The reason why grade separation has been studied over and over again, but nothing done is because it costs so much, on the order of $100M per intersection, plus or minus. Studying all the possible alternatives and getting community input is great and all. But at the end of the day, it's meaningless unless there is money to pay for grade separation.

SMCTA's remaining Measure A grade separation funds will almost all be eaten up by San Mateo's 25th Ave grade separation project. There will be no money left. Even if there was, Burlingame's Broadway grade separation would get first dibs as they are further ahead in their planning and have a more dangerous grade crossing. Menlo Park would then be next.

I doubt the state nor federal government will be putting up the majority of the funding. They may contribute a little bit. It's not clear where most of the money to pay for grade separation will come from.

Screwed up by not grabbing the money when they could.

NIMBYs win again! Troglodytes unite!

Money was available to complete grade separations 10 years ago. We could have elevated the tracks all the way through town and have all the intersections grade-separated. NIMBYs raised a ruckus about the shadow that elevated tracks would cast on their back yards and the city caved to them, shutting down all grade separation projects for a decade until now it is too expensive to complete. Maybe if the city starts saving up, we could have enough money available in another 10 years to finally get this done.

If all the money spent on the studies over the last 40 years, were spent on a grade separation it would have been paid for by now.

Ditto on Sheldon's comment. This conversation has been on going for years.

and will continue to be studied until the cows come home. Good work Menlo Park. See what happens when you study the hell at of everything.

Meanwhile, in many neighboring communities such as Belmont, Sn Carlos, San Bruno, etc.., they enjoy their MUCH QUIETER time, with better traffic flow.

Well done, MP, the city that knows.... ummm. Enjoy the clanging gates, loud train horns, and backed up traffic in the center of town. I'll shop and eat elsewhere unless I have to.

MP is the city that knows how to stymie any kind of progress. We are a "village" after all, right? A "village" of 35,000 citizens. That would typically be defined as a "city." The "no birds" know how to stop any progress in MP. One of those ways is to study something to death. "Great" job "no birds."

Funny thing, many of those folks are probably the very same people demanding that "something be done" about the Ravenswood grade crossing. Hypocrites much?

Before posters start vilifying the supposed nimbus, take a moment to consider the three peninsula hybrid intersections (Holly St 42nd Ave and Ralston Ave). None of these abut residences. Now think about MP. From Oak Grove to Holbrook Palmer Park, and then into Atherton, the tracks run right along people’s backyards. Does it really make sense to have trains running 110 mph that close to where people live? What if there is a derailment? People have died, even within the past few months, during derailments that occurred while trains were traveling at slower speeds and at ground level.

The alternative of lowering the streets at these intersections would cause some homes to lose their driveway access, which means these homes would likely succumb to eminent domain.

These are complicated issues that require careful evaluation and community engagement to sort out. Insults aren’t helpful.

The only way to minimize the impact of derailment on adjacent properties would be to put the trains in a trench or a tunnel.

And the risk to lives on adjacent properties is significantly greater in commercial and office areas rather than residential areas because of the higher density of people in commercial and office areas.

"The only way to minimize the impact of derailment on adjacent properties would be to put the trains in a trench or a tunnel." -- Agree. This would be best from many angles, but is more expensive

"And the risk to lives on adjacent properties is significantly greater in commercial and office areas rather than residential areas because of the higher density of people in commercial and office areas." -- A red herring in this case. Of the three peninsula intersections with hybrid grade separations, only one (Ralston) has adjacent commercial development (auto repair shops, and similar light industrial) and that is only on one side. All other intersections have parking lots and roads on either side of the tracks.

There is no local precedent for running hybrid grade separations through residential neighborhoods.

The best way to guarantee zero derailments and to implement such a program for no money is to end all train service. That solves the safety issue and solves the money issue. Of course, that exacerbates the traffic issue big time.

Essentially, this is a public policy choice of choosing the right balance among three intertwined issues: train service, safety, and cost. You can choose to optimize two of the three, but you can never have all three. As soon as you improve service and safety, cost balloons. If you try to maximize service and minimize cost, safety is sacrificed. If you maximize safety and minimize cost, service is then sacrificed.

There is no ideal solution, rather finding the right mix of choices that the public is least unhappy about.

"And the risk to lives on adjacent properties is significantly greater in commercial and office areas rather than residential areas because of the higher density of people in commercial and office areas." -- A red herring in this case"

Wrong. The Ravenswood intersection has commercial on two sides, a LIBRARY and a train station - with a combined occupancy far greater than if these parcels were residential.

'Wrong. The Ravenswood intersection has commercial on two sides, a LIBRARY and a train station - with a combined occupancy far greater than if these parcels were residential."

Sorry, Peter, you are wrong. The Library is across Alma and a sizable park-like area, and the train station would need to be moved if the tracks were raised 20 feet.

Again there is no precedent on the peninsula for running trains on raised rails adjacent to homes. Raising the tracks for trains going 110 mph behind homes on small lots is concerning.

To restate my original point, solutions here are not easy.

"Rather than physically separate the rail corridor from the crossing streets, the rail authority plans to pursue less dramatic and less expensive safety measures: new perimeter fencing and four-quadrant gates at all grade crossings."

"Caltrain's plan to electrify its train system and increase the number of trains could further exacerbate the problem. The combination of six Caltrain trains and four high-speed trains running in each direction during the peak hour means that a train will be passing through every three minutes, creating traffic delays as the gates close and reopen to cars."
Web Link

Aside from issues of whether SF-SJ will ever be built, this is the stupidest idea yet. You can kiss HSR money for grade separation goodbye.

" The Library is across Alma and a sizable park-like area, and the train station would need to be moved if the tracks were raised 20 feet."

And you honestly think that a derailed train "running 110 mph" would not traverse that distance in seconds??

Here is what a derailed train "running 110 mph" looks like and where it ends up:

Web Link

It is my understanding that Caltrain doesn't run their trains any faster than 79 mph, even on the grade separated portions. From this link: Web Link "The Baby Bullets have the same top speed of 79 mph"

At the HSR meeting they claim that once the bypass tracts are complete all trains (HSR and caltrain) will be running up to 110 mph.

The HSR Authority claims all kinds of things. Pretty much all of their claims are BS.

Sounds like there is interest in exploring the more expensive trenched track option. it would be the safest, would enable at grade crossings for autos and pedestrians with no impediments, would minimize land grabs (other than during construction for shoofly tracks) and would be the most visually appealing since the trains would be out of sight.

Some suggest the train should be out of sight. A trenched train would need to be excavated under all the creeks and culverts. like the one at Marsh Road. Putting aside the monumental expense of digging and reenforcing a trench, the subterranean stations at Menlo Park and Atherton would be absurdly expensive to build and cost prohibitive to patrol rapists and the homeless. Anyone that thinks an underground station is a good idea should visit 22nd Street station at night. Web Link

No matter what the solution, it is unconscionable to still have grade crossings in the 21st century. Menlo Park should stop dragging its feet on this issue. If the city wants a design that costs more, then we should agree to tax ourselves in order to achieve that goal. Interest rates are at historic lows. It will never be cheaper to borrow enough to build something good.

The solution will ultimately be to do something similar to San Carlos. The question is how much money will be frittered away on overpriced and irrelevant studies before then.

If this is done one crossing at a time it will be very expensive, take a long time and result in a dis-integrated design.

Please at least think about a more comprehensive and integrated approach.

Why not see this as an opportunity rather than a problem?

One thought is the put the trains underground, use the surface rights above it for housing in the stretches between stations and use the surface above the stations for transit connections and parking. The surface area of the current right of way is very valuable land - particularly in Atherton - and could generate a lot of the needed capital.

Why not take this as an opportunity to design a multi-dimensional, multi-purpose system that uses the existing right-of-way that includes CalTrain, HSR, utility conduits for telephone and internet cables, surface housing with high density housing around each station. And add pedestrian path and a separate bicycle path on the surface along the entire right of way. And include 3 or 4 12" conduits for the technology of the future.

We should think of this right of way as an integrated multi-modal communications spine for the peninsula.

A piecemeal approach will be very expensive.

Do it once and do it right.

Let's take the big view and come up with a win-win solution.

From a Swiss friend:
"Today Switzerland is opening a new St. Gotthard Tunnel. It will be the world’s longest RR tunnel (58 km / 36 miles) replacing the legendary old tunnel (16 km) built 140 years ago. The new tunnel will be the central component in an effort to significantly upgrade fast RR infrastructure between Northern Europe and Italy for cargo and passengers. Another 16 km tunnel between Bellinzona and Lugano will be completed in 5 years, and new container terminals near Basle and Milano / Novarra will replace inadequate infrastructure for cargo transport thru the Alps, which should double in the next 15 – 20 years.

The new tunnel is an outstanding engineering achievement. Trains will be travelling at 180 – 220 km/h (110-135mph). Political planning started 35 years ago. Construction lasted approx. 15 years. Tunneling went thru some hazardous geological formations and one large mechanical drilling train was delayed for 1 ½ years inside the mountain. Because of the length of the tunnel, construction was started at both ends and thru two shafts sunk at the 1/3 and 2/3 of is length allowing a total of 6 tunneling sites. The overburden of the Alps being 1500 - 2500 m, the miners were working in 35-45°C temperatures.
Even small incidents in long tunnels can have catastrophic consequences. For this reason, very thorough safety engineering has become the norm: the tunnel consists of 2 separate tubes (one southbound, the other northbound), both being connected by some 150 smaller flight and rescue galleries spaced every 400 m. Detailed monitoring of the dozen trains speeding inside each tube is mandatory because one train losing speed can easily cause a deadly pile-up. The shock of displaced air caused by fast trains inside narrow tubes and the ventilation of a pair of 58 km long tunnels is another challenge. The management and financing of such an infrastructure of European dimensions, is another difficult task for a small country like ours. Interestingly, the project called NEAT (= neue Eisenbahn-Alpen-Transversale) was decided by a plebiscite of the Swiss people in 1994."