Logo


Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]


Re: Caltrain Viaduct: Best Option

From: domainremoved <Adrian>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 07:55:53 -0700

Rhetorical question.

If the technology existed to underground an airport and its runways (or a
freeway for that matter), would it make good sense for city, county, state
or federal taxpayers to pay both the real and opportunity costs to
underground it for untold billions to financially and otherwise benefit
primarily those who earlier freely chose to live in its vicinity?

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Robert Cronin <rhcronin_at_(domainremoved)

> I think that the hybrid options presented at the last City Council meeting
> are acceptable. Tunneling is better in many ways, but very expensive. If
> Menlo Park is serious about wanting the tunnel option, then we should be
> willing to tax ourselves to pay for it.
>
> Robert Cronin
>
>
>
> On 4/5/17 7:43 PM, Mueller, Raymond wrote:
>
>> Good evening,
>> I have been reminded I can't ask for reconsideration, because I did not
>> vote for the two alternatives that were selected. Only one of the four
>> Councilmembers who voted for the two alternatives can make the motion.
>> With best regards,
>> Ray
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Mueller, Raymond
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 3:21:33 PM
>> To: Cat Carlton; Cline, Richard A
>> Cc: Steve Schmidt; Emily Mibach; price_at_(domainremoved)
>> Adrian Brandt; mickie650; John Woodell; Robert Cronin; Nagaya, Nicole H;
>> dpine_at_(domainremoved)
>> Subject: Re: Caltrain Viaduct: Best Option
>>
>> Good afternoon all. I am requesting a motion for reconsideration on the
>> selection of design alternatives to be studied for the Ravenswood train
>> crossing. I would like to reconsider my vote which may ultimately affect
>> the Council's decision on this matter. I would like the motion for
>> reconsideration to be heard at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting.
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Cat Carlton <cat.carlton_at_(domainremoved)
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 1:25:01 PM
>> To: Cline, Richard A
>> Cc: Steve Schmidt; Emily Mibach; price_at_(domainremoved)
>> Adrian Brandt; mickie650; John Woodell; Robert Cronin; Nagaya, Nicole H;
>> dpine_at_(domainremoved)
>> Subject: Re: Caltrain Viaduct: Best Option
>>
>> As I said last night, I agree with Rich- tunnel and work with the cities
>> around us on this.
>>
>> Catherine
>>
>> Typoed on my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Cline, Richard A <RACline_at_(domainremoved)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Tunnel it. Any other option will be a mistake.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Rich Cline
>>>
>>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Steve Schmidt <menloparksteve_at_(domainremoved)
>>> <mailto:menloparksteve_at_(domainremoved)
>>>
>>> <MP grade sep II.pages>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Emily,
>>> Please print a correction regarding my comments in today's article about
>>> the Menlo Park grade separation study. Look at the tape of the CC meeting
>>> starting at about 1:47: I said that I supported a viaduct that grade
>>> separated all four MP at-grade crossings. I never mentioned a trench or a
>>> tunnel anywhere in my comments to the Council.
>>> This is most distressing to me since a viaduct that grade separates
>>> Caltrain and High Speed Rail in Menlo Park has always been my position.
>>> I have always opposed a trench or a tunnel as wasteful and impractical.
>>> Attached is a letter that will further explain my position on this issue.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Editor:
>>>
>>> Post article April 5 "Can't We Have A Tunnel" covered the Menlo Park
>>> City Council study session on grade separating one or more at-grade street
>>> crossings of Caltrain. Because my long held belief that the correct choice
>>> is to elevate the tracks, I was shocked to read an incorrect quote of my
>>> statement at the meeting.
>>>
>>> One option that has been dismissed by MP staff based on anecdotal
>>> evidence or political consideration is the best option, a viaduct that
>>> separates all four of Menlo Park's crossings: Ravenswood, Oak Grove,
>>> Glenwood and Encinal. A viaduct will improve safety, eliminate horn noise,
>>> preserve access to commercial & residential properties, greatly enhance
>>> east-west connectivity for bikes and pedestrians and reduce traffic
>>> congestion for everyone.
>>>
>>> We should not think of Menlo Park in isolation. Caltrain is an essential
>>> part of the Peninsula's transportation system. Atherton stubbornly clings
>>> to its policy against any elevation of the tracks, which forces Menlo Park
>>> into choosing between highly flawed alternatives. Menlo Park also held such
>>> a a policy, but wisdom prevailed. Atherton should think regionally and get
>>> on board for a modernized Caltrain
>>>
>>> A viaduct through Menlo Park is the most practical grade separation
>>> solution for the City of Menlo Park. Tax dollars being spent on this study
>>> should include all options and not allow stale political arguments to
>>> influence the findings of this expensive study. We need a complete analysis
>>> by Menlo Park's consultant and City Council of this most viable option.
>>>
>>> Steve Schmidt
>>>
>>
>
Received on Thu Apr 06 2017 - 08:01:59 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]


Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)