PALO ALTO — News that high-speed rail might come to the Peninsula much sooner than anticipated prompted the City Council on Tuesday to ask the state rail authority to take a collaborative approach in its environmental review of the project.

The council also reiterated that it would like to see a grade separation at major intersections and voted to seek a commitment of 15 percent of the revenue from a proposed county transportation sales tax measure to be spent for that purpose.

That would represent a bigger slice for local transportation needs than what the city has received from past Santa Clara County ballot measures.

Some Bay Area city officials were surprised by the California High Speed Rail Authority’s renewed focus on the San Francisco to San Jose segment because they believed the agency was going to start building the line in Southern California after finishing the first section in the Central Valley.

The authority held four community meetings last month to initiate its environmental analysis of the 51-mile Peninsula portion of the line, which ultimately is to stretch from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

Councilman Pat Burt said the state agency’s goal to certify a final environmental report by summer 2017 is unrealistic.

“I think that what they are planning to do is a prescription for failure,” Burt said. “It is the sort of process that resulted in the horrendous backlash on the Peninsula previously.”

Burt, who previously served on the city’s Rail Committee, said Palo Alto should again rally other Bay Area cities to ask the rail authority and Caltrain to take a “context sensitive solutions” approach in evaluating high-speed rail on the Peninsula.

To do that, more time would be needed for a proper environmental review, the council agreed.

Councilman Marc Berman said the state agency’s accelerated environmental review process is unreasonable and unnecessary.

“We should push back as forcefully as we can,” Berman said.

In a 7-0 vote, the council directed the mayor and city staff to convey its stance to the rail authority and Caltrain, asked the mayor to reappoint the Rail Committee and requested staff to plan a citywide context sensitive solutions approach to the future of rail in Palo Alto and the mid-Peninsula.

Councilman Eric Filseth abstained to avoid a potential conflict of interest, because he lives within 500 feet of a grade crossing. Councilwoman Liz Kniss was absent.

Ben Tripousis, regional director of the rail authority, disclosed at a forum in Burlingame earlier this month that the authority could begin work on the Peninsula segment of the project as early as 2018. At the same time, Caltrain is working on a $1.5 billion project to electrify its rails.

Council members said laying the rails in a trench would make it safer for pedestrians, cars and bikes crossing the railway, especially in a “blended” system where Caltrain and bullet trains would share tracks.

Under one option being considered, as many as 20 trains would pass through Palo Alto every hour — four in each direction from high-speed rail and six in each direction from Caltrain.

“One train every three minutes, with what amount of down time and recovery at signals, we would have virtual gridlock with that amount of trains,” Burt said.

Though the rail authority has not committed to a blended system, both agencies have said they will give more credence to local proposals for grade separation if someone takes the lead on the design and environmental study for the work, according to a staff report.

To pay for the project, the council voted 8-0, with Filseth voting this time, to have city staff advocate for inserting language in any proposed county transportation tax that would allocate 15 percent of revenue to fund countywide Caltrain grade separation.

Residents who addressed the council Tuesday generally supported the city’s efforts to bring rail alternatives to Palo Alto.

Stephen Rosenblum said the city should insist on a covered trench, which would be valuable real estate or an area for bike trails.

Neil Shea, who supports high-speed rail, asked city leaders to be cost conscious and suggested that a hybrid crossing option be added to the mix.

Shea used the Palo Alto Medical Center pedestrian crossing as an example. There, trains run three feet above grade compared to across the creek in Menlo Park, where they run six feet above grade.

“I understand there’s nervousness around town that if we don’t build a trench, something bad will happen,” Shea said. “But we can easily get pedestrians under the train at many places.”

Councilmen Berman and Greg Scharff said they don’t want to rule out grade separation options, such as elevating the tracks, that may minimally impact private property while reducing project costs.

The council in 2014 ruled out a $277 million option to lower roadways such as Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive and Charleston Road under the rail tracks and instead opted for trenching.

Digging a trench between San Antonio Road and Oregon Expressway could cost from $488 million to $1 billion, depending on whether the grade is 1 or 2 percent.

The council discussed applying for state funding for trenching but ultimately decided to first pursue interim grade crossing safety measures.

Email Jacqueline Lee at jlee1@dailynewsgroup.com or call her at 650-391-1334; follow her at twitter.com/jleenews.