While reading trains, I stumbled upon this site: http://www.abocanyon.com/
What do you guys think? They raise some pretty good points about the wildlife in the area. “BNSF will claim it is unfair to expect them to spend extra money on a tunnel.” How much extra would this cost anyhow?
OK, do you think the author of this article and/or the original post is a:
a. Democrat
b. Republican
c. Independent
d. Other (please specify).
I vote D the person is a BANANA and a Super NIMBY. The person contention that the cattle ranchers could keep herding the cattle the same way like been do for OVER 250 YEARS tipped me off. Sorry but the Santa Fe built thru there in the 1880’s if I remember right also this person reminds me of someone that screams about windmills going up yet must have EVERY THING POWERED BY ELECTRICITY MADE. Also will not let a Oil Refinery be built and screams about Gas Prices. Tunnel under Abo Canyon that would be what 40 miles long cost 30-40 Billion dollars when all is said and done by the time you buy the Electrical Genaration plant to power the trains thru there and the Engines to power them. Sorry but losing an extra 20 bighorns a year besides to hunters is cheaper.
If I remember the TRAINS article correctly, there was not only a mention of the local battle about the BNSF reconstruction project;there was also, I think, a picture of a billboard at one point that was put up by opponents of the project.
Seemingly, in the political climate of today’s world, NIMBYs and other nimrods want to live in a world of modern convienences and "stuff ", with NO risk to society.
They are simply kidding themselves. Progress and modern conviences have a price in not only dollars, but elements of risk…[2c]
THESE ELEMENTS OF RISK ARE WHAT SOCIETY MUST BALANCE AGAINST THE COSTS, AND THEIR BENEFITS TO IT. NO EASY TASK[sigh]
Sampf. I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, most NIMBY groups can’t see beyond their issue, and have no idea how what they propose as a “solution” will impact others, how much it will cost, or if it is even feasible. All they want is victory in their little battle, regardless of the cost to others. They want convenience for themselves, and the heck with everyone else.
Here is a microcosm of that line of thinking: My ex lives in a town along the BNSF Chicago to Aurora line, and admittedly, it is noisy somedays. I was at my kid’s school to get my daughter one day, and 3 trains went past in about 20 minutes or so. One of the other moms, who was new to the neighborhood during the summer, was complaining about the noise, and she asked me what I thought. I simply said “It doesn’t bother me, you get used to it”. Another mom joined the conversation, and the newcomer was musing about the fact that they paid “good money” to live in a nice town, surely something could be done about re-routing the trains, putting up a “privacy wall”, or making the r
Trust me when my wife and I retire we are moving to a spot with a great veiw of the best class one action in the area were we are. I miss being next to the BNSF transcon so much it hurts.
The cost of a tunnel is irrelevent. State of Utah studies in the 1970’s in connection with building the Interstate system showed the most wildlife will not use a tunnel. They set up motion sensored cameras at several underpass locations in deer migratory areas. The one animal they detected was being chased by a mountain lion. It wasn’t a tunnel – it was a lunch box!
dd
Simple answer - guaranteed to be totally unacceptable to these (and all other) NIMBYs:
Have all the objectors dig into their own pockets and purses and put up the money! BNSF will happily build anything, if somebody else forks over the difference between what they are planning and NIMBY dreamland.
( ) Do I hear a deafening silence?
Chuck
Heck…I bet they wouldn’t even pay for the studies necessary to see if it could in fact be done…
…The photos I’ve seen published on the forum here seem to indicate to me this Abo Canyon is out in the wide open spaces. I personally do not know this exact part of the country but can’t quite understand what all the resistance to improving the rail line through there is all about.
If the wild animals and anyone else in the wide surrounding area are now “living” with the existing track through this area, what great difference will adding another track do to all of this…???
I believe many of us will agree we {in this country}, need all the real improvements to transportation we can attain. Why all the loud noise against this project…?
Add up all the arguments from both sides of the issue, and divide by two.
The extreme hardliners from either side are going to be over the top zealots hyping their side of things, and should not be trusted. Reasonable mitigation is probably worthwhile in some instances. But let’s not get carried away.
…I hope not to be on an extreme side of the issue, but just don’t understand what the resistance issue is to add another track if the location is out in the open spaces…???
I realize the word “canyon” should tell me something, but one more railroad track…What’s the critical issue against doing that…?
I have a better idea…
How about BNSF gives up, as soon as all the people who oppose the second track bulldoze their homes, dig caves under ground, (without disturbing any soil, water, wells and streams or creating a single displaced pebble)and live in them, and then return the land they altered for their selfish non eco friendly above ground homes, which contributes global warming, air pollution and visual pollution(plus interfering with the migratory paths of something, I am sure) to the pristine condition it was a century ago, before they moved there, and let the bear, sheep and cattle live where their subdivision and homes were.
NIMBY’s are certainly not easily embarrassed, are they?
All we’re discussing here is the double-tracking of an existing single-track route.
So let me guess…these endangered species of wildlife are strange creatures which will thrive in the area as long as they only have to cross ONE railroad track, but will face extinction if they have to cross TWO? Strange indeed!
Nota Bene: I am not taking sides in this argument. All I am trying to do here is to point out that, to those of us who live in the “wide open spaces” of the western United States, the loss of such spaces does carry a great deal of weight.
Again, please, do not consider this a NIMBY nor an “anti-NIMBY” statement; it is, rather, about how we in the west chose/prefer/etc. to live. Thus, the Abo Canyon argument does have serious implications to many westerners.
John has a superb, and very much underappreciated point here. Local NIMBYism – which is alive and well everywhere – very often has two components which must be understood. First, there are those who have ‘always’ – by which I would mean at least a hundred years – lived in an area and like it the way it is. Practically by definition, these folk tend to be pretty rare and, from what I have read of this particular issue (and many others) are not really involved in this dispute (and by the way, I do have close contact with Albuquerque and the Abo Canyon area, although I don’t live there). The o
Well, enlighten us to those issues.
Okay, but I’m going to at least try to be brief, because the subject is extremely complex, and not something that is “solvable” the way an equation is.
There is the issue of “we’ve always been here, go away.” There is a cognate to that, “Now that I’m here, close the gate.” Who is right in such disagreements? There is no such thing as “right”: It depends upon a tremendous number of variables, and each case must be decided on the its own merits.
Example: In either last Sunday’s Albuquerque or Santa Fe newspaper, there was a lengthy article about the Roan Plateau, which is near Rifle, Colorado. This area has long been an attraction to fishermen and hunters, sports which bring a tremendous amount of income to the area. Now there is the national search for new sources of oil and natrual gas, and the Roan Plateau is one such area. Drilling and production also bring income. So, which is “right”?
As I wrote above, there is no one “right” answer, there may be no answer, or there may be a plethora of possible answers. One specific problem outlined in the article is the so-called “Grand Canyon of the Roan”, a remote and very scenic area. Today, when you arrive at the lookout over the canyon, you see a drilling rig. Is the national need for energy more or less important than preserving the view of this canyon. I know what my answer is, yet I also know what the answer of the `other side’ is.
I, too, have biases. I’m a long-time environmentalist, having testfied to the U.S. Congress during the debate over the Wilderness Act, so I’m not a “I’m here now, close the gate” person. I’m a hiker, a backpacker, a cross-country skier–but I’m also someone who enjoys four-wheeling (ONLY on established four-wheel-drive roads, mind you.) I like the beauty, the quiet, the isolation, etc., of the wilds, but, yes, I also use energy. Should the Roan Plateau be drilled, or should it be kept, as far a
I think, for the sake of completeness here, and since John brought it up, a little look at the environmental issues involved in the Abo Canyon project might not be amiss. Trying to avoid judgement on them, although I have my opinions as, I am sure, does he.
The fundamental driving question is: how do you get freight from the southern part of the west coast (LA and vic.) to the middle west (e.g. Memphis and Chicago). I do not think it is particularly fair, not relevant, to make the reductionist argument that the freight should go away; it’s there, and it’s increasing, and it needs to be moved. There are, then basically two modes which can be used – rail and truck – and, because of the geography of the situation in New Mexico – really only three railroad lines and three highways – the UP/SP Sunset route, the BNSF Abo Canyon route, and the BNSF Raton Pass route. for rail, and I 10, I 40, and I 25, for trucks. Neither Raton Pass nor I 24 (also over Raton Pass) are particularly good freight routes. So the first question is, what gets enlarged to handle additional freight? Most likely all four of the remaining routes. UP is working like mad on the Sunset, and NM DOT just finished a major upgrade on the junction of I 40 and I 25 in Albuquerque – but not to accomodate freight; to accomodate all the folks who commute on I 40 through the pass to and from new communities east of Albuquerque. Both I 40 and I 10 will need additional lanes in the near future, and, no doubt, will get them.
Upgrading Abo Canyon to two tracks will enable a considerable increase in traffic on the BNSF Transcon – and the EIS noted that this additional traffic was at least equivalent to that which could be potentially carried on an upgraded I 40 (two additional upgrade lanes and one additional downgrade lane each way). The argument was made at the time of the EIS that degrading the already severely impacted area around I 40 might be preferable to adding and additional
It is not that simple, nor is it complete; there are other matters that need to be considered, in addition to the EIS. For example, please see the Corps of Engineers handout for a meeting about the Abo Canyon project, held 12 September 2007, in Mountainair, NM:
http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/reg/abo/sep-12-mtg-handout.pdf
(For the record, please note that I have not played any part in this. I’ve not entered any testimony, I’ve not written any letters to the editor, nor have I in any other way participated. My postings here are done with the intent of perhaps showing that there are other facets not only to the Abo Canyon project, but to many other matters that might otherwise not be considered in these forums. In short, I’m only trying to share my knowledge, outlook, etc. Again, in the case of Abo Canyon, although I have a personal opinion about the proejct, that is of no relevance to my postings here.)