Caltrain 2.0 - Elevated Grade Separations - Mike Forster - V3.10.1 1

Caltrain 2.0 - Elevated Grade Separations - Mike Forster - v3.10.1 1

Caltrain 2.0 - Elevated Grade Separations April 2017

Mike Forster, Palo Alto mikeforster.net

Contents

1 Summary ...... 4 1.1 Changes from previous versions ...... 5 2 Characteristics ...... 6 2.1 Visually attractive ...... 6 2.2 Less Expensive than trench / tunnel / road underpasses ...... 7 2.3 Faster travel times than grade-level crossings ...... 7 2.4 Quieter operation than grade-level crossings ...... 7 2.5 Safer operation than grade-level crossings ...... 8 2.6 Feasible sooner than other options ...... 8 2.7 Recovers land use for other purposes ...... 8

2.8 Elevation should precede electrification ...... 8 3 Features of this elevated tracks plan ...... 9 3.1 Elevated Tracks Summary ...... 9 3.2 Overpasses / Underpasses ...... 9 3.3 Street Crossings ...... 10 3.4 UPRR / Caltrain Impacts ...... 10 3.5 Station / Boarding Platforms ...... 10 4 Costs ...... 11 4.1 Total Cost for This Plan ...... 11 4.2 New Elevated Tracks ...... 12 4.3 New Elevated Station Platforms ...... 12 4.4 Pedestrian Underpasses ...... 12 4.5 At-Grade Road Crossing ...... 13 4.6 Road Underpasses ...... 13 4.7 UPRR / Caltrain Impacts ...... 13 5 Route Details ...... 14 5.1 San Francisco to 16th St ...... 15 5.2 16th St to Airport Blvd ...... 15 5.3 Airport Blvd to I-380 ...... 15 5.4 I-380 to Angus Ave ...... 15 5.5 Angus Ave to Millbrae Station ...... 15 5.6 Millbrae Station to Millbrae Ave ...... 15 5.7 Broadway Station to Hayward Park Station ...... 16 5.8 Hayward Park Station to Route 92...... 16 5.9 Route 92 to Hillsdale Station ...... 16 5.10 Hillsdale Station to Howard Ave...... 16 5.11 Howard Ave to Route 84 ...... 17 5.12 Route 84 to Palo Alto Station ...... 17 5.13 Palo Alto Station ...... 17 5.14 Palo Alto Station to Oregon Expwy...... 17 5.15 Oregon Expwy to San Antonio Rd ...... 18 5.16 San Antonio Rd to Mountain View Station ...... 18 5.17 Mountain View Station to Route 237 ...... 18 5.18 Route 237 to Sunnyvale Ave ...... 18

5.19 Sunnvale Ave to San Jose Diridon Station ...... 18 6 Additional Notes ...... 19 6.1 Freight Operations ...... 19 6.2 Trestle over San Francisquito Creek ...... 19 7 References ...... 20 7.1 General References ...... 20 7.2 Cost References ...... 24 8 Appendix: Caltrain 2.0 - Elevated Crossing Analysis ...... 27 8.1 Overall - San Francisco to San Jose ...... 27 8.2 Overall Summary ...... 31 8.3 San Mateo County...... 32 8.4 Santa Clara County ...... 32 8.5 Notes ...... 32

1 Summary

This Caltrain 2.0 - Elevated Tracks analysis advocates elevating Caltrain tracks to complete the separation of railway / automobile crossings from San Francisco to San Jose, avoiding lowering roads for underpasses almost entirely. This analysis extends and provides additional detail to previous publications, including [Tellier2012a], [Tellier2009a].

This analysis also advocates a single coordinated effort to complete grade separations along the Caltrain corridor. Piecemeal grade separations at only some crossings will almost certainly lead to additional expenditures in the future to integrate all of the piecemeal separations.

This analysis document is available online at this location: http://www.mikeforster.net.

This analysis describes how all but 2 of the existing grade-level auto / Caltrain crossings can be eliminated by only elevating Caltrain tracks. The 2 exceptions are Mission Bay Drive and 16th St in San Francisco, which remain grade-level crossings. These crossings will be addressed by the Caltrain Downtown Extension (DTX) project.

This analysis assumes the "blended" HSR / Caltrain approach: primarily 2 tracks the entire distance from San Francisco to San Jose Diridon station, with 2 additional passing tracks added at various locations, outside the scope of this plan [JPBCAC2012a].

This analysis provides a solution that is  Visually attractive  Less expensive than trench / tunnel / road underpasses  Faster travel times than grade-level crossings  Quieter operation than grade-level crossings  Safer operation than grade-level crossings  Recovers land use for other purposes  Feasible sooner than other options and that should  Precede electrification to avoid rework

This analysis includes the following sections:  Characteristics - expanding upon the bullet points above.  Features of this elevated tracks plan  Costs  Route Details  Options  References  Appendix: Caltrain 2.0 - Elevated Crossing Analysis (a mile-by-mile analysis of each crossing, elevation data, etc.)

1.1 Changes from previous versions

Two projects are already well into planning and partially funded, so these sections have been eliminated from this plan. These two projects are:  In Burlingame, Broadway split raised tracks / lowered road undercrossing; and  In San Mateo, elevating tracks from Highway 92 south to Hillsdale, lowering the roads at 25th St and 31st St, and moving the Hillsdale Station to near 31st St.

This plan assumes that freight traffic on Caltrain tracks will be reduced to "light freight" or eliminated altogether. This enables lighter elevated track structures which in turn helps to enable the attractive appearance options shown in section 2.1. This also enables higher track gradients. This plan applies higher gradients at these locations:  In Redwood City, a 2.41% gradient down from Chestnut St to Highway 84, which eliminates the need to lower Chestnut St.  In Redwood City, a 1.14% gradient up from 5th Avenue to Fair Oaks Ln, shortening the elevated length of track.  In Menlo Park and Palo Alto, continuing the elevated track from Redwood City, Atherton, and Menlo Park across San Francisquito Creek and Alma St / Palo Alto Ave, with a 1.54% gradient down to the Palo Alto Station. This also enables the abandonment of the existing trestle over the creek.

This plan also "flattens" the elevated track in Palo Alto from the Palo Alto Station over Churchill Ave. Rather than descending from the station and then rising again over Churchill Ave, this plan keeps the track level from the Palo Alto Station over Churchill and then down to the California Ave Station. The Palo Alto Station track altitude is about 20 feet higher than the Churchill Ave track altitude. This does cause the need to raise the boarding platforms at the Stanford Station at Embarcadero Road by 15 feet.

This plan eliminates the new pedestrian undercrossing at the Santa Clara Station, which Caltrain and VTA completed in 2016.

2 Characteristics

2.1 Visually attractive

Elevated tracks can be quite attractive, not the community-dividing berm visualized by some. Here are just a few examples of elevated tracks - pleasing, perhaps even beautiful and graceful to some. (All images are from Google Earth / Streetview [GoogleEarth].) Landscape screening could further reduce the visual impact of elevated tracks [MtnView1].

Elevated rails do not cause detrimental effects on neighborhoods. In fact, in many cases, such elevated rails have enhanced neighborhoods [Wilk2010a].

Monterosso, Italy Paris, France - Bercy

Sunnyside, NY Paris, France - Blvd. St. Jacques

Tysons Corner, VA - Westpark Dr Metro Union City, CA - Kennedy Park - BART

2.2 Less Expensive than trench / tunnel / road underpasses

This plan details 16.5 miles of elevated track, 5 new elevated boarding platforms, 7 new pedestrian underpasses, NO new auto / bike underpasses, at a total cost of $739M. This total is much less expensive than any configuration of trenching or tunneling for tracks or road underpasses.

This plan avoids road construction costs, by fully elevating the tracks and leaving roadways at grade level (with 2 exceptions), rather than partial track elevation and partial road lowering.

This plan advocates a complete approach to all remaining road crossings, rather than a piecemeal approach. For example, Burlingame and San Mateo could comprehensively plan elevating tracks from Oak Grove to 9th Ave, rather than elevating just over Broadway [DailyPost2016a], with long-term cost savings.

This plan avoids the complexities of a trench or tunnel where road underpasses or creeks exist: Jefferson, 5th Ave, Embarcadero, Oregon Expwy, San Francisquito Creek and other creeks. Other road underpasses would require acquiring some private properties through eminent domain, and would result in some undesirable transitions between the underpass and nearby roads, such as Alma St.

Committing to a complete plan like this soon will bring additional savings, by avoiding expenses for cities and counties through cost avoidance by eliminating the need for additional studies and planning for grade-crossing safety, quiet zones, and pedestrian / bicycle / wheelchair crossing improvements.

2.3 Faster travel times than grade-level crossings

Grade-level crossings limit Caltrain express and local train speeds. Completely separated crossings will enable higher speeds for the entire route.

2.4 Quieter operation than grade-level crossings

Elevated tracks will inherently eliminate the noise from train horns and grade-level crossing gate bells. The sound emanating from an elevated track is barely higher than that of a ground-level track.

Once Caltrain is electrified:  All-electric locomotives eliminate the noise from diesel engines.  An electric high-speed train just travel at about 150 mph to produce the same sound level as a diesel-electric train at 79 mph.  A train operating at 125 mph can be heard for about 7 seconds, less than a train operating at 79 mph which can be heard for about 11 seconds.

For selected track stretches bordering residential areas or schools, sound barriers could be added to the elevated tracks, further reducing the noise perceived by up to nearly half. (The comments above are taken or derived from [CAHSR2010a].)

With grade-level crossings, 79 mph is the maximum speed for Caltrain; 80 mph with Positive Train Control (PTC) [Caltrain2011b]. Electrified Caltrain trains are planned to operate at a maximum speed of 125 mph, less than the 150 mph mentioned above [Caltrain2013a].

2.5 Safer operation than grade-level crossings

Grade-separated crossings, of course, eliminate any interactions between trains and automobiles and other vehicles, bicycles, wheelchairs, and pedestrians, thereby eliminating the possibility of collisions.

2.6 Feasible sooner than other options

Elevated tracks have the least expense and complications of any of the alternatives: less expense and therefore a shorter timeframe to obtain necessary financing, less complicated construction, fewer complications with existing underpasses and creeks, and no need to acquire land through eminent domain. This plan could be implemented in short years rather than decades.

2.7 Recovers land use for other purposes

This plan recovers over 10 miles of right of way with a clearance of 8 feet or more under newly elevated tracks, land that can be applied to other purposes. These could include:  parks, partially covered by the elevated tracks;  community gardens, partially covered by the elevated tracks;  parking, which could replace other existing municipal parking lots, freeing up those locations for redevelopment;  housing.

2.8 Elevation should precede electrification

Grade separations should complete prior to electrification. Otherwise, any track that is elevated or lowered later will incur rework to move the catenary cables.

The construction cost per mile of electrification is $937M for 51+ miles, or $18.3M per mile. ($937M is $958M minus Previous Electrification Project Phase Actuals [Caltrain2014a].)

This plan's inclined / elevated / declined track totals 16.49 miles. If all of the elevated track described in this plan were later elevated or lowered, that electrification rework cost could total up to 16.49 miles x $18.37M per mile, or $303M, minus whatever electrification parts and supplies could be reused.

3 Features of this elevated tracks plan

3.1 Elevated Tracks Summary

Section 5 details the 10 new elevated sections totaling 16.49 miles, or 35% of the total distance from San Francisco / 4th and King to San Jose / Diridon Station.

The average gradient of the newly elevated sections is 0.50%; the maximum is 2.14%. Gradients of up to 3% are barely or not at all noticeable by passengers. BART has a maximum gradient of 4% [Wikipedia2016a]. Caltrain prefers a maximum gradient of 1%, although gradients of up to 2% may be allowed for new construction projects, if approved by the Caltrain Deputy Director of Engineering [Caltrain2011a]. "Light freight" or no freight at all on the Caltrain tracks further enables higher gradients which shortens the elevated inclines and declines, and also enables lighter structures.

Enough elevated distance has been provided for the inclines / declines to enable vertical curve radii of 10 km or more, required for freight traffic [Tellier2009a].

The average gradient of the existing and newly elevated sections for the entire distance from San Francisco to San Jose is 0.31%; the maximum gradient is 2.14%. [All elevation and gradient calculations derive from Google Earth elevation data [GoogleEarth].)

3.2 Overpasses / Underpasses

All new Caltrain / automobile crossings are train overpasses over streets at grade level. All new elevated overpasses have 16 foot clearance, except for Chestnut St at 14 feet. An additional 4 feet is added for the structure itself, so the new elevated tracks are 20 feet above the existing tracks and roadway, except for Chestnut St at 18 feet.

Existing auto underpasses continue unchanged under newly elevated tracks, at Hillcrest Blvd, Jefferson Ave, and 5th Ave.

The existing grade-level crossing at Scott (San Bruno) would be closed and converted to a pedestrian crossing, replaced with a new grade-level crossing under elevated tracks at Tanforan.

Pedestrian underpasses are added at stations to complete the train / pedestrian grade separations: Hayward Park, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Lawrence, and College Park.

Pedestrian underpasses are added where Caltrain automobile grade crossings are closed: Castro St and Sunnyvale Ave.

The existing grade-level crossings at Broadway in Burlingame and 25th Ave in San Mateo are being addressed in separate projects already in the planning stages, at least partially funded, and not addressed in this plan.

3.3 Street Crossings

Two existing grade-level crossings would remain: Mission Bay and 16th St. These would be addressed by the DTX project. In the meantime, trains would slow passing these locations anyway, as they approach or depart the 4th and King station.

This plan closes the Scott St in San Bruno auto crossing, changing it to a pedestrian crossing underneath newly elevated tracks; Scott St is too close to I-380 to enable elevated tracks.

To replace the Scott St crossing, this plan add a new at-grade road crossing at Tanforan Ave in San Bruno, a quarter mile north of Scott St., under newly elevated tracks.

This plan closes the grade-level automobile street crossing at Castro St in Mountain View, changing it to a pedestrian underpass. This has the general support of the Mountain View City Council [Lowell2016a].

This plan closes the grade-level street crossing at Sunnyvale Ave, changing it to a pedestrian underpass. Sunnyvale Ave is too close to Mathilda Ave and Sunnyvale station to enable elevated tracks.

3.4 UPRR / Caltrain Impacts

These newly elevated sections impact only 3 instances of existing UPRR or Caltrain crossovers or spurs. This plan:  Moves the crossover in Redwood City to a different location (to be determined).  Abandons two apparently unused spurs, in San Mateo and Menlo Park.

3.5 Station / Boarding Platforms

Boarding platforms at 5 locations would be elevated with the tracks: Burlingame, San Mateo, Redwood City, Menlo Park, and Stanford. 1 station would be discontinued: Atherton.

Any existing Caltrain stations and newly elevated boarding platforms should accommodate both regular and express trains. BART station platforms are 710 feet, to accommodate maximal BART trains of 10 cars, "the longest trains of any metro system in the United States." [Wikipedia2016a]

4 Costs

4.1 Total Cost for This Plan

The total estimated cost for all elements of this plan is $666.32M, as follows. (Blue indicates changes from previous versions.)

Costs $M / Miles $M Unit unit or Ct Caltrain elevated tracks 41.00 14.71 603.11 miles New elevated boarding platforms 6.60 5.00 33.00 count Pedestrian underpass 4.10 7.00 28.70 count Road crossings - at grade 0.23 1.00 0.23 Tanforan Ave Road crossings - underpasses 0.00 0.00 none Caltrain impact 1.29 1.00 1.29 Hwy 84

Total Planning Estimate 666.32

In 2014, a study sponsored by the City of Palo Alto and performed by Hatch Mott McDonald resulted in the cost estimates below. [PaloAlto2014a]

Alternative Location Cost $M Creek Impacts Property Acquisitions Trench 1% Oregon Expwy to 1,050,73 Yes, more 0 San Antonio Road Trench 2% Oregon Expwy to 488.19 Yes, less 0 San Antonio Road

Alternative Location Cost $M Discontinue Turns Property Acquisitions Road Underpasses Churchill Ave 90.33 Alma St at grade 16 (full), 4 (partial) Meadow Dr 84.58 Alma St at grade 11 (full), 5 (partial) Charleston Rd 101.78 Alma St at grade 18 (full), 3 (partial) Total 276.69 45 (full), 12 (partial)

Alternative Location Cost $M Maintain Turns Property Acquisitions Road Underpasses Churchill Ave 183.51 Lower Alma St 33 (full), 3 (partial) Meadow Dr 143.39 Lower Alma St 14 (full), 4 (partial) Charleston Rd 152.90 Lower Alma St 18 (full), 3 (partial) Total 479.80 65 (full), 10 (partial)

These options cost between $276.69M and $1,050.73M, just to address existing grade crossings at 3 locations in Palo Alto. Presumably, similar costs could be estimated for the other over 35 existing grade crossings between South San Francisco and Sunnyvale.

Clearly, this plan's elevated tracks approach has a much better cost / benefit ratio than trenching or road underpasses.

4.2 New Elevated Tracks

Various sources provide a range of estimated costs, from $15.9M to $72.1M per mile:

 [Quandel2011] Minnesota - HSR Double Track on 15’ Retained Earth Fill (2011): $15.9M per mile (2011).  [WB2014] China: $21.91M per mile (2015).  [Feig2013] Europe - $25M to $84M per mile (2013).  [SWC2010] DMU: $6000 per foot (2003), $7762 per foot (2016, at 2% per year) = $40.98M per mile.  [CAHSR2016a] San Jose to Gilroy: $2,163M for 30 miles = $72.1M per mile (2016), including electrification.

For this plan, the high middle estimate was chosen: $41M ($40.98M) per mile. For 16.49 miles of newly elevated double track, this totals $676.1M.

4.3 New Elevated Station Platforms

For South Central Alaska, 1 new grade-level station is estimated to cost $3.3M (2013), including 500 parking spaces, an enclosed waiting room, and ticket facilities [SCA2014].

For MetroLink in Southern California, the applicable costs for 1 new grade-level 600-foot platform at Vincent Grade total $1.2M [Metrolink2011a]. 2 such platforms would total $2.4M.

In this Caltrain Elevated plan, each of the 5 new elevated station platforms would not have additional parking spaces, but would have covered waiting areas and ticket facilities. This plan uses estimate of 2x the Alaska cost and 2.75x the Vincent Grade cost to account for the elevation of the platforms, or $6.6M per station. For 5 stations, this totals $33.0M.

4.4 Pedestrian Underpasses

The pedestrian underpass at Homer St cost $4.1M [Grover2011].

This cost is used for each of the 7 new pedestrian underpasses, for a total cost of $28.7M.

4.5 At-Grade Road Crossing

The Tanforan Ave road crossing is at grade, under the new elevated track, to replace the current at grade crossing at Scott St, which is replaced by a pedestrian crossing under the new elevated track.

An estimate for New Construction 2 Lane Undivided Urban road is $3.818M per mile [CF2010].

The new crossing would be 0.02 mile in length x $3.818M = $0.076M ($76,000). This cannot benefit from the advantages of scale in larger construction projects, so an estimate of 3x $.076M is used in the plan, or $0.23M.

4.6 Road Underpasses

The road underpasses at Chestnut St and Alma St / Palo Alto Ave in previous versions have been eliminated by applying higher gradients partially enabled by "light freight" (or no freight) traffic on Caltrain tracks, so this cost item has been eliminated.

4.7 UPRR / Caltrain Impacts

The only UPRR impacts are to abandon 2 apparently unused sidings, near North Ln and near Hillsdale station. No cost has been included for these abandonments.

The only impact to Caltrain is to eliminate the crossover just north of Route 84 and install a crossover at a TBD location. This should cost on the order of $1.29M [Quandel2011].

5 Route Details

These sections describe the newly-elevated sections: 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, 5.9, 5.11, 5.12, 5.14, 5.15, 5.16, 5.18.

These sections lists new pedestrian underpasses to complete the grade separations: 5.7, 5.16 (2), 5.18 (2), 5.19 (2).

Figure 5.1 depicts the 9 sections of elevated track described in subsequent sections. (Map based on Google Maps.)

5.3

5.5

Broadway (separate project) 5.7

25th Ave / 31st Ave (separate project)

5.11

5.12 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.18

5.1 San Francisco to 16th St

Unchanged. Mission Bay Dr and 16th St to remain grade-level crossings. Express and local trains will slow down for entry to San Francisco / 4th and King Station. Caltrain Downtown Extension (DTX) might lower tracks at these crossing in the future.

5.2 16th St to Airport Blvd

Unchanged. All existing crossings are grade-separated.

5.3 Airport Blvd to I-380

Total newly elevated distance: 1.03 miles. Maximum gradient: 0.83%.

Incline to elevated tracks over Linden Ave and Tanforan Ave. New Tanforan Ave grade-level crossing under elevated tracks. Decline to I-380. Current Scott St grade-level crossing closed, converted to grade-level pedestrian underpass under elevated tracks.

5.4 I-380 to Angus Ave

No changes. All existing crossings are grade-separated.

5.5 Angus Ave to Millbrae Station

Total newly elevated distance: 1.02 miles. Maximum gradient: 0.91%.

Incline to elevated tracks over Center St, Monterey / Hemlock, and Hillcrest Blvd. Decline to Millbrae station. Existing Monterey / Hemlock pedestrian underpass continues under elevated track. Existing Hillcrest Blvd auto underpass continues under elevated track.

5.6 Millbrae Station to Millbrae Ave

No changes. Millbrae Ave crossing is grade-separated.

5.7 Broadway Station to Hayward Park Station

Total newly elevated distance: 3.59 miles. Maximum gradient: 0.95%.

Note: A Broadway grade separation project is already being planned, and might be at least partially funded. So, this crossing is not included in this plan.

Incline to elevated tracks over starting just south of the Broadway station through 9th Ave. Existing Morrell Ave pedestrian underpass continues under elevated track. Just north of North Ln, abandon apparently unused spur. Add elevated platform to Burlingame station. Add elevated platform to San Mateo station. Decline to Hayward Park station. New pedestrian underpass at Hayward Park station, to replace existing grade-level crossing.

San Mateo station is not a candidate for 4 tracks, due to station and commercial buildings.

5.8 Hayward Park Station to Route 92

No changes. Route 92 crossing is grade-separated.

5.9 Route 92 to Hillsdale Station

Note: A grade separation project from Hwy 92 to Hillsdale, across 25th Ave and 31st Ave with a new station near 31st Ave, is already being planned, and might be at least partially funded. So, this crossing is not included in this plan.

5.10 Hillsdale Station to Howard Ave.

No changes.

5.11 Howard Ave to Route 84

Total newly elevated distance: 1.52 miles. Maximum gradient: 2.41%.

Incline to elevated tracks over Whipple Ave, Brewster Ave, Marshall St., Jefferson Ave. Add elevated boarding platforms to Redwood City station. Existing Jefferson Ave auto underpass continues under elevated track. Decline starts after Jefferson Ave. Elevated tracks over Main St, with a 16-foot clearance. Elevated tracks over Chestnut St, with a 14-foot clearance. Caltrain crossover north of Route 84 moves to another location (to be determined). Decline ends before Route 84.

5.12 Route 84 to Palo Alto Station

Total newly elevated distance: 2.75 miles. Maximum gradient: 1.82%.

Incline starts south of 5th Ave to elevated tracks over Fair Oaks Ln. Discontinue Atherton station. Continue elevated tracks over Watkins Ave, Encinal Ave, Glenwood Ave, Oak Grove Ave. Add elevated platform to Menlo Park station. Continue elevated tracks over San Francisquito Creek and Alma St / Palo Alto Ave. (Just north of Alma St, avoid impacting El Palo Alto tree.) Decline from Alma St / Palo Alto Ave to the Palo Alto Station.

5.13 Palo Alto Station

As a separate project not related to elevating the tracks, the curve at the Palo Alto station could be nearly straightened by moving the at-grade tracks somewhat east along the existing northbound platform. However, if Palo Alto is a stop for express trains, then all trains, including express trains, would have to slow and stop at this station, and the existing curve should not be an issue.

5.14 Palo Alto Station to Oregon Expwy

Total newly elevated distance: 1.32 miles. Maximum gradient: 0.98%.

Tracks at Palo Alto Station are 20 feet higher than tracks at Churchill Ave. Start level elevated tracks from the Palo Alto Station over Churchill Ave. Decline to California Ave. Unchanged California Ave station, including pedestrian underpass.

5.15 Oregon Expwy to San Antonio Rd

Total newly elevated distance: 1.48 miles. Maximum gradient: 0.79%.

Unchanged existing Oregon Expwy auto underpass. Incline to elevated tracks over Meadow Dr and Charleston Ave. Decline to San Antonio Rd.

5.16 San Antonio Rd to Mountain View Station

Total newly elevated distance: 0.90 miles. Maximum gradient: 0.87%.

Incline to elevated tracks over Rengstorff Ave. Existing Mayfield Ave pedestrian underpass continues under elevated track. Decline to Shoreline Blvd. Current Castro St grade-level crossing closed, converted to pedestrian underpass under grade-level tracks. New pedestrian underpass at Mountain View station (south end), to replace existing grade-level crossing.

5.17 Mountain View Station to Route 237

Unchanged.

5.18 Route 237 to Sunnyvale Ave

Total newly elevated distance: 1.10 miles. Maximum gradient: 0.82%.

Incline to elevated tracks over Mary Ave. Decline to Mathilda Ave. New pedestrian underpass at Sunnyvale station, to replace existing grade-level crossing. Current Sunnyvale Ave grade-level crossing closed, converted to pedestrian underpass under grade-level tracks.

5.19 Sunnvale Ave to San Jose Diridon Station

Unchanged track elevations. New pedestrian underpasses at Lawrence, College Park stations, to replace existing grade-level crossings.

6 Additional Notes

6.1 Freight Operations

Caltrain should eliminate heavy freight operations on the Peninsula, and allow only light freight operations as is common in other countries (or no freight operations at all). This would enable: 1) lighter and less expensive elevated structures [Tellier2009b]; 2) steeper inclines and declines, thereby shortening the elevated construction distance necessary, thereby reducing costs.

6.2 Trestle over San Francisquito Creek

This plan abandons the use of the existing trestle over San Francisquito Creek in Palo Alto. If this trestle can be retained under the new elevated tracks, it could become a new pedestrian / bike route between Menlo Park and Palo Alto.

7 References

7.1 General References

[Bellomo2009] Bellomo Architects - article - High-Speed Rail: A Transit Opportunity (2009) http://www.bellomoarchitects.com/pdf/Bellomo_HSR_for_SJB.pdf http://www.bellomoarchitects.com/images/train/text1.jpg http://www.bellomoarchitects.com/images/train/2.jpg http://www.bellomoarchitects.com/projects.html

[BKF2003] BKF Engineers - report - Menlo Park Grade Separation Feasibility Study (2003) http://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/6440 Section F - Noise Effects

[Caltrain2011a] Caltrain - manual - Caltrain Design Criteria, Chapter 2 - Track (2011) http://www.caltrain.com/assets/_engineering/engineering-standards-2/criteria/CHAPTER2.pdf Section 7.1 - Grades.

[Caltrain2011b] Caltrain - manual - Caltrain Design Criteria, Chapter 7 - Grade Crossings (2011) http://www.caltrain.com/assets/_engineering/engineering-standards-2/criteria/CHAPTER7.pdf Maximum speed: 79 mph, 80 mph with Positive Train Control (PTC).

[Caltrain2013a] Caltrain - report - Caltrain / HSR Blended Grade Crossing and Traffic Analysis (2013) http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Blended+System/Caltrain- HSR+Blended+Grade+Crossing$!26Traffic+Analysis-Final.pdf Maximum speed contemplated: 125 mph.

[Cruickshank2009a] Cruickshank, Robert - article - Why An HSR Design Competition Is An Excellent Idea (2009) http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-hsr-design-competition-is-excellent.html Mentions Rafael's La Vitrine concept from March 2009.

[Lowell2016a] Lowell, Jen, Daily Post - article - Mountain View Council favors closing Castro St. at railroad tracks (2016) http://nl.newsbank.com/nl- search/we/Archives?p_product=SFDB&p_theme=sfdb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstrin g=council%20favors%20closing%20castro%20st%20AND%20date%28all%29&p_field_advanced- 0=&p_text_advanced- 0=%28council%20favors%20closing%20castro%20st%29&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort= YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

[Fukuji2009] Fukuji, Bruce A - report - Context Sensitive Solutions for the Peninsula (2009) http://www.tillier.net/blogstuff/CSS_v5_presentation_for_nov_4.pdf

[Google1] Google.com - Palo Alto: vitrine + air rights + underpassess https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/viewer?mid=z691PWv6gQPM.knAvdASgSvlU&hl=en_US&authu ser=1

[GoogleEarth] Google Earth - application Elevation data (2016) Street Views: Images of railroad viaducts (2016)

[JPB2004a] Peninsula JPB - report - Corridor Map (Palo Alto station to Churchill Ave) (2004) http://www.tillier.net/caltrain_maps/30-TCCM-200-B.pdf Shows right of way available to straighten the Caltrain track curve at Palo Alto station.

[JPB2009a] Peninsula JPB Petition of Joint Powers Board / Caltrain for Approval of Mixed Use and Waiver of Certain Federal Railroad Administration Regulations ... (2009) http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/FRA+Waiver+2009/Calt rain+Mixed+Traffic+Request.pdf Describes plan to restrict freight traffic between San Francisco and Santa Clara to midnight to 5 am.

[JPBCAC2012a] Peninsula JPB CAC - minutes - March 21, 2012 (2012) http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/CAC/Minutes/2012/3-21- 12+JPB+CAC+Minutes.pdf Passing tracks - pages 1-2, bullets 1 and 2 Primarily 2 tracks - page 2, bullet 9

[LTK2012a] LTK Engineering Services - report - Caltrain/California HSR Blended Operations Analysis (2012) http://www.caltrain.com/AssetFactory.aspx?did=3210 Describes 4 and simulates operations for 3 possible overtake locations. For the Peninsula Joint Powers Board.

[Levin2015] Levin, A. 4- article - San Mateo sprints ahead for San Mateo County grade separation funding ... (2015) http://www.greencaltrain.com/2015/11/san-mateo-sprints-ahead-for-san-mateo-county-grade-separation- funding-menlo-park-and-burlingame-advance/

[McFall2009] McFall, Jim - video - California High Speed Rail, Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto (2009) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkdsvYSK87g

[MtnView1] Mountain View, City of - report - Preliminary High Speed Rail Urban Design. Visualizations and Alternatives (2010) www.ftscities.com/files/High%20Speed%20Rail_v1_print.pdf Depicts examples of landscape screening. In collaboration with Van Meter Williams Pollack LLP.

[DailyPost2016a] Daily Post, City may elevate train tracks (2016, May 16) http://www.padailypost.com/ Alternatives under consideration by the City of Burlingame to elevate tracks over Broadway.

[Rafael2009a] Rafael - article - La Vitrine (2009) http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2009/03/la-vitrine.html

[Rafael2009b] Rafael - article - The Mid-Peninsula HSR Station http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2009/02/mid-peninsula-hsr-station.html Discussion of station options, and also of freight and catenary electrification clearance requirements.

[Robinson2009] Robinson, Mark and Kapoor, Ajay, editors - report - Fatigue in Railway Infrastructure (2009) "For railways with heavy haul (freight) trains, gradients under 2% are preferred." (page 41)

[SJMN2011a] San Jose Mercury News - article - Silicon Valley's Grand Central Station (2011) http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17953785

[Tellier2008a] Tellier, Clem - article - Focus on Palo Alto http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2008/12/focus-on-palo-alto.html Vertical track profile for Palo Alto

[Tellier2009a] Tellier, Clem - article - The Shape of Palo Alto http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/05/shape-of-palo-alto.html Vertical track profile for Palo Alto; chart of incline distances by gradient and vertical curve radius.

[Tellier2009b] Tellier, Clem - article - The Effect of Heavy Freight http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/08/effect-of-heavy-freight.html

[Tellier2012a] Tellier, Clem - article - Grade Separation: The Decadal View (2012) http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2012/12/grade-separation-decadal-view.html The excellent grade separation chart was the basis for imitating the analysis that led to this plan.

[Wilk2010a] Wikipedia - article - Do elevated rails inhibit sustainable, walkable urban places? http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/5058/do-elevated-rails-inhibit-sustainable-walkable-urban- places/

[Wikipedia2016a] Wikipedia - article - Bay Area Rapid Transit (2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit Maximum gradient is 4%. Maximum train length of 10 cars is 710 feet, "the longest trains of any metro system in the United States."

7.2 Cost References

[CAHSR2010a] California High-Speed Rail Authority - report - Key Points - Sound and High-Speed Trains (2010) http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Peninsula+Rail+Program/CHSRA_Sound_key_points_102110.pdf

[CAHSR2012a] California High-Speed Rail Authority - report - Capital Cost Estimate Report - Merced to Fresno Section (2012) http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/merced-fresno-eir/final_EIR_MerFres_TR_CapitalCost.pdf

[CAHSR2016a] California High-Speed Rail Authority - report - Capital Cost Basis of Estimate Report (2016) http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/DRAFT_2016_Business_Plan_Basis_of_Estimate.pdf

[Caltrain2014a] Caltrain - report - Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Cost / Schedule Update (2014) http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Presentations/Cost+Schedule+Updat e+Nov2014.pdf High-level cost elements for the electrification project.

[CF2010] capitolfax.com - report - Generic Cost per Mile Models (2010) http://capitolfax.com/summary.pdf New Construction 2 Lane Undivided Urban: $3.818M per mile.

[Feig2013] Feigenbaum, Baruch /Reason.org - High-Speed Rail in Europe and Asia: Lessons for the United States (2013) http://reason.org/files/high_speed_rail_lessons.pdf

[Grover2011] Steven Grover & Associates - web page - Homer Avenue Caltrain Bicycle/Pedestrian Railroad Undercrossing (2011) http://www.stevengrover.com/01-11-homer-avenue/ Homer Avenue underpass cost: $4.1M.

[in2013dollars] in2013dollars.com - Inflation Calculator (2016) http://www.in2013dollars.com/1936-dollars-in-2016?amount=160000 $160,000 in 1936 is equivalent to $2.74M in 2016.

[Metrolink2011a] Metrolink - report - Vincent Grade/Acton Station Second Platform Project Project Definition and Concept Design Report (2011) http://www.metrolinktrains.com/pdfs/EngineeringConstruction/Design_Procedures_Manual_App_B_Sa mple_Docs_10.24.14.pdf

MetroLink Vincent Grade - HDR Engineering - 2009 Construction Costs Notes Item Cost (Sub)Totals 03300 Cast-in-Place Concrete 673,000 06000 Architectural 207000 16000 Electrical 39000 Subtotal 919,000

01000 Adminstrative Construction Cost % 10% 91,900 Subtotal 1,010,900

Contingency % of above 20% 202,180 Total 1,213,080

[PAHist1936] Palo Alto History.org - article - The Embarcadero Underpass: Accident Before Action (date unknown) http://www.paloaltohistory.org/embarcadero-underpass.php $160,000 (1936)

[PaloAlto2014a] City of Palo Alto - report - Palo Alto Grade Separation and Trenching Study https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44211 Palo Alto underpass or trenching options for 3 cross streets from $277M to $1,051M.

[Quandel2011] Quandel Consultants, LLC - report - Appendix E - Cost Estimating Methodology for High-Speed Rail on Shared Right-of-Way (2011) http://www.dot.state.mn.us/passengerrail/mwrri/files/Appendix%20E- Cost%20Estimating%20Methodology.pdf #33 Crossover: $1.285M; 3 mile freight siding: $4.288M.

[River2014] Riverside County Transportation Department - report - Sunset Ave Grade Separation Project Overview (2014) http://rcprojects.org/sunsetave/ Construction cost estimate: $26.9M.

[SCA2014] South Central Alaska Commuter Rail - document - Concept of Operations (2014) http://www.asrpoloh.com/assets/111815-appendix-c-commuter-rail.pdf

[SWC2010] Southwest Corridor (Minneapolis MN) - report - Rail Feasibility Study Appendix F (2010) http://old.swlrtcommunityworks.org/home.html https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ah UKEwjV3dDtkN3LAhXKJZQKHbTtBvo4ChAWCBswAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fold.swlrtcommunit yworks.org%2Ftechnical-documents%2Fdoc_download%2F470-rail-feasibility-study-appendix-f- capital-cost- estimate.html&usg=AFQjCNHJqZKldUZDveQAwAXsW_tnPKsfOw&bvm=bv.117868183,d.dGo

[VTP2035] Valley Transportation Plan 2035, Appendix A (2009) http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/version/download/068A0000001Fbs0 Underpasses: R17 - Rengstorff Ave: $65M; R33, R35 - Branham Lane / Monterey Hwy: $30M

[WB2014] World Bank - article - High-Speed Railways in China: A Look at Construction Costs (2014) http://www- wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2015/09/08/090224b0828c3540/1_0/ Rendered/PDF/High0speed0rai00construction0costs.pdf

Conversion factors > 6.50 1.60 RMB- Table 3 - 250 km/h = 150 mi/h M/km $M/km $M/mi Bridges / Viaducts 73.00 11.23 17.97 Track 13.00 2.00 3.20 Signaling and Communications 3.00 0.46 0.74 Total 89.00 13.69 21.91

RMB-M $M Stations (small) 40.00 6.15

[WSDOT2012] Washington State Department of Transportation - report - Planning Level Cost Estimation (2012) http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/travel/pdf/PLCEManual_12-12-2012.pdf Exhibit 8: Diamond interchange at rural / minor cross road: $24.48M.

8 Appendix: Caltrain 2.0 - Elevated Crossing Analysis 8.1 Overall - San Francisco to San Jose

Caltrain 2.0 - Elevated Crossings Analysis - Mike Forster - v3.10 © Mike Forster 2017 Blue shading indicates changes from previous versions Grey indicates sections covered by other projects being planned (See analysis legend >) d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s r Units > feet feet feet feet feet feet miles miles miles flag miles miles % count count count City Sta- Raodway Xing / Orig. New Elev. Elev. New - Clear- Mile- Dis- Elev. New Elev. Elev. Elev. New UPRR Ped / Plans / Notes tion Pedestrain Xing / Elev. Elev. Chg. Chg. Orig. ance point tance Len. Ele- Len. Len. Gra- Elev. / Cal- Road Elevated Track (Abs) Elev. Above vated Clear. Clear. dient Plat- train Xing Diff. Orig. Factor >= 8 ft form Impac (new) ts SF San Francisco 6 6 0 0 0.00 SF I-280 8 8 2 2 0 0 0.48 0.48 SF Mission Bay Dr 10 10 2 2 0 0 0.79 0.31 grade level SF 16th St 0 0 1.08 0.29 grade level SF Mariposa St 0 0 1.29 0.21 SF 18th St 0 0 1.43 0.14 SF 20th St 0 0 1.57 0.14 SF 22nd 0 0 1.71 0.14 SF 22nd St 0 0 1.72 0.01 SF 23rd St 0 0 1.90 0.18 SF 25th St 21 21 0 0 2.09 0.19 SF Cesar Chavez St 28 28 7 7 0 0 2.28 0.19 0.70% SF I-280 32 32 4 4 0 0 2.44 0.16 0.47% SF Evans Ave 28 28 -4 4 0 0 2.54 0.10 -0.76% SF I-280 CC exit 28 28 0 0 0 0 2.54 0.00 0.00% SF Jerrold Ave 30 30 2 2 0 0 2.85 0.31 0.12% SF Quint St 29 29 -1 1 0 0 3.00 0.15 -0.13% SF Oakdale Ave 29 29 0 0 0 0 3.14 0.14 0.00% SF (multiple) 31 31 2 2 0 0 3.30 0.16 0.24% SF Williams Ave 26 26 -5 5 0 0 3.66 0.36 -0.26% Bris Paul Ave 23 23 -3 3 0 0 4.15 0.49 -0.12% Bris (multiple) 21 21 -2 2 0 0 4.57 0.42 -0.09% Bris Bayshore 17 17 -4 4 0 0 5.19 0.62 -0.12% Bris Tunnel Ave 11 11 -6 6 0 0 6.64 1.45 -0.08% Bris US-101 11 11 0 0 0 0 7.65 1.01 0.00% Bris Sierra Point 101 10 10 -1 1 0 0 7.84 0.19 -0.10% SSF Oyster Point Bl 12 12 2 2 0 0 8.60 0.76 0.05% SSF Oyster Point 101 12 12 0 0 0 0 8.61 0.01 0.00% SSF South SF 12 12 0 0 0 0 9.21 0.60 0.00% SSF East Grand Ave 12 12 0 0 0 0 9.22 0.01 0.00% SSF US-101 15 15 3 3 0 0 9.40 0.18 0.32% SSF Airport Blvd 17 17 2 2 0 0 9.59 0.19 0.20% SSF incline starts 12 12 -5 5 0 0 9.79 0.20 -0.47% SSF Linden Ave 13 33 21 21 20 16 10.27 0.48 elev 0.50 0.24 0.83% SB Tanforan Ave 14 34 1 1 20 16 10.38 0.11 elev 1.00 0.11 0.17% road grade level SB Scott St 21 33 -1 1 12 8 10.62 0.24 elev 1.00 0.24 -0.08% close ped (result) SB decline ends 26 26 -7 7 0 0 10.82 0.20 1.03 elev -0.66% SB I-380 26 26 0 0 0 0 10.82 0.00 0.00% SB Euclid Ave 32 32 6 6 0 0 10.93 0.11 1.03% ped (exist.) SB San Bruno 35 35 3 3 0 0 11.07 0.14 0.41% SB San Bruno Ave 35 35 0 0 0 0 11.08 0.01 0.00% SB San Mateo Ave 34 34 -1 1 0 0 11.13 0.05 -0.38% SB Angus Ave 31 31 -3 3 0 0 11.39 0.26 -0.22% Mill incline starts 10 10 -21 21 0 0 12.29 0.90 -0.44% Mill Center St 13 33 23 23 20 16 12.77 0.48 elev 0.50 0.24 0.91% Mill Monterey 22 34 1 1 12 8 13.04 0.27 elev 1.00 0.27 0.07% ped (exist.) Mill Hillcrest Blvd 21 21 -13 13 0 0 13.31 0.27 elev -0.91% above exist. Mill decline ends 13 13 -8 8 0 0 13.31 0.00 1.02 elev 0.00%

Caltrain 2.0 - Elevated Crossings Analysis - Mike Forster - v3.10 © Mike Forster 2017 Blue shading indicates changes from previous versions Grey indicates sections covered by other projects being planned (See analysis legend >) d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s r Units > feet feet feet feet feet feet miles miles miles flag miles miles % count count count City Sta- Raodway Xing / Orig. New Elev. Elev. New - Clear- Mile- Dis- Elev. New Elev. Elev. Elev. New UPRR Ped / Plans / Notes tion Pedestrain Xing / Elev. Elev. Chg. Chg. Orig. ance point tance Len. Ele- Len. Len. Gra- Elev. / Cal- Road Elevated Track (Abs) Elev. Above vated Clear. Clear. dient Plat- train Xing Diff. Orig. Factor >= 8 ft form Impac (new) ts Mill Millbrae 13 13 0 0 0 0 13.65 0.34 0.00% Mill Millbrae Ave 13 13 0 0 0 0 13.67 0.02 0.00% Burl Broadway 13 13 0 0 0 0 15.17 1.50 new split sep Burl Broadway 13 13 0 0 0 0 15.20 0.03 0.00% Burl B'wayend sta platform 13 13 0 0 0 0 15.30 0.10 0.00% Burl incline starts 13 13 0 0 0 0 15.30 0.00 elev 0.00 0.00 0.00% Burl Morrell Ave 16 29 16 16 13 9 15.62 0.32 elev 0.00 0.00 0.95% ped (exist.) Burl Oak Grove Ave 22 42 13 13 20 16 15.90 0.28 elev 0.50 0.14 0.88% avoid trees Burl North Ln 31 52 10 10 21 17 16.28 0.38 elev 1.00 0.38 0.50% spur avoid trees Burl Burlingame 31 52 0 0 21 17 16.29 0.01 elev 1.00 0.01 0.00% 1 4 tracks? Burl Burl end sta platform 31 52 0 0 21 17 16.42 0.13 elev 1.00 0.13 0.00% 4 tracks? Burl Howard Ave 32 52 0 0 20 16 16.44 0.02 elev 1.00 0.02 0.00% Burl Bayswater Ave 32 52 0 0 20 16 16.58 0.14 elev 1.00 0.14 0.00% SM Peninsula Ave 32 52 0 0 20 16 16.69 0.11 elev 1.00 0.11 0.00% SM Villa Terr 31 51 -1 1 20 16 16.94 0.25 elev 1.00 0.25 -0.08% SM Bellevue Ave 31 51 0 0 20 16 17.09 0.15 elev 1.00 0.15 0.00% SM Poplar Ave 30 50 -1 1 20 16 17.20 0.11 elev 1.00 0.11 -0.17% SM Santa Inez Ave 29 49 -1 1 20 16 17.34 0.14 elev 1.00 0.14 -0.14% SM Monte Diablo Ave 28 48 -1 1 20 16 17.45 0.11 elev 1.00 0.11 -0.17% SM Tilton Ave 28 48 0 0 20 16 17.58 0.13 elev 1.00 0.13 0.00% SM San Mateo 28 48 0 0 20 16 17.65 0.07 elev 1.00 0.07 0.00% 1 SM SM end sta platform 28 48 0 0 20 16 17.78 0.13 elev 1.00 0.13 0.00% SM 1st Ave 26 48 0 0 22 18 17.80 0.02 elev 1.00 0.02 0.00% SM 2nd Ave 26 48 0 0 22 18 17.87 0.07 elev 1.00 0.07 0.00% SM 3rd Ave 27 48 0 0 21 17 17.94 0.07 elev 1.00 0.07 0.00% SM 4th Ave 28 48 0 0 20 16 18.00 0.06 elev 1.00 0.06 0.00% SM 5th Ave 26 46 -2 2 20 16 18.06 0.06 elev 1.00 0.06 -0.63% SM 9th Ave 20 40 -6 6 20 16 18.29 0.23 elev 1.00 0.23 -0.49% SM decline ends 11 11 -29 29 0 0 18.89 0.60 3.59 elev 0.50 0.30 -0.92% SM Hayward Park 11 11 0 0 0 0 19.09 0.20 0.00% ped SM Hayward Park 11 11 0 0 0 0 19.10 0.01 0.00% SM Route 92 11 11 0 0 0 0 19.12 0.02 0.00% SM 25th St 14 24 13 13 10 6 19.62 0.50 0.49% SM 31st St 14 24 0 0 10 6 19.75 0.13 0.00% spur station (new) SM Hillsdale 31 31 7 7 0 0 20.23 0.48 0.28% eliminated SM Hillsdale Blvd 34 34 3 3 0 0 20.30 0.07 0.81% SM 42nd Ave 24 24 -10 10 0 0 21.00 0.70 -0.27% Belm Belmont 47 47 23 23 0 0 21.90 0.90 0.48% Belm Ralston Ave 48 48 1 1 0 0 22.00 0.10 0.19% Belm Harbor Blvd 46 46 -2 2 0 0 22.30 0.30 -0.13% SCar F St 37 37 -9 9 0 0 22.61 0.31 -0.55% ped (exist.) SCar Holly St 36 36 -1 1 0 0 23.10 0.49 -0.04% SCar San Carlos 37 37 1 1 0 0 23.20 0.10 0.19% SCar San Carlos Ave 37 37 0 0 0 0 23.21 0.01 0.00% ped (exist.) SCar Arroyo Ave 35 35 -2 2 0 0 23.67 0.46 -0.08% ped (exist.) SCar Brittan Ave 35 35 0 0 0 0 23.90 0.23 0.00% SCar Howard Ave 36 36 1 1 0 0 24.10 0.20 0.09% SCar incline starts 25 25 -11 11 0 0 24.58 0.48 -0.43% RWC Whipple Ave 18 38 13 13 20 16 24.86 0.28 elev 0.50 0.14 0.88% RWC Brewster Ave 13 34 -4 4 21 17 25.20 0.34 elev 1.00 0.34 -0.22%

Caltrain 2.0 - Elevated Crossings Analysis - Mike Forster - v3.10 © Mike Forster 2017 Blue shading indicates changes from previous versions Grey indicates sections covered by other projects being planned (See analysis legend >) d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s r Units > feet feet feet feet feet feet miles miles miles flag miles miles % count count count City Sta- Raodway Xing / Orig. New Elev. Elev. New - Clear- Mile- Dis- Elev. New Elev. Elev. Elev. New UPRR Ped / Plans / Notes tion Pedestrain Xing / Elev. Elev. Chg. Chg. Orig. ance point tance Len. Ele- Len. Len. Gra- Elev. / Cal- Road Elevated Track (Abs) Elev. Above vated Clear. Clear. dient Plat- train Xing Diff. Orig. Factor >= 8 ft form Impac (new) ts RWC Redwood City 14 34 0 0 20 16 25.26 0.06 elev 1.00 0.06 0.00% 1 new elev plat RWC RWC Marshall St 12 34 0 0 22 18 25.40 0.14 elev 1.00 0.14 0.00% RWC RWC end sta platform 14 34 0 0 20 16 25.51 0.11 elev 1.00 0.11 0.00% RWC Jefferson Ave 14 34 0 0 20 16 25.60 0.09 elev 1.00 0.09 0.00% above exist. RWC decline starts 14 34 0 0 20 16 25.67 0.07 elev 1.00 0.07 0.00% RWC Maple St 14 34 0 0 20 16 25.76 0.09 elev 1.00 0.09 0.00% RWC Main St 14 34 0 0 20 16 25.83 0.07 elev 1.00 0.07 0.00% RWC Chestnut St 14 32 -2 2 18 14 25.99 0.16 elev 0.60 0.10 -0.24% 14 ft clear. RWC decline ends 18 18 -14 14 0 0 26.10 0.11 1.52 elev -2.41% move crossover RWC Route 84 17 17 -1 1 0 0 26.15 0.05 -0.38% RWC 5th Ave 39 39 22 22 0 0 27.20 1.05 0.40% RWC incline starts 39 39 0 0 0 0 27.30 0.10 0.00% Ath Fair Oaks Ln 52 72 33 33 20 16 27.75 0.45 elev 0.50 0.23 1.39% Ath Atherton 53 73 1 1 20 16 27.80 0.05 elev 1.00 0.05 0.38% close station Ath Watkins Ave 58 78 5 5 20 16 28.05 0.25 elev 1.00 0.25 0.38% MP Encinal Ave 61 82 4 4 21 17 28.37 0.32 elev 1.00 0.32 0.24% MP Glenwood Ave 65 85 3 3 20 16 28.58 0.21 elev 1.00 0.21 0.27% MP Oak Grove Ave 67 88 3 3 21 17 28.78 0.20 elev 1.00 0.20 0.28% MP Menlo Park 67 88 0 0 21 17 28.90 0.12 elev 1.00 0.12 0.00% 1 new elev plat MP MP Ravenswood Ave 68 88 0 0 20 16 28.98 0.08 elev 1.00 0.08 0.00% MP MP end sta platform 67 88 0 0 21 17 28.98 0.00 elev 1.00 0.00 0.00% MP trestle 66 90 2 2 24 20 29.68 0.70 2.38 elev 1.00 0.70 0.05% abandoned PA Alma St 70 90 0 0 20 16 29.76 0.08 elev 1.00 0.08 0.00% PA decline starts 70 90 0 0 20 16 29.78 0.02 elev 1.00 0.02 0.00% PA Palo Alto 64 64 -26 26 0 0 30.05 0.27 0.37 elev 0.50 0.14 -1.82% PA PA University Ave 64 64 0 0 0 0 30.13 0.08 0.00% PA PA end sta platform 59 59 -5 5 0 0 30.35 0.22 -0.43% PA Homer Ave 56 61 2 2 5 1 30.40 0.05 elev 0.00 0.00 0.76% ped (exist.) PA Stanford 48 61 0 0 13 9 30.58 0.18 elev 1.00 0.18 0.00% PA Stan Embarcadero 46 61 0 0 15 11 30.70 0.12 elev 1.00 0.12 0.00% 1 new elev plat PA Stan end sta platform 45 61 0 0 16 12 30.70 0.00 elev 1.00 0.00 0.00% PA Churchill Ave 41 61 0 0 20 16 31.01 0.31 elev 1.00 0.31 0.00% PA decline ends 27 27 -34 34 0 0 31.67 0.66 1.32 elev 0.50 0.33 -0.98% PA California Ave 27 27 0 0 0 0 31.67 0.00 0.00% ped (exist.) PA California Ave 27 27 0 0 0 0 31.69 0.02 0.00% PA CalAveend sta platform 26 26 -1 1 0 0 31.79 0.10 -0.19% ped (exist.) PA Oregon Expwy 26 26 0 0 0 0 31.80 0.01 0.00% PA incline starts 28 28 2 2 0 0 32.52 0.72 0.05% PA Meadow Dr 28 48 20 20 20 16 33.00 0.48 elev 0.50 0.24 0.79% PA Charleston Ave 30 50 2 2 20 16 33.33 0.33 elev 1.00 0.33 0.11% PA decline ends 34 34 -16 16 0 0 33.84 0.51 elev 0.50 0.26 -0.59% MV San Antonio Rd 34 34 0 0 0 0 34.00 0.16 1.48 elev 0.00% MV San Antonio 35 35 1 1 0 0 34.10 0.10 0.19% MV incline starts 36 36 1 1 0 0 34.10 0.00 0.00% MV Mayfield Ave 36 40 4 4 4 0 34.19 0.09 elev 0.84% ped (exist.) MV Rengstorff Ave 44 64 24 24 20 16 34.71 0.52 elev 0.50 0.26 0.87% MV decline ends 52 52 -12 12 0 0 35.00 0.29 0.90 elev 0.50 0.15 -0.78% MV Shoreline Blvd 62 62 10 10 0 0 35.68 0.68 0.28% MV Castro St 66 66 4 4 0 0 35.94 0.26 0.29% ped closed MV Mountain View 67 67 1 1 0 0 36.03 0.09 0.21% MV MV platform end 71 71 4 4 0 0 36.16 0.13 0.61% MV MV platform end 71 71 0 0 0 0 36.16 0.00 0.00% ped

MV Stevens Creek Tr 83 83 12 12 0 0 36.46 0.30 0.76% ped (exist.) MV Route 85 83 83 0 0 0 0 36.50 0.04 0.00% MV Evelyn Station 94 94 11 11 0 0 36.72 0.22 0.95% ped (exist.) MV VTA junction 94 94 0 0 0 0 36.73 0.01 0.00% VTA Light Rail MV Whisman Rd 96 96 2 2 0 0 36.88 0.15 0.25% MV Route 237 91 91 -5 5 0 0 37.18 0.30 -0.32% MV incline starts 95 95 4 4 0 0 37.48 0.30 0.25% SV Mary Ave 95 115 20 20 20 16 37.96 0.48 elev 0.50 0.24 0.79% SV decline ends 88 88 -27 27 0 0 38.58 0.62 1.10 elev 0.50 0.31 -0.82% SV Mathilda Ave 88 88 0 0 0 0 38.60 0.02 0.00% SV Sunnyvale 87 87 -1 1 0 0 38.85 0.25 -0.08% SV Sunnyvale Station 87 87 0 0 0 0 38.86 0.01 0.00% ped SV Sunnyvale Ave 87 87 0 0 0 0 38.90 0.04 0.00% ped closed SV Fair Oaks Ave 78 78 -9 9 0 0 39.39 0.49 -0.35% SV Wolfe Rd 72 72 -6 6 0 0 39.77 0.38 -0.30% SCla Lawrence 58 58 -14 14 0 0 40.74 0.97 -0.27% SCla Lawrence Station 58 58 0 0 0 0 40.75 0.01 0.00% ped SCla Lawrence Expwy 58 58 0 0 0 0 40.76 0.01 0.00% SCla Bowers Ave 52 52 -6 6 0 0 41.85 1.09 -0.10% SCla San Tomas Expwy 50 50 -2 2 0 0 42.50 0.65 -0.06% SCla Scott Blvd 50 50 0 0 0 0 42.90 0.40 0.00% SCla Lafayette St 56 56 6 6 0 0 43.67 0.77 0.15% SCla De La Cruz Blvd 57 57 1 1 0 0 43.99 0.32 0.06% SCla Santa Clara Station 59 59 2 2 0 0 44.65 0.66 0.06% ped (2016) SCla Santa Clara 59 59 0 0 0 0 44.70 0.05 0.00% SJ I-880 65 65 6 6 0 0 45.90 1.20 0.09% SJ Hedding St 70 70 5 5 0 0 46.15 0.25 0.38% SJ College Park Station 72 72 2 2 0 0 46.27 0.12 0.32% ped SJ College Park 72 72 0 0 0 0 46.30 0.03 0.00% SJ Taylor St 73 73 1 1 0 0 46.52 0.22 0.09% SJ Julian St 81 81 8 8 0 0 47.15 0.63 0.24% SJ Santa Clara St 89 89 8 8 0 0 47.35 0.20 0.76% SJ San Jose Diridon 90 90 1 1 0 0 47.50 0.15 0.13% SJ Park Ave 93 93 3 3 0 0 47.73 0.23 0.25% SJ San Carlos AVe 93 93 0 0 0 0 47.89 0.16 0.00% SJ (multiple) 107 107 14 14 0 0 48.50 0.61 0.43% elev. (exist.) SJ Tamien 112 112 5 5 0 0 49.10 0.60 0.16%

8.2 Overall Summary

Total Planning Estimate 666.32

8.3 San Mateo County

Caltrain 2.0 - Elevated Crossings Analysis - Mike Forster - v3.10 © Mike Forster 2017 Blue shading indicates changes from previous versions Grey indicates sections covered by other projects being planned San Mateo County Costs $M / Miles $M Unit unit or Ct Caltrain elevated tracks 41.00 9.54 391.14 miles New elevated boarding platforms 6.60 4.00 26.40 count Pedestrian underpass 4.10 1.00 4.10 count Road crossings - at grade 0.23 1.00 0.23 Tanforan Ave Road crossings - underpasses 0.00 0.00 none Caltrain impact 1.29 1.00 1.29 Hwy 84

Total Planning Estimate 423.15

Recovered distance 7.29 Other uses

8.4 Santa Clara County

Caltrain 2.0 - Elevated Crossings Analysis - Mike Forster - v3.10 © Mike Forster 2017 Blue shading indicates changes from previous versions Grey indicates sections covered by other projects being planned Santa Clara County Costs $M / Miles $M Unit unit or Ct Caltrain elevated tracks 41.00 5.17 211.97 miles New elevated boarding platforms 6.60 1.00 6.60 count Pedestrian underpass 4.10 6.00 24.60 count

Total Planning Estimate 243.17

Recovered distance 2.96 Other uses 8.5 Notes

Caltrain 2.0 - Elevated Crossings Analysis - Mike Forster - v3.0 © Mike Forster 2016 (See analysis legend >) d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Units > feet feet feet feet feet feet miles miles miles miles miles % count count count Colu Calc Notes Orig. New Elev. Elev. New - Clear- Mile- Dis- Elev. Elev. Elev. Elev. New UPRR Ped / Plans mn Elev. Elev. Chg. Chg. Orig. ance point tance Len. Len. Len. Gra- Elev. / Cal- Road / (Abs) Elev. Above Clear. Clear. dient Plat- train Xing Notes Diff. Orig. Factor >= 8 ft form Impac (new) ts d orig elev from Google Earth e orig or newly elevated elev f e(L)-e(L-1) elev change; this loc elev - previous loc elev g abs(f) absolute value of elev change h e-d elev mod; this loc new elev - orig elev i max(h-4,0) clearance above orig elev j milepoint; from [Tellier2012a] or Google Earth k j(L)-j(L-1) mileage; this loc milepoint - prev loc milepoint l sum(rows) new elev length; sum of j() from incline to decline m new elevated - indicator of newly elevated track n clearance factor; fraction of l >= 8 feet o k*n mileage under elev track; mileage * clearance factor p f/(k*5280) elev gradient; elev change / mileage q new elev platforms; count r UPRR / Caltrain Impacts; type s Pedestrian / Road Crossings (new); type t plans / notes u (blank) v grade separation type, orig [Tellier2012a] w grade separation type, new (extended) x track change at location (yes/no)