City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: September 28, 2026
Report #:2603-6134
TITLE
Direction to advance the Locally Preferred Alternatives for Grade Separation at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road crossings to 35% design and environmental documentation. CEQA Status – Statutorily Exempt.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the Council direct proceeding with the 35% design phase and preparation of environmental documentation for the selected alternatives at the Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road crossings.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item seeks approval to continue design plans for the Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with a bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue, the Meadow Drive Hybrid, and the Charleston Road Underpass with a Direct Access Ramp (DAR). Approval would enable proceeding with 35% design and environmental documentation. Feedback received from both the Rail Committee and City Council will be considered and incorporated during the early stages of the 35% design phase.
Completion of 15% Design plans established a preliminary project footprint for initiating the environmental process, identified the primary cost and constructability drivers at each crossing, and was used to develop an independent cost estimate and preliminary construction schedule for each delivery scenario. On August 25 and 26, 2026 staff conducted community engagement meetings to share the 15% design plans and total rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) project costs at each crossing.
Community feedback received during these meetings is documented in Attachment D.
At the September 8, 2026 Rail Committee meeting, Committee members reviewed the 15% design concepts, preliminary ROM cost estimates, high-level construction schedules and provided feedback on total program cost relative to identified funding, how the alternatives were narrowed, wall heights, and construction period effects at Meadow Drive, and potential property acquisition by crossings.
Committee members also discussed how future decisions on delivery and phasing would be informed by completion of 35%.
Advancing the alternatives into 35% design will provide additional information to support these future decisions by refining project costs, schedules, risks, and funding needs, and by identifying opportunities to phase or sequence implementation in a manner that balances community benefits, constructability, funding availability, and overall program cost. The City is obligated to advance the selected grade separation alternatives through the Preliminary Engineering (end of 35% Design) and Environmental Documentation phase, and this work is fully funded with $20 million in secured external funds.
BACKGROUND
On December 10 and December 15, 2025, Council directed staff to advance the following alternatives into 15% Design, with a focus on enhancing safety and access, establishing a preliminary project footprint for environmental clearance, and minimizing congestion, environmental impacts, and property impacts:
Churchill Avenue: A Partial Underpass was selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative, with a partial crossing for motor vehicles at Churchill Avenue, no landscaping strip along Alma Street, and a pedestrian and bicycle crossing at Seale Avenue/Peers Park with a ramp along Alma Street. (Consistent with Council direction from November 29, 2021, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Undercrossing at Churchill remains as the backup alternative and is not being advanced into preliminary engineering at this time.)
Meadow Drive: A Hybrid Underpass was selected as the preferred alternative, with direction to evaluate earthen berm and podium options during 15% Design. The Rail Committee reviewed structural and design considerations for both options on March 10, 2026 and confirmed the earthen berm with a short bridge over Meadow Drive as the basis of design. Charleston Road: An Underpass with a Direct Access Ramp (DAR) was selected as the preferred alternative.
Caltrain is leading the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase, and the City collaborates with Caltrain on project design and acts as project sponsor.
Since the Rail Committee update on May 12, 2026, staff revised the conceptual plans to develop the 15% Design plans and worked with an independent cost estimator to develop total ROM project costs and preliminary construction schedules for each crossing. Due to the proximity of the Charleston Road and Meadow Drive crossings, multiple delivery scenarios were analyzed to identify potential cost efficiencies, construction sequencing considerations, and opportunities to reduce overall community disruption through coordinated project delivery.
The delivery scenarios evaluated are outlined below:
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue Councilmembers have expressed a preference for the Seale Avenue portion of this project to occur in advance of the Churchill Avenue portion. At Seale Avenue, the bicycle and pedestrian crossing includes an east ramp along Alma Street that transitions to a tunnel beneath Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks, terminating in Peers Park and connecting by a west ramp to Castilleja Avenue.
At Churchill Avenue, the roadway would be lowered beneath the existing Caltrain tracks, which would remain at their current elevation. Because the track profile would not change, no track design was required for this location. The 15% Design assumes a hybrid retaining wall system, including deep soil mixing walls and conventional cantilever retaining walls along the ramps, with a concrete box structure for the undercrossing.
Both undercrossings are assumed to be constructed using box jacking, which allows rail operations to continue without a shoofly track.
Charleston Road Underpass and Meadow Drive Hybrid Underpass delivered concurrently At both crossings, the Caltrain tracks would be raised on an embankment supported by retaining walls, with bridges over the roadways. The track profile would be raised by up to approximately 16 feet at Meadow Drive and approximately 4.5 feet at Charleston Road, beginning near Loma Verde Avenue and extending to near Greenmeadow Way. Meadow Drive would be lowered by approximately 7 feet, and Charleston Road would be lowered by approximately 20.25 feet. At Charleston Road, Alma Street would be raised over the lowered roadway on a new bridge, with turning movements accommodated through upper and lower intersections and a separate multi-use path adjacent to the lowered roadway. Because the two crossings are approximately 0.3 miles apart and both require raising the tracks, this scenario assumes construction of a shoofly track along Alma Street to maintain rail operations through both work areas.
Charleston Road Underpass and Meadow Drive Hybrid Underpass delivered sequentially as back-to-back projects
Under this scenario, the Charleston Road Underpass would be constructed first using box jacking, which would allow rail operations to continue without a shoofly track. The Meadow Drive Hybrid would then be constructed as a later, separate project and would require a shoofly track along Alma Street. Construction of the Meadow Drive Hybrid would also raise the track profile over the previously completed Charleston Road Underpass.
Charleston Road Underpass Only
Under this scenario, the Charleston Road Underpass would be constructed and the Meadow Drive crossing would remain at grade. This scenario was included based on City Council direction on December 15, 2025.
Shoofly Operations
Where the track profile must be raised, such as at Meadow Drive, trains cannot remain on the existing alignment while the permanent improvements are constructed and a temporary shoofly track would be constructed east of the existing tracks along the southbound portion of Alma Street to maintain rail service through the work area. The need for a shoofly varies by delivery scenario.
In the combined delivery scenario, the shoofly track would begin north of Meadow Drive and end south of Charleston Road, ahead of the existing crossover, allowing it to serve both crossings during construction. Based on the current 15% Design, the approach embankment is approximately 55 feet wide, with an estimated 25 feet of clear distance between the shoofly and the new wall. A temporary at-grade crossing would also be installed at Meadow Drive to maintain access during construction.
If Charleston Road is constructed on its own, box jacking would be used and no shoofly would be required.
If Charleston Road and Meadow Drive are delivered sequentially, the shoofly would be deferred to the later Meadow Drive project. After construction is complete, the shoofly would be removed and the Alma Street corridor would be restored.
ANALYSIS
15% Design Phase
The 15% design phase is a preliminary engineering basis that identifies likely structures, a preliminary project footprint, roadway and track relationships, and construction approaches sufficient to support ROM cost estimating, schedule planning, and environmental review. Here, the project team evaluated each crossing based on physical constraints associated with the Caltrain corridor, Alma Street, adjacent neighborhoods, schools, parks and utilities, and the need to maintain rail operations during construction.
The 35% design phase will verify key assumptions and further develop preliminary engineering and environmental analysis. The sections below describe the key considerations at 15% design and next steps for the 35% design phase.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Circulation
15% Design Objective: Evaluate whether each alternative can accommodate safe pedestrian and bicycle movement, and explore methods to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access through the corridor during construction.
15% Design Analysis and Findings: The 15% Design establishes the preliminary pedestrian and bicycle facilities described below.
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass: The Churchill Ave concept maintains access across Churchill Avenue with a pedestrian and bicycle bridge adjacent to Caltrain tracks across the lowered Churchill Avenue roadway. The bridge is anticipated to include railings and fencing to separate users from the rail corridor and roadway. Seale Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing: The Seale Ave concept provides a 16-foot-wide pedestrian and bicycle path that descends from Seale Avenue along Alma Street, passes beneath Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and emerges in Peers Park, and ramps up to grade at Castilleja Avenue. The tunnel provides 8 feet of vertical clearance for bicyclists and pedestrians. Meadow Drive Hybrid Underpass: The Meadow Drive concept would provide a 5-foot bicycle lane in each direction and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of Meadow Drive beneath the rail bridge, reconnecting to existing bicycle facilities at project limits. Charleston Road Underpass with Direct Access Ramp: The Charleston Road concept includes a vertically separated pedestrian and bicycle path that would run parallel to the lowered Charleston Road as it passes beneath Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks. The path has a minimum clear width of 14 feet through the undercrossing with at least 8 feet of vertical clearance. The concept also includes an approximately 60-foot pedestrian and bicycle bridge adjacent to the rail bridge that would allow for bicycle and pedestrian access across Charleston Road.
Connections to the Surrounding Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities:
The proposed facilities enhance east-west pedestrian and bicycle connections across the Caltrain corridor and connect to existing facilities at project limits. The Churchill Avenue and Seale Avenue facilities would connect to the Embarcadero Bike Path and Park Bike Boulevard and support access to Palo Alto High School and adjacent neighborhoods. At Meadow Drive, the reconstructed bicycle lanes and sidewalks would connect to existing and future facilities on East and West Meadow Drive. At Charleston Road, the separated path and pedestrian and bicycle bridge would connect Charleston Road with Alma Street and Park Bike Boulevard. These facilities would support access to nearby schools and neighborhoods destinations. Specific off-site improvements and transitions between the existing and proposed facilities will be refined.
Cost & Risk: The 15% design phase includes permanent pedestrian and bicycle facilities and preliminary construction traffic control. Temporary pedestrian and bicycle routes, accessible detours, barriers, signs, lighting, and other construction-period accommodations have not been fully defined. Temporary and permanent pedestrian/bicycle access elements could affect construction staging, property needs, project cost, and construction duration.
Next Step for 35% Design: The 35% design phase will focus on refining the pedestrian and bicycle facility alignment, accessibility, connections and transitions to existing facilities, as well as lighting, wayfinding, and other safety features. A traffic study will evaluate permanent and construction-period pedestrian and bicycle operations, including school access, temporary closures, detour routes, and options to maintain a usable crossing or reduce the duration of overlapping closures. The results will inform more detailed construction phasing and sequencing, access plans, environmental analysis, and updated cost and schedule information.
Vehicle Access and Circulation
15% Design Objective: Confirm whether each alternative can accommodate safe pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle movement, and explore methods to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access during construction. Alma Street is a designated local truck route for its entire length within the City, which shapes geometric requirements at each crossing. 15% Design Analysis and Findings: Passenger vehicles can generally be accommodated within the preliminary roadway geometry. However, much of the available stopping and nighttime headlight sight distance falls below Caltrans criteria, particularly along Alma Street and at roadway low points. Larger vehicles including semi-trailers, fire apparatus, school buses, and City garbage trucks require wider turning paths or operational adjustments at several locations. Recommendations from the analysis include restricting large vehicles from the Charleston Road Direct Access Ramp, modifying curb and sidewalk geometry at the upper Alma Street/Charleston Road intersection, installing high visibility pavement markings, green bike lanes, pedestrian and street lighting. These recommendations are preliminary and will continue to be evaluated and refined as the design progresses.
Cost & Risk: The cost estimate developed during the 15% Design phase includes the principal pedestrian, bicycle and roadway facilities, traffic signals, lighting, pavement markings, and preliminary construction traffic control. Further geometric changes could affect retaining walls, bridge elements, utilities, property needs, construction staging, and project cost.
Next Step for 35% Design: The 35% phase will refine roadway profiles and intersection geometry, update sight-distance and turning analyses, define vehicle restrictions and traffic control measures, and advance pedestrian and bicycle facility design. A traffic study will be completed to evaluate permanent and construction-period operations, including intersection performance, diversion routes, temporary closures, and emergency, school, pedestrian, and bicycle access. The results will inform more detailed construction phasing, detours, access plans, cost estimates, schedule, and environmental analyses.
Utility Identification and Relocation
15% Design Objective: Collect additional information on the existing water, sewer, gas, electrical, and communication lines to establish a preliminary utility base map and evaluate potential conflicts with roadway grading, retaining walls, bridges, and excavation. 15% Design Analysis and Findings: Utility records indicate extensive infrastructure at each crossing. Preliminary concepts for utility relocation include moving utilities into shared trenches or duct banks, rerouting or lowering individual lines, and protecting certain facilities in place. The analysis was limited to approximate horizontal locations and utility depths. Vertical conflicts between utilities were not analyzed during the 15% Design phase.
Cost & Risk: Utility relocation is a significant source of cost and schedule uncertainty. The estimate includes preliminary relocation quantities, but these cost estimates could be impacted by unknown utility depths, nonstandard clearance requirements, utility-owner requirements, and unidentified conflicts. The 24-inch PG&E gas transmission line at Charleston Road is assumed to remain in place; and any required protection or relocation of this line will also result in cost and schedule impacts. Responsibility for relocation costs among the City, Caltrain, and utility owners has not been determined at this stage of the Project.
Next Step for 35% Design: The 35% Design phase will verify utility locations and depths through subsurface investigation and potholing, develop a detailed utility conflict matrix, and refine relocation and protection plans with utility owners. This work will verify required clearances, as well as preliminary construction sequencing, service interruptions, property or easement needs and cost responsibility to provide greater clarity on costs associated with utilities.
Potential Property Acquisition
15% Design Objective: The 15% Design established a preliminary project footprint and potentially affected parcels using preliminary plans, assessor maps, available right-of-way records, and limited title information and identified potential property impacts to the level of detail needed support environmental review and cost estimation. The design aimed to minimize property impacts while meeting safety, access, constructability, and Caltrain operating requirements.
15% Design Analysis and Findings: Based on available assessor maps, partial Caltrain right- of-way information, and limited title reports, the 15% Design preliminarily identifies five (5) full property acquisitions and 33 additional partial acquisitions of private parcels.
Additional right-of-way from Caltrain may also be required. These findings are preliminary because a complete boundary survey was not available and the exact limits and types of property interests have not been established.
Cost & Risk: Final cost estimates will depend on updated project footprints and estimated extents of permanent acquisition and temporary construction easements. Property constraints may also affect retaining walls, the temporary shoofly, construction staging and access, and therefore construction cost and schedule.
Next Step for 35% Design: Property impacts will continue to be evaluated and refined as design advances. At 15%, the Project identifies the general footprint and potentially affected properties using preliminary plans, assessor maps, available right-of-way records, and limited title information. During the 35% Design, additional survey, title, and engineering information will be used to refine parcel-specific limits, distinguish potential permanent acquisition and easements from temporary construction easements, and evaluate design changes that could avoid or reduce impacts. The 35% findings will provide a more reliable basis for environmental analysis and future coordination with property owners but will not authorize any real estate acquisition or determine that any specific property will be acquired. If the Project moves forward following environmental review and future approvals, some property interests may need to be acquired. Any future acquisition would require confirmation of the Project and right-of-way needs, compliance with applicable acquisition procedures, separate funding, and separate authorization. No construction funding is currently identified or programmed.
Total ROM Project Costs and Preliminary Construction Schedule Cost estimates become more reliable as design advances and assumptions are replaced by verified information. The 15% Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is an early-phase estimate. It is intended to document the current level of design, inform delivery planning, test the reasonableness of planning-level figures, and focus design efforts during the next phase. It is not intended to establish a final project budget or serve as the basis for construction funding requests.
Figure 1: Cost Estimate Lifecycle
An independent cost estimator, working separately from the design team, prepared a 15% Opinion of Probable Construction Cost and a preliminary construction schedule for the project. The cost estimate was prepared using a design-bid-build procurement assumption for pricing purposes and reflects how a contractor would price the work based on the current level of design. The estimate was developed using the available 15% Design and technical materials prepared for this phase, including the 15% plan sets and supporting technical documentation.
Components of Total ROM Project Cost Ranges
The total ROM project cost ranges include the following major cost categories:
Construction contractor costs, including direct construction costs such as roadway work, utility work, retaining walls and bridges, jacked boxes, dewatering, track work, rail systems, overhead contact system (OCS), lighting, power, and landscaping. Contractor indirect costs, including contractor supervision, staffing, field office expenses, general and administrative costs, escalation, and contractor fees. Designer/Engineer of Record costs, including design services needed to advance the project through subsequent design phases.
Agency costs, including project management, oversight, construction administration, management, and inspection.
Environmental documentation and permitting, including costs associated with CEQA/NEPA documentation and required permits.
Trans America Services Inc. (TASI), a third party managing the Caltrain operation as included in the total project cost assumptions.
Real property and easements, including property acquisition and temporary or permanent easement needs.
Escalation, reflecting the assumed timing of construction and year-of-expenditure cost basis.
Project contingency, reflecting uncertainty at the current level of design and the need for refinement as the project advances.
Key Estimate Assumptions
The total ROM project costs were developed using the following key assumptions:
Costs are developed in 2026 dollars, with escalation applied beginning in 2027 at 5 percent per year using a project midpoint approach
Total ROM project costs are expressed in year-of-expenditure dollars, meaning they include escalation.
Craft labor rates reflect current Northern California union agreements. Work within the Caltrain right-of-way is assumed to occur at night, including in residential areas where night work is assumed to be permissible. Weekend closures are assumed for temporary rail bridge installation and removal and for track cutovers.
Productivity inefficiency factors are applied to account for work adjacent to active rail operations.
Construction is assumed to begin in 2032.
The estimate corresponds to an approximate Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 3 estimate.
The table below summarizes the total ROM project cost ranges and preliminary construction durations for each delivery scenario.
Table 1: Total ROM Project Cost Range and Preliminary Construction Duration Delivery Scenario Total ROM Project Cost
Range
Preliminary
Construction Duration
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with
bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale
Avenue
$420M – $450M 3-4 Years
Charleston Road Underpass and Meadow
Drive Hybrid delivered concurrently $1B - $1.1B 5 Years Charleston Road Underpass and
Meadow Drive Hybrid delivered
sequentially as back-to-back projects
$ 1.2B -$1.3B 9 Years
Charleston Road Underpass constructed on
its own $480M - $530M 4 Years
Primary Cost Drivers of the 15% Estimate
The 15% total ROM project costs is a tool to support decision-making and is based on the current level of design, supplemented by contractor means-and-methods assumptions and estimating judgement where information was incomplete.
Design Progression: The 15% estimate includes allowances and contingency for cost elements that are not fully defined at this stage of design. Allowances were included for design, potential real estate and easement needs. Contingency was included for other project-specific risk items. These buffers reflect the preliminary nature of 15% Design and will be updated as the project advances and additional technical work is completed. Physical Cost Drivers: Major Cost Drivers include retaining walls and bridges, jacked-box structures, shoofly and track work, signal and OCS changes, deep excavation and dewatering, pump stations and drainage, potential ground improvement, and extensive utility relocation.
Schedule and Market Drivers: Cost and duration are highly dependent on delivery method, sequencing, construction work windows and flagging, weekend shutdowns, night work, productivity next to active rail, anticipated start of construction, escalation, and contractor market conditions.
Key Findings for Charleston Road and Meadow Drive Delivery Scenarios:
The Charleston Road and Meadow Drive delivery scenarios have different implications for construction duration, access across the Caltrain corridor, and the timing of construction impacts in the community.
Under the combined delivery scenario, the preliminary construction schedule is approximately 60 months. During that period, closure of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings would overlap for approximately 26 months. Based on current design and sequencing assumptions, there would be no open crossing of the Caltrain corridor between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road during that overlap, with the nearest available crossings at Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road.
Staff recognizes this as a significant community impact. Exploring design solutions to reduce or eliminate the overlap is a specific objective of the 35% Design phase, Staff will continue to evaluate sequencing refinements, including whether the roadway bridge over Alma Street can be constructed in advance of the railroad work, as discussed at the May 2026 Rail Committee meeting.
Under separate delivery, the preliminary construction schedule is approximately 92 months. This approach would keep at least one crossing open throughout construction, but it would extend the overall period of construction activity compared to the combined delivery scenario. Charleston Road would also remain subject to construction restrictions for approximately 52 months during the later Meadow Drive work. Separate delivery would also be expected to increase overall cost by duplicating scopes of work, including roadway removals and improvements, fencing, signage and striping, landscaping, and trackwork, and by extending indirect costs for both the contractor and the City.
These scenarios illustrate the tradeoffs between reducing the total duration and cost of construction impacts and maintaining at least one available crossing throughout construction. The 35% Design phase will continue to evaluate construction sequencing, access strategies, and opportunities to reduce community impacts during construction.
Risks Associated with Costs
The following items remain undefined at 15% Design and will be further explored as the project advances into 35% Design:
Utilities: Utility profiles have not yet been developed, so utility depths were estimated using standard assumptions. A 24-inch gas transmission line along Charleston Road is assumed to remain in place with no associated work. Utility relocation cost responsibility between the City, Caltrain, and utility owners has not been established. Potential Property Acquisition: Property impacts will be refined as design advances. Groundwater and dewatering: No groundwater flow rate data was available at 15% Design. Dewatering assumptions were developed from geotechnical groundwater elevations and anticipated excavation depths, and will be refined through additional geotechnical investigation, groundwater monitoring, and pumping tests. Ground improvement: Deep soil mixing for soil stabilization beneath the jacked boxes at Churchill Avenue and Charleston Road, and beneath the mechanically stabilized earth system at Meadow Drive, may be required but is not included in the current estimate. Box jacking performance: Limited space for casting and launching the jacked box segments creates a risk that the box could deviate downward during jacking. Additional ground improvement or other mitigation may be required, and a separate contingency is recommended.
Construction sequencing: Cost and duration are sensitive to whether Meadow Drive and Charleston Road are delivered together or separately, and to the sequencing of roadway and railroad work within each scenario.
Railroad work windows and flagging: Track access, weekend shutdown availability, and flagging requirements will be determined with Caltrain. Flagging is carried as a separate allowance rather than in the base estimate.
Escalation and construction start year: Escalation is applied based on an assumed construction start. A later start increases cost. Construction start depends on funding availability.
As the project advances into 35% Design, staff will continue to refine the total ROM project cost ranges and preliminary construction schedules, particularly as key assumptions are confirmed or updated. Future updates will incorporate more detailed information on construction sequencing, rail service requirements, utility conflicts, property needs, permitting requirements, market conditions, and other design refinements that affect project cost and schedule.
Components of Total ROM Project Cost Ranges
The total ROM project cost ranges include the following major cost categories:
Construction contractor costs, including direct construction costs such as roadway work, utility work, retaining walls and bridges, jacked boxes, dewatering, track work, rail systems, overhead contact system (OCS), lighting, power, and landscaping. Contractor indirect costs, including contractor supervision, staffing, field office expenses, general and administrative costs, escalation, and contractor fees. Designer/Engineer of Record costs, including design services needed to advance the project through subsequent design phases.
Agency costs, including project management, oversight, construction administration, management, and inspection.
Environmental documentation and permitting, including costs associated with CEQA/NEPA documentation and required permits.
Trans America Services Inc. (TASI), a third party managing the Caltrain operation as included in the total project cost assumptions.
Real property and easements, including property acquisition and temporary or permanent easement needs.
Escalation, reflecting the assumed timing of construction and year-of-expenditure cost basis.
Project contingency, reflecting uncertainty at the current level of design and the need for refinement as the project advances.
Key Estimate Assumptions
The total ROM project costs were developed using the following key assumptions:
Costs are developed in 2026 dollars, with escalation applied beginning in 2027 at 5 percent per year using a project midpoint approach
Total ROM project costs are expressed in year-of-expenditure dollars, meaning they include escalation.
Craft labor rates reflect current Northern California union agreements. Work within the Caltrain right-of-way is assumed to occur at night, including in residential areas where night work is assumed to be permissible. Weekend closures are assumed for temporary rail bridge installation and removal and for track cutovers.
Productivity inefficiency factors are applied to account for work adjacent to active rail operations.
Construction is assumed to begin in 2032.
The estimate corresponds to an approximate Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 3 estimate.
The table below summarizes the total ROM project cost ranges and preliminary construction durations for each delivery scenario.
Table 1: Total ROM Project Cost Range and Preliminary Construction Duration Delivery Scenario
Total ROM Project
Cost Range
Preliminary
Construction Duration
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with
bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale
Avenue
$420M – $450M 3-4 Years
Charleston Road Underpass and
Meadow Drive Hybrid delivered
concurrently
$1B - $1.1B 5 Years
Charleston Road Underpass and
Meadow Drive Hybrid delivered
sequentially as back-to-back projects
$ 1.2B -$1.3B 9 Years
Charleston Road Underpass constructed
on its own $480M - $530M 4 Years
Primary Cost Drivers of the 15% Estimate
The 15% total ROM project costs is a tool to support decision-making and is based on the current level of design, supplemented by contractor means-and-methods assumptions and estimating judgement where information was incomplete.
Design Progression: The 15% estimate includes allowances and contingency for cost elements that are not fully defined at this stage of design. Allowances were included for design, potential real estate and easement needs. Contingency was included for other project-specific risk items. These buffers reflect the preliminary nature of 15% Design and will be updated as the project advances and additional technical work is completed. Physical Cost Drivers: Major Cost Drivers include retaining walls and bridges, jacked-box structures, shoofly and track work, signal and OCS changes, deep excavation and dewatering, pump stations and drainage, potential ground improvement, and extensive utility relocation.
Schedule and Market Drivers: Cost and duration are highly dependent on delivery method, sequencing, construction work windows and flagging, weekend shutdowns, night work, productivity next to active rail, anticipated start of construction, escalation, and contractor market conditions.
Key Findings for Charleston Road and Meadow Drive Delivery Scenarios:
The Charleston Road and Meadow Drive delivery scenarios have different implications for construction duration, access across the Caltrain corridor, and the timing of construction impacts in the community.
Under the combined delivery scenario, the preliminary construction schedule is approximately 60 months. During that period, closure of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings would overlap for approximately 26 months. Based on current design and sequencing assumptions, there would be no open crossing of the Caltrain corridor between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road during that overlap, with the nearest available crossings at Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road.
Staff recognizes this as a significant community impact. Exploring design solutions to reduce or eliminate the overlap is a specific objective of the 35% Design phase, Staff will continue evaluate sequencing refinements, including whether the roadway bridge over Alma Street can be constructed in advance of the railroad work, as discussed at the May 2026 Rail Committee meeting.
Under separate delivery, the preliminary construction schedule is approximately 92 months. This approach would keep at least one crossing open throughout construction, but it would extend the overall period of construction activity compared to the combined delivery scenario. Charleston Road would also remain subject to construction restrictions for approximately 52 months during the later Meadow Drive work. Separate delivery would also be expected to increase overall cost by duplicating scopes of work, including roadway removals and improvements, fencing, signage and striping, landscaping, and trackwork, and by extending indirect costs for both the contractor and the City.
These scenarios illustrate the tradeoffs between reducing the total duration and cost of construction impacts and maintaining at least one available crossing throughout construction. The 35% Design phase will continue to evaluate construction sequencing, access strategies, and opportunities to reduce community impacts during construction.
Risks Associated with Costs
The following items remain undefined at 15% Design and will be further explored as the project advances into 35% Design:
Utilities: Utility profiles have not yet been developed, so utility depths were estimated using standard assumptions. A 24-inch gas transmission line along Charleston Road is assumed to remain in place with no associated work. Utility relocation cost responsibility between the City, Caltrain, and utility owners has not been established. Potential Property Acquisition: Property impacts will be refined as design advances. Groundwater and dewatering: No groundwater flow rate data was available at 15% Design. Dewatering assumptions were developed from geotechnical groundwater elevations and anticipated excavation depths, and will be refined through additional geotechnical investigation, groundwater monitoring, and pumping tests. Ground improvement: Deep soil mixing for soil stabilization beneath the jacked boxes at Churchill Avenue and Charleston Road, and beneath the mechanically stabilized earth system at Meadow Drive, may be required but is not included in the current estimate. Box jacking performance: Limited space for casting and launching the jacked box segments creates a risk that the box could deviate downward during jacking. Additional ground improvement or other mitigation may be required, and a separate contingency is recommended.
Construction sequencing: Cost and duration are sensitive to whether Meadow Drive and Charleston Road are delivered together or separately, and to the sequencing of roadway and railroad work within each scenario.
Railroad work windows and flagging: Track access, weekend shutdown availability, and flagging requirements will be determined with Caltrain. Flagging is carried as a separate allowance rather than in the base estimate.
Escalation and construction start year: Escalation is applied based on an assumed construction start. A later start increases cost. Construction start depends on funding availability.
As the project advances into 35% Design, staff will continue to refine the total ROM project cost ranges and preliminary construction schedules, particularly as key assumptions are confirmed or updated. Future updates will incorporate more detailed information on construction sequencing, rail service requirements, utility conflicts, property needs, permitting requirements, market conditions, and other design refinements that affect project cost and schedule.
Total Program Delivery Cost Estimate
The total program delivery cost for implementing grade separations at Churchill Avenue, including Seale Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road is outlined in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Total ROM Program Delivery Cost Estimates
Program Delivery Scenario Total Program Cost
Churchill Avenue plus Meadow Drive and Charleston Road
concurrently
$1.5 billion to $1.6 billion
Churchill Avenue plus Meadow Drive and Charleston Road
sequentially
$1.7 billion to $1.8 billion
Given the scale of investment that may be required to deliver the full program, future phases of the project will include discussions on delivery and phasing strategies, funding opportunities and strategy, and the timing of implementation. Advancing the alternatives into 35% design will provide additional information to support these future decisions by refining project costs, schedules, risks, and funding needs, and by identifying opportunities to phase or sequence implementation in a manner that balances community benefits, constructability, funding availability, and overall program cost.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
No action with a fiscal impact is requested as part of this staff report.
The City is obligated to advance the selected grade separation alternatives through the Preliminary Engineering (end of 35% Design) and Environmental Documentation phase and this work is fully funded with $20 million in secured external funds. These funds include a $6 million Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) grant and a $14 million Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Measure B Grade Separation Funding Cooperative Agreement, which Council approved on December 9, 2024.
Appropriations for this work are included in the FY 2027 Adopted Capital Budget, with future costs programmed in the FY 2027 to 2031 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), as capital projects PL- 24000 (Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) and PL-24001 (Churchill Avenue Rail Grade Separation and Safety Improvements). The secured $20 million is programmed to cover the costs of the 15% Design phase as well as the subsequent 35% Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase. Therefore, this item has no new fiscal impact.
The total project cost estimates developed at the 15% Design stage are planning-level estimates intended to support decision-making on project advancement, delivery planning, and funding strategies. They do not establish a final project budget. While preliminary engineering and environmental review are funded, no construction funding has been identified or programmed.
Construction will require additional federal, state, regional, and local funding, and the timing and sequencing of construction will depend on when those funds are secured. Cost estimates and schedules will continue to be refined as design advances and key assumptions are verified. Council will have an opportunity to evaluate options for sequencing subsequent project phases and how to best utilize funds that have not yet been awarded at the end of the 35% Design.
Funding Sources Awarded &
Allocated
Awarded &
Unallocated Unawarded
FRA Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) $6 M - -
VTA Measure B Grade Separation Fund $14 M - $350 M
State Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program
(TIRCP) - $23 M -
City Measure K $9 M - $30 M
Total $432 M
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Rail Committee meetings and City Council sessions are open to the public, offering community members an opportunity to share comments directly with Committee and staff. Regular project updates are presented during these meetings.
Since the last presentation to City Council, staff have hosted two community meetings on Tuesday, August 25 and Wednesday, August 26, 2026, at the Mitchell Park Community Center to gather community input and feedback on 15% Design plans, and the total rough-order-of-magnitude project costs and preliminary construction schedule. Each meeting included a presentation, a question and answer session, and an open house with project staff available for discussion. To reach a wide cross section and help spread awareness of these engagement opportunities, meetings were advertised through mailers to residents and property owners near the project area, on-site signage at the crossings and at area schools, social media, a City blog post, a Palo Alto Weekly advertisement, website updates, and email outreach to neighborhood associations, school and institutional partners, business organizations, and community-based organizations. Language translation services were available.
Comments received have been logged in Attachment D along with responses. A summary of the community meetings, comments received, and responses will be shared with City Council on September 28, 2026, and posted to the project website.
In addition to the community meetings, staff briefed the City School Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC) on August 27, and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) on September 3, 2026. The community engagement summary is included in Attachment E. The CSTSC briefing focused on access routes serving Palo Alto High School and other Palo Alto Unified School District schools. The PABAC briefing focused on planned pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and routes at the crossings and regional connections within Palo Alto.
On September 8, 2026, staff presented the completed 15% Design plans, total ROM project costs, and preliminary construction schedules to the Rail Committee. The Committee provided feedback and passed the recommendation to the City Council for the September 28 meeting, noting that decisions on which crossings to advance beyond 35% Design would follow completion of that phase.
Committee members discussed the total ROM program cost relative to the funding currently identified for design and construction, and how that relationship may inform future decisions on delivery and phasing. Members noted that the City is obligated under its current grants to advance all three crossings through 35% Design, and that decisions on advancing individual crossings beyond that phase would be made when 35% Design and environmental analysis are complete.
Committee members asked staff to explain more clearly to the public how the alternatives were narrowed, including why an underpass at Meadow Drive and a viaduct were not carried forward. Staff confirmed that the current grants do not fund advancing an underpass at Meadow Drive through 15% or 35% Design, and that reconsidering that alternative would require separate funding and schedule.
Committee members also requested more specific information on wall heights and construction period effects at Meadow Drive, and on potential property acquisition by crossing.
Comments received at the meeting are logged in Attachment D. Staff will incorporate Rail Committee feedback, along with City Council feedback received on September 28, 2026, during the early stages of the 35% Design phase.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council action on this item is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines in that Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation work is a feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the City has not approved, adopted, or funded. The work to be performed in the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase of the grade separation project includes environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The environmental review is anticipated to begin in fall of 2026.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing, 15% Layout Plans
Attachment B: Meadow Drive, Hybrid, 15% Layout Plans
Attachment C: Charleston Road, Underpass with Direct Access Ramp, 15% Layout Plans Attachment D: Community Feedback Tracker - August 25 & 26, 2026 Community Meetings Attachment E: Community Engagement Summary
APPROVED BY:
Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official