BayRail Alliance Board of Directors Election
(in alphabetical order)
Currently paid members: Your ballot and instruction should be included in
Paul Wendt (incumbent), Belmont
I am running for re-election as a director for BayRail Alliance, and I am
asking you for your support. For the past several years I have been maintain-
ing the PR2000/BayRail membership database, printing mailing labels, and
participating in most of the mailings.
I regularly attend Joint Powers Board meetings, and speak on issues
such as the importance of keeping electrification on track, as well as sending
letters and email to elected officials and newspapers.
As a Caltrain commuter, I understand the issues and frustrations
affecting Caltrain riders, and will continue to work to correct the problems.
I thank you for your support,
Sylvia Gregory (incumbent), San Bruno
This is statement for reelection to the Board for Sylvia Gregory, Office
The needs of the BayRail Alliance to work to extend the train to the
Transbay Terminal, upgrade to electrical propulsion, and protect the train
right of way for expansion of the High Speed connection with Los Angeles are
all projects that I wish to continue to be involved with as a Board member.
I now help monitor all of the mail that we get and help with doing
the monthly meetings as a Board member.
Caltrain needs to be improved and enlarged to keep Caltrans from
building more roads in the bay and wetlands. It is also my core interest to
protect the Bay from further paving for highways and to get transportation
for people so they won't need their cars.
I urge a vote for Sylvia Gregory and much work by all members of
BayRail Alliance to monitor and develop a better Caltrain.
Andy Chow (incumbent), Redwood City
I am proud to serve as your board director for the last two years.
During that period, I've been contributed a lot to advocate for Caltrain
improvements. In the fall of 2000, I involved in the No on Measure A cam-
paign in Santa Clara County. In 2001, I worked with other members to
create a long-term vision for Caltrain and conventional rail. Earlier this
year, I took the role as the editor of our newsletter. Also, I am currently
planning a forum on High Speed Rail in September.
I am asking for your vote as I am interested to continue serving on the
board. I am a Caltrain rider and I am knowledgeable about many transpor-
tation issues in the Bay Area. In addition, I also understand the politicial
dynamics in the Silicon Valley. I will try my best to advocate for electrifica-
tion, extension to downtown San Francisco, as well as High Speed Rail.
Thank you for your support.
Q and A
High Speed Rail
The current High Speed Rail plan
proposes a north/south route to
Sacramento through the Valley. Why
isn't HSR planned for the SF-Oakland-
Sacramento route along the I-80?
Current High Speed Rail Authority
(HSRA) plans call for east-west Bay Area-
Sacramento service in addition to the north-
south Bay Area-Los Angeles and
Sacramento-LA service. While it may seem
inefficient to require Bay Area-Sacramento
passengers to detour almost all the way via
Merced, travel this way will be as fast as
driving via I-80 (at uncongested speeds),
and faster than today's Capitol trains. This
HSR service will offer San Jose-
Sacramento or San Francisco-Stockton/
Modesto passengers even more attractive
travel times. To keep travel times from
Sacramento competitive, the HSRA
currently favors a more northerly Diablo
Range crossing between south San Jose and
Merced, which would take 45 minutes to
San Jose or 1 hour 15 minutes to San
Francisco, rather than the Pacheco Pass
(highway 152) alignment. Crossing via the
Pacheco Pass would add approximately 1/
2 hour to the travel times.
Under this service scenario, an
upgrade of the Capitol Corridor route to
HSR makes less economic sense.
Nevertheless, the HSRA envisions possibly
funding upgrades to the diesel-powered
Capitol Corridor trains to serve as
important feeder route for HSR.
Wasn't HSR planned to enter the Bay
Area north of San Jose via Pleasanton
While that routing cut the distance
between San Francisco, Stockton, and
Sacramento, it relegated San Jose, the
largest city in Northern California, to a
branch off the mainline. Service to and from
Modesto and all points south would have
had to split into as many as four northern
branches: one to Sacramento, one to
Oakland, one to SFO airport and San
Francisco (via a rebuilt Dumbarton rail
bridge), and one to San Jose. The currently
favored configuration lines up San Jose
with both Oakland and San Francisco.