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: FEGS Study Scope: Concerns & Recommendations - January 12, 2019

From: Mueller, Ray <"Mueller,>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 19:32:42 +0000

Dana,

I offered to meet with you and your group. You indicated you would get back to me withootentiak dates and times. I still await them and am happy to meet.

With kind regards,
Ray Mueller
________________________________
From: dana hendrickson <danahendrickson2009_at_(domainremoved)
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 10:45:13 AM
To: _CCIN
Cc: Henry Riggs; Steve Schmidt; Mike Forster; mickie winkler; Adina Levin; Adrian Brandt; Nadia Naik; Tony Carrasco; Obeso, Angela R; Batti, Renee (Almanac External)
Subject: FEGS Study Scope: Concerns & Recommendations - January 12, 2019

Menlo Park City Council:

In early December, city staff proposed a scope for the study of potential fully elevated grade solutions (FEGS) that includes design constraints that eliminate all practical track profiles except the one with the steepest possible northern grade. Based on our own analysis this grade would likely NOT be acceptable to Caltrain, a fact already well understood by both staff and AECOM. Unfortunately, these constraints remain in the January 14 staff report. The new City Council should remove them to ensure the study of FEGS alternatives is both complete and fair. Our community deserves opportunities to fully understand these alternatives and express their preferences; the City Council is responsible for ensuring this happens.

The current staff proposal REQUIRES the northern grade starts south of Encinal and rises to full elevation over Glenwood, i.e., no lowering of the street, over a distance of approximately 1085 feet. This produces an average grade that far exceeds the Caltrain standard of a 1% maximum average grade and likely would NOT qualify for an exception.

While it is useful to understand the track profile proposed by city staff and AECOM, the technical feasibility of three other track profiles are needed BEFORE noise and aesthetic evaluations are undertaken. We recommend AECOM perform a track profile analysis on the four alternatives shown in this table.

[Screen Shot 2019-01-14 at 9.47.24 AM.png]

Please note that many elevated tracks on the Peninsula, e.g., San Carlos, are "almost fully elevated", i.e., streets are lowered just a few feet to avoid major excavations, and this type of separation should be considered an option for Glenwood. Also, an alternative that closes Encinal to vehicle traffic should be on the table.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and continue to offer our assistance to city staff, the Rail Subcommittee and City Council.

Thank you.

Dana Hendrickson

Additional Background Info:

[GS Matrix -Ratings January 3, 2019.png]

[GS Matrix - Support - January 3, 2019.png]




Screen Shot 2019-01-14 at 9.47.24 AM.png
(image/png attachment: Screen_Shot_2019-01-14_at_9.47.24_AM.png)

GS Matrix -Ratings January 3, 2019.png
(image/png attachment: GS_Matrix_-Ratings_January_3__2019.png)

GS Matrix - Support - January 3, 2019.png
(image/png attachment: GS_Matrix_-_Support_-_January_3__2019.png)

Received on Mon Jan 14 2019 - 11:30:50 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)