City of Palo Alto
Grade Separation Project
Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive,
and Charleston Road
Palo Alto Engagement Summary
September 28, 2026
Engagement Informing Council Direction #2
Rail Committee
Total Project Cost Estimate
and schedule; community
meeting feedback
AUGUST 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 OCTOBER
9/8
CSTSC
Safe access routes for
Palo Alto HS & other
PAUSD schools
8/20
Community Meetings
15% design overview; Total Project Cost Estimate
and schedule; community feedback opportunities;
what will continue to be refined
8/25 & 8/26
PABAC
Planned
pedestrian/bike
considerations
9/3
City Council
Concurrence on concepts to
advance into 35% design and
environmental documentation
9/28
2 Community Outreach Methods
3 984 Mailers sent to residents/owners
Social Media Blast Promoted project via Palo Alto Weekly 7 Lawn Signs placed
Email blasts to project
website subscriber list
Meeting Format
2 Meetings
68 attendees for both meetings
Comment Input Process
100+ Comments
Comments and responses logged in the
project comment tracker
Community meeting materials posted to
the project website
Community Meeting Recap
4 Key Topics Discussed
Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and
School Access
Design Elements
and Development
Total Project
Cost Estimate
Construction
Considerations
5 Neighborhood and Residential Effects: Respondents expressed concern about the day-to-day impacts of construction on households near the corridor, including noise, environmental exposure, and what support would be available if a residence could not be occupied during construction. Flooding, Trees, and Environmental Considerations: Respondents asked how flooding risk would be evaluated in lowered roadway sections and whether long term pump operation and maintenance is accounted for.
Respondents also asked that mature trees and park resources, particularly at Peers Park, be protected as the design advances.
Corridor Wide and Long-Term Considerations: Respondents asked the project to consider the corridor as a whole, including the South Palo Alto bicycle and pedestrian crossing, inclusion of the Palo Alto Avenue crossing, compatibility with potential future Caltrain improvements, and long-term rail safety and corridor access. Project Delivery, Funding, and Communication: Respondents raised questions about the City's capacity to deliver a program of this size, whether bicycle and pedestrian elements could be funded separately, and asked for clearer explanation of how conditions would change. Operational questions were also raised regarding emergency response access and Alma Street conditions beyond the crossings.
Additional Topics Heard From Community
6 Palo
Alto
High
School
Churchill Ave – Partial Underpass
7 Alma Street and Churchill Avenue Intersection: Respondents shared input on turn movements to and from southbound Alma Street, the availability of signalized connections, and how sight distance and queuing at the intersection are being evaluated.
Neighborhood Street Circulation: Respondents shared input on traffic conditions on surrounding neighborhood streets, including cut through traffic near Palo Alto High School and the role Churchill Avenue plays in connecting neighborhoods across the corridor. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access: Respondents shared input on walking and bicycling routes serving Palo Alto High School and Walter Hays Elementary School, including route directness, safety features on the pedestrian bridge, and the possibility that route changes could influence how students and families choose to travel.
Construction Considerations: Respondents raised questions about how bicycle, pedestrian, and student access would be considered during the construction period.
Churchill – Community Key Takeaways
8 Seale Ave – Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing
9 West Ramp
to/from
Undercrossing
East Ramp
to/from
Undercrossing
Peers Park
Expected Use and Route Directness: Respondents shared input on how the undercrossing would be used, including its location relative to existing crossings at California Avenue and Embarcadero Road, and how route directness could influence travel choices for nearby households and students. Intersection Conditions at Alma Street: Respondents shared input on the interaction between people bicycling exiting the undercrossing and turning vehicles at Alma Street, including sightlines, separation, and turn movements at the intersection.
Peers Park: Respondents shared input on the alignment of the undercrossing along the northwest edge of Peers Park, including whether an alignment farther from that edge was considered. Total Project Cost Estimate: Respondents asked about the estimated cost of the Seale Avenue bicycle and pedestrian crossing as a distinct element of the project.
Seale – Community Key Takeaways
10 11
Meadow Drive – Hybrid
Design Elements and Development: Respondents shared input on why the hybrid configuration is proposed at Meadow Drive, how it differs from the approach at Charleston Road, and how it compares with grade separations elsewhere along the corridor.
Aesthetics and Visual Effects: Respondents shared input on the appearance of the retaining wall along the raised track, including its height, continuity, and how it would be experienced from adjacent streets and homes.
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access: Respondents shared input on walking and bicycling conditions at East Meadow Drive, including how the crossing experience could change, how people traveling at different speeds would share space, and how student and parent travel patterns are being considered.
Construction Considerations: Respondents raised questions about the temporary tracks, including their potential effect on travel along Alma Street and the duration of those conditions.
Meadow – Community Key Takeaways
12 13
Charleston Road – Underpass
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access: Respondents shared input on the proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including the switchback ramp configuration, path width where people biking and walking share space, directional travel, and sidewalk and buffer conditions near Alma Street. Design Elements and Development: Respondents shared input on the engineering and design considerations that shaped the Charleston Road alternative, including the intersection configuration at Alma Street and how drainage in the lowered roadway is being studied. Potential Property Effects: Respondents asked how close the direct access ramp would come to homes along East Charleston Road, with front yard depth and proximity to traffic raised as concerns. Construction Considerations: Respondents shared input on potential construction staging near East Charleston Road and Mumford Place, and on how potential effects on nearby residents are being considered as the design advances.
Charleston – Community Key Takeaways
14 Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Schools: Committee members provided input on walking and bicycling routes serving students, including conditions at the Embarcadero Road intersection for students north of Churchill Avenue who are less likely to travel south to the proposed Seale Avenue crossing. Sequencing and Delivery: Committee members provided input on how the crossings would be sequenced, including the relationship between the grade separations and the South Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Project and whether the Seale Avenue undercrossing could be advanced ahead of Churchill Avenue.
Seale Avenue Undercrossing Design Elements: Committee members provided input on the design of the undercrossing, including grade and accessibility, the extent of tunnel enclosure, and lighting and safety features to be developed in later design phases. Construction Effects Near Schools: Committee members provided input on construction period conditions adjacent to school property, including ground stability near the field area at Churchill Avenue and potential vibration and noise effects on class time.
CSTSC Feedback
15 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Detail: Committee members requested more specific information on how the facilities would function, including path widths, turning radii, and a walkthrough of the route a person would take by direction and by mode.
Charleston Road Access and Connectivity: Committee members expressed concern that the switchback ramp is indirect, lacks a pedestrian stair option, and would likely lead most cyclists to remain in the roadway. Members also asked how cyclists traveling east would cross Charleston Road and noted that the configuration should be tested against adopted City goals for walking, bicycling, and reduced vehicle miles traveled. Alma Street Corridor Treatment: Committee members stated that where the project substantially changes Alma Street, the corridor should be treated as a complete street, with adequate sidewalk width and a buffer separating people walking and bicycling from traffic.
Information Requested Before Advancing: Committee members asked for additional detail ahead of the Council item, including where pedestrian and bicycle detour routes would go during construction, resolution of risks still identified as undefined, drawings showing the extent of the raised track profile at Meadow Drive, and whether the Seale Avenue undercrossing could be delivered ahead of Churchill Avenue.
PABAC Feedback
16 Project Scale and Funding Reality: Committee members discussed the gap between the estimated total project cost for all three crossings and the funding currently identified and indicated a likely narrowing of crossing focus.
Meadow Drive Alternative and Public Explanation: Committee members asked the project team to restate why the hybrid was carried forward at Meadow Drive rather than the underpass and requested the wall height profile with greater specificity on where effects occur. Members emphasized that the reasons for narrowing the range of alternatives need to be explained more clearly to the public. Charleston Road Priority and Refinements: Committee members identified Charleston Road as the likely near-term priority given traffic volumes, and discussed preliminary level of service results across existing, project, and future no build conditions.
Right of Way Requirements and Cost Responsibility: Committee members asked why the retaining wall at Meadow Drive extends to the edge of Alma Street.
Rail Committee Feedback
17