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: The planning process for Menlo Park grade separations appears badly broken

From: domainremoved <mickie>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:16:15 -0800

The cost of the FEGS should also be considered.
As should the traffic impacts during construction.
Do you agree?

Mickie

Mickie Winkler
650-324-7444 office
650-335-5540 cell


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:41 AM dana hendrickson <
danahendrickson2009_at_(domainremoved)

> Menlo Park City Council
>
>
> There is resident concern that the planning process for future grade
> separations in Menlo Park lacks the strong sense of urgency warranted for
> an unprecedentedly large project that will have big positive and negative
> impacts on the quality of life in our community. The proposed study of a
> design alternative that includes fully elevated grade separations (FEGS) at
> some locations is the latest example. And city staff has just introduced
> design constraints that will prove counterproductive.
>
>
>
> In May, the City Council instructed city staff to request a FEGS study
> proposal from a technical consultant (AECOM) and were told it could be
> available in the July-August timeframe. At that time, this schedule seemed
> unnecessarily long as AECOM had already studied three other grade
> separation alternatives and developing a proposal is a relatively simple
> task. SEVEN months later city staff plans to review an initial scope for
> the FEGS study at the December 4 City Council meeting. Unfortunately, this
> overdue document fails to effectively address two important concerns
> previously raised by residents, city staff and council members – technical
> feasibility and aesthetic impacts, and city staff has introduced two
> arbitrary design constraints that would eliminate the possibility of any
> desirable FEGS solution. *This fact is clearly known by city staff
> and unnecessarily puts the very objectivity of the study scope into
> question.*
>
>
>
> “A track profile analysis to determine the maximum grade needed to provide
> sufficient elevation to *avoid*roadway excavation at Glenwood Avenue
> (span completely over the street); while simultaneously *avoiding *impact
> to Encinal Avenue. (Source: Staff Report: December 4, 2018)
>
>
>
> The FEGS study should determine whether a solution could be designed that
> meets the following criteria:
>
>
>
> · Fully elevated grade separations at least at Ravenswood and Oak
> Grove
>
> · Some type of separation at Glenwood
>
> · Built entirely within Menlo Park city boundaries
>
> · Have maximum grades acceptable to Caltrain
>
> · Acceptable impacts on south end and north end neighborhoods
>
> · Encinal is closed to vehicle traffic only; pedestrian and bicyclist
> crossings are provided
>
> · Enhance the core train station business district
>
>
>
> The FEGS study should evaluate conceptual designs for a number of
> structure profiles and deliverables should include the following, in
> addition to the proposed noise analysis.
>
>
>
> · Structure profiles designs that use 1% and 1.25% maximum grades
>
> · Elevation drawings and CAD images for the grade separations
>
> · Elevation drawings and CAD images for the northern and southern
> grades
>
> · Elevation drawings for the fully elevated structure that would pass
> through the train station area and a preliminary layout for the space
> between Merrill, Alma, Ravenswood and Oak Grove.
>
> · All elevation drawings should include “ghost tress” (current and
> planned) that
>
> visually screen - either fully or partially - the elevated structure and
> train electrification equipment.
>
> · A comparative matrix for Alternative A, C and FEGS similar to the
> enclosed example. All ratings must be supported with clear justifications.
>
>
>
> Finally, this study should also identify all potential impacts to south
> end and north end neighborhoods and suggest design mitigation alternatives.
>
>
>
> I encourage you to revise the scope and deliverables for the FEGS study
> and ensure its completion in the shortest possible time. It is likely that
> we will learn a FEGS alternative is far superior to Alternative A, and our
> city should be well prepared for this outcome to avoid additional project
> delays.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Dec 04 2018 - 14:13:52 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)