7JFXQPJOU
■ EDITORIAL ■ YOUR LETTERS ■ GUEST OPINIONS
N EDITORIAL
THE OPINION OF THE VOICE
A better course for high-speed rail
Founding Editor, Kate Wakerly
N S TA F F Publisher Tom Gibboney
Editorial Managing Editor Andrea Gemmet Staff Writers Daniel DeBolt, Nick Veronin Intern Peter Maxwell Photographer Michelle Le Contributors Dale Bentson, Angela Hey, Sheila Himmel, Jennifer Pence, Alissa Stallings
Design & Production Design Director Raul Perez Designers Linda Atilano, Gary Vennarucci
Advertising Advertising Representatives Judie Block, Brent Triantos Real Estate Account Executive Rosemary Lewkowitz Real Estate Advertising Coordinator Samantha Mejia Published every Friday at 450 Cambridge Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 964-6300 fax (650) 964-0294 E-mail news and photos to: editor@MV-Voice.com E-mail letters to: letters@MV-Voice.com News/Editorial Department (650) 964-6300 fax (650) 964-0294 Display Advertising Sales (650) 964-6300 Classified Advertising Sales s fax (650) 326-0155 E-mail Classified ads@MV-Voice.com
I
f it can be done without sacrificing its promise of airline-competitive service between Los Angeles and San Francisco, the proposal to have high-speed rail share an upgraded Caltrain line beginning in San Jose instead of building additional tracks looks like a win-win for the Peninsula, including Mountain View. Such a plan could provide funds for Caltrain to complete grade separations and electrify its engines, a goal the struggling rail line has had for years. And the neighboring cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton, which have strongly opposed aspects of the plan to run the high-speed rail line along the Caltrain corridor, would be able to breathe easier, without fear that property owners along the corridor would lose portions of their back yards to eminent domain takings by the rail authority. Combining use of the Caltrain tracks would eliminate a host of other negative impacts that would come with building an additional twotrack high-speed rail line between Gilroy and San Francisco, including years of major upheaval caused by construction of the lines in the cities along the route. The plan proposed Monday by Rep. Anna Eshoo, state Sen. Joe Simitian and Assemblyman Rich Gordon acknowledged that financially, the state simply cannot afford to add two more rail lines to the corridor, when the existing two tracks could suffice by routing high-speed trains around electrified Caltrain equipment, much as Baby Bullet trains share the rails with local trains today. Such a “blended” system could arrive in San Jose for a brief stop before continuing on to San Francisco with its full load of passengers, who would not have to change trains. In his presentation, Simitian called the plan a “first step in a new conversation” that intends to create “high-speed rail done right.” During a press conference at the Menlo Park train depot, he noted a series of critical audits of the rail project by various state agencies and the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, which found a series of flaws in the rail authority’s business plan, ridership analysis and revenue projections. “Frankly, a great many of our constituents are convinced that the HighSpeed Rail Authority has already wandered so far afield that it is too late for a successful course correction,” Simitian said in the statement he authored with Eshoo and Gordon.
E-mail Circulation circulation@MV-Voice.com
N GUESTOPINION
The Voice is published weekly by Embarcadero Media Co. and distributed free to residences and businesses in Mountain View. If you are not currently receiving the paper, you may request free delivery by calling 964-6300. Subscriptions for $60 per year, $100 per 2 years are welcome.
Public will lose if museum takes Annex space
Copyright ©2010 by Embarcadero Media Company. All rights reserved. Member, Mountain View Chamber of Commerce
By Christine Crosby
J
N WHAT’S YOUR VIEW? All views must include a home address and contact phone number. Published letters will also appear on the web site, www.MountainViewOnline.com, and occasionally on the Town Square forum.
TOWN SQUARE FORUM Post your views on the Town Square forum at www.MountainViewOnline.com E-MAIL your views to letters@MV-Voice.com. Indicate if it is a letter to be published. MAIL to: Editor Mountain View Voice, P.O. Box 405 Mountain View, CA 94042-0405 CALL the Viewpoint desk at 964-6300
14
“If high-speed rail isn’t done right” it simply won’t get done at all, he said. Another key change recommended by the three legislators was for the rail authority to run Peninsula trains at grade and forget about elevated structures such as aerial viaducts. And they endorsed the plan for the new rail system to run through the existing Caltrain corridor. The three also urged the rail authority to abandon plans for a larger project that would include a new set of two tracks for high-speed rail running alongside a modernized, electrified Caltrain system on the Peninsula. “Given the current financial straits at the federal and state level, amassing the funds to build this across California will take time,” Gordon said. “In the interim, there will be funds spent on high-speed rail and I believe it’s imperative for the High-Speed Rail Authority to guarantee that whatever funds are spent are spent in a way that enhances and upgrades our existing intercity and regionalized transportation system in California.” If the plan is adopted by the rail authority it could alleviate Mountain View’s earlier concerns about a lack of space to fit all traffic modes in a narrow portion of the Caltrain right-of-way, although it remains to be seen whether the rail authority will provide the funds needed for grade separations at Rengstorff and Castro Street. We expect there will be much more discussion of this alternative plan in Mountain View and other Peninsula communities. But it is hard to dispute the issues raised by the legislators, which many local residents have been speaking about since shortly after Measure 1A passed in 2008. Rather than listening to local residents, the rail authority board has often disputed the comments, which has not made them many friends on the Peninsula. Rep. Eshoo acknowledged as much: “I really believe they have squandered a great deal of goodwill on the Peninsula by not honoring our communities,” she said. “Each community is unique, each community has its own history, each community has its own traditions and they’re proud of it and they’re entitled to this source of pride.” It is time for the high-speed rail board to understand why there is such high concern in many Peninsula communities about the project. If they do, then they will realize the importance of the alternative plans suggested by Sen. Simitian, Rep. Eshoo and Assemblyman Rich Gordon.
im Cochran could not be more wrong in his April 8 letter about the “interesting improvements” proposed for Cuesta Park Annex. He seems to believe that only “those living nearby” use the open space and writes that “some use of it should be made so that all of Mountain View can share it.” At present the Annex is available to all. Yes, some are lucky enough to live within walking distance, but visitors come from near and far, and are able to visit any day and any time from dawn until dusk. If the museum complex is built as planned, a large part of this beautiful open space will be off-limits to all but a few. (The Los Altos history museum, for example, is open to
■ MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE ■ APRIL 22, 2011
the public for only 16 hours a week.) There will be perimeter security fencing to protect against vandalism and theft — and to keep the general public out. During hours of closure, “all of Mountain View” will probably be able to share the museum only if they book it for a private function — and for a fee, no doubt payable to the Mountain View Historical Society. Cuesta Park neighbors have a right to be nervous at the prospect of a large commercial building in their midst, with its 24-hours-a-day security, lighting and noise. The museum, as projected, will irrevocably alter the unique character of this last remaining natural open space. The city has indeed made a terrible blunder. Council members
owe an explanation to more than 70,000 Mountain View residents as to how, and why, they gave this cherished and extremely valuable piece of publicly owned land to a society with only 300 members; especially since that membership includes several current and former council members. Cuesta Park Annex should remain unchanged. Much better than any museum, it is a living
exhibit of how beautiful this valley once was, before developers bulldozed the orchards and covered them with concrete. We owe it to everyone who comes to run, walk their dogs or play among the trees. We owe it those in need of some rare peace and quiet. We owe it to our children and grandchildren. Everyone loves the Annex. Christine Crosby lives on Woodleaf Way.