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 ]

April 17 City Council Meeting: Agenda Item E1, Ravenswood Avenue Grade Separation

From: domainremoved <Verle>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 22:36:11 -0400

I am out of town on travel and am unable to attend the upcoming City Council Meeting where the Ravenswood Avenue Grade Separation alternatives will again be considered by the Council. Normally I would attend the Council Meeting and give my input during the public comment period. I have attended previous Council and Study sessions considering this topic. This email constitutes my input to the Council.

I would like to express again to the Council my support for the hybrid option which will result in Three Grade Separated Crossings at Ravenswood, Oak Grove and Glenwood as the preferred option (Option 2).

1. Option 2 provides the best safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars by separating these uses from Caltrain at three intersections versus one intersection for the Ravenswood only grade separation (Option 1). In particular this is critical with the recent conversion of Oak Grove to a bike route to school. Grade separating only Ravenswood does not achieve this key goal of the project.

2. Option 2 does not cutoff access to Alma Street from Ravenswood. Option 1 would cutoff access to Alma from Ravenswood making access to the Library, the Recreation Center and Gym much more difficult for West Menlo Park residents. The town has made major investments in Burgess Park and its facilities and traffic flow should be managed to improve access, not reduce access. Option 2 accomplishes this goal with improved access to Burgess Park due to the traffic signal that would be installed at the Ravenswood / Alma intersection in this Option and maintenance of the Ravenswood / Alma connection.

3. Option 2 will provide the best east / west connectivity and improved traffic flow across Menlo Park. The increased number of trains that Caltrain plans to operate with the electrification of Caltrain will further snarl traffic at the intersections if left at Grade due to the increased amount of time that the gates will be down. Option 2 addresses this issue and is a plan focused on the future traffic flow needs of Menlo Park as urbanization continues.

4. Option 2 would result in the biggest noise reduction from the trains by removing 3 at grade crossings which require Caltrain to sound its horn.

5. I attended the Community Meeting on June 7, 2017. 85% of the approximately 55 community members in attendance supported Option 2 over Option 1. I hope that the Council takes this extremely strong support for Option 2 into significant consideration when deciding this important issue to Menlo Park. Many of the attendees at the meeting were from the neighborhoods that will be most impacted by the construction project which will be considerably more substantial for Option 2 relative to Option 1. Even so the community clearly felt that the benefits of Option 2 over Option 1 significantly outweighed the inconvenience of a longer / larger construction project.

6. Finally Caltrain has begun the process to electrify the system. In a few years the increased number of trains planned will further exacerbate the east / west connectivity problem in Menlo Park. As a city we need to proceed with this project without further delay. I recall the discussions on Grade Separation in the early 1990s. Menlo Park opted not to proceed with Grade Separation and the funding went to Redwood City — let’s not repeat this mistake again.

Verle Aebi
220 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA
Received on Mon Apr 16 2018 - 19:41:55 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)