Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Community Workshop Palo Alto, April 27, 2010 Small Group Activity Summary

Transcription

1 Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Community Workshop Palo Alto, April 27, 2010 Small Group Activity Summary The following are the summary notes from the small break out groups. An overall summary of feedback heard by the small groups, both for during the activity and during discussions, is provided first, followed by tables providing feedback from the groups for the activity. Additional questions and discussion topics that are independent of the activity are provided at the end of this document. OVERALL Community had a preference for tunnels and underground solutions and a dislike for aerial structures and its associated noise, vibration and visual impacts There was concern about how property owners are compensated for lost value due to noise and visual impact both during and after construction, with ROW width impacts for trench and cut and cover alternatives. Concern included homes not at risk for eminent domain, but that are near the ROW and my have property value impacts. Information on property impacts are needed as soon as possible and property costs should be included in alternatives analyses for equal cost comparisons among alternatives. Concern that two tracks for Caltrain will limit future service with no baby bullet Discussion on various grade separation methods through Palo Alto, including: o Whether grade separating Palo Alto Ave. and Alma St. made sense o Discussion that with trenches, Oregon Expressway and Embarcadero Rd. need to be at grade o What to do to grade separate East Meadow Dr., Churchill Ave., and E. Charleston Rd.? Aerial and at-grade are unattractive with concerns about intersection and traffic impacts at Alma (project and construction) Breakout sessions included discussions of issues dealing with the selection of the Caltrain route, as well as assessment of the vertical alignments based on noise, visual impact, potential property impacts, and several other issues (safety). Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Palo Alto Community Workshop Page 1 of 10

2 ACTIVITY SUMMARY Activity Instructions The following list of goals was provided and each group chose three goals to focus on for the activity. Each group then reviewed each grade separation method against the three goals to determine if it meets those goals or not (Y = Yes, N = No, I = Need More Information). If the alternative doesn t meet the goals, they indicated why not, or where (at what locations) it would violate the goal. This is an abbreviated version of Context Sensitive Solutions Toolkit Exercise #2, which is available online at 1. Noise & Vibration Do not exceed current levels of train-related noise Do not exceed current levels of train-related vibration Minimize noise impact to sensitive receptors (i.e. hospitals, senior homes, day care centers, etc.) 2. Visual Experience Structure does not visually divide the community more than it is divided today Structure does not block scenic views/vistas, consistent with local planning efforts Design of structure respects community scale and character and is compatible with local development plans for adjacent sites 3. Rider Experience Passenger can see where they are, experience sense of place For passenger comfort, corridor has minimal grade changes (minimizes roller coaster effect) Promotes convenient, reliable local transportation connections to final destinations 4. Safety Reduce potential collisions with vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians at crossings. Restrict pedestrian access to railroad, discourage trespassing In an emergency, passengers can quickly evacuate and fire and police can easily access the train Design of structure minimizes/discourages vandalism or criminal activity 5. Service & Stations Provides Caltrain with grade-separated right-of-way Requires minimal reconstruction/relocation of existing Caltrain stations Caltrain able to maintain service during construction with few temporary structures 6. Cross Connectivity (Vehicle, Pedestrian, Bicycle) Provide improved east-west connectivity for vehicles Provide improved east-west connectivity for pedestrians Provide improved east-west connectivity for bicycles 7. Land Use Is consistent with local Land Use Plans and community vision, design of structure respects adjacent land uses Provides an opportunity for new open spaces or other planned land uses 8. Adjacent Properties Minimize residential/business displacements Design of structure adds value to community, minimizes reduction in property values 9. Constructability Construction of structure requires fewer temporary structures (track or stations) Structure can be prefabricated/installed in shorter time frame to reduce construction period 10. Freight Operations Maintain access to freight rail customers 11. Rail Operations Provide ability for enhanced Caltrain and commuter rail service Maximize Caltrain and HST capacity through sharing infrastructure (tracks, etc.) 12. Equity Do not disproportionately impact lower income/minority neighborhoods and locally owned businesses Distribute project benefits as equitably as possible throughout the corridor 13. Economic Feasibility Provide access to local downtowns and business centers Capital cost, relative to benefits/achieving goals, is superior to other alternatives Operational cost (escalator/elevator maintenance, lighting, etc.) relative to benefits/achieving goals, is superior to other alternatives Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Palo Alto Community Workshop Page 2 of 10

3 CATEGORY / EXAMPLE GOALS GROUP AERIAL EXISTING CALTRAIN GRADE GRADE SEPARATION METHOD TRENCH CUT & COVER HST DEEP TUNNEL B Will introduce additional noise over existing. More noise than now, but Caltrain improves since no crossings = no horns Better since below grade. Best option Not best because Caltrain is still at grade. Noise & Vibration C Not compatible Worse. Could possibly partially cover?? Better. Unsure, as Caltrain is still increasing service. E Difficult mitigation (sound walls) Least noise and vibration. Noise and ventilation. Best option, minimal noise and vibration. Noise and ventilation. Visual Experience B Concerns regarding losing view of hills. Existing station at University is Ok. Construction impacts seem to be less. Won t see it so it s good. Can still see Caltrain. Do not want elevated station at University Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Palo Alto Community Workshop Page 3 of 10

4 CATEGORY / EXAMPLE GOALS GROUP AERIAL EXISTING CALTRAIN GRADE GRADE SEPARATION METHOD TRENCH CUT & COVER HST DEEP TUNNEL Visual Experience C Not appealing Worse than existing as current trees will be removed. Trees will still be removed. Not convinced trench is better Better since area above tunnel available. Better. E Height Aesthetics Electrical wires / posts Best option, minimal visual impact. Views Impacted Rider Experience Safety B E Emergency - accidents Protect safety of community and students. Protect safety of community and students. Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Palo Alto Community Workshop Page 4 of 10

5 CATEGORY / EXAMPLE GOALS GROUP AERIAL EXISTING CALTRAIN GRADE GRADE SEPARATION METHOD TRENCH CUT & COVER HST DEEP TUNNEL Service & Stations Cross Connectivity B Land Use Adjacent Properties C E Neighborhood near Mariposa Ave would be impacted. Space required for construction. South Gate and other affected, not enough ROW. Construction impacts (access to existing homes?) No, due to width required. Construction impacts No, due to width required. Construction impacts Better. Construction impacts Constructability Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Palo Alto Community Workshop Page 5 of 10

6 CATEGORY / EXAMPLE GOALS GROUP AERIAL EXISTING CALTRAIN GRADE GRADE SEPARATION METHOD TRENCH CUT & COVER HST DEEP TUNNEL Freight Operations Rail Operations Equity Economic Feasibility Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Palo Alto Community Workshop Page 6 of 10

7 The following are additional questions/areas of focus mentioned in the small groups that were independent of the activity. Group A Discussion Group discussed process used to determine the alternatives. Deep bore tunnels cannot accommodate Caltrain/freight due to: o Ventilation requirements for diesel locomotives o Need to maintain access to freight customers at-grade o Different system requirements (grades, clearances, etc). Berm was removed as an option at the City s request as there is an available comparable alternative (aerial viaduct) with less physical division of the community. Width requirements of the project depend on the vertical alignment alternative. Combinations of alternatives are possible. Design solution for where Alma St. meets El Camino Real will be developed when project design advances. Concern for the health of El Palo Alto and creeks. At-grade is the cheapest option. Priority Issue Areas Group B Noise and Vibration Visual experience (property owner perspective) Adjacent Properties (Property on and near the ROW) Discussion Options/Concerns for Alma: o Priority is both Alma and maintaining homes o Extended to Menlo Park? o Stop and do not cross tracks? o Tunnel below Alma and sell off ROW o Maintaining middle safety lane Do not see a need for HST station in Palo Alto. Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Palo Alto Community Workshop Page 7 of 10

8 Protect safety for community Crossing alternatives: o At-grade at California Ave and Oregon Expressway, then under East Meadow and Charleston Rd. o No at-grade intersection with Oregon Expressway and Alma. Priority Issue Areas Group C Noise and Vibration Visual Experience Cross Connectivity Concerns / Discussion Suggested a trench for Caltrain above deep tunnels for HST. This option met the group s goals for Noise & Vibration, Visual Experience, and Adjacent Properties. We need to know the definition of feasibility. Based on what we have heard so far, the only feasible option would be aerial structure. The original budget is created considering cost of berm or aerial structure; therefore they will be the only feasible options. Move beyond discussing the generalities again. The rail authority needs to provide with details about real impacts on properties. We need to know which properties will be impacted soon. Sooner we know better it is to be able to make decisions about what to do with the properties or yards that are impacted. Cost for the HST system needs to be better defined and should include more than just the cost for the system. It needs to include the impacts on values of adjacent properties, and include the cost of mitigating the physical and visual impacts. Need to know how many days we have before the board makes any decision. We don t want be engaged in discussing the generalities while the board is making decision. The goal of Safety should be better explained that it refers to identification of safety-concern hot-spots such as the crossing near Palo Alto High etc. Safety is integral to all alignment alternatives. In the goals, current levels should not be the baseline. Goal should be to improve upon the existing levels of noise, vibration, visual impacts etc. In addition, the cumulative effect of all trains should be assessed. Priority Issue Areas Noise and Vibration Visual Experience Adjacent Properties Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Palo Alto Community Workshop Page 8 of 10

9 Group E Group F Does not think HST station in Palo Alto is needed. Priority Issue Areas Noise and Vibration Visual Experience Adjacent Properties / Land Use Safety Economic Feasibility Discussion Need to better clarify the decision making process in determining the final alternative(s). More detailed cost analyses, including information on property needs, will be conducted for alternatives and available in the Draft Environmental Impact Report / Statement to be released in December All options in Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report Appendix C are still being considered. Deep bore tunnel for Caltrain was eliminated due to the need to operate freight and the ventilation requirements associated with diesel locomotives. Acoustical consultants are currently measuring existing noise and vibration levels along the corridor (including approaching stations and midline). These measurements are to be compared to measurements being taken along existing worldwide HSR systems. The information will be available in technical reports as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report / Statement. What about stacked shallow tunnels or stacked Caltrain trench on top of HST tunnel? The California High Speed Rail Authority will uphold the agreement between freight and Caltrain to share tracks. Examples of international high-speed train systems include Japan, Spain, France, and Taiwan. o How many operate in urban environments? The elevated options stops after Oregon Expressway and starts again after Baron Creek due to the wide Caltrain right of way and existing grade separations. What information is needed to disqualify an alternative? What is the CEQA and decision-making process? How does the noise of starting and stopping impact residential properties? Very concerned about noise and visual impacts. Concern about eminent domain when can you sell your house, can you sell it during construction? Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Palo Alto Community Workshop Page 9 of 10

10 Priority Issue Areas Noise and Vibration Visual Experience (property owner perspective) Property on and near the ROW Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Palo Alto Community Workshop Page 10 of 10