Way to do your research, PA council members! Perhaps you could have thought about this before you voted to endorse Prop 1A?

Yes, a very small number of us knew the train was coming and were fully aware of the damage it would cause.

Most of us didn't. Most voters supported the train without any other information than that produced by the public relations machine of the rail authority, so full of empty promises.
It is not incorrect to state that the voters were misled. A few paranoids among us did a lot of homework, dug into the background of this project and discovered, to our horror, the monsters under the bed were real.

OK. Enough about that. Time to move on. We all have a huge problem on our hands and it's going to take all of us, working together, to resolve this in order to prevent the destruction to home and property that is looming before us, from Atherton through Palo Alto.

"Out of control urbanization"?

Menlo Park and Palo Alto are on the main transit corridors between two large cities, next to a large and prestigious university, and are close to major and growing employment centers in Silicon Valley.

Trying to prevent growth, and trying to block transit, may be possible -- but it is selfish. Palo Alto has long since ceased to be a quaint small town. It is a suburb, and it is gentrification, not urbanization, that is out of control.

In that case, Frank, wouldn’t it be plausible to do with rail services what other major cities in the world have done, put them under the ground, like London, Boston, Manhattan, Paris, etc. Yes, Frank I agree that we are becoming urbanized and, via in-fill land development, more subject than ever to high density, high-rise housing and commercial development.

So, should a rail corridor expanded to four tracks with grade separations at every crossing intersection, 75 ft. wide, plow through the middle of such urban environments, or be out of the way, in tunnels? What do you suppose the Peninsula will look like in, say, 75 years? Should it be split by a rail embankment 21+ ft. high, dividing each and every city on the corridor in two, even as those cities blend and fuse more and more into one another to become one continuous city from San Francisco to San Jose?

I think it would be nice indeed if the train were underground. But my understanding -- I may be wrong -- is that the costs would be prohibitive. I do know that the Shinkansen goes aboveground into Tokyo, I believe the TGV goes aboveground into Paris, etc.

I am very much concerned about what the Peninsula will look like in 75 years. That is why I voted for 1A. I don't particularly mind the sight of a rail embankment. I respect that some people would, but it doesn't seem more distasteful than, say, a six-lane highway (El Camino) going through town, especially if it goes along an existing railroad right of way.

I hope that our civic leaders will support mass transit, the encouragement and creation of walkable neighborhoods, mixed use, mixed-income housing, and higher density close to downtowns and transit stops. This would get many people out of their cars which would be a huge boon in terms of both convenience and the environment. And, IMHO, the traffic on El Camino and elsewhere is just visually ugly -- much more so than I think an overhead train line would be.

Now I understand that there are some legitimate concerns -- in particular, HRSA is not being very forthcoming about what their actual plans are. I hope that our local governments work with them to correct this. But I think we in the Peninsula should still be enthusiastic about the project.

I have now posted the video of Mike Cobb's comments on YouTube. This might be a more convenient to these remarks.

Web Link

Morris Brown
Stone Pine Lane
MP.

Absent from the discussions about alternatives are facts - even estimates - of their total and net costs as well as who is expected to pay for what. We need to know the upfront costs of the tracks, land (including eminent domain), grade separations for all affected intersections (accommodating pedestrian and bike not just motor vehicles), new or modified stations, parking, tree removal, landscaping, new trains (caltrain and hsr), interim tracks and their construction, digging or tunneling costs, etc. Add in interim impacts on local businesses and residents whose physical locations are temporarily affected.
We need to know what the assumptions are about who pays for what.
We need to know the ongoing costs of operating and maintaining these. Include permanent reductions of property tax and sales tax revenue for those properties and businesses permanently affected.
We need to know the potential revenue that might offset the costs of the various alternatives. For example, tunneling might make a lot of surface land available for businesses that provide sales tax revenue or for housing; property taxes might be higher for both nearby businesses and housing properties because the visual and audible impacts of trains would be less than today. Would this offset the additional costs of tunneling? Who knows?
Surely some attempt could be made to evaluate the alternatives so we can have better informed discussions.