San Mateo County Grand Jury
• 2018-2019
Grade Separations – Bypasses to Greater Safety Issue | Summary | Glossary | Background | Discussion | Findings |
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 12 findings
F1
In SMC, grade separation projects are initiated by cities.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Cities with grade separation project expertise have an advantage in gaining funding over cities without that expertise.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
A Caltrain Peninsula train corridor grade separation master plan does not exist.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
By March 31, 2020, the PCJPB should create a Caltrain Peninsula train corridor Grade Separation Master Plan, including all at-grade crossings in the corridor, based on a prioritization that takes into account the needs and special circumstances of the cities and counties through which the corridor passes, with special attention to adjacent at-grade crossings so as not to limit future design alternatives.
F4
The CPUC’s annual list of prioritized grade separation projects does not include all at- grade crossings in the Caltrain Peninsula train corridor.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Other California train corridors have customized the CPUC’s prioritization equation. Grand Jury interviews. Caltrain, “Caltrain Business Plan May 2019,” slide 34. http://samtrans.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=238, 51 Ibid. Grand Jury interview.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Caltrain plans on increasing train traffic (114 weekday trains by 2022, up from today’s 92 weekday trains), which will be increase “gate down” time at at-grade crossings.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
As of 2018, the cost of building a grade separation in the corridor could range from $202M -$264M, according to the “Caltrain Business Plan, April 2019.”
No recommendations for this finding
F8
In SMC, it typically takes from 7-10 years from the start of the grade separation planning process until construction begins.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
The design of a grade separation in one city can limit the design alternatives in an adjacent city.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
By March 31, 2020, the PCJPB should create a Caltrain Peninsula train corridor Grade Separation Master Plan, including all at-grade crossings in the corridor, based on a prioritization that takes into account the needs and special circumstances of the cities and counties through which the corridor passes, with special attention to adjacent at-grade crossings so as not to limit future design alternatives.
F10
Other California counties have developed corridor-wide approaches to address the challenges of completing grade separations.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The PCJPB is the governing body of the Caltrain Peninsula train corridor.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The PCJPB has experience in obtaining funding, designing and project managing grade separation projects. It also understands the regulatory environment.
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 3
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R2By September 30, 2019, in support of developing the Grade Separation Master Plan, the PCJPB should study other train corridors worldwide to learn how they implemented similar master plans, including methods developed for securing funding.
-
R3By September 30, 2019, the PCJPB should engage with all cities on the Caltrain Peninsula train corridor to gain support for the Grade Separation Master Plan.
-
R4By May 31, 2020, shortly after completing the Grade Separation Master Plan, the PCJPB should offer to support funding and design efforts to the cities in the order determined by the prioritization in the master plan. If a city rejects such support for an at-grade crossing, the PCJPB should then proceed to support the at-grade crossing with the next highest priority in the plan.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.