CCMin 2010-06-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

i agreed it was possible. This Council Member also had questions about the multiple vertical options to go up and down, the associated costs for them, and the start date for obtaining federal stimulus funds. Mr. Chang said that about 3,000 feet of land is needed to transition from one vertical height option to another, and that staff recommends that once the track is down, to stay down for a longer distance unless there is some reason it cannot continue, such as for the freight train. Staff's preferred option is for a deep tunnel but they know this is harder for HSR to accept versus the need to take care of Caltrain some other way. He said that the easiest concept is for a deep tunnel underneath all the cities and it is achievable, but the question is can the cities afford it. Regarding a question about when the decision would be made, Mr. Chang said the aerial report already identified the option as high speed rail only and excluded Caltrain. This Council Member expressed her appreciation of the work done and liking for the goal to not divide the community and she wanted to know if this was unique to Redwood City or regional? Mr. Chang said the common goal is the same for accessibility and connectivity, but that the preferences within that goal may be different, such that some cities may be okay with aerial and have less concern because they do not have it going through a core downtown area like Redwood City. Another Council Member said she wanted to acknowledge what some committees have done with a lot of workshops, and Redwood City had three public meetings, and that people are very interested. She also wanted to acknowledge the work Mr. Chang does with the Council subcommittee. She asked, on behalf of community members, why the deep tunnel option is only for high speed rail and why it did not include Caltrain. Mr. Chang explained that cost, the fundamental design concept in high speed rail that if there is no need to go so deep to not do so because the deeper the depth, the greater length of time needed to get people out in the event of any emergencies. Caltrain was excluded because it has so many stations and the preference is not to stop with high speed rail. She asked if a covered trench method is used, who has right of way above it and would it be accessible for the City and not just at the crossings. Mr. Chang did not know but believed it would require further investigation and discussion and that it would not be opened up to local agencies to use it. She asked with the trench option, would there be no need for a grade separation at Whipple Avenue and to have the road at grade? Mr. Chang said that Brewster, Whipple and Broadway are already able to remain without grade separation, but if it does not go down, and it becomes aerial, past Sequoia Station, it would have to go down early enough to avoid Woodside Road. If it does not go down early enough because Woodside Road/Highway 84 is too close, there would need to be grade separations in those three locations. Other questions and discussion included the grade separation, the underpass for Jefferson Avenue, freight at the Redwood City Junction needing to match, what Atherton and Menlo Park are interested in, has the County considered other options, the North Fair Oaks area, keeping the community united and not divided further, and ensuring that the process is as transparent to the community as possible to promote involvement and to leverage expertise. Mr. Chang said that Menlo Park and Atherton want to go below ground, preferably a deep tunnel, and they are open to a covered trench. In response to a question JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD June 14, 2010 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 6 MINUTE BOOK NO. 63 Page No. 108