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: The planning process for Menlo Park grade separations appears badly broken

From: Cline, Richard A <"Cline,>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 22:28:09 +0000

I, for one, agree. I'll let the rest of the community respond for themselves.


Rich Cline

On Dec 4, 2018, at 2:16 PM, mickie winkler <mickie650_at_(domainremoved)

The cost of the FEGS should also be considered.
As should the traffic impacts during construction.
Do you agree?


Mickie Winkler
650-324-7444 office
650-335-5540 cell

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:41 AM dana hendrickson <danahendrickson2009_at_(domainremoved)
Menlo Park City Council

There is resident concern that the planning process for future grade separations in Menlo Park lacks the strong sense of urgency warranted for an unprecedentedly large project that will have big positive and negative impacts on the quality of life in our community. The proposed study of a design alternative that includes fully elevated grade separations (FEGS) at some locations is the latest example. And city staff has just introduced design constraints that will prove counterproductive.

In May, the City Council instructed city staff to request a FEGS study proposal from a technical consultant (AECOM) and were told it could be available in the July-August timeframe. At that time, this schedule seemed unnecessarily long as AECOM had already studied three other grade separation alternatives and developing a proposal is a relatively simple task. SEVEN months later city staff plans to review an initial scope for the FEGS study at the December 4 City Council meeting. Unfortunately, this overdue document fails to effectively address two important concerns previously raised by residents, city staff and council members - technical feasibility and aesthetic impacts, and city staff has introduced two arbitrary design constraints that would eliminate the possibility of any desirable FEGS solution. This fact is clearly known by city staff and unnecessarily puts the very objectivity of the study scope into question.

"A track profile analysis to determine the maximum grade needed to provide sufficient elevation to avoidroadway excavation at Glenwood Avenue (span completely over the street); while simultaneously avoiding impact to Encinal Avenue. (Source: Staff Report: December 4, 2018)

The FEGS study should determine whether a solution could be designed that meets the following criteria:

* Fully elevated grade separations at least at Ravenswood and Oak Grove

* Some type of separation at Glenwood

* Built entirely within Menlo Park city boundaries

* Have maximum grades acceptable to Caltrain

* Acceptable impacts on south end and north end neighborhoods

* Encinal is closed to vehicle traffic only; pedestrian and bicyclist crossings are provided

* Enhance the core train station business district

The FEGS study should evaluate conceptual designs for a number of structure profiles and deliverables should include the following, in addition to the proposed noise analysis.

* Structure profiles designs that use 1% and 1.25% maximum grades

* Elevation drawings and CAD images for the grade separations

* Elevation drawings and CAD images for the northern and southern grades

* Elevation drawings for the fully elevated structure that would pass through the train station area and a preliminary layout for the space between Merrill, Alma, Ravenswood and Oak Grove.

* All elevation drawings should include "ghost tress" (current and planned) that
visually screen - either fully or partially - the elevated structure and train electrification equipment.

* A comparative matrix for Alternative A, C and FEGS similar to the enclosed example. All ratings must be supported with clear justifications.

Finally, this study should also identify all potential impacts to south end and north end neighborhoods and suggest design mitigation alternatives.

I encourage you to revise the scope and deliverables for the FEGS study and ensure its completion in the shortest possible time. It is likely that we will learn a FEGS alternative is far superior to Alternative A, and our city should be well prepared for this outcome to avoid additional project delays.
Received on Tue Dec 04 2018 - 14:26:37 PST

[ 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)