This is now Caltrain throwing a monkey wrench into any plan. The idea that they can't plan which of several places this extra wide space is or maybe necessary is not acceptable.

However, it does look as if the ongoing saga will continue and no decisions will be made for the forseeable future.

This ongoing HSR boondoggle has been a headache for 15 years. The rationale behind it is still flawed: It will still be slower, much more limited, less safe and more costly than air travel. Moreover, it is hoped that this would "keep cars off the roads" -- despite the fact that California has since passed a law that mandates that sales of new ICE vehicles (i.e., gas-powered) will be banned by 2035. So, the "climate" argument is just not as relevant as it was in 2008.

Why should local taxpayers be hit with exceptionally expensive and landscape-changing requirements to redesign the dynamics of rails within our city (both Caltrain and the HSR) that will likely only be enjoyed by a miniscule fraction of the population?

The HSR was a bad idea in 2008. It's an even worse idea now. Its cost have ballooned well above $128 Billion -- just as many people predicted but its loud apologists promised wouldn't happen. The silly controlled media narratives (i.e., "HSR will create jobs") still don't make any fiscal sense. Fifteen years ago, a $10 Billion funding proposition passed with merely 52.6% of voters approval in 2008.

This is a money pit. It's also a boondoggle that (literally) divides communities.

Thanks, Gennady, for this update. @Nayeli expressed my views exactly. This would be chaos for those of us in South Palo Alto. And for what?

How much money have PA and other cities wasted on this fiasco? Shame on CalTrans for this and for failing to repave El Camino Real and do the job it's supposed to be doing now -- forget about planning.

Instead of wasting more money on more analysis, just say NO until CalTrans gets its act together.

Other cities along CALTRAIN (NOT Caltrans) have been able to move forward with grade separations. Hillsdale has recently been completed in San Mateo. Also, Belmont/San Carlos, and San Bruno. Mountain View projects are moving forward in detailed planning and design. Only Palo Alto is lagging, because it insists on being "special", and has a long history of making the perfect the enemy of the more than good enough.

Did all commenters actually read this article? If you had you would stop blaming the City for foot dragging. That is on Caltrain - until it decides where it’s passing tracks will go, Palo Alto’s grade separation plans are stymied.

Palo Alto, not other cities, is the one targeted by Caltrain for passing tracks somewhere in our City or on its border, making us unlike other cities along the tracks. To compare us to them is to not understand the situation we are in.

Caltrains been dragging its feet on this for YEARS, endangering our significant funding.

The trench is a worst option no matter what. It is expensive and we have to divert the creeks.

Writer says city is required to comply. But Palo Alto should just ignore any mandate. Eventually get sued, but keep delaying and kicking the can down the road. Delay it another 5 years, and by then it may dawn on people that nobody rides Caltrain. Many better ways for the city of Palo Alto to spend a billion dollars. Legal fees will be far less than this.

The article and commenters are missing the point.

Caltrain has always noted that 4 tracks may be needed on their existing right of way/property. This is not new, and does not depend on HSR. Also PA has no say in this matter as it doesn’t require any eminent domain and Palo Alto has no regulatory oversight of Caltrain.

Palo Altans are the ones who need grade separation, not Caltrain.
1. Deaths. Too many people are killed at these crossings from suicide or stopping on the tracks. Every few weeks someone dies on the peninsula due to these very dangerous grade crossings that Palo Alto built years ago. To be clear, the railway was here first, and Palo Alto constructed these cheap dangerous grade crossings and is solely responsible for all roads crossing the tracks.
2. Traffic. With electrification, the number of trains will increase significantly, and car traffic will get much worse as the crossing gates close more times every hour.

Palo Alto can delay building the grade separations that are its responsibility, but only its residents will suffer the consequences, not the Caltrain riders. Trains always have right of way, and the crossing gates will stop traffic whenever a train passes.

The delays are 100% on Palo Alto’s avoidance of making decisions due to the extreme NIMBY mindset that has delayed urgent action needed to improve this existing condition.

Expiring grant money is available for construction that PA will lose due to its own internal deliberation delays.

The hybrid option partially raising the tracks and lowering the crossings has always been the lowest impact, most cost effective solution.

After 15 years of delays, it’s time for Palo Alto to get serious about reconnecting the city across the tracks/Alma with grade separated crossings at more locations than just Charleston and Meadows. They should also consider Loma verde/Margarita.

This will make life better for all in Pl Pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers

Passenger rail is an important area of transportation but cannot be easily achieved in California because of the social emphasis on liberty over responsibility. For Passenger rail to be successful, Passenger rail has to meet the same standards as private modes of transportation like cars and planes and Uber and Lyft. Modern rail must be 100% secure, everyone who uses the service must pay for the service without exception, there must be securitization of these spaces with little compromise. That is the standard in Japan, Shanghai, Hong Kong, zero tolerance for harassment of families and children, it is not acceptable. The American left has condemned Passenger rail to an inadequate urban interface, a threat to the common standards of middle class life, so every project of improvement languishes. Commuter rail is only break even for local within city employment commuting in the United States, even in NYC with a tremendous number of users. We are better off as Americans if we simply tell the truth. Passenger rail heavily urbanizes an area, and can lead to a decline in safety for families and children, there is no other way to sugar coat the issue. It is a service of convenience for some at the expense of many, so it is going nowhere. Where there is a will, there is a way, and in this case, there is no will, so there is no way.

Trenching has always been a hallucination of the city council, or maybe a childish attempt to block CalTrain from progressing. Lots of money have been wasted on consultants and lawyers. The city council continues to make a fool of themselves by considering trenching as an option. Bridge or tunnel are the only practical options.

However I don't think HSR will happen within 50 years, during which time self-driving EVs will make HSR obsolete.

The so-called "blended approach", whereby HSR shares the right-of-way with Caltrain, was decided upon over a decade ago, and HSR/Caltrain is JUST NOW planning their four-track configuration? What have they been doing for the past 11 years if not designing the track configuration? In the interim, CPA has pissed away ample time and money on consultants and endless meetings with nothing to show for it in the way of viable plans for either two tracks or four.

Lots of luck rebuilding the San Antonio or Oregon crossings. Those would be huge construction projects.

HSR has been a boondoggle from the word "go" and should have been revoted a long time ago.

With the increased number of Caltrains per hour, where are they going to find enough fare-paying passengers to fill them up? Regarding HSR, if people want to go from L.A. to S.F. the fastest way possible, they're going to fly.

I'm astonished that a train trench is still under consideration by our amateur rail planners. What will happen when the trench floods during a heavy storm? "They'll just pump the water out" doesn't work because CPA can't even keep Oregon and Embarcadero dry. Will Caltrain even agree to a trench given the potential of halting train service due to flooding?

A previous poster was correct that CPA has no real say in what Caltrain does with the right-of-way it owns, even though the ROW passes through the city. You can litigate it all you want but you won't win.

Caltrain is completely mismanaged. One example is how they now allow tickets to be purchased online. Anyone who rides the train more than a few times realizes they don’t need to buy tickets since they rarely ever check for them and when they do, you can just purchase a ticket on your phone last minute.

Am I correct that Caltrain has the "land rights" to expand to 4 tracks? How was that not accounted for in the original grade separation discussion? Are any of the other communities that have grade separation able to accommodate 4 tracks, or is Palo Alto going to be the default location because we are so late to the game?

You can kiss the ~$30 million in grants away b/c there is no way Palo Alto will make a decision on what to do. Me? I'm for elevating the tracks.

The high-speed rail should go thru San Jose then along the east bay. It should NOT go along the peninsula; there is no good reason for it to go along that corridor! It should NOT go to San Francisco. People can get off in Oakland and take BART.

Re: "But as the transit agency prepares to increase service on its newly electrified corridor, "

This is incorrect. Caltrain has admitted it cannot afford to increase service for the foreseeable future because of its continuing severe losses due to the massive post-Covid drop in ridership. It has already requested that the Feds waive its obligation to repay electrification funding that was predicated on that increased service.

At Caltrain's current burn rate, it will exhaust its financial reserves within 2 years. In addition, it has an unfunded obligation to pay $500 million in the next decade, which it refers to as a "financial cliff".

So, no realistic prospect of increased Caltrain service, and no realistic prospect of HSR on Caltrain tracks (there's no HSR plan to connect Merced to Gilroy or San Jose). Thus, no need for grade separation in Palo Alto. Let's save our billion dollars for something useful, like Cubberley Community Center.

From the article--

"In south Palo Alto, where the council hopes to start construction, the trench alternative is one of three under consideration. The other two involve an underpass for cars and a "hybrid" design that combines lower roads and elevated tracks."

Town Hall participants should take notice that none of these options has been able to gain enthusiastic support, while a viaduct option, despite being officially unacknowledged and unfamiliar to most residents, has supporters who make a solid case that it should become part of the discussion.

Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims hosted an online Community Conversation about the viaduct recently that her office will make available online. It’s a good place to get up to speed as the Rail Committee gets closer to choosing locally favored alternatives for Churchill, Meadow and Charleston.

Here is the link to the Community Conversation regarding grade separation.

Web Link

"The delays are 100% on Palo Alto’s avoidance of making decisions due to the extreme NIMBY mindset that has delayed urgent action needed to improve this existing condition. "

I agree that responsibility for the delays rests largely with Palo Alto, but I don't see how "extreme NIMBY mindset" is the reason. The inability to draw all the consultant reports, task force discussions, and community input to a conclusion and move forward is to blame. Politics and our governance model that over-empowers the City Manager are also at play. I can easily imagine that CC members looking for reelection would not want to be associated with the decision for this. As this has evolved, it has pretty much become a lose-lose situation that doesn't turn positive for decades (if ever)and I can't think of a politician who embraces those. Nor does our City Manager. City Council and City Management should be about service and what is in the best interests of Palo Alto, not politics, but that train left the station long, long ago. One way or another, CC agendas and the decisions that follow tie back to politics.

Vote carefully!

The above-linked video makes a compelling case for a viaduct.

As Nadia explained, the 4-track requirement makes a trench infeasible, not to mention the risk due to flooding and lack of drainage. That leaves a viaduct or hybrids, so it's off the table.

I'm concerned about whether a viaduct would face too much resistance from residents. Face it, it would be a large and imposing structure. Will the citizenry accept this? Is there a way to design a viaduct so that it doesn't look like a big, gray concrete monstrosity designed by the DMV in Sacramento? Maybe hide the pylons behind vines and foliage?

A viaduct solves many practical problems which are described in the video. If CPA wants to utilize the space under the viaduct for a bike path, picnic or chess tables (Really? Chess tables?) the city would have to negotiate with JPB and work out some kind of lease arrangement. CPA does not own the ROW and does not have the right to improve it or build on it.

@Jerry Underdal
Are we actually legally required to grade separate? If not, the "no action" option makes a lot of sense and should be considered along with the other options and their drawbacks.

I wonder if some of these funds could be used to plan and build a bicycle and pedestrian underpass at Seale? There is a need and if one is built it will provide a safer route to both Palo Alto High School and to the California Avenue shopping and dining district.