Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 76 <br /> Page 20 <br /> City of Redwood City - , <br /> Community Development <br /> ~ "" -..."' ..,...,.., . ~ '" _:'fo~ ....- <br /> Serv1.ces ' . <br /> Memo <br /> To: Ed Everett <br /> Peter Ingram <br /> Fm: Joel Patterson <br /> cc: <br /> Date: July 20, 2 <br /> Re: Comments Regarding "Downtown and Transportation <br /> Relationship Connections and Integration" memo from Bruce <br /> Lied strand <br /> Below are a couple of comments I would offer in regard to Caltrain issues <br /> downtown. <br /> From a design and use perspective it certainly makes sense to elevate the <br /> tracks to allow vehicular and pedestrian access to freely cross the right of way. <br /> The only concern I have is that we should wait for more information before we <br /> choose a "penetrable elevated structure" as the preferred design option. This <br /> may be achievable, but until we see what the designs might look like for a <br /> "heavy rail" structure we should wait to evaluate our options. <br /> Costs for an open structure may also make the entire project infeasible. With <br /> significant cost escalation in proposed grade separations in this County, <br /> Redwood City will have to look at design/costlfeasibility issues as an entire <br /> package. <br /> Due to cost escalation for construction projects, the time tables are being <br /> moved back. Durnbarton rail services is being moved from 2010 to 2012. The <br /> San Bruno grade separations will be delayed from two to five years due to <br /> cost increases. Clearly, the solution for Redwood City is far in the future, but <br /> we should start laying the foundation for this expected change. <br /> Until a dedsion is made regarding a two, three, or four track configuration, <br /> there should be no development allowed on Block 2 unless it can <br /> accommodate the four track alternative. <br /> -, ._... <br />