For Monica Tan Brown and her neighbors on Churchill Avenue, the summer of 2018 was a season of high anxiety.

The city of Palo Alto was in the midst of narrowing down its options for reconfiguring the Churchill rail crossing, and under some of the alternatives, dozens of residents would lose their homes — Brown included.

Living just east of the train tracks, many of the neighbors first learned about the threat in 2017. A study by the city's consulting firm, Aecom, indicated that two of the more ambitious options for separating the road from the tracks — a "hybrid" design that combined an elevated railway and lowered roads and a "reverse hybrid" that would raise the road and lower the tracks — would require the seizure of dozens of properties.

To prevent this outcome, Brown and her neighbors in the North Old Palo Alto area spearheaded a petition in early 2018 strongly opposing alternatives that would require the lowering of roads, raising of the rail tracks and seizure of homes.

The petition garnered more than 450 signatures from residents in and around Old Palo Alto by late May 2018. It stated that raising the railway would make the trains more visible from the neighborhoods and invade residents' privacy. It would also cause "increased risks for those living along the tracks in the event of derailment and an increase in noise," the petition stated.

In June 2018, just after then-Assistant City Manager Ed Shikada confirmed that just about every major engineering option would require some property acquisitions, dozens of residents appealed directly to the City Council, which by that time had winnowed down options for the city's four rail/road intersections from 35 to about 10.

Along with her neighbors, Brown pressed the council in June 2018 to eliminate trenches, viaducts and "hybrid" options for Churchill, calling them an "existential threat" looming over her and other residents' heads.

"There are people here who talk about slowing down the process, who have no skin in the game," Brown told the council. "I have skin in the game. I would lose my house, which would have a huge detrimental impact on my family."

Brown and neighbors Jason Matlof and David Shen, who helped lead the petition effort, pushed for the closure of Churchill to cars, saying it was the most cost-effective of the remaining options for the grade crossing and one that would make the intersection safer.

The desire to improve safety at Churchill is a key consideration of the grade-separation project. The Churchill rail crossing is deemed the 15th most dangerous in the state by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the city's rail consultant, Etty Mercurio, said at a community meeting earlier this month. Two other city rail crossings, at Charleston Road and East Meadow Drive, are Nos. 4 and 5 on the FRA list, Mercurio said.

"We really want to increase public safety for both vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians," Mercurio said. "When we eliminate the conflict between pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles with railroads we can increase safety and enhance traffic mobility and circulation as well."

The fact that Churchill is hazardous and chaotic is well-known to residents. Just last Friday evening, a train struck an unoccupied vehicle that had stopped on the tracks. (While no one was hurt, Caltrain passengers faced train delays of up to 90 minutes.) During afternoons, the street is filled with drivers who take Churchill to avoid the congestion on Embarcadero Road, and they wait at the crossing along with hundreds of school children heading home from Palo Alto High School.

Eduardo Llach, who lives on the 100 block of Churchill in Old Palo Alto, cites the danger on the street as the main reason why he strongly supports closing Churchill.

"We've lost two cats to Churchill — literally killed in front of our eyes when cars rolled over them," Llach said. "We have dogs now, and I'm constantly working with them to make sure they don't even think about crossing."

Llach said his four children have to dodge cars when they try to cross the street. As one neighbor was trying to leave her house, her car was smashed by a vehicle speeding down the street to beat the red light, he said.

Even if closing the street means eliminating an important east-west route, the inconvenience would be a small price to pay for improved safety, he said. Furthermore, the city's concept for closing Churchill calls for building a bike and pedestrian underpass at the tracks, an amenity that Llach and others lauded.

"Our perspective is that if we were to close Churchill, the whole neighborhood from Old Palo Alto all the way through Southgate (on the west side of the tracks) would have a sense of a place where you can walk and bicycle and move around as a traditional neighborhood, without a highway going in between them," Llach said.

The neighbors' lobbying of the council to eliminate the two "hybrid" options from consideration in June 2018 was successful. Many in north Old Palo Alto and Southgate drew a collective sigh of relief.

The respite, however, didn't last. This past April, in an effort to ensure broad public support for the ultimate rail redesigns, the council passed a motion that allowed the city's newly established Community Working Group to consider additional alternatives for the grade crossings, including a potential viaduct at Churchill and new road configurations for Embarcadero. On May 13, city staff returned to the council with a list of options that included a 20-foot tall viaduct that would start rising near Homer Avenue, remain elevated over Churchill, and then dip back to ground level near the California Avenue station. Though the council didn't spend much time discussing Churchill, by the end of the meeting, the viaduct was officially on the table.

Suddenly, the battle over Churchill sparked anew. This time, it has set off a political storm, pitting neighborhoods against each other and launching a fresh round of petitions and counter-petitions. Each side claims that its preferred option would improve traffic flow. Each has accused the other of placing hyper-local interests over those of the city at large.

About the only thing they agree on is that whatever decision the council makes at this crossing will fundamentally change how people get around in north Palo Alto.

Neighborhoods divided

No neighborhood is as split over what to do about Churchill as Southgate, a set of homes sandwiched between El Camino on the west and the railroad tracks on the east. For many in Southgate, Churchill represents the main route to and from their homes.

On one side is Steven Carlson, who has no problem with the city exploring ambitious options, including a viaduct. Carlson submitted a letter to the council arguing that the viaduct, which would not require properties to be seized, "helps preserve east-west connectivity, addresses the serious traffic issues that will likely arise as a result of closing Churchill, and preserves more of the city's options going forward."

Carlson also called for reopening discussion of some of the options that had previously been discarded, even those that may require the use of eminent domain.

"For example, no one likes to consider property takings, but should it be completely off the table? If we don't dismiss it, what becomes possible and how do we value the positive effects of those possibilities?" he wrote.

Last year, Carlson informally surveyed residents at a neighborhood block party about the proposed closure of Churchill. He said he was struck by the diversity of opinions he encountered. While many, particularly those who live closer to the tracks, supported closing Churchill, most also said they would like to consider other alternatives, he said.

This summer, he and a few other residents went door-to-door to do a more extensive survey, which posed four questions: Are you aware of the possible plan to permanently close Churchill? Are you in favor of (or resigned to) this option? Would you encourage the city to continue exploring alternatives? Would you be interested in hearing about new developments?

The results, which Carlson subsequently shared with the city, indicated that of the 127 people who took the survey, just 24% favored closing the street, while 60% were opposed and 16% were unsure. And 85% said they favored the exploration of alternatives.

The survey also noted that residents who live closest to Alma Street and the tracks are more likely to support closure, with "most of the rest of the neighborhood tending to be against."

On the other side of the issue from Carlson is Inyoung Cho, who lives on Mariposa Avenue. She is firmly against the viaduct, and from her backyard, it is easy to see why. A rendering by Aecom of the viaduct shows the 20-foot-tall elevated structure running directly above a resident's backyard fence. In the real world, that's Cho's fence.

Cho is a member of the Expanded Community Advisory Panel, a 13-member advisory group of residents that is helping the council choose preferred alternatives for the four rail crossings. She said she has always been skeptical about the prospect of building a viaduct so close to residents' homes. "Even if I didn't live here, I think it's ugly," she said.

She and her Mariposa neighbor Rachel Croft both sharply criticized Carlson's neighborhood survey, which didn't explain why the city is considering closing Churchill; the impact on traffic of leaving Churchill open once trains start running more frequently; or the fact that the only alternative on the table is a viaduct. Given the lack of context, neither was surprised that so many people answered as they did.

"For me, it's almost fake news," Cho said, referring to the survey results.

While Cho is OK with leaving Churchill open (effectively, the "do nothing" option) and seeing what happens, Croft strongly supports closing Churchill and believes doing nothing is not an option. Both believe building a viaduct, which has an estimated price tag of $300 million to $400 million, would be a huge mistake. It would send elevated trains past people's homes and, by keeping the road open, do little to reduce the conflicts between cars and bicyclists.

"I'd rather the city take my home than leave me with a train literally on my roofline," Croft said.

But Carlson and other opponents of Churchill's closure argue that the option, while potentially improving safety in Old Palo Alto, would bring additional congestion to east-west roads like Embarcadero. It will also make getting out of Southgate more of a hassle.

Susan Newman, who lives on the west side of Southgate, takes Churchill multiple times per day and said closing the intersection would substantially change her life for the worse.

"One of the things I like about Southgate is that it's centrally located, as long as the intersection remains open," Newman told the Weekly. "When you close it, it's no longer so centrally located."

City staff and consultants have consistently maintained that the closure of Churchill would be complemented by road changes at Embarcadero to accommodate more vehicles. But Carlson and Newman aren't completely buying it.

"I don't want to be too critical of the city and the consultants, but there is a general concern that they may be understating the impact of closing a very, very busy road," Carlson told the Weekly, adding that he questions whether the city's assertion is based on sufficient data.

Rob Levitsky, who lives in Professorville, near Embarcadero Road, signed the Old Palo Alto petition last year but has since become a leading skeptic of the idea that closing Churchill to cars could be done without creating a traffic nightmare.

"We have no idea now to mitigate it," Levitsky said at a September meeting of the Expanded Community Advisory Panel. "The odds are, half (of the cars) will go north to Embarcadero and half will go south to Oregon."

Traffic jams on both roads, he predicted, will be disastrous during the morning and afternoon commute hours.

A focus on Embarcadero

For Barbara Hazlett and Rachel Kellerman, the potential increase of traffic on Embarcadero hits particularly close to home. The two Professorville residents live on separate blocks of Emerson, just north of Embarcadero and just east of the tracks. Because Embarcadero crosses below the Caltrain tracks in an underpass, drivers on Alma Street have to use what Hazlett calls an "ugly and informal cloverleaf" to get to westbound Embarcadero. That route consists of driving for several blocks on residential Lincoln Avenue and Emerson Street.

One morning in late September, Hazlett and Kellerman did a count of traffic that passed through the intersection of Embarcadero, Kingsley Street and Emerson. Between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m., they counted 102 cars. Of those, 40% failed to stop at the stop sign near the crosswalk and 10 cars sped through without even slowing down, Kellerman told the Expanded Community Advisory Panel at the Sept. 26 meeting.

During that hour, they witnessed four "near misses" involving cars, bikes and pedestrians. It was only the quick actions of pedestrians and bicyclists involved that prevented the accidents, Kellerman said.

"Closing rail crossings without meaningful, thoughtful mitigation would only make this perilous situation even worse," she said.

Hazlett told the Weekly she remains skeptical about the idea that the city can keep Embarcadero from getting more congested, once Churchill is closed. The intersection closure will push "hundreds, if not thousands more cars into neighborhoods other than North Old Palo Alto," she said.

"I'm not a person who isn't for change. I think the vibrancy of Palo Alto is terrific. But I don't think it's fair that one neighborhood has to pay the price for the other neighborhood to get what it wants," Hazlett said.

Tom Kellerman, Rachel's husband, said the city's plans for Churchill have engendered a diversity of opinions on his block. But he and his wife are looking for confirmation that traffic won't worsen.

"A closure of Churchill with well-designed mitigation that spreads the traffic in ways that aren't a burden on any one street or one specific neighborhood — if that's possible, that would be interesting," Tom Kellerman told the Weekly last week. "We haven't seen that yet."

To allay such concerns, the city's traffic consultant, Hexagon, proposed at the Nov. 7 community meeting how the interchange at Alma and Embarcadero could be reconfigured so that vehicles would no longer need to use the "informal cloverleaf" of residential streets. Alma would be widened at the Embarcadero underpass, and there would be a left-turn lane on southbound Alma for cars to access Embarcadero via Kingsley. These cars would approach a new traffic light at Kingsley and Embarcadero, which will allow them to go either east on west on Embarcadero. For cars heading east on Embarcadero and wishing to get onto Alma, a right-turn lane would be added that would connect to Kingsley.

The plan also includes constructing a pedestrian and bike overpass across Embarcadero between Palo Alto High and Town and Country Village.

Other proposed improvements to accommodate additional traffic include optimizing signal timing at El Camino and Embarcadero and installing signals on all the ramps at the Alma and Oregon Expressway interchange.

The plan for Oregon Expressway calls for installing a right turn lane from westbound Oregon onto El Camino and a right turn lane from southbound El Camino onto Oregon.

"With those improvements, we would be able to accommodate those cars that are not using Churchill and instead would use Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road," Gary Black, a consultant for Hexagon, said.

Black said about 400 cars use Churchill in each direction during both morning and afternoon peak hours. With Churchill closed, about half would go to Embarcadero; the other half to Oregon. The preliminary traffic analysis, which was shown at the Nov. 7 meeting but which has yet to be fully vetted by the city, indicates that the impact on "level of service" — a measure of delays at roadways and intersection — on Embarcadero and Oregon would be "less than significant."

Tom Kellerman said the proposed reconfiguration of Embarcadero and Alma is a "big step" but needs far more study.

"We've got to spend some time fleshing out that idea. What would that look like? What would be the projected traffic impact and would that particular conceptual reconfiguration be considered?"

The next juncture

The tensions between — and within — the neighborhoods around Churchill Avenue are expected to intensify in the coming months, as Palo Alto expands its outreach effort and gets closer to its goal of reaching a decision next spring.

The city's newly launched effort to engage residents in the rail decision-making will include additional Town Hall meetings, email blasts and public hearings in front of XCAP, the council's Rail Committee and the council.

The outreach notwithstanding, some people, like Carlson and Newman, are calling for additional time and design options. Last month, they proposed a concept developed by a Southgate resident, Mike Price, that would create a shallow underpass for cars on Churchill. The design, they say, would achieve the main goals of grade separation while obviating the need for property seizures.

Carlson would also like to see the membership of the XCAP expanded to include people who represent the views of Southgate and Professorville. If the group is not expanded, Carlson told the Weekly, the committee's ultimate recommendation "may not be sufficiently supported by the larger community, which could put the council in a challenging position."

But Matlof hopes that the council, unlike in the past, remains on track with its deadline and can refrain from revisiting previously discarded options. In early 2018, the council had set a goal of selecting a preferred alternative by the end of that year. Having missed that target, it moved the goalpost to fall of 2019. Now, it's eyeing next spring.

For Matlof, Brown and others in North Old Palo Alto, frustration grows every time the council resurrects, or considers resurrecting, design options that it had previously eliminated.

"We're now adding more committees," Matlof said. "We're going back on things we said we weren't going to do a year ago — a year and a half ago. We're adding new options that weren't on the table six months ago."

Matlof also told the Weekly that once Caltrain increases its train traffic, the south Palo Alto crossings at Charleston and East Meadow will get "ridiculously gridlocked." Given that the city is preparing to pursue an ambitious engineering solution along this part of the corridor (any of which would cost hundreds of millions of dollars), it doesn't make sense, he said, for the council to also spend more than $300 million on a viaduct around Churchill. (Closing Churchill and making associated traffic improvements would cost $50 million to $65 million, according to Aecom.)

The timing of the council's decision may have major bearing on whether its goals can actually be achieved. The sooner Palo Alto comes up with a preferred alternative, the sooner it can pursue grant funding for design work and compete for funds from Measure B, a 2016 county tax measure that includes $700 million for grade separation in Palo Alto, Mountain View and Sunnyvale. Both of those cities remain well ahead of Palo Alto in their decision-making process.

Then there's the issue of traffic congestion created by the more frequent trains. As Caltrain moves ahead with the electrification of its system, the agency anticipates roughly tripling ridership from the 2017 level of 62,000 passengers to between 161,000 and 207,000 by 2040.

More trains, of course, mean more time that crossing gates will be down and more traffic-light cycles that cars will have to wait through before they can cross the tracks at Churchill. Once electrification is complete, gates will be down about nine minutes per hour during peak commutes, or 15% of the time. During the morning commute, it would take between 10 and 12 minutes for cars heading north on Alma to turn left onto Churchill, according to Hexagon. A diagram of future conditions shows a queue of cars lining up for more than five blocks south of Churchill, past Seale Avenue. In the evening, cars going east on Churchill toward Alma would queue up all the way to El Camino Real.

Shen, a member of XCAP who lives on the 100 block of Churchill, alluded to this in a December 2018 email to the council, in which he expressed concerns about the overlap of time between when Caltrain starts increasing its train frequency and when the city finishes its rail corridor reconstruction.

"It will be a time of great pain and discomfort for Palo Alto, when roads are alternately open and closed and traffic snarls are the norm every day during rush hour, and we experience construction noise and disruption across the town," Shen wrote. "Right now, if we were to magically start today, that time of pain is approximately six to seven years from when Caltrain starts increase trains in 2021-22 to when we finish grade separation in 2028, 10 years from now. The more we delay decisions, the longer the length of time we experience this pain."

Even that estimate is probably optimistic. At a Nov. 7 community meeting, Shikada told a crowd of about 150 at Mitchell Park Community Center that under the current timeline, the city won't award a construction contract until 2026 and the projects wouldn't be completed until 2032.

That, however, presumes that council members will make a decision next spring, allowing the city to launch the environmental analysis in fall 2020. Matlof and his neighbors hope that will be the case.

"The trains are coming," Matlof told the Weekly. "There's nothing stopping the trains. We've got to make a decision, and there's no way to choose a solution that some people aren't unhappy with."

He also hopes that in weighing the different opinions on Churchill, the council will appropriately weigh the concerns of residents in his area, who he says have been experiencing "major anxieties," not knowing whether they will lose their homes.

Brown agreed. After successfully fending off the "hybrid" and "reverse hybrid" proposals in June 2018, she temporarily stopped following the twists and turns of the council's selection process. Then this summer she was disturbed to hear a contingent of residents in an adjacent neighborhood successfully lobby for the viaduct. She now feels like she can't relax.

"Who is to say that if I'm not involved in this through the Christmas season, an underpass won't be back on the table? Something that I lobbied for so hard last year is all of a sudden back on the table because I'm not standing my ground?"

"I can't keep my eye off of it. If I take my pedal off the gas, it feels like something shows up that I'm unaware of," Brown told the Weekly.

Weekly journalists discuss this issue on an episode of "Behind the Headlines," now available on our YouTube channel and podcast page.