CC Min 1996-11-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I ¡ I II II Manager Patterson advised there was a total of $23.8 million available from SMCTA and the State for a Whipple Avenue Grade Separation Project. He advised that the available funds would not fully fund all five alternatives described in the Nolte & Associates, consultants, 1993 study, although it would probably fund at least one. - Manager Patterson said the Council was being asked by the two funding sources to decide whether it wants to commit to such a huge project or not. If so they will encumber the funds for that project; if not, they will release those funds to other projects. Manager Patterson said that four years ago when the City first discussed the possibility of a grade crossing at Whipple with various neighborhood groups, staff found there was very little interest in this project At that time the following objectives for a grade separation project were established. . Improve safety by eliminating the grade crossing; . Improve traffic circulation; . Enhance aesthetics in the area; . Create an opportunity for redevelopment in the area; Senior Civil Engineer Lee used overheads and described the five alternatives drawn as presented in the 1993 Nolte & Associates study: . Alternative A. Traditional Underpass, similar to what is being built in San Carlos at Howard and Brittan, approximately 15 feet high. This alternative would not impact traffic on El Camino Real. '- . Alternative B. Whipple Hopkins Couplet with tracks raised about ten feet, and one way traffic on Whipple and Hopkins. . Alternative C. Modified Urban Interchange at Whipple and El Camino Real with a depressed roadway, similar to the Hillsdale grade separation. CaiTrans expressed concerns regarding on and off ramps into fast lanes on El Camino Real. . Alternative D. Realignment of El Camino Real, similar to the grade separation on 42nd Avenue in San Mateo. . Alternative E. Partial Cloverleaf Intersection. Engineer Lee displayed a matrix showing the advantages and disadvantages of each Alternative. Engineer Lee asked Council to provide direction to staff and recommended one of the following: . Direct staff to obtain additional input in the area of traffic modeling and public interest; . City could hold an advisory election and have the electorate decide whether to pursue this project; . Direct staff to move forward with a grade crossing and seek public input on design; . Direct staff to cease activity on this project, risking the loss of transportation improvement funds; ~ REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 NOVEMBER 18, 1996 MINUTES Pac¡e No. 029 PAGE 7