NIMBYs Should Pay Their Own Way

[kevin_standlee]

My transportation news digest is full of news stories of NIMBYs along the Peninsula here in the Bay Area screaming about the proposed High Speed Rail system approved as Proposition 1A in the last general election. Amazingly, some of them claim to have voted for it without even realizing that of course the line will come up the Caltrain right of way. Of course that means probably having to widen the ROW a little, and yes, that may mean some eminent domain proceedings if land-owners aren't able to reach more equitable solutions. And being a true high-speed line, it means the ROW is going to need to be completely grade-separated. You can't have 300 kph trains crossing at grade!

The most logical way to grade-separate the line would be on an elevated structure, such as similar lines in Japan. NIMBYs scream that this would destroy their cities, and that "they" (defined as "not me!") should tunnel the line to keep it from having the slightest disruption in their nice cozy little neighborhoods, which they like to pretend aren't part of a large urban area. (Anyone who has every tried to walk through Atherton knows about this self-imposed isolation.)

I'm reminded that when BART was being built, it was originally going to go through Berkeley on an elevated structure. The people of Berkeley were outraged. But the voters there actually took responsibility for themselves; they voted to tax themselves an additional amount to pay for the difference between the less-expensive elevated structure and the much-more-expensive subway. Thus BART's Berkeley stations are underground.

These NIMBYs who want to pretend the trains don't exist should vote a property tax upon themselves to fund the huge additional expense (on top of an already incredibly expensive project) of digging a 50-mile-long subway tunnel along the Peninsula. I would respect them much more if they were willing to put their money where their whiny mouths were. As it stands now, I think they're a bunch of little children who think they're living in the country but want to continue to enjoy the benefits of living in a big city. Oh, and I also suspect an underlying subtext: I'm rich and important, so go take your nasty noisy trains and go tear down homes where Poor People live.

Lest anyone think I'm saying that because I'm safely away from the lines myself, I'll add that I campaigned for the route to go close to where I live, via Altamont Pass, Niles Canyon, and Centerville. I think the decision to route the line through Pacheco Pass is a mistake for which people 50 years from now will be cursing the politicians of today. But I'd rather we get a working HSR line built than to destroy it just because I didn't get my own preferred routes.

By the way, there are also people who seem incredibly short-sighted about why high-speed rail lines work. They say things like, "Why build it to San Francisco? Just have everyone get off in San Jose and take Caltrain," or "Stop at SFO; the only reason anyone would take it is if they were going to/from the airport anyway." The whole point of high speed trains is that they allow you to go from city center to city center without time-consuming transfers. Add hours of delay and annoyance with transfers and their entire advantage disappears. Anyone who has used actual working high-speed trains in first world countries (as opposed to the backwater that is the USA) knows this.

Comments

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

How much noisier is the high-speed likelier to be than Caltrain, anyway?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I can't answer that precisely, not having access to those figures. However, I can compare it to similar lines that I have stood beside in Japan. My general feeling is that the rebuilt, electrified, combined HSR/Caltrain line -- a sensible system would share track, probably with a four-track ROW -- would be less noisy that the existing system. That's because naturally all of the equipment would be electrified, rather than being hauled by growling diesel locomotives.

Actually, the HSR trains will probably not run at the full 300 kph speed down the Peninsula, but they will certainly be faster than the existing max-speed-79-mph trains running there now. I think the noise will either be around the same or less. I certainly didn't think the Shinkansen trains moving on the urban tracks in Tokyo were making any more (or less) noise than the other trains moving through the same station.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Quieter, no grade crossings so easier and safer pedestrian crossings ... but they're protesting. WTF?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Because there would be an elevated structure destroying their cities, forming a horrible "great wall" dividing their towns, etc., etc. Like I said, if they think it's so rotten, let them pay for the cost of hiding it locally. They're the lucky ones, in that they'll live near enough to the system to be able to use it and get the benefits. It's the people living beyond the system's core who will be paying for it (through taxes to repay the bonds) but only getting very indirect benefits from it.

[nojay.livejournal.com]

Where the shinkansen passes through urban areas in Japan, the track is shielded from the surrounding area by walls. This is only necessary in places where the trains would be running at full speed (i.e. not near the stations). The barriers are not just to suppress noise but also to deal with the problem that at 300km/hr the shockwave from the trains could blow out windows in the nearest houses. Being Japan with its insane land prices there are houses built within ten metres of the shinkansen tracks -- and the shinkansen was there first.

I'm not sure about shared ROW as being a good idea necessarily though. The shinkansen system is as good as it is in part because it doesn't share ROW with anyone. A shared ROW could mean that the HSR schedule could be crippled by work being done on the other non-HSR tracks simply because the tracks run side-by-side. It would also require a lot more switches to route the trains across each other's tracks, and a switch that can take a train transiting it at 300km/hr is a much trickier proposition than a regular track switch. The shinkansen system has few switches in part for this reason, and most of them are close to stations where the trains are not going at full speed.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I would only expect there to be track-sharing in terminal areas -- along the Peninsula and near Los Angeles Union Station. In those areas, I also don't expect the trains to be running at their full 300+ kph speed. Simultaneously, the local Caltrain commuter rail system should be upgraded to the same electrification standard as the HSR (probably 25KV OHL, considering current practice), and their speed brought up to the 110 mph standard, which would be "high speed rail" by benighted American standards.

Outside of the terminal areas, HSR definitely needs a dedicated right of way. Otherwise, you get the situation of the initial phase of Eurostar, with the trains having to slog their way in and out of Waterloo over the "classic" lines at significantly reduced speed. By "track sharing," I meant the same way that High Speed 1 HSR lines in the UK will include the domestic services out to Kent as well as the existing trans-channel Eurostar services.

You are of course correct that having the tracks in a shared ROW can lead to a conflict due to maintenance needs. OTOH, looking at the congested areas where the lines need to run, the only sensible place to find the necessary ROW is along the existing rail corridor. That almost certainly will lead to some land takings in some places. Alas, the Southern Pacific (and its successors) did not retain the original wide ROW intended for a four-track main line, nor did they build the remaining 2 km to a terminal in downtown San Francisco over a hundred years ago. Had they done so, things would be much different today.

In some areas along the ROW, there are light-industrial businesses (auto shops and the like; I've had my van repaired at one of them in Belmont) on year-to-year leases. Someday they will be told, "We need the right-of-way back, so we won't renew your lease next time," and they will have to find a new place to work. But all transportation improvement require some disruption. My normal office commute goes through a freeway interchange (I-880/CA-92) that is undergoing a massive multi-year rebuild/improvement. I understand some homes had to be acquired (and razed) to make room for the improvements. My father-in-law's land is bisected by a state highway that almost certainly will be twinned someday, and he'll lose more of his land when it happens. So it's not only railroads that impact landowners.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Depending upon the exact design of the elevated structure they might have a (small) point. If it is a two retaining walls and fill sort of structure with only occasional major street underpasses it will more permanently and completely make adjacent areas very inconvenient for pedestrians. Even though an at grade highway cuts off one area from another it does not have the same quality as an elevated highway section for enclosing a space. And, though not recommended, it is still possible for pedestrians to sneak across at off hours. Though with sufficient pedestrian and bicycle underpasses in addition to ones on major streets my concerns if this were coming though my neighborhood would be answered.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

In my opinion, most of the protesters would be happier if the existing trains went away. Some of their most noticeable people are those whose letters protesting the nasty noisy smelly trains all the time. They want the trains to go away completely, and probably would like all of the roads except for small private roads that only they are allowed to use.

There is an existing elevated structure in the San Carlos-Belmont area that was built some years ago. I'm still disappointed that they didn't build it four tracks wide (even if they only laid two tracks initially) because the incremental expense of the extra width would have been small compared to the several years of disruption the grade-separation project brought. I walk in this area once or twice a month. There are numerous underpasses, both road and pedestrian, through the berm. Any sensible design will have them. Besides, the whole point is to allow the roads and paths to be separated from the railroad instead of crossing at grade.

Oh, and (adjusting for the fact that all values everywhere are depressed lately with the collapse of the housing bubble), I haven't heard that property prices declined for the homes and businesses located along the elevated right of way through this area. I've seen no studies, but I would not be at all surprised if values increased thanks to the easier cross-track access.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I figured they wouldn't have a real leg to stand on, but I've seen how here in Denver how big government transportation projects can go wrong for some neighborhoods while trying to save a nickel. Denver likes to tout itself as environmental and bicycle friendly, but the experience on the ground is of bicyclists getting around in spite of the city rather than because of them.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to claim that construction of HSR will be completely free of idiocy. Large projects inevitably have waste and mistakes. (See Great Planning Disasters.) Heck, the original US Transcontinental Railroad was rife with it, even though it was built by Wonderful Solves-All-Your-Problems Private Enterprise. (See Union Pacific's Credit Mobilier and similar fraud from Central Pacific.) To some extent, that's part of the cost of doing business. The net effect was to revolutionize transportation in the USA. The same thing can be said about projects like high speed rail.

[whumpdotcom.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think there's a whole unspoken racist component here. That, and Palo Alto being full of itself.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I find it quite ironic that the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and the town of Atherton are protesting that the HSR route should have gone through Altamont/Niles/Centerville/Dumbarton. That is of course the route I want, but the only reason those localities are after that route is to keep it away from Their Fair Cities [Town]. And furthermore, I've ready comments from some of these NIMBYs who express outrage that the route isn't along US-101. Engineering reasons aside (it's a stupid routing; of course an existing rail corridor is more sensible), the unstated reason, as you point out, is that it would inconvenience the Po'folks in East Palo Alto rather than the Rich People.

Further irony: After construction of an improved rail transit system, with electrified Caltrain as well as HSR, the value of the property along the rail right of way will almost certainly increase. If I had money to invest for the long term, I'd put it into housing near stations along the line.

[cynthia1960.livejournal.com]

Your preferred route (and mine) would have had the flock of Fremont NIMBYs squawking. They need something to do now that the baseball stadium is no longer on the books.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

To me, the logical thing for the A's is to move to Sacramento and build a baseball park on the site north of the train station. It's near the heavy rail (Amtrak Capitol line), light rail, and I-5. It would get the A's out from under the shadow of the Giants and probably draw better up there than they do down in the Bay. They'd get a better, correctly-sized ballpark instead of the hulk that is the Coliseum. I seem to recall Sacramento being interested at one time.

Oh, and the Sacramento RiverCats AAA team could move down to somewhere in the East Bay, which would give the Bay area an A, AAA, and MLB team; I bet that would work out. It seems like a win-win for almost everyone.

[cynthia1960.livejournal.com]

I would be perfectly happy to see the A's build something on their existing parking lot with plenty of access to mass transit. Keep them in Oakland.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Yes, move the A's to Sacramento. The farther away the major league sports teams are, the happier I'll be. Let the game-day traffic jams be somewhere else.

[katster.livejournal.com]

That said, the current Rivercats stadium in West Sac (Raley Field), while not right next to the railroad tracks, isn't overly far from them either. It's just right across the Tower Bridge from downtown Sacramento (the rail line crosses on the I Street Bridge just upstream), thus it's easily walkable, and for those who can't/won't walk, a bus bridge isn't overly hard to set up. I haven't made it to a Cats game yet, so I can't speak for sure, and the stadium might be a little undersized for the majors, but it's another possibility.

They're not my team, but if the A's were here, I'd go see 'em. And I'd definitely go and see the interleague games when the Giants came to town...

-kat

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think Raley Field is too small (albeit not for the crowds the A's have been drawing in Oakland, but if they moved to Sacramento, there would be huge local interest). OTOH, if they got a commitment to build a full-size park over in the rail-yard, they conceivably could play in an undersized park for a year (a la the Giants at Seals Stadium before Candlestick was finished). But in fact they'd probably just stay in Oakland until a new home was ready.

In any event, despite what seems like a very likely winner for many people (not everyone, I admit), I don't see it happening in any combination.

[redneckotaku.livejournal.com]

I don't get why they wouldn't want downtown to Downtown service for a train system. It is how the Northeast corridor works. They come out east for an Acela ride. I think the big worry would be the cost to the taxpayers. California doesn't have a ton money right now for bunches of reasons.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

There is no doubt that HSR is a huge expense. Estimates of $40Bn aren't necessary low. The money we voted for with Prop 1A is only the down payment at $9Bn. But there's never a good time to start these things. Over the past twenty years this state has kept putting things off, even at the peak of what we now know now in hindsight was the most recent boom.

The question becomes "if not now, then when?" And by that measurement, plenty of projects could never start, including things like the Transcontinental Railroad and the Interstate Highway System. (Actually, I've read just recently that the Interstate system was a catastrophe for this country, but I bet that's not a view many people would support.)

And speaking of the Interstates, arguments that say HSR should terminate at the edge of the metro areas is roughly equivalent to saying, "Terminate the Interstates at the edge of the metro area and let people make their way downtown on surface streets." I reckon most people would consider that to be a foolish suggestion.

I expect that most of the NIMBY protesters have never ridden a train in their lives, and haven't traveled to places with decent transportation. They drive their cars places, and that's what Decent Right-Thinking People Do because only scum ride transit.

[cynthia1960.livejournal.com]

I expect that most of the NIMBY protesters have never ridden a train in their lives, and haven't traveled to places with decent transportation. They drive their cars places, and that's what Decent Right-Thinking People Do because only scum ride transit.

This.

[msconduct.livejournal.com]

The whole point of high speed trains is that they allow you to go from city center to city center without time-consuming transfers.

How right you are. I went on the maglev train in Shanghai last year. As a fun ride, it's great, but as an airport train it's pointless as it stops a long taxi ride away from the centre of Shanghai.