Logo


Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]


Ravenswood Rail Proposal

From: domainremoved <Dan>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:43:18 -0400

Nikki,
I could not find a place on the Ravenswood web site http://menlopark.org/169/7970/Ravenswood-Avenue-railroad-crossing-proj to submit a comment, so here it is.
Dan
___________________________



I attended the October 4, 2016, presentation of the railroadcrossing Alternatives. The presentations were very informative and, although Imissed the May presentation, it was clear that a lot of thought and work hadgone into following the Council’s requests and the “grant” requirement.
 
I am listing below the comments I made to various projectpersonnel at last night’s meeting.
 
As one participant noted, people seem to have forgottenmeetings a few years ago, when the high speed rail was proposed and which Iattended, that the residents of Menlo Park and adjacent cities want therailroad tracks BELOW grade, yet last night there were two proposals to raisethe railroad above grade, on a 12-15 foot high berm that will divide the cityfor almost its entire length in Menlo Park.
 
That berm will undo all the multi-year planning that wentinto our updated downtown plan and bring thousands of dump-truck loads to thecity streets, with the inevitable damage, noise and congestion.
 
The railroad running on the elevated berm will also, as presentersnoted, enormously increase the noise from train traffic. Just look at all the sound walls built on ourhighways to contain noise, and the highways are at grade level.
 
Another problem with the sketches presented is the bypass“shoofly” rail line that would be built parallel to the existing tracks for theduration of the project, which could be 2-3 years. What impact will that bypass have on theadjacent homes, commercial properties and streets?
 
Even “Alternative A”, which addresses the creation of justthe one underpass at Ravenswood, has a lengthy shoofly/bypass. The designers need to show how the Ravenswoodunderpass can be constructed without a rail bypass.
 
All the alternatives presented have a third rail linerunning down the middle. No dimensionswere given in the presentation material that compares the existing rail widthwith the proposed width, but it is fair to assume this 3rd rail significantlyincreases the width of the railway.
 
This is contrary to all the public input on the high speedrail, which led to the general understanding that it would share the two existingtracks with the existing operators and NOT add a 3rd (or 4th)rail. It was said that this 3rdrail line was a requirement of “the grant”, so it is very surprising that theCouncil accepted “the grant” with that condition and contrary to the Council’spublic position. Any work going forwardshould eliminate that 3rd rail at the street intersections andstation and get back to the “existing two rails” promised for the past fewyears.
 
 
As a resident of Menlo Park for over 40 years, I am veryconcerned the proposals put forward cause more problems than they solve. My conclusions:
11) Themoney is better spent directly on “first responders'” facilities and personnel
22) Thetrain noise will increase, not decrease, and disturb a wider part of the City
33) The multi-year vehicle congestion will be a nightmare for residents and firstresponders
 
Dan Hilberman
631 Arbor Road, MP
Received on Thu Oct 06 2016 - 19:48:44 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]


Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)