Is San Carlos Blighted?
In so many ways, HSR has to deal with the legacy of the 20th century while also serving as a solution to it. One example is the belief, widespread across California, that overpasses for roads or rails inherently produces blight.
This isn’t an entirely unreasonable assumption. Many cities, in the Prop 13 era, have had to cut back on spending for keeping the streets clean. The areas underneath overpasses tend to collect trash and dirt, and cities are generally not consistent about sanitation there.
Further, the evisceration of the safety net over the last 30 years has created the problem of homelessness, and overpasses tend to be a favored spot to sleep – a crude roof over one’s head, and in a place that’s generally out of the way, so one isn’t rousted by the cops as often as if they slept somewhere else.
By the late 20th century, then, overpasses became symbols of blight. This scene from San José is a good example – it’s an image of a railroad overpass near Diridon Station and San Carlos Street. The photographer’s caption reads “Elevated so the trains can pass freely underneath it, also doubles as a dumping ground and homeless encampment.”
Of course, there are other examples of railroad overpasses along the Caltrain route, including the prominent one at San Carlos (photo by Clem):
Although I’m not a regular user of this station, I have used it on a few occasions, and it did not seem at all “blighted” to me. Sure, there are some issues with the design and implementation, as Clem’s post explained, but overall it struck me as a successful implementation of building an above-grade rail structure in a way that looks good and doesn’t encourage “blight,” which is after all a nebulously defined concept.
Some Peninsula residents point to the San Carlos overpass as an example of what they’re afraid of, but it is no “Berlin Wall.” Neither are the other above-grade HSR tracks we showed back on Thursday. Continuing that post’s theme, since HSR is “strange and unfamiliar” to most people, they’ll try and understand it by thinking of what they believe to be comparable situations. In this case, it’s the freeway overpasses, and the few rail overpasses they know.
The two San Carlos overpasses described here are different not only in form and in use, but in location. The city of San Carlos overpass is in the city center, along one of the major streets and at the foot of the city’s historic business district. The San José overpass near San Carlos Street is in an industrial part of town that lacks a community atmosphere and generally feels abandoned. Those who assume that any overpass produces blight need to pay attention to context as much as anything else.
Still, the notion that overpass = blight is strong, and showed up at a recent CHSRA public event at Bellarmine College Prep in College Park, directly adjacent to the Caltrain and future HSR line:
“Our main concern is the potential blight,” said Shawnee Grossmann, who has lived near the corner of Myrtle and West Hedding Streets for 10 years. “If the train has to be elevated, lower the elevation.”
The proposed roue follows current Caltrain tracks to De La Cruz. Caltrain would continue to run and the College Park and Santa Clara Caltrain stations would remain. Rail planners are trying to design a new elevated or trenched line within Caltrain’s right of way. It could mean building an elevated structure with 16-foot pylons and electrical wires that reach 40 feet above the tracks.
Engineers said they are open to many options, including reconfiguring the Hedding Street overpass, digging trenches and building sound walls on the roughly 3-mile stretch from Diridon Station to De La Cruz.
Here again you see the concerns about “blight” arise. For College Park residents, they’re almost certainly more familiar with the tracks near Diridon Station than with the overpass in San Carlos. Their concerns are sensible, but this is exactly the kind of situation where the ability to show real-world examples of successful above-grade HSR implementations would be extremely valuable, for both the CHSRA and the community. In fact, that’s exactly what the community is asking for:
Scott Soper, a leader of the College Park Neighborhood Association, expressed frustration because the railroad’s design is still vague.
“If we want to make this process work, we need to know what this thing is going to look like,” said Soper, who lives on Asbury Street.
If one could show residents the choice between something like the Caltrain San Carlos overpass and the loud, smelly diesels that currently serve the tracks in their neighborhood, I have to imagine many of them would come around to seeing the benefits of above-grade tracks in their neighborhood.
Concerns about “blight” are real, and are based in the slow decay of California’s urban infrastructure and social safety net. It doesn’t have to be that way, of course. Overpasses can work well, and it begins by showing the community how they work well along other rail lines in the region, the nation, and the world.
san jose info just in san jose route
Note that I am going to finally be transferring all the old comments over from the Blogger site tonight. This ought to go well without any problems, but if anything crops up, let me know and I’ll try to resolve it quickly.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 16th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
And no, I haven’t the slightest clue why some of my posts show up in a yellow highlight. Anyone?
Avery Reply:
January 16th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Its all in the code. It’s from when I had it configured to show all the admin comments as this color, but now its only comments that are not replying to someone else’s comment.
Avery Reply:
January 16th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
The fix would be to look in the css file, about 2/3 the way down for
.commentlist li.admincomment {
background-color: #FFFF66;
}
change the background color to #FFFFFF;
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 16th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Thanks!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 16th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Transfer done! All comments from old site are now, finally, here.
I love the way they did san carlos and burlingame and other places where theyraised the tracks. they are huge improvements over what was there before.
Great post. It’s pretty fair in that it shows a bad example and a good example of an elevated crossing.
Also, homelessness may be unpleasant but it’s not to be feared. Homeless people are more often the victims of crime than the perpetrators.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 16th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Totally agreed. I tried to stay away from the “homeless people are scary and bad!” mentality, but it is clearly an issue, and let’s face it, our lack of a real safety net means homelessness is a genuine issue. And it figures into the question of “blight” because for many Californians, overpasses + homeless people = blight.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 16th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
I’d have included the picture from San José on this post, but I try and respect copyrights of Flickr users when possible. Clem gave me permission to use his photo.
Couple of comments…
Your photo of the San Jose overpass is actually a road overpass, not a rail overpass. The rails are below the overpass.
Also, the fears of elevated structures south of Sunnyvale are probably unfounded. There are no grade crossings anywhere in the Santa Clara to Diridon area, and thus no need to create new grade separations. Although you never know what the engineering firms might come up with… for example, a viaduct flying over the CEMOF into the upper level of Diridon pan-galactic. Before any of you chuckle, I am not making this up.
Jarrett Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 12:31 am
I think they were also considering a tunnel under the CEMOF storage tracks to eliminate the ellipse that goes around the facility now. This seems really silly since the tracks were completely straight before the maintenance yard was built. Clem, do you know why Caltrain chose to create an extra 40mph turn where there didn’t use to be one? Is there some sort of operational advantage for that?
Clem Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
The only reason is to prevent Caltrain moves into and out of the CEMOF from fouling UPRR. The correct solution would have been to send UPRR around the double reverse curve, but not Caltrain. The correct solution was not implemented, per usual practice.
“Some Peninsula residents point to the San Carlos overpass as an example of what they’re afraid of, but it is no “Berlin Wall.” ”
Actually for the residents east of the train tracks in San Carlos it *is* a real dividing line. The raised tracks created a very real division in our community, they separated our neighborhood from downtown and the rest of San Carlos in significant ways. The raised tracks increased the noise of the trains in our neighborhood a huge amount as well. The tracks did however make it easier and safer for autos to cross the tracks by going underneath and you can walk under the tracks at a few major intersections. If you are a pedestrian not close by to one of the underpasses, too bad, you have a much longer walk ahead of you.
I am a proponent of HSR, but I’m not a fan of the boosterism I often see expressed here for it. Electrifying Caltrain will have a huge impact both positive and negative. Less noise would be great but electrified lines towering above the raised tracks are a real negative. Increased speeds of the trains may eliminate any potential noise reduction from electrification as well. Why not evaluate alternatives to raised electrical lines? Why not acknowledge their aesthetic shortcomings?
It is important to acknowledge the negatives and positives of any proposal, but you undermine your credibility by glossing or dismissing real concerns that people have about HSR. I would like to see the HSR project as an example of how communities and the HSR planners can work together in constructive dialog to create a better system. That can only happen by listening and responding to the concerns of citizens and not dismissing them.
Thanks
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 9:20 am
But that dividing line has been there for hundreds of years. It’s not as if the overpass caused the community division you claim now exists. Communities on the Peninsula are already divided by tracks that cannot be crossed except at a few cross-streets, so pedestrians already have a long walk in many Peninsula cities, but an overpass can actually make the rail corridor more permeable. So how does building an overpass cause any further division? After all, you acknowledged that it does make it easier and safer for cars and people to cross the corridor.
As to noise, we need to see the studies, but my understanding is that the noise from electric trains is still much less than the noise of the existing trains combined with their very loud horns.
As to aesthetics, why on earth should a major infrastructure project rise or fall based on aesthetics? How does that many any financial or practical sense? I’m all for having good aesthetics on a project, and think that the San Carlos crossing does this well, but do you really believe that rises to the same level as safety, affordability, reliability, job creation, ability to reconnect neighborhoods, address global warming, reduce our dependence on oil, and support sustainable transportation?
HSR supporters are quite happy to listen to and respond to the concerns of citizens. But those concerns also have to be reasonable and sensible. Just because someone offers an opinion does not automatically make that opinion legitimate. It has to be backed up with evidence or with a logical and compelling argument.
In this case, I’m not seeing how aesthetics rises to that level. The notion that an overpass divides a community more than an at-grade rail corridor does not seem logically consistent, and we’ve seen examples of how those overpasses can be built in an aesthetically pleasing way.
Finally, neighbors have to be willing to accept some compromises of their own – they do not have, and do not deserve, the power to dictate project design or veto a project entirely. Unfortunately they too often act as they have exactly that power.
David S Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 11:22 am
I think GESC was talking specifically about the change from at grade to elevation, not the existence of the tracks in general. I don’t know when the berm in San Carlos was created, but I’m sure it changed the character of the surrounding area (better, worse, I cannot say). Especially the comments about pedestrian access; at grade crossings tend to be more frequent than grade separated. While a few blocks is a minor inconvenience for a car, its enough to keep a pedestrian off the road completely. And, from personal experience (the Taylor st underpass) walking under a railway is a loud, smelly and often crowded affair. When I lived near that underpass, I preferred to drive despite the shopping center being a 5 minute walk for exactly the reasons described. It was loud and smelly from the cars, there were occasionally homeless people there and the width of sidewalk allowed, at best, one person to pass under it. Underpasses aren’t just considered bad for irrational reasons; there’s a real aesthetic difference.
The takeaway for me is that “done right” throughout California means designing these structures from more than the POV of the auto. Ped. Walking distances, biking, adequate lighting (natural when possible), building materials (slabs of concrete will almost always “look like” blight) are all critical, and I totally sympathize with local residents who want to see the details before giving a thumbs up.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
I think that’s what GESC was talking about as well, but it still doesn’t make any sense. The elevated rails were built in the late 1990s, and I don’t see any evidence it has harmed San Carlos. GESC admitted that it made the corridor more permeable.
I totally agree that some underpasses can be dirty and undesirable, for the reasons I gave in the diary (cuts to local government and social safety net) and that it very much has to be “done right.” But local residents need to come into this constructively. Too often they have a knee-jerk anti-elevated sentiment that isn’t based on anything that is coherent or defensible, just a vague “I don’t like it.” That’s not a productive position.
BW Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Well I can give you an example where elevated tracks has harmed San Carlos. I didn’t buy a home next to the train tracks. I live up in the White Oaks neighborhood and for most of the 17 years I have lived there, the buildings at El Camino buffered the train noise. Since the tracks have been elevated it sound like the train is in my backyard. I would move if I could just can’t afford it, not everyone on the peninisula is rich (as many on this site make reference to). Oh and Thanks for removing my other posts that didn’t agree with your vision, I don’t really expect this to make it either.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
I didn’t remove any of your other posts. I don’t moderate based on content, except as laid out here.
Electric trains would likely be much quieter. What “train noise” are you hearing? Horns?
Dan S. Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
One could say that the biggest problem facing this project is simply the dearth of successful commuter rail lines in the US. In general, Americans don’t know what a good commuter rail looks like, sounds like, or how liberating and great it can be to use public transit to get around instead of always using the car! Totally to be expected; Americans love their cars, a truism we all know well.
So I would say while it is not this blog’s responsibility to treat all the residents along the proposed ROW with kid gloves regarding the changes that are (hopefully) coming, it absolutely has to be the responsibility of the CSHRA and the big expensive PR firm that they hired! Every penny they spend wooing their new neighbors will be dollars not spent defending lawsuits. And the more answers that are out there, the less fear of the unknown as well.
So to BW and to GESC, I would say you have totally legitimate points. Increasing capacity in the Caltrain ROW will bring significant changes to your neighborhoods. Overhead electrical lines can look pretty ugly sometimes, and raised tracks, when they are used, can be much more noticable than what we’ve got now.
But the arguments for this type of change are quite convincing, I think, and stand on their own. Caltrain currently runs 100 diesel trains a day, many at 79 mph, with street-crossings galore. Electric trains will be quieter generally, have zero emmisions, and with their increased acceleration will vastly enhance the mobility experience of Caltrain for all passengers in the Peninsula. I would say, think of your neighbors, the ones who use the train now or who will want to use the train as it is improved with these changes. Imagine taking their cars off of your roads, removing their emmissions from your air, and making an investment for the community in non-oil-based transportation, *just in case* the price of oil skyrockets in the future. (Oh yah, and also to stick-it to those petrocracies who are misbehavin globally.)
Joey Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
“One could say that the biggest problem facing this project is simply the dearth of successful commuter rail lines in the US. In general, Americans don’t know what a good commuter rail looks like, sounds like…”
This is probably also the reason why people want BART to every corner of the state.
elfling Reply:
January 20th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
I personally think aesthetics are important – it is amazing how much difference a beautiful bridge makes. Imagine the Golden Gate as a routine concrete overpass instead of the beautiful, graceful structure it is today. That beautiful bridge literally raises property values all through the Bay Area, perhaps by as much as $100k a parcel.
That said, I think the way to go about it is to encourage local communities and/or a separate entity to fund the upgrades for higher quality aesthetics, rather than accounting them to the HSR project. The aesthetics benefit the community and the state tax base rather than rail transit.
TedCrocker Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 9:41 am
“As to aesthetics, why on earth should a major infrastructure project rise or fall based on aesthetics? How does that many any financial or practical sense? I’m all for having good aesthetics on a project, and think that the San Carlos crossing does this well, but do you really believe that rises to the same level as safety, affordability, reliability, job creation, ability to reconnect neighborhoods, address global warming, reduce our dependence on oil, and support sustainable transportation?”
My answer to this is YES! Aesthetcics set the tone for future development. Think of a quaint neighborhood full of Revival houses. Now build a cheap box that maximizes dollars per square foot. What have you just done to that neighborhood? What do you think the next person will do when they want to remodel? They’ll be less likely to build a traditional house because it is harder to justify the extra cost due to the addition of a poor comp. And so it goes in a downward spiral. Once you go down that path -corrupting the integrity of the initial continuity of design – you can’t turn it around. When I designed and built the addition to my house, I put my money where my mouth is and my neighbors are extremely happy I did. If HSR builds industrial looking elevated structures, it will only invite more of the same. If they build context sensitive structures it will be an asset and help continue thoughtful design surrounding the tracks.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 10:45 am
electrified lines towering above the raised tracks are a real negative
…the gantry the traffic lights are mounted on.. that’s a delightful aesthetic amenity provided to the community? If I check the street view on Google – I think it’s the Howard Ave – the Home Depot sign is very pleasing. The telephone poles with 5 crossbars and two transformers are lovely, charming even….
@GESC
I have lived next to or nearby rail systems with overhead cantenary… I don’t feel they bring blight or are obtrusive at all. I feel many items are simply a matter of being in an urban environment. OCS is one.
I feel that the SUV blights that area more than anything else. The negative impact of dependence on automobiles is very real. However, the impacts are very much disproportionate and usually hit those who are poor and/or non-white (such as freeways that didn’t just blight neighborhoods, but wiped them off the map). Some impacts, such as air pollution, can’t be escaped no matter how rich you are.
OT, but VERY interesting:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/RRDev/final_nv.pdf
This report is the FRA’s manual for assessing noise and vibration produced by high speed trains. Included are the impacts of mitigation measures, the noise generated by different steel/steel high speed systems, in addition to maglev systems, the impact criteria for different settings (dense urban, suburban, etc), and many other interesting items.
Warning, it is 235 pages total.
By the way, Rodent, like I said, Acela never reaches 90 db at 30 m. At 150 mph it is around 86 db. At 125 mph it is at 84. And yes, you’re going to argue that “How is 84 db safe, bla bla bla.” The answer is: because the exposure is not constant, AND BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SAID SO!
spokker Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
One the government approves something, it’s no longer immoral!
HSRforCali Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
And our government tends to be very picky when it comes to rail.
Peter Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Only if it’s not passenger rail.
“Continuing that post’s theme, since HSR is “strange and unfamiliar” to most people, they’ll try and understand it by thinking of what they believe to be comparable situations.”
And therein lies the problem, but you’ve only addressed half the issue. For every person who reacts with “OMG, it’s a blight wall!” there’s a HSR supporter who says “it’ll transform your city into an Italian villa.” Truth is somewhere in between. But you know, as long as HSR advocates continue to post examples from lovely European countrysides, they’ll naturally be met with resistance from people who intimately know the features of their own neighborhoods and can recognize a snow-job. They will naturally counter with their own biased examples.
Frankly, I’ve yet to see a wall that looks better than open space. The best you can argue is that it’s not that bad.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
The point I make in using the European scenes, especially those from Cinque Terra, are that if these Italian coastal towns that live off of tourism and therefore cannot afford to “blight” themselves still thrive with above-grade rail, then surely there are ways to make above-grade rail work on the Peninsula, and the knee-jerk “omg no overpasses” sentiment isn’t justifiable.
Once those neighbors are willing to accept the concept of above-grade rail, then they’ll have a greater ability to help shape the design since they won’t be wasting everyone’s time trying to kill the project.
Joey Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
“The best you can argue is that it’s not that bad.”
But it isn’t that bad. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that an elevated structure will be better than no elevated structure (though it eliminates grade crossings), but NIMBYs seem to be blowing the issue out of proportion.
flowmotion Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
“The best you can argue is that it’s not that bad.”
Which is a far better argument than “HSR is so OMG AWESUM that you will enjoy staring at a retaining wall for the rest of your life.”
I think its far better to acknowledge that any elevated structure is a form of blight, almost by definition. Residents have the right to be concerned on some level. Therefore some form of mitigation is warranted and must be planned for. The goal should be to make it “not that bad”.
The problem with trotting out these pictures of “nice” elevateds is that 90% of civil engineering structures do not look like these pictures, neither in the US nor Europe, and everyone knows it. Posting the European Villas on this blog doesn’t mean much when even CHSRA’s own videos show the typical highway brutalist treatment as an option.
Furthermore, nobody even seems to know what process went into these glorious European structures. Who knows, you might have some virulent Euro-NIMBYs to thank for the nice looking trainlines.
The outright denial that there would be any blighting aspect to elevated train structures is frequently where this blog leaves the public policy mainline and switches over to the foamer express.
I absolutely agree that there are good/better ways to do an elevated track, but are there any reasons this would be preferable to a “trench” design.
I seem to recall someone saying they were about the same cost. A trench i would think would be an easier sell as it causes no visual obstructions for people to opppose.
Joey Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
There are other things to consider though, for instance streams and utilities which may be below ground. Also according to the construction methods booklet (still preliminary but a decent gauge), trench and elevated-on-structure construction are about the same cost (3.5x), but retained fill is significantly cheaper (2x). Also note that trench and retained fill construction would require additional right-of-way on either side of the structure for construction (on the order of 15-30 feet).
According to Bob Doty’s construction methods booklet, a berm is ~1.5x at-grade construction cost and a trench is ~3.5x at-grade construction cost. One could conclude that a trench costs over twice as much as a berm.
I posted my reply earliy this AM, but for some reason it has not shown up. Perhaps it was held up by the moderator or it somehow got lost, anyway here is my original reply to Mr. Cruickshank and this blog:
“It’s not as if the overpass caused the community division you claim now exists.”
No it didn’t create it, but it did exacerbate it. Let me explain, instead of having options discussed like a Bart-like elevated system which would have allowed far more areas for pedestrians to cross, or perhaps going underground, we had a berm as the only option. There was no discussion, there were no alternate plans, there was no system that provided feedback from the community. There was simply a plan and any deviation from that plan was thought of as obstructionist. I supported a change and wanted safer crossings, I think that was and is important! However the process that the city of San Carlos and SamTrans used was essentially “my way or the highway”. Using a process that allowed residents to have a voice in some fashion, like Context Sensitive Solutions was sorely missing.
I was at one of the first planning meetings involving community members and local governments for HSR where Context Sensitive Solutions were discussed as part of the process and I feel that HSR needs to follow through with it as a means to achieve a better HSR system for the state as a whole and for the communities impacted by it. Does that mean that I support a peninsula town that wants to kill the project altogether? Of course not, but local communities that are affected need to have a voice and a mechanism that reduce negative impacts and help to create positive outcomes. We have a chance to build a world class system here that could serve as a positive model for the country, lets not blow it.
“As to noise, we need to see the studies, but my understanding is that the noise from electric trains is still much less than the noise of the existing trains combined with their very loud horns.”
If the trains ran at the same speed then electrification would make them quieter, but higher speed trains will create a doppler effect as they zoom by and will create more noise than if they operated at the same speeds as the current system. I’m happy to see the studies, but they need to measure that delta, and take higher speeds into account.
“As to aesthetics, why on earth should a major infrastructure project rise or fall based on aesthetics?”
Wow, I’m stunned by that statement. Were you ever in Berlin before the fall of the Soviet Union? Infrastructure projects that have no thought to aesthetics are like the Berlin wall and the former divide between the east and west portions of the city. One side, the east, was drab and lifeless, the buildings were grey, completely lacking aesthetics of any kind, and the other side was a vibrant colorful city. There are ton’s of examples of design where aesthetics did not enter into the equation, much of our national highway infrastructure was designed that way, urban renewal projects of the 60’s which ended up destroying neighborhoods and creating blight. Denying that aesthetics have any role to play will result in an undeniably ugly system which will end up having major social implications as a result. We can and should do better.
I never made a claim that a project should rise or fall based only on aesthetics. I’m simply making the argument that aesthetics should be considered in any proposed designs. Again, context sensitive solutions is a process that reduces adversarial positions and works towards consensus. I think this blog could go a long way in helping to build consensus, by having honest and open discussions, without trying to belittle opposing opinions.
“Finally, neighbors have to be willing to accept some compromises of their own – they do not have, and do not deserve, the power to dictate project design or veto a project entirely.”
If one reverses this argument and states that:
“designers and implementers of infrastructure projects have to be willing to accept some compromises of their own – they do not have, and do not deserve, the power to dictate project design or cram a project through in its entirely without any input.”
and can agree on BOTH statements then we have a framework by which to move forward in a more positive collaborative fashion.
Again I support HSR, however, I don’t feel that I should be viewed as an obstructionist because I have different opinions on some of the particulars of the implementation.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Don’t know what happened to your earlier reply – it wasn’t held for moderation.
As to the planning of the berm, it sounds like the issue here is how it was foisted on the community. You still haven’t explained how it exacerbated the existing divide presented by the at-grade railroad. Public participation in the design process is always a good thing, and the public tends to have better ideas than the engineers, as long as the public isn’t merely there to try and derail the project. The way you write this makes it sound like you’re upset at how the neighborhood was treated, and not so much about the physical structure.
Your comments about Berlin don’t hold much water. If you think the problem with the wall was its aesthetics, you’re missing the point. The Berlin Wall was loathed by all Germans, East and West, because it represented and physically reinforced the lack of freedom of the people in the East as well as the separation of families, societies, and a nation. There was no way the Wall could have been made better through aesthetics, because it was always a manifestation of oppressive political purposes.
Americans tend to cast East Berlin and other residents of Warsaw Pact nations as oppressed peoples yearning to be free, but the reality was far more complex. No amount of better façades on East Berlin buildings would have masked the basic economic and political shortcomings of the GDR – and trust me, they tried, especially in the 1980s. Nor did the drab aesthetics of Soviet-era Berlin cause the collapse of the GDR – most GDR residents wanted more political and economic freedom within a generally socialist framework. Even today there’s a complicated attitude among easterners to the GDR past, including a sense of loss for the guaranteed employment and housing that was provided by that drab infrastructure.
Here in 21st century America there’s no reason why we can’t have both the infrastructure that is absolutely necessary to our prosperity (high speed rail) and build it in a way that is aesthetically pleasing. Still, I can’t agree that aesthetics are of equal weight in a project as budget, ridership, operational need, and overall usefulness to the passenger. It should be considered, but it also needs to be kept in perspective.
As to your closing, I totally agree – designers and implementers of infrastructure projects very much need to be willing to accept compromises. And I think there is an opportunity here for exactly that. But HSR supporters get concerned when they hear Peninsula residents flip out about above-grade structures. There’s simply no reason for it. They can be and often have been built quite well. The proper attitude ought to be one of collaboration among all sides and stakeholders, instead of neighbors ruling things out or making demands – especially when they don’t seem willing to put up the money to help afford the more expensive options they might prefer.
Ultimately, context here matters as well. Neighbors need to understand they do not have veto power over this stuff. The people of California democratically chose to build this project on this route. They didn’t decide on specific details, but neighbors along the line, in every city, must respect that statewide decision – as too much the planners and engineers and designers, as must the politicians, as must the CHSRA staff and board members.
I genuinely hope that we all can build on the common ground that exists. But I worry that 20th century attitudes, often based in assumption and not in fact or sense, prevent that from happening – among both engineers and neighbors.
Peter Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
This is why we have the CEQA process. So that designers and implementers are not able to ramrod through projects that, while affecting the common good, may be seen as detrimental by some located near the project (or have some other environmental concerns.
If I recall correctly, simply grade separating an at-grade crossing is exempt from CEQA. That’s why the public had no input in the San Carlos grade separation project.
Before I get pounced on, I’m not saying that the lack of public input was good. I’m just explaining why it occurred that way.
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
If the trains ran at the same speed then electrification would make them quieter, but higher speed trains will create a doppler effect as they zoom by and will create more noise than if they operated at the same speeds as the current system. I’m happy to see the studies, but they need to measure that delta, and take higher speeds into account.
Noise is tricky, the link that was posted earlier to the FRA’s Noise impact guidelines are one of the more detailed noise analyses I’ve seen. Unfortunately they only focus on European HSR systems, but it contains a decent description of the different types of train noise (mechanical, aerodynamic) and the impact and propagation of each. The type of structure that the line is built on makes a large impact, berms are quieter than concrete aerials. Even the FRA report is incomplete as they don’t evaluate all possible noise abatement options and construction methods, but it’s still pretty good. The European HSR systems they tested were quieter than the Diesel systems, even at much higher speeds. The line on the peninsula is going to be travelling at 125mph top speed, a point at which most modern EMUs should be significantly quieter than the current caltrain/metrolink/amtrack/UPRR/BNSF diesels even without their horns. When you add horns to the mix, there’s simply no comparison.
I think that the communities along the route, especially those in the central valley, should be campaigning the authority to select rolling stock and track construction methods than minimize noise. I think that’s a perfectly valid concern, even if the HSR trains have lower peak noise, and even if they have lower total noise exposure (as a function of noise level, duration, and propagation). What I think is unreasonable, is the FUD that keeps getting repeated about “flight level zero airlines” and “thundering trains”, when the current lines carry some of the loudest, harshest trains in the world.
ps: The doppler effect doesn’t make them louder, it just raises/lowers the pitch in accordance with approach/depart speed.
Peter Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
I don’t think they studied any EMUs at all.
I completely agree that the NIMBYs’ time and effort would be better spent on a realistic campaign to implement HSR as good as possible. But, given that the more rabid ones want to kill the project completely by insisting on tunnels, I guess they’ll continue to spin their yarns and generate FUD.
“I think that’s what GESC was talking about as well, but it still doesn’t make any sense. The elevated rails were built in the late 1990s, and I don’t see any evidence it has harmed San Carlos. GESC admitted that it made the corridor more permeable.”
Honestly, I don’t appreciate being misquoted. Please read my reply above. The corridor is far less permeable and pedestrian access has been significantly decreased. The Berm brought significant negatives and I’d like to see it replaced with a trench design or perhaps a different elevated design. What I would really like to see is a consistent approach to HSR through the entire peninsula. If it’s a trench design, or a specific type of elevated design then make it so for the entire peninsula.
“But local residents need to come into this constructively. Too often they have a knee-jerk anti-elevated sentiment that isn’t based on anything that is coherent or defensible, just a vague “I don’t like it.” That’s not a productive position.”
Well one thing that I can say is that once the berm was completed and Caltrain started running trains on it, that noise in our neighborhood increased significantly. There also was an impact from vibrations because you can “feel” the train much more so with the berm than before. I’m not sure why but that’s what we have experienced.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
I didn’t intend to misquote you. I’d assumed that was your intent based on your statement “The tracks did however make it easier and safer for autos to cross the tracks by going underneath and you can walk under the tracks at a few major intersections.”
So we’re clear, it sounds like the problem is that at-grade street crossings of the corridor were eliminated by the berm? If so, the solution would seem to be to provide somewhat regular undercrossings for pedestrians (but not cars). Would that make some sense?
Would you agree that even before the berm, east San Carlos was separated from the rest of San Carlos; the question now is exactly how that separation works and what the tradeoffs are with the berm?
Clem Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Curiosity from a fellow San Carlos resident: which exact across-the-tracks access was removed by the berm? I ask because I did not live here before it was built.
Jaywalking across the tracks doesn’t count– everywhere else, Caltrain has since put up fencing that would also have “divided” San Carlos.
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 17th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
One of the common remedies that is called for is a trench, but trenches aren’t a panacea. There’s no pedestrian access advantage to a trench over a berm. A trench needs a pedestrian bridge, a berm needs a pedestrian tunnel.
The Alameda corridor in Los Angeles is a larger, more obtrusive barrier, than at-grade or slightly elevated rail. I really wouldn’t campaign for a trench in my backyard, I’d be campaigning for a nicely constructed berm. At least you can plant ivy on the berm.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 18th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
From across the street a trench looks like empty land – no worse than empty parking lot. You can’t see the trains. It cuts down noise from the trains. Since there’s nothing there to see there’s no need to plant anything on it. All other things being equal, no creeks to cross, no landmark trees to avoid, I’d take a trench.
Note: When I used to livei n Germany, many railway stations were railroad overpasses and today I cannot imagine a railstation that is not elevated. E.g. the one from my hometown: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Essen_Hauptbahnhof_Freiheit.jpg
Or here
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/pratikdattani/2005/01/02/essen_hauptbahnhof_on_evening_of_opera_and_ruhrgebiet-r4307.jpg
And I have to add that it increases the quality of traveling. It is a much different feeling to arrive in Downtown at see all the people walking around, the cars, and the top of the highest buildings. That’s how it looks when you arrive or depart from the central station: http://bit.ly/essenview
And it gives you an idea on which side of the station you can find the pedestrian malls.
And to give some people a clue of what we might see in California, here is the Berlin Bhf (central station) that has been finished in 2006: http://www.allianz-pro-schiene.de/bahnhof-des-jahres/2007/festakt-berlin/berlin-innen-1.jpg
Rail planners are trying to design a new elevated or trenched line within Caltrain’s right of way.
The real question that everyone should be asking (College Park residents or otherwise) is why in the world we would ever spend scarce taxpayer dollars elevating or burying the tracks between Santa Clara and San Jose. The ROW is very wide in that section and already grade-separated. In the constrained parts, the adjacent land is just parking lots. That entire section should be at-grade, with small amounts of eminent domain applied to parking lots if necessary.
The corridor is far less permeable and pedestrian access has been significantly decreased.
That seems impossible. Are you claiming that Caltrain removed a pre-existing pedestrian underpass/overpass? Or are you recommending that individuals trespass on Caltrain property? Not only is that illegal, but it’s not even possible anymore due to the fencing that has gone up (and will continue to go up).
@mike
I agree. Living in a neighborhood near here, the rail road section is very wide from san jose to santa clara. Why the need for an elevated path? I really wish I was able to make the meeting last week.
“If so, the solution would seem to be to provide somewhat regular undercrossings for pedestrians (but not cars). Would that make some sense?”
That would make perfect sense and the pictures that Emma linked to show designs that makes that possibility much easier than a berm. The change was made so long ago that I honestly don’t recall how many crossing points existed before the berm. There are one or two tunnels that allow pedestrians to cross. Tragically, I believe an assault and rape occurred in or by one of those tunnels a few years ago.
“Would you agree that even before the berm, east San Carlos was separated from the rest of San Carlos; the question now is exactly how that separation works and what the tradeoffs are with the berm?”
I think the separation became much greater. You could look across El Camino from either side and see what was there. The berm blocks out our neighborhood entirely and the issue we face is that our city council seems to have adapted an “out of sight, out of mind” approach to issues revolving around our neighborhood.
I think the questions in my mind are; Is the current berm design the best solution for HSR in San Carlos and the peninsula? Where will the extra tracks for HSR fit on the berm? If the Berm needs to be widened how will that be possible given that SamTrans plans to build buildings 60′ from the current tracks (not 60′ from the berm)? There currently is plenty of space in San Carlos to accommodate different designs for HSR, in what ways will those be limited by placing buildings so close to the existing tracks? I’d like to see those HSR design issues settled before any development occurs directly adjacent to the tracks anywhere along the peninsula at least it seems to me that it would make more sense to do that.
As to the Berlin wall example, I brought it up because you quoted the wall in your original post. I think the Highway System and Urban renewal projects are better examples.
Peter Reply:
January 18th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I think that they can make do with an 85′ or less wide berm, not including the with needed for platforms, etc. Buildings 60′ from the current tracks should not be a problem. If you check out Clem’s blog on San Carlos, I believe the station building would need to be moved.
Regarding the pedestrian undercrossings, they are scary all over the world. This could be mitigated with making them very well lit. Since HSR will have CCTV along the entire route, it might also be possible to have surveillance of the undercrossings, to add an extra safety measure.
elfling Reply:
January 20th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
I wonder what you could do in terms of making them feel more cheerful. I keep wondering if you might be able, for example, to nest a mini-mall inside, add a coffee shop, etc. Have a shade-loving garden down the center. Obviously, that’s not practical for every crossing, but one or two in neighborhoods that otherwise are walkable could be quite an interesting experiment.
Joey Reply:
January 18th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Something to consider, however, is that an elevated structure (as opposed to a solid berm) does not do as good a job of absorbing noise and vibrations, not to mention being about 75% more expensive (interestingly, though, a berm requires more lateral space to construct).
This discussion over San Carlos is quite informative as to the issues that other cities are/will have to face when HSR/Caltrain grade separate. While I live in Burlingame, I personally believe the best option for the city would be a berm with an approx. height of 6-10 feet, depending on how far roads can be lowered where current grade crossings are now. Yet, the issue over blight is one that can be mitigated through incorporating increased crossings beneath or above a grade separation to decrease the “divided city feeling” but also to make sure that enough greenery is added to make a dividing line seem not as “oppressive.” Also, when it comes to pedestrian access and safety, it would be an added benefit if there are, for example, lighted accesses and CCTVs monitoring passageways to help ensure one’s safety.
Solar tube lighting, also?