My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2021.02.08 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
AgdaPkt 2021.02.08 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/11/2021 4:35:44 PM
Creation date
2/4/2021 4:26:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
2/8/2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
612
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
7.A. - Page 6 of 36 <br />ANALYSIS <br />Grade Separation Study— Staff has developed four different separation alternatives, with drawings and <br />illustrations available in the virtual open house at www.rwctransitplan.com. Alternative 1 proposes <br />separating all crossings as part of a single project with above -ground tracks and train platforms, which has <br />the highest initial cost, but requires less lowering of streets. Alternatives 2 and 3 separate all crossings in <br />two phases — with the northern three crossings first and the southern crossings next. These two <br />alternatives have lower initial costs, but higher total costs and the southern crossings would experience <br />longer gate down times until they are separated. Alternative 4 only separates Whipple Avenue, which has <br />been the City's highest priority due to the volume of people crossing the tracks and its safety record. While <br />Alternative 4 addresses the largest near-term problem — Whipple — it does not solve other <br />grade crossing issues and would require the closure of both Broadway and Brewster Avenue to vehicles. <br />All alternatives would need to be built while maintaining train service during construction. <br />Staff is currently engaging the public to inform them of the trade-offs of the different alternatives <br />and to understand their concerns and priorities. At the conclusion of this process, with City Council <br />feedback, the City will select one as a preferred alternative. The timing for this alternative selection is not <br />yet determined. <br />Station Location and Design — Due to the space constraints for locating a four -track station in Downtown, <br />Caltrain and City staff also analyzed moving the station to Redwood Junction, in unincorporated Redwood <br />City, which has more available land and which would be convenient to a potential, future Dumbarton Rail <br />connection (See Attachment E, Map). However, there are significant drawbacks to this option. The <br />Redwood Junction location creates challenges with efficiently scheduling the trains and increasing <br />service. It could also reduce the amount of transit service in Downtown Redwood City, where existing land <br />uses and densities are the most supportive of transit ridership. Additional background is provided in a <br />memo from Caltrain in Attachment C. Staff will continue to work with SamTrans and Caltrain staff in <br />evaluating transportation needs for the Redwood Junction area, to ensure that the mobility needs of that <br />community are addressed. The potential future Dumbarton Rail project may also provide additional <br />opportunity to serve the area. <br />The City and Caltrain staff will continue to analyze a four -track station option in downtown. An effort is <br />underway to determine the land needed for the station, and staff is working with a consultant team to <br />define a vision for the how the station would look and operate. A key component of this design is ensuring <br />that there are high-quality pedestrian and bicycle connections and amenities throughout the station <br />area. The community and City Council will have opportunities to further direct priorities and provide <br />feedback on new design concepts. <br />Community Amenities and Affordable Housing —The community survey questions were designed to <br />identify tradeoffs to the community and elicit key priorities and preferences. The survey results, <br />summarized in the section above, relate to the Transit District in the following ways: <br />Page 6 of 12 <br />City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA. 94063 Tel: 650-780-7000 www.redwoodcitV.org <br />182 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.