Pushing Back Against the “Liberal” NIMBYs
Is it possible for someone to claim to be a “liberal” and yet fight bitterly against liberal policies? In the normal would that would be considered “hypocrisy” and, since we ought to judge people by their actions and not by their self-serving descriptions, we would rightly refuse to acknowledge anyone as a “liberal” if they opposed liberal policies, especially if they did so out of selfishness.
This blog has been railing against that kind of phenomenon for years now. When NIMBYs in Palo Alto and surrounding communities began fighting the high speed rail project, many tried to claim that they were somehow “liberal” when they were fighting a project supported by the people that would reduce carbon emissions, make it more affordable to travel the state, and create jobs – especially when the only reason they were fighting it was because they were convinced that it would hurt their own property values. As we’ve seen, these NIMBYs believe in the supremacy of the automobile, take the side of oil companies against action on climate change, and don’t care how many jobs are lost to dependence on soaring oil prices as long as their precious property values aren’t touched.
In an honest discussion we would call those policies for what they actually are – right-wing. But because “liberal” NIMBYs in places like Palo Alto know that they would be promptly ignored if they were cast as right-wingers, they have tried to have it both ways – espousing conservative policies, even allying with the right to kill a liberal project, and yet claiming they are liberal all along.
After two years of fighting against this dishonesty, this blog is no longer alone. The New York Times has begun to call out this hypocrisy in a weekend article on a spat over bike lanes in NYC. Their analysis is that it boils down to people refusing to give up their unaffordable privileges and admit the need to change:
Robert B. Cialdini, an emeritus professor at Arizona State University who studies environmental behaviors, points to two phenomena:
Humans hew to the “normative” behaviors of their community. In places where bike lanes or wind turbines or B.R.T. systems are seen as an integral part of society, people tend not protest a new one; if they are not the norm, they will. Second, whatever feelings people have about abstract issues like the environment, in practice they react more passionately to immediate rewards and punishments (like a ready parking space) than distant consequences (like the threat of warming).
Test yourself: When a sign in a hotel bathroom exhorts you to reuse your towel for the sake of the planet, do you nonetheless tend to throw it on the floor to get a new one? (Me: Guilty.) “I’m a persuasion researcher, and here you have convenience and luxury working against you — just like in the bike-lane issue, “ Professor Cialdini said.
We can see this in the Bay Area. As I have explained on several occasions, aerial passenger rail structures and a desirable neighborhood with high property values can and do coexist – just look at Albany or Rockridge (where the rail aerial is in the middle of a freeway that divides the neighborhood, to no apparent ill effect). Albany and Rockridge have dealt with those things for nearly 40 years. They have become normal. And the neighborhoods adapted just fine.
In Palo Alto, for example, the norm is apparently that an at-grade railroad crossing, with extremely loud, slow trains that spew diesel into nearby homes and have a shockingly high death toll, is just fine – but any attempt to build an aerial structure is somehow the end of the world. In reality, this is nothing more than an assumed norm (at-grade rail is just the way it’s always been) being defended against a beneficial change merely because people cannot bring themselves to accept that the norm no longer works and that in this case, change is good.
If anyone wonders why I have never had any sympathy whatsoever for Peninsula NIMBYs, this helps explain why. Their concerns aren’t based in anything logical. They’re simply afraid of change. And as we know, change is necessary. The status quo has failed, and anything that prolongs it does so at the expense of everyone who is not rich enough to buy their way out of the crisis. We don’t have the luxury of catering to privileged people who are simply whining about change. We’re all adults here. Approaching a policy issue like a child who doesn’t want to do their homework is no way to run a society.
Ryan Avent makes this point well, that NIMBYism is simply incompatible with liberal values:
Of course, the obstruction of development is offensive for lots of reasons: it makes housing and access to employment unaffordable, it reduces urban job and revenue growth, it tramples on private property rights, and so on. But the environmental hypocrisy is galling, and it’s not limited to New York. My old neighborhood, Brookland, voted overwhelmingly for Obama (about 90-10, as I recall). Many of the locals are vocally supportive of broad, lefty environmental goals. And yet, when a local businessman wants to redevelop his transit-adjacent land into a denser, mixed-use structure, the negative response is overwhelming, and residents fall over themselves to abuse local rules in order to prevent the redevelopment from happening.
…
To the extent that public opinion matters and can be shaped, I think it would be a huge boon for humanity for attitudes toward NIMBYism to turn decidedly negative. People should be ashamed of this behavior, which is both selfish and extravagantly dismissive of property rights.
I completely agree with Avent here. Liberals are way too tolerant of NIMBYism. This blog has been trying to rally people to understand just how damaging NIMBYism is and to show how it ought to be unacceptable in our political or project discussions. It is also probably time to amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to stop NIMBYs from abusing it for their own purposes, to ensure that projects which actually help the environment get approved and that land use practices that are bad for the environment, like sprawl and like car-centric design, are no longer protected.
Grist picks up on Avent’s article and adds an important element as well:
By preventing highrises and putting whole neighborhoods off limits for historical reasons, residents of America’s most beloved cities are in effect pricing others out of those cities. This means more sprawl on the outskirts, more transit by car and a higher average per capita carbon footprint for everyone.
It’s not just about sprawl and carbon footprints, but about basic economics. NIMBYism reinforces inequality by pricing people out of the areas that are best able to withstand climate change and soaring gas prices. It is an elite phenomenon that benefits the elite.
We cannot build a sustainable 21st century prosperity with NIMBYism. NIMBYs exist to protect the failed status quo. It’s good to see so many other writers coming to realize the threat posed by NIMBYism to our future. Hopefully this will lead to long overdue policy changes that can finally level the playing field and ensure the NIMBYs can’t abuse the process any more.
UPDATE: This fantastic NY Times post mocking how anti-bike lane arguments echo the Tea Party would work almost exactly for anti-HSR arguments as well.
Successful NIMBYs are usually wealthy because wealth can buy political influence. These wealthy NIMBYs have the ability to inconvenience projects out of proportion to their small numbers. Reporters facilitate NIMBY messages because conflict and sensationalism sells news and always has. Active pushing back is necessary to inform the public of projects benefits and to sway opinion toward the good of the majority and not just the good of the NIMBY elite.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 6:17 am
Good points, both of them.
OT: NEC designated a federally recognized “High Speed Corridor”
Jon Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:16 am
This is probably to enable Florida HSR funds to be sent to the NEC rather than California.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Enable the operative word here ~ the door is open for the Florida HSR funds to be sent to Florida, if the coalition of local governments can get regional authority put together with private backing for local matching funds and then (it has to be in this sequence to go head on against the rationale used by the TexasTea Party Governor to originally reject the funds) gain state DoT approval to use the median alignment.
Given the train capacity constraint in Connecticut, a program of improvements with improved NYC/DC/VA/NC services as the immediate beneficiaries of the application for a major chunk of available funds, in an ongoing program to extend electrified Regional HSR to North Carolina, would be a handy way to leverage the new designation.
Donk Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:31 am
“designated the Northeast Corridor as the eleventh and final High-Speed Rail corridor”
“Final” HSR corridor? What does this mean? They are implying that no more corridors will ever be designated. Too bad for the Missoula-Bismark advocates
thatbruce Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Under the current framework that is. I would guess that as currently defined HSR corridors actually get built (‘if’ in some cases, let’s be honest here), other potential corridors would come forward.
Peter Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Meh, I still think it’s just a matter of time before Albuquerque-Cheyenne becomes a designated corridor. “Final” is not an accurate term.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
It means that additional corridors will either (1) gain designation through being added to one of the eleven existing corridors or (2) by first amending the original legislation to increase the number of designated corridors.
Obviously Missoula-Bismark would first have to be connected Bismark/Twin Cities, to be added to the Midwest corridor system. And just as obviously, Montana/North Dakota benefit directly via the existing Empire long haul route from any Emerging HSR improvement between Chicago and the Twin Cities, so they don’t really need to hold out for a Missoula-Bismark corridor before they get a benefit from already-designated corridors.
Donk Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Yeah I was totally joking about Missoula-Bismark. That is probably the least viable corridor in the country, but might be one of those that the MT and ND congressional delegations push for once federal HSR funding increases.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Seriously ~ they have real world constituent in real world Amtrak flagstops who primarily want the train to run with greater reliability, and for those heading east if it speeds up once it gets east of Minneapolis / St. Paul, that is a bonus.
North Dakota is a member of the Midwest Regional Rail System now, without a foot of MRRS system corridor in North Dakota, for precisely that reason: while their patronage may not be “important” in Alon Levy’s grand scheme of things, its import to the transport services available in the towns served, and the current Amtrak services except more reliable and with a shorter ride east of the Twin Cities is a real world, immediate benefit.
If the TexasTea Party Governor of Wisconsin sabotages the Twin Cities / Chicago via Madison and Milwaukee ~ which would otherwise be the preferred alignment ~ then it can go down via the Dubuque, IA and Rockford IL.
Joe Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
There are implications for WI not connecting to the IL/Chicago metro area. Maybe it funnels infrastructure within IL than cross state borders.
WI and IN would be losers in that there is less infrastructure connecting them to the larger IL market.
Joliet, Rockford and other cities within IL could reap benefit by being better connected, trains, to Chicagoland and growth towards St. Louis assuming the 115 mpr improvements happen along am track.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Yes, the Rockford / Dubuque line would quite definitely be higher frequency and quite possibly receive investments allowing for higher effective transit speed if that is the Chicago to Twin Cities line rather than Milwaukee / Madison.
Guess what, NIMBYs. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
synonymouse Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:22 am
You mean the needs of the many(California taxpayers)outweigh the needs of the few(Kopp, Diridon, PB, Palmdale real estate developers).
VBobier Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 9:07 am
And that would include those like You Synner.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Certainly. Given the cost of the alternative means of providing the intercity transport capacity, California will certainly benefit from the HSR whether done efficiently or inefficiently, but the more efficiently it is done, the stronger the payoff in general to the people of the state of California, and the more rapidly the benefit can be expanded to the rest of the state.
Since the interest of the Palmdale real estate developers happens to coincide with the general alignment providing the most service to the people of the state, the fact that that alignment also serves those private interests is a good thing rather than a bad thing.
But the interests of the builders and private contractors is in pumping up the cost of the project toward the cost of the next best alternative, until it is just barely better than the alternative, and that is something that the Governor’s office needs to devote some time to being the countervailing force for progressive efficiency.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 9:00 am
They get way too much power and press coverage for an individual person or small group… case in point Roberts last post.. that woman in Gilroy is constantly in the news media down there complaining about high speed rail.. guess what it might run by her house .
VBobier Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
She seems to be complaining that HSR would be too inconvenient for Her.
Be careful not to paint with too broad a brush. NIMBY’s might just try to stop a nuclear power plant from going up, or preserve an old growth forest against logging. I agree that the Peninsula NIMBY’s are wrong for opposing HSR and the aerial viaduct. (I live on the Peninsula and ride Caltrain often.) But this post does not differentiate between what I would hope would be recognized as non-hypocritcal NIMBYism and the hypocritical kind. Instead it attacks all NIMBY’s. This line of attack can be used against liberals who might be caught up in a true liberal cause — against “progress” — afraid of “change” — protecting “privilege”. It would be better to point out how incompatible these anti-HSR NIMBY’s are with their own world view than to trash any and all NIMBYism. After all, they don’t call stuff that gets approved in undemocratic fashion “being railroaded through” for nothing. We’re far from being undemocratic with HSR, but if we’re not going to be undemocratic, then we’ll have to rise to the challenge of NIMBYism instead of de-legitimizing it.
Spokker Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 5:48 am
“NIMBY’s might just try to stop a nuclear power plant from going up”
Do they prefer black lung?
VBobier Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 9:15 am
They could get that or It’s equivalent just by using clay based cat litter, But then I switched to a corn based cat litter, No more late night coughing and no more dust, plus since the stuff is made from Corn, It is flushable and the stuff is septic safe too, So I don’t need to buy plastic bags just for the litter box anymore, Which is a Littermaid Mega Elite, I’ve modified It with 5.5oz of stick on tire weights on the back side of the removable rake and lubricated the rails with some Silicon spray lubricant, The box works perfectly and I can’t smell the box, heck It’s in My bedroom too, But then I don’t have room in the bathroom for It or really anywhere else.
VBobier Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 11:39 am
Black lung is very close what clay based cat litter will do to ones lungs from the fine dust.
Spokker Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Thanks for this and God bless.
Darrell Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Very false choice to say it’s only nuclear vs. coal, any more than beverages are only high-fructose-corn-syrup-in-a-can Coke vs. Pepsi.
Think energy efficiency plus true renewables!
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Large scale base generation is pretty much limited to coal or nuclear actually. Renewables don’t have the capacity factor to handle base loads.
Darrell Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Geothermal does baseload very well. A smarter grid, preferably with storage, can balance the intermittancy of wind and solar. And, of course, there’s already a lot of baseload natural gas.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
And inter-regional HVDC transmission increases the share of wind that is effectively baseload, since drawing on multiple wind farms spread across a wind resource reduces volatility and distinct wind resource areas tend to be negatively correlated ~ that is, the wind is often blowing somewhere else when it aint blowing “here” (wherever “here” happens to be).
Where power supply may be be 30% to 40% of total installed capacity, with a wide enough spread of sources, 10% of total installed capacity is available over 95% of the time, which is fairly straightforward to firm to 100% with existing hydro power supply.
So in terms of actual energy supply, a broad enough wind supply base can have 1/4 to 1/3 of its as effective baseload capacity with an appropriate amount of firming supply.
Adding additional volatile power sources to the portfolio increases the share that can be used as effective baseload, if the volatility is negatively correlated, as with wind and solar.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 9:29 am
Wind takes hundreds of square miles to provide the same power as a few acres for a single nuclear reactor, and the infrastructure requirements mean you can generally add a couple of reactors without much need for more room. Solar similarly has land issues, not to wind’s extent granted, and is only suitable for areas with continuous amounts of sunshine, and is at best, price comparable to nuclear (comparing Blythe to recent US projects on price per MWe; remove some of the insane red tape on US nuclear and nuclear will come out cheaper). If you want to massively upgrade the transmission wires to transmit Southwestern solar to other regions, nuclear is by far the best choice financially.
As for hydro, our dams are in poor shape, the greenies hate them just as much as everything else, and they cause a great deal of damage and devastation when they fail, as happens in earthquakes (and has happened in Japan’s latest quake). They also don’t produce that much power. Hoover produces a bit less than the two reactors combined at San Onofre. Shasta produces half of what one reactor produces. There’s a reason that two nuclear power plants in California produce more electricity every year than all the hundreds of dams combined.
If you wanted nothing more than cheap, clean power, never releasing any pollutants, you could do it with no more than four more power plants similar to Diablo Canyon or San Onofre. That would completely eliminate natural gas, coal, and oil fired electrical production in the state of California.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 9:51 am
Wind and solar farms are not placed in space-constrained areas. Solar farms are built in deserts, of which California is blessed with many that are located reasonably close to urban areas. The main advantage over nuclear is that in an area that’s overdue for The Big One, you probably don’t want to take chances.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 9:59 am
And yet the environmentalists freak regardless and push to halt things. Besides, with Generation III and III+ reactors, the passive safety features such as natural circulation largely mitigate any problems from an earthquake. I certainly trust the safety of nuclear over the alternatives, especially hydro, and especially as we now have great seismological data on 9.0 magnitude quakes, and can design to that standard.
Spokker Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 10:15 am
So build them in Southern California where our amateur night transform fault quakes pale in comparison to subduction zone quakes.
Build one in my backyard. I have a death wish.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Well, I’m not sure I trust American engineering here. And that’s the basic issue – nuclear power requires you to trust authority.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 7:38 am
Just as critically, US foreign policy involves pissing large numbers of people off around the globe in order to maintain the position of existing foreign bases and find pretexts to establish new ones, in order to maintain the profits of vested interests that profit from the foreign base network … and so long as that is the case, overly centralized power sources are a risky bet.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 7:36 am
You don’t have to stop farming in the Dakotas or Kansas because you have a wind farm ~ a wind farm may be located across a wide area, but the space it requires is far more modest.
If you are using the “space requirements” of wind farms as a conclusive argument in favor of nuclear power, it seems probably that you reached your conclusion first and then reached for that argument in favor.
Solar farms do have more substantial space requirements, but the challenge is more water consumption, and there are technologies that are frugal. And of course, solar is a better fit to following load and peak load than nuclear, since a strong driving force in following load and peak load is summer air conditioning demand.
Indeed, an all-nuclear scenario has greater demand for storage than an all-wind plus solar scenario, precisely because an all-wind plus solar scenario can have an average output that more closely matches the average pattern of power use.
However, while the US has a sufficient endowment of renewable energy resources per capita that if we got serious about tapping it, and serious about adopting a more sensible level of energy demand per person, we would not need to resort to nuclear power, the same is not true of every nation. R&D into no-meltdown fuel cycles such as thorium ~ with a heavy emphasis on the development side of R&D ~ is fairly urgent if we are going to get to the carbon neutral energy base that we have to aim for until and unless carbon and other GHG emitters can prove that it is safe to use the atmosphere as a CO2 and methane dump.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Geothermal is pretty limited in where it can be put and I suspect that it’s nature would be rather vulnerable to earthquakes messing it up (primarily a concern for the “let’s dig multiple km down” ideas). As for baseload natural gas, I thought the general idea was to eventually get off of fossil fuels?
BruceMcF Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 7:44 am
Whether or not geothermal is limited in where it can be put depends on the technology, but even for the “hot spot” geothermal that is the most mature, which is indeed, limited in terms of geology ~ the point is not to look for a single source, but to put together a portfolio.
This is the flaw in those who look for storage technologies for each volatile wind source, when the target is to harvest from a diverse range of renewable energy sources, and provide firming for the total energy supply, which is more stable then the output of any individual volatile energy harvest.
Spokker Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
“Large scale base generation is pretty much limited to coal or nuclear actually.”
Yup. Wind and solar will supplement our power needs, and we should get going on that as quickly as humanly possible. But if someone doesn’t want a nuclear plant in their backyard, they should also sell their personal automobile.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 7:57 am
High quality wind resources alone in the US are greater than 100% of our electricity consumption, and our electricity consumption on existing tasks could be substantially reduced if we ever got serious to that end.
Indeed, we could with investment in transmission alone and existing conventional and pumped hydro resources get to 20% electricity from wind in under 15 years, and with investment in smart grid technology and development of appropriate firming power sources, 70% electricity from wind and solar in under 25 years.
And those are just lead technologies in the portfolio ~ if we pursue development of a broad range of renewable energy resources, including run of river hydro, tidal, wave, biocoal, biogas, and geothermal, there’s every reason to expect the best of the bunch will be adequate.
But we are indeed not going to be able to run the existing transport system on 1/6 of the world’s oil supply in 20 years time, because the annual flow of oil in twenty year’s time could easily be half of what it is today.
And once we flip from an economic model of using increasing amounts of energy at an increasing rate to a model of getting the most benefit from an existing budget of energy, relying on private motor vehicles for anything more than 20% of our passenger transport task would be quite obviously economically insane.
wu ming Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 1:25 am
spain, denmark and portugal don’t exist?
Alon Levy Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
If the example of nuclear power offends you, then think of
NIMBYcommunity activism against oil and coal power. The local motivations are rarely global; they’re more about the scarring of the landscape, the unethical practices of big oil and big coal, and the dust pollution and landslides caused by blasting. Activism against mountaintop removal is the primary form of environmentalism in certain communities – and if you ask me, the NIMBYs aren’t those activists, but rich urbanites and suburbanites who want cheap coal-fired power at any human price.Darrell Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I want to reinforce Rob’s comment. On one hand I’ve dealt with NIMBYism against the Expo Line light rail in Los Angeles for 21 years, focusing on factually correcting mis-information and successfully gathering support. (The Phase 2 design-build contract should be approved this Friday!)
But on the other I’ve been concerned that too much infill development lacks the transit-orientation and pedestrian amenites that good examples of Smart Growth provide (I’ve called it “Dumb Density”).
Joe Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Old growth preservation isn’t NIMBY ism. The opposition is not based on concerns over logging noise, dust from trucks and traffic during logging by locals.
Preservation is about maintaining a endangered ecosystem with unique animals and biodiversity.
Travis D Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 12:18 am
I have never seen a bad project killed by Nimbyism but I have seen many good ones destroyed.
And odd that you think nuclear should be avoided. I hate anti-nuclear hysteria. It was why I dropped out of Greenpeace and now send them periodic hate letters. Also we butted heads over old growth forests. I correctly pointed out to them that old growth forests are unnatural and an artifact of human influence. They just plugged their fingers in their ears and refused to listen. That’s why I hate them now.
So I would be glad if nimbys would just collectively disappear. I’m having my own problems with them right now. I want sidewalks installed on our local streets and I’m working to get a federal grant to enable it. But I have this one old guy who is worried that kids might wander onto his lawn so he raises a huge stink to try and kill it.
Peter Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 2:17 am
What’s to keep the kids from wandering onto his lawn right now?
BruceMcF Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 8:05 am
Old growth (climax) forests are natural phenomena ~ its not natural for temperate forests to be universally old growth forests, but its natural for a temperate forest environment to have regions that reach climax and stay there long enough for there always to be old growth forest ecosystems somewhere out there.
And while we can fairly easily and quickly reproduce much of the conditions of regrowth and young forests, reproducing old growth forests is intrinsically not something that we can do, so in the face of the massive deforestation we have engaged in over the past two hundred years on this continent, we can either preserve existing old growth forests and maintain migration corridors between them, or else we lose those ecological niches entirely.
In terms of the pragmatic need to preserve as much ecological diversity as possible to avoid our basic life support system being prone to the massive boom and crash cycles that go with grossly oversimplified ecologies, its insane to oppose preservation of old growth forest on the basis of some fuzzy headed objection that old growth forests are not be entirely “natural” in some nature child quasi religious sense.
Thought this linked article would be of interest, along with the comments that follow:
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/9617/will-preservation-be-a-tool-of-blatant-anti-development/
For the record, I’m in the preservationist camp (hey, I’m also a steam train fan!), and a big part of this is that modern buildings, well, just have no soul, have no style. Echoing one commenter, I wouldn’t complain so much if we got real Penn Stations instead of current Madison Square Gardens. . .
Alon Levy Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Tall buildings don’t have to be ugly. The Empire State Building is tall – and, because it wasn’t built in urban renewal style, it offers vastly more floor area ratio on the site footprint than glass boxes in plazas like WTC.
Can we stop with the whole overpoliticization of things here? HSR works from liberal standpoints, it works from conservative standpoints, it works from mild libertarian standpoints (but not the min or total anarchist ones, but we cheerfully executed those guys in the good old days). NIMBYism isn’t left-wing, right-wing, or any wing; it’s a simple desire to not have what is perceived as a negative affecting oneself. If anything, it’s a symptom of American consumerism. The idea that one cannot hold to anything from what is generally perceived as the other side of the political spectrum while broadly identifying themselves as “liberal” or “conservative” helps to foment the partisan rancor that is increasingly tearing the country apart as well.
Walter Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 2:02 am
Agreed. We should be able to call out ANY elected official who runs on a platform of economic growth and job creation but opposes real, modern transportation solutions. These people in Palo Alto are wrong for opposing the project because they are making disingenuous arguments and acting against out of self-interest at the expense of the common good. Their opposition is no worse because they are liberals. This is not a “liberal project.”
YesonHSR Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Yes very true..PA voted YESonHSR … though I doubt very much everybody in Palo Alto is a liberal.. and even less so in Menlo Park and Atherton.. just read comments these people make in their local paper about Obama and Brown and Pelosi etc. etc… heck even San Francisco is not as ultraliberal as everybody paints it out to be .. I’m talking about every single distinct neighborhood
YesonHSR Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 8:52 am
Unfortunately for high-speed rail backers it has become a right vs left item… of all things it should not be as its just as valuable as any airport or freeway for our economic future. Instead its labled as a boondoggle and other silly terms by some of the very liberal “nimbys” and far right “Teabaggers” maybe these few labels also explaines their attitudes
wu ming Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
the NIMBYs are not “very liberal,” they’re usually rich suburban moderates trying to leverage liberal rhetoric to gain a veneer of legitimacy when talking to a generally pretty liberal audience.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 8:09 am
Its not “unfortunately”, as if it “just happened” was a matter of “fortune” ~ an unfortunate accident.
That was a deliberate tactic of the opponents, who can afford highly professional opinion makers to advise them that if they can subsidize a faux-conservative opposition, they can more easily achieve their self-interested ends.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:19 am
We just had a piece on the conservative rationale for supporting HSR and why conservatives should not fall for people pushing their own self-interest but pretending to be principled conservatives. What’s the matter with a piece on the progressive rational for supporting HSR and why progressives should not fail for people pushing a (grossly flawed) view of their own self-interest but pretending to be principled progressives?
I partly agree with Rob M. You paint too-broad a brush.
At this point, NIMBY is an overused term that really has lost its meaning. Your use of NIMBY is synonymous with “if they’re not with us, they’re against us.” You use NIMBY as some sort of epithet, as if you are calling someone you disagree with a shitface.
A better word is critic. You lose respectability when you trash others in the way you do. JMHO.
morris brown Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 5:00 am
dfh — Your point here is well taken.
However, actually Robert has softened a bit in the last year or so (goes with age I guess).
I was always “a Denier”, but I haven’t seen him call me that in quite sometime.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 6:19 am
No, it now goes unspoken.
Jack Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 7:49 am
You can’t deny something that is going to happen. So the term doesn’t apply any more. NIMBY more accurately reflects that HSR is going to happen, it’s an upgrade really.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 8:58 am
But I bet you sure were a McCain voter!!!
wu ming Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
now we’re just trying to ignore your spam.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:29 am
dfb, I see what you did there ~ that is a common rhetorical trick.
The critique here actually does apply against NIMBY’s in particular. It is not directed at “all critics”. It is not even directed against “all self-interested critics who pretend that their opposition is about the public interest”.
It is directed specifically against self-ascribed “liberals” who are for all sorts of progressive causes, until they see any sort of immediate impact to their own lives, and then work to organize resistance to that particular progressive change.
But simply by pretending the opposite as the premise gives a basis for a generic attack on the piece without having to actually respond to the points that the piece is making.
wu ming Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
people calling for the HSR line to be built through someone else’s backyard but not near theirs are the textbook definition of Not In My BackYard. the whole build it in altamont argument from people living next to the caltrain right of way is classic NIMBY.
I think the argument that most of us NIMBY people have at this juncture is, “why should we be so thrilled to sacrifice our property for a poorly run and planned project”. You can label me a NIMBY if you want, but having to personally deal with the HSRA has opened my eyes to the absolute disregard that the HSRA has for the public. Poor communication, secret backdoor dealings, data that has been challenged by legitimate sources, typical political pandering, blown cost estimates and an lack of public trust is the mode of operation that HSR is propagating. So, I guess I am proud to be a NIMBY if it means that I won’t sacrifice the principles of sound engineering and planning.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Sounds like the DOT, any DOT.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
The test of the pudding is whether someone supports improvements and also supports the elements that on a reasonable bar are done OK, or whether someone only ever supports “some better version of this”.
The “ridership modeling” is a good test ~ someone who seizes on every critique of the details of the ridership modeling, while ignoring the fact that every credible critique still leaves mature ridership well over break-even level, is clearly using “the project but only if done right” is a cover story.
If the comparison is always to some platonic ideal of a project and never to the real world alternative construction of highway and airport capacity, its a fig lead of hypothetical support as a cover story for the actual obstructionism.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
No, most credible critique finds the ridership model having too much uncertainty to determine whether break-even is possible.
The “real” world I know follows industry best practices. Why should that be an unobtainable ideal?
Walter Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
You miss the point. We’d love more input from those who disagree with us. Really.
But there’s a caveat–the input has to be honest. If almost all of us are after a good high-speed rail system, we can work together to achieve it. We supporters would love to take those who disagree with us at their word that they only seek to offer honest input free from personal bias. But many in this camp provide 100% negative commentary and try to undermine the ENTIRE PROJECT whenever they have a problem with a particular aspect of it. It is extremely difficult to accept the premise of honest criticism when the FUD tactics and obvious geographical biases are so thinly-veiled. Next year, construction will be underway in the Central Valley. If they cannot bear to do so before, I hope those who disagree will work with, not against the backers of this historic project at that time.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 9:08 am
What you’re missing is that in a hierarchy, outside input is depreciated in favor of Decide, Announce, Defend. This is why most of Clem’s proposals for better Caltrain-HSR integration – shared tickets, overtakes, a steeper ruling grade, fixing San Bruno – have fallen on deaf ears. We’re not dealing with CAHSR as it should be, but with CAHSR as it is with Kopp and Pringle in charge.
Walter Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 10:00 am
Clem’s input is decidedly honest, and his advocacy of compatibility accepts that HSR will exist on the Peninsula in the Caltrain ROW. That sets him miles apart from the rank-and-file project opponent. Clem will not be the one who will throw up his hands and say, “Well, the Authority isn’t addressing this point, so they’re unreasonable and this whole project sucks.” In fact, if all of the noisy opponents on the Peninsula switched from a strategy of undermining the entire project at every opportunity to advancing thoughtful, genuine constructive criticism (like Clem), they would stand a much better chance of achieving a project “done right” in their neck of the woods.
Spokker Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 10:13 am
Peninsula NIMBYs don’t really care about shared tickets, overtakes, a steeper ruling grade, fixing San Bruno, etc. I have posted on Palo Alto Online that HSR on the Peninsula will result in worse Caltrain service for the region but all I see are posts about how the line will split communities, increase crime and blight neighborhoods.
They don’t care about a good project. They care about no project.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 10:38 am
No argument there, but why are you guys lumping DE in with the NIMBYs?
Spokker Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 10:48 am
I don’t even read his posts.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
You should.
Spokker Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Well, since you’re on my must-read list do me a solid and summarize what he says. I can’t stand the arrogant engineer types.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 10:47 am
He’s pretty much the opposite of an arrogant engineer – maybe an arrogant Streetsblog type, at worst.
What he does is really channeling two people: cultural geographer John Adams, who writes about risk perception and urbanism/transportation, and Hajo Zierke. Adams resists summary – go to his website and go to essays like Risk in a Hypermobile World. Zierke you should just Google, not just for the Shasta Route proposal but also for what he writes about the problems of American transit planning.
Spokker Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 11:10 am
You sound like Inside the Actor’s Studio. Inside the Poster’s Studio would be a great idea for a show.
“The poster reminds me of the great ~xxxgOkU6969xxx~, a visionary who trolled forums for single mothers.”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 11:19 am
Decide Announce and Defend is typical for the government. It’s typical for private industry too. I don’t know why it’s so shocking.
synonymouse Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 11:50 am
Exactly, DAD is nothing new – how do you think Bechtel pulled off BART Indian broad gauge? There were all sort of people, industry types too, who were counseling against such an bizarre deviation from long-established practice. The critics were correct but in no position to induce a rethink.
Precisely the same today. But with the difference we see an economy in likely long-term decline. And even if there is some degree of recovery, most of the burden of taxation is going to be on the low end:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42132518
The real question is not the crude tax rate or even the proportion of total taxes one sector contributes but affordability. The rich and super-rich can withstand a 90% tax rate and still live a sumptuous existence and still retain the reins of power and decision making.
For the lumpen every uptick in costs(taxes, fares, fees, utilities, victuals)takes its toll. Have you noticed coffee has gone up about 50% in the past few weeks? Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros and all the tax me more celebrity clones are totally immune to that kind of nickel and diming.
Ergo if the corrupt power elite – and I mean the usual suspects – insist on Stilt-A-Rail on a decidedly, pointedly, and hopelessly inferior routing let them pay themselves for their boondoogle.
Vote no on the tax initiative. It is not pretty but it is the only to even start to force a rethink.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 8:15 am
Which is why there ought to be someone or someones inside the Governors office who is sifting though the outside input and able to reach into the hierarchy and say, “hey, you ~ don’t ignore this, this, or this, or there will be consequence”.
YESonHSR Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
YOUR opinions..Aaron..PEROID
Aaron Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Yep YESonHSR just opinions, just hoping that the HSR is using hard data and sound engineering instead of politics, pandering and chasing consulting fees. It would be ironic if some of the NIMBY complaints that are being voiced right now actually led to much more stable design concept. I have noticed that with all of the negative press the HSRA is now churning out public meetings and more information. Darn those NIMBY’s.
Here is another one of my opinions, you are so head over heals for the HSR, that you have looked well beyond the basic principles of designing a successful project and fail to see the shortcomings of the current HSR plans. Take some time and investigate projects that are truly run with policies like “value engineering” or true “transparency”. This project is not being run that way. Take some time to think through some of the “What If” cases to see how we as a State can respond. I actually can admit that I at one time had a single track approach like yours. I got out of college, got my MPA and passed by PE. I wanted to reward myself and went out and bought a fully loaded truck (kind of ironic). Guess what….it was the worse investment I ever made! The HSRA should make sure as many of the bases are covered as possible before we get this project rolling. I think we only covered the dugout so far (made sure the team got paid handsomely). OPINION only!
YesonHSR Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
That’s right ..YOUR opinion… so I don’t need to take time to look at other projects I’m not an engineer are you? What I do notice is every naysayer denier NIMBY seems to be an expert in high-speed rail design.. every propaganda oil funded think tank is of course is the last word on high-speed rail.. Transparency what a word.. maybe the real facts should be put out as to why people oppose this project.. pure ideology and selfish NIMBY-ism it’s not like high-speed rail doesn’t work anywhere else in the world. Let me put this what if to you.. They’re going to pay you for your property if it is taken ..You may then move down the road and buy another piece of land and build your dream home.. sounds like a normal civil engineering project for the advancement of society… the fact that they did not bang on your door 10 times sit there and spent five hours talkimg to you about it.. when it’s still all in the preliminaries is just someone’s personal opinion as to why the project is poorly run.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
If they did knock on his door ten times and then spend 5 hours explaining everything in detail:
There would be complaints that they spend too much money developing detailed plans for alternatives that will not be built. Alternatively there would be complaints that they spent too much time developing detailed plans that will not be built. Or both.
There would be complaints that they didn’t need to spend all that money explaining in detail, to each individual personally, that may or may not be effected. Or wasted all that time. Or both.
Even though they spent 5 hours with each individual, there would be complaints that they didn’t explain it carefully enough. Or in enough detail. …
Ya can’t win for losing. That’s why over the past few decades the legislature and the courts have defined procedures to be used with projects. The Authority seems to be following them. If you don’t like the procedures, it’s not the Authority’s fault. Talk to your legislator.
Aaron Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Yes, I am an engineer with my PE, and practicing for a little over 10 years in various projects from roads, to public water systems and event participated in some trail projects. All of which were public projects. Moving into EIR is not exactly preliminaries. If you do not lock down the alignment prior to the EIR you have very little option to move in a different direction. Therefore you have to move forward the best route in the EIR for the sake of timing.
You don’t have to look at anything like other projects it was just a suggestion, narrow minded people don’t have the attention span.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Really??You of course being the expert then should volunteer time for high-speed rail and help them out instead of going on TV and act like a big baby is being abused.. that’s all the NIMBYs and others do to try and get publicity in the media regurgitating out like seagulls the same horror stories and facts and then screaming and making a lot of noise.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
And you sure made alot noise screaming on ABC Fresno…didint YA!!!
Aaron Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 7:58 am
I have been doing the work of the HSRA. I have personally hosted meetings and have outreached to local landowners and farmers who do not know the alignment has been placed on their property. I have had to take time off of work to engage with the HSRA, and spend several hours a week trying to read and understand HSRA documents. I have also spent time with several of the local HSRA consultants. A few of them are very new to the project and we have a good working relationship.
As far as the news comments, it shows how little you really know. We showed up at the event to simply represent that all things are not so perfect with this project. A union rep with about as much knowledge as a 3rd grader started telling insults, so we responded. We are not pandering to the news, the news was doing their job. I do think it is interesting that we ended up with more coverage than the union members, not by design. Also in all cases, except one (out local paper), the media has contacted me.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 8:44 am
I know your not the little angle your trying to make yourself out to be.. and hell yes you’re pandering to the news.. There about 12 of you around the state that are always in the news with some high speed rail horror story whether it be on the television or the print media online.. oh now you’re doing the work of the high-speed rail Authority ??.. I see you say you’re speaking with them some local HSRA consultants.. what have they told you… and of course you end up with more news coverage you’re crying like you’re being raped and beat
Alon Levy Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Volunteer time? Really? What is it now, HSR conscription?
YesonHSR Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 8:45 am
A little hint to our friend above to improve the project … since he states he’s an engineer
Alon Levy Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 9:10 am
So? What’s next, telling every able-bodied man to do unpaid work for the army?
BruceMcF Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 8:17 am
Citizen involvement is the lifeblood of democracy. The alternative is warlord or meritocratic dictatorship, either of which eventually turn out even worse.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 10:51 am
There’s a very big difference between citizen involvement in a social movement or in community response – e.g. what you and Robert do, or what Clem and Richard do – and taking an unpaid job in a bureaucracy. In fact, when people with technical background write independent assessments of what the bureaucracy says, or criticize it openly, it’s exactly citizen involvement, and the diametric opposite of a meritocratic dictatorship.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Whether or not there is a very big different depends upon what that unpaid job consists of doing. You are assuming quite a lot into that job that is under no stretch of imagination directly implied by the statement that you are replying to: “Really??You of course being the expert then should volunteer time for high-speed rail and help them out”
Alon Levy Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
I apologize if I blithely assumed that “volunteer time” did not mean “be involved in the community outreach process and publicly criticize the HSRA if it fails to engage properly,” since that’s what Aaron is doing right now.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Why would that be the only kind of volunteer time that would be appropriate?
YesonHSR Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
It’s satire… but you’re a smart guy . It was meant for our silly little..” victim”.. or do you feel it a little victim to?
The surprising thing about NIMBYs isn’t that they’re selfish. Everyone’s selfish to some degree – it’s what makes the market work. The surprising thing is that they often argue against things that will most likely improve their quality-of-life or boost their property values, likely out of a fear of change. For example:
Better cell coverage and less radiation? Not enough for some [Palo Alto NMBYs]
Just replace “distributed antenna system” with “grade separation” in that article and, well, we’ve read it a million times…
mike Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Okay, doesn’t seem like that link works. Here it is:
http://www.mercurynews.com/patty-fisher/ci_17607816
mike Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Incidentally, it’s funny how Palo Alto’s plan to underground some utility lines is on hold because it’s “not a high priority.” A reasonable person might conclude that the city doesn’t really care about putting things below grade unless someone else is paying for it. That’s what we call “revealed preferences” in economics.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Could also infer from it that they don’t see overhead wires as a problem.
Joe Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
They are used to and understand over head wires, HSR less so.
The objections I see as NIMBY ism are related to construction impacts, noise, dust and temporary inconveniences due to the construction of HSR.
Check out the about us in the cc-HSR.org site.
http://Www.cc-HSR.org/about-us.shtml
No better than a NIMBY who claims to be a liberal is a politician who claims to support high speed rail while at the same time taking action against it. Congressman Jeff Denham in a Modesto Bee opinion piece says, ”
As a state senator, I supported the concept of HSR in California, and still do now, as a congressman” and then goes on to criticize the project and propose taking the funding to build highway lanes on highway 99. Judge a politician on his actions because his words are often misleading.
VBobier Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
He’ll have a better chance of voting Himself and others in Congress a pay raise, Than to be able defund, repeal or do any anti-HSR legislation, Cause they won’t pass the Senate or the Veto Test. So I’m not worried as the threat is empty and they damn well know It, Even If they’d never admit It, As this isn’t 1994.
I recall talking about the Nimbyism at my school. I would make a statement about high speed rail on the peninsula, “high speed rail shows so much potential and can help out our state in so many ways, if only the people on the peninsula will be willing to have the train take up a few yards of their back yard…”. All of my classmates even my friends focused on “take up a few yards of their (must have translated to mine in their heads) backyard…” And then they would say “I don’t want a train in my backyard! Who would!” And then I would be labeled as an idiot or weird by the class and called “that’s the kid who wants a train in his backyard.” And what hits me the most is probably about 80% of the class is liberal! I think our schools need to focus on what needs to be done in this state to make it better rather than leaving everyone ignorant and just only talking about when is the next away game…
BruceMcF Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 8:20 am
Focus on the shoot in their own foots part. Having convenient electric transport accessing an electric HSR corridor will prop up the property values of everyone in the Peninsula, including those who might have to give up a few yards of their backyard.
They are focusing on not losing value relative to their neighbors, and in the process sabotaging their best opportunity to guarantee higher absolute property values for themselves as well as their neighbors.
RailWAy AGe includes the passenger rail planners guide for 2011 including the details on the new station in nyc on page 26
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Rather off-topic, but jimsf, do you happen to know how long it takes Amtrak HR to call back after interviews?
jimsf Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 5:12 am
I don’t know what the procedures are now. I guess it depends on what district you’re in, and what craft you are applying for, but it shouldn’t take too long. If they need people then they move the process right a long. They should be contacting you either way.
O/T: CA Treasurer Bill Lockyear discussing HSR: about 5 minutes
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/on-air/as-seen-on/NewsConference___California_Treasurer_Bill_Lockyer__Part_3_Los_Angeles-117841823.html
According to him, no significant amount of bonds will be sold to build the project until they have a “disciplined, genuine business plan that shows people and investors how this system is going to be run and paid for. So far we don’t have that.”
Peter Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
I wonder what he thought about selling GO bonds to pay for CA’s ongoing operating expenses. I highly doubt there was a “disciplined, genuine business plan” for that…
YesonHSR Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
This is his second time making this comment about the business plan of high-speed rail.. he knows full well when we pass the bond.. it would require the federal government and private partnerships to build the system.. yet he acts so surprised almost comically that somehow it’s not been decided how we are going to build this thing.. the federal government must come through with a matching grant as any kind of highway or transit program or we won’t be able to start the project.. its has been publicly stated the Japanese were willing to put up $24 billion loan to invest in this project ..of course prior to their disaster.. there still are a number of nations and companies willing to bid and finance this project .. no business is going to reveal all the facts and plans before they had a some kind of detailed contract negotiations.. I’m hoping these bids due by March 16 will start to show all these questionnaire type people some facts so they can have their spin talk put out
Spokker Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Does the 57 freeway widening, partially funded by the Proposition 1B bond measure, have a disciplined, genuine business plan worthy of bonds?
There’s too much name calling on this blog. Why so quick to name call people “nimbys”? I have friends living next to the Caltrain tracks, elderly friends, who are fearful of losing their homes if the elevated tracks come to fruition. They’ve lived in their homes for over 40 years, but don’t want to move. Eventually, they may lose their homes to this project, but I think all decisions should be made as if “YOUR” house and family were going to be displaced, forcibly, whether you want to be evicted or not. It’s easy to disregard the Golden Rule when it’s not your house.
To Nadia’s link to Lockyer’s comments, I’ve met Bill and believe he’s an actual honest politician. If he says the CA HSR bonds are worthless because there is no legitimate biz plan, and Wall Street won’t buy them (over two years after the Voters passed Prop. 1A) b/c of this, then perhaps CAHSR should stop the PR and start working on a real biz plan – as least if they really want to get it build, versus what is going on right now.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
….I have friends living next to the Caltrain tracks….
Electric trains are quieter and cleaner than diesel trains.
They’ve lived in their homes for over 40 years,
Most of it is wide enough to accommodate what is being planned. It’s been there since 1863. There has always been a risk of it being widened. Something they should have noticed when they bought the house 120 years after the railroad opened. Something that was reflected in the low price they paid for the house.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
It’s been well stated that very few if any would lose their home over this project.. this is just more of the fear mongering has been going on for the last 18 months.. and the name-calling has been going both ways.. nobody is going to be baseball batted and drug out of their house by their hair..
synonymouse Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
No I don’t believe there will be PB Urban Removal in PAMPA because the hsr, if there is one at all, will terminate at San Jose and Caltrain will be replaced by BART Ring the Bay.
wu ming Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 1:31 am
unless they’re living in a parking lot, or in a tent on the caltrain right of way, there’s next to no chance that they would lose their home to the HSR. perhaps a couple feet of their backyard, but that is not the same thing.
wu ming Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
lockyer’s the kind of politician who enjoyed a taxpayer-subsidized nearly free education at the UC in his youth, and then can turn around and call for even higher UC tuition “because students taking on higher debt will get them to value their education, and so will take their studies more seriously” with a straight face. he’s a democrat, but he’s solidly in the corporate hack neoliberal wing of the party.
I once read an article that said psychologsits belive that there is no such thing as a principle. People tend to know what they want before they know why they want it. So wheeeas they pretend to look at evidence and decide on the basis of that they mostyl decide first and then study the evidence to see if it will back up their decison.
Extending this, there is no such thing as a “conservative” or a “liberal” in principle but just people who know what they want and then label themselves according to the political philosophy that is most suited to providing them the framework to rationalise that. Therefore low-tax advocates don’t really believe on principle that the state should be lean or anything but just don’t like paying tayes and they invented the rest to add some sort of credence to it so they don’t appear to be greedy egoists. The same can be said of probably every political or philosphical point of view. Sometimes people will find that the philosophy they havechosen to rationalise their preferences does not always support them. Hence you get NIMBYs who suddenly realise that liberalism has its limits. Is that a surprise?
O/T: Assembly meeting discussion Agricultural issues and HSR is happening now with Van Ark and Galgiani and Central Valley Farmers
http://madera.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=16&event_id=57
Makes me laugh at the people in the valley complaining about how high speed rail will destroy their land, yet they didn’t seem to have a problem with selling their land to all those home developers in the last 10 years (they put developments on far more agriculture land than the authority will ever buy)!!
I wish the NIMBYs would take a more objective look at the High Seed Rail project. Instead of demanding high cost tunnels, why not try to work with the HSRA to design the most cost effective system as possible?
I am afraid that the HSR project is becoming a gold plated BART-like boondoggle.
I am 100% for the HSR project, yes I live in Burlingame, yes I live within 600 feet of the tracks, and yes I ride Caltrain everyday. I am 100% opposed to stupid tunnels and or trenches. HSR does not have to be elevated ‘stilt-a-rail,’ 20-30-40-50 feet up in the air.
The anti-rail folks do tend to create a lot of fear mongering misinformation for the purpose of protecting their own idyllic self interest here on the peninsula. Some of these fears are created by the HSRA itself…
Why is the HSRA proposing 20 foot high, freeway-like structures when at grade HSR is entirely feasible?
–To pour as much concrete as possible? To make the system as costly as possible?
Why are HSRA and Caltrain proposing that each system be incompatible with the other? Incompatible signal system, incompatible platform heights, etc. etc.?
Why is HSRA proposing to increase the height of the already elevated Caltrain in Belmont/San Carlos by 10-20 feet and increase the width by 50 Feet?
–To gold plate the HSR system? To pad the bottom line of consultants and contractors at taxpayer expense?
The HSR project has become all too political as in choosing Pacheco Pass over Altamont. This is to satisfy huge political egos and the severe inferiority complex that San Jose suffers living in the shadow of San Francisco.
I don’t buy the anti-rail argument that HSR will ‘destroy thousands’ of homes/businesses and ‘remove thousands’ of trees. The Caltrain ROW is wide enough to accommodate 4 tracks through a good part of the peninsula.
Evidently some people think of the Caltrain ROW as some sort of park or picnic area. Fact is that the Caltrain property is off limits to the public and fenced in many areas, with more fencing on the way. So how does the current ROW *not* divide the community? You just can’t walk across the tracks anywhere you want. I just can’t walk across the tracks to the bike shop directly on the other side from my building.
There are some who advocate that HSR should end in San Jose and people can transfer to Caltrain for the trip to San Francisco. Well San Francisco is the destination of most travelers and forcing them to transfer is a huge deterrent to high ridership. The forced transfer is also a huge disservice to Caltrain riders, which will create unnecessary crowding on some already crowded Caltrains.
Why don’t we test the transfer in San Jose ideology with the airlines first?
ALL flights between Los Angeles and SFO will require changing planes in San Jose. Let’s see how well that works folks…
synonymouse Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
@ Jeff Carter. Your reference to SFO is interesting. Many, if not most, who use the hsr are going to drive. If you don’t believe this, just consider how many BART riders drive to the stations, and that’s relatively short distance urban mass transit. Of course PB-CHSRA recognizes this; that’s why they are demanding massive parking structures adjacent to hsr stations.
The way to resolve this problem is moving back to the Altamont alignment and proceeding via Dunbarton to SFO, an existing and excellent collector station with ample parking. The Caltrain ROW would be upgraded either via an electrified Caltrain grade separated but with minimal aerial or berm or via BART Ring the Bay. While I prefer Caltrain technical superiority, BART has the requisite juice downtown to overcome PB-CHSRA and it already enjoys large support on the Peninsula. At this point the Peninsula towns should unify in a call for Ring the Bay to replace both Caltrain and the CHSRA. Too bad, but that’s patronage machine power politics. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Why is running at high speed to Palmdale a boondoogle but running at speeds much lower than commuter rail – at BART speeds – a good idea?
Jeff Carter Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
synonymouse: via BART Ring the Bay……..
Here’s what you get with BART replacing Caltrain:
No monthly passes.
No express/Baby Bullet service.
90 minutes to get from San Jose to San Francisco FOREVER.
No service to Pac Bell Park.
No service in the bayshore corridor—4th & King, 22nd, Bayshore/Brisbane, South San Francisco/Oyster Point.
Crowded, standing room only trains.
No bicycles during peak commute hours.
Additional wear and tear on the aging BART system.
Astronomical cost to build. 10-15 BILLION!!!
Strong possibility that some cities such as Burlingame (Millbrae is close enough) will have no stations, which will lead to remaining stations having huge parking lots. For example, consolidate San Mateo/Hillsdale into a BART station at Hayward Park which has freeway access and room for a huge parking garage. Consolidate Belmont/San Carlos, etc.
NO thanks…. I will take Caltrain any day over BART.
Peter Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Interestingly, a number of cities on the Peninsula are now wisely taking a two-pronged approach to HSR. They are still trying to get the Program EIR overturned again in hopes of changing the alignment to Altamont, but at the same time they’ve finally realized that they ALSO have to work with the authority so that they get the best project for their city when their lawsuits fail…
VBobier Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
In other words they are starting to see the hand writing on the wall, Good…
Jeff Carter Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Well maybe… My Burlingame City Council has their mind made up: tunnel or nothing.
They have no interest in turning a badly designed HSR project into a well designed project.
synonymouse Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
The best way to reform the CHSRA is to cut off the funding at the knees. The basic notion of stimulus via infrastructure spending is flawed. in our times.
It may have helped in the ’30′s but not after hubris and impracticality infected us when we got rich. In the ’30′s they never would have cottoned the incredible stupidity of BART broad gauge. Nor building an ostensibly high speed line over a freight only backwoods detour. America has become frivolous and incompetent. Dazed and confused.
The Bay Bridge fiasco is the poster boy of infrastructure spending gone to seed. Scandalously over budget and most of the money gone to China and a relatively small number of temporary high-paid patronage machine union construction jobs bolting together the parts. If it had been fabricated in the US think how many job there would have been. I’ll leave it to the foamers to figure out why America, Inc. wasn’t in the running. And what did we get for all that over-budget – no extra capacity – no rail, nothing.
At this point if the Keynesians want to print more money for a stimulus they would be advised to just cut every citizen a check and boost consumer spending. All that PB is interested in is pouring concrete boondoggles that the state will not be able to afford to operate or maintain down the road. Shades of NdeM electrification.
I don’t think it has all that much to do with people being “liberal” or “conservative” nearly as much as “Is this project going to make my life worse in some way?”
And it’s not just Palo Alto, either. All along the project, both in Northern and Southern California, people are starting to ask questions about the effect the HSR might have on their neighborhoods. Same with the Metro light rail lines, the I-710 tunnel through South Pasadena or *any* large project.