Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Master List of Ideas – Initial Screening

1. Connecting Palo Alto: Rail ProgramMaster List of Ideas – Initial Screening City Council Rail Committee March 21, 2018

2. Potential Changes to Existing Crossings INTERSECTIONS Charleston Meadow Churchill Palo Alto No Build / Do Nothing Closure Road Under Rail Road Over Rail Hybrid Rail Under Road Rail Over Road Alma Below Grade Alma at Grade Closed to Vehicles Only; Pedestrians & Bicycles OK Closed to All Traffic Independent of Alma Connects to Alma

3. Types of Crossing Modification Sample location: North California Avenue, Palo Alto • Road Closure at Tracks • Close City Road that crosses RR Property • Fence RR Property • Modify Alma intersection • Reroute traffic to other crossings • Pros: • Increased safety • Eliminate train horn • Traffic reduced on/near closed road • Alma traffic improved • Low cost • Low property impacts • Cons: • Increased traffic on/near other crossings • Longer routes for bikes/peds • More vehicle trips

4. Types of Crossing Modification Sample Location: Jefferson Ave, Redwood City • Lower Road/Ped/Bikes under Tracks • Change local road profile to go under tracks • Bike/Ped under RR – higher than road • Retaining Walls parallel to road • Train crosses over road on bridge – same elevation. • Lower Alma to local road elevation • Pros: • Increased safety • Eliminate train horn • Improved traffic flow on grade separated street • Cons: • Increased traffic on local road(s) • Increased noise from vehicles • Property impacts • Potential impact to street system • Utility Impacts

5. Types of Crossing Modification Sample Location: Scott Boulevard, Santa Clara • Raise Road/Ped/Bikes over Tracks • Change local road profile to go over tracks • Bike/Ped follow road profile • Retaining Walls parallel to road • Train crosses under road on existing ground • Alma crosses under local road • Cons: • Increased traffic on local road(s) • Increased noise from vehicles • Property impacts • Local street connections lost • Utility Impacts • Pros: • Increased safety • Eliminate train horn • Improved traffic flow

6. Types of Crossing Modification Sample Location: Holly Street, San Carlos • Hybrid – Lower Road/Ped/Bikes and Raise Tracks • Change local road profile to go under tracks • Bike/Ped higher than road profile • Retaining Walls parallel to road & parallel to tracks • Train crosses over road at higher elevation • Alma lowered to elevation of local road • Pros: • Increased safety • Eliminate train horn • Improved traffic flow • Reduced property impacts from other alternatives • Cons: • Increased traffic on local road(s) • Increased noise from vehicles and train travel • Property impacts • Utility Impacts

7. Types of Crossing Modification Sample Location: E Compton Boulevard, Compton (Alameda Trench Corridor) • Lower Railroad Tracks under Local Road • Change RR profile to go under local road • Bike/Ped stay at road elevation • Retaining Walls parallel to tracks • Road crosses over RR tracks on bridge • No impact to Alma (after construction) • Pros: • Increased safety • Eliminate train horn and reduce travel noise • Improved traffic flow • Few property impacts (after construction) • Cons: • Increased traffic on local road(s) • Increased noise from vehicles • Utility Impacts • Major construction Impacts

8. Types of Crossing Modification Sample Location: BART Central Contra Costa Viaduct, Contra Costa • Elevate Railroad Tracks over Local Road • Change RR profile to go over local road • Bike/Ped stay at road elevation • Retaining Walls parallel to road • Train crosses over road on elevated tracks • No impact to Alma (after construction) • Pros: • Increased safety • Eliminate train horn and reduce travel noise • Improved traffic flow • Few property impacts (after construction) • Cons: • Increased traffic on local road(s) • Increased noise from vehicles • Substantial visual impacts • Utility Impacts • Major construction Impacts

9. Mission for 2018 4 - 8 Alternatives for Study (June) 34 Ideas Initial Screening of 34 Ideas (Begins today) 1 Preferred Solution (December)

10. Community Engagement • Connecting Palo Alto website www.cityofpaloalto.org/connectingpaloalto • On-line questionnaire with 800 responses • Held 2 Community Workshops, with 228 attendees • Held 4 Community Roundtables, with 381 attendees • Held 13 Rail Committee meetings • Collected 63 public comments / inquiries • Built a database of interested stakeholders • Produced Connecting Palo Alto e-newsletter • Posted extensively on social media

11. Master List of Ideas • Community Engagement produced 40 grade separation ideas • Examples: • Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and connect Alma Street to Alma Street in Menlo Park • Citywide railroad under roadway trench within existing railroad right-of-way from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits with two new depressed rail stations

12. Refining Process for Decisions • Tier 1 Criteria: Most Important • East-West connectivity: facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of transportation • Traffic congestion: reduce delay and congestion for automobile traffic at rail crossings • Ped/Bike circulation: provide clear and safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists seeking to cross the rail corridor, separate from automobile traffic • Rail operations: support continued rail operations and Caltrain service improvements • Cost: finance with feasible funding sources • Tier 2 Criteria: Also Important • Environmental impacts: reduce rail noise and vibration along the corridor • Environmental impacts: minimize visual changes along the rail corridor • Local access: maintain or improve access to neighborhoods, parks, schools and other destinations along the corridor while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets • Cost: minimize right-of-way acquisition by eminent domain • Construction: minimize disruption and the duration of construction Technical Financial Adopted by City Council September 6, 2017 Property Construc- tion

13. Refining Process for Decisions Technical Financial Tier 1: Facilitate movement Reduce delay and congestion Provide safe ped / bike routes Support rail operations Tier 1: Finance with feasible funding sources Tier 2: Reduce rail noise Minimize visual changes Maintain or improve local access Property Construction Tier 2: Minimize right-of-way acquisition Tier 2: Minimize disruption and duration

14. Evaluation Criteria with Sample Ideas ✔= Feasible X= Possibly Feasible X= Not Feasible Standard Scoring: = Highest weight = Middle weight = Lowest weight Fatal Flaw Scoring:

15. Results of Initial Screening

16. Results of Initial Screening – Closure Ideas PCE:Palo Alto Ave Closed, Everett Bike/Ped PCU: Palo Alto Ave Closed, Widen University CAE:Churchill Ave Closed, Widen Embarcadero CAS: Churchill Ave Closed, Seale Ave Bike/Ped MDL: Meadow Dr Closed, Loma Verde Bike/Ped Road Closure at Tracks: North California Avenue, Palo Alto

17. Results of Initial Screening – Hybrid Ideas PAH: Palo Alto Ave Hybrid CAH: Churchill Ave Hybrid MCL: Meadow + Charleston Hybrid, Loma Verde Bike/Ped MCH: Meadow + Charleston Hybrid MDH: Meadow Dr Hybrid CRH: Charleston Rd Hybrid Hybrid (Road Under Rail): Holly Street, San Carlos

18. Results of Initial Screening – No Build Ideas PAN:Palo Alto Ave No Build, Safety Upgrades CAN:Churchill Ave No Build, Safety Upgrades MDN: Meadow Drive No Build, Safety Upgrades No Build: Safety Improvements, e.g. Quad Gates, Redwood City

19. Results of Initial Screening – Rail Under Road Ideas MCT: Meadow + Charleston Trench MCX: Meadow Closed, Charleston Trench Rail Under Road (Trench): Alameda Trench Corridor, Compton

20. Connecting Palo Alto: Rail ProgramMaster List of Ideas – Initial Screening City Council Rail Committee March 21, 2018