7JFXQPJOU
■ EDITORIAL ■ YOUR LETTERS ■ GUEST OPINIONS
N EDITORIAL
THE OPINION OF THE VOICE Founding Editor, Kate Wakerly
Will Hangar One be left to rust away?
N S TA F F Publisher Tom Gibboney
Editorial Managing Editor Andrea Gemmet Staff Writers Daniel DeBolt, Nick Veronin Photographer Michelle Le Contributors Dale Bentson, Angela Hey, Sheila Himmel, Jennifer Pence, Alissa Stallings
Design & Production Design Director Raul Perez Designers Linda Atilano, Gary Vennarucci
Advertising Advertising Representatives Judie Block, Brent Triantos Real Estate Account Executive Rosemary Lewkowitz Real Estate Advertising Coordinator Samantha Mejia Published every Friday at 450 Cambridge Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 964-6300 fax (650) 964-0294 E-mail news and photos to: editor@MV-Voice.com E-mail letters to: letters@MV-Voice.com News/Editorial Department (650) 964-6300 fax (650) 964-0294 Display Advertising Sales (650) 964-6300 Classified Advertising Sales s fax (650) 326-0155 E-mail Classified ads@MV-Voice.com E-mail Circulation circulation@MV-Voice.com The Voice is published weekly by Embarcadero Media Co. and distributed free to residences and businesses in Mountain View. If you are not currently receiving the paper, you may request free delivery by calling 964-6300. Subscriptions for $60 per year, $100 per 2 years are welcome. Copyright ©2010 by Embarcadero Media Company. All rights reserved. Member, Mountain View Chamber of Commerce
N WHAT’S YOUR VIEW? All views must include a home address and contact phone number. Published letters will also appear on the web site, www.MountainViewOnline.com, and occasionally on the Town Square forum.
TOWN SQUARE FORUM Post your views on the Town Square forum at www.MountainViewOnline.com E-MAIL your views to letters@MV-Voice.com. Indicate if it is a letter to be published. MAIL to: Editor Mountain View Voice, P.O. Box 405 Mountain View, CA 94042-0405 CALL the Viewpoint desk at 964-6300
T
he worst-case scenario is unfolding now for those who want to preserve Hangar One. Last week, a U.S. Navy contractor began to remove the toxic siding or “skin” of the 200-foot tall hangar in a project that will last into the new year. When complete, it will leave the Hangar’s massive and well-preserved skeleton exposed to the elements, at least until money is found to install new siding, a job that could cost up to $32.8 million based on what President Obama put in NASA’s budget for next year. But it is not clear that Congress will approve any Hangar One funding for next year, given the budget-cutting battles being waged between the president and the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. If allowed to go uncovered, it would be a sad end to this noble structure, which serves as a landmark for Moffett Field and is visible for miles in any direction. Preservationists have long worried about leaving the hangar’s skeleton exposed for an extended period. Bill Wissel, of the Moffett Field Historical Society, told the Voice last week: “Without the protective siding, the structure will be exposed to the elements and will begin to deteriorate pretty quickly,” bringing up the issues of visual blight and safety concerns. He fears that it would not be long before “public opinion shifts N LETTERS
VOICES FROM THE COMMUNITY
COMBINING TRAINS IS A BAD IDEA The plan advanced by Rep. Anna Eshoo, state Sen. Joe Simitian and Assemblyman Rich Gordon to run high-speed rail trains from San Jose to San Francisco on Caltrain tracks is woefully misguided. It is fatally flawed due to severe safety, operational, and engineering problems. If, in their words, they really want high-speed rail “to be able to connect and interface in a seamless fashion with local transit systems,” then there is only one solution, and it is not theirs. There must be no high-speed rail trains on Caltrain tracks because they are dangerously incompatible with present trains and at-grade road crossings. High-speed rail should, at best, end in San Jose and its passengers transfer to existing Caltrain Baby Bullet trains for trips up and down the Peninsula. Why? That is why Caltrain built the baby bullets — for fast transportation from San Jose to San Francisco within the safe speed limits of Caltrain tracks. Now that is seamless — and safe. This obvious solution would preserve the safe rail and automobile transport status quos on the Peninsula and also obviate the need
for crazy and destructive decisions, such as closing Castro Street and other vital at-grade Peninsula Caltrain crossings. For seamless integration and safety and cost control, it’s a no-brainer. William R. Hitchens Sunnyview Lane
HIGH-SPEED TRAINS NOT SUITED FOR CALTRAIN CORRIDOR The high-speed rail proposal by Rep. Anna Eshoo, state Sen. Joe Simitian, and Assemblyman Rich Gordon is narrowly directed at avoiding lawsuits from the city of Palo Alto and wealthy Atherton residents, and fails to address the fundamental problem with the current high speed rail design. The fundamental problem is that the current Southern Pacific right-of-way going straight through the downtowns of all the small midPeninsula cities is not well suited to the way the major transportation corridors have developed since it was originally established in the mid-1800s. Building a high-speed rail line there, or even simply upgrading Caltrain within the current rightof-way, will not address the prob-
and there will be an outcry for complete demolition. That’s the ‘demolition by neglect’ concern that everybody has been voicing for the past few years.” Indeed, anyone concerned about saving Hangar One has seen it ‘die by a thousand cuts’ in recent years. Most buildings inside the hangar have been destroyed, while the historically significant “cork room,” which was used to store the USS Macon’s fragile helium cells back in the 1930s, has been only partially preserved. One recent concession stands out: The Navy announced in March that it was working with NASA to keep the hangar’s unique wire-reinforced corrugated windows in place while the siding is removed. The deal is not final, but it is hoped the Navy can work around the windows, which were designed to withstand the explosion of a 1930s airship filled with hydrogen. In better economic times it would be difficult, but not impossible, for the local Congressional delegation to find federal funding to preserve this historic hangar. Today, we’re not so sure. But we hope that somehow, whether through a major government grant or a generous gift from a local corporation or philanthropist, funds will materialize to prevent this iconic structure from wasting away. It is far too important to meet such an ignoble fate. lems of impact on the cities’ downtowns, lack of integration with other transportation modes, and lack of space for a mid-Peninsula station of the magnitude needed for the high-speed rail line. The basic design needs to be revisited from the start. An alternate design, such as along the Highway 101 corridor, would result in a better integrated system with much better services. Building on an elevated viaduct over parts of the freeway — the cheapest option and the one most favored by the California High Speed Rail Authority — would raise fewer issues than along the current route. Integration with air hubs at San Francisco and San Jose airports would be much easier, and a large, multi-service mid-Peninsula station could be built at Moffett Field, where there is plenty of land adja-
cent to 101, and parking, traffic, and integration with light rail would be much less of an issue than in a midPeninsula city downtown. Maintaining the current rightof-way merely avoids the land acquisition problem rather than solving it, since even if the rail line is kept to the current right-of-way, additional land will be needed for a mid-Peninsula station, to say nothing of the impact of a viaduct or grade-separated line on the downtowns of the mid-Peninsula cities. Rather than accepting this weak compromise, the mid-Peninsula cities should insist that the California High Speed Rail Authority return to the basic requirements, and design a system that fits the Peninsula as it is today, rather than as it was in the mid-1800s. James Kempf Foxborough Drive
APRIL 29, 2011 ■ MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE ■
11