
• Mitigates negative impacts on nearby neighborhoods
• Secures sufficient state and county funding
• Completed in the shortest possible calendar time, e.g. 2030, not many years later

Unfortunately, the scope of an initial FEGS study proposed by staff at the December 4, 2018 does NOT reflect this attitude. A group of residents I represent believe city staff has artificially constrained the technical feasibility evaluation of rail profiles, and thereby, eliminated potentially desirable, practical FEGS solutions. This fact is clearly known by city staff and puts the very objectivity of the study scope into question

“A track profile analysis to determine the maximum grade needed to provide sufficient elevation to avoid roadway excavation at Glenwood Avenue (span completely over the street); while simultaneously avoiding impact to Encinal Avenue. (Source: Staff Report: December 4, 2018)

A positive approach requires the City Council and staff to abandon its “traditional” negative attitudes towards elevating tracks above existing grades. These were formed with insufficient (a) facts about actual trade-offs and (b) informed feedback from current residents. Our city is responsible for ensuring that residents have a clear and sound understanding of practical solutions and their voices are heard.

The first step should be the completion of an initial FEGS study that evaluates the three primary areas of concern repeatedly raised by residents.

• The technical feasibility of various possible fully elevated rail profiles
• The noise implications of these profiles versus existing conditions
• The aesthetic impacts of these profiles

We believe the initial study should determine whether a FEGS solution could be designed that meets the following criteria:

• Fully elevated grade separations at least at Ravenswood and Oak Grove
• Some type of separation at Glenwood, either fully elevated or hybrid with minor street lowering
• Built entirely within Menlo Park city boundaries
• Have maximum grades acceptable to Caltrain (note: grades CAN exceed its standards.
• Acceptable visual and noise impacts on south end and north end neighborhoods
• Encinal might be closed to vehicle traffic only; pedestrian and bicyclist crossings would be provided

In addition to the proposed noise analysis, the study deliverables should include the following:

• Rail profile designs that use 1%, 1.25% and 1.5% maximum average grades

• Elevation drawings and CAD images for the most promising rail profile (s) that illustrate
  • Train bridges
  • The northern and southern grades
  • A fully elevated structure that connects Ravenswood and Oak Grove.

Note: All elevation drawings should include “ghost tress” (current and planned) that visually screen the elevated structure and train electrification equipment.

• A preliminary layout for train station area
• Comparative matrices for Alternative A, C and FEGS similar to the ones in the enclosed document with clear explanations for all technical ratings.
• Project cost estimates assuming grades can be either viaducts or stabilized embankments

Finally, this study should also identify all potential impacts to south end and north end neighborhoods and suggest design mitigation alternatives

We encourage you to revise the scope and deliverables for the FEGS study and ensure its completion in the shortest possible time. We believe an FEGS alternative MIGHT be far superior to Alternative A, and our city should be well prepared for this outcome to avoid additional project delays.

We have spent at least a hundred volunteer hours in our efforts to assist our city during the past year, and we continue to welcome opportunities to discuss our findings with the Rail Subcommittee and other council members. Our invitation remains open.

Note: We have also enclosed a scope recommendation for a complete FEGS study.

December 2018

The planning process for Menlo Park grade separations appears badly broken

There is resident concern that the planning process for future grade separations in Menlo Park lacks the strong sense of urgency warranted for an unprecedentedly large project that will have big positive and negative impacts on the quality of life in our community. The proposed study of a design alternative that includes fully elevated grade separations (FEGS) at some locations is the latest example. And city staff has just arbitrarily introduced new counterproductive design constraints.

In May, the City Council instructed city staff to request a FEGS study proposal from a technical consultant (AECOM) and were told it could be available in the July-August timeframe. At that time this schedule seemed unnecessarily long, as AECOM had already studied three other grade separation alternatives and developing a proposal is a relatively simple task. SEVEN months later city staff plans to review an initial scope for the FEGS study at the December 4 City Council meeting. Unfortunately, this overdue document fails to effectively address two important concerns previously raised by residents, city staff and council members – technical feasibility and aesthetic impacts, and city staff has introduced two arbitrary design constraints that would eliminate the possibility of any desirable FEGS solution. This fact is clearly known by city staff and unnecessarily puts the very objectivity of the study scope into question.

“A track profile analysis to determine the maximum grade needed to provide sufficient elevation to avoid roadway excavation at Glenwood Avenue (span completely over the street); while simultaneously avoiding impact to Encinal Avenue. (Source: Staff Report: December 4, 2018)

The FEGS study should determine whether a solution could be designed that meets the following criteria:

• Fully elevated grade separations at least at Ravenswood and Oak Grove
• Some type of separation at Glenwood, either fully elevated or hybrid
• Built entirely within Menlo Park city boundaries
• Have maximum grades acceptable to Caltrain
• Acceptable impacts on south end and north end neighborhoods
• Encinal is closed to vehicle traffic only; pedestrian and bicyclist crossings are provided
• Enhance the core train station business district

The FEGS study should evaluate conceptual designs for a number of structure profiles and deliverables should include the following, in addition to the proposed noise analysis.

• Structure profiles designs that use 1% and 1.25% maximum grades
• Elevation drawings and CAD images for the grade separations
• Elevation drawings and CAD images for the northern and southern grades
• Elevation drawings for the fully elevated structure that would pass through the train station area and a preliminary layout for the space between Merrill, Alma, Ravenswood and Oak Grove.
• All elevation drawings should include “ghost tress” (current and planned) that visually screen – either fully or partially – the elevated structure and train electrification equipment.

• A comparative matrix for Alternative A, C and FEGS similar to the enclosed example. All ratings must be supported with clear justifications.

Finally, this study should also identify all potential impacts to south end and north end neighborhoods and suggest design mitigation alternatives

I encourage you to revise the scope and deliverables for the FEGS study and ensure its completion in the shortest possible time. It is likely that we will learn a FEGS alternative is far superior to Alternative A, and our city should be well prepared for this outcome to avoid additional project delays.

May 2018

I am a member of a growing coalition of residents, local businesses and commercial property owners who are not only deeply concerned about the “high stakes” associated with the selection of a design alternative for future grade separations but also with the amount of misleading and inaccurate information and unfounded fears that appear to be deterring the Council from approving a study of THE most promising alternative, fully elevated grade separations.

Since we expect little time to express our views at the May 8 Council meeting we are publishing a series of responses to the objections heard from individual council members, city staff, and residents from Felton Gables who spoke at the recent Rail Subcommittee meeting. We also will address important concerns that have largely been ignored.

• MP Grade Separation Issue #1: Does the City have time to study fully elevated grade separations?

• MP Grade Separation Issue #2: How Will A Multi-Year Heavy Construction Impact Residents and Local Businesses?

• MP Grade Separation Issue #3: What The Felton Gables Neighborhood Misunderstands About Fully Elevated Grade Separations.

• MP Grade Separation Issue #4: Why has the city presented misleading information about Fully Elevated Grade Separations?(PRIVATE)

• MP Grade Separation Issue #5: Is Menlo Park Prepared To Sacrifice The Downtown/Train Station Commercial District?

Overview

Like other Peninsula cities Menlo Park is now developing a grade separation strategy for its major east-west vehicle corridors. Without separations motorists will experience unbearable traffic congestion when the number of daily trains grows significantly in the next 20 years. Our Council strongly dislikes both grade separation plans that have been studied. “Alternative A” would lower Ravenswood and keep the tracks roughly at current grade, and neither Oak Grove nor Glenwood would have grade separations. This likely would produce huge long-term traffic circulation problems on El Camino, Oak Grove, Glenwood and possibly Ravenswood. “Alternative C” requires Ravenswood, Oak Grove and Glenwood be lowered and tracks raised on an unattractive berm that is ten-feet high between Oak Grove and Ravenswood. This barrier would further physically divide Menlo Park neighborhoods, and the concurrent construction of three new grade separations would severely disrupt east-west and El Camino traffic for at least three years. The Council feels pressured to select one of these alternatives soon as it believes delays might jeopardize future government funding if other cities were to apply for assistance before Menlo Park.[/vc_column_text]

Recommendation

View the grade separation challenge as wonderful opportunity to transform the area bounded by El Camino, Alma, Ravenswood and Oak Grove into a community-enriching commercial district, one that energizes our downtown. This central area is already changing rapidly. The BBC at 555 Santa Cruz Avenue was renovated in 2015. A three-story office building will be completed at 1020-1026 Alma in 2018, and Station 1300 will open in 2019. Also, a builder has proposed a multi-use development that replaces existing old buildings at 1125 Merrill Street, and 506 and 556 Santa Cruz Avenue.  These private investments should be complemented by a civic project that integrates them with a central pedestrian and bike-friendly public space that seamlessly connects destinations on both sides of the tracks. This project could include a large plaza, attractive landscaping, and the existing train station. A fully elevated and open rail structure between Oak Grove and Ravenswood would make this possible. And perhaps, the Caltrain parking could relocated underground and expanded to create even more public space on the surface. A fully elevated and open rail structure provides another important benefit. It would not create severe traffic disruptions during construction.

New Development Plans (online):

 1020 Alma Office Building            Station 1300 Mixed Use            506 Santa Cruz Avenue, 556 Santa Cruz Avenue, and 1125 Merrill Street Mixed Use

Plaza Area = Red Line             Train Tracks = Green        Fully Elevated Open Rail Structure = Orange     

New Developments (2015-2019) = Yellow Dotted Line  

Existing Buildings:

1 => 1165 Merrill – Restaurant (formerly BFD)          2 => 1155 Merrill –  Menlo Square            3 => 1160 Alma – Axis        4 => 525 Oak Grove & 1170 Alma – 7 Eleven & J&J Hawaiian BBQ[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]