Hon. Mayor and councilmembers

Here are answers to questions and others asked:

1. Electrification is a "done deal" with the purchase of new electric
locomotives or electrical multi unit trainsets already announced and
funded;

2. It is planned that diesels will be put to service on Dumbarton Rail,
which Bridge was chosen by Congress for expanded transportation demands
as an alternative to building a new bridge across the Bay.

3. It is predicted that, by summer, the announcement will be made that
the Caltrain Corridor will remain as the chosen route for high speed
rail. If so, all discussion of grade separations or quiet zones will be
moot. The Bay Area Regional Rail Plan due in July will probably give
confirmation and clarification.

4. Regarding the trench design for trains through Menlo Park it is
common knowledge that the Reno trench causes more vibration and noise
than previously experienced from freights.
(see www.RenoRETRAC.com) Guests of the Sands and residents will confirm
this.

5. High Speed Rail is a national program which will probably be
privately/publicly funded. Washington will have the last word.

6. In the meantime, the environmental studies at www.fra.dot.gov
should be revealed to all developers and buyers near rail. The EIR on
horns showed that there were "severe" impacts
to residents within 660' from the tracks and a "serious" impact over
1,000' away.
These penetrate even double-paned windows which, in any case, are
lacking in millions of homes along railroad tracks, to say nothing of
those unprotected outside. So-called transit housing is considered up
to one-half mile from the tracks and planned transit villages are
intended for light rail.

7. Bill McClure, our city attorney, sent comments in to the FRA Docket,
together with over 3,000 others opting for "quiet zones" with
supplementary safety measures. By next year, injurious routine
blasting horns should be a thing of the past.

8. Should there be secret meetings between city officials who are
interested only in train service - CETS (Cities for Expanded Train
Service) while ignoring the needs and health and safety of other
stakeholders? One of our own city commissioners accompanied by a
councilmember was turned away from one of these meetings. At the last
JPB meeting we learned that now city managers are meeting with Caltrain
staff.
What happened to the sunshine?

9. Should the big "M" be the order of the day "Moratorium" on housing
alongside heavy rail - no change from commercial and industrial?

10. Are politicians, city officials, off-the-street members of the
Sierra Club and other committees, commissions and tasks forces qualified
to argue against acoustical experts (see Menlo Park's adopted Noise
Element of the General Plan/Trains.) We again urge that this be framed
and put before the planners and other officials who have done a
disgraceful job of protection.
Such negligence has resulted in irreparable damages. Should more
tenements be crammed around the tracks and service be increased unless
full mitigation of the train-related air and noise pollution has been
achieved?

If not, ill-considered Resolutions and Demands may well shut down
Caltrain altogether, which is as it should be, since it failed to
prepare an environmental impact report before its "extreme makeover"
The EIR that was prepared for the electrification (available in the
library) does not adequately address noise and neighborhood problems
which will be exacerbated by increased service.

Margaret Petitjean

attached mail follows:

http://www.caltrain.com/project_factsheet_G_rail_electrification.html
Received on Sun Mar 11 19:23:49 2007