I am out of town on travel and am unable to attend the upcoming City Council Meeting where the Ravenswood Avenue Grade Separation
alternatives will again be considered by the Council. Normally I would attend the Council Meeting and give my input during the
public comment period. I have attended previous Council and Study sessions considering this topic. This email constitutes my input
to the Council.
I would like to express again to the Council my support for the hybrid option which will result in Three Grade Separated Crossings
at Ravenswood, Oak Grove and Glenwood as the preferred option (Option 2).
1. Option 2 provides the best safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars by separating these uses from Caltrain at three
intersections versus one intersection for the Ravenswood only grade separation (Option 1). In particular this is critical with the
recent conversion of Oak Grove to a bike route to school. Grade separating only Ravenswood does not achieve this key goal of the
project.
2. Option 2 does not cutoff access to Alma Street from Ravenswood. Option 1 would cutoff access to Alma from Ravenswood making
access to the Library, the Recreation Center and Gym much more difficult for West Menlo Park residents. The town has made major
investments in Burgess Park and its facilities and traffic flow should be managed to improve access, not reduce access. Option 2
accomplishes this goal with improved access to Burgess Park due to the traffic signal that would be installed at the Ravenswood /
Alma intersection in this Option and maintenance of the Ravenswood / Alma connection.
3. Option 2 will provide the best east / west connectivity and improved traffic flow across Menlo Park. The increased number of
trains that Caltrain plans to operate with the electrification of Caltrain will further snarl traffic at the intersections if left
at Grade due to the increased amount of time that the gates will be down. Option 2 addresses this issue and is a plan focused on
the future traffic flow needs of Menlo Park as urbanization continues.
4. Option 2 would result in the biggest noise reduction from the trains by removing 3 at grade crossings which require Caltrain to
sound its horn.
5. I attended the Community Meeting on June 7, 2017. 85% of the approximately 55 community members in attendance supported Option
2 over Option 1. I hope that the Council takes this extremely strong support for Option 2 into significant consideration when
deciding this important issue to Menlo Park. Many of the attendees at the meeting were from the neighborhoods that will be most
impacted by the construction project which will be considerably more substantial for Option 2 relative to Option 1. Even so the
community clearly felt that the benefits of Option 2 over Option 1 significantly outweighed the inconvenience of a longer / larger
construction project.
6. Finally Caltrain has begun the process to electrify the system. In a few years the increased number of trains planned will
further exacerbate the east / west connectivity problem in Menlo Park. As a city we need to proceed with this project without
further delay. I recall the discussions on Grade Separation in the early 1990s. Menlo Park opted not to proceed with Grade
Separation and the funding went to Redwood City — let’s not repeat this mistake again.
Regards,
Verle Aebi
220 Laurel Street [x-apple-data-detectors://1]
Menlo Park, CA [x-apple-data-detectors://1]
