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 ]


Re: Menlo Park grade separations viaduct

From: domainremoved <Adrian>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 01:05:35 -0700

Regarding Caltrain and CA HSRA's requirement that your project designs do
not preclude the future addition of a 3rd track: it appears that only 1 of
the 4 passing track alternatives under consideration involves Menlo Park (see
"*Middle 3 Track*" on page 28
<http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/statewide_rail/proj_sections/SanFran_SanJose/San_Francisco_CWG_PPT_020217.pdf>,
and
depicted below).

It is my understanding that HSRA will choose only one of the 4 alternatives
in the near future. Provided they do not choose "Middle 3 Track", then
it's quite possible you may be relieved of this requirement.

*PASSING TRACK ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION*

[image: Inline image 1]

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Adrian Brandt <adrian.brandt_at_(domainremoved)
wrote:

>
> Honorable Councilmembers,
>
> I am just now watching the recorded video of your February 7, 2017, study
> session on the Ravenswood Grade Separation Project
> <http://www.menlopark.org/169/Ravenswood-Avenue-railroad-crossing-proj>
> with staff project manager Angela Obeso and consultants from AECOM.
>
> Councilmember Carlton asked a question on behalf of an unnamed "a former
> mayor" as to why the fully elevated (i.e. viaduct) alternative was
> eliminated from consideration.
>
> The answer provided was that due to the 1% maximum grade limitation, there
> was insufficient ramp-up distance from the Palo Alto side to achieve a
> 25-foot track elevation at Ravenswood. And that, similarly, there was
> insufficient ramp-down distance between Glenwood Ave. and Atherton to
> return the tracks to ground-level. (Atherton opposes any track elevation.)
>
> As per this article on railroad grades and curves
> <http://trn.trains.com/railroads/abcs-of-railroading/2006/05/grades-and-curves>,
> a 1% grade exists when a track rises (or falls) 1 foot per 100 feet. This
> means for a track to rise or fall 25 feet at a 1% grade requires 2,500 feet
> (1% of 2,500 feet).
>
> The track distance from the San Francisquito Creek bridge to Ravenswood
> Ave. is over 3,600 feet, and the distance from Glenwood to Atherton's
> Watkins Ave. crossing at over 2,700 feet.
>
> So, clearly, there *is* more than enough "ramping" space to
> grade-separate Ravenswood, Oak Grove and Glenwood with a 25-foot high open
> viaduct while returning the tracks to ground level at Holbrook-Palmer Park
> in Atherton to the north and at the San Francisquito Creek Bridge to the
> south.
>
> Note that the foregoing means that tracks will be sloping low across
> Encinal (the least trafficked Menlo Park grade crossing), which must
> therefore either be closed or dipped down a bit ("hybrid style") in order
> to provide a fourth grade separation there too.
>
> This is an exciting possibility worthy of further study because it
> functionally provides a high degree of openness and connectivity across
> (under) the elevated tracks for much of its length ... allowing for
> landscaping and/or bike/ped paths alongside or underneath ... while also
> eliminating *all four* of Menlo Park's at-grade crossings and eliminating
> the need to change road or driveway elevations in the vicinity of
> Ravenswood, Alma, Merrill, Oak Grove or Glenwood, thereby allowing for
> maximum bicycle/pedestrian friendly and safe streetscaping.
>
> The historic Menlo Park station can stay right where it is, as occurred
> with the historic San Carlos station during their multi-street grade
> separation project in the 1990s.
>
> Respectfully and with kind regards,
> Adrian Brandt
> Redwood City (Menlo Park native)
>
>
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
> [image: Inline image 2]
>
>


image.png
(image/png attachment: image.png)

image.png
(image/png attachment: 02-image.png)

image.png
(image/png attachment: 03-image.png)

Received on Thu Mar 23 2017 - 01:08:28 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)