Poll Shows Continued Support for HSR on the Peninsula
Last month the California High Speed Rail Authority released a poll that showed 76% of Californians still supported the project. Sure, some of them had “concerns” about a project, but as we know, having “concerns” doesn’t mean opposition.
Some wondered whether the poll’s findings held evenly across the state – particularly on the Peninsula, where HSR opposition has been the loudest. Well, today we have evidence that the Peninsula strongly supports high speed rail.
The San Mateo County Times has just reported on a poll done in April in the 21st Assembly District, including Palo Alto, Redwood City, and Menlo Park. The poll found that 77% of respondents still supported the project:
The survey, which was conducted in April and targeted Democratic voters [and others, see my comments below -Robert] in advance of the June primary, asked two questions of 21st District voters regarding the bullet-train project, and the answers, though old, are a bit surprising.
First, respondents were asked generally whether they supported or opposed the plan to build a high-speed rail line linking the major cities in California. Fifty-four percent said they strongly supported the plan, 23 percent somewhat supported the plan, 9 percent somewhat opposed it, 9 percent strongly opposed it and 5 percent didn’t have an opinion.
Then respondents were asked, “Does knowing that a portion of the high-speed train system will be built through the Peninsula make you more or less inclined to support building the high-speed rail system?”
Twenty-six percent said it made them much more inclined, 25 percent said somewhat more inclined, 24 percent said it made no difference, 11 percent were somewhat less inclined, 10 percent were much less inclined and 5 percent had no opinion.
In other words, 51% said that knowing the HSR project was coming through the Peninsula made them *more* inclined to support HSR, with 24% not caring either way. Only 21% felt that HSR coming through the Peninsula was a problem.
The Times speculates that since the poll was done, as more arguments against the HSR project have come out (such as the flawed State Auditor report and the flawed Berkeley ITS report) that support might have fallen from that high level.
But consider that poll was done after over a year of strong criticisms were leveled at the HSR project by Peninsula opponents, including the city councils of many of the AD-21 cities, and yet strong majorities still backed HSR. There may have been some slippage since late April, but 77% is a huge number, and I’m guessing most of those people have already made up their minds and aren’t going to be swayed against this project.
After reading the article Saturday morning, I checked with some of my own sources to see if I could learn more about this poll. These sources indicated that the San Mateo County Times article did a very good job writing about the poll, but that there is one point that needs to be clarified. The poll was not just of of Democrats – it was of Democrats and independents (known in California as “Decline to State” voters) who were planning to vote in the AD-21 Democratic primary on June 8.
What does that mean? I decided to do a little research to find out. According to the California Secretary of State’s office, Democrats and Decline to State voters represent 70% of the overall electorate in the 21st Assembly District. And in the June 8 primary, 65% of the votes cast in AD-21 were in the Democratic primary. DTS voters are eligible to vote in the Democratic primary, and it appears that many of them did so.
In other words, the poll captured what appears to be a representative segment of the electorate in AD-21. Even if every single Republican voter in the district opposes HSR (which is unlikely, as I’ll explain in a moment) overall support in the district for HSR, based on the poll numbers, would still be at 53%.
As we know, Prop 1A passed with around 60% of the vote in 2008 on the Peninsula (61.1% in San Mateo County and 60.4% in Santa Clara County). It’s reasonable to believe that many Republicans joined in supporting that initiative, as they too understand the economic benefits of HSR, as does the Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. So if you assume that at least a significant portion of Republicans still support HSR – which seems reasonable – then it is quite plausible that overall support on the Peninsula (at least in AD-21) is still around the 60% level shown in the November 2008 election.
But it’s not really about the math. The bigger point ought to be obvious, and I’ll bold it because it’s important: the Peninsula still wants high speed rail.
Yes, there is a range of opinion within that bloc of supporters about how it ought to be done. But the poll shows that support is still quite strong. And that brings us to the Peninsula Cities Consortium.
The PCC believes, as a matter of official policy, that “high speed rail should be built right – or not at all.” Some PCC member cities, such as Belmont, are even considering passing resolutions opposing the project. Menlo Park (which was included in the poll) is going to court to challenge the project-level EIR.
This poll provides very clear evidence that this position is NOT shared by the majority of the residents of two key PCC member cities (Palo Alto and Menlo Park), perhaps also of the other PCC cities as well. It also indicates the PCC itself has gotten out of sync with what its constituents actually believe – which is that HSR should be built.
How did that happen? Recall the study done by Stanford University Urban Studies student Katie Martinez that I wrote about in June:
This research concludes that planners are not receiving opinions in the neighborhood workshops representative of the neighborhood going to be directly effected by the change. Unfortunately, city planners are making their decisions for the future of the California Avenue neighborhood based off of a small group of self-selected citizens who are able and motivated to attend the workshops, instead of a representative portion of the neighborhood, who are hesitant or excluded from participating.
In other words, Palo Alto (and likely other cities) have a tendency to base their planning decisions solely on who shows up to meetings and complains the loudest. She surveyed the California Avenue neighborhood and found that residents’ views on planning priorities differed from those expressed by attendees at public meetings. Martinez called for Palo Alto to implement reforms to better reflect true public opinion, instead of just assuming that a small, loud group of people reflect the whole community, when often they do not.
We all know that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. But when it comes to a project that is as important as high speed rail, local elected officials ought to be doing a much better job of gathering and accurately representing the views of their constituents. It’s not only a smart move for these politicians, it’s also the right thing to do in a democracy.
This poll should cause the PCC cities to stop and reflect on what they are doing. They need to go back and get in sync with their constituents. They need to ensure that their interactions with the HSR project are constructive and not oppositional. And they need to make sure that they carry out the will of their own voters as expressed in the November 2008 election.
Everyone wants a good HSR project that is sensitive to community needs. I don’t know of a single person who wants it done badly. But we also want it done, period. And so too does a majority of residents in the mid-Peninsula area. It’s time for their elected officials to reflect this reality, and work constructively to ensure that high speed rail is built.
Of course the Mayors of Menlo Park, Palo Alto, etc who are still against HSR, Still don’t get It, I guess they like Minority Rule(rule by a few unqualified privileged people). If this were something the majority wanted, Where is the March on City Hall to demand a change in either the Mayors and the city councils position or a recall of said officials…
I like my train/public trans p0rn as much as anyone, but the news is just too depressing. Did you see the front page of the Merc this morning? Now there’s a whopping serving of FUD. I think HSR is pretty important for the future, and it’s depressing that the loudest opponents are some of the wealthiest, highly educated nominally (I’m sure) Democrats in the richest and wealthiest state in the country. If only it were mouth breathing Sarah Palin fans against HSR…
Quite frankly this country (all of it, especially the more affluent parts in nominally liberal areas) deserves to decline and go go heck.
Sorry for the grouch attitude, seeing the hatchet job on the Merc, plus the usual shit I see every day in the Palo Alto papers has gotten me depressed and pissed.
jimsf Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Worse than the article are the comments that follow. The ignorance is astounding. It’s an uphill battle to try and discuss reality with a population bred to function on emotion rather than reason and critical thinking.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 9:52 am
I’ll have something up tomorrow on the Mercury News article; I agree it is flawed.
But this poll should help lift your spirits. By April 2010 there’d already been an avalanche of FUD on the Peninsula – and voters there are clearly rejecting it.
The public wants high speed rail. We just have to make sure the public’s voice is heard and not drowned out by the anti-HSR forces, which are unrepresentative of these communities.
Peter Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 10:18 am
San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed: “I don’t think there is any hope local governments can come up with that kind of money,” he said. “I’m looking at my city’s own finances and resources, and we don’t have money to spare.”
I guess San Jose isn’t getting its signature span…
As been stated before some of the loudest opponents have a vested interest in stopping high-speed rail.. whether it be nimbys by the tracks or ideology against anything Obama or a progressive issue.
As far as people showing up at City Hall these cities have over 10 or 12,000 people, and how many people show up at these city meetings? 80 to 100! and we know damm well they live near the tracks. that does not mean the entire city rose up its arms and says no to high-speed rail. The recent board meeting in San Francisco had 300 plus people out of a city of 800,000! and more than a few were not even city resident.. much of the blame for all the negativity is the media itself.. empowering small groups of people that are very vocal creating a “confrontation story” to sell the public. The American media is falling to the level of the National Enquirer or a British tabloid and becoming a huge problem for any kind public infrastructure or for that matter a public office holder. The city officials are responding to the small group of people being spotlighted by the media. We’re in that era were good news is not a sellable.. Bad news sells, fighting sells, yelling sells
jimsf Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 10:07 am
I’ll bet most of those comments on the Merc article are actually from the usual nimby’s along the route.
jimsf Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 10:11 am
as for the “media” they are failing miserably in their responsibility to keep the pulbic properly informed, instead opting to jump on whatever bandwagon the wind direction suggests in order to pander to readers in the quest for advertising profit. Today’s big thing is the “we hate the gub’mint” mantra, so the press is quick to spot that opportunity ” yeh we hate em too, man! we’re with you.. ( now here read our paper and we’ll make you feel nice and while you’re at it please try these products we are adversing… kiss kiss suck”
Its disgusting. We were warned of this in the 70s and I never thought Americans would let this happen and now here we are. It’s unbelievable to someone who remembers the old America.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Today’s news media is terrible.. one day someone’s hero next month there a villain.. everything from politics to sports heroes to construction business… every tiny little nuance is magnified as a reason that this person or project or idea is now bad
jimsf Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Now there’s a commenter over there that says that hsr is gonna bring all the criminals up here from LA. LOL,, you know as if right now they are standing around the southern base of the Tehachapis twiddling their thumbs wondering how they may someday get to the other side.
HSRforCali Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
LOL!!! I say we use that comment as an example of the extreme NIMBYism taking place up in the Peninsula.
jimsf Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
That’s nothing you gotta read this one:
Trains run on electricity. Where will all this power be generated? California already experiences electrical power shortages and brownouts. Guess the answer will be the new Electric Smart Meters. As the HSR traverses the State, cities and counties will have their power shut off or reduced via the new meters causing rolling blackouts and brownouts so the train will have enough power. Some other questions, how many times per day will the train travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles? Will the be both Northbound and Southbound tracks, or just one set of rails for the train? Finallly, the state can not afford this government boondoggle!!!!
An 8 year old has a better grasp of the hsr concept than that person. And this kind of ignorance is rampant.
There is going to be one tracks and each time the train goes by your house your power is going to go out. Yep, that’s the actual plan. In fact, if you live close to the tracks, you will be asked to run an extension cord from your living room to the overhead catenary to help the train out. You’ll need to make sure you keep one of your kids at home while you’re at work so they can plug the extension cord in each time they hear the train approaching otherwise the train will roll to a stop and the people on the train will roll down the window and start yelling at them and then you’ll have to make tuna sandwiches for everyone on the train cuz the microwave won’t work cuz your kid forgot to plug in the extension cord. Plus the train goes really fast and if your dog chases it to try and bite the tires, he won’t be able to keep up and that would be bad.
dave Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
A stupid NIMBY comment their along with the commenter from rural Gilroy who said somthing like “HSR is going to blow in so much debris and garbage that our homes will be buried with it”. Those commenters should really hang out.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Ah yes, the Merc, sure is tained with Mercury poisoning isn’t it? I love this quote the most. “That much cash could pay to build a new Bay Bridge, extend BART to San Jose and Livermore, and repair California’s water system — with enough left over to erase the state’s budget deficit.” Three out of the four projects are giant wastes of money being another Bay Bridge and BART extensions into suburbia. I also hate the fact of “ticket prices have doubled” The Merc doesn’t get the fact that is up to the operator and it is a POSSIBLE FARE SCENARIO! Huge difference. If TGV Duplex sets can be used and filled, the operating costs would allow for a fare that would most certainly place a dent in the airlines and force them to cut fares to deep discount levels or reduce service. In the future, they will most likely be left in the dust.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 11:50 am
The Merc is of course owned by MediaNewsGroup which ran full outright attack on Prop1A ..thou the Mercu did back prop1A ..how could they not,, though I’m sure people covering a high-speed rail story are given a little leeway the general thought pattern is one from corporate.. or they may be looking for a job.. the worst paper in the Bay Area is the Palo Alto online in their sensationalist reporting style on HSR
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Didn’t have the time to check the article itself (I’ll have to get to it later), but I noticed some people from here, jimsf, political, and joesez (?) who are fighting the good fight there! Thanks, keep it up! Wish I could be of help, but I’m not sure I’d be welcomed in the Mercury due to being from out of town.
Peter Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
You mean like all the people from other states talking shit on the comments on SF papers? No one knows or cares anymore.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I’m out of town as well. This isn’t just a local issue, it is a national transportation issue and it is a new way of solving our transportation issues. California has the best chance of success and I’ve also fought a battle over in Wisconsin. I recently had an opinion published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel challenging the current oil based transportation system and the claims of it paying for itself considering deferred maintenance and highway trust fund bailouts.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
High-speed rail is a nationwide issue and its opponents tend to be well-funded right leaning think tanks and backers.. the San Jose Mercury’s owners are in Denver Colorado and are very much into the conservative/ libertarian thinking.. as stated their personal opinion was loudly backed in all their newspapers for two months before the election.. so I for one am glad when out-of-state high-speed rail supporters join Californians in getting this system and others in the nation up and running
jimsf Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
yes I everyone head over and post, I could use some back up over there. It’s exhausting.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Newspaper comments are the Vietnam War of the online world. Easy to get sucked in, difficult to leave, impossible to win.
jimsf Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
They’re trying to get me with the agent orange now, but I brought my protective gear.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Robert FTW.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
I see that coo-coo “tax fighter” Rider is on that post..what ranting pysco..he must comb the net for HSR stories and sign up so he can rant on for hours..and I see he has again
Missiondweller Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Yeah, Menlo Park and Palo Alto are just full of “well-funded right leaning think tanks and backers”.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
At this point they wil lwhore themselves to anyone against HSR..just read some of the nimbys comments at PAonline and how they want to throw up but will vote for whitman because she ranted out her “we cant afford it ” line
Re: Journalism
Check out these links from Railway Preservation News, and in turn the links there to old news stories about steam locomotives from the late 1950s and late 1970s. What stands out to me (and I comment about it as J3a-614) is that the reporters understood their subject matter better in the old days.
http://server.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29954
http://server.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29955
So true, I support HSR in California but I am always busy with LIFE that I cannot attend public meetings wich results in my support not being heard. Then again if I was so scared of what was going to happen, I would probably drop everything I was doing that day to show my opposition and have my voice heard. Now if that opposition is 100 people in a room who yell a lot then, 100 people doesn’t represent us all.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Exactly. That’s why important city policies shouldn’t be determined solely by who shows up to a council meeting – many residents have other obligations that prevent their attendance, as you explained. Let’s hope these city councils do a better job reaching out to the silent majority.
Bianca Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
This is exactly why the Peninsula cities need to go back to their constituents and get in touch with what the voters think. I’ve been at those meetings with 100 (or less) people yelling. And I’m sure it’s not pleasant for city council members to sit through meetings listening to the public comment from people who oppose the project.
Those city council members need to keep in mind that they represent the entire city, and not just the angry people who show up at city council meetings. If they don’t want to believe the previous poll by the Authority, or this one for just the AD-21, that’s their prerogative, but rejecting it out of hand seems unwise. They need to go back and take the pulse of the entire town. After all, it takes more votes to get elected to City Council in Menlo Park than there are voters in Felton Gables, Linwood Oaks and on Stone Pine Lane combined.
Peter Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Not only do they represent the entire city, but they represent the city’s INTERESTS. The city’s interests are not always (I’d even argue they are hardly EVER) aligned with the average view of the city’s populace.
One of the reasons why we have a representative democracy, instead of a direct democracy, is that there are in fact greater issues at stake in any debate than people with a personal issue in the matter (people who live right next to the tracks, in this case) can or will acknowledge.
Missiondweller Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Yes, our political leaders “know what’s best for us”.
Seriously, you’re ridiculous.
Peter Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 8:05 am
Did you read the words “know what’s best for us” in my comment?
Stop putting words in my mouth.
jim Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Back when I was teaching Intro to IT, I would explain to my kiddiewinkies that standards get made by the people that show up to the meetings. This feature is there because the guy who wanted it came to the meeting. That feature isn’t there because the guy who wanted it didn’t bother. The same thing applies to politics.
Spokker Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
You should also show up to the meetings and make a public comment. It can be very intimidating to face emotional people who are screaming about their homes and kids and God knows what else, but it has to be done if you want to show your support.
I have been to meetings on another rail line project where I felt it could very easily come to blows. It was that tense. I’ve been to meetings with a significant police presence. Fun stuff.
Spokker Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Not this project but another rail project.
I was watching the news the other day and they where talking about HSR. Well I don’t remember everything they said, basic stuff, new develpoments. The only thing I grasped was when they interviewed a woman who’s home abbuted the Caltrain ROW. She said somthing like “Well it will be harder for me and my husband to entertain back here” as she turns to her backyard, wich by the way looks like a fucken public park (at least when it comes to backyards). I then realized that nobody want’s to take one for the team and just slice a little piece of your XXL backyard for the good of transportation, damn it!
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
That news report was online and I would like to see a video to take a noise sample of when a diessel Caltrain passes by and compare it to 200 km/h with acoustic dampening right next to the tracks.
Arthur Dent Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
How about the people with the XXS backyards. Do they have to take one for the team? What’s a reasonable hit? Can it be measured by a small slice, a major chunk, a sliver of swimming pool, a percent of lifetime investment? And who gets to decide how much is reasonable? You?? (Not directed at Dave.)
jimsf Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
They don’t just have something taken for nothing. They have to be compensated.
Arthur Dent Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
I’ve heard that in England they’re looking at ‘hardship payments’ for those along their proposed high-speed corridor whose properties have already taken a dive in value. I think this is fair; it’s the cost of building the system.
I imagine the great concern for people with backyards up against the tracks is the attitude that’s exhibited here and, more troubling, by the CHSRA that it’s their own tough luck that a track is coming through/past their backyard. I can’t think of a time when proponents of the system said, hey, what about the poor guys who are going to lose their homes or a significant portion of their investment?
All I’ve witnessed is a down to the elbow f-you. I can’t blame them for fearing for & taking care of their own interests in the absence of any semblance of sensitivity, let alone fairness.
Bianca Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
that it’s their own tough luck that a track is coming through/past their backyard.
There already are tracks coming through/past their backyard, and those tracks have been there since before the towns were there. And those diesels are smelly and LOUD. And the freight trains that run through in the middle of the night are REALLY FREAKING LOUD. I know, I’ve lived near the tracks myself. Getting rid of the diesels and the horns is something to be desired, and something that will increase property values. It’s not as if the status quo is some pastoral Garden of Eden. It’s loud, and smelly, and if you’re used to that, good for you. But the track is not anything new, and you don’t help your case here or elsewhere by trying to pretend it is.
And no one here, or that I have seen at the Authority, is suggesting that anyone lose their investment. Property can’t just be seized without fair compensation, and it’s not uncommon in Eminent Domain situations for the entity exercising Eminent Domain to offer some percentage over market value, because it saves money by avoiding litigation. I expect that anyone facing Eminent Domain to be fairly compensated.
jimsf Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
First of all the takes will be minimized and if I’m not mistaken, the authority just got done listening to what was most important to the row dwellers and agreed to minimize takings as much as possible. Two, when you move next to railroad tracks, ( airports, freeways, universities and the like) you know full well what you are doing and you got a better initial deal on your home to begin with because of it. Who paid less for their homes in any part of the bay area, the people in the flats or the people up in the hills? Its the same in all 9 counties. The people in the flats get a discount due to their proximity to the often unpleasant realities of modern living. Further, many people, myself included do not like change. I hate the fact that San Francisco’s population is exceeding 800k. I hate our skyline and views being decimated and I’m horrified at the thought of what the new transbay terminal and high speed rail are going to do to the demographics, affordability and quality of life right here in MY BACK YARD. But, I’m not going to fight against it because its vital to the state’s future and I don’t want my state, former beacon to the world, to become an insignificant has been. So we all just have to suck it up.
jimsf Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
and quite frankly, in my case I get my city ruined with no compensation, in the case of the row dwellers, they get something. If I lived there and they wanted 10 feet of my 50 foot back yard. I’d say for 100 grand you can have it. I can live with 40 feet and a very very nice cruise around the world and a new car.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
In England they’re also spending more on an at-grade km of track than they spend on a km of tunnel in Italy.
Spokker Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Cry baby cry
Make your mother sigh
She’s old enough to know better
So cry baby cry.
Nathanael Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
People *are* ignorant.
Hell, don’t you know that compensation for land taken is already required by the *US Constitution*? People who have a piece of their backyards taken will get compensated *better* than those in England, where they do *not* have such a constitutional requirement.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
England has no written constitution. However, like all other countries in the free world, it requires by law that the government only take private property with due process and just compensation.
dave Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
No I hear ya’. All you have to do is put yourself in the shoes of those people with the XXS backyards. But then again your investment isn’t gonna be “stolen” without compensation. That’s where the arguement should end. Even if you wanted to identify these people aside from true NIMBY’s wich are plentifull, we would need an extra fine filter for that and it hasn’t been invented yet.
Arthur Dent Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
What you’re all missing is the fact that property values are already decreasing. Compensation is only for those who are bought out. There is no compensation for those whose back fence is against the proposed track or for those who are trying to sell their properties now, before any additional track is even placed.
Bianca, surely you’re aware that aerials are a most likely outcome, and that a 4 track aerial spanning the entire width is hardly a comparison to two tracks at grade, behind a fence, on a tree-lined right-of-way. This is a permanent structure abutting scores of backyard fences. You all like to focus on the sexy train, but I’m trying to understand it from the homeowner’s view. It sucks, but no one wants to admit it.
And just to be clear, that program in England has to do with the present hardship of property values decreasing – before any track has ever been laid. It’s not an eminent domain thing. It’s a HSR is coming near their property thing.
Bianca Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
aerials are a most likely outcome
It would be really helpful to know what specific area you are referring to, because there’s no way to answer that without being more specific. Aerials are one option, but it’s not carved in stone yet. The AA still shows large segments either at grade or in an open trench as design options at various points in the line.
And as jimsf noted above, the Authority has made an effort to minimize property takes and narrow the amount of space required. The flip side of that is that aerials occupy less space than other alternatives. Other options require more width, which means more property takes. That isn’t some devious plot, it’s just simple engineering. Every design alternative has pros and cons, and all of those factors need to be weighed. You don’t want aerials? Then you have larger property takes. You don’t want property takes? Then some aerials may be in your future. You can’t have it both ways, and that isn’t me, or anyone here on this blog, or the Authority imposing that to be mean. It’s just the way it is.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Actually, that’s an outright lie coming from the professionals at the Peninsula Rail Program.
Their preferred platform-slow-fast-fast-slow-platform track arrangement results in wider station footprints (despite what their “Alternatives Analysis” and the slides presented by public employee Bob Doty’s slideshow claim) than the superior in every fashion fast-slow-platform-slow-fast arrangement (because two side platforms require more space than one island — 104 feet 2 inches versus 124 feet 4 inches for their “narrower” solution!!!!!); meanwhile the trivial difference between the footprint occupied by the tracks approaching the stations is completely irrelevant at every station along the line. (If four tracks and the station don’t fit in the existing right of way, another couple feet of property take or rather, in nearly every case, an operating easement above a public street, make exactly zero difference. But in most cases either configuration fits with no problem.)
So, Caltrain staff and CHSRA consultants are lying. Yet again.
The didn’t do any sort of analysis in their so-called “Alternatives Analysis”; rather they make false and unsupportable statements and go ahead and do the worst thing every time because, well, it’s the Olde Tyme US Railroader Way.
Joey Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Err, I think that Bianca was talking about aerials vs retained fill/trenches/etc as opposed to track ordering (not that I disagree with you on that particular point).
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
As Bianca said earlier, it is established practice that anytime the government takes someone’s land, the government pays fair market value for it. The 5th Amendment demands this.
However, it does not at all follow that any public (or private) action should result in compensation to a property owner in the event of lost value. If that were the case, every homeowner in America would be owed money by the government for the loss in value since the 2006 real estate market peak that the recession caused.
Of course, it is also FAR from certain that anyone would lose value because an extremely loud, smelly diesel train was replaced with an aerial (or a trench). There’s every reason to believe that they would gain value.
Still, no matter what, them’s the breaks. Nobody has a right to a guaranteed increase in property value. Like any investment, it could gain or lose value.
Spokker Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Arthur, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of why property values increase or decrease. You may be making a spurious correlation that property values are increasing because high speed rail *might* be built on the Peninsula when there are other factors at work.
It is also possible that high speed rail may cause property values to decrease in anticipation of the rail line, but return to normal if and when people realize that it wasn’t such a big deal. I agree that high speed rail may be injecting a degree of uncertainty in the real estate market, but this alone is not enough to make rash decisions at this point.
Property values are already being pushed down by a busy commuter railroad line. There is are other things about Palo Alto and Menlo Park that allow it to maintain relatively high property values compared to where poor people like me live. Low crime, majority white population, high income, etc. Those factors are likely stronger than anything that is happening on the Caltrain corridor.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Spokker, the world over, people pay premium prices because of busy commuter lines. Go ask a Peninsula real estate agent what the premium is for “walk to Caltrain” They are being pushed up by a busy commuter line.
Spokker Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Pushed up by a busy commuter line station.
The tracks and the trains themselves don’t push up property values but likely depress them. It may be that access has a stronger impact than train noise. We’ll put up with the noise if we have access, so to speak.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 1:33 am
Without the trains people stop going to the station…. they are paying extra to be near the train.
Spokker Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 2:13 am
The noise is tolerated because of easy access to the train. Two things are happening simultaneously.
1. Train noise has a negative effect on property values.
2. Access to a train station has a positive effect on property values.
The effect of having access to a train station is greater.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Do we even know that property values have significantly decreased in the Peninsula? How have the Caltrain cities’ property values fared compared to those of the rest of Silicon Valley?
Dan S. Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 2:20 am
I agree, good question. It’s probably impossible to quantify the effect that this ROW-upgrade-in-progress is having on current listings. I might agree that in the market for multi-million-dollar homes, connecting rail transit probably has little positive impact on prices. For apartments or townhouses, I might expect it to be a net positive, depending on other externalities.
Regardless, at the moment, one in four listings in the US was just marked down last month!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/11/one-quarter-of-home-selle_n_678378.html
wu ming Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 10:39 am
don’t look now, they’re decreasing all over the state. that’s what a massive housing bubble implosion will do. cry me a river, you guys don’t have it half as bad as out in the valley.
Nathanael Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
For those whose back fence is against the existing ROW, they are getting an IMPROVEMENT in property values, by removing loud, smelly diesels and putting quiet, clean electric trains in as a replacement.
Nathanael Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
That program in England is limited to an excruciatingly short list of people: people who can actually *prove* that their property value has decreased due to proposals for HSR, *and* who can prove that they were *forced* to sell prior to the eminent domain proceedings due to needed to move for work or some such, *and* who can prove that they bought the property *prior* to hearing any suggestions of HSR going along the route — and that rail line is taking a “greenfields” route.
People next to existing rail lines are pretty much not getting the hardship money, because HSR has been talked about along all existing rail routes for decades.
The equivalent in California would be people who bought their property prior to the Caltrain line being built (I doubt any are old enough) — and who have to move right away, and can prove that the rumors of the rail line are what’s making it hard to sell. I doubt any exist.
The English ‘hardship money’ proposal might work for the ‘greenfields’ route through the Pacheco Pass, if anyone along *there* is having trouble selling.
Reality Check Reply:
August 17th, 2010 at 12:28 am
Today I noticed 175 and 176 Stone Pine Lane condo/townhouse house-like things are up for sale. (I wouldn’t exactly call these shared-wall saltboxes “houses”.) Also, just a little further along the track toward the Menlo Park station, there are 3 more for sale on San Antonio — all along the tracks.
Peter Reply:
August 17th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Well, 175 is a short sale, which doesn’t really say anything about whether its being sold that “low” (I included the quotation marks because $900,000 is not cheap for a condo ANYWHERE) because of HSR or just the national decrease in property values.
Spokker Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
“And who gets to decide how much is reasonable?”
A judge, if it comes to that.