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 ]

Building Underpasses with no Shoofly Track

From: domainremoved <Stephan>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 15:20:11 -0700

   The most important thing I heard at the grade separation discussions 10+
years ago is missing from the BKF Grade Separation Reports of 2003 and
2004. These were comments by a contractor from the audience suggesting the
Underpass alternative is the least disruptive because it can be built
without a shoofly track. Basically piers to support the tracks are built
in the ground next to the tracks extending to a depth of over 20 feet.
Then over a weekend, train service is stopped, the existing tracks and
roadbed are cut and replaced with pre-built bridges with new tracks already
on top between the piers, then train service resumes. The same technique
can be used for Alma street to span Ravenswood. And retaining walls can be
built in narrow trenches on both sides of Ravenswood while cars continue to
flow at grade on Ravenswood. A new depressed roadway is dug out as the
last step. Many utilities embedded in the track bed and under the road
will have to be moved, some before the track bridge can be installed. And
a system to drain the submerged road bed once its dug out will have to be

   So an underpass can be built without a shoofly track and we can build
one grade separation at a time. These concepts need to be re-introduced
into our discussions planning the grade separations.

                                       Steve Van Pelt, resident of Menlo
Received on Sun Apr 05 2015 - 15:15:40 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)