FW: Following up from Nadia's introduction. Requesting your support for no elevated rail options for S. PA
Parag Patkar
Hello again Neighbors
Below is Pat Burt’s position on our favorite topic. Pat was a member of the City Council and Mayor of Palo Alto a few years ago. He is again running for election to the City Council. He is well versed on this topic of grade separation. Below is the email thread between me and Pat on this topic.
Parag
Cell: 1 (510) 418 2912
From: Pat Burt <p...@patburt.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 10:27 AM
To: 'Parag Patkar' <pa...@virtunetsystems.com>
Subject: Following up from Nadia's introduction. Requesting your support for no elevated rail options for S. PA
Parag,
I am glad to share with you my position and background on the South PA grade separations.
Since 2009, I have opposed elevated track options, either a berm or viaduct. Also, the current “so-called” hybrid alternative is in effect a 15-foot tall wall or berm (comparable to the berm/wall in San Carlos) that would create a massive physical barrier within the community, and so I have significant concerns about it as well. I believe that the citywide community would share opposition to those options once they had a better visualization of their impacts.
As background, I have strongly and successfully advocated against an elevated berm or viaduct since 2009 when I led the city’s charge against the proposed 4-track High-Speed Rail (HSR) plan. From the outset, I was a leading advocate for a trench or tunnel (unlikely due to the very high costs our preferred alternative and the City Council officially adopted that position.
From 2009-2015, I Chaired or was a member of the City Council Rail Committee, I was a leader on and the city’s representative on the Caltrain cities advisory board (now the LPMG), and I Chaired the Peninsula Cities Consortium that opposed the plan.
After the “Blended System” was adopted for the peninsula in 2012 (with only limited 4-track passing tracks), as Chair of the Council Rail Committee I was able to overcome opposition from Larry Klein and others and by persuading the Council to include a trenched alternative in the 2013-14 Hatch Mott McDonald grade separation study. That preliminary study showed that the trench was more costly than conventional separations, but economically feasible when considering the property acquisitions required for the other options.
In 2016, I led the city’s negotiation with the county on Measure B to get ~$300M toward our grade separation funding, far more funds than were thought possible. I believe that we will be able to access significant additional state and regional dollars for grade separations, although costs above conventional overpasses or underpasses will likely need to come from local funding. That’s why I’ve led a citizens group pushing for a business tax that would provide ~$200-300M in local funding.
It is necessary to note that we do not yet have enough information to be sure that the below-grade or at-grade options being considered are feasible. The tunnel appears to be well beyond what can be funded, barring a breakthrough in commercialized large-bore tunneling technology, based on Musk’s Boring Company or otherwise. The trench feasibility is dependent on HSR/Caltrain determining whether this section would require 4-tracks, and based on the further hydrologic and geotechnical analysis. The Charleston/Meadow underpass proposal would need iterative improvements to minimize property acquisitions and improve bike/pedestrian improvements.
I hope this gives you a good understanding of my positions. As a candidate and a public official, my approach is to solve problems effectively while not misleading voters with false promises.
Best regards,
Pat Burt
From: Parag Patkar <pa...@virtunetsystems.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 12:27 AM
To: p...@patburt.org
Subject: Following up from Nadia's introduction. Requesting your support for no elevated rail options for S. PA
Hi Pat
Following up from Nadia’s introduction yesterday, my name is Parag Patkar. I live in S PA between Charleston and Meadow on Park Blvd.
I have heard you speak on the topic of Rail and Grade Separation twice when I was on the CAP in 2018. And you made a lot of sense. I got involved with this project via a petition that I started in 2018 that calls for no elevated rail options for S Palo Alto intersections. That petition now has 594 signees (attached list).
My one question to you was – Are you open to supporting us a 100% in voting against any elevated rail options for S. PA intersections when this matter comes up in the council. If you were willing to say so up front, I will send you a separate email, much like I did with Greg Tanaka and you could reply to that email and I will post that email thread as-is to our mailing list of 594 signees.
The only candidate to commit clearly and upfront to our cause right now is Greg Tanaka, as you saw from the email thread Nadia forwarded to you yesterday
I will support your candidacy fully. I will be happy to host your yard sign. I will be happy to contribute a small amount to your campaign. I cannot speak for the other signees, but for me, this is my #1 issue.
Since we don’t know each other, I realize that this email might come across as aggressive, I am happy to chat with you to discuss further. 😊
Thank you for hearing me out.
With kind regards,
Parag
Parag Patkar
4117 Park Blvd
Cell: 1 (510) 418 2912