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 ]

What Palo Alto says about Fully Raised Grade separation

From: domainremoved <mickie>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2019 14:31:39 -0800

Dear Council Members and Staff

Please consider the following when considering Grade Separation studies:

Palo Alto's technical consultant AECOM (the same one Menlo Park is using)
is currently finding and reporting at their rail committee meetings, that
the viaduct option is the only one that:

• does not require a shoofly (temporary set of tracks)

• does not require lowering and/or lengthy closures of any Alma
intersections [For Menlo Park, apply to Ravenswood, Oak Grove, Glenwood
roads]. Encinal is assumed to be closed.
• does not require lowered or fenced roads across or under tracks (best
bike/ped experience)
• does not require easements (such as trench tiebacks which require tree
removals and prohibitions)
• does not require any private property (home or yard) takings
• does not divide community (allows continuous visual & physical
connectivity, landscaping, linear parks, paths, etc.)
• does not require unduly steep grades
• does not leave a fully-fenced community-dividing 3rd freight-only track
on the surface
• has the shortest & least disruptive construction period

Which of these points are also true for Menlo Park?

Thank you

Mickie Winkler
Received on Tue Jan 01 2019 - 14:28:47 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)