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: domainremoved <Steve>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:39:53 -0800

Dana,
A vertical track alignment that starts rising at the Atherton/MP boundary
should definitely be a part of the FEGS discussion. The past Council and
staff has given far too much deference to resistance by some in Felton
Gables to increases in track elevation near their neighborhood
and anywhere else in the City. One neighborhood should not be able to
dictate policy restrictions on infrastructure projects that enhance
city-wide safety, e-w circulation or Caltrain operations.
Steve


On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 10:45 AM dana hendrickson <
danahendrickson2009_at_(domainremoved)

> 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.
>
>
> [image: 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:*
>
>
> [image: GS Matrix -Ratings January 3, 2019.png]
>
> [image: 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 - 11:36:45 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)