It’s difficult to think past the current challenges we face — surviving the pandemic while having people return to work and children return to school; finding positive ways to transform the Black Lives Matter protests into meaningful changes in income, housing and education inequality.
Yet, we need to plan now for a different future. We need to make the investments now, no matter how difficult. Despite the challenges listed above, there is no bigger challenge to our continued existence than the terrifying changes in our climate-warming oceans and frequent floods making some parts of the world and the United States uninhabitable. Prolonged droughts which in turn cause catastrophic forest fires and in some parts of the world mass starvation. Smoggy, particle filled air which is harmful to inhale and damaging to our lungs. And the biggest culprits after coal mines are airplanes and automobiles. Eventually, the pandemic will end, children will go back to school, the economy will improve.
***
Right now, we are at a climate crossroads. We may have the last opportunity to keep temperatures rising above 1.5 degrees C. Already we have seen signs of the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet and the thawing of Arctic permafrost. Maybe that doesn’t concern you. You may have experienced some discomfort but nothing has affected you yet. Sounds familiar? Long ago people thought the Ice Age was a joke in its first stages; that the plague was something which afflicted others. But the joke was on them and their progeny. A year ago who would have believed that in July 2020 the United States would lead the world in the number of cases and deaths caused by a pandemic which we couldn’t control and that there was no immediate end in sight.
A physics professor at Brown put it this way: “ In 100 years our generation may be as poorly regarded as 19th century racists are today (or worse) due to our failure to tackle climate change, leaving a damaged and possibly ruined planet for future generations.” Meanwhile, the pandemic has provided an opportunity to envision a world where automobiles and airplanes play a less harmful role. Carbon emissions have been drastically reduced with little car and air traffic. The skies in India and China have been clear for the first time in decades. Many cities are now planning to provide more room for pedestrians and cyclists and less and less room for automobiles. We know public transit is the best substitute for cars and planes.
***
We have an opportunity in our own area to dramatically cut emissions by reducing the need for automobile and air travel and improving transit options. Unfortunately, San Francisco has just dealt us a devastating blow. Last week, its Board of Supervisors refused to support a measure to help Caltrain survive and to stabilize funding of its own Muni bus system. It’s a sales tax which has to be approved by boards in the three counties before going to the voters. The measure, which polls show had the necessary support, would have provided Caltrain with a reliable source of funding similar to other transit agencies rather than relying on fares and three counties (San Mateo, San Francisco and Santa Clara which share ownership of the line).
Recommended for you
Now, because of the pandemic, ridership is down. It would have to return to 30% to enable the service from San Jose to San Francisco to continue while plans for increasing ridership to 100,000 a day with electrification would have to be shelved. The infrastructure for electrification is there funded by high-speed rail, but if there are no trains there will be more cars on 101 and more harmful emissions. Meanwhile, San Francisco’s representative to the Caltrain board, Supervisor Shamann Walton, stabbed his colleagues in the back by failing to support or introduce the measure to his fellow supes. Outraged supporters are hoping San Francisco will reconsider.
***
High-speed rail service from San Jose to San Francisco using Caltrain tracks as part of a link from Los Angeles to San Francisco is up for public comment. The service would use only one-third of the energy of air travel and one-fifth of the energy of a car trip between the state’s two largest cities.
We don’t read about this, only the cost, the inconvenience. But measure those costs in terms of continuing business as usual and not investing in a viable future. If we do nothing because of more immediate concerns or misguided politicians, future generations will blame all of us.
Sue Lempert is the former mayor of San Mateo. Her column runs every Monday. She can be reached at sue@smdailyjournal.com.
The pandemic caused a sea change. Working from home is working. It is unlikely the ridership will return anywhere close to what it was before COVID-19. How will empty trains be good for the environment?
There are always going to be significant numbers of people who need to go somewhere to work. Bear in mind that in many cases the "essential workers" who stock shelves at groceries, or do maintenance at essential facilities, are public transit riders in normal times. And at this point, transit ridership is _overwhelmingly_ tilted toward those workers whom we deem essential, but will reward only with empty praise, not actual hazard pay, let alone adequate protective equipment. (Alexandra Petri's take on this remains apt: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/30/heroes-we-cannot-possibly-repay-you-your-sacrifice-so-we-will-make-no-effort/ )
And sure, we've shown that a lot more people can work from home much of the time, but I can tell you, there still are things for which in-person meetings work better, or are the only option. (I'm married to a hardware test engineer. We don't have a shaker table or a climate-simulation chamber in our house.)
We will eventually figure out adequate treatments, and most likely vaccines. Even if people need a booster as often as every six months, it is going to be worthwhile for the world to build the infrastructure for that. Ridership will climb back up -- in the long run, to higher levels than where it was before the crisis. It may be on a lower trajectory than it was, but I don't think any serious analyst believes it's going to be down this low forever. We shouldn't let a year of crisis conditions get us to add tens of thousands of cars to the road every day for the following decade.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(2) comments
The pandemic caused a sea change. Working from home is working. It is unlikely the ridership will return anywhere close to what it was before COVID-19. How will empty trains be good for the environment?
There are always going to be significant numbers of people who need to go somewhere to work. Bear in mind that in many cases the "essential workers" who stock shelves at groceries, or do maintenance at essential facilities, are public transit riders in normal times. And at this point, transit ridership is _overwhelmingly_ tilted toward those workers whom we deem essential, but will reward only with empty praise, not actual hazard pay, let alone adequate protective equipment. (Alexandra Petri's take on this remains apt: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/30/heroes-we-cannot-possibly-repay-you-your-sacrifice-so-we-will-make-no-effort/ )
And sure, we've shown that a lot more people can work from home much of the time, but I can tell you, there still are things for which in-person meetings work better, or are the only option. (I'm married to a hardware test engineer. We don't have a shaker table or a climate-simulation chamber in our house.)
We will eventually figure out adequate treatments, and most likely vaccines. Even if people need a booster as often as every six months, it is going to be worthwhile for the world to build the infrastructure for that. Ridership will climb back up -- in the long run, to higher levels than where it was before the crisis. It may be on a lower trajectory than it was, but I don't think any serious analyst believes it's going to be down this low forever. We shouldn't let a year of crisis conditions get us to add tens of thousands of cars to the road every day for the following decade.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.