LETTERS LETTERS (December 01, 2004)

The conundrum of mass transportation planning

Editor:

Wow, what a letter you published November 17 from Robert Zatkin. It's true that Measure A (the county transportation measure passed on the November 2 ballot) is all about funding status quo transportation "solutions," and nearly everyone outside of Crawford, Texas knows that long-term planning based on petroleum resources and current modes is just illogical. Mr. Zatkin's five reasons are pretty hard to dispute.

Energy professionals also know that any near-term increase in electrical output will come from petroleum or coal plants, making electrified public transit a false ecology unless the weight of the trains on a per rider basis is radically reduced. Even when we do seriously harvest wind power, which we must, the basic physics remain:

A 600-ton train (300 passengers are less than 4 percent of that) takes twice the energy to accelerate from each station as a 300-ton train, and so on. It's not that trains aren't a better choice than cars even now, but not good enough for a very near future.

We'll need to seriously grow public transit, but the existing infrastructure cannot make such a change to light rail because it revolves around heavy trains (albeit updated and well-run), a very complex bureaucracy, and existing rights-of-way. Just look at the passionate praise (and defense) of Caltrain as the keystone of Peninsula rail transit to see why we're stuck.

It's been proposed for decades that freeway rights-of-way be used for light rail, not least because housing, office and retail growth has clustered on freeways since the demise of rail travel. Major boulevards used to be light rail corridors, and it still makes sense today, but you will hear cries of traffic and planning conflicts, again from the status quo.

A lot of today's traffic issues are going to look petty compared to the crisis coming, and it will take decades to fix it. When enough Californians are ready to invest in transit and ask their state legislators to pursue light public transit, our poll-reading pols will eventually get on board.

I'll write State Senator-elect Joe Simitian and Assemblyman-elect Ira Ruskin tonight. I hope I'm not the only one.

Henry Riggs

Callie Lane, Menlo Park

Another view of traffic management plan

Editor:

Ross Wilson's criticisms last week of the Menlo Park Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan would be laughable if they weren't so damaging to our city's efforts to come to grips with traffic issues.

He again repeats his false claim that public input was not included in the NTMP. In fact, his (and a handful of Willows traffic activists') disruptive tactics resulted in the council abandoning the requirement for supermajority resident approval. Instead, the council adopted a simple majority (51 percent) pre-installation approval threshold, as in the Interim NTMP for the Willows. When the Interim NTMP was adopted in 1995 it was hailed as a victory by Willows activists.

They've turned against majority rule because it obstructs their street privatization agenda. Encouraged by Palo Alto's recent trial street closures, they had revived their dream of barriers separating Menlo Park from the low income East Palo Alto corner of the Willows. Realizing the difficulty of convincing 51 percent of Willows households to support such a divisive scheme, they demanded a lower bar. Palo Alto was their inspiration - the Downtown North barriers were erected with only 16 percent neighborhood approval (24 percent of residents responded to the survey, 67 percent of them supported the barriers).

In cases of such profound neighborhood change, majority approval by affected residents is the minimum sensible standard. It puts the burden on traffic calming proponents to demonstrate neighborhood support. A supermajority, adopted by progressive cities such as Belmont (67 percent) and Danville (70 percent), provides a hedge against divisive neighborhood disputes. Thanks to the Willows traffic activists, Menlo Park has adopted the minimum acceptable standard.

The most damaging consequence of Wilson's disruptive tactics was the deflection of public discussion from critical safety issues such as emergency response. The new NTMP entitles residents to numerical limits to delayed emergency response, but the details are inadequate. Many cities (San Mateo, San Jose) prohibit traffic calming devices on designated emergency response routes. Menlo Park already has speed bumps on five emergency routes.

The tragic result of the Willows activists' incessant threats of recalls and referendums is to distract the city from full and thoughtful consideration of serious issues affecting all of Menlo Park.

Eric Doyle Laurel Avenue, Menlo Park

E-mail a friend a link to this story.