Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 9.1 - Study Session - Rengstorff Avenue Railroad Grade Separation Feasibility Study Final Report - Project 02-44 r CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MEMORANDUM 9.1 DATE: November 5, 2004 TO: City Council FROM: Robert Kagiyama, Principal Civil Engineer SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 STUDY SESSION-RENGSTORFF AVENUE RAILROAD GRADE SEP ARA nON FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT-PROJECT 02-44 PURPOSE OF STUDY SESSION The purpose of this study session is to present the results of the Rengstorff Avenue Railroad Grade Separation Feasibility Study, Project 02-44, and receive comments from the City Council. r PROTECT BACKGROuND The Rengstorff Avenue grade separation feasibility study was approved by the Council as part of the 2001-02 Capital Improvement Program with a budget of $100,000 from the CIP Reserve Fund. Prior to initiating the feasibility study, a Council study session was conducted on April 23, 2002 where staff presented five grade separation concepts developed by Santa Clara County from their investigation of Central Expressway at the Rengstorff Avenue intersection as part of their County-wide Expressway Planning Study. Conceptually, the grade separation of Rengstorff Avenue from the railroad tracks and Central Expressway can generally be accomplished by: 1. Depressing Rengstorff Avenue under the railroad tracks and Central Expressway. 2. Elevating Rengstorff Avenue over the railroad tracks and Central Expressway. 3. Combination of depressing Rengstorff Avenue and elevating the tracks and Central Expressway. r 4. Elevating the tracks and Central Expressway over Rengstorff Avenue. City Council November 5, 2004 Page 2 ~ 5. Elevating Rengstorff Avenue over the railroad tracks and Central Expressway with an at-grade loop ramp (variation of Concept 2). Depressing the tracks under Rengstorff Avenue was not considered because of the project costs and physical constraints of maintaining a 1 percent maximum grade for the railroad tracks, requiring deep retaining walls along the railroad right-of-way. At the conclusion of the April 2002 study session, the Council unanimously agreed that depressing Rengstorff Avenue under the railroad tracks and Central Expressway would be the most appropriate solution (Exhibit 1). The Council expressed concerns with concepts that involved elevated structures, such as a high embankment along the railroad right-of-way, similar to those in the Cities of San Carlos and Belmont, or a Rengstorff Avenue overcrossing structure similar to the North Shoreline Boulevard overcrossing. Council felt that an embankment or overcrossing would create a visual divide in the community and an eyesore to the nearby residential neighborhood. On June 9, 2002, the Council approved the concept of lowering Rengstorff Avenue under the railroad tracks and Central Expressway and, on October 22, 2002, authorized a contract with Parsons Transportation Group of San Jose (Parsons) to analyze the feasibility of a Rengstorff A venue underpass. ..., FEASIBILITY STUDY -.". .~~ Parsons' analysis determined the County's underpass concept is not achievable because the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) now requires railroad grade separations to preserve PCJPB's full 90' wide right-of-way for their ultimate build-out of a four-track system. The County's concept encroaches into the PCJPB's right-of-way (Exhibit 2). Caltrain currently operates on a two-track system in Mountain View, and the County's concept could only accommodate a three-track layout. The four-track requirement led to a modified concept that shifts the Central Expressway alignment to the north to clear the railroad right-of-way (Exhibit 3). This change would result in the need to acquire 11 residential properties on the north side of Central Expressway. The estimated right-of-way acquisition cost for these residential properties produced an unacceptable project cost estimate of $65 million, which made this modified concept unfeasible for further analysis. Given the significant community impact and high cost of the modified concept, Parsons developed an alternative concept (Alternative A) consisting of depressing Rengstorff Avenue under only the railroad tracks and intersecting at grade with a depressed Central Expressway (Exhibit 4). . -..I City Council November 5, 2004 Page 3 I Subsequently, while reviewing the draft feasibility report, the PCJPB advised City staff that it would not endorse the report unless the study included an additional analysis and cost estimate of a variation of Alternative A involving depressing Rengstorff Avenue, about 15' and raising the existing railroad tracks by about 8'. PCJPB believes this modification may result in a substantially lower project cost and should be evaluated for comparison. The City agreed to analyze PCJPB's elevated track proposal; the proposal is identified in the feasibility study as Alternative B (Exhibit 5). Traffic Analysis The Level of Service (LOS) of the Rengstorff A venue/ Central Expressway intersection is currently operating at LOS E during the p.m. peak hours. However, drivers actually experience more delay because the LOS calculation methods do not factor in delays created by 86 trains crossing the intersection on each weekday. When factoring in delays created by the train operation, it is clear from field observations that the delays during the peak hours can be much worse. The PCJPB 20-year build-out scenario proposes 138 trains per weekday, which will further exacerbate the delays at the intersection. I The feasibility study confirmed that the existing Rengstorff Avenue at Central Expressway intersection, under year 2030 traffic conditions, would have a LOS F with an average delay of 127 seconds without train impact. Accounting for the trains, a motorist could wait at the intersection as long as five minutes. Either Alternative A or Alternative B will eliminate the at-grade railroad crossing and train preemption and will significantly improve the operation of the Rengstorff Avenue/ Central Expressway intersection, which remains at grade, to LOS D with year 2015 projected traffic volumes and to LOS E under 2030 traffic conditions during the peak hour. This level of service is acceptable and a significant improvement from conditions under a "no project" alternative. Leland Avenue and Crisanto Avenue Pedestrian Connection The construction of a Rengstorff Avenue underpass would eliminate access from Crisanto and Leland Avenues to/from Rengstorff Avenue. Alternative A would lower Rengstorff Avenue 23' and Alternative B would lower Rengstorff Avenue 15' at Leland and Crisanto Avenues to provide clearance for Rengstorff Avenue to go under the railroad tracks. At these locations, a retaining wall would be necessary for the undercrossing, and the cross streets would be terminated with cul-de-sacs. Although the proposed under crossing would close vehicular traffic access on Crisanto and Leland r Avenues to Rengstorff Avenue, constructing a pedestrian overcrossing structure would preserve pedestrian access across Rengstorff Avenue to and from Rengstorff Park. City Council November 5, 2004 Page 4 ~ Right-of-Way Impacts Lowering Rengstorff Avenue will impact a maximum of six properties under . Alternative A. The six parcels consist of two residential properties, a vacant City lot, grocery store, a parking lot for the grocery store and a gas station. Alternative B will require the acquisition of four properties and avoid having to acquire one residential property and a vacant City lot. Both alternatives will require the acquisition of two commercial businesses. The right-of-way cost estimate for each alternative includes acquisition, relocation assistance and incidental expenses. During the environmental and design phase, the right-of-way impact and cost would be evaluated in detail. Comparison of Alternatives Table 1 compares Alternative A and Alternative B. The estimated project costs for both alternatives are about the same-$45 million for Alternative A and $43 million for Alternative B. The primary difference is that Alternative B will raise the existing railroad tracks a maximum of 8' above its existing elevation, which will create a short but noticeable embankment structure. While the main advantage of Alternative B is reduction in right-of-way impact and a slightly lower project cost, Alternative A will ..." require property acquisition of only two additional parcels-a vacant City-owned lot and a residential property. Based on this comparison, the PqPB is satisfied there is not a significant cost advantage to elevating the tracks and finds Alternative A acceptable. Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives Track Height Number of above Current Right-of-Way Properties to Alternative Track Grade Cost Estimate Acquire Project Cost A 0' $6.8 million 6 $45 million (includes 1 City-owned parcel) B 8' $5.7 million 4 $43 million ..." City Council November 5, 2004 Page 5 "-'" Preferred Alternative The feasibility report concluded that either Alternative A or Alternative B would be feasible. However, the alternative closest to the concept preferred by the Council is Alternative A. Alternative A has far fewer visual and noise impacts, and no greater impact on commercial properties than that of Alternative B. Therefore, Alternative A is the recommended preferred alternative. REGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES County Expressway Planning Study r-. I In 2003, Santa Clara County Roads and Airport Department completed the County- wide Expressway Planning Study which evaluated all eight County expressways, including Central Expressway, for roadway capacity and operational improvements. The report also identified funding strategies as well as operational and maintenance policies for the long term. The planning study ranked potential traffic improvements for funding consideration over the next 25 to 30 years. The priority list included synchronization of traffic signals, adding carpool lanes, constructing interchanges, pedestrian improvements, constructing sound walls, striping, bike lanes and widening shoulders. Of the 72 County-wide expressway projects proposed, only the 28 top-tiered projects will receive funding consideration over the next 30 years. There are no top-tiered projects listed on Central Expressway in Mountain View. Improvements on Central Expressway in Mountain View included grade separation of Rengstorff A venue from Central Expressway. In the County report, it lists the . Rengstorff A venue interchange/ grade separation as a Tier 2 priority; however, if this intersection degrades to LOS F within the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020 time frame or sooner, the project may move from Tier 2 to Tier lB. Currently, there is insufficient funding to implement all of the Tier 1A projects in the County Expressway Plan; therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Rengstorff Avenue grade separation, even if it moves to Tier lB, would receive funding consideration within the next 30 years. PCTPB/Caltrain Issues ,~ I In July 2004, the PCJPB adopted the Caltrain 20-year strategic plan which lists as high priority the construction and operation of a four-track segment in Santa Clara County between the Caltrain Diridon Station in downtown San Jose and the Sunnyvale Station. This four-track segment will provide a passing zone where an express train can bypass City Council November 5, 2004 Page 6 ..." a local train that stops at each station. With four-track systems, an express train can use the two interior tracks while the local service trains use the two outside tracks. With the completion of the latest Caltrain service improvements, Caltrain is now operating 86 weekday trains which includes 10 Baby Bullet (express) trains. Additionally, Caltrain has restored its weekend train service with 32 trains operating on Saturday and 30 trains in service on Sunday. The Baby Bullet tra:ins do not operate on weekends. Although a significant amount of Caltrain improvements have taken place in Santa Clara County, the PCJPB is not actively working to promote nor is there funding for the Rengstorff Avenue grade separation project because its primary priority in Santa Clara County from a railroad perspective is the improvements to the segment between San Jose and Sunnyvale. Proiect Funding Opportunities Currently, the State funding for a grade separation project is bleak, and these types of construction projects are predominantly funded by a local or regionai entity, which would likely be the VTA or PCJPB. The City will need to work closely with the VTA ..." and PqPB to strive toward programming State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding opportunities as one of several funding options for the project. At this time, the only genuine funding program dedicated for railroad grade separation is the State Grade Separation Program. Each year, funding is allocated competitively to projects on a priority list that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) establishes on the basis of the most urgent need. The CPUC forwards the annual list to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for funding allocation to the top projects State-wide. Annually, the CTC allocates a total of $15 million; however, the maximum fund amount that a project is eligible to receive is $5 million. The best opportunity to fund a grade separation project may well be the $9.95 billion High Speed Rail Bond proposition that was originally scheduled on the November 2, 2004 General Election. Due to the current fiscal state of the economy, Governor Schwarzenegger requested the State Legislature delay the bond measure for two years, which led to the development of several sponsoring bills. On June 24, 2004, SB 1169 was approved by the Governor, deferring the Safe, Reliable High Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century to the November 7, 2006 General Election. The bill also declared the bonds for the high-speed train system could not be issued earlier than January 1, 2008. If approved by the voters, the bond amount includes setting aside $3.2 billion to upgrade the Caltrain corridor between San Jose and San Francisco to accommodate ..." City Council November 5, 2004 (' Page 7 high-speed rail service. Moreover, the PCJPB informed the City the passage of the high- speed bond would enable the PCJPB to fully grade separate all the at-grade crossings between San Jose and San Francisco with the highest construction priority given to locations where there is currently a four-track system. Because Rengstorff Avenue currently consists of only a two-track system, the proposed project would climb the priority list and may advance further given that the project has completed the feasibility study and is ready to begin the environmental clearance and design stage. SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS As the November 2006 State-wide election approaches, the City will need to continue to coordinate with the VTA regional funding opportunities that may arise from the passage of the bond. After the acceptance of the feasibility study, the next steps to advance the project are to complete the environmental review and approval process, retain the services of a civil engineering firm to design the proposed improvements and prepare plans and specifications, and secure funding. To initiate the first step, the Council, on October 14, 2003, adopted a resolution ,--. authorizing the City Manager to submit the Rengstorff Avenue Grade Separation Environmental Documentation Phase to the VTA for funding consideration for $240,000 from several Federal and State funding sources to finance 80 percent of the anticipated cost to complete the environmental phase. The proposed project has made the list of the top 10 eligible projects, but there is no funding available at this time for allocation. If the City's request is approved, Council would need to create a midyear capital improvement project and appropriate $60,000 in local matching funds. During the ensuing years, staff will continue to monitor funding opportunities and coordinate with the VTA and PCJPB to assure that the proposed Rengstorff Avenue grade separation project remains on active priority lists. r City Council November 5, 2004 Page 8 ..." Exhibit 6 is the executive summary from the final feasibility study report. Any Councilmembers who would like a copy of the full report can obtain one from the Public Works Department. Prepared by: Approved by: fR,,6.t: ~ Cathy R. Laza Public Works Director Robert Kagiyama Principal Civil Engineer Approved by: ~1jt, Assistant Public Works Director/ City Engineer Kevin C. Duggan City Manager ...., RK/9/CAM 909-11-09-04M-E-1 ^ Attachments: Exhibit 1: County Concept Exhibit 2: County Concept-Encroachment into PCJPB Right-of-Way Exhibit 3: Modified County Concept-Shift Central Expressway to North Exhibit 4: Feasibility Study-Alternative A Exhibit 5: Feasibility Study-Alternative B Exhibit 6: Feasibility Study Report Executive Summary cc: Mr. Dan Cullen County of Santa Clara Roads and Airport Department 101 Skyport Drive San Jose, CA 95110-1302 Mr. Ian MeA voy, Chief Development Officer Caltrain/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board P.O. Box 3006 San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 ..." r'. .r--. (' City COlmcil November 5, 2004 Page 9 Ms. Caroline Gonot, Chief Development Officer Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1906 Ms. Millette Litzinger, Senior Engineer Parsons Transportation Group 100 Park Center Plaza, Suite 450 San Jose, CA 95113 PWD, APWD-Ko, TPM, TE, DE, F / c (w / a) . -..,"lliI ( f' r '~"~..:I . -r;~< .-'~'w' J . , ' , ,~ ' ;f.' .",.~81' ", .to,'" ~ ~'c;a .,....., E. ,,' ' - +f,.'T>\ I:.:j'co . '.!~7~k~:,;'if~~::."., _ ' .w( (.R i;"'T:~"." mm'~.: 1. 'f':((F'}~>"'t:J.''''~''\ei 'ft";~i:: .~':'-' J.,. ~. \r. Ii., - ~':.' ;i' '.~,:' ~Dfi: ~r'" ?_~:.!tt~,~"';r::,_,'Y:-';:~'''~<'''---'-';'' .:' J""'~ '~:".~l".~}"" ':'~'i"";'~. ,'A~'l'~."" ~.~._ c _ . ",'l~._ ~ -, . 't '. 'J"-"~ '.,. ,.~Y.~:' '\'- -,- I_~~ ,.',,"'_ ~....i'<.' "?;:,<.~, _..:~: "t4'~~ ..~~- . "-~~A .:i;'~..;.i". a:. "" ";;'_"'~ _....,... ."''''''"" Iii 0 -:At i.~l''fT'1r']'~ ~t~ .,' .'t.~':;~..<~~.~.."'~ lj~: ! i'~~'J~:~~Jfl.~J:1. t: l" '.' .,..:"". . ")m~.. ""'t. . \t';J ',~ ~ 'I~~~--'~ ':~I;,;, ,.. . ,".c' ..:;. ".",.:;;fl., .~. ," .." ,. Ji~ ~". "'3,~" ~..:uf.t1r(';'\\; , (~~:~ _.." ~~r.r <-. . ~ >4::'- ~ "'" I . .. .1. '~:'"'' '.~' -T)':j "........~".. I f~~~""~'~r '~.'::.~.' ........ ~1 ~I.~. .I ,~" ), _,,~~_ ~-<"._ :.~".:!ifj ~ ~-c ~ ..J.~;..' : - E-< - CO - ::r: >< u.l >- < ;s Vl Vl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Vl '" U < ~ ~ ~ "' ~ o S ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ o f- Vl o z ~ ~ o ;:::: Vl (/J ~ ~ I:l. ~ o f- ~ u z o u >- f- Z ;:l o u ,.-.. .r-- ,',,--...,. o _.~~ _.._.~~~~ ..... ~ ~..~ I"~ .. ~tf't."\''iI.''''>~f. ~S'. " ;.,' ..-l:~~ ' " . 1~ t"'4',~~l '*'!!i.;{. (. 1 't.-~ i ~~, " ~,~ '~i'{i''l. J'!'~A' ,;'. i~. \., ~ .,," 'i l.t ~~"~'1' ~~ )' ~~-, '. ' ~-I,j'l I ~?': . ~ ff'" '. -: ~,,'t..~~._1r-, ~ _ ~ ~~ ,t..; <' ~ > ,~ ~,. -. . S S""""IV~,..C.~ c .' ~~",. -.ill!!'-" ;~ 'I "'l: ':r{l,'\""~~~~r' '.:: 'j . "f F--~~ ~(/..,~ 'f' '~:"I : ........'''''.,..;.,f.=<Io.e-l .t-.'.:."ls'.1' ;1~,.. ...' .l~..t; ~ ~""J ....~t::~' ::::-' ~~~~. . .~. .....'-.,.._1. ,1'..~;; ~. '~i >, < ,,,~:';1 ~I' "c,,,.,. . ~'L ,.~. I~'''~. "...:.::.:..f"...~!f ~. xt-tJ_~- - .~. ~-_. ~~':.,- 4'c' . ..,~:;; ":C'f,-J.;;":-" ~'..' '/~'. t~7.. '. , -. r--:i 'I~d~~ f~"'i:-"'~" ~ ,'te' ,,~; ff~t~L" -'~ ~I' ~. ~ """" ."'ol:~~dl ~- ,~'" -"":;~" ~,' ' . ~."l!-' 'It' ~'--:-'.?"" ' ~ .r 't.... (~ . ~ . -,c. ,. ~L...",T.:..- "': ~'iifi} ~.. r~~ iCC~(:~::..... -'~. ~ . ! ~....;cr~~'ft ~.,,\ .~' ....111 1'f (~l'~' .~ '''I- ~~ ~ ~ :,:1',:' ..,...~ I"" i ~:" .,." 'J\... ,'~ ' N E-< - o:l - ::r: x: u.:i >- ~ >< (/J <r:: (/J :5 ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :r:: ~ v <:r: ~ (/J co ~ ~ U u <:r: Co; ~ 0 ~ f-; ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ Ci ~ 5 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u <:r: Z ~ ~ ~ ~ f-; o Co; f-; ~ (/J U Cl Z Z 0 ~ U Cl >- ~ f-; (/J Z (/J :J ~ 0 ~ U Co; ~ Ci ,.-., r-- (' ~ '-r::r:,. .~w~ I. '{, !;';Jr, ~'s o. n"" ~'ii' '""oX t' ...,. .' .. .-::1:-0 .ft.. ._.nt ,J~l_.,L" .,!l.,~.__~.2"-CO '< ""l-:I:~"''L'': _ ,w'tL. ,; 4lu.~~' '. f. . ';!~;:;"'00"'~". ." ',' "1'= 1~"'" ""IE iili1*7t." I'" '~ ""] ~,'~:'~ "~.'~ '~:"!il~htU"r..:- ,-~~~ ~t'~ :<:;' _'_::'~':"l~',. ~ .,_~ _ _!~: :''''':~'.,,;,';;...It':r;,,,_,~. _,,"'i<""'''''':l-. .' -lIl'l ~. '"'1''''' ,~-, . ~.,<:; . '..:.+1<~ "'" " ....f;/ ;i _ :..~:~ - _ ",' . -~;: !'i:/l... ,,;'s:;~,'-,~ib,tfJ:~~, ." . ."':!.~ ~~-=-:,-,'C""fIl - ...Iit...'*;"-~" .-~ .....~,. .f<-.W_~'H"''''---!!;~'' , e. } ...~-. ! ,", - ._, .... '('I '. '....", , .:. ". ,1' ",.: ,', -$f!I l _' - il;'t.~ :":"'ic-~'''-~ ~~"')if:;'':;J;;i' J'fi'j "1:"'r2~ ;w~...; ~~ J.<~i'.cl_'~.)...~_l~'"'''''' "I=l'Z:j ..~ -~ .., ~.~..~~ -'~ " -- :: --.,. ''..,,--'' ~ ':~i.);' ..--~ · ~ '. '. ."yl .11 flJ...l:.... ~..' . .:~. l>>.! . '......", .... .D. ,1- ~I" "~ .~r ~~,.. \ '..,Ii!., ,. ..:: ;$.-qz '1j'~""C, ,,,' J1',....'-.= c' . -'. ')"'T. . .1 . .' ".. 'if' :~_~," :~f w t"i:~..::--:<,; -~''''I..I ~ - '.... > ,..... ,.. if i t"1.......""c ) "1,,,,,;'1",,";;f,bJ, 'rL-. .:.rJ;";, <i; ~,w :tf~~~~., .-J :':1~ "j "'lr,' ;.:::-o'~' ...", ,.'.. .., - I 'i" ... I .' .' . ...J., .' 0 '.' ...', .'~ c , 'r,~'~ t\'(".J"~l~:~~~k~~ """'-~!':l' ~i- . ."\s:. .',- ~--...".;:fli-. 1 ' ... 1',"'... i "!;-l ,......., "b.. ll."'.', ';a,. ,,~._ .. . .':.I,('!.lI; l.:','; -I" : tl" . "-u), ,,[f..~'~, ~t,:~~lr', ~~~:~~Ivl;;~!~ :'~. 't. . .1, """.F';. ...1"......;0 :''1'~'. ".'~;'" ",. '. ,,~ "1 f".'" r .,.,c''!J:'>:{ ,z"'L:'Lt-4' &.ct'~<.l.'j,' '.,'~.." ~,. ' .,/fY::'r. 1\-. ~ ~... ',,'2 ~tf ." ..J""'.i:,;1,-,~.u~\l". ,,',. ; "I 't.'" . c .... ",'" .y~ .. ;;7. ~i - ,.....,.- "'i'r-;;~' , . < . :J'. ~,,'~-=-lt' ''"'. ',.'., }'.. '.' <-...'- ....1l.:. ,.~J;J .....It. ,", .__.!t.. >i' ...~. L.. ,..fh " ,. . .....~... . ," ,t (I:'~ "_ ,!. . It 0",. ' '. . c;: . ,""'f/!;;.' ";^' ; ;;, ,;:.7~:!.. ~4" -. .' -":'i '-"'1'. 'r;:I'~'l ')'~~'l?"'l~;l' '11' :;..; 'i1r~.-.. . ..~ J~).; l":;-'~'-J'~''''~~.: ,~,.~'----\ J'A.i ..,..~, . . ~~"":i"~ ...... ". . '--'~ ~ . ''':f ':i'iJ':>;,:;"'~"';;'Ji*' , U : "'f)" . : ~i!;''-~-~:. :j:~;~~~.;-~!"~~...~ . ~_/_, -~"1';:...- ..!~. . /~.f 1_11.-'-":".,":'.':-"",, "''''''~'~_A~.,.,,,,..'~ "-.~,i:.# '_~ . ti~".~' $:,:'&:-" 0, .., . t f<' ,,~~'~;':;~i~ ..J~ . .. .~'. 'l "l~" ",;j _~ ,:.)-l~'--' ~ .1P..tfl-j..., _.~".i :'3: .~>~(. --'. f :"t.: ~ .~" ",..c;:;;r.;. -~ M Eo-< - cr:l - ::r: ><: u.l ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ >< rJ.l <: ~ ~ ~ ~ S;! ~ ~ rJ.l ~ ~ ~ Z rJ.l lI.l o U ~ b lI.l ~ ~ (Jl rJ.l f-< > c.. <t: lI.l ~ U ~ Z ~ 0 ~ U r./J >< o f-< Z Z lI.l ;:J ~ 0 o u ~ 0 ~ lI.l rJ.l - ~ ~ @ 0 o 0 :'E '--'. ,.-. I~ I. I.,,: ~ I '"', 'i~ t> I '1'(.-' rot;:, ~'; I~ I I 1 1 I , :!: I I .....""A.""'t,~.' "'... fJ'! ~r~^~',~'!"c', 'i,' .' ,. <,..,,~..,,;,,? .,~,.. ,,,,,,::;:",,,'.",, ," _ : J}f, '~ ',11.'", '.' ',~, ~... ,;:--_, ,,' "..rlL~" ,''-' ". ",,,;, "", ......~~ '\,:'-., ",...-.,',.,.' ." ;,,~, ~-idi'~-f_:~:i!;f~. '. ,.,.;-~~._~"~,.,.. , ~:_~:"'~~',~::~!~l~"~~}~':,~".,:,~~t'._;.:,.;!~~,,- "'~"..~. "".. '. . .~:~:~~'~~<~_} .'" . ".' J.c' .. ~ -~..' -:~ --"";'- . ~" -,.orl'f.i'...... ~ w _ ~ ......, ....."<< -"r w' 'it ~~ _':-,...,. c.....- A,,' "",," -,... "<;:,, .'" " .,: . · .... t f"'..l:o: - ........i>?~?.: It '"~ ;: *" .~ _4!l~, ".,J!: t;" ~. .- f ;::~" . " ". ;:-~., ~-~-:_,.}~ . 0 <~,'" ~""-': J', 'i.>."oS!It' >-.' '(J'~:> ~. .. \., '.lj; ". ..... ~.~".t' "'\:'''0ll! ~. ~ . -c\(:': .,' ../- ,<~.'~~~ ~.-;~.',-:~~~' ~~-:~::: ,'"'" . ,. ", ",,1.'.., _2 -:' c-.: '.\ """:,}':~.-. ':'"1;'-,., ':., -:0 ~ .' '" ....,.. . ,,,..',' F ~ . ," ~. ~ ,\/';Y,#!,.:~ .:.";:":; , ",' , "'!". --1.~~..,.--""Jt, J :~~~r D!::. .", ....')S~ : ,y~: "~ g,:."t~. :;~'. \~. . _ , , ..~~~t. ....'- ,.~.~... ',<0' ,." r\i ,,' ",' "." I)' ,_~: ". '~,.: ~w T;".. ," '" '!...., '.""/<,'" . .~.:.. '.~~ ,," !;. ,,'., ~"~... ';:>;'::'~, '"i> 'tt.,r~ S'.'.' "';.;0.,.... r.:,,,~.. . . '.~'" "'",.,-e...... .' .. . (. . .. C ..... ...~:3htaIiV " it.........~. -' '- ':...L----;;'; .. ,: .t"t..J.1!~~:~ ". .1.:... >...~, ,. _,", ' ". ._ '- r--. , , ~-i .,0,:",:. . ~ t-, .. , iff' ' ~;, ..... -ii" .. .'. --i"-' a:.. .;.J.;r ~,S' ,; , ,.~,., -wo ..'t"'f" " 'iii' ,,< "',....'0 I' " , . '-''''"'''Lu'O''~ ....' ~~ '.~.:I:. Q,.o':~:~'~",!:i'':::':( ""1('~(" ,!,l~,tL '. I-,~..~" .,.' . ~":00"?c:;S:t.~';c'",;,~,{ _#.. ... <f c' l':-CO ,~.::...:.l.tl :\.' :""'<5~ _~""~"~ll1!"~'km" " :~-""'-" "'!lC ~,.""',-" i'w I ~....t, y~.,",. ,....'.,...'..,..,..."...~...~..~.'.'.. '~." '... ..',:1lt.... ;:~~~':.;.-;' ~V'. ,~"'.<5 .1<",1-: .q~~;.~,"-';'~ '. . ' : .... l>::01q .- . '...... .c: . L,.~ '.;";'~.'.'~. m"..'''''',..'.....'"'' .. ":".'.'-.: '''f'.''Jf,.",:;,;,..t;.~.......""". .-..r..'.......1:.~ .', .', '... '.~'~' .~.. '. O<~. ",,: ."~.,. . ""', -~. '.' /...., , ' ",''':. ' "".1 . .i:;, 1 ... ~,-,;: '''', ,'" . . ,.~..~....~..,. ~. .. <~~.-,. ~L~. ~_~..,J:..~~.' ~f' . . .. " .. ~i',' 'If. i<i?1';.,""':"."'.,....t1" c'.1i:. C"""~ '" ".-;:'1 (\it:' ! '~ ,~,/t.' ~~L '1'" ; ., (',L' ,~\ .~.:.- ;i:.. ,,::,,'~[, \>4~. ;';"'J ~",,... #it?'!:..*4 'F~. .. J ;1 ..'~of+",jO-..,.. ..~c-;;,:~~...,:~... I ..,'<" l''''''~' ""((' .,'i> '--' , ""'.' l"~ "". ...... : l;c:'\ I ' '4.~~."~"" ';"""''1+ ]. 'l'~' " .~ -.. .. . J"l c. ,,1. "'""", ',",., '" ..~- .~ '~"."' . ;,;.; .~- '\'~o;.;o' . :.. . .,~; 'T'='- ~ ',?' 0"': , . '. c.,~1 ..~ 'c~,.J ....,t'.-.~ 'I ,,'I ..~ ~l ' ~4:'\r"ti: ~\;'./~I ''''; '.~'9' ..~:-rt'.l-.....E,~~~~ %:<1'. iJ)f"~T ~ w~I', ""i:! 01 . ''-'I '. i .~' '1;1;,,, > .... J' '.," '-...o:-.~.~~...:.:.,., . " <~ t' '''' ;&,. .'",. ,,~." c' ,. ',I:' IJ 1_ ,'r '" ;, .,2.' .1 ..".\~.r...;'."';1'l, rJ. .. ~ "~~ '~I :{'i A "'.JC r "'I"f"l ~"' . 'I 0..' "'\ _ C~. ~ . t .: -" ,"" ... ""A. C( - . ~. ~)':~>' 01""\, ~.., "-#1. 1 , "'c~ '~,' . .. . . VHi\ 'i'~:~~.~ '" "::'..<..~,~. ~ lif'6~,y"r;,.<S.;c .;'t~~i~~., .;-:"'~": I;;;~.'i.;~ ,; . !1Ii(' - "'~'l' b." .'t' ,.:';]/<3. " ,"':..~:,"..., "'-. -"L..' 'It ' :,2':F. .. ).Jf~~ 'i _ " '. /1 11.~-~j"IFc,'1.. ,\;1.' cJ1fc' ~:!,;! .' ~,,~~.-I:!~.-,,~. '.'~....-F~~~_,ID 't ;3~}L" ~d',~\,;\ 'JJ~~l4-JJ:;: ~ ....... .' ........ " I ';, :.. '1L ,.," . ~ 'ci~,'i:!-' ,lfc.... 'It" .. ."", ,":it'" c. '" . '-1- E'-~~-~~' . '::; , ,~. .;~,$I~::~.~~:,~,.-ht:.. ui,'.tC1 'ltir.' ]f;;~~'\!:Jrf"f:~.i' ~'''.\ ..~. ;~~" _.~.: ~ . ,,;~~*-_! . t::it'1!:l~ I:!~:.pc.<,: .:' U!'''~:.:i. ."'i.,...."':~..." . .... "..~.,~.' 1f'->I"~c<-~'~,:, ~-t"" '; ~ ~'''''c:L ,~::.~ r~ii';\1~.i6',1 .... . """"'~'._ ';'~.." '~." 1'.' "">'~." ::>> .:A' ,:' .'- >8-,. ... ~-r -," t: ~.. ..' 'I~~P .. SJt.~' , 'ii: ;~' '; a ~.1~\'-'{2Zt* 'I' . ,'.i' '''''. ~ ':1"""'~ ~:it:. '........... . Jti--:,if! .... """...'i.._, .. ,.,,~ It~f[' "",,\ ~ . .:. ~J21\ .... '7'"". .-<--"to:"'., o:;t E-< - CCI - ::r: :x: ~ ~ .:H f"l N ~ >- ....l Z o ~ < U L.t.l <t: > ~ ~ L.t.l ~ ~ L.t.l ~ f-< L.t.l ....l ~ < L.t.l >- ~ @ L.t.l f-< > C/l <t: >- .... f-< .... -< ~ ::J o C!l f- -< [/J C/l o < Z L.t.l L.t.l "" ~ o ~ [/J [/J L.t.l ~ ~ Cl ( .1 "" f~.~\r t~}.~r~-'-" 1:~-_At; ~~; ~. .. .. ..,..;., j1!,l'U / . ',......,:....." "'\:~'iii-,,'" ",.. ""..~'-~_.;.;'..... ~~...~~-,. ~'---" ~ ,.' - .<~~~. .:~.:-,;;..,~~y~j.~~..;;.j:... .~ ::t:.k;~J.;;..,,'~...: ~:_ ", . ;:: "'_~.'""""~.._#4t"':'l;Y:f.." h""':Q:.~.,,:::4 . '"7'.1'-, -=-'~:....~'';." :,:"-' ~ ";'~J-" , "~~~;,,:~ ..._';"~......:.y ':' . ":.">, k, '" ~~~~~- '$ , -"<. ~~~" ..... ':-" _ .~ ~..._~' _>T".<."~ :- :.- o~~,'....~ ..... ..~ ...~~._~:' t,' ..~,'-~ . .-.~;~.>;i~:; : ~~,""" . ..., "".'....,.....".'...... .l. 't' _.~~ .~<~:.~;.~::_., - It-~_.~ '"i;;. ~III..~. "'~ ~'i:""~ . ,\\' ~'e;''C ;'f .\'.)otj;. 0 ,. _. _~. . ""4.,__ ~;... -'.~._":<_' > ~ 0' '0':> - ,d- ''-''~'" ~... . . ~<.~~ .t:...", .~ ~,"a:il'i' . ~~,~ o(,~" ",'4'",-. '. ~ -'.;~'~ ~",,". ..~t e:~___ "l,_'}( \~i~~~i.-~t<:...~':----- -~~~_.. ./:- ~" c'. . \. .,~",~c~".r~ l~!. ~'.:\".~i~{'t.-i..' '(:' :t;~~~.,;;~~:,:J;"... {~., ~f"~~~ "-~ ..." .- , {7;'l'. ~",'il ~'~ 1;-', ...., 'c.. liiQ" ~ '" ~ ~ -u.; 'I ".",. - ,,:'S. ~ ;~. ~~. ,,;;. $ t:: (,~' ~. .-{;-' ~ ,~'"t~~n' "NA;:iV'" ~ . i JIr". (''''.' .. ,.... <101 ;;;I~. , .... . I'-J; 1 .'s..,~...~~..;."'.. lI:1...~"'~: '-,.: ~~';. ,',-:~ . \ .''''''---''"''L' ~ . _~;;~ :""'~ .~..~._" ~uff ",.^~o_ c'''' ~.1'~, ..;$-,._. ~;/~~j:_~:" ~:'- ~~-'-.r:";'-: ~""",. ~.. '~):""'-."W j'" .' ~w>..:"__"~' ....,.. .-,' -.' ~." . ".' ~'- " _",..;; '4'-" fi!iftt. ..J,..,. ..-. r. "~-~v: .... ;':",'-- ..~'~,: ~>. ',..IS_ ,,",. ,.. """~lfl~',- ".~~., .. _.~~~~I"~'~'..'~.''''' ~.'." ..,'--,~-' '. ~~., -, '~'- p -' ~-:;"'"'' ^,-,".- ,',.-" .'- "",.. .,' $:,.., ~ ._.........~......" ".. . "'i.,t ';".J.o~" U.v.... ...... ....111'. <, ~iJF. ..' _'. '-,..CIll;;. M ~_,r-'".. '.' <,.;. 'll:: . F ~ l!!. l:l ':::1., ;::." ,;if:. .U iCl .~, ..;!.Il. ~';:1!l"'- ~==., ,'el II: >' '....T. :S.. :"" '. , ;~"D!.. Cl .... .' )0'.,.,.' "".i;"', ...,;z,,,"""'..... .~~ ,Do. .....(_P.f~:.ca: w~...-.'.;C'l....~., ~ I:L~;..3:.. '-3:.:l~ ~ ,.,.;: .., ..f/} ... :.'1(i'i--,:. ,.' .. '. -......nJ .- \. 1II...z . ,'~-.' '''''-.''.~' ..'. '-:~II: iIi'i..':\ CII'\'IIl_ .,~~~ 'H.' ,1.:..1 ~~::r "'~"'~ ,~~_~~;tj,~ % ";;"1; M' a2 - III ....IlI..' e-",,~!t- "'* ~'.i:I''i.;;.u..j;..'O' z'" - lr.. ' '~ C'< ~ "m:cl, ..!:' -.:., <~.;, . ,~_~.' "2!~~...'~' f":':'P""''''' '- ~'< Ai '= 4 "- , ~ ~l~'t~~'~, ~~'f~'l!"~IAlt ~t '~. ~~ I~r ;~T i., '", ",' ""', -~""'~. jt; .'X " '''''''11\0 v..(".. . ~ '. ~;~, 'If"- " '" ~~\- . .......::::. \' . '!It ):).'" , ~,/'. 3n1aA... i.:,'.:"' ~.~ ~.lJ 1< ~~~:..: 1-, , \ 1 \ . i"" \ l~ \ .;:' \ ~. ' \:f \ 1_' \ ,. \ I \ \ I ,. F \ \. \ \ r ':I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ " \ :,', , 'I:'"~;.;o;,;;''::-~il'..~ r -0::'-- r '. (. ~ -o!,:. .."\" ,,:t:'-:, IX. ,_-I ~..~ "" 'ilt-, " . . '~:';:"j!.ggf'l!T ..t"- " . ~t; U)c"J:" ' ,.". ~F ., :J:--'O ...... '.. ."". .~I:::....'...,-~.~.... '.C..! ."~'~'t., . { "'f (.{'( ~. .." ~ '. . :-I'~'~'-:' .'.:.~: ':,-~" ,,(p~m~~' ~ -, ....,'__4-~, \. ,.,,,...~ '>''''''''''.''-'' '" i""Tif""""'l "" '.)."~. '. ',.."';. ~!t..:.;. ,.., ,~." 'I. ~"." ;.';.1...~- -:~.\i.."~ .Jh'I~ .. C - .~~ ""'''''''''''''''''''' """ 0( ,...]a ....., '-" .... " ...1..""'.':.i~.....""~."".:....\c '~. ,';." ';;'[' ..~,.'{.~.. ....'.::. .f".:,)i>i~i: ....".:.,j" ~~,~]... ',~:{kI.T"". :, .... ';J:J$~ _~.':=-~ .~.1.....~~.t '.,:-' .... ~'" "..r","", oG:.,,:; ...~.l '{?-~,,,; . .,.. ... '''''.'1. ~ ~~'I '-:-~I ~.':'.'. ....". .,.,.(2..4:~ r".~' e-....:t. . '.: ~;'ll'(Y' ,~,""i"i- ~c.~""" "~ l' ~1'" . '. J~j\o,: ft... ,'" t;.. ",..';1t:-...... ~- .- ,"""-~~ .~?'. - ( ~ .~. "~".......,........~..'...t.' <'=.".'~' ".,." ~;l .. w' l' ..-'-irlll/itC~"t . -I . <f:1 . ~: '. (.' "I -.~ :"':--:-:-:-~' I..'d I ;.l ,'-',:#,.,...."'..::'L, 3 l ..'P'... ". .~ ..,~ .):;; .;-.,;.."..... '.'. '~". .. ~~~~:,~q'~~.... t "'1 "it.,..k'" '~ ",,- ';/". .. 'it ...., _.' ..... '.' !~" 1:1'"Jj." I' ",:~r:.-;:'''4~-' ),Z ,,?,.. ~'1ii' ~. ~,~~." ~ ""1." '.", '. '.~. .'.....,.......".. I"' II (,~-"f. _l:~1 :fl......'~i .... .,' t_:; ~.ll:+:'j>! . (t.. '1.f'" }\,.~ Cj.:1t"t d . l"j.....' ~",fl ''1;'1'11I. ..~~' 1~:t~~~"'J ,0; .1'!. "I' .~. ~1 >" ~ ",. ': " ,~- f. ~.;l~., ..' "I :'f..'" - ~"':";; c .' - ... ..;,.,I~' .,;. ./"'''';''.' .~!;J.. '~~.~ "-',~ ,.,11I ::L. ".~. "',;.'. .,,'''\ ...,"""'..!. >~ 1'( _ "'___ 'I" t;j! Uf ; .' ,.),.,~ ~,rl .'k ~.., ", ,." ,;,..~.~. '::._.1' ...~-.<:...-.~=.~ .. ~. . 'i !i 1 J " , -:......".i!!f..... .. .." 'i"- '~-~>.~"~ 04-, ""~ ~... ii' - ". 'Ill ' [' C ",,;-.., " I I" ' r'" ~ t ~.. l' .1'., i1\I' :'7:1 1.....~~,i,...JJ..t: ~ f lt~,:" :Of..,' ..1M .....t.. .--nt ""~.:J...:'~~..1t ~""""1 _F : -JIo...... _ ~~.. ~ v;- . 1Ii:' <<P..... ~, .i ....ri-;;..;.-'" ......-.,...... .. .' '" .'. . r..... -.T ,.:. t~. . ...."" 'l:...... .'C~ "*'::.;~ ":<'\,.-:i~ ..... """, . . .....,--, t..'. ,,r.. ......,...". ...-."" G''II . ".:) "ie, .:~.' "',~ ,." ~ ,.;11 I.., -'>'.. ~;I\ ;~.-,:""..i , .~'" . ,~f '. .'''.~\.'.~ ~ '1 10' ~m'-''f" ~..:~ I"~~']' <"".", .".( ..'L,. ] 'Iff "",,, i ~ ~ I ," "r.~~\~;',..: ..' If\ E-< >-< CO >-< ::r: :>< ~ ~ DC ~ (/) ~ u ~ f- ~ f- <e: > ~ ...J ~ CQ ...... Cl.l ~> ~ ~ ~<t: ~ ~ u Cl.l <e: f-< ~ ~ ~ ~ >< "' 0 Cl.l :::J o f-< ~ ~ Cl.l f-< ~ ~ ~ CQ > u:i <e: <t: ... Cl.l ... u... "' o f- (/) V Z ~ "' V ~ (/) (/) ~ "' ~ o ( r r Exhibit 6 f ^ .~-~~~"""'" ^,.,~"':'Ck.~1fJ~,'~ ","?~~;:"<>;^ __~_ _~.~.'.'7;;c:~",.:._ -._.....,.""_'.0"".-:...,._ ~,~.-._..._--"'.. .- >- ,~ .\}t:~ :::7U Traffic flows and queuing pattern at the Rengstorff Avenue and Central Expressway intersection are indicative of very poor intersection operations during the peak hour traffic period due to the proximity of the railroad tracks to the intersection, A Rengstorff Avenue grade separation at Central Expressway and the Caltrain tracks wouid reduce traffic delays, enhance vehicle and pedestrian safety, and contribute to improved train operations on the Peninsula, Notwithstanding these improvements, the City of Mountain View would like to develop a grade separation that minimizes right of way impacts, accommodates future development, and is fundable, On April 23, 2002, City Public Works Department staff presented to the Council an overview of the Rengstorff Avenue/Central Expressway grade separation concepts that were prepared by the County, As part of the County- Wide Expressway Planning Study, the County's engineering consultant developed five grade separation alternative concepts, which were presented at a City Council study session, The five concepts consisted of: 1. Depressing Rengstorff Avenue under the raiiroad tracks, 2, Elevating Rengstorff Avenue over the railroad tracks and Central Expressway, 3, A combination of depressing Rengstorff Avenue and elevating the tracks and Central Expressway, 4, Elevating the tracks and Central Expressway over Rengstorff Avenue, and 5, Elevating Rengstorff Avenue over the tracks and Central Expressway with an at-grade loop ramp (variation of Concept 2), Appendix F contains the study session report and a conceptual drawing of each alternative, In each concept, the !' railroad tracks and Central Expressway were grade'separated from Rengstorff Avenue, At the conclusion of the staff presentation, the Council expressed concerns that an option of an elevated structure would create a physical barrier and become a continuous disruption to the community. Council emphasized a strong preference for depressing Rengstorff Avenue under the railroad tracks and directed staff to evaluate the feasibility of depressing Rengstorff Avenue under the railroad tracks and Central Expressway, On July 9, 2002, the Mountain View City Councii unanimously endorsed a grade separation for the intersection of Central Expressway and Rengstorff Avenue based on information contained in the County's Expressway Study, The adopted grade separation concept, developed as part of the County's Expressway Study, was an underpass that lowers Rengstorff Avenue under both Central Expressway and the Caltrain tracks, The proposed design also included a sing ie-point urban interchange to replace the existing at-grade intersection at Central Expressway and Rengstorff Avenue, In November 2002, the City retained under contract Parsons Transportation Group (San Jose) to prepare a feasibility study for the Rengstorff Avenue underpass, which would build on the County's concept. The initial development of this feasibility study involved reviewing the County's concept and documenting this review in an Interim Status Report, The Interim Status Report determined that the County's concept had become Infeasible in light of the 4-track alignment contemplated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (POPB), The County's concept conflicted with the 4-track alignment since the eastbound Central Expressway off-ramp was aligned on existing POPB right of way, POPB wouid utilize all of its existing right of way for the two new additional tracks proposed north of the existing tracks, The Interim Status Report briefly reviewed a variation of this alternative, which shifted Centrai Expressway to the north to avoid conflicts with the POPB right of way, However, this variation was also deemed Infeasible because of impacts to 11 residential properties and a shopping center on the north side of Central Expressway, Consequently, another concept was considered that entailed a different intersection configuration than the previous concepts, Similar to the two previous concepts, this concept would grade separate Rengstorff Avenue from the Caltrain tracks by depressing Rengstorff Avenue under the tracks, However, Central Expressway would also be depressed to meet Rengstorff Avenue, creating a lowered at-grade intersection, r 1of4 Parsons CITY OF MOUm-AlM VIEW Rengstorff Avenue Underpass and Grade Separation FINAL Feasibility Study ~~~:~.~~'= .~~~~~"':c~~~*,= ^__=.y-";!,~..._:_....c":E~_.",,_,__::-_'::___._._~-~~:J:?!!!.."''!'''!"E ...., Although this concept maintains an at-grade intersection of Rengstorff Avenue at Central Expressway, it eliminates the existing conflict between Caltrain and vehicular traffic, which improves overall traffic operations, In addition, it is a considerably lower cost option than the County's original concept ($25-$26 million vs, $40- $60 million, construction costs excluding right of way costs), Based on this information, staff advised Council in a memo attachment to a Council Report dated October 14, 2003 that this concept would be carried forward for further analysis in the feasibility study. The concept assumed that the railroad track would remain at the existing grade due to the City's concern regarding the aesthetics of raising the railroad, However, coordination meetings with the POPB revealed that they had developed a railroad profile in which the tracks could be raised a maximum of 8 feet from the existing elevation to minimize the depth the roadway will have to be lowered without impacting the San Antonio Station to the west or Permanente Creek to the east. Implementing the raised railroad profile may significantly reduce right of way impacts and construction costs, Therefore, it was determined that raised railroad profile should be considered as well as maintaining the railroad profile as existing, The feasibility study considers two alternatives, Both alternatives will grade separate Rengstorff Avenue from the Caltrain tracks by depressing Rengstorff Avenue under the tracks, Central Expressway would also be depressed to meet Rengstorff Avenue, creating a lowered at'grade intersection, The difference in the two alternatives involves the elevation of the tracks, In Alternative A, the Caltrain tracks will remain at their existing elevation, Conversely, Alternative B will elevate the Caltrain tracks approximately 8 feet. The concept of the raised tracks was proposed by POPB to minimize the depth the roadway will have to be lowered and to reduce right of way impacts and construction costs, Proposed Condition. The proposed typicai section for Rengstorff Avenue includes two through-lanes for each direction where the outside through-lane is a shared right turn, Left turn lanes will be provided, as well as bike lanes and sidewalks, The horizontal alignment for Rengstorff Avenue follows the existing alignment. The vertical alignment of Rengstorff Avenue will descend under the railroad bridge underpass between Stanford Avenue and -.J the Saint Athanasius Church rectory with a maximum grade of 7%, The roadway is depressed to a maximum depth of 23 feet for Aiternative A and is feet for Alternative B, Retaining walls will be located behind the sidewalk on both sides of the roadway, Central Expressway will have two through-lanes and a shoulder in both directions, Left and right turn lanes will be proposed in the eastbound direction, In the westbound direction, doubie left-turn lanes will be proposed along with a free-right turn lane, Central Expressway intersects Rengstorff Avenue at a lower elevation, thus creating a depressed intersection. The change in vertical alignment is longer for Alternative A, 900 feet east and west of Rengstorff Avenue versus 740 feet for Alternative B, The maximum grade for Central Expressway is about 5%, Retaining walls are located behind curbs, with the exception of the northwest quadrant where the walls are constructed behind the sidewalk, Current vehicular access at Leland Avenue and Crisanto Avenue to and from Rengstorff Avenue will be eliminated due to the depressed roadway, Access to the parking lots at Rengstorff Park will be maintained at Crisanto Ave, nue and at Rengstorff Avenue, south of Stanford Avenue, A pedestrian overpass is proposed near Leland and Crisanto avenues in order to provide the neighborhood on the west side of Rengstorff Avenue access to Rengstorff Park, The structure will span over the roadway from the back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, The ramps, leading to the pedestrian overpass, will tie into the existing sidewalk on the north side of Leland Avenue and the south side of Crisanto Avenue, POPB currentiy has future plans to expand the railroad corridor to 4 tracks, The two additional tracks are proposed on the north side of the existing tracks, The existing northbound track will remain in place while the southbound track will be shifted 2 feet south in order to obtain the preferred spacing of 15 feet between tracks, For Alternative B the railroad profiles will begin ascending immediateiy east of the San Antonio Station and peak at approximately the Rengstorff Avenue underpass, After the underpass, the profile remains at a zero percent grade and conforms to the existing track elevation east of Permanente Creek, This profile maximizes the raising of the railroad without adversely impacting San Antonio Station to the west or Permanente Creek to the east. ...., 2of4 October 2004 r ~, ( ""1""'!"~.~':"!,~~~,~~.____,_.~_,~:.,:"_.....__._",0!'Z'!!!'l~~=_"~,-~",,,_____~_-_."..::.o,-,-T~~....~.""" "'?1'!::;",_;-_-.~.,~~~~~j,"~~?Jr Development of the grade separation will require an underpass structure for the railroad, A 4-span, precast- prestressed concrete box girder structure is proposed, The iength of the bridge wili be approximately 200 feet and the box girders will be 5 feet deep, The width of the bridge wili be 70 feet which accommodates four tracks, A center bent will be located in the median island on Rengstorff Avenue and additional bents will be located west and east of the existing Rengstorff Avenue edges of pavement. Retaining walls, ranging in height from 2 to 23 feet, will be required along the outsides of Central Expressway and Rengstorff Avenue in order to accommodate the lowered at-grade intersection, For Alternative B retaining walls are also necessary along the railroad corridor to support the elevated trackway, Architectural treatments will be added to the retaining walls as well as the underpass structure to enhance their appearance, Renderings have been prepared to illustrate a range of treatments that could be considered, Perspective illustrations have also been prepared to depict the appearance of the project after construction, Considerations Requiring Discussion. The POPB intends to fully utilize their right of way in the future with plans for electrifying the rail line and adding two additional tracks north of the two existing tracks, These future improvements can be accommodated within the existing right of way for the railroad, Surrounding the project site is a mixture of commercial and residential areas with significant facilities including the Community Center and Northpark Apartments to the east and Shell Gas Station and Mi Pueblo Market to the west, Due to the lowering of Rengstorff Avenue maintaining access to some properties becomes impossible after the grade separation is constructed, Therefore, these properties will be acquired, Six parceis are impacted by Aiternative A as compared to four parcels for Alternative B, Additional right of way will be needed to accommodate sidewalks adjacent to Walgreen's shopping area and Shell gas station and along Rengstorff Avenue, where a separated sidewalk is required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), Several driveways will also be impacted Many of the existing utilities will need to be relocated due to the lowering of Rengstorff Avenue and Central Expressway including storm drain, sanitary sewer, water, street lighting, electric, gas, and fiber optics cable, A pump station will also be required to evacuate storm water from the iow point and pump it to the nearby City storm drain system, It is proposed to locate the pump station on the northwest corner of Rengstorff and Leland avenues, In order to minimize the impact of the grade separation construction on vehicular traffic and train operations the construction needs to be divided into stages, A 4-stage construction plan is proposed, The north half of the underpass bridge along with the two northerly tracks will be constructed in Stage 1. The south half of the bridge and improvements to Central Expressway and Rengstorff Avenue will be constructed in Stages 2 and 3, Minor clean up operations will be performed in Stage 4, Based on the findings of the Environmental Scan, it appears that the appropriate environmental document for the Rengstorff Avenue Grade Separation project under either alternative would be a Categorical Exclusion/Exemption (CE/SE) with studies, It is recommended that the leading agency conduct a pro-active public outreach as the concepts are developed to ensure early identification and resolution of emerging community issues, Conclusions. Both Alternatives A and B considered in this study would result in reduced traffic delays, enhanced vehicle and pedestrian safety, and improved train operations, Future development is also accommodated since both alternatives provide for POPB's future improvement plans, such as electrification and a 4-track alignment. The traffic analysis also revealed that with the grade separation, the Rengstorff Avenue/Central Expressway intersection can be expected to operate at an acceptable level of service in the foreseeable future assuming 1%- 2% annual traffic growth, Specifically, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS D in Year 2015 and LOS E in Year 2030, Where the alternatives differ is in the geometrics, right of way impacts, and project costs, While Alternative A provides a grade separation without elevating the railroad, it impacts additional properties and is more expensive to construct, However, the difference in costs between Alternatives A and B is only about $2 million or (- approximately 5% of the $43-45 million project costs, Consequently, deciding between the two alternatives may 3 of 4 Parsons CIT't OF MOUNTAIN VIEW Rengstorff Avenue Underpass and Grade Separation FINAL Feasibility Study ~~"'''!~~='''''''''''.'':~... ...._.::".~ ~ . ~~~~::?~_-'_-!O:~~!"",,:'-'.-~...:.o..~=_ ~__ _,:!,.~~1_.1__.=,_..__._~__ _ __~,_",,,,,,,,,,=k_~~_~__~~~_.~~,.;,:.~.,,,~.:_. 0_ ~_ boil down to determining if the right of way impacts or visual impacts should be minimized, Estimates of probable costs were prepared for both Alternatives A and B and these estimates are summarized in the table below, Estimate of Probable Project Costs 1.0 ; Structures $2,190,000 $2,330,000 $8,950,000 i $10,800,000 $9,060,000 $6,100,000 ------------.,---------------.-.-.-.-------- $20,200,000 $19,230,000 $2,020,000 i $1,930,000 , $4,040,000 i $3,850,000 i-----------------------------------,-------------------------- Construction Total ' $26,260,000 ; $25,010,000 Design (10%) $2,630,000 $2,510,000 Amtrak (10%) $2,630,000 $2,510,000 Construction Management (15%-18%) $3,940,000 $4,510,000 POPB Staff Costs (3%) $790,000 $760,000 ~ Construction + Soft Cost Subtotal , $36,250,000 : $35,300,000 -----------."- ---------------------------------1----------- : Utilities I $2,040,000 : $1,890,000 ....-..................................-t-. -.. . i JRi~~t_O! W~y'___m_'__'_____'m.."'..'.._ i.., ,." " ,.",~6,!9,O~0_00Lm._..___~~~~,00_o.,' ; PROJECT TOTAL : $45,080,000 ; $42,870,000 , 2,0 : Railroad ,~~~R.".ad":~..",_,m_,_____ ------r Construction Subtotal Mobilization (10%) Contingency (20%) 4,0 5.0 "'*' While the transportation funding outlook is not very favorable at the moment, the City of Mountain View should continue to monitor funding programs and coordinate efforts with agencies in the region to program the project, Project readiness is often a significant factor in ranking potential projects for funding, Therefore, by preparing this feasibility study the City is well'positioned to compete for funding once the economy rebounds, ~ 4of4 October 2004