We’ve covered electric sports cars, electric three-wheeled cars and other forms of clean transportation that Silicon Valley investors have been pumping money into over the last several years. But this November, Californians will have a fascinating new transportation option to consider: A high-speed rail network that would connect all of the major urban areas of the state, to be financed in part by a $10 billion voter-approved bond measure.
While there are many issues that may hold up this plan, it is visionary, and could go a long way in keeping California (and Silicon Valley) competitive as one of the largest, most dynamic economies in the world. The bond is pending approval in the state legislature, but looks likely to pass after having gained governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s support last week.
Trains going as fast as 220mph would run between Sacramento and the Bay Area in the northern part of the state as well as down through the Central Valley to Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego in the south (map here). You would be able to travel between downtown San Francisco and downtown LA in 2.5 hours for $24, or between San Jose and Sacramento in 1.5 hours for $18, according to the plan’s projections.
It’s hard to calculate the value that a project like this would have in the long run, in the same sense that it was hard to calculate the value of some of the first railroads, highways and major bridges in this state. But it’s easy to imagine a range of benefits for Silicon Valley, and it’s not just a matter of getting local investors and entrepreneurs more easily connected to digital media companies in Hollywood or biotech companies in San Diego.
The train would help Silicon Valley to become more accessible to lower-income and middle-income workers who can no longer afford to live here, people who instead live in Central Valley cities like Stockton or Modesto and spend hours driving back and forth to work in the Bay each day. The planned network includes a series of stops in Central Valley towns.
Then there’s the pollution issue. The agency charged with planning, building and operating the network, the California High-Speed Rail Authority, has (unsurprisingly) rosy projections about how the project will cut back on greenhouse emissions. After implementation — think 2020 or beyond — the network expects to remove 1.4 million cars from the road (saving 10,000 cars from accidents per year), reduce state CO2 emissions by up to 17.6 billion pounds per year and reduce the state’s consumption of oil by up to 22 million barrels per year.
Also, it would supposedly create 450,000 new jobs throughout the state, eventually paying for itself through its revenues. And, an effective high-speed train network could encourage denser, train-focused development plans, not suburban sprawl — thereby promoting regional mass transit systems.
Of course, critics have all sorts of very reasonable retorts. Large-scale mass transit plans tend to go way over budget, then operate at a loss. California also faces budget shortfalls, and could better use the money for other important services like education, health care and basic infrastructure maintenance. More generally, while many concede that cars and planes aren’t going to cover transportation needs in ten or twenty years, they think this money could be better used on beefing up regional train networks.
California’s transportation system is overburdened and falling apart — and yes, that’s an urban issue, as some of the plan’s critics gleefully point out. LA does need a better subway system, and the Bay Area also needs expansion of BART and Caltrain. But if you try driving between the Bay and LA, as I have often done, you’re going to hit traffic well outside of the Bay, well outside of LA, and in random spots of freeway in between. And, oil prices are also only going to go up. The average drive between the two areas already costs — in my experience — at least $60 worth of gas (and I’m not even counting the speeding tickets).
If you try flying between the Bay and LA, as I have also often done, you’ll first of all need to go through baggage checks and the other hassles of flying. Sure, flights are pretty cheap right now, but that’s price warfare that has yet to factor rising plane-fuel prices.
Expanding highways and airports are stop-gap measures that have, to date, proven to be expensive and pollution-heavy — and those efforts won’t scale to handle the state’s still-booming population, expected to grow to 50 million in the next 15 years.
Federal government and private funding sources would provide the rest of the $42 billion projected cost of a high-speed, electricity-powered train network (a project that has in past years struggled to get even basic funding). Some studies suggest that expanding highways and airports will end up costing twice that — not to mention the congestion and pollution problems they’ll add.
Other critics also say that California is too much of a car culture, that people just won’t want to take the train. Well, there’s already evidence against that. The “Capital Corridor” Amtrak line connecting Sacramento and the Bay has been booming in ridership over the last several years, recently rising to a new record of more than 1.5 million riders a month. The same trend is happening on other inter-city tracks, including the Pacific Surfliner line connecting San Diego and LA, and the San Joaquin line, which connects the Central Valley with Sacramento and the Bay.
While no inter-state high-speed rail has yet been seriously proposed, it’s worth noting the Amtrak Cascade line that connects California with Oregon and Washington has also hit record ridership numbers. And, on the east coast, the Acela line that connects Boston, New York and Philadelphia has also been showing meaningful growth.
As with global warming, California is ready to start working with foreign countries to solve major problems like transit, regardless of what the rest of the country wants to do. It has most recently signed a rail technology sharing agreement with France — no doubt, France is looking at getting some of its successful high-speed rail companies some work here.
If you support California High-Speed Rail, check out the Facebook support group here and this blog. If you don’t, tell me why in the comments.
Promotional CHSR video below:
[Map screenshots via CHSR; Route outline via Wikipedia.]
Tags: co:california high-speed rail authority21 Comments
-
Fabian Schonholz said:
I think this is a good idea. I mean, man .. I live in LA and it is amazing the fact that the public transportation here is none-existent. This thing better have built in Internet access ;)
But … 50M people by 2030?? holly smokes!! What about sewage, water, housing??
-
Jeffrey McManus said:
It took the bonehead airlines 13 hours to get me and my family from LA to SF last weekend. I feel like we could have jogged home faster, although my son is 2 and he doesn’t really have his jogging legs yet.
Having an alternative that is cheaper, faster and hopefully more reliable than flying or driving would be so nice.
-
Gary Lee said:
I’ll believe it when I’m stuck in 3 hours of traffic due to the construction of this project and see people laying down rails!
-
Rodney Rumford said:
Please! Would they just start building it. This is the right thing to do. I am commuting between San Diego and SF all the time and i would love to just hop on a train. Fire up my laptop get some work done or just take a nap.
California needs this. The state will be way worse for traffic if they don’t get this going now.
Cheers!
Rodney Rumford
-
Sam Jackson said:
I’m excited about it! I wish there was good high speed (or any…) service out here on the eastern seaboard. It’s nice to have a decent train system, but if it’s slow and expensive… :(
-
Price Tag said:
I loved my experiences with high-speed rail in Japan. The only drawback was the extremely high price tag (but then again, what’s cheap in Japan).
$24 from LA to SF seems absurdly low. It’s about $20 to go from LA to San Diego on slow trains today. I would expect to a) see that ticket price increase 10-fold, or b) see the cost of the project increase 10-fold to cover the major shortfall.
-
Mike said:
I’m from Oregon and I just hope I live long enough to ride an American high speed train. Go California!
-
Phil Wolff said:
Why do you think we won’t have security lines on a high-traffic, high-speed rail line? I can only hope they build the stations with security in mind so we don’t have to pay for retrofits.
-
Tom West said:
Where you don’t have copyright on images, you should at least give credit. The first two are from CHSRA’s Google Maps page (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/route/default.asp), the third is a blantent screenshot from a Wikipedia article (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/route/default.asp).
-
Tom West said:
Where you don’t have copyright on images, you should at least give credit. The first two are from CHSRA’s Google Maps page (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/route/default.asp), the third is a blantent screenshot from a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High_Speed_Rail).
-
Chris said:
I’m an ex-pat in Japan and I can go from Tokyo to just about anywhere for $50 if I go via the cheap seats. When you have a viable alternative to regional flights the prices come down, when you have a viable alternative to driving, fuel demand goes down. In all scenarios, high speed rail is the winner.
-
Mark Wendman said:
This is a good proposal but possibly out of order in priorities, largely since local public transportation is not up to snuff, to be kind.
It would be a far better use of such money to dramatically increase local services via simple but large increases in bus fleet inventory and real schedule coverage and routes ( and possibly transportation authority mergers - that would be a real example of progress long overdue ), such that local public transportation would be more useful to the vast majority of daily commuters.
This type of improvement will not require costly right of ways or construction, nor incur long lead times to significantly improve local commuter travel. This is mostly overlooked for reasons that are understandable, but not rational.
And would be far more effective in solving problems of scale that matter daily to many. Daily commutes are where most spend their gas money and gas money is not going to get cheaper in the foreseeable future. Nuts and bolts approaches have their real enduring value even if not providing symbolic esthetic.
Simple case in point is the difficulty of using public transportation to cross the southbay, and the poor multitransfer routes it imposes at present for real commutes.
Bart to San Jose type convenience need not require Bart like route extension project $ expenditures, merely some bus route fixes and increase in service frequency, hours and routes. Cheap and effective, and this is only one example.
VTA light rail does not have direct cross bay service is another, and that is far simpler than large multi B$ projects, and would be a help to many commuters to speed travel in the local region. VTA and its llight rail service is pretty good btw.
-
morris brown said:
This article is so full of non-sense it is hard to believe. Who in the wold thinks that $50.00 is going pay for a ticket from Anaheim to SF. Who in the world is going to believe the 119,000,000 passengers per year that they forecasting.
Rather than just read this one article and decide how wonderful, do some research and learn that this whole project is nothing more than another scheme to make money for the promoters.
morris brown
-
Martin Engel said:
What do they want to build here with this bond issue? A luxury train for the well-to-do few, not for the rest of us. The Disneyland Express, a tourist train for recreational travelers. A fancy business train that will be like flying first-class. A convenience train for celebrities and executives.
Who is going to pay for it? We all are. Are these the right priorities for a state in debt and deep financial trouble? This bond issue is about state borrowing, like a mortgage we must keep paying.
If you are struggling to make your mortgage payments, are you going to borrow money to buy a Ferrari? That is exactly what this bond issue’s promoters ask us to vote for.
“As a rule of thumb, each $1 billion of new bonds sold at 5% interest adds close to $65 million annually in state debt-service costs for as long as 30 years.” (CA State Legislative Analysts Office).
That means paying the debt service on this $10 billion high speed train bond will take $650 million each year from the state treasury for as long as 30 years. That amounts to $19.5 billion, twice the cost of the original bond. As the TV ad says, “It’s your money!”
“Other people” will not be paying for this high-speed train; it will come out of our treasury and therefore our pocket. Operation and maintenance costs will certainly tax us even further.
Could the State run into the same financial problem as the current sub-prime mortgage crisis in this country? You bet.
This is not the time to be borrowing $10 billion to build a luxury train. Should we be known as the state with high-speed trains and low-speed schools? And, you can be sure that the $10 billion is only a small down payment. They say total costs will be $42 billion. Wrong. Think $100 billion.
No passenger train in the United States has ever been profitable. Amtrak passenger rail loses many millions every year.
The CHSRA promises 117 million annual passengers.
That’s over one third the entire U.S. population! It means one full train, every two minutes, every day. How dumb do they think we are?Underestimating costs, over-promising results; that’s the railroad developers’ standard practice!
We all should be asking who the real beneficiaries will be if this bond issue passes. Answer: construction companies, right-of-way landowners and developers, armies of consultants, engineers and contractors, lawyers and politicians, railroad bureaucrats and their empire-building agendas. And, the lead contractor, Parsons Brinckerhoff, with a history of waste, fraud and corruption.
California has serious transit needs. The greater Bay Area needs a regional transit system for a growing population, as does the Los Angeles Basin. This high-speed train isn’t even close to doing that. Instead, it will waste vast resources that could be spent on improving urban transit in both those high population regions.
Talk about pork-barrel politics, if this bond issue passes, it will be the biggest boondoggle in the history of the United States.
-
Eric Eldon said:
@Mark Wendman. Thanks for your intelligent criticism. I’m personally very familiar with all of the mass transit options in the Bay Area. Bus services are currently pretty adequate, and what’s more, expanding them won’t solve the problem of road congestion for longer-range commuters and for long-distance travelers…. Busses will just be stuck on the highways along with everyone else. And solving that problem in turn means expanding highways to include bus lanes, which will also cost a lot, and won’t deliver the same punch as trains. However, I’m all for expanding and integrating regional transit systems, too. In fact, I think that needs to happen in tandem with CHSR.
@morris brown. If you want to seriously question CHSR’s stats, you’re going to have to put some actual effort into disproving them. Right now, you have a lot of unsupported assertions that you still need to back up. Sorry.
@Martin Engel. I think your skepticism is healthy, and I’d like to CHSR become so transparent about how they plan to use the money that they placate critics like you. That said, I think you’re ranging into hyperbole when you make the assumption that the train will actually cost $100B and that CA will pay for all of that. As I said in my article, 3/4 of the projected $42 billion is already going to be paid for by the feds and by private sources. I actually do think that with a state population of 50 million by 2020, with a continual stream of tourists and biz travelers, this train could see meaningful ridership. Also, the demographic trends are completely in the train’s favor — younger people want to live in urban areas, and don’t want to drive their cars everywhere. And they also want efficient means to travel long distances.
-
Martin Engel said:
First of all, Eric, thank you for your intelligent response. Blogs rarely restrain their participants from Argumentum ad Hominem, and your thoughtful comments are appreciated.
If I may, I would like to respond, more or less point by point, to your article. Actually, the ticket price that is most frequently quoted is $55. one way for the SF to LA route. That will be in 2030 according to the CHSRA.
Would you want to predict the price of anything 22 years out?Train ticket sales, for regular as well as high speed trains worldwide begin, today, at twice the $55. for similar distances. Many bloggers who return from Europe or Japan will convey that information; that is, it’s “expensive” to ride those trains. And, you doubtless know, all passenger rail systems are massively subsidized, so talking about profits is rhetorical.
You talk about the “value” of this project. A better way would be to talk about the “cost/benefit” ratio. Therefore, you have to acknowledge that the costs will be staggering, regardless of where the money comes from. There are many examples of under-pricing (lowballing) infrastructure projects (Bay Bridge; Boston Big Dig; the Eurotunnel, for example) A Danish researcher, Bent Flyvbjerg, has published findings about this practice. My point is this: Is there a cost point for this project that makes it no longer worthwhile? Say, like the Iraq war.
If you become a student of this practice you will discover that you cannot disagree with a cost projection of $100 billion. It will be all borrowed money, both from public state and federal treasuries and private ones. These debts require not only interest payments, but a return on principle, like a mortgage.
Given the cost and the linkages, the likelihood of lower income workers using this train as a mode of commuting is actually rather slim. Those people would prefer slower and lower cost modes of transit. Let us be clear here, whatever this train is, it is not mass transit. It could be that, locally in the LA Basin, but that is not the rhetoric or the intention of the developers.
Yes, they claim that it will create 450,000 new jobs and will require 300 thousand man-years to construct. The fact is, there is no way of predicting this. Half a million jobs will be created in the next fifty years, or not, based on large, macro-economic forces, the nature of the global and national economy, the well-being of California’s industrial and agricultural capacity and similar basic sea-changes. It is a presumptuous claim to assume credit for such expansion to the creation of a north-south railroad system.
Speed of travel, the CHSRA claims will be faster by train than plane. No matter what the obstacles are, that’s nonsense. Indeed, airports are becoming more efficient at moving people through the terminal obstacle course. At the same time, it is naïve not to believe that this train, and others, will not require far greater security measures now not in place. We have been blessed by not having a post 9/11 terror attack. I suggest that one more, and there will be a major clamp-down, trains included. (Madrid?)
Back to $42 billion. Construction, which won’t begin for another several years, will take 10 years, more or less, to complete. Do you want to predict the construction costs 10 to 15 years out? You already know about sinking dollars, rising inflation world wide, fierce competition for construction materials, decline in credit availability, etc. The $42 billion is a number like the $55 train ticket. Even if it were true today, which it isn’t, these numbers will skyrocket. I say again, $100 billion total costs is not unreasonable.
There are many more issues that need to be seen through lenses other than those provided by the train developers. Amazingly, very few people have been willing to do that; that is, challenge their own assumptions.
We can continue this discussion if you so wish. However, I do want to introduce another element which, after you have read these articles, ought to give you further pause about the efficacy of this project. Here are some web-sites worth your time. A little background and history may be helpful.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040822/ai_n14580705
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-pblie.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/trainor12092003.html
http://www.calrailnews.com/crn/1102/1102.pdfCordially,
Martin
-
Marvin said:
This idea definitely does appeal to a younger generation. As a 25 year old, i love the idea. Not just California, but the U.S. period, need to build a high speed rail system and California should lead the way. Hopefully all the major cities will follow suit and can become connected eventually. I do think that each individual city needs to improve their rail systems first, then try to connect to each rail line. We need to use Japan’s (shinkansen or bullet train) as a benchmark.
As for the cost of building and riding, that will always be up for adjustment and debate. The system just needs to be built.
-
justin said:
I love it. This will really give Californians something to be proud about.
-more jobs
-better for the environment
-convenient travel
-more attractive state to invest in
-better technologyThis will keep California in the forefront of innovation.
-
Mark Wendman said:
Eldon,
My responses follow below. The discussion is important.
@Mark Wendman. Thanks for your intelligent criticism.
>MW> My pleasure, interesting thoughtful discourse is productive and not filled with all too common invective about irrelevant issues, but exchanges about issues that matter, in substantive ways.
>>>>>
I’m personally very familiar with all of the mass transit options in the Bay Area. Bus services are currently pretty adequate,>MW> I’d question that perspective as regional buses and public transportation are very modest in quantity, in relation to private commute vehicles, and furthermore, feeder routes are very poorly supported by short schedules, modest route coverage, and infrequent operation in what should be useful connections near round the clock.
Many folks in the area say it is inconvenient to use public transportation ( as evidenced by proportionately few using regional public transportation in commutes), and it is largely because public transportation is less than adequate in convenience. But hardly acknowledged as such in the press.
>>>and what’s more, expanding them won’t solve the problem of road congestion for longer-range commuters and for long-distance travelers….
>MW> Correct expanding local mass transit services will not solve the Hwy 101 road congestion for longer region to region range commuters and long distance travellers, but that is the point. The largest problem is not the fewest customers as the proposed service of the rapid (disproportionately expensive) train might serve? but where most folks spend there time on regional / local commutes.
Longer distance Bay commuters would be best served with quick cheap improvements to a hugely expanded bus service and implemented far faster than the possible 5-7 years construction lead time to delivering the proposed hugely expensive project.
>>>>>>>
Busses will just be stuck on the highways along with everyone else.>MW> I take issue with this, as a large fleet of buses and expanded service feeder routes will take many many cars off the road, which is precisely what I am trying to highlight, and do it far faster than a very long lead time fast expensive rail service for a far narrower customer base.
Each regional commute bus will take say 50 or more cars off the road. Deploy 200 buses from the central valley to the bay running 3 daily trips each direction, and you remove 10000 commute cars, far more than an expensive rail service could and at far far less capital cost, PLUS it can be deployed almost immediately, not 5 or more years delay to deploy rail services?
Remove 30000 satellite regional commute cars (North, South and Central Valley cumulative) and then you have a real impact on road congestion beginning next year and reduce use of non renewable petroleum fuels, and clean the air… and reduce wear on the highways significantly.
I’d call that cost effective and will quickly increase productivity of workers with less commute stress. ( unspoken benefit ).
If each bus costs $250k x 200 buses = $50m which is clearly dwarfed by a fraction of the proposed $10B, that is $10 BILLION dollar bond?
One could serve multiple satellite communities - north of the GG Bridge, and to the south of San Jose in addition to the central valley and increasing each respective region’s feeder routes for a fraction of $10B in capital costs, say total for the Bay area for huge needed increases in public transportation infrastructure, for less than $1B, and repeat this in LA and San Diego for a massive reduction in inefficient auto commutes.
My figures here are rough approximations, but you can get the idea of relative magnitudes.
>>>>
And solving that problem in turn means expanding highways to include bus lanes, which will also cost a lot, and won’t deliver the same punch as trains.>MW> reducing cars on the road by significant amounts ( say 30k fewer cars in regional commutes coming to the bay region), will notably reduce net traffic and not increase the need to add lanes, it can do the reverse of what you claim, and significantly so.
A large increase in operating bus fleets would indeed reduce total traffic if done at an appropriate needed large scale (not token increases for PR releases), and reduce traffic in the valley, not just the distance commute. Clearly an important aspect is commute transit parking and large increase in feeder route services. Integrated solutions. Hopefully you can visualize this alternate future?
>>>>
However, I’m all for expanding and integrating regional transit systems, too. In fact, I think that needs to happen in tandem with CHSR.>MW> I contend that CHSR is largely misplaced funds on a very large scale, in the context of present commute deficiencies, as it serves a very small community and a very small need in relation to the large magnitude of expenditure, funds better spent elsewhere in public transportation and able to have a useful positive impact far far sooner.
-
avalanchecowpoke said:
High speed rail is a marvelous idea. The sooner it is done the better!!!
-
Susan Bush said:
Where has this exciting idea been all my life! What a grand idea. California could attract business because of fast and inovative transportation instead of, as presently seems to be the plan, depressing wages, discouraging expectations, and deferring taxes! I want on board this new train.
6 Trackbacks
8:44 am
Daily Transit Links Roundup | MetroRiderLA said:
[...] California High Speed Rail be a boon to the Silicon Valley [...]
7:39 pm
A high speed train for Californians at Things That Make You Go Green said:
[...] fast forward a few years - according to a post in Venture Beat, there’s talk of a $10 billion voter-approved bond measure to develop a high-speed rail [...]
9:59 am
Is Twitter the new RSS reader? ¦ Online Media Cultist said:
[...] that I found among the Twitter folk that I follow over a 12 hour or so period. Here it is: * The $10 billion state bond for high-speed trains — good for Silicon Valley, good for California? * Twitterholics Blog * Wondering why I write less these days? * Hell Hath Frozen Over * 10 Signs [...]
7:32 am
California environmental advisor Terry Tamminen on trains, energy efficiency, Al Gore and more » VentureBeat said:
[...] The plan to build a high-speed train to Northern California has given rise to a lot of pro- and con opinions, as we’ve covered. [...]
6:51 am
smog | Zach NHS Global Warming Documentary said:
[...] The plan to build a high-speed train to Northern California has given rise to a lot of pro- and con opinions, as we’ve covered. What [...]
9:48 am
california high speed train at giantmonster! said:
[...] so vote yes on it! lots more detailed information on the high speed train at gas2.0 and also venturebeat. like it? then share this post on any of the sites below . . . (psst! these icons link to social [...]