Connecting Palo Alto Projects
Caltrain Technical Review Results
March 19, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org
1 City and Caltrain Staff
City Staff
• Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official
• Ripon Bhatia, Senior Engineer
Caltrain Staff
• Robert Barnard, Chief, Rail Design and
Construction
• Mike Rabinowitz, Principal Planner
• Navi Dhaliwal, Government & Community
Affairs Officer
• Edgar Torres, Consultant, Kimley Horn and
Associates
2 Purpose
3 Purpose
• Review of the Grade Separation Alternatives for Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings, including Consideration of Caltrain’s Review and Results
• Rail Committee’s reviews and provide guidance and directions to staff. • Recommend that Council Advances (or Eliminates) Specific Alternative(s) for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation.
Background
4 CAP &
XCAP
• Alternatives developed, reviewed and updated (2018 - July 2020) • Community Outreach & Community Feedback (August – October 2020) • Deliberation and Recommendation to City Council (November 2020 - March 2021)
City
Council
• Council Review and Discussion
• Meadow Drive – Charleston (Narrowed Alternatives) - August 2021 • Churchill Avenue (Preferred Alternative & Backup Selection) - November 2021 Rail
Committee
• Reviewed and Refined underpass alternatives (June 2023) • Reviewed and updated Council Adopted criteria (May 2023) • Conducted Review of Preliminary Geotechnical (August 2023) • Study Session of Caltrain four-track segment analysis (November 2023) • Discussion of Caltrain comments with Rail Committee (January 2024) • Reviewed Updated Summary of Evaluation Criteria (February 2024) AGENDA
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Schedule
Caltrain’s Results of
Process by Alternative
Draft and deliberative - For discussion purposes only
Executive Summary
Next Steps
Project Planning
6 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov
City
Caltrain
VTA
FRA
Rail
Committee
City
Council
City and Caltrain to collaborate for Selection of alternatives to advance into next phase
Develop Service Agreement and/or Cooperative Agreement
with VTA, Caltrain, City for PE & Env Phase
City and Caltrain collaborate to develop and execute agreement with FRA Review Alternatives Recommend Local
Preferred Alternative(s)
City Council to review and select
Locally Preferred Alternative(s) for
next phase
Begin PE & Environmental
Prepare and Execute Funding Agreement
Execute FRA Funding Agreement
Next Steps
7 Next Steps
The goal is to provide sufficient information for Rail Committee to evaluate alternatives and make recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, Staff is seeking
• Rail Committee’s review and selection of preferred alternative for recommendation to the City Council
• Study session with City Council (April 2024)
• City Council to select preferred alternative for advancement into Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation phase for Meadow and Charleston Crossing (May/June 2024)
• Execute Agreement with FRA and Service Agreement/Cooperative Agreement for Preliminary Engineering & Environmental with Caltrain & VTA
CONNECTING PALO ALTO
CONCEPTUAL
ALTERNATIVES
TECHNICAL REVIEW
MARCH 19, 2024
Caltrain’s engagement on Connecting Palo Alto Alternatives • Execute Service agreement
• Initial review against Caltrain’s 2024 standards and policies • Meetings with Palo Alto staff to share initial observations • Presentation to Palo Alto’s January Rail Committee of initial observations • Today - presentation with an intent to focus on developing solutions Caltrain’s Engagement
Developed draft solutions based on available planning
level information
• Deeper dive analysis to support decision-making
• Seeking to balance needs of railroad and community
• Maintain utility of region’s investment in Caltrain
• Enable community’s vision for Palo Alto
• Intent to minimize additional private property impacts Caltrain’s Partnership
Caltrain Partnership
1/29 • Engineering Team workshop of potential design and constructability solutions for all alternatives (internal)
1/30 • Shared potential design and constructability solutions with City • Received Questions from City
1/31
• Caltrain Team met with Chief Safety Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Director of Engineering regarding solutions and questions (internal)
• Shared feedback on design and constructability solutions with City 2/1 • Caltrain Team met with Executive Director regarding solutions and Caltrain expectations (internal) 2/2 - 2/9 • Caltrain Team begins applying direction to exhibits and materials (internal) • Ongoing coordination between City staff and Caltrain
2/13 and 2/16 • Caltrain Team shares materials with City staff 3/19 • Rail Committee presentation
Steps Guiding Solution-Oriented Thinking
Reviewed Connecting Palo Alto Alternatives with a focus on • Safety – Constructability
• Engineering – Practical Constraints
• Maintenance and Operations
• Policy and Agreements – Ensure projects are designed to meet Caltrain's future railroad needs and preserve property rights.
• Design Criteria “Preserve the existing ROW” (2007, 2011, 2020, 2024) • Rail Corridor Use Policy (RCUP) (2020)
• Property Conveyance and fee schedule policy (2010, 2021) • California High Speed Rail Authority agreements
• Union Pacific Railroad agreements
Caltrain’s Focus of Review
Railroad property is Caltrain’s most valuable and durable asset • Caltrain will explore encroachments through revocable license agreements subject to appraisals, annual fees escalated at CPI, and Board approval via the RCUP and Property Conveyance processes.
• For all alternatives and configurations requiring temporary use of Palo Alto right-of- way, a future "construction, operation, and maintenance agreement" between the City and Caltrain is needed.
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Current at-grade crossings support
Caltrain’s use of its full ROW width
for railroad purposes
2021 Conveyance Policy
“Staff will analyze the request to
ensure . . . applicant’s
improvements are designed to be
compatible with the broadest range
of possible transportation
alternatives for the entire width of
the ROW”
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.
Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative.
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Provide a minimum 15’-6”
vertical clearance with
variance and sacrificial
beams across entire
width of Railroad ROW
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.
Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative. • City designs that do not allow for above may proceed, but City will be responsible for re- building roads, or the incremental cost to the railroad to utilize the Caltrain ROW.
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.
Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative.
Executive Summary
Churchill Summary of Findings
Alternative Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
High-level
Findings
• Roadway and railroad
improvements viable with
refinements to Alma Street cross
section
• Bikeway western encroachment
into Caltrain ROW not viable
• Reduce width of pathway facility to
fit within available 25’ expired easement
or widen to the west
• Or relocate pathway undercrossing
to Seale Ave/Peers Park (under
preliminary review by others)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
• Moderately
viable with
refinements, less
than optimal
eastern
ramp width (~7’)
• Wider eastern
ramp would impact
Alma Street travel
lanes
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
• Viable
as shown
Viaduct
• Viable with refinements
• Permanent impact to Alma travel
lanes for approach structures
(19’)
• Reducing the impact to Alma
travel lanes for approach
structures requires a new shoofly
track (6’)
• To retain use of Alma travel lanes
below viaduct requires a more
complex structure
• Caltrain to retain existing at grade
tracks for railroad purposes
Meadow/Charleston Summary of Findings
Alternative Hybrid
High-level
Findings
• Viable with refinements
• Includes elevating
width of Caltrain’s ROW
to retain utility
• Shoofly tracks will
impact Alma travel lanes
(12’) during construction
Underpass
• Viable with
refinements
*Trench Alternative: At the City of Palo Alto’s request, Caltrain was not charged with reviewing the trench alternative after it was replaced by the viaduct alternative within the Service Agreement.
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Maximum 3’ encroachment into Caltrain, revocable
license agreement is required, subject to appraisal,
annual fee (indexed to CPI), and Board approval
Churchill Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing
Interior of bridge to
accommodate:
25’ offset from MT1 track center
(towards Alma St) and
12.5’ offset from MT2 track
center (towards private property)
New tracks must be 15’
on center
Widen railroad bridge to
accommodate
12.5’ offset from MT 2
Remain in existing 25’
easement (expired) or
widen to west
No further encroachment
into Caltrain ROW
Existing 25’ easement for
Embarcadero Bike Path has expired,
a revocable license agreement is
required, subject to appraisal,
annual fee (indexed to CPI), and
Board approval
Draft and deliberative - For discussion purposes only
Churchill Partial Underpass
Existing 25’ easement for
Embarcadero Bike Path has expired,
a revocable license agreement is
required, subject to appraisal,
annual fee (indexed to CPI), and
Board approval
Churchill Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing
15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed
with variance but will require a
sacrificial beam with an agreement for
the City to cover the cost (of repair and
Caltrain operations) if beam were to be
struck
Longer bridge span to accommodate
design vehicle turning templates
Churchill Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing
Churchill Partial Underpass
with Kellogg Undercrossing Summary
Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Churchill Closure
w/ Kellogg Underpass Summary
Under preliminary review by others:
Locate bike path at Seale Ave connecting
Peers Park
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA) Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
(With Kellogg Undercrossing LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Viable as shown
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA) Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Tracks will be aligned as far west as the
southern portion of ROW allows and
retaining walls will be placed to maximize
utility of Caltrain ROW
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Place western retaining wall at 10’ from
residential property line.
Place eastern retaining wall after removal
of shoofly on Alma St property line Temporary wall will be required between activation of hybrid tracks and
removal of shoofly
Caltrain will be allowed to close a lane
on Alma St to inspect retaining walls.
Permits will be at no cost to Caltrain and
will not be unreasonably withheld.
If bridge minimum vertical clearance (16’-6”
or 15’-6” with a variance and sacrificial
beam) is not achieved across Caltrain ROW,
if in the future the full width is needed for
Railroad purposes, it will be the City’s
choice to rebuild road or pay incremental
cost for raising portion of railroad corridor.
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Interim Condition
Shoofly tracks will impact Alma travel lanes
(12’) during construction
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Retained fill between temporary
wall and Alma Street wall to
maintain utility of Caltrain
operating ROW.
Interim Condition Final Condition
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
80’
Implications of ROW Offset
at Meadow Drive
95’ 100’
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT2
MT1
Existing Condition
Main Track 1: MT1
Main Track 2: MT2
Example South of Meadow
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT2
MT1
Construction zone
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
construction barrier/fence
Build New Shoofly
Tracks along Alma
Shoofly 1: SF1
Shoofly 2: SF2
9'
26'
10'
18'
45'
SF2
SF1
Build SF1
Build SF2
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
Shoofly Tracks along Alma
operational
SF2
SF1
45’
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
temporary retaining wall
MT2
MT1
Build Hybrid and Approach Structures with
Permanent MT1 and MT2
SF2
SF1
New Main Track 1: MT1
New Main Track 2: MT2
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
temporary retaining wall
MT2
MT1
Remove Temporary Shoofly tracks along Alma
Street
Construction zone
SF2
SF1
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Shoofly tracks removed, prepare for next phase Construction zone Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Build Final Eastern Retaining Wall and Retain Fill
Final Retaining
Wall
Construction zone
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Final Condition
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT1
MT2
MT1
MT2
SF1 SF2
25’ clearance between track
center and fence
45’
NORTH of Meadow Avenue Bridge
Looking South
Final
Existing
Source: Google Earth, Google Street View, April 2023, Accessed February 2024 Plan View
Meadow Drive
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid Summary
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid Summary
Plan View
Charleston Road
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA) Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Tie-ins will require additional engineering and
constructability evaluation during Preliminary Engineering Caltrain will retain use of remaining tracks for railroad purposes as it deems necessary.
With a 13’ translated shoofly, viaduct and approach
structures will need to be placed over Alma Street ROW.
Viaduct will be required to provide 16’6” vertical clearance from structure and appurtenances.
Approach structure
approximately 1,600 feet long
south of Charleston Road
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Main Track 1: MT1
Main Track 2: MT2
Example South of Charleston
Existing Condition
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Example South of Charleston
49.5’ 25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Construction zone
Viaduct and Approach Structure
Footprint without Shoofly
52’
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Example South of Charleston
Existing Condition
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
SF2
Build New Shoofly 2
Build SF2
Example South of Charleston
Shoofly 2: SF2
MT2
MT1
Draft and deliberative - For discussion purposes only
Example South of Charleston
SF1
SF2
Build Viaduct and Approach Structures with
Permanent MT1 and MT2
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Construction zone
52’
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Shoofly 1: SF1
Shoofly 2: SF2
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Example South of Charleston
Final Condition
Siding 2
Siding 1
Tracks to remain for
future railroad use
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
MT2
MT1 52’
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
SF1
SOUTH of Charleston Road
Looking South
Using Shoofly Tracks
SF2MT2
MT1
52’
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Source: Google Earth, Google Street View, April 2023, Accessed February 2024 North of Meadow Viaduct
Approach structure approximately 1,600
feet long south of Charleston Road and
2,000 feet long north of Meadow Dr
South of Meadow Viaduct
Approach structure approximately 1,600
feet long south of Charleston Road and
2,000 feet long north of Meadow Dr
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Existing Tracks at
Grade to Remain
in Place
Viaduct and approach
structures will need to
be placed over/on Alma
Street ROW
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA) Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Maintenance
vehicle crossing
Maintenance
vehicle crossing
Meadow UnderpassWill require revocable
license agreement
Interior of bridge extend
25’ from MT1 (towards Alma Street) and
12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property)
Pedestrian bridges typically have
additional vertical clearance due
to vulnerable users
Place fence on
Caltrain ROW line
Provide required OCS
pole offset
Track alignment
shifted to west
New tracks – 15’
on track center
Meadow Underpass
• Interior of bridge over Meadow Dr to
accommodate 25’ offset from proposed
MT1 track center (towards Alma St) and
12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property
• Add maintenance crossovers on either
side of bridge over Meadow Dr
• 15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed but
will require a variance and sacrificial
beam with an agreement for the City to
cover the cost (of repair and Caltrain
operations) if beam were to be struck
Meadow Underpass Summary
Pedestrian bridges typically have
additional vertical clearance due
to vulnerable users
Interior of bridge extend
25’ from MT1 (towards Alma Street) and
12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property)
Charleston Underpass
Maintenance
vehicle crossing
Maintenance
vehicle crossing
Provide required OCS
pole offset
Place fence on
Caltrain ROW line
Track alignment
shifted to west
New tracks - 15’ on
track center
Charleston Underpass
• Interior of bridge over Charleston Rd to
accommodate 25’ offset from proposed
MT1 track center (towards Alma St) and
12.5’ offset from proposed MT 2 track
center (towards private property)
• Add maintenance crossovers on either
side of bridge over Charleston Rd
• 15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed but
will require a variance and sacrificial
beam with an agreement for the City to
cover the cost (of repair and Caltrain
operations) if beam were to be struck
Charleston Underpass Summary
Plan View
Charleston Road
Next Steps
64 Next Steps
The goal is to provide sufficient information for Rail Committee to evaluate alternatives and make recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, Staff is seeking
• Rail Committee’s review and selection of preferred alternative for recommendation to the City Council
• Study session with City Council (April 2024)
• City Council to select preferred alternative for advancement into Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation phase for Meadow and Charleston Crossing (May/June 2024)
• Execute Agreement with FRA and Service Agreement/Cooperative Agreement for Preliminary Engineering & Environmental with Caltrain & VTA
65