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

[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.