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: 4 to 5 Years of Construction in MP?

From: domainremoved <Samira>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 04:46:46 +0000 (UTC)

 Thanks for thinking about this and putting forth ideas!  However, I would say definitely NO to your suggestion of raising the tracks high.  Lots of folks live in $1 million+ homes near the tracks and it would be ugly, noisy and offensive to have a train hurtling by at or above eye level. 
What do you think about pedestrian and bike underpasses at Oak Grove and/or Ravenswood and a longer warning time (i.e., gates dropping earlier) to reduce the probability of accidents?  I have known pedestrian underpasses in other countries to be quite nice; brightly-lit with shops along the walkways:-)

    On ‎Sunday‎, ‎April‎ ‎15‎, ‎2018‎ ‎04‎:‎27‎:‎32‎ ‎PM‎ ‎PDT, Menlo Park's Future <menlofuture_at_(domainremoved)
4 to 5 Years of Construction in MP?

Fellow Citizens.


I ask you. If Ravenswood , Oak Grove and Glenwood avenueswere simultaneously under construction at the railroad tracks—for 4-5years--what will the impact on Menlo Park be? How will that impact you,or ourretail stores?


On Tuesday, the City Council Rail Subcommittee will bediscussing the question of how to separate the railroad tracks from theroads. Twooptions are on the table.

·      Option C: this partially raises the track on top a dirt berm andpartially lowers the roads. It takes 4-5 years of simultaneousconstruction onthe 3 roadways per the staff report(p.31).


·      Option A. This completely lowers Ravenswood under the tracks andalso takes 4-5 years. Quad gates would control the other 3 crossings plusEncinal.


And then there is a third alternative, which has notyet been studied. This raises the tracks higher, in an architecturallyattractiveway, and creates open space underneath the tracks for bikes and vendorsandpedestrians. I like this option because it could be attractive (not a dirt berm), itwill open up Menlo Park. It will create new real estate under the tracks,andit will NOT require any road construction.


Why was this alternative not studied? In part becauseCaltrain told our consultants that full separation was not possible. ButCaltrain is proving wrong.


I hope the Subcommittee will recommend that the fully-raisedtrack option be studied. The decision on how we separate the trains fromtheroads is certainly the most important issue facing the future of MenloPark.The residents of Felton Gable can rest assured that according to ourrecommendation, Encinal will be cut off, and all noise impacts will beconsidered.


What are your thoughts? Can Menlo Park withstand 4-5years of construction on our 3 main connecting streets? Should we study apotentially better alternative? Let the city council know at city.council_at_(domainremoved)


Thanks and sincerely, Lee Duboc (menlofuture_at_(domainremoved)


1, BTW, Option A with quad gates are unsafe. Last monththere were two accidents (in Atherton and Palo Alto) wherein cars droveontothe railroad tracks at quad gate-protected crossings.


2. Unfortunately the tunnel or trench option has now beendeemed infeasible. It was dismissed by Palo Alto partly because of $2.4-to$4billion price tag, and because of the disruption—the need to create temporary tracks on Alma Streetduringconstruction, which would require closure of parts or all of Alma totraffic,long term.


You are currently subscribed to menlofuture as: samiramisc_at_(domainremoved)To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-menlofuture-11320487J_at_(domainremoved)
Received on Mon Apr 16 2018 - 12:35:24 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)