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 ]

techinical support for completely raising the tracks wo dipping Ravenswood

From: domainremoved <mickie650>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 16:03:11 -0400

City Council Members and Commissioners

I'm sure you have recieved the MenloFuture email (per below).

The grade-sep issue is complicated. but here is some technical support for fully raising the tracks over Ravenswood and Oak Grove. Please have or hire an engineer, someone not affiliated w Caltrain, to address this issue. The stakes for our city are high.

Despite what anyone oncouncil or staff tells you, elevating the tracks completely over Ravenswood andOak Grove is entirely possible.


Anyone using the"Measure Distance" feature on Google Maps (just right-click andselect "Measure Distance") can see, it's 3,680 feet between SanFrancisquito Creek and Ravenswood (see measurement screenshot below). Using only a very gentle 1% grade, this means the tracks could rise 36.8 feetin that distance. Of course, that way too much. They'd only need torise 20 feet or so, for which a 0.54% grade would be sufficient. Butconsidering that the tracks at San Francisquito are already higher than at Ravenswood,the minimum actual grade (or ramping distance) needed would be even less.


Similarly, we canmeasure that it's 3,600 feet from Oak Grove to where the tracks crossAtherton's city limit line (see image below). (City staff has saidAtherton does not want the track elevation changed in their city.) So wecan easily calculate that only a 0.55% grade (20 / 3,600) would be needed tobring tracks from a 20-foot elevation at Oak Grove back down to ground levelwhile staying completely within Menlo Park city limits.


Even if the tracks beginsloping downward again at a 0.55% grade going north from Oak Grove, Glenwood isonly 1,000 feet away from Oak Grove, so the tracks will have fallen only 5.5feet to 14.5 feet above ground ... which means Glenwood could easily be duckedunder the tracks here too.


Nobody seems to betalking about Encinal. But using the same slope as before, the trackswould only be about 8 feet above grade here, so Encinal could either beclosed or ducked down about 10-12 feet.


Thanks, Mickie

Mickie Winkler

Critical Issue: Caltrain Railroad Tracks
Fellow Residents
What we do with the Caltrain tracks is critical for Menlo Park’s future--to our traffic during and after construction, to our ability to get around.
The City Council and Planning Commission is being asked to choose between two alternatives. One bad. One terrible.
The first, alternative A, would force all east-west traffic onto Ravenswood, and block traffic, foot bike and auto, from crossing at Oak Grove and Glenwood. This is terrible.
The second would grade separate Ravenswood, Oak Grove and Glenwood, would create a solid 10- foot high wall along the tracks, and would tie up traffic in the city for years. This is bad.
I beg you to beg the city council to at least reconsider a third alternative:
· One that would not snarl the city in construction for years, negatively impacting traffic and retailers.
· Would not create a solid wall along the tracks.
· Would not create up and down hills under the tracks that would be difficult to bike.
· One that would open up—improve-- the city, hooray!!, and allow us to have vendors, or bike lockers, or parking, and to freely bike and walk where the tracks are now.
· One that could look attractive,
· And that could overcome neighbor fear of train noise by being noise mitigated with buffers and privacy by using glass that can be coated on demand.
The third alternative is raising the tracks—in an open and attractive way.
Beg the City Council to have Caltrain recalibrate the grades, so this third alternative is feasible. The cost savings could justify the savings of a new calibration study--in spades. Do not sacrifice our city to what we believe is a Caltrain mistake.
You can email the Planning Commission, which hears the issue Monday, at Planning.Commission_at_(domainremoved)
You can email the City Council at City.Council_at_(domainremoved)
I will let you know how each Commission and Council member votes—and how they rank their preferences.
Thanks as always, Lee Duboc (menlofuture_at_(domainremoved)
Staff Report showing alternatives: http://menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/15466
You are currently subscribed to menlofuture as: Mickie650_at_(domainremoved)To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-menlofuture-9666675O_at_(domainremoved)
Received on Sun Sep 10 2017 - 13:09:06 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)