Menlo Park and San Mateo County:

Transcription

1 Menlo Park and San Mateo County: Caltrain Elevated Tracks Grade Separations Mike Forster Palo Alto June 2017 v3.10 6/14/2017 1

2 Menlo Park: 2 Elevated Track Options Elevated with arches other pleasant supports (not a berm) Could elevate to 5 th Ave in coordination with Atherton and Redwood City Menlo Caltrain Park 2.0 and -San An Mateo Alternate County Approach - Elevated Caltrain - Mike - Mike Forster Forster 2016 June v v3.10 6/14/2017 2

3 Menlo Park: 2 Elevated Track Options - Comparisons D1 and D2 in comparison to Option C Alma St/Ravenswood Connective unchanged no road changes Potential visual impacts increased but mitigated - increased height but open beneath Property/Driveway Impacts eliminated no road changes Disruption during construction reduced no road changes Order of magnitude cost likely reduced no road changes Traffic operations unchanged no road changes Menlo Caltrain Park 2.0 and -San An Mateo Alternate County Approach - Elevated Caltrain - Mike - Mike Forster Forster 2016 June v v3.10 6/14/2017 3

4 Caltrain Elevated Tracks Grade Separations San Mateo County 1 2 Broadway (separate project) 3 25 th Ave / 31 st Ave (separate project) Caltrain Elevated Sections 4 5 6/14/2017 4

5 Caltrain Elevated Tracks Grade Separations Benefits and Characteristics Visually attractive Less expensive than trench / tunnel / road underpasses Faster travel times than grade-level crossings Quieter operation than grade-level crossings Safer operation than grade-level crossings Improved automobile traffic flow Recovers land use for affordable housing other purposes Feasible sooner than other options Should pre-empt current piecemeal projects as much as possible Should precede electrification to avoid rework 6/14/2017 5

6 New Elevated Sections, Boarding Platforms, Ped Underpasses in San Mateo County 5 Sections / 9.54 miles of elevated track, including inclines and declines 1 SSF / San Bruno: Linden to Scott 2 Millbrae: Center to Hillcrest 3 Burlingame / San Mateo: Broadway to 9 th Ave 4 Redwood City: Whipple to 84 5 Redwood City / Atherton / Menlo Park: 5 th Ave to Ravenswood 4 Elevated Stations / Boarding Platforms Burlingame, San Mateo, Redwood City, Menlo Park 1 Pedestrian underpasses at stations: Hayward Park Maximum gradient 2.41% Redwood City, from Chestnut St to Hwy 84 BART maximum gradient 4% CA HSR maximum gradient 3.5% (2004 document) Caltrain max gradient 1% (2% with engineering approval) Light freight (or no freight) traffic on Caltrain enables higher gradients Does not include separate projects already planned, partially funded Broadway in Burlingame 25 th Ave / 31 st Ave in San Mateo 6/14/2017 6

7 Visually Attractive Elevated tracks do not have to be berms that might divide cities (Images from Google Earth / Streetview) Montessoro, Italy Paris, France - Bercy Sunnyside, NY Paris, France Blvd. St. Jacques Tysons Corner, VA Wespark Dr. Metro Union City, CA Kennedy Park - BART 6/14/2017 7

8 Less Expensive than trench / tunnel / road underpasses Cost savings vs. up to 35 road underpasses in San Mateo County Usual plan is ½ up and ½ down: to raise the tracks and lower the roadway. Little extra cost to raise the tracks a little more. Large savings from not lowering the roadway at all. Avoids the expense to lower the roadway. Avoids the re-engineering of the lowered roadway and its nearby intersections. Minimizes or eliminates the need to acquire real estate for the enlarged road footprint. Cost savings vs. trench / tunnel Tunnel and trenching cost multiples of elevated tracks. Trench under just 3 Palo Alto crossings - $1B at 1% gradient, $500M at 2% gradient Elevated tracks avoid complexities of creeks, existing road underpasses. Elevated tracks avoid potential extra depth requirements for freight traffic. 6/14/2017 8

9 Benefits of Light Freight or No Freight on Caltrain Tracks Shorter inclines / decline = shorter elevated tracks = lower costs Because gradients can be steeper This elevated tracks plan assumes at most light freight, allowing higher gradients to enable more planning flexibility and lower costs Lighter, less expensive elevated structures = lower costs Due to lower axle loads and lower mass per unit length Heavy freight can cause a load on a 50-foot span 3 times as heavy as a passenger train Light Freight likely enables lighter arched viaducts rather than heavier structures or berms Same or better for no freight Lower maintenance costs Due to less wear and tear on the tracks Reference: Clem Tillier, The Effect of Heavy Freight, 09 August /14/2017 9

10 Eliminating all grade crossings has advantages for both passengers and neighborhoods Faster travel times Frees Caltrain from grade-level crossing speed limitations Quieter operation Eliminates train horns Eliminates crossing gate alarms Electrification will additionally enhance quieter operations Trackside sound mufflers can reduce wheel / track noise Safer For cars and pedestrians Improved automobile traffic flow By eliminating train crossing interruptions to traffic flow Both crossing and parallel to Caltrain Privacy should be achievable, even improved With attractive trackside privacy screens in residential areas 6/14/

11 Elevating grade separations has additional advantages Recovers land use for other purposes Over 7 miles of right of way 8 feet tall or taller Opportunities for reuse examples: Affordable housing Parks, partially covered by elevated tracks Community gardens, partially covered by elevated tracks Parking, freeing up existing parking lots for other purposes Feasible sooner than other approaches Less expensive so likely shorter timeframe for financing Less complicated construction Fewer complications than trenching or tunneling regarding creeks and existing underpasses Less or no need for land acquisition, which can be a lengthy process Avoids years-long discussions about trench / tunnel / 40 street undercrossings Visually much more pleasant for passengers Than traveling in a tunnel or trench 6/14/

12 Adoption of this approach should come soon Piecemeal, potentially conflicting projects in planning would impose future extra costs to integrate into any plan to fully eliminate grade crossings examples include: Ravenswood Ave in Menlo Park Grade separation should precede electrification Whichever grade separation approach is selected Otherwise, significant rework would be required when tracks are raised or lowered in the future Elevating the tracks is the quickest approach to achieve grade separation prior to electrification 6/14/

13 Caltrain Elevated Tracks Grade Separations Cost Estimate Elevated Caltrain grade separations in San Mateo County: $424M For estimations calculations, see: miles of new elevated track 4 new elevated boarding platforms 1 new pedestrian underpasses 1 new road crossing at grade (Tanforan Ave under new elevated tracks) 1 change to Caltrain (move crossover north of Hwy 84 to new location) Does not include separate projects already planned, partially funded Broadway in Burlingame 25 th Ave / 31 st Ave in San Mateo 6/14/