BY ELAINE GOODMAN
Daily Post Correspondent
As the city of Palo Alto moves closer to deciding how to separate the Caltrain tracks from the street at three crossings, at least one City Council candidate wants the city to reconsider a viaduct.
“It’s the option that’s potentially fastest, cheapest, could require the least amount of property takings, and would not divide the city physically,” said Cari Templeton, one of nine candidates running for four seats on Palo Alto council.
With a viaduct, the train tracks would be above the road on a long bridge supported by a series of arches or columns. Templeton wants to see the option further evaluated for crossings at Charleston Road, Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue, although she acknowledged there might not be enough room for the structure at Churchill Avenue.
But another candidate, Henry Etzkowitz, said the best option is for the trains to run underground. Bike paths and gardens could then go where the trains now run. He said Palo Alto should work with neighboring cities to get federal funds for the project.
“End suicide alley,” Etzkowitz said. “Grade separation is totally inadequate and a waste of funds.”
The topic of so-called grade separations at the railroad crossings was discussed Saturday (Sept. 14) during a council candidate forum hosted by the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. Eight of the nine candidates participated; candidate Doria Summa was absent.
After years of studying alternatives, the city has narrowed down the options at Charleston and Meadow to an underpass or a hybrid option.
Incumbent Greer Stone, who is currently mayor, said he’s looking forward to seeing more detailed designs for the two options. He wants to see how the designs will minimize the need to acquire nearby property, increase bicycle and pedestrian safety, and reduce traffic congestion.
Candidate George Lu said his preference is for a hybrid approach at Charleston and Meadow, which he described as “taking the trains a little bit higher and the roads a little bit lower.”
Lu cautioned against back-tracking in the decision-making process, which could add to the projects’ costs.
“One of the great sins that we could commit as city council members is to … pull eliminated options, revisit past decisions and actually go backwards,” he said. “We have to build on the work of XCAP and city council unless there are really compelling reasons otherwise.”
XCAP refers to the Expanded Community Advisory Panel that the city formed to help evaluate options at railroad crossings.
Incumbent Pat Burt said he prefers the underpass option, “presuming we can mitigate the property acquisition potential.” The underpass would lower the street so that cars drive under the train tracks.
Burt disputed Lu’s description of the hybrid option.
“The hybrid is not going down a little bit and up a little bit,” Burt said. “It’s going down a little bit — four feet — and up 16 feet. It would be an earthen wall blocking and separating two sides of the city.”
Candidate Keith Reckdahl also has a “strong preference” for an underpass. “Having a viaduct up there really visually divides the city,” he said. “Plus, the poor residents whose house backs up to that — that’s really not a good environment.” Reckdahl, Templeton, Lu and Summa are all members of the city’s Planning and Transportation Commission.
Reckdahl and Templeton also were members of XCAP, which produced a 2021 report discussing railroad crossing options including viaducts. But city council removed the viaduct option from consideration in August 2021 due to worries about the visual impact and its unpopularity with residents.
Templeton said the change in council members since 2021 might make it a good time to revisit the viaduct option.
The city’s grade separation discussions were prompted by the electrification of the Caltrain line and an expected increase in the number of trains.
But ridership plummeted during the pandemic and hasn’t fully recovered.
“We have to take into consideration the use of the train and how it’s going to work as people change their habits,” said candidate Anne Cribbs, adding that she’s still learning about the different options.
Cribbs, who was a member of the 1960 U.S. Olympic swimming team, is now board president of a group that’s raising money for a city-owned gym. She’s also a member of the city’s Parks and Recreation Commission.
Candidate Katie Causey said when planning for grade separations began, she favored a viaduct because it would create the most distance between the train and non-passengers. Now she prefers the underpass alternative for Charleston and Meadow. “Having grown up in Palo Alto during the youth suicide clusters, my top priority is that grade rail separation is completed as soon as possible because we need to keep people safe,” Causey said in an email. She serves on the city’s Human Relations Commission.
I don’t know if the lack of comments here is just that everyone in PA is so annoyed with this whole process, they know it is futile. I’ve shook my head over the silliness since offering reasonable options, after coming upon this dilemma in 2019.
The core problem, no one wants to address like reasonable adults, is the lack of property in public hands, enough to handle the requirements for a rail and road grade separation.
Why is this difficult? Only because of faux sensibilities, yes, faux. The term, property taking, is completely overblown out of all context, having today become a perjorative, it is insane. There is NO ‘stealing’ of property going on here. There is the very ADULT concept of acquiring land for the public good.
Where do you think the land for other grade separations came from? Uh? People in government (leadership) roles acted like adults, they acquired the parcels needed to accomplish the LONG TERM (as like in today and the next century) public benefits.
The people who sold their plots to the city, whether willingly or via legal proceedings, are all dead. Should those not wanting to take a NICE profit for their property had prevailed, you would have MORE rail crossings with which to deal. But, leadership had thinking adults, not sophomoric politicians.