Page 3

July-August 2002

BayRail Alliance Board of Directors Election

Candidate Statements

(in alphabetical order)

Currently paid members: Your ballot and instruction should be included in

your newsletter.

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,

Paul Wendt

Sylvia Gregory (incumbent), San Bruno

This is statement for reelection to the Board for Sylvia Gregory, Office

Manager.

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

Dear members:

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.

Andy Chow

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

and Fremont?

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.