10 responses to “Just Say No, Part II”

1. Joanne

   March 4, 2009

   We all need to send our comments in on this as soon as possible (comments@hsr.ca.gov). I would love a high speed rail that works like the Paris metro or London tube -one that is underground and takes me to every street corner that I want. Wouldn’t everyone? Aint’ gonna happen here. Everytime “underground” with respect to High Speed Rail is mentioned it is always followed by the clause that begins with a big “BUT, there is no money for this highly expensive alternative.” It seems to be a foregone conclusion that this thing ain’t going underground.

   So we are going to be left with berms dividing towns or deep trenches dividing towns. In Burlingame’s case, this will involve the eminent domain of property on either side of our tracks and the ripping out of our eucalyptus and redwoods that line the tracks. What will happen to our historical train station? Will that be the subject of eminent domain as well? This project has the ability to really ruin Burlingame. And, for those folks who are all excited about the possibility of purchasing a condo on newly developed Howard Avenue? I would hold onto those wallets for awhile. Think about the sound of a high speed train whizzing by like Chicago’s L. Wouldn’t that be charming!
   Would a high speed rail be useful to Burlingame residents? Not at all. The only way this train is going to make it to LA in the time that its promoters are touting is if it makes no stops along the way (and that means no stops in Burlingame).
   We need to update Caltrain, make it more convenient (which means more stops). We do not need high speed trains whizzing through our town and destroying the landscape and property values of homes located within the sound range (which could be all of us).

2. Joanne

   March 4, 2009

   Okay — here’s the letter I just sent. If you have similar feelings and don’t feel like composing something new, lift a portion, but whatever you do, don’t do nothing. Send something in! Politicians make decisions based upon whether they can get re-elected. The address again is: Comments@hsr.ca.gov.

   I am writing in response to your request for public input regarding the HSR project. I am adamantly opposed to any high speed rail plan for the San Francisco Peninsula that would involve an above-ground rail or a trenched rail. If the high speed rail cannot be routed underground, then the link that extends the rail from the Central Valley to San Francisco should be put through the open space in the East Bay.
   The SF Peninsula is made up of numerous, small cities that all got their start because they were on the San Francisco to San Jose rail-line. As a result, the Peninsula is ahead of its time : we have had a mass transit rail system since 1864. Because the Peninsula’s towns were built before the creation of the automobile, their main business districts, their main public properties such as high schools and parks and some of their most beautiful housing are all within a short walk to their historic train stations, many of which are state landmarks or are on national historic registers. Indeed, one might say that Burlingame, San Mateo, Menlo Park and other Peninsula towns were the original “transit-oriented development.” The newly proposed high speed rail, in the form of above-ground tracks or trenched tracks, would involve eminent domain of some of our most precious and highly valued downtown properties, as well as decreased property values due to the unwelcome addition of loud sounds and shaking caused by the high speed rail. We have a mass transit system that works for us: CalTrain.
   Thank you for your consideration.

3. Jeffrey

   March 4, 2009

   “I would love a high speed rail that works like the Paris metro or London tube”

   You haven’t actually ever been to Paris or London, have you, my dear Nimby? The Metro and the Tube ARE NOT HIGH SPEED RAIL LINES. They are urban subways.

   Do you know how much more expensive it is to bury a rail line underground? Think billions of dollars per mile. Now imagine what it would cost to extend that line from San Francisco to San Diego, which is the point of the exercise here and what the people of California voted for.

4. Joanne

   March 4, 2009

   You are correct, Jeffrey. The Metro and Tube are not high speed rail. You are not correct when you presume that I haven’t used those mass transit forms. I use the urban subways wherever they are found — NY, Paris, Mexico City, London. I’ve also taken the high speed rail in several areas where HSR is found (Stockholm to Malmo and Paris to Bordeaux, among others).

   High speed rail above the ground might be fine for California’s Central Valley (as it is for the farmlands of France and Sweden). It is not appropriate to sail through established cities (just as HSR doesn’t sail through Stockholm and Paris).

   There is a Facebook Group that has formed that is called “Put the Cal High Speed Train Terminus in San Jose.” Makes perfect sense to me. That way an inbound passenger from LA can zip through the valley and change trains in San Jose for a trip on CalTrain up to SF or Bart to Oakland.

   We don’t need three systems in the Bay Area, nor do we need high speed rail going through heavily populated areas. What we do need is more frequent CalTrain trains (some that are nonstop from SJ to SF and some that have a few stops and some that stop at almost all the stations on the Peninsula)

   That’s not NIMBY-ism, Jeff, it’s common sense. . . combined with a little fiscal frugality.

5. Bobby

   March 4, 2009

   I agree that an above ground or trenched HSR running through the Peninsula would be an absolute disaster and would ruin the communities along the line (which is pretty much every town between San Jose and SF). I voted no on Prop 1A, because I knew that this was a possibility (also I don’t believe the ridership forecasts for HSR that the Authority dreamt up, and believe this whole project is a boon-doogle.)

   That said, I think the best compromise solution is to run the HSR between San Jose and SoCal (that is not densely populated), and have an efficient connection platform between CalTrain and HSR in San Jose. With Baby Bullet service already in place between SJ and SF, this would come close to keeping with the 2hr 40 min SF to LA travel time objective, without ripping up the Peninsula.

6. Anonymous

   March 5, 2009

   Just some clarification to the poster above, as someone who used the Paris metro and the London underground to get to work, there are numerous places in those wonderful transit systems where the trains are NOT underground but over ground as they wend their way through highly populated parts of their cities.

7. Joanne

   March 5, 2009

   Correct again. The mass transit systems in Europe are sometimes above ground, but that is typically only in poor areas. You don’t see any above ground mass transits in the high rent commercial districts of San Francisco, Paris, London, You-Name-the-Town. Let’s be honest here: Proximity to an above ground mass transit system will devalue your property.

8. Mike

   March 5, 2009

   Having frequently travelled across Europe by train, I can say the there no underground intercity trains anywhere I have been. The above ground trains do go into densely populated cities, but never through the center…you cannot compare European train service to any that we have here since they have very little in common. What everyone needs to remember is that the Peninsula is just that, a peninsula, and that fact creates issues that most places don’t have.

9. Joanne

   March 5, 2009

   I agree with you, Mike. HSR terminals are on the periphery of cities and the trains slowly leave the terminal –only reaching maximum speed once they are well into the country. They don’t barrel through back-to-back suburban properties at full speed.

   Again, what seems to make the most sense for our transportation needs is to have the “high speed” part stop in San Jose and then transfer to a mid-speed or frequent stop subway type transit for city use (in LA, Bay Area, etc.) We already have CalTrain and Bart in the Bay Area (sometimes, unfortunately, in competition with each other). We do not need three systems, three tracks, three governmental agencies with a full complement of adminstrative staff, police/security forces, etc. etc. etc.

10. David Johnson

    April 14, 2009

    I live a block from the train tracks and cross them every day. I also live a block from downtown San Mateo and love its urban qualities. I also believe it is essential to have high-speed train service up and down the Peninsula, to get people out of their cars and increase density. It will be difficult to get this done, but the US should learn how to do public transport right. If it needs to go in a tunnel, so be it. If it is a berm, time to learn how to make a berm beautiful. I am sick of this countries pathetic inability to build decent public transport and beautiful urban architecture.