At a study session Feb. 7, representatives of the consultant group AECOM and city staff presented the council with three options – A, B, and C – and asked the council to help them narrow their research to two: A, and either B or C.

Menlo Park council members said Tuesday night they need more information before they can pick preferred options for separating roadways from railroad tracks, a costly and complex undertaking intended to increase traffic flow and safety at rail crossings.

A 3-D rendering of what a fully-elevated Caltrain might look like, according to Mickie Winkler, former councilwoman. She recommended the company conXtech. Consultants said fully elevating the Caltrain tracks can't be done without cooperation from neighboring cities. (Image courtesy Mickie Winkler.)

A 3-D rendering of what Ravenswood Avenue might look like under Option A, looking east. This option, proposed by consultants, would leave the Caltrain tracks where they are and would tunnel Ravenswood Avenue beneath. (Image courtesy AECOM/City of Menlo Park.)

Each option has its pros and cons, presenter Etty Mercurio of AECOM said, and carries implications for other grade separations along the Caltrain line. For instance, if the city were to pick Option A, it could be harder and more expensive to build grade separations at the other rail crossings later on, since the chance to raise the tracks may have passed.

● Option C: The same as Option B, but adds the Glenwood Avenue crossing. According to the staff report , the tracks at Glenwood Avenue would be elevated up to 10 feet and the road lowered a maximum of 11 feet.

● Option B: Combine elevating the tracks with lowering the roads at the Ravenswood and Oak Grove avenues crossings. The tracks could be raised as much as 17 feet above ground. The road could be lowered as much as 15 feet at Oak Grove Avenue.

The city's policy stance is to oppose a third rail line being installed in Menlo Park, but since the funding for the study of road-rail separations came from Measure A funds from the San Mateo County Transit Authority, the city has to comply with that requirement.

The space for a third line could be later used for high-speed rail, but it could also be used by Caltrain to enable trains to pass each other, said Angela Obeso, city transportation engineer.

One of the sticking points in the discussion is the requirement that the study "not preclude" the possibility of building a third rail line through Menlo Park.

Council members expressed surprise that more residents, particularly homeowners near the Caltrain line, weren't at the meeting to express their concerns. They said the consultants should send out mailers on the three options in advance of the next meeting to make sure the word gets out.

According to Adina Levin , who blogs about Caltrain and is a Menlo Park transportation commissioner, "The grant application was made by Caltrain, for a project that has been in the works for many decades. The tracks from San Francisco to San Jose are owned by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Authority (Caltrain), which has an agreement to share the tracks with High Speed Rail when that service goes forward."

Earlier this week, according to the Los Angeles Times , California's congressional Republicans signed a letter asking that the pending federal grant for Caltrain electrification be blocked until an audit of the project's finances is completed. The letter, Democrats countered, misstated that the grant was requested by the High Speed Rail Authority, when it was requested by the Caltrain Joint Powers Board as a separate project from high-speed rail.

A Feb. 8 statement from Caltrain's Executive Director Jim Hartnett says that the electrification project needs a $647 million grant from the Federal Transit Administration's Core Capacity program, which would be matched with $1.3 billion of local, regional and state dollars.

Another question is how the project would be affected if Caltrain does not get the federal funding it is seeking for its electrification project. According to Liz Scanlon, Caltrain planning manager, the project could be adjusted if funding doesn't come through, but said, "We're quite hopeful we'll receive funding from the feds."

The consultants haven't yet calculated exactly what the project might cost in Menlo Park. Ms. Mercurio said that a recent study for a similar project in Burlingame found that separating a single road crossing from the tracks would likely cost $250 million, including the costs to reroute Caltrain for the duration of the project. To run Caltrain underground through Burlingame, the estimated price tag was $900 million.

Tunneling the Caltrain tracks beneath the road has been ruled out because it would likely triple the cost of an already very expensive project, she said. That, too, would need cooperation with other cities on the Caltrain Corridor, many of which have already built grade separations with elevated train tracks.

In that scenario, even if the goal were to elevate the Caltrain line as much as possible, the city would still have to lower the elevation of the road to create a tall enough gap for cars and trucks to pass through, said Ms. Mercurio.

Former councilwoman Mickie Winkler sent the council a rendering of what a fully elevated Caltrain line could look like, along with a recommendation of a company that makes such a system prefabricated. Elevating the tracks fully can't be done in Menlo Park without extending the elevation into neighboring cities, consultants said, since the maximum amount of elevation change Caltrain allows is a 1 percent grade.

Separating roads from rails: Menlo Park examines options