At the February Joint Powers Board Meeting of Caltrain, Sue Lempert, the liaison with Metropolitan Transportation Commission, stated that Caltrain should separate itself from high speed rail prospects (or words to that effect) in its program for electrification which is going forward in any case.

Electrification will require structures all along the Caltrain Corridor with overhead catenaries, etc.

Despite the above, in Menlo Park a priority has been given, due to activism by a few, to the siting of an underpass for bicyclists. $50,000.00 has been allotted to find a location. This would be a total waste of time and taxpayer money unless it is known exactly where the overhead catenaries will be placed and the amount of construction that will be necessary for electrification and whether the property owners along El Camino have changed their minds since this project was turned down previously.

A recent entry on the MP e-mail log gives details of the costs in millions of dollars of the Homer tunnel in Palo Alto although we don't know whether this reflected the added amounts incurred when it was found to be inadequate for final approval.

The construction of that tunnel connected to commercial areas was very disruptive and problematic. It was not in a residential neighborhood as is the vision for a bicycle underpass in Linfield Oaks.

We trust it will not be necessary to get an injunction to stop construction anywhere near residences at night, which include Burgess Drive and Waverley Street, and that noise-shrouded equipment with acoustical blankets will be used during daytime.

However, this will necessitate re-locating residents who must sleep during the day or those with infants and sensitive elderly persons.

Construction and staging of trucks alongside residents resulted in years of severe impacts from Burgess Park and other construction projects in the neighborhood. (Consider this in plans for the Burgess Gym.)

Campaign promises should be put aside until the full railroad plans are revealed which may also include the bullet train. if the bond measure for that project passes in November. If the majority of voters are in favor 2009 will see that project go forward with great zeal. It will take a few feet for rails at the station and along the Derry Project. In any case, grade separations for vehicles has been on the books longer than those for bicycles. Mitigation costs should be added to relocate close residents.

Why is it so difficult to understand that the railroad with its grandiose plans has the right-of -way through the very heart of Menlo Park After decades of procrastination on greater access and safety measures around this railroad
our fate is now in the hands of the state and federal governments.. It is too late for personal preferences and pet projects.

That's our money the city is wasting on fruitless studies, including those of placing housing adjacent to the heavy diesel trains, freights and blasting horns which environmental impact reports show will expose people to "train-related pollution" . Housing and Urban Development has strict guidelines which would preclude funding for housing up against the railroad in its present toxic state. That agency has a noise chart which the city would do well to frame and hang before every planner.

We assume that our employees are educated and competent to advise the council and the public. If not, they should be replaced. Let us do away with all the other megalomaniacs who are trying to run the city, many on the commissions, added to those already ensconced in officialdom. Furthermore, there has never been so much hypocrisy as that which exists among so-called environmentalists.

The number one project for priority should be the Noise Contour Map required by the state for the Noise Element of the General Plan. Those maps by the consultants for the distorted vision of El Camino Real should have a wide red line between the Grand Boulevard and the Railroad denoting the hazardous noise areas (to say nothing of the air pollution.) Charles Salter of San Francisco did our noise element in 1979 (see his recommendations in the general plan) and has a rail acoustical expert.
Korve Engineering did the Quiet Zone study of the Alma crossing in Palo Alto.

One of the prospective consultants for the El Camino Visioning project stated that for every 40 units of transit housing there would be just one transit user. Earlier studies have shown that most residents of transit housing do not use public transit.

There should be an assumption that Americans will not get out of their cars and plan accordingly. Some of our main streets become parking lots while drivers block driveways waiting for spaces at the grocery stores to avoid walking a few steps

Without enforcement of our traffic laws, including those for pedestrians and bicyclists there will be no compliance. Cameras are necessary to take the place of traffic officers.

Personally, I have been brought to an abrupt stop three times this month on the railroad tracks from pedestrians suddenly crossing Alma at Ravenswood in front of cars turning right. It is illegal to stop on the tracks. Eight crossing arms while the trains pass will not solve this problem.The danger of the railroad tracks are ignored while all the foot and bicycle traffic with its perceived rights darts out in front of cars in their legal course. Rear enders and gate arms hitting cars are a given. This must be reported to Caltrain, the Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Railroad Administration. If immediate action to resolve this is not taken then the crossing should be closed. With this e-mail I ask once again for the location of the petition for relief of the train horns filed with the city at the project priority setting of 2001. This is the third request. I urge everyone to google "legal opinions of quiet zones at rr crossings." Elk Grove, Ca. now has one established showing costs, etc. Oceanside says too costly. Legal opinions on liability are interesting. In a magazine article RonRies@fra.dot.gov said cities are not liable while personal injury attorneys say "try me"! Answers to all questions on costs and liability should be sought by individual city attorneys, district attorneys and attorneys general. In the end accident cases will probably be heard by the courts This has not yet been tested. With grade separations cities are not liable. Without grade separations or acceptance of the risks associated with establishing "quiet zones" we are doomed.

Separating the trains from the traffic is the answer to safety, congestion, air and noise issues of the trains. Alternatively, pour concrete along the railroad right of way and run solar-powered buses along the Caltrain Corridor with sky trains or monorails going from the center of Stanford out to 101 and 280. Naive, you say? Check our council with suggestions of running high speed rail along 280.

Margaret Petitjean, Menlo Park Received on Sun Feb 24 16:34:41 2008