I, for one, agree. I’ll let the rest of the community respond for themselves.
Cheers,
Rich Cline
On Dec 4, 2018, at 2:16 PM, mickie winkler wrote:
The cost of the FEGS should also be considered.As should the traffic impacts during construction.Do you agree?
Mickie
Mickie Winkler
650-324-7444office650-335-5540 cell
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:41 AM dana hendrickson wrote:
> Menlo Park City Council
There is resident concern that the planning process for future grade separations in Menlo Park lacks the strong sense of urgency
warranted for an unprecedentedly large project that will have big positive and negative impacts on the quality of life in our
community. The proposed study of a design alternative that includes fully elevated grade separations (FEGS) at some locations is
the latest example. Andcity staff has just introduced design constraints that will prove counterproductive.
In May, the City Council instructed city staff to request a FEGS study proposal from a technical consultant (AECOM) and were told
it could be available in the July-August timeframe. At that time, this schedule seemed unnecessarily long as AECOM had already
studied three other grade separation alternatives and developing a proposal is a relatively simple task. SEVEN months later city
staff plans to review an initial scope for the FEGS study at the December 4 City Council meeting. Unfortunately, this overdue
document fails to effectively address two important concerns previously raised by residents, city staff and council members –
technical feasibility and aesthetic impacts, and city staff has introduced two arbitrary design constraints that would eliminate
the possibility of any desirable FEGS solution. This fact is clearly known by city staff andunnecessarily puts the very
objectivity of the study scope into question.
“A track profile analysis to determine the maximum grade needed to provide sufficient elevation toavoidroadway excavation at
Glenwood Avenue (span completely over the street); while simultaneouslyavoidingimpact to Encinal Avenue. (Source: Staff Report:
December 4, 2018)
The FEGS study should determine whether a solution could be designed that meets the following criteria:
·Fully elevated grade separations at least at Ravenswood and Oak Grove
·Some type of separation at Glenwood
·Built entirely within Menlo Park city boundaries
·Have maximum grades acceptable to Caltrain
·Acceptable impacts on south end and north end neighborhoods
·Encinal is closed to vehicle traffic only; pedestrian and bicyclist crossings are provided
·Enhance the core train station business district
The FEGS study should evaluate conceptual designs for a number of structure profiles and deliverables should include the
following, in addition to the proposed noise analysis.
·Structure profiles designs that use 1% and 1.25% maximum grades
·Elevation drawings and CAD images for the grade separations
·Elevation drawings and CAD images for the northern and southern grades
·Elevation drawings for the fully elevated structure that would pass through the train station area and a preliminary layout for
the space between Merrill, Alma, Ravenswood and Oak Grove.
·All elevation drawings should include “ghost tress” (current and planned) that
visually screen - either fully or partially - the elevated structure and train electrification equipment.
·A comparative matrix for Alternative A, C and FEGS similar to the enclosed example. All ratings must be supported with clear
justifications.
Finally, this study should also identify all potential impacts to south end and north end neighborhoods and suggest design
mitigation alternatives.
I encourage you to revise the scope and deliverables for the FEGS study and ensure its completion in the shortest possible time.
It is likely that we will learn a FEGS alternative is far superior to Alternative A, and our city should be well prepared for this
outcome to avoid additional project delays.
