So pleased that at least one place in the area is trying to eliminate an at grade crossing.

My one comment is that Caltrain cannot become a rollercoaster going up and down at different points along its track. Whatever is done in Mountain View is going to affect what Palo Alto and Sunnyvale can do. Please talk with your neighbors before making a final decision.

If MV waited for Palo Alto nothing would ever get done. They should just watch and learn, again.

Mountain View should look into what San Mateo plans to do re crossings of this type. As for travel times, I don't see how taking a longer indirect route to an already crowded Shoreline to get to the Moffett side of Mountain View can be "faster".

Why does closing off Castro and extend Evelyn to Shoreline cost $45 million? Seems exhorbitant.

If the decision is to close off Castro, I very much hope that a pedestrian/bike overpass will be built over Evelyn, the train tracks and Central.

Would Moffett / Central to Castro be closed to all traffic (pedestrians, bikes, cars) or just cars? Was any information provided on this?

I don't understand why it's an all-or-nothing approach.

Has it been considered to close Castro/Moffett at peak hours only? Leaving it open during the night and on weekends?

Regardless, I would wish for such an impactful plan to be put up for a vote.

Spend the money on improving Shoreline and close off most of Castro. Having traffic on Castro is not conducive to having a pleasing and successful downtown .

"Anyone trying to cross the tracks now must wait every four minutes for a train to go by" [currently]

Mark, I believe you meant during commute times, which is when Caltrain has its frequent service. In the middle of the day, evenings, and weekends, trains run about once an hour in each direction.

I do not see why Evelyn nor Villa needs to be "improved" if Castro is closed?
Castro is often closed for fair days. No problem found. Just close it with a pile of sand bags, and reprogramming of the lights.
If it turns out there is a problem, then consider something else.
Seems like a no brainer.

Where did a train every four minutes come from? Looking at the Caltrain schedule between 4pm and 7pm I count 27 trains including those that don't stop. That works out to about 7 minutes on average

I like the idea of closing off the intersection to cars, but it would be nice to have a pedestrian/bike under or overpass to keep it connected to the northern neighborhoods.

The "train every four minutes" figure is the projection of what will happen when the Caltrain electrification is complete. A major upside of that project is faster, longer, more frequent trains. The high speed rail would also put more trains on the tracks. Kimley/Horn estimated close to 50% "gate down" time during peak hours.

Both of the alternatives were presented with a pedestrian underpass. A bridge would have to be elevated about 25' over the tracks, whereas a tunnel can drop about 10'.

What's the big deal? That intersection is a total nightmare, to be avoided at all costs. Spending millions of dollars on an underpass is just more development that isn't needed. Do a traffic study for what would happen if the city blocked car traffic to and from Castro St. Put a walking/bike bridge over the tracks.

Better yet, tell calTrain to build an overpass for the train.

Here are answers to some questions/concerns.

Yes, the Caltrain schedule has trains every four minutes only during rush traffic--just the period when it is most disruptive.

Yes. The option to close Castro/Moffett for vehicles includes a tunnel for bikes and pedestrians that crosses under the railroad and Central Expressway, and that tunnel is a big part of the cost of this option.

The option to close Castro/Moffett involves converting both roads to T intersections, not dead ends. Moffett Blvd would go left or right at Central Expressway, but not across, for example.

It would cost so much to close Castro because making it a T Intersection instead of a dead end means the traffic turning left would need a bridge to connect Evelyn with Shoreline, and the available right of way means the intersection would have to be very near the peak of the Shoreline bridge over the railroad and Central Expressway--another big part of the cost of this option.

Making Evelyn traffic in that direction turn back to Villa (which already intersects with Shoreline) would mean that Castro is effectively a dead end at the railroad. Nevertheless, the traffic study expects significant Castro traffic diversions to Shoreline will also take place at California, Dana and Villa, thus decreasing Castro traffic between Villa and Evelyn--a disadvantage for businesses in that block.

Palo Alto does want the High Speed Rail (and Caltrain) to be underground all the way through their city, but they will not pay for it, even if Menlo Park and Mountain View also put the tracks underground--it's just way too expensive--and Mountain View should not put the tracks underground for the same reason.

Luckily, the train's horns will not blow at Castro, for either option.

I favor the other option, a vehicle, bike and pedestrian tunnel under the railroad and Central Expressway, even though it is much more expensive because it keeps Moffett Blvd as an entry to downtown and means that stretch of road, including the city property at the 101/Moffett interchange that the city wants to develop into a shopping area, has a fighting chance of becoming an extended downtown. The traffic study does not seem to show this, but I believe this option would mean an increase of traffic, not a decrease, between Castro and Moffett Blvd.

Have they mentioned doing what San Mateo does - both raise Caltrain a bit and lower the road a bit? Though I don't know how expensive that would be, or how well it deals with the overpasses elsewhere.

At least any option would be better than what's there now. Cars could turn left from Moffett onto Central without waiting for all the trains to pass, and they could turn right from Moffett onto Central without waiting behind a line of cars that are waiting for the light to turn. Maybe we could somehow keep just the right turn from central onto castro? That's the only thing there that isn't terrible.

This issue should have been predicted by the brainiac city council members who allowed the Sterlin Central Expy on ramp to be closed for the sake of the wealthy builder constructing the huge development at Moffett and Central Expy. So many locals voiced concern about having to wait for the Moffett-Central Expy traffic light when driving from Moffett onto the Expressway. The brainiacs on Council looked the other way and ignored this issue. They acted as if there was no issue and we all didn't know what we are talking about. So now we have traffic backing up on Moffett all the way back before Middlefield. Your options are now get stuck in traffic on Moffett or get stuck in traffic on Shoreline just to get into Centeal Expressway. Another smart move by the MV city council.

The city traffic engineer is an OK guy (IMO).
"If the decision is to close off Castro, I very much hope that a pedestrian/bike overpass will be built over Evelyn, the train tracks and Central." We HAVE a perfect example of such a pedestrian/bike bridge. Stevens Creak Trail @ freeway 85. The question becomes, not the central spans, but how to 'land it' on each side.
? One foot in the Caltrain parking lot or down the center of Castro 100 block?
Anyway - going over with steel, is going to be much less expense I think than digging tunnels.

Closing Castro Street would be a good way to preserve the downtown area and cut back on so much traffic.

But instead of losing a crossing in Mountain View, why not move the crossing at Castro Street down to Moorpark at Evelyn? This would relieve traffic from that part of Mountain (unless they use the Whisman overpass), and it would be past the VTA Light Rail tracks that have already crossed Central. This would draw the traffic that uses Castro to get on Central.

Web Link
This Google map view is about the same N/S extent of the Stevens Creek pedestrian/bike bridge. Think of a large Z footprint, starting from behind the Adobe Building (city owned) - rising as it goes over the Willowgate St. parking lane (and parallel to Central Expy) spanning Central and Caltrain (like the current bridge) and then turing and settling down in the Caltran parking lot before it even gets to W Evelyn.

All those new residents across Central, and the current residents in the many homes in Rex Manor etc. - still get to keep their walking/biking access to Downtown.

Then - transit center upgrade / iconic Mountain View version,
Cover the nearby VTA/Caltrain station with a large tent.

To the same scale - a Google Maps satellite view. :)

Web Link

Putting the tracks below grade in Palo Alto is desired by many people but San Fracisquito Creek makes a challenging project even more difficult. Menlo Park would also need to go below grade.

Close off Castro and you'll have a lot more cars driving through neighborhood streets, from Shoreline. That's a lot of danger to kids and pets.

Why can't Caltrain fix the lighting system, so you can cross north/south on Rengstorff and Castro? It's utterly insane that it's not fixed.

Even with limited traffic, I sometimes spent over 10-minutes waiting on Rengstorff just to turn on to Central. 3 goddamn trains cross, each one killing the green light and resetting the light for Central east/west traffic. What the hell?

The Rengstorff crossing is the bigger problem if you ask me. Much more cross traffic and waiting. They should fix that first.

Here is the proposal for the Rengstorff crossing, drawn up two years ago: Web Link

@bjd
Note that "Access to stories from our archives that are more than 90 days old requires either a paid subscription or a one-time payment of 25 cents."

To those who say "What's the big deal about closing Castro and making it an isolated downtown?"

Moffett/Castro is a freeway artery, for one.

And I still would like to know why folks don't seem in favour of just closing it during business hours and leaving it open at night, so that people leaving the downtown and the trucks which have to make deliveries to restock the businesses can get through after hours.

Sigh. Look at RTD Light Rail and consider the electrification carefully. I not that with lighter engines, light rail ( and car with power on multiple cars ) climb much higher grades than 1% ones than CalTrain wants to admit. A combination of lowering automobile grade and raising the ( electrified ) CalTrain grade would be a good compromise. RTD Light Rail has good examples of MANY types of Intersections; at regular crossings ( industrial areas ) and both vehicle lowered and train raised overpasses ( much more than a 1% grade level. Electrified engines/motorized passenger cars ) are MUCH lighter because they do not carry fuel and are no longer series hybrid engines as they are now ( Yes, those Diesel Engines should be and were called Diesel-Electric Hybrid Engines ).
THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH THING AS CALTRAIN IF BART WAS ABLE TO FINISH THE LOOP AS WAS DESIGNED OVER 40 YEARS AGO. SP WOULD HAVE LOVED TO GET OUT OF THE PASSENGER CARRYING BUSINESS AS IT CUTS INTO THE PROFITS FROM HAULING FREIGHT! That was why I supported a BART tax!
Tell Caltrain to upgrade to electric and force them to behave like RTD in Denver. They make things X10 better than the VTA and the results show it!

To see Google Maps overhead views, work NORTH of the Lttleton/Mineral RTD Light Rail Terminus. An overhead bicycle/pedestrian bridge is there. Just follow South Santa Fe Drive ( HWY 85 ) NORTH and see over and under bridges for both the Light Rail and BHSF Right of way. Ask the CalTrain people to look at this MODERN commuter system that works! Take a trip with Google Maps and see the ground view of stations and bridges with both over and under vehicle and pedestrian bridges. It will be worth your time to see how many traffic type issues are handled in the spaces given. THIS SYSTEM WORKS!

If they do put Castro under the tracks it will probably look something like the corner of Middlefield Rd. and Jefferson Ave. in Redwood City.


Web Link

Dispersing traffic onto other streets and adding bike lanes would be the best and least expensive way to manage this traffic. Making it easier to drive simply encourages the use of motor vehicles, and will increase the number of cars – and the amount of congestion. Increasing throughput can be achieved if some of this traffic is bicycles rather than motor vehicles, as bicycles take up considerably less space than cars. With travel lanes narrowed to create bike lanes, the diversion streets will feel less of the impact of more traffic as travel speeds will remain low.For Castro Street, a quieter, more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly street will translate into more business for the shops and restaurants.

Y'all need to think about traffic and competing modes when you allow large car-oriented developments that aren’t near a train station. The more parking spaces you require, the more traffic you will generate.

Transportation planner and former resident of the area
(My mom lives here and asked me to weigh in)

@AC
Moffett may be an arterial road, but that section of Castro hasn't been one since the downtown renovation 25-30 years ago. People like me already avoid driving on Castro. Shoreline is just a few blocks away, and traffic there flows much more freely.

As far as closing the Castro crossing only during business hours goes, would the limited benefit justify the extra complexity of creating and maintaining a crossing that alternates between open and closed every day? Closing the Castro crossing would be much simpler and safer. And again, Shoreline is just a few blocks away.