Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Menlo Park seeks Caltrain grade separation input

Expand Messages
  • 9/17 Menlo Park Almanac
    Published Wednesday, September 17, 2003, in the Menlo Park Almanac Menlo Park residents can weigh in on railroad crossing overhaul No one is really happy with
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 17, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Published Wednesday, September 17, 2003, in the Menlo Park Almanac

      Menlo Park residents can weigh in on railroad crossing overhaul

      No one is really happy with any of the options, City Councilman Chuck
      Kinney says.

      By Rebecca Wallace
      Almanac Staff Writer

      How do you prepare for a speeding bullet?

      With more and faster trains headed for Menlo Park, community meetings
      are being planned to allow residents to state their preference on
      options for keeping railroad crossings safer and traffic flowing more

      Over the next few months, residents will be asked to comment on two
      possibilities for dealing with the city's four crossings, located at
      Ravenswood, Oak Grove, Glenwood and Encinal avenues.

      Anticipating "baby bullet" express trains and high-speed trains from
      Los Angeles to San Francisco, some Peninsula cities have built "grade
      separations," which separate roads from tracks with underpasses and

      In Menlo Park, the City Council and city staff have chosen a
      combination of raising the track and lowering the road as
      the "preferred alternative." An example is on Holly Street in San
      Carlos, where the road was lowered 10 feet and the track was raised
      10 feet.

      A second option, suggested by Councilman Paul Collacchi, will also be
      up for discussion. It would involve sinking Ravenswood and Oak Grove
      as much as possible in a "deep dip" under the tracks. The hope is to
      keep the train tracks lower and minimize their visual impact.

      If Glenwood and Encinal also got the "deep dip," several neighboring
      properties would be wiped out, including the Glenwood Inn retirement
      home and nearby residences. So Mr. Collacchi has suggested looking at
      dead-ending Glenwood and Encinal before they cross the tracks.

      At the council's September 9 meeting, Mr. Collacchi called the San
      Carlos project a "god-awful" wall that would divide Menlo Park in
      half. But Councilwoman Mickie Winkler said closing the streets would
      be just as divisive in a narrow city that can't afford to lose any of
      its east-west arteries.

      Closing the roads would also push traffic over to neighboring
      streets, said Dan Smith, the city's regular traffic consultant. He
      added that lowering a road dramatically would require a great deal of
      earth and utilities relocation and could lead to flooding.

      Overall, Councilman Chuck Kinney described the council's attitude
      toward all the options in this manner: "None of us (is) really happy
      and jumping for joy."

      Residents' mixed reviews

      In the Felton Gables neighborhood of Menlo Park, which has Encinal
      Avenue as one of its borders, the prospect of closing Encinal and
      Glenwood is sparking mixed reviews.

      "It would be fine for us, but it would be bad for the city," Bill
      Wood, a former planning commissioner, told the Almanac. "Look at the
      kind of congestion you see on Oak Grove. Imagine what it would be
      like if Glenwood and Encinal were closed."

      Bob Kelly said he saw merit in closing the streets because they have
      a less commercial feel than Oak Grove and Ravenswood, but he noted
      that some of his neighbors were concerned about having to drive out
      of their way to cross the tracks.

      Still, he said, almost anything would be preferable to raising the
      railroad tracks.

      "All of a sudden you feel like you're in an industrial area," he

      Many residents elsewhere in Menlo Park have also voiced concern at
      many or all of the options.

      At the September 9 meeting, Lou Deziel urged the council to "go as
      deep as possible with the road" to reduce the visual impact of a
      train looming overhead, while transportation commissioner Don Brawner
      said he opposes all types of grade separations.

      On the other hand, transit advocate Jim Bigelow, who has been active
      with the Menlo Park Chamber of Commerce, said separations are
      necessary because "we're going to have 20 to 25 more trains a day."
      He said the San Carlos approach was sensible because it preserved
      nearby properties.

      Other possibilities have been rejected by city staff and consultant
      BKF Engineers of Redwood City, who reported on the matter to the
      council in June.

      Raising the roads above the tracks would swallow up the most
      surrounding property of any of the options, affecting about 20
      houses, five apartment buildings and several businesses, according to
      the BKF report. Sinking the train tracks into a trench could lead to
      flooding and would be difficult to build because of San Francisquito
      Creek, the report states.

      Dates have not yet been set for the community meetings. For more
      information, go to the city's Web site at http://www.menlopark.org
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.