Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make the pig more attractive. Viaducts are ugly, noisy, and divide communities. Get our very senior Congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, to get the Feds to pony up some of the Billion for a trench. The French use trenches for rail traffic in urban areas and the noise is much less, the visual effect negligible, and surface travel for other needs is unaffected. Tax -payers pay such sums to private firms for sports entertainment that lasts a few hours every month. This railroad will be there for decades and is much more important to our quality of life.

Are we going to spend more money putting lipstick on the iron pig? Caltrain is ill-suited to service as a commute line. Three major factors are:
1-the huge vertical space consumed, making crossings of any kind a challenge
2-the sluggish acceleration
3-simply getting on and off with anything in your hands.

BART-like cars are far easier to enter, and lend themselves to quick loading and unloading. Their low voltage operation with readily available grid power requires small wiring space, and the energy used for their rapid, commute-friendly acceleration can be reused when braking. And now, with on-board lithium batteries, their road and creek crossings will have no need for power rails.

The High Speed Rail is designed for long, inter-city commutes where slow acceleration to very high speeds combined with overhead space-consuming wiring are a sensible solution. The high voltage operation enables large distances to the power grid connections.

Whether we put them on thrones or bury them, trains are still so, so 1800s.

Adding a note in support of the viaduct option, including Churchill Avenue. The concerns of residents near the tracks should be taken seriously, however I'd encourage them to consider both modern and ancient (e.g., Roman) viaduct designs. Viaducts can be architecturally outstanding. The noise level will be greatly reduced compared to the current arrangement, both by the elimination of bells and horns and because modern sound engineering will make the noise directly generated by the trains much less audible to adjacent residents than the current Caltrains and freight trains. Rather than creating a division between east and west, it will remove or at least mitigate the one we have now. I'd also add that the higher the elevation the better. It allows more light, more lines of sight, further reduces noise, and mitigates what could be perceived as privacy issues. I suspect that the total cost of the viaduct option, by the time the project is completed, will be the lowest of all of the options, and the disruption the least.

The rails and Alma already divide Palo Alto. I feel that considering Alma into the planning would be helpful. The tracks could be run on a viaduct running in the middle of Alma. The area under the viaduct could be landscaped and could include a bicycle path. This would place the tracks further from the homes on both sides. The viaduct itself could be made more pleasing to look at than shown in the current designs.

Re: "And while he acknowledged that many homeowners are concerned about the noise and potential visual blight of a viaduct, he suggested that these worries may be unfounded.
"They may be absolutely wrong on that," Eittreim said. "The noise may be less. The visual images might be much better."

Really? They are more likely to be absolutely correct. These kinds of comments are what give activists a bad name.

Recreational spaces near Charleston and Meadow .... I nearly spit my beer on the monitor.

Daddy can I have an allowance?

Have you come up with a plan to create recreational space near Charleston and Meadow?

No. That's why I need an allowance. If you give me more money I'll spend it on a survey.

Who's your survey monkey?

You are, Daddy.

That's my boy.

@Steven Bisset
I found your comments interesting. But I wonder if you in Crescent Park would favor an “architecturally outstanding” and “the higher the better” viaduct in back of your house? A viaduct is going to be a very hard sell to residents who will actually be impacted by it every day.

Regarding privacy and trains, residents who express concerns about elevating the trains can be reminded that both the hybrid AND the viaduct solutions elevate the trains. With hybrid intersections, large, very long earthen berms raise the trains over intersections and lower them on the other side, while a roadway is created below grade level for cars, walkers and bikers. So any privacy issues are similar, whether the city implements a hybrid strategy or a viaduct strategy. At the recent Rail Committee meeting, a suggestion was made that the PA City Council visit San Carlos (where berms elevate the trains now) to see how it looks for those living or working near elevated trains on berms, vs the open look provided by a viaduct.

How soon we forget -
What the noise expert determined who was hired by the consultant or City.

His analysis was that there would be greater noise heard more widely than now, given the trains would be elevated 20’ or so. Train noise would be broadcast through air, not muffled by buildings, trees, etc.

The expert found that sound walls could be built at the viaduct sides, greatly reducing train noise for adjacent residents/businesses - good.

But - the noise would then just bounce from the viaduct to “land” (my words) on other residents/businesses a calculated distance away (I can’t remember how far, but a ways) - bad.

So viaduct sound mitigation for noise isn’t effective.

The viaduct was rejected because it was and is a bad option.

@Stew You make an excellent point about the importance of observing actual local in-use examples of the different options.

Tables 5-3 and 5-4 of the 42-page 2020 Palo Alto grade separation alternatives noise study final report show that the viaduct with parapet (6 ft edge sound wall to block noise emanating from the wheel/rail area) decibel noise levels (or reductions) at 1st and 2nd row homes are either numerically the same and/or humanly indistinguishable from just eliminating the crossings and adding the same parapets.

As mentioned previously, the only viaduct noise downside mentioned in the report is alluded to in the footnote of Table 5-1 that says diesel locomotive-hauled freight trains “may create some increased noise level beyond 1st row” houses.

But anyone who carefully reviews the noise study can see how each alternative affects daily average and peak hour noise levels vs. today and vs. the minimum current background noise levels from vehicle traffic, etc. that would continue even in absence of the railroad’s existence.

The bottom line is that all the “build” alternatives together with Caltrain’s quiet, new electrically-powered self-propelled Stadler KISS EMUs (electric multiple unit) trains *greatly* reduce existing train noise levels by eliminating horn-blowing and the low wheel-noise-shielding sound walls, and that the small quantifiable noise differences — where even present — between viaduct, hybrid and at-grade tracks with underpasses are insignificant in terms of human perception.

See for yourself here: Web Link

Anyone wishing to see Caltrain’s sleek new state-of-the-art electric Swiss trains (with energy-recovering regenerative braking, WiFi, and in-seat power outlets), can watch them being built and tested in numerous YouTube videos such as this:

Web Link

or this:

Web Link

… or attend the July 29th first public viewing and tour event at San Jose’s Diridon station: Web Link

It’s not until the very end of the article that it is noted that the Rail committee does NOT make decisions. The entire article makes it sound like decisions were made, but the committee only makes recommendations to council. Council should reject adding the viaduct back to the list of preferred alternatives. The community spoke and council already voted to remove the option after looking at it extensively. Ms Veenker is incorrectly in saying it wasn’t fully considered. Which is forgiveable given the years and years of documents and studies she has to catch up on.
In terms of noise effects, as noted the noise study only looked at the homes closest to the tracks. If we want to continue to incur more costs a noise study for the viaduct must be done that consider the distance that the noise travels. It’s expected to impact homes much further away from the tracks and along the entire length of rail as opposed to know where the noise is primarily the crossings. With a viaduct homes that currently have no impact from the train will likely be impacted.

Per the CA HSR "blended" plan, a viaduct would have to be built to accomodate four tracks. This would result in a massive, topheavy structure. Given the earthquake risk in California, such a topheavy structure, which will carry passenger and heavy freight trains, seems like a very bad idea. I remember vividly how the Embarcadero Freeway in S.F. and the Cypress Viaduct in Oakland collapsed in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Just about everyone in S.F. was glad to see the Embarcadero Freeway demolished.

Hybrid crossings are likely to face resistance similar to that for a viaduct.

Besides the obvious creek-crossing issues, there is the matter of keeping a trench dry 100% of the time and dealing with storm flooding. CPA has quite a poor record of keeping the Oregon and Embarcadero underpasses dry, so why would a rail trench be any different?

By process of elimination it seems automobile underpasses beneath the ROW are the least-worst solution. You may give up some turning flexibility at these crossings, but after about 10 years of deliberating, studying and consulting, the perfect solution has not emerged. Every conceivable solution has its flaws. In addition, CPA seems unable to pick a solution and stick with it.

If CPA hires another consultant it will be the 4th firm to weigh in on the project:

1. Hatch Mott McDonald

2. Hexagon

3. AECOM

4. ???

I am pretty sure most residents will celebrate multiple additional milestone birthdays before a decision is made on grade separation.

@Leslie York is misinformed. Barring any further new or revised directives from Caltrain, all alternatives must merely be built so as not to preclude adding 2 tracks in case they are ever determined to be needed in the future. This does NOT mean any trench, tunnel, bridge, berm, overpass, underpass, or viaduct must be initially built 4 tracks wide. Good nearby examples include the Caltrain-approved grade separation designs for Rengstorff in Mtn. View or Mary Ave. in Sunnyvale … or the recently-completed elevated grade separations in San Mateo and San Bruno.

Further, as demonstrated by all Bay Area rail viaducts & bridges unsurprisingly withstanding the only-moderate ‘89 quake just fine, and the many rail viaducts regularly subjected to more and stronger quakes in far more seismically-active places such as Japan, the collapse of the upper deck of the old and poorly-constructed Oakland double-decked “Cypress Structure” is of little relevance to any new modern viaduct properly-built to current seismic standards.

"@Leslie York is misinformed. Barring any further new or revised directives from Caltrain, all alternatives must merely be built so as not to preclude adding 2 tracks in case they are ever determined to be needed in the future. This does NOT mean any trench, tunnel, bridge, berm, overpass, underpass, or viaduct must be initially built 4 tracks wide."

Think about it. CPA builds a viaduct with 2 tracks. Then Caltrain/HSR decides it wants 4 tracks. What are you going to do, spend millions more to expand the 2-track viaduct to 4 tracks? If you build this grand viaduct for 4 tracks to begin with then you don't have to spend more money and suffer the disruption caused by construction twice. The same goes for your trench, tunnel, bridge, berm, etc.

Take a walk to the University Ave. underpass and look up. It is clearly built for 4 tracks even though only 2 tracks are in use.

@Leslie York: yes, but as done everywhere else, while taking care not to preclude it, nobody pays to complete track-ready infrastructure (as you suggest) for additional tracks unless there’s a high certainty it will be needed.

As observant people can still see today at the rail bridge over 101 in Menlo Park, when SP built the first bridge and rail line across the Bay, they made sure not to preclude double-tracking with their ROW and bridge abutments, but didn’t actually install a second bridge deck over 101 for possible future double tracking. It’s relatively easy and far more economically/politically prudent to add parallel infrastructure (eg parallel viaducts) for extra tracks — only if needed — in the future.

Oh, and regarding Caltrain’s bridge over University Ave.: it was built wider because SP had more tracks across it. I still remember traces of the mail spur being visible south of the northbound platform. And there was at least one other track through the station between today’s two widely-spaced ones.

Reality Check: I'm not sure what you're arguing with all your verbiage.

I interpret Caltrain's requirement to mean a viaduct would have to be built wide enough for 4 tracks even though you wouldn't necessarily lay 4 tracks during initial construction. This will result in a huge overhead structure.

Building it wide enough for 2 tracks with the option of expanding to 4 tracks later will give you a more compact structure but would require a second massive construction project to expand to 4 tracks later on. It makes no sense to build it once for 2 tracks then build it again to add 2 more tracks. Building it wide enough for 4 tracks obviates the need for a second construction project to expand to 4 tracks.

Caltrain’s requirement is that a viaduct itself would not need to be wide enough for four tracks, but it would need to be built in a way that would allow for four tracks to be built in the future if High Speed Rail ever comes to the peninsula.
The four-track contingency will only need to be for a yet to be determined stretch of 3-4 miles somewhere between Casteo in Mountain View and the northern edge of Palo Alto. Since the corridor narrows to less than 70 feet in the Churchill area, it is unlikely that Caltrain will select their 3-4 mile segment north of Oregon. Caltrain has committed to providing the city with an answer to which area will need to be reserved for four tracks by early fall so that the city can narrow it options.

"it would need to be built in a way that would allow for four tracks to be built in the future"

As I said previously:

"It makes no sense to build it once for 2 tracks then build it again to add 2 more tracks. Building it wide enough for 4 tracks obviates the need for a second construction project"

Expanding a 2-track viaduct to 4 tracks would be a major undertaking.

@Leslie York

You're right, but what if there is no need for further consideration of the four track option? If CalTrain and HSR were to decide against running HSR from San Jose to San Francisco there'd be no need to plan for a four track future. Which would be preferable in that case; the hybrid with its dirt berm raising the level of the tracks so traffic underpasses can be dug under them without going as deep as a trench would require--the berm would also block the ground level view across the right of way. *Or* a 20' high viaduct that could be completed in half the time, with no need for shoo-fly tracks or disrupted traffic on Alma during construction, no rails left behind, and views between viaduct supports and down the right of way in both directions of a pleasantly landscaped space.

Those seem to be the two options left in the running at this moment.

"Those seem to be the two options left in the running at this moment."

I believe automobile underpasses like at Embarcadero are still under consideration.

There is a fourth option which is not even on the rail committee's radar screen: the do-nothing plan.

All this talk of expanded Caltrain service is so much vaporware. Since the pandemic, ridership has decreased as people have learned to work from home. Caltrain can't afford to run nearly-empty trains.

Newsom put the brakes on HSR for the time being, but who's to say a future governor won't bring it back to life? HSR isn't completely and officially dead. HSR needs to be revoted, but the late Dick Blum (Dianne Feinstein's husband) was the principal contractor of HSR. Blum was pumping money into Newsom's campaign coffers and the project will likely not be revoted on Newsom's watch. Some day we'll be able to travel between Merced and Bakersfield in snazzy new HSR trains — maybe.

Sorry about the confusion. I should have been more clear when I said those were the two remaining options that I was referring to the two grade crossings discussed at length at the Rail Committee meeting and in this article written about it.

If a viaduct was selected, it would almost certainly be built as a two track structure. If it is built in the area that Caltrain reserves for future passing tracks, it would need to provide space in the corridor for the (unlikely) possibility of a second 2-track viaduct to be built later.

"If a viaduct was selected, it would almost certainly be built as a two track structure. If it is built in the area that Caltrain reserves for future passing tracks, it would need to provide space in the corridor for the (unlikely) possibility of a second 2-track viaduct to be built later."

What is the logic behind having two separate construction projects, possibly several years apart, together with the attendant expense, disruption and need for funding? In the end you would have a huge 4-track viaduct. Remember, a viaduct would be financed by CPA, not Caltrain or HSR.

@Leslie,
The city would only be the lead agency for funding (compiling local, regional, state, and federal funds) a two-track viaduct, if the viaduct was selected by the city as the design which is not likely. IF there was eventually a need for two more tracks for high speed rail in future decades, Caltrain or the High Speed Rail Authority would need to pay for construction of the grade separation of those additional tracks. That is why the city would not be constructing a four track crossing in the coming years, whether it be for a viaduct or another design.

@Leslie
"What is the logic behind having two separate construction projects, possibly several years apart, together with the attendant expense, disruption and need for funding? In the end you would have a huge 4-track viaduct."

@Resident
"The city would only be the lead agency for funding (compiling local, regional, state, and federal funds) a two-track viaduct, if the viaduct was selected by the city as the design which is not likely."

This exchange raises financing questions to bear in mind if it appears that a viaduct solution would need to be capable of accommodating HSR passing tracks between San Jose and Palo Alto. That's helpful, but it doesn't address my hypothetical: what if San Jose-San Francisco HSR were out of the picture, which would be better, hybrid or viaduct?

"which would be better, hybrid or viaduct?"

Either one will have its band of detractors. "The viaduct looks into my back yard and propagates noise." "The earthen berms block the view (view of what?)." "Option X makes it difficult for bikes and peds to cross.", etc.

I am astonished that the trench, with all of its known problems, was still on the table until recently, Who's to say it won't be back on the table some day like the viaduct?

There is no magic solution which will please everyone.

This is why CPA has been spinning its wheels and chasing its tail with three different engineering firms for nigh onto 10 years.

@Leslie

Your concerns about sound, sight lines and the rest are shared, I understand, by many who live close to the track. If the choice comes down to the pluses and minuses associated with the hybrid and viaduct solutions, I hope you'll give both a close examination before making a firm commitment on which to support. There's a lack of awareness, I believe, of information presented to the Rail Committee meeting that may make people more receptive to the viaduct option when it comes up for discussion after the summer break.

Let's hope that residents raise their voice and the viaduct is (finally) dropped forever. It's a terrible design. It's a shame that people are still pushing it.

Jerry: those are not my concerns. I was paraphrasing the concerns of others; that's why I put them in quotation marks.

"Let's hope that residents raise their voice and the viaduct is (finally) dropped forever. It's a terrible design. It's a shame that people are still pushing it."

That leaves underpasses like Embarcadero or hybrids like San Carlos. Which is it?

Or leave the crossings as is.

I'd consider a vote to install a bike/pedestrian underpass at each of the crossings, do whatever else is needed at grade (e.g., special gates) to eliminate the train horn, then leave the car/train intersection as-is. Maybe this will make the train crossings quieter and less dangerous while also pushing people to get out of cars, all at a fraction of the cost and construction burden of grade separation.

"do whatever else is needed at grade (e.g., special gates) to eliminate the train horn, then leave the car/train intersection as-is. Maybe this will make the train crossings quieter"

If train horns are the main concern then this is actually a very good idea. Establishing a quiet zone through all of Palo Alto involves much less expense and disruption than any of the options proposed heretofore.

Expanded Caltrain service and HSR itself are so much vaporware and more people work from home now.

There is no satisfactory grade sep solution which will please everyone. There are too many obstacles: privacy, creek crossings, the cost of the project, funding, the water table, property takings, turning onto Alma st., bikes and peds, aesthetics, wheel noise, you name it. CPA has engaged three different engineering firms in 10 years and no satisfactory solution has emerged. That should tell you something.

I can't envision hulking Caltrains hurtling down Alma street on a shoofly track.

If the rail committee can bring back the previously-rejected viaduct, they can also put this idea on the mythical "table".

With the sad news of another death on the tracks today, we must consider this as an emergency situation and get our act together on this. Pedestrians must not have access to the tracks and this is urgent.